Fluid Flow & Production System

INFLOW PERFORMANCE
ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY

The rate of fluid flow through rock depends on the following variables:

pressure gradients,
fluid saturation,
fluid viscosities,
and rock properties, the most important of which is permeability.

Absolute permeability is a measure of the ease with which a fluid is able to flow through a reservoir rock when
there is only one fluid present. It is typically measured in units of millidarcies. The higher the value, the easier it
is for the fluid to flow. Because of the way in which a formation is deposited, permeability can vary markedly in
rocks only a few feet apart. It may even have different values for different directions of flow through the same
rock section ( Figure 1 ). This directional variation in rock properties is referred to as anisotropy. Because of
reservoir heterogeneities, then, the rock is anisotropic with respect to absolute permeability.

As we see in Darcys equation:

(1.1)

the rate of liquid flow per cross-sectional area in a given

direction (q/A) is equal to the permeability in that direction
(k), the pressure gradient (dp/dl), and the inverse of the
liquid viscosity (). The negative sign is included because
flow takes place in the negative pressure gradient direction.
This is an empirical relationship proposed by M. Muskat
and H.D. Botset in the 1930s, founded on the work of Darcy over 100 years ago (Muskat; 1981, 1949).

Page #1 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

PRODUCTIVITY INDEX

The equations of flow tell us that when a well is first opened

to production, a pressure wave moves through the reservoir
causing the pressure in the affected region to decrease
continuously with time. Under these transient or infinite-
acting conditions, the pressure at any given radius drops
rapidly at first and then stabilizes with time. The pressure at
the wellbore, pwf, follows the same pattern for a constant
production rate ( Figure 1 ).

The bottomhole flowing pressure profile for both the

200 B0PD and the 500 B0PD flow rates is shown in
Figure 2 .

In the case of a closed, no-flow-boundary reservoir under

pseudosteady state conditions, the average reservoir
pressure, R, normally decreases with time as the
reservoir is depleted of its fluids. Where the pressure
drops below the bubble point of the oil, gas begins to
form. From our earlier discussion of effective and relative
permeability, we realize that the presence of gas inhibits
the flow of oil.

Soon after flow has begun the bottomhole flowing

pressure approaches a stable value and, when we use
this stable value in our calculations, we can use as an
approximation the equations of steady-state flow in our
performance analysis. The difference between the
average reservoir pressure and the stable bottomhole
flowing pressure at the wellbore, is called the pressure
drawdown ( Figure 3 ).

Drawdown = R - pwf . (1.4)

Page #2 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

The drawdown causes a flow rate, q, and defines the productivity index, J, for the well.

Productivity Index = J = (1.5)

J is in stock tank barrels per day per psi of drawdown.

The productivity index represents the dynamic response of the reservoir and its fluid properties within the
drainage area of a specific well. It defines the relationship that exists between flow rate, q, and bottomhole
flowing pressure, pwf, for a given average reservoir pressure, R. The productivity index is constant when flow
parameters like permeability are constant. When bottomhole flowing pressure is above the bubble point the
productivity index will be constant. As the pressure drops below the bubble point, however, the productivity
index will decrease as gas comes out of solution, changes permeability values, and inhibits flow.

INFLOW PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP (IPR)

Gilbert (1954), the father of modern production engineering, who worked for many years at Shell Oil, was the
first to realize the full significance of the decreasing productivity index at pressures below the bubble point.

He plotted the bottomhole flowing pressure, p wf, versus the flow rate, q, and referred to this curve as the inflow
performance relationship or IPR ( Figure 1 ).An individual curve is drawn for a given average reservoir
pressure.

Because reservoir pressure will generally be depleted by production, the IPR, over the life of a well, may be
shown by a family of curves shrinking toward the origin. Each curve represents the pressure-rate relationship at
a given average reservoir pressure ( Figure 2 ).

Page #3 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

The endpoints of the IPR curve are the average reservoir pressure, R at a flow rate of zero and the maximum
potential flow rate, q, at a bottomhole flowing pressure of zero ( Figure 1 ). q called the "pumped-off potential"
or "open-flow potential" of the well represents the
"ideal" maximum flow rate that would occur if we could
reduce the bottomhole flowing pressure to zero. In
practice, it is not possible to achieve this rate because
the bottomhole flowing pressure must always have
some finite value.

Above the bubble point the IPR curve is a straight line

because only one phase is flowing, and permeability is
a constant equal to the absolute permeability. The
productivity index is equal to the inverse slope of the
IPR curve. It, too, must be a constant above the bubble
point. Below the bubble point, as gas comes out of
solution and begins to interfere with flow, the IPR curve
trends downward and the productivity index continues
to decrease ( Figure 3 ).

This particular shape of the IPR curve is characteristic of reservoirs with a solution gas drive. Reservoirs
with other drive mechanisms such as water drive, gas cap expansion, gravity segregation, or a combination of
mechanisms will have IPR curves of a different shape or perhaps a straight line ( Figure 3 ).

To be accurate about the specific pressure being discussed, you will note that the vertical axis label p wf changes
to p when pressure-rate curves other than IPRs are presented.

Formation stratification has a marked influence on the shape of the IPR curve, particularly if multiple zones,
each with different permeabilities, produce into the same wellbore. Horizontal wells can also have a significant
effect on the IPR curve. Under certain conditions (e.g., thin formations where the permeability anisotropy favors
vertical flow), horizontal wells show a much higher productivity index than vertical wells. Thus, they can produce
at higher rates for a given pressure drawdown (i.e., for a given p wf), or they can produce at a constant rate with
a much lower drawdown.

Page #4 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Flow Regimes

A number of different flow regimes may occur during natural flow in vertical tubing. In order to describe each, let
us assume that the pressure at the base of the tubing is above the bubble point. In such a case the flow regime
at that point will consist of liquid flow ( Figure 1 ).

Upward movement of the liquid is accompanied by

reduced pressures and, as the pressure drops below the
bubble point, gas bubbles begin to form. These bubbles slip
upward through the rising column of liquid, with the larger
ones rising more rapidly than the smaller. This is referred to
as bubble flow.

Further up the tubing, as pressure continues to drop, more

gas is released from solution and the larger bubbles grow
steadily by overtaking and coalescing with the smaller ones.
Eventually a stage may be reached at which the larger gas
bubbles fill almost the entire cross section of the tubing and,
as they move upward, carry between them slugs of oil
containing small gas bubbles. This is referred to as plug or
slug flow. It is the most efficient natural lift regime because it
uses the gas to full effect rather than losing its potential lifting
power to the slippage that occurs during bubble flow.

Higher in the tubing, at even lower pressures, the gas may

break through and form a continuous channel in the center of
the string, with oil moving slowly upward in an annular ring on
the inside wall of the tubing. Such annular flow is clearly
inefficient.

Finally, if the tubing is of considerable length so that a large

pressure drop exists from the bottom to top, the annulus of
liquid may almost disappear, leaving only the flow of gas carrying a mist of liquid droplets. Now we have what is
called mist flow and it is characteristic of many wet gas wells or condensate producers.

The description of tubing flow regimes and pressure losses that occur is an extremely complex subject. In
practice not all of these flow regimes are present simultaneously in a single tubing string. On the other hand,
two, three or even more may occur at the same time. In any case, identifying the flow regime is the first step in
determining the tubing pressure drop.

Correlations

In order to analyze and design our production system it is necessary to be able to calculate the pressure drop
which exists between the bottomhole and the surface during natural flow. The calculation of this pressure drop
for all possible conditions is so complex that we are forced to rely on empirical or semi-empirical correlations.
These correlations take into account the seven important variables that affect the pressure losses of a flowing
well. These variables are tubing size, flow rate, fluid viscosity, fluid density, gas-liquid ratio (GLR), water-oil ratio
Page #5 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

(WOR), and, finally, the effect of slippage. Another variable, vertical well deviation, is receiving more attention
because of the many directional wells being drilled offshore.

