SPE 90644

Stability Maps for Continuous Gas-Lift Wells: A New Approach to Solving an

Old Problem
Y. V. Fairuzov,SPE, I. Guerrero-Sarabia, C. Calva-Morales/Natl. Autonomous U. of Mexico; R. Carmona-Daz,
T.Cervantes-Baza, N. Miguel-Hernandez, and A. Rojas-Figueroa/PEMEX Exploration & Production

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2629 September 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Continuous flow gas-lift wells are susceptible to
hydrodynamic instability (heading), which may cause cyclic
variations of the wellhead pressure, oil and gas flow rates.
Gas-lift instability is a reason of many operational problems,
for example, compressor shutdowns caused by pressure and
liquid flow rate surges, difficulties in the operation of low
pressure separators, and excessive gas consumption. Stability
problems in complex multiphase systems can be solved using
stability maps. A stability map is a plane (2D) diagram that
shows the regions of stable and unstable operation of the
system, as well as its operating limits. In this paper theoretical
and experimental stability maps for gas-lift wells are
presented. Fild test were conducted to investigate the flow
stability in a deep offshore gas-lift well. Different gas-lift
stability criteria proposed in the literature are compared. Based
on this study, recommendations on the selection of gas-lift
stability criteria were developed. Examples of gas-lift stability
map applications are also given.
Introduction
Heading is a common problem in the operation of continuous
flow gas-lift installations. This circumstance is taken into
account in the existing design rules for gas-lift wells. The size
of the orifice valve is selected so that the pressure drop across
the orifice be of 100 psi for a given gas injection rate. For
many gas-lift wells, this will ensure stable operational
conditions. This recommendation is based on experience
gained from the operation of gas-lift installations and
sometimes it can be too conservative.
Flow stability becomes of particular interest in designing
the gas-lift systems used for large scale oil production from
offshore fields. The associated gas with a high percentage of
H2S is usually processed onshore and then is transported to the

production platforms through long pipelines. An increase in

the pressure drop across the orifice valve results in the
increase in the pressure in the pipelines carrying the lift gas
and compressor horsepower. This, in turn, may lead to a
significant increase in both CAPEX (due to the increase of
compressor size and sometimes pipe wall thickness) and
OPEX (due to the increase of gas compression costs). In this
case it is very important to predict accurately the limits of
stable operation of gas-lift wells to reduce costs.
Several techniques have been proposed to analyze gas-lift
stability. Grupping et al.1,2 developed a transient model of the
gas-lift system which can be used to perform non-linear
stability analysis. The model predicts variations of principal
parameters of the system (pressures in the tubing and casing,
and the gas injection rate) in time. However, it is not
convenient to use such an approach at the design stage when it
is necessary to analyze the flow stability for different
operating conditions. Numerical simulations need to be
performed for all possible combinations of operating and
design parameters. This procedure requires a significant
amount of time.
Asheim3, Alhanati et al.4 and Blick et al.5 proposed simple
criteria that can be used to check the stability of the gas-lift
system under a given operating condition. The operating state
of the gas-lift system is generally specified by many
parameters: fluid (crude oil and lift gas) properties, average
reservoir pressure, inflow performance, well completion,
wellhead pressure, gas-lift valve size, injection depth and the
lift gas rate. Most of these parameters may vary within certain
limits. The designer has to perform many calculations (the
sensitivity analysis) to assure stable flow. Although the
stability criteria are algebraic inequalities, the sensitivity
analysis also may require a significant amount of time in
designing gas-lift installations.
Recently, Poblano et al.6 based on the Asheim3 and
Alhanati et al.4 stability criteria developed stability maps for
gas lift wells. A stability map is a plane (2D) diagram that
shows the regions of stable and unstable operation of the
system, as well as its operability limits. Stability maps have
been widely used in the analysis of two-phase flow
instabilities in nuclear-power systems7. This approach may
also be useful in understanding of gas-lift system behavior.
In this paper, the use of stability maps in designing and
defining operating strategies for gas-lift systems is discussed.
Stability maps for gas-lift wells producing from saturated

