G

USMS
019362 Criteria for Operation Stability of Gas-Lift Wells
Z.G. Xu, Norwegian Inst. of Technology; M. Golan,
Norwegian Inst. of Technology
Copyright 1989 Sodaty of Petroleum En@naara
Thismanuscriptwas pwidedtotheSociety ofPetrokumEngineers fordistribution
andpossibtepublication inanSPEjoumal, Themateriaiissubjeot tccorrection
by the author(s). Permissionto copy is reatriotadto an abstract of not more than
pIWn Wn~7SPE Book Order Dept., Library Technician, P.O. Sox 83383S,
9 5083+8MU.S.A. Telex 7309S9SPEDAL.
..
G
JUN201989
SPE
PUBLICATIONS
lj~~OLlclTED
.
Cri teri a for Operati on Stabi l i ty of Gas Li ft
Wel l s
Xu Zheng Gang
Michael Golan
Norwegian Institute of Technology- NTH
The University of l?rondheim, Norway
June 9, 1989
Abstract
Operators of wells producing with continuous gas-lift are facing, in certain cases,
difficulties in regulating and maintaining the production rate or the gas injection
rate at a desired target level. These dWiculties stem from the unstable nature
of the flow equilibrium prevailing at the desired production level. Theflow
conditions at this state tend to initially diverge and then stabfize at a different
and more stable equ:,libriumstate where production and injection rates might be
less efficient and thus less desirable. To force the production back to its desired
state by regulating surface chokes is a cumbersome trial-and- error process which
often fails.
The abtity to stabilize the gas lift production at a desired stable level is par-
ticularly important in high-volume offshore gas lift installations, with automatic
operation control and sophisticated programmer for optimal gaa distribution
.
among wells.
This article reviews, the main sources of instabfity in continuous gas lift
production. It then formulates criteria for assuring stable and smooth oper-
ation. These criteria are used to devise. an en@nee@g method to design or
verify production and operation stability. The method augments the custom-
ary continuous gas lift design by adding recommendations on the selection of
size and settings of the downhole orifice, surface injection choke, and surface
production choke. In an early design phase, the method can also recommend
compressor pressure rating that will provide possibilities for easy stabilization
at the optimal operation conditions. This analysis is applicable in any gas lift
sit uation where stability is a concern.
1
Introduction
Operators of wells producing with continuous gas-lift are facing in certain cases
difficulties to maintain the production rate or the gas injection rate at a desired
level. In other cases, production and injection rates, as well as tubing and
casing head pressures, approach a steady state but do not stabilize completely,
continuing swing between certain minimum and maximum levels.
Two forms of instability were observed and discussed already in the 1950s[2,
5]. Since then, they have been discussed in many publications[3, 7, 8, 10].
However, conventional procedures for gas lift design do not address possible
. .
instabfities, and do not ~ve clear guidelin& on howto avoid- them, Rather,
instability is viewed as an operational problem subject to cure by trial-and-error
adjustmentsof operation conditions.
In an attempt to stabilize the production of gas lift well and force it to a
desired rate, operators try usually to adjust the surface gas injection choke and
the surface production choke first. If stability is not achieved then, the operator
is obliged to replace the downhole gak lift valve by a valve with a smaller orifice
size[4].
Such trial-and-error cure approach can be very cumbersome and ineffective,
particularly in large installations with limited amount of injeci~cmgas availab!e
for distribution am~ng the wells[9]. This is probably due to the lack of a clear ~
quantitative approach for stability analysis. The need for clear procedure to pre-
dict well stability at a desired production rate also arises because of increasing
use of computer programmed in systemsthat automatically regulate and control
the performance of a gas lift system. Such programmed could be more effective
and require less manual interference, if they could account also for the stability
2
m 19362
f
.
..
.
,.-
.,. . .
criteria in addition to the optimization criteria usually set for the system.
Two basic types of instabfities were addressed in this paper, static or steady-
state and dynamic. Static stability criterion are formulated and used to analyze
the effects of the gas lift control measures on the flow stability. It, is shown
. .
that the simplest adjustment action, adjustments of surface chokes, is probably
the least efficient one as it results in either a significantly higher injection rate
or lower production rate than originally planned. It is also shown that proper
sizing of the gas injection pressure and downhole orifice size play essential ~mt
in the flow stabtity of a gas lift well.
pressure and downhole orifice so that
desired production level.
