Perftech PDF

PERFORM 4.
50
Well PERFORMance Analysis
Technical Reference Manual
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright (c) 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights
reserved. The accompanying software may incorporate certain programs or applications, which
are the copyrighted property of third parties.
Except as specifically authorized in the accompanying documentation, the software and this
documentation may not be copied, reproduced, displayed, translated, transferred to any
electronic medium or machine-readable format, transcribed, or stored in a retrieval system, in
any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical, manual or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of IHS Energy Group. IHS ENERGY GROUP
MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONTENTS OF THE SOFTWARE AND/OR DOCUMENTATION, WHICH ARE
PROVIDED "AS IS." IHS ENERGY GROUP SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS AND
NEGATES ANY AND ALL EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING
THE WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
MERCHANTABILITY AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
Well PERFORMance Analysis is a trademark of Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC. (Certain

product names used herein are the trade names of trademarks of their respective companies.
Mention of these products is for informational purposes and constitutes neither an endorsement
nor recommendation by IHS Energy Group. It is not IHS Energy Group's intent to use any of
these trade names or trademarks generically and the reader is cautioned to investigate all
claimed trademark rights before using any of such names or marks.)
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................iii
Table of Figures .................................................................................................................vi
1 System Analysis Overview.........................................................................................1

Nodal Analysis ...................................................................................................................2
2 Using System Analysis................................................................................................5

General Analysis Procedure ................................................................................................5
Applying System Analysis ...................................................................................................7
Reservoir Skin....................................................................................................................9
Completion Effects............................................................................................................10
Differential Graph...........................................................................................................11
Perforation Shot Density.................................................................................................12
Perforation Interval.........................................................................................................13
Tubing Size.......................................................................................................................14
Wellhead or Separator Pressure........................................................................................16
3 Reservoir Component ...............................................................................................19

Vertical IPR Types ...........................................................................................................20
User Enters PI ...............................................................................................................20
Vogel/Harrison (1968)...................................................................................................21
Darcy ............................................................................................................................24
Jones et al. (1976) .........................................................................................................30
Jones4-Point Test and JonesEnter a and b ..............................................................33
Back Pressure Eq (1930) and Back Pressure4-Point Test...........................................34
Backpressure Four-Point Test (gas wells only)................................................................35
Transient Flow Equation.................................................................................................36
Fractured Well...............................................................................................................38
Datafile2 Col ASCII ..................................................................................................43
Horizontally Completed Wells ...........................................................................................43
Horizontal IPR Types........................................................................................................48
Giger et al. (1984)..........................................................................................................49
Economides et al. (1991) ...............................................................................................52
Joshi (1988)...................................................................................................................54
Renard and Dupuy (1991)..............................................................................................57
Kuchuk (1988) ..............................................................................................................59
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved. iii
Table of Contents PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
Babu and Odeh (1989) ..................................................................................................62

Goode and Thambynaya (1987).....................................................................................66
4 Completion Component.............................................................................................69
Open Hole Completion.....................................................................................................69
Open Perforation Completion............................................................................................70
Stable Perforation Completion...........................................................................................73
Collapsed Perforation Completion.....................................................................................76
Gravel Pack Completion...................................................................................................79
Gravel Pack Beta Turbulence Factor ..............................................................................81
Gravel Pack Open Hole Completion .................................................................................82
Gravel Pack Open Perforation Completion........................................................................83
Gravel Pack Stable Perforation Completion.......................................................................83
Gravel Pack Collapsed Perforation Completion.................................................................83
5 Wellbore and Flowline...............................................................................................85

Oil Well Vertical Flow......................................................................................................86
Category A....................................................................................................................87
Category B....................................................................................................................87
Category C....................................................................................................................88
Gas Well Vertical Flow.....................................................................................................90
Oil Well Horizontal Flow...................................................................................................91
Gas Well Horizontal Flow.................................................................................................92
Flow Through Restrictions.................................................................................................93
Critical Flow..................................................................................................................94
Subcritical Flow.............................................................................................................94
Critical and/or Subcritical Flow.......................................................................................97
Maximum Erosional and Minimum Unloading Velocity.....................................................101
Maximum Erosional Rate..............................................................................................102
Minimum Unloading Rate .............................................................................................103
Heat Transfer..................................................................................................................104
Linear Temperature Gradient........................................................................................104
Temperature Survey.....................................................................................................105
Heat Transfer Correlation.............................................................................................105
User-Entered Heat Transfer Coefficients.......................................................................106
Flow Assurance..............................................................................................................106
Scale: Oddo-Tomson method.......................................................................................106
iv Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual Table of Contents
Wellbore Deviation.........................................................................................................107
Example 1....................................................................................................................108
Example 2....................................................................................................................109
Example 3....................................................................................................................109
6 Downhole Network..................................................................................................111
References ......................................................................................................................115
Index................................................................................................................................121
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved. v
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1: Producing System....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 1.2: Nodal Plot..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.1: System Analysis Plot with Multiple Conditions.................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.2: Gradient Curves........................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.3: Effect of Formation Skin............................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2.4: Inflow Sensitivity on Skin........................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 2.5: Differential Graph...................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2.6: Effect of Perforation Shot Density (SPF)............................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.7: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Shot Density (SPF)......................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.8: Effect of Perforation Interval................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.9: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Interval............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2.10: Effect of Tubing Size .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.11: Outflow Sensitivity on Tubing Size ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.12: Effect of Wellhead Pressure .................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 2.13: Outflow Sensitivity on Wellhead Pressure ......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.1: Reservoir Component............................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.2: User Enters PI............................................................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 3.3: Vogel Solution Gas Drive with Flow Efficiency.................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.4: Square Reservoir....................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3.5: Horizontally Completed Well .................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 3.6: Schema for Giger, Joshi, Renard & Dupuy, and Economides correlations ...................................................... 49
Figure 3.7: Schema for Kuchuk and Babu & Odeh correlations............................................................................................ 59
Figure 3.8: Schema for Goode & Thambynaya correlation .................................................................................................... 66
Figure 4.1: Open Hole Completion............................................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 4.2: Open Perforation Completion.................................................................................................................................. 70
Figure 4.3: Open Perforation....................................................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4.4: Collapsed Perforation (Spherical Flow Model)..................................................................................................... 76
Figure 4.5: Gravel Pack Schematic.............................................................................................................................................. 79
Figure 6.1: Multilayer................................................................................................................................................................. 111
Figure 6.2: Multilateral............................................................................................................................................................... 112
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved. vi
1 System Analysis Overview
The primary objective of the system analysis technique is to maximize well productivity by
analyzing and optimizing the complete producing well system. The analysis can lead to increased
profitability from oil and gas investments by improving completion design, increasing well
productivity, and increasing producing efficiency.
System analysis is essentially a simulator of the producing well system. The system, illustrated in
Figure 1.1, includes flow between the reservoir and the wellhead (separator if a flowline is
included), and contains the following components:
Flow through the reservoir to the sandface
Flow through the completion
Flow through the bottomhole restrictions
Flow through the tubing
Flow through the surface flowline restrictions
Flow through the flowline into the separator
Figure 1.1: Producing System
Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved. 1
System Analysis Overview PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
As system analysis simulates the entire system, it models each component within the system
using equations or correlations to determine the pressure loss through the component as a
function of flow rate. The total pressure loss through the system for a given flow rate is the
summation of the pressure losses through all components. Minimizing pressure loss in individual
components within the system results in less overall pressure loss and increased flow rate from a
well.
The total pressure loss is ultimately realized as the overall difference between average reservoir
pressure, Pr, and the wellhead or separator pressure, Pwh or Psep. The average reservoir
pressure and wellhead or separator pressure constitute the endpoints of the system (inlet and
outlet), and are the only pressures in the system that do not vary with flow rate.
Nodal Analysis
System analysis analyzes the entire system by focusing on one point within the series of
components. This point generally is referred to as a node, hence the term nodal analysis. The
final solution is independent of the location of the node.
For manual calculations, the primary interest of the application generally dictates the location of
the node. For example, if the main interest is an investigation of the effects of the components
near the surface (such as flowline or surface choke), then the node is chosen at the wellhead or
separator. If the effects of the downhole components are the primary interest (such as the
bottomhole flowing pressure), then the node is chosen at downhole.
In PERFORM, you can use a sensitization technique that allows you to see the effects of
changing parameters. In this way, you can usually choose the node at a point inside the wellbore
directly adjacent to the perforations. This point is designated as wellbore flowing bottomhole
pressure, Pwf.
The producing system is divided into two segments at the node. The upstream, or inflow,
segment is comprised of all components between the node and the reservoir boundary. The
downstream, or outflow, segment consists of the components between the node and the
separator.
After isolating the node in the system, both of the following fundamental requirements at the
node must be met:
Only one pressure exists at the node at any given flow rate (Pinflow = Poutflow)
Only one flow rate exists through the node (Qinflow = Qoutflow)
2 Copyright 2002, Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC d/b/a IHS Energy Group. All rights reserved.
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual System Analysis Overview
Because the producing system consists of interacting components that each contributes pressure
loss independently as a function of flow rate, the procedure necessary to find the unique flow
rate that satisfies the two requirements at the node is iterative. To simplify the procedure, the
system analysis approach uses a graphical solution in which the pressure at the node is shown as
a function of the producing rate for both the inflow and outflow segments. The system analysis
plot, or nodal plot, illustrated in Figure 1.2 contains both the inflow and outflow relationships.
Figure 1.2: Nodal Plot
The inflow curve bends downward. This illustrates that as flow rate increases through the inflow
segment, pressure loss increases so that there is less pressure available at the node (or the
downstream side of the inflow segment).
The outflow curve bends upward. This illustrates that for a fixed separator pressure, the
pressure required at the node (inlet to the outflow segment) increases as flow rate increases.
Although each segment is exclusive of the other at varying flow rates, the two requirements
listed previously (only one pressure and flow rate exist at the node) dictate that only one solution
exists for the system at a particular set of conditions. On the nodal plot, this solution is the
intersection of the inflow and outflow curves. This intersection indicates the producing capacity
System Analysis Overview PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
of the system and provides both the flow rate, Q, and the corresponding bottomhole pressure,
Pwf.
2 Using System Analysis
General Analysis Procedure

A general procedure for solving most cases involves the following steps.
1 Make a specific objective for the case, such as determining the size of tubing to use in a
well.
2 Determine the type of analysis needed to solve the problem, such as a Systems
Analysis.
3 Determine the components needed (reservoir, wellbore, completion, and flowline) and
the correlations desired.
4 Find all required data, make educated guesses for unknown values, and enter the data
for each component.
5 Calculate the case and check the output graphically.
6 Interpret the output based on the type of case. Test the results for confidence by
comparing the results with the data you have found.
7 Adjust the input and calculate again to improve the output results as needed.
8 Repeat from step 1 for the next objective of the case.
You can use a general analysis procedure to determine the producing capacity of a well system
for a set of well conditions. More importantly, you can use the procedure to determine the
quantitative effect and importance of each variable within the system on the overall system
performance. The system components use the variables in either equations or correlations.
Although some values generally do not change during the well's life (for example, reservoir
thickness, permeability, and total depth), many values are variable. The ability to change the
values that directly affect system performance and well productivity allows you to achieve
complete well optimization.
Using System Analysis PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
One of the underlying advantages of system analysis is its ability to predict the result caused by
changes in the design variables. The alteration in well performance is seen directly on the
systems plot through multiple inflow or outflow curves (each at a different set of conditions) and
multiple intersection points. The Q and Pwf values at each intersection represent the producing
status at that particular condition. The simplified systems plot in Figure 2.1 illustrates a typical
scenario with multiple inflow curves at different reservoir pressures and multiple outflow curves
at various tubing diameters.
Figure 2.1: System Analysis Plot with Multiple Conditions
As mentioned, the primary node used in most system analysis applications is the node at the
bottom of the wellbore. Furthermore, although the system is comprised of many interacting
components, it usually is simplified to four primary components:
Flow through the reservoir
Flow through the completion
Flow up the tubing and any restrictions (vertical flow)
Flow through the flowline and any restrictions (horizontal flow)
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual Using System Analysis
Applying System Analysis

System analysis can be applied in both new and existing wells. In new wells, the technique can
be used to simulate anticipated conditions and plan the optimum completion and well design. In
existing wells, the technique is used first to model existing conditions, then to evaluate areas of
potential improvement.
To use system analysis on new wells, you must estimate data from offset wells, regional
experience, and common sense. Because you do not have measured test data for comparison,
the system analysis solution should cover the entire range of input variables. For example, you
can select a preliminary tubing size for a new well by calculating a system analysis solution for a
well using a broad range of inflow curves generated with "most pessimistic," "most likely," and
"most optimistic" values of formation permeability. Although this type of solution is not meant to
be entirely accurate, it provides a general idea of anticipated conditions.
Although using system analysis for existing wells can be slightly more complex than for proposed
wells, the results obtained are more complete and accurate. The primary difference between the
two cases is the ability in existing wells to model current conditions using actual data so that you
can adjust input variables accordingly to better predict system performance. After reliably
matching existing conditions, the effect of varied well conditions can be predicted with a higher
degree of confidence.
In both cases, you must completely understand each component in the system to fully use the
system analysis technique. In order to understand a particular component, you must have a
quantitative description of each of the variables used to model the component. The pressure loss
through the component is a direct function of the magnitude of these variables. In the design and
implementation of an efficient producing well system, you can alter many of the variables that
directly affect the producing capacity of the well. This flexibility is the basis of well optimization
through system analysis.
Existing producing conditions in a well can be modeled by matching either a producing rate or
pressure. If no producing bottomhole pressure is known, the system can be modeled simply by
calculating both a rate and pressure and comparing the rate to known conditions. In the event
that a producing bottomhole pressure is known, either through a single pressure or a flowing
gradient survey, the tubing performance can be modeled directly. This procedure is especially
beneficial in an oil well case, where there are many different correlations available but only one
provides the best solution for the well. The use of an improper correlation in a system analysis
solution can cause serious error.
In addition to correlation selection, the gradient match is also helpful in confirming input data that
may not be exact. Figure 2.2 is an example illustrating the use of the gradient curve to match
actual well data for an oil well by varying wellhead pressure.
Figure 2.2: Gradient Curves
As mentioned earlier, the system analysis approach can be understood as simulation of the
producing system. Once the data is entered to create a base case of the well system (and
confirmed through matching, if possible), the technique can be used to simulate varied conditions
and solve a "what if" scenario. The effect of design and completion variables on total system
performance can be predicted. Many variables can be simulated and optimized. The importance
of each depends on specific well conditions. The items used most often in system analysis to
optimize oil and gas wells include the following:
Reservoir Skin
Completion Effects
Tubing Size
Wellhead or Separator Pressure
Reservoir Skin
The reservoir skin is a deviation from Darcy flow generally caused by damage near the wellbore
from drilling and completion fluids or from enhancement through stimulation. The effect of
altering skin is really the effect of removing damage through stimulation. In system analysis, you
can do this by reviewing several inflow cases, each at an improved skin value. Figures 2.3 and
2.4 illustrate this case, where a highly damaged formation with a skin of 32 is analyzed after
stimulation with skins of 20, 5, 0, -3, and -6.
Figure 2.3: Effect of Formation Skin
Figure 2.4: Inflow Sensitivity on Skin
Completion Effects
The following items induce a similar response in the system performance and are variables in the
completion design that are generally subject to change and optimize:
Perforation shot density
Perforation size
Perforation diameter
Perforation length
Perforation interval
Gravel pack size
Gravel pack permeability
Damaged zone radius and permeability
Perforation crushed zone effects
Perforated interval
Differential Graph
The differential graph, Figure 2.5, is especially helpful in emphasizing the completion effects of a
well. The differential graph has two main curve types. The first type, shown bending downward
to the left, represents the difference between the pressure remaining after flowing through the
reservoir (Pws) and the pressure needed to flow through the outflow segment. The difference is
the pressure available to produce through the completion. The curves shown bending upward to
the left are the actual pressure losses through the completion as a function of rate.
Figure 2.5: Differential Graph
Similar to the standard system analysis graph, the intersection of these two curves dictates the
producing capacity of a well for a given set of conditions. Although both example plots in this
section illustrate the effect of varied perforation shot density, you can vary and display any of the
completion variables listed in the same manner.
Perforation Shot Density
A typical analysis applied to completion design is shown in Figures 2.6 and 2.7, which illustrate
the effect of perforation shot density.
Figure 2.6: Effect of Perforation Shot Density (SPF)
Figure 2.7: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Shot Density (SPF)
Perforation Interval
The perforation interval is the measured length of formation interval that is actually perforated. In
many completions, the perforation interval is somewhat less than the formation thickness. This
can be the result of:
Well problems that result in the inability to completely penetrate the producing formation
Reduced perforation interval aimed at lowering completion cost
Altered perforation intervals to accommodate subsequent stimulation treatments
A reduced perforation interval affects the inflow segment in two ways. First, if reservoir
turbulence is taken into account (i.e., Jones equation), the reduced interval increases the
pressure loss encountered as the flow converges in the reservoir into the perforation interval.
Second, the reduced perforation interval reduces the number of actual perforations available for
flow into the wellbore, thereby increasing pressure loss through the completion. Both of these
effects result in less productivity from a well, as illustrated in Figures 2.8 and 2.9.
Figure 2.8: Effect of Perforation Interval
Figure 2.9: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Interval
Tubing Size
Properly sized tubing is very important in an efficiently designed well system. In an oil well,
pressure loss through the tubing can constitute the majority of the pressure loss through the
entire system. If the tubing size is too small, friction loss will become excessive. If the tubing size
is too large, additional pressure loss will be encountered due to liquid loading. In some cases,
this loading can prevent the well from flowing at all. Incorrectly sized tubing can result in less
available production from a well and possibly reduced flowing periods.
Figures 2.10 and 2.11 show the effect of tubing size in an oil well. The reversal effect in the
largest diameter as it actually crosses the next smaller diameter indicates less available
production due to liquid loading. The tubing sizes sensitized are 2 3/8", 2 7/8", 3 1/2", 4", and 4
1/2" respectively.
Figure 2.10: Effect of Tubing Size
Figure 2.11: Outflow Sensitivity on Tubing Size
Wellhead or Separator Pressure

