J. F.

Lea
Petroleum Engineering Department, Texas Tecti University, P.O. Box 43111 Lubbock, TX 79409-3111 e-mail: JLea@coe.ttj.edu

Plunger Lift Versus Velocity Strings

Plunger lift and velocity strings are two common methods of attacking liquid loading problems in gas wells. This paper shows how to compare the calculated performance of both methods at downhole producing conditions on one plot.

Introduction
As gas wells deplete, the velocity in the tubing becomes lower. Eventually, the gas velocity will become low enough such that the flowing gradient in the tubing begins to rise because liquids begin to accumulate in the tubing. There are many solutions to liquid loading problems in a gas well. They include use of foams, use of smaller tubing (velocity strings), use of intermittent gas lift, use of plungers (which is essentially intermittent gas lift with a traveling pig), and many pumping methods to lift liquids from a lowpressure gas well. Depending on well conditions, often the choices are between installing smaller tubing (velocity strings) or leaving in the larger tubing and employing plunger lift. This paper shows how to compare the performance of plunger lift versus velocity string applications in a manner not previously possible. Velocity Strings A velocity string is a small-diameter string used to increase the fluid velocity in the tubing in order to produce a low-pressure gas well that produces some liquids associated with the gas. The tubing could be coiled tubing or regular tubing. One approach is to use a formula for the critical velocity and size the tubing string to try to produce above the critical velocity. Turner et al. (1969) developed formulas for the critical velocity for gas production when producing water or condensate. Their formula for critical gas velocity is c(p,-0.00279P/Z)' (0.00279P/Z)"^ (1)

upward to the right) intersects the well inflow curve (slanting downward and to the right), at the point of predicted production. For stable flow, the tubing curve should intersect the inflow curve at a point to the right of the minimum point on the tubing curve. Tubing too small should not be used to avoid excess friction. With the information in Fig. 1, the largest tubing size indicates the highest rate, but it shows flow at a point that may be to the left of the minimum point on the tubing curve or very close to the minimum. At this point, unstable flow would be predicted and could result in lower than expected production. If velocity string performance is compared to plunger lift performance, it is desirable to have a plunger lift model that is plotted with the velocity string performance on the same coordinates as shown in Fig. 1. The method of plunger lift is first discussed and an example is given on how to calculate data for plotting plunger lift performance in a manner similar to that of tubing performance.

Typical Plunger System

Plunger lift is an artificial lift method, which normally uses only the existing energy from the well. Plunger lift can produce liquids from the well using gas pressure that has built up in the well when the surface production valve is closed. One type of a typical plunger lift installation is shown in Fig, 2. The components in the Fig, 2 installation include: A downhole bumper spring to catch the falling plunger. It can be installed by wire-line into the well, A plunger which travels from bumper spring to well head and back as it cycles, bringing liquids to surface more efficiently as it rises to the surface, A wellhead designed to catch the plunger and allow flow around and/or under the plunger to continue at the surface. A motorized valve, which can open and close the flow line, either by manual action or using computerized controls. A sensor on the wellhead to signal the arrival of the plunger. An electronic controller containing logic to control plunger trips, flow periods, and shut-in periods in order to maximize production.

where c = 5.3 for water or 4,03 for gas-condensate. In Eq. (1), p, is the liquid density in Ibm/ft' (67 Ibm/ft' used for water and 45 Ibm/ft^ for condensate). The variable, P, is the pressure at the location analyzed in the tubing, and Z is the compressibility factor at P and temperature 7". The critical velocity Vg is for water or condensate produced with gas, depending on the appropriate constant, c. If both water and condensate are present, Turner recommends using the constant for water. Turner et al. (1969) used 60 dynes/cm for water droplet interfacial tension and 20 dynes/cm for condensate. The temperature was taken to be 120''F. Typically, these formulas have been used at surface conditions, but they can be used anywhere in the well where the P and T and other parameters are known. Another technique for sizing the velocity string is to look at the shapes of calculated curves of the flowing bottom-hole pressure required to produce fluid from tubing at various flow rates. Various tubing sizes can be examined. An example may be seen in Fig. 1. In this figure, the calculated performance for various tubing sizes is plotted. The tubing performance curve (in general slanting
Contributed by the Petroleum Division and presented at the 20th Annual EnergySources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, February 1-3,
1999, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by

the Petroleum Division, October 23, 1998; revised manuscript received September 3, 1999. Associate Technical Editor: C. Sarica.

