SPE 9981

SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineer'S

Gas Lift Design and Performance

by Robert Wayne Pittman, * Texaco, Inc.

*Member SPE-AIME

Copyright 1982, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Bejing, China, 18-26 March, 1982_ The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas, 75206 USA. Telex 730989

ABSTRACT to accumulate in the bottom of the well and then a

large volume of gas is quickly injected below this
The optimum design of a continuous flow gas lift slug to lift it to the surface. This cycle is re-
installation is dependent upon the critical combina- peated at an experimentally-determined optimum combi-
tion of a number of pertinent variables, including nation of fill-up time, slug lifting time and gas
well performance index, gas in solution. static res- injection volume per slug. As a reservoir is deplet-
ervoir pressure, tubing size and injection gas pres- ed, it may become necessary to consider this type of
sure. The economic performance of the optimum design gas lift to maintain economic primary oil recovery.
is dependent upon maintaining a minimum injection gas
to produced liquid ratio that relates to minimum adi- The advantages of the gas lift method of arti-
abatic power associated with recycle gas compression. ficial lift are:
Examples illustrate this to be accomplished by de-
signing for and maintaining injection gas pressures 1. Operating depths in excess of those attain-
such that a maximum injection valve depth for the able with rod pumps.
design production rate can be utilized. 2. High fluid production rates.
3. Not affected by solids in produced fluids.
INTRODUCTION 4. No heavy or unusual accessory equipment at
the wellhead.
Flowing oil wells have enough potential energy 5. Not mechanically affected by the inclination
in the reservoir to push the liquids through the res- of the wellbore.
ervoir into the wel1bore, up the tubing and through
the surface equipment to the tank battery. As the The main concern in gas lift design is the speci-
~e11 is produced, the potential energy is converted fication, spacing and pressure setting of the un-
to kinetic energy associated with the fluid movement. loading and operating valves in order to initiate and
This dissipates the potential energy of the reser- maintain oil production with economic gas injection
~oir, thereby causing the flow rate to decrease and rate. After design installation, a primary concern in
the flow to eventually cease. It may be economical the daily operation of gas lift is the cost of the gas
~t any point in the life of a well to maintain or compression facilities. This can be uneconomic if
even increase the production rate by the use of gas excessive gas volumes are circulated due to shallow
lift to offset the dissipation of reservoir energy. injection depth or if excessive volumes are circulated
with diminishing returns. The first of these is due
Gas lift was practiced in the United States for to faulty design. The latter is due to improper
oil production over 100 years ago. The system used a operation of even a correctly designed system.
valve design was patented and given the name of
"oil ejector" Although this original valve design Other work has addressed these concerns. Redden
was elaborate, the main feature in continuous flow et a12 discussed the benefit of optimizing gas lift
gas lift is merely to lighten the gradient in the systems where gas was being injected back into the
liquid column so that the reservoir pressure avail- reservoir for pressure maintenance in Venezuela.
able will be adequate to cause flow to occur or to Blann et al 3 reported the benefit of redesigning gas
increase. lift installations such that a 46 percent increase in
oil production was obtained with only 2 percent addi-
Alternatively, the other type of gas lift may be tional gas injection in a large North African field.
used when reservoirs will not produce in a continuous
flow manner. This method is called intermittent gas This paper discusses the initial work by Texaco
lift because a column or "slug" of liquid is allowed to improve gas lift operations by applying basic prin-
ciples for improved performance through a computer
References and illustrations at end of of paper.
 2 GAS LIFT DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE SPE 9981

design program. The examples given are pertinent to increase in capital investment over that required for
continuous flow gas lift in the Texas Gulf Coast adequately pressurized facilities.
region.
The deeper injection of gas requires higher pres-
CONTINUOUS FLOW DESIGN sure and lower IGLR, and is consistent with a minimum
adiabatic power 4 as shown in Figure 2. This curve is
prescribed by the equation:
6
There are at least sixteen important variables AP = 4.02 X 10- (l/K-l) (BLPD) (IGLR)
that affect the design and operation of a gas lift
well. These are: (T) [(P!PWU) (K-l)!K - lJ' (3)

