PgDip/MSc Energy Programme Tubing Performance Evaluation

Tubing Performance Evaluation

Review

This topic introduces development of a Vertical Lift Performance (VLP)

curve as the means of evaluating tubing performance. It describes the main
factors affecting this performance and why.

Content
The VLP curve represents the performance in terms of pressure losses of the production
fluids as they pass through the tubing. Prior to the arrival of computer simulators and
NODAL analysis, these curves were manually generated by computing each of the
pressure loss terms and adding them up for a particular flow rate. Simulation tools such
as Prosper and Wellflow carry out this task more efficiently leaving the completion
engineer to determine what is happening and how each of the pressure components is
being affected by the change in fluid properties in the flow path. The following graph
illustrates a VLP generated for a shallow well flowing viscous hydrocarbons at very low
rates through a 3 ½” tubing string.
Figure 1. Viscous Crude VLP.

2500

2000
VLP
PRESSURE [psi]

1500

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
FLOW RATE [BOPD]

Pressure Gradient

Pressure continually declines as fluid flows up the well from the reservoir to surface. For
single phase oil (liquid) flows there is little fluid expansion as fluid flows up the tubing ie,
There is little variation in either friction or hydrostatic head along the tubing.
For an oil well flowing below the bubble point, multiple phase flow will exist. The
interplay between friction and hydrostatic head will depend upon the relative volumes of
the phases and their physical distribution. A plot of pressure versus depth in a gradient
curve is shown in Figure 2. The gradient curves illustrate the physical basis for pressure
drop.

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 1

PgDip/MSc Energy Programme Tubing Performance Evaluation

Figure 2. Pressure Gradient Curve.

Pressure

Single phase
incompressible
fluid
Depth

Single phase/compressible
or multiphase fluid

Multiphase Vertical Lift Flow

As stated earlier, the physical distribution of two or more phases will influence fluid
mixture properties of viscosity and density, and hence the pressure gradient at any
particular depth in the well. A depiction of multiphase flow in a well is shown in Figure 3.
Clearly the flow regime will be specific to an individual well. In the figure, we have
assumed the flowing bottomhole pressure is above the bubble point and hence single
phase of liquid flow occurs at the base of the well. As fluid flows up the well, pressure in
the tubing declines until it reaches the bubble point. At the bubble point the most volatile
gaseous components vaporise and form a separate gas phase.
Figure 3. Multiphase Flow Through Production Tubing.

Pth Pressure
Mist flow – minimal
hydrostatic pressure
loss Bubble point
pressure
Annular flow Reservoir
(segregated) high Flowing pressure
friction loss bottomhole
pressure

Slug flow

Bubble flow
reducing density

Single phase liquid

flow

Pw Pe (P’)

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 2

PgDip/MSc Energy Programme Tubing Performance Evaluation

In the production of a reservoir containing oil and gas in solution, it is preferable to

maintain the flowing bottomhole pressure above the bubble point so that single phase oil
flows through the reservoir pore space. In the case, described in Figure 3, the changing
nature of the flow up the tubing can be considered in various stages from the base of the
tubing:
• Bubble flow – in this regime the gas and oil initially move together – hydrostatic
head declines – gas bubbles expand and elongate;
• Slug flow – once the bubbles and coalesce they form slugs – in this flow
buoyancy starts to be significant, the lift is similar to a gas plunger;
• Annular flow – when slugs coalesce, they create a central core or gas column –
oil and water are trapped as a film on the tubing wall and dragged up the tubing;
• Mist flow – if the velocity of the gas in the central core is high enough, the shear
at the interface between the gas and oil is large enough to strip off the liquid and
disperse it as droplets.

Whilst most oilwells demonstrate bubble and slug flow the other regimes are less
common. When the tubing is inclined or horizontal, increased segregation forces, due to
buoyancy, cause the gas to accumulate in the high side of the tubing. Figure 4 illustrates
the larger variation in flow patterns.
Figure 4. Flow Patterns in a Horizontal Pipe.

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 3

PgDip/MSc Energy Programme Tubing Performance Evaluation

For situations where gas, oil and water flow, the water is often assumed to increase the
bulk volume of liquid. The pressure drops associated with multiphase flows in tubing is
normally calculated by one of two methods:
• Gradient curves;
• Computer based empirical calculation.

