Gas-Lift Technology Applied to

Dewatering of Coal bed Methane

Wells in the Black Warrior Basin
Kenneth J. Johnson, SPE, and Alan Coats, SPE, Otis Engineering Corp., and
Stephen A. Marinello, * SPE, U. of Alabama
Summary. Coalbed methane (CBM) wells usually are dewatered with sucker rod or progressive cavity pumps to reduce wellbore
water levels, although not without problems. This paper describes high-volume artificial-lift technology that incorporates specifically
designed gas-lift methods to dewater Black Warrior CBM wells. Gas lift provides improved well maintenance and production optimization
by the use of conventional wireline service methods.
Introduction
Since 1971, CBM wells have been dewatered by conventional ar-
tificiallift. To date, Black Warrior basin wells typically have been
produced by either rod or Moyno pumps, with few problems.
Wells usually are drilled from 1,000 to 2,500 ft deep, with some
reaching 6,000 ft. Water has been produced inside U's-in. tubing,
while methane gas has been produced up the annulus. Production
ranges from 50 to 1,000 BWPD (averaging 300 to 350 BWPD).
The wells generally require 3 to 12 months to dewater.
The inherent requirement of a Black Warrior basin completion
is that the bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP) across the coal
seams (desorption pressure) must be about 5 to 10 psi. The most
effective installation meets this objective at an acceptable cost.
Many wells in the basin first are brought on line by single-point
injection of air down the production string. This allows the well
to be cleaned of any remaining sand or coal fines and to reach a
lower fluid production rate in less time. Upon reaching this rate,
the well can be placed on pump lift.
A large number of wells are scheduled for completion over the
next few years, many at greater depths than reached previously
(3,500 to 4,500 ft). Artificial-lift technology commonly used in con-
ventional wells now can be applied to CBM wells to maximize ef-
ficiency and recovery while minimizing overall costs.
Historical Experience
Over the past few years, gas lift has been introduced to CBM's
in Alabama as an alternative method to dewater wells. Gas-lift tech-
nology first was used in the Black Warrior basin in 1984.
A principal method of gas lift still in use is single-point injection
(Fig. 1). One of the first methods to unload oil and gas wells, this
technique not only assists in unloading the well but also can help
remove fracture sand and coal fines from the wellbore before com-
pletion.
Experience with conventional wells has shown that this procedure
is quite inefficient.
1. The rig must be maintained at the wellsite until the rods have
been installed, while it might be better utilized elsewhere if a more
effective lifting system completed the well from the start.
2. The rig's air supply must be sufficient to turn the fluid around
and bring the water back to surface. Such a compressor not only
is costly but also keeps the rig from its primary job.
3. Gas production and bottomhole pressure (BHP) cannot be mon-
itored effectively during production.
4. With air injected down the tubing and air and water returning
up the annulus, the casing and tubing are subject to significant,
perhaps irreparable, corrosion damage if air is injected for a pro-
longed period. The well cannot be watered down effectively before
being placed on a rod pump.
5. If the operator simply starts injection at a higher point with
a "macaroni" -type injection system and adds tubing as required
to inject more deeply into the wellbore, a rig will be required.
'Now at the Colorado School of Mines.
Copyright 1992 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Production Engineering, November 1992
Conventional casing-flow gas-lift installations also have been tried
with gas injected down the tubing through conventional gas-lift
valves that are strategically spaced in the string. Fluid and injected
gas are produced up the primary annular area, while coal-seam gas
is produced up the secondary annular area (Fig. 2). Although con-
siderable fluid is produced, this installation has several short-
comings.
1. Conventional gas-lift valves are a permanent part of the tubing
string. As the well is unloaded, production first passes through the
ported section of the unloading valves. Production fluid often con-
tains coal fines that cut out the stem and seat. As the well is unloaded
to the next operating valve, a multipoint injection failure will occur
because of damage to the upper valve(s). This failure sharply curtails
fluid lift efficiency and consumes excessive quantities of lift gas.
2. Valves cannot be retrieved and repaired without the tubing
being pulled and a completion workover performed.
3. The installation would cost more than would a conventional
rod or gas-lift installation. The secondary annulus requires 7-in.
minimum casing ID, while the primary casing string must be 5V2 in.
The installations discussed will produce large volumes of water,
but neither is a truly economical or effective gas-lift system. By
comparison, a significantly modified gas-lift completion was de-
veloped that allows the operator to dewater a well efficiently. This
installation (Fig. 3) yields the lifting efficiency and capacity of a
standard gas-lift completion under the unique conditions of the Black
Warrior basin. The completion requires only standard oilfield equip-
ment: (1) a side-string side-pocket mandrel (Fig. 4), (2) wireline-
retrievable gas-lift valves, (3) a reeled-tubing injection string, and
(4) conventional wireline tools.
Black Warrior basin wells produce water up the tubing and
methane up the annulus. Because of the low desorption pressures
required and coal seam spacing varying from 1 to 2,000 ft, a packer-
type completion is out of the question. With a typical gas-lift
completion, lift gas cannot be injected down the annulus into the
tubing string and still attain the required BHFP. A new method was
used to direct gas to the desired injection point while keeping the
annulus open for gas production.
Reeled tubing was used with side-pocket mandrels in a design
that allowed lift gas to be injected selectively into the tubing string.
The side-pocket mandrels have I-in. pockets to accept wireline-
retrievable gas-lift valves. These mandrels are designed to provide
a full tubing ID. Valves may be serviced throughout the life of the
well without a well workover. These features allow the operator
luxuries not currently available.
1. BHP surveys are better without the concern for the accuracy
of sounding devices.
2. Problem valves can be identified and replaced as required.
3. Valves are not affected by downhole conditions inherently
detrimental to pump installations, reducing concerns with fracture
sand, coal fines, and rod pumps.
4. Fluid production may be altered by adjusting the injection-gas
volume or pressure.
379
380
INJECTION GAS

0
0
TUBING
0
0
ff
I :f0
o/"
00 o
0

d
PRODUCED WATER
FRAC SAND, COAL FINES
o 0
AND INJECTED GAS

Y
;y

o 0

I 0
I
0

00

Fig. 1-Slngle-polnt air Injection completion.
CONVENTIONAL
GAS LIFT
VALVES
4 112" PRODUCTION TUBING
1f4" TUBING
" LDNGSTRING CASING
Fig. 2-Gas-lift schematic.
5, Once the fluid production rate is low enough (i.e., < 100
BFPD), fluid may be produced intermittently with a "fluid pivot"
valve. This valve, operated with the hydrostatic tubing pressure,
is designed to allow only gas injection above a predetermined tubing
pressure,
In considering gas lift, the operator must assess the well's opti-
mum production capability, the gas injection requirements (volume
and pressure), and valve spacings and settings.
Ideal wells are those that are currently on pump but not pumped
off,. show no sign of pumping off, or are high-volume water
producers. These wells provide valuable information for determining
the candidate wells with the most potential for gas lift.
With software based on Hagedorn and Brown's correlations, a
production analysis can be run on the candidate wells. The following
information is pertinent.
l. Static fluid level.
2. Flowing fluid level.
3. Wellhead flowing pressure.
4. Daily fluid production rate.
5. Flowing wellhead temperature.
6. Bottomhole temperature.
7. Daily gas production rate.
8. Vertical well depth.
9. Total well depth.
10. Tubing size.
II. Casing size and weight to depth.
12. Perforation depths.
13. Maximum available injection pressure.
14. Distance from separator.
15. Separator pressure.
16. Specific gravity of gas.
17. Specific gravity of water.
18. Allowable gas injection rate.
This information is used to calculate optimum production rates
expected from each candidate well. The final computed output (Figs.
5A through C) details the fluid production capacity of the well,
the volume of gas required to lift the fluid at a specific rate, and
the injection pressure at depth for each rate. Knowing where the
compressor might be located, we can calculate the required dis-
charge pressure.
In analyzing gas lift, the operator must consider the surface in-
jection line. Depending on the distance from the candidate well to
the compressor, economics might rule out the use of gas lift. This
expense might be overcome by the use of a surface string of reel
tubing. Such tubing is rated to 5,000-psi working pressure and is
more than adequate to serve as an injection line.
Knowing the injection rate and compressor elevation, distance,
and capacity, we can size the line. The expense of laying the line
is minimal. The operator simply uncoils the tubing from a spool
in much the same manner used to lay plastic lines.
During the first week of Aug. 1989, a test well was completed
with this modified gas-lift installation. Table 1 lists the well char-
acteristics. We estimated that this well could produce up to 1,400
BWPD if we could supply and inject 1,200 Mcf/D gas. Considering
the installation and volume of gas available (200 McflD), a lift of
about 1,000 BWPD was determined possible. The installation was
designed and completed around these parameters (Fig. 6). A maxi-
mum injection pressure of 750 psi was used for valve spacing. Be-
cause the compressors were at the wellsite, no difference existed
between the surface injection and compressor discharge pressures.
The compressor could provide 500 Mcf/D at 1,000 psi.
The final piece of equipment provided was an adapter wellhead
that would allow the injection string to be hung off yet not interfere
with the existing completion equipment.
Surface facilities included two compressors (low and high stages)
and a 1,200-B/D separator. The two compressors were required
to boost 10-psi supply pressure to the required 750-psi injection
pressure. Meter runs were installed at the compressors and down
from the separator. A closed-loop system was designed to allow
the high-pressure separated gas to fuel the high-stage compressor
once the well was on production. The low-stage compressor could
then be shut down.
SPE Production Engineering, November 1992
PRODUCED __ -=*
METHANE
PRODUCTION ------tt-+-I
STRING
o
o
/' INJECTION GAS
REELED TUBING
'Illil-ool-f----- SIDE STRING
SIDE POCKET
MANDREL
PERFORATED
PUP JOINTS
COLLAR STOP OR
Wf-""*----- STANDING VALVE
Fig. 3-Gas-lift installation with reeled-tubing injection string.
The well was on slowly, with 730-psi injection pressure.
As the well was kicked off, minor problems were experienced with
the water meter. A standard meter with a % -in. inlet/outlet was
causing an extremely high backpressure at the separator. A mani-
fold-type three-meter run was tried with limited success. With the
production rates encountered (1,000 to 1,200 BID), we initially pro-
duced some of the fracture sand remaining in the rathole and plugged
off the meters. This again resulted in high backpressures at the sepa-
rator, forcing produced water down the high-pressure gas supply
line to the compressors and shutting the system down. Throughout
the 30-day trial, the well was shut in repeatedly, primarily because
of water in the compressors. This water often came from the low-
pressure line; at other times, the source was the high-pressure recir-
culation line.
During the trial, mechanical pressure gauges were left in the well
to determine the BHFP and the accuracy of the "well sounder."
SPE Production Engineering, November 1992
POSITIONING
SLEEVE
DEFLECTORS
VALVE
POCKET
Side String Side Pocket Mandrel
EXTERNAL
DEFLECTOR
LUGS
COMMUNICATION
PORTS
SIDE STRING
LU8
Retrievable Gas Lift Valve
Fig. 4-(a) Side-string side-pocket mandrel; (b) retrievable
gas-11ft valve.
TABLE 1-CHARACTERISTICS OF TEST WELL
Well depth, ft
Tubing size, in.
Present fluid production, BFPD
Present gas production, McflD
Wellhead pressure, psi
Static fluid level, ft
Flowing-fluid level, ft
Bottomhole temperature, OF
Surface temperature, OF
Casing size, in.
Available injection pressure, psi
Gas specific gravity
Water specific gravity
1,400
2a EUE
250
1 to 5
160
200
500
105
70
5112
750
0.56
1.00
The gauges were run and pulled weekly. Overall, the sounder was
off only about 30 ft.
The well produced 22,760 bbl of water, averaging 977 BID. It
was shut in for a total of 128 hours, or 19% of the test time. At
one point, the flowing-fluid level reached 630 ft. The wellhead flow-
ing pressure climbed steadily, reaching 210 psi, while the annular
pressure ranged fro,m 60 to 110 psi. Gas injection rates were 180
to 200 Mcf/D, while injection pressures ranged from 675 to 820
psi (averaging 690 psi). Estimated average gas consumption at the
compressors was 40 Mcf/D. Gas production was difficult to deter-
mine because of the closed-loop system.
The final test was to determine the practicality of retrieving and
installing the valves. Both valves were pulled and replaced within
1 hour.
381
382
CONTINUOUS FLOW GAS LIFT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
FINDS INJECTION POINT DEPTH AND REQUIRED INJECTION GAS VOLUME
HAGEDORN-BROWN FOR VERTICAL FLOW. BEGGS-BRILL-ROBINSON
FOR FLOWLINE.
COMPANY:
LOCATION:
WELL:
COAL BED METHANE
COAL FIELDS, USA
GENERIC WELL U
REMARKS: PRODUCTION ANALYSIS/GAS LIFT EVALUATION
INPUT DATA
1. MINIMUM LIQUID RATE (OIL + WATER), BBL/DAY
2. FORMATION GAS/OIL RATIO, SCF/BBL
CALCULATED FORMATION GAS/LIQUID RATIO, SCF/BBL
3. PERCENT WATER CUT
4. STATIC BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE, PSI
5. PRODUCTIVITY INDEX, BBL/DAY/PSI
6. FLOWING WELLHEAD TEMPERATURE, DEGRES F.
7. FLOWING BOTTOKHOLE TEMPERATURE, DEGREES F.
8. FLOWING WELLHEAD PRESSURE, PSI
9. AVAILABLE CASING PRESSURE, PSI
10. API GRAVITY OF OIL
11. SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF WATER
12. SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF GAS (AIR = 1.0)
13. SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF INJECTION GAS, DEGREES F.
14. MAXIMUM INJECTION DEPTH (TRUE VERTICAL), FEET
15. PRESS. DROP FROM CASING TO TUBING AT INJ. PT., PSI
16. MAXIMUM LIQUID RATE (OIL + WATER), BBL/DhY
17. LIQUID RATE INCREMENT, BBL/D
MEAS
DPTH
l.ITl.
TUBING PROFILE
VERT DIA TVDIMD
DPTH ll.!L.l
.u:n
2400.0
2430.0
2400.0 2.441 1.0000 PKR
LIQ.
RATE
BPD
400.
500.
600.
700.
800.
900.
1000.
1l00.
1200.
1300.
OIL INJ.
RATE' GLR
BPD SCF/B
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
O.
o.
O.
O.
100.
108.
117.
129.
146.
168.
200.
255.
376.
589.
243q.0 2.441 1.0000
WELL FLUID STATIC GRADIENT = 0.433
INJ. INJ. INJ. INJ. INJ.
POINT POINT POINT POINT POINT
MEAS. VERT. TUBE CASE TEMP
INJ.VOL. DEPTH DEPTH PRESS PRESS DEG
MCF/DAY il.EL ~ ~ ~ _F __
40.00
54.15
69.99
90.06
116.68
151. 29
199.99
280.38
451. 74
765.13
2232.
2305.
2377.
2400.
2400.
2400.
2400.
2400.
2400.
2400.
2232.
2305.
2377 .
2400.
2400.
2400.
2400.
2400.
2400.
2400.
738.
739.
740.
720.
690.
659.
629.
599.
568.
538.
838.
839.
840.
841.
841.
841.
841.
841.
841.
841.
104.
104.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
105.
QL
FGOR
FGLR
CUT
PWS
PI
TS
TB
PSUR
PCAV
API
SGW
G
TG
DPAK
DROP
QLMAX
QLINK
GAS
LIFT
GRAD
PSI/
~
300.000
100.000
0.010
99.990
945.000
3.300
90.000
105.000
160.000
800.000
60.000
1. 000
0.600
90.000
2400.000
100.00
1500.00
100.00
FBHP
PSI
WELL-
HEAD
PRESS
PSI
0.259 824.
0.251 793.
0.244 763.
0.233 733.
0.221 703.
0.208 672.
0.195 642.
0.183 612.
0.170 58l.
0.157 551.
160.
160.
160.
160.
160.
160.
160.
160.
160.
160.
Fig. SA-Computed output for optimum production rates.
:;;
...
..;
!5
en
en
:I!
...
COAL BED METHANE
PROD ANALYSIS
1000
950
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
.50
.00
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 500
PI .. 1.1
INJECT ION PLOT 2 ~ 7 / 8 ' :0; 1" INST.
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
DEPTH. FEET
Fig. 58-Fluid-production capacity.
SPE Production Engineering, November 1992
COAL BED METHANE
1 GAS INJECTION FT4LGAS GRADIENT CURvES
a - 100 - 300 MOl]
Plnj .. 7 - BOO osl
1000
.. 0
900
.'0 r ___ 800 t- lOO IOCF
750 f __ m:g
-r --
6.0
600
,"0
.50
.00
300
300
200
200
100
.00
.0
500 1000 1500 2000 2000
DEPTH, FEET
Fig. 5C-lnjection-rate requirements.
3000
COA.L BEQ MElMANE
\. )( 3/16" VALVES
I)' 1 - 1000 BPQ
I)lnj - 200 Iofclll
1000
900
900
850
800 t-L============;Zlt---/'i 700
700
650
600
0>0
.00
<50
.00
350
300
250
200
150
00
50
500 1500
OEPTH, FEET
3000 3500
Fig. 6-Spacing requirement for gas-lift valves.
Conclusions
"000
The modified gas-lift installation was demonstrated to be a viable
alternative to currently used artificial-lift methods.
1. The installation provided an economical means to dewater
CBM wells. A modified gas-lift installation costs about 35 % Of the
standard rod or Moyno pump installation. Assuming that a series
of high-rate (> 500 BID) water-producing wells could be placed
on gas lift, an adequate gas supply, a centralized compressor, and
acceptable high-rate separators, gas lift can maximize the dewatering
of CBM wells. Economic viability therefore will be based on simple
return-on-investment considerations-Le., relative system costs vs.
. desired time required to dewater a well or the ability to maximize
fluid production from a well or a field. Points to be considered are
the system's potential fluid production, gas injection requirements,
injection pressure requirements, available injection gas, etc.
2. The system effectively provided downhole maintenance with
minimum production downtime. Because the lifting valves are out
of the flow path of the damaging coal fines, well maintenance is
minimal. Only basic wireline techniques are required to repair the
lift system. No workover unit or pulling rig is required to change
the pumps. Tubing wear is eliminated and long-term operational
costs are minimal.
3. The installation allowed effective monitoring of the well's per-
formance (BHP vs. production) with either mechanical or sonic
pressure-sensing devices.
4. Operator rig time was optimized by a reduction in pump-related
workover duties.
SPE Production Engineering, November 1992
Authors
Johnson Coats Marinello
Ken Johnson is sales manager for the Western Hemisphere
at Otis Engineering Corp. in Dallas. He has worked in sales
and engineering both internationally and domestically. John-
son holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering from the
U. of Oklahoma. Alan Coats works in the Eastern Regional
Sales office of Otis Engineering Corp. in New Orleans. He has
held various management and technical positions. Coats
holds BS and MA degrees In management from the U. of
Southern Mississippi. Stephen Marinello is assistant profes-
sor of petroleum engineering at the Colorado School of Mines
in Denver. His primary interests are in environmental research
and management related to the energy industry. His work in
the Black Warrior basin includes environmental-Impact as-
sessments for discharged waters from CBM production.
Marinello holds a BS degree in biological sciences from Stan-
ford U. and MS and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering
from the U. of Southern California.
5. Gas consumption is minimized because valves can be installed,
retrieved, or changed through accepted wireline practices.
6. The new system can maximize water production up the tubing
without affecting annular methane production.
7. The system can identify candidate wells that would be dewa-
tered most efficiently with gas lift, estimate gas injection require-
ments, and estimate project costs .
Production analysis techniques based on Hagedorn and Brown's
correlations will identify the CBM wells capable of high water pro-
duction and the lift gas required. Knowing potential water produc-
tion, lift gas and compressor requirements, and distances and
elevations of wellsites from the compressor station, operators can
evaluate the economics of placing a CBM field on gas lift.
Acknowledgments
We thank Ron Rovenko and Chuck Willis of the River Gas Corp. for
providing a well for testing this new gas-lift design. We also appreci-
ate the assistance provided by Steve Adams of Cherko Compressors.
General References
Canalizo, c., Bechtold, H., and Barron, I.: "The Gas Pump," paper ASME
76-Pet-103, 1973.
Graves, S.L., Hollingsworth, F.C., and Beavers, W.M.: "A Field Evalu-
ation of Gas Lift and Progressive Cavity Pumps as Effective De-Watering
Methods for Coalbed Methane Wells," GRI No. 5084-214-0976, Gas
Research Inst. (1986) .
Thrash, P., Davis, J.B., and Canalizo, C.: Guidelines to Gas Lift Design
and Control, fourth edition, Otis Engineering Corp., Houston (1970).
51 Metric Conversion Factors
bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol m
3
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m
3
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
in. x 2.54* E+OO em
OF (OF-32)/1.8 C
'Conversion factor is exact. SPEPE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Aug. 1, 1990. Revised manuscript received
Sept. 30,1991. Paper accepted for publication Feb. 7. 1992. Paper (SPE 21590) first presenl
ed at the 1990 CIMISPE International Technical Meeting held in Calgary, June 10-13.
383