p
g
tscc
Turners expressions (with 20% upward adjustment to fit data) in field units are
I
c,w
= S.Su4
(67.0031P)
14
0.0031P
And
I
c,cond
= 4.uS
(45.0031P)
14
0.0031P
SPE 155356 3
Coleman model:
Using the Turner model but validating with field data of lower reservoir and wellhead flowing pressures all below
approximately 500 psia, Coleman et al.
were convinced that a better prediction could be achieved without a 20% upward
adjustment to fit field data with the following expressions:
Field units)
Field units)
Critical Velocity Model Based on FlatShaped Droplet
LIs Model :
Li, Li, Sun in there research posited that turner and Colemans models did not consider deformation of the free falling
liquid droplet in a gas medium. They contended that as a liquid
droplet is entrained in a highvelocity gas stream, a pressure
difference exists between the fore and aft portions of the droplet. The
droplet is deformed under the applied force and its shape changes
from spherical to a convex bean with unequal sides (flat) as shown in
Figure.
Spherical liquid droplets have a smaller efficient area and need a
higher terminal velocity and critical rate to lift them to the surface.
However, flatshaped droplets have a more efficient area and are
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 5 10
P
w
f
(
b
a
r
)
CriticalVelocity(ft/s)
TurnerModel
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 5 10 15
P
w
f
(
p
s
i
)
Critical Velocity (ft/s)
Coleman Model
4 SPE 155356
easier to be carried to the wellhead. The full derivation of Lis critical rate model is summarized below:
v
c
= 2.S
1
4
[
I

g
1
4
_
g
(SI 0nits)
Q
g
= 2.S 1u
5
PV
e
A
(T)Z
(SI 0nits)
Critical Velocity Model Based on Flow Conditions
Nossier Model:
Nosseir et al.
focused their studies on the impact of flow regimes and changes in flow conditions on gas well loading. They
followed the path of turner droplet model but they made a difference from turner model by considering the impact of flow
regimes on the drag coefficient (C). Turner model takes the value of C
d
to be .44 under laminar, transition and turbulent flow
regimes, which in turn determine the expression of the drag force and hence critical velocity equations.
On comparing nossier observed that Turner model values were not matching with the real data for highly turbulent flow
regime. Dealing with this deviation nossier found out the reason to be the change in value of C
d
for this regime from .44 to 0.2.
Nossier derived the critical flow equations by assuming C
d
value of 0.44 for Reynolds number (Re) 210
5
to 10
6
and for Re
value greater than 10
6
he took the C
d
value to be 0.2. Representation of the critical velocity equations by Nosseirs model is
summarized as:
v
c
=
14.6
0.3S
(
I

g
)
.21
g
0.134
g
0.426
(Field units)
Again, the critical velocity equation for highly turbulent flow regime is given as:
v
c
=
21.3
0.2S
(
I

g
)
.2S
g
0.S
(Field units)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4
P
w
f
(
b
a
r
)
Critical Velocity (ft/s)
LI'S Model
SPE 155356 5
Nodal Analysis
INTRODUCTION:
Since critical gas rate equations only give a simple idea for the minimum rates, Liquid loading can be determined by nodal
analysis; nodal analysis will be more detailed since it considers the complete flow path of fluids from Reservoir to wellhead.
Nodal analysis divides the system into two subsystems at a certain location called nodal point. One of these subsystems
considers inflow from reservoir to the nodal point selected (IPR), IPR shows the relationship between flowing bottom hole
pressure (Pwf) to flow from the well (Qg) while the other subsystem considers outflow from the nodal point to the surface
(TPR), TPR shows the relationship between the pressure drop in the tubing string and surface pressure value. Each subsystem
gives a different curve plotted on the same pressurerate graph. These curves are called the inflow curve and the outflow curve,
respectively. The point where these two curves intersect denotes the optimum operating point where pressure and flow rate
values are equal for both of the curves.
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 2 4 6 8 10
P
w
f
(
b
a
r
)
Criticalvelocity(ft/s)
Nossier Model
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 5 10 15
P
w
f
(
p
s
i
)
Critical Velocity (ft/s)
CRITICAL VELOCITY VS Pwf
Turner
Colmen
Li's
Nossier
6 SPE 155356
When the critical flow rate by turner model curve is also plotted on the same graph it gives us a better understanding of when
liquid loading will be occurring and it gives us an insight of whether we are operating in a safe condition or not.
For example by looking into the figure we can justify that for a given initial static reservoir pressure of 3281 psi and Tubing
head pressure of 1500 psi the optimum point is towards the right of the turner and IPR intersection point, that means the
critical flow rate that should be maintained according to turner model is nearly 10MMSCFD where as the operating point is
near 75MMSCFD so we are operating on safe side.
For estimation of when liquid loading is going to occur for a particular well we need to look out for a point where the IPR and
turner intersection point falls to the left of optimum point, this is done by plotting future IPR for the wells.
Application and case study:
Pwf (psi) Qg (MMSCFD)
3240 5.4
3187 12.0
3108 18.9
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0 50 100 150
P
w
f
(
p
s
i
)
Qg (MMSCFD)
IPR & TPR
IPR
@
3281
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
P
w
f
(
p
s
i
)
Qg (MMSCFD)
IPR & TPR OVERLAP WITH TURNER
IPR @ 3281
TPR @ THP
of 1500
Optimum point
Static Reservoir Pressure 3281psi
Wellhead depth 727m MDRT
Well bottom depth 2170m MDRT
Well Depth (measured) 1443m
SPE 155356 7
Nodal analysis:
IPR construction:
Initial IPR at Ps =3281 :
Future IPR at Ps =3000psi, 2700psi, 2400psi, 2100psi.
TPR Construction for THP of 1631psi and 1500psi:
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0 50 100 150
P
w
f
(
p
s
i
)
Qg (MMSCFD)
IPR
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0 50 100 150
P
w
f
(
p
s
i
)
Qg (MMSCFD)
FUTURE IPR'S
IPR @
3281
IPR @
3000
IPR @
2700
IPR @
2400
8 SPE 155356
Critical Flow rate Graph overlaps with IPR and TRP Based on TURNER MODEL:
Conclusion:
For the well the intersection of IPR for a static reservoir pressure of 2100 and TPR curve for a THP of 1631 psi falls to the left
of the intersection of IPR and turner model curve. This is where this well will encounter the liquid loading problem as the
optimum rate is less than the critical flow rate as predicted from the turner model.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0 50 100 150
P
w
f
(
p
s
i
)
Qg (MMSCFD)
IPR & TPR
IPR @ 3281
IPR @ 3000
IPR @ 2700
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0 50 100 150
P
w
f
(
p
s
i
)
Qg (MMSCFD)
IPR & TPR OVERLAP WITH TURNER
IPR
@
3281
IPR
@
3000