Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE 37423
Continuous-Flow Gas-Lift Installation Design Based on Decreasing Production Rate
with Required Increased Depth of Lift
H.W. Winkler, SPE, Texas Teeh University and H. Maier, SPE, Cameo
Copynght 1997, SocIety of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
ThIs paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 SPE Production Operations
Symposium, held In Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9-11 March 1997.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
pOSition of the SOCiety of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A continuous-flow gas-lift installation design for injection-
pressure-operated gas-lift valves is outlined on the basis of
tubing capacity and daily injection-gas rate. The maximum
daily production rate by gas lift decreases with a required
increase in the depth of lift. The reservoir inflow
perfonnance of the producing fonnation is not considered in
the installation design procedure. This valve spacing method
is suited for gas-lift installations in wells with unknown
productivity and/or changip.g reservoir pressure.
Introduction
A variable production rate gas-lift (GL) installation design is
recommended when the static reservoir bottomhole pressure
(Pws) and deliverability are unknown and/or changing during
the life of the GL operations 1. Wells with little or no
production history include newly drilled wells and wells that
have been plugged back and re-completed in new fonnations.
Fonnation liquid rates, water cuts, and formation gas
production can change significantly as the result of response
from secondary recovery methods and EOR reservoir
management projects. A variable rate GL design illustrates
the flexibility of GL as compared to most other methods of
artificial lift.
As tlle required depth of lift increases, the maximum daily
liquid production rate by GL decreases for a given operating
surface injection-gas pressure (Pio)' The gas-lift valve (GL V)
mandrels can be located on a predictable decreasing
production rate and increasing total gas/liquid ratio (TGLR)
with depth for a given tubing size and Pio' Then the port
sizes in the GLVs can be based on the liquid production rate
and injection gaslliquid ratio (lGLR) for each lower valve
depth (Dv )' The concept of GL V depths and port sizes on the
basis of a decreasing liquid rate and increasing TGLR with
depth is more logical than assuming a high daily production
rate for spacing the upper GLVs and an arbitrary constant
distance of 200 to 400 ft between the lower GL V mandrel
depths.
A varying production rate installation design need not be
considered if the available Pio will unload a well at the
maximum design production rate to the deepest possible Dv,
such as immediately above a packer. These conditions will
occur when a high Pio is available for lifting shallow wells.
A continuous-flow GL installation cannot compete with
an electrical submersible pump (ESP) in terms of a maximum
daily production rate from wells with a high productivity and
a low bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP). An ESP can add
work to the flowing fluids to supplement the lift process, but
continuous-flow GL can only decrease the flowing fluid
density by adding injection gas to the flowing fluid mi:>..1ure.
Additional pump stages can be added to a pump for
increasing the flowing tubing pressure at the pump discharge
while ensuring a minimum BHFP at the pump intake,
Flowing-Production Pressure at Depth Traverses
The flowing-production pressure at depth (PpjD) traverses in
Fig. 1 are based on a daily injection-gas rate (Iqgsc) of 500
MscfID and a fonnation gaslliquid ratio (FGLR) of 200
scf/STB. As the liquid rate decreases, the IGLR and TGLR
increase for the same Iqosc' The injection-gas pressure at
depth (PioD) curve is based on a kick-off and operating Pio of
1000 psig for spacing the top two GLVs. The Pio is
decreased for spacing the third and lower injection-pressure-
operated (!PO) GLVs to ensure closure after the depth of gas
injection transfers to a lower GLV. The injection-gas specific
gravity and the temperatures at the surface and at depth are
the same as the well data given in Table 1.
These PpjD traverses illustrate a decreasing liquid rate
with an increasing required depth of lift for a given Pio' The
fluid properties for these traverses are given in Table 1. The
wellbore is assumed vertical, and the Ros-Gray multiphase
2 H.w. WINKLER. H. MAIER SPE 37423

