Technical Notes for the Tubing Pressure Table Calculator

The tubing pressure table calculator (ptube.exe) was developed to generate tubing
pressure tables for producers using the PTUBE1 keyword or for injectors using ITUBE1
keyword.

For producers, liquid-gas two phase tubing flow is handled within the calculator.
Basically, the production flow is upwards. However, if the appropriate pressure
predication method is selected, tubing segments with horizontal or even downward flow
are acceptable. Optionally, gas lift is applicable to producers.

For injectors, only single phase flow, dry gas or water, is handled. Hence no specification
of pressure method is required and tubing segments with any angle are acceptable.

The input wellbore profile consists of a user defined number of segments. Within the
tubing calculator, each of these segments is divided into sections to apply Runge-Kutta
integration. The length of sections is limited to a maximum of 32 meters and may
dynamically be changed based on the convergence characteristics of the integration.
When the gas phase is not negligible, a section’s length is also limited to ensure the
pressure drop within a section is less than 100 psi. Within a section, equal Runge-Kutta
steps are applied. Local fluid PVT properties and pressure gradient are evaluated in each
of these steps.

When lifting gas is injected, a user given lifting gas dissolvability is applied for all the
integration steps above the injection valve. The dissolvability is a volume fraction, which
is the volume of the lifting gas allowed to dissolve into the under saturated oil.

Below is an outline of the correlations used for the evaluation of PVT properties and
pressure gradients.

1. PVT Correlations

A black oil, gas and water PVT package based on the summary by McCain [3] is used
to predict the local properties of the fluid. Additional correlations are added for
calculations of volumetric properties.

Oil bubble point pressure - solution GOR methods:

(1) Vazquez-Beggs[4]
(2) Lasater’s correlation combined with the Standing’s correlation[1][2]
If API > 15, Lasater’s correlation is used,
Otherwise, Standing’s correlation is used

Oil formation volume factor methods:

(1) Standing[3]
(2) Vazquez-Beggs[4]
Vazquez-Beggs and Standing are set to be the default correlations for Oil Pb/Rs and
FVF calculations respectively.

The interfacial tension (IFT) is calculated internally using the correlation of Baker-
Swerdloff [2].

2. Pressure-Gradient Prediction Methods

There are six methods implemented to be selected to predict the pressure loss in the
wellbore. Three of these methods were developed for flow at any inclination. The
remaining methods are strictly validly only for upward flow.

Beggs-Brill [6] [7] is a correlation, which was the first one to predict the flow for all
inclinations. The method is believed to be suitable for pipeline system for the method
tends to over predict pressure drop both at upward and downward inclinations.
However, in the tubing calculator Payne et al’s modifications [11] are applied to
improve these errors.

Mukherjee-Brill [8] [9] is a correlation in attempt to overcome some limitations of

Beggs-Brill method. Except for the downward stratified flow, the liquid-holdup
correlation is expressed by separate equations for upward and downward flow, which
are continuous across flow pattern regimes.

Petalas-Aziz mechanistic model [10] [11] is a method applicable for all pipe inclinations.
The model was tuned against 5,951 data points from the Stanford Multiphase Flow
Database. The method was tested extensively and proved to be robust and exhibited
few discontinuities.

The Aziz-Govier [5] is a correlation for vertical producer, which is included as it is the
default used in the analytical pressure drop model used in CMG simulators.

The Drift-flux [13] is a method developed recently at Stanford, which basically uses the
mechanistic approach for bubble or slug flow and introduces a transition zone to and
equations for annular flow. The method employs one equation system for all flow
regimes, so that it is characterized by simple, naturally continuous and smooth
behavior. The method is currently valid for upward flow.

A very simple “Simplified mixed density” model is also included; in this model all
flow is assumed to occur in the bubble regime.

In the tubing calculator, the Moody frictional factor is calculated by original

Colebrook’s equation and Zigrang et al’s explicit approximation [14] (for Petalas-Aziz
mechanistic model) is also used.
When a small rate, e.g. 3 inch tube with 10 bbl oil per day, is given for a producer
combined with the gas lift option, tables made by the Beggs-Brill method may
contain jump points at these small rates. This is because the huge gas/liquid ratio the
method encounters is out of the smooth range of the correlation. The Mukherjee-Brill
method can also suffer from similar problems. If the table has to cover small rates and
uses gas lift, the Petalas-Aziz mechanistic model or drift-flux method is
recommended.
References

PVT Correlations

1. Chierici, G.L. et al.: “Two-Phase Vertical Flow in Oil Wells – Prediction of Pressure

Drop,” J. Pet. Tech., Aug. 1974, pp. 927-938

2. Beggs, H.D.: “Oil System Correlations,” Petroleum Engineering Handbook, SPE,

1987, Richardson Texas, Chap. 22

3. McCain, W.D. Jr.: “Reservoir-Fluid Property Correlations – State of the Art,”

SPERE, May 1991, pp. 266-272

4. Vazquez, M. and Beggs, H.D.: “Correlations for Fluid Physical Property

Prediction,” JPT (June 1980) 968

Pressure-Gradient Prediction Methods

5. Aziz, K., Govier, G.W., and Fogarasi, M.: “Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil
and Gas,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech., July-September 1972, 11, pp. 38-48

6. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined pipes,” J. Pet.
Tech., May 1973, pp. 607-617

7. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H.D.: “Two-Phase Flow in Pipes,” University of Tulsa, 1984.

8. Mukherjee, H. & Brill, J.P.: “Pressure Drop Correlations for Inclined Two-Phase
Flow,” J. Energy Res. Tech., Dec. 1985, Vol. 107, pp. 549-554

9. Mukherjee, H. & Brill, J.P. “Empirical Equations to Predict Flow Patterns in Two-
Phase Inclined Flow,” Int. Multiphase Flow, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 299-315, 1985.

10. Petalas, N. and Aziz, K.: “Development and Testing of Mechanistic Models for
Multiphase Flow in Pipes,” Petroleum Engineering Department, Stanford University,
April, 1996.

11. Petalas, N. and Aziz, K.: “A Mechanistic Model for Multiphase Flow in Pipes”, J.
Cdn. Pet. Tech, June 2000, pp. 43-55

12. Brill, J.P. and Mukherjee, H.: “Multiphase Flow in Wells,” SPE. Monograph, Vol.
17, 1999, Richardson Texas

13. H. Shi et al.: “Drift-Flux Modeling of Multiphase Flow in Wellbores,” SPE 84228,
2003.
14. D. J. Zigrang, N.D. Sylvester, “A review of Explicit Friction Factor Equations”, J.
Energy Res. Tech., June 1985, pp. 280-283