SPE

Society of PetroleLm Engineers of "IME

SPE 11583

Gas Well Operation With Liquid Production

by J.F. Lea Jr. and R.E. Tighe, Amoco Production Co.
Members SPE-AIME

Copyright 1983 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME

This paper was presented at the 1983 Production Operation Symposium held in Oklahoma City. Oklahoma, February 27-March 1,1983 The material IS
subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words Write SPE, 6200 North Central Ex-
pressway, Drawer 64706, Dallas, Texas 75206.

ABSTRACT - Rotative (supplemental)

Gas Lift
Prediction of liquid loading in gas wells is
discussed in terms of intersecting tubing or system 3. Downhole Pumps: - Rod Pumps
performance curves with IPR curves and by using a - Jet HydrauliC Pumps
more simplified critical velocity relationship. - Electric Submersible Pumps
Different methods of liquid removal are discussed
including such methods as intermittent lift, plunger
lift, use of foam, gas lift, and rod, jet, and elec-
tric submersible pumps. Advantages, disadvantages,
and techniques for design and application of the The ability to be able to predict the
methods of liqUid removal are discussed. performance of a gas well is advantageous for sev-
eral reasons. Current completions can be made with
INTRODUCTION future performance considered. Future hardware
changes required to optimize production can be
The loading up of a ~ well with produced scheduled and included in economic plans. These
fluids becomes a problem when the tubing velocity changes may include changing tubing size or perhaps
becomes too small to maintain steady flow condi- adding a method of artificial lift to eliminate
tions. The problem is not due to an insufficient liqUid loading. Also if performance can be success-
gas-liquid ratio, but it can be attributed to a too fully analyzed, reservoir predictions for recover-
low gas producing rate due to iow reservoir pressure able reserves can be made while considering tubing
(BHP) or low reservoir permeability for given condi- or system performance. Without system performance,
tions. In either case, produced liquids begin to projections are often made by just assuming a rea-
accumulate in the tubing. It is the engineer's job sonable fixed flowing bottomhole pressure calculated
to predict, if possible, when liquid loading will for a given set of conditions. Then the calculated
become a problem and how to operate the well subse- flowing BHP is held constant while using a reservoir
quent to that time so that well problems are mini- simulator to project future performance and
mized and the maximum amount of gas reserves are resulting recoverable reserves. Liquid loading
produced economically. It is the purpose of this problems in a gas well can reduce gas well produc-
paper to set forth the pertinent engineering consid- tion as performance declines to a much greater
erations and production options the engineer has in extent than may have been thought, resulting in
dealing with these tasks. The gas well deliquefica- decreased recoverable reserves and the requirement
tion methods which appear to have application are: of additional expenditures to maintain production.

1. Maintenance of Natural Flow: - Continuous An excellent reference on this subject was pre-
Flow sented by W. R. Greene l concerning "Analyzing the
- Intermittent Performance of Gas Wells." Greene presents the con-
Flow cepts of inflow, outflow, and tubing performance
(with and curves. Also the concept of "flowpoint" is defined
without and the graphical determination of reservoir aban-
Siphon donment pressure is present.ed. This particular
strings) paper was written with gas wells considered that
could be characterized by the conventional "4 point
2. Assisted Lift: - Plunger Gas Lift test" or a "back pressure test." Tubing performance
- Foam (surfactant injection) was generated using the Gray multiphase flow corre-
Lift lation 2 developed for gas wells producing some con-
densate and/or water. Experience has shown this
paper.

307
2 GAS WELL OPERATION WITH LIQUID PRODUCTION r1583

corre ation works well with high GLR production, h pay interval, ft
even at liquid rates exceeding those for which the
correlation was developed. drainage radius, ft

Figure 1 illustrates such performance curves rw wellbore radius, ft

for an example gas well. This plot illustrates cUr-
rent reservoir performance (IPR curve), tubing or s = skin effect excluding turbulence
system performance at bottomhole conditions (steady (could increase due to liquid
with time) and the surface observable outflow curve accumulation around wellbore)
which is the sand face pressure from the IPR minus
the pressure drop up the tubing.
To correct for turbulent pressure drop through
the formation matrix, an additional pressure drop
may be added:
The IPR curve in Figure 1 represents a current
model of reservoir performance as a function of
sandface presSUre drawdown. In this example the IPR
curve was constructed using the so-called back pres- C + Dq (3)
sure equation. q

where:
q (1)

where: q Rate of flow, MSCFD. 1

Dq q
r
w
C A constant characteristic of the well's
current performance. ~ turbulence factor, ft-l

P Shut-in reservoir pressure, psia.

Yg gas gravity (air = 1)
P Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia.
wf
Jones, et al. 3 , demonstrate how D may be found
n ~ A numerical exponent, characteristic of from plotting tJl2jq VB q to allow the user to obtain
the well. the needed constants for the above gas inflow
expressions. However, the majority of the times
Ref. 1, among others, indicates how this rela- when liquid loading is a problem, the rate has
tionship can be found to fit a "4 point" test diminished such the turbulent pressure drop is
plotted on a log-log plot of differences in pres- small.
sures squared vs rate.
Tubing Performance CUrve
To correct for pressure varying fluid proper-
ties, the following more complete rate-pressure The tUbing performance Curve is the pressure
equation may be used 3 for radial semisteady-state drop through the tubing required to establish a cer-
gas flow. tain flow rate plus the surface pressure which the
flow encounters at the surface plotted vs rate.
Note that although this is labeled "tubing perform-
[Jl2 ance," it could just as well be labeled system per-
C (2) formance to include, for example, the pressure drop
q
in the tubing plus the drop through a surface choke,
and a flowline plus a constant pressure at a sepa-
2 rator.
where; tJl2 1'2 _ P
wf
Note that most multiphase performance curves
q gas rate of flow, MSCFD are generated from correlations which usually con-
1424 I::l ZT sider the sum of pressure drops due to elevation,
C (In 0.472 + s) friction, and acceleration, or:
kh r
w

viscosity, cp, at ~ (4)

dy

where: pressure gradient in the tubing, psi/ft.

Z gas compressibility factor at

T reservoir temp., oR Various correlations, most of which are dis-

cussed in Ref. 4, have been developed to generate
k reservoir permeability, md multiphase flow pressure gradient calculations.

