Você está na página 1de 10

SPE6766

SPE

COMPARISONOFCALCULATEDANOOBSERVEDPRESSURE DROPSINGEOTHERMAL WELLSPRODUCINGSTEAM-MATER MIXTURES

by R.N. Upadhyay, J.D. Hartz, B.N. Tomkoria andM.S. Gulati, Members

SPE-AIME, Union Oil Company of California

@ Copyright 1977. American Institute of Mining, Metsllurgicsl. and PeIroleum Englneera, Inc.

Tfrie Paper was presented al trw 52nd Annual Fall Tectmwsl Conference and Exhibiion of the SOCielyof Petroleum En Ineereo’ AIME. held m Denver, Colorado. Oct. 9.12.1977. T’IIJmaterial ia subject to Mrrectlon by the auihor. Permleslon to copy Ie reatricled to an abatract ot not more then 300 words. Writs 6201!N. CenI ‘al ExfIy. Dallas, Texas 75206.

ABSTRACT —.

This paper contains comparisons of calculated andob-

served flowing pressure profiles from geothermal wells

wellbore heat loss-was used to calculate pressures in

a number of geothermalwells in which flowing pressure

surveys had been run. The paper contains comparisons

between the calculated and the observed pressure

located in the United States and the Philippines. Com- profiles.

perisons are Included for tubular flow as well as flow

through the casing-tubingannulus, Our comparison This comparisc:lencompasses a wide range of flow rates

shows that for tubular flow, the Orkiszewski correla-

and wellhead pressures, and includes tubular as well

tion makes the best prediction,whereas for annular

as amular (between casing and tubi

flow. The three

flow, no clear-cut choice of a correlation can be made. correl tions used

are: Orki zewski;

Hagedorn and
3

v

Brown; !! and Beggs and Brfll.

INTRODUCTION

The capability to accurately predict flowing pressures

The phase behav or relationshipsused in this work are

for pure water,

1

and do not include the effects of

in a geothermal well producing steam-watermixtures dissolved salts. However, the waters in the wells we

under various operating conditions is of value for studied were of low salinity. Also

not considered is

several reasons: general engineering essential to the effectof non-condensablegases present in the

evaluation of the geothermal reservoir and proper res- fluid. We do not ccnsider this to be a significant

ervoir management; optimization of wellbore design from limitation,because in otirobservation wells, non-

well deliverabilityconsiderations;and minimization of condensable gases,consistingalmost entirely of

scale deposits in the wellbore.

This predictive capability is especially important be-

cause of the difficulty of running flowing pressure

surveys in geothermal wells. These wells are char-

carbon dioxide, constituted a small fraction of the

steam phase.

This comparison of computed and observed pressure

drops in flowing geothermalwells can help determine

acterized by very high fluid velocities,which some- the degree of confidence an engineer should have in

times make it impractical for the pressure recorder to

traverse downward in.the well. There have been cases

results predicted by the three correlations evaluated.

The best correlation does a

satisfactory jobof pre-

of pressure recorders thrown out of the wellbore due dieting pressure drops, and can be used in deliver-

to

high fluid velocities.

ability

prediction calculations. Optimization of

 

wellbore design of ?uture wells in a partially de-

In calculating flowing pressure profiles for oil i~ells,

veloped field

can

be accomplished by

calculating pro-

phase transfer between oil and gas requires a !’Zher duction rates for different flow string diameters ata

simple treatment, and is accomplished through the use

given wellhead pressure, and comparing the benefit of

of solution gas-oil ratio relationships. In geothermal increased flow rates against the higher cost of drill-

wells, however~ phase transfer between water and steam ing and completing larger diameter wells.

attains critical importance,and calculationsmust in-

corporatethesteam tables accurately. Pressure profile Since the precipitationof calcium carbonate scales,

calculationsfor geothermal wells vary from those for encountered in many hot water wells, is related to the

oil wells in another important aspect in that the tem- pressl’reand temperature conditions in the wellbore,

perature of the fluid must be computed precisely. calculationscan be made to estimate the depth

atwhici

For calculations included in this paper, a computer

scale precipitationwould cormnencefor various wirllbors

diameters and mass flow rates. This can assist the

program incorporatingthree previously published cor- engineer in the selection of operating conditions that

relations for predicting two-phase flow in vertical will tend to cause scaling at shallower depths, thus

pipes-coupled with equations for phase transfer and requiring easier clean-up operations

*

References and illustrations at end of paper.

COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND OBSERVED PRESSURE DROPS

  • 2 IN GFQ&&ll

CORRELATIONSFOR TWO-

PHASE VERTICAL FLOW

PRODQ

-1’

NUIE8UAU3

MIXTURES

1488 PLdvsl

Re =

HL VL

 

SPE 6766

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.(3)

Our calculationsof flowing pressure profiles were made

with three

correlations:Orklszewski; Hagedorn and

Brown; and Beggs and Brill, Eachof these is awt?ll-

known correlation for two-phase vertical flow. Me

chose the first two correlationsbecause they have been

widely used by petroleum engineers, and

have, in our

own experience, done a satisfactoryjob of predicting

pressure drops in ofl wel1s. W! Included the Beggs and

Brill correlation fn our study hecause it is probably

t4emost recently

publishedmethod.

.

Ti@ following is a brief description of these three

correlations;for a more detailed analysis, the reader

?hould refer o te

correlatdons~,2,~

original articles describing the

The friction factor, f, in equation (2) Is calculated

by using7the Reynolds Nwnber and the standard l~oody

diagram. In this flow regime, pressure drop due to

acceleration ~s neglected.

Slug Flow

Orkiszewski uses the following relationshipto calcu-

late two-phase dens~ty in this flow regime;

Pm =

f@sl

+Vb)+pvs

Vm

+

Vb

9+PL6

where vb = $C2 ~

.

.

.

.(4)

Orkiszewski Correlation

This correlation takes Into consideration the slip be-

?%een liquid and vapor phases, and therefore includes

a correlation to calculate liquid holdup, I.e., the

fraction of the Rir)ecross-sectionalarea occu~ied by

liquid. It also-takes into account the flow regime-

:hatexists fn any section of the pipe; the flow

“egimesconsidered are shown in FIGURE 1. The

lrkiszewskicorrelation is hybrid In that it uses d~$-

Ferentpublished correlations5fordifferent flow

*egimes: Griffith and41allis correlation for bubble

Flow regime, and Duns and ROS6 correlation for transi-

tionand mist flow regimes. For slug flow, Orkiszewskl

ievelopeda new tiorrelation2basedupon the experimental

iata of Hagedorn and Brown. Orkiszewski defines the

fariousflow regimes by the following ‘imits:

Cl is a function of bubble Reynolds Number, NR b, and

  • C is a

function of both N eb and liquid Reynofds

N6mber, NReL, defined belo!.

1488pLvbd

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(5)

‘iReb=

ML

1488 pLvmd

‘ReL=vL

””””””

 

““”””””*”(6)

 

Becauseof the interdependenceof v and ‘Reb, the

calculation of vb requires an itera!ive procedure.

Forvm<

...

10,

6 = (0.013 log pL)/d1”38 - 0.681 + 0.232

lubbleflow:

Vs9/vm

< LB

log Vm - 0.42810gd

.

.

.

.

.

. . ...

(7)

slug flOW:

Wansition flow:

V$gjvm > ‘B$ N~v < Ls

LM > NGV > LS

\nnularmfst flow:

‘GV

>L

M

#here LB = 1.071

-

(0.2218 v#d) Z 0.13

s =!jo+36

LM =75+84

‘LV

(NLv)o”75

lubble Flow

Liquid holdup in this flow regime Is given by the fol-

lowing equation:

HL=l.;

[

l+b-

‘s

v

() l+—

‘m

2

Vs /

-4v#$

  • 1 . .

.(1)

In equation (l), vs is assumed to have a constant valu{

of 0.8 ft/sec.

with the limit d >

- 0.065 Vm

Forvm >10

6=

(&tt4!i10fJvL)/d

0.799

- 0.709-

0.162 log ‘m

-0.88810gd .

.

.

.

. . ...

(8)

-v

b

with the limit d ~vm + Vb

(1 -

‘m/pL)

Pressure drop due to friction is given by

dzf=~ )

‘*

2.

‘pLvm

[(

‘s1

+V

vm+v;+~

)]

““””””””’(g)

The friction factor, f, in equation (9) is calculated

from the Moody diagram using the following definition

of Reynolds Number:

1488 pL dvm

Re =

PL

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

(lo)

The pressure drop due to friction is given by

()

!!E.

dz f

fpL(vs#HL)2

2gcd

,

The Reynolds Number for the

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(2)

calculation of

friction

factor is given by the following relationship:

Pressure drop due to acceleration in the slug flow

regime is too small, and is neglected.

