SPE 59028
GAS LIFT WITH NITROGEN INJECTION GENERATED IN SITU
Miguel A. Lozada Aguilar, M.del Remedios Arredondo Monarrez, SPE, Pemex, PEP.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE International Petroleum Conference
and Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Mexico, 1–3 February 2000.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
ABSTRACT
Gas lift is a feasible option as an artificial lift system in a
depleted field. In the Bellota field there is no substructure
means to install any type of artificial lift system, therefore
the use of nitrogen as a gas lift source is necessary to
keep the Bellota wells producing. After evaluating
different options we implemented a nitrogen generated
in situ project using the membrane technology.
This paper analyzed the gas lift process design by using
nodal analysis and optimum allocation of nitrogen in
each well. Special emphasis and consideration was
given to this project from an economical, operational,
technical and environmental points of view. It is olso
compares this option with differents alternatives
including the traditional gas lift method using natural gas
as a source as well as the use of stored nitrogen from
storage trucks (Tanks). Our evaluation of results
obtained from the different options investigated in this
study clearly indicates that this method is a good option
in this particular situation.
Nitrogen injection generated in situ with membrane
technology can be a feasible and profitable alternate
source of gas lift as shown in this study.
INTRODUCTION
Bellota – Chinchorro is one of the seven producing areas
in the Southern Region of Mexico. The current
production of this field is 105 000 STB/D of oil and 150
MMSCF/D of gas produced from dolomite formations,
belonging to Jurassic and Cretaceous age.
The objective of this study are the wells drilled in the
Bellota field. Initial production of the bellota field started
in 1982 reaching a peak production of 44 000 STB/D in
1995. Current production is at 20 000 STB/D, mainly
attributed to natural depletion. Year- to- date production
from this field is estimated at 140 MMSTB, and it is
expected to produce another 50 MMSTB from calculated
total reserves.
This field is divided in two different sections. The wells
that will be discussed in this gas lift application belong to
the north section. These wells are currently depleted
below saturation pressure. It is presumed that a gas cap
has been already formed in the top of the reservoir,
since GOR has been decreasing gradually. In addition,
the reservoir pressure has decline drastically making it
necessary to provide some form of artificial lift
assistance to keep the wells producing.
Those wells that have been converted to gas lift, are
deep wells, which have so many disadvantages for any
2 MIGUEL A. LOZADA AGUILAR, M.DEL REMEDIOS ARREDONDO MONARREZ
artificial lift system. Some electric submergible pumps
have been tested before with poor results, and then, a
gas lift system by using nitrogen as source was installed,
since no facilities were available to handle natural gas as
a source for gas lift.
In the very beginning, storage trucks were used to
deliver nitrogen, but since this method was so
expensive, an in situ nitrogen generation project was
implemented, using the membrane technology. In this
way, it was possible to reduce 50% the total costs in
three gas lift wells.
In March 21 of 1998, gas lift started in wells Bellota 136,
138 and 158-D using nitrogen generated in situ with
membrane technology as a source.
PRINCIPIA OF MEMBRANE EQUIPMENT FOR
NITROGEN GENERATION
Nitrogen generation through membrane equipment is
carried out by pumping an air current into membrane,
which due to its especial material design let the air to be
separated into nitrogen and oxygen mainly. This is
achieved basically because the oxygen flows faster than
nitrogen through it, being expulsed to the atmosphere,
as long as the nitrogen is absorbed into the membrane
to be delivered to the next compression stage. Before
the separation process, air composition is 78% of
nitrogen, 21% of oxygen and 1% of rear gases;
Neverdeless just after the separation process, gas
mixture will be expulsed into the atmosphere with 40% of
oxygen content, and the one that has been absorbed
into the membrane has from 95% to 98% of nitrogen
content.
Membranes are built up from a polymeric thin cap, which
has special physical properties that make the separation
efficiency to have a variation base on: pressure,
temperature, permeability, membrane aria and
selectivity. Since 1987, when they have been reported
SPE 59028
for its use in petroleum industry, they have evolved until
now, having 60% of better permeability and 30% of
better selectivity, besides, a significant reduction on
consumption energy has been achieved (Figure No.1).
Equipment to be installed on location together with
membrane unit is the following: two air compressors
pack, an air – nitrogen compressor pack, flow meter unit
