Int. J. Petroleum Engineering, Vol. 4, No.

1, 2022 65

Activation of a non-eruptive well by using gas lift

method and step-up of its productivity: sensitivity
and economical analysis

Josephine Fleur Matateyou

Laboratory of Ore and Mineral Processing,
Institute for Geology and Mining Research,
P.O. Box 4110, Yaounde, Cameroon
and
Department of Petroleum and Gas Engineering,
School of Geology and Mining Engineering,
University of Ngaoundere,
P.O. BOX 115, Meiganga, Cameroon
Email: josephine.matateyou@gmail.com

Lionel Tapsia Karga

Department of Mechanical, Petroleum and Gas Engineering,
National Advanced School of Mines and Petroleum Industries,
University of Maroua,
P.O. Box 46 Maroua, Cameroon
Email: kalionel@yahoo.fr

Madeleine Nitcheu*
Department of Basic Scientific Teaching,
School of Geology and Mining Engineering,
University of Ngaoundere,
P.O. Box 115 Meiganga, Cameroon
Email: nitcheumadeleine78 @gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Ornella Gwladys Djouwa Kom

Department of Petroleum and Gas Engineering,
School of Geology and Mining Engineering,
University of Ngaoundere,
P.O. Box 115, Meiganga, Cameroon
Email: komgwladys@gmail.com

Copyright © 2022 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

66 J.F. Matateyou et al.

Luc Leroy Mambou Ngueyep

Department of Mining Engineering,
School of Geology and Mining Engineering,
University of Ngaoundere,
P.O. Box 115 Meiganga, Cameroon
Email: mamboulucleroy@gmail.com

Sifeu Takougang Kingni

Department of Mechanical, Petroleum and Gas Engineering,
National Advanced School of Mines and Petroleum Industries,
University of Maroua,
P.O. Box 46 Maroua, Cameroon
Email: stkingni@gmail.com

Abstract: This paper aims to design a gas lift that not only activates a
non-eruptive well but also and above all, optimises the recovery of
hydrocarbons at the surface while using a very less and limited gas quantity per
day. The data are reservoir data, fluid data, well architecture properties, and
also injection targets. To achieve the objective, it is necessary to carry out a
nodal analysis of the non-eruptive well, and design the gas lift system by
finding the gas injection pressure in the well, the number of valves, the optimal
heights of injection, and the flow rates received by each valve. The evaluation
of the system performance, as well as the sensitivity analysis, allows the
selection of an optimal production rate. All the simulation operations and the
well diagram are carried out with PIPESIM 2017.1. The results obtained show
for the continuous injection of gas at 0.73 and 0.23 mmscf/d respectively. For
valves 1 and 2 in the well, i.e., 1 mmscf/d for the two valves and using pressure
at the head of the well of 100 psia, an optimal flow rate of 262.9 STB/d can be
produced and the payback period is one year and two months.

Keywords: non-erupting well; gas lift; step-up; production; sensitivity

analysis; payback period.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Matateyou, J.F.,

Karga, L.T., Nitcheu, M., Kom, O.G.D., Ngueyep, L.L.M. and Kingni, S.T.
(2022) ‘Activation of a non-eruptive well by using gas lift method and step-up
of its productivity: sensitivity and economical analysis’, Int. J. Petroleum
Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.65–79.

Biographical notes: Josephine Fleur Matateyou is a highly motivated

researcher with a strong sense of hard work and intensive analysis. She is a
PhD candidate in Mechanical Engineering, working in the Laboratory of Ores
and Mineral Processing of the National Institute of Geological Research and
Mining in Cameroon. She is convinced of the important contribution of women
in scientific research. Her research work focuses on the optimisation and
economical evaluation of hybrid systems use in Sub-Saharian Africa in order to
improve the yield of renewable resources; helping with the artificial
intelligence technology.
 Activation of a non-eruptive well by using gas lift method 67

Lionel Tapsia Karga is a Doctor in Mechanical Materials and Structural

Calculation, and Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Petroleum and Gas
Engineering of the National Advanced School of Mines and Petroleum
Industries of the University of Maroua. His research work focuses on the
development of bio materials, on the calculation of structures and the solid
mine and the liquid mine.