Transition Flow

This flow regime provides a transition from slug flow

to annular mist flow. The pressure drop in this regirn

is calculated by linear interpolationbetween the

SPE 6766

R. N. UPADHYAY, J. D. HARTZ, B. N. TOMKORIA, M. S. GULATI

pressure drops for slug and mist flow regimes. Mixture

density and frictional pressure drop terms are calcu-

lated for both slug flow and mist flow; they are then

linearlyweighted with respect to a dimensionlessgas

ND =120.872d

pL

~

()

Liquid ‘iscositynumber,

1/2

velocity term and the limits of the transition zone in

waler to arrive at the terms applicable to this flow

= 0.15726vL

regime.

‘L

!listFlow

1

()

pLU3

 

3

 

.

.

.

.

.

(17)

1/4

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.(18)

In this flow regime, the gas phase is continuous, and

is the controlling factor. Because of high gas flow

rates, it is assumed that there is no slip between gas

and liquid phases, and the mixture density is given as

D

m .pL

‘sl+

~

m

p

9

!s!4

‘m

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.(11)

The calculationof liquid holdup using this correlation

requires a three-step process: (1A From the

liquid

viscosity number, NL, a quantity C L is eval

(2) The value of CNL, together with NLV and

ated;

N

GVS

is

used to calculate HL/v, i.e., li uid holdup divided by

a secondary correlation factor; 3 An expression con-

taining Nv,

?)

NL and ND is used to evaluate the second-

ary corre?ation factor, $, and thence HL.

The frictional pressure drop is based on gas phase

cmly, and is given as

9

I

From the calculated value of liquid holdup, the mix-

turetlensitycan be calculated using the following

equation:

(+)=%’

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. . ..

(12.

~m=pLHL+@l-HL)

..

,.,

.

.

.

...

19)

The friction factor. f. is obtained from the Moody

diagram and the gas-Reynolds Number, defined belo~:

‘Re =

1488P

Vs

Pg

d

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.(13)

I The frictional pressure drop is given by

d

(+)

‘f=

fw2

7.116x1012xpmxd5

“*””

. .

.(20)

In equation (20), the density, pm, is based upon

Amodified formof

relative roughness factor (e/D) is

calculated for use with the Moody diagram; ~his.is

done

to take into account the effect of the liquld film on

the pipe. The modified e/D is limited to values between

10-3 and 0.5, both inclusive.

Pressure drop due to accelerationcan be given by the

following equation:

g=

()

acc

.

c

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,0

.

.(14)

liquid holdup. The friction factor, f, is read from

the Moody diagram using a two-phase Reynolds Number

defined below:

 
 

1488 pmvmd

‘Re

=

Vm

.

.

I where

Vm = Vsl + v Sg

..

 

‘L

(l-HL)

and Pm = ~L

~g

 
 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.(21)

Haaedorn and Brown Correlation

The pressure gradient due to acceleration is given by

This method considers slip between liquid and gas

phases, but does not divide flow into different

regimes. The correlationwas developed from a study

of flowing pressure gradients in a 1500-foot experi-

mental well. Pressure drops were measured for two-

phase flow through l-in., 1 l/4-in., and 1 l/2-in.

nominal diameter tubing. Although liquid holdup was

not measured, it was calculated to satisfy the total

pressure drop measured after the contribution of fric-

tion and acceleration had been calculated. These cal-

culated values of liquid holdup were then correlated

with flow rates, pipe diameters, and fluid properties.

It was found that the li uid holdup is related prj=

marily to the following ?our dimensionless terms:

() g

acc.

Pm

‘~”dz

d(vm2)

Beggs and Brill Correlation

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

(22)

This is the newestof the three correlations. Like t~

Orkiszewski correlation, it takes into account thesli

between liquid and vapor phases, and recognizes the

existence of different flow regimes. The correlation

contains a relationship to calculate liquid holdup at

all pipe angles. Beggs and Brill developed their cor-

relation from flow experiments in 90-ft long acrylic

pipe, 1 in. and 1.5 in. in diameter,whichcould be

inclined at any angle.

Liquid velocity numberw

LV =1.938vs1

Gas velocity number,

GV =1.938vsg

Pipe diameter number,

pL

1/4

~

()

pL 1/4

~

()

This correlation assumes t’,?flow in a horizontal pip~

to exist in one of three major flow patterns: segre-

.

.

.

.

