1

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
0
0
a Q
a
gdl
dP

+
=

(1)

Q - volumetric gas discharge/flow in the annulus, m

3
/s;

- fluid density in the annulus

(presupposing that fluid in the annulus is presented by oil), kg/m
3
;
0
a - ratio, considering
geometrical dimension of fluid passage, m
3
/s; g gravity acceleration, m/s
2
.
), ( 785 , 0
2 2
0
d D a = (2)
D - production casing ID, m; d - tubing OD, m.
2
Fig.1. Diagram, for calculation
of ESP performance with oil-
gas mix
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,
m
3
/day;

- volume ratio of water in production

under standard conditions;

P - annulus pressure,
MPa;

- formation pressure, K;
c
L - 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/m
3
;

- dynamic viscosity of
degassed oil under standard conditions, mPa s;

P -
bubble point pressure at formation temperature, MPa;
0
G - GOR of oil in place (gas-oil ratio) under normal
conditions, m
3
/m
3
;

- density of gas, liberated from

crude at flash liberation under normal conditions,
kg/m
3
;
a
y y , - mole fraction of nitrogen and methane in gas at flash liberation;

- water
density under standard conditions, kg/m
3
.
Numerical calculation of equation (1) is presented as following
( )
L
g d D
d D Q P

+
) ( 785 , 0
) ( 785 , 0
2 2
2 2

(3)
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
), ( 05 , 0

P 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
i
i i
P P
1
(5)
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

d
h
St t h t 1 ) ( (6)
To calculate the temperature distribution above the pump intake it is necessary to know
the wellhead temperature (calculation top-down):

3

d
H
St
t
H t

=
1
) ( (7)
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:
, 10 202 , 0
) 40 ln(
10 763 , 1
4
4

q
St (8)
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
c
H L 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 ) , (
i i
T P [1,2].
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

F w
Q
0
0
7 , 0 1+
=

; (9)
at the sucker-rod pump intake

F w
Q
0
0
05 , 1 1+
=

; (10)
at the electrical submersible pump intake

'
75 , 0 1
0
0

f w
Q
+
=

, (11)
where
0
- free gas separation ratio with zero feed/delivery mode
2
0
1

=
D
d
(12)
Here

Q - volumetric fluid flow under conditions of pump intake, m

3
/s;
0
w - relative
velocity of gas bubbles, m/s. Relative velocity of gas bubbles depends on the water volume ratio
in production: at w

/ 02 , 0 5 , 0
0
= ; w

/ 17 , 0 5 , 0
0
= > ;

F - cross sectional
area of production casing, m
2
; '

f - area of circular clearance between production casing and

submersible pump, m
2
.
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)
4
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 7 , 0 ). 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 5 , 0 ).
6. Values of
i
Q Q

= and
i
= assuming there is oil-gas mix above the pump
intake, values set in equation (3) and the well depth delta
1
L is found.
Hence, at the depth
1 1
L H h

= we are having the pressure P P

=
1
.
7. From equations (6)-(8) the temperature
1
T is defined at the depth of
1
h . Using
equation (5) we calculate the sequential pressure step P P P =
1 2
.
The following calculations are done for the average pressure between
1
P and
2
P :
2
2 1
2

+
= and for the temperature
1
T . Here you can see that at numerical integration of
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
:
i
i

i
i
T P
T P
z
z
Q Q

= , (14)
where

Q

- volume of gas flow in annulus under pump intake conditions, m
3
/s;

P ,

T - taken
pump intake pressure and calculated temperature correspondingly;

z ,
i
z - 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:
) 1 (
i i
+ = , (15)
where
i
- oil density in the annulus fluid at
i
and
i
, kg/m
3
;
i
- gas liquid mix density
from crude and gas liberated from it as part of the annulus fluid at
i
and
i
, kg/m
3
;

-
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)
( )
( ) 1 ) , ( ) , (
) , ( ) , (
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
+

=
T P
T P
T P z G T P G
T P
T P
T P z G T P G
i
i
i i i i
i
i
i i i i

, (17)
i i i
i

T P T P z
T P
0
0 . .
) , (

= (18)
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/m
3
;

G
0
- specific volume of gas liberated in conditions of pump
5
intake, modified to normal conditions, m
3
/t; ) , (
0
T P G

- specific volume of gas liberated at
i

and
i
, modified to normal conditions, m
3
/t;
. .
- density of gas dissolved in crude in
conditions of pump intake, modified to normal conditions, kg/m
3
.
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:
5587 , 0
.
.

Q
Q Q
, (19)
where

Q

- volumetric gas flow in the annulus in conditions of pump intake, m
3
/day;

Q
.
-
volumetric oil flow in conditions of pump intake, m
3
/day;

Q

- volumetric gas liquid mix
flow in conditions of pump intake, m
3
/day.
Acquired values
i
Q

and

are placed in equation (3) and delta is determined

2
L .
Value
2 1 2
L h h = is calculated with
2
P .
Sequential pressure step is taken P P P =
2 3
,
2
3 2
3

+
= etc.
Thus the sequential/step-by-step calculation is implemented till the vertical depth
i
h is
decreases or equalizes the value of well dynamic level

h , i.e.
i
h h .
Pressure
i
P at the last calculation sequence/step is defined for certain depth
i
h , and not
for

h . To determine pressure

P directly at the dynamic level we are using the following

correlation
i i
i i i
i

h h
P P h h
P P

1
1
1
) )( (
(20)
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]:

zT
h

P P
03415 , 0
= , (21)
where

- 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:
if % 5 % 100
| |

P
P P
and

P P < , then the pump intake pressure taken at first

approximation

is excessive, and it has to be lowered, for example, take it equal to

95 , 0 = ;
if % 5 % 100
| |

P
P P
and

P P > , then the pump intake pressure taken at first

approximation

underrated, and it has to be increased, for example, up to value of

05 , 1 = .
9. Calculation thru points 2-8 is repeated till condition % 5 % 100
| |

P
P P
is
fulfilled.
6
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
Oil in place Degassed crude and single degassing gas Field,
formation
f
,
f
, MPa
b
, MPa G, m
3
/t b
o
.
,
mPa*s
.
,
kg/m
3
0 .
,
kg/m
3

0 .
,
mPa*s
0 .
,
kg/m
3

N
2
, %
Varyogan,
formation
2
8
345 21,4 15,6 175,1 1,49 0,5 785 832 4,1 1,168 1,4
Samotlor,
formation
1
1
333 17,1 11,8 97,8 1,27 1,5 755 844 5,0 0,86 0,2
Samotlor,
formation
1-2
333 16,5 9,4 76 1,18 1,42 735 844 5,0 0,86 0,2
Samotlor,
formation
8
349 21,19 13,5 135 1,26 1,15 735 843 7,0 1,13 3,84
Samotlor,
formation
1
349 24,4 11 119 1,24 1,03 735 844 6,6 0,955 3,2
VKY, formation

2
1
349 25 20,6 236 1,45 0,42 808 832 5 0,85 0,75





















7
Initial data for calculation of pump intake pressure and actual values
Table 2
Well # Field,
formation
Pump set
depth, m
Dynamic
level, m
Annular
pressure,
Mpa
Fluid flow
rate,
m
3
/day
Watercut,
%
Borehole
deviation,
degrees
Pump
intake
pressure,
Mpa
Pump type
1587 350 0,9 144,0 80,0 30 8,4
5-
160-1750
1587 785 2,3 144,0 80,0 30 7,1
5-
160-1750
1263
1587 842 2,45 144,0 80,0 30 6,8
5-
160-1750
883
Varyogan,
formation
2
8

1610 106,5 0,84 82,4 0,0 29 5,8
5-
80-1700 with
gas separator
1200 530 0,8 33,0 0,0 0 4,8
7476
Samotlor,
formation

1
1

1200 344 0,66 36,0 0,0 0 6,5
29866
Samotlor,
formation
1-
2

1528 1266 1,6 58 28 0 2,9
5-30-
1800 with gas
separator
61503
Samotlor,
formation
8

1683 403 2,2 222 5 0 11,9
5-
400-1250
29970
Samotlor,
formation
8

2011 633 1,2 81 5 0 9,7
-5-60-
1700 with gas
separator
21109
Samotlor,
formation
8

2029 564 1,4 114 5 0 9,5
5-
160-1750 with
gas separator
61803
Samotlor,
formation
8

1808 701 1,8 440 5 0 5,2
5-
500-1250 with
gas separator
Samotlor,
formation

1
1987 1513 1,4 36 5 0 3,4
5-50-
2000 with gas
separator
51118
Samotlor,
formation

1
2182 1313 1,6 36 10 0 6,7
5-50-
2000 with gas
separator
594
VKY,
formation

2
1

2200 270 1,4 226 5 0 6,1
DN-1750 with
gas separator
550
VKY,
formation

2
1
2030 135 0,8 146 48 0 6
DN-1300 with
gas separator

Comparison of calculated and actual pressures for reviewed wells
Table 3
Calculated pressure (MPa) and divergence from actual (%) at

(MPa)
Well
1263 883 7476 29866 61503 29970 21109 61803 51118 594 550
Actual
pressure,
MPa
8,4 7,1 6,8 5,8 4,8 6,5 2,9 11,9 9,7 9,5 5,2 3,4 6,7 6,1 6
Calculated
pressure,
MPa
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
Absolute
divergence,
MPa
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

8
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,

dH
dP
g
dH
dP

+ = , (21)
where
dH
dP
- summarized (total) pressure gradient during flow of gas liquid mix in lift, Pa/m;

- density of gas liquid mix, kg/m

3
;

dH
dP

- frictional loss gradient, Pa/m.

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