and additional equipment. A brief functional description
for each component is given next to it.
a).- Two air compressor pack.
This pack has the function of comprise the air, which
comes from the atmosphere to be deliver into the next
compression stage. Air pressure is increased from
atmosphere pressure to 200 PSIG. Those two
compressors handle 5.6 MMSCF/D with 1100 HP of
potency.
b).- Air – nitrogen compressor pack.
This pack has the function to raise the air pressure that
comes from the previous stage to be deliver into the
membrane unit at 400 PSIG, and it has also the function
to increase the pressure of nitrogen which comes from
membrane unit in two stages, one of them from 400
PSIG to 900 PSIG and the other one from 900 PSIG to
2000 PSIG, to be deliver into the gas line for gas lift
purpose.
c).- Membrane unit.
This pack has the function of separate 5.6 MMSCF/D of
air to obtain 2 MMSCF/D of nitrogen with 95% to 98% of
quality. This unit is built up of 36 cylinders, the ones has
the membrane element inside of them.
d).- Flow meter unit.
This unit has the function of measure the amount of
nitrogen that is deliver into the gas line for gas lift.
e).- Additional equipment.
This equipment helps in order to let the main equipment
accomplish its function. Some of the most important
devices are: filter system, coolers, start on compressor,
energy plant and fuel storage.
SPE 59028 GAS LIFT WITH NITROGEN INJECTION GENERATED IN SITU
GAS LIFT NETWORK AND WELLS CONVERSION
Those three wells, which will be converted from natural
flow to gas lift, were drilled in the same location, thereby
gas lift line construction was cheap and quickly, as
distance from each well was no longer tan 500 FT. It
was also necessary to install flow meter and regulation
valves for each well. The nitrogen generation equipment
was installed in the same location (figure No. 2).
In the other hand, in order to make the wells conversion
cheaper, it was concluded that no workover rigs should
be necessary, as operation conditions for each well
permitted start the wells on production just by injecting
gas in one point, that means not to use any upper
injection valve. In this way a puncher charge was shot,
taking in account the equivalent diameter for an specific
drop drown from casing pressure to tubing pressure.
This was achieved basically, because a high pressure
was available in the gas line (2000 PSIG).
EQUIPMENT DESIGN
In order to design the equipment dimensions, it was
necessary to use three different software: nodal
analysis, gas lift design and equal slope method to
allocate the amount of gas for each well.
Based on the results getting from the equal slope
method and gas lift design software, it was concluded
that 2 MMSCF/D of N2 will be necessary to be injected
in those three wells, and 1600 PSIG will be required on
surface pressure; thereby, according to manufacture
specifications, one equipment for 2 MMSCF/D and 2000
PSIG was selected for this purpose (figure 3 and 4).
• Gas lift design criteria was to find out the deepest
injection point, thereby, with static conditions was
possible to start the wells on production with 2000
PSIG of surface pressure. Injection points were
located just above of packers, due basically, that
3
reservoir pressure was low enough, end in the other
hand, wells productivity index were high enough to
reach dynamic conditions with only one gas injection
point. Thanks to those conditions mentioned before,
it was possible to shoot the tubing by using puncher
charges, rather than use workover rigs to pullout
tubing string and put it back with gas lift valves.
• Due basically, that there wasn’t any available
surface control valve for high pressure, it was
necessary to install chocks in order to allocate the
optima amount of gas for each well; thereby it was
necessary to design the right diameter for each one
of them, using Bernulli equation.
ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS
a) Assumptions for different scenarios
In order to asses the feasibility of this project, three
scenarios were made in a period of time of five years:
1) build up a gas lift network in order to use natural gas
as a source, installing compressors in the location to
increase gas pressure to that one which is
necessary for each well.
2) Inject nitrogen as a gas lift source by using storage
trucks.
3) Inject nitrogen as a gas lift source, by generating it
with membrane technology, with leasing option.
4) Inject nitrogen as a gas lift source, by generating it
with membrane technology, with purchase option.
Those assumptions used for this analysis are refereed to
July, 1998 (table No.1).
The economical premises are defined as following:
• Oil price: It is refereed to July 1998.
• Production race: For comparison purpose, according
to allocation of gas for each well, getting from equal
slope method, it was possible to increase 3725
4 MIGUEL A. LOZADA AGUILAR, M.DEL REMEDIOS ARREDONDO MONARREZ SPE 59028

STB/D by injecting 2 MMSCF/D of nitrogen, and ⇒ Operational cost for membrane purchase is alike
4125 STB/D by injecting 2 MMSCF/D of natural gas. to that of comprising costs in gas lift network
• Discount rate: It was used that one from Pemex option, which is equal to 184.2 USD/STB.
projects, which is 10%. • Field depletion: it was taken that one which
• Initial investment: Initial investment was considered represents field performance.
in this way:
⇒ For gas lift network option, it was considered to b) Interpretation of economical indicators.
built up 13 miles of gas lift line of 6 in. and 3 in.. Some of the indicators shown here are quite far good for
⇒ For membranes leasing option, it was any petroleum project, basically because the high
considered to invest on nitrogen line from production rate to be expected (table 2). Some
membrane equipment to each well. comments are summarized as following:
⇒ For membrane purchase option, it was - Giving the risk approach form internal rate of return
considered to invest on nitrogen line from all of the four option are excellent, as it is unlikely to
membrane equipment to each well. reach the same value for discount rate in any bank.
⇒ For storage trucks option for nitrogen injection, - Regarding to investment efficiency all the values are
there wasn’t any investment. quite high, so it means that all the four options are

• Operational costs: In order to obtain those costs, it profitable.

was considered the production increase for each - Pay back period is very short for every option, so

option, as well as the total operational costs for each cash flow will be available since the early stages.

option, getting, in this way the cost for each - Net present value could be the indicator to be

produced barrel. considered for making a good decision, since option

⇒ Operational costs for that to build up gas lift 1 and 4 represent the highest values, and they also

network, is an addition of: differential cost represent an important difference between the

between to buy 2 MMSCF/D of natural gas and others options.

to sell the same amount of sour gas; leasing of - As net present value for option 1 and 4 are quite

compressors to increase gas pressure from gas similar, best option should be that which has some

line pressure to that which is required to inject in else benefits; whether environmental, technical or

to the well; and comprising costs to inject sour operational aspects concerns.

gas toward sweeter station; which yield

657.8+48+184.2 = 1249 USD/D. TECHNICAL, OPERATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
⇒ Operational cost for that to leasing storage
trucks for injecting 2 MMSCF/D of nitrogen is
equal to 18,650 USD/D. • Technical comparisons:

⇒ Operational cost for leasing membranes to ⇒ According to equal slope method, figure 6 shows

generate 2 MMSCF/D of nitrogen is equal to 11, how injecting the same amount of gas, whether

275 USD/D nitrogen or gas at the same depth, it is possible to

obtain 400 STB/D more injecting natural gas than
nitrogen. The explanation of this is because nitrogen
SPE 59028 GAS LIFT WITH NITROGEN INJECTION GENERATED IN SITU
is heavier than natural gas, thereby getting a higher
gradient all along the tubing; therefore, the higher
flowing bottom hole pressure, the lower liquid rate
based on productivity index ecuation. For this
specific case a 10% production rate increase could
be achieved (figure 5).
⇒ In the other hand, shows how the higher nitrogen
weigth in the annulus, the surface requirements
pressure is lower from that with natural gas injection,
therefore less potency is required. For this particular
case it is expecting to reduce 10% of total costs due
to potency reduction (figure 6).
• Operational and environmental comparisons:
⇒ Nitrogen is an unfinished source available in the
atmosphere, thereby its use doesn’t have to deal
with hydrocarbon exploitation.
⇒ Nitrogen plants can be installed in the most
convenient place, as they don’t need natural gas
supply.
⇒ As nitrogen is an inert gas, safety problems are
reduced enormously.
⇒ Petrochemical plants can only handle 3% of impurity
as a total amount of gas, thereby nitrogen uses as a
gas lift source is constrained by the total processed
gas. For this particular case the impurity percentage
was no higher than 0.5%.
⇒ As it is known nitrogen generated with membrane
technology has from 5 to 2% of impurities, mainly
oxygen. Somewhere during membrane operation,
there were some corrosion problems in the process
facilities, but unfortunately by that time it was
necessary to stop membrane operation for budget
reasons, without giving the chance to evaluate
oxygen impact on this problem, specially because
sour gas is produced in those wells. So this is a big
concern as this technology is a good option for this
5
particular case, anyway, if it was true, it is possible
to use chemical products to avoid this phenomena.
CONCLUSIONS
• Nitrogen injection as a gas lift source is feasible, as
it is an unfinished and available source in the
atmosphere.
• Nitrogen injection as a gas lift source has a similar
profitability as that with natural gas injection.
• At this moment with the current conditions on the
leasing contract, it is more profitable for PEMEX to
buy and install its own plant.
• It is possible to save 10% of potency injecting
nitrogen rather than natural gas.
• There is a significant reduction on risks, as nitrogen
is an inert gas, besides of that a significant reduction
of gas line mileage is achieved.
• Reduction of 10% of production rate is expected as
a result of inject nitrogen rather than natural gas.
• Further investigation will be needed to evaluate the
nitrogen impurities on corrosion problems.
• The amount of nitrogen used for gas lift is
constrained by the total gas handled in
petrochemical plant, which shouldn’t be no higher
than 3%.
REFERENCES
- Nodal analysis software, “PIPESIM”, Baker Jardine
and Associates Limited.
- The technology of artificial lift methods – volume 2ª -
kermit Brown.
- Gas lift optimitation and design software – GLOP-
Cealc.
- Temas selectos sobre bombeo neumático continuo.
Colegio de Ingenieros Petroleros de México.
6 MIGUEL A. LOZADA AGUILAR, M.DEL REMEDIOS ARREDONDO MONARREZ SPE 59028

- Optimización de la distribución de gas en la red de

bombeo neumático del campo Cunduacán –
Oxiacaque, AIPM, Miguel Angel Lozada Aguilar y
Maria del Remedios Arredondo M.
- Technical and operational manual of membrane
plants.
SPE 59028 GAS LIFT WITH NITROGEN INJECTION GENERATED IN SITU 7

MEMBRANE DIAGRAM

NITROGEN

WASTE OXYGEN VENT

FIBER

AIR FEED

Figure 1

FIELD MEMBRANE DIAGRAM

FLOW LINE

PROCESS
FACILITIES

BELLOTA 138
WELL

MEMBRANE EQUIPMENT
GAS METER
BELLOTA 136
WELL

BELLOTA 158-D COMPRESSOR

NE

WELL
BRA

COMPRESSOR

COMPRESSOR
MEM

NITROGEN LINE

Figure 2
8 MIGUEL A. LOZADA AGUILAR, M.DEL REMEDIOS ARREDONDO MONARREZ SPE 59028

WELL PERFORMANCE WITH NITROGEN INJECTION

1800
Iny.P.=1437 PSIG
1600
Iny. P.=1380 PSIG
LIQUID RATE (STB/D)

1400
1200
Iny.P.=1671PSIG
1000
BELLOTA 136
800
BELLOTA 138
600
400 BELLOTA 158-D

200
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

NITROGEN INJECTION RATE (MMSCF/D )

Figure 3

EQUAL SLOPE METHOD

CHARACATERISTIC CURVE FOR THREE WELLS WITH NITROGEN INJECTION

4500
4100
4000

3500
Liquid rate(STB/D)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5

Nitrogen injection rate (MMSCF/D)

Figure 4
SPE 59028 GAS LIFT WITH NITROGEN INJECTION GENERATED IN SITU 9

EQUAL SLOPE METHOD

NATURAL GAS VS. NITROGEN INJECTION COMPARISON

LIQUID RATE (STB/D)

5000
4500 NATURAL GAS
4500
4100 NITROGEN
4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5

GAS INJECTION RATE (MMSCF/D)

Figure 5

SURFACE REQUIREMENTS PRESSURE

NATURAL GAS VS. NITROGEN COMPARISON

1500
2000
2500
3000
D e p t h( m )

3500
4000
4500
5000
NITROGEN NATURAL GAS
5500
700 950 1200 1450 1700 1950

Pressure (Psi)

Figure 6
10 MIGUEL A. LOZADA AGUILAR, M.DEL REMEDIOS ARREDONDO MONARREZ SPE 59028

BASIS FOR ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS

OPTION CONCEPT PRICE PER PRODUCTION DISCOUNT OPERATIONAL FIELD

CAPITAL
BARREL INCREASE RATE (%) INVESTMENT COSTS (USD/STB) DEPLETI
(USD) (STB/D) ON (%)
(USD)

GAS LIFT
NETWORK
1 10 4125 10 1’253,000 0.3028 10

NITROGEN
2 INJ. WITH 10 3725 10 0 5.0006 10
STORAGE
TRUCKS

3 MEMBRANE 10 3725 10 150,000 3.027 10

LEASING

MEMBRANE
PURCHASE
4
10 3725 10 1’710,960 0.049 10

Table 1

PROFITABILITY INDICATORS

OPTION CONCEPT NET PRESENT INVESTMENT EFFICIENCY INTERNAL PROFITABILI- PAY OUT
VALUE (DLS) EFFICIENCY R A T E ( % ) RATE OF TIME
RETURN (%) TY RATE
(%) (YEARS)

GAS LIFT
NETWORK
1 44’380,058 36 82 1155 900 0.0865

NITROGEN
INJECTION -7
2 WITH 21’221,890 10,000 347 678’996,700 539’353,083 1.47 x 10
STORAGES
TRUCKS

MEMBRANE
3 LEASING 29,481,607 198 116 6310 4995 0. 0158

MEMBRANE
PURCHASE 40’575,592 25 74 780 0.03 0.1281
4

Table 2