(3.5.

61)
Addressing Gas Lift stability issues a field implementation study
of Improved Gas Lift valve Technology
C. Giridhar Kumar* , CE(P) ,ONGC, IOGPT , E-mail - giridharkumar@rediffmail.com
R. Sujith Kumar, SE(P), ONGC, T.K. Mandal, SE(P), ONGC, IOGPT
G.D. Vaishya, CE(P) , ONGC, Ankleshwar, R.R. Wankhede, GM ,ONGC,IOGPT
Abstract
Gas lift is the most flexible Artificial lift mode in the oil production operations worldwide. It caters to
wide range of flow rates under many different operating conditions, for supplementing additional
energy required to keep the wells flowing. The effectiveness of a gas lift system mainly depends on
the performance of the gas lift valve. A conventional Gas lift valve is simply a square edged orifice
with a loading element (Bellows) attached to it for controlling opening and closing forces along with
throughput of the valve. Flow element being a standard orifice, upstream and downstream pressures
affect the throughput of the valve till critical flow is achieved, that is, downstream pressure is about
53% of upstream pressure. Once critical flow is achieved, further reduction in downstream pressure
does not affect the flow, thus remaining constant at critical rate. But in most of the gas lift wells, it is
not feasible to design the gas lift system in such a way that this much pressure differential
(downstream less than or equal to 53 % of upstream pressure). Hence many gas lift wells face the
problem of unstable flow in both tubing as well as in casing, thus leading to heading and consequent
loss in production and varying injection gas intake.
To tackle this issue of sub critical flow through gas lift valve, an innovative R&D study has been taken
up and the profile of the Gas lift valve port has been designed in such a way that critical flow can be
achieved at a down stream pressure of about 80 to 85 % of upstream pressure (with just 15 to 20 %
differential instead of normal 47 % required to achieve critical flow).
Modified profile Gas lift valves, developed through in-house R&D, have been installed in the gas lift
wells in the onshore Ankleshwar Asset to validate the expected benefits of this technology in the field.
Results of the field implementation are encouraging.
This paper outlines the brief details of this R&D study, results of experimentation, issues considered
for selection of wells for implementing this technology on Pilot scale, Studies carried out for evaluating
the effectiveness of this technology in the selected wells and finally the results of field implementation
with future strategy for field scale implementation of this technology.

Introduction
The basic principle of continuous flow gas lift is to inject high pressure gas in the oil body (from the
casing-tubing annulus in to the tubing) at some predetermined depth at a controlled rate to aerate the
oil column above it and as a result this process reduces the density of the oil column and the flowing
bottom hole pressure. The reduction in flowing bottom hole pressure then enables to lift the required
rate of liquid to the surface against the designed tubing head pressure.
The flow rate of gas injected in to the tubing is dependant on upstream pressure (Gas injection
pressure at depth), down stream pressure (Flowing pressure in the tubing at that depth, apart from the
size of the gas lift valve port itself. As Gas lift valve port in a conventional GLV is a square edged
orifice, it requires that down stream pressure be less than or equal to about 53 % of upstream
pressure, to maintain a stable non-fluctuating gas rate (Critical rate). However, in most of the oil field
applications of gas lift, it is not practical to fulfill this criterion, as the pressure differential at the
operating valve depth is generally much less than the one required to maintain critical flow. On the
other hand, depth of the operating valve has to be sacrificed at the cost of reduced production, to
maintain critical rate across the gas lift valve. Lesser pressure differential across the valve (than
required for critical flow) will cause fluctuations in gas injection rate (because of fluctuations in the
flowing tubing pressure) and will lead to flow instability in the tubing, which will affect both production
from the well and also the injection gas consumption.

To tackle this issue of unstable flow in gas lift wells, an R&D project has been taken up to design a
modified profile in the gas lift valve orifice to achieve critical flow at a much lesser pressure differential
compared to conventional square edged orifice.
Gaslift valve seats for normally used port sizes of 3/16 inch, inch and 5/16 inch were selected for
experimentation. The modifies seat profiles of the above port sizes were fabricated with convergent
divergent profile with a total angle of divergent section limited to 10 and 12 degree respectively. The
exit diameter of the relevant port sizes in each case was theoretically calculated to achieve a critical
flow rate at approximately 90 % of the downstream pressure to upstream pressure ratio. The
schematic diagram of a standard square edged seat and a modified convergent divergent seat
profile is shown in Figure-1

Conventional Square edged profile

Modified divergent profile

Figure 1: Existing square edge and modified convergent divergent gaslift valve seat profile
Dynamic tests using Constant injection pressure testing ( CIPT ) method were carried out on each of
the modified seat to generate gaslift valve flow performance curves. The results indicate that the
critical flow rates were achieved at downstream pressure to upstream pressure ratio of approx 87 %,
85 % and 82 % for port sizes of 3/16 , 1/4 and 5/16 port sizes respectively. Details of
experimentation and analysis of results can be obtained from Reference-1.
The seat profile modification will allow the valves to be operated in the critical region even with
lesser pressure differential of about 100 200 psi, as presently being practiced in the field and yet will
pass the maximum flow rate at that low pressure differential. Any pressure fluctuations in tubing will
not affect the gas throughput and thus eliminate instability in the tubing, helping to improve oil
production.

Field Trial Implementation

Once the experimentation in the laboratory is completed and results are verified through dynamic
testing of modified profile seat gas lift valves, pilot field implementation has been taken up to validate
the results and benefits thereof by installing these valves in two gas lift wells of Onshore Ankleshwar
Asset.
One well each from two producing fields of Ankleswar Asset, namely, Ankleswar and Gandhar fields
have been chosen for implementation of Improved gas lift valve technology. Parameters of Gandhar
and Ankleswar field differ significantly from each other in many ways, which is described below,

Parameter

Gandhar field

Ankleswar field

100-105

35-40

2500-3000

1000-1200

API of Crude oil, Deg

38

45

Formation GOR, v/v

100-200

50-100

Casing size, inches

7 and 9 5/8

5 to 50

85 to 90

Gas Injection Pressure, Kg/cm2

Average well depth, mts

Average Water cut, %

These two sets of field conditions cover almost entire range of operating conditions existing in
different fields of ONGC as well as other Indian E&P companies.
Candidate wells for installation of modified gas lift valves were selected based on
Having good potential (expected rate ~ 100 m3/d), so that tubing pressure at the operating
valve depth will be higher and close to Gas injection pressure.
Availability of independent gas injection line,
Gas measurement facilities in place

Results Of Field Implementation Study

Ankleswar # 293
Two numbers of GLVs with modified profile seats were installed on the upper part of the tubing
string in addition to two normal valves in the lower portion of the string. In the Gas lift wells of
Ankleswar field, due to good reservoir pressure support, generally first or second valve from top
will be the operating valve. For this reason, modified profile valves are installed in top two valves
in this well. After installation and completion, well was activated with gas lift and following studies
were carried out.

Gradient survey
Two pen recorder survey
Well testing under varying operating conditions

Well details and Gas Lift design of Ank-293 are given in Table-1 and Table-2 below.
Table-1
Well No

Ank # 293

Casing Size, in
Tubing Size, in
Perforation depth,
Mts
SBHP, Kg/cm2

5.5
2.875
1090
94

GLV1, mts
GLV2, mts
GLV3.mts
GLV4, mts

GLV Depths, Mts

252
443
589
726

PI, m3/d/kg/cm2
W/C, %

2
78

GLV Port size, inches

12/64 (Modified profile)
12/64 (Modified profile)
12/64 (Conventional)
16/64 (Conventional)

Table-2a GL Design of Ank # 293

Valve No. Depth TVD Tv(degrees F)
Feet
1
827.5
117.8
2
1456.8
131.8
3
1934.2
142.5
4
2384.2
152.6

Port Size
1/64 inch
12
12
12
16

Pt
Psi
157.5
219.2
268.7
317.5

0.038
0.038
0.038
0.066

Psc
psi
422.7
415.7
408.1
397.7

Pd&Pvc
psi
430.8
429.8
426.5
419.7

Table-2b GL Design of Ank # 293 (contd)

Valve No.
1
2
3
4

OP
psi
441.6
438.1
432.7
426.9

Pso
psi
433.1
423.6
413.9
404.6

Pd@91F
psi
409.1
397.5
386.8
373.9

TRO
Psi
425.3
413.2
402.1
400.3

Set to
psi
425
413
400
400

Gradient survey
Results of the two gradient surveys conducted in Ankleshwar-293 are placed in Table-3.
Table-3 Gradient Survey results of Ankleshwar293
Gradient survey
Gradient survey Date: 21-10Date: 20-9-05
05
Depth,
mts

Pressure
Kg/cm2

Depth,
mts

Pressure
Kg/cm2

0
100
254
468
652
803
900

14.6
18.3
24.2
36.9
49.8
61.1
68.4

0
100
254
468
652
803
900

10.6
13.8
20.2
31.6
45.2
57.3
65.2

Two pen recorder survey

This is a useful method, where in Casing and Tubing head pressures are continuously
recorded over a period of 24 hours to monitor the stability of pressure profiles in casing and
tubing. A smooth and steady curve on the recording chart clearly indicates the stable
operation of Gas lift in the well. Twp pen chart recorded in Ankleshwar#293 is placed in Fig-2.
Inner recording (Red) is THP having range of 0-500 psi and the outer recording (Green) is
CHP having range of 0-1000 psi. This chart indicates a fairly stable flow in tubing, which
confirms the advantage of using modified Gas lift valves.

Well testing under varying operating conditions

Well testing for liquid and gas rates has been done with three different bean sizes on tubing.
Results are placed in Table-4 below.

Table-4 Well test data of Ank # 293

Test date Bean size
MM
20-9-05
8
10-10-05
10
21-10-05
12

Qliquid
M3/d
51.84
86.4
115

W/C
%
78.55
66.8
NA

Qg,total
M3/d
4028
4257
4610

Qg,inj
M3/d
2895
2858
2923

CHP

THP

Figure-2 Two-pen chart of Ankleshwar # 293 (29-9-05)

Another main benefit of Improved gas lift valve technology is the ability of achieving critical flow
across GLV with a much less pressure differential compared to Conventional square edged seat
GLV. This was verified and validated by measuring the injection gas flow rates in to the well with
different tubing head pressures. Tubing head pressures were varied by varying the size of choke
installed on the wellhead. Varying THP will obviously result in varying pressure differentials
across the GLV as well as sand face. By looking at data in Table-5 below (Compiled from
Gradient survey and well testing Data above), it is seen that Injection gas rate is fairly stable even
with varying pressure differentials across the valve.

Table-5
Test date Qg,total Qg,inj THP Pt@valve Pinj@valve Pd/Pup
M3/d M3/d Kg/cm2 Kg/cm2 Kg/cm2
%
20-9-05 4028 2895 14.6
24.2
32
75.625
10-10-05 4257 2858 10.6
21.6
32
67.5
21-10-05 4610 2923
9.4
20.2
32
63.125
Hence it can be concluded that critical flow has been achieved at a pressure differential of 75 %
compared to 53% in conventional square edged gas lift valve seats.

Liquid flow rates from this well with conventional gas lift valve seats (Before work over job of
Water shut off) and with Modified profile seats (After work over job) are indicated in table-6 below.
Table-6

Before WOJ
After WOJ

Test date Bean size

MM
July'05
10
10-10-05
10

Qliquid
M3/d
65.66
86.4

W/C
%
93.1
66.8

Remarks
With Conventional GLV
With modified GLV

Gandhar # 310
Three numbers of GLVs with modified profile seats were installed on the bottom part of the tubing
string in addition to two unloading valves in the upper portion of the string. Well details and Gas
lift design are placed in Table-7 and Table-8 respectively below.

Table-7
Well No
Casing Size, in
Tubing Size, in
Perforation depth, Mts
SBHP,Kg/cm2

G # 310
7
2.875
2812
195

GLV1,mts
GLV2,mts
GLV3.mts
GLV4,mts

GLV Depths
942
1737
2386
2700

PI,m3/d/kg/cm2
W/C, %

0.4
90

GLV Port size,inches

12/64 (Conventional)
12/64 (Modified)
16/64 (Modified)
16/64 (Modified)

Table-8a GL Design of G # 310

Valve No. Depth TVD Tv(degrees F)
Feet
1
3093.2
152.4
2
5701.8
200.8
3
7829.5
240.2
4
8858.3
259.3

Port Size
1/64 inch
12
12
16
16

D Pc

0.038
0.038
0.066
0.066

85.5
162.9
215.3
232.7

Pt
psi
449.7
708.5
931.7
1043.1

Psc
psi
1452.9
1447.5
1394.9
1347

Pd&Pvc
psi
1551.6
1623
1621.3
1591.3

Table-8b GL Design of G # 310 (contd)

Valve No.
1
2
3
4

OP
psi
1595.1
1659.1
1670
1630

Pso
psi
1493.4
1479.5
1436.5
1379.5

Pd@91F
psi
1367.9
1310
1226.6
1169.4

TRO
psi
1421.9
1361.7
1313.3
1252

Set to
Psi
1420
1360
1315
1250

After installation and completion, well was activated with gas lift and all the above-mentioned
studies (as in Ank-293) were carried out in this well also.

Gradient survey results, Two pen recorder chart and well test results are placed in Table-9,
Figure-3 and Table-10 respectively.
Table-9 Gradient Survey results of Gandhar # 310
Gradient survey Date: 10-9-05

Gradient survey Date: 22-9-05

Depth,
mts

Pressure
Kg/cm2

Depth,
mts

Pressure
Kg/cm2

0
951
1300
1746
2000
2397
2750

1.8
7.6
9.2
10.9
12.2
14.4
19.0

0
941
1300
1746
2000
2397
2705

1.2
20.9
11.1
5.3
6.6
7.8
12.1

Table-10 Well test data of G # 310

Test date
22-9-05

Bean size
MM
No bean

Qliquid
M3/d
17.28

W/C
%
8

Qg,total
M3/d
8303

Qg,inj
(Estimated)
M3/d
5,000

How ever, results in this well are erratic and inconclusive. Possible reasons for this behavior are,
a)
b)
c)

Potential of this well was much less than expected,

Due to the low potential in this well, this well was behaving like an intermittent gas lift well
with choke control (Which can be seen from the Two pen chart).
Due to low potential nature of this well, injection gas rate from surface is restricted through a
small size choke.

Figure-3 Two-pen chart of Gandhar # 310 (22-9-05)

Inner recording (Red) is THP having range of 0-1000 psi and the outer recording
(Green) is CHP having range of 0-2000 psi.
Conclusions
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.

To achieve critical flow across gas lift valve seat at a lesser pressure differential compared to
the conventional square edged seat, profile of the seat has been modified.
Laboratory experimental results indicated that with the modified profile seats, critical flow has
been achieved at a Down stream to Up stream pressure ratio of 87 %, 85 % and 82 % for port
sizes of 3/16 , 1/4 and 5/16 port sizes respectively.
Modified gas lift valves have been installed in two wells of Ankleswar Asset (Ank # 293 &G #
310).
In Ank # 293, Gas injection rates are constant even with varying pressure differential across
the GLV. This is because, with modified GLV, the critical rates could be achieved at a much
higher-pressure differential (75 %).
From Two Pen recording chart of Ank # 293, it can be seen that flow in the tubing is quite
stable.
Results from the studies in Ank-293 validated the expected benefits of improved flow stability
in tubing and achieving stable gas rates even with varying pressure differential across GLV.
No useful conclusions could be drawn in G # 310, basically due to low potential nature of the
candidate well.
Field application of Modified gas lift valve technology has validated the benefits seen during
experimentation in the laboratory.

Reference
Petrotech-2005 Paper ID No.49 titled Improved Gaslift Valve Technology presented in New Delhi,
January, 2005