Cycle Description To better introduce how a plunger functions, the events of a plunger lift cycle are illustrated in Fig. 3, showing the surface recorded casing and tubing pressures during a complete plunger cycle. The plunger cycle begins when the plunger and a quantity of liquid are at bottom hole. At this time the casing pressure is allowed to build up to a value necessary to lift the plunger and liquid to the surface of the well. The tubing valve opens, tubing pressure begins to drop, and the plunger and liquid start up the tubing. The arrival of the plunger and slug is shown as a pressure spike on the tubing pressure plot. The plunger can then be held at the surface for a predetermined period of time to continue gas production if the well produces little liquids compared to gas production. When a specified low flow rate or low tubing pressure criteria are reached, the flow line valve is closed and the plunger Transactions of the ASME

234 / Vol. 121, DECEMBER 1999

Copyright 1999 by ASME

Downloaded 28 May 2009 to 193.146.171.29. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

3000 2500 6 2000

0. Tubing ID=1.99E In.

ELECTRONIC CONTROLIER

\ ^

1500 1000 500

t^
\

.442 In.

H:K>Q-=>j, 1

2.992 n. 9 In 6.00 }ln

MASTER VALVE

'W
^

\
0 1 2 3 4 Gas Production, MMscf/D 5 6

CATCHER W/ARRIVAL SENSOR

EXTERNAL CABLE

Fig. 1 Calculated nodal performance with different tubing sizes

falls back to bottom. At this point, the casing pressure is once again allowed to build to an acceptable value to support the next plunger and liquid slug trip to the surface. The cycles repeat and may be continuously adjusted by the control logic program found in many different commercial plunger lift controllers. For a plunger cycle, the pressure that is built up in the off cycle in the casing is the major source of energy used to bring the plunger and the liquids to the surface. The well inflow contributes additional energy as the plunger rises, but the majority of the energy comes from the expansion of the gas in the casing. This is why most successful installations operate with no packer in the well. There are some successful plunger lift installations with packers in the well. To operate successfully, these wells must have higher bottom-hole pressures and larger gas-oil-ratios than installations that have no packer in the well. This study is a modification and improvement on the nodal analysis of plunger lift method presented in a paper by Lea (1998). In this paper, several of these modeling concepts were introduced. Previous Studies There have been a number of papers published discussing models, which describe plunger lift operations. Beeson et al. (1956)

BUMPER SPRING

TUBING STOP

Fig. 2 Typical plunger lift installation

presented correlated data from the Ventura field in California for 2-in. and 25-in. plungers. The data given by Beeson are for 2-in. plungers in various casing sizes. The data for the 25-in. plungers are mostly for 7-in. casing. The data are correlated and application charts shown in Figs. 4 and 5 were generated, which (discussed in the forthcoming) are still being used today. Foss and Gaul (1965) developed a physical model of plunger performance. The model was designed to deliver the plunger and liquid slug to the surface with an assumed average velocity, typically 1000 ft/min. They also assumed that the plunger falls at a velocity of 2000 ft/min through gas and 172 ft/min though liquid when the well is shut in. One of the main results was to develop a model for the maximum required casing buildup pressure. The calculated casing buildup pressure is required to ensure that the

Nomenclature
A = area, ft^ bbl = barrel of vol., 5.615 ft^ C = coefficient of gas backpressure equation scf/D/ (psi^") c = constant in Eq. (1) for critical gas velocity, v^ D = depth, ft d = diameter, in. / = Moody friction factor y = specific gravity, (air = 1.00) GLR = gas/liquid ratio, scf/bl H = group of terms, Eq. (18) IPR = inflow performance relation K = gas friction term, Eq. (2) L = length, ft Mscf/D = 10' standard cu ft of gas per day MMscf/D = 10' standard cubic of gas per day m = mass, Ibm n = exponent for gas backpressure equation P = pressure, psig Pr = reservoir shut-in bottom-hole pressure, psig Q = gas rate, Mscf/D R = gas constant, 53.34 lbf-ftV(lbmR) p = density, Ibm/ft' s = liquid slug size, bbl T = temperature, F t = time, days V = volume, ft' V - velocity, ft/s Z = gas compressibility factor, dimensionless Subscripts a avg bd bu c fl g annulus average blow-down part of cycle buildup part of cycle casing just before shut-in period indicates flowing gas gci initial casing gas i = initial in, = inlet of tubing / = liquid Ih - weight of liquid per bbl // = liquid friction in tubing per barrel min = minimum (in casing pressure) max = maximum in (casing pressure) p = plunger r = period during which plunger is rising R = reservoir or from reservoir i = liquid slug sc = standard conditions surf = surface conditions t = tubing ta = tubing and casing annulus tm = total of cycle times wf = flowing conditions

