SPE-190959-MS

Life-of-Well Gas Lift Installations for Unconventional Resources

Bilal Latif, K. S. McKenzie, W. M Rodgers, G. B. Stephenson, and S. L. Wildman, Occidental Petroleum

Corporation

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Artificial Lift Conference and Exhibition - Americas held in The Woodlands, TX, USA, 28-30 August 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In unconventional shale plays, the production profile varies dramatically within an extremely short period
of time. Wells often produce at extremely high rates when initially completed and deplete rapidly before
reaching production plateaus. This rapidly changing production profile presents a significant challenge to
engineers designing artificial lift systems. Because of the method's flexibility and tolerance to a variety of
producing conditions, gas lift has become a popular artificial lift choice in these wells.
To achieve optimal system performance, engineers often design gas lift installations to produce up the
casing early in the well's life. This configuration minimizes pressure losses in the production string, enabling
deep injection, improved drawdown, and higher flow rates. As the wells deplete and the production rates
decline, the wells must be converted to tubing flow to ensure well stability. As the wells further deplete,
they are often converted to intermittent gas lift. Unfortunately, it is not feasible to produce wells with tubing
flow gas lift or intermittent gas lift with the typical downhole equipment configuration used in annulus flow
wells. Therefore, transitioning to these late-life artificial lift configurations has required a workover rig.
A novel downhole equipment configuration was developed to eliminate the need for a workover rig
when transitioning from annulus flow to tubing flow gas lift. Side-pocket mandrels with a special pocket
porting configuration were selected to enable annulus flow with enhanced gas passage early in the well's
life. To transition from annulus flow to tubing flow, the slickline-retrievable valves were pulled and replaced
with reverse-flow gas lift valves. A field trial was conducted to demonstrate and test this completion
concept. While more investigation is required to justify full field implementation, the initial results have
been promising.
This project demonstrated that it is feasible to produce wells in annulus flow, tubing flow, and even
intermittent gas lift with a single completion using readily available, off-the-shelf artificial lift equipment.

Introduction
The development of unconventional resource plays presents operators with an array of technical challenges.
One such challenge is how best to deploy artificial lift technology to maximize value over time. As with
most artificial lift applications, key goals include: (1) maximizing recovery and (2) maintaining stable,
2 SPE-190959-MS

uninterrupted production, while (3) minimizing interventions and (4) controlling capital and operating
expenses over the life of the well.
When operators deploy artificial lift systems in such wells, they face a variety of obstacles. These include:
rapidly changing production profiles, high gas-to-liquid ratios (GLRs), and production that becomes
increasingly unstable over time. These conditions are especially problematic for downhole pumping systems
such as electrical submersible pumps and reciprocating rod pumps, which are adversely impacted by
excessive free gas production. In a typical shale oil or gas well, these systems must produce fluids with
high GLRs (often in excess of 1000 scf/STB) from a pump that is placed above the producing interval in
wells completed with small diameter (typically 5 ½-in. OD or smaller) casing. Further complicating matters
is the presence of a long lateral section that is conducive to forming slugs. This set of conditions leads to
poor downhole gas separation, high gas fractions at the pump intake, and the need to maintain high pump
intake pressures to avoid gas interference in the pump. Pumping systems deployed in such wells often have
a higher failure frequency than those deployed in conditions that are more benign. This leads to greater
intervention costs and can impair the economics of the project.
For the wells discussed in this paper, the operator determined that the entire production profile could
be most effectively managed using a combination of natural flow, continuous gas lift, intermittent gas lift
(with and without plungers), and chamber lift, thus eliminating the above-mentioned gas handling issues
while maintaining low flowing bottomhole pressure (FBHP) over the life of the well. While this appears
to be the most suitable combination of lift methods for managing this particular well population, other
well populations may benefit from the use of different artificial lift techniques. The selection of artificial
lift technology should always be evaluated in the context of the intended well population, its anticipated
production profile, and the total value that can be achieved throughout the well life cycle with each lift
method.
To maximize production over their expected production life, wells in the subject area are first allowed
to flow up the casing and/or tubing, then they are transitioned to continuous gas lift with annulus flow. As
the wells deplete, they are converted from annulus flow gas lift to tubing flow continuous gas lift. As they
further deplete, wells are converted to intermittent gas lift. In certain cases, plungers may be added to further
enhance lift efficiency by limiting slippage and fluid fallback. Finally, late in their life, wells are converted
to chamber gas lift and produced with this method until abandonment.
Ordinarily, each of these lift revisions would require a major rig workover. To improve project economics,
the operator desired a means of producing the wells over their full life cycle without the need for costly
interventions. This paper discusses the completion methods being used to meet this goal, along with a
discussion of the components used and a review of the results achieved to date in the field.

