05 Gaslift

VIETNAM OIL AND GAS GROUP
PETROVIETNAM UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER 5
GAS LIFT
Lecturer : MSc Luong Hai Linh

Email : linhlh@pvu.edu.vn
Tel : +84 834 081 666
Learning Outcomes 5
➢ Know overview of gaslift method;
➢ Calculation of pressure gradient of artificial flow versus
self-spraying flow by pressure conversion method
➢ Calculate the pressure of gas injected into the well from
the thermodynamic equation, determining the pressure at
the injection point
➢ Know how to calculate energy for compressors in gas lift
© 2014 – Petrovietnam University (PVU)
operation
➢ Understand the effects of increased injection air flow and
thus maintain the oil flow when reservoir pressure drops.
Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 2
Learning Outcomes 5
➢ Know how to determine the maximum extraction flow in

gaslift operation.
➢ Determining the lift characteristics of gas wells
(developed by Poettman & Carpenter and Bertuzzi),
which can be applied to optimize economy in exploiting
gas lift

Contents
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Natural versus Artificial Flowing Gradient
5.3 Pressure of Injected Gas
5.4 Power Requirements for Gas Compressors
5.5 Impact ofIncrease of Gas InjectionRate,Sustaining
of Oil Rate with Reservoir Pressure Decline
5.6 Maximum Production Rate with Gas Lift
5.7 Gas-Lift Performance Curve

5.1 Introduction

5.1 Itroduction
Video 5.1 Introduction from Gas lift

5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Introduction:
❖Gas lift technology increases oil production rate by
injection of compressed gas into the lower section of
tubing through the casing–tubing annulus and an orifice
installed in the tubing string.
❖Upon entering the tubing, the compressed gas affects
liquid flow in two ways:
- The energy of expansion propels (pushes) the oil to
the surface.
- The gas aerates the oil so that the effective density of
the fluid is less and, thus, easier to get to the surface.
5.1 Introduction
❖There are four categories of wells in which a gas lift
can be considered:
1. High productivity index (PI), high bottom-hole
pressure wells.
2. High PI, low bottom-hole pressure wells.
3. Low PI, high bottom-hole pressure wells.
4. Low PI, low bottom-hole pressure wells.

5.1 Introduction
5.1.2 Well Construction for Gas Lift
❖ A complete gas lift system consists of a gas compression
station, a gas injection manifold with injection chokes and
time cycle surface controllers, a tubing string with
installations of unloading valves and operating valve, and a
down-hole chamber.
Fig 5.1 Configuration of a typical gas lift well

(from Boyun Guo, 2007)
5.1 Introduction
1. Deeper gas injection depths can be achieved by using
valves for wells with fixed surface injection pressures.
2. Variation in the well’s productivity can be obtained by
selectively injecting gas valves set at depths ‘‘higher’’ or
‘‘lower’’ in the tubing string.
3. Gas volumes injected into the well can be ‘‘metered’’ into
the well by the valves.
4. Intermittent gas injection at progressively deeper set

valves can be carried out to ‘‘kick off’’ a well to either
continuous or intermittent flow.

5.1 Introduction
Fig 5.2 Gas-lift completions

(From Michael, 2013)
In Figure 5.2A, the liquid level in the annual isolates injected gas from
the formation, in Figure 5.2B, packers are set to provide the isolation,
and in Figure 5.2C, packers are used in the annulus, and a ball valve is
used in the production tubing to prevent injected gas from flowing into
the formation.
5.1 Introduction
❖A continuous gas lift operation is a steady-state flow
of the aerated fluid from the bottom (or near bottom)
of the well to the surface. Intermittent gas lift
operation is characterized by a start-and-stop flow
from the bottom (or near bottom) of the well to the
surface. This is unsteady state flow.
❖There are two types of gas lift: intermittent lift and
continuous lift.For intermittent gas lift, both a single

injection point and multiple injection points can be
employed.

5.1 Introduction
❖ It is the method of bringing
compressed air into the well
continuously and the product
under the pipe is raised to the
ground continuously. Scope of
application for the following
wells:
➢ Large flow Q kt
➢ Products with sand or
waterlogged
➢ The product has a high μ, a

large flow
➢ Have a high gas ratio (output
may be small)
Fig 5.3 Continuous gas lift. Source: Rock oil consulting
5.1 Introduction
❖It is the method of introducing
compressed air into the well cycle and
production The product is exploited
according to the discontinuous pipe
raised to the ground that periodically.
Scope of application: applies to the
following wells:
➢ Has low Pd but high product coefficient
➢ Product factor K is low
➢ Low liquid level, deep well

