-1 30EFFECT OF MEASURED WELLHEAD P R M T R AND WELL SCALING AA eES

ON THE C M U E DOWNHOLE CONDITIONS I N CERRO PRIETO W L S O P TD EL

K P Goyal, C. W Miller and M J Lippmann . . . . . Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a 94720
INTRODUCTION

The primary o b j e c t i v e of modeling a geothermal system i s t o be a b l e to p r e d i c t with s o m e confidence t h e energy production capacity and longevity o f t h e f i e l d under various production and i n j e c t i o n scenarios. To achieve t h i s goal, a modeler needs t o construct a comprehensive mathematical model based on a v a i l a b l e d a t a and v a l i d a t e t h i s model a g a i n s t t h e production h i s t o r y of t h e f i e l d . This, i n t u r n , r e q u i r e s t h e d a t a associated with the evolution of the f i e l d due to its e x p l o i t a t i o n . Typically, t h e information r e l a t e d t o t h e v a r i a t i o n s i n the mass flow r a t e , enthalpy, pressure, tempera t u r e and f l u i d s a t u r a t i o n a s a function of t i m e i s used t o v a l i d a t e t h e model. The production d a t a is r o u t i n e l y measured a t t h e wellhead whereas most r e s e r v o i r models canpute t h e changes i n the t e m p e r a t u r e , p r e s s u r e , enthalpy, f l u i d v e l o c i t y and other physical p r o p e r t i e s of t h e f l u i d a t the sandface. To v a l i d a t e any model, wellhead data must be corrected t o r e f l e c t t h e downhole conditions. I n t h i s paper, w e s h a l l confine ourselves t o t h e discussion of computing bottomhole pressures from t h e measured wellhead data by using a wellbore model. Several wellbore models which canpute wellhead conditions from t h e given bottomhole d a t a have been c i t e d i n the literature. (Sanyal, e t a l . , 1979; Aydelotte, 1980; Gould, 1974). Such c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e of i n t e r e s t i n p r e d i c t i n g t h e condit i o n s under which an optimum production could be obtained f r a n a given well. This approach does not suit us s i n c e our primary goal i s t o study t h e evolution of t h e f i e l d due to production. The following paragraphs a r e devoted t o t h e discussion of t h e wellbore model and i t s describing equations, comparison between the computed and measured p r e s s u r e s and t h e e f f e c t of measured wellhead parame t e r s on t h e downhole pressures i n the well. F i n a l l y a wellbore m o d e l with m u l t i p l e i n s i d e diameters i s discussed and t h e e f f e c t of w e l l s c a l i n g on the bottom hole pressures i s studied.
WELLBORE MODEL The steady s t a t e computer program WELFLO used i n t h i s study c a l c u l a t e s t h e bottomhole conditions i f t h e wellhead conditions such a s m a s s flow r a t e , p r e s s u r e and enthalpy (or dryness f r a c t i o n ) a r e prescribed. The length of open i n t e r v a l and h e a t loss from t h e w e l l bore are a l s o considered i n t h e program. However, t h e e f f e c t of t h e r a d i a l p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t responsible f o r inflow t o t h e w e l l is not taken i n t o account. The total mass inflow t o t h e w e l l is assumed t o be d i s t r i b u t e d evenly throughout t h e open i n t e r v a l . Also, in-place i n t e r n a l energy i n the open i n t e r v a l i s assumed cons t a n t . The equations, describing a t r a n s i e n t two-phase flow through a w e l l are discussed i n Miller ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The steady-state equations

-1 31 -

of m a s s , momentum and energy a s o b t a i n e d f r m t h a t s e t f o r a cons t a n t d i a m e t e r w e l l are as f o l l o w s :

a - (PU) ax

= 0

(1)

1 -axI

J
(3)

+ -4H

Di

(Tres

- Tw)

