IADC/SPE 81636

Improvements in Dynamic Modeling of Underbalanced Drilling

Kjell K. Fjelde, RF-Rogaland Research, Rolv Rommetveit, RF-Rogaland Research, Antonino Merlo,
Eni-Agip Division, and Antonio C.V.M Lage, Petrobras
Copyright 2003, IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology Conference and Exhibition
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Underbalanced Technology
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2526 March 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling
Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC,
SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of
this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not
be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the
paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The present work discusses some improvements that have
been introduced in a dynamic model, which was developed for
simulating the two-phase flow transient phenomena associated
with underbalanced drilling operations. The model
enhancements are basically obtained by implementing
mechanistic closure relationships and more accurate numerical
schemes. This process of improvement is validated through
comparison to full-scale experimental data in transient
scenarios, showing that the gains in terms of increasing the
model accuracy are significant.
Introduction
Flow modelling has become more and more important in the
whole planning process of an UBD operation. Steady-state
models have been used for years for designing the operational
window. The only drawback here is that steady-state models
are not able to reproduce accurately the transient behaviour
that occurs during e.g. unloading, connections, and other
inevitable transient situations that occur while performing the
operation. On the other hand, dynamic models have this
capability.
Proper modelling can ensure that the operation can be
designed in an optimum manner, and predict the drawdown for
various conditions. It is of direct importance to maintain the
underbalanced conditions throughout the whole operation to
avoid formation damage. Previous experiences indicate that
even temporarily overbalanced conditions can reduce the
formation productivity. In that sense, both steady-state and
dynamic modelling can be of great importance and, in this
respect; reliable models are necessary. .
The present work is concerned with improvements in transient
modelling of underbalanced operations. The accuracy of the
model, which is an approximation of the reality, depends
heavily on using proper closure laws (mechanistic model) for

flow pattern description, pressure losses and gas slippage.

Another source of error is the basic numerical scheme that
solves the fundamental flow equations.
The process of improvement involves a new mechanistic
approach that has been implemented in a transient model. The
simulation results are compared with full-scale data in both
steady-state and transient conditions, with the main focus on
performing connections. The enhanced model not only matchs
up very well with the experimental data but also shows a
significant improvement compared to older models,
particularly, with regards to describing gas dominated systems
properly.
The paper also focuses on how numerical schemes can be
improved with regards to numerical diffusion. Schemes of
high accuracy are required for giving a correct description of
the maximum flowrates occurring at the separator (e.g. during
the liquid unloading). This is of great importance for sizing
properly the surface equipment, particularly the separator.
Results are presented showing how a numerical scheme with
reduced false diffusion differs from a conventional one that
greatly underestimates the maximum flowrates.
Constructing a Flow Model
In general, multi-phase flow can be described by the
fundamental two-fluid model1. It consists of separate
conservation equations for each of the phases with respect to
mass, momentum and energy. A simpler model can be
obtained by adding the momentum conservations equations
into a mixture momentum equation. This model is named drift
flux. In addition, if the temperature modeling is not of large
importance, it is also possible to neglect the energy equations
and assume a fixed temperature gradient. Based on this
assumption, a simplified version of the drift flux model is
presented bellow.
Conservation Equations. When considering flow of two
fluids e.g. oil and gas, the drift-flux formulation of the
conservation equations is given by

( G G ) + ( G G v G ) = m , (1)
t
z

( L L ) + ( L L v L ) = m ,. (2)
t
z

( L L v L + G G v G ) + L L v 2L + G G v G2 + p
t
z
= Fw ( L L + G G ) gsin . (3)