Since the first published work of practical significance by Poettmann and Carpenter (1952), numerous
additional studies have been
undertaken. Investigators have
analyzed the effect of each of the
above variables on the vertical
pressure profile of a well. From
their work a number of correlations
have been developed, many of
which have been incorporated into
computer programs, which may be
used with specific well data in
order to calculate the pressure
losses during flow.

In addition, a number of pressure

gradient or pressure traverse
curves, such as the one shown in
Figure 1 , have been published for
use in the field.
These curves show depth on the vertical axis and pressure along the horizontal axis.

Since a separate curve is needed for each set or well and flowing conditions, there are a large number of
published curves. Nowadays, most engineers have access to computer programs which use the most
appropriate correlation for the specific problem that is to be solved.

Our objective in calculating pressure losses during natural flow through tubing is to predict the performance of
our production system under various equipment and operating conditions and thereby develop an optimal
design. One convenient way of presenting the results of vertical pressure loss is to incorporate it into our IPR
diagram.

Page #6 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

We start with the IPR curve ( Figure 2 ).

Using the value of the bottomhole flowing pressure at a specific production rate, we subtract the vertical
pressure loss obtained from vertical profile curves or computer programs for that production rate ( Figure 3 ).

Subtracting the vertical pressure loss from the

bottomhole flowing pressure at that flow rate gives the
value for the tubing head pressure at that rate. The
appropriate value of tubing head pressure, referred to
as ptf, is now plotted on the graph as shown in Figure 4
.

Another flow rate is then assumed, the calculation

repeated, and a second tubing head pressure is
determined. As we continue in this way, a tubing head
pressure curve is built ( Figure 4 ). The difference
vertically between the IPR and the tubing head
pressure curve is the pressure loss in the tubing at
each production rate. We shall refer to this as the THP
curve. The procedure is quite straightforward and, for
given flow conditions, may be repeated for larger or
smaller tubing size until an optimum design is found.

Page #7 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Surface Control

Now that the topics of reservoir performance, IPR curves, vertical flow in the tubing, and various pressure loss
correlations have been introduced, we should turn to the third element of our flowing well system - the wellhead
choke which provides control at the surface ( Figure 1 ).

The choke or bean is used to ensure that the

flow from the well is reasonably steady. The
size of the orifice is usually chosen so that
variations in wellhead pressure do not affect
the pressure of separators, lines and other
surface equipment. Also, we want to ensure
that fluctuations of pressure in the gathering
system (caused, for example, by the action of a
dump separator) do not affect well
performance.

To ensure that downstream pressure variations

are not transmitted to the upstream side of the
choke the flow through the orifice must attain
critical flow velocity. In practice we have found
that this critical flow velocity is achieved under
most circumstances when the upstream or the
tubing head pressure is at least double the
downstream or flow-line pressure. This
condition is one that the petroleum engineer
must design into his flowing well system.

During the critical flow of fluids through an orifice, the tubing head pressure is a linear or almost linear function
of the liquid-flow rate.

This means that if we plot the tubing head pressure

(Ptf) on the vertical axis and the flow rate (q)
corresponding to critical flow on the horizontal axis,
the choke performance plots as a straight line
through the origin ( Figure 2 ). This is limited by the
fact that as the tubing head pressure approaches the
downstream line pressure the flow rate goes to zero.

The larger the orifice size, the larger the flow rate
for a given tubing head pressure.

Page #8 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

INTEGRATING THE IPR, THP AND CHOKE PERFORMANCE

To determine flow conditions for the well on the downstream side of the choke, we must integrate the
performance of the three components of the flowing well system: the formation, the vertical wellbore, and the
choke itself.

To do this we begin with the IPR curve, then add first the THP curve as we did earlier and finally the choke
performance line ( Figure 1 ).

The intersection of the THP and choke lines gives the production rate attainable from the well under these flow
conditions. With a larger choke size the flow rate will be higher, but the tubing head pressure at the higher rate
will be lower. We may say that the flow rate is controlled by the choke size.

How can we include the limitations on the production rate which may be imposed by facilities downstream of
the wellhead choke? In order to analyze this situation, we must consider the pressures at the following points
within our system: (1.) the wellbore, (2.) the tubing head, (3.) immediately downstream of the choke; and (4.) at
the entrance to the separator. To graphically illustrate the pressure response at these points, we draw the IPR
and THP curves, the first two points in our system ( Figure 2 ).

Now we add curve 3 which represents the pressure at the point immediately downstream of the choke. Each
point on this curve has a pressure which is one-half that of the tubing head pressure. From the discussion on
chokes we recognize that this is the maximum allowable pressure immediately downstream of the choke under
critical flow conditions. Subtracting the pressure losses in the gathering system between the choke and the
separator at the various flow rates we obtain a fourth curve, curve 4, which represents the pressures at the
downstream side of the gathering system immediately before the separator. Now we add curve 5, the pressure-
rate curve for the separator.

Page #9 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

The rate defined by the intersection of the last two curves is the maximum that can be produced from the well
under critical flow conditions with the reservoir performance and equipment specified (see Figure 2 ). The
choke size would have to be chosen so that the intersection of the choke performance and THP lines give an
equal or lower flow rate. If the choke is not selected in this manner then it is the performance of some
downstream element of the gathering system that controls the wells output, not the choke ( Figure 3 ).

If, for example, as shown in Figure 4 , the choke is chosen so that the well produces at rate q1 then the
pressure downstream of the gathering system will be p1.

The separator, however, operates at the lower rate, q2, at that pressure, therefore, it is the separator that
becomes the controlling factor in the overall production rate. Anytime there is a flow-rate fluctuation in the
separator the well reacts to it. In order for the choke to control production, it must have a smaller diameter and
a performance line that intersects the THP to the left of the vertical line as shown in Figure 3 .

Of course as more fluids are produced from the well the average reservoir will decrease and the IPR will
change. This, in turn, will require a redrawing of Figure 4 and, in all likelihood, a change of choke size.

This form of choke analysis, modified to reflect actual field equipment, may be used to analyze pressure losses,
identify bottlenecks, and, with revised designs, obtain higher flow rates. A similar approach can be taken in the
analysis of the effect of a down-hole choke on a wells performance. We will study choke performance in much
greater detail in PE 104.

IPR curves can also be used to forecast the flowing performance of a well, the timing of artificial lift installation,
and to design the size. and type of such installation that would be appropriate to the well.

In order to make a proper analysis, we need to know the shape of the IPR curve for each well draining the pool.
The IPR curves must be known for different levels of average reservoir pressure, water-oil ratio, and gas liquid
ratios. The average reservoir pressure as a function of cumulative production must also be known.

Page #10 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

With this information the engineer may predict future performance for each of the wells and recommend future
producing strategies for the field as a whole. For example, he may recommend when enhanced recovery
operations should be initiated and decide on the type and capacity of artificial lift installations.

INFLUENCE OF DRIVE MECHANISM ON IPR

IPR curves have different shapes for different reservoirs, depending primarily on the drive mechanism of the
reservoir ( Figure 1 ). A reservoir with a strong water drive, or a solution gas drive above the bubble point will
have a straight line IPR. In the special case where the IPR is a straight line, J equals the reciprocal of the slope
of the IPR and is constant.

For a solution-gas-drive reservoir, the straight-line portion above the bubble point reflects the dynamic flow
characteristics of single-phase liquid flow through the formation ( Figure 2 ).

However, when the flowing pressure in the formation falls below the bubble point, Pb, gas comes out of
solution, reduces the permeability to the oil phase, decreases the productivity index, and reduces the oil flow
rate within the formation. Remember, the relative permeability to the oil phase is dependent on the oil-phase
saturation.

At increased production rates, pwf decreases and more gas comes out of solution within the formation. At
higher gas saturations, the relative permeability to oil drops further. This results in a downward curving IPR and
a steadily decreasing productivity index at decreasing flowing bottomhole pressure, with its antecedent phase-
behavior dependence on relative permeabilities. Other factors such as increased oil viscosity, rock
compressibility, and turbulence can add to these effects as wellbore pressures fall and rates increase.

We conclude, then, that a solution-gas-drive reservoir below the bubble point has a downward curving IPR.
Often a wells IPR curvature is intermediate between a straight line and this classic solution-gas drive curve. In
such cases the average reservoir pressure is receiving support from gas cap expansion or a water drive.

Page #11 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

VOGELS METHOD

Vogels main objective was to simulate two-phase flow through a reservoir into a wellbore. By analyzing a
number of different solution-gas-drive reservoirs, he established an empirical relationship which could apply to
all such reservoirs.

The computer program that he prepared solved the equations of flow for somewhat idealized reservoirs. For
example, he assumed that the reservoir was circular, completely bounded, and with a fully penetrating well at
its center; that the formation was uniform, isotropic, and had a constant water saturation; that gravity and
compressibility could be neglected and that semi-steady-state flow occurred.

Vogel simulated reservoirs covering a wide range of conditions. These conditions included differing reservoir
relative permeability characteristics as well as the various effects of well spacings, fracturing geometry, and skin
restrictions. Analysis was limited to flow conditions below the bubble point.

Vogel found that as depletion occurs in a solution-gas-drive reservoir, the productivity of a typical well
decreases. This occurs primarily because (1.) the reservoir pressure is reduced, and (2.) because increasing
gas saturation causes greater resistance to oil flow. The result is a progressive downward shift of the IPR
( Figure 1 ).

The values on the lines reflect the percentage of reserves produced. Vogel, then, took the important step of
plotting each curve as "dimensionless" IPRs or "type curves." He obtained these curves by plotting the
bottomhole flowing pressures divided by the average reservoir pressure on the vertical axis and the production
rate divided by the maximum flow rate, C, on the horizontal axis. When this was done for each curve, they
were replotted as shown in Figure 2 .

It is immediately apparent with this transformation that the curves now are remarkably similar throughout most
of the producing life of the reservoir.

After analyzing twenty-one different reservoirs with various crude oil properties, relative permeabilities, and
wellbore characteristics, Vogel found that IPRs generally exhibited a similar shape, as long as the bottomhole
flowing pressure was below the bubble point. Extending this observation one step further, he developed a
standard reference curve which can be used for all solution-gas-drive reservoirs. This standard curve is shown
in Figure 3 .

Page #12 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Specific plot points for this curve are given in the table below.

The use of this curve does not imply that all reservoirs are identical, but that it may be used
as a reference standard for all reservoirs within a tolerable error. This reference curve is
described exactly by the following equation:

Note that q is the producing rate corresponding to a given bottomhole flowing pressure, pwf;
q is the wells potential at 100 percent drawdown, and R is the average reservoir pressure
or the bubble-point pressure, whichever is lower.

Example:
q = 1172 BOPD
Assume: pwf = 716 psi
R = 1420 psi
R = pb

Construct the IPR curve for this well at the average reservoir pressure. Assume that Vogels dimensionless
standard curve describes this wells behavior.

First, we calculate the dimensionless pressure.

With this value and Vogels dimensionless standard curve (or Equation 1.2), we find the dimensionless rate
(see Figure 4 ).

= 0.696.

This gives a value of:

q= = 1684 BOPD.

Page #13 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

The type curve can now be made into this wells IPR curve simply by adding the values for average reservoir
pressure and C; at the appropriate end points. The scale of the graph is now established and any desired point
can now be read ( Figure 5 ).

Remember that Vogels results are only for the curved portion of the IPR curve which exists below the bubble
point. Above the bubble point the IPR curve is a straight line. We can obtain its shape by drawing the tangent to
the curve at the bubble-point pressure and extending it to the original average reservoir pressure, pi. Such as
extrapolation is shown in Figure 6 .

In order to determine the shape of the IPR curve at a future average reservoir pressure, we need to know a
single bottomhole flowing pressure and its corresponding flow rate at that average reservoir pressure. Using
our dimensionless curve and a known data point we would repeat what we have just done. This would yield a
second curve. The difficulty is that we do not have well test data at some future, unknown average reservoir
pressure.

STANDING'S EXTENSION OF VOGEL'S METHODS

With Vogels type curve, one flowing well test, and a value for the average reservoir pressure, we can obtain a
single IPR curve for our well. But how do we calculate the IPR curve at a future average reservoir pressure?

That is the same question that Marshall B. Standing (1970) asked when he published the results of his work.
His approach was as follows. We remember that the productivity index, J, is defined as:

(1.3)

Page #14 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

If we substitute J into Vogels equation with the average reservoir pressure below the bubble point, we obtain
this relationship:

(1.4)

J is given in terms of flow rates and pressures. If J could be calculated for some future average reservoir
pressure, then with this value of J and the above equation, the pressure and flow rate values needed to find the
future IPR curve could be determined. Standing suggested that, in the limiting case, that is, where there is very
small drawdown, the bottomhole flowing pressure would tend to be equal to average reservoir pressure, that is:

The value of J, under these conditions, is referred to as J* and, by substituting this ratio into Eq. 1.4, we obtain:

(1.5)

The next step is to calculate how J*, changes with average reservoir pressure.

Standing suggested that J*, at different average reservoir pressures, is proportional to relative permeability and
inversely proportional to the formation volume factor and the viscosity. This is referred to as the relative mobility
and is written:

J* = (1.6)

With this relationship, a future value of J* referred to as, J f*, is equal to the present value of J*, J p* multiplied by
the inverse ratio of the respective mobilities, that is:

(1.7)

Combining these relationships into the Vogel equation, (Eq. 1.2), Standing found that future IPR curves could
be plotted from the following equation:

(1.8)

Page #15 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Finding the IPR curve is rather direct. First, we assume a value for the future average reservoir pressure at
which we would like to know an IPR curve. Then we calculate a value for J f*.

Substituting these two values into Eq. 1.8 yields an equation in q and p wf This equation give us the future IPR
curve.

In substance, Vogels type curve is used for the wells IPR curve at the original reservoir pressure. This gives us
q and Jp* which we need for Standings method. We then use Standings technique to obtain IPR curves at
lower pressures. There is a good example as to how this calculation proceeds on page 56 of Ninds text (1981).

FETKOVICH'S METHOD

Fetkovich (1973) proposed an alternative method for calculating IPR curves for solution-gas-drive reservoirs.

He made a number of assumptions including the idea that two-phase flow occurred through a
uniform, circular, horizontal reservoir with a constant outer boundary pressure below the bubble
point. One of Fetkovich's key assumptions was that the relative permeability to oil divided by
the oil viscosity and formation volume factor varied linearly with pressure as shown in the
following equation:

(1.9)

The straight line passes through the origin. With this basic relationship assumed, Fetkovich was able to show:

(1.10)
We may calculate Jo' at the original reservoir pressure p i using Eq. 1.11. This value of Jo' is referred to as Joi'
and is a function of effective permeability to oil at the original reservoir boundary pressure, p i. Saturation is
assumed to be constant for the well being analyzed.

(1.11)
Joi' may be thought of as a replacement for J, the productivity index.

With these equations, it is not difficult to plot the IPR curve at a given reservoir or boundary pressure p Rs

Let's now solve the same problem that we did earlier using Vogel's method.
q = 1172 BOPD
Example: Assume: pwf = 716 psi
R = 1420 psi
R = pb

We insert these values into Eq. 1.10 to obtain:

Substituting this constant into Eq. 1.10 gives:

Page #16 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

q = 7.793 10-4 (pi2 - pwf2)

This equation gives us the inflow rate as a function of bottomhole pressure with it we can generate the IPR
curve. For the original reservoir pressure, pi, we may now calculate the potential, q', of the well under these
conditions, that is where pwf = 0.

q' = 7.793 l0-4 (14202 - 0) = 1572 BOPD

For comparison purposes, you will remember that we calculated a value of 1684 B0PD using the Vogel
technique.

The agreement between these two methods of calculation is generally good in the intermediate pressure
ranges, but there is often deviation at the outer ranges of pressure-rate axes. Major differences between these
exist; however, either method may be used with the assurance that the results from the other will not differ
dramatically.

To learn how Fetkovich's method is used for calculating future IPR curves, we must assume that J oi' will
decrease in proportion to the average reservoir pressure.

When the average reservoir pressure drops below p i a new value of Joi', referred to as Jo , can be calculated
using Eq. 2.11.

So in our example, if pR drops to 1000

psi, we would calculate:

Jo = 7.793 X 10-4 =5.488 X 10-4

Knowing this value of Jo' for an assumed

future value of pR, we have a new IPR
equation:

q = 5.488 10-4 (10002 - pwf2)

Fetkovich's method, then, yields two

equations--one describing the initial
reservoir performance and another
describing performance, at an assumed
future average reservoir pressure. From
these two equations, we can calculate
values for Jo' and plot IPR curves for any future average reservoir pressure. In Figure 1 we see the two curves
from the example we just solved.

We would proceed in the same manner if we wanted to find another IPR curve at a lower value.

Page #17 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

IPR AND SKIN EFFECT

The skin effect is a near-wellbore phenomenon. In an ideal flowing wellone that fully penetrates the
formation, where the full formation is open to flow and where no formation damage or stimulation existsthe
pressure profile during flow looks like the one shown in Figure 1 .

In this case, the drawdown is equal to:

R - pwf.

If, however , the formation near the wellbore has been damaged (for example, by drilling fluid invasion)...or if
the well only partially penetrates the formation or has limited perforations...or if there is turbulent flow in the
formation near the wellbore...there will be an additional pressure drop ( Figure 2 ).

Because this additional pressure drop occurs near the wellbore, it is referred to as pskin. The total
pressure drop in a damaged well is equal to:

( R - pwf) + pskin

The skin effect (s) is defined as

s = (kh)/(constant X B X pskin) where B is the formation volume factor.

Because a damaged well causes an additional pressure drop, the skin effect is said to be positive.

Page #18 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

If, on the other hand, the formation

near the wellbore has been stimulated
(say by fracturing or acidizing) rather
than damaged, then the drawdown will
be reduced ( Figure 3 ). The reduced
pressure drop is again referred to as
pskin, but this time it is negative and
the skin effect is negative. The total
pressure drop in an enhanced well is:

( R - pwf) - pskin (1.12)

The magnitude of the skin effect

and whether it is positive or negative is
obtained by conducting special well
tests. These tests give us a value
forpskin and enable us to calculate
the flow efficiency (FE) of the well. FE
is defined as the drawdown of an ideal well divided by the drawdown of the well with skin effects.

Flow efficiency for a damaged well is less than one, and is equal to:

FE= (1.13a)

For an enhanced well, the skin relationship will be negative and the value of the flow efficiency will be greater
than 1.0:

FE= (1.13b)

Standing prepared a series of curves which may be

used by us to calculate the IPR for wells that have
flow efficiencies different than 1.0. Using these
curves we can calculate the IPR of a well if the
damage were removed or the well stimulated. His
curves are shown in Figure 1 .

Page #19 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

The vertical axis is the dimensionless pressure of the flowing well and the horizontal axis is a dimensionless
flow rate, specifically the flow rate of the well divided by its maximum flow rate with damage or fracturing. The
curves are drawn for flow efficiencies from 0.5 to 1.5. The curves have the following relationship:

(1.14)

Where F is the flow efficiency. Neither this equation nor the curves should be extrapolated effectively to q/q
values greater than unity.

STRATIFIED FORMATIONS

Often, the producing intervals in a well are separated by relatively thin but highly impermeable horizontal shale
breaks. Production rates and fluid properties in any one layer may not be the same as those in other layers
contributing to the well's overall production.

Consider a well that is completed in a horizon having three zones, in which there is no vertical communication
among the zones:

Zone 1 has an average permeability of 1 millidarcy (md) and an average pressure of 1500 psi.
Zone 2 has an average permeability of 10 md and an average pressure of 1200 psi.
Zone 3 has an average permeability of 100 md and an average pressure of 1000 psi.

Initially, the bulk of the production will come from Zone 3, and the smallest contribution will come Zone 1. Thus,
after the well has been producing for several months, Zone 3 will be the most depleted and at the lowest
average reservoir pressure, while Zone 1 will be the least depleted and at the highest average reservoir
pressure.

The well is now tested at various production rates to establish the IPR. If the IPRs of each zone are as shown in
Figure 1 , then the Gross IPR curve is the sum of all three.

Page #20 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

At any given pressure, a point on the Gross IPR curve has a flow rate which is equal to the sum of the flow
rates of the three individual curves.

In general, because of differential depletion, a well producing from a stratified formation will exhibit a Gross IPR
as shown in Figure 2 : that is to say, an improving productivity index with increasing production at lower rates
but a deteriorating productivity index at the higher rates.

Now consider a well completed in a two-layered

horizon where water breakthrough has occurred in the
more permeable, more depleted layer. In such a
circumstance the watered-out zone has the higher
permeability but the lower pressure of the two zones.

Let us assume further that the watered-out layer

produces 100 percent water, while the other layer
produces water-free oil. Beginning with the oil zones
IPR and adding the water zones IPR, we obtain the
Gross IPR ( Figure 3 ). At any given bottomhole flowing
pressure we can observe the oil rate, the water rate,
and the gross production rate. This allows us to
calculate and plot the water cut as a function of the
gross production rate.

The water cut is zero until we reach a bottomhole flowing pressure low enough for water to flow. Thereafter the
water cut at any pressure and flow rate is equal to the ratio of the water production rate divided by the gross
production rate.

When the bottomhole flowing pressure is greater than the average reservoir pressure in the water zone, oil will
enter into the water zone by inter flow taking place through the wellbore.

CONDUCTING AN INFLOW PERFROMANCE TEST

Below is a practical procedure for conducting an inflow performance test.

First: Shut the well in and conduct a pressure buildup test. This will give you the average reservoir
pressure.
Second: With a recording pressure gauge on the bottom, place the well on production at a low rate
and, after ample time is allowed for the rate to stabilize, record the bottomhole flowing pressure.

Third: Flow the well at two successively higher flow rates. Let each rate stabilize and note the
bottomhole flowing pressure.

Fourth: After the last test is run, shut the well in and conduct another buildup test. This test will give four
points on the IPR curve.

Page #21 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Unfortunately this test requires a great deal of time and so, for economic reasons, we often have only sufficient
time to conduct a single flow test. A single-flow test and a value for the average reservoir pressure is sufficient
for flowing and artificial lift well predictions; however, the complete multiple flow test provides more accuracy.

Remember that the IPR is a characteristic of an individual well, and that it is best to generate an appropriate
family of IPR curves for that well based on its known reservoir and fluid properties, pressures, downhole
hardware and completion data. A variety of software products are available for this purpose. You should review
your companys capabilities in this area.

VARIABLES AFFECTING TUBING PRESSURE LOSS

The variables that affect vertical pressure losses in tubing are tubing size, flow rate, density and viscosity.
Because there is probably more than one phase flowing, we must add two more variables: gas-liquid ratio and
water-oil ratio. Finally we should add the effect of slippage.

TUBING SIZE

Suppose that we increase the tubing size in a well from

inches to 3 inches, leaving all other parameters constant.
The result, as shown in Figure 1 , is that the total pressure
loss that occurs between the formation and the surface drops
from 1900 psi for the smaller tubing string to 900 psi for the
larger string.

This substantial pressure drop reflects the reduction in

friction pressure for the larger-diameter tubing. We conclude,
then, that under these conditions, as the tubing size
increases, the pressure losses will decrease.

FLUID DENSITY

The second variable to consider is fluid density, which, for

oil, we may express in terms of API gravity. For the well of
Figure 2 we see that the pressure loss over an 8000 foot
interval is approximately 1700 psi if it is flowing brine, but
only 1200 psi if it is flowing a 50-degree API oil.

We conclude that for similar flowing conditions, pressure

losses will be lower for lower fluid densities. At higher fluid
densities, the hydrostatic pressure gradient becomes the
dominant component of pressure loss.

Page #22 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

FLUID VISCOSITY

In Figure 3 we see that higher viscosities give higher

pressure losses, again due to an increase in friction
pressure.

At a fluid viscosity of 50 cp, the total pressure loss over

the 8000-ft interval is 1900 psi; at 1 cp, the total
pressure loss is 1200 psi. Note that the effect is much
less pronounced as the viscosity decreases from 10 cp
to 1 cp. We conclude, then, that the viscosity of the
flowing fluid is an important variable and that lower-
viscosity oils under similar conditions will have lower
friction pressure losses.

GAS-LIQUID RATIO

In Figure 4 , we see that at a GLR of 250 SCF/STB,

the pressure loss from the formation to the surface
is about 1900 psi, whereas at a GLR of 5000
SCF/STB, the pressure loss is about 700 psi.

In both cases the surface pressure is assumed to

be 100 psi. Thus, at a GLR of 250 SCF/STB, this
well will flow if the bottomhole pressure exceeds
(1900+100), or 2000 psi, while at a GLR of 5000
SCF/STB, the well will flow if the bottomhole
pressure exceeds (700+100), or 800 psi.

In general, then, the higher the GLR at a given flow

rate, the lower will be the tubing pressure lossbut
only up to a point. While higher GLRs reduce a
fluid's density, resulting in lower hydrostatic
pressure, they also result in higher friction pressure
losses, which offset this hydrostatic pressure
decrease. The decrease in the hydrostatic pressure is overcome by the increase in the friction losses. At some
limiting value of GLR, the increase in friction pressure becomes approximately equal to the decrease in
hydrostatic pressure, and above this limt, the total pressure loss actually begins to increase.

Page #23 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Water-Oil Ratio

We see in Figure 5 that as the water-oil ratio (WOR)

increases from 0 to 1000, the pressure losses in the
tubing also increase.

This means that it will require a higher bottomhole

flowing pressure to lift produced liquids that have water
in them. The greater the WOR, the greater the pressure
needed because water is slightly denser than oil. The
magnitude of the pressure increase is not as large as
those noted with other variables.

SLIPPAGE AND HOLDUP

In order to illustrate the condition of holdup, which

results from slippage, we plot the bottomhole flowing
pressure at different flow rates for several GLRs. In
Figure 6 we see that for a GLR of 800 the bottomhole
flowing pressure required to maintain flow increases
as the flow rate increases.

This is as we might expect. At the higher flow rates

the frictional losses increase and so will the required
bottomhole flowing pressure. At lower flow rates the
frictional losses are smaller and so the bottomhole
flowing pressure required to maintain flow is lower. At
lower GLRs, however, we see that the curves have a
point of reversal or minimum. For the 400 GLR curve
we see that the required bottomhole pressure
decreases as we reduce the rate until at about 150
BOPD it begins to increase again. This reversal, or holdup, is caused by slippage, a condition where liquid flow
rate becomes so low that excessive fallback begins to occur. Liquid falls back around the rising gas bubble. A
smaller diameter tubing, giving higher velocities, should be used in this situation.

VERTICAL FLOW CORRELATIONS

There are various methods in place for determining the pressure losses that occur in flowing wells. It is not
surprising that our prediction methods are not based on the exact solution of mathematical equations but rather
on empirical or semi-empirical relationships. These relationships were developed by making certain
assumptions about the applicable flow equations and then collecting data from a number of flowing wells under
controlled conditions. The result is the publication of one or more correlations based on mathematical
foundations and supported by observed field data.
Page #24 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Early theoretical work in vertical flow analysis was undertaken by Versluys (1930). This was followed by the first
practical application proposed by Poettmann and Carpenter (1952). Other important contributions include the
work of Gilbert (1954), Duns and Ros (1963), Hagedorn and Brown (1965), Orkiszewski (1967), Govier and
Aziz (1972), and Beggs and Brill (1973). We refer you to volume 1 of Browns text (1977) to learn how each of
the theoretical and practical developments of these individuals evolved. Let us here summarize the approach
and the important contributions of each.

In reviewing these contributions we find it instructive to indicate the foundation of the work done, the pipe sizes
to which the work applied, the fluids considered and, finally, to comment on the work of each.

Versluys work was theoretically based and described vertical flow patterns. Poettmann and Carpenters work

was semi-empirical and applied to 2-, 2 - and 3-inch tubing. The fluids studied were oil, gas, and water. They
developed practical solutions for GLR less than 1500 scf/bbl and for flow rates greater than 420 BOPD. In

1954, Gilbert used field data to investigate flow in 2-, 2 - and 3-inch tubing. He investigated oil, gas, and
water flowing wells and developed a practical set of pressure profile graphs that can easily be used in the field
by the engineer. Duns and Ros combined experimental laboratory work with field studies for all pipe sizes and
all fluids to develop one of the best correlations for all flow rates. Hagedorn and Brown undertook both field and
experimental work. They considered each of the three phases of flowing fluids in 1- to 4-inch tubing and
produced a very useful generalized correlation for all ranges of flow rate. Orkiszewski reviewed all of the
methods that had been published to that date and then, from his observations, prepared a single composite
correlation. This correlation applies to all pipe sizes and fluids, and it may be used to predict pressure losses for
all ranges of flow. It is widely used as the basis for computer programs in industry today. In 1972, Govier and
Aziz, in Canada, published their correlations which were based on laboratory and field data for all pipe sizes
and all fluids. Their correlations were based on a mechanistic equation which had been tested against field
data. In 1973, Beggs and Brill reported on the work being conducted at the University of Tulsa. They presented

the results of laboratory studies on 1- and 1 -inch pipe for air and water. Their correlation handles all ranges
of multiphase flow for any pipe angle. The practical application of this work is the prediction of pressure losses
in inclined or directionally drilled wells. Many more correlations have been published and work continues today
in this important research area.

The above-mentioned theoretical and empirical studies have left us numerous vertical pressure loss prediction
methods, presented originally as correlations or pressure traverse curves. Brown for example, in volume 2a of
his text, presented a full set of pressure traverse curves. Many computer programs have been written using one
or more of their correlations to predict pressure losses during flow. The question remains as to which of these
methods is most accurate under a given set of conditions. Statistical comparisons (Lawson and Brill, 1974) of
several of the most widely used methods have been undertaken in order to determine their relative accuracy
over a broad range of variables and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each technique.

No single pressure loss prediction method seems to be consistently superior under all ranges of production
conditions. Comparisons of the methods of Poettmann and Carpenter, Duns and Ros, Hagedorn and Brown,
Beggs and Brill, Govier and Aziz, and Orkiszewski show that the Hagedorn and Brown method has the best
overall accuracy but that other methods perform better under different sets of variables and types of flow.

Despite variations in accuracy among the methods tested, they are within the range of engineering accuracy for
use in sizing well equipment and designing artificial lift installations. Estimates of flow rates and bottomhole

Page #25 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

flowing pressures may also be made with reasonable accuracy by using these pressure gradient curves. The
ones published by Brown or Gilbert may certainly be used with confidence. Your company may have its own
internally published set of curves which you may choose to use.

Many companies have computer programs that calculate pressure losses in tubing using a combination of the
various correlations. These are quite accurate because they are generally written so as to use each correlation
over its range of greatest accuracy.

THE USE OF PRESSURE TRAVERSE CURVES

To better understand the basis for vertical flow

calculations, and because they are quite accurate
for engineering calculations, we should learn how
pressure traverse or gradient curves are used.

