Modeling and Optimization of Plunger Lift Assisted Intermittent Gas Lift Installations
Complete J1or/e/iilg 01 Plunger lIlt CYcle A/lolYS Pror/uction OptimIzation 01 Intermittent Cas lIlt !fells
J. Chacin, Intevep, S.A.; Z. Schmidt and D. Doty, University of Tulsa .
ABSTRACT
A novel mechanistic model for the design of plunger assisted
intermittent gas lift installations is presented. The model considers the
complete production cycle: accumulation of reservoir fluids in the
wellbore, annulus pressure build-up, plunger/liquid slug rise, liquid
production into flowline. It is based on the fundamental mass balance
and conservation of momentum equations and considers all important
parameters: reservoir pressure, inflow performance, tubing and
flowline characteristics, plunger characteristics, available injection
pressure, surface injection choke design, gas lift valve design and
performance, etc.
The model solution requires numerical techniques, and it is
implemented as a computer program for personal computers and
mainframe workstations. One of the most innovative characteristics of
the model is that it incorporates, as part of the dynamic numerical
simulation, experimental plunger rise data relating instantaneous
plunger velocity to instantaneous liquid slippage past the plunger. As a
result, liquid "fallback"losses can be estimated and need not be
assumed.
The model and computer program has been verified and validated
both qualitatively and with field data. Comparisons of model
predictions versus field data are included. To the best of the authors
knowledge, this the first published work in which a full model of this
type of artificial lift installation is undertaken.
Finally, it is shown how the model can be used to obtain an optimum
design of a new installation, considering both gas consumption costs
and crude recovery. Furthermore, examples are included to show how
to use the program to effectively optimize existing installations.
INTRODUCTION
Plunger lift is a well known artificial lift method. It was originally
developed to unload liquids from gas wells. Its use was extended to oil
wells with high gas-oil ratios and those wells that stop producing due to
paraffin deposition in the tubing string.
More recently, plungers have been used in conjunction with
intermittent gas lift. Theoretically, the main benefits of utilizing
plungers with gas lift are:
An increase in liquid production due to a reduction of
fallback losses.
An increase in lifting efficiency due to a decrease of the
gas injection requirement.
Although this combination of intermittent lift with plunger looks
potentially very attractive, it has received very little attention in the
published literature. Our literature survey showed, among other things:
. No publications or case studies dealing with the effects of introducing
a plunger in an intermittent gas lift installation.
SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, No. I
. Only one publication (WhiteS) dealing specifically with
experimental studies showing the benefit of gas lift/plunger
combinations.
. No publications dealing specifically with the modeling of production
installations using this method.
It is expected that by the mid to late nineteen-nineties, 600 MBOPD
will be gas lifted intermittently from the shallow waters of Lake
Maracaibo. Means must be searched to produce these wells in the most
efficient manner. It is within this framework that the present
investigation was initiated. Its inmediate objective is to develop a
mathematical model of plunger lift assisted, intermittent gas lift
installations (lGPL). Furthermore, the practical application of the
model to optimun design of new installations and optimizations will be
explored.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A recent publication (Marcano and Chadn 12) provides a good
review of previous work related to conventional plunger lift and will
not be repeated here. In Figure 1, for purposes of illustration, we
present an schematic drawing of a commonly used plunger lift assisted
intermittent gas lift installation (lGPL). In operation, the lifting energy
is provided by compressed gas from surfacc installations that flows into
the tubing thru a gas lift valve.
In conventiontal intermittent gas lift, the gas injected penetrates the
liquid slug and assumes a particular bullet shaped profile known as a
Taylor bubble. This penetration causes some of the liquid slug fluid to
slip downward around the gas bubble, with the consequent loss of
production (fallback). The use of a metallic plunger in an intermittent
gas lift installation provides a solid interface between the injected gas
and the liquid slug. There is experimental evidence 4,5,6 that, under
certain conditions, the solid interface provided by the plungers is
responsible for a reduction of fallback losses associated with
conventional intermitten gas lift. Further benefits, in terms of reduced
gas injection requirements, can be realized when combining
