Effect of Assumptions Used to Calculate Bottom-Hole Pressures in Gas Wells

Abstract

Abstract The general energy equation, including change in kinetic energy, was solved by numerical integration and used to evaluate simplifying assumptions and application practices over a wide range of conditions. When extreme conditions were encountered, sizable errors were caused by large integration intervals, application of Simpson's rule and neglecting change in kinetic energy. A maximum error of only 1.31 percent was caused by assuming temperature and compressibility constants at their average value. It was discovered that a discontinuity can develop in the integral for the injection cave. This discontinuity indicates a point of zero pressure change and is an inflection point in the pressure traverse. Introduction When a pressure in a gas well is to be calculated, one of the first decisions is to select a method of calculation. In many instances, this selection becomes a problem because the literature, at best, provides an evaluation of any method for only a limited range of conditions. Once a method has been selected, a question often arises as to the size of the calculation interval which should be used. The question regarding calculation interval arises because an analytic solution is not obtainable and approximate solutions must be used. This paper presents an evaluation of major assumptions and application practices of probably the two most widely used methods for calculating steady-state single-phase gas well pressure. The two methods are Cullender and Smith (numerical integration), and average temperature and compressibility. The Cullender-Smith method assumes that change in kinetic energy is negligible and is normally applied in two steps with a Simpson's rule correction. The average temperature and compressibility method, in addition to neglecting kinetic energy change, assumes that temperature and compressibility are constant at their average values. This method is normally applied for wellhead shut-in pressures of less than 2,000 psi, and in one step. Computer programs were written to compute bottom-hole pressure with and without the assumptions, using various approaches. Values of input parameters investigated are shown in Table 1. Flow rate was limited to a maximum of 5,000 and 10,000 Mcf/D for tubing sizes of 1.610 and 1.995 in. ID, respectively. Flow rate was also limited to 10,000 Mcf/D for a tubing size of 2.441 in. ID when wellhead flowing pressure was 100 psia. These limitations were imposed on flow rate so as not to exceed sonic velocity. The z factor routine available necessitated limiting bottom-hole temperature to 240F and wellhead pressure to 3,000 psia. Pressures were compared on the basis of percent deviation from the trapezoidal integration of Eq. 1 or 2 at 100-ft intervals. A preliminary investigation indicated that a 1,000-ft interval solution would differ from a 50-ft interval solution by less than 0.25 percent; therefore, the 100-ft interval was chosen for a base. For the purpose of comparison, deviations less than 1 percent were considered insignificant. EQUATIONS Cullender and Smith give the equation for calculating pressure in a dry gas well, neglecting kinetic energy change, as .........(1) if change in kinetic energy is considered, Eq. 1 becomes ,..........(2) where 111.1 q /d(4)p = kinetic energy term. Eqs. 1 and 2 can be evaluated numerically at specific depths using the trapezoidal rule as shown by Cullender and Smith. If change in kinetic energy is neglected and temperature and compressibility are assumed constant at their average values, Eq. 1 can be integrated to give the average temperature and compressibility equation, ,....(3) JPT P. 547ˆ