flow program2 was used to calculate the traverses. there is a wide range in daily production rates and nitrogen·
charged GL Vs are used for lifting a well. Calculated TfL
traverses for natural flow with a FGLR of 200 scflSTB are
No well reservoir inflow performance is considered for the
illustrated in Fig. 2. The flowing temperature gradient
flowing pressure traverses in Fig. 1. These traverses
increases and the flowing wellhead temperature (TwhP
represent the tubing performance above a depth of gas
decreases with a decreasing liquid rate4 .
injection in terms of flowing fluid capacity of a given tubing
The flowing temperature gradient decreases above the
size for the assumed daily liquid rates and TGLRs for these
depth of gas injection which results in a hig~er Twhf The
liquid rates3 . If a well has a high BHFP for a high liquid
change in the slope of the TjD traverse and a highe~ 1"wh{can
rate, the depth of gas injection will occur through an upper
be seen in Fig. 3. The TvD of the upper unloading GLVs
GL V. Conversely, the depth of gas injection will be through
above the depth of gas injection may be higher than when
a lower GL V for a low productivity, tight formation well.
these unloading GLVs were operating as a result of this
change in slope of the TjD tra:rerse. A com~arison ~tween
Wireline Retrievable GL Equipment the Twh{ from Figs. 2 and 3 lliustrates the Increase m TvD
Wireline retrievable GL Vs ensure advantages besides above tfie depth of gas injection. The TvD is approximately
replacement in the event of a GLV malfunc~on SUCh. as .a 225 OF at 9044 ft in both figures for 285 STBID. The Twhfis
bellows failure or damaged seat. When well Informatlon IS approximately 90 OF in Fig. 2 and 141 OF in Fig. 3. A
unknown, or sketchy at best, wireline retrievable GLVs are similar comparison for 1000 STBID with TvD equal to 185
strongly recommended. Wireline retrievable equipment can Of at the depth of gas injection at 4811 ft in both figures.
be justified on the basis of maximizing production and The Twhfis 122 Of in Fig. 2 and is 151 Of in Fig. 3.
ensuring the most efficient GL operation. .
One consideration for justifying retrievable GLVs IS the
Simplified Mathematical Model for IPO GLV
possible variation in valve temperature with the production
Perfonnance
rate. The operating pressure of nitrogen-charged, bellows
A simplified mathematical model to calculate the dynamic
type GLVs increase and decrease with increasi~g and
1q performance for an unbalanced IPO bellows type of
decreasing valve temperature at depth (TvD)' Re-settlng the
GL Vs may be required after initial installation to pre"~nt
Gl:fJ is based on static force balance equations and several
simplifying assumptions. The computer model describes
valve interference by ensuring that the upper unloading
qualitatively the operating mode for single-element,
valves will remain closed.
unbalanced IPO GLVs in a wellS. An lqgsc is calculated for
Changes in the GLV set test~rack valve opening pressure
a given valve bellows assembly load rate (Blr ) and the PioD
(p tro ) or port size may be required to maximize .and stabilize
b
the well production rate. Large GL V port SIZes may e and PpjD at the Dv. . . .
A square sharp-edged port is assumed for the SImplified
replaced with smaller ports to decrease heading and surging
valve model. The ball-seat contact area (As) and the port bore
in a low production rat~ GL installation. A well may not
ID area (A ) are the same for a square sharp-edged seat. The
unload or the daily prod~ct!on is restricted by the GLV port
OD of th/ball on the valve stem is 1I16-in. larger than the
size that is too small for the available lqosc' The GLVs with
bore ID through the sharp-edged seat. Although there may be
small ports can be exchanged for GLVs With larger ports.
a slight seat-line bevel on an actual GLV seat, the small bevel
If the p, is lower than predicted, one or more, upper
has a negligible effect on the calculated pressure response and
GLVs may be "KS
replaced with dummy valves. The 1'nstall atlon
.
lqgsc through the port. The equi~ale~t port area open to gas
may be redesigned to utilize full line Pio at the dep~ of the
flow (A e) is calculated on the baSIS of the lateral surface area
of the ~tum of a right-circular cone for an Aye less than
first unloading GL V. Re-setting the unloading GL Vs In wells
with an intermediate daily production rate may allow
A . The A is generated between the surface of the ball and
lowering the depth of gas injection and increasing ~e p pe . . l'
tlie valve seat as the valve stem moves away from Its seat me.
production rate. The lower GL Vs ma~ be re~laced With
A gas gravity of 0.65 and ratio of specific heats of 1.26 are
dummy valves in high rate wells WIth a high BHFP.
assumed for the lqgsc calculations in this paper. The lqgsc
E>"l>~rience has shown that the stem and seats in GLVs
through the A and Ap is calculated using the Thornhill-
remaining below the working fluid level for an e>..1:ended pe 6 . ffi'
Craver choke equation with a constant discharge coe Clent
period of time are usually damaged. Generally, these G~Vs
of 0.865 and standard conditions of 14.7 psia and 60 Of.
must be replaced after being uncovered by a lower working
The valve-stem travel is controlled by two opening forces.
fluid level and becoming operating valves.
The p'10D is assumed to be applied .over an area equal to the
effective area of the bellows (A j) nunus the A s. and the PpjD
GLV Temperature at Depth is exerted over the As. The B lr is assumed to be liiIear
Flowing well fluids temperature at depth (TjD) .can be an without hysteresis for the stem travel required to attain a
important consideration for efficient GL operatlons when calculated Ape. or A p ' and there is no increase in bellows-
 SPE 37423CONTINUOUS-FLOW GAS-LIFT INSTALLATION DESIGN BASED ON DECREASING PRODUCTION RATE WITH REQUIRED
INCREASED DEPTH OF LIFT 3

