IPTC 11101

A New Correlation for Calculating Wellhead Production Considering Influences of

Temperature, GOR, and Water-Cut for Artificially Lifted Wells
Mohamed Ghareeb, Lufkin-Industries and Shedid A. Shedid, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference

1. Introduction and Literature Review
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 4–6 December 2007.
The separator and multiphase meters have been considered
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
and used to determine the oil well production. This has been
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference considered as the most accurate method for calculating the oil
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or and gas flow rates. However, these current methods are rather
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
expensive and time consuming to be achieved. Therefore, it is
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology usually desired to have quick and accurate evaluation of well
Conference 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 performance considering wellhead parameters, especially
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
pressure and temperature. Good utilization of pressure and
temperatures parameters of producing wells reveals excellent
Abstract and reliable information about well behavior and can help to
make required remedial action(s) in required suitable time.
Several classical wellhead production correlations have been
developed and widely used all over the world for naturally For naturally flowing wells, bean performance correlation is
flowing wells. For artificially flowing wells, many important the most widely used to monitor well performance. Most
well and fluid parameters are ignored in these correlations. current correlations (Gilbert, 1954; Ros, 1960; Ashong, 1961;
This results in erroneous results and inaccurate predictions Asford, 1973; Secen, 1976; Abdul-Majeed, 1986) for two-
when these correlations are applied. These current correlations phase flow across chocks are valid only for critical flow across
are mainly function of tubing head pressure, bean size (which the choke. The literature presented good correlations for single
has almost no effect for artificially flowing wells), and gas- phase flow of either liquid or gas. However, reliable
liquid ratio only. correlations for two-phase are limited and for multiphase are
rare and scarce. This is especially true for flow in the sub-
The man objective of this study is to ovecome the limitations sonic flow region (i.e., flow velocities smaller than that of
of these correlations for artificially flowing wells by sound.
development a new correlation capable to predict accurately
the wellhead flow production. The new correlation was The majority of current correlations for multiphase flow are
developed using a set of 1,750 data points from 352 producing valid only for critical flow condition. The most popular
wells in Egypt. The newly-developed correlation includes correlation was developed by Gilbert (1954) but it is valid for
several parameters of tubing size, wellhead and bottom-hole critical flow occurring when the upstream pressure of the
temperatures, producing gas-oil ratio, pay zone depth, and choke is at least 70 % higher than the downstream pressure or
water cut. A sensitivity analysis using the newly-developed when the ratio of down stream pressure to upstream pressure is
correlation about the influences of involved well and reservoir equal to 0.588. In general, the literature (Abdul-Majeed, 1986;
parameters, is carried out. Al-Attar and Abdul-Majeed, 1988) reveals that keeping the
ratio of downstream pressure to upstream pressure in the range
The results indicated that the newly-developed correlation is from 0.50 to 0.60 secures the critical flow condition of the
capable to predict the wellhead production rate accurately. choke.
Noteworthy, the variation of producing depth, tubing size and
wellhead temperature has real impact on production rate while In naturally-flowing wells, the production rate is controlled by
variation in bottom-hole temperature, water-cut and gas-oil means of surface choke (or bean). Economides et al (1993)
ratio has relatively smaller effect on well production rate. indicated that the two-phase flow through actual wells has not
been described theoretically yet. Therefore, many empirical
The enhanced prediction of production rate using the new correlations have been developed for this purpose of the
correlation is attributed to its consideration to many other determination of two-phase flow through a choke. These
parameters, which were ignored before in Gilbert and other’s correlations are usually applied for critical flow condition.
correlations; such as tubing size, wellhead temperatures, and This is the condition when gas-liquid mixture flows through
pay zone depth. choke at velocity sufficient enough to reach sonic velocity.
When this condition occurs, the flow is called “critical flow”
2 IPTC 11101

