Modeling CoiledTubing Velocity Strings
for Gas Wells
John Martinez, SPE, and Alec Martinez, Production Assocs.
Summary
Because of its ability to prolong well life, its relatively low expense,
and the relative ease with which it is installed, coiled tubing has be-
come a preferred remedial method of tubular completion for gas
wells. Of course, the difficulty in procuring wireline-test data is a
drawback to verifying the accuracy of the assumptions and predic-
tions used for coiled-tubing selection. This increases the importance
of the prediction-making process, and, as a result, places great em-
phasis on the modeling methods that are used. This paper focuses
on the processes and methods for achieving sound multiphase-flow
predictions by looking at the steps necessary to arrive at coiled-tub-
ing selection.
Furthermore, this paper examines the variables that serve as indi-
cators of the viability of each tubing size, especially liquid holdup.
This means that in addition to methodology, emphasis is placed on
the use of a good wellbore model. The computer model discussed
is in use industry wide.
Introduction
The trend of depletion of producible liquid and of decreased gas pro-
duction in aging reservoirs has resulted in the popularity of coiled
tubing as a velocity string, aimed at avoiding a buildup of liquids
that impedes gas flow. As the name suggests, it is the increase in ve-
locity that is sought through use of reduced-diameter tubing. In
selecting coiled tubing, it is necessary to identify the sizes that affect
an adequately high flow velocity to remove liquids from the well
(and thereby to avoid liquid loading) and to achieve and maintain
a low bottomhole pressure (BHP). Part of this discussion is aimed
at examining how velocity affects liquid holdup. An understanding
of this relationship is key to determining the range of ideal velocities
for a given well.
Keep in mind, however, that the use of a good wellbore model to
create a variety of curves for the pressures and velocities associated
with each of the candidate tubing sizes is the last of the steps leading
up to coiled-tubing-size selection. Therefore, discussion about
coiled-tubing sizing is, in reality, an examination of wellbore and
pipeline analysis and design in general. Because modern design as-
sumes the use of a computer model, the following method should be
common practice for all multiphase-flow applications, including
pump design, gas-lift-valve setting design, and separator design,
among others. These steps include the following.
1. Measured data matching
2. Fluid-property adjustment
3. Pressure, velocity, and holdup selection
4. Correlation choice
5. Creation of performance curves
Without due attention to the collection of quality data and the
matching of the model to that data, performance predictions for re-
working a well should be suspect. This paper discusses the process
of validating the computer model. It also examines the use of pres-
sures, velocities, and liquid holdup in analyzing the future perfor-
mance of each of the possible coiled-tubing sizes. Consideration has
been limited to the performance characteristics of the tubing op-
tions. Of course, selection decisions may be swayed by monetary
considerations, availability, or other factors.
The example problems given here are modeled with the software
WelGrad.
Copyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 11 June 1995. Revised manuscript received 5
August 1996. Paper peer approved 17 October 1997. Paper (SPE 30197) first presented at
the 1995 Petroleum Computer Conference held in Houston, 1114 June.
70
Measured Data and Adjustments
The first step in the procedure is measuring the flowing pressures in
the well during a production test. If the proposed well has ceased
flowing, then an offset well should be used to obtain data to test this
or any other model. This is an essential step in producing reliable
data, no matter what multiphase-flow model is used.
Measured Data. Both pressure measurements and hydrocarbon-
fluid-properties data are needed. Property data can be obtained from
a pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) reports and chromatograph
analyses. These data are gas/condensate ratio (total for all stages of
a flash process), gas specific gravity (total for all stages), CO2 and
H2S mol% in the gas, and condensate stock-tank API gravity.
If a PVT report and chromatograph data are not available, then the
properties can be estimated with field data. The data from the field
samples are adjusted by use of the calculated to measured pressure-
matching techniques. The field measured data are compositions and
specific gravity from chromatograph analysis of separator gas sam-
ples; API gravity of condensate sample; specific gravity from water
sample; and production tests of gas, condensate, and water.
The pressure data obtained with wireline gauges in the wellbore are
the key data, because these points provide productivity data for the
gas well at the tested production rate, confirmation of fluid properties
from the formation, and a basis for selecting a multiphase correlation.
Adjustments to Fluid Properties. The reality of fluid-property
testing is that there is variability in the conditions and the location
at which the sample is collected, as well as in the conditions under
which the test is performed. This means that adjustment of the data
is not only permissible but necessary to be precisely applicable to
the operating conditions of your well. A match can be obtained by
applying the following guidelines.
1. The bottom measured pressure point is the input datum to the
computer program model, because it provides a pressure match
from the bottom up that is more reliable than that from the top down.
2. The formation-fluid-pressure profile in the lower part of the
wellbore can be matched by slightly adjusting gas specific gravity,
gas/condensate ratio, water fraction, and condensate API gravity.
3. The gas and liquid rates should be slightly adjusted to improve
the match.
4. The correlations that give the best match in the lower and up-
per sections of the wellbore are the best choice.
Once the measured pressure profile and test production rate have
been matched with the computer model, additional rates and tubular
configurations can be used to simulate other producing conditions.
Fig. 1 shows how the curves for two different sets of fluid property
adjustments compare to the measured data. The curve with higher
fluid rate matches at the endpoints. The other data produce a better
match over the length of the curve and are probably preferable, as
they indicate a better overall match of densities.
Pressure, Velocity, and Holdup Selection
The proper application of the model requires a review of the BHP,
the velocity associated with each possible tubular configuration,
and the liquid holdup related to the velocity and flow regime. Analy-
sis of a specific rate with its pressure, velocity, and holdup attributes
requires a delivery model based on the measured tests. If measured
data is not available, then the model must be based on assumed val-
ues, but with attendant error.
The model can be viewed from the following two points.
S Wellhead delivery is based on a reservoir inflow pressure cal-
culation and a multiphase-flow-pressure calculation in the tubing
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1998
 Fig. 1Measured data comparison. Fig. 2Wellhead delivery curve.

