SPE 124571

Plunger Lift Dynamic Characteristics in Single Well and Network System

for Tight Gas Well Deliquification
Yula Tang,* SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Company

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4– 7 October 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper presents a study for plunger lift characteristics to dewater tight-gas wells operated in the Piceance basin of Rocky
Mountains with multiple-well pads and surface pipeline network. The wells’ TVDs are about 6000 ft with deviated paths, and
the water-gas-ratio (WGR) is 40~80 stb/MMscf. The objective is to understand the optimal operating conditions for
reasonably controlling deliquification without severe liquid surge while maintaining maximum gas production.
The IPR and reservoir depletion are based on tight gas model, which considers the transient IPR due to very low matrix
permeability, hydraulic-fractures and drainage radius. A transient dynamic multiphase flow analysis has been performed to
investigate the plunger lift effectiveness, performance and optimization for different scenarios. Simulation runs were
performed for early, middle and late field life which corresponds to different reservoir pressure and productivity index. It
shows that liquid loading becomes severe and production becomes unstable (heading) with decreased reservoir pressure and
increased water influx. Eventually the well production can stop due to liquid loading. Plunger lift helps to maintain the
production and reduce the instability. A network model with 22 wells on a pad has been built to study the interaction of the
system and the liquid surge control strategy.
Plunger-lift process for tight gas wells with liquid loading problems needs integrated dynamic modeling for both reservoir
and wellbore systems. The philosophy of optimization is that, the reservoir and wellbore system should be the "master" for
production optimization, and surface control should serve as a "slave" system.

Background and Objective

Tight gas refers to a natural gas reservoir with very low porosity and permeability. Although there is no strict definition for
tight gas, it is often categorized as tight gas reservoirs with permeability below or equal to 0.01 md. A more generally
accepted industry definition is any gas reservoir that does not produce economic volumes of natural gas without assistance
from massive stimulation treatments or special recovery processes and technologies. According to the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), USA has some 135 Tcf tight gas reserve that is economically recoverable. As given by Tinker & Potter1
(2007), the United States (U.S.) produces 3.8 Tcf per year from tight gas reservoirs, contributing approx 19% to its total gas
production and stands at top in the world. Other countries like Canada, Australia, China, are making strides to include or
increase its share into their energy basket.
Tight gas is found in most basins in the U.S. including the Piceance and Uinta basins in the Rocky Mountains, the
Pinedale Anticline in Wyoming, the Cotton Valley of East Texas, and the Lobo in South Texas. The Piceance asset is located
in Colorado and is currently in the early phases of development. As shown in, Fig.1, the development wells in Piceance
valley are drilled from pads and each pad has multiple wells (22 wells for this study). The wells will have deviated and/or S-
shaped well paths, as shown in Fig. 2.
The Piceance basin tight gas discussed in this paper has the following average reservoir properties.
z Permeability: in micro Darcy level, natural fractures
z Pressure: 2,200 – 3,000 psi, temperature: 215 °F
z Hydraulic fracture stages: 6-8 per well
z Water gas ratio (WGR): 40~80 bbls/MMscf, and condensate gas ratio (CGR) at 2~3 bbls/MMscf
z Well depth: 6,000 ft
z Initial gas production: 1 – 1.5 MMscf/d
*Now with Chevron Global Upstream and Gas
2 SPE 124571

Due to the fact that the well productivity capability declines and liquid influx increases when reservoir pressure reduces,
the wells are expected to load up with liquid because of falling below the critical gas velocity to lift liquid droplets. Lee2
(2003) indicated that tight gas reservoirs have steep IPR, react to pressure change slowly and often flow in unstable
production conditions.
Plunger-lift has been determined to be adequate dewatering method for tight gas wells. Plunger lift is a particular form of
intermittent artificial lift which makes use of a metal plunger to supply a solid interface between gas and the lifted liquid
load. It is an efficient solution for gas wells with liquid loading problems at low-medium water influx and shallower
producing wellbores. The control of time for flowing, after-flowing and shut-in determines the action of the plunger and the
wells performance.
This study focuses on a 22-wells one-pad system. There is special concern on how the plunger lift will be operated for the
system to ensure the separator capacity will not be exceeded by liquid surge. It is proposed to perform a dynamic wellbore
and surface network simulation for the system optimization. The objective of this study is to recommend an optimal
operation strategy with plunger-lift for different production stages to have the maximum gas recovery.

Tight Gas Reservoir Model

In order to adequately integrate tight gas reservoir performance with wellbore dynamics, it is important to understand the
tight gas well productivity and production decline behavior for the entire production life cycle of the well. There have been
many studies performed for tight gas reservoir performance. Roberts3 (1981) and Thompson4 (1981) considered fractured
well behavior in a tight gas reservoir, and indicate that elliptical flow plays a major role in the performance of tight gas wells,
as shown in Fig. 3. Finley5 (1986) and Spencer6 (1989) defined the status of tight gas reservoir in North America with
emphasis on reservoir and production properties common to low permeability gas reservoir. Riley7 (1991) gave elliptical
flow solution for infinite acting reservoir, and compare the elliptical solution with Cinco et al’s finite conductivity fracture
case. Amini et al8 (2007) extended Riley’s work to closed elliptical boundary for given type curves. Blasingame9 (2008)
summarized the mechanisms and characteristic flow pattern of low permeability reservoir especially for single-phase gas
flow, and confirmed the evolution of elliptical drainage pattern with Amini ea al’s model. Rushing10 (2007) discussed tight
gas wells with hydraulic fracturing for their decline performance during transient and boundary dominated flow periods.
In this study, a commercial software IPM11 has been used to model the tight gas reservoir performance. The tight gas IPR
considers the transient behavior for very low matrix permeability, hydraulic-fractures and drainage radius. IPM incorporates
its tank model (MBAL) for tight gas behavior; the rates are generated from the transient IPR. Superposition is used for
transient pressure and gas rate with the material balance tank model (MBAL) for tight gas. In this study, a network model of
22 wells at a pad has been built, as shown in Fig. 4. Each well has its own controlled reservoir drainage area and all of the
wells flow into a surface separator and through the surface pipeline network. Fig. 5 gives IPM run results for a single well
performance based on natural flow conditions without plunger lift.
For comparison, both a regular tank model (IPM) and a 3-D reservoir numerical simulator (Chears12) have been built. Fig.
6 shows the 3-D single well reservoir model with a hydraulic fracture. Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 compare the reservoir pressure and
gas production rate based on (1) tight gas tank model (IPM), (2) regular tank model (IPM), and (3) 3-D reservoir simulation
model (Chears). It shows that the tight gas tank model gives similar results as the reservoir simulation model. It can be seen
that the regular tank model gives faster pressure declines and higher gas production than the tight gas reservoir model as
pseudo-steady state conditions are reached sooner with the regular gas tank model. In this paper, the reservoir IPR from tight
gas tank model has been exported into the dynamic wellbore model as discussed later.