The above e q u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e average f l u i d p r o p e r t i e s o v e r t h e cross s e c t i o n and t h u s d o n o t s a t i s f y t h e n o - s l i p boundary condit i o n a t t h e w a l l of t h e w e l l . The s l i p i s g i v e n as a f u n c t i o n of f l o w regime. The limits o f t h e s e r e g i o n s ( b u b b l e , s l u g , t r a n s i t i o n and m i s t ) t h a t w e r e used are d e f i n e d i n Orkiszewski ( 1967) Slip for t h e s e r e g i o n s i s d i s c u s e d i n Orkiszewski, (1967) and Wallis (1969). The program u s e s an overall f r i c t i o n f a c t o r a s d e s c r i b e d i n Chisholm (1973). Empirical r e l a t i o n s , c o r r e l a t i n g steam t a b l e s for t h e p r o p e r t i e s of w a t e r and w e t steam a r e used i n the program ( M i l l e r , 1978). These r e l a t i o n s are a c c u r a t e t o w i t h i n 5% of t h e steam t a b l e v a l u e s . MEASURED AND COMPUTED P R E S S W S I N WELL M90
A n a t t e m p t w a s made t o c a l c u l a t e t h e p r e s s u r e s a t v a r i o u s d e p t h s i n t h e bore and t h e n to compare them w i t h t h o s e measured i n t h e Cerro P r i e t o w e l l s . F i g u r e 1 shows the measured and computed pressures i n w e l l M - 9 0 or t h e given wellhead conditions. The w e l l i s of uniform diameter. Calculated pressure p r o f i l e s f o r t w o d i f f e r e n t wellhead pressures are shown i n t h e f i g u r e . One of them i s for the measured wellhead pressure of 37.4 kg/cm2 gauge. The computed pressures are l o w e r t h a n t h o s e measured throughout t h e d e p t h of t h e w e l l w i t h a m a x i m u m d i f f e r e n c e of about 1 1 % ' a t a d e p t h o f 1380 meters. The second c a l c u l a t e d p r o f i l e is for t h e wellhead pressure of 39.5 kg/cmzgauge which i s o b t a i n e d by e x t e n d i n g t h e measured pressure p r o f i l e t o t h e s u r f a c e . The m a x i m u m pressure d i f f e r e n c e in this case is o n l y a b o u t 6%. I t w a s observed f r a n t h e computer o u t p u t t h a t a two-phase s l u g f l o w regime e x i s t e d througho u t t h e w e l l and t h u s a d r a s t i c change i n pressure g r a d i e n t i s n o t I n o t h e r words, one would expect a l i k e l y n e a r the wellhead. wellhead p r e s s u r e of 39.5 kg/cm* gauge a t t h e wellhead i f t h e pressures measured i n t h e w e l l are correct. O r a l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f t h e measured wellhead pressure of 37.4 kg/cm2 gauge i s correct, t h e n t h e measured downhole pressures should be i n error. T h i s

-1 32shows t h a t there e x i s t s a discrepancy between the pressures measured a t the wellhead and those i n t h e well. As i n any o t h e r f i e l d work or experimentation, such discrepancies do arise a s a d i r e c t r e s u l t of human e r r o r s , instrumental e r r o r s or both. The computed and measured p r o f i l e s f o r M-90 a r e i n good agreement. However, i t must be emphasized t h a t even a 5% e r r o r i n t h e calculation can For M-90, 5% e r r o r is about 70 lead t o a - l a r g e absolute error. p s i . A comparison between t h e measured and computed pressures i n I t was found that t h e Cerro P r i e t o w e l l M-51 was also made. computed pressures were w i t h i n 6-7% of those measured i n the well.
EFFECT OF HEAT LOSS AND OPEN INTERVAL ON COMPUTED DOWNHOLE PRESSURE

