SPE 24065

SPE
Gas-Lift-Valve Test Rack Opening Design Methodology for Extreme
Kickoff Temperature Conditions
D.L. Lagerlef, W.H. Smalstig, and M.D. Erwin, ARCO Alaska Inc.
SPE Members

Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Western Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, March 30-April 1, 1992.

This paper was selaoted for presentation by an SPE Program Comminee following review of information contained in an abstract submined by the author@). Contents of the paper,
as present&, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the suthorfs). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any p o s i f i of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its oificers. or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subjaot to publication review by Editoriar Committees of the Society
of PetroleumEngineers. Permissionto copy is restrictedto an abstractof not more than 300 words. Illustrationsmay not be repied.Th8 abstractshould contain consptcuousacknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 750853838. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

1900 to 2000 psi (13.10 to 13.79 MPa). Due to the kick-off

The objective of unloading valves in a gas lift string is to
transfer gas to the lift point. Normally, the valve test rack
opening (TRO) for nitrogen charged dome pressure valves is
based upon the estimated flowing temperature profile. This is
appropriate for most situations. However, the valve settings
may not unload consistently when a significant difference exists
between the shut in, unloading, and producing temperature
gradients. Such temperature differences are very pronounced in
either high rate wells or in wells with a large upper well bore
heat sink, such as when penetrating the Arctic permafrost, and in
deep sea completio11~.
A procedure has been developed to determine an appropriate TRO
for each valve to accommodate the range of temperature
conditions expected during kick-off operations. It reduces the
likelihood of unloading valves operating out of sequence and
improves efficient transfer of lift gas to the design l i t valve
under a variety of well bore temperature gradients.
pressures and temperatures, valve dome pressures above 2000 psi
(13.79 MPa) are common.
The top gas lift mandrels in Prudhoe Bay wells are normally
located between 2900 and 3400 ft TVD (883.9 to 1036.3 m),
we11 below the permafrost. Permafrost is essentially high water
content, frozen soil and extends from just below the 18 in (457
cm) of active soil to 2500 ft TVD (762.0 m). This temperature
sink creates a large differential temperature in the well bore
between shut-in and flowing conditions, especially for high nte
wells.
Prudhoe Bay wells with moderate to low PIShave been found to
begin flowing while only lifting on upper valves and at very
cool temperatures as they slowly warm up to flowing
temperature. Designs based only on full flowing temperature
p f d e s lifted from the orifice may incorrectly estimate the actual
top valve operating temperame by as much as 15O F (-9 OC).
BACKGROUND

The Prudhoe Bay field is located on the edge of Alaska's Arctic
Ocean. The primary producing interval, the Sadlerochit, is found
at approximately 8850 ft SS (2698 m) with significant portions
of the oil field undergoing water flood. Seawater from the Arctic
Ocean is injected in addition to produced water. All produced gas
not consumed as fuel is injected into the gas cap for pressure
maintenance. Well productivity index (PI) varies across the field
from slightly below 1.0 to above 30 BF'PD per psi drawdown
(23 to 692 (m3/d)/MPa). Water cuts currently average 60
percent. A range of tubing sizes are found in the producing
wells, with 4-112 and 5-112 in (114 and 140 cm) diameter
prevalent. Gas lift is the predominant artificial lift mechanism.
Over 150 of the 300 ARCO operated producing wells in the
Eastern Operating Area of Prudhoe Bay are normally on gas lift
utilizing ammximately 250 hlMSCFD (81935 Us) lift gas.
Gas lift valves are normally 1-112 in (38 cm) 0. D. The
manifold operating pressure for the gas lift supply system is
Bellows operated gas lift valves are tempetatw sensitive and it's
important to understand their characteristics over the range of
well bore temperature gradient conditions. The difference between
the unloading temperature gradient and the flowing temperature
gradient has been well documented1. The use of flowing
temperature gradients273 in gas lift design techniques is
common. However, the flowing gradient does not always result
in an optimal gas lift design. Jones and Brown found that
setting gas lift valve dome pressures based on a linear
temperature change from top to bottom was inadequate4.
Likewise, Laing pointed out that bear temperame gradients are
an oversimplification in deep water offshore production areas and
could result in unloading problems5.
Other methods have been proposed. One valve manufacturer's
gas Sit manual recommends using the geothermal gradient to
provide some "safety factor"6. Yet another method of estimating

References and figures at end of paper.

2 Gas Lift VaIve Test Rack
for Extreme Kick-off
the valve temperature was suggested by ~ o c h t ~ He. proposed,
but did not elaborate, that the operating valve temperature should
be based on the anticipated reservoir feed-in rate when lifting
from the unloading valve.
One of the most detailed techniques published for gas lift design
utilizing a temperature gradient other than the flowing gradient is
found in a 1981 ptent8. The patent describes a design technique
which corrects gas lift valve spacing and reopening pressures to
the lowest temperature expected while lifting from the next lower
valve.
During initial start-up of the Prudhoe Bay artificial lift system,
designs were based on the expected flowing temperature gradient
(Fig. 1). However, it was discovered that some Prudhoe Bay
wells experienced difficultly unloading to the operating valve. In
some cases, it took excessive amounts of lift gas, much more
than any one valve could pass, to accomplish the unloading
sequence. Other wells could only be unloaded after waiting for
production, initiated with limited drawdown from lifting off the
top valve alone, to warm up the well bore and upper valves.
The poor kick-off characteristics of designs based on flowing
temperature conditions alone were unexpected. It resulted in
multi-point lifting, which occurs as valves open and close out of
the intended sequence. These unloading difficulties prompted
closer evaluation of gas lift design assumptions and
methodology.
Based on the operational problems associated with the flowing
temperature gradient, a modified technique was developed. The
next approach used a linear gradient beginning from 30 OF (-1 OC)
at the base of the permafrost to the static bottom hole
temperature (Fig. 1). The new design methodology eliminated
many of the operational problems previously encountered but
resulted in new difficulties. The unloading process, after brief
shut-in periods, often resulted in the inability to inject lift gas.
It was determined that the valve dome pressures were higher than
the available casing pressure as a result of the higher flowing
temperatures, forcing the valves to remain shut Shut-in periods
were extended to allow the well bore to further cool, reducing the
lift valve temperatures and the bellows pressure, allowing the
well to be kicked off. But the associated production loss was
unacceptable.
The design methodology was revised to average the expected
flowing wellhead temperature and the permafrost gradient of 30
OF (-1 "C). This approach appeared to result in fewer kick-off
problems but was still unreliable in certain situations; valves
locking out or operating out of sequence continued to occur with
unacceptable fresuency
The design methodology now involves two steps: (1) designing
the upper three valves based on a kickoff temperature gradient,
and (2) determining if the upper valves will operate properly
under flowing temperature gradient conditions (occurring after
Design Methodology SPE 24065
:mperature Condition
short shut-in periods).
The procedure utilizes a multi-phase flow model to estimate fluid
rates and a well bore temperature prediction model to estimate the
temperature at each of the upper three valves under kick-off
conditions. A multi-phase model is used to determine the
anticipated fluid rates while unloading at each valve. Several
multi-phase models are available for this purpose, including
those developed by Hagedom and Brown and ~ r k i s z e w s k i ~ s ~ ~ .
Fluid rates are calculated assuming the PI is 50% of the well's
expected productivity index, a maximum lift gas rate 500 to
1000 MSCFD (164 to 327 L/s), and expected gas oil ratio and
water cut. The calculated fluid rates are then input in a
temperam model.
A temperature model is used which simulates the thermal regime
expected, assuming the flow rates calculated as the well unloads
at each valve. Arco uses an in-house model for this purpose but
several similar models have been published, including one
developed by shiul1. A temperature estimate is made for each
upper valve with the well unloading only from that valve.
The resulting kick-off temperature profile reflects the expected
reservoir inflow as drawdown is increased by kicking to lower
valves. The actual initial kick-off gradient is much colder, but
valves designed for cooler gradients would not function properly
if required to unload the well after only a brief shut-in period.
This results from the warmer well bore temperatures increasing
the bellows pressure. The kick-off temperature gradient is used
to design the opening and closing pressure for the three upper
valves, while the flowing gradient is appropriate kor the lower
valves.
However, the upper valve performance under flowing temperature
gradient conditions must be evaluated to ensure sufficient kick-
off pressure is available. Failure to complete this final check can
require additional shut-in time for the well bore to cool after brief
shut downs, such as for choke changes, sub-surface safety valve
checks, miscellaneous wire line or slick line work, etc.
High productivity wells with high water cut exhibit the greatest
difference between their static and flowing temperamre gradients.
By contrast, low productivity wells, particularly low water cut
wells, exhibit the greatest difference between their kick-off and
flowing temperature gradients. Typical flowing, shut-in, and
kick-off gradients estimated using the reduced productivity index
methodology are shown in Figure 1. Table 1 displays the
general trend for the kick-off gradient and the flowing gradient.
Below 6000 ft SS (1829 m), or the third valve, the difference is
negligible as the gradients converge.
EXAMPLE:
Given:' Top valve with R= 0.0614 a't 3013 ft TVD (918.4 m),
maximum available kick-off pressure = 1850 psi (1276 MPa),
design kick-off pressure = 1815psi (12.51 MPa), Ptmin = 1218
psi (8.40 MPa), gas gradient = 0.055 psi/ft (.0012 MPaIm).
Design PI = 3.0 BFPD/apsi (69 (m3/D)/IWa), liquid rate = 5885
BFPD (935.6 m3/d), water cut = 70%, GOR=1400 SCFISTB
(896400 L/m3), lift gas rate = 4000 MSCFD (1311 L/s) injected
at 8326 ft TVD(2537.8 m).
 SPE 24065 D.L. Lagerlef. W.H.Smalstig. M.D.Erwin
First, a two phase model is used to determine the flow rates
lifting from the top valve at 3013 ft TVD (918.4 m) with 1000
MSCFD (327 Lls) lift gas and the given formation GOR and,
water cut. A flow rate of 2303 BFPD (366.1 m3/d) is estimated. 1
The temperature model is then used to predict a kick-off
' temperature at the top valve of 140 OF (60 OC). The next step is
to determine the valve opening pressure conditions, and then
determine the dome setting pressure.
The casing pressure at valve depth is the valve opening pressure
desired and can be found by:
Pvo = Pcsg = 1981psi (13.66 MPa)
The dome pressure at valve depth and temperature can be found
by:
Pdome - Ptmin*R
Pvo =
1-R
.............(2)
Rearranging terms;
The Non-Ideal Gas Law can be used to determine the dome
pressure to be set at 60 OF (30 OC) in the shop;
Since for the bellows we assume Vl=V2, solve for the dome
pressure at any temperature given another known operating
pressure and associaad temperame at depth;
1934 460t60 *Ieo=1615 psi (11.14 Mh)
860 OF= ((4d(l4O)* l . k 8
Then the TRO pressure can be determined from the following
formula:
TRO = P me 60 OF.............(6)
1720 psi (11.86 m a )
= (1 - 0.0614) =
It must then be determined whether the valve designed for kick-
3
off temperature conditions can be opened with the maximum
available design kick-off gas lift pressure under flowing
temperature conditions. Continuing the example above, the
flowing temperature at the top valve = 159 OF:
The dome pressure at flowing temperature can be calculated using
equation (5).
The valve opening pressure at depth can then be calculated using
equation (2).
Using a rearrangement of equation (I), replacing Pcsg with Pvo.
the surface pressure required to open the valve under flowing
tempemure conditions is:
= 1848 psi (12.74 MPa)
This is the minimum casing pressure required to overcome the
temperature affected bellows pressure, and it is below the design
maximum kick-off pressure of 1850 psi (12.76 MPa).
Therefore, the valve TRO set at 1720 psi (11.86 MPa) will
function under cool kick-off conditions and under a warmer
flowing temperature gradient also. If there was not enough
pressure available, the cool kick-off design would have to be
recalculated assuming a lower kick-off gas lift supply pressure.
Table 2 shows the spreadsheet developed to perform the various
TRO calculations for both cool kick-off temperature and flowing
temperature conditions.
CASE HISTORY
Well 13-28 was squeezed with cement on January 3, 1990 to
reduce water production from a confirmed channel. Following
the squeeze the well was reperforated and a deep gas lift design
installed on February 10, 1990. A schematic of the well is
shown in Figure 2. The well initially produced 1600 BFPD
(254.4 m31d) at a 90% water cut and 800 SCFISTB (511200
~ l m GLR~ ) but by September 1990 the rate had declined to
approximately 375 BFPD (59.6 m3ld). A production profile and
gas lift survey on September 27, 1990 indicated the gas lift
design was functioning properly with the well lifting from the
orifice in station #12 located at 8910 ft MD (2715.8 m). The
well's production decline was apparently not related to gas lift
performance.
A further decrease in liquid production led to additional trouble
shooting. A liquid level survey in April, 1991 indicated the well
was no longer lifting at the orifice. Well tests reported a
wellhead temperature of 53 OF (12 OC). Due to the well's
4 Gas Lift Valve Test Rack 0
for Extreme Kick-off
relatively low flow rate and the cooling effect of permafrost,
hydrates readily formed in the well. Methanol injection into the
production casing was attempted but failed to mitigate hydrate
formation. It was postulated that the gas lift valves were
improperly sequenced, due to cold well bore temperatures, and
that the low production rates were insufficient to warm the upper
valves and allow the well to unload down to the orifice.
Attempts to increase the artificial lift rate through each unloading
valve also failed as hydrates quickly formed. Figure 3 shows the
casing and tubing pressure trend for the well while trying to
"fog" lift gas to the well. The well eventually had to be shut-in
and treated with a hot oil pump down to thaw the hydrates.
A gas lift survey run on April 17,1991 confirmed that the well
was lifting at the top valve in station #1, located at 2888 ft MD
(880.3 m). Extremely cold well bore temperatures were recorded
with the temperature tool. Figure 4 shows the temperature
profiles from the April 1991, and the previous September's gas
lift surveys.
The April survey indicated the temperature was 37 OF (3 OC)
cooler at the top valve than the September survey. The cold well
bore kick-off temperatures resulted in the top valves remaining
open and the lower bellows valves remaining closed. The
reduced flow rate from lifting on the upper valves was unable to
raise the well bore temperature enough to encourage the lift point
to sequentially transfer down to the orifice. Table 3 summarizes
the gas lift design in place at the time of these problems.
Theoretical surface opening and closing pressures for the well
bore conditions logged during the September 27, 1990 gas lift
survey with the lift point at the orifice are presented on Table 4.
It also shows the theoretical surface opening and closing
pressures for the April 17, 1991 gas lift survey conditions,
operating with the lift point at the top unloading valve. The
opening and closing sequence is improper under both flowing
conditions. The pressures need to decrease from top to bottom.
The sequence is actually reversed under both flowing conditions,
meaning the top valves remain open and make it impossible to
kick the gas lift down to the orifice without letting the well bore
cool down.
Later in April, the top two valves were redesigned to account for
the extremely cold well bore temperatures logged during the
April, 1991 gas lift survey. The new design is shown in Table
5. The top two unloading valves were replaced by valves with
much higher TRO pressures. This raised the closing pressure
and allowed lift gas to transfer to the deeper valves. A liquid
level survey in May, 1991 confirmed that the well successfully
transferred gas to the orifice. The casing and tubing pressure
trend following installation of the new design is shown in Figure
5.
Gas lift designs based on a single temperature gradient are prone
to function improperly in well bores with extreme temperature
conditions. Designing solely on the flowing temperature
gradient can lead to upper valves remaining out of sequence under
cool well bore conditions which occur after extended shut-in
periods. In wells with designs using the coolest expected
ning Design Methodology SPE 24065
mperature Condition
temperature gradient, there may not be enough kick-off pressure
available to open upper valves nor inject gas past them after the
well has been temporarily shut-in following a long producing
interval. Therefore an approach which considers a practical range
of temperatures in the well bore is needed for designing gas lift
valves.
A new gas lift design methodology has been developed for
evaluating the temperature conditions each valve will experience
during the unloading process. This enables unloading valves to
effectively kick-off wells under a broader range of well bore
temperature conditions. The methodology is based on proven
gas lift concepts and has been field tested.
Designing wells with the cool kick-off temperature gradient has
the additional advantage of increasing gas lift performance
flexibility. Wells will unload as intended even when the flowing
temperature is lower than expected. In other words, if the
production rates are lower than design assumptions, the well can
be kicked-off with less difficulty after a short shut-in duration.
An associated benefit is that gas lift designs are more forgiving
as productivity declines.
The cool kick-off gas lift design methodology should be
implemented for the design of bellows operated, gas lift
unloading valves in any area where well bore temperatures vary
significantly with well conditions. The methodology can be
easily incorporated into existing gas lift design procedures.
BFPD = Barrels of fluid per day
Gg = Gas gradient, psi/foot
GLR = Gas to liquid ratio, SCFISTB
GOR = Gas to oil ratio, SCFISTB
H = Depth of valve, TVD feet
MD = Measured depth, ft
O.D. = Outer diameter
Pcsg = Casing pressure at valve depth, psi
Pdome = Nitmgen dome charge, psi
Pk0 = Kick-off pressure, psi
Psc = Surface casing pressure required to close valve, psi
Pso= Surface casing pressure required to open valve, psi
Punin=Design minimum tubing pressure at valve depth, psi
PVo= Valve opening pressure at valve depth, psi
R = Ratio of port area to bellows area
SS = Vertical depth in feet subsea
T = Temperature, O Rankine
TRO = Test rack opening pressure at 60 OF, psi
TVD= True vertical feet
Z = Compressibility factor for nitrogen
apsi = drawdown at perforations, psi
i3P = casing pressure drop taken at unloading valve above, psi
AUTHORS' NOTE
The techniques and/or conclusions are those of the authors and
are not necessarily shared by Prudhoe Bay Working Interest
Owners.
SPE 24065 D.L. Lagerlef, W.H.Smalstig. M.D. k i n 5

The authors wish to thank the ARC0 Alaska hvdhoe Bay

Operations Engineering group for contributing to the
developmentof the methodology presented.

REFERENCES
1. Winkler, H. W.: "Gas Lift", Petroleum Engineering
Handbook, SPE (1987) Chapter 5 5-23 and 5-26.
2. Winkler, H. W., and Smith, S. S.: "Gas Lift Manual,"
Camco, Inc., Houston, Texas (1962).
3. Brown, K. E.: "The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods,"
Vol. 2a, Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma
(1980) 224 and 233.

4. Jones, D. L.: "How Needed Changes Can Hike Gas Lift Oil
Production," Oil and Gas J. (June 25,1973) 100.
5. Laing, C. M.: "Gas Lift Design Performance Analysis in
the North Hutton Field," J. Pet. Tech. (January. 1991) 97.

6. Teledyne Merla: "Gas Lift Manual," Garland, Texas (1980)

Section 2 pg. 27.
7. Focht, F. T.: "Trouble Shooting Gas Lift Wells," World Oil
(June, 1981) 160.
8. Raggio, I. J., U. S. Patent No. 4,392,532 [patented July 12,
1983, filed Mar. 16, 19811.
9. Hagedom, A. R., and Brown, K. E.: "Experimental Study of
Pressure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-phase
Flow in Small-diameter Vertical Conduits," J. Pet. Tech.
(April, 1965) 475-484.

10. Orkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in

Vertical Pipes," J. Pet. Tech. (June, 1967) 829-838.

11. Shiu, K. C. and Beggs, H. D.: "Predicting Temperatures in

Flowing Oil Wells," J. of Energy Resources T. (March
1980) Trans. ASME.
 I Table I. Normal Tem~erature 1
Variation
Statton VnlveDepth Temp
Tm.& aPi
3000 15 OF

Table 2. Gas Lift Valve Design Spreadsheet I

-
Daslgn Engr Valw I N D I Valve Tyw Cornmanv lVdm Sb. 1 PDtl SIzo I bIUPI (IR I Kv I F h l T m d KO Temp
L.(l.rl.f 1 3013 VRSm UcYurry 1 112 In. 114" 20 650 1.53 159.F 140 'F
Wdl 2 4868 VRm McMurry 1 112 in. 14" 40 750 1.55 169'F 157 'F
16-19 3 6765 V R m McMuny 1 112 In. SH6" 208 950 1.56 180.F 175 'F
CddKOPm 4 8326 CAMCO 1 112 In. 112" 10 1100 1.55 189'F 100 'F
1815 PSI 5 8850 102'F 192 'F
WHT
MW 6

Table 3. DS13-28 Old Design Summary

Station Fiowlna TRO
w & EeP ear UEE
I 150 1780 1731 1675
2 172 1750 1716 1686
3 186 1736 1701 1687
5 204 1723 1681 1750
12 21 6 Orifice Orifice Orifice

Table 4. DS 13-28 Calculated Valve Performance

I Warm Cold Cold Cold W a r m Warm

1568 1534 1675 1635 1688

148 1632 1597 1671 1634 1687
196 182 1689 1647 1688 1646 1750
12 21 6 214 Orifice Orifice Orifice Orlfice Orifice

Table 5.
Warm
DS13-28 New Design Summary
Cold Cold Cold Warm Warm I
I'Fn
Dealgn Derlgn Tamp Temp Temp Temp

108 70 1765 1716 1925 1867 1950

 Temperature I F)
0 50 100 150 200 250

GLV
for

Figure 1 . T y p i c a l Prudhoe Bay Well

Max A n g l e
2 4 deg.

Figure 2.
7"
s
n w o o .
Sqz P e r f s
Open Perfs

Well Schematic
I

Increase A!L to

Well Shut in.

Hydrated off

-X
s
loo0
Q Valve#l @ ~a1ve#2

Casing Injection
E 800.- Pressure

: s o 0 --
m

400

200

0
a-

-.
4
-
Flowing Wellhead

I .
Pressure

I
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Time, hrs
Figure 3. 13-28 Pressure Trend (4/9/91)
 Temperature ( F)
0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 4 . 13-28 Temperature Survey Results

1200
Casing Injection Pressure

-.1 0 0 0
.

Y
2
800 1 well operating smoothly with
the lift point at the orifice

400 +
Flowing wellhead pressure
"
200

Daya after 4/29/91 Survey

Figure 5 . 13-28 Pressure Trend with New
Valve Design I n s t a l l e d