SPE 112108

Modeling and Simulation of Instabilities in Gas-Lifted Oil Wells

E. Jahanshahi, K. Salahshoor, R. Kharrat, and H. Rahnema, Petroleum University of Technology

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Marrakech, Morocco, 12–14 March 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Unstable production behavior affects many offshore fields, particularly at their decline stages. “Casing heading” and “density
wave” are two types of instability that have been identified and both can result in production loss. These instabilities have
influence on each other, but the interaction has not been fully addressed yet. One contribution of this paper is to study the
interplay of these two phenomena. For this purpose, key variable of density wave phenomenon; pressure at injection point in
tubing that is governed by an integral equation; is considered as a fourth state variable added to 3-D dynamical model of
casing heading. Another contribution is some modifications on the casing heading and density wave dynamic models.
Finally, the proposed model is simulated in MATLAB® and OLGA®, and the results are compared with well operation facts
and data from field.

Introduction
Modeling and analysis of two-phase flow through vertical pipes have gained considerable interest in recent years [1, 2].
Especially, simplified versions of two-phase flow model has application in stability analysis and stabilization of gas lifted oil
wells [3-5]. Figure 1 shows a typical diagram of a gas-lifted oil well. In this technology, gas is routed from the surface into
the annulus and then injected deep into the tubing in order to be mixed with the fluid form the reservoir. This reduces the
density of the fluid in the bottom-hole and hence the production rate from the low pressure reservoir is increased [6].
A flow model is derived in [7] directly from equations of momentum and enthalpy balance laws in inclined pipes for
calculation of pressure and temperature profile of gas production systems. This model has been applied to simulate the
various types of pipe in gas production. This model has also been used for modeling of two-phase flow in gas lifted oil wells
[8]. In [3], a three-dimensional first-order linear model is obtained and solved with Laplace transform. The resulting
characteristic equation is used for stability analysis. In [9], a linear three-dimensional state-space model is proposed in which
tubing pressure, fluid flow rate from reservoir and gas flow rate constitute the state variables. In [4], model of gas injection
system is described by Darcy-Weisbach equation and formula of orifice flow for adiabatic conditions. Then reservoir model
is described using inflow relationship for a reservoir in which both single-phase and two-phase flow can occur. Finally
reservoir model and well model are coupled to complete the mathematical model.
Gas-lifted oil wells often become unstable at their decline stages. There are several different phenomena to account for
the instability behavior in oil and gas wells. The fluctuating and sometimes chaotic unstable production behavior affects
many offshore fields. The hazardousness of the fluctuations to operation safety and smoothness has been warned and the
production reduction due to the instabilities has been widely addressed. Two types of instabilities, “casing heading” and
“density wave” instabilities, which both can result in production loss has been reported in [10]. This work addresses this issue
by attempting to derive a mathematical model that can well describe the instabilities.
A simplified model that describes the well behavior in casing heading phenomenon is presented in [6, 11]. It consists of a
three dimensional nonlinear state space model. Mass of gas in annulus, mass of gas in tubing and mass of oil in tubing are the
corresponding state variables, that we will discuss it. But, the second state variable is eliminated in [12] and a two
dimensional model is used. For density wave instability, a distributed parameter model, that is described by an integral is
presented in [5, 13]. Also, in [5] model of density wave and 2-D version of casing heading is used for predicting instabilities
in gas lifted oil wells. But, interaction between the two types of instability is not fully considered. In the proposed density
wave model, constant value of separator pressure is considered as well head pressure and pressure gradient is calculated
based on it. In practical situation, well head pressure is not constant because of casing heading phenomenon.
In this work, we present some modifications on density wave model to be suitably jointed with a modified version of 3-D
casing heading model.
2 SPE 112108

Gas-Lift Instabilities
Casing heading Instability
The best identified instability is the casing-heading. It consists of a succession of pressure build-up phases in the casing
without production and high flow rate phases due to intermittent gas injection rate from the casing to the tubing [5]. It occurs
when flow rate of injected gas is not enough for continuous lift of heavy column of liquid in tubing and this rate is disturbed
by line pressure fluctuations. This type of instability may lead to periods of reduced or even no liquid production followed by
large peaks of liquid and gas [14]. Figure 2 demonstrates a typical example of the casing heading phenomenon. The cyclic
operation consists of three main phases [5], as following:
1) The upstream pressure is smaller than P , therefore no gas enters the tubing. The annulus pressure builds up until it
t, i
reaches P . The gas injection in the tubing begins.
t, i
2) As gas mixes with oil in the tubing, the column lightens and the well starts producing. The gas injection rate does not
fulfill the well’s need. Therefore, the pressure in the casing drops. Production reaches a maximum.
3) Annulus pressure drops carrying along the injection gas rate wiv and so does the oil production. Less gas being injected,
the oil column gets heavier and P exceeds the upstream pressure. Gas injection in the tubing stops.
t, i
Density wave instability
Another instability mechanism is the density-wave, in which though the gas injection rate is constant, any variation in the
liquid inflow to the well-bore will easily result in the density change of the two-phase mixtures in the tubing due to the
change of phase fraction. Clearly, the mixture density change will result in the change of hydrostatic pressure drop, thus the
total pressure drop, particularly in a gravity dominating system. The initiated mixture density change due to phase fraction
variation at the bottom of the well will travel along the tubing as density wave, which sometimes is also called continuity
wave or void wave. This density wave does not necessary introduce instability to the system since the well has a self-
controlling effect. This attributes to that any increase in the pressure drop due to increased mixture density will result in the
reduction of the liquid inflow and thus the mixture density, and vise versa. But, this self-controlling mechanism is more or
less delayed due to the out-of-phase effect between the well influx and the total pressure drop along the tubing. To a certain
level, it breaks down and the well becomes unstable [14]. In the literature, this type of instability has been described by a
distributed parameter model and an integral equation represents it, that we will discuss it in this paper [13].
Figure 3 demonstrates a typical example of the density wave phenomenon. The cyclic operation consists of three main
phases. In this simulation only density wave instability is considered. For this purpose, we suppose that gas is injected
continuously at a constant flow rate into tubing.
1) Because, there is not enough gas injection to reduce the weight of oil column in tubing and consequently Pt ,i , the pressure
at the bottom of the well, is increased and production from reservoir is decreased. Also, because of continuous injection
of gas into tubing, gas mass fraction is strictly increased and reaches its maximum value. Pt ,i increases until it reaches to
150 bar (reservoir pressure) and system switches to Phase 2.
2) Pt ,i is larger than reservoir pressure, so there is zero oil production from the reservoir and the gas mass fraction at
bottom-hole is in its maximum value of 1 and a region of low density forms at bottom-hole. This void region travels up
along tubing as a density wave. Continuing injection of gas into tubing reduces weight of oil column in tubing and
consequently Pt ,i . Finally, Pt ,i decreases to 150 bars and system switches to Phase 3.
3) Pti decreases below 150 bar, oil flow rate at the bottom of the well increases and brings the fall of the gas mass fraction,
then system switches to Phase 1.

Mathematical Model
Casing heading mathematical model
The gas-lifted oil well operation due to casing heading can be described by the following state-space equations [6, 11]:
x&1 = wgc − wiv (1)
x&2 = wiv − wpg (2)
x&3 = wr − wpo (3)
where the state variables consist of x1 as the mass of gas in the annulus, x2 as the mass of gas in tubing, and x3 as the mass of
oil in tubing. The mass flow rates in the state-space model are given by:
wgc = Constant flow rate of lift gas. (4)
wiv = Civ ρa,i max{0, pa,i − pt,i } (5)
(Mass flow rate of lift gas from annulus into the tubing)
wpc = Cpc ρ m max{0, pt − ps }u (6)
SPE 112108 3

(Mass flow rate through the production choke)

x2
wpg = wpc (7)
x2 + x3
(Mass flow rate of gas through the production choke)
x3
wpo = wpc (8)
x2 + x3
(Mass flow rate of oil through the production choke)
wr = Cr ( Pr - Pt ,b ) (9)
(Oil mass flow rate from the reservoir into the tubing)
Algebraic thermodynamic “equations of state” (EOS) relating density, temperature and pressure in tubing and casing are
as follows:
Pa,i = β x1 (10)
g 1
where β =
Aa⎛ gLM ⎞
1-exp ⎜ - ⎟
⎝ RTa ⎠
RT x2
Pt = t (11)
M Lt At + Lr Ar − υo x3
Also,
g
Pt,i = Pt + ( x2 + x3 − ρ o Lr Ar ) (12)
At
Pt,b = Pt,i + ρo gLr (13)
Two densities used in the above equations are defined as:
ρa,i = α Pa,i (14)

βM
where α =
RT
x2 + x3 − ρ o Lr Ar
ρm = (15)
Lt At
Assuming that the multiphase flows through the production choke ( wpc ) can be controlled fast enough compared to the
process dynamics in equations (1-3), the state space model can be rewritten as following [11]:
x&1 = wgc − wiv (16)
x2
x&2 = wiv − wpc (17)
x2 + x3
x3
x&3 = wr − wpc (18)
x2 + x3
symbols used in model are presented in nomenclature and their nominal values for the case study [14] are available in Table
1.
The mathematical model must be able to describe the interaction between Annulus and Tubing for different amounts of
injected gas. Figure 3 shows behavior of flow rate through production choke for three different levels of injected gas based
on the derived model in equations (16-18). As illustrated, the well production becomes unstable at low values of injected gas
while as injected gas amount is increased, the model shows stable behavior that is consistent with some state of art
knowledge about gas lifted oil wells.
Density-Wave mathematical model
Density wave instability model is similar to equations that describe two phase flow phenomenon in a vertical pipe filled
with a mixture of oil and gas. In previous works on this subject, the pressures at both ends are considered constant (see [5,
13]). Flows (gas and oil) enter the pipe at the bottom. The oil flow is given by the difference of pressure between the bottom
of the pipe and the reservoir. The gas injection rate is considered constant (while, its value will be a variable related to casing
heading phenomenon in the modified model). Notations are given in nomenclature. Thanks to the choice of the slip velocity
law [15], it has been proven that the gas mass fraction is a Riemann invariant. This lets the evolution of the distributed
variables be summarized by the evolution of a single variable; the pressure at the bottom of the pipe [5, 13]. The boundary
condition is computed using Bernoulli’s law.
4 SPE 112108

In the model this is assumed that the gas is ideal and that no phase change occurs. Following that, transient inflow from
the reservoir is neglected as well as acceleration and friction terms in Bernoulli’s law. In other words, it’s assumed that the
flow to be dominated by gravitational effects.
Bernoulli’s law gives:
z
P(t , z ) = Ps + ∫ ρ m (t , ζ ) gd ζ (19)
0

Density of the mixture ρ m could be calculated from 1/ ρ m = x / ρ g + (1 − x) / ρl . For the sake of simplicity a linear
approximation of it can be used as below
ρ m ≅ xρ g + (1 − x) ρ l (20)
Also, in the derivation of the gas density, gas is considered ideal and temperature T constant. Besides, with a constant
value for pressure at well-head the pressure gradient ( Ps − Pr ) / L along the tubing is also constant which can be computed
from boundary conditions. Using expressions (20) to substitute in (19), one gets:
z ⎛ ( L − ξ ) Ps + ξ Pr ⎞
P(t , z ) = Ps + ρl gz + ∫ x(t , ζ ) g ⎜ ⎟d ξ (21)
0
⎝ LRT ⎠
Slip velocity law is defined as follows [15]:
V
Vg − Vl = ∞
Rl
(22)
Mass conservation laws can be written as:
∂ρ g Rg ∂qg
+ =0 (23)
∂t ∂z
∂ρl Rl ∂ql
+ =0 (24)
∂t ∂z
In the above equations, qg and ql are liquid and gas mass fluxes respectively equal to Rg ρ gVg and Rl ρlVl . And by
definition, gas mass fraction is as following:
Rg ρ g
x= (25)
Rg ρ g + Rl ρl
Based on the assumptions made in [5, 13], one can combine (23),(24) and (25), to obtain:
∂x ∂x
+ Vg =0 (26)
∂t ∂t
This shows that x is a Riemann invariant and implies
L−z L−z
x(t , z ) = x(t − , L) = xt ,i (t − ) (27)
Vg Vg
For the sake of simplicity, Vg is assumed constant. Therefore, values of bottom well gas mass fraction xt ,i over a time
interval [t − δ , t ] defines the profile [0, L] ∋ z a x(t , z ) at time t . Using this expression in (21), and noting
that Pt ,i (t ) = P(t , L) , this result leads to:
t
Pt ,i (t ) = Pt *,i + ∫ k (t − ξ ) xt ,i (ξ )d ξ (28)
t −τ

with
τ = L / Vg (29)
P = Ps + ρl gL
*
t ,i (30)
and
⎛ tP + (τ − t ) Pr ⎞
[0, τ ] ∋ t a k (t ) Vg g ⎜ s − ρl ⎟ < 0 (31)
⎝ τ RT / M ⎠
Notice that k is a strictly decreasing affine function. For the sake of simplicity, we shall write for now on
k (t ) = (k1t + k2 )1[0,τ ] (32)
where 1[0,τ ] is zeros over the entire real line except for the interval[0,τ ] where it is equal to 1.
Classically, the oil rate from reservoir qo is calculated by the Productivity Index (PI) through following equation.
wr (t , L) = PI max( Pr − Pt ,i (t ), 0) (33)
And gas mass fraction at injection point xt ,i (t ) can be defined by:
SPE 112108 5

1
xt ,i (t ) = (34)
1 + ( PI / wiv ) max( Pr − Pt ,i (t ), 0)
In [5, 13], the above expression is approximated to a linear form for simplicity in linearization step of the proposed model.
But, we use the original form of expression in this work.
Density-wave model could be summarized as below equation
⎧ P (t ) = P* + τ k (ζ ) x (t − ζ ) d ζ
⎪ t ,i
⎨
t ,i ∫0 t ,i
(35)
⎪⎩ Pt ,i (t ) = φ (t ), wiv (t ) = ψ (t ), t ∈ [−τ , 0]
Consider two initial conditions [−δ ,0] ∋ t → φ (t ) ∈ ℜ and [ −δ ,0] ∋ t → ψ (t ) ∈ ℜ . Where τ is the transport delay defined
in (29), Pt *,i , given in (30), is pressure at the injection point of the tubing when it is full of oil, xt ,i (.) indicates gas mass
fraction at injection point which is defined by (34) and k is a finite support affine function, given in (31) and (32), depends
on the considered fluid.

Modifications and New Model

Modifications
From casing heading model, in equation (12) it’s apparent that inside the tubing below the injection point there exists only
liquid. In other words two-phase flow exists only in above the injection point. Assume that average gas mass fraction inside
tubing is xt , so for average mass flow rate of each phase through production choke we will have:
wpg = xt wpc (36)
w po = (1 − xt ) w pc (37)
Also, (7) and (8) equivalently describe these two values. Note that in (7) and (8), xt is also approximated by average gas
mass fraction of two phase fluid that can only exist above injection point. So, one can deduce that x2 and x3 should be
respectively mass of gas and liquid inside tubing above the injection point, rather than all the tubing’s content. Therefore,
(11) and (15) must be modified as follows.
RT x2
Pt = t (38)
M Lt At − υo x3
x2 + x3
ρm = (39)
Lt At
In the latest survey, we noticed that the foregoing modification has been included in [16], but in other works on this
subject [6, 17, 18] has not been considered.
In the previous works [5, 13], a 2-D casing heading model is considered as annulus model and density wave model as
tubing model. But, 3-D casing heading that is presented in this paper, describes the pressure drop along tubing by (12)
without concerning the density wave phenomenon. It’s obvious that we could replace (12) with density wave model
described in equation (35), as tubing model, to have a comprehensive description of well operation. Before that, we should do
some other modifications on both models to be consistent. Figure 5 demonstrates necessary link between casing and tubing
model to form a comprehensive model.
Another modification is that we use Pt (t ) that comes from casing model, instead of Ps in derivation of density wave
model. This is a necessary modification in order to make a link between casing and tubing models, but has not been
considered in previous works. In next Section effect of Pt on the density-wave phenomenon will be investigated. This effect
is shown by the left land arrow in figure 5. Another modification should be done on (31), (33) and (34). Because, the space
below the injection point with length Lr has not been considered in them. This space is supposed to be full of liquid so it
causes a pressure head with magnitude of ρl gLr . Therefore, these equations could be written as below:
⎛ tP + (τ − t )( Pr − ρl gLr ) ⎞
k (t ) Vg g ⎜ s − ρl ⎟ < 0 (40)
⎝ τ RT / M ⎠
wr (t , L) = PI max( Pr − Pt ,i (t ) − ρl gLr , 0) (41)
1
xt ,i (t ) = (42)
1 + ( PI / wiv ) max( Pr − Pt ,i (t ) − ρl gLr , 0)

New model
To formulate the connection between tubing model and annulus model, as shown in figure 5, with the mentioned
modifications, three constants, k1 , k2 and k3 are defined as below:
6 SPE 112108

Vg g
k1 = (43)
τ
- gMVg ( Pr - ρl Lr g )
k2 = (44)
τ RTt
Pr - ρl Lr g
k3 = Vg g ( - ρl ) (45)
RT / M
Thus, the proposed model can be summarized as below.
⎧ x&1 = wgc - wiv
⎪ x& = w - w
⎪ 2 iv pg

⎪ x&3 = wr - wpo
⎪
⎨ k1 x2 τ (46)
⎪ x4 = Pt ,i + ∫ ζ xt ,i (t − ζ )d ζ
*

⎪ LAt - υl x3 0
⎪ τ
⎪⎩+ ∫0 (k2ζ + k3 ) xt ,i (t − ζ )d ζ
Where x4 stands for Pt ,i that is considered as the fourth state variable with initial condition x4 = φ (t ); t ∈ [−τ , 0] . Another
initial condition, as wi ,v = ψ (t ); t ∈ [−τ , 0] , is also needed. In (46), wgc is injected gas flow rate into annulus at well head,
and wiv is calculated from (5), in which Pa ,i is obtained from (14) and instead Pt ,i (t ) , x4 in (46) is used. Equivalently, wr is
given by (9) or (41). xt ,i (.) is defined by (42) and w po and w pg , respectively are given by (7) and (8). Note that
x2 and x3 should be, respectively, mass of gas and liquid inside tubing, above the injection point and x1 is mass of gas inside
annulus.

Numerical Simulation
Separate density-wave
Density wave phenomenon that is described by (35) is usually simulated by OLGA [19]; a state of art two-phase flow
simulator. In this work, we propose a numerical algorithm that exhibits very exact results. Algorithm will be summarized
Appendix. For simplicity, initial values of Pt ,i , [−δ ,0] ∋ t → φ (t ) ∈ ℜ are considered as constant function equal to Pt,i(t=0).
Sampling time of 1 sec is used in the simulation.
For separate observation of density wave, pt and wiv should be considered as constant values in the algorithm. First,
simulation is done for pt = 10 bar and three constant values for wiv . As shown in figure 6, as the amount of injected gas
increases, system becomes stable. To study the interplay between well head pressure and density wave phenomenon, density
wave model is simulated for different values of pt and minimum values of injected gas required for stable system operation
are obtained and calculated in standard ft2/day and plotted in figure 7, versus pt values. This figure shows that with increase
of Pt , minimum required gas injection increases 30% of its initial value.
Density-wave with casing heading
Dynamic model of the well operation with simultaneous presence of the two instability types is presented with (46) and
demonstrated in figure 5. As described, Pt ,i is output of tubing model which is used in casing model. Pt and wiv are outputs of
casing model which behave as inputs to the tubing model. With some changes in the algorithm of density wave simulation,
two instabilities could be simulated, as described in Appendix. The numerical simulation results of this algorithm have been
shown in figures 8 and 9.

Simulations in OLGA
OLGA [19] is a very realistic simulator for simulation of multi-phase flows in pipelines. For our purpose, network set-up
shown in figure 10, is used. Four nodes are used; “Gas inlet” and “Oil inlet” are closed nodes and “well Head” is a constant
pressure node, representing separator pressure. “Injection” node is a merge node that connects “annulus” and “bottom hole”
branches to “tubing” branch. “Bottom hole” is a 100 vertical meter pipe that brings liquid from well to injection point.
Tubing is a 2400 meter vertical regular pipe, and annulus is a 2400 meter annular flow pipe. “Source” is a constant
volumetric flow rate source of injection gas. To ensure that liquid does not come to annulus, a check valve is used that is
coincide with injection orifice. Another check valve is also used at well head.
To see the effect of density wave instability solely, mass flow rate of injection valve is controlled at a constant value
( qg = 0.16 kg / s ). For this purpose, a PID controller could be implemented in OLGA. In this step, production choke has been
ignored. Results have been shown in figure 11. For simultaneous simulation of two types of instability in OLGA, constant
flow rate condition of injection valve is eliminated and this valve is replaced by a 0.5 inch choke valve with constant opening
SPE 112108 7

of 0.4. Other settings are the same as “density wave”, expect for adding well-head production choke; a 2 inch choke valve
with constant opening 0.7. Results are demonstrated in figure 12.

Data from field

Figure 13 shows the density wave occurring in a well. Casing-head and tubing-head pressures (respectively, as Pa and Pt)
are represented as well as oil flow from the separator (qls). Notice that the casing-head pressure is almost constant, which
demonstrates that the gas injection is constant. Scales are omitted in our reference for confidentiality reasons [17].
Figure 14 shows a general example of well-head data from a well with instabilities. Well-head pressure, temperature and
oil flow from the separator are represented. An almost periodic regime appears while oil production is intermittent. This
shows that results from numerical simulation (figure 9) and simulation in OLGA (figure 12), are consistent with phenomenon
in the real world. Scales are omitted in our reference for confidentiality reasons [17].

Conclusions
Interplay between two phenomena has been shown successfully in simulation (Figure 7), In order to model this interplay, the
appropriate modifications have been done on the existing models and a modified model has been proposed which is described
by equation (46). Also, a numerical algorithm was presented for simulation of the simultaneous effects of the two instability
types, which can be implemented in any numerical programming environment. This algorithm is being used in other author’s
works for implementing control strategies in MATLAB aimed to stabilize the system.
Moreover, well instabilities have been simulated in OLGA®v5.0; a very realistic simulator of multi-phase flows. Also,
examples of the two types of instability have been presented by real data from field. Results from numerical simulations are
compared with those simulated by OLGA and real data, which shows consistency of the proposed model and simulation
algorithm with the phenomena in real word situations.

Appendix
Here we present algorithms that are used for numerical simulation of instabilities of gas-lifted oil wells, in this work.

Set initial values: { Pt,i(t=0), wiv= Constant} Set Initial Values:{x1(t=0), x2(t=0), x3(t=0), Pt,i(t=0) wiv(t=0)}
Evaluate k1 and k2 from (40) Evaluate k1, k2 and k3 from (43), (44) and (45)
FOR (t = 0 to tf){
FOR (t = 0 to tf){
// Tubing Model Starts Here
Evaluate wr(t) from (41) Evaluate wr(t) from (41)
sum = 0 Evaluate Pt(t) from (38)
FOR (ς =0 toτ){ sum1 = 0, sum2 = 0
IF ((t-ς) > 0){ FOR (ς =0 to τ){
td = t-ς IF ((t-ς)>0){
}ELSE{ td = t-ς
}ELSE{
td = 0
td = 0
}END }END
xd = xt,i(td) from (42) xd = xt,i(td) from (42)
sum = sum + (k1*ς + k2)* xd sum1 = sum1 + ς* xd
}END sum2 = sum2 + (k2*ς + k3)* xd
}END
Pti(t+1) = P*ti + sum x4(t+1) = x4(t) + k1*x2(t)*sum1/(L*At-υo x3(t)) + sum2
}END // Tubing Model Ends Here
// Gas Injection System Starts Here
Algorithm 1- Numerical simulation of density-wave
x1 (t + 1) = x1 (t ) + ( wgc − wiv (t ))
Evaluate Pa,i (t+1) from (10)
Evaluate ρa,i(t+1) from (14)
Evaluate wiv(t+1) from (5)
// Gas Injection Ends Here
Evaluate ρm(t) from (39)
Evaluate wpc(t) from (6)

x2 (t )
x2 (t + 1) = x2 (t ) + wiv (t ) - wpc (t )
x2 (t ) + x3 (t )
x3 (t )
x3 (t + 1) = x3 (t ) + wr (t ) - wpc (t )
x2 (t ) + x3 (t )
}END
Algorithm 2- numerical simulation of simultaneous effects of
two types of instability
8 SPE 112108

Nomenclature
g = Gravity constant, m/s2
R = Gas constant, J/kmol/°K
M = Gas molar weight, gram/mol
ρ o = Oil density, kg/m3
υo = Specific volume of oil, m3/kg
Pr = Reservoir pressure, pa
Ps = Separator pressure, pa
Ta = Annulus temperature, °K
Tt = Tubing temperature, °K
Va = Annulus volume, m3
3
Vt = Tubing volume, m
V ∞ = Slip velocity constant, m/s
Vg = Gas velocity, m/s
L= Tubing length above injection point, m
Lr = Distant between reservoir and injection point, m
At = Cross section of tubing above injection point, m2
Ar = Cross section of tubing below injection point, m2
Civ = Injection orifice constant
C pc = Production choke constant
ρ m = Mixture density, kg/m3
ρ a ,i = Gas density in annulus at injection point, kg/m3
Pa ,i = Annulus pressure at injection point, pa
Pt ,i = Tubing pressure at injection point, pa
Pt *,i = Pressure of the column of oil, pa
Pt ,b = Tubing pressure at injection point, pa
Pt = Well-head pressure in tubing, pa
Vl = Oil velocity, m/s
Rg = Gas volume fraction, Rg + Rl = 1
Rl = Liquid volume fraction
x = Gas mass fraction
xt ,i = Gas mass fraction in tubing at injection point (z = L)
ql = Liquid mass flux, Rl ρlVl , kg/s/m2
qg = Gas mass flux, Rg ρ gVg , kg/s/m2
u (t ) = Production choke opening portion, u (t ) ∈ [0 1]

References
1 T. L. Gould and M. R. Tek, "Steady and Unsteady State Two-Phase Flow Trough Vertical Flow Strings," Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, 1970.
2 L. E. Gomez, Z. Schmidt, R. N. Chokshi, and T. Northug, "Unified Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow: Horizontal
to Vertical Upward Flow," SPE Journal, vol. 5, 2000.
3 E. F. Blick, P. N. Enga, and P. C. Lin, "Theoretical Stability Analysis of Flowing Oil Wells and Gas Lift Wells," SPE Production
Engineering, 1988.
4 E. Poblano, R. Camacho, and Y. V. Fairuzov, "Stability Analysis of Continuous-Flow Gas Lift Wells," SPE Production & Facilities,
2005.
5 L. Sinegre, N. Petit, and P. Menegatti, "Predicting instabilities in gas-lifted wells simulation," presented at 2006 American Control
Conference, 2006.
6 O. M. Aamo, G. O. Eikrem, H. Siahaan, and B. Foss, "Observer design for multiphase flow in vertical pipes with gas-lift - theory and
experiments," Journal of Process Control, vol. 15, pp. 247–257, 2005.
7 R. Vazquez-Roman, "A Model Based on Average Velocity for Gas Production Pipes Simulation," Computers and Chemical
Engineering, vol. 22, pp. S307-S314, 1998.
SPE 112108 9

8 R. Vázquez-Román and P. Palafox-Hernández, "A New Approach for Continuous Gas Lift Simulation and Optimization," presented
at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 2005.
9 F. J. S. Alhanati, D. R. Doty, and D. D. Lagerief, "Continuous Gas-Lift Instability: Diagnosis, Criteria, and Solutions," presented at
68th Annual Technlcel Conference and Exhibition of SPE, Houston, Texaa, 1993.
10 B. Hu and M. Golan, "Gas-lift instability resulted production loss and its remedy by feedback control: dynamical simulation results,"
presented at SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2003.
11 G. O. Eikrem, L. s. Imsland, and B. Foss, "Stabilization of Gas Lifted Wells Based on State Estimation," presented at IFAC, 2004.
12 L. Sinegre, N. Petit, P. Lemetayer, P. Gervaud, and P. Menegatti, "Casing-Heading Phenomenon In Gas-Lifted Well As a Limit Cycle
of A 2D Model With Switches," presented at IFAC, 2002.
13 L. Sinegre, N. Petit, and P. Menegatti, "Distributed delay model for density wave dynamics in gas lifted wells," presented at 44th
IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2005.
14 B. Jansen, M. Dalsmo, L. Nøkleberg, K. Havre, V. Kristiansen, and P. Lemetayer, "Automatic Control of Unstable Gas Lifted Wells,"
presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 1999.
15 J. P. Brill and H. Mukherjee, Multiphase Flow In Wells. Richardson, Texas: SPE, 1999.
16 G. O. Eikrem, O. M. Aamo, and B. A. Foss, "Stabilization of Gas-Distribution Instability in Single-Point Dual Gas Lift Wells," SPE
Production & Operations, 2006.
17 L. Sinegre, "Etude des instabilités dans les puits activés par gas-lift," in Spécialité “Mathématiques et Automatique”, vol. Phd. Paris:
Ecole des Mines de Paris, 2006.
18 G. O. Eikrem, O. M. Aamo, H. Siahaan, and B. Foss, "Anti-Slug Control of Gas-Lift Wells - Experimental Results," presented at
IFAC, Stuttgart, Germany, 2004.
19 Scandpower, OLGA Verion 5 User's Manual: Scandpower, 2006.

Table 1- well data and other physical constants

2
Gravity constant 9.81 m/s
Gas constant 8314.51 J/kmol/°K
Gas molar weight 16 gram/mol
3
Oil density 781 kg/m
7
Reservoir pressure 1.5×10 pa
6
Separator pressure 1×10 pa
Annulus temperature 303 °K
Tubing temperature 400 °K
3
Annulus volume 37.68 m
3
Tubing volume 7.917 m
Gas velocity 0.8 m/s
Tubing length above injection point 2500 m
Distant between reservoir and injection point 150 m
2
Cross section of tubing above injection point 0.00316 m
2
Cross section of tubing below injection point 0.0031 m

Fig. 1- A gas lifted oil well

Fig. 2- Casing heading phenomenon simulated in MATLAB.

10 SPE 112108

Fig. 3- Density wave phenomenon simulated in MATLAB Fig. 4- Production choke flow rate for 3 different values of
injected gas.

Fig. 5- Block scheme of the gas-lifted well model. The system

consists of two coupled subsystems. The two arrows stand
for two types of instabilities.

Fig. 6- Density-wave phenomenon simulated in MATLAB for

different values for flow rate of injected gas.

Fig. 7- Minimum required value of injected gas vs. different Fig. 8- Simultaneous effect of two types of instability,
values of well head pressure, for stable well operation. simulated with MATLAB
SPE 112108 11

Fig. 9- Simultaneous effect of two types of instability, Fig. 10- Schematics of network in OLGA which is used for
simulated with MATLAB simulation of instabilities

®
Fig. 12- Simultaneous effect of two types of instabilities,
Fig. 11- Density wave instability simulated in OLGA V5.0 ®
simulated in OLGA V5.0
Pt Pt

Pa Tt

qls
qls

Fig. 13- Data from well undergoing density-wave instability. Fig. 14- Data from well undergoing gas-lift instabilities.