*Perforation depth '/'cProduction Rate where: BLPD Volume of liquid flowing daily
Bottom-Hole Pressure Well Productivity IGLR Injection gas/liquid ratio
*Wellhead Flowing Pressure Index T Temperature at injection
*Gas Line Pressure Available Water Cut Percent P Pressure at injection
Injection Gas Rate Available Oil Gravity K Ratio of specific heats
Bottom-Hole Temperature Water Gravity P~~ Pressure at wellhead.
*Tubing Diameter Injection Gas Gravity
*Casing Diameter Formation Gas/Oil The IGLR is inversely dependent on the injection pres-
Ambient Temperature Ratio sure available. The lower IGLR requires' lower power,
since IGLR has a 1:1 effect on AP, as can be seen from
Those variables noted by the asterisk are often equation (3). Although the corresponding injection
the only ones readily available. In fact, gas lift pressure P must be increased to achieve a lower IGLR,
designs are sometimes based on this limited informa- this increase in the equation is less than 1:1 due to
tion alone. Inefficient or totally non-operable the fractional exponent on P/PWH. The minimum as
installations can result when this is practiced, since indicated in Figure 2 need only be approached, not
other not so readily-known but very critical variables exactly attained, for efficient operation.
are involved.

Basic Theory A typical continuous flow gas lift well

schematic is shown in Figure 1. In this figure, a One of the problems in calculating appropriate
drawdown (DD)has been indicated by a bottom-hole gas lift designs is the modeling of the pressure loss
pressure under flowing conditions (BHPF). This BHPF in the tubular or annular conduit. Espanol et al 5
will give the desired production rate, since it is suggest that three of the best relationships for cor-
determined from the productivity index (PI) relation- relating flow rate and pressure loss are the Hagedorn
ship. Since PI is known from earlier tests, drawdown and Brown 6 , Duns and Ros 7 , and Orkiszewski 8 methods.
(BHPS-BHPF) is calculated from:
The single phase fluid flow pressure drop, or
DD "" BLPD/PI. (1) head loss in equivalent head of fluid flowing, can be
calculated from the equation:
With the bottom-hole pressure at static condi-
f(L/d)(v)2 , (4)
tions (BHPS) also determined from earlier tests, the lIh
2g
bottom-hole pressure for flOWing conditions (BHPF) is
where the friction factor f is a function of Reynolds
BHPF = BHPS-DD. (2)
Number. However, in two-phase flow it is necessary to
select a pressure drop correlation that fits the range
This assumes, however, that gas is injected some-
of gas-liquid ratios expected for the average opera-
where in the liquid column to lighten it and make it
tion. The work by Espanol found the Hagedorn and
possible for the BHPF to exist as indicated. To
Brown correlation to be the most accurate for gas-
accomplish this, a short column of liquid may be
liquid ratios greater than 180 m3 /m 3 and the Orkis-
lightened by injecting a large quantity of gas high in
zewski correlation to be more accurate for GLR less
the well or a smaller quantity of gas at a deeper
than 180:1. However, the original work by Poettmann
location. If the longer column of fluid is lightened,
and Carpenter 9 is still a base line for comparison of
it takes less gas volume, but it requires a high
later-developed correlations dealing with multiphase
pressure to inject it at the greater depth. It is
vertical flow. 10
evident that the latter alternative allows a low
gas-liquid ratio (GLR) , as seen in Figure 1, but is
Many others, as already mentioned, have offered
governed by gas pressure (PC) available at the well-
additional correlations although there is only one
head. Since there must be an adequate margin of
"gradient equation". This is because each investi-
differential pressure to flow the required gas volume,
gator has emphasized different variables. All of
gas lift valve mechanics are also involved and
these correlations are based on the total preSsure
influence the final operating value of the gas pres-
drop in a vertical conduit being made up of energy
sure required at the wellhead.
loss by friction, the change in elevation (potential
energy change) and the change in kinetic energy.
If gas compression facilities are pressure lim-
ited, gas lift must operate at higher GLR and shal-
The gradient can be expressed as
lower depths, resulting in an increased volume of gas
circulation. This practice will specify a greater
dp/dh == static gradient + friction gradient
number of compressor installations for the production
of an entire field. This can amount to a significant
+ acceleration gradient. (5)
 The Poettmann and Carpenter work yields available methods, the Duns and Ros and the Griffith
2 and Wallis methods were used to form the base of this
dp/dh = P [1 + f w ]
(6)
correlation. Since the Griffith and Wallis correla-
tion was more accurate for the high viscosity range
102 7.46496 x 109 gp 2 d 5 oils at low flow rates, it was chosen as a foundation
on which to proceed.
The development of their energy loss factor
correlation came by measuring dp/dh and solving the The Orkiszewski work yields a gradient equation:
above equation for the energy loss factor:
dp
P + L
(10)
(7)
f ::
dh 102 - w q /(7.46496 x 10 12 (A )2
t g P

