SCIENTIFIC PAPER

SIMULATION OF TEMPERATURE-PRESSURE PROFILES AND WAX

DEPOSITION IN GAS-LIFT WELLS

Snezana Sevic1, Branko Grubac1

1
PM Lucas Enterprises, Kac, Serbia

Received 14.10.2016.

Revised 7.2.2017.

Accepted 10.2.2017.


Corresponding author: Dr. Snezana Sevic, PM Lucas Enterprises, Ostroska 8, 21241 Kac, Serbia, Phone:
+38163507832, Fax: +381216861243, E-mail: s.sevic@pmlucas.com

1
ABSTRACT

Gas-lift is an artificial-lift method in which gas is injected down the production tubing-
production casing annulus and enters the production tubing through the gas-lift valves to
reduce the hydrostatic pressure of the formation fluid column. Gas-lift gas changes pressure,
temperature and fluid composition profiles throughout the production tubing string.
Temperature and pressure drop along with the fluid composition changes throughout the
tubing string can lead to wax, asphaltenes and inorganic salts deposition, increased emulsion
stability and hydrate formation.

This paper presents a new model which can sucesfully simulate temperature and pressure
profiles and fluid composition changes in oil well that operates by means of gas-lift. This new
model included pipe-in-pipe segment (Production tubing-inside production casing),
countercurrent flow of gas-lift gas and producing fluid, heat exchange between gas-lift gas
and the surrounding ambient – ground; and gas-lift gas with the fluid in the tubing. The
model enables a better understanding of the multiphase fluid flow up the production tubing.
Model was used to get insight into severity and locations of wax deposition. Obtained
information on wax deposition can be used to plan frequency and depth of wax removing
operations. Model was developed using Aspen HYSYS software.

KEYWORDS: Gas-lift; Oil well; Pressure-temperature profile; Simulation; Wax deposition

HIGHLIGHTS

 Temperature-pressure profiles in gas-lift wells can be simulated by Aspen HYSYS.

 Matching simulated with measured profiles depended on the number of pipes
representing tubing.
 The more pipes included in the model, the better matching with measured data was
achieved.
 The model can be used to determine wax deposit thickness distribution vs. well depth.
 Wax deposit profile can be used to plan wax cutting depth and frequency.

2
INTRODUCTION

Gas-lift is a method that uses an external source of high-pressure gas for helping formation
gas to lift the well fluids. The compressed gas is injected down the production casing-tubing
annulus, entering the tubing through the working gas-lift gas valves. As the gas-lift gas enters
the tubing, it forms bubbles, lightens the formation fluids by reducing fluid density and
lowers the flowing bottom hole pressure, creating a drawdown that allows the fluid to flow
into the wellbore. During fluids flow through a tubing string in oil producing well, pressure,
temperature, phase’s ratio, composition of phases change. These changes are the result of
different effects, such as: the frictional loss, fluid lifting, and heat transfer from the
surroundings. At the same time, Joule-Thompson effect takes place. Typically, gas lift
designs are based on natural gas as the injection gas. Early gas lift operations were conducted
using air as the injection gas. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide offer good alternatives to natural
gas for gas lift [1,2].

One of the first theoretical models which described single phase fluid flow temperature as a
function of well depth and producing time was given by Ramey [3]. Sagar et al. [4] extended
Ramey`s method for wellbore with multiphase flow. Unified model for temperature
distribution with approximate method to calculate the Joule-Thompson coefficient for two
phase mixture with a black oil in wellbore was presented by Alves et al. [5]. Hasan [6]
developed analytical model for the flowing fluid temperature in the drill pipe/tubing and in
the annulus as a function of well depth and circulation time. Hasan and Kabir carried out
research on the heat transfer in wellbore [7,8] and fluid temperature profile in gas-lift wells
[9]. They also developed method for predicting two-phase gas/oil pressure-drop in vertical oil
wells [10,11]. The effect of tubing temperature and injection gas-lift gas temperature on the
gas-lift valve dome temperature were studied by Bertovic [12] and Faustinelli [13]. Jing-yu-
Xu [14] made experimental study of three-phase flow in a vertical pipe in order to investigate
the influence of gas injection and the average in situ phase fraction and pressure gradient.
Cazarez et al. [15] developed a model able to predict pressure, temperature and velocity
profiles and volumetric fraction of the components. Bannwart et al [16] done research on
pressure drop and pressure gradient in wells in three phase fluid flow. Temperature and
pressure distribution versus well depth in gas, gas-condensate and oil wells was extensively
examined [17,18,19]. At the beginning of 21st century two artificial neural network (ANN)

3
models were developed to predict the temperature of the flowing fluid at any depth in flowing
oil wells [20].

The presence of multiple phases greatly complicates pressure drop calculations. This is due to
the fact that the properties of each fluid present must be taken into account. Also, the
interactions between each phase must be considered. Mixture properties must be used, and
therefore the gas and liquid in-situ volume fractions throughout the pipe need to be
determined. In general, multiphase correlations are essentially two-phase and not three-phase.
Accordingly, the oil and water phases are combined, and treated as a pseudo single-liquid
phase, while gas is considered a separate phase. Modeling and simulation of multiphase
system, even under steady-state condition, is complex [21,22,23,24]. There are a few tools,
such as PipePhase, PipeSim, OLGA, Aspen HYSYS, designed specifically for simulation and
analysis of complex multiphase systems. Mengxia Li [25] developed dynamic model for
sensitivity analysis of gas-lift wells using a commercially available OLGA dynamic
multiphase flow simulator to simulate the transient dynamic gas-lift unloading process.

Flow assurance in oil and gas production is considered as the ability to produce fluids
economically, from the reservoir to a production facility over the life of a field and in any
environment. Deposition of any sort may lead to operational difficulties and production loss.

Gas-lift application can influence flow assurance issues. Temperature drop can cause wax
deposition. Gas-lift gas can extract H2S and CO2 out of the oil and water phase and by that
effect can shift pH to greater values and support CaCO3 formation and sulfate reducing
bacteria activity. Gas bubbling causes intensification of water and oil leading to increased
emulsion stability. Introduction of light gas components can cause asphaltenes precipitation.
Corrosion in a tubing-casing annulus and increase of hydrate formation temperature are often
recorded in gas-lift operations.

Temperature reduction is the most common cause of wax deposition because wax solubility
in hydrocarbon fluids decreases as the temperature drops. Pressure changes usually have a
very small effect on wax precipitation temperatures and amounts. Wax deposition may cause
operational problems in production tubing string and surface pipelines during oil flow from
the perforated/open hole interval to surface and further down the oil pipeline.

4
Numerous wax deposition models have been developed [26,27,28,29]. Models differ in
number of phases that were considered, wax formers, properties of components.

There are a few tools designed specifically for modeling wax deposition such as pvtSimnova,
PipeSim, OLGA, Aspen HYSYS, etc. Simulators can be divided into static and dynamic. In
the static models, the conditions of a system do not change with time, opposite from the
dynamic model.

The authors of this paper could not find references that deal with use of Aspen HYSYS in
simulation of temperature and pressure distribution in wells that produce oil by means of gas-
lift. This paper presents a new model developed using Aspen HYSYS which can sucesfully
simulate temperature-pressure profiles, fluid phase behavior, composition change and wax
deposition as a function of well depth in the gas-lift wells. This new model included pipe-in-
pipe segment (Tubing-casing), countercurrent flow of gas-lift gas and producing fluid, heat
exchange between gas-lift gas and the surrounding ambient-ground; and gas-lift gas with the
fluid in the tubing.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Model Boundaries and Streams

To develop a model, it is necessary to define the inlet and outlet boundaries of the model, to
establish the process flow along with the process parameters and to define inlet and outlet
streams.

The model inlet boundaries were:

– Bottom of the well

– The inlet of the compressor for gas-lift gas

The model outlet boundary was the wellhead of the production well.

The inlet stream consisted of the following:

– Hydrocarbon fluid at the bottom of the well

– Water stream at the bottom of the well

– Gas-lift gas

5
The outlet stream was producing fluid from the well.

Figure 1 presents scheme of gas-lift well operation.

(Figure. 1)

Aspen HYSYS Software version 8.8 was used for simulation. Peng-Robinson equation of
state package was used.

Process Flow Modelling

Process of gas-lift wells operation included the following elements relevant for the targeted
simulation:

1. Pipe-in-pipe system which includes:

 Production tubing – the inner pipe

 Production casing – the outer pipe

 Annulus “A” - space between the production tubing outer diameter and
production casing inner diameter, tubing-casing annular space

The tubing was modeled as a circular pipe with a given diameter. Annular space was modeled
as a circular pipe with hydraulic diameter corresponding to an annular section. Hydraulic
diameter of a circular tube with an inside circular tube was calculated as:

d h  2(ro  ri ) (1)

Where dh is a hydraulic diameter (mm), ro is an inside radius of the outside tube (mm), ri is an
outside radius of the inside tube (mm).

2. Countercurrent fluid flow:

 Producing fluid from the well, along with the accompanied gas-lift gas flows from the
bottom of the well up, toward the wellhead, through the tubing (inner space)

 Gas-lift gas flows from the top of the casing-tubing annulus to the bottom and enters
the tubing through the working gas-lift valve.

3. Heat exchange takes place as follows:

6
  Gas-lift gas exchanges heat with the surrounding ambient - ground and with the fluid
in the tubing.
 Fluid in the tubing exchanges heat with the gas-lift gas in the annular space.

Heat transfer between gas-lift gas and ambient was modeled by the heat transfer option
“Estimate heat transfer coefficient (HTC)” (Pipe Wall, Inner HTC, and Outer HTC were
included), taking into account ground thermal gradient, as no other data were available [30].

Heat transfer between inner pipe and annular space was modeled only at nodes of a desired
number of elements, and using estimated heat flow to obtain measured temperature at the end
of a pipe segment. For this, the overall length of the pipe was broken down into a desired
number of elements, and the end of each node was accounted for the heat flux using a mixer.

If the overall heat transfer coefficient and the ambient temperature are specified, then the
outlet temperature is determined from the following equations:

Q  UATLM (2)

Q  QIN  QOUT (3)

Where Q is an amount of heat transferred per unit of time (W), U is an overall heat transfer
coefficient (W/m2K), A is an outer heat transfer area (m2), TLM is a log mean temperature
difference (K), QIN is a heat flow per unit of time of inlet stream (W) and QOUT is a heat flow
per unit of time of (W) [30].

MODEL CHECKING – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Available production and process data were tested to check reliability of developed model.
The inlet parameters for the simulation were as follows:

– Oil, gas and water production rates on the date when measurements by
production logging tool (PLT) were performed

– Oil and gas composition at bottom hole conditions from the pressure, volume,
and temperature (PVT) analysis

– Gas-lift gas injection rate, composition, injection temperature and pressure on

the date when measurements by production logging tool (PLT) were
performed

7
 – Ground thermal gradient for the region in the vicinity of the wells

– Existing well completion

 Flow rates of producing fluids and gas-lift gas on the date when measurements
by production logging tool (PLT) were performed were accepted.

To develop and verify this approach, actual field multiphase-flow data points were obtained
from the existing measured data of temperature-pressure profiles.

Case Study

Sales gas was used in the gas-lift operation. Gas was compressed to 125 bar, and transported
through the pipeline to the distribution manifold. The compressed gas-lift gas was redirected
towards producing oil wells at the gas manifold via separated pipelines. Calculations on gas-
lift performance have shown that gas pressure for the Well D should be around 74 bar.
Therefore, pressure was reduced to 74 bar through the choke. Gas was injected into the
annular space of the well, and entered the tubing through the working gas-lift valve. Gas-lift
gas, along with the fluid from the well, flowed up through the tubing to the wellhead, and was
transported by the pipeline to the main gathering station. Main process parameters used in the
simulation are shown in Table 1.

(Table. 1)

Process flow diagram (PFD) is shown in Figure 2. Producing well – tubing-casing, gas-lift
gas and producing fluid streams, are presented by subflowsheet, abbreviation T.

(Figure. 2)

Temperature-Pressure Profiles

In the first model, tubing consisted of 2 (two) pipes: the first pipe represented a part of the
tubing from the bottom of the well up to the working gas-lift valve. The second pipe
represented the part of the tubing from the working gas-lift valve to the wellhead. Annular
space was presented as a single pipe. All pipes were divided into 3 segments, and each
segment was divided into 5 increments. All multiphase pressure drop correlations for vertical
flow of gas-liquid systems available in HYSYS were checked. Measured pressure and
temperature profiles were used as a reference. Results showed poor matching of calculated

8
temperature-pressure profiles with measured values no matter which of the correlations were
used. Some pressure drop correlation overestimated and some of them underestimated
measured pressure and temperature distribution. The same results were obtained if pipe was
divided in more segments and increments. Figure 3 shows results of temperature-pressure
profiles obtained by 4 different multiphase pressure drop correlations for vertical fluid flow.

(Figure. 3)

In the next model, tubing was presented with 3 (three) separate pipes, one from the bottom of
the well to the working gas-lift valve depth, and 2 (two) from the working gas-lift gas valve
to the wellhead. The annular space was presented with 2 (two) pipes, Figure 4.

(Figure. 4)

The idea was to improve matching with the measured data. All available pressure drop
correlations for vertical flow were tested again. Simulation was performed in two ways:

 The same pressure drop correlation for all pipes

 Different correlations for pipes

The result showed better matching of calculated temperature-pressure profiles with measured
data compared to the first model. In the case when a single pressure drop correlation was
accepted for all pipes, the best matching was achieved using Hagedorn and Brown
correlation. Results are shown in Figure 5.

(Figure. 5)

It was noticed that different correlations applied to each pipe provided better pressure loss
estimates than a single-correlation for the entire tubing. It could be explained by the fact that
along the tubing, due to the temperature and pressure changes, liquid/vapor phase ratios
changed, and by that phases superficial velocities changed, which affected flow regime and
pressure drop.

Further improvement of matching between measured and calculated temperature-pressure

profiles using one multiphase pressure loss correlation was obtained by dividing tubing and
annular space into more independent pipes. The best matching was obtained when the tubing
was divided into 10 (ten) pipes. Temperature and pressure profiles are shown in Figure 6.

(Figure. 6)

9
Wax Deposition Simulation

Wax deposition simulation was carried out using available models: Pederson, Conoco, Chung
and AEA [30]. Results of wax deposit thickness profile versus well depth and wax deposit
volume calculated by different models are shown in Figures 7 and 8.

(Figure. 7)

(Figure. 8)

Software took into account deposited wax thickness to calculate temperature - pressure
profiles when Wax Deposition calculation module was active (checked), leading to different
temperature and pressure at the outlet of the pipe compared to the case when calculation
module was inactive (unchecked). All other parameters, i. e. vapor fraction, liquid holdup,
friction gradient, Reynolds numbers of gas and liquid phases (and their velocities) differed,
too. On the other hand, no changes of the overall fluid composition at the outlet of the pipe
were observed although deposition took place inside the segments of the pipe. Thus, it was
concluded that overall fluid compositional changes due to wax deposition along the pipe were
not transferred between the pipes. Differences in ratios and compositions of present phases
(vapor, liquid, aqueous) at the inlet and the outlet of the pipe depended on the temperature
and pressure conditions. It is strongly recommended to check the validity of PVT reports and
composition analysis due to the fact that fluids composition data may be a source of errors in
multiphase flow calculations.

CONCLUSIONS

A model using Aspen HYSYS software to simulate fluid phase behavior and temperature-
pressure profiles in wells that operate by means of gas-lift has been developed.

This model has been tested against the measured temperature-pressure data for wells depth up
to 4600 m, pressures from 8 to 120 bar and temperatures from 5 to 110 oC.

The developed model can be used for wells without PLT data to obtain temperature-pressure
distribution and phase compositions along the tubing.

Results showed that matching of calculated temperature-pressure profiles depended on the

number of pipes representing tubing and annular space and the type of multiphase pressure
loss correlation.

10
Different multiphase pressure loss correlations applied provided better pressure loss estimates
than a single correlation for the entire tubing.

Developed model can be used to get insight into severity of the wax deposition and is helpful
in planning frequency of removing operations.

Overall compositional changes along the pipe were not transferred between the pipes, no
matter if wax deposit was formed inside the pipe.

Impact of the angle of inclination, liquid viscosity, water cut, gas density, gas/liquid
interfacial tension, the average superficial gas and liquid velocities on temperature-pressure
profiles was not included in the developed model.

11
REFERENCES

[1] H. W. Winkler, J.R. Blann, Production Operations Engineering, SPE, TX, (2006) 521-
623
[2] Takacs G., Gas Lift Manual, PennWell Corporation, Oklahoma, (2005) 1-5
[3] H. J. Ramey Jr., J. Pet. Technol. 14 (1962) 427-435
[4] R. K. Sagar, D. R. Dotty, Z. Schmidt, 1989 SPE SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib., San
Antonio, TX (1989) paper SPE 19702
[5] I. N. Alves, F. J. S. Alhanti, O. Shoham, SPE Prod. Eng. 7 (1992) 363-367
[6] A. R. Hasan, C. S. Kabir, SPE Prod. Facil. 11 (1996) 179-185
[7] A. R. Hasan, C. S. Kabir, 1991 SPE SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib., TX (1991) paper
SPE 22948
[8] A. R. Hasan, C. S. Kabir, Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska (1993)
paper SPE 26098
[9] A. R. Hasan, C. S. Kabir, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 86–87 (2012) 127-136
[10] A. R. Hasan, C. S. Kabir, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 4 (1990) 273-289
[11] A. R. Hasan, C. S. Kabir, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 72 (2010) 42-49
[12] D. Bertovic, Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK (1997) paper
SPE 37424
[13] J. G. Faustinelli, D. R Doty, SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina (2001) paper SPE 69406
[14] X. J. Z Jing-yu, L. Hai-fei, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 46 (2012) 1-8
[15] O Cazarez O., D. Montoya, A.G. Vital, A.C. Bannwart, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 36
(2010) 439-448
[16] A. C. Bannwart, O.M. H. Rodrigez, F. E. Trevisan, C. H. M. de Carvalho, J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 65 (2009) 1-13
[17] X. Zhao, J. Xu, World J. Modell. Simul. 4 (2008) 94-103
[18] I. Alves, F. Alhanati, O. Shoham, SPE Prod. Facil. (1992) 363-367
[19] M. F. Zhou, X. Zheng, Asian J. Earth Sci. 26 (2015) 116-126
[20] A. Zamani, P. Pourafshari, F. Rabiee, Gas Process. J. 2 (2014) 81-85
[21] F. F. Farshad, Engin. Comput. (17) (2000) 735-754
[22] I. Y. Mohammed, Int. J. Curr. Engin. Technol. 4 (2014) 4057-4062

12
[23] A. P. Szilas, Production and transport of oil and gas, Development in Petroleum
Science 3, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York (1975) 169-192; 491-
533
[24] H. Hamedi, F. Rashidi, E. Khamehchi, Pet. Sci. Technol. 29 (2011) 1305-1316
[25] L. Mengxia, R. Liao, Int. J. Heat Technol. 33 (2015) 237-245
[26] K. S. Pedersen, P. L. Christensen, J. A. Shaikh, Phase Behavior of petroleum
Reservoir Fluids, CRC Press, Second edition (2015) 229-257
[27] M. Stubsjøen, M. S. Thesis, Petroleum Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (2013) 19-23
[28] J. A. Svendsen, AIChE J. 39 (1993) 1377-1388
[29] E. D. Burger, T. K. Perkins, J. H. Striegler, J. Pet. Technol. 33 (1981) 1075-1086
[30] HYSYS 8.8 Operations Guide, AspenTech 2003 5.10-5.60

13
FIGURE LEGENDS

Figure 1 – Scheme of gas-lift wells operation

Figure 2: Process flow diagram of gas-lift gas transportation to the casing-tubing annular
space and from the wellhead to the oil treatment plant
Figure 3: Measured vs. calculated profiles for 2 pipes case a. pressure; b. temperature
Figure 4: Process flow diagram of fluids flow through the tubing and the annular space
Figure 5: Measured vs. calculated profiles for 3 pipes case a. pressure; b. temperature
Figure 6: Measured vs. calculated profiles for 10 pipes a. temperature; b. pressure
Figure 7: Wax deposit thickness profile calculated by different models
Figure 8: Wax deposit volume calculated by different models

14
Table 1: Process parameters used in the simulation
Parameter Unit Value
Well production data
Oil production rate tonne 14.85
Gas production rate Sm3 12996
3
Water production rate Sm 3.3
Bottom hole conditions
o
Bottom hole temperature C 69.05
Bottom hole pressure bar 87.49
Gas-lift gas
Injection rate Sm3 18077
Pressure at the top of the casing bar 73.5
o
Temperature at the top of casing C 4.45

15
Figure 1

16
Figure 2

17
Figure 3

18
Figure 4

19
Figure 5

20
Figure 6

21
Figure 7

22
Figure 8

23