SPE-181229-MS

Defining the Artificial Lift System Selection Guidelines for Horizontal Wells

J. Valbuena, E. Pereyra, and C. Sarica, University of Tulsa

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE North American Artificial Lift Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 25-27 October 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This study presents a methodology to define the most adequate artificial lift technique based on the
method limitation itself, suitability coefficient (based on an attributes table) and economic analysis towards
horizontal wells configuration. The technical limitations of each method have been determined based on
physical principles and experience reported in open literature. An attribute matrix has been generated based
on the information provided in open literature. A breakdown of operational and capital cost is proposed
to compare the equivalent cost of each method based on how long the method will last and how often
well interventaions are required. A field example is presented to demonstrate the use of the proposed
methodology.

Introduction
There is a diversity of artificial lift systems (ALSs) utilized in horizontal gas wells. Basically, most of
them have been adopted and evolved from oil wells. The objective of the ALS in gas wells is to remove
liquid from the wellbore, which is referred to as deliquification. The ALSs or deliquification techniques
can be categorized in two groups: (a) passive systems, and (b) active systems. A small number of ALSs
are hybrids of the two systems. The hybrid systems will not be considered in this paper. The passive
systems take advantage of reservoir energy. These ALSs include velocity strings, plunger lift and foam
lift. These methods are implemented when the gas velocity is insufficient to naturally carry liquid from
the wellbore but sufficient energy remains in the reservoir to operate the method. The active systems
include sucker rod pump, progressing cavity pump, electrical submersible pump, jet pump, and well head
compressors. These methods add energy to the system and are generally implemented when the reservoir is
depleted. Development of guidelines is important in selecting the appropriate ALS for a given well operating
conditions. Following is a brief literature review on ALS selection methodologies is presented.

Existing Selection Criteria

The artificial lift selection criteria proposed in the open literature is very diverse. Most commonly used
ones are based on typical attributes tables and depth and rate chart capabilities. The most advanced methods
include the expert systems and model optimization. Also other selection tools have been used in the industry
such as Weatherford Unloading Selector (Weatherford, 2013).
2 SPE-181229-MS

Attribute Tables, Depth/Rate System Capabilities Charts, and other Documents and Tools. An attribute
table summarizes the typical characteristics and operating limit ranges for each ALS. These attributes
include well geometry, production conditions and reliability of the different methods from a general point
of view. An attribute table provides a qualitative comparison to eliminate unsuitable choices.
Clegg et al. (1993) introduced a complete attribute table with detail explanations for the major artificial
lift methods used. Even though it was developed for conventional oil wells, it is still widely used as a
reference in gas wells. Weatherford (2013) also summarized the most common characteristics and ranges
for each artificial lift method in an attribute table.
The depth/rate system capabilities chart is a selection method that shows the range of flow rate and
depth in which particular lift types can work properly. These charts were first introduced by Blais (1986).
The disadvantage of using these charts is that they only consider the depth and flow rate parameters in the
screening, and all the aspects related with unconventional horizontal wells are omitted.
The ALRDC Guidelines (accessed May 2013) is a document that summarizes the recommended practices
in gas well deliquification. The information includes selection criteria and technical information for various
artificial lift systems written by subject matter experts.
The Weatherford Unloading Selector works by assigning a high or low value to the following parameters:
liquid rate, flowing tubing head pressure, gas-liquid ratio, and water cut percentage. The tool assigns an
artificial lift option that is suitable based on the combination of the input values. For example, plunger lift
is suitable for low liquid flow rates (<100 bpd), low flowing tubing head pressures (<300 psi), low or high
water cut (<50% or ≥50%), and high gas liquid ratio (≥10 Mscf/stb). Although this method is easy to use,
it may ignore other parameters related to the selection process and does not include parameters related to
horizontal wells that may have an impact in the final ALS selection.
Solesa et al. (2006) presented an integrated solution for managing the liquid loading problem in the
gas wells of the Burgos field. The methodology proposed two procedures to analyze the gas wells. One
procedure was based on nodal analysis for wells under continuous flow conditions. The other was based
on a qualitative assessment that considers production history, reservoir data, completion data, and current
production conditions for wells under intermittent flow behavior. In this methodology, a multi-criteria model
considering the factors that have a strong influence in the selection of the production method is applied.
These factors include well completion, well production and pressure history, well performance, field tests,
other problems and cost. A score from 0 to 4 is assigned to each of the factors being analyzed; then, an
integrated evaluation factor is calculated using the geometric mean. The method that exhibits the highest
factor is the recommended option. Elimination is performed when a score of 0 is assigned to one of the
criteria, which may rule out methods that can be implemented if certain constraints can be overcome.
Oyewole et al. (2008) presented an artificial lift selection strategy for gas wells with some liquid
production in San Juan basin. A decision matrix was created for different well configurations and production
conditions including liquid flow rate, little or severe presence of solids, and GLR requirements. The different
well configurations found included vertical, horizontal, horizontal sidetracked, and S-shaped wells. The
decision matrix helps in the selection of the optimum ALS for the productive life of the well.
More recently, Park et al. (2009) developed a decision matrix for liquid loading in gas wells. The
methodology proposed three steps in the selection process. The first step is based on a decision tree that
evaluates the feasibility of the methods being considered. The second step is a technical evaluation that is
based on a reduced number of conventional attributes when selecting a method. For each attribute (well
location, well type, well depth, operating volume, solids handling, paraffin handling, corrosion handling,
crooked hole and scale), a score from 0 to 0.9 is assigned, and then a total score is calculated to rank the
options. The final step is a cost/benefits analysis by performing a cost comparison among the options. Later,
Soponsakulkaew (2010) made modifications in the selection matrix by adding other artificial lift options
and including economic evaluation to calculate net present value and the internal rate of return.
SPE-181229-MS 3

Expert Systems. An expert system is a computer system that tries to reproduce the decision-making
ability by incorporating rules based on the common sense of subject matter experts when making a
decision. Espin et al. (1994) used SEDLA (Sistema Experto de Levantamiento Artificial) for the selection
of the best lift method for a conventional oil well. This software includes three modules, namely, expert,
simulation design and economic evaluation. The expert module is based on a knowledge base consisting of
practicing engineers' expertise, theoretical knowledge available and known rule-of-thumb type calculations.
The simulation design module is used to predict the well performance using a particular method. Finally,
the economics evaluation module uses the information of the previous modules to report the economical
parameters of the prospect. Another expert system for method selections was presented by Valentine et
al. (1988). The resultant system for artificial lift selection called OPUS (Optimal Pumping Unit Search)
includes well-known calculations when designing the pumping systems and economic analysis.
Model Optimization Methods. A model optimization approach searches for the optimal solution based
on mathematical models that have their own logical and mathematical strategy. This approach does not
consider expert knowledge. Alemi et al. (2010) used the TOPSIS model for artificial lift selection. This
approach chose the farthest Euclidean distance from the negative ideal solution and the shortest from the
ideal solution. Fatahi et al. (2011) used the ELECTRE model based on the concept of ranking between
alternatives on the appropriate criteria by paired comparisons. This approach is similar to the human
decision-making process. Rehman et al. (2011) developed a quantitative method integrating production
simulations, economic analysis and a distance-based optimization model to optimize the selection of
artificial lift solutions for liquid loaded wells. The study was developed with two synthetic case studies
representing high and low gas flow rates.
Summary. It is clear that none of the existing methodologies take into consideration the parameters
introduced by horizontal wells in the selection process. Moreover, most of the tools and methodologies
available were developed for conventional wells. Therefore, a new deliquification tool focusing on
horizontal wells is proposed with this study.
A customized screening process and attribute table of the new tool overcome the above limitations
to provide flexibility when adapting for specific field conditions. The improved selection methodology
includes three screenings. The first is based on an elimination process, the second aims for a suitable
comparison among the ALS options including a more detailed attribute table and horizontal wells aspects,
and the third screening is a complete economic evaluation.

