EXTENDING LIFE OF LIQUID LOADED GAS WELL

BY USING VELOCITY STRING

Group No: G-03

1. Jamshed Ali K19PG24 (G.L)

2. Zeeshan Ahmed K19PG01 (A G.L)
3. Zuhaib Ahmed K19PG28 (Member)

Supervised by: Engr. IMRAN ALI MEMON

Co-Supervised by:Engr. IZHAR AHMED MEMON
1

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, MUET SZAB Campus Khairpur Mirs
 Outlines

 Introduction
 Objectives
 Methodology
 Main innovations
 Research outcomes and discussions
 Concluding remarks
 References
 Acknowledgments

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, MUET SZAB Campus Khairpur Mirs
 Introduction

 Liquid load-up is the inability of a gas well to remove produced liquid from the
wellbore .the presence of liquid phase during gas production is recognized as a
detriment to flow from the gas wells
 A gas well begins to load-up with liquid when velocity of gas phase in the tubing
becomes insufficient to transport produced liquid to the surface
 once this occurs, the liquid begins to accumulate at the bottom of production
string thereby imposing an additional back pressure against formation and
reduced production until well ceases production. Liquid loading is not only drastic
reduction in production. it also poses potential challenging to impair the
continuity of gas production.

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, MUET SZAB Campus Khairpur Mirs
 INTRODUCTION

 There are several techniques for liquid loading prevention and mitigation
such as plunger lift , installing gas lift ,reduced tubing size foaming
agents/chemical and using different correlation Model have been developed to
calculate the critical /terminal velocity for prediction of liquid loading such as
Tuner Coleman, Li’s and Nossier Model but tuner model gives the most
conservative value of critical velocity it is widey used and accepted in oil and
gas industry
 A smaller-diameter tubing string run inside the production tubing of a well to
mitigate or remove liquid loading problems and to restore liquid loaded well
back to flow
 Installing the velocity string reduce the flow area and increase the flow
velocity the higher the gas velocity lift up the liquid droplet in wellbore

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, MUET SZAB Campus Khairpur Mirs
Source:James F. LeaJr, Lynn Rowlan,
SCENARIO
5 BHEHIND THE LIQUID LOAD UP IN A GAS WELL
in Gas Well Deliquification (Third
Edition), 2019
6
 OBJECTIVES

1. To Design optimum velocity string size to reduce liquid loading problem

in Gas wells.

2. To investigate the effect of selected velocity string on the production life

of the gas wells

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, MUET SZAB Campus Khairpur Mirs
 Methodology

LITREATURE REVIEW

SELECTION DATA

Conventional CREATE A MODEL BY USING Velocity string

case IPM PROSPER case

COMPARISON AND SENSITIVITY

ANALYSIS

IF YES RESULTS AND

IF NO
CONCLUSION
Figure 4.1 IPM PROSPER 1st WINDOW

9
 10
Figure 4.2 PROSPER window 1
Figure 4.3 IPM PROSPER
11 PVT window
Figure 4.4 Selection of12 Model for IPR
Figure 4.5 input data13 for IPR model
 14
Figure 4.6 IPR CURVE
Equipment Data

FIGURE 4.7 EQUIPMENT INPUT DATA

15
Deviation Survey Data

FIGURE 4.8 DEVIATION SURVEY INPUT DATA

16
Figure 4.9 Downhole Equipment Input Data For Conventional Tubing
17
Figure 4.10 Geothermal Gradient input Data

18
System 3 Variable

FIGURE 4.12 SYSTEM VARIABLE INPUT DATA

19
System 3 Variable Data

FIGURE 4.13 SYSTEM VARIABLE SELECTION DATA

20
 21
FIGURE 4.14 RESULT WHEN CGS 10 && RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1500
 22
FIGURE 4.15 RESULT WHEN CGS 20 && RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1460
 23
FIGURE 4.16 RESULT WHEN CGS 40 && RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1460
FIGURE 4.17 RESULT WHEN CGS 50
24 && RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1450
 25
FIGURE 4.18 RESULT WHEN CGS 60 && RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1440
7” Convention Tubing Well
Profile

26
Velocity string case(Equipment
Data)

Figure 4.20 Downhole Equipment Input Data For velocity string

27
 28
FIGURE 4.21 RESULT WHEN CGS 40 && RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1430
 29
FIGURE 4.22 RESULT WHEN CGS 30 && RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1440
 30
FIGURE 4.23 RESULT WHEN CGS 20 && RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1450
 31
FIGURE 4.23 RESULT WHEN CGS 10 && RESERVOIR PRESSURE 1460
Velocity string well profile

