Liquid Loading

Typically, the liquid loading on the tray (GPM per square foot) is very low, due to the
low liquid to gas ratio.

From: Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission and Processing (Fourth Edition), 2019

Related terms:

Gas Production, Wellhead, Ionic Liquid, Pressure Gradient, Condensate, Pressure

Gage, Mach Number

View all Topics

Gas Well Performance

Tarek Ahmed, in Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fifth Edition), 2019

Concept of Liquid Loading

Liquid loading occurs when the gas velocity is insufficient to carry the produced
liquid to surface facilities. The accumulation of the liquid in the wellbore will cause
a decline in the well production rate or the well might cease to flow. To avoid liquid
loading in gas wells, the well should be produced at or exceed a certain minimum
rate. This particular rate is termed as the Critical Gas Rate, which is defined as
Minimum Gas Rate required to lift the produced condensate liquid or water to
the surface without liquid accumulation downhole. There are several correlations to
estimate the critical gas rate and most are based on the pioneering work proposed
by Turner (1969), Coleman et al. (1991), and Li et al. (2001). Most of the generalized
critical gas velocity correlations use the following correlating parameters:

○ Bottom-hole flowing pressure “Pwf,” psi

○ Tubing radius “rw,” in inches

○ Gas density “ g,” lb/ft3

○ Liquid density “ L,” lb/ft3

○ Surface tension “ g–L,” dyne/cm

○ Bottom-hole temperature “T,” °R

○ Minimum gas rate to eliminate liquid loading (Qg)min, Mscf/day

Turner (1969) proposed the following widely used expression for estimating critical
gas rate:

(8-61)

If the value of the surface tension g–L is not known, the following two expressions
can be used:

For Gas-Water system:

(8-62)

For Gas-Condensate system:

(8-63)

Example 8-10
Estimate the minimum gas rate required to eliminate condensate-liquid loading
given the following well data:

○ Bottom-hole flowing pressure “Pwf” = 1000

○ Tubing internal radius “rw” = 1.22 inches

○ Liquid density “ L” = 35, lb/ft3

○ Gas-specific gravity = 0.67

○ Surface tension g-L = 40 dyne/cm

○ Bottom-hole temperature “T”= 560 °R

Solution
Step Using the gas-specific gravity, calculate ppc & Tpc; from:
1.

Step Calculate the pseudo-reduced temperature TPr and pressure by applying:

2.

Step Estimate gas deviation factor

3.

Calculate gas density

Step
4.

Step Calculate critical gas flow rate using Equation 8-61

5.

> Read full chapter

INTRODUCTION
James F. Lea, ... Mike R. Wells, in Gas Well Deliquification (Second Edition), 2008

1.4 PROBLEMS CAUSED BY LIQUID LOADING

Liquid loading can lead to erratic, slugging flow and decreased production. The well
may eventually die if the liquids are not continuously removed. Often, as liquids
accumulate in a well, the well simply produces at a lower rate than expected.

If the gas rate is high enough to remove most or all of the liquids, the flowing tubing
pressure at the formation face and production rate will reach a stable equilibrium.
The well will produce at a rate that can be predicted by the reservoir inflow production
relationship (IPR) curve (see Chapter 4).

If the gas rate is too low, the pressure gradient in the tubing becomes large due
to the liquid accumulation, resulting in increased pressure on the formation. As
the back-pressure on the formation increases, the rate of gas production from the
reservoir decreases and may drop below the critical rate required to remove the
liquid. More liquids will accumulate in the wellbore and the increased bottomhole
pressure will further reduce gas production and may even kill the well.

Late in the life of a well, liquid may stand over the perforations with the gas bubbling
through the liquid to the surface. In this scenario, the gas is producing at a low but
steady rate with little or no liquids coming to the surface. If this behavior is observed
with no knowledge of past well history, one might assume that the well is not liquid
loaded but only a low producer.

All gas wells that produce some liquids, whether in high or low permeability forma-
tions, will eventually experience liquid loading with reservoir depletion. Even wells
with very high gas-liquid ratios (GLR) and small liquid rates can load up if the gas
velocity is low. This condition is typical of very tight formation (low permeability) gas
wells that produce at low gas rates and have low gas velocities in the tubing. Some
wells may be completed and produce considerable gas through large tubulars, but
may be liquid loaded from the first day of production. See [1, 2] for an introduction
to loading and some discussion of field problems and solutions.

> Read full chapter

Productivity of wells with simple trajec-

tories
Boyun Guo, in Well Productivity Handbook (Second Edition), 2019

5.3.4 Liquid loading in gas wells

Most gas wells produce wet gas, that is, natural gas carrying condensate and/or
liquid water in the form of mist flow. As the gas flow velocity in the well decreases
because of reservoir pressure depletion, the carrying capacity of the gas also de-
creases. When the gas velocity drops to a critical level, liquids begin to accumulate
and undergo annular flow and slug flow in the tubing. This accumulation of liquids
(liquid loading) increases the bottom-hole pressure and further reduces the gas
production rate. The low-gas production rate will in turn cause gas velocity to
drop further. Eventually, the well will experience a bubbly flow regime and cease
producing.

The liquid loading problem can be solved by using various measures. Artificially
foaming the liquid water can enable the gas to lift the water from the well. Using
narrower tubing or ensuring a lower wellhead pressure can sometimes maintain
adequate mist flow. The well can also be unloaded by gas lifting or by pumping
the liquids out of the well. Heating the wellbore can prevent liquid condensation.
Down-hole injection of water into an underlying disposal zone is yet another option.

Liquid loading is not always obvious, and recognizing the problem is not an easy
task. A thorough diagnostic analysis of well data needs to be performed. The signs
to look for include the following:

• Onset of liquid slugs at the surface of the well

• Increasing differential between tubing and casing pressures over time

• Sharp gradient changes on a flowing pressure survey

• Sudden decreases in a production decline curve

Two methods for predicting liquid loading are presented in this section.
[Link] Turner's method
Turner et al. (1969) pioneered work in analyzing and predicting the minimum gas
flow rate that can still prevent liquid loading. They presented two mathematical
models describing the liquid loading problem: the film movement model and the
entrained droplet movement model. Based on analyses of field data, they concluded
that their film movement model did not represent the controlling liquid transport
mechanism.

Turner et al.’s entrained drop movement model was derived from the terminal set-
tling velocity of liquid droplets and the maximum droplet diameter corresponding
to the critical Weber number of 30. Turner et al.’s terminal slip velocity equation is
expressed in US field units as

(5.8)

According to Turner et al.’s theory, gas will continuously remove liquids from the well
until its velocity drops to below the terminal slip velocity. The minimum gas flow rate
(in MMcf/D) for a particular pressure and conduit geometry can be calculated using
Eqs. (5.8) and (5.9):

(5.9)

Turner et al. compared their model with actual field data and showed that it un-
derestimated the required gas flow rate. They recommended adjusting the equa-
tion-derived values upward by approximately 20% to ensure removal of all droplets.
Turner et al. believed that the discrepancy in their model could be attributed to the
use of drag coefficients for solid spheres, an assumption of stagnation velocity,
and that the critical Weber number was established for droplets falling in air, not in
compressed natural gas.

The main problem complicating the use of Turner et al.’s entrained droplet model
in gas wells comes from the difficulty of estimating fluid density and pressure
accurately. Using an average value for gas-specific gravity (0.6) and gas temperature
(120°F), Turner et al. derived an estimate of gas density in lbm/ft3 as 0.0031 times
the pressure in psi. However, they did not present a method for calculating the gas
pressure in mist flow.

Turner et al.’s entrained droplet movement model was later modified by other
researchers. Coleman et al. (1991) suggested using Eq. (5.8) with a lower value of
coefficient instead of 1.3. Nosseir et al. (2000) expanded Turner et al.’s entrained
droplet model to more than one-flow regimes. Lea and Nickens (2004) made cor-
rections to Turner et al.’s simplified equations. However, the drawbacks of Turner
et al.’s original approach neglected transport velocity and multiphase flow pressure
still remain unsolved by these later investigators.
5.7

Sample problem
From the data given below, assuming the tubing string is set just above the pay zone,
predict the minimum gas production rate that can prevent liquid loading:Gas-specific
gravity ( g):0.6Tubing diameter (d):2.441inTubing shoe pressure (pwf):530psiaTubing shoe tempera-
ture (Twf):116°FLiquid density ( 1):67.4lbm/ft3Interfacial tension ( ):60dynes/cm

Solution

This problem can be solved using the spreadsheet program [Link].

Table 5.6 shows some calculated data which indicates the minimum required gas
production rate of 1004 Mscf/d.

Table 5.6. Result given by the spreadsheet program [Link].

T 576.00 °R
g 1.49 lbm/ft3
A 0.0325 ft2
ppc 672.50 psia
Tpc 358.50 °R
Tav 576.00 °R
pav 530.00 psia
ppr 0.79
Tpr 1.61
Z 0.94
vgm 10.37 ft/s
Qgm 1004 Mscf/d

[Link] Guo's method

Building on Turner et al.’s entrained droplet model, Guo et al. (2006) determined the
minimum kinetic energy of gas required to lift liquids. Applying the minimum ki-
netic energy criterion to the mist-flow model (see Chapter 4) results in a closed-form
analytical equation that can be used to predict the minimum gas flow rate.

Kinetic energy per unit volume of gas can be expressed as

(5.10)

Substituting Eq. (5.8) into Eq. (5.10) gives an expression for the minimum kinetic
energy required to keep liquid droplets in suspension in the gas:

(5.11)
If the value of the drag coefficient Cd = 0.44 recommended by Turner et al. is used,
and the effects of gas density are neglected (a conservative assumption), Eq. (5.11)
then becomes

(5.12)

In gas wells that produce formation water, typical values for the water–gas interfacial
tension and the water density are 60 dynes/cm and 65 lbm/ft3, respectively. This yields
the minimum kinetic energy value of 2.5 lbf-ft/ft3. In gas wells that also produce
condensate, typical values for the condensate–gas interfacial tension and condensate
density are 20 dynes/cm and 45 lbm/ft3, respectively. This yields the minimum kinetic
energy value of 1.2 lbf-ft/ft3. These results imply that the required minimum gas
production rate in water-producing gas wells must be approximately twice that of
condensate-producing gas wells.

The minimum gas velocity required for transporting the liquid droplets upward is
equal to the minimum gas velocity required for floating the liquid droplets (keeping
the droplets in suspension) plus the transport velocity of the droplets, expressed as

(5.13)

The transport velocity vtr may be calculated from estimates of the liquid production
rate, conduit geometry, and the liquid volume fraction and is difficult to quantify.
Instead of attempting to formulate an expression for the transport velocity vtr, Guo
et al. used vtr as an empirical constant to combine the effects of nonstagnation
velocity, drag coefficients for solid spheres, and the critical Weber number as
established for droplets falling in air. On the basis of Turner et al.’s work, Guo et al.
took the value of vtr to be 20% of vsl. Use of this value results in

(5.14)

Substituting Eqs. (5.8) and (5.14) into Eq. (5.10) gives the expression for the mini-
mum kinetic energy required for transporting the liquid droplets as

(5.15)

For typical gas wells producing water, this equation yields a minimum kinetic energy
value of 3.6 lbf-ft/ft3. For typical gas wells producing condensate, this equation
results in a minimum kinetic energy value of 1.73 lbf-ft/ft3. Again, these figures
imply that the required minimum gas production rate in water-producing gas wells
is approximately twice that of condensate-producing gas wells.

In order to evaluate the gas kinetic energy Ek in Eq. (5.10) at a given gas flow rate and
compare it with the minimum required kinetic energy Ekm in Eq. (5.15), the values
of gas density g and gas velocity vg need to be determined. Expressions for g and
vg can be obtained from the ideal gas law:

(5.16)

(5.17)

Substituting Eqs. (5.16) and (5.17) into Eq. (5.10) yields

(5.18)

Eq. (5.18) indicates that gas kinetic energy decreases with increased pressure.
Therefore, the controlling conditions are those at bottom-hole, where the gas has
the highest pressure and lowest kinetic energy. This analysis is consistent with
observations from air-drilling operations, during which solid particles accumulate
at bottom-hole rather than at the wellhead. However, this contradicts Turner et al.’s
results, which indicated that the controlling conditions are generally at the wellhead.

Under the minimum unloaded condition (the last point of the mist-flow regime), Eq.
(5.18) becomes

(5.19)

which gives

(5.20)

Substituting Eq. (5.20) into the mist-flow model of Eq. (5.18) results in

(5.21)

where

(5.22)

(5.23)

(5.24)

(5.25)

(5.26)

All parameters should be evaluated at Qgm. The minimum required gas flow rate
Qgm can be determined from Eq. (5.26) using trial and error or numerical methods
such as the Bisection method. It can be shown that Eq. (5.26) is a one-to-one function
of Qgm for Qgm values greater than zero. Therefore, the Newton–Raphson iteration
technique can also be used to determine Qgm. Commercial software packages such
as MS Excel with the Goal Seek function programmed in can be used to generate
solutions. One such is the spreadsheet program [Link].

5.8

Sample problem
From the data given below, assuming a single-size tubing string is set just above
the pay zone, use Guo's method to predict the minimum gas production rate that
will prevent liquid loading:Gas-specific gravity:0.6Air = 1Hole inclination:0degTubing shoe
depth:5555ftWellhead pressure:444psiWellhead temperature:60°FProducing zone temperature:116-
°FCondensate gravity:71APICondensate make:1bbl/MMscfWater-specific gravity:1.08water = 1Water
make:50bbl/MMscfSolid-specific gravity:2.65water = 1Solid make:0ft3/MMscfConduit OD:2.441-
inConduit ID:0inConduit wall roughness:0.000015inLiquid density:67.4lb/ft3Liquid–gas interfacial
tension:60dyne/cm

Solution

This problem can be solved using the spreadsheet program [Link].

Table 5.7 shows some calculated data which indicates that a minimum gas produc-
tion rate of 1178 Mscf/d is required. Comparing this and Turner's result (1004 Mscf/d
in Sample Problem 5.7) indicates that the Turner method may underestimate the
minimum gas flow rate by 17.4%.

Table 5.7. Results given by the spreadsheet program [Link].

Hydraulic diameter: 0.2034 ft

Conduit cross-sectional area: 0.0325 ft2
Average temperature: 547.775 °R
Minimum kinetic energy: 3.6627 lbf-ft/ft3
a 2.91508E-05
b 1.2839E-07
c 936,406.3493
d 0.1202439
e 0.000571676
f 0.007481992
M 64.36851023
N 501,269,364.5
Critical gas production rate 1178 Mscf/day
Pressure at tubing shoe 530 psia

> Read full chapter

Critical velocity
James F. LeaJr, Lynn Rowlan, in Gas Well Deliquification (Third Edition), 2019

3.1 Introduction
To effectively plan and design the liquid loading problems of gas well, it is essential to
accurately predict when a particular well might begin to experience excessive liquid
loading. In the next chapter, Nodal Analysis (trademark of Macco–Schlumberger)
techniques are presented, which can be used to predict under what conditions liquid
loading problems and well flow stability occur. In this chapter, the relatively simple
“critical velocity” method is presented to predict under what conditions the onset of
liquid loading occurs.

The critical velocity/rate method to check the well liquid loading was developed
by correlating a substantial accumulation of well data and has been shown to be
reasonably accurate for near vertical wells. There are corrections for inclined wells.
Calculation of critical velocity at any point in the well is applicable but graphically
it is often shown at the well head conditions. It should be used in conjunction with
methods of Nodal Analysis and by examining field symptoms if possible.

> Read full chapter

CRITICAL VELOCITY
James F. Lea, ... Mike R. Wells, in Gas Well Deliquification (Second Edition), 2008

3.1 INTRODUCTION
To effectively plan and design for gas well liquid loading problems, it is essential to
be able to accurately predict when a particular well might begin to experience ex-
cessive liquid loading. In the next chapter, Nodal Analysis (Macco-Schlumberger™)
techniques are presented that can be used to predict when liquid loading problems
and well flow stability occur. In this chapter, the relatively simple “critical velocity”
method is presented to predict the onset of liquid loading.

This technique was developed from a substantial accumulation of well data and has
been shown to be reasonably accurate for vertical wells. The method of calculating
a critical velocity will be shown to be applicable at any point in the well. It should be
used in conjunction with methods of Nodal Analysis if possible.
> Read full chapter

Compression
James F. LeaJr, Lynn Rowlan, in Gas Well Deliquification (Third Edition), 2019

5.22 Summary
Compression can help a liquid loading well by increasing the gas velocity to equal
or exceed the critical unload velocity and also lowers pressure on the formation for
more production/reserves by lowering the wellhead flowing pressure.

Because of the differing response that can be expected from different types of wells,
it is important that the compressor type and size be matched to the well. Systems
Nodal Analysis and IPM can be very helpful tools to accomplish this.

Compression often is used on a field-wide basis to lower the gathering system

pressure; however, for any compressor the amount of pressure reduction that can
be transmitted back to the wellhead must be taken into account for optimal results.

Compression can be used as a primary artificial lift method or to aid the other types
of artificial lift to different degrees.

There are many types of compressors that can be successfully applied to help
deliquify gas wells. The key to attaining the best economic success in deliquifying gas
wells is to pick the best areas, wells, match the compressor to the well’s performance,
and to operate efficiently.

> Read full chapter

Introduction
James F. LeaJr, Lynn Rowlan, in Gas Well Deliquification (Third Edition), 2019

1.1 Introduction
Liquid loading in a gas well is the inability of the produced gas to lift the produced
liquids from the wellbore. Under this condition, produced liquids will accumulate in
the wellbore leading to reduced production and shortening of the time till the well
no longer produces.

According to EIA, there are about 600,000 gas wells in the United States (see Fig.
1.1).
Figure 1.1. Number of gas [Link]: US Energy Information Administration.

By some estimates, 70%–80% of gas wells are low rate and below about 300 Mscf/D.
Therefore perhaps 400,000–500,000 gas wells are at risk of lower or no production
from liquid loading unless artificial lift (AL) is properly applied.

Methods of diagnosing the occurrence of liquid loading will be presented here for
both near vertical conventional wells and horizontal rapidly declining unconven-
tional wells. Methods of solution will be presented and discussed in detail to help
optimize the solution of liquid loading using various forms of AL including:

1. Newer techniques of rod design and rod protection in deviated wells using
sucker rod systems
2. New methods for SRP (sucker rod pump) systems to allow deeper intake for
the systems in horizontal wells
3. Design of gas lift systems for conventional and also declining unconventional
wells using conventional gas lift with bracketed valves for anticipated changing
rates
4. Use of high-pressure gas lift to allow more drawdown initially and to eliminate
some downhole equipment
5. New techniques of tracking plungers, various forms of plunger lift, new
plunger optimization techniques, new equipment, and plungers in horizontal
wells
6. Use of electric submersible pumps (ESPs) to dewater including design for
lower rate wells requiring needed cautions
7. Optimization of progressing cavity pumpings (PCPs) that usually operate in
shallower wells. Rod protection in deviated and horizontal wells
8. The latest in application of foamer chemicals and methods of application

9. Details and methods of application for gas separation for all the pumping
systems
10. New advances in automation are presented in a separate chapter. Automation
is a necessity if optimum conditions are to be achieved
> Read full chapter

Recognizing symptoms of liquid load-

ing in gas wells
James F. LeaJr, Lynn Rowlan, in Gas Well Deliquification (Third Edition), 2019

Critical velocity
Critical velocity correlations predict at what rate liquid loading will occur as the well
rates decline. It is not a function of liquid production or bbl/mmscf. It is (for some
widely used correlations) based on what rate or velocity will carry the liquid droplets
up and when they can no longer be foreseen to travel up, then liquid loading is
predicted. Turner and Coleman are two widely used methods but there are many
other models.

The critical flow chart, shown in Fig. 2.1, shows that the critical rate for 2 3/8’s tubing
at 100 psi is about 320 Mscf/D with water production. If liquid is only condensate, the
critical rate (and velocity) would be less. If any water is produced with condensate, use
the water chart. Therefore, critical velocity correlations is a quick method to assess
if flow is critical or not or is approaching critical. Note X-axis should be in psi.

Figure 2.1. Critical flow rate versus pressure and tubing size.

> Read full chapter

RECOGNIZING SYMPTOMS OF LIQ-
UID LOADING IN GAS WELLS
James F. Lea, ... Mike R. Wells, in Gas Well Deliquification (Second Edition), 2008

2.2 PRESENCE OF ORIFICE PRESSURE SPIKES

One of the most common methods available to detect liquid loading is that slugs of
liquid begin to be produced at the wellhead. Liquids are beginning to accumulate in
the wellbore and/or the flowline and are produced erratically as some of the liquids
reach the surface as slugs.

This phenomenon is depicted in Figure 2-1 on a two-pen recorder showing well pro-
ducing liquids normally in mist flow on the left and a well beginning to experience
liquid loading problems, producing the liquids in slugs, on the right. It is recognized
that two pen charts may be replaced by transducer signals on computer plots, but
this is given for illustration.

Figure 2-1. Effect of Flow Regime on Orifice Pressure Drop—Mist Flow (L) vs. Slug
Flow (R) in Tubing

When liquids begin to accumulate in the wellbore, the pressure spikes on the
recorder become more frequent. Eventually, the surface tubing pressure starts to
decrease due to the liquid head holding back the reservoir pressure. In addition,
the gas flow begins to decline at a rate uncharacteristic of the prior production
decline rate. This rapid drop in production and drop in surface tubing pressure,
accompanied by the ragged two-pen recorder charts, is a sure indication of liquid
loading problems. Many wells have a liquid knock-out before orifice measurements
 so the operator then would have to listen at the wellhead to try to determine if slugs
are being produced. Also many wells now do not use the two-pen recorders, but
the two-pen records shown here serve to illustrate how slugs of liquid begin to be
produced by a gas well when liquid loading has commenced.

> Read full chapter

PLUNGER LIFT
James F. Lea, ... Mike R. Wells, in Gas Well Deliquification (Second Edition), 2008

7.11 PLUNGER SUMMARY

Plunger systems work well for gas wells with liquid loading problems as long as the
well has sufficient GLR and pressure to lift the plunger and liquid slugs.

Plunger lift works well with larger tubing so there is no need to downsize the tubing.
Conventional plunger lift works much better if there is no packer; this can be a
problem if the old packer should be removed.

Plunger lift can take the well to depletion although the recoverable production may
not be quite as much as using a more expensive beam pump system, for example,
to pump liquids out of the well in the latter stages of depletion.

The two-piece plunger concept is discussed, which requires little or no shut-in peri-
od and also possibly being able to operate better with a packer present. Application
may be when the rate is at least 80 percent of critical or see Weatherford criteria.
Other bypass plungers can run on the continuous flow cycle (few seconds shut-in).

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.