Analysis of Gas Lift Transient Effects Henry Nickens Adam Ballard BP - Houston

Analysis of Gas Lift Transient Effects

Henry NickensAdam Ballard

BP - Houston

2 of 32

Gas Lift Instability

• Steady-state methods for gas lift design and analysis do not capture the pressure/temperature transients that inevitably occur in an operating gas lifted well.

• Transient well response occurs during:

– Unloading the well

– Well shut-down

– Normal well operation (e.g., tubing/casing heading, multi-pointing)

– Well kick off or shut-down with CT

• This paper presents analysis of gas lift instability for two design cases:

1. To aid in selection of optimum tubing size (5.5 in vs 7 in)

2. To determine hydrate formation in CT gas lift after shut-down

3 of 32

Gas Lift Instabiliy

• OLGA2000 version 4.01 was used to model the wells

– transient multi-phase flow simulator

– developed by Scandpower

• Two cases are studied:

1. New well design to determine

– optimum tubing size

– Effect of injection rate, orifice size and wellhead pressure

2. CT gas lift shut-down to determine time to hydrate formation

4 of 32

Gas Lift Instability – Case 1

A new well is to be drilled. Steady-state analysis shows that gas lifting 7-inch tubing gives potentially much greater production than 5.5-inch tubing.

What is the expected stability of the well for the range of expected injection rates, production rates and water cuts?

The onset of instability (severe slugging) was calculated as a function of injection rate and water cut to define the expected operating window for instability.

5 of 32

Well Characteristics – Case 1

• 5 ½“ or 7 “ ERD

• Production Fluid– 860 scf/stb GOR– 33 oil API– 0.663 gas SG– 20000 ppm water salinity

• Gas lift– gas injection valve at 16000 feet MD (0.8125” ID)– 1595 psia gas injection pressure– 0.7 gas SG

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Horizontal Distance (feet)

TV

D (

feet

)

6 of 32

OLGA Model – Case 1

• Model setup

– WELL module used for inflow

– constant P boundaries at tubing head and casing head

– choke controlled for constant gas rate

– gas lift orifice ID of 0.8125”

Well

PPPP

Annulus Tubing

7 of 32

Comparison of OLGA with Steady- State Simulators Case 1

9500

9700

9900

10100

10300

10500

10700

10900

11100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Gas Injection Rate (mmscf/d)

Oil

Rate

(st

b/d

)

OLGAPROSPERPIPESIM

5.5" ERD Well0% Watercut1595 psia Injection 232 psia THP2538 psia Pres

8 of 32

Sample Result – Case 1 – 5.5”

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Oil

Ra

te (

stb

/d)

1595 psia Injection 232 psia THP2538 psia Pres

0% Watercut

40% Watercut

95% Watercut

OLGA - Solid LinesPROSPER - Dashed Lines

60% Watercut

80% Watercut

Transient FlowUnstable Flow – Onset of Slugging

9 of 32

Sample Result – Case 1 – 7”

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Oil

Ra

te (

stb

/d)

7" ERD Well1595 psia Injection

232 psia THP2538 psia Pres

0% Watercut

40% Watercut

OLGA - Solid LinesPROSPER - Dashed Lines

Flow

95% Watercut

80% Watercut

60% Watercut

Unstable Flow – Onset of Slugging

10 of 32

Conclusions - Case 1 - Tubing ID

• The injection pressure did not have a significant impact on the stability of the flow.

• For both 7” and 5.5” tubing, flow is stable at watercuts below 80-90%

• The 5.5” tubing is more stable at higher watercuts.

• At 4 mmscf/d injection rate,

– the 5.5” tubing is stable up to 80% WC for both 1595 and 2030 psia injection pressures

– the 7” tubing is unstable at 80 % WC with 2030 psia injection pressure

• At 8 mmscf/d injection rate

– 5.5” tubing is stable for at all watercuts

– 7” tubing is unstable at 95 % watercut.

11 of 32

Effect of Injection Rate on Stability

12 of 32

2 MMscf/d Injection Rate - Case 1

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rate

(st

b/d

) OLGAPROSPER

5.5" ERD Well95% Watercut2 mmscf/d Gas Rate1595 psia Injection 232 psia THP2538 psia Pres

13 of 32


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rate

(st

b/d

)

OLGAPROSPER


14 of 32


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rate

(st

b/d

)

OLGAPROSPER


15 of 32

Effect of Injection Rate on Stability

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rat

e (s

tb/d

)

OLGAPROSPER


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rat

e (s

tb/d

)

OLGAPROSPER


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rat

e (s

tb/d

)

OLGAPROSPER


Severe Slugging Intermittent Slugging Steady Flow

(low rate) (mid rate) (high rate)

2 MMscf/d 4 MMscf/d 8 MMscf/d

16 of 32

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Wellhead Pressure (psia)

Liq

uid

Rate

(st

b/d

)Effect of Wellhead Pressure on Stability

4 mmscf/d injection rate95% Watercut

Steady State

17 of 32

Effect of Wellhead Pressure on Stability – Case 1

Intermittent SluggingRegion

Surging Region Severe SluggingRegion

OscillatingRegion

S-SRegion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


Slu

g F

requency

(1/h

our)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Slu

g S

ize (

stb)

Slug FrequencySlug Size

4 mmscf/d gas rate95% Watercut

18 of 32

Steady Surging (Case #1)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rate

(st

b/d

)

WHP - 15 psiaWHP - 75 psia


19 of 32

Intermittent Oscillating (Case #1)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rate

(st

b/d

)

WHP - 200 psia

WHP - 270 psia


20 of 32

Oscillating Severe (Case #1)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rate

(st

b/d

)

WHP - 300 psia

WHP - 370 psia


21 of 32

Effect of Wellhead Pressure on Stability – Case 1

Intermittent SluggingRegion

Surging Region Severe SluggingRegion

OscillatingRegion

S-SRegion

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


Slu

g F

requency

(1/h

our)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Slu

g S

ize (

stb)

Slug FrequencySlug Size


SS/Surge Flow Intermittent Slugging Severe Slugging

(lo WHP) (medium WHP) (higher ID)

Effect of Orifice Port Size on StabilitySteady Flow Intermittent Slugging Severe Slugging

(small ID) (medium ID) (large ID)

23 of 32

Effect of Orifice Port Size – Case 1

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Time (s)

Tota

l Liq

uid

Rate

(st

b/d

)

0.25" Valve0.5" Valve1" Valve1.5" Valve


Choked at ~2 mmscf/d

2334 stb/d5654 stb/d5312 stb/d3553 stb/d

24 of 32

Gas Lift Instability – Case 2

CT gas lift for a deepwater GoM well is proposed.

In addition to stability issues, hydrate formation is a major concern.

OLGA is used to calculate the pressure and temperature transients during the CT gas lift shut-down period and the resultant effect on fluid temperature and hydrate formation.

Hydrate Cool-Down Time

Time after shut-in when the first hydrate is formed anywhere in the system.

25 of 32

Well Characteristics - Case 2

• 4“ production tubing

• Production Fluid– 1455 scf/stb GOR– 29.2 oil API– 0.734 gas SG– 0 ppm water salinity

• Gas lift– 2 3/8” OD coiled-tubing gas lift at 5921 feet MD – four-port (½“ ID) bit– constant gas injection rate– 0.7 gas SG

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Horizontal Distance (feet)

TV

D (

feet

)

26 of 32

OLGA Well Model – Case 2

• Model setup

– WELL module used for inflow

– constant source boundaries at tubing head and casing head

– Orifice ID = 1”

Well

QQQQ

Coiled-Tubing Annulus

27 of 32

Well Head Pressure - Case 2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35


Well

Head P

ress

ure

(psi

a)

3000 stb/d

5000 stb/d

10000 stb/d

50% Watercut

28 of 32

Gas Injection Pressure - Case 2

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35


Required I

nje

ctio

n P

ress

ure

(psi

a)

3000 stb/d

5000 stb/d

10000 stb/d

50% Watercut

29 of 32

Well Head Temperature - Case 2

100

110

120

130

140

150

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35


Well

Head T

em

pera

ture

(F

)

3000 stb/d

5000 stb/d

10000 stb/d

50% Watercut

30 of 32

Cooldown Time to Hydrates - Case 2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35


Coold

ow

n T

ime t

o H

ydra

te F

orm

atio

n (

hours

)

3000 stb/d

5000 stb/d

10000 stb/d

50% Watercut

31 of 32

Conclusions

Transient flow calculation is a valuable tool for gas lift design and analysis to evaluate non-steady effects

– Gas Lift stability analysis

• Effect of injection gas rate, orifice size and wellhead pressure

• Needs improved valve models for unloading, multi-pointing, stability related to unload valve problems

– Gas Lift flow assurance studies

• Cooldown to hydrate formation

32 of 32

Documents

Analysis of Gas Lift Transient Effects Henry Nickens Adam Ballard BP - Houston