"DELIQUIFICATION OF NATURAL GAS WELLS AND AN EFFECTIVE

ARTIFICIAL LIFT SELECTION STRATEGY FOR THE LIFE OF A

GAS WELL WITH SOME LIQUID LOADING PROBLEM”

By:

Rasheed Ahmed Shar 07PG07

Supervised by
DR. ABDUL HAQUE TUNIO
Associate Professor

INSTITUTE OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING

MEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
JAMSHORO

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of

Bachelor of Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering

February 2010
 DEDICATION

This humble effort dedicated to my

FATHER

Who did his best to uplift me,

And to my

MOTHER

Whose heartfelt prayers and well Wishes

Made me able to reach at this stage.
And Dedicated to my

TEACHERS

Whose Affection inspire me

To love mankind
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work presented in this project report/thesis on

"DELIQUIFICATION OF NATURAL GAS WELLS AND AN
EFFECTIVE ARTIFICIAL LIFT SELECTION STRATEGY FOR THE
LIFE OF A GAS WELL WITH SOME LIQUID LOADING PROBLEM”
is entirely written by the following student themselves under the supervision of
Associate Professor Dr. Abdul Haque Tunio.

Rasheed Ahmed Shar 07PG07

Project/Thesis Supervisor External Examiner/

Examination Committee

Director
Institute of Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering

Date: ………….......
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Great thanks to Almighty Allah who is most kind and merciful, nothing would

have been possible to complete this thesis/project without His kindness.

I am grateful to Associate Professor Dr. Abdul Haque Tunio, because of his

continuous and precious supervision, guidance and enthusiastic encouragement

at every stage, for completing this thesis/project, which is first undergraduate

project on these tools.

Kind and earnest gratitude to William Hearn (Artificial Lift and Gas well

Deliquification Manager Weatherford Middle East) for his co-supervision and

for his invaluable cooperation in providing technical support & Special thanks

to Thomas Scott Campbell (Global Business Development Manager for

Deliquification Solutions, Weatherford), Mr. Shoaib Farooqui (BDM,

Weatherford Pakistan), Agha Ghulam Nabi (Drilling and Operations

Engineer, Dewan Petroleum Pakistan Ltd) and Naveed Ahmed Ghirano

(Lecturer IPNGE MUET, Jamshoro) for their moral support.

I would like to extend our thanks to Professor Dr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman Memon,

Director Institute of petroleum and Natural gas Engineering and to all the

respectable teachers for their time to time encouragement.

 ABSTRACT

Liquid loading in gas wells is a well known phenomenon in mature reservoirs. At

depletion stage, the energy of the reservoir is not high enough to transport liquid
droplets to the surface. They begin accumulating at the bottom of the well bore and
cause backpressure on the reservoir, reducing gas production and eventually killing
the well.

Later in the life of gas wells, they begin to load with liquid and need methods of
artificial lift and other methods to remove water and other liquids so gas can flow in
the presence of the loading. Beam lift needs pump off control. PCPs and ESPs need to
maintain an optimal fluid level. Gas-lift requires gas injection controls and
optimization. Plunger lift cycles must be monitored and optimized. If surfactants are
used, application can be automated. In short, operation of gas wells, as they become
liquid loaded requires many or most of the same capabilities required to automate,
monitor, and optimize oil wells.

Various artificial lift technologies are used to mitigate the consequences of liquid
loading and to extend the production life of mature gas reservoirs. Most systems have
been developed and used successfully in onshore environments. Approaches range
from lowering wellhead pressures by using compressors to downhole artificial lift
using plunger lift, surfactant technology, or pumping technologies. Depending on the
individual well/field characteristics, these technologies have proven highly successful
in mitigating losses caused by liquid loading.

It is estimated that there are around 775,000 active gas wells globally, with approximately
90% of wells suffering from liquid loading problem. Considering the above fact there is
an increasing demand for reliable, cost-effective deliquification solutions. Therefore in
order to optimize the gas wells production it is prerequisite to work on the project
"Deliquification of Natural Gas Wells" Which is theme of this thesis/project.

The objective of this study is to understand about the Deliquification of Natural Gas
Wells with the support of case studies and appropriate application of external energy
to optimize economic recovery in a cost effective manner.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
IMPORTANCE OF THESIS/PROJECT
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives ..........................................................................................................2
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Multiphase Flow in a Gas Well .........................................................................3
2.1.1 Types of flow regimes .......................................................................................4
2.1 What is Liquid Loading? ...................................................................................5
2.3 Source of Liquids in a Producing Gas Well.......................................................6
2.3.1 Water Coning .....................................................................................................7
2.3.2 Aquifer Water ....................................................................................................7
2.3.3 Condensed Water ...............................................................................................7
2.3.4 Condensed Hydrocarbons ..................................................................................7
2.3.5 Water Production from another Zone ................................................................8
2.3.6 Free Formation Water ........................................................................................8
2.4 Problems Caused by Liquid Loading ................................................................8
2.5 Recognizing Symptoms of Liquid Loading in Gas Wells. ................................9
2.5.1 Presence of orifice pressure spikes ....................................................................9
2.5.2 Decline Curve Analysis ...................................................................................10
2.5.3 Drop in Tubing Pressure with Rise in Casing Pressure ...................................11
2.5.4 Pressure Survey Showing Liquid Level ..........................................................12
2.6 Remedial Lifting Options to Reduce Liquid Loading Problem .......................14
2.7 Deliquefying Techniques .................................................................................16

CHAPTER 3
CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS
3.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................19
3.2 Critical Flow Concepts ...................................................................................22
3.2.1 Turner Droplet Model ......................................................................................22
3.2.2 Critical Rate ....................................................................................................25
3.2.3 Critical Tubing Diameter .................................................................................25
3.2.4 Critical Rate for Low Pressure Wells—Coleman Model ................................26
3.3 Critical Velocity at Depth ...............................................................................26
3.4 Critical Velocity in Horizontal Well Flow.......................................................28
 CHAPTER 4
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................30
4.2 Tubing size optimization..................................................................................30
4.2.1 Advantages/Disadvantages of Smaller Tubing ...............................................32
4.2.2 Concepts Required to Size Smaller Tubing ....................................................33
4.2.3 Critical Rate at Surface Conditions .................................................................35
4.2.4 Critical Rate at Bottom hole Conditions .........................................................36
4.2.5 Summary of Tubing Design Concepts ............................................................37
4.2.6 Sizing Tubing without IPR Information .........................................................37
4.2.7 Field Examples #1—Results of Tubing Change-Out .....................................38
4.2.8 Pre/Post Evaluation .........................................................................................39
4.2.9 Where to Set the Tubing .................................................................................42
4.2.10 Hanging off Smaller Tubing from the Current Tubing ....................................42
4.2.11 Summary ...........................................................................................................44
4.3 Velocity string Application ..............................................................................45
4.4 Compression ....................................................................................................46
4.5 Plunger Lift ......................................................................................................48
4.6 Gas Lift ............................................................................................................53
4.7 Foaming ...........................................................................................................56
4.8 Beam Pumping .................................................................................................57
4.9 Electrical submersible pump ............................................................................59
4.10 Progressive cavity pump ..................................................................................61
4.11 Jet Lift/Piston Lift ............................................................................................62

CHAPTER 5
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS-WELL
DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................64
5.2 Foam-Lift System ............................................................................................65
5.2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................65
5.2.2 Experimental ...................................................................................................67
5.2.2.1 Materials .........................................................................................................67
5.2.2.2 Foam measurements ........................................................................................67
5.2.2.3 Dynamic surface tension measurements ..........................................................68
5.2.3 Results and discussion ....................................................................................69
5.2.3.1 Effect of surfactant concentration ...................................................................69
5.2.3.2 Effect of brine .................................................................................................70
5.2.3.3 Effect of hydrocarbon condensate ..................................................................70
5.2.3.4 Effect of demulsifier .......................................................................................72
5.2.3.5 Effect of particle in produced fluids ................................................................73
5.2.3.6 Effect of temperature ......................................................................................73
5.2.3.7 Foam unloading model ....................................................................................74
5.2.4 Conclusions ......................................................................................................75
5.3 Plunger-Lift System .........................................................................................76
5.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................76
5.3.2 Rapid Flo Plunger ............................................................................................78
5.3.3 Hybrid Gas Lift-Plunger Lift ...........................................................................78
5.3.4 Staged and Progressive Plunger Lift ................................................................78
5.3.5 Plunger Lift System Applications ....................................................................80
5.3.6 Plunger Lift System Advantages .....................................................................80
5.3.7 Production Optimization for Plunger Systems ................................................81
5.4 Positive-Displacement Lift System..................................................................83
5.5 Fluid-Power Systems .......................................................................................84
5.6 Continuous and Intermittent Gas-Lift Systems................................................85
5.6.1 Considerations for Gas Lift Design and Operations ........................................86
5.6.2 Continuous Flow Unloading Sequence ............................................................87

CHAPTER 6
CASE STUDIES
6.1 Background Information ..................................................................................93
6.2 Well # 10 ..........................................................................................................94
6.3 Well # 28 ..........................................................................................................99
6.4 Well # 73 ........................................................................................................106

CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSIONS OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion of Results and Recommendations ...............................................112
CHAPTER 8
Conclusion .................................................................................................................122
References ..................................................................................................................123
Appendix (Plunger lift equations and feasibility charts)…………………………..125
List of Symbols …………………………………………………………………….129
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Basic Profile of Multiphase Flow in the Well ......................................3

Figure 2.2 Life History of a Gas Well ....................................................................5
Figure 2.3 Effect of Flow Regime on Orifice Pressure Drop—Mist Flow (L) vs.
Slug Flow (R) in Tubing ......................................................................10
Figure 2.4 Decline Curve Analysis ......................................................................11
Figure 2.5 Casing and Tubing Pressure Indicators ...............................................12
Figure 2.6 Pressure Survey Schematic .................................................................13
Figure 2.7 Map of deliquification options (Piers, 2007) .......................................15
Figure 3.1 Shape of entrained drop movement in high‐velocity ...........................20
Figure 3.2 Illustrations of Concepts Investigated for Defining Critical Velocity 23
Figure 3.3 Completions Effects on Critical Velocity ...........................................27
Figure 3.4 Critical Velocity with Depth ...............................................................28
Figure 3.5 Effects of Critical Velocity in Horizontal/Inclined Flow ....................29
Figure 4.1 Critical Flow rates for Different Tubing Sizes ....................................31
Figure 4.2 Critical Gas Flow rates for Turner & Coleman ...................................31
Figure 4.3 Effects of Constant Amount of Liquid Standing in Various Tubing
Sizes .....................................................................................................33
Figure 4.4 Tubing Performance vs. Tubing ID: Critical Rates Plotted on Tubing
curves ...................................................................................................34
Figure 4-5 Example of Rate Change after Coiled Tubing Installation .................39
Figure 4-6 Example of Slope Change in Decline Change after Coiled Tubing
Installations ..........................................................................................40
Figure 4-7 Completion Used to Generate Data for Figure 4-6 .............................41
Figure 4-8 Rate vs. Time: Well That Is Liquid Loaded .......................................42
Figure 4-9 Illustration of Setting End of Tubing Too High ..................................43
Figure 4-10 A Hydraulic Set Packer That Can Be Run Inside Existing Tubing to
Hang of a Smaller Section of Coiled Tubing to Eliminate Areas of
Flow below Critical Velocity below High Set Tubing ........................44
Figure 4.11 Velocity String Application Schematic ...............................................46
Figure 4.12 Energy Required for Different Tubing Sizes to Stay above Critical Rate ..47
Figure 4.13 A Typical Plunger Lift Installation .....................................................50
Figure 4.14 A Simple Illustration of Plunger Lift Cycles .......................................51
Figure 4.15 Gas Requirement for Plunger Lift with or without Packer ..................53
Figure 4.16 Continuous Gas Lift Schematic ...........................................................54
Figure 4.17 Intermittent Flow Gas Lift Schematic..................................................55
Figure 4.18 Flowing Pressure Gradient of Water and Foam...................................57
Figure 4.19 A Simple Beam Pumping System ........................................................58
Figure 4.20 ESP System (Schlumberger, 2007). ...................................................60
Figure 4.21 PCP System (Schlumberger, 2007). ...................................................62
Figure 4.22 Hydraulic pumping ..............................................................................63
Figure 5.1 Weatherford’s Liquid Unloading selector ..........................................64
Figure 5.2 Dynamic foam testing apparatus for gas well deliquefication. ...........67
Figure. 5.3 Foam testing apparatus in high temperature and pressure. ..................68
Figure 5.4 Amount of liquid unloaded by foam and dynamic surface tension
reduction vs. concentration for SDS at 25 °C in DI water ...................70
Figure. 5.5 Effect of condensate on foam unloading of SDS surfactant (1000 ppm)
at 70 °C. ...............................................................................................71
Figure 5.6 Illustration of oil droplet in foam thin film and move toward plateau
borders..................................................................................................71
Figure 5.7 Effect of temperature on foam height and half-life with DTAC
surfactant. .............................................................................................73
Figure 5.8 Illustration of liquid droplet model from Turner et al. and modified
model for surfactant foamers. ..............................................................74
Figure 5.9 Plot of velocity, Vg, vs. SDS concentration, calculated with Eq.2. ......74
Figure 5.10 Plunger lift surface Installation ...........................................................77
Figure 5.11 Plunger lift Subsurface Mechanism .....................................................77
Figure 5.12 Selection strategy for Plunger Lift Analysis ........................................79
Figure 5.13 Unloading selector results for Plunger Lift system..............................80
Figure 5.14 Computer program for plunger design(Weatherford) ..........................83
Figure 5.15 Unloading selector results for positive displacement system ..............83
Figure 5.16 Selection strategy for fluid-power lift analyses ...................................84
Figure 5.17 Unloading selector results for fluid-power lift system ........................84
Figure 5.18 Basic Gas Lift Components .................................................................86
Figure 5.19 Fluid level in the casing and tubing (no gas is being injected) ............88
Figure 5.20 Gas injection into the casing begins.....................................................88
Figure 5.21 Fluid level unloaded .............................................................................89
Figure 5.22 Fluid level unloaded above valve 2 .....................................................89
Figure 5.23 fluid level in the casing below the gas lift valve ..................................90
Figure 5.24 Gas injected through the 2nd valve ......................................................90
Figure 5.25 Valve 3 uncovered ..............................................................................91
Figure 5.26 All the gas is being injected trough valve No. 3 ..................................91
Figure 6.1 Tubing Flowing Pressure Showing Erratic Flow in #10 ......................94
Figure 6.2 Pressure survey for well # 10 showing liquid level .............................95
Figure 6.3 Turner et al.’s Critical flow rate for different tubing sizes ..................97
Figure 6.4 Coleman et al.’s Critical flow rate for different tubing sizes ...............97
Figure 6.5 Nodal Analysis for #10 with Different Tubing Sizes ..........................99
Figure 6.6 Erratic Flow Behavior shown in Pressure vs. Time Graph of #28 ....100
Figure 6.7 Pressure survey for # 28 showing level .............................................100
Figure6.8 Nodal Analysis for # with different tubing sizes ...............................101
Figure 6.9 Actual Rates vs. Critical Rates for well # 28 .....................................102
Figure 6.10 Gas and Liquid Production Chart of #28 ...........................................103
Figure 6.11 Daily Gas Production Before and After Installation ..........................106
Figure 6.11 Daily Gas Production Before and After Installation ..........................106
Figure 6.12 Gas Production well# 73 111
Figure 6.13 Production Data well# 73 111
Figure 7.1 Comparison of critical equations .......................................................113
Figure 7.2 Actual Rates Vs Critical rates for well#10 ........................................114
Figure 7.3 Power vs. Recovery for Tight Reservoir............................................116
Figure 7.4 Intermittent Flow Cycles for #28 .......................................................117
Figure 7.5 Critical Velocity vs. Actual Velocity for well 73 ..............................120
Figure 7.6 Estimated Pressure vs. Depth Gradient ..........................................120
Figure 7.7 Velocity Current and Unloaded vs. Critical with and without Foamer...
...........................................................................................................1 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Remedial Measures to Reduce Liquid Loading ...........................................15

Table 4.1 Critical Rates vs. Tubing Size for Figure 4.4 Using Surface Pressure ........36
Table 4-2 Critical Rates Needed at Nodal Intersections Compared to Nodal Rates ...37
Table 4-3 Coiled Tubing Installation Results.................................................................39
Table 4.4 Compression Horsepower and Fuel Gas .......................................................47
Table 5.1 Shows selection using Weatherford’s Liquid Unloader...............................65
Table 5.2 Liquid unloaded by foam in model hydrocarbon/0.5 M NaCl (10/90) by
DTAC ..............................................................................................................72
Table 5.3 Effect of demulsifier on foam by 1500 ppm SDS ........................................72
Table 5.4 Important parameters to e considered for Plunger lift ..................................81
Table 6.1 General Well Information of #10 and #28 ....................................................93
Table 6.2 well # 10 Pressure survey#1 sample data ......................................................95
Table 6.3 Production Data of Well #28........................................................................102
Table 6.4 Daily Production Rates of #28 Pre and Post Logic Control.......................105
Table 6.5 production history of well # 73 ...............................................107
IMPORTANCE OF THESIS / PROJECT Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1
IMPORTANCE OF THESIS/PROJECT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
A gas well with high reservoir pressure and a high gas production rate carries liquid
from bottom hole to the surface as a fine mist of droplets, with the droplets traveling
close to the speed of the gas. The liquid can be oil, condensate and/or water. Any
combination and percentage composition of these liquid types may be produced in
association with gas. As reservoir pressure depletes production, production rate falls -
the gas flow velocity reduces and drops below a critical velocity required for gas to
move liquid droplets up to the surface. Liquid then begins to accumulate at bottom
hole and near the well bore region. The gas well loses its capability to lift liquid from
bottom hole to the surface. This phenomenon is known as “Liquid Loading”. The
accumulated liquid increases bottom hole flowing pressure due to an increase in liquid
holdup in the tubing and a height of liquid build-up in the well bore. The relative
permeability of gas and gas mobility in the near well bore region may also be
impaired as a result of increased water saturation. Thus, it acts like “skin” damage to
the reservoir known as “Liquid Block”. If no intervention work is performed to
remove liquid from the sand face and the well will eventually cease will flow at a
lower rate and many eventually cease to produce due to loading.

There are many artificial lift techniques available to be used to attempt to

continuously remove liquids from a liquid loaded gas well. The Natural Gas industry
is often faced with the challenge of selecting an optimal Artificial Lift method for a
well in the midst of various artificial lift type choices. These challenges become more
complex with increasing dynamic changes in well characteristics over the life of a
well. This paper presents an artificial lift selection strategy for unloading liquid from
gas well in gas fields. Various modeling techniques are discussed to evaluate the
lowest bottom hole flowing pressure for various Artificial Lift system types and well
bore geometry. The selection strategy resulted in the creation of a robust artificial lift
selection matrix and charts for various well configurations as well as production rates
for optimum well performance. This approach has a significant impact on gas well
production; often loaded up with liquid and prematurely abandoned, due to lack of
proper artificial lift strategy. The research work may assist the gas well operator and

1
IMPORTANCE OF THESIS / PROJECT Chapter 1

the need to adequately design, install and operate an optimum artificial lift system for
the life of the gas well.

Liquid loading is an all too common problem in mature gas fields. It is estimated that at
least 90% of the producing gas wells in the U.S. are operating in liquid loading regime.
Liquid loading is more detrimental in tight wells than in prolific wells, where it has less
impact. The phenomenon is a serious problem in subsea tie-backs, where the mechanics
of fluid flow are dominated by back pressure effects through the risers and the flow
lines. Although the mechanism of liquid loading is fairly well understood, the oil and
gas industry still lacks reliable predictive models. Efforts are being made across the
industry and within academia to link the observed well dynamics with the intermittent
response of a reservoir that is typical of liquid loading in gas wells. However, the
models currently used to predict and diagnose liquid loading problems are mainly based
on steady-state analysis and so cannot handle the transient phenomena associated with
liquid loading effects. Even when transient multiphase wellbore models are employed,
the problem remains ill-posed as a steady state type of inflow performance relationship
is being used to characterize the reservoir. This implies the wrong boundary conditions
between the well and the reservoir itself.

Field-proven solutions already exist to reduce the loss of gas production when liquid
loading begins to occur. However, the choice of remedial technique, its feasibility, and
its cost vary dependent on the affected field’s location, its size, and its export route.

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Following are the objectives of this thesis/project.
• How to recognize liquid loading when it occurs.
• How to model gas well liquid loading.
• How to design your well to minimize liquid loading effects.
• What tools are available to assist you in design and analysis of gas Wells for
liquid loading problems?

• The best methods of minimizing the effects of liquids in lower velocity gas wells

• How and why to apply various artificial lift methods for liquid removal.

• What should be considered when selecting a gas well deliquification method

for removing liquids by considering appropriate case studies?

2
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 MULTIPHASE FLOW IN A GAS WELL

In order to understand the liquid loading phenomenon properly and dealing with it
effectively, it must be understood how liquid and gas behave when flowing together
upwards in the production string of the well. This concept is called “multiphase flow”.
Multiphase flow is, basically a flow phenomenon that denotes there is more than one
fluid phase flowing through a media; in this case the media being the production
string of the gas well. Multiphase flow is usually represented by four main flow
regimes which are bubble flow, slug flow, transition flow, annular-mist flow. These
flow regimes occur when certain flow velocity of liquid and gas phases and the
amount of these phases relative to each other in the media, again in this case the gas
well producing.

Figure 2.1: Basic Profile of Multiphase Flow in the Well

3
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

2.1.1 Types of Flow Regimes

2.1.1.1 Annular Mist Flow:
The gas phase is the dominant phase in the well and the continuous one. Liquid is
present among the gas as a mist. Inside of the tubular is covered with a thin layer of
liquid travelling up the pipe. In this flow, the pressure gradient is determined from
gas.

2.1.1.2 Transition Flow

Although the flow starts to change from mist to slug therefore the continuous phase
changes from gas to liquid or vice versa. Liquid particles may still be in gas as mist
form but the presence of liquid determines pressure gradient.