➢ There are small Qkt
Fig 5.4 Intermittent gas lift.
Source: Rock oil consulting
5.1 Introduction
❖Applications.
✓ Gas lift is particularly applicable for lifting fluids in wells
that have a significant amount of gas produced with the
crude.
✓ Gas compressors are nearly always installed to gather
the produced gas, can be designed to supply the high
injection-gas pressure for the gas lift system.
✓ Most continuous-flow wells can be depleted by gas
lift because reservoir-pressure maintenance programs

are implemented in most major oil fields and many
reservoirs have water drives.
5.1 Introduction
❖ Advantages of Gas Lift.
✓ Gas lift is one of the most forgiving forms of artificial lift

because apoorly designed installation will normally gas
lift some fluid.
✓ Many gas lift installations are designed to increase the
daily production from flowing wells.
✓ Wireline-retrievable gas lift valves can be replaced
without killing a well or pulling the tubing.

✓ The individual-well downhole equipment isrelatively
inexpensive.
5.1 Introduction
❖ The effectiveness of the gaslift method depends on:
✓ Air depth (immersed depth of the lift pipe)

✓ Air flow (Qk)
✓ Pressure on discharge branch
✓ Product coefficients (oil level of seams)
✓ Amount of gas separated from oil (Ghd)
✓ Properties of oil (μ, ρ ...)
✓ Mining tube structure

5.1 Introduction
❖ Limitations of Gas Lift.
✓ The primary limitation for gas lift operations is the lack of
formation gas or an injection-gas source.
✓ Wide well spacing and lack of space for compressors
on offshore platforms may also limit the application of
gas lift.
✓ Compressors are expensive and must be properly
maintained.

5.1 Introduction
❖ Plunger lift

5.1 Introduction
❖ Plunger lift

5.1 Introduction
Fig 5.5 A simplified flow diagram of a closed rotary gas lift system for
single intermittent well (from Boyun Guo, 2007)

5.2 Natural versus Artificial Flowing
Gradient

5.2.1 Evaluation of Gas Lift Potential
❖ The potential of gas lift wells is controlled by gas injection rate or gas liquid
ratio (GLR). Four gas injection ratesare significant in the operation of gas
lift installations:
1. Injection rates of gas that result in no liquid (oil orwater) flow up the tubing.
The gas amount is insufficient to lift the liquid. If the gas enters the tubing at
an extremely low rate, it will rise to the surface in small semispheres (bubbly
flow).
2. Injection rates of maximum efficiency where a minimum volume of gas is
required to lift a given amount of liquid.
3. Injection rate for maximum liquid flow rate at the‘‘optimum GLR.’’

4. Injection rate of no liquid flow because of excessive gasinjection. This
occurs when the friction (pipe) producedby the gas prevents liquid from
entering the tubing
Fig 5.6 A sketch of continuous gas lift (from

Boyun Guo, 2007)

Fig 5.7 Pressure relationship in a continuous gas lift (from

Boyun Guo, 2007)

5.2.1 Two-Phase Flow Regimes
❖The flow regime in gas–liquid

vertical flow can be predicted
with a flow regime map, a
plot relating flow regime to
flow rates of each phase,
fluid properties, and pipe
size.
Fig 5.8 Flow regimes in gas–liquid flow (from

Boyun Guo, 2007)
❖The Duns and Ros map correlates flow regime with

two dimensionless numbers, the liquid and gas
velocity numbers, Nvl and Nvg, defined as
where ρl is liquid density, g is the acceleration of gravity,

and σ is the interfacial tension of the liquid–gas system.

❖One such mapthat is used for flow regime discrimination

in some pressure-drop correlations is that of Duns and
Ros (1963)
Fig 5.9 Duns and Ros flow regime map (from Brill
and Mukherjee, 1999)

❖Map must be generated for particular gas and liquid

properties and for a particular pipe size; a Taitel Dukler
map for air–water flow in a 2-in.I.D.pipe
Fig 5.10 Taitel-Dukler flow regime map (from Brill

and Mukherjee, 1999)
5.2.2 Pressure Traverse Calculations

Fig 5.11 Pressure, temperature, and flow regime distribution in a well

(from Brill and Mukherjee, 1999)

5.2.2.1 Pressure Traverse with Fixed Length Interval
1. Select a length increment, ΔL. A typical value for flow in tubing is 200 ft.
2. Estimate the pressure drop, Δp. A starting point is to calculate the no-slip
average density and from this, the potential energy pressure gradient.The
estimated Δp is then the potential energy pressure gradient times the depth
increment. This will generally underestimate the pressure drop.
3. Calculate all fluid properties at the average pressure (p1 + Δp/2) and
average temperature (T1+ ΔT/2).
4. Calculate the pressure gradient, dp/dz, with a two-phase flow correlation.
5. Obtain a new estimate of Δp from

6. If Δpnew ≠ Δpold within a prescribed tolerance, go back to step 3 and repeat
the procedure with the new estimate of Δp.

