OTC 18820

The Use of Subsea Gas-Lift in Deepwater Applications

Subash S. Jayawardena, George J. Zabaras, and Leonid A. Dykhno, Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc.

Copyright 2007, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 30 April3 May 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore 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, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Riser base gas-lift is one of several methods that have been
proven to work in subsea developments for production
enhancement. In addition, gas-lift can be used as an effective
method to suppress severe slugging that usually occurs in
flowlines with downhill inclination. In some cases, gas-lift can
be used to increase feasibility of blowdown for hydrate
prevention.
Meanwhile, the necessity of gas-lift application is not always
obvious because gas-lift effectiveness depends on reservoir
performance, fluid properties, seabed terrain, subsea
architecture, and flowline and riser specifications. In many
cases, gas-lift for production enhancement is only needed at
late life production, when oil production rates are low and
water rates might be high enough. It is clear that the necessity
of gas-lift, optimal operability and system design should be
assessed from various aspects, including flow assurance.
Whether gas-lift suitable as an artificial lift method and where
the lift-gas should be injected needs to be evaluated very early
in the project development lift cycle. Often, decisions need to
be made with a very limited analysis to screen different
development concepts, and whether to use gas-lift or not is
one such decision.
Based on the past experience of riser gas-lift applications for
different deepwater subsea projects and based the associated
multiphase flow phenomena, a generic set of guidelines was
developed. These include when gas-lift is beneficial for
production enhancement, for flow stability and for flow
assurance. Also, factors affecting the selection of a location
for lift-gas injection, and the nature of the lift-gas supply
method (dedicated vs. shared gas-lift risers, insulated vs. noninsulated gas-lift systems and gas-lift system functionalities
needed) are discussed.

Introduction
This paper discusses the riser base gas-lift used in deepwater,
subsea oil production systems. The information presented
here is drawn from currently producing subsea systems as well
as from those that are still in design stage. This paper does not
discuss downhole gas-lift used in DVA (direct vertical access)
or subsea wells, where challenges with regard to gas-lift
application may appear quite different from those that are in
the riser base gas-lift. The primary focus of this paper is to
describe how flow assurance concerns affect various
engineering decisions, in designing a gas-lift system.
Riser base gas-lift is injection of a pre-determined rate of gas
into the production flowline (or riser) on the sea floor.
Obviously, this applied to oil producing systems only. This
injected gas is provided from the host facility, through a gaslift riser. The reasons for gas-lifting can vary, but the most
important with regard to flow assurance are:

Production enhancement
Flow stabilization
Flowline depressurization

Gas-lift for production enhancement is usually used for cases

where water cut is high and/or the reservoir fluid GOR or
reservoir pressure is low. Lift-gas decreases the liquid holdup
in the riser, and thus reduces the hydrostatic pressure in the
flowline.
Another application of gas-lift is to control severe slugging.
Downhill flowlines or dips near the riser base promote this
type of slugging, since they allow liquid to accumulate at the
riser base at low production rates. Liquid and gas surges
during severe slugging are a major problem to topside
processing. Therefore, suppression of these slugs is a major
flow assurance issue, and one approach to manage this issue is
by injection gas at the riser base.
It should be pointed out that the use of gas-lift typically does
not make the flow completely smooth. Gas-lift changes the
flow to consist of more manageable, smaller-volume, morefrequent liquid slugs, instead of very large liquid slugs. When
effective, gas-lift eliminates the wide variations in flowline
pressure, which are highly undesirable.
Flowline depressurization (blowdown) is often used to secure
a flowline from hydrate risk during prolonged shut-ins. A
successful blowdown will reduce the flowline pressure below

OTC 18820

the hydrate dissociation pressure at the ambient temperature.

Some flowline geometries and/or fluid properties in the
flowline make blowdown to be unsuccessful. In such cases,
gas-lift injected at the riser base during blowdown may make
the blowdown successful. Gas-lift during blowdown increases
the gas velocity and the duration of high gas rate, thus
removing additional liquid.
Why Gas-Lift is Needed
This section describes when gas-lift is needed at various stages
of field life, for the above-mentioned reasons. Also, the gaslift may be needed for more than one reason. At what stage of
field life each of these reasons require gas-lift should be
looked at to determine when to install and operate the gas-lift
system. It should be pointed out that gas-lift is not always
beneficial. In some cases addition of gas-lift or an increase of
gas rate may be detrimental to the performance of the subsea
system.
Production enhancement
In cases where gas-lift is used for production enhancement,
use of lift-gas is intended to lower the flowline pressure.
Typically, the gas-lift is needed under following conditions:

High water cuts in the flowlines

Low GOR fluids
Low to moderate production rates

Typically, effectiveness of gas-lifting for production

enhancement is higher in systems with low boarding
pressures. One major advantage of gas-lift for production
enhancement is that there are no moving parts in the subsea
system, apart from valves and chokes. Compression for gas
export is almost inevitable in any offshore, subsea
development and hence the supply of lift-gas during
production is not a major issue.
There are some situations where lift-gas use will increase the
flowline pressure. In particular, such situations consist of one
or more of the following:

Smaller flowline sizes

Consistently high production rates
High gas-to-liquid ratios

Presence of these factors may indicate that gas-lift may not be

a suitable method for production enhancement. When to use
gas-lift for production enhancement should be done using
integrated (reservoir-wells-flowline) production modeling.
This should include the water/gas injection to the reservoirs as
well.
Accuracy of flowline/riser pressure drop and liquid holdup
calculations in multiphase flow models and the accuracy of
PVT predictions are crucial. This becomes more important in
larger diameter flowlines with deepwater risers, where the
multiphase behavior is different from that in smaller diameter
systems. Many multiphase models were developed for smaller
flowlines and/or for wellbores. Use of such methods in large

diameter flowline/riser systems may introduce significant

errors into predicted timing of gas-lift use.
Severe slug suppression
If needed for severe slug management, gas-lift needs may
occur over any time of the field life. Tendency for the subsea
flowlines to be in severe slugging at reduced rate operations
needs to be evaluated over the field life, to identify when gaslift is needed. Reduced rate operation of the flowline during
start up period and during well tests should be considered. In
many situations, gas-lift may be needed from day-one to
suppress severe slugging at such reduced arte situations.
However, in some developments, the predicted flow rates
indicate severe slugging to be an issue in mid or late life, and
hence the gas-lift may be needed only after the field has
produced for some time.
Blowdown Considerations
Blowdown of large diameter risers with gas-lift assist is now
field proven, especially for low water cut systems. Gas-lift
can complete blowdown in cases where the flowline size and
fluid properties did not result in a succsseful blowdown
without gas-lift assist. Gas-lift assist has resulted in lowering
the flowline pressures below the target values.
However, gas-lift assisted blowdown is yet to be field proven
at high water cuts. Extensive simulations and large-scale
laboratory tests indicate this will work at high water cut
conditions as well. Gas-lift assist during blowdown becomes
more important with increasing water production. However,
some flowline geometries may require gas-lift assisted
blowdown even before water breakthrough.
Systems Suitable for Gas-lift
This section describes the conditions to look for at an early
stage of field development, to determine whether gas-lift may
be needed or not.
High water cut
Depending on reservoir type and reservoir management
strategy, large amount of water can be produced, especially at
late stages of the production life. This is especially true if the
reservoir pressure maintenance require water injection. Water
cut in such systems increase quickly and rapidly. This will
cause the flowline pressure to increase, due to higher density
of water and reduced gas production. Without any artificial
lift methods such as gas-lift, the wells may not be able to
produce against the flowline pressures.
Injected gas lowers the mixture density in the riser, and hence
the hydrostatic head. This is predominant at lower production
rates, where liquid holdup in the riser is higher. In contrast,
especially at high production rates, increased gas flow in the
riser and the flowline downstream of injection location will
increase the flowline pressure. If the net result of these two
competing mechanisms is a reduction in flowline pressure,
then gas-lift is beneficial to production enhancement. Steady
state modeling results such as those shown in Figures 1 and 2
can be used to identify production benefits from gas-lift
method.

OTC 18820

High water depth

Because production enhancement is related to lightening of
the riser with gas, it might be expected that the effectiveness
of gas-lifting to increase with water depth.
However, other limitations associated with gas-lift may
become important, and thus limit the applicability of gas-lift at
ultra-deep water depths. Particularly, thermal limitation will
appear due to the fact that increased water depth will increase
J-T cooling effects associated with depressurization of
additional amount of gas, significantly cooling the production
fluid and thus causing others flow assurance problems (e.g.
cooldown time of the riser).

Figure 1. Flowline inlet pressure at different production rates,

and different water cuts. No gas-lift.

Long offset flowlines

Unlike in short offset flowlines, where downhole gas-lift may
be considered as a reasonable alternative to the riser base gaslift, in long offset flowlines riser base gas-lift would be
preferred option due to less difficulties with the delivery of the
gas from the host to downhole location. However, very long
offset systems may be adversely affected (thermally) by
additional cooling due to gas expansion.
Downhill flowlines
Downhill flowlines are susceptible to severe slugging as
previously discussed. Thus, gas-lift is often considered for
flowline system with downhill-sloped flowlines, even if that
may not require the gas-lift for production enhancement.
Since severe slugging occurs usually at relatively low rates
(e.g. early and late life, well tests, commissioning, start up),
gas-lift method may become necessary starting at early life
conditions.
Unlike uphill flowlines, blowdown of downhill flowlines is
feasible under a limited set of circumstances. Gas-lift during
blowdown may remove an additional amount liquid from the
riser, assisting to complete the blowdown in such flowlines
[1]. Thus, in such cases, need to blowdown downhill
flowlines may become a primary factor for choosing gas-lift
option.

Figure 2. Flowline inlet pressure at different production rates,

and different water cuts, for the same flowline. With 15
MMscfd gas-lift.
Low GOR
Low GOR reservoir fluids are another common reason that
calls for artificial lift. This too causes the mixture density in
the riser to be higher, resulting in a higher flowline pressure.
The mechanism by which flowline pressure is reduced is
similar to that described above.
With increasing GOR, gas-lift becomes less effective and
finally becomes detrimental. That is why an accurate
prediction of the GOR behavior over the life of the field may
become very important to identify the necessity of gas-lift,
especially in the reservoirs where management includes gas
injection.

Uphill flowlines
In most cases severe slugging is not an issue for flowline with
uphill topography, even at high water cuts. Meanwhile
feasibility of blowdown often depends on details of uphill
flowline topography and strongly depends on water
production.
Gas-lift for blowdown assist may only become necessary at
mid to high water cuts. In such cases, it may be acceptable to
defer the installation of gas-lift system until gas-lift becomes
necessary. In some other situations (depending on flowline
geometry and GOR), blowdown may require gas-lift assist
from early life.
Other factors
Weak well start up is another factor that may impact whether
gas-lift is needed or when gas-lift is needed. Flowline
pressure can be lowered by gas-lift enabling the flow of weak

wells. However, in flowloop situations, riser base gas-lift may

not be the best option to lower the flowline pressure.
Reservoir management concerns may also dictate the need for
lift-gas and when to use it. This is especially true if produced
gas re-injection is a part of the field development strategy. In
such cases, the expected produced fluid GOR may vary such
that lift-gas use may not be needed.
Gas-lift Injection Location
In many cases, the gas-lift injection point may be quite far
away from the riser touch down location. This is especially
true when steel caternary type risers (SCR) are used, instead of
a riser tower. Riser towers allow the injection of lift-gas right
at the base of the riser. All the cases described in this paper
were based on system using SCRs, and injecting gas into the
riser above the touch down location is not discussed in this
paper.
When a SCR is used, the riser design considerations require
the dynamic portion of the riser lying on the sea floor to be
allowed to move freely. This length increases with increasing
water depth. Thus, determination of tie in point for the gas-lift
riser needs to consider an allowance for this effect.
Another considerations that may move the gas-lift tie-in-point
away from touch down location is the availability of a subsea
sled or manifold within a reasonable distance from the
potential stand-alone tie-in location. In such cases a costbenefit analysis is needed to assess whether moving the liftgas injection location from a closer, dedicated tie-in point to
one integrated to a sled/manifold further away from the host is
beneficial or not.
The benefits might include a lower cost (e.g. shared hardware
and installation costs, shared umbilicals) and possibly a higher
reliability (e.g. less potential weak spots, both thermally and
structurally). The drawbacks include a longer gas-lift riser (an
increased cost), a more complicated hardware at the tie in
point (installation difficulties) and a reduced effectiveness of
gas-lifting. In addition, there is another penalty in the form of
increased heat loss, which can be a significant factor in
developments with low reservoir temperatures.
Gas-lift assist during blowdown works by removing liquid
from the flowline downstream of injection point as well as the
riser. In case of flowline geometries where a significant
elevation difference exists between the riser base and the
deepest location, the optimum location to increase the
blowdown effectiveness may be a location close to the lowest
point of the flowline (downstream of the down dip to promote
flow of injected gas towards the host). Injection point at such
a location will remove most of the liquid form the flowline,
resulting in a more successful blowdown.
Design Considerations
A few key decisions that need to be made during
implementation of a gas-lift system are discussed below.

OTC 18820

Source of lift-gas
In all the cases described in this paper, the produced gas is
separated, compressed and treated at the host, before exporting
via an uninsulated gas export line. This export gas is
dehydrated, so there is no hydrate risk even when it is cooled
to the seabed temperature.
During normal production, the lift-gas is obtained downstream
of the dehydration unit. Thus, composition of lift-gas is
similar to that being exported. However, provisions should be
made to accommodate off spec gas for lift-gas. Typically, this
is achieved by injecting methanol to the gas-lift gas at the
host, to control hydrate risk.
In many cases, the gas for gas-lift is available at the outlet
pressure of the compressor in the gas export system.
Depending on the water depth, additional compression may be
needed.
When blowdown depends on gas-lift assist, there is a need for
sufficient supply of gas even under a full-field shut-in
condition. Typically, this is accomplished by buying back gas
from the gas export flowline. Since gas compression may not
be available under such conditions, gas export flowline design
should ensure the availability of a sufficient inventory of gas
in the export gas system under pressure. If the available
pressure is not adequate, then a booster compressor with a
very high availability must be used to supply gas for
blowdown with gas-lift assist. Since securing flowlines must
be done within the available cooldown time, availability of gas
during a full field shut-in may dictate the choice of hydrate
prevention strategy.
Operating Envelope
One major issue one has to face in designing a gas-lift system
is that the flowline pressure (against which the lift-gas needs
to be injected during gas-lift) varies significantly. The lowest
flowline pressure will occur when gas-lift is used during
blowdown. The highest flowline pressure against gas-lift
needs to be injected typically occurs when gas-lift needs to be
injected to a liquid filled flowline. For example, a flowline
pressure may vary from 200 psi to 2000 psi, under these
conditions. Thus, gas delivery system should to be able to
inject gas against these widely varying flowline pressures, and
may be required to maintain an acceptable gas temperature
during that process.
Insulation Requirements
Whether the lift-gas supplied to the riser base needs to be at a
high temperature or whether that lift-gas can be allowed to
cool to the ambient seabed conditions needs to be determined
as a part of the subsea flowline thermal analysis. Arrival
temperature and associated cooldown times determine the
need for insulation.
In general, shorter gas-lift risers, used in long offset subsea
systems with low temperature wells tend to have insulated
gas-lift risers. On the other hand, very long gas-lift risers,
short offset subsea systems, better flowline insulation (such as
PIP), and/or high temperature wells may result in cases where

OTC 18820

the optimum solution for lift-gas delivery is an uninsulated

riser. Uncertainties about the predicted production forecast,
and the plans for future expansions should also be considered.

Subsea system materials should be able to withstand thermal

excursions during reasonable depressurization events.

If the flowline cooldown time considerations require the

insulation of gas-lift risers, then the lift-gas from host needs to
be provided at a high temperature. When low flowline
pressure requires reducing the gas-lift gas pressure, then the
associated J-T cooling should be considered. Thus, the gas
heating requirements and maximum temperature specifications
of the gas-lift system need to be determined considering all
these effects.
As seen in Figure 3, J-T cooling of expanding gas (as it flows
in the gas-lift riser) may reduce the delivered gas temperature
with increasing gas flow rate, if gas rates are very high. This
becomes more significant at low flowline pressures. Thus,
designing of the gas-lift delivery system (sizing, insulation)
needs to consider various realistic operating modes to ensure
the injected lift-gas meets the thermal expectations.

Figure 4. Low temperatures predicted as trapped gas in gas-lift

riser expands to a low-pressure flowline.
maximum choke u/s pressure allowable for a given d/s pressure
GL choke to maintain -20F temperatrue rating
4000

3500

uptream pressure, psi

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

downstream pressure, psi

u/s pressure for cold gas @ 40F (psi)

Figure 3. Gas-lift supply temperature needed to ensure

minimum subsea lift-gas injection temperature, for case 3.
Low Temperatures
Gas-lift systems, when operated inadvertently, have the
potential to cool a large portion of the subsea flowline near the
gas-lift tie in point to very low (cryogenic) temperature. This
can be seen in Figure 4. The worst case is opening of a cold,
pressurized gas-lift riser to a low-pressure (i.e., already blown
down) flowline. This is also due to the J-T cooling of gas.
Proper material selection and engineering and operational
controls (interlocks, operating guidelines and operator
training) are essential to maintain the integrity of the subsea
hardware/flowlines. Figure 5 shows the maximum allowable
pressure the gas-lift riser (to avoid unacceptable temperatures
upon depressurization across subsea valves) as a function of
flowline pressure.

u/s pressure for warm gas @ 95F (psi)

Figure 5 Guidelines on maximum gas-lift riser pressure

allowable at various flowline pressures.
Solid Deposition
The composition change associated with the addition of gaslift gas may make the asphaltines to precipitate and to deposit
in the riser. This can be a significant issue if the oil is only
marginally stable. Even with stable crudes, the addition of a
lift-gas may have a large impact, when the oil flow rate is low.
This can happen during reduced rate operations (such as well
tests) and during late life production conditions. Asphaltine
inhibitor injection at gaslift tie in point may be needed in
extreme cases, to mitigate this risk.
Corrosion and Erosion
Corrosion management of the gas-lift injection system is done
using the proper material selection, use of dehydrated gas and

OTC 18820

displacement of any produced fluids that may enter the gas-lift

system (for example with MeOH). Typically, corrosion
inhibitor injection is not used in gas-lift delivery systems.
Erosion in the gas-lift delivery system itself is typically not an
issue. However, the local disturbances to the flow in the
production flowline near the gas-lift injection tee (due to
injected gas flow) may cause erosion, especially if sand
production is expected. Detailed CFD analysis is needed to
ensure the gas-lift tie-in point does not have an erosion
problem.
Shut-ins
Typically, gas-lift system is protected from hydrates under
steady flow by using dry gas for lifting. Provisions to inject
hydrate inhibitor (such as MeOH) to handle situations with
off-spec gas should be made available.
During shut-ins, the gas trapped in the gas-lift riser will cool
and it is possible some water may drop off. MeOH injection
prior to stopping gas flow to the gas-lift riser may be needed
to protect against possibility of hydrate formation. Ability to
gradually depressure the gas-lift riser to the host should be
included. This will allow for the remediation of any hydrate
blockages that may form in the gas-lift delivery system.

Increase the lift-gas rate to the maximum available

rate.
Gradually lower the lift-gas rate to optimize the liftgas use.

Slug Suppression
It has been observed in fields and documented that use of liftgas under some conditions may in fact promote slugging.
Also, there are cases where a relatively small change of
boarding pressure (inlet separator operating pressure) had
moved a flowline from steady flow to severe slugging.
This behavior has contributed to the skepticism, especially
among operators about the usefulness of gas-lift to suppress
severe slugging.
However, there are field observations where gradual reduction
in lift-gas rate has made the flowline to start severe slugging
and actually tripped the topside processing. This can be clearly
seen in Figure 6.

The flow of produced fluids to the gas-lift injection system

poses the highest hydrate risk during shut-ins. This risk is
mitigated by isolating the gas-lift system and by injection of
MeOH at subsea tie-in location. In some cases, check valves
are used to reduce the risk of back flow to the gas-lift system.
Since gas-lift injection system could be used as an alternative
depressurization path of the subsea system, it may be
necessary to make such check valves to be ROV overriadable.
Start up surges
Use of lift-gas to prevent severe slugging resulted in the
expectation that gas-lift can be used to eliminate the start up
surges. Start up surges depend on the flowline geometry, gas
and liquid distribution in the flowline under shut in conditions
(which in turn depends on the operational history of the
flowline prior to shut in as well as any operations performed
on the flowline during the shut in) and the start up of the
flowline. Since these vary among different flowlines and even
among different restarts for the same flowline, generating
guidelines on the use of lift-gas to prevent or even reduce the
start up surges are almost impractical.
However, the following general guidelines have been
developed for different subsea systems.

Start lift-gas after the start of the wells. This is

especially important if there is a downhill flowline
between gas-lift tie in and riser base.
Equalize the pressure in the lift-gas supply system
and the flowline.
Increase the lift-gas injection rate gradually.

Figure 6. Initiation of severe slugging in a flowline with a

downhill section near the riser base (in case 1), when gas-lift
was stopped
The above results indicate that gas-lift was performing as
expected - preventing severe slugging. Optimization of liftgas use for severe slug suppression should be done with a
good understanding of the multiphase flow behavior (flow
pattern transitions and quantitative assessment of severe
slugging potential) and preferably with predictive models
(transient modeling of the flowline coupled with the topside
processing) as well as field experience. Inclusion of the
medium range oil, gas and water production forecasts to this
effort is essential in order to prepare for expected changes of
the well and reservoir performance.

OTC 18820

Case Studies
Six cases, which use riser base gas-lift, are discussed below.
Cases 1 and 2 are currently producing assets. Case 3 through
6 are at various stages of development. Key parameters that
differentiate these cases are listed below:
Case 1 Currently producing at 6000 ft water depth, both
uphill and downhill flowlines to a FPS. No water injection or
gas re-injection.
Case 2 Currently producing at 3000 ft water depth,
predominantly uphill flowlines to a FPSO. With water
injection, but no gas re-injection.
Case 3 Under development at 3000 ft water depth, all uphill
flowlines to a FPSO. Restriction on number of risers to the
FPSO. With water injection, but no gas re-injection.
Case 4 - Under development at 3000 ft water depth, flowlines
have a major down dip to existing FPSO. With water
injection, but no gas re-injection.
Case 5 - Currently producing at 3500 ft water depth, flowlines
are all uphill to a TLP. With water injection, but no gas reinjection.
Case 6 Under development at 4500 ft water depth, with
mostly downhill flowlines to a FPS. With water injection and
gas re-injection.
Major issues related to the gas-lift system design for each of
these cases are described below.
Case 1
This is a FPS based producing deepwater subsea development
at a water depth of about 6000 ft. Subsea layout consisted of
both uphill and downhill flowlines, in the form of two oil
flowloops. Water or gas injection for reservoir support is not
used in this development [2].
Downhill flowlines in this development were expected to
show severe slugging even at a flow rate of 20,000 blpd, and
gas-lift was selected for these flowlines to prevent severe
slugging. Gas-lift assisted blowdown was not considered,
mainly due to water depth related issues. Also, the available
lift-gas injection tie in location did not favor the use of lift-gas
during blowdown.
Distances to the closest well on these two downhill flowlines
were quite different. The closest possible lift-gas tie-in
position in these flowlines was close enough to the closest
well location in one flowline, but not in the other. Thus, one
flowline was equipped with a dedicated lift-gas injection point
while the lift-gas injection to the other flowline was done at
that closest well location. This decision eliminated some
subsea hardware, but increased one gas-lift riser length by
more than 5000 ft.
The thermal considerations (available cooldown times of the
subsea system, which depends on arrival temperature while
lift-gas is used) led to the decision to insulate the shorter gaslift riser. Analysis showed was no such need for insulating the
longer gas-lift riser. Also, the available cooldown times with
cold gas injected via the uninsulated gas-lift riser was
acceptable in that flowline.

Uphill flowlines in the same development did not required

gas-lift for slow stabilization, since severe slugging is not an
issue for those flowlines. Different subsurface models of this
development predicted quite different behavior (in terms of
water cut and GOR variation over the field life) for the wells
in these flowlines. Thus, the need for lift-gas for production
enhancement was not clearly defined. Hence a decision was
taken to incorporate only the gas-lift tie in points to these
uphill flowlines, and the actual installation of gas-lift delivery
system (gas-lift riser and the topside equipment) was deferred
to a later stage.
Due to the 6000 ft water depth, it requires additional pressure
boosting for gas-lift gas under some conditions. The gas
export flowline operating pressure is not adequate for all the
situations that need gas-lift. However, normal gas-lift
operations can be done with the export gas, without using any
extra compression.
Use of lift-gas for severe slug suppression in this case
performed as expected. However, the production rates needed
to operate without severe slugging when no gas-lift to be used
was higher than initially expected.
Case 2
This is a FPSO based producing deepwater subsea
development at a water depth of about 3000 ft. Subsea layout
consisted of mostly uphill flowlines, with a significant down
dip close to the riser base in some of the flowlines. Water
injection for reservoir pressure maintenance is used in this
development, while gas re-injection is not used.
Reservoir pressures are not expected to drop below bubble
point. Water cut increased significantly over the field life,
resulting in a gradual decrease in gas-to-liquid ratio over the
field life.
Integrated production modeling predicted the need to gas-lift
in mid and late life of the field. This is mainly associated with
the increasing water cut in the flowlines.
Also, severe slug suppression required the use of gas-lift at
low production rates, for flowlines with a local down dip.
Gas-lift is needed at production rates below about 20,000
BLPD for the smaller diameter flowlines with the down dip, to
prevent severe slugging. For the larger diameter flowline with
down dip, gas-lift is needed to suppress severe slugging at
production rates below about 35,000 BLPD. These rates
strongly depend on the GOR and water cut.
Flowline geometry and the expected fluid composition in the
flowlines at different stages of field life required the use of
gas-lift assist during blowdown for some situations. The
larger flowline size required lift-gas use at all fluid
compositions. Blowdown of smaller size flowlines needed
lift-gas use when the water cut increased above about 50%.
Heated lift-gas is provided using dedicated gas-lift risers to the
base of each production riser, with lift-gas flow rate controlled
at the host. The insulated gas-lift risers are designed to ensure

a minimum lift-gas injection temperature under normal

operating conditions, so that the produced fluids will not be
cooled to an unacceptable temperature. This was to ensure
adequate cooldown times would be maintained.
The design included an integrated electro-hydraulic umbilical
supplying lift-gas, chemicals, hydraulics and electrical power
to the gas-lift tie in points. This design provided a cost saving,
but added operational and installation complications.
Use of lift-gas for severe slug suppression in this case
performed as expected. However, gas-lift did not make the
flow smooth. It removed the wide swings of flowline pressure
associated with severe slugging, and prevented the very large
(riser volume size) liquid slugs to the host. For example,
severe slugging was suppressed with 20 MMSCFD gas-lift in
one of the larger flowlines at about 21 MBLPD. Figure 6
shows the flowline pressure fluctuations that indicate the
initiation of severe slugging after the gas-lift was stopped, as
expected.
Blowdown of large diameter flowline with a dip did not
reduce the flowline pressure below the target. However, use
of gas-lift made the flowline pressure to drop below the target
pressure, making it a success. Gas-lift assisted blowdown
results from this development is presented elsewhere in this
conference.
Effectiveness of gas-lift use for production enhancement is not
yet tested in this system, as the wells are still strong and water
cut is low.
Case 3
This is a FPSO based deepwater subsea development at design
stage. The water depth is about 3000 ft. Subsea layout
consisted of all uphill flowlines. Water injection for reservoir
pressure maintenance is used in this development, while gas
re-injection is not used.
This development was characterized by relatively lowpressure reservoirs, with a wide range of reservoir
temperatures. The cooldown time requirements dictated that
lift-gas to be supplied warm, using insulated gas-lift risers.
This proposed development will initially have four production
flowlines and only two gas-lift risers.
Mainly due to constraints on the number of risers that can be
accommodated, subsea splitting of lift-gas will be included in
this design. Each gas-lift riser will provide lift-gas needed for
two production risers. The reduction of the number gas-lift
risers reduced the cost, but added more operational and design
complexity.
Two major factors that made the proposed gas-lift delivery
system acceptable was the lack of severe slugging (all uphill
flowline) and the fact the primary hydrate mitigation strategy
selected for this project being dead oil displacement.

OTC 18820

Integrated production modeling predicted the need to gas-lift

in mid and late life of the field. This is mainly associated with
the increasing water cut in the flowlines.
At high water cuts, successful blowdown of the risers will
require the use of lift-gas.
Subsea gas-lift flow splitting narrowed the operating envelope
of the gas-lift system. Some of these limitations are partially
due to J-T cooling. The others are due to the need to design an
insulated gas-lift riser to supply lift-gas with an acceptable
temperature at turn down gas-lift rates.
It is recognized that using same gas-lift riser needs to supply
gas to two flowlines with widely differing pressures. Also, the
supply of lift-gas to both flowlines may be a challenge, when
one flowline pressure is rapidly changing. Thus, gas-lift
assisted blowdown while the other flowline is producing with
gas-lift may not be feasible. That combination of operations is
not considered essential in the design of the gas-lift system.
Figure 3 shows the lift-gas supply temperature needed to
ensure a required subsea gas temperature. This shows the
need for very high gas-lift gas temperatures at host to ensure
gas temperature at low flowline pressure, low gas rate
combinations, such as blowdown conditions. Also, it shows
the difficulty of designing a gas delivery system to meet a
wide range of flow and pressure requirements.
Subsea gas-lift injection point requires gas flow metering,
flow control valves (subsea chokes) which are remotely
controlled to maintain desired gas flow rates, and isolation and
check valves. Various pressure and temperature measurements
are needed for interlocks and to monitor for any sign of
backflow. The topside end of the gas-lift riser was quipped to
control the pressure in the gas-lift riser.
Providing a pre-determined amount of lift-gas to each flowline
while the flowline pressures can fluctuate over a wide range is
a challenge. Pressures in the four flowlines can vary by more
than 600 psi, under steady state flow with lift-gas use. Gas-lift
assisted blowdown of one production riser while others are
producing may make this pressure difference even larger.
Also, the rapid pressure change during blowdown will make it
very difficult to control the lift-gas entering each flowline at
the required rates.
The risk of back flow of produced fluids to the gas-lift system
as well as cross flow of produced fluids from the higher
pressure flowline to the lower pressure flowline via the subsea
gas-lift distribution system were identified. Also, the risk of
hardware cooling below material ratings (as the pressurized
gas expands to low pressures) was identified and needed
control measures are being developed.
These risks are addressed using engineering controls (check
valves, isolation valves, interlocks and maintaining a
differential pressure across the choke) as well as operational
controls.

OTC 18820

Two possible locations for lift-gas injection in this

development were evaluated. One was the closest possible
location (after allowing for the dynamic length of the SCR)
and the other was the closest manifold location. The distance
between these two locations is of the order of 1 km, and there
were a number of cost and installation benefits in integrating
the gas-lift to the nearest production manifold. Analysis of
these two cases showed almost negligible thermal effects, and
a penalty of slightly increased flowline pressures. The
flowline pressure increase was of the order of 25 psi, and the
cost-benefit analysis resulted in selecting a gas-lift system
with a tie in at the closest manifold location.
Case 4
This is an extension of the case 2 discussed above. Plans are
underway to add additional production risers to case 2. This
water injection supported system requires gas-lift assist for
production enhancement in mid and late life.
Flowline layout for these new flowlines indicates severe
slugging risk at low production rates. Therefore, gas-lift needs
to be available from the start of production in these new
flowlines/risers.
Whether blowdown is feasible for this flowline layout, even
with gas-lift assist, is yet to be determined. If it is proved to
be feasible, this will also require the availability of lift-gas
from first oil of this system.
Based on the lessons learned since case 2 was designed,
alternative approached to supply lift-gas is being investigated.
This includes studying whether subsea gas-lift splitting is
suitable for this case, considering the subsea layout and the
fluid properties and expected production rates. The long
distance to the closest production manifold eliminated that as a
potential tie in point.
Case 5
This is a currently producing TLP based deepwater subsea
development. The water depth is about 3500 ft. Subsea
layout consisted of all uphill flowlines. Water injection for
reservoir pressure maintenance is used in this development,
while gas re-injection is not used. The flowline size in this
case is smaller than the previous cases.
There is a significant uncertainty about the water cut and GOR
during the late life. Hence the need for gas-lift is not clearly
defined.
The current plan is to provide a gas-lift tie in point at the
manifold. Whether an existing flowline can be used to
provide lift-gas needed, or whether a dedicated gas-lift supply
line is needed will be evaluated later.
Case 6
This is a FPS based deepwater subsea development at design
stage. The water depth is about 4000 ft. Subsea layout
consisted of mostly downhill flowlines. Water and gas
injection for reservoir pressure maintenance is used in this
development.

Expectation is that both water cut and GOR will increase

during the field life. Gas-to-liquid ratio may become relatively
high in late lift. Hence the need for gas-lift is questionable for
recovery. However, gas-lift is beneficial to suppress severe
slugging due to downhill flowlines. Therefore, provision to
inject lift-gas at the manifold is provided.
Gas-lift assisted blowdown is not expected to be a driving
force for a gas-lift system, since the pour point issues require
dead oil displacement. Hence hydrate risk management is also
done using dead oil displacement.
Conclusions
Integrated production modeling (reservoir-subsea gathering
system) is necessary to determine the need for gas-lift for
production enhancement. Gas-lift requirements for severe
slug suppression and gas-lift assisted blowdown can be
evaluated by analyzing the subsea system alone.
Design of the subsea gas-lift systems should consider all the
credible operating scenarios, to ensure the selected system can
deliver the lift-gas as needed.
Proposed uses of lift-gas, anticipated production forecasts and
any future expansion plans determine when the gas-lift system
needs to be ready for a given development. Planning for liftgas supply during normal production as well as under shut in
conditions needs to be planned ahead.
Whether to use subsea gas splitting with a common gas-lift
delivery system or to have dedicated gas-lift delivery systems
for multiple flowlines/risers depends on cost, external
constraints, proposed used of lift-gas as well as potential for
severe slugging.
There is no one size fits all design approach for the riser
base gas-lift systems. Each system needs to be designed using
a holistic approach.
References
1. L.A. Dykhno, S.S. Jayawardena and W. Schoppa,
"Blowdown Feasibility for Downhill Flowlines", OTC-15256,
Offshore technology Conference, 2003.
2. J.D. Hudson, D.B. Dutsch, P.P. Lang, S.L. Lorimer and
K.A. Stevens An Overview of the Na Kika Flow Assurance
Design, OTC-14186, Offshore technology Conference, 2002