Spe 933170 G

Calculation of Pressure Drops in Flowing Wells
By T. V. MOORE* and R. J. SCHILTHUIS, * HOUSTON, TEXAS

(Ponca City Meeting, October, 1932)
IN a previous paper,! the results of some experimental work on the

measurement of slippage in the flow of oil and gas mixtures through
vertical pipes were presented. The data obtained were correlated
and equations were deduced from which the performance of the experi-
mental gas-lift could be predicted with reasonable accuracy. However,
attempts to apply the equations to the calculation of pressure drops in
actual flowing wells yielded erroneous results. At the time the results
of the experimental work were published, no satisfactory explanation
could be offered for the failure of the empirical equations to express
properly the performance of wells. However, recent work has led to
the development of a new hypothesis which presupposes certain condi-
tions affecting the flow of oil and gas in wells. When the proposed
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

equations a;re corrected to allow for these conditions, an agreement
between the observed and calculated performance of the actual wells is
obtained which in most cases is quite satisfactory, although it is subject
to certain limitations. In this paper, the method of calculating the
pressure drop in actual wells is considered, and the application of the
method to the design of tubing is discussed. (For nomenclature used
in this discussion, see Table 1.)
FACTORS AFFECTING SLIPPAGE AND EFFICIENCY
At the outset, a few of the principle factors affecting slippage and

efficiency in the gas-lift discussed in the previous paper will be reviewed.
In the flow of the mixture of oil and gas in a vertical pipe, slippage is the
phenomenon of gas moving upward with a linear velocity greater than
that of the oil. Under steady conditions, if given quantities of oil and
gas enter the tubing per unit of time, the same quantities of oil and gas
per unit time must, on the average, pass every section of the tubing;
otherwise, there would be accumulation or depletion of the oil or gas
at some sections, and the flow would be unsteady. Therefore, if the
gas is to flow at a greater linear velocity than that of the liquid,
* Production Research Department, Humble Oil & Refining Co.
IT. V. Moore and H. D. Wilde, Jr.: Experimental Measurement of Slippage in
Flow through Vertical Pipes. Trans. A.I.M.E. (1931) 92, Petro Dev. and Tech., 296.
170
'f. V. MOORE AND R. J. SOHILTHUIS 171
the cross-sectional area through which it passes must be reduced, and the
cross-sectional area through which the liquid passes must be increased
as compared to the areas prevailing for equal velocities. The ratio
of the average cross-section of the pipe occupied by liquid to that occupied
by gas, and the ratio of the volume of the two phases flowing past any
section in unit time affords a direct measurement of the energy lost in
slippage. It was shown that the fraction of the total gas energy lost
in slip in a gas-lift is:
1-~
G'x
or one minus the ratio of the volumes of liquid and gas flowing per unit
time divided by the ratio of the cross-sectional area through which the
two phases flow. Increased slip increases the fraction of the pipe
occupied by the liquid, which increases the amount of the oil in the

tubing, which in turn, increases the apparent density of the oil and gas
mixture. This increases the hydrostatic head of the fluid mixture in
the tubing and hence the total pressure drop. To lift a given quantity
of oil, the gas must, therefore, expand between wider pressure limits and
hence must give up more energy in order to perform the same amount
of useful work. This, obviously, reduces the efficiency.
CALCULATION OF PRESSURE DROP FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
The fundamental problem of the gas-lift is to calculate the pressure

drop in a given flow string under a given set of conditions. The only
components of major importance in ordinary work are the hydrostatic
head of the fluid in the tubing and the frictional resistance. Both of
these components depend upon the fraction of the pipe occupied by
the liquid phase, and hence slippage is of fundamental importance.
The experimental work has shown that the ratio of the cross-section
occupied by liquid to that occupied by gas depends upon the relative
volume velocity of the gas past the oil, the pipe diameter, the density
of the liquid, and the surface tension of the liquid. The equation
expressing the relationship was found to be:
3.58D1.167SL 3.33
x= V ,0.67 0.278 [1]
'YL
TABLE l.-N omenclature

SYMBOL DKf:o"INITION UNITS
H Length of pipe Feet
D Pipe diameter Inches
A Area of pipe Square feet
L Rate of liquid flow Cubic feet per minute
LF Rate of foam flow Cubic feet per minute
G Rate of free gas flow Cubic feet per minute at standard
conditions
172 CALCULATION OF PRESSURE DROPS IN FLOWING WELLS
TABLE I.-Continued.
SYMBOL DEFINITION UNITS
G' Rate of free gas flow Cubic feet per minute corrected to
average pipe pressure and
temperature
Density of liquid Pounds per cubic foot
Density of foam Pounds per cubic foot
Density of gas Pounds per cubic foot
Specific gravity of liquid Relative to water at 60° F.
Specific gravity of foam Relative to water at 60° F.
Specific gravity of gas Relative to water at 60° F.
Viscosity of liquid Centipoises
Viscosity of gas Centipoises
Surface tension of liquid Dynes per centimeter
Linear velocity of liquid Feet per second
Linear velocity of foam Feet per second
Relative volume velocity between Cubic feet per minute

free gas and liquid or foam
y Fraction of pipe occupied by liquid No units
or foam
Ratio of fraction of pipe occupied by No units
liquid or foam to that occupied by
gas
Pressure at bottom of pipe Pounds per square inch absolute
Pressure at top of pipe Pounds per square inch absolute
Average pressure in pipe Pounds per square inch absolute
Atmospheric pressure Pounds per square inch absolute
Total pressure drop Pounds per square inch
Pressure drop due to hydrostatic Pounds per square inch
head of liquid or foam
Pressure drop due to friction Pounds per square inch
Henry's law constant Cubic feet gas dissolved per cubic
foot liquid per pound per square
inch
g Gravitational constant Feet per second per second
V', the relative volume velocity, depends upon the quantities of liquid
and gas flowing, and x, the relationship being:
P=~-~x ~
It is apparent that equations 1 and 2 must be solved for x by trial
and error. A value of x is assumed and substituted in equation 2 in order
to determine V'. This value of V' is used in the solution of equation
1 for x. The calculations are repeated until the assumed and estimated
values of x agree. G' is the volume of free gas under average pipe con-
ditions, and where the gas bubbles evolve from the liquid without forming
a froth, this quantity is given by the equation:
G' = G~al - KPoeL [3]