and changes in pressure downstream of the choke do not affect 2. Development of a New Correlation
the flow rate.
Although the tubing-head pressure is a factor considered for
Accordingly, Gilbert (1954) developed his correlation to calculating production rate in several bean performance
calculate the production rate as follows: equations, it is not a factor at all for predicting the production
rate in an artificial lift system. This is mainly attributed to the
absence of critical flow conditions in the case of artificial lift
10 R 0 . 546 Q
Pwh = (1) system in which the choke is either disconnected or kept fully
S 1 . 89 opened.
Re-arranging equation (1) yields,
For the goal of the development the new correlation for
artificially flowing wells, the wellhead temperature is
P wh S 1 . 89
Q = (2)
considered a function of some producing well and reservoir
10 R 0 . 546 parameters. The proposed function of these parameters can be
presented in the following mathematical form:
Where Q is gross liquid rate (bbl/d), Pwh is well (or tubing)
head pressure (psig), S is bean size (1/64 inch), and R is gas-
liquid ratio (MSCF/BBL). (
T th = f T bha , Q b , WC c , H d
, A e , GOR f
)
………………………………………. (5)
Following the same approach of Gilbert (1954), Ros (1960)
developed a very similar correlation but with different Consideration of direct and reverse proportionality of these
correlating exponents as follows: parameters with wellhead temperature and insertion of a
constant of proportion (K), based on actual measured data,
0 . 65 results in:
17 R Q
P wh = 1 . 88
(3)
S
K T bha Q b WC C

Achong (1961), Ashford (1973), Secen (1976) developed T th = (6)

similar correlations with different constant and exponents in
H d A e GOR f

the same form of Gilbert correlation. Tantway et al (1995) Re-arranging equation (6) yields:
developed a computer program to calculate these exponents
for different local oil fields in Egypt. All of the previously- T th H d A e GOR f

mentioned studies used Gilbert’s form, which can be written in Qb = (7)

a general form as follows; K T bha WC C
C Ra Q b
P wh = (4)
Actual data from 352 producing wells of flow rate (Q),
S d wellhead temperature (Tth), tubing cross-sectional area (A),
A list of most popular correlations used to predict wellhead gas-oil ratio (GOR), bottom-hole temperature (Tbh) are used as
production rate for naturally-flowing wells is presented in shown in Fig. 1 and Fig 2. Figures 1-a to 1-d present the
Appendix A. This list includes Gilbert, Achong, Poettmann, systematic approach used to develop the direct proportionality
Omana, and Ashford correlations. of actual production rate and wellhead temperature for
different gas-oil ratios and water-cut equals zero. Figures 2.a
Abdul-Majeed (1986) performed a sensitivity study about and 2.b show the variation of actual rate with wellhead
correlations predicting two-phase flow through wellhead temperature for different water-cuts. The same approach is
choke using data from 210 Iraqi well tests. The data included applied for other considered well and reservoir parameters
production rate, choke size, upstream pressure, gas-liquid involved in the new correlation. Then, the least square method
ratio, and API gravity of oil. He concluded that Gilbert’s was applied using all data points together and the resultant
correlation yielded relatively accurate results but Omana’s equation was solved using Gaussian elimination method. A
correlation is poor in accurate prediction of production rate. FORTRAN computer program was developed to calculate the
Al-Attar and Abdul-Majeed (1988) compared the correlations constant K and coefficients a, b, c, d, e, and f. The final form
of multiphase flow performance through a wellhead choke of the developed correlation is given by:
using a statistical analysis based upon production data from
155 well tests from Iraqi wells. They concluded that Ashford 9.2 x 10 −4 Tth3.27 H 1.2 A 0.81 GOR 0.041
correlation provided overpredicted production rates, and Q=
Poettmann correlation produced underpredicted production Tbh1.2 WC 0.046
rates. The study also concluded that Gilbert, Poettmann, and
Ashford correlations for oils in the range of 38 to 45 API ………………………………………. (8)
gravity resulted in underpredicted production rates.
IPTC 11101 3

Where, Tth is wellhead temperature (oF), Tbh is bottom hole flow, as proven by continuity equation (Q = velocity x area). It
temperature (oF), A is tubing cross-sectional area (in2), GOR is also proves that the increase of tubing area has a major effect
producing gas/oil ratio (scf/stb), and WC is producing water- of increment of wellhead production. This also confirms the
cut (%). conclusions attained before by Abdel-Majjed (1986).