The Poettmann and Carpenter work is based on the where: p average density
overall average response of 49 flowing and gas lift L friction gradient
f
wells, therefore, their correlation factor has lumped
w mass flow rate
into it many factors that can cause anomalous behavior t
were it used out of the range of flows, tubing size qg gas volumetric flow rate
and gas-oil ratios for which it is determined.
A flow area of tubing
p
The conditions for which it is valid are 60 rom average pressure of flowing mixture.
p
and 73 rom tubing; medium flow rates; medium gas-oil
and gas-oil-water ratios and low to medium pressures.
Since this range of conditions is not too far out of The Texaco computer program uses the Orkiszewski
line with a good many gas lift installations the correlation. It also has the capability of utilizing
Poettmann and Carpenter correlation can give appro- the Poettmann and Carpenter correlation if desired.
priate answers in many instances. The difference in final ga~ lift des~gn is not radi-
cally affected for tubular conduit and high water cut
Hagedorn and Brown developed a correlation in production for depths under 1500 meters.
similar manners to Poettmann and Carpenter, except a
490 m experimental well was used to obtain the corre- The downhole
lation data and liquid hold up and acceleration gas a number of
effects not present in Poettmann and Carpenter theory small-ported valves used to inject pressurized gas
were introduced. The Hagedorn and Brown work yields a into the fluid column to reduce its density suffi-
gradient equation using a form of friction factor, ciently so that flow can occur with the available
(f) 4 Fannin (f). drawdown of the ~eservoir pressure.

dp - f, _____- __ + C:;;m)2/ 2 g 1, (8) The principle of operation of these valves is

dh
102e + 29.85984 X 10 9g(Pm)2d 5 dh J relatively simple. They are pressure regulators
employing a spring and/or nitrogen gas charge over a
bellows area that opposes either the lift gas or the
where the average mixture density is expressed as: flowing fluid pressure for control. In operation, as
a shut-in well is being started up, all valves are
Pm p~H ~ + Pg (l - H~) (9) initially open and the high pressure gas maintained to
supply the energy for the lift enters an upper valve
and: P~ liquid density at such depth that the fluid column above that valve
can be forced by the pressure differential into the
H~ liquid holdup
usually-pressurized gas-liquid separator at the sur-
gas density face. As this first increment of fluid is unloaded,
~g average velocity of mixture the next lower valve will admit gas to an extent such
v that the resulting drop in operating gas pressure will
m
Duns and Ros defined the static pressure gradi- allow the upper valve to close. This procedure is
continued with each formerly open valve closing off
ent as a function of a weighted density and developed
until the final operating valve in the string is
correlations for wall friction from extensive labora-
reached. Ideally, this operating valve then passes
tory data for each flow region. This work was per-
formed in the laboratory and modified with actual gas continuously into the flowing column of fluid,
thereby producing a reduced density liquid that will
field data. The correlations are in terms of a dimen-
continue to flow at a rate proportional to the draw-
sionless gas velocity number, diameter number, liquid
down of the reservoir pressure at the well perfora-
viscosity number and a dimensionless mathematical ex-
pression. These dimensionless groups are the same as tions. The upper unloading valves must then be
closed, or excessive gas is used and erratic per-
developed in the work of Hagedorn and Brown. The
Duns and Ros work yields a gradient equation in formance results.
dimensionless form. Since the next discussion will
A deficiency sometimes arises due to the diffi-
concern the evaluation of this work and that by Grif-
culty of systematically locating the operating valve
fith and Wallis l l , producing a more useful correla-
at the efficient injection point. This can be over-
tion, further detail at this point is omitted.
come by spacing the unloading valves with respect to
this valve, rather than allowing the unloading valve
The Orkiszewski work is a combination of several
spacing to dictate the operating valve location.
published methods. After extensive comparison of all
4 GAS LIFT DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE SPE 9981

