SPE 53968
INTERMITTENT GAS LIFT OPTIMIZATION IN ROSA MEDIANO FIELD
A. HERNANDEZ, SPE, PDVSA-INTEVEP; C. PEREZ, U. NAVARRO, W. LOBO, PDVSA EP OCCIDENTE
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Caracas, Venezuela, 21–23 April 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Rosa Mediano is the field with the lowest reservoir pressure in
Lake Maracaibo. For this reason, a large number of wells are
currently producing on choke controlled intermittent gas lift.
The objective of this work was to identify operating conditions
that could be modified in order to optimize gas consumption
and maximize liquid production.
To carry out this objective, more than 50 down-hole pressure
and temperature surveys were run in a total of 7 oil reservoirs.
The survey procedure was such that an important number of
engineering parameters could be obtained: real liquid pressure
gradient, optimum cycle time, liquid fallback and the
productivity index of the well.
Important deviations of the dynamic behavior of spring
loaded and nitrogen charged gas lift pilot valves were
identified and they are presented in this work. The analysis of
down-hole pressure surveys also shows that, in many cases,
the liquid fallback was well above the usually assumed 5% of
the initial liquid column length per thousand feet traveled.
These measurements are presented in the paper, together with
a discussion of possible causes.
The proper gas injection pressures, gas volume injected per
cycle and optimum cycle times were calculated from the
reservoir inflow capabilities. An overall 30% increase in liquid
production was obtained when these parameters were adjusted
to new values calculated from the survey analysis. A shift
from choke control to the use of surface controllers was
necessary in some cases and detailed examples are presented
in the paper.
Finally, the analysis of down-hole pressure surveys
performed on 6 double packer Gas Lift Chambers shows that
this type of completion is highly inefficient for wells with
moderate to high formation gas-liquid ratios.
Introduction
Rosa Mediano Field is located in the northern part of Lake
Maracaibo. This field has been in operation since the early
1920’s and it has the largest concentration of wells on
intermittent gas lift in Venezuela. Due to the very low
reservoir pressures found in this area, the use of continuous
gas lift is not recommended because of the high volume of
injection gas that would be required.
Some of the operating conditions found in this field are
beneficial to the implementation of intermittent gas lift:
shallow wells, medium API crudes and adequate tubing and
casing diameters. Other conditions, such as high gas-liquid
ratios, are very undesirable for intermittent gas lift.
The general increase of injection gas consumption in Lake
Maracaibo in the last few years has forced local operators to
take a careful look at their operations, in order to find
opportunities to save gas compression and optimize lift
efficiency. A search for alternatives to gas lift is an ongoing
process, but due to the high formation gas-liquid ratios
encountered in the area, the economical implantation of any
other artificial lift method is limited to a few wells with
present day technology. For the time being, increasing gas lift
efficiency seems like the best alternative to extend the
economical life of the wells. Down-hole measurements in real
wells and field scale research on intermittent lift are some of
the steps taken by the Operating Units in the area to gain
understanding of this lift method.
The work described in this paper is based on the analysis
of more than 50 down-hole pressure surveys. These surveys
were performed following a procedure that allows for the
calculations of important engineering parameters, such as:
optimum cycle time, productivity index, fallback losses, real
fluid gradient and gas lift valve performance. This survey
procedure and the theory behind the engineering analysis is
documented in Ref. 1.
The results of a field scale research work were also used to
optimize operations in Rosa Mediano Field. This research
work was performed at a field scale test facility that is fully
described in Refs. 2 and 3.
Optimization Program
The work described in this paper is part of an ongoing
optimization program that will take several years to
accomplish. This optimization program combines the research
2 A. HERNANDEZ, C. PEREZ, U. NAVARRO, W. LOBO
effort at the test facility with pressure surveys in real wells in
order to take specific actions in the field, i.e. gas lift valves
installations using new design techniques. The program
outline is as follows:
(1) An initial set of tests were performed at the test site to
gain some understanding on gas lift valve behavior and
fallback losses. During this phase, important deviations in