Inflow Performance for Wellbore Dynamic Simulation

A dynamic wellbore simulation has been set up to model the well liquid load up and plunger lift performance. The IPR
correlation based tight gas reservoir tank simulation has been incorporated into the wellbore model. Table 2 gives the layers
(stages of hydraulic fracture), reservoir pressure and temperature. The distance from the uppermost layer to the lowest layer
is about 2000 ft.. Fig. 9 shows the lower wellbore configuration and the seven reservoir layers locations. It can be seen that
only one layer (stage 1 of fracturing) is below tubing shoe, the other six layers flow is behind the tubing. When it produces,
reservoir fluids move downward from upper layers in the annulus, while tubing flow moves upward, which involves counter-
current heat transfer in the long wellbore section of 2000 ft.
Inflow performance (IPR) for the entire thickness of reservoir has been generated based on tight gas tank model (IPM).
Fig. 10 shows the IPRs during the early life with reservoir pressure of 2900 psi, middle life with reservoir pressure of 2074
psi, and late life with reservoir pressure of 1620 psi. Back pressure equations of Eq. (1) with constant coefficient C and index
n have been obtained for each stage of life with curve fitting and regression based on the overall IPRs generated from the
tight gas tank model.

q g = C ⋅ (p r - p 2wf ) n
2
(1)

For a given time, assume the index of n obtained from the overall formation IPR curve will be applied to all layers. Trial-
and-error method is used to find the coefficient C for each of the layers. The layer IPRs have to be added up to be equal to the
SPE 124571 3

overall IPR, as illustrated in Fig. 11, where the red diamond dotted line is the sum results of all layers, and it matches the IPR
(blue diamond solid line) from the tight gas tank model. In this way, all layers IPRs are obtained. The same approach is used
for all stages of production life for the IPRs.

Dynamic Wellbore Model for Plunger Lift

Plunger lift is a particular form of intermittent lift which makes use of a metal plunger to supply a solid interface between gas
and lifted liquid load. A summary of the previous plunger lift studies especially for gas wells is given below. An advanced
wellbore transient dynamic model used in this study is discussed.

Literature Review on Plunger Lift Wellbore Model

Foss and Goal13 (1965) presented the first static force balance analysis for plunger lift based on the experimental work
conducted for the Ventura oil field in the middle of 1960s. Hacksma14 (1972) applied nodal analysis to the plunger lift design
for oil well with Foss and Goal’s plunger performance charts. In 1982, Lea15 developed the first dynamic plunger lift model
and built the liquid accumulation equations. Avery and Evans16 (1988) presented a general dynamic plunger lift model by
coupling reservoir’s capability IPR relationship. Chacin and Schmidt et al.17 (1992) studied the design of plunger assisted
intermittent gas lift installations with mass and momentum balance equations for the entire system. White18 (1982) studied
experimentally intermittent gas lift with and without a plunger in 1982. A surprising result from his study is that the metal
plunger with a hole through its center produced the lowest fallback value. From this work one can conclude that the classic
picture of a plunger being a moving partition between liquid slug above and gas below is neither correct nor desirable. In
1985, Mower and Lea et al.19 conducted a laboratory measurement study with a 735-ft (224-m) test well. It provided
information on gas slippage, liquid fallback, and plunger rise and fall velocities during the dynamic movement of 13 different
commercial plungers. Brady and Morrow20 (1994) discussed plunger lift as a very successful method of liquid removal for
low pressure, tight gas wells in the Northeast Texas Panhandle. Marcano and Chacin21 (1995) developed a dynamic model for
the entire plunger lift cycle for oil wells with empirical data to quantify the liquid fallback past the plunger and the gas
bypassing the plunger. Gasbarri and Wiggins22 (1997) developed a dynamic plunger lift model for gas wells that includes
transient gas flow in the tubing above the plunger and slug flow below the plunger. Lea23 (1999) presented a new simplified
plunger lift model and suggested that improvements in the accuracy and applicability of modeling the plunger lift process
would be possible by including transient reservoir performance. Maggard24 (2000) performed a study for plunger lift
dewatering from tight gas wells that combined transient reservoir inflow with wellbore dynamic model. Tang and Liang25
(2008) developed a new method to improve the prediction precision of the conventional methods that assume constant tubing
pressure for the entire plunger lift process during gas well deliquification. The friction resistance coefficients of the plunge
motion are determined by combining the dynamic model with field test data.

