A New Model for Predicting Gas-Well
Liquid Loading
Desheng Zhou, SPE, Xian Petroleum University, and Hong Yuan, SPE, IHS
Summary
Liquid loading is a common issue for gas producers. Better predic-
tions of liquid loading will help operators in reducing costs (fewer
shutdowns) and improving revenue (greater production).
The Turner et al. (1969) entrained-droplet model—herein referred
to as Turner’s model—is the most popular one in predicting liquid
loading in gas wells. However, there were still quite a few wells
that could not be covered even after a 20% upward adjustment
(Turner et al. 1969). Field practice also proves that the adjusted
model still underestimates liquid loading sometimes. By studying
the droplet model and liquid-film mechanisms, this paper presents
a new empirical model.
Previous models for liquid loading are independent of the liquid
amount in a gas stream. When gas velocity is higher than calculated
critical velocity, no liquid loading exists. This paper points out that,
in addition to gas velocity, liquid amount (liquid holdup) in a gas
stream is also a major factor for liquid loading. There is a threshold
value for liquid amount in a gas/liquid mixture. Above this value,
liquid loading may appear even when the gas velocity of a well
is higher than the critical velocity from Turner’s droplet model.
The presented model is the first model to include the amount of
liquids in the calculation of gas critical velocity. According to the
new model, critical gas velocity is not a single value; it varies
with the liquid holdup in the gas well once the holdup exceeds
the threshold value.
Well data from Turner et al. (1969) were employed in the paper
for evaluating the new model’s parameters. Data from Coleman
et al. (1991) were also used for the validation of the new model.
The prediction results from the new model are better than those
from Turner’s model and are even better than Turner’s adjusted
model in matching the Turner et al. (1969). The new model is
consistent with the Coleman et al. (1991) data and conclusion.
The new model is simple and can be used easily to predict
liquid loading in gas wells.
Introduction
Liquid loading is one of the most serious problems in gas-well
production. During gas production, some liquids may not be car-
ried out by the gas stream, but accumulate at the well bottom.
The process of liquid accumulation in a gas well is called liquid
loading. As liquids accumulate at the well bottom, the flowing
bottomhole pressure will increase, and increased water saturation
around a wellbore will reduce the effective gas permeability near
the wellbore, therefore reducing gas-production rate. Decreased
gas-production rate deteriorates the loading problem, and eventu-
ally the loaded liquids will kill the gas well.
Liquid loading is usually observed in the late life of a gas well
as reservoir pressure depletes and controls the well abandonment.
For high-liquid/gas-ratio wells, such as in tight gas formations,
liquid loading may occur in early production life from poor well
planning and completion.
Liquids in gas wells are usually condensates and water that
may be produced directly into the wellbore or condensed from gas
vapor, especially in the upper portion of the tubing.
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 120580) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Production and
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 4–8 April 2009, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 26 January 2009. Revised manuscript
received for review 2 December 2009. Paper peer approved 23 December 2009.
172
The controlling factor to inhibit liquid buildup in a gas well is
the gas velocity (gas-flow rate) in the well. It is believed (Turner
et al. 1969; Lea et al. 2003) that there is a critical velocity (or criti-
cal gas rate) below which a static liquid column will develop in the
well. To keep a well producing without liquid-loading problems,
gas-flow velocity must be maintained above the critical velocity.
The most popular model for calculating the critical velocity was
presented by Turner et al. (1969).
Turner et al. presented a film-movement model and an entrained-
droplet model to predict the liquid-loading condition. On the basis
of field data, they concluded that the film-movement model did
not represent the loading condition. The entrained-droplet model
was based on the force balance of a liquid droplet entrained in a
high-velocity gas stream.
The liquid-loading phenomenon can also be explained from
two-phase-flow pattern. The transition of a producing gas well to a
liquid-loaded well is accompanied by the transition from an annu-
lar-flow regime to the regime of slug or churn flow. Flow regime
refers to the geometrical configuration of gas and liquid phases.
As described by Lea et al. (2003), several flow regimes—annu-
lar-mist flow, slug/annular-transition flow, slug flow, and bubble
flow—may appear in a gas well through its life cycle. The most
widely used flow pattern in flow-regime prediction was developed
by Taitel et al. (1980). It is believed that a gas well should be
maintained in annular-flow regime to remove liquids from the well
(Ansari et al. 1994; Taitel et al. 1980; Lea et al. 2003). According
to the Taitel et al. flow pattern, the gas superficial velocity should
be greater than the slug/annular-transition boundary to maintain
annular flow.
The boundary for annular and slug flow derived by Taitel et al.
(1980) is the same as the entrained-droplet model given by Turner
et al. (1969). In fact, the former followed Turner’s entrained-drop-
let model in the construction of their annular-flow boundary. The
only difference is that Turner’s entrained-droplet model is in field
units and Taitel’s boundary is in SI units. The entrained-droplet
model, or annular-flow-boundary model, is independent of the
liquid amount in a gas stream. That means a well will not have a
liquid-loading problem as long as its gas velocity is higher than
the critical velocity or the annular transition boundary, no matter
what the amount of liquid is in the gas stream.
For annular flow or above critical-velocity flow, physically, as
stated by Turner et al. (1969), liquids accumulate on the walls of
a conduit as a liquid film because of the impingement of entrained
liquid drops and the condensation of vapors. Gas flows in the
middle of the conduit like a gas core. Liquids also exist in the gas
core as entrained droplets. The liquid film moves upward along the
walls, and the gas core moves much faster. Wallis (1969) presented
a model to estimate the liquid entrainment in the gas core. As the
gas velocity increases, the liquid-film thickness decreases, and for
a very high gas velocity, the film thickness approaches zero and
all liquids are entrained in the gas stream.
Barnea (1987) studied the effect of liquid film on annular flow
and modified the transition boundary between slug and annular
flows. Two mechanisms were proposed for the transition from
annular to slug flow because of the liquid-film effect: liquid-film
bridging and liquid-film instability. A thick liquid film might
bridge the gas core, be instable and flow partially downward.
To determine Barnea’s modified transition boundary, liquid-film
thickness should be calculated first, which requires complex equa-
tions and computer programs. For liquid-film bridging, the liquid-
film holdup should be greater than 0.12, according to Barnea. This
May 2010 SPE Production & Operations
modified transition model finds its application in oil wells. Ansari
et al. (1994) used it in pressure-drop calculation of oil wells.
It was noticed in the gas-production industry that liquid holdup
should have some effect on the liquid-loading phenomenon. Kumar
(2005) pointed out that Turner’s model is not a function of the
amount of liquids flowing. For larger flow rates of liquids, liquid
droplets would begin to coalesce and the droplet model for most