In order to test the accuracy of developed correlation versus Figure 7 indicates the calculated wellhead production versus
actual measured production rates, Figure 3 is developed and wellhead temperature for different bottom-hole temperatures.
shows very good accuracy of predicted production rates with This is based actual field data used to develop the newly-
correlation factor (R2) of 0.973. developed correlation, equation 8. It may be explained that the
increase of wellhead temperature decreases the oil viscosity
The newly-developed correlation of equation (8) considered and then increases the production rate. This is confirmed using
many well and reservoir parameters which were not included field data from different oil wells and at different bottom-hole
in the previous correlations, such as; water-cut, wellhead and temperatures.
bottom-hole temperatures, and producing depth. This is in
addition to other parameters appeared in Gilbert and other Figure 8 presents the calculated wellhead production versus
correlations, such as; GOR and wellhead pressure. wellhead temperature for different water-cuts. It shows that
the increase in water-cut decreases the oil wellhead
3. Results and Discussion production. It also proves that the influence of water-cut on oil
production increment is minor for water-cuts below 50 %.
All measured actual wellhead production rates from 352
producing well are plotted versus predicted ones using the In general, some conclusions can be drawn based upon the
newly-developed correlation, equation 8, and graphically results using the newly-developed correlation sensitivity of the
depicted in Figure 3. This Figure reveals accurate prediction importance and deep impact of producing depth, tubing size
results with an excellent correlating coefficient of 0.97. The and wellhead temperature on oil production and also minor
accurate prediction of wellhead production rate is mainly influence of GOR, bottom temperature and water-cut.
attributed to the consideration of more well and reservoir
parameters; such as water-cut, wellhead and bottom-hole 4. Conclusions
temperatures, producing depth, and tubing size. The
importance of each single parameters involved in this new This study was undertaken to review current correlations for
correlation is also investigated by performing a sensitivity wellhead performance and to develop a new correlation
analysis. The results of this analysis are presented in Figures 4 considering new important parameters affecting wellhead
to 8. production rate. The following conclusions are drawn:
1. Current bean performance correlations for naturally and
Figure 4 presents the predicted wellhead production versus artificially flowing wells are limited in application to the
wellhead temperature for different pay zone depths. It fields they were developed for and new correlating
provides a general conclusion that the increase of wellhead coefficients should be developed for other wells/fields.
temperature increases wellhead production. This can be 2. Current correlations predicting wellhead production rate are
attributed to the reduction of oil viscosity because of the very sensitive to choke size change and limited I application
increase of wellhead temperature. This means for oil fields in to naturally-flowing wells.
hot areas, the wellhead production will be higher than that 3. A new correlation was developed for quick and accurate
ones in cold areas. This Figure, Figure 4, also reveals that pay prediction of wellhead production considering several well
zone of higher producing depth is expected to have higher and formation parameters, ignored before in classical
wellhead production rate for the same wellhead surface correlations.
temperature. 4. Sensitivity analysis of factors affecting wellhead production
rate indicated that producing depth, tubing size, and bottom-
Figure 5 shows the predicted wellhead production rate versus hole temperatures have a real impact while gas-oil ratio,
wellhead temperature for different gas-oil ratios (GORs). It wellhead temperature, and water-cut have a minor effect on
confirms the same conclusion, drawn-above for the effect of predicted values of wellhead production rate.
pay zone depth, that the increase of surface temperature
increases the wellhead production rate but for different GORs. Nomenclature
This may be attributed to that the increase in GOR will cause
lighter mixture of liquid and gas resulting in higher liquid A Tubing cross-sectional area, in2.
production. It also indicates that the increase of GOR by 40 C Proportionality constant (C = 10 for Gilbert,
times (from 25 to 1,000 scf/stb) has a minor effect on the C =17 for Ros, and C = 1.03
increase of wellhead production rate. for Poettmann-Beck)
D Bean size, 1/64 inch
Figure 6 depicts graphically the predicted wellhead production F water-oil ratio
versus wellhead temperature for different tubing areas (or G Gas-liquid ratio, scf/bbl
sizes). It reveals that the increase of tubing size increases the GOR Gas-oil ratio, scf/bbl
production rate. This is because of the increase of area open to K Correlating constant

