4/29/2020

SLAeConferences.

Visual Observations of High GOR Well

Production Behavior
Eduardo Pereyra (ep@utulsa.edu)
The University of Tulsa (TUHWALP)

Desafíos para los Sistemas de Levantamiento Artificial

Artificial Lift Systems Challenges
TUHWALP
www.ArtificialLift.org TUHWALP.ens.utulsa.edu
linkedin.com/company/TUHWALP

Outline

 Liquid loading
 Velocity string
 Foam flow
 Plunger lift
 Flow in the lateral and severe slugging

1
 4/29/2020

TUHWALP?

The Tulsa University Horizontal Well Artificial Lift Projects (TUHWALP) addresses the challenges of horizontal
wells and develops new methods for advancing artificial lift and other production related technologies. Our
mission is to work cooperatively with the oil and gas industry to develop data science and physics based
models, technologies, and predictive tools that enhance the knowledge and effectiveness related to the
production of horizontal oil and gas

TUHWALP
Innovating since 2012

TUHWALP.ens.utulsa.edu
linkedin.com/company/TUHWALP

Liquid loading

2
 4/29/2020

What is Liquid Loading?

“Liquid loading of a gas well is the inability
of the produced gas to remove the
produced liquids from the wellbore”

Symptoms
1. Presence of orifice pressure spikes
2. Erratic production and increase in decline rate
3. Tubing pressure decreases as casing pressure
increases
4. Pressure survey shows a sharp, distinct change in
pressure gradient
5. Annular heading
6. Liquid production ceases

Lea et al. (2008)

How Liquid Loading Starts?

Droplet Transport

 Turner et al. (1969)

1
  4
Vc  1.92   L 2 G    ft / s
  
 G 

Lea et al. (2008)

 Belfroid et al., (2008)
1
Gravity Force    4 sin 1.7 0.38
Vc  1.92   L 2 G     ft / s
   0.74
 G 

Drag Force Turner

3
 4/29/2020

How Liquid Loading Starts?...

Nodal Analysis
p Gravitational+p Friccion

pwf
pwf

qgsc qgsc
p Friccion p
Gravitational
Lea et al. (2008)

How Liquid Loading Starts?...

Film Stability & Film Reversal

 Turner et al. (1969)
 Zabaras et al. (1986)
 Barnea (1986)
 Luo et al. (2014)
 Brito et al. (2015)
 Fan et al. (2019)

vSg3
< vSg2
< vSg1

State I: τWLb < 0 State II: τWLb = 0 State III: τWLb > 0

Lea et al. (2008)

4
 4/29/2020

Liquid Loading – Visual Observations

Experimental Facility
2.5-m

P - Pump PT12
MF - Micromotion PT6

LIQUID
Flowmeter
TANK TT - Temperature Transducer 3.4-m

PT - Pressure Transducer
PT11
DP - Differential Pressure C AM 6
PT5
C AM 3
C - Air Compressor
P

DRAIN
TANK
DP 2in DP 4in
3.4-m
LIQUID

C AM 5
C AM 2
DP
PT8 PT2

3.4-m
MF

PT7 PT1
DP C AM 4
C AM 1
PT TT MIXING Two-Phase
SECTION 2.5-m

PT TT
AIR
MF
C
Skopich (2012)

Liquid Loading – Visual Observations…

dP/dZ vs. vSG

1200
Pressure Gradient (Pa/m)

1000 10.0

800

13.0
600
DP2
in
400 15.4
17.7 23.3 26.0
20.6

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

vSG(m/s)

Pressure Gradient vs. Superficial Gas Velocity, Base Case for 2-in ID (vSL =0.01 m/s)
Skopich (2012)

5
 4/29/2020

Liquid Loading – Visual Observations…

dP/dZ vs. vSG

1600

9.8
1400
Pressure Gradient (Pa/m)

1200

12.1
1000

14.8
800 29.5
25.2
DP2
17.5 in
19.9 22.3
600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
vSG(m/s)

Pressure Gradient vs. Superficial Gas Velocity, Base Case for 2-in ID (vSL =0.05 m/s)
Skopich (2012)

Liquid Loading – Visual Observations…

dP/dZ vs. vSG

600
Pressure Gradient (Pa/m)

500 8.7

400

300 25.9 DP2

24.0
in
10.2 22.1
200 18.1 20.0
13.2 15.3

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
vSG(m/s)

Pressure Gradient vs. Superficial Gas Velocity, Base Case for 4-in ID (vSL =0.01 m/s)
Skopich (2012)

6
 4/29/2020

Liquid Loading – Visual Observations…

dP/dZ vs. vSG 1600

1400
8.0
Pressure Gradient (Pa/m)

1200

1000
9.9

800
DP2
in
600
24.1 25.5
12.5 20.8
400
22.3
14.9 16.8 18.9
200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
vSG(m/s)

Pressure Gradient vs. Superficial Gas Velocity, Base Case for 4-in ID (vSL =0.05 m/s)
Skopich (2012)

Liquid Loading – Visual Observations…

dP/dZ vs. time

1800

1600

1400
Pressure Gradient (Pa/m)

1200

1000

DP2
800 in

600

400

……..=9.65
vSG m/s
200
……..=15.17
vSG m/s
……..=30.43
vSG m/s
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time (min)

Pressure Gradient vs. Superficial Gas Velocity, Base Case for 2-in ID (vSL =0.05 m/s)
Skopich (2012)

7
 4/29/2020

Liquid Loading – Visual Observations…

Holdup for 2-in tubing

1200 0.12 1600 0.16

dP/dz
dP/dZ[Pa/m]
[Pa/m] dP/dz
dP/dZ[Pa/m]
[Pa/m]
HL [-]
HL [-] HL [-]
HL [-]
1400 0.14
1000 0.10
1200 0.12
800 0.08
1000 0.10

(Pa/m)
dP/dZ (Pa/m)

HL (-)

HL (-)
600 0.06 800 0.08

dP/dZ
600 0.06
400 0.04
400 0.04
200 0.02
200 0.02

0 0.00 0 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

vSG (m/s) vSG (m/s)

vSL=0.01 m/s vSL=0.05 m/s Skopich (2012)

Liquid Loading – Visual Observations…

Holdup for 4-in tubing

700 0.12 1600 0.16

dP/dz
dP/dZ[Pa/m]
[Pa/m] dP/dZ[Pa/m]
dP/dz [Pa/m]
HL [-]
HL HL [-]
HL
600 1400 0.14
0.10
1200 0.12
500
0.08
1000 0.10
dP/dZ [Pa/m]

dP/dZ [Pa/m]

400
HL [-]

HL [-]

0.06 800 0.08

300
600 0.06
0.04
200
400 0.04

100 0.02
200 0.02

0 0.00 0 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

vSG (m/s) vSG (m/s)

vSL=0.01 m/s vSL=0.05 m/s Skopich (2012)

8
 4/29/2020

1200
0 1200

1000 -0.002 1000

800
Liquid Loading – Visual Observations…
-0.004

dP/dZ (Pa/m)
800

dP/dZ (Pa/m)
-0.006

∂HL/∂vSG
600
Holdup Rate of Change-0.008with respect to vsg for 2-in Pipe
600

400
400
0 -0.01 1400
……….
∂HL/∂vSG 0 2100
200 ……….
∂HL/∂vSG
….
dP/dZ 200
-0.002 -0.012 1200 ….
dP/dZ
vSG(MIN)
vSG(MIN) -0.01 vSG(MIN) 1800
v SG(MIN)
0
-0.014 0
0 15 20
-0.004 25 30 1000 -0.02 1500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
vSG (m/s)

dP/dZ (Pa/m)
dP/dZ (Pa/m)
vSG (m/s)

∂HL/∂vSG
-0.006 800 -0.03 1200
∂HL/∂vSG

-0.008 600 -0.04 900

-0.01 400 -0.05 600

-0.012 200 -0.06 300

-0.014 0 -0.07 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
vSG (m/s) vSG (m/s)

vSL=0.01 m/s vSL=0.05 m/s

Skopich (2012)

Questions - Liquid Loading

9
 4/29/2020

Velocity String

Pipe Diameter Effect

dP/dZ vs. vSG

1600 1600
1200
Pressure
2-in ID Gradient 2-in
1400 1400
Pressure
3-in ID Gradient 3-in
1000 4-in
1200 2-in Pressure
4-in ID Gradient 4-in
vSG (MIN) 2-in ID
1200

800 1000 vSG (MIN) 3-in ID

dP/dZ (Pa/m)

1000
dP/dZ (Pa/m)
dP/dZ (Pa/m)

3-in vSG (MIN) 4-in ID

800 800
600 1600

600 600 Pressure

2-in ID Gradient 2-in
1400
400 Pressure
3-in ID Gradient 3-in
400 4-in 400 Pressure
4-in ID Gradient 4-in
1200 2-in
vSG (MIN) 2-in ID
200 200
1000 200 vSG (MIN) 3-in ID
dP/dZ (Pa/m)

3-in vSG (MIN) 4-in ID

0 0 0
800
0 05 510 1015 1520 2025 2530 30
35 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
vSG (m/s)
vSG (m/s) 600 vSG (m/s)

vSL=0.01 m/s 400 vSL=0.05 m/s Skopich (2012)

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
vSG (m/s)

10
 4/29/2020

Pipe Diameter Effect…

dP/dZ vs. vSG

1600
1600
1600
1200
Pressure
2-in ID Gradient 2-in
Pressure
2-in ID Gradient 2-in 1400
1400 Pressure
3-in ID Gradient 3-in
Pressure
3-in ID Gradient 3-in 1400
1000 4-in Pressure
4-in ID Gradient 4-in
4-in Pressure
4-in ID Gradient 4-in 1200 2-in
1200 2-in
vSG (MIN) 2-in ID
vSG (MIN) 2-in ID 1200
1000 vSG (MIN) 3-in ID

dP/dZ (Pa/m)
800 1000 vSG (MIN) 3-in ID
dP/dZ (Pa/m)

1000

(Pa/m)
3-in
dP/dZ (Pa/m)

3-in vSG (MIN) 4-in ID

vSG (MIN) 4-in ID
800
800
600 800

dP/dZ
600
600
600
400
400
400
400

200 200
200
200
0
0
0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
vSG (m/s) vSG (m/s)
mG (kg/min) mG (kg/min)

vSL=0.01 m/s vSL=0.05 m/s Skopich (2012)

Pipe Diameter Effect…

Velocity String Effect, mL=30 lb/min, mG=3 lb/min

3-in ID 2-in ID

11
 4/29/2020

Pipe Diameter Effect…

Tubing Sizing and Velocity String

 The objective of smaller tubing is to increase the velocity for a given rate and sweep the
liquids out of the well and the tubing
 faster velocity reduces the liquid holdup (% liquid by volume in the tubing)
 Gravitational pressure drop component reduces
Pwf [psi]

New OPR As d↓

Original OPR
As d↓
Friction Gravitation
As d↓
qsc [Mscfd]

Questions – Velocity String

12
 4/29/2020

Foam Flow

Foam Flow
How to Generate Foam
 Surfactant is need
 Stabilize the gas-liquid interface
 Reduce the surface tension as surfactant concentration increase

Surfactant Concentration
Critical Micelle
Concentration
 Agitation
 Enough mixing to create bubbles
 Surfactant will keep bubbles stable

13
 4/29/2020

Foam Flow …
Pressure Gradient for Anionic Foamer (vSL=0.01 m/s and 2-in ID)
1400

1200
3
Pressure gradient, (Pa/m)

1000

800
1
3
600

400 2

2 1
200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
vSg (m/s)
Air-Water 400 ppm
Ajani (2016)

Foam Flow …

Friction Dominant Region (vSL=0.01 m/s and 2-in ID)

Air-Water Anionic Foamer

vSg =26 m/s vSg =15.5 m/s Ajani (2016)

14
 4/29/2020

Foam Flow …

Minimum Pressure Drop (vSL=0.01 m/s and 2-in ID)

Air-Water Anionic Foamer

vSg =20.6 m/s vSg =6.5 m/s Ajani (2016)

Foam Flow …

Gravity Dominant Region (vSL=0.01 m/s and 2-in ID)

Air-Water Anionic Foamer

vSg =10 m/s vSg =4.72 m/s Ajani (2016)

15
 4/29/2020

Foam Flow …

Liquid Holdup vs. Superficial Gas Velocity, Base Case and Exploratory
Foam Flow for 4-in ID, vSL =0.05 m/s)
0.16
Base Case
Exploratory Foam Flow
0.14

0.12
Liquid Holdup

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
vSG (m/s)
Ajani (2016)

Questions – Foam Flow

16
 Plunger Lift
Spiral Dual Pad Brush Venturi Viper Bar
Used New #1 #2 #1 #2 V6 V10 Stock Sphere

Conventional Plunger Lift

Pan (2017)
4/29/2020

17
 4/29/2020

Conventional Plunger Lift…

Slug front
vs

Liquid slug
vT
region

Large bubble
vP region
Plunger
front Gas blowing
Plunger trough
region Film region

Droplets
Film region

Akhiiartdinov (2020)

Conventional Plunger Lift…

𝜋 ∙ 𝐷𝑃𝑙𝑢𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 2
𝐶𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1 −
𝜋 ∙ 𝐼𝐷𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 2

For the investigated plungers

10%-15%

Bar Stock OD=1.85” Bar Stock OD=1.90” Akhiiartdinov (2020)

18
 4/29/2020

Continuous Plunger Lift

PT6

PT5

PT4

PT3

PT2

PT1

Two-piece plungers have ball and

sleeve parts (PCS Ferguson Catalog,
Bumper 2018)
Spring
Sayman (2019)

Continuous Plunger Lift…

Sleeve 1st plunger Ball and 2nd plunger
falling upstroke sleeve falling upstroke
wellhead

Bottomhole

Viggiano (2019)

19
 4/29/2020

Continuous Plunger Lift…

Continuous plunger experiments

Steady
state flow Cycles Flow development

PT6

PT5

PT4

PT3

PT2

PT1

Viggiano (2019)

Continuous Plunger Lift…

Fail cases (sleeve reaches the ball)

PT6
Pikes indicates when the sleeve
reached the ball

PT5

PT4

PT3

PT2

PT1

20
 4/29/2020

Questions – Plunger Lift

Flow in the lateral and severe

slugging

21
 4/29/2020

Flow in the Lateral

Liquid Film Reversal Slightly Upward Inclined Toe-Down
Flow Pattern Map
100 Annular
Stratified Wavy
Stratified Wavy with Liquid Film Reversal
Pseudo Slug
Category Annular
Stratified
1 Flow
Wavy
Category 2
10
vSLvAnnular
= 0.25 ft/s and v vSgo
SL = 0.25 ft/s and Sgo
= =8536 Wavy
Stratified ft/s
ft/s
1 Annular
Slug
vSL (ft/s)

0.1

Category 3 Category 4
Stratified Wavy Film Reversal Pseudo-Slug
0.01

Stratified Wavy
Stratified with Liquid Film Reversal
Slug with Liquid Falling Back
0.001 vSL = 0.25 ft/s and vSgo = 16.4 ft/s
0.1 1 10 100 vSL = 0.25 ft/s and vSgo = 9.8 ft/s
vSgo (ft/s)
Category 5
Slug

Brito (2015)

Flow in the Lateral…

vSL=0.25 ft/s, vSgo=85 ft/s vSL=0.25 ft/s, vSgo=85 ft/s

vSL=0.25 ft/s, vSgo=9.8 ft/s vSL=0.25 ft/s, vSgo=9.8 ft/s

vSL=0.25 ft/s, vSgo=9.8 ft/s

vSL=0.25 ft/s, vSgo=3 ft/s Brito (2015) vSL=0.25 ft/s, vSgo=3 ft/s vSL=0.25 ft/s, vSgo=3 ft/s

22
 4/29/2020

Severe Slugging

Step 1 Step 2
PI PI

PI

t
Step 4 Step 3
PI
PI

Severe Slugging…

100% Liquid

Pressure

100% Gas

Guerrero (2017)

23
 4/29/2020

Severe Slugging…
Experimental Facility

Air Source

I.P. 1
Lateral section
Water
Tank
w/ mixer

Basler
Camera

Broken
Drain Tank
Foam Tank

I.P. 3
I.P. 4 Lowest undulation
Heel point

I.P. 2
Toe

Severe Slugging…

Severe slugging behavior (vSg = 0.32 ft/s, vSL = 0.25 ft/s)

Air-Water Foamer
Barreto (2016)

24
 4/29/2020

Severe Slugging…
Inlet pressure, 3000 ppm (vSg = 0.32 ft/s, vSL = 0.25 ft/s)

Barreto (2016)

Severe Slugging…

Experimental Setup (Toe down)

Nair (2017)

25
 4/29/2020

Severe Slugging…

Experimental Setup (Toe down) (vSL – 1 ft/s,vSg – 2.7 ft/s)

Slugging in lateral Gas blockage at EOT Liquid buildup in

tubing

Production Gas entry at EOT Blowout Nair (2017)

Severe Slugging…

vSL – 1 ft/s (qL – 335.73 bbl/d), EOT in lateral packerless

25
Pressure at Bottom of Tubing (psi)

20

15

10

5 vsg
vSg - 0 ft/s vsg
vSg - 2.7 ft/s
vsg
vSg - 4.0 ft/s vsg
vSg - 5.0 ft/s
vsg
vSg - 2.7 ft/s vsginj
vSginj - 49.2 ft/s
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (seconds)
vSL – 1 ft/s (qL – 335.73 bbl/d), EOT in lateral packerless
Nair (2017)

26
 4/29/2020

Severe Slugging…

Gas Lift (Constant Pressure Boundary)

PTA

CV TTI PTI

PT4

vSg,injection = 59.88 ft/s

PTA

CV TTI PTI

PT4 Uzunoglu (2017)

Questions – Severe Slugging

27