Journals & Books Register Sign in

Backpressure Related terms:

Backpressure is defined as the resistance of the part inside and outside the die to advancing Compressors, Electric Inductors,
movement. Steam Turbines, Turbines, Nozzle,
From: Fluoroplastics (Second Edition), Volume 1, 2015 Relief Valves, Higher Pressure

View all Topics

Download as PDF Set alert About this page

Constant Bottom-Hole Pressure with Gaseated Fluids (Gas-Liquid Mixtures)

Pressure as a Primary Control Bill Rehm, ... Arash Haghshenas, in Underbalanced Drilling:
Paul Fredericks, in Managed Pressure Drilling, 2008 Limits and Extremes, 2012

3.5.2 DAPC Back-Pressure Pump 3.6.3 Back Pressure

Back-pressure MPD systems that utilize choke manifolds differ
from each other by, among other things, the extent of their ability
to control and create back pressure. As long as a sufficient volume
of mud flows through a partially open choke, there will be back
pressure. When the mud flow rate slows down, the choke has to
close to hold the same level of back pressure. If the flow of mud
stops completely, then the choke has to close completely to trap
the remaining back pressure. The amount of back pressure
trapped depends on how quickly an operator or a control system
can respond to the flow-rate changes.
However, no matter how fast a choke can be closed by human or
machine it is unlikely that it will ever be fast enough to respond to
an immediate loss of pressure caused by sudden pump failure or
human error. Lost back pressure stays lost until flow from the well
resumes or is provided by another source. Unfortunately, loss of
back pressure means loss of BHP control and possibly loss of well
control in a tight margin.
One solution is to equip the back-pressure MPD system with its
own on-demand pump and safety technology to control it. That
solution extends the dynamic range of a system's control and its
ability to actively create back pressure as and when needed. The
DAPC system uses a dedicated back-pressure pump (Figure 3.8) to
do just that.
Back pressure is one of the keys to maintaining a smooth pressure
regime. The annular back pressure increases bottom-hole pressure
in a non-linear manner.
The tendency of the gas and liquid to separate becomes severe at
about 80% quality (percent of gas in the system at a point). This is
the reason for using back pressure. Above 80% quality, even when
circulating:
• The liquid and gas separate
• Alternate slugs of air and gas cause pressure surges in the hole
• Gas becomes the continuous phase and cuttings cannot be
lifted out of the hole. The cuttings fall back increasing the
surging effect and occasionally will stick the pipe
Calculate from one of the computer programs the back pressure
that will be needed to control surging, about an 80% quality, in
the friction dominated regime, and re–correct the gas volume to
the proper down-hole pressure (default is 7 atm. of back pressure,
∼100 psi, or 700 kPa). Some iteration may be required for a final
program. On a practical basis, there needs to be several solutions.
Implementation at the rig may require some modification of the
results from the model. In small hole sizes, the friction dominated
regime may produce all the backpressure necessary to stabilize the
surging.

View chapter Purchase book

Foam Drilling
Bill Rehm, ... Amir Paknejad, in Underbalanced Drilling: Limits
and Extremes, 2012

4.43 Importance of Surface Back-Pressure

Sign in to download full-size image
Figure 3.8. A DAPC back-pressure pump mounted on a DNV-certified crash frame,
conforming to DNV 2.7/T3, Zone 2.
The back-pressure pump is a low-volume, triplex pump connected
to the choke manifold (Figure 3.9) and automatically controlled by
the system. Whenever the pressure manager senses that the flow
from the well is insufficient to maintain the required back pressure
(e.g., during connections and trips), it automatically turns on the
back-pressure pump.
The back-pressure could be defined as the pressure within a
system caused by fluid friction or an induced resistance to flow
through the system. The necessary back-pressure is often created
and controlled by a valve that is set to operate under the desired
range of conditions. In foam drilling operations, a surface choke is
used to create the required pressure to maintain the foam quality
at the bottom greater than the minimum limit.
To investigate the importance of the surface back-pressure,
different values of back-pressure were introduced into Example 4-
2. The results presented in Figure 4-37 shows how, at a constant
injection rate, both the bottom-hole pressure and the foam quality
at the bottom of the wellbore are affected by the surface back-
pressure. As the back-pressure increases, because of the resulting
increase in foam quality, the bottom-hole pressure begins to drop.
However, when a certain limit is reached, the frictional pressure
would prevail over the hydrostatic pressure drop caused by the
increase in foam quality. From this point the bottom-hole
pressure is more dominated by the frictional pressure rather than
the hydrostatic pressure, and increasing the back-pressure
increases the bottom-hole pressure.

Sign in to download full-size image

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 3.9. A DAPC automated pressure-control system rigged up on an inland
barge in Louisiana state waters. Mud flow from the DAPC backpressure pump (skid
on the left) goes through the pipe to the auxiliary choke leg in the DAPC manifold Figure 4-37. Foam-impressed surface pressure versus quality
(white skid unit on the right). Return mud flow from the well goes into the main
choke leg in the manifold. Figure 4-38 shows how the minimum required injection rates
would be affected by the surface back-pressure. As it is shown,
View chapter Purchase book increasing the back-pressure decreases the minimum injection
rate required for the successful removal of the cuttings. Compared
to the liquid injection rate, the gas injection rate would decrease
dramatically. The pressure profile along the wellbore is highly
affected by both the surface back-pressure and the injection rate.
Safety Relief Valve Selection
Finding the best combination of back-pressure and injection rate
Marc Hellemans, in The Safety Relief Valve Handbook, 2010 is not an easy task, and many factors should be taken into account.

9.5 Backpressure
Tables 9.1 and 9.2 show maximum backpressure percentages on
gas/vapour and liquid applications, respectively.

Table 9.1. Maximum backpressure percentages on gas/vapour applications

Backpressure Effects on valves Select

Type
Value
(% of Balanced Pilot
set) Conventional Spring Valve Operated

Constant <30% Set point No effect No effect Conve

1
increased by balan
backpressure POSR
3

30%– Lift/capacity
50% reduced Sign in to download full-size image
(coefficient) 6
Figure 4-38. Injection rate versus impressed surface pressure to hold a bottom-
>50% Set point Generally Flow Conve
2 hole pressure
increased by unstable Do becomes or PO
backpressure; not use subsonic
4
flow becomes
View chapter Purchase book
subsonic 4

Variable <10% Set point No effect No effect Balan

superimposed varies with POSR
backpressure
5
Hollow Glass Microspheres
10%– Unstable in Thermoplastics
30% 1

30%– Do not use Lift/capacity Baris Yalcin, Stephen E. Amos, in Hollow Glass Microspheres for
50% reduced Plastics, Elastomers, and Adhesives Compounds, 2015
(coefficient) 6
Effect of Back Pressure on HGM Survival
>50% Generally Flow POSR
2 Back pressure is one of the most critical parameters that influence
unstable Do becomes
not use subsonic HGM survival. In extrusion, back pressure is the amount of
4
resistance applied to the melt which can be caused by the
Variable built- <10% No effect No effect No effect Conve
presence of downstream equipment such as screens, dies, and so
up balan on. In injection molding, it is the resistance applied to the rear of
POSR the screw as it rotates and collects the melt in front of the screw.
10%– Unstable Balan In either case, at constant screw speed, increasing back pressure
30% 1 POSR compresses the melt increasing friction and shear applied to the
30%– Do not use Lift/capacity
material. Increased friction and shear can lead to HGM breakage.
50% reduced Figure 3.11 shows void volume loss due to HGM breakage and
(manufacturer
final density of the HGM (0.318 g/cc-isostatic crush strength of
coefficient) 6
original density 6000 psi) during compounding with 6523 MFR-4
>50% Generally Flow POSR PP with (1) no die, (2) die with a three hole strand, and (3) die with
2
unstable Do becomes
a two hole strand. When a strand die with two holes is employed,
not use subsonic
4 14% breakage is calculated in a high-viscosity PP at 15 wt%
(30 vol%) HGM loading. By simply opening another hole in the
strand die, percent HGM void volume loss drops to 9.8%. When
Notes: the die is removed and the extrudate is simply collected at the
1 large opening, the HGM breakage further reduces to 5.5% which
This limit varies among different valve types.
results in a final density of 0.332 g/cc for the HGMs as
2
In extreme case, some spring valve models can perform with higher determined from ash analysis described in Chapter 2. This
backpressures if a pilot-operated valve is absolutely not acceptable. example shows the effect of back pressure on the survival of
3 HGMs and importance of die design. Increasing the number of
Then the ‘Cold Differential Set Pressure’ (set pressure on the test bench) holes and/or increasing their diameter decreases back pressure
must be reduced by the amount of the backpressure to obtain the correct
and helps minimize bubble breakage. However, for a constant
set pressure on the installation: CDSP = Set – BP.
4 volumetric flow rate, it also slows down the flow of polymer
Because of the ΔP, the flow is not choked, but subsonic or subcritical. coming out of the die, that is, strand output velocity slows down.
This obviously has an effect on the sizing of the valve (coefficient). When the velocity is too slow, it becomes difficult to synchronize
Subsonic can occur at 25% to 30% backpressure: Always check first!
pelletizing with the slow strand speed. Therefore, one must
5
The superimposed backpressure varies, so the set pressure of the optimize die design while keeping melt handling issues in mind.
conventional valve will vary proportionally. This is acceptable if the valve Similarly, one can imagine the effect of screens with different
set pressure increased by the maximum backpressure is equal to or below mesh sizes. Larger openings in the screens result in lower back
the maximum allowable pressure of the protected installation. pressure minimizing HGM breakage.
6
There is a coefficient for gas applications and one for liquid applications,
which usually varies among valve types.

Table 9.2. Maximum back pressure percentage on liquid applications

Backpressure Effects on Valves Selectio

Type
Value Balanced
(% of spring Pilot-
set) Conventional valve Operated

Constant <20% Set point No effect No effect Conven

1
increased by balance
backpressure POSRV
3

20%– Lift/capacity
50% reduced
(coefficient)
6

>50% Set point Generally Conven Sign in to download full-size image

2
increased by unstable Do or POS
backpressure4 not use
Figure 3.11. Percent void volume loss due to HGM breakage and final density of
Variable <10% Set point No effect No effect Balance 15 wt% (∼30 vol%) hollow glass microsphere (3M™ Glass Bubble XLD6000
superimposed varies with POSRV 0.318 g/cc, 6000 psi) in 6523 (4 melt flow rate homopolymer PP) with no die, die
backpressure with a three hole strand die, and with a two hole strand die.
5
(with permission from ref. [12])

10%– Unstable
20% 1
View chapter Purchase book
20%– Do not use Lift/capacity
50% reduced
(coefficient)
6

>50% Generally POSRV

Production Evaluation Techniques
2
unstable Do
John R. Fanchi, in Integrated Reservoir Asset Management, 2010
not use

Variable built- <10% No effect No effect No effect Conven 9.2.1 The Simplified Backpressure Analysis Method
up balance The backpressure equation is
POSV
(9.2.2)
10%– Unstable Do Lift/capacity Balance
20% 1 not use reduced POSRV
where
(coefficient)
6
C and n = empirical parameters
>50% Generally POSRV qsc = gas flow rate at standard conditions (MMSCFD)
2
unstable Do
not use
Pr = stabilized reservoir pressure (psia)
Pwf = flowing wellbore pressure (psia)

Notes: Taking the logarithm of the backpressure equation for

1
measurement i yields
This limit varies among valve types. (9.2.3)
2
In extreme cases, some spring valve models can perform with higher If we plot log qsci versus log(ΔP2)i, we obtain the equation for a
backpressures if a pilot-operated valve is absolutely not acceptable.
straight line where n is the slope and log C is the intercept. The
3
Then the ‘Cold Differential Test Pressure’ (set pressure on the test bench) absolute open flow (AOF) of the well is the rate corresponding to
will have to be reduced by the amount of the backpressure to obtain the Pwf = 0. Rates can be calculated from the backpressure equation
correct set pressure on the installation: CDTP = Set – BP. using the values of C and n determined by a least squares fit of
4
test data.
Because of the ΔP, the flow is not choked, but subsonic or subcritical.
This has obviously an effect on the sizing of the valve (coefficient).
Subsonic can already occur at 25% to 30% backpressure: Always check View chapter Purchase book
first!
5
The superimposed backpressure varies, so the set pressure of the
conventional valve will vary proportionally. This is acceptable if the valve
set pressure increased by the maximum backpressure is equal to or below Hydraulic Workover (Snubbing)
the maximum allowable pressure of the protected installation.
6 Operation
There is a coefficient for gas applications and one for liquid applications,
which usually varies among valve types. Howard Crumpton, in Well Control for Completions and
Interventions, 2018
Absolute backpressure is higher than the maximum acceptable pressure
of the bellows: Always check the maximum acceptable backpressure 11.6.14.2 Back pressure valves
for standard bellows and, if exceeded, use a bellows valve with Back pressure valves (BPV), also called non return valve (NRV) or
high-pressure bellows which can accept the absolute check valves, are the most commonly used type of internal barrier.
backpressure. This solution is usually still more economical than They are normally a subassembly that is placed in the tubing
using a POSRV in the lower sizes or special (piston) balanced string above the BHA. Most BPVs use either a ball and seat or
spring valves. In the higher sizes, a pilot valve might have to be flapper to prevent well pressure from entering at the bottom of
considered. the string. With a BPV in the string, forward circulation is possible;
reverse circulation is not.
Absolute backpressure higher than the maximum pressure acceptable
by the outlet flange: It needs to be checked if the supplier uses full When a simple ball check is used, upward flow from the well
rated body configurations or cosmetic configurations. Some forces a metal ball onto a seat, creating a seal. However, very low
suppliers have a #300 cosmetic outlet flange drilling on a #150- flow rate goes unchecked. A more reliable device is the ball and
rated body. seat BPV; here a spring is used to hold the ball against the seat,
meaning the valve seals even when flow from the well is minimal.
Flapper valves are an alternative to the ball and seat. The
View chapter Purchase book
advantage of using a flapper (Fig. 11.19 right) is that intervention
tools can be run through it whilst the workstring is in the well.
However, it needs flow and pressure differential to seat and seal
the flapper.
Gas Well Deliverability Test and Field
Examples
HuiNong Zhuang, in Dynamic Well Testing in Petroleum
Exploration and Development, 2013

8.3 Existing Problems in Calculating AOFP by Back-

Pressure Test Method
The back-pressure test is the most common deliverability test
method onsite for gas wells. It is generally thought that the
method is applicable to gas zones with high permeability.
Theoretical simulations and field practices show that the method
is also applicable to gas zones with medium and even low
permeability. For instance, an oil company once performed
successful back-pressure tests and obtained deliverability values of
the gas fields with low permeability in the central and western
regions of China. The back-pressure test method does, however,
show some formidable defects for some special lithologic
reservoirs. The author performed special research on this problem.
The research used various well test interpretation software and
aimed at some typical formations, made pressure history Sign in to download full-size image
simulation of deliverability test process at first, then made resulted
deliverability analysis and comparison combined with simulation Figure 11.19. Ball check (left) ball and seat BPV (center) and dual flapper valve
results, and finally verified the obtained understandings in field (right).

applications.
NORSOK require that at least two BPV’s are used in the tubing
8.3.1 Back-Pressure Test for Homogeneous Formations
string, and further require that at least four valves are held at the
Reservoir simulation parameters: k = 3 mD, h = 5 meters, S = 0, D
work location. In addition, they also stipulate that the BPV allows
= 0.1(104 m3/day)−1, C = 3 m3/MPa, and pR = 30 MPa.
balls and darts to pass through.
1. Simulation of back-pressure test
Measures should be in place to ensure that no pressure remains
The classical back-pressure test method is applied in trapped between the check valves when dismantling the BHA.
simulation with a flow rate of 2, 4, 6, and 8 × 104 m3/day in an Pumping water through the BHA will usually remove any trapped
increasing sequence, and flow duration for every rate is the pressure (Fig. 11.19).
same in a simulation but different for a different simulation.
Flow durations for different simulation are 24, 72, 240, and View chapter Purchase book
720 hours, respectively. Flowing pressures under each rate are
measured. One of the pressure histories with a uniform flow
duration of 24 hours is shown in Figure 3.71.

Gas Well Performance

Tarek Ahmed, in Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fifth Edition),
2019

Solution
a. Back-Pressure Equation:
Step 1.Prepare the following table:

p2wf, psi2 × , psi2 × Q g,

Pwf
Sign in to download full-size image 103 103 Mscf/day

=
Figure 3.71. Pressure history in a back-pressure test with a uniform flow
duration of 24 hours. 1952 3810 0 0

1700 2890 920 2624.6

Based on simulated back-pressure test flowing pressure and
flow rate data, AOFPs obtained from the analysis with well test 1500 2250 1560 4154.7

interpretation software are listed in Table 3.10. 1300 1690 2120 5425.1

Table 3.10. Comparison of Calculated AOFP With Different Test Methods for a Step 2.Plot versus Qg on a log-log scale as shown
Homogeneous Formation
in Figure 8-9. Draw the best straight line through the
Test method Flow duration AOFP, 104 m3/day Note points.
of
backpressure LIT, Exponential,
test or pseudo pseudo
extended test, pressure pressure
hours

Back-pressure 24 17.5238 19.8274 k = 3 md

test h=5m
72 16.7397 18.7042 s=0
D=
240 15.9207 17.5922 0.1(104
m3/day)−1
C=3
720 15.2693 16.7132
m3/MPa

Modified 300 (extended 17.6472 18.9752 k = 3 md

isochronal test test) h=5m
S=0
D=
0.1(104 Sign in to download full-size image
500 (extended 17.4237 18.6690
test) m3/day)−1
C=3 Figure 8-9. Log-log plot of back-pressure test data for Example 8-2.
m3/MPa

Back-pressure 240 17.1224 18.7679 Each flow Step 3.Using any two points on the straight line, calculate the
test with each test starts exponent n from Equation 8-22, as
flow starting at at stable
stable formation formation
pressure pressure

2. Simulation of modified isochronal test

Step 4.Determine the performance coefficient C from
With the same formation parameters, the well was flowing and
Equation 8-23 by using the coordinate of any point on
shut in with 24 hours for each transient test point and 300 and
the straight line, or:
500 hours of extended tests during the two simulated tests,
respectively; the obtained AOFPs are also listed in Table 3.10.
The simulation results of both back-pressure tests with each
flow starting at stable formation pressure and different
extended test durations of 300 and 500 hours, respectively, are
listed in Table 3.10. In these simulations, the well is always Step 5.The back-pressure equation is then expressed as:
opened for flowing when the pressure is stabilized at
formation pressure every time but with a different flow rate
and stable flowing pressure in each flowing, and the AOFP is
Step 6.Generate the IPR data by assuming various values of pwf
calculated by regression of these data points, that is, flow rates
and calculate the corresponding Qg.
and flowing pressures.
3. Comparative analysis of simulation results
Table 3.10 shows: pwf Qg, Mscf/day

(1) For medium- or low-permeability homogeneous 1952 0

formations, AOFP can be obtained by the back-pressure
1800 1720
test or modified isochronal test method, and the
difference of the results is small. 1600 3406

(2) Classical back-pressure test with 24 or 72 hours of flowing 1000 6891

duration can provide a qAOF value that is very close to the
500 8465
qAOF resulting from the back-pressure test with each flow
starting at a stable formation pressure. The longer the 0 8980 = AOF = (Qg)max
flowing duration, the lower the calculated qAOF value,
which is because formation pressure at the supply
boundary declines gradually along with proceeding of the b. LIT Method
test—based on which choke is enlarged continuously to i. Pressure-squared method
form abnormal low flowing pressure and cause a low
Step 1.Construct the following table:
calculated qAOF value.
(3) After 300 hours of extended testing in modified
isochronal testing, the pressure has basically entered a , Q g,
pseudo-flow state; hereafter further lengthening extended pwf psi2 × 103 Mscf/day
testing does not influence the result much, and the
=
obtained qAOF value has been very close to the qAOF
1952 0 0 ―
resulting from the back-pressure test with each flow
starting at a stable formation pressure, and the error is 1700 920 2624.6 351
less than 3%. Therefore, the modified isochronal test is
1500 1560 4154.7 375
considered to be the first choice method for the
deliverability test. 1300 2120 5425.1 391

8.3.2 Back-Pressure Test for Fractured Wells in Channel

Homogeneous Formation
Step 2.Plot versus Qg on a Cartesian
In the simulation study for fractured wells in channel
scale and draw the best straight line as shown in
homogeneous formation, the applied basic formation parameters
Figure 8-10.
(excluding fracturing parameters and boundary conditions) are
absolutely the same as described earlier: k = 3 mD, h = 5 meters, Sf
= 0, xf = 60 meters, C = 3 m3/MPa, pRi = 30 MPa, D = 0.01(104
m3/day)−1, and Lb1 = Lb2 = 70 meters, and the applied flow rate
sequence qgi is 5, 10, 15, and 20 × 104 m3/day, successively.
With these parameters and conditions, deliverability test
simulations are carried out for the back-pressure test and
modified isochronal test.
1. Simulation and analysis of backpressure test and modified
isochronal test
Pressure histories are obtained with different test intervals of
24, 72, 240, and 720 hours. For example, the pressure history
when the test interval is 24 hours is shown in Figure 3.72. Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 8-10. LIT approach using the pressure-squared method.

Step 3.Determine the intercept and the slope of the

straight line to give:

Step 4.The quadratic form of the pressure-squared

approach can be expressed as:

Sign in to download full-size image

Step 5.Construct the IPR data by assuming various values

Figure 3.72. Simulated pressure history of a back-pressure test in a fractured of pwf and solving for Qg by using Equation 8-28.
well in a channel homogeneous formation.

Figure 3.72 clearly shows that the flowing pressure declines

rapidly due to the boundary effect.
AOFP values calculated by simulated flowing pressures can be
pwf , psi2 × 103 Qg, Mscf/day
seen in Table 3.11. Simulation of the modified isochronal well
test is done with the same formation parameters and AOFP = 1952 0 0
values are calculated; all the results are listed in Table 3.11. 1800 570 1687

1600 1250 3442

Table 3.11. Deliverability Comparison of a Fractured Well in Channel
1000 2810 6867
Homogeneous Formation

500 3560 8243

4 3
Test Flow duration of back- AOFP, 10 m /day
method pressure test or extended 0 3810 8693 = AOF = (Qg)max
LIT, Exponential,
test, hours
pseudo pseudo
pressure pressure
ii. Pressure-approximation method
Back- 24 45.8716 54.7337
pressure Step 1.Construct the following table:
72 31.9648 35.0461
test
240 20.6596 21.1623
pwf Qg, Mscf/day
720 13.8233 14.2300

Modified 300 (extended test) 37.5658 36.9925 = 1952 0 0 ―

isochronal
test 500 (extended test) 31.1040 30.4647 1700 252 2624.6 0.090

1500 452 4154.7 0.109

2. Comparison and analysis of deliverability calculation results 1300 652 5425.1 0.120

Table 3.11 shows:

(1) Although an improved method taking of the decline of Step 2.Plot versus Qg on a Cartesian scale
formation pressure at the supply boundary into account is as shown in Figure 8-11.
applied in calculating AOFP with the modified isochronal
test method, the calculated results still present a decline
trend along with the prolonging of extended test
duration, from 37 to ≈30 × 104 m3/day, indicating that a
great boundary effect is influencing the deliverability of
the gas well. The longer the producing period is, the
more remarkable the influence of the boundary effect is.
(2) Calculated AOFP values obtained from the back-pressure
test method become lower along with a prolonging of
flow duration of test points.
• When the flow duration is selected to be 72 hours,
the resulting AOFP value is equivalent to that from
the modified isochronal test.
Sign in to download full-size image
• When the flow duration is selected to be 240 hours
(10 days), the resulting AOFP value is about 20 × 104
Figure 8-11. LIT approach using the pressure method.
m3/day, two-thirds of that from the modified
isochronal test.
Draw the best straight line and determine the
• When the flow duration is selected to be 720 hours intercept and slope as:
(30 days), the resulting AOFP value is only about 14 ×
104 m3/day, one-half of that from the modified
isochronal test.

It is mainly due to the boundary effect upon the formation Step 3.The quadratic form of the pressure-approximation
pressure decline. method is then given by:

It should be pointed out particularly that the stable flowing

pressure value is very difficult to measure in the back-pressure test
because it is always continuously declining more and more quickly
Step 4.Generate the IPR data by applying Equation 8-33:
(refer to Figure 3.72), which makes the analysis work disoriented.
It is hoped that prolonging the flow duration makes the flowing
pressure more stable, but the result is just the opposite of this.
This fact has been proved by field practice of a long flowing
duration up to several months in a test.
pwf Qg, Mscf/day
Therefore, the back-pressure test method obviously is not
applicable to wells in channel formations. These study results are 1952 0 0
similar to conclusions for those formations with no-flow
1800 152 1844
boundaries of different configurations, especially for constant-
volume gas reservoirs with a closed boundary. The field example 1600 352 3507
introduced previously has proved it clearly (refer to Figure 3.25).
1000 952 6931

View chapter Purchase book 500 1452 9057

0 1952 10858

Gas Well Testing Field Case Studies iii. Pseudopressure approach

Step 1.Construct the following table:
Amanat U. Chaudhry, in Gas Well Testing Handbook, 2003

15.4 Recommended Form of Rules of Procedure for

Backpressure Tests Required by State Regulatory ψ, Q g,
pwf
Bodies psi2/cp Mscf/day

All backpressure tests required by a state regulatory body shall be = 316 ×

conducted in according with the procedures set out by the state 1952 106 0 0 ―
regulatory body except for those wells in pools where special
245 ×
testing procedures are applicable.1–3 The calculations shall be
1700 106 71 × 106 2624.6 27.05 × 103
made in the manner prescribed in the appropriate test examples.
The observed data and calculations shall be reported on the 191 ×
prescribed forms. Gas produced from wells connected to a gas 1500 106 125 × 106 4154.7 30.09 × 103
transportation facility should not be vented to the atmosphere
1300 141 × 175 × 106 5425.1 32.26 × 103
during testing. When an accurate test can be obtained only under
106
conditions requiring venting, the volume vented shall be the
minimum required to obtain an accurate test. All surface pressure
readings shall be taken with a dead weight gauge. Under special
conditions where the use of a dead weight gauge is not practical, a Step 2.Plot on a Cartesian scale as
properly calibrated spring gauge may be used when authorized by shown in Figure 8-12 and determine the intercept a2
the state regulatory body. Subsurface pressures determined by the and slope b2, or:
use of a properly calibrated pressure bomb are acceptable. The
temperature of the gas column must be accurately known to
obtain correct test results; therefore a thermometer well should be
installed in the wellhead. Under shut-in or low-flow-rate
conditions, the external temperature may distort the observed
wellhead temperatures. Whenever this situation exists the mean
annual temperature should be used.

View chapter Purchase book

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 8-12. LIT approach using the pseudo-pressure method.

Step 3.The quadratic form of the gas pseudopressure

method is given by:

Step 4.Generate the IPR data by assuming various values

of pwf, i.e., ψwf, and calculate the corresponding Qg
from Equation 8-38:

pwf ψ Qg, Mscf/day

1952 316 × 106 0 0

1800 270 × 106 46 × 106 1799

1600 215 × 106 101 × 106 3512

1000 100 × 106 216 × 106 6345

500 40 × 106 276 × 106 7574

0 0 316 × 106 8536 = AOF (Qg)max

Since the pseudo-pressure analysis is considered more accurate

and rigorous than the other three methods, the accuracy of each
of the methods in predicting the IPR data is compared with that of
the ψ-approach. Comparison of methods with the ψ-approach
indicates that the application of pressure-squared method yields
lowest error as compared with the backpressure and the pressure
approach.

Gas Flow Rate, Mscf/day

Pressure Backpressure p2-Approach p-Approach ψ-Approach

1952 0 0 0 0

1800 1720 1687 1844 1811

1600 3406 3442 3507 3554

1000 6891 6827 6931 6460

500 8465 8243 9057 7742

0 8980 8693 10858 8536

Error 7.0% 5.0% 12% ―

Figure 8-13 compares graphically the performance of each

method with that of the ψ-approach. Results indicate that the
pressure-squared equation generated the IPR data with an
absolute average error of 5.0% as compared with 7% and 12% for
the backpressure equation and the pressure-approximation
method, respectively. It should be noted that the pressure-
approximation method is limited to applications for pressures
greater than 3,000 psi.

Sign in to download full-size image

Figure 8-13. IPR for all methods.

View chapter Purchase book

About ScienceDirect Remote access Shopping cart Advertise Contact and support Terms and conditions Privacy policy

We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you agree to the use of cookies.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.