Auto, Natural, or In-Situ Gas-Lift

Systems Explained
Adam Vasper, SPE, Schlumberger

Summary
The terms auto, natural, and in-situ gas lift all refer to artificial lift
systems that use gas from a gas-bearing formation to gas lift a well.
The gas lift gas is produced downhole and bled into the production
tubing via an auto gas lift valve designed for gas operations.
The value of auto gas lift is probably easier to demonstrate than
for other types of intelligent well because it provides a direct
replacement for conventional gas lift equipment, compressors, and
pipelines, and the ancillary equipment they require.
An estimated 60 auto gas lift systems have been installed at the
time of writing of this paper, most of them in the Scandinavian
sector of the North Sea. Several papers have discussed this technology, but so far none has presented a rigorous analysis or solution of the wells production from a gas lift perspective.
This paper presents the basic theory behind auto gas lift and
how to apply it. The components of the theory are well known and
commonly used in nodal analysis and conventional gas lift design.
Properly combining these components enables an auto gas lifted
wells performance to be calculated and downhole equipment to be
correctly sized and located.
Introduction
Auto, natural, and in-situ gas lift systems use gas from a gasbearing formation or gas cap to lift an oil-producing zone artificially, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Unlike conventional gas lift in
which gas is pumped down the annulus from surface, an auto gas
lift well has a downhole gas zone completion from which gas is
bled into the tubing at a controlled rate. The flow of gas into the
production tubing is controlled by a downhole flow control valve
with a capability to adjust the flow area from surface by hydraulic
or electric means. The use of downhole flow control valves means
that auto gas lift belongs to the category of intelligent or smart
wells. Auto gas lift systems can generate significant value by:
1. Increasing oil production rates through the use of a costeffective artificial lift system.
2. Mitigating the effects of high water-cut in both well production and start-up.
3. Maintaining tubing-head pressure in subsea wells.
4. Eliminating the capital cost of gas-compression facilities or
gas-transport pipelines.
5. Reducing platform load requirements caused by gas
lift compression.
6. Eliminating the need for annular safety valves in places
where they are required in conventional gas lift environments.
7. Allowing nonassociated gas to be produced without recompleting the well.
8. Eliminating interventions for resizing or replacing conventional gas lift equipment.
9. Providing the ability to control gas and water coning (Betancourt et al. 2002).
An estimated 60 auto gas lift systems have been installed at the
time of writing of this paper, the majority of them in the Scandinavian sector of the North Sea. Various papers have discussed
applications of this technology (Betancourt et al. 2002; Al Kasim

Copyright 2008 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 104202) was first presented at the 2006 SPE International Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, 57 December, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 30 August 2006. Paper peer approved 16
May 2007.