The wellhead pressure (if no flowline) or separator pressure (if a flowline is included) is the
outlet pressure of the total system. In most cases, as the total system yields production as a
function of the overall pressure differential, the lowering of this outlet pressure results in
increased well capacity. Figures 2.12 and 2.13 illustrate the reduction of wellhead pressure
system performance for a typical oil well. This is accomplished by installing larger chokes in the
wellhead or installing a compressor to reduce the wellhead pressure.
Figure 2.12: Effect of Wellhead Pressure
Figure 2.13: Outflow Sensitivity on Wellhead Pressure
3 Reservoir Component
The reservoir component, illustrated in Figure 3.1, of the system is composed of the flow
between the reservoir boundary and the sandface. This component is always upstream of the
node and, in this discussion, is combined with the completion component to form the entire
inflow segment.
Figure 3.1: Reservoir Component
The flow through the reservoir is often referred to as the inflow performance relationship (IPR)
of a well. It is a measure of the reservoir's ability to produce fluid as a result of a pressure
differential. This ability depends on many factors, including reservoir type, producing drive
mechanism, reservoir pressure, formation permeability, and fluid properties.
Reservoir Component PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
Vertical IPR Types

User Enters PI
The inflow performance relationship for an oil well is often simplified as a constant inflow or
productivity index (PI), where inflow is directly proportional to drawdown, in the form of:
Constant Productivity Index
Q
PI =
Pr Pwf
where:
PI = Productivity index (stb/d/psi)
Q = Total liquid flow rate (stb/d)
Pr = Average reservoir pressure (psi)
Pwf = Bottomhole flowing pressure (psi)
Figure 3.2: User Enters PI
The constant productivity index is expressed on the system analysis plot as a straight line
between Pr and Qmax (at Pwf = 0) with a slope of 1/PI. The Vogel equation can be used to
correct the flow below the bubblepoint pressure with the user-entered PI to calculate the IPR
above the bubblepoint pressure.
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual Reservoir Component
Vogel/Harrison (1968)
The productivity index concept relies on the assumptions that reservoir and fluid properties
remain constant and are not a function of pressure. Although these assumptions are true in some
cases, especially in single-phase liquid flow, wells that produce both oil and gas will be
overestimated below the bubblepoint if you use the user-entered PI relationship.
In 1968, Vogel presented an IPR solution for wells producing both oil and gas from saturated
reservoirs.5 Using the reservoir model proposed by Weller,35 Vogel used a computer to
calculate IPR curves for several fictitious solution gas drive reservoirs that covered a wide range
of oil PVT properties and reservoir permeability characteristics. He plotted these IPR curves as
dimensionless IPR curves with each pressure value divided by the maximum shut-in pressure,
and each flow rate divided by the maximum rate (Qmax at Pwf = 0). He combined these
dimensionless curves into a general reference curve in the following form.
Vogel equation
2
Q P P
= 1.0 0.2 wf 0.8 wf
Q max Pr Pr
where:
Qmax = Maximum flow rate at Pwf = 0 (stb/d)
The Vogel relationship can be regarded as a general equation for solution gas drive reservoirs
producing below the bubblepoint. Above the bubblepoint, the standard Darcy equation or user-
entered straight line PI is considered adequate. In cases of undersaturated reservoirs where
wellbore pressure may be above or below the bubblepoint, the Vogel equation can be used as a
correction below the bubblepoint pressure in combination with the user-entered PI, Darcy,
transient, and fractured well correlations. In this case, the selected correlation is used between
reservoir pressure (Pr) and bubblepoint pressure (Pb), followed by the Vogel relationship below
the bubblepoint pressure.
The Vogel equation is differentiated with respect to Pwf to give a secondary equation for Qmax.
Vogel equation
PI Pb
Q max = Q b +
1.8
where:
Qb = Flow rate at bubblepoint (stb/d)

Pb = Bubblepoint pressure (psi)
The final form of the Vogel equation for wells producing above the bubblepoint is:
Combination Vogel equation Pwf > Pb
Q = PI (Pr Pwf )
where:
PI = Productivity index (stb/d)
The final form of the Vogel equation for wells producing below the bubblepoint is:
Combination Vogel equation Pwf < Pb
Q = Q b + Q max = PI (Pr P'wf )
where:
Q' = Flow rate below bubblepoint (stb/d)
Qb = Flow rate at bubblepoint (stb/d)

Pb = Bubblepoint pressure (psi)
P'wf = Bottomhole flowing pressure below bubblepoint (psi)
The Vogel equation was developed with the assumption that there is no skin effect or that flow
efficiency (FE) equals one. Standing6,7 proposed a method to correct the Vogel relationship to
account for non-unity flow efficiencies. In this correction, test pressures used in the Vogel
equation are first modified as follows:
P ' wf = Pwf + (1 FE)(Pr Pwf )
where:
P'wf = Equivalent undamaged flowing pressure
FE = Flow efficiency, 0.5 to 1.5
This correction alters the bottomhole flowing pressure due to additional pressure loss through
the damaged area around the wellbore. Note that a higher flow efficiency value reduces the well
productivity.
Figure 3.3: Vogel Solution Gas Drive with Flow Efficiency
The previous equation presents a problem with high flow efficiencies and low flowing
bottomhole pressures. The value of P'wf can calculate as a negative value, which cannot be used
in the Vogel equation. A correction to the Vogel solution is to account for either positive or
negative values of P'wf in the following equation.
Q / Q max( FE=1.0) = 1.2 0.2e (1.792P'wf /Pr )
This equation is only used if the P'wf is negative, otherwise the normal Vogel equation is used.
Darcy
The basic equation used to describe the flow of fluid through a reservoir is the radial form of the
Darcy equation. Henry Darcy originally developed the equation in 1856 to describe the flow
through sand filter beds used in water purification. The basic Darcy concept describes flow
through porous media as a function of pressure differential, cross-sectional area, fluid viscosity,
flow distance, and permeability (the measure of the media's ability to transmit fluid). He
developed the equation under the assumptions that only single-phase, laminar flow existed, and
the fluid was essentially incompressible.
Although the original Darcy equation was developed for linear flow in the vertical direction, the
equation has been modified to predict radial flow. The general Darcy equation for an oil well is:
Darcy equationoil well
(0.00708) kh (Pr Pws )

Q=
3
B ln (x) + S + DQ
4
where:
k = Effective permeability (md)
h = Net formation thickness (ft)
Pws = Flowing sandface pressure (psi)

= Average liquid viscosity (cp)
B = Average formation factor (rb/stb)
x = Drainage area factor re /rw or from area and shape factor
S = Skin effect
D = Non-Darcy turbulence factor (1/stb/d)
re = Reservoir radius (ft)
rw = Wellbore radius (ft)
The Darcy equation for a gas well is slightly different because of the dynamic behavior of gas
properties as a function of rate and pressure, where pseudopressure, , is used and is:
Darcy equationgas well
(0.000703) kg h ( r ws )
Qg =

T ln ( x ) + S + DQg
3
4
where:
Qg = Gas flow rate (Mscf/d)
kg = Effective gas permeability (md)

r = Avg. reservoir pseudopressure (psi2/cp)
ws = Flowing sandface pseudopressure (psi2/cp)

T = Average reservoir temp (R)
S = Skin effect
D = Non-Darcy turbulence factor (1/Mscf/d)
The Vogel equation can be used to correct the Darcy equation below the bubblepoint pressure.
PI is calculated from the following equation and is used in the Vogel equation described earlier.
Productivity IndexDarcy
PI =
(0.00708) k h

B ln (x ) + S
3
4
where:
PI = Productivity Index (stb/d/psi)
S = Skin effect
Non-Darcy Turbulent Term
The non-Darcy turbulent term, D, in the Darcy equation is used to account for inflow
turbulence. This term is sometimes referred to as the Ramey Turbulence, or Ramey D, term.
The non-Darcy term is applied as an effective rate-dependent skin, shown as the DQ or DQ g
term in the denominator of the Darcy equation. The term is usually obtained through multi-rate
testing of wells where skin is calculated as a function of rate.
Skin Effect
Skin can be defined as a correction to account for non-Darcy or non-homogeneous flow

behavior. In many discussions, skin is defined as a total skin that is comprised of several
individual components.
S' = S + S( q, t ) + DQ
where:
S' = Total skin
S = Physical skin caused by damage near the wellbore or enhancement through
stimulation
S(q,t) = Rate- and time- dependent skin, generally caused by permeability alteration due
to changing gas saturation near the wellbore
DQ = Rate-dependent skin, described as the non-Darcy flow term
The physical skin, S, is understood to be caused by a physical alteration to the reservoir,

generally near the wellbore. This can be in the form of damage from the penetration of drilling
and/or completion fluids, causing a positive skin. Conversely, this skin can be represented as a
negative value, caused by stimulation of the well through fracturing or acidizing.
The rate- and time-dependent skin, S(q,t), is induced by two-phase fluid behavior at or near the
wellbore. This skin can give the appearance of non-Darcy flow behavior. In general, this skin is
a permanent condition (unless fluid conditions change), and cannot be altered with stimulation.
The non-Darcy term, DQ, is simply a representation of the energy loss due to turbulent behavior
in the reservoir. The value can be determined by isochronal testing.
System analysis accounts for the total skin effect in several ways. Most inflow equations allow
for a skin entry, which generally is the physical skin, S. If the skin entry is positive, it indicates
damage. If the skin entry is negative, it indicates stimulation. The rate-dependent non-Darcy
term is available for use in the Darcy equation. Because system analysis is an isochronal
procedure, the rate- and time-dependent skin, S(q,t), becomes a function of rate only and
logically can be included with the non-Darcy skin.
Note: In a system analysis solution, be sure not to include turbulent or physical skin more
than once. If the skin effect is measured including the completion by transient testing
within the wellbore, this skin takes into account completion effects. If this skin is used
subsequently in the reservoir segment as a physical skin, S, or as a rate-dependent
skin, DQ, or as both, additional pressure loss through the completion segment will
cause an underestimated inflow curve. This situation exists for the four-point test
(Jones and back pressure) for oil wells and gas wells and Vogel for oil wells.
Drainage Area and Shape Factor
The previous Darcy equations are actually slight modifications of the original equation. The ln(x)
term is a modification of the standard ln(re/rw), which is a representation of the area of flow in
the radial form of the equation. The ln(re/rw) value is applicable only for a well producing in the
center of a circular drainage area. In the cases where the well is located in an irregularly shaped
drainage area, ln(re/rw) is replaced by ln(x), where x is a reservoir size and shape factor that
describes the actual drainage shape and well position. 22
Sfactor S0.5
area
x=
rw
where:
X = Reservoir drainage factor
Sfacto = Reservoir shape factor from table
r
Sarea = Reservoir area (ft 2)
The following table of shape factors are available for use in the Darcy and Jones equations.
Reservoir Shape Factors
The reservoir shape factor is available with the Darcy and Jones IPR correlations to describe a
well that is not necessarily in the center of a circular reservoir as assumed by the Darcy and
Jones equations. The shape factor is the constant given in the following table. For example, the
shape factor of a well in the center of a square is 0.571. The well in the center of a circle can
either use the shape factor listed or directly use the reservoir radius and wellbore radius.
SHAPE SHAPE SHAPE SHAPE FACTOR

FACTOR
0.564 2 0.966
1 0.571 2 1.444
1 1
0.565 2 2.206

FACTOR
0.605 4 1.925
0.610 4 6.590
0.678 9.360
4
1/3
0.668 1 1.724
2
1 1
1.368 2 1.794
4
1 1

FACTOR
2.066 4.072
5 2
1
1
1 .884 2 9.523
1 1
1 1.485 10.135
Jones et al. (1976)
Turbulent flow in the reservoir, generally occurring near the area of wellbore convergence, can
cause significant additional pressure loss. This is especially prevalent in high rate gas wells.
The basic Darcy equation was generated with the assumptions that only laminar flow existed
through the porous media. As wells produce at relatively high rates, this assumption becomes
invalid as turbulent flow begins to develop. The overall effect of this turbulence is added energy
loss, which results in a lower flow rate for a given pressure differential. This turbulent flow is
often referred to as non-Darcy flow behavior.
An equation suggested by Jones, Blount, and Glaze8 in 1976 accounts for turbulence in a
producing oil or gas well. The equation, referred to as the Jones equation, is written in the
following forms:
Jones equationoil well
Pr Pws = aQ2 + bQ
where:
a =
(2.30 10 ) B ; turbulent term
-14 2
h 2p r w
B[ln (0.472x ) + S]
b= ; laminar term
(0.00708 )kh
and where:

= Turbulence coefficient (1/ft)
= Fluid density (lb/ft 3)
hp = Perforated thickness (ft)

S = Skin effect
Jones equationgas well
r ws = aQ 2g + bQg
where:
(3.16 10 )
-12
g T
a = ; turbulent term
h r g
2
p w
(1424)T[ln (0.472x ) + S]
b= ; laminar term
k gh
and where:
r = Average reservoir pressure (psi2/cp)
ws = Flowing sandface pressure (psi2/cp)

g = Gas specific gravity
T = Average reservoir temperature (R)
g = Gas viscosity (cp)

S = Skin effect
kg = Effective permeability (md)
For oil wells, you can also obtain the turbulent term, a, and the laminar term, b, by plotting (Pr -
Pwf)/Q versus Q. For gas wells, plot (Pr2 - Pwf2) / Qg versus Qg. The resulting slope will be the
turbulent term and the intercept will be the laminar term.
The laminar term is simply the Darcy equation. The turbulent term is the turbulent portion of the
Jones equation and is shown as a function of rate. The contribution of this turbulent term tends
to reduce the available flow rate from a well as rate increases. The term accounts for additional
wellbore convergence effects caused by partial penetration or a limited perforated interval. This
is accomplished with the use of the perforated interval, hp, instead of the gross formation
interval, h, in the denominator of the turbulent term.
The turbulence coefficient, , is a function of reservoir permeability.
Jones equationturbulence coefficient
2.33 1010
=
k1.201
where:
The Jones equation is recommended in wells in which turbulence is assumed to be a factor. In

gas wells, turbulence is almost always prevalent and the Jones equation is suggested. In oil
wells, turbulence generally does not become significant unless rates are in excess of several
thousand barrels per day. For oil wells, the Darcy equation is usually adequate. The Vogel
equation can be used to adjust the Jones equation below the bubblepoint pressure for solution
gas drive oil wells.
Jones4-Point Test and JonesEnter a and b
The Jones Four-Point Test IPR method calculates the Jones a and b terms from a given set of
rate and flowing bottomhole pressure data points according to the equations discussed
previously for the Jones equation for oil and gas wells.
Along with the four-point test, one IPR option is to use your own Jones a and b term. The a and
b terms are based on different equations for gas wells and oil wells. The oil well equation was
given previously. The gas well equation given previously is based on the equation involving
pseudopressure. For gas wells, the Jones a and b terms are based on a difference in pressure
squared and not pseudopressure as follows:
Jones 'a' and 'b' user-entered (gas wells only)
P r P ws = aQg + bQg
2 2 2
Note: For gas wells, do not use the resulting a and b terms from the four-point test IPR
method in the Jones user-entered a and b IPR method because the Jones user-
entered a and b terms are based on pressure squared and the Jones four-point test is
based on pseudopressure. For oil wells, you can use the calculated Jones coefficients
in the Jones a and b user-entered IPR because both IPR methods use the same
equation.
Back Pressure Eq (1930) and Back Pressure4-Point Test
The effects of reservoir turbulence can also be modeled using the backpressure equation:
Q = C (P2r P2ws)
n
where:
Q = Flow rate (stb/d or Mscf/d)
C = Backpressure coefficient
Pr = Reservoir pressure (psi)
Pws = Sandface pressure (psi)

n = Turbulence coefficient
The turbulence coefficient, n, can be obtained from stabilized test data where (Pr2 - Pws2) is
plotted versus Q on a log-log scale. This method requires at least three and usually four flowing
bottomhole pressure and flow rate data pairs (thus called a four-point test). The turbulence
coefficient is determined from the inverse slope of the line, and is a measurement of the turbulent
condition of the well.
Turbulent flow yields values of n between 0.5 (completely turbulent flow) and 1.0 (completely
laminar flow). In some solution gas drive reservoirs, the 'n' value can be larger than 1.0.45 The
backpressure equation is considered a valid inflow representation if turbulence is a factor and
test data are available and suitable for confident prediction of n. Solve for the backpressure
coefficient, C, using a point on the backpressure line. The Backpressure Four-Point Test
method calculates the best fit of the four-point test data points to arrive at the n and C values.
The Backpressure equation is used to calculate the IPR from a known n and C value based on
the results of a plot of (Pr2 - Pws2) versus Q for both oil and gas wells. The Backpressure 4-Pt
Test IPR method involves the computer calculation of the backpressure n and C values based
on user-entered test data. The results for oil wells and gas wells will be very different because
pseudopressure is used in the gas well cases so that the equation becomes:
Backpressure Four-Point Test (gas wells only)
Q = C ( r ws )
n
where:
C = Backpressure coefficient
r = Reservoir pseudopressure (psi2/cp)
ws = Sandface pseudopressure (psi2/cp)

