SPE 160886

Forecasting and Monitoring Water Cut Utilizing ESP Pump Discharge

Pressures and Fluid PVT Analysis
Sultan M. Al Enezi, Mickey L. Warlick, Muzher I. Almusabeh, Abdullah A. Kaba, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 811 April 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by 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 Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committee of Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of 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 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
In some fields, the ability to obtain reliable water production numbers is hard to do. Case in point is one Saudi Aramco
offshore field. This particular field has all wells on electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) and has supervisory control and data
acquisition recorded real time. Oftentimes the timing of getting the samples to shore, the lab, and to the desktop of the
engineer takes a very long time. By modeling and using the pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) data from the reservoir and
the pump discharge pressure of a well we can determine what water cut is necessary to match the surface flowing wellhead
pressure (also taking into account frictional losses). Utilizing this method allows Saudi Aramco to monitor water production in
the field and then to verify it with actual water samples whenever the data becomes available.
Introduction
All the wells are equipped with a two-liquid phase (oil and water) Micro Motion meter, assuming the field will be
continuously producing above the surface bubble point pressure, using electrical submersible pumps (ESPs). The current flow
conditions in most of the wells indicate a continuous presence of free gas in the produced fluid at the surface, which is causing
the Micro Motion meters to generate erroneous water cut data. As a result, production engineers have stopped depending on
the water cut values generated by the Micro Motion meters. Instead, they heavily depend on the laboratory analysis of manual
samples collected from each well to measure the water cut. Crude samples are supposed to be collected every month; however,
due to logistics and weather, samples may only be collected every 2-3 months.
To correct the water cut reading, there are several needed actions to be taken:
1.
2.
3.

Increase the operating line pressure at all wells above the bubble point pressure.
Install an independent water cut meter for each well, back calculate the liquid density and obtain an acceptable
measurement of the oil and water flow rates.
Install multiphase flow meters to obtain accurate measurement of the produced fluid phases.

Subsequently, the first solution will reduce the oil production rate of the field by approximately 7%, both the second and third
solutions will require capital and operating costs.
As an alternative method to predict the water cut, the developed method in the paper demonstrates how to construct an
accurate outflow performance relationship and how to utilize the available pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) data, pump
discharge pressure, and wellhead temperature to accurately calculate the water cut and the density at the surface of both oil and
water above the bubble point, and oil with gas and water below the bubble point. This method of calculation will be helpful to
have real time water cut prediction. In addition to water cut and density calculations, the method serves as a tool to double
check the water cut values measured in the lab.
Pressure Loss Calculation Procedure
Fluid flowing in a wellbore will experience pressure losses due to hydrostatic and friction components. Starting from the pump
head depth, and discharge pressure, the wellhead pressure will be calculated using the following Eqs.:

Eq. 1.1

SPE 160886

Eq. 1.2

Eq. 1.3

To calculate the wellhead pressure, there are two terms in Eq. 1.2 that need to be calculated separately; the hydrostatic loss
term and the friction loss term. Hydrostatic loss is a function of the fluid mixture density that depends on water cut and oil and
water densities. The frictional pressure loss is due to the fluid flow regime and the composition of the fluid. Frictional pressure
loss depends on both fluid mixture density and viscosity.
Gas slippage or liquid hold up was neglected because the single-phase conditions prevail almost to the wellhead, and even if
we assume multiphase flow conditions for the upper 500 ft. of the tubing, it may result in only bubble flow conditions, and the
overall effect of flow regime change will be very small and can be neglected.
PVT Analysis
Density and viscosity are the major unknowns in Eq. 1.3; they vary according to pressure and temperature as shown in Eqs. 2
and 3 (Bruce et al., 2000).
,
Eq. 2
Eq. 3