T. V. MOORE AND R. J. SCHILTHUIS 173
Having determined x, the fraction of the pipe occupied by liquid is then
determined:
x
[4]
Y=I+x
and the hydrostatic head of the liquid is calculated-by the formula:
6.PL = YPL(6.H) [5]
The empirical equation (1) used in calculating x is subject to the
criticism that it is not dimensionally sound. Nevertheless, the equation
was deduced from work on a wide variety of liquids, but on only one gas;
hence, the effect of the properties of the gas are not apparent. By
arbitrarily assuming the manner in which the properties of the gas do
affect this relationship, we may put it into a form which is dimensionally
sound:
x= c(VI2SL)O.278(D,za)1.08(D~'/)O.146(~)3.052

D-yL V So gV So [6]
Future experimental work should reveal whether or not the properties
of the gas do affect the relationship in this manner, but it would seem that
putting the equation on a dimensionally sound basis would enhance its
theoretical significance. In all of this work, however, the simpler
empirical equation was used.
ESTIMATION OF FRICTION
Having determined the hydrostatic head, the friction must be esti-

mated. The empirical equation obtained from the experimental data was:
[7]
This was later modified in order to obtain better agreement with field
data, to:
[8]
This equation will approximate the Fanning equation quite closely if

suitable values for the friction factor are selected. The writers do not
believe that the viscosity of a mixture of oil and gas has any significance;
hence, the viscosity is that of the pure liquid.
In the experimental work, it was difficult to determine the friction
accurately, but it is believed that the data taken were sufficiently accu-
rate to show that the friction varied inversely as the diameter, that the
influence of the viscosity of the liquid was small, that the liquid density
did have a considerable effect, and that the friction loss varied more
nearly as the first power of the liquid velocity than as its square. The
constants in the equation may be questionable, but the results are of the
right order of magnitude. The liquid velocity in feet per second is given
by the equation:
[9]
where L is the quantity of liquid flowing in cubic feet per minute.

The total pressure drop is, for all practical purposes, the sum of the
hydrostatic head and the friction. That is:
[10]
The early attempts to apply the foregoing formulas to the calculation
of the pressure drop in flowing wells gave results which were in error,
although apparently each variable influenced the pressure drop in the
proper manner. In all cases, it was observed that the calculated pressure
drop was greater than the values observed; that is, the actual performance

was more efficient than the equations would indicate.
VVELL PERFORMANCE
VVith the development of methods of measuring pressures at the bot-

tom of wells, reliable data were accumulated on actual well performance,
and these data were subjected to careful analysis. One condition was
frequently observed for which no clear explanation was readily apparent.:
a number of wells were found to have flowing efficiencies of practically
100 per cent; that is, the losses due to friction and slippage were negligible.
Further investigation revealed that all such wells were producing with
very little gas in excess of that dissolved in the oil at the pressure existing
at the bottom of the well, and that in practically every case of a well
flowing under these conditions, the efficiency was nearly 100 per cent.
This led to the following explanation for this apparently abnormal
behavior: the gas coming out of solution from the oil as the pressure
decreases becomes dispersed throughout the oil in very fine bubbles, form-
ing a stable foam, in which the gas bubbles cannot move except at very
low velocities and consequently slippage is negligible. Under such
conditions, and at velocities sufficiently low to permit the neglect of
friction, the pressure drop may be calculateu with very little error by
assuming that there are no friction or slip losses.
THE HYPOTHESIS
The behavior of wells which produce with only the dissolved gas has
led to the formulation of the following hypothesis to explain the per-
formance of other types of wells. It is assumed that the gas in solution
evolves as the pressure decreases, but that this gas forms a stable foam,
and that little of the dissolved gas escapes from the foam phase. Thus,
the gas which comes out of solution is prevented from slipping past the
oil. The free gas, however, does slip past the oil, or rather the foam,
and the amount of slippage depends upon the properties of the foam,
rather than upon the properties of the liquid. In other words, the lift
must be considered not one in which a liquid is raised by a quantity of
gas which is constantly being increased by more gas coming out of solu-
t 0. ....""{~ imnY7 0
.
\
1\
\ \\ \
1\ ~ \
~ l\:::~!r~
~ ='/~
/Z.,
~\-
\
,.. ~
~\
~ .-
==~~=f\\ ""'W,,",
In ~~/iN

i -- -
1\ \
\1\ \
~
\ \ 1\ \ l
1\\ \,
!-. \ 1\ ~
100 lfJO 41» 4I)(J SDO 600 7(Jt1

~SSURE' 1.&J/3!f.I/V
FIG 1. FIG. 2.
FIG. I.-CALCULATED PRESSURE GRADIENTS IN TUBING.
Well A; 1381 ft., 17;i-in. tubing.
FIG. 2.-CALCULATED PRESSURE GRADIENTS.
Well L; 990 ft.; 6%-in. casing.
tion, but rather as one in which a foam, comprising the liquid and the
gas which has come out of solution, is lifted by the gas which was undis-
solved at the point of entrance. It seems, therefore, that the equations
previously developed should hold, provided the physical properties and
velocities used are considered to be those of the foam instead of the pure
liquid. These properties may be readily calculated from the gas laws.
In estimating the free gas volume, the following equation, rather than
equation (3), must be used:
[11]
In order to check this hypothesis, the pressure drop in a number of

flowing wells has been calculated. Since the pressure drop depends upon
the conditions at the base of the well, it is easier to calculate the top
pressures from the bottom pressures. The curves of pressures against
depth are plotted, and the calculated tubing pressures are compared with
the values actually observed. Fig. 1 shows the results of such calculation
on a well flowing through l~-in. tubing at three different rates of flow.
Fig. 2 shows similar calculations on a well flowing through 6%-in. casing
at two different rates of flow. In Table 2 are presented the results of
TABLE 2.-Calculation of Pressure Drops for Wells in Different Fields
Top Pressure APjAH
Tubing Tubing Bottom Error,