Theory and Definitions

Production Profile and Life-of-Well Lift Strategy
Unconventional oil and gas assets may differ in geomechanical properties, yet across the different regions
of the United States, such assets perform with a similar fluid production profile1,2. This production profile
has three core sections: a high initial peak production, a period of rapid decline, and a more stable, lower
decline period in late life. Figure 1 is an example of an unconventional Delaware basin type curve.
SPE-190959-MS 3

Figure 1—Representative Type Curve for a Delaware Basin Well

This profile presents a unique challenge to designers of artificial lift systems due to the short time span of
rapid pressure and rate changes. Traditionally, most operators chose to design a lift system (Gas Lift, ESP,
Jet Pump) for the high initial production period and high decline rate, followed by a workover to convert
to a more appropriate lift system once production stabilized at a much lower rate2. A preferred lift system
would accommodate the high initial volumes while avoiding multiple workovers or direct well interventions
to sustain the well's production. This concept, referred to as the "Life-of-Well Lift Strategy," attempts to
use a single lift system for all three phases of the well's production profile, thus requiring minimal capital
and operating expenses to maintain production. The challenge associated with this strategy is balancing the
need to meet high initial production targets with the need for artificial lift reliability over the life of the well
as the production volumes decline.

Selection of Gas Lift vs. Other Lift Methods

Prior to selecting gas lift as the primary lift method for the field, the operator conducted an initial screening
to compare the lift methods that could accommodate the anticipated well conditions in both early and late
life. Lift methods such as beam pump, plunger lift, and progressing cavity pump were excluded from this
evaluation due to their limited operating range or other limiting factors such as fluid compatibility. Because
of their broad operating range, ESPs, hydraulic lift, and gas lift were included in this initial screening, and
the operator considered each method's ability to address the following issues:
1. high deviation or doglegs,
2. solids production,
3. varying production volumes over time,
4. ability to maximize drawdown,
5. overall suitability over the life of the well,
6. operational risk,
7. safety and simplicity of design,
8. capital expenses associated with lift method and
9. anticipated maintenance and/or intervention costs.
As Table 1 illustrates, gas lift provided the best overall fit for the subject wells in this study.
4 SPE-190959-MS