2.1.1.3 Slug Flow

The gas is found as large slugs in liquid but the dominant and continuous phase is
liquid. Gas slugs may cause drops in pressure gradient therefore liquid and gas both
determine pressure gradient.

2.1.1.4 Bubble Flow

The tubular in the well is almost completely filled with liquid. Gas is present as small
bubbles in the liquid therefore it can cause pressure drops in the liquid, decreasing
pressure gradient along the well. However, the liquid is the continuous phase along
the tubular and completely determines pressure gradient, although presence of gas
bubbles may cause drops in pressure.

Considering these flow regimes, one must remember that during its lifetime it is rarely
the case for only one flow regime is present in a gas well. Usually, a gas well may go
through almost all of these flow regimes during its productive life. Also more than
one flow regime may be present at the same time in the well, since gas bubbles will be
expanding when travelling up along the production string. Also it should not be
forgotten that flow velocity is directly related to cross sectional area, so flow regimes
may differ above and below the production packer, if there is one. Another point to
consider is the flow regime seen at the surface may not be the flow regime near the
perforations, considering bottom hole conditions would be different down hole.

4
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

As stated above, as gas velocity decreases the flow regimes goes from mist to bubble.
Since the liquid presence is much more in bubble flow, the amount of produced liquid
will increase as the flow regimes changes. This means, of course, as the gas rate
declines with decreasing reservoir pressure, the amount of liquid produced along with
gas will dramatically increase, increasing the cost of well also. At some point, the
increasing amount of liquid will start to accumulate in the well as the flow regime
down hole shifts to bubble flow and increasing the bottom hole pressure in the well.
The well will eventually be unable to overcome that pressure and stop producing
altogether.

Figure 2.2: Life History of a Gas Well

2.1 LIQUID LOADING CONCEPT

As mentioned before, the gas, which is the dominant phase initially in the well, will
carry the produced liquid present in the reservoir to the surface as long as the gas
velocity is high enough to let it do so. A high gas velocity will cause mist flow in the
well in which liquid is dispersed in the gas. This also means the liquid in the well will
be low relative to the gas and will be carried out without accumulating down hole.
This will result in a low pressure gradient in the well since there is more gas than
liquid. At this point, it should be noted that when a well is flowing at a high gas rate,
and therefore velocity, the frictional pressure loss will be high also. This pressure loss
will not be a big problem since the component is small due to low percentage of liquid
compared to gas. As the gas velocity drops with time, the liquid carried out along with

5
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

gas will start to drop and accumulate in the well, causing the pressure gradient
component to increase. Since high pressure gradient means a high hydrostatic
pressure in the well, the reservoir pressure will encounter a much larger pressure
against itself down hole. Obviously, this will cause a decline in the gas rate and
cripple gas production. Lower the gas rate falls, more liquid will be accumulated and
this holdup will become a cycle, causing the well cease producing eventually.

According to the EIA ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_wells_s1 _a.htm,

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9011us2A.htm ) the US gas well count was
448,641 in 2006 with the annual gas production being 17,942,493 MMscf. According
to these figures, the average gas rate per well is about 110 Mscf/D. Considering the
critical rate for liquid loading for 2 3/8’s inch ID tubing with 100 psia on the wellhead
is about 300 Mscf/D, it would appear that many gas wells are liquid loaded. However
loading is not limited to low rate producers as large diameter tubing wells load at a
much higher rate. Comparably there are about 500,000 oil wells producing about 10
bpd (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_7.pdf ).

2.3 SOURCE OF LIQUIDS

Only a small number of gas wells produce completely dry gas. This means that almost
every gas well produces liquids along with gas even if the produced amount of liquids
is very small. These liquids may be free water, water condensate and/or hydrocarbon
condensate. Condensate may be produced as liquid, or vapor depending on the
reservoir and wellbore pressure. Produced liquids along with gas may have several
sources depending on the conditions and type of the reservoir from which gas is
produced:

• There may be an aquifer below the gas zone which may either lead to water
coning or water encroachment.

• The source of liquids may be another zone or zones, especially if the completion
type of the well is open hole.

• The water produced along with gas may be free water present in the formation.

• Depending on the reservoir, bottom hole and tubing head pressures water and/or
hydrocarbon vapor may enter the well and condense while travelling up the
production tubing, coming out as liquid.
6
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

2.3.1 Water Coning

If the production rate of any vertical or deviated gas well is high enough to result in a
drawdown pressure high enough to pull the contact water in the reservoir below the
gas even if the perforations do not extend to the underlying zone. Horizontal wells
generally reduce water coning effects but it can still occur and it is commonly called
as water cresting instead of water coning.

2.3.2 Aquifer Water

If the reservoir has a water drive mechanism, the aquifer giving pressure support to
produced gas will eventually reach the perforations and into the wellbore. This
phenomenon is also called water encroachment. After water reaches wellbore, liquid
loading problems will rise, reservoir pressure will start to drop sharper than before as
the drive mechanism is depleting with produced gas.

2.3.3 Condensed Water

Since nearly every reservoir contains free formation water, natural gas present in the
reservoir may be saturated if the conditions are suitable for water to dissolve in
natural gas. In this case, water will enter the well as vapor dissolved in natural gas and
there will be no or very little water in liquid phase at the bottom, near the perforations.
As the solution flows through the production string the water will start condensing if
the temperature and pressure conditions in the well drop below dew point. If the
amount of condensed water is high in the well, it will create a high hydrostatic
pressure in the string, increasing the pressure, therefore causing water solubility in gas
to decrease even more and causing more water to condense. Eventually, condensed
water will accumulate at the bottom of the well.

2.3.4 Condensed Hydrocarbons

Just like water, hydrocarbons that are in liquid phase at atmospheric conditions can
also enter the well in vapor phase. As the gas solution flows to the surface, vapor state
hydrocarbons may start condensing when or if conditions drop below dew point. At
this time, the condensed hydrocarbons are shortly called condensate. Condensate,
although less than water, has a much higher pressure gradient than gas, so it will
create a higher hydrostatic pressure and eventually start loading up the well just like
water.

7
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

2.3.5 Water Production from another Zone

Especially in open hole completions and some cases wells with multiple perforations,
it is possible to produce liquids from another zone unintentionally.

2.3.6 Free Formation Water

Different than the condition stated above, water can also be produced along with gas
from the same perforations, if there is free water in the reservoir. As mentioned, there
are different sources for liquid loading, and there exist various solution methods for
removing liquids or eliminating liquid loading problems in gas wells. However, there
is an uncertainty in which methodology will give the best result for a particular gas
well. This study aims to address this issue.

2.4 PROBLEMS CAUSED BY LIQUID LOADING

Liquid loading can lead to erratic, slugging flow and decreased production. The well
may eventually die if the liquids are not continuously removed. Often, as liquids
accumulate in a well, the well simply produces at a lower rate than expected. If the
gas rate is high enough to remove most or all of the liquids, the flowing tubing
pressure at the formation face and production rate will reach a stable equilibrium. The
well will produce at a rate that can be predicted by the reservoir inflow production
relationship (IPR) curve. If the gas rate is too low, the pressure gradient in the tubing
becomes large due to the liquid accumulation, resulting in increased pressure on the
formation. As the back-pressure on the formation increases, the rate of gas production
from the reservoir decreases and may drop below the critical rate required to remove
the liquid. More liquids will accumulate in the wellbore and the increased bottom hole
pressure will further reduce gas production and may even kill the well. Late in the life
of a well, liquid may stand over the perforations with the gas bubbling through the
liquid to the surface. In this scenario, the gas is producing at a low but steady rate
with little or no liquids coming to the surface. If this behavior is observed with no
knowledge of past well history, one might assume that the well is not liquid loaded
but only a low producer. All gas wells that produce some liquids, whether in high or
low permeability formations, will eventually experience liquid loading with reservoir
depletion. Even wells with very high gas-liquid ratios (GLR) and small liquid rates
can load up if the gas velocity is low. This condition is typical of very tight formation
(low permeability) gas wells that produce at low gas rates and have low gas velocities

8
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

in the tubing. Some wells may be completed and produce considerable gas through
large tubular, but may be liquid loaded from the first day of production.

2.5 LIQUID LOADING SYMPTOMS

Over the life of a gas well it is likely that the volume of liquids being produced will
increase while the volume of gas being produced drops off. Such situations usually
result in the accumulation of liquids in the wellbore until eventually the well dies or
flows erratically at a much lower rate. If diagnosed early, costly losses in gas
production can be avoided by implementing one of the many methods available to
artificially lift the liquids from the well. On the other hand if liquid loading in the
wellbore goes unnoticed, the liquids could also accumulate in the wellbore and the
adjoining reservoir, possibly causing temporary or even permanent damage. It is vital
therefore, that the effects caused by liquid loading are detected early to prevent costly
loss of production and possible reservoir damage.

This section is devoted to the symptoms that indicate when a gas well is having
problems with liquid loading. Emphasis is placed on symptoms that are typically
available in the field. Some of these are more obvious than others. Symptoms that
indicate a well is liquid loading are:

¾ Presence of orifice pressure spikes

¾ Erratic production and increase in decline rate
¾ Tubing pressure decreases as casing pressure increases
¾ Pressure survey shows a sharp, distinct change in pressure gradient
¾ Annular heading
¾ Liquid production ceases

2.5.1 Presence of orifice pressure spikes

One of the most common methods available to detect liquid loading is that slugs of
liquid begin to be produced at the wellhead. Liquids are beginning to accumulate in
the wellbore and/or the flow line and are produced erratically as some of the liquids
reach the surface as slugs.

This phenomenon is depicted in Figure 2-3 on a two-pen recorder showing well

producing liquids normally in mist flow on the left and a well beginning to experience

9
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

liquid loading problems, producing the liquids in slugs, on the right. It is recognized
that two pen charts may be replaced by transducer signals on computer plots, but this
is given for illustration. When liquids begin to accumulate in the wellbore, the
pressure spikes on the recorder become more frequent. Eventually, the surface tubing
pressure starts to decrease due to the liquid head holding back the reservoir pressure.
In addition, the gas flow begins to decline at a rate uncharacteristic of the prior
production decline rate. This rapid drop in production and drop in surface tubing
pressure, accompanied by the ragged two-pen recorder charts, is a sure indication of
liquid loading problems. Many wells have a liquid knock-out before orifice
measurements so the operator then would have to listen at the wellhead to try to
determine if slugs are being produced. Also many wells now do not use the two-pen
recorders, but the two-pen records shown here serve to illustrate how slugs of liquid
begin to be produced by a gas well when liquid loading has commenced.

Figure 2.3: Effect of Flow Regime on Orifice Pressure Drop—Mist Flow (L) vs.
Slug Flow (R) in Tubing
1.5.2 Decline Curve Analysis
The shape of a well’s decline curve can be an important indication of down hole
liquid loading problems. Decline curves should be analyzed for long periods, looking
for changes in the general trend. Figure 1.4 shows two decline curves. The smooth
exponential type decline curve is characteristic of normal gas-only production
considering reservoir depletion. The sharply fluctuating curve is indicative of liquid
loading in the wellbore and in this case is showing the well to deplete much earlier

10
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

than reservoir considerations alone would indicate. Typically when decline curve
trends are analyzed for long periods, wells experiencing liquid loading problems will
show a sudden departure from the existing curve to a new, steeper slope. The new
curve will indicate well abandonment far earlier then the original, providing a means
to determine the extent of lost reserves as a result of liquid loading. By employing the
remedial lift methods described herein, production often can be restored to the
original decline curve slope.

Figure 2.4: Decline Curve Analysis

1.5.3 Drop in Tubing Pressure with Rise in Casing Pressure
If liquids begin to accumulate in the bottom of the wellbore, the added pressure head
on the formation has the effect of lowering the surface tubing pressure. In addition, as
the liquid production increases the added liquid in the tubing being carried by the gas
(liquid hold up) increases the gradient in the tubing and again provides more back
pressure against the formation and reduces the surface tubing pressure. In packer-less
completions where this phenomenon can be observed, the presence of liquids in the
tubing is shown as an increase in the surface casing pressure as the fluids bring the
reservoir to a lower flow, higher pressure production point. As gas is produced from
the reservoir, gas percolates into the tubing casing annulus. This gas is exposed to the
higher formation pressure, causing an increase in the surface casing pressure.
Therefore, a decrease in tubing pressure and a corresponding increase in casing

11
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

pressure are indicators of liquid loading. These effects are illustrated in Figure 1.5 but
the changes may not be linear with time as shown in this illustration.

Figure 2.5: Casing and Tubing Pressure Indicators

Finally, estimates of the tubing pressure gradient can be made in a flowing well
without a packer by measuring the difference in the tubing and casing pressures. In a
packer less production well, the free gas will separate from the liquids in the wellbore
and rise into the annulus. The fluid level in a flowing well will remain depressed at
the tubing intake depth except when “heading” occurs or a tubing leak is present.
During “heading” the liquid level in the annulus periodically rises above then falls
back to the tubing intake. In a flowing well, however, the difference in the surface
casing and tubing pressures are an indication of the pressure loss in the production
tubing. Comparing the casing and tubing pressure difference with a dry gas gradient
for the well can give an estimate of the higher tubing gradient due to liquids
accumulating or loading the tubing.

1.5.4 Pressure Survey Showing Liquid Level

Flowing or static well pressure surveys are perhaps the most accurate method
available to determine the liquid level in a gas well and thereby whether the well is
loading with liquids. Pressure surveys measure the pressure with depth of the well
either while shut in or while flowing. The measured pressure gradient is a direct
function of the density of the medium and the depth, and for a single static fluid, the
12
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

pressure with depth should be nearly linear. Since the density of the gas is
significantly lower than that of water or condensate, the measured gradient curve will
exhibit a sharp change of slope when the tool encounters standing liquid in the tubing.
Thus the pressure survey provides an accurate means of determining the liquid level
in the wellbore. If the liquid level is higher than the perforations, liquid loading
problems are indicated. Figure 1.6 illustrates the basic principle associated with the
pressure survey. Note that the gas and liquid production rates can change the slopes
measured by the survey, giving a higher gas gradient due to the presence of some
liquids dispersed and a lower liquid gradient due to the presence of gas in the liquid.
Note also that the liquid level in a shut-in gas well can be measured acoustically by
shooting a liquid level down the tubing. The fluid in the tubing in a well that produces
both liquids and gases exhibits a complicated two-phase flow regime that depends on
the flow rate and the amount of each constituent phase present. The flowing pressure
survey data obtained in two-phase flow is not necessarily linear as indicated earlier.
When the measured pressure gradient is not linear but shows a continuously
increasing pressure with depth, pressure gradient data alone is not sufficient to
determine if liquid loading is in fact becoming a problem. In these cases, it may be
necessary to repeat the pressure survey at other conditions, or use techniques
described later in this text to compute the gradient in smaller tubing sizes or lower
surface pressures to determine if liquids are tending to accumulate. Often the pressure
deflection brought about by standing liquid in the tubing can be masked by higher
flow rates in small tubing. The added frictional pressure loss in these cases can
“mask” the inflection point caused by the liquid interface.

Figure 2.6: Pressure Survey Schematic

13
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

Large tubing usually means a lower frictional pressure loss (depends on the flow rate)
and as a result typically produces a sharp deflection in the pressure survey curves.
Some wells have a tapered tubing string. In this case, a change in tubing cross-
sectional flow area will cause a change in flow regime at the point where the flow
area changes with a resultant change in the pressure gradient. This may appear in a
gradient survey as a change in slope of the pressure-depth plot at the depth of the
tubing area change and should not be confused with the gas-liquid interface at the
depth of the liquid level. Estimates of the volume of liquid production can be made by
comparing the tubing pressure loss in a well producing liquid with one producing only
or near dry gas. In a fl owing well the bottom hole pressure (BHP) is equal to the
pressure drop in the tubing (or annulus if fl owing up the annulus) plus the wellhead
pressure. The presence of the liquid in the production stream always increases the
tubing pressure gradient. At low gas rates the proportional increase of pressure loss in
the tubing due to liquids is higher than at high gas rates. The variance then allows one,
with a productivity expression for gas flow from the reservoir, to see how more
production is possible if the pressure increase due to liquid loading is mitigated. See
tubing optimization section for illustrations of the tubing performance curve for gas
with some liquids intersecting a reservoir inflow curve as a method of predicting gas
well production.

2.6 REMEDIAL LIFTING OPTIONS TO REDUCE LIQUID LOADING

PROBLEM
Many types of technique of remedial lifting have been developed so far. Most of the
techniques focus on increasing gas velocity and artificially water lifting to reduce
liquid loading problems. The following table (Veeken, 2003) shows the remedial
measures depending on the purpose of use. These methods may be used singly or in
combination of two or more.

Different classification is shown below, which is presented by C-FER Technologies in

2007. According to the map of deliquification options, we can first divide into 4
categories: Reduce water influx, Lift gas and water together, well bore separation, and
Shut-in well. Wellbore separation further categorizes in two ways: lift water to
surface separately and down hole water disposal.

14
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

Table 2.1 - Remedial Measures to Reduce Liquid Loading

Fig. 2.7 - Map of deliquification options (Piers, 2007)

15
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

The remedial options have their own technical characteristics, meaning that the use of
them can vary depending on the situation of the well. Thus, at the designing stage,
their characteristics should be well-reviewed for the best resolution. In next chapter,
frequently used techniques are reviewed to discern their applications, advantages, and
disadvantages.

2.7 DELIQUIFYING TECHNIQUES PRESENTED

The list below introduces some of the possible methods used to deliquify gas wells
that are discussed here. These methods may be used individually or in any
combination. The list is organized roughly with regard to the static reservoir pressure.
Although the list is not necessarily complete, the methods that are outlined are
discussed in some detail. Specialty methods, such as using a pumping system to inject
water below a packer to allow gas to flow up the casing-tubing annulus, are not listed
here. Depth considerations and certain economical considerations are not considered
here.

The optimum deliquifying method is defined as that which is most economic for the
longest period of operation. Methods successfully implemented in similar offset
fields, vendor equipment availability, reliability of equipment, manpower required to
operate the equipment, etc. are all important considerations that are involved in
selecting the optimum method.

• Reservoir Pressure greater than 1500 psi

¾ Evaluate best natural flow of the well.
¾ Using Nodal Analysis evaluate the tubing size for friction and future loading
effects.

¾ Consider possible coiled tubing use.

¾ Evaluate surface tubing pressure and seek low values for maximum
production.

¾ Consider annular flow or annular and tubing flow to reduce friction effects.

• Reservoir Pressure greater than 1500 psi

¾ These medium pressure wells may still flow using relatively smaller conduits
and low surface pressures to keep flow velocities above a “critical” rate.

16
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

• Reservoir Pressure between 500 and 1500 psi

¾ Low pressure systems
¾ Plunger lift
¾ Small tubing
¾ Reduce surface pressure for all methods
¾ Gas lift
¾ Regular swabbing—for short flow periods
¾ Pit blow-downs—environmentally unacceptable
¾ Surfactants—soap sticks down the tubing or liquids injected down tubing or
casing, use of capillary strings, or backside injection of surfactants

¾ Reservoir flooding to boost pressures

• Reservoir Pressure between 150 and 500 psi

¾ Lower-pressure systems
¾ Plunger lift—can operate with large tubing
¾ Small tubing
¾ Reduce surface pressure for all methods
¾ Surfactants (soaps), sticks, cap strings, backside injection
¾ Siphon strings, usually smaller diameter
¾ Rod pumps on pump-off control, PCPs if severe sand
¾ Gas lift
¾ Intermittent gas lift
¾ Jet pump or reciprocating hydraulic pump
¾ Swabbing
¾ Reservoir flooding

• Very Low Pressure systems—Reservoir Pressure less than 150 psi

¾ Rod pumps
¾ Plunger in some cases
¾ Siphon strings

17
LITERATURE REVIEW Chapter 2

¾ Reduce surface pressure for all methods

¾ Intermittent gas lift, chamber lift
¾ Jet pump or reciprocating hydraulic pump
¾ Swabbing
¾ Surfactants (soaps), sticks, cap strings, backside injection
¾ Reservoir flooding

Many times when a gas well begins to drop below the critical rate, the operator may
consider using smaller tubing or turn to plunger lift, which can operate with a number
of common sizes of production tubing. Plunger lift is cheaper to install than most
artificial lifting methods and will take the well to low but possibly not depletion
pressures.

If the well is deep and equipped with a packer, a surfactant string may be used to
inject surfactants to the bottom of the tubing. Soap sticks and back side treating are
common if the produced liquids are mostly water. Beam pumps can reduce the
flowing bottom hole pressure by producing liquids up the tubing and gas up the
annulus but cannot ultimately achieve low pressures on the formation unless the gas
flows into low pressure in the casing. Sandy wells may require PCPs or gas lift. In
some cases compression can be used to evaporate all the water. Selection of the most
optimum deliquification method must necessarily consider the volume of liquid that
the well will produce. Economics should dictate all decisions but, unfortunately, this
is not always the case. This project will aid in the selection of the most optimum and
economic method to deliquify gas wells.

18
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3
CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS

3.1 Introduction
A producing gas well ceasing production prematurely because of liquid loading would
mean a financial loss and the inefficient use of resources. In order to overcome this
issue, first it must be identified properly. It is known that as reservoir pressure
declines it is easier for the well to be killed by loaded liquids since the velocity of the
gas passing through the production string will decrease. In 1969, Turner et al.
analyzed whether the gas flow rate would be sufficient to remove the liquids
continuously from gas wells. Two physical models are proposed for the analysis of
the removal of liquids; liquid film along the walls of the pipe and spherical liquid
droplets entrained in the flowing gas core. A comparison of these two models with the
field test data concluded that liquid droplet theory yielded a better model for
predicting the onset of liquid loading. It is also concluded that there exists a gas
velocity sufficient to remove the droplets continuously to avoid load up, but a 20%
increase should be added to insure removal of all drops. Coleman et al proposed a
new look at predicting load up in 1991, which is basically Turner et al’s model
without the 20% increase in the minimum gas flow rate, known as critical rate. It is
also stated that liquid/gas ratios below22.5 bbl/MMscf have no influence in
determining the onset of load up, meaning the gas flow rate is the dominant factor.