N = Turbulence coefficient
Note: For gas wells, do not use the resulting n and C values from this equation in the user-
entered Backpressure equation. This restriction does not apply to oil wells because
both methods use the difference in the pressure squared and not pseudopressure.
Transient Flow Equation

In many cases, an inflow is desired for a new well that has not reached pseudosteady state and
is still producing in a transient condition. Both the Darcy equation and its derivative, the Jones
equation, were developed under the assumption that the producing well has reached
pseudosteady state. During the transient period, use the transient equation to predict the inflow
performance for a well. Use the Vogel equation below the bubblepoint pressure to correct the
transient equation for oil wells with a solution gas drive.
Transient equationoil well
kh (Pr Pws )
Q=
kt
162.6 B log 3.2275 + 0.87S
2
ct rw
where:
K = Effective permeability (md)
H = Net formation thickness (ft)

T = Producing time (hrs)
= Porosity
ct = Total system compressibility (1/psi)

S = Skin effect
Transient equationgas well
k g h( r ws )
Qg =
kg t
1638 T log 3.2275 + 0.87S
g c t rw
2
where:
kg = Gas effective permeability (md)

r = Average reservoir pseudopressure (psi2/cp)
ws = Flowing sandface pseudopressure (psi2/cp)

t = Producing time (hrs)
= Porosity
g = Average gas viscosity (cp)
ct = Total system compressibility (1/psi)

S = Skin effect
The pressure behavior of a reservoir during the transient period is essentially the same as that of
an infinite acting reservoir. Use the following equation to estimate the length of time required to
surpass this transient period and reach pseudosteady state:
Time to pseudosteady state
ct r 2e
Time (hrs) =
(0.001005 )k
where:
= Porosity
= Viscosity (cp)
ct = Total compressibility (1/psi)
re = Drainage radius (ft)

Fractured Well
PERFORM uses a digitized, constant rate, finite-conductivity, closed square, fractured well
type-curve to calculate the effect of a vertically drilled well that has been hydraulically fractured.
The type curve requires a dimensionless time, dimensionless fracture conductivity, and fracture
penetration ratio to calculate a dimensionless pressure drop for a known wellbore pressure and
time. The well is assumed to be in the center of a square reservoir with an aspect ratio 1:1.
Figure 3.4: Square Reservoir
A reservoir conductivity is calculated as:

Oil well
0.00708 k h
R ct =
B
Gas well
0.000703 k h
R ct =
T + 460
where:
Rct = Reservoir conductivity
K = Reservoir permeability (md)
H = Reservoir thickness (ft)
= Fluid viscosity (cp)
B = Formation volume factor (rb/stb)
T = Reservoir temperature (F)
The fracture penetration ratio is determined by the following formula and must evaluate to
between 0.0 and 1.0 or an error message appears. Note that re is normally evaluated as a
reservoir radius but in this case, it is the length of one side of a square reservoir divided by 2.
Fracture penetration ratio
xf
Fpr =
re
where:
Fpr = Fracture penetration ratio
xf = Fracture half length (ft)
re = Length of one side of square reservoir divided by 2 (ft)
The dimensionless fracture conductivity is calculated as follows and must evaluate between 0.01
and 500.0 or PERFORM displays an error message:
Dimensionless fracture conductivity
kf w
Fcd =
k xf
where:
Fcd = Dimensionless fracture conductivity
kf = Fracture permeability (md)

W = Fracture width (ft)
xf = Fracture half width (ft)
The dimensionless time is calculated as follows and must be between 0.00001 and 1000.0 or
PERFORM displays an error message:
Dimensionless time
0.000264 k t
t Dxf =
ct x f
2
where:
tDxf = Dimensionless time
T = Production time (hr)
= Porosity (pore volume/ bulk volume)
xf = Fracture half length (ft)
The type curve function interpolates the type curve to arrive at the dimensionless pressure drop
in the fracture and reservoir as:
p D = f (t Dx f , Fcd , Fpr )
The flow rate is calculated as follows:

Flow rateoil well
R ct (Pr Pwf )
Q =
pD
Flow rategas well
R ct (r wf )
Qg =
pD
where:
Q = Flow rate at Pwf (stb/d or Mscf/d)
Rct = Oil or gas reservoir conductivity
Pr = Reservoir pressure (psia)
Pwf = Wellbore pressure (psia)
pD = Dimensionless pressure
r = Reservoir pseudopressure (psi2/cp)
wf = Wellbore pseudopressure (psi2/cp)
The flow rate above assumes that the well is in non-turbulent flow. To account for turbulence in
the fracture that may occur, a non-Darcy flow rate adjustment is made to the flow rate
according to the size of the proppant in the fracture itself as follows:
NON-DARCY FLOW FACTORS
PROPPANT SIZE a-TERM b-TERM

8 - 12 mesh 1.24 17423.61
10 - 20 mesh 1.34 27539.48
20 - 40 mesh 1.54 110470.39
40 - 60 mesh 1.60 69405.31
A turbulence beta factor is calculated as:
3.088386 10 7 b
= a
kf
where:
= Turbulence factor
b = b term from the previous Non-Darcy Flow Factors table
a = a term from the previous Non-Darcy Flow Factors table
A flow velocity and Reynold's number is determined to calculate a revised fracture conductivity
as follows:
Oil well velocity
3.249 x 10 5 Qo B o
V=
hw
Gas well velocity
5.787 x 10 3 Qg Bg
V=
hw
Reynold's number
1.5808 10 -11 V k f
N RE =

Non-Darcy dimensionless fracture conductivity
kf w
Fcd =
k x f (1 + N RE )
where:
V = Fracture flow velocity
Q = Liquid flow rate (stb/d)
Bo = Liquid volume factor (rb/stb)
h = Formation thickness (ft)
w = Fracture width (ft)
Bg = Gas volume factor (scf/stb)
NRE = Reynold's number

= Fracture turbulence factor
= Fluid density (lbm/ft 3)
k = Formation permeability (md)
An iteration technique is used to converge on a dimensionless pressure and flow rate using the
type curve to arrive at a final non-Darcy flow rate at a given wellbore pressure. The same
equations used above to calculate Q and Rct are used in the iteration until a convergence with
the flow rate, Q, used in the above velocity equations gives the same flow rate from the type
curve calculation. PERFORM allows a maximum of 20 iterations and displays an error message
if unable to converge.
Oil well cases can also be adjusted for the Vogel relationship below the bubblepoint pressure
using the Vogel equations. An instantaneous productivity index is calculated for the Vogel
equation as:
Productivity Index
Qo
PI =
Pr Pwf
where:
Qo = Liquid flow rate (stb/d)
Pr = Reservoir pressure (psi)
Pwf = Wellbore pressure (psi)
Datafile2 Col ASCII
The Datafile2 Col ASCII IPR type requires a data file of pressure and flow rate stored in a
text file. The file cannot have header or column labels but must contain two columns of
numerical ASCII text separated by a comma and/or spaces between the two column entries.
The first column must contain pressure in decreasing order for production wells and increasing
order for injection wells. The second column must be the flow rate in increasing order of flow
rate.
If the file does not contain a point at a zero flow rate, PERFORM calculates the zero flow rate
pressure by extrapolating a line through the first two data points back to a zero flow rate. This is
assumed to be the static reservoir pressure. If the file does not contain an Absolute Open Flow
(AOF) rate at the standard pressure, then the AOF point is extrapolated from a straight line
passed through the last two data points.
The data points for calculation of the final inflow curve can include the completion component if
the file contains at least 15 data points. The file must contain at least four points to make a fitted
inflow curve and at least two points for an unfitted inflow curve. The file can contain no more
than 23 points. The points can also be fitted to make a smoother inflow curve if desired. If the
points cannot be adequately smoothed with a second order polynomial fit, PERFORM displays
a warning message and attempts a first order fit. If the first order fit is not possible, PERFORM
uses the raw data and displays a warning message.
Horizontally Completed Wells

Most wells drilled are configured as a vertical or semi-vertical wellbore that intercepts the
reservoir interval either perpendicular to the formation or at an angle less than 90 degrees from
horizontal. Horizontal wellbores are considered a special type of well whereby the well strikes
the reservoir at 90 degrees from vertical and extends a tunnel through the reservoir for
production.
Not all reservoirs are good candidates for horizontal technology. Reservoirs that typically are
good candidates for horizontal wells are thin reservoirs (less than 500 ft thick), have lower
productivity than vertical wells, have tight formations with horizontal as well as vertical
permeability, may have fractures, and may have water-coning or gas-coning problems.
Horizontal wells drilled in these types of reservoirs have shown to produce from 2 to 20 times
the rates exhibited by vertical wells.
Drilling costs are typically two to four times higher than conventional vertical wells. Reservoirs
with multiple pay zones that are separated by impermeable barriers may require drilling a
horizontal well for each zone. Additional techniques are needed for workovers, logging, and
tools because normal wireline operations are inadequate.
Pressure and flow rate calculations in horizontally completed wells are done in much the same
ways as vertically drilled wells, with the added reservoir and wellbore geometry of the horizontal
completion. Several IPR options are available for modeling the horizontal reservoir. The effects
of the horizontal tunnel are determined by pressure drop calculations by Dikken. 47
The basic assumptions for the reservoir IPR are a horizontal well with single phase (or a single
mixed phase) and the well is in turbulent flow in the horizontal tunnel. The models are used for
open hole or cased hole conditions depending on the completion type. Vertical and horizontal
reservoir permeability and horizontal tunnel length play an important role in the IPR estimate.
Figure 3.5 shows a typical horizontal well configuration including the vertical and horizontal
wellbore and reservoir. The kickoff point (KOP) is designated at any depth above the end of
the tubing where an angle will be calculated. It is assumed that KOP-TMD/TVD value
calculates an angle of the well from the surface to the KOP depth, therefore, KOP-TMD is
entered the same as KOP-TVD to calculate a vertical well (angle of 0 degrees) from the surface
to the KOP depth.
All angles and TMD/TVD pairs are entered in the Directional Survey dialog box. TBG-
TMD/TVD is the depth of the end of the tubing string. This is used to calculate the well angle
and determine the total length of the tubing for pressure profile and gradient calculations.
Figure 3.5: Horizontally Completed Well
If the completion type is open hole, then CS-TMD/TVD designates the depth of the casing shoe
and is the total length of the casing segment and the location of the bottomhole node. This depth
must be between the well total depth including the tunnel length and tubing end. The horizontal
tunnel length will be the distance from the casing shoe to the end of the horizontal tunnel.
If the completion is a cased hole type, then TOP-TMD/TVD is the depth of the topmost
perforation and is the location of the bottomhole node. The horizontal tunnel length is the
distance from the top perforation to the last perforation.
You must match the values you enter between the reservoir and completion. For example, if you
have a cased hole completion in a horizontal well, then you should enter the same value for the
horizontal tunnel length in the Reservoir dialog box as the perforated interval in the Completion
dialog box. The perforated interval actually determines the horizontal tunnel length in cased holes
but the two values are not linked together in the calculations. If you want to sensitize the
horizontal tunnel length, you should also sensitize the perforated interval at the same values as
the horizontal tunnel length.
The special reservoir IPR types for horizontal wells include the User Enters PI and Vogel for oil
wells, and Backpressure Equation and Datafile for oil and gas wells. The three correlations and
the datafile option operate the same as discussed earlier for the vertical well type. However, an
extra pressure loss is included for losses in the horizontal tunnel according to the value specified
by the alpha term. This term is casing alpha for cased hole completions and open hole alpha for
open hole completions.
The alpha term is used to judge the amount of turbulence induced in the horizontal tunnel. Alpha
ranges from a value of zero (completely turbulent flow) to 0.25 (completely laminar flow). For
most open hole completions, the roughness of the wellbore wall suggests that the alpha term be
close to zero.
Cased hole completions require the casing ID and casing alpha term. In addition to the
roughness of the casing surface, the effect of perpendicular inflow through the perforations in the
cased hole suggests that turbulence will be dominant even in this situation so an alpha value
close to zero is also suggested.
Dikken discusses the effect of total well rate as a function of horizontal tunnel length and shows
that the total well rate increases with increasing well length for various values of well diameter.
Regardless of diameter, all wells must produce at the same critical rate per foot and converge
on a single rate versus length profile at low horizontal tunnel lengths. With increasing well length,
the total rate levels off earlier for smaller diameter wellbores. By sensitizing on various values of
horizontal length at different wellbore diameters, you can judge the optimum tunnel length for
well completions during their design. The production performance is also sensitive to the alpha
value.
Dikken also suggests using 80 percent of the infinite well length as an engineering criterion for
the optimal length of the horizontal tunnel. By sensitizing on horizontal tunnel length and looking
at the inflow sensitivity graph, you can estimate the optimum tunnel length from the graph at 80
percent of the maximum rate obtainable. This should ensure a sufficient flow rate to minimize the
horizontal completion loss and help control the expense of the well.
For open hole completions, the outflow results are calculated from the surface to the node as in
a deviated vertical well using the tubing ID and roughness down to the tubing end depth, Tbg-
TMD/TVD, and then through the casing segment using the casing ID, roughness, and casing
shoe depth. The casing segment length is the distance from the tubing end depth to the casing
shoe depth. The open hole ID designates the diameter of the horizontal tunnel below the casing
shoe.
In cased hole completions, the casing ID is used for the ID of the casing segment above the
node position and for the ID of the horizontal tunnel. The casing roughness is only used in the
casing segment above the node. Casing roughness is accounted for with the casing alpha term in
the horizontal tunnel.
The special horizontal IPR types require vertical and horizontal reservoir permeability. Many
reservoirs have a vertical permeability that is 10 percent of the horizontal permeability. You can
sensitize the horizontal permeability and/or vertical permeability. To keep the same permeability
ratio, sensitize both permeabilities using multiple sensitivity lines.
If a completion is included, then the pressure loss in the completion is calculated at the flow rate
of the IPR and subtracted from the sandface pressure to arrive at a nominal wellbore pressure.
This result is then modified by the pressure loss calculation for the horizontal tunnel to arrive at a
flow rate and pressure value at the node. In the output, the horizontal tunnel effects and
completion pressure loss are combined into a total completion pressure loss. The horizontal
tunnel effect is calculated from the equations given by Dikken as:

2.259 10 8 1.495 10 5 d
Rw =
d
5

where:
Rw = Flow resistance of wellbore (psi-day/ft 4)
= Fluid density (lbm/ft 3)
d = Tunnel or casing diameter (in.)
= Wellbore turbulence factor
An integration constant is calculated:

Integration constantoil well
1
(3 ) J so 3
K = 5.434 10 5 5.491 10 7 ( Pr Pws )
Rw
Integration constantgas well
1
(3 ) J sg 3
K = 3.051 10 3 7.329 10 6 ( Pr Pws )
Rw
where:
Jso = Productivity index per ft of tunnel (bbl/d/psi/ft)
Jsg = Productivity index per ft of tunnel (Mcf/d/psi/ft)
The dimensionless wellbore tunnel length is calculated:

Dimensionless wellbore tunnel lengthoil well
1 J so R w
x D = 9.105 105 L
K 3
Dimensionless wellbore tunnel lengthgas well
1 J sg R w
x D = 6.823 10 4 L
K 3
The dimensionless tunnel length, xD, and the alpha term are used in a digitized type curve to
calculate a dimensionless total flow rate, qD. The final flow rate, Q, is calculated as:
Flow rateoil well
qD
Q = 5.434 10
5
2
(1.840 10 6 K ) 1
Flow rategas well
qD
Q g = 3.051 10
3
2
(3.277 10 4 K ) 1
Two additional well parameters are necessary to calculate the horizontal tunnel effects
depending on the type of completion. For open hole completions, you must enter an open hole
ID that is an average drilled ID from the bit records or a caliper survey. Also required is the
open hole alpha term.
Horizontal IPR Types

