Liquid hold up in Gas wells

In gas wells, liquid loading takes place when the gas rate is not high enough to lift liquids (e.g.
water and/or condensate) to the surface. During vertical upward flow, due to buoyancy effects (density
difference), it is expected that the gas will flow faster than the liquid. Similarly, depending on each of
their velocities, the gas and liquid will present different topological distributions inside the pipe known as
flow patterns.
At high gas velocities, gas tends to move to the center of the pipe forming a vortex commonly
known as gas core. Liquid is then pushed out of the gas core and onto the pipe wall forming a film. Also,
due to the high shear at the gas-liquid film interface, the liquid film is constantly atomized as droplets that
are transported in the gas core while some are deposited back into the film. This flow pattern is known as
annular-mist flow and it is the one preferred in gas wells that produce liquids.
As gas velocity decreases, the liquid film starts to bridge the gas core and the liquid close to the
pipe wall starts to fall back. This progressively leads to new flow patterns such as churn, slug and
eventually bubble flow (lowest gas velocity). The amount of liquid per pipe section along the well is
known as liquid holdup and varies depending on the flow pattern at hand. This also has an impact on
pressure losses which have to be properly estimated along the well.
Over time, an increasing presence of liquid in the well can create a recirculation zone that
generates an excess pressure at the sandface that can hinder or, if high enough, stop gas production
altogether. This is commonly known as liquid loading.

Figure 1: Schematic of a typical flow pattern progression, liquid holdup and gas velocity profile in a gas well with liquid
production

For this reason, when evaluating these types of wells, it is important to understand:

 How fast the phases are moving (e.g., gas velocity, water velocity, condensate velocity)
 How much is being produced from each fluid (e.g., gas rate, water rate, condensate rate)
  How big is the space available for the fluid to flow inside the wellbore (e.g., cross sectional
area of tubing, cross sectional area of casing, annular space)
 How to interpret tubing and/or casing pressure changes?
One way to evaluate the capacity of gas wells to lift liquids (even before the problem begins) is
with the use of the Turner, Coleman and similar equations. These expressions estimate the gas velocity
required to stop a drop of liquid (water or condensate) from falling. For this reason, these equations are
used to determine the minimum gas velocity required to avoid or correct liquid loading. This minimum
velocity and its corresponding rate are also known as terminal, critical or unloading velocity/rate.

Figure 2: Schematic of considered forces used to estimate gas unloading velocity

The following equations describe the critical rate and minimum unloading velocity according to
both authors.
  To avoid the Liquid loading the gas velocity should be above the Liquid loading velocity.
 The higher the gas rate the higher the gas velocity.
 The lower the wellhead flowing pressure the higher the gas rate.
 The bigger the tubing ID the higher the gas rate.
 In case when the gas rate is limited by the Reservoir deliverability smaller tubing ID will
increase the gas velocity.
Remedies
Some unloading solutions are as follow
1. Velocity string
A small-diameter tubing string run inside the production tubing of a well as a remedial treatment
to resolve liquid-loading problems. As the reservoir pressure in a gas well depletes, there may be
insufficient velocity to transport all liquids from the wellbore. In time these liquids accumulate and impair
production. Installing a velocity string reduces the flow area and increases the flow velocity to enable
liquids to be carried from the wellbore. Velocity strings are commonly run using coiled tubing as a
velocity string conduit. Safe live-well working and rapid mobilization enable coiled tubing velocity
strings to provide a cost effective solution to liquid loading in gas wells.
2. Downhole pumps
Provide extra energy to bring the water to surface, so reducing the liquid loading problem.

Turner's critical rate is always 20 percent higher than Coleman's due to the adjustment done on
the "C" value to fit Turner's observed data set. It is also worth mentioning that a rule of thumb is that the
Coleman rate is recommended for wells with wellhead pressures lower than 500 psi.
Another method to evaluate wells is through nodal analysis. The reservoir behavior and pressure
losses in the well are represented by two curves: AOF (Absolute Open Flow) and TPC (Tubing
Performance Curve) or VLP (Vertical Lift Performance). By using the current flowing conditions, if the
expected operating point (intersection between AOF and TPC curves) is different from the actual
conditions it could be due to liquid loading issues. This can be further confirmed if the operating rate is
lower than the unloading rate.
 Figure 3: Nodal Analysis

