Producing - Equipment, Methods and Materials - Evaluation of a Stabilizer Charged Gas Lift Valve for Multiple-Phase Flow Using Graphical Techniques: Discussion II

Over the past several years, the steady progress of gas lift from a mysterious art into a developing science has been traceable through the many fine papers that have appeared in Journal of Petroleum Technology. Consequently, this magazine has rightly become a standard for the serious students of gas lift all over the world. The following discussion is offered in a sincere attempt to accurately present certain topics covered in the subject paper in the light of acknowledged state of the art procedures. INSTALLATION DESIGN The first point to be questioned is the author's installation design, beginning with Eq. 6. The use of 1,200 psi in the spacing equation instead of the 1,275 psi noted as available seems, at first glance, to be a simple arithmetic error. Upon further examination, it appears evident that both this 75 psi plus the 100-psi safety factor must be subtracted from available kickoff pressure because of conditions imposed by the characteristics of the ASC valve (see Fig. B-1). Pressure-charged valve design is incorrectly penalized by spacing the first valve using only 1,100 psi. The use of such a high back-pressure makes it appear that a typical ASC installation would require no more valves than a comparable conventional valve installation. Using a value of 100-psi tree pressure, the well could be valved to 11,000 ft very conservatively with seven pressure-operated valves, but would still require 11 ASC valves. The use of 400-B/D spacing gradient for a 140-B/D rate is not an accepted practice using precharged valves. The author would have done well to note the advantages to be gained by reducing the 500-psi tree pressure, which is clearly explained by Beadle, Harlan and Brown.' In Step 1 of Part III of the continuous flow discussion, the author incorrectly applies the Poettmann and Carpenter curves.2 Item 2 is an incorrect statement. An excellent reference on this point is the paper by Baxen-dell and Thomas.' VALVE MECHANICS The next topic relates to the mechanics of precharged valves. Eq. 2 for the ASC valve can be used to describe the condition of equilibrium, wherein the valve is closed with opening pending. When this equation is used to determine relative values of casing, dome and tubing pressure with conditions approaching the transition value, some strange results are obtained. The following uses the author's symbols and values given on page 689. Fig. B-1 shows the condition that exists at the moment an ASC valve has been uncovered during the unloading process (Condition I). The obvious result is a locked condition. The basis for the curve is shown on the figure which includes 1,000 psig casing pressure to uncover the valve. If injection gas is not bled off the casing until the pressure is decreased by an amount exceeding the stabilizer discharging valve pressure, upward adjustment of the casing pressure is mandatory for the valve to open and unloading operations to continue. In Condition I the dome pressure exceeds the casing pressure by 20 psi, and the tubing pressure required to open the valve is 1,212 psig. This tubing pressure would not exist under the assumed conditions. In Condition I1 the casing pressure is increased to the dome pressure, and the tubing pressure required to open the valve is 1,102 psig. It is apparent that the casing pressure must be increased to a value exceeding the dome pressure before unloading operations could continue. In Condition I11 a maximum casing pressure of 100 psi (stabilizer charging valve set pressure) above the dome pressure is reached, and the tubing pressure required to open the valve is 549 psig. The author's statement after Eq. 5 that "the minimum tubing pressure required to open an ASC valve is equal to the casing pressure at depth less the transition pressure of the valve" is incorrect except for Condition I11 only. Otherwise, the equation is invalid.