Diam- Length, BbJ. Cu. Ft. Pres- Lb. per Sq. In. Lb. per Sq. In. Lb. per Error,
Well per sure, per 100 Ft. Sq. In. Per
eter,
In. Ft. Day Eb!. Lb. per per 100 Cent
Sq. In.
Ob- I
CaIcu- Ob- I
CaIcu-
served lated served Ia ted
Ft.
A 1Y.;: 1381 591 556 415 60 80 25.7 24.2 -1.5 - 5.8

464 506 474 190 195 20.6 20.2 -0.4 - 2.0
355 528 536 290 280 17.8 18.5 +0.7 + 3.9

B 2 3662 398 202 1349 330 360 27.8 27.0 -0.8 - 2.9
(J 2 3606 195 531 1327 610 590 19.9 20.4 +0.5 + 2.5
D 2 1078 12 7080 340 235 227 9.7 11.4 +1.7 +14.9
E 2 1077 51 980 160 45 56 10.7 9.7 -1.0 -10.0
F 2 1074 24 2620 185 95 105 8.4 7.5 -0.9 -10.7
G 2~ 5300 956 312 2165 600 650 29.6 28.6 -1.0 - 3.4
H 2~ 4700 1128 950 1945 1065 1055 18.7 18.5 -0.2 - 1.1
1 2H 3568 390 214 1429 370 385 29.6 29.3 -0.3 - 1.0
78 226 1436 420 435 28:5 28.1 -0.4 - 1.4
J 3 4172 934 731 1375 550 569 19.8 19.3 +0.5 + 2.5
130 1160 1450 600 656 20.3 19.0 +1.3 + 6.4
K 3 4172 1660 426 1465 480 470 23.6 23.8 +0.2 + 0.9
L 6% 990 900 326 565 338 331 22.9 23.6 +0.7 + 3.1
106 186 630 332 335 30.1 29.8 -0.3 - 1.0
similar calculations for a number of wells in several different fields. It

will be observed that the calculated pressure drop agrees reasonably well
with the observed values, usually to within 5 per cent.
This general agreement between the observed and calculated results
lends support to the fundamental hypothesis of the stable foam. How-
ever, there are certain limitations to the equations which must always be
kept in mind. The first of these and the most important is the instability
of the foam. Apparently, under certain conditions, the gas does separate
from the foam in appreciable quantities. The evidence supporting this
is that many wells, whose performance may be calculated closely when
flowing at an ordinary rate, actually show higher pressure drops than
those calculated at very low rates. In such cases, the observed pressure
drop has always been found to be between the pressure drop calculated
by assuming a completely stable foam, a~d again by assuming that no
foam at all is formed. Fig. 3 gives an example of the pressure drop in a
well under these two assumed conditions compared with the values
actually observed. The tendency of the gas to break out does undoubt-
edly influence the observed pressure drop. The factors which tend to
increase the extent of separation of gas from the foam are chiefly the
length of time the foam is in the tubing and the pressure on the foam.
Foams of liquids having high surface tensions tend to be unstable: as the
pressure is lowered, the surface tension of the liquid phase increases;
hence, the stability of the foam decreases. Furthermore, the expansion of
the gas bubbles tends to break the \)
I
\
foam. Hence, the equations may
be expected to fail at low veloc- \ ~l,.~RA:C:A~A',"" INO
~AE'"U
ities with long or very large flow \ ) ST
strings and under low pressure.

Another factor which is important ~ j\;\~~ At juALPRE ju.....
BL!"
!-
~
but which was not evaluated in \
the experimental work is the effect
of the properties of the gas. Still
I"".::. .:"',.g'~ ~ ~..
,
another source of error is undou bt-
edly to be found in the frict,.ion
I ~

equation which may be only a
rough approximation.
LIMITATIONS AND SOURCES OF ~
ERROR
In addition to t.he foregoing ~

~
~ 1\
factors, which are inherent in the \
~
method proposed, the production
of oil and gas, the solubility of the
gas in the oil, the deviations from
the gas laws and solution laws, and ~
the actual diameter of the tubing, 200 ~oo tlOtJ _ ItxM _ ~
Not1
which may be altered slightly by PIZE3SUNL'"'l/1$.PEIZS(UIV
paraffin accumulations, must be FIG. 3.-EFFECT OF INSTABILITY OF FOAM ON

PRESSURE DROP IN TUBING.
known accurately if accurate re- At 4048 ft.; 3-in. tubing; 42 hbl. per day;
suIts are desired. 915 cu. ft. per bbl.
However, in spite of these sources of error, it is feIt that reasonable
accuracy can be obtained over a wide range of operating conditions. At
present, it is believed that the following conditions set the approximate
useful limits of the equations:
1. Production rates above 50 to 100 bbl. per day.
2. Gas-oil ratios below 5000 cu. ft. per barrel.
3. Tubinghead pressures above 50 to 100 lb. per sq. inch.
4. Specific gravity of gas below 0.8.
5. Calculated friction drop less than calculated hydrostatic head.
In spite of these limitations, it is felt that the equations are useful,
even when they break down. For instance, at low pressures or at low
rates of flow, where the equations fail because of the instability of the
foam, they may be used to ascertain the limit which can be obtained.
As an illustration of the use of these equations in computing pressure

drops in flow strings of flowing wells, an example has been worked out in
detail. However, to conserve space, it will not be presented here.
Anyone interested may communicate with the authors, who will gladly
furnish a copy of the calculations.
PRACTICAL ApPLICATION
Keeping in mind the limitations of the method of calculation, the

practical application will now be considered. Most problems dealing
5OO(;U./f./~/. Sl:J()cu./I./1JiJ/.
~, p.JSIJO v., .. i:'-- P.tSdO ~/ .....
._M ....
~'-
- ... ~ ~,
'-'-
p.MIXJ "'~iw.

