Economic Approach to Oil Production and
Gas Allocation in Continuous Gas Lift
Eni P. Kanu, SPE, Johnston-Maceo Schlumberger
Joe Mach, SPE, Johnston-Maceo Schlumberger
Kermit E. Brown, SPE, U. of Tulsa
Summary
Allocation of gas to wells on continuous lift can
affect profitability. Excessive gas input is costly
because of high gas prices and compressing costs.
Inefficient gas allocation in a field with limited gas
availability also reduces profitability. To alleviate the
problem of excessive gas usage, an economic slope
that relates liquid production and gas injection to
cost and profit has been developed. To resolve the
problem of gas allocation in a field with limited gas,
a method to allocate gas to wells efficiently under this
situation is presented and a step by step procedure is
given. An example problem consisting of a six-well
field is solved to illustrate the procedures presented.
Introduction
The current energy situation and the increasing costs
of gas lift are forcing oil operators to consider
economic operations first rather than desired
maximum production. As the market price of oil
continues to increase, it is understandable that oil
operators would prefer gas lift wells to produce at a
maximum. In fact, optimization in continuous gas
lift has come to mean the injection of gas until
maximum production is achieved. On the other
hand, gas prices and compression costs continue to
increase, forcing the oil operator to approach
maximum production cautiously. In view of this
situation, the development of a procedure to
determine the optimal economic point to produce a
well or a group of wells was recognized as having a
high potential for gas-lift design im~rovement.
The economic slope conceptI, offers a good
approach to the problem. This slope relates the well
and reservoir parameters to cost and profit. The
performance of a well on continuous gas lift can be
described by a typical gas requirement plot (liquid
0149-2136/81/0010-9084$00_25
Copyright 1981 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
OCTOBER 1981
flow rate vs. gas injection) as shown in Fig. 1. Any
point of tangency to the curve is unique and describes
a certain situation. For instance, the point of
tangency that occurs at 0° slope indicates the gas
injection that will yield maximum production. If this
slope coincides with the economic slope, the
determination of the economic optimum is clear-cut
since only one maximum exists. However, the
economic slope usually occurs at a slope greater than
0°, so obtaining the optimal economic point can
become tedious. In fact, efforts made in the past l -3
yielded procedures that are very cumbersome.
This paper, therefore, presents (1) the formulation
of a simple slope, (2) the use of this economic slope in
a simple procedure to allocate gas, at the optimal
economic point, to a well or a group of wells (given
an unlimited gas situation), and (3) the determination
of total gas required for a field, thus simplifying
compressor sizing.
Another important aspect of gas allocation that
deserves attention is the area of limited gas. A
method is presented that uses a simple graphical
procedure to allocate gas to wells efficiently in a field
operating under such a condition. A six-well field is
used to illustrate the procedures presented.
Economic Formulation
The gas requirement plot (Fig. 1) is indispensable in
any useful analysis of gas allocation in continuous
gas lift because it relates liquid production to gas
injection. This liquid production/gas injection
relationship is the cornerstone of any economic
approach. To obtain an economic slope, it is
necessary to formulate mathematically a function of
gas injection and liquid production on one hand and
cost and profit on the other.
The basis for this formulation is the concept that
production should be at a point where the profit
from incremental recovery of oil equals or exceeds
1887
 __ - - - - - - - --=_-,-......- 0'

500

"l
I
.' "l~
400

~ 300

II
II 200

I I 100

Cl MAX I~Jtcltd

", 1800

qg ( M s e l / d ) _

Fig. 1 - Typical gas·requirement plot for a well on Fig. 2 - System plot for Well 1.
continuous gas lift.

