Petronics Workshop

NTNU

Trondheim, 15-16 June 2004

Be elegant
Our PETRONICS’ stories

Bin Hu1 and Michael Golan

Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics
Norwegian University of Science and Technology

1 Now with Scandpower Petroleum Technology AS

1
 What we want to tell
NTNU

1. Unstable two-phase flows in a pressure-pressure

boundary system.
2. Unstable gas-lift.

2
 What is PETRONICS and why are we involved?
NTNU

1. Use active control to stabilize the unstable flows.

2. Then we have to recognize in-hand the types and
mechanisms of the unstable flows before
applying the active controls.

3
 Unstable flows in a pressure-pressure
boundary two-phase flow system
NTNU

PR PS
Gas

4
 ‶Inelegant″ descriptions of the unstable flows
by the petroleum engineer: HEADINGS
NTNU

Depending on where in the flow system the free gas of

interest cyclically builds up and discharges, we have

1. Tubing heading.
2. Casing heading.
3. Formation heading.
4. Severe slugging (pipeline heading).

5
 ‶Elegant″ descriptions of the unstable flows
by the nuclear engineers: INSTABILITIES
NTNU

1. Local instabilities (microscopic instabiliteis)

• Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
• Rayleigh-Taylor instability
2. System instabilities (marcroscopic instabilities)
• Static instability (excursions)
- When system has a positive feedback to any
flow perturbation.
- Static instabilities are visible only when they
result in dynamic oscillations.
• Dynamic instability
- When system has a negative feedback to any
flow perturbation.

6
 Example of static instabilty: multi-solution
NTNU

7
 Example of static instabilty: pressure-drop
type oscillation (severe slugging)
NTNU

Q1 Q2 Q

8
 Experiments on pressure-drop type oscillation
Hu and Vestøl
0.6 0.6
NTNU

0.5 0.5

Water inlet pressure (barg)

Water inlet flowrate (l/s)

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
Separator
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (s)

Plexiglass pipe
Trapped gas
Gaslift valve
Pressure gauge
Water
9
 Example of static instabilty: multi-solution
NTNU

In nuclear engineeing: puming water to a heated tube

10
 Example of static instabilty: multi-solution
NTNU

In chemical engineeing: heat generation and

removal in a CSTR

11
 Dynamic instabilty: basic features
NTNU

1. A system has a negative feedback to any flow

perturbation.
2. Inertia and feedback effects have an essential
part in the process.
3. Dynamic instabilities cannot be predicted by
steady-state analysis.
4. In petroleum production and transportation,
density-wave instability is the only form of
dynamic instability.

12
 Density-wave instabilty
NTNU

air

time

time

Velocity Density
dominated dominated
system system

13
 Gas-lift concept and casing heading cycle
NTNU

1. A sudden reduction of Pt results in

more gas discharge.
2. More gas discharge will further reduce
the Pt, promoting more gas injection.
3. Pc will eventually decrease, resulting
in a reduction of gas injection.
4. Pt starts to increase because of the gas
injection reduction.
5. Pc begins to build up.
6. Gas injection starts to increase again.
More gas injection reduces Pt and
sways the flow condition back to 2.

14
 How to thoroghly eliminate casing heading?
NTNU

15
 Then, is this system uncoditionally stable?
NTNU

• Critical gas injection is used in

some new gas-lift design. Casing
heading is gone.
• But the wells sometimes can still be
unstable according to field reports.
• Density-wave instability probably is
the only possibility, but it was
thought impossible to occur
• We are going to find out.

16
 Theoretical analysis
Analytical solution for
incompressible homogenous system
NTNU

d 2η (θ ) dη (θ ) dη (θ − 1)
+ C1 + C2 (η (θ ) − η (θ − 1)) + C3 =0
dθ 2
dθ dθ
L 2 Aρl
C1 = f + +
D K ρu⋅PI

AL ⎛ u 2 ⎞ ( ρl − ρ g )q g
It is unlikely for an
C2 = ⎜⎜ g + f ⎟⎟ incompressible
ρu ⎝ 2D ⎠ (qg + ql ) 2
system with such a high
A u ( ρ l − ρ g )q g
C3 = inlet restriction to be
K ρ (q g + ql ) 2
unstable!
C32 + 2C2 > C12
17
 Methdology and assumptions
NTNU

• Linear analysis and numerical simulations

• Air/water system.
• Ql=PI(PR-Pwf).
• Psep=Const.
• Isothermal
• In linear analysis, using homogenous flow model.

18
 Parameters of the “well”
NTNU

• 2500m in depth
• 0.125m ID tubing
• PR =50 to 240 bara
• Psep=10bara
• PI=34.5 Sm3/D/bar (or 4e-6 kg/s/Pa)

19
 Linear analysis result: it occurs!
NTNU

1.5

1.4

1.3
Unstable
1.2
Stable
1.1
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250
PR-Psep (bar)

20
 Linear analysis result: PI
NTNU

1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5 PI=4e-6kg/s/Pa
1.4 PI=2e-6kg/s/Pa
1.3 PI=8e-6kg/s/Pa
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(PR-Psep)/ρlgL

21
 Linear analysis result: tubing diameter
NTNU

1.8
1.7
1.6 ID=0.125m
1.5 ID=0.1m
ID=0.15m
1.4
1.3
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(PR-Psep)/ρlgL

22
 Linear analysis result: separator pressure
NTNU

1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
10bar
1.4 5bar
1.3 20bar
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
(PR-Psep)/ρlgL

23
 Stability map (L=2500m, PI=4e-6kg/s/Pa, Psep=10bara, 100% choke opening, ID=0.125m)

1,25
1,20
NTNU

1,15
1,10
1,05
1,00
0,95
0,90
0,85
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

0,80
0,75
0,70
0,65
0,60
0,55
0,50
0,45
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310
PR-Psep (bar)

24
 Stability map for different well depth

1,1
NTNU

1,0

0,9

0,8
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

0,7

0,6 2000m
2500m
0,5
3000m
0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
(PR-Psep)/ρlgL

25
 Stability map for different system pressure

1,3
NTNU

1,2

1,1

1,0
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

0,9

0,8

0,7 10bara
20bara
0,6 5bara

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0

(PR-Psep)/ρlgL

26
 Stability map for different Productivity Index

1,0
NTNU

0,9

0,8
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

0,7

0,6
4e-6kg/s/Pa
0,5 8e-6kg/s/Pa
2e-6kg/s/Pa
0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
(PR-Psep)/ρlgL

27
 Stability map for different choke opening

0,9
NTNU

0,8

0,7
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

0,6

0,5 100 %
50 %
0,4 10 %

0,3

0,2

0,1

0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
(PR-Psep)/ρlgL

28
 Stability map for different tubing diameter

1,3
NTNU

1,2

1,1

1,0
Gas injection rate (kg/s)

0,9

0,8

0,7 ID=0.125m
ID=0.10m
0,6 ID=0.15m

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0,0
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0
(PR-Psep)/ρlgL

29
 OLGA simulation results
PR is 90bara and air injection rate is about 18000Sm3/D
NTNU

1.E+07 350

9.E+06 300

Production rate at wellhead (m 3/D)

8.E+06 250

7.E+06 200
Pwf (Pa)

6.E+06 150

5.E+06 Bottomehole flowing pressure 100

Production rate at wellhead

4.E+06 50

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
Time (s)

30
 OLGA simulation results
PR is 90bara and air injection rate is about 40000Sm3/D
NTNU

1.E+07 2100

9.E+06 1800

Production rate at wellhead (m /D)

8.E+06 1500

3
7.E+06 1200
Pwf (Pa)

6.E+06 900
Bottomhole flowing pressure
Production rate at wellhead
5.E+06 600

4.E+06 300

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
Time (s)

31
 OLGA simulation results
PR is 90bara and air injection rate is about 54000Sm3/D
NTNU

1.E+07 1400

9.E+06 1200

Production rate at wellhead (m 3/D)

8.E+06 1000

7.E+06 800
Pwf (Pa)

Bottomhole flowing pressure

6.E+06 600
Production rate at wellhead

5.E+06 400

4.E+06 200

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
Time (s)

32
 Production loss due to density-wave instability
NTNU

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4 Open loop dynamical simulation results

Normalized production rate

With feedback control

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
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
3
Gas injection rate (Sm /D)

33
 Demonstration of feedback control
NTNU

1.E+07 2000

9.E+06 1800

8.E+06 1600

Production rate at wellhead (m 3/D)

7.E+06 1400

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)

34
 Summary
NTNU

• Density-wave instability can occur in depleted gas-

lift wells.
– Increasing reservoir pressure and gas injection rate
increases stability.
– Increasing tubing diameter, PI and system pressure
decreases stability PR − Psep
– Instability occurs only when <1
ρ gL
l

• The instability not only causes operating problem,

but also reduces production.
– Active feedback control is an effective method for both
stabilising and avoiding production loss.
– OLGA is capable of capturing the instability dynamics.

35
 Publications
NTNU

1. Gisle Otto Eikrem,Bjarne Foss,Lars Imsland, Bin

Hu andMichael Golan: ”STABILIZATION OF GAS
LIFTED WELLS” 2002

2. Bin Hu and Michael Golan: ”Gas-lift Instability

Resulted Production Loss and Its Remedy by
Feedback Control: Dynamical Simulation Results”
SPE 84917, 2003 (highlighted by JPT May issue)

3. Bin Hu and Michael Golan: ” Characterizing Gas-

lift Instabilities by Dynamic Simulation”, 2003

4. Bin Hu and Michael Golan: ”Occurrence of density-

wave instability in gas-lift wells”. 2004

36
 We want to thank
NTNU

• Our sponsors: ABB, HYDRO, RESEARCH

COUNCIL, NTNU

• Our elegent colleagues in the petronics

team.

• Scandpower for OLGA licence

37