5.2.2.2 Pressure Traverse with Fixed-Pressure Increment

1. Select a pressure drop increment,Δp.The pressure drop in the increment
should be less than 10% of the pressure p1 and can be varied from one
step to the next.
2. Estimate the length increment. This can be done using the no-slip
density to estimate the pressure gradient, as was suggested for thefixed-
length-traverse procedure.
3. Calculate all necessary fluid properties at the average pressure,
p1+Δp/2, and the estimated average temperature, T1 + ΔT/2.
4. Calculate the estimated pressure gradient, dp/dz, using a two-phase flow
correlation.
5. Estimate the length increment by
6. If ΔLnew ≠ ΔLold within a prescribed tolerance, go back to step 3 and
repeat the procedure.
Fig 5.12 Pressure gradient curves generated with the modified Hagedorn
and Brown correlation (from Brill and Mukherjee, 1999)
❖Pressure differences are graphed against depth. For

a given flowing wellhead pressure, the required
bottomhole pressure can be calculated.
where Δptrav is the pressure traverse and is a

function of the flow rate, the GLR, the depth, and the
properties and composition of the fluid.


❖ The pressure change from the surface to the gas
injection point can be calculated with Equation
where:
- p is in psia, q is in MSCF/d, D is inin.,L is in ft,
μ is in cp, T is in °R, and all other variables are
dimensionless.

The Reynolds number
these equations are based on:

✓ temperature
✓ compressibility
✓ viscosity

Real-gas law:
where γ is the gas gravity to air and 28.97 is the

molecular weight of air. The gas constant R is equal
to 10.73 psi ft3/lb-mole-°R. The temperature is in °R.

Fig 5.13 Construction of an equilibrium curve (from Brill and

Mukherjee, 1999)

Fig 5.14 Complete equilibrium curve for specific well

conditions

❖ Typical conditions and fluid properties for a natural
gas and reservoir are considered
✓ where the pressures are in psi and Hinj is in feet.

✓ The pinj in the production tubing is an additional
100 to 150 psi less than the annulus pressure

❖ The point of gas injection, Hinj, creates two zones

in the well:one below,with an average flowing
pressure gradient (dp/dz)b, and one above, with an
average flowing pressure gradient (dp/dz)a .
❖ pinj,ann, must not be greater than the pressure

within the tubing for gas to enter the tubing at
the injection point.

Fig 5.15 Continuous gas lift with pressures and pressure

gradients versus depth (from Boyun Guo, 2007)

Fig 5.16 Gradient curves for ql= 500 STB/d

Fig 5.17 —A graphical design for a

continuous-flow gas lift installation based
on 800-psig injection-gas
pressure (light lines) overlaying a design
for 1,400-psig injection-gas pressure
(from Michael, 2013)

❖ Major Factors That Have an Effect on Choosing the

Most Economical Injection-Gas Pressure.
✓ pressure
✓ volume
✓ temperature
✓ water cut of the producing stream
✓ density of the injected gas
✓ wellhead backpressure

❖ Calculating the Effect of Injection-Gas Pressures

on Surface Production Facilities.
✓ the injection-gas pressure required at the
wellhead determines the discharge pressure of
the compressor.
✓ Higher injection-gas pressures increase the
discharge pressure requirement of the compressor

❖ Gas Volume
✓ The total injection gas required for a continuous-
flow gas lift well may be determined by well-
performance prediction techniques.
✓ Well outflow, or fluid flow from the reservoir to the
surface, is typically predicted by empirical
correlations such as those presented by Poettmann
and Carpenter, Orkiszewski, Duns and Ros,

Hagedorn and Brown, Beggs and Brill, and others.

Example. Injection-Point Pressure
❖ If gas of γ = 0.7 (to air) is injected at 8000 ft and if

psurfm= 900 psi, Tsurf = 80°F and Tinj= 160°F, calculate
the pressure in the annulus at the injection point,
pinj,ann.

Fig 5.18 Pseudocritical properties of natural gases (from Ahmed)

Fig 5.19 The gas deviation factor for natural gases (from Standing
and Katz)
Solution
Trial and error is required for this calculation.Assume
that pinj = 1100 psi. From(Figure 5.18, ppc=668 psi and
Tpc= 390°Rand therefore
From Figure 5.19, and therefore

which agrees well with the assumed value.

