CALCULATION OF BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE AND SUBMERSIBLE PUMP

INTAKE PRESSURE
Ildar K. Shayhutdinov
In this article the design procedure of a bottom-hole pressure and intake pressure of submersible pump
under the fact sheet of operation of well is offered. A feature of the algorithm consists of using the given
standard field values of annulus pressure, dynamic level, flow rate and water cut. In article results of
calculations are compared to actual measured pressure at the level of pump intake. It is demonstrated, that
the applied methodology provides high accuracy of calculation for required parameters.

With artificial lift the important parameters of the oil producing wells are the bottom-hole
pressure as well as the intake pressure of the submersible pump. The definition accuracy of these
parameters is dictated by the necessity to calculate the potential well production opportunities
when selecting the appropriate pumping equipment and optimizing well performance.
Finding BH pressure thru actual well performance data can be divided in two stages:
) calculation of pressure distribution in annulus (in tubing) and definition of pressure at
the pump run-in depth;
) definition of pressure in the well bore at the interval pump intake BH and estimate
of BH pressure.
Definition of pressure at the pump intake
The hardest bit in finding the BH pressure in the producing well is calculation of pressure
at the pump run-in depth using actual well performance data. This article considers methodology
for calculation of mentioned pressure based on plotting the curve of pressure distribution in
annulus.
Fig.1 shows the diagram for producing well performance using submersible pump.
As a rule, the majority of producing wells for a more reliable pump performance are
equipped with gas separators. With gas separator the bigger part of free gas, liberated from
crude, under conditions of pump intake is directed into annulus. With absence of gas separator
(gas anchor / bottom hole separator) on the pump intake less quantity of free gas is coming into
annulus. Gas phase flow process in annulus can be characterized as gas lift operation at zero
feed/delivery mode. Theoretical and practical researches of A.P. Krylov [1] were devoted to it.
Equation for liquid-gas mixture flow in this case is presented the following way
a0
dP
(1)
=
gdl Q + a 0
Q - volumetric gas discharge/flow in the annulus, m3/s; - fluid density in the annulus
(presupposing that fluid in the annulus is presented by oil), kg/m3; a 0 - ratio, considering
geometrical dimension of fluid passage, m3/s; g gravity acceleration, m/s2.
(2)
a 0 = 0,785( D 2 d 2 ),
D - production casing ID, m; d - tubing OD, m.

Calculation of pressure distribution in annulus

is based on numerical calculation of equation (1) with
known pressure at the pump run-in depth P . At that
the iteration procedure is implemented and actual and
calculated pressure at dynamic level P are
compared.
The algorithm for definition of pressure at the
pump run-in depth is the following.
1. The following initial data are put in:
Q - fluid flow rate under standard conditions,
m3/day; - volume ratio of water in production
under standard conditions; P - annulus pressure,
MPa; - formation pressure, K; Lc - well depth
(vertical), m; H - pump run-in depth (vertical), m;
h - well dynamic level (vertical), m; d - tubing ID,
m; d - tubing OD, m; D - production casing ID, m;
- density of degassed oil under standard
conditions, kg/m3; - dynamic viscosity of
degassed oil under standard conditions, mPa s; P bubble point pressure at formation temperature, MPa;
G0 - GOR of oil in place (gas-oil ratio) under normal
conditions, m3/m3; - density of gas, liberated from
crude at flash liberation under normal conditions,
3
kg/m ; y a , y - mole fraction of nitrogen and methane in gas at flash liberation; - water
density under standard conditions, kg/m3.
Numerical calculation of equation (1) is presented as following
P(Q + 0,785( D 2 d 2 ) )
= L
(3)
0,785( D 2 d 2 ) g
Fig.1. Diagram, for calculation
of ESP performance with oilgas mix

P - pressure stepping, Pa; L - length delta, m.

2. Pressure stepping taken and the sequential pressure values are identified for various
depths. For that the general pressure variation range ( P ) is divided into several intervals,
i.e. under condition
P = 0,05( P P ),
(4)
where P - annular pressure, Pa; - assumed pump intake-level pressure (at first
approximation is taken at random), Pa.
Accordingly recurrence relation defines the calculated pressures
N

Pi = P i

(5)

i =1

3. The temperature distribution in producing well bore is defined [2].

With known formation temperature the temperature at the pumps run-in depth
(calculation bottom-up) is calculated thru equation

h
t (h) = t 1 St
(6)
d

To calculate the temperature distribution above the pump intake it is necessary to know
the wellhead temperature (calculation top-down):

t(H ) =

(7)
H
d
In equations (6) and (7) t , t - formation and wellhead temperatures accordingly, ; h vertical depth, measured from bottom-hole, m; H - vertical depth, measured from wellhead, m;
St - non-dimensional Stanton number.
Dependence of Stanton number on mass well flow rate is represented as:
1,763 10 4
0,202 10 4 ,
St =
(8)
ln(q + 40)
where q - mass well flow rate, t/day.
If wellhead temperature data is not available the calculation of temperature distribution above the
pump intake can be done using the equation (6), taking as base for measuring the temperature at
the pump-setting depth. In this case the value of wellhead temperature is the required parameter
and is defined for h = Lc H . But, in case the well is operated using centrifugal, cavity/screw
or diaphragm pump the heating of liquid gas mix passing the submersible motor will not be
considered.
Thus we are getting the temperature distribution in producing well bore.
4. Using the data of fluid properties we find the physical properties of oil, gas, water or
water-oil mix under corresponding thermo dynamic conditions ( Pi , Ti ) [1,2].
1 St

5. The volumetric gas-liquid flow parameters Q and Q are defined in conditions of

pump intake [2].
To define gas volume, going into annulus, we need to set the gas separation ratio. For that
we recommend to use the following equations, obtained from theoretical and experimental
researches [2]:
at the level of flowing lift shoe
=

at the sucker-rod pump intake

=

Q
1 + 0,7
w0 F

0
Q
1 + 1,05
w0 F

(9)

(10)

(11)

at the electrical submersible pump intake

=

1 + 0,75

Q
w0 f '

where 0 - free gas separation ratio with zero feed/delivery mode

2

d
0 = 1
(12)
D
Here Q - volumetric fluid flow under conditions of pump intake, m3/s; w0 - relative
velocity of gas bubbles, m/s. Relative velocity of gas bubbles depends on the water volume ratio
in production: at 0,5 w0 = 0,02 / ; > 0,5 w0 = 0,17 / ; F - cross sectional
area of production casing, m2; f ' - area of circular clearance between production casing and
submersible pump, m2.
After calculation of separation ratio the volume Q of gas flow going into annulus is
defined. In case of well operating with ESP the volume of gas flow is calculated the following
way:
Q = Q
(13)

If the centrifugal gas separator is available at the ESPs intake the separation ratio is
varying within range 0,6-0,8 (it is recommended to take it as 0,7 ). If the gas anchor / bottom
hole separator is available at the SRPs intake the separation ratio is varying within range 0,4-0,6
(it is recommended to take it as 0,5 ).
6. Values of Q i = Q and = i assuming there is oil-gas mix above the pump
intake, values set in equation (3) and the well depth delta L1 is found.
Hence, at the depth h1 = H L1 we are having the pressure P1 = P .
7. From equations (6)-(8) the temperature T1 is defined at the depth of h1 . Using
equation (5) we calculate the sequential pressure step P2 = P1 P .
The following calculations are done for the average pressure between P1 and P2 :
+ 2
and for the temperature T1 . Here you can see that at numerical integration of
2 = 1
2
equation (1) the implemented calculations are one step behind in temperature. But it appears that
calculation error with such approximation is very minor. The volume of gas flow going into
annulus is calculated for taken i and i :
z P T
(14)
Q i = Q i i ,
z Pi T
where Q - volume of gas flow in annulus under pump intake conditions, m3/s; P , T - taken
pump intake pressure and calculated temperature correspondingly; z , z i - correspondingly the
supercompressibility ratios for the pump intake conditions and set i and i .
When calculating the density of three-phase mix in the annulus additional complications
occur due to necessity to account for dissolved gas liberating from crude.
If we presuppose there is no mass exchange/transfer between the fluid in the annulus and
the fluid going to the pump intake, then the presence of free gas phase in the annulus will be
determined only by the separation at the pumps intake. Then fluid density in equation (3)
will be equal to oil density i at set i and i .
In reality there is a constant mass transfer/exchange process between the fluid in the
annulus and the fluid going to the pump intake. Accounting for fluid density change in the
annulus due to dissolved gas liberating from crude is done using the following correlation:
= i + i (1 ) ,
(15)
3
where i - oil density in the annulus fluid at i and i , kg/m ; i - gas liquid mix density
from crude and gas liberated from it as part of the annulus fluid at i and i , kg/m3; volume ratio of oil degassed at i and i (without consideration for free gas phase liberated in
conditions of pump intake).
It is easy to see that
i = i (1 ) + ,
(16)
(G0 ( Pi , Ti ) G0 ) z ( Pi , Ti ) P0Ti
Pi T0
=
,
(17)
P0Ti
(G0 ( Pi , Ti ) G0 ) z ( Pi , Ti )
+1
Pi T0
. . Pi T0
=
(18)
z ( Pi , Ti ) P0Ti
Here - volume ratio of gas, liberated at i and i (without consideration for free gas
phase liberated in conditions of pump intake); - density of gas additionally liberated from
crude at i and i , kg/m3; G0 - specific volume of gas liberated in conditions of pump

intake, modified to normal conditions, m3/t; G 0 ( P, T ) - specific volume of gas liberated at i

and i , modified to normal conditions, m3/t; . . - density of gas dissolved in crude in
conditions of pump intake, modified to normal conditions, kg/m3.
Note: when determining the density i no free gas accounted liberated in conditions
of pump intake.
Determining parameter presents a hard task. Based on actual data processing we
received the following empirical dependence:
0 , 5587

Q Q
,
(19)
= .
Q.
where Q - volumetric gas flow in the annulus in conditions of pump intake, m3/day; Q. volumetric oil flow in conditions of pump intake, m3/day; Q - volumetric gas liquid mix
flow in conditions of pump intake, m3/day.
Acquired values Q i and are placed in equation (3) and delta is determined L2 .
Value h2 = h1 L2 is calculated with P2 .
+ 3
etc.
Sequential pressure step is taken P3 = P2 P , 3 = 2
2
Thus the sequential/step-by-step calculation is implemented till the vertical depth hi is
decreases or equalizes the value of well dynamic level h , i.e. hi h .
Pressure Pi at the last calculation sequence/step is defined for certain depth hi , and not
for h . To determine pressure P directly at the dynamic level we are using the following
correlation
(h hi )( Pi 1 Pi )
P = Pi 1
(20)
hi 1 hi
8. Pressure P at dynamic level is calculated assuming the pump intake pressure is equal
, taken at random at first approximation. Pressure at the pump intake is corrected based
on comparison of calculated P and actual P pressures at dynamic level.
Actual pressure P at dynamic level is determined by known barometric equation [1]:
P = P

where

0 , 03415 h
zT

,
(21)
- average temperature in the interval from the wellhead to dynamic level; z -

supercompressibility ratio at P pressure and temperature.

To correct the pump intake pressure the following procedure is used:
| P P |
if
100% 5% and P < P , then the pump intake pressure taken at first

P
approximation is excessive, and it has to be lowered, for example, take it equal to
= 0,95 ;
| P P |
100% 5% and P > P , then the pump intake pressure taken at first

P
approximation underrated, and it has to be increased, for example, up to value of
= 1,05 .
if

9. Calculation thru points 2-8 is repeated till condition

| P P |
100% 5% is
P

fulfilled.

During the implementation of iteration procedure the situation might occur when as a
result of numerical integration of equation (1), at the depth significantly lower than dynamic
level the calculated value of pressure appears to be close to atmospheric and lower. It happens
when initially setting the overrated pressure value at the pump intake level. In this case the
assumed initial pump intake pressure is lowered.
Note: if setting incorrect initial data the proposed iteration procedure doesnt always
match. Hence it is recommended to use the closest solution of equation giving the minimal
accuracy error.
Also keep in mind that the algorithm proposed to determine the pump intake pressure
doesnt consider the foaming leading to data corruption of measuring the dynamic level in
annulus.
Calculation examples

Thru proposed calculation algorithm for submersible pump intake level pressure using
Visual ++ Borland the software has been created called Well analyst. Initial data for
calculations are given in tables 1 and 2. Calculation results are given in table 3.
Physical properties of oil-in-place and degassed crude

Table 1
Field,
formation

f ,

Oil in place
f, MPa b, MPa G, m3/t

bo

. ,
mPa*s

Varyogan,
formation 28
Samotlor,
formation 11
Samotlor,
formation 1-2
Samotlor,
formation 8
Samotlor,
formation 1
VKY, formation
21

Degassed crude and single degassing gas

. , .0 ,
.0 ,
.0 , N2, %
3
3
kg/m
kg/m mPa*s kg/m3

345

21,4

15,6

175,1

1,49

0,5

785

832

4,1

1,168

1,4

333

17,1

11,8

97,8

1,27

1,5

755

844

5,0

0,86

0,2

333

16,5

9,4

76

1,18

1,42

735

844

5,0

0,86

0,2

349

21,19

13,5

135

1,26

1,15

735

843

7,0

1,13

3,84

349

24,4

11

119

1,24

1,03

735

844

6,6

0,955

3,2

349

25

20,6

236

1,45

0,42

808

832

0,85

0,75

Initial data for calculation of pump intake pressure and actual values

Table 2
Well #

Field,
formation

Pump set Dynamic Annular Fluid flow Watercut, Borehole Pump

depth, m level, m pressure,
rate,
%
deviation, intake
Mpa
m3/day
degrees pressure,
Mpa

Pump type

1587

350

0,9

144,0

80,0

30

8,4

1587

785

2,3

144,0

80,0

30

7,1

1587

842

2,45

144,0

80,0

30

6,8

1610

106,5

0,84

82,4

0,0

29

5,8

1200

530

0,8

33,0

0,0

4,8

5160-1750
5160-1750
5160-1750
580-1700 with
gas separator

1200

344

0,66

36,0

0,0

6,5

1528

1266

1,6

58

28

2,9

61503

Samotlor,
formation 8

1683

403

2,2

222

11,9

29970

Samotlor,
formation 8

2011

633

1,2

81

9,7

21109

Samotlor,
formation 8

2029

564

1,4

114

9,5

61803

Samotlor,
formation 8

1808

701

1,8

440

5,2

1987

1513

1,4

36

3,4

2182

1313

1,6

36

10

6,7

2200

270

1,4

226

6,1

DN-1750 with
gas separator

2030

135

0,8

146

48

DN-1300 with
gas separator

1263
Varyogan,
formation 28
883
7476
29866

Samotlor,
formation
11
Samotlor,
formation 1-

5-301800 with gas

separator
5400-1250
-5-601700 with gas
separator
5160-1750 with
gas separator
5500-1250 with
gas separator
5-502000 with gas
separator
5-502000 with gas
separator

51118

594
550

Samotlor,
formation
1
Samotlor,
formation
1
VKY,
formation
21
VKY,
formation
21

Comparison of calculated and actual pressures for reviewed wells

Table 3

Calculated pressure (MPa) and divergence from actual (%) at (MPa)

Well
Actual
pressure,
MPa
Calculated
pressure,
MPa
Absolute
divergence,
MPa

1263

883

7476

29866 61503 29970 21109 61803

11,9

51118

594

550

8,4

7,1

6,8

5,8

4,8

6,5

2,9

9,7

9,5

5,2

3,4

6,7

6,1

8,28

7,27

7,04

5,69

4,68

5,89

3,41 12,03 9,69

8,96

5,36

4,16

6,87

6,19

6,43

0,12 -0,17 -0,24 0,11

0,12

0,61 -0,51 -0,13

0,01

0,54 -0,16 -0,76 -0,17 -0,09 -0,43

As seen from results, given in table 3, divergence of calculated from actual pressures
does not exceed 0,76 MPa, it shows relatively high accuracy of proposed methodology. Besides
the degree of reliability of individual initial datum leaves much to be desired.
Application of Well analyst software allows to implement a fairly correct estimate of
well potential when selecting the downhole equipment, as well as using the more correct
calculated BH pressure values when adapting 3D hydrodynamic models.
Bottom-hole pressure calculation

Lets now review the peculiarities of calculating the pressure distribution within the
interval pump intake bottom-hole, as well as BH pressure.
Calculation methodology is based on numerical calculation of the following differential
equation for gas liquid mix flow, assuming the negligibly small inertial loss,
dP
dP
= g +
(21)
,
dH
dH
dP
- summarized (total) pressure gradient during flow of gas liquid mix in lift, Pa/m;
where
dH
dP
- density of gas liquid mix, kg/m3;
- frictional loss gradient, Pa/m.
dH
Numerical calculation of equation (21) is not presenting extra complexity from
methodology point of view and is implemented thru one of the methods shown in details [1,2].
The necessary correlations stated above are to be considered as well.
Conclusion

The proposed algorithm for determination of BH pressure and pump intake level pressure
has the most applicable degree of accuracy comparing with existing approaches.
The peculiarity of given calculation algorithm for determination of BH pressure and
pump intake level pressure is that for its implementation sufficient are the reliable data for actual
well operation, content and properties of produced fluid. This, particularly, will allow, when
adapting 3D reservoir models, a more qualified application of previous multiple metering data
for dynamic levels and other well parameters. This aspect particularly, for the most part,
predetermined the statement of corresponding researches.
Literature

1. Reference guide to design the development and operation of oil fields, edition by Sh.K.
Gimatutdinov, Moscow, Nedra, 1983
2. Mischenko I.T., Calculations in oil production, Moscow, Nedra, 1989
3. Michael Lissuk, Analysis of existing methodology for determination of annular pressure
with ESP well operation, journal Technique and process of oil production, 2, 2000
Author/Credits

Ildar K. Shayhutdinov
E-mail: ildar79@mail.ru