Lastly, wells suffering from this problem typically still have potential. In such cases, the gas
velocity needs to be increased at or above the required unloading velocity, or, a form of artificial lift can
be installed to reduce the backpressure in front of the reservoir.
In summary, some options to correct liquid loading are:

 Reducing the cross section area where the fluid is moving to increase gas velocity. For example:
running tubing if the well is producing with casing, running a velocity string (smaller pipe size),
running a tapered tubing completion, producing through a casing-tubing or CT-tubing annulus
 Installing Gas lift
 Installing Plunger lift
 Using foaming agents/chemicals to increase surface tension and reduce liquid density
 Reduce wellhead pressure with a compressor to increase fluid velocity in the wellbore.
PREDICTION MODELS FOR CRITICAL VELOCITY
Turner Model
Turner, Hubbard, and Dukler, observations, proposed two physical models for the removal of gas
well liquids. The models are based on

 The liquid film movement along the walls of the pipe.

 The liquid droplets entrained in the high velocity gas core.
Turner’s et al. (J Pet Technol, 1969) critical model was developed based on the assumption that the
droplet is a sphere and remains spherical all through the entire wellbore.
On the other hand, Li’s model was developed based on the assumption the liquid droplets are flat in
shape and remains same all through the wellbore.
Liquid loading is not always easy to predict and recognize because a thorough diagnostic analysis of
the well data needs to be done but accurate prediction of the problem is vitally important for taking timely
measures to solve the problem. There are some symptoms also which can help predict a gas well which is
under attack such as the onset of liquid slugs at the surface of the well, increasing difference between the
tubing and casing pressures with time, sharp changes in gradient on a flowing pressure survey and sharp
drops in produTurner’s model
For the removal of gas well liquids, Turner et al. (1969) proposed two physical models.

 The continuous film model.

 The entrained drop movement model.
The continuous film model Turner et al. were of the opinion that since liquid film accumulation on
the walls of a conduit during two-phase gas/liquid flow is inevitable due to the impingement of entrained
liquid drops and the condensation of vapors. He also suggested that the annular liquid film must keep
moving upwards along the conduit walls to keep a gas well from loading up, and in the same vain the
minimum gas flow rate necessary to accomplish this is of primary importance in the prediction of liquid
loading.
Entrained drop movement model (spherical shape droplet model) The existence of liquid drops in
the gas stream presents a different problem in fluid mechanics, namely, that of determining the minimum
rate of gas flow that will lift the drops out of the well (Turner et al. 1969). In a bid to do this, Turner et al.
proposed a model to calculate the minimum gas flow velocity necessary to remove liquid drops from a
gas well which is based on the sole principle of a freely falling particle in a fluid medium (by a
transformation of coordinates, a drop of liquid being transported by a moving gas stream becomes a free
falling particle and the same general equations apply as shown in Fig. 1). The minimum gas flow velocity
necessary to remove liquid drop is given by the following equation.

Coleman model
Coleman et al. (1991) made use of the Turner model but validated with field data of lower reservoir
and wellhead flowing pressure all below approximately 500 psia.
Coleman et al. (1991) discovered that a better prediction could be achieved without a 20% upward
adjustment to fit field data with the following expressions.

Li’s model (flat-shaped droplet model)

Li et al. (2001) in their research posited that Turner and Coleman’s models did not consider
deformation of the free falling liquid droplet in a gas medium, and furthermore, contended that as a liquid
droplet is entrained in a high velocity gas stream, a pressure difference exists between the fore and aft
portions of the droplet leading to its deformation and its shape changes from spherical to convex bean
with unequal sides.
 Spherical liquid droplets have a smaller efficient area and need a higher terminal velocity and critical
rate to lift them to the surface. However, flat-shaped droplets have a more efficient area and are easier to
be carried to the wellhead. This lead to the formulation of the following expression.

Nosseir’s model
Nosseir et al. (2000) focused his study mainly on the impact of flow regime and changes in flow
conditions on gas well loading. Their work was similar to that of Turner but the difference between the
both was that Turner did not consider the effect of flow regime on the drag coefficient (used in the
derivation stage), and thereby making use of the same drag coefficient (0.44) for laminar, transient and
turbulent flows. Nosseir derived the critical flow equations by assuming drag coefficient value of 0.44 for
Reynolds number (Re) 2 × 105 to 104 and for Re value greater than 106 he took the drag coefficient value
to be 0.2. Representation of the critical velocity equation by Nosseir’s model is summarized as.