Journal of Energy Resources Technology

DECEMBER 1999, Vol. 121 / 235

Downloaded 28 May 2009 to 193.146.171.29. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Valve shuts

f s ) Pluitger/slug arrives ( 4} Flow period near end

40000

36000

2 1/2" PLUNGEiR
28000

Tubing Pressure

plunger rise time build - up flow

^ m p

24000

20000

'
^ 16000

Fig. 3 Typical events on pressure chart during a plunger lift cycle

i\
DEPTH 8000 4000 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

plunger and liquid slug can travel from the bottom to the surface of the well. This approach requires a determination of the liquid slug size for each cycle from pressures, or production data. The Foss and Gaul (1965) formula presented for the surface casing pressure (psia) just as the plunger and slug arrive at the surface is ^ . = L14.7 + P^ + P,+ iP + P,f)sXl + DIK) (2)

where P^^^ is a balance of pressure, gravity, and frictional effects. Pp is the pressure needed to lift the plunger (about 5 psig), and P, is the sales pressure or separator pressure at the tubing surface when the well is opened. P,,, is the pressure needed to lift the weight of liquid per barrel, and Pif is the pressure needed to overcome the liquid friction in the tubing per barrel. The terms (P,j + Pif) are factors determined by Foss and Gaul (1965), to be

NET OPERATING PRESSURE - PSI Fig. 5 Selection chart, 2| tubing (Beeson et al., 1956). Note: net operating pressure is the difference between the casing buiid pressure and the separator pressure.

40000

about 165 psig/bbl for 2|-in. tubing and 102 psig/bbl for 2|-in. tubing to account for slug weight and friction in tubing. D is the bumper spring depth. ^ is a factor to account for the gas friction in the tubing (about 33,500 for 2i-in. tubing and 45,000 for 2|-in. tubing). The liquid slug size brought to the surface each cycle is s. The required casing pressure needed before opening the well is [{A, + A,)/AJP (3)

36000

2" PLL iNGt E R

32000

1 1
\ \

28000

m 24000

o
(A

20000

16000 12000

where A is the cross-sectional area of the annulus between the casing and tubing, and A, is the area calculated from the inside diameter of the tubing. The ratio of areas used to calculate the maximum casing pressure from the minimum casing pressure is also a ratio of volumes with the depth canceled. It should be noted that the casing pressure, /",, shown in Eq. (3) is the pressure required before the well is opened for production. This approximate and conservative approach considers only the energy of the gas in the annulus expanding to raise the plunger and the liquid. Any additional assistance from the inflow of gas during the rise time is neglected. The following equations modify the original Foss and Gaul (1965) relationships to approximately account for a constant rate of gas, QK, (Mscf/D), entering the well during the plunger rise time:
DEPn

8000

1
zoo

L, = 5.615/A, Prt = 0.4337,1, P,f= yJLADItyiQmiSd, pi = {UAIR)y,P,jV{T,,, + 460)Zj

(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

\ ^

4000

\ \ ^ ^
400

:^__^

600

800

1000

1200

1400

NET OPERATING PRESSURE - PSI Fig. 4 Selection chart, 2f tubing (Beeson et al., 1956). Note: net operating pressure is the difference between tiie casing buiid pressure and the separator pressure.

mgci = Pm,D{A^ + A,) m^ = 0.694Q gt,p Pmax = (mgci - mii)/iA,D)

236 / Vol. 121, DECEMBER 1999

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 28 May 2009 to 193.146.171.29. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

(r,, + 460)Z/(2.77)

(11)