5.4 Unloading Wells with Multiple
Gas-Lift Valves

Most newly drilled wells are filled with kill fluids or
completion fluids that have higher density than reservoir
fluids. When a well is ready to produce, gas lift is
commonly used to start the well production by unloading
the kill fluid or completion fluid in the wellbore

❖ The fluid column can be hard to lift because of the high
hydrostatic pressure. In such a case, multiple gas-lift
valves are used to unload the well in several steps.
❖ Depending on the length of the liquid column that needs to
be unloaded and the surface gas compressor discharge
pressure, the number and location of the lift valves are
determined.

During the initial unloading process casing and tubing
pressure gradients in the static loaded condition are
equal. All gas lift valves are in the open position from the
weight of the hydrostatic fluid in the tubing and casing
annulus. As gas is injected down the casing annulus it
displaces the kill fluid through the opened gas lift valves
into the tubing string and to the separator or storage tank.

5.4 Unloading Wells with Multiple Gas-Lift Valves
❖ The unloading procedure starts from the top-most valve.

Gas injected through the first valve will lift the liquid
column from the valve location to the surface, reducing
the total hydrostatic pressure in the wellbore.
❖ Then the first valve is closed, and the next valve below
opens to lift the column from the second valve location
upward. The procedure repeats until the entire wellbore is
unloaded. The unloading procedure is illustrated.

Fig 5.20 A sketch of designing the depth of unloading vales

(from Fathi, 2017)
❖ A pressure recorder installed at surface will record a

casing pressure drop each time a valve closes. A
reading of the recorded pressure as the well unloads
will give an indication of the valve operating depth.
After the well is unloaded and stabilized, an accurate
24-hour test and a flowing survey can be run to
evaluate and verify good operation

❖ Very commonly, to start the procedure, a higher surface

pressure at the annulus side is used, marked as kickoff
pressure.
❖ The pressure gradient in the annulus is the injected gas
gradient.
❖ The pressure gradient inside the tubing is the wellbore fluid
pressure gradient, which is much higher because of the
denser fluid in the wellbore.

❖ Depending on the density of the tubing fluid and

compressor outlet pressure, the depth of the first valve is
determined by the intercept of the two pressure gradient
curves (annulus and tubing), which indicates that at the
first valve location, the gas injected has high enough
pressure to lift the liquid column.

where
✓ pth is the tubing head pressure
✓ gk and gg are the pressure gradients for kill
fluid and injected gas
✓ pk is kickoff pressure

❖ Once the first column is lifted, the surface injection pressure

can be reduced to a smaller value, and this pressure is used
as the injection pressure at the surface on the annulus side,
Psurf, in Figure 5.17. At this condition, the pressure gradient
inside the tubing is divided into two sections by the first valve
location, H1. Above H1, there is a new pressure gradient of
mostly gas with some liquid (two-phase), and below H1 is the
original kill fluid gradient. The intercept of the tubing fluid

gradient curve with the annulus gas pressure gradient curve
defines the second valve’s location

❖ Notice that after the first column is lifted, a higher tubing

head pressure is used in the calculation for the locations
of the rest of the valves to provide a safety factor.
Practically, 100–200 psi is added in unloading design. For
each additional valve below the first one, the location can
be calculated by:
where
✓ gdt is the pressure gradient in the tubing above Hi

✓ Pdt is the design tubing pressure at the surface during unloading
✓ Psurf is the injection pressure at the surface on the annulus side
✓ gk and gg are the pressure gradient for kill fluid and injected gas


5.5 Optimization of Gas-Lift Design

5.5.1 Impact of Increase of Gas Injection
Rate, Sustaining of Oil Rate with Reservoir
Pressure Decline

❖ The amount of gas available for the injection the gas

must be allocated properly to each well in the field. If
limited gas is available for injection the gas must be
allocated properly to each well in the field in order to
maximize the total field oil rate and enhance the gas lift
wells performance

❖ In this section different gas injection rates were applied

in different wells that were producing by gas lift flow with
different flow rates, to investigate the effect of gas
injection rate on production flow rate and how gas lift
techniques can be used to improve production rate

❖ As injection rates raise the rate of liquid volume

increase falls off and the maximum possible liquid rate
will be reached. After this maximum value any
additional gas injection reduces the liquild production
and remain stable. From air optimization curves it is
clearly found that the optimum injection air is to get
maximum liquid flow rate 41/min for different flow rate

Fig 5.21 Point of gas injection. Intersection of gas injection

pressure with gradient curves (from Boyun Guo, 2011)
❖ Fig 5.18 can be used to investigate the effect of increasing

the gas injection rate, and therefore increasing the GLR
in the wellbore. First, increasing the gas injection
rate allows the injection at a lower point in the tubing
without increasing the injection pressure.

