SPE 121815

Downhole Gas Compression: World's First Installation of a New

Artificial Lifting System for Gas Wells
M.T. Di Tullio, S. Fornasari, D. Ravaglia, Eni S.p.A. E&P Division, N. Bernatt, J.E.N. Liley, Corac
Group plc

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–11 June 2009.

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
Downhole Gas Compression (DGC) is an entirely new powered artificial lift technology designed specifically
for natural gas wells and will serve an as yet unrealised opportunity within the Upstream Gas industry. The
technology offers the opportunity to increase production by 30-50%, significantly improve reserves and delay
the onset of liquid loading. Although it can be applied at any time during a gas asset’s life cycle, it will find
particular favour during the decline phase. It may also be used to extend the life of a field hence delaying
divestiture.
While DGC has clear parallels with Electrical Submersible Pumps (ESPs), its deployment into gas wells
presents new challenges due to the incompatibility of current well control methods and the technologies and
operational considerations necessary for efficient wellbore turbo-compression. This paper presents these issues
and reports on the candidate well selection criteria, the compressor requirements and the well completion
design for the world’s first DGC installation in a live gas well to be conducted by Eni in an operated mature gas
asset located in Southern Italy. The paper offers guidance to other operators on the design, installation and
operational considerations for the deployment of this all new Artificial Lifting System for gas wells.

Introduction
The Upstream Gas Industry is often faced with the challenge of selecting an optimum Artificial Lifting system
for a well from various alternatives available for gas well production enhancement. These challenges become
more complex with increasing dynamic changes in well flow characteristics over the life of the well. Downhole
Gas Compression (DGC) is an entirely new powered artificial lift technology designed to serve an as yet
unrealised opportunity within the natural gas extraction industry. The new technology comes at a crucial time
for the global energy market.
As previously reported (OTC 16372 and SPE 96037) the application of DGC technology in suitable wells
offers value for:
• Acceleration of early production and extension of production plateau in new gas developments;
• Cost effective rejuvenation of mature gas reservoirs characterized by low reservoir pressure and
liquid accumulation into the wells;
• Improvement of gas well production and maximization of recovery factor from gas reservoirs with
low environment impact;
• Identification of incremental reserves and for monetizing stranded gas.
As part of an ongoing development through a Joint Industry Program (JIP) supported by Corac, Eni,
ConocoPhillips, and Repsol-YPF; Eni is to conduct the first field trial of the new technology in an onshore gas
well producing in an operated mature asset located in Southern Italy. The Programme has been completed in
phases including the design, build and testing in a full scale flow loop closely replicating downhole conditions
(SPE 116406). The prototype has been tailored to suit the expected gas flow range, composition and condition
of the selected field trial well.
2 SPE 121815

This work reports on the candidate well selection criteria, the compressor requirements, the well completion
design and the expected gas production enhancement for the world’s first installation of DGC technology in a
live gas well.

