SPE

SPE 9981

Society of Petroleum Engineer'S

Gas Lift Design and Performance

by Robert Wayne Pittman, * Texaco, Inc.

*Member SPE-AIME
Copyright 1982, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Bejing, China, 18-26 March, 1982_ The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas, 75206 USA. Telex 730989

ABSTRACT
The optimum design of a continuous flow gas lift
installation is dependent upon the critical combination of a number of pertinent variables, including
well performance index, gas in solution. static reservoir pressure, tubing size and injection gas pressure. The economic performance of the optimum design
is dependent upon maintaining a minimum injection gas
to produced liquid ratio that relates to minimum adiabatic power associated with recycle gas compression.
Examples illustrate this to be accomplished by designing for and maintaining injection gas pressures
such that a maximum injection valve depth for the
design production rate can be utilized.
INTRODUCTION
Flowing oil wells have enough potential energy
in the reservoir to push the liquids through the reservoir into the wel1bore, up the tubing and through
the surface equipment to the tank battery. As the
~e11 is produced, the potential energy is converted
to kinetic energy associated with the fluid movement.
This dissipates the potential energy of the reser~oir, thereby causing the flow rate to decrease and
the flow to eventually cease. It may be economical
~t any point in the life of a well to maintain or
even increase the production rate by the use of gas
lift to offset the dissipation of reservoir energy.
Gas lift was practiced in the United States for
oil production over 100 years ago. The system used a
valve design
was patented and given the name of
"oil ejector"
Although this original valve design
was elaborate, the main feature in continuous flow
gas lift is merely to lighten the gradient in the
liquid column so that the reservoir pressure available will be adequate to cause flow to occur or to
increase.
Alternatively, the other type of gas lift may be
used when reservoirs will not produce in a continuous
flow manner. This method is called intermittent gas
lift because a column or "slug" of liquid is allowed
References and illustrations at end of of paper.

to accumulate in the bottom of the well and then a

large volume of gas is quickly injected below this
slug to lift it to the surface. This cycle is repeated at an experimentally-determined optimum combination of fill-up time, slug lifting time and gas
injection volume per slug. As a reservoir is depleted, it may become necessary to consider this type of
gas lift to maintain economic primary oil recovery.
The advantages of the gas lift method of artificial lift are:

1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

Operating depths in excess of those attainable with rod pumps.

High fluid production rates.
Not affected by solids in produced fluids.
No heavy or unusual accessory equipment at
the wellhead.
Not mechanically affected by the inclination
of the wellbore.

The main concern in gas lift design is the specification, spacing and pressure setting of the unloading and operating valves in order to initiate and
maintain oil production with economic gas injection
rate. After design installation, a primary concern in
the daily operation of gas lift is the cost of the gas
compression facilities. This can be uneconomic if
excessive gas volumes are circulated due to shallow
injection depth or if excessive volumes are circulated
with diminishing returns. The first of these is due
to faulty design. The latter is due to improper
operation of even a correctly designed system.
Other work has addressed these concerns. Redden
et a12 discussed the benefit of optimizing gas lift
systems where gas was being injected back into the
reservoir for pressure maintenance in Venezuela.
Blann et al 3 reported the benefit of redesigning gas
lift installations such that a 46 percent increase in
oil production was obtained with only 2 percent additional gas injection in a large North African field.
This paper discusses the initial work by Texaco
to improve gas lift operations by applying basic principles for improved performance through a computer

GAS LIFT DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE

design program. The examples given are pertinent to

continuous flow gas lift in the Texas Gulf Coast
region.

There are at least sixteen important variables

that affect the design and operation of a gas lift
well. These are:
'/'cProduction Rate
*Perforation depth
Bottom-Hole Pressure
Well Productivity
*Wellhead Flowing Pressure
Index
*Gas Line Pressure Available
Water Cut Percent
Injection Gas Rate Available Oil Gravity
Water Gravity
Bottom-Hole Temperature
Injection Gas Gravity
*Tubing Diameter
Formation Gas/Oil
*Casing Diameter
Ratio
Ambient Temperature
Those variables noted by the asterisk are often
the only ones readily available. In fact, gas lift
designs are sometimes based on this limited information alone. Inefficient or totally non-operable
installations can result when this is practiced, since
other not so readily-known but very critical variables
are involved.
Basic Theory
A typical continuous flow gas lift well
schematic is shown in Figure 1. In this figure, a
drawdown (DD)has been indicated by a bottom-hole
pressure under flowing conditions (BHPF). This BHPF
will give the desired production rate, since it is
determined from the productivity index (PI) relationship. Since PI is known from earlier tests, drawdown
(BHPS-BHPF) is calculated from:
(1)

With the bottom-hole pressure at static conditions (BHPS) also determined from earlier tests, the
bottom-hole pressure for flOWing conditions (BHPF) is
BHPF = BHPS-DD.

increase in capital investment over that required for

adequately pressurized facilities.
The deeper injection of gas requires higher pressure and lower IGLR, and is consistent with a minimum
adiabatic power 4 as shown in Figure 2. This curve is
prescribed by the equation:

CONTINUOUS FLOW DESIGN

DD "" BLPD/PI.

SPE 9981

(2)

This assumes, however, that gas is injected somewhere in the liquid column to lighten it and make it
possible for the BHPF to exist as indicated. To
accomplish this, a short column of liquid may be
lightened by injecting a large quantity of gas high in
the well or a smaller quantity of gas at a deeper
location. If the longer column of fluid is lightened,
it takes less gas volume, but it requires a high
pressure to inject it at the greater depth. It is
evident that the latter alternative allows a low
gas-liquid ratio (GLR) , as seen in Figure 1, but is
governed by gas pressure (PC) available at the wellhead. Since there must be an adequate margin of
differential pressure to flow the required gas volume,
gas lift valve mechanics are also involved and
influence the final operating value of the gas pressure required at the wellhead.
If gas compression facilities are pressure limited, gas lift must operate at higher GLR and shallower depths, resulting in an increased volume of gas
circulation. This practice will specify a greater
number of compressor installations for the production
of an entire field. This can amount to a significant

AP = 4.02 X 10-

(l/K-l)

(BLPD) (IGLR)

(T) [(P!PWU) (K-l)!K - lJ'

where:

BLPD
IGLR
T
P
K
P~~

(3)

Volume of liquid flowing daily

Injection gas/liquid ratio
Temperature at injection
Pressure at injection
Ratio of specific heats
Pressure at wellhead.

The IGLR is inversely dependent on the injection pressure available. The lower IGLR requires' lower power,
since IGLR has a 1:1 effect on AP, as can be seen from
equation (3). Although the corresponding injection
pressure P must be increased to achieve a lower IGLR,
this increase in the equation is less than 1:1 due to
the fractional exponent on P/PWH. The minimum as
indicated in Figure 2 need only be approached, not
exactly attained, for efficient operation.

One of the problems in calculating appropriate

gas lift designs is the modeling of the pressure loss
in the tubular or annular conduit. Espanol et al 5
suggest that three of the best relationships for correlating flow rate and pressure loss are the Hagedorn
and Brown 6 , Duns and Ros 7 , and Orkiszewski 8 methods.
The single phase fluid flow pressure drop, or
head loss in equivalent head of fluid flowing, can be
calculated from the equation:
lIh

f(L/d)(v)2 ,

(4)

2g

where the friction factor f is a function of Reynolds

Number. However, in two-phase flow it is necessary to
select a pressure drop correlation that fits the range
of gas-liquid ratios expected for the average operation. The work by Espanol found the Hagedorn and
Brown correlation to be the most accurate for gasliquid ratios greater than 180 m3 /m 3 and the Orkiszewski correlation to be more accurate for GLR less
than 180:1. However, the original work by Poettmann
and Carpenter 9 is still a base line for comparison of
later-developed correlations dealing with multiphase
vertical flow. 10
Many others, as already mentioned, have offered
additional correlations although there is only one
"gradient equation". This is because each investigator has emphasized different variables. All of
these correlations are based on the total preSsure
drop in a vertical conduit being made up of energy
loss by friction, the change in elevation (potential
energy change) and the change in kinetic energy.
The gradient can be expressed as
dp/dh ==

static gradient + friction gradient

+ acceleration gradient.

(5)

The Poettmann and Carpenter work yields

dp/dh

P [1 +

(6)

f w

7.46496 x 109 gp 2 d 5

102

The development of their energy loss factor

correlation came by measuring dp/dh and solving the
above equation for the energy loss factor:

The conditions for which it is valid are 60 rom

and 73 rom tubing; medium flow rates; medium gas-oil
and gas-oil-water ratios and low to medium pressures.
Since this range of conditions is not too far out of
line with a good many gas lift installations the
Poettmann and Carpenter correlation can give appropriate answers in many instances.
Hagedorn and Brown developed a correlation in
similar manners to Poettmann and Carpenter, except a
490 m experimental well was used to obtain the correlation data and liquid hold up and acceleration
effects not present in Poettmann and Carpenter theory
were introduced. The Hagedorn and Brown work yields a
gradient equation using a form of friction factor,
(f)
4 Fannin (f).

- f, _____- __ +

102e

+ 29.85984 X 10 9g(Pm)2d 5

1,

C:;;m)2/ 2 g

dh

(8)

where the average mixture density is expressed as:

and: P~

p~H ~

+ Pg

(l - H~)

(9)

liquid density

H~

liquid holdup

~g

gas density
average velocity of mixture

dp
dh

The Poettmann and Carpenter work is based on the

overall average response of 49 flowing and gas lift
wells, therefore, their correlation factor has lumped
into it many factors that can cause anomalous behavior
were it used out of the range of flows, tubing size
and gas-oil ratios for which it is determined.

Pm

The Orkiszewski work yields a gradient equation:

P

(10)

(7)

f ::

dp
dh

available methods, the Duns and Ros and the Griffith

and Wallis methods were used to form the base of this
correlation. Since the Griffith and Wallis correlation was more accurate for the high viscosity range
oils at low flow rates, it was chosen as a foundation
on which to proceed.

Duns and Ros defined the static pressure gradient as a function of a weighted density and developed
correlations for wall friction from extensive laboratory data for each flow region. This work was performed in the laboratory and modified with actual
field data. The correlations are in terms of a dimensionless gas velocity number, diameter number, liquid
viscosity number and a dimensionless mathematical expression. These dimensionless groups are the same as
developed in the work of Hagedorn and Brown. The
Duns and Ros work yields a gradient equation in
dimensionless form. Since the next discussion will
concern the evaluation of this work and that by Griffith and Wallis l l , producing a more useful correlation, further detail at this point is omitted.
The Orkiszewski work is a combination of several
published methods. After extensive comparison of all

- w q /(7.46496 x
t g

102

where:

10 12

average density

friction gradient

f
w
t
qg
A
p
p

(A )2
P

mass flow rate

gas volumetric flow rate
flow area of tubing
average pressure of flowing mixture.

The Texaco computer program uses the Orkiszewski

correlation. It also has the capability of utilizing
the Poettmann and Carpenter correlation if desired.
The difference in final ga~ lift des~gn is not radically affected for tubular conduit and high water cut
production for depths under 1500 meters.
The downhole
gas
a number of
small-ported valves used to inject pressurized gas
into the fluid column to reduce its density sufficiently so that flow can occur with the available
drawdown of the ~eservoir pressure.
The principle of operation of these valves is
relatively simple. They are pressure regulators
employing a spring and/or nitrogen gas charge over a
bellows area that opposes either the lift gas or the
flowing fluid pressure for control. In operation, as
a shut-in well is being started up, all valves are
initially open and the high pressure gas maintained to
supply the energy for the lift enters an upper valve
at such depth that the fluid column above that valve
can be forced by the pressure differential into the
usually-pressurized gas-liquid separator at the surface. As this first increment of fluid is unloaded,
the next lower valve will admit gas to an extent such
that the resulting drop in operating gas pressure will
allow the upper valve to close. This procedure is
continued with each formerly open valve closing off
until the final operating valve in the string is
reached. Ideally, this operating valve then passes
gas continuously into the flowing column of fluid,
thereby producing a reduced density liquid that will
continue to flow at a rate proportional to the drawdown of the reservoir pressure at the well perforations. The upper unloading valves must then be
closed, or excessive gas is used and erratic performance results.
A deficiency sometimes arises due to the difficulty of systematically locating the operating valve
at the efficient injection point. This can be overcome by spacing the unloading valves with respect to
this valve, rather than allowing the unloading valve
spacing to dictate the operating valve location.

GAS LIFT DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE

The type of valve used in the procedure just

described is often referred to as a gas pressure
operated valve. As previously stated, the gas pressure must be decreased for these valves to close
sequentially and allow the well to come to full
design production rate from the operating valve.
The other basic type valve is often referred to
as a fluid pressure operated valve. This valve does
not require a decrease in gas pressure for it to
close, but instead depends upon a decreasing pressure
drop in the flowing fluid as the density is decreased,
so that the resulting fluid pressure reduces and allows the valves to close sequentially. The difficulty in using this type valve is due to the problem of
predicting flowing pressure drop accurately and the
inability to effect changes by surface controls.

SPE 9981

IGLR for wells A, B, and C was 23 m3 /m 3 and was within

the design scenario of 26 m3 /m 3 .
Table 3 illustrates individual well design criteria with before and after rework comparisons for two
of the wells of Table 2. Well A was redesigned to
increase production from 115 m3 /d to 318 m3 /d. The
computer design recommended an injection gas to liquid
ratio (IGLR) of 14 m3 /m 3 . The usual gas lift vendor
design recommended planning for an IGLR of 36 m3 /m 3 .
After installation by the computer design, the well
performed at an IGLR of 18 m3 /m 3 , or approximately
half the gas volume that would have been planned for
by the vendor's recommended design, even though the
apparent well PI was found to be lower than that used
to calculate the design. This lower PI required the
use of an IGLR of 18 m3 /m 3 instead of 14 m3 /m 3

EXAMPLE INSTALLATIONS
Within the past decade, fuel costs for gas compression increased almost four-fold and there was
less gas available for gas lift in the Texas Gulf
Coast Region. This economic challenge was answered
by an increased awareness and implementation of efficient gas lift design that permitted operations to
continue without major revisions.
Table 1 illustrates the effect of the changes by
the data shown for several closely-monitored continuous flow gas lift wells in Texaco's Texas Gulf Coast
Region. The "before" and "after" statistics indicate
a fluid production increase of two-fold with a Significant gas circulation reduction. In terms of increased lift efficiency in liquid volume per circulated gas volume, a potential improvement factor of
2.3 was demonstrated.
In the following discussion of computer-generated design performance, the IGLR are quite low, contrasting with the fact that for many years, while gas
was plentiful, it was expedient to design with high
gas-liquid ratios. This resulted in so called "minimum
designs which were considered a reliable way to achieve maximum drawdown of the reservoir, instead of designing for the most efficient
injection depth and gas-liquid ratio. While this
probably evolved due to traditionally low pressure
gas lines, it influenced design even in areas where
higher pressure operations were possible.
Table 2 illustrates the design scenario for four
wells, three of which contribute to the statistics of
Table 1. The scenario is presented in terms of total
liquid rate and IGLR for design gas pressure, average
injection depth and total gas rate. These wells were
restricted to a design gas pressure of 4137 kPa. Although the improvement that could have resulted from a
higher gas pressure (Design 2) and (Design 3) was evident, the changeover to higher injection pressures
could not be made quickly. Therefore, with increased
attention to designing with minimum IGLR, the improvement as indicated by Design 1 over that for the usual
previous practice was sought. The actual production
of these four wells was increased to 782 m3/d or 68%
of the 1153 m3 /d sought. Well C increased production
rate from 109 m3 /d to 131 m3 /d but was less spectacular than wells A and B, which will be discussed in
more detail. Well D became plugged with sand shortly
after start up and did not make a sustained contribution toward fulfilling the design scenario. The final

Another example illustrating improved design is

seen for well B. Here the design production increase
from 137 m3 /d to 238 m3 /d was possible with an IGLR of
33 m3 /m 3 according to the computer design, while the
standard vendor design practice specified 43 m3 /m 3
IGLR and would only predict a maximum of 175 m3 /d production rate with the existing well tubing and flow
line sizes. After reworking the well, by computer
design, it produced 215 m3 /d and required an IGLR of
only 15 m3 /m 3 . Since the final test on this well
showed it to have an apparent PI of 0.15 m3 /kPa.d, it
should have produced in excess of 238 m3 /d had the
full design drawdown been achieved. This was prevented, however, by insufficient valve staging of only
69 kPa and a higher-than-designed surface gas pressure
required to stroke the operating valve to sufficient
opening to pass the required gas volume rate through
the small valve port used. This resulted in opening
up three of the four valves installed instead of one,
thus causing multipoint injection of gas.
The next two examples contributing to the improvements shown in Table 1 are from another field
area where the injection gas pressure was of a magnitude approaching that shown for Design 3 of Table 2.
The first of these, shown in Table 4, is an example of
obvious excessive gas injection before the well was
reworked, since the computer design indicated that
nearly twice the production rate could be lifted with
about one-fourth the gas injection. Upon pulling the
tubing to rework the well, a hole was found in the
tubing. It was surprising to find that the gas lift
vendor contacted recommended a design IGLR of 117
m3 /m 3 to obtain a desired production of 127 m3 /d.
Again, the computer design specified a much lower IGLR
of 26 m3 /m 3 to achieve the production rate. After
reworking the well with the injection depth specified
by computer design, it is seen that the production
rate is nearly attained with only a slightly higher
IGLR than ideal. Had the apparent PI of the well
truly been 0.115 m3 /kPa.d as had been used for the
design input, rather than 0.09 m3 /kPa.d finally
measured from final test, the design production rate
and IGLR would have been more nearly achieved. This
example illustrates that some designs wasteful of
injection gas can call for an IGLR as high as that
produced by a hole in the tubing. It also illustrates
how critical it is to have an accurate PIon which to
perform a gas lift design.
The final example shown in Table 5 illustrates
the limiting effect of tubing size and gas pressure on
production rate. The existing design had been

SPE 9981

R. W. PITTMAN

installed with the prospect of attaining 95 m3 /d,

using a high IGLR. Before rework, only 59 m3 /d were
being produced with a high IGLR of 152 m3 /m 3 in an
attempt to obtain the maximum production. The com---puter design indicated that to produce this quantity
of production through the small tubing would require
maximum efficiency. This would require a minimum IGLR
of 72 m3 /m 3 injected at a higher pressure than available in the field. The final solution was to install
larger tubing which would theoretically give 127 m3 /d
for the same IGLR. After rework, the well performed
at 86% of its ideal design production rate with better-than-expected IGLR. This well design illustrated
the difficulty of obtaining sufficient gas passage
through valves with small bellows area without running higher than design settings on gas pressure at
the surface. The larger tubing required the use of
25 mm valves rather than the 38 mm valves that had
been used with the 60 mm tubing due to 140 mm casing
size. The stiffer bellows in the 25 mm valve required more than design gas pressure to hold the
valve open sufficiently to pass enough gas for the
well to work down to the operating valve. This illustrates graphically the effect of valve mechanics
on overall performance, and points out the shortcomings of the standard design gas lift valve.
CONCLUSIONS
1.

2.

3.

Optimum design of continuous flow gas lift systems is best achieved by careful consideration
of all well' variables in a systematic computer
program.
Reductions in gas compression costs associated
with recycle gas compression can be as high as
50% if maximum injection depth and pressure are
designed for and maintained.
The physical restrictions placed on the design
of the standard gas lift valve render some inefficiency in its performance, especially in the
smaller diameter sizes.

Gas volumetric flow rate

Density
Average density
Absolute temperature
Friction gradient
Velocity of fluid flow rate
Weight rate of fluid flow

e.
p

T
T

v
w

m3 /d
kg/m 3
kg/m3
K

kg/m 3
m/sec
kg/d

Subscripts:
f
g
I
m

P
t

friction
gas
liquid
mixture
pipe or tubing
total

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Author appreciates the historic opportunity
to make available the Texaco work reported in this
paper.
The Author wishes to acknowledge Hr. Noell C.
Kerr, retired, Texaco Producing Department, for his
assistance in field liaison and data retrieval, Mr. R.
L. Simmons for his assistance in initial computer
programming, and many others in Texaco for their
assistance and consultation.
REFERENCES
1.

Brown, K. E.: Gas Lift Theory and Practice,

Prentice-Hall, 'Inc~nglewood-cIiffs, New Jersey
(1967) 181-198.

2.

Redden, J. D., Sherman, T. A. G., and Blann,

J. R.: 1I0 pt imizing Gas-Lift Systems," paper SPE
5150 Proc. SPE 49th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston,
Oct. 6-9, 1974.

3.

Blann, J. R., Brown, J. S., and DuFresne, L. P.:

"Improving Gas-Lift Performance in a Large North
African Oil Field,!! J. Pet. Tech. (September,
1980) 1486-1492.

4.

Craft, B. C., Holden, W. R., and Graves, E. D.,

Jr.: Well
tice-Hall ,
(1962) 368-452.

5.

Espanol, J. H., Holmes, C. S. and Brown, K. E.:

IIA Comparison of Existing Multiphase Flow Methods
for the Calculation of Pressure Drop in Vertical
Wells," SPE Reprint Series, No. 12 (1975) 65-72.

6.

Hagedorn, A. R. and Brown, K. E.: IIExperimental

Study of Pressure Gradients Occurred During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical
Conduits," paper SPE 940 presented at SPE 39th
Annual Meeting, Houston, October 11-14, 1964.

7.

Ros, N. C. J. and Duns, H. J.: ItVertical Flow of

Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells," Paper 22-PDG,
Proc. 6th World Pet. Congress, Section II,
Frankfort, June 19-26, 1963.

8.

Orkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure

Drops in Vertical Pipe,1t Paper SPE 1546, Proc.
41st Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, October 2-5,
1966.

NOMENCLATURE
Flow area of conduit
m2
kw
Adiabatic power
AP
kPa
BHPF
Bottom-hole pressure flowing
Bottom-hole pressure static
kPa
BRPS
Volume rate of liquid flowing
m3 /d
BLPD
kPa
Drawdown pressure
DD
m
Diameter of conduit
d
dp/dh;;: Pressure gradient
kPa/m
f
Friction factor
Total gas to liquid
GLR
standard, m3 /m 3
ratio
9.8
Acceleration due to gravity
g
Liquid holdup factor
H
Pressure drop in terms of
Clh
liquid head
m
Inj ec t ion gas to liquid
IGLR
standard, m3 /m 3
ratio
Ratio of specific heats
K
m
Length of conduit
L
P
kPa
Absolute pressure
Average pressure of flowing mixture
kPa
p
Gas pressure at surface
kPa
PC
m3 /kPa.d
PI
Productivity index
kPa
Separator pressure
PS
Absolute wellhead pressure
kPa
PWH

GAS LIFT DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE

9.

Poettmann, F. H. and Carpenter, P. G.: liThe

Multiphase Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through
Vertical Flow Strings with Applications to the
Design of Gas-Lift Ins tallations, II Drilling
and Production Practice, API (1952) 257-317.

10.

Lawson, J. D., and Brill, J. P.: "A Statistical

Evaluation of Methods Used to Predict Pressure
Losses for Multiphase Flow in Vertical Oilwell
Tubing, SPE Reprint Series, No. 12 (1975) 84-95.

11.

Griffith, P. and Wallis, G. B.: IITwo-Phase Slug

Flow ll , ASME J Heat Transfer (August, 1961)
307-320.

SPE 9981

TABLE I

RESULTS OF COMPUTER
DESIGN PROGRAM APPLICATION
EXAMPLE WELLS
TEXAS GULF COAST REGION
VARIABLE

BEFORE

FLUID PRODUCTION, m3 /d
GAS CIRCULATEO*, m3/d

AFTER

591

1214

40921

36740

0.014

0.033

LIFT EFFICIENCY, m3 /m 3
*STANOARD

TABLE 2

GAS LIFT DESIGN SCENARIO BY COMPUTER

TEXAS GULF COAST REGION
WELLS A, B. C, 0

DESIGN

PREVIOUS PRACTICE
LIQUID
RATE
m31 d

IGLR
m 3 /m 3

475

35

PRESS. LIQUID
RATE
k Po
m3/d
4137

1153

DESIGN 2

IGLR
m3/m 3

PRESS.
k Po

26

4137

LIQUID
RATE
m3/d
1153

DESIGN 3

IGLR
m3 /m 3

PRESS.
k Po

LIQUID
RATE
m3/ d

IGLR
m 3 /m 3

PRESS.
k Po

19

4826

1153

15

5860

AVG. I NJ. DEPTH, m

AVG. INJ. DE PTH, m

AVG. INJ. DEPTH, m

557

699

794

GAS RATE, m 3 /d

GAS RATE, m 3 /d

GAS RATE, m 3 /d

16625

29978

21907

AVG. INJ. DEPTH, m

911
GAS

RATE, m 3/d
17295

TABLE :3

INCREASED PRODUCTION WITH DECREASE

IN INJECTION GAS/LIQUID RATIO
COMPUTER GAS LIFT DESIGN

STATUS

LIQUID
RATE
m3 /d

BEFORE REWORK

1\5

30

0.4

9540 (FOR 318 m 3/d)

COMPUTER DESIGN

318

14

0.4

4452

GLV. MFGR. DESIGN

318

36

0.4

11448

AFTER REWORK
COMPUTER DESIGN

334

18

0.38

6012

BEFORE REWORK

137

35

0.1

8330 (FOR 238 m 3/d)

COMPUTER DESIGN

238

33

0.1

7854

GLV. MFGR. DESIGN

175

43

0.1

7525

AFTER REWORK
COMPUTER DE SIGN

215

15

0.15

3225

WELL

IGLR
PI
m 3/m3 m 3 /kPo'd

GAS INJECTED
m 3 /d

TABLE 4

REESTABLISH ECONOMIC PRODUCTION

WITH DECREASE IN INJECTION GAS/LIQUID RATIO
COMPUTER GAS II FT DESI GN

STATUS

LIQUID
RATE
m 3/d

IGLR
m 3/m 3

BEFORE REWORK

71

97

COMPUTER DESIGN

127

26

0.115

3302

GLV. MFGR. DESIGN

127

117

0.115

14859

AFTER REWORK
COMPUTER DESIGN

119

32

0.09

3808

WELL

PI
m 3 / k Po' d

GAS INJECTED
m3 /d
12319 (FOR 127 BFPD)

TABLE 5

INCREASED PRODUCTION WITH DECREASE

IN INJECTION GAS/LIQUID RATIO
COMPUTER GAS LIFT DESIGN

WELL

LIQUID
RATE
m 3/d

IGLR
m3/m 3

GAS INJECTED
m 3/d

59

152

8968

COMPUTER DESIGN
(60mm TUBING)

95

72

N/A WITH EXISTING

FIELD GAS PRESSURE

COMPUTER DESIGN
( 7:3mm TUBING)

127

72

9144

110

69

7590

STATUS
BEFORE REWORK
(60mm TUBING)

AFTER

REWORK

PS
...... GAS
...... OIL

PC

"'

PC

WATER

,~~--+--

HIGH GLR

~-+-LOW

GLR

VALVES
INJECTION

FLOWING LIQUID

'----STATIC LIQUID
, GRADIENT

GRADIENT
BHPS

BHPF

' . BHPS

'.... 00 +I
FIGURE

CONTINUOUS FLOW GAS LI FT

/",ADIABATIC POWER
POWER

..................
o~-----+-----------------------.

IGLR

.....------ OPTIMUM INJECTION

--

O~------------------------------~P

FIGURE 2

CONTINUOUS FLOW GAS LIFT

OPTIMUM INJECTION POINT

THEORY