The type of valve used in the procedure just IGLR for wells A, B, and C was 23 m3 /m 3 and was within
described is often referred to as a gas pressure the design scenario of 26 m3 /m 3 .
operated valve. As previously stated, the gas pres-
sure must be decreased for these valves to close Table 3 illustrates individual well design cri-
sequentially and allow the well to come to full teria with before and after rework comparisons for two
design production rate from the operating valve. of the wells of Table 2. Well A was redesigned to
The other basic type valve is often referred to increase production from 115 m3 /d to 318 m3 /d. The
as a fluid pressure operated valve. This valve does computer design recommended an injection gas to liquid
not require a decrease in gas pressure for it to ratio (IGLR) of 14 m3 /m 3 . The usual gas lift vendor
close, but instead depends upon a decreasing pressure design recommended planning for an IGLR of 36 m3 /m 3 .
drop in the flowing fluid as the density is decreased, After installation by the computer design, the well
so that the resulting fluid pressure reduces and al- performed at an IGLR of 18 m3 /m 3 , or approximately
lows the valves to close sequentially. The difficul- half the gas volume that would have been planned for
ty in using this type valve is due to the problem of by the vendor's recommended design, even though the
predicting flowing pressure drop accurately and the apparent well PI was found to be lower than that used
inability to effect changes by surface controls. to calculate the design. This lower PI required the
use of an IGLR of 18 m3 /m 3 instead of 14 m3 /m 3 •
EXAMPLE INSTALLATIONS
Another example illustrating improved design is
Within the past decade, fuel costs for gas com- seen for well B. Here the design production increase
pression increased almost four-fold and there was from 137 m3 /d to 238 m3 /d was possible with an IGLR of
less gas available for gas lift in the Texas Gulf 33 m3 /m 3 according to the computer design, while the
Coast Region. This economic challenge was answered standard vendor design practice specified 43 m3 /m 3
by an increased awareness and implementation of effi- IGLR and would only predict a maximum of 175 m3 /d pro-
cient gas lift design that permitted operations to duction rate with the existing well tubing and flow
continue without major revisions. line sizes. After reworking the well, by computer
design, it produced 215 m3 /d and required an IGLR of
Table 1 illustrates the effect of the changes by only 15 m3 /m 3 . Since the final test on this well
the data shown for several closely-monitored contin- showed it to have an apparent PI of 0.15 m3 /kPa.d, it
uous flow gas lift wells in Texaco's Texas Gulf Coast should have produced in excess of 238 m3 /d had the
Region. The "before" and "after" statistics indicate full design drawdown been achieved. This was pre-
a fluid production increase of two-fold with a Sig- vented, however, by insufficient valve staging of only
nificant gas circulation reduction. In terms of in- 69 kPa and a higher-than-designed surface gas pressure
creased lift efficiency in liquid volume per circu- required to stroke the operating valve to sufficient
lated gas volume, a potential improvement factor of opening to pass the required gas volume rate through
2.3 was demonstrated. the small valve port used. This resulted in opening
up three of the four valves installed instead of one,
In the following discussion of computer-gener- thus causing multipoint injection of gas.
ated design performance, the IGLR are quite low, con-
trasting with the fact that for many years, while gas The next two examples contributing to the im-
was plentiful, it was expedient to design with high provements shown in Table 1 are from another field
gas-liquid ratios. This resulted in so called "mini- area where the injection gas pressure was of a magni-
mum designs which were considered a reli- tude approaching that shown for Design 3 of Table 2.
able way to achieve maximum drawdown of the reser- The first of these, shown in Table 4, is an example of
voir, instead of designing for the most efficient obvious excessive gas injection before the well was
injection depth and gas-liquid ratio. While this reworked, since the computer design indicated that
probably evolved due to traditionally low pressure nearly twice the production rate could be lifted with
gas lines, it influenced design even in areas where about one-fourth the gas injection. Upon pulling the
higher pressure operations were possible. tubing to rework the well, a hole was found in the
tubing. It was surprising to find that the gas lift
Table 2 illustrates the design scenario for four vendor contacted recommended a design IGLR of 117
wells, three of which contribute to the statistics of m3 /m 3 to obtain a desired production of 127 m3 /d.
Table 1. The scenario is presented in terms of total Again, the computer design specified a much lower IGLR
liquid rate and IGLR for design gas pressure, average of 26 m3 /m 3 to achieve the production rate. After
injection depth and total gas rate. These wells were reworking the well with the injection depth specified
restricted to a design gas pressure of 4137 kPa. Al- by computer design, it is seen that the production
though the improvement that could have resulted from a rate is nearly attained with only a slightly higher
higher gas pressure (Design 2) and (Design 3) was evi- IGLR than ideal. Had the apparent PI of the well
dent, the changeover to higher injection pressures truly been 0.115 m3 /kPa.d as had been used for the
could not be made quickly. Therefore, with increased design input, rather than 0.09 m3 /kPa.d finally
attention to designing with minimum IGLR, the improve- measured from final test, the design production rate
ment as indicated by Design 1 over that for the usual and IGLR would have been more nearly achieved. This
previous practice was sought. The actual production example illustrates that some designs wasteful of
of these four wells was increased to 782 m3/d or 68% injection gas can call for an IGLR as high as that
of the 1153 m3 /d sought. Well C increased production produced by a hole in the tubing. It also illustrates
rate from 109 m3 /d to 131 m3 /d but was less spectacu- how critical it is to have an accurate PIon which to
lar than wells A and B, which will be discussed in perform a gas lift design.
more detail. Well D became plugged with sand shortly
after start up and did not make a sustained contribu- The final example shown in Table 5 illustrates
tion toward fulfilling the design scenario. The final the limiting effect of tubing size and gas pressure on
production rate. The existing design had been
SPE 9981 R. W. PITTMAN 5

installed with the prospect of attaining 95 m3 /d, q Gas volumetric flow rate m3 /d
using a high IGLR. Before rework, only 59 m3 /d were e. Density kg/m 3
being produced with a high IGLR of 152 m3 /m 3 in an p Average density kg/m3
attempt to obtain the maximum production. The com---- T Absolute temperature K
puter design indicated that to produce this quantity T Friction gradient kg/m 3
of production through the small tubing would require v Velocity of fluid flow rate m/sec
maximum efficiency. This would require a minimum IGLR w Weight rate of fluid flow kg/d
of 72 m3 /m 3 injected at a higher pressure than avail-
able in the field. The final solution was to install Subscripts:
larger tubing which would theoretically give 127 m3 /d f friction
for the same IGLR. After rework, the well performed g gas
at 86% of its ideal design production rate with bet- I liquid
ter-than-expected IGLR. This well design illustrated m mixture
the difficulty of obtaining sufficient gas passage P pipe or tubing
through valves with small bellows area without run- t total
ning higher than design settings on gas pressure at
the surface. The larger tubing required the use of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
25 mm valves rather than the 38 mm valves that had
been used with the 60 mm tubing due to 140 mm casing The Author appreciates the historic opportunity
size. The stiffer bellows in the 25 mm valve re- to make available the Texaco work reported in this
quired more than design gas pressure to hold the paper.
valve open sufficiently to pass enough gas for the
well to work down to the operating valve. This il- The Author wishes to acknowledge Hr. Noell C.
lustrates graphically the effect of valve mechanics Kerr, retired, Texaco Producing Department, for his
on overall performance, and points out the short- assistance in field liaison and data retrieval, Mr. R.
comings of the standard design gas lift valve. L. Simmons for his assistance in initial computer
programming, and many others in Texaco for their
CONCLUSIONS assistance and consultation.

1. Optimum design of continuous flow gas lift sys- REFERENCES

tems is best achieved by careful consideration
of all well' variables in a systematic computer 1. Brown, K. E.: Gas Lift Theory and Practice,
program. Prentice-Hall, 'Inc~nglewood-cIiffs, New Jersey
(1967) 181-198.
2. Reductions in gas compression costs associated
with recycle gas compression can be as high as 2. Redden, J. D., Sherman, T. A. G., and Blann,
50% if maximum injection depth and pressure are J. R.: 1I0 pt imizing Gas-Lift Systems," paper SPE
designed for and maintained. 5150 Proc. SPE 49th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston,
Oct. 6-9, 1974.
3. The physical restrictions placed on the design
of the standard gas lift valve render some inef- 3. Blann, J. R., Brown, J. S., and DuFresne, L. P.:
ficiency in its performance, especially in the "Improving Gas-Lift Performance in a Large North
smaller diameter sizes. African Oil Field,!! J. Pet. Tech. (September,
1980) 1486-1492.
NOMENCLATURE
4. Craft, B. C., Holden, W. R., and Graves, E. D.,
A Flow area of conduit m2 Jr.: Well
AP Adiabatic power kw tice-Hall ,
BHPF Bottom-hole pressure flowing kPa (1962) 368-452.
BRPS Bottom-hole pressure static kPa
BLPD Volume rate of liquid flowing m3 /d 5. Espanol, J. H., Holmes, C. S. and Brown, K. E.:
DD Drawdown pressure kPa IIA Comparison of Existing Multiphase Flow Methods
d Diameter of conduit m for the Calculation of Pressure Drop in Vertical
dp/dh;;: Pressure gradient kPa/m Wells," SPE Reprint Series, No. 12 (1975) 65-72.
f Friction factor
GLR Total gas to liquid 6. Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: IIExperimental
ratio standard, m3 /m 3 Study of Pressure Gradients Occurred During Con-
g Acceleration due to gravity 9.8 tinuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical
H Liquid holdup factor Conduits," paper SPE 940 presented at SPE 39th
Clh Pressure drop in terms of Annual Meeting, Houston, October 11-14, 1964.
liquid head m
IGLR Inj ec t ion gas to liquid 7. Ros, N. C. J. and Duns, H. J.: ItVertical Flow of
ratio standard, m3 /m 3 Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells," Paper 22-PDG,
K Ratio of specific heats Proc. 6th World Pet. Congress, Section II,
L Length of conduit m Frankfort, June 19-26, 1963.
P Absolute pressure kPa
p Average pressure of flowing mixture kPa 8. Orkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure
PC Gas pressure at surface kPa Drops in Vertical Pipe,1t Paper SPE 1546, Proc.
PI Productivity index m3 /kPa.d 41st Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, October 2-5,
PS Separator pressure kPa 1966.
PWH Absolute wellhead pressure kPa
6 GAS LIFT DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE SPE 9981

9. Poettmann, F. H. and Carpenter, P. G.: liThe

Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through
Vertical Flow Strings with Applications to the
Design of Gas-Lift Ins tallations, II Drilling
and Production Practice, API (1952) 257-317.

10. Lawson, J. D., and Brill, J. P.: "A Statistical

Evaluation of Methods Used to Predict Pressure
Losses for Multiphase Flow in Vertical Oilwell
Tubing, SPE Reprint Series, No. 12 (1975) 84-95.

11. Griffith, P. and Wallis, G. B.: IITwo-Phase Slug

Flow ll , ASME J Heat Transfer (August, 1961)
307-320.