reservoirs are presented. More convenient coordinates are

used in the maps as compared to those presented in the
previous paper6. Field tests were conducted to investigate flow
stability in a deep offshore gas-lift well. The data obtained are
compared to different stability criteria. The effects of the
orifice size, tubing diameter and the injection point depth on
the stability boundary are investigated.
Stability Maps for Continuous Flow Gas-Lift
Installations
Typical performance curves used in designing a gas-lift well
are shown in Fig.1. These curves can be easily constructed
using system nodal analysis8. Depending on the cost to
compress the lift gas and the income from the sale of the oil,
the economic gas injection rate can be determined. However,
some of operating points represented by the gas-lift
performance curves will be in the unstable region. To avoid
heading in the well the designer has to perform a parametric
stability study. Stability maps can be of great assistance at this
stage of the design of a gas lift installation.
When continuous gas lift is used for the offshore oil
production, heading can be caused by a drop of the pressure in
the gas allocation network (for example, in the event of a
temporal shutdown of compressors). In this case, stability
maps may be useful in defining the operating strategies that
enable the operator to minimize the consequences of the
interruption of lift gas supply. An example of a practical
application of stability maps is presented in this paper.
A gas-lift well in the Akal field experienced flow
instabilities characterized by cyclic variations in tubing
pressure and flow rate. Fluid properties and reservoir
characteristics, relevant information about the well
completion, and production data for this well are presented in
Table 1,2 and 3, respectively.
Field tests were conducted to determine the limit of stable
operation of the well. In the tests, the gas injection rate was
changed, while the size of the surface choke was constant. The
pressure in the flowline was oscillated between 9 Kg/cm2 and
10 Kg/cm2. These oscillations were produced by multiphase
flow in the flowline. The field data obtained are presented in
Table 4. When the flow in the well was stable, the wellhead
pressure exhibited small amplitude (~1 Kg/cm2 ) fluctuations
caused by the slug flow regime in the tubing and by the
pressure oscillations in the flowline (the flow at the surface
choke was subsonic, therefore the pressure perturbations
generated in the flowline propagated into the well).
Heading was characterized by large amplitude (3.5-4
Kg/cm2) wellhead pressure oscillations. Under unstable
operating conditions the casing pressure and lift gas rate at the
surface were constant.
A computer program for constructing gas-lift stability
maps was developed on the basis of the production system
model developed in the previous paper6 and existing stability
criteria3,4.
New gas-lift stability criteria9 for saturated
reservoirs have been also developed and included in the
computer program. The program generates a stability map
with coordinates (gas injection rate, wellhead pressure).
Mapping of the gas-lift stability boundary in these coordinates
seems to offer some advantages. Firstly, the operator usually
changes these two parameters to control the well operating

SPE 90644

conditions. Secondly, both parameters are continuously

measured and can be easily changed to stabilize the well.
Thirdly, it is easy to demonstrate the impact of gas-lift design
parameters on the system stability using a stability map with
these coordinates. This is discussed in more detail in the next
sections of this paper.
Fig.2 shows a stability map for the considered well. The
stability boundaries shown in the map were predicted by
above mentioned criteria. The operability boundary of the gaslift system and field data are also presented in the map.
All criteria predict unstable operating conditions at low gas
injection rates and wellhead pressures. The Alhanati et al.4
criteria are slightly less conservative in the prediction of the
unstable region than the Asheim3 criteria. A comparison with
field data reveals that they significantly underpredict the gaslift instability threshold. It should be noted here that Alhanati
et al.4 recognize in their paper they could not explain the
mechanisms of flow instabilities in some wells of the Prudhoe
Bay field. Large oscillations in the tubing pressure and small
oscillations in the casing pressure were observed in these
wells.
The new criteria more accurately predict the stability
boundary for the considered well. They slightly underpredict
the lift gas flow rate (~0.3 MMscf/d) required to stabilize the
well at a given wellhead pressure. Similar results were
obtained for other six gas lifted wells of the Akal field.
It is also seen in Fig.2 that the well will not produce at low
injection rates (<1 MMscf/d) and high wellhead pressures
(>20 Kg/cm2). Thus, if a gas-lift well is unstable or does not
produce, the operator can easily determine with the aid of a
stability map which actions should be taken to bring the
system into a stable operating state.
A family of stability boundaries can be shown in a stability
map to determine the impact of different design parameters on
stability of a gas-lift well. In the next four sections of this
paper, the effects of the orifice valve size, injection depth,
tubing diameter and inflow performance on flow behavior are
investigated using stability maps. In the calculations data
presented in Table 1,2 and 3 were used.
Effect of Orifice Size
It is well known that the orifice size has a strong effect on the
flow stability in a gas-lift well. This can be easily illustrated
with a stability map. Fig.3 shows stability boundaries
predicted for three sizes of orifice valve (32/64 in., 48/64 in.,
and 64/64 in.) To ensure stable conditions at the wellhead
pressure, say, of 12.5 Kg/cm2 it is necessary to operate the
well with the gas injection rate al least of 1.4 MMscf/d (32/64
in.), 3.7 MMscf/d (48/64 in.), and 5.7 MMscf/d (64/64 in.) To
determine the minimum gas injection rate required to avoid
heading at any other wellhead pressure, the designer needs to
find the lift gas rate at the intersections of the stability
boundatries with a horizontal line corresponding to the
specified wellhead pressure, as shown in Fig.3.
The upper operability boundary corresponds to the
smallest orifice size. This boundary is controlled by choking
conditions at the downhole valve or by the pressure in the gas
allocation manifold. In the considered case, the pressure in the
manifold restricts the gas injection at high flow rates.

