A New Approach for Gas Lift Method Optimization for an

Iranian Oilfield

Fateme Mehran
1
* , fateme_mehran@yahoo.com
Kamyar Movagharnejad
1
, movagharnejad@yahoo.com
Ali Didanloo
2
, alididanlo@yahoo.com

1- Mazandaran University, Faculty of Chemical Engineering
2- Iranian Society of Petroleum Engineers


Abstract
Optimization and simulation for determining the optimal injection rate in a well
operating under gas- lift are based on balancing the buoyancy improvements from the
additional gas in the production stream with the corresponding increase in the flowline
back- pressure and its negative impact on the overall deliverability. Such an approach,
while useful in determining the maximum production improvement achievable for an
individual well, ignores a number of practical and relatively significant aspects that tend
to complicate the real- world application.
Another major complication arises from the limitations associated with the available
compressors. Typically, these facilities are designed to handle the requirements
identified when gas- lift is first introduced. As the field depletes, the requirement for lift
gas increases. Inevitably, the operator is challenged with the classical gas- lift allocation
problem: how does one allocate limited available injection gas to maximize overall field
production
Other factors that influence the economics of a field- wide strategy include the reservoir
depletion behavior, the effect gas-lift of varying water- cut, the impact of both capital
and operating costs, and the detailed performance characteristics of the compressor
units.
This paper presents an investigation on different effect of various parameters to
enhance production rate with gaslift for one of the Iranian oil field, using a simulation
software package for different pressure calculation of two phase in vertical and
horizontal stream that is, Pipesim. The results obtained on Shadegan oil field are
plotted at the end of this paper.
Introduction
Continuous gas- lift is one of the more common forms of artificial lift in oil production.
Gas- lift is effective over a wide range of operating conditions, is relatively inexpensive
and simple to install, and requires less maintenance especially when compared to
alternatives such as electrical submersible pumps.
The mechanism of gas- lift is straightforward. Gas at a relatively high pressure in the
casing is injected into the tubing string to lighten the fluid column by aeration, until the
reduction in the flowing bottom hole pressure creates the pressure differential across the
sand face needed to achieve the desired production rate
This paper first simulate the gaslift system of single-wells then evaluating and
comparing the effect of various operating and design parameters on gaslift system for
enhancing production rate.
Next, the paper addresses the problem of limited gas allocation. The unavailability of
adequate injection gas is a common problem with older gas- lift installations. Original
design conditions do not necessarily account for adequate reservoir depletion effects.
The net result of this under- design is limiting injection gas capacity as the reservoir
depletes, which invariably translates into a gas allocation problem for the operator.
The requirement is to maximize production with the limited compression resources by
adjusting a controllable set of injection rates to the production wells.

Gas-lift Mechanism
Gas-lift is one of the method to enhance oil recovery. gas is injected from tubing or
annulus and reduces FBHP (flowing bottom hole Pressure)
.
Mixing gas and oil cause reduction in specific gravity , gradient and hydrostatic
pressure. finally injected gas shall be separated at surface and can be use for re-
injection.


Effective parameter on gas-lift optimization
Reservoir Pressure
Injection Depth
Tubing & Casing Size
Productivity Index (PI)
Situation of Gas-lift (Tubing or Casing )
Gas Cost
Well Sketch
Water Cut %
GOR
Temperature (Some Times)
Advantages of gas-lift:
High rates from high PI wells
Flexibility - easy with which rates can be changed
Can handle large volume of solids
Well intervention easy
Gassy wells can be lifted any well configuration , i.e vertical, deviated and
horizontal
Disadvantages of gas-lift:
High initial investment
Limit to drawdown applied
Availability of lift gas
Not efficient at lifting emulsions and highly viscous crudes
Potential for hydrate formation
Production casing must be able to withstand lift gas pressures
Safety aspects - high pressure gas
Cannot effectively produce deep wells to abandonment



Case Study : Shadegan Oil field in Iran

The Shadegan structure is located in the South West part of the Dezful Embayment and
is about 19 km long and 3 to 4 km wide at the water-oil contact (WOC) depth of the
Upper Asmari reservoir. The field was discovered in 1968 by drilling of well SG-01.
The Shadegan Field contains two separate reservoirs, the Upper and Lower Asmari,
both of which are undersaturated oil reservoirs. The reservoir pressure decreased before
production in both the Upper and Lower Asmari. This was due to pressure interference
with nearby fields, especially with the Ahwaz Asmari reservoir, through a common
active aquifer.
Shadegan oil production was started in 1989, with an initial maximum production rate
of 32 MSTB/D. This rate was increased with the drilling of additional wells and, at the
time this project was initiated in August 2001, reservoir oil production rate was about
50 MSTB/D. By March 2002, cumulative production from the Upper and Lower
Asmari reservoirs had reached to 97.5 and 114.5 MMSTB respectively.
Up to the start of this project in August 2001, a total of 8 wells had been drilled in the
Shadegan field, most of them located on the crest of the structure. Of these 8 wells, SG-
01 is dually completed as an oil producer in both the upper and lower reservoirs. Well
SG-03 has been completed in the upper reservoir as an oil producer and in the lower
reservoir as an observation well. Well SG-04 was drilled into the aquifer and is
suspended for a future workover. Wells SG-05 and SG-08 are only completed in the
upper reservoir while wells SG-02, SG-06 and SG-07 are only completed in the lower
reservoir, all as oil producers.


Gas-lift System Simulation and Optimization for Shadegan Oilfield

Table 1 shows the relevant data for a sample well of Shadegan oil field on gas-lift
producing from a reservoir and flowing into surface separation and treatment facilities.
This well will be used for subsequent analysis.
After well modeling by Pipesim, the model must be matched with real state So by
existing test data of well and changing the equation of state , correlation , friction and
hold up factor in vertical line ,the model obtained closes to real model .
These matching data shows in Table 2.
Gas- lift performance is based on a balance between improved buoyancy in the tubing
string and increased back- pressure in the multiphase flow stream.


Results and Discussion
Figure 1,2 show plots of gas-lift performance for the sample well of Shadegan oil
field based on data in Table 1 ,gas injects from tubing and casing Respectively. In
these cases CIBHP(closing bottom hole pressure ) is 4500 PSIA and wct%(water cut%)
is zero and sensitivity is PI(productivity index).
When PI is higher production rate is more but it no effects on gas-lift system.
Figure 2 has a optimum point for injection gas rate for each PI ,because of there is a
balance between gas pressure gradient in annulus and oil pressure gradient in tubing and
it is depended on tubing and casing diameter .here tubing ID is too small and oil
products from tubing ,in optimal point oil DP is equal to gas DP so after increasing gas
rate production rate is decreased.
Figure 3,4 show sensitivity on water cut percent ,their condition are as same as case 1,2
with constant PI (PI=25 stbd/psi) and gas injects from tubing and annulus respectively.
Its clear gas-lift has more effective at low WCT% .in Figure 4 has a optimum point in
gas-lift rate for each WCT% ,the reason of it is mentioned in above paragraph.
Figure 5,6 show sensitivity on tubing diameter with without water cut and constant
PI(PI=25 stbd/psi) ,the other condition is based on Table 1.
When gas injects from tubing (Figure5) ,gas-lift effect is more at smaller tubing ID but
in Figure 6 gas injects from annulus and there is optimum ID for tubing as a result
bigger ID is more effective on gas-lift system because , when tubing ID is big the space
of annulus (gas injects from this space) is small but when its arrived to optimum tubing
ID ,it has reverse effect.
Figure 7,8 gas injects from tubing and casing respectively and sensitivity is based on
CIBHP(closing bottom hole pressure),for 4 different CIBHP (3500 psia,4500 psia,5500
psia,6500 psia) and constant PI (PI=25stbd/psi) without water cut ,The sample well is
simulated and their result is plotted in two figures.
Figure 7 shows at high CIBHP gas-lift has no effect on enhance oil production and gas-
lift is useful when CIBHP is low.
Figure 8 shows in this condition with small size of tubing ID and gas is injected from
annulus gas-lift , gaslift is reverse effect on production rate at higher CIBHP , there is
optimum point for gas-lift rate at lower CIBHP.
Figure 9,10 show sensitivity on gas injection depth that gas injects from tubing and
annulus respectively without water cut and constant PI.
Its clear that gaslift has more positive effective on production rate when injection point
is deeper for both of these cases.
The best case of gaslift system for this well of Shadegan oil field, assuming operating
and design condition from Table 1, is presented as below:
*Gas injects from tubing. *Injection depth is 2850 m.
*Gas-lift rate is 10 mmscfd. *Tubing ID is 2 7/8 inch.


Conclusions

1-The best candidates for gas- lift are deeper wells, as well as those with relatively high
reservoir productivity characteristics.
2-When gas injects from tubing, larger diameter tubing strings and flowlines contribute
to more efficient gas- lift operation; and for injection gas from annulus, it must earn an
optimum ID for tubing and casing.
3-The need for the installation of lift gas injection facilities (as well as for facilities to
generate higher injection rates at wells already on gas- lift) increases with declining,
reservoir pressure.
4-Gas-lift is more effective at high water cut presence.
5-Oil recovery is more at high reservoir pressure but gas-lift is more effective at low
reservoir pressure.