OLGA Dynamic Wellbore Model

The study presented, uses advanced commercial software, OLGA26 for wellbore transient dynamic model for the plunger
lift in gas wells. This model is incorporated with tight gas IPR to understand the optimal operating conditions for reasonably
controlled deliquification without severe liquid surge and maintaining maximum gas production. The single well model is
then extended to a network model for multiple pad wells simultaneous production to consider the liquid surge and inter-well
interference through the surface flowline network.
OLGA is a fully transient pipeline and wellbore dynamic flow simulator which uses a modified "two-fluid" model27 to
solve the conservation equations. It was original developed by a SINTEF/IFE joint project in 1984-1992, and is benchmarked
with a large volume of data obtained from a large scale flow loop by SINTEF. The model has been improved with field data
provided through OVIP28 (a joint industry project for OLGA Verification and Improving Projects). Today the model is an
industry standard for transient pipeline and wellbore simulation.
OLGA can model the dynamic production process of gas, condensate and water (liquid and vapor) in the tubing and
annulus. Heat transfer between the tubing and annulus and with the surrounding rocks is also considered, as is phase change.
The Plunger’s dynamic simulation in this study has been done using the OLGA plug/pig model. For this application, the
plunger is modeled as a solid plug/pig.
In OLGA plug/pig model, two types of friction forces are modeled. One is the wall friction force due to contact between
the plunger and pipe wall. The wall friction force includes the static friction between the plunger and the tubing wall when it
starts to move. The plunger starts to move only after the force due to the pressure difference over the plunger becomes greater
than the static friction. Once the plunger starts to move, the wall friction force decreases and it becomes a linear function of
plunger velocity. In the model, the static force, Fo, and the wall friction factor, fw, must be specified. In this study, the static
force, Fo, is set to be 1000 N, and the wall friction factor, fw, is set to be 0 N/(m/s) due to no direct contact between plunger
and tubing wall (tubing ID of 1.995 in. and plunger ID of 1.87 in. and mass of 4 kg).
The second friction force is due to viscous shear of the fluid film in the gap between the plunger and the pipe wall. The
viscous force is a function of the linear term (friction factor, f1) and quadratic term (friction factor, f2) of the fluid velocity.
Again, these factors need to be specified in the model. In this study, the linear friction factor, f1 is set to be 0 N/(m/s), and the
quadratic friction factor, f2 is set to be 100 N/ (m/s)2., based on previous pigging simulation study experience.
4 SPE 124571

Liquid leakage is simulated in the model to consider the by-passing volumetric flow from ahead of the plunger to behind
the plunger. We consider the leakage mechanism due to slip between the plunger and the film around the plunger. For the gap
between the plunger and pipe wall, assuming laminar flow, the average film velocity is

up
uf = (2)
2

The volumetric flow rate due to leak is

π
q fl = (d ti2 − d pl2 )u f (3)
4
OLGA has pig and slug tracking mode to track the plunger itself and the front of the liquid slug ahead of the plunger to
ensure that the liquid is not smeared out, which is more important for horizontal flow, but has little significance in our case of
near vertical or low angle wellbore flow.
In OLGA model, heat conduction from the undisturbed reservoir temperature to well tubing center is considered by
OLGA thermal wall configuration, including casing/tubing layers, annulus fluids (convection), and reservoir rocks
(conduction). The bottomhole fluid enthalpy from the inflow is calculated and Joule-Thompson cooling effect due to pressure
drawdown is included. The equation of state (EOS) used to calculate PVT properties of the fluids is Soave-Redlich-Kwong
with the Peneloux volume correction29. Since the Piceance gas field is currently in the early phase of development, analog
fluid composition and well production information from gas wells located in the Skinner Ridge Field in Garfield County,
Colorado, were considered as basis of this assessment.
Fig. 12 gives the trajectory elevation profile used in wellbore model for the maximum well deviation. As maximum
deviation wells will be more difficult to produce with plunger lift than the minimum deviation wells, the maximum trajectory
case is used in the discussions below.

Results and Discussion

Natural Flow and Liquid Loading

Simulation has been performed for early, middle, and late life of reservoir production. It was found that the well with
maximum trajectory can flow with little difficulty for the early and middle lives at reservoir pressures of 3000 psi and 2000
psi. Liquid loading and unstable production will happen at low reservoir pressure when WGR and wellhead pressure are high.
Thus we focus on the late life reservoir for the comparison basis.

Steady State Production.

The base case has reservoir pressure of 1600 psi, wellhead pressure of 75 psi, and WGR of 40 bbl/MMscf under natural
flow conditions. It is found that well production is under stable condition with 0.476 MMscf/d of gas and 20 stb/d of liquid
where the bottomhole pressure (BHP) is 460 psi and pressure at the end of the tubing is 235 psi, as shown in Fig. 13. Note in
the figure that there is 772 ft from the bottomhole (BH) to tubing shoe (see Fig. 9 for wellbore configuration), and 6200 m
from tubing shoe to the wellhead (WH). In the drawing, the tubing and tubing/casing annulus sections start again from zero at
tubing shoe and end at wellhead. If one would draw the plots in a continuous length scale, the casing/tubing curves should be
shifted right (772 ft, 235 psi).
The pressure gradient is highest in the bottomhole section from tubing shoe to BH due to liquid accumulation. The tubing
pressure gradient is higher than casing annulus pressure gradient due to more friction loss in the tubing. It can be found that
the reservoir drawdown is 1140 psi (1600psi-460psi) in the tight gas reservoir. The Joule-Thompson cooling effects are
obvious along the gas inflow entrance profile due to this large drawdown, as shown in annulus temperature profile in Fig. 14,
where the tubing inner fluid temperature is higher than the outside annulus temperature (upward moving tubing fluids warm
up surrounding).

Unstable Production and Well Heading.

The base case stable natural flow conditions will become unstable when the wellhead pressure increases to 150 psi and
the WGR increases to 80 stb/MMscf.
Fig. 15 and Fig. 16 show the unstable production due to liquid loading as the WGR increases. The liquid loading concept
is often associated with the critical gas velocity or Turner velocity below which the liquid droplets cannot be lifted by the
natural flowing gas. The critical velocity derived by Turner is as follows

1/ 4
⎛ 40 g ( ρ l − ρ g ) ⋅ σ gl ⎞
uc = ⎜ ⎟ (4)
⎜ 0.44 ρ g2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
SPE 124571 5

In OLGA dynamic model, the complicated multiphase physical phenomenon including flow patterns, transition
mechanism, falling liquid film along the tubing, liquid droplets, slugging due to liquid accumulation at bottomhole and cyclic
behavior are all captured. The transient dynamic model is more powerful than a single point calculation of the critical
velocity.
Well heading is an oscillatory phenomenon occurring in a liquid loading well. For this case, the well heading
phenomenon can be observed when wellhead pressure increase to 250 psi, as shown in Fig. 17 where system pressure
experiences cyclic fluctuations. Well heading consists of a succession of pressure build-up phases in the casing without
production and high flow rate phases due to high pressure gas overcomes liquid loading from the casing to the tubing. The
sequence is as follows. First, liquid accumulates in bottomhole gradually, and eventually blocks gas flow. Gas in casing is
compressed to a point when pressure is sufficiently high to break through the liquid blockage and push the long liquid slug to
the surface. Accordingly, bottomhole pressure and casing pressure decrease. Then gas flow slows down, liquid loading starts
again. It was found that when WGR increases from 40 to 80 stb/MMscf with WHP=250 psi, the wells’ natural flow will stop
eventually due to liquid loading.

Plunger Lift Characteristics

The following show characteristics of plunger lift with OLGA model. The well has been shut-in for 8 hours to install
equipment, Thus the first cycle of plunger will have more liquid to lifted than a normal cycle.
The plunger has a mass of 4.0 kg with ID of 1.87 in, when launched from the tubing shoe and trapped at wellhead.
Reservoir pressure is 1600 psi, with wellhead pressure of 75 psi and water gas ration of 40 stb/MMscf. The simulation shows
that the plunger arrives at the surface in 4.8, 6.0 and 7.2 minutes. respectively with different wellhead tubing pressure of 75
psi, 150 psi, and 250 psi. When wellhead tubing pressure is higher than 350 psi, plunger is found to be unable to reach the
surface. The plunger traveling time of 4.8~7.2 minute is close to the estimation based on Foss-Gaul’s rule of thumb of 1000
ft/min plunger rise velocity (5500 ft TVD, 6200 ft MD). The maximum plunger velocity is 32 ft/s (1920 ft/min) near the
middle of the tubing. Plunger velocity increases at beginning due to WHP releasing. When the plunger reaches to the middle
wellbore, plunger velocity starts to decrease due to reduced BHP during the expansion.
Plunger lift velocity and arrival time can be affected by using different friction factors. However, the difference of using
1 or 2 times the base case friction coefficient is small, only about 1 minute. With an annulus packer, plunger lift takes 1~2
minutes longer time and the peak velocity is 5ft/s less compared with the case of no annulus packer. Plunger lift efficiency is
better without a packer in the annulus because the plunger utilizes the energy of annulus gas compression during plunger
ascent period.
Fig. 18 shows the tubing pressure profile at different time of plunger lift. At the beginning tubing pressure is close to
reservoir pressure (shut-in wellbore gas column at 0 min.). When wellhead is open, tubing pressure above the plunger drops
significantly and plunger starts to move. There is obvious pressure discontinuity in the plunger/liquid section. This proves
that plunger provides a good interface for pressure isolation. Pressure is much higher below the plunger.
Fig. 19 shows the gas and liquid rates during plunger lift. There are two peaks for gas rate. The first peak is when
wellhead choke opens to blow down tubing pressure above the plunger. The second peak is when plunger is captured in
wellhead and high pressure gas below the plunger is released. Corresponding to the second peak of gas rate when plunger
arrives at surface, liquid rate reaches a peak. It was found that there is significant amount of liquid left behind the plunger due
to liquid film on the wall of the tubing. There is almost no liquid column in front of plunger when plunger arrives at wellhead
due to leak. However, liquid is still produced to the surface carried by the high pressure gas stream which helps to blow down
the liquid in the tubing wall quickly. It takes a few minutes for the liquid to pass wellhead.
A series of plunger lift with multiple cycles has been simulated. Again, we used the base case conditions (Pr=1600 psi,
WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf). The well was set to be open for 45 minutes. and shut-in for 15 minutes. The wellhead
valve open/close series and plunger velocity vs. time are shown in Fig. 20. Plunger rising time is longer in normal cycle than
in the first cycle when the compressed gas pressure is higher due to much longer shut-in time (8 hr. shut-in vs. 15 min. shut-
in). Plunger peak velocity is around 20 ft/s, while the peak rate in the first cycle is 32ft/s. The plunger upstroke time during
normal cycle takes about 10 minutes comparing to the first cycle of 5 min. rise-up time.
Another scenario of 90-min. opening and 30 min. shut-in has been tested, as shown in Fig. 21 for gas, liquid rates and
bottomhole pressure change during the plunger lift cycles. It was found that longer shut-in time (30 min.) has larger peak
liquid rate than short shut-in time (15 min.). Compared to the first cycle, gas and liquid rates in a normal cycle have less peak
values.
Fig. 22 gives liquid inventory in the tubing under conditions of WHP=150 psi, with 90 min. opening and 30 min. shut-in
plunger lift schedule. This is to see the liquid accumulation (load-up) and deliquification behavoir. The more liquid content in
the tubing, the worst the liquid loading problem becomes. It can be found that liquid accumulates in the tubing from 0.5 bbl
to 2.1 bbl in the first 90 minutes of opening period. When the well is shut-in for 30 minutes (from 90 minutes to 120
minutes), liquid inventory decreases at the beginning due to the liquid being pushed back into reservoir by the pressure surge
from a sudden wellhead shut-in, and then continues to increase to 2.3 bbl at the end of shut-in (inflow from reservoir). When
the well is open again, more water is flowing into the tubing and the peak liquid content reaches 3.0 bbl. Once the plunger
reaches the wellhead and liquid leaves the wellhead, liquid inventory in the tubing drops to 0.8 bbl. This demonstrates that
6 SPE 124571

each cycle of plunger lift removes 2.2 bbl of water. The system repeats the process of liquid loading and unloading by
plunger lift.
In order to investigate the gas and liquid surge volume range, different simulation runs with plunger lift multi-cycles have
been performed using reservoir pressures of 3000 psi, 2000 psi, and 1600 psi, wellhead tubing pressures of 75 psi, 150 psi,
250 psi, 350 psi and 500 psi, and water gas ratio of 40 and 80 stb/MMscf. With WGR of 40 stb/MMscf as shown in Tables 4,
liquid surge rate can range from 140 to 1400 b/d in a normal cycle, and from 1300 to 4500 b/d in the first cycle (plunger lift
from long-time shut-in). For gas rate, the surge rate can range from 4 to 10 MMscf/d in the normal cycle, and from 9 to 26
MMscf/d in the first cycle. Table 5 compares the cases of WGR = 40 stb/MMscf and WGR = 80 stb/MMscf in the later life
of 1600 psi reservoir pressure. The liquid surge rate (400~1500 b/d) with WGR of 80 stb/MMscf in a normal plunger lift
cycle can be three time of the surge volume (140~500 b/d) for the case of WGR of 40 stb/MMscf .

Plunger Lift Network Model

Plunger lift network model has been set up and run with total 22 wells at a pad, as shown in Fig. 23. To simulate a
combined situation for production, assume 15 wells with WGR of 40 stb/MMscf and reservoir pressure of 2000 psi, and 7
wells with WGR of 80 stb/MMscf and reservoir pressure of 1600 pis. This is to demonstrate that some wells are depleted fast
and some depleted slower. In addition, assume that 5 wells (W1-W4) with Pr =1600 psi and WGR=40 stb/MMscf are
plunger-lifted with same opening and shutting-in schedule simultaneously, i.e., liquid surge occurs on the surface at the same
time from each of the 5 wells. Another 2 wells (W6-W7) with Pr = 1600 psi and WGR=80 stb/MMscfis are also under
plunger lift, but the operation is not simultaneous. (5 min. and 15 min. lag). The other 15 wells (W8-W22) with Pr = 2000 psi
and WGR=40 stb/MMscf are under natural flow. For later life, the production becomes difficult, thus we assume that no
choke for all wells. Each well has a 3" Schedule 80 pipe connecting to the manifold with same length of 40 m. A 300-ft 10"
Schedule 80 pipe is connecting the header to the separator of 48” ID and 10 ft long. The separator pressure is assumed to be
150 psi.
As shown in Fig. 24, natural flow without plunger lift is unstable due to low pressure reservoir and weak deliverability
from the seven wells. Average gas rate is 15 MMscf/d (peak gas rate of 18 MMscf/d), and average liquid rate is about 1200
stb/d (peak liquid rate of 3000 stb/d).
Fig. 25 shows the separator inlet rates with plunger lift in the seven low pressure wells. With plunger lift, peak gas rate is
around 20 MMscf/d, and peak liquid rate in a normal cycle, is about 2000 b/d lasting for 30 minutes. The liquid surge
amplitude due to plunger lift peak is less than the unstable production case. Comparing with single well plunger lift run
results, it seems that there is no obvious impact of well surge on other producing wells
Assume that separator maximum liquid drainage rate is 2000 bbl/d. For the 30-min. peak period in a normal cycle, liquid
surge volume is calculated to be only 3 bbl in normal cycle. However, for the 5 wells (W1-W5) simultaneous plunger lift in
the first cycle from shut-in conditions the surge volume is 26 bbl and will flood the separator (separator of 48"x10ft has surge
capacity of 22 bbl). This is illustrated in Fig. 26. It suggests that simultaneous plunger lift in the beginning from the shut-in
conditions should be avoided.

Conclusions
A systematic analysis including tight gas reservoir IPR and wellbore transient dynamics has been performed to investigate
the plunger lift effectiveness, performance and optimization for the multiple pad wells in the Piceance basin. The dynamic
wellbore models have been built and run for different scenarios including water-gas-ratio (WGR), individual well vs. network
well pad models, and several sensitivity cases. Simulation was performed for “early”, “middle” and “late” field life which
corresponds to different reservoir pressure and productivity index values and reservoir pressures.
The IPR and reservoir depletion information are based on tight gas tank model and are benchmarked with a 3-D reservoir
simulation, which considers the transient IPR due to very low matrix permeability, hydraulic-fractures and drainage radius.
IPR with back-pressure equation and curve fitting (C & n) were performed for different production stages. Wellbore heat
transfer is considered for the 2000 ft long reservoir thickness along the wellbore configuration. The bottomhole enthalpy from
the inflow is calculated and J-T cooling effect due to significant pressure drawdown is included.
It shows that liquid loading becomes severe and production becomes unstable with higher WGR. Turner critical velocity
for liquid loading is a single point model, while the dynamic wellbore model with tight gas IPR captures the system physics.
When reservoir pressure is low (1600 psi) and WHP is high (150 psi or higher), well heading occurs, which is an unstable
phenomenon with oscillation on a liquid loading well, featuring no liquid rate for long time followed by a liquid surge for a
short time. Higher WCR (80) and high WHP (150 psi or higher) can kill gas production when reservoir pressure is 1600 psi
or less.
Plunger lift deliquification mechanism has been studied. Although there exists significant liquid falling back in the form
of liquid film on tubing wall, liquid is still produced to the surface when plunger arrives at the wellhead. The high-pressure
gas below plunger blows down quickly when plunger is captured in wellhead, which helps to carry the liquid to surface. For
individual plunger-lift well, liquid rate reaches its’ peak in a few minutes. There are two gas peaks during a plunger-lift cycle.
Gas rate decreases after plunger lift and goes to lower level.
For the given conditions, plunger-lift is not operatable with WHP higher than 350 psi and reservoir pressure lower than
1600 psi. Multiple cycles of plunger lift have been simulated to study the well production characteristics. Plunger lift helps to
SPE 124571 7

