New Comprehensive Equation to Predict Liquid Loading

Report
New Comprehensive Equation
to Predict Liquid Loading
Shu Luo
The University of Tulsa
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
1
Outline
• Introduction
• Background and Approach
• Model Formulation
• Model Validation
• Program Demonstration
• Summary
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
2
What is liquid loading?
• Minimum pressure drop in the tubing is
reached
• The liquid drops cannot be entrained by
the gas phase (Turner et al.)
• The liquid film cannot be entrained by
the gas phase (Zhang et al., Barnea)
The answers from different definitions
are not the same
•
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
3
Traditional Definition
IPR
Stable
OPR
Unstable
Transition
Point
Liquid Loading
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
4
Traditional Definition
• As gas flow rate increases

(∆ )
( )
and
(∆ )
( )
• At low velocities
increase in
(∆ )
(∆ )
( )
decreases faster than
( )
• When two gradients are equal, minimum
occurs
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
5
Definition based on
Mechanisms
• Two potential mechanisms of
transition from annular to slug
flow
 Droplet reversal
 Film Reversal
• Models are either based on
droplet reversal (Turner) or
film reversal (Barnea)
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
6
Air-Water Flow
• Anton Skopich conducted experiments
in 2” and 4” pipes
• The results observed are different
based on film reversal and minimum
pressure drop
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
7
Calculation Procedure
•
•
•
•
Total pressure drop is measured and gradient is
calculated
Holdup is measured and gravitational gradient is
calculated
Subtracting gravitational pressure gradient from total
pressure gradient to get frictional pressure gradient
By dividing the incremental pressure gradient by
incremental gas velocity, changes in gravitational and
frictional gradients with respect to gas velocity are
calculated.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
8
Magnitude of Gravitational vs. Frictional Gradient
with respect to Gas Velocity
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
9
dPG vs. dPF
Air-Water, 2 inch, vsl=0.01 m/s
Minimum
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
10
Total dp/dz
Air-Water, 2 inch, vsl=0.01 m/s
Film Reversal
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
11
dP/dz)G vs. dP/dz)F
Air-Water, 2 inch, vsl=0.01 m/s
dp/dz)F is
zero
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
12
dP/dz)G vs. dP/dz)F
Data from Netherlands (2 inch)
dp/dz)F is
zero
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
13
dP/dz)G vs. dP/dz)F
TUFFP (3 inch, vsl=0.01 m/s)
dp/dz)F is
zero
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
14
dP/dz)G vs. dP/dz)F
TUFFP (3 inch, vsl=0.1 m/s)
dp/dz)F is
zero
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
15
dPG vs. dPF
Air-Water, 4 inch, vsl=0.01 m/s
Minimum
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
16
Total dp/dz
Air-Water, 4 inch, vsl=0.01 m/s
Film Reversal
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
17
dP/dz)G vs. dP/dz)F
Air-Water, 4 inch, vsl=0.01 m/s
dp/dz)F is zero
Film reversal
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
18
Liquid Loading Definition
• Liquid loading starts when liquid film reversal
•
•
occurs
We adopt the model of film reversal to predict
inception of liquid loading
The reason for this adoption, as we will show
later, is because we are able to better predict
liquid loading for field data using this
methodology.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
19
Outline
• Introduction
• Background and Approach
• Model Formulation
• Model Validation
• Program Demonstration
• Summary
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
20
Background
Turner’s Equation
•
•
The inception of liquid loading is related
to the minimum gas velocity to lift the
largest liquid droplet in the gas stream.
Turner et al.’s Equation:
,
•
  − 
= 6.558
2
0.25
This equation is adjusted upward by
approximately 20 percent from his
original equation in order to match his
data.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
21
Background
Drawbacks with Turner’s equation
•
Turner’s equation is not applicable to all field data. Coleman
et al. proposed equation (without 20% adjustment )
,
•
•
•
  − 
= 5.465
2
0.25
Veeken found out that Turner’s results underestimate critical
gas velocity by an average 40% for large well bores.
Droplet size assumed in Turner’s equation is unrealistic
based on the observations from lab experiments.
Turner’s equation is independent of inclination angle which is
found to have great impact on liquid loading.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
22
Approach
Film Model
•
Two film models are investigated to predict liquid
loading:
 Zhang et al.’s model(2003) is developed based on slug
dynamics.
 Barnea’s model(1986) predicts the transition from annular to
slug flow by analyzing interfacial shear stress change in the
liquid film.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
23
Approach
Zhang et al.’s Model
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
24
Approach
Zhang et al.’s Model
•
•
Momentum equation for annular flow:
With other equations and closure relationships, we
can solve this momentum equation and calculate
critical gas velocity
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
25
Approach
Barnea’s Model
•
•
 
•
Constructing force balance for annular
flow and predict the transition from
annular to slug flow by analyzing
interfacial shear stress changes.
The combined momentum equation:
1
1

+
− 
−  −   sin  = 0
 

Interfacial shear stress from Wallis
correlation:
2
1

 =  
2
(1 − 2)4
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
Schematic of Annular Flow
26
Approach
Barnea’s Model
•
•
•
•
Solid curves represent
Interfacial shear stress from
combined momentum equation
Broken curves represent
Interfacial shear stress from
Wallis correlation
Intersection of solid and broken
curves yields a steady state
solution of film thickness and
gas velocity at transition
boundary
Another transition mechanism
is liquid blocking of the gas
core.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
Transition
27
Outline
• Introduction
• Background and Approach
• Model Formulation
• Model Validation
• Program Demonstration
• Summary
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
28
Three Main Modifications
• Accounted for variable liquid film thickness
• Changed the equation for liquid film friction
•
factor
Accounted for presence of liquid in the form
of droplet
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
29
Model Formulation
•
In inclined wells, the film thickness is expected to vary
with radial angle
Vertical Well
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
Inclined Well
30
Original Barnea’s Model
at Different Inclination Angles
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
31
Non-uniform Film Thickness Model
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
32
Non-uniform Film Thickness Model
•
•
Let A1=A2, we can find this relationship.
1
 = [ 0,  +  ,  ]
2
If film thickness reaches maximum at 30 degree
inclination angle
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
33
Non-uniform Film Thickness Model
•
We will use the following film thickness equation in
the new model:
  ≤  ≤  
 ,  =

  −  +  

  >  
 ,  =   −  +  
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
34
Non-uniform Film Thickness Model
•
•
Only maximum film thickness will be used in the
model because thickest film will be the first to fall
back if liquid loading starts.
Find critical film thickness δT by differentiating
momentum equation. δT equals to maximum film
thickness δ(π,30).
1
1
 = [0 +  , 30 ] = 
2
2
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
35
Non-uniform Film Thickness Model
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
36
Interfacial Friction Factor
•
•
Critical gas velocity calculated by Barnea’s model is
conservative compared to other methods. Fore et al.
showed that Wallis correlation is reasonable for small
values of film thickness and is not suitable for larger
film thickness liquid film.
A new correlation is used in the new model :
 = 0.005 1 + 300
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
1+
17500 ℎ
− 0.0015
 
37
Outline
• Introduction
• Background and Approach
• Model Formulation
• Model Validation
• Program Demonstration
• Summary
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
38
Turner’s Data
•
•
•
106 gas wells are reported in his paper, all of the gas
wells are vertical wells.
37 wells are loaded up and 53 wells are unloaded. 16
wells are reported questionable in the paper.
Current flow rate and liquid loading status of gas well
are reported.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
39
Turner’s Model Results
Turner’s Data
Vg < Vg,c
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
Vg > Vg,c
40
Zhang et al.’s Model Results
Turner’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
41
Barnea’s Model Results
Turner’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
42
New Model Results
Turner’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
43
Coleman’s Data
•
•
•
56 gas wells are reported, all of the wells are also
vertical wells.
These wells produce at low reservoir pressure and at
well head pressures below 500 psi.
Coleman reported gas velocity after they observed
liquid loading in gas wells.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
44
Turner’s Model Results
Coleman’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
45
Zhang et al.’s Model Results
Coleman’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
46
Barnea’s Model Results
Coleman’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
47
New Model Results
Coleman’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
48
Veeken’s Data
•
•
•
•
Veeken reported offshore wells with larger tubing
size.
67 wells, which include both vertical and inclined
wells, are presented.
Similar to Coleman’s data, critical gas rate was
reported.
Liquid rate were not reported in the paper. We
assumed a water rate of 5 STB/MMSCF.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
49
Turner’s Model Results
Veeken’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
50
Zhang et al.’s Model Results
Veeken’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
51
Barnea’s Model Results
Veeken’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
52
New Model Results
Veeken’s Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
53
Chevron Data
• Production data:
 Monthly gas production rate
 Monthly water and oil production rate
• 82 wells have enough information to analyze
•
•
liquid loading
Two tubing sizes: 1.995 and 2.441 inch
Get average gas and liquid production rate when
cap string is installed from service history.
Assume liquid loading occurred at this point.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
54
Production Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
55
Turner’s Model Results
Chevron Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
56
Zhang et al.’s Model Results
Chevron Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
57
New Model Results
Chevron Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
58
ConocoPhillips Data
• Daily production data and casing and tubing
•
•
•
pressure data are available
Select 62 wells including 7 off-shore wells
Two tubing size: 1.995 and 2.441 inch
Determine liquid loading by casing and tubing
pressure divergence.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
59
ConocoPhillips Field Data
liquid loading starts
Pc and Pt diverge
Liquid Loading starts at
400 MCFD
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
60
Turner’s Model Results
ConocoPhillips Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
61
Zhang et al.’s Model Results
ConocoPhillips Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
62
New Model Results
ConocoPhillips Data
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
63
Outline
• Introduction
• Background and Approach
• Model Formulation
• Model Validation
• Program Demonstration
• Summary
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
64
Program
• This program is developed in .net framework
•
using c sharp.
It consists two pages: single well calculation
and multiple well calculation.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
65
Summary
•
•
•
•
•
We analyzed various definitions of liquid loading and
concluded that definition based on liquid film reversal is
most appropriate.
A new model for liquid loading is developed for gas well
using liquid film reversal method.
The new model is applicable for both vertical and inclined
wells.
The new model is able to better predict the inception of
liquid loading compared to most often used Turner et al.’s
equation.
Liquid loading prediction program is developed to
determine onset of liquid loading.
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
66
Thank You!
Questions…
Foam Flow Meeting, Jul.9th, 2013
67

similar documents