the increment in cost which was incurred as a result D.quo P

of additional gas injected to effect that production. ----=:::--".- = 1. ......................... (4)
D.qgCg
The last statement can be represented by the
following mathematical expression: Rearranging Eq. 4,
D.qL _ ~
D.qUoP~D.qgCg, ..................... (1) - . . ....................... (5)
D.qg foP
where
The slope at each point along the gas requirement
q L = total liquid, curve (Fig. 1) is given by
fa = fraction of oil produced, D.qL
profit in $/bbl computed without
P = m= - - .......................... (6)
compressor and other gas lift costs, D.qg
qg = gas flow rate, Mscf/D, and
Cg = cost to gas lift, $/Mscf. Therefore, at the optimal economic point,
C
The mathematical expression can be rewritten as m= ~ ............................. (7)
foP
D.qUoP=XD.qgCg. . ................... (2) This is the economic slope. The following section
presents the proc~dure to use this slope in gas
Then X can be represented by allocation.
D.qUo P Gas Allocation, Given Unlimited
= X, ......................... (3)
------'=----=--
D.qgCg Gas Situation
whereX~l. Economic and efficient gas allocation is an acute
It is economical to produce at any point where problem in an unlimited gas situation. Optimization
X> 1 but the operation will not be at economic usually involves injecting the necessary quantity of
optimum. On the other hand, if X < 1, the increment gas that will yield maximum production. This
in cost to gas lift has exceeded the increment in profit maximum production, unfortunately, is sought
derived from the additional production. This means without economic considerations.
that additional costs result in less profit. However, To alleviate this problem, an economic slope (Eq.
when X = 1, the increment in profit is equal to the 7) was developed that predicts the economic point to
increment in cost to gas lift. This is the economic produce a well given a gas requirement curve. A
limit. It follows then that if X = 1, the point method to utilize this slope in allocating gas at the
associated with that value on the gas requirement optimal economic point is presented. The procedure
plot (Fig. 1) will represent the most economic point is reinforced by solving an example problem to
for producing the well(s). enable a better understanding of the method. The
Then Eq. 3, at the optimal economic point, data for the example are given in Table 1. The
becomes following steps outline the procedure.
1888 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 TABLE 1 - AVAILABLE DATA, ECOLIFT FIELD*

Flow
Line
p, J Twh Tbh Length Midperforation
WeU (psi) (bbI/O-psi) ("F) ("F) (tt) (tt) fw
1** 958 7 85 112 10,230 3,065 0_62
2** 958 7 85 112 10,230 3,065 0_62
3 885 6 85 110 13,580 3,040 0.60
4 883 5.5 85 114 4,080 2,980 0.79
5 974 6 85 118 6,140 3,050 0.84
6 1,130 8 85 110 10,100 3,050 0.71

Specific gravity, API 0 31.5

Tubing size, in. 10 2.992
Casing size, in. 00 7.0
Flowline size, in. 10 4.0
Profit on oil, $/bbl 5
Cost to gas litt, $/Mscf 1
~ QW
Casing pressure, psi 800
Separator pressure, psi 85
Formation gas is negligible

'All data obtained from offshore Gabon except profit on oil and cost to gas lift, which are assumed.
"Viscosity problems in both wells, with Wel12 exhibiting the higher viscosity.

Step 1. Perform systems analysis 4-6 on each well to liquid ratio (FgtL ). For example, the 600: 1 FgtL lines
establish well performance under gas lift conditions intersect at 1,700 BID (Fig. 2). The gas rate is
for different gas liquid ratios (FgtL ). Fig. 2 is a computed by
sample graphical result obtained for the example
problem. To predict the vertical tubing performance, qg =qL (FgtL -FgL ), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
for the exam,ple, a modified version of the Hagedorn
and Brown correlation is used, while for the where FgL is the formation gas liquid ratio,
horizontal performance, the Dukler 8 correlation is
used.
qg = 1,700(600- 0) = 1.02 MMscflD.

Step 2. Establish a liquid-to-gas-rate relationship To produce 1,700 BID, 1.02 MMscflD must be
with rate values at the intersection of the vertical and injected. Rate relationships for all wells in the
horizontal tubing performance for each total gas example are provided in Table 2.

TABLE 2 - FLOW RATE VS.INJECTION RATE

Wel11 Wel12 Well 3 Wel14 Well 5 Wel16

qL qg qL qg qL qg qL qg qL qg qL qg
(BID) (MMscflD) (BID) (MMscflD) (BID) (MMscflD) (BID) (MMscflD) (BID) (MMscf/O) (BID) (MMscflD)
1,420 2.84 1,310 2.62 1,660 3.32 1,950 3.90 1,755 3.51 1,850 3.70
1,660 1.66 1,420 1.42 1,850 1.85 1,990 1.99 1,830 1.83 2,250 2.25
1,680 1.34 1,430 1.14 1,875 1.50 1,960 1.57 1,835 1.47 2,310 1.85
1,700 1.02 1,415 0.85 1,880 1.13 1,900 1.14 1,790 . 1.07 2,380 1.43
1,660 0.66 1,330 0.53 1,840 0.74 1,750 0.70 1,700 0.68 2,390 0.96
1,330 0.34 800 0.16 1,330 0.27 1,200 0.24 1,120 0.22 1,850 0.37