308
11583 JAMES F. LEA AND R. E. TIGHE
When liquids are present, larger tubing pressure
drops occur at low rates due to liquids accumula-
tions. At higher rates, friction causes the curves
to slope upward and to the right from some interme-
diate minimum value. Because of the shape, these
curves are sometimes referred to as ItJ" curves.
Notice that the tubing performance curves which are
a plot of flowing BHP vs rate at constant GLR are
constant for all time unless pipe roughness, GLR, or
surface pressure should be allowed to change with
time.
When both the IPR curve and the tubing performance
curves are generated, the projected rate of the well
can be found as the rate at the intersection of the
IPR curve and the tubing performance curve (pt. A on
Fig. 1) Various tubing performance parameters can be
varied to determine their projected effects on rate
by simply generating various tubing curves with var-
ious parameters, and determining where they inter-
sect the IPR curves.
Another plot, discussed by Greene l is the so-
called outflow curve. This is simply the IPR curve
minus the rate varying pressure drop through the
tubing. This is the surface observable wellhead
inflow pressure. The well is projected to flow at
the point where the actual wellhead pressure inter-
sects this curve (pt. A' on Fig. 1). Also, note
that the maximum value of the outflow curve is at
the last sustainable flow possible from the well.
Another way of describing this is that an intersec-
tion of tubing performance curves with IPR curves in
the area where the tubing performance curve slants
upward and to the left is an unstable flow point.
Any flow fluctuation to the left of an intersection
in this region creates a higher tubing pressure
required for flow than the available sand face pres-
sure and the well will die. Any fluctuation of flow
to the right of the intersection creates a situation
where the sand face pressure is greater than the
required tubing pressure and the flow will tend to
increase or move towards the flow rate where the
tubing curve slopes upward and to the right and
intersects the IPR curve.
As the well depletes, the IPR curve becomes
smaller, or shrinks somewhat parallel to the orig-
inal curve and will finally drop to the point where
it is barely tangent to the IPR curve as shown in
Fig. 1. Then, just a slight depletion of the reser-
voir will result in a situation where the IPR curve
and the tubing curve do not intersect and the well
will cease to flow. Another way of saying this is
that the well has loaded with liquids and the reser-
voir does not have sufficient pressure available to
lift the liquids resident in the tubing. Note that
if the tubing is flowing all gas with no liquids,
then the shut-in reservoir pressure must deplete
near the surface pressure of the tubing plus the
weight of the gas column in the tubing before flow
ceases. Normally the abandonment condition is
selected about 100 psi above the calculated values
from the intersections of curves such as these
because it is desirable to flow a well with positive
pressure differential between the wellhead and sales
line l •
309
3
In general, to analyze liquid loading of a gas
well, one method, which considers the reservoir as
well as the tubing performance, is to attempt to
match current performance by intersecting an IPR
curve with a tubing performance Curve. Then as the
well IPR declines to the point where it is tangent
to a tubing performance curve that is beginning to
show increased pressure drop at lower rates (due to
liquid loading), loss of production is predicted for
the well. In order to present a complete analysis,
it is desirable to predict future IPR curves to be
able to project when the well will begin to die as a
function of time and/or reservoir shut-in pressure.
Future IPR Curves
Standing 5 has developed a method of generating
future IPR curves from a present IPR. This method
requires that relative permeability to oil, oil vis-
cosity, and the formation volume factor be known for
future conditions.
The pivot point methodS discussed by Uhri and
Blount uses two previous well tests and respective
static reservoir pressures to predict future well
performance. Saturation, PVT or relative perme-
ability data are not required. Fig. 2 shows future
IPR curves at abandonment conditions for an example
well with tubing curves generated with various sUr-
face pressures. This figure illustrates the need of
projecting IPR performance with time and/or reser-
voir shut-in pressure as well as demonstrating more
favorable abandonment conditions when surface pres-
sures are reduced by eliminating restrictions or
adding compression.
Low permeability wells (k= .1, .01, ? md) are
more difficult to analyze because it can be practi-
cally impossible to obtain stabilized test data due
to the long flow times required. Because of this,
multipoint well test conventional procedures such as
the flow after flow or isochronal 4 pt. tests do not
give useful information. Also, because most low
permeability wells are fractured to enhance produc-
tion, the fracture flow must be considered in any
analysis of the well's productivity. Ref. 7 illus-
trates a method of calculating future IPR curves for
fractured gas wells. The method requires that pref-
racture and postfracture data are collected for the
well. Then by entering reservoir model generated
type curves, future IPR curves can be generated and
plotted to intersect tubing performance curves. An
example plot is shown in Fig. 3 to illustrate the
results of this method. Note that the shut-in pres-
sure has not changed with time because the well
drainage radius is calculated to have not yet
reached a boundary. In the example shown, the
2.441 in. I.D. tubing is predicted to load with
liquids in about 12 months, the 1.995 in. I.D.
extends production to 24 months and the 1.661 in.
I.D. tubing predicts production to continue beyond
60 months.
4 GAS WELL OPERATION WITH LIQUID PRODUCTION 11583

Using the following constants for physical

properties:

Turner's Method

Another approach to predicting safe or "min-

imum" flow rates to avoid liquid loading in the a 60 dyne/em a 20 dyne/em
tubing is based on the concept that the gas velocity
must be high enough to transport liquid droplets to T T
the surface in mist flow. Turner et al. 8 made an
analysis of the minimum gas velocity necessary for 67 lbm/ft 3
producing liquid droplets from wells and for moving
a liquid film up the tubing wall. He arrived at a gas gravity 0.6
minimal critical velocity using the droplet model by
comparison to data. Predicted critical velocities
were compared to the gas velocity of producing wells and increasing calculated velocities by 20% to agree
at wellhead temperature and pressures. with Turner's data gives:

The critical velocity found by Turner 8 for his

droplet model results from simply equating the 5.3
upward velocity drag on the calculated largest drop- V (7)
lets to the downward weight of the droplets which g, water
results in a terminal velocity situation. The size
of the droplets was determined from a correlation
developed by Hinze 9 which considers the shear due to
the gas velocity balanced against the surface ten- V (8)
sion forces of the droplet which keep the droplet g, condensate
from shattering into smaller droplets. Turner's8
relationships were developed as follows.
where the V 's above are minimum values of gas
velocity neeessary at pressure p to carry up drop-
lets of density PL'

(weight) (drag)
The minimum volumetric flow rate for a partic-
CD P Ap V2t ular velocity and pipe size may be calculated as
g
(5 )
2g
c

q (min) (9 )
g

where: g local acceleration of gravity,

32.2 ft/s2 where: q (min) m1n1mum flow rate for continuous
g
liquid removal, MMSCFD
gc = gravitational constant,
32.2 Ibm-ft/lbf-s 2 V
g
= gas velocity, ft/sec

CD drag coeffiCient, dimensionless A conduit area, ft 2

gas density, Ibm/ft 3 z gas deviation factor evaluated at T and

the pressure used to calculate V
liquid density, Ibm/ft 3 g
T temperature, OR
terminal velocity, ft/sec
P pressure, psi
VOL volume of the droplet, ft 3

A projected area of the droplet, ft 2 Turner's8 work suggested that the wellhead
P
pressures be used for evaluation of well liquid
D particle diameter, ft loading.

The model was verified to about 130 bbl/MMSCFD.

Solving for V and including a relationship9 for If both water and condensate are present, then the
.
d rop 1et S1ze t.
g1ves: equation for water is suggested for use.

Fig. 4 shows a tubing performance curve generated

1. 59 a 1/4( P )1/4
L - Pg (6)
from the Duns and RosiO correlation. Also plotted
on this graph are the superficial gas velocities at
the top and bottom of the well. The dash lines are
the critical velocities according to Equations 7 and
8. Notice that the critical and actual gas

310
11583 JAMES F. LEA AND R. E. TIGHE
velocities intersect at about .75 MMCF/D when using
surface pressure. However, the actual and critical
velocities crossed at about 1.0 MMCF/D when the Tur-
ner's calculation is made at bottomhole conditions.
This shows that when the critical velocity corre-
sponds to the actual velocity in the well, the
highest critical rate required to lift liquids is
calculated at bottomhole conditions. From this
example it appears Turner's method be used in
conjunction with a pressure drop to
estimate bottomhole pressure, and then Turner's
critical velocity should be compared to the calcu-
lated velocity at bottomhole conditions. Also note
that the last point of tangency of the tubing per-
formance curve with an IPR curve with slope of about
45 0 could be imagined to be about .45 MMCF/D. This
would indicate from this example that the method of
Turner is conservative when using the Ros1o correla-
tion, and the IPR intersection, because it indicates
a higher rate than necessary to maintain continuous
liquid unloading than determined from inspection of
the last possible "J" curve-IPR curve intersection.
Meschack and Ikoku 11 also present a recent
analysis of tubing flow with consideration of drop-
lets in the annular core and the interaction with
the liquid film on the tubing. The results indicate
what rate of liquids can be entrained with various
gas rates. Other approaches are discussed in Refer-
ences 12, 13 and 14.
Prediction of liquid loading conditions in gas
wells can be made by "stand alone" models which
predict critical velocity and/or by intersecting
tubing performance curves developed with multiphase
flow correlations with reservoir IPR curves.
The TurnerS model, or critical gas velocity
analysis, was developed to be applied at wellhead
surface conditions. However, it is shown here that
a higher critical required rate is calculated at the
bottomhole conditions. Using the Turner 8 equation
at bottomhole conditions then requires use of a mul-
tiphase flow pressure drop model. Also, the pres-
sure dependence of hydrocarbon surface tension is
not used in Turner's development. With the above
modifications, this type model seems to predict con-
servatively but may not contain enough physics of
the problem to be expected to work satisfactorily
under broad conditions.
The previous section discussed how to theoreti-
cally predict gas well performance and when liqUid
load will prevent continuous production. As a well
nears the predicted last "flowpoint", evidence of
"heading" or slugging usually appears. Intermittent
flow is a method of "regularizing" this type of flow
and using the well's energy to the maximum without
the addition of additional gas or downhole equip-
ment.
Intermittent flow is when the well is alter-
nately shut-in and produced. Terms such as inter-
mitting, stop-cocking, stop-clocking and blow-down
are associated with intermittent flow. It is usu-
ally thought of as a technique to unload accumulated
liquids rather than the periodic shutting in of a
311
5
gas well to match market demand. The objective of
intermittent flow is to accumulate enough gas in
storage, both in the near well reservoir area and/or
the casing annulus, and inject this gas under an
accumulated fluid column for a short period of time
to produce the liquids to surface.
As a well begins to load with liquids it will
begin to head (produce liquids in irregular bursts).
One way of increasing well production and extending
the life of the well is to place the well on an
intermitter controlled by casing pressure. When the
tubing is opened (on a signal from a specified
casing pressure buildup), accumulated liquids will
be brought to the surface with gas production. As
the liquids are cleared from the bottom of the well,
the casing pressure will begin to drop sharply. At
this time the tubing can be shut-in on low casing
pressure and buildup can begin again. In wells
which are experiencing severe heading, placing the
well on an intermitter can in many cases increase
the daily production even though the shut-in periods
allow no flow (15, 16). Typical shut-in periods
might be 1/5 of the flowing period but would vary
from well to well.
One problem when setting casing pressures is
when should the intermitter function is to allow
casing buildup pressure which will result in the
critical tubing velocity. The following approach is
suggested as a target value for the well with an
open annulus, i.e., no downhole packer:
(I + ~) (10)
K
where P Casing buildup pressure, psi
BU
P Casing pressure prior to buildup, psi
CF
(Casing pressure while tubing is
flowing
or, for siphon strings use 110% of
caSing-tubing differential pressure
plus
the surface tubing delivery pressure.)
Vc Actual casing volume, cu. ft.
V Actual tubing volume, cu. ft.
T
D Tubing landing depth, ft.
K Factor for flowing friction loss
Use: K 27000 for 1. 610 in tubing
K 33500 for 1. 995 in tubing
K 45000 for 2.441 in tubing
The above K values were reported to match field
7 and if calculated would require the
input of a surfacing velocity in excess of 1200 fpm
which is estimated to lift liquids in mist flow. It
is also assumed that the casing storage volume sup-
plies the gas to displace the slug to surface. The
gas stored in the reservoir by the buildup provides
for sustaining the flow period to ensure liquid
removal in spite of flow losses due to gas slippage
and liquid hold-up in the tubing. Field experience
with a particular reservoir may show that more or
less pressure buildup is needed.
6 GAS WELL OPERATION WITH LIQUID PRODUCTION
Intermittent flow can be used on production
tubing or a siphon string application (discussed
later). Intermittent flow with siphon strings has
the most application on wells suffering from low
reservoir pressure.
Intermitting should be considered to be more of
an expedient measure rather than a solution to the
loading problem. Other methods of unloading such as
tubing resizing, plungers, etc., may have better
application.
SIPHON STRINGS
A siphon string as defined here is any tubing
string that is landed in the liquid accumulation
zone at the bottom of the well and is used to
produce liquid only to the surface. Usually a
siphon string is produced to a low pressure collec-
tion system or vented to the atmosphere. Gas is
produced from the casing annulus or the annulus
formed by another tubing string. Thus, a siphon
string might be used with almost all of the delique-
fication methods, however, it is most commonly
applied to intermittent natural flow or plunger lift
where formation gas energy is used to unload accumu-