❖ From Equation , as Hinj increases

[with the associated smaller (dp/dz)a] and since (dp/dz)b
remains largely constant within a smaller interval H – Hinj,
then pwf will necessarily decrease. Therefore larger oil
production rates are likely to be achieved with higher GLR
and a lower injection point.

❖ Through the reservoir production life reservoir pressure
will decline. Likewise after water breakthrough the fluild
column weight will increase as hydrostastic pressure
will rise because of the increase water and oil mixture
density. In this situation reservoir pressure may be not
sufficient to lift up the fluid from the bottom to the
surface. Several time techniques must be applied to
avoid the production decline. In this case artificial lift

techniques are applied to energy to the produce fluild

❖ To sustain a production rate while the reservoir pressure

depletes, the flowing bottomhole pressure must be
lowered. This can be accomplished by lowering the
injection point and by increasing the gas injection rate. The
initial operating valve may not be the deepest valve of the
set, and the lower valve can be used in later life of the well
production. This has a limit, addressed in the next section.

5.5.2 Maximum Production Rate with
Gas Lift

❖ There exists a limit value of GLR, referred to here as

“limit” GLR, where the flowing pressure gradient is the
minimum. For GLR values that are larger than the
minimum, the flowing gradient begins to increase.

❖ The well flowing pressure gradient is a combination of the

hydrostatic pressure head and the friction pressure drop.
While increasing the GLR from small values would result
in a fluid density reduction with modest friction pressures,
continued GLR increase would lead to a disproportionate
increase in the friction pressure. Thus, the limit GLR is
that value at which the increase in frictional pressure will
offset the decrease in the hydrostatic pressure.

Fig 5.22 A sketch of Large GLR values and limit GLR for q1=800 STB/d.

❖ Fig 5.20 represents pressure traverse calculations for a

specific liquid production rate (ql = 800 STB/d) in a given
tubing size. The values of the GLR have been selected to
be large enough to observe the behavior reversal at the
limit GLR value. For this example, the limit GLR is
approximately equal to 4000 SCF/STB

Fig 5.23 A sketch of Large GLR values and limit GLR for q1=500 STB/d.

❖ Fig.5.23 The limit GLR increases as the production rate decreases.
Figure 11-9 is for a smaller liquid production rate (ql = 500 STB/d) in
the same size well. In this example the limit GLR is approximately
7000 SCF/STB. This limit GLR for which the minimum pwf will be
obtained is rarely the natural GLR of the reservoir fluids. Thus, it can
be reached only through artificial gas lift. While the above applies to
an already completed well, appropriate production engineering must
take into account these concepts before the well is completed. A
larger well size would lead to a larger limit GLR, with, of course, a
larger gas injection rate.

❖ Most newly drilled wells are filled with kill fluids or

completion fluids that have higher density than reservoir
fluids. When a well is ready to produce, gas lift is
commonly used to start the well production by unloading
the kill fluid or completion fluid in the wellbore.

Fig. 5.24 A sketch of Designing the depths of unloading vavles (from Boyun Guo,
2007)
5.6 Gaslift Perfomance Curve

❖ Poettmann and Carpenter (1952) and Bertuzzi,
Welchon, and Poettman (1953), in developing design

procedures for gas-lift systems, introduced the “gas-lift
performance curve,” which has been used extensively
in the petroleum industry ever since.
Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system

Fig 5.25 IPR and optimum gas-lift performance (at limit GLR)
(from Michael, 2013)

❖ Thus, a plot similar to the one shown in Figure 5.25 can
be drawn. The IPR curve, as always, characterizes the
ability of the reservoir to deliver certain combinations of
production rates and flowing bottomhole pressures.
❖ Intersecting this IPR curve is the optimum gas-lift

performance curve of minimum flowing bottomhole
pressures (minimum pressure intake curve), and for
each production rate they correspond to the limit GLR.

❖ Other values of GLR above or below the limit GLR
will result in smaller production rates. This is
shown conceptually in Figure 5.26.
❖ Each gas-lift performance curve in the vicinity of

the maximum production rate will result in a larger
pressure intake and therefore lower production.

Fig 5.26 Maximum production rate is at the limit GLR. Larger or smaller
values of GLR will result in smaller production rates (from Boyun Guo,
2007)

❖ In summary, the intersection of the IPR curve with the intake

curves from various GLR values in a given tubing can be
depicted as shown in Figure 5.27.

Fig 5.27 Liquid production rate versus GLR. Limit GLR

corresponds to maximum ql (from Boyun Guo, 2007)

Fig 5.28. Gas-lift performance curve. Time dependency (from

Boyun Guo, 2007)
❖ Where the maximum production rate corresponds to the gas

injection rate for the limit GLR. This graph corresponds to an
instant in time in the life of the reservoir. For later times a
new gas-lift performance curve will be in effect

Fig 5.29 IPR and optimum gas lift (from Boyun Guo,
2007)
❖ Example 5.6.1 Development of Gas-Lift Performance Curve
With the IPR curve described by Equation (11-14) and a well at

8000 ft depth whose gradient curves for 800 and 500 STB/d,
develop a gas-lift performance curve assuming that the gas
injection valves are at the bottom of the well. The average
reservoir pressure is 3050 psi, and the natural GLR is 300
SCF/STB.

❖ Solution
❖ Figure 5.29 is a graph of the intersection of the IPR

and the optimum gas-lift performance curve, that is,
the locus of the points corresponding to the limit
GLR for each production rate. Maximum production
rate is 825 STB/d, which corresponds to a limit GLR
of 3800 SCF/STB (gradient curves are not shown for
this rate).

❖ The gas injection rate for the maximum production

rate of 825 STB/d and limit GLR = 3800 SCF/STB is:
❖ q = 825(3800-300) = 2.89*10^6 SCF/d


❖ Solution
Fig 5.30 IPR curves at different reservoir pressures (from Boyun

Guo, 2007)

❖ Figure 5.30. shows the series of IPR curves for this problem
for average reservoir pressures ranging from the initial value
(5651 psi) to 3000 psi. The corresponding required flowing
bottomhole pressures for q = 300 STB/d can be readily
extracted from this figure.

Fig 5.31. Expanded-scale gradient curves for well (from Gilbert, 1954)

❖ Figure 5.31. is an expanded scale of the flowing

gradients for this well for different GLR values. The
natural GLR for this well is 250 SCF/STB.

Fig 5.32. Gas-lift performance curve (from Gilbert, 1954)

❖ Figure 5.32 is the gas-lift performance curve for this well.

For production rates other than the maximum, the gas
injection rate could be larger or smaller. This performance
curve will change with time

❖ Example 5.6.3. Near-Wellbore Damage and Gas Lift

❖ Suppose that wellbore damage (s ≈ + 9) would reduce the
IPR curve used
q = 0.22(p-𝑝𝑤𝑓 ).
What would be the maximum production rate and the

associated gas-lift requirements?

❖ Solution
Fig 5.33. Wellbore damage and its effect on gas-lift performance (from
Gilbert, 1954)
❖ Figure 5.33 shows the new IPR curve and its intersection
with the optimum gas-lift curve. The point of intersection is
at ql = 500 STB/d. At 500 STB/d, the gas injection rate, qg,
is 3.35 × 106 SCF/d. If ql = 500 STB/d, then, from Equation

❖ If, though, the gas injection rate for the undamaged well
were maintained (qg = 2.89 × 106 SCF/d for ql= 825
STB/d, then the GLR

❖ It can be calculated readily that at GLR = 6100 SCF/STB

and H = 8000 ft the flowing bottomhole pressure would be
810 psi rather than 780 psi. This would tend to reduce the
production rate further. It should be remembered always that
for a given production rate there is always one specific limit
GLR.

❖ This example also shows that optimized gas lift not only
cannot offset well-bore damage, but will require a larger gas
injection rate (larger GLR) to lift the maximum possible
liquid production rate. It is then evident that well stimulation
must be a continuous concern of the production engineer,
and any production-induced damage should be removed
periodically to allow optimum well performance.

❖ Example 5.6.4. Limited Gas Supply: Economics of Gas Lift

In Example 5.6.3 the required gas injection rate for maximum
production was the one corresponding to the limit GLR. This
would assume unlimited gas supply.
❖ Since this is usually not the case, repeat the well

deliverability calculation for 0.5, 1, and 5 × 105 SCF/d gas
injection rates, respectively

❖ If the cost of gas injection is $0.5/HHP-hr, the cost of

separation is $1/(MSCF/d), and the price of oil is $50/STB,
develop a simple economic analysis (benefits minus costs)
versus available gas rate. Use the IPR curve psi,
and natural GLR = 300 SCF/STB.

❖ Solution
❖ If only a gas injection rate of 5 × 104 SCF/d is available,

then if, for example, ql = 500 STB/d, the GLR would be

Fig 5.34. Production with gas lift with unlimited and limited gas injection
rate (from Gilbert, 1954)

❖ The resulting gas-lift performance curve is shown in Figure

5.31. In addition to qg = 5 × 104 SCF/d, the two other
curves, corresponding to 1 and 5 × 105 SCF/d, are also
drawn. Intersections with the IPR curve would lead to the
expected production rates and flowing bottomhole
pressures.

❖ The surface pressure can be calculated (assuming 100 psi

pressure drop across the valve).
❖ Finally, from Equation (11-19), the horsepower requirements

are calculated (using pin = 100 psi). The results are shown
in Table.

