An Improved Method for Calculating

Bottomhole Pressures in Flowing Gas

Wells With Liquid Present
"'.w. Peffer, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
M.A. Miller, SPE, U. of Texas
A.D. Hili, SPE, U. of Texas

Summary. A method is presented for calculating bottomhole pressures (BHP's) from wellhead measurements in flowing gas
wells with liquid present in the well stream. This method, a modification of existing methods, is based on including the
contribution of entrained liquid to gravitational gradients. The study also includes evaluation of effective roughness factors evident
from actual flowing pressure data.
The proposed method was tested vs. both a two-phase flow model developed by Govier and Fogarasi 1 and currently applied
methods based on dry-gas wells. The method was also tested with Govier and Fogarasi's data from 94 flowing wells and with data
from 50 wells from the public files of the Texas Railroad Commission. The new method compared favorably with the two-phase
flow model and was superior to currently applied methods.

Introduction
Several methods currently exist for calculating BHP's in gas wells. Two data sets are included in this paper: one from the Govier
This information is used for reservoir analysis and on completion and Fogarasi paper and the second from the public files of the Texas
reports submitted to state regulatory bodies. The method used by Railroad Commission. The latter data set was necessary because
most state agencies, such as the Texas Railroad Commission, is the average T and z method used by the Railroad Commission re-
based on a procedure detailed in U.S. Bureau of Mines Monograph quires that static BHP (BHSP) be calculated before flowing BHP
7 by Rawlins and Schellhardt2 and is often referred to as the aver- (BHFP) is calculated. The Govier and Fogarasi paper does not in-
age T and z method because of the assumptions inherent in its deri- clude the data needed to calculate BHSP, hence the need for a sec-
vation. The method usually does not include compensation for ond data set.
liquids in the flow stream. While this method is adequate for wells
producing from less than 4,000 or 5,000 ft [1220 or 1525 m] in CulienderSmlth Method
depth, it does not perform well for most deep, high-temperature, The Cullender-Smith2 method involves a numerical integration
high-pressure gas wells. When such wells produce at low gas/liq- technique for calculating both BHSP's and BHFP's. Because it takes
uid ratios, the method is even less reliable. The aim of this paper into account both variations in temperature and compressibility fac-
is to develop a simple method for calculating BHP's in gas wells tor with depth, it is a more accurate method than the average T
that takes into account condensate and water production. and z method used by the Railroad Commission and others. Again,
Cullender and Smith's3 method, developed for dry-gas wells, is this theoretical improvement makes little difference at less than
generally believed to be the most accurate hand-held calculator 4,000 or 5,000 ft [1220 or 1525 m] in depth, but it does make a
method to calculate BHP's. This method was therefore chosen as significant difference in deep, high-pressure, high-temperature gas
the basic model for this paper. Several modifications have been made wells drilled so often today.
to the method to take into account condensate and water produc- If it is assumed that flow is steady state and kinetic energy ef-
tion. These adjustments treat the gas/liquid system as a pseudo- fects are neglected, the mechanical-energy-balance equation can be
homogeneous mixture. The improved method has been tested vs. expressed as follows:
both the average T and z method without adjustment for entrained
liquids and a two-phase flow model developed by Govier and
(:)dP
Fogarasi. The Govier and Fogarasi method is a modification of a
method originally developed by Wallis 4 and was designed specif-
ically for gas-condensate wells. Govier and Fogarasi showed that
rllf--"'-.-)2
Ptf 667fMq2 ( P
'YgD
53.34
................... (1)

it had lower errors than the two-phase flow models of Duns and
Ros, 5 Hughmark, 6 and Wallis. 4 No attempt was made to compare . d 5 (LlD) + Tz
the results of the proposed new method with other two-phase flow where
correlations because the Govier and Fogarasi model should be Ptf = tubinghead flowing pressure,
among the best for gas-condensate wells and because our primary PIIf = BHFP,
intention in this work was to develop a simple calculator method T = temperature,
for these calculations. z = gas compressibility factor,
From the outset of this project, it was decided that the chosen fM = Moody friction factor,
method must be capable of being programmed on a Hewlett-Packard q = volumetric flow rate,
HP-41CV hand-held calculator or equivalent. This constraint limited
d = pipe JD,
the eventual candidates for the proposed method to those devel-
'Y g = gas specific gravity,
oped for single-phase flow. Most of the two-phase flow models
either could not be programmed into the limited memory of the L = length of flow string, and
HP-41CV or would require impractical run times for general use. D = true vertical depth.
The program that was developed 7 is presented in the Appendix.
This equation is solved with a two-step numerical integration.
This procedure, described by Ikoku, 8 involves iterative calcula-
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers tions based on dividing the wellbore into two parts. The frictional

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 643

 posed method uses an exact value of the Moody friction factor based
on a value for absolute roughness that was determined to be more
J appropriate from Govier and Fogarasi's flowing pressure data.

Proposed Modifications of Cullender-Smlth Method

As given, the Cullender-Smith method is applicable only to dry-
gas wells. Because most gas wells produce some liquid, this method

~
o -- -.D4
is inadequate for general use in its present form. Adjustments must
be made to account for the presence of liquids in the flow stream.
The other modification made to the Cullender-Smith method was
II:
0 a change in calculating the frictional pressure loss by use of a realistic
II: -J
pipe roughness.
II: Rzasa and Katz 9 developed a chart relating the ratio of well-fluid
W
gravity (as a vapor) to the surface gas gravity and the barrels of
w -1 condensate produced per million standard cubic feet of surface gas.
C)
( This chart may be expressed by the following relationship:
II:
W
4,584/'0
~ /'g +
Rg
-2 / ' w g = - - - - - - ' ............................ (5)
132,800/, 0
-u 1+--~":'"

where
/'wg = well-stream gas specific gravity,
-3L---~----~----~----~----~---
.0006 .0015 .0018 .0021 .0024 Mo = molecular weight of condensate,
/'0 = specific gravity of condensate,
ABSOlUTE ROUGHNESS, inches /' g = specific gravity of surface trap gas, and
Rg = surface producing GOR.
Fig. 1-Effect of assumed roughness on error in calculated
BHP. When the molecular weight of the condensate is not known, it
may be estimated with Cragoe'slO correlation:

component of pressure drop, called p2 by Cullender and Smith, 6,084 44.29/'0

is defined as ....................... (6)
API-5.9 1.03-/'0

.................................... (2) In the proposed method, /'wg is used to determine the pseudocrit-
ical properties of the gas-condensate system for calculating com-
pressibility factors.
Proper evaluation of the Moody friction factor,!M, requires knowl- Water production can also be quite significant in some gas wells.
edge of gas viscosity, flow rate, and gravity, as well as tubing di- Ikoku 8 suggested using Vitter'sll formula to adjust the surface gas
ameter and pipe roughness. To simplify their procedure, Cullender gravity for total liquid production, which can be expressed as
and Smith generated a correlation between pipe 10 and F2. As-
suming an absolute roughness of 0.0006 in. [0.0152 mm], they cal- 4,591/'L
culated values for the relative roughness corresponding to several /'g+
RL
different pipe ID's. These values for relative roughness were then /'mix= - - - - - , ............................. (7)
used to determine different values offM corresponding to the tur- 1,123
bulent flow portion of the Moody friction factor chart. A log-log 1+--
plot of the coefficient of friction vs. the corresponding pipe 10 in- RL
dicated two straight-line portions, one for 10' s < 4.277 in. [< 10.86 where /'L = average liquid (condensate plus water) specific gravi-
cm] and one for ID's >4.277 in. [> 10.86 cm]. Applying a least- ty and RL = producing gaslliquid ratio. This adjusted value of /'mix
squares fit to each of these straight-line sections gave the follow- is used in Cullender and Smith's Eq. 1. If no water is produced,
ing expressions. then /'wg from Eq. 5 should be used.
For ID's <4.277 in. [< 10.86 cm], The gas flow rate must also be adjusted for the presence of liq-
uids in the flow stream. In this study, only produced condensate
4.372x1O- 3 is added to the produced dry gas by use of an equation from Ikoku:
fM=----- ................................ (3)
dO. 224
133,037/'0
G - - - , ................................... (8)
For ID's >4.277 in. [> 10.86 cm], Mo

4.007 x 10- 3 where G=gas equivalent of condensate.

fM= , ................................ (4) The total gas flow rate is then given by
dO. l64
qt =qg + Gqo' ..................................... (9)
where d is given in inches.
Eqs. 3 and 4 are used to calculate the friction-loss term with the where q0 = condensate flow rate.
original Cullender-Smith method. It will be shown in the next sec- The value of qt calculated by Eq. 9 is used in Eq. 1. Using this
tion that the use of an absolute roughness of 0.0006 in. [0.0152 correction makes little difference in wells producing at high GOR's,
mm] is inadequate for use in flowing gas wells. Therefore, the pro- but does make a difference in wells producing large volumes of
644 SPE Production Engineering, November 1988
 TABLE 1-GOVIER AND FOGARASP WELL DATA