lated liquids.
The general scheme of well operation is to open
the siphon string, produce the liquids, then shut-in
the tubing without substantial after flow. Most
commonly it is necessary to shut a producing well in
for a buildup period sufficient to accumulate enough
gas to lift the liquid slug and clear the tubing.
However, this period can be minimal or unnecessary
when the surface pressure is atmospheric or a suit-
ably low pressure collection system is used. The
specific operating conditions for a siphon string
are determined by the engineering considerations
pertaining to the specific deliquefication method
used. Either manual or automated cycle controls are
used depending on operator preference or how often
blowdown is required.
Siphon strings have the most application on low
volume wells that have low bottomhole pressure since
these wells have a low potential for pressure
buildup as they become depleted.
WF.T.T.HFAn CUfl.t' 11<:-> - MTNTMllH WFU.T.HFAn
When the gas producing rate becomes too low to
effectively remove liquids it is advisable to inves-
tigate options which will reduce wellhead pressure,
both as a means of reducing bottom hole producing
pressure to stimulate more gas producing rate and
also as a means of achieving higher tubing veloci-
ties. Although minimizing wellhead pressure may not
be considered to be a separate gas well deliquefica-
tion method, it can improve the effectiveness of
natural flow and plunger operations.
The principal application of compressors to
lower wellhead pressures is for sustaining contin-
uous flow from producing wells. For tight perme-
ability reservoirs it is probably desirable to have
two or more wells in a system to provide useful
volumes and reasonably steady flow. Gas rates may
not improve substantially but the tubing velocity
does increase as pressure is lowered, extending
liquid loading problems further into the future.
Generally speaking, other deliquefication methods
'11583
may have better economics for tight formation wells
unless the well network is large and affords flexi-
bility in assisting critical wells at various times
throughout the reservoir depletion time period. The
type of well which shows the best economics is the
high permeability but low BHP well that has a good
PI. This type of well may be capable of substan-
tially more cumulative production with a lower sur-
face pressure. For high permeability wells it will
generally be economical to install compressors that
minimize wellhead pressure for eventual depletion of
the reservoir. Frequently it is desirable to con-
sider lowering wellhead pressure at an earlier time
if liquid loading problems hamper production from
some wells.
PLUNGERS
The plunger lift installation utilizes a trav-
eling free piston (plunger) to interface between the
acclmulated liquids in the tubing and the lift gas.
Basically it is a more efficient form of gas lift
because the plunger reduces gas-liquid slippage as
the liquid is displaced as a slug to the surface by
the lift gas. There is no minimum critical tubing
velocity for liquid production with plungers as
there would be for flow up tubing. A typical equip-
ment arrangement for a plunger lift installation is
shown in Figure 5.
Plungers can be successfully operated as long
as the producing GLR remains high enough. Some
applications have been reported in wells with GLR's
as low as 4000. Therefore, plunger lift is a satis-
factory method for deliquefying gas wells through
reasonable reservoir depletion. For the typical low
volume gas well (30 ± BLPD), plunger hft is prob-
ably the most suitable method of deliquefication.
Plunger installations are economical to install and
operate; they are reliable and they adapt to a wide
range of well conditions. Successful plunger lift
installations can be designed by engineers and oper-
ated by field people. Plunger installations have
often lacked popularity because the operation is not
readily observable and wellhead instrumentation is
frequently inadequate for designing, monitoring, and
adjusting performance.
The plunger lift cycle is termed "continuous!'
t'.I<~.:->:-> If{~ if a plunger cycles without interruption; it is
termed I!intermittent" when the well is shut in for a
buildup pressure or is held at the surface between
successive cycles. Because of extremely high GLR's,
most gas wells operate on an intermittent cycles
which allows for production of gas (after flow pro-
duction) in excess of the volume required to surface
the liquid slug and plunger. Further, plungers can
be operated in the gas production tubing or they can
be utilized in a siphon string. When the plunger is
in the production tubing, the well can operate with
a downhole packer although a much more favorable
cycle operation will result when the annulus is open
and the casing volume is used for cycle gas storage.
With a downhole packer, the formation must supply
all of the lift gas during the period in which
plunger rise occurs.
Engineering approaches to the design of a
plunger lift installation are given in litera-
ture. 17 ,lS,19 One procedure 17 is to estimate the
casing pressure required to lift the slug weight
just before the plunger is to surface and to
312
11583 JAMES F. LEA AND R. E. TIGHE
calculate the m~n~mum gas volume for displacing the
liquid slug to surface et that pressure. Gas in
excess of this amount is vented continuously or
while the plunger is held at the surface. The fol-
lowing equations su~arize the Foss and Gaul 17
approach, however, the references cited are recom-
mended for complete understanding of the engineering
calculations. Since Foss and Gaul 17 used an average
velocity of rise (1000 fpm) in a surface force
balance, use of the actual velocity would correct
the answers to some degree 19 .
The casing pressure required in lift to the
slug, P , is determined from a force balance on the
plungerCand slug as it reaches the surface.
P times to regain pressure in the casing before
c
where P Surface tubing pressure, psi
ps Pressure to lift plunger, ~ 10 psi
Plf)P :::: Pressure offsetting pressure of liquid
head (P ) and flowing friction (P ),
lh lf
psi (approximately 1.3 (P ))
lh
D Tubing depth, ft
K Constant to account for flowing gas
friction
typically17 : K ::0 27,000 for 1. 610 in. tubing
K 33,500 for 1.995 in. tubing
K 45,000 for 2.441 in. tubing
The m~n~mum gas volume required to lift the
slug, Q , is calculated as the gas in the tubing
just betore the well is opened to cycle.
Qc' MSCF/cycle (12)
where Actual Tubing Volume, cu. ft.
Pressure reference base, 14.7 psia
Temperature reference base, 520 0 R
Average wellbore temperature, OR
Gas compressibility factor at P
and TA conditions. c its trip to the surface. This is recognizable from
The usual procedure is to assume two or more
slug sizes and to calculate the casing pressure for
these slug volumes. Next, the gas requirement is
calculated. The results of these two calculation
steps are presented as illustrated by Figures 6 and
7. The slope of the line shown in Fig. 7 represents
the minimum GLR required for plunger lift operation
in that well. The minimum slug size is determined
by plotting the well's actual producing GLR as shown