critical-velocity expressions would no longer be applicable.
This paper presents a model including the effect of liquid
amount on critical-gas-velocity calculation. Test-well data from
Turner et al. (1969) and Coleman et al. (1991) were employed to
validate the presented new model.
Turner’s Model
The most popular model for the prediction of critical velocity for
liquid loading in gas wells is the entrained-droplet model presented
by Turner at al. (1969). Turner’s model is
1/ 4
o(p  p )
 1.593 
g 
vcrit T
l
, ................................................ (1)
p 1/g 2
where vcrit-T , ft/sec, is the critical velocity from Turner’s model; o,
dynes/cm, is interfacial tension; pl , lbm/ft3, is liquid density; and
pg , lbm/ft3, is gas density.
Once a critical velocity is available, its corresponding critical
rate can be calculated as
3060 pvcrit T A
qcrit T  , .......................................................... (2)
Tz
where q is the critical rate from Turner’s model, Mscf/D; p is
crit-T
in-situ pressure, psia; A is the flow area of a conduit, ft2; and T is
in-situ temperature, °R.
Turner et al. (1969) found that the entrained-droplet model
still underestimated the critical rates of their wells. They adjusted
20% upward from the droplet model and found that with the 20%
adjustment, the model covered most of their well situations. The
value 20% was arrived at by matching their well data. Turner et
al. attributed the discrepancy of using the droplet model to the use
of drag coefficients for solid spheres, the assumption of stagnation
velocity, and Weber’s number in air.
With the 20% adjustment, the critical velocity and critical rate
from the entrained-droplet model are, respectively,
vcrit T 20%  1.2vcrit T
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
qcrit T 20%  1.2qcrit T
where vcrit-T20% and qcrit-T20% are the adjusted critical velocity and
critical rate in ft/sec and Mscf/D, respectively. They are Turner’s
model with 20% upward adjustment and are called Turner’s
adjusted model here. The entrained-droplet model (Eq. 1) is called
Turner’s model here. Instead of using the droplet model (Eq. 1),
Turner et al. suggested using the adjusted model (Eq. 3).
Coleman et al. (1991) applied the entrained-droplet model to
their well data, and obtained a satisfactory match. However, they
found that Turner’s adjusted model did not match their field data.
They reported that no upward adjustment was necessary in the
calculation of gas critical velocity for lower wellhead pressure.
They also concluded that factors such as gas gravity, interfacial
tension, and temperature had little effect on the accuracy of criti-
cal-rate calculations, whereas the wellbore diameter and pressure
had significant effects on critical-velocity calculation. Coleman
et al.’s nonadjustment suggestion is widely accepted in gas industry
for gas wells whose wellhead pressures are less than 500 psia.
Turner et al. (1969) concluded that wellhead conditions were
the control factors for liquid loading and suggested evaluating the
critical velocity at the wellhead. The major advantage of using
wellhead conditions is to simplify calculations to obtain the pres-
sures and temperatures along tubings. However, it was pointed out
that the controlling condition for Turner’s model is at bottomhole,
May 2010 SPE Production & Operations
and the evaluation of critical velocity should be made at bottom
conditions, especially when there is a larger-diameter segment
above well perforation (Coleman et al. 1991; Lea et al. 2003).
When two liquids are present in a gas well, the heavier liquid,
typically water, determines liquid loading. Both Turner et al.
(1969) and Coleman et al. (1991) suggested using water properties
to calculate the critical velocity when both water and condensate
exist in a gas stream. For the effect of liquid amount, both authors
stated that the amount of liquid did not affect the critical velocity
in their data ranges.
Turner et al. (1969) presented data from 106 wells in their
paper. In the 106 wells, 16 wells were marked as questionable by
themselves. Therefore, the 90 remaining wells are meaningful in
evaluating liquid-loading prediction. Table 1 lists the 90 wells and
their corresponding data.
In Table 1, Column 5 lists the critical rates from Turner’s
adjusted model. The values were calculated from Column 4 by
using Eq. 3.
Columns 7 and 8 are the predicted results from Turner’s model
and Turner’s adjusted model, respectively. If a prediction from a
model is correct, a “T” is marked. If a model’s prediction is incor-
rect, an “F” is marked.
The truth or falsehood of a prediction is concluded from the
comparison of a model result to a test status. If a model determines
a well to be unloaded and the test status is unloaded, then the
prediction is true. If a model determines a well to be unloaded and
the test status is loaded up or near loaded up, the prediction from
the model is false and an “F” is marked.
A model result comes from comparing the critical rate (qcrit) from
a model with a test rate (qt). If the test rate is greater than the critical
rate, the well is unloaded. Otherwise, the well is loaded up.
For instance, for Well 10 in Table 1, the test rate qtest  1,814
Mscf/D, the result from Turner’s model qcrit-T  1,635 Mscf/D, and
the result from Turner’s adjusted model qcrit-T20%  1,962 Mscf/D.
Because qtest  qcrit-T, the well is unloading from Turner’s model.
But the test status was loaded up, so the prediction by Turner’s
model for the well is false and an “F” is marked on Column 7.
Because qtest  qcrit-T20%, Turner’s adjusted model considers the well
loaded up, which is the same as that in the test-status column. The
prediction by Turner’s adjusted model for the well is correct and a
“T” is marked in Column 8.
As shown in Column 7 in Table 1, there are 24 wells that could
not be predicted by Turner’s model. For unloading prediction, only
one well is incorrect: Well 75. The test rate of the well is 3,024
Mscf/D, and Turner’s model gave 5,098 Mscf/D. Because the test
rate is less than the critical rate from Turner’s model, the well should
be loaded up. However, the well was reported as unloaded. For the
incorrect predictions of Turner’s model, another 23 wells are loaded
wells. Turner’s model is more accurate in predicting unloading.
Fig. 1 shows the 24 incorrectly predicted wells. The horizontal
axis is the calculated rates from Turner’s model, and the vertical
axis represents the test flow rates. The diagonal line represents the
same rates from Turner’s model and test rates. Although all points
are incorrectly predicted wells in Fig. 1, the closer a point is to the
diagonal line, the smaller the prediction error from the model.
For Turner’s adjusted model, there are still 13 incorrectly pre-
dicted wells, as shown in Column 8 of Table 1. Of the 13 wells,
two wells (Well 29 and Well 75) are unloading wells. Fig. 1 shows
the 13 incorrectly predicted wells from Turner’s adjusted model.
New Model
Two mechanisms have been proposed for predicting liquid load-
ing in gas wells: entrained-liquid-droplet model and liquid-film
model. As concluded by Turner et al. (1969), the liquid-droplet
model represents the liquid-loading problem, but the liquid-film model
does not.
As shown in Fig. 2, Turner’s liquid-droplet model is based on
the force balance on a single liquid droplet. Three forces act on
the single liquid droplet: upward drag force, FD; upward buoyant
force, FB; and downward gravity force, FG. The droplet will speed
up in the upward direction if the upward forces (FD  FB) are greater
than the downward force, FG , and it will accelerate downward if the
173
 TABLE 1—TURNER ET AL. (1969) DATA AND PREDICTION RESULTS
Turner’s Turner’s Adj. Prediction New Model,
Wellhead Test Model, Model, qcrit-T20% by Prediction by qcrit-N Prediction
Well Pressure Rate, qt qcrit-T (Mscf/D) Turner’s Turner’s Adj. (Mscf/D) by New
No. (psi) (Mscf/D) (Mscf/D) [Eq. 3] Test Status Model Model [Eq. 5] Model

