NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology

Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics

Natural Gas TPG 4140

Semester Project

Downhole Gas Compression

Mohammad Ostadi
Maya Kusmaya
Milad Kazemi Hatami
Orkhan Ismayilov
Kazeem Adetayo Awolola

Trondheim November 2011

Abstract

In all wells, reservoir pressure declines with the time. Boosting pressure becomes important to
acquire high recovery and/ or accelerate production. Downhole Gas Compression (DGC) is one
of the latest technologies for pressure boosting. It has a number of benefits as an artificial lifting
system. DGC allows increasing potential production, therefore prolongs the lifetime of field
production. Currently this technology is on the trial stage and is expected to enable gas
extraction from otherwise uneconomic sites. The project summarizes the current status of this
technology and shows its application in fields by simulation case studies. Both from literature
and our case studies it was established that having a compression system as close to the reservoir
as possible boosts the gas production and increases the ultimate gas recovery.

ii

List of Contents
Abstract

ii

Introduction ..... 1

Gas well production limitations and challenges....... 2

Artificial lifting systems during gas production . 3

3.1

Conventional compression .. 3

3.2

Subsea compression at seabed . 4

3.3

Downhole gas compression.. 4

DGC and its working principles............................................................................. 4

Downhole gas compression design and specifications ............ 6

5.1

Challenges and obstacles............................................................................... 6

5.2

Design solutions via advanced engineering................................................. 6

Case study ... 7

6.1

Deliverability profile of the well .. 9

6.2

DGC application as a solution ........... 12

6.3

Increasing reservoir recovery by DGC installation ... 12

6.4

Potential economic gain ..... 13

Conclusions . 14

Nomenclatures 15

References .. 16

10

Tables.. 17

11

Figures. 18

12

Appendices29
12.1 Natural gas properties equations ... 29
12.2 Reservoir deliverability/inflow performance ..................................... 31
12.3 Wellbore performance/tubing performance ....................................... 32
12.4 Choke performance 32
12.5 Pipeline performance.. 35
List of Tables

Table 6.1: Reservoir conditions ....................................................................................... 17

Table 6.2: Natural gas properties ..................................................................................... 17
Table 6.3: Well tubing specifications ............................................................................... 17
Table 6.4: Choke, separator and pipeline data ................................................................ 17

iii

List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Production profile of field life cycle......18
Figure 3.1: Different types of artificial lifting for oil extraction........................................ 18
Figure 3.2: Downhole hydraulic pump.............................................................................. 19
Figure 3.3: Water injection back to reservoir.......19
Figure 3.4: Offshore alternative gas compression........20
Figure 3.5: Subsea processing projects installed or announced.............................. 20
Figure 3.6: sgard subsea compression layout....20
Figure 3.7: sgard subsea compression main equipments 21
Figure 3.8: Siemens PGs Eco II centrifugal compressor.. 21
Figure 3.9: Downhole compressor module. 22
Figure 4.1: Potential yield improvements from utilizing downhole gas compression...... 22
Figure 5.1: Possible application range of DGC.................................................................. 22
Figure 6.1: Screenshot of HYSYS model... 23
Figure 6.2: System performance without DGC .. 24
Figure 6.3: Velocity profiles inside the tube at the different wellhead pressures 24
Figure 6.4: Pressure loss profiles inside the tube at the different wellhead pressures 25
Figure 6.5: Gas velocity profile inside the tube at various locations of DGC ................... 25
Figure 6.6: The ability DGC to increase the tubing transport capacity.. 26
Figure 6.7: The performance in the first two year with and without DGC 26
Figure 6.8: The performance with and without DGC at WHFP 195 psia .. 27
Figure 6.9: The performance with and without DGC at WHFP 195 psia (5 year) 27
Figure 6.10: Well Production profile with and without DGC at WHFP 195 psia 28

iv

1 Introduction
One of the main tasks of the upstream gas industry is the selection of an optimum artificial lifting
system to enhance gas production. Dynamic behavior of well flow characteristics makes this task
rather challenging. It has been long recognized by all parties in oil and gas sectors that pressure
boosting in the gas field located as close as possible to the reservoir has the most advantage. It
leads to increase the well deliverability and recovery beyond that is achieved by using
conventional gas compression system alone. Several efforts in the development of this kind of
artificial lifting technology has been carried out. The most recent is downhole gas compression
system.
There are limited players that involved in technology development of the downhole gas
compression. This is mainly because the design of this compressor demands advanced technology
in many aspects. And also, natural gas fields are still vast and widely dispersed geographically.
Most of oil and gas operators prefer to invest for new gas wells instead of prolonging production
and increase the ultimate recovery in wells. Corac Group Plc is one of the pioneers in designing
and testing of this type of compressors. Together with Eni, ConocoPhillips and Repsol-YPF, they
made a joint industrial program (JIP) to carry out further technology development including field
trial in an operated mature asset located in Southern Italy (Di Tulio, 2009).
This technology is still at development phase. The joint industrial program has completed design,
equipment construction and pilot scale test in a replicating downhole conditions (SPE 116406).
However, commercialization stages of this technology are expected to come in the near future.
The increasing demand for natural gas forces oil and gas operators to boost deliverability of their
gas wells and extract available gas as much as possible.
Downhole Gas Compression (DGC) offers unique opportunity of extracting available gas from
previously unextractable reserves. DGC increases both the production and recovery factors of gas
wells. DGC can be utilized during various phases of the wells production life in order to
overcome the increased reservoir drawdown pressure and to extend the life time of the well. The
main economic advantage is gained when downhole compression is implemented during the
plateau production period.
This report tries to give the reader an overall introduction to DGC technology. It talks about gas
well production limitations, design challenges, and provide practical information through
simulated case studies.