Oil Equations
To find the constants of Eqs. 2 and 3, the PVT data shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 were utilized. Constant A and B are the slopes
of the vs. P and vs. T, as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, respectively. Constants C and D are the slopes of the vs. P and vs.
T as shown in Fig. 3 and Figs. 4a, and 4b, respectively.
Water Equations
Similar to the oil, water density and viscosity vary with pressure and temperature according to Eqs. 2 and 3. Geochemical
analysis of Arab D water was utilized to define the constants of Eq. 2 for water as shown in Figs. 5.
Since there is no experimental data on the effect of pressure and temperature on the viscosity of formation water, data reported
in the literature (Alboudwarej et al., 2005) were utilized to define the constant of Eq. 3 for water as shown in Tables 4 and 5
and Figs. 6 and 7.
Mixture Properties
Knowing density and viscosity for both oil and water will allow us to calculate the mixture density and viscosity at different
water cuts, assuming that both oil and water are moving at the same in-situ velocity (Al Mubarak 1997).
100

Eq. 4

100

Eq. 5

Equations 3 and 4 will be used to calculate the mixture density and viscosity at different water cuts. The mixture density and
viscosity relationships defined in Eqs. 4 and 5 will be used to calculate the hydrostatic and friction pressure loss.
Hydrostatic Component
Mixture density and viscosity relationship defined in Eqs. 4 and 5 will be used to calculate the hydrostatic component of Eq.
1.3:

Friction Component
Since the friction loss depends on the flow regime that the fluid can be considered to be traveling in, it is important first to
calculate the Reynolds number to decide whether the flow regime is turbulent or laminar. The Reynolds number can be
calculated using both Eqs. 6 and 7:

Eq. 6

In U.S. field units:

1.48

Eq. 7

The Fanning friction factor can be evaluated based on the Reynolds number and relative roughness of the casing pipe (Boyun

SPE 160886

Guo et al., 2007).

If the flow regime is laminar, where Re < 2,000 then, the Fanning friction factor can be calculated using the following Eq.:
16

Eq. 8

Otherwise, the Fanning friction factor for turbulent flow regime can be calculated using Eq. 9 as follows:
1
4

3.7065

5.0452

2.8257

7.149

Eq. 9

Then, the friction loss component can be calculated as in Eq. 1.3:

2

Pressure Loss Calculation

The calculation water density, oil density, water viscosity, and oil viscosity, will be utilized to calculate the wellhead pressure
using Eq. 1.3 in iterative manner as follows:
1. Subdivide the pipe length into small segments (10 to 20 ft each).
2. Start with the measured water cut if available; otherwise assume a reasonable water cut value.
3. Start from the ESP pump depth, assume Pupstream = the discharge pressure, calculate the fluid properties appropriate to
the pressure and temperature of that segment.
4. Calculate the new pressure (Pdownream) = Pupstream (Phydrosatatic+ Pfriction).
5. Assume that the new calculated downstream pressure equals the upstream pressure for the next segment.
6. Repeat step 5 and 6 until covering the full length of the pipe. The last downstream pressure is the wellhead pressure.
7. Compare the calculated Pwellhead to the measured one. If they do not match, change the water cut and repeat the
calculation until both calculated and measure Pwellhead are matching each other.
Validation
Wellhead pressures were calculated for 48 wells as shown in Table 6. Thirty-nine wells show an excellent to acceptable match
between the calculated and the measured water cut within 10% difference Figs. 8, while eight wells show more than 10%
difference between both water cuts Figs. 9.
There are many reasons that the measured water cut could not be matched. These are:
1.

Foremost is that the sampled water cut is suspected.

2.

To verify if calculation is correct, look at the areas where data may be suspected:
a.

b.

c.

Poor wellhead pressure readings:

Correct pressure gauge for the expected pressure should be used.

If the reading is suspicious, the reading should be verified with other wells on the same platform.

Poor ESP pressure readings:

The gauges used to measure the discharge pressure are strain gauges.

These strain gauges have 0.1% to 1% error; additionally the gauges may drift overtime. Quartz gauges are
recommended to be used.

Emulsion component:

When the emulsion formed, as the water cut increases the viscosity of the emulsion will increase
significantly, and as a result, the water cut prediction will be underestimated.

Emulsion was not taken into account for this report, as the fluids act in Newtonian behaviors to a water cut
of 25%-30% (Kokal, 2005).

SPE 160886

Conclusions
This procedure can be very helpful to predict the water cut with a very high level of confidence. The technique developed in
this paper will allow Saudi Aramco to predict the water cut in real time. This method works as a tool to check the measured
water cut. The technique has been tested for dry and wet wells with different water cuts and showed an acceptable match
between measured and calculated wellhead pressures.
This paper provides an accurate outflow performance relationship, which can be matched in nodal analyses models to
accurately predict well performance and verify productivity indices.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Saudi Aramco management for permission to present and publish this work.
Nomenclature
g = gravitational acceleration, 32.17 ft/s2
gc = unit conversion factor, 32.17 lbm-t/lbf-s2
mix = fluid density, lbm/ft3
z = elevation increase, ft
= fluid velocity, ft/s
f = fanning friction factor
L = tubing length, ft
Re = Reynolds number, (dimensionless)
Q = fluid flow rate, bbl/day
= fluid viscosity, cp
D = tubing inner diameter, in.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Al Mubark, A.M.: A New Method in Calculating Water Cut and Oil and Water Volumes Using Coriolis Meter, SPE
38786, 1997.
Alboudwarej, H., Muhammad, M., Archer, R., Hannan, R. and Jones, T.: Viscosity of Formation Water: Measurement,
Prediction, and Reservoir Implications, SPE 96013, 2005.
Bruce, E.P., John, M.P. and John, P.O.: The Properties of Gas and Liquids, McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Guo, B., Lyons, W.C. and Ghalambor, A.: Petroleum Production Engineering, a Computer-Assisted Approach, Gulf
Professional publishing, Feb 2007.
Kokal, S.: Crude Oil Emulsions: A State-of-the-Art Review SPE Production & Facilities, Vol. 20, No. 1, February
2005.
Pressure Loss Correlations, http://www.fekete.com/software/piper/media/webhelp/c-te-pressure.htm.

SPE 160886

Table 1: Pressure-mixture density

3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500

75
54.3
54.2
54
53.9
53.8

125
53.2
53.1
53
52.8
52.7

Temperature, F
175
52.3
52.1
52
51.8
51.6

1,000

53.7

52.6

51.5

50.9

50.4

500
320
280
240
200
160
120
80

53.6
53.3
53.3
53.5
53.3
49.1
42.1
31

52.4
52.4
52.3
52.1
48.5
43.1
35.2
24.4

51.3
51.2
50.9
47.7
43.2
36.9
28.8
19.6

50.7
50.6
48.9
45.3
40.3
33.9
25.9
16.7

50.2
49.8
46.8
42.8
37.4
31
23.2
14.7

40

15.6

11.7

8.7

7.6

6.5

Below Pb

Above Pb

Pressure, psi

200
51.8
51.6
51.5
51.3
51.1

225
51.3
51.1
51
50.8
50.6

Table 2: Oil viscosity-variation with pressure

Temp, F
P, psi
3,464
3,078
2,556
2,091
1,556
1,176
754
464
243
190

125
,cp
6.1
5.9
5.6
5.4
5.1
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.5

175
P, psi
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
200
150
100

200
,cp
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.2
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7

P, psi
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
200
150
100

225
,cp
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.4

P, psi
3,539
2,927
2,346
1,751
1,248
832
447
325
258
221

,cp
2.3
2.2
2
2
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8

2,000
5.4
3.2
2.5
2

3,000
5.9
3.4
2.7
2.2

Table 3: Oil viscosity-variation with temperature

, cp
Temp, F
125
175
200
225

150
4.7
2.8
2.3
1.9

200
4.5
2.7
2.2
1.8

500
4.6
2.7
2.2
1.8

Pressure, psi
1,000
4.9
2.9
2.2
1.8

1,500
5.1
3
2.4
1.9

Table 4: Effect of pressure on water viscosity

,cp
P, Mpa
8
14
20

P, psi
1,160.24
2,030.42
2,900.6

160
0.59
0.595
0.596

Temperature, F
180
0.51
0.515
0.518

200
0.44
0.45
0.455

SPE 160886

28
34
43
50
56
63
68
76
82
89
96

4,060.84
4,931.02
6,236.29
7,251.5
8,121.68
9,136.89
9,862.04
11,022.28
11,892.46
12,907.67
13,922.88

0.6
0.61
0.615
0.62
0.625
0.63
0.635
0.64
0.65
0.655
0.66

0.52
0.52
0.53
0.535
0.535
0.54
0.54
0.545
0.55
0.56
0.56

0.457
0.462
0.46
0.465
0.47
0.475
0.48
0.485
0.49
0.495
0.5

Table 5: Effect of temperature on water viscosity

,cp
Temp, C Temp, F
72
161.6
75
167.0
82
179.6
93
199.4

1,160
0.59
0.55
0.51
0.44

Pressure, psi
4,930
2,900
0.61
0.60
0.57
0.56
0.52
0.51
0.46
0.45

7,250
0.63
0.58
0.53
0.47

Table 6: Summary of tested wells

Well No.
10
11
21
23
24
27
28
35
38
40
41
43
44
45
47
52
55
58
59
65
67
69
75
91

BS&W
8.8
0.0
0.0
11.0
9.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
18.0
18.2
10.8
13.0
40.7
29.4
0.1
18.0
4.0
6.0
10.0
2.3
6.0
25.6
12.0

Estimated
Water Cut
11.7
1.9
2.1
9
15.8
11
8.9
1.9
4
12.7
12.7
2.8
8.6
34
33.5
7.5
24.8
3.6
5.2
9.9
7.5
6.3
27.6
13.1

Difference
2.9
1.9
2.1
2.0
6.8
9.0
5.9
0.1
4.0
5.3
5.5
8.0
4.4
6.7
4.1
7.4
6.8
0.4
0.8
0.1
5.2
0.3
2.0
1.1

Well No.
93
94
96
101
106
110
111
112
113
115
116
117
120
121
131
13
14
20
36
39
56
97
103

BS&W
35.0
9.5
3.4
20.0
0.7
40.0
10.0
16.0
30.0
20.0
4.0
0.3
44.0
40.0
22.0
14.0
8.0
60.0
0.0
2.0
16.0
4.0
3.0

Estimated
Water Cut
41.6
7.3
5
20
2.5
37.8
12
14.5
30.5
30.1
7.9
1.2
42.7
49.1
26.7
27
20.1
88
17
18
42.3
29.4
15

Difference
6.6
2.2
1.6
0.0
1.8
2.2
2.0
1.5
0.5
10.1
3.9
0.9
1.3
9.1
4.7
13.0
12.1
28.0
17.0
16.0
26.3
25.4
12.0

SPE 160886

Density vs. Pressure, Above Pbp

55.0
75 F

54.5

125 F
54.0

175 F

Density, lb/ft3

53.5

200 F

53.0
52.5
52.0

y = 0.0002x + 53.467

51.5

y = 0.0003x + 52.305

51.0

y = 0.0003x + 51.138

50.5

y = 0.0004x + 50.533

50.0
0

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
Pressure, psia

3000

3500

4000

4500

Density vs. Pressure, Below Pbp

60
75 F
125 F
175 F
200 F

Density, lb/ft3

50
40
30

y = -0.0012x2 + 0.5255x - 3.3809

20

y = -0.0008x2 + 0.4142x - 3.7527

y = -0.0005x2 + 0.3387x - 4.557

10

y = -0.0005x2 + 0.3426x - 6.711

0
0

50

100

150

200
250
Pressure, psia

300

350

Fig. 1: Oil density vs. pressure above bubble point (top) and below bubble point (bottom).

400

SPE 160886

Density vs. Temerature Above Pb

55

3500 psia
3000 psig
2500 psig
2000 psig
1500 psig
1000 psig
500 psig

54.5
54

Density, lb/ft3

53.5
53
52.5
52

y = -0.0198x + 55.741
y = -0.0206x + 55.714
y = -0.0214x + 55.386
y = -0.0221x + 55.362
y = -0.0227x + 55.276
y = -0.02x + 55.5
y = -0.0206x + 55.414

51.5
51
50.5
50
49.5

50

100

150
TEMP, F

200

250

Density vs. Temperature Below Pb

60
200 psig
160 psig
120 psig
80 psig
40 psig

50

Density, lb/ft3

40
30
y = -0.106x + 61.5
20

y = -0.1212x + 58.193
y = -0.1265x + 51.283

10

y = -0.1084x + 38.621
y = -0.0606x + 19.714

0
0

50

100
TEMP, F

150

200

Fig. 2: Oil density vs. temperature above bubble point (top) and below bubble point (bottom).

250

SPE 160886

Oil Viscosity vs. Pressure

7

y = 0.0005x + 4.3107
y = 0.0003x + 2.6552
y = 0.0002x + 2.2048
y = 0.0002x + 1.7118

T = 175 F
T = 200 F
T = 225 F

Viscosity, cp

T = 125 F

4
3
2
1
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
Pressuer, psig

3000

3500

4000

Fig. 3: Effects of pressure on oil viscosity.

Oil Viscosity vs. Temparture abov Pb

7
P = 1000
P = 1500

P = 2000
Viscosity, cp

P = 3000

4
3
y = -0.0325x + 8.9829
y = -0.0346x + 9.5514
y = -0.0377x + 10.386

2
1

y = -0.0318x + 8.7086
0
100

150

200
TEMP, F

Fig. 4a: Effects of temperature on oil viscosity above bubble.

250

10

SPE 160886

Oil Viscosity vs. Temperature below Pb

5
P = 150
P = 200

Viscosity, cp

P = 500
3

2
y = -0.0285x + 8.0829

y = -0.0274x + 7.7714
y = -0.0285x + 7.9829
0
100

150

200

250

TEMP, F
Fig. 5b: Effects of temperature on oil viscosity below bubble point.

Water Density vs. Temperature

73.5
73.0

Desnsity, lb/ft3

72.5
72.0
71.5
y=6E05x2 0.001x+73.327
71.0
70.5
70.0
0

50

100

150
TEMP, F

Fig. 6: Water density vs. temperature.

200

250

SPE 160886

11

Water Viscosity vs. Pressure

0.68
T = 160 F
0.64

T = 180F
T = 200 F

Viscosity, cp

0.6
0.56
0.52
0.48
y = 6E-06x + 0.5809
y = 4E-06x + 0.505
y = 4E-06x + 0.4382

0.44
0.4
0

3000

6000
9000
Pressure, psig

12000

15000

Fig. 7: Effects of pressure on water viscosity.

Water Viscosity vs. Temperature

0.65
P = 1160 psig
P = 2900 psig
P = 4930 psig
P = 7250 psig
Linear (P = 7250 psig)

Viscosity, cp

0.60

0.55

0.50
y = -0.0039x + 1.2413
0.45

y = -0.0038x + 1.214
y = -0.0037x + 1.1793
y = -0.0038x + 1.204

0.40
160.0

165.0

170.0

175.0

180.0
TEMP, F

185.0

190.0

Fig. 8: Effects of temperature on water viscosity.

195.0

200.0

12

SPE 160886

50
Number of wells = 39

45
40
Estimated WC

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10

15

20

25
BS&W

30

35

40

45

50

Fig. 9: Wells showing good agreement between estimated and measured water cuts.

100
Number of wells = 8

90
80
Estimated WC

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50
BS&W

60

70

80

90

Fig. 10: Wells showing bad agreement between estimated and measured water cuts.

100