1 725 775 779 935 Near L.U. T T 779 T

2 400 417 583 700 Near L.U. T T 583 T
3 108 568 306 367 Near L.U. F F 306 F
4 540 712 661 793 Near L.U. F T 661 F
5 450 442 419 503 Near L.U. F T 419 F
6 3607 1525 1156 1387 Loaded up F F 2162 T
7 3434 2926 1150 1380 Unloaded T T 2088 T
8 3660 3726 1142 1370 Unloaded T T 2162 T
9 3340 2611 2412 2894 Loaded up F T 5535 T
10 3540 1814 1635 1962 Loaded up F T 3789 T
11 3525 1792 1108 1330 Loaded up F F 2515 T
12 3472 2572 1085 1302 Unloaded T T 2465 T
13 3338 2261 1623 1948 Loaded up F F 3642 T
14 3092 3351 1574 1889 Unloaded T T 3405 F
15 3455 2769 1082 1298 Unloaded T T 2444 T
16 3665 2542 1660 1992 Loaded up F F 3594 T
17 2615 2890 1648 1978 Unloaded T T 2875 T
18 3212 2547 1604 1925 Loaded up F F 3101 T
19 3025 3517 1569 1883 Unloaded T T 2946 T
20 8215 3472 1956 2347 Loaded up F F 4747 T
21 7405 6946 1930 2316 Unloaded T T 4305 T
22 226 1959 910 1092 Unloaded T T 910 T
23 2182 5501 3767 4520 Loaded up F F 3767 F
24 2169 7504 3747 4496 Unloaded T T 3747 T
25 1590 3009 3281 3937 Loaded up T T 3281 T
26 1520 4150 3195 3834 Unloaded T T 3195 T
27 1245 4441 4920 5904 Loaded up T T 4920 T
28 1184 4843 4193 5032 Loaded up F T 4193 F
29 1117 5513 4649 5579 Unloaded T F 4649 T
30 1958 8185 5931 7117 Loaded up F F 8198 T
31 1913 9897 5857 7028 Unloaded T T 8031 T
32 2040 6702 6082 7298 Loaded up F T 9000 T
33 1953 9289 5957 7148 Unloaded T T 8672 T
34 2284 7109 5590 6708 Loaded up F F 7237 T
35 2256 9747 5535 6642 Unloaded T T 7139 T
36 2352 6361 5641 6769 Loaded up F T 5641 F
37 2223 9860 5485 6582 Unloaded T T 5485 T
38 2003 11767 5212 6254 Unloaded T T 5212 T
39 2042 4124 3631 4357 Loaded up F T 5183 T
40 1600 6423 3199 3839 Unloaded T T 4198 T
41 1835 8672 1239 1487 Unloaded T T 1536 T
42 2421 6654 1407 1688 Unloaded T T 1881 T
43 2705 5136 1467 1760 Unloaded T T 2034 T
44 2894 3917 1502 1802 Unloaded T T 2132 T
45 5056 3376 1770 2124 Unloaded T T 2493 T
46 4931 4830 1732 2078 Unloaded T T 2421 T

upward forces are smaller than the downward force. The balance
of the forces (FD  FB  FG) yields the droplet model (Eq. 1), at
which the droplet will keep its velocity, and gives the critical gas
velocity to sustain the droplet. According to the model, a liquid
droplet will be carried out by a gas stream if the stream flows faster
than the critical gas velocity.
Turner’s model is based on the force balance on a single liquid
droplet, but what if there is more than one droplet in the gas stream?
As shown in Fig. 2b, there are two droplets (A and B) in a gas stream
(assuming all the gas streams in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 satisfy its critical
gas velocity). For a laminar gas stream, the two droplets may move
in the same direction in the well and will flow out of the well. For
gas wells, gas velocity is usually very high and the flow is turbu-
lent (Nosseir et al. 2000). In a turbulent gas stream, liquid droplets
move not only upward with the gas stream, but also in all directions
irregularly. The nearby liquid droplets may encounter each other

174 May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

 Liquid FD
8000 Turner’s basic model
droplet
Turner’s adjusted model FB
Test Rate, Mscf/D 6000 A B