References

1- Roy Fleshman artlesville , Oklahama , USA , Harryson Obren Lekic Houston , Texas ,
USA " Artificial Lift for High-Volume Production", Oilfield Review , Spring 1999
2- Middle East Well Evaluation Review , Schlumberger , December 1989
3- H.Cholet , Well Production Practical Handbook , Editions Technip , 2000
4- Schlumberger , Pipesim User Manual
5- P.Brill , Dale Beggs Two Phase Flow in Pipes , 1991
6- Halliburton Drilling & Production Engineering Handbook
7-Kunal Dutta- Roy, James Kattapuram,.: A New Approach to Gas- Lift Allocation
Optimization,paper SPE 38333presented at the 1997 SPE Western Regional Meeting
held inLong Beach,California,, 25 27 June.
Tables and Figures

Table 1.Reference Well Data

Table 2. Matching Condition for Simulation

Hagedon & Brown Vertical Flow Flow Correlation:
Beggs & Brill Revised Horizontal Flow Correlation
Lasater Solutions (Rs)
Standing fit to Standing -Katz Chart Gas & Factor
Beggs & Robinson Dead Oil Viscosity
Cher & Connaly Live Oil Viscosity
Vasquez & Beggs Undersaturated Oil Viscosity
1 Friction Factor
0.95 Holdup Factor

Perforation Depth (m) 2961
Injection Valve (m) 2850
Tubing OD (in ) 2 7/8
Reservoir pressure (psi) 4366
PI (STBD/ psi) 25
GOR (SCF/ STB) 571.3
Water cut (%) 0
Oil Gravity (deg API) 25
Gas Gravity 1.163
Figure1.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1 (Upper Reservoir) for Tubing 27/8 "
(Injection from Tubing)
Figure 1















Figure2.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1 (Upper Reservoir) for Tubing 27/8
(Injection from Annulus)
Figure 2















5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Total Injection Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
PI=5 stb/d/psi PI=10 stb/d/psi PI=20 stb/d/psi PI=25 stb/d/psi PI=40 stb/d/psi
CIBHP @9866 ftdd=4500 PSIA
Flow Correlation:HBR
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Total Injection Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
PI=5 stb/d/psi PI=10 stb/d/psi PI=20 stb/d/psi PI=25 stb/d/psi PI=40 stb/d/psi
CIBHP @9866 ftdd=4500 PSIA
Flow Correlation: HBR
WCT=0%
Figure3.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1 (Upper Reservoir) for Tubing 31/2 "
(Injection from Tubing)


Figure 3












Figure4.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1 (Upper Reservoir) for Tubing 31/2 "
(Injection from Annulus)
F

















9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
18000
19000
20000
21000
22000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Total Inj ecti on Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
Infl ow : WCT=0% Infl ow: WCT=5% Infl ow :WCT%=10%
Infl ow : WCT%=20% Infl ow :WCT=30% Infl ow : WCT%=50
CIBHP @9866 f t dd=4500 PSIA
Flow Cor r elat ion:HBR
PI=25 STB//D/PSI
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Total Inj ecti on Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
Infl ow : WCT=0% Infl ow: WCT=5% Infl ow :WCT%=10%
Infl ow : WCT%=20% Infl ow :WCT=30% Infl ow : WCT%=50
CIBHP @9866 ft dd=4500 PSIA
Flow Cor r elat ion:HBR
PI=25 STB//D/PSI


Figure5.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1(Upper Reservoir) With WCT=0%
(Injection from Tubing)















Figure6.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1 (Upper Reservoir) With WCT=0%
(Injection from Annulus)















10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
18000
19000
20000
21000
22000
23000
24000
25000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Total Inj ecti on Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
tubi ng ID=2.75" tubi ng ID=3.5" tubi ng ID=4.5" tubi ng ID=5"
CIBHP @9866 ft dd=4500 PSIA
Flow Cor r elat ion:HBR
PI=25 STB//D/PSI
0
5000
10000
15000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Total Inj ecti on Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
tubi ng ID=2.75" tubi ng ID=3.5" tubi ng ID=4.5" tubi ng ID=5"
CIBHP @9866 ft dd=4500 PSIA
Flow Cor r elat ion:HBR
PI=25 STB//D/PSI

Figure7.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1 (Upper Reservoir) for Tubing 27/8"
(Injection from Tubing)
Figure 7












Figure8.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1 (Upper Reservoir) for Tubing 27/8"
(Injection from Annulus)
Figure 8

















0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Total Inj ecti on Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
CIBHP=3500 psi a CIBHP=4500 psi a CIBHP=5500 psi a CIBHP=6500 psi a
Flow Cor r elat ion:HBR
PI=25 STB//D/PSI
WCT=0%
0
5000
10000
15000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Total Inj ecti on Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
CIBHP=3500 psi a CIBHP=4500 psi a CIBHP=5500 psi a CIBHP=6500 psi a
Flow Cor r elat ion:HBR
PI=25 STB//D/PSI
WCT=0%

Figure9.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1 (Upper Reservoir) for Tubing 2 7/8"
(Injection from Tubing)
Figure 9













Figure10.Gas Lift Effect for SG-1 (Upper Reservoir) for Tubing 2 7/8"
(Injection from Annulus)


15000
20000
25000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Total Inj ecti on Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=2850 m Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=2650 m Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=2450 m
Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=2000 m Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=1500 m
Flow Cor r elat ion:HBR
PI=25 STB//D/PSI
WCT=0%
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Total Inj ecti on Gas (mmscfd)
S
t
o
c
k


T
a
n
k

O
i
l

(
s
b
b
l
/
d
a
y
)
Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=2850 m Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=2650 m Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=2450 m
Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=2000 m Gas Inj ecti on Poi nt=1500 m
Flow Cor r elat ion:HBR
PI=25 STB//D/PSI
WCT=0%