Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
(a) Unocal Geothermal Technology and Services, 1160 N Dutton Ave Suite 200, Santa Rosa, California, 95401
(b) Philippine Geothermal, Inc., 12th Floor, Citibank Tower, 8741 Citibank Plaza, Paseo de Roxas, Makati City,
Philippines 1226
jacuna@unocal.com, barcedera@unocal.com
120
equation (6)
100
80
dP g fvm2 v dv
60 = ρ m cosθ + ρ m + ρm m m
40
dz gc 2gc D g c dz
20
(6)
0
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
where z, dP/dZ, ρm, g, D, f, vm, θ are measured depth,
Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
total pressure gradient, mixture density, gravity
constant, pipe diameter, Moody friction factor,
mixture velocity and angle with respect to vertical. gc
Figure 1: Pressure below which volumetric steam is a conversion factor equal to 1 for metric units and
fraction is larger than 0.52 and flashing 32.17 for English units.
pressure for liquid at that enthalpy.
We can write equation (6) as follows
The gas velocity given by equation (5) is called
“terminal velocity” in oil and gas literature. It has
been described as the minimum velocity required by
dP
gas to carry liquid droplets in suspension (Coleman et
ρm = dz (7)
al. 1991). In gas wells when the gas velocity is below g fvm2 v dv
the “terminal velocity” the well starts to “load up” or cosθ + + m m
accumulate liquid in the wellbore and flow eventually gc 2 g c D g c dz
stops. This usually leads operators to replace the
production tubing with a smaller diameter in order to In a PTS survey the total pressure gradient (dP/dz) is
extend the well life. known as well as all other variables in the right hand
side of equation (7) with the exception of the Moody
Experimental results have shown that at high fluid friction factor f.
velocity flow behavior evolves towards homogeneous
flow. This is known as the “mass velocity” effect. For the estimation of the Moody friction factor we
Mass velocity is actually a velocity per unit area and will take advantage of our assumption of large fluid
it is defined as mass flow divided by pipe area. velocity. In this condition Reynolds numbers are
Experimental evidence suggests that at mass large. For large Reynolds number (Re > 106) the
velocities larger than 1000 kg/m2s fluid behavior friction factor depends only on relative pipe rugosity.
approaches homogeneous flow and results match For example, in a 0.25 m diameter steel pipe with gas
predictions of homogeneous flow at mass velocities volumetric fraction of 0.52 the Moody friction factor
of 2000 kg/m2s (Collier and Thome, 1996). will become dependent mostly on pipe relative
rugosity when fluid velocity is greater than 1.1 m/s
Experimental results for large diameter pipes such as for pressure between 6 and 30 bar.
those used in geothermal wells, however, are not
available. We expect that the transition should occur Relative rugosity changes along the well with
at lower mass velocities in large pipes. The reason is diameter and absolute rugosity. To account for these
that the wall shear effect that creates the bubble variations the following approximate relationship
concentration profile will affect a smaller fraction of
derived from the Coolebrook-White equation can be and elevation. gc is set to 1 in metric units and 32.17
applied. in English units. The units of the three terms must be
consistent. The wellhead is a good reference point to
2 2 set the elevation term to zero. The kinematic and
⎡ ε ⎤ ⎡ ε ⎤
f 1 ⎢log( 1 )⎥ = f 2 ⎢log( 2 )⎥ (8) elevation energy terms are small compared to
enthalpy. The kinematic term for a fluid velocity of
⎣ D1 ⎦ ⎣ D2 ⎦
50 m/s is only 1.25 kJ/kg. The elevation term is -9.81
In this equation f, ε and D are Moody friction factor, kJ/kg 1000 m below wellhead elevation. Both terms
absolute pipe rugosity and pipe diameter. Subscripts decrease with well depth therefore the enthalpy
1 and 2 refer to two different pipe sections. increases slightly with depth.
Obviously it cannot be used for smooth pipe sections.
At lower fluid velocities the Reynolds number may Using this method, graphs of mass and internal
not be large enough for the friction factor to be energy versus depth can be constructed. The selection
independent of fluid velocity. In this case, however of the friction factor will change the shape of the
friction losses may not be too important and errors in curves. Ideally the mass flow rate and internal energy
the friction factor will not affect too much the graphs should look like a sequence of straight lines
estimate of density. with step changes at the feed zones. The size of the
change in each curve makes it possible to calculate
the mass and enthalpy of the feed zones.
Fluid velocity, mass flow and energy
Measured wellhead mass flow and enthalpy can also
For fluid velocity we use the spinner calculated fluid be used to constraint the friction factor even more.
velocity. The spinner fluid velocity has been proven The wellhead values are used to calculate a curve of
to be proportional to mass average velocity and not to fluid velocity versus depth in the cased part of the
mixture velocity (Gang et al., 1990). Both definitions well. This helps in constraining the spinner derived
of velocity in two phase flow, however, are fluid velocity.
equivalent for homogeneous flow.
The calculated mass and internal energy curves are
By solving equation (7) for every section of the pipe normalized by dividing them by the wellhead mass
we will end up with a profile of calculated fluid and internal energy. This produces two curves that
density as a function of measured depth. Since fluid when the correct friction factor is selected form two
velocity and pipe cross section are also known, a straight lines in the cased part of the well that
graph of mass flow versus depth can be constructed. coincide at the value of one.
Gas mass fraction or flash x can be calculated once
density is known using the following relationship This method in which homogenous flow is assumed
and friction factor calculated to match observed total
Vm − V f pressure gradient has been used before. It is called,
x= (9) not surprisingly, the “friction factor” model (Collier
Vg − V f and Thome, 1996). The main difference with our
application is that it will be applied to interpretation
where V is the specific volume or inverse of density. of PTS surveys and the shape of the mass and energy
Subscripts m, f and g refer to mixture, liquid and gas curves versus depth is used to determine the correct
respectively. Liquid and gas specific volume are friction factor. A good matching friction factor
calculated at corresponding pressure of pipe section. should represent the proper balance between gravity
Once flash is known enthalpy can be calculated using and friction effects in the total pressure gradient.
standard thermodynamic relationships.
APPLICATION OF THE METHOD
Internal energy per unit mass for a section of the pipe
with no feed zones is calculated by adding fluid We will apply this method to well A in the Bulalo
enthalpy, heat losses, kinematic and potential energy geothermal field in the Philippines. Well A is a
components. The internal energy for a given point in directional well cased to 975 m measured depth with
the pipe is given by equation (10) a 0.273 m (10 ¾”) tie back. The slotted liner diameter
is also 0.273 m down to 2195 m and 0.219 m (8 5/8”)
down to total depth at 2746 m.
vm2 g
U =h+q+ + H (10)
2gc gc Fluid velocity
200
300
Measured Depth (m)
0
400
500
Uncorrected
500
600 Angle effect corrected
Calculated
700
Well angle
800 1000
Measured Depth (m).
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1500
2000
Figure 2: Comparison of fluid velocity from PTS Energy, f = 0.005
survey uncorrected, corrected by angle Mass, f = 0.005
effect and calculated using wellhead 2500
Energy, f = 0.02
measured mass flow and enthalpy and Mass, f = 0.02
500
500
1000
1000
Measured Depth (m).
MD (ft)
1500 Assumed
2000
2000
Enthalpy 2500
Calculated Enthalpy
2500 Mass flow
3000
Calculated Mass
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050
Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
Figure 6: Comparison of assumed Moody friction
factor obtained from this analysis with
Figure 5: Interpretation of variation of mass flow values for smooth pipe (Blasius) and
and enthalpy with depth. Feed zone rough pipe (Coolebrook-White).
depths and contributions are shown in
Table 1.
Pressure (bar) and Fluid Velocity (m/s)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Consistency of results 0
A very valid question is how consistent is the
obtained friction factor with respect to more
500
conventional ways of calculating it. Figure 6 shows
the comparison of the friction factor calculated using
Blasius smooth pipe friction factor formula, 1000
Colebrook-White equation for rough pipe and the
Measured Depth (m).