3
4 IPTC 11101

H Well producing depth, 1000 ft 11. Al-Attar, H. H., and Abdul-Majeed, G. H. “Revised
Q Gross liquid rate, bb/d bean performance formula for East Baghdad oil
P Tubing head pressure, psig wells” Journal of SPE Production Engineering,
R Gas-liquid ratio, MSCF/bbl February 1988, pp. 127-131.
N Dimensionless Number
P Pressure, psia Appendix A: List of correlations for wellhead performance
S Bean size, 1/64 inch
T Temperature, oF Gilbert (1954)
WC Water-cut, ratio
10 GLR 0 .546 Q l
Sub/Superscripts Pwh = (A-1)
D 1 .89
b bottom
Achong (1961)
PB Poettmann-Beck
h head
g gas 17 GLR 0 .65 Q
L Liquid viscosity Pwh = (A-2)
Q flow rate D 1 .88
o oil
th tubinghead Poettmann and Beck (1963)
w well
w water 86 , 400 A o C PB 9273 . 6 P
Q = x
ρm V L (1 . 0 + 0 . 5 M L )
References
0 . 4513 R + 0 . 766
1. Economides, M. J., Hill, A. D., Ehlig-Economides., x
Petroleum Production Systems, Prentice Hall PTR, R + 0 . 5663
New Jersey, p. 229, 1993. (A-3)
2. Gilbert, W. E, “Flowing and gas-lift well ρ m = 350.4 γ o + 0.0765 γ g G (A-3-a)
performance” API Drilling and Production Practice,
p. 143, 1954. Vsg 0.00504 T Z (G − Rs )
R= = (A-3-b)
3. Ros, N. C. J. “An analysis of critical simultaneous Vsl P − Bo
gas/liquid flow through a restriction and its
application to flow metering” Applied Sci Res., 9, M 1
VL = L , and ML = (A-3-c)
Sec. A, p. 374, 1960.
ρL ⎛ ρg ⎞
4. Achong, I. B. “Revised bean and performance 1 + R ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
formula for Lake Maracaibo wells” published by the ⎝ ρL ⎠
University of Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezula, 1961.
5. Secen, J. A., “Surface choke measurement equation
Omana (1969)
improved by field testing analysis” Oil and Gas
Journal, pp. 65-68, August 1976.
6. Tantawy, M., Elayouty, E. D., and Elgibaly, A. N qL = 0.263 N ρ−3.49 N Pl3.19 λ0l .657 N 1D.8 (A-4)
“Comparative investigation of bean performance
correlation for flowing oil wells,” Journal of
ρg
Engineering and Applied Science, vol. 42, No. 4, pp. Nρ = (A-4-a)
861-875, 1995. ρL
7. Poettmann, F. H., and Beck, R. L. “New charts
1
developed to predict gas-liquid flow through chokes”
N Pl = 1.74 x10 − 2 Pl (A-4-b)
World Oil, March 1963). ρL σ L
8. Omana, R., Houssiere, C. Jr., Brown, K. E., Brill, J.
B., Thompson, R. E., “Multiphase flow through 1 Vsg
chokes” paper SPE 2682, 1969. λl = , where R= (A-4-c)
9. Ashford, F. E. “An evaluation of critical multiphase
1+ R VsL
performance through wellhead chokes” Journal of
Petroleum Technology (JPT), August 1973. ρL
10. Abdul-Majeed, G. H. “Correlations developed to N D = 0.1574 D64 (A-4-d)
predict two-phase flow through wellhead chokes” σL
paper SPE 15839, 1986.
IPTC 11101 5

Ashford (1973)

1.53C D2 P (Mm +151P)(0.000217γ g Rs +Ww )

Q=
1.25
⎡ρ ⎤ x
N qL =1.84 q l ⎢ L ⎥ (A-4-e) Bo + Fwo (Mm +111P)(0.000217γ gG +Ww)
⎣σ L ⎦
(A-5)
M m = T Z (G −RS ) (A-5-a)
Omana correlation is restricted to critical flow, requiring that WW = γ O + FWO γ W (A-5-b)
q1/q2 > 1.0 and P1/P2 < 0.546. It is best suited for to low
viscosity liquids and bean sizes of 14/64 or less. FWO = water / oil ratio (A-5-c)

5
6 IPTC 11101

1200 1200
Q = 9E-05*Ts3.2277 Q = 0.0001 T3.2227
R2 = 0.9705 1000 R2 = 0.9708
1000

Production rate, bpd

Production rate, bpd

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
60 80 100 120 140 160 60 110 160
Well- head temperature,0F Well-head temperature, oF
(a) Q vs Tth for WC = zero, (b) Q vs Tth for WC = zero, GOR =
GOR = zero up to 100 scf/stb. 100 up to 200 scf/stb.

1400
1200
GOR from zero up to 100
Q = 0.0002 T3.0955 scf/stb
R2 = 0.8152 1200
GOR from 100 up to 200
1000 scf/stb

1000 GOR from 200 up to 300

scf/stb
Production rate, bpd

Production rate, bpd

800 GOR from 300 up to 400

scf/stb
800

600
600

400
400

200
200

0 0
60 80 100 120 140 160 60 80 100 120 140 160
Well-head temperature, oF Well-head temperature, oF

(C) Q vs Tth for WC = zero, GOR = (d) Q vs Tth for WC = zero, GOR =
200 up to 300 scf/stb. zero up to 400 scf/stb.

Fig. 1. Variation of actual Q with Tth for different GOR.

IPTC 11101 7

1200 1200
Q = 0.001 TTh^(2.6695)
Q = 5E-05 T3.2897
R2 = 0.9592 1000 R2 = 0.9688
1000

Production rate, bpd

Production rate, bpd

800 800

600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
60 110 160 60 110 160
Well- head temperature,0F Well- head temperature, oF
(a) Q vs Tth for WC = 20 to 50 % and (b) Q vs Tth for WC = 50 to 90 % and
GOR = 0 to 100 scf/stb. GOR = 0 to 100 scf/stb.

Fig. 2. Variation of actual Q with Tth for different values of WC and GOR.

1400

y = 0.9602x + 7.1308
1200 2
R = 0.97
Q calculated, BFPD

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Q actual, BFPD

Fig. 3. Calculated Q versus actual measured Q.

7
8 IPTC 11101

2500
GOR = 100 scf/bbl A = 7.027 sq in
WC = 1 % Tbh = 190 F
2000
Production Rate , BPD

depth =4000 ft
depth =6000 ft
1500 depth =8000 ft

1000

500

0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Wellhead temperature. oF
Fig. 4. Effect of producing depth on flow rate using new correlation.

1600
Depth = 5 (1000) ft A = 7.027 sq in
1400 Tbh = 190 F WC = 1 %
Production Rate, BPD

1200
GOR =25 SCF/STB
1000 GOR =100 SCF/STB
GOR =250 SCF/STB
800 GOR =500 SCF/STB
GOR =1000 SCF/STB
600

400

200

0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
o
Wellhead temperature, F

Fig. 5. Effect of GOR on production using new correlation.

IPTC 11101 9

1400
Depth = 5 (1000) ft GOR = 100 scf/bbl
T bh = 190 F WC = 1 %
1200

tubing, 3 1/2"
production rate, BPD

1000
tubing, 2 7/8"

tubing, 2 3/8"
800

600

400

200

0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
o
Wellhead Temperature, F
Fig. 6. Effect of tubing size on production using new correlation.

1600
Depth = 5 (1000) ft GOR = 100 scf/bbl
1400 WC = 1 %

1200
production rate, BPD

Tb=170 oF
Tb=185 oF
1000
Tb=200 oF

800

600

400

200

0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
o
Wellhead temperature, F

Fig. 7. Effect of wellhead temperature on production using new correlation.

9
10 IPTC 11101

1400
WC= 1% WC= 25%
1200
WC= 50% WC=75%
Production Rate, BPD

1000 Depth = 5 (1000) ft

GOR = 100 scf/bbl
A = 7.027 sq in
800 T bh = 190 F

600

400

200

0
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
o
Wellhead Temperature, F

Fig. 8. Effect of water-cut on production using new correlation.