Horizontal reservoirs are modeled using a rectangular reservoir with a horizontal wellbore.
Some of the IPR types require that the wellbore be in the center of the reservoir. Other types
specify the location of the wellbore. Both vertical and horizontal permeability is needed for
calculations.
Most of the correlations require the same input data with the additional wellbore position data
for the Kuchuk and Goode & Thambynaya methods.
The following lists categorize the horizontal IPR types available in PERFORM.
Steady-State Flow
Giger et al. (1984)
Economides et al. (1991)
Joshi (1988)
Renard and Dupuy (1991)
Pseudosteady-State Flow
Kuchuk (1988)
Babu and Odeh (1989)
Transient Flow
Goode and Thambynaya (1987)
Other
Back Pressure Eq (1930)
Datafile2 Col ASCII
No Inflow Calculated
User Enters PI
Vogel/Harrison (1968)
Figure 3.6: Schema for Giger, Joshi, Renard & Dupuy, and Economides correlations
Giger et al. (1984)
Giger55 et al. developed a steady-state reservoir model for calculating the sandface pressure and
flow rate pairs for isotropic and anisotropic reservoirs. For anisotropic reservoirs, the Muskat
method is used to calculate equivalent reservoir permeability and adjusted the rest of the
parameters.
Isotropic equivalent parameters
k avg = k horz k vert
k avg
N horz =
k horz
k avg
N vert =
k vert
L eq = L N horz
h eq = h N vert
req = re N horz
Note: PERFORM displays an error message if the reservoir radius entered is less than half
the horizontal tunnel length. This prevents the horizontal tunnel from extending past
the reservoir boundary.
Horizontal drainage componenthorizontal plane
2
1 + 1 L eq
2r L
eq eq
D horz = ln
L eq h eq

2req

Horizontal drainage componentvertical plane
h eq
D vert = ln
2 rw
Reservoir storage term
Ws = D horz + D vert + S
Reservoir rate calculation without Ramey D turbulent flow included
Oil well
0.00708k avgL eq (Pr Pwf )

Q=
B o l Ws
Gas well
0.000703k avgL eq ( r wf )
Qg =
(T + 460) Ws
Reservoir rate calculation with Ramey D turbulent flow included
Oil well
0.00708k avgL eq (Pr Pwf )

Q=
B o l ( Ws + DQ )
Gas well
0.000703k avgL eq ( r wf )
Qg =
( T + 460)( Ws + DQ g )
where:
k avg = Equivalent horizontal/vertical permeability (md)
k horz = Horizontal reservoir permeability (md)
k vert = Vertical reservoir permeability (md)
Nhorz = Horizontal permeability coefficient
Nvert = Vertical permeability coefficient
Leq = Equivalent horizontal tunnel length (ft)

L = Horizontal tunnel length (ft)
heq = Equivalent reservoir thickness (ft)
h = Reservoir thickness (ft)
req = Equivalent reservoir radius (ft)
Dhorz = Horizontal drainage term
Dvert = Vertical drainage term
rw = Wellbore radius (in)
Ws = Reservoir storage term

S = Reservoir skin factor
Bo = Formation volume factor (rb/stb)
l = Liquid viscosity (cp)
Qg = Gas rate (Mscf/d)
r = Reservoir static pseudopressure (psi2/cp)
rwf = Wellbore pseudopressure (psi2/cp)

Pr = Reservoir static pressure (psi)

D = Ramey D turbulence term (1/bpd or 1/Mscf/d)
Q = Total liquid rate (bbls/d)
Economides et al. (1991)
Economides51,52 used an augmented version of Joshi's equation for modeling the horizontal well
performance as steady state considering anisotropic wells and a drainage ellipsoid. This IPR
type is not suggested if half the tunnel length is greater than 0.9 times the effective drainage
radius. The tunnel length must be greater than (kh/kv)1/2 times formation thickness.
Half of major axis of ellipse
4

L
a = 0.5 + 0.25 + re
2 L

2
Anisotropic factor
kh
I ani =
kv
Drainage factorhorizontal plane
2
L
a + a2
2
D horz = ln
L

2

Drainage factorvertical plane

h I ani h
D vert = I ani ln
L rw
( I ani + 1) 12

Oil well
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
Q=
Bo l Ws
Gas well
0.000703k h h ( r wf )
Qg =
( T + 460) Ws

Oil well
0.00708k h h( Pr Pwf )
Q=
h
B o l Ws + I ani DQ
L
Gas well
0.000703k h h ( r wf )
Qg =
h
( T + 460) Ws + I ani DQ g
L
where:
a = Ellipse major axis factor
Iani = Anisotropic factor
kh = Horizontal reservoir permeability (md)
kv = Vertical reservoir permeability (md)


Bo = Formation volume factor, (rb/stb)

Joshi (1988)
The Joshi53,54 method is very similar to Economides with a different form of the Dvert equation for
steady-state flow. The gas well reservoir storage term calculation considers an effective
wellbore radius for skin effect. This IPR type is not suggested if half the tunnel length is greater
than 0.9 times the effective drainage radius.
4

L
a = 0.5 + 0.25 + re
2 L

2
Anisotropic factor
kh
=
kv
2
L
a + a
2
2
D horz = ln
L

2


h h
D vert = ln
L rw
2 12


Oil well
h
L
Gas well
L
re
r we = 2
L
2
h
h / L
a 1 + 1
2a 2rw / 12
r
Ws = ln e + S
r we

Oil well
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
Q=
Bo l Ws
Gas well
0.000703k h h ( r wf )
Qg =
( T + 460) Ws

Oil well
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
Q=
h
Bo l Ws + DQ
L
Gas well
0.000703k h h( r wf )
Qg =
h
( T + 460) Ws + DQ g
L
where:
re = Reservoir drainage radius (ft)
= Anisotropic factor


rwe = Effective wellbore radius (ft)

Renard and Dupuy (1991)
The Renard and Dupuy56 IPR type considers a drainage shape factor for steady-state flow. This
IPR type is not suggested if half the tunnel length is greater than 0.9 times the effective drainage
radius.
4

L
a = 0.5 + 0.25 + re
2 L

2
Calculate a drainage shape factor
2a
=
L
Calculate anisotropic factor
kh
=
kv
D horz = cosh 1 ( )

h 2 h
D vert = ln
L 2 rw
( + 1) 12

h
L
Oil well
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
Q=
Bo l Ws
Gas well
0.000703k h h ( r wf )
Qg =
( T + 460) Ws

Oil well
0.00708k h h ( Pr Pwf )
Q=
h
Bo l Ws + DQ
L
Gas well
0.000703k h h( r wf )
Qg =
h
( T + 460) Ws + DQ g
L
where:
re = Reservoir drainage radius (ft)



D = Ramey D turbulence term (1/bpd or I /Mscf/d)
Figure 3.7: Schema for Kuchuk and Babu & Odeh correlations
Kuchuk (1988)
Kuchuk57 makes an evaluation of a horizontal well performance where the position of the
wellbore in the reservoir can be designated for pseudosteady-state flow. The Kuckuk IPR type
assumes that the distance from the well to any lateral boundary must be large relative to the
distance from the well to the top and bottom of the reservoir.
Distance and permeability ratios
L
dL =
2d par
d per kx
Kr =
d par ky
The above ratios are used in a dimensionless drainage calculation routine of tables to calculate a
dimensionless fd term.
f d = f (d x , d y , d L , K r )
Effective horizontal permeability
kh = kx k y
Anisotropic factor
kh
=
kv
r 1 d
D horz = ln w 1 + sin bot
12h h
2 h 1 d bot d bot
2
D vert = +
L 3 h h
[( D horz D vert ) + S]
2h
Ws = f d +
L
Oil well
k h h( Pr Pwf )
Q=
70.6Bo l Ws
Gas well
k h h ( r wf )
Qg =
711(T + 460) Ws
where:
dL = Distance ratio
dpar = Drainage distance parallel to wellbore (ft )
Kr = Horizontal permeability ratio
dper = Drainage distance perpendicular to wellbore (ft)
kx = Horizontal permeability in X direction (md)
ky = Horizontal permeability in Y direction (md)
fd = Dimensionless drainage factor
dx = Distance ratio to X
dy = Distance ratio to Y
kh = Effective horizontal permeability (md)


dbot = Distance to reservoir bottom (ft)


Babu and Odeh (1989)
The Babu and Odeh59 horizontal reservoir correlation uses a pseudosteady-state model with the
horizontal tunnel position considered. For Babu and Odeh, one of the following conditions must
be satisfied:
Ly 0.75L x 0.75h
a) >>
ky kx kv
Lx 1.33L y h
b) > >>
kx ky kz
Calculate permeability ratios
d per
k ' per =
k hy
d par
k ' par =
k hx
h
k ' ver =
kv
Two cases are possible:
Case 1: If k'per > 0.75>>0.75 k'ver

Pxyz term
d par 12 h k d
Pxyz = 1ln + 0.25 ln hx ln sin bot 1.84
L r w kv h
Calculate P'xy
2d 2 par kv
Fo =
hL k hx
L
F1 = 0.5
d par
L
F2 = 2 v x + 0.5
d par
L
F3 = 2v x 0.5
d par
Evaluate Fi. If Fi is less than or equal to 1.0
(
F' i = Fi 0.145 + ln ( 2 Fi ) 0.137Fi
2
)
Otherwise
(
F' i = (2 Fi ) 0.145 + ln (2 Fi ) 0.137(2 Fi )
2
)
This results in three values of F'1, F'2, F'3. Then
P 'xy = F0 (F'1 +0.5(F' 2 F'3 ))
Case 2: If k'par> 0.75 k'par >> k'ver then
L
L 3
6.28d 2 par 1 vx v x d
2

Py = k hy k v + par
hd per k x 3 d + d 24d par
par par

kv
6.28d per
d par k hy 1 2
Pxy = 1 v y + v y
L h 3

P ' xy = Py + Pxy
Sr = Pxyz + P' xy +S
Shape factor, CH
d per
CH ml =
h
kv
kr =
k hy
1
CH 1 = v y + v2 y
3
d bot
CH 2 = ln sin
h
CH 3 = 0.5 ln (CH ml k r )
CH = 6.28CH ml k r CH1 CH 2 CH 3 1.088

Effective horizontal permeability
k he = k hy k v
Drainage areavertical plane
D vert = h d par
Calculate rate
Oil well
0.00708k hr rpar ( Pr Pwf )

Q=

A
l B l ln + CH 0.75 + Sr
rw
12
Gas well
k hr rpar ( r wf )
Qg =

A
1422(T + 460) ln + CH 0.75 + S r
rw
12
where:
dper = Perpendicular drainage distance (ft)
k hy = Horizontal permeability in Y direction (md)
dpar = Parallel drainage distance (ft)
k hx = Horizontal permeability in X direction (md)

vx = Distance ratio in X direction
vy = Distance ratio in Y direction

Bl = Liquid formation volume factor (rb/stb)

A = Drainage area (ft 2)

Goode and Thambynaya (1987)
Figure 3.8: Schema for Goode & Thambynaya correlation
The Goode and Thambynaya58 IPR type uses a transient model for use in horizontal wells and
takes into account the position of the wellbore.
Calculate anisotropy and position effect
1/ 4
r k
r' w = w v
12 k hy

r' w k hx
vx =
d par k hy
r' w kv
vz =
h k hy
d bot + (1.47 r 'w )

zs =
h
Dimensionless time calculated
Oil well
0.000264k hy t
td =
lc t r ' w
2
Gas well
0.000264k hy t 24
td =
g c t r ' w 2
Position factors
(L + d sd )
X nl =
d par
d sd
X n2 =
d par
(d bot + 2r ' w )
X ml =
h
(d bot 2r 'w )
X m2 =
h
Error function terms
E 1 = v x t d
E 2 = v z t d
Summation terms

S1 = erf (E1 )x in
1 2
i =1 i

S2 = erf (E 2 )x im cos(i z x )
1
i =1 i
where:
sin (i X nl ) sin (i X n 2 )
x in =
iL
sin (i X ml ) sin (i X m 2 )
x im =
i 4 r' w
Summation multipliers
d 2 par
Sm1 =
2v x
d par h
Sm 2 =
Lv z
Skin term
k hy
hd par
kv
Sh = S
2r ' w L
Rate
Oil well
d par hk hy (Pr Pwf )
Q=
282.4 Bo l r ' w ( t d + S1S m1 + S 2S m 2 + Sh )
Gas well
d par hk hy ( r wf )
Qg =
(
2844 r 'w (T + 460) t d + S1S m1 + S 2S m 2 + Sh )
where:
k hy = Horizontal permeability in Y direction (md)
vx = X position factor
dpar = Parallel drainage distance (ft)
k hx = Horizontal permeability in X direction (md)
vz = Z position factor
zs = Vertical position factor
r'w = Adjusted wellbore radius (in)

t = Producing time (hr)
= Reservoir porosity

dsd = Distance to reservoir side (ft)
S = Formation skin

4 Completion Component
The completion component is a critical part of an efficient producing system, yet it often is taken
lightly. In the past, it has been found that many wells have produced at less than optimum levels
due to inadequacies in the completion design.
There are five primary completion types for an oil or gas well. The well depth, well type and
formation characteristics generally govern the decision of which completion method is used.
Open Hole Completion

In an open hole completion, illustrated in Figure 4.1, casing is set ,and usually cemented, directly
above the producing horizon prior to penetration of the zone. This type of completion is the least
expensive and, although common several years ago, is not used often in the industry today. The
disadvantage of this completion method is the inability to isolate any part of the producing
formation for stimulation, water shut-off, etc.
Figure 4.1: Open Hole Completion
In system analysis, the open hole is generally regarded with no pressure loss between the
sandface and the wellbore. If any damage is incurred at the formation face, it can be accounted
for as an additional skin effect within the reservoir. In the open hole completion, the sandface
pressure, Pws, is considered equal to the wellbore pressure, Pwf.
Completion Component PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
Open Perforation Completion

The most common form of well completion used today is the perforated completion. In this
case, pipe is set and cemented through the producing formation and subsequently perforated to
allow the flow of fluids from the formation into the wellbore.
Figure 4.2: Open Perforation Completion
The variables that determine the efficiency of this completion method include the size and
number of perforations, the distribution of perforations, and the integrity of the reservoir rock
directly adjacent to the perforated tunnel. In 1983, Harry McLeod98 published a paper that
provided a practical solution to the effects of a perforation on the well productivity. The
approach was to treat each perforation as a miniature, horizontal wellbore surrounded by a
crushed or compacted zone of reduced permeability, as shown in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Open Perforation
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual Completion Component
The perforation crushed or compacted zone is generally assumed to be 0.5 inches thick, with a
permeability of 20 percent of formation permeability if shot over-balanced, and 60 percent of
formation permeability if shot under-balanced. In order to predict the pressure loss through the
perforation, the miniature wellbore is assumed to be infinite acting, and the Jones equation
(discussed previously in the reservoir section) is modified as follows:
Open Perforated Completionoil well
P ws P wf = aQ p + bQp
2
where:
(2.30 10 ) B [1 / r
14 2
1 / rc ]
a=
p p
2
L p
b=
[
B ln (rc / rp )]
(0.00708 )L p k c
where:
Qp = Liquid flow rate per perforation (stb/d/perf)
p = Perforation turbulence factor (ft -1)

rp = Radius of perf tunnel (ft)
rc = Radius of compacted zone (ft)
Lp = Perforated tunnel length (ft)

kc = Compacted zone permeability (md)
Open Perforated Completiongas well
P ws P wf = aQ p + bQp
2 2 2
where:
(3.16 10 ) TZ [1 / r
12
1 / rc ]
a=
g p p
2
L p
(1424 ) p TZ [ln (rc / rp )]

b=
Lpk c
where:
Qp = Gas flow rate per perforation (Mscf/d/perf)
p = Perforation turbulence factor (1/ft)

Z = Average gas compressibility factor
rp = Radius of perforated tunnel (ft)
It is suggested that the majority of pressure loss through a perforation is incurred as a result of
the turbulent flow through the crushed or compacted zone.
Stable Perforation Completion

An alternative method for considering the pressure drop through the completion is given by
modifying the previous equations to account for an additional damaged zone near the wellbore
due to drilling or completion fluid incompatibilities with the formation, or due to formation
damage from other sources. The equations used to account for the pressure loss through the
completion using this model are:
Stable Perforation Completionoil well
P ws P wf =
141.4B
[S
tot Qp + DQ2P ]
kr hp
where:
(1.63 10 ) B k h
-16
p r p
D=
N rp L
2 2
p
and:
Stot = Sp + Sd + Sdp
[ ][ ]
Sdp = h p / (L p N) ln (rc / rp ) [k r / k c k r / k d ]
Sd = ln (r d / r w )[k r / k d 1]
and where:

kr = Formation permeability (md)
Qp = Liquid flow rate per perforation (stb/d/perf)

N = Total number of perforations
rp = Radius of perf tunnel (ft)
Sp = Skin factor due to perforation geometry
kd = Damaged zone permeability (md)
rd = Radius of damaged zone (ft)
rw = Radius of the wellbore (ft)
Stable Perforation Completiongas well
1424g ZT
Pws Pwf =
2 2
[Stot Qp + DQ2p ]
kr hp
where:
(2.22 10 ) -15
p g k r h p
D=
N r p g L2p
2
and:
Stot = Sp + Sd + Sdp
Sdp = [h p / (Lp N)][ln (r c / r p )][k r / kc k r / k d]
Sd = ln (r d / r w )[k r / k d 1]
where:

T = Formation temperature (R)
Qp = Gas flow rate per perforation (Mscf/d/perf)

rp = Radius of perforated tunnel (ft)
Sp = Skin factor due to perforation geometry
rd = Radius of damaged zone (ft)
rw = Radius of the wellbore (ft)
Collapsed Perforation Completion

An alternate method for determining the pressure loss through a perforated well is used when
the damage caused by perforating is severe. This usually occurs when sands move or slough
during perforation washing or acidizing. The method used to predict the completion pressure
loss under these conditions assumes that the fluid is flowing spherically into each perforation.
The resulting pressure drop is significantly higher than for 'normally' perforated wells or 'normal'
perforated wells as shown by McLeod.41
Figure 4.4: Collapsed Perforation (Spherical Flow Model)
Collapsed Perforation Completionoil well
Pws Pwf =
141.2B
(S
tot Q + DQ2 )
kr hp
where:
(5.42 10 ) B k h
-17
p r p
D=
N2 r3p
and:
Stot = Ss + Ssd
Ss = 45[h p /N ] + [hp /N ][1/ r p][1 48 r p ]

1.1
Ssd = [h p /N ][1/ r p][1 r p / r c][k r / k c k r / kd ]
2.60 1010
p = 1.2
kd
1
rc = rp +
12
where:


Q = Liquid flow rate (stb/d)
rp = Radius of perforation tunnel (ft)
Collapsed Perforation Completiongas well
1424g ZT
P 2 ws P 2 wf =
krhp
(S tot
2
Qg + DQg )
where:
(7.37 x 10 ) -16
p g k r h p
D=
N r p g
2 3
and:
Stot = Ss + Ssd
Ss = 45[h p /N ] + [h p /N ][1/ r p][1 48 r p]

1.1
Ssd = [h p /N ][1/ r p][1 r p / r c][k r / k c k r / kd ]
2.60 1010
p =
kd1.2
1
rc = r p +
12
and where:

T = Formation temperature (oR)

rp = Radius of perforation tunnel (ft)
kc = Damaged zone permeability (md)
Gravel Pack Completion

In many wells, matrix cementing within the formation sand is insufficient to prevent sand from
being produced when the well is exposed to a pressure drawdown. Problems that are realized
because of this include restricted production, erosion of equipment and sand disposal problems.
In order to eliminate this sand control problem, the gravel pack technique was developed.
In a standard gravel pack arrangement, illustrated in Figure 4.5, the well is perforated and
sometimes washed to remove debris. A slotted liner or gravel pack screen is run on tubing and
set across the perforations. High-permeability gravel is then pumped downhole and placed
between the screen and the perforations to provide a barrier between the formation sand and
wellbore.
Figure 4.5: Gravel Pack Schematic
In system analysis, the technique used to predict completion effects through a gravel pack is
simply the pressure loss due to linear flow through the gravel. The flow of fluid is assumed to be
linear through the perforation tunnel, through the gravel pack, and into the perforated or slotted
liner. The effect of flow through a perforation-damaged zone is considered negligible due to the
high permeability and unconsolidated nature of wells that are typically gravel packed. However,
the effect of linear flow through the gravel filled perforation tunnel can cause significant non-
Darcy pressure drop as shown by McLeod.41 The distance of linear flow generally is assumed
to be from the outside of the cement sheath to the outside edge of the liner or screen.
The effect of the perforation tunnel itself is not considered in the gravel pack equation, however,
it can be considered by simply adding the pressure loss of the open perforation equation to the
gravel pack pressure loss to arrive at a total completion loss. The same method is used with the
gravel pack stable perforation and gravel pack collapsed perforation completion models. It must
be realized that in all cases the perforation tunnel past the cement sheath is NOT considered
filled with sand with the exception of the collapsed perforation model. If you want to consider
sand in the perforation tunnel, it is suggested that the gravel packed collapsed perforation model
be used.
The gravel pack equation uses the Jones equation modified to predict the pressure loss through
the completion in a gravel packed well. The equation is used in the linear form.
Gravel Pack Completionoil well
Pws Pwf = aQ + bQ
2
where:
(9.08 10 ) B L
-13
g
2
g
a= 2
A
B Lg
b=
(0.001127) kg A
and where:

g = Gravel pack turbulence factor (1/ft)
Lg = Gravel pack linear flow length (ft)
A = Total area open to flow (ft 2)(area/perf)(SPF)(Hp )
kg = Permeability of gravel (md)
Gravel Pack Completiongas well
P ws Pwf = aQ + bQ
2 2 2
where:
(1.24710 ) TZ L
-10
g g g
a= 2
A
(8930) g TZ Lg
b=
kg A
and where:

Q = Gas flow rate (Mscf/d)
g = Gas Specific gravity(area/perf)(SPF)(Hp )

T = Avg. reservoir temp (R)
Z = Avg. gas compressibility factor
Lg = Gravel pack linear flow length (ft)
A = Total area open to flow (ft 2)
kg = Effective gas permeability (md)
Gravel Pack Beta Turbulence Factor
The most common equations used to determine the gravel pack turbulence factor term, g, are
the Crawford-McLeod41 equation, the Cooke equation, 36 the Saucier equation, 11 and the
Firoozabadi and Katz equation. 37 Additionally, Tenneco has determined that the turbulence term
for a resin pack can be predicted by using a separate equation from those listed.
Crawford-McLeod equation
10,000,000
g =
(k gravel )0.5
where:
k grave = Gravel permeability (md)

l
Cooke equation
30,920,000 E
g =
(k gravel /1000 )F
where E and F are dependent on the gravel pack sand size.
GRAVEL SIZE E F
8-12 3.32 1.24
10-12 2.63 1.34
20-40 2.65 1.54
40-60 1.10 1.60
Saucier equation
(6.5 (0.95 log (k gravel / 1000 )))
g = 10
Firoozabadi and Katz equation
1 4,700,000
g =
(k gravel )0 .55
Tenneco equation for resi n packs
( 5.7 - log (k gravel /1000 ) )
g = 10
Unless company policy or field experience dictates otherwise, the Firoozabadi and Katz
equation is recommended for use in determining the gravel pack turbulence factor.
Gravel Pack Open Hole Completion

The gravel pack open hole completion is a gravel packed well that does not have casing or
perforations across the producing zone.
Gravel Pack Open Holeoil well
rw
Q B log
Pws Pwf = rs
0.00708 kg h
Lg
r s = rw
12
Gravel Pack Open Holegas well
rw
Q g T Z log
rs
2
Pws Pwf2 =
7.03 10 kg h
-4
Lg
r s = rw
12
where:

= Oil viscosity (cp)
B = Formation volume factor (rb/stb)
rs = Gravel pack screen radius (ft)
kg = Gravel pack sand permeability (md)

H = Reservoir thickness (ft)
Lg = Gravel pack linear flow length (in)

T = Avg. reservoir temp (R)
Gravel Pack Open Perforation Completion

The gravel pack open perforation completion is a numerical addition of the gravel pack and
open perforation models.
Gravel Pack Stable Perforation Completion

The gravel pack stable perforation completion is a numerical addition of the gravel pack and
stable perforation models.
Gravel Pack Collapsed Perforation Completion

The gravel pack collapsed perforation completion is a numerical addition of the gravel pack and
collapsed perforation models. Wells with collapsed perforations typically have sand control
problems and are typically gravel packed. This model may be best used in most gravel packed
well situations.
5 Wellbore and Flowline
The vertical flow component of the well system is necessary for calculating the wellbore or
tubing curve for the system analysis at several flow rates. It is also used to calculate the gradient
curve for the gradient analysis at a defined flow rate. For a system analysis, the calculation of the
vertical flow is dependent on the node position. If the node is at the bottom of the well, then the
vertical flow component is the outflow curve of the well system. If the node is at the wellhead,
then the vertical flow component is part of the inflow curve. In this case, the outflow curves are
nothing more than constant pressure curves if there is no flowline considered in PERFORM.
In system analysis, with the node at the top perforation in the wellbore, the outflow segment is
defined as the summation of the components between the node and the downstream endpoint of
the system, usually the separator (with a flowline) or wellhead (no flowline). Because this
discussion designates the node at a point within the wellbore directly adjacent to the top
perforation of the completion or the top of the reservoir interval in an open hole completion, the
outflow segment is comprised of the following components:
Flow through wellbore downhole safety valves or restrictions
Flow up the tubing
Flow through surface valves, restrictions, or chokes
Flow through the flowline
In most producing well systems, flow up the tubing constitutes the majority of pressure loss in
the outflow segment, if not the entire system. In fact, in some oil wells more than 80 percent of
the pressure loss in the entire system occurs in the tubing as fluids are moved vertically from
downhole to the surface.
The flowline component is usually the second most predominant pressure loss component in the
outflow segment followed by the valves, chokes and other restrictions. In general, pressure loss
through restrictions is minimal unless an obvious undersizing or similar abnormality is present.
For this reason, the majority of this discussion will concentrate on the effects of the vertical flow
(tubing) component of the outflow segment.
In a typical oil or gas well, predicting the pressure loss through the tubing (and flowline) is
complicated by the fact that more than one fluid phase generally exists in the producing stream.
This multiphase behavior causes a problem in determining the fluid characteristics necessary for
the pressure drop calculation. Because of the complexity, the remainder of the discussion on the
outflow segment will avoid theory and will concentrate on the results of the work done to date
on the subject.
Wellbore and Flowline PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
Oil Well Vertical Flow

The general pressure gradient equation for vertical flow can be summarized as:
dP dP dP dP
= + +
dZ total dZ elev dZ fric dZ accel
The elevation component is a function of average liquid density calculated using a liquid holdup
value. Holdup is defined as the volumetric fraction of the liquid phase to the total flowing fluid.
The friction component requires the determination of a two-phase friction factor. The
acceleration component is significant only in cases of extremely high flow velocities, and is
generally considered negligible.
Many correlations have been developed over the years to predict the relationship of the gradient
components to vertical multiphase flow. Beggs and Brill21 have summarized these correlations in
three main categories, each varying in complexity and technique.
Category A: No slip effect or flow regime considered
Category B: Slip considered, no flow regime considered
Category C: Slip and flow regime considered
Slip is defined as the movement of the gas phase by the liquid phase when the two phases are
flowing independently at different velocities. Flow regimes have been suggested to describe
these different types of flow patterns that can exist in multiphase flow. These include bubble,
slug, transition, and mist flow.13
There have been many multiphase flow correlations developed to date. Yet, all of the
investigators maintain that no correlation has been found to be superior to all others for all flow
conditions. Individual well test data and experience in an area can be used to obtain the
correlation that will best fit each well's characteristics. In lieu of having data to validate a
particular correlation type, the Hagedorn and Brown correlation is suggested as the initial
correlation to use in oil wells and the Orkiszewski correlation for gas wells with GLR's above
50,000 scf/bbl. Use the Gray correlation for gas condensate wells. The following sections
describe some of the more predominant correlations by category type.
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual Wellbore and Flowline
Category A
CORRELATION EXPLANATION
Poettmann & Used field data to prepare a correlation that treated the
Carpenter25 multiphase flow as though it were a single, homogeneous phase.
Assumed that the flow had a high degree of turbulence and that
flow would be independent of viscosity effects. It can be used
with confidence for the following conditions.
Tubing sizes, 2, 2.5, and 3 inches.
Viscosities less than 5 cp.
GLR less than 1500 scf bbl.
Flow rates greater than 400 bpd
Baxendell & Used La Paz and Mara field (Venezuela) data to develop a
Thomas 26 revision of the Poettmann method to perform better at higher flow
rates.
Fancher & Brown27 Used data generated from an 8,000-ft experimental well equipped
with 2 3/8-in. plastic coated tubing to develop a revision to the
Poettmann method to better match low rate, high GLR cases.
Used for:
GLR less than 5000 scf/bbi
Flow rates less than 400 bpd
Extended to 2 7/8 in. tubing
Category B
12
Hagedorn & Brown Developed experimentally using a 1500-ft test well with 1-in.,
1.25-in., and 1.5-in. tubing. The correlation is used extensively
throughout the industry and is recommended for wells with
minimal flow regime effects and generally with GLR < 10,000
scf/bbl. The Griffith and Wallis correlation can be used for
improved performance in bubble flow regimes.
Category C
Orkiszewski14 Developed using work from both Duns & Ros and Hagedorn &
Brown. Used Griffith and Wallis30 method for bubble flow, a new
method for slug flow, and Duns and Ros for transition and mist
flow. The Triggia liquid distribution coefficient can be used if desired
when the mixture velocity is greater than 10 ft/sec. It was
developed to eliminate pressure discontinuities.
Duns & Ros 13 The result of laboratory work where liquid holdup and flow regime
were observed. Utilized a flow pattern map to determine the slip
velocity (and consequently liquid holdup) and friction factor. This
correlation is recommended for wells where high gas-liquid ratios
and flow velocities have induced flow regime behavior.
Aziz, et al. 29 Presented new correlations for bubble and slug flow. Used Duns &
Ros for transition and mist flow. Also revised the flow regime map.
Beggs & Brill21 This correlation was developed experimentally using 1-in. and 1.5-
in. pipe, inclined at several angles. Correlations were made to
account for inclined flow. The correlation is recommended for
deviated wells or horizontal flow. The correlation is recommended
for deviated wells or horizontal flow. You can use the Palmer
correlation to correct for liquid holdup effects. Note that the Palmer
correlation is unsuitable for single phase flow and should be used
with caution.
Mukherjee & Brill28 Developed experimentally using 1.5-in. steel pipe inclined at
several angles. Included downhill flow as a flow regime.
Recommended for inclined or horizontal flow.
MONA 49 Correlation requiring three flow coefficients to model vertical flow
from actual data to account for phase slippage. Coeff 1 is the
relative velocity of the liquid phase. Coeff 2 represents the
additional velocity of the gas phase over the liquid phase such that
the gas velocity is (Coeff 1 X liquid velocity) + Coeff 2. Coeff 3 is a
two-phase friction factor. Use 1.0 by default.
For nominal results, set Coeff 1 to 1.2, Coeff. 2 to 1.43, and Coeff.
3 to 1.00 for nominal results and change the Coeff 1 as needed to
adjust the liquid holdup. For homogeneous flow with no slip, set
coeff 1 to 1.0, coeff. 2 to 0.0, and coeff 3 to 1. For vertical slug flow,
set coeff 1 to 1.2, coeff 2 to 0.35, and coeff 3 to 1.0.
MONA Modified49 Correlation requiring two flow coefficients to model vertical flow from
actual data. Set Coeff 1 to 1.0 and Coeff. 2 to 0.0 for nominal
results and change the Coeff 1 as needed to adjust the liquid
holdup. Coeff. 2 is normally not changed. The Modified MONA
omits Coeff. 3 because of the friction factor being calculated using
the Moody factor with either the laminar flow or the Colebrook
equations. If the flow is laminar, it uses the Blasius friction factor
for the first guess in the Colebrook equation and therefore does not
need Coeff. 3.
Sylvester & Yao Mechanistic and empirical combination model for predicting
Mechanistic70 pressure traverses for two-phase flow using flow pattern
prediction and a set of independent mechanistic models. Can be
used for vertical and inclined flow.
Ansari Mechanistic74 Consists of a comprehensive model to predict flow behavior for
upward two-phase flow composed of a model for predicting the
flow patterns and independent models for predicting holdup and
pressure drop dependent on the flow pattern. The model was
compared to a 1,712 well data bank and found to match better
than any of the other empirical or mechanistic models. Uses
bubble flow, slug flow, and annular flow models.
In vertical multiphase flow calculations, the pipe is divided into small increments based either on
a set length or pressure amount. The pressure loss in each increment is determined in a trial-
and-error process using average pressure and temperature values to calculate fluid properties.
The iterative procedure is necessary as flow regime and subsequent fluid and flow properties
change continually through the pipe. As a result, computer solution is almost mandatory;
however, curves have been prepared and published to aid hand calculations.
The pressure loss calculated over the entire pipe interval is related in part to the size and number
of increments chosen. Each of the correlations listed relates to certain wells and well conditions.
The determination of the best-suited correlation for a particular well is accomplished by first
using the preliminary guidelines listed earlier, followed by testing and comparison to actual field
results.
Many of the correlations presented actually use the methods of other authors in certain instances
or flow regimes where the other author describes the pressure traverse in that environment.
These correlation switches are documented by the author in his original or subsequent work.
This manual does not document when or where these correlation switches are done, but they
are done according to the correlation author's method.
Gas Well Vertical Flow

