The Evaluation of Vertical-Lift Performance in

Producing Wells
R. V. McAFEE
MEMBER AIME

ABSTRACT

The fundamentals of vertical-lift performance are

examined with the aid of computer-calculated flowing
gradient charts.
Flowing and gas-lift well performance characteristics
are determined from available well test data. The effect
of tubing size, gas-liquid ratio and wellhead pressure is
discussed for both flowing and gas-lift wells. The effect
of gas-injection pressure, formation gas, bottom-hole
pressure and valve spacing is also discussed for gas lift
wells. From these studies conclusions may be reached
for improving or prolonging natural flow, obtaining
optimum lift efficiency when natural flow ceases and
improving existing gas-lift systems.
The techniques perfected satisfy the requirement that
the time involved to conduct an evaluation be practical
for operating personnel.
INTRODUCTION
Flowing pressure gradients furnish the key to successful evaluation of vertical-lift performance in producing
wells.
Command of mUltiphase flow gradients in some
readily usable form is a necessity before operating
personnel can competently include vertical-lift performance evaluation of both flowing and artificial-lift wells
in their over-all consideration of production efficiency.
A readily usable form cannot be overemphasized since
most of the decisions which confront the production
engineer with a problem well must be made quickly.
In moving a barrel of oil from the reservoir to the
stock tank, the major portion of energy generally is
expended in the vertical-lift phase. This mayor may
not be of concern during the flowing life of a well,
depending upon the production requirements. It becomes of some concern when the flow performance of
the well becomes erratic, and a conscious effort must
be made to maintain natural flow. It is at this time that
the first steps may be taken to modify existing conditions
to relieve unnecessary limitations to proper flow.
When natural flow ceases and some form of artificial
lift must be installed, the amount of energy expended
in lifting liquids becomes quite obvious. It is at this
time, if no other, that lifting efficiency becomes important because that part which must be supplied from
an outside source is now related directly as a cost per
barrel of oil produced.
Ten years ago, the majority of gas-lift wells were
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office Sept. 12, 1960. Revised manuscript received Jan. 30, 1961.
Paper presented at 35th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, Oct. 2-5,
1960, in Denver.

AXELSONGARRETT DIY. OF U. S. INDUSTRIES, INC.

HOUSTON, TEX.

produced with gas-well gas. Today, the majority are

produced by closed rotative gas-lift systems. This permits a direct evaluation of well performance in terms
of horsepower requirements and has resulted in mixed
conclusions as to the success of gas lift based upon the
relative efficiency of a particular system. An increased
awareness of the need to resolve vertical-lift performance on a readily usable, scientific basis was inevitable.
An indication of the need for better applied science
in this field is the often-asked question of whether or
not gas-lift can efficiently deplete a given well or reservoir. This question cannot possibly be answered without
first evaluating reservoir, surface and vertical-lift performance both as encountered today and as anticipated
throughout the life of the well or wells.
The technique presented in this paper was originally
developed to upgrade gas-lift installation design from
an applied art to an applied science. It has since been
successfully used not only for this purpose, but also for
the whole field of vertical-lift performance in its broadest sense. Lift efficiency should be considered important
while the well is still flowing, as well as after natural
flow ceases. Correct interpretation and proper modification of the vertical-lift performance of a producing well
can provide dramatic improvement in production performance and/or efficiency.
STATEMENT OF THEORY AND DEFINITIONS
Fig. 1 illustrates the three divisions of production
which will be used in this paper.
The terms are a modified version of those presented
in the very fine paper by Gilbert.' The fields of reservoir and surface performance both have been greatly
improved over the years. A study of those writings
which may be found indicates that the field of verticallift performance has not progressed as well. There are
two possible reasons for this lack of progress.
1. It has not been recognized as a scientific field in
itself by the oil companies, as has reservoir engineering.
2. The equipment companies have confined their efforts to mechanical design research rather than the more
basic study of vertical-lift performance of producing
wells.
Both organizations must have an economic stimulus
for doing research in this field, and most of the results
obtained in past work has been so erratic as to arouse
little enthusiasm.
The basic purpose of interpreting vertical-lift performance is to predict operating conditions below the
surface of the ground from available data. The success
of the interpretation depends upon the accuracy with
'References given at end of paper.

SPE 1557-G
390

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

40

t-

) - - - - - SURFACE PERFORMANCE - - - - - - - '

32~

r.:z

w
24S! 2" TBG.
n: 800 BLPD
l?
0.195 PSI./FT.
RTICAL

LIFT

PERFORMANCE

.08
) - - - - - RESERVOIR

PERFORMANCE----_,.

