IPTC16982

Potential Application of Downhole Gas Compressor to Improve

Productivity for Gas Reservoir
Md Mofazzal Hossain, SPE, MIEAust, Curtin University, and Mohd Dali bin Mohd Ismail, Curtin University

Copyright 2013, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 2628 March 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract
Downhole Gas Compression (DGC) is the new form of Artificial Lift Technology used to increase the productivity of gas
wells. Surface compressors are commonly used to reduce the pressure at the wellhead, which in turn reduces flowing bottom
hole pressure, and boost the well productivity for a gas well especially during its decline phase when average reservoir
pressure falls to a value equal to the pressure in the wellbore imposed by the sales line at the surface, plus the pressure losses
that occur in the gathering system and the tubing. This conventional technique is not very efficient for the gas wells that
produce significant amount of liquid (water or condensate), since this liquid needs to be separated before reaching the gas
compressor. In addition, it also requires additional space for compressor assembly into the well, which may be very
challenging for wells in offshore and subsea environment. As an alternative to surface compressors, down hole gas
compressors technique can be applied to increase the well productivity, especially gas wells in offshore and subsea
environment. Some study claimed that this new technology could: increase more than 30% of gas production; resolve many
multiphase related issues; and delay the onset of liquid loading. However, numerous challenges associated with design,
development and implementation of this new technology are not well understood or documented. This study has been focused
to understand the key concepts of the technology and explore its potential application for increasing well productivity of gas
wells through sensitivity studies.
This paper presents principles mechanisms including theoretical background of DGC techniques, and results of sample case
studies based on sensitivity analysis with aims to identify key factors to be considered for successful deployments of DGC into
a gas well for natural gas reservoir. The paper also summarizes key findings which may be used as potential guidelines while
considering for possible implementation of DGC technique during field development planning.
Introduction
Many forms of artificial lift methods, such as Electric Submersible Pump (ESP), Jet pump and Beam Pump or gas lift are
commonly used to enhance the well productivity, especially during the decline phase of a reservoir when its pressure no longer
provides sufficient bottomhole flowing pressure necessary to support fllowing pressure gradient and surface backpressure
imposed at the bottomhole through wellhead. The technologies associated with such conventional arficial methods are
explicitely designed to deal with oil wells. This technology may not be feasible for gas wells due to many limitations including
physical limitations of dealing with gas phase. Generally for gas wells, central gas compression and/or wellhead compression
are used, usually at the surface of a low pressure gas wells to minimize wellhead pressure by reducing the surface backpressure
resulting in decreasing the flowing bottomhole pressure or increasing the drawdown, and thereby increases the reservoir inflow
capabilities. This mechanism would provide an extra lift capacity of a well especially for depleted gas reservoir. This method
is not as effective as conventional artificial lift methods applied in an oil well; and is limited by the suction capability of the
compressor down the length of the production tubing, where it is required to overcome significant amount of flowing pressure
gradient. As a result the well may require declaring early abandoned with leaving at least 30-40% of the original gas in the
reservoir.