Why Compress Gas Downhole

Operators of producing assets are always seeking to maximize its value. In natural gas fields optimum gas
production at low cost of intervention, and low intervention frequency are the ultimate desire in gas well
production management. In order to maximize production, the flowing bottom-hole pressure (FBHP) should to
be kept as low as operationally possible. There are many limitations to achieving this objective. These
limitations are dynamic and represent the technical challenges faced by the industry.
At the beginning of production life the limitations include: fines migration, wear due to erosion, surface
facility and gathering system capacity. At the end of production life the challenge is to create the lowest
achievable flowing bottom-hole pressure to improve the well’s liquid unloading capacity and to reduce the
reservoir abandonment pressure. Low rate gas wells almost always cease to produce due to liquid accumulation
in the wellbore. The associated liquids in natural gas can be water or condensates and the deliquification (the
term used to describe the process of removing liquids from the wellbore to surface) of low rate gas wells is of
great importance to gas operators especially in the current global energy market.
In this scenario the key benefits of a new Artificial Lifting System for gas production enhancement results
from the ability of the system to reduce the aforementioned limitations over the full life of the well.
A DGC system positioned in the proximity of the well perforations can lead to a better solution to these
challenges over other Artificial Lifting methods including conventional central compression. Its key benefit is
achieved through an improvement of well vertical lift (outflow) performance that leads to maximized production
system efficiency.
By way of explanation, and using the Eni field trial well as a reference case, the following two live examples
are discussed to outline the effectiveness of gas compression inside the wellbore.
A problem occuring in tubing constrained gas wells is excessive gas velocity in the region of the upper
tubing and wellhead, when the optimal gas rate needs to be produced at low wellhead flowing pressure. This can
give rise to erosion typically addressed by increasing the wellhead pressure. This naturally reduces the
production rate and certainly leads to unexploited reservoir drawdown and sub-optimal gas production.
For the reference well, Fig. 1 shows this limitation in terms of well deliverability while Fig. 2 shows the
upper tubing’s region (from 700 m to wellhead) suffering at the higher gas rate an excessive gas velocity and
consequently induced high pressure losses. It can be observed that at fixed tubing diameter uniquely reducing
the gas well deliverability from 350 to 250 KSm3/d (Fig. 1) and consequently increasing the wellhead flowing
pressure from 47.0 to 99.0 bars (Fig. 2) the erosion problems in the upper tubing’s region can then be avoided.
There is no practical solution to produce the target gas rate (350 KSm3/d) with larger tubing size (Fig. 1), it
is only reported here as reference case to outline the DGC ability to improve the tubing transport capacity of the
well. The effect of placing a compressor close to the bottom of the reference well is to produce the target gas
production increasing both the density of the gas (at its discharge) and the wellhead flowing pressure. The
increased gas density enables a greater quantity of gas (and liquid) to be transported to surface within the same
tubing string without suffering excessive velocity and induced pressure loss. The ability of DGC to improve the
tubing transport capacity is shown on Fig. 3 where the resulting pressure and temperature profiles along the
wellbore for both cases of DGC and larger tubing size are compared. It can be seen from the graphs that a
reasonable increase of DGC pressure losses due to the reduced tubing diameter and a higher average gas
temperature to the surface is generated by the compression process. This last effect impacts on the possible
onset of liquid drop-out within the tubing string.
As the reservoir pressure declines a further problem felt most acutely in tubing constrained wells is the liquid
loading process, when the gas flow rate or the upward gas velocity in the well falls below the critical value
required for gas to move liquid droplets up to the surface. Should the reservoir have declined such that the onset
of liquid drop-out is already low within the well, or the reservoir is aquifer driven, then the effect of deep
compression is to lower the flowing bottom-hole pressure which increases the local gas velocity above the
critical value enabling an extended period of liquid droplet transport.
For the reference well, finding the minimum (critical) gas production rate for liquid unloading in the tubing
at 20 KSm3/d, Fig. 4 illustrates over the latest reservoir depletion steps the minimum operating wellhead
pressure required to keep the well flowing at the critical rate. It can be seen that as the reservoir pressure
declines from 20.8 to 15.1 bars, should the minimum operating pressure not be decreased from 13.5 to 5.3 bars
the well production will continue at an increasingly sub-critical rate.
At these conditions, DGC is uniquely able to extend the period of liquid droplet transport at the higher (13.5
bars) wellhead flowing pressure leading the same reservoir drawdown achievable with the lowest operating
pressure (5.3 bars). This is illustrated in Fig. 5, where there is close agreement between the tubing pressure loss
and higher average gas temperature to the surface created by the compression process.
SPE 121815 3

The impact of higher average gas temperature on the onset of liquid drop-out is reported on Fig. 6 where for
both cases the liquid drop-out depth within the wellbore has been derived by the intersection of the equilibrium
water vapour curve with the condensation curve (vertical). It can be observed that DGC has significant impact
on the equilibrium liquids, as the compressor heats the gas stream which remains hotter until it reaches the upper
tubing’s region from 680 m to wellhead. It should be highlighted that this analysis only deals with free liquid in
the wellbore due to the water condensation from the gas stream.

DGC – Key Enabling Technologies

DGC technology contains a number of compression modules assembled in series. Each module comprises a
high speed compressor driven directly by permanent magnet motors supported on gas bearing and powered by
individual high frequency solid state inverters specifically designed for a downhole environment. Electrical
power is delivered downhole by a low loss DC link which in the case of the field trial well provides 90KW of
wellbore compression power. Other DGC variants will be rated up to 750KW.
In the following paragraphs DGC two key enabling technologies will be summarised. Firstly, the electrical
power delivery system and downhole power inverter, and secondly, the hydrodynamic gas bearing system
employed to support the compressor shafts.

Electrical Power Delivery

The DGC’s electrical power delivery system comprises two major sub-systems. The first is the Electronics
Package, located (downhole) at the compressor inlet. The second is the Surface Power Feed, located in a control
room within reasonable distance of the wellhead. The two sections are connected by a cable carrying the power
and control signals. The cable is attached to the exterior of the production tubing in much the same manner as
done today with ESPs.
The DGC power delivery system is perhaps best explained, by drawing comparisons with ESPs. The
similarities and differences between the two systems are discussed below.
An ESP power delivery system typically comprises a transformer to provide isolation from the supply
network, and a standard AC motor drive with output filter to prevent high rate transient voltages being applied
to the downhole cable.
The DGC supply transformer is similar to those found in most ESP systems in that it provides common
mode isolation between the supply network and the downhole system. In common with some of the higher end
ESP drives, the arrangement is 24-pulse to minimise harmonic distortion on the supply network. It has been
designed to operate on both high fault level and on soft supplies. A pre-charge and pre-magnetisation system is
included in the design to prevent voltage dips from energisation transients.
Small diameter compressors require high rotational speeds, which drive the design towards short a stiff shaft
arrangement to meet rotordynamic considerations. This creates a requirement for multiple individual motors,
rather than one large coupled motor as found in ESPs. Each motor requires its own variable speed drive for
reasons of independent speed control, torsional damping, and redundancy. There may be up to six compressor
modules per DGC system, requiring up to six power-electronic motor drives. Since it would be impractical to
have six cables within the wellbore, it is necessary to locate the power electronic inverter sections within the
downhole portion of the machine, and make the downhole cable part of an extended “common dc link”. Such
common dc links are standard in motor drives. The only difference with the DGC is its length which is greater
than that normally found in industrial applications. A major advantage of transmitting DC power downhole
instead of high frequency AC lies in the greatly reduced resistive losses.
The electronics module, containing all six inverters is located upstream, at the inlet of the DGC. The
electronic circuitry resides in an annular cavity between the outer DGC casing and the production tubing. At
down-hole conditions the produced gas has exceptional thermal properties which are used to maintain the
electronics at an acceptable temperature.
Extensive testing has been completed on the system and is reported in SPE 116406.

Hydrodynamic Gas Bearing System

The rotational speed chosen for this field trial DGC is 55 to 62krpm 1 . This is well beyond the capabilities of
conventional oil lubricated bearings and the chosen system is much simpler than magnetic bearings which
would require further (downhole) power and electronics control systems. The drive train proposed has no
contacting surfaces in operation and has eliminated the need for gearboxes, shaft seals, liquid lubrication
systems and couplings – in short, all the vulnerable, wearing components.

1
A key parameter in the design of turbo compressors is its blade speed. Typical blade speeds are close to
the local speed of sound for the gas being compressed. While the DGC’s rotational speed has been
intentionally reduced below normal design practice, it is largely due to its diminutive diameter.
4 SPE 121815

The DGC’s bearings are based on creating a hydrodynamic gas film and makes use of the produced
hydrocarbon gas as its ‘lubricant’. The material selection of the bearings is sufficiently robust for start/stop
when there is insufficient film thickness to support the shaft. During the design life of the machine no more than
50-75 starts are envisaged.

Field Trial – Candidate Well Selection

The DGC technology is currently developing and the field trial must be considered as part of this ongoing
development. First order assessment based on the following four key drivers has been used to select the
candidate well for a suitable application of the new technology. (1) Wet or dry gas well with: 178 mm (7”)
casing O.D. or greater, single completion string, medium-to-high productivity, WHFP at or below 20 bars,
FBHT less than 110°C, low-to-moderate liquids and solids production (not zero). (2) Electric power available on
well site. (3) Production benefits achievable by: increasing well drawdown, stabilizing well bore flow regime,
integrating the DGC system with the conventional central compression (if present). (4) Increase ultimate
recovery by: increasing tubing unloading capacity, lowering the reservoir abandonment pressure.
With the above criteria, several candidate gas wells were evaluated for the field trial. The screening process
resulted in the selection of a gas well operated by Eni in an onshore mature field in Southern Italy. Since 1966,
and without production problems seriously reducing gas recovery or production capacity, the well is producing
gas from a high productivity layered reservoir and its cumulative gas production raised 842 MSm3 at the end of
year 2008. The reservoir and gas properties are listed in the table below:
• Reservoir depth 2359 m
• Reservoir temperature 74°C
• Reservoir productivity 700 mDm
• Initial Reservoir pressure 250 bars
• Gas specific gravity 0.560
Fig. 7 schematically depicts the current well completion arrangement and also shows the maximum setting
depth for a tubing conveyed DGC installation maximizing the clearance machine-casing for future workover
activities. The wellsite allows the tie-in of the electrical power delivery system and the housing of DGC surface
power and control system in a ventilated house located within 50 m of the wellhead.
Analysis of historical production data has outlined a wet-gas reservoir 2 with natural volumetric depletion as
driving force for the flow of gas to the surface. The volumetric depletion excludes the possible influx of free
water produced by the formation throughout the future depletion period. The analysis of the equilibrium water
vapour content of the gas stream has outlined the possible presence of free water over the length of the wellbore
due to the water condensation from the gas with the reservoir depletion. This means a risk of production
impairment due to liquid loading when the gas flow rate or the upward gas velocity in the well falls below the
critical value required for gas to move liquid droplets up to the surface.
The well has experienced this process of liquid loading, when the gas production was no longer able to lift
liquid to the surface, before installing (1993) the field compression system at the Central Delivery Point (CDP)
to reduce the operating wellhead pressure. Currently the well is producing gas flow rates close to 40 KSm3/d
with the WHFP declining from 17.0 to 13.5 bars this being the minimum operating value with the central
compression alone. However and only for short time periods a spare capacity within the central compression
system allows this pressure to reduce to 9.0 bars.
In summary, the selected field trial well is suitable to address the following project’s objectives:
• Test the reliability of newly engineered DGC system in a live gas well;
• Proove the integration of DGC system with the central compression system usually used to
optimize gas well production and maximize reservoir recovery factor;
• Cost effectively rejuvenates an old gas well in a mature gas field characterized by low reservoir
pressure and liquid accumulation into the wellbore.

Production Benefits
The production benefits achievable by the installation of DGC system into the well were evaluated by
comparing the production profiles for both with, and without DGC over the remaining well’s life-cycle. The
presence of central compression at CDP was always included in both cases.
A simple 2D material balance model calibrated on the past production data was used in its predictive mode
to generate future reservoir performance, well inflow performance, and to estimate the potential recovery of the
remaining gas in place.
Future well deliverability (or minimum FBHP) over the reservoir depletion was determined by the
intersection of the inflow performance curve and the tubing (outflow) performance curve in the range of WHFP

2
Gas mixture within the reservoir remains in the gas phase throughout the depletion period. Condensate
will drop-out from the gas stream in the tubing or at the surface or both.
SPE 121815 5

values allowed by the central compression. To conduct the calculation a well model was created using Prosper®
and OpenServer® from IPM software suite to simulate well tubing performance with and without DGC. Inflow
and Outflow performances generating the system performance were calculated selecting the solution node at the
compressor inlet depth (1915 m).
The DGC operating boundaries considered include: the discharge temperature (up to 150 °C), minimum
suction pressure (3 bars), and the additional operating expenditure (Opex) due to the DGC system (up to 50
c$/Boe). Additional Opex created from the compression process as opposed to compression power has been
selected as operational constraint because the DGC is a constant power device for a given well and only the
resulting compressor operating duty will dictate the electrical power to install.
Tab. 1 summarizes the key parameters of calculation while on Fig. 8 to 10 is shown the resulting well
deliverability over the reservoir depletion. On these figures the terms DGC and NF characterize respectively the
well outflow performance with and without DGC. The numbers refer to the WHFP values.
Several observations can be drawn from the produced system graphs:
• DGC system maximizes gas production over the remaining well life-cycle by reducing the flowing
bottom-hole pressure and hence maintaining the very largest reservoir drawdown greater than can be
achieved by central compression alone;
• As the reservoir depletes there is a time when the minimum (critical) gas production rate (20 KSm3/d)
for unloading liquid in the tubing can no longer be maintained. This occurs at lower wellhead pressure,
which in the case of central compression alone is 13.5bar. From this point onward production continues
but at an increasingly sub-critical rate. At these conditions, DGC is uniquely able to further reduce the
bottom hole pressure and therefore maintain the gas production over the critical value for longer than
the other means;
• The same limitation over the remaining life of the well can be also observed when the lower wellhead
pressure approaches 9.5bar which is the value achievable with the spare capacity of the central
compression system;
• With DGC, as the reservoir declines further, the gas velocity will inevitably fall until the critical
velocity is reached once again, but not before the reservoir has been drained much further than possible
with the central compression alone;
• In respect to lowering the reservoir abandonment pressure and consequently increasing ultimate
recovery, the installation of DGC into the well leads to a lower abandonment pressure of 5.5bar. This
number reduces to 3.0bar if the spare capacity of central compression system is included.
Finally, to calculate well production profiles for both with, and without DGC a comprehensive set of
operating points have been derived from previous calculated system performances adding an operating
constraint on the reservoir drawdown (no greater than 40%) and fixing the lower wellhead pressure at 13.5 bars.
The resulting well production profiles are shown and compared on Fig. 11. From this figure it can be seen
that:
• The incremental gas production due to DGC increases with time rising to 45.5% in the third year of
installation. From this point onward the incremental production continues to increase but this is
uniquely due to the ability of DGC to keep daily gas production over the critical value for longer;
• The installation of DGC allows extension of the well life-cycle from 2012 to 2014, improving the
ultimate gas recovery, and delaying the future field divestiture;
• Over the given operating period of 5-6 years, DGC leads to recovery of 32.8 MSm3 as additional gas of
which 35% and 64% is recovered among the first three (3) and four (4) operating years.

Compressor Operating Duty and Demand Curve

Well operating points with DGC collected from aforementioned computation have been used to generate the
performance requirements of the DGC over its operating period. Fig. 12 presents the resulting compressor
operating duty in terms of throughput and pressure ratio. This set of data has been used as the basis for a suitable
compressor design to ensure that it could operate over the given operating period (5-6 years).
Turning to the compressor operating duty, it can be observed that:
• The operating pressure ratio depends upon the gas flow rates and it increases as the gas flow rate
decreases;
• The electrical power required at higher gas rates dictates the compressor power to install. Lower gas
rates require lower power;
• At lower gas rates the compressor discharge temperature, and the DGC additional Opex result system
boundary conditions;
• Should the economic boundary condition be met, the operating constraint would be increased or the
wellhead flowing pressure would be decreased to maintain the production.
6 SPE 121815

The start-up of compressor design is its aerodynamic design that involves inlet volumetric gas flow rate.
This flow rate is derived multiplying surface standard gas flow rate by the gas volume factor (Bg) at the inlet
conditions. Re-plotting the previous calculated DGC pressure ratio against its inlet volumetric gas flow rate, the
resulting “demand curve” has been a very surprise in terms of compressor operational information. Among the
first three (3) operating years the machine will operate at constant inlet volumetric flow rate with increasing
pressure ratio. In the remaining operating period the machine will operate at constant pressure ratio with
decreasing inlet volumetric flow rate. This DGC demand curve is shown on Fig. 13 where is also superimposed
the resulting (from aerodynamic design) compressor train operating envelope providing the required boost over
the entire operation’s timeline.
The compressor train comprises three centrifugal compressors of high efficiency, high rotational speed (55
to 62 krpm), and wide operational range. CFD predictions have indicated isentropic stage efficiencies of over
80% for the first operating period, with efficiency dropping to 77-78% over the last operation’s timeline.

Compressor Module Design

The DGC programme has been completed in phases including the design, build and testing in a full scale
flow loop closely replicating downhole conditions (SPE 116406). The field trial prototype has been tailored to
suit the expected gas flow range, composition and condition of the selected well.
The key elements of the design are a motor stator, a one piece shaft mounted on gas bearings and a single
stage turbo compressor. The design is ‘seal-less’ and hence the produced gas may freely flow through the
machine internals. The shaft is of a single piece having no couplings. Permanent magnet synchronous motors
are used rather than induction motors typically used in ESPs. The choice of permanent magnet motor was made
for their suitability for high speed operation, their greater efficiency, and increased volumetric power density.
Each module motor is ‘canned’ isolating the stator from the produced fluids. At the inlet to each module is a
single stage ‘dirty gas’ mixed flow compressor requiring NO prior separation or scrubbing. To achieve the
compression ratio and/or installed power, multiple modules (or stages) are provided. Up to 6 stages can be used
in a single compression string. For the Eni field trial 3 modules each rated at 30KW has been selected providing
a maximum of 90KW of installed compression power. The overall length of the machine is less than 12 m, can
be completely factory assembled and tested prior to dispatch with NO further assembly work required at the
well site.
Fig.14 shows a cross section through one of the 3 compressor module. The red line running through the view
indicates the gas path through the machine. Commencing at the modules inlet (to the left), the gas is first
compressed and then passes along channels around the motor stator, providing cooling on its way, before being
discharged or passed onto the next stage when the process is repeated.
This simple repeating design will provide both reliability and significant system redundancy. Each module is
independently driven and controlled by a downhole power electronics package, described above.

DGC – Completion and Installation Specification for the Field Trial

This section describes the DGC completion system design for the cased well identified for the Eni’s field
trial. After a description of the critical DGC requirements that influence the completion design, each component
of the completion equipment (including the valve system and their associated service lines) to install and operate
the DGC system is illustrated. The last part provides a summary of the installation (workover) procedure and
DGC start-up sequence. For simplicity, the DGC will be treated as a ‘black box’ and will not be described in
detail here.

Specific Requirements for DGC installation

The following are the critical requirements for start-up and operation of the DGC system:
1. Large instantaneous thrust loads, such as that caused by liquid slugs, are likely to destroy the
compressor modules. Therefore, all liquid trapped in the sump of the well must be removed during
the workover;
2. The DGC modules cannot be flooded with any fluid that may contain solids or particulates during
installation as it raises the risk of particulates entering and interfering with the gas bearing system.
Therefore the DGC must be installed in a dry chamber between closed inlet and outlet valves;
3. The DGC system must be pressurized to reservoir pressures before start-up to avoid a large inrush
of gas damaging the compressors. Therefore, a fully controllable self-equalising valve is required at
the DGC inlet;
4. A leaky check valve (or flapper valve) is required immediately above the DGC modules for
instantaneous control of large reverse gas flows during unplanned or emergency shut downs;
5. To hold-up liquid during shutdowns, an ON-OFF type valve is required above the check valve;
6. Due to mechanical space limitations, only three Φ¼” hydraulic lines by-pass the DGC System.
Therefore, one line will be assigned for chemical injection duties while the remaining two will be
used for control of the inlet valve;
SPE 121815 7

7. The maximum loads permitted on the DGC modules during installation are:
Annulus pressure: 300barA (4350 psi)
Tubing pressure: 80barA (1160 psi)
Compressive force: 186kN (41814 lbf)
Tensile force: 186kN (41814 lbf)
Torque: 2 kN.m (1475 lbf.ft)
Bending: 2o/30 m

DGC Valve System

The DGC system requires a total of three valves to operate successfully: an inlet valve, an outlet valve, and a
check valve. An adjustable shrouded sliding sleeve has been selected to perform the functions of the inlet valve.
It is a Φ3-1/2” device with six (6) predetermined choking positions able to equalize the differential pressure.
Shrouded sliding sleeve has been selected to perform the functions of the outlet valve. It is a Φ2-7/8” device that
will operate prior the start-up, as a liquid hold-up valve during shutdowns, and prior to retrieval. A modified Φ2-
7/8” flapper valve has been selected to perform the functions of a leaky check valve and operate as a fast-acting
large- reverse flow restrictor during emergency or unplanned shutdowns. The pressure difference required to
open this valve has been calculated to be approximately 60mbar.
Three Φ¼” hydraulic service lines are used for independent and direct control of the inlet and outlet valves.
The check valve is a passive device that does not require any form of control. The three hydraulic control lines
are used in a “common close configuration” where each valve has a dedicated “open” line while sharing a single
“close” line. The lines are encapsulated in a “triple flat pack” and individually colour coded.