Separator pressure = 100 psig Net operating pressure = 400 - 100 = 300 psi Enter Fig. 4, at 300 psi on the x-axis, read up to 5000 ft (between 4000 and 6000 ft), and then read the >'-axis data to the left. You will read about 3300 scf/bbl (GLR). If the well is stated to have a GLR = 4000 scf/bbl, then it should be a candidate for plunger lift. It is interesting to note that Beeson et al. (1956) indicate that you should enter the chart with a depth equal to the actual depth minus 2000 ft. If this is done, then only about 1500 scf/bbl or less is indicated for the well to be a candidate for plunger lift. It is more conservative not to subtract 2000 ft from the depth. In production operations, it is usual practice not to subtract this value. Many field applications have been made using Figs. 4 and 5 as feasibility criterion. Another approach that has been used is to ensure that the well has sufficient gas (GLR) and buildup pressure to operate with plunger lift using the Foss and Gaul (1965) equations. When a gas well is loading with liquids, data on gas production may be available, but often the liquid production is not carefully reported, especially when it is produced water with no condensate.

It has been observed by the author that for low rate wells, the Foss and Gaul (1965) equations predict a higher pressure than the needed Pcmi- The foregoing adjustment to P^max is much closer to what is observable in the field concerning how much casing pressure buildup is needed. However, for conservatism, the original Foss and Gaul equations (Eqs. (2) and (3)) were used to determine the required casing buildup pressure for the model presented here. In addition to the research of Foss and Gaul (1965), Hacksma (1972) combined Foss and Gaul results with a reservoir performance model to determine the effect of available gas on plunger performance. White (1981) presented a model of plunger lift in an intermittent gas lift well. Lea (1982) derived a model for calculating the change in pressures and forces on a plunger as it rises to the surface. A discussion of leakage tests past various plungers was included. Rosina (1983) presents some laboratory tests and critiques of other models. Ferguson and Beauregard (1985) include some practical guidelines to selection of plunger lift. Turner et al. (1969) and Coleman et al. (1991) discuss the critical velocity in a gas well. When the gas rate falls below the critical velocity, the gas does not lift the well liquids efficiently and liquids accumulate in the well. Accumulated liquids can reduce or stop production. When this situation occurs, installing smaller tubing or lowering the wellhead pressure can be implemented. Another approach is to use plunger lift to reduce or prevent the fallback of liquids. Pumping methods are often the last resort due to their high initial cost and operating expense. Christian et al. (1995) performed a study where beam pump units, producing gassy fluids, were successfully replaced with plunger lift installations. Wiggins and Gasbarri (1997) present a more comprehensive model for plunger lift operations by including a reservoir model along with other modeling techniques. This is probably more accurate than the simpler approach used in this paper; however, it requires more data for screening and optimization. Plunger Lift Feasibility Criteria There are many feasibility criteria. Some are simple and others more complex as seen by examining some results from the references. These criteria are necessary to indicate if a plunger can be used on a given well to remove liquids. From Ferguson and Beauregard (1985), it is stated that the well must produce about 400 scf/bbl/1000 ft in order to be a successful plunger lift candidate. Other operators use similar, but somewhat different, figures for this criterion. Example Calculation. Well data: GLR (gas-liquid ratio) is 4000 scf/bbl and depth (D) is 5000 ft. Is this well a candidate for plunger lift? GLR/(D/1000) = 4000/5 = 800 scf/(bbl - 1000 ft) (13)

