Effect of Gas Injection Rate on Oil Production Rate: Details of Operating Mechanism

Asekhame U. Yadua, Nigerian Petroleum Development Company (NPDC)

Abstract
It is well known that, during gas lift operations, as the gas injection rate increases, the operating oil
production rate increases, gets to a peak, then begins to decline resulting in the parabolic shape of the
gas lift performance curve. In this work, the mechanism behind this phenomenon is unravelled and
clearly explained, with the aid of mathematics and MS Excel. It is shown that, as gas injection rate
increases, the gravitational pressure drop in a producing oil well will keep decreasing while the frictional
pressure drop will keep increasing. During gas injection, oil production rate increases when the modulus
of the change in gravitational pressure drop is greater than the modulus of the change in frictional
pressure drop; and oil production rate declines when the modulus of the change in frictional pressure
drop is greater than the modulus of the change in gravitational pressure drop.
Keywords: Gaslift, production optimisation, well performance.
1. Introduction
At some point during the life of a well, the oil production rate may be less than what is desired, hence,
necessitating an artificial lift technique. Gaslift, the only artificial lift technique that does not require the
installation of a downhole pump is widely used in the industry because it is relatively more reliable, simpler
and more flexible in terms of production rates and depth of lift (Bellarby 2009). Gas lift entails the injection
of compressed gas into the lower section of the tubing, to enhance well productivity. The injected gas does
this in two ways:

It mixes with the liquid column, reduces the density and viscosity of the column, thereby
making it easier for the liquid to get to the surface.

It expands and displaces the liquid to the surface (Takacs 2005; Guo et al. 2007a).

It is well known that, as gas injection rate increases, oil production rate increases, gets to a peak, then
begins to decline. In this paper I present a detailed explanation of this phenomenon, with the aid of
mathematics. Numerical simulation with MS Excel was carried out to buttress and validate the analytical
model.
2. Well performance
The performance of a well is determined by the combination of the inflow performance relationship (IPR)
curve of the reservoir and the outflow performance relationship (OPR) curve of the wellbore, also known as
the Tubing Performance relationship (TPR). The point of intersection of the IPR and the TPR curve is the
operating point of the well.

2.1. IPR
Darcys Law for steady-state radial flow with formation damage will be used in this work. The equation is as
follows (Ahmed 2006; Bedrikovetsky et al. 2012):
..(1)

2.2. TPR
Considering the fact that flow properties vary in the three Cartesian coordinates and are unsteady, flow in
an oil well is an extremely complex problem. To develop some understanding of tubing performance, it is
convenient to simplify the flow to single-phase, one-dimensional flow (flow properties only vary along the
length of the tubing).
Consider oil flowing from the bottom to the top (wellhead) of a single-diameter tubing string of measured
depth

and true vertical depth

(see Fig. 1). The law of conservation of energy yields the equation for

pressure drop along a tubing string. The total pressure drop in a tubing string is the sum of gravitational
pressure drop, acceleration pressure drop, and frictional pressure drop. The general form of the equation is
. ...(2)
The explicit formula for the total pressure drop in the tubing is (Guo et al. 2007b)

. ....................................(3)
The first, second and third terms of the right hand side of Eq. 3 are the gravitational pressure drop,
accelerational pressure drop, and frictional pressure drop respectively.
Assuming the flow is steady, homogeneous and turbulent; substituting

for u and

for A in the

third term of the right hand side of Eq. 3; and rearranging yields
.
Simplifying the above equation yields
. (4)
Rearranging Eq. 4 yields

And

, .............................................(5)
where

is the water cut and

is the fractional flow for gas in the well.

. (6)
Converting the unit to barrels per day, Eq. 5 becomes

. .(7)

Eq. 7 is the TPR used for the simulation.

2.2.1.