IADC/SPE 81636

The two first equations represent the mass transport of gas

and liquid. The third one is the total momentum balance,
stating that the total pressure gradient depends on friction,
gravity and acceleration. This transient drift-flux model is a
system of non-linear partial differential equations, which is
hyperbolic in an ample region of physical parameters2,3. It
describes the fully transient behavior of both pressure pulse
propagation and mass transport. In the standard drift-flux
approach, the closure of the system is achieved by specifying
density models for each of the phases and a slip relation
between the phase velocities. Generally, the slip relation
presents the following form:
v G = C 0 ( G v G + L v L ) + v 0 ,......(4)

where C0 and v0 are flow dependent parameters. In addition, it

is necessary to provide an appropriate model for the source
term in the momentum equation that corresponds to the
frictional pressure losses.
The model we have presented here is quite simplified and
is not sufficient for describing the underbalanced conditions
properly. For instance, the model has to be extended with
conservation equations for other phases like formation fluids
and cuttings. Advanced PVT models have to be included for
proper modeling of the phase volumes and possible phase
transitions. Finally, the simple slip relation shown above must
be replaced with a set of mechanistic procedures that properly
models the phase velocities and pressure drops in the various
flow patterns that appear. The quality of the mechanistic
model is very important because it is strongly associated with
the accuracy of the predictions obtained from the transient
tool, which is expected to match up with the reality.
Rommetveit et al4 presented a model that takes more complex
issues into account. However, the modeling approach they
adopted for gas slippage and pressure losses was not fully
mechanistic. Because of that, in some of the examples
presented later, their model is refered to as a non
mechanistic one.
The next step is to decide for a solution strategy of the
flow equations. Due to the complexity of the equations a
numerical strategy has to be chosen. The idea is to discretize
the well into a number of boxes and discretize the flow
equations in time and space according to the chosen numerical
scheme. The flow equations are then solved in time in certain
time steps. One should be aware that the discretization process
and the way the equations are discretized represent an
approximation of the original flow model. Additional error
sources are introduced especially when it comes to the
description of sharp transients like for instance the liquid peak
following a gas pulse at surface. Next sessions are presenting
some improvements that have been achieved with respect to
mechanistic modeling and to enhance the numerical strategies.
An Improved Mechanistic Model for Upward Flow in
Concentric Annuli
A mechanistic model is composed of a procedure for flow
pattern identification and separate models for each specific
flow pattern. Based on the input of geometry; fluid properties
and superficial velocities; the mechanistic model calculates the
phase volume fractions, phase velocities and pressure gradient.

Equation (5) is a symbolic and synthesized representation of

this calculation process:

calculate

F d1 , d 2 , L,i , G,i , i , L,i , G,i , v Ls,i , v Gs,i

dp
dp
dp

G,i , v G,i , v L,i , ( ) a,i , ( ) g,i , ( ) f,i . ...... .(5)

dz
dz
dz

Throughout times, several mechanistic approaches have been

investigated5,6,7 in addition to several other investigations.
Lage8,9,10 presented recently a new model for upward twophase flow in concentric annuli. The model has the original
work presented by Caetano5 as basis, but the model has been
updated with the most recent developments within mechanistic
modeling. It takes into account bubble flow, slug flow,
dispersed bubble and annular flow. Especially, the
development of an appropriate model for annular flow is
important for describing gas dominated systems properly.
Model predictions were compared to both small-scale
data5 (kerosene, water and air) and full-scale experiments
from Taquipe, where Petrobras has a research facility with an
instrumented well (water and nitrogen). In general, the
absolute average errors were lower than 10%. The proposed
model was also compared against the mechanistic model
developed by Caetano5 and the Beggs and Brill11 correlation.
In both cases, the proposed model performed better. For
further details about the models consult the references.
Below, some examples are presented where the
mechanistic model is used in a transient model for predicting
the dynamic effects taking place during connections.
Improvements in Numerical Modeling
In order to solve the fundamental flow equations, some kind of
numerical strategy must be chosen. First one has to decide
whether to use implicit or explicit numerical schemes for
discretizing the flow equations. The advantage of the first
class of scheme is that they are faster since the time steps
t will be only be limited by x /( v G ) where x is the
length of the boxes in the discretized well and v G is the
maximum gas velocity. On the other hand, explicit schemes
will have a time step that is limited by x /( v G + c) where c
is the speed of sound that can range from around 25 1500
m/s depending on the flow conditions. On the other hand,
explicit schemes are much simpler to use and treats flow
networks very easily. Traditionally, implicit schemes have
been most popular for multiphase applications 4,12, 13, but also
explicit formulations have been considered e.g.14.
After the discretization process, the well is divided in N
boxes of a certain length. If the focus is only on the mass
transport equations and a situation is considered where the
flow is upward, the flow equations across box i in the well can
be discretized in an upwind manner. One example can be:

x
( Fin1 Fin ) .(6)
t
n
n
where the numerical flux is given by Fi = ( g g v g ) i and