February 2008 SPE Production & Operations

et al. 2002; Clarke et al. 2006), but so far none has presented a
rigorous solution for the performance of such wells. This situation
is reflected in the software domain (or perhaps reflects it), where
most commercially available nodal analysis packages cannot easily model auto gas lift wells.
Interestingly, the flow control valve technology developed for
auto gas lift has found applications in subsea and deepwater wells
using conventional gas lift. The reasons for using these variable
valves are usually their higher pressure ratings, their ability to
deliver a wider range of gas lift rates as well conditions change, the
elimination of stability concerns resulting from oversized orifices,
and faster annulus unloading during well commissioning.
Setting Depths for Auto Gas-Lift Valves
The setting depth for an auto gas-lift valve can be calculated in a
similar way to the calculation used for conventional orifice valves:
a tubing gradient line is drawn either from the reservoir up or from
the wellhead down, and a gas gradient line is drawn from the gas
zone up. The maximum setting depth for the valve is found where
the two lines intersect, i.e., where the tubing and annulus pressures
are equal. To ensure that gas can flow from the annulus to the
tubing, the valve should be set at a depth shallower than the intersection of the gradient lines, so that a safety factor of, say,
50100 psi exists between the annulus and tubing.
If the gas comes from a gas cap overlaying the oil, then above
the oil-zone completion, at any given depth, the gas pressure in the
annulus will always be higher than the tubing pressure. This means
that the auto gas lift valve can be set close to the gas completion,
as long as the safety pressure differential is achieved, as shown
in Fig. 3.
For the gas-cap case, the only way that the tubing pressure can
exceed the annulus pressure is if the pressure in the tubing at the
depth of the oil zone exceeds the reservoir pressure. In this overbalanced condition, the liquid level in the tubing should fall unless
something prevents fluid from being displaced back into the reservoir, such as a lost-circulation material (LCM) or a formation
isolation valve. This condition is, however, often used to determine
the setting depth for auto gas lift and conventional gas lift equipment, with the tubing gradient taken as a kill weight fluid or a
column of 100% water to surface and a depleted reservoir pressure
used. This cautious approach results in the auto gas lift valve being
set higher up the tubing, as shown in Fig. 4, reducing the efficiency
of the gas lifting process, but ensuring that there will always be a
positive annulus-to-tubing pressure differential and that the well
can be kicked off.
If the gas source is separate from the oil zone, the process for
calculating the auto gas lift valve setting depth is similar to the
gas-cap case, except that the depletion of the gas and oil zones
needs to be considered in separate reservoir tanks or models rather
than in a single combined model.
Gas-Lifted Wells
The objectives of gas lift, be it auto or conventional, is to increase
oil production or allow nonflowing wells to flow by reducing the
hydrostatic head of the fluid column in the well.
In a gas-lifted well, the downhole tubing pressure is a function
of the amount of gas injected, fluid properties, flow rates, and well
and reservoir parameters. Fig. 5 shows the effects of gas lift gas
injection rate on the pressure inside the tubing, PT, adjacent to the
gas injection point. As the gas injection rate is increased, the
tubing pressure decreases because the fluid column inside the tub75

Fig. 2Auto gas-lift pressure terminology.

Fig. 1An auto gas-lift well schematic. Gas flow into the tubing
is controlled by the auto gas-lift valve.

ing becomes lighter. Beyond a certain gas injection rate, however,

the tubing pressure begins to increase because the increase in
friction pressure is greater than the decrease in hydrostatic pressure. The liquid rate behaves in an opposite manner to the tubing
pressure, because lower tubing pressures increase the drawdown
on the reservoir and hence increase the liquid rate.
Auto Gas-Lift Valves
The auto gas lift flow control valve has several primary requirements which can be considered as coming from either traditional
(liquid) flow control valve or traditional gas lift domains.
1. The valve should have a discrete or continuous range of
positions which can control the gas flow rates to optimize production over the anticipated range of well conditions.

Fig. 3Auto gas-lift valve setting depth, based on a tubing

pressure gradient of approximately 95% WC below the fill point
in the tubing. Tubing pressure is balanced to the reservoir pressure, Pr_oil.
76

2. The gas rates flowing through the valve should be predictable so that modeling can be done with reasonable accuracy to
ensure that the valve is properly sized for the well conditions.
3. The valve should be able to open, close, and change position
while subjected to a significant pressure differential and should be
able to withstand the erosive effects of abrasive fluids.
4. The valve should have back checks to prevent fluid flowing
from the tubing to the annulus. This is necessary to allow the
production tubing to be pressure-tested and to prevent damage to
the gas-producing zone.
As with all completions components, reliability, mechanical
properties, and tolerance to produced or injected fluids must also
be considered. These properties are not addressed in this paper.
Most discrete-position flow-control valves have a series of
holes or choke inserts which can be varied in size and number to
vary the flow area available in each position.
The auto gas lift valve modeled in this paper has two opposed
slots or windows through which the gas flows. The length of slot
open to flow can be hydraulically cycled from surface to one of
five open positions, namely 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, or 100% open,
plus a 0% open or closed position. The width of the slot is chosen
before installation depending on the range of flow rates required.
Gas Flow Rates Through Chokes or Valves
Gas flow rates through conventional gas lift orifice valves are
usually modeled using the Thornhill-Craver equation. The equation uses the pressures upstream, PU, and downstream, PD, of the

Fig. 4Auto gas-lift valve setting depth, based on tubing gradient of approximately 95% WC.
February 2008 SPE Production & Operations

difference between the flowing bottomhole pressure of the gas

zone, PWF-GAS, and the upstream auto gas lift valve pressure, PU,
will be the hydrostatic pressure difference between the two locations, plus any frictional loss as the gas flows up or down the
annulus. Hence in cases where the valve is close to the gas completion and the annular flow area is relatively large, the two parameters can be considered to be the same.
If the gas-supplying zone is prolific compared with the gas lift
rates required, then the upstream pressure of the auto gas lift valve
may not vary much as the auto gas lift valve is opened and closed.
In this case, the upstream pressure may be considered as constant.
The solution for this simplified, constant upstream pressure case is
discussed in the following section.

Fig. 5Gas-lift performance plot.

valve, the choke flow area, gas properties data, and a discharge
coefficient to determine the gas flow rate through the valve. The
auto gas lift valve modeled in this paper uses the API Recommended Practice 11V2 correlation (RP 11V2 2001) which provides more flexibility to obtain a better match with gas flow-loop
test data.
Performance curves for orifice and other gas valves are usually
shown as gas rate versus the downstream to upstream pressure
ratio (PD /PU), as shown in Fig. 6. It is important to realize that the
curves on these plots are generated by using a fixed upstream
pressure and varying the downstream pressure. Hence they apply
only for the upstream pressure and gas properties for which they
were developed. The plot shows the gas flow rate versus pressure
ratio for the five open positions of the valve. The velocity of the
gas flowing through the valve increases as the downstream pressure decreases. When the velocity reaches the speed of sound,
further reductions in the downstream pressure no longer affect the
gas flow rate or velocity because the pressure signal cannot be
transmitted upstream. The gas flow equations usually account for
this by not allowing the pressure ratio to fall below the critical
pressure ratio.
In an auto gas lifted well, the upstream pressure, PU, for the
auto gas lift valve is also a variable. To obtain more production
from the gas formation, the flowing bottomhole pressure of the
gas-supplying zone, PWF-GAS, must be reduced, which will consequently reduce the auto gas lift valve upstream pressure, PU. The

Fig. 6Auto gas-lift valve performance: 1/16-in. slot width,

2,900-psi upstream pressure, PU.
February 2008 SPE Production & Operations

Determining the Solution Points for Auto

Gas-Lifted WellsFixed PU Case
If the auto gas lift valve performance curves from Fig. 6 are
reconstructed to plot PD vs. QGI instead of QGI vs. PD /PU, then
the intersection of the auto gas lift valve performance curves with
the tubing performance curve (PT vs. QGI) will give the operating
points of the well at the different valve positions, i.e., the valves
operating downstream pressure, as shown in Fig. 7. Once the
operating gas injection rates are known, then the corresponding
liquid rates can be read off the QLIQUID vs. QGI curve in Fig. 5.
Note that to construct the auto gas lift valve performance plots, the
upstream pressure must be either fixed or known.
Plotting the solution points on the conventional performance
plot (Fig. 8) shows that the solution-point pressure ratios are different for each auto gas-lift valve position, as one would expect.
The pressure ratio decreases as the valve opens because more gas
typically results in a lower tubing pressure and a decreased pressure ratio, because the upstream pressure has been fixed. In the
example shown, the pressure ratio does not change significantly
between positions, although this is not always the case. This result
is important because gas-injection rates for different auto gas lift
valve positions are sometimes incorrectly read from a vertical line
(i.e., constant pressure ratio) based on a solution for one of the
valve positions.
Note that the Y-axis intercept where QGI0 is the fixed upstream pressure, PU.
Determining the Solution Points for Auto
Gas-Lifted WellsVarying PU Case
The rigorous solution for an auto gas lift well must also consider
the inflow performance relationship (IPR) of the gas-supplying
zone. Hence the flowing bottomhole pressure of the gas-supplying
zone, PWF-GAS, and the upstream pressure of the auto gas lift
valve, PU, will now be included as variables.

Fig. 7Fixed upstream pressure case: intersection of the tubing pressure curve and the auto gas-lift valve performance
curves, showing operating or solution points.
77

Fig. 8Fixed upstream pressure case: solution points are

shown on conventional auto gas-lift valve performance curves.

The operating point of an auto gas lifted well at a given valve

position can be calculated as the solution of three or four equations. From upstream to downstream, these equations can be written (or rearranged) in terms of the gas rate as:
1. QGGASfn(PWF-GAS2),
2. QGANNfn(PWF-GAS, PU),
3. QGVALVEfn(PU, PD),
4. QGTBGfn(PT).
The first equation here is simply the inflow performance relationship of the gas reservoir and completion. Considering the reservoir pressure as a constant, an equation can be written to express
the gas flow rate, QGGAS, from the reservoir as a function of the
square of the flowing bottomhole pressure of the zone, PWF-GAS2.
The second equation concerns the flow of gas in the annulus,
QGANN, between the gas zone and the auto gas-lift valve and is
only necessary when there is expected to be a significant pressure
difference between the flowing pressure of the gas zone, PWF-GAS,
and the upstream pressure of the auto gas-lift valve, PU. If the
valve is close to the gas-supplying zone and the annular flow area
is large relative to the gas rate, then the upstream valve pressure
can be set equal to the zone flowing pressure.
The third equation is the auto gas-lift valve performance equation relating the gas flow rate, QGVALVE, to the upstream and
downstream pressures across the valve and to the gas properties.
The fourth equation relates the tubing pressure to the amount of
gas-lift gas injected to the tubing and is simply an inversion of the
more commonly used form shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 10Auto gas-lift solution as per Fig. 9, but with lines added
to show the consistency of the solution.
78

Fig. 9Auto gas-lift solution with varying upstream pressure.

1/16-in. slot width auto gas-lift valve.

The operating point of the well is the solution to these three or

four equations where the gas rates and upstream and downstream
pressures are consistent, i.e.,
QGGAS = QGANN = QGVALVE = QGTBG
and
PD = PT.
An auto gas lift solution is shown in Fig. 9 for a case where the
valves upstream pressure, PU, is equal to the gas zone flowing
bottomhole pressure, PWF-GAS. As one would expect, the upstream
pressure (which is the same as the flowing bottomhole pressure for
the gas zone) is different for each of the positions. As the auto gas
lift flow control valve is opened, the upstream pressure and hence
the flowing pressure of the gas zone decrease. This is required to
increase the drawdown and hence the flow rate from the gas zone.
To illustrate that the solution is consistent, dotted lines have
been added to Fig. 10. These show that the gas rate from the gas
formation at a pressure PU (i.e., PWF-GAS) is equal to the gas rate
through the auto gas lift valve at pressures PU and PD.
The auto gas lift solution points are shown on a conventional
plot in Fig. 11. Note that the pressure ratio is almost constant
between the 60% and 80% positions and increases slightly in the
100% position, unlike the fixed upstream pressure case illustrated
in Fig. 8. This is because at higher gas injection rates, adding extra

Fig. 11Auto gas-lift case as per Fig. 9: solution points are

shown on conventional auto gas-lift valve performance curves.
February 2008 SPE Production & Operations

gas into the tubing makes little difference to the downstream or

tubing pressure, but the change in upstream pressure required to
increase the gas rate is still significant, and hence the pressure ratio
will increase. This is more apparent in Figs. 12 and 13 where most
of the operating points are in the flat section of the tubing curve.
If the gas-supplying zone is prolific, then there will be little variance in upstream pressure, which would make the trend more like
that for the fixed upstream pressure case.
Sizing the Auto Gas-Lift Valve
The auto gas-lift valve is usually sized to provide a range of
operating positions spanning the section of the gas lift performance
plot where either the liquid gradient is positive or the tubing pressure is negative with respect to the gas-injection rate. In the gas-lift
performance plot shown in Fig. 5, this range could be considered
to be between 0 and 6 mmscf/d, although above 5 mmscf/d there
is little gain in liquid production for the extra gas. The most important part of the sizing exercise is to consider the range of
conditions that will be seen in the well.
The effects of reservoir pressure depletion, water cut, changes
in gas-oil ratio, well productivity, and many other factors must be
considered when sizing the auto gas-lift valve. As a simple example, when a well starts to produce water, the flowing bottomhole pressure and tubing pressure will increase. For a given auto
gas lift valve position, the increasing tubing pressure will increase
the pressure ratio, reducing the gas rate at the time it is probably
needed the most. Ultimately, the procedures described in this paper
should be applied several times during the field life, with appropriate data taken from reservoir simulation models or other appropriate data sources.
Optimizing Well Performance
To optimize the performance of an auto gas-lifted well, a model is
needed which can adequately predict the wells behavior when the
auto gas lift valve position and other parameters such as the wellhead choke are changed. The best way to build such a model is to
explore all the possible combinations of well setup while accurately measuring downhole and surface parameters such as pressures, temperatures, and flow rates.
Annulus and tubing pressure gauges close to the auto gas lift
valve can measure the pressures upstream and downstream of the
valve, which enables gas-lift rates to be calculated. If sufficiently
accurate surface measurements are available, cycling the auto gas
lift valve through its positions will enable the valve performance
curves to be calibrated with the measured gas rates, improving the
accuracy of the model. At the same time, the production from the
oil zone can be measured at different gas lift rates and combined
with the tubing pressure to give an accurate productivity index.
With a calibrated well model, changes in water cut, reservoir pres-

Fig. 13Auto gas-lift solution as per Fig. 12: solution points are
shown on conventional auto gas-lift valve performance curves.

sures, or well performance are much more likely to be noticed.

Pressure data can also be used in reservoir simulation models to
improve longer-term predictive modeling.
Conclusions
In the right environment, auto gas-lift can provide significant financial benefits over conventional gas-lift systems through the
elimination of traditional capital-cost items and the ability to rejuvenate wells where space restrictions prevent the installation of
gas-compression facilities. Auto gas lift, although not common,
can now be considered to be established technology.
Modeling auto gas-lift wells is a relatively easy process when
the methodology is understood. The techniques described can be
implemented either directly through nodal-analysis software or by
linking nodal-analysis solutions to code which handles the gasflow equations.
The use of annulus and tubing pressure gauges near the auto
gas lift valve greatly improves the ability to model and subsequently optimize auto gas-lift wells.
Nomenclature
PD pressure immediately downstream of a valve or
orifice
PD /PU pressure ratio
PT pressure in the tubing adjacent to a valve or
orifice
PU pressure immediately upstream of a valve or
orifice
PWF_GAS flowing bottomhole pressure of the gas-supplying
zone
QLIQUID liquid rate in the tubing
QGANN gas flow rate in the annulus between the gas zone
and the auto gas-lift valve
QGGAS gas flow rate from gas-supplying zone
QGI gas-lift gas-injection rate
QGTBG gas-lift gas rate in the tubing
QGVALVE gas flow rate through the auto gas-lift valve
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Schlumberger for the permission to
publish this paper.
References

Fig. 12Auto gas-lift solution with varying upstream pressure.

3/32-in. slot width auto gas-lift valve.
February 2008 SPE Production & Operations

Al-Kasim, F.T., Synve T., Jakobsen K.A., Tang Y., and Jalali Y. 2002.
Remotely Controlled In-Situ Gas Lift on the Norne Subsea Field. Paper
SPE 77660 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
79

Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September2 October. DOI:

10.2118/77660-MS.
Betancourt, S., Dahlberg K., Hovde, ., and Jalali Y. 2002. Natural GasLift: Theory and Practice. Paper SPE 74391 presented at the SPE
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Villahermosa,
Mexico, 1012 February. DOI: 10.2118/74391-MS.
Clarke, A., Ayton, J., Lawton, D., Lean, J., and Burke, K. 2006. Case
Study: LennoxThe Race To Produce Oil Prior to Gas Cap Blowdown. Paper SPE 100126 presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 1215 June. DOI:
10.2118/100126-MS.

80

RP 11V2, Gas-Lift Valve Performance Testing, second edition. 2001.

Washington, DC: API.

Adam Vasper is a petroleum engineer working for Schlumbergers Reservoir Monitoring and Control Division, supporting
intelligent well design and evaluation. He has worked in
field and technical roles for Schlumberger in the North
Sea, Russia, Far East, and the US. He holds a BEng degree
in mechanical engineering from Sussex University and a MSc
degree in petroleum engineering from Imperial College, London.

February 2008 SPE Production & Operations