.(15)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.(16)

gated, intermittent,and distributed, as shown in

FIGURE 2. Even for non-horizontalflow, the method

Tirst calculates the flow regime that would exist if

the flow were horizontal. Separate equations are use(

to calculate the liquid holdup for different “hori-

zontal” flow regimes; the liquid holdup is then cor-

rected for pipe angle of deviation from horizontal.

.

COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND OBSERVED PRESSURE DROPS

  • 4 TN -

..

GEOTHERMAL

---

.... ....

.-

WELLS

------

PRODUCING

.

.--—---- .-

STEAM4JATER

-

.-.

.-.

......

.

MIXTURES

SPE

-.

6766

----

rhe “horizontal”flow regime limits are defined by the

%ouds Number (NFR) and various functions of AL where

Vz

‘FR = ~

wrd

~L.r

‘s1

m

rhe “horizontal”liquid holdup is corrected for pipe

b. From the calculated pressure gradient ‘P, and

pressure increment Ap, the depth interval AZ iv

calculated. Heat loss from the we’ll-boreinto the

surrounding formation over the depth intervalAZ is

now calculated using a transient heat transfer rela-

tionship. This takes into account the time for which

the well has been producing, and the overall heat

transfer coefficient for the wellbore. Energy losses

due to potential energy and kinetic energy changes are

calculated and combined with the heat loss calculated

.!bove. A new fluid enthalpy IS thus computed. Using

inclinationby u~ing a multiplier, which, for vertical this new enthalpy, and pressure p + Ap, the steam

Flow, reduces tfl(1 +0.3C). Values of C

differ with

the calculated “horizontal”flow regime, and are dif-

ferent fo uprril1 and downhill flow.

$

ind Brill for calculation of C.)

(Refer to Beggs

rhe frictional pressure gradient is given by

(Q

Idz )

f

=

ft pn

VM2

2gcd

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

#here Pn ‘pLAL + Pg(l - AL)

.

.(23)

ind ftp = fn es

fraction at depthAZ is calculated. If the difference

between calculated and assumed steam fractions is

within a

specified tolerance, calculation proceeds to

the next pressure increment. If not, the average of

the two is assumed to be the steam fraction for the

second iteration. This iterative procedure is con-

tinued until assumed and calculated steam fractions

converge. The pressure gradient calculated in the

last iteration is used to calculate the depth incremer

AZcorresponding to the pressure increment Ap. For

single-phaseflow, iterations are made to achieve flui

temperature convergence rather than

convergence.

steam fraction

rhe non-slip friction factor, f , is calculated from

the Moody diagram using the fol~owing definition of

?eynoldsNumber:

1488 On vmd

 

!?en=pLAL+p

9

(l-AL)

““””””””””

“(24)

  • 3. The pressure is increased again by increment Ap, and the correspondingAZ is ca?zulated following

the procedure outlined in step 2 above. This pro-

cedure is continued until the total depth of the well

is reached.

Properties of pure water and steam were used in our

calculations. Improvementsin calculations can

be

made by taktng into considerationthe effects of salt

The exponent s is a function of input liquid fraction,

wrd the calculated liquid holdup, corrected for

cal flow.

  • verti- concentrationon the phase behavior of water, and alsc the effect of non-condensablegas content.

~ressuregradient due to acceleration is given by

f~

.

~dz ) ace.

[pLHL + Pg(l - ‘~1 ‘mvsQ .

~

9C P

COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR

.

.

.

“@)

For heat transfer calculations,ground temperatureane

a geothermal graditmt are used; this gradient is used

to calculate the rock temperature up to the to

of thf

producing formatior.

The temperaturewithin t!e pro-

ducing formation itself is assumed to have no vertical

gradient. This has been found to be generally true ir

our experience.

CALCULATINGPRESSURE PROFILES

The

computer program calculates heat transfer from thf

The computer programwe used in this study follows the

procedureoutlined below in calculating the pressure

profile in a flowing geothermal well:

  • 1. Wellhead flowing pressure (p), and steam and water

wellbore into the surrounding rock formation using the

following relationship:

‘UndAZ(Tf- Tr

Q=-mm+

““”””””””””””(26

flow rates at wellhead conditions act as the start- Where

ing point. (Althoughbottomhole conditions can just

as

easily be treated as the starting point, the informa-

tion is usually available for wellhead conditions, and

f(t) = - In

‘c

()

2m

- 0.29

needs to be calculated for bottomhole conditions.) Ramey8 has found equation (26) to be valid for flow

