SPE 84917
Gas-lift Instability Resulted Production Loss and Its Remedy by Feedback Control:
Dynamical Simulation Results
Bin Hu, SPE, Michael Golan, SPE, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–21 October 2003.
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
Gas-lift wells can be unstable due to various reasons. The
fluctuating, and sometimes chaotic unstable production
behavior affects many offshore fields, particularly at their
decline stages. The hazardousness of the flucuation to
operation safety and smoothness has been awared. But the
production reduction due to the instabilities has not been
widely addressed. In this paper, a commercial available
dynamical multiphase flow simulator is used to conduct
investigation on the production loss. Two types of
instabilities, casing heading and density wave instability,
which both can result in production loss are simulated. Two
hypothetic wells, abstracted from typical North Sea gas-lift
wells, are built within the simulator. Parametric simulation
study is then performed by changing the well settings. The
average production rate of the unstable well can be obtained
from the simulation and compared with the steady state
prediction. The difference of the two results gives the
production loss due to instability. Furthermore, the paper
presents simulation results of applying feedback control to the
unstable wells. The production loss is reduced as an effect of
stabilization by feedback control.
Introduction
Gas-lift is one of the most widely used artificial lift method in
oil production. Economically optimised gas-lift design
requires that gas-lift wells be operated at the up-slope of their
lift performance relationship curve[7]. This leads the gravity
effect becomes the dominant factor of gas and liquid two-
phase flow in the tubing. Two-phase vertical flow under
gravity domination is often unstable. This is particularly true
in the gas-lift wells. The instabilities of gas-lift can either be
marcroscopic or microscopic. By marcroscopic, we mean that
the instability has a systematic background. And by
microscopic on the other hand, we refer to the local instability
such as hydrodynamic slugging, which is not considered as an
operation problem in most situations except that it might be
amplified by other factors. Normally, it is the marcroscopic
instability that results in the severe unstable flow in the wells.
For many years, it has been observed that continueous gas-lift
wells can be seriously unstable and sometimes even behave as
an intermittent gas-lift due to instabilities with systematic
background. Large fluctuation in the well flow rate can result
in poor separation, limit the production capacity and cause
flaring and shutdown.
Besides the operation problems, production loss is another
important issue for unstable gas-lift wells. The field tail
production will be prolonged due to the reduced production
rate since it will take more time to get the same recovery. This
will tremendously increase the cost of operation. The
concentraion of this paper is to investigate the gas-lift
instability resulted production loss since this has not been
widely addressed and caused enough attention. Particularly,
when the downstream receiving facitlity and process can
handle the flow fluctuation, one seldom has the motivation to
deal with it. Therefore, the production reduction is ignored.
This paper emphasizes the notion that production loss is the
norm for oscillating wells and the instabilities have to be
seriously treated even when they do not cause any operation
problem. It also demonstrates that the pragmatic method such
as static choking performed by skilled operators can only
stabilize the well at a cost of large production reduction.
However, dynamical choking based on feedback control can
not only stabilize the well but also save part of the production
loss. Thus, the advantage of applying feedback control to
suitable unstable wells is promoted.
Gas-lift instabilities. Two systematic instability mechanisms
that can result in serious unstable phonomena are discussed in
this paper. One is casing heading, in which the gas injection
through gas-lift valve is non-critical and annulus flow
dynamics is involved in the instability. Another mechanism is
called density wave instability, in which the gas injection is
critical and thus flow in annulus is isolated from any
instability taking place in the tubing. Since this instability has
never been discussed in prtroleum gas-lift application, we
borrow this name from the similar phenomenon observed in
airlift pumps that are often used in the mining industry[8][12].
Casing heading phenomenon has been observed and
studied for some years and its mechnism is now quite clear. It
needs two necessary conditions to occure. One is that the two-
2 SPE 84917
phase flow in the tubing is gravity dominant. The other relies
on the large volume of compressible gas in the annulus. If the
port size of the gas-lift valve is not small enough, any pressure
purterbation in the tubing will be promoted by the changed
gas injection rate accordingly. Assuming that a negative