Table 1—Initial Screening of Artificial Lift Methods

Gas lift was chosen as the primary lift method for several reasons. First, the subject area has a considerable
well count commitment. As a result, a plentiful supply of gas is expected over the life of the wells,
and centralized compression will maximize operating cost savings, compared with the infrastructure
requirements for the other lift methods. In addition, the initial capital investment required for downhole
equipment and installation of a flexible gas lift system utilizing side pocket mandrels (SPMs) is modest
compared with that of other lift methods, particularly electrical submersible pumps (ESPs). The initial
design of gas lift installations can be more forgiving than other mechanical lift methods if some of the input
parameters are unknown3. Finally, gas lift has the potential to be more reliable than other mechanical lift
methods in wells with changing operating conditions, mainly because this lift method is extremely tolerant
of produced gas, whereas mechanical lift methods such as ESPs and beam pumps are extremely sensitive to
gas production. While elevated gas-to-liquid ratios (GLRs) have been found to increase the failure frequency
and limit the drawdown achieved by mechanical lift systems, high GLRs actually improve the effectiveness
of gas lift5.
Despite the advantages that gas lift offers in shale oil wells, operators face a number of challenges
when deploying a traditional gas lift design in such applications. First, the initial production rates may be
constrained using tubing flow gas lift design. While high initial rates may be achieved with an annulus flow
gas lift design, a workover rig will later be required to convert from annulus gas lift to tubing flow gas lift.
Also, gas lift is a relatively new lift method in unconventional resource plays, and there is a lack of technical
and operational experience at the field level to support such installations. Finally, rapidly changing drilling
schedules and the resulting short lead-time to commission new wells can lead to inadequately designed
surface infrastructure. The proposed gas lift design aims to capitalize on the benefits of a gas lift system
while addressing these challenges to deliver the desired life-of-well lift strategy.

Gas Lift Principles of Operation

There are two basic forms of gas lift: continuous flow gas lift and intermittent flow gas lift3. Early in a well's
life, operators often choose to place wells on continuous flow gas lift, due to its ability to produce higher
liquid rates, often in excess of 1000 STB/d. In late life, after reservoir pressures and/or productivity have
SPE-190959-MS 5

depleted, many operators choose to convert these wells to intermittent flow gas lift due to this method's
ability to lift low-rate wells more efficiently.
Continuous Flow Gas Lift. Continuous flow gas lift is the artificial lift method that most closely resembles
the natural flow process of an oil well. Using only the reservoir's energy, fluids flow to the surface through
the production tubing, and as the pressure in the wellbore falls below the bubblepoint pressure, the free gas
expands, increasing the fluid velocity up the tubing and reducing the backpressure exerted on the formation.
As long as the resulting flowing bottomhole pressure is less than the reservoir pressure, the well will continue
to flow naturally. As the name suggests, a continuous-flow gas lift system provides a means to inject gas
continuously into the flow stream, preferably at a deep point of injection. This injected gas supplements
the associated gas from the reservoir fluids and reduces the overall density of the fluid stream, thereby
lowering the flowing bottomhole pressure and facilitating fluid production from the reservoir. In continuous
flow gas lift, flowing bottomhole pressure is minimized by: (1) reducing the flowing wellhead pressure,
(2) maximizing the depth of injection, (3) minimizing frictional losses in the production conduit, and (4)
injecting an optimal volume of lift gas into the flow stream.
Intermittent Flow Gas Lift. Once the reservoir depletes to a point where continuous flow gas lift can no
longer produce the wells efficiently, operators often convert them to intermittent flow gas lift, which more
closely resembles the operation of a positive displacement pump. An intermittent gas lift installation lifts
fluids by intermittently injecting a large volume of gas into the wellbore over a short period. Gas is injected
below the fluid column in the tubing, and it displaces a slug of liquids to the surface at high velocity. When
the slug reaches the surface, gas injection ceases, and fluid is once again allowed to enter the wellbore from
the formation and accumulate at the bottom of the tubing string. Then gas is injected again to displace this
liquid slug to the surface, and the cycle repeats. Intermittent gas lift systems can vary in a number of ways.
Configurations include systems controlled at surface via time cycle controller, systems controlled by pilot
valves at depth, systems that include plungers to reduce fluid fallback, and chamber lift systems that include
a volumetric chamber sized to maximize the initial slug volume. Despite their apparent differences, the
fundamental principles of operation remain the same for each of these intermittent gas lift configurations.
Unloading a Gas Lift Well. In both continuous flow and intermittent gas lift installations, fluids must be
displaced from the injection conduit into the production conduit to enable lift gas injection to commence.
The principle of unloading a gas-lifted well is the same regardless of its configuration. Whether the well
produces up the annulus, up the tubing, by means of continuous flow gas lift or intermittent flow gas lift,
the basic unloading process is the same. During unloading operations, high-pressure gas is injected at the
surface through a volume control device. If sufficient injection pressure is available, it may be possible
to displace the completion fluids through a single operating valve near the bottom of the well. However,
in many cases, not enough injection pressure can be provided at the surface to overcome the hydrostatic
pressure at depth. In such cases, a number of gas lift valves are installed at various depths throughout the
well to enable the unloading process.
The most common form of valve used for this purpose is the injection pressure-operated (IPO) gas lift
valve, which acts like a small pressure regulator. Gas lift valves enable the sequential unloading of well
fluids from one valve depth to the next. For proper operation to occur, the gas injection rate supplied during
unloading must be sufficient to keep each unloading valve open until the next valve is uncovered while
providing a sufficient drop in production pressure to uncover the next valve in the sequence. At the instant
the deeper valve is uncovered, two valves are simultaneously open and may inject gas. The increased gas
passage at depth relative to the amount injected at the surface results in a reduction in casing pressure, which
in turn allows the upper valve to close, causing single point injection through the deeper gas lift valve. By
deepening the point of injection, the production pressure gradient is further lightened, enabling the next
valve in the sequence to be uncovered. This process repeats until the deepest valve in the well is reached.
6 SPE-190959-MS

