![nhanced il ecoer - pumpfundamentals.com1].pdfNitrogen Lift – Coiled Tubing Operations. Nitrogen lifting is a common technique used to initiate production on a well following workover](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/611734b4f729ec3552244793/nhanced-il-ecoer-1pdf-nitrogen-lift-a-coiled-tubing-operations-nitrogen-lifting.jpg)
Reinforced Polymer Tubing for Enhanced Liquid Lifting · PDF fileReinforced Polymer Tubing for...
16
Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado March 1 - 3, 2004 Reinforced Polymer Tubing for Enhanced Liquid Lifting in Gas Wells Jay Wright, President Polyflow, Inc.
Transcript of Reinforced Polymer Tubing for Enhanced Liquid Lifting · PDF fileReinforced Polymer Tubing for...
Gas Well De-Liquification WorkshopDenver, ColoradoMarch 1 - 3, 2004
Reinforced Polymer Tubing forEnhanced Liquid Lifting in GasWellsJay Wright, President Polyflow, Inc.
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 2
Benefits of Thermoflex® Strings
• Excellent Corrosion Resistance
• Lower Pressure Drop vs. Steel
• Light Weight/ Reduced Installation Costs
• Minimal Ongoing Maintenance
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 3
What Are Thermoflex® Strings?
• Multi-layer Reinforced PolymerCoiled Tubing
– Inner/Outer Layers forCorrosion and SurfaceSmoothness
– Aramid Fibers for Strength andCreep Resistance
– Center Layer for Strength to250F max.
– Sizes and Installation
• Same as Steel Coiled Tubing
• Less Force Requirements
• Required Couplings on EachEnd
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 4
How do Thermoflex® StringsEnhance Gas Well De-Watering?
• Reduced Surface Roughness of Polymers vs. Steel
– Steel Relative Roughness .005
– Thermoflex Relative Roughness .00005
• Thermal Insulation Properties of Plastic vs. Steel . . .
– 3.1 vs. 360 BTU*in/hr*ft2*F for Plastic vs. Steel, respectively
• Material Compatibility of Polymers . . .
– Enhanced Corrosion Resistance/ Minimal Oxidation
– Minimizes Buildups
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 5
Where is the Energy Lost at LowFlowing Velocities?
0.1% 2.5% 0.1%
70.3%
27.0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Velocity Friction Couplings Thermal Gravity
Steel Pipe Energy Loss1.75” Tubing @ 8ft/sec
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 6
Where is the Energy Lost at LiquidLifting Velocities?
0.1%
40.5%
0.5%
38.9%
20.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Velocity Friction Couplings Thermal Gravity
Steel Energy Loss1.75” Tubing @ 27ft/sec
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 7
Steel vs. Thermoflex® Pressure DropComparison
P r e s s u r e D r o p o f T h e r m o fle x T u b in g v s . S t e e l T u b i n gL e n g t h = 5 0 0 0 f t , D i a m e t e r = Ø 1 .2 5 ”
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2000
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Thermoflex TubingSteel Tubing
Production (mcfd)
Pres
sure
Dro
p (p
si)
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 8
Production Case #1
Background
• 2 3/8” Steel Tubing to8,500ft.
• Slugging Flow
• Production Rate 160MCF/day
• No Artificial LiftingMechanisms
• Installed 1.75” Thermoflex®
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 9
Case #1 . . . Results
160
240
5065
MCF/day ps i
S tee l Thermo flex
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 10
Production Case #2
Background
• Depth of Well 5,600ft
• Production Rate 55MCF/day
• Previous DeliquificationMethods 1.5” Steel Tubingwith plunger than soap
• Installed 1” Thermoflex®
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 11
Case #2 . . . Results
• Continuous Lifting of Water
• Production Equivalent toPlunger
• Experienced Partial Ice Plugin Well Head from RapidExpansion of Gas
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
MC
F/d
ay
Before After
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 12
Production Case #3
Background
• 2,100ft to Perfs
• Liquid Loading
• 9-10 MCF/day production
• Shut in Pressure 200psi
• Current DeliquificationMethod . . . Swabbing andShut in and Blow
• Installed 1” Thermoflex®
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 13
Production Case #3 . . . Results
Daily Production
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Week
Avg Gas (mcf/d) Avg H2O (gal/d)
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 14
Installation Methods
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 15
Key Considerations for Success
Suitable Candidates
• 10:1 MCFD to BPD Fluid
• Pressure Differentialbetween Line and BHP
• Continuous Flow vs. Cycle
During Install/Operations
• Collapse
• Installation in Water
• Injection Down Tubing
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ø1.00Ø1.25Ø1.50
Minimum Rate to Lift Water (Coleman Eq.)
Well Head Pressure (psig)
Prod
uctio
n (m
cfd)
March 1-3, 2004 2004 Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop Denver, Colorado 16
Benefits of Thermoflex® Tubing
• Continuous Lifting of Fluids
– Lower Pressure Drop/ Less Back Pressure on Reservoir
– Critical Velocities Achieved with less MCF/day
• Superior Corrosion Resistance
• Minimal Maintenance & No Ongoing ConsumableExpense
• Installation in Casing or Existing Tubing
• Rapid Installation