New Model Development

Although Figs. 4 and 5 do give an indication if the well has a sufficient GLR and pressure to operate with plunger lift; however, they do not give any sort of relation to the well's inflow capabilities. In addition, casing size is not a parameter considered by this method. As a well begins to decline due to liquid loading, the operator has a choice to use plunger lift (which performs better with larger tubing up to a point) or use smaller tubing. Because of this, it is desirable to have a method to help decide if you should use coiled tubing to operate a gas well into the future (when liquid loading begins) or if you should use plunger lift. Because of these needs, an attempt is made here to generate a method to help relate plunger lift performance to approximate reservoir performance. A method to compare plunger lift performance to coiled tubing or regular small-diameter tubing performance is also a result of this study. This analysis is not intended to take the place of using a reservoir model as is described by Wiggins and Gasbarri (1997). Instead, use is made of simpler IPR or inflow performance relationship with a new plunger model for ascertaining a graphical representation of plunger performance. Plunger lift is a transient phenomenon, and to cover all the possibilities of reservoir transient behavior, a reservoir model would be necessary. Here, a simple model is used to generate plunger lift performance curves, similar to tubing performance curves, on a flowing bottom-hole pressure and production rate plot. Tubing and/or plunger lift performance curves can be plotted to intersect well inflow curves for predicting the producing rates. The model assumes a constant gas rate is produced from the formation during the plunger lift cycle. The rate determined by the reservoir inflow varies as a function of average pressure for a complete plunger cycle; but for simplicity, the rate is a constant during the plunger cycle for the average pressure during the cycle. Lea (1998) showed how to model with a variable rate and a constant rate, but the constant rate model seems to approximate plunger lift performance well considering the incomplete data available from many gas wells. Constant flow during the plunger cycle would approximate the situation of a very steep gas inflow expression such that changes in the flowing bottom-hole pressure would result in little change in rate. This is pictured in Fig. 6, showing a present and some future gas inflow curves. Note that the future curves become very steep. For instance, an inflow curve like curve C in Fig. 6 would show little change in flow rate with changes in bottom-hole pressure, unless the well is at a very low draw-down portion of the curve. This situation would be one in which the "constant flow model" assumptions in the Appendix would be more applicable. As described in the Appendix, this model has a buildup period DECEMBER 1999, Vol. 121 / 237

Since the produced GLR is greater than the "needed" 400 scf/bbl/ 1000 ft, the well is a candidate for plunger lift by this simple rule. Another feasibility test is the use of figures from Beeson et al. (1956). These figures are shown as Figs. 4 and 5 (for 2|-in. and 25-in. tubing applications). These figures are in terms of net pressure, GLR, and depth. These simple graphs are correlations, which were developed from field data. These correlations are useful for evaluating plunger lift installations since more sophisticated models require well data that is often unavailable. Example of use of Figs. 4 and 5: Depth (D) = 5000 ft GLR = 4000 scf/bbl Plunger size = size to fit into 2 | tubing Casing operating or buildup pressure = 400 psig Journal of Energy Resources Technology

Downloaded 28 May 2009 to 193.146.171.29. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 1 Base case

Quantity Tubing i.d. Casing i.d. Sales line pressure Depth Surface temperature Qgas Bottom-hole temperature WOR Fig. 6 Concept of future IPR curves. Later curves are "steep." Well GLR Condensate gravity Water gravity in which the well pressure increases to the required value of Pc, Gas gravity Casing buildup pressure as measured at the casing surface. The formula for calculating this Minimum casing pressure pressure is given in Eq. (3). The model determines the time Average rise velocity required for the casing pressure to build up from an initial shut-in Reservoir, Pr condition to the Foss and Gaul defined P^max pressure. This pres- Flow coefficient, C sure predicts when the casing contains enough energy to bring the Flow exponent, n Value 1.995 5.000 50 7000 100 180 1 10000 33 1.03 0.70 250 40 1000 300 33.87 0.758 Reservoir Test Data Q (Mscf/D) 80 120 160 P 4 (psig) 250 200 150 Units in. m. psig ft "F F dimensionless dimensionless API dimensionless (Air = 1) psig psig ft/min psig (scf/psi)'" dimensionless

slug and plunger to the surface with a prescribed average velocity (1000 ft/min used here). With formation gas coming in during the plunger rise, it is possible to require a smaller Pc than used by Foss and Gaul (1965), as already mentioned. However, this correction is not made here. After the buildup portion of the analysis, the plunger rise period is modeled. This rise period ends when the plunger and slug arrive at the surface with the casing pressure of P,inNext, the model considers a blow-down flow period in which liquid interference is not considered in the Gray (1974) correlation used for calculation of tubing pressure drop performance. A transient continuity equation is used to approximate what the flow, time, and final conditions are for this period. During this period, the pressure in the casing is calculated to drop from the Pc,i to a lower value. When the pressure no longer changes, this is the time at which this modeled period ends. Then, a final flow period is analyzed. Here, the input measured value of bbl/MMscf/D of well-produced liquids is assumed to rise and be associated with the gas in the tubing at a rate equal to the velocity of the in-situ gas. When the flow is calculated to drop below a critical velocity (Turner et al., 1969; and Coleman et al., 1995), this period is assumed to end. If the casing pressure rises to a target value before the critical velocity is reached, then this criterion is used to end this period. A value of ^(Pcmr, + PCM) is used as an arbitrary value of pressure to end this final flow period. The Pcu is the pressure at the end of the assumed blow-down period. The average pressure of a cycle is the time-averaged pressure of each modeled portion of the cycle. This can be calculated at surface conditions or at bottom-hole conditions. This model is approximate. Assumptions are made to model the cycles that are used to find the flow and pressures during the calculated plunger lift cycles. No leakage is calculated across the plungers. Slug buildup distribution in the tubing versus casing during the pressure buildup is not taken into account. The gas production assumptions have already been discussed. The gas used in each complete cycle is not to exceed the input well GLR (gas to liquid ratio, scf/bbl, where barrels of liquid are measured at surface conditions) multiplied by the slug size used for each cycle calcu-