FG

4000 Liquid
film

2000

0
0 2000 4000
Turner’s Model Rate, Mscf/D
Fig. 1—Incorrectly predicted wells by Turner’s model.
and coalesce into a bigger droplet. As illustrated in Fig. 2b, liquid
droplet A and droplet B move in different ways and may encounter
and coalesce into a bigger droplet AB at the top of the well.
The newly formed droplet (droplet AB in Fig. 3a) may fall
down in the gas stream because its bigger size needs higher gas
velocity to suspend it.
During falling, the newly formed bigger droplet may shatter
into small droplets (droplet AB shatters into droplets 1, 2, and 3
in Fig. 3a) by velocity pressure (Turner et al. 1969), and the small
droplets may be picked up again by the drag forces from the gas
stream. If there are other droplets in the upstream (droplets C, D,
E, and F in Fig. 3a), the bigger droplet or its shattered droplets
may encounter other droplets during their falling and the encoun-
tered droplets may coalesce and keep falling. As shown in Fig.
3a, droplet AB may encounter droplet C and coalesce into a new
droplet ABC before droplet AB shatters, or its shattered droplet 3
may encounter upstream droplet D. Because only a few droplets
are in the well, the droplets will be carried out finally.
As shown in Fig. 3b, if there are more liquid droplets in the
gas stream, the chance of the process of liquid-droplet encounter-
ing, coalescing, falling, and shattering increases. As the number
of liquid droplets in a gas stream, called liquid-droplet concentra-
tion here, increases to a threshold value þ, the process of droplets
encountering, coalescing, falling, and shattering will continue and
bring those liquid droplets down to the well bottom.
Liquid holdup can be used to represent the liquid droplet con-
centration in a gas well. Liquid holdup is defined as
6000 8000
B
Turbulent A
gas
(a) (b)
Fig. 2—Encountering two liquid droplets in turbulent gas
stream.
where Hl is liquid holdup and vsl and vsg are superficial liquid and
gas velocities, respectively.
Liquid-droplet concentration is the control factor in droplet
encounters. The higher the concentration of liquid droplets in a
turbulent gas stream, the greater the chance that the droplets will
combine and fall.
The concentration of liquid droplets in a gas stream may be the
third mechanism contributing to liquid loading, in addition to the
liquid-film mechanism and Turner’s liquid-droplet mechanism.
Turner’s entrained-liquid-droplet model is based on the force
balance on a single droplet and does not include the encounter
effect. For low liquid-droplet concentration, the chance of encoun-
ters is low and Turner’s model works well. However, when the
liquid concentration reaches a certain value, the encounter coalesc-
ing falling process of liquid droplets in a gas stream will dominate
the entrained-liquid-droplet movement, and hence Turner’s single
liquid-droplet model losses its function, even with gas-stream
flows faster than critical velocity.
In addition to the liquid-droplet concentration, flowing conduit
length is also a major factor. The longer the mixture of gas and
liquid droplets travels, the higher the chance of liquid-droplet
encounters. In petroleum engineering, well depth is considered
long enough for entrained-liquid-droplet encounters.

vsl Critical Velocities for a Gas Well. As discussed previously, there

Hl  , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
vsg  vsl is a threshold value of liquid-droplet concentration, þ. Below it,
the entrained-liquid droplets do not encounter, or they do encounter
coalesce fall shatter, but still are brought out of the well by the gas
stream before they accumulate at bottomhole. Turner’s model can
be used in this situation.
AB AB Above the threshold concentration value, higher gas velocity is
needed because higher gas velocity provides higher drag force
and can bring bigger droplets upward. Also, higher gas velocity
has higher velocity pressure that prevents bigger-liquid-droplet
formation and shatters bigger droplets faster. Therefore, the critical
velocity for liquid loading is not a single value. It varies with the
liquid-droplet concentration in a gas stream once the concentration
exceeds the threshold value, þ .
According to the liquid-droplet-concentration mechanism, we
propose an empirical correlation to estimate the critical velocities
for gas-well liquid loading as

  l g 1/ 4
o(p  p )1.593 1/ 2
vcrit  N  vcrit T pg for Hl  þ
(a) (b)
, . . . . . . . (5)
H
Fig. 3—Liquid loading when liquid-droplet number reaches a vcrit  N  vcrit T  ln l  a for Hl  þ
threshold value. þ

May 2010 SPE Production & Operations 175

 TABLE 2—APPLICATION OF NEW MODEL ON TURNER ET AL. (1969) DATA

2
A (ft ) vsqwh vcrit-T vslwh vcrit-N qcrit-N
Well qtest qcrit-T yc+yw Bqwh [Eq.A-3, (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) HI (ft/sec) (Mscf/D)
No. p (psi) (Mscf/D) (Mscf/D) (bbl/MMscf) [Eq.A-2] Eq.A-4] [Eq.A-5] [Eq.A-6] [Eq.A-9] [Eq.A-10] [Eq.A-11] [Eq.A-12]

1 725 775 779 6 0.0200 0.0325 5.5122 5.5407 0.0093 0.0017 5.5407 779
2 400 417 583 18 0.0356 0.0217 7.9201 11.0730 0.0225 0.0028 11.0730 583
3 108 568 306 22 0.1204 0.0325 24.3548 13.1207 0.0250 0.0010 13.1207 306
4 540 712 661 21 0.0266 0.0217 10.1100 9.3859 0.0448 0.0044 9.3859 661
5 450 442 419 11.3 0.0318 0.0217 7.4917 7.1019 0.0150 0.0020 7.1019 419
86 500 400 2184 14 0.0287 0.1042 1.2755 6.9643 0.0035 0.0027 6.9643 2184
87 500 800 1726 5 0.0287 0.0588 4.5208 9.7535 0.0044 0.0010 9.7535 1726
88 660 4300 6367 3.5 0.0219 0.1841 5.9201 8.7659 0.0053 0.0009 8.7659 6367
89 280 500 2083 28 0.0501 0.1042 2.7847 11.6009 0.0087 0.0031 11.6009 2083
90 210 470 3248 24 0.0657 0.1841 1.9430 13.4272 0.0040 0.0020 13.4272 3248

where vcrit-N is the critical velocity from the new model in ft/sec, Hl
is liquid holdup that reflects the liquid-droplet concentration, þ is
the threshold value of liquid-droplet concentration for petroleum
production wells, and a is a fitting constant. a  0.6 and þ  0.01
were estimated from the Turner et al. (1969) data. The maximum
liquid holdup is 0.24. When liquid holdup becomes higher than
0.24, the two-phase flow changes to slug- or churn-flow pattern
(Barnea 1987).
The new model is composed of two parts. When liquid holdup
is less than or equal to the threshold value, þ, the critical-velocity
model is the same as Turner’s model. When liquid holdup is greater
than the threshold value, þ, the critical velocity varies with the
liquid holdup and can be calculated from the new model.
The critical-rate correlation for the new model is the same as
that by Turner et al. (1969), as shown in Eq. 2.
3060 pv A Turner’s adjusted model has 11 incorrectly predicted wells.
qcrit  N crit N (6)
Tz
Application of Turner et al. Data. Table 2 shows the application
of the new model to the well data from Turner et al. (1969). Only
the first and last five wells are listed here. Appendix A gives the
equations for the calculations in the table.
The first four columns in Table 2 are the data from Turner et al.
(1969). Column 5 lists liquid yields that are the sum of condensate
yields and water yields from the Turner et al. data. All the other
columns were calculated from the first five data columns, and their
equations are given in Appendix A.
The far-right column is the calculated critical rates from the
new model. For comparison, it was copied into Table 1 as the
ninth column.
As shown in the far-right column in Table 1, there are 12 incor-
rectly predicted wells from the new model. The results are better
than Turner’s model (24 unpredicted wells) and Turner’s adjusted
model (13 unpredicted wells). Among the 12 unpredicted wells,
three wells were tested as unloaded. They are Well 14, Well 49,
and Well 75. Fig. 4 shows the 12 incorrectly predicted wells from
the new model.
Fig. 5 is a combination of Fig. 1 and Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 5,
from the new model, five wells are almost on the diagonal line of
the graph, which means that although the five wells are incorrectly
predicted mathematically, the differences are very small between
the calculated critical rates from the new model and the test results.
The five wells are almost predicted by the new model. For Turner’s
adjusted model, only two wells are almost predicted. If we take
away the almost-predicted wells from the incorrectly predicted
wells, the new model has seven incorrectly predicted wells, but
Application of Coleman et al. (1991) Data. Coleman et al.
evaluated Turner’s model and Turner’s adjusted model with their
56-well data. They found that Turner’s model matched their data
pretty well, but Turner’s adjusted model did not work. They con-
cluded that, instead of using Turner’s adjusted model as suggested
by Turner et al., Turner’s model should be used directly for low
wellhead pressure wells.
Table 3 shows the application of the new model to the Coleman
et al. data. All the wells have a tubing inside diameter (ID) of 2.441
in. in the Coleman’s data. From Eq. A-3, the cross-sectional areas
of all the wells are A  0.032498 ft2. Again, only the first and last
five wells are listed in Table 3.
The first five columns in Table 3 are data from Coleman et al.
All the other columns are calculated values from the equations in