Completion String Arrangement

Fig. 15 illustrates the resulting completions arrangement for the Eni field trial well while Fig. 16 shows the
control system of the inlet and outlet valves. The upper completion equipment also includes the Safety Valve
and its operational hydraulic control line.
Both wellhead and tubing hanger have provisions for a total of five (5) hydraulic lines while upper packer
has provisions for a total of four (4) hydraulic lines respectively for DGC (three lines) and chemical injection
duties (one line). Only three control lines by-pass the DGC system, two lines to operate and control the inlet
valve and one line for chemical injection duties.
DGC electrical power is delivered downhole by a modified ESP cable. This cable is externally similar to a
three-phase flat ESP cable but it differs internally as only two power cables (cores) provide the main DC power
and the third cable is adapted for DGC control incorporating a low-voltage twisted pair within it. Twisted pair
enable communication signals to be transmitted up and downhole.
Auxiliary equipments include: cable protectors, packer penetrators, and wellhead penetrators.

Workover Procedure
The procedure for working over the well and installing the DGC is described below:
1. Isolate well with a chemical plug and kill fluid;
2. Remove all existing downhole equipment i.e. packers, production string etc;
3. Run WL gyro log and then DGC drift tool;
4. Install lower completion consisting of a packer, sliding sleeve and tailpipe with a 2 7/8” workstring;
5. Run CT to the well sump and inject high pressure N2 to remove kill fluid minimising the amount of
stranded fluid in the sump;
6. Remove CT and allow natural flow to complete the well cleanup process;
7. Run and set WL plug in the tail pipe;
8. Fill tubing string with brine and pressure test WL plug;
9. POOH workstring. If required, perforate workstring first;
10. Run the upper completion with the upper sliding sleeve in the open position and the lower sliding
sleeve shifting tool located at the bottom at the end of a perforated joint;
11. When the shifting tool locates against the PBR bore, assemble the tubing hanger at the surface.
Lower the upper completion further until the shifting tool opens the lower sliding sleeve,
fractionally before the PBR stinger engages its seal bore. Brine below the inlet valve and some
liquid from the annulus drops into the well sump. Land the tubing hanger;
12. Run and set WL plug below upper packer (but above open upper sliding sleeve);
13. Set and test upper packer (note that the packer seals must be set upwards to avoid hydraulically
crushing the DGC). POOH WL plug;
14. Run CT to the outlet valve and inject N2 to remove brine in tubing string;
15. Run upper an appropriate shifting tool and close the upper sliding sleeve;
16. The well is now completed and ready for DGC System start-up.
8 SPE 121815

Initial Start-up procedure

The following sequence is then followed for the DGC start-up:
1. After installation, all 3 control lines have only hydrostatic pressure in them.
2. Open the Inlet Valve to its first choking position (i.e. 0.5% open) by applying pressure to the ‘Inlet
Open Line’ and checking returning liquid from the ‘Common Close Line’ Wait until full
equalization is achieved in the DGC chamber. Note the formation pressure;
3. Bleed pressure off the ‘Inlet Open Line’;
4. Apply pressure to the ‘Common Close Line’ to shift the inlet valve to its diffused position. Confirm
by checking returning fluid volume from the “’Inlet Open Line’;
5. Bleed pressure off ‘Common Close Line’;
6. Repeat steps 2 to 5 a total of six times, each time opening the Inlet Valve to the next choking
position, i.e. 1%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 16% and finally to its fully open position;
7. Pressurise the upper tubing string with N2 to the well’s formation pressure;
8. Close the wellhead valve;
9. Open the Outlet Valve by applying pressure in the ‘Outlet Open Line’. Check returns from the
‘Common Close Line’ for confirmation. Liquid remaining above the outlet valve drops to the well
sump via the leaky check valve;
10. To leave pressure in the remaining two lines, first apply pressure in the ‘Inlet Open Line’ and in the
‘Common Close Line’;
11. Start-up the DGC and run up to 30krpm. The leaky check valve opens slightly.
12. Gradually open the wellhead valve to flow the well;
13. Speed up the DGC to full operating speed as the bottom hole flowing pressure is reduced. Thermal
elongation of the DGC System is taken up by the PBR while thermal expansion of the annulus brine
enters the tubing string through the upper sliding sleeve and is blown out of the well;
14. Initiate chemical injection;
15. Start-up is now completed.

Conclusions
The paper has presented the field trial well selection, the key enabling technologies that make this development
possible, the prototype DGC design and the well completion design for the world’s first DGC installation in a
live gas well.
The selected field trial well is suitable to address the following project’s objectives:
• Test the reliability of new engineered DGC system in a live gas well;
• Proove the integration of DGC system with the central compression usually used to optimize gas
well production and maximize reservoir recovery factor;
• Cost effectively rejuvenates an old gas well in a mature gas field characterized by low reservoir
pressure and liquid accumulation into the well bore.
Key application of the technology is for use in declining gas wells that are tubing limited. From the
generated production profiles for Eni’s field trial well it can be concluded that:
• The incremental gas production due to DGC increases with time rising to 45.5% in the third year of
installation. From this point onward the incremental production continues to increase but thisis
uniquely due to the ability of DGC to keep daily gas production over the critical value for longer;
• The installation of DGC permits extension of the well life-cycle from 2012 to 2014, improving the
ultimate gas recovery, and delaying the future asset divestiture;
• Over the given operating period of 5-6 years, DGC leads to recovery of 32.8 MSm3 of additional
gas of which 35% and 64% is recovered in the first three (3) and four (4) operating years.
The key technologies described include the electrical power delivery system and the use of gas bearings to
support a rotating assembly in a downhole environment.
The resulting compressor operating duty for Eni’s field trial well highlights that:
• The operating pressure ratio depends upon the gas flow rates and it increases as the gas flow rate
decreases;
• The electrical power required at higher gas rates dictates the compressor power to install. Lower gas
rates require lower power;
• At lower gas rates the compressor discharge temperature and the DGC additional Opex define
system boundary conditions. Should the economical boundary condition be met, the operating
constraint would be increased or the wellhead flowing pressure would be decreased to maintain the
production.
A suitable compressor aerodynamic design based on the compressor operating duty and or its demand curve
has defined the compressor train providing the required boost over the entire operation’s timeline.
SPE 121815 9

The overall arrangement of the DGC for Eni’s field trial includes a downhole power-electronics package
followed by three (3) thirty kilowatt (30KW) compressor modules delivering a total of ninety kilowatts (90KW)
of installed compression power.
The well completion design takes into account the specific requirements of the DGC operation and reflects
the Eni’s company-policy in terms of safety, workover procedures and operation of the well.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their thanks to ConocoPhillips Inc., Repsol-YPF SA, Eni S.p.A., and Corac
Group plc who are funding and technically directing the DGC JIP. Furthermore, the authors would like to
thanks Halliburton, BakerHughes-Centrilift, and Baker Oil Tools for their assistance in developing the
completion arrangement.

Nomenclature
DGC = Downhole Gas Compressor or Compression
NF = Natural Flowing
JIP = Joint Industry Programme
FBHP = Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure
WHFP = Wellhead Flowing Pressure
FBHT = Flowing Bottom Hole Temperature
ESP = Electrical Submersible Pump
DC = Direct Current
KW = Kilo Watt
AC = Alternating Current
CDP = Central Delivery Point
KSm3 = Thousands of standard cubic meter
MSm3 = Millions of standard cubic meter
Opex = Operating expenditure
Boe = Barrel oil equivalent
HP = Horse Power
WGR = Water Gas Ratio
CGR = Condensate Gas Ratio
HP = Horse Power or DGC shaft power
Pratio = DGC Pressure ratio
Bg = Gas Volume Factor
P = Pressure
T = Temperature
WL = Wire Line
POOH = Pull out of hole

References
1. Liley, J. E. N. and Verbeek P. H. J.: “Wellbore pressure boosting enhances recovery from Natural Gas Wells,”
paper OTC 16372 presented at the 2004 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 3-6 2004.
2. Liley, J.E.N. and Oakley, S.D.: “Downhole Pressure Boosting in Natural gas Wells: Well Candidate Selection and
Project Progress”, paper SPE 96037 presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, October 9-12 2005.
3. Geary, B.; Alford, A.; Bernatt N.; and Liley, J.E.N.: “Downhole Pressure Boosting in Natural Gas Wells: Results
from Prototype Testing”, paper SPE 116406 presented at the 2008 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Perth, Aus, 20-22 October 2008.
4. Hagoort, J.: “Fundamental of gas reservoir engineering”, Elsevier Sc. Publ., Amsterdam (1988).
5. Beggs, H.D.: “Gas Production Operations”, OGCI Publications, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1985).
6. Smith, R.V.: “Practical Natural Gas Engineering”, PennWell Books, PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa,
Oklahoma (1987)
10 SPE 121815

Tables

Table 1 – Key Parameters for Well Deliverability evaluation both with and without DGC
From To

Reservoir Pressure, (barA) 27.3 16.1

Reservoir Temperature, (°C) 74.0 74.0
Water Gas Ratio, WGR (l/KSm3) 11.4 18.6
Condensate Gas Ratio, CGR (l/KSm3) 0.0 0.0
Wellhead Flowing Pressure, WHFP (barA) 18.0 14.5 – 10.0

DGC Installation Depth, (m) 1915 1915

Minimum DGC Suction Pressure, (barA) 5.0 4.0
Maximum DGC Discharge Temperature, (°C) 150 150
Maximum DGC Additional operating expenditure, 0.5 0.5
($/Boe)

Table 2 - The Design Basis for both the ENi Field trial and a mid rate DGC
Mid Rate 250KW DGC ENI Field Trial DGC

Number of compressor modules 5 3

Module power (KW) 50 30
Total DGC power ( kW ) 250 90
Gas flow rate – Year 1 – 5 (KSm3/d) 382 – 168 50.0 – 20.0
Pressure ratio (Year 1 – 5) 1.35 – 1.5 1.49 – 1.78
Maximum compressor speed (rpm) 45000 62000

Installation Depth (m) 3000 1915

Inlet Temperature (°C) 105 70
Outlet temperature – Year 1- 5 (°C) 135 – 145.5 120 – 143
Closed in well pressure – Year 1 (barA) 69 30
DGC Inlet pressure – Year 1 – 5 (barA) 27.9 – 21.4 18.5 – 10.1
DGC Discharge pressure – Year 1- 5 (bar A) 37.7 – 32.1 27.6 – 17.8
SPE 121815 11

Figures

System Performance - Erosion

250

200
Pressure, bars

IPR
150 Prod.Dat a
Out 99.0
100 Out 47.0
Out 108.0

50

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Gas Rate, KSm 3/d

Fig. 1 – System Performance at fixed and larger Tubing size (in black)

Pressure Along the Wellbore, bars

40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
Bottom Measured Depth, m

500

1000 P250
P350
T250
1500 T350

2000

2500
40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Tem perature Along the Wellbore, °C

Fig. 2 – P, and T profiles in the wellbore to produce several gas rates (250 and 350 KSm3/d) with the same Tubing size

Pressure Along the Wellbore, bars

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0
Bottom Measured Depth, m

500

P350
1000
P350DGC
T350
1500
T350DGC

2000

2500
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Tem perature Along the Wellbore, °C

Fig. 3 – P, and T profiles in the wellbore to produce target gas rate (350 KSm3/d) both with DGC and larger Tubing size
12 SPE 121815

System Performance - Unloading

30

Pressure, bars 25

20 IPR# 1
IPR# 2
15 Out 13.5
Out 5.3
10 Prod. Dat a

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Gas Rate, KSm 3/d

Fig. 4 – System Performance over reservoir depletion stating minimum WHFP to produce critical gas rate (20 KSm3/d)

Pressure Along the Wellbore, bars

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0
Bottom Measured Depth, m

500

PNF
1000
PDGC
TNF
1500
TDGC

2000

2500
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Tem perature Along the Wellbore, °C

Fig. 5 - P, and T profiles in the wellbore to produce the critical gas rate (20 KSm3/d) both with and without DGC system

Water Vapour Content of Gas, l/KSm 3

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
0
Bottom Measured Depth, m

500

1000
NF
DGC
Condensation
1500

2000

2500

Fig. 6 – Free liquid in the wellbore due to vapour condensation from the gas stream
SPE 121815 13

9"5/8 CSG, end at 1413.5 m

7" CSG, 23 lb/ft - ID=161.7 mm (6.366")

7" CSG, end at 2482.5 m
Drift 158.5 mm (6.241") - to 1920 m
7" CSG, 26 lb/ft - ID=159.4 mm (6.276")
Drift 156.2 mm (6.151") - from 1920 to 2482.5 m

DGC at 1915 m

2"7/8 Tbg EU - 6.5 lb/ft - N80

2"7/8 TBG, end at 2271.6 m
ID = 62.0 mm (2.441")

Prod. Paker at 2272 m

2292-2428 Middle Perforations at 2359 m

Cement Plug at 2482 m

Fig. 7 – Current completion scheme of selected field trial well highlighting maximum DGC setting depth

System Performance at compressor depth

30

25
Pressure, bars

20 IP R# 1
IP R# 2
NF17.0
15
NF13.5
NF9.0
10 DGC17.0

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Gas Rate, KSm3/d

Fig. 8 - System Performance for both with and without DGC over first DGC operating period
14 SPE 121815

System Performance at compressor depth

30

25

IP R# 2
20
Pressure, bars

IP R# 3
NF17.0
15 NF13.5
NF9.0
DGC17.0
10 DGC13.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Gas Rate, KSm3/d

Fig. 9 - System Performance for both with and without DGC over middle DGC operating period

System Performance at compressor depth

25

20

IP R# 3
Pressure, bars

IP R# 4
15
IP R# 5
NF13.5
NF9.0
10 DGC13.5
DGC9.0

0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Gas Rate, KSm3/d

Fig. 10 - System Performance for both with and without DGC over latest DGC operating period
SPE 121815 15

Yearly Gas Production Comparison

18
Gas Production, MSm3

15

12

0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

NF 12.78 10.88 8.79 0.92 0.00 0.00

DGC 16.08 15.10 12.79 10.26 8.65 3.32

Year

NF DGC

Fig. 11 – Well production profiles for both with and without DGC

Compressor Operating Duty

2.5 150 P, barA - T, °C - HP, KW

2.0 120
Pratio - Opex, $/Boe

1.5 90

1.0 60

0.5 30

0.0 0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Gas Rate, KSm3/d

Pratio Opex Pin Tin Tout HP WHFP

Fig. 12 – DGC performance requirements over its operating period

16 SPE 121815

DG C  S tring  C harac teris tic

1.90
1.85
1.80
S trin g  P res s u re R a tio

1.75
Y ear 3‐5
1.70
1.65
Y ear 1‐3
1.60 61.5 krpm
1.55 60 krpm
1.50 55 krpm
1.45 Demand
1.40
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Inlet Volumetric  F low R ate, m3/s

Fig. 13 – DGC String Analysis including Demand Curve

Fig. 14 - A cross sectional view through a single Eni Field trial compressor module showing the gas path (in red).
SPE 121815 17

Fig. 15 - Installed DGC system

Fig. 16 - DGC Inlet and Outlet valve control system