Fig. 3Outflow BHP calculations. Fig. 4Velocity selection.

(or coiled tubing). Fig. 2 represents delivery from the wellhead to
a gas facility in which each of the tubing curves demonstrates the
flowing wellhead pressures that occur over a range of rates. The
300-psig facility inlet pressure is the limiting factor to the potential
production for each of the tubing sizes.
S BHP from a multiphase-flow-pressure calculation in the tubing
(or coiled tubing) (Fig. 3) can be used to observe the shape of the
represents the computer calculation of multiphase-flow pressure vs.
rate to identify the minimum BHP attainable for each potential
coiled-tubing configuration. In this case, the limit to potential flow
is determined by the reservoir-delivery curve.
Pressure. The BHP calculated by the model is a particularly key ele-
ment in tubing selection. The minimum calculated BHP is determined

outflow curve (often called a J curve or tubing-intake curve). This by the application of the inflow equation and the subsequent conver-

TABLE 1DATA OUTPUT FOR FIG. 4 WITH 1-IN. COILED TUBING AT 300 Mscf/D*

Measured
Depth Pressure Temperature Velocity Density

(ft) (psig) (F) (ft/sec) (lbm/ft3) Liquid Holdup Flow Regime

0 300 100 17.62 4.83 0.064 annular

600 331 107 16.14 6.54 0.094 annular

1,200 368 114 14.79 6.92 0.098 annular

1,800 405 121 13.64 7.29 0.103 annular

2,400 443 128 12.66 7.66 0.108 annular

3,000 482 135 11.8 8.02 0.112 annular

3,600 523 142 11.05 8.37 0.117 annular

4,200 564 149 10.39 8.71 0.122 annular

4,800 606 156 9.8 9.05 0.126 annular

5,400 649 164 9.27 9.38 0.131 annular

6,000 694 171 8.83 9.68 0.135 annular

6,500 731 176 8.47 9.95 0.139 annular

7,000 770 182 8.13 10.21 0.143 annular

7,500 809 188 7.82 10.47 0.146 annular

8,000 849 194 7.6 10.67 0.149 annular

8,250 870 197 7.46 10.79 0.151 annular

8,500 890 200

*Beggs BrillLasater;
Beggs and Brill Lasater gas flow
Lasater; flo rate (Mscf/D)
(Mscf/D)=300.00;
300 00 fluid
300.00; fl id flow
flo rate (STB/D)
(STB/D)=30.00
30 00 fluid
30.00 fl id producing
prod cing thro gh ttubing.
through bing

SPE Production & Facilities, February 1998 71

 Fig. 5Liquid holdup and velocity.
gence on a rate/pressure equilibrium point. The coiled-tubing con-
figuration that gives the lowest BHP and the highest rate is the prop-
er selection, provided that velocity and liquid holdup are adequate.
In both Figs. 2 and 3, the low pressures of the original tubing limit
the potential flow to approximately 300 Mscf/D. Two possible
coiled-tubing configurations are modeled to observe which one
gives the best gas delivery. In both examples, flow up the 1-in.
coiled tubing by tubing annulus shows the greatest production po-
tential, although the maximum rate for the 1-in. coiled tubing is
almost as good.
The equilibrium gas rates must then be modeled with a velocity
profile.
Velocity. Regarding the identification of beneficial velocities, most
important is the behavior in the lowest portion of the tubular comple-
tion; if liquid loading can be prevented at the bottom of the well, the
higher velocities in the upper sections will guarantee a flowing well.
As a quick rule of thumb, the coiled-tubing configuration that gives
a velocity of 7 to 12 ft/sec is the proper selection. Fig. 4 gives a veloc-
ity profile for existing-tubing, coiled-tubing, and coiled-tubing/exist-
ing-tubing annular flow. (Table 1 gives the data output for Fig. 4.) It
is important to note, however, that the velocity guideline is entirely
dependent on its associated liquid holdup. This means that liquid
holdup must be calculated to determine the set of adequate velocities
for a given well (see the following section).
Liquid Holdup. Holdup is a key indicator of the effectiveness of
liquid lift. In general, the desired liquid holdup (liquid volume con-
tained in a pipe segment) should be 0.2 or less. Fig. 5 illustrates the
relationship between velocity and liquid holdup for the various tu-
bular configurations. The combination of the three sets of tubing
data reveals the behavior of this relationship in the form of a rough
curve. In the lower velocities, the change in liquid holdup is rapid.
(Also, these higher liquid fractions result in greater mixture density
and higher BHP.) At velocities greater than 5 ft/sec, the effect on
holdup is much less pronounced. By avoiding the volatile, vertical
portions of this curve, a coiled-tubing selection is much more likely
to achieve the desired end. Furthermore, because holdup is also re-
lated to flow regime, the lower values indicate a lifting or sweeping
of the liquid with a churn or annular flow pattern.
Correlation Choice
Much importance has traditionally been attached to the selection of
the correlation, such that the inclusion of a great number of flow-
equation choices is deemed desirable.
72
Contrary to this view, we assign highest priority to fluid-property
selection from PVT reports and chromatograph analysis, which,
when coupled with fluid-property adjustment to attain pressure
matching in the lower section of the wellbore, give better model-de-
livery results. Because the density of the flowing fluid is the most
important determinant of the pressures that occur in the lower well-
bore, more attention should be given to the fluid properties than to
a correlation for friction loss. This is especially true as the various
correlations give similar results in the low-velocity bottom section
of the well.
The correlation choice should be based on its ability to continue
a good matchup in the remainder of the wellbore, where increasing
velocity and friction loss are more pronounced. The correlation that
provides the best match over the whole range should be chosen. Our
program offers the following correlations: Beggs/Brill1 and Hage-
dorn/Brown2 for multiphase flow, and Standing3 and Lasater4 for
solution gas. For gas wells, we recommend the correlations that are
able to match the measured data or, in the absence of measured data,
the Beggs/Brill1 correlation for flow and the Lasater4 correlation for
solution gas.
We use the Dukler 5 flow-regime equations to identify and
associate flow patterns with beneficial velocities and BHPs. How-
ever, the flow pattern changes from the bottom to the top of the well-
bore, so the most emphasis should be placed on the middle to upper
sections of the pipe.
CoiledTubing Selection
The tubular configuration selected should create the following well-
bore conditions: lowest pressure at the perforations (when
compared to the other potential tubing configurations) for the high-
est rate deliverable from the reservoir; velocity of 7 to 12 ft/sec in
the lower third of the tubing; and liquid holdup fraction of 0.2 or less
in the lower portion of the wellbore.
Other selection criteria are clearance for running and retrieving
the coiled tubing, scale or other possible deposits on the coiled tub-
ing by existing tubing annulus, passage through the seating nipples
or packer bores to the top or within the perforations, and special
hanger assemblies that allow use of coiled tubing below surface
controlled subsea safety valves on offshore wells.
The model can be used to examine the pressure drop through the
restricted-diameter equipment, such as packer bores or landing nip-
ples, though accuracy may be diminished. Nevertheless, the qualita-
tive comparison of results with different configuration sizes can aid
the selection. Usually a tapered coiled-tubing string is needed when
restricted diameters are present on the existing tubing.
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1998
 As for the example comparisons of the two coiled-tubing options, 2. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: Experimental Study of Pressure Gra-
we prefer the 1-in. coiled tubing with flow up the coiled tubing. Al- dients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter
though it sacrifices a small amount of production-rate potential, it bet- Vertical Conduits, JPT (April 1965) 475.
ter satisfies the velocity and liquid-holdup criteria discussed earlier. 3. Standing, M.B.: A General Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation
Keep in mind that the conservative rate used for comparison was for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases, Drill. and Prod. Prac., API
a proven rate with the old tubing configuration. It is wise practice (1947), 275.
4. Lasater, J.A.: Bubble Point Pressure Correlation, Trans., AIME (1958)
to run a range of cases up to or beyond the greatest potential produc-
213, 379.
tion rate to have a better feel for the possible behavior of the candi- 5. Taitel, Y., Barnea, D., and Dukler, A.E.: Modelling Flow Pattern Transi-
date strings at the rates that are likely to be encountered. tions for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical Tubes, AIChE J
(May 1980) 345.
Summary
This model, popular with a substantial number of the companies that SI Metric Conversion Factors
implement installations of coiled-tubing-velocity or siphon strings, bbl 1.589 873 E*01 +m3
provides the tools that should be used in analyzing the ability of coiled ft 3.048* E*01 +m
tubing to improve a wells flowing conditions and to determine the ft3 2.831 685 E*02 +m3
size that best improves the conditions. The tools are the following. F (F*32)/1.8 +C
S Pressure profiles in the tubing and calculated flowing BHP in. 2.54* E)00 +cm
comparisons. lbm 4.535 924 E*01 +kg
S Velocity profile for a specific rate with the objective of attain- psi 6.894 757 E)00 +kPa
ing 7 to 12 ft/sec in the lower third of the tubing.
S Liquid-holdup fraction along the tubing length with an objec- *Conversion factor is exact. SPEPF
tive of 0.2 or less in the lower third of the wellbore.
S Flow-regime identification for association with favorable
John Martinez, based in Houston, is a consulting production engi
flowing conditions.
neer who designs and installs facilities and equipment for wells.
The method to achieve accuracy with reliable size evaluations He contributed the operationsrelated aspects of this software
and designs is the following. and applications to coiledtubing strings. Alec Martinez, also
1. Obtain flowing pressure and temperature data in an existing based in Houston, is a technical writer and the program develop
candidate well or an offset flowing well. er/maintainer. He wrote the programcode revisions for this soft
2. Adjust fluid properties slightly to create a match of measured ware and the revisions to this paper.
and calculated pressure data.
3. Use the test-data-validated model to simulate flowing condi-
tions with other coiled tubing by existing tubing combinations at
achievable gas rates.

References
1. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: A Study of Two-Phase Flow In Inclined
Pipes, JPT (May 1973) 607. J. Martinez A. Martinez

SPE Production & Facilities, February 1998 73