TABLE 3 - SLOPE/RATE RELATIONSHIP

Wel11 Well 2 Wel13 Wel14 Well 5 Wel16

Slope qL qg qL qg qL qg qL qg qL qg qL qg
n
-----
(BID) (MMscf/D) (BID) (MMscflD) (BID) (MMscflD) (BID) (MMscflD) (BID) (MMscflD) (BID) (MMscflD)
0 1,700 1.02 1,430 1.14 1,800 1.13 1,990 2.0 1,835 1.47 2,380 1.43
7 1,695 0.96 1,410 0.81 1,860 0.85 1,940 1.5 1,805 1.14 2,390 1.01
15 1,685 0.94 1,385 0.69 1,850 0.79 1,865 1.01 1,750 0.83 2,375 0.94
30 1,660 0.66 1,355 0.57 1,760 0.60 1,715 0.62 1,650 0.58 2,310 0.79
45 1,520 0.48 1,235 0.40 1,650 0.45 1,610 0.49 1,550 0.45 2,190 0.63
60 1,320 0.34 1,050 0.29 1,520 0.35 1,400 0.33 1,385 0.32 1,920 0.40

OCTOBER 1981 1889

 60 -
2500

50 -

2000

"
.
,
40

D 1500 '"
C>
W
-' o 30
"
'"
1000
20

500L-____________-L____________ ~ ____________ ~L---~

10 -
1000 2000 3000

3000
qq (Mscf Id 1
Fig. 3 - Liquid production vs. gas injection for Ecolift
field.
Fig. 6 - Wells 2 and 5, slope vs. gas injection.

60 -

60 -
50 -

50
."
i~ 40 -

,'".
C>

o
~ 30 -
.,.,
." 40 -
'"w
'"
0 30 -
:>
20 -
20 -
10 -
10 -

400 000 1200 )600 2000 2.,00 2800 3200

qL(b/dl
qg (Mscf Id)

Fig. 4 - Ecolift field, slope vs. liquid production. Fig. 7 - Wells 3 and 6, slope vs. gas injection.

60
,2 12

"
50
D II
"
g 10 10
6-l
o
~9 --I- 9 :=
40
8 ~
."

'"'" I '"o
-l
a:
o
C>

'"
0
30 z
o
...u
6
I 6 Z

'"
~
:0

20
o
~
:>

Q.
4 I ."

10

1000 2000 3000

qQ (Mscf/d)

Fig. 5 - Wells 1 and 4, slope vs. gas injection. Fig. 8 - Ecolift field, master plot.

1890 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 4 - SLOPEITOTAL RATE TAISLE 6 - GAS ALLOCATION AND LIQUID PRODUCTION
RELATIONSHIP, ECOLIFT FIELD USING AVERAGE ECONOMIC SLOPE·

Slope qL qg qg qL
(BID) (MMscf/D) Well (MMscf/D) (BID)
-.rL --
o 11,200 8.19 1 0.63 1,630
7 11,100 6.27 2 0.53 1,340
15 10,900 5.20 3 0.55 1,740
30 10,460 3.82 4 0.59 1,720
45 9,755 2.90 5 0.53 1,650
60 8,595 2.03 6 0.75 2,270
total 3.58 10,350
'm=34'.

TABLE 5 - GAS ALLOCATION AND LIQUID PRODUCTION TABLE 7 - RESULTS OF GAS ALLOCATION
USING INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC SLOPE FOR LIMITED GAS SITUATION·

Economic Slope qL qg qg qL
Well ~ (") (BID) (MMscf/D) Well (MMscf/D) (BID)
--
1 0.62 30.84 1,642 0.65 1 0.38 1,440
2 0.62 30.84 1,380 0.57 2 0.35 1,180
3 0.60 29.52 1,760 0.60 3 0.42 1,610
4 0.79 48.45 1,558 0.45 4 0.41 1,525
5 0.84 57.04 1,424 0.34 5 0.40 1,490
6 0.71 38.44 2,240 0.72 6 0.54 2,090
total 10,004 3.33 total 2.50 9,335
·m=51.5'.

Step 3. Establish a gas-requirement curve for each
well with values obtained from Step 2. Results for the
example are given in Fig. 3.
Step 4. Draw slopes of varying degrees as tangents to
each curve. A sample is given in Fig. 3 for the
example.
Step 9. To allocate gas to each well, match the
individual well's economic slope with its slopelrate
relationship (Step 6). When the average economic
slope is used, enter the figures obtained in Step 6 with
the calculated average economic slope. The results
for the example problem are given in Tables 5 and 6.

