SPE 88523
Liquid Unloading in a Big Bore Completion: A Comparison Among Gas Lift, Intermittent
Production, and Installation of Velocity String
Fitrah Arachman, Kalwant Singh, James K. Forrest, Monas O. Purba, Schlumberger
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 18–20 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Liquid loading is a serious problem in low-pressure gas wells.
Liquid accumulation in gas wells with inadequate energy to
lift the liquid from the wellbore can cause a well to die
prematurely.
Various technologies are available to prevent liquid loading
in gas wells. They include gas lift, intermittent production, and
the installation of a velocity string. Each has applications and
limitations for certain well and production conditions.
Installation cost and operating cost are also important
considerations in choosing the appropriate technology.
This paper presents a comparison among these three
different technologies applied to a low-pressure gas
condensate well with big bore completion. At the early stage
of production, a gas well with a big bore completion will
allow high production rates (> 100 MMscfd). As reservoir
pressure declines, liquid hydrocarbons and water precipitate
may cause liquid loading in the wellbore. Thus, it will require
more effort to unload the well. Installing a velocity string will
increase the gas velocity, which will prevent liquid loading.
The optimum length, diameter and position will be determined
based on calculated minimum gas velocity. Gas re-injection
will be based on injection rate, and period, as well as method,
through tubing or annular.
This study focuses on showing the best solution to obtain
optimum gas recovery from both a technical and economical
viewpoint. This study uses published information from the
Arun field as an example, but it is applicable to any low-
pressure gas condensate field with a big bore completion.
Introduction
The idea of comparing application of these three technologies
to a low-pressure gas condensate well with big bore
completion came from the situation in Arun field, on the
northern coast of Aceh Province in North Sumatra, Indonesia,
as shown in Fig. 1. This field began production in 1977, with
average reservoir pressure and temperature of 7115 psia and
352 oF respectively, as shown in Table 1, and produces gas
and condensate through big bore completion wells1. Currently,
the reservoir pressure has been depleted to as low as 700 psia1,
reservoir pressure depletion is expected to continue, and the
abandonment pressure may be on the order of 300 to 350 psia.
At current stage, liquid loading is a more serious issue.
A depleted gas reservoir is a gas reservoir that is in its late
production period with declining pressure and gas production
rates. This period is usually indicated by low wellhead
pressure, and increases in liquid production. With low
reservoir pressure, or low bottom-hole pressure, wells that
produce liquid along with the gas might have a problem of
liquid accumulation in the wellbore. These liquids include
water and hydrocarbon liquid such as condensate. The liquid
production can cause serious problems for the well if there is
inadequate energy to lift the liquid from the well-bore. The
problem can be attributed to a low gas producing rate resulting
from low bottom-hole pressure or low gas relative
permeability for given conditions. Liquid loading may also
exist in gas wells with high liquid-gas ratio. In this type of gas
well, a high liquid hold up in the tubing contributes to higher
pressure drop, and liquid accumulation in the bottom of the
well even if the bottom hole pressure is not low.
Liquid Loading and Unloading Mechanism
Many papers have been published discussing the problem of
liquid loading in gas wells (Duggan, 1961; Turner et al., 1969;
Illobi et al., 1981; Lea et al., 1983 Coleman et al., 1991): how
it is caused, how to prevent it, and how to deal with it.
Many authors have completed research with field
observations on gas well liquid loading. The liquid that
accumulates in the well comes from an influx of liquid
flowing along with the gas from the reservoir. The liquid may
also form by condensation from the gas phase as a result of
pressure and temperature decline as it travels up the
production string. The well will die when the reservoir energy
is not sufficient to produce the liquid.
The well can be returned to flowing conditions if the
accumulated liquid is removed from the wellbore. The liquid
can be removed from the bottom-hole region by varied
approaches, such as blow down by lowering the wellhead
pressure to atmospheric pressure, swabbing, and creating
foam. As the well returns to production without artificial
means for lifting liquid, it still has a potential to repeat the
2 SPE 88523
loading cycle if the problem of liquid accumulation persists.
This cycle can be repeated several times until it reaches
conditions for which the well will no longer produce without
artificial lift.
Producing the gas well above its critical gas flow rate can
prevent liquid loading. The critical gas flow rate is the flow
rate below which some of the liquid cannot be lifted to
surface; at this rate, it accumulates in the production tubing
string.
There are several methods of preventing liquid loading.
Planning for the tubing size is the common way to optimize
the production. Reducing the tubing ID will help increase the
velocity of the gas above its critical velocity. If the regular
tubing size is not small enough to maintain production above
the critical velocity, a velocity string with a small ID could be
installed to provide a high velocity. The other method of
producing the well above its critical flow rate is by
maintaining low wellhead pressure with a compressor or even
by regular blow down of the well, which lowers wellhead
pressure to a value close to atmospheric pressure. This low
surface pressure will allow the removal of the liquid to the
surface.
Other methods for preventing loading use continuous liquid
removal, such as installing a device in the well such as
intermittent lift or gas lift injection.
Critical Velocity in Gas Well
Turner et al. (1969) developed this critical velocity prediction
for gas wells by applying a force balance on a liquid droplet in
a flowing gas stream to obtain a terminal velocity equation for
the largest liquid droplet in upward flowing gas. The largest
stable liquid droplet in the flowing gas was estimated using
the critical Weber number of 30. Then they applied the
constant drag coefficient of 0.44 to represent drag at high
Reynolds number.
The resulting terminal velocity of the largest stable droplet,
which is the critical velocity vt (ft/sec) for a gas well, can be
written as
0.25
⎛ σ (ρ − ρ ) ⎞
vt = 1.59⎜⎜ L L 2 G ⎟⎟ …………(1)
⎝ ρG ⎠
Here, σL is the surface tension in dynes/cm, and the density
of liquid and gas, ρL and ρG, are in lbm/ft3. The coefficient
1.59 in the equation has been corrected from the original
equation as described in Brill and Mukerjee (2000).
Coleman et al. (1991) applied the critical velocity equation
of Turner et al. to a large collection of field gas well data.
Their results show that the critical velocity equation can be
applied for estimation of the gas well loading velocity limit.
Other criteria for the estimation of critical velocity are the
criteria for annular flow. Annular flow exists when there is a
stable liquid film surrounding the wall, and also when the
thickness of that film is not big enough to create bridging of
liquid. When those criteria are satisfied, annular flow exists in
the pipe, and there will be no liquid accumulation.
Data Range and Limitation
In this paper, we use published data1,5 based upon the Arun
field in North Sumatra. While the analysis is based upon this
field, the results are applicable to all depleting gas fields that
use big-bore completions. Table 2 shows the complete data
range that was used in this analysis. The main variables are
tubing size and reservoir pressure.
In the past, the industry has tried various methods to
combat liquid loading in gas wells. These methods range from
low-cost methods such as dropping soap sticks into the well to
reduce the density of the water to the use of velocity strings.
Another method has been to simply have a coiled-tubing unit
on contract in a particular field and actively conduct jetting-in
operations on any well that has loaded up with fluid. This
approach may work in some areas, but certainly increases the
operating costs and reduces the production efficiency. In this
paper, we will focus entirely on the semi-permanent
installation of coiled-tubing into the well to overcome the
liquid loading problem.
Current Performance
Based upon the most recent publication of Arun field, many
wells currently produce at an average well rate of 6 MMscf/D.
This is much less than the average initial well productivity,
which was 100 MMscf/D. The primary cause of the lower
productivity is low reservoir pressure, 700 psia or less. In
addition, the production has also declined because of liquid
loading. On the nodal analysis (Fig. 4), the outflow curve
looks very flat, strongly suggesting an unsteady state flow
condition. Since all the multiphase correlations are derived
assuming steady state flow, the results from nodal analysis are
too optimistic. On the liquid loading test conducted in one of
the Arun wells, Fig. 5 shows that the well start loading at
production rates of 7 to 8 MMscf/D. To date, numerous wells
in Arun have been shut-in due to liquid loading, and a solution
for restoring them to production has not been implemented
yet. This paper looks at three promising possibilities.
Gas Lift
The first possible solution is to install coiled tubing for
purposes of gas lift. Gas lift will help to reduce the effective
density above the injection point, which will allow the well
will to unload the liquid and remain on production. To be
effective, the injection point should be as deep as possible.
The major advantage of gas lift is the cost; if a high-pressure
gas source is already available. In addition, gas lift requires
low maintenance, is easy in field operations, handles sand, and
creates low flowing bottom-hole pressure. The limitations are
that it needs high-pressure gas supply, which may be
expensive if not already available.
In our analysis, coiled tubing is assumed to be installed
from surface to 9,800 ft and lift gas will be injected through it,
while the production will flow up through the annulus as
shown in Fig. 7. In this application, the gaslift can be injected
continuously or as needed to unload liquid from the well until
restored to a flowing condition. A check valve can be
installed in the well as a safety precaution to prevent injection
of borehole fluids back into the reservoir.
SPE 88523
The challenge in installing coiled tubing gas lift for this
particular case is to find the optimum coiled tubing size for the
existing completions. Optimum criteria will be based on the
ability to reduce liquid loading rate, maintain gas production
rate, minimize installation cost and required gaslift rate, and
provide operational reliability. Some sensitivity studies were
conducted to see the response of gas lift rate to liquid loading
rate and the production. The results showed that optimum gas
lift rate is 1 MMscf/D for all tubing cases. Injecting more gas
(up to 4 MMscf/D) did not improve the situation.
For this study, we investigated the use of 1, 1-½, 2, 2-3/8,
2-7/8, and 3-½-inch coiled tubing (Fig. 9). Based upon our
results, the optimum size for 5-1/2 in. tubing was 2-7/8 in. In
this application, we assumed a CT90 grade with ID of 2.563
in. Bigger sizes will decrease liquid loading rate more, but
will also decrease the expected gas rate. In addition, larger
tubing will have a higher installation cost and will be more
difficult to install. Smaller coiled tubing will reduce liquid
loading rate sufficiently.
Fig. 10 shows that at a reservoir pressure of 700 psia, a well
with 5 ½-in. tubing should produce at a rate of 4.8 MMscf/D
with a minimum liquid loading rate of 1.65 MMscf/D. At a
reservoir pressure of 500 psia, the well will start to load-up
and die. In the velocity profile shown in Fig. 11, it is clear that
the gas velocity is less than the Turner critical velocity.
Injecting 1 MMscf/D of gaslift will reduce the minimum
liquid loading rate to 0.89 MMscf/D. This reduction will
allow the well to stay on production longer, increasing gas
recovery.
The preferred coiled tubing size of 2-7/8 in. OD for 7-in.
production tubing is the same as 5-1/2 in. tubing. With
reservoir pressure of 700 psia and 7-in. production, the well
should produce at a rate of 6.5 MMscf/D, and it will
eventually experience loading when the reservoir pressure
reaches 500 psia. However, in practice the well may load up
sooner. By installing the coiled-tubing, the liquid loading rate
will be reduced from 2.6 to 1.7 MMscf/D by injecting 1
MMscf/D lift gas. With coiled-tubing, the predicted gas
production rate is only reduced 12 % from the case without
coiled-tubing. This number is good enough since we can
maintain almost the same production rate but will minimize
the liquid loading problem.
For 9-5/8 in. tubing (Fig. 12), the optimum coiled tubing
size is 3-1/2 in. grade CT90 with 3.15-in. ID. As mentioned
earlier, a flat outflow curve is indicative of an unsteady-state
flow condition. Because of this condition, we think the well
would start to load at the current reservoir pressure of 700
psia, although the calculated minimum liquid loading rate
based upon steady-state correlations shows the well has not
loaded. Using a gas lift rate of 1 MMscf/D will help to reduce
the minimum liquid loading rate to 4 MMscf/D with a
production rate of 7 MMscf/D. This addition of gaslift will
also keep the well alive until the reservoir pressure drops
below 600 psia.
Intermittent Production
The installation of an intermittent production and gaslift
system is a second possible solution to liquid loading in big-
bore completions. Intermittent production or intermittent gas
lift has the same effect as continuous gas lift in unloading the
3
liquid. At the appropriate time, a finite volume of gas is
injected below the liquid column and propels it as a slug to the
surface. An intermitter can be used at the surface to control the
timing of each injection-production cycle or injection can be
manually controlled.
The proposed intermittent production design in this paper is
to inject gas to unload liquids if the well starts to load-up with
liquid. The schematic of proposed intermittent production is
shown in Figs. 7a and 7b. The injection string is using coiled
tubing similar to that in the gas lift scheme. Similar to the
gaslift option, the big bore check valve is utilized as a one-
way valve for the liquids and prevents injection of fluids into
the reservoir. In both applications, the check-valve should be
located as close as possible to the perforated interval to
minimize the length of the liquid column above the
perforations.
But the important difference is the surface valve
installation. Fig. 7a shows the first schematic for this
particular installation. The left valve is marked with red,
representing a closed condition and no gas injection. The
green indicates the valves are open. At this point, the well is
able to flow naturally up the coiled-tubing and coiled-tubing
annulus. The well is producing with big bore tubing but with
a modest restriction caused by the presence of the coiled
tubing string.
In time, the liquids will accumulate in the wellbore. When
this condition occurs, gas will be injected to unload the liquids
as shown by Fig. 7b. The injection line, which is closed in
Fig. 7a, will be opened. The process will be the same as the
gas lift. The gas is injected through the velocity string and
produced through the annulus. Note that the top right line is
closed so the injected gas does not flow into the flowline. If all
the liquids have been unloaded and the well can be restored to
a flowing condition, the injection will be stopped and the well
will produce through the tubing and annulus again. This
solution has tremendous operational flexibility and minimizes
the flow restrictions of the coiled-tubing.
Velocity String Application
The installation of a velocity string represents a third possible
solution to the liquid loading problem in big-bore completions.
A velocity string will maintain high gas velocity, which will
keep the well from dying prematurely. As stated above, liquid
loading occurs late in the field life when gas flow rates
decrease, and gas velocities in the wellbore are not sufficient
to lift the liquids to the surface. Big bore completions will
have lower gas velocities compared to those from smaller
tubing strings at the same production rate because velocity is a
function of tubing diameter. Installing a smaller tubing inside
the original tubing (i.e., velocity string) will create higher gas
velocities and may prevent liquid loading. The installation
can be up to the surface or just up to any point in tubing.
In this study, the velocity string was not installed from the
surface to a certain measured depth, because the pressure drop
up the deep well would have been too high and limiting.
Instead, only 2,000 ft of tubing were installed in the deepest
part of the well, as shown in Fig. 8. The next three sections
review the results of a 2,000-ft velocity string in 5-½, 7, and 9-
5/8-in. tubing.
4 SPE 88523
5-1/2—in. tubing
At a reservoir pressure of 700 psia, Fig. 13 shows that the
predicted production is roughly 4.8 MMscf/D with minimum
liquid loading of 1.65 MMscf/D. The well will become shut-in
at a reservoir pressure of 500 psia because the rate will be
lower than the minimum-loading rate. Fig. 14 shows that the
gas velocity will be lower than critical gas velocity with a
reservoir pressure of 500 psia. Installing a velocity string of
2,000 ft of 2-7/8-in. tubing will give increase the velocity so it
will be higher than critical, preventing liquid loading.
Fig. 14 also shows the estimated erosional velocity for the
velocity string and production tubing. In this case, the gas
velocity does not exceed the tubing erosional velocity.
With the installation of the velocity string, the gas
production rate will decrease compared to the case with no
velocity string, however the production will be more stable.
From Fig. 13, the production will decrease from 4.8 to roughly
3.7 MMscf/D. But at reservoir pressures of 500 psia, the well
will still be flowing because the minimum liquid loading rate
decreases to approximately 0.48 MMscf/D. Therefore, the
installation of the velocity string results in incremental gas
recovery from the well.
7-in. tubing
Modeling indicates 7-in. tubing would show a similar result as
5-1/2-in. tubing. At a reservoir pressure of 700 psia, the big
bore completion will produce at a higher rate of 6.5 MMscf/D,
compared to the use of a velocity string with roughly 5.2
MMscf/D. But the well will die at a reservoir pressure of 500
psia because the gas rate will be lower than minimum liquid
loading rate, which is 2.65 MMscf/D. Installing 2,000 ft of 3-
1
/2-in. velocity string will lower the minimum liquid loading
rate to approximately 0.72 MMscf/D, and the well will have
additional time to produce and increase gas recovery.
Based on the velocity profile, the well will load at a
bottomhole pressure of 500 psia because the gas velocity in
big bore completion is lower than the critical velocity.
Installing the velocity string will aid the problem by increasing
gas velocity without exceeding tubing maximum erosional
velocity, allowing liquid unloading.
9-5/8-in. tubing
Fig. 15 shows the performance analysis of 9-5/8-in. big bore
completion with and without a velocity string. As stated
earlier, the outflow curve for the big bore tubing is flat, which
means the rate is in an unsteady-state flow condition. Even
though the production analysis determined the well is
producing at approximately 8.3 MMscf/D (since it is higher
than the minimum liquid loading rate, 5.8 MMscf/D), the well
production declined rapidly and loading occured as shown in
Fig. 5.
In our analysis installing 2,000-ft of 3-1/2-in. velocity string
gave an estimated production of 6 MMscf/D. Therefore, the
velocity string allows a well that would die to remain on
production. Fig.16 shows that gas velocity will exceed the
estimated maximum erosional velocity in the coiled-tubing.
However, since the estimated erosional velocity is often quite
conservative, this design may still be acceptable.
Economic Consideration
This study did not include detailed economic analysis for each
method. The following factors related to the cost of each
method, which should be considered in conducting economic
evaluation: In all three cases proposed in this paper, coiled
tubing is used, avoiding the cost of a large workover rig to pull
the existing production tubing.
Gas lift
The gas lift method will generally require gas lift installation
in the production tubing string, as most gas wells are not
equipped with gas lift. Using a pack-off gaslift mandrel and
injecting down the existing completion in a big-bore
completion may not be feasible because of the large gas
volumes required. The use of high-pressure gas for gaslift will
reduce the effective gas sales rates. Therefore, it may be more
cost-effective to install coiled tubing to inject gas and produce
through the coiled-tubing annulus.
Intermittent production
Similar to the gas lift option, the intermittent production
option described in this paper also requires gas lift installation.
However, the proposed design will require additional surface
valves. The advantage of this option is that it will give more
flexibility in terms of production and gas injection. It offers a
higher production rate through the big bore tubing but with
modest restriction caused by the presence of the coiled tubing
string when there is no unloading process. In addition, overall
volume of injection gas will be lower than with continuous gas
lift.
Velocity string
In the proposed velocity string installation, a shorter coiled
tubing will be installed, which will reduce its costs. It does
not need any gaslift gas. The option proposed in this paper
will be less expensive compared to previous application where
the coiled tubing was installed from the surface to top of
perforations. The disadvantage of this method could be too
much pressure loss in the tubing and lower gas production
rates. Alternatively, the velocity string design could be too
short, forcing the pulling and replacement of a longer velocity
string to maintain the well on production. Of the three
methods, its design is the most critical.
Conclusions
1. Big bore completions have a great advantage for high gas
rates at early field conditions. However, at late times, they
suffer from liquid loading problems.
2. The industry has used multiple methods to address the
problem of liquid loading in depleting gas reservoirs. The
choice of method is determined by economic factors and
reliability. There is a trade-off between operating and capital
cost.
3. In this paper, we propose the use of coiled tubing in all three
methods modeled. This is due to operational and economical
considerations. The optimum size of coiled tubing for gas
lift for 5-1/2-in. and 7-in. tubing completions is 2-7/8-in.
For 9-5/8-in. tubing, it is 3-1/2-in. These three tubing sizes
will require 1 MMscf/D of gas lift injection rate.
SPE 88523
4. Gas lift installation for 5-1/2-in. and 7-in. tubing will reduce
minimum liquid loading rate up to 46% and 34%
respectively, while 9-5/8-in. tubing, the minimum liquid
loading rate will be 4 MMscf/D.
5. Intermittent production will require less lift gas since it is
needed only when the well starts loading. However, the
proposed design requires additional surface valves and
piping near the wellhead to control the production and gas
injection.
6. Installing a coiled-tubing velocity string will increase gas
velocity, which will help the liquid unloading process.
Critical and maximum erosional velocity and also
operational issues, such as logistics, transportation and
installation, drive the optimum diameter and length of the
velocity string.
Recommendations
1. Conduct economic analysis to justify the implementation of
these methods. They can be used as part of a general
program and are not mutually exclusive. A future paper that
highlights field results in big bore completions would
expand the current industry knowledge.
2. Current nodal analysis programs do not clearly indicate
when a well enters an unsteady state flow regime. As a
result, the analysis suggests that implementation of the
methods suggested here will decrease the gas production
rate. However, the correct comparison is a well with a
lower gas production rate compared to a shut-in well. The
current program results can cause confusion.
3. More work on critical lifting velocity in big bore wells is
needed. The key will be to do detailed comparisons to
actual field results.
5
Nomenclature
vt = critical velocity, ft/s
σL = surface tension, dynes/cm
ρL = liquid density, lbm/ft3
ρG = gas density, lbm/ft3
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge and thank Schlumberger for granting us the
time to put together this technical paper.
References
1. Patakh, Prabodh; Fidra, Yan; Avida, Hanifatu; Kahar,
Zulkarnain; Agnew, Mark; and Hidayat, Dodi: “The Arun
Gas Field in Indonesia: Resource Management of a Mature
Field,” paper SPE 87042 presented at SPE Asia Pacific
Conference on Integrated Modeling for Asset Management
held in Kuala Lumpur, 29-30 March 2004.
2. Benesch, J.M., Nor, Nazri, and Ngatijan: “Optimization of
Big-bore HPHT Wells to Exploit a Low Pressure Reservoir
in Indonesia,” paper IADC/SPE 87171 presented at
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas,
USA, 2-4 March 2004.
3. Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G., and Dukler, A.E.: “Analysis
and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous
Removal of Liquids from the Gas Wells,” paper SPE 2198,
November 1969.
4. Martinez, John, and Martinez, Alec: “Modeling Coiled-
Tubing Velocity Strings for Gas Wells,” paper SPE 30197
presented at the 1995 Petroleum Computer Conference held
in Houston, 11-14 June 1995.
5. Mahendrajana, T., Kaczorowski, N.J., and Blasingame,
T.A.: “Analysis and Interpretation of Well Test
Performance at Arun Field, Indonesia,” paper SPE 56487
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
6. Brown, Kermit E., The Technology of Artificial Lift
Methods, Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, 1980.
6 SPE 88523

Fig. 1---Arun Field Area (© 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. Ref. 1)

Fig. 2---Arun Structure map showing well location (© 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. Ref. 1)
SPE 88523 7

Fig. 3---Arun borehole schematic (© 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. Ref. 1)

Table 1---Arun initial reservoir data

No Parameters Value
1 Initial reservoir pressure at datum 7,115 psia
2 Estimated current pressure 700 psia
3 Abandonment pressure 300 – 350 psia
4 Reservoir temperature at datum 352oF
5 Datum depth 10,050 ft
6 Productive area 23,240 acres
7 Average thickness 495 ft
8 Average porosity 16.1 %
9 Average water saturation 10.7 %
10 Initial water vapor content 4.1 mole%
11 CO2 and other non hydrocarbons 14.1 mole%

Table 2---Data range

Completion Model Type Value Unit

OD 5-1/2, 7, 9-5/8 in
Length 10000 ft
Wellhead Temperature 200 F
Wellhead Pressure 200 psia
Water Cut 15 %
LGR 200 STB/mmscf
Gas SG 0.7 Fraction
Water SG 1.07 Fraction
API 48 API
Static Pressure 500, 600, 700 psia
Temperature 350 F
Permeability 7.63 mD
Skin 5
Thickness 700 ft
re 1200 ft
rw 0.584 ft
8 SPE 88523

Current perfomance with 9-5/8 in tubing

900

800

700

600
Pressure, psia

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Gas Rate, MMscf/d
Inflow Pw s = 700 psia Outflow Pw h = 200 psia

Liquid Loading: Pw h = 200 psia

Fig 4---Current performance with 9-5/8-in. tubing

Fig 5---Liquid Loading Test (© 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. Ref. 1)
SPE 88523 9

large bore
check valve

Fig 6---Proposed Coiled Tubing Gas Lift Completion Configuration

large bore large bore

check valve check valve

a) b)
Fig 7---Proposed Intermittent Production Completion Configuration
10 SPE 88523

2000 ft
Velocity String

Fig 8---Proposed Coiled Tubing Velocity String Completion Configuration

Sensitivity on Coiled Tubing Diameter - Gas Lift Application

100

90

80

70

60
Percentage

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 1-1/2 2 2-3/8 2-7/8 3-1/2

Coiled Tubing OD, in

Production Reduction to Original Completion Minimum Liquid Loading

Fig 9---Sensitivity on Coiled Tubing Diameter – Gas Lift Application

SPE 88523 11

CT Gas Lift in Tubing 5-1/2"

800

700

600
Pressure, psia

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Gas Rate, MMscf/d

Inflow : Pw s = 500 psia Inflow : Pw s = 700 psia

Outflow : CT 2-7/8" Gas Lift Outflow : Tubing 5-1/2"
Liquid Loading: CT 2-7/8" Gas Lift Liquid Loading: Tubing 5-1/2"

Fig 10---Coiled Tubing Gas lifted well in 5-1/2-in. tubing

CT Gas Lift Velocity Profile at Pws = 500 psia

1000

2000

3000
Elevation, ft

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Gas Velocity, psia

Tubing 5-1/2" CT 2-7/8" Gas Lift Critical Velocity

Fig 11---Coiled Tubing Gas Lift Velocity Profile in 5-1/2-in. Tubing

12 SPE 88523

CT Gas Lift in Tubing 9-5/8"

800

700

600
Pressure, psia

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Gas Rate, MMscf/d

Inflow : Pw s = 500 psia Inflow : Pw s = 700 psia

Outflow : CT 3-1/2" Gas Lift Outflow : Tubing 9-5/8"
Liquid Loading: CT 3-1/2" Gas Lift Liquid Loading: Tubing 9-5/8"

Fig 12---Coiled Tubing Gas Lift Velocity Profile in 5-1/2-in. Tubing

2-7/8" Velocity String in Tubing 5-1/2"

800

700

600
Pressure, psia

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Gas Rate, MMscf/d

Inflow : Pw s = 500 psia Inflow : Pw s = 700 psia

Outflow : Tubing 5-1/2 in Outflow : Tubing 5-1/2 in + Vel. String 2-7/8 in
Liquid Loading: Tubing 5-1/2 in Liquid Loading: Tubing 5-1/2 in + Vel. String 2-7/8 in

Fig 13---Production Analysis of 2-7/8-in. Velocity String in 5-1/2-in. Tubing

SPE 88523 13

Velocity String Velocity Profile at Pws = 500 psia

1000

2000

3000
Elevation, ft

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 65 75 85 95 105

Gas Velocity, ft/s

Tubing 5-1/2" Tubing 5-1/2" + Vel. String 2-7/8" Critical Velocity Erosional Velocity

Fig 14---Velocity Profile for 2-7/8-in. Velocity String in 5-1/2-in. Tubing

3-1/2" Velocity String in Tubing 9-5/8"

800

700

600
Pressure, psia

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Gas Rate, MMscf/d

Inflow : Pw s = 600 psia Inflow : Pw s = 700 psia

Outflow : Tubing 9-5/8 in Outflow : Tubing 9-5/8 in + Vel. String 3-1/2 in
Liquid Loading: Tubing 9-5/8 in Liquid Loading: Tubing 9-5/8 in + Vel. String 3-1/2 in

Fig 15---Production Analysis of 3-1/2-in. Velocity String in 9-5/8-in. Tubing

14 SPE 88523

Velocity String Velocity Profile at Pws = 600 psia

1000

2000

3000
Elevation, ft

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Gas Velocity, ft/s

Tubing 9-5/8" Tubing 9-5/8" + Vel. String 2-7/8" Critical Velocity Erosional Velocity

Fig 16---Velocity Profile for 3-1/2-in. Velocity String in 9-5/8-in. Tubing