University of Benghazi

Faculty of Engineering & Petroleum-Galo

Department of Petroleum Engineering

SUBSURFACE GAS-LIFT TROUBLESHOOTING IN WELL X-1

Prepared by:
Ayad H. Abdulrahman. (1013)
Masoud S. Masoud. (914)
Musab A. Muhammed. (917)

Supervised by: Mr. Muhammed S. Aldbay

Report Submitted as a Partial Requirement for the

B.Sc in Engineering (Petroleum Engineering).

Academic Year: 20019 / 2020

ABSTRACT

Gas lift consider one of the artificial lift method used in Nafoora field belong to AGOCO.
Understanding fundamental of gas lift was the first aim in this project. Understanding gaslift downhole
troubleshooting in well X-1 was the main goal in this study. The well X-1 had three problems, the first
trouble in 2007 the production of well decreased suddenly, using diagnostic survey and production test
the problem was indicated as a (valves hung open) problem. The valves had been changed and then
problem was fixed successfully. Until 2008 the well X-1 was annuals-flow, on 2009 the well changed
into tubing-flow and this study provided a hand redesigning compared to program design. After
redesign, the production restored to an accepted value with stable gas injection. In 2019 the production
rate of the well X-1 decreased and a scale was found in the tubing, a chemical injection had been used
to clean tubing and the production test after the stimulation job shows an increasing of the
productivity. In the three cases, the troubleshooting done successfully and enhanced the productivity of
.well X-1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, we are thankful to Allah for his strength and endurance of us, and without his help and
guidance, this project would not have been completed. We wish to thank our parents for their
tremendous contributions and support, both morally and financially, towards the completion of
this project. We gratefully extend a special thanks to our supervisor Mr. Muhammed S. Aldbay
for his guidance support and encouragement throughout the progression of our project. We would
like to extend our sincere regards to the teaching and non-teaching staff members of the
department of petroleum engineering without their active, guidance, help, cooperation and
encouragement, we would not have made headway in the project. Infinite thanks to our families
and friends, whom contributed and assisted in the course of the project, Finally, we would like to
thank Nafoora Oil Operations management that allow us to use data for our thesis.

APPROVAL
This is to certify that the project titled as: 58
Subsurface gas-lift troubleshooting in well X-1
Carried out by:
The supervisor:

Muhammed S. Aldbay
The student:
1 Ayad H. Abdulrahman . (1013)
2 Masoud S. Masoud. (914)
3 Musab A. Muhammed. (917)

Has been read and approved for meeting part of the requirements and regulations governing
the award of Bachelor of petroleum Engineering degree of University of Benghazi, Faculty of
Engineering & Petroleum.
Project Final Presentation & Discussion Comity:

Name Designation Date Signature

 Projects Permanent Comity:

Name Designation Date Signature

Pet Eng Projects Coordinator Head of Pet Eng Department

DECLARATION
We hereby declare that the project report is our original work except for quotations and
citations, which had been duly acknowledged. Also, declare that it has not been previously, and
is not concurrently, submitted for any other degree at University of Benghazi or at any other
.institution
___________________________________

Date………………………………………..

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………….II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………………………..III

APPROVAL ……………………………………………………………………………………..IV

DECLARATION …………………………………………………………………………………V

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………..

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………..

LIST OF FIGURE ……………………………………………………………………

NOMENCLATURE ………………………………………………

CHAPTER 1…………………………………………………………………………

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………

1.1 Background: …………………………………………………………………

1.2 Objectives: …………………………………………………………………………

CHAPTER 2…………………………………………………………………………

2. Overview of gas lift system……………………………………………………

2.1 Gas lift history: …………………………………………………………………

2.2 Definition of gaslift: ………………………………………………………………

2.3 Methods of gaslift: …………………………………………………………………

2.4 Types of gas lift installation: …………………………………………………

2.4.1 Tubing Flow Installations………………………………………………
2.4.1.1 The Open Installation: …………………………………………
2.4.1.2 The Semi-closed Installation: ……………………………………
2.4.1.3 The closed installation: ……………………………………………
2.4.2 Casing Flow Installation : ………………………………………………

2.5 Advantages of Gas Lift: …………………………………………………………

2.6 Disadvantages of Gas Lift: ……………………………………………………

2.7 Components of Gas Lift System: ……………………………………………

2.8 Gas Compression and Distribution System: …………………………………

2.9 Gas Lift Equipment: ……………………………………………………………

2.9.1 Surface gas lift controllers: ……………………………………………
2.9.2 Sub-surface Gas Lift Equipment: ……………………………………
2.9.2.1 Gas Lift Mandrels: ………………………………………………
2.9.2.2 Gas lift valves: ……………………………………………………
2.9.2.2.1 Functions of gas lift valves: …………………………………
2.9.2.2.2 Basic components of gas lift valves: ………………………
2.9.2.3 Types of gas lift valves: ………………………………………
2.9.2.3.1 Casing pressure operated valve (pressure valve):………….
2.9.2.3.2 Throttling pressure valve, or continuous flow valve:………
2.9.2.3.3 Fluid operated valve: …………………………………………
2.9.2.3.4 Combination valve: …………………………………………
2.9.2.3.5 Casing pressure operated valve: ………………………………

2.10 Subsurface gaslift Troubleshooting: ……………………………………………

2.10.1 Gas lift troubleshooting: ………………………………………………
2.10.2 Gas-Lift Troubleshooting Consists of: …………………………………
2.10.2.1 Data gathering: ……………………………………………………
2.10.2.2 Analysis: ……………………………………………………
2.10.2.3 Implementation: ……………………………………………………

CHAPTER 3…………………………………………………………………………
3. Methodology…………………………………………………………………………

3.1 Equipment…………………………………………………………………………
3.1.1 Electronic gauge ……………………………………………………
3.1.1.1 Procedure: ……………………………………………………
3.1.1.2 Applications of electronic gauge: ……………………………………
3.1.1.3 Benefits of electronic gauge: …………………………………………
3.1.1.4 Flowing Pressure and Temperature Surveys: ………………………
3.1.1.5 Plotting Survey Results: …………………………………………
3.1.2 Kick-over tool: ……………………………………………………
3.1.2.1 Running procedure: …………………………………………
3.1.2.2 Pulling procedure: …………………………………………
3.1.2.3 Application of kick-over tool: ………………………………………
3.1.2.4 Benefits: ……………………………………………………

3.1.3 Gauge cutter: ……………………………………………………

3.1.3.1 Applications of gauge cutters: ………………………………………

3.1.3.2 Benefits: ……………………………………………………

3.1.4 Jar: ……………………………………………………

3.1.4.1 Applications of Mechanical jar: ……………………………………
3.1.4.2 Benefits of Mechanical jar: …………………………………………

3.1.5 Coiled tubing: ……………………………………………………

3.1.5.1 Applications of Coiled tubing: ………………………………………
3.2 Equations of gas lift design: ……………………………………………………

3.2.1 Calculation of determining casing pressure at specific depth (mid perforations

depth): ……………………………………………………

3.2.2 Calculation of Fluid level depth: ……………………………………

3.3.3 Calculation of determining total Gas liquid ratio: …………………

3.3.4 Calculation of determining transfer line: ……………………………

3.3 Subsurface problems of Well-X1: ……………………………………………

3.3.1 Valve hung open: ……………………………………………………
3.3.2 Redesign: ……………………………………………………
3.3.3 Scale: ……………………………………………………
3.3.3.1 Inorganic scale: ……………………………………………………
3.3.3.1.1 Calcium carbonate scale: ………………………………………
3.3.3.1.2 Sulfate scale: ……………………………………………………

CHAPTER 4…………………………………………………………………………

4. Case study…………………………………………………………………………
4.1 Introduction: ……………………………………………………………………

4.2 Well history: ………………………………………………………………………

4.3 Production test of well-X1: ……………………………………………………

4.4 Case (1) valve hung open: ……………………………………………………

4.4.1 Production test before troubleshooting: ………………………………

4.4.2 Troubleshooting the well X-1: …………………………………………
4.4.2.1 Diagnostic survey: ……………………………………………
4.4.2.2 Procedure of troubleshooting: ……………………………………
4.4.2.3 Solution: ……………………………………………………

4.4.3 Production test after troubleshooting: ……………………………………

4.4.4 Diagram of Oil production rate before & after troubleshooting:……..

4.2 Case (2) redesign: …………………………………………………………………
 4.2.1 Production test before redesign: ………………………………………

4.2.2 Available Design Parameters: ……………………………………………

4.2.3 Manual gaslift design (design by hand): …………………………………

4.2.3.1 Calculated Design Parameters: ……………………………………
4.2.3.2 Final hand design: ………………………………………………

4.2.5 Comparison between hand and program design: ………………………

4.2.6 Well diagram after change to tubing-flow with true valves depths:

4.2.7 Production test after redesign: …………………………………………

4.2.8 Diagram of total production rate and injection gas before & after redesign: ……

4.6 Case (3) scale: ……………………………………………………………………

4.6.1 Production test before troubleshooting: …………………………………

4.6.2 Troubleshooting (3) of well X-1: …………………………………………
4.6.2.1 Indication of hard scale: ……………………………………………
4.6.2.2 Treatment of scale: ………………………………………………

4.6.2.2.1 Description: ……………………………………………………

4.6.2.2.2 Solubility: ……………………………………………………

4.6.2.2.3 Test Procedure: ………………………………………………

4.6.2.2.4 Results: ………………………………………………………

4.6.2.2.5 Conclusion: ……………………………………………………

4.6.2.2 Solution: ………………………………………………………

4.6.3 Production test after scale: ………………………………………
4.6.4 Diagram of total production rate and injection gas before & after troubleshooting:
4.6.5 Result: …………………………………………………………………
CHAPTER 5 ………………………………………………………
5. Conclusion and Recommendations ………………………………………………………
5.1 Conclusion ………………………………………………………
5.2 Recommendations ………………………………………………………
Reference ………………………………………………………

LIST OF TABLES

Table (2-1): Applications of gas lift. 5

Table (3-1): Gas column pressure.‫شارة ا'رجعية غير‬-‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Table (4-1): production test.‫شارة ا'رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬-‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Table (4-2): Production test‫شارة ا'رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬-‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Table (4-3): Production test.‫شارة ا'رجعية غير‬-‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Table (4-4): Design parameters.‫شارة ا'رجعية غير‬-‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Table (4-5): Valves depths & Temperatures.‫شارة‬-‫خطأ! ا‬
‫ا'رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬.
Table (4-6): Gas column pressure Valves depths (manual VS
program).‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Table (4-7): production test.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Table (4-8): production test.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Table (4-9): Solubility Results.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Table (4-10): Production test 5
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure (2-1): Definition of Gas Lift‫شارة ا*رجعية‬0‫خطأ! ا‬

‫غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (2-2) : Definition of Gas Lift‫شارة ا*رجعية‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (2-3): Gas lift installations‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (2-4): Gas Compression and Distribution System.
‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬.
Figure (2-5): Gas Lift Mandrel.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (2-6): Gas Lift Valves.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (2-7): Fluid Operated Valve and Pressure Operated
Valve.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Figure (2-8): Gas Lift Valves.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (2-9): gas lift system‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Figure (3-1): Electronic gauge‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (3-2): Flowing Pressure and Temperature Surveys.
‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬.
Figure (3-3): Gradient curves of pressure and temperature.
‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬.
Figure (3-4): kick-over tool.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (3-5): Kick-over tool running procedure.‫شارة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (3-6): Kick-over tool pulling procedure.‫شارة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (3-7): Gauge cutter.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Figure (3-8): mechanical jar.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (3-9): Coiled tubing.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Figure (3-10): Calcium carbonate.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (3-11): Barium sulfate‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-1): Well X1.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Figure (4-2): Oil, Water & Gas Production rate‫شارة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-3): GOR & Wc% Production test.‫شارة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-4): diagnostic survey.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-5): Diagnostic survey.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-6): Oil production diagram‫شارة ا*رجعية‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-7): Gas column pressure.‫شارة ا*رجعية‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-8): GLR curve.‫شارة ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬ .
Figure (4-9): Spacing gaslift design.‫شارة ا*رجعية‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-10): Well X-1 diagram after redesign.‫شارة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-11): Production rate & Injection gas.‫شارة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-12): Sample of hard scale.‫شارة ا*رجعية‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫غير مع ّرفة‬.
Figure (4-13): Production rate & Injection gas.‫شارة‬0‫خطأ! ا‬
‫ا*رجعية غير مع ّرفة‬.

NOMENCLATURES
Symbol Description Unit
AGL Artificial Gas Lift -
ID Inside Diameter in
API American Petroleum Institute -
FT Feet -
Fo Degrees Fahrenheit -
Co Degrees Celsius -
TD Total Depth ft
TVD True Vertical Depth ft
SWD Saltwater Disposal -
GOSP Gas oil separation plant -
KOD Knock Out Drum -
LCV Level control valve -
TEG Tri Ethylene Glycol -
IPO Injection Pressure Operated -
PPO Production Pressure Operated -
BFPD Barrel Fluid Per Day -
BLPD Barrel Liquid Per Day -
BPD Barrel Per Day -
Q Liquid Fow Rate BLPD
GLV Gas Lift Valve -
Ab Bellow Area In2
AP Port Area In2
KB Kelly Bosh ft
GL Ground Level ft
Psi Pound Per Square Inch -
Psi / ft pound per square inch Per feet -
Pt Tubing Pressure psi
Dv Depth of Valve ft
 Pko Pressure Kickoff psi
Pso Operating Surface Pressure psi
Pc Casing pressure psi
Pwh Wellhead Pressure psi
Gs Static Gradient For kill Fluid Psi/ ft
Gg Gas Gradient -
Wg Weight of Gas psi/ft
Gu Unloading gradient at desired production rate -
Pcf Injection Pressure at Valve Depth psi
PVC Valve closing pressure psi
Pinj Injection pressure psi
PI Productivity Index BLPD/PSI
SBHP Static Bottom Hole Pressure psi
FBHP Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure psi
Pwf Diwnhole Flowing Pressure psi
LV Level valve ft
SPF Shots Per Foot -
Rpm Revolutions Per Minute -
PVT Pressure, Volume, Temperature -

xi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction
1.1 Background:
Theoretically, oil is extracted from the reservoir by the stored energy of the compressed oil
in the reservoir. This energy is obtained by the difference between the reservoir and wellbore
pressures. If this difference is high enough, the well will be capable of producing naturally. Most
oil wells worldwide are producing naturally in their early lives.

After producing for a period of time, the reservoir pressure will decrease and as a result the
difference between reservoir and wellbore pressure will be small. So, the well will not be able to
lift oil up to surface, or it might lift oil to the surface but in less than economic volume. At this
stage, artificial lift can be utilized to overcome this issue by reducing the wellbore pressure. This
reduction will bring back the essential difference between the reservoir and wellbore pressure so
.oil can be extracted and lifted up to the surface

One of the most important roles of artificial lift is to maximize the production rate from flowing
wells. Artificial lift can be divided into two types, based on lifting mechanism: pumps and gas
lifting. The gas lifting method uses a compressed gas that is injected from the surface to certain
points in the tubing. This gas will lower the density of the fluid column in the tubing causing a
reduction in the wellbore pressure and therefore increasing production. As any facilities, gas lift
system may have troubles, which will effect on production rate. These Problems which occur in
gas lift system are widely ranged generally divided into three main areas inlet, outlet and
subsurface. However this project applied to study the subsurface gas lift troubleshooting in well
X-1 searching through its productivity history for any subsurface problems, in order to analyzing,
understanding and classifying the problems and then provides the appropriate solutions for these
problems. During studying the history of this well, three problems had been discovered 2007
valve hung open, 2009 redesign and within present time 2019 hard scale.

1.2 Objectives:
The main aims of the dissertation is troubleshooting the problems of well X-1 which is located in
Nafoora field. This study also seeks, investigation of objectives following:
• Understand fundamental of gas lift.
• Understand diagnostic pressure and temperature survey used in gas lift system.
• Mechanism of equipment used in troubleshooting well X-1.
• Basic information about gaslift spacing design calculation.
• Well X-1 used for case study.

University of Benghazi
Faculty of Engineering and Petroleum
Petroleum Engineering Department

CHAPTER 2

Overview of Gas lift system

2.1 Gas lift history:
Gas lifting of water with a small amount of oil used in the United States as early as 1846.
Compressed air is known to have been used earlier to lift water. In fact, it has been reported that
compressed air was used to lift water from wells in Germany as early as the eighteenth century.
These early systems operated in a very simple manner by the introduction of air down the tubing
and up the casing. Aeration of the fluid in the casing tubing annulus decreased the weight of the
fluid column so that fluid would rise to the surface and flow out of the well. The process was
sometimes reversed by injecting down the casing and producing through the tubing.

Air lift continued in use for lifting oil from wells by many operators, but it was not until the mid-
1920's that gas for lifting fluid became more widely available. Gas, being lighter than air, gave
better performance than air, lessened the hazards created by air when exposed to combustible
materials and decreased equipment deterioration caused by oxidation. During the 1930's, several
types of gas lift valves became available to the oil producing industry for gas lifting oil wells. Gas
lift was soon accepted as a competitive method of production, especially when gas at adequate
pressures was available for lift purposes.

Two trends have developed in recent years:

1. A larger percentage of oil produced is from wells whose reservoir energy has been depleted to
the point that some form of artificial lift is required.

2. The commercial value of gas in many areas has multiplied many times; with the increasing cost
of gas, gas used to produce oil has achieved recognition as a hydrocarbon of specific value. It
should be remembered that gas is not consumed during Gas lift. The energy contained in the
flowing gas is utilized but the net quantity remains the same.

2.2 Definition of gaslift:

Gas lift is the method of artificial lift which utilizes an external source of high pressure gas
for supplementing formation gas to reduce the bottom hole pressure and lift the well fluids. The
primary consideration in the selection of a gas lift system for lifting a well, group of wells, or an
entire field, is the availability of gas and the cost of compression.

In a typical gas lift system, compressed gas is injected through gas lift mandrels and valves into
the production string. Figure (2.1) illustrates a typical gas lift well. The injected gas lowers the
hydrostatic pressure in the production string to reestablish the required pressure differential
between the reservoir and wellbore, thus causing the formation fluids to flow to the surface.

2.3 Methods of gaslift:

Gas lift is a process of lifting fluids from a well by the continuous injection of high-
pressure gas to supplement the reservoir energy (continuous flow) or by injection gas beneath an
accumulated liquid slug for a short time to move the slug to the surface (intermittent lift). The two
types operate on different principles and it is always advisable to treat them as two separate
subjects.
In Continuous flow gas lift, the gas is injected into the liquid stream for the purpose of reducing
the density of the vertical liquid column sufficiently to allow the formation pressure to lift it to the
surface. This method is generally applied to higher capacity wells and can be used to produce
rates from 100 BFPD to 30000 BFPD; the flowing bottomhole pressure must be high enough to
support the flowing fluid column.
Intermittent flow gas lift, it is generally applied only when a limited amount of fluid is flowing
from the reservoir into the wellbore. Under these conditions it becomes necessary to wait until the
fluid volume builds up to a level worth lifting, then a slug of gas is injected down the annulus,
through a gas lift valve and into the tubing, where it pushes the liquid column to the surface as a
slug. This lift method requires a time cycle controller located at the surface on the gas injection
line. Because of its cyclic nature, intermittent lift is best suited to wells that produce at relatively
low rates. The production rate possible with intermittent lift depends on the amount of liquid
produced per cycle and the number of possible cycles per day. Under average conditions,
intermittent lift will
Produce rates from 1 BBL/D to 500 BBl/D. The principles of both continuous and intermittent
lifts are illustrated in Figure (2.2).

Figure (2.2) methods of gas lift

Figure Brown,(2.1) Kermit
Definition E. of Gas Lift
(1982).
Brown, Kermit E. (1982).
Although other types of artificial lift may offer certain advantages, gas lift is suitable for almost
every type of well to be placed on artificial lift. This is due to its flexibility in meeting changing
producing conditions.
The basic principles of natural flow and gas lift are essentially the same, i.e. density of the column
.is reduced and pressure raises the fluid to the surface
In addition to serving as a primary method of artificial lift, gas lift can also be used efficiently and
effectively to accomplish the following objectives:

1. To enable wells that will not flow naturally to produce.

2. To increase production rates in flowing wells.
3. To unload a well that will later flow naturally.
4. To remove or unload fluids from gas wells and to keep the gas well unloaded (usually
intermittent, but can be continuous.).
5. To back flow salt water disposal wells to remove sands and other solids that can plug the
perforations in the well.
Table (2.1) contains applications where gas lift excels.
 Table (2.1) Applications of gas lift
Brown, Kermit E. (1982).
2.4 Types gas lift installation:
In general, the type of installation is influenced principally by whether or not the well is to
be placed on intermittent or continuous flow. Also, the selection of the type of gas lift valve
depends on whether the well is to be placed on intermittent or continuous flow. Gas lift valves are
designed such that many perform similarly to a variable orifice for continuous flow. Depending
upon tubing pressure, they may also come to a wide open position for intermittent flow with a
large opening to supply gas quickly to the tubing string for removing a liquid slug.
Well conditions will dictate the installation type to a large degree. The type of completion, such as
open hole, is also important. In addition, conditions such as possible sand production and water
and/or gas coning are vital points influencing installation design.

The usual gas lift installation types are classified in two broad categories: tubing flow and casing
flow installations. The following sections give a detailed discussion of the most common versions

2.4.1 Tubing Flow Installations

In these installations lift gas is injected down the casing-tubing annulus and production
takes place through the tubing string.
Three general types of gas lift installations that can be considered for use on continuous flow
gas lift wells are briefly discussed here:

1. The open installation

2. The semi-closed installation

3. The closed installation

2.4.1.1 The Open Installation:

In open gas lift installations the tubing is simply hung inside the casing string and no
packer is run. Figure (2.3) at early times of gas lift, no gas lift valves were installed on the
tubing and lift gas entered well fluids at the tubing shoe. This solution resulted in poor
economics of gas usage. That is why today’s open installations contain gas lift valves. An
open installation without the use of gas lift valves is usually not recommended.
If gas lift valves are also run in an open installation, a substantial length of tubing should
extend below the operating valve. This prevents gas to be blown around the tubing shoe. The
fluid “seal” thus created permits a constant flowing bottomhole pressure independent of
injection pressure fluctuations.

This type of installation has the advantage of low cost and simplicity, but it has several
 drawbacks:

1. After shutdowns, well fluids rise in the annulus and the well should be unloaded to the
depth of the operating at the next startup.
2. During unloading, valves are exposed to liquid flow which can gradually damage them,
this effect usually result in the leaking and eventually failure of the valves.
3. During the period when gas is injected into the annulus, injection pressure can directly act
on the formation, and thus can inhibit the required reduction in bottomhole pressure. This
installation, therefore, restricts the increase of liquid production.
In conclusion, an open installation is not generally recommended even in case gas lift valves
are also applied.

2.4.1.2 The Semi-closed Installation:

This type of installation differs from the open installation by a packer set in the well.

Advantages:

1. The formation is sealed from injection pressure by the packer, thus injection
pressure cannot act on the formation.

2. Well fluids cannot enter the annulus during shutdowns, thereby simplifying and speeding
up well unloading operations.

Due to the injection pressure having no effect on bottomhole pressure, more liquid can be
lifted from the well, especially in wells exhibiting low bottomhole pressures. A great number
of intermittent wells are, therefore, produced with semi-closed installations.
:Disadvantages

In some intermittent wells which comes from the injection pressure acting on the.1
formation during the time the operating valve is open. This condition limits the decrease
attainable in the bottomhole pressures

2. Or, in weak formations, can result in backflow into the formation.

In wells having very low reservoir pressures these effects are more pronounced, and a closed
.installation is recommended

2.4.1.3 The Closed Installation:

A closed gas lift installation differs from a semi-closed one by the application of a
standing (check) valve at the tubing shoe. Most intermittent gas lift installations employ this
type of downhole construction.
The standing valve totally eliminates the effects of gas lift pressure on the formation.
Injection pressure in the annulus is isolated from the formation by the packer and in the
.tubing by the standing valve
2.4.2 Casing Flow Installation:
In casing flow installations gas is injected down the tubing and production rises in the
casing-tubing annulus. It is used in continuous flow gas lift wells producing very large liquid
.rates that exceed the capacity of the tubing string run in the well. No packer is run in the well
As is the case for tubing flow, it is not recommended to blow gas around the tubing shoe. That
is why the tubing is bull-plugged and injection gas can only enter the well through the gas lift
valves. Use of the bull plug also ensures that the tubing has not to be unloaded every time the
.well is shut down
Its main drawback is that the casing is exposed to well fluids restricting its use to non-
corrosive liquids.
 Figure (2.3) Gas lift installations
Brown, Kermit E. (1982)
2.5 Advantages of Gas Lift:

1. Subsurface gas lift equipment is relatively inexpensive.

2. Most efficient in wells that produce sand and have high gas/liquid ratio.
3. Flexible in meeting changing producing conditions.
4. Adaptable in crooked hole.
5. Capable of lifting large volumes of fluid.
6. Most gas lift valves are simple devices with few moving parts.
7. Gas lift valves may be wireline retrievable (without killing the well or pulling the tubing).

2.6 Disadvantages of gas lift:

1. Requires a continuous source of makeup gas.
2. High operating cost if makeup gas in purchased.
3. Safety hazards handling high pressure gas.
4. High initial investment.
5. Frequent optimization is required.
6. High operating cost with corrosive gases.
7. Wet gases without proper dehydration will reduce the reliability of gas lift operations.
2.7 Components of Gas Lift System:
The components of a gas lift system consist of:

• High pressure gas source (gas compressor) with distribution lines to conduct the gas to
the wellhead.
• Surface gas flow controllers, which can be located either at the wellhead or at the gas
 distribution manifold.
• Subsurface gas lift equipment and other subsurface equipment
• Flow lines, separation and storage facilities.
2.8 Gas Compression and Distribution System:
The primary consideration in the selection of a gas lift system for lifting a well, group of
wells, or an entire field, is the availability of gas and the cost of compressor. Most gas lift systems
are designed to recirculate lift gas. A typical gas compression and distribution system is composed
of a compressor and dehydration plant, manifolds, gas lines, meters, and rate control devices. This
system is illustrated in Figure 1.4. The low-pressure gas from the production separator is piped to
the suction of the compressor station. The high-pressure gas from the discharge of the compressor
station is injected into the well through a distribution line to lift the fluids from the well. The
compressor discharge pressure typically ranges from 800 to 2000 psig.
2.9 Gas Lift Equipment:
2.9.1 Surface gas lift controllers:
Surface controls may be simple or complex depending upon whether continuous lift or
intermittent lift and the degree of control desired by the operator.
The following are some important considerations for surface equipment:

1. Two pen recorder to indicate and record casing and tubing pressures.
2. Orifice meter to measure injection volume.
3. Orifice Run.
Oil
Gas export storage
4. Surface Control – May be choke,
pipeline intermitted, regulator or combination.
Injection
2.9.2Sub-surface
Gas Gas Lift Equipment:
2.9.2.1 Gas Lift Mandrels: Produced gas
The gas lift mandrel can be defined as a component that is used to house gas-lift
valves and similar devices that require communication with the annulus. Oil export
The mandrel may be
pipeline
divided into conventionalProducing
and retrievable types. The conventional mandrel (Figure 2.5)
becomes an integral part ofwells
the tubing. Gas lift valves must be installed on these mandrels
before tubing is run in the well, and the valves can be retrieved only when the tubing is
pulled. Produced
Several types of retrievable mandrels
fluids (Figure 2.5) are available but the most common is the
side pocket mandrel. The design of a side-pocket mandrel is such that the installed
Produced
components do not obstruct the production flow path,Gas enabling
and access
oil to the wellbore and
completion components below. oil
separator
Injection Gas
manifold Produced
Tubing and Water
casing
pressure
Production Water
manifold disposal
well

Metering and
control

Figure (2.4) Gas Compression and

Distribution System
Brown, Kermit
Retrievable E. (1982).
gas lift mandrel Conventional gas lift
mandrel

2.9.2.2 Gas lift valves:

Gas lift valves are placed inside the pockets of the mandrels, which are run in the
tubing string and are automatic in operation, opening and closing in response to preset
pressure.
2.9.2.2.1 Functions of gas lift valves:
1- Unload a well to a design depth of gas injection with the available injection gas pressure
at the well site.
2- Not re-open after the depth of gas injection transfers to the next lower valve.

2.9.2.2.2 Basic components of gas lift valves:

Most valve design uses the same basic components; only the arrangement of the
components may vary. The basic valve assembly usually includes the following parts:
1. The body.
2. The loading element (pressured nitrogen gas).
3. The responsive element (bellows).
4. Transmission element (stem).
5. The port (orifice).

2.9.2.3 Types of gas lift valves:

Figure (2.5) Gas Lift
Mandrel
Brown, Kermit E. (1982).
 The gas lift valves are classified to which casing pressure (pc) or tubing pressure (pt) are most
sensitive to, generally which pressure has the greater effect on the opening of the valve. The
pressure which is exposed to the largest area in the valve is the dominant pressure for that
valve.

Usually the gas lift valves classified into:

2.9.2.3.1 Casing pressure operated valve (pressure valve):

50% to 100% sensitive to pc in close position 100% sensitive to pc in opened position.
It is most widely used for continuous gas lift system.
2.9.2.3.2 Throttling pressure valve, or continuous flow valve:
In closed position it is the same with pressure valve 100% sensitive to pt. it requires a
build–up in pc to open and a reduction in pt or pc to close.
2.9.2.3.3 Fluid operated valve:
50% to 100% sensitive to pt in closed position 100% sensitive to pt in opened position.
It requires a build –up in pt to open and a reduction in pt to close.
2.9.2.3.4 Combination valve:
Figure
It requires a build-up (2.6)
in fluid Gas toLift
pressure openValves
and a reduction in casing or tubing
pressure close. This type of valve is commonly used in intermittent gas lift installations
Brown,
because they are designed Kermit
to have main E. (1982).
port area.
2.9.2.3.5 Casing pressure operated valve:
In the casing pressure operated valve, the bellows is charged with nitrogen injected into
the dome at a specific pressure to push the stem down and keep the valve in close position at
normal condition.
Pressure valve operation in the closed position:
• Casing pressure acts on the bellows casing and tubing pressure acts on the ball.
• When the combined forces of casing pressure and tubing pressure are greater than the
dome pressure, the valve opens.
• When the valve is open, casing pressure is pressure is acting on the ball and the
bellows.
Since the bellows area is much greater than the port area, it follows that the casing pressure is
controlling the operation of the valve.
Obviously, the valve requires a build–up in casing pressure to open and a reduction in casing
pressure to close.

Figure (2.7) Fluid Operated Valve and Pressure

Operated Valve
Brown, Kermit E. (1982).

2.10 Subsurface gaslift Troubleshooting:

 The term Troubleshooting is refer to a form of problem solving, often applied to repair
failed products or processes on a machine or a system. It is a logical, systematic search for the
source of a problem in order to solve it, and make the product or process operational again.
Troubleshooting is needed to identify the symptoms. Determining the most likely cause is
a process of elimination potential causes of a problem. Finally, troubleshooting requires
confirmation that the solution restores the product or process to its working state.
In general, troubleshooting is the identification or diagnosis of "trouble" in the management flow
of a system caused by a failure of some kind. The problem is initially described as symptoms of
malfunction, and troubleshooting is the process of determining and remedying the causes of these
symptoms

2.10.1 Gas lift troubleshooting:

Gas lift problems are usually associated with three areas: inlet, outlet, and downhole.
More often than not, the problem can be found at the surface. Thoroughly explore all potential
surface problems before incurring the expense of a wireline rig to investigate downhole
causes. However this study applied only on subsurface troubleshooting, so all the surface
equipment of gas lift system are considered working well.

Figure (2.9) gas lift system

Schlumberger. (1999).
2.10.3 Gas-Lift Troubleshooting Consists of:
2.10.2.1 Data gathering:
Data collection is the process of gathering and measuring information on variables of
interest, in an established systematic fashion that enables one to answer stated research
questions, test hypotheses, and evaluate outcomes.
2.10.2.2 Analysis:
Activity for gaining insight from data. Data analysis is a process of inspecting,
cleansing, transforming and modeling data with the goal of discovering useful information,
informing conclusion and supporting decision-making.

Figure (2.8) Gas Lift

Valves 2.10.2.3
:Implementation

Brown,
Implementation is the realization of an application, or Kermit
execution of E.model,
a plan, idea,
design, specification, standard, algorithm, or policy.
. (1982)
Problems which occurs inside the well with gas lift system are long lists with variable causes,
there are problems occurs with valves or with tubing, another problems might occurs due to
well conditions or poor calculation of designing. Examples for these Problems not Inventory;
Hole in tubing, Well blowing dry gas, Well will not take any input gas, Well flowing in heads,
Valve spacing too wide. These Problems are for knowledge only. As this study applied only
on specific will (Well-X1) in Nafoora field, the previous problems will not be included or
explained. Otherwise, three subsurface problems (valve hung open, redesigning and scale)
which this study applied for, will be discussed in details in chapter 3.
 CHAPTER 3

Methodology
The methodology for this study explains the equipment and technique that have been
applied in this study as well as understanding the applications of these equipment, with
understanding the equation and investigation about major consideration design of continuous flow.
The methodology of this study is divided into three main groups starting with equipment, gas-lift
design equations and an explanation of the three problems which this study aims to fix them.

3.1 Equipment:
The equipment that have been used either for data extraction (testing), understanding the
problems or were necessary to solve the problems of this study, are five specific equipment,
shown as following:
3.1.1 Electronic gauge:
Is a stick-shape sensor equipped with a battery and download inside the well to
measure the pressure and temperature. This device has a memory inside which record the
measurement of pressure and temperature at certain depths and gives them in an excel sheet
which shows the relation of depth, temperature and pressure. The main purpose from this
devise is to determine if there is any problems with the valves in the well.
 Figure (3.1) Electronic gauge
Nafora field. (2019).
3.1.1.1 Procedure:

1. The gauge should be calibrated under normal conditions, (atmospheric pressure

and room temperature).

2. Ensure that the battery is full charged.

3. The points in the well that needed to be measure must be located with their exact
depths, (usually 50 feet above each valve in the well and 50 feet below).

4. The device is lowered into the well through Slick-line unite to the marked depths.
5. At each given depth, the downloading should be stop for 5 minutes, letting the
pressure and temperature to be measure by the gauge.

6. The gauge is then removed from the well.

7. After removing, the device is turned off and the memory is taken to the computer
for the data to be extracted.
The slip equation ( ) is then used in both pressure and temperature in order to make a diagram
to both pressure and temperature with depth.

3.1.1.2 Applications of electronic gauge:

Measuring pressure and temperature inside the well.

3.1.1.3 Benefits of electronic gauge:

Gives the exact measurements in an excel sheet.

Perfect for critical well testing.

3.1.1.4 Flowing Pressure and Temperature Surveys:

A flowing pressure survey provides the most complete and accurate representation of
downhole conditions of any methods used for gas lift analysis. A flowing survey describes
what is occurring in a system so that predictions can be made as to well performance when
the conditions are altered.

Figure (3.2) Flowing Pressure and Temperature Surveys

Nafora field. (2007).
From a graphical plot of a flowing pressure survey the following determinations can usually
be made:

1. The point of operation.

2. The flowing bottomhole pressure.
3. The P.I. of the well when test data and static bottomhole pressure data is made available
 along with the following pressure data.

4. The confirmation and location of gas leaks.

5. Multi-point injection.

3.1.1.5 Plotting Survey Results:

The results of flowing pressure surveys are plotted on graph paper, along with other
wellhead pressure data, to produce gradient curves. The plotted gradients allow visual
interpretation of all the data.

Figure (3.3) Gradient curves of pressure and temperature.

Nafora field. (2007).
3.1.2 Kick-over tool:

Kickover tool is an apparatus for placing a valve in or removing a valve from an offset
side pocket in a well tubing and having a support body. The kickover tool can be run into the
well using standard slickline methods. When the locating finger of the tool contacts the stop
in the orienting guide sleeve in the mandrel, the kick spring pivots the lower section of the
tool, the running tool, and the valve into the kicked-over position. The orienting guide sleeve
in the mandrel ensures correct installation. Once the slickline device is installed, a shear pin in
the finger housing and the release plunger assembly are sheared, permitting the tool to be
returned to the surface.
 Figure (3.4) kick-over tool
Diana w. (2019).
3.1.2.1 Running procedure:

In the running procedure, the valve, latch, and kickover tool are made up onto the slickline
tool string and lowered through the tubing until the tool is below the selected mandrel (Fig.
3.5 A).
The kickover tool is slowly raised through the tubing until the finger on the tool contacts the
orienting sleeve slot and stops.
Tension is placed on the slickline tool string by pulling until the tool releases and kicks over
(Fig. 3.5 B).
The tools are then lowered until a loss of weight indicates that the tool has located the side
pocket of the mandrel.
Downward jarring drives the valve and latch into the side pocket mandrel (Fig. 3.5 C).
Upward jarring shears a pin in the latch and releases the running tool from the valve and latch
(Fig. 3.5 D).
The tool string can then be retrieved from the well.
 Figure (3.5) Kick-over tool running procedure
Oilog. (2016).

3.1.2.2 Pulling procedure:

The kickover tool and pulling tool are made up onto the slickline tool string and lowered
through the tubing until the tool is below the selected mandrel (Fig. 3.6 A).
The kickover tool is slowly raised through the tubing until the finger on the tool contacts the
orienting sleeve slot and stops.
Tension is placed on the slickline tool string by pulling until the tool releases and kicks over
(Fig.3.6 B).
The tools are then lowered until a loss of weight indicates that the tool has located the side
pocket of the mandrel.
Downward jarring securely connects the pulling tool to the latch (Fig. 3.6 C). Upward jarring
shears a pin in the latch and releases the valve from the mandrel (Fig. 3.6 D). The tool string
and valve can then be retrieved from the well.
 Figure (3.6) Kick-over tool pulling procedure
Oilog. (2016).

3.1.2.3 Application of kick-over tool:

o Installation and retrieval of side pocket devices by standard slickline methods.

3.1.2.4 Benefits:

o Field-proven design made with especially hardened material for durability.

3.1.3 Gauge cutter:
A gauge cutter is a tool with a round, open-ended bottom which is milled to an
accurate size. Large openings above the bottom of the tool allow for fluid bypass while
running in the hole. Most often a gauge ring will be the first tool ran on a slickline operation.
A gauge ring that is just undersized will allow the operator to ensure clear tubing down to the
deepest projected working depth; for example 2 7/8" tubing containing 2.313" profiles would
call for a gauge ring between 2.25" - 2.30". A gauge ring can also be used to remove light
paraffin that may have built up in the tubing. Often a variety of different sized gauges and/or
scratchers will be run to remove paraffin little by little. Gauge cutter can be used for drift runs
also.

Figure (3.7) Gauge cutter

DTI. (2019).
3.1.3.1 Applications of gauge cutters:

o Gauge Cutters are run in hole before running sub surface equipment.
 o Gauge Cutters are used to check if sub surface equipment can pass freely thru
tubing & there are no obstructions and to locate top of nipple.

o The bottom of Gauge Cutter is suitable to cut paraffin, scale and any other
obstacles in tubing.

3.1.3.2 Benefits:

o Gauge and scrape clean paraffin, wax and other debris from inside the wall of the
completion tubing string.

o Ensures there is no impeding matter before running or pulling an sub surface

control.

3.1.4 Jar:
Slickline tools operate with a mechanical action, controlled from surface in the
A trucks operators compartment.
wireline B Typically,Cthis mechanical action
D is accomplished by
the operation of jars. There are generally two types of jars; mechanical and hydraulic.
Mechanical jars look like a long, tubular piece of machined metal that slides longer or shorter
approximately 75% to 90% of its total length. They give the effect of hammering on the
downhole tools. The weight or hit of the 'hammer' depends on how much sinker bar is added
above the jars. Generally, a slickline operator controls the downhole tools with taps and hits
from the sinker bar via the mechanical jars, controlled at surface by lowering or raising the
tool string and monitoring weight, depth, and pressure. Mechanical jars for slickline can hit
up or down the hole, making them a versatile form of jarring.

A B C
D

Figure (3.8) mechanical jar

Petroleum Base. (2020).
Mechanical jar and hydraulic jar hitting power is affected by the length of the jars (the longer
the length, they faster they can travel before they stop), the mass of the weight above them
(the more the mass, the harder they will hit), and the tension of the line pulling on them.

3.1.4.1 Applications of Mechanical jar:

o The Upstroke jars are used in Wireline operations to aid with pulling sub-surface
devices my means of an upwards jarring action.

o Jarring forces are changed by replacing the tension spring.

o Springs available are: 200lbs, 400lbs, 700lbs and 1000lbs.

3.1.4.2 Benefits of Mechanical jar:

o Can be run in gas wells with no problems

3.1.5 Coiled tubing:

In the oil and gas industries, coiled tubing refers to a very long metal pipe, normally 1
 to 3.25 in (25 to 83 mm) in diameter which is supplied spooled on a large reel. It is used
for interventions in oil and gas wells and sometimes as production tubing in depleted gas
wells. Coiled tubing is often used to carry out operations similar to wirelining. The main
benefits over wireline are the ability to pump chemicals through the coil and the ability to
push it into the hole rather than relying on gravity. Pumping can be fairly self-contained,
almost a closed system, since the tube is continuous instead of jointed pipe. A coiled tubing
operation is normally performed through the drilling derrick on the oil platform, which is used
to support the surface equipment, although on platforms with no drilling facilities a self-
supporting tower can be used instead. Onshore, they can be run using smaller service rigs, and
for light operations a mobile self-contained coiled tubing rig can be used.
The tool string at the bottom of the coil is often called the bottomhole assembly (BHA). It can
range from something as simple as a jetting nozzle, for jobs involving pumping chemicals or
cement through the coil, to a larger string of logging tools, depending on the operations.

Figure (3.9) Coiled tubing

Schlumberger. (2020).
3.1.5.1 Applications of Coiled tubing:

✓ Circulation.
✓ Coiled Tubing Drilling.
✓ Logging and perforating.
✓ Production.
✓ Pumping.
Pumping through coiled tubing can also be used for dispersing fluids to a specific location in
the well such as for cementing perforations or performing chemical washes of down-hole
components such as sand-screens. In the former case, coiled tubing is particularly
advantageous compared to simply pumping the cement from surface as allowing it to flow
through the entire completion could potentially damage important components, such as the
down-hole safety valve. Coiled tubing umbilical technologies enable the deployment of
complex pumps which require multiple fluid strings on coiled tubing. In many cases, the use
of coiled tubing to deploy a complex pump can greatly reduce the cost of deployment by
eliminating the number of units on site during the deploy.

Coiled tubing had also been used as a cheaper version of work-over operations. It is used to
perform almost any operation for oil well operations if used correctly.

3.2 Equations of gas lift design:

This portion provides an explanation about equations and calculation that had been used for
this study in case 2 the redesigning.

3.2.1 Calculation of determining casing pressure at specific depth (mid perforations

depth):
 o Pcf @ depth = pc @ surface × (1+f).

Where:

o pcf @ depth: casing pressure at specific depth.

COILED
TUBING
o Pc @ surface: casing pressure at surface.
o F: factor can be extracted from Gas column pressure.

Table (3.1) Gas column pressure

Elsevier. (2016).
3.2.2 Calculation of Fluid level depth:

o Fluid level depth = mid perfs depth – dynamic head

Where:

o Dynamic head =

Their by:

o PWF = flowing bottom hole pressure.

o = well fluid gradient.

Where, can be calculated by:

o .

o Wc = water cut.

o Ws.g = water specific gravity.

o Oil percentage from total production.

o Os.g = oil specific gravity.

o 0.435 = a constant in the equation.

 3.3.3 Calculation of determining total Gas liquid ratio:

o Total gas liquid ratio = injected gas liquid ratio + formation gas liquid ratio

Their by:

o Injected gas liquid ratio

o Formation gas liquid ratio

3.3.4 Calculation of determining transfer line:

o Transfer pressure @ surface

Where:

o WHP = well head pressure.

o Pc @ surface: casing pressure at surface.

3.3 Subsurface problems of Well-X1:

This portion provides an accurate information about three problems that was included in this
study. However, these three problems will be included in the next chapter with practical examples
and the procedure of troubleshoot them.

3.3.1 Valve hung open:

This case can be identified when the casing pressure will bleed below the surface
closing pressure of any valve in the hole but tests to determine if a hole exists show that no
hole is present. Try shutting the wing valve and allowing the casing pressure to build up as
high as possible, then open the wing valve rapidly. This action will create high differential
pressures across the valve seat, removing any trash that may be holding it open. Repeat the
process several times if required. In some cases valves can be held open by salt deposition,
and pumping several barrels of fresh water into the casing will solve the problem. If the
above actions do not help, a cut out or flat valve may be the cause.
3.3.2 Redesign:
Normally when a well producing for a long time the performance will change due to
changes in reservoir conditions, there for the production index (PI) will decrease, the
formation pressure will decrease and the percentage of water cut (Wc) will increase. If the
well was initially set on gas lifting method according to a previous behavior to the well
(reservoir conditions), when the performance changes the previous design will not be
effectual with the new condition (new well data). For that, a new design must be done with
the new performance (well data), in order to make sure the well gives the best production with
lowest amount of injected gas.
3.3.3 Scale:
Is a common term in the oil industry used to describe solid deposits that grow over
time, blocking and hindering fluid flow through pipelines, valves, pumps etc. with significant
reduction in production rates and equipment damages.
.Two main classifications of scales are known; organic and inorganic scales
3.3.3.1 Inorganic scale:
Inorganic scales refer to mineral deposits that occur when the formation water mixes
with different brines such as injection water. The mixing changes causes reaction between
incompatible ions and changes the thermodynamic and equilibrium state of the reservoir
fluids. The most common types of inorganic scales known to the oil/gas industry are
carbonates and sulfates; sulfides and chlorites are often encountered.
3.3.3.1.1 Calcium carbonate scale:
Calcium carbonate, the most common scale in oil and gas field operations, occurs in
every geographical area. Calcium carbonate precipitation occurs when calcium ion is
combined with either carbonate or bicarbonate ions.
 Figure (3.10) carbonate
Suez. (2020).
Water with high solvation power can dissolve certain gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) to
form aqueous CO2 (aq). Under the right conditions of temperature and/or pressure, H2O and
CO2 (aq) molecules react to yield carbonic acid (H2CO3) whose solubility increases at low
temperature and high pressure. The slightest changes in pressure and temperature dissolves
H2CO3 (aq) in water according to equation (3) to form hydronium and bicarbonate (HCO3−
(aq)) ions.

1. CO2(aq) + H2O(l) ↔ H2CO3(aq).

2. H2CO3(aq) ↔ H+(aq) + HCO3−(aq).
3. 2HCO3−(aq) ↔ CO32−(aq) + H2O(l) + CO2(g).
4. Ca2+(aq) + CO32−(aq) ↔ CaCO3(s).
3.3.3.1.2 Sulfate scale:
The most difficult inorganic scales and the hardest to be removed are those of Barium
sulfate because of its high insolubility forming very hard scale deposits. Due to its relatively
high solubility in water, Calcium sulfate is the easiest sulfate scale to remove chemically as
compared to strontium and barium sulfate. Sulfate scale usually forms when formation water
and injected seawater are mixed together, it’s very common in reservoirs where seawater has
been injected to enhance oil recovery.

Figure (3.11) Barium sulfate

Nafora field. (2019).
 CHAPTER 4

Case study
4.1 Introduction:
Nafoora field continued Arabian Gulf oil company affiliates for the National Oil Institution,
the field was established 1965.

The field is located in the southeast of Benghazi, Field productivity is about 40,000 barrels per
day.

Figure (4.1) Well X1

.Nafora field. (1998)
4.2 Well history:
The subject well was drilled during the period of March 05 to 26, 1969 to the total depth
9206' as TBG oil production.

The well was completed on April 04, 1969. The hole was cleaned up to 8764'. The interval of Har
8670-8710' was perforated at 2 SPF.It was swab tested. The well flowed naturally at 300 psi to pit.
It was put on production.
On June 20, 1977, the well was cleaned up to the PBTD. 2 7/8'' completion string with gas lift
mandrels was installed.
In the remedial work of October 1986, the obstruction and fill was cleaned up from 8613' to 8725'.
The casing was pressure tested to 1000 psi at 8655'. The 2 7/8' completion string consisting of gas
lift mandrels, R/F nipples and perforated was run. During the workover of April 25, June 05,
2003, well was cleaned up to 8672'. The depth intervals 8564-8582', 8588-8618' and 8636-8654'
were perforated at 6 SPF. The lower two sets perforation intervals 8636-8654' and 8670-8710'
were swab tested. The swab test was resulted in good influx. The 2 7/8'' completion string was
run. It was consisted of 2 7/8'' tubing with five gas lift mandrels and R/F nipples.

4.3 Production test of well-X1:

In the oil industry, it is recommended to use portable test separator every month, in order to
determine flow rate of each phase on the well. Given data of 17 years in X1 well was plotted as
shown in figure (4.2 and 4.3).

Figure (4.2) show oil, water and gas production where oil rate was 1611 BOPD on Dec 2002 and
dropped at 1023 BOPD by 2019. Figure (4.3) show water cut and GOR kept within the range for
those 17 years around 55% and 55% Mscf/BOPD. Also, the injected gas kept around one millions
of cubic feet.
Downhole Diagram
Well X-1

Figure (4.2) Oil, Water & Gas Production rate

 Figure (4.3) GOR & Wc% Production test

4.4 Case (1) valve hung open:

4.4.1 Production test before troubleshooting:

On 2006, X1 well considers productive well where it producing with 953 BOPD, but
production rate dropped to 603 BOPD on 2007.
CSG.PRE
TBG.PRE
CHOCKE
GOR
PR.GAS
Inj.GAS
BOPD
%
BFPD
W.C
Data
CF/BBL
PSI
SIZE
PSI
MCFMCF

1250
140
1029.5
192
2006-12-6
531
506
63.7
2627
953

1240
130
2007-01-01
1004.4
540.3
192
566
65.5
2767
953

1250
130
2007-02-02
192
575
502
981
872
632387

1250
130
2007-05-06
452.6
192
992.8
544
66.3
2466
831
1170
150
2007-07-04
487.5
192
820.8
588
69.4
2715
829
1230
150
2007-08-27
1048.5
367.6
192
609
69.4
1971
603

Table (4.1) production test

The sudden dropping in production rate indicates a problem within the well, which requires
an immediate troubleshooting to the well.

4.4.2 Troubleshooting the well-X1:

After troubleshooting on surface facilities and check the injected gas, it confirmed that
problem in downhole. Diagnostic survey in the only technique can help to know the probable
function of the valves in their mandrel.

4.4.2.1 Diagnostic survey:

An electronic gauge had been lowered inside the well for diagnostic survey to be
made.

Figure (4.4) diagnostic survey

Nafora field. (2007).
From figure (4.4) it can understand that both valve 1 and 2 has a leak (valve hung open),
which cause the decrease in production rate.
 4.4.2.2 Procedure of troubleshooting:

First the well had been rocked by closing wing valve allowing the pressure to build up
and then wing valve had been opened rapidly, in order to clean valve seat from any trash that
may be holding it open. After that a diagnostic survey had been done, and the problem did not
fixed. In this case the valves must be changed.

4.4.2.3 Solution:

Gas lift valves replaced and well put on production. Another diagnostic survey
performed as show in figure (4.5) and it confirm that valves are working probably as needed.

Figure (4.5) Diagnostic survey

Nafora field. (2007)
4.4.3 Production test after troubleshooting:

After troubleshooting flow rate was increased by 239 BOPD as shown in the figure
below.
CSG.PRE
TBG.PRE
CHOCKE
GOR
PR.GAS
Inj.GAS
BOPD
%
BFPD
W.C
Data
CF/BBL
PSI
SIZE
PSI
MCFMCF

1220
999.2
210
16-11-2007
488.8
192
70.3
580
2839
842

1240
230
1042.1
554.1
192
577
14-1-2008
68.4
3045
960

1400
230
486.9
192
532
1036
5-4-2008
915
692958

1220
220
192
29-9-2008
571
1184
516
2916
902
69

Table (4.2) Production test

4.4.4 Diagram of Oil production rate before & after troubleshooting:
 Figure (4.6) Oil production diagram

4.2 Case (2) redesign:

The redesign is much close to the improvement of well productivity and performance rather
than troubleshooting.
In this case the well was annuls-flow, and this study aims to redesign it to tubing-flow, taken in
concern it's limited by spacing design only. Well
X-1
4.2.1 Production test before redesign:
CSG.PRE
TBG.PRE
CHOCKE
GOR
PR.GAS
Inj.GAS
BOPD
BFPD
% W.C
Data
CF/BBL
PSI
SIZE
PSI
MCFMCF diag
nosti
c
surve
1220
210
488.8
192
999.2
580
70.3
16-11-2007
2839
842 y

230
1240
14-01-2008
1042.1
554.1
192
577
68.4
3045
960

1400
230
05-04-2008
486.9
192
532
1036
2958
915
69

1220
220
29-09-2008
192
571
1184
516
2916
902
69

1210
230
05-02-2009
471.9
192
554
1237
69.4
2783
851

Table (4.3) Production test

4.2.2 Available Design Parameters:

In the following table (4.4) is a summary of the most important parameters production
for calculation re-design to the well:

INJECTION GAS
SP GRAVITY 0.80 Gas Specific Gravity
MCF/D 1300 Available injected gas
TUBING / CASING
IN 3.5 Tubing O.D
IN 2.992 Tubing I.D
FT 8610 Mid perforation depth ( mid
perfs )
WELL
DEG F 80 Surface Temperature

DEG F 220 Bottom Hole Temperature

FLOWING CONDITION
Annuls flow Flow Type
PSI 150 WHP
PSI 1250 Pressure @ surface
PSI 2634 Bottom Hole Pressure
SP.GR 0.85 Oil Specific Gravity
AV.SP.GR 1.07 Water Specific Gravity
FRACTION 50% Water Cut
BFPD/PSI 3 Productivity Index (J)
CF/BBL 554 Produced GOR
BFPD 3000 Liquid Rate
STATIC CONDITION
PSI/FT 0.465 Fluid gradient kill
PSI 3513 Bottom hole pressure
 Table (4.4) Design parameters

4.2.3 Manual gaslift design (design by hand):

This portion provides a step by step of designing until the final spacing design to get
the depths of each valves and how many valves are needed in this well.
4.2.3.1 Calculated Design Parameters:
• Pcf @ depth = pc @ surface × (1+f)

Figure (4.7) Gas column pressure

Elsevier. (2016).
Pcf @ depth=1250 Psi × (1+0.27) = 1587.5 PSI

• Transfer pressure @ surface

Transfer pressure @ surface

• Fluid level depth = mid perfs depth – dynamic head

A. Dynamic head =
B.
0.435
= 0.4176
Dynamic head = = 6226ft
Fluid level depth = 8610ft – 6226ft = 2383ft

• Total gas liquid ratio = injected gas liquid ratio + formation gas liquid ratio
A. Injected gas liquid ratio = 433.333 CF/BFPD
B. Formation gas liquid ratio = 157 CF/BFPD
C. Total gas liquid ratio = 433.33 CF/BFPD + 157 CF/BFPD = 590.33 CF/BFPD

Figure (4.8) GLR curve

Schlumberger. (1989).

4.2.3.2 Final hand design:

 Figure (4.9) Spacing gaslift design
VALVE DEPTH (FT) TEMPERATURE AT VALVE DEPTH
(F)
2700 120
4070 140
5140 160
5875 170
6450 180
Table (4.5) Valves depths & Temperatures
4.2.5 Comparison between hand and program design:

VALVE DEPTH BY HAND (FT) VALVE DEPTH BY PROGRAM (FT)

2700 2625
4070 4087
5140 5095
5875 5763
6450 6186
Table (4.6) Valves depths (manual VS program)
4.2.6 Well diagram after change to tubing-flow with true valves depths:

Figure (4.10) Well X-1 diagram after redesign

Nafora field. (2009).

4.2.7 Production test after redesign:

CSG.PRE
TBG.PRE
CHOCKE
GOR
PR.GAS
Inj.GAS
BOPD
%
BFPD
W.C
Data
CF/BBL
PSI
SIZE
PSI
MCFMCF
 930
240
14-07-2009
963.3
192
502.2
587
26.1
1641
2222

950
280
15-07-2009
985.3
192
753.3
590
26.6
1669
2273

990
320
16-07-2009
996.5
192
967.9
581
25.4
1713
2299

290
1050
1006.8
17-07-2009
192
585
1241
24.8
1721
2291

1035
250
20-10-2009
970.4
192
979.3
574
31.7
1689
2487

930
240
02-01-2010
981.8
192
986.6
543
33.7
1640
2475

Table (4.7) Production test

4.2.8 Diagram of total production rate and injection gas before & after redesign:

Figure (4.11) Production rate & Injection gas

4.6 Case (3) scale:
4.6.1 Production test before troubleshooting:
CSG.PRE
TBG.PRE
CHOCKE
GOR
PR.GAS
Inj.GAS
BOPD
%BFPD
W.CData

CF/BBL
PSI
SIZE
PSI
MCF
MCF

1120
120
537.9
192
542
1004
991.7
57.7
18-04-2019
2345.5

1040
140
565.6
192
571
968
57.6
09-05-2019
2337.8
990

1140
140
552.4
192
585
1000
943.8
58.9
20-06-2019
2299.9

1150
150
531.1
192
581
913.5
954
58.5
25-07-2019
2203.9

1030
130
1054.7
501.8
192
557
900.52
60.8
16-09-2019
2302.1

Table (4.8) Production test

4.6.2 Troubleshooting (3) of well X-1:

4.6.2.1 Indication of hard scale:

Until 2019 the well X-1 was producing total liquids about 2300 B/D. By the end of
2019 a diagnostic survey supposed to be mad to the well as a periodicity testing to well.
Before the electronic gauge is lowered inside the tubing, a control tubing test had been done
on the well-x1. A different sizes of gauge cutter had been lowered inside the well, started with
a 2.87" gauge cutter lowered inside the tubing with a mechanical jar, they stopped at 2 ft from
ground level, hand jarring had been done inside the well three times, no passing. After that, a
2.24" gauge cutter lowered inside the tubing with a mechanical jar, they stopped at 3 ft from
ground level, hand jarring had been done inside the well several times, no passing. In the end,
a 1.81" gauge cutter lowered inside the tubing with a mechanical jar, had been reached tagged
bottom at 8668 ft from ground level, freely passing.

The previous control tubing tests indicates partially chocking inside tubing by hard scale.

After indication of hard scale, full sample had been taken at wellhead, then it sent to the lab
for test in order to select the suitable chemical for treatment.

4.6.2.2 Treatment of scale:

4.6.2.2.1 Description:

A sample of hard scale from well X-1 brought to the Lab to perform solubility test.
The sample mainly hard cut it has dark brown to black color and it shown no magnetic
reaction.

Figure (4.12) Sample of hard scale

Sapesco. (2017).
4.6.2.2.2 Solubility:
Treating Fluids had been done for test:

HCL Acid 15%

HCL Acid 7.5%

4.6.2.2.3 Test Procedure:

1. Weight sample portion.

2. Add to the treating fluid.
3. Shake for 1 minute.
4. Condition at temp 185 deg F in water bath for one hour.
5. Observe the behavior of the mixture.
6. Filter the mixture using pre-wieghed crucible.
7. Put the crusible contaning remnents in the oven to dry it.
8. Weight the remnents sample.
9. Calculate the percent solubility using the following formula:
 Solubility (%) = {(Weight of sample – Weight of residue)/ Weight of sample} x 100%

4.6.2.2.4 Results:

TREATING FLUID SOLUBILITY

1 HCL Acid 15% 86%

2 HCL Acid 7.5% 78%

Table (4.9) Solubility Results

4.6.2.2.5 Conclusion:

o The cutting sample showed very quick and strong reaction with Acid HCL 15%
indicating that the main components of the sample are probebly Calcium carbonate &
Iron Sulfate (Rotten egg smell), and with 7.5% start with quick reaction but it getting
slower by the time pass.

o The both tests done at 185 deg F the maximum temp we can go in the water bath,
however the solution suspected will react quicker and might show more percentage of
solubility at down hole temperature (220 deg F).

4.6.3.2 Solution:
A chemical with HCl 15% had been pumped inside tubing using coiled tubing for 24
hours. After that, another control tubing had been done to the well to insure wither the scale
was removed or not. A 2.87" gauge cutter had been lowered inside the tubing and reached
tagged bottom at 8650 ft from ground level, freely passing with no restriction.

4.6.4 Production test after scale:

CSG.PRE
TBG.PRE
CHOCKE
GOR
PR.GAS
Inj.GAS
BOPD
%BFPD
W.CData

CF/BBL
PSI
SIZE
PSI
MCF
MCF

1240
547.7
210
498.8
128
803.6
68.63
910.7
26-12-2019
2904

1170
517.9
108
508.08
517.9
128
70.66
746.3
27-12-2019
2547

1320
1066.97
561.7
230
513.6
128
914.39
72.41
28-12-2019
3313.7

1220
140
549.2
128
571
960.7
508
72.8
01-01-2020
3539.8

1240
170
915.5
128
544
991.7
517
71.3
3487
23-01-2020

Table (4.10) Production test

4.6.4 Diagram of total production rate and injection gas before & after troubleshooting:

Figure (4.13) Production rate & Injection gas

4.6.5 Result:
After troubleshooting the well productivity was increased nearly by 1200 BFPD with low gas
injection about 500 MCF.
 CHAPTER 5

Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion:

5.2 Recommendations:

REFRENCESS
Brown. K.E, et al. (1980). The technology of artificial lift methods, Tulsa
.Oklahoma
Blann .J.R, et al. (1983). Determining the most profitable gas injection
.pressure for gas lift installation, SPE
American Petroleum Institute. (1989). Recommended Practice for Operation,
.Maintenance, and Trouble-shooting of Gas Lift Installations
.G. Forero, et al. (1993). Artificial lift manual – Gas lift design guide, Shell
API gas lift manual subsurface survey Book 6 of the Vocational Training
Series Third Edition. (1994).
Schlumberger. (1999). Gas lift Design and Technology(313).
BunhananMik. (1994). Gas lift design and technology manual,
.Schlumberger
Jonathan Bellarby Elsevier. (2009). Well Completion Design.
Mohammed, Ehsan. (2016). Gas Allocation Optimization Methods in
.Artificial Gas Lift
Data base section. (2016). (file room) @ Production engineering department
in Nafoora oil field (Arabian Gulf oil company).
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, (2010). Gas-Lift Applications
Seminar.
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL. (2012). Operation & Troubleshooting.
G.Moricca. (2015). Gas Lift System.
Schlumberger. (2020). Oilfield Glossary. Retrieved on Mar 13, 2019.
https://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms/s/scale.aspx.
David, D. (2018). Gas-lift basics: equipment, Operation, designe,
troubleshooting. Mar 22, 2019. https://oilfieldbasics.com/course/gas-lift-
basics/lessons/diagnostic-tools-well-testing/.

Subsurface gaslift troubleshooting in well-X1