on Fig. 7. The intersection of the producing GLR
line and the plunger gas requirement line gives the
smallest slug size that can be theoretically lifted
by the well with successive cycles. The plunger
cycle can be designed for any slug size to the right
of this intersection, provided the well can build up
the required lift pressure. If the GLR of the well
is too low, it will simply slant to the right below
the required gas/liquid line without intersecting.
Usually plunger lift turns out to be a very
favorable deliquefication method for a well with a
GLR over 10,000 cubic feet per barrel. It is sug-
gested that the practical minimum slug size be
313
7
around 3% of the tubing volume which allows for a
suitably low operating pressure and reasonable
economy in the number of plunger trips to minimize
plunger wear. Fig. 8 shows the effect of tubing
size on cycle pressures for equivalent slug sizes.
Plungers are available for 1-1/2 in. and larger
tubing, but the 2~3/8 in. tubing is usually the best
compromise between achieving minimum build up pres-
sure and maximum casing storage volume. A further
limitation on the slug size is that it requires
about 3 minutes per thousand feet to round trip the
plunger. The frequency of plunger trips can be det-
ermined by dividing the daily producing rate of the
well by the measured slug size.
Long flow periods of gas production with the
plunger held at the surface require longer buildup
releasing the plunger. However, experience and res-
ervoir modeling have shown that longer or shorter
cycles (of producing and shut-in periods) within
reason do not significantly affect the average well
production in a tight gas well. As long as the
slope (rate) of the casing build up pressure rise,
as seen on a pressure chart, does not tend to level
off, the build up period is not greatly hampering
well production. The constant slope indicates the
reservoir is producing a steady influx of gas into
the wellbore.
It is helpful to have tubing and casing pres-
sure readings to monitor cycle performance. The
casing-tubing differential is a function of the
liquid accumulating in the tubing. During tubing
flow at low rates, a large differential usually
indicates substantial liquid accumulation in the
tubing, i.e., the gas velocity is insufficient to
clear the tubing. Soon after the well is shut in
for the next cycle, the casing-tubing differential
should reflect the height of the tubing liquid
column and the size of the slug to be lifted on the
next plunger rise cycle. This assumes that all of
the liquid remains in the tubing. When the plunger
operation is contrary to design conditions, the
problem may be attributed to liquid under the
plunger, i.e., liquid from the casing and/or forma-
tion entering the tubing after the plunger begins
a large casing-tubing differential throughout the
cycle or the beginning of the cycle if the slug
underneath is falling away. To maximize liquid
removal, a standing valve should be used to capture
the liquid fall back in the tubing when the well is
shut in and the tubing should be landed low in the
perforations. These steps should minimize liqUid
under the plunger unless there is a tubing leak
which would allow the casing and tubing pressure to
equalize before the liquid is forced into the tubing
during the pressure build up cycle.
A plunger cycle can be controlled by pressure
or time cycle controllers. A pressure cycle may be
better for liquid unloading (lower GLR) and the time
cycle may be better for wells that can operate with
longer periods of "after flow" between plunger
cycles. Either type of controller works satisfacto-
rily for tight formation gas wells. The newer
microprocessor controls appear to have great
potential since most of the engineering considera-
tions for plunger lift can be incorporated into the
control unit logic.
8 GAS WELL OPERATION WITH LIQUID PRODUCTION
At't'L1CATlON OF FOAMING AGENTS TO nRT.TOUEFY GAS WELLS
With varying degrees of success, foam surfac-
tants have been sparsely used over the past 25 years
to aid in flowing liquid accumulations from gas
wells. The general problem has been in predicting
well response to foam surfactant treatment; specifi-
cally addressing the questions of whether the well
fluid will foam, what surfactant to use, and, most
importantly, what kind of tubing gradient, or pro-
ducing BHP, can be expected. Although the perform-
ance of a foam surfactant in an individual well is
specific to the fluid characteristics and flow con-
ditions of the well, some engineering information is
available which allows predictions of well perform-
ance.
As a deliquefication method, foam is beneficial
in removing liquids in a flowing well because the
structure of the foam bubble ties the liquid with
the gas and minimizes gas slippage and/or liquid
hold up in the tubing. Laboratory investigations
have shown that stable (persistent) foam can be gen-
erated in water but not (in a practical sense) in
pure hydrocarbons. Surfactants interact at the
bubble interface to form a polar bond with the water
molecule whereas hydrocarbons do not have a similar
strong bond. Both fresh water and brines can be
foamed effectively. The foaming tendency of pure
hydrocarbon liquids can be enhanced somewhat by
polymers which add viscosity to the liquid to mini-
mize the liquid drainage from the bubble wall, but
this mechanism is far less effective than the
water-surfactant interaction in developing film
strength. Mixtures of water and hydrocarbons, how-
ever, can be foamed. The water phase tends to foam
while the oil phase liquid (generally being above
40 0 API gravity) tends to disperse in the water and
foam.
Laboratory measurements of foam quality in a
flowing test column indicates that often the foam
quality of a water system is about 80%, i.e., the
mixture is about 80% gas. Under dynamic flowing
conditions, bubbles grow, rupture, and reform to
maintain this average foam quality. Compared to the
foam quality produced in water only systems, the
effective foam quality of oil-water mixtures can be
adversely effected by high water salinity, the
light-end aromatic constituents of the hydrocarbon
liquid, and the character of the surfactant itself.
Figures 9 and 10 show the results of foam column
tests with various liqUid mixtures and surfactants.
These tests were conducted in 0.75 in. I.D. diam-
eter column where the superficial gas velocity was
about 80 fpm and the producing GLR was approximately
1800 cu. ft/bbl. Changes in the pressure gradient
indicate changes in the effective liqUid head since
the tests were run at low tubing velocities. Foam
quality was superimposed on the figure using data
from other tests which measured foam quality for
mixtures after stabilizing flow from a column and
shutting in the column to measure the foam volume
and the subsequent liqUid fraction after the foam
had broken. Available data from only three gas
wells showed the light-end aromatic (toluene) con-
tent of the produced hydrocarbon condensate was
between 8 and 12%.
Some screening tests for surfactants have shown
that ionic surfactants tend to perform better than
nonionic surfactants. Fig. 11 shows the optimum