400
FIG. I-THE THREE PHASES OF PRODUCTION.

which the pressure gradient of the producing well can

be predicted. The gas-lift industry elected to express
this interpretation as a linear gradient for a given tubing
size and rate of liquid flow, as shown in Fig. 2. Unfortunately, this is a completely invalid concept.
Fig. 3 shows the true nature of the gradients which
exist in vertical flow. The gradient line marked "LiquidStatic" is a straight line since it is all liquid and may
be expressed as a linear gradient in psi/ft. The lin~
marked "Liquid-Flowing" is also a straight line since
it too is all liquid. It differs from the static gradient
because the liquid is in motion and flow resistance inCreases the pressure drop per unit of length. This
gradient would ocur in artesian flow. It may also be
expressed as a linear gradient in psi/ft.
A radical change takes place when gas is present with
the liquid in the vertical column. This is shown in Fig.
3 as "Liquid and Gas-Flowing". The pressure gradient
becomes less because of the presence of the gas. The
gradient is no longer a straight line because the fluid is
now a compressible mixture and the density increases
with the increased pressure at increasing depths in the
well. The latter is the key to all proper thinking with
respect to flowing gradients.
A final pOint to be made is that the amount of gas
?er volume of liquid determines the density; variations
IJ?- gas volume per volume of liquid will vary the denSIty and, therefore, the flowing gradient. Thus, it can
be seen that, at a given rate of liquid flow and other
constant conditions, there must be a different depthpressure gradient for each gas-liquid ratio.
Recognizing this to be true places a responsibility
~pon the individual to then seek a practical method of
Interpreting gradients in their true form as a curve and
asa function of the volume of gas per volume of liquid.
~he ~ost commonly accepted mathematical interpretatron IS that presented in the excellent paper by Poettmann and Carpenter.' Use of their mathematics was
f~)Und to give an acceptable accuracy; however, it was
tIme-consuming because the following 12 variables
were taken into consideration for each calculation:
tubing size, rate of liquid flow, gas-liquid ratio, flowing
wellhead pressure, liquid composition, flowing friction
factor, .compressibility factor of gas, gas-liquid solubility,
formatIon volume factor, average flowing temperature,
gas gravity, and liquid gravity.
APRIL, 1961

PROOUCTION. BLPD

800

1200

1600

FIG. 2-PSI/FT GRADIENT CHART.

STATIC
FLOWI~:::;
FLOWI~G

4000

2 Mer6

PRESSURE. PSI<>.
800

FIG. 3-ILLUSTRATION OF VARIOUS GRADIENTS.

It should also be noted that the viscosity was not

considered to be of influence on the pressure gradient.
It was evident that an attempt should be made to
resolve the mathematics to a language common to
standard oilfield data, and to fewer significant variables.
Gilbert' stated in his paper that " ... there is a different
depth pressure gradient for each size of pipe, each rate
of liquid flow, and each gas-liquid ratio". In a footnote
he further stated that, "Gradients presumably are also
affected by many other factors including liquid surface
tension, viscosity and gravity, flowing temperatures, gas
gravity and gas-liquid solubilities".
"However, there is a reasonably close correspondence
between results which have been obtained in the lightoil (~5 to 40 0 API) fields of Long Beach, Santa Fe,
Dommguez, Ventura, Canal and Ten Section and several foreign fields without adjusting for such factors.
Also, it has not been found necessary to correct gradients
for water cuts. However, the gradients are inadquate to
predict the effects of emulsions."
Using this philosophy, the listed variables of Poettmann and Carpenter were evaluated and the following
was determined.
1. Liquid gravity, gas gravity and average flowing
temperature could be fixed as a field constant without
impairing the accuracy of the calculations from a practical-use standpoint.
2. The formation volume factor and gas-liquid solu391

bility are significant variables when oil is the liquid, but

not when water is the liquid. These variables were taken
into consideration in the oil calculations.
3. The flowing friction factor and the compressibility
factor of gas are both significant, but they can be resolved at a given moment in the calculation.
4. The liquid composition is significant in the high
flowing density range (low gas-liquid ratio) but becomes
less significant as the flowing density decreases.
5. Tubing size, rate of liquid flow, gas-liquid ratio
and flowing wellhead pressure are significant and must
be considered individually with each problem.
The mathematics then could be resolved to four
significant variables and plotted in a charted form for
direct use.
An electronic computer program was set up to run
the necessary calculations, and master charts were
plotted as a pressure-depth relationship for tubing sizes
of 1, 11;4, 1V2, 2, 2V2, 3 and 4-in.; rates of liquid flow
from 50 to 10,000 B/D of liquid as applicable for each
tubing size; and gas-liquid ratios from 0.0 to 4.0
Mcf/bbl. One complete set was plotted for 1.074 specific
gravity water, and another for 32 API oil.
The calculations were run to a pressure of 4,000 psig.
The published charts' are plotted to 2,800 psig. A set
of charts plotted to 4,000 psig will be available, as will
a set for 1~ -in. nominal tubing size. An example of
the water and oil charts are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
ACCURACY OF THE CURVES
The original accuracy checks run against the curves
were based upon flowing bottom-hole pressures and
related test data which permitted a flowing bottomhole pressure correlation from the charts. It was found
that the average error over all the checks made was
3.87 per cent. However, it should be pointed out that
these checks were subject to the usual errors found
in the measurement of gas (or reading thereof), measurement of water production involved and measurement
of flowing wellhead pressure. These three variables are
each significant and subject a chart interpretation to
apparent error if any are, in themselves, in error. This
is not intended to challenge testing practices so much
as it is to point out the inherent weakness in single-point
correlations. The most important checks that have been
made are those that permit a mUlti-point correlation
from the top to the bottom of a well. It is here that the
actual slope of the pressure gradient can be correlated.
GRAPH

2~O

I,,-!>.