2 Gas Well Production Limitations and Challenges

Production life of oil and gas field can be divided into three main stages, typically they are build
up, plateau and decline. In order to demonstrate these stages special charts are used (Figure 2.1).
Each part illustrates one of the production stages. The most important issue at exploitation
operation is to keep production level high at each stage. To achieve desired deliverability from a
particular field; the right flow rate of gas is needed. Indeed for keeping flow rate of gas, pressure
is required. This required pressure is called Reservoir Pressure. The amount of reservoir pressure
is a key parameter for deliverability of gas and should be enough to push the gas up to the surface.
Each reservoir has a unique pressure. This pressure decreases along production period (Jahn
1998).
The flowing bottom-hole pressure (FBHP) is another parameter for deliverability of gas. FBHP is
the pressure at the bottom hole of the well. In order to achieve maximum production FBHP should
be kept as low as possible in production period. There are several constrains to reach this target.
At the primary stages of extraction the limitations include: fines migration, wear due to erosion,
surface facility and gathering system capacity. By reduction in FBHP, operators should utilize
some methods to stabilize the pressure. However a main problem to have a low FBHP is critical
gas velocity particularly in tubing constrained gas wells. Critical velocity is the maximum velocity
to avoid erosion effect in a specific tubing diameter.
When gas is sucked from wellhead, the gas density inside the tubing is low due to compressibility
of the gas at constant flow rate. At lower gas density gas velocity is higher, that may exceed the
critical limit. Tubing and well can be damaged because of the erosion at this condition. Pressure
losses increase at higher gas velocity. This condition is not expected. In order to avoid this
problem production rate should be decreased (Tullio 2009).
Liquid formation during the field life is another challenge. By reduction in reservoir pressure after
some years, for the same bottom hole and wellhead conditions, the velocity of gas which goes
through the well starts to decrease. As the pressure of the reservoir decreases it reaches to a point
that liquid forms in the reservoir. At low flow rates, the gas does not have the capacity to transport
liquid droplets to the surface. The result is liquid accumulation in the reservoir. It reaches to a
point that makes reservoir unextractable.
Therefore artificial lifting by boosting pressure becomes very important. There are several
artificial lifting methods such as subsea compression and downhole gas compression. All those
methods are discussed in next section.
2

3 Artificial lifting systems during gas production

Artificial lift method applies when the pressure of gas reservoir begin to reduce. There are a
variety of techniques to offset the reduction of flow of gas due to declining of the reservoir
pressure. Boosting pressure is more often used in oil wells rather than gas wells. Several methods
that are used for boosting pressure in oil production are beam Pump, gas lift, hydraulic pumping,
electric submersible pump (Figure 3.1) (www.pdhengineer.com 2011) , downhole hydraulic pump
(Figure 3.2) and water injection (Figure 3.3) (Peter O. Oyewole 2008) and (www.rigzone.com
2011).
These methods are developed during previous years because of inherently less pressure in oil
reservoir. Since oil has a better relative value and price among other energy resources, investment
on developing of these ways is reasonable (Peter O. Oyewole 2008).
By increasing demand for natural gas as a clean source of energy, gas wells began to develop.
Over time, the pressure of the well decreases. In order to boost pressure for gas extraction, some
techniques are used in latest years. Some of main techniques are briefly described below.
3.1 Conventional Compression
Conventional Compression is used both in onshore and offshore fields. In onshore fields it is
easier to compress gas than in offshore. Conventional compressors are usually used at wellhead in
onshore gas fields to maintain the required pressure.
In offshore, especially in deep water gas fields, different techniques are available to stabilize
pressure during the production (Figure 3.4). One way is to use conventional compressors in fixed
platforms (Sirevaag 2009). Floating production system is the second alternative and utilizes the
same compressors as fixed platforms. In both cases, compressors are installed at sea level and far
from wellhead and this mean more powerful compressors and more demand for energy. Erosion in
tubing as mentioned before could occur by utilizing of this type.
3.2 Subsea compression at seabed
Subsea compression system is other alternative with substantial advantages. Power requirement
for the compressor becomes less when the compressor is installed near the wellhead. Because of
this benefit and also development of subsea facilities suppliers; oil and gas industry are turning
into subsea compression systems (Figure 3.5). Currently subsea compression is widely used and
being developed by Statoil and its partners in some fields such as Gullfaks, Ormen Lange, sgard
and Snhvit (Figure 3.6 and 3.7) (Sirevaag 2009) and (Bass R.M. 2006).
3

Utilization of commercial and standard available types of compressors in subsea modules is

another interesting issue. For instance, Siemens PGs Eco II compact compressor (Figure 3.8) is
used in subsea processing facilities at Statoils Tordis field in the Norwegian sector. Subsea gas
compressors are cost-effective and save 30-40% of energy compared to their platform-based
counterparts. In addition subsea gas compressors are providing the possibility of development of
stranded gas fields which are far from infrastructures (www.rigzone.com 2011).
In spite of considerable advantages of subsea compression, this kind of new technology has
challenges ahead. Some of the challenges are high relative investment and service cost, need for
special facilities and material to run at seabed, and being economically effective just for large
fields (Bass R.M. 2006).
3.3 Downhole gas compression
Downhole gas compressor (DGC) (Figure 3.9) is the recent alternative to deal with the problem of
pressure decline in gas reservoirs. This type of compressor is not in commercial use and is just in
testing stage. More details about DGC are mentioned in the following section
(www.ior.senergyltd.com 2011).

4 DGC and its working principles

DGC is a new artificial lifting technology developed particularly to overcome the common
erosional problem in natural gas wells. This new technology is expected to be a driver to boost the
gas production rate and increase the ultimate gas recovery.
As explained earlier, when a gas reservoir pressure declines, it reduces to the extent that it is
insufficient to overcome the friction in the production tubing of the well. In this condition, the
well production is down and it may no longer be economical to be extracted.
In gas fields, central gas compression and/or wellhead compression are generally utilized to
extend productive life. However, the conventional compression system which is installed at the
well head has a limitation. When the pressure losses are too much in the production tubing, the
compressor attempts to draw on a vacuum, at which point flow stops.
DGC offers a good solution when the most significant bottleneck to higher productivity is below
ground (in the wellbore/tubing). DGC is purely designed to increase well potential and ultimate
recovery which are the functions of both factors reservoir drawdown and tubing friction. DGC
compress the gas inside the tubing just after the gas leaves the bottom hole. Thus, it increases the
gas density along the tubing and decreases the gas velocity for the same mass flow rate of the gas.
4

