A New Look at Predicting
Gas-Well Load-Up
Summary. This paper discusses
results of field tests conducted to veri-
fy minimum flow rate (critical rate) re-
quired to keep low-pressure gas
wells unloaded and compares results
to previous work. This paper also
covers liquid yield effects, liquid
sources, verification that wellhead
conditions control onset of load-up,
and effects of temperature, gas/liquid
gravities, well bore diameter, and
packer/tubing setting depth.
JPT • March 1991
Steve B. Coleman, SPE, consultant; Hartley B. Clay, SPE, and
David G. McCurdy, SPE, Exxon Co. U.S.A.; and H. Lee Norris III,
SPE, Exxon Production Research Co.
Introduction
As natural gas is produced from depletion-
drive reservoirs, the energy available to
transport the produced fluids to the surface
declines. This transport energy eventually
becomes low enough that flow rates are re-
duced and fluids produced with the gas are
no longer carried to the surface but are held
up in the wellbore. These liquids accumulate
in the wellbore over time, and cause addi-
tional hydrostatic backpressure on the reser-
voir, which results in continued reduction
of the available transport energy. In most
cases, if this condition is allowed to con-
tinue, the wellbore will accumulate sufficient
fluids to balance the available reservoir ener-
gy completely and cause the well to die. This
phenomenon is known as gas-well load-up.
As Fig. 1 shows, load-up can easily be rec-
ognized on a typical gas-well L-lO chart by
the characteristic exponential rate decline
caused by accumulating wellbore liquids.
Numerous papers have offered methods
for predicting and controlling the onset of
load-up.1-6 Turner et al.'s 1 method for
predicting when gas-well load-up will occur
is most widely used. They compared two
physical models for transporting fluids up
vertical conduits: liquid film movement
along the pipe walls and liquid droplets en-
trained in the high-velocity gas core. A com-
parison of these two models with field test
data yielded the conclusion that the onset of
load-up could be predicted adequately with
an equation developed from liquid droplet
theory (Stokes law), but that a 20% upward
adjustment of the equation was necessary.
Turner et al. also suggested that in most in-
stances wellhead conditions controlled the
onset of liquid load-up and that liquid/gas
ratios in the range of 1 to 130 bbllMMscf
did not influence the minimum lift velocity.
Examination of Turner et al.'s published
data indicates that most of the wells used in
the comparison had wellhead flowing pres-
sures (WHFP's) above 500 psi. Because
gas-well load-up problems generally worsen
with continued decline in reservoir energy,
this paper focuses on wells with lower reser-
voir pressures that are experiencing liquid
load-up and have WHFP's below 500 psi.
Copyright 1991 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE 20280
Wellbore Liquid Sources
Before examining the wellbore-liquid-Ioad-
ing mechanism, we must first consider the
source of the liquids. There are two obvious
sources: liquids condensed from the gas ow-
ing to wellbore heat loss and free liquids
produced into the wellbore with the gas.
Both liquid hydrocarbons and water may be
present, depending on the specific reservoir.
In examining these sources, one might
tend to minimize the impact of condensed
water, particularly at low reservoir pres-
sures. Because the gas is saturated with
water at reservoir conditions, a plot like Fig.
2 can be constructed to show the impact of
condensed water for a typical8,OOO-ft, low-
pressure gas well. As shown, the amount of
water condensed increases exponentially as
the static reservoir pressure declines. This
is unfortunate because, as reservoir pres-
sures decline, the amount of load fluid re-
quired to balance the reservoir hydrostati-
cally and to kill a well also declines, com-
pounding the problem.
Other problems may also occur as a result
of gas-well load-up. The near-wellbore
region of the reservoir may begin to become
saturated with liquids, causing the relative
permeability to gas to decrease, further
reducing the well's potential to remain
productive. Also, condensed water can be
damaging to formations containing swelling
clays because it is low in total chlorides
«500 ppm).
Critical· Rate Theory-
Llquld.Droplet Model
As Turner et al. showed, a free-falling par-
ticle in a fluid medium will reach a terminal
velocity that is a function of the particle size,
shape, and density and of the fluid-medium
density and viscosity. Applying this concept
to liquid droplets in a flowing column of gas,
we can calculate the terminal velocity, vI'
of the drop using
v t = 1.912{[q'4 (PL -Pg) 'A ]/P g 'h}, . (1)
which assumes a fixed droplet shape, size,
and drag coefficient and includes the +20 %
adjustment suggested by Turner et al.
Applying this terminal velocity equation
to wellbores and correcting to standard con-
ditions, we can determine the minimum gas
329
"Wellbores with
concentric tubing
strings that terminate
some distance above
the completion Interval
will generally not
follow a qc calculation
based on flowing
wellhead conditions."
flow rate, qc' for the continuous removal
of liquids from a wellbore:
qc =3.06pvt AITz. . .............. (2)
This rate, also known as the critical rate,
can be used to predict the onset of gas-well
load-up. Fig. 3 plots this critical rate for
typical 2Ys-in. tubing with water as the
droplet fluid.
Comparison to Field Data
To verify this theory and Turner et at. 's con-
clusions for wells experiencing liquid load-
up with WHFP's below 500 psi, two sources
of field data were collected and analyzed.
First, 17 tests were conducted to deter-
mine the rate and WHFP at which load-up
would begin. These tests examined wells
that would consistently flow at a stable rate
above their calculated qc' For the test,
gradual, stepwise increases in WHFP were
introduced until the wells exhibited the typi-
cal exponential rate decline denoting the on-
set of load-up. WHFP and gas-rate chart
recorders were used to document the test and
to provide a time history of the variables.
Fig. 1 shows a typical test chart.
The second source of data consisted of
numerous gas-well 8-day L-lO production
charts examined for similar rate-decline ten-
dencies. In each case, an interpretation of
the rate and WHFP was made for the point
that indicated the onset ofload-up. Because
the production charts for these wells were
generally located some distance from the
330
Fig. 1-Gas-well L-10 chart.
wellhead, historical well test records were
used to obtain WHFP's.
Table 1 presents a summary of the data
collected from both the critical-rate tests and
production-chart data base. Fig. 4 plots these
same data, comparing the observed and cal-
culated critical rates. A first examination of
the plot shows that the unadjusted liquid-
droplet model tends to offer a better match
of the field data for these low-pressure wells.
Thus, the terminal-velocity equation (Eq.
1) can be rewritten without the 20% ad-
justment:
v t = 1.593{[u \4 (PL -Pg) \4]/ Pg y, }. . (3)
A closer examination of the plot and raw
data yields several other valuable observa-
tions and explains some of the anomalies.
First, the data examined support the as-
sumption that in most cases wellhead condi-
tions control the onset of load-up. This is
consistent with Turner et at. 's observations.
Second, in several of the critical-rate tests,
a relatively large step was inadvertently im-
posed when the WHFP was raised to force
the well into load-up. In doing so, the exact
point of load-up was overshot. This helps
explain why some of these data points (solid
circles) plot below the theoretical curve.
Third, it was observed that a number of the
data points (open points), which lie signifi-
cantly below the theoretical line, exhibited liq-
uid-slugging behavior denoted by a ragged
trace on the L-IO chart. These wells should
be not expected to fit the liquid-droplet mod-
el theory and are considered anomalies.
Next, as Table 1 shows, the liquid/gas ra-
tio of the wells examined ranged from 1 to
22.5 bbl/MMscf. This had no influence in
determining the onset of load-up. In other
words, regardless of the amount of liquid
present, the onset of load-up will occur at
the same gas flow rate, all other factors
being equal. This is consistent with Turner
et at. 's findings.
Next, a comparison of the actual water
production rates with calculations for
condensed-water volumes indicates that the
primary source of load fluid was condensed
water in most cases.
Finally, for several of the critical-rate
tests, the wells were produced to a three-
phase separator to measure gas and liquid
production. In these tests, liquid production
stopped completely once the well began to
exhibit load-up behavior. This verified that
droplet terminal velocity had been reached
and produced liquids were being held up in
the wellbore. Additional information regard-
ing wellbore liquid-holdup behavior is
provided in Part 2 of this series. 8
Influence of Important Variables
This examination of critical-rate theory
would not be complete without a discussion
of the influence of different variables on the
accuracy of the calculation.
Up to this point, the discussion of qc has
been directed toward using water as the load
fluid. This is a valid assumption in most
cases. However, some situations do exist for
rich-gas reservoirs where the wellbore con-
March 1991 • JPT
ditions cause condensation of the heavy ,.
hydrocarbons, but not water. This was ob-
Source: Mck_tta-W.h.
served in several wells examined as a part Baal I; 0.' Sp. Gr. Ga.
of this work. Turner et at. noted that in these 25
200·r R• .." rlmp.
SO Pwlg W.llhead P,.. ..
situations the density and surface tension of 90-r W.llhead Tlmp.
the liquids should be adjusted accordingly ...
CJ
VI

in calculations of qc' In most cases, ifboth ...

Z
CJ 2.
Z
water and liquid hydrocarbon are present, a
u
the denser water controls the onset ofload- ...'"
up. Examination of other variables, such as
temperature, gas gravity, and interfacial ten-
~
~
...a ..
sion (1FT), indicates that in most cases they ...u
have only a minor influence on the accura-
cy of the critical-rate calculation.
,.,.
VI

;;;.
,.
-'
The wellbore cross-sectional area obvi- <D
<D

ously is one of the most important variables

in the critical-rate calculation. Fig. 5 shows
a comparison of various wellbore diameters.
Smaller-diameter wellbores have better
droplet lift efficiencies because of increased
transport-gas velocities. This direct relation-
I •• 2 •• ,
.+---------~--------~--------~--------~--------_r--------~
• I •• ..
STATIC RESERVOIR PRESSURE, PSIA
••• •••
ship leads to a very important observation.
Wellbores with concentric tubing strings that Fig. 2-Condensed·water volume: typical 8,000·ft well. 7
terminate some distance above the comple-
tion interval will generally not follow a qc
calculation based on flowing wellhead con- .... ,T-------~-------- __ --~-- __ ~------------ __------__ --~ __,
ditions. Because of the significant impact of .. -.-- .. -..... -- .... ...........•.
~

diameter, the qc for these situations should

be calculated with the flowing conditions of
the largest-diameter segment of the well- :---
bore, rather than the wellhead conditions. NON LOAD-UP
Setting the tubing/packer of the concentric REGION

tubing string a significant distance above the

completion interval can lead to premature
liquid-loading problems.
This may seem somewhat inconsistent
with the theory that condensing liquids are
a primary source of load fluids, because
these fluids are generally present only in the
upper portion of the wellbore. We have
found that system upsets, well shut-ins, hu-
man intervention, etc., will cause liquids to
be deposited periodically in the lower por-
tion of the wellbore. If there is a significant
difference in diameter between the upper
,..,.
+-------~----~~ __ ..
,
~~~~~--------~--_+--~~--~~~

FLOWING WELLHEAD PRESSURE, PSIA

1000

and lower portions of the wellbore, the larg-

est of the two will generally control the on-
Fig. 3-Wellbore critical rate: 27fa·in. tubing.
set of load-up.

Conclusions
1. The minimum flow rate, known as the
critical rate, qc' required to keep low-
pressure gas wells unloaded can be predicted
1 2 0 0 Q - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -__- -____

•
o
Critical Rat.T •• fa
Critical Rat. T.... - Slugglnll
----r------__--------__...__--__
10000+-----;----'-----+---;--+--,-t-----'---+---c--....__-+-~"""''_I
....•..
. "•. ··ii:~
.......... ~
::·.·.·.~·.~~·.,)il.
.
...
~'7I

... Production Chart Data

adequately with the Turner et at. liquid- {j. PrOduction Chart Data - 5111"ln,
droplet model without the 20% upward ad- • TII,no, Data - Unload.d
o Turn.r Data - loaded
justment. ~
()
2. A primary source ofload fluid for low- U)
:2
pressure gas wells can be condensed water. cr
3. Liquid/gas ratios below 22.5 bbl/ 0
UJ
1000
>
MMscf have no influence in determining the a:
UJ
U)
onset of load-up. aJ
a
4. Wells that exhibit slugging behavior
may not follow the liquid-droplet model be-
cause of a different transport mechanism.
5. Such variables as temperature, gas and
liquid gravity, and 1FT have little effect on
the critical rate, whereas wellbore diameter
and pressure have a direct and significant
impact. CALCULATED q,. MSCFD

6. In most cases, wellhead conditions can

be used to predict the onset of load-up. How- Fig. 4-Critical·rate data base.

JPT • March 1991 331

 TABLE 1-CRITICAL-RATE DATA BASE

Gas
Specific Observed Calculated
Gravity Depth Tubing ID Condensate Water WHFP qc qo BHSP*
Test (air ... 1) ~ (in.) (bbVMMscf) (bbVMMscf) (psi a} (MscflD) (Mscf/D) (psig) Comment
- 1 0.582 7,812 2.441 0.1 1.9 275 726 874 548 qc test well
2 0.595 8,021 2.441 2.9 0.0 205 660 744 350 qc test well
3 0.628 8,437 2.441 5.7 3.9 212 585 737 650 qc test well
4 0.628 8,437 2.441 5.7 3.9 150 468 618 650 qc test well
5 0.620 8,042 2.441 3.5 7.1 185 573 691 355 qc test well
6 0.602 5,538 2.441 1.5 5.6 145 593 619 315 qc test well
7 0.602 5,538 2.441 1.5 5.6 145 617 619 315 qc test well
8 0.654 6,446 2.441 2.0 9.2 70 250 412 175 qc test well
9 0.668 6,026 2.441 2.9 7.0 140 607 580 223 qc test well
10 0.668 6,026 2.441 2.9 7.0 138 600 575 223 qc test well
11 0.602 6,499 2.441 1.3 0.0 130 635 586 306 qo test well
12 0.628 6,764 2.441 0.0 7.0 125 583 563 200 qc test well
13 0.672 5,678 2.441 5.9 2.3 165 649 628 329 qc test well
14 0.610 8,507 2.441 0.0 0.0 395 647 1,031 400 q c test well-ragged trace
15 0.610 9,445 2.441 0.0 0.0 255 612 821 450 q c test well-ragged trace
16 0.628 6,984 2.441 5.0 17.6 355 952 962 613 qc test well
17 0.620 6,034 2.441 2.9 3.6 105 430 520 182 q c test well-ragged trace
18 0.643 5,338 2.441 0.0 0.0 99 396 494 400 L-l0 chart-ragged trace
19 0.654 7,632 2.441 0.6 2.7 70 164 410 650 L-l0 chart-ragged trace
20 0.652 5,342 2.441 0.0 0.0 43 329 323 350 L·l0 chart
21 0.646 5.147 2.441 0.0 0.0 52 267 356 284 L-l0 chart
22 0.595 7,763 2.441 0.0 0.0 352 640 983 663 L-l0 chart
23 0.595 7,763 2.441 0.0 0.0 225 615 780 663 L·l0 chart
24 0.595 6,261 2.441 0.0 0.0 495 1,072 1,174 466 L-l0 chart
25 0.622 6,900 2.441 0.0 0.0 94 748 488 N/A L-l0 chart
26 0.661 7,428 2.441 3.4 12.3 65 276 395 568 L·l0 chart
27 0.682 4,680 2.441 2.2 3.4 59 500 371 N/A L-l0 chart
28 0.650 5,011 2.441 1.7 1.9 50 366 348 168 L·l0 chart-ragged trace
29 0.634 5,745 2.441 2.9 5.4 39 324 311 284 L-l0 chart
30 0.658 ·6,491 2.441 2.9 9.8 97 90 484 1,000 L-l0 chart-ragged trace
31 0.628 6,443 2.441 4.0 17.5 60 220 389 421 L-l0 chart-ragged trace
32 0.628 6,443 2.441 4.0 17.5 90 355 478 421 L·l0 chart-ragged trace
33 0.683 6,582 2.441 8.7 9.7 50 338 341 122 L-l0 chart
34 0.599 6,898 2.441 1.8 11.0 60 401 398 N/A L·l0 chart
35 0.599 6,898 2.441 1.8 11.0 80 450 460 N/A L·l0 chart
36 0.663 6.351 2.441 14.8 5.1 107 471 508 257 L·l0 chart
37 0.709 6,722 2.441 5.9 0.0 135 372 553 306 L·l0 chart-ragged trace
38 0.600 7,600 2.441 2.5 1.6 131 518 590 781 L·l0 chart
39 0.660 6,120 2.441 4.3 5.7 130 330 51;j2 462 L·l0 chart-ragged trace
40 0.617 6,880 2.441 0.0 0.0 82 511 460 181 L·l0 chart
41 0.674 6,556 2.441 0.0 0.0 90 558 461 273 L·l0 chart
42 0.662 6,301 2.441 1.8 1.5 100 493 491 362 L·l0 chart
43 0.642 4,751 2.441 2.4 6.5 183 627 676 673 L·l0 chart
44 0.651 5,065 2.441 3.5 1.8 120 518 542 202 L·l0 chart
45 0.610 6,285 2.441 0.0 1.0 47 358 349 212 L-l0 chart
46 0.600 6,335 2.441 0.0 0.0 315 885 924 440 L·l0 chart
47 0.651 8,439 2.441 7.5 0.0 165 712 638 447 L·l0 chart
48 0.620 8,158 2.441 4.6 4.9 75 408 438 450 L-l0 chart
49 0.750 8,508 2.441 0.0 2.3 380 666 924 1,100 L·l0 chart
50 0.625 8,466 2.441 2.4 5.9 155 648 630 725 L·l0 chart-ragged trace
51 0.625 8,466 2.441 2.4 5.9 145 564 608 725 L·l0 chart-ragged trace
52 0.621 8,504 2.441 4.5 0.0 235 781 782 728 L·l0 chart
53 0.621 8,504 2.441 4.5 0.0 225 755 764 728 L·l0 chart
54 0.717 8,440 2.441 5.3 1.0 165 620 610 725 L-l0 chart
55 0.688 6,796 2.441 1.1 3.8 49 430 335 244 L·l0 chart
56 0.674 6,381 2.441 6.5 8.6 59 397 372 154 L·l0 chart
• Bottomhole static pressure.

ever, for concentric tubing strings where the
tubing/packer is a significant distance from
the completion interval, flowing conditions
of the largest-diameter segment should be
used to predict the wellbore critical rate.
Nomenclature
A = flow area of conduit, ft2
p = pressure, psia
qc = critical gas flow rate,
MMscflD
T = temperature, OR
v( = terminal velocity of particle,
ft/sec
z= gas compressibility factor
Pg = gas phase density, Ibm/ft3
PL = liquid-phase density, Ibm/ft3
a = interfacial tension, dynes/cm
Acknowledgments
We express our appreciation to the manage-
ment of Exxon Co. U.S.A. and Exxon Pro-
duction Research Co. for the support and
encouragement given while we conducted
this study. Special thanks go to the Opera-
tions personnel and the Production/Reser-
voir Technology support staff of Exxon's
South Texas Div., who provided invaluable
cooperation and assistance in gathering and
manipulating data and in preparing the nec-
essary technical review packages.
References
r. Turner, R. G. et al.: "Analysis and Prediction
of Minimum Flow rate for the Continuous
Removal of Liquids From Gas Wells," JPT
(Nov. 1969) 1475-82; Trans., AIME, 246.

332 March 1991 • JPT

 ,····fSS2~~~';""';mss:':
:
.. .. . ~~ ".-.
... ~.
~
~ ••
~ ~ ~
.;•. !.~ .
.. .:... .. ~-.:. ~ .
.

...... .... .. :- .. -:-- ..

~ .. ~ .. -~. :

. . .;. . ·;··:nT.
~.
-·~--·:··t-1-(
t········~···· ~ .... ,. ;.L-,...,....,.,---,--..,.---,-...,...J,.
1·±,.--....;..-;.....;......;....+....;...~1.~.1'-1I-"-1A....;..-..;........;.....;....;....;...;...;.1.l-••--...;....-i-.;.....i-+~..;,........

FLOWING WELLHEAD PRESSURE. PSIA

Fig. 5-Wellbore critical rate VS. WHFP.

. McCurdy Norris
2. Hutlas, E.J. and Granberry, W.R.: "A Practi- 51 Metric Conversion Factors
cal Approach to Removing Gas Well Liquids," Steve .. ca ...... lsacOnsultlngengio
bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol = m3 neer In Corpus Christi, TX.He previous.
JPT (Aug. 1972) 916-22. ft x 3.048* E-Ol = m
3. Iiobi, M.l. and Ikoku, C.U.: "Minimum Gas "worked at Exxon's SoutIt T'-Dlv. In
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 = m 3
Corpus Chl'lstl. hoIds~a as
Flow Rate for Continuous Liquid Removal in OF (OF-32)/1.8 = °C
Gas Wells," paper SPE 10170 presented at the in. x 2.54* E+OO = em
degree in mechnlcal from
1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and psi x 6.894 757 E+OO = kPa Tax_Alelll.
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 4-7.
engineer in the Raa_oII',.r•.-omrtOlCIGY
'Conversion factor is exact.
4. Libson, T.N. and Henry, J.R.: "Case Histo-
ries: Identification of and Remedial Action for
Liquid Loading in Gas Wells-Intermediate
Provenance
Shelf Gas Play," JPT (April 1980) 685-93. Original SPE manuscript, Optimizing Re-
5. Weeks, S.G.: "Small-Diameter Concentric covery of Natural Gas From Depletion-
Tubing Extends Economic Life of High Drive Reservoirs: Part I-A Study to
Water/Sour Gas Edwards Producers," JPT Verify the Minimum Flow Rate Required
(Sept. 1982) 1947-50. ", H.. .... 1IG11'1'1tl III ta 8118f1l1Ol"4
for Continuous Removal of Liquids From f'8 Be arcb SpecIaIIat In the Fa.ciIItIes De-
6. Orris, P.W. and DeMoss, E.E.: "Liquid
Removal From Gas Wells-Gas Lifting With
Low-Pressure Gas-WeDs, received for SIgn SectIon at Exxon PJoduction Re-
Reservoir Gas, " paper presented at the South- review Nov. 16, 1989. Paper (SPE 20280) search Co. In Houston. Be holds a as
western Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech accepted for pUblication Feb. 9, 1990. Re- degree from the U. of· In AuStm
U., Lubbock, Apri118-19, 1%8. vised manuscript received Dec. 21, 1990. and MSand Stanford
7. Engineering Data Book, 10th edition, Gas ~~. alt~.~_~.·_fl:teerl...
Processors Assn., Tulsa (1987). JPT
8. Coleman, S.B. et al.: "Understanding Gas-
Well Load-Up Behavior," JPT(March 1991)
334-38.

JPT • March 1991 333