BACK-PRESSURE TESTS ON.

GAS-CONDENSATE WELLS f
ABSTRACT
A method is proposed for the determination of baekpressure tests on gas-condensate wells. It is a modification of the regular back-pressure test conducted on lowpressure dry gas wells, as outlined.in Bureau o f Mines
Monograph 7.' A modification is required due to the
presence of liquid in the well stream and the error in

Weyn~outh's friction formula as noted by Miller.' Determinations of sand-face pressures from well-head
measurenlents are obtained from published data on densities of gases and pressure drop due to flow. Necessary
precautions to be observed in making well-head measurenlents are outlined.

INTRODUCTION

The back-pressure test on g a s wells is a result of the

gas industry's search during the past decade f o r a reliable standardized method of determining the ability
of gas wells to produce gas. Many people have contributed t o its development, and a comprehensive report
on the subject by Rawlins and Schellhardtl was made
available
1936 with the publication of B z t r e w ~ of
Mines Mo7logrnpk 7 : "Back-Pressure Data on NaturalGas Wells and their Application to Production Practices," which h a s become the standard guide and reference source on the subject.
The method is basically sound in theory, and has
been proved practical in actual use. However, all t h e
original development of the method w a s done on wells
which were of relatively low pressure and liquid hydrocarbon content. With the advent of the deep highpressure gas-c6ndensate wells, the method, without
modification, could not be applied with a n y g r e a t reliability. A modified method, identical in general principle, is proposed. This method is discussed herein.
The principle of the back-pressure test is t h a t t h e
general steady-st'ate equation of flow of a n y g a s well,
is of the form:
Q = C ( P f 2- Pe2)" . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Where:
Q = rate of flow a t a sand-face pressure of Ps.
P. = sand-face pressure a t a r a t e of flow, Q.
Pi = reservoir pressure.
C = a constant f o r ,any given well.
n z a constant f o r any given well.
The modified method assumes equation (1) to apply. The presence of liquid saturation i n the reservoir
has been shown by Rawlins and Schellhardt,' Leverett
and ~ e w i s , ?and others to change the effective permeability; but, a s the change in amount of liquid saturation with reduced flowing pressures is approximately

* S t a t e of Louisiana D e l ~ a r t n ~ e noft Conservation Division

of Alinerals Baton Rouge. La : remcbved. Apr. 1942,' t o C r u f t
Laboratory Hnrvard University. Cambridge, Mass.; removed.
Peb. 1943: 'to Radiation Laboratory, &Infisnchusetts I n s t i t u t e of
Technology. Cambridge, Mass
? Presented a t sprlng meeting, Southwestern District, Division of Production. Dallnci. Texas, Beb. 26-27, 1042.
P i g ~ ~ r rrefer
s
t o R E F E R E N C E S on p. 86

linear over the normal drawndown pressure range, and

a s the change in effective permeability is also approximately linear over this same range, i t follows t h a t one
might expect the characteristic flow equation (1) of a
gas-condensatG well to have a smaller value of the exponent ?z and the coefficient C than i t would have if i t
were a d r y g a s well.
Difficulties arise in insuring stabilized flow i n the
well, and in determining sand-face pressures.

~ t ~ h i l i z a t i oof
n

as-~ondeisate

Wells

As already mentioned, the general flow equation (1)

of a g a s well applies to the steady state, i.e., the well
must be stabilized. I n the simplest terms, sacrificing
rigor f o r the sake of simplicity, a well is stabilized
when both the r a t e of flow and well pressures individually become and remain constant. The reservoir itself,
depending on its permeability, porosity, fluid content,
a n d , configuration, requires a certain amount of time
to set u p stabilized flow. When the fluid gets into the
well bore, if i t is all g a s i t will flow u p the tubing to
the surface, and stabilized flow within the tubing will
he established in a matter of a few minutes. However,
if the fluid is p a r t liquid, a s in most gas-condensate
wells, this liquid will tend to be raised to the surface
by the g a s ; in other words, the liquid will tend to be
gas-lifted just a s in the case of flowing oil wells o r
artificial gas-lift oil wells. If the well is not flowed
hard enough, the liquid will not be lifted except in
erratic "slugs"-Land thus stabilization will be prevented. I t has been found by Flaitz and Parks: in
connection with .sampling gas-condensate wells, t h a t a
linear velocity of 15 to 20 f t per sec i n the tubing is
usually sufficient to insure stabilized flow. However,
the a u t h o r h a s found linear velocities of 6 to 10 f t per
sec sufficient to give stabilized flow f o r back-pressure
tests on wells with gas-oil ratios of approximately
25,000 cu f t per bbl. These figures cannot be taken
exactly, a s a lot depends on the gas-oil o r gas-condensate ratio; the s n ~ a l l e rthe ratio, the higher is the r a t e
of flow necessary to insure stabilized flow. The important point is t h a t there i s a certain minimum r a t e

of flow below which a gas-condensate well will not

stabilize. I n most wells with 2t-in. tubing this minimum
r a t e of flow is a t least 3,000,000 cu f t per day. The
following formula is convenient f o r determining linear
velocities in connection with these rule-of-thumb criteria
f o r stabillzed flow:
Linear velocity (feet per second) =-Go QTZ . . (2)
Pd'
i n which the symbols have the same meaning and units
a s used later in the paper.
Wells with tubing set high above the producing formation a r e prone to stabilize slowly, and some require
several days' flow before they stabilize. I n general,
there a r e several factors which may b e - u s e d to note.
the presence o r absence of stabilization. The r a t e of
flow and well-head pressures should be recorded every
15 min. I t would be desirnble to have the gas-oil ratio
every 15 min also, but lt is not practical t o measurethe small amount of condensate produced into a lease
tank in t h a t short a time. A small calibrated tank is
very helpful i n t h ~ connection.
s
If t h e separator i s t h e
type t h a t dumps the same volume every time, the r a t e
of condensate production may be obtained by tilnlng the
dump intervals. If t h e dump intervals remain constant
over a period of time, a s well a s the r a t e of g a s flow
a s indicated by the orifice meter, then it follows t h a t t h e
gas-oil ratio i s remaining constant-which is a requirement of stabilized flow. The dunlps of the separator
show u p on the orifice-meter c h a r t by a small decrease
in t h e differential, so t h a t a convenient record is automatically available. Observations of t h e liquid level
in t h e separator gage glass also can be used in a similar
manner. A fluid meter on t h e outlet of the separator to
measure t h e condensate would be a better alternative
t o obtain the gas-oil ratio in small intervals, b u t such
a n installation is not common.
If the gas-oil ratio, r a t e of g a s flow, and well-head
pressures become and remain constant, stabilized flow
exlsts. The difficulty comes in knowing when they a r e
constant, and the only reliable way is to determine
them often and thus follow the behavior until no
changes a r e noticed. Observations a t longer intervals
can be misleading, and do not give enough background
t o judge if stabilization e x ~ s t s .

Determination of 'Sand-Face Pressure

Dlrect determination of sand-face pressure with a
bottom-hole pressure bomb avolds calculations employing well-head pressure, gravlty, conlpressibility, temperature, r a t e of flow, and size and length of tubingwhich elimination is very desirable. However, there a r e
certain disadvantages also. I n many gas-condensate
wells a packer IS set between t h e tubing and t h e casing;
and, in order to malntain the seal, a considerable portion of the weight of t h e tubing rests upon the packer.
This weight also causes the tubing t o bend or "corkscrew" a t sufficiently s h a r p angles a t places to make
running a bomb exceedingly difficult or impossible. The
bomb usually will go down without trouble, a s i t will
naturally assume the best position under gravity to get

down the tubing; but, i n c o m ~ n gup, the wire line will

only pull f r o m a fi:ed
position, which in many cases
will not fix t h e bomb a t t h e best angle t o get through.
A second disadvantage, in t h e case -of flowing bottomhole-pressure tests, is the hazard due to t h e possibility
of the bomb being shot u p t h e tubing a t the high r a t e s
of flow w h ~ c ha r e required f o r stabillzed flow. The degree to which this possibility i s a disadvantage and
hazard depends upon t h e experience of the operator.
A third disadvantage is t h a t a liquid level usually
will exist in a closed-in gas-condensate well which
makes t h e determination of ,reservoir pressure, Pf, unreliable unless t h e pressure gradient of the liquid and
its height can be determined. I n a good many cases the
tubing is more t h a n 100 f t above the producing sand,
and the liquid is not detected. The height of condensate
which one might expect in the hole is shown by t h e
- following formula:
.

.~c~lzeve
the symbols have t h e following meaning and
value f o r a typical example:
Example
H = h e ~ g h of
t condensate in tubing ( f e e t ) . .
145
L = length of tubing o r depth of reservoir
(feet) .......................... 10,000
P = average tubing pressure ( p s i ) . . . . . . . . 4,000
T = average tubing temperature (deg Rankine) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
610
Z = average compressibility factor. ........
0.9
R = gas-condensate ratio in tubing (standa r d cubic feet per b a r r e l ) . . . . . . . . . . 100,000
On t h e basis of a liquid gradient of 0.4 psi per foot
and a g a s gradient of 0.1 psi per foot, the foregoing
example of 145 f t of liquid would cause a n e r r o r of
43.5 psi. Of course, when the well i s shut In and the
bottom-hole ,pressure becomes reservoir pressure, the
Ilqu~d and g a s lnlght be expected to r e t u r n to t h e
equilibrium single-phase, except a s disturbed by t h e
gravitational effect and temperature gradient in the
tubing; but a long tlme probably is required, before
equilibrium is reached. However, when bottom-holepressure ~neasurementsdetect a liquid level a n d allow
t h e determination of all its gradient
and height,
- . backpressure tests based on such nleasurements a r e the .
most reliable and most accurate.
I n those cases where bottom-hole pressure bombs cannot be used satisfactorily f o r back-pressure tests, calculatlon of sand-face pressures f r o m well-head pressures, a s herein described, have been found satisfactory.
The calculation of sand-face pressures f r o m wellhead pressures involves the consideration of t h e
weight of t h e gas-condensate column and t h e pressure
drop due t o flow. The weight of t h e colun~nis calculated by means of t h e "theorem of reduced states,"
based upon the pseudocritical temperatures and pressures and compressibility factors of Standing a n d
K a t z 5 f o r hydrocarbon gases containing more t h a n 83
per cent of combined methane a n d heptanes plus (sum
of mol per cent of methane, heptanes, and heavier

fractions). Although there is a certain aniount of condensat~onIn the tubing, densities arrived a t by this
method have not deviated appreciably from measurements obtained by pressure-depth measurements in the
tubing. Moreover, the calculated sand-face pressures
a r e only subject to about one-fourth the error in the
decsity. P ~ ~ e s s u rdrop
e
due to flow is calculated according to Miller?
Monogru:pl~ 7 ' proceeds to calculate the sand-face
pressure from the surface pressure by first obtaining
P,, which is a fictitious pressure t h a t would be the
sand-face pressure according to Weyniouth formula if
the gas column weighed nothing. I t then arrives a t the
'actual sand-face pressure by considering PI the surface pressure and adding the weight of the column of
gas, using a correction factor F to account f o r the pressure drop 111 the tubing due to flow (PI - Pla). Rigorously, such a procedure is not correct, but In many cases .

the error so incurred i s small. W h a t is more important,

this method leads to cumbersonle and lengthy calculations.
Hereinafter is derived a n analysis in which the pressure drop due to flow and the weight of the column of
g a s a r e calculated simultaneously f o r each increment
of length' of the pipe, and the sand-face pressure then
arrived a t by integration over the total length of the
pipe. This derivation could s t a r t fronl the fundamental
differential equation of fluid flow, but the following
approach will he more familiar.
Starting with the Weyinouth fonnula:
Q = 1.090 M

.\i

(PI2--PM2)dh5Z
LTG

,. ..........(4-a)

Q = rate of flow, million cubic feet of g a s per day

a t 60 deg F, 10 oz above 14.4 psi, absolute.
P I = inlet pressure, psi, absolute.
P, = discharge pressure, psi, absolute.
d zz internal diameter of pipe, inches.
G = specific gravity of g a s condensate (air z 1):
L = length of pipe, feet.
T = flowlng temperature, d e g Rankine (deg F+
,460 deg).
Z = compressib~lityof g a s condensate.
M = correction factor according to Miller?
Equation (4a) can be written,

S u b s t ~ t u t l n gfor d ( R 2 ):

I n thk same differential length of pipe dL,the pressure drop due to the weight of the column of g a s clPtut.
is given by:

520 P
w h e r e p = density of (ideal gas) a i r = 0.07633 14.7 T
lb per cu ft.
Substituting f o r 71:
I
0.018751 PG dL.
dPWt. =
TZ
I n the differential length of plpe dL, the total pressure drop is equal to the pressure drop due to flow
plus the weight of the column of g a s or:

I n equation ' ( 6 ) let

Then :

which is a non-linear differential equation reducible to

linear form.
Integrating :

w h e r e : a and b contain T and 2,which a r e functions of

L. Although approsinlate linear functions of L may be
! and 2, the final solution of the differential
used for P
equation 1s of a form not practical f o r convenient calculation. T and 2, therefore, a r e assumed constant;
and average values a r e used in the final equation.
Equation (7) t,hen becomes:

when L = 0,P

= P J r ; and,

therefore, c = PI2+ ag

Therefore :
p
2

= p w ? e 2 b L + &(c21,~.-1),

b
which may be written in the form:

PI = V P w Z + R ,where R = 1.090dsM '

which may be expanded by the "binomial theorem" into
the infinite series:

I n a differentla1 length of pipe dL, the pressure drop

due to flow dPF is given by:

I n equation (8-a) just derived, which is the one used

to calculate sand-face pressures, a factor III is in-

cluded to correct the Weymouth formula according to

Miller.' Miller's correction has been calculated for several sizes of pipe, and is shown in Fig. 1, where the
correction factor M
1

Q
= -is
Q30

plotted a s the ordinate and

the actual rate of flow, Q a s the abscissa.

Substitution of PW,G, Z, T, L, M, and d in the derived equation allows'the calculation of Psa. I t will be
noted that no differences of squ'ares are involved in the
calculation, which simplifies it considerably.

Determination of ' ~ r a v i and

t ~ Compressibility

,
, which
z

The ratio G

cause some condensate has already dropped out in the

separator. However, an approximate value of G may
be obtained by adding the weight of the condehsate to
the gas and estimating the increase in volume as shown
hereinafter. The formula for G [equation ( 9 ) ] is arrived a t by taking 1.cu f t of separator gas of gravity
Go and adding to i t the condensate produced with it.
This causes both an increase in weight and volume.
The second term of the numerator represents the increased weight, and the second term of the denominator represents the equivalent increased volume.

is the ratio of gravity to

compressibility of the gas-condensate mixture a t a

given temperature and pressure, is the ratio of the
weight of 1 cu f t of the gas-condensate mixture a t
that temperature and pressure to the weight of 1 cu f t
of a i r a t the same temperature and pressure, a i r being
considered a perfect gas.
G is not the gravity of the gas from the separator,
nor is Z the compressibility of the separator gas be-

5.6146

Where:
G,
. G,
R
62.42

= separator gas gravity (air = 1 ) .

= specific gravity of condensate (water = 1).
= gas-oil ratio, cubic feet per barrel.
= weight of 1 cu f t of water, pounds.

Correction Factor for Weymouth Formula for 2-In. and 2%-111. Tubing and 6-In. Casing
(After Miller ').

FIG. 1

0.07633

= weight

of 1 cu f t of a i r a t 760 mm and 60
deg F , pounds.
5.6146 = cubic feet in 1 bbl (42 U.S. gallons).
200 = approximate cubic feet of gas equivalent to
1 cu f t of condensate.

Fig. 2 shows the correlation of Standing and Katz'

between gravities of gases containing more than 83 per
cent of combined methane and heptanes plus, and
pseudo-critical pressures and temperatures. Almost all
gas-condensate systems fall in this class, and the use
of Fig. 2 is much simpler than the computation of
pseudo-values from reservoir or composite flow analyses,
which are not always available. With the pseudocritical values obtained from Fig. 2, reduced pseudopressures and -temperatures may be calculated which
are used in Fig. 3 to obtain the compressibility factor
Z. Fig. 3 is the correlation of Standing and Katz;
based on actual density measurements of gases a t the
higher pressures and temperatures, and is a revision of
the older compressibility charts based on the extra-

temperatures, and Z is the arithmetic average compressibility used in equation (8-a). ZB changes very
slowly a s the assumed Z changes, so that only two or
three trials are necessary to arrive a t the proper Z
to give the arithmetic average of Zn and ZW.