lation. If a slug size is assumed and the gas calculated from the model requires a GLR for the cycle greater than the well's actual measured GLR, then this is a point where plunger operation is not predicted to be possible. The constant flow model assumes that the rate of gas calculated in the model is the same for all parts of the plunger cycle. This condition of constant rate is violated during the total plunger cycle, but is assumed to approximate the performance of plunger lift well enough to allow calculation of average cycle flowing bottom-hole pressures. This allows comparison to the performance of expected flowing pressures with the use of various tubing sizes. Figure 7 shows calculated surface casing pressure versus time for one example cycle using the constant rate approximation. Continued use of the model compared to well performance will determine the model's usability to screen wells for plunger lift. Also, it will help determine whether you should use plunger lift or smaller tubing (coiled tubing) to solve problems encountered when a gas well begins to load with liquids. It is possible to alter the model to accommodate changing flow from the reservoir during the different portions of the cycle, but this adds complexity to the model.

Sample Results From the New Model

Several example results are presented to illustrate program output. Table 1 shows the data that are used for example calculations. The data are used for a base case for some sample outputs for the plunger lift model results. The reservoir inflow curve is calculated

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

360

Time, minutes Fig. 7 Example cycle calculation for constant rate model, 0.2 bbi slug Fig. 8

Gas Production, Mscf/D

50 psig surface pressure, constant rate analysis

238 / Vol. 121, DECEMBER 1999

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 28 May 2009 to 193.146.171.29. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

500 400 300

WW

1
ID=1.t In.

. 1 1.25 In.

1.50 In.

11
X E m

1
2.00 In.

200 100 0

g o

1
J 0
40 80

\ 120

V^ 1
160

r. 200

240

280

320

360

Gas Production, Mscf/D Fig. 9 75 psig surface pressure, constant rate analysis
50Q , Tubing I D - 1 . 0 In. , i ^ 1 . 2 5 In.

Ferguson, P. L., and Beauregard, E., 1985, "How to Tell if Plunger Lift Will Work in Your Well," World Oil, August 1, pp. 33-36. Fetkovich, M. J., 1973, "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," SPE Paper No. 4529, 48th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, Las Vegas, NV, September 30-October 3. Foss, D. L., and Gaul, R. B., 1965, "Plunger-Lift Performance Criteria With Operating ExperienceVentura Field," Drilling and Production Practice, APL pp. 124-140. Hacksma, J. D., 1972, "Users Guide to Predict Plunger Lift Performance," Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX. Gray, H. E., 1974, "Vertical Flow Correlation in Gas Wells," API User's Manual for AI 14B, "Subsurface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve Sizing Computer Program," App. B, June. Lea, J. P., 1982, "Dynamic Analysis of Plunger Lift Operations," Tech. Paper SPE 10253, Nov., pp. 2617-2629. Lea, J. F., 1998, "Nodal Analysis of Plunger Lift Operations," Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX. Phillips, D., and Listiak, S., 1997, "Training/Trouble Shooting Guide for Plunger Systems," .Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX. Rosina, L., 1983, "A Study of Plunger Lift Dynamics," Master's thesis, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK. Turner, R. G., Hubbard, M. G., and Dukler, A. E., 1969, "Analysis and Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells," Journal of Petroleum Technology, Nov., pp. 1475-1482. White, G. W., 1981, "Combining the Technologies of Plunger Lift and Intermittent Gas Lift," presented at the Annual American Institute Pacific Coast Joint Chapter Meeting Costa Mesa, CA, October 22. Wiggins, M., and Gasbarri, S., 1997, "A Dynamic Plunger Lift Model for Gas Wells," SPE 37422, presented at the Oklahoma City Production Operations Symposium.

40

80

120 160 200 240 280 320 360 Gas Production, Mscf/D

APPENDIX Constant Reservoir Rate Cycle Model

For this approximate cycle model, a well IPR (inflow performance relationship) with a steep slope would give the best results. Whatever the average rate for the plunger cycle, changes in flowing pressure at the sand face will cause some actual changes in the flow rate into the well bore during a complete plunger cycle. The cycle must be started at some point. The beginning point of the analysis will be at the start of the shut-in period. A small slug size is assumed and a cycle is iterated until results are obtained. Next, a larger slug size is assumed and the calculations repeated. The slug size is increased and the calculations are repeated until the required gas rate is greater than the maximum flow possible from the reservoir. Then, no further points of plunger lift performance are possible.

Fig. 10

100 psig surface pressure, constant gas rate cycle

from a back-pressure equation, Q = CiP^, - Pi/)". The coefficients for this equation are assumed to be determined from well tests. Fetkovitch (1973) discusses how to test for the coefficients. The example here is for a weak well that is producing some liquids. Figure 8 shows output from the constant rate model. It shows good performance of plunger compared to the performance of various sizes of smaller tubing producing with a 50-psig surface tubing pressure. Note that no tubing intersections with the reservoir inflow curve are possible for all the small tubing sizes. The plunger performance curve does intersect the reservoir inflow curve. Figure 9 shows the same case as Fig. 6, but with the surface pressure increased to 75 psig. No natural tubing flow is sustainable, but plunger lift is still possible. Figure 10 shows highly degraded plunger performance as the tubing surface pressure is raised to 100 psig. No tubing performance curves intersect the well IPR. Plunger operation is shown to be possible only by a small curve at low production rates. Summary Use of the plunger lift model allows the user to get a graphical representation of the predicted plunger lift performance versus the performance of various possible sizes of tubing on a "Nodal"^" plot at the bottom-hole conditions. This provides a much clearer comparison of the performance of plunger lift or a velocity string when attempting to produce a gas well loading with liquids. References
Beeson, C. M., Knox, D. G., and Stoddard, J. H., 1956, "Part 1: The Plunger Lift Method of Oil Production," "Part 2: Constructing Nomographs to Simplify Calculations," "Part 3: How to Use Nomographs to Estimate Performance," "Part 4: Examples Demonstrate Use of Nomographs," and "Part 5: Well Selection and Applications," Petroleum Engineer. Christian, J., Lea, J. P., and Bishop, R., 1995, "Replacing Beam Pumping Units with Plunger Lift," Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, TX, April 19-20. Coleman, S. B., Clay, H. B., McCurdy, D. G., and Norris, H. L., 1991, "A New Look at Predicting Gas-Well Load Up," Journal of Petroleum Technology, Mar.

Buildup Portion of the Cycle

The time for buildup, in days, related to the rate and change in pressure in the well is
hu "

QRP AT,,,+

460)10002

(14)

where P^ is the casing pressure before shut-in, psia. P<.., is the casing pressure necessary before the well is opened to flow. The volume in tubing and tubing-casing annulus is V,. Q^ is the gas rate from reservoir into the well bore during the cycle. rg is the average temperature in the well, and Z is the "average" compressibility factor for the gas in the well. The pressure during buildup is assumed to be the average of f ,, and Pf.

Rise Portion of the Cycle

When the well is opened, the slug and the plunger begin to rise. When the slug and plunger arrive at the surface, the casing pressure has dropped to P^^,,. The time for the plunger to rise is calculated by dividing the depth by the plunger velocity. For this model, it is assumed that this velocity is 1000 ft/min. This number is from experience and seems to minimize frictional losses, but is still fast enough to avoid excessive liquid leakage and gas by-pass around the plunger. The average pressure during the rise is taken as (P, +