pressure purterbation from its steady state is arbitrarily applied
in the tubing side, then gas injection through gas-lift valve will
be increased due to the increased pressure difference across
the valve. The tubing pressure then will be further decreased
due to the increased gas injection since the well is operated at
the up-slope of its lift performance curve. This trend will
continue until that the annulus pressure is low enough and gas
injection starts to decrease. The pressure in the annulus is
reduced due to the out-of-balance between the gas flowing
into annulus through the casing choke and the gas flowing out
of annulus through gas-lift valve. Unfortunately, this slowing
down effect of annulus sometimes can only result in limit
cycle rather than stabilized flow. The reason is that the
annulus response is much delayed due to its huge volume and
the compressibility of the gas. It behaves as a buffer tank in
this situation.
The hazardousness of casing heading to operation safety
and smoothness has been awared. The previous investigations
on casing heading mainly concentrated on its characterization
and developing simple stability criteria[1][3][4][6][10][11][18]. The
purpose of obtaining the criteria was to avoid casing heading
at the design stage of gas-lift. Due to the complexity of
gas/oil/water three-phase flow and their PVT properties, even
the latest developed criterion is not convincing when
comparing with field data and the performance of dynamical
numerical simulator[16]. In fact, predicting gas-lift instability at
its design stage has no too much meaning since the well
conditions are always changing. This consideration led into
the development of new type of gas-lift valve based on nozzle
venturi principle[17]. The new valve can easily attain crtitcal
flow under small pressure difference for the gas injection and
thus suppress the occurrence of casing heading while at the
same time maintaining low gas injection cost.
The new valve, which is named as NOVA, has been
selected by many new gas-lift designs. It is also used to
replace the orifice valve for the unstable wells in operation[14].
But not all the installation of NOVA valve gave a successful
story. Eliminating casing heading does not mean assured well
stability. Density wave instability is a newly identified
phenomenon in deep gas-lift wells in North Sea, which
produce from depleted reservoirs. The unstable gas-lift wells
are all equipped with NOVA valve and no pressure oscillation
in the annulus is observed.
Since the gas injection rate is constant, then any variation
in the liquid inflow to the wellbore will easily result in the
density change of the two-phase mixtures in the tubing due to
the change of phase fraction. Clearly, the mixture density
change will result in the change of hydrostatic pressure drop,
thus the total pressure drop, particularly in a gravity
dominating system. The initiated mixture density change due
to phase fraction variation at the bottom of the well will travel
along the tubing as density wave, which sometimes is also
called continuity wave or void wave. This density wave does
not necessary introduce instability to the system since the well
has a self-controlling effect. This attributes to that any
increase in the pressure drop due to increased mixture density
will result in the reduction of the liquid inflow and thus the
mixture density, and vise versa. But this self-controlling
mechanism is more or less delayed due to the out-of-phase
effect between the well influx and the total pressur drop along
the tubing. To a certain level, it breaks down and the well
becomes unstable. The occurrence and characterization of
density wave instability will be discussed in authours’
another publication.
Feedback Control. Recently, feedback control has emerged
as a cost-effective option for stabilizing gas-lift wells[9][13]. For
the wells that cannot be stabilized by installing NOVA valve,
or are technically and economically forbidden to install
NOVA valve, feedback control is an effective method for
stabilizing wells. The paper will even demonstrate that the
production loss is reduced as an effect of stabilization by
feedback control.
Dynamical Simulation Study
Using dynamical simulator to investigate the general principle
of gas-lift instabilities and production loss is preferable since
it is the most cost-effective way of doing the investigation
comparing with well experiments and laboratory experiments.
With the development of new dynamical multiphase flow
simulator, this becomes more and more realistic.
OLGA2000© is selected as our simulation tool. The
objective of developing OLGA was to simulate slow transient
multiphase pipe flow such as terrain slugging, pipeline startup
and shutin, flow rate variation and pigging. The fisrt version
of OLGA was working in 1983, but the main development
was carried out later by a joint research program, involving
two research institutions and several oil companies. OLGA is
based on an extended two-fluid model, accounting for flow
regimes and droplet entrainment and deposition. Correlations
