Page 190 - Petroleum Production Engineering, A Computer-Assisted Approach
P. 190

Guo, Boyun / Computer Assited Petroleum Production Engg 0750682701_chap13 Final Proof page 186  3.1.2007 9:07pm Compositor Name: SJoearun




               13/186  ARTIFICIAL LIFT METHODS


                        2,500                                   Inflow Pressure (psia)
                      Tubing Pressure at the Injection Depth (psia)  1,500

                        2,000
                                                                Outflow Pressure (psia)




                        1,000

                         500


                           0


                        −500
                            0     100    200   300    400    500    600   700    800    900
                                                  Liquid Flow Rate (stb/day)
                    Figure 13.5 System analysis plot given by GasLiftPotential.xls for the unlimited gas injection case.

               Smith method (Katz et al., 1959). The average temperature    ¼ the average gas compressibility factor
                                                            z
                                                            z
               and compressibility factor method also gives results with    T T ¼ the average temperature, 8R.
               acceptable accuracy. In both methods, the frictional  Equation (13.7) can be rearranged to be
               pressure losses in the annulus are considered. However,  g g D v
               because of the large cross-sectional area of the annular  p c,s ¼ p c,v e  0:01875      :  (13:8)
                                                                     T
                                                                     zT
                                                                     z
               space, the frictional pressure losses are often negligible.
               Then the average temperature and compressibility factor  Since the z factor also depends on p c,s , this equation can be
               model degenerates to (Economides et al., 1994)  solved for p c,s with a trial-and-error approach. Because
                                                         Eq. (13.8) involves exponential function that is difficult
                          g g Dv
                       0:01875
               p c,v ¼ p c,s e      ,             (13:7)  to handle without a calculator, an approximation to
                           z
                           T
                           zT
                                                         the equation has been used traditionally. In fact, when
               where                                     Eq. (13.7) is expended as a Taylor series, and if common
                 p c,v ¼ casing pressure at valve depth, psia  fluid properties for a natural gas and reservoir are consid-
                 p c,s ¼ casing pressure at surface, psia  ered such as g g ¼ 0:7,  z ¼ 0:9, and   T ¼ 600 8R, it can be
                                                                                 T
                                                                        z
                 g g ¼ gas specific gravity, air ¼ 1:0   approximated as
                        2,500                                   Inflow Pressure (psia)
                      Tubing Pressure at the Injection Depth (psia)  1,500
                        2,000
                                                                Outflow Pressure (psia)
                        1,000


                         500






                        −500 0
                            0     100    200   300    400    500   600    700    800    900
                                                 Liquid Flow Rate (stb/day)
                     Figure 13.6 System analysis plot given by GasLiftPotential.xls for the limited gas injection case.
   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195