Distinguished Author Series

James F. Lea, Texas Tech U., and Henry V. Nickens, BP plc

Solving Gas-Well Liquid-Loading Problems

Eventually, gas wells will cease producing as the reservoir pressure • Increasing difference between the tubing and casing flowing pres-
depletes. The usual presence of some liquids can reduce production sures (i.e., Pcf −Ptf) with time, measurable without packers present.
even faster. This paper describes the problem of liquid accumulation • Sharp changes in gradient on a flowing-pressure survey.
in a gas well. Recognition of gas-well liquid-loading problems and

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/56/04/30/2244086/spe-72092-jpt.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander user on 08 April 2024

solution methods are discussed.1 Critical Velocity. Turner et al.2 developed two mechanistic models
to estimate critical velocity.
Introduction • A film of liquid on the wall of the tubing.
Gas wells producing dry gas have a low flowing bottomhole pres- • A droplet suspended in the flowing gas.
sure (FBHP), especially for low-rate wells. When liquids are intro- The model that best fit their well data was the droplet model. Gas
duced, the FBHP increases. Liquids in the gas may be produced rates exceeding critical velocity are predicted to lift the droplets
directly into the wellbore or condensed from vapor in the upper upward. Lower rates allow droplets to fall and accumulate. Coleman
portion of the tubing. et al.3 later correlated to well data with lower surface flowing pres-
The total flowing-pressure drop can be expressed as the sum of sures than did Turner. Turner’s analysis gives the following for criti-
the pressure drops from elevation (weight of the fluids), friction, cal velocity:
and acceleration. For low-rate wells, the acceleration term is very
small, and, with correctly sized tubing, the friction term is also σ1/4(ρl−ρg)1/4
small. The elevation, or gravity term, becomes larger when liquid νgc=k ,
loading occurs. ρg1/2
Fig. 1 shows the approximate flow regimes as gas velocity
decreases in a gas/liquid well. If the well is flowing as a mist of liq- where k=1.92 (Turner et al.2) or 1.59 (Coleman et al.3).
uid in gas, then the well still may have a relatively low gravity-pres- Assuming2 σ=20 and 60 dynes/cm and ρl=45 and 67 lbm/ft3 for
sure drop. However, as the gas velocity begins to drop, the well flow condensate and water, respectively, a gas gravity of 0.6, z=0.9, and
can become slug and then bubble flow. In this case, a much larger a temperature of 120ºF, then
fraction of the tubing volume is filled with liquid. As liquids accu-
mulate, the increased FBHP will reduce or prevent production. (ρl−0.0031Ptf)1/4
Several actions can be taken to reduce liquid loading. νgc=C ,
• Flow the well at a high velocity to stay in mist flow by use of (0.0031Ptf)1/2
smaller tubing or by creating a lower wellhead pressure.
• Pump or gas lift the liquids out of the well (many variations). where C is 5.34 for water or 4.02 for condensate2 or 4.43 for water
• Foam the liquids, enabling the gas to lift liquids from the well. or 3.37 for condensate.3
• Inject water into an underlying disposal zone. The corresponding critical gas rate, Qgc, in MMscf/D is
• Prevent liquid formation or production into the well (e.g., seal
off a water zone or use insulation or heat to prevent condensation). 3.06PAνgc
If liquid accumulations in the flow path can be reduced, then the Qgc= .
FBHP will be reduced and production increased. The liquid-loading (T+460)z
problem will have been solved.
If any water is produced, conservatively use water properties to cal-
Recognizing Liquid Loading culate critical velocity. Typically evaluated at the wellhead, the above
Liquid loading is not always obvious. If a well is liquid loaded, it still equations are valid at any well depth if the in-situ pressure and tem-
may produce for a long time. If liquid loading is recognized and perature are known. The distance between the tubing end and the
reduced, higher producing rates are achieved. Symptoms indicating perforations should be minimized because casing flow is usually liq-
liquid loading include the following. uid loaded.
• Sharp drops in a decline curve (Fig. 2).
• Onset of liquid slugs at the surface of well. Stability and Nodal Analysis. As liquids accumulate at lower gas
rates, tubing performance can become unstable. Fig. 3 shows a tub-
ing performance curve (TPC), or “J” curve, evaluated at the tubing
bottom near perforations. This flowing pressure is needed for vary-
Copyright 2004 Society of Petroleum Engineers ing production rates at a constant gas/liquid ratio (GLR). It is plot-
This is paper SPE 72092. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive rep- ted across a gas-deliverability curve, or inflow-performance curve.
resentations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent
developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals
The flowing pressure is the sum of the tubing-pressure drop and
recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive work the Ptf. The curve turns up (required pressure increases) at low
and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general
readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering. rates because of liquid holdup in the tubing. At high rates, liquids

30 APRIL 2004
 • The prediction of the onset of sharp liq-
uid loading at low rates varies tremendously
with different flow correlations.
• GLRs and IPR data often are unknown.

Solutions
Liquid loading may be present, but what
solutions are best to alleviate the problem?
No universal solutions exist.

Sizing Production Strings to Eliminate

Liquid Loading. A properly designed
smaller tubing or velocity string can increase
gas velocity to reduce liquid loading.4 The

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/56/04/30/2244086/spe-72092-jpt.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander user on 08 April 2024

following factors should be evaluated before
installing smaller-inside-diameter tubing.
• Will the installation be a long-term solu-
Fig. 1—Flow regimes in gas wells producing liquid.1 tion compared with use of the existing tubing
and other methods (e.g., plunger lift)?
are carried with the gas, liquid holdup is low, and friction is • The tubing string should extend to near the perforations.
more predominant. Hanging tailpipe below high-set tubing5 to eliminate casing flow
If the TPC and the reservoir inflow performance relationship can be beneficial if needed.
(IPR) are plotted, their intersection predicts the flow rate. As shown • If flow is above critical at the bottom of the tubing, it will be so
in Fig. 3, two intersections can exist with only the higher-rate inter- for all of the tubing, which is a desired goal.
section being stable. Points A and B move from the lower intersec- • The decline curve, after a successful installation, should show a
tion, and Points C and D move to the higher intersection. Operate projection of higher future rates than before. Immediate rates may
to the right of the TPC minimum above critical rate, with tubing be misleading.
sized for low friction. Casing production with an occasional tubing-production peri-
The analysis method (Nodal analysis from Schlumberger) has od to lift liquids up a smaller string may be referred to as a
many possibilities for gas-well analysis. The effects of flow-path area, “siphon string.”
surface pressure, future reservoir pressure, and others can be studied.
Fig. 4 illustrates the effects of tubing diameter. In this case, D1 Compression. Compression is used to lower the tubing pressure
would be judged to be too large because the IPR intersection is to and increase flowing gas velocity.6 Compression considerations
the left of the TPC minimum. Diameter D3 shows higher friction. include the following.
Diameter D2 might be judged the best size for the current situation. • Will wellhead compression increase the rate economically and
Diameter D3 would continue to provide flow without liquid loading provide long-term effects?
to the lower rates, but D2 allows higher rates at the current inter- As Figs. 3 and 4 show, the gas-deliverability curve extends to
section. a steep curve near the absolute open flow. Lowering the FBHP will
Use critical velocity, Nodal analysis, and experience to predict liq- result in little production increase. Avoid compression in
uid-loading trends. Analysis cautions include the following. this region.
• Verify calculated tubing-pressure drops with measurements • Adding a larger or twin flowline may reduce the wellhead pres-
before selecting a multiphase-flow correlation before broad use. sure considerably without compression.
• Annulus-flow calculations should be viewed with caution. • Often compression is applied to a group of wells or an entire
field. Model the field to determine fieldwide response.
• Select the type of compressor for throughput, intake pressure,
liquid tolerance, durability, and best economics.6

Plunger Lift. Plunger lift7 (Fig. 5) is a premier method of operating

a gas well with liquids. It uses a free-traveling plunger to assist the
gas in carrying liquid upward without excessive liquid fallback.
Periods of flow and no-flow for pressure buildup are required.
Plunger lift can operate with no external power to the well. The
plunger and liquids are lifted by use of gas pressure built up in the
tubing/casing annulus while the production valve is closed.
Components include the following.
• A wireline-installed downhole bumper spring to catch the
falling plunger.
• A surface lubricator designed to catch the plunger and allow
flow to continue with the plunger at the surface.
• A motorized valve at surface to open and close the well.
Fig. 2—Decline curve showing onset of liquid loading.
• A sensor at surface to monitor plunger arrival.

APRIL 2004
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/56/04/30/2244086/spe-72092-jpt.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander user on 08 April 2024
Fig. 3—Intersection of TPC and IPR determine potential
operating rates. Fig. 4—Sensitivity of tubing performance to diameter.

• An electronic controller with logic to set cycles of production • Evaluate other methods of dewatering vs. plunger lift.
and shut-in time for best operation. Plunger lift works better with larger tubing size. A velocity string
Fig. 6 illustrates a plunger-lift cycle. Pressure builds in the cas- requires smaller tubing. Lower rates (only a few Mscf/D) probably
ing with the plunger at the bottom of the well. Next, the well trend toward plunger-lift use and not small tubing.
opens and annulus gas expands to lift the plunger and liquid to • Evaluate the well configuration.
the surface. Gas flows while the plunger remains at the surface. First run a gauge and scraper if needed. Use wireline to run a
Liquids accumulate in the well as gas flow decreases. The valve mockup or plunger to check downhole clearances.
closes and the plunger falls to the bumper spring. Repeating cycles Land the tubing, without a packer, such that some open perfora-
may be adjusted continuously by use of a plunger-lift controller. tions are below the tubing end.
The pressure that builds in the annulus during the shut-in The wellhead should be the same diameter as the tubing.
portion of the cycle is the major source of energy to bring the • Select and install necessary plunger controls and equipment.
plunger and liquid to surface along with some well inflow. Controllers vary with function and the degree of sophistication. A
Installations operate best with no packer in the well. Some typically accepted speed of arrival is approximately 750 ft/min. A
plunger wells operate with a packer, but greater well pressure and window of arrival would be (750 ± X) ft/min, where X is the incre-
GLR are needed. mental velocity of rise. Speed is plunger-travel length divided by
Plunger feasibility is evaluated as follows. travel time.
• Check industry guidelines to see if the well is a plunger candidate.
1. The GLR should be approximately 400 scf/bbl per 1,000 ft
of depth.
Example.
Given: GLR=800 scf/bbl and depth=5,000 ft.
400 scf/bbl×5,000/1,000=2,000 scf/bbl required. This well is
not a candidate by this rule, which does not consider pressure-
buildup effects.
2. The “slug-size” pressure should be less than 50% of the “net”
pressure. The “slug-size” indication is the operating static casing
pressure minus the tubing pressure, or Pcs−Pts. The “net pressure” is
Pcs−Ptf, where Ptf is the starting flowing-tubing pressure. If Pcs=600,
Pts=500, and Ptf =100 psi, then:
(600−500)/(600−100)=20%, which is less than 50%; therefore,
the well is ready to open.
3. See Fig. 7 for a 2-in. tubing-plunger feasibility chart.8 A chart
for 21/2-in. tubing-plunger operation also is available.8 The “net
operating pressure” is Pcs−Ptf when the well is opened initially.
Example.
Given: depth=8,000 ft, 23/8-in. tubing, Pcs=250 psi, and Ptf = 50
psi.
Then, the net operating pressure is 250−50=200 psi. Fig. 7
shows that the required GLR for plunger lift is 10,000 scf/bbl.
With larger 27/8-in. tubing, less GLR is needed.
Other methods9 include calculation of the average FBHP during a
plunger cycle, which shows results as a nodal plunger/tubing perfor-
mance curve. Another study10 incorporates the use of a reservoir Fig. 5—Typical plunger-lift installation.
model and a tubing-flow model.

32 APRIL 2004
 One example logic is as follows. This type of separator uses the principle of downward flow at a
If the plunger speed is greater than (750+X) ft/min, reduce the slower rate (approximately 0.5 ft/sec) than the bubbles rise. Higher
casing-pressure buildup time and/or lengthen the flow time. production rates (approximately 150 to 200 B/D) can gas lock this
If the plunger speed is (750 ± X) ft/min, make no adjustments. type of separator.
If the plunger speed is less than (750−X) ft/min, lengthen the • If landed above the perforations, consider separators such as a
buildup time and/or reduce the flow time. packer separator, filter element, or vortex.
After the flow period, the plunger should fall through some liq- • Ensure a good CR13 on the pump downstroke and a high flow
uid in the tubing. When the BHP is sufficient to raise the plunger area through the valves (Fig. 9). A high CR will prevent gas lock.
and liquid, the well is opened to begin the cycle. A more-productive • Use specialty pumps. Some pump designs open the traveling
cycle involves lifting a small slug of liquid on each cycle. valve (TV) mechanically. Others take the fluid load of the TV with
A new two-piece plunger, consisting of a ball and cylinder, a top sliding valve (SV).
demonstrates increased production in some cases. It seals on the Other pumps1 use a top TV to hold the hydrostatic pressure in
upstroke when the ball and cylinder are together, and components the tubing at the beginning of the downstroke. This method allows
cycle to the bottom of the well when apart.11 the bottom TV to open, allowing liquid and gas to enter the upper

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/56/04/30/2244086/spe-72092-jpt.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander user on 08 April 2024

compression chamber. This upper compression chamber compress-
Beam Pumping. Beam-pump systems are a common method of es on the upstroke to open the top TV and discharge into the tub-
dewatering gas wells. These systems function when wells do not ing. These pumps are two-stage compression pumps.
have enough pressure and GLR to allow use of other methods. Other designs1 include a tapered-barrel pump and the “panacea
Initial and operating costs can be high. Attention to problem areas pump” with an enlargement in the barrel; both designs ensure liq-
can significantly reduce operating expense. uids enter the barrel on the downstroke to prevent gas lock.
Fig. 8 shows a downhole dynamometer pump card with the rod Consider a backpressure regulator1,13 on the tubing at the sur-
load and position plotted above the pump for one cycle with no gas face. Originally used to seat valves when wells flow at low rates, it
interference. Gas in the pump may cause gas lock, which in turn can seems to benefit gassy wells in general. Values of surface pressure
cause production to cease temporarily, as well as fluid pound and might be 100 to 300 psi or more.
associated mechanical problems, which also reduce production. Gas Also consider matching the pump to the well using pump-off
separation is recommended, when possible, by setting the pump or controllers or jack shafts (an additional set of sheaves between the
a dip tube below the perforations. motor and original motor sheave to slow the pump speed). The cas-
If the operator ensures that the pump is built and spaced correct- ing gas must be allowed to flow through a check valve to the flow-
ly to obtain a high compression ratio (CR) on the downstroke, as line in all cases.
shown in Fig. 9, then many problems can be solved with a simple Beam pumps will dewater gas wells but are subject to gas inter-
pump in a gassy well. ference if not installed correctly. Maintenance, energy, and initial
First, try to separate gas from the pump intake. Ranked guidelines cost can be high, but they are reliable in general.
include the following.
• Use a dip tube below the pump intake to receive fluids below Hydraulic Pumping. Hydraulically powered downhole pumps are
the perforations, but use a moderate length to avoid gas breakout. powered by a stream of high-pressure water or oil (power fluid) sup-
• Set the pump below the perforations. plied by a power-fluid pump at the surface. Hydraulic pumps are of
• Use “poor-boy” separators12,14 for low rates when the pump two types.
must be set above the perforations. • Piston pumps, which are similar to beam pumps.
• Jet pumps that operate by power
fluid passing through a venturi, expos-
ing the formation to low pressure.
The surface power-fluid pump usu-
ally is a piston-type or centrifugal high-
pressure pump. A small-diameter jet
pump, which fits inside 11/4-in. coiled
tubing (CT)1, allows a power string
and pump to be run inside 23/8- or 27/8-
in. tubing and is a relatively new dewa-
tering method. Liquid production
comes up the tubing/CT annulus. The
gas flows up the tubing/casing annulus.
The pump can be reverse circulated up
the CT for service in minutes. Jet
pumping may require high power.

Foaming. In gas-well applications, the

liquid/gas/surfactant mixing occurs
most commonly downhole. This
method works best with water only,
but condensates can be present. Some
Fig. 6—Plunger-lift cycle.
operators prefer that foams be tried
first for liquid-loading problems

APRIL 2004 33
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/56/04/30/2244086/spe-72092-jpt.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander user on 08 April 2024
Fig. 8—Pump card with gas interference.

Gas Lift. Gas lift18 introduces additional gas into the tubing to light-
en the flowing gradient and can increase the fluid velocity above crit-
ical. A compressor or a high-pressure gas well must supply the lift gas.
The usual process is to inject gas down the casing and through a gas
lift valve into the tubing. The gas in the tubing lightens the gradient,
and the well produces at a higher rate. Gas can be injected below the
Fig. 7—Plunger-lift feasibility for 23/8-in. tubing.8 tubing end or injected through only one valve or port if gas pressure
is available to unload. A series of unloading valves can be used to help
inject near the bottom of the well with limited gas pressure.
because they are inexpensive. Foaming may not be the most eco- Gas lift guidelines are as follows.
nomical solution if large quantities of expensive surfactants are • Compare costs with other methods.18
needed. The foam produces a less-dense mixture by increasing the • Be sure that compressors and additional gas are available.
surface area of the liquid with bubbles. The result is less gas/liquid • Model the wells, and possibly the entire field, with gas lift, com-
slippage. The gas can more easily carry the foamed liquids to paring with other methods.
the surface. Actually, plunger lift is an intermittent method of lift, sometimes
One test procedure to determine which surfactants work best augmented by gas injection down the casing. Intermittent gas lift for
in wellbore fluids is shown in Fig. 10. Well liquids are placed low-rate wells is used in wells with no plunger. “Stopcocking” is a
into a tube, and a specified amount of the foaming agent to be method of opening and closing wells so that gas pressure in the shut-
tested is added. A specified gas rate is injected at the bottom of in period can expand and intermittently gas lift liquids from the well.
the tube through a fritted disk, and liquid carryover into the
beaker vs. time is measured. This test15,16 is simple, quick, and
inexpensive. It allows evaluation of foaming agents before expen-
sive field trials. Recent methods17 test for surface tension and lower
effective liquid-phase density to calculate a lower required critical
velocity as a method of predicting foam performance.
There are various methods of introducing surfactants into the
well. The simplest method is to batch or continuously inject chem-
icals down the annulus of a well with no packer. Also, soap sticks
can be dropped down the tubing, manually or with an automatic
dispenser. Guidelines include the following.
• Screen foaming agents with lab tests.
• Water is easiest to foam. Condensates are more difficult and
require more-expensive chemicals. Water loading is most common.
• If a packer is present, systems1 exist that allow the lubrication of
1
a /4-in. capillary tube down the tubing to inject chemicals at depth.
• With no packer, agents can be introduced down the annulus,
either batched or injected. Consider automated measurements and
controls to schedule treatments.
Foaming is a cheap-initial-cost solution for gas-well dewatering,
but can be expensive if large volumes of surfactants are required. It
has been used successfully in many applications. Fig. 9—Compression in beam pump with gassy flow.13

34 APRIL 2004
 Injection Systems. An injection test should be run on a suitable underlying injection
Instead of produc- zone before considering this method.
ing the water from
a gas well, it may be Other Methods. Many other methods exist. A resistance cable to
possible to inject it heat and prevent condensation was shown to approximately triple
into a zone below production.21 Various controllers exist to prevent annulus heading
the gas zone. There and to control casing-to-tubing flow for best production.22 Inserts at
are several methods each joint to keep liquids dispersed have proved beneficial.23 Many
of injecting the other methods have been demonstrated over the years, although it
water in a gas is hoped that the major concepts have been identified here.
well.19
• Bypass seating Summary
nipple:20 Pressure • Recognize liquid loading from well symptoms, critical velocity,
from water and/or Nodal analysis.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/56/04/30/2244086/spe-72092-jpt.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander user on 08 April 2024

pumped up • Surfactants may be tried with little initial cost and can be labo-
through the tubing ratory tested. Evaluate economics of continued use.
is allowed to bear • Use of smaller-diameter tubing can be very effective for higher
on an injection ranges of flow and can be a long-term solution. Smaller tubing may
zone below the eventually have to be downsized to continue flow. However, small
sucker-rod pump tubing (approximately 1-in. diameter or less) can be very difficult to
(Fig. 11) through unload.
concentric vertical • Plunger lift may be preferred over smaller tubing for lower
holes in the bypass rates, because the plunger works well with existing larger tubing
seating nipple. and may perform to depletion of the reservoir. The two-piece
Fig. 10—Bureau of Mines setup for Some systems plunger shows advantages in some wells.
testing foaming agents.15 mechanically apply • Use of compression to lower wellhead pressures helps almost any
pressure on the method of producing gas wells, but economics must be considered.
downstroke.1 • Jet hydraulic pumps are easy to install, produce high rates, and
• Electrical-submersible-pump (ESP) -driven injection system: have low servicing costs. They do not achieve low producing BHPs,
Systems are available that allow an ESP to pump water below a and initial cost is a consideration. High power requirements may
packer. Other pumping methods could inject water as well. be experienced.
• For low-pressure wells, a beam pump may be the only possibil-
ity. High initial and energy costs may be encountered. Careful atten-
tion can reduce servicing costs.
• Gas lift, by adding gas to the tubing to raise the velocity above
critical, is viable if high-pressure gas is available.
• Consider injecting water below a packer if an underlying injec-
tion zone is present. JPT

Nomenclature
A = cross-sectional area of flow, ft2
C = coefficient of reduced critical velocity, (ft/sec).(lbm/ft3)0.25
k = coefficient of basic critical velocity,
(ft/sec).(lbm/ft3)0.25/(dyne/cm)0.25
P = pressure, psia
Pcf = casing pressure, flowing, psia
Pcs = casing pressure, shut-in, psia
Ptf = tubing pressure, flowing, psia
Pts = tubing pressure, shut-in, psia
Qgc = critical gas flow rate, MMscf/D
T = temperature, ºF
vgc = critical velocity of gas, ft/sec
X = increment of velocity of rise, ft/min
z = gas compressibility factor
ρg = density of gas, lbm/ft3
ρl = density of liquid, lbm/ft3
σ = surface tension of liquid to gas, dynes/cm

Fig. 11—Bypass seating nipple for water injection in a

gas well using a beam-pump system.19,20

APRIL 2004 35
 15. Dunning, H.N. et al.: “Foaming Agents for Removal of Liquids from Gas
References Wells,” Bull. 06-59-1, American Gas Assn., New York City.
11. Lea, J.F., Nickens, H.V., and Wells, M.: Gas Well Deliquification, Elsevier 16. Libson, T.N., and Henry, J.R.: “Case Histories: Identification of and
Press, first edition (2003). Remedial Action for Liquid Loading in Gas Wells, Intermediate Shelf Gas
12. Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G., and Dukler, A.E.: “Analysis and Play,” paper SPE 7467, JPT (April 1980) 685; Trans., AIME, 269..
Prediction of Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of 17. Campbell, S., Ramachandran, S. and Bartrip, K.: “Corrosion
Liquids From Gas Wells,” paper SPE 2198, JPT (November 1969) 1475; Inhibition/Foamer Combination Treatment to Enhance Gas Production,”
Trans., AIME, 246. paper SPE 67325, presented at the 2001 SPE Production and Operations
13. Coleman, S.B et al.: “A New Look at Predicting Gas-Well Load Up,” Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 24-27 March.
paper SPE 20280, JPT (March 1991) 329; Trans., AIME, 291. 18. Stephenson, G.B., Rouen, B., and Rosenzweig, M.H.: “Gas-Well Dewatering:
14. Wesson, H.R.: “Coiled-Tubing Velocity/Siphon String Design and A Coordinated Approach,” paper SPE 58984 presented at the 2000 SPE Intl.
Installation,” 1st Annual Conference on Coiled-Tubing Operations and Petroleum Conference, Villahermosa, Mexico, 1–3 February.
Slimhole Drilling Practices, Houston, 1–4 March 1993. 19. Williams, R., Vahedian, S., and Lea, J.F.: “Gas Well Liquids Injection
15. Campbell, J.A. and Bayes, K.: “Installation of 27/8-in. Coiled-Tubing Using Beam-Lift Systems,” presented at the 1997 Southwestern
Tailpipes in Live Gas Wells,” paper OTC 7324, 1993 Offshore Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, 2–3 April.
Technology Conference, Houston, 3–6 May. 20. Grubb, A.D. and Duvall, D.K.: “Disposal Tool Technology Extends Gas Well

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/56/04/30/2244086/spe-72092-jpt.pdf by Universidad Industrial De Santander user on 08 April 2024

16. Thomas, F.A.: “Low Pressure Compressor Applications,” presentation at Life and Enhances Profits,” paper SPE 24796 presented at the 1992 SPE
the 49th Annual Liberal Gas Compressor Inst., 4 April 2001. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4–7 October.
17. Foss, D.L. and Gaul, R.B.: “Plunger Lift Performance Criteria with 21. Pigott, M.J. et al.: “Wellbore Heating to Prevent Liquid Loading,” paper
Operating Experience—Ventura Field,” Drilling and Production Practice, SPE 77649 presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
API (1965) 124–140. Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October.
18. Beeson, C.M., Knox, D.G., and Stoddard, J.H.: “Part 1: The Plunger Lift 22. Elmer, W.G.: “Tubing Flowrate Controller: Maximize Gas Well
Method of Oil Production,” “Part 2: Constructing Nomographs to Production From Start to Finish,” paper SPE 30680 presented at the 1995
Simplify Calculations,” “Part 3: How to Use Nomographs to Estimate SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
Performance,” “Part 4: Examples Demonstrate Use of Nomographs,” and 23. Putra, S.A. and Christiansen, R.L.: “Design of Tubing Collar Inserts for
“Part 5: Well Selection and Applications,” Petroleum Engineer Intl., 1956. Producing Gas Wells Below Their Critical Velocity,” paper SPE 71554
19. Lea, J.F.: “Plunger Lift vs. Velocity Strings,” J. of Energy Resources presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Technology (December 1999); Trans., ASME, Vol. 121, 234. New Orleans, 30 September–3 October.
10. Wiggins, M. and Gasbarri, S.: “A Dynamic Plunger Lift Model for Gas
Wells,” paper SPE 37422 presented at the 1997 SPE Production James F. Lea, SPE, is Chairperson of the Petroleum Engineering Dept. of Texas
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9–11 March. Tech U. Previously, he was the Team Leader of Production Optimization and
11. Garg, D. et al.: “Two-Piece Plunger Test Results,” prepared for presentation at Artificial Lift at Amoco EPTG. He received the 1996 SPE International
the 2004 Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, 19–21 April. Production Award. Lea also received the J.C. Schlonneger award from the
12. Clegg, J.D.: “Another Look at Gas Anchors,” presented at the 1989 Southwestern Petroleum Short Course for outstanding contributions to artifi-
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, 19–29 April. cial lift. He has served on many SPE committees related to artificial lift. Henry
13. Parker, R.M.: “The Importance of Compression Ratio for Pumping Gassy V. Nickens is on the Well Performance Team at BP plc and works on produc-
Wells,” presented at the 1993 Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, tion optimization and artificial-lift problems. Before joining Amoco in 1981, he
Lubbock, Texas, 21–22 April. was a nuclear engineer with Westinghouse Electric. With Amoco, he did
14. McCoy, J.N. et al.: “Field and Laboratory Testing of a Decentralized research in drilling-fluid mechanics, well control, artificial lift, and production
Continuous-Flow Gas Anchor,” 46th Annual Technical Meeting of the optimization. Nickens holds MS degrees in physics and mathematics and in
Petroleum Society of the CIM, Calgary, 1995. nuclear engineering and holds a PhD degree in fluid mechanics.

36 APRIL 2004