gas lift valves dynamic behavior were detected.
(2) In a second phase, a large percentage of the total number
of down-hole surveys, performed for this work, were run
in the field. These surveys were run in 7 oil reservoirs, in
a number of wells per reservoir proportional to the actual
number of active wells in each of them. The location of
the wells, for a particular reservoir, was carefully selected
to gain as much information as possible for the entire
reservoir. One of the major findings of this step was the
inflow capability of each reservoir, i.e. the optimum cycle
time. The liquid slug sizes, depths of point of gas
injection, types of fluids and many other parameters
needed to design a test matrix for the next phase of this
work were selected based on the results from this phase.
During this phase, some actions were taken in the field to
gain additional understanding of the process and try to
improve lift efficiency.
(3) Based on phase (2), a new and more detailed research
work was performed at the test site. The objective of this
second set of tests was to measure the most important
variables of the process at conditions that closely match
those found in the field. While phase (2) concentrated
mainly on the inflow side of the gas lift process, phase (3)
main concern was on the outflow: fallback losses and
dynamic behavior of pilot valves. The work at the test site
greatly simplifies the study of many operating conditions:
slug sizes, volume of gas injected per cycle and so on.
(4) Comparison between the findings of the previous phases
are made and some immediate actions are taken in the
field, while improving current design and trouble shooting
computational programs.
(5) A limited set of surveys is run to evaluate the actions
taken in the field in step (4) and final changes of the
computational programs are made.
Throughout this work, a technology transfer process is
undertaken to ensure that key personnel at the Operating Units
are well informed of the findings of each phase. At the present
time, steps (4) and (5) are being performed.
Results
The results presented in this paper mainly correspond to those
findings obtained in phase (2) and, in a general way, in phases
(3) and (4). Even thought the entire optimization program is
not completed yet, important practical field recommendations
and improvements in production operations can be reported at
this time.
Inflow Capability
The most important parameter that should be determined
for a well producing on intermittent gas lift is the optimum
SPE 53968
cycle time and the most accurate way of knowing it is by
down-hole pressure surveys. These surveys are expensive and
can only be run in a limited number of wells in the reservoir.
A good alternative, specially recommended when using
surface controllers, is to change the cycle time and test the
well at each time. The latter approach must be done with an
excess of gas injected per cycle.
The advantage of running a pressure survey is that the
optimization process is fast (days instead of weeks) and many
parameters, such as the productivity index and the reservoir
pressure, can also be determined from the survey outcome. So,
it is not a bad idea to run pressure surveys in, at least, a small
percentage of the total number of wells in a particular
reservoir. The rest of the wells can be easily optimized around
the cycle times found from the surveys.
Table 1 shows the average inflow parameters found from
the surveys. Even though the reservoir pressures are very low,
these wells are still active because, with the exception of
reservoir (6), the depths of the perforations are only from 2 to
3.5 thousand ft. Reservoir (6) has depths of perforations
around 5.5 thousand ft.
The liquid columns being lifted for the shallow wells are
bellow 500 ft in length. As it was found at the test site, for 23°
API oil, there is little effect of the column length on the actual
volume of gas required per cycle when the column length
range is between 200 and 800 ft.
Table 1 also shows that the optimum cycle time is less
than 1 hr for all reservoirs. Even though very high cycle
frequencies are not recommended because of possible valve
failure, a quick analysis showed that high cycle frequencies
were acceptable for these wells. The increase in production
obtained by cycling the well at a high frequency justifies the
eventual wire line job to replace the valve. A gas lift pilot
valve life is in the order of 40 to 50 thousand cycles in the
area. A valve operating at 10 minutes cycles can last more
than a year.
An average 25% increase in production was realized when
the cycle times were adjusted in only 10 wells selected at
random. A greater increase could have been obtained if the
wells were producing with surface controllers. Since the wells