Step 5. Obtain value of injection gas and produced
liquid at the point of tangency of each slope. Table 3
gives the result obtained for the example problem.
Step 6. Establish a slopelrate relationship for each
well using values obtained from Step 5. For the
example, Fig. 4 is a plot of slope vs. liquid flow rate,
while Figs. 5, 6, and 7 are plots of slope vs. injection
rate.
Step 7. Establish a slopelrate relationship for the
field by totaling the rates associated with each slope
and plotting the values. For the example, Table 4 and
Fig. 8 (master plot) give the relationship of total gas
injection and the total liquid production for each
slope. For instance, if maximum production is
0
desired, allocation is at 0 slope, which requires 8.2
MMscflD of injection gas.
Step 8. Calculate the economic slope for each well
using Eq. 7. Table 5 lists these slopes for the example
problem. If an average economic slope is desired, use
an average water fraction to determine the oil
fraction. Using an average water fraction of 70070,
the average economic slope for the field is given by
Step 10. Obtain the total injection gas for the field
at the optimal economic point by adding all the gas
injection rates associated with the calculated
economic slope. For the example, these total volumes
are 3.33 MMscf/D using individual economic slope·
and 3.58 MMscflD for the average economic slope.
Discussion of Example Problem
In the example problem, the injection of 8.2 MM-
scflD of gas results in a maximum production of
11,200 BID from the field. Comparing these figures
with figures obtained using the average economic
slope (3.58 MMscflD; 10,350 BID), an interesting
observation is made. About 4.6 MMscflD of in-
jection gas is required to produce the additional 850
BID needed to go from 10,350 to 11,200 BID.
Another important observation is made by
comparing the total values obtained by using the
individual economic slope on one hand (10,004 BID;
3.33 MMscf/D) with the total values obtained by
using the average economic slope on the other
(10,350 BID; 3.58 MMscflD). The rates are in close
agreement. However, for increased accuracy in-
dividual economic slopes should be used.

t::.qL =m= ~ =_1_ =0.667, Gas Allocation in a Limited Gas Situation

t::.qg foP 1.5 The previous section presented a procedure for
0
where arctan 0.667 = 34 Therefore, the economic
• allocating gas to wells at the optimal economic point.
slope is equal to 34 0 • The basic assumption made is that gas is available.
OCTOBER 1981 1891
However, in many oil fields today, limited gas Nomenclature
availability is common, so it is necessary to establish Cg = cost to gas lift, $/Mscf ($/10 3 m 3 )
a logical method to deal with this situation.
The following steps present a straightforward fa = oil fraction
approach to allocate gas to wells in a field with fw water fraction
limited gas availability. The data in Table 1 are used FgL = formation gas liquid ratio, scflbbl
(with a modification of 2.50 MMscflD limited gas (std m 3 /m 3 )
availability) as an example to aid in illustrating the total gas (formation gas and injected
procedures presented. gas)/liquid ratio
Step 1. Follow Steps 1 through 8 for the unlimited J = productivity index, bbl/psi-D (m 3 IkPa· d)
gas situation. m = slope
Step 2. Determine total injection gas at the P r = average reservoir pressure, psi (kPa)
economic point either by entering the master graph P = profit on oil without compressor and other
(Fig. 8) with the average economic slope or by adding gas lift costs, $/bbl ($/m 3 )
the gas injection for each well using individual gas flow rate
economic slopes. For the example, the total gas is liquid flow rate
3.58 MMscflD (average economic slope) and 3.33 bottomhole temperature, ° FCC)
MMscflD (individual economic slopes). surface temperature, of CC)
Step 3. Check the volume of gas available with the mathematical constant
value obtained in Step 2. If the available gas is the l'g = specific gravity of gas
same as or greater than in Step 2, allocate gas to wells
as stipulated in Step 9 of the unlimited gas case. For Acknowledgments
the example, however, 2.50 MMscflD is less than We thank Johnston-Macco Schlumberger for per-
Step 2 value [3.58 MMscflD (average economic mission to publish this paper. Appreciation and
slope)]. So we cannot allocate gas as stipulated in recognition also is extended to all the members of the
Step 9. Technical Sales Dept., whose input and assistance
Step 4. Enter the master plot (Fig. 8) with available made this paper possible.
gas and determine a slope. For the example, a slope References
of 51.5° is obtained.
I. Mitchel, V.S.: "A New Approach to Gas Lift Design," MS
Step 5. Use the slope determined in Step 4 to thesis, U. of Tulsa (1976).
allocate gas to each well by using Figs. 5, 6, and 7. 2. Pacheco, J.A.: "An Economical Approach to Gas Lift
Design," MS thesis, U. of Tulsa (1977).
Table 7 summarizes the results obtained for the 3. Brown, K.E.: The Technology oj Artificial Lift Methods, Vol.
example. 2, Petroleum Publishing Co., Tulsa (1980) 166-194.
4. Mach, J., Proano, E., and Brown, K.E.: "A Nodal Approach
General Comments for Applying Systems Analysis to the Flowing and Artificial
To produce Fig. 2, productivity index J and water cut Lift Oil or Gas Wells," paper SPE 8025, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Dallas (1979).
f ware necessary parameters. It follows then that the 5. Proano, E., Mach, J. and Brown, K.E.: "Systems Analysis as
gas requirement curve (Fig. 3) for each well is Applied to Producing Wells," paper presented at Congreso
representative of these parameters. Pan Americano de Ingenieria del Petr6leo, Mexico City, March
The example solved in this paper is for one water 19-23, 1979.
cut and one productivity index. If the water cut or the 6. Mach, J.: "Apply Nodal Analysis to Production Systems,"
Well Servicing (Jan.lFeb. 1981) 38-45.
productivity index changes appreciably, a new set of 7. Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: "Experimental Study of
curves will have to be generated for the new con- Pressure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase
dition. Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits," J. Pet. Tech.
(April 1965) 475-484.
Conclusions 8. Dukler, A.E.: "Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines-I," Research
Results. AGAI API, Project NX-28 (May 1969).
1. An economic slope is developed and is given by
SI Metric Conversion Factors
!:lqL = XCg =m,
!:lqg Pfo °API 141.5/(131.5 + ° API) g/cm 3
bbl x 1.589873 E-01 m3
where X = 1 at the optimal economic point. cu ft x 2.831 685 E - 02 m3
2. A logical approach is presented to determine the of (OF - 32)/1.8 °C
most economical point to produce a well, or a group ft x 3.048* E - 01 m
of wells, on continuous gas lift. in. x 2.54* E-02 m
3. An efficient and economical gas allocation psi x 6.894 757 E + 00 kPa
method for both the limited and unlimited gas scf x 2.863 640 E - 02 std m 3
situation also is presented. ·Conversion factor is exact. JPT
4. Total injection gas required for a field now can Original manuscript (SPE 9084) received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office March 31, 1980. Revised manuscript received and accepted for
be determined by a logical engineering technique. publication Aug. 27, 1981.