32
 Main innovations

∗ The velocity string is advanced techniques used for reducing and

preventing the liquid accumulation in the bottom of tubing and enhance
the flow deliverability of gas wells.
∗ In this study Production Modeling is performed by using PROSPER
where a small diameter tubing( velocity string) is inserted in the existing
tubing to reduce liquid accumulation in to the wellbore

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, MUET SZAB Campus Khairpur Mirs
Result outcomes and discussions

Velocity String Modelling

Results
7” Tubing compared with 4.5” Velocity String
 7" Tubing, Gas Rate & Liquid Rates vs CGR, Pres = 1500 psi, WHP = 1200 psi
44 1800
7’’ Tubing – Pres = 1500 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different
WGR
42 1600

40 1400

Total Liquid Rate (STB/D)

Gas Rate (MMscfd)

38 1200

36 1000

34 800

32 600

30 400
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
CGR (STB/MMscf)
Gas Rate WGR0 Gas Rate WGR1 Gas Rate WGR3 Gas Rate WGR5
Liquid Rate WGR0 Liquid Rate WGR1 Liquid Rate WGR3 Liquid Rate WGR5

∗ Figure 5.1. 7’’ Tubing – Pres = 1500 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate vs CGR at different
WGR at initial condition 35
 7" Tubing, Gas Rate & FBHP vs CGR, Pres = 1500 psi, WHP = 1200 psi
44 1440

7’’ Tubing – Pres = 1500 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different
WGR
42
1430

40

Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure (psi)

1420
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

38

36
1410

34

1400
32

30 1390
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
CGR (STB/MMscf)
Gas Rate WGR0 Gas Rate WGR1 Gas Rate WGR3 Gas Rate WGR5 FBHP WGR0 FBHP WGR1 FBHP WGR3 FBHP WGR5

∗ Figure 5.2.7’’ Tubing – Pres = 1500 psi Gas Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different WGR
(initial condition) 36
 7" Tubing, Gas Rate & Liquid Rates vs CGR, Pres = 1450 psi, WHP = 1200 psi
34 1000

7’’ Tubing – Pres = 1450 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different
32
WGR
900
30

28 800

Total Liquid Rate (STB/D)

26
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

700

24

600
22

20 500

18
400
16

14 300
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
CGR (STB/MMscf)
Gas Rate WGR0 Gas Rate WGR1 Gas Rate WGR3 Gas Rate WGR5
Liquid Rate WGR0 Liquid Rate WGR1 Liquid Rate WGR3 Liquid Rate WGR5
∗ Figure 5.3. 7’’ Tubing – Pres = 1450 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate vs CGR at different
37
WGR
 7" Tubing, Gas Rate & FBHP vs CGR, Pres = 1450 psi, WHP = 1200 psi
34 1430

7’’ Tubing – Pres = 1450 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different
32
WGR
1420
30

Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure (psig)

28
1410

26
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

24 1400

22

1390
20

18
1380

16

14 1370
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
CGR (STB/MMscf)
Gas Rate WGR0 Gas Rate WGR1 Gas Rate WGR3 Gas Rate WGR5
Liquid Rate WGR0 Liquid Rate WGR1 Liquid Rate WGR3 Liquid Rate WGR5

∗ Figure 5.4. 7’’ Tubing – Pres = 1450 psi Gas Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different WGR
38
 4.5 in Velocity String, Gas Rate & Liquid Rate vs CGR, Pres = 1500 psi, WHP = 1200 psi
20 900
4.5’’ Tubing – Pres = 1500 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different
WGR
800
19

700

Total Liquid Rate (STB/D)

18
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

600

500
17

400

16
300

15 200
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
CGR (STB/MMscf)
Gas Rate WGR0 Gas Rate WGR1 Gas Rate WGR3 Gas Rate WGR5
Liquid Rate WGR0 Liquid Rate WGR1 Liquid Rate WGR3 Liquid Rate WGR5

∗ Figure 5.4. 4.5’’ Tubing – Pres = 1500 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate vs CGR at different WGR
39
 4.5" Velocity String,, Gas Rate & Liquid Rate vs CGR, Pres = 1450 psi, WHP = 1200 psi
17 550
4.5’’ Tubing – Pres = 1450 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different
16 WGR 500

15
450
14

400
13

Total Liquid Rate (STB/D)

Gas Rate (MMscfd)

12 350

11 300

10
250

9
200
8

150
7

6 100
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
CGR (STB/MMscf)
Gas Rate WGR0 Gas Rate WGR1 Gas Rate WGR3 Gas Rate WGR5
Liquid Rate WGR0 Liquid Rate WGR1 Liquid Rate WGR3 Liquid Rate WGR5

∗ Figure 5.5. 4.5’’ Tubing – Pres = 1450 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate vs CGR at different
40
WGR
 4.5 in Velocity String, Gas Rate & FBHP Rate vs CGR, Pres = 1450 psi, WHP = 1200 psi
17 1445