( g g ) in +1 ( g g ) in =

represents gas flow out of the box. The way this flux is

IADC/SPE 81636

approximated is very important for the results and different

alternatives exist. Subscript n refers to values from the last
calculated time level, while n+1 represent the new time level
that will be reached. Using n or n+1 in defining the numerical
scheme decides whether our scheme is explicit or implicit. The
scheme given here is an example of a first order upwind
scheme. Note that Equation (6) has to be solved for each box
in the flow network.
The way the numerical flux is approximated is very
important for the results and different alternatives exist. First
order scheme have problems with so called numerical
diffusion. Sharp gradients like for instance regions where the
gas volume fraction changes rapidly, tend to be smeared out
quite extensively. We will try to demonstrate this mechanism
with an example. Figure 1 displays a situation in a discretized
well where a pure gas bubble has migrated half way through
one of the boxes. During the next time step of size x/(2v g )
the gas bubble will migrate to the end of this box as shown in
Figure 2. In a standard numerical scheme, the masses in each
box are averaged. Hence, the averaged gas volume in the box
which contains the gas front is 50 %, see Figure 3. Then
during the next time step, 25 % of the gas will enter the next
box. The calculated gas volume profile at the new time level is
shown in Figure 4. It can be observed that the gas volume
fraction profile has been smeared out compared to the real
situation shown in Figure 2. This effect is called numerical
diffusion. All first order schemes have this problem. Several
remedies exist. Front tracking techniques 4,12 can be used
where an additional scheme is used to track and follow
transition regions like e.g. a gas slug. They reduce numerical
diffusion to a minimum. The drawback is that one has to use
fronts all places where sharp gradients occur. In that sense,
introducing one front only solves the diffusion problem
locally. In addition, use of front tracking techniques can make
model implementation quite complex.
Another alternative is to introduce so called slope limiter
or MUSCL techniques15. Originally, these were developed for
use within aerodynamics. However, quite recently these
techniques have also been introduced within multiphase flow
modeling. The concept is quite simple, instead of treating
masses as averaged values i.e. constant values in each box,
they will be distributed as piecewise linear functions. The
slopes of these functions can be constructed using a so called
slopelimiter15 which takes into account the profile of the sharp
transition zone region. An example is shown in Figure 5.
During the next time step, we notice that the amount of gas
that leaves the box is lower than that seen in Figure 3. The
slope limiter approach reduces numerical diffusion and a
second order or higher order numerical scheme is obtained.
Inclusion of these techniques is quite simple. They reduce
numerical diffusion automatically without the need to have
exact knowledge about where the sharp transients are.
Results
First some examples will be shown where the new mechanistic
approach is used in a transient model for predicting the
dynamic effects taking place during connections. In addition,
we have compared the new mechanistic approach with the
model presented in (Ref. 4). Since this model was not fully

mechanistic we will refer to this as the non mechanistic model.