In 2000, Nosseir et al. suggested a new approach for accurate prediction of loading in
gas wells under different flowing conditions. Turner et al.’s basic concepts are
adopted but different flow conditions are considered resulting in different flow
regimes. Wide variation of flow conditions in gas wells would make it difficult to
assume a constant flow regime for all wells and conditions, therefore their new
approach mostly consisted of a case by case basis. Upon calculating the critical flow
rate, it is stated the appropriate equation should be applied for each case. In wells with
the possibility of having more than one flow regime, it is recommended that the
calculations are carried out at the wellhead pressure since gas slippage will be at
maximum near the surface, and also water should be considered as the loading phase
to guarantee removing all the droplets of lighter phases also. A new view on
continuous removal of liquids is proposed in 2001, when Li et al adopted the liquid

19
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

droplets entrained in gas core theory but predicted the liquid droplets tend to be flat
instead of spherical (shown in Figure 3.1) and deduced new simple formulas for the
continuous removal of these droplets accordingly, for field application. Models and
approaches by Turner et al. and Coleman et al. did not take the deformation of a free
falling droplet into consideration. The results calculated from these formulas were
smaller than findings of Turner et al. However, they stated that predicted results were
in accord with the practical production performance of China’s gas wells dealing with
liquid loading problems.

Figure 3.1 – Shape of entrained drop movement in high‐velocity gas

In 2003, Veeken et al accepted Turner’s method, but devised a ratio term called
“Turner Ratio” (TR) which is the ratio of actual flow rate and minimum flow rate
predicted by Turner et al for continuous removal of liquids. Veeken et al.’s correlation
data included deviated wells also and the predicted the critical rate for deviated wells
is about the same for vertical wells. An inflow performance parameter is also added to
their Turner Ratio equation which allows evaluating critical flow rate at bottom hole
conditions. Veeken et al.’s model showed a much higher flow rate is needed than
Turner’s (and therefore Coleman’s) model predicted to remove liquids properly and
continuously at low pressures. Belfroid et al (2008) stated that when making
predictions on critical flow rates, inclination angle, flow regime transitions, tubing
outflow and reservoir inflow relations should be taken into account. Also, they argued
that the influence of dynamic disturbances on the stability is not taken into account by
the classical prediction models. Belfroid et al. concluded that the onset of liquid
loading is determined by the transport of the liquid film. They stated for larger
inclinations the effect of gravity is reduced and therefore critical gas rate will be
lower; however, at large inclinations, the liquid film starts to thicken at the bottom of
the tube compared to top, which increases the critical gas flow rate. This results in
20
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

erroneous flow rate calculations in classical models. Also it is concluded that high
permeability reservoirs will show liquid loading behavior much faster than low
permeability reservoirs. Their results regarding critical flow rate were much higher
than classical models especially in high permeability low pressure reservoirs.

In 2009; Sutton et al. proposed a guideline for the proper application of critical
velocity calculations. They stated that although field personnel generally uses
conditions at the top of the well as an evaluation point for calculating critical flow rate
for a well, a change in geometry down hole or other conditions may lead to erroneous
conclusions. Using conditions at the bottom with fundamental equations requires
accurate correlations for PVT properties such as surface tension and density for gas
and liquid phases. They concluded that for almost every case, the critical velocity can
be calculated using water properties since water has a higher density than liquid
hydrocarbons; gas will be able to lift hydrocarbons if it is able to lift water. The
evaluation point for determining critical velocity can be either the wellhead or bottom.
They stated wellhead conditions should be used in high pressure wells (Pwhf greater
than 1000 psia) and bottom conditions should be used in low pressure wells (Pwhf
less than 100 psia) when calculating critical velocity. For wells producing free water
using bottom conditions would be more accurate. Also according to the study, the
original safety factor Turner et al. provided is needed to ensure the well is unloaded
along the entire flow path.

The general aim of all these research is to determine the conditions for removing
liquids in gas wells continuously. However, as liquid loading problems in a well
progress after a certain point it may be impossible to keep the well flowing on its
own. When that happens, there are a variety of solutions that can be used in order to
solve liquid loading problems of the well. Lea & Nickens8 (2004) compiled some of
these solutions in a study to describe and discuss the problems of liquid accumulation
in a gas well. Some of these methods include sizing production strings to change the
flow pattern and increase gas velocity, installing a compressor, plunger lift
mechanism, and foaming. They proposed nodal analysis as a liquid loading prediction
method and stated at initial stages surfactants can be tried as a cost effective solutions
after evaluating economics. Smaller diameter tubing may be used to increase the
flowing velocity; however, eventually has to be downsized even more. Plunger lift
may be preferred over tubing sizing since it can be used in already installed larger
21
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

tubing. It is concluded although there are several methods; none of them is the
ultimate or only solution since solving liquid loading problems is more of a case by
case project involving different reservoir parameters, wellhead conditions and liquid
properties.

As Belfroid et al. have stated in their study, “even though virtually all of the world’s
gas wells are either at risk of or suffering from liquid loading, the modeling of liquid
loading behavior is still quite immature and the prediction of the minimum stable gas
rate not very reliable”. Therefore, predicting onset of liquid loading and solving load-
up problems are critical and only credible when approached on a case by case basis
and constructed a methodology accordingly.

To effectively plan and design for gas well liquid loading problems, it is essential to
be able to accurately predict when a particular well might begin to experience
excessive liquid loading. In the next chapter, Nodal Analysis techniques are presented
that can be used to predict when liquid loading problems and well flow stability
occur. In this chapter, the relatively simple “critical velocity” method is presented to
predict the onset of liquid loading. This technique was developed from a substantial
accumulation of well data and has been shown to be reasonably accurate for vertical
wells. The method of calculating a critical velocity will be shown to be applicable at
any point in the well. It should be used in conjunction with methods of Nodal
Analysis if possible.

3.2 CRITICAL FLOW CONCEPTS

The transport of liquids in near vertical wells is governed primarily by two
complementing physical processes before liquid loading becomes more predominate
and other flow regimes such as slug flow and then bubble flow begin.

3.2.1 Turner Droplet Model

It is generally believed that the liquids are both lifted in the gas flow as individual
particles and transported as a liquid film along the tubing wall by the shear stress at
the interface between the gas and the liquid before the onset of severe liquid loading.
These mechanisms were first investigated by Turner et al. who evaluated two
correlations developed on the basis of the two transport mechanisms using a large
experimental database as illustrated here. Turner discovered that liquid loading could

22
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

best be predicted by a droplet model that showed when droplets move up (gas flow
above critical velocity) or down (gas flow below critical velocity). Turner et al.
developed a simple correlation to predict the so-called critical velocity in near vertical
gas wells assuming the droplet model. In this model, the droplet weight acts
downward and the drag force from the gas acts upward (Figure 3.2). When the drag is
equal to the weight, the gas velocity is at “critical”. Theoretically, at the critical
velocity the droplet would be suspended in the gas stream, moving neither upward nor
downward. Below the critical velocity, the droplet falls and liquids accumulate in the
wellbore. In practice, the critical velocity is generally defined as the minimum gas
velocity in the production tubing required moving liquid droplets upward. A velocity
string is often used to reduce the tubing size until the critical velocity is obtained.
Lowering the surface pressure (e.g., by compression) also increases velocity.

Turner’s correlation was tested against a large number of real well data having surface
fl owing pressures mostly higher than 1000 psi. Examination of Turner’s data,
however, indicates that the range of applicability for his correlation might be for
surface pressures as low as 5 to 800 psi. Two variations of the correlation were
developed, one for the transport of water and the other for condensate. The
fundamental equations derived by Turner were found to under predict the critical
velocity from the database of well data. To better match the collection of measured

Figure 3.2. Illustrations of Concepts Investigated for Defining Critical Velocity

Field data, Turner adjusted the theoretical equations for required velocity upward by
20 percent. From Turner’s original paper, after the 20 percent empirical adjustment,
the critical velocity for condensate and water were presented as:

23
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

. .
/ …………………..(3.1)
.

. .
/ ………………….. (3.2)
.

Where p psi.
The theoretical equation from critical velocity Vt to lift a liquid is:

. /
, / ………………….. (3.3)

Where s surface tension, dynes/cm, r density, lbm/ft3. Inserting typical values of:
Surface Tension 20 and 60 dyne/cm for condensate and water, respectively Density
45 and 67 lbm/ft3 for condensate and water, respectively Gas Z factor 0.9

. . /
, ………………….. (3.4)
. /

. . /
, ………………….. (3.5)
. /

Inserting Z = 0.9 and multiplying by 1.2 to adjust to Turner’s data gives:

. .
, ………………….. (3.6)
.

. .
, ………………….. (3.7)
.

Turner gives 4.02 and 5.62 in his paper for these equations. These equations predict
the minimum critical velocity required to transport liquids in a vertical wellbore. They
are used most condensate are produced by the well, Turner recommends using the
correlation developed for water because water is heavier and requires a higher critical
velocity. Gas wells having production velocities below that predicted by the preceding
equations would then be less than required to prevent the well from loading with
liquids. Note that the actual volume of liquids produced does not appear in this
correlation and the predicted terminal velocity is not a function of the rate of liquid
production.

24
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

3.2.2 Critical Rate

Although critical velocity is the controlling factor, one usually thinks of gas wells in
terms of production rate in SCF/d rather than velocity in the wellbore. These
equations are easily converted into a more useful form by computing a critical well
flow rate. From the critical velocity Vg, the critical gas flow rate qg, may be computed
from:

.
/ ………………….. (3.8)

Where

………………….. (3.9)

T = surface temperature, ºF
P= surface pressure, psi
A= tubing cross-sectional area
dt = tubing ID, inches
Introducing the preceding into Turner’s [1] equations gives the following:
. . /
, / / ………………….. (3.10)
.

. . /
, / / ………………….. 3.11)
.

These equations can be used to compute the critical gas flow rate required to transport
either water or condensate. Again, when both liquid phases are present, the water
correlation is recommended. If the actual flow rate of the well is greater than the
critical rate computed by the preceding equation, then liquid loading would not be
expected.

3.2.3 Critical Tubing Diameter

It is also useful to rearrange the preceding expression, solving for the maximum
tubing diameter that a well of a given flow rate can withstand without loading with
liquids. This maximum tubing is termed the critical tubing diameter, corresponding to
the minimum critical velocity. The critical tubing diameter for water or condensate is
shown here as long as the critical velocity of gas, Vg, is for either condensate or
water.

25
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

.
, ………………….. (3.12)

3.2.4 Critical Rate for Low Pressure Wells—Coleman Model

Recall that these relations were developed from data for surface tubing pressures
mostly greater than 1000 psi. For lower surface tubing pressures, Coleman et al. has
developed similar relationships for the minimum critical flow rate for both water and
liquid. In essence the Coleman et al. formulas (to fit their new lower wellhead
pressure data, typically less than 1000 psi) are identical to Turner’s equations but
without the Turner 1.2 adjustment to fit his data. With the same data defaults given
above to develop Turner’s equations, the Coleman et al. equations for minimum
critical velocity and flow rate would appear as:

. .
, ………………….. (3.13)
.

. .
, ………………….. (3.14)
.

. . /
, / / ………………….. (3.15)
.

. . /
, / / ………………….. (3.16)
.

However, if the original equations of Turner were used, the coefficients would be 4.02
and 5.62 both divided by 1.2 to get the Coleman equations, so there can be some
confusion. The concern is that even if some slight errors in the Turner development
are present, the equations with the coefficients have been used with success, and the
question is “are the original coefficients better than if they are corrected”?

3.3 CRITICAL VELOCITY AT DEPTH

Although the preceding formulas are developed using the surface pressure and
temperature, their theoretical basis allows them to be applied anywhere in the
wellbore if pressure and temperature are known. The formulas are also intended to be
applied to sections of the wellbore having a constant tubing diameter. Gas wells can
be designed with tapered tubing strings, or with the tubing hung off in the well far
above the perforations. In such cases, it is important to analyze gas well liquid loading
tendencies at locations in the wellbore where the production velocities are lowest. For
example, in wells equipped with tapered strings, the bottom of each taper size would
26
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

exhibit the lowest production velocity and thereby be first to load with liquids.
Similarly, for wells having the tubing string hung well above the perforations, the
analysis must be performed using

Figure 3.3: Completions Effects on Critical Velocity

The casing diameter near the bottom of the well since this would be the most likely
location of the initial liquid buildup. In practice, it is recommended that liquid loading
calculations be performed at all sections of the tubing where diameter changes occur.
In general for a constant diameter string, if the critical velocity is acceptable at the
bottom of the string, then it will be acceptable everywhere in the tubing string. In
addition, when calculating critical velocities in down hole sections of the tubing or
casing, down hole pressures and temperatures must be used. Minimum critical
velocity calculations are less sensitive to temperature, which can be estimated using
linear gradients. Down hole pressures, on the other hand, must be calculated by using
fl owing gradient routines (perhaps with Nodal Analysis) or perhaps a gradient curve.
Bear in mind that the accuracy of the critical velocity prediction depends on the
accuracy of the predicted fl owing gradient.

27
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

Figure 3.4: Critical Velocity with Depth

Figure 3.4 shows critical rate calculated using the Gray correlation. The vertical line
is the actual rate. The blue line is the required critical rate for the tubing and the
casing on the bottom. Note the well is predicted to be just above critical rate at the
surface but the rest of the tubing is below critical and as usual, well below critical for
the casing flow. Normally the required rate is maximum at the bottom of the tubing
but for high pressure, high temperature (unusual for most loaded gas wells) the critical
may be calculated to be maximum at surface conditions. Guo et al. present a kinetic
energy model and show critical rate and velocity at down hole conditions. They
mention that Turner under predicts the critical rate. They mention the controlling
conditions are down hole.

3.4 CRITICAL VELOCITY IN HORIZONTAL WELL FLOW

In inclined or horizontal wells the preceding correlations for critical velocity cannot
be used. In deviated wellbores, the liquid droplets have very short distances to fall
before contacting the flow conduit rendering the mist flow analysis ineffective. Due to
this phenomenon, calculating gas rates to keep liquid droplets suspended and
maintains mist flow in horizontal sections is a different situation than for tubing.
Fortunately, hydrostatic pressure losses are minimal along the lateral section of the

28
J CRITICAL VELOCITY CONCEPTS Chapter 3

well and only begin to come into play as the well turns vertical where critical flow
analysis again becomes applicable.

Another, less understood effect that liquids could have on the performance of a
horizontal well has to do with the geometry of the lateral section of the wellbore.
Horizontal laterals are rarely straight. Typically, the wellbores “undulate” up and
down throughout the entire lateral section. These undulations tend to trap liquid,
causing restrictions that add pressure drop within the lateral. A number of two phase
flow correlations that calculate the flow characteristics within undulating pipe have
been developed over the years and, in general, have been met with good acceptance.
Once such correlation is the Beggs and Brill method. These correlations have the
ability to account for elevation changes, pipe roughness and dimensions, liquid
holdup, and fluid properties. Several commercially available nodal analysis programs
now have this ability.

A rule of thumb developed from gas distribution studies suggests that when the
superficial gas velocity (superficial gas velocity total in-situ gas rate/total flow area) is
in excess of ≈14 fps, then liquids are swept from low lying sections as illustrated in
Figure 3.5. Upon examination, this is a conservative condition and requires a fairly high
flow rate. Bear in mind, however, when performing such calculations that the velocity
at the toe of the horizontal section can be substantially less than that at the heel.

Figure 3.5: Effects of Critical Velocity in Horizontal/Inclined Flow

29
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Liquid loading in a gas producing well is a progressing problem as reservoir pressure
depletes continually with produced gas and eventually the well will inevitably need an
artificial lift method to lift the loaded liquid from the well to resume gas production.
Although a properly designed tubing string can increase gas velocity to exceed critical
velocity and lift the produced liquids, this may not be a long term solution since, as
mentioned, the reservoir pressure will keep decreasing to a point where it would be
impossible for the kinetic energy of the gas alone will not be sufficient enough to lift
the produced liquids completely. Different solutions should be evaluated and
compared in order to find the best course of action when dealing with wells that have
liquid loading problems to achieve the highest ultimate gas recovery possible for the
well. In this section, several well‐known solutions or remedial measures to prevent
liquid loading in gas wells will be discussed and evaluated in order to find which
particular solution is the best solution to which particular case.

4.2 TUBING SIZE OPTIMIZATION

Proper tubing size selection is crucial to effectively produce gas from the reservoir
and maximize recovery. Tubing size selection may be somewhat simpler in vertical
wells with a single pay zone and single fluid flowing through the wellbore. However,
in wells with multiple reservoirs and liquid loading problems, tubing size selection
can become quite complex. At first glance at the critical rate and terminal velocity
equations, smaller tubing sizes can be economically favorable with time where liquid
loading will be more problematic since reservoir pressure will deplete eventually,
causing the well to load up with liquids produced from the reservoir. The aim is to
determine a simple, field applicable model to properly select optimum tubing size if
possible. Using critical rate equation of Turner et al. and applying the field data,
terminal velocity and then critical rate of the well can be calculated for different sizes
of tubing string and can be plotted (Figure 4.1). The critical rate than can be compared
with the actual producing rates of the well and determined if the gas can lift the liquid
from the wellbore with smaller tubing inside. Gunawan et al. showed that field data
validates Turner method when predicting critical gas flow rates with different tubing

30
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

sizes. It is seen in Figure 4.2 that the data set fits better with the 20% adjustment
Coleman et al. deem unnecessary.

Figure 4.1 – Critical Flow rates for Different Tubing Sizes

Figure 4.2 – Critical Gas Flow rates for Turner & Coleman

31
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

4.2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Smaller Tubing

The reason to run smaller tubing is to increase the velocity for a given rate and sweep
the liquids out of the well and the tubing. In general, faster velocity reduces the liquid
holdup (% liquid by volume in the tubing) and lowers the flowing bottom hole
pressure attributed to gravity effects of the fluids in the tubing. However, tubing too
small for the production rate can cause excess friction and require a larger fl owing
bottom hole pressure.

There are many other methods of deliquifying a gas well, and tubing design must be
compared to other possible methods before making a final decision. For instance,
Plunger Lift will be shown in Chapter 7 to work better, in general, in larger tubing.
Therefore you may reach a time in the life of the well when you must decide if you
want to install and operate with smaller tubing or install Plunger Lift to reduce liquid
loading in the future.

There are some pros and cons of smaller tubing that should be evaluated before
proceeding in this direction. Some of the disadvantages are:

1. Pressure bombs, test tools, and coiled tubing cannot be run in the smaller
strings. This is especially true in 1.05, 1.315, and 1.66, and even in 1.9 inch
OD tubing. This makes small diameter tubing unpopular with field
personnel.

2. If you change to a smaller tubing today, then later you may have to downsize
to even smaller tubing. There may be cases where using, for instance, plunger
lift could last longer into the future of the well without significant changes in
the hardware. It is critical to evaluate the longevity of a smaller tubing design
using Nodal Analysis or by comparison to the history of similar installations.

3. If the small tubing becomes loaded, then you cannot swab the tubing and may
not even be able to nitrogen lift it. One-inch tubing is especially bad about
loading up and is hard to get started fl owing again. Figure 5-1 shows how
small tubing requires more pressure to support a given volume of fl uid. The
same volume of fluid that may be negligible in larger tubing can be significant
in small tubing.

32
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

4.2.2 Concepts Required to Size Smaller Tubing

To resize tubing, we need the reservoir inflow from a reservoir model or an IPR curve
obtained from well test data. Then we have the Nodal concepts of generating a tubing
curve for various sizes of tubing and obtaining some information from the shape of
the tubing curve. Also we have the concept of critical flow and we want the velocity
in the tubing to be greater than critical velocity so the holdup or percent by volume of
liquids in the tubing will be greatly reduced.

Figure 4.3: Effects of Constant Amount of Liquid Standing in Various Tubing Sizes

Example 4-1
To illustrate these concepts, let’s look at an example for various tubing sizes.
Consider a well with these conditions:
ƒ Well Depth =10,000 ft
ƒ Bottom hole Temperature = 180ºF
ƒ Surface Flowing Temperature = 80ºF
ƒ Surface Flowing Pressure = 100 psig
ƒ Gas Gravity = 0.65
ƒ Water Gravity = 1.02
ƒ Condensate Gravity = 57 API
ƒ Water Rate = 2 bbl/MMscf
ƒ Condensate Rate = 10 bbl/MMscf
ƒ Reservoir Pressure = 1000 psia

33
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

ƒ Reservoir Backpressure = 1.04

ƒ Tubing various
ƒ Reservoir Backpressure = 0.002 Mscf/D/psi2n

The flowing bottom hole pressure for each tubing is calculated (using the Gray
correlation) for a range of gas production rates and plotted on the same graph with the
reservoir inflow curve (Inflow Performance Relationship, IPR) in Figure 4.4. From
Figure 4.4 we see that:

• The 1 in, the 1.25 in, and the 1.5 in ID tubing strings are acceptable because
the minimum in the tubing or “outflow” curves is to the left of the expected
intersection point with the IPR, or the point where they are calculated to flow.

• The 1.75 in ID tubing curve is very fl at the intersection point and we cannot be
sure that the minimum is to the left of the intersection point of the IPR curve.

• The 1.995 in ID curve definitely has the minimum somewhere to the right of
the intersection point with the IPR curve.

We conclude from the Nodal plot that the 1.5 in curve looks like a good design. The
1.75 in performance is questionable and as the reservoir declines further, the 1.75 in
curve would definitely not be a good choice. So from this analysis, the best design for
the most production would be the 1.5 in ID tubing for current conditions.

Figure 4.4: Tubing Performance vs. Tubing ID: Critical Rates Plotted on Tubing
Curves

34
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

4.2.3 Critical Rate at Surface Conditions

Now let’s check the critical rate for each tubing ID for tubing size. Since the surface
pressure is low, we will use the Coleman et al. findings for lower surface pressure
wells that modify the original Turner formulas. Since both water and condensate are
present, we will conservatively use the water equation. The surface critical gas rate
required for water is calculated using Z = .9 and tabulated in

. . /
, / ……………………. (4.1)
.

The critical rates from surface pressures in Table 4-1 are plotted in Figure 4.4 as dots
on the corresponding tubing curve. We can compare the critical rates for each tubing
size with the flow rates predicted from the Nodal solution at the intersection point of
each tubing curve with the IPR.