~~Q~

1000

~\v.f

. . *'

1400

lOOOi

.00 co
600
400

1200 ..

1.1"

/ /

1/ /

./
~

/
o)'

,/ ,/

/' /"

v-: ~ ~

oY

~ ./

oY

APPENDIX

2000

.000

4000

2200

i,,-!>

~""g,V

2000
1800

"

.~

1600 -

1"00
1200

~~'Ij
\..>~~

L.-::::;; ~ ~

2 ~oo

~P

1/

V / 'V

600

400

oV

oj'

1000 W
800

..

/ ~~~

2000

4000

3000

V /
~

<j

o~V

V
V

--

./

oJ/'

/ /' / ' o~ ~
/ V ,/' k::: ~ if" ,.'
V / ' V b:& ~ I""
L

~ ;;; 1P

B -67

APPENDIX
WELL

DEPTH

IN FEET

8f<'

6000

7000

~OOO

BI0-~.371" T~BINI8000

9000

FIG. 5-FLOWING PRESSURE GRADIENTS AT VARIOUS GAs-LIQUID

RA TIOS-OIL.

This is of much greater importance than single pressure

readings because a single reading does not provide an
opportunity to determine the cause of any error. Usually,
the pressure bomb reading and well test data are accepted as accurate and the calculated approach in question.
Fig. 6 shows one of the many "picture-book" correlations that have been made. The curvature of both flowing gradients is apparent, and the gradient lines drawn
are the actual curves from the master charts for the
corresponding tubing size and gas-liquid ratio using
the 600 BID of liquid water chart.
Fig. 7 shows a correlation which required an interpolation for gas-liquid ratio both above and below the
point of gas injection. Again, the multi-point correlation is invaluable in determining the validity of the
curves. This figure can be used to demonstrate the
stated weakness in single-point correlations. If all conditions remained the same except that the formation
gas-liquid ratio had been estimated or calculated to be
0.10 Mcf/bbl rather than the actual 0.066 Mcf/bbl,
the error at 6,000 ft would have been 100 psig in 2,600
psig, or 3.85 per cent. The average error for singlepoint correlations was 3.87 per cent.
ADJUSTING FOR WELLHEAD PRESSURE
The method of adjusting for wellhead pressure IS
shown in Fig. 8. "A" and "B" represent two pressure
gradients which have the same tubing size, rate of liquid
flow and gas-liquid ratio. The fourth significant variable,
wellhead pressure, requires an adjustment before a
2000

V
o'

/'

,/

/ ' 1-0V ~

2.5

1600

g;

t200~~

/ ' ~ 8;;; ~

11

TBG.

608
0.05
0.40

<3

BLPD
"'(FB
MCFB

FORMATION GAS
PRODUCED GAS

PRESSURE

BOMB SURVEY
:~-OOS MCFB

:::>

if)

:3a:

n.
800

400
B-23
7000

ac100

~ 9~OO

FIC. 4--FLOWING PRESSURE GRADIENTS AT VARIOUS GAs-LIQUID

RATIOS-WATER.

392

3. AVERAGE FLOWING TEMP. - !!l0 F.

~ ~ F""

DEPTH iN FEET
1000

.000

--r~'

32- A.P.I.-

2400

- - - O A O MCFB

800 BPO- 2.375" TUBINGWE1.l0

'-'-

BASIS--

GAS SPECIfiC GRAVITV 0,65

/ V ~ ~ ~ F"'"
1,,('/ k::;,; tIi ~

/~ ~ ~

Z~~

/ /

/ /

o~.;/ ~/

00/

(to......,
..
'"

2000

1'00

BASIS

I. GAS SP[CIFIC GRAVITY - 0.15

2600 t--- 2; Anlt SP[CIFIC GRAVITY 1.014
3. AVE""G! FLOWING TEMP. -150f.
2400

r-~APH

r-- 2.1. OIL A.P.1. GRAVITY -

..00

1000

2000

DEPTH. FT.
3000
4000

5000

6000

7000

FIG. 6-CORRELATING PRESSURE SURVEYS.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

correlation can be achieved. The correlation must be

made along constant pressure planes. This is related
to the flowing density of the fluid. The section of
Gradient B from 300 psig to the surface has no correlative counterpart in Gradient A. The section of Gradient
A from 1,600 psig to depth also has no correlative
counterpart in Gradient B.
The remaining sections of the two gradients can be
correlated by shifting one laterally to the other. This
procedure applies to all wellhead pressure adjustments
made on the master charts. These charts are designed
for direct overlay with a graph work sheet, and all
pressure adjustments are made by lateral shifting of the
work sheet keeping the abscissas aligned. Having made
the pressure adjustment, the desired segment of the pressure gradient is traced directly upon the work sheet.
EVALUATION OF FLOWING WELL
PERFORMANCE
The effect of wellhead pressure upon flowing bottomhole pressure is shown in Fig. 9. When the pressure
is lowered 100 psig at the surface, the flowing bottomhole pressure is reduced 330 psig. Again, this relates
directly to flowing density and the over-all change in
slope characteristic of the pressure gradient at the lower
wellhead pressure. It should be noted that this evaluation
is made at a constant rate of flow. In the field, any
2400