Gas well vertical flow is very similar to the flow of oil wells except that special correlations have
been developed when gas is the primary phase. Some correlations can be used in either oil or
gas wells.
Gray 17 Gas well correlation for wet gas condensate consideration.
Calculates the dew point of the gas to predict flow behavior with a
two-phase flow when the condensate condenses into liquid.
Modified Gray Uses the Gray correlation with ability to modify two coefficients
used in the Gray correlation. Set Coeff. 1 to 2.314 and Coeff. 2 to
0.0 for the original Gray result.
Duns & Ros 13 The result of laboratory work where liquid holdup and flow regime
were observed. Utilized a flow pattern map to determine the slip
velocity (and consequently liquid holdup) and friction factor. This
correlation is recommended for wells where high gas-liquid ratios
and flow velocities have induced flow regime behavior.
Hagedorn & Brown12 Developed experimentally using a 1500-ft test well with 1-in.,
1.25-in., and 1.5-in. tubing. The correlation is used extensively
throughout the industry and is recommended for wells with
minimal flow regime effects and generally with GLR < 10,000
scf/bbl. The Griffith and Wallis correlation can be used for
improved performance in bubble flow regimes.
Ros & Gray Combines the Duns & Ros flow regime maps for niist flow with
the Gray correlation for wet gas wells that produce condensate.
Cullender & Smith50 Used for dry gas well calculations only for predicting dry gas
pressure losses in vertical flow. Suggested for wells where the
GLR is 100,000 scf/bbl or higher.
Fundamental Flow4 Uses a basic pressure gradient equation derived from an energy
balance integrated over the entire flow distance to give an
equation which is similar- to the Cullender and Smith equation. If
liquids are also in the flow stream, suggest using the
Fundamental flow adjusted correlation. Suggested for wells
where the GLR 50,000 scf/bbl or greater.
Fundamental Flow Same as the Fundamental flow correlation except an adjustment
Adjusted to the gas gravity is made to account for liquids in the flow
stream. The liquid gravity and GLR is combined to calculate an
adjusted gas gravity. Suggested for wells where the GLR 50,000
scf/bbl or greater.
Oil Well Horizontal Flow

The following correlations are available for determining pressure losses in pipelines for oil wells.
Some are for a single phase while others are for two-phase flow.
76
Xiao Mechanistic Comprehensive mechanistic model developed for gas-liquid two-
phase flow in horizontal and near horizontal pipelines. The model
first detects the existing flow pattern, predicts the flow
characteristics (liquid holdup and pressure drop) for stratified,
intermittent, annular, or dispersed bubble flow patterns.
Beggs, Brill, & Modification of the original Beggs & Brill correlation for horizontal
Minami flow only.
Dukler15 Simple horizontal flow correlation that does not require
determination of flow patterns. It includes effects for single and
two-phase flow in horizontal flow only.
MONA 49 Correlation requiring three flow coefficients to model vertical flow
from actual data to account for phase slippage. Coeff 1 is the
relative velocity of the liquid phase. Coeff 2 represents the
additional velocity of the gas phase over the liquid phase such
that the gas velocity is (Coeff 1 X liquid velocity) + Coeff 2. Coeff
3 is a two-phase friction factor. Use 1.0 by default.
For nominal results, set Coeff 1 to 1.2, Coeff. 2 to 1.43, and
Coeff. 3 to 1.00 for nominal results and change the Coeff 1 as
needed to adjust the liquid holdup. For homogeneous flow with no
slip, set coeff 1 to 1.0, coeff. 2 to 0.0, and coeff 3 to 1. For
vertical slug flow, set coeff 1 to 1.2, coeff 2 to 0.35, and coeff 3 to
1.0.
MONA Modified49 Correlation requiring two flow coefficients to model vertical flow
from actual data. Set Coeff 1 to 1.0 and Coeff. 2 to 0.0 for
nominal results and change the Coeff 1 as needed to adjust the
liquid holdup. Coeff. 2 is normally not changed. The Modified
MONA omits Coeff. 3 because of the friction factor being
calculated using the Moody factor with either the laminar flow or
the Colebrook equations. If the flow is laminar, it uses the
Blasius friction factor for the first guess in the Colebrook equation
and therefore does not need Coeff. 3.
Mukherjee & Brill28 Developed experimentally using 1.5-in. steel pipe inclined at
several angles. Included downhill flow as a flow regime.
Recommended for inclined or horizontal flow.
Beggs & Brill21 This correlation was developed experimentally using 1-in. and
1.5-in. pipe, inclined at several angles. Correlations were made to
account for inclined flow. The correlation is recommended for
deviated wells or horizontal flow. The correlation is recommended
for deviated wells or horizontal flow. You can use the Palmer
correlation to correct for liquid holdup effects. Note that the
Palmer correlation is unsuitable for single phase flow and should
be used with caution.
Gas Well Horizontal Flow

Gas well horizontal flow is designed to predict pressure losses in horizontal flow. Some sections
of pipelines are many times vertical, therefore some vertical flow correlations are available for
these sections of the pipeline. Some correlations can be used in either oil or gas wells. The IGT,
Weymouth, Panhandle Eastern , and Panhandle A correlations differ only by the coefficients
used in the following equation.
1/ a 3

q g 1000 ( T + 460 )zL
PD = P 2 U
TSC + 460 1
a2
a5
a4
5280
a1f d
e PSC g

where:
PD = Downstream pressure (psi)
Pu = Upstream pressure (psi)
qg = Gas rate (Mscf/d)

a = Coefficients
fe = Flow efficiency
Tsc = Standard temperature (F)
Psc = Standard pressure (psia)
g = Gas gravity (air=1.00)

d = Pipe diameter (in)
T = Gas temperature (F)
z = Gas compressibility factor
L = Pipeline length (ft)
IGT a1=337.90 a2=1.1110 a3=0.5560 a4=0.4000 a5=2.667
Modified coefficients of Weymouth.
Panhandle a1=737.00 a2=1.0200 a3=0.5100 a4=0.4901 a5=2.530
Eastern Use for larger diameter pipelines 16-in. or greater.
Panhandle A a1=435.87 a2=1.0788 a3=0.5394 a4=0.4604 a5=2.618
Recommended for smaller diameter pipelines less than 16-in. ID. Use
the Panhandle Eastern correlation for larger diameter pipelines.
Weymouth a1=433.50 a2=1.0000 a3=0.5000 a4=0.5000 a5=2.667
Determined basic gas flow coefficients.
Cullender & Used for dry gas well calculations only for predicting dry gas pressure
Smith50 loses in vertical flow. Suggested for wells where the GLR is 100,000
scf/bbl or higher. Use in vertical sections of pipeline only.
Fundamental Uses a basic pressure gradient equation derived from an energy
Flow balance integrated over the entire flow distance to give an equation
which is similar- to the Cullender and Smith equation. If liquids are also
in the flow stream, suggest using the Fundamental flow adjusted
correlation. Suggested for wells where the GLR 50,000 scf/bbl or
greater. Use in vertical flow sections of the pipeline only.
Fundamental Same as the Fundamental flow correlation except an adjustment to the
Flow Adjusted gas gravity is made to account for liquids in the flow stream. The liquid
gravity and GLR is combined to calculate an adjusted gas gravity.
Suggested for wells where the GLR 50,000 scf/bbl or greater. Use in
vertical flow sections of the pipeline only.
Flow Through Restrictions

Pressure loss occurs when fluids flow through restrictions or chokes and needs to be accounted
for in the wellbore or flowline of the system. The pressure loss calculations involve two distinct
types of choke performance. These are sub-critical and critical flow.
The Perkins69 correlation is used for all calculations in the beginning to check if the flow is
critical or sub-critical. If the correlation selected is Gilbert20, Ros66, Baxendell, Achong39 (critical
flow only), and Perkins determined that the flow is sub-critical, then the Perkins results are used
for the pressure drop disregarding the selected correlation. If the flow is critical then the selected
correlation is used. If the selected correlation is API-14B33 (sub-critical only) and Perkins
correlation determines that the flow is critical, then the Perkins correlation results are used for
the pressure drop disregarding the selected correlation. Otherwise, the API-14B as selected is
used.
Critical Flow
Pressure drops are highly dependent on the flow velocity through the restriction. If the velocity is
at the speed of sound, a compressional wave is generated. This compressional wave prevents
fluids from traveling faster than the wave generated. The flow rate at which this occurs is called
the critical flow rate. At the critical flow rate, any adjustment to the pressure on the downstream
side of the restriction does not affect the pressure distribution of the upstream side of the
restriction. Various investigators have used a similar technique for predicting the upstream
pressure for flow rates above or at the critical flow rate.20, 37-39 All take the form of:
A GLR B Qliq
Pu =
Dc
where A, B, and C depend on the investigator. Pu is the upstream pressure at the liquid flow
rate, Qliq, in bbls/day. D is the choke size in 64ths-in. and GLR is in Mscf/bbl or scf/bbl
depending on the 'A' constant used. These methods are only valid if the node is at the bottom of
the well. The following table summarize the coefficients.
INVESTIGATOR A B C
Gilbert 20 10.00 0.546 1.89
66
Ros 17.40 0.500 2.00
Baxendell 9.56 0.546 1.93
39
Achong 3.82 0.650 1.88
Subcritical Flow
Under subcritical flow, the mass flow rate of a stream will be a function of the pressure
downstream of the choke when the upstream pressure is held constant. If the pressure drop
across the choke becomes sufficiently large, the flow regime will become critical and the mass
flow rate will be independent of the downstream pressure when the upstream pressure is held
constant.
API 14B
For subcritical flow (flow that is below the critical flow rate), the method used is API 14B (used
in the API Subsurface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve Design Program). It is used when
specific restriction information is unavailable. This method uses an iterative technique that
estimates a Y term based on an assumed gas pressure drop. A new gas pressure drop is
calculated and compared to the previous estimation. If the difference between the two values is
within a tolerable range, a liquid pressure drop is calculated based on the Bernoulli equation for
incompressible flow. A two-phase pressure drop is then calculated. The equations used in this
method are:33
d
4
Q
2
PL = 1 c 2

d t 80083 d c C DL
d
4
C PG
Y = 1 0.41 + 0.35 c V
dt C P PU
2
C
PG = PL DL
YC DG
C
2

P = PL 1 + f DL 1
YC DG

(q g R s q o )Bg
f=
(q g R s q o )Bg + q o B o + q w B w
where:
PL = Differential pressure drop for liquids (psia)
= Weight density of fluid (lbs/ft 3)
dc = Orifice or bean diameter (in)
dt = Flow tube diameter (in)

Q = Flow rate (stb/d)
Cv/Cp = Ratio of specific heats for gas at constant pressure Cp and constant volume Cv
CDL = Orifice discharge coefficient for liquid
Y = Net expansion factor for compressible flow through a bean
PG = Differential pressure drop for gas (psia)
PU = Bean entry pressure upstream (psia)
CDG = Orifice discharge coefficient for gas

P = Differential pressure drop (psia)
F = Free gas volumetric fraction
qg = Gas flow rate (scf/d)
Rs = Gas solubility ratio (scf/stb)
qo = Oil flow rate (stb/d)
Bg = Gas formation volume factor (bbl/scf)
Bo = Oil formation volume factorl (bbl/stb)
qw = Water flow rate (bbl/d)
Bw = Water formation volume factor (bbl/bbl)
Critical and/or Subcritical Flow
Perkins
Perkins uses a general energy equation to describe isentropic (adiabatic with no friction) flow of
multiphase mixtures through chokes for both critical and sub-critical flow. The procedure
determines whether the flow is critical or sub-critical from equations and physical property
information for oil-water-gas systems for determining the mass flow rate of the choke. The
method solves for upstream pressure if the mass flow rate and downstream pressure are known.
Conversely, it solves for downstream pressure if the mass flow rate and upstream pressure are
known.
Determine choke throat temperature
[
T2 = (T1 + 460)p r ( n1) / n 460 ]
Where n is the polytropic expansion factor
f g FC vg + f o C vo + f w C vw
n=
f g C vg + f o C vo + f w C vw
Calculate average temperature and pressure upstream of the choke
p1 + p 2
p=
2
p1 + p 2
T=
2
Recalculate the polytropic expansion factor exponent, n, at the average pressure and temperature
Iterate on pr until the following equation is satisfied
f (f + 1 ) p r
f g + 1
2
f (1+ n ) / n
{2[1 p ] }
2 2
A
2

+ 21 (1 p r ) 1 2 g p r (1+ n ) / n + A 2 g g
( n1) / n

r
A 1 f p 1/ n +
g r 1
n

A1 n f g p r( 1 / n
+ 1
2
)
f g + 1
2

A
= 1 2 (
f g p r 1/ n + 1 ) n n 1 p 1 / n
+ 1
A1 f g p r + 1
1 / n r

Calculate downstream pressure (p3)
(p1 p 4 )
p 3 = p1 1. 85
d
1 c
dd
If pr>p3, the flow is critical then use pr=p2/p1 in the following equations.
If pr<p3, the flow is sub-critical and pr=p3/p1 in the following equations for calculating isentropic
velocity and mass flow rate.
Calculate lambda () term
(f C + f oC vo + f w C vw )M
= fg +
g vg
zR
Calculate alpha ( 1) term
f f
1 = l o + w
o w
Calculate isentropic velocity in the choke throat

[
288g c p1v 1 1 p r
(n 1) / n
]
f f
+ o + w

p 1 (1 p r )
o w
V2 =
A 2 f g + 1
2
1
A1 f g p r + 1
1 / n
Calculate isentropic mass flow rate
wi = A2
288g c p 1 [
1 p r
( n 1 ) / n
] + (1 p )
1 r
v1 f g + 1
2

( )
2
1 A 2 f g p r 1 / n + 1 2
A 1 f g p r 1 / n + 1

If the actual mass flow rate is not known, calculate the actual mass flow rate with a discharge
coefficient (default is 0.826).
wa = 0.826 wi
Calculate downstream pressure
p3=pr pl
where:
T2 = Choke throat temperature (F)
T1 = Upstream temperature (F)
pr = Pressure ratio
n = Polytropic expansion exponent
fg = Weight gas fraction
F = Cp /Cv
Cvg = Gas heat capacity at constant volume
fo = Weight oil fraction
Cvo = Oil heat capacity at constant volume
fw = Weight water fraction
Cvw = Water heat capacity at constant volume
p1 = Upstream pressure (psia)
p2 = Choke throat pressure (psia)

= Calculation factor
= Upstream calculation factor
A2 = Choke throat area (ft 2)
A1 = Upstream pipe are (ft 2)
p3 = Choke outlet pressure (psia)
p4 = Pipe downstream pressure (psia)
dc = Choke diameter (ft)
dd = Downstream pipe diameter (ft)

M = Molecular weight
R = Universal gas constant (ft-lbf/lbm/mol/R)
l = Liquid density (lbm/ft 3)
o = Oil density (lbm/ft 3)
w = Water density (lbm/ft3)
V2 = Choke throat velocity (ft/sec)
gc = Gravity acceleration
vl = Upstream specific volume (ft 3/lbm)
wi = Isentropic mass flow rate (lbm/sec)
wa = Actual mass flow rate (lbm/sec)
Ashford and Pierce
The Ashford and Pierce68 choke calculation for critical and subcritical flow is very similar to the
Perkins method. The method considers polytropic expansion of the gas phase of the fluid
expanding through the choke. First, an expression is written relating the flowing fluid specific
volume and velocity to the mass flow rate. Second, an independent equation is used to
incorporate the behavior of the gaseous phase of the fluid with pressure and using the energy
balance equation. The method solves for upstream pressure if the mass flow rate and
downstream pressure are known. Conversely, it solves for downstream pressure if the mass
flow rate and upstream pressure are known. The critical ratio is defined as the ratio of the
upstream pressure to the downstream pressure.
The critical ratio is solved for indirectly by the relationship

c (n + 1) + R c
( 2
)
1 / n n + n
=
Rn

2(n 1) n 1

The total flow rate is iterated until the critical ratio is minimized
q tf = q o + q g + q w
Thus
R R s p sc T1z 1
q tf = q o Bo + + Fwo
5.615 p1Tsc
The oil flow rate
q o = 3.51Cd e 1010
2
where
10 = (B o + Fwo )
1/ 2
and
1/2
n n 1

[
T1z 1 (R R s )1 n + 198.6p l (1 ) o + 0.000217 g R s + Fwo w ]
n 1
10 =

198.6 +
Tl z l
[
(R R s ) 1/ n o + 0.000217 g R + Fwo w ]
pl
where:
c = Critical downstream pressure/upstream pressure
n = Cp /Cv
R = Producing GOR (scf/stb)
qtf = Total fluid flow rate (bbls/d)
qo = Oil flow rate (stb/day)
qg = Gas flow rate (bbls/day)
qw = Water flow rate (bbls/day)
Bo = Oil formation volume factor (rb/stb)
Rs = Solution GOR (scf/stb)
psc = Standard pressure (psia)
Tl = Upstream temperature (R)
zl = Gas compressibility factor at Tl and pl
pl = Upstream pressure (psia)
Tsc = Standard temperature (R)
Fwo = Water-oil ratio

C = Orifice coefficient
de = Choke diameter (64th-in.)
= Downstream pressure/upstream pressure
o = Oil specific gravity (water=1)
g = Gas specific gravity (air=1)
w = Water specific gravity
Maximum Erosional and Minimum Unloading Velocity