Madeleine Nitcheu is a Doctor in Energy and Environment, and Lecturer in the

Department of Basic Scientific Teaching of the School of Geology and Mining
Engineering of the University of Ngaoundere. Her research work focuses on the
properties of local buildings materials, thermal comfort and energy.

Ornella Gwladys Djouwa Kom is a Petroleum and Gas Engineer specialising in

Drilling and Production from the School of Geology and Mining Engineering.
She is a PhD student at Nation Advanced School of Engineering Yaounde. She
is working on a new approach to the PKN model based on the variation of the
fracturing viscosity: case study la-107 well in Douala Cameroon. Furthermore,
she is working in Nickel Oil Sarl as a Task Manager and consultant in
AGRIDEV on Environmental and Social Impact Studies.

Luc Leroy Mambou Ngueyep is a Mining Engineer and an Associate Professor

at University of Ngaoundere Cameroon since May 2021. His research activities
are essentially focused on petroleum and gas engineering, material
characterisation, materials, mechanical properties, mechanical behaviour of
materials, heat treatment, mechanical testing, fracture mechanics, high
temperature materials, material characteristics, metallurgical engineering, and
materials testing.

Sifeu Takougang Kingni is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Mines and

Petroleum Industries of the University of Maroua, Cameroon since November
2020. In 2014, he received a joint PhD degree in Physics between the Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Belgium and the University of Yaounde I, Cameroon in
2014. He published around 80 papers in international journals and serves as a
reviewer of several international journals. His research activities are essentially
focused on petroleum and gas engineering, physicochemical characterisation of
water and the exploration of nonlinear phenomena in semiconductor lasers,
electronic circuits, optomechanics, Josephson junctions and fluid saturated
porous media.

1 Introduction

The oil and gas industry faces many challenges in the exploration, drilling, production,
and management of hydrocarbons found beneath the earth’s subsurface (Economides and
Boney, 2000; Guo et al., 2007; John, 2018). Despite all these obstacles, the engineer must
be able to create solutions to solve different problems. Several years ago (150 years),
hydrocarbons used the natural energy of the reservoir to reach the surface. But as we
produce, the fields become mature, and the reservoir pressure decreases (Katz and
Barlow, 1995; Bellarby, 2009; Renpu, 2011). The energy in the reservoir is therefore no
longer sufficient to bring the hydrocarbons to the surface, or the pressure at the bottom of
the well becomes greater than the pressure in the reservoir, which causes considerable
reduction in the production flow, which can even lead to production stop (Gilbertson,
68 J.F. Matateyou et al.

2010; Crumpton, 2018; Guo et al., 2007). In the oil field, the literature indicates that
several artificial techniques have been adopted to activate and increase the production
rate of hydrocarbons at the surface, and certain techniques are recent: using of
progressive cavity pump (PCP), sucker rod pump, electrical submersible pump (ESP),
plunger lift, hydraulic pump and gas lift (Valchon and Bussear, 2005; Qahtani et al.,
2005; Basic ESP Sizing, 2007; Khamehchi and Mahdiani, 2017; Takacs, 1983; Ben
Amara, 2016). However, gas lift units have proven to be one of the most widely used
methods of lifting smaller oil flows and high gas-oil ratio (GOR). The global oil supply
with gas lift systems is estimated to be over 20% (Brown and Phillips, 1984). The gas lift
is an artificial lifting system, easy to install and use. It uses an external source of high gas
pressure, to supplement the formation gas to lift the fluids from the well. Its principle is
that the gas injected into the tubing reduces the density of the fluid, and the gas bubbles
have a purifying action on the fluids, causing a faster oil ascension (Laing, 1989; Shahri,
2011; Brown, 1967, 1980; Gábor, 2005). After years of production, the reservoir begins
to provide flow rates that are no longer economically profitable because of its depletion;
it is possible to go to a total stop of production (non-eruptive well), even though the
reservoir still contains the hydrocarbons (Cloud, 1937; King, 1998). For very viscous oil,
generally, it is recommended to use the gas lift to allow it to reach the surface. The
installation of a gas lift system will help reduce the bottom hole pressure in the case of a
non-eruptive well (Clegg et al., 1993). But this injection must be done optimally (inject
less gas to produce the maximum amount of oil), which is not easy. The majority of wells
using gas lift systems generally consume a lot of gas to produce commercial flows, which
is a major problem due to the high costs of gas supply (Winkler and Camp, 1987;
Schlumberger, 2020; Ayatollahi and Moshfeghian, 2001). A central question emerges
from this observation: is it possible to activate and optimise the production of a
non-eruptive well by the gas lift method while injecting less and limited gas quantity into
the production system?
This paper aims to provide an optimal analysis of a non-eruptive well named well X
(for confidential reasons) that has stopped producing after the well pressure has become
greater than the reservoir pressure. To carry out this paper, the following tasks are
performed: carry out a nodal analysis of the well before setting up the gas lift system;
design the gas lift; make a new well completion; perform a sensitivity analysis to choose
the optimal flow parameters and perform an economic analysis. To achieve these
objectives, technical and economical approaches are studied.
The synthesis of this paper is presented in three sections: The introduction is
presented in Section 1. Section 2 presents the data, tools, methodology, and results.
Section 3 gives the conclusion.

2 Material, methods and results

This paper aims to propose an economical gas lift design to reactivate a non-eruptive well
that has stopped producing while optimising production using as little gas as possible.
This is made possible through the nodal analysis of the non-eruptive well before the
installation of the gas lift system, the gas lift design, the drawing of the final diagram of
the well, the diagnosis of the performance of the artificial lift, the sensitivity analysis and
analysis of the payback period.
 Activation of a non-eruptive well by using gas lift method 69

2.1 Data and tools

The data, tools, and methodology used to achieve the goal of this paper are presented in
this subsection. The dead well is called well X and the location is not given to keep the
confidentiality. The reservoir temperature is 100°C and the pressure is 1,000 psi. The
produced fluid is oil and has an API gravity of 38 with a low aromatic fraction. CO2
content is low (0.5 mole %), H2S content is 10 ppm and the total vertical depth
(measured depth) is 8,000 ft. The following data are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 Well completion design data

Reservoir and fluid data Gas oil ratio = 500

Pressure = 1,000 Psi
Temperature = 212°F
Oil API gravity = 38
Fluid type = oil
Fluid composition = (CO2 = 0.5%; H2S = 10 ppm)
Well data Measured depth = 8,000 ft
Well inclination = 0° (vertical well)
Actual production outlet pressure = 250 PSI
Productivity index = 1
Gas injection objectives Gas rate available = 1 mmscf/d
Production objectives Minimum flow rate required = 200 bbl/d
Taxes Taxes=5 %

The well X consists of a vertical well. Its well profile starts with a 20” conductor pipe
(CP) hammered till 100 ft, followed by 13-3/8” surface casing with casing shoe at 800 ft
of grade K55; 9-5/8” intermediate casing with casing shoe at 3,500 ft of grade N80 and a
last 7” OD production casing at 8,000 ft of grade C90 with a nominal weight of
29 pounds per foot. The production tubing is 2,992” ID set at 7,500 ft with a production
packer at 7,300 ft. The PIPESIM 2017.1 software, sensitivity analysis and economical
analysis are used to attain the aims of this paper.

2.2 Gas lift design

Nodal analysis is performed at the bottom of the no-eruptive well as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 presents the performance of the displacement of hydrocarbons in the
reservoir and the production column of the non-eruptive well. The IPR chart shows that
the absolute open flow (AOF) is 555.5 STB/day. The tube dimension is 3.5 inches
outside diameter, 2.992 inches inside diameter, and the depth is 7,500 ft. The dimension
of the production casing is 7 inches outside diameter and 6.184 inches inside diameter
and the depth is 8000 ft. The oil cannot flow naturally to the surface because the reservoir
pressure is low and less than the pressure at the bottom of the well. For hydrocarbon
production to occur, the reservoir pressure must be greater than the pressure at the bottom
of the well (Hernandez, 2016). From the above condition, the gas lift system is designed
to reactivate the well to produce the oil. After processing the data, PIPESIM can show the
gas lift performance curve in Figure 2.
70 J.F. Matateyou et al.

Figure 1 Nodal analysis for non-erupting well (see online version for colours)

Figure 2 Gas lift performance curve (see online version for colours)

The simulation results of the well’s response to a gas injection calculate the maximum
gas injection pressure CHP = 750 psia as shown in Figure 2. A minimal sensitivity
analysis is performed by utilising optimum gas injection pressure data of the gas lift
performance curve. From Figure 2 the optimal rate of gas injection is 5 mmscf/d, and this
flow requires recovering an oil flow of 266.5964 STB/d on average. However, as part of
 Activation of a non-eruptive well by using gas lift method 71

this optimisation, the quantity of gas available is 1 mmscf/d, and in a normal injection of
1 mmscf/d, an oil flow rate of 174.916 STB/d is produced. It is therefore imperative to
install a system of valves that will continuously deliver a rate of gas available per day to
boost the well performance. The optimal gas injection point into the well is calculated
based on the height of the well, its pressure, its temperature, and the AOF of the well at
the moment when the pressure at the bottom of the well is greater than the pressure of the
reservoir. The results are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Deepest injection point (see online version for colours)

In Figure 3, for maximum production, depending on reservoir pressure and temperature,

the first gas lift valve should be placed at a depth of 7,290 ft. This depth is directly below
the production packer depth. This means that the gas must be injected at the inlet of the
production tubing, as soon as the pressure of the hydrostatic column begins to be
recorded. Depending on the first gas lift valve placed in the well, the analysis of a relay
system is necessary to optimise the recovery of hydrocarbons at the surface as depicted in
Figure 4 and Table 2.

Figure 4 Well gas lift design (see online version for colours)
72 J.F. Matateyou et al.

Table 2 Valves parameters.

Injection type DIP (ft) CHP (psia) Qgi (mmscf/d)

Gas lift valve 1 Continuous injection 7,290 750 0.73
Gas lift valve 2 Continuous injection 4,349 692 0.27

For efficient recovery, the second gas injection valve should be placed at 4,349 ft. This
valve is practically halfway up the well. And the daily injection rate is found manually by
varying the quantities of gas received by each valve until the maximum flow is obtained.
The injection rate found is 0.73 and 0.27 mmscf/d respectively for valves 1 and 2. The
injection is continuous into the well. The well design schematic is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Well completion schematic (see online version for colours)

In Figure 5, it is essentially made up of the production casing, the production tubing, the
production packer, and their different heights; the height of the perforations and surface
elements: flowline (FL), choke (Ck), and sink (Sk). With the installation of the gas lift
equipment in the well, a depression in the well can therefore be created, until the pressure
in the reservoir, which is 1,000 psia, again becomes greater than the pressure recorded at
the bottom of the well. So, the well can deliver to the surface an oil flow that can be
managed (Hernandez, 2016). The gas lift performance results are shown in Figure 6 and
Table 3.
 Activation of a non-eruptive well by using gas lift method 73

Figure 6 Gas lift diagnostic (see online version for colours)

Table 3 Gas lift diagnostic table.