2000

decrease in flowing bottom-hole pressure would normally

result in an increase in production rate. This increase in
rate might be considered the source of an offsetting increase in flowing bottom-hole pressure. However, so
long as the change in rate occurs between the extremes
of friction and slippage, no appreciable change in pressure gradient would occur at the increased rate at a
given gas-liquid ratio.
For example, with a P.I. of 1.0 B/D of liquid/psi, the
well in Fig. 9 would produce 330 BID of liquid more,
or a total of 930 BID of liquid, at the decreased flowing bottom-hole pressure if no change occurred in the
characteristic of the flowing gradient. Fig. 10 shows a
plot of inflow performance against tubing intake performance for 160 psi and 60 psig. The well would
actually produce 890 BID of liquid at the reduced wellhead pressure. The example is based upon a constant
gas-liquid ratio.
One particular production decline characteristic is
pointed out since it is related to changes in gas-liquid
ratio in the vertical column. Fig. 11 shows the progressive deterioration of well performance brought about
by a change in water-oil ratio. None of the other conditions is allowed to vary. The change is not the presence
of the heavier liquid but, rather, the change in total gasliquid ratio as the produced gas declines with oil production. This is based on produced gas being solution
gas only. To ensure a true relation to change in gasliquid ratio, the 100 per cent water chart was used for
all curves and no water-oil interpolation was made. The
comparison including the water-oil interpolation would

2000

1600

<5

= 160 -

60

100 PSIG

['PBHF

=2130 -

1800

330 PSIG.

<5

iii
0..

1200";

o PRESSvRE

a:

BOMB

SURVEY

1200~~

::J

::J

<f)
<f)

<f)
<f)

a:
800

[, PWH
1600

a:

0..

0..

2.5" TBG.
1438 BLPD
0.158 MCFB PRODUCED GAS
0.092 MCFB INJECTED GAS
0.066 MCFB FORMATION GAS

800

MCFB
MCFB
MCFB
1000

FIG.

2000

2" TBG.

DEPTH. Fl.
4000
5000

6000

7000

7 - CORRELATION OF A PRESSURE SURVEY REQUIRING AN

INTERPOLATION FOR THE MEASURED GAs-LIQUID RATIO.

2000

2000

DEPTH, FT.
3000
4000

5000

6000

7000

FIG. 9-EFFECT OF WELLHEAD PRESSURE UPON FLOWING

BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE.

2800

<5
~

1200~
::J

A.
B.

TBG

BLPD

MeFB

PWH

2"
2"

800
800

06
0.6

300
100

<f)
<f)

8:
800

400

A/

0~0

..-/-~0_/_.~~

B/0

C>""'----."....,~--~----

11...::::::.----20
00

FIG.

1600

6000

7000

OF Two PRESSURE SURVEYS SHOWING

METHOD OF ADJUSTING FOR WELLHEAD PRESSURE.

APRIL, 1961

0.2 MCFB

----.-.-

NO CORRELATION
3000DEPTH;Jclb

8- CORRELATION

200

400

BLPD

600

800

FIG. 10---PLOT OF 2.0-IN. TUBING PERFORMANCE

AT 6,500 FT VS INFLOW PERFORMANCE OF WELL.
393

show the decline to be even more pronounced. Unless

gas-liquid ratio is considered in vertical-lift performance
evaluations, this occurrence would be overlooked.
The method of obtaining a P.I. from a given static
bottom-hole pressure and well test data is shown in
Fig. 12. The technique is used when a static bottomhole pressure and well test information is all that is
available. It is also used to check the results of a flowing pressure survey which was run to establish a P.I.
For this check, well test data for a period of several
weeks before or after the study are used in conjunction
with the available static bottom-hole pressure. These
well tests should include some that are under stable
conditions and permit the calculation of a true producing P.1. The majority of the checks made to date show
a calculated P.1. approximately one-half that obtained
from the pressure survey. These were not permitted to
reach their stabilized, flowing bottom-hole pressures
before the bomb was pulled and readings were made.
Fig. 13 shows a method of obtaining a P.I. when no
bottom-hole pressure survey information is available.
The P.I. is based upon the change in flowing bottomhole pressure at different rates of flow. When good test
data were available, this method gave satisfactory results.
The P.I. of a well is not necessarily a constant, but
can change with different rates of flow. The method
outlined in Fig. 13 provides an economical way to obtain a flow performance curve, or IPR, by producing
the well at several different rates and accurately measuring the necessary test data. This has also been successfully carried out on well data which had been obNA-

-~

2C'~

C(,
50

160C

'"

: c'

50

"
:' -'
: 4

75

EVALUATION OF GAS-LIFT WELL

PERFORMANCE
The basic layout shown in Fig. 14 will be used
throughout the gas-lift discussion. The design is predicated upon a knowledge of the productivity of the
well. It will be shown that, if you are unable to determine the expected characteristics of a well, any degree
of success can only be attributed to pure chance.
Efficient supplementing of natural flow must be tailored
to well performance characteristics.
Each illustration in this section is a study of the
effect of one variable upon lift efficiency. This is done
for two reasons: (1) the relative importance of each
variable can be better resolved; and (2) questions arising
in daily operations involve only one variable.