In multiphase production environments, specifically wet gas wells, excessive fluid velocity can
become a significant factor in the erosion of pipe walls. The erosional process is primarily
caused by small bubbles in the flow stream that form and break as vapor pressure of the liquid
is reached. These bubbles ultimately strike the pipe with considerable force usually causing
erosion of the corrosion inhibitor films, but may strike with a force great enough to erode the
pipe wall. An accepted value for maximum allowable velocity is 50 feet per second.
Maximum Erosional Rate
A correlation method is available to calculate the associated gas flow rate that corresponds to
the maximum allowable velocity to prevent pipe wall erosion. The correlation is a function of
surface tubing diameter, pressure, temperature, and gas properties. The maximum erosional
velocity generally occurs at the wellhead where pressure is at a minimum.
86.4APwh Veros
Q ma =
T + 460
144Psc wh z
sc
T + 460
where:
Q ma = Maximum erosional rate (Mscf/d)
A = Tubing are at surface (in2)
Pwh = Wellhead pressure (psi)
Veros = Erosional velocity (ft/sec)
Psc = Standard pressure (psia)
Twh = Wellhead temperature (F)
Tsc = Standard temperature (F)

The erosional velocity, Veros, can be designated or calculated from a common industry
correlation.
C
Veros =
m
where
C = Predetermined constant usually 100
m = Mixture density (lbm/ft 3)
The C constant for erosional limit ranges from 100 to 110. This constant is arbitrarily set by
engineers for keeping production velocities below the erosional limit. A higher value of C will
cause a higher erosional limit, thus increasing the maximum erosional rate.
Minimum Unloading Rate
Minimum unloading velocities represent the pipe velocity needed to effectively unload liquids
from gas wells for continuous flow. Efficient production is maintained by producing the well at a
sufficiently high rate and tubing velocity to keep all of the produced liquids cleaned out of the
tubing. If the rate and velocity fall below the minimum unloading rate for either water or
condensate, then the liquids will begin to build up in the tubing and eventually choke off the well
to extremely low or no flow conditions.
The unloading velocity and rate is calculated for two liquid phases being 100 percent produced
condensate and 100 percent produced water. The actual unloading minimum for wells that
produce both water and condensate will fall somewhere between these two unloading minimum
limits. The unloading velocity can be either entered directly or calculated using Turner's34
correlation. As a default, it is suggested that the unloading minimum velocity for water is 7 feet
per second and for condensate it is 4 feet per second when not using Turner's correlation.
The velocity and corresponding rates calculated at these unloading minimum velocities represent
a theoretical minima on the tubing curve based on the theory of Turner. et al.
Turner unloading rate
3060 Vunl Pwh A

q unl =
144 (Twh + 460 ) z
Modified Turner unloading velocity
These equations assume a gas gravity of 0.6, surface tension of condensate at 40 dynes/cm, and
a surface tension of water of 60 dynes/cm.
5.3( w 0.00279Pwh )
0 .25
Vunl ( water ) =
(0.00279 Pwh )0.5
4.03( c 0.00279Pwh )
0 .25
Vunl (condensate ) =
(0.00279Pwh )0.5
where:
qunl = Unloading rate (Mscf/d)
Vunl = Unloading minimum velocity (ft/sec)
Pwh = Wellhead pressure (psia)

A = Tubing flow are at surface (in2)
w = Water density )lbm/ft 3)
c = Condensate density (lbm/ft 3)
Heat Transfer
Flowing temperature distribution or heat transfer is used to model the changes in temperature of
the produced flow stream along the path of flow. The fluid temperature is normally a constant in
the reservoir, however, when the fluid starts up the wellbore toward the surface, the
temperature decreases. The produced fluid heat is dissipated from the fluid to the surrounding
environment as it flows to the surface. For gases, the reduction in pressure as the fluid reaches
the surface will also cause a reduction in temperature.
Rigorous prediction of wellbore and pipeline temperature distribution is a complex issue. It

requires solutions for momentum, continuity, and energy balance. The solution is further
complicated by thermal environmental reactions, especially from the reservoir. For this reason,
rigorous analytical solutions are impossible, therefore, numerical algorithms or approximate
analytical solutions have been developed.
Linear Temperature Gradient
The linear temperature gradient is a simple method of calculating the temperature at any point
along the flow stream by determining a temperature gradient between two known points a
known distance apart. For the wellbore, a bottomhole and surface temperature is given along
with the depth of the well. The temperature gradient is calculated as:
100(Tbh Twh )
gt =
M tvd
The temperature at any depth is found by:
g t M tvd
Td = + Twh
100
where:
gt = Temperature gradient (F/100ft)
Tbh = Bottomhole temperature (F)
Mtvd = True vertical depth (ft)
Td = Temperature at depth Mtvd (F)
The flowline linear temperature gradient uses the same equations by substituting the flowline
length for the Mtvd value and temperature at the separator for Twh and temperature of the
wellhead for Tbh.
Temperature Survey
The temperature survey is used to indicate the temperature or temperature gradient for the
flowline or wellbore. Straight line interpolation is used along the temperature path to calculate a
temperature at any wellbore depth or distance from the wellhead for the flowline. The first
temperature point in the wellbore is at the wellhead and does not need to be entered in the
survey because it was entered on the Wellbore dialog box. The last point in the wellbore is the
bottomhole temperature also not entered into the table because it was entered in the Reservoir
dialog box. The first temperature point in the flowline is the separator temperature and the last
point is the wellhead temperature. Neither of these values needs to be entered into the survey
table but are carried over from the Flowline and Wellbore dialog boxes.
Heat Transfer Correlation
The heat transfer correlations use environmental data to determine the amount of heat transfer
using either empirical or numerical solutions.
60
Alves et al. unified model A unified temperature distribution model for either the flowline or
wellbore in production or injection modes. Uses general and
unified equations with conservation laws of mass, momentum, and
energy balance solved for with simplified yet sound assumptions.
This correlation is highly recommended.
Sagar et al. simplified model63 A simple temperature profile model for wellbores only for two-
phase flow. The model, developed with measured temperature
data from 392 wells, assumes that the heat transfer with the
wellbore is steady state. The average absolute error is suggested
to be 2.4F when the mass flow rate is greater than 5 Ibm/sec and
3.9F otherwise.
Shiu & Beggs 63,72 Empirical correlation for wellbores only that determines the
relaxation constant defined by Ramey's work. The method is an
attempt to avoid the complex calculation of the overall heat-
transfer coefficient in the wellbore and the transient heat behavior
of the reservoir. Although this correlation simplifies the Ramey
method, it should be used with caution as a rough approximation.
Ramey 61 Proposed the classic method for temperature prediction in
wellbores only. The method couples heat transfer mechanisms in
the wellbore and transient thermal behavior of the reservoir.
Equations for injection or production of single-phase fluids were
derived.
Coulter & Bardon62 Equations developed to predict the thermodynamic behavior of the
flowing fluid in a rigorous approach. However, the assumptions of
steady-state heat transfer with a constant temperature
environment and horizontal flow limit this method to pipeline or
horizontal flow only.
User-Entered Heat Transfer Coefficients
Use this heat transfer method to enter known heat transfer coefficients for the wellbore and
flowline segments separately. A table of oil and gas specific heats for a range of temperatures is
needed. The heat transfer coefficients and algorithms are used to calculate the temperature at
the specified segments needed in wellbore and flowline correlations.
Flow Assurance
Scale: Oddo-Tomson method
Scales are solids deposited in wellbores and pipelines due to precipitation of minerals from
produced brines or injected water. These solids may cause formation damage and pipe
blockage, with a subsequent loss of production.
The most common scales found in oil and gas fields are calcium carbonate (CaCO3), calcium
sulfates (CaSO4), barium sulfate (BaSO4) and strontium sulfate (SrSO4). Carbonate scales are
formed mainly after pressure and temperature changes in the system, which causes the escape
of CO2 and H2S from the gas and an increase in the pH of the water. Sulfates are formed
basically after breakthrough of injected incompatible waters or mixing of different brines from
diverse zones in the formation.
Scale minerals tend to precipitate after pressure drops in the system. As for temperature, an
increase will cause calcite deposition, whereas a decrease will cause barite deposition.
Scales are generally predicted with saturation indexes, which compare the amount of scaling
constituents in solution to the solubility. Oddo and Tomsom developed a prediction model that
is based on the produced water chemistry and production data such us pressure and
temperature, flow rate and percentage of CO2 in the gas at surface. In this method, the degree
of saturation of a scale is related to the saturation index, SI, and is defined as the log of the
product of the concentrations of the scaling minerals divided by the conditional solubility product
of the particular scale, Kc.
For instance, for calcium sulfate, the saturation index is:
[ Ca 2+ ][ SO4 2 ]
SI = log
Kc (T , p, Is )
Kc was derived from literature data and is a function of temperature, pressure and ionic
strength, Is. The use of this parameter avoids the calculation of the activity coefficients for the
metal ions and the anions in the scales. The resulting equations are of the form:
-LogKc = a + bT + cT2 + dP + eIs0.5 + fIs + gIs1.5 + hTIs0.5
Oilfield waters may have an important concentration of carboxylic acids, normally represented
as equivalent concentration of acetic acid. When this happens, the HCO3 concentration is
corrected to adjust the total alkalinity of the water.
Even though a theoretical value of saturation index above zero indicates a tendency of scale
deposition, Oddo and Tomson suggest a value above 0.4 for actual deposition to take place.
For calcium sulfate this number may be lower, about 0.2.
Wellbore Deviation
You can use PERFORM to analyze deviated wells using the wellbore profile. The directional
survey dialog from the wellbore dialog has entries for entering the directional data as either a
TVD (true vertical depth) and MD (measured depth) data pair or an MD and angle. For
vertical wells, the directional survey is not needed. For deviated wells however, the MD to the
top-perf depth will be larger than the TVD of the well. The directional survey is used to tell
PERFORM how much to deviate the well by either entering MD/TVD depth pairs or angles at
MD.
There is a difference in how this information is used by PERFORM.
PERFORM assumes that the well is vertical if no directional survey data is entered.
If you want to deviate the wellbore, you can select type of data to enter in the
directional survey as either "Measured vs. Vertical Depth" or "Measured Depth vs.
Angles."
If you choose "Measured Depth vs. Vertical Depth," then PERFORM will calculate the
angle of the wellbore for the segments listed when calculations are done. The listing of
data pairs should be completed all the way to the top perforation depth as the final data
entry. If the first segment of the wellbore near the surface is vertical, you should enter
the first data pair as the kickoff point with the MD and TVD values equal.
If you choose "Measured Depth vs. Angles," the angles entered are used in the segment
below the measured depth entered. If the first segment of the wellbore is vertical, you
should enter the first data element as a measured depth of the kickoff point with an
angle greater than zero degrees from vertical to start deviating the wellbore from that
depth and below.
PERFORM uses angles in the calculation of the wellbore segments whether entered directly or
calculated from the MD/TVD pairs. You must enter the deviation information correctly. The
following examples show how PERFORM interprets the wellbore deviation to model a deviated
well.
Example 1
Example 1 demonstrates using the directional survey and

an angle to deviate the well. Note that the TVD and MD in
the wellbore segment are set to the same value to allow
PERFORM to calculate the TVD itself. The kickoff point is
3000 ft.
The Directional Survey dialog box contains the following
information:
MD TVD ANGLE
3000 12 kickoff depth
6270 0 top perforation measured depth
An angle of 0 degrees is set from the surface to 3,000 ft MD
as the kickoff depth. The wellbore deviates from 3,000 ft MD
to 6,270 ft MD at 12 degrees. The new TVD of the top
perforation is calculated as:
( )
TVD calc = 3000 + cos 12 o (6270 3000 ) = 6199'
Example 2
Example 2 demonstrates what happens if the kickoff depth
segment is not entered using the MD and TVD data entry
option.
information:
MD TVD ANGLE
5 5
6270 6199 Top perforation measured depth
PERFORM assumes that the well is deviated starting at about

5 ft. The resulting angle from the surface is calculated as:
6199 5
= cos-1 = 8.63
6270 5
Example 3
Example 3 demonstrates how to correctly enter the directional
data using a kickoff point.
information:
MD TVD ANGLE
3000 3000 Kickoff depth
6270 6199 Top perforation measured depth
The angle calculated from the kickoff depth to the top
perforation is:
= cos-1
(6199 3000) = 12
(6270 3000)
This is good practice where a kickoff depth is entered in the
Directional Survey dialog box.
6 Downhole Network
Use the Downhole Network dialog box to optimize the performance of multilayers and
multilaterals for oil and gas wells. Multilayers, Figure 6.1, are the wells with a single wellbore
penetrating several production zones. Multilaterals, Figure 6.2, are the wells with several
wellbores penetrating a single or multiple production zones or reservoirs.
The Downhole Network dialog box makes reference to nodes and links. A node is a reference
point where flow enters, leaves, or merges. A link is a connection between two nodes in which
a single stream flows.
Figure 6.1: Multilayer
Downhole Network PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
Figure 6.2: Multilateral
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual Downhole Network
In general, the calculation procedure is the same for both multilayer and multilateral. It starts
from the reservoir, continues for the links, and ends at the bottom of the main wellbore. From
the wellbore to the surface, the calculation is similar to that for a single wellbore and has the
same options. You can change the node position for calculation from separator, to wellhead,
and to the bottomhole, which in this case is the bottom of the main wellbore.
The following procedure is used to perform the calculation for downhole network.
1 For each individual reservoir, the Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) is calculated
by considering the fluid, reservoir, and completion. The calculation procedure for each
reservoir is similar to the calculation for single reservoir. These IPR curves present the
inflow performance at the node closest to the reservoir, the reservoir node. These IPR
curves for the reservoirs are presented in the Inflow Graph by Reservoir.
2 If there is a link between the reservoir node and the next node, the pressure drop for
each rate is calculated. The IPR at the reservoir node is adjusted to present a new IPR
at the next node, link IPR. The link IPR presents the pressure and flow rate immediately
before the flow enters the next node. This procedure is similar to calculating the
pressure drop in the single wellbore and setting the node at the wellhead or top of the
link for downhole network. If there is no link, then the new IPR will be the same as the
IPR for the reservoir node. These IPR curves are presented in Inflow Graph by Node.
3 Flow is merged at the node, and three simultaneous calculations are performed:
The fluid property of the mixed fluid is determined as a function of individual fluid
properties, temperature, and flow rate at in-situ condition.
The temperature at the node is calculated based on oil, gas, and water flow rates
and temperature gradient.
The composite IPR curve is calculated from individual IPR of step 2. The
composite IPR is different than IPR for single reservoir because the temperature
and/or fluid properties may vary with each rate. Therefore, each rate may have
different fluid properties and temperature.
Note: If you selected the option to handle crossflow in the Analysis Settings dialog
box, PERFORM determines which link or layer has the highest pressure. Each of the
other links joined at the node is assumed to be experiencing injection until pressure
drops to the pressure of that link or layer. For the same case, if you have not selected
crossflow instead of injection, PERFORM assumes zero rate.
Downhole Network PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
4 Steps 2 and 3 are repeated to establish the final composite IPR at the bottom of the
main wellbore. The final composite IPR curve is presented in System Graph for Total
System.
5 The rest of the calculation is for the wellbore and flowline and is the same for single
wellbore and downhole network.
To illustrate these steps, consider the bilateral case in Figure 6.2. In step 1, the IPR curves for
reservoirs R1 and R2 at the nodes n1 and n2 are calculated. In step 2, the pressure losses for the
links from n1 and n2 to n3 are calculated and included in new IPR curves for each link at n3. In
step 3, the fluid properties for the mixture, temperature, and composite IPR for n3 is calculated.
The composite IPR is the combination of IPR curves for Link1 and Link2.
References
1. Brown, K. E.: Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, vol. 1, PennWell Publishing

Co., Tulsa, OK (1980).
2. Brown, K. E.: Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, vol. 4, PennWell Publishing

Co., Tulsa, OK (1980).
3. Brill, J. P. and Beggs, H. D.: Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, University of Tulsa, Tulsa,
OK (1978).
4. Beggs, H. D.: Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis, Society of

Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX.
5. Vogel, J. V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution Gas Drive Wells,"
JPT, (January 1968) 83-93.
6. Standing, M. B.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Damaged Wells Producing

by Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT (November 1970) 1399-1400.
7. Standing, M. B.: "Concerning the Calculation of Inflow Performance of Wells

Producing from Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT (September 1971) 1141-
1142.
8. Jones, Loyd G., Blount, E. M., and Glaze, O. H.: "Use of Short Term Multiple Rate
Flow Test to Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbulence," SPE 6133, SPE of
AIME, (1976).
9. McLeod, H. O., Jr.: "The Effect of Perforating Conditions on Well Performance,"

JPT (January 1983).
10. Crouch, E. C. and Pack, K. J.: "System Analysis Use for the Design and Evaluation
of High-Rate Gas Wells," SPE 9424, SPE of AIME (September 21-24, 1980).
11. Saucier, R. J.: "Gravel Pack Design Considerations," SPE 4030, SPE of AIME
(October 8-11, 1972).
12. Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: "Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients

Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical
Conduits," JPT (April 1965) 475.
13. Duns, H., Jr. and Ros, N. C. J.: "Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in
Wells," 6th World Petroleum Congress, Frankfurt, Germany.
References PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
14. Orkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe," JPT
(June 1967).
15. Dukler, A. E. et al.: "Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines," Research Results, vol. 1.