The e f f e c t of heat loss fran t h e wellbore to the surroundings on the w e l l pressure was a l s o studied by considering t h a t a l i n e a r temperature p r o f i l e (assumed t o approximate the natural geothermal gradient) e x i s t s i n t h e reservoir a t a distance ( R 1 ) of 1 m and 5 m from t h e well. A hyperbolic p r o f i l e was then f i t t e d between the well and t h e geothermal gradient t o obtain the temperature gradient It was found t h a t the maximum pressure drop associated a t the well. with heat loss f o r R1 = 1 m was about 2.5% while negligibly s m a l l f o r R1 = 5 m i n w e l l M-90. Thus, f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes, steady
state heat t r a n s f e r from C e r r o Prieto production w e l l s can be

neglected. a u l d ( 1974) a l s o arrived a t the same conclusion f o r high production wells. T study the e f f e c t of t h e thickness of o open i n t e r n a l on the bottom hole pressures, w varied t h e thickness e It was found t h a t an increase from 10 m t o 160 m i n the w e l l M-90. of only about 0.5% occurred i n the bottom hole pressures f o r an open i n t e r v a l of 160 m. Thus, f o r all t h e cases discussed herea f t e r , w e assume t h a t the heat loss fran t h e well i s negligibly small, and t h a t t h e depth of the open i n t e r v a l i s equal t o t h e d i s t a n c e between two nodes i n the f i n i t e difference mesh.
EFFECTS OF WELLHEAD PARAMETERS
A s noted, a p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s that the measured wellhead parameters such a s pressure, mass flow r a t e , dryness f r a c t i o n , enthalpy, e t c . , may be i n e r r o r by a few percent. Thus, i t seems appropriate t o f i n d t h e e f f e c t of such e r r o r s on the calculated downhole pressures i n t h e w e l l . We varied three important w e l l head parameters (mass flow r a t e , pressure, and enthalpy) w i t h i n +20% of t h e i r measured value in well M-90 and calculated the change on the bottom hole pressures.

Table 1 shows bottom hole pressures (BHP) f o r d i f f e r e n t mass For a 20% increase in mass flow r a t e a t flow r a t e s i n well M-90. t h e wellhead, t h e bottom hole pressure increased by about 6.5% the f o r a 20% decrease i n flow r a t e there is about 5% decrease i n BHP. The difference between wellhead and downhole pressure i s not However, i t maybe affected s i g n i f i c a n t l y by t h e mass flow r a t e . noted t h a t the wellbore model i s independent of t h e reservior. Table 2 shows the e f f e c t of w e l l head pressures (WHP) on t h e It may be observed t h a t a 20% increase i n WHP r e s u l t s i n an increase of about 25% i n BHP while a 20% decrease i n

BHP i n w e l l M-90.

-1 33-

t h e WHP l e a d s t o about 18% d e c r e a s e i n BHP. i n t h i s c a s e shows up d i r e c t l y i n t h e BHP.

The error i n t h e W P H

E f f e c t of e n t h a l p y o n B P i s shown i n Table 3. H It may b e observed t h a t an e n t h a l p y i n c r e a s e of 20% reduces B P by a b o u t 14% H b u t a c o r r e s p o n d i n g decrease l e a d s t o an i n c r e a s e of about 7 0 % i n BHP. An i n c r e a s e i n e n t h a l p y r e s u l t s in more steam and l i g h t e r f l u i d g i v i n g r i s e t o lower pressures a t the bottom of t h e w e l l as shown i n Table 3. BHP i s n o t a f f e c t e d as much by a n i n c r e a s e i n e n t h a l p y a s it does by d e c r e a s i n g t h e same. T h i s may b e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t a decrease i n t h e e n t h a l p y r e s u l t s in a d e n s e r , h e a v i e r f l u i d g i v i n g rise t o h i g h e r p r e s s u r e s a t t h e bottom of t h e well. E f f e c t of flowing d r y n e s s f r a c t i o n a t t h e wellhead on B P H w a s a l s o s t u d i e d . I t w a s found t h a t a v a r i a t i o n i n e n t h a l p y a f f e c t s t h e downhole pressures more t h a n a corresponding change i n t h e d r y n e s s f r a c t i o n . The f l u i d e n t h a l p i e s a t Cerro P r i e t o w e l l s are c a l c u l a t e d by u s i n g d r y n e s s f r a c t i o n and steam p r o p e r t i e s a t t h e s e p a r a t o r pressure. Thus, it i s a d v i s a b l e t o compute BHP by u s i n g dryness f r a c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n e n t h a l p y t o avoid t h e possibili t y o f a compounding e r r o r .
EL O EFFECTS OF W L B m DIAMETER AND SCALING