-:::::

S_(,",

-'

i:-'C

tained before cessation of natural flow, and the infoI'

mation obtained was used to design a proper gas-lift
installation for re-starting and supplementing natural
flow.
There is another method of using the charts when
a flowing bottom-hole pressure reading is all that is
needed. Instead of using a graph work sheet, the pressure reading is made directly from the master chart
after first correcting for wellhead pressure. This correction is made by determining the depth from zero at
which the wellhead pressure occurs for the given gasliquid ratio, and adding that depth to the reference
depth of the well. The flowing bottom-hole pressure
point is then read from the applicable gas-liquid ratio
curve at the corrected reference depth on the master
chart.

2000

-'
0

"

2
'7000'
440 Ps
200

2'
7000'
400 ~S
280
07 MCFS Q:MCrB

~BG

::-EPT ....

: ,- s

PWr

160e

s ... pc

:;c~

J20.)~

12000:

"

i1:

v'

(L

"-

a:
"-

80e
800

~A

-Sl"lrl::

BCD::

400

100

000

?BHF2

4000

5000

6000

2000

7000

A, REFERENCE

PBHF

B, CASING
7000'

PWH

440

200
07

PSIG

4000

5000

6000

7000

McFB

2
le

200 BLPD
0.70 MCFB

1200:l

B
a:

PBHF

DEPTH

PRESSURE

GRADIENT

C, FLOWING GRADIENT BELOW

OF GAS INJECTION

1600

1200~~
=>
if)

D, OPTIMUM

THE

POINT

POINT OF GAS INJECTION

E, FLOWING GRADIENT ABOVE

OF GAS INJECTION

THE POINT

C.

=>

A.

if)
if)

"-

g:

800
PBHF

1000

2000

800-----

= 1810 PSIG

PI

400

105

DEPTH, FT

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1000

FIG 12-0BTAINING PRODUCTIVITY INDEX FROM STATIC

BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE AND SURFACE TEST DATA.
394

DEPTH, FT

3000

2000
2000 PSIG

BLPD
GLR

2000

FIG. 13-0BTAINING PRODUCTIVITY INDEX FROM

SURFACE TEST DATA.

TBG

g;"

PSiG.

PSHS

GIVEN,

DEPTH

;;:S;u.

D[PTH,FT

3000

FIG. ll-PRODUCTION DECLINE FROM CHANGE IN WATER CUT.

1600

810
1730

? r.

1000

PBHS

2000

5000

6000

7000

FIG 14-FuNDAMENTALS OF GAs-LIFT DESIGN.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

Ii the effect of more than one variable is involved III

a particular problem, it may develop that the best
economic solution lies not in making all possible corrections but, rather, in making only those which effect
the major improvements in operation. Studying the
problem with each individual variable provides such
an opportunity.
The effect of the variables is expressed as horsepower
requirements. The requirements are shown in block
graph form and do not have a numerical value assigned.
They have been scaled off very accurately and are designed to show the relative change in horsepower as the
variable changes.
Fig. 15 shows the effect of wellhead pressure. This
illustration is based upon a constant intake pressure at
the compressor of 25 psig. The higher-than-necessary
wellhead pressure would be the result of: (l) too long
a flow line; (2) too small a flow line for the amount
of fluid produced; (3) reduced ID from deposition or
paraffination; (4) too many right angle turns, choke
cages, chokes, restricted opening valves, or lack of
streamlining at the tree; and (5) too high a separator
pressure.

Over four times the horsepower would be required

at 200-psig wellhead pressure as is required at 50 psig.
An alternate example is shown in Fig. 16. This figl:lre
is the same except that the compressor intake pressure
is set at 15-psig less than wellhead pressure. Although
the compression requirements are now less at the higher
wellhead pressure, it stilI takes over four times the
volume of gas to produce against the 200-psig wellhead
pressure, and more horsepower is required to handle a
larger volume of gas. More than twice the horsepower
is still required to lift the fluid at 200-psig wellhead
pressure as is required at 50 psig.
Fig. 17 shows the effect of tubing size upon horsepower requirements. As stated earlier, this would vary
with rate of liquid flow and gas-liquid ratio, with the
larger tubing sizes becoming even more favorable as
the rate increases. There is not enough data available
on flow performance in small tubing sizes (l and 1.4
in.) to determine their relative value at lower rates of
flow.
Particularly where depletion must be at high withdrawal rates, vertical-lift performance should be considered before wells are completed slim hole. In the
example shown, five times the horsepower would be required for l.5-in. tubing as for 2.5-in. tubing.