Case CHP DIP Injection type Qgi Q

Unit psia ft //////// Mmscf/d STB/d
Valve1 750 7290 Continuous 0.73 /////////
Valve 2 692 4349 Continuous 0.27 /////////
TOTAL //////// //////// //////// 1 166,1055

After installing the gas lift valves at defined depths, a flow rate of 166.1055 STB/d is
produced, with a pressure of 819.389 psia at the bottom of the well, less than the tank
pressure. This information is the result of the lightening of the column of fluid by the gas
introduced into the tubing. This throughput can be further optimised by performing a
sensitivity analysis on the modifiable production parameters.

Figure 7 Wellhead pressure sensitivity analysis (see online version for colours)
74 J.F. Matateyou et al.

2.3 Sensitivity analysis

The well flowing pressure of the fluid at the wellhead is set at three different rates which
are 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 psia as presented in Figure 7.
The variation of the well flowing pressure is then correlated with tubing size of 2,992
inches inside diameter. For the scenario, the gas ratio is 500 SCF/STB and the water cut
is 60%. Table 4 gives a summary of the pressure and flow profile of the variation in the
outlet pressure of hydrocarbons at the surface.
Table 4 Optimum flow rate on wellhead pressure sensitivity analysis

Operating point Q at NA P at NA
Case
psia STB/d psia
1 50 286.7124 662.7323
2 100 262.9248 696.002
3 150 233.6235 735.2163
4 200 201.0188 776.8496
5 250 166.1055 919.3362

Figure 8 Sensitivity analysis GOR (see online version for colours)

Since the wellhead pressure needs to be set according to the surface equipment, when
production stopped in field X, the wellhead pressure was 250 psia. The minimum
standard pressure of production according to the basic production equipment being 100
psia, the pressure at the head of the well can therefore be reduced to 100 psia. Therefore,
this pressure must be controlled throughout the production period, because its variation
could cause damage to surface equipment, and surface equipment is designed to receive a
relatively sweet flow. With a well head pressure of 100 psia, a flow rate of 262.9248
STB/d is obtained, and the pressure recorded at the bottom of the well is 696.002 psia.
 Activation of a non-eruptive well by using gas lift method 75

For a daily gas injection of 1 Mmscf/d, the recovery rate is almost identical to that of a 5
Mmscf/d gas injection in a single injection. Figure 8 indicates the results of sensitivity
analysis with three different GOR (300, 400, and 500) scf/sbbl, with a wellhead pressure
of 100 psia.
Table 5 shows a summary of the flow rates produced according to the variation of the
GOR.
Table 5 Flow rate with GOR variation

Operating point GOR Q at NA P at NA

Case
Scf/sbbl STB/d psia
1 300 246.0471 718.8122
2 400 255.7393 705.7898
3 500 262.9248 696.002

In the worst case (GOR = 300), the product oil flow rate is 246.0471 STB/d. The results
of the water cut sensitivity analysis are shown in Figure 9 and Table 6. The selected
water cut parameters are calibrated from 60% to 85%.

Figure 9 Sensitivity analysis water cut (see online version for colours)

It is found that as the percentage of water increases in the well, the production decreases
considerably, and this decrease cannot be stopped. It is therefore this breakthrough in
water that will determine the end of the efficiency of the gas lift installed because there is
no point in producing water. From the sensitivity analysis, new production parameters
can be defined. For optimum production, it is recommended to have a maximum fluid
outlet pressure of 100 psia, so as not to damage surface equipment. The decrease in the
GOR and the increase in the water cut over time will lead to a considerable drop in
production, until the well reaches its economic limit. For this specific case, reducing the
pressure at the wellhead makes it possible to obtain a new flow rate of 262.9248 STB/d.
76 J.F. Matateyou et al.

Table 6 Flow rate with water cut variation

Operating WCut Q at NA P at NA
Case
% STB/d Psia
1 60 262.9248 696.002
2 65 254.6591 707.2512
3 70 246.6856 717.9606
4 75 237.8749 729.6382
5 80 226.6224 744.3243
6 85 215.6435 758.4178

2.4 Economical analysis

Table 7 shows the capital cost of setting up the project. It involves the cost of
procurement, construction, engineering, administration, platform pricing, etc. The
amounts do not include company costs such as company personnel, helicopter, catering,
etc.
Table 7 Gas lift system cost per item

Item Cost of gas lift ($)

HP/year 3,000
Installation 20,000
Equipment 50,000
Running cost/year 1,200,000
Maintenance cost per year 300,000
Water treatment/year 350,000
Barrel of oil 50

Figure 10 Reservoir pressure variation (see online version for colours)

 Activation of a non-eruptive well by using gas lift method 77

Figure 10 shows the natural reservoir depletion with time.

The results of the production forecast of the gas lift by Pipesim are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Production rate performance

Pο Res. Q (Gas lift)

Year
Psia Bbl/d
1 1,000 262.9248
2 961 246.9317
3 898 223.129
4 876 211.6553
5 845 196.363
6 809 182.5706

We assume $50 per barrel of crude oil, then the estimated cost for four years is tabulated
as shown in Table 9.
Table 9 Gas-lift estimated cost for four years.

Standard Cost of gas lift ($)

HP 12,000
Installation 20,000
Equipment 50,000
Running cost/year 4,800,000
Maintenance cost per year 1,200,000
Water treatment/year 1,400,000
Total investment 7,482,000

The oil revenue estimation is presented in Table 10.

Table 10 Estimation of oil revenue

Items Gas lift

Oil rate (bbl/4 years) 344,793.892
Oil revenue ($/year) 17,239,694.6
Installation/operating cost ($) 7,482,000
Gross profit ($) without taxes 9,757,694.6
Taxes 5%
Gross profit ($) with taxes 9,269,809.87

The result of the payback time calculation is shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Payback period

Method Payback period

Gas lift 1.238
78 J.F. Matateyou et al.

From the economic analysis of Table 11, it is possible to conclude that the operating cost
of the gas lift is quite high and this justified its efficiency in the activation and
optimisation of production, while the well was not producing more hydrocarbons. The
overall performance is better with this method, especially when it comes to producing
low flow rates while having a quick return on investment. The payback time shows that,
after 1 year and 2 months, the initial investment cost is recovered.

3 Conclusions

The objective of this paper was to propose a gas lift design, allowing activating and
optimising the production of hydrocarbons of a non-eruptive well, while injecting as little
and limited gas quantity as possible into the production column. To do this, PVT data and
production data were used and their importance was mentioned in the context of this
paper. Also, to achieve the set objectives, an appropriate methodology was developed.
First, it consisted in defining and presenting the data used and presenting a nodal analysis
of the non-eruptive well. As a second step, bring out the gas lift design for optimal
recovery of the oil on the surface, a sensitivity analysis allowed to optimise surface
production. As a third step, an economic analysis was developed to determine the project
rentability. Given these procedures, it appears that the nodal analysis of the well before
the installation of the gas lift presented an absolute open flow of 555.5 STB/d. The gas
lift design for gas injection into the well allows an injection pressure of 750 and 692 psia
for each valve and a maximum height of the first gas valve set at 7,290 feet. For better
recovery of hydrocarbons at the surface, a second relay valve must be placed at 4349 ft.
and the daily injection rate is 0.73 and 0.27 mmscf/d respectively for valves 1 and 2 (for
an available quantity of gas of 1 mmscf/d). With an outlet pressure of 100 psia, the
optimum recorded production flow rate is 262.9248 STB/d. The economic analysis was
given a gross profit of $9,269,809.87 after 4 years and the payback period is 1 year and
2 months. Prospects may be: generalise this study on the other wells of the field X with
internal diameters of production tubing other than 2.992” to assess the financial potential
of all the dead wells in the field.

References
Ayatollahi, S. Bahadori, A. and Moshfeghian, A. (2001) ‘Method optimises Aghajari oil field gas
lift’, Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 99, pp.47–49.
Basic ESP Sizing (2007) April, Wood Group ESP, Inc., Oklahoma City.
Bellarby, J. (2009) Well Completion Design, 1st ed., pp.304–367, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Nertherlands.
Ben Amara, A. (2016) ‘Gas lift – past & future’, SPE-184221-MS presented at the SPE Middle
East Artificial Lift Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain.
Brown, K. (1967) Gas Lift Theory and Practice Including a Review of Petroleum Engineering
Fundamental, The University of Tulsa, Prentice Hall, Inc., USA.
Brown, K. (1980) The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods, Volume 2a, The University of Tulsa,
Penn Well Publishing Company, USA.
Brown, S.P.A. and Phillips, K.R. (1984) Effects of Oil Prices and Exchange Rates on World Oil
Consumption, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Review, USA.
 Activation of a non-eruptive well by using gas lift method 79

Clegg, J., Bucaram, S. and Heln, N. (1993) ‘Recommendations and comparisons for selecting
artificial-lift methods’, SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 24834, No. 1128,
pp.1–12.
Cloud, W.F. (1937) Petroleum Production, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 613pp.
Crumpton, H. (2018) Well Control for Completions and Interventions, 1st ed., Elsevier, Oxford.
Economides, M.J. and Boney, C. (2000) Reservoir Stimulation in Petroleum Production
(Reservoir Stimulation), John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Texas, Chinchester, USA.
Gábor, T. (2005) Gas Lift Manual, Penn Well Corp, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112.
Gilbertson, E. (2010) Gas Lift Valve Failure Mode Analysis and the Design of a Thermally-
Actuated Positive-Locking Safety Valve, Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Guo, B., Lyons, W.C. and Ghalambor, A. (2007) Petroleum Production Engineering:
A Computer-Assisted Approach, Gulf Professional Publishing, USA.
Hernandez, A. (2016) Fundamentals of Gas Lift Engineering: Well Design and Troubleshooting,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, Nertherlands.
John, S. (2018) Forecasting Oil and Gas Producing for Unconventional Wells, 2nd ed., Petro,
Denver.
Katz, D. and Barlow, W. (1995) Relation of Bottom-Hole Pressure to Production Control,
American Petroleum Institute, New York.
Khamehchi, E. and Mahdiani, M.R. (2017) Gas Allocation Optimization Methods in Artificial
Gas-Lift, Springer.
King, G. (1998) An Introduction to the Basics of Well Completions, Stimulations, and Workovers,
1st ed., Houston, Texas, Sand Springs, OK 74063.
Laing, C. (1989) Gas Lift Design and Production Optimization Offshore Trinidad, SPE, Amoco
UK Exploration Co.
Qahtani, A.A., Qahtani, M.A. and Qahtani, B.A. (2005) ‘Development of a novel solution for
multiphase flow metering in ESP-lifted wells’, SPE-93617-MS presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 5–7 April, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Renpu, W. (2011) Advanced Well Completion Engineering, 3rd ed., Elsevier, Oxford.
Schlumberger (2020) Gas Lift Design and Technology, Shlumberger, Houston.
Shahri, M. (2011) Simplified and Rapid Method for Determining Flow Characteristics of Every
Gas-Lift Valve, pp.1–128, Texas Tech University, USA.
Takacs, G. (1983) ‘Evaluation of ten methods used for prediction of pressure drop in oil wells’,
Oil Gas-Eur. Mag., Vol. 2, pp.44–51.
Valchon, G. and Bussear, T. (2005) ‘Production optimization in ESP completion with intelligent
well technology’, SPE 93617 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, 5–7 April, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Winkler, H.W. and Camp, G.F. (1987) ‘Dynamic performance testing of single-element unbalanced
gas-lift valves’, SPE Production Engineering, Vol. 2, pp.183–190, DOI: 10.2118/14348-PA.