Recommended Guidelines
The development of the recommended guidelines is based on physical limitations of each artificial lift
system (ALS), well and field constraints, and a quantitative assessment of the attributes involved in
the selection processes. Three main screenings are performed in the decision-making process. The first
screening is based on the ALSs' limitations including depth, flow rate constraints, gas requirements,
pressure requirements, well integrity issues, field conditions, among others. The first screening rules out
the unsuitable methods and leaves the possible methods. The second screening is based on an attribute table
that assigns a score for each attribute considered. In this screening, an average suitability factor is calculated
for each feasible artificial lift option, and the artificial lift methods are ranked ordered. The third screening
is an economical assessment of the methods being evaluated. The net present value and other economical
parameters are calculated in this screening.
As discussed in the literature review, the main artificial lift methods used in the industry for gas well
deliquification are velocity string, plunger lift, foam lift, gas lift, wellhead compression, sucker rod pump,
jet pump, electrical submersible pump, and progressing cavity pump. There are other methods, which are
not widely used, such as electrical submersible PCP, twin-screw pump, coiled tubing rod pump, hydraulic
4 SPE-181229-MS

diaphragm electric submersible pump, and hydraulic diaphragm insert pump. The development of the
guidelines will focus mainly on the most commonly used methods. The following sections will provide the
details of the development of the screening processes in defining selection guidelines for the unloading of
horizontal wells.

Technical Limitations of Methods

There are different parameters affecting the artificial lift selection process, and they need to be considered
to accomplish the main goal of this first screening, which is to rule out the unsuitable choices and provide a
list of remaining methods that can be candidates for the artificial lift implementation. The strategy is based
on defining simple rules to conduct the elimination process. These rules include the limitations stated in the
typical attribute tables, quick calculations, the common reasoning when selecting an ALS and the typical
"rules of thumb" based on experience for specific field conditions.
The processing module is based on a collection of logic rules in the form of IF-THEN-ELSE statements,
where the IF part is referred to as the "condition," and the THEN part is referred to as the "Feasibility of
an ALS." In this case, it will indicate if the ALS is suitable or not for the condition being evaluated. In
the following sections, the justification for the logic rules developed for each ALS will be given. Readers
are referred to Vabuena (2014) for further description of the resultant rules in the form of IF-THEN-ELSE
statements.
Plunger Lift. The following sections address the logical criteria when screening for plunger lift feasibility.
Usually, these criteria will involve maximum liquid flow rates, pressure and gas requirements, completion
details and other factors.
One of the first aspects to consider is the maximum deliquification rate that can be achieved by the
method. This depends on many factors including tubing size, depth, production conditions, well's energy,
cycles per day, the pressure build up in the casing and plunger fall and rise velocities. Typically, an operating
range of plunger is calculated by using the basic Foss and Gaul (1965) equations presented by Lea (1982),
where the maximum liquid production is a product of the slug or load size and the maximum cycles per
day. The wells are normally operated below the maximum number of cycles per day to allow time for
casing pressure to build up. ALRDC Guidelines proposed a list of flow rates that can be considered as most
optimistic cases for maximum flow rates. The guidelines are based on the following specific conditions:
depth of 5,000 ft., flowing tubing head pressure of 100 psi, pressure build up in fall time of 1000 psi,
the casing size of one size above the tubing OD, and the gas production under the critical flow rate. The
maximum flow rates proposed for tubing sizes of 1 ½-in., 2-in., 2 3/8-in., 2 7/8-in., and 3 ½-in are 35 BPD,
50 BPD, 110 BPD, 165 BPD, and 200 BPD, respectively. The Weatherford (2013) attribute table sets the
maximum flow rate for plunger lift as 200 BPD. Further definition of the rules in an IF THEN ELSE format
are presented in Vabuena (2014).
The gas volume is one of the most important aspects for a plunger lift installation. The gas expansion
provides the necessary velocity to carry the liquid to the surface. The rule of thumb used to estimate the
minimum volume of gas necessary for a successful implementation is 400 scf/bbl per 1,000 ft of well
depth for packer-less completions. Ferguson et al. (1983) explained that this was based on the energy
stored in a compressed volume of 400 scf of gas expanding under the hydrostatic head of 1 bbl of liquid.
Depending on the surface conditions (flow line pressure, backpressures in the system, etc.) the minimum
gas requirements can be greater. This value can be customized for specific well and field conditions. For
a well completed with a packer, which experiences energy loses due to the restriction in the annulus, the
minimum requirement increases to 800 – 1,200 scf/bbl per 1,000 ft. On average, 1,000 scf/bbl per 1,000
ft can be used as recommended by Weatherford (2007). In addition, Lea et al. (2003) states that the gas
requirement to operate a plunger with a packer is within the range of 1,000 – 2,000 scf/bbl per 1,000 ft.
SPE-181229-MS 5

The pressure needed to drive the plunger also must be considered. This is usually evaluated using the
Load Factor, presented by Lea et al. (2003). This equation is defined by the relationship between the lift
pressure (difference between the casing head and flow line pressure), and the liquid load (difference between
casing head and tubing head pressure) at closed-in conditions. When lift pressure is capable of building in
a reasonable period to at least two times the liquid load, the well has sufficient energy to drive the plunger
and liquid column to the surface. In other words, the load factor should be below 0.5 before opening the
well to let the plunger and liquids rise. The load factor equation is given by
(1)
where CICHP is closed-in casing head pressure, CITHP is closed-in tubing head pressure, and FLP is flow
line pressure.
One of the biggest challenges of plunger lift in horizontal gas or unconventional wells involves reaching
the end of tubing (EOT) and passing through the X profile nipple. Kravits et al. (2011) presented results of a
field test performed in a Marcellus shale well to study the feasibility of running plunger lift on wells with X
and XN profiles. The study also addressed the possibility of reaching deviation angles of 70° or greater. The
results of the field testing yielded several conclusions. All the plungers passed through the X profiles, fell
down to their bottom deviation with the deepest depth at 70°, and traveled faster below the kick-off point.
Another aspect related to well construction is the dogleg severity. Based on experience, the maximum
dogleg severity should be less than 6°/100 ft above plunger set depth, to avoid stuck plunger. The dogleg
severities exceeding 3°/100 ft but less than 6°/100 ft can be considered as a warning. The higher dogleg
severities will make the plungers shorter as also indicated by ALRDC Guidelines.
ALRDC Guidelines established that the tubing plungers may range in size from 1¾-in. to 4½-in. outer
diameter (OD). Therefore, there are no limitations in tubing OD. However, with larger OD plungers, plunger
mass and controls to stop the plunger at the surface are issues to consider, due to the acceleration and
momentum gained while travelling to the surface. Therefore, 3½-in. OD has been selected as the maximum
diameter tubing. Moreover, according to Soponsakulkaew (2010) plunger lift works through any tubing
size, but the limitation to a 3½-in. is related to efficiency
There are other important aspects related to well integrity issues to consider when screening for plunger
lift. First, the tubing must be the same size from the hanger to the bottom of the string. If the well has tapered
tubing, it may be necessary to use two plunger stages with different sized plungers operating in each section
of tubing according to ALRDC Guidelines. However, this complicates the operation, and it is not very
efficient. It is recommended that the tubing string be replaced with a consistent string size. Secondly, for
ideal tubing plunger performance, the tubing should be free of leaks (no tubing-annulus communication) and
no casing mechanical failure to ensure the proper pressure buildup. Finally, there should be no obstructions
in the tubing with the potential to prevent the plunger reaching the setting nipple.
There is not an actual depth or temperature limitation for the method; the limits are beyond the typical
depths for unconventional wells. However, the drawback related to depth is the fall and rise times that will
reduce the number of cycles and hence the liquid flow rate that can be attained. The offshore limitation is
imposed because offshore assets require significantly higher volumes to be lifted.
Foam Lift. The wells with liquid loading potential can operate significantly below its critical loading rate
if surfactants are used. The objective of foam lift is to lower the surface tension between the water and gas as
well as the density of the water to be lifted out of the well. The success of the foam lift application depends
on the interaction between the surfactant being used and the formation fluids. Thus, it is difficult to establish
rules for this process. However, some guidelines have been proposed based on successful experiences.
Wittfeld (2005) developed a set of best practices for candidate selection. The water to condensate ratio
(WCR) is one of the most critical factors in the foam generation and performance since most surfactants work
on water rather than condensate. This author presented that there was not a definitive cut-off for how high of
6 SPE-181229-MS

a WCR is required for good foam generation. However, it was shown that at least a 3:1 WCR corresponding
to 75% water cut was required. Wittfeld (2005) suggested that experience of his company showed that a 1:1
ratio (around 50% of water cut) was not foamable with the surfactant technologies tried.
Solesa and Sevic (2006), based on laboratory analysis and field applications of foaming agents in wells,
developed some rules for evaluation of foam lift system. These rules are similar to those established in
plunger lift related to the gas and pressure requirements as well as other factors affecting the foam lift
performance. With respect to pressure requirements, it is stated that the closed-in tubing head pressure
(CITHP) should be greater than 1.2 times the flow line pressure (FLP) for wells with packers and the closed-
in casing head pressure (CICHP) should be equal or greater than 2.2 – 2.5 times the flow line pressure for
packer-less wells.
Regarding the gas volume required, Lea et al. (2003) stated that the best candidates for foam application
are those with GLR between 1000 and 8000 scf/bbl. Solesa and Sevic (2006) was more specific in this
matter, and according to his observations, wells with producing GLR in the range of 430–770 scf/bbl/1000ft
are good candidates for foam application.
Salinity concentration of the water must also be considered. Solesa and Sevic (2006) established that
if the water salinity concentration is high (>5% or 50,000 ppm) salting out phenomena can occur, and
the application of foam is compromised. However, Wittfeld (2005) in the summary of his company's
experiences stated that salinity has not been a significant factor, because there were some fields with
concentration levels up to 200,000 ppm that had successful surfactant application.
High liquid flow rates will increase the amount of surfactant required up to levels that can become
uneconomical to generate foam. Moreover, the flow conditions may not promote the foam generation.
The depth limitation is imposed in continuous foam injection where the surface injection pressure of the
equipment to inject down the surfactant may be significantly high. Finally, the temperature limits depend
on the surfactant use and the maximum temperature that will not affect its performance or development.
Current surfactant technologies can be used in environments with temperatures up to 400° F.
Wellhead Compression. By applying wellhead compression, the flowing tubing head pressure (FTHP) is
reduced, increasing velocity and allowing the liquids to be unloaded. Most of the design depends on the
surface compressor chosen. Usually, highly productive wells in their late life are the better candidates. Harms
(2004) and (2010) presented case histories of well head compression application on tight Lobo Wilcox wells
in South Texas. Based on the experience in this specific field, some insights can be used to define specific
rules for the first screening process. The method performance depends on many factors related to the well
productivity, the pressure requirements and the compressor selected. These factors might include flow line
pressure, flow rate, gas composition, energy efficiency and capital investment in the implementation. Since
wellhead compression depends on field conditions, it is difficult to set guidelines for the screening process.
The following limits are not general, and they may change from one field to another.
Harms (2004) proposed a maximum gas rate, 300 MscfD, above which the well head compression should
not be considered. High production wells mask the effects of tubing head pressure reduction. Moreover,
referring to the liquid production rate in Lobo Wilcox field, the expected water production rate should be
less than 30 BPD due to liquid handling limitations of the compressors. The maximum liquid production
may vary from one field to another. 100 BPD is taken as the maximum flow rate based on field practices
and common limitations of the typical compressors.
Moreover, Harms (2004) found out that the wells with a flowing tubing head pressure of 30 psi or less
are not good candidates for this method. Usually, in the application of this method the minimum wellhead
pressure varies between 29 psi (2 bar) and 145 psi (10 bar) based on field experiences. Furthermore, high
flowing tubing head pressures is a constraint to have a successful performance. As presented by Donald
et al. (2014), based on onshore gas wells applications in The Netherlands, the design criteria in selecting
SPE-181229-MS 7

successful candidates should have less than 1100 psi (80 bar) shut-in tubing head pressure and less than 175
psi (12 bars) flowing tubing head pressure.
Velocity Strings. Velocity strings are recommended for small liquid production and high reservoir
pressures. To evaluate the feasibility of a velocity string, a nodal analysis should be performed. An optimal
velocity string has to be selected such that liquid loading is delayed over a long period with a minimal impact
in production. This requires accurate methods to predict pressure drop in the velocity string as well as in
the tubing-velocity string annulus. A few rules for initial screening are based on the fact that the method
is used when there is enough energy in the well to flow naturally and a maximum of 300 BPD according
to field practices.
Lea et al. (2003) presented a list of deliquification techniques based on the static bottomhole pressure. In
this list, velocity string or small tubing is presented as an option in high reservoir pressures (>1,500 psi), and
in medium pressure wells (500<BHP<1,500). This cutoff limit may depend on each specific well condition.
Gas Lift. The main design consideration for horizontal gas wells is to inject enough gas to keep the total gas
flow rate above the critical flow velocity. There is little information available about how to implement gas
lift in horizontal wells. Some applications have been performed; however, there is no a conclusion whether
gas lift in horizontal section is favorable or not.
Lea et al. (2003) provided some constraints that the industry faced for the gas lift application in the
horizontal sections. First, due to the small vertical head, the benefit of reducing the hydrostatic pressure is
not seen as in conventional gas lift applications. Another factor mentioned by Lea et al. (2003) is the two-
phase flow behavior in the horizontal section where the liquid and gas tend to become stratified, giving
the preference to the gas to flow at the top without efficiently pushing the liquid to the surface. However,
depending on the lateral configuration, the fluid flow behavior will vary, and injecting gas in the horizontal
sections may have other benefits not considered so far, e.g., stabilizing flow by reducing the severe slugging
conditions that can be found in toe-up or hybrid configurations.
This ALS is preferred during the initial and through the middle period of well production. It is required
to meet the drawdown limitations, which are presented in the SPE Horizontal Wells Deliquification
Webinar (2013), of static bottomhole pressure gradient (SBHP)≥0.3 psi/ft and flowing bottomhole pressure
gradient (FBHP)≥0.08 psi/ft. It has been observed that once the FBHP is exceeded, then the backpressure
exerted by the fluid column starts acting against the flow affecting system efficiency. Moreover, the
FBHP<Pinjection<SBHP condition should be maintained to avoid injecting gas into the formation when
lifting from the heel. The feasibility of this method should be evaluated by performing nodal analysis and
pressure drop calculations along the wellbore.
Clegg et al. (1993) recommended switching from continuous to intermittent gas lift when the liquid
production reaches 200 BPD for conventional oil wells. For intermittent gas lift application, Lea et al. (2003)
proposed the maximum operation flow rates of 150 BPD, 250 BPD and 300 BPD for the tubing sizes of 2
3/8-in., 2 7/8-in. and 3½-in., respectively. For general practice purposes, the minimum liquid flow rate for
continuous gas lift application is established to be 150 BPD.
The depth limit is given by the maximum surface injection pressure and the unloading gas lift valves
configuration installed in the completion tubing. Gas lift can be temperature limited primarily due to valve
seal assembly failures above 450° F.
Electrical Submersible Pump. When gas or condensate wells produce significant amounts of liquid, a
pumping system may be suitable for deliquification. However, in most cases, liquid production is very small;
therefore, the amount of power needed to remove the liquids is minimal. Most of the challenges in operating
these ALS are due to the gas interference and intermittent flow.
Lea et al. (2003) states, "Most pumping systems become inefficient when the GLR exceeds some critical
value, typically about 500 scf/bbl (90 m3/m3), due to severe gas interference." However, this is not the
8 SPE-181229-MS

parameter to evaluate the pumping methods. The total GLR is just an indication of the relative amounts of
standard conditions gas and liquid flow rates and cannot take into account in-situ pressure and temperature
effects. Then, the gas volume fraction (GVF) defined by the ratio of the volume of free gas to the total volume
of fluids at pump intake conditions should be used. The GVF can be calculated using surface production
data such as the total producing gas liquid ratio (GLR) and water cut (WC), and the fluid properties such
as solution gas oil ratio (Rso), solution gas water ratio (Rsw), and formation volume factors (Bw, Bo, Bg).
Mathematically, the GVF is defined as follows:

(2)

where qfree gas is the in-situ gas flow rate flowing into the pump, and qtotal is the total gas flow rate handled
by the pump at in-situ conditions.
(3)
where Qo, sc and Qw, sc are the oil and water flow rates at standard conditions.
In packer-less completions, the produced gas is split between the casing tubing annulus and tubing
through the pump. This process is called natural separation. The efficiency of the natural separation is
defined as

(4)

Then, the GVF can be calculated by:

(5)

Alhanati (1993) presented the most well-known model for estimating the natural efficiency given by:

(6)

where the bubble terminal velocity v∞ is given by Ishii and Zuber (1979):

(7)

Gamboa (2013) presented the operating envelope for an ESP based on the GVF values. Feasible, risky
and extreme applications fall in the ranges of GVF of 0 – 30%, 30 – 40%, and 40 – 60%, respectively. A
GVF of 30% is considered a reasonable cutoff value. The critical GVF, also known as a surging point, marks
the transitions to severe deterioration. Some models such as Turpin (1982) and Dunbar (1989) and Pessoa
(2001) can be used to estimate this value. Some of the problems related to gas handling in an ESP include
head degradation and gas lock, which is the pump inability to generate pressure.
Powers (1992) analyzed the obstacles that an ESP application faces as pumping depth increases. These
include pump housing burst pressure, higher surface voltage and power consumption. With depth, the
detrimental effects on motor and power cable life due to the higher ambient wellbore temperatures are more
severe.
Liquid flow rate is critical when deciding the application of an ESP system. The pump performance is
greatly affected with gassy conditions when the low liquid rate starts to move away from the best efficiency.
The major challenges in operating the pump with low liquid flow rates include gas locking, pump severe
wear, and insufficient cooling in the motor. Clegg et al. (1993) suggested that the minimum liquid flow
rate in conventional applications should be higher than 400 BPD. More recently, the ALRDC Guidelines
established that the application of the method is possible in a range between 150 BPD and 30,000 BPD.
SPE-181229-MS 9

More specifically, the liquid production should be above 150 BPD in gas wells. For unconventional gassy
conditions, a limitation of 5½-in. outside casing diameter is common. This is supported by Soponsakulkaew
(2010) when presenting the artificial lift criteria used for gas wells in Chevron.
Romer et al. (2012) indicated that the maximum dogleg severity should be less than 6°/100 ft above the
setting depth. Finally, the field conditions should provide access to electrical power.
Sucker Rod Pump. The aspects that need to be taken into consideration when screening for sucker rod
pumps include depth, flow rate, production conditions and well geometry constraints.
The gas handling capability is one of the most critical aspects, and is considered one of the biggest
challenges in sucker rod pumping. Once the gas enters the pump, it causes delay in opening and closing
the travelling valve. The operating envelope for sucker rod pumps was presented by Gamboa (2013), who
described feasible, risky and extreme applications as falling in the ranges of GVF of 0 – 40%, 40 – 50%,
and 50 – 60%, respectively. A GVF of 40% is considered as a reasonable cutoff value.
Weatherford (2013) suggested that the sucker rod pump can be used up to the maximum operating depth
of 16,000 ft. The choice of sucker rod combinations in the field is based on the well depth. Therefore, for
depths higher than 16,000 ft there is a possibility of rod failure during operation due to the limitations of
available rod combinations. Weatherford (2013) indicates that the maximum operating temperature for rod
pumps is 550° F.
Sucker rod pumps provide one of the broadest operating envelopes in terms of flow rate among all the
available ALSs. The flow rate of this envelope varies from 10 BPD to 6,000 BPD. Clegg et al. (1993)
described this ALS as the most common method for wells producing less than 100 BPD. Even though,
the abovementioned flow rates are based on different well conditions, they give an idea of the method
application in the screening phase.
The aspects related to well geometry are also important factors, especially when dealing with horizontal
wells. Experience shows successful applications of sucker rod pumps even in the horizontal sections of
the well. However, problems related to rod and tubing wear are present. According to ALRDC Guidelines,
companies usually run the pump down to a well deviation of approximately 30° to 40° and up to a maximum
of 80°. Besides that, Weatherford (2011) suggested that the rod pumps can be used in wells with a dogleg
severity of less than 15°/100 ft above pump placement depth.
Weatherford (2013) and Clegg et al. (1993) stated that sucker rod pumps had a limited offshore
application.
Progressing Cavity Pump. The progressing cavity pump (PCP) has the advantage of not being easily gas
locked when used in two-phase flow conditions as compared to other ALSs. They have great ability to
handle solids which are usually produced in hydraulic fractured horizontal wells. They can also be placed in
horizontal sections using ESP motors. However, they are depth limited and they cannot tolerate CO2, H2S
or aromatic gas condensates due to their material of construction. They also are sensitive to dry production
environments and can be damaged if run dry for a long period. Further analysis of the each aspect is presented
next.
Gamboa (2013) presented the PCP performance under two-phase flow conditions. The pump was not
greatly impacted as long as the GVF is kept lower than 50%. For GVF between 50% and 80%, the
performance began to be affected. Once the GVF becomes higher than 80%, the impact was critical, affecting
the pump capability to increase pressure and becoming gas locked.
Based on the above information, a GVF of 50% can be considered as the boundary of PCP operation
without downhole separation equipment. When harsh conditions are expected, solutions may include
installing a downhole separator, lowering the pump setting depth as much as possible, decentralizing the
tubing in horizontal wells, and using the appropriate elastomer for gassy conditions.
The progressing cavity pump requires a constant amount of liquid flowing through the system to provide
lubrication and prevent damage to the elastomer. This constraint supports the minimum liquid flow rate
10 SPE-181229-MS

assessment. Based on ALRDC Guidelines, the typical operating speeds are between 150 and 400 RPM.
Experience indicates that speeds slower than 150 RPM can result in stick-slip behavior due to system fluid
properties and friction elements, and speeds above 500 RPM may result in excessive rod whirl, which can
damage the rotor and tubing. Given the displacement of the pump, it is possible to determine the minimum
flow rate required to achieve the displacement without going below the specified minimum pump speed.
One of the smallest pump displacements for depths down to 6,000 ft is 0.06 BPD/RPM and 0.45 BPD/RPM
for depths greater than 6,000 ft. Therefore, the minimum flow rate that the PCP may handle is 10 BPD for
depths less than 6,000 ft and 60 BPD for depths greater than 6000 ft.
Weatherford (2013) presented the typical operating depth to be less than 8,600 ft. and maximum liquid
flow rates to be 4,500 BPD due to the drive system torque limitations.
The experience of PCP in oil wells has shown that elastomers exhibit limited temperature resistance.
According to Weatherford (2013), the maximum operating temperature should be around 250° F. This is
based on the elastomer's material of construction and the glue that is used to bond the elastomer to the pump
housing. Moreover, the International Standard ISO 15136 (2009) established the importance of considering
the crude-oil aromatics content in selecting the elastomer. Crude-oil aromatics show chemical affinity with
nitrile elastomers, causing swelling. Oils typically contain light aromatics at absolute concentrations varying
from 0% to 5%. Concentrations above 3% are critical; otherwise, the impact in the elastomer integrity will
be significant.
Regarding aspects of well geometry, this method is favorable when there is a good wellbore profile to
avoid the rod and tubing wear and rod fatigue problems. According to the Petroleum Engineering Handbook
(2006), if it is possible to avoid high dogleg severity during well construction, this value should preferably
be less than 5°/100 ft above the setting depth. Then, it becomes important to obtain the smoothest wellbore
profile possible. The ALRDC Guidelines indicates that the maximum dogleg severity for a PCP application
should be less than 15°/100 ft, similar to the limit imposed in sucker rod pump.
There are also some required field conditions to make the PCP application possible. The Weatherford
(2013) attribute table indicates that PCPs have a limited offshore application. In addition, there should be
either gas or electrical power available to run the equipment.
Jet Pump. In jet pump applications, the bottomhole assembly travels along and through the production
tubing. Thus, the method is limited by a maximum dogleg severity. Clegg et al. (1993) suggested that the jet
pumps can be deployed and retrieved at a maximum of 24°/100 ft of build-up sections. The well deviation
is not an actual limitation; experience indicates that the pump can be deployed at even 90°.
Clegg et al. (1993) stated that the jet pump can reach the deepest locations among the artificial lift
methods considered. The depth is usually limited by the surface power fluid injection pressure. The practical
depth has been established at 20,000 ft, while the typical depth of use is 15,000 ft. With respect to the low
volume lift capabilities, Clegg et al. (1993) stated that the minimum flow rate should be around 200 BPD.
They claimed that, for the high volume lift capabilities, the method can handle up to 15,000 BPD with the
proper well configuration and bottomhole pressures. The Weatherford (2013) attribute table shows that the
maximum flow rate can reach 35,000 BPD.
Free gas is the main challenge for jet pumps primarily due to choking of the inlet of the throat and
cavitations that lead to throat damage. In conventional oil wells, the free gas problems are mitigated keeping
the flowing bottomhole pressure above the bubble point pressure and allowing sufficient flow area in the
throat. Gas or liquid rich wells typically have high GLR values. This is why this method is commonly used
for initial deliquification needs after the hydraulic fracturing jobs, where the water must be removed for
several days or weeks. Clegg et al. (1991) indicated that the free gas reduced efficiency but helped lift the
liquids. Based on field experience and the abovementioned discussion a GVF of 50% has been established
as a cut-off for using this ALS.
SPE-181229-MS 11

Soponsakulkaew (2010) indicated that the pump should be inserted in production tubing of at least 2 7/8-
in. in diameter. Smaller tubing may significantly increase the pressure losses, requiring a higher surface
pressure to inject the power fluid.
Jet pumps require casings with mechanical integrity, no tubing-annulus communication and wellbore
access to allow the pump to travel to the setting nipple.

Attribute Table
The main process in the second screening is based on an attribute table. The quantitative and qualitative
attributes are assessed by assigning a suitability score to each, depending on the impact they have on the
ALS performance. This process includes identifying key attributes, building an attribute matrix for technical
comparison, defining simple attribute scoring and weighting factors, assigning attribute scoring, and ranking
the ALSs by calculating a suitability factor.
Attribute Identification. The key attributes that have an influence in the ALS selection for horizontal gas
wells are identified as follows:
Well Conditions and Geometry
– Well depth: shallow (<7500 ft) or deep (≥ 7500 ft).
– Wellbore deviation angle.
– Lateral orientation (toe-up, toe-down, and hybrid or undulations).
– Presence of sump.
– Maximum dogleg severity.
– Casing size.
– Dual completion.
Production Conditions
– Liquid production: high (≥ 200 bpd) or low (< 200 bpd).
– Bottomhole pressure: high (BHP ≥ 3,000 psi), medium (2,000 psi < BHP < 1,000 psi), Low (BHP
≤ 1,000 psi).
– Gas liquid ratio (GLR): high (GLR ≥ 5,000 scf/stb) or low (GLR < 5,000 scf/stb).
– Fluid characteristic: High viscous fluid.
– Fluid characteristic: Sour (H2S).
– Production problem handling: Solids.
– Production problem handling: Corrosion.
– Production problem handling: Paraffin.
– Production problem handling: Scale.
– Intermittent flow handling.
– Adaptability to reservoir depletion.
Field conditions
– Developed.
– Remote.
– Power condition (poor or good).
Cost and performance
– Reliability.
– Installation cost.
– Operating cost.
12 SPE-181229-MS

A total of twenty-four attributes were defined in accordance with the most influential parameters and the
reasoning of an engineer when selecting the ALS. Tables showing the pros and cons for different artificial
lift methods in the ALRDC Guidelines were taken as a reference.
Defining the Attribute Scoring and Weighting Factors
A suitability coefficient was assigned to each of the attributes to build the base score. Moreover, a weighting
factor was assigned to each attribute. Both parameters are used to further calculate the weighted geometric
mean. The weighting factors are estimated values, indicating the relative importance or impact of each
attribute in the group as compared to the other attributes in the group. The purpose of using weighting factors
is to establish priorities in the most influential factors in the overall performance rating.
The primary score assigned to each of the attributes affecting the ALS selection is given from 5 to 1. This
parameter shows the degree of applicability of the system being considered under the attribute established
as a selection factor. A suitability coefficient of 5 means that the ALS is very well suited for this condition
while 1 means that the ALS is very poorly suited for the situation. A similar procedure was implemented by
Espin et al. (1994) in the development of SEDLA. The score is given such that the key parameters affecting
the selection of different ALSs are quantitatively evaluated.
Tables A1 – A4 show the reference values and the definition used to assign a score to each of the key
attributes identified. However, intermediate values (i.e. 4.5) could be used when necessary to describe the
suitability of an ALS.
Based on the published data of field practices and ALS limitations assessed through different literature
sources, a matrix with the scores assigned to each of the attributes has been proposed. This matrix is called
the default matrix, and given in Table A-5. The weighting factors are assigned following the guidelines
below:
– For all attributes, a value from 1 to 10 is assigned, which provides the significance of the attribute. A
rating of 1 indicates a "not important at all in the selection process," 5 represents that it is important
and 10 is "very important in the selection process."
– If an attribute should not be considered, it is rate it 0.
– Normalization to 100% shows the contribution of the factor in the overall average.
Calculating the Suitability Factor. The weighted geometric mean is proposed to calculate the suitability
factor. This has not been used before in artificial lift selection processes. Solesa et al. (2006), in the
integrated study for managing liquid loading in Burgos Field, used the geometric mean without weighting
the considered attributes.
The weighted geometric mean of a data set of attributes, A={a1, a2, a3,…, an}, with the corresponding
weighting factors, W={w1, w2, w3,…, wn}, is given by

(8)

where ai, wi, and n represents the score given to each of the attributes, the corresponding weighting factor
and the number of attributes being considered, respectively. The calculated mean is called Suitability Factor
(SF1).
The use of the geometric weighted mean provides the following advantages:
– By increasing or decreasing the relative importance of the attributes, a flexibility in customizing the
selection process according to the company strategies and priorities in artificial lift selection.
– Better sensitivity in ranking of the options. It better reflects the case when one attribute score is
equal to a very small value (e.g. 1), and cannot be compensated by the other attributes. This gives
significance to small score values in the overall rating.
SPE-181229-MS 13

Economic Analysis
The economic analysis is a systematic approach with the goal to identify the most profitable ALS. This
involves the comparison of the suitable options. There are many economic indicators used to measure the
economic performance of a project. The main economic analysis techniques considered for the evaluation
are monthly value, net present value, and payback period. The artificial lift methods in unconventional plays
usually have short life spans, therefore, the annual value analysis is converted to a monthly analysis to
consider a more appropriate timescale. The cost, production, and economic parameters are necessary input
for the economic comparison. The evaluation considers uncertainty through range or scenario analysis:
pessimistic, most likely, and optimistic. The parameters with uncertainty include gas price, natural gas
liquids (NGL) price, oil price, production data, and cost data. The economic analysis is fundamental in any
decision-making process, where the project profitability plays an important role.
After reviewing the feasibility and functionality of the different ALSs, an evaluation of the cost (CAPEX
and OPEX) and profitability need to be performed before making the method selection. The methods with
the lowest CAPEX for implementation include plunger lift, foam lift, and velocity string, corresponding
to the ALSs that use the reservoir energy to operate. These methods are also among those with the lowest
operating costs. In the case of wellhead compression, if the compressor is rented, then the CAPEX may
be low, but the operating cost is high due to the leasing and maintenance costs. A similar situation occurs
when implementing gas lift, which requires the high surface pressure source to inject gas into the annulus.
However, if a compression plant exits, the cost for adding a new well to the system is not significant. The
pumping methods (ESP, PCP, sucker rod pump, and jet pump) are among the most expensive methods
due to the surface and downhole equipment required. Among these, the ESP is one of the most complex
artificial lift methods and has the highest overall cost. The PCP expenses are usually less than other lift
technologies such as ESP or sucker rod pumps due to high operating efficiency and low failure rates. In the
case of jet pumping, the main installation costs are related to the surface pumping system. The subsurface
equipment cost involves the downhole pump, which is usually low. The maintenance costs are related to the
fuel consumption. Moreover, rental hydraulic system units for the surface pumping systems are available,
so this may reduce significantly the CAPEX while increasing the OPEX.

Field Application
The selection procedure presented before has been implemented in a computational tool (see Vabuena,
2014). This tool has been used to evaluate a study case which is presented in this section.
The study case correspond to a horizontal well with a long lateral section. The well is located in Woodford
shale. The well depth is about 10,350 ft MD, and 7,100 ft TVD. The EOT depth is 7,502 ft MD at a well
deviation of 80°. It is completed with a 2 3/8-in. production tubing in a 5 ½-in. casing. The completion string
includes an XN nipple at 7,468 ft MD and 74°. The well is currently operating with a plunger installed at
7,261 ft MD and 68° with a stop collar. Currently, the well produces with a gas rate of 200 MscfD, liquid
rate of 15 BPD (Water), and GLR of 14,000 scf/STB. The casing and tubing pressures are recorded as casing
head pressure (CHP) of 260 psi, closed-in casing head pressure (CICHP) of 284 psi, flowing tubing head
pressure of (FTHP) of 130 psi, closed-in tubing head pressure (CITHP) of 154 psi. The reservoir pressure
and temperature are 2,500 psi and 190° F, respectively. The production history shows erratic production,
one of the typical symptoms of liquid loading. The well has scale problems mainly due to the hard formation
water characteristics with total dissolved solids of 128,000 ppm (12.8%). Moreover, corrosion treatments
are frequently performed and the hydraulic fracturing sand or proppant is often produced.

First Screening
The required data was input in the selection tool. For the first screening, the following are the main outputs:
14 SPE-181229-MS

The suitable ALSs without any order preference: plunger lift, wellhead compression, velocity string, and
sucker rod pump. Five unsuitable ALSs and the reason for their elimination include: gas lift, foam lift,
electrical submersible pump, progressing cavity pump, and jet pump. The gas lift is eliminated because the
deliquification rate is less than 30 BPD; however, intermittent gas lift may be considered. The foam lift is
eliminated due to the high levels of total dissolved solids (>5%), which are detrimental for foam generation;
nevertheless, a successful lab or field test may push this limit. The electrical submersible pump is eliminated
because the deliquification rate is less than 150 BPD. The progressing cavity pump is eliminated because
it has been established to be suitable for liquid flow rates higher than 60 BPD for depths greater than 6,000
ft. And finally, the jet pump is eliminated for having a tubing size of less than 2 7/8-in., a GVF greater than
0.5, and a liquid flow rate of less than 200 BPD.

Second Screening
The second screening resulted in the following scores using the default matrix (presented in Table A-5).
Plunger lift, velocity string, well head compression and sucker rod pumping have received the scores of
4.04, 4.02, 3.67 and 3.44, respectively. The weighted score provides the difference in order of magnitude
among the methods, the highest score was for the plunger lift with 586, and the lowest was for the sucker
rod pump with 498. This result shows that the plunger lift may be the most suitable method for this well
and these field conditions.

Third Screening
To perform the third screening, it was assumed that the well dies and the ALS installation will restore the
production to the normal production decline. In this case, an incremental gas production of 200 Mscf/D is
expected, which represents approximately 6,080 Mscf/Month.
To obtain the forecast, the production was declined using exponential model, with a decline rate (D) of
0.0507 1/month, and a decline exponent (b) of 0.6357. These decline curve parameters were presented by
Hammond (2013) as typical values in Woodford Shale.
Additionally, the following are the implementation and operating costs, and economic premises expected
for each of the methods and used in the economical evaluation, for the most likely case. The pessimistic
deviation is assumed to be 30% for the costs and 30% for production, and optimistic deviation 10% for the
costs and 30% for production:
a. Plunger Lift
○ Evaluation time is 18 months.
○ Equipment cost including surface controller, plunger and bottom-hole assembly of is about
19,500 USD.
○ Installation cost is about 10,100 USD.
○ Plunger replacement cost is about 2,500 USD every 6 months approximately.
○ Monthly operating cost is about 750 USD.
b. Wellhead Compression
○ Evaluation time is 18 months.
○ Surface compressor is rented, and the lease cost is included in the monthly operating cost.
○ Installation cost is about 75,000 USD.
○ Monthly operating cost is about 2,500 USD.
c. Velocity String
○ Evaluation time is 18 months.
SPE-181229-MS 15

○ The tubing string cost depends on the well depth and material. The cost is estimated to be
150,000 USD.
○ Seal assembly (packer or internal plug) cost is about 5,000 USD.
○ Installation cost is about 50,000 USD.
○ Monthly operating cost is about 100 USD.
d. Sucker Rod Pump
○ Evaluation time is 18 months.
○ Equipment cost including downhole pump, driver cost, surface unit, and sucker rods is about
110,000 USD.
○ Installation cost is about 50,000 USD.
○ The mean time between failures (MTBF) according to the ALS survey performed was about 9
months. This means that the downhole pump cost of 30,000 USD, rod cost of 20,000 USD, and
the installation cost of 50,000 USD are expected because the life of the method is less than the
evaluation period of 18 months.
○ Monthly operating cost is about 1,200 USD.

All the methods will have the same production gain, so only a cost comparison was mainly performed
along with the method profitability. The results for the most likely case displayed plunger lift with an
NPV of 183,892.9 USD, a monthly worth of 11,214.2 USD, and a payback of 1 month. Then, sorting by
NPV from highest to lowest, the following order was found: plunger lift, wellhead compression, sucker rod
pump, and velocity string. This last method had a payback of 11 months, due to the high installation cost
typically expected. Table 1 shows the economic parameters obtained for each ALS, and Figure 5-3 shows
the graphical representation of the economic parameters.

Table 1—Economic Evaluation for Most Likely Scenario

Installation Operating
Artificial Monthly Payback
& Equip Cost [$/ NPV [$]
Lift Method Worth [$] [months]
Cost [$] month]

Plunger Lift 29600.0 750.0 11214.2 183892.9 1.0

Well Head
75000.0 2500.0 7295.7 119637.5 4.0
Compression

Velocity String 205000.0 100.0 2256.3 37000.0 14.0

Sucker Rod Pump 160000.0 1200.0 521.6 8553.1 17.0

The pessimistic scenario was also calculated assuming the deviation in costs to be 30% higher and lower
than the initial production. The results show the plunger lift, as the only profitable option with an NPV
of 69,806.3 USD, a monthly worth of 4,256.9 USD, and payback of 3 months. Calculations for wellhead
compression, velocity string and sucker rod pump resulted in negative economic parameters, which indicates
the risk of the implementation and possible negative impact in the investment. Table 2 shows the summary
of the economic evaluation.
16 SPE-181229-MS

Table 2—Economic Evaluation for Pessimistic Scenario

Installation & Operating Monthly Payback

Artificial Lift Method NPV [$]
Equip Cost [S] Cost [$/month] Worth [$] [months]

Plunger Lift 38480.0 975.0 4256.9 69806.3 3.0

Well Head
97500.0 3250.0 -837.0 -13725.8 0.0
Compression

Velocity String 266500.0 130.0 -8449.7 -138560.0 0.0

Sucker Rod Pump 208000.0 1560.0 -10735.8 -176048.2 0.0

In summary, the technical evaluation results provided by the selection tool agree with what has been
observed in the field. According to the well history, foam lift was tried without success, due to the hard
water; the tool ruled out the method taking into consideration this characteristic. Also, plunger lift has been
found to work properly in the well, and it has been successfully implemented. Currently, the company is
planning to move forward with a change in the artificial lift for this well, because the reservoir is depleting
and plunger lift will no longer work due to energy requirements. They are considering and evaluating the
velocity string method, and also sucker rod pumps, as recommended by the selection tool. Once the user
has shortlisted the ALS options, further analysis can be performed to determine the specific method design
and modeling. It is also evident that economics will play a fundamental role in selecting the appropriate
lift method.

Concluding Remarks
An extended literature review and the survey results displayed that the selection of an ALS was primarily
dominated by the field conditions and the company preferences. This led to the development of a structured
methodology with a decision-making process based on past experiences. The methodology incorporates
three stages to arrive at the final ALSs recommendation. The first stage consists of the logical rules which
are based on field experience, engineer's expertise, and ALSs limitations. The second stage consists of
attributes affecting the ALSs with the corresponding score and weight in an attribute table. The final stage
consists of an economical evaluation.
The proposed methodology provides the following benefits when screening for the different
deliquification techniques:
– A list of suitable ALS options that can be implemented in the well under evaluation.
– Tracking and reporting the unsuitable options and reasons for elimination allow the engineer
to analyze the current constraints in the unsuitable methods and modify the limits if necessary.
Additionally, new emerging technologies may arise to push the current operating envelope of the
existing ALSs.
– Comparison and ranking among the suitable methods can be achieved through the attribute technical
matrix.
– The score assigned indicating the applicability of the method under the specific attribute can be
modified according to engineer's expertise. Also, the relative importance of the attributes can be
modified by providing weighting factors.
– Well profitability is one of the major factors when selecting the ALS. The economic comparison is
performed providing insights into which method would economically be favorable.
– From the field application of the selection tool, the following are the main conclusions:
– The replication of field results was possible. Moreover, recommendation of options that opened
alternatives different from what is being implemented in the field was achieved.
SPE-181229-MS 17

– The results showed consistency with the corresponding ALSs recommended for low liquid flow
rates. The recommended options from the highest to the lowest ranked were plunger lift, well head
compression, velocity string and sucker rod pump. Plunger lift has been successfully implemented as
predicted by the selection tool. A change in artificial lift may require moving to wellhead compression
if energy allows it, or sucker rod pump.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Tulsa University Horizontal Artificial Lift Projects (TUHWALP) for the
opportunity to perform this study and providing research funding. They also express their gratitude to all the
graduate research assistants, staff, technicians, member companies as well as student helpers of TUHWALP
for their invaluable contributions and supports in this research.

Nomenclature
GLR : Gas liquid ratio [scf/stb]
LF : Load factor [-]
CICHP : Closed-in casing head pressure [psi]
CITHP : Closed-in tubing head pressure [psi]
FLP : Flow line pressure [psi]
EOT : End of tubing [ft]
WCR : Water to condensate ratio [-]
GVF : Gas void fraction [-]
WC : Water cut [-]
Rs : Gas dissolve [scfd/stb]
Bw : Water formation volume factor [BBL/stb]
Bo : Oil formation volume factor [BBL/stb]
Bg : Gas formation volume factor [ft3/scf]
Q : Volumetric flow rate [stbd]

Subcript
o : Oil
w : Water
g : Gas

References
Alemi, M., Jalalifar, H., Kamali, G., and Kalbasi, M. 2010. A Prediction of the Best Artificial Lift Method Selection on
the Basis of TOPSIS Model. J. Petroleum Gas Eng. 1 (1): 009–015.
ALRDC. 2013. Guidelines and Recommended Practices for Selection of Artificial Lift for Gas Well Deliquification.
Retrieved from the ALRDC website. http://www.alrdc.com/recommendations/index.htm (accessed May 2013).
Blais, R. 1986. Artificial Lift Methods, poster. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Publishing Company.
Clegg, J.D., Bucaram, S.M., and Hein, N.W.J. 1993. Recommendations and Comparisons for Selecting Artificial-Lift
Methods. J. Pet Technol, 45 (12): 1128–1167. SPE Paper 24834-PA.
Donald, J., Marino, M., and Veeken, K. 2014. Standardized Mobile Wellhead Compressor for Onshore Gas Wells in the
Netherlands. Gas Well Deliquification Workshop, Denver, 23 – 26 February.
Dunbar, C. 1989. Determination of Proper Type of Gas Separator. Paper presented at the 1989 SPE Artificial Lift
Workshop, Long Beach, California.
Espin, D., Gasbarri, S., and Chacin, J. 1994. Expert System for Selection of Optimum Artificial Lift Method. Presented
at III Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 27-29 April. SPE 26967.
Fatahi, E., Jalalifar, H., Pourafshari, P., and Rostami, A. 2011. Selection of the Best Artificial Lift Method in One of the
Iranian Oil Field by the Employment of ELECTRE Model. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology. 1 (4):
172–180.
18 SPE-181229-MS

Ferguson, P.L. and Beauregard, E. 1983. Will Plunger Lift Work In My Well? Proc., Thirtieth Annual Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, April 27-28.
Foss, D.L. and Gaul, R.B. 1965. Plunger lift performance criteria with operating experience: Ventura Avenue field. Drilling
Production Practices API 1965:124–140.
Gamboa, J. 2013. Production II Class Notes. The University of Tulsa.
Hammond, C. 2013. Economic analysis of shale gas wells in the United States. Batchelor's thesis. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
Harms, L.K., "Installing Low-Cost Wellhead Compression on Tight Lobo Wilcox Wells in South Texas: A Case History,"
SPE 90550 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, houston, 26-29 September, (2004).
Harms, L.K. 2010. Wellhead Compression on Tight Gas Wells in the Long Run: A follow-Up Case History on Seven
years of Success in Lobo. Presented at the 2010 SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio, 2-3 November.
SPE Paper 138488.
Kravits, M., Frear, R., and Bordwell, D. 2011. Analysis of Plunger Lift Applications in the Marcellus Shale. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 30 October – 2 November. SPE 147225.
Lea, J., Nickens, H., and Wells, M. 2003. Gas Well Deliquification. First Edition, Gulf Professional Publishing – Elsevier.
Lea, J. 1982. Dynamic Analysis of Plunger Lift Operations. J. Pet. Sci. Technol. 34 (11): 2617–2629. SPE-10253-PA.
Oyewole, P., and Lea, J. 2008. Artificial Lift Selection Strategy for the Life of a Gas Well with Some Liquid Production.
Presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 21-24 September. SPE Paper 115950.
Park, H. Y., Falcone, G., and Tedoriu, C. Decision Matrix for Liquid Loading in Gas Wells for Cost/Benefit Analyses of
Lifting Options. J. Petroleum Gas Eng. 1 (3): 72–83.
Pessoa, R. (2001) Experimental Investigation of Two-Phase Flow Performance Electrical Submersible Pump Stages.
Master Thesis, University of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Powers, M.L. The Depth Constraint of Electric Submersible Pumps. Presented at the 67th Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Washington, October 4 – 7. SPE paper 24835.
Rehman, A., Soponsakulkaew, N., Bello, O., and Falcone, G. 2011. A Generic Model for Optimizing the Selection
of Artificial Lift Methods for Liquid Loaded Gas Wells. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, 30 October – 2 November. SPE 146606.
Romer, M., Jonhson, M., Underwood, P., and Alberts, A. 2012. Offshore ESP Selection Criteria: An Industry Study.
Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, Galveston, 20 – 21 June. SPE 146652.
Soponsakulkaew, N. 2010. Decision Matrix Screening Tool to Identify the Best Artificial Lift Method for Liquid-Loaded
Gas Wells. Maste Thesis, Texas A&M University, Texas.
Solesa, M., and Sevic, S. 2006. Production Optimization Challenges of Gas Wells with Liquid Loading Problem Using
Foaming Agents. Presented at SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference, Moscow, 3-6 October. SPE Paper
101276.
Solesa, M., Martinez, J. L., and Martinez O. M. 2006. Integrated Solution for Managing Liquid Loading Problem in Gas
Wells of Burgos Field. ALRDC / SWPSC 2006 (4th Annual) Gas Well Deliquification Workshop, Denver, Febreruary
27 – March 1.
Turpin, J., Lea, J., and Bearden, J. 1980. Gas/Liquid Flow through Centrifugal Pumps—Correlation of Data. Paper
presented at the 1980 Intl. Pump Symposium, Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas, 1 September.
Valbuena, J. 2014. Defining the Artificial Lift System Selection Guidelines in Horizontal Wells. Master Thesis, University
of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Valentin E.P., and Hoffmann, F.C. 1988. OPUS: An Expert Advisor for Artificial Lift. Presented at the Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 2 – 5. SPE 18184.
Wittfeld, C. 2005. Foam Lifting Manual: Current Best Practices from the Land Asset. Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij
B.V, Netherlands, April.
Weatherford, 2013. Deliquify Your Gas Well. The Unloading Selector. http://www.weatherford.com/doc/wft068199.
(accessed September 2013.)
SPE-181229-MS 19

Appendix A
Table A-1—Score Scale and Definition for Suitability Evaluation of Attributes Related to Well, Production, and Field Conditions

Suitability Evaluation of Attributes Related to Well, Production, and Field Conditions

Score Definition

5 ALS very well suited for the attribute

4 ALS well suited for the attribute

3 ALS has an average applicability for the attribute

2 ALS poorly suited for the attribute

1 ALS is very poorly suited for the attribute

Table A-2—Score Scale and Definition for Suitability Evaluation of Reliability

Suitability Evaluation of Reliability

Score Definition

5 Excellent Reliability

4 Good Reliability

3 Fair Reliability

2 Poor Reliability

1 Very Poor Reliability

Table A-3—Score Scale and Definition for Suitability Evaluation of Installation Cost

Suitability Evaluation of Installation Cost

Score Definition

5 < 40,000 USD

4 40,000 – 60,000 USD

3 60,000 – 100,000 USD

2 100,000 – 120,000 USD

1 > 120,000 USD

Table A-4—Score Scale and Definition for Suitability Evaluation of Operating Cost

Suitability Evaluation of Operating Cost

Score Definition

5 < 1,000 USD / Month

4 1,000 – 2,000 USD / Month

3 2,000 – 3,000 USD / Month

2 3,000 – 4,000 USD / Month

1 > 4,000 USD / Month

20 SPE-181229-MS

Table A-5—Default Matrix or Attribute table with the Score Given According to Published Data