Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE :26684

Gas Production Improvements Using Ejectors

A.J. Gn3en, BHR Group; Kevin Ashton, * Phillips Petroleum Co. UK Ltd.; and A.T. Reade,
BHR GlrOup
'SPE Member

Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore European Conference held in Aberdeen, 7-10 September 1993.

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,
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. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex 163245 SPEUT.

AI8STRACT BHR Group), an ejector was identified as

a viable solution, whereby the energy
FCilling wellhead pressures drastically from a high pressure group of wells
reduce the productivity and economics of could be used to boost production of
a well. If there is a supply nearby of depleted wells. As a result, a joint
hi,gh pressure gas, the well productivity programme of work between CALtec
COIn be increased by using the high and Phillips Petroleum to improve design
pressure energy in an ejector. and operating knowledge of ejectors for
offshore gas pressure boosting was
An extensive programme of laboratory carried out. This involved a combination
tests and offshore trials has been carried of laboratory tests, offshore trials and
out to erove and optimise ejector design the development of design software.
for offshore application. This has
induded the use of "flexible" multiple The results of this joint programme, and
nozzles to allow continued effective the benefits achieved from it, are
operation as well pressures reduce. described in this paper.
E>dsting design methods have been
sil~nificantly improved and embedded 2. OBJECTIVES
into user-friendly software, which has
bElen validated against the results. 2.1 To prove the feasibility of using
ejectors for gas boosting, and
Ej1ectors were installed on two platforms hence increasing production
in the Phillips operated Hewett Gas Field levels.
in the Southern sector of North Sea.
Trials have proven very successful, with 2.2 To develop and calibrate
in,creases in gas production ranging theoretical models for
from 15 to 25 MMSCF/D. In both cases compressible flow ejector
a payback on investment of only a few performance.
wl~eks was achieved. Further
opportunities for ejector installation are 2.3 Toe 0 m par e 0 ff s h 0 r e
now being actively sought. Investigations performance against theoretical
for the use of ejectors for multiphase model results.
boosting are continuing.
2.4 To identify methods of improving
1. INTRODUCTION ejector performance and
flexibility.
In 1987, Phillips Petroleum faced a
potential shortfall in gas production from 2.5 To develop ejector design
the Hewett field. In consultation with software.
CALtec (the Oil and Gas operation of

523
SPE 26684 GAS PRODUCTION IMPROVEMENTS USING EJECTORS
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Offshore Requirements
With gas demand taking its seasonal
upturn in 1987, the Phillips Petroleum
operated Hewett gas field was facing a
potential shortfall situation (sales levels
having been fixed over a year in
advance). In response to this Phillips
decided to investigate the potential
applications of ejector systems that at
that time were used in the power
industry where steam is used to pull a
vacuum. It was felt that this same
principle could be applied to Hewett, to
increase production levels.
The initial application for an ejector was
on the central field terminal platform
(FTP) on Hewett. Production on Hewett
comes via four wellhead platforms which
feed into the FTP (Figure 2). Two 30
inch pipelines export the gas onshore to
the Bacton Plant on the Norfolk coast
where compression enables delivery to
British Gas at 1000psi. The ejector was
fitted on the FTP and is connected up to
receive gas from two of the platforms.
The motive gas for the ejector was
provided by high pressure Rotliegendes
wells (160MMSCF/D at 800psi) on the
48/29-C platform which created suction
via the venturi nozzle to the low pressure
Bunter wells from the 48/29-A platform
(100 MMSCF/D at 265 psi).
Success of the project led to the detailed
research and development programme
on Ejector Technology by CALtec,
detailed in Sections 4 and 5.
In 1990 with the continued development
of the Zechstein reservoir on Hewett a
further application for the venturi ejector
system was "identified. The 52/5a
platform discharged 70MMSCF/D of
Zechstein gas at 600fsi and at the same
time 36MMSCF/D 0 Upper Bunter gas
at 180psi. Using the knowledge gained
from the FTP ejector, and associated
research, an ejector was designed for
the 52/5a platform, to boost Upper
Bunter production.
524
2
3.2 Eiector Technology
Ejectors operate by using energy from a
high pressure (HP) fluid stream to boost
the pressure of a low pressure (LP)
stream. They can operate with liquids,
gases or even multiphase (although
performance is very poor if a multiphose
HP stream is used). This paper
concentrates on compressible 'las
application, although possible
applications for multiphase are discussed
in Section 8. Whilst ejectors ore
inherently very simple devices, and hove
been in use for a wide range of
applications in many industries for mcmy
years, they had not previously been used
for gas boosting. This is probably due~ to
the complexities of the flow within a
compressible (gas) flow ejector, Cind
consequent difficulties in design.
The HP gas is passed through a conical
nozzle (see Figure 1). Provided the
pressure ratio of HP to LP is sufficiently
high (above approximately 1.8 for
natural gas), flow reaches sonic velodty
(ie equal to the velocity of sound in the
gas) in the nozzle throat. Flow enters
the inlet of the mixing duct (Figure 1} at
a pressure greater than ambient, Cind
then expands as a series of supersonic
shocks. When the HP and LP streCJm
local pressures become equal, they mix
and the LP stream is drawn in. As the
streams mix in the mixing duct, then
expand in the diffuser, static preSSlJre
increases. As a result, the pressure of
the LP stream is boosted.
A number of comments need to be
made about ejector performance. Firstly
the HP nozzle acts as a choke to the HP
flow, with a distinct pressure versus flow
characteristic. This is illustrated in FiglJre
3. Provided the pressure ratio is ab()ve
the critical value (ie 1.8), mass flow is
proportiona I to HP pressu Ire,
independent of LP pressure. Below
critical, flow falls off until no flow occurs
when HP and LP are equal. Secondly,
for a given HP flow and downstrecJm
(sealine) pressure requirement, there will
be a fixed LP flow characteristic (FiglJre
4), of a similar form to a pump curvH.
SI~E 26684 A J GREEN, A READE, K ASHTON
The critical dimensions of an ejector are
the HP nozzle diameter (to match
fk>w/pressure requirements) and mixing
dllJct diameter (d 4). In general, boost
pl~rformance tends to increase with
rE~ducing d 4, until the expanding HP flow
fills the duct, causing choking and rapid
fClII off in performance.
One drawback of ejectors is noise
(lrroduction, given the sonic/supersonic
flow: for manned installations, noise
trleatment is required.
4. TEST PROGRAMME
Sl:ale model tests were carried out using
the Compressible Flow Facility at CALtec
tel provide the high pressure gas. This
comprises a 14m 3 air receiver, which
cem be pressurised to 3 MPa (450 psi).
Flow is controlled by a fast-acting ball
v(]lve and an automatic control valve.
This enables constant pressure in the test
sE~ction to be maintained as the supply
pressure reduced. Flow rates of up to
14 kg S-1 (around 1 MMSCF/D) at 2
MPa are achievable, although flow rates
were limited to 2 kg S-1 in the test
programme. This enabled several test
points to be measured before recharging
the receiver.
Lc)w pressure (LP) flow was drawn
directly from atmosphere, through a
c(]librated nozzle. Downstream pressure
was controlled with a control valve
downstream of the test section. The
overall layout is shown in Figure 5.
1:2 scale models of the FTP and 52/5(a)
ei[ectors were constructed and tested,
along with various modifications to the
designs. A major part of the
programme concentrated on the use of
multiple HP nozzles. These were
sf~lected with the intention of reducing
noise levels. However, more
importantly, these increase the flexibility
of the ejector to cope with reducing HP
Hows (ie by closing down individual
nozzles).
In order to retain similarity between
offshore and model flow conditions,
525
3
pressure ratios and mass flow ratios
were maintained (ie p/P?; Ps!P2;
m2/m)). From compressible flow
considerations, the on1rpotential error in
this apfroach is the difference in 1 (the
ratio 0 specific heats) between air and
natural gas (1 = 1.4 and 1.28
respectively). Such errors are expected
to be very small.
The full instrumentation on the rig is
shown in Figure 5. HP flow was
measured with a vortex flow meter and
LP flow with a calibrated inlet nozzle.
Pressure and temperature were
measured with pressure transducers and
thermocouples on the HP, LP and
downstream of the ejector. Data was
logged over a period of typically 5 - lOs,
using a 286 PC compatible computer.
5. MODEL TEST RESULTS
5.1 FTP Eiector
The original design of the FTP ejector
had an initial converging section to the
mixing duct, as opposed to the parallel
duct shown in Figure 1. The model test
work concentrated on the effect of
mixing duct and nozzle design. Figure 6
shows boost performance for the
converging mixing duct and parallel
mixing ducts of three diameters, at a
pressure ratio of 2.8. For the same
mixing duct diameter (82.5mm), the
parallel duct showed slightly poorer
performance. However, use of a
bell mouth inlet restores the performance
to at or above the converging duct (not
shown). At low flow ratios, the smaller
ducts give better performance, as
mentioned in Section 3.1. However, as
LP flow increases, the smaller ducts
choke earlier, so performance falls off
more rapidly.
Multiple nozzles were also tested: results
were very similar to those discussed in
the next Section.
5.2 52/50 Eiect.or
Figure 7 shows performance results for
the scale model of the 52/5(a) ejector,
SPE 26684 GAS PRODUCTION IMPROVEMENTS USING EJECTORS
as installed offshore. The key features
of the results are as follows:
(i) pressure boost increases steadily
with pressure ratio {ie P/P2)i
(ii) pressure boost decreases linearly
with mass flow ratio up to a
certain value, then drops off,
particularly for high pressure
ratios. This coincides with the
ejector choking, as mentioned in
Section 3.2.
A seven-nozzle ejector was then tested,
designed to give equal HP flow
performance to the single nozzle with all
nozzles open. With all nozzles open,
performance was slightly below the
single nozzle (Figure 8), probably caused
by increased blockage by and shielding
of the multiple nozzles. Figures 9 and
10 show results for 5 and 3 nozzles
open respectively. It can be seen that
shutting off nozzles allows reasonable
boost pressures to be maintained.
However, performance does fall off as
more nozzles are closed. This is due to
an increase in the ratio of effective
mixing duct to (equivalent) nozzle
diameter. As discussed in Section 3.2,
this ratio is critical. To check this, a
single nozzle was constructed of
equivalent size to four of the multiple
nozzles. Performance was near identical
(not shown).
In summary, it was shown that
performance can be partially maintained
with reducing HP flow by using multiple
nozzles, but to achieve optimum
performance, mixing duct diameter
would also need to be reduced.
6. OFFSHORE EXPERIENCE
6.1 FTP Eiector
Work started on the project at the end of
1987 and with gas sales shortfall
looking more imminent a task force was
set up. Within 3 months a (non-optimal)
ejector had been researched and
designed by CAlfec, and installed
offshore for a total project cost of £160,000.
526
4
The size of the ejector itself WCJS
approximately 15ft in length by a
maximum width of 3ft, costing £30,000.
.
The ejector on the FTP was initially testEld
on 13 March 1987. Production to the
motive side consisted of thrEle
Rotliegendes wells flowing at a
combined flow rate of 160MMSCF/D at
a pressure of 800psi and to the suction
side eight Lower Bunter wells with
increased flow from 100MMSCF/D at
265psi to 125MMSCF/D at 235psi whEm
put through the ejector. In addition to
the increased flow, sea line pressure was
also boosted, with the effect of reducing
onshore compression requirements.
Testing also removed the concern about
hydrate formation which was a potential
problem with the significant pressure
drop across the venturi. Noise, on the
other hand was over 100dB, and
resulted in acoustic lagging and silencers
being installed the following month,
reducing noise to an acceptable level.
The ejector continued to perform
thraughout the summer and inspection
for component fatigue during low
nomination periods showed no signs of
wear on any of the equipment. In
Summer of that year one of the
Rotliegendes wells watered out resulting
in a reduction in ejector motive gas to
100MMSCF/D. The impact on the
Lower Bunter was to reduce the rate
benefit to 5-1 OMMSCF/D. By late 1988
with reservoir depletion the ejector WIJS
soon having minimal impact, even with
a reduction in nozzle size to optimize the
motive gas velocity. In 1989, following
various trials the ejector was certifiE~d
redundant, having paid for itself 110
times over.
6.2 52/5(0) Eiector
The 52/5a Ejector was installed and
initially tested in December 1991.
Installation was again quick and simple
with project costs similar to that for the
FTP ejector. Production to the moti'(e
side was six Zechstein wells flowing at
70-80MMSCF/D at 400psi. On the
SPE 26684 A J GREEN, A READE, K ASHTON
suction side five Upper Bunter wells were
utillised. The ejector enabled these wells
to be drawn down to a lower flowing
pmssure, increasing flow rate from
36MMSCF/D at 180psi to 51MMSCF/D
at 140psi. Again noise levels were
reduced to safe levels by insulation and
silEmcers.
Th,e main downside from these tests was
thE! nozzle having been designed for
70MMSCF/D of Zechstein gas, acted as
a choke when attempting to flow at
potentially higher rates. High pressure
Zechstein gas being backed out to
mutch the nozzle flow characteristic.
Throughout 1992 and early 1993
continued high rates from the Zechstein
w€ills have enabled the ejector
performance to be in line with these
initial tests, with current data showing
65MMSCF/D of Zechstein gas giving a
rote increase of 13MMSCF/D of Upper
Bunter gas with a boost of 30psi to the
discharge pressure.
6.:3 Comparison with Laboratory
Tests
Noise and performance data were
gathered at regular intervals from the
ejE!ctors for comparison with the CAlfec
sc(]le model results and to ensure all
operational possibilities were examined
various motive to suction pressure ratios
we~re tested. For the FTP ejector the
performance data comparison is shown
in Figure 11. Overall there was good
agreement between site and model
results with the ejector operating close to
thE~ optimum performance point.
011 the 52/5a ejector instrumentation
pmblems occurred on the suction side of
thE~ ejector,so an estimate based on the
lowest wellhead pressure was used. A
pnessure boost of 1.2 was measured,
below that anticipated by the model
(1,,27). Examination of the 52/5a
pipework to the ejector identified
appreciable pressure drops (10-15psi).
Correcting for this brought laboratory
and offshore results closely in to line.
527
5
7. DESIGN SOFTWARE
Equations can be written to describe the
(compressible) flow of the two inlet
streams and mixed gas stream using
standard, well established compressible
flow theory (see Ref 1). These consider
conservation of mass, momentum and
energy through the ejector. The
fundamental equations can be corrected
by four empirical "loss" factors:
• primary (HP) nozzle discharge
coefficient (CD)'
• secondary (LP) inlet loss
coefficient( n $)'
• mixing duct momentum loss (Kd),
• diffuser efficiency (n d).
These were set using previous design
experience and calibrated against the
experimental results from the current
work. It should be stressed, though, that
all the factors are close to unity for a
well-designed ejector, and only provide
fine tuning.
Solution of the equations (53 in all) by
conventional programming methods
would be very difficult and cumbersome,
requiring iterative methods.
Furthermore, different algorithms would
be needed, depending on what data
was available and what would be
required in any design exercise. As a
consequence, software was written using
the equation-solving package TK-Solver
pluslll , marketed by UTS. This allowed
all the equations to be input explicitly.
In theory, if the known parameters
(whether for ejector design or
performance rating) are input, the
unknowns should be automatically
calculated, either directly or by guessing
a solution and using an iterative solver
(included in the package). In practice,
the solution method is so complex, that
solution takes place by a number of
steps (typically 3 - 4).
TK-Solver pluslll also possesses a number
of other attractive features for this
application, including the ability to
change units (eg SI, imperial, oilfield)
and output results graphically.
 SPE 26684 GAS PRODUCTION IMPROVEMENTS USING EJECTORS
Table 1 shows a comparison of
measured and predicted results.
Agreement can be seen to be very good.
8. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
The work to date enables ejectors to be
. reliably specified for pressure boosting
with (fairly dry) gas wells.
Further applications of gas ejectors are
pro-actively being sought during 1993.
Continual monitoring of the 52/5a
ejector continues for performance
optimisation.
For more widespread application, the
performance of ejectors with wet gas
and full multiphase flow conditions will
need to be established. For wet gas,
few problems are anticipated, although
confirmatory tests would be required.
6
production where adjacent wells
of differing pressures are present.
They are small, low cost and
simple to install. Two
installations offshore have shown
significant benefits, with
production increases up to
25 MMSCF/D achieved.
Offshore results are summarisE~d
in Table 2.
2. Sensitivity to HP flow performan1ce
gives a limited life span:
flexibility should be built in to
include multiple nozzles, the
ability to change nozzle si:ze
and/or mixing duct.
3. Ejectors fix the flowing conditions
so design needs to ensure
minimum backout of motive gos
due to nozzle choking.

Some initial work carried out at CAltec 4. Noise levels can be over 100dB
with ejectors operating in multiphase so there is a need for silencE!rs
flows has indicated that: and good insulation.

(i) if a multiphase HP stream is 5. Design software, using the TK-

lM
used, performance is very poor; Solver eq uation solver, has been
written and validated.
(ii) ejectors can withstand significant
quantities of gas in the low
pressure stream, although with
poorer performance (see also Ref 6. Ejectors can be specified with
2). confidence for single phase
applications (ie gas-gas; liquid-
Thus if ejectors are to be used for liquid). Possible ejector/separator
multi phase boosting, separation of the systems for multiphase boosting
liquid from the HP stream must be have been identified: further
carried out, and this liquid used to boost work is required to confirm and
LP flow. To operate effectively and optimise the systems.
economically, a compact in-line
separator would be desirable, such as 10. NOMENCLATURE
the In-Line Free Vortex (IFV) separator
(Ref 3). A conceptual system is shown in discharge coefficient
Figure 12. More development work is diameter (m)
currently underway on multiphase ejector mixing duct momentum loss
design, IFV design and total system factor
design to enable such a system to be m mass flow rate (kg S-l)
implemented. p pressure (Pa)
'1 ratio of specific heats
9. CONCLUSIONS n efficiency
1. Ejectors can potentially provide a
means of boosting gas
528
SPE 26684 A J GREEN, A READE, K ASHTON 7
subscripts
1 primary (HP) inlet TABLE 1
2 secondary (LP) inlet Comparison of Measured and Predicted ,erformance
3 mixing plane (52/5(a) Model Ejector)
4 mixing duct
5 ejector outlet
11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Nozzle m~ml p,..pz p,!P2
Pl/P2
(meas) (pred)
Th,e authors wishes to thank Phillips
Pelrroleum Company, Phillips Petroleum Full nozzle 2.82 0.45 1.36 1.33
(eI,,'" 33.0mm) 2.82 1.02 1.29 1.26
Company United Kingdom Limited and 2.16 0.40 1.26 1.22
COinadian Superior Oil UK Ltd, Arco 2.16 1.10 1.19 1.17
British Ltd, Fino Exploration Ltd, LASMO Reduced area nozzl. 2.82 0.98 1.20 1.18
NClrth Sea pic, Sun Oil Britain Ltd, British (da '" 24.9mm)
GCIS Exploration and Production,
Deminex UK North Sea and Agip (UK) (Empirical fadora ,., Co .. 0.94; ' .... d = 0.99; K .. 0.90)
Ltd for permission to publish this
mClterial. Also the support of the UK
Department of Trade and Industry for
this work is gratefully acknowledged.
12. REFERENCES TABLE 2
Summary of Offshor. Rnults
1. ESDU Data Item 84029,
Engineering Sciences Data Unit,
1984.
EJECTOR FTP 52/5A
2. Th. Herpel, S. Muschelknautz and ..OTlVE GAS ROTLIEGENDES ZECHSTEIN
F. Mayiner HA multiphase pump RATE - ....SCF/D 160 71
INLET PRESSURE- PSI 800 375
unit for offshore exploitation of
oil-gas-solid mixtures" Oil Gas -
European Magazine 1/1992. SUCTION GAS
EJECTOR STATUS
LOWER BUNTER
OFF
UPPER BUNTER
OFF
RATE - ....SCF/D 100 36
3. E G Arato and N D Barnes "In- PRESSURE- PSI 265 170

Line Free Vortex Separator used EJECTOR STATUS ON ON

for Gas/Liquid Separation Within RATE - ....SCF/D
INLET PRESSURE- PSI
125
235
51
140
a Novel Two-Phase Pumping
System H Fourth International
TOTAL RATE - ....SCFID 285 122
Conference on Hydrocydones, DISHARGE PRESSURE - PSI 295 180
BHR Group, Southampton, RATE BENEFIT - ....SCF/D 25 15
September 1992.

529
 SPE 26684 GAS PRODUCTION IMPROVEMENTS USING EJECTORS 8

Figure 1 A typical ejector Figure 3 Illustration of high pressure

nozzle characteristic
,

~Dl~ it
/

D4
: - - t - - _l - - - - - t - -__ 1
,
1.I"I------,V
l
(4) (5)

(2)--l--+--+- (3)
"
Secondary
Flow

Figure 2 Hewett Unit Schematic Figure 4 Illustration of low pressure

nozzle characteristic
52/5.
ZECHSTEIN

UPPER BUNTER BACTON

'S' SEALINE

LOWER BUNTER Compr•••lon

ROTLIEGENDES
48/29C

SEOClNllAJ~MASS R.OW 1... 1

Figure 5 Test rig and instrumentation layout Figure 6 FTP model ejector:
Effect of mixing duct dE~sign ,-
".,,, NNrTT' IltONt.. - I,.'UT f#

MI"I'" OUC.T
D1A"'TC'
- -
----
Mlwlrr ...":CI ••101-)
,,''''.• '11'' ~. '1-
--- \1'UIUT • ",,·f...
" ,, ---_.-- \""'$1It o." ..a .-

--
I,-, p'1'" ·)1

- ,,
_. _.-
-....::: ,
---- ~
'·1
--~ \ ~ .-
" ~
P - Press"", trIIlJducer
T - 1b<:rmocouple
N - Internal Noi", Transducer
,.,
-
\
\

.
\ '" , :--.., .'
,.
M - Microphone

530 •• ... . . ... t. l·a ...,

 SPE 26684 A J GREEN, A READE, K ASHTON 9

,~ ,--------------------------,
Figure 7 52/58 ejector
. ~

Figure 8 Seven nozzle ejector performance

(single nozzle performance)
., I.'
(all nozzles open)

us· P'/p,-U2

I 1 J
I 2."
'.J

J
2.16
J
I.'M J
J 1.2
I.'M

f 1.49
f '.2

':L
I..,
1.1

0.2 D.' 0.1 0.1 '.2

'.' 1.1 0.2 0.' 01 0.1 1.2 I.' 1.1
Ma•• rlotr .olio. "'2/"" "Oil rio.- lIIolio. ",2/", I

,.~ , ~ ~-----------------------,
Figure 9 Seven nozzle ejector performance Figure 10 Seven nozzle ejector performance
(five nozzles open) (three nozzles open)
.., '.'

I I.J ~ •J

J P,IP••2.1l
I
J 1
f 1.2 2.16
I.'M 1'2 P,/P••2.1l

2.16 __e
us ~=-t1 S
o
~~
__
1.1 I.' 1.94 1lQ.---- -e-_-..:~u==~-~
e .,
J.49 II u II

0.2 D.' 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.' 0.1 0.1 1.2 '.4 '.1
Moll Flow Rotio. ,"2/m I Wcn '10. lItotio. m2/Ift'

'''/~ 'AdlU'l!eI ., J/rl~

,.' '11.. •
wfl!t' '.rAA SC4t1 !t9!1( 11I11
..................... liqJGas r. • r,
- II.'
." ~ . &U 1'00I1.
""''1, III,,· liquid r.
.. ~ 0
lin ,.,.
. ~I\.
I,'

,.,
IFV
Separator

.. 'I"l ..,- ~
I ~'" .,.,
",.... , ~ ~
Po

.. - r,
V- ~ ~ P,

FI~urE' 1 Cor pariso h ofFT .~ ejector mod ~I""""'"

Figure 12 System for multiphase application
., 0·'
and offsho e resul s
0·' ., ;
'·0 ..
531