USMS

020988

Gas Condensate Flow Through Chokes

M.E. Osman, United Arab Emirates U.; M.E. Dokla, United
Arab Emira tes U.

Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This manuscript was provided to the S9ciety of Petroleum Engineers for distribution
and possible pUblication in an SPE journal. The material is subject to correction
by the author(s). Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write SPE Book Order Dept., Library Technician, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.

.R'~G'lJ

UNSOLICITED

APR 2 3 1990
SPE

PUBLICATIONS

GAS CONDENSATE FLOW THROUGH

CHO~ES

By
Mohammed E. Osman and Mahmoud E. Dakla
University of United Arab Emirates

ABSTRACT
In this study, field data from a gas condensate reservoir located in the Middle
East are used to develop some empiricial correlations that describe the
behaviour of gas condensate flow through chokes. The data cover wide ranges
of flow rates and choke sizes. Four forms of correlation are checked against
data. One of the forms is to correlate choke upstream pressure with liquid
production rate, gas liquid ratio and choke size. The second form is developed
by using gas production rate instead of the liquid rate in the previous form.
The other two forms are developed by using the pressure drop across the choke
instead of upstream pressure. These correlations are presented in graphical
forms. Five error parameters are used to check accuracy of the different forms.
Namely: root mean square error, mean absolute error, simple mean error, mean
percentage absolute error and mean percentage error. It was found that the
correlation is most accurate when using pressure drop data instead of choke
upstream pressure in the correlation. The importance of the developed
correlations lies in the fact that correlations for gas-condensate systems are not
available. Also such correlations will help the production engineer to a great
extent in selecting choke sizes to control production of gas-condensate wells and
predicting the performance of flowing wells under different conditions.

INTRODUCTION
There are two surface conditions under which a flowing well is produced, either
using a choke or no restrictions at all. The majority of flowing wells are
produced against chokes. The main reasons of using chokes are to control flow
rate and thus to produce reservoirs at the most efficient rate and to prevent
water and/or gas coning and sand problems. In the critical-flow region, the
mass flow rate becomes independent of pressure drop across the chokes.
Therefore, chokes are also used to isolate the reservoir from pressure
disturbances by surface production facilities. The problem of multiphase flow
through chokes has not been satisfactorily solved for all cases. Most solutions
are offered only for the case of critical flow. Surbey et all discussed the
applications of multiple-orifice valve chokes in critical flow conditions. Wallis2
developed a correlation to predict the sonic velocity in a two-phase
homogeneous system. A different correlation was developed by Fortunati3
under no-slip condition between different phases. Fortunati3 also proposed a

SPE 2 0988
-2-

correlation for flow rates under critical flow conditions. Ashford and Pierce4
developed an equation to predict the flow rates. They stated that uncertainty
is introduced in their model due to the difficulty of measuring downstream
pressure precisely. Their work was extended by Sachdeva' et al to develop a
correlation to predict the critical pressure ratio. Surbey6 et al developed a new
correlation to predict performance of multiple-orifice valve chokes under
They used experimental data collected for a
critical flow conditions.
high-pressure air/water system. Many investigators offered empirical
correlations based on field and laboratory data. One of the early choke
correlations is that developed by Gilbert7 using production data of ten section
field in California. This was followed by the theoretical correlation, developed
by RosS. Poettmann and Beck9 converted the Ros correlation to oil field units
and reduced it to a graphical form. Omana 10 used data obtained from Tigre
Lagon field in Louisiana to check the existing correlations and to develop a new
one. The data were gathered from a natural gas-water system using 4 to 14/64
in choke sizes, upto 800 bpd flow rate, 400 to 1000 psig upstream pressure.
The limited range of data used in his correlation are the main reasons of its
limited use. Achong ll derived a choke correlation similar to that of Gilbert for
use in the Lake Maracaibo field in Venezuela. He presented his correlation in a
nomograph form. Similar correlations were developed by Boxende1l12 and
Pilehrari 13.
Several empirical equations were developed using field data. None of these
correlations is based on data from gas-condensate systems. The production
engineer should be careful in using such correlations as they should be applied
within the ranges of fluid properties, flow rates, upstream pressures, gas liquid
ratios and choke sizes of field data from which they were developed. In this
study eightyseven data points of gas condensate flow through chokes of eight
different wells producing from a gas-condensate field located in the Middle East
were used to develop the best correlation that will describe the flow behaviour
of gas condensate flow through chokes. The data cover wide ranges of choke
sizes, flow rates and fluid properties.
Multiohase Choke Flow
Th~

general form of multiphase flow through chokes can be written as:

P .. cQRa S-b

(0

where c is a constant and a and b are exponents to be determined from field

data. The above equation takes one of the following four forms:

SPE 2 0988
-3-

PI ... COLGLRa S-b

i)

( I-a)

where: PI'" tubing well head pressure, psi

Or. = liquid production rate, bbls/day
GLR = Gas liquid ratio, Mscf/bbl
PI

ii)

where: Qg
LGR
iii)

c Qg LGRa S-b

gas production rate, Mscf/day

liquid-gas ratio. bbl/Mscf

(I-b)

M> = COL GLRa S-b

( I-c)

where M> - pressure loss across the choke, psi

- PI-P 2
P2 = test separator pressure, psia
iv)

M> = c Qg LGRa S-b

(I-d)

In the above equations I and I-a to I-d, S is in 64th of inches.

The least square method is applied to the above equations (I-a to I-d) to
evaluate the constant c and the exponents a and b. The following is an
application of the method on the general form of the choke flow correlation
(Equation O.
Application of Least Squares Method
Equation( I) is written as:
P/Q ... c RaS-b
So
or

(2)

In PIQ = In c + a In R - binS

(3)

(4)

[In c + a In R - binS - In PIQ)2 = E2

where E is error parameter

for n data points, the last equation is written as:

I [In c + a In Ri - b In Si - In Pi/Qi)2..

i... 1

I (Ei)2

i-I

(5)

SPE 2 0988
-<f-

as the right hand side of eq. (5) is minimum, the differentials of the left
handside of the equation with respect to c, a & b are equal to zeros. Thus
n
2 I [in c + a in Ri - b in Si -in (Pi/Qi - 0

(6-a)

i=l

n
2I ([in c + a in Ri - b in Srin Pi/Qi lin Ri)
i-I

(6-b)

n
2I ([inc + a In Ri - bin Si-in PlQi ) lnSi) - 0
(6-c)
i= 1
deviding the equations (6-a to 6-c) by n to get the average values of their terms
as:
in c + a in R - binS - in (P/Q) - 0
(7-a)

in c in R + a ( in R)2 -b in S 1 nR in (P/Q)in R - 0
in c in S

a in R in S -b (in S)2_in P/Q in S - 0

(7-b)
(7-c)

Equations 7-a to 7-c are then solved to obtain values of c, a and b. The same
approach is applicable to different forms of multiphase flow through chokes
(equation I-a to I-d).
Evaluation of Multiphase Choke Flow
The four forms of choke flow equation (eqns. I-a to I-d) were evaluated using
field data. The data were collected from eight different wells producing from a
gas condensate reservoir located in the Middle East. Table 1 shows a sample
of field data gathered from one of the wells. Also Table 2 shows the
composition of both gas and condensate for the purpose of calculations, the
water production is added to the oil production to obtain the liquid production
rate from the well. The total number of data points used in this study is eighty
seven. They were used to evaluate different constants and exponenets of
Equation 7-a to 7-c for different forms of equation 1 (Equation I-a to I-d).

SPE

2 098 8

Thus
lnc + 2.2909 a - 3.8771 b - 0.5527'" 0.0
2.2908 In c + 5.2975 a - 8.9073 b - 1.2398

(8-a)
=

0.0

3.8772 In c + 8.9073 a - 15.0962 b - 2.0335 - 0.0

(8-b)
(8-c)

Solving equations 8-a to 8-c give values of a, b and cas:

a ... 0.4344, b ... 1.8478 and c ... 829.7
Thus, the first form of equation 1 for gas condensate can be written as:
(9-a)
Similarly, the other three forms of equations (l) are evaluated using the same
field data and least square method. These forms can be written as:

PI

767.2 Qg LGRO.5598/S1.8298

(9-b)

~P

310.01 QL GLRO.5919 IS 1.8626

(9-c)

~ - 302 Qg LGR0.4 038 /S1.8587

t9-d)

Critical evaluation of gas-condensate flow Correlation

The production engineer would be confused and a question would be raised,
which form of equation 9 should be used? To avoid such confusion, further
study was carried out to evaluate the accuracy of each form of equation 9 using
five different error parameters. These error parameters are as follows:

XI - root mean square error

n

- (lIn I y2 i )0.5
i-I

(10-a)

SPE

2 0988

-6-

in

X2 - mean absolute error

z:

f lYil

1/n

(lO-b)

i-I
ill)

X3

simple mean error

- 1/nf Yi

(lO-c)

i= I
iv)

X4

mean percentage absolute error

so

100/n

i= I

v)

x5 -

I (Yi/Pact)!

(lO-d)

mean percentage error

(lO-e)

~here;

Yi

- Pact - Peal

Pact

so

actual WHP from field data, psia

Peal

so

calculated WHP for each formula, psia data point

i-data point
n

- total number of data points

Equations 9-a to 9-d are evaluated using these error parameters represented
by equations (I O-a to I O-e). The final results are presented in Table 3. One can
conclude that eq. 9-c would fit best with the field data while eq. 9-d is the
second to the best. Thus equation 9-c is recommended to predict the pressure
drop across the choke. Both forms, 9-a and 9-b are expected to give the same
results in predicting well head pressures.

SPE

2 098 8

-7-

Crossplots: The crossplots of measured upstream pressure versus the estimated

values using equations 9.a and 9.b are presented in Figures I and 2 respectively.
Most of plotted points fall very close to the perfect correlation of 4S line.
Similar crossplots for pressure drop across the choke are presented in Figures 3
and 4 for the purpose of evaluating the performance of equations 9.c and 9.d.
Again, most of plotted points fall very close to the perfect correlation of the
4Sline.
Graphical presentation of gas-condensate flow correlation
The four forms of equation 9 (9-a t09-d) are presented by the nomograph
shown in in Figures S to 8 respectively. These figures are considered as design
charts. Such charts would help the production engineer to monitor gas
condensate production from gas-condensate reservoirs. These charts are used
as follows:

a- Connect choke size to the flow rate (liquid or gas rate) and extend to
intersect with the reference line ].
b-

From the intersection with the reference line] connect to the value of (LGR
or GLR) and at the intersection with the pressure axis read the upstream
pressure or pressure drop across the choke.

Knowing any three of the four parameters (flow rate, choke size, GLR or LGR and
well head or pressure drop) the fourth parameter can be easily obtained from
the design charts (Nomographs)

CONCLUSIONS
Data from some wells in a gas-condensate reservoir located in the Middle East
was analysed for the purpose of developing correlations to describe the
gas-condensate flow through chokes. Several forms of correlation equations
were tested. Based on the data used in this study, the following conclusions are
made.

SPE

2 0988

-8-

1.

A new formula is tested against the collected data. Four modifications of

the formula are used to give the production engineer the choice to use
either one based on the available data.

2.

The solutions of the four equation forms are presented in graphical design
charts for easy use. This can be of much help, to the production field
engineers, in monitoring gas-condensate performance.

3.

Critical error analysis indicate that the forms with pressure drop (9-c and
9-d in the text) give slightly less error. Generally speaking, however,
either one of the four forms is expected to give reasonable values and can
be used when needed.

4.

While the formula used is of general nature, application should be limited

to the range of data presented in this study.

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

67.
8.
9.

Surbey, D.W., [elkar, B.G., and Brill, j.P.,"Study of Subcritical Flow Through
MUltiple-Orifice Valves", SPEPE (Feb. 1988) 103-08.
Wallis, G.B., "One Dimensional Two Phase Flow, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.,
New York City (1969).
Fortunatic, F., "Two phase Flow Through Wellhead Chokes", paper SPE 3742
presented at the 1972 SPE European Meeting, Amsterdam, May 17-18.
Ashford, F.E. and Pierce, P.E.,"Determining Multiphase Pressure Drops and
Flow Capacities in Downhole Safety Valves", JPT (Sept. 1975) 1145-52.
Sachdeva, R. et al, 'Two-Phase Flow Through Chokes", paper SPE 15657
presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
Surbey, D.W., [elkar, B.G. and Brill, j.P., "StUdy of Multiphase Critical Flow
through wellhead chokes" SPEPE (May 1989) 142-146.
Gilbert, W., "Flowing and Gas-Lift Performance", Drilling and Production
Practices" API, (1954), p. 126.
Ros, N., "Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid as Encountered in Well
TUbing" Journal of Petroleum Technology, October 1961.
Poettmann, F., and Beck, R., "New Charts Developed to Predict Gas-Liquid
Flow Through Chokes". World Oil, March 1963.

SPE

2 0988

-9-

10. Omana, R., "Multiphase Flow Through Chokes", Tulsa, 1968.

11. Achong, Lan B., ''Revised Bean and Performance Formula for Lake
Maracaibo Wells",Shell Internal Report (1961).
12. Baxendell, P.B., "Bean Performance-Lake Wells," Shell Internal Report (Oct.
1957).
13. Pilhvari, A., "Experimental Study of Critical Two Phase Flow Through
Wellhead Chokes", Tulsa U. Fluid Flow Projects Report, Tulsa, OK (June
1981).
NOMENCLATURE
a
b
c
GLR
LGR
n
P
PI
Pact
Peal

Exponent
Exponent
Constant
Gas-liquid Ratio, mscf/STB
Liquid-gas Ratio, STB/mscf
Number of data points
Well head pressure or pressure drop across the choke, psia
Well head pressure, psia
Actual well head pressure or pressure drop across the choke, psia
Calculated well head pressure or pressure drop across the choke, psia

aP

Pressure drop across the choke, psi

Liquid or gas flow rate, STB/day or mscf/day
Gas flow rate, mscf/day
Liquid flow rate, STB/day
Oil flow rate, STB/day
Water flow rate, STB/day
Gas liquid ratio or liquid gas ratio (mscf/STB or STB/mscf)
Choke size in 64th inches
Mole fraction of component i in liquid
Root mean square error expressed by eq IO.a
Mean absolute error expressed byeq. IO.b
Simple mean error expressed byeq. IO.c
Mean percentage absolute error expressed by eq. lO.d
Mean percentage error expressed by eq. IO.e
Mole fraction of component i in gas
Difference between actual pressure and calculated pressure, psi

Q
Qg

OL
Qo

Ow
R
5
Xi
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
Yi
Yi

SPE

Table 1: Range of Data used in this study

Minimum value

Parameter

Maximum value

72
5200
3823.3
1002.6
101.33xl0 6
98.9

28
Choke size, 1/64 inch
2950
Upstream pressure Psia
592.6
Condensate flow rate, B/D
o
Water flow rate, B/D
Gas flow rate, set/day
3.91xl0 6
Well head temperature C
40

Table 2: Typical production data

PI
CPsia)
1
2
3

"6

Qo
CSTB/D)

Ow
CBBBL/D)

~100.00

1911.20

"700.00
"600.00

2690.~

2832.10

"1~.00

3~6.10

1~.900

31"".30
2902,30
3068.30
3068.30
2877.'0
2786.00
2230.10
2'97.00
2872.00

117.32~

~OO.OO
~OO.OO

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

39:50.00
39:50.00
~OO.OO
~OO.OO
~o.oo
~OO.OO

39'0.00

1"3.020
0.000
~3.390

8".~10

123.080
123.080
32.910
"1.9:5'
18.~

31.980
".'20

Qg

CMMscf/D)

17.0900
26.7100
29.6700
37.7800
33.73~0

32.0800
33.9100
33.9100
3'.000
32.63'0
26.9700
30.'700
3".7300

38
<f8

"8

~6
~6

'2
'6
'6

,,,
'0
"6
'2
'6

2 0988

SPE

Table 3 Composition of gas and condensate

Component

Nitrogen
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
Ethane
Propane
I-Butane
N-Butane
I-Pentane
N-Pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes Plus

Separator Liquid
Mole Per cent
Ii

Separator Gas
Mole Per cent

y.1

0.00049
0.18939
0.01938
0.06068
0.05207
0.01767
0.03802
0.02463
0.02273
0.02721
0.54775

0.00524
0.83330
0.03140
0.03140
0.02947
0.00539
0.00916
0.00313
0.00239
0.00099
0.00282

1.00000

1.00000

Table 4: Error Parameters of the four forms

Formula No.
II
12
13

X-t
IS

9-a
1072.11
450.29
-75.40
10.64
-1.74

9-b

9-c

1072.11
455.41
-75.38
10.78
-1.73

S71.~

294.43
-15.77
13.04
-1.81

9-d
570.51
294.84
-16.60
13.07
-1.85

2 0988

10

r ---------

"

iii

a.