mitigate the instability problem due to low pressure and liquid loading. Simultaneous plunger-lift from shut-in conditions for
multiple-wells pad should be avoided. Otherwise, simultaneous start-up (of even 5 wells) with plunger lift from shut-in
conditions will flood the separator of 48" ID x10ft length with 26 bbl surge volume.
Through this study we want to understand how the individual well plunger performs, which is the most important part.
With that information, we can try different ways on the surface, e.g., using different separator pressures, different compressor
intake pressure, and intake sizing to serve and accommodate the well's flow behavior. The philosophy is that, the subsurface
and wellbore system should be the "master" for production optimization, and the surface control should serve as a "slave"
system.
It is worthy to couple the transient dynamic wellbore model with a 3-D reservoir simulation. Basically we found similar
results for tight gas plunger lift using the integrated transient simulation (Chears-OLGA link). The details will be discussed in
another paper.

Nomenclature
BHP = bottomhole pressure, psia
C = coefficient forgas back-pressure equation,MMscf/d/psi2
CGR = condensate gas ratio, stb/MMscf
dti = tubing inner diameter, ft
dpl =plunger diameter, ft
f1 = the linear term of viscous force, N/(m/s)
f2 = the quadratic term of viscous force, N/(m/s)2
Fo =the static friction force for plunger to move, N
fw =the wall friction coefficient to plunger movement, N/(m/s)
g = gravity acceleration, ft/s2
n = index for back-pressure equation,
p = pressure, psia
pr = reservoir pressure, psia
pwf =bottomhole pressure, psia
qg= gas flow rate, MMscf/d
qfl = volumetric flow rate due to leak
t = time, hours
Tr = reservoir temperature, R
uc = Turner critical velocity, ft/s
uf = average film velocity, ft/s
up = plunger upward velocity, ft/s
WGR = water gas ratio, stb/MMscf
WHP = wellhead pressure, psia

Greek symbols
ρg =gas density, lbm/f3
ρl =liquid density, lbm/f3
σgl = gas-liquid surface tension, dynes/cm

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Chevron Energy Technology Company for permission to publish this study. Special
thanks to following people of Chevron: Charles Walker, Lina Galvis, Robert Lestz, and Kamath Jairam for their discussion,
suggestion and reviewing of this study. I would like to give credit to Lina Gavis for her providing the IPM model results, and
Cesar Mantillia of University of Texas at Austin for his help with Chears reservoir simulation comparison. I appreciate my
colleague Philip Fader for his kind help to review and edit this paper.
8 SPE 124571

References
1. Tinker, S., and Potter, E.: “ Unconventional Gas Research and Technology Needs”, SPE 2007 Research and Development Conference,
Lexington, Kentucky, April 19, 2007 (www.aboutoilandgas.org/spe-site/spe/spe/meetings/RDC/2007/tinker.pdf)
2. Lea, J.F. et. al.: “Gas Well Deliquification-Solution to Gas Well Liquid Loading Problems”, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2003, p53,
Burlington, MA, U.S.A,.
3. Roberts, C.N.: “Fracture of Optimization in a Tight Gas Play: Muddy “J” Formation, Wattenberg Field, Colorado”, paper SPE 9851
presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium , 27-29 May 1981, Denver, Colorado
4. Thompson, J.K.: “Use of Constant Pressure, Finite Capacity Type Curves for Performance Prediction of Fractured Wells in Low-
Permeability Reservoirs”, paper SPE 9839 presented at the SPE/DOE Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Symposium , 27-29 May 1981,
Denver, Colorado
5. Finley, R. J.: “An Overview of Selected Blanket Geometry, Low Permeability Gas Sandstones in Texas”, Geology of Tight Gas
Reservoir: AAPG Studies in Geology No. 24 (1986) 69-85
6. Spencer, C.W.: “Review of Characteristics of Tight Gas Reservoirs in Western United States”, Bull. AAPG (1989) 73, 613-629
7. Riley, M.F.: “Finite Conductivity Fractures in Elliptical Coordinates”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford U., Stanford, CA, 1991
8. S. Amini, S., Ilk, D., and Blasingame, T.A.: “Evaluation of the Elliptical Flow Period for Hydraulically-Fractured Wells in Tight Gas
Sands—Theoretical Aspects and Practical Considerations”, paper SPE 106308 presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, 29-31 January 2007, College Station, Texas, U.S.A .
9. Blasingame, T.A.: “The Characteristic Flow Behavior of Low-Permeability Reservoir Systems”, paper SPE 114168 presented at the
SPE Unconventional Reservoirs Conference, 10-12 February 2008, Keystone, Colorado, USA
10. Rushing, J.A., Perego, A.D., and Sullivan, R.B.: “Estimating Reserves in Tight Gas Sands at HP/HT Reservoir Conditions: Use and
Misuse of an Arps Decline Curve Methodology”, paper SPE 109652 presented at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 11-14 November 2007, Anaheim, California, U.S.A.
11. IPM User Manual (Ver 6.3), Petroleum Experts, 2008
12. Chears User’s Guide, , Chevron Energy Technology Company, 2008
13. Foss, D.L. and Gaul, R.B.: “Plunger Lift Performance Criteria with Operating Experience - Ventura Avenue Field”, Drilling and
Production Practice, API, (1965)120-140.
14. Hacksma, J.D.: “Predicting Plunger Lift Performance”, presented at Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock, Texas, 1972.
15. Lea, J.F.: “Dynamic Analysis of Plunger Lift Operations”, paper SPE 10253 presented at the 1981 Annual Fall Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 5-7.
16. Avery, D.J. and Evans, R.D.: “Design Optimization of Plunger Lift Systems”, paper 17585 presented at the SPE International Meeting
on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China, November 1-4, 1988.
17. Chacin, J., Schmidt, Z. and Doty D.: “Modeling and Optimization of Plunger Lift Assisted Intermittent Gas Lift Installations”, paper
23683 presented at the 1992 SPE Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference.
18. White, G.W.: “Combine Gas Lift Plungers to Increase Production Rate”, World Oil (Nov. 1982) 69-76.
19. Mower, L.W.., Lea, J.F., Beauregard, E. and Ferguson, P.L.: “Defining the Characteristics and Performance of Gas lift Plungers”, paper
SPE 14344 presented at the 1985 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition , Las Vegas, NV, Sept. 22-25.
20. Brady, C.L., and Morrow, S.J.: “An Economic Assessment of Artificial Lift in Low-Pressure, Tight Gas Sands in Ochiltree County,
Texas”, paper SPE 27932 presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Gas Symposium, 22-24 May 1994, Amarillo, Texas
21. Marcano, L., and Chacin, J.: “Mechanistic Design of Conventional Plunger-Lift Installation” paper SPE 23682, SPE Advanced
Technology Series, March 1994
22. Gasbarri, S. and Wiggins, M.L.: “A Dynamic Plunger Lift Model for Gas Wells”, paper SPE 37422 presented at the SPE Production
Operations Symposium, 9-11 March 1997, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
23. Lea, J. F.: “Plunger Lift versus Velocity Strings”, JERT (Trans., ASME), Dec. 1999, Vol. 121, No. 4, 234
24. Maggard, J.B., Wattenbarger, R.A., and Scott, S.L.: “Modeling Plunger Lift for Water Removal From Tight Gas Wells”, paper SPE
59747 presented at SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, 3-5 April 2000, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
25. Tang, Y. and Liang, Z.: “A New Method of Plunger Lift Dynamic Analysis and Optimal Design for Gas Well Deliquification “, paper
SPE 116764 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21-24 September 2008, Denver, Colorado, USA
26. OLGA 2000 User Manual (4.17), Scandpower Petroleum Technology, Aug., 2005
27. Bendiksen, K.H., Malnes, D., Moe, R. and Nuland, S.: “The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application,” SPE
Production Engineering, May 1991, pp. 171-180
28. Nossen, J., Shea, R., and Rasmussen J.: “New Developments in Flow Modeling and Field Data Verification,” 2nd North American
Conference on Multiphase Technology, Banff Canada, 21-23 June 2000, BHR Group.
29. PVTSim User Manual (Ver. 15), Calsep A/S, 2005
SPE 124571 9

Table 1: Reservoir Basic Input

Parameter Value Unit

Reservoir Permeability, k 0.00055 md
Initial Reservoir Pressure, Pr 3000 psi
Reservoir Temperature, Tr 215 F
Net Pay, h 390 ft
Porocity, 0.1 fraction
Connate Water Saturation, Swc 0.3
Drainage Radius, re 370 ft
Wellbore Radius, rw 0.33 ft
Fracture Half-Length, L f 360 ft
Dimensionless Fracture Conductivity, CD 150
Water Gas Ratio (WGR) 80 bbl/MMscf
Gas Gravity, g 0.65

Table. 2 Reservoir initial pressure and temperature for layers

Perf. Middle Depth Temperature Pressure, psia

ft F Early middle later
STAGE 1 5707 179.4 2904.5 2073.7 1621.7
STAGE 2 5197 167.8 2854 2023 1571
STAGE 3 4935 161.9 2827 1997 1545
STAGE 4 4682 156.1 2802 1971 1519
STAGE 5 4488 151.7 2783 1952 1500
STAGE 6 4042 141.6 2738 1907 1455
STAGE 7 3744 134.9 2708 1877 1425

Table. 3 Reservoir gas compositions

10 SPE 124571

Table. 4 Gas and liquid surge rates for individual well plunger lift, WGR = 40 stb/MMscf

Pr=3000 psi (WGR=40 stb/MMscf)

Max. Rate Max. Rate
(from shut-in) (from plunger cycle)
FPT (psi) MMSCFPD BFPD MMSCFPD BFPD
75 26 4500 10 1000
500 23 2400 10 1000
Pr=2000 psi (WGR=40 stb/MMscf)
Max. Rate Max. Rate
FPT (psi) MMSCFPD BFPD MMSCFPD BFPD
75 17 3500 7 500
500 14 2200 7 1400
Pr=1600 psi (WGR=40 stb/MMscf)
Max. Rate Max. Rate
FPT (psi) MMSCFPD BFPD MMSCFPD BFPD
75 13 1300 4 140
150
250 9 3000 4 500
350 dead dead dead dead

Table. 5 Comparison of gas and liquid surge rates, individual well plunger lift, WGR = 40 vs. 80 stb/MMscf

Pr=1600 psi (W GR=40 stb/MMscf) Pr=1600 psi (W GR=80 stb/MMscf)

Max. Rate Max. Rate Max. Rate Max. Rate
FPT (psi) MMSCFPD BFPD MMSCFPD BFPD MMSCFPD BFPD MMSCFPD BFPD
75 13 1300 4 140 10.5 3200 3 400
150 10.1 2800 3 800
250 9 3000 4 500 5.1 4500 3.5 1500
350 dead dead dead dead dead dead dead dead

Fig. 1 Piceance valley pad wells

SPE 124571 11

Fig. 2 Piceance valley S-shape well (minimum deviation)

Fig. 3 Concept of linear and elliptical and pseudo-radial flow behavior in tight gas (Thompson and Robert, 1981)
12 SPE 124571

Fig. 4 IPM model for Piceance tight gas pad wells system

3500 3.5

3000 Reservoir Pressure 3

B H Pressure
pr Gas Rate
2500 2.5
Pressure, psig

Gas rate, MMscf/d

2000 2

1500 1.5

1000 1

qg
500 0.5

pwf
0 0

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Time, day

Fig. 5 Tight gas reservoir tank model: production prediction (IPM) (30 years)

10 acres (660 ft x 660 ft)

OILPRESS
0 750 1500 2250 3000

13 layers, 7 perforated WELL

X

FRACTURE K 12md

BACKGROUND PERM = 1E-3 md

kf w 128md × 1 ft
Cf D = = = 150
xf k 169.6 ft × 5 × 10 −3 ft

PiceanceFracReg.grid 10 Jun 2008

Fig. 6 3-D Simulation model (Chears) for Piceance tight gas reservoir (single well model)
SPE 124571 13

Tight Tank
2.5
Regular tank
Chears
Gas Rate (MMSCFD)
2

1.5

1
regular tank model

0.5 transient stage

boundary dominated stage

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time, day

Fig. 7 Comparison of gas rate based on different models

3500

Tight Tank
3000 Regular Tank
Reservoir Pressure (MSCFD)

Chears
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time, day

Fig. 8 Comparison of reservoir pressure with different models

14 SPE 124571

No packer
in annulus

Gas

Liquid

Plunger at
Tubing-shoe

Fig. 9 Lower wellbore configuration with 7 reservoir layers

3500

Pr=2900 psia
3000 Pr=2074 psia
Pr=1621 psia
Pr=2900 psia-fitted
2500 Pr=2074 psia-fitted
Pr=1621 psia-fitted
Pressure (psig)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Qg, (MMscf/d)

Fig. 10 Tight gas IPR and Regression

SPE 124571 15

3500

3000 Pr=2900 psia

Layer-1

Pressure (psig)
Layer-2
Layer-3
2500 Layer-4
Layer-5
Layer-6
2000 Layer-7
Layer-All

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.5 1 1.5

Gas Rate (MMscf/d)

Fig. 11 Layer IPR curve fitting to sum up to overall IPR

0 70
Wellhead

-1000 60

-2000 50

Inclination, deg.
-3000 40
Depth, ft

inclination
-4000 30

-5000 20

tubing shoe
-6000 10
bottomhole

-7000 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Horizontal length, ft

Fig. 12 Wellbore elevation profile (maximum deviation)

BH-tubing-shoe

Casing annulus

tubing

Fig. 13 Wellbore pressure gradient profiles (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf)
16 SPE 124571

BH-Tubing-show

tubing
J-T cooling due to
Casing annulus
reservoir fluid entry

Fig. 14 Wellbore temperature gradient profiles (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf)

WGR=80 stb/MMscfi

WGR=40 stb/MMscfi

Fig. 15 Unstable liquid production: WGR=40 vs. 80 stb/MMscf (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=150 psi)

WGR=40 stb/MMscfi WGR=80 stb/MMscfi

Fig. 16 Unstable gas production: WGR=40 vs. 80 stb/MMscf (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=150 psi)

bottomhole

Tubing shoe

Wellhead
Casing

Wellhead tubing

Fig. 17 System Pressure with well heading (Pr=1600 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf, WHP=250 psi)
SPE 124571 17

0 min, compressed gas in tubing during shut-in

1 min.

2 min. 3 min.

Fig. 18 Tubing pressure profile at different time of plunger lift (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf)

Gas Liquid rate

rate

Fig. 19 Gas and liquid rates during plunger lift, single cycle (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf)

Opening 45 min.

Plunger
velocity

Fig. 20 Plunger-lift multiple cycles and plunger velocity

(Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf) (45 min. opening and 15 min. shut-in)
18 SPE 124571

One cycle

SI production

BHP

Gas rate liquid rate

Fig. 21 Gas, liquid rates and BHP during plunger lift, multiple cycles
(Pr=1600 psi, WHP=75 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf) (45 min. opening and 30 min. shut-in)

Peak for plunger arrival

Deliquification
by plunger-lift

Liquid
accumulation Liquid rate
in tubing

Fig. 22 Tubing liquid content during plunger lift,

multiple cycles (Pr=1600 psi, WHP=150 psi, WGR=40 stb/MMscf) (45 min. opening and 30 min. shut-in)

Well #6 plunger-lift 5 min.

5 wells plunger-lift open simultaneously later with WGR=80)
(2 wells with WGR=40, 3 wells with WGR=80) Well #7 plunger-lift 15 min.
later with WGR=80)

3” pipes from wells to manifold

Manifold

15 wells under natural flow with

10” Schedule 80 300 ft
reservoir 2000 psi, WGR=40
to central separator
(treated as constant mass
sources in OLGA)
Central Separator 48”
IDx10’. P =150 psi

Fig. 23 Plunger lift network model with total 22 wells in a pad

SPE 124571 19

Gas rate

Liquid rate

Fig. 24 Gas and liquid rates without plunger lift , 22 wells in a pad

Gas rate

Liquid rate

Fig. 25 Gas and liquid rates with plunger lift in 7 low pressure wells, 22 wells in a pad

50 100000
7-wells plungers are
7-wells plungers are arriving WH
arriving WH from the shut-
at normal operation conditions.
40 in conditions. 10000
Surge Volume, bbl

Liquid Rate (in), bbl/d

30 1000

20 100

10 10

0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, hrs

Fig. 26 Liquid surge rate and volume, 5 wells plunger lift simultaneously from shut-in, 22 wells in a pad