• The critical rate for the 1 in ID tubing is to the right of the minimum in the
tubing curve but not close to the larger intersection of the tubing curve/inflow
curve.

• The critical rate for the 1.25 in tubing is perhaps a little to the left of the
minimum in the tubing curve but still to the left of the intersection.

• The critical rate for the 1.5 in tubing is just to the right of the minimum in the
tubing curve but still to the left of the intersection.

• The critical rate for the 1.75 in tubing is to the left of the minimum in the
curve but still to the left of the intersection.

• The critical rate for the 1.995 in curve is to the left of the minimum in the
curve, but it is to the right of the intersection. We previously stated not to use
the 1.995 in curve since the intersection with the deliverability curve is to the
left of the minimum in the tubing curve.

35
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

Table 4.1 Critical Rates vs. Tubing Size for Figure 4.4 Using Surface Pressure

Tubing ID (in) 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 1.995

Flow Area (in2) 0.785 1.226 1.766 2.400 3.120

Q critical (Mscf/D) 88.2 142.2 204.9 278.5 362.0

But the critical velocity also says not to try to produce at this intersection, since the
critical rate of 346 Mscf/D is larger.

4.2.4 Critical Rate at Bottom hole Conditions

The previous analysis of critical rates used the well flowing surface pressure to
calculate the critical rate at surface conditions. A similar analysis can be done at the
bottom hole pressure conditions. Using the Nodal solution pressure (bottom hole
pressure at the Nodal intersections), the Nodal solution rate can be calculated. If the
critical rate calculated at the Nodal solution pressure is less than the Nodal solution
rate, then the Nodal solution rates are acceptable; if not, then the critical velocity
condition is violated. From Table 4-2 the biggest tubing that has enough rate (above
critical) at the bottom of the tubing is the 1.50 in tubing. The larger ID tubing would
have velocity at the bottom of the tubing less than the critical. Note that the
calculation of critical rate at bottom hole conditions will depend somewhat on the
particular method used to calculate the tubing curves. Multiphase flow correlations
are developed for a range of fluid properties and tubing sizes that may not match your
well conditions exactly. Different multiphase flow correlations can often result in
drastically different fl owing gradients. The most significant difference between
correlations is usually in regard to how each calculates the beginning of the turn up or
liquid loading at low rates. Thus, it is imperative to use a method appropriate for your
well. For lower rate gas wells with moderate liquids production, the Gray correlation
is quite good to predict the tubing J-curve and is recommended unless you have
specific data that indicates otherwise. Gray was used for the tubing curves in Figure
4-4.

36
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

Table 4.2 Critical Rates Needed at Nodal Intersections Compared to Nodal Rates

Tubing ID (in) 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 1.995

Nodal solution Pressure 585 435 355 335 335

Nodal solution Rate

220 275 320 325 325
(Mscf/D)

Critical Rate for Nodal

167 226 294 388 505
solution Pressure (Mscf/D)

The best way to ensure a good fl owing bottom hole calculation is to measure the
actual fl owing bottom hole pressure and the associated well production rate and
compare the different calculation methods to the measured data. Some software
allows the user to adjust the calculations slightly to better match actual well data.

4.2.5 Summary of Tubing Design Concepts

To summarize, when redesigning a tubing string:

• Check the Nodal analysis for stability.

• Compare the Nodal solution rate to the critical velocity requirement at the top
of the tubing.

• Compare the Nodal solution rate to the critical velocity at the bottom of the
flow string. For a constant diameter string, if the velocity is acceptable at the
bottom of the string, then it will be acceptable.

• Ensure that the flow correlation used to calculate the Nodal solutions is
appropriate for your well conditions by comparison to some measured data if
available.

In this example, the critical velocity at the bottom of the tubing limits the choices to
the 1.5 in ID tubing or smaller when considering critical velocity.

4.2.6 Sizing Tubing without IPR Information

In the previous analysis, we used Nodal Analysis to evaluate different tubing options.
This is the best way to design a tubing string provided that you have a good IPR
curve. But you do not have to have an accurate representation of the reservoir or IPR
curve, nor do you have to run a reservoir model to make choices on the tubing size. If

37
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

you know where the well is fl owing now, you can calculate the tubing curves for the
current tubing string and see if you are currently fl owing to the right or the left of the
minimum in the tubing J-curve. If you are fl owing to the left of the minimum in the
tubing curve, you can investigate different tubing sizes and generate curves where you
would be expected to flow to the right of the minimum curve. You can make these
evaluations without having a reservoir curve (IPR curve) or running a reservoir
model. If you do have a reservoir IPR curve to work with and the tubing curves
intersect and match actual rates, then you can have more confidence in the results. But
the reservoir curve is not necessary to analyze stability and critical velocity
requirements. Critical rates typically are evaluated at surface conditions. However,
you can also calculate the down hole flowing pressures and enter the critical rate
correlations for down hole conditions as shown in Table 4.2 You should especially
make these calculations if you have any larger diameter flow paths such as casing
flow up to the entrance to the tubing. However it is almost certain that for wells on the
verge of loading, which flow up the casing, they will be well below the critical
velocity. However, if the length of casing flow from perforations to the tubing intake
is not too long, then even if it is fl owing below critical, the net additional pressure
drop may not be too large. A Nodal program that can model flow string diameter
changes with depth can analyze this situation. You should check down hole critical
flow in any case as a precaution even if the tubing size is constant down to the
perforations. A critical rate that is acceptable at the bottom of the tubing means that it
will be acceptable for the rest of the tubing or conduit.

4.2.7 Field Example 1 - Results of Tubing Change-Out

Dowell/Schlumberger published results from several case histories of using smaller
tubing. A summary of some cases is shown in Table 4-3, from the
Dowell/Schlumberger report. A typical production chart from the
Dowell/Schlumberger report is reproduced in Figure 4.5. Clearly, dramatic
improvements can be made by the proper and timely installation of coiled tubing in
wells that are experiencing liquid loading.

38
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

4.2.8 Pre- and Post-Evaluation

One additional method of evaluation of a prospect for smaller tubing is the decline
curve. This does not determine what size tubing should be used, but it does show if
the production is sharply dropping off and it can be due to liquid loading. From the
previous discussions of Nodal and Critical Velocity concepts, you can then analyze
the well to see if decline drop-offs are due to liquid loading. Or you might run a
pressure bomb in the well to see if the well has liquid loading near the bottom of the
well. Early remedial action will eliminate some problems, and any actions taken later
will not show quite as dramatic an effect on production.

Table 4.3 Coiled Tubing Installation Results

Figure 4-5: Example of Rate Change after Coiled Tubing Installation

39
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

Also be sure to check for holes in the tubing before making any well evaluation. This
is especially true if the well has no packer because some liquids can fall back and
reload the tubing. If there is a packer, then a hole will just allow the casing to pressure
up, which could be a casing integrity problem or corrosion problem. Figure 4.6 shows
results of a study for a 10,000′well (after Weeks). Note that in late 1978–early 1979, a
sharp production decline is evident. It was determined that this sharp decline was due
to liquids loading. A small string of coiled tubing was installed and the shallower
decline curve was measured after installation.

Note that the production did not increase that much immediately after the installation
of the small diameter tubing. If the decline curve information was not available, then
the installer of the small diameter tubing might have thought that the installation did
not cause a very favorable production response from the well. The point is that after
installation of small tubing (or even plunger, gas lift, foam, or other methods) the
production may or may not increase very much.

Figure 4-6: Example of Slope Change in Decline Change after Coiled Tubing
Installations
However if the steep decline curve is arrested and a flatter decline with less
interference from liquids loading is achieved, then the installation is a success and
more recoverable reserves will be a consequence. Therefore always try to get decline
curve information before installation of small tubing (or other methods of dewatering)
40
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

and then keep post installation decline curve data to properly evaluate the installation.
Figure 4.7 shows the completion corresponding to the decline curve in Figure 4.6.

Although 1-inch coiled tubing was (initially) successful in this case history, use 1-
inch string with caution. When the tubing is this small, an intermittent slug of liquid
can load the tubing and it can be difficult or impossible to get the string unloaded
again. There is one other caution to consider when viewing decline curves as
indicated by the decline curve of Figure 4.8. At first glance, this curve appears to be a
fairly normal decline curve without a sharp break in the curve to a steeper decline.
Therefore one might conclude that this well has no liquid loading problems. However,
after some diagnosis, this well, even though it has a smooth downward decline, was
found to be liquid loaded. In fact it was liquid loaded from the first day of production.
It has a smooth decline because it is always liquid loaded and did not show the
characteristic change in decline rate from no loading to liquid loading conditions.
Since the decline rate change is not observed, it was assumed that the well was not
liquid loaded. This well is capable of producing a higher rate on a shallower decline
curve than the one shown earlier.

Figure 4-7: Completion Used to Generate Data for Figure 4-6

41
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

4.2.9 Where to Set the Tubing

It is recommended to set the tubing at the top of the pay but not past the top one-third
of pay. If the tubing is set too deep, liquid could collect over the perforations during a
shut-in. When the well is brought back on production, the relatively large liquid
volume in the casing-tubing annulus must be displaced into the tubing, making the
well difficult, if not impossible, to flow due to a high fluid level in the tubing. Also if
the tubing end is set below the perforations, then pressure buildup during shut-in
cannot push liquids below the tubing end or near the tubing end since there is no place
for the liquids to enter the formation.

Figure 4-8: Rate vs. Time: Well That Is Liquid Loaded

4.2.10 Hanging off Smaller Tubing from the Current Tubing

Sometimes tubing is landed high (Figure 4-9) and the flow though the casing below
the tubing end is most likely well below critical, creating an extra pressure drop due to
liquid loading of the casing.

42
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

Figure 4-9: Illustration of Setting End of Tubing Too High

If wells are completed with considerable casing flow before you come up to the
tubing intake or if there is a very large pay interval and the tubing is currently set at
the top of the pay, it may be beneficial to hang off a section of smaller tubing from the
end of the current tubing end to a deeper well depth. There are at least two systems
that will allow you to hang off smaller tubing from the end of the current tubing. The
two tools are the double grip hydraulic set or wire line set packer for suspending
coiled tubing. The packer can be set hydraulically (Figure 4-10) or by a charge using
an electric line—set similar to the Baker Model D packer. For the hydraulically set
packer, there is a stinger torn disconnecting the CT above the packer after it is set.

43
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

Figure 4-10: A Hydraulic Set Packer That Can Be Run Inside Existing Tubing to
Hang of a Smaller Section of Coiled Tubing to Eliminate Areas of Flow below
Critical Velocity below High Set Tubing
4.2.11 Summary
Use of smaller tubing can be successful. It is usually successful at rates of several
hundred Mscf/D as opposed to smaller rates where plunger lift might be used. It has
fewer problems if the tubing installed is well above 1 in ID, considering limitations on
tools that can be run and methods used to possibly unload the well.

• Size the tubing using Nodal Analysis for stability and critical rate for
minimum velocity and use the conservative higher rates indicated for a
particular tubing size.

• Look at critical rate both at surface and down hole.

• Be sure that the tubing size selected flows above critical velocity from top to
bottom and that the tubing is landed such that no large tubular below the
tubing bottom contribute to liquid loading.

• Do not land the tubing below the perforations but rather at the top or in the top
one-third of the pay to avoid large liquid slugs on startup.

44
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

• A packer will avoid annulus pressure cycling, but planning ahead for possible
plunger lift would dictate a completion without a packer.

• Even if the well is producing what seems to be an acceptable rate, check for
liquid loading.

• Be cautious with velocity strings as you can easily design for too much
friction on the smaller diameter side and design for down hole liquid loading
on the larger diameter side. Remember it may not be as permanent a solution
as other methods. Try to project performance to future well conditions.

• Analyze any changes in tubing size not only from the immediate rate that is
obtained, but also from the slope of the new decline curve before conclusions
are reached on a new completion.

4.3 VELOCITY STRING APPLICATION

A velocity string is basically a tubing string with a smaller diameter run inside the
original large diameter production string. It is used as a remedial measure, since
reducing the flow area of gas will cause the velocity to increase and exceed the
critical velocity which is needed for continuous removal of produced liquids in the
wellbore. Application may differ as velocity string installation can be up to the
surface of just up to a certain point in the current production string, as seen in Figure
4.11. The study of Arachman et al. (2004) showed that especially for big bore
completions velocity string installation can be very beneficial. It is generally less
expensive than other solutions and treatment methods for liquid loading, since it could
be done in a live well with coiled tubing. However, velocity string applications are
critical because as diameter of the tubing decreases, the pressure loss value due to
friction will increase which would cause high pressure drop and limited gas
production rates. The solution to this problem would be installing the velocity string
from the perforation interval up to a certain point instead of installing it all the way to
the surface. If the velocity string is too short, however; it could be insufficient to lift
the produced liquids effectively and would need replacing with another longer or
smaller string. Also, it may not be a permanent solution as reservoir pressure
continues to deplete an even smaller diameter tubing string would be needed. These

45
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

criteria make the velocity string an inexpensive solution with critical design
considerations.

Figure 4.11 Velocity String Application Schematic

4.4 COMPRESSION
Compression is a vital application in all gas well production practices as lowering the
surface pressure will also lower bottom hole flowing pressure causing an increase in
gas production rate. Compressing the well can substantially increase the ultimate gas
recovery. However, this lifting method requires an initial investment for the
compressor and also has relatively expensive operating costs for maintenance and
power needed for keeping the compressor running. Using this lifting method as a
liquid loading solution can provide beneficial. As mentioned, compressors increase
gas production rate by lowering the surface pressure and bottom hole flowing
pressure. This means an increase in gas velocity and therefore better removing of
liquids collected at the bottom of the wellbore. The removal of liquids and the
decrease in the bottom hole pressure exposes more of the gas in the reservoir to
production which was initially unavailable.

In order to lower surface pressure with the help of compression, energy is required in
terms of horsepower. Energy needed in terms of horsepower is directly related to the
ratio of suction and discharge pressure also known as the compression ratio. As
suction pressure of the compressor decreases or the discharge pressure increases, the

46
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

amount of energy needed increases dramatically. Lea constructed the table for the
energy required to compress gas at different surface pressure to a pipeline that has
1000 psig as well as the percentage of compressed gas required to power the
compressor:

Table 4.4 – Compression Horsepower and Fuel Gas

Combining the amount of horsepower required at a given pressure (Table 4.4) with
the critical rate equations of Turner et al., it is possible to estimate the minimum
amount of energy required to keep the well dry by removing produced liquids. Figure
4.12, sensitivity analysis for different tubing sizes shows the compressor energy
requirement to keep the gas velocity above critical.

Figure 4.12 – Energy Required for Different Tubing Sizes to Stay above Critical
Rate

47
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

The effect of permeability can be variable in compression applications. In high

permeability reservoirs the aim of installing a compressor can be accelerating the
production rate as well as keeping the well dry. Wells with high productivity values
can maintain production rates above critical until the very end of their life. These
factors are important regarding the optimization of compression applications. Also,
anything that causes a significant pressure drop due to friction in the way of suction
from the surface to the bottom hole will impair the efficiency of the compressor.
Restriction in the surface and in the well would cause increased energy requirements
and reduced power in lifting therefore would cause quicker loading of the well.
Compression and reducing surface pressure is generally one of the first solutions used
during the production life of a gas well regardless if it has liquid loading problems.
The importance of compression applications is that it could be used not only for
keeping the well free of liquids but also increasing production rate that has decreased
with depleting gas reservoir. Moreover, compression applications could be used with
other methods and remedial treatments such as foaming agents, gas lift, plunger lift,
beam pumping, electrical submersible pumps and velocity strings. However, different
wells will give different responses to any particular application and it is crucial that
the compressor type, size and properties are selected properly and optimized for
maximum efficiency. System nodal analysis can be a useful tool determining the best
course of action when choosing compressors.

4.5 PLUNGER LIFT

Plunger lift is an intermittent artificial lift method and a liquid loading solution that
uses the energy of the gas reservoir to produce the liquids collected at the bottom
hole. A plunger is a piston type tool that travels freely in the tubing string and fits the
inside diameter of the pipe. It travels up when the well pressure is sufficient enough to
lift and travels back down due to gravitational force. The plunger lift installation
operates as a cyclic process when the well pressure is built up during shut in and is
flowing when the pressure is sufficient to lift the plunger and the liquid column
collected above the plunger. During shut in period, the plunger is at the bottom on a
spring assembly, the gas pressure accumulates in the annulus and liquids accumulate
at the bottom of the tubing. The pressure accumulated in the annulus depends on
different parameter such as shut in period, reservoir pressure and reservoir rock
permeability. After a certain period of time, when the pressure is increased

48
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

sufficiently, the motorized surface valve (motor valve) is opened to allow flow of gas
through the tubing lifting the plunger to the surface, unloading the liquids
accumulated in the tubing string and producing the gas accumulated in the annulus.
All this cyclic process requires an installation of surface equipment that consists of
valves and down hole equipment that consists of a plunger and a spring mechanism.

A typical conventional plunger installation (Figure 4.13) includes components which are:

• A spring assembly called the bumper spring that can be installed via wire line
to Catch the falling plunger and help it land at the bottom without damaging
itself

• A surface catcher/lubricator system designed to catch the plunger when it rises

up to surface and allow flow to continue by holding it as long as the well is
flowing.

• A motorized valve at the surface that is controlled electronically to open and

close the well when needed.

• An electronic sensor at the surface to monitor plunger arrival.

• An electronic controller with logic that will set cycles that consists of
production and shut-in periods for best operation by opening and closing the
motor valve. It will also record the data from the sensor to help determining
the condition of the plunger.

49
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

Figure 4.13 – A Typical Plunger Lift Installation

As mentioned, a typical conventional plunger lift application consists of cycles with

production and shut-in periods which are needed for building gas pressure in the
casing and lifting the liquids accumulated in the tubing efficiently. Although these
periods may have small differences due to different properties of different gas wells,
the steps (also shown in Figure 4.14) are generally as follows:

50
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

Figure 4.14 – A Simple Illustration of Plunger Lift Cycles

1. The well is shut-in and the pressure inside the casing is building. The
motorized valve at the surface will open when the pressure inside the casing is
sufficient to lift the plunger and the accumulated liquid column at a velocity
exceeding critical.
2. The valve is open and the plunger begins to rise with the liquid column. The
gas built in the annulus expands into the tubing string providing the required
energy for lifting.
3. All of the liquid collected above the plunger reaches surface and flow through
the surface line. The plunger is held at the surface due to pressure and flow
rate underneath. The well continues producing gas during this period until the
pressure decreases and the valve is closed.
4. The flow velocity begins to decrease as liquids enter the well from
perforations and start accumulation at the bottom. At this “decline” period, a
large amount of liquid will be accumulated at the bottom of the hole and in the
tubing string if the well is open to flow too long and will require a larger
buildup pressure.

51
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

5. The motor valve at the surface closes and the well is shut. The plunger falls to
the bottom of the well onto the spring. The pressure starts increasing in the
annulus once again until the next cycle.

Using plunger lift as an artificial lift method to overcome liquid loading solutions
requires initial capital costs which are relatively inexpensive. However, operating
costs will add up to the initial capital costs and field testing this method to see if it is
suitable for the well would be costly. In order to determine the feasibility of plunger
lift installation, there are certain methods that proven useful. Lea et al. developed a
rule of thumb regarding the gas/liquid ratio (GLR) of the well to determine if the
collected energy of the gas pressure would be sufficient to lift the accumulated liquid
effectively. This simple GLR rule states that the well must have a gas/liquid ratio of
400 scf per bbl for each 1000 ft of depth that liquids have to be lifted. As an example,
a 7000 ft deep gas well would require a GLR of 2800 scf/bbl for the plunger lift
installation be feasible. This simple rule of thumb may be useful, however; it can give
false indications when conditions are close to predicted values. To overcome the
shortcomings of the GLR rule of thumb, charts of feasibility of plunger lift (Figure
4.15) can be used that are developed by Beeson et al. (1957) for different tubing sizes.

There is a rather new type of plunger consists of two pieces that is designed to fall to
the bottom of the well while the well is still producing gas. In conventional plunger
applications as soon as the plunger begins falling back down it constricts flow of gas.
In this two piece plunger that consists of a ball at the bottom and a piston at the top
the flow continues around the ball and through the piston as these two pieces fall
down free from each other. When travelling up, however; the ball is pushed upwards
not allowing the liquid to go through the piston and the pieces act as one unit. The
plunger pieces can fall down at the bottom at a velocity of 1000 ft/min or more, while
the conventional type plungers are advised not to exceed 750 ft/min to avoid damages
to the string and the equipment itself. This will allow the plunger system to move
faster and make more trips to the surface allowing it to lift more liquid from the
bottom of the well than conventional plunger applications.

52
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

Figure 4.15 Gas Requirement for Plunger Lift with or without Packer

In plunger lift applications there is also one more issue to consider, which is the use of
plunger lift in completions with packer installed. When proposing plunger lift
installation to a particular well, packer less completion are highly preferred over
completion with packer because the large volume of tubing/casing annulus allows
much more gas to be stored in the well. However, perforating the tubing string above
the packer and draining the annulus fluid may improve the efficiency system by
allowing annulus to be used for storage. If the reservoir energy is sufficient to produce
enough gas to lift the accumulated liquids with the help of a plunger, plunger lift
installation can still be used with completion with packer installed. However, the gas
requirement (gas to liquid ratio) of the well will be significantly higher than packer
less completions and this is an important factor to consider.

4.6 GAS LIFT

Gas lift is another artificial method used to treat wells having liquid loading problems,
gas from another source is injected to the well at some depth and additional gas
increases gas production rate of the well allowing the well to remove liquids more
easily. The increased gas velocity will be above critical velocity therefore the liquids
will not accumulate at the bottom of the wellbore. An important issue about this
application is that gas lift will lower the density of the fluids above the injection point.
Therefore, the end of injection string should be determined carefully. Due to the
nature of this method, gas lift may be unable to reduce the bottom hole flowing

53
O
OVERVIEW OFF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOAD
DING Chapter 4

prressure to lo
ower valuess than most pumps do. However, thhere are cerrtain elemennts
thhat make gaas lift a favvored artificiial method. First of all, among alll artificial liift
m
methods, gas lift is the cllosest one too the natural flow of the well since the
t well coulld
keep flowing by itself wiith a little booost from an
n outer gas soource. Moreeover, in casees
w
where the rem
maining gass in the reseervoir is still high enough with resppect to liquiid
volume, the GLR
G ratio off the well w
will be too high for conveentional pum
mp systems to
t
w
work effectiv
vely because of gas interrference probblems, comm
monly know
wn as gas lockk.
For gas lift installation,
i on the otheer hand, a hiigh GLR reeduces the volume
v of gaas
innjection need
ded to lift thhe accumulatted liquids. In
I horizontaal or deviatedd wells wherre
puumps cannoot work efficciently due to increased
d frictional pressure, annd wells witth
so
olids such ass sand wherre pumps will be cloggeed and damaaged are connditions whicch
w be more suitable for a gas lift insstallation forr lifting liquiids.
will

Fundamentallyy, for lifting accumulated

a liquids from
m gas wells, thhere are two ty
ypes of gas liift
teechniques useed excessivelly in the indu
dustry which are continuoous gas lift annd intermittennt
gaas lift. In con
ntinuous gas lift, the flow
w from surfacee to the poinnt where gas is
i injected innto
thhe wellbore iss continuous and the highher pressure gas
g from the oouter source mixes
m with thhe
gaas inside the well, makingg it easier to llift the liquid column in thhe productionn string (Figuure
4.16). This app
plication can
n be utilized w
with either a conventional
c smaller tubin
ng string andd a
siimple valve mechanism
m orr a coiled tubbing application.

Figurre 4.16 – Con

ntinuous Gaas Lift Scheematic

5
54
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

In intermittent gas lift, on the other hand, is used with an automated logic system and
multiple check valves (Figure 4.17). The system inject gas from another source into
the well from a certain depth until the pressure at the bottom is sufficient to lift the
accumulated liquid column to the surface, and then flows the well, producing the
injected gas and the gas from the reservoir, lifting the liquids to the surface along the
way. When the pressure drops to a certain value, the system closes the well once
again to pressurize it with the outer gas source and this cycle repeats. Generally,
continuous gas lift applications are converted to intermittent gas lift some time along
the life of a well when the bottom hole pressure of the well declines to a point where
it can no longer lift the liquids continuously even with the aid of an outer gas source
and the pressure needs to be built up before the well can be flown. The point when it
is time to convert continuous flow gas lift system to intermittent flow differs as it is a
decision based on the remaining reservoir energy, GLR, production flow rate and the
production string of the well. Using nodal analysis, which mentioned before, can be
beneficial for determining the optimum point to make the conversion, and also the
optimum tubing size to be used.

Figure 4.17 – Intermittent Flow Gas Lift Schematic

55
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

A typical gas lift installation requires certain components:

• An outer gas source with higher pressure.

• A surface injection system with appropriate valves and tubular.

• A surface production system.

• A gas production well with an inner string and gas lift components.

Despite its certain advantages, gas lift installation may not be applicable or feasible in
many liquid producing gas wells due to its basic requirement: an outer high pressure
flowing gas source. Unless the well is close to another gas well producing dry gas at
high rates, or the well itself has another higher pressure gas pay zone; only option left
for gas lift to be utilized is with installation of compressors which has rather high
capital costs and have to be monitored regularly. If the conditions comply, gas lift is a
very useful method for gas wells with high GLR and production rates just under the
critical values. Otherwise, field application of gas lift would unlikely prove useful.

4.7 FOAMING
Foams are used in a wide variety of useful applications in oil business. They are used
in drilling and well completion operations as circulation fluids, fracturing fluids and
more.

Foams are also used in producing gas wells as a medium for removing liquids. The
main difference of using foam as a liquid loading treatment from other applications is
the need to generate the foam the bottom of the hole by injecting surfactants and
mixing with liquids down hole. Foam is basically an emulsion of liquid and gas.
Surface active agents, commonly known as surfactants are used in water to enable
more gas to be dispersed. The excess amount of gas dispersed in liquid results in a
drastic decrease in the density of the liquid, making the reservoir pressure to be able
to lift the foam all the way to the surface. Campbell et al. (2004) describes the effect
of foaming using the critical velocity equation of Turner et al.1.

According to Campbell, the surface tension is reduced, reducing critical velocity

required to remove liquids accumulated at the bottom. Wells having loading problems
with water reacts better to foaming than hydrocarbons since water foams better and
more easily than liquid hydrocarbons. That is due to the polarity of the water

56
O
OVERVIEW OFF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOAD
DING Chapter 4

m
molecules annd the attracction in betw
ween. Also, according to Lea, wellls with GL
LR
between 1000
0 and 8000 scf/bbl are bbetter candiddates for foaaming; thoug
gh there is nno
uppper limit, in
i higher gas/liquid ratioos wells mayy give betteer performannce with otheer
m
methods as bottom
b holee flowing ppressure wouuld be loweer. Althoughh generally a
siimple and innexpensive method,
m condditions such as increasedd complex chemical
c cossts
foor foaming of
o liquid hyydrocarbons, possibility of emulsionn at the botttom hole, annd
thhe possible need
n for an injection
i sysstem to increease efficienncy make thee optimizatioon
of foaming aggents a challenge. Solessa and Sevicc showed thaat for properr optimizatioon
of foaming agents
a in fieeld applicatiions of gas wells with liquid load
ding problem
ms
exxtensive labboratory testts, field triaals and nodaal system aanalysis mayy be requireed
(F
Figure 4.18).

Figgure 4.18 – Flowing Prressure Grad

dient of Waater and Foaam

4.8 BEAM
M PUMPIN
NG
B
Beam pumpiing is maybbe the mostt common method
m useed to lift oiil from wellls
w
worldwide, annd the conventional surface equipm
ment of beam
m pumping iss possibly thhe
best known Image
I for oil
o field operrations. Beaam pumpingg is also a useful
u methood
coommonly ussed in gas wells
w having liquid loadinng, especiallly for the caases where thhe
w is loadin
well ng with liquid hydrocarbons which are
a as valuabble as the prooduced gas. In
I
w
water loadingg gas wells in
i areas wheere water dissposal costs are high, ho
owever; beam
m
puumping mayy not be beneeficial.

5
57
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

The main principle of using beam pumping as a liquid loading solution is installing
the beam pump below the production zone, making it possible to produce liquids from
tubing string and gas from casing (Figure 4.19). Since the gas in the well flows up the
casing to the surface, the well cannot have a packer that would seal the casing/tubing
annulus. A gas anchor may be used below the beam pump to help separating the gas
from the liquid and making it difficult to enter the tubing string. This would prevent
possible gas lock problems with the beam pump. A gas anchor is a simple tool with
perforations that is used to separate gas and make it easier to drain the liquid.

Figure 4.19 – A Simple Beam Pumping System

The beam pumping unit is designed to change rotary motion into reciprocating motion
to give the sucker rods their movement up and down the hole. Beam pumping units
are generally energized with movers using electrical energy. Electricity is preferred
due to the ability of beam pump to put electrical energy to good use by high
efficiency. However, in certain remote areas where electricity can only be provided
with the presence of a generator, a gas driven engine that uses a portion of natural gas
produced from the well can be utilized to power the beam pumping unit.

An important consideration about beam pumping is, as mentioned, keeping the

produced gas from entering the tubing string where liquids are produced. Entrance of
excess amounts of gas into the tubing string may result in gas locking, reduced
efficiency and production.

58
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

The simplest yet maybe the best solution would be setting the end of tubing and
therefore the pump below the perforations. Due to natural movement, gas will quickly
start travelling up the casing while liquids migrate slowly down the hole. However,
there may be cases where setting the pump below the perforations is not possible. In
these cases, using a gas anchor or another type of gas separator below the pump may
keep the produced gas from entering into the tubing string.

Beam pumps are used worldwide in different artificial lift applications, and using
beam pumps can be a useful method for treating gas wells with liquid loading
problems. If gas separation issues are solved properly with the use of down hole gas
separator equipment, beam pumping may lift the accumulated liquids from the bottom
of the well efficiently.

However, if the lifted liquids are water or another liquid that cannot be reused and
need to be disposed; beam pumping may be impractical and expensive especially in
high water disposal cost situations. There are other methods or treatment techniques
that are used in gas well to solve problems due to liquid loading. These methods
include blowing the well down, which is flowing the well to atmosphere, using
electrical submersible pumps for artificial lifting and shutting the well for using the
built up gas pressure to lift liquid as slugs. However, these methods are temporary
measures rather than solutions to liquid loading problems. As an example; blowing
the well down on a regular basis is inefficient due to the need of constant monitoring
and personnel. Also, blowing the well down requires the well to be flown to
atmosphere which would result in gas and liquid to pollute the environment. Electrical
submersible pumps are large applications with high costs and need low gas liquid
ratios that the income from the produced gas cannot cover the operation costs, let
alone the initial capital cost. Therefore, these methods are not mentioned in detail.

4.9 ELECTRIC SUBMERSIBLE PUMP (ESP)

Many different types of pump are available today. Size, capacities, and operating
voltages of a pump vary. The ESP system is composed of an electric motor, a
protector, a gas separator, a pump, and cable. Typically, ESP systems are adjusted for
the high liquid production wells. In a gas well that needs to lift the liquid accumulated
in wellbore, ESP installation can be designed. The design should focus on the

59
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

treatment of gas come in pump assembly. Three different methods to remove liquid in
gas wells are discussed:

• Gas separation before coming to pump assembly by using completions or

special separation techniques;

• Pumping gas at special stage and then move to conventional operation;

• Placing pump below perforation let gas flow up the annulus while water falls by
gravity to the pump intake (liquid re-injected into a formation below packer).

Figure 4.20 ESP System (Schlumberger, 2007).

60
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

4.10 PROGRESSIVE CAVITY PUMP (PCP)

PCP is a type of a sucker rod pumping unit that uses a rotor and a stator. This system
consists of a surface drive, a down hole pump, and a stator that is attached to the
bottom of a production tubing string. The fluid contained in a cavity can be flowed up
by rod rotation using an electric motor at the surface.

Progressing cavity pumps (PCPs) are good artificial-lift pumps. They are positive-
displacement pumps with flexible speed and can handle solids. But the pumps cannot
compress gas. If the pump becomes full of gas at 50 psig, the PCP will compress the
gas up to the pump discharge pressure (1,300 psi in a 3,000-ft well) and the heat of
compression will coke the elastomer in the stator within seconds. PCPs, however, can
handle a significant amount gas if enough liquid flows through the pump to carry
away the heat of compression. Many operators have had problems with start-stop
pump-off control with PCPs. Sand, coal fines, corrosion products, and other solids
will tend to settle on the top of the pump during the off cycle and can prevent the
pump from starting. PCPs have successfully deliquified gas wells if equipped with
variable-speed drives and the inflow rate was well understood.

4.10.1 Applications
PCP can be applied to the wells producing sand-laden heavy oil and bitumen, high
water-cut wells, and in the gas wells that require dewatering. Operating depth is
somewhat limited, as it is believed that the maximum depth of operation is 6,000ft
(Weatherford, 2007). Well’s deviation is not a factor, so PCP is applicable regardless
of hole deviation.

4.10.2 Advantages / Disadvantages

Solid and gas handling is good or excellent while corrosion handling is just fair. This
system can be installed and operated economically due to low capital investment and
power consumption. Compared to other pumping methods, it is able to operate more
quietly.

61
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

Figure 4.21 PCP System (Schlumberger, 2007).

4.11 JET LIFT / PISTON LIFT

The hydraulic lift systems, jet lift and piston lift, consist of a surface power fluid
system, a prime mover, a surface pump, and a down hole jet or reciprocating/piston
pump. The power fluid (oil or water) is supplied from power-fluid storage in surface
to down hole pump through the wellhead valve. In a piston pump installation, power
fluid actuates the pressurized piston engine on top of the pump, and then the fluid
returns to the surface with accumulated liquid. In case of jet pump, the nozzle works
for converting high-pressure, low velocity energy of the power fluid to high-velocity,
low-pressure energy. In the throat the power fluid is mixed with the low-pressure
pump intake fluid. Then, the velocity energy of this mixed stream is then moved to
the diffuser which converts it to static pressure to provide the pressure necessary to
bring the fluid to the surface.

4.11.1 Applications
These hydraulic pumps are commonly adaptable to all types of wells (deviated,
horizontal, and vertical wells). These systems are efficient in multiple well
installations. The other applications are summarized below:

62
OVERVIEW OF SOLUTIONS TO PREVENT LIQUID LOADING Chapter 4

• Applicable to API 10° gravity or higher fluid (Weatherford, 2007);

• Applicable to sandy or fluid containing solids;

• Applicable to high volume and high depth wells.

4.11.2 Advantages / Disadvantages

Both jet and piston pump are easy to maintain. Down hole pumps can be circulated
out for maintenance or can be retrieved by wire line. Paraffin can be handled well by
heating or chemically treating the power fluid. Produced fluids with high sand content
or other abrasives may cause problems. Initial costs for pumping installation are high,
and operation and maintenance works are not easier than the sucker rod pump system.

Fig. 4.22 Hydraulic pumping

63
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

CHAPTER 5
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS-WELL
DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Selection of the best method for deliquification of natural gas wells is of considerable
importance and has plays one of the very important role in mitigating and removing
liquid loaded in the gas wells. A proprietary planning tool, the Liquid Unloading
Selector is one of the very often used logical and totally unbiased recommendations of
lift solutions for gas-well deliquification. Weatherford is the only lift service provider
that sells all forms of lift; so decisions and recommendations are not constrained by a
limited product and service offering. Weatherford’s complete line of lift products and
hybrid system capabilities ensures exactly the system any client need—no more, no
less. Recognizing the early signs of gas-well liquid loading and proactively selecting
the right lift system can cure the problem before production loss and formation
damage occur. The three most common symptoms of liquid loading.

• Pressure differential between tubing and casing in packer less completions

• Liquid slugging and/or reduced production
• Variance from predicted production decline curve

Figure 5.1 Weatherford’s Liquid Unloading selector

If you are experiencing these symptoms, the Unloading Selector is a simple and
straightforward tool to assist in selecting the most effective and economical lift
solution for your gas-well unloading needs.

64
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

Weatherford’s unloading selector, a logical artificial lift selection process for gas well
deliquification. The unloading selector works by assigning a high or low value to each
of four readily available surface-gathered data points; liquid rate, flowing tubing
pressure, water cut percentage and gas liquid ratio.

All the information gathered from theoretical findings and field trials related to
solving production problems associated with liquid loading can be summarized to
systematically approach a gas well to find the proper solution. This attempt leads to
the development of the following decision tree.

Table 5.1- Shows selection using Weatherford’s Liquid Unloader

5.2 FOAM FOR GAS WELL DELIQUIFICATION

5.2.1 Introduction
Foam-lift systems alter the physical properties of the produced fluid by applying
surfactant. Surface tension and apparent liquid density are altered to reduce the
critical velocity needed to lift the water from the system. The surfactants react with
water; so application is effectively limited to wells in which most of the liquid phase
is water rather than hydrocarbon. Foam-lift systems excel in deliquification of low-
reservoir-pressure wells that need to be continuously produced to high line pressures
and when tubing restrictions or tapered strings hamper plunger-lift application.

Foam-lift systems alter the physical properties of the produced fluid by applying
surfactants. Surface tension and apparent liquid density are altered to reduce the

65
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

critical velocity needed to lift water from the system. The surfactants react with water;
so application is effectively limited to wells in which most of the liquid phase is water
rather than hydrocarbon. Foam-lift systems excel in deliquification of low-reservoir-
pressure wells that need to be continuously produced to high line pressures and when
tubing restrictions or tapered strings hamper plunger-lift application.

Foam is used to remove liquid loading up in gas well and increase gas production.
The experimental methods were developed to stimulate the foam deliquification
process. Effects of temperature, hydrocarbon, brine and particle on foam were
studied. Foam height was reduced with increasing temperature, presence of
hydrocarbon, brine, particles and demulsifier. A foam model was also developed to
predict the foam unloading application for gas well with consideration of reduction of
surface tension and fluid density by the foam.

Foams have many applications in oil and gas field. They are used in drilling fluids,
fracturing fluids and enhancing oil recovery. Foam is also widely used in deliquifying
gas wells. Gas becomes more important energy since the demand for natural gas as a
clean hydrocarbon source has grown worldwide. As natural gas is extracted, reservoir
pressures decline, resulting in, reduced gas flow rates. Gas wells normally have
associated water. When velocities are low enough, liquid holdup is higher in this flow
regime. The gas production will decrease. There are several ways to solve this
problem, i.e. mechanical or chemical methods. For mechanical method, artificial
pump lift may be used. For chemical method, foam can be used. The foam is the
easiest and most economic method to try firstly. The addition of surfactant leads to
decrease of the surface tension and formation of foam that has much lower density
than the bulk liquid. As demonstrated below, both of these factors facilitate the
deliquification of the gas wells. The foam is effective in transporting the liquid to the
surface in gas wells with very low gas rates.

Hydrocarbon condensate, brine and high temperature in down hole have negative
effect on foam generation. Hence, laboratory test of actual produced fluid is needed to
evaluate the effectiveness of foamer. Studies have been done on the foamer and
corrosion inhibitor combination. No systemic studies of various experimental
conditions have been done yet. In this work, various factors, such as temperature,

66
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

brine, hydrocarbon, demulsifier and particles were studied. A modified model was
used to predict the possibility of foam unloading liquid in down hole.

5.2.2 Experimental work

5.2.2.1 Materials
Anionic surfactant, sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) and cationic surfactant, dodecyl
trimethyl ammonium chloride (DTAC), from Aldrich were used as model surfactant.
DMO2327 is a demulsifier from Baker Petrolite Co. Heptane, decane and
cyclohexane were purchased from Aldrich Co. Field condensate and brine from
various gas wells of US were used in testing. Aqueous phase was either de-ionized
water or 0.5 M NaCl brine solution.

5.2.2.2 Foam Measurements

The foam test apparatus is shown in figure 5.2 which is a modified set up of US
Bureau of Mines. A volume of 100 ml of fluid at various hydrocarbon/water ratio was
added into a thermo jacket column (77 cm × 5 cm) with medium fret. The nitrogen
was used as gas to create the foam at a fixed flow rate of 15 ft3/h (i.e. 0.425 m3/h).
The amount of liquid unloaded by foam at 5 min was used to quantify the effectives
of the foam.

Foam density was determined by measuring the height of the foam after agitation of the
mixture in a blender. One hundred millilitres of synthetic or produced fluid at a desired
water/condensate ratio of the well was agitated at a low speed for 1 min at room
temperature. The volume of total fluids and foam was immediately measured. The time
at which the foam reduced to half its initial height was recorded as the foam half-life.

Figure 5.2 Dynamic foam testing apparatus for gas well deliquefication.

67
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

The high temperature foam test was conducted in a special foam generation apparatus
under high pressure as shown in figure 5.3 Temperature of the column was
maintained inside oven. The foam was generated in a quartz column in room
temperature (20 °C) and high temperature (120 °C). Heptane as model hydrocarbon
and 0.5 M NaCl as brine solution were used. The ratio of hydrocarbon and brine was
10/90. Nitrogen gas for generation foam was used for 10 s under pressure of 3 MPa.
Fifteen millilitres solution was used as test fluid. The foam height and half-life was
observed visually through window of the oven.

Figure 5.3 Foam testing apparatus in high temperature and pressure.

5.2.2.3 Dynamic Surface tension Measurements

Dynamic surface tension is a function of the diffusion rate of the surfactant and is
dependent upon the method of measurement. For this paper, the maximum bubble
pressure method was used due to its ability to function in a dynamic regime with a
bubble rate chosen to simulate the conditions encountered in gas production.

Dynamic surface tension instrument was made by SensaDyne Instrument, AZ, USA.
In the maximum bubble pressure technique, a small glass capillary (0.25 mm
diameter) is immersed into the fluid of interest kept at a constant temperature.
Nitrogen is bubbled into the solution at a fixed flow rate and the pressure for bubble
detachment is measured. To correct for differences in immersion depth, a larger glass
capillary (4.0 mm diameter) is also immersed in the solution and the detachment
bubble pressure is used as a reference. In this work, the surface tension measurements
were reported when the flow rate of the nitrogen is kept at a precise mass flow rate of
10 bubbles per second.

68
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

5.2.3 Results and Discussion

The foam column test figure 5.2 was used to stimulate the foam deliquification
process in the gas well. Although actual gas well has much longer tubing length and
higher velocity, it is the easiest and feasible apparatus to stimulate the foaming
process in the lab. The reasonable fast and controllable flow rate of 15 ft3/h (i.e.
0.425 m3/h) was used to compare the performance of foam under various conditions.
Gas flow at lower rate will not simulate real dynamic condition.

5.2.3.1 Effect of surfactant concentration

In order to generate foam from liquid, surface tension must be lowered, and the foam
film must show a surface elasticity. The surfactant molecule can give both properties.
The amount of liquid unloaded by foam increases with increasing concentration and
reaches the maximum around critical micelles concentration (cmc) as shown in figure
5.4 The surface tension reaches the lowest at or above cmc. Foam generation and
removal of liquid are related to the depletion of surfactant in solution, and lower
surfactant concentration reduces the availability of surfactant in the solution. Hence,
the higher surfactant concentration in solution is, the more foam will be generated and
more liquid will be unloaded. The concentration of surfactants at air–water interface
will reach to maximum at cmc. Above cmc, surfactant will go to solution phase and
forms micelle aggregate. In presence of oil, the situation will be different since the
oil/water will form emulsion and consumes more surfactants. The amount of excess
surfactants absorbed at oil–water interface is depended on emulsion droplet size and
amount. Hence, more surfactants are needed. However, excess surfactant is
undesirable since it will form high viscose and stable foam, which creates problem on
surface separator and decreases the unloading efficiency.

69
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

Figure 5.4 Amount of liquid unloaded by foam and dynamic surface tension
reduction vs. concentration for SDS at 25 °C in DI water.
5.2.3.2 Effect of Brine
The amount of liquid unloaded in brine solution (0.5 M NaCl) was reduced by 30% as
compared to that of liquid unloaded in DI water. Maximum unloading water is
attained when the number of bubble formed is equal to the number of broken bubbles.
The sodium chloride brine solution has two effects on foam unloading of water.
Firstly, it reduces thickness of foam film by compressing electrically double layer of
ionic surfactants. Hence, it decreases the volume of plateau borders and decreases the
volume fraction of water in the foam. In addition, it suppresses electrostatic
stabilization and makes the film easier to rupture. Secondly, it forms denser
adsorption layers. Outflow of surfactant with the generated foam is faster, and
exhaustion of the surfactant in the cylinder is also fast, which results in film rupturing.

5.2.3.3 Effect of hydrocarbon condensate

Hydrocarbon reduces the foam amount as shown in figure 5.5. The oil acts as
antifoam and also forms emulsion which will reduce the effective of surfactants as
foamer. The mechanism of oil as antifoam has been studied by Denkov. There are two
mechanisms, one is fast antifoam and one is slow antifoam. In some of gas field
condensate, even 1% of hydrocarbon condensate could completely destroy the foam.
It is related to fast antifoam mechanism. Fast antifoams rupture the foam films at the

70
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

early stages of film thinning. Hence, the foam was destroyed completely in less than a
minute by “bridging” mechanisms, which forms oil bridges between the two surfaces
of the foam thin film. The phenomena can be explained by capillary theory. The slow
antifoams are unable to enter the surfaces of the foam films and are first expelled into
the plateau borders as shown in figure 5.6. When it is compressed by the narrowing
walls of the plateau borders, oil dropet of the slow antifoams will enter the solution
surface and destroy the adjacent foam films. The process of foam destruction by slow
antifoams requires much longer time. The barrier preventing the emergence of
emulsified antifoam oil droplet on solution surface is important for foam destruction.
For major component of gas condensate studied, the amount of liquid unloaded by
foam was shown in table 5.2 below. In this case, it is obviously a slow antifoam
process for the light hydrocarbon. Hence, foam can carry over the oil droplet
containing liquid thin film to the top of column.

Figure 5.5 Effect of condensate on foam unloading of SDS surfactant (1000 ppm)
at 70 °C.

Figure 5.6 Illustration of oil droplet in foam thin film and move toward plateau
borders

71
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

Table 5.2 Liquid unloaded by foam in model hydrocarbon/0.5 M NaCl (10/90) by

DTAC

Model Hydrocarbon Liquid unloading% by foam

Heptane 53

Decane 49

Cyclohexane 57

A very high percentage (>80%) of condensate is also possible in certain gas wells. In
such case, special surfactants, such as fluorocarbon surfactant can be used.

5.2.3.4 Effect of demulsifer

Formation of emulsion is undesirable during the oil and gas productions. Emulsion
increases viscosity of produced fluid, and prohibits the refining of hydrocarbon.
Hence, demulsifiers are often added. In this work, presence of demulsifier was studied
to see its effect on foam. The phenolic resin alkoxylate demusifier, DMO2327, was
used. Hydrocarbon condensate from an east Texas well was used. The results of foam
unloading are shown in table 5.3, the presence of demulsifier has negative effect on
foam. This is because the demusifier as surface-active agent also adsorbs at air–water
interface. However, the packing of demulsifier on surface is not condensed, and it
increases in the intermolecular distance between foamer molecules in the adsorbed
film. The surface viscosity and elasticity resulting is significantly decreased. In
addition, formation of bigger droplet in the presence of demulsifiers breaks the foam
thin film and Plateau borders. Hence, the foam generation and stability is greatly
reduced in the presence of demulsifier.

Table 5.3Effect of demulsifier on foam by 1500 ppm SDS

Hydrocarbon/0.5 M NaCl solution (10/90 Liquid unloading% by foam

No demulsifier 50

1% demulsifier 45

3% demulsifier 35

72
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

5.2.3.5 Effect of in produced fluids

The undissolved particle (0.2–1 μm) also affects foam generation. In a lab experiment
with water/condensate (1/1), foam cannot be unloaded from produced water
containing just 1% clay particles. After removing the particle by filtering the water
through 0.2 μm membrane, foam can be generated and unload 30% water. The
mechanism of particle antifoam is similar to oil droplet antifoaming mode. The
particle forms bridge on foam film, and results in rupturing of the thin film. This is
related to wettability contact angle. In presence of hydrocarbon, oil droplets
containing particle easily enter and spread on foam surfaces, making it easier to
breaks the foam film. Although it is unusual to have particles presence in the
produced fluid, it could be handled by selecting different surfactants to alter the
wettability of the particles and still maintains the foam.

5.2.3.6 Effect of temperature

Bottom hole temperature of gas well can be very high. Hence, performance of foamer
was studied at high temperature. The laboratory test has to be under high pressure to
prevent evaporation at high temperature. The stimulation of liquid removal by foam is
difficulty to run in such closed high pressure system, hence only foam height and half
time was determined. The resulting foam height was shown in figure 5.7. It can be
seen that foam height decreases at higher temperature. The half-life is especially short
compared to lower temperature one. This could be due to the fast desorption of
surfactant from thin film at high temperature, and the stability of foam was drastically
decreased. Some surfactants under such high temperature could also be chemically
decomposed. In such case, foaming ability and surface activity was also lost.

Figure 5.7 Effect of temperature on foam height and half-life with DTAC surfactant.

73
SELECTION STR
RATEGY FOR MAJOR
M GAS‐W
WELL DELIQUIFFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

5.2.3.7 Foam
m unloading model
T
Taitel et al. developed a simple
s Eq.1 to characteriize the transition to annu
ular flow.

………
………………
…..(1)
Inn the equatioon above, USG is the gaas superficiaal velocity, ρG the gas density,
d ρL thhe
liquid density
y, σ the gas liquid
l surfacce tension an
nd g is the accceleration due
d to gravityy.
T
This equation
n is a modiffication to E
Eq.2 by Turnner et al. annd Coleman et al. used to
t
esstimate the critical
c veloccity, νgc, at w
which gas un
nloads liquid from a gas well.
w

……
……………………(2)

T symbolss are the sam

The me as in Eqq.1. All parrameters aboove can be measured by
b
exxperiment. The
T equationn was furtheer modified by
b Ramachaandran and co-workers
c t
to
acccount for thhe presence of foam. Thhe basis of thhe modificattion was to treat
t the foam
m
inn a gas well as modified liquid phasee. A schemattic diagram showing thee foam flow in
i
a gas well is shown
s in fig
gure 5.8

Figure 5.8 Illustration

I of liquid drroplet modeel from Turner et al. an
nd modified
d
model forr surfactantt foamers.
U
Using surfacttants can moodify the flow
w regimes in
n a gas well to allow thee annular flow
reegime to occcur in a welll at lower gaas superficiaal velocities. It is well knnown that thhe
su
urface tensioon of liquidd in the pressence of surrfactant is loower than pure
p liquid, in
i
adddition denssity of foam
m is also loower than liquid.
l Hencce, the requuired minim
mal
crritical veloccity to remove the liquiid is reducedd with foam
m, otherwisee, large liquiid

7
74
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

accumulation in gas well tube will occur and high multiphase flow pressure losses.
The example of foam unloading liquid predicted by the equation was shown in figure
5.9. It can be seen that actual gas well velocity (22 ft/s), measured by flow meter, is
lower than critical velocity (29 ft/s) required to unload the liquid without surfactant.
In the presence of surfactant foamer (SDS), the critical velocity required is lower, and
below the actual gas well velocity at addition of 360 ppm foamer. Hence, above this
surfactant concentration, the gas well liquid can be unloaded at that “unloaded point”.

The modified foam model predicts the feasibility of foamer to unload the specific gas
well with foamer treatment.

Figure 5.9 Plot of velocity, Vg, vs. SDS concentration, calculated with Eq.2.
5.2.4 Conclusion
Dynamic foam column test was used to stimulate the foam deliquification process.
Foam height was reduced with increasing temperature, brine, presence of
hydrocarbon, demulsifier and particle. Foam model can be used to predict the foam
unloading application for gas well.

75
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

5.3 PLUNGER-LIFT SYSTEMS

5.3.1 Introduction
As a gas well depletes, gas velocity is insufficient to naturally carry liquid
accumulations from the wellbore. However, energy in the system is still sufficient for
the well to flow naturally. This is when plunger- and foam-lift systems should be
installed, as both use the well's own internal energy to unload liquids. Installing and
operating a plunger-lift system is simple and low cost. It efficiently and reliably
unloads gas wells and often is the choice that generates the most value over the
deliquification life cycle of a gas reservoir.

Plunger-lift technology uses a mechanical interface (piston), which cycles up and

down the production tubing string to remove accumulated liquids. The other key
components of the system are a logic controller, a surface lubricator and bumper
springs to absorb the energy of the plunger at the top and bottom of the well.
Inexpensive to install and operate, and completely tolerant of

All produced liquid phases; plunger lift is the unloading system of choice in most
fields with low-surface operating pressures and in high-pressure gas wells, where the
hydrocarbon phase of the produced liquid is low.

Plunger Lift Systems consist of a plunger, often referred to as a piston, two bumper
springs, a lubricator to sense and stop the plunger as it arrives at the surface, and a
surface controller of which several types are available. Various ancillary and
accessory components are used to complement and support various application needs.
In a typical plunger lift operation, the plunger cycles between the lower bumper
spring located in the bottom section of the production tubing string and the upper
bumper spring located in the surface lubricator on top of the wellhead. In some
applications, the lower bumper spring is placed above a gas lift mandrel. As the
plunger travels to the surface, it creates a solid interface between the lifted gas below
and produced fluid above to maximize lifting energy.

The plunger travels from the bottom of the well to the surface lubricator on the
wellhead when the force of the lifting gas energy below the plunger is greater than the
liquid load above the plunger. Any gas that bypasses the plunger during the lifting
cycle flows up the production tubing and sweeps the area to minimize liquid fallback.

76
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

The incrementation of the travel cycle is controlled by a surface controller and may be
repeated as often as needed.

Figure 5.10 Plunger lift surface Installation

Figure 5.11 Plunger lift Subsurface Mechanism

77
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

5.3.2 Rapid Flo Plunger

When flow rate initially drops below a well's critical velocity, there is often still
sufficient system energy to cycle a continuous-flow plunger in the well, and little to
no shut-in time is required. A unique bypass valve enables Weatherford’s RapidFlo
plunger to maximize unloads flow time in wells that are just beginning to liquid-load.

5.3.3 Hybrid Gas Lift-Plunger Lift

Conventional plunger-lift systems can be easily and inexpensively augmented with
gas lift. Lift gas is injected in a timely manner, before the lift cycle, providing the
extra energy to lift the plunger. In particular, deep, intermittent plunger-lift
installations can realize significant increased liquid recovery and recoverable reserves.

5.3.4 Staged and Progressive Plunger Lift

When building enough energy to cycle a plunger from the bottom of the well to the
top takes too much time, progressive plunger lift uses basic intermittent plunger-lift
equipment; however, as many as three or four plungers are simultaneously staged and
cycled in the same well. This technique is used primarily in wells with gas liquid
ratios insufficient to lift a conventional plunger, wells that shut in on arrival, and wells
so depleted that a plunger cannot be lifted the full length of the completion.

78
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

Figure 5.12 Selection strategy for Plunger Lift Analysis

79
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

Figure 5.13 Unloading selector results for Plunger Lift system

5.3.5 Plunger Lift System Applications

• Unload wells that continue to load up with produced wellbore fluids

• Reduce fallback of fluids in flowing wells

• Increase production in wells with emulsion problems

• Clean the tubing ID in wells experiencing paraffin or other tubing deposit

problems

• Eliminates need for soap

5.3.6 Plunger Lift System Advantages

• High system efficiency for better control of lifting costs
• Fully integrated package of products, experienced field technicians and
analytical program support

• Variety of plunger designs including, solid, spiral, continuous flow and special
applications including subsurface safety valve options

• Wide range of metallurgy for special applications

• Lower maintenance costs
• Lower repair costs

80
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

• Superior unloading efficiency for wells that load up with produced fluids
• Customized maintenance program increases and stabilizes production for the
life of the well

• Convenient customer service locations in every major oil-producing area of

the world.

5.3.7 Production Optimization for Plunger Systems

• Complete automation suite with EFM capacity
• Surface controls, from variable time-cycle controllers to motor valves and chokes

• Plunger lift controllers for optimal production enhancement

• Historical data stored includes:
o Number of plunger travels
o Total plunger arrivals
o Plunger arrival time
o Accumulated sales time

Table 5.4 Important parameters to e considered for Plunger lift

81
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

82
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

Figure 5.14 Computer program for plunger design(Weatherford)

5.4 POSITIVE-DISPLACEMENT LIFT SYSTEMS

A gas well ultimately depletes to the extent that gas volume or pressure build rate is
insufficient for intermittent plunger lift or foam lift to work and bottom hole pressure
is inadequate to support gas-lift pressures. This is when positive-displacement lift
systems are deployed. They may not be the least expensive lift systems to install and
operate, but they are the only forms of lift that are able to deplete liquid-producing gas
wells to their lowest possible abandonment pressure.

Figure 5.15 Unloading selector results for positive displacement system

83
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

5.5 FLUID-POWER LIFT SYSTEMS

While not always an obvious choice, a fluid-power lift system can be an extremely
economical solution for gas-well liquid loading problems. These systems use either
liquid or gaseous fluids to generate lift capacity to carry liquids from a well.

Figure 5.16 Selection strategy for fluid-power lift analyses

Figure 5.17 Unloading selector results for fluid-power lift system

84
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

5.6 GAS LIFT SYSTEMS

Gas Lift is the method of artificial lift which utilizes an external source of high
pressure gas for supplementing formation gas to reduce the bottom hole pressure and
lift the well fluids. The primary consideration in the selection of a gas lift system for
lifting a well, group of wells, or an entire field, is the availability of gas and the cost
of compression. Gas-lifted production is essentially artificially enhanced natural flow.
It is a viable unloading solution for wells with higher-volume liquid production when
a convenient source of high-pressure lift supply gas is nearby. Gas lift has the
advantage of being able to work unobtrusively in wells with deviation, solids
production and subsurface safety valves. Lift gas can be injected continuously into the
production stream to maintain gas velocity so that the well can continue to unload
liquids. Alternatively, intermittent gas lift is a cyclic form of lift used to unload lower-
pressured reservoirs. It can be combined with plunger lift to form a hybrid-lift system
to improve conventional intermittent-lift efficiency or to operate a plunger-lift system
where additional energy is required.

Gas-lifted production is essentially artificially enhanced natural flow. It is a viable

unloading solution for wells with higher-volume liquid production when a convenient
source of high-pressure lift supply gas is nearby. Gas lift has the advantage of being
able to work unobtrusively in wells with deviation, solids production and subsurface
safety valves. Lift gas can be injected continuously into the production stream to
maintain gas velocity so that the well can continue to unload liquids. Alternatively,
intermittent gas lift is a cyclic form of lift used to unload lower-pressured reservoirs.
It can be combined with plunger lift to form a hybrid-lift system to improve
conventional intermittent-lift efficiency or to operate a plunger-lift system where
additional energy is required.

Gas lift is particularly applicable for lifting wells where high-pressure gas that is
suitable for gas lift operations is available. Gas compressors may have been installed
for gas injection or as booster compressors. High-pressure gas wells may be an
available source of high-pressure gas. The cost of compression far exceeds the cost of
subsurface gas lift equipment. Gas lift should be the first consideration when an
adequate volume of high-pressure gas is available for lifting wells requiring artificial

85
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

lift. Most wells can be depleted by gas lift. This is particularly true since the
implementation of reservoir pressure maintenance programs in most major oil fields.

Figure 5.18 Basic Gas Lift Components

5.6.1 Considerations for Gas Lift Design and Operations

If a well can be gas lifted by continuous flow, this form of gas lift should be used to
ensure a constant injection gas circulation rate within the closed loop of a rotative gas
lift system. Continuous flow reduces the probability of pressure surges in the flowing
bottom hole pressure, flow line and the low and high pressure surface facilities that
occur with intermittent gas lift operations. Over-design rather than under-design of the
gas lift valve spacing is always recommended when the well data are questionable.
The subsurface gas lift equipment in the well is the least expensive portion of a closed
rotative gas lift system. The larger OD gas lift valves are recommended for lifting
high rate wells. The superior injection gas volumetric throughput performance of the
1-1/2 inch OD gas lift valve as compared to the 1-inch OD valve is an important
consideration for gas lift installations requiring a high injection gas volumetric rate
into the production conduit.

86
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

Most gas lift installation designs include several safety factors to compensate for
errors in well information and to allow for an increase in the injection gas pressure to
open (adequately stroke) the unloading and operating gas lift valves. It is difficult to
properly design or analyze a gas lift installation without understanding the operating
characteristics of the gas lift valves in a well. The operators should be familiar with
the construction and operating principles of the gas lift valves in their wells. When an
installation is properly designed, all gas lift valves above an operating valve will be
closed and all valves below will be open in a continuous flow installation.

A large bore seating nipple which is designed to receive a lock is recommended near
the lower end of the tubing for many gas lift installations. There are numerous
applications for a seating nipple which include installation of a standing valve for
testing the tubing and the gas lift valve checks. A standing valve may be needed in an
intermittent gas lift installation. A wireline lock provides the means to secure and
packoff a bottom hole pressure gauge for conducting pressure transient tests, etc. The
lock assembly should have an equalizing valve if the tubing will be blanked-off. The
pressure across the lock can be equalized before the lock is disengaged from the
nipple to prevent the wireline tool string from being blown up the hole.

5.6.2 Continuous Flow Unloading Sequence

After a well is completed or worked over, the fluid level in the casing and tubing is
usually at or near the surface. The gas lift pressure available to unload the well is
generally not sufficient to unload fluid to the desired depth for gas injection. This is
because the pressure caused by the static column of fluid in the well at the desired
depth of injection is greater than the available gas pressure at the depth of injection. In
this case a series of unloading gas lift valves are installed in the well. These valves are
designed to use the available gas injection pressure to unload the well until the desired
depth of injection is achieved. Figure 5.19 through figure 5.26 details the unloading
sequence in a continuous flow gas lift well.

87
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

Figure 5.19 Fluid level in the casing and tubing (no gas is being injected)

The figure 5.19 shows the fluid level in the casing and the tubing is at surface. No gas
is being injected into the casing and no fluid is being produced. All the gas lift valves
are open. The pressure to open the valves is provided by the weight of the fluid in the
casing and tubing.

Note that the fluid level in the tubing and casing will be determined by the shut in
bottom hole pressure (SIBHP) and the hydrostatic head or weight of the column of
fluid which is in turn determined by the density. Water has a greater density than oil
and thus the fluid level of a column of water will be lower than that of oil.

Figure 5.20 Gas injection into the casing begins

88
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

The figure 5.20 shows the Gas injection into the casing has begun. Fluid is U-tubed
through all the open gas lift valves. No formation fluids are being produced because the
pressure in the wellbore at perforation depth is greater than the reservoir pressure i.e. no
drawdown. All fluid produced is from the casing and the tubing. All fluid unloaded
from the casing passes through the open gas lift valves. Because of this, it is important
that the well be unloaded at a reasonable rate to prevent damage to the gas lift valves.

Figure 5.21Fluid level unloaded

The figure 5.21 shows the fluid level has been unloaded to the top gas lift valve. This
aerates the fluid above the top gas lift valve, decreasing the fluid density. This reduces
the pressure in the tubing at the top gas lift valve, and also reduces pressure in the
tubing at all valves below the top valve. This pressure reduction allows casing fluid
below the top gas lift valve to be U-tubed further down the well and unloaded through
valves 2, 3 and 4. If this reduction in pressure is sufficient to give some drawdown at
the perforations then the well will start to produce formation fluid.

Figure 5.22 Fluid level unloaded above valve 2

89
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

The figure 5.22 shows the fluid level in the annulus has now been unloaded to just
above valve number two. This has been possible due to the increasing volume of gas
passing through number one reducing the pressure in the tubing at valve two thus
enabling the U-tubing process to continue.

Figure 5.23 fluid level in the casing below the gas lift valve

The figure 5.23 shows the fluid level in the casing has been lowered to a point below
the second gas lift valve. The top two gas lift valves are open and gas being injected
through both valves. All valves below also remain open and continue to pass casing
fluid. The tubing has now been unloaded sufficiently to reduce the flowing bottom
hole pressure (FBHP) below that of the shut in bottom hole pressure (SIBHP). This
gives a differential pressure from the reservoir to the wellbore producing a flow of
formation fluid. This pressure differential is called the drawdown

Figure 5.24 Gas injected through the 2nd valve

90
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

The figure 5.24 shows the top gas lift valve is now closed, and all the gas is being
injected through the second valve. When casing pressure operated valves are used a
slight reduction in the casing pressure causes the top valve to close. With fluid
operated and proportional response valves, a reduction in the tubing pressure at valve
depth causes the top valve to close. Unloading the well continues with valves 2, 3 and
4 open and casing fluid being removed through valves 3 and 4.

Figure 5.25 Valve 3 uncovered

The figure 5.25 shows the No. 3 valve has now been uncovered. Valves 2 and 3 are
both open and passing gas. The bottom valve below the fluid level is also open. Note
that the deeper the point of injection the lower the FBHP and thus the greater the
drawdown on the well. As well productivity is directly related to the drawdown then
the deeper the injection the greater the production rate.

Figure 5.26 all the gas is being injected trough valve No. 3

91
SELECTION STRATEGY FOR MAJOR GAS‐WELL DELIQUIFICATION TECHNIQUES Chapter 5

The figure 5.26 shows the No. 2 valve is now closed. All gas is being injected through
valve No 3. Valve No 2 is closed by a reduction in casing pressure for casing operated
valves or a reduction in tubing pressure for fluid operated and proportional response
valves. Valve No 3 is the operating valve in this example. This is because the ability
of the reservoir to produce fluid matches the ability of the tubing to remove fluids
(Inflow/Outflow Performance). The operating valve can either be an orifice valve or
can be a gas lift valve. The valve in mandrel No 4 will remain submerged unless
operating conditions or reservoir conditions change.

92
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

CHAPTER 6
CASE STUDIES

6.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Wells #10 and #28 are two relatively deep vertical gas wells with moderate to serious
liquid loading problems in the same block of ABC field, producing from the same
reservoir. The wells have depths of 10500 and 10300 ft, respectively and both wells
have tubing strings with an outer diameter of 2 7/8 inches as production string in 6
5/8” inch casing. The casing tubing annulus is sealed with a packer at the end of
completion. The general information on the wells #10 & #28 are as follows:

Table 6.1 – General Well Information of #10 and #28

Well # 10 Well # 28

Well Depth 10500 10300

ft

Tubing string Depth ft 9550 9650

Perforation Interval , ft 9720-9760 9800-10010

Casing size , 6 5/8 6 5/8

In

Tubing size, 2 7/8 2 7/8

In

Packer/ Completion Permanent Production P, Permanent Production P,

The reservoir from where both wells are producing gas along with water and
condensate has an average permeability of 1 milli Darcy. Both wells are connected to
a surface pipeline system with a line pressure of 300 psia. Gas samples collected from
the wells show a specific gravity of 0.65 for well #10 and 0.66 for well #28. Also, the
water samples that are gathered from the wells have densities of 8.52 ppg, 8.48 ppg
for well #10 and 8.54 ppg, 8.51 ppg for well #28; so an average density value of 8.5
ppg for water is used in calculations to simplify the model.

93
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

6.2 WELL #10

After producing gas for quite a time, daily gas production rate of well #10 has started
to decline as reservoir pressure depletes. The well has begun showing erratic flow
behavior and eventually, due to the high pressure of the surface lines that #10 has
been flowing in; the well ceased production. The erratic behavior the well has been
showing is, as mentioned earlier, a symptom of possible accumulation of liquids at the
bottom of the well. The ever declining tubing head pressure was another sign
promoting liquid accumulation. Since the well was completed with a packer installed
at the end of the tubing string, the casing pressure could give no indication. In Figure
6.1, tubing head pressure against time clearly shows the erratic flow behavior of the
well.

Figure 6.1 – Tubing Flowing Pressure Showing Erratic Flow in #10

In the light of these clues, our decision tree suggests taking a pressure survey in order
to confirm the presence of liquids in the well. Several pressure surveys with both
static and flowing well conditions have been performed in order to determine if the
well is actually suffering from the liquid loading. In pressure # 1 (Figure 6.2),
performed in static well conditions at a depth of 9500 feet, it is clear there is liquid
accumulation in the production string. According to the survey, the static liquid level
in the well is at 4150 ft.

94
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

Table 6.2 well # 10 Pressure survey#1 sample data

Depth, ft Temperature Pressure, Psia

0 72 1067
1640 82 1109
3280 118 1149
4920 161 1499
6560 199 2200
9190 257 3348
9500 266 3491
After gathering data of the pressure survey, the pressure Vs depth chart can be plotted
to see clearly the pressure gradient of the wellbore and the liquid level.

Figure. 6.2 Pressure survey for well # 10 showing liquid level

After discovering that the problems associated with the well is due to liquids
accumulated at the bottom hole and the inability of the well to lift those accumulated
liquids to surface; Turner’s critical rate equation (1) has been applied:

/ /
1.593 / ………………………….(6.1)

Considering the well produces an average of 550 bbl liquid in a 30 day period and
96% of this produced liquid is water; and taking into account ‐ as mentioned earlier ‐
when water is present at the wellbore as accumulated liquid, even if there are also

95
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

condensed hydrocarbons present, critical velocity should be calculated according to

water since the water density is higher than condensate, thus making it sure that the
result of the equation will be adequate for condensate, also. Using bottom‐hole
conditions as proposed in the theory, gas compressibility “z” is calculated as 0.74.
Surface tension of water under bottom hole conditions is taken as 60 dynes/cm. The
well data gathered is applied to the equation without the 20% adjustment which would
actually be Coleman’s2 equation:

. / . . / /
/ …………………………. (6.2)
. /

. . . /
/ …………………………. (6.3)
.

Adding the 20% adjustment as Turner stated, the equation becomes:

. . . /
/ …………………………. (6.4)
.

The well starts slugging and loading up when flowing to the surface line with a
pressure of 300 psia and although the well is kept unloaded with a combination
method of blowing the well down and flowing the well intermittently into the surface
pipeline, it starts loading‐up after a short while. The production data gathered as the
well is blown down to atmosphere shows that the well has a potential daily production
rate of 0.6 MMscf/d when flowing on 24/64 choke with a pressure of 210 psia and
1.05 MMscf/d when the well is flowing full open with a flowing pressure of 80 psia at
the wellhead.

Using the critical rate equations of both Turner et al and Coleman et al, critical rate
required for different tubing sizes are plotted in figure 6.3 and 6.4

96
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

Figure 6.3- Turner et al.’s Critical flow rate for different tubing sizes

Figure 6.4- Coleman et al.’s Critical flow rate for different tubing sizes

Coleman et al. suggested in their studies that for high flowing wellhead pressures
Turner et al.’s 20% upward adjustment may be required but for wells with low
flowing wellhead pressure the adjustment is unnecessary. After examining the critical
rate plots and comparing with actual well data, it is seen that although the actual gas
flow rate values are close to Coleman et al.’s critical rate estimations, the well is
unable to lift the liquids in the flow path entirely. The more recent study of Sutton et

97
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

al. shows that the 20% upward adjustment should be used to ensure the entire flow
path (production string) is free of liquids. The flow data gathered during a blow‐down
operation showed that the well is flowing with a rate of 1.05 MMscf/d and a flowing
tubing head pressure (FTHP) of 80 psia. In these conditions, the well is able to lift the
liquids accumulated at the bottom, but when it is flowing into the surface pipeline
which has a pressure of 300 psia, the well starts loading due to backpressure caused
by the high pressure of the surface line. The well may need certain artificial lift
methods in the future, but it is clear from the data and the plots generated using
critical rate equations that the flowrate of the well is at the borderline and with a
relatively inexpensive tubing sizing operation or velocity string installation it can
match the required critical rate. Inflow performance curve is calculated from single
point tests. As for tubing performance curves, a 3rd party program “Pipephase” is
used to construct the curves to predict the required tubing size. Assuming the pressure
of the surface lines will remain unchanged at 300 psia; the nodal analysis with inflow
performance and outflow tubing curves are constructed. IPR curves are plotted with
and without turbulence effects, and TPR curves are plotted for various tubing sizes
ranging from 1.66” to 3 ½” including the current tubing size. The generated Nodal
Analysis curves are shown in Figure 6.3.

As can be seen in the nodal analysis and the critical flow chart shown in Figure 6.3;
the cross points of IPR & TPR curves are under critical conditions according to
Turner et al.’s model. The plot shows that for tubing string with diameters larger than
2 3/8 inches, the flowing bottom hole pressure values give indications of loading.
Examining the data gathered from nodal analysis, selecting a smaller size tubing
string will help the unloading process.

98
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

Figure 6.5 – Nodal Analysis for #10 with Different Tubing Sizes

6.3 WELL #28

Similar to well #10, well #28 is a gas production well that started having problems
due to liquid accumulation. The well has been showing erratic flow behavior also
(Figure 6.6), and as reservoir pressure continues to decline, #28 is struggling with
liquid loading problems as the liquids accumulated at the bottom cannot be lifted
properly. The case in well #10 showed that even with proper tubing sizing and
reducing the wellhead flowing pressure, the solution would be relatively temporary
depending on the remaining energy of the formation. That would lead to the
conclusion that the remaining energy of the formation is on the verge of inability to
lift the liquid accumulated at the bottom of the wellbore. Unable to produce
effectively on its own due to severe liquid loading problems, the next step in the
decision tree is followed to compare various methods for looking for a permanent
solution on liquid loading.

99
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

Figure 6.6 – Erratic Flow Behavior shown in Pressure vs. Time Graph of #28

Like the former well, a pressure survey in static conditions has been carried out to
confirm the indications of liquid loading in the well, and also determine the pressure
at the bottom, as shown in Figure 6.7. The pressure survey done in #28 showed that
the liquid level is deeper than that of #10. The liquid level is at 7200 ft which
indicated the reservoir pressure is lower, pointing out the need to find a different
solution to the matter.

Figure 6.7- Pressure survey for # 28 showing level

Using the data at hand, inflow and out flow curves that belong to well # 28 has been
plotted using the same procedure as in well#10. In Figure 6.8, nodal analysis with
different tubing sizes is shown to observe he conditions with various tubing
diameters.

100
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

Figure 6.8- Nodal Analysis for # with different tubing sizes

As it can be clearly seen from nodal analysis, the inflow performance of the well # 28
is low due to lower reservoir pressure. The analysis also shows that outflow curves
that belong to different tubing sizes are close to each other with the exception of 1.66”
out-diameter tubing. As mentioned, since the reservoir pressure is quite low and the
reservoir is depleting and keeping in mind that the well is flowing with a pressure of
20-25 psia when open to atmosphere; a lift method should be selected instead of
installing a smaller diameter tubing string, since a smaller diameter tubing string will
become insufficient after a short time. Figure 6.9 shows the comparison of actual flow
rates with turner’s critical rates at the junction points of IPR-TPR curves for various
tubing sizes. The graph simply shows that the “ideal” conditions will not meet critical
conditions due to low deliverability

101
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

Figure 6.9- Actual Rates vs. Critical Rates for well # 28

According to Lea et al, as mentioned earlier, selecting the proper artificial lift to solve
liquid loading problems is mostly a matter of the gas/liquid ratio of the well. I order to
determine the GLR of the well; gas and liquid production rates have been recorded.
Table 6.3 shows a portion of production data which gives different values at different
times.

Table 6.3 – Production Data of Well #28

Days Gas Rate, MMscf/day Liquid Production, bbl GLR, scf/bbl

1 0.751 11 51915

2 0.592 12 49296

3 0.585 10 58477

4 0.544 9 60459

5 0.544 10 54441

10 0.523 9 63315

15 0.591 4 147269

20 0.483 0 -
The erratic flow behavior can be clearly seen from the production data also. It is seen
in Figure 6.10 that the well is lifting some of the liquids initially since the gas rate is
relatively high and as rate decline the liquid lifted to surface is decreasing and rate

102
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

starts declining even more shortly after that. Also, from Figure 6.10 it can be seen that
daily condensate production is very low compared to water, so it’s fair to take all the
liquid accumulation as water since; as stated before, due to higher density of water.
Plotting gas production rate along with liquid production would help to see the effects
of loading on the rate more clearly:

Figure 6.10 – Gas and Liquid Production Chart of #28

It is clear in the plot that the liquid is accumulated in the production string as the well
continues to flow and after a while the backpressure caused by the hydrostatic
pressure of the liquid column causes bubble flow in the well so that no liquids are
lifted as the gas rate declines. Around the 33rd day, the well is blown‐down to flare as
a remedial measure to get rid of the liquids accumulated in the production string; and
as a result gas rate increases sharply and liquids are lifted once again. It can be said
that blowing the well down is successful as the gas rate is increased but since
blow‐down is not a long‐term solution but only a remedial treatment that requires
constant monitoring and manpower. Also, blowing down the well would be temporary
since as blow‐down, liquids continue to enter the well as some of them are lifted to
surface, the most still accumulate down at the bottom of the well as the production
data and the continued erratic flow behavior is evidence to that condition. Following
the decision tree in order to find a more “permanent” solution to the issue at hand, the
next step is to determine possibility of a gas lift application. Knowing that gas lift
requires an outer high pressure gas source to inject to the well having liquid problems;
the lack of an outer high pressure source near #28 makes this installation costly and
103
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

inapplicable. Since gas lift application is not the logical choice, gas/liquid ratio of the
gas well should be determined as the decision tree suggests. According to gas and
liquid production data, the well has an average GLR value of 50000 scf/bbl. The high
GLR makes it nearly impossible to use pumps because of the high probability of
gas‐locking. The GLR is too high, meaning there is too much gas in the well as
opposed to liquids that beam pumps, ESPs, and such will have severe gas interference
problems like gas locking. Another possibility is to inject surfactants down the string
which is also known as foaming. According to Lea et al., the wells with GLR between
1000 and 8000 scf/bbl are better candidates for foaming, and although there is no
upper limit; the wells with higher GLR will work best with other methods such as
plunger lift or compression. Deciding between plunger lift and compression is more
of a question of capital and operational costs and logistic availability than
technicality. Plunger lift application, the low capital cost solution, is seen to be the
best option to follow according to the wishes of the client.

As, the high GLR of the well #28 makes it a better candidate for plunger lift, as
mentioned above, the only problem is that for plunger lift, packerless completions are
favored due to increased capacity of wellbore storage. The entire casing volume could
be used to store gas during pressure build‐up period and during flow gas rate would be
higher. The well #28 has a permanent production packer installed at the end of tubing.
Although this restricts the amount of gas and requires a higher GLR than packerless
completions do; the plunger lift feasibility charts (in Appendix A) show that the high
GLR of the well is a benefit and plunger lift would be feasible even with a packer
installed. With a 10000 ft production string, according the feasibility charts, it
requires a minimum gas liquid ratio of 4000 scf/bbl for a packerless completion and
6000 scf/bbl with packer installed. The well is clearly a good candidate for plunger
lift, although it is completed with a packer. However, because of the common
problems associated with plungers, the plunger lift has not been installed due to the
possibility of a stuck plunger. The risk of a stuck plunger in the tubing string would
lead to high costs of possible workover operations in well #28 and therefore it is
thought that the risk of a stuck plunger that would need fishing operations will
endanger the well and may even cause the loss of the well. In the light of these
possibilities, a new approach has been proposed which is installing the automated
logic controlled wellhead to the well #28 without the plunger and its components,

104
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

creating an automated intermittent flow in the well. The idea is based upon the
working mechanisms of plunger lift and gas lift installations. The need of a motorized
valve and the build‐up periods that allow the well to flow at higher rates are the key
elements of this so‐called new method. The idea is simple yet effective, the well is
shut‐in until the pressure builds up and the well is flown to lift the liquids
accumulated at the bottom to the surface.

The production data after the installation of the intermittent flow logic control shows
notable increase in the daily gas production. In a selected 30 day period, the
cumulative gas production after the installation is measured as 30.2 MMscf/day where
before installation it was measure as 15.4 MMscf/day. It is noticed that liquid
production is also increased. Table 6.4 is a day by day comparison of the production
data of #28.

Table 6.4 – Daily Production Rates of #28 Pre and Post Logic Control

Before Installation After Installation

Days Gas Rate, Liquid Gas Rate, Liquid
MMscf/day Production, bbl MMscf/day Production, bbl
1 0.751 11.0 0.946 13.8
2 0.592 12.0 1.069 19.2
3 0.585 10.0 0.723 15.6
4 0.544 9.0 0.709 16.4
5 0.544 10.0 0.809 17.2
6 0.523 10.0 1.055 14.8
7 0.591 10.0 1.227 14.8
8 0.483 12.0 1.254 15.2
9 0.529 10.0 1.068 11.6
10 0.570 9.0 1.056 10.8
15 0.589 4.0 0.887 4.8
20 0.386 0.0 0.944 7.2
25 0.340 0.0 1.186 12.8
30 0.339 0.0 1.154 14.0

105
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

Figure 6.11 – Daily Gas Production Before and After Installation

It is seen that both gas and liquid production is increased and this is due to the ability
of gas lifting the accumulated liquid more easily. The average GLR of the well is also
increased to 70000 scf/bbl and this increase shows that as liquids are lifted from the
well and the backpressure exerted by the hydrostatic column, the gas production rate
is increasing. Below; 15 days of production is shown in the graph in Figure 6.11 to
show the improvement in production by comparing production rates before and after
the installation.

6.4 Well 73
Well #73 of X filed was sent in for evaluation, Gas Production numbers were
provided and limited water production numbers. A first pass evaluation was done on
the wells considering decline, Completion and data has provided. Assumptions were
provided as best possible in order to clarify. The production history of the well is
given in the following table 6.5.

106
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

Table 6.5 . well 73 production history

Inst. Flow Wellhead Inst. Flow Wellhead

Recording Recording
Rate QINST Pressure Rate QINST Pressure
Date Date Date Date
MMcf/d WHP psig MMcf/d WHP psig
3/30/1987 2.71 1157 1/30/1991 0.487 1022
5/17/1987 0 1116 2/21/1991 0.49 1022
6/23/1987 2.68 1120 3/29/1991 0.8 1022
7/23/1987 0 1457 4/4/1991 0.64 1078
8/31/1987 1.34 1143 5/24/1991 0.4 1043
9/28/1987 2.28 1095 7/28/1991 0 1070
10/25/1987 3.52 1125 12/22/1991 0.17 1135
11/30/1987 0 1444 1/23/1992 0.17 1147
12/29/1987 1.36 1147 2/22/1992 0.857 1146
1/23/1988 4.53 1152 3/23/1992 0.085 1147
2/25/1988 2.64 1117 4/23/1992 0.987 1138
3/23/1988 1.32 1099 5/24/1992 0.081 1125
4/17/1988 2.49 1141 6/20/1992 0 1125
5/30/1988 2.06 1094 7/22/1992 0.889 1104
6/29/1988 0.39 1098 8/25/1992 0.161 1106
7/19/1988 3.57 1126 9/16/1992 0.079 1077
8/22/1988 0 1390 10/23/1992 0.223 1104
9/22/1988 0 1420 11/22/1992 0.336 1135
10/20/1988 0 1420 12/22/1992 0.208 1144
12/26/1988 1.59 1225 1/24/1993 0.254 1139
1/14/1989 2.15 1092 2/23/1993 0.207 1139
2/1/1989 1.27 1125 3/18/1993 0.166 1128
3/21/1989 2.26 1122 4/30/1993 0.1 1083
4/28/1989 1.33 1076 5/21/1993 0.198 1090
5/31/1989 1.13 1134 6/29/1993 0.198 1075
7/31/1989 1.13 1186 7/20/1993 0.06 1083
8/24/1989 0.94 1192 8/29/1993 0.297 1098
9/24/1989 1.18 1122 9/22/1993 0.098 1075
10/24/1989 1.26 1100 10/24/1993 0 1167
11/24/1989 0.96 1170 11/21/1993 0.199 1074
12/24/1989 0 1355 12/21/1993 0.104 1138
1/21/1990 0.78 1094 1/26/1994 0.21 1145
2/20/1990 0.87 1115 2/22/1994 0.228 1099
5/26/1990 2.49 1115 3/21/1994 0.303 1105

107
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

7/26/1994 0.198 1063 1/24/1998 0.198 1035

8/20/1994 0.041 1082 3/4/1998 0.176 812
9/21/1994 0.041 1062 3/25/1998 0.654 870
10/19/1994 0.2 1031 4/29/1998 0.441 878
11/20/1994 0.3 1017 5/23/1998 1.119 890
12/25/1994 0.273 1054 6/30/1998 0.914 890
1/22/1995 0.211 1095 7/18/1998 0.528 830
2/13/1995 0.268 1060 8/24/1998 0.665 820
3/9/1995 0.206 1050 9/24/1998 0.42 760
4/22/1995 0.202 1045 10/28/1998 0.437 785
5/23/1995 0.02 1029 12/2/1998 0.407 745
6/22/1995 0.101 1040 1/31/1999 0 0
7/24/1995 0.201 1050 2/28/1999 2.408 825
9/30/1995 0.06 1050 3/21/1999 1.667 797
10/22/1995 0.102 1048 5/1/1999 1.973 784
11/20/1995 0.064 1102 5/25/1999 3.294 762
12/23/1995 0.106 1094 7/1/1999 2.359 785
1/16/1996 0.045 1189 7/23/1999 1.042 780
2/25/1996 0 0 8/29/1999 1.041 784
3/31/1996 0.042 1114 9/24/1999 1.619 794
4/20/1996 0.021 1095 10/26/1999 2.969 796
5/23/1996 0.041 1121 11/30/1999 2.214 750
6/22/1996 0 0 12/26/1999 1.755 764
7/19/1996 0 0 1/22/2000 1.375 740
8/31/1996 0 0 2/5/2000 1.736 745
9/30/1996 0 0 2/23/2000 1.419 766
10/22/1996 0.331 1095 3/29/2000 2.098 730
11/28/1996 0 0 5/5/2000 1.358 740
12/31/1996 0.376 1095 6/24/2000 2.32 725
1/25/1997 0 0 7/18/2000 2.007 710
2/24/1997 0 0 8/24/2000 3.013 669
3/25/1997 0 1103 9/21/2000 1.689 704
4/30/1997 0.208 1108 10/28/2000 0.691 720
5/24/1997 0 0 12/2/2000 3.911 695
6/26/1997 0.041 1073 12/21/2000 0.672 675
7/22/1997 0.298 997 1/20/2001 2.232 650
8/28/1997 0.398 1005 2/27/2001 1.334 660
9/25/1997 1.624 843 3/21/2001 1.637 755

108
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

7/17/2001 1.666 670 1/31/2005 0 0

8/24/2001 1.972 660 3/6/2005 0 500
9/24/2001 1.563 632 3/31/2005 0 0
10/23/2001 1.633 645 4/26/2005 0 490
11/30/2001 1.795 622 5/31/2005 0 490
12/30/2001 1.621 645 6/29/2005 0 460
1/21/2002 1.57 605 7/21/2005 0 455
2/13/2002 1.282 625 8/26/2005 0 435
3/30/2002 0 611 9/30/2005 0 440
4/23/2002 0 592 10/29/2005 0 500
6/27/2002 0 592 11/26/2005 0 438
7/19/2002 0 600 1/1/2006 0 436
8/29/2002 0 600 1/27/2006 0 435
9/26/2002 0 572 2/22/2006 0 432
10/30/2002 0 614 3/18/2006 0 484
11/27/2002 0 570 4/26/2006 0 500
12/28/2002 0 545 5/30/2006 0 485
2/2/2003 0 557 6/24/2006 0 450
3/4/2003 0 560 7/4/2006 0 450
3/27/2003 0 537 8/30/2006 0 458
4/30/2003 0 485 9/29/2006 1.127 460
5/26/2003 0 530 10/19/2006 1.164 482
6/28/2003 0 500 11/20/2006 0.701 490
7/23/2003 0 605 12/25/2006 0.757 490
8/28/2003 0 530 1/25/2007 0.673 0
10/3/2003 0 580 2/26/2007 0 457
10/30/2003 0 535 3/20/2007 0 480
11/29/2003 0 719 4/20/2007 1 450
12/29/2003 0 530 5/23/2007 0 503
2/7/2004 0 452 6/20/2007 0.359 595
3/5/2004 0 475 7/15/2007 0.452 540
3/31/2004 0 448 8/17/2007 0.323 525
5/3/2004 0 448 9/20/2007 0.556 517
5/24/2004 0 480 10/26/2007 0.463 570
6/30/2004 0 470 11/20/2007 0.352 550
7/26/2004 0 468 12/10/2007 0.449 500
8/28/2004 0 478 1/25/2008 0.101 500
9/30/2004 0 0 2/26/2008 0.101 475

109
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

6/16/2008 0.144 485 5/20/2009 0.117 438

7/18/2008 0.669 485 6/27/2009 0.184 445
8/23/2008 0.568 490 7/25/2009 0.229 455
9/23/2008 0.229 440 8/26/2009 0.222 424
10/23/2008 0.183 465 9/30/2009 0.088 401
11/24/2008 0.137 425 10/24/2009 0.085 380
12/22/2008 0.148 447 11/21/2009 0.088 400
1/23/2009 0.512 410 12/26/2009 0.26 397
2/16/2009 0.227 423 1/26/2010 0.086 382
3/17/2009 0.184 445 2/24/2010 0.127 390
4/17/2009 0.175 405 3/26/2010 0.127 390

110
CASE STUDIES Chapter 6

The production data for Well 73 shows that this well had some initial production but
was nearly dead for most of its initial production life until the flowing tubing pressure
was reduced in 1998. Once this occurred the well had an up kick in production and
produced for period of time at rates between 1.5 and 2 MMcf/day. Once the well falls
below 1.6 MMcf/day in 2006 it rapidly falls off and now continues to produce at a
loaded rate of around 130 Mcf/day. See figure 1 and 2 below. The completion is a 4
½” Tubing Completion into a 9 5/8” casing with a 7” Liner there is a crossover to 3
½” tubing near the liner. The well has a SSSV that will need to be considered when
evaluating the options, there are options for lifting this type of well with a SSSV
maintained however the costs for this type of system will be dramatically higher.

Figure 6.12 Gas Production well# 73

Figure 6.13 Production Data well# 73

111
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In developing critical rates regarding well #10, equations derived by Turner et al. are
used; In the equations, data gathered from well tests and pressure surveys are used.
Actual production data containing daily gas production rates, liquid production and
flowing wellhead pressures are analyzed and compared with previous correlations of
Turner et al. and Coleman et al. Although it is advised that for lower flowing
wellhead pressures (FTHP < 500 psig) equations proposed by Coleman et al. are used;
production data showed that Turner et al.’s equation fits better when determining
liquid loading during production, using average values of 63 lb/ft3 for water density,
0.9 for z‐factor and 0.65 for gas specific gravity.

The selection of Turner et al.’s critical rate equations (with 20% adjustment) is due to
the flowing conditions of the wells. In order to determine which of the critical rate
equations fits the field data, natural flow conditions of well #10 is applied to critical
rate equations of Turner, Coleman and Li. The natural flow conditions of well #10
according to nodal analysis curves for a tubing string with 2 7/8” outer‐diameter.
Notice that the “actual” gas flow rate of the well with 2 7/8” tubing obtained from
nodal analysis is higher than the current flow rate of the well. This is due to the
accumulation of liquids in the wellbore, and the nodal analysis shows the case with no
liquids present, which may be called as the potential flow rate the well can have
without liquid accumulation at the bottom of the well. Figure 7.1 shows that flow rate
and the critical flow rates of different models. In these conditions, assuming the well
is free of liquids and starts flowing; the well should not load‐up and be free of liquid
accumulation according to the models of Coleman et al., Nosseir and Li et al. Turner
et al.’s model is the closest to the actual data, and verifies our initial conception of the
situation.

112
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

Figure 7.1- Comparison of critical equations

Changing cross-sectional flow area by installing a different tubing string with smaller
diameter than the existing string would prove to be beneficial under certain conditions
that should be analyzed using IPR-TPR curves for different tubing sizes. comparing
IPR-TPR analyses with critical rates required to keep the well free from liquid
accumulation is necessary to observe if purposed tubing string would be successful or
not. I n this case changing the current 2 7/8” tubing string to 2 3/8” is sufficient to
obtain the required gas velocity; the effects will most likely to temporary. Keeping in
mind that depletion of the reservoir is the main reason behind liquid loading; a long
term solution can be achieved by installing a tubing string with a diameter of 2 1/16”
or less. To have a better visual, the flowing conditions for different tubing sizes which
are the contact points of inflow and outflow curves are compared against critical rates
calculated by Turner et al’s critical rate equation in Figure 7.2

113
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

Figure 7.2- Actual Rates Vs Critical rates for well#10

The data gathered from out flow curves for various tubing sizes shoes that decreasing
tubing size has little effect I decreasing the flow rate and does not necessarily
constrain production rate due to limited deliverability of the low permeability
reservoir. Therefore a tubing string with smaller, 2 1/16” or less would be the solution
to the liquid loading problems encountered in well # 10 due to low velocity of gas.
Along the way installing the compressor to use compression in combination with
smaller diameter tubing string would be necessary in order to decrease flowing tubing
well head pressure more for the ultimate gas recovery to be higher. All analysis on
inflow deliverability and tubing performance suggests that, as the decision tree
follows, the remaining energy on the formation is sufficient to continue production if
certain conditions are met with small corrections such as sizing tubing string for an
increase in gas velocity.

The problems encountered due to liquid accumulation in well # 28 however, are more
severe. The pressure survey shows that the bottom hole pressure is around 1500 psia
and that low pressure hinders the possibility of a tubing sizing solution for the well #
28. The nodal analysis shows that inflow performance is low due to reservoir
depletion and comparing gas flow rates for various tubing sizes with critical flow
rates calculated using Turner et al’s equation shows that only installing a tubing string
with a diameter smaller than 2” (as an example 1.66”) will ensure the continuous

114
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

removal of liquid from the wellbore. Installing a tubing string with diameter that small
would probably constrict gas flow rate due to small cross‐sectional area, but
maintaining a steady decline curve is more important than increasing daily gas
production for a short period of time. Although the inflow performance analysis
shows that the remaining energy on the formation is enough to continue to produce on
its own, since tubing sizing is just one of many methods analyzed in this study,
another approach is adopted for #28, which is basically proposing to find a proper
artificial lift method instead of enhancing natural flow for removal of liquids. This
means following the steps of the decision tree as if the remaining reservoir energy is
not sufficient for natural flow because a proper artificial lift method for liquid
removal would help achieving a higher gas flow rate as opposed to 1.66”
outer‐diameter tubing string. Also, this leads to a small correction on the decision tree;
the need to check if the “natural flow by tubing sizing” option would lead to a
decrease in gas rate compared to possible artificial lift methods that can be used. The
selection criterion of a proper artificial lift method is a matter of effectiveness and
power consumption as opposed to recovery. As stated by Lea et al. in his studies and
mentioned earlier in this study; selecting the most suitable method is mostly relies on
gas liquid ratio, since it basically shows the amount of liquid that should be lifted with
a certain amount of gas. The high gas liquid ratio of well #28, which means low
amount of liquids in respect to gas production, makes certain methods favorable and
the others unfavorable. Methods like foaming and beam pumping are advised for
wells with lower gas/liquid ratios, since it is possible to reach lower flowing
bottom‐hole pressures with methods like gas lift and plunger lift. In order to
determine between these two methods, however; one should look into the power
perspective. According to a study by Dotson and Nuñez (2007), selection of artificial
lift methods from the power perspective involves either the better use of remaining
reservoir energy or applying an external energy to the well (Figure 7.3). They
concluded that highest ultimate recovery is achieved by pumping since the lowest
bottom hole pressure is reached. However, it is also feasible to harvest a portion of
reservoir energy to lift liquids from wellbore, which can be approximated by plunger
lift. Their research showed in tight reservoirs gas lift would require too much power
to increase ultimate recovery.

115
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

Figure 7.3 – Power vs. Recovery for Tight Reservoir

Considering power requirements and without the existence of an external high gas
source, plunger lift has more advantages over gas lift. However, as mentioned earlier,
because of the common problems associated with plungers, the plunger lift has not
been installed to avoid stuck problems that may occur in the well. Instead another
approach has been adopted as a combination of automated control mechanism of
plunger lift applications with intermittent flow. The motorized valves and cycles the
build‐up and flow periods allow the well to flow at higher rates. Although the idea is
simple; the results show that it is effective; the well is shut‐in until the pressure builds
up and then it is flown to lift the liquids accumulated at the bottom to the surface.
Figure 7.4 shows the cycles consisting of several shut‐in and flow stages in a 24 hour
period.

116
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

Figure 7.4 – Intermittent Flow Cycles for #28

The result is somewhat successful, due to increased daily gas production rates in the
well, as well as increased liquid production, meaning the ability of the well to lift
liquids more effectively. However, although there is a significant increase in the
production rate, the well still shows erratic flow behavior and signs of liquid
accumulation even if it is minimal or lower than the former case. The effective use of
a plunger lift application would lift the accumulated liquid better since the flow
behavior is most likely caused by fallback, which is the liquids falling back to the
bottom in flowing period of the intermittent flow cycle as flowing pressure starts to
decline. The presence of a plunger below the liquid column will keep the liquid from
falling back to the bottom. However, the completion type and presence of a
production packer down hole is a known disadvantage for plunger lift installation.
Charts for Gas liquid ratio and plunger lift feasibility shows that current potential and
GLR of the well is sufficient for plunger lift installation. Still, the tubing string could
be perforated and the completion fluid in the casing tubing annulus could be drained
for increasing the gas storage volume for more effective plunger lift application. In
brief, well #28 shows significant improvement after automated intermittent flow
application is installed at the wellbore. The well still shows signs of liquid
accumulation, and as the reservoir pressure depletes, the well will probably need the
plunger lift to be installed as the decision tree suggests in the first place. However,
until the well shows severe production problems and ceases to produce steadily,
intermittent flow will be used as a liquid loading solution.

117
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

Well 73 Analyses
As can be seen in Figure 7.5 below where we compare the velocity for liquid loading
to occur vs. the actual velocity of the well, there has never been a time where this well
has produced over critical rate stable enough to be able to completely define the IPR
and the effect of liquid loading on the application however from the production results
by reducing the flowing wellhead pressure 400 psi and producing at 1.6 MMcf/day a
general estimate of a PI can be made in the range of 4 Mcf/psi. An estimated WGR of
100 STB/MMcf/day was used as no water production was given. The estimated
amount of fluid in the tubing was 44 bbls or about 2800 feet which would not be
possible at the provided pressures however it is very likely that there is a high amount
of FBHP directly related to liquid loading a minimum of 80 psi which if relieved
should be able to increase production by at least 320 Mcf/day depending on where it
lands in the IPR Curve. Figure 5 shows the impact on velocity that producing the well
unloaded would have in conjunction with the addition of Foamer. This shows that
Foamer alone would not be enough to unload the well as the velocity would not be
high enough to agitate the foamer and achieve critical foamer rate. This means in
order to unload the well the velocity will need to be artificially developed, the tubing
ID needs to be reduced, or the surface pressure needs to be reduced. When initially
discussing potential options reduction of surface pressure was mentioned and is not an
option. A workover and the addition of a smaller tubular would be a good idea
opening up many more avenues for a successful depletion. If a WGR of 100
STB/MMcf/day and the above assumptions of uplift were possible then the use of 2
3/8” EUE tubing or 2 1/16” EUE tubing with a capillary line banded to its OD, inside
the 4 ½” existing tubing would return the well to above critical rate and as depletion
occurred reducing the wells ability to flow the addition of foamers could be Used to
keep the water producing once below critical flow returned, this would also allow the
option of plunger lift in the future. This would require the sacrifice of the TRSSV, a
new string of tubing, and if necessary a replacement SSSV in the new tubing string
and this may limit this possibility due to economics. The remaining two options that
would leave the well producing in its current completion and would likely be the most
economical have been summarized below.

118
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

1. Foamer assist gas lift – Criteria – Casing can be evacuated and high pressure
gas can be applied. Sliding sleeve can be opened permanently, and a high
pressure source of gas is available (at least 1200 psi and 800 Mcf/day)

a) If a high pressure gas source exists, a plug or standing valve could be set in
below the sliding side door, the casing evacuated with nitrogen.

b) If a plug was set it would need to be removed, if a standing valve was placed
then it could remain.

c) A capillary string could be added to inject foamer immediately above the

sliding side door.

d) High pressure gas could be injected at a controlled rate in order to “make up”
the gas short in order to agitate the foamer and lift the water. Initial injection
rates of 800 Mcf/day with 1200 psi pressure would minimum would be
necessary.

e) The injection rate could be optimized and limited to the minimum necessary in
order to achieve critical foamer rate. Expected optimal injection rate would
occur between 200- 300 Mcf/day depending on wells production.

2. Intermittent Foamer/Production Lift - This can be done two ways

a) Use of a Soap Stick Launcher with and Intermitter Valve and small RTU

i. On planned cycles the RTU would shut the well in and drop a soap stick.

ii. Pressure would build high enough to ensure the velocity necessary to agitate
the soap at the same time the soap stick would have a chance to fall.

iii. The RTU would open the well to production allowing the high velocity initial
rate in conjunction with the Soap from the Soap Stick to unload the water.

b) Use of a Capillary Line/Intermitter

i. Capillary line would continuous pump a small volume of foamer and an
intermitter would be used to start and stop the well based on rate and pressure
builds.

119
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

For either or the above to be evaluated further a flowing bottom hole survey should be
performed, the PBTD should be measured, and shut in build up should be recorded with
1 Hour, 2 Hour, 4 Hour and 24 Hour builds measured to confirm necessary energy is
available. A production test measuring the water production would also be valuable.

Figure 7.5 Critical Velocity vs. Actual Velocity for well 73

Figure 7.6 – Estimated Pressure vs. Depth Gradient

120
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 7

Figure 7.7 Velocity Current and Unloaded vs. Critical with and without Foamer

121
CONCLUSIONS Chapter 8

CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to determine the methods for predicting the onset of
liquid loading in gas wells, evaluating completion types for optimization and
comparing various methods as a possible solution for loading and different
Deliquification Techniques. The following conclusions are drawn from the study
based upon the analysis of actual field data of gas production wells and comparison of
various studies on critical velocity theory to determine critical rates of gas wells
having production problems due to liquid loading:

• The first thing to do after observing initial signs of liquid loading is a down
hole pressure survey to confirm liquid accumulation at the bottom of the well.
This is also essential to see if accumulated liquids flooded the entire
perforation interval.

• Analyzing different critical rate theories is important to see which model fits
which case. In this study, Turner et al.’s droplet model for determining critical
rate fits flow behavior of two wells better, however for every individual case
all models should be compared.

• Even though selected artificial lift method is unable to lift all accumulated
liquids from the bottom; relieving the backpressure caused by the lifted
portion may still prove to be useful if it provides a steady production increase.

• Select appropriate deliquification technique after complete evaluation of the

data and select best method to deliquify the gas well.

This study was unable to analyze the effects of accumulated liquids in the reservoir
due to insufficient reservoir data. It is known that accumulation of liquids in the
reservoir decreases the effective permeability of gas due to increased skin factor.
Further research on this field regarding the role of skin factor on liquid loading would
of help in developing critical rate equations with the effects of skin factor.

122
 REFERENCES

1. Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G. and Dukler, A.E., “Analysis and Prediction of
Minimum Flow Rate for Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells,”
paper SPE 2198, JPT (November 1969)
2. Coleman, S.B., Clay, H.B., McCurdy, D.G. and Norris III, H.L., “A New Look
at Predicting Gas‐Well Load‐Up,” paper SPE 20280, JPT (March 1991)
3. Nosseir, M.A., Darwich, T.A., Sayyouh, M.H. and El Sallaly, M., “A New
Approach for Accurate Prediction of Loading in Gas Wells Under Different
Flowing Conditions,” paper SPE 66540, SPE Production & Facilities Vol. 15
Number 4 (November 2000)
4. Li, M., Li, S.L. and Sun, L.T., “New View on Continuous‐Removal Liquids
From Gas Wells,” paper SPE 75455, presented at the 2001 Permian Basin Oil
and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, May 15‐16
5. Veeken, K., Bakker, E., and Verbeek, P., “Evaluating Liquid Loading Field Data
and Remedial Measures,” paper presented at the 2003 Gas Well De‐Watering
Forum, Denver, CO, March 3‐4
6. Belfroid, S.P.C., Schiferli, W., Alberts, G.J.N., Veeken, C.A.M. and Biezen, E.,
“Prediction Onset and Dynamic Behavior of Liquid Loading Gas Wells,” paper
SPE 115567 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference,
September 21‐24
7. Sutton, Robert P., Cox, Stuart A., Lea, James F. and Rowlan O. Lynn,
“Guidelines for the Proper Application of Critical Velocity Calculations,” paper
SPE 120625, presented at the 2009 SPE Productions & Operations Symposium,
USA, April 4‐8
8. Lea, James F. and Nickens, Henry V., “Solving Gas‐Well Liquid‐Loading
Problems,” paper SPE 72092, Distinguished Author Series, JPT (April 2004)
9. Gunawan, R., and Dyer, G.R., “Tubing Size Optimization in Gas Depletion
Drive Reservoirs,” paper SPE 37001, presented at the 1996 Asia Pacific Oil &
Gas Conference in Australia, October 28‐31
10. Lea, James F., Nickens, Henry V. and Wells, Mike R., “Gas Well
Deliquification,” Second Edition, Elsevier Press, Cambridge, 2008

123
11. Christiansen, R.L., Girija, E., Riggins L. and Elsener, G., “Liquid Lifting from
Natural Gas Wells: Tubing‐Casing Junction,” paper SPE 96938, presented at the
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference in Dallas, Texas, USA, October 9‐1
12. McMullan, J.H. and Bassiouni, Z., “Optimization of Gas‐Well Completion and
Production Practices,” paper SPE 58983, presented at the 2000 SPE
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibiton in Mexico, February 1‐3
13. Arachman, F., Singh, K., Forrest, J.K. and Purba, M.O., “Liquid Unloading in a
Big Bore Completion: A Comparison Among Gas Lift, Intermittent Production,
and Installation of Velocity String,” paper SPE 88523, presented at the 2004
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in Australia, October 18‐20
14. Beeson, C.M., Knox, D.G, and Stoddard, J.H. “Part 1: The plunger Lift Method
of Oil Production,” Petroleum Engineer, 1957
15. Campbell, S, Ramachandran, S., and Bartrip, K., “Corrosion Inhibition/Foamer
Combination Treatment to Enhance Gas Production,” paper SPE 67325,
presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium, 24‐27 March 2004
16. Solesa, M. and Sevic, S., “Production Optimization Challenges of Gas Wells
with Liquid Loading Problem Using Foaming Agents,” paper SPE 101276,
presented at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibiton, 18‐20
October 2006
17. McCain, W, “Properties of Petroleum Fluids,” PennWell, Tulsa, OK, US, 1990
18. Hinze, J.O., “Critical Speeds and Sizes of Liquid Globules,” Applied Scientific
Research, 1949, No. 4, 273
19. Dotson, B. and Nunez‐Paclibon, E., “Gas Well Liquid Loading From the Power
Perspective,” SPE 110357, 200
20. www.weatherford.com

124
 APPENDIX A

PLUNGER LIFT EQUATIONS AND FEASIBILITY CHARTS

This appendix gives a summary on plunger lift equations and presents plunger lift
feasibility charts.

A.1 Minimum Casing Pressure

The moment the plunger and the liquid column above the plunger reaches surface,
required minimum casing pressure at the surface is:

, 14.7 1 ………………………………A1

Where;

PP = pressure required to lift the plunger, psia

PC = pressure required to lift 1 bbl of liquid overcoming friction, psia
SV = liquid volume above plunger, bbl
K = factor of gas friction below the plunger
D = plunger depth, ft

K and Pc is calculated from:

1.030 10 ………………………………………….A2

0.433 3.594 10 …………………………..........A3

A.2 Maximum Casing Pressure

The maximum casing pressure is then calculated by the equation:

, , ……………………………………………A4

These equations assume that all the potential energy of gas is converted into kinetic
energy when lifting the plunger to surface. The losses due to efficiency and possible
gas leaks around plunger of other components are omitted, though they can be taken
into account with corrections.

125
A.3 Plunger Feasibility Charts

Figure A.1 – Liquid Production Chart for Plunger Lift

126
Figure A.2 – 2” Plunger Feasibility Chart for 2 3/8” Tubing

127
Figure A.3 – 2 ½” Plunger Feasibility Chart for 2 7/8” Tubing

128
 LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbols Definition
At Tubing area (ft2)
Ad Droplet area (ft2)
Cd Drag coefficient
d Droplet diameter (ft)
FG Downward gravity force (lbf)
FD Upward drag force (lbf)
g Acceleration due to gravity ( = 32.17 ft/s2)
h Thickness of liquid droplet (in)
ID Tubing internal diameter (ft)
GLR Gas‐liquid ratio (scf/bbl)
OD Tubing outer diameter (ft)
P Wellhead pressure (psia)
PR Reservoir pressure (psia)
Pwf Well flowing pressure (psia)
q Gas flowrate (Mscf/d)
R Gas constant ( = 10.73 psia‐ft3/lb‐mol R)
T Wellhead temperature (°F, R)
TR Turner Ratio
V Velocity (ft/s)
V Volume (ft3)
Vg Velocity of gas (ft/s)
Vd Velocity of droplet (ft/s)
Vt Terminal velocity (ft/s)
Vc Critical velocity (ft/s)
z Gas Compressibility factor
γ Specific gravity
σ Interfacial tension (dyne/cm, lbf/ft)
ρ Density (lbf/ft3)
μ Viscosity (lbf‐sec/ft2)

129