Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Improved Procedures for Estimating the Erosional Rates in High Offtake Gas Wells:
Application of University of Tulsa Flow Loop Derived Correlations
Ivo Terziev and Ian Taggart ChevronTexaco Australia
Abstract
High rate offtake gas and gas condensate wells require
both hydraulic and erosive issues to be addressed. The
erosional aspects are particularly difficult and require special
attention in high velocity areas if solid particles are present.
In the past, industry has attempted to handle the problem
through API-RP14E, however; this standard has been widely
accepted as conservative and physically unsound when applied
to gas or gas condensate fluids, because it does not account for
solid particle impingement. Since then, numerous models and
correlations have been developed to predict wear rates in
various tubing configurations.
The Tulsa work appears most comprehensive but there is
little published information on how to apply many of its
findings and present the results of erosional calculations in a
form suitable for well design and field development planning.
This paper uses the Tulsa erosional work and presents a
consistent methodology for predicting and displaying the
erosion rates in a number of high offtake big bore well designs
when solids production and liquid loading are present. The
ideas and procedures developed here can be used with other
wear estimation methods. The use of tolerable erosion (or
sand) rate strategy as opposed to previously adopted (and
widely used) maximum solids free rate approach is
advocated.
The difficulties with prescribing the C constant in API
RP14E are discussed and alternative derivations based on
friction factors are presented. Subsequent sections consider
examples of alternative gas well design, some of which use
big bore technology, to demonstrate an application of a staged
design process. The stages cover hot spot analysis, wear
estimates and required erosional allowances before proposing
an operating/monitoring strategy.
Introduction
In recent years, Big Bore Technology (BBT) has become a
preferred alternative in developing a large gas and gas
condensate fields1, 2, 3. The economic benefits are especially
pronounced in offshore environment where increased
hydraulic limits can effectively reduce the number of offtake
wells thereby generating significant cost savings. Relative to
smaller diameter wells, large bore wells offer the potential of
much higher hydraulic capacity and initial rates. Moreover,
even when operating at fixed lower rates they offer
substantially increased plateau times. Both of these
improvements generally result at modest cost increases over a
conventional well.
Allowing large bore wells to achieve offtake rates close to
their hydraulic limits has to face the increased exposure to
metal loss and wear that has the potential for wall breach in a
worst-case scenario, particularly if solid particles (sand) are
also present. Historically the industry has tended to rely on
modified shear stress relations, such as API RP14E, to forecast
maximum (threshold) gas velocities which would allow
continuous service. While the shortcomings of API RP14E are
well known, an integrated approach to couple completion
design, hydraulic performance and erosion management and
tolerance has proved difficult to describe and implement. The
purpose of this work is to show how the wear rates predicted
by correlations developed from the University of Tulsa can be
incorporated into production strategy based on tolerable sand
production that has made prior allowance for metal losses in
key zones.
In order to discuss the issues associated with completion
design, operating, and monitoring strategies in the presence of
solid particles, it is helpful to first present a review of key
concepts before discussing API RP14E and its range of
applicability. Following this, various models are discussed for
predicting wear rates when small amounts of solid particles
are present in the gas stream and briefly consider the major
advantages of the SPPS erosional model from Tulsa
University.
The examples chosen to illustrate the staged approach
consider well designs based on conventional 7 monobore
completion as well as two alternative designs using Big
Bore technology. Hydraulic performance and the results of
erosional calculations are displayed on a system plot of gas
rate versus well head pressure under solids free and nominally
sand free production conditions (the meaning of these terms is
SPE 88492
SPE 88492
Material
Vc (ft/s)
High Alloys
410
High Alloys
295
12% Cr
390
PMMA*
682
High Alloys <230/262
Researcher
Honegger
de Haller
Baker
Hancox & Brunton
DNV RP O501 (1996)
f =
*Polymethylmethcrylate
2wgc
mV 2
2 gc w
1
f
m
Vc =
2 gc w
= 259
f
C=
Vc =
Where
(1.4)
Equation
Moody
Barr
(1.3)
Where
ColebrookWhite
Application of API RP-14E
(1.2)
Tubing ID
(in)
6.054*
6.054*
6.054*
Reynolds
Number
Friction factor
7.18E7**
0.0023***
7.18E7**
0.0033***
7.18E7**
0.0033***
* ID measured at TRSSV
** Based on fluid velocity of 225 ft/s, mixture viscosity of 0.02 cp and mixture density
of 8.5 lb/ft^3
*** Calculated for tubing roughness of 0.001 based on Carbon Steel tubing
SPE 88492
SPE 88492
MATL (in)
0.0525"
0.0795"
0.107"
0.15"
TER (mils/y)
10
15
20
5.1
7.95
10.7
15
3.4
5.3
7.13
10
2.55
3.975
5.35
7.5
Knowing the TER and using SPPS, one can compute the
maximum production rate (in a context of SF and/or NSFP)
which will result in erosion less then the values listed in
Table 3.
Erosion under SF production conditions
Erosion under SF production conditions can be initiated by
liquid droplets impingement9,10,12,19 or by stripping the internal
tubing layer when the introduced shear stress exceed material
limit. The droplet erosion may occur in the crown plug of the
Christmas tree and the crossover sub when droplets collide
with the surface at velocity greater than 300 ft/s (CRA
materials)12, 19. Whereas, high shear stress, can cause damage in
the straight section of the tubing providing near wall velocity
exceed the threshold calculated using API RP14E, which for
13Cr material and above-mentioned fluid properties is
approximately 304 ft/s. If annular flow does exist inside the
entire tubing length, the shear stress should be calculated
based on superficial liquid velocity as only the liquid phase is
in contact with the tubing wall.
Using a velocity maximum of 314 ft/s and average WHFT,
the erosion limit under SF conditions can be calculated as a
function of WHFP and production rate (Fig 7). The obtained
erosion limit line(s) represents the maximum offtake rate for a
given WHFP below which erosion due to liquid impingement
or excessive shear stress will not occur (0 mpy). While, higher
velocities are possible if TERs from Table 3 are applied, all
further calculations will be limit practically to 300 ft/s.
Although, the erosion limit for Designs 1 and 2 is virtually
the same due to the similar tubing dimensions, it will have
different impact over the production rate. The advantage of the
larger tubing diameter can be illustrated when system
deliverability curves expressed through WHFP for a range of
reservoir pressures (RP) and erosion limit are plotted on a
same graph (Fig 8, 9 and 10). The points from the system
curves on the right hand side of the limit line are good for
operation whereas, those on the left hand will cause higher
then anticipated erosion.
Evidently, the higher tubing friction losses (Design 1)
results in lower WHFP limiting the offtake rate for a given
velocity threshold. Accordingly, Designs 2 and 3 have higher
limits of 400 MMscf/d and 600 MMscf/d respectively because
of the larger tubing employed in their architecture. Note that
the above-mentioned rates should be additionally restricted to
the TRSV maximum slam tested rates of approximately 400
MMscf/d for 7 TRSV and approximately 480 MMscf/d for 95/8 TRSV.
Erosion under NSFP production conditions
Under NSFP conditions, the most exposed system element,
apart from the choke valve, is the wellhead where the flow
direction changes suddenly. As a result, the solid particles
entrained in the flow can cross the streamlines and impinge
the wall causing erosion damage15,16,17.
The crossover joint is another area possessing erosion risk.
The turbulent fluctuation, as well as the mean component of
fluid velocity, provides sufficient momentum to the sand
making it to impinge and erode the wall. Since the wear
resistance of the crossover joints depends on a tapered angle,
if this angle is lowered to below 5 deg, erosive wear will be
SPE 88492
TER (mpy)
15
Design 1
10
7.5
15
Design 2
10
7.5
15
Design 3
10
7.5
Plateau length
based on erosion
limit (years)
1.3
0.8
5.7
5.1
4.7
10.6
10.4
10.1
Plateau length
based on hydraulic
limit only (years)
1.8
1.8
1.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
27.78
44.44
55.56
14.93
23.88
29.85
Erosion Limit
Impact (%)
0.93
2.80
5.61
SPE 88492
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge Francis Thompson for
building reservoir simulation model and J.W. Skogsberg and
J.B. Bradburn for providing technical advice
Abbreviations
CGR
CRA
ESP
LP
MATL
mpy
MP
M/SP
MSFP
MTE
NSFP
SF
SPPS
TER
TRSV
WGR
WHFP
WHFT
References
1.
SPE 88492
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
5500
4500
400
3500
300
2500
FBHP (psi)
15.
6500
500
Production Rate (MMscf/d)
14.
600
200
1500
100
500
-500
0
10
15
20
25
-500
Manifold
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
Wellhead
13.
Choke Vel.
(Design 2 and 3)
Choke Vel.
(Design 1)
TRSV
Location
500
Design 1
Design 2
Design 3
1000
1500
2000
Design 2
7" x Tree
W/Hd &
SCSSV
30"
7"
CRA
O
Design 3
7" x Tree
W/Hd &
SCSSV
30"
7"
CRA
O
9-5/8" x Tree
W/Hd &
SCSSV
30"
6473
7000
6165
6000
5968
5776
5678
5627
5000
20"
20"
9-5/8"
CRA
20"
9-5/8"
CRA
4000
2514
3000
2040
1689
2000
13-3/8"
7"
CRA
13-3/8"
708
7-5/8"
CRA
1000
102
100
Time (years)
Choke Size (in)
9-5/8" CRA
9-5/8" CRA
13-3/8" CRA
0.02
3
0.64
6
Before Comp
849
143
122
121
1269
131
16"
144
1.05
3
MP Comp
7" CRA
7" CRA
9-5/8" CRA
210
179
187
1.47
6
233
996
741
212
818
326
240
276
BHFP (psi)
WHFP (psi)
Choke Vel (ft/s)
TRSSV Vel (ft/s)
Whd Vel (ft/s)
1.69
4
1.81
6
LP Comp
SPE 88492
800
5931
700
Production Rate (MMscf/d)
6000
4427
5000
4163
3892
4000
3753
3678
3650
3000
2041
2000
1270
1000
74
Time (years)
Choke Size (in)
500
Reservoir
Pressure
400
300
200
213
860
144
182
123
122
145
0.68
2
4.44
6
Before Comp
190
5.21
3
100
999
133
600
1694
1226
76
Erosion
Limit Line
819
754
244
237
BHFP (psi)
WHFP (psi)
Choke Vel (ft/s)
332
215
281
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
WHFP (psi)
6.02
6
6.45
4
6.69
6
MP Comp
LP
C
Figure 5 Design 2
800
5485
700
Production Rate (MMscf/d)
6000
5000
3511
3187
3877
4000
2829
2644
2538
3000
2052
2000
1714
1224
1287
1024
135
874
37
65
37
66
0
Time (years)
Choke Size (in)
1.7
2
7.2
6
Before Comp
78
217
770
102
78
104
8.3
3
9.6
6
151
130
400
300
200
BHFP (psi)
WHFP (psi)
340
127
Reservoir
Pressure
500
100
844
1000
Erosion
Limit Line
600
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
WHFP (psi)
156
10.7
6
MP Comp
LP Comp
Figure 6 Design 3
800
Erosion
Limit Line
800
700
Erosion
Limit Lines
700
600
Designs 3
500
400
Designs 1 and 2
300
600
Reservoir
Pressure
500
400
300
200
200
100
100
0
0
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
WHFP (psi)
WHFP (psi)
10
SPE 88492
800
700
600
500
C=683
400
Reservoir
Pressure
300
C=100
200
100
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
WHFP (psi)
800
Erosion Limit curves for
TER of 15,10 and 7.5 mpy
700
600
C=683
500
Reservoir
Pressure
400
300
C=100
200
100
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
WHFP (psi)
700
600
Reservoir
Pressure
500
400
300
200
100
C=100
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
WHFP (psi)
6000