2000

HORSEPOWER

REQUIREMENTS

PBHF

In addition to the relative efficiency of various tubing

sizes, there are problems encountered where the desired
production rate is either impossible or requires a high
horsepower commitment for the given operating conditions. A larger tubing size often will permit the desired
rate with reasonable horsepower requirements. In this
manner, a well was successfully produced at 800 BjD
of liquid and an injected gas-liquid ratio of 0.7 Mcf/bbl
with 2l1z -in. tubing, when it could not be produced at
over 400 BID of liquid with 2-in. tubing installed.
Combination strings should not be overlooked when
confronted with such problems as a well which will not
produce the desired rate with 2-in. tubing but requires
its use in the lower section of the well because of a
liner. Swaging to 2l1z -in. tubing above the liner often will
permit prodUction of the desired rate. Whenever more
than one size is used, a switch from one tubing gradient
to the other is made at the depth where the change is
to be made.
Gas-injection pressure has a definite effect upon lift
efficiency. As shown in Fig. 18, a point of injection at
3,800 ft using 600-psig pressure would require four
times the horsepower required at a point of injection at
6,800 ft using 1,700-psig pressure. By far the largest
number of gas-lift systems in operation today are injecting in the 500- to 700-psig range.
Although no arbitrary control normally can be exerted upon the amount of formation gas produced, it
too has a very definite effect upon gas-lift performance
as shown in Fig. 19. It should never be ignored when

2000

t600

"

iii

"-

800 BLPD
005 MerB

1200~~
::>

'"'"w

"-~---------------------y~--

800-

MCFB

400

McrB
MCFB
MCFB
DEPTH. FT

2000

<)

1200l;!
::>

6000

7000

D
I. 51!

D2"

CJ
25"

800 BLPD
0.05 MerB

:::>

'"'"

<f)
<f)

8001~---------:Ji7'"-

2000

MerB
MerB
MerB
MerB
DEPTH. FT.
3000
4000

2" TBG.
5000

6000

7000

FIG. IS-EFFECT OF FLOWING WELLHEAD PRESSURE UPON HORSE

POWER REQUIREMENTS-COMPRESSOR INTAKE = 25 PSIG.
APRIL. 1961

TBG.

REQUIREMENTS

1200~rr

50

2"

5000

2000

1600

4000

FIG. 16-EFFECT OF FLOWING WELLHEAD PRESSURE UPON HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENTS-COMPRESSOR INTAKE = P WH - 15 PSIG.

HORSEPOWER

1600

3000

2000

DEPTH, FT

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

FIG. I7-EFFECT OF TU~ING SIZE UPON HORSEPOWER

REQUIREMENTS.
395

working out a design problem. It is one of several explanations why two installations in presumably "identical" wells will perform at widely divergent injected gasliquid ratios.
The change in performance is affected by two factors.
One is that the point of gas injection is not as deep for
higher formation ratios. The other is that the formation
gas is deducted from the total produced-gas requirement; the more the formation gas volume, the less the
injected gas required. This is illustrated in the ultimate
by the O.3-Mcf/bbl curve. With that formation gasliquid ratio, the well would be flowing naturally with
a wellhead pressure of 150 psig.
The effect of flowing bottom-hole pressure is shown
in Fig. 20. In many cases, nothing can be done except
to anticipate the condition that actually exists in the
well. This condition can range from some degree of
satisfactory operation to the extreme of an impossible
situation for the desired volume of liquid as PBIIF4
Four times the horsepower would be required to
produce at P BIIF3 as would be required at PBIIF1 This
change in PBIIF would be the result of either a normal
decline in reservoir pressure or the necessity for increased drawdown at a constant reservoir pressure but
deteriorating P.I. Thus, horsepower requirements would
increase with time under these conditions.
The most interesting work done in connection with
flowing bottom-hole pressure has been to obtain an
improvement in productivity after producing wells at a

2000._

_~~~~
----------------------~~
noo
PSIG __

1600

HORSEPOWER

REQUIREMENTS

Do
600

800

800
PSIG

PSIG

2'1 TBG.

5000

FIG.

IS-EFFECT

2000

1600

<5

iii
0..

HORSEPOWER

00

005

6000

7000

OF GAs-INJECTION PRESSURE UPON

POWER REQUIREMENTS.