IPTC 16982

This conventional approach is also not very convenient in offshore environments. Different techniques are available for deep
offshore gas well, where high capacity conventional compressors are used either at the wellhead or on the fixed platform or at
the floating production system. Such compressors require high operating and servicing or intervention costs.
As an alternative to conventional method of compression system, subsea compression system has been attracted considerable
attention by the industry mainly due to reduced power requirements, since in such case compressor are installed near wellhead
in subsea. This technique is found to be cost effective as compared to conventional platform based compression system.
However, despite its relatively low power requirements or cost effectiveness, this technique poses many challenges in regards
to installation, service requirement, and initial investment. Initial investment, operating and servicing cost are usually
extremely high, which makes this techniques unattractive.
A new form artificial lift technology introduced by Corac Group known as Downhole Gas Compressor (DGC) is specifically
design for gas wells to increase productivity and maximize recovery factor of the reservoir. This DGC technology was claimed
to be offered the opportunity to increase the production by 30~50%, and improve reserves significantly. This technology can
accelerate early production; extent the production plateau in new gas developments; rejuvenate mature gas reservoirs
characterized by low reservoir pressure in a costeffective manner; and maximize recoverable reserves by optimizing the gas
well production performance (Liley and Oakely 2007, Liley and Verbeek 2004).
DGC is comprehensively different from the common compression as it is installed with the completion string like Electric
Submersible Pump (ESP) completion. It can be placed as close to the well perforation as possible allowing gas production at a
minimum abandonment pressure of the reservoir, and maximization of ultimate gas recovery. The DGC may give 20 40%
gain of production which can be used anytime during production. The compression can be serviced using conventional
workover operation similar to ESP servicing.
This study, however, aims to establish the theoretical basis of DGC technology that may be used to analyse the performance of
a well completed with DGC system for a natural gas reservoir; and evaluate the potential application of this technology based
on sensitivity studies. This paper presents the theortically derived analytical model, detail parametric studies for vaious
scenerios and investigates the effect of various parameters associated with reservoir conditions and well operating conditions
on the production gain, when a well is completed with a DGC system.
An Overview and key features of DGC
The DGC technology works following the same principles of artificial lift pump used in a conventional oil or liquid producing
well. The flowing fluid experiences the pressure loss as it traverses through the tubing from bottom to the surface. The
available bottom hole inflow flow pressure (BHIFP) has to support this flowing pressure loss plus the wellhead pressure as
required to be maintained to support backpressure of surface facilities for a given operating condition. If this available BHIFP
is less than the required flowing pressure loss plus wellhead pressure, the well will be ceased to flow. In such situation, DGC
can provide extra pressure drawdown or necessary pressure support to make the well flow with a very low BHIFP at a desired
rate.
DGC is found to be applicable for both wet and dry gas fields, which have low average reservoir pressure deliverability and
friction dominated tubing performance (Liley 2005). The DGC technology is also capable of optimizing the production system
by minimizing flowing pressure gradient, and supporting the higher wellhead pressure. The flowing pressure gradient consists
of three components: (i) pressure loss due to friction; (ii) hydrostatic pressure loss due to density of fluid; and (iii) well
pressure loss due to acceleration of fluid. The last component is generally not significant as compared to other two
components, and is usually neglected in calculation. The flowing fluid also requires overcoming necessary wellhead pressure
imposed into the well from the downstream gathering systems. However, the frictional pressure gradient for single phase
laminar flow condition increases proportionately with velocity but this proportionality will be complex in case of turbulence
flow. It is also a function of the relative roughness of production tubing. In other words, the higher the velocity of fluid causes
a higher pressure loss across the tubing. The hydrostatic pressure loss depends on the density of the gas, and the vertical
distance between the wellhead and the point of interest in the well bore (usually bottomhole). The wellhead pressure is
constrained by requirements of surface facilities or gathering systems and is determined based on pressure required to support
the backpressure of gathering systems. The lifting capacity or overall gas production rate can be increased considerably by
reducing any of the pressure components discussed earlier. The DGC is able to do this by compressing the low pressure gas
entering the tubing immediately after it departs the bottomhole. As a result, the density of this compressed gas will be
increased allowing a decrease in gas velocity for the same mass flow rate (volumetric flow rate for given tubing size); and
hence minimizes the frictional pressure loss (Liley, and Verbeek, 2004); and boost the overall gas production rate. This will
also help reduce tubing erosion inside the production tubing by minimizing the risk of occurring turbulence flow of gas.

IPTC 16982

Furthermore, the placement of the DGC plays an important role in reducing total pressure losses. By placing the DGC closer to
the perforation of the well, the suction pressure it receives would be relatively high requiring a minimal compression ratio that
can provide significantly higher discharge pressure from the compressor. The compression near the reservoir allows more gas
to flow from the reservoir into the well by reducing the following bottomhole inflow pressure (BHIFP). The overall benefit
achievable by installing DGC is that it reduces the FBHIP due to the suction pressure of the compressor resulting in a higher
drawdown, which in turn lowers the abandonment pressure, and hence increases the recoverable gas reserves (Liley, Verbeek
and Rijswijk, 2004). The other production benefit from the DGC is that it is a cost effective way to be used on mature gas
wells (Bybee, 2009). For new gas wells, it can also be used to accelerate production rate and extend the life of the gas well
(Tullio et al, 2009).
While this innovative technology was being able to operate in downhole condition, various challenges needed to be addressed
in order to come up with the right design for the compressor. One of the challenges is to design a compressor which can work
in limited sized tubing with high temperature and pressure condition. In addition, a high speed motor needs to be designed in
order to drive the compressor. The method of power distribution between the surface and the compressor is also needed to be
taken into consideration. Other obstacle is the lubricant system of the compressor which needs to be worked out as a
conventional system cannot be used in harsh downhole condition.
Similar to multistage ESP, DGC contains a number of compressoin modules arranged in series. Each module consists of a high
speed compressor driven by permanent magnet motor supported on gas bearings, and powered by individual high frequency
solid state inverters designed for a downhole environment (Geary et al, 2008). Electrical power is delivered downhole by a low
loss DC link enabling up to 0.5 MW(670 hp) of wellbore compression power. From the first feasibility study on the DGC
conducted by Liley et al, (Liley, and Verbeek, 2004), optimum compression power was found to be 0.5 MW (670 hp) for a
well casing diameter of 9 5/8 inch. To be able to achieve the targetted power within available space, five modules of
permanent magnet electric motor was placed in series with maximum output of 100KW(135 hp) per module. Figure 1 shows
the compressor modules in series. Each module provide moderate pressure ratio with high flow rate. Three blade rows were
also used to reduce the blade velocity and erosion. Low solidity blade design also helps, when one or more of the compressor
module is shut down. Gas is still able to flow between suction and discharge section, thus flow is not constraint when the
system fails. Consideration was also taken towards the change of reservoir condition over time, which leads towards an
independent modular control with wide compressor operating range. This help in extending the operability of the DGC.