314
11583
surfactant dosage is around 0.15-0.25% for good
surfactant compounds. Although only the water phase
will form stable foam, the presence of brine and
hydrocarbons will increase the demand for surfac-
tants. The optimum treatment dosage remains at the
recommended level, but the total liquid should be
used for sizing a treatment rate. Based on the data
shown in Figures 9 and 10, the cationic surfactant
performed better in brines and condensate mixtures
while surfactants of either character were satisfac-
tory in water only. Also note that in the region
around 50% hydrocarbon content, the apparent gra-
dient increases sharply, possibly indicating emul-
sions or high viscosity effects.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison of producing gra-
dients obtained in laboratory tests on treated and
nontreated water systems. This graph compares
flowing gradients in a 2 inch laboratory column when
the liquid rate (6 BPD) is constant. At superficial
gas velocities of less than 1000 fpm, the untreated
system showed an increase in gradient due to liquid
accumulation. In tight formation gas wells, this is
an unsteady region and the well begins to pressure
cycle and may stop flowing as it attempts to recover
from a depressured annulus. On the other hand, the
surfactant system with less liquid accumulation
remained relatively stable through economical pro-
ducing rates.
Governing physical relationships for foam can
be programmed to estimate well performance with foam
surfactants. A multiphase program may be generated
modified for foam. When the gas rate exceeds the
amount reqUired to generate foam at in situ pressure
and temperature, the system behaves like a two phase
system consisting of a free gas phase and a foam
phase. The foam volume is based on the water pro-
duced and the quality indicated in Figures 9 and 10.
To this volume, the volume of liquid hydrocarbons
can be added and the weight of the two liquids is
used to calculate the fluid density. The viscosity
of the foam may be computed in the manner described
by Blauer et al. 20 , and shown in Fig. 13. When the
more rigorous approach to calculating producing con-
ditions cannot be used, the gradient shown in
Figure 12 can be used for a rough estimate of the
producing gradient in the typical foam application
well. This assumes the high gradient shown in
Figure 12 for low superficial gas velocities and
which is the result of high liquid loading in the
test which conservatively approximates the effective
foam gradient for the typical field well with more
than 60% water cut. At higher superficial gas
velocities the liquid (foam) hold-up is minimal and
foam quality is less significant. The producing
bottomhole pressure is estimated by adding the well-
head pressure to the total tubing pressure loss
(gradient times depth). The actual bottomhole pres-
sure can be verified in a flowing well without a
packer by adding the gas column weight in the
annulus to the casing head pressure to determine the
flowing BHP.
Foam unloading can be carried on as a contin-
uous process or as a single event (batch). In batch
treatments, surfactant is dumped into the annulus or
tubing with enough chase fluid to ensure it reaches
the tubing intake depth. Foam sticks are sometimes
used although it is more difficult to gauge surfac-
tant concentration. If the well unloads, it is
important to not excessively deplete the casing
11583 JAMES F. LEA AND R. E. TIGHE
pressure since it must continue to support the
normal tubing multiphase flow pressure gradient.
For continuous treatment, the surfactant is pumped
into the annulus where it drains down the casing to
the tubing intake. Sometimes the surfactant is
injected through a capillary tube in the annulus to
the tubing intake depth. Since the surfactant
volume may be small, it is usually desirable to
dilute the surfactant at the surface to increase the
volume actually injected. This enables better pump
regulation and gives more assurance of the surfac-
tant draining to the tubing depth.
At the surface, the foam tends to dissipate as
the liquid drains from the bubble walls in the rela-
tive quiescence of surface vessels. Foam carry-over
can occur if the holding time is too short or the
liquid is overtreated by some surfactants. Also, a
portion of the hydrocarbon liquid can form an
extremely tight emulsion but the quantity is gener-
ally manageable by the usual water disposal method
or with additional treating. Overtreating with sUr-
factants should be avoided to minimize these prob-
lems and to minimize surfactant cost. Surface
problems are likely to be greater if the water is
very saline and the light-end aromatic hydrocarbon
content of the mixture is relatively high. Labora-
tory tests to describe foaming agents, and field
tests from 60 wells where liquids were lifted from
gas wells using foam, are described in Monograph 11
published by the Bureau of Mines 1B .
ROTATIVE GAS LIFT
Rotative gas lift is a deliquefication method
wherein high pressure gas supplied by compression of
produced gas is used to gas lift the tubing string.
The tubing string is equipped with gas lift valves
or a ported collar in the normal manner. Injected
gas merely supplements the natural formation gas and
ensures adequate tubing gas velocity for continuous
flow. A typical well arrangement is shown in
Fig. 14. Gas lift valve design is not in the scope
of this paper but is amply detailed in References 22
and 23 and elsewhere.
The concept can be applied to a normal produc-
tion tubing string or to a siphon string. In the
former case, the entire production stream is com-
pressed and sent to sales or gas lift service. In
the latter case, the well is eqUipped with dual
tubing strings and the interior tubing, usually a
1 inch tubing, is used as a siphon string. A sales
gas can be taken from the casing annulus which is
operated at sales line pressure. This scheme some-
times reduces the amount of gas that has to be com-
pressed and saves compression cost.
Gas compression is a relatively expensive oper-
ation and supplemental gas lift may not be the most
practical method unless the reservoir has high
permeability and shows good response to reduced back
pressure. Supplemental gas lift may be a viable
deliquefication method for rich condensate wells
that have low GLR's and high liquid rates. The
technique is not usually applicable to tight perme-
ability gas wells where the GLR is already high. In
this case the additional pressure reduction does not
result in a large gas rate increase.
315
9
PUMPING METHODS
At first glance, downhole pumps appear to be a
very desirable method of deliquefication. LiqUids
are pumped to the surface through the tubing
(siphon) string while the gas is produced through
the annulus. This scheme should enable maximum
drawdown of the reservoir. In practice, however,
the pump requires periodic repair and killing of the
well, thus operating expense can be high and well
production may be impaired. Rod pumps are the most
popular pumping method. They suffer from rod and
pump failures due to fluid pound caused by gas
interference, valve problems which are particularly
bad if the pump is set deep and in the fluid column
load is high, and wear and corrosion problems due to
the low lubricity and corrosion caused by produced
fluids.
All forms of downhole pumping have been used
for gas well deliquefication including rod pumps,
electrical submersible pumps, and hydraulic pumps.
The design of pumps is well defined elsewhere and is
not discussed herein. It suffices to say that down-
hole pumps, particularly rod pumps, do have applica-
tion in gas wells that produce higher liquid rates,
particularly wells producing over 30 bpd. The
advantages of pumping systems are that they have the
potential for maximum reservoir drawdown and sus-
taining well production at the lowest gas rates, and
they are applicable on a per well basis as needed.
Generally speaking, for low liqUid rate wells, the
options for continuous flow (tubing sizing), plun-
gers, and foam should be thoroughly evaluated.
Good downhole gas separation is necessary for
pump operation. For rod pumps it is desirable to
land the tubing below the perforations to maximize
gas separation by gravity segregation. If the
tubing is landed in the perforation area or above,
gas anchors or separation equipment should be
employed.
There are some unique considerations for
pumping liquids from gas wells:
Gas wells are usually drilled on wide spacing
and the lease is not electrified. Also, most
pumping wells are operated on an intermittent
pumping cycle. Although it is common to eventually
run electrical power to pumping wells, there are
some alternatives. One scheme is to use pneumatic
pumping units which operate off of a differential
gas pressure, usually the casing (sales) pressure
vented to the atmosphere or to a low pressure gas
collection system. This type of lift is good for
shallow and intermediate (6,000 ft) depths. How-
ever, the system may not be much more favorable than
siphon strings using intermittent flow or plungers.
Another alternative is a surface hydraulic rod
pump with a gas engine prime mover. Newer type
hydraulic units have electronic cycle speed control
and variable displacement hydraulic pumps which give
them good flexibility in matching well liquid pro-
duction rates. However, initial cost is a disadvan-
tage.
Another more unique pumping method is the jet
pump. A current jet pump system utilizes concentric
tubing strings for power fluid and produced fluid in
an open power fluid system. The gas is produced
10 GAS WELL OPERATION WITH LIQUID PRODUCTION
from the casing annulus. The system (made and used
in Canada) allows near complete drawdown since the
jet suction pressure is claimed to be capable of
being reduced to near the water vapor pressure at
depth which is usually lower than casing sales pres-
sure. Surface controls stop the power fluid when
the well produces gas through the tubing, however,
gas production reduces pump efficiency and the
system then tends to regulate itself. The usually
small volume of liquid produced by gas wells allows
the hydraulic unit to be economically small. The
separator needs to be sized larger to provide surge
volume and degassing for the power fluid. The unit
is capable of lift from 10,000 ft. Cost of the
installed system is comparable to beam pump equip-
ment.
REFERENCES
1. Greene, W. R., "Analyzing the Performance of
Gas Wells," 25th Annual Southwestern Petroleum
Short Course, Lubbock, Texas CApril 20-21,
1978), Proc., pp. 129-135, 1978.
2. Gray, H. E., "Vertical Flow Correlation in Gas
Wells," User Manual for API 14B, Subsurface
Controlled Safety Valve Sizing Computer Pro-
gram, App. B (June 1974).
3. Jones, L. G., Blount, E. M., and Glaze, O. H.,
"Use of Short-Term Multiple Rate Flow Tests to
Predict Performance of Wells Having Turbu-
lence," SPE Paper No. 6133 presented at
SPE-AIME 51st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans,
Louisiana, October 3-6, 1976.
4. Govier, G. W. and Aziz, K., "The Flow of Com-
plex Mixtures in Pipes," (Book) Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, 1972.
5. Standing, M. B., "Concerning the Calculation of
Inflow Performance of Wells Producing from
Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs," JPT Forum, JPT,
September 1971.
6. Uhri, D. C. and Blount, E. M., "Pivot Point
Method Quickly Predicts Well Performance,"
World Oil, May 1982, pp. 153-164.
7. Lea, J. F., "Avoid Premature Liquid Loading in
Tight Gas Wells by Using Prefrac and Postfrac
Test Data," Oil and Gas Journal, September 20,
1982, pp. 123-128.
8. Turner, R. G., Hubbard, M. G., and Dukler,
A. E., "Analysis and Predication of Minimum
Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids
from Gas Wells," JPT (November 1969),
1475-1482.
9. Hinze, J. 0., "Fundamentals of the Hydrodynamic
Mechanism of Splitting in Dispersion Pro-
cesses," AIChE J. (September 1955), 1, No.3,
28.
10. Duns, H.! Jr. and Ros, N.C.J., "Vertical Flow
of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells," Proc.,
6th World Pet. Congress (1963), 451.
316
11583
11. Heshack, 1. L. and Ikoku, C. U., "Minimum Gas
Flow Rate for Continuous Liquid Removal in Gas
Wells," SPE Paper No. 10170 presented at the
56th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE of AIME in San
Antonio, Texas, October 5-7, 1980.
12. Duggan, Jack 0., "Estimating Flow Rates
Required to Keep Gas Wells Unloaded," SPE 32,
Gas Technology Symposium, April, 1961.
13. Lisbon, Tim N., Henry James R., "Case Histo-
ries: Identification of and Remedial Action
for Liquid Loading in Gas Wells --- Interme-
diate Shelf Play ," SPE No. 7487 (Oct. 1978).
14. Hutlus, E. J. and Granberry W. R., "Practical
Approach to Gas Well Liquid Removal," SPE
No. 3473 (Oct. '71).
15. Nind, T.E.W., "Principles of Oil Well Produc-
tion," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
1964.
16. Gilbert, W. E., "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Per-
formance," API Drill. and Prod. Practices,
P. 126, 1954.
17. Foss, D. L. and Gaul, R. B., "Plunger-Lift Per-
formance Criteria with Operating Experience -
Venture Avenue Field," Drilling and Production
Practices, API, 1965, pp. 124-140.
18. Hacksma, J. D., "Users Guide to Predicting
Plunger Lift Performance," presented at South-
western Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas,
1972.
19. Lea, J. F., "Dynamic Analysis of Plunger Lift
Operations," JPT, November 1982, pp. 2617-2630.
20. Blauer, R. E., Mitchel, B. J., Kohlhass, C. A.,
"Determination of Laminar, Turbulent, and Tran-
sitional Foam Flow Losses in Pipes," SPE Paper
No. 4885, presented at the 44th Annual Cali-
fornia Regional Meeting, April 4-5, 1974.
21. Dunning, H. N., Eakin, J. L., and Walker, C.
J., "Using Foaming Agents to Remove LiqUids
from Gas Wells," Bureau of Hines Monograph 11,
1961.
22. Winkler, H. W. and Smith, S. S., "CAMCO Gas
Lift Manual," 1962, CAMCO Inc., Houston, Texas.
23. Brown, K. E., Day, J., Byrd, J., and Mach, J.,
"The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods,"
vol. 2a, Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, Okla-
homa, 1980.
24. Ziser, J. A., "Unique Gas Lift Hookup Used to
Dewater Gas Wells, It World Oil, July 1980.
 1400
1400r------,-------.------,-------,------.