American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, (May 1969).
16. Eaton, B. A. et al.: "The Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Holdup and Pressure
Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines,"
Trans., AIME (1966).
17. Gray, H. E.: "Vertical Flow Correlations for Gas Wells," User Manual 14B
Subsurface Controlled Safety Valve Sizing Computer Program, (June 1974).
18. Flanigan, O.: "Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design of Two-Phase
Gathering Systems," Oil & Gas J. (10 March 1958) 132.
19. Cullender, M. H. and Smith, R. V.: "Practical Solution of Gas Flow Equations for
Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients," Trans., AIME (1956).
20. Gilbert, W. E.: "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance," API Drilling and
Production Practice, (1954) 126.
21. Beggs, H. D. and Brill, J. P.: "A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes," JPT
(May 1973) 607.
22. Odeh, A. S.: "Pseudosteady-State Flow Equation and Productivity Index for a Well
with Noncircular Drainage Area," SPE-AIME, Mobil Research Development
Corp., Dallas, TX.
23. Lescarboura, J. A.: "Handheld Calculator Program Finds Minimum Gas Flow For
Continuous Liquids Removal," Oil & Gas J. (16 April 1984) 68-70.
24. Bradburn, J. B.: "Velocity in Gas Lines Erosional Velocity," internal

correspondence, Tenneco Oil Company, (7 November 1980).
25. Poettmann, F. H.: "The Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through Vertical
Flow Strings with Application to the Design of Gas Lift Installations," Drill. &
Prod. Prac. (1952) 257.
26. Baxendell, P. B. and Thomas, R.: "The Calculation of Pressure Gradients in High-
Rate Flowing Wells," JPT (October 1961) 1023.
27. Fancher, G. H., Jr. and Brown, K. E.: "Prediction of Pressure Gradients for
Multiphase Flow in Tubing," SPEJ (March 1963) 59.
28. Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J. P.: "Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined Two-Phase
Flow," JPT (May 1983) 1003.
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual References
29. Aziz, K., Govier, G. W. and Fogarasi, M.: "Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil
and Gas," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-September 1972) 38.
30. Griffith, P. and Wallis, G. B.: "Two-Phase Slug Flow," J. of Heat Transfer (August
1961) 307.
31. Lawson, J. D. and Brill, J. P.: "A Statistical Evaluation of Methods Used to Predict
Pressure Loses for Multiphase Flow in Vertical Oil Well Tubing," JPT (August
1974) 903.
32. Vohra, I. R., Robinson, J. R. and Brill, J. P.: "Evaluation of Three New Methods
for Prediction Pressure Losses in Vertical Oil Well Tubing," JPT (August 1974)
829.
33. "API Users Manual for API 14B-Subsurface Controlled Safety Valve Sizing
Program," API Manual 14BM Second Edition, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, D. C. (January 1978).
34. Turner, R. G., Hubbard, M. G., and Dukler, A. E.: "Analysis of Prediction of
Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells," JPT
(November 1969) 1475.
35. Weller, W. T.: "Reservoir Performance During Two-Phase Flow," JPT (September
1973) 210-246.
36. Cooke, C. E. Jr., "Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers," JPT

(September 1973) 1101-1107.
37. Firoozabadi, A. and Katz, D. L.: "An Analysis of High-Velocity Gas Flow Through
Porous Media," JPT (February 1973) 211-216.
38. Ros, N. C. J.: "Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid as Encountered in Well
Tubing," JPT (October 1961) 1037.
39. Achong, I. B.: "Revised Bean and Performance Formula For Lake Maracaibo
Wells," University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela.
40. Beggs, H. D.: "Gas Production Operations," O. G. C. I. Publications, Tulsa, OK

(1984).
41. McLeod, H. O., Jr. and Crawford, H. R.: "Gravel Packing for High Rate
Completions," SPE 11008, SPE of AIME (26-29 September 1982).
42. Brown, K.E.: Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, vol. 2A, PennWell
Publishing Co.: Tulsa, OK (1980).
43. Winkler, H. W. and Smith, S. S.: CAMCO Gas Lift Manual, Houston, TX
(1962).
44. Brown, K. E.: Gas Lift Theory and Practice, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa,
OK (1973).
45. Camacho, R.G.V. and Raghavan, R.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for
Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," SPE 16204, JPT (May 1989) 54.
46. Mukherjee, H. and Economides, Michael J.: "A Parametric Comparison of

Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance," SPE 18303, Proceedings for 63rd
Annual Technical Conference of Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas
(2-5 October 1988).
47. Dikken, B. J.: "Pressure Drop in Horizontal Wells and Its Effect on Production
Performance," JPT (November 1990) 1426-1433.
48. Cinco-Ley, Heber: "Evaluation of Hydraulic Fracturing by Transient Pressure

Analysis Methods," SPE 10043, SPE of AIME (1982).
49. Ascheim: "MONA Correlation: An Accurate Two-Phase Well Flow Model Based
on Slippage," Transactions for SPE European Conference.
50. Cullender, M. H. and Smith, R. V.: "Practical Solution of Gas Flow Equations for
Wells and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients," Trans., AIME (1956).
51. Economides et al.: "Comprehensive Simulation of Horizontal Well Performance,"

SPEFE (December 1991), 418-421.
52. Economides et al.: Petroleum Production Systems, PTR Prentice Hall (1994)
Chap. 2 and 4.
53. Joshi, S. D.: "Augmentation of Well Productivity with Slant and Horizontal Wells,"
JPT (June 1988) 729-739.
54. Joshi, S. D.: Horizontal Well Technology, PennWell Book Publishing Co. (1991)
75, 91, 224-226, 344.
55. Giger, F. M. et al.: "The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Horizontal Drilling,"

paper SPE 13024, presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition , Houston, TX, 16-19 September 1984.
56. Renard, G. and Dupuy, J. M.: "Formation Damage Effects on Horizontal Well Flow
Efficiency," JPT (July 1991) 786-869.
57. Kuchuk, F. J. et al: "Pressure Transient Analysis and Inflow Performance for
Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 18300, Houston, TX, 2-5 October 1988.
58. Goode, P. A. and Thambynayagam, R. K. M.: "Pressure Drawdown and Buildup

Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Media," May 1987.
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual References
59. Babu, D. K. and Odeh, A. S.: "Productivity of a Horizontal Well," SPERE

(November 1989) 417-421.
60. Alves, I. N., Alhanati, F. J. S., and Shoham, O.: "A Unified Model for Predicting
Flowing Temperature Distribution in Wellbores and Pipelines," JPT (November
1992) 363-367.
61. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Wellbore Heat Transmission," paper SPE 96, April 1962.
62. Coulter, D. M. and Bardon, M. F.: "Revised Equation Improves Flowing Gas
Temperature Prediction," Oil & Gas J. (26 February 1979).
63. Sagar, Rajiv: "Predicting Temperature Profiles in a Flowing Well," JPT (November
1991) 441-448.
64. Bradley, H. B.: Petroleum Engineering Handbook, 46-4 and 46-5.
65. Brill, J. P. and Beggs, H. D.: "Two-Phase Flow in Pipes," U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK,
(December 1988), 1-31 to 1-36.
66. Ros, N. C. J.: "An Analysis of Critical Simultaneous Gas/Liquid Flow through a
Restriction and its Application to Flowmetering," Appl. Sci. Rev. (1960) 9, Sec. A,
374.3.
67. Ashford, F. E.: "An Evaluation of Critical Multiphase Flow Performance through
Wellhead Chokes," JPT (August 1974).
68. Ashford, F. E. and Pierce, P. E.: "Determining Multiphase Pressure Drops and
Flow Capacities in Downhole Safety Valves," JPT (September 1975).
69. Perkins, T. K.: "Critical and Subcritical Flow of Multiphase Mixtures through
Chokes," paper SPE 20633 (December 1993).
70. Fortunati, F.: "Two-Phase Flow Through Wellhead Chokes," paper SPE 3742
(May 1972).
71. Omana, R. et al.: "Multiphase Flow Through Chokes," paper SPE 2682
(September 1969).
72. Shiu, K. C. and Beggs, H. D.: "Predicting Temperatures in Flowing Oil Wells," J.
Energy Res. Tech. (March 1980) Trans., ASME.
73. Karcher, B. J., Giger, F. M., and Combe, J.: "Some Practical Formulas to Predict
Horizontal Well Behavior", paper SPE 15430 (October 1986).
74. Ansari, A. M. et al.: "A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-
Phase Flow in Wellbores," paper SPE 20630 (May 1994) 143-152.
75. Arirachakaran, S. et al.: "Intelligent Utilization of a Unified Flow Pattern Prediction

Model in Production System Optimization," paper SPE 22869 (October 1991)
503-516.
76. Xiao, J. J., Shoham, O., and Brill, J. P.: "A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for
Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines," paper SPE 20631 (September 1990) 167-180.
77. Scott, S. L. and Kouba, G. E.: "Advances in Slug Flow Characterization for
Horizontal and Slightly Inclined Pipelines," SPE 20628 (September 1990) 125-
140.
78. Beggs, H. D. et al.: "Design Criteria for Selecting Velocity Type Subsurface Safety
Valves," ASME (February 1980).
79. Eaton, B. A., Andrews, D. E., and Knowles, C. R.: "The Prediction of Flow
Patterns, Liquid Holdup and Pressure Losses Occurring During Continuous Two-
Phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines," JPT (June 1967) 815-828.
Index
differential graph, 11
A dimensionless fracture conductivity, 39
a - term Jones equation, 32 dimensionless pressure drop in the fracture and
Alves et al. unified model, 105 reservoir, 40
Ansari Mechanistic, 89 dimensionless time, 40
API 14B, 95 dimensionless wellbore tunnel length, 47
Ashford & Pierce, 100 directional survey, 107
Aziz, et al, 88 downhole network, 111
calculation, 113
B drainage area and shape factor, 27
b - term Jones equation, 32 drainage ellipsoid, 52
Babu and Odeh, 62 drainage shape factor, 57
back pressure 4 pt test, 34 Dukler, 91
back pressure equation, 34 Duns & Ros, 88, 90
Baxendell & Thomas, 87
Beggs & Brill, 88, 91
E
Beggs, Brill, & Minami, 91 Economides, 52
Bernoulli, 95 elevation, 86
beta factor gravel pack, 81 erosion, 101
erosional velocity, 102
C
C - term back pressure equation, 34
F
chokes, 93 Fancher & Brown, 87
collapsed perforation, 76 Firoozabadi and Katz equation, 82
compacted zone perforation, 70 Flow Assurance, 106
completion component, 69 flow rate, 40
completion effects, 10 flow through restrictions, 93
completion models flow velocity, 41
collapsed perforation, 76 flowing temperature distribution, 104
gravel pack, 79 flowline, 85
gravel pack collapsed perforation, 83 four point test
gravel pack open hole, 82 back pressure equation, 34
gravel pack stable perforation, 83 Jones equation, 33
gravel-pack open perforation, 83 fracture penetration ratio, 39
open hole completion, 69 fractured well, 38
open perforation completion, 70 fractured well non-Darcy flow, 41
constant productivity index, 20 Fundamental Flow, 90
constant productivity index (PI), 20 Fundamental Flow Adjusted, 90
Cooke equation, 82
Coulter & Bardon, 105 G
critical flow, 94 general, 5
crushed zone perforation, 70 Giger, 49
Cullender & Smith, 90 Goode and Thambynaya, 66
gradient, 8
D gravel pack beta turbulence factor, 81
D - Ramey D term, 26 gravel pack completion, 79
damaged zone, 73 gravel pack open perforation, 83
Darcy equation, 24 gravel pack stable perforation, 83
datafile inflow, 43 gravel-pack collapsed perf, 83
deviated well, 107 gravel-pack open hole completion, 82
Index PERFORM Technical Reference Manual
Gray, 90 Muskat, 49
H N
Hagedorn & Brown, 87, 90 n - term back pressure equation, 34
Hagedorn and Brown, 86 nodal analysis, 2
heat transfer, 104 node, 2, 111
coefficients, 106 fundamental requirements of, 2
correlations, 105 non-Darcy fractured well flow, 41
horizontal flow non-Darcy turbulent term, 26
oil well, 91
horizontal well, 43 O
open hole completion, 69
I open perforation completion, 70
inflow, 2 Orkiszewski, 88
inflow performance outflow, 2
back pressure equation and 4 pt test, 34
constant productivity index, 20 P
Darcy equation, 24 perforated completion, 70
datafile, 43 perforation crushed zone, 70
drainage area and shape factor, 27 perforation interval, 13
fractured well analysis, 38 perforation shot density, 12
Jones 'a' and 'b' term and 4-pt. test, 33 Perkins, 93, 97
Jones equation, 30 PI (productivity index), 20
transient equation, 36 Poettmann & Carpenter, 87
Vogel equation, 21 productivity index (PI), 20
inflow performance relationship (IPR), 19 constant, 20
integration constant, 47
IPR (inflow performance relationship), 19 R
Ramey, 105
J Ramey D term, 26
Jones 'a' and 'b' user-entered, 33 references, 115
Jones equation, 30 Renard and Dupuy, 57
Jones four-point test, 33 reservoir, 19
Joshi, 54 reservoir skin, 9
restrictions, 93
K Reynold's number, 41
kickoff point, 44 Ros & Gray, 90
Kuchuk, 59
S
L Sagar et al. simplified model, 105
linear temperature gradient, 104 Saucier beta equation, 82
link, 111 Scale, 106
separator pressure, 16
M shape factor, 27, 28
Modified Gray, 90 Shiu & Beggs, 105
MONA, 88, 91 skin, 9
MONA Modified, 88, 91 physical, 26
Mukherjee & Brill, 88, 91 skin effect, 26
multilateral, 111 slip, 86
multilayer, 111 static reservoir pressure, 43
multiphase flow calculations subcritical flow, 94
vertical, 89 Sylvester & Yao Mechanistic, 89
multiphase flow correlations, 86 system analysis
PERFORM Technical Reference Manual Index
applying, 7 V
defined, 1
vertical flow
T gas well, 90
oil well, 86
temperature survey, 105
vertical flow component, 85
Tenneco beta equation for resin packs, 82
Vogel equation, 21
time to pseudosteady state, 37
combination, 22
transient flow equation, 36
transient time to pseudosteady state, 37 W
tubing flow component, 85
wellbore damaged zone, 73
tubing size effect, 14
wellbore deviation, 107
turbulence beta factor, 41
wellbore flowing bottomhole pressure
turbulence coefficient beta, 81
defined, 2
Turner, 103
wellhead pressure, 16
U
X
unloading, 103
Xiao Mechanistic, 91

Perftech PDF

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

Perftech PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERFORM 4.

Well PERFORMance Analysis is a trademark of Petroleum Information/Dwights LLC. (Certain

Table of Figures .................................................................................................................vi

1 System Analysis Overview.........................................................................................1

2 Using System Analysis................................................................................................5

3 Reservoir Component ...............................................................................................19

Babu and Odeh (1989) ..................................................................................................62

5 Wellbore and Flowline...............................................................................................85

Flow through the reservoir to the sandface

Flow through the completion

Flow through the bottomhole restrictions

Flow through the tubing

Flow through the surface flowline restrictions

Flow through the flowline into the separator

Figure 1.1: Producing System

Figure 1.2: Nodal Plot

General Analysis Procedure

5 Calculate the case and check the output graphically.

8 Repeat from step 1 for the next objective of the case.

Figure 2.1: System Analysis Plot with Multiple Conditions

Flow through the reservoir

Flow through the completion

Flow up the tubing and any restrictions (vertical flow)

Flow through the flowline and any restrictions (horizontal flow)

Applying System Analysis

Figure 2.2: Gradient Curves

Wellhead or Separator Pressure

Figure 2.3: Effect of Formation Skin

Figure 2.4: Inflow Sensitivity on Skin

Perforation shot density

Gravel pack size

Gravel pack permeability

Damaged zone radius and permeability

Perforation crushed zone effects

Figure 2.5: Differential Graph

Perforation Shot Density

Figure 2.6: Effect of Perforation Shot Density (SPF)

Figure 2.7: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Shot Density (SPF)

Reduced perforation interval aimed at lowering completion cost

Altered perforation intervals to accommodate subsequent stimulation treatments

Figure 2.8: Effect of Perforation Interval

Figure 2.9: Inflow Sensitivity on Perforation Interval

Figure 2.10: Effect of Tubing Size

Figure 2.11: Outflow Sensitivity on Tubing Size

Wellhead or Separator Pressure

Figure 2.12: Effect of Wellhead Pressure

Figure 2.13: Outflow Sensitivity on Wellhead Pressure

Figure 3.1: Reservoir Component

Vertical IPR Types

Pwf = Bottomhole flowing pressure (psi)

Figure 3.2: User Enters PI

Pwf = Bottomhole flowing pressure (psi)

Pr = Average reservoir pressure (psi)

Qb = Flow rate at bubblepoint (stb/d)

Pwf = Bottomhole flowing pressure (psi)

Q = Q b + Q max = PI (Pr P'wf )

Qmax = Maximum flow rate at Pwf = 0 (stb/d)

P'wf = Bottomhole flowing pressure below bubblepoint (psi)

P ' wf = Pwf + (1 FE)(Pr Pwf )

Figure 3.3: Vogel Solution Gas Drive with Flow Efficiency

Q / Q max( FE=1.0) = 1.2 0.2e (1.792P'wf /Pr )

(0.00708) kh (Pr Pws )

Pws = Flowing sandface pressure (psi)