8000 Model α=0.6, β=0.01 8000 Turner’s model

Turner’s adjusted model
Model α=0, β=0.01
Test Rate, Mscf/D
Test Rate, Mscf/D

New model (α=0.6)

6000 6000 New model (α=0)

4000 4000

2000 2000

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
New Model Rate, Mscf/D Model Rate, Mscf/D

Fig. 4—Incorrectly predicted wells by the new model. Fig. 5—Comparison between new model and Turner’s models.

176 May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

 TABLE 3—APPLICATION OF NEW MODEL ON COLEMAN ET AL. (1991) DATA
qtest yc yw yc+yw vsqwh (ft/sec) vslwh (ft/sec) HI
Well No. p (psia) (Mscf/D) (bbl/MMscf) (bbl/MMscf) (bbl/MMscf) Bqwh [Eq.A-2] [Eq.A-5] [Eq.A-9] [Eq.A-10]

1 275 726 0.1 1.9 2 0.0537 13.8894 0.00290 0.00021

2 205 660 2.9 0 2.9 0.0721 16.9383 0.00383 0.00023
3 212 585 5.7 3.9 9.6 0.0697 14.5178 0.01123 0.00077
4 150 468 5.7 3.9 9.6 0.0985 16.4148 0.00898 0.00055
5 185 573 3.5 7.1 10.6 0.0799 16.2953 0.01215 0.00074
52 235 781 4.5 0 4.5 0.0629 17.4849 0.00703 0.00040
53 225 755 4.5 0 4.5 0.0657 17.6541 0.00679 0.00038
54 165 620 5.3 1 6.3 0.0895 19.7692 0.00781 0.00039
55 49 430 1.1 3.8 4.9 0.3015 46.1693 0.00421 0.00009
56 59 397 6.5 8.6 15.1 0.2504 35.4013 0.01199 0.00034

Appendix A. The last column presents the calculated liquid holdup with pressure and temperature. However, for a constant produc-
(Hl ) at the wellhead. ing gas rate (qg), producing gas velocity (vg) depends on flowing
Fig. 6 gives the calculated liquid holdup for each well. As conduit area, vg  qgTz /(3,060pA). The larger the flowing conduit
shown in Fig. 6, all the liquid-holdup values are less than the area, the smaller the gas flowing velocity is.
threshold þ value (0.01) in Eq. 5. From Eq. 5, the new model is The areal effect is useful in gas-well design. For a desired
the same as Turner’s model when Hl  0.01. Therefore, the new producing gas rate, one may increase producing gas velocity to
model matches the Coleman et al. data and gives the same conclu- satisfy unloading-condition (Eq. 7) by choosing smaller tubing.
sion using Turner’s model, not Turner’s adjusted model, as that of For tubing production, the producing gas velocity varies inversely
Coleman et al. Therefore, the new model is an improvement over with the square of tubing diameter. For a well with varying flowing
Turner’s adjusted model for Coleman’s 56 wells. area, the unloading condition should be evaluated at the place of
the largest flowing area.
Discussion For a constant flowing area, such as tubing sets at the perfora-
As mentioned previously, for the liquid-droplet model (Eq. 1 or the tion, from wellhead to bottomhole both vg and vcrit decrease with the
first part of Eq. 5), Turner et al. (1969) suggested using the model at increase of pressure and temperature. The question is, which velocity
the wellhead. Coleman et al. (1991) supported that point of view, but reduces faster to determine the evaluating place (wellhead or bot-
suggested applying the model at the largest-diameter segment if there tomhole)? The comparison associates calculations of surface tension,
is more than one flowing area, such as when the tubing bottom is set densities, pressures, and temperatures along the tubing. Numeric cal-
significantly above perforation. Lea et al. (2003) pointed out that the culations for a gas well in Table 4 are given here for illustration.
wellbore bottom is the controlling place for liquid loading. What fol- In Well A (Table 4), gas flows up inside the casing (ID of 4.78
lows is a discussion of the application range of the new model. in.), first from the perforation depth of 8,467 ft to the tubing bottom
of 8,410 ft, and then flows up the tubing (ID of 2.441 in.) from
Turner’s Model (the First Part of the New Model). The first part the tubing bottom to the wellhead. Two flowing areas are used to
of the new model (Eq. 5) is the same as Turner’s liquid-droplet study the effect of conduit sizes.
model (Eq. 1). The discussion is a summary of where Turner’s Table 5 shows the calculated results of a popular commercial
droplet model should be evaluated—wellhead or bottomhole? software package. The critical velocity (vcrit-T) and critical flow rate
Liquid-unloading condition is where producing gas velocity, vg, (qcrit-T) are based on water properties because water is heavier than
is higher than critical velocity, vcrit, as the condensates in the well. Fig. 7 plots the calculated producing
gas velocities and critical velocities.
vg  vcrit .............................................................................................................................................. (7) At the wellhead, producing gas velocity vg  8.304 ft/sec and
critical velocity vcrit-T  7.876 ft/sec. Because vg  vcrit-T, there is no
Liquid-loading condition is vg  vcrit. liquid-loading problem if evaluated at the wellhead. However, as
For Turner’s droplet model, as shown in Eq. 1 or the first part shown in Table 5 or Fig. 7, both velocities reduce to 7.152 ft/sec
of Eq. 5, the liquid-droplet model is independent of flow area and
is a function of interfacial tension liquid and gas densities that vary
TABLE 4—WELL A CONDITIONS
0.012 Production rate 1659.5 Mscf/D
Perforation depth 8467 ft
0.01
Tubing depth 8410 ft
Threshold value β=0.01
Liquid Holdup