To avoid damaging the gas lift valves during this unloading process, gas is injected at a reduced rate, most
often using the method recommended by the American Petroleum Institute4. Once the well is unloaded and
the operating gas lift valve has been reached, the port size of the operating valve will dictate the volume
of gas that can be injected at depth.

Downhole Equipment Configurations

Tubing Flow. Traditionally, gas lift installations for unconventional wells have utilized a tubing flow
design. In this configuration, gas is injected down the casing-tubing annulus. It is then injected through a
gas lift valve, where it mixes with the produced fluids and flows to the surface up the tubing. A typical
tubing flow completion is illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2—Tubing Flow Gas Lift Completions

Early in the life of shale oil wells, production rates are significantly higher than at any other time in the
life of the well. The resulting frictional losses in the tubing are often sufficient to yield a production pressure
gradient that exceeds the injection pressure gradient at relatively shallow depths. This limits the depth of
injection that can be achieved and the amount of drawdown that can be placed on the formation, and it can
cause operational issues such as multi-point injection through several gas lift valves, valve cycling between
stations, valve throttling/chattering, and in some cases, valve failures. If it is not feasible to increase the
injection pressure or reduce the backpressure at the surface, then the most viable options for deepening the
point of injection are to minimize the frictional losses in the production conduit by installing larger tubing
or producing up the tubing-casing annulus.
SPE-190959-MS 7

Annulus Flow. When the casing's internal diameter and the gas lift mandrel's major external diameter do
not allow for larger tubing, annular continuous flow gas lift is a viable option for increasing the flow area.
In annular gas lift installations, gas is injected down the tubing and into the annulus through an operating
gas lift valve. The injection gas then mixes with the produced fluids and flows to the surface through the
tubing-casing annulus, as illustrated in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3—Annulus Flow Gas Lift Completion

This well configuration allows the capability to deliver high initial production rates, but this comes at the
expense of higher lift-gas volume requirements. In addition, this system becomes inefficient at the lower
rates expected later in the well's life. Figure 4 shows a comparison of annular gas lift and conventional
tubing flow gas lift production rates vs. injection rates for a well with a GOR of 1,500 scf/STB.