Q)
L.

::J

en
en
~

)(

lC

)(

a..

'1J
Q)
-+oJ

::J
0
0

103V
10 3

10

en
."
fTI

I\)

Measured Pressure, psio

Figure 1: Crossplot for upstream pressure(Equotion 9.0)

C
..0
(X)

ex>

a.....

-0

,-....
.0

en

c:
:;:;
0-

0
::J

W
-..Q)
L-

en
en

::J

Q)
L-

a.
Q)

en

L......

a.
::J
L..

0
.....

......
a.

en

::J
Q)

G:

::J
Ol

Q)
L-

L-

en
en

Q)
L-

a..

Q)
L-

en

en

::J

Q)
L-

. E0

a.

.-en

SPE 2 098 8

a.....

..,
.., a.....
a
.....

SPE

C
:::J
tT

.-o

...

-...
o
en

2 0988

en

oL-

en
en

o
a.

...~

L-

a.

L-

CD

en
en

:::J

W
a. '--'
_ a.
a. 0
o -c
LL-

(:)

CD

L-

:::J

en
en

CD
L-

a...

-c
CD

:::J

L-

Q)

en
c

~
~

~
~

~
."

x,,~xx
X)(

.~

.. ~:'~

t')

SPE

t')

a
~

0
::1
C'"

:;:;

0>

"U

--.

2 0988

en

Q)
L-

"U

L-

a.

'--'

a. W
0

a.

L-

Cl

::1

+J

L-

a.

en
en

Q)
L-

Q)
L-

::1

en
en

Q)
L-

a.

"U
Q)
L-

a.

en

::1

L-

en
en

Q)

()

V
Q)
L-

::1
Ol

G:

SPE

2 0988

700
90
80

70

60

5'4
Ui3

\J

3
~

'-

l-.
V')

50
...c:::

40 g

0-

V')

:::1

~... 705

0::

Q-

30

V')

25

-...J
~

~
...

6
4

2
74
72
70

Figure

5:

Correlation chart for choke upstream pressure (Eqn. 9.a)

Example: for S = 60, qo = 2000 bal /day and
GLR = 1000 sef ISTB P1 = 860 pSia
I

SPE

2 0988

10'
8
6

700
90

80

3
2

70

60

8
10

B
6

ZOO
8
"'<.J

V)

40

..

-c::
<.J
c::

30 ~I

.CI)

6'
-0

Q..

ct
~
-..J

V)

50

,(/
8
6
4

3
2

Cl...

"

25

'to-

..

20

0)

18

7(J ~

8
0
4

V)

<.J

CI)

'J"

76
74

72
70

frf

Figure 6:

Correlation chart for choke upstream pressure (Eqn. 9.b)

Example: for S =40, qg= 6x 106 scf /day and
LOR =1 STB/mscf, PI =5390 psia

seE 2 0988

700
90
80

4
70

70

60

50

J
Cl:l
.--

V)
.........

....
(.)
II)

r::c"'70
-.I
~

'0 ~

708

a.."'

"'b

.........

&

~ 70

etta
.-v)..

::1

zd
7r1

V)

25

20
18
76
74

4
3
2

30 (i)..

.2

70

72

70

Figure 7:

Correlation chart for pressure drop across the choke

(Eqn. g.c). Example: for S =20, qo =1000 STB Iday and
GLR = 2000 scf ISTB, AP = 1760 psia

SPE

Figure 8:

Correlation chart for pressure drop across the choke

(Eqn. 9.d). Example: for S = 20, qg =10 6 scf/day and
LGR = 4 SIB Imscf, l\P = 2020 psia

2 0988