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e measured wellhead d a t a , t h e i n s i d e diameter of t h e w e l l i s needed t o c a l c u l a t e t h e BHP. A s t u d y w a s done t o f i n d i t s e f f e c t on t h e c a l c u l a t e d bottom h o l e p r e s s u r e s . T a b l e 4 shows t h e c a l c u l a t e d BHP i n M-90 f o r v a r i o u s i n s i d e r a d i i . The BHP w a s 41% more f o r 1 2 cm i n s i d e diameter and 150% more for 8 cm d i a m e t e r compared t o t h a t for 16.3 cm diameter. Thus, i n t h e 8 cm diameter c a s e , a r e d u c t i o n of 7 6 % i n area l e a d s t o a much h i g h e r i n c r e a s e ( 1 5 0 % ) i n t h e downhole p r e s s u r e . T h i s f i g w e may b e u n r e a l i s t i c s i n c e a l a r g e r e d u c t i o n i n t h e a r e a is assumed throughout t h e wellbore. In any e v e n t , it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e e f f e c t of i n s i d e d i a m e t e r on t h e B P i s c o n s i d e r a b l e . Some C e r r o P r i e t o H w e l l s d o have l a r g e scale deposits. For example, w e l l M-30, which, a s o f 1976, had s c a l i n g i n excess of 60 mm at a depth of 1,500 meters. Similar scale deposits w e r e a l s o observed i n many o t h e r wells i n t h e f i e l d . Thus, t o o b t a i n r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e s f o r downh o l e pressures, it i s n e c e s s a r y t o have a computer program which a c c o u n t s f o r v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e w e l l b o r e d i a m e t e r s . Using t h e c o n t r o l volume concept, t h e f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n s of m a s s , momentum and energy w e r e d e r i v e d f o r a f i n i t e volume i n which t h e diameter change o c c u r r e d .

-1 34-

( PAav

PA

pAu

R + g

f p u 2rDiAx
16

U P

(PAaV

PA

Ax -g + 2

PAU

2)

R + g

f p u rDiAx
16

down
U + --I

[PAu ( e

PAu]

R + g U P

=[PAu ( e +

-+ U 2

gAx)

PAu]