intermittent gas lift and plungers.
WhiteS studied experimentally intermittent gas lift with and without
a plunger. Some of his experimental results are presented in Figure 2.
As shown, the use of a plunger can reduce liquid fallback and improve
lift efficiency in a significant manner, in the low driving pressure ratio
(PdPt) operating range. White found that a plunger with a hole
through the center (along its longitudinal axis) caused further
improvement in efficiency. From this work one can conclude that the
classic picture of a plunger being a moving partition between liquid
slug above and gas below is neither correct nor desirable.
Rosina4 presented a hydrodynamic model of conventional plunger
lift during the rising stage. In this work rigorous modeling of gas
expansion from the annulus into the tubing, gas bubble rising at the
same speed as the plunger, and plunger overruning the liquid slug
according to experimental measurements, yield a set of ordinary
25
differential equations that can be solved numerically using standard
integration techniques. The results of this model compared well with
experiments carried out in a 60 ft. high plexiglass experimental facility.
Liquid fallback behavior predicted by the model as a function of driving
pressure ratio, was similar to that expected for an intermittent gas lift
installation since bubble front and plunger are assumed to move at the
same velocity. In other words, Rosina's plunger model will predict
fallback curves similar to the one identified as "without plunger" in
Figure 2.
Mower and Lea. et. alb conducted a laboratory investigation on a
735 ft. deep instrumented well. This investigation provided pressure,
velocity, gas and liquid volumetric information during the rise and fall
of 13 different commercial plungers. As a result, a substantial data
bank was completed with information that includes gas slippage, liquid
fallback, and plunger rise and fall velocities. Figure 3 shows some of
the results obtained by Mower and Lea et al. For all plungers tested,
the rate of liquid fallback was a linear a function of the average plunger
rise velocity. This result will be used as an integral part of the model
to be developed in our investigation.
Accordingly, the main objective of this paper is to develop a
computer program to model wells produced using intermittent gas lift
with plunger. The model developed must model liquid fallback in such
a way as to reproduce observed experimental trends in the fallback
versus p,,/Pt ratio plot. A further objective is to stablish criteria for
production optimization of these wells based on sensitivity analysis
performed with the program developed.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
System Components
The physical characteristics of an installation must be identified
before any attempt to model it can be undertaken. In Figure 4 we show
an IGPL installation with all of the components being considered in this
study.
IGPL Cycle Stages
In order to properly model the behavior of an IGPL installation, a
complete operating cycle must be divided into phases or stages. Each
stage is characterized by a particular combination of operating
conditions that distinguishes it from all other stages.
Application of basic conservation of mass and linear momentwn
laws to each stage yields a set of ordinary differential equations that
describe the dynamic behavior of all important variables during said-
stage.
In this work, we have divided an IGPL cycle into four different
stages.
Plunger Rise (Stage 1). During this stage,. the gas lift valve is open
and high pressure gas from the tubing-casing annulus pushes plunger
and slug in the upward direction. This is shown in Figure 5.
Fluids from the reservoir may flow into the wellbore accumulating
for the next cycle. Gas from the compression facilities flows into the
tubing-casing annulus. Liquid fallback past the plunger is also
considered, and is discussed in detail by Chacin et al l3 .
Slug Production (stage 2). As soon as the slug reaches the wellhead,
liquid starts to flow into the flowline. This initiates stage 2, as shown in
Figure 6. During this stage, slug and plunger velocities increase
rapidly. As was the case in stage 1, inflow of fluids from the reservoir,
gas from the surface compression facilities, and liquid fallback occur
during this phase and are considered in the model.
26
Gas Blowdown (stage 3). After the liquid slug is produced and if
operating conditions are such that the gas lift, valve remains open, a
third stage developes. This stage is characterized by gas flow from the
tubing-casing annulus into the production tubing. This is shown in
Figure 7. It has been reported by Brown 1U that under some operating
conditions most of the production in intermittent gas lift wells is
obtained from entrained liquid carried out by blowdown gas. In this
work this stage is included only to provide a rigurous transition
between stages 2 and 4 from the point of view of valve mechanics and
gas consumption. As was the case during the previous two stages,
reservoir inflow and gas injection from the surface are considered
during stage 3. If operating conditions are such that the gas lift valve
closes concurrently with the plunger reaching the wellhead, stage 3
does not occur and the model proceeds directly from stage 2 to stage 4.
Slug Regeneration/Gas pressure Buildup (Stage 4). As
illustrated in Figure 8, this stage starts when the gas lift valve closes.
The plunger falls from the wellhead to the bumper spring at the bottom
of the well. Gas flows through the choke into the tubing-casing
annulus, thus pressure bluids up. Fluids from the reservoir flow into
the wellbore, generating a new slug. Liquid left as fallback from the
stages 1 and 2 also contribute to the volume of slug being generated.
After the plunger reaches the bottom and the tubing-cassing annulus
pressure reaches a certain value, the valve opens and the cycle is
complete. Thus stage 1 starts again.
The detailed development of the systems of non-linear coupled
ordinary differential equations for each stage, and the solution
procedure, are presented in Reference 13.
MODEL VERIFICATION
Althought it is agreed by most production engineers that the
efficiency of operation of any intermittent gas lift installation can be
increased by adding a metallic plunger, no published work in this area
was found in the literature survey performed. In Figure 9 we show a
graph of predicted plunger velocity as a function of plunger position,
for two liquid slugs of different mass. Note that plunger position is
measured from the bottom of the well.
The plungers experience very large initial accelerations, as soon as
the valve opens. Maximum velocities are reached 2 to 3 seconds after
valve opening. These velocities decrease as the plungers move
upwards. This decrease can be explained, since as plungers move up,
the available pressure (at the bubble, just below the plungers)
decreases at a rate faster than the rate at which the slugs lose mass due
to fallback. Finally as the slugs reach the surface, the plunger
velocities increase. This is also expected, since, due to a reduction of
the weight of the slugs as part of the liquid enters the flowline, plunger
velocities must increase rapidily.
As one would expect, the velocities experienced by the plunger
pushing the heavier slug (846 ft long) are considerably smaller, than
the velocities of the same plunger pushing a lighter slug, other things
being equal.
Although plunger velocity is shown to vary, these variations are not
large. Therefore the approach taken to account for fallback, as
described in the Reference 13, is justified.
As a further point of interest, we show in Figure 10 the bubble front
velocity versus position during the rise stage as obtained with the
intermittent gas lift model of LiaoY This model, considers liquid
entrainment in the gas bubble and liquid film flow at the tubing wall.
The bubble front velocity profile shows, as was observed with the
IGPL model, large accelerations at the beginning and end ot the rise
stage.
SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, No. I
 For most of the rise stage, the slope of the velocity versus position
curve, however, is not negative, as in the IGPL case (Figure 9), but
shows an increase in bubble speed as the bubble moves upwards.
This behavior is expected, since in the case of intermittent lift without
a plunger, fallback losses are larger. As a result, as the bubble front
rises, the rate at which liquid mass is left behind is larger than the
rate a which bubble front pressure decreases. The net result in the
intermittent gas lift case is that the bubble front acceleration is
positive.
Clearly, then the qualitative behavior of our IGPL model is in
accordance with physical expectations.
In Figure 11, we present a plot of liquid fallback versus driving
pressure ratio P c!Pt for two different commercial plungers. The data
for this plot was generated with the IGPL model developed.
The shape of the fallback curves shows the right trend, with less
fallback observed in the low Pc!Pt ranges. As Pc!Pt increases, the
fallback losses approach a constant value.
The two plungers compared in Figure 11 have similar
characteristics, except that plunger No. 21 has a hole thru its mid axis,
and thus allows more gas to slip upwards, past the plunger, during the
rise stages. It is observed in this figure that for a given Pc!Pt the
liquid fallback losses obtained with plunger No. 21 are smaller than
those obtained with plunger No.3.
As the reader may recall from the previous discussion on the work
of White and the results presented in Figure 2, the results obtained
with the IGLP model developed and presented in Figure 11 are in good
qualitative agreement with experimental evidence. To the best of the
author's knowledge, this is the first time that a fallback versus Pc!Pt
curve obtained with any plunger model, reproduces the trends
observed and reported by White. This fact further suppors the
implementation of fallback based on average plunger rise speed, as
presented in this work.
Although it is agreed by most production engineers that the
efficiency of operation of intermittent gas lift installations can be
increased by adding a metallic plunger, a survey of 15 oil production
companies worldwide showed that no data for IGPL installations is
available. IGPL installations have been very seldom used in Venezuela
also. It was only possible to fmd complete and reliable data for one
well (Lagoven's PB-616). Figures 12 and 13 show model simulation
results for this well plotted along with the measured field data (oil
production, gas conswnption and total cycle time). The agreement is
quite good with differences among the measured values and the
simulation results being less than 5%.
MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
In this section we will discuss how the model developed can be
used effectively by production engineers under three different
schemes: design, optimization and artificial lift method selection.
Design ofInstallations.
In Figure 14 we show schematically an IGPL installation. The
parameters identified in this figure are needed to fully characterize the
behavior of any field installation. The model developed includes all
of these parameters and thus allows one to study the effect of varying
these parameters on well performance.
From the point of view of an engineer trying to design an IGPL
installation for a given existing well, the following well variables are
fixed: PRES' PI, GOR, gAPI, ZRES' dc, TWH' TRES' LH' dH'
The term fixed is used to imply that these are given well variables,
characteristics of the well under study. These variables however can
be changed in the model in order to simulate any well under
consideration.
SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, No. I
There is another group of variables over which there is little choice
due to installation and cost constraints (P-rNT, P sep' dH' ~). Valve
type and plunger type are usually selected according to many criteria,
including availability, service, durability, etc. As a result in most
practical instances, the engineer will design the IGPL installation by
roecifying an apPfoviate combination of the following four parameters:
P d , R, 0 1, and 02' \
The combined effect of varying these four variables can be
presented in terms of total cycle time. By varying one or all of these
parameters over practical ranges, the model developed can be used to
produce plots of total liquid production (BFPO) versus cycle time
(min) and total gas injection required (MSCFO) versus time (min) as
shown in Figures 15 and 16, respectively.
As shown in these two graphs, short cycles results in low
production and high gas conswnption. This is the result of the
reservoir only having enough time to build short slugs. Short slugs are
lifted at high velocities which in turn are responsible for larger
fallback losses. Short cycle times are also responsible for a large
nwnber of total cycles per day, which implies large gas conswnption.
As cycle time is increased, the reservoir can produce longer slugs,
which are lifted at slower velocities, with less associate percentage
fallback. This translates into increased liquid production. Longer
cycle times also imply less nwnbers of cycles per day and, as a result,
less gas conswnption per day.
As shown in Figure 15, there is a cycle time at which maximwn
production time is obtained. A further increase in cycle time results in
a decrease in total production. This is because, although longer times
imply longer slugs, slower rise velocities and less fallback, they also
imply less cycles per day which must ultimately reduce total liquid
production on a per day basis.
As shown in Figure 16, gas injection requirement always decreases
as cycle time is increased. This has an important implication: unless
the price of gas and compression costs are negligible, the optimwn
cycle is not necessarily that at which maximwn liquid production is
obtained.
The IGPL model developed can be used effectively to generate
curves similar to those shown in Figure 15 and 16, which are great
tools to select optimwn cycle times, based on maximum liquid
production or maximum profit.
Optimization of Existing Installations
One of the important parameters that control cycle time in IGPL
installations is surface choke diameter setting, O? From the point of
view of practical applications, choke diameter setting is even more
important, since it can be easily adjusted by the operator at the
welhead, without any need to perform workover operations or stop
production.
Ideally it is desirable to determine the effect of choke setting on
liquid production and gas injection requirement. This can be easily
done with the help of the model developed. Figures 17 and 18 show
plots of liquid production (BFPO) and gas conswnption (MSCFD)
versus surface choke sitting for 3 different dome pressures, as
obtained with the IGPL model. As expected, these plots show that
if the choke diameter used is too large, gas injection flow rate is
unnecessarily high, resulting in short cycles, short slugs, and large
fallback. The opposite occurs if the choke diameters selected is too
samall: low injection flow rates, long cycles, long slugs and not
enough cycles on a per day basis to maintain an optimwn production.
An interesting point to reflect upon by observing Figures 17 and 18
is the effect that dome pressure has as a parameter. In field
operations,
27
 dome pressure is set at the shop, where it is corrected for actual - The model can be used very effectively to perform sensitivy analysis
downhole temperature conditions. Improper temperature corrections on operating parameters, thus allowing the production engineer to
may result in an actual downhole dome pressure value that deviates design and operate IGPL wells at optimal conditions.
significantly from the one assumed to be true. - The model can be used effectively, in conjunction with established
The model developed can be used efficiently, therefore, to produce continuous lift design methods, to select the best production method
plots similar to those presented in Figures 17 and 18 that will allow through a well's life.
the operator to easily optimize production by selecting proper choke Further work in the development of the model should proceed along
size adjustment. Choke size selection can include, as a parameter, the three main directions:
uncertainty due to temperature compensation of dome pressure. - Full adjustment and validation with high quality field data.
- Modeling of production by liquid entrainment during blow down stage.
Selection of Optimum Artificial Lift Method. - Introduction of gas lift valve behavior in the throttling and transition
During the life of any well, two distinct production phases are regions.
present: natural flow and artificial lift. One of the most commonly
used artificial lift methods is continuous gas lift. Briefly, continuous
injection of gas is used when reservoir energy (expressed usuaIy in
terms of reservoir pressure) is still high. Thus a relatively
inexpensive injection of gas .. aireates" the column of fluid and reduces NOMENCLATURE
bottomhole flowing pressure to a value at which the reservoir pressure
is high enough to produce the well at economically feasible liquid Symbol Quantity Units
rates. p Pressure PSI
As the reservoir depletes, available reservoir pressure decreases. T Temperature Of
consequently, more gas must be injected continuously to maintain p Density Ibm/ft3
production. Ultimately, even increasing amounts of gas are not y Volume ft3
enough to maintain a low enough bottomhole flowing presure, and
production declines. At some point it is necessllI)' to produce the well m Mass flow rate Ibm/sec
intermittently, in order to maintain production at profitable levels. Z Elevation ft
The production engineer is faced with the problem of deciding z Gas compressibility factor
when is the appropiate time to change the production method from V Velocity ft/sec
continuous lift to intermittent gas-plunger lift. As we will show next, f Friction factors
the model developed provides a good tool to obtain the required CD Orifice coefficient in
information that allows the engineer to select which method is more D Orifice diameter in
appropriate, as well and reservoir conditions change. d Tubular diameter in
L Length ft
In Figure 19, we present a plot of total liquid prodution (BFPD)
t Time sec
versus gas injection required to produce a well with two methods:
dt Derivative sec
Continuous gas lift, and IGPL at optimum conditions. as reservoir
SI x intercept. eqn (23) ft/sec
pressure decreases from 800 psi to 400 psi. The continuous gas lift
s2 slope. eqn (23) gal/sec/ft/sec
performance curves where obtained with a commercially available
FB Liquid fallback. eqn (3.23) barrels/sec
programme, GLOP. The IGPL points are optimum production points RV Valve port!bellows area ratio
obtained with the model developed in the present work.
ft3*2si
From Figure 19. we observe that at the higher reservoir pressure R Universal gas constant
10.731 Ibmole*oR
(800 psi). total liquid production obtained with both methods is about
M Molecular weight Ibllbmol e
the same (75 BFPD). IGPL requires about three time more gas than
coninuous lift. Therefore, continuous lift is a better artificial lift method "( Specific gravity of gas
under these conditions. k Ratio of specific heats
As reservoir pressure declines (400 psi). it is possible to produce g Acceleration of gravity 32.2 ft/sec 2
twice as much liquid with IGPL than with continuous lift. Although, Ibm*ft 3
gc Gravitational constant 32.2 lbf*sec
IGPL uses five and one-half times more gas than continuous lift, the
doubling of oil production probably offsets the cost of extra gas. w Weight lbf
Therefore, IGPL becomes the method of choice under these operating
conditions. Subscripts

Symbol Description
CONCLUSIONS
WH Wellhead
H Flowline
The results obtained with the model developed in the present work C Casing
fully support the following conclusions: t Tubing
- A new model has been developed for the design of plunger lift TC Tubing-casing annulus
assisted intermittent gas lift installations. TCI TC, upstream of valve port
- The model incorporates all important production system components. TC2 TC, downstream of surface choke
and includes reservoir inflow performance characteristics and gas lift 1 at valve
behavior. 2 at surface choke
- The model treats fallback estimation in a novel way, through the use BSL Bottom of slug
of laboratory derived liquid slippage cha,racteristic of commercial TSL Top of slug
plungers. B Bubble
- Model predictions agree qualitatively with observed behavior in PL Plunger
SL Slug
plunger lift installations. The model compared within 5% with data
BRO Tubing, at valve level
obtained in one well from Western Venezuela.
RES Reservoir
28 SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, No.1
 REFERENCES

1. Chilingarian, G. V. et al.: Surface Operations in Petroleum

Production. Volume 1. Elsevier (1987).

2. Foss, D. L. and Gaul, R. B.: "Plunger Field Performance Criteria

with Operating Experience - Ventura Avenue Field". Drilling
and Production Practices. API. (1965) 124-140.

3. Lea, J. F.: "Dynamic Analysis of Plunger Lift Operations." wr.

(November 1982) 2617-2630.

4. Rosina, L.: "A Study of Plunger Lift Dynamics". Master's

Thesis. University of Tulsa (1983).

5. White, G. W.: "Combine Gas Lift-Plungers to Increase

Production Rate". World Oil. (November 1982) 69-76.

6. Mower, L. N., Lea, 1. F., Beauregard. E. and Ferguson. P. L.:

"Defining the Characteristics and Performance of Gas-Lift
Plungers". SPE paper # 14344 (1985).

7. Hacksma, J. D.: "Users Guide to Predict Plunger Lift

Performance", presented at the Southwestern Petroleum Short
Course, Lubbock (1972).

8. AbercrombIe, B.: "Plunger Lift". The Technology of Artificial

Lift Methods. (1980) 26 by K. E. Brown.

9. Liao, T.: "Dynamic Modelling of Intermittent Gas Lift". Ph.D.

Dissertation . The University of Tulsa Artificial Lift Projects
(1992). .

10. Brown, K.: Gas Lift Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall, Inc.
(1967).

11. Neiberding, M. A.: ''Normalization of Nitrogen Loaded Gas

Lift Valve Performance Data". Master's Thesis, The University
of Tulsa (1988).

12. Marcano, L. and Chacin, J. E.: "Mechanistic Design of

Conventional Plunger Lift Installations." SPE Paper # 23682,
presented at II LAPEC, Caracas, March 1992.

13. Chacfn, J., Schmidt, Z., and Doty, D.: " Supplement to SPE 23683,
Modeling and Optimization of Plunger Lift Assisted Intermittent
Gas Lift Installations," Paper SPE 28162 available from SPE,
Richardson, Tx.

Autnors
Jesus Chacln is Production Methods Section Head at INTEVEP, SA,
where he has worked in artificial lilt since 1987. Dr. Chacln holds B.S. and
M.S degrees in Mechanical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute and a PhD degree in MechanICal Engineering from from the
University of Oklahoma. Zellmlr Schmidt is Professor of Petroleum
Engineering at the University of Tulsa and Director of Tulsa University
Artificial UltProjects. He spent ten years as production engineer wi1h
INA-Naltalin IOYugoslavia, and has served as a consultant to various
companies. Dr Schmidt holds an Er19ineering degree from the University of
Zagreb, M.S. and PhD d~rees 10 Petroleum Engineering from the
University of Tulsa, and is a Registered Engineer in Oklahoma In 1987-88,
he was SPE's distinguished lecturer. Dale R. Doty is Associate Professor
of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Tulsa and Associal8 diredDr
of Tulsa University Artificial Ult Projects. He joined the faaJlty in 1975, and
has been involved in both research and consulting in the area of Petroleum
Production. He holds as, MS, and PhD degrees in Mathematics from
Michigan State University. (SPE 2M])
SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, No.1 29
 ADJUSTABLE
CHOKE

I 50·~~,------------------r=~~
"-
........
WITHOUT PLUNGER

CATCHER 30
I----ASSEMBLY BRUSH CAPILLARY

~:::SO==L~ID~)~~=====l!!!,..:ot
-..-
........
PRODUCTION
.....
20
10
\
- ~ .... ~ CAPILLARY (HOLE)
- CONTROLLER
o '· . . . . . GROOVED
BALL
VALVE MOTOR VALVE
1.2 1.3 1. 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
t-;=~--- GAS Pc I Pt
b SOURCE

REDUCED FALLBACK
ZONE FOR PLUNGER Pc : CASING PRESSURE (psI)
LIFT Pt : TUBING PRESSURE (psi)
S: INITIAL SLUG LENGTH (It)
D: DEPTH OF PLUNGER STOP (It)

SIDE POCKET MANDREL

F1GURE:% EXPERIMENTAL FALLBACK VS DRIVING PRESSURE RATIO
WITH GAS LIFT VALVE CURVES FOR DIFFERENT PLUNGERS AND INTERMITTENT GAS LlFf
(AFfER WHITE)
STANDING
VALVE PACKER

RESERVOIR

FIGURE 1 TYPICAL IGPL WELL

FI..OWLINE

LUBRICATOR _ _ _....-_ ..._ _ _ _ _ _

WELUIEAD
1 ---n
7------I--J
SEPARATOR

0.08

0.07
CHOKE
0.06 TUBING

0.05 ......- - - CASING

0.04 PLUNGER -+--+t-

0.03

0.02
No.1 GAS LIFT VALVE
0.Q1
PACKER
0
0 10 20 30 40

AVERAGE PLUNGER VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

F1GURE 3 EXPERIMENTAL FALLBACK VS PLUNGER SPEED CURVES.

(AFTER MOWER AND LEA ET AL.) RESERVOIR

FIGURE 4 IGPL SYSTEM COMPONENTS

30 SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, No. 1

 PWH
PSFJ>

D2 PINJ

ZBsL

ZREs Zp ZRES Zp

1
ZL ZL
[01. R)

FIGURE 5 VARIABLES FOR STAGE I.

FIGURE 6 VARIABLES FOR STAGE 2.

PSEP

PSFJ>
I PWH

02 PINJ

:J
ZPL

ZRES Zp
ZREs zp

1
TICI
PTeI
1
a I [01. R)

FIGURE 7 VARIABLES FOR STAGE 3. FIGURE 8 VARIABLES FOR STAGE 4.

SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, No. I 31

 40
Ii: "" -u...JOL , ¥ 423 ft .Iug
S
j 40
... 30
~
...l 20
---'"' - - i:...
~
30

~
AI: 846 ft .Iug
J' ...l
~
20

~~
10
~ 10
0
0
!!:
~ 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
~
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
PLUNGER POSITION (I'l) == BUBBLE FRONT POSITION POSITION (ft)
FlGURE 9 PLUNGER RISE VELOCITY PROFlLE ACCORDING TO MODEL FlGURE 10 BUBBLE FRONT RISE VELOCITY PROFILE ACCORDING TO
DEVELOPED INTERMITTENT GAS LIFT MODEL OF LlAO

1400
1300
20 WELLPB .616
1200

~
:
0 1100 • = SIMULATION

/ ®=
#3 (VALVE ROD) 1000
e FIELD DATA
:Ill ~ 900
U
« 10
~
I
# 21 CAPILLARY (HOLE)
800
~ 700
6 600
~ 500
~ C
400
~
::s 0
300
200
2 3 4 100
Pc I Pt 0
0 2345678
FlGURE 11 FALLBACK VS DRIVING PRESSURE RATIO CURVES FOR
TWO DIFFERENT PLUNGERS ACCORDING TO MODEL DEVELOPED CYCLE TIME (MIN)
FlGURE 12 GAS REQUIREMENT VS CYCLE TIME

150
140 WELLPB ·616
130
120 • = SIMULATION
~ 110 ®= FIELD DATA
c 100
Z 90
g 80
U 70
;J 60

~ ~g
30
20
10
O+-~--~~--~-r--~-r--~-r~
o 20 40 60 80 100
CYCLE TIME (MIN)
FIGURE 13 PRODUCTION VS CYCLE TIME

32 SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, No.1

 90
PSFP
TWH
i~ 80
D2 PINI

~
§ 70

f
r--+--+--- cl 60
0 10 20 30 40
r-t--- cl;
TOTAL CYCLE TIME (mm.)
7JUlS ZP
FIGURE 15 LIOUID PRODUCTION VS TOTAL CYCLE TIME
ACCORDING TO MODEL DEVELOPED

1 PLUNGER TYPE --+-...

200~---------------~

PRES, PI, GaR, "API, T RES 'Yg , P )

FIGURE 14 KEY PARAMETERS IN IGLP INSTAIl.ATIONS

0+--~ __-~-__--__~--~--4
o 10 20 30 40
TOTAL CYCLE TIME (min.)
80
FIGURE 16 GAS INJECTION VSTOTAL CYCLETlME ACCORDING
Pd = 1350 psi TO MODEL DEVELOPED
170
Z

eo 60
p
§
f
50

40
0 0.1
Pd =1300 psi

0.2 0.3
c;-
.e-
e
80

60
IGPL =
PR 100 PSI :l
all ~JGPI.
SURFACE CHOKE SIZE (In.) Z PR=400 PSI
0 40
FIGURE 17 LISUID PRODUCTION VS SURFACE CHOKE !=
SIZESEW~orn~J¥~~:l~~~~gsuRES, g
Q 20
f 0
1000 0 100 200 300

i 800 GAS INJECTION REQUIREMENT (lJIId'd)

! FIGURE 19 PLOT FOR OPTIMUM ARTIFICIAL

e 600 LIFT METHOD SELECTION ACCORDING

MODEL DEVELOPED AND PROGRAM GLOP.

~ 400
~
fIl
200
c-<
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
SURFACE CHOKE SIZE (In.)
(SPE 23683)
FIGURE 18 GAS INJECTION VS SURFACE CHOKE SIZE SETTING
FOR 3 DIFFERENT DOME PRESSURES, ACCORDING TO MODEL
DEVELOPED

SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, No.1 33