A method is provided to size injection
stable operation can be achieved at a
For dynamic instability, only ari ex~ple is mentioned. Dynamic modeling
of the flow in gas lift well is beyond the scope of this paper
.,
Basics of Stabilit y Analysis
Equilibrium Condition. Flow conditions of gas lift wells, as well as naturally
e
flowing wells are conventionally investigated by examine the steady-state equi-
librium flow conditions at some cross section along the flow path of the well.
The pressure at the cross section calculated from the reservoir in the direction
of flow is called upstream pressure, while the pressure calculated from the sep-
arator against the flow direction is called downstream pres:ure. Both upstream
and downstream pressures are complex functions of the flow rate.
In a more simplistic terminology, it is common to refer to the upstream
pressure as
available pressure and to the downstream. pressure as required
pressure. For steady-state flow, equilibrium state :xists only if the required
3
,pressure equals the available pressure at the same flow rate. Graphically, the
equilibrium states corresponds to the intersection points between the required
pressure versus rate curve and the available pressure versus rate curve (Fig. 1).
Any arbitrary cross section in the flow path could be used to determine
equilibrium flow conditions; but one usually select a cross-section convenient
for the analysis in hand. For instance, a cross-section at the perforation depth
. . is selected for analyzing the effect of reservoir performance on the equilibrium
condhion. In this cases, the upstream pressure-rate relationship is called Inflow-
Performance-Relationship (IPR) and the downstream pressure-rate relationship
is called Vertical, or Tubing-Performance-Relationship (TPR). ;
In a gas lift well shown in F%. 2, there ue two flow paths, One includes the
downward compressed gas path, usually in the annulus, G downhole restricted
communication point (orifice) between the tubing and the annulus, usually in a
form of downhole gas lift valve. The other flow pathis the upwards production
path, consisting of &servoir and usually tubkg string.
To analyze well performance, a point in the production path at the gas injec-
tion depth may be used. Corresponding to the two flow channels, there are two
available pressure-rate relationships at the gas injection point. The one which
relates gas flow rate with c.hepressure at gas injection point is called Gas Dis-
charge Performance Relationship (DPR) and is calculated from gas compressor
downwards to the injection point. The other which relates liquid flow rate with
the pressure at gas injection point is calculated from the reservoir to the injec-
tion point and is called Shifted Inflow, Performance Relationship (SIPR). The
required pressure-rate relationship is again called TPR as in naturally flowing
4
wells and is calculated from the separator to the gas injection point. Mathemat-
ically, these three relationship can be expressed in functional forms as follows
PI = fl(9/)
(1)
for SIPR
P2 = f2(99)
(2)
for DPR and
~, = JJ(qf,qg) (3)
for TPR
At the equilibrium flow conditions, the two available pressures and the re-
quired pressure are equal, that is at the equilibrium conditions, we have
P) = P:{
(4)
Pt = n
(5)
Therefore the conditions (pressure and rates) of flow equilibrium in gas lift
wells can be obtained by applying SIPR, DPR, and TPR equations , Eqs. 1 to
3. to Eqs. 4 and 5 and solving the two simultaneous equations.
The equilibrium conditions can be conveniently determined in the following
two steps illustrated in Fig, 2. First, SIPR, TPR, and the equilibrium condition
(Eqs, 1,3, and 4) are used to establish a relationship between gas injection rate
!.
and liquid rate referred as L~ft Performance Relationship (LPR) and a relation-
ship bet ween the pressure (pl or p:!)at gas injection point and gas injection rate
referred as Gas Injection Performance relationship (GPR). Secondly, GPR and
DPR are substituted in the second equilibrium condition Eq. 5 to obtain the
equilibrium flow conditions. Graphically, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the first step is
5
*
to find and plot the intersection points between SIPR and TPRs with,.different
gas injection rates. The second step is simply to obtain the %tersection points
between GPR and DPR,
. . Note the typical shapes of LPR and GPR in Fig. 2. The liquid rate increases
and reaches a peak at a certain gas rate beyond which liquid rate decreases
with gas injectio~ rate. Accordingly, the pressure reduces as gas injection rate
increases until a minimum pressure is reached; Further increase of gas injec~ion
will increase the pressure.
The equilibrium approach for well analysis and the graphical procedure to
treat itwere originally presented by Gdbert [5] in an API paper that has become
the corner stone for engineering well performance calculations. Nowadays, the
tendency is to perform the procedure by computer as the various flow perfor-
mance relationships can be programmed and solved numerically for equfi,bri-
ums.
Instdilities. Whether solved graphically or numerically, the equilibrium state ~
calculated by this procedure can not guarantee that the equilibrium is a table
state. A flow is stable only if, when momentarily disturbed, its new operating
conditions converge asymptotically tow the initial ones. Otherwise, the flow is
unstable. In this paper, the flow instabilities are classified into two types, static
or steady-state instatillity and dynamic instabUity. See Fig. 3.
A flow is-subject to a static instability if, when the flow conditions change
by a small step from the original steady-state ones, another steady-state is not
possible in the vicinity of the original state. The cause of the phenomenon lies
in the laws of steady- state flow; he~:ce the threshold of the instabdity can be
predicted only by using steady-state laws. A static iristability can lead either
6
$= 19362
to a different steady-state condition or to a periodic behavior.
This type of flow instabfity has long been recognized in the performance of
naturally flowing wells[5]. It is associated with the fact that there are usually two
equilibrium points, e.t. two intersection points between the upstream presiure-
rate curve and downstream pressure-rate curve as shown in Fig. 1. The left
equilibrium point is subject to static instability. At this equilibrium point, a
temporary increase of flow rate above the equilibrium rate requires less required
pressure to sustain flow than the available; thus the rate is forced to iticrease
further and can not retu& to the original value.
The right equilibrium point on the other hand is staticly siable (it may not be
dynamically stable as it will be shown later in the paper). A temporuy increase
of flow rate above the equilibrium needs higher required pressure to sustain the
production than the Gvailable, thus, the rate is forced to reduce and to return to
its equilibrium ievel. !?&nilarly,a decrease of rate below the equilibrium needs .
less required pressure than available, the rate tends to return to the ~ixilibrium
state. Mathematically, Th:. static stabfity can be investigated by chechng the
relative trend of the upstream and downstream pressure-rate relationships. the
criterion for the static stab~ty can be wiitten as
dpa < (ipr
q q
(6)
Asheim[l] presented a different stability criterion which are derived by con-
sidering the mixture density changes with the gas injection rate at the injetion
,.
point. Because of the expansion of the injection gas and liberation and expan-
sion of the associated gas in the produced oil, increase in the mixture density
at the gas injection point does not imply increase in the pressure. We feel that
Eq. 6 should be used to predict static stability condition. Later in the paper,
7
Eq. 6 will be used in examining the effects of gas lift control devices on the flow
stabilities and providing a procedure for sizing downhole gas ~ft orifice and gas
injection pressure.
Ag said earlier, even if an equilibrium is statically stable, it may not satisfy
the dynamic stability criterion, so it may still be instable. A flow is subject to
a dynamic instability when the inertia and feedback effects have an essential
part in the process. In such cases, the system continues to alternate about an
average level in a periodic manner. See Fig. 3.
A typical example of dynamic instabtilties is the so-cdlcd a~inulus heading iri
flowing wells due to the time-lag between the release and accumulation C: gas in
the annular space between the casing and the tubhtg. Gdbert[5) described and
explained the heading phenomenon and noted that heading in flowing wells can
be inhibited by installing production packs sealing the annuhm Siice then,
there have been many sMies[3, 7,8, 10] on the heading problems in flowing ad
gaslift wells. Becau$e the tire: responses to a rate or pressure disturbance play
an essential part in the dynamic instabilities, the knowledge of the steady-state
performances mighi be insufficient. A quantitative analysis od dynamic stability
requires dynamic flow modeling. Although the dynamic behaviour is beyond the
scope of this paper, examples and implications of the dynamic instabilities in
gas lift wells will be discussed later in the paper.
8
E
..
$- 19562
-.
Measures To Stabilize a Desired Gas Lift Pro-
duction Rate
Three independent devices can regulate the production of gas lift wells and the
nature of the flow equilibrium: downhole orifice, surface production choke, and
surface injection choke. We shall investigate the effect of each separately.
Downhole Oiflce. I)ownhole orifice controls the rate of discharging gas irito
the production string. An adiabatic orifice flow equation is often used in deter-
mining the downhole orifice size.
Fig, 4 plots three dischuge performance curves (DPR) together with the gas
injection performance curve (GPR). In the following discussion, it is assumed .
that the pressuie 10SSin the annulus is negligible and not considered. The
horizontal DPR represents the case of unlimited gas supply injected into the.
production string with no restriction in the U-tubing around the tubing shoe.
The intersection points between each DFR and GPR are the equilibrium states.
Usually, there are two intersection points between~PR and GPR.
Applying the static, stability criterion, Eq. 6 /o Fig. 4, it is clear that, if
there are two equilibrium points between DPR and GPR, the one to the left is
unstable and the one to the ught satisfies static stidility criterion. In the case
of injecting gas through the tubing shoe, substantially higher gos injection rate
would be required to produce at the same liquid rate which could be achieved
by installing a properly s;zed downhole orifice and surface injection pressure.
From Fig. 4 it becomes obvious that the size of the downhole orifice, es well as
9
\
$= 19562
.-
the orifices upstream pressure, governs the stabiity of the designed operation
state. In fact, the higher the available injection pressure,the order is the orifice
size needed, and the easier is to stabilize the production.
To check whether a designed operation condition is stable or not, one only
needs to plot the DPR and GPR to see if the designed flow conditions cor-
responds the right intersection point between the DPR and GPR. If the flow
conditions corresponds to the left intersection point, the well cannot produce at
the dedired production level. Following steps may be used to determine down-
hole orifice size and surface injection pressure that will assure stable production:
1.
2.
3.
Construct the GPR and LPR and decide the optimal gas injection rate
and production rate.
Locate the optimal gas injection rate on GPR. Select another point slightly
below GPR and to the right of the desired injection rde (see F%. 5). This
point location should already assure static siabfity, The degree of stabfity
depends on the horizontal distance between GPR and the point.
Substitute in Eq. 7 the two known points on the DPR, that is, the desired
point and the selected point, and solve for the corresponding orifice size,
A, and the upstream pressure, pv..
The impact of available injection pressure on the stability can be shown by
determining the possible stable production at a given injection pressure, Fig. 6
ilustrate a procedure to determine the range of stable productions for a fixed
orifices upstream pressure. Point C in the figure indicates the smallest orifice
size which can be used, This point also indicates the lowest gas injection rate
for stable production, If the desired gas injection rate should be lets than this
10
,
value, higher gas i~ection pressure is required, It can be shown that increasing
upstream pressure will move point C downwards and point B upward~. In
other Word,increasing upstream pressure increases the stable production range
..
which can be obtained by choosing a proper orifice size. By establishing the
.
equilibrium envelop as shown in Fig, 6, one can determine the surface injection
pressure and downhole orifice size for stable production at a desired rate.
Contrary to the above ~rocedure that relates orifice size to the injection
pressure and flow instability, conventional gas lift designs selects orifice size by
an arbitrary recommendation, Usually, a orifice size is selected which will give
50 to 100 psi pressure drop over the orifice for a given gas injection rate. This
recommendation is baaed on a long operation experience without any theoretical
argumentation. Such arbitrary orifice sizing, however, can not guarantee that
the desired equilibrium state will always be G stable one, As a result, in
cases the operator needs to adjust surface chokes to stabilize opemtion
The results is a significant reduction in the efficiency of the operation,
many
state.
Wellhead Production Choke. In the above discussions, downhole orifices are
used to change DPR in order to accomplish desired stable production, One can
also use the production choke on the Ohristmas tree (wellhead choke), which is
used to control the wellhead pressure and thus the production rate, to adjust
GPR to achieve stable operation conditions.
Reducing the wellhead choke size changes the shape of the lift performance
curve (LPR) and the gas injection performance curve (GPR), Fig. 7 shows the
LPRs and GPRs for two choke sizes, The maximum rate point is shifted to
left and the maximum rate is reduced when the size of wellhead choke becomes
smaller as indicated in Fig. 7. The result is that production can be stabilized
11
at a lower gas injection rate by chokin~ the well. The deficiency with such
stabilizing measure is that the production rate is reduced and the operation
conditions are within the inefficient region in the LPR curve.
Surface Gas Injection Choke. Gas iift wells are usually equipped with a
surface choke on the gas line to control the gas flow into the gas injection string.
Operators tend, in many cases, to adjust this choke as a fast way to regulate
the performance of a gas lift well. Yet, this choke might also be a source of
instab&ty.
The effect of the surface choke on the stabiiity of the production has to be
considered together with the downhole stability condition at the gas injection
point. If a downhole gas lift orifice is properly designed to guarantee stable flow
as previously discussed, no consideration is needed to the effect if the surface
choke, except that it is large enough so that it can supply the required amount
of gas at a given surface injection pressure. On the other hand, if the downhole
orifice cannot by itself stabtize the flow after a disturbance, the stabiity can
be affected by the surface choke.
.
As previously discussed, there are two intersection points between GPR and
/
DPR. The left intersection is unstable while the right one is stable. If the flow
is unstable, it is most likely that the designed operatik conditions are at the
left irltersection. In the case, one can only increase the choke openhg to supply
a higher gas injection rate so that the operation conditions are changed to the
right intersection point between GPR and DPR which is less efficient than the
left intersection. If one tries to stabilize the well by reducing the choke opening,
server oscillation will probably occurs as described below.
12
-.:
Examples of Dynamic Instabilities
In above discussion, we concentrated on the steady-state flow and static stability
aqd used the static stability criterion to analyze the effects of the different con-
tro, ?;evices on production stabilities. Static stability consideration is, however,
insu. cient and dynamic behaviors should be considered for complete analy-
sis. Ttiis paper does not address qualitative criteria for dynamic stabilities but
presents a few examples of instabilities.
Interaction between surface and downhole orifice. If the si~ of the
surface choke and the $ize of downholc orifice are not compatible, severe oscilla-
tion will occur. Assume that a sudden decrease in the tubing pressure promotes
an excessive discharge of gas at the downhole orifice. If the surface choke is
small, the gas supply from the surface choke cannot catch up with the increase
of the gas discharge through the downhole ofice. The pressure in the Gnnulus
will start to drop because of the imbalance of inflow and outflow of gas. As a
response, the gas discharge rate through the downhole orifice will start to drop
while the surface gas injection will be enhanced. Due to the time delay between
the changes in tlie downhole discharge and surface injection rates, the flow may
siart to oscillate about the designed flow rate. In an extreme situations, the well
may die- and-flow alternatively, quite similar to what happens in intermittent
gas lift.
The oscillating sequence can be described in more detail w follows.
1. Start at the gas injection point. A sudden reduction of tubing flow pressure
results in more gas discharge through the riownhole orifice.
2, More gas discharge will further reduce the flowing pressure, promoting
more gas flowing through the downhole orifice.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Since the gas supply through the surface choke can not meet in time the
higher gas rate discharge into the production string, the casing pressure
and, thus, the upstream pressure at the downhole orifice will eventually
reduces. This results in a decrease of gas flow into the tubing.
The tubing flowing pressure starts now to increase because of the gas
injection reduction. This accelerates the reduction of gas injection into
the tubing.
The trend now is swayed to opposite. Because of higher tubing flowing
pressure and lower upstream pressure, the downhole orifice can discharge
less gas than the surface now supplies. The casing pressure begins to build
up.
As the casing pressure is built up, gas rate into tubing starts to incrtmse. --- --
More gas injection reduces the tubing flowing pressure and thus sways the .
flow condition back to step 3.
.,
The stability depends on the trend of the fluctuation amplitudes of the suc-
ceeding circles. If in each following oscillation circle, the amplitudes of rate and
J
pressure fluctuations keep constant or continue to grow, the system is subject
to an dynamic instability. In an extreme situation, gas stops to flow into ttie
production string during step 5. The continuous gas lift turns into an intermit-
tent gm lift, an extremely inefficient production. If ir lch following oscillation
circle, the fluctuation amplitudes are diminishing, the system may reach stable
$
conditions. However, considering the constant e stence of triggering sources
14
.
. .
. . .. .
due to the erratic nature in multiphaae flow, the inherent pressure fluctuation
may constantly force the system out of balance.
It can be concluded from the above explanation that choking the surface
orifice is a very poor measure to stabfize gas lift production. Increasing the
choke opening tends to stablize the flow. But the resulted over-:~jection of gas
is strongly undesirable.
Similar dynamic instability may exist due to interference between the down-
hole orifice and the unloading gaslift valve when the gas supply is limited and
the valves are not properly sized and spaced, In this case, it can be shown that
gks is discharged into the production string alternately through the unloading
valve and the downhole orifice. This instability can be cured by increasing gas
injection rate, which results in gas being dkhrged through two valves.
Summary and Conclusions
Static and dynamic instabilities are described. Static stab~ty criterion were
formulated. The DPR and GPR are introduced and used to analyze the stabiliz-
ing effects of three control devices, surface choke, wellhead choke, and downhole
orifice.
It is recommended that the static stability be incorporated in the sizing of
~.
gas injection pressure and downhole orifice. The advantages of doing this are
Q
that the desired production rate and gas injection rate can be attained and
maintained stable and that fiow disturbances are smoothed and isolated from
interference with other wells.
Though choking producing at the wellhead can stabilize the operation at a
lower gas injection rate, it reduces the production rate and yield an inefficient
15
gas lift production.
opening the surfwcegas injection choke can stabilize the g= ~ft we~ but at
the same time it moves the operation to a less efficient, higher gas injection rute.
Reducing the size of the surface choke will result in oscillations in flow condition
due to interactiori between the flows at the surface and downhole orifices. -
..
Nomenclature
A= orifice size (area), inz
cd = orifice discharge coefficient
G = gas gravity (air=l)
.
k = cP/cV, ratio of specific heat
Pa
= available pressure
Pr
= required pressure
PV.
= upstream orifice pressure, psia
P.f
= downstream orifice pressure, psia
q
= flow rate
I !79
= gas flow rate, mscf/D
m
= liquid flow rate
16
,
Bibliography
.
[1]
[2]
.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Asheim, H.:Criteria for Gas Lift Stability? J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1988) 1452-
56.
,,
Bertuzzi, A. F., Wechon, J. K., and Poettman~ F. H.:Deacription and Anal-
ysis of an Efficient Continuous Flow C3aa-LiftInstsllation,W J. Pet. Ta.
(Nov. 1953) 271-78, hns. AIME, Vol. 198.
Blick, E.F., Enga, P.N., and Lin, P.C.:UTheoretieal Stabtity Analysis of
Flowing Oii Wells and Gas-Lift Wells, SPEPE (Nov. 1988) 508-14.
DeMos~, E.E., and Tiemann, W. D.:Gas Lift Incre~es High- Volume Pro-
duction From Clymore Field? J! Pet. Tech. (April 1982) 696-702.
)
~
Gilbert, W.E.:Flowing and Gas-LIft Well Performance, Drill. and Prod.
Prac., API (1954) 126.
Golan, M. and Whitson, C.H.: Well Performance, IHRDC Publishing,
Boston, USA (1986).
Grupping, A.W., Luca, C.W.F., and Vmmeulen, F. D.:Heading Action
Analyzed For Stabllization~ Oil and Gas Jour. (July 23, 1984) 47-51.
17
G
s=-.. .
~.
.
[8]
,
[9]
[10]
Grupping, A.W., Luca, C,W.F., and Vermeulen, F.D.:These Methods Can
Eliminate or Control Annulus Heading, Oil and Gas Jour. (July 30, 1984)
186-92.
Kleyweg, D., Tiemann, W. D., and Dalsiel, S.G.:Gaslift Optimization-
Claymore Field,MSPE 11885, presented at the Offshore Europe 83 Con-
ference held in Aberdeen, 6-9 Sept. 1983.
Terre, A.J. et al.:Caaing He~ding in Flowing Oil Wells, SPEPE (Nov.
1987) 186-92.
.
18
./
.
.
.
.
n
()
p
9
Ge
P
>
W1
calculated
upward
calculated
downward
\
Flow Rate
.
~.
Pe
f
1
Figure 1. Determination of Equilibrium Conditions
.:
#f h
w
I
oL
=+oii
/
n
G
G
:
.
.
.
.
TPR
Flow Rate
Gas Injection Rate
Figure 2. Graphioal Procedure for
Equilibrium
LPR
r
Gas Injection Rate
of e Gaslift Well
.
-
,
Static Instability
state Dynamic instability

Time
Figure 3: Illustrationof Stability Concepts
19362
Gas Injeotion Rate
Figure 4. Effect of Choke Size and Injection Pressure On Stability
.
+
ml
Stability marglne
Figure 5.
I
Gas Injection Rate
Determination of Stable Choke Size and Injeotion Pressure
G

C
A
Stable
c..
.............................
Unstable
.
-- -
I
Dowhole Choke Size
.,
-.
- 19S62
t
c
Gas Injeotion Rate
I
Gas Injeotion Rate
Figure 6. Range of Stabler Production Conditions with
aGiven Gaslnjeotion Pressure
*
.
.
4
LPR with large choke
a
3
a
Q
:
LPR with small choke
.-
4
(

A
Gas Injection Rate
..
choke
Gas Injection Rate
Figure 7. Effect of Wellhead Choke on Stability
.
/----