~b., ...
~ 10-.444
m
P.Jtk> look....
".
, .3
I).' NM.
• r .. .. •
p .. -
•
~
e
~
~
./4DO
.
..
/OOOCu.1i /JJbI
\.
~ P.- i.I.",..
,- ./.,.;".
l()(}OelAl.AN
~ ~..... ~ . ,,,".m A.~.

Q
...
,
0:
..
NtI.
4 .
\ 15OOcu:Ii/bDI. ~""A/.w.
\..
~ l6_ ,k.;. - \.' p
ISIJIJ"
...
'1~.... ...,1,. ..
~
f()()()
~ ..... .~.
~.
..
0 ..
.. NU
s If ..
D.' ,,,,,
FIG. 4.-PRESSURE DROP PER UNIT FIG. 5.-PRESSURE DROP PER UNIT
LENGTH OF PIPE. LENGTH OF PIPE.
At 1000 bbl. per day and 1500 lb. res- At 500 bbl. per day and 1500 lb. reser-
ervoir pressure. voir pressure.
with tubing design can be readily solved if the pressure drop per unit
length of pipe is known. In order to facilitate the calculation of this
quantity, a series of curves showing the pressure drop under various sets
of conditions have been prepared. These are presented in Figs. 4 to 10.
These curves are calculated for an oil having the following properties:
specific gravity, 0.875; viscosity, 10 centipoise; solubility of gas, 0.03 cu. ft.
gas per cu. ft. oil per lb. per sq. in. The curves show the relation-
ship between pressure drop per unit length and pipe diameter for rates
of flow of 1000, 500, 200, and 50 bbl. per day, bottom-hole pressures of
1000 and 1500 lb. per sq. in., average pressures of 1500, 1000, 500, and
200 lb. per sq. in., and gas-oil ratios of 500, 1000, and 1500 cu. ft. per
barrel. The pressure drop under any set of intermediate conditions may
be obtained by interpolation. The minimum point on each curve
~
.500 ca#/6bI
I\, ID••_ .!..
"- ~ ~~'"
z "
p.",1').$. ~ 5 6 7
'" "", .m.
5 7'

1000 ""'VI;/)/. IIXJO .".I/Nt
p.,§OI't "/4f""
- Ip.,ooO ~
-
~ p.~ 1... / - ...
-
~
-.......::::
"
p~
p~~oc
50() .../,. ...
!14k ..
..
O:/ns
~ 5 7
" -
~'" ""'£..Im
~.Ai Ik'...
6 7
--- ;.;.-
,
-
.. \Ib/.. "
••,1.. "
150(1 cu.I.,u1 1\
\
~ D._ ""1_....
'-...,
15M ~"/6bI
-
I\:
-........::: .-
p .. SOD
....
...
. m.
5 7 e
~,
8
0:141.
., 6 7'
FIG.6.-PRESSURE DROP PER ::'UNIT FIG.7.-PRESSURE DROP PER UNIT

At 200 bbl. per day and 1500 lb. At 1000 bbl. per day and 1000 lb.
reservoir pressure. - reservoir pressure.
corresponds to the pipe diameter which is most efficient for the particular
set of conditions for which the curve is drawn. Inasmuch as these
curves are not greatly influenced by the properties of the oil, they can be
used for the majority of oils without introducing serious error.
These curves can be used in solving problems in tubing design. This
is done by first plotting the best pipe diameter (the minimum points on
the curves) against the average pressure in the flow string. Then, by
plotting the reciprocal of the pressure drop per 100 ft. corresponding to
the best pipe diameter against pressure, a simple graphical integration
leads to the construction of a curve of pressure against length. Thus,
having prepared both the plot of pipe diameter versus average pressure
and the plot of length versus average pressure, it is a simple matter to
make a plot of best pipe diameter versus length.
Two ILLUSTRATIONS
Two problems which have been worked out using these curves will be
presented as illustrations. These are, first, to design a tapered string of
500 cu. If/Db/. \ soocu"'/1JhI.
\ 17.10 I"s/~ql. f\-. p.JOfXJ Ib./.. ",
\
.. '" .o.s, ""/4<7 ..
r-c,:'" .... .....

