Natural Flow and Artificial Lift

Natural Flow and Artificial Lift
1 NATURAL FLOW AND ARTIFICIAL LIFT
1.1 Natural Flow
1.1.1 Well Inflow Performance Relationships (IPR)
For information on bottom hole pressure analysis reference should be made to Section 6 in
Volume 4 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING.
A list of symbols and units used in the following equations is given in 1.1.1.5.
The inflow performance of a well should be measured directly through regular well testing
(including bottom hole pressure analysis) over a range of production rates. When this is not
possible or when predictions are required for future conditions, then the equations given in this
Section can be used to estimate the inflow performance.
1.1.1.1 Inflow Performance of Oil Wells (Open Hole and Cased Hole Completions)
A useful inflow performance indicator in oil wells is the productivity index (Pl) of a zone which
defines the potential production rate per unit of drawdown. In general the Pl will remain constant
over a range of production rates, i.e. a straight line Pl relationship, as long as the flowing bottom
hole pressure Pwf is greater than the bubble point pressure Pb, i.e. in the absence of free gas.
Below Pb the inflow performance will become rate dependent and some form of curved IPR will
generally be required to accurately describe the inflow performance.
(a) Straight Line IPR

The straight line IPR uses a constant productivity index (PI) to describe stabilised flow into the
wellbore, where:
The Pl is properly expressed as m (st)/(sPa) (Sl Units) or stb/d/psi (field units). Normally,
3
however, the Sl Units are converted to m (st)/(dkPa). Generally, stock tank conditions
correspond to standard conditions (101 325 Pa, 15 C for Sl units and 14.696 psia, 60 F for field
units).
This relationship is satisfactory if only liquid flow occurs in the reservoir and non-Darcy (rate
dependent) flow effects are negligible.
Confidential-Property and Copyright: SIPM, 1991
14
Part I: Production Engineering
1.1.1.1 (continued)
The stabilised flow of a slightly compressible fluid of constant compressibility into the wellbore of
a single well completed over the entire producing interval in a bounded radial reservoir is given by
the semi-steady state equation:
The skin effect, s, is generally determined from transient flow analysis (see Section 6.3 in Volume
4).
The pressure drop due to skin is defined as:
The conversion constant C1 = 2

-3
= 7.08 x 10
(Sl units)
(field units)
Examples (see 1.1.1.5 for basic data)

Sl units:
-9
PI = 1.302 x 10 m (st) / (sPa)

3
= 0.112
m (st) / (sPa)
= 5.8 x 10 Pa
field units:
15
4.884 b/ d/ psi
1.1.1.1 (continued)
The Pl relationship can be rewritten in terms of the drawdown, i.e:
Examples
Sl units:
The above equations assume single-phase oil flow. In theory the equations do not apply when
formation water is also produced with the oil but reasonable estimates are often obtained when
average permeability thickness and fluid properties are assumed. In wells producing with a
significant water cut, qo is replaced by qt, the total stock tank volume of oil and water, i.e.:
qt = qo +qw
Also
Bo is replaced by Bt = (wcBw + (1 wc)Bo)
where, wc = water cut (fraction)
16
1.1.1.1 (continued)
Assuming that the segregated flow of oil and water exists, the mobility term
k0
is replaced by:
0
where:
k
kro
krw
=
=
absolute single-phase permeability (either from previous well test with dry oil or
laboratory determined air permeability)
relative permeability to oil
relative permeability to water
In the extreme case of very high water cut or water well production ko, o, and Bo, should be
replaced by kw, w and Bw, respectively, to provide estimates of the wells Pl.
(b) Curved IPR (Flow Rate Dependent)
(i) Vogels IPR
The dimensionless IPR presented by Vogel (Ref. 1) was developed for the flow of saturated oil
from a solution-gas drive reservoir into an ideal well, i.e. one without any negative or positive skin
effects. It is assumed that the average reservoir pressure (P) is less than the bubble point
pressure (Pb).
qmax is the maximum rate corresponding to Pwf = 0

qmax can be calculated using the above equation provided that P, Pwf and qo are known from well
test data. The rate qo for any other desired flowing bottom hole pressure, Pwf, can then be
calculated directly from the above equation.
ii) Standings IPR
For wells with a skin other than zero (damaged or stimulated) Standing (Ref. 2) developed a
modification to Vogels IPR and presented a set of dimensionless curves (Figure 1.1.1-1) for a
range of flow efficiencies. Flow efficiency (FE) is a measure of the skin effect and is defined as:
17
1.1.1.1
(continued)
Figure 1.1.1-1 Standing's IPR curves for damaged wells producing by solution gas drive
(Copyright 1970 SPE AIME. First published in the JPT. January 1970)
18
1.1.1.1
(continued)
An FE < 1.0 indicates skin damage; an FE > 1.0 indicates stimulation or the presence of natural
fractures or fissures.
Vogel's curve corresponds to the curve with a FE = 1.0.
qmax(FE = 1) can be calculated provided P, Pwf, qo, and FE are known from well test data.
Alternatively, qmax (FE = 1) can be calculated from the ratio qo / qmax read directly from Standings
graph using the curve corresponding to the FE obtained from well test analysis. The rate qo, for
any other desired Pwf and FE is then calculated from the ratio qo / qmax (FE = 1) read directly from
Standings graph (curve corresponding to the desired FE).
Example
This procedure is illustrated by the following example.
From a well test:
3
qo
= 225 m (st)/d
6
Pwf = 15 x 10 Pa
6
P
= 24.5 x 10 Pa
FE
= 0.6
6
Estimate qo, assuming reduced skin (FE = 0.8) and increased drawdown (Pwf = 9.8 x 10 Pa).
Solution
From test data, Pwf/ P = 15/ 24.5 = 0.61.
From Standing's graph (curve FE = 0.6),
qo / qmax (FE = 1) = 0.37
3
qmax(FE = 1) = qo/ 0.37 = 225/ 0.37 = 608 m (st)/d
This is the maximum inflow rate which could be achieved if Pwf could be reduced to zero and all
skin removed (s = 0).
Thus, for a flowing bottom hole pressure

skin removal),
Pwf = 9.8 x 106 Pa and an FE = 0.8 (assuming some
Pwf/ P = 0.4
From Standings graph (curve FE = 0.8),
qo / qmax (FE = 1) = 0.68
6
Hence, expected production rate qo, for Pwf = 9.8 x 10 Pa and FE = 0.8 is:
19
1.1.1.1
(continued)
qo = 0.68 x qmax (FE = 1) = 0.68 x 608

3
= 413 m (st)/d
Hence, by using Standing's graph the benefits of stimulation can be easily assessed.
(c) Future IPRs
In most cases it is reasonable to assume that the productivity index remains constant during
reservoir depletion as long as P > Pb. This may not be true when water breakthrough or excess
build-up of skin damage occurs.
When P drops below Pb it is likely that the IPR will change. Standing (Ref. 3) has suggested a
simple procedure to obtain the IPR of an ideal well at any future stage of depletion.
Couto (Ref. 4) extended this work to develop a more generalised IPR equation that accounts for
any state of completion flow efficiency and reservoir depletion.
Fetkovich (Ref. 5) independently developed a different approach to predict the future IPR of a
well with non-zero skin.
Reference should be made to the appropriate papers for details on these methods.
1.1.1.2 Inflow Performance of Gas Wells (Open Hole and Cased Hole
Completions)
(a) Laminar Flow
The most straightforward approach to describe the stabilised flow of gas into the wellbore is to
use the same inflow performance relationship as was developed for single phase oil flow (straight
line Pl).
For a single-phase oil well the drawdown is given by:
The conversion constant C1 = 2

-3
= 7.08 x 10
(Sl units)
(field units)
The term qoBo simply represents the reservoir volume rate. As oil moves from reservoir
conditions to stock tank conditions it shrinks in volume as dissolved gas is released. The amount
of shrinkage is defined by 1 / Bo. Conversely, Bo, the oil formation volume factor, defines
20
1.1.1.2 (continued)
the expansion which would occur if the theoretical reversal took place, i.e. if gas were added to
stock tank oil and the mixture taken to reservoir conditions. By definition Bo, is greater than unity.
Gas behaves in the opposite manner to oil in that it expands as it moves from reservoir to surface
conditions and shrinks when taken from surface to reservoir conditions. The analogous term to
qoBo is Q Bg where Q is the volume of gas at standard conditions and Bg is the gas formation
volume factor. For a given pressure P, Bg is defined as:
where,
3
Bg = m /m (st) (SI units)

= bbl /scf (field units)
z = gas deviation factor at pressure P
T = absolute temperature, K (SI units) or R (field units), corresponding to
pressure P
Psc = pressure at standard conditions (101 325 Pa or 14.696 psia)
Tsc = absolute temperature at standard conditions (288 K, 520 R)
C2 = conversion factor = 352 (Sl units)
-3
= 5.035 x 10 (field units)
Hence, the equivalent gas inflow equation describing laminar flow and well-bore effects is given
by:
Bg (hence also z) is calculated at reservoir temperature T and at pressure P as evaluated midway

between P and Pwf;
Substitution of this Bg into the laminar gas inflow equation and multiplication of the pressure terms
leads to the expression:
21
1.1.1.2 (continued)
where g is evaluated at P midway between P and Pwf and at reservoir temperature.

3
The conversion constant C3 = 111.7 (Sl units), Q in m (st)/d
= 1422 (field units), Q in Mscf/d
(b) Non-Darcy or Turbulent Flow

In gas wells, fluid velocity around the wellbore is much higher than that found in oil wells.
For a given pressure drawdown the velocity of gas is at least an order of magnitude greater than
that for oil due to the much lower gas viscosity.
Hence, in gas wells an additional pressure drop due to turbulence must be considered.
Forchheimer found this additional pressure drop to be proportional to the velocity squared and a
turbulence factor which is characteristic of the porous medium. The following expression for the
pressure drop due to gas turbulence around the wellbore can be derived from his work:
where:
= turbulence coefficient for non-Darcy flow (turbulence factor) and has

-1
-1
units of reciprocal length (m or ft )
hp = perforation height rather than formation height reflecting the localised nature of the turbulence (m or ft)
C4 = conversion constant = 21.74 (Sl units)
-12
= 3.161 x 10 (field units)
g = gas relative density (air = 1)
Generally, the term 1/re is neglected and the z factor evaluated at P midway between P and Pwf.
Values of can be found experimentally from core data. A relationship is usually found in the
form:
where the exponent a is a constant. In the absence of experimental data the following relationship
can be used which was proposed by Katz and Cornell
22
1.1.1.2
(continued)
(Ref. 6) based on experimental data on consolidated samples of sandstones, dolomites and

limestones:
The basic data for this empirical correlation are shown in Figure 1.1.1-2 together with correlations
of Janicek and Katz based on porosity.
Figure 1.1.1-2 Correlation of turbulence factor with permeability

(Reproduced by permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company, Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, D. L.
Katz et al., 1959)
23
Values of found by the above equation will tend to be too low as the equation does not take
proper account of the liquid saturations generally found in the reservoir. More accurate values will
normally be obtained using the following equation (Ref. 13):
where:
k = absolute permeability (mD)
SL = in-situ liquid saturation (fraction)
= porosity (fraction)
krg = relative permeability to gas at the prevailing liquid saturation, SL
(c) Total Inflow Pressure Drop
From (a) and (b) above it has been shown that the total pressure drop at the wellbore of a gas
well producing under stabilised conditions can be described by a formula of the form:
2
P Pwf = aQ + bQ
where the term aQ is the pressure drop due to laminar (Darcy) flow and the term bQ is the
pressure drop due to turbulent (non-Darcy) flow.
The constants a and b can be derived from a multi-rate well test or alternatively estimated from
known reservoir and gas properties using the equations derived above, as follows:

2
2 1/ 2
Pwf = [P aQ bQ ]
24
1.1.1.2 (continued)
SI units:
25
1.1.1.2 (continued)
(d) Use of Real Gas Pseudo-Pressures
It was noted above that both q and z depend on pressure. However, provided that the drawdown
P Pwf is small and/or the function P/qz is linear with respect to P between P and Pwf, then the
2
2
above equations in terms of P and Pwf will describe the inflow of gas with reasonable accuracy.
2
If these conditions are not met, however, then P and Pwf should be replaced by the
corresponding real gas pseudo-pressures m(P) and m(Pwf), where:
PB = an arbitrary base pressure

A description of how to calculate m(P) is given by Dake, Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering,
(Ref. 7).
In terms of real gas pseudo-pressures the gas inflow equation becomes:
m(P) m(Pwf) = BQ + FQ
where:
Note:
In Sl units, the pressure squared and viscosity term does not appear in the units for the F-factor since the Sl
unit for the dynamic viscosity is Pas.
The remaining q term in F is normally evaluated at Pwf.

Examples
m(Pwf) = m(P) BQ FQ
26
1.1.1.2 (continued)
SI units:
27
1.1.1.3 (continued)
1.1.1.3 Inflow Performance of Gravel Packed Wells
(a) Open Hole Gravel Packed Oil Wells
The inflow equation for an open or cased hole completion (assuming the single-phase flow of oil)
can be adapted to describe the flow of oil in an open hole gravel pack completion (Ref. 8). The
inflow can be described by an equation of the form (assuming the single-phase flow of oil):
P - Pwf = a qo + b qo
where:
a qo = the pressure drop in the formation
b qo = the pressure drop in the gravel pack
and
where:
kp = effective permeability of the gravel pack
ric = inner radius of the slotted liner
s = skin resulting from formation damage
s1 = an apparent skin factor caused by the resistance of the slotted liner
The apparent skin is approximated by the empirical formula:
where:
Ns = number of continuous slot columns/ ft;
e.g. for a liner with 60 slots/ ft, each slot 2 in. long, then
2
Ns = 60 x
= 10.
12
f = percentage of pipe wall open to flow
28
1.1.1.3 (continued)
In above example, the additional pressure drop resulting from the open hole gravel pack is
neglible. However, significant pressure drops may occur if kp is reduced as a result of mixing
29
1.1.1.3 (continued)
gravel with formation sand (see also Figure 2.4-3).
The above inflow formulae can be combined and rearranged to form the familiar productivity
index (Pl) formula:
where the total skin term can be described as:
s can be determined from transient well test analysis.

(b) Open Hole Gravel Packed Gas Wells
The inflow equation for an open hole gravel packed gas well can be derived from a combination
of the pressure drop due to flow in the formation (laminar and turbulent) and from the pressure
drop across the gravel pack (laminar and turbulent).
In terms of pressures squared the inflow relationship is of the form:
30
1.1.1.3 (continued)
where:
=
kp
ric
=
sl
=
permeability of the gravel pack

inner radius of the slotted liner
apparent skin factor caused by the resistance of the slotted liner. In gas wells this
term is very small and can be neglected.
turbulence factor of the formation sand. Estimates of can be derived from
1.1.1.2 (b)
turbulence factor of the gravel pack. A useful empirical correlation of p with pack
permeability was given by Firoozabadi and Katz (Ref. 9):

Pwf
2 1/2
= [P aQ bQ cQ dQ ]
SI units:
31
1.1.1.3 (continued)
32
1.1.1.3 (continued)
In terms of real gas pseudo-pressures the inflow equation for open hole gravel packed gas wells
becomes:
(c) Internally Gravel Packed Oil Wells

The inflow performance of an internally gravel packed oil well can be estimated by adding the
pressure drop due to flow in the formation to the pressure drop due to flow in the perforations.
The pressure drop across the pack between the perforation exit and the screen is normally
relatively small and can be neglected.
Hence for oil wells:
where, Pwfs = flowing sandface pressure

The formation pressure drop (P Pwfs) can be evaluated from the equation:
where:
s = skin analysed prior to gravel packing (assumes no additional damage during gravel pack
operations).
33
1.1.1.3 (continued)
The pressure drop in the perforations (Pwfs Pwf) can be estimated from the equation given by
Saucier (Ref. 10):
where:
In the above empirical equation qo is the total well production at surface (i.e. standard conditions).
The downhole volume through each perforation is therefore given by q = qoBo/N where N is the
total number of perforations open to flow.
2
A = cross-sectional area of each perforation, m (ft )

Lg = length of each perforation channel, m (ft). Generally assumed equal to the bit radius minus
the inside casing radius
2
kp = permeability of the gravel or gravel/sand mixture which fills the perforation tunnel (m in Sl
units or mD in field units)
p = turbulence factor of the gravel in the tunnel (m-1 or ft-1) which can be estimated using the
following equation;
= oil density at in-situ tunnel conditions, kg/ m3 (lb/ ft3)

C5 = conversion constant = 1.0 in Sl units
= 888.0 in field units
C6 = conversion constant = 1.0 in Sl units
-13
= 9.08 x 10 in field units
Figure 1.1.1-3 has been adapted from Saucier and shows both the effect of perforation diameter
and gravel permeability on the pressure drop through perforation tunnels. The Figure illustrates
the need for large diameter holes in internally gravel packed wells and also the need to exclude
formation sand from the perforation tunnels (see also 2.4).
34
1.1.1.3 (continued)
Figure 1.1.1-3 Pressure drop vs. flow rate for three perforation sizes
(Copyright 1974 SPE AIME. First published in the JPT, February 1974)

Pwf = P (P Pwfs) (Pwfs Pwf)
Sl units:
35
1.1.1.3 (continued)
(d) Internally Gravel Packed Gas Wells

The inflow performance of internally gravel packed gas wells can be described in a similar
manner to that in oil wells by adding the pressure drop in the formation to the pressure drop
through the perforation tunnels. The pressure drop across the pack between the perforation exit
and the screen is normally relatively small and can be neglected. Thus for gas wells:
2
P - Pwf =(P Pwfs ) + (Pwfs Pwf )

where, Pwfs = flowing sandface pressure
36
1.1.1.3 (continued)
2
The formation pressure drop ( P Pwfs )can be evaluated from the equation:
when the total skin s= s + bQ is available from transient pressure analysis.

The calculation of the formation pressure drop can also be done in terms of pseudo-pressures
(see 1.1.1.2 (d)).
The pressure drop due to the flow of gas in gravel filled perforations is given by the formula (Ref.
11):
where:
where:
Q =
N =
A =
kp =
37
total surface flow rate at standard conditions, m (st)/s (Mscf/d)

number of perforations open to flow
2
2
cross sectional area of each perforation, m (ft )
2
permeability of the gravel in the perforation tunnel, m (mD)
1.1.1.3 (continued)
p
Lg
-1
=
=
-1
turbulence factor of the gravel in the tunnel, m (ft )

length of each perforation channel, m (ft), assumed to be equal to the bit radius
minus the casing inside radius
C7
=
conversion constant = 702 Sl units
= 8936 field units
C8
=
conversion constant = 858 SI units
-10
= 1.25 x 10 field units
g and z should be evaluated at a pressure midway between Pwfs and Pwf thus some iteration may
be required.
2
Pwf = [P - (P - Pwfs ) (Pwfs - Pwf )]
1/2
SI units:
38
1.1.1.3 (continued)
field units:
1.1.1.4
Inflow Performance of Hydraulically Fractured Wells (Pseudo Radial Flow)
Through the introduction of a number of simplifications and approximations the inflow

performance of a hydraulically fractured well under steady state pseudo radial flow conditions can
be estimated in a manner analogous to that for a well with an open or cased hole completion.
Prats (Ref. 12) introduced an effective well radius rw defined as the radius of an imaginary
circular well bore which would give the same steady state pressure drop as a fractured well:
39
1.1.1.4 (continued)
where:
Examples
Sl units:
field units:
xf and Cr are generally found from transient well test analysis.
Using the concept of effective wellbore radius the semi-steady state inflow of a single-phase oil
under pseudo radial flow conditions can be estimated as:
The skin factor s is found from transient well test analysis.
40
1.1.1.4 (continued)
A similar approach can be made in gas wells if it is assumed that only laminar flow exists at the
fracture walls and that turbulent (non-Darcy) flow is negligible in both the formation and in the
fracture. If these conditions are met then the semi-steady state laminar gas inflow equation can
be used:
Further accuracy can be introduced by considering turbulence in the fracture itself. Examples of
such calculations for sand filled fractures are given by C.E. Cooke (Conductivity of fracture
proppants in multiple layers, J.P.T., September 1973). It is generally valid to neglect turbulence in
the formation in view of the large inflow area presented by the fracture walls.
Prats method was developed specifically for oil wells but as shown above may also be applied to
gas wells. Other limitations (assumptions) inherent in Prats method are as follows:
Horizontal producing layer of constant thickness and uniform porosity and permeability bounded
above and below by impermeable strata
Fully penetrating sand filled vertical fracture of limited extent and with finite conductivity
Single fluid of small and constant compressibility
Elliptically shaped reservoir with a uniform potential at the outer boundary
Negligible gravity effects.
41
42
43
44

Natural Flow and Artificial Lift

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural Flow and Artificial Lift

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural Flow and Artificial Lift

1 NATURAL FLOW AND ARTIFICIAL LIFT

1.1 Natural Flow

1.1.1 Well Inflow Performance Relationships (IPR)

(a) Straight Line IPR

Confidential-Property and Copyright: SIPM, 1991

Part I: Production Engineering

The conversion constant C1 = 2

Examples (see 1.1.1.5 for basic data)

PI = 1.302 x 10 m (st) / (sPa)

Confidential-Property and Copyright: SIPM, 1991