Journal of Energy Resources Technology

DECEMBER 1999, Vol. 121 / 239

Downloaded 28 May 2009 to 193.146.171.29. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Blow-Down Portion of the Cycle During this portion of the cycle, the well is producing at the surface and the formation is flowing into the Well at the sand face. A simplified continuity equation is used to simulate the storage of gas in the well, and the flow into and out of the well. This portioii of the cycle is continued until the flow out of the well drops to below "critical flow" or the production out of the well drops to the production into the well. At this time, the pressure in the well has dropped as low as it will go. The continuity equation used for the annulus between the tubing and casing is
{V{UAIR)yMT + 460)Z]} - - ^ ^ = 1 0 0 0 p , , ( e - Q,)

cent less velocity than required by Turner. It was developed for gas wells with surface pressure less than about 1000 psig. It should be used instead of the Turner correlation when applicable and is the method used in this paper. Final Flow Portion of the Cycle Model In this final period, the well is flowed with increasing liquids in the well bore, increasing to the point of the input value of the produced bbl/MMscf/D of liquids. The flow begins with no liquids in the tubing. The portion of the tubing flowing gas with liquids is modeled to increase from the bottom of the well, up the tubing at the rate of the in-situ velocity of the gas in the tubing. This period continues until the pressure arbitrarily reaches Pf, which is set as
^ " " " " " - """* u . . p . . , u . . a.u.ua...^ . . a . n . . , , n . . . . ...

dPr

(15)

a.

^ "^ ^'K'-^ ' 'J dt i'sc\>iK ^\/ \ I where Pc^ is the instantaneous average pressure in the casing. QR is the constant reservoir gas rate during the cycle and Q, is the instantaneous rate flowing into the tubing as a function of the surface pressure, and the changing pressure at the bottom of the well. V is the volume in annulus between casing and tubing. The pressure at the entrance to the tubing (?,,) at the bottom of the tubing to account for the weight of the gas is taken as ^in, = ^ expL(0.018777,Z))/(Z(r,, + 460))J (16)

i(/'^^^.^ + p^^j, where an input mmimum value of the blow-down pressure is used. Time is increased using approximately 1 min as the time increment for calculations as the gas proceeds up the tubing. During this portion of the cycle, the calculated flowing bottom-hole pressure continually increases with time. Once this final flow period is modeled, the complete cycle is fully described. Iteration Required Now the cycle is repeated with the following adjusted cycles per day and flow quantities: cycles/day = 1440/(?bu + t,+ f^ -f- f) (19)

The calculations are iterated until the tubing flow corresponding to this pressure at bottom and the surface tubing pressure is found. The Gray (1974) correlation is used for the tubing pressure-drop calculation, although other flow correlations could be used. Pressure in the casing-tubing annulus at average conditions is advanced with time by using a finite difference expression for dPIdt in the foregoing "continuity" equation, or
cgl((+A()

= li{QR - Q,) + Pc.

(17)

where H is H = (?-, + A6Q)Zp,AtlVi{\AAIR)yJ (18)

The liquid production in bbl/day is the product of cycles/day and slug size (used for each point calculation). The gas production in Mscf/D is calculated as the product of GLR, cycles/day, and slug size/1000. Pressures are corrected with static or flowing gradients to bottom-hole conditions in Eq. (20). Here, the average pressure at the flowing bottom-hole conditions during a cycle is approximated by the following time-weighted average:
Pwf, (huPbu "^ ^rPr + hdPbd ^ hPaJ^^ti,

(20)

The procedure is advanced until the critical velocity is reached in the tubing or the flow in the well equals the flow out of the well. The average pressure can be calculated from the point-by-point calculations. The time for the blow down is the sum of the A?'s, in units of days, as the pressure is advanced step by step. This section of the cycle is assumed to flow with no interference of liquids in the well since it is assumed that all the fluid is removed by the plunger. This is a temporary condition as liquids will begin to produce back into the well. The final flow period models this condition. The critical flow velocity can be determined from Turner et al. (1969), and Coleman et al. (1991). The Turner expression is Eq. (1). The Coleman correlation for critical velocity indicates 20 per-

The foregoing average cycle pressure is what is shown on the plunger nodal plots versus production as the calculated plunger performance curve. This is continued until quantities are constant for new iterations. Then, a larger slug is assumed and the new cycle is calculated as in the foregoing. The gas produced for one cycle is compared to the product of slug size and the GLR of the well. If the calculated gas used per cycle is greater than this product, then this indicates a limiting point where plunger lift would not operate continuously. Larger slug sizes beyond this limit will also indicate that plunger lift will not be possible. This model is one way of simply visualizing and modeling the plunger cycle. The results give an average pressure for the plunger cycle so it can be compared to tubing performance without plunger lift.

240 / Vol. 121, DECEMBER 1999

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 28 May 2009 to 193.146.171.29. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm