SPE-178282-MS

Determination of Pressure Drop in a Natural Folwing Gas Well using Nodal

Analysis
J. A. Dala, Nigerian Petroleum Development Comapny; O. O. Agbaka, O. A. Olafuyi, and E. S. Adewole,
University of Benin

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 4 – 6 August 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
If a well loses it producing potential before depletion, then the pressure analysis of the well system should
be carried out to ascertain the cause. Nodal analysis, is one of the analysis methods which is aimed at
analysing pressure distributions across different nodes. This analysis will serve as a guide to revamping
the well. This paper utilizes nodal analysis simulation approach to study the cause of pressure drop in a
well system.
Inflow performance relation (IPR) and vertical lift performance (VLP) were used to determine the
pressure distribution in the well attainable at various flow rates and wellbore condition.
Results show that nodal analysis method can be used to obtain prevailing well bottom hole pressures
at various flow rate, the flow rates responsible for a unit pressure drop in a well system, the pressure loss
across perforation and tubing using IPR and VLP of the well system respectively. Well completion
strategies are adequately advisable from application of nodal analysis.

Introduction
Total pressure drop is the sum of the pressure drop occurring in all the component of a system. Since
pressure drop through any component varies with producing rate, the producing rates are controlled by the
component selected. Selection and sizing of individual components is vital and also due to the interaction
among these component, a change in pressure drop in one may change the pressure drop behaviour in all
the others. This occurrence is highly exhibited in gas wells (where flowing fluid is compressible). Hence,
pressure drop in a particular component depends not only on flow rate through the component but also on
the average pressure that exists in the component.
IPR and VLP are the most viable tool that should be deployed in handling the pressure drop in a well
system. A thorough review and analysis of the well completion strategy and deviation survey is essential
for accurate well pressure drop determination. Reservoir rock and fluid properties, and production history
considering a pressure range together with the component data (tubings, casings, sub-surface safety valves
and other relevant restrictions) of the downhole equipment were used to simulate the IPR and VLP of the
well system.
2 SPE-178282-MS

The concept of pressure drop determination in a well performance have been published in numerous
literatures (Gilbert, W.E 1954, Nind, T.E.W. 1964, Brown, K.E. and Beggs, H.D 1978, Economides M.J.,
Hill A.D., Economides E.C. 1993, Boyuo G., William C. L., Ali G. 2007). However the practical
application of pressure drop determination applicable to vertical wells using nodal-analysis (Dale Beggs
H. 1999, 2002 and 2003) have also been discussed in details. The aim of this paper is to simulate the IPR
and VLP performance of a natural flowing (vertical) gas well system. This paper is limited to upstream
performance (IPR and VLP) and as such does not consider downstream performance (flowline and choke).

Well Pressure Models

A relationship between flow rate and pressure drop must be established for each component in the system.
Flow rate through a system can be determined once the following conditions are satisfied:
1. flow into the node equals flow out of the node.
2. only one pressure can exist at a node.
Since the pressure drop in the total system at any time is given as:
(1)

if well is controlled by surface choke (neglecting separator), equation (1) becomes:

(2)

Then the inflow to the node can be accounted for using:

(3)

Also the outflow from the node written as:

(4)

However, the effect of a change in any of the components can be analyzed by recalculating the node
pressure versus flow rate using the new characteristics of the component that was changed. Hence, the
inflow and outflow performances can be used to account for either wellhead pressure Pwh or flowing
bottom hole pressure Pwf as shown below:
Inflow to node:
(5)

Outflow from node:

(6)

Inflow to node:
(7)

Outflow from node:

(8)

Application Case Study

In a Niger-delta field, Five wells were producing from a reservoir. After some years of production, three
wells tremendously declined in production. It is important to carry-out a pressure study on these decline
wells using nodal-analysis, hence the introduction of PROSPER becomes relevant.
SPE-178282-MS 3

Prosper Application, Results And Discussion

With a gas gravity of 0.70355, condensate gas ratio of 5stb/MMscf, condensate gravity of 40API, water
salinity of 80000ppm, Pressure volume and temperature analysis was carried out at a reservoir pressure
and temperature of 4291psig and 1870F respectively and also at standard conditions.