Figure1: Compressor Module Stack up (Liley, and Verbeek, 2004)

As reported by Geary (2008), the one of the major elements in the technology of DGC is the low loss electrical power delivery
system using downhole power invertors. The system consists of two sections, which is the electronic package located at the
compressor inlet and the surface power feed located near the well head. These two sections are connected by a cable located
outside of the production tubing which relay signals and power to the compressor. A supply transformer was used to transfer
electrical energy from the supply to downhole system. Voltage dips was prevented by adding a pre-charge and premagnetisation inside the system. Permanent magnet motors were used rather than induction motor as its ability to operate at

IPTC 16982

hig
gher speed, beetter efficiency
y and higher volumetric
v
dennsity. Since thhe compressorr requires high
h rotational sppeed inside sm
mall
diaameter tubing,, short shift sh
haft was used.
Tu
ullio (2009) haas also mentiooned that eachh compressor module will be
b having its own
o
power electronic motoor drive. Figurre 2
bellow shows a m
module in the compressor. The
T DGC typpically will be having five to
o six compresssor modules depending
d
on the
pow
wer need. A llow loss DC link
l
was usedd from the dow
wnhole cable towards the inverters
i
locaated at the inleet of each mootor.
Th
he main reasonn of using DC to transmit poower downhole is to reducee resistive lossses caused by high frequenccy AC.

Fig
gure -2: Interrnal view of a single comp
pressor modu
ule (Bybee 20009)
Th
he second majoor element of the DGC menntioned by Geeary (2008) is the hydrodynamic gas bearring system. The
T gas bearin
ng is
maade from hydrrodynamic gass film and usees produced hydrocarbon gas as its lubriccant. It functtions as a lubrricant at the drrive
train and ensuredd no wearing was to be happpened during the use of thee compressor.
nalytical Model Predicts
s Production
n Performan
nce
An
he production performance of a well maay better be analysed
a
by thhe combinatio
on of well infflow performaance and outfl
flow
Th
perrformance anaalysis using nodal
n
analysis approach. Thhe principle of
o the analyticcal model devveloped was based
b
on presssure
dro
op calculationn across prodduction tubingg for single phase
p
gas flow
w (outflow peerformance) using
u
the govverning oridinnary
diffferential equaation for gass flow througgh tubing incclined at an arbitrarily
a
aglle of from
m the horizonntal, as given by
(Ecconomodes, 1994):
.

sin

(1)

In Equation 1, gas compresssibility factor (Z), pressuree (P), and tem

mperature (T)) are the funcction of position, L. To so
olve
quation 1 regorously, it is neecessary to appply approxim
mate conditionns, as practiced
d by the indusstry. Since preessure P at lenngth
Eq
L is
i not a strongg function of temperature and
a compresssibility factor,, average valuues of T and Z over the seggment of tubee of
intterest can be aassumed for a reasonable appproximation. If the temperrature varies liinearly betweeen point 1(upsstream) and pooint
2 (downstream)
(
or log mean
m
temperatture
, the average temperature, , can be estiimated as thee mean temperrature (
(
/
). Averag
ge compressibbility factor, , now can be
b obtained fro
om a known pressure (sayy P1) and averrage
mperature, using
u
an equattion of state orr appropriate correlation off Z factor.Withh this assumpttion, the presssure between two
t
tem
poiints (upstream
m and downstrream) over thee segment of tubing
t
length (L) for singlee phase gas floow can be preddicted by solvving
Eq
quation 1, whicch yields in US
U field unit foor a certain floow rate as given by (Katz ett al., 1959):
2.685

10

; where
w
s

(2)

IPTC 16982

In Equation2, P1, and P2 are respectively, upstream and downstream pressure in psi within the segment of tubing of length, L
ft, with inner diameter of D inch for a given gas flow rate of q Mscf/d; at an average temperature of oR. g is the specific
gravity of gas; is well inclination with respect to horizontal (e.g. for a vertical well, = 90); and is the average gas
compressibility factor. The average value of and gas viscosity are to be calculated based on PVT properties of gas
considering an average temperature and pressure prevailing at the point of interest with an equation of state or an appropriate
correlation. ff is the fanning frictional factor, which is to be obtained from Reynolds number and pipe surface roughness for
laminar flow, or using an appropriate correlation for turbulent flow. The friction factor can be expressed in term of Moody
friction factor, fm as
, which also can be obtained using Moddy friction factor diagram (Moody, 1944). For fully
turbulent flow, Katz and Lees (Katz and Lee, 1990) correlations may be used for a range of oilfield tubings, and give by:
.

.
.

4.277

(3)

4.277

(4)

Equation 2 can be used to approximate the pressure drop (P1-P2) in a single phase gas wells (natural or dry gas) over a tubing
segment of interest. However, since Z factor is a strong function of pressure and temeperature that vary with the position or the
length of tubing segment, Equation 2 needs to be solved iteratively using a numerical technique such as NewtonRaphson or
successive substitution, and consequencely the approximate solution of Equation 2 could be erroneous, depending the length
of the segement or flow distance to be considered during calculation. The longer the flow distance, the larger will be the error.
To minimize the error, it is necessary to divide the well into multiple segments with as small length (measured depth) as
possible.
Pressure Drop across a Gas Well Completed with a DGC
The standard pressure drop calculation as decribed earlier (Equation 2) is modified by adding a compressor in an arbitrary
location within the production tubing. Figure 3 illustrates the typical set up in case of a well completed with DGC system, in
which Equation 3 is applied to establish the relationship between compressor discharge pressure, Pd and wellhead pressure,
Pwh, and is given by Equation 5:
2.685

10

where,

(5)

Pwh

L2
Pd

Ps
L1
Pwf
Figure -3: Production set up with DGC

Once the discharge compressor pressure Pd is calculated from known wellhead pressure, Pwh, the suction pressure, Ps is then
calculated by knowing the compression ratio, R, of the compressor using Equation 6:
(6)

IPTC 16982

Rearranging equation (6) to solve Ps:

(7)
Finally, well flowing pressure, Pwf can be calculated by calculating pressure drop over the length of tubing segment of interest
(say L1) using Equation 8:
2.685

10

, where

(8)

Equations 5, 7 and 8 are used to calculate the outflow performance of a natural dry gas well completed with DGC. In these
equations, Z factor can be estimated by knowing pseudo-crtitical pressure (Ppc) and pseudo critical temperature (Tpc) values for
a particular gas system. However, Z factor is often calculated by using Standing and Kartz chart (1954) for natural gas system,
when the details of gas compostion are available. Many correlations available in the literatures are developed based on this
chart to be readily adoptable for compution by personal computer. Correlation presented by Hall and Yarborough (1973) is
developed based on an equation-of-state, which accurately represents the Standing and Katz Z-factor chart, and found to be
more accurate to cacluale this factor for natural gas system (Ahmed 2004). In this study Hall and Yarborough correlation is
used to calculate this Z factor.
Since this study has been focused on natural dry gas reservoir, and exact composition of gas system is not known, correlations
of natural gas systems given in Equations 9-10 (Ahmad 2004) are used to calculate pseudo critical pressure and temperature of
the gas for known gas gravity.
168

325

677

15

12.5
37.5

(9)
(10)

The outflow performance equations as described above can now readily be applied to predict the production performance of a
well (both naturally flowing and with DGC enable artificial lifted options) in combination of inflow performance relationship
(IPR) and properties of gas using nodal analysis concept utilizing the MS Excel spread sheet program. The IPR used in this
study is based on exact analytical equation for circular drainage vertical gas wells as given by Equation 11.
qg

kh[m ( p r ) m ( p wf )]

0.472 re
1422 T ln
S Dq g
r
w

pr

m( p r ) 2

po

p wf

m( p wf ) 2

po

(11)

dp,
p

dp,

where,
qg = Gas flow rate, Mscf/d
k = Reservoir permeability, md
m (p) is pseudo-pressure function, psi2/cp
T = Temperature, oR,
S = total skin
Dqg = rate dependent skin (non-Darcy effect)
h = reservoir thickness, ft
re = drainage radius, ft
rw = well radius, ft
As mentioned earlier, Z-factor required for Equation 11 is calculated using Hall and Yarborough correlation. The viscosity is
calculated using the Carr-Kobayashi-Burrows correlation (Carr et al, 1954). The details of these correlations can be found in
any standard reservoir engineering text book (e.g Ahmed, 2004).
The production benefits achievable by DGC system can now easily be evailauted by inflow and outflow performance analysis,
and comparing the production profiles for both with and woithout DGC (non-DGC) over the wells lifecycle using the
analytical model described above. The percentage of production gain achievable can be calculated by:

IPT
TC 16982

100

(12)