Well Tubing Temperature

Oil Oil Water Gas Gas GOR Depth 10 (OF)
Well (STB/D) Specific Gravity (STB/D) (Mscf/D) Specific Gravity (scf/STB) ~ ~ Top Bottom
- --
1 775 0.931 9.9 10,100 0.800 13,100 10,471 2.441 146 242
2 200 0.647 0 10,000 0.713 50,300 8,930 2.992 119 196
3 390 0.690 18.3 27,400 0.671 70,300 8,914 2.992 145 194
4 141 0.667 11.4 10,000 0.649 70,900 9,959 2.441 121 212
5 118 0.775 2.2 8,880 0.721 75,400 7,725 2.441 172 182
6 1:34 0.815 0 10,100 0.736 75,700 7,983 2.441 100 182
7 138 0.759 14.9 15,200 0.661 110,000 9,330 2.992 125 198
8 176 0.645 0 22,500 0.699 128,000 8,755 3.960 105 190
9 105 0.662 0 15,000 0.686 143,000 8,777 3.960 94 180
10 140 0.718 54.0 20,300 0.651 145,000 9,421 2.992 154 273
11 64 0.695 0 17,900 0.690 281,000 8,930 2.992 100 180
12 17 0.620 0 11,700 0.766 701,000 8,734 2.992 104 168
13 11 0.712 0 12,400 0.688 1,170,000 8,850 3.960 92 189
14 1,300 0.663 22.3 16,300 0.830 12,500 10,948 2.992 149 235
15 736 0.774 8.1 13,600 0.710 18,500 8,788 2.441 126 240
16 236 0.803 15.1 8,030 0.700 34,100 9,311 2.992 97 169
17 270 0.672 12.2 9,-r90 0.718 36,300 8,423 2.441 106 184
18 100 0.768 0.1 5,480 0.720 54,800 9,313 2.441 96 171
19 187 0.657 3.1 10,600 0.717 56,600 8,236 1.995 99 184
20 84 0.794 0 5,000 0.731 59,200 7,989 2.441 97 182
21 97 0.713 66.5 5,890 0.724 60,700 7,875 2.441 110 180
22 102 0.730 49.5 7,330 0.758 72,200 8,025 2.441 110 180
23 131 0.724 17.5 11,300 0.688 86,500 8,309 2.992 113 176
24 26 0.750 1.5 2,470 0.643 94,700 9,558 2.441 73 194
25 57 0.793 7.1 6,190 0.666 109,000 9,915 2.992 108 196
26 67 0.739 0 7,700 0.647 115,000 9,733 2.441 99 200
27 136 0.682 20.7 20,100 0.672 147,000 9,658 2.992 121 220
28 34 0.737 8.3 7,870 0.697 234,000 10,014 2.441 122 208
29 946 0.712 0 4,880 0.727 5,160 8,653 1.995 105 181
30 1,590 0.688 16.3 8,320 0.760 5,250 10,540 2.441 132 211
31 774 0.747 0 9,210 0.698 11,900 8,677 2.441 104 176
32 536 0.692 15.4 6,860 0.839 12,800 10,410 2.441 120 235
33 865 0.677 0 13,900 0.760 16,000 10,042 4.404 100 168
34 121 0.661 0 3,200 0.741 26,400 5,939 2.441 105 193
35 59 0.569 0 1,590 0.681 26,900 7,662 2.441 61 178
36 422 0.671 0 14,400 0.789 34,100 7,415 2.441 106 119
37 272 0.679 1.2 9,420 0.701 34,600 11,578 2.992 93 180
38 88 0.638 0.6 3,130 0.692 35,500 8,612 2.441 79 185
39 444 0.690 10.1 15,800 0.698 35,600 8,152 2.992 116 181
40 207 0.654 0 7,880 0.768 38,100 7,907 2.441 100 182
41 174 0.756 1.3 6,890 0.726 39,600 8,339 2.441 110 186
42 57 0.723 0 2,470 0.676 43,200 7,665 2.441 76 180
43 96 0.837 5.5 4,300 0.627 44,600 6,401 1.995 80 169
44 234 0.709 1.1 12,100 0.751 51,800 8,943 2.441 94 164
45 114 0.662 3.5 5,990 0.720 52,400 8,314 2.992 80 179
46 29 0.772 0.4 1,570 0.709 53,300 8,573 2.441 74 190
47 56 0.697 4.0 3,230 0.695 58,000 7,676 2.441 86 182
48 49 0.640 0 2,940 0.716 59,700 6,631 2.441 74 162
49 263 0.776 3.6 17,100 0.705 65,100 7,248 2.992 104 154
50 78 0.786 0 5,090 0.717 65,200 7,917 2.992 104 181
51 53 0.642 0 3,570 0.707 67,100 7,946 1.995 66 168
52 13 0.752 1.2 923 0.702 72,100 6,745 1.995 46 160
53 49 0.747 1.6 3,610 0.762 73,300 8,230 2.441 90 184
54 48 0.761 0.6 3,850 0.789 81,100 8,203 2.441 94 186
55 136 0.645 13.2 11,500 0.713 84,200 8,291 2.992 110 180
56 62 0.639 0 8,150 0.748 132,000 6,545 2.992 92 115
57 8 0.646 0.8 1,100 0.673 143,000 6,931 2.441 60 148
58 14 0.841 0 2,420 0.681 169,000 5,135 2.441 73 145
59 11 0.683 0 1,940 0.713 183,000 8,007 2.441 70 166
60 1,660 0.759 0 6,480 0.820 3,900 4,473 1.995 122 165
61 635 0.654 9.4 3,870 0.712 6,100 11,912 2.992 101 188
62 134 0.734 3.6 954 0.703 7,120 9,496 2.441 65 186
63 480 0.681 0 3,930 0.701 8,180 9,874 2.441 87 180
64 1,060 0.693 7.0 9,080 0.765 8,570 10,537 2.441 116 214
65 233 0.647 2.5 2,050 0.831 8,820 11,100 2.441 86 242
66 814 0.694 315.4 7,220 0.824 8,870 11,694 2.992 144 244
67 1,650 0.645 9.8 16,200 0.709 9,810 12,073 2.992 108 187
68 68 0.552 0 674 0.699 9,940 5,718 1.995 52 122
69 720 0.675 175.8 8,300 0.718 11,500 12,015 2.992 106 180
70 832 0.666 5.4 9,830 0.707 11,800 7,682 2.992 110 157.
71 252 0.640 0 3,210 0.703 12,700 8,483 2.441 73 172
72 810 0.723 0 11,400 0.798 14,100 7,502 2.441 123 173
73 232 0.702 1.2 3,310 0.713 14,200 11,447 2.992 84 185
74 655 0.712 0 9,510 0.737 14,500 6,043 2.441 98 170

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 645

 TABLE 1-GOVIER AND FOGARASP WELL DATA (continued)

Well Tubing Temperature

Oil Oil .Water Gas Gas GOR Depth ID (OF)
Well
-- (STBiD) Specific Gravity (STB/D) (Mscf/D) Specific Gravity (scf/STB) ~ ~ Top Bottom
---
75 105 0.821 0 1,750 0.710 16,600 7,337 2.441 54 156
76 380 0.699 1.5 6,310 0.719 16,600 11,733 2.441 92 181
77 157 0.613 3.6 2,650 0.636 16,900 3,678 1.995 62 96
78 59 0.842 0 1,000 0.658 17,000 6,293 2.441 52 154
79 550 0.658 5.3 10,000 0.710 18,200 11,790 2.992 120 184
80 114 0.816 0 2,100 0.706 18,400 5,261 1.995 84 160
81 83 0.669 13.7 1,870 0.728 22,700 8,680 2.441 52 180
82 458 0.675 0 10,700 0.740 23,300 6,020 2.441 106 168
83 61 0.716 6.1 1,450 0.688 23,700 8,655 1.995 66 180
84 46 0.719 .1 1,100 0.725 24,100 8,542 1.995 67 187
85 441 0.580 5.4 11,600 0.729 26,300 7,439 2.992 75 170
86 172 0.750 1.6 4,670 0.723 27,100 7,005 1.995 72 142
87 94 0.741 1.0 2,780 0.707 29,600 7,327 1.995 68 162
88 40 0.663 0 1,180 0.705 29,800 7,547 1.995 64 165
89 101 0.605 0 3,100 0.727 30,700 7,615 2.441 75 172
90 57 0.663 0 2,210 0.693 39,000 7,951 2.441 64 162
91 95 0.722 0 4,140 0.703 43,400 7,357 2.441 70 141
92 23 0.756 0 1,110 0.657 49,000 7,516 2.441 58 166
93 391 0.767 7.2 19,900 0.734 50,800 8,071 2.992 108 158
94 84 0.836 0 4,790 0.698 57,400 7,196 1.995 60 146
95 144 0.650 0 8,960 0.742 62,400 5,967 2.992 108 110
96 150 0.697 7.2 10,500 0.744 70,100 5,797 2.992 105 114
97 42 0.624 1.1 3,250 0.719 78,100 6,701 2.441 61 154
98 112 0.655 0 9,020 0.757 80,800 6,746 2.992 90 118
99 66 0.630 0 6,880 0.733 104,000 6,189 2.992 88 110
100 12 0.636 0 1,330 0.751 116,000 6,600 2.441 88 123
101 25 0.627 0 3,230 0.733 127,000 6,190 2.992 82 110
102 7 0.658 0 1,010 0.740 141,000 6,540 2.441 98 120

condensate. Water was not included in the flow-rate adjustment be- en wells from the Govier and Fogarasi paper. From Fig. I, it can
cause most produced water is in liquid form. be seen that the average error was lowered from approximately
The last and most important adjustment made to the original -2.2% fOH=0.0006 in. [0.0152 mm] to -0.04% fOH=0.0018
Cullendet-Smith method concerns the absolute roughness used to in. [0.0457 mm]. Similar results were obtained with RMS errors.
determine the Moody friction factor. Cullender and Smith used an Inclusion of the adjustments to the original Cullender-Smith
absolute roughness of 0.0006 in. [0.0152 mm] to determine Eqs. method for hydrocarbon gas gravity, total gas/liquid mixture gravity ,
3 and 4. This corresponds to the absolute roughness of clean well gas flow rate, and absolute roughness constitute the proposed method
tubing and was proved to be exrerimentally correct by Cullender in this paper. Following are the results of the comparison of the
and Binckley 12 and Smith et al. 3 From the results obtained in our proposed method vs. both the two-phase flow model of Govier and
study, however, it appears that this value of absolute roughness Fogarasi and the average T and z method. It should be noted that
is too low for conditions present in most producing gas wells. The the average T and z method used here does take into account con-
higher friction losses indicated by the data in this report could be densate production through the use of Eq. 5 but does not include
caused by scale deposits, corrosion, sand pitting, etc. Whatever water in the mixture-gravity calculation.
the cause, the value of absolute roughness used to calculate the fric-
tion factor should be increased. Govier and Fogarasl Well Data
Because the absolute roughness used to generate Eqs. 3 and 4
The data obtained from Govier and Fogarasi, given in Tables 1
was 0.0006 in. [0.0152 mm], these equations cannot be used with
through 3, come from the public files of the Energy Resources Con-
the proposed method. Instead, it is necessary to determine the Moo-
servation Board of Canada. The data cover a wide range of produc-
dy friction factor.!M, directly. Nikuradse'sl4 friction-factor cor-
ing and well conditions. Gas rates range from 144 to 27,400 McflD
relation for fully turbulent flow is given by
[4.08xI0 3 to 7.76x10 5 m 3 /d]; GOR's range from 3,900 to
1,170,000 scf/STB [702 to 210 x 10 3 std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]; tub-
f~ =1.74+210g(~), ........................... (10) ing strings range from 1.995- to 3.958-in. [5.067- to 1O.053-cm]
ID; and well depths range from 3,678 to 12,073 ft [1121 to 3680
m]. The original paper included data on 102 wells, but the authors
where f = absolute roughness. This correlation is considered to be indicated that some of the wells had data that they felt were in error
one of the best available friction-factor correlations for fully de- and therefore were not included in the final results. Table 3 does
veloped turbulent flow in rough pipes. Turbulent flow is the case not include data from these wells, Wells 64, 78, 80, 81, 91, 92,
in most gas wells producing near capacity. and 102 in the Govier and Fogarasi paper. To avoid confusion, the
When Govier and Fogarasi's well data are used, a value of same numbers are associated with a particular well in both this work
f=0.0018 in. [0.0457 mm] seems to be more representative of the and the Govier and Fogarasi work. Therefore, gaps in the data
absolute roughness of the tubing in these wells. To arrive at this presented in Table 3 occur where these wells should be found.
value (which corresponds to the absolute roughness of commercial The Govier-Fogarasi method allows for the calculation of pres-
steel pipe) the BHFP's of the Govier and Fogarasi wells were cal- sure gradients in wells producing only under two-phase flow con-
culated with several values of absolute roughness. A comparison ditions. Many wells, however, either produce only single-phase gas
of the root-mean-square (RMS) and average errors obtained with or have only a portion of the well under two-phase flow conditions.
these different values indicated that an absolute roughness of 0.0018 For wells exhibiting two-phase flow conditions at the surface, Govier
in. [0.0457 mm] was best. A comparison of the average errors with and Fogarasi performed flash calculations to determine where, if
the proposed method with f =0.0006,0.0015,0.0018,0.0021, and at all, flow changed from single- to two-phase flow. For wells where
0.0024 in. [0.0152,0.0381,0.0457,0.0533, and 0.0610 mm] is two-phase flow was indicated at both the top and the midpoint of
shown in Fig. 1. This comparison was made with 32 randomly chos- the well but single-phase at the bottom, it was assumed that 75%

646 SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

TABLE 2-H 2S, CO 2 , AND N2 IN WELL EFFLUENT FROM TABLE 2-H 2 S, CO 2' AND N 2 IN WELL EFFLUENT FROM
GOVIER AND FOGARASll WELLS (mol%) GOVIER AND FOGARASll WELLS (mol%) (continued)

Well
--
H2 S CO 2 ~ Well
--
H2 S CO 2 ~
1 17.06 3.20 1.92 77 0.00 0.26 3.86
2 0.66 4.72 0.42 78 0.68 2.63 0.54
3 0.00 1.37 0.26 79 3.19 4.41 0.97
4 1.26 4.14 0.17 80 0.00 0.38 3.79
5 12.31 4.85 3.51 81 0.00 2.82 0.32
6 10.00 6.20 4.44 82 1.22 1.60 2.00
7 1.15 4.03 0.16 83 0.44 4.01 0.60
8 0.57 4.85 0.44 84 0.23 3.93 0.52
9 0.67 4.83 0.43 85 0.00 4.22 1.51
10 1.91 3.58 0.13 86 0.00 2.22 0.62
11 0.66 5.43 0.43 87 0.00 0.91 0.55
12 0.74 4.47 0.38 88 0.00 1.93 0.37
13 0.57 4.86 0.45 89 0.00 1.00 0.73
14 18.52 3.80 1.89 90 0.00 0.51 1.04
15 0.53 4.89 0.44 91 0.00 0.63 0.51
16 3.30 1.90 1.83 92 2.21 4.22 5.00
17 0.54 4.43 0.55 93 0.48 6.07 0.44
18 5.16 1.97 2.23 94 0.00 4.27 0.47
19 0.10 5.44 0.71 95 8.10 3.20 0.48
20 11.32 5.24 4.24 96 8.18 3.65 0.22
21 9.26 5.53 4.36 97 0.00 4.70 0.46
22 12.21 7.10 4.45 98 8.78 5.05 0.46
23 0.41 4.72 0.41 99 8.33 3.08 0.48
24 0.55 3.84 0.18 100 9.10 4.33 0.47
25 1.45 3.98 0.22
26 1.57 3.66 0.31
27 1.92 4.31 0.15
28 1.81 4.12 0.15 of the well was occupied by a two-phase mixture and the pressure
29 0.00 1.57 1.25 gradient was calculated as
30 7.24 2.33 4.45
31 0.00 0.62 0.57
17.76 P P
32 3.35 1.13 I1p =0. 75( I1 ) +0.25( I1 ) . . ................. (11)
33 16.15 4.02 0.90 I1h I1h ~ I1h ~
34 1.44 1.27 1.54
35 0.00 0.83 0.58
36 14.71 2.15 9.01 Alternatively, where two-phase conditions were present only at
37 2.83 4.38 1.07 the surface, the pressure gradient was calculated as
38 0.67 3.82 0.47
39 0.08 5.29 0.44 P P
40 13.13 2.06 8.37 I1p =0.25( I1 ) +0.75( I1 ) ................... (12)
41 0.67 4.37 0.59 I1h I1h ~ I1h ~
42 1.38 2.60 5.08
43 0.00 1.84 0.20 Wells 1 through 13, despite the production of condensate at the
44 12.11 2.55 0.68
separator, were shown to be under single-phase gas flow condi-
45 0.63 6.44 0.38
46 0.63 4.43 0.51 tions at all three checkpoints in each well. Wells 14 through 28
47 1.73 2.59 5.79 were shown to be in two-phase flow at the surface but single-phase
48 0.00 2.70 0.73 flow at the midpoint and bottom of the well. Wells 29 through 59
49 1.07 5.05 0.51 exhibited two-phase flow at the top and midpoint of the well but
50 7.73 4.55 4.51 were in single-phase flow at the bottom of the well. It is interest-
51 0.00 4.34 0.73 ing to note the wide range ofGOR's under which these four groups
52 0.00 1.23 1.29 fall. For instance, flash calculations indicated single-phase flow
53 12.75 5.82 4.07 throughout for Wells 1 through 13, whose GOR's by themselves
54 16.15 7.24 3.72
are no sure indicator as to whether a well is under single- or two-
55 0.47 5.89 0.39
56 9.21 4.89 0.50 phase flow conditions in the wellbore.
57 0.00 2.46 0.28 Table 3 and Figs. 2 through 5 give the results in both tabular
58 0.00 1.18 0.90 and graphical form for the comparison between the proposed method
59 0.00 1.62 3.78 and that of Govier and Fogarasi. Overall results indicate that very
60 15.63 6.64 0.58 good values were obtained. RMS errors of 4.6% and 108 psia [745
61 2.70 3.59 1.02 kPa] and average errors of -0.4% and +2.2 psia [+ 15.2 kPa]
62 4.49 1.74 1.83 were achieved for the set of wells as a whole. This compares with
63 0.00 0.63 0.25 RMS values of7% and 127 psia [876 kPa] and average error values
64 8.87 2.99 4.39
of 1.2 % and +20 psia [ + 138 kPa] for the Govier and Fogarasi
65 19.97 3.37 1.14
66 19.61 3.09 0.98 method. These error values for the proposed method are more than
67 2.68 3.90 0.96 adequate and point out that the proposed method effectively accounts
68 0.00 0.46 0.60 for liquid production in gas wells. These results clearly show that
69 2.81 4.99 0.94 the modified Cullender-Smith method is a very good way of cal-
70 0.35 5.18 0.73 culating BHP's from surface measurements. The Govier and Fogara-
71 0.00 0.63 0.51 si analysis was developed specifically for gas-condensate flow, was
72 14.59 2.10 8.41 shown in their paper to be better than several previously developed
73 2.75 3.72 1.06 methods, and yet had larger overall errors than the proposed method.
74 1.12 1.75 1.68
These results show that the proposed method compares very favora-
75 0.00 2.91 0.51
76 3.07 3.63 1.05 bly with a more theoretically sound two-phase model, yet gives simi-
lar results while being easier to use.