Table 1—PVT results at standard temperaturaite

Gas Water Water Liquid/gas
Pressure Gas viscosity Gas FVF density viscosity Water FVF IFT
(psig) density(Ib/ft3) (centipoise) (ft3/scf) Z factor (Ib/ft3) (centipoise) (rb/stb) (dyne/cm)

0 0.0552 0.010344 0.99689 0.9970 65.9001 1.40939 0.9995 0.206

476.778 2.0408 0.011094 0.026964 0.9010 65.969 1.40939 0.9985 0.206
953.556 4.4887 0.012544 0.012259 0.8070 66.038 1.40939 0.9974 0.206
1430.33 7.3954 0.014912 0.007440 0.7310 66.1072 1.40939 0.9964 0.206
1907.11 10.362 0.018169 0.005310 0.6939 66.1765 1.40939 0.9953 0.206
2383.89 12.894 0.021796 0.004267 0.6960 66.2459 1.40939 0.9943 0.206
2860.67 14.877 0.025317 0.003698 0.7231 66.3156 1.40939 0.9933 0.206
3337.44 16.409 0.028534 0.003353 0.7643 66.3853 1.40939 0.9922 0.206
3814.22 17.616 0.031424 0.003123 0.8132 66.4552 1.40939 0.9912 0.206
4291 18.593 0.034023 0.002959 0.8664 66.5253 1.40939 0.9901 0.206

Table 2—PVT results at initial reservoir temperature

Gas Water Water Liquid/gas
Pressure Gas viscosity Gas FVF density viscosity Water FVF IFT
(psig) density(Ib/ft3) (centipoise) (ft3/scf) Z factor (Ib/ft3) (centipoise) (rb/stb) (dyne/cm)

0 0.0442 0.012898 1.24235 0.9985 63.851 0.40895 1.0316 0.206

476.778 1.5487 0.013356 0.035531 0.9541 63.904 0.40895 1.0307 0.206
953.556 3.1771 0.014151 0.01732 0.9163 63.957 0.40895 1.0299 0.206
1430.33 4.8924 0.015235 0.011248 0.8880 64.010 0.40895 1.0290 0.206
1907.11 6.6272 0.016582 0.008303 0.8719 64.063 0.40895 1.0282 0.206
2383.89 8.3023 0.018138 0.006628 0.8686 64.1166 0.40895 1.0273 0.206
2860.67 9.8564 0.01983 0.005583 0.8771 64.1698 0.40895 1.0265 0.206
3337.44 11.260 0.02159 0.004886 0.8950 64.2231 0.40895 1.0256 0.206
3814.22 12.511 0.023364 0.004398 0.9201 64.2766 0.40895 1.0248 0.206
4291 13.621 0.025119 0.004039 0.9504 64.3301 0.40895 1.0239 0.206

Equipment data analysis in consideration of the well deviation survey, downhole completion equip-
ment, geothermal gradient, and average heat coefficient was done.

Table 3—deviation survey

Measured depth (feet) True vertical depth (feet)

0 0
9500 9500

Table 4 —downhole completion equipment

Measured depth Tubing ID Casing ID
Type (ft) Tubing ID (inch) roughness (inch) Casing ID (inch) roughness (inch) Rate multiplier

Xmas tree 0 - - - - -
tubing 9500 3.992 0.006 8.3 0.0006 1
casing 9500 - - - - 1
4 SPE-178282-MS

Considering a measured depth of zero feet at a standard temperature of 600F and a measured depth of
9500feet at a temperature of 1870F, an overall heat transfer coefficient of 3Btu/hr/ft2/F was chosen to
determine the geothermal gradient.
The following reservoir system parameter were use to obtain the IPR of the well system.

Table 5—reservoir system input data

Reservoir pressure 4291psig
Reservoir temperature 1870F
Condensate gas ratio 5stb/MMscf
Reservoir permeability 25md
Reservoir thickness 50ft
Drainage area 340acres
Dietz shape factor 31.6
Wellbore radius 0.3554ft
Perforation interval 40ft
Time since production started 0.1days
Porosity 20 percent
Connate water saturation 20 percent
Skin 5

In figure 1, from the IPR plot the absolute open flow AOF of the well system is 66.462MMscf/day.

Figure 1—IPR plot

At a test rate of 4MMscf/day and a test bottom hole pressure of 2108psig, the following VLP pressures
and IPR pressures were obtained:
SPE-178282-MS 5

Table 6 —VLP and IPR pressure results

Gas rate (MMscf/day) VLP pressure (psig) IPR pressure (psig)

0.066462 2249 4289

4.0 2108 4192
14.033 2143 3899
28.000 2466 3378
31.492 2574 3225
34.983 2690 3062
41.967 2940 2700
55.993 3491 1762
59.425 3636 1440
62.917 3784 1023

At the above mention test rate and pressure, the solution bottom hole pressure capable of producing gas
at a rate of 41.967MMscf/day is 2700psig.
In figure 2, it is shown that if the well is completed with a 3.99in internal diameter ID tubing, a bottom
hole pressure (Pwf) of 2870psig will produce gas at a rate of 37.426MMscf/day. Again at a Pwf of 2853psig
under a wellhead temperature (WHT) of 1690F, 39.121MMscf/day is produced. Other relevant informa-
tion obtainable at this operating condition are shown in table 7. However tubing correlation comparison
conducted at a depth of 8000feet revealed that if the formation temperature and pressure is 1860F and
3033psig respectively, pore pressure gradient will be 0.020psi/ft under a constant heat transfer coefficient
of 1.44Btu/hr/ft2/F. At the above temperature, pressure and depth condition, table 8 show results of other
determined parameters.

Figure 2—IPR/VLP plot

6 SPE-178282-MS

Table 7—multiple variable calculation (tubing diameter, downhole equipment, permeability, skin and roughness)
Gas rate (MMscf/day) VLP pressure (psig) IPR pressure (psig) dP total skin (psi)

0.066759 3406 4291 0.41016

2.78673 3214 4228 17.1597
5.5067 3135 4160 33.9531
10.9466 3120 4008 67.7563
15.0266 3166 3878 93.3894
32.7064 3645 3147 211.801

Table 8 —tubing correlation comparison result

Friction gradient 0.00608psi/ft

Friction pressure loss 48.91psi

Gravity pressure loss 114.3psi
Slip gas velocity 26.185ft/sec
Erosion velocity 124.079ft/sec
Tubing rate 37MMscf/day
Cumulative gas volume 695.3ft3

In table 9, at an initial reservoir pressure of 4291psig and a zero condensate gas ratio (CGR) under a
skin of 5, inflow calculation were done to show the effect of skin on drawdown and withdrawal.

Table 9 —inflow/outflow calculation result

Gas rate (MMscf/day) IPR pressure (psig) dP total skin (psi)

0.00664 4291 0.0678

3.501 4206 35.94
6.995 4112 71.92
10.489 4011 108.07
13.983 3901 144.44
17.477 3784 181.14
20.971 3659 218.28

From the well system plot in figure 3, a reference well head pressure (WHP) of 1000psig was selected
for the well head pressure/rate forecast. But from table 10 calculation, it was further reveal that if the well
was completed with a tubing ID of 1.16in, then a WHP of 1000psig at an initial reservoir pressure of
4291psig would not be suitable for production. Close observation show that if the well is completed with
3.99in tubing ID at Pwf ⬍ 2500psig, production from the well can be termed as declining or uneconomical
production rates. This analysis is based on the AOF of the well.
SPE-178282-MS 7

Figure 3—well system plot

Table 10 —solution details

Oil rate 195.6stb/day

Total skin 5
Total dP skin 429.44psi
dP fiction 539.87psi
dP gravity 1292.70psi

In table 11, it was observed that an IPR pressure of 3225psig will require a VLP pressure of 2586psig
to produce 31.49165MMscf/day.

Table 11—three system variable (tubing/pipe diameter, downhole equipment and reservoir pressure) consideration.
Gas rate (MMscf/day) VLP pressure (psig) IPR pressure (psig) dP total skin (psi)

3.33 2116 4204 36.65

10.54 2104 4009 108.9
14.03 2146 3899 145.4
21.01 2285 3656 219.5
52.44 3374 2037 646.4
62.92 3818 1026 1044.7

However for the effect of VLP and IPR on flow rates to be known, multiple variable calculation was
done considering several completion components, tubing/pipe diameter, tubing roughness and skin.
Results of the calculation revealed that tubing diameter, downhole completion equipment, permeability
and skin have tremendous effect on flow rate when IPR or VLP is in consideration. These effect also
8 SPE-178282-MS

depict high alterations in VLP and IPR pressures. Whenever skin and permeability is altered, IPR changes.
The same applies to VLP when tubing ID changes.
Below is a table showing variables and solution of a scenario in figure 4:

Figure 4 —IPR versus VLP plot for various tubing sizes

Table 12—Variables
Tubing ID 1.0 inch

Downhole Equipment SSSV

Tubing roughness 0.0054inch
Permeability 20.5md
Skin 2.5

Table 13—Solution
Gas rate 26.4798MMscf/day

Solution node pressure 3436.82 psig

Completion skin 2.5
Wellhead liquid density 49.8657ib/cu.ft

Subsequent scenario’s show that if a well is completed with a tubing ID of 2.0in and permeability drops
to 15.75md due to increase skin of 5, a huge reduction in the solution node pressure will yield a rate of
21.1206MMscf/day. However if a proper stimulation job is done to improve the permeability to 30md a
rate of 37.6912MMscf/day will be realized from a solution node pressure of 3835.26psig.
SPE-178282-MS 9

Table 14 shows that, the higher the tubing ID, the higher the chances of not exceeding the erosion
velocity limited (i.e damage of the internal walls of the tubing). This scenario is observed especially in
small tubing ID completions where flow velocity is high. Table 14 shows the effect of erosion velocity
using tubing ID of 2.98in and a wellhead pressure of 850psig

Table 14 —VLP tubing curve

Erosion velocity limited Gas rate (MMscf/day) VLP pressure (psig)

- 3.558 1797
- 14.033 2304
- 28.000 3524
E 55.933 6295
E 66.408 7381

Furthermore WHP calculation were used to account for bottom hole pressure (BHP). Various reference
value were chosen at random at their corresponding temperature conditions. Table 15 show results of
calculated BHP using WHP.

Table 15—results of calculated BHP using WHP

Heat transfer
Gas rate CGR Calculated BHP coef.
Time (days) (MMscf/day) WHP (psig) (stb/MMscf) WHT (0F) (psig) (Btu/h/ft2/F)

1 1 500 5 82 1027 0.68457

2 1.5 890 5 100 1856 0.55486
3 10 1700 5 145 3052 1.02208
4 24 1707 5 160 3646 1.41284

Conclusion
Nodal analysis techniques utilizes reservoir system (fluid, reservoir and well properties) data in the
determination of pressures occurring at various nodes. This paper has been able to show; the pressure
distribution responsible for every withdrawal, the effect of downhole equipment on well deliverability and
the simulation of IPR and VLP of a well system. Haven determined the THP and BHP suitable for certain
production rate, values of an unknown node can be obtained from an available node (e.g. WHP using BHP
or vise-versa). Also the adherence to erosion velocity limit will guarantee optimum tubing performance.

Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the Petroleum Experts IPM 7.5, whose tool were used for this study.

Reference
Nind T.E.W., 1964 principle of oil well production, Mcgraw-hill book company. 53–113
Economides, M.J., Hill A.D., Economides E.C., 1993 petroleum production systems, upper saddle
river, New jersey: Prentice hall. 174 –181
Beggs, H.D., 2003. production optimization using nodal analysis, second edition, Tulsa Oklahoma:
OGCI, inc., & Petroskill, LLC. 1–3
Boyuo, G., William, C.L., Ali, G., 2007. petroleum production engineering, ISBN:07506823701,
Elsevier Science & Technology Books. 332–342
10 SPE-178282-MS

Table—Unit conversion factors

quantity U.S. Field unit To SI unit To U.S. Field unit SI unit

Length (L) Feet(ft) 0.3084 3.2808 Meter (m)

Mile (mil) 1.609 0.6214 Kilometre(km)
Inch(in) 25.4 0.0937 Millimetre(mm)
Mass (M) Ounce (oz) 28.3495 0.03527 Gram (g)
Pound (Ib) 0.4536 2.2053 Kilogram (kg)
Ibm 0.0311 2.17 slug
Volume (V) Gallon (gal) 0.003785 264.172 Meter3(m3)
Cu.ft (ft3) 0.028317 35.3147 Meter3(m3)
Barrel (bbl) 0.15899 6.2898 Meter3(m3)
Mcf (1000ft3) 28.317 0.0353 Nm (150C,101.3kpa)
3

Sq.ft (ft2) 9.29⫻10-2 10.764 Meter2(m2)

Area (A) Acre 4.0469⫻103 2.471⫻10-4 Meter2(m2)
Sq. mile 2.59 0.386 (Km)2
Pressure (P) Ib/in2(psi) 6.8949 0.145 Kpa (1000pa)
Psi 0.0680 14.696 atm
Psi/ft 22.62 0.0442 Kpa/m
Inch Hg 3.3864⫻103 0.2953⫻10-3 Pa
Temperature F 0.555(F-32) 18C ⫹32 C
(t) Rankine (0R) 0.555 1.8 Kelvin(k)
Energy/work Btu 252.16 3.966⫻10-3 Cal
1.4882 0.672 Kg/(m-sec) or (pa-s)
Ibf-s/ft2 479 0.0021 Dyne-s/cm2(poise)
Thermal conductivity (k) Btu-ft/hr-ft2-F 1.7307 0.578 W/(m-K)
Specific heat Btu/(Ibm-0F) 1 1 Cal/(g-0C)
(Cp) Btu/(Ibm-0F) 4.184⫻103 2.39⫻10-4 J.(Kg-K)
Density (ᐉ) Ibm/ft3 16.02 0.0624 Jk/m3
Permeability md 0.9862 1.0133 mD (⫽10-15m2)
(K) md(⫽10-3 darcy) 9.869⫻10-16 1.0133⫻10-15 m2

Nomenclature

BHP bottom hole pressure

Bg gas formation volume factor (cu.ft/SCF)
Bgi initial gas formation volume factor (cu.ft/SCF)
bbl barrels
C Carbon
C1 methane
C2 ethane
C3 propane
C4 butane
C5 pentane
C6 hexane
C7 heptanes
Cf rock compressibility
Cw water compressibility
CGR condensate gas ratio
CO2 carbon dioxide
D depth
FVF formation volume factor
SPE-178282-MS 11

0
F degree Fahrenheit
GOR gas oil ratio (scf/bbl)
h Thickness (ft)
HC hydrocarbon
H2S hydrogen sulfide
Ib pound mole
Ib/ft3 pounds per cubic feet
In inch
IPR inflow performance relation
MMscf million standard cubic feet
Mstb thousand stock tank barrel
N2 Nitrogen
Pi initial pressure
Pwf well flow pressure
P Pressure
Psig pound per square inch gallon
PS-1 pseudo fluid 1
PVT pressure volume and temperature
Scf standard cubic feet
STB stock tank barrel
SG specific gravity
q rate
S skin
T Temperature
VLP vertical lift performance
WHP well head pressure
WHT wellhead temperature
Z Gas compressibility factor
ᐉ density
ᐉg Gas density
ᐉsat Saturation density
␥ specific gravity
␥g Gas specific gravity
Average pressure change
␮ Viscosity
␮g Gas viscosity
A porosity
⌬P pressure change
␮ Viscosity
␦pD Dimensionless change in pressure
␺i pressure in terms of pseudo effect
(⌬␺)total; Total pressure drop in terms of pseudo effects
⬍ less than
⬎ greater than