Mo
odel Validattion, Sensitiv
vity Studies
s, Results an
nd Discussions
Mo
odel Validation
Co
onsidering infl
flow and outflow model as described earrlier, excel baased spreadsheeed program iis developed tto perform no
odal
anllysis to predicct the productiion performannce of a typicaal natural gas w
well with andd without DGC
C. In this analyysis, bottom hole
h
is considered
c
as solution nodee. The well coonfiguration considered
c
in this study is based
b
on referrence well useed by Tullio et
e al
(20
009) for their study. Figuree 4 shows thee schematic of the referencce well. The base
b
case reseervoir and weell data presen
nted
w pressure dry
ressepectively in Table 1, andd Table 2 from
m typical low
y natural gas field.
f
Similar analyses are performed ussing
OSPER, MBA
ind
dustry acceptaable commerccial software modules PRO
AL and GAP of Petroleum
m Expert, IPM
M 7.5 softwaree to
del.
jusstify the level of accuracy of
o simplified analytical mod
nal artificial liift method thaat is
Geenerally PROS
SPER is sufficcient to modell a single welll. However, thhe DGC is not a convention
nate
P). In this situaation an altern
reaadily availablee within PROS
SPER softwarre unlike gas lift
l and electriic submersiblee pumps (ESP
The base case reservoir prooperties and well
d into GAP. T
w
app
proach was adopted, wheree PROSPER and MBAL are
a integrated
5b. The results from analyttical
L-GAP model, as shown inn Figures 5a-5
pro
operties were used to produ
uce this PROSPER-MBAL
T
d in Table 3. The similar results can be evident from both cases. This
mo
odel and PRO
OSPER-MBAL
L-GAP modell are presented
ons used in coomputing the gas propertiees. The analyttical
minor deviationn could be duee to consideraation of differrent correlatio
y and compreessibility; which may not bbe exact case for
btain viscosity
mo
odel uses an aaverage presssure and tempperature to ob
sofftware model. This compaarison, howevver, confirms that simplifieed analytical model can bee used as a ppotential tool for
sim
milar type of aanalysis with more
m
than 90%
% accuracy.
Table 1: Base case reservoir param
meters
Properties
Values
V
Reservoir Pre
essure (psi)
2,800
Reservoir Temperature (F)
170
Area (a
acres)
640
Thickne
ess (ft)
100
Gas grravity
0.52
Permeabillity (mD)
20
Poros
sity
0.2
Water Saturation
0.2
Total skin
s
15
Rate depen
ndent skin
0

7 Casing
g, ends at 610
00ft

DGC at 4500ft
4
27/8 Tub
bing, ends at 5900ft

Tab
ble 2: Based ca
ase well parame
eters
Parame
eters
Values
V
T
Tubing
Outer Diameter (Inch)
2.875
T
Tubing Inner Diameter (Inch)
2.441
Well Head Pre
essure (psi)
500
Casing (Inch)
7
Well Bore Diameter (Inch)
7

Mid perfo
oration at 600
00ft

Fig
gure 4: Referen
nce well configuration

ut DGC
Figure 5 (a) - GAP
P model withou

Figu
ure 5 (b) - GAP model with DG
GC

IPTC 16982
Table 3 - Comparison of PROSPER-MBAL-GAP model and Analytical Model
Optimum Flow Rate (MMscf/d)
Non DGC

DGC

Production Gain
(%)

Mathematical

20.20

24.60

21.78

Software

21.15

25.91

22.49

Deviation (%)

4.71

5.33

3.2

Modelling Method

Sensitivity Studies and Discussion

The sensitivity studies are performed using the developed spreadsheet program employing the derived analytical model to
anlyze the production performance of a dry gas well with and without DGC. The aims of this sensitivity study are to:
investigate the parameters affecting the inflow and outflow performance of a gas producing well completed with DGC system;
determine the most sensitive parameters affecting the performance of the DGC, and justify the potential application of the
system.
The well configuration and paramters for reservoir, and gas properties used for model validation are considered as base case
for sensitivity study. The parameters considered in sensistivity studies are: reservoir deliverability; well completion
parameters; and well head pressure. Reservoir deliverability covers sensitivity on reservoir pressure, reservoir permeability
and reservoir thickness. Well completion parameters covers sensitivity on production tubing diameter, depth of DGC, well
length and compression ratio of the compressor. The sensitivity of each paramters are observed and discussed in this section.
Reservoir Pressure
Pressure gives a high impact towards the behaviour of dry gas as it is a low density fluid with high coefficient of isothermal
compressibility. While gas is flowing up the tubing, pressure starts dropping, which results the expansion of the gas, and hence
increases the flow velocity of the gas. This promotes increasing in frictional pressure resulting higher pressure losses across
the flowing tubing. From Figure 6, it can be seen that higher reservoir pressure can offer higher flowing capacity of well. The
comparison between well completed with DGC and without DGC (termed as non-DGC) shows that the well completed with
DGC gives a better view with respect to the reduction of pressure loss. The results are summarized in Table 4, which show that
a higher reservoir pressure gives a better production gain. Even as the reservoir starts to deplete, the production gain retains
about 20% giving the compressor to operate for a longer period of time for a given wellhead pressure. It also confirms that
well would continue to flow at low reservoir pressure, when it is completed with DGC.
Table 4: Reservoir pressure sensitivity result

DGC
Non DGC

Pwf (psia)

5,000

Optimum Flow Rate

(Mscf/d)

IPR (R.Pres.=2000)
IPR (R.Pres.=2800) Base

4,000

IPR (R.Pres.=3000)

3,000

IPR (R.Pres.=4000)

2,000
1,000
0
0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Reservoir
Pressure (psia)

Non
DGC

DGC

Productio
n Gain
(%)

2,000

13,000

15,800

21.54

2,800

20,200

24,600

21.78

3,000

22,000

27,000

22.73

4,000

30,800

37,800

22.73

Qg(Mscf/d)

Figure 6: Reservoir pressure sensitivity

Reservoir Permeability
From Figure 7, it can be seen that the IPR curves are strongly influenced by permeability. Thus, it shows higher production
gain while using the DGC for a high permeable reservoir. Results from Table 5 shows that the DGC gives significant increase
in production rate gain with higher permeability values. Higher value of permeability gives better inflow capability and hence
higher gas flowrate, even at low drawdown, which offsets the pressure losses across the reservoir and the completion tubing.
This shows that better reservoir deliverability helps promote more production gain with the help of DGC.