This reduces pressure losses due to friction and also reduces erosion problem inside the well
tubing. A modest increase in tubing pressure obviously results in an increase in tubing transport
capacity. Therefore DGC is able to deliver more gas than is produced using conventional central
gas compression alone.
Compression close to the source reservoir is more effective in lowering the field abandonment
pressure and hence increasing ultimate recovery. DGC technology uses a compressor placed as
near as possible to the point where gas is flowing from reservoir into the wellbore. By placing
DGC near the bottom of the well, it sucks more gas from the bottom hole and reduces the FBHP.
The lower FBHP results in more drawdown rate of gas from reservoir to bottom hole which itself
accelerates gas production. By lowering FBHP, DGC decreases the reservoir abandonment
pressure thus maximizes the recoverable reserves from the well reservoir (Liley 2004)
The advantages of DGC to increase gas production and ultimate recovery are illustrated in Figure
4.1. This figure shows a graph of well flow potential (in thousand sm3/day unit) plotted against
reservoir pressure for central compression, well head gas compression (WGC) and downhole gas
compression, in this graph mentioned as DHGC (blue, yellow and green lines respectively). The
theoretical absolute open flow (AOF) potential of the well which is our objective is shown in the
black line. The figure clearly shows that DGC at the same reservoir pressure accelerates gas
production particularly at higher reservoir pressures where the production driving force is big.
And also, since the DGC can operate at lower FBHP than other compression technologies, it
significantly increases the ultimate recovery.
Central gas compression and well head gas compression systems are placed at a considerable
distance from the reservoir. Thus, both compression technologies are facing the suction tubing
high pressure losses due to friction and erosional problem which hinders the production
acceleration .
As the reservoir pressure declines a further problem is the liquid loading process. It occurs when
the upward gas velocity falls below a critical value required for gas to move liquid droplets up to
the surface. DGC solves this problem by extending the period of liquid droplet transport at the
higher wellhead flowing pressure.
Based on a comprehensive feasibility study done by Liley et.al. (2009), DGC is estimated to
increase the production gain by 32 41%. It represents additional recovery of 14 20 Bscf per
well over 5 years operation. All in all, DGC system brings the opportunity to develop stranded and
sub-economic gas fields.
5

5 Downhole gas compression design and specifications

5.1 Challenges and obstacles
As you may imagine, downhole conditions can get very harsh. For every instrument to withstand
and operate in these conditions there are some specifications. It requires innovative technologies
to overcome the physical barriers downhole.
One of the challenges is to provide 250-500 kW of compressor power 2-3 km below ground. But it
is not that easy, the compressor should operate within the size of the tubing which is typically 7-9
inches. The harsh conditions are typically 20-60 bara in pressure and in excess of 100 C in
temperature (plc 2011).
The second challenge is to design a high speed motor to drive compressor. To have high flow rates
the compressor requires high speed motor. Within 7-inch-diameter tubing, compressor speed is in
excess of 60,000 rpm (Reed 2009).
The third challenge is the lubrication system. Conventional lubrication systems can not work in
this environment. Gas flow, entrained contaminants, temperature and rubbing speeds of the seal
surfaces degrade conventional lubrication system.
The last challenge is the delivery of electricity to the unit downhole. The motors require
alternating current (AC) power supply. Supplying AC current from the surface results in
significant losses due to the long distance. Therefore there are two challenges to face with the
electrical part: first, a lot of electronic equipment should be packed in a limited size, and second,
there is a need to cool these electrical parts (Reed 2009).
5.2 Design solutions via advanced engineering
As mentioned before, operating downhole is full of challenges. But if we look at the bright side,
these challenges enhance technology. And if these challenges are met, a higher economic benefit
will be obtained.
To improve production, the gas flow requires a moderate increase in pressure. Therefore
centrifugal or axial compressors would be an ideal option, because they are suitable for high flow
rates and moderate pressure ratios. The compressor system comprises of two to six independent
compressor units arranged in series and mounted in a standard length of production tubing (Reed
2009).
6

To overcome the problem of high rotational speed, Corac Group Plc. has developed and patented
high speed permanent magnet motor. It runs at 45,000 -60,000 rpm. The compressor is driven by
motor on single shaft and there are no gear boxes, couplings or seals (plc 2011).
The motor is supported on gas bearings that do not require oil lube. Instead well gas acts as
lubricant. This lubrication system offers a very low-friction support system. The gas bearings
ensure no wearing surfaces during operation.
There are no liquid cooling circuits. Instead, the motor is cooled by the well gas flow around the
outside of the motor. But there is a disadvantage to this, the performance of the compressor
depends on the gas temperature. Currently, the technology is capable of operating with an inlet gas
temperature of 105 C (Reed 2009).
The electricity is transmitted downhole as a direct current instead of alternating current. This is to
minimize transmission losses. As the consequences, the whole motor drive and inverter are placed
downhole. Due to space limitation, it is difficult to have separate cooling system for electronic
equipment inside the tubing. Thus, the gas flow is used to cool it.
Currently, the technology is available for casing diameters of 5.5 inches or above. It has been
demonstrated that it can operate in wells with high liquid-gas ratios (greater than 27% by mass)
with inlet temperature of 105 C (Reed 2009).
The range of applications of DGC technology related to the overall tubing diameter, flow rate,
maximum inlet gas temperature and pressure ratio given by Corac Group Plc is shown in Figure
5.1. The power requirement of the compressor depends on the gas flow rate at same casing
diameter. The higher the flow rate, the higher the power requirement. In our case study in the next
chapter the flow rate is not in the range of this figure (it is lower).

6 Case study
The objective of this case study is to evaluate the advantages of the DGC system by making
comparison between the production profiles with and without DGC system over the depletion
period. Commercial HYSYS simulator and Microsoft Excel are utilized to analyze and calculate
the followings:
1- The deliverability profile of the well,
2- DGC compression work required to maintain the production
3- The optimum depth to locate DGC inside the well tubing.

Comparison between cost and energy requirements of DGC to that of conventional compression
system is also briefly discussed.
For the case study, the conditions of the well follow the requirements mentioned by Di Tulio et.al.
(2009) which are:
1.