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 647

 TABLE 3-PRESSURE GRADIENTS AND ERRORS CALCULATED FOR GOVIER AND FOGARASll WELLS BY
GOVIER AND FOGARASI AND PROPOSED METHODS WITH E=O.0018 In.

Calculated Pressures and Gradients

Measured Pressure Govier and Fogarasi Cullender and Smith
(psia) Gradient !=rror Gradient Error Error Gradient Error
Well Top Bottom (psia/ft) BHP (%) (psia/ft) (psia) BHP (%) (psia/ft) (psia)
- - - - - --
1 2,685 4,579 0.1809 4,671 +2.0 0.1899 +92 4,794 +4.7 0.2015 +215
2 2,082 2,937 0.0958 2,867 -2.4 0.0877 -70 2,837 -3.4 0.0846 -100
3 2,672 4,087 0.1588 4,169 +2.0 0.1676 +82 4,128 +1.0 0.1633 -41
4 2,120 3,100 0.0984 3,143 + 1.4 0.1029 +43 3,131 + 1.0 0.1015 +31
5 1,717 2,445 0.0942 2,489 +1.8 0.0942 +44 2,477 +1.3 0.0983 +32
6 1,785 2,683 0.1125 2,675 -0.2 0.1115 -8.0 2,704 +0.8 0.1152 +21
7 2,815 3,713 0.0963 3,769 +1.5 0.1022 +56 3,784 +1.9 0.1038 +71
8 1,990 2,993 0.1146 2,742 -8.4 0.0859 -251 2,688 -10.2 0.0797 -305
9 2,239 3,053 0.0927 2,940 -3.7 0.0799 -113 2,916 -4.5 0.0771 -137
10 2,120 3,202 0.1149 3,205 +0.1 0.1179 +3.0 3,202 0 0.1149 0
11 1,990 2,930 0.1053 2,931 0 0.1055 + 1.0 2,930 0 0.1053 0
12 1,879 2,806 0.1061 2,716 -3.2 0.0959 -90 2,674 -4.7 0.0910 -132
13 2,347 3,013 0.0753 3,010 -0.1 0.0730 -3.0 3,013 0 0.0753 0
RMS error 3.0 92 3.8 122
Average error -0.7 -16 -0.9 -27

14 2,147 4,066 0.1753 4,139 +1.8 0.1819 +73 3,956 -2.7 0.1653 -110
15 1,716 3,309 0.1813 3,187 -3.7 0.1675 -122 3,253 -1.7 0.1749 -56
16 2,218 3,186 0.1040 3,272 +2.7 0.1131 +86 3,275 +2.8 0.1135 +89
17 2,040 2,968 0.1102 3,036 +2.3 0.1184 +68 3,036 +2.3 0.1179 +68
18 1,812 2,614 0.0861 2,616 0 0.0865 +2.0 2,593 -0.8 0.0839 -21
19 1,423 2,969 0.1877 3,150 +6.1 0.2098 + 181 3,165 +6.6 0.2115 +196
20 1,769 2,354 0.0732 2,396 + 1.8 0.0786 +42 2,401 +2.0 0.0791 +47
21 1,914 2,525 0.0776 2,591 +2.6 0.0858 +66 2,611 +3.4 0.0885 +86
22 1,822 2,524 0.0875 2,610 +3.4 0.0981 +86 2,615 +3.6 0.0988 +91
23 1,563 2,166 0.0726 2,216 +2.3 0.0785 +50 2,177 +0.5 0.0739 + 11
24 2.151 2.788 0.0667 2.785 0 0.0663 +3.0 2.799 +0.4 0.0679 + 11
25 1.336 1.781 0.0449 1.822 +2.3 0.0491 +41 1,808 + 1.5 0.0476 +27
26 941 1.865 0.0949 1.792 -3.9 0.0792 -73 1.673 -10.3 0.0752 -192
27 1,303 2.585 0.1327 2,466 -4.6 0.1204 -119 2,466 -4.6 0.1204 -119
28 1.433 2,182 0.0748 2.263 +3.7 0.0829 +81 2.239 +2.6 0.0805 +57
RMS error 3.2 85 3.9 97
Average error +1.1 +31 +0.4 +12

29 1.333 3.244 0.2208 2.654 -18.2 0.1526 -590 2,819 -16.7 0.1717 -425
30 2.146 3.883 0.1648 4.143 +6.7 0.1894 +260 4,163 +7.2 0.1913 +280
31 2.214 3.363 0.1324 3.430 +2.0 0.1403 +67 3,498 +4.0 0.1479 +135
32 1,840 3,117 0.1226 3,345 +7.3 0.1445 +228 3,295 +5.7 0.1397 +178
33 2.210 3,363 0.1148 3,511 +4.4 0.1297 +148 3,481 +3.5 0.1265 + 118
34 1.896 2,429 0.0900 2,378 -2.1 0.0812 -51 2,342 -3.6 0.0750 -87
35 1.040 1.343 0.0395 1,412 +5.1 0.0485 +69 1.320 -1.7 0.0366 -23
36 1.485 2.652 0.1574 2.726 +2.8 0.1674 +74 2,835 +6.9 0.1821 +183
37 690 1.398 0.0612 1,453 +3.9 0.0658 +55 1.415 +1.2 0.0626 +17
38 1,099 1.502 0.0468 1.537 +2.3 0.0508 +35 1,486 -1.1 0.0449 -16
39 1.661 2.445 0.0962 2,555 +4.5 0.1095 + 110 2.516 +2.9 0.1049 +71
40 1,854 2,619 0.0967 2.792 +6.6 0.1188 +173 2.721 +3.9 0.1097 + 102
41 1.708 2.390 0.0818 2.500 +4.6 0.0949 + 110 2,454 +2.7 0.0895 +64
42 1.603 2.098 0.0646 2.056 -2.0 0.0591 -42 2,037 -2.9 0.0567 -61
43 897 1,462 0.0883 1.513 +3.5 0.0962 +51 1,377 -5.8 0.0750 -85
44 1.351 2,487 0.1270 2,591 +4.2 0.1389 +104 2,619 +5.3 0.1417 +132
45 1,889 2,490 0.0723 2.565 +3.0 0.0810 +75 2,515 +1.0 0.0753 +25
J 46 1,240 1,662 0.0492 1.699 +2.2 0.0535 +37 1.622 -2.4 0.0446 -40
47 1,486 1.918 0.0563 1,926 +0.4 0.0572 +8.0 1,933 +0.8 0.0583 +15
48 1.130 1,472 0.0516 1,471 +0.1 0.0514 -1.0 1.432 -2.7 0.0449 -40
49 1.288 2,070 0.1079 2,070 0 0.1079 0 2,074 +0.2 0.1085 +4.0
50 1.294 1,654 0.0455 1,690 +2.2 0.0501 +36 1,684 + 1.8 0.0492 +30
51 1.318 1.857 0.0679 1,961 +5.6 0.0809 +104 1.864 +0.4 0.0688 +7.0
52 450 653 0.0301 624 -4.4 0.0258 -29 577 -11.7 0.0188 -76
53 1.925 2.549 0.0758 2,613 +2.5 0.0835 +64 2.605 +2.2 0.0802 +56
54 1.877 2,499 0.0758 2.589 +3.6 0.0869 +90 2,586 +3.5 0.0865 +87
55 1.580 2,295 0.0863 2,323 +1.2 0.0894 +28 2,224 -3.1 0.0776 -71
56 1,045 1.455 0.0626 1,435 -1.4 0.0594 -20 1,417 -2.6 0.0569 -38
57 654 786 0.0190 1.056 +34.3 0.0579 +270 793 +0.9 0.0201 +7.0
58 787 981 0.0351 967 -1.4 0.0351 -14 935 -4.7 0.0289 -46
59 597 877 0.0350 811 -7.5 0.0261 -66 785 -10.5 0.0235 -92
RMS error 8.0 147 5.0 121
Average error +2.4 +46 -0.4 +13

648 SPE Production Engineering. November 1988

 TABLE 3-PRESSURE GRADIENTS AND ERRORS CALCULATED FOR GOVIER AND FOGARASP WELLS BY
GOVIER AND FOGARASI AND PROPOSED METHODS WITH E=O.0018 in. (continued)

Calculated Pressures and Gradients

Measured Pressure Govier and Fogarasi Cullender and Smith
(psia) Gradient Error Gradient Error Error Gradient Error
Well Top Bottom (psia/ft) BHP (%) (psia/ft) (psia) BHP (%) (psia/ft) (psia)
- -- -- --
60 639 2,005 0.2607 1,973 -1.6 0.2535 -32 2,099 +4.7 0.2617 +94
61 1,169 2,205 0.0669 1,926 -12.6 0.0636 -279 2,082 -5.6 0.0766 -123
62 816 1,437 0.0654 1,880 +30.8 0.1120 +443 1,288 -10.4 0.0497 -149
63 1,187 1,939 0.0762 2,055 +6.0 0.0881 + 116 1,989 +2.6 0.0813 +50
65 1,413 2,400 0.0689 2,431 + 1.3 0.0917 +31 2,626 +9.4 0.1092 +226
66 1,277 2,398 0.0958 2,360 -1.6 0.0926 -38 2,544 +6.1 0.1084 +146
67 1,232 2,679 0.1199 2,711 + 1.2 0.1225 +32 2,920 +9.0 0.1399 +241
69 1,183 2,269 0.0904 2,156 -5.0 0.0810 -113 2,233 -1.6 0.0874 -36
70 1,199 2,033 0.1085 1,789 -12.0 0.0767 -244 1,842 -9.4 0.0837 -191
71 1,165 1,722 0.0657 1,732 +0.6 0.0669 +10 1,681 -2.4 0.0608 -41
72 960 2,243 0.1710 2,167 -3.4 0.1609 -76 2,272 + 1.3 0.1749 +29
73 1,053 1,729 0.0586 1,682 -2.7 0.0545 -47 1,650 -4.6 0.0517 -79
74 1,438 2,196 0.1254 2,167 -1.3 0.1206 -29 2,227 + 1.4 0.1306 +31
75 626 883 0.0350 904 +2.4 0.0379 +21 659 -2.7 0.0318 -24
76 663 1,551 0.0757 1,598 +3.0 0.0797 +47 1,646 +6.1 0.0838 +95
77 839 1,125 0.0778 1,054 -6.3 0.0585 -71 1,033 -8.2 0.0527 -92
79 1,197 2,205 0.0855 2,134 -3.2 0.0795 -71 2,117 -4.0 0.0780 -88
82 1,157 1,939 0.1299 1,885 -2.8 0.1210 -54 1,939 0 0.1299 0
83 1,012 1,509 0.0574 1,462 -3.1 0.0520 -47 1,391 -7.8 0.0438 -118
84 1,008 1,349 0.0399 1,403 +4.0 0.0463 +54 1,372 +1.7 0.0426 +23
85 1,057 1,642 0.0786 1,644 +0.1 0.0789 +2.0 1,658 +1.0 0.0808 +16
86 1,063 1,716 0.0932 1,750 +2.0 0.0981 +34 1,733 + 1.0 0.0957 +17
87 1,360 1,909 0.0722 2,167 + 13.5 0.1074 +258 1,894 -0.8 0.0701 -15
88 1,428 1,908 0.0636 1,909 0 0.0638 + 1.0 1,862 -2.4 0.0576 -46
89 1,452 1,859 0.0535 1,945 +4.6 0.0647 +86 1,920 +3.3 0.0615 +61
90 973 1,322 0.0439 1,326 +0.3 0.0444 +4.0 1,273 -3.7 0.0378 -49
93 1,135 2,089 0.1182 1,828 -12.5 0.0859 -261 2,244 +7.4 0.1374 + 155
94 958 1,622 0.0923 1,661 +2.4 0.0976 +39 1,594 -1.7 0.0885 -28
95 1,349 1,761 0.0724 1,793 +0.7 0.0746 +12 1,756 -1.4 0.0682 -25
96 1,430 1,901 0.0813 1,903 +0.1 0.0816 +2.0 1,869 -1.7 0.0757 -32
97 1,169 1,495 0.0487 1,549 +3.6 0.0567 +54 1,495 0 0.0487 0
98 1,079 1,490 0.0609 1,544 +3.6 0.0689 +54 1,511 + 1.4 0.0640 +21
99 1,064 1,387 0.0522 1,429 +3.0 0.0590 +42 1,387 0 0.0522 0
100 968 1,260 0.0412 1,544 +22.5 0.0841 +284 1,230 -2.4 0.0367 -30
101 1,109 1,434 0.0525 1,398 -2.5 0.0467 -36 1,375 -4.1 0.0430 -59
RMS error 8.2 134 4.8 94
Average error + 1.0 +6.5 -0.5 -0.6

~ SO'
~
tMs study
41 thts study
~ Govier & Fogoro.t
method I!llIGovter & Fogorllst
method
31
11 0
~ 25
II 2f)
Q.

J _~_ J_
Il:
0
Il: II: 12
Il: 0
W 12 II:
1.1
II:

_IJ_~
w W
(J
-J

JJ-
W
Il: C)
W
~ II:
W

-.l -.4 ~
-25
-1 -J -u

-2-'---,----,---r--,---,--
1-13 14-28 29-59 61HOI HOI
1-13 14-28 29-59 60-101 HOI
WEll NUUBERS
Will NUUBERS
Fig. 2-Average percent error, Govier and FogarasJ1 wells.
Fig. 3-Average absolute error, Govier and Fogarasl t wells.

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 649

 10
~ this study 150
I(jIJ 60yler & Fogoro.1 ~ this stUdy
IQ<;j method
III R:i:I Govter &. Fogorasl
~method

c
iiQ. 100
It:
o It:
It: o
It: It:
W It:
W
III
2 III
It: 2
It: 50

H3 14-28 29-59 60-101 HOI

H3 14-28 29-59 6/HOI HOI
WEll NUUBERS
WELL NUUBERS
Fig. 4-Percent RMS error, Govier and Fogarasi I wells. Fig. 5-Absolute RMS error, Govier and Fogarasl 1 wells.

Railroad Commission Well Data namic flow of a two- or three-phase mixture as if it were a single-
The data for 50 wells used in comparing the proposed method with phase vapor had a great deal to do with this.
the average Tand z method are given in Table 4. These wells were
all obtained from the public files of the Texas Railroad Commis-
Conclusions
sion. Unfortunately, compositional analyses were not available on
these wells, so the compressibility factors calculated while the two 1. A simple method for calculating BHSP's and BHFP's in gas
methods were used were not adjusted for the presence of H 2 S, and gas-condensate wells has been developed by modifying the
CO 2 , and N2 , which added a degree of uncertainty to all the cal- Cullender-Smith method. The modifications consisted of account-
culated BHP's. This could not be avoided; however, it did affect ing for entrained liquid in the gas stream and using a pipe rough-
the pressures calculated by both methods equally. ness of 0.0018 in. [0.0457 mm].
The data given for the wells in the Govier and Fogarasi paper 2. The proposed method outperformed the conventional average
were for fairly-low-pressure, low-temperature wells, generally with T and z method and the two-phase flow correlation of Govier and
BHP's <3,000 psia [<20.7 MPa] and bottornhole temperatures Fogarasi in comparisons on 145 wells.
(BHT's) < 175F [<79C]. To test the merits of the proposed 3. The proposed method performed robustly in predicting the
method, wells with high BHP's and BHT's and low gas/liquid ra- BHP's of a wide range of gas-condensate well conditions.
tios were chosen for comparing the proposed method and the aver-
age T and z method. The majority of these wells have BHP's
>5,000 psia [>34.5 MPa], BHT's of at least 225F [107C], Nomenclature
and gas/liquid ratios below 35,000 scf/STB [6300 std m 3 /stock- d = pipe rD, in. [cm]
tank m 3 ]. D = true vertical well depth, ft [m]
Tables 5 and 6 present the BHSP's and BHFP's calculated by 1M = Moody friction factor, dimensionless
the average T and z and the proposed methods for the Railroad Com- F2 = frictional pressure drop in Cullender-Smith method,
mission wells. Figs. 6 through 9 show the errors calculated for both psi [kPa]
the static and flowing cases with the two methods. These graphs G = gas equivalent of condensate, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-
show that the modified Cullender-Smith method gives RMS errors
tank m3 ]
that are approximately 50% lower than those given by the average
T and z method. For the static case, the RMS errors were reduced h = vertical distance, ft [m]
from 7.9% and 597 psia [4.12 MPa] to 4.1 % and 280 psia [1.93 L = length of flow string, ft [m]
MPa]. Likewise, for the flowing case, the RMS errors were re- M = molecular weight
duced from 13.9% and 627 psia [4.32 MPa] to 8.5% and 329 psia p = pressure, psia [kPa]
[2.27 MPa]. Results similar to these were also obtained for the aver- q = volumetric flow rate, MMcflD [m 3 /d]
age error calculations. The proposed method was able to provide R = universal gas constant, 10.732 psia-ft 3 /lbm-mol- OR
good results even under these severe conditions. [J/gmol' K]
Errors for the proposed method shown in Figs. 6 through 9 are Rg = producing GOR, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
larger than those calculated for the wells from the Govier and RL = producing gas/liquid ratio, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-
Fogarasi paper, partly because the z factors were not corrected for
tank m 3 ]
the presence of H 2 S, CO 2 , and N2 , but also because of the types
T = temperature, OR [K]
of wells used to test these two methods. Very high BHSP's and
BHFP's were present in many of them. When this was accompa- z = gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
nied by the production of large volumes of liquid, relatively low 'Yg = dry-gas gravity, dimensionless (air = 1)
wellhead pressures resulted, and the calculated BHP's tended to 'Yo = oil specific gravity, dimensionless (water = 1)
be low. The inadequacies associated with trying to model the dy- 'Ywg = wet-gas gravity, dimensionless (air = 1)

650 SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

 TABLE 4-RAILROAD COMMISSION WELL DATA

Temperature
(OF)
Well Tubing
Oil Gravity Water Gas Gas GOR Depth ID Top
(OAPI)
Well
-
(STB/D) (STB/D) (Mscf/D) Specific Gravity (scflSTB) (tt) ~ Shut-in
--
Flowing Bottom
--
1 469 59.5 0 2,426 0.884 5,180 12,444 2.441 85 140 295
2 410 45.2 750 2,340 0.762 5,720 11,824 1.995 74 184 280
3 768 59.3 10 4,680 0.870 6,094 11,787 2.992 32 116 289
4 74 49.0 64 529 0.658 7,137 8,579 1.995 80 94 228
5 129 55.0 0 1,051 0.719 8,122 11,000 1.995 45 67 270
6 753 49.6 8 6,585 0.722 8,743 14,742 2.441 85 145 322
7 99 50.4 45 891 0.690 8,991 12,318 2.441 74 80 260
8 275 53.8 6 2,680 0.645 9,740 10,224 1.995 74 120 237
9 520 53.3 0 5,081 0.680 9,779 11,040 1.995 74 120 260
10 188 48.9 2,000 1,853 0.696 9,835 11,719 1.995 136 188 260
11 158 52.0 105 1,566 0.659 9,921 8,882 1.995 74 80 225
12 213 56.6 42 2,381 0.655 11,174 9,858 1.995 74 115 239
13 66 43.7 0 774 0.656 11,733 13,055 1.995 74 90 278
14 48 52.8 0 572 0.694 11,867 11,322 1.995 74 90 255
15 52 52.6 17 678 0.645 13,041 10,607 1.995 74 95 254
16 196 53.6 5 2,586 0.653 13,180 8,850 2.441 74 105 215
17 487 50.7 8 6,427 0.680 13,209 13,150 1.995 75 90 295
18 130 51.9 0 1,782 0.645 13,663 10,355 1.995 74 100 239
19 324 52.2 0 4,664 0.681 14,378 10,743 1.995 74 100 251
20 538 52.0 13 7,800 0.671 14,579 12,944 2.441 72 94 300
21 38 54.9 6 594 0.640 15,505 11,462 1.995 74 80 259
22 104 53.8 0 1,635 0.664 15,799 10,885 1.995 81 92 253
23 38 63.2 10 606 0.636 15,831 9,559 1.995 74 85 239
24 170 53.3 0 2,800 0.640 16,440 9,974 1.995 74 100 238
25 59 43.8 0 1,059 0.640 18,075 13,037 1.610 76 86 286
26 212 45.5 15 4,240 0.654 20,000 13,468 1.995 76 92 294
27 95 56.9 0 2,046 0.700 21,566 9,643 1.751 74 80 275
28 209 51.9 0 4,510 0.666 21,609 11,032 1.995 70 90 276
29 95 53.1 0 2,529 0.635 26,717 7,552 2.441 74 100 192
30 48 46.9 139 1,348 0.642 27,104 11,990 1.995 88 108 263
31 45 57.8 0 1,430 0.646 31,609 7,237 1.995 74 100 219
32 211 41.9 0 7,175 0.602 34,005 11,654 1.995 74 80 250
33 107 52.3 0 3,774 0.657 35,136 12,024 1.995 88 90 282
34 59 55.9 1 2,770 0.675 38,540 8,126 1.995 74 95 240
35 72 46.7 150 2,800 0.643 38,654 12,330 1.995 75 80 271
36 14 50.8 102 530 0.614 38,700 7,676 1.995 74 95 224
37 132 53.0 117 5,465 0.619 41,511 12,150 1.995 100 125 275
38 24 47.9 4 1,258 0.659 52,504 10,279 1.995 74 69 264
39 40 43.3 4 2,333 0.601 57,417 12,970 1.995 89 100 275
40 56 44.4 0 3,209 0.610 57,427 10,676 1.995 74 100 288
41 54 45.2 25 3,703 0.620 68,424 10,790 1.995 85 90 250
42 55 47.0 0 4,477 0.673 81,474 10,314 1.995 71 74 271
43 58 54.5 15 4,939 0.662 84,950 11,351 2.441 90 98 283
44 16 43.5 0 2,911 .0.593 180,000 9,160 2.441 74 95 246
45 16 50.0 11 1,550 0.604 332,618 9,220 2.441 74 115 255
46 32 42.8 0 24,900 0.631 780,000 15,676 2.992 100 174 300
47 0 - 72 3,811 0.635 Dry 16,711 2.992 75 100 320
48 0 - 0 2,026 0.623 Dry 11,045 1.995 74 80 293
49 0 - 52 460 0.690 Dry 9,120 2.441 74 90 243
50 0 - 0 19,576 0.595 Dry 21,453 3.958 78 115 322

Subscripts Superscript
g = gas - = average
he = hydrocarbon
L = liquid References
mix = mixture \. Govier, G.W. and Fogarasi, M.: "Pressure Drop in Wells Producing
o = condensate Gas and Condensate," paper presented at the 1975 Annual Technical
Meeting, Petroleum Soc. of CIM, Banff, Canada, June 11-13.
sp = single phase 2. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A.: Back-Pressure Data on Natural
t = total Gas Wells and Their Application to Production Practices, Bureau of
if = tubing, flowing (surface conditions) Mines, Monograph 7 (1935).
tp = two phase 3. Cullender, M.H. and Smith, R.V.: "Practical Solutions of Gas-Flow
Equation for WeBs and Pipelines with Large Temperature Gradients,"
ts = tubing, static (surface conditions)
Trans., AIME, 207 (1956) 281-87.
w = water 4. WaBis, G.B.: "Annular Two-Phase Flow," f. Basic Eng., Trans.,
wi = well, flowing (bottomhole conditions) ASME, Series D (1970) 92, 59.
wg = wet gas 5. Duns, H. lr. and Ros, N.C.l.: "Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mix-
ws = well, static (bottomhole conditions) tures in WeBs," Proc., Sixth World Pet. Cong., Frankfurt (1963) 10,
694.
wst = well stream 6. Hughmark, G.A.: "Film Thickness Entrainment and Pressure Drop
= absolute pipe roughness, in. [cm] in Upward Annual Dispersed Flow," AlChEf. (Sept. 1973) 19,1062.

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 651

 TABLE 5-STATIC PRESSURES, GRADIENTS, AND ERRORS CALCULATED FOR RAILROAD COMMISSION WELLS BY
AVERAGE T AND z AND PROPOSED METHODS

Calculated Pressures and Gradients

Measured Pressure Average T and z Proposed
(psia) Gradient Error Gradient Error Error Gradient Error
Well Top Bottom (psialft) BHP (%) (psialft) (psia) BHP (%) (psialft) (psia)
- -- -- --
1 3,385 5,998 0.2100 5,628 -6.2 0.1803 -370 5,761 -4.0 0.1909 -237
2 5,550 9,288 0.3161 7,739 -16.7 0.1824 -1,549 9,199 -1.0 0.3086 -89
3 3,450 5,939 0.2112 5,574 -6.2 0.1802 -365 5,677 -4.4 0.1904 -262
4 5,085 7,109 0.2359 6,524 -8.2 0.1677 -585 7,004 -1.5 0.2237 -105
5 4,400 6,214 0.1649 6,176 -0.6 0.1615 -38 6,230 +0.3 0.1664 +16
6 8,250 11,250 0.2035 10,876 -3.3 0.1781 -374 11,078 -1.5 0.1918 -172
7 3,323 5,393 0.1681 5,064 -6.1 0.1413 -329 5,355 -0.7 0.1649 -38
8 6,272 8,339 0.2022 7,993 -4.2 0.1683 -346 7,980 -4.3 0.1671 -359
9 7,157 9,148 0.1804 9,027 -1.3 0.1696 -121 9,101 -0.5 0.1762 -47
10 4,048 8,128 0.3481 5,594 -31.2 0.1319 -2,534 8,627 +6.1 0.3908 +499
11 5,139 6,944 0.2032 6,512 -6.2 0.1556 -423 6,837 -1.5 0.1912 -107
12 6,042 7,592 0.1572 7,579 -0.2 0.1559 -13 7,683 + 1.2 0.1665 +91
13 6,078 8,206 0.1630 8,168 -0.5 0.1601 -38 8,183 -0.3 0.1613 -23
14 7,215 9,087 0.1654 9,090 0 0.1656 +3.0 9,156 +0.8 0.1715 +69
15 6,192 7,839 0.1553 7,786 -0.7 0.1503 -53 7,943 +0.2 0.1651 +104
16 5,406 6,780 0.1553 6,718 -0.9 0.1483 -65 6,748 -0.5 0.1517 -32
17 8,230 10,606 0.1807 10,392 -2.0 0.1692 -214 10,455 -1.4 0.1692 -151
18 6,574 8,185 0.1559 8,155 -0.4 0.1530 -30 8,199 +0.2 0.1572 +14
19 7,275 8,869 0.1484 8,997 + 1.4 0.1603 -128 9,045 +2.0 0.1648 +176
20 8,472 10,707 0.1726 10,566 -1.3 0.1618 -141 10,645 -0.6 0.1679 -62
21 4,317 6,503 0.1907 5,759 -11.4 0.1258 -744 5,827 -10.4 0.1317 -676
22 4,524 6,128 0.1474 5,958 -2.8 0.1317 -170 5,984 -2.4 0.1341 -144
23 3,107 4,125 0.1065 4,108 -0.4 0.1047 -17 4,181 + 1.4 0.1124 +56
24 8,049 10,049 0.1534 10,031 -0.2 0.1520 -18 10,088 +0.4 0.1564 +39
25 6,382 7,774 0.1396 7,837 +0.8 0.1459 +63 7,867 + 1.2 0.1489 +93
26 8,275 10,426 0.1597 10,365 -0.6 0.1552 -61 10,380 -0.4 0.1563 -46
27 6,515 7,921 0.1460 7,919 0 0.1459 -2.0 7,939 +0.2 0.1478 +18
28 4,320 5,901 0.1433 5,654 -4.2 0.1209 -247 5,675 -3.8 0.1229 -226
29 4,850 6,565 0.2271 5,797 -11.7 0.1254 -768 5,806 -11.6 0.1266 -759
30 6,837 10,134 0.2750 8,476 -16.4 0.1367 -1,658 9,260 -8.6 0.2021 -874
31 4,498 5,390 0.1233 5,339 -1.0 0.1162 -51 5,344 -0.9 0.1169 -46
32 7,884 9,469 0.1360 9,477 0 0.1367 +8.0 9,496 +0.3 0.1383 +27
33 8,213 10,032 0.1513 9,917 -1.2 0.1417 -115 9,940 -0.9 0.1436 -92
34 3,350 4,201 0.1047 4,153 -1.1 0.0988 -48 4,158 -1.0 0.0994 -43
35 8,141 10,228 0.1692 9,860 -3.6 0.1394 -368 10,347 + 1.2 0.1789 + 119
36 3,400 5,879 0.3230 4,097 -30.3 0.0908 -1,782 4,782 -18.7 0.1801 -1,097
37 6,685 8,393 0.1406 8,182 -2.5 0.1232 -211 8,246 -1.8 0.1285 -147
38 4,115 5,238 0.1092 5,188 -1.0 0.1044 -50 5,210 -0.3 0.1065 -28
39 7,300 8,971 0.1288 8,890 -0.9 0.1226 -81 8,914 +0.6 0.1244 -57
40 5,726 7,000 0.1193 6,911 -1.3 0.1110 .,.89 6,960 -0.6 0.1156 -40
41 7,455 8,882 0.1322 8,830 -0.6 0.1274 -52 8,887 0 0.1327 +5.0
42 6,228 7,653 0.1382 7,524 -1.7 0.1256 -129 7,535 -1.5 0.1267 -118
43 4,890 6,016 0.0992 6,108 +1.5 0.1073 +92 6,137 +2.0 0.1099 + 121
44 4,908 5,786 0.0958 5,793 +0.1 0.0966 +7.0 5,802 +0.3 0.0976 +16
45 4,967 5,978 0.1097 5,860 -2.0 0.0969 -118 5,941 -0.6 0.1056 -37
46 10,180 12,045 0.1190 12,211 + 1.4 0.1296 + 166 12,211 + 1.4 0.1296 +166
47 12,313 14,713 0.1436 14,685 -0.2 0.1419 -28 14,975 + 1.8 0.1593 +262
48 7,189 8,455 0.1138 8,464 +0.1 0.1126 +9.0 8,472 +0.2 0.1162 +17
49 4,428 5,930 0.1647 5,395 -9.0 0.1060 -535 5,854 -1.3 0.1564 -76
50 6,976 9,348 0.1106 9,321 -0.3 0.1093 -27 9,357 +0.1 0.1110 +9.0
RMS error 7.9 597 4.1 280
Average error -4.0 -295 -1.3 -85

7. Peffer, J.W.: "An Improved Method for Calculating Bottomhole Pres- 14. Nikuradse, J.: "Stromungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren," VDI-
sures in Gas Wells," MS thesis, U. of Texas, Austin (1985). Forschungsheft (1932) No. 361.
8. Ikoku, C.U.: Natural Gas Production Engineering, John Wiley & Sons,
New York City (1984). Appendlx-MultlplelJun Program
9. Rzasa, M.J. and Katz, D.L.: "Calculation of Static Pressure Gradients
in Gas Wells," Trans., AIME (1945) 160, 100-05. PRP "CSBHP" 12 PROMPT 25 PROMPT
10. Cragoe, C.S.: "Thennodynamic Properties of Petroleum Products," 13 STO 08 26460
Bureau of Standards, u.s. Dept. of Commerce (1929) Miscellaneous 01. LBL "CSBHP" 14 "SIWHT=?" 27 +
Publication No. 97, 22. 02 FIX 3 15 PROMPT 28 STO 10
11. Vitter, A.L.: "Back-Pressure Tests on Gas-Condensate Wells," Drill. 03 SF OS 16460 29 "SITP=?"
& Prod. Prac., API (1942) 79-87. 04 "L=?" 17+ 30 PROMPT
12. Cullender, M.H. and Bincldey, C.W.: "Adaptionofthe Relative Rough- 05 PROMPT 18 STO 09 31 STO 23
ness Correlation of the Coefficient of Friction to the Flow of Natural 06 STO 06 19 "FWHT=?" 32 "FTP=?"
Gas in Gas Well Casing," Railroad Commission of Texas, Amarillo 07 "GAS GV=?" 20 PROMPT 33 PROMPT
(1950). 08 PROMPT 21460 34 STO 83
13. Smith, R.V., Williams, R.H., and Dewees, E.J.: "Measurement of 09 STO 15 22 + 35 "Q GAS=?"
Resistance to Flow of Fluids in Natural Gas Wells," Trans., AIME 10 STO 75 23 STO 81 36 PROMPT
(1954) 201, 279-86. 11 "DIA=?" 24 "BHT=?" 37 STO 16

652 SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

 TABLE 6-FLOWING PRESSURES, GRADIENTS, AND ERRORS CALCULATED FOR RAILROAD COMMISSION WELLS BY
AVERAGE T AND z AND PROPOSED METHODS

Calculated Pressures and Gradients

Measured Pressure Average T and z Proposed
(psia) Gradient Error Gradient Error Error Gradient Error
Well Top Bottom (psialft) BHP (%) (psialft) (psia) BHP (%) (psialft) (psi a)
- -- -- --
1 2,783 5,247 0.1980 4,740 -9.7 0.1573 -507 4,935 -6.0 0.1729 -312
2 4,867 8,473 0.3050 6,905 -18.5 0.1724 -1,568 8,316 -1.9 0.2917 -157
3 2,206 4,320 0.1794 3,782 -12.5 0.1337 -538 4,014 -7.1 0.1534 -306
4 4,335 6,441 0.2455 5,622 -12.7 0.1500 -819 6,156 -4.4 0.2133 -285
5 2,300 4,101 0.1638 3,422 -16.6 0.1020 -679 3,708 -9.6 0.1280 -393
6 7,325 10,090 0.1876 9,919 -1.7 0.1760 -171 10,182 +0.9 0.1938 +92
7 806 1,771 0.0783 1,361 -23.2 0.0451 -410 1,374 -22.4 0.0461 -397
8 6,070 8,175 0.2059 7,712 -5.7 0.1606 -463 7,775 -4.9 0.1667 -400
9 6,562 8,607 0.1822 8,532 -1.1 0.1821 -75 8,677 +0.8 0.1916 +70
10 1,140 4,311 0.2706 1,924 -55.4 0.0669 -2,387 3,501 -18.8 0.2015 -810
11 4,117 5,771 0.1863 5,318 -7.9 0.1370 -437 5,717 -0.9 0.1801 -54
12 5,100 6,667 0.1590 6,494 -2.6 0.1414 -173 6,659 -0.1 0.1582 -8.0
13 4,090 5,889 0.1378 5,607 -4.8 0.1162 -282 5,912 +0.4 0.1396 +23
14 3,595 5,000 0.1241 4,734 -5.3 0.1006 -266 5,119 +2.4 0.1346 + 119
15 4,672 6,360 0.1592 5,966 -6.2 0.1220 -394 6,236 -2.0 0.1474 -124
16 3,590 4,835 0.1407 4,574 -5.4 0.1112 -261 4,712 -2.5 0.1268 -123
17 5,765 8,373 0.1983 8,032 -4.1 0.1724 -341 8,241 -1.6 0.1883 -132
18 5,335 6,771 0.1390 6,717 -0.8 0.1338 -54 6,850 + 1.2 0.1466 +79
19 6,505 8,311 0.1681 8,294 -0.2 0.1665 -17 8,377 +0.8 0.1742 +66
20 7,082 9,457 0.1835 9,150 -3.3 0.1598 -307 9,330 -1.3 0.1737 -127
21 1,397 2,371 0.0850 1,967 -17.0 0.0497 -404 2,023 -14.7 0.0546 -348
22 2,907 4,210 0.1197 3,974 -5.6 0.0981 -236 4,085 -3.0 0.1082 -125
23 2,769 3,820 0.1099 3,670 -3.9 0.0942 -150 3,750 -1.8 0.1026 -70
24 6,042 7,544 0.1506 7,488 -0.7 0.1450 -56 7,529 -0.2 0.1491 -15
25 7,538 9,591 0.1575 9,436 -1.6 0.1456 -155 9,531 -0.6 0.1529 -60
26 5,091 7,242 0.1597 6,819 -5.8 0.1283 -423 7,046 -2.7 0.1451 -196
27 4,931 6,253 0.1372 6,205 -0.8 0.1322 -48 6,313 + 1.0 0.1435 +60
28 2,820 4,089 0.1150 4,180 +2.2 0.1233 +91 4,106 +0.4 0.1166 +17
29 4,565 5,567 0.1327 5,464 -1.9 0.1190 -103 5,481 -1.6 0.1213 -86
30 1,700 3,977 0.1899 2,284 -42.6 0.0487 -1,693 2,736 -31.2 0.1489 -1,241
31 2,429 3,033 0.0835 2,948 -2.8 0.0717 -85 2,979 -1.8 0.0760 -54
32 6,330 8,221 0.1623 8,120 -1.2 0.1536 -101 8,186 -0.4 0.1593 -35
33 6,125 8,397 0.1890 7,655 -8.8 0.1272 -742 7,789 -7.2 0.1384 -608
34 2,655 3,420 0.0942 3,373 -1.4 0.0883 -47 3,350 -2.1 0.0856 -70
35 7,325 9,524 0.1783 9,000 -5.5 0.1358 -524 9,526 0 0.1785 +2.0
36 2,400 4,208 0.2356 2,899 -31.1 0.0650 -1,309 3,433 -18.4 0.1346 -775
37 5,523 7,148 0.1338 7,115 -0.5 0.1310 -33 7,170 +0.3 0.1356 +22
38 1,695 2,207 0.0498 2,239 + 1.5 0.0529 +32 2,257 +2.3 0.0547 +50
39 6,830 8,581 0.1349 8,382 -2.3 0.1196 -199 8,425 -1.8 0.1229 -156
40 5,342 6,588 0.1167 6,535 -0.8 0.1117 -53 6,545 -0.7 0.1127 -43
41 7,305 8,836 0.1419 8,748 -1.0 0.1338 -88 8,802 -0.4 0.1388 -34
42 5,067 6,440 0.1331 6,376 -1.0 0.1269 -64 6,396 -0.7 0.1290 -44
43 3,175 4,571 0.1230 4,169 -8.8 0.0876 -402 4,201 -8.1 0.0904 -370
44 2,256 2,785 0.0578 2,745 -1.4 0.0534 -40 2,765 -0.7 0.0556 -20
45 1,920 2,603 0.0741 2,306 -11.4 0.0419 -297 2,359 -9.4 0.0476 -244
46 9,438 11,890 0.1564 11,782 -0.9 0.1495 -108 11,814 -0.6 0.1516 -76
47 6,970 10,006 0.1817 8,539 -14.7 0.0939 -1,467 9,134 -8.7 0.1295 -872
48 3,550 4,350 0.0724 4,329 -0.5 0.0706 -21 4,444 +2.2 0.0810 +94
49 865 1,587 0.0792 1,083 -31.8 0.0239 -504 1,174 -26.0 0.0339 -413
50 6,368 8,697 0.1085 8,636 -0.7 0.1057 -61 8,696 0 0.1085 -1.0
RMS error 13.9 627 8.5 329
Average error -8.0 -389 -4.3 -178