I(6) R + g down

In d e r i v i n g t h e above e q u a t i o n s , w e have n e g l e c t e d energy d i s s i p a t i o n due to f r i c t i o n and eddy l o s s e s . In t h e s e e q u a t i o n s 'up' s t a n d s f o r t h e upstream side and 'down' f o r the downstream s i d e . S u b s c r i p t E s t a n d s f o r l i q u i d and g f o r steam. Given t h e c o n d i t i o n s a t p o i n t ' u p ' , t h e parameters a t p i n t 'down' could be c a l c u l a t e d . F i g u r e 2 shows t h e computed and c a l c u l a t e d p r e s s u r e s in t h e C e r r o P r i e t o w e l l M - 9 1 . The i n s i d e diameter of t h e w e l l changes a t a depth of about 1940 meters. It was found f r o m t h e computer o u t p u t t h a t a t w o p h a s e s l u g flow e x i s t s in t h e w e l l above 900 metres and a s i n g l e phase l i q u i d water flows below 950m. A change i n t h e pressure g r a d i e n t a t about 900-1000 m depth i s n o t i c e d . It is c l e a r from t h e f i g u r e t h a t t h e r e is an e x c e l l e n t agreement between t h e measured and computed p r e s s u r e s . The p e r c e n t a g e d i f f e r e n c e i n B P i s less t h a n 1 % . H
W e l l M-39 of C e r r o Prieto f i e l d was a l s o selected t o s h o w t h e e f f e c t of m u l t i p l e i n s i d e c a s i n g diameters o n downhole pressures ( F i g u r e 3 ) . P r o d u c t i o n d a t a f o r June 1976 w a s used t o canpute downhole p r e s s u r e s . P r e s s u r e s c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e a c t u a l c a s i n g diameters are h i g h e s t among a l l t h e cases shown. Pressure g r a d i e n t between 1000 m t o 1100 m depth change in response t o changes i n i n s i d e casing diameters. Higher p r e s s u r e g r a d i e n t s below 1200 meters i n d i c a t e s i n g l e phase l i q u i d flow. The computed p r e s s u r e s for t h e uniform i n s i d e d i a m e t e r s of 0 . 2 0 1 2 m and 0.2736 m, a s shown in F i g u r e 3, are lower t h a n t h o s e o b t a i n e d u s i n g t h e a c t u a l diameters. I n f a c t , bottom h o l e pressures d e c r e a s e by 31.6% and 6 7 . 8 % f o r t h e i n t e r n a l diameter of 0 . 2 0 1 2 m and 0.2736 m, respect i v e l y . P r e s s u r e s c a l c u l a t e d assuming a uniform diameter of 0.177 m were v e r y close t o t h o s e cauputed u s i n g t h e actual c a s i n g diameter. This i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e g r a v i t y e f f e c t dominates t h e pressures more t h a n t h e i n e r t i a e f f e c t when t h e r e i s s i n g l e phase l i q u i d flow. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , n o data f o r measured downhole pressures w e r e a v a i l a b l e t o c o m p a r e w i t h t h e s e computed pressures. These results i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e computed downhole pressure may b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n e r r o r i f actual i n s i d e c a s i n g d i a m e t e r s are n o t t a k e n i n t o account.

-1 35F i g u r e 4 shows t h e e f f e c t of s i z e and p o s i t i o n of t h e scale d e p o s i t s or of a l i n e r of 200 m l e n g t h on t h e p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n t h e Cerro P r i e t o w e l l M-51. P r e s s u r e s are l a r g e r f o r t h i c k e r scale deposits s i n c e one would require h i g h e r pressures t o push t h e f l u i d through a s m a l l opening. A l i n e r of small d i a m e t e r s e t near t h e wellhead needs h i g h e r b o t t o m h o l e p r e s s u r e compared t o t h e one set n e a r t h e b o t t o m of t h e w e l l bore. T h i s i s due to t h e p r e s s u r e p r o p a g a t i o n i n t h e w e l l bore. A similar p r o f i l e w a s measured i n t e s t 11-3 of t h e w e l l BR-11 where s o l i d scale d e p o s i t s up t o 2 i n c h e s t h i c k were found i n the l i n e r (Gould, 1974). CONCLUSIONS
W e have found t h a t c a l c u l a t e d downhole p r e s s u r e s a r e quite s e n s i t i v e t o measured w e l l head c o n d i t i o n s and w e l l i n s i d e diameter d a t a . The parameters t o be measured, i n o r d e r of d e c r e a s i n g accuracy, a r e w e l l i n s i d e d i a m e t e r , wellhead pressure, d r y n e s s f r a c t i o n and mass flow r a t e . Based on t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d w e c o n s i d e r t h a t LBL's canputer program WELE'LO calculates r e a s o n a b l e downhole c o n d i t i o n s provided t h a t a c c u r a t e d a t a i s provided.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
W e want t o thank t h e Coordinadora E j e c u t i v a de C e r r o Prieto of CFE f o r making a v a i l a b l e t h e d a t a used i n t h i s study. This work

was performed under t h e a u s p i c e s o f t h e U S Department of Energy, . . D i v i s i o n of Geothermal Energy, under c o n t r a c t No. W-7405-ENG-48.
NOMENCLATURE

Aup(down) = i n s i d e area of t h e w e l l a t upstream (downstream) s i d e , m2 Aav = a v e r a g e area of the w e l l = + %,,)/2, m 2 Di = i n s i d e d i a m e t e r of t h e w e l l , m

e

= f = 9 = H = P = Tres = TW = U = = Ua(g) r

ea( g )

= i n t e r n a l energy, of t h e s t e a m - w a t e r

m i x t u r e , J/kg

= = = P P Q ( ~ ) =

a Ax

i n t e r n a l energy of w a t e r (steam), J / k g c o e f f i c i e n t of f r i c t i o n in t h e two-phase flow g r a v i t a t i o n a l a c c e l e r a t i o n , m/sec2 f i l m h e a t t r a n s f e r c o e f f i c i e n t i n t h e w e l l , J/sec-m2-OK pressure i n t h e w e l l a t any cross s e c t i o n , P a s c a l s r e s e r v o i r temperature, OK W e l l temperature, OK mass averaged v e l o c i t y i n x - d i r e c t i o n , m/sec v e l o c i t y o f water (steam) i n t h e w e l l , m/sec s l i p v e l o c i t y = v e l o c i t y of steam v e l o c i t y of water, dsec c o o r d i n a t e axis p a s s i n g through t h e c e n t e r of t h e w e l l , upward p o s i t i v e , m s a t u r a t i o n of steam i n t e r v a l between two nodes i n t h e f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e scheme, m d e n s i t y o f t h e steam-water m i x t u r e , Kg/m3 d e n s i t y o f water (steam) i n t h e w e l l , kg/m3

-1 36RETE RENC E S

A y d e l o t t e , S R.,, . " T r a n s i e n t W e l l T e s t i n g i n Two-Phase Geothermal R e s e r v o i r s " , Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, LBL-1056 2 , GREMP-8, UC-66a, p. 139, 1980. Chisholm, D., " P r e s s u r e G r a d i e n t s Due t o F r i c t i o n During t h e Flow of Evaporating T o Phase Mixtures in Smooth Tubes and w Channels", I n t . J o u r n a l Heat Mass T r a n s f e r , Vol. 16, pp. 347-358, 1973. Gould, T. L., "Vertical W o Phase Steam-Water F l o w i n Geothermal Wells", Jour. P e t . Tech. pp. 833-842, August 1974.

Miller, C . W.,

Unpublished r e s e a r c h ,

1978.

M i l l e r , C . W., "Numerical Model of T r a n s i e n t Two-Phase Flow i n a Wellbore", Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, LBL-9056, Rev. p. 31, 1979.

Orkiszewski, J., " P r e d i c t i n g Two Phase P r e s s u r e Drops i n V e r t i c a l Pipe", J o u r . P e t . Tech. pp. 829-838, June 1967. Sanyal, S K, S Brown, L. Fandriana, and S J u p r a s e r t . . . . . " S e n s i t i v i t y Study of V a r i a b l e s A f f e c t i n g F l u i d Flow i n Geothermal Wells" i n Proceedings F i f t h Workshop, Geothermal Reservoir Engineering S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , SGP-TR-40, pp. 197-204, 1979.

Wallis, G E, "One-Dimensional Two Phase Flow", McGraw-Hill Inc. . . U.S.A. p. 408, 1969.

-1 37TABLE 1:
-~

E f f e c t of mass f l o w r a t e on t h e b o t t o m hole pressures (B.H.P.) i n the C e r r o P r i e t o w e l l M-90

M S E'LOW RATE AS (Tonnes/hr 1

PERCENTAGE CHANGE

B.H. Po
( K g / m 2-g)
% D I F F B.H.P.

+20% +15% +lo% + 5% 0% 5% -1 0% -1 5% -20%

195.60 187.45 179.30 171.15 163.00 154.85 146.70 138.55 130.40

95.6 146 94 0685 92.601 4 91 1352 89.71 22 88.3324 86 996 85.9179 84 9890

+6.5 +4 - 8 +3.184 +1.57 0 -1 - 5 2 -2.99 -4.18 -5.2

TABLE 2:

W e l l head pressures and corresponding b o t t o m h o l e pressures (B.H.P.) i n t h e C e r r o P r i e t o w e l l M-90

PERCENTAGE CHANGE

+20% +15% +lo% + 5% 0% 5% -1 0% -15% -20%

WELLHEAD PRESSURE ( Kg/ CIU 2- g 1 47.40 45.43 43.45 41 - 4 8 39.5 37.53 35.55 33 58 31.6

( Kg/

B. He Po an 2-g)

% D I F F B.H.P.

112.776 107.047 101 205 95.2621 89.71 22 84 90 74 80.6937 77.0025 73.7 173

+25.42 +19.10 +12.66 + 6.12

- 5.29 - 9.94
-14.00 -17.63

0%

TABLE 3: PERCENTAGE CHANGE

+20%

E f f e c t of w e l l head e n t h a l p y o n t h e downhole pressures i n the C e r r o P r i e t o w e l l M-90 ENTHALPY (Kcal/kg) 387.60 B.H.P.

( Kg/

2-g)

% D I F F B.H.P.

77. 1392

-13.85

+lo% + 5% 0% 5% -1 0% -15% -20%

355.30 339.15 323.00 306.85 290 70 274.55 258.40

77.6372 80.455 2 89.71 22 1 t 1.342 131 156 146.203 153 3 16

-13.31 -1 0.20 0 +23.83 +45.67 +6 2. 252 +70 09

TABLE 4:

E f f e c t of w e l l i n s i d e diameter on the bottom h o l e pressures in the C e r r o Prieto- w e l l M-90

AREA

I N S I D E RADIUS
( m)

% A R E A CHANGE

0.08172 0.06 0.04

(m2) 2.098~1 0'2 1.13097~10'~ 5.0265~10'~

(m2) 0 -46.1 -76.04

B.H. P. (Kg/m2-gauge)

% DIFF B.H. P.

89.7122 127.071 225 592

0 41.17 149.74

-1 38-

500

f
E
0)

500

Wellheod data Feb.8,1978 Pressure = 58.8 kg/cm'-gauge Enthalpy = 330 k c a l l kg Discharge. 123 Tonneslhr.

rn

IO00

f
n
1500
1500 20

a 3

40

60

00

100

120

I40

Pressure (kg /cm2 -gouge 1

XBLIOIZ-697

2000

Figure 1. Measured and calculated pressures in the Cerro Prieto well M-90.

11111 1111
80 100 I20 140 1 0 180 200 6
Pressure (kg /cm2 -gauge)
XBL 8012-6576

Figure 2. Computed and measured pressures in the Cerro Prieto well M-91.
Wellhead data June 1976

f
E
aJ
0
CL

Actual well inside diameter

500

D,.O ZOIZrn

f a
P
0

IC00

M-51

I5O0
2b

' 4b ' 6 ; 8 ; Pressure (kg /cm2 - g a u g e )

'

I500

Wellhead data Feb 20,1978 Pressure = 68 05 kg /cm'-pouge Enthalpy = 380 kcal/ kg Discharge' 120 Tonneslhr. Scaling length = 2 0 0 m

XBL 81I 2518

20

40

60

00

10 0

120

140
XIKIOIZ-~S~

Pressure (kg /cm2 -gauge

Figure 3. Effect of inside diameter on the calculated pressures for the Cerro Prieto well M-39.

Figure 4 . Effect of size and location of scaledeposits on the pressures in the well.