A typical set of pressure gradient or pressure

traverse curves are shown in Figure 1 .

Depth, on the vertical scale, runs downward from

the surface to 10,000 ft. Pressure, on the
horizontal scale, goes from 0 to about 2800 psi. As
noted in the legend, the curves are generated
using fixed values for the following parameters:

tubing size
producing rate,
oil gravity
gas gravity
flowing fluid temperature
water-oil ratio = zero (only oil is flowing)
GLR = several selected values

If we have a well that matches these parameters,

then the use of these curves is straightforward. To
illustrate, assume that we have a well with the characteristics shown in Figure 1, which is producing at a GLR of
200 SCF/Bbl. The length of the tubing string is 5000 ft.

Case 1: Determine the tubing head pressure that corresponds to a known bottomhole flowing pressure
of 1600 psi:
o First, we find the point at which the "GLR=200" curve intersects a pressure of 1600 psi.
o We note that this intersection corresponds to a depth of about 7200 ft.
o We continue to move upward along the "GLR=200" curve until we have moved a vertical
distance of 5000 ft, which is the length of the tubing string. This puts us at a point on the curve
that corresponds to 2200 ft.
o Finally, we trace a vertical line upwards from this point, and note that the tubing head pressure
is 230 psi.

Page #26 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Case 2: This is the more common case, where the surface THP is known (for this example, assume
400 psi) and we wish to estimate the bottomhole flowing pressure:
o Starting at the top, at a pressure of 400 psi, we trace a vertical line downward until we intersect
the "GLR=200" curve. This takes us to a depth of 3450 ft.
o We then move down along the curve for a vertical distance of 5000 ft (i.e., to 8450 ft).
o We observe that the flowing bottomhole pressure at 8450 ft is about 2050 psi.

Note that, in Case 1, if the well depth had been 10,000 ft instead of 5000 ft, we would have found in Step 3 that
the pressure would have gone to zero before we had moved a total vertical distance of 10,000 ft (we would
actually cross the zero-pressure line at a depth of around 2400 ft). Under these circumstances we would be
unable to calculate a positive tubing head pressure. This tells us that a 10,000-ft well could not flow at 1500
Bbl/D under the given conditions.

CALCULATING THE THP CURVE

The shape of the THP for a given well can be varied by changing the magnitude of such variables as tubing
size and sometimes gas-liquid ratios. From an engineering design point of view, we should change the
variables over which we have control until we achieve optimal flow conditions.

Example: A corroded tubing string is being removed from

a well and is to be

replaced. In addition to 2 -inch tubing, we also have

1.9-inch and 3 -inch

tubing in inventory. What size tubing should be used to

cause the well to flow at the maximum rate, given the
following well data:

THP = 170 psi The present conditions with

corroded tubing are:
depth = 5200 ft
q = 250 BOPD
R = 1850 psi
Pwf = 1387 psi
GLR = 400 scf/bbl
The reservoir pressure is above the bubble point.

We begin by generating the IPR curve, in this case it is a

straight line. Then, using pressure gradient curves, we calculate tubing head pressure curves for each size of
tubing. The results are shown in Figure 1 .

At a tubing head pressure of 170 psi, the 3 -inch tubing will allow a flow rate of about 425 BOPD, the 2 -
inch tubing about 525 BOPD, and the 1.9-inch tubing about 535 BOPD. The highest flow rate is provided by the

smallest tubing. In practice, the 2 -inch tubing would probably be chosen for its strength and convenience of

Page #27 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

running tools, since its performance curve is nearly as good as that of 1.9-inch tubing. The design, then, is
complete.

Page #28 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

HEADING

One cause of wide variations in the tubing head pressure is called heading. Heading refers to the periodic or
cyclical surges in pressure and flow rate that occur in otherwise stable wells. Minor heading can occur at any
time in the life of a well and under unpredictable conditions. Usually major events of heading occur late in the
life of a well, when there are high GLRs.

Heading is characterized at the surface by the production of intermittent slugs of liquid and gas at highly
variable rates over a period of minutes. It normally occurs in the absence of a tubing-casing packer and is the
result of gas bubbles bypassing the tubing and rising up the casing/tubing annulus. Unless the casing head
pressure, (CHP), is bled off or equalized with the tubing head pressure, thereby decreasing production
efficiency, the buildup of gas eventually lowers the level of fluid in the annulus to a point below thefoot of the
tubing. Under these conditions, the gas blows around the tubing, and a slug of gas pushes the oil up the tubing
at a rate higher than the well can sustain. This temporary surge lowers the flowing bottomhole pressure,
increases the volume of the oil flowing into the well, and causes the fluid level in the annulus to rise again
temporarily. The buildup of gas in the annulus starts the cycle over again. This is an inefficient use of the gas
lifting potential.

Heading can often signal the end of a well's flowing life, because the higher density/lower GOR oil being
produced at a lower flow rate into the well immediately after the rate surge can cause a high enough drawdown
to stop flow completely. Severe heading may cause unusual wear and tear on the well equipment and can
interrupt flow prematurely. A few suggestions may be made to control heading. The first, of course, is to close
off the annulus with a casing-tubing packer. This will eliminate annulus heading. A second option may be to
bean back the well, thereby increasing the bottomhole pressure and with it the tendency to retain gas bubbles
within the oil. We must be sure not to bean back the well so far as to kill it. A third possibility is to run a larger
size tubing string so as to give lower vertical pressure losses and higher bottom-hole pressures. As with
beaning, this will give lower GLRs but may lead to the killing of the well. Though its occurrence cannot be
predicted with great accuracy, Duns and Ros (1963) have studied pressure losses during heading type flow
conditions and have developed correlations that should be used for wells that are subject to heading.

FLOWING WELL PERFORMANCE

A well may be produced with or without a choke at the surface to control the flow rate. Most flowing wells have
surface chokes for one or more of the following reasons:

to reduce the pressure and improve safety

to maintain a fixed allowable production limit

to prevent sand entry from the formation

to produce the well and reservoir at the most

efficient rate

to prevent water and gas coning

Page #29 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

to match the surface pressure of a well into a multi-well gathering line and to prevent back flow

In addition, any situation requiring control or reduction of the wells flow rate will normally be met by the
installation of a surface choke.

The surface choke is also used to ensure that pressure fluctuations downstream from the wellhead do not affect
the performance of the well. To achieve this condition, flow through the choke must be of a critical velocity. The
corresponding critical flow rate is reached, when the upstream pressure is approximately twice the downstream
pressure.

There are several different types of chokes currently in use. They may be divided into two broad categories:
variable or adjustable chokes and positive or fixed orifice.

Positive chokes have a fixed orifice dimension which may be

replaceable and is usually of the bean type ( Figure 1 ). The flow
path is normally symmetric and circular. Fixed orifice chokes are
commonly used when the flow rate is expected to remain steady
over an extended period of time.
Normal beans are 6 inches long and are drilled in fractional
increments of th-inch up to -inch. Smaller bean inserts,
known as X-type, are used to provide closer control. Ceramic,
tungsten carbide, and stainless steel beans are used where sand or
corrosive fluids are produced. Changing the size of a fixed orifice
choke normally requires shutting off flow, removing and replacing
the bean.

Some continuously variable or adjustable chokes operate similarly

to a needle valve and allow the orifice size to be varied through a
range from no flow to flow through a full opening ( Figure 2 ).

Flow control is obtained by turning the hand wheel which opens or

closes the valve. Graduated stem markings indicate the equivalent
diameter of the valve opening. Another type uses two circular discs,
each of which has a pair of orifices. One disc is fixed while the other can
be rotated so as to expose the desired flow area or block the flow
altogether ( Figure 2 ).

Choke performance relationships

The equation describing the relationship between upstream pressures,

gas or liquid ratios, bean size, and flow rates at critical velocities in field
units is as follows:

Where:

Page #30 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

R = GLR, Mcf/bbl
q = flow rate, BOPD
S = choke size, 64-th of an inch
ptf = THP, psia

From the nature of this equation, we see that for a given orifice size and GLR, the tubing head pressure plots
as a straight line function of flow rate q. A typical plot is
shown in Figure 1 .

Note that as the orifice size increases or the GLR

decreases, the line shifts downward.

Gilbert (1954), while checking for choke erosion in the

Ten Section Field, California, further refined the
theoretical formula to yield more accurate pressure
measurements, using this empirical relationship:

where ptf is in psig.

He found that these new values for the constant and the
exponent agreed more accurately with empirical data. He
later presented the new version of the equation as a
nomogram to make it practical for field use

Ros (1961) developed a theoretical formula to account for critical flow through a restriction. The equation he
developed was later adapted to oil field use and converted to graph form by Poettmann and Beck (1963). Their
conversion applies to oil gravities of 20, 30, and 40 degrees, API.

Because of their variable size opening the

calculation of flow rates through adjustable
chokes may not be as accurate as through
orifice chokes. However, adjustable chokes
may be used to control wells where
changes in the production rates may be
required periodically to meet market
demands or allowables.

Variable chokes are often used on water

flood injection wells where variation in
injection rates must be effected with
minimal disruption. Variable chokes are
particularly vulnerable to erosion from
suspended sand particles and are not normally used in areas where this is a significant problem.

The bodies of both types of chokes are L-shaped and the end connections may be fully flanged, fully threaded,
or a combination of each.

Page #31 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

It is important in the design of the surface control system to understand the pressure versus flow rate
performance of the choke at critical flow rates. Good correlations for single-phase flow of either gas or liquid
through a choke are available, but they are not applicable to the multiphase flow situation we normally
encounter in our wells. The performance correlations for multiphase flow through chokes are derived empirically
and apply only at critical flow rates.

Integrating the IPR, THP, and Choke Performance

We now turn to methods of calculating the flow rate attainable by a well under various operating conditions. We
know that the IPR curve gives the whole range of bottomhole flowing pressures and rates possible for any
given productivity index and average reservoir pressure. But what will the actual production rate be? That
depends on the vertical flow performance and surface control facilities.

The most basic surface control system is one where there is no surface choke and where the wellhead and
surface line pressure losses are minimal. For this condition we may analyze the well's performance by simply
constructing a tubing head pressure curve.

The procedure is straightforward. For a series of bottomhole pressures and flow rates, we calculate the
pressure losses in the tubing using the appropriate pressure gradient curves for the well in question ( Figure 1 ).
By joining the calculated tubing head pressure points we obtain the desired THP curve ( Figure 2 ).

Page #32 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

For any given constant THP, then, we can use this curve
to estimate the flow rate, q. In unrestricted flow, the
maximum flow rate is given by the intersection of the
THP curve and the surface line pressure upstream of
the gathering lines ( Figure 3 ). Calculating the well's
flow rate in this manner is referred to as the "bottom-up"
method.

Another way of performing the same analysis is the

"top-down" method. In this method, we start our
calculation with the known value of surface pressure.
We then calculate the vertical pressure differences for
several flow rates ( Figure 4 ) and join the values to give
the bottomhole flowing pressure needed to sustain the
various rates.

This required BHP curve is put on a graph with the IPR ( Figure 5 ). The intersection of these curves determines
the flow rate for the assumed surface pressure.

In both the top-down and bottom-up methods, it is possible to consider different operating or downhole
equipment conditions such as different tubing sizes or GLR. In this way, we may determine optimal flowing
conditions for a well by plotting several different performance curves. By analyzing a range of variables the
production engineer can then choose the appropriate tubing size or, in planning a gas lift system, the optimum
GLR for a particular well so as to achieve an optimal design.

Page #33 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Generally, the wellhead pressure must be sufficient to move oil through flow lines, separators, and other surface
equipment. The pressure required at the wellhead depends upon the rate of flow and the nature of the surface
equipment. To complete the analysis, we must calculate the pressure-rate relationship for the various pieces of
equipment through which production must flow. By plotting in sequence such curves on our IPR diagram, we
can calculate the flow potential of any system, and then learn which specific component controls the flow rate.

Example:

A well has the following data:

tubing = 7000 ft of 2-inch

gathering line - 2500 ft of 2-inch

separator pressure = 150 psig

= 2000 psig

GLR = 800 Scf/bbl

q = 3000 BOPD, water cut = zero.

We are asked to estimate the well's production rate and to specify the piece of equipment that controls it.

We may estimate the well's performance by calculating the performance of each component in our system
moving upstream from the separator. This is a top-down method. We begin by assuming three arbitary flow
rates and, with appropriate multiphase horizontal flow rate correlations such as those presented in Volume 1 of
Brown's text (1977) we calculate the pressure losses in the gathering line. Because the pressure just upstream
of the separator is 150 psig we can use these calculations to plot three tubing head pressure values ( Figure 6
). We can plot these values of pressure versus flow rate and obtain the required tubing head pressure curve
as shown in Figure 7 .

Page #34 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

For the same assumed flow rates, and the given tubing size, we now calculate the vertical pressure increases
between the surface and the formation, and add them to the required THP's to give a plot of required
bottomhole flowing pressures ( Figure 8 ). This will be equal to the calculated tubing head pressure for a
given rate plus the vertical pressure gain from surface to formation for that rate. Joining these points will give us
the required BHP curve shown in Figure 9 .

Page #35 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

It represents the effect of production through the

wellbore and surface equipment for the specific case
of a pressure on the upstream side of the separator
equal to 150 psi.

Now we add our inflow performance curve ( Figure 10

), which runs from our average reservoir pressure of
2000 psi to our pumped-off potential of 3000 BOPD.
The point of intersection of the IPR with the required
BHP curve is our system design. It represents the
flowing rate for the well which will provide 150 psi at
the separator. In this case it occurs at about 1800
BOPD.

Page #36 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

We can also use the "bottom-up" method of calculating this flow rate. Starting with the IPR we assume flow
rates and generate a THP curve for the well in the usual way ( Figure 11 ).

By subtracting calculated pressure losses in the gathering lines for these flow rates from the THP curve we
obtain a curve representing the pressure-rate relationship at the downstream side of the gathering line. The
pressure at this point is also the pressure at the inlet to the separator. The intersection of this curve and the
separator pressure is the flowing rate under the assumed conditions ( Figure 12 ).

By changing any one variable, for example, either the separator pressure, the gathering line size, the tubing
size, or the GLR, the flow rate will also change. In order to optimize the design, then, an engineer will determine
the system's sensitivity to these variables and see what the most economical use of the equipment will be.

Without a choke in the line, any pressure variations on the surface will directly affect the well's ability to
produce. One reason for the installation of a choke is to make it the controlling element in the system.

The installation of a choke will reduce the flow rate and increase the tubing head pressures. Effective control is
achieved only when the tubing head pressure is twice the pressure at the upstream point in the gathering
system. This is the critical flow requirement.

Installing a choke and using the "top-down" method, we can calculate the tubing head pressure required for
criteral flow as being twice the THP that was calculated when we did not have a choke in the system.

This new curve is the pressure upstream of the choke and is the new required THP curve ( Figure 13 ).

Page #37 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Now we add the vertical pressure differences in the tubing to find the required bottomhole flowing pressures. It
is the intersection of this last curve with the IPR which determines the system flow rate ( Figure 14 ).

The choke performance can be added to the bottom-up solution we performed earlier. The IPR and THP curves
do not change because we have not yet encountered the choke in our flow system. Now we add the effect of
the choke which gives a curve below the THP equal to one half of the THP at each flow rate ( Figure 15 ).

Page #38 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

This difference or loss in pressure represents the pressure losses through the choke during critical flow. We add
a fourth curve representing losses in the gathering line. The point of intersection of this curve with our given
separator pressure value is the system production rate if the production rate is controlled by the separator
( Figure 16 ).

The choke size must be chosen to yield a rate equal to or less than this production rate in order for the choke to
control the well's production. This limiting condition is shown in Figure 17 .

If the choke size selected had been larger, the choke performance line would have been lower and given a
higher flow rate at its point of intersection with the THP curve q2 ( Figure 18 ). The choke calls for a higher flow
rate than the separator will allow. Under these conditions, then, the separator will control flow.

The rates and pressures of various choke sizes for this installation can now be calculated and an optimal choke
size selected.

Page #39 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Stable flow occurs when fluctuations of pressure and flow rate are dampened and flow rate tends to return to a
stable value. We have plotted in Figure 1 the THP and choke performance curve.

A flow rate at point 1, that is q1, is stable because an increase in flow rate to q2, increases bean backpressure
to point "A" and reduces the tubing head pressure to point "B." In essence the pressure required by the choke
to sustain this flow rate is greater than the THP available at this flow rate. Because an increase in backpressure
of the amount A B is imposed on the well, the flow rate tends to decrease from q2 back to q1, the stable rate. In
a similar manner a reduction in rate to q3, as shown in Figure 2 , will reduce the required THP, and therefore,
reduce backpressure on the formation by the amount A B.

This will increase the flow rate back to q1 and once again the well returns to a stable flow condition.

Unstable flow is also possible. It is illustrated in Figure 3 where a slight decrease in rate below q1 reduces the
tubing head pressure below that required by the choke for critical flow.

Page #40 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

This causes the flow rate to decrease until the well dies. An increase in flow rate above q1 reduces the
backpressure on the formation causing further rate increases until a stable flow rate is reached beyond the
maximum point on the THP curve. The maximum point on the THP divides the stable flow region from the
unstable region ( Figure 4 ).

This becomes intuitively clear if we draw the IPR curve and then add the Vertical Pressure Loss curve, or VPL.
Now we subtract the Vertical Pressure Loss from the IPR and obtain the THP curve ( Figure 5 ).

Page #41 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

The THP maximum occurs where the slope of the IPR is equal in magnitude to the slope of the VPL curve
( Figure 6 ).

To the left of that point, any decrease in rate results in

increased pressure losses in the tubing due to
slippage. The well gradually loses sufficient
bottomhole flowing pressure to support flow to
surface. To the right of the maximum point, frictional
losses dominate and the flow rates stabilize ( Figure
7 ).

Page #42 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

Integrated Performance of a Flowing Well

The inflow performance curve describes flow into the wellbore and allows us to predict q, the pumped-off
potential for a given average reservoir pressure. For any given tubing size we may calculate the vertical
pressure losses in the tubing, and thus generate the THP curve.

Assuming the installation of a surface choke and that critical flow occurs, we may generate a third curve of
pressure and rate downstream from the surface choke. A fourth curve might be added to show pressure losses
in the gathering system and, finally, the pressure and rate performance of the separator can be added. The
intersection of curves 4 and 5 in Figure 1 is the maximum practical flowing rate qmax for the system.

The choke must be chosen so as to produce at that rate or less, otherwise the separator or other downstream
equipment will control production. In Figure 2 the pressure losses throughout the system are quite apparent.

Starting at the average reservoir pressure and a given flow rate, q, we observe the pressure losses through the
formation, through the tubing, across the surface choke and through the surface lines. In a sense the average
reservoir pressure drives the whole system and is used up along the way. At each stage, however, there must
be sufficient pressure to drive the subsequent systems at that flow rate otherwise flow stops at some point in
the system. The component that controls or limits the flow rate determines the system capacity.

Let us now turn to the prediction of the future life of a flowing well. The efficiency of flow - that is the actual
production rate divided by the formation potential, expressed as a percentage - is not constant throughout the
life of a flowing well. In its earlier stages, the efficiency is high. But later on it will depend on the variations in
GLR, the shape of the IPR, water cut, and the manner in which reservoir pressure decreases with cumulative
production. When slug flow dominates vertical flow in the tubing, the efficiency of flow may even increase for a
Page #43 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

while. Towards the end of a well's flowing life, very sudden decreases in efficiency may occur and, of course, at
the moment at which the well dies, the efficiency drops to zero.

This picture is further complicated by decisions as to production policy -whether to attempt a steady rate of flow
for as long as Possible by means of changes in choke size; whether to maintain a constant THP; or whether to
let the well produce against a certain size of choke for Prolonged periods. Many factors are considered in
determining optimal flow rates, including control of sand production, water coning, and gas depletion.

In order to predict the future performance of a flowing well, we must know how reservoir pressure, GLR, and
WOR will change with cumulative production. The behavior or these variables is Predicted by using reservoir
engineering methods such as those of Tarner (1944) or Muskat (1981, 1949). In addition one must have a
complete knowledge of the IPR, its current and
future shape.

The reservoir engineering analysis allows us to tie

the average reservoir pressure with cumulative
production. The IPR ties the average reservoir
pressure with inflow rate. Joined together they
allow us to predict the future inflow performance of
a well and the field. In order to relate the
performance of an individual well to the cumulative
production from the pool, a production analysis of
every well draining the pool is necessary. The
structural position as well as other geological and
formation factors must be taken into consideration
for each well in order to account for differences in
GLR, WOR, and so on.

Let us see how we would predict the performance

of an individual flowing well. The analysis may be
undertaken by either the "top-down" or the "bottom-
up" method. This decision rests with the engineer in
charge of the analysis in the light of the production
policies to be adopted.

Let us first look at the "bottom-up" method. In this

analysis, flowing gradient curves are used to
determine a series of THP curves based on assumed
future average reservoir pressures and values of the
GLR and WOR derived from the reservoir studies. In
this way future THP's are obtained, one for each
assumed value of average reservoir pressure or
cumulative production ( Figure 1 ).

In this case, it has been decided to produce the well

with a constant choke size at decreasing production
rates until a certain minimum THP is reached ( Figure

Page #44 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

2 ).

At that stage, the choke size is steadily decreased in an attempt to hold the THP at this level ( Figure 3 ).

But now we enter the unstable flow region; the well will not flow against the minimum THP. The well dies when
the THP and choke curves intersect at an unstable flow rate ( Figure 4 ).

This analysis enables a plot to be made of the production rate from the well under study against the cumulative
production from the field or pool. Similar plots are made for each producing well. It is now a simple matter to
determine the time required for each cumulative production period and the contribution of each well to that
cumulative production. In this way, a complete forecast for the pool, and for each well in the pool, is obtained.

The "top-down" approach is similar, and would be used, perhaps, in a situation in which the production policy
was to hold the THP constant at some reasonable minimum value in an attempt to maximize the production
rate. The constant THP could be used, in conjunction with the gradient curves, to generate a vertical flow
performance versus rate curve. As was shown earlier, the intersection of this curve with the IPR will give the
actual production rate to be expected at that THP ( Figure 5 ).

A new assumed value for the average reservoir pressure changes the IPR and the gradient curves used: This
process would be continued until a stage was reached at which there was no point of intersection between the
"top-down" vertical flow curve and the corresponding IPR. In fact, the well could be expected to die at the stage
at which these two curves just touched ( Figure 6 ).

Page #45 of 46
 Fluid Flow & Production System

The total pool performance is obtained by adding the cumulative production of the individual wells, as just
described.

A predictive technique, such as the one discussed, shows the potential of the formation as well as the rate of
production at each stage of the life of the flowing well. This information assists in deciding whether or not a
high-rate artificial lift technique, such as gas lift, would be a profitable venture and, if so, the optimum time to
install such a system. Alternatively, a well may remain on natural flow for as long as practical and then a
pumping unit installed. Knowledge of the potential of the formation at the time of introducing the pumping unit
will allow us to select the correct type and size and determine the power requirements.

Page #46 of 46