SPE 90644

Effect of Injection Depth

The effect of the injection depth can be understood by
examining the stability map shown in Fig.4. An increase of the
gas injection point depth destabilizes the system. This fact
should be accounted for in determining the point of gas
injection. To derive maximum benefit from the available
injection pressure, in practice10 the deepest point of injection is
calculated in designing a gas-lift well. Therefore, the designer
should always verify whether the well will be capable of
operation without experiencing oscillations with the calculated
depth of the gas injection point.
Effect of Tubing Diameter
The results of the study of the effect of the tubing diameter on
the stability of the considered gas-lift well are interesting. As
seen in Fig. 5 the stability boundaries predicted for tubing
diameters of 5 1/2 in. and 7 5/8 in. practically coincide.
However, the increase of the tubing diameter from 7 5/8 in. to
9 5/8 in. has a strong stabilizing effect. Bertuzzi et al.11 have
demonstrated experimentally that a decrease in the casing
volume may stabilize the gas-lift system. In the considered
case, the casing diameter is of 11 7/8 in., therefore, when
using tubing with a diameter of 9 5/8 in., the casing volume is
very small compared to the tubing volume.
It should be pointed out that an increase in the tubing
diameter results in the decrease in the mixture velocity in the
tubing. This may lead to a decrease in the producing rate. It
also should be noted sometimes the effect of increasing the
tubing diameter may be destabilizing.
Effect of Inflow Performance
The effect of increasing the productivity index (or the
derivative of the inflow rate with respect to the bottomhole
flowing pressure in case of saturated reservoirs) is always
strongly stabilizing. Fig. 6 shows the effect of the inflow
performance on the stability of the considered gas-lift well. To
change the well inflow performance three different values of
the drawdown were used. The values of the average reservoir
pressure and the oil production rate used in the calculations
are presented in Table 2. The Vogel method12 was used to
construct the corresponding IPR curves. As seen in Fig.6 the
higher is the well productivity, the smaller is the unstable
region. So, gas-lift stability maps can be used to identify
damaged wells. If the reservoir characteristics are known, they
can be also used to estimate the skin factor in the damaged
wells. The effect of a well stimulation can be determined with
the aid of a stability map.
Selection of Stabilization Method
Stability maps can be of great assistance in the selection of the
method to eliminate heading in existing gas-lift wells.
Consider a case when the well is unstable at a certain
operating condition, as shown in Fig.7. The effect of
application of different methods to stabilize the well can be
determined using a stability map. In this study the following
stabilization methods were considered:

reducing the downhole orifice size,

well stimulating,

decreasing the depth of the gas injection point.

A stability boundary for each method can be determined and

mapped (Fig.7). If the well is stable after the application of
each method, the producing rate is determined for each new
operating condition. If necessary, some parameters of the gaslift system can be changed to provide the required oil
production rate. Then, the method that results in the least
increase in the operating costs can be determined and used.
Conclusions
Stability maps for a deep offshore gas-lift well producing from
a saturated reservoir have been developed. Field tests were
conducted to obtain data for comparison of different gas-lift
stability criteria. The study revealed that the existing stability
criteria underestimate the unstable region. The new criteria
provided a more accurate prediction of the instability
threshold. It was shown that stability maps can be of great
assistance in designing and operating continuous flow gas lift
wells, in particular, in offshore oil production where the lift
gas is transported to the production platforms through long
pipelines. Stability maps enable designers and operators to
determine rapidly the effect of gas-lift design parameters and
operating conditions on the system stability. They may also be
useful for gas lift optimization. Stability boundaries are
restrictions that should be accounted for in the optimization
process. This technique helps the operator decide what actions
should be taken to stabilize a gas lifted well with a minimum
increase in operational expenditures. Gas-lift stability maps
can be used for training and educational purposes.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by PEMEX Exploration &
Production. The authors are grateful to Amado AstudilloAbundes and Oscar Jimenez-Bueno (Activo Integral
Cantarell) for stimulating and helpful discussions. Sincere
thanks are extended to Felipe Diaz-Jimenez, Marcela
Gonzalez-Vazquez and the staff of the Akal F platform for
their assistance in the experiments.
Nomenclature
CAPEX
Capital expenditure
OPEX

Operating expenses

References
1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

Gruping, A.W., Luca, C.W.F. y Vermulen F.D. : Continuous

Flow Gas Lift: Heading Action Analyzed for Stabilization, Oil
& Gas Journal (July 23, 1984), 47-51.
Gruping, A.W., Luca, C.W.F. y Vermulen F.D. : Continuous
Flow Gas Lift: These Methods Can Eliminate or Control Annulus
Heading, Oil & Gas Journal (July 23, 1984), 186-192.
Asheim, H. : Criteria for Gas Lift Stability, JPT (November,
1988), 1452-1456.
Alhanati, F.J.S., Schmidt, Z., and Doty, D.R. : Continuous GasLift Instability: Diagnosis, Criteria, and Solutions, SPE 26554,
SPE 68th A.T.C.E., Houston, TX, (October 1993).
Blick, E.F., Enga, P.N. and Lin, P.C. : Theoretical Stability
Analysis of Flowing Oil Wells and Gas-Lift Wells, SPE
Production Engineering (November, 1988), 508-514.

SPE 90644

6.

Poblano, E., Camacho, R. and Fairuzov, Y. : Stability Analysis

of Continuous-Flow Gas-Lift Wells, SPE 77732, SPE A.T.C.E.
held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September2 October 2002
7. Yadigaroglu, G. Two-Phase Flow Instabilities and Propagation
Phenomena, Thermohydraulics of Two-Phase System for
Industrial Design and Nuclear Engineering, eds. Delhaye, J.M.,
Giot, M. and Riethmuller, M.L., Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation, 1981.
8. Beggs, H.D.: Production Optimization Using NODALTM
Analysis, OGCI Publications, Tulsa, 1991.
9. Fairuzov, Y.V., and Guerrero, I., Stability Criteria for Gas-Lift
Wells Producing from Saturated Reservoirs, ASME Journal of
Energy Resources Techology (in preparation).
10. Brown, K.E.: Gas Lift Theory and Practice, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1967.
11. Bertuzzi, A.F. Welchon, J.K. and Poettmann, F.H.: Description
and Analysis of an Efficient Continuous-Flow Gas Lift
Installation, Trans., AIME (1953), 198.
12. Vogel, J.V.: Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas
Drive Wells, JPT (January, 1968) 83; Trans., AIME , 243.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl
x
1.589 873
bbl/(psi-D)
x
2.305 916
cp
x
1.0*
ft
x
3.048*
ft3
x
2.831 685
in
x
2.54*
lbm
x
4.535 924
psi
x
6.894 757
x
9.806 65
kg/cm2
scf/bbl
x
1.801 175
* Conversion factor is exact.

E-01
E-02
E-03
E-01
E-02
E+00
E-01
E+00
E+01
E-01

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

m3
m3/(kPa d)
Pa s
m
m3
cm
kg
kPa
kPa
std m3/m3

SPE 90644

Table 1 Well Data

Reservoir pressure

1543.31

Reservoir temperature

216.9

Water cut

Table 2 Injection / Production Data

(psig)

Wellhead pressure

186.887

( F)

Wellhead temperature

140.0

(psig)
( F)

0.0

(percent)

Water cut

Liquid rate

7632.0

(STB/day)

Liquid rate

Flowing bottomhole pressure

1363.5

(psig)

Gauge depth

8841.86

(ft)

21.4

(API)

Gauge pressure

1331.96

(psig)

291.462

(scf/STB)

5.5

(MMscf/d)

Oil gravity
Gas gravity

0.922

(sp. gravity)

Formation gas-oil ratio

Gas lift gravity

0.675

(sp. gravity)

Lift gas rate

Solution GOR

291.46

Water oil ratio

0.0

Bubble pressure

1500.23

(scf/STB)

Injection depth

(SBT/STB)

Orifice diameter

(psig)

Injection pressure

0.0

(percent)

7632

(STB/d)

6174.08

(ft)

0.75

(in)

967.0

(psig)

Table 4 Field Data

Table 3 Deviation Survey

Measured
Depth

True
Vertical
Depth

Tubing
Inside
Diameter

Tubing
Outside
Diameter

Casing
Inside
Diameter

Lift gas rate

Wellhead pressure

(MMscf/d)

(kg/cm )

(ft)

(ft)

(in)
10.685

12.0

Unstable

2362.2

(in)
7.625

4.0

2362.2

(in)
6.765

4.5

13.0

Stable

4210.5

6.765

7.625

10.685

5.0

12.5

Stable

4490.2

6.765

7.625

10.685

5.5

13.5

Stable

5193.4

5085.7

6.765

7.625

10.685

5413.4

5282.4

6.765

7.625

10.685

5905.5

5679.9

6.765

7.625

10.685

5826.4

6.765

7.625

10.685

5870.4

6.765

7.625

10.685

6496.1

6111.9

6.765

7.625

10.685

6889.8

6405.8

6.765

7.625

10.685

6422.7

6.765

7.625

10.685

6929.0

6436.2

6.765

7.625

8.53

7578.7

6939.6

---

---

8.53

8563.0

7694.6

---

---

8.53

8759.8

7840.5

---

---

8.53

8989.5

7993.3

---

---

8.53

4232.3
4527.6

6102.4
6163.1

6911.5

Flow
2

SPE 90644

10

Production (Mb/d)

4
Wellhead Pressure
(kg/cm 2)
10

15
20

0
0

Gas Injection (MMscf/d)

Figure 1. Typical gas-lift performance curves

35

Asheim, 1988

Wellhead Pressure (kg/cm )

Stability Boundaries

Non - Operational

30
25

Alhanati et al., 1993

Stable

20

Fairuzov and Guerrero, 2004

Operability Boundary

15

Lower limit

10

Field Data

Unstable

Stable

Unstable

0
0

Gas Injection (MMscf/d)

Figure 2. A stability map for a gaslift well of the Akal field

SPE 90644

35
Stability Boundaries

Non - Operational

Orifice size

Wellhead Pressure (kg/cm )

30

1.00 in.

25
Stable

0.75 in.

20

0.50 in.

Operability Boundaries

15

Lower limit

10

All cases

Unstable

Upper limit

0.50 in.

0
0

Gas Injection (MMscf/d)

Figure 3. Comparision of the stability boundaries obtained for different orifice sizes

35
Non - Operational

Stability Boundaries

Wellhead Pressure (kg/cm )

30

Injection depth
25
6830 ft.

Stable

6174 ft.

20

5518 ft.

15

Operability Boundary
10

Lower limit
Unstable

All cases

5
0
0

Gas Injection (MMscf/d)

Figure 4. Effect of the injection depth on stability of a gaslift well

SPE 90644

35
Non - Operational

Stability Boundaries

Wellhead Pressure (kg/cm )

30

Tubing diameter

25

5 1/2 in.

Stable

20

7 5/8 in.
9 5/8 in.

15
Unstable

Operability Boundary

10

Lower limit
5

7 5/8 in. and 9 5/8 in.

0
0

Gas Injection (MMscf/d)

Figure 5. Comparision of the stability boundaries obtained for different tubing diameters

35
Non - Operational

Stability Boundaries

Wellhead Pressure (kg/cm )

30

Drawdown
25

12.7 kg/cm 2
8.4 kg/cm 2

Stable

20

4.2 kg/cm

15
Operability Boundary
10

Lower limit
Unstable

All cases

5
0
0

Gas Injection (MMscf/d)

Figure 6. Effect of inflow performance on stability of a gaslift well

SPE 90644

35
Design conditions

Wellhead Pressure (kg/cm )

Stability Boundaries

Non - Operational

30

Decreased injection depth

25

Well stimulation

Stable

Reduced choke size

20

Operability Boundaries
15

Lower limit

10

Upper limit

All cases

Only for reduced choke size

Unstable

Design operating condition

Unstable

0
0

Gas Injection (MMscf/d)

Figure 7. Selection of well stabilization method