Figure 4—Comparison of Conventional vs. Annular Gas Lift Performance

As the well depletes, annulus flow gas lift becomes increasingly inefficient, and tubing flow gas
lift becomes more viable. Key considerations for designing both tubing flow and annulus flow gas lift
8 SPE-190959-MS

installations include the following: tubing size, produced fluid properties, gas lift mandrel type / porting
configuration, gas lift valve type / porting configuration, and gas lift mandrel spacing.
Intermittent Gas Lift. As the well productivity declines further, continuous tubing flow gas lift becomes
inefficient and drawdown is limited. When this occurs, intermittent gas lift can be implemented to achieve
increased drawdown and improved lift efficiency. In intermittent gas lift installations, gas is intermittently
injected down the annulus through a large-ported gas lift valve to displace an accumulated column of fluid
to the surface.
Life-of-Well Gas Lift Installations. To reduce operating and intervention costs over the life of the well,
it is desirable to complete the well in a manner that enables a single completion configuration that will last
throughout the well's entire life. Ideally, this completion configuration and gas lift mandrel spacing should
enable all three of the above types of gas lift, only requiring slickline intervention to bring about the lift
method change.
When designing a life-of-well gas lift installation, the designer should consider a variety of key issues
and how these might impact the performance of the artificial lift system over the expected range of
conditions that will occur throughout the well's life. These include: the amount of available gas at startup,
the amount of available makeup gas, compression capabilities (both pressure and throughput), tubing size
and weight, casing size and weight, gas lift mandrel major OD, gas lift equipment performance capabilities,
gas composition, fluid properties and reservoir pressure data. It is essential to obtain the most reliable
reservoir pressure and/or type curve data from the responsible reservoir engineer, including the maximum
and minimum expected fluid rates over the life of the well.

Equipment and Processes

Flow Configuration. Life-of-well gas lift installations have an adjustable flow path. If the well is new and
producing 400 BLPD or more, the flow path will be up the annulus; if production is less than 400 BLPD, the
flow path will be up the tubing. These rates serve as a general guide; the actual rates at which this conversion
will occur will vary with formation GLR and vertical depth.
This design utilizes a packer, sliding sleeves, standard X and XN nipple profiles, and retrievable gas lift
valves. Below the packer, there are typically at least two landing nipples and a wireline reentry guide. Above
the packer are sliding sleeves and at least one additional landing nipple. While in the annulus flow mode,
the sliding sleeves will be in the open position, and there will be a blanking plug in the profile immediately
above the sliding sleeves, as illustrated in Figure 5. The blanking plug serves the purpose of isolating the
injection string from the production string. In the tubing flow configuration, the blanking plug is removed,
and the sliding sleeves are closed. This isolates the annulus and converts it to an injection string. Once this
conversion is complete, fluids will flow to the surface through the 2 ⅜-in. tubing.
SPE-190959-MS 9

Figure 5—Annular and Tubing Flow Paths

Description of EC Mandrels and RF Valves. Annular gas lift designs are nothing new. In fact, many
annular designs have been installed utilizing either internally mounted mandrels (IM) or side pocket
mandrels (SPM) with reverse flow valves (RF). The use of IM mandrels is not ideal due to the inability to
retrieve the valves via slickline, the inability to perform pressure/temperature (PT) surveys as part of system
diagnostics, and overall wellbore utility. For example, if IM mandrels are installed and the tubing becomes
stuck, it is impossible to use wireline to cut away free tubing to wash over and retrieve the stuck equipment.
The use of side-pocket mandrels with RF valves is also less than optimal because of the limited gas passage
provided by the RF valve's design. The tortuous flow path of the RF valve is illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6—RF Valve Flow Path

10 SPE-190959-MS

The completion developed for the life-of-well installation uses an EC-ported side-pocket mandrel. The
EC mandrel is similar in dimensions and function to a traditional SPM. Where it differs is the porting
configuration of the mandrel. Typically, a side-pocket mandrel is ported on the outer wall of the mandrel in
the middle of the pocket where the valve is held, and then again at the bottom of the pocket on the inside
of the mandrel. This porting configuration allows gas to enter the mandrel and flow into the valve through
the ports on the outside of the mandrel, then flow through the body of the valve, and then discharge through
the nose of the valve and exit the pocket before combining with produced fluids in the tubing.
The porting on an EC mandrel is exactly the opposite. On the inside of the mandrel, ports are placed in
the middle of the pocket between the pocket and the tubing bore. The pocket is also built in such a way
to allow gas to vent through the bottom of the pocket, where it exits to the exterior of the mandrel and
combines with produced fluids during annulus flow. The advantage of this porting configuration is that it
allows the use of a standard retrievable valve while the well is set up for annular lift, rather than using an
RF valve during this flow period. This is a preferable configuration for annulus flow because in the early
stages of the well's life, higher injection gas rates are required to move larger volumes of fluid through the
annulus. Figure 7 below illustrates the EC mandrel flow path.