Table 5.1 Well Performance with Unlimited and Limited Gas Injection
Rates (from Boyun Guo, 2007)

❖ An economic comparison between the various options is
made below considering the 5 × 104 SCF/d injection rate as
a base case.
❖ Incremental benefits between this and the 1 × 105 SCF/d
rate are ql ×($/STB) = (660 – 615) × 50 = $2250/d.
❖ Incremental costs are ΔHHP × 24 × ($/HHP-hr) = (14.5 –
7.5)(24)(0.5) = $84/d and qg × $1/MSCF = [(1 × 105) – (5 ×
104)](1/1000) = $50/d.
❖ Therefore the incremental benefits are 2250 – 134 =

$2016/d.
❖ Similarly, for qg = 5 × 105 SCF/d, incremental benefits are
$5600/d
❖ Finally, for the limit GLR (qg =2.89 × 106), the incremental
benefits are $3480/d; that is, the incremental production rate
cannot compensate for the incremental compression and
separation costs, compared to lower rate of 5 × 105 SCF/d.
❖ This type of calculation, of course, is indicated always. It

depends heavily on local costs and, especially, like
everything else in production engineering, on the price of oil.

❖ Example 5.6.5. Tubing Size versus Gas-Lift Requirements
❖ The IPR for a high-capacity reservoir with producing water–
oil ratio equal to 1 is

❖ If the average reservoir pressure, , is 3550 psi and the

natural GLR is 300 SCF/STB, calculate the required rate of
gas to be injected at the bottom of the well (H = 8000 ft) for
three different tubing sizes (2.5 in., 3.5 in., and 4.5 in.,
respectively) in order to produce 2000 STB/d of liquid. The
wellhead pressure is 100 psi.

❖ Solution
If q = 2000 STB/d, then, pwf must be equal to 1610 psi.
The gradient curves for ql = 2000 STB/d (50% water, 50% oil)
for the three tubing sizes.

Fig 5.35. Gradient curves for ql = 2000 STB/d and tubing ID = 2.5 in (from Boyun
Guo, 2007)
❖ From Figure 5.32, at H = 8000 ft and pwf = 1610 psi, the

GLR must be 800 SCF/STB. Since the natural GLR is 300
SCF/STB, the required gas injection rate, qg, must be 2000
(800 – 300) = 1 × 106 SCF/d.

Guo, 2007)
❖ From Figure 5.36 (for the 3.5-in. well), the required GLR for
the same H and pwf would be only 350 SCF/STB and
therefore the gas injection rate would be only 2000 (350 –
300) = 1 × 105 SCF/d, an order of magnitude smaller

Guo, 2007)
❖ Finally, as can be seen readily from Figure 5.37, the natural

GLR would be sufficient to lift the liquid production rate if the
tubing diameter is 4.5 in.
❖ This calculation shows the importance of the tubing size

selection (and the associated economics of well completion)
versus gas-lift requirements (i.e., volume of gas,
compression and separation costs).

5.7 Gaslift Requirements versus
Time

5.7 Gaslift Requirements versus Time
❖ As the reservoir pressure declines, the driving force

in the reservoir is reduced and therefore, in order to
sustain a given production rate, the flowing
bottomhole pressure must be reduced accordingly

❖ Maximizing the liquid production rate with gas lift
requires an increase in the gas injection rate, since

the limit GLR is larger for smaller production rates in
a given tubing size. Again, design of gas lift versus
time must be the subject of economic evaluation.

❖ An appropriate method for forecasting gas-lift
requirements versus time is as follows.
1. Establish an optimum gas-lift performance curve
for the given tubing and reservoir fluid.
2. For each average reservoir pressure, develop a
new IPR curve.
3.The intersection of the IPR curves with the
optimum gas-lift performance curve is the maximum
production rate.

4. This maximum production rate is at the limit GLR,
which is also associated with the minimum pwf.
5. Material balance calculations as shown in Chapter 10

can provide the reservoir cumulative production within
each reservoir pressure decline interval, .

❖ 6. The production rate within this interval and the

calculated cumulative production easily allow the
calculation of the time required for this pressure
decline.
❖ 7. Well performance and gas injection rate

requirements versus time can then be
forecasted.

❖ Example. Maximized Production Rate with Gas

Lift in a Depleting Reservoir
❖ What would be the average reservoir pressure

for a maximized production rate of 500 STB/d?
Calculate the flowing bottomhole pressure.

Fig 5.38. IPR curves with declining reservoir pressure for optimized
gas lift (from Gilbert, 1954)

❖ Solution
❖ The simplest solution to this problem can be obtained
graphically from Figure 5.27. The maximum production
rate must be at the intersection of the new IPR curve
(slope 0.39) and the optimum gas-lift curve. Thus, a
parallel IPR (Figure 5.32 ) is drawn, which intersects the
vertical axis at an average reservoir pressure, equal to
2050 psi. From the same figure or from the IPR
equation, the corresponding flowing bottomhole
pressure, pwf, is 770 psi.

Summary
❖ This chapter presents the principles of gaslift systems

and illustrates a procedure for designing gas lift
operations. Major tasks include calculations of well
deliverability, gas lift valve selection and spacing, and
selection of installation methods.

Problems
❖ Problem 1: Consider a well to be gas lifted

with the following characteristics:

Problems
❖ Surface operating pressure available = 900 psi

❖ Kick-off pressure = 950 psi
❖ Kill fluid gradient = 0.5 psi/ft
❖ Pressure gradient above kill fluid = 0.2 psi/ft
❖ pval = 100 psi
❖ Well loaded to top; first valve only unloaded
against zero surface pressure
❖ Point of gas injection = 3820 ft

❖ Select the locations of the unloading valves for
this well.

Problems
❖ Problem 2. Suppose that the following limit
GLR values and bottomhole pressures (at H =
10,000 ft) correspond to the three production
rates listed below.
❖ Table 5.2 Production Data


Problems
❖ What would be the maximum production rate if

the IPR multiplier were 0.6 and if ?
❖ What would be the maximum production rate after

the reservoir pressure declines to 3000 and 2500
psi, respectively?

References
1. Bertuzzi, A.F., Welchon, J.K, and Poettman, F.H.,

“Description and Analyses of an Efficient Continuous
Flow Gas-Lift Installation,” JPT, 271–278 (November
1953).
2. Brown, K.E., Day, J.J., Byrd, J.P., and Mach, J., The
Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, Petroleum
Publishing, Tulsa, OK, 1980.
3. Gilbert, W.E., “Flowing and Gas-Lift Well

Performance,” Drill and Prod. Prac., 143 (1954).

References
4. Golan, M., and Whiston, C.H., Well Performance,

2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.
5. Poettman, F.H., and Carpenter, P.G., “Multiphase

Flow of Gas, Oil and Water through Vertical Flow
Strings with Application to the Design of Gas-Lift
Installations,” Drill and Prod. Prac., 257–317 (1952).

END OF CHAPTER 5

05 Gaslift

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

05 Gaslift

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIETNAM OIL AND GAS GROUP

Lecturer : MSc Luong Hai Linh

➢ Know how to determine the maximum extraction flow in

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 3

5.7 Gas-Lift Performance Curve

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 4

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 5

Video 5.1 Introduction from Gas lift

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 6

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 8

Fig 5.1 Configuration of a typical gas lift well

4. Intermittent gas injection at progressively deeper set

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 10

Fig 5.2 Gas-lift completions

continuous lift.For intermittent gas lift, both a single

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 12

➢ The product has a high μ, a

➢ Low liquid level, deep well

lift because reservoir-pressure maintenance programs

✓ Gas lift is one of the most forgiving forms of artificial lift

without killing a well or pulling the tubing.

✓ Air depth (immersed depth of the lift pipe)

✓ Mining tube structure

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 17

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 18

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 19

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 20

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 21

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 22

3. Injection rate for maximum liquid flow rate at the‘‘optimum GLR.’’

Fig 5.6 A sketch of continuous gas lift (from

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 24

Fig 5.7 Pressure relationship in a continuous gas lift (from

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 25

5.2.1 Two-Phase Flow Regimes

❖The flow regime in gas–liquid

Fig 5.8 Flow regimes in gas–liquid flow (from

❖The Duns and Ros map correlates flow regime with

where ρl is liquid density, g is the acceleration of gravity,

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 27

❖One such mapthat is used for flow regime discrimination

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 28

❖Map must be generated for particular gas and liquid

Fig 5.10 Taitel-Dukler flow regime map (from Brill

5.2.2 Pressure Traverse Calculations

Fig 5.11 Pressure, temperature, and flow regime distribution in a well

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 30

5.2.2.1 Pressure Traverse with Fixed Length Interval

5. Obtain a new estimate of Δp from

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 31

5.2.2.2 Pressure Traverse with Fixed-Pressure Increment

❖Pressure differences are graphed against depth. For

where Δptrav is the pressure traverse and is a

properties and composition of the fluid.

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 34

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 35

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 36

The Reynolds number

these equations are based on:

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 37

where γ is the gas gravity to air and 28.97 is the

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 38

Fig 5.13 Construction of an equilibrium curve (from Brill and

Luong Hai Linh, MSc Petroleum production system 39