A gradient curve is shown in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5. Typical Gradient Curve.

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 4

PgDip/MSc Energy Programme Tubing Performance Evaluation

Gradient curves, as shown in Figure 5, are generalised and hence less accurate but
they are useful for quick assessment/prediction of pressure loss. They are available
either as plots of computer generated output or data measured from actual wells.
Computer models use methods, which are mechanistic based on physical principals, or
are correlations based on experimental data derived by observing laboratory tests. A
wide range of correlations is avoidable, reflecting the broad based design/ validity of the
experimental tests.

Tubing Performance Relationships

Normally the pressure drop in the tubing can be evaluated by 2 different approaches.
• assume a fixed separator (or tubing head) pressure and then estimate based on
this the flowing bottomhole pressure for various flowrates;
• using bottomhole flowing pressures at various rates, which the reservoir will
deliver, based on the IPR, calculate the tubing pressure drop and after deducting
this from the flowing bottomhole pressure deduce the residual or flowing tubing
head pressure.

The output from either of the approaches can be plotted on a graph of bottomhole or
tubing head pressure versus flowrate as shown in Figures 6 and 7 respectively. In figure
6, it can be seen that the curve exhibits a minimum bottomhole pressure (or intake
pressure). This minimum represents the balance between slippage and higher fluid
mixture densities at the lower production rate, ie, to the left of the minimum pressure
point, and increasing friction at the higher rates, to the right of the minimum intake
pressure.
Figure 6. Bottomhole Flowing Pressure v Flowrate.
Pwf

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 5

PgDip/MSc Energy Programme Tubing Performance Evaluation

Figure 7. Tubing Head Pressure v Flowrate.

PTfH

Clearly, to maximise the use of pressure and hence flow efficiency, the well should be
operated, if possible, at a flowrate close to this minimum point. However, this could
constrain production from the well, and for the well to be economic it may be necessary
to operate in the friction dominated regime – less efficient use of pressure but more
economic.

Predicting Well Performance

Predicting the performance of a well involves matching the capacity of reservoir to

deliver fluid into the well with the pressure/flow capacity of the tubing. This is normally
done by preparing an IPR/TPR plot as shown in Figure 8 below.
Figure 8. IPR/TPR Curve.

IPR curves

TPR

Pwf
s = -ve

Operating flowrate
for wells with s=0
s = +ve
S= -ve

S=0

S = +ve

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 6

PgDip/MSc Energy Programme Tubing Performance Evaluation

This approach can used to assess the sensitivity of reservoir deliverability to:
• variation in well PI, skin factor, reservoir pressure;
• variation in tubing size;
• flow restriction;
• sand exclusion process.

Tubing Size

A factor that can be altered to optimise production rates is the tubing size. High fluid
velocities in small tubing sizes increase the possibility of erosion and friction pressure
losses. Larger tubing sizes reduce velocities that, in two-phase hydrocarbon production
where pressure is below the bubble point, allow significant slippage between the gas
and liquid, resulting in a high pressure gradient.

Gas-Liquid Ratio

The gas-liquid ratio (GLR) affects the hydrostatic gradient inside the tubing because an
increase in the ratio of gas to liquids reduces the hydrostatic pressure. However, at high
liquid rates the total gas volume will be so large that the pressure gradient increases to
reflect a rise in friction pressure. By contrast, for a low water-oil ratio (WOR), there is an
increase in both the density of the mixture and the slippage, hence also in the
hydrostatic head and friction pressure loss. Combining the IPR and VLP gives the
completions engineer information on:
• Maximum productive capacity of the reservoir - also defined as the absolute open
- hole flow potential (AOF);
• Pressure behaviour of the production fluids from wellbore to surface behaviour
can be determined for changes in GOR, WOR or tubing size.

Accurate calculation of these parameters by available software packages provides

solution points for a wide range of well conditions. This allows the engineer to simulate
well performance later in the field life when reservoir pressure has declined, either to
assess potential revenue or any requirement for pressure maintenance.

© The Robert Gordon University 2003 7