Wet or dry gas well with minimum 178 mm (7 ) casing outer diameter, single completion
string, medium to high productivity, wellhead flowing pressure (WHFP) at or below 20 bars,
flowing bottom hole temperature (FBHT) less than 110 oC, and low liquid production.

2.

Electricity available on well site

3.

Production benefits are achievable by: increasing well drawdown, stabilizing well bore flow
regime, integrating the DGC system with the conventional central/surface compression
system.

4.

Increase ultimate recovery by increasing the tubing unloading capacity and lowering the
abandonment pressure.

The reservoir conditions for the case study are described in Table 6.1. This is an artificial well, not
a real one, in which data are taken from several sources with different assumptions. To evaluate
the DGC application and advantages in depleted wells, the reservoir conditions are assumed to be
27.3 bar in pressure and 74 oC in temperature (Tullio 2009). Meanwhile, the C-constant and nexponent in backpressure Inflow Performance Relations (IPR) are assumed to be 0.09 Mcf/d-psi2n
and 0.86 respectively. In actual fields these numbers are taken from the well tests.
The gas properties and conditions are described in Table 6.2. In the case study the gas has 0.56
and 1.28 of specific gravity (g) and specific heat ratio (k), respectively. The specific gravity
value is taken from Di Tulio et. al. (2009) in which candidate well selection criteria is described.
There was no information about the gas composition in that article. However, the gas composition
for this study is assumed to be 99% methane and 1% ethane to get the same specific gravity of
0.56. For the specific heat ratio (k), 1.28 is typical for natural gas (Guo 2007).
The same well tubing dimensions as Di Tulio et.al. used for their study in 2009 is selected. All
these dimensions data are shown in Table 6.3. In addition to this study, the choke and pipeline
data are assumed and shown in the Table 6.4. All those parameters are the basis for calculating the
deliverability of the well, calculating the DGC power required and optimum depth of DGC
location inside the tubing.

6.1 Deliverability Profile of the Well

After some years in operation, the gas well production rate is reduced. The production is
maintained by installing conventional compression system at the downstream of the separator to
reduce the surface pressure.
HYSYS simulated model representing production line from the reservoir to the conventional
compression system is shown in Figure 6.1. The reservoir conditions, the gas properties and
compositions as explained earlier are inputs of the simulation. For natural flow case (without
DGC), a pipeline module in HYSYS is used to represent the tube inside the well, with the input
data taken from Table 6.3. For DGC case, a DGC unit is modeled as a compressor and is located
in between of the two pipe segments. Each of the pipe segments represents the tubes at lower and
upper parts of the compressor. Pipeline units, a valve, separator and conventional compressor are
added at the downstream. The simulations are done in steady state conditions. Inflow and outflow
performance and DGC compression works are determined by the simulation. HYSYS simulator
used is a black-box calculation tool. To find out more about the calculations involved in the
simulation, all equations and approaches (Guo 2007) to determine the inflow and outflow
performance curves are described in Appendix 1. The Microsoft Excel is used to apply these
equations and approaches. The calculations obtained from HYSYS simulation and the Excel show
small deviations. Several equations used are explained below to show how simulator calculates the
inflow and outflow performance.
Inflow performance relationship of a well is a relationship between its producing bottom-hole
pressures and its corresponding production rates under a given reservoir condition. It indicates the
producing characteristics of a well. Its results are used in determining the economics of producing
a well. Meanwhile the outflow performance relationship is a mathematical tool used in production
engineering. It helps to assess the performance of the completion string by plotting the surface
production rate against the flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP). The fluid composition and
behavior of the fluid phases affects the shape of the curve.
The bottom hole of the well is selected for the solution node in this study. Flowing bottom hole
pressure (FBHP) is calculated by the following equation:

q C ( P 2 P 2 wf ) n
Where q is gas flow rate (Mscfd), P is reservoir pressure and Pwf is FBHP (both in psia).
Meanwhile, the C-constant and n-exponent are backpressure Inflow Performance Relations (IPR)
constants. Correlation line resulted from this equation is called inflow performance.
9

Since the bottom hole of the well is selected as node, the outflow performance is calculated
starting from the separator system through the long pipeline, choke (valve), and well tubing back
to the bottom hole point. The separator pressure is maintained constant at allowable operating
pressure of the conventional compressor.
Pressure, flow rate and pipeline dimensions are calculated by this equation:
T
Q 77.54 b
Pb

P 21 P 2 2 2.5
D

GT f LZf

Where the main variables are: Q for flow rate, P2 for separator pressure which is maintained at
constant value, D is pipe diameter, f is friction losses along the pipe, L is the length of pipe and Z
is the average compressibility of the gas. Thus, for a certain flow rate, pressure at upstream of the
pipe (P1) can be determined.
After calculating P1, pressure in the upstream of the choke/valve at the well head is determined by
the following equations:
If the flow in the valve is at sonic condition:
Qsc 879CD Apup (

k
2 kk 11
)(
)
g Tup k 1

While, if the flow is at sub sonic condition, then this equation should be applied:

Pdn 2 Pdn k 1
k
qsc 1.248CD A2 Pup
( ) k ( ) k ,
Pup
(k 1) gTup Pup

Where, CD is choke characteristic constant, A is the choke nozzle area, and k is the specific heat
ratio. Pdn and Pup are pressures at downstream and upstream of the choke.
After having pressure at upstream of the choke (the same as well head pressure, Phf), final step to
determine outflow performance is to calculate bottom hole pressure by this equation:
P

2
wf

Exp ( s ) P

2
hf

6.67 104 Exp ( s ) 1 f M q 2 z 2T 2

d 5i cos

0.0375 g L cos
zT

10

This tubing string correlation is called Average Temperature and Compressibility Factor (TZ)
Method. It is in US field units. Correlation line between FBHP (Pwf) and flow rate (q) resulted
from this equation is called as outflow performance. For more detailed equations and units used in
this case study see Appendix 1.
Thus, well deliverability is then determined by the intersection of the inflow and the outflow
(tubing) performance curves. The future well deliverability (or minimum FBHP) over the
depletion is also determined by the intersection of both curves. The HYSYS simulation result for
the well deliverability projection is shown in Figure 6.2. In the first year, the wellhead operates at
about 247 psia to produce 1100 Mscfd of gas. This is resulted from in intersection of IPR 1 and
NF 247 lines in the figure. But in the second year, the reservoir pressure decrease to 365 psia and
the inflow performance curve changes to IPR 2. The expected production rate cannot be achieved
as in previous year with the same well head pressure of 247 psia. To maintain the same or even
higher rate from the previous year, the well head pressure should be decreased further. In this case
the well head pressure should be at 195 psia. The production rate can be increased to 1600 Mscfd
by lowering the well head pressure to 131 psia. It is assumed that the system allows the wellhead
pressure to go down to a minimum of 131 psia limited by operational condition of conventional
compression system at the downstream facility.
Excessive gas velocity in the upper part of the tubing is a problem when low wellhead flowing
pressure is required for the optimal gas production (Tullio 2009) .This leads to erosion corrosion
problems inside the tubing. One way to avoid erosion is raising the wellhead pressure but it
decreases the production rate and increases the un-exploited reservoir drawdown.
Figure 6.3 is HYSYS simulation result to show the impact of the well head pressure adjustment
(to boost the well deliverability) to the velocity profile inside the tube. Three well head pressures
used are 247 psia, 195 psia and 131 psia. The lower well head pressure, the more production rate,
but at the same time, the higher velocity inside the tube. The possibility of having noise and
erosion problems inside the tubing and pipeline rises as the gas flow velocity exceeds 60 ft/s [API
RP 14E, 1991]. This is the case when the well is operated at lower pressure.
Figure 6.4 shows higher pressure losses for lower the well head pressures due to higher flow
velocity. Since the energy efficiency is a key figure in oil and gas industry, the lower well head
pressure might not be economical to be applied.

11

6.2 DGC application as a solution

Installing new conventional compressor at the surface to suck more gas from the well would not
be an option when we have noise, erosion and high velocity problems at the wellhead. For this
condition, the DGC system appears to be a good solution. By placing the DGC as close as
possible to bottom hole of the well, the desired production rate can be maintained without causing
any erosion problem inside the tubing.
Figure 6.5 is HYSYS simulation result for optimum DGC location. The results show that the
lowest gas velocity in the tubing occur when the DGC is placed nearly at the bottom hole of the
well (in this case at the depth of 1,900 2,000 m, the well depth is about 2,358 m). The gas
velocity increases as the DGC is placed nearer to the well head.
The DGC increases the density of gas inside the tubing (at its discharge) and increases the
wellhead flowing pressure. At the same time, DGC is also decreasing the flowing bottom hole
pressure that results in higher drawdown of the gas from the reservoir. It enables a greater quantity
of gas to be delivered to the processing facilities without suffering from erosion and potential
energy losses (pressure losses).
The DGC ability to increase the tubing transport capacity is shown in Figure 6.6. With a particular
inflow performance, DGC delivers more gas compared to natural flow sucked by conventional
compressor at same well head pressure.
This unique DGC ability can be used to increase and/or maintain the deliverability of the depleted
well. DGC effectively introduce an energy required by gas to flow at the desired flow rate. As
common in other wells, the source of energy will be electrical power. The electrical power
required at higher gas rate will determine the compressor power to install (Tullio 2009). If the well
is operated at lower gas rate, lower compression power for DGC is required. Therefore it is
concluded that the DGC can be a solution to increase and/or maintain the deliverability rate of the
depleted well without causing erosion problem in the well tubing.
6.3 Increasing Reservoir Recovery by DGC Installation

Abandonment reservoir pressure with and without the DGC installation will be different. Without
DGC, the wellhead and bottom hole flowing pressures cannot be reduced further to increase the
production. It is due to the erosion problems and limitations in operational range of the
compressor at the downstream. Therefore the abandonment reservoir pressure would be higher.

12

Inflow and outflow performance curves with and without DGC resulted from HYSYS simulation
are compared in Figures 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9 during 5 years of depletion period. The well head is set at
fixed pressure of 195 psia to have sufficient operational margin for the conventional compressor at
the surface. DGC driver unit which is installed inside the well is supplied by 15 kW of electrical
power.
Based on inflow performance curves, the yearly gas production with and without DGC can be
calculated and compared. This result is shown in Figure 6.10. From this Figure, it is revealed that
DGC increases the reservoir recovery to an average of 70%, decreases the abandonment pressure
from 223 psia to 132 psia, and prolongs the well production life. The minimum bottom hole
flowing pressure can be further reduced to 3 bars (43.5 psia) according to the operational
limitations set by (Tullio 2009).
6.4 Potential economic gain

It is rather difficult to estimate the exact economic gain of the DGC technology. Installation cost
for a single DGC unit has not been established so far, since it is in its testing stage and has not
been commercially implemented. However, the potential economic gain seems very attractive
since this technology brings the opportunity to increase the production and reservoir recovery.
From Figure 6.10, it can be seen that the well production increase by 730 MMscf in 5 years of
DGC operation. This increase of production is equivalent to 130,076 B.o.e.
DGC has an additional operating cost for the power consumption. Power consumed by a 15 kWDGC is about 1.2 MMBtu/day. This cost in 5 years operation is 26,280 USD at assumed 12
USD/mmbtu of gas price and it is about 20 cent USD/B.o.e of the gas produced. Di Tulio et.al.
(2009) claims that DGC is still economically feasible by operational cost of 50 cent USD/B.o.e.
As mentioned earlier, this additional operating cost does not have a significant impact on the
revenue from the produced gas, considering the vast potential revenue remaining in the well.
Careful assessment of gas production, gas price and operating expenditure should be made before
implementing DGC in a gas well. Apart from the potential economic gain, DGC will bring bright
future to the upstream gas industry by providing it with more gas to process.

13

7 Conclusions
1.

The challenge at the end of the production life is to create the lowest achievable flowing
bottom-hole pressure in order to improve the wells unloading capacity.

2.

Several observations can be drawn from the case study using HYSYS simulation:
- DGC appears to be a potential candidate as a means to increase or maintain the

deliverability rate of the depleted well without causing erosion problem in the well tubing.
- DGC placed as close as possible to the bottom hole of the well gives optimum result in

terms of lower gas velocity and pressure drop inside the well tubing. The gas velocity and
pressure drop increases as the DGC is placed nearer to the well head.
- Installing DGC into the well tubing decreases the abandonment pressure and increases

ultimate reservoir recovery.

- Installation of DGC adds an additional operating cost. However, it is insignificant

compared to the potential revenue obtained.

3.

DGC will bring bright future to the upstream gas industry by providing it with more gas to
process.

14

8 Nomenclatures
NF

= Natural Flowing

Boe

= Barrel oil equivalent

DGC = Downhole Gas Compressor or Compression

FBHP = Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure
HP

= Horse Power or DGC shaft power

IPR

= Inflow Performance Relation

KW

= Kilo Watt

= Pressure

= Temperature

WHFP = Wellhead Flowing Pressure

JIP

= joint industrial program

15

9 References:
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

7.
8.

9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.

Bass R.M. , S. I. E. P. (2006). Subsea Processing and Boosting-Technical Challenges and

Opportunities. Offshore Technology Conference. Houston, Texas, Offshore Technology
Conference
Gumundsson, J. S. (2011). NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION ENGINEERING.
Guo, B. L., W.C.; Ghalambor, A. (2007). Petroleum Production Engineering, A ComputerAssisted Approach, Elseiver Science & Technology Books.
Jahn, F., COOK, M. and GRAHAM, M. (1998). Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production,
ELSEVIER.
James F. Lea, P. T. L. a. H. W. W., Texas Tech University (2010) "PRODUCTION
TECHNOLOGY, Whats new in artificial lift,." Introducing developments in natural gas
well dewatering.
Liley, J. E. N., Corac Group Plc, Verbeek, P. H. J. , Shell E&P BV (2004). Wellbore
pressure boosting enhances recovery from natural gas wells. Offshore technology
conference. Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Nelson, P. (2011) "Artificial lift systems benefiting by new technology."
Peter O. Oyewole, S., BP, and James F. Lea, SPE, PL Tech LLC (2008). Artificial-Lift
Selection Strategy for the Life of a Gas Well With Some Liquid Production. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Denver, Colorado, USA, Society of Petroleum
Engineers
plc, C. G. (2011). Downhole Gas Compression.
Reed, J. (2009) "Downhole Gas Compression A New Artificial Lift Technology for Gas
Wells." 69.
Sirevaag, R. B. (2009). Subsea Compression - from idea to reality?
Tullio, M. T. D., Fornasari, S. , Ravaglia D. , Eni S.p.A. E&P Division, Bernatt N. , Liley
J.E.N. , Corac Group plc (2009). Downhole Gas Compression: World's first installation of a
new Artificial Lifting System for gas wells. EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and Exhibition,
8-11 June 2009. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Society of Petroleum Engineers: 8-11.
www.dukeswoodoilmuseum.co.uk. (2011). "Water injection well." from
http://empedia.info/images/resource/698/large.jpg.
www.ior.senergyltd.com. (2011). "Downhole Cas Compressor." from
www.ior.senergyltd.com/issue13/research-development/smes/corac/.
www.offshore-mag.com. (2011). "Subsea compression opens options for stranded deepwater
gas." from
http://www.pennenergy.com/index/petroleum/display/253470/articles/offshore/volume66/issue-4/norway/subsea-compression-opens-options-for-stranded-deepwater-gas.html.
www.pdhengineer.com. (2011). "Gas Pipeline Hydraulics." from
http://www.pdhengineer.com/pages/O-5001.htm.
www.rigzone.com (2011) "How Does Artificial Lift Work?".
www.rigzone.com. (2011). "Statoil: Subsea Compression Boosts Gas." from
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=108151.
16

10 Tables:
Table 6.1: Reservoir conditions (Tullio 2009)
Properties
Reservoir pressure
Bottom hole temperature
C-constant in back pressure IPR model
n-exponent in backpressure IPR model

Unit
bar
o
C
Mcf/d-psi2n

Value
27.3
74
0.09
0.86

Table 6.2: Natural gas properties (Tullio 2009)

Properties
Gas specific gravity (g)
Gas specific heat ratio (k)
Pseudocritical pressure (Pc)
Pseudocritical temperature (Tc)

Unit

Bar
o
C

Value
0.56
1.28
46.4
-80.93

Table 6.3: Well tubing specifications (Tullio 2009)

Properties
Tubing inside diameter (D)
Tubing absolute roughness ()
Tubing relative roughness (/D)
Measured depth at tubing shoe (L)
Inclination angle ()

Unit
In
In

m
Degrees

Value
2.441
0.0003
0.0001229
2,358.85
0

Table 6.4: Choke, separator and pipeline data

Properties
Choke data
Upstream pipe diameter
Choke diameter
Choke cross-sectional area
Separator & pipeline data
Separator pressure
Separator temperature
Pipeline diameter
Pipeline length
Absolute internal pipe roughness
Base pressure
Base temperature

17

Unit

Value

In
In
in2

10
2
3.142

Bar
o
C
In
mile
In
Bar
o
C

9
27
10
1000
0.0006
1
27

11 Figures:

Figure 2.1: Production Profile of Field Life cycle (Gumundsson 2011), (Jahn 1998)

Figure 3.1: Different types of artificial lifting for oil extraction. (Nelson 2011)

18

Figure 3.2: Downhole hydraulic pump (James F. Lea 2010)

Figure 3.3: Water injection back to reservoir (www.dukeswoodoilmuseum.co.uk 2011)

19

Figure 3.4: Offshore alternative gas compression (Sirevaag 2009)

Figure 3.5: Subsea processing projects installed or announced (Bass R.M. 2006)

Figure 3.6: sgard subsea compression layout (Sirevaag 2009)

20

Figure 3.7: sgard subsea compression main equipments (Sirevaag 2009)

Figure 3.8: Siemens PG's Eco II centrifugal compressor. (www.offshore-mag.com 2011)

21

Figure 3.9: Downhole compressor module (www.ior.senergyltd.com 2011)

Figure 4.1: Potential yield improvements from utilizing downhole gas compression

(www.ior.senergyltd.com 2011)

Figure 5.1: Possible application range of DGC (Reed 2009)

22

Figure 6.1: Screenshot of HYSYS model used for representing the reservoir to the conventional compression system

23

Pwf, psia

System Performance at Bottom Hole

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

500

IPR 1

1000

IPR 2

1500
2000
qsc, Mscf/d
NF 247

2500

NF 195

3000

NF 131

Figure 6.2: System performance without DGC (IPR = Inflow Performance Relation; the number

refer to year, NF = Outflow performance without DGC; the numbers refer to WHFP values, psia)
Gas Velocity Profile Inside the Tube
70

Gas Velocity, ft/s

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

500

1000

NF 131

1500
2000
qsc, Mscf/d
NF 195

2500

3000

NF 247

Figure 6.3: Velocity profiles inside the tube at the different wellhead pressures (NF = Outflow

performance without DGC; the numbers refer to WHFP values, psia)

24

Pressure loss, psia

Pressure Losses Inside the Tube

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

500

1000

NF 131

1500
2000
qsc, Mscf/d
NF 195

2500

3000

NF 247

Figure 6.4: Pressure loss profiles inside the tube at the different wellhead pressures
(NF = Outflow performance without DGC; the numbers refer to WHFP values, psia)

Welldepth(m)

Figure 6.5: Gas velocity profile inside the tube at various locations of DGC from the wellhead

25

Increasing Tubing Capacity by DGC

400
350

Pwf, psia

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

500

1000

1500
2000
qsc, Mscfd

DGC 131

NF 131

2500

3000

IPR 1

Figure 6.6: The ability DGC to increase the tubing transport capacity (IPR = Inflow

Performance Relation; the number refer to year, NF = Outflow performance without DGC; the
numbers refer to WHFP values, psia)
Inflow Performance Curve
400
350

Pwf, psia

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

500

IPR 1

1000

1500
2000
qsc, Mscf/d

IPR 2

NF 195

2500

3000

DGC 195

Figure 6.7: The performance in the first two year with and without DGC at WHFP 195 psia

26

Inflow Performance Curve

400
350

Pwf, psia

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

500

1000

1500
2000
qsc, Mscf/d

IPR 2

IPR 3

NF 195

2500

3000

DGC 195

Figure 6.8: The performance with and without DGC at WHFP 195 psia in the middle of DGC

operation period
Inflow Performance Curve
400
350

Pwf, psia

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0

IPR 3

500

1000

IPR 4

1500
2000
qsc, Mscf/d
IPR 5

NF 195

2500

3000

DGC 195

Figure 6.9: The performance with and without DGC at WHFP 195 psia in the end period of

DGC operation for the case study (5 year)

27

Yearly Gas Production

(at WHFP 195 psia)

Production, 10^3 Mscf

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1

DGC

3
Year

NF (without DGC)

Figure 6.10: Well production profile with and without DGC at WHFP 195 psia

28

12 Appendices:
12.1 Natural gas properties equations (Guo 2007)
1.1 Determine pseudocritical temperature and pressure (psia, Rankine) from known gas

specific gravity (g).

Ppc 678 50( g 0.5) 206.7 y N 2 440 yCO2 606.7 y H 2 S
TPC 326 315.7( g 0.5) 240 y N 2 83.3 yCO2 133.3 y H 2 S
1.2 Determine pseudoreduced properties:

PPr

P
Ppc

Tpr

T
Tpc

1.3 Determine gas viscosity

Correlation of Carr et al. 1954 involves a two-step procedure: The gas viscosity at temperature
and atmospheric pressure is estimated first from gas- specific gravity and inorganic compound
content. The atmospheric value is then adjusted to pressure conditions by means of correction
factor on the basis of reduced temperature and pressure state of the gas. The atmospheric
pressure viscosity (i) can be expressed as

1 1HC 1N 1CO 1H S
2

1
Tpr

e r

1HC 8.188 103 6.15 103 log( g ) (1.709 103 2.062 106 g )T
1N [9.59 103 8.48 103 log( g )] yN
2

1CO [6.24 10 9.08 10 9.08 103 log( g )] yCO

3

1H S [3.73 10 8.49 10 log( g )] yH S

3

29

 r ln(

g
T pr ) a 0 a1 Ppr a 2 P 2 pr a 3 Ppr 3 T pr ( a 4 a 5 Ppr a 6 P 2 pr a 7 P 3 pr )
1

T 2 pr ( a 8 a 9 Ppr a10 P 2 pr a11 P 3 pr ) T 3 pr ( a12 a13 Ppr a14 P 2 pr a15 P 3 pr )

a 0 2.46211820
a1 2.97054714
a 2 0.28626405
a 3 0.00805420
a 4 2.80860949
a 5 3.49803305
a 6 0.36037302
a 7 0.01044324
a 8 0.79338568
a 9 1.39643306
a10 0.14914493
a11 0.00441016
a12 0.08393872
a13 0.18640885
a14 0.02033679
a15 0.00060958
1.4 Determine the gas compressibility, many methods are available but Hall and

Yarborough give a more accurate estimation:

Hall and Yarborough Method

A 0.06125tr e 1.2(1tr )

B tr (90.7 242.2tr 42.4t 2 r )

D 2.18 2.82tr
and
Z

Ap pr
Y

Where Y is the reduced density to be solved from

f (Y )

Y Y 2 Y3 Y 4
Ap pr BY 2 CY D 0
3
(1 Y )

If the Newton and Raphson iteration method is used to solve the above equation for Y, the
following derivative is needed.

df (Y ) 1 4Y 4Y 2 4Y 3 Y 4

2 BY CDY D 1
4
dY
(1 Y )

30

1.5 Gas Density (

2.7 g P
zT

1.6 Formation Volume Factor of gas (

Gas formation volume factor is defined as the ratio of gas volume at reservoir condition to
the gas volume at standard condition, that is,

Bg

P TZ
V
zT
sc
0.0283
Vsc PTsc Z sc
P

1.7 Gas Expansion Factor (

It is normally used for estimating gas reserves.

1
P
35.3
Bg
ZT

12.2 Reservoir deliverability/inflow performance (Guo 2007)

2.1 Flow
Analytical Method

kh( P 2 P 2 wf )
0.472re

1424 zT ln(
) s Dq
rw

When P

3000

q=
k= md
h= ft
P= psi
T= Rankine
rw= ft
D=
s= skin factor

kh( P Pwf )
0.472re

141.2 10 Bg ln(
) s Dq
rw

When P

Bg=

31

3000

b) Empirical Method

q C ( P 2 P 2 wf ) n ,
Where C and n are empirical constants that can be determined based on test points. The value of n
is usually between 0.5 and 1.

q1
)
q2
q1
n
,C
n
2
2
2
P P wf 1
P P 2 wf 1
log( 2
)
P P 2 wf 2
log(

12.3 Wellbore performance/tubing performance (Guo 2007)

3.1 Average TZ Method
P 2 wf Exp ( s ) P 2 hf
s

6.67 104 Exp ( s ) 1 f M q 2 z 2T 2

d 5i cos

0.0375 g L cos
zT

The Darcy-Wisebach(Moody) friction factor f M

fM

0.01750
, for di
d i 0.224

fM

0.01603
, for di 4.277 .
d i 0.164

4.277 .

Or

fM
1.74 2 log( 2 s )

d i

12.4 Choke performance (Guo 2007)

4.1 Critical Pressure Ratio
Poutlet
2 kk1
(
)c (
)
Pup
k 1
where Poutlet is the pressure at choke outlet, Pup is the upstream pressure, and k=

is the specific

heat ratio. The value of the k is about 1.28 for natural gas.
For air:
k=1.40
Critical P ratio 0.5283
For NG:
k= 1.28
Critical P ratio 0.5494
When the actual ratio Critical ratio then subsonic flow exist
When the actual ratio Critical ratio then sonic flow exist (the flow is choked at the valve)

4.2 Subsonic flow

32

qsc 1.248CD A2 Pup

k
(k 1) gTup

Pdn 2 Pdn k 1
( ) k ( ) k ,
Pup
Pup

Where
qsc= gas flow rate, Mscf/d
Pup= upstream pressure at choke, psia
A2= cross-sectional area of choke, in.2
Tup= upstream temperature, R
g= acceleration of gravity, 32.2 ft/s2
g= gas-specific gravity related to air

N Re

20qsc g

d2

Where is gas viscosity in cp.

2
Velocity of the gas v v up 2 g c C pTup 1

zup Pdown kk1

(
) ,
zdn Pup

Where C p = specific heat of gas at constant pressure (187.7 lb.ft/lbm.Rn for air)

4.3 Sonic flow

Qsc 879CD Apup (

k
2 kk 11
)(
)
g Tup k 1

Maximum flow

zup

2
(
) , or v 44.76 Tup
v v 2up 2 g c C pTup 1
zoutlet k 1
The choke flow coefficient CD is not sensitive to the Reynolds number for Reynolds number
values greater than 106. Thus, the CD value at Reynolds number of 106 can be assumed for CD
values at higher Reynolds numbers.

4.4 Choke flow coefficient

CD

d 2 0.3167

0.025 log N Re 4 ,
d1 d 0.6
2

d
1

Where

d1 = upstream pipe diameter, in.

d 2 = choke diameter, in.
N Re = Reynolds number based on d 2

33

Find CD by the graph

The choke discharge coefficient CD can be determined based on Reynolds number and
choke/pipe diameter ratio

4.5 Temperature at Choke

Tdn Tup

zup
zoutlet

Poutlet kk1
)
Pup

34

12.5 Pipeline performance (www.pdhengineer.com 2011)

5.1 General Equation
Without considering elevation

Tb P 21 P 2 2 2.5
Q 77.54
D

Pb GT f LZf
Q = gas flow rate standard ft3/day (SCFD)
L = pipe length, mi
D = inside diameter of pipe, in.
P1 = upstream pressure, psia

Pb = base pressure, psia(usually 14.7 psia)

P2 = downstream pressure, psia
Tb = base temperature, R (usually 60+460=540 R)
T f = average flowing temperature of gas, R

G = gas specific gravity (Air=1.00)

Z = gas compressibility factor at flowing temperature and pressure, dimensionless
f = friction factor, dimensionless
With considering the elevation

T
Q 77.54 b
Pb

Le

P 21 e5 P 2 2

GT f Le Zf

0.5

D 2.5 ,

L(e5 1)
s

s 0.0375G (

H 2 H1
)
Tf Z

s = elevation adjustment parameter, dimensionless

H1 = upstream elevation, ft

H 2 = downstream elevation, ft
Always use absolute pressures, not gauge pressures.

1
e
2.51
)
2 log10 (

3.7 D Re f
f
f = friction factor, dimensionless
D = pipe inside diameter
e = absolute internal roughness of pipe, in.

Re = Reynolds number of flow, dimensionless

5.2 Weymouth Equation
Tb P 21 e5 P 2 2 2.667
Q 433.5 E ( )(
)D
Pb
GT f Le Z

E = Efficiency pipeline factor (0-1)

35

5.3 Panhandle Equation

Equation A: Q 435.87 E (
Equation B: Q 737 E (

Tb 1.0788 P 21 e5 P 2 2 0.5394 2.6182

D
)
( 0.8539
)
Pb
G
T f Le Z

Tb 1.02 P 21 e5 P 2 2 0.51 2.53

) ( 0.961
) D
Pb
G T f Le Z

5.4 IGT (Institute Gas Technology)

Q 136.9 E (

Tb P 21 e5 P 2 2 0.555 2.667
)(
) D
Pb G 0.8T f Le 0.2

5.5 Velocity
V 0.002122(

Pb ZT Qb
)( )( )
Tb P D 2

V = average gas velocity, ft/s

Qb = gas flow rate, standard ft3/day (SCFD)
D =inside diameter of pipe, in.
Pb = base pressure, psia

Tb = base temperature, R
P = gas pressure, psia
T= gas temperature, R
Z = gas compressibility factor at pipeline conditions, dimensionless

5.6 Erosional velocity

V 100

ZRT
29GP

Z = gas compressibility factor, dimensionless

R = gas constant= 10.73 ft3 psia/lb-mole R
T = gas temperature, R
G = gas gravity (air=1.00)
P = gas pressure, psia

36