  • 2. A small pressure increment (AP) is selected, and

the depth interval (AZ) over which this increment

periods in excess ofa week. Because of high flow

rates encountered during our surveys, heat tra?isfer

between the wellbore and the surrounding rock did not

would occur is calculated following these steps: affect results appreciably. We used a heat transfer

  • a. Anew steam fraction (i.e., fraction of total

mass flow rate that is steam) is assumed to exist at

coefficientof 10 Btu/(hr. ‘F ftz) in ourcalcula-

tions.

p + Ap. Using an average pressure and average steam OBSERVED PRESSURE PROFILES

fraction over the interval, the s ecified two-phase

flow correlation is used to calcuYate the pressure

gradient (Ap/AZ)over the interval. If flow is in

Outflowing surveys ~ere conducted during tubular as

well as annular flow; the annular flow surveys will b[

single phase, the pressure gradient is calculated by discussed later. For tubular flow, the typical well-

using single-phasedensity and Reynolds Number, and bore configurationco~sisted ofa 9 5/8-in. casing in

the Moodydiagram.

the upper halfof

the well,

and a

7-in.

slotted

liner

SPE 6766

R.

N.

UPAONYAY.

J.

D.

HARTZ.

B.

N.

TOMKORIA.

M.

S.

GULATI

5

in the bottom half. A typical wellbore dfagram appears The annular surveys can be generally classified into

in FIGURE 3.

Flowing wellhead pressures in these surveys varfed be-

tween 39 and 160psfa; measured bottomhole pressures

between 240 and 1100 psia. Mass flow rates ranged be-

tween 90,000 lb/brand 389,000 lb/hr. Steam fraction

at wellhead conditions varfed from 0.15 to 0.46 by

wefght. The shallowest survey was 1600 ft deep; the

deepest, 5000 ft. Wellbore and flow rate data for

these surveys are swmnarized in TABLE I (surveys 1

through 5).

two groups: One wfth wellhead pressures close to 135

psfa,the other wfth wellhead pressures fn the vicinfty

of 220 psia. Wellbore and flow rate data pertfnent to

these surveys are summarized in TABLE I (surveys6

?nd 7). Two comparisonsof observed and calculated

pressure proffles, representingthe two survey

appear in FIGURES 9 and 10.

groups,

In calculating the annular flow pressure proffle, we

used the hydraulic dfa!neter,deffned below as the pipe

dfameter.

The total dissolved solfds In the produced fluids

varfed from a low of 6100 ppm to a high of 9700 ppm.

Non-condensablegases, composed almost entfrely of

carbon dioxide, ranged from a low of 0.2% to a hfgh of

4.3% by weight of steam.

COMPARISONOF OBSERVED AND

~LCULATED PRESSURE PROFILES

The comDarfson ot”observed and commited Rressure mo-

files appears in FIGURES 4 throu~h”8. In FIGURE ;, it

can be seen that Kbserved pressure pro~rts

devfating from the calculated values at-a depth of

1500ft; this devfation becomes considerable below 2001

ft. There fs a sfmple explanation for this, however.

The observed pressure gradfentin this well below 2000

ft fs 0.376 psi/ft, and temperature surveys indicate

the reservofr temperature to be 383°F. From s earn

J

tables, water densftyat 383°F fs 54.76 lb/ft, which

results in a statfc pressure gradfent of 0.380 psi/ft.

This shows that the observed pressure gradfent below

2000ft fs a statfc gradfent, and that there fs no

flow enterfng the wellbore below that depth. Between

1500 ftand 2000 ft depth, fluid enters the well at

different points, and therefore there fs divergence

between the calculated and the observed pressures.

An examination of FIGURES 4 through 8 frmnedfatelyre-

veals that the Orkiszewskf correlation calculates pres

sures that sireclosest to the observed pressures; the

Hagedorn and Brown method fs a close second.

In

FIGURES 6 and 7, both Orkiszewskf and Hagedorn and

Brotinpredfct approximately the same pressure profile;

howe)~er,fn FIGURE 6, it is noteworthy that below 4500

ftthe Orkfszewskf correlation follows a change in the

observed pressure gradient, whereas the Ha edorn and

Brown correlationdoes not. In our work, t f e Beggs

and Brtll correlation did not do a satisfactory job

of predicting pressure proffles in

goethennal wells

producing steam-watermixtures.

Hydraulic diameter,

d

= 4 x cross-sectionalarea of flow

 

h

wetted perimeter

.

