SAGD Gas Lift Completions

and Optimization: A Field

Case Study at Surmont
T.C. Handfield, T. Nations, S.G. Noonan, ConocoPhillips

concentric to the production tubing without annulus isolation. Sim-

Abstract
Gas lift completions for steam-assisted gravity-drainage
(SAGD)(1) producers are unique. Conventional gas lift valves and
mandrels with a packer completion cannot be used because of
the extreme temperatures of the downhole environment. Most lift
gas enters the production stream downhole through open-ended
tubing or nozzles, which if not properly sized can result in opera-
tional issues such as fluid/gas slugging and pressure instabilities
that negatively impact the overall lift efficiency.
In 2006, ConocoPhillips conducted a study to design a gas lift
system for the Surmont SAGD development that would allow
better control of lift gas into the production string. In late 2007,
the wells completed with gas lift were placed on production. This
paper covers the data-collection effort and analysis completed to
determine the efficiency of the two types of gas lift nozzles used
in the completions, the methodology for optimization of SAGD
gas-lift systems, and recommendations for future improvement.
ilarily, packers are not placed in the annulus because of tempera-
ture limitations of the elastomers.
The Surmont gas lift experience began with trials in two of the
three pilot wells. The completions consisted of a single produc-
tion string varying in size from 88.9 mm (3.5 in.) to 139.7 mm (5.5
in.) with a 25.4-mm (1-in.) coiled tubing run concentrically for
gas lift and landed at the heel of the well. The bottom of the gas
lift string was constructed similarly to a perforated stinger with 10
ports, each 11 mm (0.433 in.). These gas lifted wells operated with
reservoir pressure as low as 2300 kPa (334 psi), producing fluid
rates between 150 and 480 m3/d (1,047 to 3,352 B/D) with gas lift
rates ranging from 6,000 to 9,600 m3/d (211 to 339 Mscf/D) for a
total combined operating time of 35 months.
“At the lower end of the reservoir pressure spectrum, severe
slugging occurred, with frequencies up to 1 hour in between slugs.

Background
Surmont, an in-situ oil-sands project, is located approximately
60 km southeast of Fort McMurray in the Athabasca oil sands
(Figure 1). This multiphase SAGD project is a 50:50 joint ven- Athabasca Fort
ture between ConocoPhillips Canada Ltd. (CPC) and Total E&P
Canada Ltd., with CPC as the operator. The Surmont pilot began
McMurray
injection of steam in 1997. The pilot comprises three SAGD well
pairs that use a variety of artificial-lift methods. These wells have
been tested to determine the preferred method of artificial lift for
Surmont
the first commercial phase. Peace River
Steam injection, for Phase 1A of the commercial development, Cold
was initiated in mid-2007. Conversion to full SAGD production
followed in late 2007. Phase 1A comprises 20 well pairs in which Lake
all the producers have been completed to produce through gas lift
for the initial life of the well. Phase 1 (A, B, and C) has a capacity
of 3,975 m3/d (25,000 B/D) and is expected to reach peak pro- Edmonton
duction in 2012. A second phase is slated for commercial startup
before the middle of the next decade. Upon completion and full
ramp-up, it is estimated to bring peak production from both phases
to 15,899 m3/d (100,000 B/D). Additional phases at Surmont are
also under study.

Calgary
SAGD Gas Lift: Historical Perspective
Many of the gas lift systems for thermal operations do not use
conventional downhole gas lift valves or choking devices because
of the temperature limitations of the elastomeric rings used to seal
the valve in the mandrel. Instead, lift gas enters the production
stream through perforated tubing or open-ended pipe completed FIGURE 1: Geographical location of the Surmont development.
November 2009, Volume 48, No. 11 51
This resulted in difficulties setting diluent blend rates as well as
chemical rates. There would be overtreating on the tail end of a
slug, and severe undertreating of the emulsion during heavy flow,
making it difficult to produce dry oil. This slugging also created
corrosion problems as low pH demulsifier is continually injected
into the flowline”(2).
The conclusion from testing at the pilot was that gas lift at the
higher reservoir pressures was effective. It is believed that the slug-
ging problem at the lower reservoir pressures was because of the
downhole-lift-gas ports being too large (or too numerous), placing
the well in an intermittent lift regime. However, before any addi-
tional designs and sensitivity studies, the gas lift assemblies were
removed to allow for testing and validation of other forms of arti-
ficial lift for Surmont SAGD.
The Plan: Surmont Initial Gas Lift Design
Gas lift design is complex for the thermal wells because of its
sensitivity to the fluid gradient and the effect of the steam providing
a gas lift effect in the tubulars. Most gas-lift design programs are
unable to account for the steam-lift effect and, as a result, may
overpredict the amount of lift gas needed to overcome the gradient.
Furthermore, the volume of gas passage into the downhole produc-
tion stream should not be controlled solely by the injection choke
at surface, but also by the size of the port in the tubing it is passing
through. Recently, SAGD operators have been using smaller noz-
zles at the end of their gas lift strings to allow for better control of
gas entry into the production stream.
On the basis of the lessons learned from the pilot gas lift comple-
tions, it was decided to perform a gas lift stability assessment that
would recommend a completion design to minimize slugging(3).
Each stinger configuration (port size and quantity) was simulated,
analyzed, and plotted to determine what surface lift-gas-injection
rate would give the necessary amount of pressure differential at
the point of entry into the production stream for continuous in-
jection. For this stability assessment, a transient gas lift program
was used to model the dynamics on the lift gas side and across the
downhole chokes/nozzles. This is the same methodology used for
single-point gas lift injection in subsea applications(4,5). Figure 2 is
a typical plot for a given set of conditions. The flowing bottomhole
pressures on the downstream side of the “chokes” were matched
to that calculated by a SAGD wellbore hydraulics program, Qflow
(Krachuck 2003).
The intent of the original nozzle sizing was to provide a recom-
mended port size and number of ports that would be large enough
to pass the necessary gas, but small enough to maintain an ade-
quate pressure differential to minimize slugging. Slugging may be
induced by the gas lift system if the ports are sized too large (or
there are too many of them) because a very small pressure differ-
ential will result in a large amount of gas entering the production
stream. For example, the stinger described with 10 11-mm holes
would be capable of injecting gas at a rate of approximately 51
e3m3/d (1,800 Mcf/d) with a differential pressure of only 35 kPa
(5 psi). When the gas rate exiting the bottom of the gas-injection
tube is greater than that being injected by the automated surface
FIGURE 2: Typical transient gas lift stability plot from original
study.
52 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
choke, the pressure inside the gas-injection tubing (or annulus, de-
pending on the configuration) will drop. If the pressure inside the
injection tubing drops until it is equal to the flowing bottomhole
tubing pressure, lift gas can no longer be injected into the produc-
tion tubing. With no gas injected into the production tubing, the
flowing bottomhole pressure increases because of the increasing
density of the fluid. Although gas has ceased to flow out of the in-
jection tubing at the bottom of the well, the lift-gas control valve
at the surface is continuing to inject gas, increasing pressure in the
injection tubing. The gas pressure will eventually increase to be
just greater than the flowing bottomhole pressure, allowing flow
to follow into the production tubing. As gas continues to flow, the
gradient of the produced fluids becomes less, causing the bottom-
hole flowing pressure in the production tubing to decrease. This in
effect increases the differential between the gas-injection tubing
and the production tubing, resulting in gas flow out of the injec-
tion tubing even faster until it again outruns the surface injection
rate. At this point, the pressure in the injection tubing starts to drop.
If no action is taken, this intermittent gas-injection cycle repeats
again and again.
The original design specifications for Phase 1 were:
• Coiled tubing: 25.4 mm (1 in.), 38.1 mm (1.5 in.), 38.1 mm
with 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) bubble tube inside.
• Production tubing: 88.9 mm (3.5 in.) and 114.3 mm (4.5 in.)
with maximum and minimum well trajectories .
• Maximum surface injection pressure: 4800 kPa (696 psi).
• Flow rates and bottomhole pressures: 200 m3/d (1,258 B/D)
of oil and 500 m3/d (3,145 B/D) of water at high pressure pla-
teau, 120 m3/d (755 B/D) of oil and 400 m3/d (2,516 B/D) of
water at low pressure plateau.
The difficulty in determining the optimum total flow area of the
gas lift “ports” is in satisfiying the following requirements:
• A minimum differential across the ports of approximately
150 to 200 kPa (22 to 29 psi); there will be some flowing-
bottomhole-pressure fluctuation;
• A flow area capable of offering continuous gas passage for
injection rates between 3 to 10 e3m3/d (106 to 353 Mscf/D).
The approach taken was to size the valve to pass at most 10
e3m3/d at the lower pressure differentials. For larger pressure dif-
ferentials, the well will have to be choked back at the surface.
However if the flowing tubing pressures just below the injection
point begins to fluctuate, the holes are still small enough to provide
some gas-flow control.
The key recommendation from the gas lift study was that the
total flow area for continuous gas passage at the end of the lift-gas
injection string should be in the range of 20 to 25 mm2 (0.031 to
0.0388 in.2). This is roughly equivalent to two 4-mm (0.157-in.)
ports or a total of three 3-mm (0.118-in.) ports (not taking into ac-
count port flow coefficients). Several plots similar in nature were
developed to assist in reaching this conclusion. Single ports were
analyzed, but the Surmont team wanted the redundancy of multiple
ports to minimize the impact of possible plugging.
It was also recommended to use nozzles with internal reverse
flow checks to prevent well fluids from travelling up the lift-gas
injection tubing back to the surface when the pressure inside the
coil is less than that in the production tubing. However, this was
not implemented because of the addition of bubble tubes installed
concentrically in the gas lift coils. Bubble tubes at Surmont are a
6.3-mm (0.25-in.) conduit run to depth, which allows for commu-
nication with the reservoir while monitoring pressure at the sur-
face, allowing for bottomhole-pressure (BPH) monitoring in a
thermal environment. Natural gas is periodically injected into the
conduit and “bubbled” into the produced fluids to ensure accurate
measurement.
The Reality: Surmont Gas Lift Startup and
Optimization
Similar to most SAGD operations, the producer well is designed
with dual tubing to allow for increased operational flexibility. The
design basis for Surmont Phase 1A was a parallel design with heel
(short) and toe (long) tubing (Figure 3). An additional string was
 Coil Seal Breach: 31.75mm toe gas lift coil with inline sub
6,000 10
5,500 9
Lift Gas Injection Rate

Lift Gas Injection, e3m3/d

5,000
Gas Lift Coil 8
4,500
7

Pressure, kPa
Gas Lift Coil 4,000
3,500 6
3,000 Bottom Hole Pressure 5
Heel (Short) String 2,500 4
Toe (Long) String 2,000
3
Slotted Liner 1,500
Gas Injection Pressure 2
Bubble Tube 1,000
500 1
0 0

Time, days
FIGURE 5: Data trend analysis showing a failed coiled tubing seal
assembly.
Instrumentation String
Liner Hanger and Packer

FIGURE 3: Phase 1A completion schematic for a Surmont

production well.
FIGURE 4: (a) Leaking coiling tubing seal assembly. (b) Damaged
packing from seal assembly.
run parallel to the toe tubing to house instrumentation for measure-
ment along the horizontal section of the wellbore. Coiled tubing
with the gas lift valves was installed concentrically to the produc-
tion strings and landed slightly higher than the horizontal section.
A 6.35-mm (0.25-in.) bubble tube was combined with the gas lift
coil in the heel strings for BHP measurement. Blanket gas is placed
in the annulus of the vertical section of the wellbore for thermal
isolation between the production tubulars and the casing for in-
creased well integrity.
Two nozzles were trialed in the initial Surmont phase. A gas lift
nozzle with vertically orientated ports and an inline gas lift nozzle
with the ports oriented at 45° upward. The vertically oriented de-
sign consisted of 4 4.77-mm (0.188-in.) diameter ports (flow area:
71.4 mm2/0.1107 in.2), while the inline sub consists of 2 4.09-mm
(0.161-in.) diameter ports (flow area: 13.1 mm2/0.02 in.2) angled
upward at 45°.
For comparison, the flow capacity of these nozzles at a differen-
tial pressure of 200 kPa (29 psi) is approximately 19 e3m3/d (672
Mscf/D) for the 4-port vertical nozzle and 6.3 e3m3/d (224 Mscf/D)
for the 2-port inline nozzle.
Before the onset of the optimization efforts, the first inititive
was establishing flow assurance on all of the production strings.
On startup, several of the toe (long) production tubulars experi-
enced flow difficulties because of either leaks in the lift-gas system
at the wellhead or plugging of the coil and/or nozzle with bitumen.
These issues were diagnosed by review of the lift-gas-injection
below producing BHP reflects a negative pressure differential
with respect to the BHP, and it is therefore evident that gas is not
flowing downhole. Figure 5 illustrates the trends used to diagnose
a seal failure before and after replacement. Tightening of the coil
packing following circulation is essential to obtain flow assurance
and reduce seal failures. In the future, best practice may be to in-
stall the toe gas lift coil following the circulation period and reduce
the exposure to high-quality steam.
Plugging of the coil or nozzle was evident when the gas-injec-
tion pressure reached maximum capability. But even with this high
differential above the BHP, it is not possible to reach the target
gas-injection rate. The mechanism that causes this is still under
investigation. Plugging typically occurrs following periods of
shutdown, but that is not always the case. Under steady-state con-
ditions, injection pressures often begin climbing over a period of
time (days), indicating some sort of bridging effect from contami-
nants in the system.
Opening the backpressure valve and repetitively cycling lift
gas on and off has successfully agitated suspected debris, tempo-
rarily dislodging the blockage. But the plug often returns, and addi-
tional intervention is required. Flushing the coil with diluent using
a pressure-truck cycling between pressuring up and bleeding back
has been more successful in remediating the blockages in the long
term. Following any well intervention, even if a new gas lift coil
is installed, it is recommended to flush the coils with diluent to en-
sure that no blockage exists before restart of the well. Figure 6 il-
lustrates the pressure trends before and after removal of a plug.
Lift-gas-injection rates, surface lift-gas-injection pressures, and
flowing wellhead pressures in small time-scale increments (i.e.,
seconds) are also used to determine if a production string is oper-
ating in intermittent or continuous gas lift. As discussed in the pre-
ceeding section, slug flow is demonstrated by changes in pressure
(bottomhole or at the wellhead) in response to slugs of fluid being
built and then lifted intermittently. As an internal rule of thumb,
fluctuations in pressure greater than 350 kPa (50 psi) are deemed
slug flow. Pressure fluctuations less than this can be expected
Plugged Coil - 31.75mm toe coil with inline sub
Lift Gas Injection Rate
6,500 10
6,000
Injection Rate, e3m3/day

9
rates and surface pressures.
Injection Pressure, kPa

5,500 Lift Gas Injection Pressure

8
5,000
Leaking and damaged seals in the hanger for the coiled tubing
4,500 7
have remained exclusive to the toe production tubulars to date. The 4,000 6
damage to the seal system is most likely because of direct exposure 3,500
to high-quality steam before SAGD operations during circulation, Bottom Hole Pressure 5
3,000
whereas steam is injected into the reservoir to establish communi- 2,500 4
cation between injector and producer. In some cases, the packing 2,000 3
1,500
used to provide the seal simply needed to be tightened while in 2
1,000
other cases complete packing replacement was required. A failed 500 1
seal system and packing are illustrated in Figures 4a and 4b, 0 0
respectively.
Time, days
Diagnosis of a leak or failure can be assessed from review of
lift-gas-injection pressures at surface. Lift-gas-injection pressure FIGURE 6: Pressure trends before and after plug removal.
November 2009, Volume 48, No. 11 53

FIGURE 7: Effect of backpressure on well stability.
FIGURE 8: Effect of lift gas on well stability.
under normal operation. While in operation, minimizing slug flow
can be achieved in one of two ways adjusting the backpressure on
the well or adjusting the lift-gas-injection rate.
In immature SAGD wells, production is typically choked in
order to maintain a subcool target. As a well matures and steam-
injection rates are optimized, backpressure is decreased or elim-
inated, and flow stability is typically improved (Figure 7). In
instances when the backpressure can no longer be reduced because
of either the operational constraints or the backpressure valve al-
ready being fully open, an increase in the lift-gas rate can have
similar effects (Figure 8).
Currently, there are no conclusive results to demonstrate su-
perior design of either the vertically oriented nozzle or the inline
nozzle under current operating conditions. Stable production has
been demonstrated over a variety of gas lift injection rates using
nozzles under both choked and fully open positions with wells
of similar design and flow trajectories. Nozzle design may prove
to be of greater importance as reservoir pressure decreases in the
future.
Conclusions
1. Proper port sizing and design may not be essential when high
reservoir pressure is available to assist with lift, but may
have increased importance at lower pressures to ensure stable
flow.
2. Following circulation, ensure packing for coil strings is tight-
ened or, if possible, install the gas lift coils following the cir-
culation period to prevent damage.
3. Installation of backcheck valves in coil tubing used for gas
lift may mitigate plugging issues on initial startup and fol-
lowing periods of shutdown.
4. Routine data collection in small time (i.e., seconds) incre-
ments for gas lift system monitoring is essential to under-
stand and evaluate gas lift performance.
54 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Surmont team, including
ConocoPhillips and Total, for permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Das, S. 2005. Wellbore Hydraulics in a SAGD Well Pair. Paper SPE
97922 presented at the SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, 1–3 November. doi:
10.2118/97922-MS.
2. Krachuck, P. 2003. Surmont Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Artifi-
cial Lift Report. Internal document, ConocoPhillips, Houston, Texas
(01 October 2003).
3. Noonan, S.G. 2005. Gas Lift for SAGD. Presentation given at the
SPE ATW “Technologies for Thermal Heavy Oil and Bitumen Re-
covery and Production,” Calgary, 22–23 September.
4. Duncan, G.J. and Beldring, B. 2002. A Noval Approach to Gas Lift
Design for 40,000 BPD Subsea Producers. Paper SPE 77727 pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, USA, 29 September–2 October. doi: 10.2118/77727-
MS.
5. Noonan, S.G., Decker, K.L., and Mathisen, C.E. 2000. Subsea Gas
Lift Design for the Angola Kuito Development. Paper OTC 11874
presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1–4
May. doi: 10.4043/11874-MS.
Provenance—Society of Petroleum Engineers manuscript, SAGD Gas
Lift Completions and Optimization: A Field Case Study at Surmont
(SPE Paper 117489), first presented at the 2008 International Thermal Op-
erations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, 20–23 October. Abstract
submitted for review August 6, 2008; ; revised manuscript received De-
cember 15, 2008; paper approved for pre-press September 28, 2009; final
approval October 13, 2009.
Authors’ Biographies
Treena Handfield is a production engi-
neer for ConocoPhillips in the Canadian Oil
Sands Division working directly with the
Surmont project for the past 2 years. She has
more than 7 years experience in production
engineering and artificial lift in both con-
ventional and unconventional oil projects in
Alberta and offshore Indonesia. Handfield
holds a BS degree in chemical engineering
from the University of Saskatchewan.
 
Tom Nations works in the ConocoPhil-
lips global completions and production en-
gineering group in Houston. He provides
technical support to all of the CoP busi-
ness units primarily in gas lift and gas well
dewatering, but also in other artificial lift
methods.  He has 38 years of experience in
gas lift and productions operations. He is
a member of the API Gas Lift Task Group
under SubCommittee 19.
Shauna Noonan is a staff production engi-
neer for ConocoPhillips, where she works
as an artificial lift specialist in the Produc-
tion Technology group. She has worked on
artificial lift projects worldwide at Conoco-
Phillips and previously  Chevron for more
than 16 years. She has chaired industry fo-
rums,  ISO  and API  committees, and  au-
thored and coauthored numerous papers on
the subject of artificial lift. She is a member
of the SPE Production & Operations Ad-
visory Committee,  2009 ATCE Program Committee, JPT Edito-
rial Committee, and is an associate editor for the SPE Production
& Operations Journal.  Shauna holds a BSc degree in petroleum
engineering from the University of Alberta.