1200

- 100)
V1
0-

w'
e::
::-::> 800
V1
~
e::
0-
<.!) 600
Z!
~
~ 400

200

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

GAS PRODUCTION, MSCF/D 5000
GAS PRODUCTION, MSCFID
COND ITlONS
CONDENSATE - 10 B/MMCFD CONDITIONS
WATER - 10 B/MMCFD CONDENSATE - 10 B/MMCFD
TUBING 1.0. 1.995 INCHES WATER . 10 B/MMCFD
DEPTH - 8000 FT. TUBING I.D. - 1.995 INCHES
SURF. PRESS. -400 PSI DEPTH • 8000 FT.
TUB ING PERFORMANCE TUBING PERFORMANCE
FROM GRAY CORRELATION FROM GRAY 10 CORRELATION

Fig. inflow. outflow. and 1Ubing performance curves for a gas well w,th some liquid Fig. 2-Example of the affect of reducing surface tubing pressure on "abandonment" condit,ons

3000 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

WOR 1.0
2500 API 50
DEPTH; 8000 FT.
SURF. PRESS 400 psi 4000 50
v;zooo GRAY CORRELATION USED WELL CONDI TlONS
CL DEPTH 8(XXJ'
LV. TUBING o 1.99,"
wS GAS. GRAV. • 0.7 40
Ck::
:::J ~ 3000 SURF. TEMP. o lOOOF
BHT • lSOOF
18 1500 '0:::
"'..; SURF. PRESS ~ 400 PSI
Ck:: ::. CONDENSATE - 10 BIMMCFD V1
CL V1
V1
WATER - 10 BIMMCFD 30 fr:
(.:;) UJ
z g: 2000 C
~lOOO TUBING I.D. LLI W
g -'
0 0
L.L. 1.661" :x: 20;:;:\
:;: >
-........;;;;;;,~F:::::;::;:;;:::;;;;;~d~::.l. 995" 0
2.1141" 1=
500 0
co 1000
10

O~~ __ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ____ ~ ______ L __ _~

1200
o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
GAS PRODUCTION, MSCF/D GAS RATE. MMSCFD
Fig. 3-lnteraction of reservoir inflow and tubing performance for low permeability fractured gas well Fig. 4~Calculatlon of crit,cal velocity at surface and botlomhole us,ng Ref. 8.
 800
~
::J
DlFF. CONTROLLER -I
(/)
PRESS. I-
PLUNGER ARRI VAL TRANSMITIER ~

~ 8000
I ~I/
TR I P SWITCH 600
0
I- Pc-MIN.
'$Ol vl
~ ~lES REQUIRE{) G....S/liQUID
I I\
(/)
UJ
ORIfiCE a::
~
~

~£1HOD
CAS ING PRESS
liNE UR[ ~
CONTROL :z: 400
OF \ HI-LO PRESSURE (/) NOTE: THE CASING PRESSURE MUST BUILD II MINIMUM GLR fOR PLttlGER OPR.
MEASURING CONTROL « TO THE VALUE Pc-MAX SHOWN BEFORE GlR'~
AND SHAVING u
liFTING SLUG INDICATED. PRESSURE oLIO. Wl.
PEAK GAS Z WilL DROP TO MINIMUM VALUE WHEN .'. AT D....T.... fOR 1 " 3 bbls J CYCLE
flOW RATE PLUNGER REACHES THE SURFACE.
~
FLUID lOAD 0 200 GLRMIN' ~ _- :;00
:z:
« • 1750 cu fflbbl

X TUBING DELIVERY PRESSURE 21 INTERSECTION OF PRODUCING GLR

GAS tiNE AND GAS REQUIREMENT LINE
« INDICATES MIN. SLUG SIZE POSSIBlE.
~
ANY SWG SIZE 10 lHE RIGHT OF
THIS INTERSECTION IS POSSIBlE
0 IF BHP BUILDUP IS POSSIBLE.
PISTON 4 6
0 2 4
LOAD SIZE, BBLS LOAD SIZE, BBlS

Fig. 6-Casing pressure VS. load size for plunger 11ft in 23./s·10. tubmg landed at 7,000 ft Fig. 7-Plunger cycle gas vs. load size for plunger lit! in 2 3!.s-In. tubing landed at
7.000 h
BOTTOM HOLE
BUMPER SPRING

TUBING STOP OR
STANDING VALVE

FOAM
FOAM QUALITY, '1'0
QUALITY. % 0.1 30
Fig. 5-Schema!ic of plunger iii! installation
0.1 30 .09
.09 40
.08
.08 40 ~
.~ 300r-------------------------------------. ~
'Vi
c. .07
u.T
'Vi
c. .07 1-. 50
c:: z: J16
::J 1-. UJ
(/)
:z: ,06
(/)
LI.J
I..U
0
<:: ,05
c:: 0 .05 a::
a..
200 « ~
,04
a:::: z
~
,04 :=:::
z: :::J .03
~ -I
:::J .03 0
u
.....J
0 .02 l]] ANIONIC SURFACTANT
u .02 18'1 TOLUtNEJ
6- 100 .01 - DESIGN CURVES
-------'80
::J
I- .01
f5 - DESIGN CURV£S
.....J
<C
0 o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
i
.
~.
\ >
::J O~ ____ ~~L__ _~~L__ _~~L__ _~~~_ _~
0 ro 20 ~ ® ~ ro ro 80 90 ~
% BRINE WATER CUT
8' % WATER (FRESH) CUT (100.000 ppm NaCI Bri ne)
Fig. 8-Relative liquid column pressure of 1 bbl of liquid as a funclion of tubing size. Fig. 9-Foam column test with condensate and fresh wateL Superficial gas veloCIty at 60 fpm Fig. 10-Foarn column test w'l~ condensate and brine system. Superf.clal gas vetoclly at 60 fpm
 0.5
LAB TEST - WATER/AIR
LEGEND ~
"Vi 2" DIA. TUBE
.05 o CATIONIC SURFACTANT
0.

....:
0.4 1-------..~-+--------+UQUID RATE z 6BWPD
o ANIONIC SURFACTANT
as CONSTANT
l::J. NON IONIC SURFACTANT
~ .04 0
WATER
"Vi <:
0. a::: 0.3
(.!)

t---
Z
......
a:::
....... .03 ~
V>
0
<: V>
.......
0.2
a::: a:::
(.!)
.02 a...
(.!)
(.!)
MIST
z
~
0
....J .01
=
3:
g
0.1 FLOW

U-
U-

0
0 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
SUPERFICIAL GAS VELOCITY, fpm
~ SURFACTANT

Flg. 11-Surfactant screening test. Air-water system. Fig, 12-Producing gradients in lab column test at atmospheric pressure

80 SALES
NORMALLY
CLOSED

c..
u

r~60r-~---r--'---~~--~-­ fOUl PMENT

l-
V)
o<..)
CD GAS-lIQUID PRODUCTION
SEPARATOR
GAS COMPRESSOR
V) 40r-~---+--~--4---+--- ADJUSTABLE CHOKE
>
L.J...J
>
I-
m
(§)
COMPRESSOR BY-PASS CONTROL
BACKPRESSURE CONTROLLER
COMPRESSOR SUCTION PRESSURE
~ 2Or---+---+---+---1---1--+~--~ CONTROLLER
u... (j) WELL CASING
u...
w ® PRODUCTION TUB ING
- . ~ GAS UFT VALVE (UNLOADING

o~~~~~~~~~~ @
OPTIONI

o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 GAS LIFT OPERATION VALVE

OR JET COLLAR
FOAM QUAL! TV ® PACKER WNLOAOING OPTION!

NOTE: !TEllIS 9, 10, and II ARE

Fig. 13-Etfeclive viscosity of foam as a funct~of1 of quality and shear fate fafter Blauer. et al. Ref. OPTIONAL AND USED f{)R
20). WELL UNLOAD ING. OTHER-
WI SE GAS COULD BE
INJECTED INTO OPEN
ENDED TUBING

Fig. 14-Schematic eqUipment arrangement for continuous rotative gas lift

l , ",\
.