/
I'..
"-
p.$<
p."", IIM/.sq.l

oJ .. J ..
(): inS.
D·' '1M,
1000 cv.II:/1JhI. ,t:\X>cu.lI/bbl.
\ 1",,/6I1 ip
P,/(JtJO ~."'.
P
'" ~ P"sa /...,.
~ <>.fuA
....
H>
7
\..--...... p • .!>
P'l'(> ~/ ;
"
0 ..
khtt iP
....
HJS.
.
II
ISOo c</. .1:/661. 1500cull/W.
,~
1\ ~
--,--- ~- 'h ,
~
\
p.toO~
17,. ~~ ;,.
-!
~~
~
-
1'-
p •.!!f!?.. ~
p.5d< 11»/.,.,
~~
-......e.:. %
e J
00.6.<
..
in
7
" r-. P '''' "!hi'? .
0: ins "
FIG. S.-PRESSURE DROP PER UNIT FIG. 9.-PRESSURE DROP PER UNIT
At 500 bbl. per day and 1000 lb. At 200 bbl. per day and 1000 lb.
reservoir pressure. reservoir pressure.
tubing for a well 4000 ft. deep, making 1000 bbl. of oil daily with a gas-oil
ratio of 1000 cu. ft. per bbl., and having an operating bottom-hole pres-
sure of 1500 lb. per sq. in.; and, second, to design a tapered string for a
well of the same depth, making the same quantity of oil and gas, but
having an operating bottom-hole pressure of 1000 lb. per sq. in. The
resulting design of flow strings for maximum efficiency is shown in
Fig. 11. In the first case, where the operating bottom-hole pressure is
1500 lb., a string tapering from 2 to 4 in. should be used. In the second.
a string tapering from 27-2 to 5 in. would give the best results.
It is interesting to note that although for the utmost efficiency a flow
string with twice the diameter·at the top as at the bottom is required, the
improvement in efficiency over a straight string is very smalL
In Fig. 12, the pressures in the flow strings are plotted against depth.
For each of the two cases cited, three curves are drawn: one to show what
the pressure gradient would be where there was DIAMETER
I 2 S 4 5
no slippage or friction, i. e., where the flow tube c,-t--l--'---L-++---
was 100 per cent efficient, another to show the
pressure gradient which would prevail with the
I
most efficient tapered string, and a third illus-
trating the pressure drop in a string of straight
3-in. tubing for comparison with the ideal taper-
ed string. With an operating bottom-hole 'Il
~
pressure of 1500 lb., the tubinghead pressure
with the tapered string would be 770 lb. com-

pared with 700 lb. for the 3-in. string. The
.;oocaHiIJbl.
l'~/sQ. 'I?
\, ~
\ , ,nMsI"", iA
\ . /6& ,AI KJOO hW.../..,

1000 cu. II. I b{,/'
z s l'
KJOO ,u.J/./~bI.
\'- f-'p.Joo /b1.;J.·
~~'
\ p
r--.. p. &tJD Ih r~.in
FIG. 10. FIG. 11.

FIG. 10.-PRESSURE DROP PER UNIT LENGTH OF PIPE.
At 50 bb1. per day and 1000 lb. reservoir pressure.
FIG. n.-DESIGN OF TAPERED TUBING FOR MINIMUM PRESSURE DROP.
efficiencies would be 38.1 and 30.7 per cent, respectively. With an

operating bottom-hole pressure of 1000 lb., there is even less difference
between the performance of the two strings; the tapered string would
have an efficiency of 43.5 per cent, and a tubinghead pressure of 460 lb.,
while the straight 3-in. string would have an efficiency of 38.4 per cent
and a tubing pressure of 430 pounds.
It appears from these and other similar calculations that tapered
tubing, in ordinary high-pressure flowing wells, has little advantage over
a straight string of tubing. Unless the high-pressure gas taken from the
182 CALCULATION OF PRESSUUE DlWPS IN FLOWING WJ~LLS
tubinghead is to be used in some manner, the gas energy conserved in the

flow string will be wasted at the choke, and, therefore, there is no reason
for using special designs of flow strings until the limit of the well's flowing
life has almost been reached. At any rate, it seems that for almost every
condition, a string of straight tubing can be selected which closely
approaches the performance of a tapered string.
Unfortunately, the method outlined in this paper is not reliable at low
pressures; hence, the accuracy with which it may be applied to gas-lift

~I----
~
~
~
ll---+--+--+---~'--\-
~~----~~-----~~oo------~~-----~L-----~~------/~~-----~~~~~-MJOO
PRESSURe' UJ.5 PER -"i. IN.
FIG. 12.-PRESSURE GRADIENTS IN FLOW STRINGS.

One thousand barrels per day; 1000 cu. ft. per bbl.; 4000 ft. depth; 1000 and 1500 lb.
reservoir pressure.
work and to wells which are about to go dead is questionable. Never-

theless, the formulas may be used to indicate approximately the per-
formance of such wells.
It is believed that gas-oil ratios may be controlled to some extent by
the position of the bottom of the tubing with relation to the body of the
producing sand, but that the shape or size of the flow string has no
influence on the gas-oil ratios. This idea has been held by other writers 2 •3
and seems to be substantiated by all reliable data available.
2 H. N. Marsh and B. H. Robinson: Means of Controlling Gas-oil Ratio. Trans.

A.I.M.E. (1928-29), 82, Petro Dev. and Tech., 183. •
3 J. T. Hayward: Sand Conditions Set Gas-oil Ratios. Oil & Gas Jnl. (March 3,
1932) 16.
T. Y. MOORE AND R. J. SCHILTHUIS 183
CONCLUSIONS
From the foregoing discussion, the following conclusions may be

drawn:
1. Pressure drops in flowing wells may be calculated within reasonable
accuracy by the proposed method.
2. The limitations of the assumptions made and formulas derived are
such that the performance of low-pressure wells cannot be predicted
accurately. Unfortunately, this type of well is the one in which proper
design of tubing can result in the greatest benefit.
/"
/'"
V

