Determining the Most Profitable
Gas Injection Pressure for a
Gas Lift Installation
J .R. Blann, SPE, Exxon Production Research CO.
J.D. Williams, SPE, Exxon Production Research Co.
Summary
Gas injection pressure has a very decided effect on the
efficiency and operation of a continuous flow gas lift
well. Selection of a gas injection pressure that is too high
can result in needless investment in compression and
other equipment, whereas pressures that are too low can
cause inefficient gas lift operations and failure to pro-
duce a well's full potential. This paper discusses the ef-
fect of various producing parameters on the selection of
gas injection pressure and describes techniques for
predicting and evaluating these effects on a specific gas
lift installation to determine the most profitable operating
system.
Introduction
The function of injection gas in a continuous flow gas lift
well is two-fold. First, it must aerate the fluid sufficient-
ly to unload the well column down to an operating point.
Second, it must reduce the fluid column density suffi-
ciently to allow the reservoir pressure to push the pro-
duced fluid to the surface. The depth at which the
operating valve is located depends on several factors, but
primarily it is a function of the available injection gas
pressure.
To understand the current situation in the U.S. regard-
ing injection gas pressures, it is necessary to examine the
history of gas lift. In the early days (1865 to 1925), very
large air stations were built and air was compressed and
used to provide gas for artificial lift. 1 The early com-
pressors were driven by steam, which was generated in
boilers burning crude oil. Later, compressors were
driven by oil combustion engines and, in some areas,
electric motors. These early compressors were usually
single or dual stage and since they were made for a very
low suction pressure (atmospheric pressure), the
resulting discharge pressure was relatively low, usually
on the order of a few hundred psi.
In these early days, very little gas lift equipment was
available for use inside the well. 2 Thus, the depth of lift
was strictly a function of the depth to which the produced
fluid column could be balanced, or slightly overbal-
anced, by a column of air. This meant that with a 6oo-psi
[4.1-MPa] injection gas pressure at the surface, a well
could be unloaded and gas injected down to about 1,500
to 2,000 ft [457 to 610 m] of depth. However, such a
situation may not have represented too much of a prob-
lem at that time, since most of the producing wells were
0149-2136/84/0081-2202$00.25
Copyright 1984 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
AUGUST 1984
rather shallow compared with today's standards.
During the 1920's, the oil industry began collecting
and selling the gas associated with oil production. The
operating pressure for most of the gas transmission
systems was usually around 800 psi [5.5 MPa] or less.
Therefore, as a natural adjunct to the gas sales system,
some of the compressed natural gas was used for gas lift.
This yielded gas with much better properties at a higher
pressure than was available from the old air lift systems.
In most respects, even today, gas lift injection
pressures are still governed by the gas sales system
pressures. Downhole equipment has been developed dur-
ing the past 50 years that allows wells to be lifted deeper
with the available pressure, but basically the surface in-
jection pressures have remained dependent on the gas
sales system pressures. Even where large gas fields have
been discovered with higher pressures, the source for gas
lift has almost always been located downstream of the
processing facilities leading to the gas sales system.
The inefficiency of such low-pressure gas lift systems
in deeper wells was masked during the early years of gas
lift by the low value of gas and the low cost of gas com-
pression. In addition, a low demand for oil encouraged
very low well rates that could be accomplished with very
little pressure drawdown in the producing well.
About 12 to 15 years ago, this situation changed and
suddenly many gas lift systems were found to be grossly
inadequate for producing the higher rates that were
required.
How Gas Injection Pressure Affects
Gas Lift Efficiency
In a continuous-flow gas lift system, injection gas is used
to supplement formation gas (Fig. 1) and the gas from
these two sources combines to reduce the overall density
of the produced fluid column. A low-pressure gas, which
must be injected high in the fluid column, can affect the
density of the fluid only above the point that it is injected
(Fig. 2). Therefore, high volumes of gas, injected high
above the formation, are required to affect the pressure
drawdown at the reservoir face. Likewise, a relatively
small volume of gas injected near the depth of the reser-
voir can have a decided effect on the density of the fluid
column above it and thereby result in a significant
pressure drawdown at the reservoir.
Several years ago, Shell Oil Co. presented an
equilibrium curve concept 3 (Fig. 3) to locate the in-
tercept of the formation fluid gradient with the producing
1305
 PRESSURE

GRADIENT ABOVE POINT OF GAS INJECTION

---!TOTAL GAS .. INJECTED GAS + SOLUTION GAS)

GAS INJECTED
-FROM SURFACE

RESERVOIR FLUID GRADIENT

!TOTAL GAS '" SOLUTION GAS)
./
.-------...
DRAWDOWN

Fig. 1-Gas sources for continuous flow gas lift wells.

gas lift gradients for various rates in a given well at a

given gas injection rate. The equilibrium curve produced
by combining these points demonstrated the effect of in-
jection pressures on maximum well rates and provided a
handy way to determine the maximum depth of gas in-
jection for a given injection gas pressure (Fig. 4). In the
example shown, the use of an injection gas pressure
higher than 1,600 psi [11 MPa] would have little or no
effect on the producing rate of the well.
This example is very useful in demonstrating the effect
of the gas injection point in a specific well and the
benefits that can occur when gas is injected near the bot-
tom of most wells. These benefits can be summarized as
(1) more pressure drawdown at the reservoir, (2) greater
total fluid production rates, (3) less gas volume required,
and (4) less downhole equipment.
The last advantage is illustrated in Fig. 5. Using a gas
injection pressure that enables near-maximum depth in-
jection will unload a well deeper as compared to lower
pressures. In addition, the higher injection pressure pro-
vides a greater differential between the injected gas
pressure and the flowing tubing pressure, thereby allow-
ing a much greater spacing between valves. Thus, fewer
mandrels and valves are required. In this example, only
three valves rather than six would be required using a gas
injection pressure of 2,000 psi [13.8 MPa] instead of
1,300 psi [9.0 MPa]. Although discussed later, many
more calculations and comparisons must be made to add
Fig. 2-Effect of depth of gas injection on injection gas
. requirement. 11
the two most important benefits to this list-lower com-
pressor horsepower requirements and increased income
to the installation.
Basis of Determining the Most
Efficient Gas Injection Pressure
To ensure the use of the most efficient wellhead gas in-
jection pressure (WHIP), several conditions must be met
in most producing wells.
1. Gas must be injected into the flowing fluid stream
near the top of the formation.
2. The flowing production pressure at the well depth
must be exceeded with sufficient injection gas pressure
to create a pressure differential (usually 100 to 200 psi
[0.7 to 1.4 MPaD sufficient to pass the required amount
of gas.
As you might expect, to meet these conditions, injec-
tion gas pressure requirements will be the greatest in

PRESSURE (PSI)

2000

_4000
...
~
:I:
I;:
w
°6000

8000

10.000L-.:.=..;.;,;..:.:...:==---------1...---~---.::::",.---------=::::.,j

Fig. 3-Construction of a shell equilibrium curve (courtesy of API).

1306 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 PRESSURE (PSI) PRESSURE (PSI)
2400
400 2400 2800

2000 1000

-OPERATING
GRADIENT
2000
4000

E3000
:r
6000 l-
e.. FORMATION......,
~ 4000 = GRADIENT

8000 5000
----1300 PSI DESIGN

10.000'-~;';';"':~=----'------'----"'O~<::'::"---'
6000 -.-.- 2000 PSI DESIGN ,_.
SBHP

Fig. 4-Completed equilibrium curve for a specific well con-

7000'-------------------~
dition (courtesy of API).
Fig. 5-Effect of wellhead injection gas pressure on
downhole equipment requirements and design.
deep, high-pressure, high-productivity wells. For exam-
ple, consider a well with characteristics as shown in
Table 1. To produce such a well at 6,000 BID [954
m 3 I d] fluid when all other design conditions are met, gas TABLE 1-TYPICAL GAS LIFT DESIGN WELL DATA
must be injected at 6,900 ft [2103 m] with an injection
pressure at that depth of about 2,400 psi (2,300 psi + 100 Oil gravity, °API 35
psi differential) [16.5 MPa (15.9 MPa+0.69 MPa)]. Formation gas specific gravity 1.1
Formation GOR, scflbbl 600
This calculation is demonstrated in the next section. Water specific gravity 1.15
Bubblepoint pressure, psi 1,916
Example Calculation. Required reservoir drawdown Bubblepoint temperature, of 215
is given by Total vertical well depth, ft 6,900
PI (total fluid), BID· psi 30
6,000 BFPD Static bottom hole pressure, psi 2500
q/ J r j - - - - - Bottomhole temperature, of 210
t - 30 BID-psi Flowing wellhead pressure, psi 250
Geothermal temperature gradient, °F/ft 21100
=200 psi. Water cut, % 75
Casing size (00), in. 9 5/8
Or, in metric units, Tubing size (00), in. 4V2
Injection gas specific gravity 0.65
Compressor suction pressure, psi 200
954 m 3 Id fluid Overall compressor efficiency, % 72
q/J - - - - - - -
if- 0.692 m 3 /d.kPa

=1.4 MPa,
Major Factors Influencing the Choice of the
where q is fluid rate and J if is total fluid PI. Flowing bot- Most Economical Injection Gas Pressure
tomhole pressure (BHP) required to produce 6,000 Thus far, only the basic conditions that must be met to
BFPD [954 m 3 I d fluid] is given by ensure the most efficient gas injection pressure for a
given well have been discussed. A variety of factors can
affect the selection of the most efficient surface injection
pressure. After the most efficient injection pressure is
=2,500 psi-200 psi determined, other factors, including economics, must be
considered to determine whether this is the optimal injec-
=2,300 psi. tion gas pressure for the overall installation. These fac-
Or, in metric units, tors are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Pwf=Pbhst -q/J if Bubblepoint and Solution GOR of the Produced
= 17.2 MPa-l.4 MPa Oil. The bubblepoint pressure and the solution GOR of
the produced oil determine the amount of free gas pres-
=15.8 MPa, ent in the flow stream at any condition of pressure and
where P wf is flowing BHP and P bhst is static BHP. temperature. In a vertical column, these are probably the
AUGUST 1984 1307
 TABLE 2-PRESSURE AT DEPTH COMPARISON' TABLE 4-CONDUIT SIZE VS. HORSEPOWER
REQUIREMENTS'
Surface Injection Gas Gas Pressure at
Pressure Specific 6,900 ft Injection Gas Compression
(psi) Gravity (psi) Conduit Pressure Injection Rate Requirement
~ (psi) (10 6 scf/O) (BHP)
800 0.65 920
0.90 1,020 4112 1,300 2.75 358
1,300 0.65 1,520 2,000 0.80 124
0.90 1,710 5112 1,300 3.70 481
2,000 0.65 2,360 2,000 1.00 155
'Based on a 5,OOO·BFPD producing rate and data from Table 1.
0.90 2,680
'For gas surface temperature of 100°F.

Pressure Rating of Equipment. Surface equipment

for gas lift will nonnally be available in these selec-
TABLE 3-COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS tions 4 : ANSI Class 600 (1,440 psi [9.9 MPa]), ANSI
OF GAS LIFT GAS VOLUMES AND GRAVITIES Class 900 (2,160 psi [14.9 MPa]), and ANSI Class 1500
ON HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENTS'
(3,600 psi [24.8 Mpa]).
Injection The pressure rating ofthis equipment at 100°F [38°C]
Gas Injection Gas Compression is shown in parentheses for each class. Costs will be pro-
Specific Pressure Injection Rate Requirement portionally higher when the equipment for a higher
Gravity (psi) (10 6 scf/O) (BHP)
pressure rating is specified. Th~refore, maximum system
0.65 1,300' * 1.50 195 design pressures of 1,440 or 2,160 psi [9.9 or 14.9
2,000" 0.50 78
0.90 1,100" 1.70 200 MPa] should be established when efficient operating
1,725* * 0.59 80 pressures are near these limits. An example of the ap-
'Required to produce 4,500 BFPD. plication of these restrictions would be the use of
"Injection at approximately the same depth.
1,440-psi [9.9-MPa] rated equipment when a surface in-
jection pressure of 1,500 to 1550 psi [10.3 to 10.7 MPa]
is indicated. In this case, the selection of a slightly lower
most important factors in detennining the average densi- injection pressure might be the most economical choice.
ty of the total fluid at a given location in the flow stream.
Expressed in another way, the amount of free gas is Wellhead Backpressure, The importance of wellhead
usually the most important factor in detennining the backpressure and the energy loss that results from high
flowing pressure gradient of the fluid. backpressures in gas lift operations is well documented. 5
In saturated crude oil systems, all gas that is injected However, wellhead backpressure also has an important
can be expected to remain in the free state. In under- effect on the selection of a gas injection pressure. The
saturated, low-bubblepoint, crude systems, the injection negative effect of high wellhead backpressure is greatly
of free gas into the fluid column results in (1) the bubble- amplified when a low injection gas pressure is used.
point pressure of the mixture being increased, thereby Wells with high wellhead backpressure and low gas in-
lowering the depth where free gas is present, and (2) jection pressure require very close valve spacing, which
some of the free gas going into solution in the crude oil. results in shallow gas injection. The close valve spacing
In a very low-bubblepoint crude oil, gas injection may is because of the limited pressure differential between
cause much of the additional gas to go back into solution the injection gas and the produced fluid. On the other
with the oil with the result that there is little or no reduc- hand, high wellhead pressures in systems that have
tion in pressure drawdown at the reservoir face at in- facility constraints may be tolerable if a high gas injec-
creasing injection depths. tion pressure is used.

Well Productivity. High productivity wells usually
will have very little pressure drawdown at the reservoir
during nonnal production operations. Therefore, a high-
pressure gas is required for injection into the flowing
stream at any significant depth in the well. However, in
this case, the ability to inject gas at total depth (TD)
usually results in maximum lift efficiency and economy
since small amounts of gas are required to reduce the
flowing fluid gradient. Only one or two wells in a field
may have high productivities, but these wells generally
have the potential of being the most profitable of all the
wells in the field. This profit margin should not be re-
duced by insufficient gas pressure.
Watercut, Wells of higher water cut will require larger
amounts of gas to supplement the relatively lower
amount of gas the well produces with the fonnation oil.
The deeper this gas can be injected into the well stream,
the greater the reservoir pressure drawdown.
1308
Characteristics of the Injected Gas. Detennining the
characteristic of a good injection gas requires con-
siderably more attention than can be given here. For ex-
ample, only a careful analysis can detennine whether a
rich field gas with a specific gravity in the order of 0.90
will be more economical for gas lift use than a lean gas
having a specific gravity of 0.65. The static head of the
heavier gas provides a higher downhole injection
pressure than does the lighter gas for an equivalent sur-
face injection pressure. A comparison of pressures at
6,900 ft [2103 m] vertical depth using 800-, 1,300-, and
2,000-psi [5.5-, 9.0-, and 13.8-MPa] injection gas
pressures for 0.65 and 0.90 specific gravity gases is
shown in Table 2.
However, the whole story from an economic stand-
point is not given in Table 2, since the compression re-
quirements for each case also must be considered (Table
3). Using the well conditions stated in Table 1: the
heavier gas requires a lower surface pressure, but a
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 TABLE 5-COMPARISON OF GAS LIFT VALVE SIZE
AND COMPRESSION REQUIREMENTS·
Injection Gas Compression
Valve Diameter Pressure Injection Rate Requirement
(in.) (psi) (10 6 scflD) (BHP)
1,300 1.7 220
2,000 0.6
95
1V2 1,300 1.5 195
2,000 0.5 80
"Required to produce 4,500 BFPD and based on the data in Table 1.
higher injection volume per barrel of fluid lifted com-
pared to the lighter gas. Therefore, lower volumes of the
lighter gas and a higher surface pressure actually may re-
quire less compression horsepower per barrel of fluid
produced compared with the heavier gas.
Still other factors such as gas processing must be con-
sidered also before the final selection of a source gas for
gas lift.
Design of the Well Facility. The design of the well
facilities, such as the size of the vertical producing con-
duit and the horizontal flowline, will have an important
effect on the selection of the most economical gas injec-
tion pressure. Table 4 shows a gas lift efficiency com-
parison of two cases: (1) 4V2-in. [114-mm] OD tubing
and (2) 5 1/2-in. [140-mm] OD tubing string. In this ex-
ample, the nominal 4 V2-in. [114-mm] tubular comple-
tion is more efficient than the 5V2-in. [l40-mm] string to
produce 5,000 BID (795 m 3 /d] fluid by using a
2,000-psi [l3.8-MPa] gas injection pressure.
Type of Gas Lift Equipment. Although rarely con-
sidered, the type of gas lift equipment will have a decid-
ed effect on the gas injection pressure requirements. The
I-in. [25-mm] diameter gas lift valve requires a higher
injection pressure downhole to accomplish the same lift-
ing effect as the II/2-in. [38-mm] gas lift valve. This is
because of its reduced bellows area and the resulting
higher ratio of port area to bellows area, which reduces
the effective operating pressure of the valve. Therefore,
the smaller valve will result in the ultimate use of more
injection gas and more compressiori horsepower than the
1 V2-in. [38-mm] valve to lift equivalent rates, since they
must be spaced closer together and set higher in the well.
Table 5 elucidates this effect on a relatively high rate
well in 4V2-in. [II4-mm] tubing.
Calculating the Effect of Gas Injection
Pressures on Production Facilities
The selection and design of compression equipment and
related facilities must be closely considered in gas lift
systems because of the high initial cost of compressor
horsepower and because this cost usually will represent a
major portion of the entire project cost. In most in-
stances, the injection gas pressure required at the
wellheads will detennine the discharge pressure of the
compressor. Higher injection gas pressures will increase
the discharge pressure requirement of the compressor,
which will be translated into a related increase in the
compressor horsepower required for a given volume of
gas. However, if the gas lift system is designed properly,
the related decrease in gas volume requirements because
of the improved efficiency provided by the higher injec-
tion gas pressure will be such as to cause an overall
decrease in compressor horsepower requirements.
AUGUST 1984
A suitable gas injection pressure will most likely be a
compromise between good well efficiency and the
design of the gas distribution system. The distribution
system consists of all injection gas lines and auxiliary
equipment used to route the compressor discharge gas to
the various gas lift wells. The sizing of injection gas
lines will depend, for the most part, on gas requirements,
distances involved, and pressure availability.
The lifting cost per barrel of fluid produced will be a
function of both gas injection pressure and gas volume
requirements. As stated previously, continuous-flow gas
lift wells are most efficient when gas is injected in or
near the fonnation. An injection gas pressure that pro-
vides lift from this point will enable a very efficient
operation in tenns of production potential, injection gas
and compression requirements, and overall lift cost. To
illustrate the technique of selecting an injection gas
pressure on the basis of maximum producing rates and
minimum lift costs, two items are addressed: (1) injec-
tion gas volume as a function of injection gas pressure
and producing rate and (2) compressor horsepower vs.
producing rate.
Gas Volume. The total gas required for a continuous-
flow gas lift well may be detennined by well perfor-
mance prediction techniques. Well perfonnance calcula-
tions typically are obtained by simultaneously solving
the well inflow and outflow equations. Well inflow, or
fluid flow from the external reservoir drainage radius to
the wellbore, can be simulated by either the straightline
drawdown [productivity index (PI)] or the inflow perfor-
mance relationship (IPR) methods. 6 Likewise, well
outflow, or fluid flow from the well bottom to the sur-
face, is predicted by empirical correlations such as those
presented by Orkiszewski,7 Ros,8 Hagedorn and
Brown,9 and Beggs and Brill 10 (Fig. 6).
The flowing pressure gradients prepared with these
correlations may be used to prepare well outflow predic-
tions for various producing conditions (Fig. 7). Thus, for
a given total well gas/liquid ratio (fonnation GLR plus
injection GLR) and productivity, the producing potential
of a natural flow or a gas lift well may be predicted. For
example, the well conditions in Fig. 7 indicate that a
well with a total fluid PI of 15 B/D' psi [0.34 m 3 /d . kPa]
and a 50% water cut has a capability of flowing approx-
imately 3,700 BID [588 m 3 /d] naturally and 4,200 B/D
[668 m 3 /d] fluid by gas lift. On the other hand, the well
would not flow naturally and would require gas lift to
achieve flow for water cuts approaching 70% (note that
the well inflow and outflow curves do not intersect for
natural flow).
All these calculations can be done manually if gradient
curves for each condition are available. However, the
use of a computer greatly reduces the time involved and
allows the examination of many more cases.
Fig. 8 illustrates some of the results obtained from
well perfonnance calculations. In particular, the effects
of injection gas rate and injection gas pressure on gas lift
well perfonnance are indicated. Table 1 contains the in-
put requirements for this example. The wellhead injec-
tion pressures shown range from 800 to 2,500 psi [5.5 to
17.2 MPa]. In this example, a 2,OOO-psi [l3.8-MPa] in-
jection pressure allows gas to be injected close to the bot-
tom of the well, so the use of any higher pressure will not
1309
 PRESSURE (PSI) 3300r-----------------------------~----,

400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3-1/2 IN. TUBING
WATER CUT
(%)
VERTICAL FLOWING 90

1000 PRESSURE GRADIENTS

~lnIN.TUBULARFLOW 2700

2000

~
3000 t
g 2100
'"
4000 ~
0..
J:
""
LA.

~ 5000
0- - - NATURAL FLOW
W
Cl
o 1500 ---GAS LIFT
6000
25% OIL -75% WATER
PRODUCING RATE· INJ. GAS = 0.5 MMscf/D
7000 PI = 2.0 bbl/D'psi FWHP = 400 PSI
1500BFPD
OIL GRAV - 39 0 API
8000 WATER SG - 1.160
GAS SG - 0.87
WELLHEAD TMP .. 145°F
9000 TMP. AT 6250 FT· 200°F Fig. 7-Typical well performance prediction.

10,000 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '

Fig. 6-Typical flowing pressure gradient.
result in a significantly higher producing rate.
As shown in Fig. 8, it is possible to inject too much
gas, resulting in a decrease in producing rate. Hence,
there is a gas injection rate that will provide a maximum
rate. Usually, gas volumes are determined as closely as
possible so that correct compressor sizing can be made.
For rotative compressor systems, a gas excess of 5 to
10% should be allowed to accommodate any variations.
Compressor Horsepower Required. Table 6 demon-
strates the amount of injection gas and compression
brake horsepower per well required to obtain identical
producing rates using four typical surface gas injection
pressures and a common compressor suction pressure
(see Table 1). As expected, compression horsepower
decreases as injection pressure increases until the injec-
tion pressure enables near maximum depth injection. In
this case, higher injection pressures require additional
compression without added production benefits.
Fig. 9 illustrates the compression horsepower per well
vs. surface gas injection pressure and producing rate
concept. A significant decrease in horsepower re-
quirements is possible by employing a 2,OOO-psi
[13.8-MPa] injection pressure instead of 1,300 psi [9
MPa] or lower pressure. For these conditions, the com-
pression horsepower requirements are minimums for all
producing rates using an approximate 2,OOO-psi
[13.8-MPa] injection pressure. Unlike a 2,500-psi
[17.2-MPa] injection pressure, a 2,OOO-psi [13.8-MPa]
pressure also allows the use of a 2,160-psi [14.2-MPa]
design pressure in the distribution system.
Conclusions
The same type of analysis demonstrated here can be per-
formed for a wide range of reservoir and surface
operating conditions. In most instances, the optimal in-
jection pressure will remain relatively constant
throughout the life of a field, even though other produc-
ing characteristics may change. Fortunately, all of the
producing characteristics of a well can be simulated in

TABLE 6-EFFECT OF WELLHEAD INJECTION GAS PRESSURE (WHIP) ON

COMPRESSOR POWER REQUIREMENTS·

WHIP = 800 psi WHIP= 1,300 psi WHIP = 2,000 psi WHIP = 2,500 psi
Production Gas Injection Gas Injection Gas Injection Gas Injection
Rate Rate Power Rate Power Rate Power Rate Power
(BLPD) (10 6 scf/D) (brake hpj (10 6 scflD) (brake hpj (10 6 scf/D) (brake hpj (10 6 scf/D) (brake hpj
3,000 1.70 167 0.65 85 0.30 47 0.30 51
3,500 2.35 230 0.90 117 0.35 54 0.35 60
4,000 1.25 163 0.50 78 0.50 85
4,500 1.75 228 0.65 101 0.65 111
5,000 2.75 358 0.80 124 0.80 136
5,500 1.10 171 1.10 187
6,000 1.50 233 1.45 247
6,500 2.20 341 2.10 357
7,000 4.00 680
• Based on a l00·psi increase above the WHIP for a compressor discharge pressure .
•• Rale not achievable.

1310 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 7OOOI--------=:::;:.:::=====~2~50~0--_,
2000 6500

6000 1700

0-
J:
co
1300
5000 I-
Z 6000
Ci w
0..
U. ~
w
'";:;:; 4000 cr:
~ ::::>
« ow 5500
a: 800
z cr:
o
GAS INJECTION cr: 200
t;3000 PRESSURE, PSI w
::::>
o
o
:s:
o0-
a:
0..
Z
5000
o
en 4500
en
w
cr: 4000
0- 100
~
o(J 3500
3000
PRODUCING
2000 4000 5000 6000 RATE, BFPD
1000 3000
GAS INJECTION RATE (Mscf/D) 75% WATERCUT
OL-__~~__-L~_ _~_ _ _ _~_ _ _ _L -__~
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Fig. 8-Gas lift performance. WELLHEAD INJECTION GAS PRESSURE (PSI)

Fig. 9-Effect of wellhead injection pressure on compression

gas lift calculations, and the use of modem computer requirements.
programs with computer plotting facilities make such
calculations relatively simple. Because of this, there is
no need today to guess at optimal gas lift operating con-
ditions. Likewise, there is no need to limit a system's 4. American National Standard: Steel Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fit-
profitability because of the inadequate design of any part tings, ASME, publication ANSI B61.5, New York City (1977).
of that system. 5. Blann, J.R., Brown, J.S., and Dufresne, L.P.: "Improving Gas
Lift Performance in a Large North African Oil Field," J. Pet.
In the selection of injection gas pressures, a system Tech. (Sept. 1980) 1486-92.
that enables maximum depth gas injection usually will 6. Vogel, J. V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution Gas
provide the most efficient system, With the greater reser- Drive Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1968) 83-92.
voir depths and formation pressures encountered today, 7. Orkiszewski, J.: "Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Ver-
tical Pipe," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1967) 829-38; Trans., AIME,
this often will involve relatively high gas pressures 240.
(1,300 to 2,000 psi [9 to 13.8 MPaD. In such instances, 8. Ros, N.C.J.: "Simultaneous Flow of Gas and Liquid as En-
the advantages of using high-pressure gas over low- countered in Well Tubing," J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1961) 1037-49.
pressure gas far outweigh any disadvantages resulting 9. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: "Experimental Study of
from the higher pressure. Some advantages of using Pressure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase
Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits," J. Pet. Tech. (April
higher pressure gas over lower pressure gas are (1) 1965) 475-84.
higher producing rates, (2) lower injection gas volumes, 10. Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: "A Study of Two-Phase Flow in In-
(3) lower compression power requirements, (4) smaller clined Pipes," J. Pet. Tech. (May 1973) 607-17; Trans., AIME,
line sizes for gas distribution lines, and (5) less 255.
11. "Double Your Gas Lift Pressure," Tech. Bull., Teledyne Merla
downhole equipment required. Co., Garland, TX.
Some disadvantages are (I) higher rated gas distribu-
tion system (lines and fittings) and (2) more critical cas- SI Metric Conversion Factors
ing integrity. °API 141.5/(131.5 + ° API) g/ cm 3
As a final conclusion, it can be stated with only minor bbl x 1.589 873 E-OI m3
equivocation that the injection gas pressure that results in ft x 3.048* E-OI m
the lowest compression horsepower per barrel of fluid OF (OF - 32/1.8) °C
lifted will provide the most economical producing condi- in. X 2.54* E+OO cm
tion and the most efficient gas lift operation. psi X 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
References scf X 2.863 640 E-02 std m 3
1. Suman, J.R.: Petroleum Production Methods, Gulf Publishing
*Conversion factor is exact. JPT
Co., Houston, TX (1923) 342-51.
2. Brown, K.E., Canalizo, C.R., and Robertson, W.: "Evolution of
Gas Lift," paper presented at the 1961 Annual West Texas Oil
Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office Oct. 5,
Lifting Short Course, Lubbock, TX. 1983. Paper accepted for publication Dec. 15, 1983. Revised manuscript received
3. Neely, A.B.: "Continuous Flow Gas Lift Design," Gas Lift, March 21, 1984. Paper (SPE 12202) first presented at the 1983 SPE Annual
Book 6 of vocational training ~eries, API, Dallas (1984). Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco Oct. 5-8.

AUGUST 1984 1311

Discussion of Determining the Most Profitable Gas SPE 13539
Injection Pressure for a Gas Lift Installation
A.F. Bertuzzi, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Co.

This Discussion relates to SPE 12202 by J.R. Blann and
J.D. Williams (Aug. 1984 JPT, Pages 1305-11).
It was gratifying to see the work reported by Poettmann
and Carpenter 1 and Bertuzzi et ai. 2 confirmed in the
cited paper. The essential conclusions of the papers are
that for a continuous gas-lift system (1) gas should be in-
jected at a single point near the level of the producing
formation and (2) at that point there is an optimal amount
of gas to be injected based on minimum horsepower re-
quirements per barrel of fluid lifted.
The basis for these conclusions is first reported by Poett-
mann in Ref. 1 from which Fig. D-l was obtained. Fig.
D-l corresponds to Fig. 9 of the cited paper. Fig. D-2,
taken from Ref. 2, represents what is believed to be the
first field application of the concepts developed by Poett-
mann. Fig. D-2 corresponds to Fig. 8 of the cited paper.
Phillips' first applications were on high-water-cut, high-
volume wells on the U.S. gulf coast. Over the years
Phillips' application has expanded to places such as the
Carpinteria field, offshore California; Andector Ellen-
burger field, west Texas; and currently is being im-
plemented at the Maureen field in the North Sea.

References
I. Poettmann, F.H. and Carpenter, P.G.: "Multiphase Flow of Gas,

I-1
(5
l-
CONSTANT
• OIL RATE
• TUBING PRESSURE
• TUBING SIZE
Oil, and Water Through Vertical Flow Strings with Application to
the Design of Gas-Lift Installations," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API
(1952) 257-317 .
2. Bertuzzi, A.F., Welchon, 1.K., and Poettmann, F.H.: "Descrip-
tion and Analyses of an Efficient Continuous Flow Gas-Lift Installa-
tion," 1. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1953) 271-78; Trans., AIME, 198.
LL
-1 • WATER- OIL RATIO
o
I-
o
w w 100 0
a: a: 0
w INJECilON DElpTH
5 I~ ()
ow

,t
:::J 4500 tEET
0
a: __ f~~FICIENT RANGE
I(f)
w
Ia:
0
a:
Q.
80 0
VO
a: --
w
3':
oCL TEFFICIENT RANGE
ICL
w
1-1
0
5?i
Qo
60 ~_.--- ..-L- ..!... 3810 lET
I~ --'
U)a:
w
(f) ::;; ~g: 400

'!J~
a: 10 a:
o
I /
POINT OF MAXIMUIM I 0
I:: a:
«
en
200 r--
I EFFICIENT
--INJECTION PRESSURE
III
..
--'
«
e-
0
e-
o
o 200 400 600 800 1000
Fig. 0-1-Effect of injection pressure on horsepower re- THOUSANDS OF CUBIC FEET OF GAS
quirements. 1 INJECTED PER DAY

0149·2136/84/0111-3539$00.25 Fig. 0-2-Total liquid flow VS. rate of gas injection. 2

Authors' Reply to Discussion of Determining SPE 13546

the Most Profitable Gas Injection Pressure
for a Gas Lift Installation
J .R. Blann, SPE, Exxon Production Research
J.D. Williams, SPE, Exxon Production Research

This is a response to A.F. Bertuzzi's Discussion.
We regret that the early work of Poettmann and
Carpenter and Bertuzzi, We1chon, and Poettmann was not
referenced in the paper. Certainly most people in the in-
dustry recognize the contribution of this work to our pres-
ent understanding of multi phase flow and gas lift
efficiency. Unfortunately, it has been our experience that
0149-2136/8410111-3546$00.25
NOVEMBER 1984
many of the fundamental principals established by such
pioneers as Poettmann, Carpenter, Bertuzzi, We1chon,
Gilbert, Ros, Baxendall, Orkiszewski, and others is not
understood by many engineers and managers of today.
The purpose of our paper was an attempt to rectify this
situation. We are pleased that our paper, which was based
upon computer simulation, confirmed Phillips Petroleum
Co. 's recent work and the earlier work cited by Bertuzzi.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY 1981