0.008 Tubing ID 2.441 in

Casing ID 4.780 in
0.006 Wellhead flowing pressure 1000 psig
Wellhead temperature 110°F
0.004 Bottomhole temperature 166°F
Gas gravity 0.65
0.002
Water gravity 1.07
0 Condensate gravity 48 API
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Water rate 10 bbl/MMscf
Wells Condensate rate 10 bbl/MMscf
Fig. 6—Application of new model on Coleman et al. (1991) data. Correlation Gray (1974)

May 2010 SPE Production & Operations 177

 TABLE 5—FLOWING PROPERTIES FOR WELL A
Gas
Depth Diameter Pressure Temperature velocity vcrit-T qcrit-T No-Slip
(ft) (in.) (psig) (°F) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (Mscf/D) Holdup

0 2.441 1000 110 8.304 7.876 1573.94 0.009

254 2.441 1011 111.68 8.272 7.854 1576.58 0.009
510 2.441 1022.1 113.37 8.21 7.817 1581.02 0.009
770 2.441 1033.4 115.09 8.148 7.78 1585.45 0.009
1032 2.441 1044.9 116.82 8.087 7.743 1589.89 0.009
1297 2.441 1056.6 118.58 8.026 7.706 1594.33 0.009
1565 2.441 1068.5 120.35 7.965 7.669 1598.77 0.009
1835 2.441 1080.6 122.14 7.905 7.632 1603.21 0.009
2109 2.441 1092.8 123.95 7.845 7.595 1607.65 0.009
2386 2.441 1105.3 125.78 7.785 7.558 1612.09 0.009
2666 2.441 1118 127.64 7.726 7.522 1616.53 0.009
2950 2.441 1130.9 129.51 7.667 7.485 1620.96 0.01
3236 2.441 1144 131.4 7.609 7.448 1625.39 0.01
3526 2.441 1157.3 133.32 7.55 7.411 1629.82 0.01
3819 2.441 1170.9 135.26 7.492 7.374 1634.24 0.01
4115 2.441 1184.7 137.22 7.435 7.337 1638.65 0.01
4415 2.441 1198.7 139.2 7.378 7.3 1643.05 0.01
4719 2.441 1213 141.21 7.321 7.263 1647.45 0.01
5026 2.441 1227.5 143.24 7.264 7.226 1651.83 0.01
5336 2.441 1242.3 145.29 7.208 7.189 1656.21 0.01
5651 2.441 1257.3 147.37 7.152 7.152 1660.57 0.01
5969 2.441 1272.6 149.48 7.096 7.115 1664.92 0.01
6291 2.441 1288.2 151.61 7.041 7.079 1669.25 0.011
6616 2.441 1304 153.76 6.986 7.042 1673.57 0.011
6946 2.441 1320.2 155.94 6.932 7.005 1677.87 0.011
7280 2.441 1336.6 158.15 6.878 6.968 1682.15 0.011
7618 2.441 1353.3 160.38 6.824 6.93 1686.4 0.011
7960 2.441 1370.3 162.65 6.77 6.893 1690.64 0.011
8306 2.441 1387.7 164.94 6.717 6.856 1694.85 0.011
8410 2.441 1392.9 165.62 6.701 6.845 1696.11 0.011
8460 4.78 1396.2 165.95 1.745 6.838 6507.99 0.011
8467 4.78 1396.7 166 1.744 6.837 6508.56 0.011

at the depth of 5,651 ft. From the depth of 5,651 ft to the tubing tions and temperature gradients may change the relative trend of the
bottom at 8,410 ft, vg  vcrit-T and liquid loading appears. Therefore, two curves. If evaluating unloading at the wellhead is acceptable
a well may be loaded up downhole even though the producing-gas for simplification, a larger downhole flowing section should not
velocity satisfies the unloading condition at the wellhead and in be ignored during unloading evaluation.
the same tubing set down to perforation.
As shown in Fig. 7, both producing gas velocity and critical
velocity decrease with depth. And producing gas velocity decreases Gas Velocity, ft/sec
faster than the critical velocity does. Therefore, if vg  vcrit-T at tub- 0 2 4 6 8 10
ing bottom, all the producing gas velocities above should be greater 0
than corresponding critical velocities. Bottomhole is the controling
location for unloading evaluation. 1000
The example also shows the effect of flowing area on produc- 2000 Producing velocity
ing gas velocity and critical velocity. As shown in Table 5 and Turner’s critical velocity
Fig. 7, the critical velocity decreases to 6.838 ft/sec at the depth 3000
of 8,460 ft and to 6.837 ft/sec at the bottomhole of 8,467 ft from
Depth, ft

6.845 ft/sec at the tubing bottom at 8,410 ft. The flowing diameter 4000
changes from 2.441 in. at the tubing bottom to 4.78 in. in the sec-
5000
tion-tubing bottom to wellbore bottomhole. The flowing area does
not have effect on the critical velocity. 6000
However, the flowing area has a significant effect on the
producing gas velocity as shown by the lowest points in Fig. 7. 7000
The producing gas velocity decreases from 6.701 ft/sec at tubing
8000
bottom of 8,410 ft to 1.745 ft/sec and 1.744 ft/sec at the depths of
8,460 ft and 8,467 ft, respectively. 9000
The producing gas velocity curve and the critical-velocity curve
in Fig. 7 need complex numeric calculations, and different correla- Fig. 7—Effect of depth and flowing area on liquid loading.

178 May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

Concentration Model (the Second Part of the New Model). The
parameters a  0.6 and þ  0.01 in the concentration model give
an adequate estimation to the Turner et al. and Coleman et al. data
as presented previously. In the calculation, as shown in Tables 2
and 3, the liquid volume (water and condensates) at stock tank was
used as the liquid volume at wellhead. This assumption ignores the
possible solution gas in the water and condensate droplets.
To take into account the liquid-volume change between well-
head and stock-tank conditions, water formation volume factor, Bw,
and condensate formation volume factor, Bc, at wellhead condition
should be used in
ql  (Bc yc  Bw yw )qtest / 1000 , ................................................ (8)
where ql is wellhead-liquid rate; yc and yw are condensate and water
yields, respectively; and qtest is gas-test rate.
To take into account the effect of pressure and temperature on
liquid volume, substituting Bc yc  Bwyw for the yc  yw in Tables 2
and 3, using a  0 and þ  0.01 for the new model in Eq. 5, and
following the same calculations, one can obtain similar results. In
this situation, the new model has 13 incorrectly predicted wells but
five of them are almost predicted, as shown in Fig. 4.
The concentration model has only one more variable liquid
holdup than the liquid-droplet model. Liquid holdup varies with
pressure and temperature but is independent of flowing area. As
shown in Table 5, liquid holdup is 0.011 in the casing and in the
tubing section near tubing bottom. The critical velocity from the
new model is independent of flowing area. As with the discussion
of the liquid-droplet model, the new model should be evaluated
at the section of largest diameter, as the producing gas velocity
depends heavily on flowing area.
As shown in the far-right column of Table 5, liquid holdup
increases with depth. For the example well, the liquid holdup is
Conclusions
For liquid loading in gas wells, besides entrained liquid-droplet
and liquid-film mechanisms, liquid-droplet concentration may be
a third mechanism. There is a threshold value of liquid-droplet
concentration. Above it, liquid-droplet concentration starts to affect
liquid loading, and critical-gas velocity varies with the concentra-
tion value.
On the basis of this new mechanism, an empirical model is
presented in the paper to calculate the critical velocity and rate
for liquid loading. Unlike traditional models, the presented model
includes the effect of liquid amount on liquid loading in gas
wells.
The model is composed of two parts separated by a threshold
value of liquid holdup. Below the threshold, the model is the same
as Turner’s model. Above it, the critical velocity increases with the
increase of liquid holdup.
The model is simple and easy to use.
Compared with the Turner et al. data, the presented model cov-
ers more wells than Turner’s model. Compared with the Coleman
et al. data, the presented model is consistent with the conclusion
of Coleman et al. The new model is also an improvement on
Turner’s 20%-upward-adjustment model both Turner et al. and
Coleman et al.
Nomenclature
A  flow cross-sectional area of a conduit, ft2
Bc  condensate formation volume factor
Bg  gas formation volume factor
Bgwh  gas formation volume factor at wellhead
Bw  water formation volume factor
dcsgID  casing inside diameter, in2.
2

0.009 at wellhead, which is smaller than the threshold value þ, but dtbgID  tubing inside diameter, in .
the liquid holdup increases to 0.01 at 2,950 ft and 0.011 at 6,291 dtbgOD  tubing outside diameter, in2.
ft. Therefore, as for the liquid-droplet model, the bottomhole is T  temperature, ˚F
also the controlling location for the new model. Hl  liquid holdup at wellhead
When taking into account the effect of pressure and tempera- p  wellhead pressure, psia
ture on liquid rate, the new model has parameters of a  0 and þ qc  condensate rate, B/D
 0.01. For the example well, from 2,950 ft to 6,291 ft, the new qcrit-N  gas critical rate from the new model in this paper,
model gives the same critical velocity as vcrit-N  vcrit-T  ln(0.01/ þ), Mscf/D
and ln(0.01/ þ)  0. From the depth of 6,291 ft to the bottomhole qcrit-T  gas critical rate from Turner’s model, Mscf/D
8,467 ft, the critical velocity from the new model vcrit-N  vcrit-T  q  gas critical rate from Turner’s model, Mscf/D
ln(0.011/ þ)  vcrit-T  0.0953.
crit-T20%

For wells with tubing end at perforation, the new model may qg  producing gas rate, Mscf/D
need to be evaluated at wellhead because the effects of both pro- ql  liquid rate, B/D
ducing gas velocity and liquid holdup downhole are small. When qtest  gas-test rate, Mscf/D
evaluating at the wellhead, an upward adjustment may be needed qw  water rate, B/D
to account for the downhole effect. T  temperature, °R
vcrit  critical speed, ft/sec
Application Procedure. To apply the new model, one may follow
this procedure: vcrit-N  critical speed from the new model in this paper, ft/s
1. Determine where to evaluate liquid loading: If fluid proper- vcrit-T  critical speed from Turner’s model, ft/sec
ties and gas-flowing calculations are not available or are unreliable, vcrit-T20%  critical speed from Turner’s adjusted model, ft/s
evaluate at wellhead. If there is a larger flowing area downhole, vg  producing-gas velocity, ft/s
liquids may accumulate in that section. Otherwise, when fluids and vsg  gas superficial velocity, ft/s
flowing calculations are available, evaluate at bottomhole. vsl  liquid superficial velocity, ft/s
2. Use the first part of Eq. 5 (Turner’s model) to evaluate a vsgwh  gas superficial velocity at wellhead, ft/s
well’s unloading condition (vg  vcrit-T or qg  qcrit-T). vslwh  liquid superficial velocity at wellhead, ft/s
3. If the unloading condition is not satisfied, the well will be yc  condensate yield, bbl/MMscf
loaded up. Stop here. Note, choosing smaller tubing will increase yw  water yield, bbl/MMscf
the producing gas velocity. Otherwise,
z  gas z factor
4. Calculate liquid holdup and check if concentration model
a  parameter in new model, 0.6 or 0
should be used (Hl  þ). If Hl  þ, stop here. Otherwise, þ  the threshold value of liquid droplet concentration, 0.01
5. Use the concentration model (the second part of Eq. 5) to
calculate a new critical velocity vcrit-N. The parameters are a  0.6 for petroleum gas wells
and þ  0.01 when using the stock-tank-liquid rate as liquid rate in pg  gas density, lbm/ft3
holdup calculation, or use a  0 and þ  0.01 when using in-situ- pl  liquid density, lbm/ft3
liquid rate (i.e., account for the effect of pressure and temperature o  interfacial tension, dynes/cm
on liquid rate).
6. Evaluate unloading condition by the new critical velocity (vg Acknowledgments
 vcrit-N or qg  qcrit-N). If it is satisfied, liquids will be brought out The authors would like to thank IHS for permission to publish
of the well, otherwise, the well will be loaded up. this paper.

May 2010 SPE Production & Operations 179

References Gas superficial velocity at wellhead, vgwh in ft/sec, could be calcu-
Ansari, A.M., Sylvester, N.D., Sarica, C., Shoham, O., and Brill, J.P. 1994. lated from the test-gas rate, qtest in Mscf/D, in the Turner et al. data.
A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-Phase Flow in
Wellbores. SPE Prod & Fac 9 (2): 143–152; Trans., AIME, 297. SPE- vsgwh  Bgwh (1000qtest ) / (24  60  60) / A ........................... (A-5)
20630-PA. doi: 10.2118/20630-PA.
The critical velocity, vcrit-T in ft/sec, at wellhead could be calcu-
Barnea, D. 1987. A unified model for predicting flow-pattern transitions
lated from Turner’s model in Eq. 1. The critical velocity can also
for the whole range of pipe inclinations. International Journal of Mul-
be back calculated from its corresponding critical rate, qcrit-T in
tiphase Flow 13 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1016/0301-9322(87)90002-4.
Mscf/D, which was given in the Turner et al. data.
Coleman, S.B., Clay, H.B., McCurdy, D.G., and Norris, L.H. III. 1991. A
New Look at Predicting Gas-Well Load-Up. J Pet Technol 43 (3): 329– vcrit T  Bgwh (1000qcrit T ) / (24  60  60) / A....................... (A-6)
333; Trans., AIME, 291. SPE-20280-PA. doi: 10.2118/20280-PA.
Kumar, N. 2005. Improvements for Flow Correlations for Gas Wells Liquid rate at wellhead, ql in B/D, is the sum of condensate
Experiencing Liquid Loading. Paper SPE 92049 presented at the SPE rate, qc in B/D, and water rate, qw in B/D, at wellhead,
Western Regional Meeting, Irvine, California, USA, 30 March–1 April.
doi: 10.2118/92049-MS. ql  qc  qw  Bc (qtest yc / 1000)  Bw (qtest yw / 1000),
Lea, J.F., Nickens, H.V., and Wells, M.R. 2003. Gas Well Deliquifica-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(A-7)
tion, first edition, 2–4. Burlington, Massachusetts: Gulf Professional
Publishing, Elsevier.
where yc and yw are, respectively, the liquid yields of condensate
McCain, W.D. Jr. 1990. The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, second edition.
and water in bbl/MMscf. Bc and Bw are the formation volume fac-
Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Publishing Company.
tors at wellhead for the condensate and water, respectively. They
Nosseir, M.A., Darwich, T.A., Sayyouh, M.H., and El Sallaly, M. 2000.
are calculated as (Standing 1981)
A New Approach for Accurate Prediction of Loading in Gas Wells
1.175
Under Different Flowing Conditions. SPE Prod & Fac 15 (4): 241–246.
SPE-66540-PA.   μg  0.5  1.25T 
B  0.972  0.000147  R  ,
Standing, M.B. 1981.doi: 10.2118/66540-PA.
Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydro-
c s  
carbon Systems, ninth edition. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum  μ c

 
Engineers of AIME.
where
Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., and Duckler, A.E. 1980. Modelling flow pattern
 p
Rμ  1.4 100.0125 API 0.00091T 
transitions 1.204
Journal 26 for
(3):steady upward
345–354. gas-liquid flow in vertical tubes. AIChE
doi:10.1002/aic.690260304.
g     .
  18.2  
s
Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G., and Dukler, A.E. 1969. Analysis and Pre-
diction of Minimum Flowrate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids
from Gas Wells. J Pet Technol 21 (11): 1475–1482; Trans., AIME, 246. Water formation volume factor can be calculated as (McCain
SPE-2198-PA. doi: 10.2118/2198-PA. 1990)
Wallis, G.B. 1969. One Dimensional Two-Phase Flow. New York: McGraw-
Hill. Bw  (1  AVwt )(1  AVwp ),

Appendix A: Calculation Procedures and where

Equations
AVwt  1.00010  10  1.33391  10 T  5.50654  10 T
2 4 7 2
Gas formation volume factor, Bg, is the actual volume occupied by
AVwp  1.95301  10 pT  1.72834  10
a given quantity of gas at certain pressure and temperature, divided 9 13

by the volume that the gas would occupy at standard conditions. .

psc zT , ........................................................................(A-1)
Bg 
Tscp
where pressure, p, is in psia and temperature, T, is in °R. The
standard pressure and temperature, respectively, are psc14.7 psia
p2T  3.58922  107 p  2.25341  1010 p2  2.25341  1010 p2
B For simplification, assume the two formation volume factors, Bc and
w, are the same. From Eq. A-7, the liquid rate at wellhead becomes
q  q (y  y ) / 1000 ...................................................... (A-8)
l test c w

and Tsc520°R. For Turner et al. wells, wellhead temperature was Superficial liquid velocity at the wellhead, v in ft/sec, can be
lwh
taken as 120°F. Using 0.9 for the z-factor, the gas formation volume
calculated from the liquid-flow rate, q l in B/D, at wellhead,
factor at wellhead, Bgwh , is
5.615ql  5.615qtest (yc  yw ) . . . . . . . . .(A-9)
Bgwh 
(0.0283)(0.9)(580) , ................................................(A-2) vslwh  
p 24  60  60 A 24  60  60  1000 A

where p is the wellhead pressure in psia. The liquid holdup at wellhead is

Flow area A, ft2, is
Hl  slwh
v .............................................................................................................

1 vsgwh  vslwh (A-10)

A  G (d tbgID / 12)2, ....................................................... (A-3)
4
Critical velocity from the new model is
where dtbgID , in., is tubing ID and is given by Turner et al. (1969).
Some of the wells in the Turner et al. data flowed in the annulus vcrit  N  vcrit T for Hl  0.01
between tubing and casing. The flow area is H . . . . . . . . .(A-11)
vcrit  N  vcrit T  ln l  0.6 for Hl  0.01
1 1 0.01
A  G (d
csgID / 12)  4
2 G (d / 12)2 ,..............................(A-4)
4 tbgOD

Rearranging Eq. A-6, we can obtain the critical rate, qcrit-N in Mscf/
where dtbgOD is tubing outside diameter in in. and dcsgID is casing D, if the critical velocity, vcrit-N in ft/sec, at wellhead is known,
inside diameter in in.. Both the casing ID and tubing OD were
given in the Turner et al. data. qcrit  N  (24  60  60)vcrit  N A / (1000Bgwh ) ....................... (A-12)

180 May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

 Desheng Zhou is the lead professor of production engineering at
SI Metric Conversion Factors Xian Petroleum University. Zhou has served as a principal engineer
bbl × 1.589 873 E-01  m3 in IHS at Dallas, Texas, USA, until January 2010. His expertise areas
include artificial lift, gas well unloading, well stimulation, and multi-
ft × 3.048* E-01  m phase flow. Zhou holds an ME degree in mechanical engineering
ft3 × 2.831 685 E-02  m3 from Southwest Petroleum University in China and a PhD degree in
in. × 2.54* E00  cm petroleum engineering from Louisiana State University. Hong Yuan
lbm × 4.535 924 E-01  kg is a principal engineer in IHS. Her areas of expertise include multi-
phase flow modeling and measurement, horizontal-well produc-
*Conversion factor is exact. tion, artificial lift, and fluid mechanics.Yuan holds an MS and a PhD
degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Tulsa.

May 2010 SPE Production & Operations 181