,;'
p /' 0
/
Va
V
/"
u
/ 0
V 30·
API 6'RAVITY
35· 40·
FIG. 13.-S0LUBILITY O~' LEAN GAS IN CRUDE OIL.
3. From curves presented herein, it is possible to design tapered

tubing of maximum efficiency. However, this efficiency can be closely
approached by the use of a properly selected string of straight tubing.
4. In ordinary high-pressure flowing wells, a large part of the gas
energy is wasted at the choke. Hence, there is no need for a string of
tubing of greater efficiency than that required to keep the well flowing
steadily, unless by a system of double traps, the energy in the gas at the
tubinghead is to be utilized for some purpose.
5. Gas-oil ratios cannot be controlled by the design of tubing, except
in so far as they may be influenced by the position of the bottom of the
tubing with respect to the producing sand.
ApPENDIX
The physical properties of the oil and gas are used in the application
of the foregoing formulas. Whenever the properties have been measured
for the oil and gas in question, they should be used but it is indeed rare
that all the necessary data are available. In this appendix, curves from
which the missing physical properties may be estimated are presented.
One of the most important variables which must be determined is the
solubility of the gas in the oil. In this work, Henry's law, which states
that the gas dissolved in a liquid is proportional to its pressure, has been
assumed to hold. This assumption is not necessary, but it simplified
~ ~NYry
~~
~~
,,~
Il
~~
~
~ ---- r--

~
~,..>, --.;;:
~
~
~
:::::::-
Ii!
~
~ 600 IJO() /()(')O

$ATU2ATION PIlCtJSI//l£IUS/Sf' /N
FIG. 14.-ApPROXIMATE EFFECT OF DISSOLVED GAS ON PROPERTIES OF OIL.
the work somewhat and, for lean gases consisting chiefly of methane and
ethane, it is sufficiently exact for use in connection with these computa-
tions. For gases of high specific gravity not only Henry's law but also
the gas laws fail, and in such cases, it would be necessary to know both
the solubility of the gas and the volume of the undissolved gas as a func-
tion of pressure.
In Fig. 13 is shown a rough relationship between the solubility of lean
gas in Oklahoma and Texas oils and the gravity. This curve is based on
data obtained by the Humble Oil & Refining Co., as well as that of
Beecher and Parkhurst 4 and Dow and Calkin. 5 Although this curve is
fairly reliable for Mid-Continent and Gulf Coast oils, it is better' to use
the actual solubility data on the oil and gas in question whenever it
is available.
• C. E. Beecher and 1. P. Parkhurst: Effect of Dissolved Gas upon the Viscosity

and Surface Tension of Crude Oil. Petro Dev. and Tech. in 1926l A.1.M.E., 53.
I D. B. Dow and L. P. Calkin: Solubility and Effects of Natural Gas and Air in
Crude Oil. Bur. Mines Rept. oj lnvestigatiom 2732 (Feb., 1926).
Fig. 14 presents curves showing roughly the reduc.tion in density,
viscosity and surface tension to be expected when gas dissolves in oil.
These curves are based upon meager data and are attempts to present
,p ,." '''II ".'"11.'" ~'fI , . , . , . , . # I , ~ , II "
I ·"
j I """1""1"1"",,\"',",1"'''"'''1''1'1''1'
1 I I I I Iii I I 1 i ( i"'1·,·,1'",,""1'''''''''1'"''1,"1'''''''''''''1
ii 1 ill I I I ({ i ( i .
1"<1 ~","1I~" W ." ~"/I'D "
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\

-'(",1,11' \j""f,f T "111,,r,f"j''' T"lIilfi!,"'j
\
\
\
\
\
'" s'" .. "7 I., ,\ S'I I 1"/
o L-~'~'~'~~'
g ,.". "
__~'__~'~~'____~'\~__~'____~,______~,__________~
\ /
\ /
\\ / /
-------------------------/~--/~---------------------~
\/
~ I
general relationships for all oils and all gases. Of course, such relation-
ships are highly inexact and the curves must be regarded merely as
approximations. The curve of densities was calculated. Although
density is an important variable, it is not greatly altered by the dissolved
gas, and, therefore, the curve drawn is probably fairly reliable.
The curve of surface tensions is based upon the data of Millikan and
Swartz which have been described by Lacey. 6 The data are excellent and
a fair agreement was observed between the reduction in surface tension
to be expected by solution of gas and the saturation pressure for the oils
on which these data are available.
11,
.11',
~
,."
..
<$ 10
__- \a--
,
".
"'Eo ~
OQ
!\!

~--~.:t.._
- ~ ~
It
~
~
It III
- -:e
as
It
~
FIG. 16.-ALIGNMENT CHART FOR SOLUTION OF FRICTION EQUATION:
1.25ulseO. 18
DP, = D
The curve of viscosities, however, is by no means exact. Very few

data are available and the effect of dissolved gas on viscosity varies
widely with the other properties of the oil. Fortunately, the influence
of viscosity of the oil on the calculated pressure drop is small, and for
this reason this curve will give results sufficiently accurate for this work.
In order to simplify the work of calculation, two alignment charts for
the solution of the fundamental equations are given. The first of these
charts, Fig. 15, solves the slippage equation:
Dl.167SF 3.33
x = 3.58V'O.67'YLO.278 [1]
and the second of these, Fig. 16, solves the friction equation:
t:J.PFr = 1.25 U;;FZLO. 18 [8]
• W. N. Lacey: Rates of Solution of Gas in Oil. InternatZ. Petro Tech. (Aug., 1931)
8,413-422.
DISCUSSION 187
DISCUSSION
(H. C. Fowler presiding)
S. F. SHAW, * Tulsa, Okla. (written discussion).-An accurate method for deter-
mining pressure drop between the bottom of a well and the well-head would be of
much value both for wells flowing naturally and for artificial gas-lift wells. The
authors appear to have approached this problem in a logical manner and it is to be
hoped that their methods will cover a wide range of conditions. The paper is received
too late to attempt to study the mathematical derivation of the formulas, but possibly
some comments on other portions of the paper will be of interest.
The examples cited in the paper in which efficiencies of 100 per cent have been
obtained are unusual. Similar instances have not come to the attention of the
writer either for flowing wells or gas-lift wells. The highest lifting efficiencies of which
the writer has knowledge were obtained in lifting water in which about 65 per cent
lifting efficiency was observed. As the submergence increases above 65 per cent, it
is usual to find that the lifting efficiency gradually declines below 65 per cent. If
the total length of flow column be considered as the lift, lifting efficiencies greater
than 100 per cent would appear to be obtained, but, of course, this is impossible of