for holdup and flow friction are selected based on flow regime
considerations. The OLGA model had been tested against
experimental data over a substantial range in geometry scale,
pressure and variety of fluid[5].
Besides OLGA, there are several other multiphase flow
simulators in the market. The dynamical performances of the
simulators have been tested and evaluated in different
applications and experiments. It was observed that none of the
simulators could give satisfied results in all tests[2][15]. To
make our simulation investigation results be meaningful and
reliable, we take the following methodology in our simulation
study. First we use casing heading problem to verify the
dynamical performance of OLGA since the basic
characteristics of casing heading are already known from
previous studies. If OLGA simulation can reflect those
characteristics, then we have enough reason to trust the
simulation results from other type of gas-lift instabilities
performed by OLGA.
A hypothetic well is built within OLGA2000 for
simulating casing heading. The well parameters were
abstracted from some North Sea gas-lift wells. The main
parameters are as follows.
2048 m in depth
5 inch tubing
10 inch casing
SPE 84917
2.75 inch production choke
0.5 inch injection orifice
The reservoir parameters are
PR = 150 bara
TR = 108 °C
PI = 26Sm3/D/bar
Unloading valve is not considered in the simulation. Since
the purpose of this study is to investigate the dynamical
characteristics of the well, what kind of fluid the well is
producing is not a key issue here. We assume that there is no
water in the produced fluids. GOR is approximately 80
Sm3/Sm3 for the oil sample used in the simulation.
The hypothetic well has three boundary conditions. In the
reservoir side, reservoir pressure, temperature and productivity
index are given. On the surface, separator pressure is assumed
constant. While at the casing head, there is a fixed gas
injection rate. Besides, a steady formation temperature field
along the well path is assumed and a constant overall heat
transfer coefficient is used. The base case is that production
choke is fully open, separator pressure equals 15bara and
injection gas rate is 72000Sm3/D.
For density wave instability study, a similar hypothetic
well is built with further simplification. Since gas injection
through gas-lift valve is constant, then the flow in annulus and
through the valve is dropped from the simulation, instead, a
constant gas source is given near the bottom of the well.
Because density wave instability is a newly identified
phenomenon, we decide to remove all the weak factors from
our simulation so that the results are more representative and
with common sense. This leads that air and water are used as
test fluids in the simulation instead of gas and oil, and the
system is assumed isothermal. Detailed information of the
well and reservoir are
2500m in depth
5 inch tubing
2.75 inch choke
PR =50 to 260 bara
Psep=10bara
PI=34.5Sm3/D/bar
OLGA2000 has an internal steady-state simulator. In our
study, all the simulation is initiated from steady-state
calculation results.
Results and discussions
Characterisation of casing heading. As mentioned in
previous section, casing-heading problem is simulated to
verify OLGA dynamical performance when simulating
unstable gas-lift wells. Effects of four factors on casing
heading are simulated. These include gas injection rate, size of
gas-lift valve, productivity index and choke opening. For each
factor, two additional cases are tested upon the base case to
see the tendency of stability.
Effect of gas injection rate. Increasing gas injection rate
can increase the stability if the well is operated near its
optimum gas-lift point. This attributes to two factors caused
by increased gas injection. One is the increased friction loss
due to increased flowrate in the tubing. Another is that high
gas rate can make the flow in the annlus more stiff, thus
reduce the delay effect. Figure 1 gives the simulation results
showing the change of well bottomhole flowing pressure
3
under three different gas injection rate, in which the first is the
base case. The third case has the highest gas injection rate,
which is approximately one third higher than the base case
rate. It shows that the oscillation amplitude is decreased and
frequency is increased when increasing gas injection, and
finally the well is stabilized when gas injection rate is
high enough.
Effect of gas-lift valve size. The port size of gas-lift valve
has strong impact on well stability. Valve with smaller port
size can increase stability since it can suppress big flow
variations. Figure 2 shows the time series of bottomhole
flowing pressures for three cases with different port sizes, in
which the smallest size is 3/8 inch and the biggest is ¾ inch. It
is clear that the oscillation amplitude is decreased when using
smaller size orifices. At 3/8-inch case, the well is
fully stabilized.
Effect of productivity index. Productivity index also can
change the stability of the well. Since increased gas injection
will decrease the hydrostatic pressure drop by decreasing
mixture density, thus promotes the instability, a higher
productivity index should have a stabilizing effect by
supplying more reservoir fluid to compensate the mixture
density reduction caused by increased gas fraction. This is also
clearly demonstrated by the simulation. Figure 3 shows the
effects of productivity index. Increasing productivity index
reduces the oscillation amplitude and the well becomes stable
when it is big enough. In this simulation, the productivity
index of case three is about three times of that in the base case.
Effect of choke opening. Choking is the most used
pragmatic way of stabilizing unstable wells. The role of
choking relies on that smaller choke opening can increase
friction loss for the whole system. The lift performance curve
at smaller choke opening will become more flat than that at
bigger opening. OLGA simulation results on choking effect
are given in figure 4. It shows that choking decreases
instability. When the choke opening is about 40%, the
oscillation amplitude is already significantly reduced.
Continuing to close the choke to 20% opening, the well is
then stabilized.
Summary. OLGA2000 simulation results succefully
demonstrate the main characteristics of casing heading
problem. The limit cycle of casing heading process has been
clearly reflected by the simulations. There could be some
offsets in numbers if OLGA simulation can be compared with
lab experiments, but from the above simulations, we believe
that OLGA at least has the capability to qualitively capture the
main dynamics of gas-lift instability. This gives us the
confendence of using OLGA in the following investigations
since they are rather qualitive than quantative.
Production loss due to casing heading. The production
loss due to casing heading is then investigated. At the basic
settings of the base case, we first study the production loss at
different gas injection rate. The gas rate is from 0 to
100000Sm3/D. The steady-state prediction of oil production
rate for a given gas rate is determined by OLGA internal
steady-state simulator. In fact all the dynamical simulation is
initiated by the steady-state simulation results. The real
production rate under casing heading is a time average value
based on the dynamical simulation results for 24hrs. The
averaged rate is normalized to the steady-state prediction. If
4 SPE 84917
the normalized value is not unity, then it is judged that the
production rate is changed due to instability. Depending on
the normalized value, production rate could be increased or
decreased. Figure 5 shows the results for different gas
injection rate. It is clear that production rate is reduced in the
well settings that are of interest. Up to 35% production loss
can happen due to casing heading. When increase the gas rate
to a certain level, the well is stabilized and the dynamical
simulation result is the same as that predicted from steady-
state simulation.
Figure 6 gives the results at different choke opening. Here,
all production rates are normalized to the steady-state
prediction when choke is fully opened. The gas injection rate
is the same as the base case, choke is adjusted to different
openings from 0 to 100%. The well is unstable at large choke
opening and loses its production by 20% compared with
steady-state prediction when choke is fully opened. When
reduce the choke opening to 10%, the well is absolute stable.
In this situation, the production rate is about 60% of the
steady-state prediction when choke is fully opened. This
demonstrates that static choking can result in big production
loss even it is effective to stailize the wells. If comparing the
real production rate (the dashed line in the figure) between
large choke opening and small choke opening, we find that the
difference is quite small. For an example, the well in fact
produces almost the same amount of oil at the situations of
20% and 100% opening. This might mislead the operators by
the impression that choking does not result in production loss,
thus it is not necessary to tackle the instabilities by other
measures rather than choking.
Basic characteristics of gas-lift density wave instability.
From some North Sea gas-lift wells, it was found that they
could be unstable even when NOVA valves were applied. This
observation initiated a new study in gas-lift instability for the
situation that gas injection rate at the bottom of the well is
constant and annulus flow is not involved in the instability.
Primary investigation shows that density wave instability can
occure in deep depleted gas-lift wells.
Figure 7 is a stability map for the second hypothetic well.
For a given reservoir pressure, particularly when it is not high
enough to overcome the hydrostatic head and make the well
natrually flow, three phonomena, indicated as “no
production”, “unstable” and “stable production” in the map,
can be observed when increasing gas injection rate from low
to high. When the gas rate is too low to lift the liquid, gas
phase will flow through the liquid and release near the top of
the well. The liquid level may be oscillating within the tubing,
but no production is observed at the wellhead. This kind of
phonmenon is marked by the cross sign on the stability map.
If increasing the gas rate to a certain level, a burst-like
liquid production is observed. The well starts to produce
unstably. Figure 8 gives the outlooking of the production at
this situation. Long periodic time is its typical characteristic. If
continue increasing the gas rate, both the frequency and the
amplitude of the oscillation will increase. This is shown in
figure 9. The oscillation will become more harmonic-like if
the gas rate is increased further as shown in figure 10. All the
unstable cases are marked by black dots on the map.
The well will be stable if gas rate is high enough. The
stable region is mainly located in the upper right direction on
the map. All the stable cases are market with small circles.
The stability map is quite representative. It is clear that density
wave instability can easily occure in a well with low reservoir
pressure and low gas injection rate.
Production loss due to density wave instability. The same
as casing heading problem, density wave instability can also
cause flow rate change compared with steady-state
predictions. Figure 11 shows the normalized production rate
of unstable production at different gas injection rate. Reservoir
pressure is 90bara for all the simulations. The interesting
observation here is that unstable production due to density
wave instability not only can reduce the production but also
can increase the production if the gas rate is low enough. For
an example, according to the simulation result, the well can
produce as twice as its steady-state prediction when the well
just steps over the threshold from “no production” to
“unstable production”.
In most situations, the range of gas rate that can increase
production is not of interest in practical gas-lift wells. The
normal gas rate is much larger than that. For the high gas rate,
production loss rather than gain is often observed as shown in
figure 11, in which up to 24% production reduction can occure
at a certain gas injection rate. We have even observed that up
to 50% production loss is possible from other well settings.
Effects of feedback control. As indicated in casing heading
problem, static choking can only stabilize the well without
saving the production loss. Dynamical choking based on
feedback control can not only stabilize unstable wells, but also
save the production loss. The results of applying feedback
control to both casing heading and density wave instability are
presented as follows.
Control structure and controller design. Since this paper
mainly discusses the production loss and the possibility of
using feedback control to remedy it, only very simple
feedback control structure is tested, in which bottomhole
flowing pressure is controlled by production choke. PI
controller is selected to carry out the task.
The controller settings are determined by following steps.
First, the optimum setting of the bottomhole flowing pressure
is determined from OLGA steady-state simulation. In fact, the
setting should be lit bit higher than the steady-state prediction.
Then the integration time is selected proportion to the period
time of the oscillation. A small gain value is determined so
that stability can be achieved. The gain value is adjusted by
trial-and-error so that the setting of bottomhole flowing
pressure is as close as possible to the steady-state prediction
and a quick stabilization can be realized.
Active control of casing heading. Figure 12-14 give the
results of stabilizing the base case of casing heading. The
simulation is initiated by steady-state calculation, and then the
limit cycle is developed. At the beginning, the choke opening
is 96%. The controller is started after 8 hours from the
beginning of the simulation. Figure 12 shows the variation of
choke opening before and after controller is started. Figure 13
gives the change of pressure and production rate accordingly.
It is seen that after about 3 hours the well is stabilized. The
choke opening is then about 88%. The production rate is
SPE 84917
stabilized at the level that is very close to its steady-state
prediction indicated in the figure at time 0. In fact, normalized
production rate is about 95% marked by a black dot in figure
5, which is much higher than that without using feedback
control. The original rate is only 78%, so 17% production
is saved.
If we keep the choke opening determined by the controller
and switch back to manual control, the well will be unstable
again. This is shown in figure 14. It demonstrates the function
of feedback controller.
Active control of density wave instability. Figure 15-17
show the results of applying feedback control to the case given
by figure 9. The controller is started after 5.5 hours from the
beginning of the simulation. Figure 15 shows the choke
opening variation. It finally approaches 40% when the well is
stabilized 10 hours later after the controller is started. Figure
16 shows that the stabilized production rate is also quite close
to steady-state prediction. In fact 96% normalized rate is
obtained after stabilization by feedback control. This is
marked in figure 11 by a black dot. Comparing with the case
without using feedback control, in which the rate is only 76%,
20% production is saved.
If keep the choke opening determined by feedback
controller and switch back to manual control, the well is
unstable again even the choke opening is only about 40%.
This is shown in figure 17. Comparing the simulation results
in figure 9 and figue 17, we see the instability is reduced as an
effect of static choking. This demonstrates that static choking
can also reduce the density wave instability.
Summary. Both casing heading and density wave
instability can be stabilized by feedback control. The
production loss can be partly remedied as an effect of
stabilization. In our simulation, only a simple feedback control
structure is tested and the controller tuning is also rough. Even
so, the simulation results clearly demonstrate the function of
feedback control when applying to unstable gas-lift wells.
Further study on the details of control structure and controller
design is suggested.
. Tech., pp. 301-302 (February 1982).
Conclusions
The information provided in this paper can be used in gas-lift
design, operation and optimisation. The results remind the
operators of taking necessary measures to smooth the unstable
production even though sometimes it does not harm the safety.
The results also show the potential of reduce production loss
by feedback control, thus, gives a new option to optimise the
production. Following conclusions can be made from
this study.
1. Unstable gas-lift can definitely result in production
reduction. Around 20-40% of production loss is
observed due to gas-lift instability for typical well
settings in our simulations. Static choking can
normally stabilize the gas-lift at a cost of losing
production. But dynamic choking not only can
stabilize the gas-lift wells, but also reduce the
production loss. In the simulated cases, the wells
produce closely to its steady-state predictions when
feedback control is applied.
5
2. Density wave instability can occure in gas-lift wells
equipped with NOVA valve, particularly when the
reservoir is depleted and gas injection rate is low.
3. The performance of dynamic simulator, OLGA2000,
has been verified by reflecting the main
characteristics of casing heading problem. It shows
promising capability in simulating
gas-lift instabilities.
Acknowledgement
This research is supported by PETRONICS project sponsored
by ABB, Norsk Hydro AS, Norwegian Research Concil and
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Scandpower Petroleum AS is acknowledged for offering
OLGA2000 acdemic licence.
Refereces
1. Alhanati, F.J.S., Schmidt, Z., Doty, D.R. and Lageref, D.D.:
"Continuous Gas-Lift Instability: Diagnosis, Criteria, and
Solutions", SPE 26554, presented at the 68th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition Held in Houston, TX,
3-6 October 1993.
2. Asheim, H.: "Verification of Transient, Multi-Phase Flow
Simulation for Gas Lift Application", SPE 56659, presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
3. Asheim, H.: "Criteria for Gas Lift Stability", JPT (November
1988), pp1452-1456.
4. Avest, D.ter and Oudeman, P.: "A Dynamic Simulator to Analyze
and Remedy Gas Lift Problems", SPE 30639, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas,
Texas, 22-25 October 1995.
5. Bendiksen, K.H., Malnes, D., Moe, R., Nuland, S.: ”The
Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application”,
SPE-PE, 171, May 1991,
6. Blick, E.E., Enga, P.N. and Lind, P.C.: "Theoretical Stability
Analysis of Flowing Oil Wells and Gas-lift Wells", SPE
Production Engineering (November 1988), pp504-514.
7. Clegg, J.D.: "Discussion of Economic Approach to Oil
Production and Gas Allocation in Continuous Gas Lift", J. Pet.
8. De Cachard, F. and Delhaye, J.M., “Stability of Small Diameter
Airlift Pumps”, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 24, 17-34, 1998.
9. Eikrem, G.O., Foss, B., Imsland, L., Hu, B. and Golan, M.:
“Stabilization of Gas Lifted Wells”, IFAC 2002 WC, Barcelona,
Spain, July 2002.
10. Grupping, A.W., Luca, C.W.F. and Vermulen, F.D.: "Continuous
Flow Gas Lift. Heading Action Analysed for Stabilization", Oil
& Gas Journal, pp47-51, July 23, 1984.
11. Grupping, A.W., Luca, C.W.F. and Vermulen, F.D.: "Continuous
Flow Gas Lift. These Methods Can Eliminate or Control Annulus
Heading", Oil & Gas Journal, pp186-192, July 30, 1984.
12. Hjalmars, S., “The Origin of Instability in Airlift Pumps”, J.
Appl. Mech. 399-404, June 1973.
13. Jansen, B., Dalsmo, M., Nøkleberg, L., Harvre, K., Kristiansen,
V. and Lemetayer, P.: "Automatic Control of Unloading Lifted
Wells", SPE 56832, presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas,
3-6 October 1999.
14. Juan, F., Bermudes, G. and Cuauro, A., “A Solution to Instability
Problems in Continuous Gas-lift Wells Offshore Lake
Maracaibo”, SPE 53959, presented at the 1999 SPE Latin
American Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas,
Venezuela 21-23 Aprill 1999.
6 SPE 84917

15. Lopez, D., Dhulesia, H., Lerocher, E., Duchet-Suchaux, P.: 1.4E+07

“Performance of Transient Two-Phase Flow Models”, SPE

38813, Annual Tech. Conf. And Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 5- 1.3E+07

8 October 1997.
1.2E+07
16. Tinoco, M.M.: "Validation and Improvement of Stability Criteria
for Gas-Lift Wells", M.Sc. Thesis, The Univ. of Tulsa. (1998). 1.1E+07
17. Tokar, T., Schmidt, Z. and Tuckness, C.: "New Gas Lift Valve

Pwf (Pa)
Design Stabilizes Injection Rates: Case Studies", SPE 36597, 1.0E+07

presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, 6-9 October 1996. 9.0E+06

18. Xu, Z.G. and Golan, M.: "Criteria for Operation Stability of Gas
8.0E+06
Lift", SPE 19362, unsolicited, June 9, 1989.
Gas injection 1
Gas injection 2
7.0E+06
Gas injection 3

6.0E+06
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04
Time (s)

Figure 1. Effect of gas injection rate on stability, gas injection rate

1<gas injection rate 2<gas injection rate 3.

1.4E+07

1.3E+07

1.2E+07

1.1E+07
Pwf (Pa)

1.0E+07

9.0E+06

8.0E+06

Orifice port size 1

7.0E+06
Orifice port size 2
Orifice port size 3
6.0E+06
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04
Time (s)

Figure 2. Effect of orifice size on stability, orifice port size

1>orifice port size 2>orifice port size 3.

1.4E+07

1.3E+07

1.2E+07

1.1E+07
Pwf (Pa)

1.0E+07

9.0E+06

8.0E+06

PI1
PI2
7.0E+06 PI3

6.0E+06
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04
Time (s)

Figure 3. Effect of productivity index on stability, PI1<PI2<PI3

SPE 84917 7

1.4E+07 8.E+04

1.3E+07 7.E+04

1.2E+07 6.E+04

No production

Gas injection rate (Sm3/D)

1.1E+07 Unstable
5.E+04
Stable
Pwf (Pa)

1.0E+07 4.E+04

9.0E+06 3.E+04

8.0E+06 2.E+04

Choke opening 1
7.0E+06 Choke opening 2 1.E+04
Choke opening 3

6.0E+06 0.E+00
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260
Time (s) PR-Psep (bar)

Figure 4. Effect of choke opening on stability, choke opening Figure 7. Stability map for density wave instability.
1<choke opening 2<choke opening 3.

1.0
1.E+07 350

0.9

9.E+06 300
0.8

Production rate at wellhead (m /D)

0.7 8.E+06 250
Normalized Production Rate

3
0.6
7.E+06 200
Pwf (Pa)

0.5

Open loop dynamical simulation results 6.E+06 150

0.4
With feedback control

0.3 Bottomehole flowing pressure

5.E+06 100
Production rate at wellhead
0.2
4.E+06 50
0.1

0.0 3.E+06 0
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04 7.E+04 8.E+04 9.E+04 1.E+05 0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04
Gas injection rate (Sm3/D) Time (s)

Figure 5. Production loss due to instability. Figure 8. Outlooking of density wave instability, PR is 90bara and
3
air injection rate is about 18000Sm /D.

1.0
1.E+07 2100

0.9

9.E+06 1800
0.8

Production rate at wellhead (m /D)

0.7 8.E+06 1500
Normalized production rate

0.6
7.E+06 1200
Pwf (Pa)

0.5

Steady-state simulation 6.E+06 900

0.4
Unstable (from dynamic simulation) Bottomhole flowing pressure
Production rate at wellhead
0.3
5.E+06 600

0.2

4.E+06 300
0.1

0.0 3.E+06 0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04
Choke opening (-) Time (s)

Figure 6. Effect of static choking on production rate. Figure 9. Outlooking of density wave instability, PR is 90bara and
3
air injection rate is about 40000Sm /D.
8 SPE 84917

1.E+07 1400 1.E+07 3500

9.E+06 1200 1.E+07 3000

Production rate at wellhead (m /D)

Production rate at wellhead (m /D)

8.E+06 1000 1.E+07 2500

3
Pressure (Pa)
7.E+06 800 8.E+06 2000
Pwf (Pa)

Bottomhole flowing pressure

6.E+06 600 6.E+06 1500
Production rate at wellhead

5.E+06 400 4.E+06 1000

Bottomhole flowing pressure

4.E+06 200 2.E+06 Annulus pressure near gas-lift valve 500
Production rate at wellhead

3.E+06 0 0.E+00 0
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04 0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04 7.E+04 8.E+04 9.E+04
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 10. Outlooking of density wave instability, PR is 90bara and Figure 13. Variation of pressure and production rate before and
3
air injection rate is about 54000Sm /D. after controller is started.

2.0
1.E+07 3500

1.8
1.E+07 3000
1.6

Production rate at wellhead (m /D)

1.4 Open loop dynamical simulation results 1.E+07 2500
Normalized production rate

3
With feedback control
1.2
Pressure (Pa)

8.E+06 2000
1.0

6.E+06 1500
0.8

0.6
4.E+06 1000

0.4 Bottomhole flowing pressure

Annlus pressure near gas-lift valve
2.E+06 500
Production rate at wellhead
0.2

0.0 0.E+00 0
1.0E+04 1.5E+04 2.0E+04 2.5E+04 3.0E+04 3.5E+04 4.0E+04 4.5E+04 5.0E+04 5.5E+04 6.0E+04 0.0E+00 5.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.5E+04 2.0E+04 2.5E+04 3.0E+04
3
Gas injection rate (Sm /D) Time (s)

Figure 11. Production loss due to density wave instability. Figure 14. Unstable production when controller is switched back
to manual control.

1.2
1.2

1.0
1.0

0.8
0.8
Choke opening (-)
Choke opening (-)

0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04 7.E+04 8.E+04 9.E+04 1.E+05
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04 7.E+04 8.E+04 9.E+04
Time (s)
Time (s)

Figure 12. Variation of choke opening before and after controller Figure 15. Variation of choke opening before and after controller
is started. is started.
SPE 84917 9

1.E+07 2000

9.E+06 1800

8.E+06 1600

Production rate at wellhead (m /D)

7.E+06 1400

3
6.E+06 1200
Pwf (Pa)

5.E+06 1000
Bottomhole flowing pressure
4.E+06 Production rate at wellhead 800

3.E+06 600

2.E+06 400

1.E+06 200

0.E+00 0
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04 7.E+04 8.E+04 9.E+04 1.E+05
Time (s)

Figure 16. Variation of pressure and production rate before and

after controller is started.

1.E+07 1500

9.E+06 1350

8.E+06 1200
Production rate at wellhead (m /D)

7.E+06 1050
3

6.E+06 900
Pwf (Pa)

Bottomhole flowing pressure

5.E+06 750
Production rate at wellhead

4.E+06 600

3.E+06 450

2.E+06 300

1.E+06 150

0.E+00 0
0.0E+00 5.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.5E+04 2.0E+04 2.5E+04 3.0E+04 3.5E+04 4.0E+04
Time (s)

Figure 17. Unstable production when controller is switched back

to manual control.