If the casing insfdedfameter is dl and tubing outsfde

dfameter fs dz,

4(m/4)(d12 - d22) = d

‘h =

~(dl + dz)

1

-

d

2

“ ““

““

.(27)

For a 9 5/8-in. nomfnal casfng and 2 3/8-in. nominal

tubfng, dh is calculated to be 0.545 ft.

The hydraulic diameter was used fn calculating Reynold

Number and pipe relative roughness. For calculating

fluid velocftfes, we used the actual cross-sectfonal

area of the annulus.

An examination of FIGURES 9 and 10 shows that no clear

cut chofce can be made as to the best correlation for

annular flow. Thfs statement can bemade for all the

annular flow pressure surveys conducted by us. We

find that whfle Orkiszewski and Hagedorn and Brown

tend to under-predfct the pressure drop, the Beggs and

Brfll correlation has a tendency to over-predict ft.

However, since all the annular flow surveys were run

in a sfnglewell, we donotknow ifour ffndfngwfll

be generally true. We ffnd ourselves in agreement

wfth the conclusion of Sanchez9 that no sufficiently

accurate and precfse method exists for annular flow.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the limfted number of flowing pressure sur-

veys conducted, we come to the following conclusions:

  • 1. For predicting flowing pressure proffles fn geo- thenoal wells producing steam and hotwatermfx-

tures, the drkiszewski correlation does a satisfactory

It should be noted that in our cal”culatfonof pressure ~~@n~he Hagedorn and Brown correlation comes a close

proffles, we assumed that all the fluid flows through

the inside of the slotted liner, i.e., there fs no

flow through the open hole-liner annulus.

ANNULAR FLOW

.

2. The Beggs and Brfll correlation did not adequately

predict pressure loss fn these flowing geothermal

wells.

I

We ran several pressure surveys

fn swell

fn whfch flow 3

took place through the 9

5/8-fn. casing2 3/8-fn.

For annular flow in geothermal wells, we cannot

make a definfte chofce of a correlation. Our re-

tubing annulus. The tubing was closed at the top

open at the bottom; ft had

several perforationsat

and

suits show tk~t whfle the Orkiszewski and the Hagedorn

and Brown correlations under-predict the pressure drop

dffferent intervals to

allow pressure conmwnfcationbe- the

Beggs and Brfll correlation over-predicts ft.

tween the casing and the tubing. A bottomhole pressure

recorder was moved up and down the tubing to conduct

  • 4. The Orkiszewski correlation has been used wfth

the surveys. Although some flow obviously occurred success in predicting geothermal well deliver-

through the tubing because of the perforations,we

that ftwas not an appreciable part of the total

and we assumed the total flow to

be through the

feel abflfty under different wellbore desfgns. Together

flow, with appropriate treatment of solubflity character-

fstics of C02 in water, the Orkiszewski correlation

annulus.

COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND OBSERVED PRESSURE DROPS

  • 6 IN GEOTHERMAL IIIELLSPRODUCING STEAM-WATER MIXTURES

SPE

-.

-

6766

- . --

can be used to approximate the depth at which scale

deposits will take place in swell as a

wellbore diameter.

function of

  • 5. Our calculations did

not include the effectof

dissolved solids in the water, nor the non-

condensable gas content of the steam. However, the

wellbore fluids in our wells were not lighin

solved solids content.

~OMENCLATURE

c,,

C2 = Parameters used

b =

‘m

‘s

Sg =

s1 =

W=

. Greek Symbols

6

=

Bubblerise velocity, ft/sec

= Mixture velocity, ft/sec

= Slip velocity (differencebetween average gas

fthec

and liquid velocities),

Superficial gas velocity, ft/sec

  • dis- Superficial liquid velocity, ft/sec’ Mass flow rate, lbm/hr

Z = vertical length, ft

to calculate bubble rise

velocity in the Orkiszewski correlation

CNL = A function of liquid viscosity number, NL

a = Thermal diffusivity of earth, ft2/day

Liquid distribution coefficient

  • d = Pipe inside diameter, ft

1

= Casing inside diameter, ft

AL = Input liquid fraction, or no-slip liquid

holdup

d2 = Tubing outside diameter, ft

Vg =

Gas viscosity, cp

h = Hydraulic diameter, ft

e = Absolute pipe roughness, ft

f = Darcy-Weisbachor Moody

friction factor

fn = Non-slip friction factor

f(t) =

A function of time, t (days), since well was

open to flow

ftp

= Two-phase friction factor

  • 9 = Acceleration due to gravity,

32.2

ft/sec2

9C =

Conversion constant, 32.2

lbm-ft/lbf-sec2

~L =

Liquid viscosity, Cp

=

‘m

‘9 =

Mixture viscosity, cp

Gas density, 1bm;ft3

pL = Liquid density, lbm/ft3

pm= Mixture density, lbm/ft3

‘n

= No-slip mixture density, 1bm/ft3

a= Interracial tension, dynes/cm

$=

Secondary correlation factor

HL =

Liquid holdup, fraction

‘B

=

Bubble-slug boundary term

LM = Transition-mistboundary tem

LS =

Slug-transitionboundary term

ND = Pipe diameter n!imber

‘FR = Froude Number

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Management of Union Oil Company of Cali-

fornia for permission to present this paper.

The com-

puter program used in our work was originally written

at the Petroleum Engineering Department of the Uni-

versity of Tulsa under a contract from Union Oil

Company of California.

‘iv l~~~u~l~~~~s~~b~~mber

L

LV =

Liquid Velocity Number

Re = Reynolds Number

‘Reb

= Bubble Reynolds Number

=

‘Rel

Ren =

P =

Liquid

Reynolds Number

Non-slip Reynolds Number

Pressure, Psf

  • d Acceleration pressure gradient, psf/ft

(3)

z acc

=

g

()

f

=

Frictional pressure, gradient, psf/ft

Q = Heat lost to surroundings,Btu/lb

rc = Outer radius of casing, ft

s = Exponent used in relating no-slip friction

factor to two-phase friction factor

t = Time since well was open for flow, days

Tf

Tr

=

Fluid temperature in a segmentofwellbore, °F

=

Rock temperature surrounding a segmentof

wellbore, ‘F

U = Overall heat transfer coefficient,

Btu/(hr-ft2-

“F)

REFERENCES

  • 1. Orkiszewski, J.: “PredictingTwo-Phase Pressure Drop in Vertical Pipe”, J. Pet. Tech. (June,

2.

1967) 829-838.

Hagedorn, A.R, and Brown, K.E.: “Experimental

Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During Con-

tinuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical

Conduits”, J. Pet. Tech. (April, 1965) 475-484.

  • 3. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: “AStudyofTwo-

Phase

Flow in Inclined Pipes”, J. Pet. Tech. (May,

1973) 607-617.

4. Argonne National Laboratory: “STEAM67’’--ASub-

routine package incorporating1967 ASME Steam

Tables.

  • 5. Griffith, P. and Wallis, G.B.: “TwoPhaseSlug F#w~’’oJ. Heat Transfer; Trans., AIME (Aug., 1961)

-.

6.

Duns, H., Jr. and Ros, N.C.J.: “Vertical Flow of

Gas and Liquid Mixtures from Borehole”, ProC.,

Sixth World Pet. Congress, Frankfurt (June 19-26,

1963) Section II,

Paper 22-PD6.

,

SPE 6766

R.

N.

UPADHYAY.

J.

D.

HARTZ.

E.

N.

TOMKORIA.

M.

s

fMUATT

7

  • 7. Moody, L.F.: “Friction Factors in Pipe Flow”, Trans., ASME (1944) 66, 671-684.

  • 8. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: “Wellbore Heat Transmission”

J. Pet. Tech. (April, 1962) 427-435.

  • 9. Sanchez, M. J.: “Comparisonof Correlations for Predicting Pressure Losses in Vertical Multi- phase Annular Flow”, M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa, 1972.

TABLE I

WELLBORE AND FLOW RATE DATA FOR PRESSURE SURVEYS

 

Tubular Flow

Annular Flow

 

Survey

1

2

3

4

——

~

Flowing Wellhead Pressure, psia

160

129

80

39

151

138

219

Total Mass Flow Rate, lb/hr

281,174

271,3$5

89,608

120,475

389,000

149,700

133,700

Steam Fraction at Wellhead

  • 0.162 0.149

0.157

  • 0.463 0.211

0.643

0.530

Casing Inside Diameter, inches

  • 8.921 8.758

8.921

  • 8.801 8.921

8.921

8.921

Casing Depth, feet

 
  • 1621 1621

  • 2290 1783

1621

2371

2371

Liner Inside Diameter, inches

6.276

6.276

  • 6.276 6.276

6.276

2.375a

2.375a

Liner Depth, feet

4976

4976

  • 6060 4805

4976

2371b

2371b

Formation Temperature, ‘F

  • 540 540

  • 540 383

540

525

525

a

Tubing outside diameter. Flow takes place in the annulus between casing and tubing,

 

b

Tubing de ;h.

BUBBLE

SLUG

TRANSITION

ANN-ULAR-

MIST

Fig. 1 - Flow reg~mes for the Orkiszewski correlation.

SEGREGATED FLOW

B WAVY INTERMITTENT FLOW ~ . PLUG DISTRIBUTED FLOW ~ BUBBLE ~ MIST FIG, 2- FLOW
B
WAVY
INTERMITTENT FLOW
~
.
PLUG
DISTRIBUTED FLOW
~
BUBBLE
~
MIST
FIG,
2-
FLOW
REGIMES
FORTHE

BEGGSANDBRILL CORRELATION.

WELL BORE DIAGRAM

DEPTH —.

 

373’—

 

.

1645’—’

 
 

[

2290’

4

2525’—

 

6060’

K/

FIG,

3-

A

TYPICAL

GEOTHERMAL

WELLBORE

DIAGRAN,

)

.200

PRESSURE,

PSIA

400

600

OBSERVED

ORKISZEWSKI

HAGEDORN

&BROWN

BEGGS

&

BRILL

F19.4- Comparison of calculated

for

survey

1,

and observed

preesura

profi

Ies

10

G n

.

20

~

B

30

40

1

0

“P

•1

All

x

‘o

200

PRESSURE,

PSIA

,

400

600

OBSERVED

x ORKISZEWSKI

&

HAGEDORN

&

BROWN

u

BEGGS

&

BRILL

An

x

*R

%

0

n

Xn

Aa

“’L

‘n

~n

“%

‘Q

50

Fig.

for

6-

Ikqarison

survBy

3.

of

calculated

and obssrved

pressure

profilae

0

500

-

200

PRESSURE,

PSIA

400

600

OBSERVED

x

ORKISZEWSKI

b

HAGEDORN

&

BROWN

o

BEGGS

&

BRiLL

1= &

.

* &

1000

-

~

1500

-

I

‘An

2000

2500

Fig.

for

L ,;

.nAO

x4ifJ

‘A”

XAO

o

xAo

XAoo

5-

Crmparlson

of

calculated

x

A ‘n

and obsarved

survay

2.

preesure

profiles

.

O*

r

~

I

50CJ -

%.

~.

A

+“ &

.

.

z

1-

&

a

1000

-

1500

-

x

0

AO

‘o

A

0

x

.0

200

PRESSURE,

PSIA

400

600

x

OBSERVED

ORKISZEWSKI

A

o

HAGEDORN

&

BROWN

BEGGS

&

BRILL

ho

AO

0

&o o

Fig.

for

7-

ikqarieon

survay

4.

of

calculated

and obsarved

pres.wra

profiles

PRESSURE,

PSIA

400

600

OBSERVED

 

ORKISZEWSKI

BEGGS

&

BRILL

HAGEDORN

&

BROWN

andobsarvad

preasure

o

 

50

100

!4

U.

 

150

200

Fig.

10-

kwparison

for

survey

7.

profiles

*O .200 ❑ A ● ● x @ = <0 A 500 - An d AQ
*O
.200
A
x
@
=
<0
A
500
-
An
d
AQ
●*AD
*D
●A ❑
1000
-
*
so
u.
.
● ~tl
F
a.
Xo
● A
H
X’J
1500
-
%AA
:
2000
-
Fig.
8 -Comparison
of
calculated
for
aurvay
5.
PRESSURE,
PSIA
200
400
400
o+-
i
*
OBSERVED
%
x
ORKISZEWSKi
A
HAGEDORN
&
BROWN
A a
x
BEGGS
&
BRIL1
500
*
A *D
o“
Ax
O
AO
A
Xo
200C
Ax
.0
AX
Fig.
9-
kqarison
of
calculated
and observed
praaaura
pr’files
for
aurvdy
8.
PR~SSURE, PSiA 400 OBSERVED ● x ORKISZEWSKI Q BEGGS & BRILL i A HAGEDORN .0 0
PR~SSURE,
PSiA
400
OBSERVED
x
ORKISZEWSKI
Q
BEGGS
&
BRILL
i
A
HAGEDORN
.0
0
A
Xo
.J
Xo
AO
x
0
AO
x
A
x
oalculatad
and obsarvad
prassura

2oo-

600

of

& BROWI

profilas

I