Scholars' Mine

Masters Theses

Student Research & Creative Works

Fall 2014

Evaluation of PROSPER for modeling long lateral

gas well productivity in toe up, toe down, horizontal
well geometry
Abdussalam Mahmoud Mohamed

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses

Department:
Recommended Citation
Mohamed, Abdussalam Mahmoud, "Evaluation of PROSPER for modeling long lateral gas well productivity in toe up, toe down,
horizontal well geometry" (2014). Masters Theses. Paper 7334.

This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research & Creative Works at Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. For more information, please contact weaverjr@mst.edu.

EVALUATION OF PROSPER FOR MODELING LONG LATERAL GAS WELL

PRODUCTIVITY IN TOE UP, TOE DOWN, HORIZONTAL WELL GEOMETRY

by

ABDUSSALAM MAHMOUD MOHAMED

A THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the

MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

2014

Approved by
Shari Dunn-Norman, Advisor
Ralph Flori
Baojun Bai

 2014
Abdussalam Mahmoud Mohamed
All Rights Reserved

iii

ABSTRACT

Most horizontal wells are not truly horizontal and may be drilled toe-up or toedown to follow geological formations or in an attempt to keep the well from loading up.
Challenges in directional drilling may also lead to horizontal gas wells with undulating
wellbore profiles. This wellbore profile creates natural traps for heavy fluids in the lows
and light fluid in the highs, which may result in chocked production. Hence, there is an
interest in determining the best wellbore trajectory toe-up, horizontal, or toe-down for
well unloading.
This study evaluates the capability of the well productivity software PROSPER to
model potential liquid loading as a function of toe-up, toe-down or horizontal well
geometry, using data for two wells located in a tight gas reservoir in Arkansas. The wells
used in this study have different geometry but were drilled from the same pad. Using the
well trajectory data and fluid PVT properties, a fractured well model is constructed and
matched to the wells production. Once the match is achieved, the lateral is inclined (toeup) and declined (toe-down) at 5 degree intervals. A parametric study is performed using
two different water gas ratios for each inclination angle. The fluid gradient along the
length of each lateral, including flow regime, slip velocity, and holdup are tabulated, and
the likelihood of liquid loading is noted by applying general screening criteria.
Results from this work illustrate a slight advantage for the toe-up configuration
based on the screening criteria applied. However, it should be emphasized that standard
well productivity software is limited in modeling this problem. Those limitations are
identified in the work.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, all praise is due to Almighty God Allah for his blessings,
grace, and guidance. I must also express my sincere thanks to my advisor, Dr. Shari
Dunn-Norman, for her guidance, financial support, patience, and encouragement
throughout the completion of this work. I extend my deepest appreciations to my
committee members, Dr. Ralph Flori and Dr. Baojun Bai, for their constructive criticism,
encouragement, and insightful comments.
Acknowledgements and thanks are given to Doug Melton, Ralph Roesler, and
Matthew Strom from Southwestern Energy Company for permission to use their data.
I also thank the Petroleum Engineering Program at Missouri University of Science and
Technology for providing the software used in this study.
My particular gratitude is extended to Abdulmohsin H. Imqam for teaching me to
use the PROSPER software. Thank you also to the Ministry of Higher education Libya
for funding my scholarship. I convey my gratitude to all of my friends and fellow
graduate students, faculty, and staff within the Geosciences and Geological and
Petroleum Engineering Department for their assistance throughout my Masters study.
Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my family, particularly
my mother, for their continued support and encouragement. Their unfailing patience and
understanding have always strengthened me, helping me stay on track. Achieving my
degree goals would have been very difficult without them. I dedicate the results of this
study in loving memory of my father, Mahmoud Ali (1943-2003) and my sister,
Hana Mahmoud (1986-2014).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................... xii
SECTION
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1. OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... 4
1.2. THESIS OVERVIEW ........................................................................................ 5
2. MULTIPHASE FLOW .............................................................................................. 6
2.1. FUNDEMENTALS OF MULTIPHASE FLOW ............................................... 6
2.1.1. Gas-Liquid Flow. ..................................................................................... 6
2.1.2. Flow Regime (Sub Vertical Well). ........................................................ 11
2.1.3. Flow Regime (Deviated Well). .............................................................. 11
2.1.4. Flow Regime (Near to Horizontal Well). .............................................. 11
2.2. GAS WELL LOADING ................................................................................... 11
2.2.1. Recognizing Liquid Loading. ................................................................ 12
2.2.2. Pressure Drop through a Horizontal Well for Gas Flow........................ 12
2.2.3. Gas Unloading Velocity and Rate.......................................................... 13
2.2.4. Predictions of Liquid Loading. .............................................................. 15
3. HORIZONTAL WELL ............................................................................................ 17
3.1. HORIZONTAL WELL CLASSIFICATIONS ................................................ 17
3.2. GEOMETRY OF HORIZONTAL WELLS..................................................... 19
3.3. HORIZONTALLY COMPLETED WELLS.................................................... 20
3.3.1. Perf and Plug Fracturing. ....................................................................... 20
3.4. PRODUCTIVITY OF HORIZONTAL WELLS ............................................. 22
3.4.1. Behavior of Fluid Effect. ....................................................................... 22

vi

3.4.2. Effect of Productivity Parameters. ......................................................... 24

3.4.3. Derivation of Analytical Solutions. ....................................................... 28
3.4.4. IPRs of Gas Horizontal Well. ................................................................ 33
3.4.5. Gas Well Deliverability Testing. ........................................................... 33
3.5. CHALLENGES IN LONG LATERAL HORIZONTAL WELLS .................. 34
3.5.1. Wellbore Design Profiles (Waviness and Undulations). ....................... 35
3.5.2. Fluid Identification Challenge. .............................................................. 35
4. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 37
4.1. EMPIRICAL STUDIES ................................................................................... 37
4.2. THEORETICAL STUDIES ............................................................................. 42
5. MODELLNG FAYETVILLE SHALE WELL ..................................................... 47
5.1. BACKGROUND OF STUDY AREA LOCATION ........................................ 47
5.1.1. Well L and M .................................................................................. 48
5.2. BRIEF BACKGOUND ABOUT USED SOFTWARE ................................... 51
5.2.1. About PROSPER. .................................................................................. 51
5.2.2. Applications of PROSPER Software. .................................................... 52
5.2.3. Required Data and Information to Run PROSPER. .............................. 53
5.2.4. Modelling Scenarios. ............................................................................. 53
5.2.5. Modelling Assumptions and Constrains. ............................................... 54
5.2.6. Workflow Procedure. ............................................................................. 54
5.2.7. Step by Step Building PROSPER Modelling. ....................................... 56
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 66
6.1. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF PROSPER RESULTS .................... 66
6.2. GRADIENT MATCHING ............................................................................... 75
6.3. WGR SENSITIVITY ....................................................................................... 80
7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 83
7.1. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 83
7.2. FURTHER WORK RECOMMENDED .......................................................... 84
APPENDICES. ................................................................................................................. 85
A. ORIGINAL BOREHOLE DEVIATION SURVEY DATA ................................. 85

vii

B. MODIFIED BOREHOLE DEVIATION SURVEY DATA ................................. 90

C. PRODUCTION AND FLOWING PRESSURES DATA ................................... 103
D. GRADIENT MATCHING CALCULATIONS .................................................. 108
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 157
VITA .............................................................................................................................. 162

viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

Page

1.1. Sketch of a horizontal geometry, toe-up and toe-down well profiles .......................... 1
1.2. Undulation problems within the horizontal well ......................................................... 3
2.1. Major flow regimes for Liquid-gas systems in horizontal pipes ................................. 7
2.2. Gas-liquid flow regimes in vertical pipes .................................................................... 8
2.3. Example of steady-state flow regime map for a horizontal pipe ................................. 9
2.4. Flow structures changing with deviation ................................................................... 10
3.1. Types of horizontal kick-off designs ......................................................................... 18
3.2. Horizontal well trajectory; Ideal and real .................................................................. 18
3.3. Typical horizontal well and long-lateral well profiles ............................................... 19
3.4. Completions for horizontal well multiple fracturing ................................................. 21
3.5. Types of flow (radial) regimes may develop due to wellbore storage effect............. 23
3.6. Pressure/time history for a well produced at constant rate ........................................ 24
3.7. Shape factor for various closed, single-well drainage areas ...................................... 27
3.8. Schema for Giger, Joshi, Renard & Dupuy, and Economides correlations ............... 28
3.9. Basic parallepiped model with appropriate coordinates ............................................ 29
3.10. Schematic of Furui ................................................................................................... 29
3.11. Log-Log plot of gas flow rate against PR2 Pwf2 ....................................................... 34
3.12. Flow zones in a deviated well .................................................................................. 35
3.13. Multiphase flow regime map at 0 and 45 degrees well deviation............................ 36
4.1. The effect of deviation on both holdup and flow ....................................................... 38
4.2. Wellbore trajectories in openhole section .................................................................. 39
4.3. Pseudo-cumulative production for trajectories: Simulation study ............................. 40
4.4. Liquid holdup animated snapshots and 3D plots for the toe-up and undulating
trajectories during shut-in and flow conditions .......................................................... 41
4.5. Wellbore Design Profiles ........................................................................................... 43
4.6. Over horizontal, or toe-up, approach ......................................................................... 45
4.7. A typical wellbore trajectory completed in the Barnett Shale region ........................ 45

ix

4.8. A comparison between the toe elevation in Eagle Ford and the toe elevation in
Woodford ................................................................................................................... 46
5.1. Remarks the location and area of study ..................................................................... 47
5.2. Location map of Wells# L & M ................................................................................. 48
5.3. 3D Well Configurations using Kingdom Software 8.7.1 ........................................... 49
5.4. Zoom-in the drilled later section of wells L & M ...................................................... 49
5.5. PROSPER main menu ............................................................................................... 52
5.6. Flowchart used for designing PROSPER trajectory cases ......................................... 55
5.7. Interface of PROSPER System Summary .............................................................. 56
5.8. Interface of PROSPER PVT input data .................................................................. 57
5.9. PROSPER Equipment input screen ........................................................................... 58
5.10. Input interface of PROSPER - Deviation Survey .................................................... 59
5.11. TVD vs. MD plot of Well# M (Original Deviation Survey) ................................... 60
5.12. TVD vs. Lateral displacement plot of Well# M ...................................................... 60
5.13. Input interface of PROSPER Downhole Equipment ............................................ 61
5.14. Software interface of Geothermal gradient input data ............................................. 61
5.15. An illustration of flow model - Horizontal Well: Transverse Vertical Fractures diagram ....................................................................................................................... 62
5.16. Input interface of PROSPER Selection of Reservoir Model ................................ 63
5.17. Input interface of PROSPER Horizontal with Transverse Vertical Fractures
Reservoir Model ......................................................................................................... 64
5.18. Inflow Performance Plot for Well# L ...................................................................... 65
5.19. Inflow Performance Plot for Well# M ..................................................................... 65
6.1. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for the original hole of Well# L .......................................... 66
6.2. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 100 degree toe-up case of Well# L ................................ 67
6.3. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 95 degree toe-up case of Well# L .................................. 67
6.4. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for true horizontal 90 degree case of Well# L..................... 68
6.5. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 85 degree toe-down case of Well# L ............................. 68
6.6. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 80 degree toe-down case of Well# L ............................. 69
6.7. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for the original hole of Well# M ......................................... 69
6.8. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 100 degree toe-up case of Well# M ............................... 70
6.9. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 95 degree toe-up case of Well# M ................................. 70
6.10. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for true horizontal 90 degree case of Well# M ................. 71

6.11. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 85 degree toe-down case of Well# M .......................... 71
6.12. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 80 degree toe-down case of Well# M .......................... 72
6.13. Comparison Plot of IPR vs. VLP curves for all cases of Well# L ........................... 73
6.14. Comparison Plot of IPR vs. VLP curves for all cases of Well# M .......................... 74
6.15. Gradient Match plot for Well# L with all availavble correlations in PROSPER .... 75
6.16. Gradient Match Plot for all available correlations in PROSPER software .............. 76
6.17. Gradient Match plot for Well# L with selected number of correlations within
PROSPER .................................................................................................................. 77
6.18. Screenshot of PROSPER Gradient Matching option ............................................... 78
6.19. Typical Flow Patterns in Lateral (Sutton, 2014) ...................................................... 79
6.20. Results of WGR sensitivity using original survey of Well# L ................................ 80
6.21. Results of WGR sensitivity using original survey of Well# M ............................... 81

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.1. Gas well lateral orientation applied in US major horizontal plays .............................. 2
3.1. Horizontal well classifications ................................................................................... 17
3.2. Well completion and logging for different types of horizontal wells ........................ 20
3.3. The productivity index equations for a horizontal well ............................................. 30
3.4. Inflow Performance relationships for horizontal GAS wells ..................................... 33
5.1. Fluid PVT Description of Wells # L & M ................................................................. 57
5.2. Tubular Data of Wells# L & M.................................................................................. 59
5.3. Input data of Horizontal Well Transverse Vertical Fractures model ...................... 63
6.1. Summary of Well# L PROSPER results.................................................................... 72
6.2. Summary of Well# M PROSPER results................................................................... 74
6.3. Tubing correlation parameters for the original case of Well# L ................................ 77
6.4. Results of sensitivity study of Water Gas Ratio for Well# L .................................... 81
6.5. Results of sensitivity study of Water Gas Ratio for Well# M ................................... 82

xii

NOMENCLATURE

Symbol

Description

Angle of deviation along the wellbore

Vgc

Critical Gas Velocity,

rw

Wellbore radius

rw

Effective wellbore radius, inch

Formation thickness, ft

hw

Contributing horizontal section

Kv

Vertical Permeability, mD

Kh

Horizontal Permeability, mD

Kv/kh

Vertical to horizontal permeability ratio

Sw

Formation Water Saturation

Fluid Viscosity, cp

Formation volume factor, volume/volume

reh

Drainage radius for the horizontal well, ft

Length of the horizontal well, ft

Lx

Drainage width orthogonal to horizontal well

xe

Length of reservoir in x direction, ft

ye

Length of reservoir in y direction, ft

Permeability anisotropic factor, fraction anisotropy k h /K v

Half the radius of the drainage ellipse, ft

Pr

Reservoir static pressure, psi

Volumetric average pressure of reservoir, psi

Pwf

Flowing bottomhole pressure, psi

Pcf

Flowing casing pressure, psia

Ptf

Flowing tubing pressure, psia

Cross-sectional area perpendicular to flow, ft2

xiii

Rock compressibility, psi-1

Flow rate, STB/d

Porosity, fraction

CH

Geometric (Dietz) shape factor is based on the area (aeq heq)

pD

The calculated dimensionless pressure

Sp

Partial penetration skin factor

Reservoir skin factor includes completion or damage skin effect

SM

Mechanical Skin factor, dimensionless

2.718 (exponential of Eulers constant)

1. INTRODUCTION

Horizontal wells are constructed by first drilling and casing a vertical borehole,
followed by drilling a build-up section, which then transitions into the horizontal lateral.
The exact trajectory depends on the depth of the formation, but all drilling plans assume a
smooth lateral will be drilled. Most horizontal well mathematical models assume that the
lateral section will be perfectly horizontal and parallel to the top and bottom boundaries
of the reservoir.
With the increase in the number of horizontal wells drilled today to exploit shale
gas reserves, many companies are purposefully drilling wells slightly toe-up or toedown (Figure 1.1), either due to formation dip, or with the thought of potentially helping
the well to avoid liquid loading for as long as possible. Industry has begun to question
whether there is an optimal configuration for the lateral section of horizontal wells, and
relatively little published research has been conducted to address this question.

Figure 1.1. Sketch of a horizontal geometry, toe-up and toe-down well profiles

Rob Sutton, presented the statistical study shown in Table 1.1 at the 2014 Gas
Well Deliquification Workshop in Denver, Colorado. Sutton discussed trajectory data
from 26,270 surveys of wells drilled in seven US gas shale basins.

Table 1.1. Gas well lateral orientation applied in US major horizontal plays
(Sutton, 2014)
Play
Available Surveys Toe Down %
Toe Up %
Undulating %
Austin Chalk

1,204

61.1

36.0

2.9

Barnett

12,755

28.4

41.3

30.2

Eagle Ford

1,643

38.5

52.6

8.9

Fayetteville

4,074

23.4

57.7

18.9

Haynesville

2,627

42.6

35.8

21.6

Marcellus

2,121

42.6

36.7

20.7

Woodford

1,846

27.4

56.7

15.9

These data illustrate that there is no single, agreed orientation applied in US shale
reservoirs. For example, over 60% of Austin Chalks 1,200 surveys were drilled with a
toe-down orientation. In Fayetteville (with over 4,000 surveys) and Woodford (with
1,800 surveys), 57% of the surveys were drilled with a toe-up lateral orientation. Since
Sutton (2014) did not correlate any production performance data for these well
orientations, the data are mainly useful to understand the frequency of orientations used.

In most cases, the lateral section of a horizontal well is rarely truly horizontal,
because of the variations in formation strengths encountered by the directional drilling
tools. The lateral may drift upward or downward for a short distance before redirections
are made. Some sections may even drift completely out of the productive formation.
When this occurs, directional drillers employ corrective measures to steer the well back
to a desired direction. In extreme cases this leads to a snake like lateral with many
undulations along the lateral section of the wellbore (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2. Undulation problems within the horizontal well (King, 2009)

The final shape and inclination of the horizontal wells lateral section may
influence the ultimate production of the well, particularly as most wells are producing
liquids and gas. Figure 1.2 is the worst case situation because the two places may act as
traps for liquids or solids, holding backpressures. High points may even act as simple gas
locks, adding several tens of psi backpressure. This type of well path cannot be kept
adequately unloaded unless the flow rate is sufficient to remove all static liquids.
Ultimately this leads to lost well production.
Similar production issues may arise from either a toe-up well geometry, where
fluids may tend to collect in the heel of the wellbore, or in toe-down geometry where
the toe may become a liquids collection point. While the severity of this situation is only
now being studied, liquid holdup even in true horizontals may be a problem. An
additional vertical increase, or drop, of only a few inches in a lateral section is all that is
needed to stratify the wellbore fluids, in slow velocities.
Commercial software, such as PROSPER, PERFORM and WELLFLO, utilize
fundamental two phase flow correlations and mechanistic models to predict two phase
flow behavior in the wellbore and tubing. These software tools allow the user to model
different wellbore geometries, but it is unclear how the liquid holdup indicated in such
models when lateral section geometry changes.

This research seeks to investigate the performance of commercially available well

productivity/systems analysis software in predicting gas well production as a function of
changing horizontal well lateral geometry. The work seeks to answer the questions, Can
well productivity software be used to predict liquid loading as a function of well
trajectory? and Can well performance be improved by changing the angle of well
inclination?

1.1. OBJECTIVES
Since most well performance modeling employed today utilizes well productivity
software such as PROSPER, PERFORM, WMS or WELLFLO, the objective of this work
is to evaluate a software tool of this nature to determine if this software detects
differences in gas/water fluid flow behavior from well toe to heel, for toe-up and toedown horizontal well laterals of varying angles. For the main modeling work, the
software package PROSPER will be used, as it is readily available and a popular program
utilized in industry.
A PROSPER well model will be constructed for two existing long lateral gas
wells, using industry data, and the lateral well geometry will be varied, to examine the
effect on well production. Thus, the specific objectives of this work include:

To explore how PROSPER software models long lateral horizontal gas

production and liquid flow

To determine how the model predicts gas and water production rate from the well
against changing toe angles

Understanding the effect of fluid properties and completion configuration as the

fluids are produced to the surface,

Determining the contribution of each changing angle case and its impact of
pressure drop using the IPR model.

1.2. THESIS OVERVIEW

This first section begins with introducing the importance of horizontal well.
It also outlines the objectives and overview of this work.
Section 2 covers fundamentals of multiphase flow for vertical and horizontal
orientation. Flow regimes and correlations are introduced, along with gas well liquid
loading.
Section 3 provides a brief overview of horizontal wells, including classifications,
geometry, types of completion, summaries the equations of productivity indices for a
horizontal well, and challenges in deviated and long lateral gas wells.
Section 4 is a literature review of existing work regarding toe-up or toe-down
horizontal well flow, and other relevant literature for this project.
Section 5 presents a background of study area location, about used software and
its applications, modelling scenarios, workflow procedure, and the step by step procedure
for the main three proposed cases.
Section 6 summarizes the results discussion of all suggested well deviations.
Section 7 provides conclusions and recommendations of this work.

2. MULTIPHASE FLOW

2.1. FUNDEMENTALS OF MULTIPHASE FLOW

One of the biggest problems in oil and gas well production is measurement and
interpretation of multiphase flow (i.e. oil/water, gas/water or gas/oil/water). Multiphase
flow complicates the prediction of pressure drops, and hence predicting what a well, or an
entire production system, can produce. The advent of increased high-angle and horizontal
wells has only served to make this task harder.
Multiphase flow is affected by well orientation. Physical multiphase flow
characteristics, and hence the prediction of pressure drops, are different in purely vertical
wells, horizontal laterals and inclined pipes. Researchers have studied multiphase flow in
pipe extensively. A complete summary of all historical work is beyond the scope and
purpose of this document. A brief summary of important aspects of multiphase flow are
included here, to help familiarize the reader.
Although this research focuses on gas/water production, some discussions
included here also refer to phenomena in oil/water multiphase flow. The phenomena cited
are similar in gas/water systems although exacerbated by gas flow. In gas wells, the two
phase flow problem is also commonly referred to as gas well loading.

2.1.1. Gas-Liquid Flow. A typical feature of multiphase (gas-liquid) flow is the

occurrence of radically different flow regimes depending on the gas-liquid ratio and the
gas and liquid velocities.
This occurs because, when more than one phase is flowing in a pipe, gravity
ensures that the light phase travels at a faster speed than the heavier phase. The speed
difference is called the slip velocity. This phenomenon generates a difference between
the phase flow-rate ratios and the phase concentrationsfor example, in an oil-and-water
system, the water cut is always smaller than the water holdup. In a system with
multiphase flow, buoyancy due to pipe deviation causes different density phases to

separate with a mixing layer of dispersed bubbles in between. Separation into at least two
different immiscible phases with a mixing layer in between leads to what is called a flow
structure (Catala et al., 1996).
In horizontal gas wells, as many as six different flow patterns or regimes can exist
(Aguilera et at., 1991). Many different names have been applied to these flow patterns or
regimes, but the most widely accepted names and descriptions were presented below and
illustrated in Figure 2.1. Initially, in a liquid-gas system, when small bubbles of gas are
uniformly distributed, the flow regime is called Dispersed bubble flow. When some of
these bubbles aggregate to form larger bubbles, it leads to plug flow and slug flow.
Annular flow is characteristic of gas flowing at high velocities in the center of the
borehole with the liquid confined to a thin film on the wellbore walls. Stratified flow
occurs in horizontal wells when two or more phases are separated due to the gravity.
Wavy flow results in stratified systems when interference occurs between the two phases
travelling at different velocities. Even under constant flow conditions, flow patterns can
vary along the length of the horizontal well.

Figure 2.1. Major flow regimes for Liquid-gas systems in horizontal pipes
(Baldauff et al., 2004)

The flow regimes in vertical flow wells are the same as those in horizontal flow
except for the absence of stratified flow and the occurrence of churn flow as an
intermediate regime between slug and annular flow. Furthermore, the slug flow regime is
now somewhat different, and displays bullet-shaped slugs that remain more or less
centered in the wellbore (Jansen & Currie, 2004).
These regimes (Figure 2.2) depend on the fluid properties, the size of the conduit
and the flow rates of each of the phases. The flow regime can also depend on the
configuration of the inlet; the flow regime may take some distance to develop and it can
change with distance as (perhaps) the pressure, which affects the gas density, changes.
For fixed fluid properties and conduit, the flow rates are the independent variables that
when adjusted will often lead to changes in the flow regime.

Figure 2.2. Gas-liquid flow regimes in vertical pipes (Bratland, 2013)

Simulating multiphase pipe flow of any deviation or inclination involves

determining what kind of flow regime is occurring along the length of the wellbore, and
then performing pressure loss calculations for that particular regime. Flow regime maps
of the sort shown in Figure 2.3 are useful when to gain insight into the mechanisms
creating the flow regimes.

Figure 2.3. Example of steady-state flow regime map for a horizontal pipe
(Bratland, 2013)

The flow patterns and their locations shown in Figure 2.3 were developed for
horizontal flow only. Each multiphase flow regime map relates to a specific range of well
orientation (horizontal only, vertical only, or inclined), and the map is created by a
correlation or mechanistic model of the flow problem. It has been observed that stratified
or wave flow cannot exist in a pipe that is inclined upward at only a few degree. When
upward inclination occurs, the liquid is held back by gravity forces and the flow pattern
changes to slug. Conversely, if the pipe is inclined downward, stratified flow is
predominate, and slug flow will not occur at the conditions predicted by the horizontal
maps (Beggs, 1991). Many studies have been made to try to include the effect of pipeline
angle on the flow pattern.
It is known that flow structures develop at the interface between the two phases
flowing, and these flow structures affect the behavior of the system and resulting pressure
losses. Even with a relatively simple two-phase system, such as water and oil, the effect
of borehole deviation on mixing and flow structure is complicated. Holdup and velocity

01

profiles are determined by the pipe deviation, average water holdup and the size of the
mixing layer. At least three types of flow structures can be defined based on the pipe
deviation angle (Figure 2.4 A).

A) Different flow regimes for different pipe angles

B) Flow Regime (Sub Vertical Well)

C) Flow Regime (Deviated Well)

D) Flow Regime (Near to Horizontal Well)

Figure 2.4. Flow structures changing with deviation (Catala et al., 1996)

00

2.1.2. Flow Regime (Sub Vertical Well). In nearly vertical wells up to 20

(Figure 2.4B), the mixing layer is large and extends across the pipe diameter. There is a
smooth varying mix of oil and water across the pipe. As pipe deviation is slightly
increased, gravity ensures there is a higher concentration of oil in the upper section.
2.1.3. Flow Regime (Deviated Well). In moderate to highly deviated wells of
20 to 85 (Figure 2.4C), portions of the pipe have monophasic fluid flow. The
multiphase fluids segregate by gravity with the heavy fluid at the bottom of the pipe. The
mixing layer moves towards the top of the pipe, and this domain has the most complex
flow structure with large gradients of velocity and holdup distributions. At low flow
rates, backflow may occur, where water is recirculated. The water velocity will be
negative in the lowest portion of the pipe.
2.1.4. Flow Regime (Near to Horizontal Well). In nearly horizontal and
horizontal wells, from 85 to 95, the mixing layer becomes small, almost disappearing at
90 (Figure 2.4D). The flow is monophasic oil at the top of the pipe and monophasic
water at the bottom of the pipe. As soon as the well deviates slightly from 90, the
monophasic oil and water streams flow at different velocities.
In summary, modeling a multiphase flow has been and continues to be a
challenge. The reason for this is that the pipe flow has a flow regime that is very
dependent on the flow rate of the different phases, the pipe characteristics, and the angle
of the pipe. Ultimately, factors influencing the flow regimes include borehole deviation
and proportion of each phase; relative differences in phase densities, surface tension and
viscosity of each phase; and average velocity.

2.2. GAS WELL LOADING

Gas wells producing dry gas may have a low flowing bottomhole pressure
(FBHP), especially for low-rate wells. When liquids are introduced, the FBHP increases,
reducing drawdown and gas inflow. This is referred to as gas well loading. Liquids in
the gas may be produced directly into the wellbore or condense from vapor in the upper
portion of the tubing. The loading phenomena is related to overall wellbore fluid velocity.

02

The symptoms to look for include onset of liquid slugs at the surface of well,
increasing difference between the tubing and casing pressures with time, sharp changes in
gradient on a flowing pressure survey, and sharp drops in production decline curve (Guo
et al., 2007).
2.2.1. Recognizing Liquid Loading. Liquid loading is not always obvious. If a
well is liquid loaded, it still may produce for a long time. If liquid loading is recognized
and reduced, higher producing rates are achieved. Symptoms indicating liquid loading
include the following: sharp drops in a decline curve; onset of liquid slugs at the surface
of well; increasing difference between the tubing and casing flowing pressures (i.e., Pcf
Ptf) with time, measurable without packers present; and sharp changes in gradient on a
flowing-pressure survey.
The total flowing-pressure drop can be expressed as the sum of the pressure drops
from elevation (weight of the fluids), friction, and acceleration. For low-rate wells, the
acceleration term is very small, and, with correctly sized tubing, the friction term is also
small. The elevation, or gravity term, becomes larger when liquid loading occurs (Lea, &
Nickens, 2004).
2.2.2. Pressure Drop through a Horizontal Well for Gas Flow. Pressure drop
calculations for gas wells are more complicated than those for oil wells. This is because
in gas wells, due to friction, the temperature of gas may increase as it travels through the
wellbore. Additionally, gas properties such as density and viscosity are strongly
dependent upon gas pressure and temperature. This may result in a changing pressure
drop per foot length of a well along the entire length (Joshi, 1991).
One of the simplest equations to estimate pressure drop due to flow of dry gas in a
horizontal pipe is the Weymouth equation.

p12 p22 d 16/3

qg 15320
gTzL

0.5

03

where:
qg= gas flow rate, scf/D
p1= pipe inlet pressure, psia
p2= pipe outlet pressure, psia
L= pipe length, miles
T= average temperature, R
z= average gas compressibility factor
g= gas gravity (air gravity = 1)
d= pipe diameter, inch

2.2.3. Gas Unloading Velocity and Rate. Minimum unloading velocities

represent the pipe velocity needed to effectively unload liquids from gas wells for
continuous flow. Efficient production is maintained by producing the well at a
sufficiently high rate and tubing velocity to keep all of the produced liquids cleaned out
of the tubing. If the rate and velocity fall below the minimum unloading rate for either
water or condensate, then the liquids will begin to build up in the tubing and eventually
choke off the well to extremely low or no flow conditions.
The unloading velocity and rate is calculated for two liquid phases being 100
percent produced condensate and 100 percent produced water. The actual unloading
minimum for wells that produce both water and condensate will fall somewhere between
these two unloading minimum limits. The unloading velocity can be either entered
directly or calculated using Turner's correlation (droplet model). As a default, it is
suggested that the unloading minimum velocity for water is 7 feet per second and for
condensate it is 4 feet per second when not using Turner's correlation.
The velocity and corresponding rates calculated at these unloading minimum
velocities represent a theoretical minima on the tubing curve based on the theory of
Turner et al.

04

Turner (1969) unloading rate:

gunloading

3060 Vunl Pwh A

144 Twh 460 z

Coleman et al. (1991) (Modified Turner unloading velocity):

The calculation of the unloading velocity is made according to the wellhead

pressure.
For wellhead pressures less than 500 psig, the Coleman et al. equation is used:
0.25 L G
Vgc 1.593 lg
G0.5

0.25

For wellhead pressures greater than 500 psig, the Turner et al. method is used:
0.25 L G
Vgc 1.912
G0.5

0.25

where:
Vt = Unloading or critical velocity, ft/sec
lg = Water-gas or condensate-gas interfacial tension, evaluated at wellhead
conditions (dynes/cm)
l = Water or condensate density, evaluated at wellhead conditions (lbm/ft3)
g = Gas density, evaluated at wellhead conditions (lbm/ft3)
As default, the critical unloading velocity accounts for the angle correction
(considers the deviation) along the wellbore.

0.25 L G
Vgc 1.912
G0.5

0.25

sin1.7 90
0.740767

0.38

For both cases, coefficient is 1 for Turner, 0.833 for Coleman.

05

The gas critical is usually evaluated at the wellhead. It is clear that if there is no
liquid in the wellbore or the gas rate is high enough to lift the liquid upwards, then liquid
loading problem can be prevented or alleviated. Therefore, several approaches can be
used to reduce this problem; prevent liquids formation in the downhole, use smaller
tubing, lower wellhead pressure, use pump or gas lift, and foam the liquids (Lea, &
Nickens, 2004).
A rule of thumb developed from gas distribution studies suggests that when the
superficial gas velocity (superficial gas velocity = total in situ gas rate/total flow area) is
in excess of 14 ft/sec, then liquids are swept from low lying pipe sections (Lea et al.,
2003). To calculate gas flow rate needed to effectively unload condensate and water, may
choose to prescribe unloading velocities or use correlation to calculate them.
2.2.4. Predictions of Liquid Loading. As fluids move through production
string, changes in inclination and in the fluid properties (due to varying temperature and
pressure) cause different flow patterns along the production string. Heading occurs when
the gas flow velocity in a particular tubular or wellbore size is too low to carry the
entrained liquids. The liquid accumulates in the lowest point, holding a backpressure on
the formation corresponding to liquid density and height of the liquid column above the
formation.
Gas movement through the water occurs in slugs as (1) the pressure builds up; (2)
the gas unloads, often driving a slug of water ahead of it; (3) the pressure falls rapidly as
gas escapes and most of the water drains back. The cyclic nature of the heading causes
fluctuations of 50 to 300 psi or more in some wells.
Liquid Loading happens when the gas velocity drops below a certain gas critical
velocity, and the gas can no longer lift the liquids (hydrocarbon condensate liquid or
reservoir water) up to the surface. The liquids will fall back and accumulate at the bottom
of the well, reduce gas production, or even kill the well. Under certain circumstances
(low pressure, cool reservoir), liquid loading is controlled by downhole conditions rather
than wellhead conditions (Veeken et al., 2010).

06

Several measures can be taken to solve the liquid-loading problem. Foaming the
liquid water can enable the gas to lift water from the well. Using smaller tubing or
creating a lower wellhead pressure sometimes can keep mist flowing. The well can be
unloaded by gas-lifting or pumping the liquids out of the well. Heating the wellbore can
prevent oil condensation. Down-hole injection of water into an underlying disposal zone
is another option. However, liquid-loading is not always obvious and recognizing the
liquid-loading problem is not an easy task. A thorough diagnostic analysis of well data
needs to be performed.
Commercial well productivity software, such as PROSPER, includes standard
multiphase flow and PVT correlations and includes gradient matching, and calculation of
slip velocity which can be used to predict gas well loading.

07

3. HORIZONTAL WELL

Historically, most wells drilled were configured as a vertical or semi-vertical

wellbore intercepting the reservoir either perpendicular to the formation or at an angle
less than 90 degrees from horizontal. Horizontal wellbores are considered a special type
of well whereby the well strikes the reservoir at 90 degrees from vertical and extends a
borehole through the reservoir for production.

3.1. HORIZONTAL WELL CLASSIFICATIONS

Horizontal wells are categorized by their radius of curvature (buildup rates in the
well trajectory from vertical to horizontal) to reach horizontal. The industry commonly
refers to three main well types that dictate the drilling and completion practices required,
as shown in Table 3.1. These types of horizontal kick-off designs are illustrated in
Figure 3.1. As drilling distance and depths grow larger, the importance of accurate and
reliable directional methods becomes ever more important.

Table 3.1. Horizontal well classifications

Well Type

Build Rate (ft)

Radius (ft)

Long-radius

2 to 6 /100 ft

3,000 to 1,000

Medium-radius

6 to 35 /100 ft

1,000 to 160

Short-radius

5 to 10 /3 ft

40 to 20

08

Long Radius (~1,000-3,000 ft) {~2-6 deg/100 ft}

Kick off Point

True Vertical Depth (TVD)

Medium Radius (140~700 ft) {~8-40 deg/100 ft}

Short Radius (~20-40 ft) {~1.5-3 deg/ft}

End of Curve (EOC) or Heel

Final Total Depth (FTD) or Toe

Target Thickness

Lateral or Horizontal Hole 2000-5000 ft

300-400 ft

1500-2000 ft

Figure 3.1. Types of horizontal kick-off designs

Virtually, horizontal wells are rarely strictly horizontal (Figure 3.2) and today
with advances in drilling technology, it is possible to drill wells with different geometric
configurations.

Figure 3.2. Horizontal well trajectory; Ideal and real (Houze et al., 2011)

09

3.2. GEOMETRY OF HORIZONTAL WELLS.

Well diameter, well trajectory and shape within the reservoir have a significant
impact on well productivity, recovery and costs. The most increasing well geometry
aspect is the well profile within the reservoir as shown in Figure 3.3 that illustrate
horizontal well profiles used for different applications (Farahat, 2000). The position of
the lateral in the pay zone is based upon the character and reservoir quality of the rock
(Britt, 2009).

Figure 3.3. Typical horizontal well and long-lateral well profiles

The inclination of the wellbore may be toe-up/inclined upward (the end or toe
of the lateral set higher than the heel, or starting point of the lateral), flat (at 90 to
vertical), or toe-down/inclined downward (the end of the lateral below the heel).
Volumes of liquid produced, formation flow capacity and reservoir pressure are input
variables on toe-up or toe-down design (King, 2012).

21

3.3. HORIZONTALLY COMPLETED WELLS

As for horizontal well completion; openhole, openhole liner, or casing perforation
completion can be selected in accordance with the specific reservoir conditions and the
requirements of oil and gas field development (Renpu, 2011). There are two major casing
alternatives for a horizontal wellbore: openhole or cased and cemented. Included in
openhole completions are pseudo openhole equipped with uncemented casing liner (See
Table 3.2).

Table 3.2. Well completion and logging for different types of horizontal wells
Method
Short radius
Medium radius
Long radius

Completion

Logging

Openhole or slotted liner

No

Openhole, slotted liner or cemented and perforated liner

Yes

Slotted liner or selective completion using cementing and perforation

Yes

In a typical cemented and cased well plug and perf scenario, the deepest
interval at the toe of the well is perforated and treated first. A plug is then set above the
perforation cluster. The next stage is treated, a plug is set, perforations are added and
process is repeated until all intervals are stimulated (Aviles et al., 2013).
3.3.1. Perf and Plug Fracturing. In this approach, a perforation gun is deployed
by a coiled tubing (CT) unit or a pump-down wireline tool (perf and plug tool) into a
cased and cemented horizontal well. The perforation gun is designed to be able to
perforate more than one interval. The first location toward the toe is perforated, then the
perf and plug tool is pulled back to the next stage location and the fracture stage is
pumped through the annulus. Then, the borehole is cleaned after fracturing, and a
composite plug (made of gel, sand, gel and sand mixture, or other similar material) is
pumped through the perf and plug tool to isolate the first fracture interval from the rest of
the well. The well is then ready for the next stage of perforation and fracturing.

20

Figure 3.4 shows a completion structure for perf and plug fracturing (Economides
et al., 2013). When perforating horizontal wells to create multiple transverse fractures,
clusters of perforations are created spaced along the wellbore at the desired spacing of the
main fractures. Each cluster has multiple perforations spaced over a few feet of wellbore.
There are often several clusters treated at once during a fracture stage. For example, a
typical wellbore configuration when fracturing a shale well has three to five perforation
clusters spaced along an isolated 5001000 feet of wellbore receiving a fracture treatment
stage.

Pumpdown bridge plug perf gun completion

CT-deployed bridge plug perf and gun completion

Figure 3.4. Completions for horizontal well multiple fracturing (Economides et al., 2013)

22

The planned completion design in the study will be completed with cased and
cemented completion approach. Also, its reservoir has low permeability, and normally
the low permeability reservoir requires transverse fractures to provide adequate drainage
and deliverability from the reservoir.

3.4. PRODUCTIVITY OF HORIZONTAL WELLS

The analysis of horizontal well productivity requires, in principle, the same
techniques as are used for wells with a vertical completion over the reservoir interval.
However, the flow in the horizontal section gives additional complications. The pressure
falls from the toe of the well to the heel. Thus the drawdown, the difference between
the pressure in the well and the reservoir pressure, varies along the length of the well. The
rate of inflow into the well varies along the well (Jansen & Currie, 2004).
There are several potential problems that may limit the productivity increase. Skin
damage may be difficult to remove from horizontal wells. Also, an effective low vertical
permeability due to shales, etc., may mean that horizontal well length must be very long
to obtain sufficient productivity improvement (Lu, 1998).
Moreover, horizontal wells flowing a mixture of liquid and gas can exhibit
difficult multi-phase flow behavior. Since the well is not perfectly horizontal, liquid can
accumulate in lower sections of the well, and cause slugging, or shutting-off of
production. In both vertical and horizontal wells with long completion intervals, the
formation properties will vary, resulting in different inflow performance at different
points of the well. In uncased holes, and especially uncased horizontal wells, production
logging techniques still need to be developed to detect these differences.
3.4.1. Behavior of Fluid Effect. For both vertical and horizontal wells, steadystate and unsteady-state pressure-transient testings are useful tools for evaluating in-situ
reservoir and wellbore parameters that describe the production characteristics of a well
(Lu, 1998).

23

When a horizontal well starts to flow, an elliptic-cylindrical flow regime

develops. This eventually changes to a pseudo-radial flow pattern as illustrated in (a)
within Figure 3.5, and this continues until the effect of the nearest boundary is felt at the
wellbore. Once the pressure disturbance reaches a no-flow boundary hemi-cylindrical
flow develops (b). If the length of the horizontal well is much greater than the formation
thickness, a linear flow regime may develop for a short period after the effects of the top
and bottom no-flow boundaries have been felt. As the pressure disturbance continues to
propagate into the reservoir, the influence of the length of the well on the overall flow
regime diminishes to the point where the well can be assumed to be a single drainage
point. A third period of radial flow pattern then starts (c) (Nurmi et al., 1996).

Figure 3.5. Types of flow (radial) regimes may develop due to wellbore storage effect
(Nurmi et al., 1996)

It is useful to distinguish between the four different time periods when dealing
with methods for analyzing and predicting the performance of producing gas wells: (1)

24

early time, (2) infinite-acting time, (3) transition time, and (4) stabilized time are
illustrated in Figure 3.6. Stabilized time occurs after all drainage-volume boundaries are
fully felt and the well enters steady-state or pseudosteady-state flow (Holstein & Lake,
2007).

Figure 3.6. Pressure/time history for a well produced at constant rate

(Holstein & Lake, 2007)

3.4.2. Effect of Productivity Parameters. The factors which affect pressure

drop between reservoir and the wellbore such as length, permeability, reservoir thickness,
drainage area, fluid viscosity and perforation percentage are also factors affecting
productivity index in horizontal wells.

Length: The productivity index (PI) will increase with increasing lateral length.

Thus, the longer well length, the higher the productivity index (Emmanuel, & Oloro,
2013). The length of a horizontal well should be designed based on the geometry of the
drainage area (length, width, formation thickness), the type of reservoir fluid, and the
well structure (new well or reentry sidetrack). The actual production mechanism and

25

reservoir flow regimes around the horizontal well are considered more complicated than
those for the vertical well, especially if the horizontal section of the well is of a
considerable length (Ahmed, 2010). Dikken (1990) discusses the effect of total well rate
as a function of horizontal tunnel length and shows that the total well rate increases with
increasing well length for various values of well diameter. Regardless of diameter, all
wells must produce at the same critical rate per foot and converge on a single rate versus
length profile at low horizontal tunnel lengths. Therefore, horizontal well length is the
primary factor in productivity enhancement (Economides et al., 1998).

Wellbore radius: In calculating the gas flow rate from a horizontal well, Joshi

introduced the concept of the effective wellbore radius rw into the gas flow equation. The
effective wellbore radius is given by:

rw'

with:

reh L 2
a 1 1 (L 2a)2 h (2rw )

4
L
a 0.5 0.25 2reh L

hL

0.5

,and

K h Kv

Permeability (Anisotropy): Horizontal wells are more suitable for reservoirs with

high vertical permeability, Kv as thus will increase horizontal productivity index. It also
shows that production rate decreases with increase in anisotropy, kH / kV , the ratio
of horizontal to vertical permeability (Cho, & Shah, 2001).

Thickness vs. Position (Well Eccentricity): Horizontal wells are more productive

in thin reservoirs than in thick ones. In a thick reservoir, a horizontal well behaves like a
vertical well because of the small exposure of the wellbore to the formation (Elgaghah et
al., 1996). According to the study conducted by Ozkan (1988), it has been shown that the
productivity of a horizontal well is not sensitive to the eccentricity of the well (the
deviation of the location of a horizontal well from the mid-point of the vertical distance
between the top and the bottom boundaries of the formation). This indicates that small
deviation from horizontal that might occur during the drilling do not have a considerable

26

effect on the productivity of a horizontal well. Because of gravity effect, the horizontal
well near the bottom of the reservoir produces more than a horizontal well the same
distance away from the top of the reservoir. In general, a horizontal wells performance is
not significantly affected by eccentricity as long as the well is located between 25% from
the reservoir center (Joshi, 1991).

Drainage Area: Dietz (1965) has shown that all well/reservoir configurations that

depend on drainage shape and well position have a characteristic shape factor. Thus, to
account for irregular drainage shapes or asymmetrical positioning of a well within its
drainage area, researchers used a symmetrical geometric shape to describe the horizontal
drainage area to simplify the solution. Some of the IPR types require that the wellbore be
in the center of the reservoir. Other types specify the location of the wellbore. Figure 3.7
shows tDA values and shape factors for some commonly encountered (approximate)
drainage shapes and well positions

27

Figure 3.7. Shape factor for various closed, single-well drainage areas (Dietz, 1965)

Formation damage (Skin): Productivity index of a well is affected by skin, and the

higher the skin the lower the productivity index and vice versa. The global skin S is the
result of; Damage skin factor (SM), Perforation skin factor (Sp), Partial penetration factor
(Spp), Inclination skin factor (Si), and Injection skin factor (Sinj). Thus, it is the sum of the
skin factors formely defined: S S M S P S PP Si Sing
When the contrast between horizontal and vertical permeability (anisotropy) is
small the geometry of a horizontal well will induce a negative skin components that
reflects directly why we would want to drill horizontal wells in the first place. The

28

mechanical skin SM is the difference of the total skin ST and the geometrical skin SG
(Houze et al., 2011).
In summary, in horizontal wells performance analysis requires knowledge of the
four parameters, namely, producing length, L; permeability ratio, Kv/Kh; horizontal
permeability, Kh; and skin factor, SM. In practice, estimation of values of these
parameters is difficult and in most cases one can only estimate them approximately
(Joshi, 2000).
3.4.3. Derivation of Analytical Solutions. Researchers have made several
attempts to describe and estimate horizontal well productivity. Several models have been
used for this purpose; Borisov (1964) introduced one of the earliest models, which
assumed a constant pressure drainage ellipse in which the dimensions depended on the
well length. This configuration evolved into Joshis (1988) widely used equation, which
accounted for vertical-to-horizontal permeability anisotropy (Figure 3.8). It was adjusted
by Economides (1991) for a wellbore in elliptical coordinates. Babu and Odeh (1989)
used an expression for the pressure drop at any point (the effect of horizontal well
position in a reservoir), and they assumed that the well is parallel to the y-axis of the
parallelepiped model (Figure 3.9). Guo et al. (2007) pointed out that Joshis equation was
optimistic for high-productivity reservoirs due to neglecting the effect of frictional
pressure in the horizontal wellbore.

Figure 3.8. Schema for Giger, Joshi, Renard & Dupuy, and Economides correlations

29

Figure 3.9. Basic parallepiped model with appropriate coordinates

(Economides et al., 1998)

All these models relied on IPR equations derived by looking at the plan view of a
horizontal well and as such failed to consider the upper and lower no flow boundaries on
the steady state equations. Furui et al. (2003) solved the flow problem in the cross-section
area perpendicular to the wellbore by deriving a model from the side view of the well
(Figure 3.10), looking in the axial direction of the well and assuming that fluids produced
from the well travel horizontally from the outer boundaries and radially in the vicinity of
the well Kareem & Omeke, 2012).

Figure 3.10. Schematic of Furui (Furui et al., 2003)

31

Several IPR options are available for modeling the horizontal Reservoir. Table 3.3
Summaries the equations of productivity indices for a horizontal well.
Table 3.3. The productivity index equations for a horizontal well
Author(s)

Borisov
(1964)

Equation

Jh

qh
pr p wf

2 kh h

4r h h
oBo ln eh ln

L L 2 rw
2 kh L

Jh

Giger,
Reiss
&
Jourdan
(1984)

Joshi
(1988)

Reservoir
Drainage
Area Shape

1 1 L

2
r

L
eh ln h S
oBo ln
2 r
L
w

2reh

2 kh h
Jh
2

h 2

2
L
2 2

a a

2 h ln 2

oBo ln
L

hr
L

2
2

Type
of
Flow

Elliptical
geometry

Steadystate
flow

Elliptical
geometry,
or
Rectangle
with two
semi-circles
drainage
area

Steadystate
flow

Elliptical
geometry

Steadystate
flow

Rectangular
geometry

PseudosteadyState
Radial
Flow

Rectangular
geometry

PseudosteadyState

where:
0.5
4
L
a 0.5 0.25 2reh L ,and K h Kv

Babu
&
Odeh
(1989)

Jh

Jh

Goode
&
Kuchuk
(1991)

0.00708 b kx kz

Lh

oBo ln x ln C H 0.75 SP S
rw

0.00708 kh h

oBo PwD
k x k z Sm
2L1/2

where:

pwD

h
2L1/2

k x 8h
zw zw h kx
ln ' cot

kz rw
2h L1/2 kz

2 L1/2 ky kz
ps
Q

Sm

30

Table 3.3. The productivity index equations for a horizontal well (cont.)
Author(s)

Equation

h h
h
oBo cosh1 X ln

L 2 rw'
L

where:

1 rw

rw' =

Joshi
(1992)

Guo
&
Evans
(1993)

Circular, or
elliptical, or
rectangular
geometry

Steadystate
flow

Circular
geometry

PseudosteadyState

Elliptical
geometry

Steadystate
flow

Rectangular
geometry

PseudosteadyState

and K h Kv
2 kh h

Jh
Economides
(1991)

Type
of
Flow

2 kh h

Jh
Renard
&
Dupuy
(1991)

Reservoir
Drainage
Area Shape

2
L

a a
2 h ln h
oBo ln

L
L rw 1

2 kh h
Jh
2

2
L

a a
2 h ln h S
oBo ln

M
L
L 2rw

Jh

Jh

6 kh h

a
cosh 2b

o Bo arc cosh

sin L

2b

q
pr p wf

kxe

887.22o Bo pD

xe
2 L

where:
Economides
(1994)

k x ky k z , p D

xeC H
4 h

xe
2 L

h
2 rw

sx , sx ln

h 2z
1 2z 1
z
se w w ln sin w
L h 2 h 2
h
2

h
se
6L

Rectangular
geometry

PseudosteadyState

32

Table 3.3. The productivity index equations for a horizontal well (cont.)
Author(s)

Jh
Permadi
(1995)

Elgaghah,
Osisanya
&
Tiab
(1996)

Reservoir
Drainage
Area Shape

Equation

Type
of
Flow

0.00708 kh hL

y
h
oBo xe ye
ln e
L
2rw

S
L

Elliptical
geometry

0.00708 kh hL

Jh

h
ye h 3

oBo 0.523 xe ye
h ln
S
L

2rw L 4

qo
2 kh h
Jh

pr p wf
h

Combined
ln 2r

circular and
C 1 2

rectangular
oBo w 0.25 H
L rw h
L

geometry
h

Jh

qo
pr p wf

Helmy
&
where:
Wattenberger
keq
(1998)

beq

ky

Steadystate
flow
Semiste
adyState

Steadystate
flow

0.00708 keq beq

1 4A

1
oBo ln eq2 lnC H SP
2 rweq 2

b , A eq aeq heq , rweq =

1
2

kx

rw 4

kz

kz

Rectangular
geometry

Steadystate
flow

Rectangular
geometry

Steadystate
flow

Rectangular
geometry

Steadystate
flow

kx

, and k eq 3 kx ky kz

Jh
Furui
(2003)

Kareem
&
Omeke
(2012)

0.00708 khL

h Yb

oBo ln

1.224 s

rw ( 1) h

where: Yb is the distance to the drainage boundary in the ydirection

0.00708 khL
Jh

Yb
h
oBo ln
s

2

rw 2( 1) h 2

33

3.4.4. IPRs of Gas Horizontal Well. Table 3.4 lists the common used equations
to calculate the flow rate for a horizontal gas well.

Author(s)

Year

Table 3.4. Inflow Performance relationships for horizontal GAS wells

Equation

1988

Qg

Joshi
(1988)

Reservoir
Drainage
Area
Shape

Type
of
Flow

2
kh h(pe2 pwf
)
2

2
L
a

2 h h

1424 g zT ln
ln

L
L rw ( 1) Elliptical

geometry
2

Steady
-state
flow

where:
0.5
4
L
a 0.5 0.25 2reh L ,and K h Kv

khL(pe2 pwf2 )

Furui
(2013)

2003

Qg

Yb

(1.224 s)

rw ( 1) h

1424 g zT ln

Steady
Rectangular
-state
geometry
flow

where: Yb is the distance to the drainage boundary in the

y-direction

3.4.5. Gas Well Deliverability Testing. The commonly used technique to model
the inflow performance of gas wells which known as the backpressure equation was
defined by Rawlins and Schellhardt in (1936). They noted that when the difference
between the squares of the average reservoir pressure and flowing bottomhole pressures
were plotted against the corresponding flow rates on logarithmic coordinates, they
obtained a straight line as shown in Figure 3.11. This led them to propose the
backpressure equation:

Qstd C P R Pwf2

with

0.5 n 1

34

The value of n in the backpressure equation reflects the ratio between laminar and
inertial-turbulent flowing pressure losses in the formation. If all pressure loss results from
laminar flow then n = 1.0. If all pressure loss results from inertial-turbulent flow then n =
0.5. This constraint on the value of n makes it possible to estimate a value for C by
assuming a reasonable value for n and then running simulations with varying values for C
until a match to the measured data is achieved. With other two-coefficient inflow
performance relationships, both coefficients must be varied when trying to obtain a
match, requiring an exponentially greater number of iterations (Jackson et al., 2011).

Figure 3.11. Log-Log plot of gas flow rate against PR2 Pwf2

3.5. CHALLENGES IN LONG LATERAL HORIZONTAL WELLS

Many deviated and horizontal wells have suffered poorer than anticipated
production at least partly due to wellbore design profiles, heading problems, multiphase
challenge, and flow regimes.

35

3.5.1. Wellbore Design Profiles (Waviness and Undulations). Most horizontal

well mathematical models which mentioned in the previous section assume that
horizontal wells are perfectly horizontal and are parallel to the top and bottom boundaries
of the reservoir. In general, horizontal wells are never perfectly horizontal, and will
always have a vertical deviation along their length. This vertical deviation can vary from
as little as 5 feet to dozens of feet along the length of the wellbore, depending on
lithology, structure, and ability of the drillers to control the drill bits attitude.
3.5.2. Fluid Identification Challenge. Due to the physical property (mainly
density) difference between liquid and gas, different flow patterns or flow regimes can
occur when gas and liquid flow simultaneously inside the pipeline
The problem of a static fluid layer in the horizontal is a problem even in flowing
wells. Anytime the flow rate from the well is not sufficient to create turbulence across the
whole wellbore, liquids and solids drop out quickly and flow may only move in a portion
of the wellbore, Figure 3.12 shows that is dependent on rate. The effect of the static
liquid on the formation is dependent on liquid invasion of the formation, relative
permeability and alternate flow paths. There is one clear conclusion, however: it cannot
help the flow of gas. At minimum, the formation pores at the wellbore contact remain
wetted with a high Sw and lower relative permeability to gas. Thus, the higher density gas
free fluids would down-flow on the lower side of the casing while the gas rich fluids
would be flowing up on the upper side of the pipe (King, 1998).

Figure 3.12. Flow zones in a deviated well

36

Multiphase-flow models describe the transport of gas and liquid (condensate and
water) in wells. Many models depend on the definition of flow regimes as functions of
gas and liquid velocities. The flow regimes can be visualized in so-called flow regime
maps, which typically depend on well deviation. Figure 3.13 shows example flow regime
maps for 0 and 45 degrees well deviation for the transient multiphase flow model for
specific set of data (Veeken et al., 2010).

0 degrees deviation (75 bara, 0.1 m ID)

45 degrees deviation (75 bara, 0.1 m ID)

Figure 3.13. Multiphase flow regime map at 0 and 45 degrees well deviation
(Veeken et al., 2010)

37

4. LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1. EMPIRICAL STUDIES

Researchers at both Schlumberger Cambridge Research (SCR), England and
Schlumberger Riboud Product Center (SPRC), Clamart, France performed flow-loop
tests and computational fluid-dynamics simulations to achieve a deeper understanding of
multi-phase -flow mechanisms in deviated and horizontal wells (Baldauff et al., 2004).
These experiments and simulations revealed the extreme sensitivity of liquid-liquid flow
regimes to wellbore deviation, particularly at or near horizontal orientation
The pictures in Figure 4.1, taken during the SCR flow-loop show this slippage
dependence. A 50-50 rate mixture was flown with water and oil. A blue dye was injected
into the water while a red dye was injected into the oil. Both phases moved at the same
speed in a perfectly horizontal pipe (90). The holdups were each 50%. The oil flowed
much faster and its holdup decreased significantly when the pipe was at 88 (i.e., going
uphill by only 2 tilt from horizontal). The situation was when the water moved downhill;
it moved much faster at 92. At a 70 well deviation, the oil travelled much faster and the
water fell back, creating recirculation.
In general, slip occurs in a multi-phase flow when one phase flows faster than
another phase. Increased slip that occurs between the phases leads to increased mixing at
the interface. As a result, the interface is not clearly defined. Researchers found that even
small deviations (e.g. less than 1 from the horizontal) have this same effect on a flows
behavior, particularly at low flow rates.
These laboratory experiments illustrate the challenge to obtain a representative
phase velocity when two phases (oil-water) are present. This is only magnified in gasliquid multiphase flow. The presence of gas in the wellbore introduces even more
complexity in the flow patterns.

38

Figure 4.1. The effect of deviation on both holdup and flow (slippage dependence around
the horizontal) (Baldauff et al., 2004)

39

Jackson et al. (2011) conducted a simulation study using validated, measured data
acquired from video-logging in a horizontal gas well. He analyzed the impact of well
profile on liquid loading behavior with various wellbore trajectories. Four comparable
wells with different openhole trajectories were selected. These wells were identified as
Toe Up, Toe Down, Complex, and Undulating. In order to make a comparison
of the results more meaningful, researchers used the trajectory and tubular data from the
original well for all models, and normalized the openhole sections of each trajectory to
start at the bottom of the tubing. Jackson et al. (2011) also scaled the length of the
openhole section for each trajectory so that each section was 2500 ft (760 m) long,
consistent with the length of the openhole section in the original well. Therefore, each
trajectory was modelled as a hybrid that contained an upper section that was taken from
the original well (ending at the bottom of the tubing) and a lower section that was taken
from a unique well. The five trajectories are plotted in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2. Wellbore trajectories in openhole section (Jackson et al., 2011)

41

Jackson et al. (2011) measured the total volume of produced gas for 11-days.
During this time the produced gas varied by less than 1.7% across all 5 proposed
trajectories. Since this result showed little difference, the next step was to use the actual
production data from the full seven years of production history (2003 through 2010) to
calculate synthetic reservoir pressures for the life of the well to date. This also allowed a
forecast of reservoir pressures one might expect to see in future years, which could lead
to production difference between the trajectories. However, it was not possible run the
transient model for the entire period of interest due to the time the simulator would need
to run and the volume of output data that would be generated. Instead, they used the
appropriate reservoir pressure to model a two-day flowing period for each year. But then
again assuming that all other details would remain unchanged (e.g. the wellhead
backpressure profile remained the same for each year).
Several anomalies appear in the results illustrated in Figure 4.3. For example,
every trajectory (with the exception of the toe-down trajectory) suffered from at least one
bad year during which the total production was less than that of the following year.
Even so, the combined results from all nine years clearly indicate that the toe-up

Ultimate Gas Recovery

trajectory outperformed all other trajectories.

Figure 4.3. Pseudo-cumulative production for trajectories: Simulation study

(Jackson et al., 2011)

40

Jackson et al. (2011) generated both animated and 3D plots of the liquid holdup in
the wells for the toe-up and undulating trajectories to determine why these two performed
so differently. These results illustrated in Figure 4.4.

a) Toe-up trajectory during shut-in

b) Undulating trajectory during shut-in

c) Toe-up trajectory during flow

d) Undulating trajectory during flow

e) 3D plot for toe-up trajectory

f) 3D plot for undulating trajectory

Figure 4.4. Liquid holdup animated snapshots and 3D plots for the toe-up and undulating
trajectories during shut-in and flow conditions (Jackson et al., 2011)

42

Jackson et al. (2011) concluded that a well drilled with a toe-up trajectory will
produce more gas throughout its life when compared with the other investigated
trajectories, and wells drilled with undulating trajectories have the worst performance of
the trajectories we studied. (p. 8). His work is an important study and suggests that the
differences in performance can be attributed to not only where but also how liquids
accumulate in the different trajectories. The bulk of the liquid accumulation in a toe-up
well was occurring downstream of the entire productive interval, providing more gas
velocity to sweep the liquids upon resuming production.

4.2. THEORETICAL STUDIES

A number of researchers (e.g., Heddleston, 2009; King, 1998; Alexander et al.,
2011) agree that a toe-up trajectory of gas walls has fewer flow restrictions. Others,
however, do not agree that one specific well orientation can resolve the extreme
sensitivity of flow regimes to wellbore deviation, particularly at or near horizontal
orientations.
Nind (1989) discussed the flow to the surface in an inclined pipe (deviated holes).
He notated that at certain points of high curvature, liquid may accumulate on the downside while gas continues to move up the tubing, on the bends side. The liquid pool grows
until it occupies the entire tubings cross- sectional area. Pressure builds behind this
liquid and, at some stage, begins to move up the tubing as a liquid slug. Some gas
channeling occurs into both and through the slug as the slug travels to the surface.
A portion of the slug runs back down the tubing to collect once more at the accumulation
point. This accumulation forms the seed for the next slug. The net result is an unsteady
production rate at the surface. This tubing heading phenomenon will become increasingly
severe as the water-oil ratios increase and the GLRs decrease. Nind (1989) did not
indicate how this slug flow problem can be eliminated, and did not introduce the idea of
changing the wellbore deviation as a solution to overcoming this problem.
Joshi (1991) suggested that, in low rate wells, a wells shape can have a
significant impact on the wells productivity, particularly when multi-phase flow in

43

involved. For example, water may accumulate in a low portion of the wellbore. While
there, it may be difficult to displace. Furthermore, gas lock may occur near the hookshaped well portions. Gas anchors can be used to mitigate the problem in such situations.
Joshi (1991) noted the best way to handle this completion is to design a well path that is
either slightly up-dipping or slightly down-dipping, depending upon the reservoir
mechanism in place. This design facilitates fluid segregation along the well length. It also
reduces problems associated with gas blocking in the oil wells and liquid loading in the
gas and condensate wells.
Dunham (2012) suggested that three potential wellbore profiles (Toe-up, toedown, and undulating as shown in Figure 4.5) are used commonly. Each of these profiles
presents its own unique set of challenges. The toe-up profile provides a single liquid
accumulation spot at the heel of the lateral, near the kickoff point. The well in this type of
design does not stay perfectly horizontal. Instead, it rises a bit as it goes along the
formation path.

Figure 4.5. Wellbore Design Profiles (Presley, 2012)

44

The toe-down profile provides a single liquid accumulation spot at the toe (the
location that is furthest from the kickoff point). This type of profile creates a sump that
collects the liquids at the end of the lateral. In consideration of artificial lift systems have
difficulty moving liquids through a 5,000-8,000 foot lateral and up the vertical section,
King (1998) says the toe-up design, with the low point of the lateral positioned in the heel
and the horizontal section angled upward at 92-95 degrees as it extends into the
formation, is emerging as the preferred option.
In an interview with The American Oil & Gas Reporter; King noted that
undulating profile (in which the wellbore is a series of peaks and valleys) is a nightmare
for production operations. Dunham agreed: The multiple high and low points create a
big problem because they allow for spaces where liquid can accumulate in the lateral,
which means it will not produce a steady flow. This creates slugging, which can be a
major problem from an artificial lift standpoint because it is very difficult for most
systems to handle production without a steady input of liquid or gas (Presley, 2012).
King (1998) found that attempts to combat the liquid unloading problem have
focused on better lift and forced drainage. He outlined methods that have been tried to
propose to help drainage (Note that several of these methods are suitable only for a
specific set of conditions).
An over horizontal well of approximately 92 (see Figure 4.6) can be used to
address Liquid unloading. The over horizontal wellbore inclination maximizes the liquid
drain-down from the toe of the horizontal toward the heel. The problem of liquid cleanout
from the heel is still there, but hopefully, improvements in lift may assist in this area.
However, if the gathered liquid in the heel cannot be produced, the liquid accumulation
may accelerate heading problems.

45

Figure 4.6. Over horizontal, or toe-up, approach (King, 1998)

Reversing the angle to 85 to 88 reverses the liquid collection point and may
help minimize the heading. It does nothing, however, with either to assist fluid blockage
removal or backpressure unless a lift system can be set into the wells toe.
Heddleston (2009) stated that most Barnett Shale wells lateral sections are drilled
as toe-up trajectories (toe slightly above the heel, approximately 50 150 ft). He
reasoned that the theory behind this trajectory setting is to assist any water flow across
the lateral, with a gravity feed, in returning to the deepest section (the heel). Figure 4.7 is
an illustration of typical wellbore trajectory completed in the Barnett Shale region.

Figure 4.7. A typical wellbore trajectory completed in the Barnett Shale region
(Heddleston, 2009)

46

Figure 4.8 illustrates a comparison between the toe Elevation in Eagle Ford and
the toe elevated in Woodford (Sutton, 2014).

Figure 4.8. A comparison between the toe elevation in Eagle Ford and the toe elevation in
Woodford (Sutton, 2014)

Heddleston (2009) specified that the normal rule of thumb for shale gas planned
wells is to drill the lateral section with a toe-up format. The belief is to allow for gravity
feed drainage of water to collect at the heel section, thus allowing both the gas velocity
and the gas lift assisted lifting mechanism to produce the water collecting in the lateral.
Alexander et al. (2011) stated that most horizontal shale wells were drilled uphill
with deviations that exceeded 90 degrees. This completion was used to facilitate the
gravity drainage of fracture fluids to the heel of the lateral, thereby helping unload the
fluid more quickly. This practice has been replaced in several shale plays by drilling
laterals on structure, regardless of trajectory. The ideal trajectory, however, is more than
90 degrees, with minimal sumps and doglegs, while remaining within the target zone.
One trend evident from more than 100 wells data is that wells with high flow rates can
effectively unload the fracture fluids, regardless of the trajectory, to overcome the
detrimental effect that is related to the wellbore geometry.

47

5. MODELLNG FAYETVILLE SHALE WELL

5.1. BACKGROUND OF STUDY AREA LOCATION

The two wells used in the modeling are located within the Arkoma Basin of
northern Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma known as Fayetteville Shale play which
discovered, in 2004, and developed by Southwestern Energy (SWN) Company. The
Fayetteville is divided into two main units, Central and Western based on the location of
the shale. Fayetteville Central extends from the Arkansas-Oklahoma border to the East of
Johnson, Logan and Yell counties. Figure 5.1 shows the location and area of Fayetteville
Central.

Figure 5.1. Remarks the location and area of study (Alexander et al., 2011)

48

Drilling, completion, reservoir and production data were obtained for two wells
drilled from the same pad. For confidentiality, these wells are referred to as L and M
in this study. The data for wells L and M were used to construct the base modeling in
the research.

5.1.1. WellLandM

Well plan
Figure 5.2 shows the top plan view of the location map of Wells # L & M. The

directional drilling survey was provided in digital format and the commercially available
software, Kingdom Software 8.7.1, was used to develop the 3D view shown in
Figure 5.3. Figure 5.4 provides an enlargement of the lateral section, in which the nonhorizontal undulation sections were more visible.

Figure 5.2. Location map of Wells# L & M

49

Well# M (0ft to 9763ft MD)

Well# L (0ft to 9868ft MD)

Figure 5.3. 3D Well Configurations using Kingdom Software 8.7.1

Figure 5.4. Zoom-in the drilled later section of wells L & M

51

Completion
Both wells were completed and fracture stimulated in multiple stages over the

gross perforated interval, which were about 3,580 feet (1,090 meters), and about 4,035
feet (1,230 meters) top to bottom for Well# M and Well# L respectively. Tubing was
landed above the top perforations at 6,069 feet for Well# M, and 5,708 feet for Well# L.

Formation
The Fayetteville formation is characterized by low porosity (averaging 4%), high

water Saturation (averaging 50%), and low permeability (0.00005 mD). Formation depths
range from 9700 to 9900 ft subsea (MD) or 5400 to 5800 ft true vertical depth (TVD).
The formation is entirely gas-saturated with a day sweet gas (95% methane & 0.0%
Hydrogen Sulphide), and is variably underpressured with reservoir pressure of 2,500 psi.

Production
Both wells produce gas, water and condensate through 2 3/8 inch tubing to a

surface separator. The first production of Well# L was August, 22, 2010 with 3,053
Mscfd of gas and 1,240 stbd of water. The tubing pressure was 1,850 psi and casing
pressure was 760 psi with fully opened chock size. After a month of production, the gas
declined to 2,780 Mscfd and water production became 125 stbd. The gas production
became 1,840 Mscfd which is almost 40% lower than the first day production within just
the first 6 months.
Whereas Well# M produced for the first time on March, 30, 2010 with 3,617
Mscfd of gas and zero stbd of water. Once the chock size changed from 38/64 to be
64/64; water production jumped to 500 stbd. After a month of production, the gas
production became 3,186 Mscfd and water declined to 82 stbd. The well reached
approximately 50% less of its original gas production by the end of the sixth month.
More detailed production and flowing pressures were provided in Appendix C.

50

5.2. BRIEF BACKGOUND ABOUT USED SOFTWARE

5.2.1. About PROSPER. PROSPER is a well performance, design and
optimization program which is part of the Integrated Production Modelling Toolkit
(IPM), and owned by Petroleum Experts Limited Company which based on Edinburgh,
UK. The IPM suite of tools contain besides PROSPER (well performance), it has GAP
(Multiphase oil and gas optimizer), MBAL (Reservoir and production systems), PVTp
(Compositional Fluid behavior), REVEAL (Near well bore effects) and RESOLVE
(Reservoir Coupling link between Reservoir Simulators, Process Simulators, and other
software and tools). The IPM suite tools can be run together seamlessly, allowing the
engineer to design complete field models.
PROSPERs name came out of advanced PROduction and Systems
PERformance analysis software. PROSPER is designed to allow building of reliable
and consistent well models, with the ability to address each aspect of well bore modelling
via; PVT (fluid characterization), VLP correlations (for calculation of flowline and tubing
pressure loss) and IPR (reservoir inflow). By modelling each component of the producing
well system, the User can verify each model subsystem by performance matching. Once a
well system model has been tuned to real field data, PROSPER can be confidently used
to model the well in different scenarios and to make forward predictions of reservoir
pressure based on surface production data.
In PROSPER information is grouped into the following categories: PVT Data,
System Input Data, Analysis Data, and Output Data. Figure 5.5 displays PROSPER main
menu. The version of PROSPER used in this study was (Version 11.5).

52

Figure 5.5. PROSPER main menu

5.2.2. Applications of PROSPER Software. PROSPER can be used to:

-

Design and optimize well completions including multi-lateral, multilayer and

horizontal wells,

Design and optimize tubing and pipeline sizes,

Design, diagnose and optimize Gas lifted, Hydraulic pumps and ESP wells,

Generate lift curves for use in simulators,

Calculate pressure losses in wells, flow lines and across chocks,

Predict flowing temperature in wells and pipelines,

Monitor well performance to rapidly identify wells requiring remedial action,

Calculate total skin and determine breakdown (damage, deviation or partial

penetration),

Unique black oil model retrograde condensate fluids, accounting for liquid
dropout in the wellbore, and

Allocate production between wells.

53

5.2.3. Required Data and Information to Run PROSPER. In PROSPER

information is grouped into the following categories:
-

PVT Data

Reservoir (IPR) Data

Well (equipment) Data: deviation survey, tubing, casing, and temperature data

Actual production test data: stabilized phase rates, flowing temperature and
pressures.

5.2.4. Modelling Scenarios. In order to study and evaluate the proposed idea of
changing the angle between heel and toe points in directional gas wells, a deviation
survey data obtained from industry for the two horizontal wells (Wells L & M). The
original borehole survey data for each well are given in Appendix A.
In the PROSPER software available, only a maximum of 20 pairs of deviation
survey data could be entered. Therefore, from the well deviation surveys for each well
were filtered, and a few depth points of measured depth (MD) and the corresponding true
vertical depth (TVD) that mark significant changes in deviation were selected. The
modified deviation surveys were listed in Appendix B. The modelling scenarios were:

Case 1: Original case:

This case employed industry trajectory and was used to match inflow.

Case 2: True horizontal case:

It was assumed that the lateral to be 90 with respect to the vertical plane.

Case 3: Toe-up cases:

This case consisted of 2 laterals, 95 and 100.

Case 4: Toe-down cases:

This case consisted of 2 laterals: one with 85 and the other has 80 degrees.

54

5.2.5. Modelling Assumptions and Constrains. As the following:

-

For IPR calculations, the Horizontal Well-Transverse Vertical Fractures

reservoir model was selected over the other two available IPR models within
PROSPER as this model matches the actual reservoir development most
closely. Horizontal Well No Flow Boundaries and Horizontal Well dP
Friction Loss in Wellbore were not considered because these are analytical
IPRs, derived under the assumption that the well is perfectly horizontal.

Vertical to horizontal permeability ratio (Kv/Kh) assumed to be 1/10.

Skin Factor assumed to be zero for all cases.

No flow restrictions were applied to all of proposed cases.

Separator Pressure is assumed to be 60 psi.

Twenty survey points allowed to describe the complete deviation survey for
the original case well.

Formation gross pay thickness for both wells were less than 200 feet which
limits the proposed deviation angles to 10 degrees plus and minus from the
true horizontal lateral. This assured that the entire lateral would remain in the
formation, hence a more uniform comparison of well productivity.

5.2.6. Workflow Procedure. The flowchart for the simulation workflow was
shown below (Figure 5.6).

55

Figure 5.6. Flowchart used for designing PROSPER trajectory cases

56

5.2.7. Step by Step Building PROSPER Modelling. This section provides a

step-by-step procedure that used to build the models used this study.

Initialization:
Launch PROSPER and select System Summary (Figure 5.7). On this interface,

make the following changes: under Fluid Description, select Dry and Wet Gas Fluid,
and under Reservoir inflow type, select Single Branch.

Figure 5.7. Interface of PROSPER System Summary

Input PVT Data:

Enter (Table 5.1) data as requested on PVT input data screen as shown in

Figure 5.8. Select Regression, then match all. A non-liner regression will be performed

57

to best fit each correlation to the measured lab data. Once the calculation is finished,
select Parameters and identify the correlation that best fits the measured data. The perfect
fit parameters would be set to 1.0 for parameter 1, and parameter 2 would be zero. When
a dry-wet gas model is selected, PROSPER assumes that the condensate drops out at the
separator assuming single phase (gas) in the tubing. (Besides any possible water
produced which will give two-phase flow).

Table 5.1. Fluid PVT Description of Wells # L & M

Parameter
Well # L
Well # M
Gas Gravity (Air =1)
Separator pressure, psig
Condensate Gas Ratio, stb/MMscf
Condensate Gravity, API
Water to Gas Ratio, stb/MMscf
Water Salinity, ppm
Gas Impurities
H2S
CO2
N
Reservoir Temperature, Degree F
Reservoir Presure, psi

0.596
60
0
55
13
10,000

0.595
60
0
55
14
15,000

0
3.529
0.291
145
2,430

0
3.353
0.568
145
2,395

Figure 5.8. Interface of PROSPER PVT input data

58

Input System Equipment Deviation Survey, Downhole Equipment, and

Geothermal Gradient:
To define the wells hardware, deviation survey and the flowing temperature

profile, go to Equipment Data (Figure 5.9). Select Deviation Survey (Figure 5.10) and
enter the 20 depth points for the measured depth (MD) and corresponding true vertical
depth (TVD) of the filtered deviation survey data (see Appendix B) for each different
cases as proposed in Section 5.2.4.
Figure 5.11 displays TVD vs MD plot of Well# M (using the original well
deviation survey data. Using this survey, go to Downhole Equipment section
(Figure 5.13) and enter data as provided in Table 5.2. Then enter Geothermal Gradient
data as shown in Figure 5.14. PROSPER interpolates temperatures from the survey data
for depths within the table limits, and uses linear extrapolation elsewhere.

Figure 5.9. PROSPER Equipment input screen

59

Figure 5.10. Input interface of PROSPER - Deviation Survey

Table 5.2. Tubular Data of Wells# L & M

Well Name

Casing

Depth
(feet)
40

Size
(inches)
16

ID
(inches)
15.376

F-25*

Weight
(Lbs/ft)
55

Casing

572

9.625

9.001

H-40

32.3

Casing

9868

5.5

4.892

P-110

17

Tubing

5923.85

2.375

1.995

J-55

4.6

Casing

40

16

15.376

F-25*

55

Casing

578

9.625

8.921

J-55

36

Casing

9763

5.5

4.892

P-110

17

Tubing

6255.32

2.375

1.995

J-55

4.7

Type of Item

Grade

61

Figure 5.11. TVD vs. MD plot of Well# M (Original Deviation Survey)

Directional Survey

True Vertical Depth (feet)

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Lateral Displacement (feet)

Figure 5.12. TVD vs. Lateral displacement plot of Well# M

5000

60

Figure 5.13. Input interface of PROSPER Downhole Equipment

Figure 5.14. Software interface of Geothermal gradient input data

62

Input IPR data:

The IPR selections in PROSPER include various standard inflow models from

which the user selects one. The IPR model selection depends upon the purpose of the
study, the suitability of the particular model and the data available for the study. In this
study, for the Reservoir Model option, Horizontal Well Transverse Vertical Fractures
were selected. This model is based on a model proposed by Herge and Larsen (1994).
This model is for use with wells that are stimulated with one or more transverse vertical
fractures. The model calculates an effective wellbore radius based on fracture
conductivity, fracture size, wellbore radius and number of fractures. The effective
wellbore radius is then used in the Horizontal Well No Flow Boundary model to
compute the IPR of the well.
The flow model used here assumes that horizontal well is draining a closed
rectangular drainage volume with sealing upper and lower boundaries. The well can be
placed anywhere in the drainage region as shown in Figure 5.15. Table 5.3 shows the
required input data for this reservoir IPR model, and Figure 5.16 shows the selection of
Reservoir Model, while Figure 5.17 shows the required input data for the Reservoir
model of Horizontal with transverse vertical fractures model.

Figure 5.15. An illustration of flow model - Horizontal Well: Transverse Vertical

Fractures - diagram

63

Table 5.3. Input data of Horizontal Well Transverse Vertical Fractures model
Parameter
Well # L
Well # M
Reservoir Permeability, md
Reservoir Thickness, feet
Wellbore Radius, feet
Horizontal Anisotropy, fraction
Vertical Anisotropy, fraction
Length of Well, feet
Length of Drainage Area (Lx), feet*
Width of Drainage Area (Ly), feet*
Distance Along Length Edge to Center of Well (Xw), feet*
Distance Along Width Edge to Center of Well (Yw), feet*
Distance from Bottom of Reservoir to Center of Well (Zw), feet*
Reservoir Porosity, fraction
Connate Water Saturation, fraction
Fracture Half Length, feet
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity
Number of Fractures
Non-Darcy Flow Factor (Calculated), 1/(Mscf/day)
Skin (assumed)
* See diagram in Figure 5 .15 for more

0.00005
56
0.7177
1
0.1
4,035
4,035
1,200
2,017.5
600
5
0.0407
0.5001
600
1,000
50
2.8285e-8
0

0.00005
57
0.7177
1
0.1
3,579
3,579
1,200
1,601
600
30
0.0412
0.4976
600
1,000
50
2.8285e-8
0

illustrations.

Figure 5.16. Input interface of PROSPER Selection of Reservoir Model

64

Figure 5.17. Input interface of PROSPER Horizontal with Transverse Vertical Fractures
Reservoir Model

Generation an IPR plot:

Once the IPR data input was completed, the IPR plots are calculated and the plots

as in Figure 5.18 and Figure 5.19 were generated. It should be noted that the original
case IPR curves were matched to actual well production for wells M and L by varying
reservoir permeability as PROSPER could not replicate actual well flow using the
permeability data provided by industry (0.00005 mD). The toe-up, horizontal, and toedown cases then were geometric modifications of this case.

65

Figure 5.18. Inflow Performance Plot for Well# L

Figure 5.19. Inflow Performance Plot for Well# M

66

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF PROSPER RESULTS

An IPR curve indicates what the well is capable of producing and how the well
should be producing today. This section includes discussion of two wells, and these two
cases demonstrate horizontal well application and behavior in low-permeability
reservoirs.
From the preliminary results, the absolute open flow (AOF) of the formation of
Well# L = 5.682 MMscf/day, and the generated of inflow versus outflow curves for
Well# L were displayed in Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.6. AOF for Well# M was 3.585
MMscf/day, and the generated of inflow versus outflow curves for Well# M were
displayed in Figure 6.7 to Figure 6.12.

Figure 6.1. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for the original hole of Well# L

67

Figure 6.2. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 100 degree toe-up case of Well# L

Figure 6.3. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 95 degree toe-up case of Well# L

68

Figure 6.4. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for true horizontal 90 degree case of Well# L

Figure 6.5. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 85 degree toe-down case of Well# L

69

Figure 6.6. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 80 degree toe-down case of Well# L

Figure 6.7. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for the original hole of Well# M

71

Figure 6.8. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 100 degree toe-up case of Well# M

Figure 6.9. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 95 degree toe-up case of Well# M

70

Figure 6.10. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for true horizontal 90 degree case of Well# M

Figure 6.11. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 85 degree toe-down case of Well# M

72

Figure 6.12. Inflow vs. Outflow plot for 80 degree toe-down case of Well# M

Table 6.1 summarizes critical outflow parameters for cases relating to well L,
while Table 6.2 summarize the same information for Well M. Figure 6.13 and
Figure 6.14 gather in one plot all the generated IPR versus VLP curves for all cases of
Well# L and Well# M, respectively.

Table 6.1. Summary of Well# L PROSPER results

Case#
Original
Toe-up 100
Toe-up 95
True horizontal 90
Toe-down 85
Toe-down 80

Gas Rate

Water
Rate

BHFP

Wellhead
Pressure

MMscf/day
2.736
2.737
2.663
2.739
2.769
2.690

STB/day
36
36
35
36
36
35

psig
1708
1707
1730
1707
1698
1722

psig
200
200
200
200
200
200

Superficial
Liquid
Velocity
ft/sec
0.0754
0.0754
0.0734
0.0755
0.0763
0.0740

Superficial
Gas
Velocity
ft/sec
70.675
71.043
68.867
70.778
71.428
69.189

For all cases, the intersection of the Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) curve
and the Tubing Performance (VLP) curve occurs at almost constant pressure of 1,700 psi.

73

Gas production rate for the original case of Well# L is 2.736 MMscf/day at a
flowing sandface pressure of 1708 psi. More importantly, the toe-down case of 85
degrees deviation had the best gas production rate among all cases. The true horizontal,
100 toe-up, and the original cases were similar in most of results. Water production rate
for all cases remains nearly constant at a rate of approximately 35 barrels per day.

Inflow (IPR) vs. Outflow (VLP) Plot for Well# L

3000
Inflow curve
Outflow curve - Original hole survey case
Outflow curve - Toe up - 100 case
Outflow curve - Toe up - 95 case
Outflow curve - True horizontal - 90 case
Outflow curve - Toe down - 85 case
Outflow curve - Toe down - 80 case

2500

Pressure, psi

2000

1500

1000

500

AOF= 5.682 MMscf/day

0
0

Gas Rate, MMscf/day

Figure 6.13. Comparison Plot of IPR vs. VLP curves for all cases of Well# L
It was more visible from the data Table 6.2 that the original case scenario for
Well# M gives the best gas production rate among the other proposed cases. Remember
that the original deviation survey of this well is also toe up as noted in Figure 5.4. This
could be also the reason of getting better gas production out of toe-up [100 and 95]
cases over both of toe-down cases. With the increase in toe angle, the water production
rate increases. For instance, 80 degree angle results in 26 barrels of water per day, and

74

almost a barrel of water production extra for each of the higher lateral angle cases. The
higher gas and water rates, the lower bottomhole following pressure which intersected
with inflow curve (see Figure 6.14).

Table 6.2. Summary of Well# M PROSPER results

Case#
Original
Toe-up 100
Toe-up 95
True horizontal 90
Toe-down 85
Toe-down 80

Gas Rate

Water
Rate

BHFP

Wellhead
Pressure

MMscf/day
2.101
2.060
2.006
1.953
1.898
1.839

STB/day
29.4
28.8
28.1
27.3
26.6
25.7

psig
1494
1516
1543
1570
1598
1626

psig
150
150
150
150
150
150

Superficial
Liquid
Velocity
ft/sec
0.0884
0.0866
0.0843
0.0821
0.0797
0.0772

Superficial
Gas
Velocity
ft/sec
101.143
99.459
96.488
93.661
90.734
87.661

Figure 6.14. Comparison Plot of IPR vs. VLP curves for all cases of Well# M

75

Identifying holdup, flow regime type and slip velocity may be useful in
characterizing these results Thus, another indicator used instead of doing a sensitivity
analysis was gradient matching.

6.2. GRADIENT MATCHING

PROSPER allows a user to modify the existing correlations to fit a measured
pressure gradient survey. It can be used, as a quality control to identify which correlation
required the least adjustment to obtain a fit. The Matching menu allows comparison of
field data with calculated pressure drops in the tubing and surface piping. All available
correlations in PROSPER can be compared to allow selection of the model that best suits
the field conditions. Figure 6.15 and Figure 6.16 show a visual comparison of all selected
correlations compared to data from Wells L and M.

Figure 6.15. Gradient Match plot for Well# L with all availavble correlations in
PROSPER

76

Figure 6.16. Gradient Match Plot for all available correlations in PROSPER software
Well# M (Original case)
For example, Petroleum Experts 5 correlation is capable of modelling any fluid
type over any well or pipe trajectory, while Gray correlation gives results in gas wells for
condensate ratios up to around 50 bbl/MMscf and high produced water ratios. As yet, no
single correlation performs better than others for all flow conditions. Again, there is no
universal rule for selecting the best flow correlation for a given application.
Table 6.3 shows the values of the parameters associated with all the tubing
flowline correlations. Parameter 1 is the multiplier for the gravity term in the pressure
drop correlation, while Parameter 2 is the multiplier for the friction term. If PROSPER
has to adjust Parameter 1 by more than 10%, then either there is an inconsistency
between the fluid density predicted by your PVT model and the field data (rate/pressure).
If Parameter 2 requires a large correction, then it is likely that your equipment description
is in error, or the flow rates are incorrect.

77

Table 6 .3. Tubing correlation parameters for the original case of Well# L
Correlation
Parameter 1
Parameter 2
Standard Deviation
Duns and Ros Modified
Hagedorn Brown
Gray
Mukerjee Brill
Beggs and Brill
Petroleum Experts
Orkiszewski
Petroleum Experts 2
Duns and Ros Original
Petroleum Experts 3
GRE (modified by PE)
Petroleum Experts 4
Hydro-3P
Petroleum Experts 5

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2.5115
3
3
3
3
3
3

11.1202
19.7573
8.99978
14.572
14.5289
7.93524
6.73641
7.93524
96.2258
8.67267
4.23663
54.2523
12.4754
12.1915

0.6685
450.88
0.7568
175.81
180.95
0.7019
0.7007
0.7019
87.018
0.8748
628.90
422.50
152.73
4.5645

A correlation comparison was conducted for Well L as shown in Figure 6.17.

Based on the results of this comparison, the Duns and Ros Original and Petroleum
Experts 3 correlations were selected to use in a comparison of flow regimes along the
lateral of each well configuration. A summary of the selected correlations are shown in
Figure 6.18 and tabled in Appendix D.

Figure 6.17. Gradient Match plot for Well# L with selected number of correlations within
PROSPER

78

Figure 6.18. Screenshot of PROSPER Gradient Matching option

The calculated flow regimes from both the Duns and Ros Original, and Petroleum
Experts 3 correlations (Appendix D) indicate that all well trajectory cases result in a slug
flow pattern along the lateral of the wellbore. As the slip gas velocity increases in the
middle section of the wellbore, the regime becomes transition to mist flow. Slug flow is
a strong indicator for potential liquid loading, although it is not an exact measure of it.
Sutton (2014) demonstrates that flow patterns can actually vary along the length
of the horizontal well, as shown in Figure 6.19. This work shows that dispersed bubble
flow could be identified in a lateral section at high superficial liquid velocity (10 ft/sec
and above), while the computed superficial liquid velocity for most case is less than 1
ft/sec. None of these flow regimes were present in the lateral sections of the cases for

79

wells #L and #M. This may be due to the fact that PROSPER is a standard well
productivity (inflow performance) software and not designed to do detailed transient
multiphase flow modeling.

a)

-5 Hole Angle

b) +5 Hole Angle

Figure 6.19. Typical Flow Patterns in Lateral (Sutton, 2014)

While the output of the gradient matching calculations (Appendix D) indicate
that slug flow dominates the horizontal lateral in all cases studied, this alone does not
indicate exactly where the liquid may be held up, nor the volume of liquid that will be
held up.
A secondary fluid velocity criteria was applied to the results. Possible criteria
include a gas flow velocity of approximately 1,000 feet per minute, which is considered
the minimum necessary to remove fresh water. Condensate requires less velocity due to
its lower density while more dense brine requires a higher velocity. A rule of thumb
developed from gas distribution studies suggests that when the superficial gas velocity is
in excess of 14 ft/second, then liquids are swept from low lying pipe sections (Lea et
al., 2003).

81

For this work, it was decided to apply the screening criteria of 14 ft/second
superficial gas velocity, to the calculated values in Appendix D, to suggest where the
liquid may be held up along the lateral section. These depths points in Appendix D were
noted with red shading when superficial gas velocity reaches 14 ft/second or less, for
each case studied. This work shows that in all cases the superficial gas velocity along the
lateral section is less than this screening criteria.

6.3. WGR SENSITIVITY

A sensitivity study on water-gas ratio (WGR) was performed with results shown
in Figure 6.20 and Figure 6.21. This WGR sensitivity was performed using two different
gas-to-liquid ratios (WGR= 1 & 50 STB/MMscf) for each inclination angle.

Figure 6.20. Results of WGR sensitivity using original survey of Well# L

80

Figure 6.21. Results of WGR sensitivity using original survey of Well# M

A comparison of the original WGR (13 STB/MMscf) and results using a lower
and high WGR are displayed in Table 6.4 and Table 6.5.
Table 6.4. Results of sensitivity study of Water Gas Ratio for Well# L
WGR=1 STB/MMscf
Water Rate,
STB/day

BHFP,
psig

Gas Rate,
MMscf/day

Water Rate,
STB/day

BHFP,
psig

Gas Rate,
MMscf/day

Water Rate,
STB/day

BHFP,
psig

Original
Toe-up 100
Toe-up 95
True horizontal 90
Toe-down 85
Toe-down 80

WGR=50 STB/MMscf

Gas Rate,
MMscf/day

Case#

WGR=13 STB/MMscf

3.690
3.409
3.345
3.378
3.407
3.339

3.7
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.3

1393
1492
1514
1502
1492
1516

3.173
2.737
2.663
2.739
2.769
2.690

41
36
35
36
36
35

1570
1707
1730
1707
1698
1721

2.724
2.315
2.228
2.279
2.299
2.210

136
116
111
114
115
110

1711
1832
1857
1842
1836
1862

By increasing WGR from 1 to 50 STB/MMscf, gas rates decrease dramatically,

and water production increases. It can be seen that the original case of both wells had
the highest gas and water production rates. Decreases in WGR lead to portions of the
lateral remaining free of slug flow, but increases in WRG definitely lead to a greater risk
of well loading.

82

In Well# M, the enhancement of gas production rates for toe-up cases were
clearly apparent, while the case of toe-down with 80 degrees had the lowest gas and
water rates.
Table 6.5. Results of sensitivity study of Water Gas Ratio for Well# M
WGR=1 STB/MMscf
Water Rate,
STB/day

BHFP,
psig

Gas Rate,
MMscf/day

Water Rate,
STB/day

BHFP,
psig

Gas Rate,
MMscf/day

Water Rate,
STB/day

BHFP,
psig

Original
Toe-up 100
Toe-up 95
True horizontal 90
Toe-down 85
Toe-down 80

WGR=50 STB/MMscf

Gas Rate,
MMscf/day

Case#

WGR=14 STB/MMscf

2.485
2.474
2.429
2.381
2.331
2.280

2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3

1280
1287
1313
1340
1369
1398

2.101
2.060
2.006
1.953
1.898
1.839

30
29
28
27
27
26

1495
1516
1543
1560
1598
1626

1.823
1.795
1.730
1.668
1.601
1.535

91
90
87
83
80
77

1634
1647
1679
1708
1739
1770

83

7. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1. CONCLUSIONS
Five cases of three different wellbore lateral configurations plus the original
wellbore survey of two wells in Fayetteville Shale play have been investigated and
modelled using PROSPER software. From the results of this study, the following
conclusions were made:
- PROSPER is an inflow performance software tool, which is not capable of
modeling detailed transient flow characteristics along the length of a horizontal
well. However, the tool can predict production rates, fluid velocity, flow regimes,
slip velocity and holdup along the length of the well based on multiphase flow
correlations.
- The version of PROSPER available allowed only 20 points to describe each
wells trajectory. Hence, the wellbore geometry was simplified in this work.
This is a significant limitation of the software used.
- It is possible to use PROSPER to model horizontal fractured well performance
however, in extremely tight formations such as the shale used in this study, the
fractured well model could not match actual well performance without adjusting
reservoir and well parameters to achieve a match.
- Gradient matching is a useful feature which allows a user to identify the best
correlations to fit actual well data.
- All well trajectories studied exhibit slug flow along their lateral lengths, and the
superficial gas velocity along the lateral length is less than the screening criteria
of 14 ft/second. This is an indicator of likely liquid loading.
- Based on PROSPER modeling of the original cases compared to alternate
trajectory, there was a slight production advantage for a toe up configuration in
relation to true horizontal and toe-down cases.

84

7.2. FURTHER WORK RECOMMENDED

- In an attempt to overcome PROSPER limitations and provide a quantitative flow
analysis, using multi-phase pipeline and wellbore transient modelling simulator,
such as OLGA Dynamic Multiphase Flow Simulator may be recommended to
model and identify liquid accumulation and monitor slip velocity along any
complex lateral section.
- It is also possible to use one of the reservoir simulation tools available in the
industry (such as REVEAL) which will capture the detailed well trajectory and
relevant effects in the reservoir.
- More focus on developing a new/improved model for multiphase flow behavior
and critical rate in horizontal wells should be investigated.
- The Horizontal Well Artificial Lift Project (TUHWALP) Consortium at Tulsa
University are experimentally testing and investigating of multiphase flow
behavior in horizontal gas wells with toe-up, toe-down and flat well geometry.
Therefore, it would be the most valuable tool to use such experiment results to
validate the results out of commercial software like PROSPER.

85

APPENDIX A.
ORIGINAL BOREHOLE DEVIATION SURVEY DATA

86

Table A. 1. Original borehole deviation survey for Well# L (0ft to 9868ft MD)

deg

deg

ft

ft

ft

ft

ft

deg

0
138
338
489
632
898
1212
1480
1748
2013
2279
2545
2810
3077
3256
3435
3613
3790
3967
4147
4281
4460
4594
4779
4871
4963
5007
5055
5101
5147
5192
5240
5285
5332
5380
5424
5471
5517
5563
5607
5652
5697
5741
5786

0.00
0.30
0.40
0.30
0.38
0.43
0.49
0.59
0.72
0.71
0.77
1.35
1.03
0.70
0.67
1.14
1.10
0.75
1.38
1.60
1.88
1.51
1.94
2.14
2.12
2.31
2.43
5.03
8.42
11.71
14.89
19.14
24.80
29.73
34.36
38.97
44.99
50.58
56.17
60.15
64.44
69.36
74.98
79.61

0.00
109.12
114.92
97.52
101.28
33.60
55.72
51.38
56.07
48.42
49.65
63.28
46.84
45.46
44.42
51.36
60.07
24.86
28.56
48.46
60.80
62.22
65.51
93.54
93.02
84.89
114.20
159.78
169.58
172.89
174.32
175.89
177.39
179.80
182.24
184.99
185.24
184.95
184.30
184.20
185.25
186.39
186.98
186.82

0.00
138.40
338.40
489.39
631.99
897.99
1211.98
1479.96
1747.95
2012.93
2278.90
2544.86
2809.80
3076.77
3255.76
3434.73
3612.70
3789.68
3966.65
4146.59
4280.52
4459.45
4593.39
4778.27
4870.21
4962.14
5006.10
5054.01
5099.69
5144.97
5188.76
5234.65
5276.36
5318.13
5358.81
5394.09
5429.02
5459.91
5487.34
5510.55
5531.47
5549.12
5562.59
5572.48

0.00
0.11
0.55
0.81
0.93
0.24
-1.54
-3.09
-4.95
-7.03
-9.33
-11.99
-15.13
-17.98
-19.53
-21.43
-23.45
-25.40
-28.35
-31.99
-34.38
-37.01
-38.86
-40.08
-39.96
-40.12
-39.85
-37.50
-32.32
-24.41
-14.15
-0.18
16.59
38.09
63.54
89.78
121.13
155.12
191.96
229.28
269.04
310.28
351.97
395.64

0.00
-0.12
-0.58
-0.86
-1.00
-0.34
1.40
2.90
4.70
6.72
8.97
11.54
14.57
17.36
18.87
20.73
22.69
24.59
27.51
31.08
33.40
35.93
37.69
38.78
38.58
38.66
38.35
35.96
30.75
22.81
12.52
-1.47
-18.27
-39.79
-65.24
-91.45
-122.74
-156.66
-193.45
-230.72
-270.41
-311.58
-353.16
-396.73

0.00
0.34
1.47
2.34
3.17
4.59
6.35
8.38
10.85
13.46
16.06
20.22
24.74
27.66
29.17
31.29
34.16
36.12
37.62
40.54
43.86
48.51
52.13
58.43
61.84
65.39
67.12
68.78
70.09
71.27
72.41
73.59
74.55
75.04
74.55
72.86
70.05
67.03
64.06
61.30
58.01
53.80
48.93
43.65

0.00
0.36
1.58
2.49
3.33
4.60
6.50
8.87
11.83
15.05
18.40
23.28
28.72
32.65
34.74
37.54
41.01
43.69
46.61
51.08
55.13
60.36
64.33
70.13
72.89
75.96
77.31
77.61
76.54
74.83
73.49
73.60
76.75
84.93
99.06
116.92
141.33
170.40
203.78
238.72
276.56
316.19
356.53
399.12

0.00
109.12
111.68
110.14
107.48
94.24
77.60
70.88
66.56
63.46
60.80
60.28
59.50
57.89
57.10
56.47
56.40
55.75
53.82
52.52
52.71
53.47
54.13
56.43
58.04
59.41
60.26
62.40
66.31
72.26
80.19
91.15
103.77
117.93
131.19
141.45
150.29
156.84
161.68
165.12
167.89
170.20
172.11
173.72

DLS

Closure
Azimuth

Closure

EW

NS

Vertical
Section

TVD

Azimuth

Inclination

Measured
Depth
ft

deg/
100 ft
0.00
0.22
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.17
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.24
0.18
0.12
0.02
0.27
0.10
0.37
0.36
0.31
0.35
0.21
0.33
0.54
0.03
0.40
2.74
7.82
7.75
7.26
7.10
8.90
12.64
10.75
10.01
11.12
12.81
12.16
12.20
9.05
9.75
11.18
12.84
10.29

87

5831
5876
5908
5977
6067
6156
6246
6335
6424
6513
6602
6693
6780
6868
6958
7047
7136
7225
7315
7405
7495
7584
7673
7763
7851
7940
8029
8118
8208
8297
8387
8476
8566
8655
8742
8831
8919
9008
9098
9185
9273
9361
9450
9539
9629
9717
9806
9819
9868

83.63
86.77
88.49
89.94
88.17
87.05
87.17
86.13
85.93
85.93
86.22
86.30
86.28
86.48
86.28
86.39
86.30
87.08
87.74
88.83
89.89
89.83
89.57
90.57
90.49
89.77
89.54
89.34
90.09
89.86
89.97
91.80
92.52
91.66
91.80
90.60
89.94
88.11
88.68
88.25
89.83
89.43
91.29
90.77
91.20
91.49
92.09
92.18
92.18

186.73
185.56
186.80
186.63
184.91
185.08
184.29
183.41
181.51
180.99
181.49
181.81
181.06
180.94
181.15
181.13
181.42
181.61
180.41
179.59
180.46
180.15
180.24
180.16
180.18
179.70
179.02
180.68
181.67
181.05
181.73
183.65
183.43
183.85
184.30
183.60
183.00
181.95
181.17
180.96
181.33
180.39
180.99
180.59
180.99
180.63
181.18
181.37
181.37

5579.04
5582.80
5584.13
5585.07
5586.56
5590.27
5594.80
5600.01
5606.17
5612.48
5618.58
5624.51
5630.14
5635.70
5641.38
5647.07
5652.74
5657.88
5661.95
5664.64
5665.65
5665.87
5666.33
5666.22
5665.41
5665.21
5665.74
5666.61
5667.06
5667.10
5667.23
5665.86
5662.47
5659.22
5656.59
5654.73
5654.31
5655.83
5658.35
5660.68
5662.15
5662.72
5662.16
5660.56
5659.02
5656.95
5654.17
5653.69
5651.82

439.95
484.63
516.48
585.16
674.87
763.60
853.33
942.09
1030.85
1119.63
1208.42
1299.22
1386.04
1473.86
1563.68
1652.50
1741.32
1830.17
1920.07
2010.01
2099.98
2188.97
2277.95
2367.93
2455.91
2544.88
2633.83
2722.80
2812.79
2901.79
2991.79
3080.75
3170.61
3259.48
3346.33
3435.22
3523.16
3612.12
3702.09
3789.05
3877.04
3965.03
4054.02
4143.00
4232.99
4320.96
4409.91
4422.90
4471.87

-440.93
-485.51
-517.29
-585.81
-675.33
-763.92
-853.50
-942.15
-1030.85
-1119.60
-1208.37
-1299.14
-1385.93
-1473.74
-1563.55
-1652.35
-1741.14
-1829.96
-1919.86
-2009.81
-2099.81
-2188.80
-2277.80
-2367.80
-2455.80
-2544.80
-2633.79
-2722.78
-2812.76
-2901.73
-2991.71
-3080.59
-3170.35
-3259.11
-3345.85
-3434.62
-3522.47
-3611.37
-3701.30
-3788.25
-3876.22
-3964.21
-4053.20
-4142.17
-4232.15
-4320.12
-4409.06
-4422.05
-4471.00

38.40
33.61
30.16
22.10
13.05
5.31
-2.03
-8.00
-11.81
-13.75
-15.67
-18.28
-20.46
-21.99
-23.63
-25.40
-27.37
-29.72
-31.31
-31.31
-31.34
-31.82
-32.12
-32.44
-32.70
-32.60
-31.61
-31.38
-33.22
-35.33
-37.52
-41.69
-47.25
-52.89
-59.07
-65.20
-70.27
-74.11
-76.56
-78.18
-79.93
-81.25
-82.33
-83.55
-84.79
-86.04
-87.44
-87.73
-88.90

442.60
486.67
518.17
586.23
675.46
763.94
853.50
942.18
1030.92
1119.69
1208.47
1299.27
1386.08
1473.91
1563.73
1652.54
1741.36
1830.21
1920.11
2010.06
2100.04
2189.04
2278.03
2368.02
2456.01
2545.00
2633.98
2722.96
2812.95
2901.95
2991.94
3080.87
3170.70
3259.54
3346.37
3435.24
3523.17
3612.13
3702.09
3789.06
3877.05
3965.04
4054.03
4143.02
4233.00
4320.97
4409.93
4422.92
4471.88

175.02
176.04
176.66
177.84
178.89
179.60
180.14
180.49
180.66
180.70
180.74
180.81
180.85
180.85
180.87
180.88
180.90
180.93
180.93
180.89
180.86
180.83
180.81
180.78
180.76
180.73
180.69
180.66
180.68
180.70
180.72
180.78
180.85
180.93
181.01
181.09
181.14
181.18
181.18
181.18
181.18
181.17
181.16
181.16
181.15
181.14
181.14
181.14
181.14

8.94
7.44
6.62
2.12
2.74
1.27
0.89
1.53
2.14
0.58
0.65
0.36
0.86
0.26
0.32
0.13
0.34
0.90
1.52
1.52
1.52
0.35
0.31
1.11
0.09
0.97
0.81
1.88
1.38
0.74
0.77
2.98
0.84
1.08
0.54
1.56
1.01
2.37
1.07
0.55
1.84
1.16
2.20
0.74
0.65
0.53
0.91
1.62
0.00

88

Table A. 2. Original borehole deviation survey for Well# M (0ft to 9763ft MD)

deg

deg

ft

ft

ft

ft

ft

deg

0
635
853
1070
1285
1525
1772
2018
2264
2510
2756
2996
3212
3433
3646
3865
4081
4297
4509
4725
4894
4935
4975
5017
5058
5100
5145
5186
5229
5274
5315
5357
5401
5442
5481
5523
5564
5606
5648
5690
5734
5776
5820
5862

0.00
0.20
0.36
0.24
0.52
0.42
0.72
0.76
0.45
0.80
1.14
0.90
0.88
1.70
1.53
1.60
0.88
1.86
1.39
0.66
0.49
0.56
0.58
3.05
7.94
12.38
15.44
17.80
21.18
24.80
28.83
33.68
38.15
42.29
45.67
48.95
52.65
55.75
58.78
62.37
66.22
69.96
74.09
76.72

0.00
81.41
88.02
93.89
60.21
36.84
60.01
49.33
45.58
34.02
43.83
40.42
42.76
46.07
49.83
74.97
118.71
69.12
48.71
56.65
69.22
97.89
90.69
38.14
26.46
22.62
19.45
17.57
17.28
19.92
20.55
19.75
17.77
15.37
14.25
13.30
12.00
11.43
10.56
9.20
8.52
8.98
8.68
7.75

0.00
635.00
853.00
1069.99
1284.99
1524.98
1771.97
2017.95
2263.93
2509.92
2755.88
2995.85
3211.82
3432.76
3645.68
3864.60
4080.55
4296.49
4508.41
4724.37
4893.36
4934.36
4974.36
5016.34
5057.14
5098.47
5142.14
5181.43
5221.96
5263.38
5299.96
5335.86
5371.48
5402.79
5430.85
5459.32
5485.23
5509.79
5532.50
5553.13
5572.22
5587.89
5601.46
5612.04

0.00
0.24
0.39
0.46
1.00
2.34
3.96
5.97
7.83
10.03
13.39
16.74
19.39
23.14
27.45
30.47
30.75
31.51
34.77
37.38
38.27
38.33
38.33
39.26
42.78
49.72
60.06
71.41
85.35
102.33
120.07
140.98
165.91
191.73
218.31
248.72
280.11
313.85
348.90
385.27
424.75
463.57
505.25
545.78

0.00
0.17
0.25
0.24
0.69
1.94
3.44
5.27
7.01
9.11
12.30
15.46
17.97
21.49
25.51
28.19
28.18
28.63
31.55
33.97
34.76
34.79
34.76
35.64
39.04
45.79
55.90
67.02
80.71
97.35
114.69
135.15
159.59
184.96
211.14
241.12
272.12
305.47
340.14
376.18
415.34
453.85
495.20
535.42

0.00
1.10
2.16
3.29
4.59
6.06
7.95
10.52
12.45
14.10
16.76
19.63
21.86
25.37
29.82
35.01
39.37
44.10
49.25
52.26
53.75
54.11
54.51
55.41
57.34
60.37
64.22
67.93
72.22
77.86
84.26
91.75
100.03
107.55
114.47
121.81
128.76
135.67
142.40
148.67
154.77
160.70
167.12
172.93

0.00
1.11
2.17
3.30
4.64
6.36
8.66
11.77
14.29
16.79
20.79
24.99
28.30
33.25
39.25
44.95
48.42
52.58
58.49
62.33
64.01
64.33
64.65
65.88
69.37
75.77
85.14
95.43
108.30
124.65
142.32
163.35
188.34
213.96
240.17
270.14
301.04
334.24
368.75
404.49
443.24
481.46
522.64
562.65

0.00
81.41
83.49
85.85
81.41
72.27
66.60
63.38
60.61
57.13
53.72
51.78
50.58
49.74
49.45
51.15
54.41
57.01
57.35
56.98
57.11
57.26
57.47
57.25
55.76
52.82
48.97
45.39
41.83
38.65
36.30
34.17
32.08
30.18
28.46
26.80
25.32
23.95
22.72
21.56
20.44
19.50
18.65
17.90

DLS

Closure
Azimuth

Closure

EW

NS

Vertical
Section

TVD

Azimuth

Inclination

Measured
Depth
ft

deg/
100 ft
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.06
0.16
0.09
0.15
0.06
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.02
0.37
0.09
0.31
0.53
0.67
0.35
0.34
0.12
0.66
0.19
6.52
12.17
10.69
7.01
5.90
7.86
8.36
9.85
11.59
10.50
10.78
8.89
7.98
9.35
7.46
7.42
9.00
8.86
8.96
9.41
6.62

89

5905
5945
5990
6032
6075
6117
6157
6202
6247
6292
6355
6399
6483
6568
6655
6739
6825
6913
6999
7086
7168
7254
7338
7422
7505
7591
7674
7764
7851
7941
8027
8114
8201
8291
8379
8461
8551
8636
8725
8811
8907
9003
9097
9192
9287
9382
9478
9573
9667
9731
9763

78.34
78.66
79.00
78.47
79.17
80.78
83.03
86.46
89.24
89.24
90.83
91.63
92.09
91.69
91.86
92.47
90.80
92.49
92.18
91.03
92.95
93.33
92.95
93.12
91.92
91.75
92.61
91.78
90.29
92.09
92.46
92.32
90.80
91.55
91.00
91.17
91.40
91.03
91.52
91.83
91.26
91.46
90.77
91.55
91.69
91.35
91.46
91.20
91.58
91.15
91.15

6.47
5.13
4.44
3.81
3.10
2.31
1.25
0.49
0.68
0.63
359.94
0.73
1.82
2.56
1.61
1.66
0.63
0.29
0.63
359.68
0.19
0.97
1.98
2.30
1.15
359.23
0.17
0.79
359.47
0.76
2.71
3.64
2.74
2.96
3.34
2.41
1.85
1.83
2.33
3.57
2.04
3.56
2.70
2.79
2.15
2.18
0.34
1.45
2.28
2.23
2.23

5621.33
5629.30
5638.02
5646.23
5654.56
5661.87
5667.51
5671.63
5673.32
5673.91
5673.87
5672.93
5670.20
5667.40
5664.70
5661.53
5659.08
5656.55
5653.05
5650.61
5647.76
5643.05
5638.45
5634.00
5630.35
5627.60
5624.44
5621.00
5619.42
5617.56
5614.14
5610.51
5608.14
5606.30
5604.34
5602.79
5600.77
5598.97
5596.99
5594.47
5591.89
5589.61
5587.78
5585.85
5583.17
5580.65
5578.29
5576.09
5573.81
5572.28
5571.64

587.69
626.86
671.00
712.19
754.38
795.73
835.30
880.04
924.93
969.86
1032.74
1076.65
1160.52
1245.44
1332.35
1416.23
1502.10
1589.90
1675.68
1762.47
1844.23
1929.96
2013.76
2097.61
2180.47
2266.24
2348.97
2438.75
2525.55
2615.33
2701.20
2788.12
2875.08
2965.05
3053.02
3134.99
3224.93
3309.86
3398.79
3484.75
3580.69
3676.65
3770.62
3865.58
3960.52
4055.44
4151.31
4246.16
4340.08
4404.04
4436.02

577.08
616.08
660.07
701.15
743.26
784.57
824.15
868.95
913.91
958.90
1021.90
1065.89
1149.82
1234.71
1321.61
1405.52
1491.46
1579.42
1665.35
1752.31
1834.26
1920.12
2003.97
2087.79
2170.67
2256.62
2339.56
2429.49
2516.47
2606.44
2692.33
2779.12
2865.95
2955.82
3043.66
3125.55
3215.46
3300.40
3389.32
3475.16
3571.01
3666.87
3760.71
3855.58
3950.45
4045.35
4141.29
4236.25
4330.18
4394.11
4426.08

178.12
182.08
185.76
188.73
191.27
193.22
194.45
195.13
195.59
196.10
196.42
196.67
198.54
201.79
204.95
207.35
209.06
209.77
210.46
210.70
210.60
211.47
213.63
216.76
219.26
219.54
219.11
219.86
220.06
220.24
222.84
227.66
232.49
236.97
241.80
245.91
249.26
251.99
255.22
259.64
264.34
269.02
274.16
278.70
282.80
286.38
288.50
289.98
293.04
295.55
296.80

603.95
642.42
685.71
726.11
767.48
808.01
846.78
890.59
934.61
978.75
1040.61
1083.88
1166.84
1251.09
1337.41
1420.73
1506.04
1593.29
1678.59
1764.93
1846.31
1931.73
2015.32
2099.01
2181.71
2267.27
2349.79
2439.41
2526.07
2615.73
2701.54
2788.43
2875.37
2965.30
3053.25
3135.21
3225.11
3310.00
3398.91
3484.85
3580.78
3676.72
3770.69
3865.64
3960.56
4055.47
4151.33
4246.17
4340.08
4404.04
4436.02

17.15
16.47
15.72
15.07
14.43
13.84
13.28
12.66
12.08
11.56
10.88
10.45
9.80
9.28
8.82
8.39
7.98
7.57
7.20
6.86
6.55
6.28
6.08
5.93
5.77
5.56
5.35
5.17
5.00
4.83
4.73
4.68
4.64
4.58
4.54
4.50
4.43
4.37
4.31
4.27
4.23
4.20
4.17
4.13
4.09
4.05
3.98
3.92
3.87
3.85
3.84

4.76
3.38
1.68
1.94
2.30
4.26
6.21
7.81
6.19
0.11
2.75
2.55
1.41
0.99
1.11
0.73
2.28
1.96
0.53
1.71
2.42
1.01
1.28
0.43
2.00
2.24
1.53
1.15
2.29
2.46
2.31
1.08
2.03
0.87
0.76
1.15
0.67
0.44
0.79
1.49
1.70
1.60
1.17
0.83
0.69
0.36
1.92
1.20
0.97
0.68
0.00

91

APPENDIX B.
MODIFIED BOREHOLE DEVIATION SURVEY DATA

90

Table B. 1. Modifided borehole survey for Well# L [Original case]

MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
489.4
632
898
1480
1748
2545
4963
5055
5101
5147
5332
5517
5741
5908
6246
6780
7763
9008
9868

0
0.3
0.38
0.43
0.59
0.72
1.35
2.31
5.03
8.42
11.71
29.73
50.58
74.98
88.49
87.17
86.28
90.57
88.11
92.18

0
97.52
101.28
33.6
51.38
56.07
63.28
84.89
159.78
169.58
172.89
179.8
184.95
186.98
186.8
184.29
181.06
180.16
181.95
181.37

0
489.39
631.99
897.98
1479.95
1747.93
2544.71
4960.74
5052.39
5097.89
5142.94
5303.59
5421.06
5479.11
5483.51
5500.2
5534.85
5525.07
5566.13
5533.42

710.1
220.71
78.11
-187.88
-769.85
-1037.83
-1834.61
-4250.64
-4342.29
-4387.79
-4432.84
-4593.49
-4710.96
-4769.01
-4773.41
-4790.1
-4824.75
-4814.97
-4856.03
-4823.32

Original Well Data

0
2.54
3.47
4.57
9.26
12.05
28.82
125.89
128.68
129.9
131.06
131.38
119.04
92.75
72.99
47.73
37.88
35.13
-7.21
-27.76

0
-0.34
-0.52
1.14
4.88
6.76
15.21
23.89
16.32
9.69
0.43
-91.32
-233.7
-448.44
-614.21
-950.85
-1483.63
-2466.58
-3710.18
-4569.32

92

Table B. 2. Modifided borehole survey for Well# L [100 Degree Toe-up case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
489.4
632
898
1480
1748
2545
4963
5055
5101
5147
5332
5517
5741
5908
6246
6780
7763
9008
9868

0
0.3
0.38
0.43
0.59
0.72
1.35
2.31
5.03
8.42
11.71
29.73
50.58
74.98
88.49
87.17
90
95
100
100

0
97.52
101.28
33.6
51.38
56.07
63.28
84.89
159.78
169.58
172.89
179.8
184.95
186.98
186.8
184.29
181.06
180.16
181.95
181.37

0
489.39
631.99
897.98
1479.95
1747.93
2544.71
4960.74
5052.39
5097.89
5142.94
5303.59
5421.06
5479.11
5483.51
5500.2
5500.2
5414.53
5198.33
5049

710.1
220.71
78.11
-187.88
-769.85
-1037.83
-1834.61
-4250.64
-4342.29
-4387.79
-4432.84
-4593.49
-4710.96
-4769.01
-4773.41
-4790.1
-4790.1
-4704.43
-4488.23
-4338.9

100 Degree Toe-up

0
2.54
3.47
4.57
9.26
12.05
28.82
125.89
128.68
129.9
131.06
131.38
119.04
92.75
72.99
47.73
37.86
35.12
-6.6
-26.85

0
-0.34
-0.52
1.14
4.88
6.76
15.21
23.89
16.32
9.69
0.43
-91.32
-233.7
-448.44
-614.21
-950.85
-1484.76
-2464.01
-3689.39
-4536.08

93

Table B. 3. Modifided borehole survey for Well# L [95 Degree Toe-up case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
489.4
632
898
1480
1748
2545
4963
5055
5101
5147
5332
5517
5741
5908
6246
6780
7763
9008
9868

0
0.3
0.38
0.43
0.59
0.72
1.35
2.31
5.03
8.42
11.71
29.73
50.58
74.98
88.49
87.17
90
92.5
95
95

0
97.52
101.28
33.6
51.38
56.07
63.28
84.89
159.78
169.58
172.89
179.8
184.95
186.98
186.8
184.29
181.06
180.16
181.95
181.37

0
489.39
631.99
897.98
1479.95
1747.93
2544.71
4960.74
5052.39
5097.89
5142.94
5303.59
5421.06
5479.11
5483.51
5500.2
5500.2
5457.32
5348.81
5273.86

710.1
220.71
78.11
-187.88
-769.85
-1037.83
-1834.61
-4250.64
-4342.29
-4387.79
-4432.84
-4593.49
-4710.96
-4769.01
-4773.41
-4790.1
-4790.1
-4747.22
-4638.71
-4563.76

95 Degree Toe-up

0
2.54
3.47
4.57
9.26
12.05
28.82
125.89
128.68
129.9
131.06
131.38
119.04
92.75
72.99
47.73
37.86
35.11
-7.09
-27.57

0
-0.34
-0.52
1.14
4.88
6.76
15.21
23.89
16.32
9.69
0.43
-91.32
-233.7
-448.44
-614.21
-950.85
-1484.76
-2466.82
-3706.36
-4562.85

94

Table B. 4. Modifided borehole survey for Well# L [90 Degree - Horizonta case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
489.4
632
898
1480
1748
2545
4963
5055
5101
5147
5332
5517
5741
5908
6246
6780
7763
9008
9868

0
0.3
0.38
0.43
0.59
0.72
1.35
2.31
5.03
8.42
11.71
29.73
50.58
74.98
88.49
87.17
90
90
90
90

0
97.52
101.28
33.6
51.38
56.07
63.28
84.89
159.78
169.58
172.89
179.8
184.95
186.98
186.8
184.29
181.06
180.16
181.95
181.37

0
489.39
631.99
897.98
1479.95
1747.93
2544.71
4960.74
5052.39
5097.89
5142.94
5303.59
5421.06
5479.11
5483.51
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2

710.1
220.71
78.11
-187.88
-769.85
-1037.83
-1834.61
-4250.64
-4342.29
-4387.79
-4432.84
-4593.49
-4710.96
-4769.01
-4773.41
-4790.1
-4790.1
-4790.1
-4790.1
-4790.1

90 Degree Horizontal

0
2.54
3.47
4.57
9.26
12.05
28.82
125.89
128.68
129.9
131.06
131.38
119.04
92.75
72.99
47.73
37.86
35.11
-7.25
-27.82

0
-0.34
-0.52
1.14
4.88
6.76
15.21
23.89
16.32
9.69
0.43
-91.32
-233.7
-448.44
-614.21
-950.85
-1484.76
-2467.76
-3712.03
-4571.79

95

Table B. 5. Modifided borehole survey for Well# L [85 Degree Toe-down case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
489.4
632
898
1480
1748
2545
4963
5055
5101
5147
5332
5517
5741
5908
6246
6780
7763
9008
9868

0
0.3
0.38
0.43
0.59
0.72
1.35
2.31
5.03
8.42
11.71
29.73
50.58
74.98
88.49
87.17
90
87.5
85
85

0
97.52
101.28
33.6
51.38
56.07
63.28
84.89
159.78
169.58
172.89
179.8
184.95
186.98
186.8
184.29
181.06
180.16
181.95
181.37

0
489.39
631.99
897.98
1479.95
1747.93
2544.71
4960.74
5052.39
5097.89
5142.94
5303.59
5421.06
5479.11
5483.51
5500.2
5500.2
5543.08
5651.59
5726.54

710.1
220.71
78.11
-187.88
-769.85
-1037.83
-1834.61
-4250.64
-4342.29
-4387.79
-4432.84
-4593.49
-4710.96
-4769.01
-4773.41
-4790.1
-4790.1
-4832.98
-4941.49
-5016.44

85 Degree Toe-down

0
2.54
3.47
4.57
9.26
12.05
28.82
125.89
128.68
129.9
131.06
131.38
119.04
92.75
72.99
47.73
37.86
35.11
-7.09
-27.57

0
-0.34
-0.52
1.14
4.88
6.76
15.21
23.89
16.32
9.69
0.43
-91.32
-233.7
-448.44
-614.21
-950.85
-1484.76
-2466.82
-3706.36
-4562.85

96

Table B. 6. Modifided borehole survey for Well# L [80 Degree Toe-down case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
489.4
632
898
1480
1748
2545
4963
5055
5101
5147
5332
5517
5741
5908
6246
6780
7763
9008
9868

0
0.3
0.38
0.43
0.59
0.72
1.35
2.31
5.03
8.42
11.71
29.73
50.58
74.98
88.49
87.17
90
85
80
80

0
97.52
101.28
33.6
51.38
56.07
63.28
84.89
159.78
169.58
172.89
179.8
184.95
186.98
186.8
184.29
181.06
180.16
181.95
181.37

0
489.39
631.99
897.98
1479.95
1747.93
2544.71
4960.74
5052.39
5097.89
5142.94
5303.59
5421.06
5479.11
5483.51
5500.2
5500.2
5585.88
5802.07
5951.4

710.1
220.71
78.11
-187.88
-769.85
-1037.83
-1834.61
-4250.64
-4342.29
-4387.79
-4432.84
-4593.49
-4710.96
-4769.01
-4773.41
-4790.1
-4790.1
-4875.77
-5091.97
-5241.3

80 Degree Toe-down

0
2.54
3.47
4.57
9.26
12.05
28.82
125.89
128.68
129.9
131.06
131.38
119.04
92.75
72.99
47.73
37.86
35.12
-6.6
-26.85

0
-0.34
-0.52
1.14
4.88
6.76
15.21
23.89
16.32
9.69
0.43
-91.32
-233.7
-448.44
-614.21
-950.85
-1484.76
-2464.01
-3689.39
-4536.08

97

Table B. 7. Modifided borehole survey for Well# M [Original case]

MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
635
853
1525
2510
3433
4894
5017
5058
5100
5274
5357
5606
5734
5905
6292
6483
7254
8291
9763

0
0.2
0.36
0.42
0.8
1.7
0.49
3.05
7.94
12.38
24.8
33.68
55.75
66.22
78.34
89.24
92.09
93.33
91.55
91.15

0
81.41
88.02
36.84
34.02
46.07
69.22
38.14
26.46
22.62
19.92
19.75
11.43
8.52
6.47
0.63
1.82
0.97
2.96
2.23

0
635
852.99
1524.97
2509.88
3432.47
4893.42
5016.24
5056.85
5097.87
5255.83
5324.9
5465.03
5516.65
5551.21
5556.34
5549.37
5504.59
5476.54
5447

680.9
45.9
-172.09
-844.07
-1828.98
-2751.57
-4212.52
-4335.34
-4375.95
-4416.97
-4574.93
-4644
-4784.13
-4835.75
-4870.31
-4875.44
-4868.47
-4823.69
-4795.64
-4766.1

Original Well Data

0
2.19
3.56
6.51
14.21
33.93
45.61
49.65
52.18
55.64
80.51
96.06
136.85
154.2
173.07
177.33
183.39
196.42
249.95
307.21

0
0.33
0.38
4.32
15.72
34.72
39.15
44.3
49.37
57.68
126.3
169.62
371.36
487.2
653.6
1040.54
1231.32
2000.91
3036.15
4506.73

98

Table B. 8. Modifided borehole survey for Well# M [100 Degree Toe-up case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
635
853
1525
2510
3433
4894
5017
5058
5100
5274
5357
5606
5734
5905
6292
6483
7254
8291
9763

0
0.2
0.36
0.42
0.8
1.7
0.49
3.05
7.94
12.38
24.8
33.68
55.75
66.22
78.34
89.24
90
95
100
100

0
81.41
88.02
36.84
34.02
46.07
69.22
38.14
26.46
22.62
19.92
19.75
11.43
8.52
6.47
0.63
1.82
0.97
2.96
2.23

0
635
852.99
1524.97
2509.88
3432.47
4893.42
5016.24
5056.85
5097.87
5255.83
5324.9
5465.03
5516.65
5551.21
5556.34
5556.34
5489.14
5309.07
5053.46

680.9
45.9
-172.09
-844.07
-1828.98
-2751.57
-4212.52
-4335.34
-4375.95
-4416.97
-4574.93
-4644
-4784.13
-4835.75
-4870.31
-4875.44
-4875.44
-4808.24
-4628.17
-4372.56

100 Degree Toe-up

0
2.19
3.56
6.51
14.21
33.93
45.61
49.65
52.18
55.64
80.51
96.06
136.85
154.2
173.07
177.33
183.39
196.4
249.13
305.54

0
0.33
0.38
4.32
15.72
34.72
39.15
44.3
49.37
57.68
126.3
169.62
371.36
487.2
653.6
1040.54
1231.45
1999.4
3019.29
4467.83

99

Table B. 9. Modifided borehole survey for Well# M [95 Degree Toe-up case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
635
853
1525
2510
3433
4894
5017
5058
5100
5274
5357
5606
5734
5905
6292
6483
7254
8291
9763

0
0.2
0.36
0.42
0.8
1.7
0.49
3.05
7.94
12.38
24.8
33.68
55.75
66.22
78.34
89.24
90
92
95
95

0
81.41
88.02
36.84
34.02
46.07
69.22
38.14
26.46
22.62
19.92
19.75
11.43
8.52
6.47
0.63
1.82
0.97
2.96
2.23

0
635
852.99
1524.97
2509.88
3432.47
4893.42
5016.24
5056.85
5097.87
5255.83
5324.9
5465.03
5516.65
5551.21
5556.34
5556.34
5529.43
5439.05
5310.76

680.9
45.9
-172.09
-844.07
-1828.98
-2751.57
-4212.52
-4335.34
-4375.95
-4416.97
-4574.93
-4644
-4784.13
-4835.75
-4870.31
-4875.44
-4875.44
-4848.53
-4758.15
-4629.86

95 Degree Toe-up

0
2.19
3.56
6.51
14.21
33.93
45.61
49.65
52.18
55.64
80.51
96.06
136.85
154.2
173.07
177.33
183.39
196.44
249.78
306.84

0
0.33
0.38
4.32
15.72
34.72
39.15
44.3
49.37
57.68
126.3
169.62
371.36
487.2
653.6
1040.54
1231.45
2001.87
3033.54
4498.83

011

Table B. 10. Modifided borehole survey for Well# M [90 Degree Horizontal case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
635
853
1525
2510
3433
4894
5017
5058
5100
5274
5357
5606
5734
5905
6292
6483
7254
8291
9763

0
0.2
0.36
0.42
0.8
1.7
0.49
3.05
7.94
12.38
24.8
33.68
55.75
66.22
78.34
89.24
90
90
90
90

0
81.41
88.02
36.84
34.02
46.07
69.22
38.14
26.46
22.62
19.92
19.75
11.43
8.52
6.47
0.63
1.82
0.97
2.96
2.23

0
635
852.99
1524.97
2509.88
3432.47
4893.42
5016.24
5056.85
5097.87
5255.83
5324.9
5465.03
5516.65
5551.21
5556.34
5556.34
5556.34
5556.34
5556.34

680.9
45.9
-172.09
-844.07
-1828.98
-2751.57
-4212.52
-4335.34
-4375.95
-4416.97
-4574.93
-4644
-4784.13
-4835.75
-4870.31
-4875.44
-4875.44
-4875.44
-4875.44
-4875.44

90 Degree Horizontal

0
2.19
3.56
6.51
14.21
33.93
45.61
49.65
52.18
55.64
80.51
96.06
136.85
154.2
173.07
177.33
183.39
196.44
249.99
307.27

0
0.33
0.38
4.32
15.72
34.72
39.15
44.3
49.37
57.68
126.3
169.62
371.36
487.2
653.6
1040.54
1231.45
2002.34
3037.95
4508.84

010

Table B. 11. Modifided borehole survey for Well# M [85 Degree Toe-down case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
635
853
1525
2510
3433
4894
5017
5058
5100
5274
5357
5606
5734
5905
6292
6483
7254
8291
9763

0
0.2
0.36
0.42
0.8
1.7
0.49
3.05
7.94
12.38
24.8
33.68
55.75
66.22
78.34
89.24
90
87.5
85
85

0
81.41
88.02
36.84
34.02
46.07
69.22
38.14
26.46
22.62
19.92
19.75
11.43
8.52
6.47
0.63
1.82
0.97
2.96
2.23

0
635
852.99
1524.97
2509.88
3432.47
4893.42
5016.24
5056.85
5097.87
5255.83
5324.9
5465.03
5516.65
5551.21
5556.34
5556.34
5589.97
5680.35
5808.64

680.9
45.9
-172.09
-844.07
-1828.98
-2751.57
-4212.52
-4335.34
-4375.95
-4416.97
-4574.93
-4644
-4784.13
-4835.75
-4870.31
-4875.44
-4875.44
-4909.07
-4999.45
-5127.74

85 Degree Toe-down

0
2.19
3.56
6.51
14.21
33.93
45.61
49.65
52.18
55.64
80.51
96.06
136.85
154.2
173.07
177.33
183.39
196.43
249.78
306.84

0
0.33
0.38
4.32
15.72
34.72
39.15
44.3
49.37
57.68
126.3
169.62
371.36
487.2
653.6
1040.54
1231.45
2001.6
3033.28
4498.57

012

Table B. 12. Modifided borehole survey for Well# M [80 Degree Toe-down case]
MD
Incline
Azimuth
TVD
Subsea
DX
DY
(feet)
(deg)
(deg)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
0
635
853
1525
2510
3433
4894
5017
5058
5100
5274
5357
5606
5734
5905
6292
6483
7254
8291
9763

0
0.2
0.36
0.42
0.8
1.7
0.49
3.05
7.94
12.38
24.8
33.68
55.75
66.22
78.34
89.24
90
85
80
80

0
81.41
88.02
36.84
34.02
46.07
69.22
38.14
26.46
22.62
19.92
19.75
11.43
8.52
6.47
0.63
1.82
0.97
2.96
2.23

0
635
852.99
1524.97
2509.88
3432.47
4893.42
5016.24
5056.85
5097.87
5255.83
5324.9
5465.03
5516.65
5551.21
5556.34
5556.34
5623.54
5803.61
6059.22

680.9
45.9
-172.09
-844.07
-1828.98
-2751.57
-4212.52
-4335.34
-4375.95
-4416.97
-4574.93
-4644
-4784.13
-4835.75
-4870.31
-4875.44
-4875.44
-4942.64
-5122.71
-5378.32

80 Degree Toe-down

0
2.19
3.56
6.51
14.21
33.93
45.61
49.65
52.18
55.64
80.51
96.06
136.85
154.2
173.07
177.33
183.39
196.4
249.13
305.54

0
0.33
0.38
4.32
15.72
34.72
39.15
44.3
49.37
57.68
126.3
169.62
371.36
487.2
653.6
1040.54
1231.45
1999.4
3019.29
4467.83

013

APPENDIX C.
PRODUCTION AND FLOWING PRESSURES DATA

014

Table C. 1. Well# L Production and flowing pressures data.

Gas
Production

Water
Production

Tubing
Pressure

Casing
Pressure

Line Pressure

Choke Size

Temperature

Date
8/22/2010
9/1/2010
9/15/2010
10/1/2010
10/15/2010
11/1/2010
11/15/2010
12/1/2010
12/15/2010
1/1/2011
1/15/2011
2/1/2011
2/15/2011
3/1/2011
3/15/2011
4/1/2011
4/15/2011
5/1/2011
5/15/2011
6/1/2011
6/15/2011
7/1/2011
7/15/2011
8/1/2011
8/15/2011
9/1/2011
9/15/2011
10/1/2011
10/15/2011
11/1/2011
11/15/2011
12/1/2011
12/15/2011
1/1/2012
1/15/2012
2/1/2012
2/15/2012
3/1/2012

mscfd
3,053
2,884
2,851
2,717
2,598
2,526
2,364
2,030
2,137
2,088
2,043
1,949
1,876
1,838
1,754
1,623
1,607
1,556
1,509
1,475
1,437
1,397
1,396
1,349
1,322
1,290
1,228
1,214
1,187
1,174
1,159
1,147
1,122
1,096
1,081
1,065
1,040
1,029

stbd
1,240
273
160
58
50
79
33
32
25
35
24
22
20
15
15
20
15
17
18
15
13
16
8
13
12
13
12
9
8
7
7
8
6
7
10
9
6
6

psia
1,850
175
152
136
120
111
105
94
94
96
90
89
89
87
81
100
102
96
93
94
95
93
88
94
84
84
82
80
78
75
80
76
78
78
75
74
75
74

psia
760
789
745
713
559
505
492
485
451
436
411
389
377
363
353
334
329
320
312
301
295
288
282
273
266
261
256
249
246
238
229
223
221
216
212
207
205
200

psia
0
79
75
71
70
70
68
61
63
69
66
63
66
63
56
84
87
82
79
79
81
79
85
85
72
74
70
67
65
62
67
64
67
66
64
64
64
66

64ths
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64

deg F
0
0
0
81
79
75
70
68
63
64
67
49
72
70
67
72
66
60
72
86
85
87
89
91
84
88
73
73
76
71
66
64
55
58
62
66
60
74

015

3/15/2012
4/1/2012
4/15/2012
5/1/2012
5/15/2012
6/1/2012
6/15/2012
7/1/2012
7/15/2012
8/1/2012
8/15/2012
9/1/2012
9/15/2012
9/29/2012

1,011
1,023
1,002
983
957
950
938
918
900
882
888
854
845
844

5
5
5
4
5
5
5
0
1
1
5
5
3
5

72
72
71
71
70
68
73
81
80
92
77
87
92
86

198
193
186
195
186
182
175
180
175
176
168
176
174
169

65
64
62
63
60
61
65
72
75
78
70
81
85
80

64
64
64
64
64
64

77
81
68
83
81

016

Table C. 2. Well# M Production and flowing pressures data.

Tubing
Pressure

Casing
Pressure

Line Pressure

stbd
0
479
454
141
64
46
13
24
0
0
76
36
36
30
18
22
108
20
0
0
7
24
15
21
15
0
0
83
57
38
26
25
32
32
27
22
13
18
18

psia
678
836
528
156
142
130
127
136
115
108
114
108
101
100
99
98
98
94
201
265
367
376
355
398
388
386
12
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
84
80
80

psia
1,426
1,397
1,231
851
771
724
677
652
623
588
556
544
474
463
451
440
430
419
1
48
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
270
267
258

psia
71
49
55
52
60
63
73
93
64
67
59
73
79
76
75
75
74
72
57
56
77
71
73
71
67
50
0
90
85
83
83
83
81
84
85
72
74
70
70

Temperature

Water
Production

Mscfd
3,617
3,480
3,745
3,305
3,172
3,050
2,894
2,794
2,700
2,599
2,483
1,985
1,877
1,944
1,900
1,862
1,740
1,725
0
0
2,466
2,097
2,555
1,992
1,843
0
0
1,264
1,233
1,244
1,231
1,210
1,189
1,174
1,146
1,134
1,103
1,096
1,062

Choke Size

Gas
Production

Date
3/30/2010
3/31/2010
4/1/2010
4/15/2010
5/1/2010
5/15/2010
6/1/2010
6/15/2010
7/1/2010
7/15/2010
8/1/2010
8/15/2010
9/1/2010
9/15/2010
10/1/2010
10/15/2010
11/1/2010
11/15/2010
12/1/2010
12/15/2010
1/1/2011
1/15/2011
2/1/2011
2/15/2011
3/1/2011
3/15/2011
4/1/2011
4/15/2011
5/1/2011
5/15/2011
6/1/2011
6/15/2011
7/1/2011
7/15/2011
8/1/2011
8/15/2011
9/1/2011
9/15/2011
10/1/2011

64ths
38
38
64

deg F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
78
73
67
41
41
48
64
46
71
69
47
57
70
61
72
86
85
87
87
91
83
88
73
71

64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
32
64
30
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64

017

10/15/2011
11/1/2011
11/15/2011
12/1/2011
12/15/2011
1/1/2012
1/15/2012
2/1/2012
2/15/2012
3/1/2012
3/15/2012
4/1/2012
4/15/2012
5/1/2012
5/15/2012
6/1/2012
6/15/2012
7/1/2012
7/15/2012
8/1/2012
8/15/2012
9/1/2012
9/15/2012
9/29/2012

1,046
1,027
1,008
992
941
959
855
918
914
892
879
867
852
830
821
806
792
781
761
757
751
731
719
716

25
27
30
35
22
20
27
25
13
17
23
17
20
17
17
24
17
2
2
2
11
7
2
7

78
75
78
73
91
75
70
77
205
77
76
74
72
72
70
69
0
0
0
82
74
85
88
82

251
244
239
233
237
224
217
216
339
208
204
199
195
191
187
184
0
0
0
178
172
175
175
171

68
65
68
63
67
66
61
69
69
70
69
68
66
65
63
64
68
74
76
81
73
84
87
82

64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64

74
68
63
62
54
56
60
64
58
73
75
80
66
81
79

018

APPENDIX D.
GRADIENT MATCHING CALCULATIONS

019

Table D 1. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Original Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)
Angle from
Vertical

1.0150
0.8311
0.7278
0.6592
0.6093
0.5042
0.4854
0.4704
0.4523
0.4328
0.4138
0.3961
0.3823
0.3510
0.3486
0.3463
0.3445
0.3435
0.3407
0.3374
0.3349
0.3333
0.3323
0.3319
0.3320
0.3326
0.3336
0.3349
0.3366
0.3372
0.3376
0.3366
0.3368
0.3352
0.3354
0.3155
0.3160
0.2726
0.2726
0.2005
0.2000
0.1541

Superficial
Gas Velocity

Regime

0.0012
0.0016
0.0020
0.0023
0.0025
0.0028
0.0030
0.0032
0.0035
0.0038
0.0042
0.0047
0.0051
0.0109
0.0114
0.0120
0.0126
0.0133
0.0140
0.0147
0.0154
0.0162
0.0169
0.0176
0.0183
0.0190
0.0197
0.0204
0.0210
0.0214
0.0216
0.0217
0.0217
0.0218
0.0219
0.0220
0.0223
0.0225
0.0227
0.0229
0.0231
0.0232

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Holdup

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1
4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3

Gradient

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2
4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5

True Vertical
Depth

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

126.672
96.53
80.076
69.355
61.684
56.155
52.22
49.094
45.33
41.299
37.357
33.639
30.663
28.765
27.346
25.763
24.088
22.607
21.293
20.005
18.757
17.65
16.658
15.764
14.951
14.206
13.52
12.885
12.294
11.962
11.858
11.781
11.73
11.68
11.63
11.512
11.329
11.162
11.011
10.871
10.742
10.643

126.515
96.373
79.919
69.198
61.527
55.998
52.062
48.937
45.173
41.142
37.199
33.481
30.505
28.452
27.035
25.455
23.783
22.306
20.996
19.711
18.467
17.365
16.377
15.487
14.677
13.936
13.254
12.623
12.035
11.705
11.602
11.526
11.475
11.425
11.376
11.259
11.077
10.911
10.761
10.622
10.494
10.395

0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.0398
0.0398
0.4971
0.4971
0.5824
0.5824
0.5824
0.6985
0.6985
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
5
5
8.46
8.46
11.67
11.67
29.73
29.73
50.58
50.58
74.98
74.98
88.49
88.49

001

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5511.7
5523.3
5534.8
5532.4
5530
5527.5
5525.1
5533.3
5541.5
5549.7
5557.9
5566.1
-5558
-5549.8
-5541.6
-5533.4
-5533.4
-5533.4

0.1536
0.1578
0.1577
0.0192
0.0192
0.0232
0.0232
0.0232
0.0041
0.0041
0.0041
0.0041
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0151
0.0032
0.0032
0.0032
0.0032
0.0032
0.0032

0.0233
0.0234
0.0234
0.0736
0.0736
0.0737
0.0737
0.0738
0.0738
0.0738
0.0738
0.0739
0.0739
0.0739
0.0740
0.0740
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

10.571
10.532
10.525
2.067
2.064
2.06
2.056
2.052
2.049
2.048
2.048
2.047
2.044
2.041
2.037
2.033
2.029
2.027
2.027
2.028
2.028
2.029
2.029

10.325
10.286
10.279
1.915
1.912
1.909
1.905
1.901
1.898
1.897
1.896
1.896
1.893
1.89
1.886
1.882
1.878
1.877
1.877
1.877
1.878
1.878
1.878

87.17
87.17
87.17
87.17
86.28
86.28
86.28
90.57
90.57
90.57
90.57
88.11
88.11
88.11
88.11
88.11
92.18
92.18
92.18
92.18
92.18
92.18
92.18

000

Table D 2. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Original Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)
Angle from
Vertical

8.4580
5.9130
3.6420
2.3380
1.6970
1.3110
1.0520
0.8675
0.7287
0.6212
0.5359
0.4665
0.4092
0.3614
0.3211
0.2867
0.2572
0.2485
0.2486
0.2488
0.2491
0.2497
0.2505
0.2517
0.2534
0.2556
0.2581
0.2603
0.2622
0.2647
0.2680
0.2714
0.2749
0.2790
0.2838
0.2888
0.2941
0.2996
0.3054
0.3115
0.3178
0.3244

Superficial
Gas Velocity

Regime

0.0016
0.0025
0.0032
0.0036
0.0039
0.0042
0.0043
0.0045
0.0046
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.0049
0.0050
0.0050
0.0051
0.0051
0.1057
0.1061
0.1064
0.1070
0.1080
0.1094
0.1111
0.1133
0.1158
0.1183
0.1203
0.1220
0.1241
0.1266
0.1290
0.1315
0.1342
0.1372
0.1401
0.1431
0.1461
0.1491
0.1522
0.1553
0.1584

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Holdup

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1

Gradient

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2

True Vertical
Depth

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

100.536
62.404
49.237
43.311
39.994
37.806
36.24
35.054
34.123
33.374
32.761
32.246
31.812
31.442
31.124
30.847
30.607
33.804
33.58
33.358
32.933
32.317
31.47
30.427
29.226
27.908
26.689
25.729
24.986
24.11
23.128
22.208
21.345
20.447
19.528
18.668
17.861
17.102
16.384
15.705
15.061
14.448

100.378
62.247
49.08
43.154
39.837
37.649
36.083
34.897
33.966
33.217
32.604
32.089
31.655
31.285
30.966
30.69
30.45
30.23
30.019
29.809
29.408
28.827
28.028
27.045
25.915
24.676
23.532
22.633
21.937
21.118
20.2
19.343
18.538
17.703
16.85
16.052
15.305
14.603
13.941
13.315
12.722
12.159

0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.0398
0.0398
0.4971
0.4971
0.5824
0.5824
0.5824
0.6985
0.6985
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31

002

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5
5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3
5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5511.7
5523.3
5534.8
-5532.4
-5530
-5527.5
-5525.1
5533.3
5541.5
5549.7
5557.9
5566.1
5558
5549.8
5541.6
5533.4
5533.4
5533.4

0.3314
0.3347
0.3361
0.3350
0.3357
0.3334
0.3341
0.3015
0.3037
0.2324
0.2336
0.1150
0.1152
0.0408
0.0407
0.0481
0.0481
0.0309
0.0309
0.0405
0.0406
0.0406
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0209
0.0209
0.0209
0.0210
0.0210
-0.0232
-0.0232
-0.0231
-0.0231
-0.0231
-0.0231

0.1616
0.1635
0.1642
0.1646
0.1649
0.1652
0.1656
0.1663
0.1674
0.1684
0.1692
0.1699
0.1705
0.1708
0.1709
0.1710
0.1710
0.4939
0.4945
0.4952
0.4961
0.4971
0.4974
0.4973
0.4971
0.4968
0.4971
0.4977
0.4984
0.4991
0.4998
0.4998
0.4992
0.4986
0.4980
0.4977
0.4977

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

13.862
13.529
13.424
13.346
13.294
13.243
13.192
13.076
12.896
12.74
12.607
12.502
12.425
12.377
12.357
12.346
12.344
3.765
3.76
3.755
3.748
3.741
3.738
3.739
3.741
3.742
3.741
3.736
3.731
3.726
3.72
3.72
3.724
3.729
3.734
3.736
3.736

11.622
11.317
11.22
11.149
11.101
11.054
11.008
10.902
10.737
10.595
10.473
10.378
10.307
10.263
10.245
10.235
10.233
1.906
1.901
1.895
1.888
1.881
1.878
1.88
1.881
1.883
1.881
1.876
1.871
1.866
1.861
1.86
1.865
1.87
1.874
1.877
1.877

2.31
5
5
8.46
8.46
11.67
11.67
29.73
29.73
50.58
50.58
74.98
74.98
88.49
88.49
87.17
87.17
87.17
87.17
86.28
86.28
86.28
90.57
90.57
90.57
90.57
88.11
88.11
88.11
88.11
88.11
92.18
92.18
92.18
92.18
92.18
92.18

003

Table D 3. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Toe-up - 100 Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)
Angle from
Vertical

1.1050
0.8939
0.7786
0.7028
0.6483
0.5360
0.5155
0.4992
0.4795
0.4584
0.4379
0.4187
0.3781
0.3739
0.3712
0.3686
0.3666
0.3637
0.3595
0.3559
0.3531
0.3511
0.3499
0.3492
0.3492
0.3496
0.3504
0.3515
0.3531
0.3536
0.3539
0.3529
0.3531
0.3514
0.3516
0.3310
0.3315
0.2867
0.2867
0.2124
0.2117
0.1644

Superficial
Gas Velocity

0.0013
0.0017
0.0020
0.0023
0.0026
0.0029
0.0031
0.0033
0.0036
0.0040
0.0044
0.0049
0.0106
0.0113
0.0118
0.0124
0.0131
0.0138
0.0144
0.0152
0.0159
0.0167
0.0174
0.0181
0.0188
0.0195
0.0202
0.0209
0.0216
0.0220
0.0222
0.0222
0.0223
0.0224
0.0224
0.0226
0.0228
0.0231
0.0233
0.0235
0.0237
0.0238

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1
4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2
4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

125.727
94.273
77.64
66.966
59.398
53.976
50.13
47.086
43.43
39.528
35.723
32.145
29.534
27.624
26.241
24.703
23.078
21.65
20.389
19.156
17.963
16.907
15.961
15.108
14.333
13.624
12.969
12.364
11.799
11.482
11.383
11.31
11.261
11.213
11.165
11.052
10.877
10.717
10.571
10.435
10.31
10.212

125.57
94.116
77.483
66.809
59.241
53.819
49.972
46.928
43.273
39.37
35.565
31.988
29.22
27.313
25.933
24.397
22.776
21.352
20.094
18.865
17.677
16.624
15.683
14.834
14.063
13.357
12.707
12.105
11.544
11.229
11.131
11.058
11.01
10.962
10.915
10.802
10.628
10.469
10.325
10.19
10.066
9.969

0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.039772
0.039772
0.49714
0.49714
0.58236
0.58236
0.58236
0.6985
0.6985
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
5
5
8.46
8.46
11.67
11.67
29.73
29.73
50.58
50.58
74.98
74.98
88.49

004

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5478.8
5457.4
5435.9
5414.5
5371.3
5328
5284.8
5241.6
5198.3
5161
5123.7
5086.4
5049
5049
5049

0.1638
0.1682
0.1681
0.0200
0.0200
0.0071
0.0071
0.0071
-0.0157
-0.0157
-0.0157
-0.0157
-0.0382
-0.0381
-0.0380
-0.0379
-0.0378
-0.0377
-0.0376
-0.0375
-0.0374
-0.0374
-0.0374

0.0239
0.0240
0.0240
0.0745
0.0746
0.0747
0.0747
0.0748
0.0748
0.0748
0.0748
0.0748
0.0748
0.0747
0.0746
0.0746
0.0745
0.0744
0.0743
0.0742
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

10.142
10.103
10.096
1.983
1.978
1.975
1.972
1.969
1.967
1.968
1.968
1.968
1.971
1.977
1.983
1.99
1.997
2.003
2.01
2.017
2.025
2.029
2.029

9.899
9.861
9.854
1.835
1.831
1.827
1.824
1.821
1.82
1.821
1.821
1.821
1.824
1.829
1.835
1.841
1.848
1.854
1.861
1.867
1.875
1.879
1.879

88.49
87.17
87.17
87.17
87.17
90
90
90
95
95
95
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

005

Table D 4. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Toe-up - 100 Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)

0.0016
0.0027
0.0034
0.0038
0.0041
0.0043
0.0045
0.0046
0.0048
0.0049
0.0049
0.0050
0.0051
0.0051
0.1055
0.1059
0.1063
0.1067
0.1071
0.1075
0.1082
0.1090
0.1100
0.1130
0.1155
0.1184
0.1213
0.1237
0.1250
0.1281
0.1300
0.1338
0.1367
0.1398
0.1433
0.1468
0.1503
0.1538
0.1573
0.1609
0.1645
0.1682

Angle from
Vertical

9.7100
6.6200
3.3900
2.2100
1.6000
1.2300
0.9888
0.8096
0.6751
0.5710
0.4888
0.4220
0.3673
0.3218
0.2922
0.2924
0.2926
0.2929
0.2931
0.2934
0.2939
0.2947
0.2960
0.2979
0.3005
0.3039
0.3077
0.3111
0.3140
0.3178
0.3227
0.3278
0.3332
0.3393
0.3465
0.3541
0.3620
0.3702
0.3789
0.3879
0.3974
0.4070

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

96.32
57.786
45.81
40.901
38.071
36.185
34.831
33.806
33.005
32.362
31.839
31.403
31.038
30.729
33.879
33.615
33.354
33.098
32.844
32.595
32.117
31.427
30.484
29.331
28.014
26.581
25.269
24.244
23.455
22.53
21.501
20.543
19.65
18.728
17.791
16.92
16.109
15.35
14.639
13.969
13.338
12.741

96.16
57.62
45.65
40.74
37.91
36.02
34.67
33.64
32.84
32.2
31.68
31.24
30.88
30.57
30.3
30.05
29.8
29.56
29.32
29.09
28.63
27.98
27.1
26.01
24.77
23.43
22.2
21.24
20.5
19.64
18.68
17.79
16.96
16.1
15.24
14.43
13.68
12.98
12.33
11.72
11.14
10.59

0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.039772
0.039772
0.49714
0.49714
0.58236
0.58236
0.58236
0.6985
0.6985
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
5
5
8.46
8.46
11.67
11.67
29.73
29.73
50.58
50.58
74.98
74.98
88.49

006

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5
5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3
5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5478.8
5457.4
5435.9
5414.5
5371.3
5328
5284.8
5241.6
5198.3
5161
5123.7
5086.4
5049
5049
5049

0.4176
0.4227
0.4248
0.4236
0.4246
0.4218
0.4228
0.3810
0.3842
0.2923
0.2940
0.1405
0.1408
0.0443
0.0443
0.0538
0.0538
0.0390
0.0391
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
-0.0677
-0.0675
-0.0673
-0.0671
-0.1335
-0.1326
-0.1317
-0.1308
-0.1298
-0.1289
-0.1281
-0.1272
-0.1263
-0.1250
-0.1250

0.1720
0.1743
0.1750
0.1755
0.1759
0.1763
0.1766
0.1775
0.1788
0.1800
0.1810
0.1818
0.1824
0.1820
0.1829
0.1830
0.1830
0.5330
0.5347
0.5350
0.5355
0.5358
0.5351
0.5336
0.5320
0.5304
0.5279
0.5242
0.5205
0.5168
0.5130
0.5095
0.5061
0.5027
0.4992
0.4975
0.4975

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

12.176
11.855
11.754
11.679
11.63
11.581
11.532
11.421
11.249
11.102
10.976
10.878
10.806
10.762
10.744
10.735
10.733
3.501
3.495
3.492
3.49
3.488
3.492
3.501
3.509
3.518
3.533
3.555
3.578
3.601
3.626
3.651
3.674
3.698
3.724
3.737
3.737

10.08
9.78
9.69
9.62
9.58
9.53
9.49
9.39
9.23
9.1
8.98
8.9
8.83
8.79
8.77
8.77
8.76
1.63
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.61
1.62
1.63
1.64
1.65
1.66
1.69
1.71
1.74
1.76
1.79
1.81
1.83
1.86
1.87
1.87

88.49
87.17
87.17
87.17
87.17
90
90
90
95
95
95
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.36605
0.03977
0.03977
0.49714
0.49714
0.58236
0.58236
0.58236
0.6985

007

Table D 5. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Toe-up - 95 Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)
Angle from
Vertical

1.0640
0.8653
0.7555
0.6830
0.6306
0.5215
0.5019
0.4861
0.4671
0.4468
0.4270
0.4085
0.3677
0.3637
0.3611
0.3586
0.3566
0.3551
0.3511
0.3477
0.3450
0.3431
0.3420
0.3414
0.3415
0.3419
0.3428
0.3441
0.3457
0.3462
0.3466
0.3456
0.3458
0.3442
0.3443
0.3240
0.3245
0.2804
0.2804
0.2070
0.2064
0.1598

Superficial
Gas Velocity

0.0012
0.0016
0.0020
0.0023
0.0026
0.0029
0.0031
0.0033
0.0036
0.0039
0.0043
0.0048
0.0105
0.0111
0.0116
0.0122
0.0129
0.0135
0.0142
0.0149
0.0157
0.0164
0.0172
0.0179
0.0186
0.0193
0.0200
0.0207
0.0214
0.0218
0.0219
0.0220
0.0221
0.0221
0.0222
0.0223
0.0226
0.0228
0.0230
0.0232
0.0234
0.0236

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1
4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2
4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

126.121
95.258
78.703
68.007
60.393
54.922
51.037
47.957
44.253
40.294
36.428
32.789
30.131
28.191
26.784
25.218
23.563
22.105
20.814
19.552
18.331
17.248
16.279
15.406
14.612
13.885
13.215
12.595
12.018
11.693
11.592
11.517
11.467
11.418
11.369
11.254
11.075
10.911
10.763
10.625
10.498
10.399

125.964
95.101
78.546
67.85
60.236
54.765
50.88
47.8
44.096
40.137
36.271
32.631
29.816
27.879
26.475
24.911
23.26
21.806
20.518
19.26
18.043
16.964
15.999
15.13
14.34
13.617
12.951
12.335
11.761
11.439
11.338
11.264
11.214
11.166
11.117
11.002
10.825
10.662
10.515
10.379
10.252
10.154

0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.0398
0.0398
0.4971
0.4971
0.5824
0.5824
0.5824
0.6985
0.6985
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
5
5
8.46
8.46
11.67
11.67
29.73
29.73
50.58
50.58
74.98
74.98
88.49

008

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5489.5
5478.8
5468
5457.3
5435.6
5413.9
5392.2
5370.5
5348.8
5330.1
5311.3
5292.6
5273.9
5273.9
5273.9

0.1592
0.1635
0.1634
0.0196
0.0197
0.0069
0.0069
0.0069
-0.0044
-0.0044
-0.0044
-0.0044
-0.0156
-0.0156
-0.0156
-0.0156
-0.0155
-0.0155
-0.0155
-0.0155
-0.0154
-0.0154
-0.0154

0.0237
0.0237
0.0237
0.0741
0.0742
0.0742
0.0743
0.0743
0.0743
0.0743
0.0743
0.0744
0.0744
0.0743
0.0743
0.0743
0.0742
0.0742
0.0742
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

10.328
10.29
10.283
2.019
2.015
2.013
2.01
2.008
2.007
2.006
2.006
2.005
2.006
2.008
2.011
2.013
2.016
2.018
2.021
2.024
2.027
2.029
2.029

10.084
10.046
10.039
1.869
1.866
1.863
1.861
1.859
1.858
1.857
1.857
1.856
1.857
1.859
1.861
1.864
1.866
1.869
1.871
1.874
1.877
1.879
1.879

88.49
87.17
87.17
87.17
87.17
90
90
90
92.5
92.5
92.5
92.5
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95

009

Table D 6. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Toe-up - 95 Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)
Angle from
Vertical

8.3800
5.8710
3.6980
2.3730
1.7250
1.3360
1.0760
0.8892
0.7493
0.6408
0.5547
0.4844
0.4264
0.3779
0.3369
0.3019
0.2718
0.2669
0.2672
0.2675
0.2681
0.2689
0.2703
0.2722
0.2747
0.2780
0.2815
0.2847
0.2874
0.2909
0.2953
0.3000
0.3048
0.3103
0.3168
0.3236
0.3307
0.3380
0.3458
0.3538
0.3622
0.3710

Superficial
Gas Velocity

0.0016
0.0025
0.0032
0.0036
0.0039
0.0041
0.0043
0.0045
0.0046
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.0049
0.0050
0.0051
0.0051
0.0051
0.1058
0.1061
0.1065
0.1072
0.1082
0.1097
0.1116
0.1139
0.1166
0.1193
0.1215
0.1233
0.1256
0.1283
0.1310
0.1336
0.1366
0.1398
0.1431
0.1464
0.1497
0.1530
0.1564
0.1598
0.1633

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

101.255
63.014
49.67
43.601
40.212
37.979
36.377
35.163
34.209
33.439
32.807
32.277
31.827
31.443
31.111
30.823
30.571
33.751
33.512
33.275
32.821
32.165
31.263
30.156
28.884
27.491
26.207
25.199
24.42
23.503
22.477
21.52
20.623
19.693
18.744
17.859
17.031
16.253
15.522
14.833
14.18
13.561

101.098
62.857
49.513
43.444
40.055
37.822
36.22
35.006
34.052
33.282
32.65
32.12
31.67
31.286
30.954
30.666
30.413
30.181
29.955
29.732
29.303
28.684
27.834
26.791
25.594
24.285
23.081
22.137
21.408
20.551
19.594
18.701
17.867
17.003
16.123
15.303
14.538
13.821
13.147
12.513
11.914
11.346

0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.0398
0.0398
0.4971
0.4971
0.5824
0.5824
0.5824
0.6985
0.6985
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31

021

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5
5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3
5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5489.5
5478.8
5468
5457.3
5435.6
5413.9
5392.2
5370.5
5348.8
5330.1
5311.3
5292.6
5273.9
5273.9
5273.9

0.3802
0.3848
0.3866
0.3855
0.3864
0.3838
0.3847
0.3465
0.3494
0.2655
0.2671
0.1272
0.1275
0.0396
0.0395
0.0483
0.0483
0.0359
0.0360
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
-0.0310
-0.0309
-0.0309
-0.0308
-0.0619
-0.0617
-0.0615
-0.0612
-0.0610
-0.0608
-0.0606
-0.0604
-0.0602
-0.0601
-0.0601

0.1669
0.1690
0.1697
0.1702
0.1705
0.1709
0.1712
0.1720
0.1733
0.1744
0.1753
0.1761
0.1766
0.1770
0.1771
0.1772
0.1772
0.5144
0.5152
0.5157
0.5158
0.5160
0.5156
0.5149
0.5141
0.5134
0.5122
0.5104
0.5087
0.5069
0.5051
0.5034
0.5018
0.5001
0.4985
0.4977
0.4977

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

12.973
12.639
12.534
12.455
12.404
12.353
12.302
12.186
12.007
11.852
11.721
11.619
11.545
11.499
11.482
11.472
11.47
3.618
3.613
3.61
3.609
3.608
3.61
3.615
3.62
3.625
3.633
3.645
3.657
3.669
3.682
3.694
3.706
3.718
3.73
3.736
3.736

10.808
10.503
10.407
10.336
10.288
10.242
10.195
10.089
9.926
9.786
9.666
9.573
9.506
9.464
9.448
9.439
9.438
1.757
1.751
1.748
1.747
1.746
1.749
1.754
1.759
1.764
1.772
1.784
1.797
1.809
1.822
1.835
1.846
1.858
1.871
1.877
1.877

2.31
5
5
8.46
8.46
11.67
11.67
29.73
29.73
50.58
50.58
74.98
74.98
88.49
88.49
87.17
87.17
87.17
87.17
90
90
90
92.5
92.5
92.5
92.5
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95

020

Table D 7. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (True horizontal - 90 Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)
Angle from
Vertical

1.0210
0.8351
0.7311
0.6620
0.6118
0.5062
0.4873
0.4723
0.4540
0.4344
0.4153
0.3975
0.3837
0.3524
0.3500
0.3477
0.3459
0.3449
0.3419
0.3386
0.3361
0.3344
0.3334
0.3330
0.3331
0.3337
0.3347
0.3360
0.3377
0.3383
0.3387
0.3377
0.3379
0.3363
0.3365
0.3165
0.3170
0.2735
0.2736
0.2013
0.2007
0.1547

Superficial
Gas Velocity

0.0012
0.0016
0.0020
0.0023
0.0026
0.0028
0.0030
0.0032
0.0035
0.0038
0.0042
0.0047
0.0052
0.0109
0.0114
0.0120
0.0127
0.0133
0.0140
0.0147
0.0155
0.0162
0.0169
0.0176
0.0183
0.0190
0.0197
0.0204
0.0211
0.0215
0.0216
0.0217
0.0218
0.0219
0.0219
0.0221
0.0223
0.0225
0.0227
0.0229
0.0231
0.0233

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1
4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2
4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

126.599
96.374
79.907
69.19
61.526
56.004
52.074
48.954
45.197
41.175
37.242
33.533
30.565
28.673
27.257
25.678
24.006
22.53
21.22
19.936
18.692
17.589
16.6
15.709
14.899
14.156
13.472
12.839
12.249
11.918
11.815
11.738
11.688
11.637
11.588
11.47
11.287
11.121
10.97
10.83
10.701
10.602

126.442
96.216
79.75
69.033
61.369
55.846
51.917
48.797
45.04
41.018
37.084
33.376
30.408
28.36
26.946
25.37
23.702
22.229
20.923
19.642
18.403
17.304
16.319
15.432
14.625
13.886
13.207
12.577
11.991
11.662
11.559
11.483
11.433
11.383
11.334
11.217
11.035
10.87
10.72
10.582
10.454
10.355

0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.0398
0.0398
0.4971
0.4971
0.5824
0.5824
0.5824
0.6985
0.6985
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
5
5
8.46
8.46
11.67
11.67
29.73
29.73
50.58
50.58
74.98
74.98
88.49

022

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2

0.1542
0.1584
0.1583
0.0193
0.0193
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067
0.0067

0.0234
0.0234
0.0234
0.0737
0.0737
0.0738
0.0738
0.0738
0.0738
0.0738
0.0739
0.0739
0.0739
0.0739
0.0740
0.0740
0.0740
0.0740
0.0740
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741
0.0741

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

10.53
10.491
10.484
2.059
2.056
2.053
2.052
2.051
2.049
2.048
2.046
2.044
2.042
2.041
2.039
2.037
2.035
2.034
2.032
2.031
2.029
2.029
2.029

10.284
10.246
10.239
1.907
1.904
1.902
1.901
1.899
1.898
1.896
1.895
1.893
1.891
1.89
1.888
1.886
1.885
1.883
1.882
1.88
1.879
1.878
1.878

88.49
87.17
87.17
87.17
87.17
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

023

Table D 8. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (True horizontal - 90 Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)
Angle from
Vertical

12.1800
6.4800
3.0900
1.9600
1.3700
1.0100
0.7804
0.6129
0.4899
0.3970
0.3259
0.2697
0.2250
0.2188
0.2184
0.2179
0.2175
0.2171
0.2166
0.2162
0.2154
0.2143
0.2128
0.2110
0.2091
0.2070
0.2053
0.2040
0.2031
0.2020
0.2010
0.2001
0.1994
0.1987
0.1982
0.1979
0.1978
0.1978
0.1979
0.1982
0.1986
0.1992

Superficial
Gas Velocity

0.0018
0.0031
0.0038
0.0042
0.0044
0.0046
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.0050
0.0051
0.0051
0.0051
0.1057
0.1060
0.1063
0.1066
0.1060
0.1071
0.1074
0.1080
0.1088
0.1099
0.1114
0.1131
0.1151
0.1170
0.1186
0.1199
0.1214
0.1233
0.1250
0.1268
0.1287
0.1308
0.1328
0.1348
0.1368
0.1388
0.1408
0.1428
0.1448

WellHead
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

87.134
50.987
41.533
37.724
35.538
34.109
33.108
32.374
31.818
31.388
31.052
30.783
30.566
33.792
33.597
33.405
33.216
33.029
32.845
32.663
32.314
31.811
31.122
30.274
29.306
28.243
27.265
26.495
25.902
25.203
24.42
23.687
22.998
22.281
21.545
20.854
20.201
19.584
18.997
18.436
17.899
17.383

86.97
50.83
41.37
37.56
35.38
33.95
32.95
32.21
31.66
31.23
30.89
30.62
30.4
30.21
30.03
29.85
29.67
29.49
29.32
29.15
28.82
28.34
27.7
26.9
25.99
24.99
24.07
23.35
22.79
22.14
21.4
20.72
20.08
19.41
18.72
18.08
17.47
16.9
16.35
15.83
15.34
14.86

0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.040
0.040
0.497
0.497
0.5823
0.5823
0.5823
0.698
0.698
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3

024

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5
5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3
5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2

0.1998
0.1999
0.2001
0.1990
0.1993
0.1981
0.1982
0.1834
0.1836
0.1519
0.1519
0.1000
0.0998
0.0672
0.0670
0.0701
0.0701
0.0146
0.0146
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010

0.1469
0.1481
0.1485
0.1488
0.1490
0.1492
0.1494
0.1498
0.1500
0.1512
0.1518
0.1524
0.1529
0.1532
0.1535
0.1536
0.1536
0.4370
0.4378
0.4300
0.4380
0.4380
0.4380
0.4381
0.4381
0.4381
0.4382
0.4382
0.4382
0.4383
0.4383
0.4383
0.4384
0.4384
0.4384
0.4384
0.4384

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

16.884
16.597
16.506
16.438
16.393
16.348
16.304
16.2
16.037
15.89
15.758
15.641
15.538
15.462
15.411
15.383
15.378
4.31
4.307
4.305
4.304
4.304
4.304
4.303
4.303
4.302
4.302
4.302
4.301
4.301
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.299
4.299
4.299
4.299

14.4
14.13
14.05
13.99
13.95
13.9
13.86
13.77
13.62
13.48
13.36
13.25
13.16
13.09
13.04
13.01
13.01
2.42
2.42
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41
2.41

2.3
5
5
8.4
8.4
11.6
11.6
29.7
29.7
50.5
50.5
74.9
74.9
88.4
88.4
87.1
87.1
87.1
87.1
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

025

Table D 9. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Toe-down - 85 Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)
Angle from
Vertical

0.9786
0.8056
0.7072
0.6414
0.5934
0.5565
0.4707
0.4566
0.4394
0.4209
0.4029
0.3860
0.3728
0.3416
0.3393
0.3372
0.3355
0.3346
0.3328
0.3298
0.3274
0.3259
0.3250
0.3247
0.3250
0.3256
0.3267
0.3281
0.3298
0.3304
0.3308
0.3299
0.3301
0.3285
0.3287
0.3091
0.3096
0.2668
0.2668
0.1957
0.1951
0.1498

Superficial
Gas Velocity

0.0012
0.0016
0.0019
0.0022
0.0025
0.0028
0.0030
0.0032
0.0034
0.0038
0.0042
0.0046
0.0051
0.0108
0.0112
0.0118
0.0125
0.0131
0.0138
0.0145
0.0152
0.0160
0.0167
0.0174
0.0181
0.0188
0.0195
0.0201
0.0208
0.0212
0.0213
0.0214
0.0215
0.0216
0.0216
0.0218
0.0220
0.0222
0.0224
0.0226
0.0228
0.0230

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1
4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
81.6
163.1
244.7
326.3
407.8
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2
4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

127.088
97.501
81.133
70.4
62.688
56.806
52.605
49.517
45.784
41.773
37.834
34.107
31.115
29.206
27.777
26.182
24.492
22.996
21.665
20.356
19.088
17.962
16.952
16.042
15.213
14.454
13.755
13.107
12.504
12.166
12.06
11.982
11.93
11.878
11.828
11.707
11.521
11.351
11.197
11.055
10.925
10.824

126.931
97.344
80.976
70.242
62.531
56.648
52.448
49.36
45.626
41.615
37.676
33.95
30.958
28.892
27.466
25.873
24.186
22.694
21.366
20.062
18.797
17.675
16.67
15.763
14.938
14.183
13.487
12.843
12.244
11.908
11.803
11.725
11.673
11.622
11.572
11.452
11.267
11.099
10.946
10.805
10.675
10.575

0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.3661
0.0398
0.0398
0.4971
0.4971
0.5824
0.5824
0.5824
0.6985
0.6985
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
5
5
8.46
8.46
11.67
11.67
29.73
29.73
50.58
50.58
74.98
74.98
88.49

026

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5510.9
5521.6
5532.4
5543.1
5564.8
5586.5
5608.2
5629.9
5651.6
5670.3
5689.1
5707.8
5726.5
5726.5
5726.5

0.1493
0.1535
0.1535
0.0189
0.0189
0.0065
0.0065
0.0065
0.0175
0.0175
0.0175
0.0175
0.0285
0.0285
0.0285
0.0286
0.0286
0.0286
0.0287
0.0287
0.0287
0.0287
0.0287

0.0231
0.0231
0.0231
0.0732
0.0732
0.0733
0.0733
0.0733
0.0733
0.0733
0.0734
0.0734
0.0734
0.0735
0.0736
0.0737
0.0737
0.0738
0.0739
0.0740
0.0740
0.0741
0.0741

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

10.752
10.713
10.706
2.102
2.099
2.098
2.097
2.097
2.095
2.092
2.089
2.086
2.081
2.075
2.069
2.063
2.056
2.05
2.044
2.038
2.032
2.029
2.029

10.504
10.465
10.458
1.948
1.946
1.944
1.944
1.943
1.942
1.939
1.936
1.933
1.928
1.922
1.917
1.911
1.905
1.899
1.893
1.887
1.882
1.879
1.879

88.49
87.17
87.17
87.17
87.17
90
90
90
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85

027

Table D 10. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Toe-down - 85 Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)
Angle from
Vertical

8.4260
5.8920
3.6220
2.3240
1.6850
1.3000
1.0430
0.8585
0.7203
0.6132
0.5284
0.4592
0.4023
0.3548
0.3147
0.2806
0.2514
0.2365
0.2366
0.2367
0.2370
0.2373
0.2379
0.2388
0.2400
0.2417
0.2436
0.2453
0.2469
0.2488
0.2514
0.2542
0.2571
0.2604
0.2643
0.2684
0.2728
0.2773
0.2821
0.2872
0.2924
0.2979

Superficial
Gas Velocity

0.0016
0.0025
0.0032
0.0036
0.0039
0.0042
0.0043
0.0045
0.0046
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.0049
0.0050
0.0050
0.0051
0.0051
0.1056
0.1060
0.1063
0.1069
0.1078
0.1091
0.1108
0.1129
0.1153
0.1176
0.1196
0.1212
0.1232
0.1255
0.1278
0.1301
0.1327
0.1355
0.1383
0.1411
0.1439
0.1468
0.1497
0.1526
0.1555

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

100.381
62.354
49.213
43.302
39.993
37.813
36.252
35.072
34.146
33.402
32.792
32.282
31.852
31.486
31.17
30.898
30.66
33.867
33.653
33.441
33.033
32.442
31.63
30.627
29.469
28.196
27.017
26.087
25.366
24.515
23.559
22.662
21.819
20.941
20.04
19.196
18.402
17.653
16.944
16.272
15.633
15.023

100.224
62.197
49.056
43.145
39.836
37.656
36.095
34.915
33.989
33.245
32.635
32.125
31.695
31.329
31.013
30.741
30.503
30.289
30.087
29.887
29.502
28.944
28.178
27.233
26.143
24.946
23.84
22.967
22.292
21.496
20.602
19.766
18.98
18.162
17.325
16.541
15.805
15.112
14.457
13.837
13.248
12.687

0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.0398
0.0398
0.4971
0.4971
0.5823
0.5823
0.5823
0.698
0.698
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3

028

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5
5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3
5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5510.9
5521.6
5532.4
5543.1
5564.8
5586.5
5608.2
5629.9
5651.6
5670.3
5689.1
5707.8
5726.5
5726.5
5726.5

0.3037
0.3065
0.3076
0.3066
0.3071
0.3050
0.3056
0.2762
0.2780
0.2137
0.2147
0.1081
0.1082
0.0413
0.0413
0.0479
0.0479
0.0280
0.0280
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0248
0.0248
0.0249
0.0249
0.0494
0.0495
0.0496
0.0498
0.0499
0.0501
0.0502
0.0503
0.0505
0.0505
0.0505

0.1585
0.1603
0.1609
0.1613
0.1616
0.1619
0.1622
0.1629
0.1639
0.1648
0.1657
0.1663
0.1668
0.1671
0.1673
0.1673
0.1673
0.4817
0.4823
0.4825
0.4824
0.4823
0.4826
0.4832
0.4839
0.4845
0.4855
0.4870
0.4885
0.4899
0.4914
0.4929
0.4942
0.4956
0.4969
0.4976
0.4976

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

14.44
14.107
14.002
13.924
13.872
13.821
13.77
13.653
13.473
13.316
13.182
13.076
12.996
12.946
12.924
12.912
12.91
3.863
3.858
3.857
3.857
3.858
3.856
3.851
3.845
3.84
3.832
3.82
3.808
3.796
3.784
3.773
3.763
3.752
3.742
3.736
3.736

12.151
11.846
11.749
11.678
11.63
11.583
11.537
11.43
11.265
11.121
10.999
10.901
10.829
10.783
10.763
10.752
10.749
2.002
1.998
1.996
1.997
1.997
1.995
1.99
1.985
1.98
1.971
1.96
1.948
1.936
1.924
1.913
1.903
1.893
1.882
1.877
1.877

2.3
5
5
8.4
8.4
11.6
11.6
29.7
29.7
50.5
50.5
74.9
74.9
88.4
88.4
87.1
87.1
87.1
87.1
90
90
90
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
85

029

Table D 11. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Toe-down 80 Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)
Angle from
Vertical

0.8103
0.5860
0.4618
0.4479
0.4310
0.4128
0.3950
0.3783
0.3652
0.3337
0.3314
0.3291
0.3273
0.3263
0.3252
0.3221
0.3196
0.3179
0.3168
0.3164
0.3164
0.3168
0.3177
0.3189
0.3204
0.3209
0.3213
0.3204
0.3205
0.3190
0.3192
0.3004
0.3009
0.2598
0.2599
0.1917
0.1912
0.1478
0.1473
0.1513
0.1513
0.0183

Superficial
Gas Velocity

0.0015
0.0025
0.0030
0.0031
0.0034
0.0037
0.0041
0.0045
0.0050
0.0106
0.0111
0.0117
0.0123
0.0130
0.0136
0.0143
0.0150
0.0158
0.0165
0.0172
0.0179
0.0185
0.0192
0.0199
0.0206
0.0209
0.0211
0.0212
0.0212
0.0213
0.0214
0.0215
0.0217
0.0220
0.0222
0.0224
0.0225
0.0227
0.0228
0.0228
0.0229
0.0728

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
244.7
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1
4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3
5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
244.7
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2
4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5
5908
5916
5924
6085

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

101.703
63.853
53.224
50.114
46.353
42.309
38.335
34.573
31.551
29.622
28.182
26.573
24.867
23.356
22.011
20.685
19.401
18.26
17.238
16.316
15.477
14.709
14.001
13.345
12.735
12.393
12.286
12.206
12.154
12.102
12.051
11.929
11.74
11.568
11.412
11.268
11.135
11.032
10.958
10.918
10.911
2.142

101.546
63.696
53.066
49.957
46.196
42.152
38.178
34.416
31.393
29.307
27.869
26.263
24.56
23.053
21.711
20.39
19.109
17.972
16.954
16.036
15.2
14.436
13.732
13.08
12.473
12.133
12.027
11.948
11.896
11.844
11.793
11.672
11.485
11.314
11.159
11.016
10.884
10.782
10.709
10.669
10.662
1.986

0.36605
0.36605
0.039772
0.039772
0.49714
0.49714
0.58236
0.58236
0.58236
0.6985
0.6985
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
2.31
5
5
8.46
8.46
11.67
11.67
29.73
29.73
50.58
50.58
74.98
74.98
88.49
88.49
87.17
87.17
87.17

031

Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5521.6
5543
5564.5
5585.9
5629.1
5672.4
5715.6
5758.8
5802.1
5839.4
5876.7
5914
5951.4
5951.4
5951.4

0.0183
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
0.0274
0.0274
0.0275
0.0275
0.0485
0.0486
0.0488
0.0489
0.0490
0.0491
0.0492
0.0493
0.0495
0.0495
0.0495

0.0728
0.0728
0.0728
0.0728
0.0728
0.0729
0.0729
0.0729
0.0730
0.0731
0.0733
0.0734
0.0735
0.0737
0.0738
0.0739
0.0740
0.0741
0.0741

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

2.14
2.139
2.139
2.14
2.138
2.133
2.128
2.124
2.116
2.106
2.095
2.085
2.074
2.063
2.053
2.043
2.032
2.027
2.027

1.984
1.983
1.984
1.984
1.982
1.978
1.973
1.969
1.962
1.952
1.942
1.932
1.921
1.911
1.902
1.892
1.882
1.877
1.877

87.17
90
90
90
85
85
85
85
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80

030

Table D 12. Results of Gradient Match for Well# L (Toe-down 80 Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)
Angle from
Vertical

9.3600
6.4200
3.3500
2.1700
1.5700
1.2000
0.9567
0.7795
0.6468
0.5443
0.4635
0.3980
0.3440
0.3001
0.2630
0.2310
0.2308
0.2308
0.2307
0.2307
0.2306
0.2306
0.2306
0.2307
0.2310
0.2317
0.2325
0.2334
0.2342
0.2350
0.2369
0.2386
0.2404
0.2425
0.2451
0.2479
0.2509
0.2540
0.2574
0.2610
0.2647
0.2687

Superficial
Gas Velocity

0.0016
0.0027
0.0034
0.0038
0.0041
0.0043
0.0045
0.0046
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.0050
0.0050
0.0051
0.0051
0.0051
0.1058
0.1061
0.1064
0.1067
0.1073
0.1082
0.1095
0.1111
0.1131
0.1154
0.1177
0.1190
0.1211
0.1230
0.1252
0.1274
0.1296
0.1320
0.1346
0.1372
0.1398
0.1424
0.1451
0.1477
0.1504
0.1531

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1479.9
1613.9
1747.9
1947.1
2146.3
2345.5
2544.7
2786.3
3027.9
3269.5
3511.1
3752.7
3994.3
4235.9
4477.5
4719.1

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth

feet
0
24.5
48.9
73.4
97.9
122.3
146.8
171.3
195.8
220.2
244.7
269.2
293.6
318.1
342.6
367
391.5
416
440.5
464.9
489.4
560.7
632
765
898
1092
1286
1480
1614
1748
1947.3
2146.5
2345.8
2545
2786.8
3028.6
3270.4
3512.2
3754
3995.8
4237.6
4479.4
4721.2

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth

Label
WH
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

96.329
58.257
46.206
41.216
38.354
36.455
35.096
34.071
33.272
32.634
32.117
31.687
31.329
31.026
30.77
30.55
33.764
33.555
33.348
33.143
32.75
32.181
31.4
30.436
29.327
28.106
26.978
26.09
25.401
24.588
23.675
22.82
22.016
21.179
20.319
19.513
18.755
18.039
17.361
16.716
16.103
15.517

96.172
58.1
46.05
41.059
38.197
36.298
34.939
33.914
33.115
32.477
31.96
31.53
31.172
30.869
30.613
30.393
30.191
29.993
29.798
29.605
29.233
28.697
27.96
27.052
26.009
24.861
23.802
22.969
22.324
21.563
20.711
19.912
19.162
18.383
17.583
16.835
16.131
15.468
14.841
14.246
13.68
13.141

0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.366
0.03977
0.03977
0.4971
0.4971
0.5823
0.5823
0.5823
0.698
0.698
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3

032

Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Tubg
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing
Casing

4963
5009
5055
5078
5101
5124
5147
5239.5
5332
5424.5
5517
5629
5741
5824.5
5908
5916
5924
6085
6246
6424
6602
6780
7025.8
7271.5
7517.3
7763
8012
8261
8510
8759
9008
9223
9437.9
9652.8
9867.8
9867.9
9868

4960.7
5006.6
5052.4
5075.1
5097.9
5120.4
5142.9
5223.3
5303.6
5362.3
5421.1
5450.1
5479.1
5481.3
5483.5
5483.9
5484.3
5492.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5500.2
5521.6
5543
5564.5
5585.9
5629.1
5672.4
5715.6
5758.8
5802.1
5839.4
5876.7
5914
5951.4
5951.4
5951.4

0.2720
0.2747
0.2756
0.2745
0.2750
0.2731
0.2735
0.2481
0.2490
0.1944
0.1950
0.1039
0.1039
0.0468
0.0467
0.0524
0.0524
0.0242
0.0242
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0423
0.0424
0.0425
0.0426
0.0845
0.0849
0.0854
0.0858
0.0863
0.0867
0.0871
0.0875
0.0879
0.0882
0.0882

0.1558
0.1575
0.1580
0.1584
0.1587
0.1589
0.1592
0.1598
0.1608
0.1616
0.1624
0.1630
0.1635
0.1638
0.1600
0.1640
0.1640
0.4709
0.4713
0.4714
0.4712
0.4711
0.4715
0.4726
0.4737
0.4748
0.4766
0.4791
0.4816
0.4840
0.4860
0.4892
0.4915
0.4939
0.4963
0.4975
0.4975

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

14.955
14.634
14.532
14.457
14.407
14.357
14.308
14.195
14.02
13.866
13.734
13.627
13.544
13.49
13.463
13.449
13.446
3.957
3.954
3.953
3.954
3.956
3.952
3.942
3.933
3.923
3.908
3.886
3.864
3.843
3.821
3.802
3.783
3.765
3.746
3.737
3.737

12.624
12.329
12.236
12.166
12.12
12.075
12.03
11.926
11.765
11.624
11.503
11.405
11.329
11.28
11.255
11.242
11.239
2.094
2.09
2.089
2.091
2.092
2.088
2.079
2.069
2.06
2.045
2.024
2.003
1.982
1.961
1.942
1.923
1.905
1.887
1.877
1.877

2.3
5
5
8.4
8.4
11.6
11.6
29.7
29.7
50.5
50.5
74.9
74.9
88.4
88.4
87.1
87.1
87.1
87.1
90
90
90
85
85
85
85
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80

033

Table D 13. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Original Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)

0.0011
0.0015
0.0019
0.0023
0.0026
0.0028
0.0031
0.0033
0.0036
0.0039
0.0043
0.0049
0.0114
0.0124
0.0133
0.0143
0.0152
0.0160
0.0168
0.0176
0.0183
0.0191
0.0198
0.0206
0.0213
0.0221
0.0228
0.0233
0.0235
0.0236
0.0236
0.0237
0.0238
0.0239
0.0242
0.0244
0.0245
0.0247
0.0250
0.0252
0.0253
0.0254

Angle from
Vertical

1.1550
0.8984
0.7711
0.6910
0.6345
0.5173
0.4960
0.4780
0.4602
0.4430
0.4223
0.4013
0.3581
0.3546
0.3525
0.3503
0.3451
0.3413
0.3388
0.3370
0.3359
0.3355
0.3355
0.3359
0.3368
0.3380
0.3396
0.3408
0.3413
0.3416
0.3418
0.3377
0.3378
0.3258
0.3263
0.3124
0.3126
0.2620
0.2619
0.2315
0.2313
0.1903

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5
4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5491
5517
5534

Gradient

True Vertical
Depth

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5
4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

137.355
97.477
78.497
66.861
58.828
53.194
49.027
45.563
42.137
38.838
34.833
30.678
27.768
25.26
23.067
21.214
19.637
18.322
17.207
16.218
15.331
14.51
13.745
13.048
12.406
11.814
11.263
10.937
10.809
10.725
10.683
10.641
10.599
10.495
10.333
10.216
10.144
10.019
9.844
9.72
9.644
9.564

137.2
97.32
78.34
66.71
58.67
53.04
48.87
45.41
41.98
38.68
34.68
30.52
27.45
24.94
22.76
20.91
19.33
18.02
16.91
15.93
15.05
14.23
13.47
12.77
12.14
11.55
11
10.68
10.55
10.47
10.43
10.38
10.34
10.24
10.08
9.96
9.89
9.77
9.59
9.47
9.4
9.32

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.5
12.5
24.7
24.7
33.7
33.7
55.7
55.7
66
66
78.5

034

5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5552.5
5549
5538
5527
5516
5505
5499.4
5493.8
5488.2
5482.6
5477
5472
5467
5462
5457
5452
5447
5447
5447

0.1899
0.1522
0.1511
0.0098
0.0098
-0.0037
-0.0037
-0.0092
-0.0092
-0.0092
-0.0092
-0.0010
-0.0010
-0.0010
-0.0010
-0.0010
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008

0.0256
0.0258
0.0260
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0863
0.0863
0.0863
0.0863
0.0863
0.0863
0.0863
0.0863
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

9.482
9.375
9.245
1.628
1.627
1.627
1.627
1.628
1.628
1.629
1.63
1.631
1.631
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.629
1.629
1.629
1.628
1.628
1.628
1.628

9.23
9.13
9
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.49
1.49
1.49
1.49
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48

78.5
89.2
89.2
89.2
89.2
92.1
92.1
93.2
93.2
93.2
93.2
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.5
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1
91.1

035

Table D 14. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Original Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)

0.0016
0.0029
0.0036
0.0040
0.0042
0.0044
0.0046
0.0047
0.0048
0.0048
0.0049
0.1058
0.1062
0.1067
0.1072
0.1076
0.1081
0.1085
0.1090
0.1095
0.1099
0.1104
0.1108
0.1113
0.1117
0.1122
0.1134
0.1153
0.1182
0.1221
0.1259
0.1298
0.1338
0.1378
0.1417
0.1455
0.1491
0.1528
0.1564
0.1602
0.1640
0.1679

Angle from
Vertical

11.1580
6.2980
2.9430
1.8760
1.3280
0.9951
0.7730
0.6155
0.4990
0.4104
0.3419
0.3168
0.3155
0.3155
0.3155
0.3156
0.3157
0.3158
0.3159
0.3160
0.3161
0.3163
0.3164
0.3166
0.3168
0.3170
0.3176
0.3188
0.3209
0.3245
0.3287
0.3337
0.3396
0.3460
0.3529
0.3597
0.3670
0.3746
0.3827
0.3917
0.4010
0.4108

WellHead
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5

Gradient

True Vertical
Depth

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

94.131
52.597
42.09
38.005
35.667
34.131
33.049
32.247
31.633
31.153
30.772
33.877
33.554
33.238
32.927
32.622
32.323
32.028
31.739
31.454
31.175
30.9
30.629
30.363
30.102
29.844
29.162
28.107
26.619
24.834
23.249
21.764
20.374
19.125
17.995
17
16.116
15.3
14.545
13.823
13.133
12.49

93.98
52.446
41.939
37.854
35.516
33.98
32.898
32.096
31.482
31.002
30.621
30.295
29.99
29.692
29.399
29.112
28.829
28.552
28.279
28.012
27.748
27.49
27.235
26.985
26.739
26.497
25.856
24.866
23.472
21.802
20.323
18.94
17.648
16.49
15.445
14.527
13.713
12.963
12.27
11.609
10.979
10.393

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002

036

4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5
5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5491
5517
5534
5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5552.5
5549
5538
5527
5516
5505
5499.4
5493.8
5488.2
5482.6
5477
5472
5467
5462
5457
5452
5447
5447
5447

0.4209
0.4316
0.4428
0.4500
0.4530
0.4550
0.4560
0.4471
0.4481
0.4218
0.4254
0.3951
0.3965
0.2818
0.2836
0.2160
0.2164
0.1246
0.1247
0.0416
0.0415
0.0114
0.0114
-0.0307
-0.0307
-0.0480
-0.0479
-0.0478
-0.0477
-0.0223
-0.0223
-0.0223
-0.0223
-0.0223
-0.0167
-0.0167
-0.0167
-0.0167
-0.0166
-0.0166
-0.0166
-0.0166

0.1719
0.1759
0.1799
0.1825
0.1835
0.1842
0.1846
0.1849
0.1853
0.1862
0.1875
0.1885
0.1892
0.1900
0.1911
0.1918
0.1922
0.1926
0.1929
0.1932
0.1934
0.5741
0.5742
0.5741
0.5738
0.5732
0.5724
0.5715
0.5707
0.5700
0.5696
0.5692
0.5687
0.5683
0.5679
0.5675
0.5671
0.5668
0.5664
0.5660
0.5658
0.5658

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

11.888
11.323
10.79
10.474
10.348
10.265
10.224
10.183
10.142
10.044
9.889
9.779
9.713
9.609
9.47
9.374
9.32
9.273
9.232
9.197
9.169
2.883
2.883
2.883
2.885
2.888
2.893
2.898
2.903
2.907
2.91
2.912
2.915
2.918
2.92
2.922
2.925
2.927
2.93
2.932
2.934
2.934

9.845
9.331
8.848
8.562
8.449
8.374
8.337
8.3
8.263
8.174
8.034
7.936
7.876
7.784
7.66
7.576
7.529
7.487
7.451
7.421
7.396
1.228
1.228
1.228
1.23
1.232
1.237
1.242
1.247
1.25
1.252
1.255
1.257
1.259
1.262
1.264
1.266
1.268
1.27
1.273
1.274
1.274

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.53
12.53
24.76
24.76
33.77
33.77
55.79
55.79
66.03
66.03
78.53
78.53
89.26
89.26
89.26
89.26
92.1
92.1
93.27
93.27
93.27
93.27
91.55
91.55
91.55
91.55
91.55
91.17
91.17
91.17
91.17
91.17
91.17
91.17
91.17

037

Table D 15. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Toe-up - 100 Case)
Petroleum Experts (3.0)
Angle from
Vertical

1.2090
0.9337
0.7993
0.7152
0.6561
0.5349
0.5125
0.4938
0.4752
0.4573
0.4358
0.3770
0.3713
0.3673
0.3649
0.3613
0.3557
0.3516
0.3487
0.3467
0.3454
0.3447
0.3445
0.3447
0.3454
0.3465
0.3479
0.3490
0.3495
0.3498
0.3500
0.3458
0.3459
0.3337
0.3343
0.3202
0.3204
0.2692
0.2691
0.2369
0.2367
0.1980

Superficial
Gas Velocity

Regime

0.0011
0.0016
0.0020
0.0023
0.0026
0.0029
0.0032
0.0034
0.0037
0.0040
0.0045
0.0106
0.0115
0.0125
0.0135
0.0144
0.0153
0.0162
0.0170
0.0177
0.0185
0.0192
0.0200
0.0208
0.0215
0.0222
0.0230
0.0234
0.0236
0.0237
0.0238
0.0239
0.0239
0.0241
0.0243
0.0245
0.0246
0.0248
0.0251
0.0253
0.0255
0.0256

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Holdup

feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5
4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5490.5
5516
5533.5

Gradient

True Vertical
Depth

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5
4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

136.643
96.061
77.082
65.534
57.594
52.041
47.941
44.538
41.177
37.944
34.026
30.304
27.401
24.902
22.724
20.893
19.339
18.046
16.952
15.981
15.112
14.307
13.558
12.875
12.247
11.666
11.125
10.806
10.68
10.597
10.556
10.515
10.474
10.372
10.212
10.097
10.026
9.902
9.729
9.606
9.531
9.451

136.492
95.91
76.931
65.382
57.443
51.89
47.79
44.386
41.025
37.793
33.874
29.983
27.085
24.591
22.418
20.591
19.043
17.754
16.664
15.698
14.833
14.032
13.287
12.608
11.984
11.407
10.87
10.553
10.428
10.346
10.305
10.264
10.223
10.122
9.963
9.849
9.779
9.657
9.485
9.363
9.288
9.209

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.53
12.53
24.76
24.76
33.77
33.77
55.79
55.79
66.52
66.52
78.19

038

5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556.0
5556.0
-5539.2
-5522.5
-5505.7
5489
-5453
-5417
5381
-5345
-5309
-5266.3
-5223.7
-5181
-5138.4
-5095.7
-5053
-5053
-5053

0.1976
0.1583
0.1572
0.0100
0.0100
0.0065
0.0065
0.0172
0.0172
0.0172
-0.0172
0.0409
0.0408
-0.0408
0.0407
0.0406
0.0406
0.0405
0.0404
0.0403
0.0402
0.0400
0.0399
0.0399

0.0258
0.0259
0.0262
0.0866
0.0866
0.0866
0.0866
0.0866
0.0866
0.0867
0.0867
0.0866
0.0866
0.0865
0.0865
0.0864
0.0863
0.0863
0.0862
0.0861
0.0860
0.0858
0.0858
0.0858

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

9.368
9.26
9.129
1.607
1.607
1.606
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.606
1.61
1.614
1.618
1.622
1.627
1.633
1.639
1.645
1.652
1.66
1.664
1.664

9.127
9.02
8.89
1.468
1.467
1.467
1.465
1.465
1.465
1.465
1.465
1.467
1.471
1.474
1.478
1.482
1.487
1.492
1.497
1.503
1.51
1.517
1.521
1.521

78.19
89.26
89.26
89.26
89.26
90
90
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99
100
100
100
100
100
100.02
100.02
100.02
100.02
100.02
100.02
100.02
100.02

039

Table D 16. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Toe-up - 100 Case)
Duns and Ros Original (2.498)
Angle from
Vertical

12.4100
6.1300
2.8600
1.7900
1.2500
0.9216
0.7030
0.5496
0.4376
0.3530
0.3194
0.3192
0.3190
0.3188
0.3186
0.3184
0.3183
0.3180
0.3180
0.3179
0.3179
0.3178
0.3170
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3177
0.3180
0.3180
0.3207
0.3232
0.3265
0.3305
0.3351
0.3400
0.3452
0.3500
0.3565
0.3620
0.3697
0.3769
0.3845

Superficial
Gas Velocity

Regime

0.0017
0.0030
0.0037
0.0041
0.0044
0.0045
0.0047
0.0048
0.0048
0.0049
0.1056
0.1061
0.1066
0.1070
0.1075
0.1080
0.1084
0.1089
0.1093
0.1098
0.1102
0.1107
0.1111
0.1116
0.1120
0.1124
0.1136
0.1155
0.1184
0.1221
0.1257
0.1295
0.1333
0.1370
0.1400
0.1443
0.1477
0.1511
0.1545
0.1579
0.1615
0.1651

WellHead
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Holdup

feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5

Gradient

True Vertical
Depth

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

89.759
49.815
40.474
36.793
34.7
33.34
32.395
31.705
31.186
30.786
33.889
33.567
33.251
32.941
32.637
32.338
32.045
31.757
31.474
31.197
30.924
30.656
30.392
30.133
29.879
29.628
28.965
27.941
26.503
24.78
23.255
21.829
20.495
19.299
18.217
17.263
16.417
15.634
14.908
14.213
13.547
12.925

89.6
49.66
40.32
36.64
34.54
33.18
32.24
31.55
31.03
30.63
30.3
30
29.7
29.41
29.12
28.84
28.56
28.29
28.03
27.77
27.51
27.26
27.01
26.77
26.53
26.29
25.67
24.71
23.36
21.75
20.33
19
17.76
16.65
15.65
14.77
13.99
13.27
12.6
11.96
11.35
10.79

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002

041

4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5
5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5490.5
5516
5533.5
5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556.0
5556.0
5539.2
5522.5
5505.7
5489
5453
5417
5381
5345
5309
5266.3
5223.7
5181
5138.4
5095.7
5053
5053
5053

0.3925
0.4010
0.4098
0.4156
0.4180
0.4196
0.4204
0.4123
0.4131
0.3893
0.3922
0.3648
0.3660
0.2632
0.2648
0.2010
0.2015
0.1247
0.1248
0.0480
0.0480
0.0104
0.0104
0.0005
0.0005
-0.0664
-0.0662
-0.0661
-0.0660
-0.1318
-0.1311
-0.1305
-0.1298
-0.1291
-0.1286
-0.1270
-0.1269
-0.1260
-0.1251
-0.1242
-0.1237
-0.1237

0.1687
0.1724
0.1761
0.1785
0.1794
0.1801
0.1804
0.1807
0.1811
0.1819
0.1831
0.1841
0.1846
0.1855
0.1868
0.1876
0.1881
0.1886
0.1890
0.1890
0.1897
0.5628
0.5629
0.5630
0.5632
0.5627
0.5615
0.5604
0.5592
0.5570
0.5544
0.5515
0.5480
0.5456
0.5423
0.5387
0.5351
0.5314
0.5270
0.5236
0.5216
0.5216

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

12.34
11.788
11.266
10.955
10.831
10.75
10.709
10.669
10.628
10.53
10.377
10.268
10.201
10.098
9.959
9.863
9.81
9.761
9.717
9.676
9.639
2.965
2.965
2.964
2.963
2.966
2.971
2.976
2.98
2.989
3.003
3.017
3.031
3.046
3.062
3.081
3.101
3.122
3.144
3.168
3.18
3.18

10.25
9.75
9.28
8.99
8.88
8.81
8.77
8.74
8.7
8.61
8.47
8.37
8.31
8.22
8.09
8.01
7.96
7.92
7.88
7.84
7.81
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.3
1.3
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.35
1.36
1.38
1.4
1.42
1.44
1.46
1.48
1.5
1.52
1.52

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.5
12.5
24.7
24.7
33.7
33.7
55.7
55.7
66.5
66.5
78.1
78.1
89.2
89.2
89.2
89.2
90
90
94.9
94.9
94.9
94.9
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

040

Table D 17. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Toe-up - 95 Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)

0.0011
0.0016
0.0019
0.0023
0.0026
0.0028
0.0031
0.0033
0.0036
0.0039
0.0043
0.0049
0.0114
0.0123
0.0133
0.0142
0.0151
0.0159
0.0167
0.0175
0.0182
0.0190
0.0197
0.0205
0.0212
0.0219
0.0226
0.0231
0.0233
0.0234
0.0235
0.0235
0.0236
0.0237
0.0240
0.0242
0.0243
0.0245
0.0248
0.0250
0.0251
0.0252

Angle from
Vertical

1.1620
0.9025
0.7743
0.6935
0.6367
0.5183
0.4968
0.4788
0.4607
0.4434
0.4225
0.4011
0.3576
0.3538
0.3514
0.3492
0.3438
0.3398
0.3369
0.3349
0.3336
0.3329
0.3326
0.3328
0.3334
0.3344
0.3357
0.3367
0.3371
0.3374
0.3376
0.3336
0.3337
0.3220
0.3225
0.3090
0.3092
0.2601
0.2599
0.2306
0.2303
0.1907

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5
4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5491
5517
5534

Gradient

True Vertical
Depth

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5
4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

137.419
97.429
78.433
66.8
58.773
53.15
48.995
45.54
42.125
38.836
34.845
30.705
27.808
25.312
23.13
21.286
19.716
18.407
17.298
16.313
15.431
14.613
13.852
13.157
12.518
11.927
11.378
11.053
10.925
10.841
10.799
10.757
10.715
10.612
10.449
10.332
10.26
10.135
9.959
9.834
9.756
9.675

137.268
97.278
78.282
66.649
58.622
52.999
48.844
45.389
41.973
38.685
34.693
30.553
27.491
24.999
22.822
20.983
19.418
18.113
17.008
16.028
15.15
14.336
13.578
12.888
12.253
11.666
11.12
10.798
10.671
10.587
10.546
10.504
10.462
10.36
10.198
10.083
10.011
9.886
9.712
9.588
9.511
9.431

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.53
12.53
24.76
24.76
33.77
33.77
55.79
55.79
66.03
66.03
78.53

042

5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556
5556
-5549.2
-5542.5
-5535.7
-5529
5511
5493
5475
5457
5439
5417.7
5396.3
5375
5353.7
5332.3
5311
5311
5311

0.1902
0.1537
0.1526
0.0097
0.0097
0.0063
0.0063
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
0.0029
-0.0165
-0.0165
-0.0165
-0.0165
-0.0165
-0.0165
-0.0165
-0.0165
-0.0164
-0.0164
-0.0164
-0.0164
-0.0164

0.0254
0.0256
0.0258
0.0860
0.0860
0.0860
0.0860
0.0860
0.0861
0.0861
0.0861
0.0861
0.0861
0.0861
0.0860
0.0860
0.0860
0.0860
0.0859
0.0859
0.0858
0.0858
0.0858
0.0858

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

9.592
9.482
9.349
1.645
1.645
1.645
1.644
1.643
1.642
1.642
1.641
1.641
1.643
1.644
1.646
1.647
1.649
1.651
1.654
1.656
1.659
1.662
1.664
1.664

9.348
9.24
9.108
1.504
1.504
1.503
1.502
1.502
1.501
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.501
1.503
1.504
1.506
1.507
1.509
1.512
1.514
1.517
1.519
1.521
1.521

78.53
89.26
89.26
89.26
89.26
90
90
92.01
92.01
92.01
92.01
94.98
94.98
94.98
94.98
94.98
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99

043

Table D 18. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Toe-up - 95 Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)

0.0016
0.0028
0.0036
0.0039
0.0042
0.0044
0.0045
0.0047
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.1055
0.1059
0.1063
0.1067
0.1071
0.1076
0.1080
0.1084
0.1088
0.1092
0.1096
0.1100
0.1104
0.1108
0.1112
0.1123
0.1141
0.1167
0.1201
0.1235
0.1269
0.1304
0.1339
0.1374
0.1407
0.1438
0.1470
0.1501
0.1534
0.1567
0.1600

Angle from
Vertical

11.0030
6.3410
2.9550
1.8830
1.3340
0.9994
0.7764
0.6183
0.5014
0.4110
0.3423
0.2879
0.2878
0.2877
0.2876
0.2875
0.2874
0.2874
0.2873
0.2873
0.2873
0.2873
0.2873
0.2873
0.2873
0.2874
0.2875
0.2879
0.2888
0.2906
0.2930
0.2959
0.2994
0.3034
0.3078
0.3121
0.3168
0.3218
0.3271
0.3332
0.3394
0.3459

WellHead
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5

Gradient

True Vertical
Depth

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

94.953
53.089
42.388
38.248
35.882
34.329
33.234
32.424
31.803
31.319
30.936
34.064
33.771
33.483
33.2
32.921
32.647
32.378
32.113
31.852
31.595
31.343
31.094
30.849
30.608
30.371
29.741
28.764
27.383
25.715
24.225
22.822
21.501
20.307
19.222
18.261
17.403
16.607
15.866
15.154
14.469
13.827

94.801
52.938
42.237
38.097
35.731
34.178
33.083
32.272
31.652
31.168
30.785
30.472
30.195
29.923
29.656
29.394
29.136
28.882
28.632
28.387
28.145
27.907
27.673
27.443
27.216
26.993
26.401
25.484
24.189
22.626
21.234
19.926
18.696
17.588
16.582
15.693
14.9
14.167
13.484
12.83
12.202
11.614

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002

044

4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5
5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5491
5517
5534
5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556.0 0
5556.0 0
5549.2
5542.5
5535.7
5529
5511
5493
5475
5457
5439
5417.7
5396.3
5375
5353.7
5332.3
5311
5311
5311

0.3528
0.3600
0.3676
0.3725
0.3745
0.3759
0.3766
0.3693
0.3700
0.3487
0.3512
0.3267
0.3277
0.2360
0.2373
0.1832
0.1836
0.1103
0.1103
0.0440
0.0439
0.0094
0.0094
0.0004
0.0004
-0.0239
-0.0239
-0.0239
-0.0239
-0.0597
-0.0595
-0.0594
-0.0592
-0.0591
-0.0590
-0.0588
-0.0586
-0.0584
-0.0582
-0.0580
-0.0579
-0.0579

0.1634
0.1669
0.1704
0.1725
0.1734
0.1741
0.1744
0.1747
0.1750
0.1757
0.1769
0.1778
0.1783
0.1791
0.1803
0.1811
0.1816
0.1820
0.1823
0.1827
0.1830
0.5407
0.5408
0.5408
0.5409
0.5407
0.5403
0.5399
0.5395
0.5386
0.5373
0.5359
0.5345
0.5331
0.5316
0.5299
0.5282
0.5264
0.5247
0.5228
0.5219
0.5219

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

13.221
12.649
12.105
11.781
11.651
11.566
11.524
11.481
11.439
11.337
11.176
11.062
10.992
10.884
10.738
10.637
10.581
10.53
10.484
10.443
10.405
3.072
3.072
3.071
3.071
3.072
3.074
3.076
3.078
3.083
3.09
3.098
3.105
3.113
3.121
3.131
3.141
3.151
3.162
3.173
3.179
3.179

11.061
10.538
10.043
9.748
9.631
9.553
9.514
9.476
9.438
9.345
9.199
9.095
9.032
8.934
8.802
8.711
8.66
8.614
8.573
8.535
8.501
1.411
1.411
1.41
1.41
1.411
1.413
1.415
1.418
1.422
1.43
1.438
1.445
1.453
1.462
1.472
1.482
1.492
1.503
1.514
1.52
1.52

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.53
12.53
24.76
24.76
33.77
33.77
55.79
55.79
66.03
66.03
78.53
78.53
89.26
89.26
89.26
89.26
90
90
92.01
92.01
92.01
92.01
94.98
94.98
94.98
94.98
94.98
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99
94.99

045

Table D 19. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (True horizontal - 90 Case)
Petroleum Experts (3.0)

0.0011
0.0015
0.0019
0.0023
0.0026
0.0028
0.0031
0.0033
0.0036
0.0039
0.0043
0.0049
0.0114
0.0123
0.0133
0.0142
0.0151
0.0160
0.0168
0.0175
0.0183
0.0191
0.0198
0.0206
0.0213
0.0221
0.0228
0.0233
0.0235
0.0236
0.0236
0.0237
0.0238
0.0239
0.0242
0.0244
0.0245
0.0247
0.0250
0.0252
0.0253
0.0254

Angle from
Vertical

1.1480
0.8935
0.7672
0.6876
0.6315
0.5149
0.4937
0.4759
0.4581
0.4410
0.4205
0.3995
0.3565
0.3530
0.3509
0.3489
0.3438
0.3401
0.3375
0.3358
0.3347
0.3343
0.3343
0.3348
0.3357
0.3370
0.3386
0.3398
0.3403
0.3406
0.3408
0.3367
0.3369
0.3248
0.3254
0.3115
0.3117
0.2610
0.2609
0.2306
0.2304
0.1895

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth
feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5
4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5491
5517
5534

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5
4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

137.362
97.622
78.65
67.007
58.964
53.321
49.146
45.674
42.24
38.933
34.917
30.749
27.83
25.314
23.114
21.255
19.672
18.351
17.233
16.24
15.35
14.526
13.758
13.058
12.415
11.822
11.269
10.943
10.815
10.731
10.689
10.647
10.605
10.501
10.338
10.222
10.15
10.025
9.851
9.727
9.65
9.571

137.211
97.47
78.499
66.856
58.813
53.17
48.995
45.523
42.089
38.782
34.765
30.598
27.513
25.002
22.807
20.953
19.374
18.058
16.944
15.955
15.069
14.249
13.485
12.789
12.151
11.561
11.012
10.689
10.561
10.478
10.436
10.395
10.353
10.25
10.088
9.973
9.901
9.778
9.605
9.482
9.406
9.328

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.53
12.53
24.76
24.76
33.77
33.77
55.79
55.79
66.03
66.03
78.53

046

5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556

0.1890
0.1514
0.1503
0.0097
0.0097
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062

0.0256
0.0258
0.0260
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0864
0.0865
0.0865
0.0865
0.0865
0.0865
0.0865
0.0866
0.0866
0.0866
0.0866
0.0867
0.0867
0.0867

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

9.489
9.383
9.255
1.629
1.629
1.629
1.628
1.628
1.627
1.626
1.625
1.624
1.623
1.622
1.621
1.619
1.618
1.617
1.616
1.615
1.613
1.612
1.611
1.611

9.247
9.141
9.014
1.489
1.489
1.488
1.488
1.487
1.486
1.485
1.484
1.483
1.482
1.481
1.48
1.479
1.478
1.477
1.476
1.475
1.474
1.472
1.472
1.472

78.53
89.26
89.26
89.26
89.26
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

047

Table D 20. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (True horizontal - 90 Case)
Duns and Ros Original (2.498)

0.0018
0.0032
0.0039
0.0043
0.0045
0.0046
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.0049
0.1058
0.1061
0.1065
0.1068
0.1072
0.1070
0.1079
0.1080
0.1086
0.1089
0.1093
0.1096
0.1099
0.1103
0.1106
0.1109
0.1118
0.1132
0.1153
0.1180
0.1206
0.1230
0.1250
0.1280
0.1307
0.1330
0.1351
0.1372
0.1393
0.1414
0.1436
0.1457

Angle from
Vertical

13.8500
5.6800
2.6300
1.6000
1.0800
0.7707
0.5672
0.4274
0.3281
0.2558
0.2497
0.2491
0.2485
0.2479
0.2454
0.2446
0.2439
0.2432
0.2425
0.2418
0.2411
0.2400
0.2398
0.2392
0.2385
0.2379
0.2363
0.2339
0.2306
0.2267
0.2235
0.2207
0.2182
0.2161
0.2145
0.2130
0.2120
0.2112
0.2106
0.2103
0.2100
0.2100

WellHead
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth
feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

84.13
46.544
38.666
35.513
33.751
32.629
31.872
31.336
30.946
30.656
33.843
33.593
33.347
33.105
32.869
32.637
32.41
32.186
31.966
31.75
31.538
31.328
31.123
30.92
30.721
30.525
30.006
29.2
28.068
26.698
25.478
24.33
23.249
22.272
21.383
20.591
19.884
19.224
18.607
18.01
17.432
16.885

83.97
46.39
38.51
35.36
33.6
32.47
31.72
31.18
30.79
30.5
30.26
30.02
29.79
29.56
29.34
29.12
28.91
28.7
28.49
28.29
28.09
27.89
27.69
27.5
27.32
27.13
26.64
25.89
24.83
23.54
22.4
21.33
20.32
19.41
18.58
17.85
17.19
16.58
16.01
15.46
14.92
14.42

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002

048

4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5
5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5491
5517
5534
5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556
5556

0.2100
0.2103
0.2107
0.2111
0.2112
0.2113
0.2114
0.2082
0.2080
0.1990
0.1992
0.1880
0.1887
0.1511
0.1509
0.1287
0.1286
0.0988
0.0986
0.0716
0.0711
0.0046
0.0046
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008
0.0008

0.1478
0.1500
0.1521
0.1535
0.1540
0.1544
0.1546
0.1548
0.1550
0.1550
0.1562
0.1567
0.1571
0.1570
0.1585
0.1591
0.1594
0.1598
0.1602
0.1606
0.1612
0.4698
0.4698
0.4690
0.4699
0.4699
0.4699
0.4699
0.4699
0.4700
0.4700
0.4700
0.4700
0.4701
0.4701
0.4701
0.4701
0.4702
0.4702
0.4702
0.4702
0.4702

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

16.364
15.866
15.387
15.097
14.981
14.905
14.867
14.828
14.79
14.696
14.546
14.439
14.372
14.26
14.104
13.993
13.926
13.858
13.789
13.705
13.606
3.566
3.566
3.566
3.566
3.566
3.565
3.565
3.565
3.565
3.565
3.564
3.564
3.564
3.564
3.563
3.563
3.563
3.563
3.562
3.562
3.562

13.94
13.48
13.04
12.77
12.67
12.6
12.56
12.53
12.49
12.41
12.27
12.17
12.11
12.01
11.86
11.76
11.7
11.64
11.58
11.5
11.41
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.88

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.5
12.5
24.7
24.7
33.7
33.7
55.7
55.7
66
66
78.5
78.5
89.2
89.2
89.2
89.2
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90

049

Table D 21. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Toe-down - 85 Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)

0.0011
0.0015
0.0019
0.0022
0.0025
0.0028
0.0030
0.0032
0.0035
0.0038
0.0042
0.0048
0.0111
0.0120
0.0129
0.0138
0.0147
0.0155
0.0162
0.0170
0.0177
0.0184
0.0192
0.0199
0.0206
0.0213
0.0220
0.0224
0.0226
0.0227
0.0228
0.0229
0.0229
0.0231
0.0233
0.0235
0.0236
0.0238
0.0241
0.0243
0.0244
0.0245

Angle from
Vertical

1.1020
0.8623
0.7416
0.6650
0.6108
0.4954
0.4749
0.4576
0.4402
0.4234
0.4032
0.3823
0.3381
0.3340
0.3313
0.3297
0.3255
0.3211
0.3180
0.3156
0.3139
0.3128
0.3121
0.3118
0.3120
0.3125
0.3133
0.3140
0.3143
0.3145
0.3146
0.3110
0.3111
0.3005
0.3009
0.2887
0.2888
0.2448
0.2446
0.2182
0.2179
0.1824

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth
feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5
4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5491
5517
5534

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5
4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

138.239
99.073
80.105
68.391
60.27
54.57
50.359
46.85
43.374
40.022
35.948
31.713
28.752
26.207
23.978
22.089
20.472
19.121
17.976
16.96
16.05
15.206
14.421
13.705
13.047
12.439
11.873
11.539
11.408
11.321
11.278
11.235
11.192
11.086
10.919
10.799
10.725
10.595
10.413
10.284
10.203
10.119

138.088
98.922
79.954
68.240
60.119
54.419
50.208
46.699
43.223
39.871
35.796
31.562
28.433
25.892
23.668
21.784
20.172
18.825
17.684
16.672
15.766
14.926
14.144
13.432
12.778
12.174
11.612
11.280
11.150
11.064
11.021
10.979
10.936
10.830
10.664
10.545
10.472
10.343
10.163
10.034
9.954
9.871

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.53
12.53
24.76
24.76
33.77
33.77
55.79
55.79
66.03
66.03
78.53

051

5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556
5556
5564.5
5573
5581.5
5590
5608
5626
5644
5662
5680
5701.5
5723
5744.5
5766
5787.5
5809
5809
5809

0.1819
0.1492
0.1480
0.0092
0.0092
0.0061
0.0061
0.0166
0.0166
0.0166
0.0166
0.0267
0.0268
0.0268
0.0268
0.0268
0.0270
0.0271
0.0271
0.0271
0.0271
0.0272
0.0272
0.0272

0.0247
0.0249
0.0251
0.0849
0.0849
0.0849
0.0849
0.0849
0.0850
0.0850
0.0850
0.0850
0.0851
0.0851
0.0852
0.0853
0.0853
0.0854
0.0855
0.0856
0.0856
0.0857
0.0858
0.0858

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

10.032
9.917
9.777
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.719
1.717
1.715
1.713
1.711
1.707
1.703
1.699
1.696
1.691
1.687
1.682
1.677
1.672
1.666
1.664
1.664

9.785
9.671
9.532
1.574
1.574
1.574
1.574
1.573
1.571
1.569
1.568
1.565
1.562
1.558
1.555
1.551
1.547
1.543
1.538
1.534
1.529
1.524
1.521
1.521

78.53
89.26
89.26
89.26
89.26
90
90
87.47
87.47
87.47
87.47
85.02
85.02
85.02
85.02
85.02
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97

050

Table D 22. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Toe-down - 85 Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)

0.0016
0.0029
0.0036
0.0040
0.0042
0.0044
0.0046
0.0047
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.0049
0.1058
0.1062
0.1066
0.1069
0.1073
0.1077
0.1081
0.1084
0.1088
0.1092
0.1095
0.1099
0.1103
0.1106
0.1116
0.1131
0.1155
0.1185
0.1215
0.1245
0.1276
0.1307
0.1336
0.1365
0.1392
0.1419
0.1446
0.1473
0.1502
0.1530

Angle from
Vertical

11.1220
6.2450
2.9020
1.8380
1.2930
0.9621
0.7420
0.5863
0.4718
0.3850
0.3182
0.2652
0.2577
0.2575
0.2574
0.2573
0.2572
0.2571
0.2570
0.2556
0.2554
0.2552
0.2550
0.2548
0.2546
0.2545
0.2541
0.2536
0.2531
0.2529
0.2532
0.2539
0.2551
0.2567
0.2585
0.2604
0.2627
0.2652
0.2679
0.2711
0.2744
0.2779

WellHead
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth
feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

93.855
52.506
42.068
38.025
35.721
34.215
33.16
32.382
31.791
31.331
30.97
30.678
33.853
33.591
33.334
33.081
32.832
32.586
32.344
32.107
31.874
31.644
31.418
31.195
30.975
30.758
30.182
29.288
28.022
26.482
25.1
23.793
22.557
21.436
20.412
19.501
18.685
17.924
17.213
16.527
15.864
15.239

93.704
52.355
41.917
37.874
35.57
34.064
33.009
32.231
31.64
31.18
30.819
30.527
30.271
30.024
29.782
29.543
29.308
29.077
28.849
28.625
28.406
28.189
27.976
27.766
27.56
27.356
26.815
25.974
24.786
23.343
22.051
20.831
19.679
18.635
17.684
16.84
16.084
15.381
14.724
14.092
13.482
12.908

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002

052

4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5
5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5290.5
5325
5395
5465
5491
5517
5534
5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556
5556
5564.5
5573
5581.5
5590
5608
5626
5644
5662
5680
5701.5
5723
5744.5
5766
5787.5
5809
5809
5809

0.2816
0.2856
0.2898
0.2926
0.2937
0.2945
0.2949
0.2894
0.2898
0.2739
0.2753
0.2570
0.2575
0.1901
0.1907
0.1510
0.1512
0.0975
0.0975
0.0489
0.0487
0.0072
0.0072
0.0005
0.0005
0.0234
0.0234
0.0235
0.0235
0.0458
0.0459
0.0460
0.0461
0.0462
0.0467
0.0468
0.0469
0.0471
0.0472
0.0473
0.0474
0.0474

0.1558
0.1587
0.1616
0.1635
0.1642
0.1647
0.1650
0.1652
0.1655
0.1661
0.1671
0.1678
0.1683
0.1690
0.1700
0.1707
0.1711
0.1714
0.1718
0.1721
0.1725
0.5060
0.5061
0.5060
0.5060
0.5062
0.5066
0.5071
0.5076
0.5083
0.5094
0.5106
0.5117
0.5128
0.5140
0.5154
0.5168
0.5182
0.5197
0.5212
0.5219
0.5219

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

14.647
14.085
13.548
13.226
13.098
13.013
12.97
12.928
12.886
12.784
12.622
12.507
12.437
12.326
12.175
12.07
12.01
11.954
11.904
11.853
11.802
3.281
3.28
3.281
3.281
3.28
3.277
3.273
3.27
3.265
3.258
3.251
3.243
3.236
3.228
3.219
3.21
3.201
3.192
3.183
3.178
3.178

12.365
11.849
11.358
11.064
10.947
10.869
10.831
10.792
10.754
10.66
10.513
10.408
10.344
10.243
10.106
10.01
9.956
9.905
9.859
9.813
9.767
1.62
1.62
1.621
1.621
1.62
1.617
1.613
1.611
1.605
1.598
1.591
1.584
1.577
1.569
1.56
1.551
1.542
1.533
1.524
1.52
1.52

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.53
12.53
24.76
24.76
33.77
33.77
55.79
55.79
66.03
66.03
78.53
78.53
89.26
89.26
89.26
89.26
90
90
87.47
87.47
87.47
87.47
85.02
85.02
85.02
85.02
85.02
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97
84.97

053

Table D 23. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Toe-down 80 Case)

Petroleum Experts (3.0)

0.0011
0.0015
0.0019
0.0022
0.0025
0.0027
0.0030
0.0032
0.0034
0.0037
0.0041
0.0047
0.0109
0.0118
0.0127
0.0136
0.0145
0.0153
0.0160
0.0167
0.0175
0.0182
0.0189
0.0196
0.0203
0.0210
0.0217
0.0222
0.0223
0.0225
0.0225
0.0226
0.0226
0.0228
0.0230
0.0232
0.0233
0.0235
0.0238
0.0239
0.0241
0.0242

Angle from
Vertical

1.0710
0.8416
0.7249
0.6505
0.5977
0.4843
0.4643
0.4474
0.4305
0.4141
0.3942
0.3737
0.3293
0.3252
0.3224
0.3207
0.3177
0.3133
0.3101
0.3076
0.3058
0.3047
0.3039
0.3035
0.3035
0.3039
0.3046
0.3052
0.3055
0.3057
0.3058
0.3023
0.3024
0.2922
0.2925
0.3071
0.3073
0.2259
0.2254
0.2129
0.2127
0.1785

WellHead
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth
feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5
4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5297.5
5339
5405
5465
5491
5517
5534

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
79.4
158.8
238.1
317.5
396.9
476.3
555.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5
4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

138.709
99.998
81.043
69.282
61.106
55.361
51.115
47.572
44.06
40.67
36.545
32.255
29.255
26.68
24.424
22.509
20.866
19.49
18.324
17.289
16.362
15.502
14.702
13.973
13.304
12.685
12.11
11.77
11.637
11.549
11.505
11.461
11.418
11.309
11.139
11.014
10.931
10.803
10.629
10.503
10.421
10.335

138.558
99.847
80.892
69.131
60.955
55.21
50.964
47.421
43.908
40.519
36.394
32.104
28.935
26.365
24.113
22.203
20.565
19.192
18.03
16.999
16.076
15.221
14.424
13.699
13.033
12.418
11.847
11.509
11.377
11.289
11.246
11.203
11.159
11.052
10.883
10.759
10.676
10.549
10.377
10.251
10.17
10.085

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.53
12.53
24.76
24.76
0.0002
0.0002
61.19
61.19
66.03
66.03
78.53

054

5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556
5556
5573
5590
5607
5624
5660
5696
5732
5768
5804
5846.7
5889.3
5932
5974.6
6017.3
6060
6060
6060

0.1780
0.1465
0.1454
0.0089
0.0089
0.0060
0.0060
0.0262
0.0262
0.0262
0.0262
0.0459
0.0459
0.0460
0.0461
0.0462
0.0463
0.0464
0.0465
0.0466
0.0467
0.0468
0.0469
0.0469

0.0243
0.0245
0.0248
0.0844
0.0844
0.0844
0.0844
0.0844
0.0844
0.0845
0.0845
0.0845
0.0846
0.0847
0.0848
0.0849
0.0850
0.0852
0.0853
0.0854
0.0856
0.0857
0.0858
0.0858

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

10.246
10.129
9.987
1.757
1.757
1.757
1.757
1.756
1.753
1.75
1.748
1.743
1.737
1.731
1.724
1.718
1.71
1.702
1.694
1.686
1.677
1.668
1.663
1.663

9.997
9.881
9.739
1.608
1.608
1.608
1.609
1.608
1.605
1.603
1.6
1.596
1.59
1.584
1.578
1.572
1.565
1.557
1.55
1.542
1.533
1.525
1.52
1.52

78.53
89.26
89.26
89.26
89.26
90
90
84.94
84.94
84.94
84.94
80
80
80
80
80
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98

055

Table D 24. Results of Gradient Match for Well# M (Toe-down 80 Case)

Duns and Ros Original (2.498)

0.0017
0.0030
0.0037
0.0041
0.0043
0.0045
0.0046
0.0047
0.0048
0.0049
0.0049
0.1058
0.1062
0.1065
0.1069
0.1073
0.1076
0.1080
0.1084
0.1087
0.1091
0.1095
0.1098
0.1102
0.1105
0.1109
0.1118
0.1134
0.1156
0.1186
0.1215
0.1244
0.1273
0.1302
0.1331
0.1357
0.1383
0.1408
0.1433
0.1459
0.1485
0.1511

Angle from
Vertical

12.0510
6.0390
2.8040
1.7520
1.2140
0.8881
0.6734
0.5230
0.4135
0.3317
0.2696
0.2536
0.2533
0.2530
0.2527
0.2524
0.2521
0.2519
0.2516
0.2514
0.2511
0.2509
0.2507
0.2505
0.2503
0.2486
0.2478
0.2466
0.2450
0.2435
0.2425
0.2419
0.2417
0.2419
0.2425
0.2431
0.2441
0.2453
0.2468
0.2486
0.2506
0.2527

WellHead
Mist
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Transition
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

Superficial
Gas Velocity

psi/ft

Slip Gas
Velocity

Regime

Holdup

True Vertical
Depth
feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.5
2971
3201.5
3432
3675.5
3919
4162.5

Gradient

Bottom
Measured
Depth
feet
0
24.4
48.8
73.3
97.7
122.1
146.5
171
195.4
219.8
244.2
268.7
293.1
317.5
341.9
366.3
390.8
415.2
439.6
464
488.5
512.9
537.3
561.7
586.2
610.6
635
744
853
1077
1301
1525
1771.3
2017.5
2263.8
2510
2740.8
2971.5
3202.3
3433
3676.5
3920
4163.5

ft/sec

ft/sec

degrees

89.949
50.125
40.695
36.997
34.902
33.546
32.607
31.924
31.413
31.021
30.719
33.894
33.634
33.379
33.127
32.88
32.637
32.397
32.162
31.929
31.701
31.475
31.253
31.035
30.819
30.607
30.046
29.176
27.949
26.457
25.123
23.865
22.676
21.598
20.616
19.742
18.959
18.231
17.549
16.891
16.256
15.656

89.798
49.974
40.544
36.847
34.751
33.395
32.456
31.773
31.262
30.871
30.568
30.309
30.064
29.823
29.586
29.353
29.124
28.898
28.676
28.457
28.242
28.03
27.821
27.615
27.413
27.214
26.686
25.869
24.717
23.319
22.072
20.897
19.789
18.786
17.873
17.062
16.337
15.663
15.034
14.427
13.842
13.291

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
2.6700
2.6700
2.6700
2.6700
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002

056

4407
4650.5
4894
4955.5
5017
5037.5
5058
5079
5100
5187
5274
5315.5
5357
5481.5
5606
5670
5734
5819.5
5905
6080
6255
6273.5
6292
6387.5
6483
6675.8
6868.5
7061.3
7254
7461.4
7668.8
7876.2
8083.6
8291
8536.3
8781.6
9026.9
9272.2
9517.5
9762.8
9762.9
9763

4406
4649.5
4893
4954.5
5016
5036.5
5057
5077.5
5098
5177
5256
5297.5
5339
5405
5465
5491
5517
5534
5551
5553.3
5555.5
5555.8
5556
5556
5556
5573
5590
5607
5624
5660
5696
5732
5768
5804
5846.7
5889.3
5932
5974.6
6017.3
6060
6060
6060

0.2550
0.2575
0.2603
0.2621
0.2628
0.2633
0.2636
0.2589
0.2592
0.2457
0.2466
0.2667
0.2672
0.1576
0.1579
0.1417
0.1417
0.0968
0.0967
0.0560
0.0558
0.0063
0.0063
0.0006
0.0006
0.0392
0.0393
0.0393
0.0394
0.0771
0.0774
0.0776
0.0779
0.0782
0.0787
0.0790
0.0794
0.0797
0.0801
0.0805
0.0807
0.0807

0.1537
0.1564
0.1590
0.1607
0.1614
0.1619
0.1621
0.1623
0.1625
0.1631
0.1640
0.1647
0.1652
0.1658
0.1667
0.1673
0.1676
0.1680
0.1684
0.1687
0.1691
0.4950
0.4950
0.4950
0.4948
0.4952
0.4960
0.4967
0.4975
0.4988
0.5007
0.5025
0.5044
0.5063
0.5084
0.5107
0.5131
0.5155
0.5179
0.5204
0.5217
0.5217

Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug
Slug

15.088
14.547
14.031
13.72
13.596
13.514
13.474
13.433
13.392
13.293
13.136
13.019
12.939
12.833
12.7
12.602
12.541
12.483
12.428
12.369
12.307
3.358
3.359
3.359
3.36
3.358
3.352
3.346
3.341
3.332
3.318
3.305
3.292
3.279
3.265
3.25
3.234
3.219
3.203
3.188
3.18
3.18

12.769
12.273
11.799
11.515
11.402
11.327
11.29
11.252
11.215
11.125
10.982
10.874
10.802
10.705
10.583
10.494
10.438
10.386
10.336
10.282
10.226
1.696
1.696
1.696
1.697
1.695
1.689
1.684
1.679
1.67
1.657
1.644
1.631
1.619
1.605
1.59
1.575
1.56
1.544
1.529
1.521
1.521

0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
12.53
12.53
24.76
24.76
0.0002
0.0002
61.19
61.19
66.03
66.03
78.53
78.53
89.26
89.26
89.26
89.26
90
90
84.94
84.94
84.94
84.94
80
80
80
80
80
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98
79.98

057

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aguilera, R., Cordell, G. M., & Nicholl, G. W. (1991). Horizontal wells: Formation
evaluation, drilling, and production, including Heavy Oil Recovery, Houston,
Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., pp 35, 91, 101.
Ahmed, T. H. (2010). Reservoir Engineering Handbook, 4th ed. Amsterdam Boston:
Gulf Professional Publishing, pp 529.
Alexander, T., Baihly, J., Boyer, C., Clark, B., Waters, G. Jochen, V., Lewis, R., Thaeler,
J., & Toelle, B. E. (Autumn 2011). Shale Gas Revolution. Oilfield Review,
Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 45, 54. Retrieved from
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors11/aut11/composi
te.pdf
Aviles, I., Baihly, J., & Hue Liu, G. (Summer 2013). Multistage Stimulation in LiquidRich Unconventional Formations. Oilfield Review, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 28.
Retrieved from
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors13/sum13/compos
ite.pdf
Babu, D. K., & Odeh, A. S. (1989). Productivity of a Horizontal Well. SPE Reservoir
Engineering, 4 (4): 417421. SPE-18298-PA. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/18298-PA
Baldauff, J., Runge, T., Cadenhead, J., Faur, M., Marcus, R., Mas, C., North, R., &
Oddie, G. (Autumn 2004). Profiling and Quantifying Complex Multiphase Flow.
Oilfield Review, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 4-7. Retrieved from
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors04/aut04/01_profi
ling_complex_muliphase.pdf
Beggs, H. (1991). Production Optimization Using NODAL Analysis. Tulsa, Oklahoma:
OGCI and Petroskills Publications. pp 109
Bratland, O., (2013). Pipe Flow 2: Multi-phase Flow Assurance (2nd ed.). Chonburi,
Thailand. Retrieved from http://www.drbratland.com/
Britt, L. K., & Smith, M. B. (2009). Horizontal Well Completion, Stimulation
Optimization, and Risk Mitigation. Paper SPE 125526 -MS presented at the SPE
Eastern Regional Meeting held in Charleston, West Virginia, 23-25 September.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/125526-MS
Catala, G., Theron, B., Conort, G., & Ferguson, J. (1996). Fluid Flow Fundamentals.
Oilfield Review, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 61-64. Retrieved from
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors96/win96/129661
64.pdf

058

Cho, H., & Shah, S. N. (2001). Prediction of Specific Productivity Index for Long
Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE-67237-MS presented at the SPE Production and
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24-27 March.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/67237-MS
Coleman, S.B., Clay, H.B., McCurdy, D.G., and Norris III, H.L. (1991). A New Look at
Predicting Gas-Well Load-Up. JPT, March
Dietz, D.N., (1965). Determination of Average Reservoir Pressure from Build-up
Surveys. JPT 17 (8): 955959. SPE-1156-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1156-PA
Dikken, B. J. (1990). Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and Its Effect on Production
Performance. Journal of Petroleum Technology 43 (11): 1426 1433. SPE19824-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/19824-PA
Dunham, C., Lane B., Leal, G., Martin J., Sarica, C., & Sutton, R. (2012). An Industry
Consortium for Artificial Lift of Horizontal Wells. Tulsa, Oklahoma: TUHWALP.
Retrieved from
http://www.alrdc.com/recommendations/HorizontalArtificialLift/index.htm
Economides, M., Deimbachor, F. X., Brand, C. W., & Heinemann, Z. E. (1991).
Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal-Well Performance. SPE Formation
Evaluation 6 (4): 418 426. SPE-20717-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/20717-PA
Economides, M., Hill, A. D., Ehlig-Economides, C. & Zhu, D. (2013). Petroleum
Production Systems (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp 95-117,
134, 254, 655.
Economides, M., Watters, L., & Dunn-Norman, S. (1998). Petroleum Well Construction.
Chichester: Wiley. pp 63-65, 420
Elgaghah, S. A., Osisanya, S. O., & Tiab, D. (1996). A Simple Productivity Equation for
Horizontal Wells Based on Drainage Area Concept. Paper SPE-35713-MS
presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, 22-24 May.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/35713-MS
Emmanuel, O. E., & Oloro J. (April 2013). A Comparative Study of the Productivity
Index of Horizontal Well. Greener Journal of Physical Sciences, Vol. 3 (3), pp.
097-109. Retrieved from
http://gjournals.org/GJPS/GJPS%20PDF/2013/April/Oaikhena%20and%20Oloro.
pdf
Farahat, M. S. (2000). Horizontal oil well drilling technology. Suez Canal University, pp
47-48.
Furui, K., Zhu, D., & Hill, A. D. (2003). A Rigorous Formation Damage Skin Factor and
Reservoir Inflow Model for a Horizontal Well. SPE Production & Facilities 18
(3): 151 157. SPE-84964-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84964-PA

059

Giger, F. M., Reiss, L. H., & Jourdan, A. P. (1984). The Reservoir Engineering Aspects
of Horizontal Drilling. Paper SPE-13024-MS presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 16-19 September.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13024-MS
Goode, P. A., & Kuchuk, F. J. (1991). Inflow Performance of Horizontal Wells. SPE
Reservoir Engineering 6 (3): 319 323. SPE-21460-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/21460-PA
Guo, B., Lyons, W., & Ghalambor, A. (2007). Petroleum Production Engineering: a
Computer-Assisted Approach. Burlington, MA: Gulf Professional Publishing. pp
231-232
Guo, G., & Evans, R. D. (1993). Inflow Performance of a Horizontal Well Intersecting
Natural Fractures. Paper SPE-25501-MS presented at the SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 21-23 March.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25501-MS
Heddleston, D. C. (2009). Horizontal-Well-Production Logging Deployment and
Measurement Techniques for US Land Shale Hydrocarbon Plays. Paper SPE120591-MS presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 4-8 April. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/120591-MS
Hegre, T. M., & Larsen, L. (1994). Productivity of Multifractured Horizontal Wells.
Paper SPE-28845-MS presented at the European Petroleum Conference, London,
United Kingdom, 25-27 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/28845-MS
Helmy, M. W., & Wattenbarger, R. A. (1998). Simplified Productivity Equations for
Horizontal Wells Producing at Constant Rate and Constant Pressure. Paper SPE
49090-MS presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/49090-MS
Holstein, E. & Lake, L. (2007). Petroleum Engineering Handbook. Volume V.
Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. 1002 pp.
Houze, O., Viturat, D., Fjaere, O., & et al. (2011). Dynamic Data Analysis. Volume
4.12.02. Kappa. pp 206, 210, 215
Jackson, D. F. B., Virues, C. J. J., & Sask, D. (2011). Investigation of Liquid Loading in
Tight Gas Horizontal Wells With a Transient Multiphase Flow Simulator. Paper
SPE 149477-MS presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources
Conference, Alberta, Canada, 15-17 November. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/149477-MS
Jansen, J. D., & Currie, P. K. (2004). Modelling and Optimisation of Oil and Gas
Production Systems (Lecture Notes for course ta4490 Production Optimisation),
Version 5c. Netherlands: Department of Geotechnology, Delft University of
Technology Publications, pp 49, 50, 84-85.

061

Joshi, S. (2000). Horizontal and Multi-Lateral Wells: Performance Analysis-An Art or a

Science? Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 39 (10):19-23. PETSOC-0010-DAS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/00-10-DAS
Joshi, S. D. (1991). Horizontal Well Technology. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Pub. Co,
27, 101-102 pp.
Kareem, L. A., & Omeke, J. E. (2012). Furuis IPR Model Correction and Its Application
in Horizontal Well Cresting Control and Inflow Control Device Installation.
Paper SPE-162944-MS presented at the Nigeria Annual International Conference
and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, 6-8 August. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/162944-MS
King, G. E. (1998). Introduction to the basics of well completions, stimulations and
workovers (2nd ed.). Tulsa, Oklahoma: George E. King consulting, selfpublished, 650 pp.
King, G. E. (2009). Horizontal well Completions. [PDF Presentation]. Retrieved from
http://gekengineering.com/Downloads/Free_Downloads/Horizontal_Well_Basics.
pdf
King, G. E. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing 101: What Every Representative,
Environmentalist, Regulator, Reporter, Investor, University Researcher, Neighbor
and Engineer Should Know About Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac
Performance in Unconventional Gas and Oil Wells. Paper SPE SPE-152596-MS
presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The
Woodlands, Texas, 6-8 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/152596-MS
Lea, J. F., & Nickens, H. V. (2004). Solving Gas-Well Liquid-Loading Problems. Journal
of Petroleum Technology 56 (4): 30 36. SPE-72092-JPT.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/72092-JPT
Lea, J. F., Nickens, H. V., & Wells, M. R. (2003). Gas Well Deliquification: Solution to
gas well liquid loading problems. Burlington, MA: Gulf Professional Publishing.
pp 40-41. Retrieved from
http://www.knovel.com/web/portal/browse/display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY
_bookid=1288&VerticalID=0
Lea, J., Nickens, H., & Wells, M. (2008). Gas well deliquification (2nd ed.). Amsterdam
Boston: Elsevier/Gulf Professional Publishing. pp 58
Lu, J. (1998). A Mathematical Model of Horizontal Wells Productivity and Well Testing
Analysis (Masters Thesis). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd8798-13564/unrestricted/thesis.pdf
Nind, T. E. W. (1989). Hydrocarbon reservoir and well performance (1st Ed.). City:
Chapman and Hall, 254-255 pp.

060

Nurmi, R., Kuchuk, F., Cassell, B., Chardac, J., & Maguet, P. (1996). Horizontal
Highlights. Middle East & Asia Reservoir Review (MEWR), Volume 16, pp 7-25.
Retrieved from
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/mearr/wer16/rel_pub_mewer16_1.pdf
Ozkan, E. (1988). Performance of Horizontal Wells. (Doctoral dissertation). The
University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.
Permadi, P. (1995). Practical Methods to Forecast Production Performance of
Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE-29310-MS presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and
Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-22 March.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/29310-MS
Presley, J., (May 2012 Exclusive Story). Selecting the Right Technology is Vital in
Horizontal Wells. The American Oil & Gas Reporter by National Publishers
Group Inc. Retrieved from http://www.aogr.com/index.php/webfeatures/exclusive-story/selecting-the-right-technology-is-vital-in-horizontal-wells
Renard, G., & Dupuy, J. M. (1991). Formation Damage Effects on Horizontal-Well Flow
Efficiency. Journal of Petroleum Technology 43 (07): 786 869. Paper SPE19414-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/19414-PA
Renpu, W. (2011). Advanced Well Completion Engineering. 3rd Edition. Waltham, MA:
Gulf Professional Publishing. pp 72. Retrieved from
http://www.knovel.com/web/portal/browse/display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY
_bookid=4821&VerticalID=0
Southwestern Energy Company (2014, February). Fayetteville Shale Play. Retrieved
from SWN website http://www.swn.com/operations/pages/fayettevilleshale.aspx
Sutton, R. (2014). Gas Well Deliquification Workshop [PowerPoint slides]. Denver,
Colorado, February 23 26. Retrieved from
http://www.alrdc.com/workshops/2014_2014gaswellworkshop/Private/PDF%20P
resentations%201,%202,%203/2-1%20---%20Presentation%20---%20Sutton%20--%20Horizontal%20Gas%20Well%20Geometry.pdf
Turner, R.G. (1969). Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous
Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells. JPT, Nov. Trans. AIME 246.
Veeken, K., Hu, B., & Schiferli, W. (2010). Gas-Well Liquid-Loading-Field-Data
Analysis and Multiphase-Flow Modeling. SPE Production & Operations 25 (03):
275 284. SPE 123657-PA. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/123657-PA

062

VITA

Abdussalam Mahmoud Mohamed was in Tripoli, Libya. He enrolled at the

Petroleum Training Qualifying Institute (PTQI) Tripoli in September 1994 and earned
his intermediate diploma with the 1st Award majoring in Production in July 1997. After
serving one year as a production technician in the Zella Field, Zueitena Oil Company,
Abdussalam worked as a Company-man under training in the EPSA Fields, Drilling
Department. He then enrolled at the University of Tripoli (Formerly Al-Fateh University)
Tripoli, Libya in September, 1999, where he received his Bachelor of Science degree in
Petroleum Engineering in 2004.
Abdussalam worked for one year at BD1 off-shore platform with Saipem S.p.A.,
Al-Jurf Field, Libya as both a rig clerk and logistic administrator. He then joined the
University of Tripoli as a teaching assistant in the Department of Petroleum (Nov 07
May 09). He also served as an oil production training instructor in the Department of
Production at PTQI for one year.
Abdussalam commenced graduate studies at the Missouri University of Science
and Technology at Rolla, Missouri, in January 2010, funded partly by the Libyan
Ministry of Higher Education. He was awarded a Project Management Certificate in
December 2011 and a Masters Degree of Science in Petroleum Engineering in fall 2014.

063