16
4.5’’ Tubing – Pres = 1450 psi Gas Rate, Liquid Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different WGR
15
1440

14

13

Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure (psig)

1435
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

12

11
1430
10

1425
8

6 1420
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
CGR (STB/MMscf)
Gas Rate WGR0 Gas Rate WGR1 Gas Rate WGR3 Gas Rate WGR5
FBHP WGR0 FBHP WGR1 FBHP WGR3 FBHP WGR5

∗ Figure 5.6. 4.5’’ Tubing – Pres = 1450 psi 41Gas Rate, FBHP vs CGR at different WGR
 7" comparison with 4.5 in, Gas Rate & Superficial Gas Vel vs CGR, Pres = 1450 psi, WHP = 1200 psi
35

Comparision between 7’’ tubing and 4.5’’ velocity string

30

25
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

20

15

10

5
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Superficial Gas Velocity (ft/sec)

WGR0 7in WGR1 7in WGR3 7in WGR5 7in WGR0 4.5 WGR1 4.5in WGR3 4.5in WGR5 4.5in

∗ Figure 5.7. Comparison between 7’’ tubing and 4.5’’ velocity string
42
 Concluding remarks
∗ This study gives the comprehensive overview for evaluating the best strategy to improve the
performance of the gas wells by minimizing the liquid loading phenomena in the gas well
which drastically reduces the over all production of gas.
∗ The velocity string is an advance and new approach for prolong the life of gas wells and
promoting sustainable practices in the energy industry
∗ It is less expensive method as compared to other method such as plunger lift method , gas lift
and coiled tubing as a velocity string.
∗ Main findings of this study are:
∗ In this study we observed that the initial production gas rate is 43 TO 40 mmscf/d when the
reservoir pressure 1500psi by using 7 inch tubing at the condensate gas ratio is
10STB/MMscfd the rate of gas decrease over a period time the gas rate decrease to
34MMscfd at the condensate gas ratio become 50STB/d
∗ The production rate of gas decrease from 34 MMSCF to 18 MMSCF when the reservoir
pressure reach at 1450psi and the gas rate become 17MMscfd
∗ the accumulation of condensate gas ratio reduce from 60STB/D TO 40STB/D and the total
liquid rate in the tubing reduce from 1500STB/D to 600STB/D
∗ The small diameter tubing(velocity string ) is being used to revive the well star to flow and
increase production from 17 TO 20 MMscfd by using 4.5 inch tubing when the reservoir
pressure 1500psi and condensate gas ratio 50STB/D
 References

 [1.] Anon how to Designing Coiled Tubing Velocity Strings. April 9 (1936).

 [2[.Andrianata, S., Allo, K.R., Lukman, A. & Kramadibrata, A.T. Extending life
of liquid loaded gas wells using velocity string application: Case study &
candidate selection. Society of Petroleum Engineers - SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition -Janua. doi:10.2118/186362-ms 2017

 [3]. Quintana, J., Duque, E., Diaz, J.D., Eras, J., Rodas, J., Vergara, E. & Prieto,
W.) Coiled Tubing Velocity String Hang-Off Solves and Prevents Liquid-
Loading Problems in Gas Well: Case Study in the Gulf of Guayaquil, Ecuador.
doi:10.2118/177264-ms 2015

44

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, MUET SZAB Campus Khairpur Mirs
 Reference
[4]. S.A. Asel, F.A. Gomez, Saudi Aramco SPE, D. Ahmed, F. Baez, T.
Elsherif, 1M.A.Knei1na, W.Kharrat An innovative integrated
methodology to deliquify gas well using in-well live 11Study in Saudi
Arabia 26 March 2014
[5]. P. OudemanOn The Flow Performance of Velocity Strings To
Unload Gas Wells, SPE, Shell Intl. E&P (2007)
[6].T.R.Neves, Oil and Gas Co, and R.M. Brimhall, Elimination of
liquid loading in low-productivity Gas Wells .Taxes Society of
petroleum Engineers 1989

45
 Acknowledgment

All praise to Almighty ALLAH, for bestowing us with a mind to prove ourselves
I hereby , pay my gratitude’s to all those who helped and guided us in writing this
thesis .

I would like to acknowledge and give my warmest thank to my supervisor ENG:

IMRAN ALI MENON who made this work possible His guidance and advice that
carried us through all the stages of writing our project .

And I am also thankful to ENG: SUNDER SHAM JESWANI, ENG: IZHAR

AHMED MEMON and ENG: WAQAS SUFI who give us the right direction and
helped us.

I would also like to thank my committee members for letting my defense to be an

enjoyable moment ,and for your brilliant comments
46
and suggestion
Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, MUET SZAB Campus Khairpur Mirs
 Thank You
Any Questions

?
47