were producing on choke controlled intermittent gas lift, the
cycle frequency could be modified by changing the gas flow
rate at the choke, but the volume of gas injected per cycle
remained almost unchanged unless a new gas lift valve were
installed.
Fallback Losses
Figs. 1 and 2 show the fallback losses, measured as a
percentage of the initial column length per thousand feet of
depth of injection, versus the volume of gas injected per cycle.
The dotted lines represent the results from the test site
experiments for 23° API oil. Even though the experiments
showed that above 2500 scf per cycle the fallback should be
close to or bellow 5%, in reality the fallback losses were still
high at 14% for 4000 scf injected per cycle. A close
examination of these results revealed that the points above the
dotted lines correspond to wells with 1-inch pilot valves
SPE 53968 INTERMITTENT GAS LIFT OPTIMIZATION IN ROSA MEDIANO FIELD
installed, while the ones close to the experimental results
correspond to wells with 1½-inch pilot valves. The dynamic
behavior of 1 and 1½-inch pilot valves was studied at the test
site, but only 1½-inch valves were used to study the fallback
losses as a function of the volume of gas injected per cycle.
The reason for not using 1 in valves was that these valves,
even for the lowest value of port to bellows area ratio, allow to
pass far more gas than needed if the injection annulus is large,
which is the case at the test site (7 in casing and 2 7/8-inch
tubing). An important practical recommendation is then not to
use 1 in valve for wells with large injection annulus. Brown
reached a symilar conclusion in 1962, see Ref. 4.
The solid line in Fig. 2 corresponds to the results at the test
site for low API oil. In this case the agreement between the
experimental results and field observations seems to be very
close even for 1 in valves. Field and experimental
observations show that 1 in pilot valves are not suitable for an
efficient intermittent lift operation. As it is described bellow,
the time period in which 1 in valves remain open is 4 to 5
times the correct value. So, contrary to what one might think,
1½-inch valves can pass a wider range of gas volume per
cycle in an appropriate period of time. The correct value of
this period of time should be close to 1 minute per thousand ft
of depth of point of injection.
It was also found from the surveys that the pressure
differentials across the pilot valves, just before the opening
pressure was reached, were unnecessarily high. With an
average load found in the field of only 180 psi in the tubing,
the pressure differentials between 500 and 900 psi seemed
unacceptable. To find an acceptable pressure differential
across the valve, different surface injection pressures were
studied at the test site. At first it was thought that for a load of
130 psi a surface injection pressure of 450 psi was adequate
since the differential pressure would be about 370 psi at valve
depth. Experiments showed this to be wrong: for loads
between 130 and 250 psi, surface injection pressures bellow
500 psi are very inefficient On the other hand, surface
injection pressures above 800 psi are not necessary. Injection
pressures around 700 psi were tried successfully in the field.
Another information gathered from the surveys was the
real fluid gradient. The liquid gradient calculated from the
water cut and the oil specific gravity was supposed to be
between 0.38 and 0.42 psi/ft. The average measured fluid
gradient in the field was found to be around 0.23 psi/ft due to
the presence of free gas. Results from the test site experiments
indicate that, for liquid columns of 200 ft, there is no effect of
the liquid gradient on the overall fallback losses. Nevertheless,
more tests will be performed to study the effect of free gas in
liquid columns of 500 and 800 ft.
An overall increase in fluid production of 30% was
obtained when the surface injection pressure was lowered to
around 700 psi and the volume of gas injected per cycle was
increased to more than 3000 SCF per cycle in those cases
where the injection volume per cycle was very low. A larger
increase in production could have been obtained if 1½ in
valves were used instead of 1 in valves.
3
Real Pilot Valve Behavior
For choke controlled intermittent gas lift, it is important to
know the dynamic behavior of pilot valves. The first set of
tests, performed at the test site, indicated that there was a clear
deviation of the closing pressure of spring loaded gas lift pilot
valve, see Ref. 2. The data gathered in the field confirmed this
deviation and showed that the closing pressures of nitrogen
charged pilot valves also deviate from their calculated values.
Due to these observations, an extensive test program was
conducted at the test site to investigate the dynamic behavior