accomplishment. In air-lifts and gas-lifts, operating under favorable conditions, it
is possible to obtain lifting efficiencies that are approximately equivalent to the
percentage of submergence. 7
In wells which possess high bottom-hole pressures and in which a back-pre)sure
is held on the tubing head, there does not appear to be any object in using tapered
tubing. If it were desired to lift the oil at the maximum rate with minimum expendi-
ture of lifting energy, tapered tubing of good design would permit an efficiency to be
obtained that is up to one-fourth greater efficiency than that of straight tubing. In
the wells with high bottom-hole pressures and with back-pressures, the object is
not to obtain maximum lifting efficiency, but to restrict the production of oil to a
given rate and to maintain the pressure at the bottom of the well at some optimum
point. The writer has not found an instance where the production of oil at a given
rate would allow for any positive alteration of the actual gas-oil ratio, whatever
be the means employed for lifting the oil, or whatever be the kind or diameter of
tubing used.
In the cases cited by the authors, high lifting efficiency is not the point in question
as the figures in the table on page 188 will indicate.
Feet of submergence is based on the pressure at the bottom of the flow column,
assuming specific gravity of the oil as 0.85. This figure for gravity is probably not
the correct figure for these particular instances, but is probably sufficiently close to
illustrate the point to be brought out. The lift is obtained by subtracting the sub-
mergence from the total length of the flow column.
The cubic foot of gas required to lift 1 bbl. of oil at 100 per cent efficiency under
the existing conditions of submergence and lift is very small for cases 1 and 2. In
the other three cases, the submergence is greater than the length of the flow column,
therefore the flow could be compared to that of an artesian well, and would not
require any gas for lifting unless a high friction loss were set up.
Efficiency (1) is calculated on the basis of the bo.ttom-hole pressure, with atmos-
pheric pressure assumed as 14.7 lb. and with no allowance made for the back-pressure
at the top. In calculating efficiency (2), the lifting efficiency is based on the required
number of footpounds at 100 per cent efficiency, divided by the number of footpounds
* The Carter Oil Co.

7 S. F. Shaw: A Study of Energy in Relation to the Production of Oil. Jnl.lnst.
Petrol. Tech. (1930) 16. No. 83.
available in 1 cu. ft. of the gas after subtracting the energy in the gas at the well-head
from that in the gas under the given bottom-hole pressure.
Well A
I Well B
Case 1 I Case 2 I Case 3 I Case 4 I Case 5

Bottom-hole pressure, lb ................ 415 474 536 565 630
Tubing head pressure, lb ................ 60 190 290 338 332
Oil, bbl. per day ........................ 591 464 355 900 106
Gas, cu. ft. per bbl. .................... 556 506 528 326 186
Submergence of oil based on sp. gr. of 0.85,
ft ................................... 1126 1285 1453 1532 1708
Lift, ft ................................ 255 95 72* 542* 718*
Gas required, cu. ft ..................... 10.8 3.8 None None None
Gas consumed, cu. ft .................... 556 506 528 326 186
Lifting efficiency, per cent ............... (1) 1.9 0.7
Lifting efficiency, per cent (2) ............ 3.8 3.0

Velocity at bottom, ft. per sec ........... 34 27 25 0.9 0.4
Velocity at well head, ft. per sec .......... 178 58 43 1.3 0.6
* Feet in excess of the equivalent hydrostatic head.

The velocities in cases 1, 2 and 3 are such that gas-lift action might be presumed
to take place. In cases 4 and 5, the velocities are so low that the gas-lift action could
not take place, and the flowing condition would be caused by hydrostatic pressure.
In calculating velocities it is assumed that all of the gas is under compression in the
gaseous phase; actually, however, part of the gas is in a liquid phase, and velocities
are probably lower than those noted.
J. R. MCWILLIAMS, * Tulsa, Okla.-I have somewhat the same idea as the authors,
namely, that entirely too much credit has been given to the control of ·gas-oil ratios
by the use of tubing. However, I believe they should qualify their statement that
tubing has no control over gas-oil ratio by excluding wells flowing by heads and
wells near that stage.
T. V. MooRE.-We have had a number of cases where you could control the gas-oil
ratios with a string of tubing, but we felt that was due to the position of the tubing in
the well.
E. H. GRISWOLD, t Ponca City, Okla.-We cannot run a well through a variety of
gas-oil ratios without changing the rate of oil production or the bottom of the tubing.
Mter the tubing is changed you can again change the gas-oil ratios by changing the
rate of production. Many people in the industry are under the impression right now
that by BOrne mysterious engineering control you can produce your prorated allotment
with a variety of gas-oil ratios. We have found in our work that we can have
the same gas-oil ratio at two different rates of production, but we have failed to have
two gas-oil ratios at the same rate of production, although there are wells where
.almost a negligible difference in production would change the gas-oil ratio.
H. H. WRIGHT,t Tulsa, Okla.-I am greatly interested in this paper. Sometime
during 1928, I believe at the fall meeting of the American Petroleum Institute
* Petroleum Engineer, Skelly Oil Co.
t Continental Oil 00.
t Gypsy Oil Co.
190 CALCULA'l'ION OF PRESSURE DROPS IN FLOWING WELLS
T. V. MooRE.-In general, yes. I think that the main difficulty is in trying to

get the pipe to occupy a certain space. It seems to me that one of the major difficul-
ties with tapered tubing design in the past has been that the densities were more or
less ignored. ·That will account for practically all the pressure drop.
H. D. WILDE, * Houston, Texas.-In his discussion, Mr. Shaw questioned the
existence of 100 per cent efficiency in a flowing well, basing his doubt on the fact that
the most efficient lift he had ever observed was an air-lift lifting water with an effi-
ciency of 65 per cent. I would like to point out that the only cases in which we observe
practically 100 per cent efficiency are where all the gas entering the flow string enters
dissolved in the oil. This condition does not prevail in an artificial lift as all or a large
proportion of the gas enters as free gas. In lifting water, all of the gas enters as free
gas. Unless all of the gas is dissolved in oil as it enters the flow string, efficiencies
approaching 100 per cent are impossible.
R. S. KNAPPEN,t Tulsa, Okla.-Perhaps the disagreement as to efficiency follows
because Mr. Shaw is considering water, which will not form a foam with gas and you
are considering oil, which will form a foam with gas. With more foam, the lifting
efficiency should be greater.