Effect of gas injection on TPR

When gas is injected into a producing oil well, the nature of the well fluid changes, resulting in a new TPR
curve. For example, the density of the liquid column changes from

to

. ...............................(8)
where

Substituting value

in Eq. 7 yields

. ..(9)

The above equation was used to calculate the various TPR curves. The fractional flow for gas is directly
proportional to gas injection rate, as shown below.
.
Rearranging the above equation yields
.(10)

But

Gas/liquid ratio ,
....................................(11)

As gas injection rate increases, the gas occupies more space in the well, resulting in increasing gas/liquid
ratio. When

. As

. .(12)
Therefore, as gas/liquid ratio tends to infinity, fractional flow for gas tends to unity. So, as the gas injection
rate increases, the gas/liquid ratio increases and the fractional flow for gas approaches unity. And as the
fractional flow for gas approaches unity (as

), the well effectively becomes a gas well and liquid

production rate declines. For a given gas injection rate there is a corresponding value of gas/liquid ratio and
fractional flow for gas. And a given value of fractional flow for gas has a corresponding TPR curve, given
that all other factors remain constant.
So, sensitizing on bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP)
rate

. The plot of BHFP versus oil production rate produces the TPR curve for a given value of fractional

flow for gas

2.2.2.

will yield corresponding values of oil production

as shown in Fig. 2.

Effect of gas injection rate on gravitational pressure drop.

Consider the equation for gravitational pressure drop

. ..(13)
Since the acceleration due to gravity
factor here is the mixture density

and the true vertical depth of the tubing

are constant, the critical

Eq. 8 can be rewritten as

.
At all times, the fractional flow for gas falls in the range

and

. Therefore, the

gravitational pressure drop will keep reducing as gas injection rate increases (
2.2.3.

).

Effect of gas injection rate on frictional pressure drop.

Consider the equation for frictional pressure drop

. .......................................(14)

To compare scenarios, we keep

constant. Since other parameters (f,

and water cut) are kept

constant as well, the critical factor is:

. ....(15)
The minimum value of

is 0 and the maximum value is 1. Using limits to sensitize on

yields

and
. ....(16)

Therefore, as the fractional flow for gas increases, the critical factor also increases. This shows that the
frictional pressure drop will keep increasing as more gas is injected into the well.
2.2.4.

Effect of gas injection rate on operating point

Now it is clear that, as gas injection rate increases the gravitational pressure drop
frictional pressure drop
gas

decreases, while the

increases. And it has been established that a given value of fractional flow for

will result in a unique TPR curve, given that all other factors remain constant. When

increases, the

TPR changes position it either moves westward or eastward (see Eq. 9 and Fig. 2). When the TPR
moves westward, the TPR-IPR point of intersection also moves westward, resulting in lower oil production
rate; and when the TPR moves eastward, the TPR-IPR point of intersection also moves eastward, resulting
in a higher oil production rate. When the TPR moves westward, it shows that a higher value of

is

required for a given value of

and

is

required for a given value of

and

, for a given

and

. In other words, an increase in the required

due to increase in

indicates a decline in oil production rate; while a decrease in the required

to increase in , for a given

3. How exactly does

and when it moves eastward, it shows that a lower value of

and
change as

due

indicates a boost in oil production rate (see Fig. 3).

increases?

Consider the well pressure drop equation under steady-state flow and constant wellhead pressure at a
given value of oil production rate

Starting from point 1;

, .(17)
at point 2,
. .(18)
Subtracting Eq. 17 from Eq. 18 yields
. .................................(19)
5

. ...(20)
As gas injection rate increases,
than

will always be less than

, as aforementioned. Therefore,

and

and

will always be greater

To have a boost in oil production rate, the TPR curve must move eastward (i.e.
and a given value of

under constant

must be less than zero). For this to happen, the following condition must be

fulfilled:

That is, the modulus of the change in gravitational pressure drop must be greater than the modulus of the
change in frictional pressure drop. In other words, the reduction in gravitational pressure drop must
dominate the increase in frictional pressure drop when gas injection rate increases.
And to have a decline in oil production rate, the TPR curve must move westward (i.e.
and a given value of

under constant

must be greater than zero). For this to happen, the following condition must be

fulfilled:

That is, the modulus of the change in gravitational pressure drop must be less than the modulus of the
change in frictional pressure drop. In other words, the increase in frictional pressure drop must dominate
the reduction in gravitational pressure drop when gas injection rate increases.
4. Simulation, results and discussions
Eqs. 1 and 9 were used for the IPR and TPR calculations respectively. MS Excel was used to run the
simulations. Apart from the density of water, other input data were arbitrarily chosen (see Tables 1 and 2).
Each TPR curve plotted corresponds to a given value of fractional flow for gas

(see Fig. 4). All other

parameters in the TPR formula were kept constant. To determine the optimum fractional flow for gas , and
consequently the optimum gas injection rate, the operating oil production rate
plotted against the corresponding value of
From Fig. 4, it can be seen that as

(see Fig. 5).

increases from 0 to 0.3, the TPR curve keeps moving eastward,

resulting in higher production rates. When

trend continued as

derived from Fig. 4 was

was increased to 0.5, the TPR curve moved westward and this

was increased to 1, resulting in lower production rates. Fig. 5 clearly illustrates the

explanation in the preceding section. At

, the oil production rate is 2,340 bbl/day. As

increases, the

oil production rate increases (when reduction in gravitational pressure drop dominates the increase in
frictional pressure drop), gets to the peak point
point

= 1,

= 0.26,

= 2,475 bbl/day, then begins to decline to the

= 0 bbl/day (as the increase in frictional pressure drop starts dominating the reduction in

gravitational pressure drop).

5. Conclusions
1. Gas injection into a producing oil well changes the TPR curve, resulting in new operating point(s).
2. As gas injection rate increases, the gravitational pressure drop keeps decreasing while the
frictional pressure drop keeps increasing.
3. When the modulus of the change in gravitational pressure drop is greater than the modulus of the
change in frictional pressure drop, oil production rate increases; and when the modulus of the
change in frictional pressure drop is greater than the modulus of the change in gravitational
pressure drop, oil production rate decreases.
4. On the gas lift performance curve (Fig. 5), the area to the left of the abscissa of the optimum point
is the area where reduction in gravitational pressure drop dominates the increase in frictional
pressure drop; and the area to the right of the abscissa of the optimum point is the area where
increase in frictional pressure drop dominates reduction in gravitational pressure drop.
5. The optimum fractional flow for gas is always in the range

Nomenclature
Roman letters
Dt = tubing internal diameter, L, ft
fF = Fanning friction factor
g = acceleration due to gravity, L

, ft/s

h = payzone thickness, L, ft
kO = effective permeability to oil,

, mD

Lmd = measured depth of tubing, L, ft

Lv = true vertical depth of tubing, L, ft
pA = accelerational pressure drop, m

, psi

pe = pressure at drainage radius, m

pF = frictional pressure drop, m

, psi
, psi

pG = gravitational pressure drop,

, psi

pT = total pressure drop in tubing string,

pwf = bottomhole flowing pressure,
pwh = wellhead flowing pressure,

, psi
, psi
, psi
7

qO = oil flow rate in the reservoir,

, ft /s [bbl/day]
3

QG = gas flow rate in the well,

, ft /s
3

QL = liquid flow rate in the well,

, ft /s [bbl/day]
3

QO = oil flow rate in the well,

, ft /s [bbl/day]
3

QT = total flow rate in the well,

, ft /s [bbl/day]
3

QW = water flow rate in the well,

, ft /s [bbl/day]

re = drainage radius, L, ft
rw = wellbore radius, L, ft
s = skin factor
u = velocity, L

, ft/s
3

VG = volume of gas in the well,

, ft

VL = volume of liquid in the well,

, ft

Greek letters
= fractional flow for gas
= gas/liquid ratio
= change
= viscosity of oil, m

, cp

= pi
= density, m

, lbm/ft

= gas density, m

, lbm/ft

= liquid density, m

, lbm/ft

= gas-liquid mixture density, m

= oil density, m

, lbm/ft

= water density, m

, lbm/ft

, lbm/ft

References
(1) Bellarby, J. 2009. Artificial Lift. In Developments in Petroleum Science, Vol. 56, 303 369. Elsevier.
(2) Takacs, G. 2005. Gas Lift Manual. Oklahoma: PennWell Corporation.
(3) Guo, B., Lyons, W.C., Ghalambor, A. 2007a. Gas Lift. In Petroleum Production Engineering, Chap. 13,
181-206. Burlington, Massachusetts: Gulf Professional Publishing/Elsevier.
(4) Ahmed, T. 2006. Reservoir Engineering Handbook, third edition. Burlington, Massachusetts: Gulf
Professional Publishing/Elsevier.
(5) Bedrikovetsky, P., Vaz, A., Machado, F. et al. 2012. Skin Due to Fines Mobilization, Migration, and
Straining During Steady-State Oil Production. Petroleum Science and Technology 30 (15): 1539-1547.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2011.653702
(6) Guo, B., Lyons, W.C., Ghalambor, A. 2007b. Wellbore Performance. In Petroleum Production
Engineering, Chap. 4, 46-58. Burlington, Massachusetts: Gulf Professional Publishing/Elsevier.

TABLE 1DATA OF IPR CALCULATION

ko (mD)
120

h (ft)
120

pe (psi)
5000

pwf (psi)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000

1.8

re (ft)
2932

rw (ft)
0.3177

s
1.5

qo (bbl/day)
26641.36038
23977.22434
21313.08831
18648.95227
15984.81623
13320.68019
10656.54415
7992.408115
5328.272077
2664.136038
0

Lv (ft)

fF

Lmd (ft)

7391

0.0065

8900

TABLE 2INPUT DATA FOR TPR CALCULATIONS

Dt (ft)

QW/QL

pwf (psi)

pwh (psi)

0.1875

0.6

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000

120

(lbm/ft3)
0.072

(lbm/ft3)
58

Fig. 1Flow along a tubing string (adapted from Guo et al. 2007b).

Fig. 2Effect of gas injection rate on TPR curve.

10

Fig. 3Effect of gas injection rate on operating oil production rate.

Bottomhole Flowing Pressure, pwf, psi

5250

4250

IPR
TPR 1 (beta = 0)
TPR 2 (beta = 0.1)

3250

TPR 3 (beta = 0.2)

TPR 4 (beta = 0.3)

2250

TPR 5 (beta = 0.5)

TPR 6 (beta = 0.7)

1250

TPR 7 (beta = 0.9)

TPR 8 (beta = 1)

250
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Oil Production Rate, Qo, bbl/day

Fig. 4Calculated IPR and TPR curves for various values of fractional flow for gas.

11

2750
Optimum Point (0.26, 2475)

2500
2250
Oil Production Rate, Qo, bbl/day

2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fractional Flow for Gas,

Fig. 5Gas lift performance curve.

SI metric conversion factors
Bbl x 1.589873 E-01 = m

cp x 1.0 E-03 = Pa.s

*

ft x 3.048 E-01 = m
lbm x 4.535924 E-01 = kg
psi x 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
*

Conversion factor is exact.

Author
Asekhame U. Yadua is a graduate Facilities Engineer at the Nigerian Petroleum Development Company
(NPDC), a subsidiary of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). His research interests
include Petroleum Production Engineering, Process Engineering, and Reservoir Engineering. He holds a
BEng degree in Chemical Engineering (First Class Honours) from Covenant University, Nigeria, and an
MSc degree in Oil and Gas Engineering (Distinction) from the University of Aberdeen. He is a member of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) and Energy Institute (EI).
Telephone numbers: +234 8183117508 and +234 8106853967

12

E-mail addresses: aseyadua@gmail.com and yadua.au@npdc-nigeria.com

Office address: NPDC, 62/64 Sapele Road, Benin City, Nigeria

13