lmance Criteria with

Operating Experience Ventura Avenue Field?

--

ABSTRACT
Recent work performed with plunger lift in the Vent u r a Avenue Field has indicated a much wider range of
applicat~onf o r this method of lift than was hitherto
believed possible. This paper presents the results of
field work performed with plunger I ~ f t ,cliscusses operational techniques utilized, and describes the perfonnance characteristics of wells on plunger lift A correlation between theoretical computations and actual field
d a t a IS cleveloped and a techniclue devised f o r predicting
lift g a s and operating casing pressure recluirenients
f o r a broad range of conditions w ~ t hseveral tubing sizes
INTRODUCTION
A t the present time, over 100 wells out of some 600+
on Shell's productive leases In the Ventura Avenue
Field a r e being produced with plunger lift. Some 50
plunger-lift installations have been added in the last
3 years a s a result of the re-evaluation of the advantages and growing appreciation of t h ~ sinethod of lift,
and a s many a s 40 more a r e contemplated in the n e s t
few years. The majority of t h e new plunger-lift installations resulted from the conversion of chamber-lift and
gas-lift wells to plunger lift, with the balance coming
from high gas-liquid ratlo flowmg and rod o r hydraulically pumped wells. Wells a r e being considered f o r
plunger lifting a s they a r e pulled f o r ecluipmeiit repair,
etc., or a s shortages of compressed g a s develop because
of additional high-volume wells being put on g a s lift.
This report analyzes the performance of a group of 85
plunger-llft wells on whlch considerable data had been
gathered. The remaining wells so ecluipped h a r e essentially the same characteristics a s the group included in
this report.
The Ventura Avenue Fleld 1s located on the central,
structurally highest portion of the coinplesly faulted
Veiitura anticline. The procluctive Pliocene measures
a r e made u p of thick sections of low-PI, interbeddecl
silty sands ancl shales with producing depths ranging
from 4,000 to 14,000 ft. The producing wells generally
take in all o r parts of one o r more different zones
ranglng in thickness froin 700 f t to 2,000+ f t A large
number of the wells a r e blessed with high produced gaslicluicl ratios and it h a s been the desire to utilize this
natural forinatlon energy t h a t h a s prompted the extenslve application of plunger lift to reduce: a, capital
outlay f o r compressor capacity and well ecluipment; and
R , operating costs f o r lifting the oil to the surface.
Ranges of application of plunger lift in Shell's portion of the Ventura Avenue Field a r e presented in Table
1 in terms of some of the significant nlechanical and
resen70ir parameters
'Shell 011Comi>ans, Ventura. Cahf
+Presented at the s l m n g nleetlng of the Pacific Coast Dlstr~ct. API
Ulvlslon of Productlon, May 1965

Table 1
Depth, ft*
Gross B/D
Percent cut
Cycles per clay
Gas-licluld ratlo, Mcf/Bbl
Static bottom-hole pressure, psl
Operating casing pressure, psi
Gross PI, B/D/psi

1-90

300-3,000

"Wells generally e s u ~ p p e dwlth 7-111 caslng to top of the ~ r o d u c l n g

zone. 5-ln perforated llner through the prodpcing zone, and 2%-1n
tublng (EU to the llner top and buttress, Seal-Lock" etc. In the
I~ner)

TYPES O F PLUNGER-LIFT OPERATION

Three basic variations of plunger lift a r e used in t h e
wells under cl~scussion:
a Conventional plunger lift without packer.
b. Plunger-gas lift with packer and gas-lift valve.
c. Plunger lift with packer and standing valve, open
inandrel on bottom
A summary description of each of these types and a
discussion of the basic differences in operating techniques within each group follows.
C o n v e ~ ~ t ~ o iPlunger
ial
Lift without Packer
This is the most common inethod of the three ment ~ o n e dand takes 111 over 90 percent of Shell's plungerlift wells 111 the Ventura Avenue Field slnce this perinlts nlasiinuni pressure clrawdowil to the bottom of t h e
zone These wells a r e tubed down In the liner to within
100 f t of bottom o r top of fill and can be equipped with
outside-mounted unloading gas-lift valves to the top of
the liner where necessary. The surface ecluipment consists of a plunger-lift b u ~ n p e r housing, pressure recorder, adjustable choke, motor valve, Fisher 4107U o r
Harold Brown D A P plunger-l~ftcontroller (or equivalent), and mechanical o r magnetic trigger to allow
plunger arrival to override the controller. The operation
used In the Ventnra Avenue F ~ e l dis based on the pressure-to-open, trigger-to-close principle, with a pressureto-close safety cl~fferentialshutoff to take over if the
plunger ever falls to surface. A sketch of the surface
equipment requlretl f o r this type of application is presented in Fig. 1, and some typical well charts a r e shown
in F i g 2
Cycle frequency is determined by t h e P I of t h e well,
tubing back pressure, plunger travel time, and available
g a s energy The greater t h e number of trips, the smaller
the slug size, the lower the required operating casing
pressure, the greater t h e dra~vdown,and t h e greater the
product~on. Operating pressures attained with this

PLUNGER-LIFTPERFORMANCE
CRITERIAWITH OPEIZATING EXPERIENCE-VENTURA AVENUEFIELD
method of plunger lift a r e presented ~n graphical form
in Fig. 3.

Conversion to plunger lift in this case is a simple

matter and entails installing a conventional plungerllft surface assembly, pulling the operating valve,
b r o a c h ~ n gthe tubing using wlreline tools, and setting
a n Otis (or equivalent) stop and footpiece on bottom.
Thls procedure then provldes low-pressure g a s storage
capacity in the casing with communication through the
empty mandrel - ln effect a conventional plunger-lift
mstallatlon from the h n e r top.

Plunger-Gas Lift with Packer and Gas-lift Valve

This 1s a n effective Interim producing method f o r
medium-to-high volume, low gas-llqulcl ratio, high watercut, high static bottom-hole pressure, hlghly elnulsified
wells o r a n ultimate producing method f o r wells with
relatively short producing intervals and/or productivity
iildlces where little adclltlonal production would accrue
from increasing pressure drawdown by tubing the wells
to bottom. There a r e currently two wells so equipped on
Shell's Ventura leases.
The principal appllcation f o r this method of plunger
lift is found in wells where the fluld is produced In such
a n enlulslfied state t h a t satisfactory gas-lift rising veg a s breaklocities cannot be obtained and excess~\~e
through and subsequent fallback occurs even with the
most efficient gas-lift valves. A plunger will In this case
provlde a solld interface between the produced fluid and
the lift gas.
s
of plunger lift
Surface equlpinent f o r t h ~ appllcation
includes a bumper housing, without a trigger (since
the tubing stays open all the time), and a time-cycle
controller with motor valve on the g a s line. The cycle
frequency is then determined by the "drop" and "up"
time of the plunger and the time i t takes f o r all of t h e
"tail" gas In the tubing behind the plunger to dissipate
and enable the plunger to s t a r t f o r bottom.

T Y P E S O F PLUNGERS
In order to meet the stringent demands of rapid cycle
frequency \vith sinall liquld loads in the Ventura Avenue Field, it has been found t h a t plungers must incorporate the followi~lgdeslgn features' 1 , ability to fall
rapldly through gas and 11quid; 2, ability to effect a
good seal against the tubing during the upward travel;
2 , high degree of repeatability of valve operation; and
4, high shock and wear resistance. F i g 4 depicts three
types of plungers In common usage i n the Ventura
Avenue Field.
STARTING (UNLOADING) PLUNGER-LIFT WELLS
An esternal source of g a s is available a t Ventura
and 1s necessary to s t a r t up most of the plunger-llft
wells, especially a f t e r well pulliiig, prolonged shut-in
periods or killing with load oil. The available kickoff
and static pressures limit the type of \ire11 t h a t can be
unloaded without unload~ng valves This presents no
problem, however, since convent~onal(outside-mounted)
unloading valves can be r u n in high static pressure
wells t h a t cannot be unloaded by "rocking" o r displacing
sufficient fluld out of the well bore with gas.

Plunger Lift with Packer and Standing Valve, Open

Mandrel
This is a novel technique f o r converting low-PI, high
gas-liquid ratio wells (or those wlth short llners where
tubing to bottom cannot be justified) from gas llft to
plunger llft to save compressor capaclty by utilizing
the natural fornlatlon energy to lift the fluid. The
packer and standing valve serve no useful purpose in
the plunger-lift operation, but do protect the well bore
agalnst possible damage resulting from casing leaks.
Plunger L i f t
Bumper Kouaing

P~essure
Recorder

Overshot f o r Equalizi
Casing md Tublng

Controller and

Fig. 1 -Surface

Equipment for Plunger Lift

125

DISCUSSION O F VENTURA AVENUE

FIELD OPERATIONS
Fig. 3 shows how plunger llft compares with chamber
llft In wells producing less than 20 bbl daily gross
where the back pressure can be reduced by allowing
the well to produce into the lower (atmospheric) pressure system The availability of a n adequate low-pressure system can, therefore, broaden the application of
plunger llft to where ~t can cover the entire range of
gross production rates from just a few to over 100
B/D. From the esperience gamed in producing into the
"atn~ospheric"system (as shown in Flg. 3) ~t has been
deduced and substantiated by actual field experience
t h a t proportionate improvements in plunger-lift performance can likewise be achleved by reducing the back
pressure a t the well by other means, e.g., Increasing
tubing size, eliminating sharp bends and t u r n s in the
cellar and/or t r a p farm, etc The effect of a 2-in. flow
line (instead of 3-111.) on plunger-lift performance, is
demonstrated in panel B of Fig. 5 Any saving In the
time it takes f o r the tubnlg pressure to bleed down
results in the plunger being able to make more cycles
per day, picking u p smaller loads each time. This, in
turn, would allow the operation to be conducted a t a
lower caslng pressure, hence lower bottom-hole pressure and increased pressure drawdo\vn, yielding inore
production.

126

D L. Foss

AND

R R. GAUL

Fig. 2a - Tubing lntake 7,578 Ft; Gross 22 BID; Cut

7 Percent; 200 Mcf/D Gas

Pig. 2b - Tubing lntake 8,305 Ft; Gross 33 B/D; Cut

11 Percent; 130 Mcf/D Gas

Fig. 2c -Tubing lntake 7,278 Ft; Gross 75 BID; Cut

28 Percent; 450 Mcf/D Gas

Fig. Id -Tubing lntake 8,632 Ft; Gross 50 BID; Cut

24 Percent; 290 Mcf/D Gas

PLUNGER-LIFT PERFORMANCECRITERIA WITH OPERATING EXPERIENCE-VENTURA AVENUE FIELD

127

C.L. Average

20

40

60

Cmss Pmduction,

Fig. 2e-Tubing Intake 11,164 Ft; Gross 92 BID; Cut

6 Percent; 650 Mcf/D Gas

BID

I
f3J

100

Legend:
X
= wells in atmospheric system not corrected
to 100 psi tubing pressure
P. L. = plunger lift (2.441 in.)
C. L. = chamber lift (2.441-in. ID chamber with
1%-in. dip tube)
*G~lbert, W E Flowing and Gas-l~ftWell Performance, API Drllllng
and Productron Pracf~ce, 125 (1954).

Fig. 3 Plunger-lift Bottom-hole Operating

Pressures Compared with Other Gas-lift
Methods - Ventura Avenue Field
(Corrected to 100 psi tubing pressure)

CASING
I

TIME
low Line Valve opens

Fig. 4 - A. Conventional National Plunger

B. Combination National - Turbulent-seal
Plunger
C. Combination National - Turbulent-seal
- Friction Lock-ball Plunger

@
@

Fluid Arrives

Highest Tubing Pressure Minimum

Plunger Failed t o Surface

Slow Bleed O f f IXle t o 2" Flow Line o r Other Restriction

10" Line Valve Closes

Differential Pressure Shut Off

Fig. 5 - Pictorial Representation of a Performance

Chart

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Plunger-llft wells can be operated wlth several methods of control ancl wlthin each method exlsts a broad
range of posslble operating conditions which affect t h e
fundamental plunger-lift parameters, viz , average casing pressure, tubing pressure, load size, gas requirements, and cycles per day. F o r these reasons the range
of appllcatlon of plunger lift has been unclear and
criteria f o r the optimum operation have not been wellestablished.
A method 1s developed here whereby the fundamental
parameters can be predicted with a reasonable degree
of accuracy f o r the pressure-open, tngger-close type of
control where the flow-line valve is opened a t a preset
casing pressure and is closed immediately when the
plunger arrives a t the surface. Thls method 1s the most
wldely used since g a s reclulrements per cycle a r e minimal when compared with the other methods of control.
Relationships a r e developed and performance charts
f o r 1.995-111 , 2 441-in, ancl 2 992-in. I D tubing a r e presented which a r e suitable f o r use in most typical oil
fields in the 2,000- to 16,000-ft range, 0- to 6-bbl load
size range, and 0- to 200-pslg tubing pressure range.
(See Flg. 6-23, ~ncl.,11. 132 to 140.) F o r fields which
produce liqulds and gas which devlate froin the typical
to a n y great extent, corrections should be applied to t h e
fundamental formulae used. I n particular, a correction
should be made f o r liquids of significantly higher viscosity than the typical 30-API crude used in the analysis. Although the method developed 1s theoretical, it is
complemented with field experience where theory IS
lacking. Data from 85 Ventura field wells equipped wlth
2 441-in. plungers correlate closely with the analysis.
The method developed describes the mechanical parameters of plunger lift wlthout reference to Inflow
performance relationship o r productivity index. The
omission was purposely intended ~n order to prevent
inisconceptlons regarding posslble llquld-production
rates As indicated by W. E. Gilbert,' Inflow perfonnance relationship ( I P R ) is a function of the type reservoir rather than method of lift and inclusion of t h e
varlety of reservoir parameters would unduly complicate the technique However, a s shown by Example 2,
the englneer can readily adapt the charts to predict
production rates provided he supplies a n I P R relationsh~p.
I n the development of the performance charts, ~twas
necessary to assume average o r typical values f o r certain of the well conditions in order f o r the charts t o
have broad application. An effort was made to select
values such t h a t the prudent operator wlll be able t o
achieve the predicted performance without unreasonable
effort Should he have difficulty in achieving such performance, he is advlsed to check the operation f o r substandard, malfunctioning, o r incorrectly operated equipment.
Determination of Average Casing Pressure
A general pressure-balance equation f o r plunger-lift
'References are at the end of the paper.

operation when the plunger is a t a n y polnt In the tubing

strlng and IS ascending wlth ~ t liquld
s
load can be espressed a s follows :

C n s i j ~ gpresszire
presszcre Ace to w e i g h t o f gas col?tnzn
frlctzon pressztrc loss (crcsz~~g-tztbzngctnn7tllts) =
gris f?.~ctlonpress7tre loss V L t z t b ~ n gunclerneatl~ the
plztngcr + press~credue to w e z g l ~ tof gas colzo,zn 7 ~ 7 ~ clernec~tl~
plz~7tger+ p l ~ t n g e rfrtctzox IJressltre loss
pressure reqltzrecl to lzft w e ~ g l l to f pl7inger
pres~ t lzqzizd
lzqziid f r ~ c t z o n
sure reqjizrecl to lzft w e ~ g l of
pressure loss + gas frtctlon p r e s s ~ t r e loss above
plltnger + prcssltrc cl~te to wezqht o f g r ~ s colzinzn
ribove the ~~17tnge)+ S I L ~ ~ C I Ctz~bzltg
C
bclck pressltve
prcssztre to accozcnt for e7ztry o f prodztced lzqlctd zindewzeath plzcnger.
(1)

- gas

During the period of time when the plunger travels

upward, most of the foregoing factors a r e in a state of
change, interacting with one another to satisfy the
equation. Significant among these a r e :
1. Tublng pressure decreases drastically from a pressure equal to (or nearly equal to) maslmum casing
bulldup pressure to a minimum pressure which is
controlled by separator pressure, a length of flow
line, and a relatively low g a s flow rate.
2. Gas flow r a t e decreases from a relatively high
value (durlng tubing bleed-down) to a n everdecreaslng rate a s the plunger nears the surface.
3. Casing pressure ordinanly decreases from a masimum to a minimum pressure (wlth 2%-in. tubing,
7-in. casmg, the change averages about 10 percent).
4. Plunger and liquid velocity changes from zero to
approximately 1,000 ft/min average velocity. Also,
i t seems possible t h a t the plunger with liquid may
exceed the average velocity while st111 near bottom
and then de-accelerate steadily until the plunger
surf aces.
Wlth a glven set of well conditions, ~t is posslble to
operate with a wide range of average casing pressures,
but ~t is desirable to operate a t the lowest possible
casing pressure in order to achleve t h e greatest well
drawdown, since the bottom-hole operating pressure is
a direct functlon of casing pressure. Further, a s seen
In the performance curves, g a s requirements per cycle
decrease wlth decreaslng caslng pressures. I n order to
establish t h e value of the mlnimum posslble average
casing pressure i t is necessary to know a t which point
In the plunger's upward travel a stallout is most llkely
to occur. If thls polnt is known, then Equation (1)
needs to be solved only once in order to deternllne t h e
nllnlmum casing pressure required.

It seems llkely t h a t the most crltical polnt in the

plunger's upward travel would be either when the
plunger is nearing the surface w ~ t hthe liquicl load o r
when the fluid is surfacing and is passing through t h e
well head. A t this time the caslng pressure is a t its
lowest value and the gas-column pressure benefit in the
casing-tubing annulus is nearly cancelled by the gas-

PLUNGER-LIFT
PERFORMANCE
CRITERIAWITH OPERATINGEXPERIENCE-VENTURAAVENUEFIELD
column pressure effect in the tubing under the plunger.
This theory is borne out by the fact t h a t In field operations g a s flow rates a r e consistently observed to be
decreasing a s the plunger nears t h e surface, indicating
the ever-decreasing energy available f o r 11ft. Furthermore, a t this time t h e greatest pressure effect from

129

llquld procluctlon (in the t u l ~ i n gunder the plunger)

could be espected.
Assuming t h a t the critically low casing pressure
occurs when t h e plunger is nearing the surface with its
liquid load, Equation (1) can be restated and s~mplified
a s follows :

Mznzn~u~a
casing presszsre = g a s friction presszsre loss 171 entire l e l ~ g t of
l ~ tz~bzng presszsre requzred to lzft
weight of plunger
presszcre ~eqlizredto lzft wezght of lzq~szci ltq~szdfrzction
pressure loss
szirface tzsb~ngbcickp+esszire.
(2)

+
+

This equation ignores the pressure effects of plunger

friction, slight gas-column pressure differences between
tubing ancl casing-tubing annulus, the pressure effect
of liquid entry beneath the plunger, and casing-tubing
annulus gas frlction pressure loss. These factors, though
present, a r e considered to be of small effect when the
casing-tubing annulus cross-sectional area is relatively
large compared to the tulling cross-sectional area, and
g a s flow rates a r e hlgh enough to sustain annular ring
o r mist flow. E. C. Babsoa' h a s indicated t h a t a n ap-

TVherein
PC = caslng pressure, psig
P, = pressure required to lift weight of plunger
Plh= pressure required to lift weigh^ of Iiclulcl, per
barrel
PI, = liquid frictional pressure loss, per barrel

Assuming a constant temperature and liquid velocity,

the term ( P l h
PI,) becomes a constant f o r a given
tubing size and liquid type. Substituting average o r

Wherein
( P l h +PI,) and A have values a s follo\vs.
1995-1n
2 441-111.
2 992-in.
( P J+PI,).
~
165
102
63
K
.
.
33,500
45,000
57,600
and other assumptions a r e a s follows :
Liqzizcl. 30-API crude with 15-percent water c u t ;
pressure gradient 0.39 p s i l f t ; kinematic viscosity,
11 cstk a t 60 F , 1.0 cstk a t 200 F
Plzsnger and liquid veloczties 1,000 ft/min
Tentperat~sre: 150 F
Presszsre ~eqzswedto lift wetgl~tof plzsnger. 5 psi
Casing pressure r a n g e . 10 percent (corresponds to
2 7/s -in. tublng in 7-in. caslng)
Flow line: free from restrictions and I D equal to or
greater than I D tubing with length 2,000 f t o r less

p r o s ~ w a t e l ylnlnimum gas flow rate whlch will sustain

these types of flow is 225 Mcf/D f o r 2.441-111. tubing and
500 Mcf/D f o r 2.992-111. tubing. Gas flow rates In
plunger-lift wells a r e well 111 excess of these minimum
rates except In t h e small load size range with low
tubing pressures
Restating Equation (2) in t e r n ~ sof average casing
pressure ancl su1)stitutmg a n approsimation f o r g a s
frictional pressure losses :

L = load size, bbl

PI = flow-line pressure, pslg

= depth of tublng, f t

K = constant

typical values f o r the varlal~les,Equation ( 3 ) can be

restated a s follows:

A4pprosimate Equation (4) evolved from more rigorous calculations whlch more correctly ascertain g a s
and oil frlction pressure losses ancl more accurately
correct f o r temperature effects a t various depths. Ordinarily, Ecluatlon (4) was found to compare within 2
percent of these more complex calculations and was
used to construct Fig. 6-23, incl.
I n order to calculate the liquicl and gas frictional
pressure losses, a plunger ascending velocity of 1,000
ft/min was used. Average ascending plunger velocities
of 1,070 ft/mln were measured in 24 wells. The velocitles ranged between 700 and 1,400 ft/mln with most of
the wells ranging between 900 and 1,200 ft/min. These
velocities were determined by measuring the total time
lapse between Aowline control valve opening and arrival
of the plunger a t the surface, and a r e probably higher

D. L. FOSSAND R. B. GAUL

130

than actual near-surface plunger velocities. Correspondingly, the use of the 1,000-ft/min velocity IS conservatlve in t h a t i t predicts higher g a s and 011 friction pressure losses than would be predicted with lower velocities. These higher-than-actual pressure losses should
compensate to a degree f o r the pressure losses t h a t a r e
not accounted f o r in Equations (2), ( 3 ) , and (4).

Determination of Gas Requirements

The fundanlental volume of g a s required per cycle
can be considered to be the sum of: a , t h a t volume of
gas which is contained within the tubing just before
the flowline valve opens; b, t h a t volume of g a s which
slips past t h e plunger and liquid during the u p t r i p ;
and c, t h a t volume of g a s which slips past the plunger
a f t e r plunger arrival a t surface before the control
valve closes. I n practice, c can be reduced to insignificant quantities a s control mechanisms a r e availablewhich close the control valve within 5 sec a f t e r plunger
arnval.
The volume of g a s contained in the tubing, a, is a t a
surface pressure equal to maximum tubing buildup
pressure which is usually equal to o r somewhat less
than maximum casing bulldup pressure Masimum tubing buildup pressure may be somewhat less than masimum casing buildup pressure because of the presence
of a higher colun~n of liquid m the tubing than is
present ~n the casing-tubing annulus.
F o r 85 Ventura field wells, actual g a s usage per cycle
(determ~ned from routine field orifice-meter measurements) was compared wlth the calculated volume of the
gas-filled tubing a t surface pressures equal to maximum
tubing pressure and equal to maximum casing pressure.
An average Ventura field g a s gravity of 0.72 was used
with a g a s temperature gradient of 100 F a t surface,
198 F a t 8,000 f t , and 341 F a t 12,000 ft. When compared wlth the volunles a t inasilnum tubing pressures,
the actual g a s usage averaged 25 percent greater than
calculated When compared with the volunles a t maxiinum casing pressures, t h e actual g a s usage was 15
percent greater than calculated. Interestingly, 31 of the
wells eshibited actual g a s usage very nearly equal to
the calculated volunles (casing-pressure basis) ; and In
only 7 cases did the actual volumes esceed the calculated volun~esby greater than 50 percent. Actual g a s
usage f o r the 85 wells averaged 4 6 Mcf/cycle with a
range from 1 9 to 10 7 Mcf/cycle
Based on the foregoing correlation, the performancechart basls (Fig. 6-23) used f o r the Mcf g a s required
per cycle IS 1.15 tnnes the g a s contained wlthin the

Maxi1r7.ztsrt cycles/day =

depth

tubing a t a surface pressure equal t o maximum casing

bulldup pressure. Maximum casing buildup pressure
was assumed to be 5 percent greater than average
casing pressure. Average g a s gravity used was 0 72
and the average gas temperatures used were a s follows:
2,000-ft well: 113 F ; 8,000-ft well: 150 F ; 16,000-ft
well: 200 F.
Fig. 6-23 ~ n d i c a t eg a s requirements to be a function
of depth and load size f o r a g v e n tubing size. The load
size thus indicated corresponds to the finite caslng
pressure ascertained from the left-hand sections of Fig.
6-23. If the gas-requirement sections of Fig. 6-23 a r e
used in abnormal situations where casing pressures do
not correspond with load slze, ~tis necessary t o use a
pseudo load size which corresponds to the actual casing
pressure.
Additionally, gas requirements a r e based on the total
volume of t h e gas-filled tubing wlthout correction f o r
the space occupied by liquid. Thus, a t the lesser depths
\nth large loads (where t h e volume of liquid is a significant percentage of the tubing volume), Fig. 6-23
may predict greater g a s requirements than a r e actually
needed.
Determination of Maximum Cycling Frequency
The minimum time required to complete one cycle is
the sum of the times required f o r the plunger to rise t o
the surface, f o r the plunger to fall through t h e gasfilled tubing, and f o r the plunger to fall through t h e
accumulated liquid in the tubing. As noted by Beeson,
Knox, and Stoddard? rlsing velocities of 1,000 ft/min
and falllng velocities (through gas) of 2,000 ft/min
appear reasonable.
Ventura field experience (2%-in. plungers) close1y
substantiates rising velocities of 1,000 ft/min. Falling
velocities (through gas) were measured between 900
and 3,000 ft/min depending upon plunger configuration.
Therefore, a 2,000-ft/min value f o r plunger-fall velocity
(through gas) appears reasonable.
To establish fall velocities through liquid, several
2.441-in. plungers were tinied on surface while falling
through a 60-ft length of 2 441-111. tubing filled with
30-API Ventura field crude. Velocities ranged between
165 and 265 ft/min depending upon plunger configuration. Therefore, a value of 172 f t / n ~ i nappears suitable
(using this value, approsimately 1min is required f o r a
plunger to fall through a barrel of liquid i n 2.441-in.
tubing).
Using the preceding values, a n equation f o r maximum
cycling frequency can be expressed a s follows:
1,440

leszgtl~o f 1 bbl load

x load

stze, bbl

172

On the performance curves (Fig. 6-23) approximate

masinlum cycling values can be determined by noting
the load-size value a t the intersection of the proper
depth and procluction-rate curves and dividing this value

into the production rate. The load size thus determined

is the smallest possible a t the given production r a t e and
depth.

PLUNGER-LIFTPERFORMANCE
CRITERIAWITH OPERATINGEXPERIENCE~ENTURA
AVENUEFIELD

Example 2
A 6,000-ft well is found operating with t h e following
conditions 50 B/D production r a t e ; 3 Mcf/bbl gasliquid ratlo; 2.441-in. tubing; 190 p s ~casing pressure;
30 psi tubing pressure, 40 cycles/day, and inflow performance relationshiu t h a t results in a uroduction
change of 0 2 B/D/psi (casing pressure). It is desired
to ascertain if production can be Increased from this
well by decreasing the casing pressure.

EXAMPLES O F U S E O F PERFORMANCE CHARTS

Example 1
Well conditions: 50 B/D producing r a t e , 5 Mcf/bbl
produced gas-llquid ratio; 8 441-in. tublng, 9,300 f t
depth; 100 psig flow-line pressure
a F o r snaxzmum pro~l.ticzng-ratecot~dztions*
Enter 2.441-in., 100-psig chart (Fig. 15) a t 9,300
f t and proceed to the rlght until the 50-B/D curve
is intersected. From this point observe on the top
scale a predicted average casing pressure of 195
psig (this is the lowest average casing pressure
s
observe the load size of
possible). Also, a t t h ~ point
0.5 bbl (this is the minimum load size possible).
Proceed to the right a t t h e 9,300-ft level t o t h e
r ~ g h t - h a n dsection of chart to a load size of 0.5
bbl. Observing t h e - t o p scale a t this ~ntersection,
read 5.0 Mcf gas required per cycle.

a. F o r ~ I ~ Z L ~ Z Ll~rodzlc~ng
? ) L
r a t e col~dztions.
By trial-and-error methods it will be found from
Fig. 13 t h a t the well can be operated a t a casing
pressure of 95 psig which results in the following
corresponding conditions
Producing rate, 50 0.2 (190-95) = 69 B/D
Produced gas, 69 Y, 3
= 207 Mcf/D
Required load size (from Fig. 13) = 0 46 B/cycle
69
= 150
Required cycles/day, 0.46
Required gas/cycle (from Fig. 13) = 1.6 Mcf/cycle
Total g a s required, 1.6 x 150
= 240 Mcf/D
Gas required from outside source,
= 33 Mcf/D
240-207

From these data :

Average casing pressure: 195 psig

= 100 cycles/ day

Total g a s required = (100 cycles/day) ( 5 0 Mcf/
cycle)
= 500 Mcf/day
Gas required from
outside source = 500 - (50 B/D) (5 Mcf/bbl)
= 250 Mcf/day

b. F o r co?~cI.Ltzo?mreql~zringno olbtszde source of gas:

By trial-and-error methods i t will be found from
Fig. 13 t h a t the well can be operated with a casing
pressure of 110 psig which results in t h e following
corresponding conditions :
Producing rate, 50 0.2 (190-110) = 66 B/D
Produced gas, 66 x 3
= 198 Mcf/D
Required load size (from F i g 13) = 0 6 Bbl/cycle
66
= 110
Required cycles/day, 0.6
Required gas/cycle, (from F i g 13) = 18 Mcf/cycle
Total g a s required, 1.8 x 110
= 198 Mcf/D

b F o r condzt~onsreq?~zmngno ozitszde source of gas:

A trial-and-error solution is required. A total of
50 B/D x 5 Mcf/bbl = 250 2lfcf /D is available to
produce the well. Assuming, say, 8 Mcf/cycle will
be required, then 250/8 = 31.2 cycles/day would
be possible which would result in a load size of

E n t e r Fig. 15 (right-han'd portion) a t 9,300 f t and

a t the intersection of 1.6-bbl line read 8.7 Mcf g a s
required per cycle Because thls value is greater
than the assumed value, a second approximation
of, say, 10.5 Mcf/cycle is made. With this approximation, 250 Mcf/D = 25.5 cycles/cla2/ a r e pos10.5 Mcf/cycle
50 B/D
sible resulting in a load size of
23.8 cycle/day
2.1 bbl. Referring again t o the right-hand portion
of Fig. 15, a t the intersection of 9,300 f t and 2.1
bbl is read the value of 10.4 Mcf/cycle. This value
results In 10.4 x 23.8 = 248 Mcf/D g a s usage
which is close to the 250 Mcf/D available. Proceeding to t h e intersection of 9,300 f t and 2.1-bbl load
on the left-hand chart is read a n average casing
pressure of 403 psig.

131

SUMMARY
The very successful application of plunger lift in over
100 wells in the Ventura Avenue Field h a s created a
renewed Interest In this rather neglected method of producing oil wells. Based on a theoretical analysis and i t s
correlation with actual well data, a method h a s been
developed to predlct plunger-lift performance f o r a wide
range of well conditions.
I

REFERENCES
'Gilbert, W. E : Flowlng and Gas-lift Well Performance, A P I Drzll~ngund Prod~(ctzonPractice, 125 (1954).
'Babson, E . C: The Range of Application of Gas Lift
Methods, APZ Drllkny and Pvoc71~ctuonPracttce, 366
(1939).
3Beeson, C. M ; Rnos, D G ; and Stoddard, J. H:
Plunger Lift Correlation Equations and Nomographs,
Papel' 501-G presented a t AIME Petroleum Branch
Meeting, New Orleans, Oct. 1955.

132

D. L. FOSSAND R. B. GAUL
AVERAGE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE lPSlGl

MCF GAS REOUIRED

LOAD

SIZE

PER

CYCLE

- BBL

Fig. 6 - Approximate Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 1.995-111. Plunger Lift
M C F GAS REQUIRED

PER

CYCLE

10

15

20

25

30

LOAD

SIZE- B B L

Fig. 7- Approximate Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 1.995-In. Plunger Lift

Fig. 9

- Approximate

LOAD

SIZE

- BBL

Casing.pressure and Gas Requirements for 1.995-In. Plunger Lift

134

D. L. FOSSAND R. B. GAUL
AVERAGE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE [ P S I G )

M C F G P S REOUIRED P E R CYCLE

LOAD

SIZE

- BBL

Fig. 10 - Approximate Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 1.995411. Plunger Lift
M C F GAS REQUIRED PER CYCLE
0

10

15

20

25

30

LOAD

S I Z E -BBL

Fig. 1 1 - Approximate Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 1.995-111. Plunger Lift

PLUNGER-LIFT
PERFORMANCE
CRITERIAWITH
MCF GAS REQUIRED

AVERAGE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE (PSIG)

lr

70

3 r

4 r

PER CYCLE

5 r

LOAD

SIZE- BBL

Fig. 12 - Approximate Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 2.441-In. Plunger Lift
MCF GAS REQUIRED PER CYCLE

AVERAGE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE (PSIGI

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

LOAD

Fig. 13 -Approximate

SIZE

- BBL

Casingapressure and Gas Requirements for 2.441-In. Plunger Lift

D. L. FOSSAND

136

M C F GAS REQUIRED PER C Y C L E

LOAD

Fig. 14-Approximate

SIZE

- BBL

Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 2.441-111. Plunger Lift

M C F GAS REQUIRED

PER CYCLE

LOAD

Fig. 15 -Approximate

SIZE

- BBL

Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 2.441-111. Plunger Lift

M C F GAS REOUIRED PER CYCLE

LOAD

S I Z E - EEL

Fig. 16 - Approximate Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 2.441411. Plunger Lift
M C F GAS REOUIRED P E R CYCLE

AVERAGE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE (PSIGI

200

300

400

500

Fig. 17 -Approximate

600

700

BOO

900

Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 2.441411. Plunger Lift

D. L. Foss

138

AVERAGE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE ( P S I G I

2

3 r

AND

R. B. GAUL

5b

MCF GAS REQUIRED PER CYCLE

LOAD

S I Z E - EEL

Fig. 18 - Approximate Casingpressure and Gas Requirements for 2.992-In. Plunger Lift
AVERAGE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE ( P S I G )

MCF
0

GAS R E Q U I R E D P E R C Y C L E
10

15

LOAD

Fig. 19 -Approximate

SIZE

20

- EEL

Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 2.992-In. Plunger Lift

25

30

PLUNGER-LIFT
PERFOR~IANCE
CRITERIAWITH

OPERATING

EXPERIENCE-VENTURA
AVENUEFIELD
M C F GAS REQUIRED

AVERAGE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE (PSIG)

0

100

2W

300

400

500

PER

139

CYCLE

600

LOAD

SlZE

EEL

Fig. 20 - Approximate Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 2.992-In. Plunger Lift
AVERAGE
1

M C F G A S REQUIRED

SURFACE CASING PRESSURE (PSIGI

3

4 r

5 0

2[

LOAD

Fig. 21 -Approximate

PER CYCLE

S l Z E - EEL

Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 2.992-In. Plunger Lift

2,

3[

D. L. Foss

140

AND

R. B. GAUL

AVERAGE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE (PSIGI

0

100

200

400

300

, o
' ". i %

500

'
r,

MCF GAS

600

6- LOAD S I Z E - E E L

+",

REQUIRED

PER CYCLE

70 0

"

Oo

LOAD

SIZE

- EEL

Fig. 22 - Approximate Casing-pressure and Gas Requirements for 2.992-In. Plunger Lift