The results are compared against full-scale data from a
research well in the Taquipe Field, Brazil. Figure 6 shows the
geometry of the research well. Four pressure-temperature
sensors were disposed along the casing string logging
experimental data for the comparison. In the next section,
some comparisons will be presented. In the second session,
focus will be on the numerical issues where we show how the
slope limiter technique can be used for minimizing numerical
diffusion. The examples given there are of more academic
nature but clearly reveal the significance of having high
accuracy numerical schemes for predicting the flow.
Transient Modeling of Connections. The fluids considered
were water and nitrogen. In the first three examples, the
simulated bottomhole pressure is compared against the
experimental data for three different situations. In the fourth
example, we present the steady-state results for a situation
where the gas rates are very large compared to the liquid rates
which lead to a highly gas dominated system.
Example 1. The well is unloaded with a gas rate of 300
scfm and a liquid rate of 160 gpm. After steady-state
conditions are achieved a connection is performed where the
liquid rate was turned to zero. After 10 min, liquid injection
was resumed. Figure 7 compares the simulated and
experimental bottomhole pressure development. A very good
agreement was observed. Both models give very similar
results.
Example 2. The results are shown in Figure 8. Initially,
the well is a steady state situation with a gas rate of 300 scfm
and a liquid rate of 160 gpm. Then the gas rate is increased to
600 gpm while the liquid rate is reduced to 80 gpm. The
bottomhole pressure decreases until a new steady state
situation is obtained. Then a 10 min connection is simulated
where the choke is closed. The well pressures increases due to
migration of free gas in a closed environment. After the
connection, the choke is opened and the steady state condition
is achieved after a while. Again a good agreement between
experimental and simulated data can be observed. The
difference is less than 10 %. Both models give quite good
agreement but the new mechanistic model is slightly better in
this case.
Example 3. The results are shown in Figure 9. In this
case, the well is initially in a steady state situation where the
gas rate is 800 scfm and the liquid rate is 160 gpm. Then the
gas rate is increased to 1000 scfm and the liquid rate is
reduced to 80 gpm. After a while the new steady state situation
is reached. There are now large volumes of gas present in the
well and the drawdown is nearly 700 psi compared to the
original liquid filled well. After the steady state conditions are
reached, a connection is performed where both liquid and gas
supply is stopped. Again a reasonable agreement between
experimental and simulated data can be seen. The new
mechanistic model gives a better agreement with the
experimental data compared to other model. Both models tend
to underestimate the bottomhole pressure.
Example 4. In the last example, the situation is somewhat
special. First of all drillstring gas injection was used instead of
parasite gas injection. In addition, the initial conditions in the
well prior to the experimental session were not known due to a

period prior to the experiment where the injection was stopped

and phase segregation took place. On the other hand, the
simulated scenarios are initiated from a steady-state situation
with a gas rate and liquid rate of 300 scfm and 40 gpm. The
gas rate is then increased quite significantly to 1000 scfm.
This leads to a highly gas dominated well and the bottomhole
pressure decreases quite significantly before the steady state is
reached.
In Figure 10, the experimental steady state
bottomhole pressure is compared against the results given by
the two different models. The non mechanistic model
underestimates bottomhole pressure quite significantly. This is
probably caused by insufficient annular flow modeling. On the
other hand, the new mechanistic model gives quite good
results.
Improved Numerical Modeling. In the following, different
examples are given where we demonstrate the effect of
introducing anti-diffusion mechanisms in the numerical
schemes. A traditional first order implicit upwind scheme is
compared against an upgraded second order version of the
same scheme by use of slope limiter techniques.
Example 5. This example focuses on the typical transient
effects taking place during unloading of a well. A 1000 m
vertical pipe with a diameter of 0.2 m is considered. The pipe
is initially filled with liquid. Gas and liquid is then injected at
the bottom of the pipe rates. The liquid and gas rates are 150
kg/s and 1.0 kg/s. The pipe has been discretized in 25 boxes
where box 1 is at the bottom and box 25 is at top of the pipe.
The numerical solution of the transient flow problem is shown
in Figures 11-14. In Figure 11, the expected drop in
bottomhole pressure can be observed as gas migrates upwards
the pipe. After a while, the gas breaks through at surface. This
is followed by a peak in the liquid rate. As seen in Figures 12
and 13, the two numerical schemes predict quite different
values for the maximum peak rates. The second order scheme
predicts a much larger maximum value compared to that given
by the first order scheme. The reason for this is that the first
order scheme diffuses the sharp transition zone between the
one-phase flow region and the two-phase flow region. This is
clearly seen in Figure 14.
Example 6. A pipe of 1000 m depth and 0.1 m inner
diameter is considered. The pipe is initially filled with
stagnant liquid. The injection rates are increased to 7.5 kg/s
for the liquid and 0.15 kg/s for the gas. The rates are kept
constant in 200 sec before the injection stops. This leads to a
drop in bottomhole pressure due to reduced friction pressure
losses, see Figure 15. A gas pulse is now migrating upwards
towards surface. As the gas expands, a further decrease in
bottomhole pressure can be seen until gas enters at surface
around 1000 sec, see Figures 15 and 17. After this the total gas
fraction in the well will decrease and the bottomhole pressure
will start to increase. Liquid injection is resumed after 1200
sec. After the gas has left the well, the pressure stabilises at the
original level. We notice the typical V shape curve of the
bottomhole pressure as the gas pulse migrates upwards.
Numerical diffusion in the first order scheme tends to make
the V-shape somewhat wider compared to the second order
scheme although the difference is not significantly large. On
the other hand the maximum flow rate peaks are much better
resolved by the second order scheme, see Figure 16. In