of different types of pilot valves under a wide range of
operating conditions, see Ref. 3. The results from these tests
are currently being used in the development of a new
correlation that will be applied in design algorithms to
calculate realistic opening and closing pressures.
Tables 2 and 3 show the deviations of pilot valves
behavior found in the field. Nitrogen charged valves,
calibrated at a high opening pressure, consistently allow to
pass more gas than expected, but for low injection pressures
the deviations found in the field are not as consistent. For
spring loaded gas lift valves the situation is the opposite: they
do not allow to pass nearly as much gas per cycle as expected.
Table 4 shows the gas injection time for 3 types of valves.
With perforation depths from 2000 to 3000 ft, it is clear that
the injection time should not be higher than 4 or 5 minutes.
Except for high viscosity oil, experiments at the test site
confirmed the fact that the liquid slug velocity should be
around 1000 ft/min. The volume of gas that a 1½ in spring
loaded pilot valve allows to pass in only 3 minutes is
comparable to the volume of gas that a 1 in nitrogen charged
valve passes in 9 minutes. The size of the gas injection orifice
plays a major role in the lift efficiency of the intermittent lift
method. Unless commercially available 1 in pilot valves are
modified, their use in intermittent lift should be avoided.
Use of Surface Cycle Controllers
It is not practical for an offshore field to have surface
controllers at each wellhead. Doing it that way will require
hundreds of controllers that will inevitably increase
maintenance costs. Unfortunately, this is the case in Rosa
Mediano Field. Nevertheless, several actions were taken in the
present work to gain more experience on this type of control.
One cycle controller was installed in a well producing 18°
API oil. The gas lift valve initially installed was set to open at
850 psi surface pressure with measured overall fallback losses
of 49% of the initial slug. A new gas lift valve set to open at
550 psi surface pressure was installed. After an optimization
period, the production was increased from 60 to 120 B/D with
the same volume of gas injected per cycle. The injection
pressure was purposely set at a low value to reduce the
velocity of the liquid slug and the only way to pass an
adequate volume of gas per cycle was using a surface
controller. From this result, it is clear that low liquid slug
velocities are recommended for low API oil. A future research
work at the test site will be performed to gain additional
information on this topic.
4 A. HERNANDEZ, C. PEREZ, U. NAVARRO, W. LOBO
Four additional wells were set to operate with surface
controllers installed at the gas injection manifold located
between 1000 and 5500 ft away from the wellheads. The gas
injection pipelines were 2 inches in diameter. The average
production of these wells was maintained but the gas-liquid
ratio was reduced. This result indicates that it is possible to
implement surface controllers from the injection manifold in
Rosa Mediano Field. A previous work in Ventura Avenue
Field points in the same direction, see Ref. 5.
Several lessons were learned during the optimization
process of the 5 wells mentioned above:
- When using surface controllers it is important to have
a low port to bellows area ratio. This allows for a wide
range of injection volume per cycle. With a large area
ratio, the minimum gas injection volume per cycle
might be higher than the actual volume that is needed.
- Single element gas lift valves are not recommended
because they necessarily would have to have a high
port to bellows area ratio and still the gas injection
orifice would not be acceptable.
- If the casing-tubing annulus is large and only a small
volume of gas is required per cycle, it is recommended
to use a combination of surface controllers and 1½-
inch pilot valves. The lowest value of port to bellows
area ratio commercially available for 1-inch pilot
valves would pass large volumes of gas per cycle
because this area ratio is still too large. On the other
hand, 1½-inch pilot valves with small port to bellows
area ratio without surface controllers might pass less
gas than needed.
- Restrictions at the injection manifold might cause gas
injection problems. Fig. 3 shows a typical injection
pressure chart with no restrictions at the wellhead. In
this case, the flow rate across the valve is less than the
flow capacity of the gas lift injection system, making
it very easy to control the effective spread. Fig. 4, on
the other hand, shows evidence of possible
undesirable restrictions at the manifold. In this case,
the flow rate across the gas lift valve is greater than
what the gas lift system can provide, making it
difficult to control the effective spread. A ¼-inch
choke fully open can cause gas injection problems. If
undesirable restrictions are present and cannot be
avoided, the only way to increase the volume of gas
injected per cycle is to increase the time in which the
surface controller remains open and this is a solution
that might cause loss of lift efficiency.
Double packer Chambers
The evaluation of accumulation chambers is part of the
present study. For up to now unknown reasons, accumulation
chambers have not been successful in Rosa Mediano Field.
The present work is the first serious attempt to troubleshoot
this type of installation.
Several causes might be affecting the efficiency of these
chambers. One of them might be due to the high gas-liquid
ratio in combination with an inadequate bleed valve that does
SPE 53968
not allow the gas in the annulus to flow to the tubing. The
bleed valve currently being used has an orifice of only 1/16th
of an inch. Another reason could be that the productivity index
in this field is not high enough to make the use of
accumulation chamber an attractive alternative.
By means of several gas lift valve changes and careful
measurements of down-hole conditions, together with an
engineering analysis, it was found that both of the reasons
mentioned above are negatively affecting the efficiency of
chambers in the field.
The equation that relates the daily fluid production of a
chamber installation with its volumetric capacity, among other
production parameters, is derived in Appendix A. Using
equation (A-9) for the operating conditions in Rosa Mediano
Field, gives the results shown in Table 5. In Rosa Mediano
Field, the volumetric capacity of most chambers is about 21
B/1000 ft and the productivity index is mostly below 1. This
means that the maximum increase in production that one can
expect is only in the order of 22%. This result does not take
into account the presence of free gas in the liquid, which tends
to worsen the situation.
From the equations derived in Appendix B and the
operating conditions found in the field, the minimum gas flow
rate that has to be vented from the annulus is only between
1500 and 3000 SCFD. The formation gas liquid ratios found in
the filed are mostly between 2000 and 6000 SCFB. With a
liquid production of 70 B/D and assuming that only 10% of
the total formation gas enters the annulus, the gas flow rate
that needs to be vented is between 14000 and 42000 SCFD. So
the total gas flow rate across the bleed valve can be as high as
45000 SCFD considering only 10% of the formation gas being
produced.
Three sizes of vent orifices were studied in this work: 1/16,
3/16 and 3/8 inch ID. If the Thornhill-Craver equation is used
assuming a downstream pressure of 60 psi, Fig. 5 shows the
flow rate across the vent orifice for different annulus
pressures. A 1/16-inch orifice would not be able to vent the
gas in the annulus. 3/16-inch orifices can handle 25000 SCFD
with a differential pressure of 5 psi and 45000 SCFD with a
differential pressure of 20 psi. 3/8-inch orifices can handle 100
MSCFD with a differential pressure of only 5 psi.
It is easy to realize that in order to maintain the same
liquid level in the dip tube as in the annulus, the differential
pressure across the vent orifice must be as low as possible.
Fig. 6 shows graphically why the differential pressure should
be kept at a low value. The greater the differential pressure is,
the greater the difference in liquid level gets.
The real liquid gradient plays also a major role. If the
liquid gradient is very light, the difference between the liquid
level in the dip tube and the annulus would be large even for
low values of the pressure drop across the vent orifice. Table
6 shows the difference in liquid level, in ft, for different values
of liquid gradients and differential pressure across the vent
orifice.
For a 3/16 in orifice handling 45 MSCFD, the differential
pressure would be equal to 20 psi. With liquid gradients from
0.25 to 0.35 psi/ft found in the field, the liquid level in the dip
SPE 53968 INTERMITTENT GAS LIFT OPTIMIZATION IN ROSA MEDIANO FIELD
tube will be from 57 to 80 ft higher than the liquid level in the
annulus for a 20 psi pressure drop across the vent orifice.
Considering the fact that most chambers in Rosa Mediano
Field are from 100 to 200 ft in length, a 57 or 80 ft difference
in liquid level is not acceptable.
Down-hole pressure and temperature surveys were run in
six chamber installations in Lake Maracaibo with vent orifice
of 1/16 in ID. In some cases, the gas lift valves were replaced
in order to ensure that an adequate gas volume was injected
per cycle to keep the liquid fallback as low as possible. The
analysis performed on these surveys revealed the following:
- The liquid level was considerably higher than the
upper packer, even in cases where the liquid
production was from 20 to 50% the capacity of the
chamber.
- The liquid gradient was very low in most cases.
In 4 wells, the vent orifice diameter was increased to 3/16
in but the production remained almost constant. Finally, an
differential valve with orifice diameter of 3/8 in was installed
in one of the well and the production increased by only 15%.
A pressure survey ran in this last well revealed that the liquid
column was lower after the diferential valve was installed, and
since the production per cycle was increased, it was concluded
that more liquid was being accumulated in the annulus after
the installation of this valve. But even in this case, the liquid
level was located much higher than the upper packer while the
production per cycle was only a fraction of the total capacity
of the chamber.
It can be concluded then that, beside the productivity index
not being adequate for chamber installations, the main
problem with chambers in Rosa Mediano Field is the low
value of the liquid gradient found in these wells.
Conclusions
1. Knowing the optimum cycle time is a key factor in
optimizing intermittent gas lift operations. An average
25% increase in production was realized when the cycle
times were adjusted in 10 wells selected at random.
2. An average increase in fluid production of 30% was
realized when the surface injection pressure was lowered
to 700 psi and the volume of gas per cycle was increased
to more than 3000 SCF in those cases where the injection
volume per cycle was very low.
3. 1½ in pilot valves proved to be more efficient than 1 in
valves. The fallback losses found in wells with 1½ in
valves installed were lower than the losses found when 1
in valves were used with the same volume of gas injected
per cycle. The gas injection time is not adequate for 1 in
valves.
4. Surface cycle controllers can be used in Rosa Mediano
Field from the gas injection manifolds. Their use in 4
wells proved to be a serious alternative to reduce injection
gas compression.
5. Several operating conditions were found that limit the
application of accumulation chambers in Rosa Mediano
Field. The lessons learned can be extended to any gas lift
field were accumulation chambers are being used:
5
- There is a practical limit to the volumetric capacity of
chambers above which no significant increase in fluid
production will be obtained.
- This work confirms the fact that the productivity index
should be high for this type of installation.
- Vent valves with orifice ID’s of 1/16th of an inch will
not handle the necessary gas flow rate to keep the
liquid level in the dip tube and the annulus reasonably
close.
- If the real liquid gradient is low, accumulation
chambers will not have an efficient operation even if
the productivity index is adequate and the gas in the
annulus is being properly vented.
References
1. Hernandez, A., Garcia G., Concho M., Garcia R., Navarro U.:
“Down-hole Pressure and Temperature Survey Analysis for
Wells on Intermittent Gas Lift,” paper SPE 39853 presented at
SPE Int. Pet. Conference and Exhibition held in Villahermosa,
Mexico, 3-5 March 1998.
2. Hernandez, A., Marcano L., Garcia G., Machado M., Caicedo S.,
Rivas O.: “Field Scale Research on Artificial Lift,” paper SPE
39040 presented at the Fifth Latin American and Caribbean Pet.
Eng. Conference and Exhibition held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
30 August-3 September 1997.
3. Hernandez A., Gasbarri S., Machado M, Marcano L., Manzanilla
R., Guevara J.: “Field-Scale Research on Intermittent Gas Lift,”
paper SPE 52124 prepared for presentation at the 1999 Mid-
Continent Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, 28-31 March 1999.
4. Brown K., Jessen F.: “Evaluation of Valve Port Size, Surface
Chokes and Fluid Fall-Back in Intermittent Gas-Lift
Installations,” JPT (March 1962) 315.
5. Reis P., “Microprocessors Play a Major Role in Optimizing The
Intermitente Gas Lift System in the Ventura Avenue Field,” JPT
(April 1985) 606.
Appendix A - Inflow Calculations for Accumulation
Chambers
If the difference between the minimum and maximum bottom-
hole pressure in an intermittent gas lift cycle is less than 50%
of the reservoir pressure, the following equation can be used
q = ip( psbh − pwf ) (A-1)
Here, ip is the productivity index, psbh is the bottom-hole
pressure, pwf is the flowing bottom pressure and q is the fluid
production expressed in B/D.
Equation (A-1) can also be expressed as
dQ
q= (bt ) (A-2)
dt
Q is the liquid column length, in thousands of ft, and
bt is the volumetric capacity of the chamber, in barrels per
thousand ft. Additionally, the difference between the static and
flowing bottom-hole pressure can be expressed as
6 A. HERNANDEZ, C. PEREZ, U. NAVARRO, W. LOBO SPE 53968

psbh − pwf = A − Q ρ (1000) (A-3)

greater for a chamber installation, it is also true that it takes
f more time to fill in that volume. In the limit, increasing the
volumetric capacity of the chamber will not have any effect on
Where the production. To prove this point, equation (A-9) is
differentiated with respect to bt
A = psbh − ( pwh * fg + 1000 ρ (dpt − dov)) (A-4) ∂q A(1,44) 1 ip ρ t
= (1 − (1 +
t f
)) (A-10)
ρ is the real fluid gradient, fg is the gas gradient, dpt is ∂bt ρ (t + ti ) ip ρ t
f 1,44bt
t f
the depth of perforations and dov is the depth of the holes in e 1, 44 bt

the dip tube. Equation (A-10) indicates that the differential of q with
respect to bt is always positive, which means that the
Introducing equations (A-4) and (A-2) in (A-1) production will always increase if bt is increased. But, on the
other hand, the limit of this derivative tends to zero as bt tends
to infinity, indicating that there is a practical size of the
= (α / 1000)( A − Q ρ 1000)
dQ
(A-5) chamber above which increasing the volumetric capacity will
dt f
not make any difference on the daily production. For the
production conditions found in Rosa Mediano Field, a 7 in
Where casing is the practical limit for a chamber installation.

α = ip / (1,44 * bt ) (A-6) Appendix B – Gas Bleed off from Accumulation

ρ
Chamber Annular Space
is the fluid gradient calculated from the API and The minimum flow of gas that has to be vented from the
f
water cut of the fluids being produced. annulus to the production tubing occurs when no formation
gas is being produced. In this case, the gas flow rate
Equation (A-5) is integrated to find a relationship corresponds to the volume in the annulus occupied by the gas
between Q and time t. that is being replaced by the liquid per unit time. The
following equations are derived to find this minimum gas flow
Q t rate.
dQ
∫ A − Qρ = ∫ (α / 1000)dt From equation (A-2), the rate of increase of the liquid
(A-7)
column inside the chamber, assuming that the liquid level is
0 1000 0
f the same in the annulus and in the dip tube, is given by
dQ
The lower limit of the integrand at the left-hand side = q / bt chamber (B-1)
of equation (A-7) is only equal to zero if the fallback losses
dt
are negligible. For the purpose of the present analysis, this
assumption is valid and integrating equation (A-7) the The flow of gas that need to be vented from the annulus
following equation is derived for a given liquid flow rate is
dQ
Q =
dt bt annulus
(B-2)
A 1 g
Q= (1 − ) (A-8)
ρ f
1000 αρ t
f
e
The daily fluid production, disregarding the presence Combining equations (B-1) and (B-2), the gas flow rate
of free gas, is then finely expressed as can be expressed as (in SCFD at down-hole conditions)

A 1 Q =q bt anular
(5,615) (B-3)
q= (1 − )bt (1440 / (t + ti )) (A-9) g
bt
ρ f
1000
e
ip
1.44 bt
ρ f (t )
chamber

In SCFD the gas flow rate is given by

In this equation, t is the liquid feed in time and ti is

= q bt annulus (5,615) Pannulus

the gas injection time, both in minutes. The volumetric 520
capacity, bt, appears in two places in equation (A-9). In one of Q (B-4)
them, increasing bt would increase the value of q, and the
gst
bt chamber T annulus 14,7
opposite, with less overall effect on q, is true for the other
term. This means that, even though the volumetric capacity is
SPE 53968 INTERMITTENT GAS LIFT OPTIMIZATION IN ROSA MEDIANO FIELD 7

The pressure and temperature in equation (B-4) are in TABLE 4-AVERAGE GAS INJECTION TIME (MIN)
absolute values. Opening 1 in 1 in 1½ Spring 1½ in
Equation (B-4) gives the minimum gas flow rate and does Pressure Nitrogen Spring Loaded Nitrogen
not take into account the formation gas being produced or the Charged Loaded Pilot V. Charged
injection gas left from the previous cycle. Pilot V. Pilot V. Pilot V.

TABLE 1-AVERAGE INFLOW PARAMETERS High 9.5 5 2.7 N/A

Reservoir Static Liquid Optimum P.I. (Br/d/ Low 5.9 N/A 3.3 N/A
Pressure Column cycle time psi)
(psi) (1000 ft) (min)
1 274 0.33 30 0.6 TABLE 5-% INCREASE IN
2 156 0.17 41 0.3 DAILY PRODUCTION
3 198 0.30 10 4.0 P.I. Bt=20 Bt= 40
4 103 0.09 15 3.8 (B/D)/psi Br/1000ft Br/1000ft
5 293 0.23 26 0.30
6 598 0.81 22 0.65 0.5 22 32
7 490 0.47 25 0.39 1 32 46
2 43 63

TABLE 2-DEVIATIONS FOR NITROGEN

CHARGED PILOT VALVES. TABLE 6-DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIQUID
Well Injection Measured Calc. % Spr. LEVEL IN THE DIP TUBE AND THE ANNULUS, FT.
Pressure Spread Spread Dev. Fluid Diff. Diff. Diff. Diff.
(psi) (psi) (psi) gradient Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
1 High 150 114 31.5 (psi/ft) 10 psi 20 psi 30 psi 40 psi
2 “ 140 129 8.5 0.1 100 200 300 400
3 “ 210 110 90 0.2 50 100 150 200
4 “ 150 129 16 0.3 33 66 100 133
5 “ 180 134 34 0.4 25 50 75 100
6 Low 90 85 5.8
7 “ 80 73 9.5
8 “ 60 77 -22
9 “ 30 31 -3,2 Depth of inj. 2500 and 3300 ft.
10 “ 90 81 11
11 “ 100 82 21.9 All Types of Valves
12 “ 75 69 8.6
0,3
0,25
TABLE 3-DEVIATIONS FOR SPRING
0,2 20-24° api
Fallback %

LOADED PILOT VALVES.

Well Injection Measured Calc. % Spr. 0,15 25-26° api
Pressure Spread Spread Dev.
0,1 27-32° api
(psi) (psi) (psi)
1 High 50 98 -96 0,05
2 “ 45 155 -244
0
3 “ 30 79 -163
4 “ 85 153 -80 0 2000 4000 6000
5 “ 30 92 -200 Gas per Cycle (SCF)
6 “ 30 150 -400
7 “ 150 198 -32 Fig. 1 Fallback losses vs. gas injected per cycle
8 “ 130 183 -40
9 “ 120 139 -16
10 Low 90 152 -68
11 “ 60 110 -83
12 “ 180 268 -48
8 A. HERNANDEZ, C. PEREZ, U. NAVARRO, W. LOBO SPE 53968

Depth of inj. 1700 and 2300 ft. GAS FLOW RATE (SCFD)
All Types of Valves

GAS FLOW RATE (SCFD)

16-18° 350,00
0,4 api 300,00 1/16 in
0,35
Fallback.(%)

19-21° 250,00
0,3 api
0,25 200,00
23-26° 3/16 in
0,2 150,00
api
(%)

0,15 100,00
0,1 50,00
0,05 3/8 in
0,00
0
0 2000 4000 6000

65
70
80
90

9
0
0
10
12
13
Gas per Cycle (SCF) upper
Annular pressure, psi. limit
Fig. 2 Fallback losses vs. gas injected per cycle
Fig. 5 Gas flow rate across the vent orifice

PRESSURE
SURFACE CONTROLLER
CLOSES

GAS LIFT VALVE OPENS DIFERENTIAL PRESSURE ACROSS THE

VENT ORIFICE
VENT ORIFICE
DEPTH

DEPTH
PRESSURE

LIQUID LEVEL IN
THE ANNULUS

GAS LIFT VALVE CLOSES LIQUID LEVEL IN

SURFACE CONTROLLER THE DIP TUBE
OPENS
Fig. 6 Pressure diagram in an accumulation chamber

TIME (MIN)
Fig. 3 Gas injection with no restrictions at the manifold
PRESSURE (PSI)

SURFACE CONTROLLER CLOSES

GAS LIFT VALVE OPENS

GAS LIFT VALVE CLOSES

SURFACE CONTROLLER OPENS

TIME (MIN)

Fig. 4 Gas injection with restrictions at the manifold