Figure 7—EC Mandrel Flow Path

Considerations for Intermittent Gas Lift. While EC-ported mandrels provide improved performance
for annulus flow gas lift, and RF valves provide acceptable performance for continuous gas lift in tubing
flow, this configuration will not accommodate a pilot valve during intermittent gas lift. For this reason,
one conventionally ported side-pocket mandrel is included in the life-of-well completion, situated below
the bottom EC mandrel. Once the wells are converted from continuous gas lift to intermittent gas lift, a
pilot valve will be placed in this normally ported side-pocket mandrel. In addition, a standing valve will
be installed in the bottom landing nipple to prevent injection and/or fluid losses into the formation. Also,
if it is desirable to use a plunger in conjunction with the intermittent gas lift installation, a bumper spring
will be installed in the landing nipple above the standing valve, and a lubricator will be installed on the
wellhead at the surface.
Surface Equipment. The selection of appropriate surface equipment is critical to the effectiveness of any
gas lift system6. Inability to deliver lift gas efficiently to a well will severely hinder well performance. For
a single well and single compressor system, designing an appropriate gas distribution system is relatively
straight-forward. When gas distribution systems are designed to serve multiple wells, distributing the correct
SPE-190959-MS 11

amount of gas to each well becomes much more challenging. To keep injection rates as stable as possible,
automatic flow control devices (FCD) should be used. These devices promote well stability by automatically
adjusting the stem position to maintain a constant injection rate, even as the conditions of the gas lift well
change over time.
It is critical to exercise care when sizing the valves in a distribution network. Undersized valves
can produce unwanted backpressure at the discharge of the compressor, pushing the compressor and/or
safety control devices outside of their operating range. Oversizing the FCD can result in limited control
capabilities, as small valve position adjustments can produce large changes in gas flow rate. Proper valve
design on the suction side of the compressor is also critical, as undersizing can lead to excessive backpressure
in the production system. Figure 8 illustrates well performance trends for a well with a poorly sized FCD,
while Figure 9 shows the performance trend of a well with a properly sized FCD. In addition to properly
sized injection equipment, it is critical to design the flow line and wellhead chokes appropriately. A poorly
designed flowline can result in large production losses. The pressure traverse illustration in Figure 10 shows
the impact an undersized flowline can have on well performance. In this example, the improperly sized
flowline below would result in a production loss of 220 BOED.

Figure 8—Well with Improperly Sized FCD

12 SPE-190959-MS

Figure 9—Well with Properly Sized FCD

Figure 10—Effect of Improperly Sized Flow Lines on Gas Lift Performance

Surveillance and Optimization Practices. Effective surveillance is the key to ensuring optimal
performance of any gas lift system. Gas lift is the most forgiving and flexible form of artificial lift. As a
result, a system can often operate with failed components or in a sub-optimal state without the operator
noticing or realizing the well's full potential. To ensure that wells are performing to their true potential,
their performance should be routinely evaluated with up-to-date well models in conjunction with standard
diagnostic tools. These tools include fluid shots, casing transmitters, tubing transmitters, two-pin charts,
SPE-190959-MS 13