IADC/SPE 81636

addition, the time for gas entrance at surface is predicted at a

later stage when using the second order scheme. Another
issue that could be commented is the negative liquid flowrates
observed in Figure 16. The reason for this is that the upward
movement of gas forces the liquid downwards, which leads to
negative liquid flowrates in the upper parts of the well
Discussion
The first four examples show how transient modeling can be a
valuable tool for predicting the dynamics throughout
connections. During underbalanced operations, it is of
importance to maintain wellbore pressures below formation
pressures to avoid formation damage. But at the same time,
wellbore pressures must not be lower than collapse pressure.
In cases, where the difference between collapse and pore
pressure are low, it is of importance to minimize the pressure
fluctuations that appear throughout the connections. The
examples here show that a transient tool can be valuable in
evaluating different procedures and make the right choices. In
this respect, it is of importance that one can rely on the
predicted results and to have an idea of where the models are
reliable.
In the examples shown here, the new mechanistic approach
seemed to give quite satisfactory results. In some cases, it had
a tendency for slightly underestimating pressure which was
also the conclusion in reference 10 where a wider range of
data was analyzed. This tendency was more profound during
parasite gas injection compared to drillstring injection. The
tendency was explained by the lack of a churn flow model in
the new mechanistic approach. Use of a slug flow model in
churn flow regions leads to pressure predictions lower than
measured values.
The other model shown in the examples gave also
satisfactory results although it behaved slightly worse than the
new model. Especially in example 4, the model under
predicted pressures quite extensively. In this case, the well
was dominated by large gas rates and annular flow was present
in large parts of the well. The model used does not treat
annular flow properly which is clearly seen from the results.
As seen in examples 5 and 6, the choice of an appropriate
numerical scheme can be of importance when evaluating
transients during underbalanced drilling. In regions where the
gas volume fraction changes rapidly (e.g. the transition zone
between one-phase and two-phase flow region) numerical
diffusion can smear out these transition zones quite
extensively. This effect is typically seen in the prediction of
the maximum surface flowrates where numerical diffusion
leads to under prediction of the maximum rates. However, by
introducing higher order schemes, this effect is reduced quite
extensively. In general, if separator design and transient
surface flow rates are to be evaluated, it is of importance to
have an appropriate numerical scheme that gives reliable
results.
Conclusion
A new mechanistic approach has been implemented in a
transient model and evaluated against experimental data. A
good agreement could be observed. The model is able to
predict the transient behavior taking place during connections.
Earlier comparison of this new model against experimental

IADC/SPE 81636

steady-state data as well as other models has indicated that the

new model gives quite good results with an average error less
than 10 %. Most models have problems with describing the
annular flow pattern problem which typically occurs in case of
gas dominated systems. The new model seems to give
satisfactory results also in these situations.
Since control of bottomhole pressure is the main issue
during underbalanced drilling, it is of direct importance to
have models that reveals the reality as best as possible. In that
sense, we believe that the new model can give a positive
contribution.
The other issue that has been discussed is the effect of
numerical diffusion on the transient results. We have shown
that classical first order schemes are not reliable in predicting
maximum flowrate peaks that can occur at surface. Hence, for
design and evaluation of separator equipment it is of
importance to use schemes of high accuracy. We have
demonstrated a simple technique (slope limiter) that can be
used for these purposes.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Agip and Pemex/IMP for funding
parts of this work. We would also like to thank Petrobras,
Agip, TotalFinaElf and Shell for funding the fullscale UBD
experiments in Taquipe.
Nomenclature
d1 = outer diameter of drillstring, L, m
d2 = inner diameter of casing, L, m
Fw = frictional pressure loss, mL-2t-2, Pa/m
F = Numerical flux function or physical flux
g = gravity acceleration, Lt-2, m/s2
m = mass transfer between phases, mL-3t-1, kg/(m3s)
p = pressure, mL-1t-2, Pa (psi)
T = Temperature, T, K
t = time, t, s
v = velocity, Lt-1, m/s
z = spatial coordinate, L, m
= volumetric fraction, dimensionless
= angle with the horizontal, radians
= density, mL-3, kg/m3 (lbm/gal)
= interfacial tension, mL-1t-2, N/m
t = discrete timestep
x = length of discrete boxes
Subscripts
a = acceleration
f = friction
g = gas or gravitational
gs = gas superficial
i = related to the box no.
l = liquid
ls = liquid superficial
Superscripts
n = time step level

References
1.
2.
3.

4.

5.
6.

7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.
13.

14.
15.

Ishii, M.: Thermo-Fluid Dynamic Theory of Two-Phase

Flow, Eyrolles, (1975).
Thron, B.: Ecoulements Diphasiques Instationnaires en
Conduite Horizontale, PhD dissertation, INP, Toulouse,
France (1989).
Benzoni-Gavage, S.: Analyse Numrique des Modles
Hydrodynamiques
D`coulements
Diphasiques
Instationnaires dans le Rseaux de Production Ptrolire,
PhD dissertation, ENS, Lyon, France (1991).
R. Rommetveit, O. Svareid, A.C.V.M. Lage, A. Guarneri,
C. Georges, E. Nakagawa and A. Bijleveld.: Dynamic
Underbalanced Drilling Effects are Predicted by Design
Modell. Paper SPE 56920 presented at the 1999 Offshore
Europe Conference held in Aberdeen, 7-9 Sept. 1999.
Caetano, E.F.: Upward Two-Phase Flow Through an
Annulus, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Tulsa
(1985).
Papadimitriou, D.A. and Shoham, O.:A Mechanistic
Model for Predicting Annulus Bottomhole Pressures in
Pumping Wells, paper SPE 21669 presented at 1991
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, April
7-9.
Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: Two-Phase Flow in Vertical
and Inclined Annuli, Int. J. Multiphase Flow (1992) 18,
No. 2, 279-293.
A.C.V.M Lage.: Two-phase Flow models and
Experiments for Low-Head and Underbalanced Drilling,
PhD dissertation, Stavanger College, Norway.
Lage, A.C.V.M. and Time, R.W.: Mechanistic Model for
Upward Two-Phase Flow in Annuli, paper SPE 63127
presented at 2000 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, TX, 1-4 October.
Lage, A.C.V.M. and Time, R.W.: An Experimental and
Theoretical Investigation of Upward Two-Phase Flow in
Annuli, SPEJ (September 2002), 325.
Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: A Study of Two-Phase Flow
in Inclined Pipes, JPT (May 1973), 607-617.
K.H. Bendiksen, D. Malnes, R. Moe, and S. Nuland. The
dynamic two-fluid modell OLGA: Theory and application.
SPE Production Engineering, 6, 171-180, May 1991.
V. Henriot, C. Pauchon, P. Duchet-Suchaux and C.F.
Leibovici: TACITE: Contribution of fluid composition
tracking on transient multiphase flow simulation Paper
OTC 8563 presented at the 1997 Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, 5-6 May.
Fjelde, K.K: Numerical Schemes for Complex Nonlinear
Hyperbolic Systems of Equations, PhD dissertation,
Univeristy of Bergen, Norway (2000).
C. Hirch.: Numerical computation of internal and external
flows Volume 1 & 2, Johh Wiley & Sons 1990.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft x 3.048
gal x 3.785 412
in x 2.54
psix 6.894 757

E-01 = m
E-03 = m3
E+00 = cm
E+00 = kPa

IADC/SPE 81636

Figure 1 - The initial situation in the discretized well.

Figure 3 - The gas is averaged acoss the whole box.

Figure 4 - The calculated situation after one timestep.

Figure 2 - The situation after one time step.

Figure 5 - Use of the slopelimiter approach.

IADC/SPE 81636

T
Separator
3 1/2 in. Drill Pipe
ID=2.764 in.

Gas
T

Parasite String

P
2 3/8 in.
Tubing
String
at
760 m

Bottomhole pressure

T
Pressure (psi)

Liquid

Gauge at
185 m
Gauge at
605 m
Gauge at 998 m

Orifice and
Check Valve
7 in.Casing

1300
1250
1200
1150
1100
1050
1000
950
900
850
800
0.00

Experimental data
Mechanistic Model
Non Mechanistic
Model

20.00

Logging tool
at 1262 m

ID=6.276 in.

Figure 6 Configuration of the Taquipe well.

60.00

Figure 9 Parasite Injection, Gas rate = 1000 scfm, Liquid rate =

40 gpm, Open Connection.

Bottomhole pressure

Bottomhole pressure
1400

1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000

1200
Experimental data
Mechanistic Model
Non Mecanistic Model

Pressure (psi)

Pressure (psi)

40.00

Time (min)

Experimental data

1000
800

Non Mechanistic
Model

600

Mechanistic Model

400
200

20

40

60

80

0
0

Time (min)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (min)

Figure 7 Parasite Injection, Gas rate = 300 scfm, Liquid rate =

160 gpm, Open Connection.

Figure 10 Drillstring Injection, Gas rate = 1000 scfm, Liquid rate

= 40 gpm Steady State.

Bottomhole Pressure
100

1500
1450
1400
1350
1300
1250
1200
1150
1100
1050
1000

Experimental data
Mechanistic Model
Non Mechanistic
Model

Pressure (Bar)

Pressure (psi)

Bottomhole pressure
95
90

First order method

85

Second order method

80
75
70
0

20

40

60

80

Time (min)

Figure 8 Parasite Injection, Gas rate = 600 scfm, Liquid rate = 80

gpm, Closed Connection.

500

1000

1500

2000

Time (sec)
Figure 11 Unloading scenario, Comparison of predicted
bottomhole pressure using a first and second order scheme.

IADC/SPE 81636

Bottomhole Pressure
110

Outlet Liquid Flowrate

Pressure (Bar)

700

Rate (kg/s)

600
500
400

First order method

300

Second order method

105

Second order
Method

95
90

200
100

85

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

1000

2000

3000

Time (sec)

Time (sec)
Figure 12 Unloading scenario, Comparison of predicted outlet
liquid rates using a first and second order scheme.

Figure 15 Gas pulse example, Comparison of predicted

bottomhole pressure using a first and second order scheme.

Outlet Liquid Flowrate

Outlet Gas Flowrate

10

1.60
1.40

1.20
1.00

First order method

0.80

Second order method

0.60
0.40
0.20

Flowrate (kg/s)

Rate (kg/s)

First Order
Method

100

First Order
Method

Second order
Method

2
0

0.00
0

500

1000

1500

2000

-2

Time (sec)

1000

2000

3000

Time (sec)

Figure 13 Unloading scenario, Comparison of predicted outlet

gas rates using a first and second order scheme.
Figure 16 Gas pulse example, Comparison of predicted outlet
liquid rates using a first and second order scheme.

Gas Volume Fraction

0.25

Outlet Gas Flowrate

0.06

0.15

Second order method

First order method

0.10
0.05
0.00
0

10

15

20

Number of Boxes

0.05

Flowrate (kg/s)

Gas Fraction

0.20

0.04

First Order
Method

0.03

Second order
Method

0.02
0.01
0

Figure 14 Unloading scenario, Comparison of predicted gas

volume fraction versus depth using a first and second order
scheme.

1000

2000

3000

Time (sec)

Figure 17 Comparison of predicted outlet gas rates using a first

and second order scheme.