TABLE I

RESULTS OF COMPUTER
DESIGN PROGRAM APPLICATION
EXAMPLE WELLS
TEXAS GULF COAST REGION

VARIABLE BEFORE AFTER

FLUID PRODUCTION, m3 /d 591 1214

GAS CIRCULATEO*, m3/d 40921 36740

LIFT EFFICIENCY, m3 /m 3 0.014 0.033

*STANOARD

TABLE 2

GAS LIFT DESIGN SCENARIO BY COMPUTER

TEXAS GULF COAST REGION
WELLS A, B. C, 0

PREVIOUS PRACTICE DESIGN DESIGN 2 DESIGN 3

LIQUID IGLR PRESS. LIQUID IGLR PRESS. LIQUID IGLR PRESS. LIQUID IGLR PRESS.
RATE m 3 /m 3 k Po RATE m3/m 3 k Po RATE m3 /m 3 k Po RATE m 3 /m 3 k Po
m31 d m3/d m3/d m3/ d
475 35 4137 1153 26 4137 1153 19 4826 1153 15 5860

AVG. I NJ. DEPTH, m AVG. INJ. DE PTH, m AVG. INJ. DEPTH, m AVG. INJ. DEPTH, m
557 699 794 911

GAS RATE, m 3 /d GAS RATE, m 3 /d GAS RATE, m 3 /d GAS RATE, m 3/d

16625 29978 21907 17295
 TABLE :3

INCREASED PRODUCTION WITH DECREASE

IN INJECTION GAS/LIQUID RATIO
COMPUTER GAS LIFT DESIGN

LIQUID
RATE IGLR PI GAS INJECTED
WELL STATUS m3 /d m 3/m3 m 3 /kPo'd m 3 /d

BEFORE REWORK 1\5 30 0.4 9540 (FOR 318 m 3/d)

COMPUTER DESIGN 318 14 0.4 4452

A

GLV. MFGR. DESIGN 318 36 0.4 11448

AFTER REWORK
COMPUTER DESIGN 334 18 0.38 6012

BEFORE REWORK 137 35 0.1 8330 (FOR 238 m 3/d)

COMPUTER DESIGN 238 33 0.1 7854

8

GLV. MFGR. DESIGN 175 43 0.1 7525

AFTER REWORK
215 15 0.15 3225
COMPUTER DE SIGN

TABLE 4

REESTABLISH ECONOMIC PRODUCTION

WITH DECREASE IN INJECTION GAS/LIQUID RATIO
COMPUTER GAS II FT DESI GN

LIQUID
RATE IGLR PI GAS INJECTED
WELL STATUS m 3/d m 3/m 3 m 3 / k Po' d m3 /d

BEFORE REWORK 71 97 12319 (FOR 127 BFPD)

COMPUTER DESIGN 127 26 0.115 3302

E
GLV. MFGR. DESIGN 127 117 0.115 14859

AFTER REWORK
COMPUTER DESIGN
119 32 0.09 3808

TABLE 5

INCREASED PRODUCTION WITH DECREASE

IN INJECTION GAS/LIQUID RATIO
COMPUTER GAS LIFT DESIGN

LIQUID
RATE IGLR GAS INJECTED
WELL STATUS m 3/d m3/m 3 m 3/d
BEFORE REWORK
59 152 8968
(60mm TUBING)
COMPUTER DESIGN N/A WITH EXISTING
95 72
(60mm TUBING) FIELD GAS PRESSURE
F
COMPUTER DESIGN
( 7:3mm TUBING) 127 72 9144

AFTER REWORK 110 69 7590

 PS

...... GAS
PC ...... OIL

"' WATER PC P

,~~--+-- HIGH GLR

~-+-LOW GLR
VALVES
INJECTION

FLOWING LIQUID '----STATIC LIQUID

BHPS
GRADIENT
,
, GRADIENT

D BHPF ' . BHPS

'.... 00 +I

FIGURE

CONTINUOUS FLOW GAS LI FT

/",ADIABATIC POWER

POWER
..................

o~-----+-----------------------. P

IGLR
.....------ OPTIMUM INJECTION

O~------------------------------~P --
FIGURE 2

CONTINUOUS FLOW GAS LIFT

OPTIMUM INJECTION POINT THEORY