IPTC 16982

Table 5: Reservoir permeability sensitivity result

DGC

3,500

Pwf (psia)

Non DGC
IPR (k=5)

3,000

IPR (k=10)

2,500

IPR (k=20) Base

2,000

IPR (k=40)

Permeability
(mD)

Optimum Flow Rate

(Mscf/d)
Non
DGC
DGC

Production
Gain (%)

1,500

10,200

11,200

9.80

1,000

10

15,500

17,600

13.55

20

20,200

24,600

21.78

40

23,500

30,000

27.66

500
0
0

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

Qg(Mscf/d)

Figure 7: Reservoir permeability sensitivity

Reservoir Thickness
Sensitivity of reservoir thickness behaves similar to reservoir permeability. There is significant increase in inflow rate with the
increase in reservoir thickness, as clearly shown in Figure 8 for a vertical well. This should be due to higher enclosed/contact
area of the reservoir at the well interface, which provides with a greater inflow capability, and hence higher gas deliverability.
As can be seen from Table 6, the percentage of production gain is substantial resulted by the increased reservoir thickness,
revealing that the DGC offers substantial boosting of productivity of a vertical well for a thick and high permeable reservoir as
compared to thin and low permeable gas reservoir. This should be even more beneficial for horizontal well due to higher
reservoir contact area resulting higher deliverability.
DGC
NonDGC

3,500

Table 6: Reservoir thickness sensitivity result

Optimum Flow Rate

(Mscf/d)

IPR(h=50)
3,000

IPR(h=100)Base

Pwf(psia)

2,500

Reservoir
Thickness (ft)

IPR(h=200)

Non DGC

DGC

Production
Gain (%)

2,000

50

15,500

18,000

16.13

1,500

100

20,200

24,600

23.50

200

23,500

30,000

27.66

1,000

500
0
0

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

Qg(Mscf/d)

Figure 8: Reservoir thickness sensitivity

Well Completion Parameters

Optimizing total pressure loss across a production system is the main concern of successful design of a completion string.
However, by looking into well completion parameters, the amount of production gain, which can be achievable by the DGC,
would help reduce pressure loss across the tubing. Well completion parameters covered in this sensitivity study are: production
tubing diameter; well length; depth or placement of DGC; and compression ratio of DGC. Most of these parameters will affect
the outflow or vertical lift curve. Note that the DGC power requirements and operating performance analysis is beyond the
scope of current study.
Tubing Diameter
The increase in tubing size, in general should increase the gas flow rate at a given flowing bottom hole pressure. The tubing
sensitivity results are presented in Figure 9, in which it is observed that by increasing tubing diameter from 2.875 inch to 4.5
inch, the well completed with DGC still gives higher gas production as compared to without DGC well (non-DGC). It can also
be observed that the percentage of production rate gain for a well completed with DGC reduces as the size of the tubing
increases (as shown in Table 7) inferring that DGC would be more beneficial for small diameter tubing as compared to large
diameter tubing. This could be due to the fact that DGC system offsets considerable frictional pressure loss by compressing the

10

IPTC 16982

gas. Thus tubing size plays substantial role towards the production gain with DGC system. Although this study only
considered dry gas, and liquid loading issue was not investigated, DGC is however, found to be applicable for both wet and
dry gas fields, which have low average reservoir pressure deliverability (Liley 2005).
DGC(OD=2.875)

NonDGC(OD=2.875)

DGC(OD=3.5)

NonDGC(OD=3.5)

DGC(OD=4.5)

NonDGC(ID=4.5)

Pwf(psia)

3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0

10,000

20,000

Qg(Mscf/d)

30,000

40,000

50,000

Figure 9: Tubing diameter sensitivity

Table 7: Tubing sensitivity result
Optimum Flow Rate (Mscf/d)

Well Flowing Pressure (psi)

Tubing Size
(inch)

DGC

Non DGC

Production
Gain (%)

DGC

Non DGC

Reduction of
Pressure (%)

2.875

20,200

24,600

21.78

2,100

1,900

9.52

3.5

27,800

31,600

13.67

1,810

1,560

13.81

4.5

37,500

40,500

8.00

1,200

950

20.83

Well Length
Sensitivity analysis was also conducted to investigate the effect of well length on the productivity gain with DGC system. In
this sensitivity analysis, the same initial reservoir pressure was considered. In this case, the compressor was placed at the mid
perforation, and the depth of the well head to compressor is increased, and result was plotted in Figure 10. It can be observed
from Figure 10 that DGC completed well still gives better production rate as compared to well without DGC (non-DGC); and
productivity increases with increasing the well depth. The results are also summarized in Table 8, in which it is observed that
the production gain of the DGC is much higher when the well depth is increased. It is obvious that the well depth also plays a
significant role to deliver an optimal rate of production while the well is completed with DGC, confirming that DGC is more
beneficial for deep gas wells.
NonDGC(L=6000)
NonDGC(L=3000)
NonDGC(L=1200)

DGC(L=6000)
DGC(L=3000)
DGC(L=1200ft)

Table 8: Well length sensitivity result

3,500
Well
Depth (ft)

3,000

Pwf(psia)

2,500
2,000
1,500

1,000
500
0
0

10,000

20,000

30,000

Qg(Mscf/d)
Figure 10: Well length sensitivity

40,000

50,000

Optimum Flow Rate

(Mscf/d)
Non
DGC
DGC

Production
Gain (%)

3,000

26,000

28,500

9.62

6,000

20,200

24,600

21.78

12,000

14,800

19,600

32.43

IPTC 16982

11

DGC Depth
The aim of DGC depth sensitivity is to investigate the effect of the placement of DGC within the well on the well
performance. In this sensitivity study, the DGC depth is referenced from the well head to the depth of the DGC. For the same
tubing completion, the deepest depth of DGC is considered closer to the mid perforation of about 5900 ft. Figure 11 shows the
sensitivity results of the four different DGC depths. As can be seen from Figure 11, the higher depth of DGC leads to a higher
production gain as compared to well completed without DGC (non-DGC). The maximum gain is achievable when the DGC is
placed closer to the mid perforation (5500 ft). This is because the DGC placed close to the mid perforation leads to compress
the gas immediately leaves the bottomhole of the well allowing gas to be energized by compression, which saves the inflow
pressure and offset the component of frictional pressure across the tubing. This finding is in line with the result from Table 9,
which shows that by the increment of every 500 ft closer to the perforation, an extra production rate gain of 3% on average is
achievable.
NonDGC

DGC(Depth=4000ft)

DGC(Depth=4500ft)

DGC(Depth=5000ft)

Table 9: DGC depth sensitivity result

DGC(Depth=5500ft)

Pwf(psia)

3,500
3,000

DGC
Depth (ft)

Optimal Flow
Rate (Mscf/d)

Production
Gain (%)

2,500

4,000

24,100

16.18

2,000

4,500

24,600

17.89

1,500

5,000

25,500

20.78

5,500

26,500

23.77

1,000

500
0
0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Qg(Mscf/d)

Figure 11: DGC depth sensitivity

Compression Ratio
The sensitivity of compression ratio of DGC system for a given flow rate are plotted in Figure 12. The compression ratio
normally depends on the gas flow rates. Increasing the compression ratio results in decreasing the velocity of gas, but increases
the mass flow rate or volumetric flow rate (for a given tubing size), as can be seen in Figure 12. The results are also
summarized in Table 10. Result in Table 10 shows that increasing the compression ratio by 0.5, significantly increases the
production gain of the well completed with DGC. Increasing compression ratio from 1.5 to 2 results an increase in production
rate gain of 12.85 %, where as an increase of 2 to 2.5 just increase the production rate gain of 7%. The imcremental production
gain, thus, is not a linear function of compression ratio. However, compression ratio is associated with compressors driven
power. Higher the compression ratio, the higher operating power required to run the system. Therefore, higher compression
ratio is not necessarily guarantee always the higher production rate gain, and thereby an optimal operating condition should be
maintained in order have a certain economic benefit.
NonDGC
DGC(Comp.Ratio=2)

DGC(Comp.Ratio=1.5)
DGC(Comp.Ratio=2.5)

Pwf(psia)

3,500

Table 10: Compression ratio sensitivity result

3,000

Compression
ratio

Optimal Flow Rate

(Mscf/d)

Production Gain
(%)

2,500

1.5

24,600

21.78

2,000

2.0

27,200

34.65

2.5

28,600

41.58

1,500
1,000

500
0
0

10,000

20,000
Qg(Mscf/d)

30,000

Figure 12: Compression ratio sensitivity

40,000

50,000

12

IPTC 16982

Well Completion Parameters

It can be seen in Figure 13 that the well completed with DGC performs better at higher wellhead pressure (WHP) as compared
to well without DGC (non-DGC). The results are also summarized in Tables 11, which show that slightly increase in WHP,
decreases the operating flow rate in both cases. However, well completed with DGC allows higher production rate. This shows
that the DGC is suitable to be used on production system with higher WHP, whereby the surface facility does not need to be
changed. DGC would provide better surface pressure operating window for a desired rate of production over a range of
pressure depletion.
NonDGC(WHP=250psia)

NonDGC(WHP=500psia)

NonDGC(WHP=1000psia)

DGC(WHP=250psia)

DGC(WHP=500psia)

DGC(WHP=1000psia)

Table 11: Well head pressure sensitivity result

Optimum Flow Rate
(Mscf/d)

3500
WHP
(psia)

Non DGC

DGC

Production
Gain (%)

2500

250

20,800

25,100

20.67

2000

500

20,200

24,600

21.78

1,000

18,900

24,000

26.98

Pwf(psig)

3000

1500

1000
500
0
0

10000

20000
30000
Qg(Mscf/d)

40000

50000

Figure- 13: Well Head Pressure Sensitivity

This study is focused on natural gas systems with an emphasis on the understanding of the key concepts of the technology and
investigation of its potential application for increasing well productivity through sensitivity studies. The sensitivity results
presented may vary significantly for wet or condensate gas system. Futher study is required for wet and condensate gas
systems. Economical analysis should also be conducted to study the feasibility of DGC technology.
Conclusion
The DGC technology may be considered as a viable form of artificial lift technology for natural gas well. It can increase
production rate or well productivity by compressing the low pressure gas downhole, and offer production gain of about 20 30
% depending on various conditions associated with reservoir, wellbore and other completion parameters, and play significant
role in case of increasing the well productivity for a depleted gas reservoir and/or well with higher operating wellhead
pressure. However, based on the sensitivity analyses for a given well scenario in case of dry natural gas system, following
conclusions are made:

The best candidates well for the DGC are deep depleted gas well with medium to high reservoir deliverability. Well
with high well head pressure are also favourable to the use of the DGC.
The placement of DGC may affect the overall performance. In general DGC placed deeper depth or closer to the mid
perforation would provide higher production rate gain for a given compression ratio. The optimum placement should
be considered in combination of productivity, operational needs, other completion constraints, and compression ratio.
Compression ratio of DGC plays vital role. The productivity gain is controlled in combination of compression ratio
and operating power requirement. These parameters need to be optimized towards the maximization of the production
rate gain.
The production performance of well with DGC is very sensitive to parameters such reservoir deliverability
(permeability-thickness), reservoir pressure, well tubing diameter, well length, well head pressure, and compression
ratio. These parameters play key role in selection of this technology, and need to be optimized.

Nomenclature

Inclination angle of the tubing

Specific gravity of gas

IPTC 16982

BHIFP
D
DGC
Dqg
ESP
ff
fm
h
IPR
k
L
m(p)
Non-DGC
q
qg
re
rw
S
T
WHP

13

Bottom hole inflow flow pressure

Tubing inner diameter, inch
Downhole Gas Compressor
Rate dependent skin (non-Darcy effect)
Electric Submersible Pumps
Fanning frictional pressure
Moody friction factor
Reservoir thickness, ft
Inflow Performance Relationship
Reservoir permeability, md
Length of the tubing
Pseudo-pressure function, psi2/cp
Well completed without DGC (natural flowing well)
Flow rate, MSCF/day
Gas flow rate, MSCFD/d
drainage radius, ft
well radius, ft
Total skin
Temperature
Wellhead Pressure

References
Ahmed, T,.Reservoir Engineering Handbook,4th Edition, Elsevier , 2004
Bybee, Karen. "Downhole Gas Compression: A New Artificial-Lifting System for Gas Wells." JPT, pp75-76, November, 2009
Carr, N.L., Kobayashi, R., and Burrows, D.B., Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases under Pressure; Trans. AIME, vol 201, pp264272, 1954
Economides, M. J., Hill, A. D, and Ehlig-Economides, C., Petroleum Production System, Prentice Hall, 1994
Geary, B., Alford, A., Bernatt, N., and Liley, J.E.N.,"Downhole Pressure Boosing in Natural Gas Wells: Result from Prototype Testing"
SPE#116406, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 20-22 October 2008, Perth, Australia.
Hall, K.R. and Yarborough, L., A new equation of state for Z-factor calculations, Oil and Gas J., June 18, 1973
Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A., Elenbaas, J.R., and Weinaug, C.F., Handbook of Natural Gas
Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959
Liley, J.E.N, and Oakley, S.D., "Dowhole Pressure Boosting in Natural Gas Wells: Well Candidate Selection and Project Progress" SPE
Production and Operations Journal, May 2007: pp144 - 150.
Liley, J.E.N, Verbeek, P.H.J., "Wellbore Pressure Boosting Enhances Recovery from Natural Gas Wells." Offshorea Technology Conference
(OTC 16372), Houston, Texas: OTC, 2004
LILEY, J.E.N., Downhole Pressure Boosting in Natural Gas Well: Well Candidate Selection and Project Progress, SPE 96037, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A, 9-12 October 2005
Moody, L., F., Friction Factor for Pipe Flow, Trans, ASME, vol 66, pp, 671, 1944
Reed, J.,Downhole Gas Compression A New Artificial Lift Technology for Gas Wells, Exploration & Production - Oil & Gas Review Volume 7 Issue II, 2009
Standing, M.B. and Katz, D.L., Density of natural gases, Trans. AIME, Vol146, pp140149, 1954
Tullio, M.T. Di, S. Fornasari, D. Ravaglia, N. Bernatt, and J.E.N. Liley, "Downhole Gas Compression: World's First Installation of a New
Artificial Lifting System for Gas Wells", SPE 121815, SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 8-11 June, 2009