Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

Gas Rate, GLR and Depth Sensitivities of Gas Lift Technique:

A Case Study
Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf
Petroleum Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Koya University, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

ABSTRACT
In petroleum industry, various problems may arise during production operations such as reduction in desired oil rate
due to water conning and lifting problems. Gas lift optimization is considered as a prestigious technique for preventing
such problems.
This work is carried out as a consequence of low production problems in one of the oil fields in Iraq. The name of the
field is not mentioned in this work due to the confidentiality of publication and well is named as JAF. Currently oil is
produced in JAF well through gas lift technique, while in other wells oil is produced by their own reservoir pressure.
Before implementing gas lift optimization, the average oil production rate for JAF well was around 1700 (bbl/day), with
relatively low drawdown pressure (psig) between average reservoir pressure and bottom-hole flowing pressure. Thus, to
optimize the production, this well is modelled in PROSPER program, through entering row field data of both reservoir
fluids properties and well testing data for PVT matching and generating IPR + VLP for the well.
In this paper, the JAF well has been modelled in PROSPER step by step. For VLP correlation comparison, Petroleum
Expert-2 was found very close to well test data for all vertical/tubing performance. While for matching pipe correlation
Beggs and Brill correlation is found the best fit correlation for production and flow line test. Design injection pressure
is inputted based on the available source supply and considering bubble point pressure as well.
The sensitivity results, through which maximum oil production rate is achieved as 2343 bbl/day for JAF well at gas lift
injection rate of l.75 MMscf/day.
In addition, maximum and optimum GLR for the well is determined under fixed injection rate of 1.35 scf/day of GasLift
gas rate based on the selected correlation for analysing injected GLR sensitivities and the result is 451 scf/stb for JAF
well.
Finally, optimum injection depths for fixed gas injection rate in MMscf/day for this well is obtained as 2250 ft.
Keywords
Gas Lift, Gas Rate, GLR, Depth, Optimization, Sensitivity, Pressure.

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Brief history
Field X is a super-giant field and mainly limestone reservoir with fold hydrocarbon trap (Anticline fold) and
its rock type is Dalmatic limestone which is characterized with natural fracture.
The reservoir petro-physical properties are ranged between (5-44) md for average permeability, between (13%
- 26%) for water saturation and between (18% - 27%) of average porosity in matrix. The oil column thickness
is about (60-90) meter with large gas cap and Aquifer, the estimated Gas oil contact at depth 600 ft MSL and
estimated oil water contact at 740 ft MSL.
For proceeding to produce from the field, it was planned to install a gas lift system for the wells which do not
produce in a desired rate relative to other high producer well. To meet the requirements demanded by the local
government.
1.2. Scope of Work and Paper Objectives
The objective of this paper is to analyze the oil production rate variation by implementing the gas lift artificial
method for a well named here as JAF of X field with two different domes. The work is performed by the
application of PROSPER software package.
Furthermore, the objective of this study is to provide some decision supporting document and evaluating each
of the scenarios in detail through using advanced software packages to match the data history and predict
simulation results. Consequently, simulations based on the field data will give an indication of what rates can
be produced and the different solutions will be recommended. A complete production analysis will be

138 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

developed by running a simulation program in PROSPER for individual well system and the maximum oil
production rate that could be achieved for the whole production system.
1.3. Pressure and Flow Rate Profile
Most of the wells are completed at a depth that should flow for a period of time after they begin put in
production. This will not be continuous because the energy will be spent and at some time there will not be
sufficient drive force to lift the fluid to the surface. Consequently, the well ceases to flow and the operating
company will be tempted to put the well on one of the forms of artificial lift to provide a good lifting energy
(Lake, 2010).
Figure 1 illustrates the reasons why it is required to lift the hydrocarbons artificially. Through looking at this
figure, wells normally can produce by their own reservoir pressure only for a specific period of time.

Figure 1: Pressure versus Flow Rate Profile (Lake, 2010).

Periodically, the required quantity of oil will not be achieved at the surface facilities, mainly because of the
following factors:
Low reservoir pressure
Heavy oil (high density fluids)
Scale liquid around the wellbore
Skin damage around wellbore
Poor completion and reservoir rock properties
Water conning
Therefore, the company will be tempted to optimize the production through the stimulation or by artificial lift
systems, for example, gas lift system (Hadiaman, 2011).

2. GAS LIFT METHOD

Gas lift is one of artificial lift methods, through which high pressure gas is injected continuously or
intermittently into the well through casing and U-Tubed to tubing. Thus, resulting in the reduction of the
hydrostatic pressure of the heavy column of the fluid and reducing bottom-hole flowing pressure. The purpose
of gas lift installation also to bring hydrocarbons to the surface at a desirable quantity while keeping the
bottom-hole pressure at a value that is small enough to provide high drawdown pressure within the reservoir
(Beggs, 2003)
Thus, gas lift method is where relatively high pressure gas is used as lifting agent through a mechanical
process. The installation of the gas lift system is required when the pressure of the reservoir is not quite
enough to maintain the oil production with sustainable economic return. This system is widely applicable for
the oil fields where the increasing water cut or decreasing reservoir pressure eventually causes well to cease
its natural flow (Ahmed and McKinney, 2004).
2.1. Gas Lift Optimization
The operation of the gas lift system is very similar to the normal production, because there is no any change in
the design configuration of the production system in terms of size and design. The artificial method will be

139 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

through lifting the fluid to reduce the bottom hole pressure as well as the hydrostatic pressure gradient on the
wellbore. A simplified diagram of a particular gas lift system is shown in the below figure (Guo, Lyons and
Ghalamber, 2007).

Figure 2: Pressure relationships in a continuous gas lift (Guo, Lyons and Ghalamber, 2007)
2.2. Gas Lift Well Performance Analysis
Noda analysis is used to analyse the gas lift well performance, the following processes should be done to
analyse the system.
Select the operating gas lift to be analysed.
Select the node location that is most sensitive to change.
Develop the relationship between the inflow and flow of the node.
Calculate pressure drop versus flow rate for all components.
Determine the effect of changing characteristics of the selected node (gas lift valve).
Optimise the production system.
To follow the above mentioned steps, it is more convenient to allocate gas lift working valve as the posistion
of the node. Thus, the node pressure will be the pressure at the tubing exactly in the depth where the valve has
been installed symbolised as P v .
Hereby, the outflow and inflow would be:
Inflow into the node (at the gas lift valve depth)
(equ.1)
Where,
Pv is the pressure at the valve (psi)
Pres is the reservoir pressure (psi)
P res is the pressure difference across the reservoir (psi)
P tbg is the pressure difference across the tubing string (psi)
Outflow from the node;
(equ.2)
Where,
is the pressure at the valve (psi)
is the wellhead pressure (psi)
is the pressure difference across the tubing string (psi)
As the depth of gas injection point is changing with the type of design and at the same time there are more
than two valves usually installed into the wellbore. So, it is better to select the P wf as the node pressure. A
digram between the P wf and flow rate can be drawn, the effect of carrying out sensitive in the gas liquid ratio

140 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

will affect the outflow, but inflow will remain constant. This is because, the injection gas will affect the fluid
above valve only. The below figure illustrates more about the effect of changes in GLR.

Figure 3: Effect of gas rate on outflow (Beggs, 2003)

Increasing the GLR, the bottom hole flowing pressure decreases, consequently more liquid (oil) will be
delivered to the surface. The GLR has a limit, because the injection pressure should be designed in a manner
that will not affect the reservoir pressure, i.e. avoiding the reverse flow from the wellbore into the reservoir.
Furthermore, any extreme injection pressure might kill the well and stop the fluid flowing (Brown, 1984).
2.2.1. Gas Injection Rate
To determine the optimum gas rate, it is required to select a node in the reservoir while the gas lift valves are
also within the vertical system. The equations for inflow and outflow are expressed as follows:
(equ.3)
(equ.4)
Where,
Equation 3 is the inflow to the node and 4 is the outflow from the node (valve)
Pwf is the bottom-hole flowing pressure (psi)
is the reservoir pressure (psi)
is the seperator pressure (psi)
is the pressure difference within the reservoir (psi)
is the pressure difference within the flow line (psi)
is the pressure difference at the tubing above the GL valve (psi)
is the pressure difference at the tubing below the GL valve (psi)
The inflow into the node ( nd will not be affected by the rate of
injection gas, but the downstream flow relative to the valve will be affected. Thus, the pressure drop across
flow line ( and pressure drop across tubing above valve will vary with the change of injected
GLR. Consequently, the different outflow line will be produced for each injected GLR (Economides, Hill and
Ehlig, 1994).
As shown in figure (3), the intersections of the inflow and outflow curves indicates the produced liquid for
different injected GLR. Equation (5) is used to determine gas injection rate for a continuous gas-lift, when the
system rate capacity is known (Beggs, 2003).

(equ.5)

Where,
is the gas injection rate (MMscf/day)
is desired liquid production rate (bbl/day)

141 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

is th producing gas-liquid ratio above point of gas injection (scf/bbl)

is the producing gas-liquid ratio below point of gas injection (scf/bbl)
Under static conditions, the pressure gradient in the tubing-casing annulus can be written as:
(equ.6)
Where,
P so : Surface operating pressure (psi) and P V : tubing pressure at the gas lift valve (psi)
: gas gravity (air=1) and : True vertical depth to injection point (ft)
Zavg and Tag: Average compressibility factor and average temperature (R) respectively
2.2.2. Effect of Injection Gas Rate
Not only the required rate of injected gas should be calculated, but also the optimum amount of injection gas
should be determined through plotting a graph between the qgas-injection versus the qLiquid-produced as
shown in the figure (4) through which maximum amount of production rate should be avoided to reduce the
probability of killing the well. Nevertheless, the economical amount of injection rate can be touched through
the same graph to achieve a sustainable production system (Beggs, 2003).

Figure 4: Effect of Gas Injection Rate On Production (Beggs, 2003)

2.2.3. Effect of Injection Depth
The second category which should be considered is the depth of injection. For that reason, a graph would be
produced between gas injection rate versus qL-production with the corresponding injection depth. As a result,
different curves of production rate can be obtained with relative to the change in the depth of injection but at
constant injection rate. From figure (5) it is clear that by changing the depth for the same amount of injection
rate, the production rate will increase (Hall and Decker, 1995).

Figure 5: Effect of Injection Depth on Production (Beggs, 2003)

3. WELL MODELLING In PROSPER

Modelling a gas lift system is easily provided by PROSPER simulator. PROSPER separates the various
aspects of the well that contribute to the overall production performance. After modelling each aspect, it has
the ability to verify them by performance matching. The purpose of performance matching is to make sure

142 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

those calculations and input data are in the right position. PROSPER is able to model a well in different
scenarios to obtain the upstream accurate information based on the surface data.
The below tables in the next pages are the key input data which required while modelling a continuous gas lift
system concerning a well. For example, in this paper JAF well has been brought into analysing and simulate
the effect of gas lift system on its production rate.
The row field data for this well have been brought for analysis in this paper. The well is being proposed to put
under gas lift optimisation, because its production rate declined to unwanted level.
PVT data, IPR entry data, Downhole data (deviation survey and equipment) and well testing data (BHCIP,
BHFP and PI) for the well are provided. These data are arranged separately based on the PROSPER simulator
input requirement and all units will be field unit. This is to give better understanding on correlation and
matching with reality.
3.1. Well Data
Table 1: PVT Data of the Reservoir Fluid
Parameters Quantity Units
Solution GOR 212 scf/stb
Oil Gravity (API) 34 API
Gas Gravity 0 -
Water Salinity 0 ppm
Gas Impurities 0 %
Bubble Point Pressure at MD temperature 950 psig
Oil FVF at MD Temperature and Pressure 1.138 stb/bbl
Oil Viscosity 1.34 cp

Table 2: IPR Data

Parameters Quantity Units
Reservoir Pressure 1200 psig
Reservoir Temperature 160 F
Water Cut 15 %
Total GOR 237 scf/stb

Table 3: Downhole Data

Measured Depth (MD) True vertical Depth (TVD)
ft ft
0 0
1670 1670

Table4: Downhole Equipment

Tubing Dimensions Casing Dimensions Total Depth
Well Name ID Depth ID Depth
(ft RTKB)
(inches) (ft RTKB) (inches) (ft RTKB)
JAF 3.5 950 7.00 990 1670

Table5: Well Test Data

Pressure Productivity Water
BHCIP BHFP Rate
Test Type Differential Index (PI) Cut
pisg pisg pisg bopd stb/day/psi percent
Production 1169 1010 159 1700 9 15

143 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

3.2. Outline of the Calculation Steps

The below flow chart illustrates an outline of the calculation processes that are required to model a system
analysis using PROSPER:

Figure 6: PROSPER outline calculation processes

4. RESULTS, SENSITIVITIES ANDDISCUSSION

4.1. System Capacity Prior to Gas Injection
PROSPER can calculate the system (VLP+IPR) or system capacity for each well before any gas being
injected. This gives an indication of the original well capacity to deliver hydrocarbons to the surface based on
the natural BHP.
The figure below is the plot between IPR versus VLP for the well, the intersection of these two curves is
called the solution point for the well.

144 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

Inflow (IPR) v Outflow (VLP) Plot (Well Number 1 13/06/2013 - 21:00:21)

1419.18 Solution Point

Liquid Rate 1794.9 (ST B/day)
Oil Rate 1525.6 (ST B/day)
Water Rate 269.2 (ST B/day)
Gas Rate0.36157 (MMscf/day)
Injection Depth 1895.0 (feet)
Solution Node Pressure1000.57 (psig)
dP Friction 21.28 (psi)
1064.39 dP Gravity 824.36 (psi)
dP Total Skin 0 (psi)
dP Perforation 0 (psi)
dP Damage 0 (psi)
dP Completion 0 (psi)
Completion Skin 0
Total Skin 0
Wellhead Liquid Density 54.251 (lb/ft3)
Pressure (psig)

Wellhead Gas Density0.55819 (lb/ft3)

Wellhead Liquid Viscosity 2.7201 (centipoise)
709.59 Wellhead Gas Viscosity 0.011861 (centipoise)
Wellhead Superficial Liquid Velocity 2.450 (ft/sec)
Wellhead Superficial Gas Velocity 6.912 (ft/sec)
Wellhead Z Factor 0.9748
Wellhead Interfacial T ension15.9217 (dyne/cm )
Wellhead Pressure 150.00 (psig)
Wellhead T em perature 128.66 (deg F)
First Node Liquid Density 54.251 (lb/ft3)
First Node Gas Density0.55819 (lb/ft3)
First Node Liquid Viscosity 2.7201 (centipoise)
354.795 First Node Gas Viscosity0.011861 (centipoise)
First Node Superficial Liquid Velocity 2.450 (ft/sec)
First Node Superficial Gas Velocity 6.912 (ft/sec)
First Node Z Factor 0.9748
First Node Interfacial T ension15.9217 (dyne/cm )
First Node Pressure 150.00 (psig)
First Node T emperature 128.66 (deg F)

0
6.86707 1720.55 3434.22 5147.9 6861.58

Liquid Rate (STB/day)

PVT Method Black Oil

Figure 7: Present VLP Matching
Top Node Pressure 1 50.00 (psig)
IPR
From this point, the below table
Fluid Oil
Flow T ype Tubing
of System Solution Data
Water Cutcan
15.000 be determined
(percent)
Bottom Measured Depth3 449.9 (feet)
priorInflow
to Type
gasSingle
Completion
Branch
liftHole
Cased operation i.e.
Sand Control None
before injecting the Gaslift into the
Well T ype Producer
well.
Artificial Lift Gas Lift (Continuous)
Bottom T rue Vertical Depth3 449.9 (feet)
Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
Gas Coning No
Lift Type No Friction Loss In Annulus Reservoir M odel PI Entry
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Predicting Pressure and T emperature (offshore)
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model No
Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node
Relative Permeability No
Table 6: Present Wells System Capacity
Company University of Salford
Field Field A, Dome B
Left-Hand Intersection DisAllow
Absolute Open Flow (AOF)6867.1 (ST B/day)
Reservoir Pressure
1200.00 (psig)
Location Kurdistan - North of Iraq
Reservoir T em perature200.00 (deg F)
Well Well Number 1
Water Cut15.000 (percent)
Analyst Farhad Khoshnaw
Date 10/06/2013
Parameters Units
D:\Salford University\M asters Project\Simulation Results\2\1\Well Number 1.Out

Liquid Rate STB/day 1795.4

Oil Rate STB/day 1526.1
Water Cut percent 15
Water Rate STB/day 269.3
Gas Rate MMscf/day 0.36168
Solution Node
psig 1000.51
Pressure

In the subsequent analysis of Gas lift sensitivities after inject ion process, the changes in the above parameters;
more specifically increase in oil rate and reduction in solution node pressure should be observed and
discussed. These values which production engineers are more interested in, because the purpose of doing gas
lift for any well is to deliver more quantity of oil and reducing the bottom-hole pressure to increase the
drawdown pressure within the reservoir.
4.2. Gas Lift Sensitivities
These sensitivities are adapted for specific application. For instance, the follow ing parameters can be modified
are related with inflow of the well. Thus any alterations in these parameters will affect the IPR curve rather
than VLP curve.
- Reservoir Pressure and Reservoir Temperature
- Productivity Index
- Water Cut
- Gas Oil Ratio (GOR), Water Oil Ration

145 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

- Dissolved and Free GLR

On the other hand, the following parameters determine the outflow of any reservoir. For example, in the gas
lift application; where the node is indicated at the bottom of the well, any changes or modifications in the
below parameters can be considered while carrying out sensitivities.
- Injection Depth
- GRL Injected
- Injection Depth
- Total GOR
- Gaslift Gas Injection Rate
- Gaslift Gas Specific Gravity
- Downhole Equipment, for example, Tubing/Pipe Diameter
- Surface Equipment
In this paper, injected GLR, injection depth and Gaslift Gas Injection Rate sensitivities are tempted to find out
the effect of variation on the total oil production rate and bottom-hole flowing pressure (solution node
pressure). In all steps, the node pressure, water cut and design operating pressure are considered as constant.
Because Gaslift valves are already installed, thus no changes in valve position will be tried.
Finally the purpose of these sensitivities is to output an overall gas lift design system for the well. This will
include the trend of gas injection rate versus oil production rate and the position and number of gas lift valves.
4.2.1. Gaslift Gas Injection Rate
Through using PROSPER simulator different injection rate of the lifting gas can be analysed. This can be
done by selecting gas lift injection rate in the variable 1 of system 3 variables. For example, different injection
Sensitivity Plot (W ell Number 1 13/06/2013 - 19:38:43)
rates are tried from 0 to 2.25 MM scf/day, consequently, the below graph is plotted:
2 34 5.44

2 14 0.48
Oil Rate (STB/day)

1 93 5.53

1 73 0.58

1 52 5.63
0 0 .5 62 5 1 .1 25 1 .6 87 5 2 .2 5

Ga sli ft Gas Inj ecti on Rate (MM scf/da y)

Figure 8: Gaslift Gas Injection Rate Sensitivities

PV T Me tho d Bl a ck Oi l
Flu i d Oi l
Flo w T yp e T u b in g
First Nod e P re ssu re
Bo ttom Me a su red Dep th
1 50 .0 0 (psi g)
3 44 9.9 (fee t)
Infl ow T ype Si n gl e B ran ch
Co mp l eti on Ca sed Ho le
Bo ttom T ru e V erti ca l Dep th 3 44 9.9 (fee t)
From this graph, it is clear that any injection rate more than 1.687 MMscf/day will not change the liquid rate
We l l T yp e Pro du ce r
Arti fici al Li ft Ga s L i ft (Co nti nu ou s) Su rface Eq u ip me nt Co rre l ati on Be g gs an d Bri l l
L ift T ype No Fri cti o n Lo ss In A nn ul u s Ve rtical L ift Co rre la ti on Pe trol eu m Exp erts 2
Sa n d Co ntrol No n e
Ga s Con i ng No
Re servoi r M od el PI En try

(oil rate specifically) rather than increasing the pressure. By looking at the graph, the trend of the line is
Pre di cti n g Pre ssu re an d T emp e ra ture (o ffsho re)
T e mp era tu re Mo de l Ro u gh A pp roxi mati o n
Co mp an y Un i ve rsi ty o f S al ford
First Nod e 1 X ma s T re Co emp
L ast Nod e 4 Casi ng 34 49(fee
0(fee t) on P erme a bi l ity Re du cti on Mod e l No
acti
.9 t) Re l ati ve Pe rmea bi l i ty No
Ab sol u te Op en Fl ow (A OF)6 81 2.0 (ST B/da y)
Fie l d Fie l d A, Do me B
remaining constant when gas is injected at a rate higher than 2.25 MMscf/day, thus 1.75 MMscf/day is the
L ocati on Ku rdi stan - No rth of Ira q
We l l We l l Numb e r 1
An a lyst Farha d K ho sh n aw
Re servoi r P ressure
1 20 0.00 (psi g)
Re servoi r T em pe rature2 00 .0 0 (de g F)
Wa ter Cu t1 5.00 0 (pe rce nt)

maximum sensitivity of the well. However, this rate should be avoided, because only pressure will increase
Da te 1 0/06 /20 13
D:\Sa l ford Uni versity\M asters Proj e ct\Si mu l ati on Re su l ts\2\1 \Wel l Nu mbe r 1 .Ou t

and probably more gas will be produced than liquid. Table (7) summarises the data of above graph, through
which Optimum, maximum and Uneconomical injection rates are distinguished.
Table 7: Results of Injection Rate Sensitivities
Gas Injection Rate (MM scf/day)
Parameters Optimum Maximum Uneconomical
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000 2.250
Oil Rate
1526.1 2113.2 2241.6 2283.4 2308.9 2325.9 2336.7 2342.9 2345.4 2345.1
(STB/day)
Sol. Node
1000.51 921.16 903.04 897.07 893.43 891.01 889.47 888.59 888.22 888.27
Press. (psig)

146 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

4.2.2. Injected GLR

In PROSPER simulator different injected GLR can be analysed. This can be done by selecting Injected GLR
in the variable 1 of system 3 variables. For example, different GORs are tried from 237 scf/STB to 1200
scf/STB, consequently, the below graph isPlot
Sensitivity appeared:
(W ell Number 1 13/06/2013 - 19:42:46)

2 34 4.54

2 32 4.98
Oil Rate (STB/day)

2 30 5.42

2 28 5.86

2 26 6.31
2 37 4 77 .7 5 7 18 .5 9 59 .2 5 1 20 0

GL R Inj e cte d (scf/STB)

PVT Figure
Me tho d 9: Bl a Gaslift
ck Oi l Gas Injection GLR Sensitivities 1 50 .0 0 (psi g)
First Nod e Pre ssu re Infl ow Type Si n
Table (8) summarises the data Flo w ofFlu
T yp
i d Oi l
above
e Tu b ingraph,
g through which Bo ttom Economical
Bo ttom Me a su red Dep th
T ru e Verti ca l Dep and
th uneconomical
3 44 9.9 (fee t)
3 44 9.9 (fee t) total GOR areSaCon dmpCol eti on Ca s
ntrol No n
We l l T yp e Pro du ce r
indicated. By looking at figureL ift(4.2),
Arti fici al Li ft it is clear that when injected
Ga s L i ft (Co nti nu ou s)
Type No Fri cti o n Lo ss In Ann ul u s
GLR > 400 scf/STB, the change in the Re
Su rface Eq u ip me nt Co rre l ati on Be g gs an d Bri l l
Ve rtical L ift Co rre la ti on Pe trol eu m Exp erts 2
oilservoi r M od el PI E
Ga s Con i ng No

rate is insignificant. Thus anytuPre

Te mp era further
re Mo de l Ro increasing
u gh App roxi mati in the
o n injected GLR will
di cti n g Pre ssu re an d T emp e ra ture (o ffsho re) Firsthave
Nod e 1 no
Xmaimpact
s T re
Co
L ast Nod e 4 Casi ng 34 49(fee
emppressure
0(fee on
t) on Perme
acti
.9 t)
a the
bi l itywell
Re du cti on Mod e l No
Re l ati ve Pe rmea bi l i ty No
Co mp an y Un i ve rsi ty o f Sal ford
and the situation is tending to be uneconomical.
Fie l d Fie l d A, Do me B
L ocati on Ku rdi stan - No rth of Ira q
Ab sol u te Op en Fl ow (AOF)6 81 2
Re servoi r Pressure1 20 0.
Re servoi r T em pe rature2 00 .
We l l We l l Numb e r 1
Wa ter Cu t1 5.0
An a lyst Farha d Kho sh n aw
Da te 1 0/06 /20 13
Table 8: Results of Injection GLR Sensitivities
D:\Sa l ford Uni versity\M asters Proj e ct\Si mu l ati on Re su l ts\2\1 \Wel l Nu mbe r 1 .Ou t

Injected GLR (scf/STB)

Parameters Economical Uneconomical
237 344 451 558 665 772 879 986 1093 1200
Oil Rate
2869.9 2302.1 2324.0 2336.8 2343.1 2344.5 2342.3 2337.2 2329.7 2320.5
(STB/day)
Sol. Node
899.51 894.40 891.27 889.45 888.55 888.35 888.67 889.40 890.46 891.78
Press. (psig)

4.2.3. Injection Depth Sensitivity

Various injection depths for the same injection gas can be analysed. This is done by selecting gas lift injection
rate in variable 1 of system 3 variables and injection depth in variable 2.
As shown in the figure below of injection sensitivities, the deeper injection of Gaslift gas rate leads to increase
the oil rate/or liquid rate. This happens because, when gas injected at deeper point, this will result in further
reduction in oil column density inside the vertical tubing. As a result of lightening the fluid, the hydrostatic
pressure will reduce, hence the BHP. In the design consideration of any gas lift system; there is a limit of
injection depth which is just above tubing shoe.

147 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

Sensitivity Plot (Well Number 1 13/06/2013 - 19:41:40)

3002.71 2
2
Injection Depth
2

2 (feet)
1 1 1 1 1
2630.55 1
1
Curve 0 = 1985
Curve 1 = 2550.5
1 Curve 2 = 3116

2
Oil Rate (STB/day)

0 0 0 0
0 0
0
1
2258.39 0

1886.23

1514.07 2
1
0
0 0.5625 1.125 1.6875 2.25

Gaslift Gas Injection Rate (MM scf/day)

Figure 10: Sensitivity Effect

PVT Method Black Oil
of Injection150.00
First Node Pressure
Depth (psig)
on Oil Rate
Below table are theFlowsensitivityFluid Oil
T ype Tubing
results for the JAF
Bottom well,
Measured to
Depth the same injection
3449.9 (feet) rate in Inflow Type Single Branch
MMscf/day,
Completion Cased Holeat three
Bottom T rue Vertical Depth 3449.9 (feet) Sand Control None
different injection Artificial
depths
Well T ype of ft;
Producer consequently, the oil rate proportionally
Lift Gas Lift (Continuous) Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
increased with Gas increasing
Coning No depth of
injection. Lift Type No Friction Loss In Annulus
Predicting Pressure and T emperature (offshore)
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2 Reservoir M odel PI Entry
First Node 1 Xmas T ree 0(feet)
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model No
Temperature Model Table 9: Injection Depth Sensitivity
Rough Approximation Result
Last Node 4 Casing 3449.9 on the Well
(feet) Relative Permeability No
Company University of Salford
Absolute Open Flow (AOF)6812.0 (ST B/day)
Field Field A, Dome B
Location Kurdistan - NorthPROSPER Optimum Maximum
Reservoir Pressure
1200.00 (psig)
of Iraq
Reservoir T em perature200.00 (deg F)
Well Well Number 1
Parameters Analyst Farhad Khoshnaw Calculated Injection Injection Water Cut15.000 (percent)
Date 10/06/2013
Injection
D:\Salford University\M asters Project\Simulation Sensitivity
Results\2\1\Well Number 1.Out Sensitivity Sensitivity
Injection Depth (ft) 1985 2250 3116
Gas Injection Rate (MM scf/day) 1.750 1.750 1.750
Oil Rate (bopd) 2390.2 2692.6 2999.9
Solution Node Pressure (psi) 881.84 837.34 790.18

5. CONCLUSION
Before implementing gas lift optimisation, the average oil production rate (bbl/day) for this well was around
1700 (bbl/day), with relatively low drawdown pressure (psig) between average reservoir pressure and bottom-
hole flowing pressure. Thus, to optimise the production, these wells are modelled in PROSPER program,
through entering row field data of both reservoir fluids properties and well testing data for PVT matching and
generating IPR and VLP for each well.
The well is modelled in PROSPER step by step for VLP correlation comparison, Petroleum Expert-2 was
found very close to well test data for all vertical/tubing performance. While for matching pipe correlation
Beggs and Brill correlation is found the best fit correlation for production and flow line test. Design injection
pressure is inputted based on the available source supply and considering bubble point pressure as well.
The sensitivity results, through which maximum oil production rates are achieved as 2343 bbl/day at gas lift
injection rate of l.75 MMscf/day. In addition, maximum and optimum GLR for the well is determined under
fixed injection rate of 1.35 scf/day of GasLift gas rate based on the selected correlation for analysing injected
GLR sensitivities and the result was; 451 scf/stb. And finally, an optimum injection depth for the fixed gas
injection rate in MMscf/day for the well is obtained as 2250 ft.

148 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf

 Inte rnational Journal of Engineering Technology, Manage ment and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2015, Volume 3, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

6. REFERENCES
1. Ahmed, T., and McKinney, P. D. (2004). Advanced Reservoir Engineering. Oxford : Gu lf Professional Publishing
is an imprint of Elsevier.
2. Beggs, H. D. (2003). Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis. Oklaho ma: OGCI and Petroskills
Publications.
3. Bro wn, K. E. (1984). The Technology of Artificial Methods (Vol. Vo lu me 4). Tu lsa: PennWell Publishing
Co mpany.
4. Economides, J. M ., Hill, D. A., and Ehlig-Econo mides, C. (1994). Petroleum Production Systems. New Jersy:
Prentice Hall PTR.
5. GUO, B., LYONS, W. C., and GHALAM BOR, A. (2007). Petroleum Production Engineering. Elsevier Science
and Technology Books.
6. Hadiaman, F. (2011). GAS LIFT OPERATION, BEST PRACTICE, AN D PERFORMANCE. WLS: Totalattitude.
7. Hall, J. W., and Decker, K. L. (1995). Gas -1ift Unloading and Operating Simulation as Appliedd to Mandrel
Spacing and Valve Design. SPE 29450, 63-78.
8. Lake, L. W. (2010). Petroleum Engineering Handbook (Vol. Vo lu me IV). ZULIA, VENEZUELA : MERCADO
NEGRO.

149 Pshtiwan Tahsin Mohammed Jaf