Ijaret 11 11 1002

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/346659803
DEVELOP OPTIMUM GAS LIFT METHODS TO IMPROVE GAS LIFT EFFICIENCY

USING GAS LIFT PACK-OFF, DEEP GAS LIFT, AND DEEP LIFT SET
Article in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY · December 2020

DOI: 10.34218/IJARET.11.11.2020.100
CITATIONS READS
0 1,210
4 authors:
Najeeb Ullah Tarek Al-arbi Ganat

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Sultan Qaboos University
16 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS 81 PUBLICATIONS 219 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Daniel Asante Otchere Imtiaz Ali

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
15 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Reliability Analysis of Multiphase Flow Measurements in Different Oil Fields View project
Overburden Characterisation in the TEN field View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Tarek Al-arbi Ganat on 24 December 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET)
Volume 11, Issue 11, November 2020, pp. 1096-1114, Article ID: IJARET_11_11_100
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=11&IType=11
ISSN Print: 0976-6480 and ISSN Online: 0976-6499
DOI: 10.34218/IJARET.11.11.2020.100
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
DEVELOP OPTIMUM GAS LIFT METHODS TO

IMPROVE GAS LIFT EFFICIENCY USING GAS
LIFT PACK-OFF, DEEP GAS LIFT, AND DEEP
LIFT SET
Tarek A. Ganat
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Seri
Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Najeebullah Lashari*
Mohamed Oun
Department of Production Engineering, Petronas Carigali, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Daniel Asante Otchere

Imtiaz Ali
Department of Petroleum and Gas Engineering, BUITEMS, Quetta, Pakistan
ABSTRACT
The utmost objective of oil and gas companies is to enhance the hydrocarbon
recovery in a cost effective way for the entire field, and more importantly, to minimize
both capital and operating costs, which can be achieved by selecting the optimum
design of the field’s production systems from the reservoir to surface facilities. The
introduction of lift gas to a non-producing or low producing well is a common method
of artificial lift. The gas lift systems are designed to help natural reservoir energy
power of formation fluids to the surface at target rates, to maximize the life of oil wells
generating. The concept of gas lifting is the reduction of the hydrostatic pressure in
the production pipe by injecting lightweight fluid into the annulus, which pumps
natural gas into the well at high pressure from the casing to wellbore and blends it
with the fluids of the tank. This paper describes a unique gas lifted developed methods
using gas lift pack-off, DGL, and deep-set techniques. Case studies from Asian oil
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1096 editor@iaeme.com

Develop Optimum Gas Lift Methods to Improve Gas Lift Efficiency Using Gas Lift Pack-Off,
Deep Gas Lift, and Deep Lift Set
fields were selected to apply the developed methods. The results show a notable
production increment for all wells, which will extend the lifetime of the oil wells by
applying some modifications to the existing gas lift system without adding more cost.
Keywords: Deep gas lift; orifice valve; gas lift pack-off gas lift; mandrel; deep lift set;
completion string.
Cite this Article: Tarek A. Ganat, Najeebullah Lashari, Mohamed Oun, Daniel
Asante Otchere and Imtiaz Ali, Develop Optimum Gas Lift Methods to Improve Gas
Lift Efficiency Using Gas Lift Pack-Off, Deep Gas Lift, and Deep Lift Set,
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology, 11(11),
2020, pp. 1096-1114.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/issues.asp?JType=IJARET&VType=11&IType=11
1. INTRODUCTION
The high price of oil is a deterrent to discovery and growth, marginal field development and
projects for enhanced oil recovery. "The average global oil recovery factor could well
increase significantly, due to technology development, from the current figure, by about 35%,
adding enormous resources to the bases of reserves" [1].
If the pressure in the reservoir is not strong enough to have sufficient water movement
levels, fluid changes may be accomplished by means of artificial lifting methods. The gas lift
system is an exceptional economic benefit form of artificial boost, its versatility requires a
robust commodity, service and production enhancement and ultimate reserve recovery
portfolio in all gas lift applications.
At the other side, the gas lifting technique is based at pumping gas into the lower part of
the production pipe to lower hydrostatic pressure in the pipe. The gas lifting system helps to
reduce the backpressure in the well induced by fluid in the pipeline, thus increasing the
injection and production efficiency from the well [2, 3].
A crucial aspect is the volume of injection gas when a lower value will dramatically
decrease production and raise operational costs with the usage of compression and power. For
certain situations, oil output may be checked to a maximum value for a given flow rate of gas
injection [4]. Several papers have been published about this optimization problem
determining the optimal operating conditions to extract the maximum quantity of oil for
single well models, multiple wells model and gas-lift wells modeling optimization and control
[2, 5-10].
Gas lift uses an external source of high-pressure gas for supplementing formation gas to
lift the well fluids. Gas injected through the injection point into the production tubing reduces
the density of the fluids in the tubing to lower the flowing bottom hole pressure (BHP) at the
bottom of the tubing [11]. The increased pressure differential induced across the sand face
from the in-situ reservoir pressure assists in flowing the produced fluid to the surface (Fig. 1).
The method is easy to install, economically viable, robust, and effective over a broad range of
conditions, but does assume a steady supply of lift gas [12].
After a production period reservoir energy dissipate, reservoir pressure depleted, and the
fluid level in tubing fall below the lowest gas lift valve, it causes a lack of gas lift efficiency
and loss of compression energy by circulating gas lift above the fluid level. A substantial part
of the gas-lifted wells worldwide remained ineffective. More frequently than not it is
attributable to 'multiple-pointing' when any (unintentionally) inject into the tubing through
one or more of the shallower unloading valves instead of the whole lifting gas through the
operating valve at the intended injection level. For some situations, wells will fail because

Tarek A. Ganat, Najeebullah Lashari, Mohamed Oun, Daniel Asante Otchere and Imtiaz Ali
with the available gas lift pressure the intended injection depth cannot be met. [13]. The
question of gas lift optimization discussed in this paper is to optimize the routine production
of hydrocarbons by choosing optimized methods to boost well performance, subject to gas
injection pressure and water reduction constraints.
Figure 1: Depletion stage using the gas lift system

Such approaches suggested gas deep lifting (pack-off, DGL, Deep-set), in the ideal
location below the packer in order to create a gas lifting passage from the annulus well into
the tubing flow. Due to its easier usage and lower project costs, methods will be preferred
rather than tubing replenishment through hydraulic devices. This technique used for well
having high water cut and depleted reservoir pressure when the dynamic fluid level in tubing
fall below the depth of the lowest gas lift valve.
This paper proposed case studies from different oil fields in the Asian region to
investigate the performance of the developed gas lift methods. The production history of the
proposed wells was reviewed and compared with the outputs of the developed method. The
results show a remarkable incremental of oil production for all wells. The developed methods
will increase well production rate and extend the lifetime of the oil fields. The work is
performed by the application of developed methods that can be used as a modification on the
existing gas lift system without adding more cost.
2. IMPROVE GAS LIFT EFFICIENCY USING GAS LIFT PACK-OFF,

DEEP GAS LIFT, AND DEEP LIFT SET
The aim of the gas lifting techniques implemented is to categorize a cost-effective artificial
lifting process for the restoration of gas production in the dead well (Fig. 2). The concept of
the gas lift is to introduce a fluid density reduction, which then lowers bottom hole pressure
(FBHP), allowing the well to flow (Drawdown). Produced fluids are lifted by reducing fluid
density in the wellbore to lighten the hydrostatic column or back pressure load on the
formation.
Improve gas lift efficiency at the depleted stage (Low reservoir energy); therefore,
configuration of the gas lift system is necessary if the pressure of the reservoir is not adequate
to support production of oil with a reasonable investment benefit. The gas lift operation
system is somewhat close to normal production as there is no difference in the design of the
production system in terms of scale and architecture. The artificial solution would be by
raising the fluid to that both the bhp and the wellbore hydrostatic pressure gradient. A simple
schematic is provided in Fig. 3 of a common gas lifting system.

Figure 2: Gas lift system in dead well
Figure 3: Installation of the gas lift valve at the depth above packer setting depth
Gas deep lifting (pack-off, DGL, deep set) are both methods for establishing a gas lifting
passage in the target position from the annulus of the hydrocarbon well. Thanks to its easy use
and lower costs than a mechanical unit or rig, the methods should be selected. This techniques
used for wells having high water cut and depleted reservoir pressure, if the fluid level in
tubing fall close or below the lowest gas lift valve, in this case, a dual pack off stringer having
GLM is inserted in the tubing below the lowest mandrel to reach out the fluid level and
communication is made through opening SSD, etc. In this way, gas can be reached without
having a big work-over job. A system which can offer a deeper location in a wellbore gas
injection point. A switching suspension mandrel can be inside a side pocket mandrel and can
be attached on one end with a gas lift valve and on the other end with a spindle. The side
pocket mandrel will cover a length of production tubing. The production tubing will require a
production packer to attach the annulus from the tubing to the casing pipe. The switching
suspension mandrel can be installed in order to direct gas entering the gas lift valve through
the coil into the well below the production packer. A plug on the bottom of the coil can be
mounted to avoid blasting when the gas lift system is assembled.
Fig. 4 below shows the schematic of the entire gas lift optimization system to determine
(and set) optimal gas injection rates and gas lift valve depth for each well. Examine various
levels of gas lift “optimization” in current practice and review contemporary gas lift available
technology to the revival of shut-in wells by selecting the optimum well design &
Implementation along with avoidance of costly workovers/re-entries.

Figure 4: A Stages of well gas lift optimization
2.1. Gas-Lift Pack-Off (Rigless Installation)

A pack-off gas lift valve installed in the tubing string. Before running the valve or valves, the
tubing is perforated with a mechanical/chemical puncher or gun perforator at the proper
depths where gas lift valves are to be installed. The spacing of pack-off gas lift valves follows
the same procedure as for other types of gas lift valves. Two pack-off installed inside the
tubing (upper pack-off and lower pack-off), and the injected gas can travel through the packer
from the annulus to the injection valve below the packer inside the tubing, where gas will mix
with the liquid and flow together to the surface. This is the ideal point of lift for the lowest
flowing bottom-hole pressure and lowest flowing gradient, as seen in Fig. 5.
Figure 5: A pack-off gas lift valve installed in the tubing string

The basic idea of gas lift pack-off as follows:

1. From gas lift design, we can calculate the injection point and punch a hole in the
tubing.
2. Gas entrance from gas-line injected into the annuals through gas lift pack-off system.
3. Injected gas displaces the fluid in the production tubing.
4. Injected gas lightens the column of produced fluid from the deepest point.
5. As the hydrostatic pressure is decreased, the well will flow naturally if not continue
gas injection.
Table 1 Tubing pickoff OD’s & ID’s

Tubing Size OD 2 3/8 2 7/8 3 1/2
Minimum ID (in) 1.000 1.250 1.500
Pack-off
Maximum OD (in) 1.850 2.280 2.726
TR ID (in) 1.875 2.313 2.813
SSSV
WR ID (in) 1.180 1.433
Table 2 Descriptions of pickoff OD’s & ID’s

2.87” Tubing Packoff
Item Description OD (in) ID (in)
1 TP-2 Lower Packoff 4140 2.28 1.25
Conventional 1.5 PM-1-N-80 PTD EUE 10 RD BXB INT
2 2.25 1.68
MOUNNTED
3 TP-2 UPPER PACKOFF 4140 2.28 1.25
3.5” Tubing Packoff
Item Description OD (in) ID (in)
1 TP-3 Lower Packoff 4140 2.721 1.5
Conventional 1.5 PM-1-N-80 PTD EUE 10 RD BXB INT
2 2.41 1.88
MOUNNTED
3 TP-3 UPPER PACKOFF 4140 2.71 1.5
2.1.1. Gas-lift pack-off in natural flow completion
Figure 6 Gas-lift pack-off in natural flow completion

The gas lift pack-off can be installed in natural flow completion inside the existing production
string. As illustrated in Fig. 6. Injection gas raise from the well annulus to the tube flow
region at the target position via the orifice valve. This method is rig less, so it would be
preferred due to its simple application and lower project cost.
2.1.2. Gas-lift pack-off with gas-lift completion

The gas lift pack-off can also be installed with GL mandrel completion. The injection gas lift
passage from the well annulus into the tubing flow throughout the GL mandrel, as seen in
Fig.7. This method also is rig less, and at a low cost.
Figure 7 Gas-lift pack-off with GL mandrel completion
2.1.3. Gas-lift pack-off for high pressure and deep-water

The aim of a conventional pack-off consists of insulation of well fluids and pressures,
isolation of production areas in order to avoid fluid contamination and pressure reduction, and
the development of the annular volume required for the gas lift. Where, two pack-off installed
inside the tubing (upper pack-off and lower pack-off) and the orifice valve installed inside the
Mandrel, as seen in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, which enhances the performance of the standard
packing-element system. These mandrels are threaded on both ends (upper and lower) with
precise connections to pack off assembly.

Figure 8 Pack-off for high pressure and deep-water completion
Figure 9 Installation steps of orifice valve inside the mandrel
2.1.4. Wireline installation steps for gas lift pack-off

The following are the steps of the wireline trips for the gas lift pack-off:
1st Wire-line Trip
1.Determine the location for perforations.
2.Set the Tubing stop
2nd Wire-line Trip
1.Run tubing puncher to perforate tubing by establishes communication between the casing
annulus and the tubing.
3rd Wire-line Trip
1.Set Lower pack-off below hole(s) in the tubing.

2.Replace upper sub on lower pack-off.

3.Attach the GS-pulling tool to the upper sub.
4.Lower in well down to stop.
5.Jar down 8-10 times to set pack-off and remove the GS-pulling tool.
4th Wire-line Trip
1. Apply API thread compound to the pin threads of the spacer pipe.
2.Thread the spacer pipes on to the lower end of the upper pack-off. Thread the stinger on
another end of the spacer pipe.
3. Connect a GS-pulling tool to the upper pack-off and lower them down through the tubing
to the lower pack-off.
4.Jar 8-10 times to stab the stinger into the lower pack-off and set the upper pack-off. Remove
the GS-pulling tool.
2.1.5. A case study of pack-off application (Well K-1)

The well closed since 2005, at low THP due to low liquid level. Pack-off application installed
in December 2014 with a total length of 624 ft (cost US$ 74,000). Fig. 10 shows the
schematic of the gas lift string showing the gas lift pack off installation where top insert string
and bottom insert string between two packers showed the insertion of gas through annular
space and lifting oil through gas lift entry by opening SSD. This well was immediately back
to the production line once using the pack-off system after the well had been dead for 13
years. The pack-off completion improved the well production rate, now produces
approximately 470 BOPD with 78% water cut. Almost after some days of restored the oil
production, the well recovered the entire cost of the job. Table 3 shows the well production
performance before and after installing the gas lift pack-off system.
Figure 10: Schematic of the gas lift string of the well K-1
Most of the wells are completed at a depth that should flow for some time after they put
on production. But because of decreasing the reservoir energy, the reservoir pressure was
insufficient to lift the fluid to the surface. Consequently, the wells cease to flow or producing

at a meager production rate. Therefore, the developed method was applied on well K-1 and
redesign the valve setting depth with an optimum injection rate. To estimate the productivity
index, the well model is built using nodal analysis, as seen in Fig. 11. The plot shows the
incremental oil rate obtained from the developed method by using the same gas lift system.
The well was shut-off at rate 120 STB/D, and after installing the gas lift pack-off at optimum
setting depth, the average oil rate increased, as seen in Table 3 and Fig. 12
Figure 11: Illustrates the incremental oil rate that can be stretch by using developed methods
Table 3: Shows the well K-1 production performance before and after installing a gas lift pack-off
Oil Rate Water Rate
Well K-1 Year Liquid Rate (STB/D)
(STB/D) (BBL/D)
2001 650 - -
2002 500 - -
Before installing
2003 140 - -
gas lift pack-off
2004 120 - -
2005 Closed for 13 years
2015 530 1600 2130
After installing
2016 480 1800 2280
gas lift pack-off
2017 470 1750 2220
Figure 12: Well K-1 production history before and after install Pack-off system
2.1.6 A case study of pack-off application (Well M-2)

The M-2 well was closed since 2003 due to depletion of reservoir pressure (from 682 psig to
415 psig), FBHP is 20 Psig. In May 2016, installed pack-off string with a total length of 400ft
(cost US$57,000). Fig. 13 shows the schematic of the gas lift sting of the well M-2, in which

the top insert string and orifice insert string below packer is emphasized, the fitted system is
ready to lift fluid through the gas. This well immediately back to the production line once
installed the pack-off system, after had been dead for 13 years. Fig. 14 shows the extension of
the well production performance after using the pack-off system. The pack-off completion
improved the well production rate, which now produces approximately 100 BOPD at FTHP
100 Psig, as seen in Table 4 and Fig. 15.
3. A CASE STUDY OF DEEP GAS LIFT APPLICATION (WELL X-1)

(RIG LESS INSTALLATION)
The DGL is used to combat wells suffering from liquid loading issues and extends the
production life. And to straddle the lowermost gas lift mandrel in the wellbore and extend its
effectiveness, in some cases, this has enabled us to deepen the gas injection point by
thousands of feet. The purpose of DGL in this paper is to deepen the gas injection point in the
wellbore below the production packer, where conventional systems cannot.
Figure 13: Schematic of the gas lift string of the well M-2
Figure 14: Illustrates the incremental oil rate that can be stretch by using the pack-off system

Table 4: The well M-2 production performance before and after installing a gas lift pack-off.
Oil Rate Water Rate Liquid Rate
Well M-2 Year
(STB/D) (BBL/D) (STB/D)
1998 250 0 250
1999 220 0 220
Before install gas lift 2000 200 0 200
pack-off 2001 150 0 150
2002 50 0 50
2003 Closed for 13 years
After install gas lift 2016 100 0 100
pack-off 2017 100 0 100
Well-X1 is a petroleum well situated offshore Southeast Asia, the well was drilled with
dual string and, after a long production period, also with the long tubing pitched gas
lift mandrels of 681 ft over the production zone decayed considerably. After a detailed review
of applicable methods, it was decided to extend the depth of the gas lift injection point by
installing a DGL system using CT to increase the drawdown and optimize the gas lift
production performance.
In January 2017, the well was equipped with gas lift mandrels immutably above the
packer some 681ft above the lower producing zone. After long years of operation, the
producing rate had declined significantly, and this situation prompted the operator to perform
some testing on it to ascertain the possibilities of improving production.
Figure 15: Well M-2 production history before and after install Pack-off system
Two pack-off installed inside the tubing (upper pack-off and lower pack-off), and the gas
lift injected from the annulus into the injection valve below the packer inside the tubing,
where gas will pass through Cross-flow Diverter Sub (CDS) (Flow area 1.16 inch Production
& 0.78 inch Injection (Fig. 16)) mix with the liquid and flow together to the surface as seen in
Fig. 17.
Figure 16: Crossflow Diverter Sub (CDS)

Figure 17: Deep gas lift (DGL) string

The size of the production packer for gas injection development was one of the key
limitations. The deep gas lifts system was chosen to allow a deeper shift to the well of the gas
injection point, which then leads to a larger drawdown. The Crossflow Diverter Sub has a
double route in the same device of two modules and crossflow assemblies. The first of its type
was operation of a catenary network CT (Fig. 18). The operation of the DGL was delivered.
The DGL system was successfully and safely installed. After its installation, the production
rate increased, as seen in Table 5.
…..
Figure 18: Coil tubing catenary system

In this work Fig. 19 to Fig. 21 show the extension of the well production performance
after using the DGL system.

Figure 19: Illustrates the current incremental oil rate that can be stretch by using DGL.
Figure 20: Illustrates the incremental oil rate that can be stretch by select 1st option of DGL installation
Figure 21: Illustrates the incremental oil rate that can be stretch by select 2nd option of DGL installation
Table 5: Shows the well-X1 production performance after installing DGL

Option Current 1st 2nd
DGL Start Point (ft MD) 1824 1869 1869
DGL End Point (ft MD) 1824 2400 2554*
CL Length (ft) 531 685
Oil Rate (STB/D) Before DGL 850 880 900
Liquid Gain (%) 7 8
Oil Rate (STB/D) After DGL 1000 1050 1140
Well can Flow until SBHP Reaches (Psi) 330 240 220
*Perforation Depth

4. A CASE STUDY OF DEEP LIFT SET APPLICATION (WELLS -Y1 &

Q2) (RIG INSTALLATION)
The deeper the point of injection is, the more efficient the gas lift method becomes because a
greater drawdown can be achieved. This method was applied to the well-Y1and well- Q2,
which are located in the Northeast of the Asia oil field. The injection gas lift passage from the
well annulus bypass from the packer into the tubing flow throughout the GL mandrel located
below the packer, as seen in Fig. 22. This method has a low cost. Fig. 23, and Fig. 24 depicts
the graph of a system for a sensitivity study of two different combinations for outflow
components. For conventional gas lift, the IPR outflow curve is a lower intersection with the
inflow performance curve, and the well will not be expected to flow for a long time.
Figure 22: Illustrates Deep lift set completion string

The inflow and outflow performance curves do intersect for deep lift set IRP curve, shows
higher intersection, higher productivity index, with the inflow performance curve. Thus, this
system satisfies continuity, and the well will be expected to produce at a rate and pressure
than a higher conventional IPR system, as indicated by the intersection of the inflow and
outflow curves
Figure 23: IPR & VLP plot illustrates the incremental oil rate (before and after optimization) that can
be stretch by using deep lift set for well Y-1

The principle of gas lift is that gas injected into the tubing reduces the density of the fluids
in the tubing, and the bubbles have a “scrubbing” action on the liquids. Both factors act to
lower the flowing bottom hole pressure (BHP) at the bottom of the tubing, as seen in Fig. 25
and Fig. 26 after installing the deep lift set system in the well Y-1 and well Q-5.
Figure 24: IPR & VLP plot illustrates the incremental oil rate (before and after optimization) that can
be stretch by using deep lift set for well Q-5
Figure 25: Bottom hole pressure drawdown before and after installing deep lift set at the well Y-1
Figure 26: Bottom hole pressure drawdown before and after installing deep lift set at the well Q-2
In total, the operation was executed as proposed and proved to be an effective acceptable
way of moving the point of gas injection further downhole from the lowermost gas lift
mandrel below the packer above the perforation zone. The well Y-1 was producing 53 BOPD
for a long time before the installation of the deep lift set. Once the installation was completed,
the gas lift was restarted, and drawdown was doubled as that within few hours, oil and water
were observed at the surface, and once the resulting production had stabilized the oil
production and increased to 172 BOPD, an increase of over 300%. Same results for the well

Q-5, the production rate improved from 59 BOPD to 95 BOPD, an increase of over 161%, as
seen in Table 6.
Table 6: Improvement oil recovery by using deep lift set comparing with the conventional method.
Well Conventional gas lift
Oil Rate Avg. SBHP Avg. BSW
Water Rate (BBL/D)
(STB/D) (Psia) (%)
Well- Y1 53 13 1180 18
Well- Q2 59 258 1500 80
Well Deep lift set
Well- Y1 172 49 880 22
Well- Q2 95 332 1350 76
5. CONCLUSION
This paper describes a unique gas lifted developed methods for deep gas lift bypass packer
technique. The purpose of this work is to identify an economically viable method of artificial
lift to restore oil production in a dead well, which has high water cut and depleted reservoir
pressure when the dynamic fluid level in tubing fall below the depth of the lowest gas lift
valve. The developed methods were proposed to improve gas lift efficiency by creating the
gas lift passage from the well annulus into the tubing flow area at a desired location depth
below the packer. The three methods are simple applications and have lower project costs.
Case studies from Asian oil fields were selected to apply the three developed methods.
The results show a remarkable production increment for all the wells, which will extend the
lifetime of the oil wells by applying some modifications to the existing gas lift system without
adding more cost.
The three applications are optimum to apply at any wells that have low reservoir energy
(low reservoir pressure and low production rate), where the fluid level is close to the last
injection point. Table 7. shows the comparison of the completion string between the gas lift
pack-off, DGL, and deep lift set.
Table 7: Comparison of the well completion string between gas lift applications
Max
Deep lift Downhole SSSV Tubing size
Running unit depth Retrievable Cost
type excisable Restriction ID
angle
3 1/2", 2
Pack-off slick line Poor WL SSSV 5 yes Low
7/8"
DGL slick line/CT Poor WL SSSV 3 1/2" up to 5 yes Low
Outside
Deep-set Rig Excellent No 5 permanent High
tubing
Fig. 27, shows improving lift efficiency for each nominated well. Because each well has
specific oil producing characteristics, it is a matter of setting optimum injection levels for
each well to ensure that there is no restriction to competitive development in another well
over injection at one well. The improvements in the characteristics of well production, such as
the inflow or water volume, often demand that they be run at specific optimum gas injection
levels. Under a wide range of flows, flow monitoring and control equipment must be flexible.
Fig. 28, demonstrate the expected extension of the oilfield lifetime as a result of using the
developed gas lift methods at the middle operation stage, extending the existing gas lift by
pack off, deep gas lift, and deep lift set.

Well X-1
Production Rate (STB/D)

1140 (STB/D)
Well X-1
900 (STB/D)
Well K-1
470 (STB/D)
Well Y-1
Well K-1 172 (STB/D)
120 (STB/D)
Well M-2
100 (STB/D)
Well Q-2
95 (STB/D)
Well Q-2 Well Y-1
Well M-2 59 (STB/D) 53 (STB/D)
50 (STB/D)
Gas Injection Rate (MMSCF/D)
Figure 27: Improving lift efficiency for each nominated well
Figure 28: Expected extension of the artificial lift performance improved by the developed gas lift
applications
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Tarek A Ganat would like to thank Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Malaysia for the
support and thanking Petronas Malaysia for the data support.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Kjärstad and F. Johnsson, Resources and future supply of oil, Energy policy, vol. 37, no. 2,
pp. 441-464, 2009
[2] B. Hu, Characterizing gas-lift instabilities, Master of Science Thesis, NTNU, 2004.
[3] U. C. Ifeanyi, S. Esieboma, and J. Uche, Gas Lift Optimization within Field Capacity
Limitations, SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, 2019: Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
[4] J. De Souza, J. De Medeiros, A. Costa, and G. Nunes, Modeling, simulation and optimization
of continuous gas lift systems for deepwater offshore petroleum production, Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 72, no. 3-4, pp. 277-289, 2010.
[5] W. Fang and K. Lo, A generalized well management scheme for reservoir simulation, SPE
Reservoir Engineering, vol. 11, no. 02, pp. 116-120, 1996.

[6] G. A. Alarco´ n, C. F. Torres, and L. E. Go´ mez, Global optimization of gas allocation to a
group of wells in artificial lift using nonlinear constrained programming, J. Energy Resour.
Technol., vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 262-268, 2002.
[7] T. Ray and R. Sarker, Genetic algorithm for solving a gas lift optimization problem, Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 59, no. 1-2, pp. 84-96, 2007.
[8] L. Imsland, B. A. Foss, and G. O. Eikrem, State feedback control of a class of positive
systems: Application to gas-lift stabilization, in 2003 European Control Conference (ECC),
2003: IEEE, pp. 2499-2504.
[9] A. Plucenio, D. J. Pagano, E. Camponogara, A. Traple, and A. Teixeira, Gas-lift optimization
and control with nonlinear mpc, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 904-909,
2009.
[10] E. Camponogara, A. Plucenio, A. F. Teixeira, and S. R. Campos, An automation system for
gas-lifted oil wells: Model identification, control, and optimization, Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering, vol. 70, no. 3-4, pp. 157-167, 2010.
[11] F. Elldakli, F., Gas lift system. Petroleum & Petrochemical Engineering Journal, 2017, 1,
000121.
[12] K. Rashid, W. Bailey, and B. Couët, A survey of methods for gas-lift optimization, Modelling
and Simulation in Engineering, vol. 2012, p. 24, 2012.
[13] A. Brodie, Gas-lift valve design addresses long-term well integrity needs, Offshore, vol. 71,
no. 2, 2011.
View publication stats

Ijaret 11 11 1002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijaret 11 11 1002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

DEVELOP OPTIMUM GAS LIFT METHODS TO IMPROVE GAS LIFT EFFICIENCY

Article in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY · December 2020

Najeeb Ullah Tarek Al-arbi Ganat

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daniel Asante Otchere Imtiaz Ali

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Overburden Characterisation in the TEN field View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

DEVELOP OPTIMUM GAS LIFT METHODS TO

Daniel Asante Otchere

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1096 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1097 editor@iaeme.com

Figure 1: Depletion stage using the gas lift system

2. IMPROVE GAS LIFT EFFICIENCY USING GAS LIFT PACK-OFF,

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1098 editor@iaeme.com

Figure 2: Gas lift system in dead well

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1099 editor@iaeme.com

Figure 4: A Stages of well gas lift optimization

2.1. Gas-Lift Pack-Off (Rigless Installation)

Figure 5: A pack-off gas lift valve installed in the tubing string

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1100 editor@iaeme.com

The basic idea of gas lift pack-off as follows:

Table 1 Tubing pickoff OD’s & ID’s

Table 2 Descriptions of pickoff OD’s & ID’s

2.1.1. Gas-lift pack-off in natural flow completion

Figure 6 Gas-lift pack-off in natural flow completion

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1101 editor@iaeme.com

2.1.2. Gas-lift pack-off with gas-lift completion

Figure 7 Gas-lift pack-off with GL mandrel completion

2.1.3. Gas-lift pack-off for high pressure and deep-water

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1102 editor@iaeme.com

Figure 8 Pack-off for high pressure and deep-water completion

Figure 9 Installation steps of orifice valve inside the mandrel

2.1.4. Wireline installation steps for gas lift pack-off

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1103 editor@iaeme.com

2.Replace upper sub on lower pack-off.

2.1.5. A case study of pack-off application (Well K-1)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1104 editor@iaeme.com

2.1.6 A case study of pack-off application (Well M-2)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1105 editor@iaeme.com

3. A CASE STUDY OF DEEP GAS LIFT APPLICATION (WELL X-1)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1106 editor@iaeme.com

Figure 16: Crossflow Diverter Sub (CDS)

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1107 editor@iaeme.com

Figure 17: Deep gas lift (DGL) string

Figure 18: Coil tubing catenary system

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1108 editor@iaeme.com

Table 5: Shows the well-X1 production performance after installing DGL

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1109 editor@iaeme.com

4. A CASE STUDY OF DEEP LIFT SET APPLICATION (WELLS -Y1 &

Figure 22: Illustrates Deep lift set completion string

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1110 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1111 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1112 editor@iaeme.com

Production Rate (STB/D)

Gas Injection Rate (MMSCF/D)

Figure 27: Improving lift efficiency for each nominated well

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1113 editor@iaeme.com

http://www.iaeme.com/IJARET/index.asp 1114 editor@iaeme.com

View publication stats

You might also like