38 STO 98 56 STO 26 75 250000 93 * 112 STO 18 130+LBL 10

39 "Q COND=?" 57 "%C02=?" 76 X< >Y 94 1.74 131 RCL 09
40 PROMPT 58 PROMPT 77 X< =Y? 95 X< >Y 113 +LBL 28 132 RCL 18
41 STO 60 59 STO 27 78 XEQ 13 96 - 114 RCL 09 133/
42 X=O? 60 "%H2S=?" 971/X 115 RCL 10 134 STO 20
43 GTO 17 61 PROMPT 79+LBL 12 98 Xf2 116 + 135 RCL 11
44 "API=?" 62 STO 28 8037.5 994 1172 136 RCL 18
45 PROMPT 630 81 RCL 75 100 / 118/ 137/
46 STO 61 64 STO 85 82 * 1012.6665 119 STO 11 138 STO 21
47 "GOR=?" 65 STO 12 83 RCL 06 102 * 120 RCL 85 139 RCL 10
48 PROMPT 661 84 * 103 RCL 08 121 X=O? 140 RCL 18
49 STO 71 67 STO 84 852 104 5 122 GTO 10 141/
68 RCL 60 86/ 105 Ytx 123 RCL 77 142 STO 22
50+LBL 17 69 RCL 70 87 STO 14 106/ 124 RCL 16 143 RCL 20
51 "Q WATER=?" 70 + 88 .0036 107 STO 77 125 1000 144 STO 41
52 PROMPT 710 89 RCL 08 108 XROM "CTcPc" 126/ 145 RCL 09
53 STO 70 72 X=Y? 90/ 109 RCL 00 127 Xt2 146 STO 43
54 "%N2=?" 73 GTO 12 91 LOG 110 STO 17 128 * 147 RCL 23
55 PROMPT 74 XEQ 14 922 III RCL 05 129 STO 12 148 STO 44

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 653

 fj ~ this study
21 this study

~.yg T & z
"] 119
iOOevgT&z
~ method
method

.J---- 12
I I
~

It:
I
-2,
~
I
0
It:
It: I It:
0
It:
91,
w I 0::
w -41 w I
I

"a:
4:
W
I
I
UJ
2
It: 61
> -oj
<{

Ii I
31
-8~ I
!
!
J SHtITtl
---,-------
FI11t1NC
Fig. 6-Average percent error, Railroad Commission wells. Fig. 8-Percent RMS error, Railroad Commission wells.

250 750
~ this study ~ this study
iOOayg1
& z iOO ovg T & z
~m8thod ~ method
I'll

o
Ii
a. o
Q ---- -t.\\\\:\m~ li5QQ
(( a.
o
(( ((
(( o
((
W
((
W w
CJ
4: Ul
(( l
~ -250 (( 250
~

-lIS

-~~-----.----------.-------

Fig. 7-Average absolute error, Railroad Commission wells. Fig. 9-Absolute RMS error, Railroad Commission wells.

149 STO 45 161 X<=Y? 173 STO 31 186 RCL 45 198 X< =Y? 210 +
150 STO 46 162 GTO 04 174 RCL 22 187 + 199 GTO 09 211 lIX
151 0 163 RCL 45 175 STO 41 188 STO 45 200 RCL 45 212 RCL 14
152 STO 36 164 STO 46 176 RCL 10 189 STO 46 201 STO 46 213 *
165 RCL 21 177 STO 43 202 GTO 07 2146
153.LBL 08 166 STO 41 178 RCL 45 190.LBL 07 215 *
154 XEQ 03 167 RCL 11 179 STO 44 191 XEQ 03 203.LBL 09 216 RCL 23
155 RCL 46 168 STO 43 180 RCL 30 192 RCL 45 204 RCL 30 217 +
156 RCL 45 169 GTO 08 1812 193 RCL 46 205 RCL 51 218 "BHP="
157 - 182 * 194 - 2064 219 ARCL X
158 ABS 170.LBL 04 183 1/X 195 ABS 207 * 220 AVIEW
159 1 171 RCL 30 184 RCL 14 196 1 208 + 221 STOP
160X<>Y 172 STO 51 185 * 197X<>Y 209 RCL 50 222 RCL 85

654 SPE Production Engineering, November 1988

223 1 263 RCL 70 304 STO 76 345 +LBL 20 365 RCL 41 388 X=Y?
224 + 264 + 305 RCL 71 346 RCL 15 366X<>Y 389 GTO 05
225 STO 85 265 STO 67 306 RCL 15 347 STO 75 367 CZ 390 RCL 30
226 RCL 84 266 I 307 * 348 GTO 22 368 RCL 43 391 RCL 31
227 X=Y? 267 STO 69 3084584 369 * 392 +
228 GTO 27 268 RTN 309 RCL 62 349 + LBL 21 370 l/X 393 GTO 06
229 "FTP=?" 310 * 350 RCL 15 371 RCL 45
230 PROMPT 269+LBL 13 311 + 351 X> Y? 372 * 394 + LBL 05
231 STO 23 270 RCL 60 312 132800 352 STO 75 373 STO 29 395 RCL 30
232 "FWHT=?" 2710 313 RCL 62 374 Xt2 396 STO 31
233 PROMPT 272 STO 76 314 * 353 +LBL 22 375 1000 397 STO 50
234460 273 STO 64 315 RCL 73 354 RCL 16 376 I 3982
235 + 274 STO 66 316 I 355 RCL 64 377 RCL 12 399 *
236 STO 09 275 STO 73 317 RCL 71 3561000 378 +
237 "Q GAS=?" 276 X=Y? 318 + 357 I 379 l/X 4oo+LBL 06
238 PROMPT 277 GTO II 319 l/X 358 + 380 RCL 29 401 l/X
239 STO 16 278 141.5 320 * 359 STO 16 381 * 402 RCL 14
240 RCL 98 279 RCL 61 321 STO 15 360 RTN 382 STO 30 403*
241 I 280 131.5 383 RCL 36 404 RCL 44
242 STO 97 281 + 322 +LBL 11 361+LBL 03 384 1 405 +
243 RCL 64 282 I 323 RCL 70 362 RCL 45 385 + 406 STO 45
244 * 283 STO 62 324 X=O? 363 RCL 17 386 STO 36 407 END
245 1000 2846084 325 GTO 20 364 I 387 I
246 I 285 RCL 61 326 RCL 76
247 RCL 16 2865.9 327 1
248 + 287 - 328 RCL 66 SI Metric Conversion Factors
249 STO 16 288 I 329 -
API 14l.5/(131.5 + API) g/em 3
250 GTO 28 289 STO 73 330 +
290 l/X 331 4591 bbl X l.589873 E-Ol m3
251+LBL 27 291 133037.4 332 * ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
252 RCL 83 292 * 333 RCL 69 ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
253 STO 23 293 RCL 62 334 I OF CF-32)/1.8 C
254 RCL 81 294 * 335 RCL 75 in. x 2.54* E+OO em
255 STO 09 295 RCL 60 336 + psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
256 GTO 28 296 * 337 1123 seflbbl x l.801 175 E-Ol std m 3 /stoek-tank m 3
257 RTN 297 STO 64 338 RCL 69
298 RCL 60 339 I
258 +LBL 14 299 RCL 67 340 I
Conversion factor is exact. SPEPE
259 RCL 16 300 I 341 +
260 1000 Original SPE manuscript received for review Oct. 5, 1986. Paper accepted for publication
301 STO 66 342 I
Jan. 22, 1988. Revised manuscript received Feb. 29,1988. Paper (SPE 15655) first present-
261 * 302 RCL 62 343 STO 75 ed at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans,
262 RCL 60 303 * 344 GTO 21 Oct. 5-8.

SPE Production Engineering, November 1988 655