flow meters, and downhole gauges. Investment in such tools can greatly increase the performance of a
gas lift well by allowing quick decision making to fix wells that are not performing optimally. The returns
typically pay for the cost of the equipment along with sizeable production increases, and you have peace
of mind, knowing that the well is performing as designed.
Being able to perform nodal analysis on gas lift wells will greatly increase one's ability to assess a well's
health and ensure maximum well productivity. It is recommended to hold well reviews frequently and
include personnel responsible for both surface and downhole equipment issues. Such sessions are invaluable
in helping the team improve runtime and lift performance.
Effective surveillance to optimize a gas lift system requires a suite of tools, not just downhole nodal
analysis, because surface constraints contribute a great deal to a gas lift well's performance. Figure 11 is an
example of a compressor station screen showing the nine wells connected to that station. All of the wells on
this screen are linked within the downhole nodal analysis program, which allows for a total system injection
vs. production report while honoring system constraints to maximize production. The simple compressor
station screen below enables one to envision the complexity of similar, larger gas delivery systems.

Figure 11—Compressor Station Process Flow Diagram

Wireline Interventions. The ability to perform wireline interventions provides a variety of benefits,
particularly the ability to perform well work at minimal cost. Assessing problems quickly by means of nodal
analysis is invaluable, but you need to be able to act quickly once the problems are discovered. Normally, a
skilled slickline crew can change as many as 8-10 valves per day for a fraction of the cost of pulling tubing
with a rig. Table 2 illustrates the cost differences between wireline and rig-based interventions.
14 SPE-190959-MS

Table 2—Comparison of Wireline and Rig-Based Intervention Costs

Results / Case Histories

Case 1: Lift Revision to Deepen the Point of Injection. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the analysis of a well
that had been underperforming for an extended time. This well had a high rate of decline that helped mask
the failure. After the failure, the well began to underperform and the production began to degrade slowly – so
slowly, that it mimicked a natural decline. To better understand the well's performance, the operator elected
to run a flowing pressure/temperature (PT) survey, which revealed that the modeled gradient traverse did
not match the PT survey. In fact, the calculated and measured flowing bottomhole pressure (Pwf) differed
by almost 650 psi. Revising the gas lift design to fix the underlying problem resulted in a production uplift
of almost 80 BOPD and paid out in just 30 days, despite the requirement to use a rig to pull tubing. Had
this lift revision been performed with the variable flow path, slickline-retrievable design, the simple payout
would have been approximately 7-10 days. The standard life-of-well design further increases surveillance
effectiveness by adding a downhole gauge to the completion. This removes much of the necessity for a PT
survey and adds the ability to assess the daily well performance more accurately.
SPE-190959-MS 15

Figure 12—Downhole Performance Model with Uplift

Figure 13—VLP/IPR Evaluation of Failure

Case 2: Annulus Flow Pwf vs. Tubing Flow Pwf. Figure 14 and Figure 15 illustrate a model of a well that is
currently operating in annulus flow with a permanent downhole gauge. The light blue curve is the calculated
pressure gradient matched to the downhole gauge data. The dark green line is the calculated pressure gradient
for the same well if it were flowing up the tubing. The inflow performance relationship is matched on both
wells. As shown in Figure 14, the pressure gradient of the two wells starts at the same flowing wellhead
pressure, but the tubing flow gradient increases faster than the annulus flow gradient, resulting in a higher
flowing bottomhole pressure. This flowing bottomhole pressure increase is also illustrated by the vertical lift
performance (VLP) and inflow performance relationship (IPR) analysis shown in Figure 15. The resulting
16 SPE-190959-MS

outflow curve for the 2 ⅞-in. tubing flow case intersects the IPR curve at a higher flowing bottomhole
pressure than the outflow curve for the annulus flow case. The result is a reduction in total fluid from 2370
BLPD to 1940 BLPD.

Figure 14—Pressure Traverse Comparison – Annular vs. Tubing Flow

Figure 15—VLP/IPR Analysis Comparing Annulus and Tubing Flow

Case 3: Slickline Optimization Work Before and After

This well was started up and never reached the anticipated injection pressure. Although the production
appeared reasonable, the downhole gauge pressure flattened out, and it was impossible to obtain a reliable
match between the model and the measured production and flowing bottomhole pressure. Figure 16 shows
SPE-190959-MS 17

the modeling work prior to the pull, and Figure 17 shows the IPR analysis after job completion. Analysis
showed that the existing gas lift installation was malfunctioning, and the operator elected to update the
design by replacing the valves. Slickline work was then scheduled, and the seven top valves were replaced
in one day. Of the seven retrieved valves, six showed slight leaks and two had trash in the valves (the top
and bottom valves pulled). When the well was returned to production after the repair, the Pwf was found to
be 200 psi lower than it had been prior to the lift revision and was declining at a rate of 15 psi/day.

Figure 16—Pressure Traverse Analysis for Case 3

Figure 17—IPR Analysis for Case 3

Conclusions
Although additional time is needed to evaluate the performance of these completions over the entire lives
of these wells, the initial results have been encouraging. Numerous insights have been gained from this
work, including:
1. Due to the wide variation in production rates with time, multiple lift revisions are required to produce
unconventional shale oil wells effectively throughout their producing lives.
2. Gas lift was found to be the most suitable lift method for producing the subject population of wells,
due to its flexibility, tolerance to the anticipated producing conditions, and options for cost-effective
deployment in the field.
18 SPE-190959-MS

3. While annulus flow provides improved production early in a well's life, it becomes increasingly
inefficient as production declines with time, requiring the well to be converted to tubing flow.
4. To optimize production later in a well's life, some form of intermittent gas lift will be required.
5. It is possible to complete wells using readily available equipment in a manner that will enable the
transition from one lift method to the next by means of slickline-based interventions.
6. In early life, annulus flow gas lift is best achieved using a combination of EC-ported side pocket
mandrels and traditional injection pressure-operated gas lift valves.
7. As production declines, tubing flow gas lift is best achieved using a combination of EC-ported side
pocket mandrels and reverse flow injection pressure-operated gas lift valves.
8. To ensure reliable performance, pay as much attention to the sizing of surface injection equipment
and production equipment as to the downhole gas-lift installation.
9. Effective surveillance can be achieved through a combination of up-to-date well models, real-time
data, and standard diagnostic tools.
10. The ability to perform slickline interventions greatly reduces intervention costs and improves overall
project economics.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Occidental Petroleum Corporation for permission to publish this paper. The
authors would also like to thank our many co-workers and suppliers for their contributions to the project
development.

Nomenclature
BLPD – Barrels of liquids per day
BOED – Barrels of oil equivalent per day (1 BOED = 6 MSCFD)
EC – A style of side-pocket mandrel in which the tubing is ported to the pocket and gas is
discharged into the annulus
ESP – Electrical submersible pump
FCD – Flow control device
GLR – Gas/liquid ratio
GOR – Gas/oil ratio
IPO – Injection pressure-operated
IPR – Inflow performance relationship
MSCFD – Thousand standard cubic feet per day
PT – Pressure/temperature survey
RF – Reverse flow
SPM – Side-pocket mandrel
VLP – Vertical lift performance

References
1. Miskimins, J.L. (2008, January 1). Design and Life Cycle Considerations for Unconventional
Reservoir Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/114170-MS.
2. Oyewole, P. (2016, October 17). Artificial Lift Selection Strategy to Maximize Unconventional
Oil and Gas Assets Value. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/181233-MS.
3. Gas Lift. Publication. Exploration and Production, American Petroleum Institute. Third ed. Vol.
6. Vocational Training Series. 1994.
SPE-190959-MS 19

4. Recommended Practice 11V5: "Recommended Practices for Operation, Maintenance,

Surveillance, and Troubleshooting of Gas-Lift Installations," American Petroleum Institute, Third
Edition, June 2008, pp 71–76.
5. Lea, J.F., & Nickens, H.V. (1999, January 1). Selection of Artificial Lift. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/52157-MS.
6. Recommended Practice 11V8: "Recommended Practice for Gas Lift System Design and
Performance Prediction," American Petroleum Institute, First Edition, September 2003.