dome pressure during this stem travel.
As the ball on the valve stem moves away from its seat
during GL operations for an actual GLV, the two areas over
which the PioD and PpjD are applied will change. The
precise values of these opening forces in the variable-orifice
throttling mode are difficult to define because of the unknown
exact pressures and areas.
For a partially open port, the PioD is assumed to act over
the Ab minus As and the PpjD is assumed to be applied over
the A s regardless of the valve stem position. Although
several of these simplifying assumptions for the GL V model
calculations are known to be approximate, the predicted Jqgse
throughput performance illustrates correctly the manner in
which an IPO GL V operates in a well.
The GLV model calculates: 1) the stem travel for the
givenpioD andppjD; 2) the Ape, if less thanA p ' for gas flow
on the basis of ttie stem travel; and 3) the Jqase based on the
ARe, or Ap. open to gas flow. The stem traveI is based on the
difference between the opening and closing forces and the
Blr. Pressure loss through a check-valve assembly is not
considered in the valve model calculations.
Flowing-Production Transfer Pressure Valve
Spacing Design Line
The distance to the nex.1 lower GLV depends on the flowing-
production transfer pressure at depth (PptD) of the unl()ading
valve above. If the injection-gas initial opening pressure at
depth (PoD) of an IPO unloading GLV is based on the
minimum PpjD traverse for a design production rate, the
PptD will be lower and the distance between valves will be
greater. The assumption of a minimum PpjD gradient
traverse for spacing GLVs 4as several disadvantages. There
is no design safety factor for a higher than predicted flowing
wellhead pressure (Pwhj or flowing pressure gradient. There
is another possible disadvantage from the operations
standpoint. Valves with larger ports may be necessary to
attain the minimum PpjD gradient traverse above the depth of
gas injection. Large port sizes can cause heading and surging
problems and require a greater decrease in operating Pio
between each lower GLV to prevent re-opening of upper
unloading GLVs.
The PptD spacing design line can originate at the surface
or at D" I. If the design line originates at Dv j. the PpfDl for
the maximum design production rate should be less than the
PptDl' A lower percentage factor may be assigned for lower
bquid rates as can be noted from the PpjD traverses in Fig. 1.
The PpjD for lower rates is less; therefore, the PptD can be
less.
The lower end of the valve spacing design line is defined
by an arbitrary pressure difference between the PioD and
PpjD at a maximum Dv' The design pressure difference
depends upon the design maximum depth of lift and the
available Pio' A larger pressure difference is needed for
deeper depths of lift and lower available Pio because of the
greater number of required GLVs. A recommended guideline
is 30 psi per 1000 ft with a minimum pressure difference of
100 psi at the maximum Dv for the bottom GLV.
Installation Spacing Discussion for IPO GLVs
The Dvl can be calculated or determined graphically. U-
tubing of the kill or formation fluids to the surface through
D" I must be possible with the Pio at the wellsite. Many
installations are based on a kick-off Pio that exceeds the
design Pio and aU-tubing pwh[that is less than the pwh[for
the final production rate.
The Dv2 is based on the full line Pio because the well is
being gas lifted from D v1 ' The Dv3 andpoD2 are based on a
lower Pio to ensure that the top GL V remains closed while
lifting from the second GLV to uncover the third GL V. Two
operating conditions need to be checked related to the re-
opening pressure of the top GL V. These two conditions are:
l)the increase in Pio to stroke the GLV stem, and 2)the
decrease in PoDl from the maximum PpjDl immediately
after injection gas enters the tubing at D v2 '
The decrease in the Pio for spacing each remaining lower
IPO GLV is based on the re-opening pressure of the second
GL V above since the well is being lifted from the GLV
immediately above. The PoD and Ptro for each lower valve
are based on the re-opening pressure of the valve immediately
above. The decrease in the operating Pio for spacing and
setting each lower GLV is based on the same two conditions
mentioned for ensuring that the top GLV remains closed after
the depth of gas injection transfers to D v2 '
When the BHFP is less than Pws' there will be bottomhole
pressure (BHP) drawdown and formation liquid and gas
production. The TGLR above the depth of gas injection will
become the IGLR plus the FGLR. The PpjD traverse below
unloading and operating GLVs will mclude only the
formation liquid and gas production.
The valve closing pressure at D v , PoD and PptD for an
IPO GLV cannot be the same for a constant PioD. These
production pressures at depth are the same value for this
design method because an increase in the PioD is assumed for
stroking the GLV stem. This design procedure may be
referred to as a constant PptD and varying PioD valve spacing
method. The intersection of the PptD valve spacing design
line and the Dv defines the value of PptD for each Dv'
The PoD of a GLV must be less than the available PioD.
The necessary increase in the PioD to stroke a GLV depends
upon the required Jqgse, Ap and Blr. The installation design
calculations are based on GLV and tubing performance
curves. The simplified IPO GL V performance model is used
to calculate a valve performance curve for each GLV and the
Ros-Gray program for calculating a tubing performance curve
4 H.W. WINKLER, H. MAIER SPE 37423

for each Dv. The two perfonnance curves for each GL V illustrated in Fig. 4 and given in Table 2. The kill fluid
station is displayed on a cross-plot. unloading data for calculating the Ptro for the GLVs are
The necessary increase in the PioD to stroke a GL V for given in Table 2. No reservoir fluid production is assumed to
unloading and lifting a well is determined from the cross- enter the wellbore when Pws is less than the BHP. Fig. 4 and
plot. If the PoD plus the pressure increase for stroking a GL V Table 2 illustrate the GL installation unloading sequence for
is greater than the available spacing PioD, a lower PoD must well conditions prior to BHP drawdoWIl. The actual Ptro for
be assumed. A detailed eX"planation of this design procedure the third and fourth GLVs had to be decreased because of
. . 5
was reported In a prevlOus paper- . higher predicted TvD resulting from the maximum design
tubing capacity production rate after BHP drawdoWIl.
Before the top GLV is uncovered by V-tubing the kill fluid
Continuous-Flow Installation Design and Unloading
into the tubing and the injection gas enters the tubing at Dv 1'
Operations
the BHP will remain 4555 psig. For apptDl of 415 psig, the
A GL installation is designed to unload the kill fluid and
BHP decreases to 3970 psig with load fluid below the depth of
formation fluids after a shut-in period. The GL valve spacing
gas injection. Only kill fluid will be produced during initial
and set Ptro for the GLVs should achieve ~aximum. B~
GL unloading operations until the BHP is less than Pws. Kill
drawdoWIl with the available Pio. The kill flmd productIOn IS
fluid will continue to enter the formation as long as the BHP
V-tubed from the casing annulus into the tubing through all
exceeds Pws. If the Pws is less than 3970 psig, no formation
GLVs below an operating unloading GLV. The unloading
fluids will enter the wellbore while gas lifting from the top
fluid production rate depends primarily on the lqgsc into the
GLV.
casing annulus. After BHP drawdoWIl occurs, the PpjD
The Pws needs to exceed 3400 psig for the second GL V,
traverse below the depth of gas injection will change as the
2895 psig for the third GLV, 2460 psig for the fourth GL V
percentage of formation fluids ~ncrea.se. T?e PptD and PpjD
and so on to achieve BHP drawdown with the design PptD
traverses will differ for unloading kill flmd as compared to
and kill fluid traverses below each valve. No friction was
well formation fluids. A formation fluids PpjD traverse below
assumed for determining these BHPs in Fig. 4; i.e., only the
a Dv implies that all kill fluid has been recovered and only
pressure from a static column of load fluid. The kill fluid
formation fluids are being gas lifted (FGLR and water cut).
unloading rate may decrease to 100 STBID or less before the
The reference depth for Pws and the BHPs is 9900 ft which is
nex1: lower valve is uncovered, and the friction loss for the
the maximum Dv.
flowing kill fluid in the tubing would be negligible.
The GL installation design in this paper is based on the
The increase in PioD above PoD is 20 psi for stroking all
well being loaded to the surface with a kill fluid. Since there
GL Vs except the top unloading GLV. Only 10 psi was
is no P and productivity data available for this variable rate
ws GL installation is designed to lift th e maxImum
. assumed for the top GLV and the bottom valve is an orifice-
well, the
check valve (OCV) which remains fully open. An lqgsc of
design rate from the upper GLVs. Only tubing flow capacity,
less than 60 Mscf/D is required to unload kill fluid at a rate of
and not well productivity, is considered for the design
200 STBID with a PptDl of 415 psig.. The calc~ated PioD.1
calculations using IPO G~ Yr. increase to stroke this type of valve WIth a 3116-In. ID port 1S
between 2 and 3 psi for an Jqgsc of 60 MscfID based on the
GLV Spacing The full-line PioD traverse is based on ~n GLV performance model. The Ptro 1 of 931 psig at 60 0F is
available p. of 1000 psig at the wellsite and the gas graVIty based on a PoDl that is 10 psi less than the full-line PioDl of
and tempe~tures in Table l. The Pptp valve spacing design 1050 psig, apptDl of 415 psig, and a TvDl of 122 0F.
line originates at a pressure that IS 20 percent of the
difference between Pio and Pwhj added to Pwhj (280 psig at
GL Operations Mter BHP Drawdown
surface). The valve spacing design line terminates at a PptD
The predicted GL unloading transfer pressures, valve
equal to the available Pio at maximum Dv minus 30 times the
temperatures, injection-gas and liquid production rates, and
maximum Dv divided by 1000 (949 psig at 9900 ft).
BHFPs are given in Table 3 for the third through the ninth
-:r:he Dv1 is calculated on the basis of ~e. difference GLV. No BHP drawdown is expected while unloading with
between the surface unloading Pwhf and Pio diVIded by the
the first and second GL Vs.
static load fluid gradient (2000 ft). 'The increase in the Pio to
Dv 1 is neglected as a design safety factor. ~e static l~ad
First GLV: For a PptDl of 415 psig and a 1000 ~TBID
fluid gradient rather than a PpjD traverse WIth. ~o~u~n
formation fluids PpjD traverse ?elow Dv~, the PpfD2 1S 775
liquid and gas production below the depth of gas InJecUon IS
psig. Since the spacing PioD2 1S 1087 pSlg, the oepth of gas
used for locating all valve depths in Fig. 4.
injection would have transferred to Dv2 long before attaining
a PpjD2 of 775 psig. The PpfD2 with the fonnation fl~ds
Unloading Kill Fluid The kill fluid unloading sequence PpjD traverse below Dvl woUld ~ve t? ~x~ the spac~ng
pressures (PptD and BHP) for BHPs exceeding Pws are P10 ... to lift from the top GLV WIthout Injectlon gas entenng
· D?
SPE 37423CONTINUOUS-FLOW GAS-LIFT INSTALLATION DESIGN BASED ON DECREASING PRODUCTION RATE WITH REQUIRED
INCREASED DEPTH OF LIFT 5

the tubing at Dv2' The PpjDl i~ 649 psig for a spacing p' D?
of.l087 psig. The TGLR IS only 80 scflSTB for a Pwhfof~ 00 Fourth GLV: A daily production rate of 1000 STBID can be
pSIg and a PpjDl of 649 psig which is less than the FGLR. gas lifted from the fourth GLV in this installation if the
The formation fluids PpfD traverse below the depth of gas PpfD4 exceeds 979 psig. The BHFP is 2357 psig for an lq
injection cannot have a FGLR greater than the traverse above. 01 500 ~cfID and a PpjD4 equal to 979 psig. The ctfil~
The top GL V is an unloading valve in this installation. productIOn rate decreases to 675 STBID with an lq of 500
Msc~ before u:nsfe~ng to the ~ GLV. Thff tD4 is
approXimately 8.)3 pSIg for the spacmg PioD5 of 11~2 psig
Second G~V: The PptD2 is 719 psig for the spacing PioD3
based on a formation ~uids PpfD. traverse for 675 STBID
of 1109 pSIg based on a 1000 STBID formation fluids P ifD
traverse below Dv 2' The TGLR is 260 scflSTB for the P ~i:)?
below D v4. The BHFP IS 2157 pSlg for 833 psig at D v4' If
equal to 719 psig and represents an lqosc of 60 MscfID. PTh~
the ~HFP for this well is between 2157 and 2357 psig, the
predicted GL operations of the fourth GLV are shown in Fig.
PpfD2 would be 808 psig for a TGLrf equal to the FGLR of
6. The calculat~ Ptro4 is 880 psig at 60 OF. The PoD4 was
20.0 scflSTB .. !he operating range in PpjD2 is 719 to 808
d~creased 11 pSI so that the fourth GLV remains open at the
pSIg for gas lifting 1000 STBID from the second GL V with an
higher TvD4 for the formation fluid production rate as
lqgsc between 60 and 0 MscfID. A 3116-in. ID port was
compared to the TvD4 for the kill fluid rate.
selected because of the low maximum lq sc requirement.
The Ptro2 of 905 psig at 60 OF is based on ~e pressures and
Fifth GLV.· The maximum production rate is 710 STBID
temperature in Table 2. This installation design and analysis
after the depth of gas injection transfers from the fourth to the
are based on the assumption that the second GL V performs
fifth GL V. The PpjD5 is 995 psig and the BHFP is 1997 psig
only as an unloading GLV for transferring the depth of gas
for 710 STBID an~ an lqgsc of ?OO MscfID. For a spacing
injection to the third GL V.
PioD6 of 1122 pSlg, the PptD5 IS equal to 876 psig with a
formati?n fluids PpjD traverse for 500 STBID below D v 5'
Third GL v.. After transferring the depth of gas injection
The daily productIOn rate before the depth of gas injection
from Dv2 to Dv3, a 1000 STBID rate can be gas lifted from
transfers from the fifth to the si}.1h GLV is 500 STBID with
the third GLV with appjD3 equal to 1084 psig and an lqo
of 50 MscfID. The 1qgsc of the third GL V exceeds °50 an lqgsc equal to 500 MscfID. The BHFP is 1843 psig for the
PptD5 ~f 876 psig and 500 STB.ID. The calculated Ptro5 is
MscfID when PioD3 equals 1089 psig on the basis of the
874 pSlg at 60 OF. No TvD adjustment was required. The
GL V performance model. ..
predicted GL operations for the fifth GLV are illustrated in
The PptD3 is 783 psig for a' spacing PioD4 of 1118 psig
Fig. 7.
with a formation fluids PpjD traverse for 1000 STBID below
D v 3' For a formatio~ fluids PpfD traverse based on 1000
Sixth GLV: The daily production rate is 550 STBID for an
STBID. and lqgsc of :>00 Msc~ above D v 3, the PpjD3 is
lqgsc of 500 MscfID after the depth of gas injection transfers
approXimately the same z83 pSIg. The PoD3 is 1071 psig for
from the fifth to the si}.1h GLV. For the 550 STBID rate and
a PptD3 of 783 psig an9 :a Tv D3 of 184 DF. The lqosc
a PpjD6 of 1022 psig, the BHFP is 1723 psig. The depth of
exceeds 500 Mscf!D before PioD3 reaches 1089 psig which
gas inj~tion will transfer from Dv6 to Dv7 at a daily
implies that the lqgsc through the third GLV presents no
productIon :ate of 3:5 STBID wi~ an lqgsc of 500 MscfID.
problem.
The PptD6lS 912 pSlg for the spacmgpioD7 of 1120 psig and
A 1000 STBID formation fluids rate results in a
a formation.flui:ts PpjD traverse for 395 STBID below D v 6.
significant difference in GLV TvD as compared to a 200 BPD
The BHFP IS 1:>89 pSIg for the PptD6 of 912 psig and 395
kill fluid rate. The TvD3 increases from 166 to 184 DF. The
STBID. Refer to Table 3 for the Calculated Pt of the si}.1h
PoD3 for calculating the Ptro3 was decreased by 20 psi so that .. G ro
and remaImng LVs.
the third GLV remains open at the higher Tv D3' The
calculated Ptro3 is 885 psig at 60 OF. The port size for the
Seventh GL v.. After the depth of gas injection transfers from
third and all lower GLVs is 1/4-in. ID.
Dv7 to D v 8, the daily production rate is 420 STBID for an
The BHFPs for 1000 STBID and an lqosc of 50 to 500
lqgsc of 500 Mscf!D. !he l!P.fD~ is 1021 psig for the 420
Mscf!D are 2934 psig for Pp.f!)3 of 1084 ps'ig and 2536 psig
STBID, and .the BHFP IS 147() pSlg. The PptD7 is 942 psig
for PptD3 of783 psig. If the BHFP is less than 2536 psig, the
for the spacmg PioD8 equal to 1114 psig and a formation
~L ms~lation will .continue the unloading process to D v 4'
flui~ ?pjD traverse for 330 STBID below D v 7' The depth of
FIg. 5 IS a graphical illustration of the predicted GL
gas mJectIon transfers from Dv7 to Dv8 at a daily production
operations when gas lifting the maximum design production
rate of 330 STBID with an lq sc of 500 Mscf!D. The BHFP
rate from the third GL V. The upper two GLV s will remain
is 1386 psig for app tD7 of94f psig and 330 STBID.
closed because of the increase in TvDl and T D2 from the
high production rate. v
6 H.w. WINKLER, H. MAIER
Eighth GL V: After the depth of gas injection transfers from
Dv7 to DvS' the maximum production rate is approximately
285 S~ID. The Iqgsc is limited by the GL V. The PptDS is
966 pSlg for the spacing PioD9 of 1106 psig with a formation
fluids PpjD traverse for 285 STBID below DvS- The BHFP is
1224 pSlg ~or a PptDS of :66 psig. The GL V performance
model predIcts a lqgsc of )00 Mscf!D through this GLV as
PpjDS approaches %6 psig before the depth of gas injection
transfers from DvS to D v 9'
Ninth GL V: Operating conditions for this GL V are similar to
those for the eighth GLV because the Iqgsc is limited by the
GL V. The depth of gas injection transfers to Dv 10 when
PptD9 decrease to 985 psig with a formation fluids PpjD
traverse for 230 STBID below D v 9' The PptD9 of 985 pSlg is
based on a spacing PioD10 and BHFP of 1096 psig. For a
maximum PioD9 of 1086 psig and a PptD9 of 985 psig, the
GLV model predicts an Iqgsc of 445 MscfID through this
GLV.
Orifice-Check Valve: If an orifice is too small, the daily
production rate is limited. Heading and surging is a
possibility if an orifice is too large because of an insufficient
pressure loss through the orifice to stabilize the Iqgsc with
minor changes in PpfD'
The orifice size selection is based on an upstreamPioD10
of 1076 psig and an Iqgsc of 500 MscfID. A 3/16-in. ID
orifice results in a 137 psi pressure loss and a maximum
production rate of 190 STBID. The pressure loss tbr9ugh a
1I4-in. ID orifice is 39 psi and the 'maximum production rate
is 260 STBID on the basis of tubing capacity and an I~sc of
500 MscfID. An OCV with a 1I4-in. ID orifice is
recommended for this well.
Re-Opening of Upper U~l~ading GLVs: After the depth of
gas injection transfers to the ne,,:t lower GL V, the re-opening
pressure of the GL V above should be calculated on the basis
of the production rate for PptD from the ne:>..110wer operating
GL V. The TvD normally decreases at lower daily liquid
rates. The flowing temperature gradient decreases above the
depth of gas injection as previously noted in Figs. 2 and 3,
and the TvD of the GLV above an operating valve may
increase for a lower liquid rate.
The pressures and temperatures are given in Table 4 for
calculating the re-opening pressure of a closed GL V above an
operating valve after BHP drawdown for GL V numbers :3
through 9. The production rate and PpjD for each GLV in
Table 4 are based on the transfer production rate and PptD of
the ne>..1 lower operating valve.
Using the third GLV as an example for illustrating the
calculations in Table 4, the Tv D3 is 185 Of when gas lifting
675 STBID from the fourth GL V. The calculated PoD3 is
1081 psig. A PoD3 of 1081 psig increases to 1109 psig at
DV4 which is 11 psi greater than the maximum design PioD4
SPE 37423
of 1098 psig for stroking the fourth GL V. The third GL V
should not re-open while lifting from the fourth GL V. Fig. 8
is a re-opening pressure analysis of the third GLV while gas
lifting the transfer rate of 675 STBID from the fourth GL V.
By comparing the PoD of the closed GLV above to the
PioD at the lower operating valve Dv in Table 4, valve
interference from re-opening of the valve above does not
appear to be a problem for all but the ninth GL V. The ninth
GL V will not close after transfer to the OCV when the
PioD10 exceeds 1069 psig. If multi-point gas injection occurs
at this depth, it will not have a significant affect on the
overall efficiency of the GL operations.
Conclusions
The multiphase fluid flow and flowing fluid temperature at
depth correlations used for the calculations in this paper
affect the results of the installation design and analysis.
However, the basic concepts outlined for the valve spa~ing
and unloading operations are not compromised by these
correlations. Other correlations may change the numbers, but
the fimdamentals remain the same.
• The variable rate GL installation illustrates the flexibility
of GL as compared to other methods of artificial lift.
• The importance of wireline retrievable GLVs in a well
\vith unknown andlor changing reservoir conditions
cannot be over emphasized to ensure maximum
production and continued efficient GL operation.
• The change i~ ~e .slop~ of the. TjD traverse above the
depth of gas InjectIOn IS a major factor in preventing
upper unloading nitrogen-charged GLVs from re-
opening.
• When the maximum daily production rate from a Dv is
less than the tubing capacity for lifting from that Dv with
a given Iqgsc, the depth of gas injection will transfer to
the ne>..1 lower GL V. This installation design method is a
universal type for IPO GL Vs.
• When the depth of gas injection transfers to the ne>..1
lower GLV, the same daily production rate can be gas
lifted with less Iqgsc, and a higher, production rate can be
lifted with the transfer Iqgsc' . .
• If the example GL well design in this paper unloads to
and operates from a GLV as deep as the seventh GLV at
8460 ft, an increase in the ~ly production rate can be
e>"l>ected from increasing the PioD by re-setting the Ptro
of the upper unloading GL Vs or exchanging the GLVs
above the static fluid level with dummy valves.
NOMENCLATURE
A b = effective area ofbellows, in. 2
A P = valve port bore ID area, in. 2
A pe ~ iquivalent valve port area open to gas flow,
m.
As = valve stem-seat contact area, in. 2
SPE 37423CONTINUOUS-FLOW GAS-LIFT INSTALLATION DESIGN BASED ON DECREASING PRODUCTION RATE WITH REQUIRED
INCREASED DEPTH OF LIFT 7

= valve be/lows-ass~mbly load rate, psi/in.

= datum depth for BHP pressures and TABLE 1 - WELL DATA FOR A VARIABLE-RATE
temperature, fi CONTINUOUS-FLOW GL INSTALLATION DESIGN
Dv = valve depth, fi WITH NITROGEN-CHARGED IPO GLVs
Jqgsc = daily injection-gas rate, MscpD Casing size and weight:
PioD = injection-gas pressure at depth, psig OD, in 7
Pio = surface injection-gas pressure, psig Weight, Ib,/ft 26
PoD = injection-gas initial opening pressure at depth Tubing OD, in. 2-7/8
of an JPO GLV, psig Tubing length, ft 10,000
PpjD = flowing-production pressure at depth, psig Reference depth (Dd) for bottom hole
PptD = flowing-production transfer pressure at depth, injection-gas pressure and reservoir
psig temperature, ft 10,000
Bottomhole reservoir temperature at Dd, 232
Ptro = test-rack valve opening pressure (at 60 of for OF
bellows-charged GLV), psig
Maximum depth for bottom valve, ft 9,900
Pwhf = flowing wellhead pressure, psig
Static bottomhole reservoir pressure
Pws = static resen'oir bottomhole pressure, psig Unknown
= flowing well fluids temperature at depth, of at Dd, psig
~ = valve temperature at depth, of
= flowing wellhead temperature, of
Static kill load-fluid gradient, psilft
Static kill load fluid level from surface, ft
0.45
0
TWhf Productivity index range, STB/D/psi Unknown
Oil gravity, °API 35
References Water specific gravity 1.03
1. API Recommended Practice 11 V6: "Recommended Practice =
Gas specific gravity (air 1) 0.65
for Design of Continuous Flow Gas Lift Installations Using Formation gas/oil ratio, scf/STB 400
Injection Pressure Operated Valves," first edition, American Water cut, % 50
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., February 1, 1992. Formation gaslliquid ratio, scf/STB 200
2. Ros, N.C.J. and Gray, H.E.: "Pressure Traverse Curves for Design range of daily production rates,
Two-Phase Vertical Flow in Oil Wells," Shell Development STB/D 200 to 1000
Company, Houston (Nov. 1963). U-tubing and flowing wellhead
3. Winkler, H.W. and Eads,' P.T.: "Rate/Depth 'Tubing pressure, psig 100
Performance Curves," SPED&CJ(June 1994) 119-123. Flowing wellhead temperature, OF 100
4. Sagar, R.K., Doty, D.R. and Schmidt, Z.: "Predicting Injection-gas temperature at surface, OF 100
Temperature Promes in a Flowing Well," SPEPE (November Surface kickoff and operating injection
1991) 441-448.
gas pressure (available at wellsite), psig 1,000
5. Winkler, H.W. and. Eads, P.T.: "Applying the Basic
Kickoff and operating injection-gas
Performance Concepts ~f ~ingle-Element, Unbalanced Gas-Lift
pressure at Dd, psig 1,248
Valves for Installation Design," SPEP&FJ (August 1993) 211-
216.
Maximum daily injection-gas rate, Mscf/D 500
6. Cook, H.L. and Dotterweich, F.R.: "Report on the Calibration Test-rack setting temperature of IPO
of Positive Flow Beans as Manufactured by Thornhill-Craver GLV, OF 60
Company," Texas A & I Univ., Kingsville, TX (1946). Flowing-production transfer pressure valve
spacing line percent factor at surface, % 20
SI Metric Conversion Factors Flowing-production transfer pressure valve
0API 141.5/(131.5+oAPI) g/cm 3 = spacing line pressure differential at
bbl X 1.589873 E - 01 = m3 maximum valve depth, psi 297
ft X 3.048* E - 01 =m Description of GLVs:
ft3 X 2.831 685 E - 02 m3 = 1-1/2-in. OD wireline retrievable single-element
of (oF-32)/1.8 °c = unbalanced IPO nitrogen-charged bellows valves with
in. X 2.54* E + 00 cm = =
square sharp-edged seat, Ab 0.77 in. 2 , and
in. 2 X 6.451 6* E+OO cm 2 = =
Blr 400 psi/in.
Ibf X 4.448222 E+OO N =
Ibm X 4.535 924 E-01 kg =
psi X 6.894 757 E+OO kPa =
'Conversion factor is exact.
8 H.w. WINKLER, H. MAIER SPE 37423

Pressure (psig)
TABLE 2 - KILL FLUID UNLOADING o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

DATA FOR Ptro CALCULATIONS o ,

1000
\1 \
VLV Dv
No. feet
PortiO PoD
in.
1 2000 0.1875 1040 415
P PtD
Q§i.g Q§i.g
TvD P,ro
of Q§i.g Q§i.g
122 928 3970
BHP
2000

3000
~ ~'
~\~
~.~::
........ ........
...........
-,
.\t- f-- 2-718 - in. 00 Tl.Oing
WIlIer cui • 50%
Pwhl = '00 psig

2 3492 0.1875 1057 516 146 905 3400 ~4000

\\' ~ " :"'l
. u •••••

.................
Pio' 1000 psig
FGI.R =200 scfISTB
'Qgsc =500 MsdID
.!!
~5000
\ f\~ ~ ",l
3 4811 0.25 1069 605 166 901* 2895 1l.
~ 6000 \'1l ~~'\ ~, .J\
4 5950 0.25 1078 682 183 886* 2460 \'b P\~ l~ ~
'\ p\\ ~~'.: ~"N ~ ~.
7000
5 6927 0.25 1082 748 198 871 2086 .:-.
8000
6 7759 0.25 1082 804 209 858 1767 1\ \ ......::.-.: i~" ~~ ~
9000
7 8460 0.25 1080 852 218 847 1500 10000 \ "t~ .~1'~ ~~ ~ ""-
8 9044 0.25 1074 891 224 836 1276 Fig. 1 - PpIO Traverses for 100 fo 1000 BLPD wi1h an ,PO GLV Spacing OIfe~ay.

9 9521 0.25 1066 923 229 826 1094

10 9900 0.25 OCV
* Refer to Tables 3 and 4 for the final Ptro after
adjustment for TvD based on flowing formation fluid Temperature (oF)

rates much higher than the design kill fluid

o
,,
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240
-'
production rate of 200 BLPO.
1000 "~ bt ~ ~ tt~ I I
2000
~~ r-... ~'" ~
TABLE 3 - PREDICTED GL UNLOADING 3000 ~ ~ I" ~ ~
TRANSFER CONDITIONS AFTER BHP I~ l'Q- ~ ~ ~
04000
DRAWDOWN BASED ON TUBING 1! ~ f'" :" ~~
" .:: ~ i'..;
~5000
CAPACITY AND FORMATION FLUIDS 1l.
~ 6000 ~~
I
VLV Dv P PtD TvD PoD P tro /qgsc Rate BHFP
7000 - '-- I "- ~~
No. feet Q§i.g of Q§i.g ~ Mscf/O STB/D .Q§i.g 2-7/11-in. 00 Tubing
WIItorCUt = 50%
~~~
3 4811 783 184 1071 885 500 1000 2536 8000 - - FjLR - 200 scfISTB I
~~
4 5950 833 193 1079 880
5 6927 876 202 1081 871
500
500
675
500
2157
1843
9000

10000
"'"
211 'F atS900 ~

Fig 2 - Flowing temperature al depth traverses for varying liquid rates by natural flow.
6 7759 912 209 1075 858 500 395 1589
7 8460 942 218 1074 847 500 330 1386
8 9044 966 224 '~069 836 500 285 1224
9 9521 985 229 1062 826 445 230 1096
Temperature (oF)
70 80 90 100110120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240

", ~
TABLE 4 - RE-OPENING PoD OF THE GLV o 1 'F~
ABOVE AN UNLOADING VALVE ON THE 1000 l'\ 1 '
BASIS OF PptD FOR THE UNLOADING 2000
~~ ~ \'t>
VALVE AFTER BHP DRAWDOWN 3000 ~ ~- ~~
~~ '\
VLV Dv P tro Rate P pfD TvD PoD P oD* PioD*
No. feet Q§i.g STB/O Q§i.g of Q§i.g Q§i.g Q§i.g 48 1 ~ 6-, 1 S' ~
3 4811 885 675 673 185 1081 1109 1098 ", ~
4 5950 880 500 748 195 1085 1109 1102 7000
2-7~i1. 00 Tubing
Water CUt =50%
"- r\
5 6927 871 395 808 205 1091 1112 1102 8000
FGLR =200 scfSTB
tOgs< = 500 MscflO
~ 1\
6 7759 858 330 859 213 1086 1103 1100 9000 ,9( f44 "'- f\
7 8460 847 285 899 222 1084 1098 1094
10000
2 l ' at ~O ~
8 9044 836 230 932 226 1075 1087 1086 Fig. 3 - Examples of a decrease in ftowmg temperature gradient
9 9521 826 260 992 228 1060 1069 1076 and increase in lTD above the depth of gas injection.

* Pressures at the depth of the next lower operating valve

SPE 37423CONTINUOUS-FLOW GAS-LIFT INSTALLATION DESIGN BASED ON DECREASING PRODUCTION RATE WITH REQUIRED
INCREASED DEPTH OF LIFT 9

1000

200D
, 200

, 0,\1

~~415
400
I
Pressure (psig)

I
600 800

I
1000

\
\
1000
'"tJ

'0
,10sn
1200 1400 o 200
O~-+~-L~-L~-L~~~~~~~

1000
400
Pressure (pslg)
600 BOO 1000 1200

··~.·····:··········.I
1400

~OOO

,~{~ ~
l\:. .
2000 ·ct----;·--·'····~
~'ft
3000 ....~
3492
~:51 6
~\\ I'---... ,
'108,
y, 3000
~ 4000
~ J:::r::::::::j
1:
J!!
~ 5000
- ~ 811 f\~\ 605
-.....-......
, 1109 J!!
~4000 ·~·····r··········!
g- i,\ ......
\~ ~682
1i
~ o
CD

O 6000 5950 I 118

\ ......
' 5000 :.•.•.•.•..~.....-..•.••....•....~

7000 6927 I ~\7 ~ 1122

5950: : ::. .
i75~
I \~ ~ 11 ~
6000 ·-··~:·-··-r-·-··-··-eja
;. '. Sp.acing :
.tttB...
BODO .. " .......:....... . . . : ~"'. ·PipD'j····~
~~B52'
8460 I 11 0 6927: , : <l'~ : 11~22 :
9000 -1.00#- 2-7l8-in. OD Tubing ~\89rk I.
7000
. 2-7fB-ln. 00 TUblng'r"; 'Zi.;;"':
:q.....
~~~
Water Cut: 50% .....:..... ;.....:..
9521 Kill Fluid = 0.45 psilf! 10
9900 FGLR : 0 scflSTB 949 09 i\l ?48 FGlR = 200 seffS TB : : ; ;1'
.... ; .................................................. ; ........... : .......... :
10000 BOOO
Flg.4 - Unloading kill ftuld wtth no BHP drawdown Fig. 6 - Predicted GL operations from fourth GLV.
and fonn ation nuid feed in.

Pressure (pslg) Pressure (pslg)

600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 600 1000
I , I , I , I
.: 97.0 99:0
.. :~ .. ) ....
1000
1000 ....:..... :.......... :

~: .. ~ 2000
c:> :
2000 ...:. -.. "l"' ........ ~ 3000

~ 3000
~ 4000 .... :.:, ...........
iii
g J!!
.r: ~ 5000
1i 1'i
~ 4000 :.....;...........~ CD
o
6000 ....:......... .

11~09
7000
·"6"9'2-t·········I··········"·········:·: ...: ...:.... ."i.i·~.~.·.·.·.·_ J

5;5;L;~i'"··~~;::i:;!·J~.;.~!J~. ;·] lfuE~G=tJ~!~

5000

BODO
6000
: Water Cut: 50% ; 't>.,('; ; 2-7/8-in. 00 Tubing :: : -I' :
9000 Water Cut. 50% :.....: .... :.....,...........~
; FGLR = 200 sef/STB ·;··Glr ··
. ; ~ FGLR • 200 scflSTB ~ .~
7000 . . ---_. -.'. --". _. --, .......
", . _ ..'. . _ .. ~ 10000 -- .. : .....:............:...........................; .....:..... :.................... :

Fig. 5 - Predicted GL operations from third GLV. Fig. 7 - Predicted GL operalions from fifth GLV.
10 H.W. WINKLER, H. MAIER SPE 37423

Pressure (pslg)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.. ...... .: .......... : ......; .... :.... _-.; .... ::..... :" ...:..... ~ .....~...........~

i~[i:=;'iT~i[F:1
1000

2000
....... L..:tl. : .... ;.... :.....;...... .. .... ,.....,....... ,
~ 3000
.....;..... j.....~)~;. '....:
.. + ~ ......
~ .... ;:
.... +..... .
. ~
~

. . . . ~.~ya
.c
a.
~ 4000 .....j..........~....~-.....
w ~
....

·ftori3·
j 08:1
5000 : .... :..

600G

7000
Fig. 8 - Predicted re-opening of third GLV while gas
lifting 675 SiBJD lrandfer rate from fourth GLV.