REQUIREMENTS

HORSE-

PBHF

fABLE I-RESULTS fOR ONE WELL

After

Before

2.5 in.
540

2 in.
162
10%
0.5 Mcf/bbl

Tubing
BID of Total Liquid
Oil
Injected Gas-Liquid Ratio

14%
0.09 Mcf/bbl
Continuous

Intermittent

Lift M"thod

31.8

0.67

P. I.

higher withdrawal rate than any previous time in the

life of the well. Using a reverse line of reasoning with
Fig. 20, it may be shown that for a given well with
producing conditions the same as PBHF3 an improvement
in productivity that would permit withdrawal at the
same rate at bottom-hole conditions the same as PBHF1
would reduce horsepower requirements to 26 per cent
of the original requirements.
Table 1 lists the results for one particular well.
No other operating conditions such as wellhead and
injection pressure changed. The combination of 2.5-in.
tubing and continuous lift permitted a greater sustained
downdraw across the sand face with the resultant change
in productivity. Summarizing part of this data, the well
is being produced at 3.3 times the previous rate of flow
with 60 per cent of the original horsepower requirement.
The measured flowing bottom-hole pressure at 540 BID
of liquid is now actually higher than the measured
flowing pressure at 162 BID of liquid.
Both P.I.'s were carefully obtained with bottom-hole
pressure surveys and correlated with the master curves.
The production is now held to 540 B/D of liquid for
allowable reasons. To check the measured production
potential, the well was opened up and produced at the
rate of 1,460 BID of liquid. This type of well response
has been encountered many times in our work, and it
has been discussed in various published papers. If it can
be anticipated from a calculated P.I. using formation
data that the actual producing P.I. is appreciably less
than the formation P.1. of the well, steps can be taken
to clean up the well and permit operation at greatly
reduced horsepower requirements.
Fig. 21 shows the importance of correct valve placement with respect to horsepower requirements. If a
point of injection were located at "A", the horsepower
requirements would be over twice that required if it
were located at "B". If the point were located at "e",
injection would be impossible. Not only must the point
of injection be properly located, but so also must any
valves used to unload to the point of injection. All must
be located in a manner which will accommodate the
productivity of the well and achieve the desired point
of injection. Any design which does not take well per-

2000

HORSEPOWER

REQUIREMENTS

'-'
z

0.10
0.20
MeFB

i<
~

1600

<5

030

1200~
:>

['"'"____________________

~~r:J7~~--

00-

400
2" TBG.
5000

6000

2"
7000

FIG. 19-EFFECT OF FORMATION GAS UPON HORSEPOWER

REQUIREMENTS.
396

1000

2000

5000

TBG.
6000

7000

FIG. 20-EFFECT OF FLOWING BOTTOM-HOLE PRESSURE UPON

HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENTS.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

formance into consideration is relying upon pure chance

that it will be successful.
NOTES ON SPECIAL DESIGN PROBLEMS
No attempt is made to demonstrate a method of
installation design. Once the vertical-lift performance of
a well has been evaluated, the design becomes a straightforward procedure to fulfill the requirements dictated
by the well. However, the design of an installation both
from the standpoint of valve spacing, pressure setting
and gas throughput requirements should be based upon
sound engineering principles to insure attaining the desired performance.
Fig. 22 shows the difficulty encountered in gas-lifting
wells with formation ratios of 0.6 Mcf/bbl and higher.
The change in flowing gradient created by adding gas
does not have the dramatic effect which is encountered
in low-ratio wells. In the example, more than doubling
the amount of gas in the vertical column from 5,000 ft
to the surface raises the flowing wellhead pressure from
40 to 100 psig. In contrast, a like injection of an
additional 0.6 Mcf/bbl of gas at the same depth in a
well with a formation gas-liquid ratio of 0.05 Mcf/bbl
would raise the wellhead from 40 psig to 660 psig.
Higher-ratio wells, which can no longer flow on their
own, present a more difficult artificial-lift problem than
wells with low ratios.
The need for caution in designing an installation for
a high-P.1. well is shown in Fig. 23. The point of in-

2000

HORSEPOWER

1600

"

g;

REQUIREMENTS

oD
A

1200~~

PBHF

jection which will produce the desired 800 BID of

liquid is very close to the static pressure gradient. All
valves above this final point would unload static fluid,
but none would sustain a drawdown in bottom-hole
pressure. When the final point of injection is reached,
the drawdown at bottom would increase from 0 to 100
psig, and the sustained production rate from 0 to 800
BID of liquid. If the point of injection were located
50-ft higher in the hole, either through mis-design or
mis-spacing, the well would only produce 480 BID of
liquid. Care should be exercised to prevent missing the
correct evaluation of high-P.1. wells.
There is a distinction to be made between restarting
a well and supplementing natural flow. In wells with
little or no formation gas, this may be possible from
the same injection point. When a well will produce with
any appreciable formation gas, it must be re-started
from one depth and supplemented at another. This is
shown in Fig. 24. Formation Gradient A is the 0.0Mcf/bbl curve with the well producing at the rate of
of 600 BID of liquid. The necessary point of injection
is at 4,500 ft. When the normal 0.2-Mcf/bbl formation
gas-liquid ratio returns to the vertical column, the point
of injection will move up to 3,650 ft. Two completely
separate points of injection are required for proper
operation of the well.
The higher the formation gas-liquid ratio, the farther
apart the two points. The extreme example of this condition is Fairbanks field where wells are unloaded to,
and produced from, bottom until formation gas breaks
in, at which time they will return to natural flow.
PBHS
PBHF

2000

--'
ro
<Ii
if)

Ii'

SI"AT1C

1600

0.465

GRADIENT

PSI. /F T. _______

g;"

c
ABC

1200k!~

:>

if)

::>

~
c::

if)

~
c::

80,~~~-----------------t~1l-------

oo,~~~-----------------;J,r

400
400

2" TBG.

2" TBG.

2000

30ooDEPTH4&li,

5000

6000

P.1. 8.0

7000

1000

FIG. 21-EFFECT OF INCORRECT VALVE SPACING UPON

HORSEPOWER.

2000

5000

6000

FIG. 23-DESIGN PROBLEM WITH A HIGH-P.

7000

I.

WELL.

2000
2000

PBHS
A.
8.

RESTARTING
SUPPLEMENTING

1600
1600

STATIC

0465

"

GRADIENT

0.0
0.2

g;

PSI/FT

1200~r
:>
if)

::l
IE

2" TBG.
600 BLPD
2"

TBG

2000

5000

6000

FIG. 22-DESIGN PROBLEM WITH ApPRECIABLE FORMATION GAS.

APRIL, 1961

600

7000

7000

FIG. 24-DESIGN PROBLEM WITH SEPARATE POINTS OF INJECTION REQUIRED FOR RE-STARTING AND SUPPLEMENTING FLOW.

397

2000

2000
STATIC GRAD,EN r
0.465
PSI./FT.STATIC

1600

0465

1600

GRADIENT

PSL/FT.--

C?

g>
1200~~
::>

if}
if}

a:

80o:n.~-------17T--

2"
1000

2000

DEPTH, FT.

3000

4000

211 TBG
600 BLPD

TBe.

600 BLPD

5000

6000

7000

1000

5000

6000

7000

FIC. 25-DESICN PROBLEM WITH FINAL POINT OF INJECTION

ABOVE STATIC PRESSURE GRADIENT.

FIC. 26---SPECIAL RE-STARTINC PROBLEM WITH FINAL POINT OF

INJECTION ABOVE STATIC PRESSURE GRADIENT.

Fig. 25 illustrates a design problem with the final

point of gas injection above the static pressure gradient.
This is brought about by the 0.2-Mcf/bbl formation
gas-liquid ratio creating a flowing gradient which crosses
the static pressure gradient below the final point of gas
injection. The final point of injection shown is not
capable of creating sustained production from the formation until gas evolves; and, as discussed with Fig. 24,
no formation gas can be counted upon until after formation fluid is produced.
Unless additional valves are run deeper to re-start
formation flow, this well will not produce.
Fig. 26 is a composite of Figs. 24 and 25, illustrating
re-starting below the static pressure gradient at 4,500
ft with a required injected gas-liquid ratio of 0.8 Mcfl
bbl, finally supplementing at a point above the static
pressure gradient with an injected gas-liquid ratio of

with good results, and even our aJ;lProach to intermittent

gas lift has been greatly improved by the knowledge
gained from the work with the techniques. There is an
uncounted amount of work still to be done to resolve
all phases of vertical-lift performance to a true applied
science.
For those whose interest is maximum rate rather than
optimum efficiency, it should be pointed out that the
study of every variable in the paper can be revised with
increased production as the main objective.
A definite advantage to the techniques developed is
their use of charted flowing gradients. This permits the
techniques to be applied to any approach to flowing
gradients so long as the approach can be resolved to a
depth-pressure relationship.
It is the author's sincere belief that vertical-lift performance is the true field of petroleum production
engineering and that it is a scientific field as important
economically as the field of reservoir engineering. In
comparison, it is virtually untouched. Though some may
regard this paper as an oversimplification of the problem, they may also agree that some simplification would
serve to promote improved practices in the evaluation
of vertical-lift performance in producing wells,

0.2 Mcf/bbl.

LIMITATIONS OF THE MASTER CHARTS

The following are the listed areas in which the curves
are either unproven or suspect.
1. The 1- and 1;4 -in. curves have not been verified
because of the lack of available pressure survey data
for these sizes.
2. The curves plotted for gas-liquid ratios above 2.0Mcf/bbl have not correlated with pressure surveys at
rates of flow of 400 BID of liquid or less. It is believed
that this point marks a transition from foam flow to
mist flow and exceeds the mathematics of Poettman
and Carpenter. The curves of Gilbert have given a good
correlation when used in this range.
3. These curves are for continuous flow and will not
provide suitable data for intermittent flow.
CONCLUSIONS
Some of the work accomplished to date on a practical
approach to the evaluation of vertical-lift performance
in producing wells is summarized. The material discussed is only a part of the total work which has been
done. Evaluations have been made and gas-lift designs
run in dual completions and casing-flow installations
with excellent success. The vertical-lift performance in
rod and hydraulic-pump installations has been evaluated

NOMENCLATURE
P WH = flowing wellhead pressure, psig
PBHB = static bottom-hole pressure, psig
PBHP = flowing bottom-hole pressure, psig

P.1.

= Productivity Index in BID of total produced

liquid/psi drop in bottom-hole pressure

IPR = inflow performance relationship
D = reference depth of well
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank W. K. ~OOdward and
B. A. Abercrombie of Axelson-Garrett f r their contributions to the material contained in this p per.
REFERENCES

1. Gilbert, W. E.: Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1954).

2. Poettmann, Fred H. and Carpenter, Paul G.: Drill. and
Prod. Prac., API (1952).
3. Handbook of Gas Lift, Axelson-Garrett, Div_ of U. S. Industries, Inc.
*k*

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY