An Improved Approach to Analyzing the Flowing Pressures of CBM Column in Producing Wellbores

  • Xinfu Liu
  • Chunhua LiuEmail author
  • Guoqiang Liu
  • Jianjun Wu
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Geology


An improved methodology is presented for the system analysis of flowing pressures in order to forecast the dynamic behavior and solve the forthcoming problems in coalbed methane (CBM) wellbores producing water. The computation of flowing pressures involves CBM temperature and compressibility factor with depth increments and friction factor with Reynolds number. The result of this work is a numerical integration technique used to calculate flowing pressures and pressure drops of CBM column from the bottom hole to well head. The relationships developed match the CBM reservoir behavior and wellbore conditions along the annulus with an overall accuracy of less than 2%. The effect of CBM column pressures is more obvious than that of CBM and water column pressures with the increases in dynamic water level. The pressure ratios of CBM column to the whole column increase rapidly, while water flow rates decline along the annulus. The decrease in CBM column pressure and increased increment of pressure drop are beneficial to CBM desorption and result in the increased CBM and water production. And it will control the falling speed of dynamic water level in producing wellbores and enhance CBM reservoir productivity. The decreases in CBM column pressure from 69.7 to 5.2 kPa result in the decreases in pressure in bottom hole from 2.252 to 1.328 MPa and the increases in CBM flow rate from 3327 to 6721 m3/d.


CBM wellbore producing water Flowing pressure CBM column pressure CBM flow rate 



This work was financially supported by National Science and Technology Major Project of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (2016ZX05065-001), Key Research Project of Shandong Province (2019GHY112029 and 2019GSF109090) and Higher Education Research and Development Project of Shandong Province (J17KA033). The authors gratefully acknowledge China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) technicians for their support, contributions and useful discussions.


  1. Bazmi M, Hashemabadi SH, Bayat M (2013) Extrudate trilobe catalysts and loading effects on pressure drop and dynamic liquid holdup in porous media of trickle bed reactors. Transp Porous Media 99(3):535–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bello O, Asafa T (2014) A functional networks soft sensor for flowing bottom hole pressures and temperatures in multiphase production wells. In: SPE intelligent energy conference and exhibition. Utrecht City, Netherlands, 1–3 AprilGoogle Scholar
  3. Boltenko EA (2013) Determination of the density and flow rate of the two-phase mixture under steady and emergency conditions. Therm Eng 60(3):195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borowsky J, Wei T (2006) Simultaneous velocimetry/accelerometry measurements in a turbulent two-phase pipe flow. Exp Fluids 41(1):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarkson CR, Bustin RM, Seidle JP (2007) Production-data analysis of single-phase (gas) coalbed-methane wells. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 10(3):312–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cullender MH, Smith RV (1956) Practical solutions of Gas-flow equation for wells and pipelines with large temperature gradients. Trans AIME 207:281–287Google Scholar
  7. Guzman JD, Arevalo JA, Espinola O (2014) Reserves evaluation of dry gas reservoirs through flowing pressure material balance method. In: SPE energy resources conference. Port of Spain City, Trinidad and Tobago, 9–11 JuneGoogle Scholar
  8. Langelandsvik LL, Postvoll W, Svendsen P, Overli JM (2005) An evaluation of the friction factor formula based on operational data. In: PSIG annual meeting. San Antonio City, Texas, 7–9 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu XF (2013) Prediction of flowing bottomhole pressures for two-phase coalbed methane wells. Acta Geol Sin Engl Ed 87(5):1412–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu XF, Liu CH, Wu JJ (2019) A modern approach to analyzing the flowing pressures of a two-phase CBM and water column in producing wellbores. Geofluids 2019(4):1–9MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu XF, Qi YG, Hu AM, Zhao PH, Liu CH (2011) Inflow performance relationship in two-phase CBM wells. J China Univ Min Technol 40(4):561–591Google Scholar
  12. Liu XF, Liu CH, Qi YG (2017) Operating performance of sucker rod pump for the pumping system in coalbed methane wells. J Mech Eng 53(8):195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu XF, Liu CH, Wu JJ, Qi YG (2018) Migration models of pulverized coal flowing with fluid and its production in CBM channels for the coal reservoirs. J China Coal Soc 43(3):770–775Google Scholar
  14. Lyubarskii SD, Ivanov S (1989) Motion of a compressed two-phase medium of bulk density upon sudden expansion. Explos Shock Waves 25(3):335–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mattar L, McNeil R (1998) The “flowing” gas material balance. J Can Pet Technol 37(2):287–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitchell R (2011) Casing design with flowing fluids. SPE Drill Complet 26(3):432–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mohammadpoor M, Shahbazi K, Firouz ARQ (2010) Vertical multiphase flow in Iranian oil fields using artificial neural networks. In: SPE Latin American and Caribbean petroleum engineering conference. Lima City, Peru, 1–3 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  18. Mohammed S, Enty GS (2013) Analysis of gas production data using flowing material balance method. In: SPE Nigeria annual international conference and exhibition. Lagos City, Nigeria, 5–7 AugustGoogle Scholar
  19. Mohammed S, Jeje O, Louis M (2011) Advanced gas material balance in simplified format. J Can Pet Technol 50(1):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mora CA, Wattenbarger RA (2009) Analysis and verification of dual porosity and CBM shape factors. J Can Pet Technol 48(2):17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Obeida TA, Mosallam YH (2007) Calculation of flowing bottom-hole pressure constraint based on bubble point pressure versus depth relationship. In: EUROPEC/EAGE conference and exhibition. London City, UK, 11–14 JuneGoogle Scholar
  22. Okuszko KE, Gault BW, Mattar L (2008) Production decline performance of CBM wells. J Can Pet Technol 47(7):913–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Osman SA, Aggour MA (2002) Artificial neural network model for accurate prediction of pressure drop in horizontal-multiphase flow. Pet Sci Technol 20(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Osman SA, Ayoub MA, Aggour MA (2005) An artificial neural network model for predicting bottomhole flowing pressure in vertical multiphase flow. In: SPE Middle east oil and gas show and conference. Kingdom of Bahrain, 12–15 MarchGoogle Scholar
  25. Peffer JW, Miller MA, Hill AD (1988) An improved method for calculating bottomhole pressures in flowing gas wells with liquid present. SPE Prod Eng 3(4):643–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rajarajan J, Pollard D, Ison AP, Shamlou PA (1996) Gas holdup and liquid velocity in airlift bioreactors containing viscous newtonian liquids. Bioprocess Eng 14(6):311–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rendeiro CM, Kelso CM (1988) An investigation to improve the accuracy of calculating bottomhole pressures in flowing gas wells producing liquids. In: Permian basin oil and gas recovery conference. Midland City, Texas, 10, 11 MarchGoogle Scholar
  28. Shippen ME, Scott SL (2004) A neural network model for prediction of liquid holdup in two-phase horizontal flow. SPE Prod Facil 19(2):67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sugiarto I, Mazumder S, Wittemeier R, Sharma V (2015) Inflow performance relationship correlation of 2 phase CBM reservoir. In: SPE/IATMI asia pacific oil and gas conference and exhibition. Nusa Dua City, Indonesia, 20–22 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  30. Sutton RP (2008) An accurate method for determining oil PVT properties using the standing-Katz gas Z factor chart. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 11(2):246–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tang S, Liu CX, Dong YH (2016) Multiphase flow model developed for simulating gas hydrate transport in horizontal pipe. Appl Math Mech 37(9):1193–1202MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vicki AH, Paul SS (2002) A guide to coalbed methane operations. Gas Research Institute, AlabamaGoogle Scholar
  33. White AH, Smith FT (2012) Wall shape effects on multiphase flow in channels. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 26(1):339–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yalniz MU, Ozkan E (2001) A generalized friction factor correlation to compute pressure drop in horizontal wells. SPE Prod Facil 16(4):232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yao YD, Ge JL (2011) Characteristics of non-Darcy flow in low-permeability reservoirs. Pet Sci 8(1):55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xinfu Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chunhua Liu
    • 3
    Email author
  • Guoqiang Liu
    • 4
  • Jianjun Wu
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Mechanical and Automotive EngineeringQingdao University of TechnologyQingdaoChina
  2. 2.Key Lab of Industrial Fluid Energy Conservation and Pollution ControlMinistry of EducationQingdaoChina
  3. 3.College of Mechanical and Electronic EngineeringChina University of Petroleum (East China)QingdaoChina
  4. 4.PetroChina Coalbed Methane Co., Ltd. Linfen BranchTaiyuanChina

Personalised recommendations