Example Back-Pressure Tests Using Proposed

Method
Table 1 shows the back-pressure test data on a gascondensate well and calculations by the proposed method.

Compressibility Factor as a Function of Pseudo-reduced Pressures and Temperatures (After Standing and
Katz 9).
FIG. 3

Pseudo-critical Temperatures and Pressures of Hydrocarbon Gases Containing More Than 83 Per Cent'
Combined Methane and Heptanes Plus (After Standing and Katz
FIG. 2
").

polation of low-pressure determinations using methane

a s a guide.
In the derivation of equation (8-a) it was pointed
out that Z and T were assumed constant, and average
values would be used in applying it. I t appears that an
arithmetic average between the compressibility a t the
well-head pressure and temperature, ZW, and the compressibility a t the sand-face pressure and temperature,
Zs, gives a sufficiently accurate average. However, in
order to determine Zn, it is necessary to know the
sand-face pressure. Thus, a trial-and-error method must
be resorted to. A graphical solution by the use of
Fig. 4, a s shown in the calculations in Table 1, simplifies the trial-and-error method considerably. The value
of fG Lo r the well under test is located a s the abscissa
T
of Fig. 4, and the various values of P for different
Pw
values of the parameter Z read as the-ordinate. T is
the arithmetic average of the reservoir and well-head

Chart for Determining Average Compressibility Factor.

FIG. 4

Fig. 6 shows the plot of these calculated data. Fig. 5

gives the results of pressure-depth surveys made in
wells "A" and "B" with a bottom-hole pressure bomb
while the wells were shut in. I t will be noted that the
last point of well "B" indicates an encounter of liquid,
which point has been connected with the reservoir
pressure calculated in Table 1. Well "A" had been
blown before the bomb was run in, and shows a very
small difference in Fig. 5 between the reservoir pres-

TABLE 1
Back-Pressure Test on a Gas-Condensate Well: Well "B"

G, = 0.610 (air = 1 ) .
G , = 0.756 g per in].
Elapsed Time
between Flows
(Hours)

L = 9,946 f t of 21-in. tubing.

Reservoir temperature = 206 deg F.

(MMCF *
P e r Day)

Tubing Pres-

sure -(PSI,
Absolute)

Well-Head Gas-Oil Ratio

Temperature (Cu Ft P e r
Bbl)
(Deg F )

24 a f t e r shut-in.. . . . . . . . 0
12 a f t e r opening.. . . . . . . . . 3.907
0.1 a f t e r shut-in. . . . . . . . . 0
2.4 a f t e r opening. . . . . . . . 4.860
1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.055
2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.297
0.2 after shut-in.. . . . . . . . 0

R,,,,,,,,,

Remarks

........
Not stabillzed
Changing choke
Stabilized
Stabilized
Stabilized

= 27,487 cu f t per bbl.

Pseudo-critical temperature, T,, = 387 deg Rankine.

Pseudo-crltical pressure, PI,, 662 psi, absolute.
B [equations (8-a and 8-c) ] = - 29 444 = 0.1923.
2.441 3.

Xllllio~l c r ~ h i cfeet

DETERMINATION O F Z FOR P m = 3,622 AND Tlu = 98+460 = 558 DEG R A N K I N E

Assumed Average Z . .

...................

0.800

0.900

0.890

P ',
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3094
P,
P,
P,,' = 5.471
P,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.164
T,' = 1.442
T.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.721
Z,=0.810
Z , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.978

1.2710

1.2741

6.953
1.721
0.968

6.971
1.721
0.970

Average of Z,Oand Zs................... 0.894

0.889

0.890

(P, o r
-

l'rillletl pressure?; slid teulperatr~res a r e I I S ~ U ~ O - r a 1 u t . s

DETERMINATION O F . SAND-FACE P R E S S U R E S

P.' (10") . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PI' (10') . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2918
Pf3- P,' ( l o u ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,614.2
PI-Pa .....................

......
21.2946

......
4,614.7
0

21.0737
21.2946
0.2209
4,590.6
24.1

20,7598
21.2946
0.5348
4,556.3
58.4

20.7344
21.2946
0.5602
4,553.0
61.7

20.4935
21.2946
0.8011
4,475.2
'
139.5

Pressure-Depth Survey

01;

Closed-in Gas-Condensate Wells.

FIG. 5

Back-Pressore Tests on Gas-Condensate Wells by Proposed Method.

FIG. 6

sure calculated and t h a t obtained by extrapolating

the pressure-depth curve on the assumption of no liquid
level. It should be pointed out t h a t shut-in well-head
pressures should only be taken a f t e r the well is flowed
a t a stabilized rate. The well-head pressure should then
be observed until it reaches a maximum, which it
usually will do in a few minutes. The test data of
well "B" in Table 1 show three closed-in pressures.
The last two a r e valid, and the reservoir pressures
calculated therefrom compare satisfactorily. The first
shut-in pressure is low because of the liquid level shown
in Fig. 5.

CONCLUSIONS
A proposed method is outlined for the determination
of sand-face pressures from well-head measurements,
using published data on densities of gases and pressure drop due to flow. A sufficient variety of gascondensate wells has not yet been tested by this method
to warrant any general conclusions a s to its applicability, but it is hoped t h a t this paper will stimulate further investigation and consideration of this
method.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to express his gratitude to the
Division of Minerals, Department of Conservation, State
of Louisiana, for permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES
1

T. Hnwlin rind 51 A . Schellhardt. " B a e k - P r ~ 8 ~ 1 1 rDe a t a

give souiies of other permeabili

ng Gas-Condensate
a J. ,,M. Plaitz a n d 4 . S. P a r k s , "Sarn~111
Wells. Petroleum Tect~nology (T. P . 1.37' h i 4 [ 5 ] (1941).
B ~ n i n r n i n Miller. "Deterrnin i n c Gas-Transmission-Line Capacity " ( i n 8 13-[ll] 22 (l!J37).
" 1 . ' ~ . Standing a n d D. I.. Tiatr. "Density of N a t u r a l Gases,"
Petrolrum Technologl/ (T. P. IYZ3) 4 [4] (1941).

DISCUSSION

J. M. Flaitz (Hudson Engineering Corporation, Houston, Texas) (written) * : The methods presented in
B u r e a u of Mines Monograph 7 have become a standard
for the petroleum industry, and are accurate for dry
natural-gas wells. However, M o n o g ~ a p h7 methods a r e
applicable to gas-condensate wells only, with modifications which consider the fact t h a t two phases exist
after the fluid leaves the producing formation.
The existence of two phases necessitates revised
methods of calculating the weight of the fluid column.
It is probably not practical to standardize on a method
of calculating this factor, a s i t can be done in several
different ways depending upon the available data and
the convenience of obtaining data in any particular case.
The important point is to consider the two phases.
The value of M a s shown in Fig. 1 of the paper (or
Presented by S. It. Buckles, 1Iumble Oil a n d Hefining Co.,
Ilouston, Texas.

some equivalent) is an important consideration. Actual

data on friction drop through tubing in gas-condensate
wells was reported by R. J. Sullivan of the Humble
Oil and' Refining Company a t the 1941 gas-measurement short course of the University of Oklahoma. Mr.
Sullivan found t h a t the actual friction drop is between
calculated values using W e ~ o u t h ' s and Nikuradse's
formulas, and his data a r e probably the best available
if specific data on a well a r e lacking.
The paper is valuable in t h a t i t points out the many
factors t h a t must be given consideration when conducting back-pressure tests and using back-pressure
data on natural-gas wells producing condensate, and
the paper is timely because inaccurate and misleading
back-prcssure data on gas-condensate wells a r e now
prevalent in the industry.
M. A. Schellhardt (Bureau of Mines, Bartlesville,
Okla.) (written) :-)$ Mr. Vitter's report points out several of the factors t h a t distinguish the application of
the back-pressure method for studying the producing
characteristics of relatively low-pressure dry gas wells
from its application to the study of those of gas-condensate wells. However, the high pressure and large
fluid-delivery capacity t h a t characterize many gascondensate wells make i t all the more desirable t h a t
capacity be determined under conditions t h a t do not
exceed the capacity of normal operating equipment and
do not prove hazardous to the well.
Although the gaging of subsurface pressures in oil
and g a s wells has become common practice during the
interval since the study reported in B u r e a u of Mines
Monograph 7," the use of subsurface gages in many
gas-condensate wells is limited.
Equipment in many gas-condensate wells provides for
the production of fluid deliveries either from the tubing
or from the annular space. However, few wells are
equipped with the heaters or high-pressure separators
usually required to obtain satisfactory flow tests if the
fluid is produced from the annular space, and flow tests
usually a r e restricted to deliveries from the tubing.
Pressures can be gaged a t the productive zones in many
wells only if the wells a r e closed in o r operated a t
rates of fluid delivery that will not affect the normal
position of the subsurface gage. Hence, if the delivery
capacity of gas-condensate wells is to be gaged by the
back-pressure method, often i t is desirable to compute
pressures a t the productive zone corresponding to the
various operating conditions imposed on the well.
Data obtained during the course of the study reported in Monograph 7 indicated that, if velocity in the
flow string was materially higher than the normal
velocity of the flow of gas through pipe lines, values
of the pressure drop due to friction calculated by
Weymouth's formula were higher than the values of
the actual pressure drop. The discrepancy was discussed on p. 163 and 164 of the report.

t l'resented bv Charles B. Carnentrr. Bureau of hlines. Dallas.

Texas.
t. Published by permission of t h e director, Bureau of Mines.
I)el>artment of t h e Interior.
" b7igures r r f e r to REFEREPI'CES on p. 87.

J. William Ferguson? of the Canadian River Gas

Company, developed a method for computing, simultaneously, the effect of the weight of the gas column
and the friction of the flowing gas in the flow string,
which facilitated the computation of subsurface pressures in relatively dry natural-gas wells. The method
proposed by Vitter for calculating subsurface pressures in gas-condensate wells is of particular interest,
however, because it not only includes the effect of well
temperature and deviation of the compressibility from
the law for ideal gas, but also includes a correction
developed by Millers which reduces the discrepancy
induced by applying Weymouth's formula for caleulating pressure-drop values under the conditions that
prevail during many flow tests on gas wells.
Fortunately, tubing packers are not installed in
many wells, and operating pressures a t the productive
zone can be calculated from well-head pressures gaged
on the closed-in string, thus eliminating the necessity
for considering the pressure drop caused by the flowing
medium.
Considerable progress has been made by some operators on the development of gas-condensate well-testing
technique, and under favorable conditions the results
obtained by the application of the back-pressure method
for gaging wells of this type have been satisfactory
for the purpose for which they were desired.
Vitter pointed out that columns of liquid often were
present in closed-in wells.
Information that has been obtained by subsurface
pressures and fluid samples during the progress of a
study of the problem of gaging the delivery capacity
of gas-condensate wells, now being conducted by the

Bureau of Mines in cooperation with the natural-gas

section of the American Gas Association, shows that
condensed water also is present in many wells. Tests
on some wells have indicated that a condition of
equilibrium may prevail for 24 hours or more, under
which well-head pressures and fluid deliveries are relatively constant, although a n accumulation of hydrocarbon liquid and water sufficient to form a column in
the tubing two or three hundred feet above the productive zone was present in the well.
The relationships of the pressure-fluid delivery data
that were presented by Vitter a r e similar to those
obtained by tests on some wells under relatively stabilized pressure-flow conditions, but before they were
subjected to high rates of fluid withdrawals for prolonged periods to insure the removal of accumulated
water before subsequent flow tests were conducted.
The delivery capacity of many wells is large compared to the capacity of the equipment installed to
facilitate normal operations, and often i t is feasible to
obtain pressure-flow data over only a very limited
proportion of the potential operating range of the
wells. Hence, the presence of small quantities of unaccounted-for liquid may change the results of backpressure tests materially, and the importance of removing all accumulated liquids from wells to be tested
cannot be overemphasized.

REFERENCES
E. L. Rawlins and M. A. Schellhardt "Back-Pressure Data
on NfFural-Gas Wells and their ~ p p l i c n t i 6 nto Productlon Practices Bur. Mines Yonograph 7 , reprinted (1939).
j. W. Ferguson, "Calculations o f Back-Pressure Tests on
Natural-Gas Wellm." O i l Ga8 J . 37 1361 47 (1939).
3 Benjamin
hIiller. "Determinin
Gas-Transmission-Line Capacity," Gas, 22-0,78-9, Nov. (1987).
1