H. D. WILDE.-This is not necessarily the answer. In an experimental lift, we
used liquids ranging from water and kerosene to heavy oil. In these experiments,
none of the gas was in solution and in no case was an efficiency approaching 100 per
cent observed. There was a good correlation between all the liquids, whether oil or
water, indicating no inherent differences between oil and water. We believe that
the gas that comes out of solution forms bubhles so small that they do not rise
appreciably through the oil; the foam is stable and there is negligible slippage. If oil
is agitated with gas, the bubbles formed are comparatively large which rise through
the oil causing slippage and an unstable foam.
E. O. BENNETT,t Ponca City, Okla.-I question whether it is possible to have
100 per cent efficiency as it seems to me there must be some losses, such as friction,
that cannot be avoided. Perhaps the high efficiencies reported are calculated on an
unsound basis. For example, a cubic foot of oil may have enough gas dissolved in it
to lift 2 cu. ft. of oil and if only 1 cu. ft. is lifted, the efficiency is only 50 per cent.
Your method may claim 100 per cent efficiency because no gas besides that dissolved
is used.
H. D. WILDE.-In your example, the efficiency is 50 per cent only if the gas con-
tains no energy when it reaches the surface. If it is still under some pressure, credit
should be given for the energy it contains at that pressure. If the excess energy is
dissipated in a choke, the over-all efficiency including the choke is only 50 per cent,
but the flow string itself has an efficiency greater than 50 per cent. Of course, it is
impossible to avoid some losses, such as friction, and exactly 100 per cent efficiency is
unattainable and the term" 100 per cent efficiency" was used loosely. However, we
have observed cases where the losses are only a fraction of a per cent, so that 100 per
cent is closely approached .
. * Humble Oil& Refining Co.

t Gypsy Oil Co.
t Chief Engineer, Continental Oil Co.

Spe 933170 G

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 933170 G

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calculation of Pressure Drops in Flowing Wells

By T. V. MOORE* and R. J. SCHILTHUIS, * HOUSTON, TEXAS

IN a previous paper,! the results of some experimental work on the

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

FACTORS AFFECTING SLIPPAGE AND EFFICIENCY

At the outset, a few of the principle factors affecting slippage and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

The fundamental problem of the gas-lift is to calculate the pressure

TABLE l.-N omenclature

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

G' = G~al - KPoeL [3]

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

Having determined the hydrostatic head, the friction must be esti-

This equation will approximate the Fanning equation quite closely if

where L is the quantity of liquid flowing in cubic feet per minute.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

VVith the development of methods of measuring pressures at the bot-

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

100 lfJO 41» 4I)(J SDO 600 7(Jt1

In order to check this hypothesis, the pressure drop in a number of

Top Pressure APjAH

Tubing Tubing Bottom Error,

A 1Y.;: 1381 591 556 415 60 80 25.7 24.2 -1.5 - 5.8

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

similar calculations for a number of wells in several different fields. It

ities with long or very large flow \ ) ST

strings and under low pressure.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

In addition to t.he foregoing ~

which may be altered slightly by PIZE3SUNL'"'l/1$.PEIZS(UIV

paraffin accumulations, must be FIG. 3.-EFFECT OF INSTABILITY OF FOAM ON

As an illustration of the use of these equations in computing pressure

Keeping in mind the limitations of the method of calculation, the

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

~ ~..... ~ . ,,,".m A.~.

I\, ID••_ .!..

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

FIG.6.-PRESSURE DROP PER ::'UNIT FIG.7.-PRESSURE DROP PER UNIT

500 cu. If/Db/. \ soocu"'/1JhI.

\ 17.10 I"s/~ql. f\-. p.JOfXJ Ib./.. ",

r-c,:'" .... .....

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

1000 cv.II:/1JhI. ,t:\X>cu.lI/bbl.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

\ . /6& ,AI KJOO hW.../..,

\'- f-'p.Joo /b1.;J.·

FIG. 10. FIG. 11.

efficiencies would be 38.1 and 30.7 per cent, respectively. With an

tubinghead is to be used in some manner, the gas energy conserved in the

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

FIG. 12.-PRESSURE GRADIENTS IN FLOW STRINGS.

work and to wells which are about to go dead is questionable. Never-

2 H. N. Marsh and B. H. Robinson: Means of Controlling Gas-oil Ratio. Trans.

From the foregoing discussion, the following conclusions may be

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

FIG. 13.-S0LUBILITY O~' LEAN GAS IN CRUDE OIL.

3. From curves presented herein, it is possible to design tapered

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023

~ 600 IJO() /()(')O

FIG. 14.-ApPROXIMATE EFFECT OF DISSOLVED GAS ON PROPERTIES OF OIL.

• C. E. Beecher and 1. P. Parkhurst: Effect of Dissolved Gas upon the Viscosity

,p ,." '''II ".'"11.'" ~'fI , . , . , . , . # I , ~ , II "

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/TRANS/article-pdf/103/01/170/2178044/spe-933170-g.pdf by guest on 01 December 2023