1892 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 SPE 10858

Discussion of Economic Approach

to Oil Production and Gas Allocation
in Continuous Gas Lift
J.D. Clegg, SPE, Shell Development Co.

The following addresses "Economic Approach to Oil

Production and Gas Allocation in Continuous Gas Lift, " 1--M1XIMUM ClJRRk ocr
by E.P. Kanu, 1. Mach, and K. E. Brown (Oct. JPT,

--
Pages 1887-1892).
Optimization of lift gas in continuous flow gas lift,
.,a-
both in the design and operating phases, has become in-
ID
r--
(
I

creasingly important as energy and gas costs have in- '"e

creased. The subject article addressed this subject and a
method was presented for resolving the problem of injec-
tion gas allocation. A few points need to be clarified
before using the proposed method.
Most producers (whether individuals, companies, or
corporations) are interested in making the highest present
value profit after tax (PVPAT) over well life. Thus, the
producer needs to install and operate gas lift systems that
will achieve the foregoing, and "optimal" injection gas
should be defined as the rate resulting in the highest
PVPAT. When gas is compressed for lift, the optimal
gas inevitably will be less than the rate that achieves
maximum possible production. Furthermore, the op-
timum is normally less than the rate that achieves the
current maximum daily operating cash increase (OCI).
Current and future conditions must be considered. An
excellent paper was presented by Simmons 1 on this sub-
ject. Also, a paper by Redden et al. 2 presents a similar
approach to the Kanu et al. article.
As suggested, the optimal injection gas must be con-
sidered for two cases: (1) the unlimited and (2) the
limited gas injection compression systems. In design, the
unlimited compression is usually assumed and various
size systems must be investigated. Thus, in using the
Kanu et al. method for unlimited gas, the "cost to gas
lift" must include the prorata share of compression
(capital or rental) plus the normal operating costs. Also,
a future prediction of well performance (GOR, cut, bot-
tomhole pressure, PI, etc.) needs to be considered, since
0149·2136/82/0021·0858$00.25
FEBRUARY 1982
l-
a: 10-1-- MAXIMUM OIL
z PRODUCTION RATE
2 ~MAXIMUM PVP (AT)
I-
o
.,::>
o
a:
a-
GAS INJECTION RATE - MMCFPD
Fig. 1-0il production rate vs. gas injection rate, hypothetical
well. .
most changes adversely affect the productive injection
gas curve.
Typical graphs of production rate vs. injection gas
(Fig. 1) increase rapidly at first and then tend to level off
before reaching their peak. Such shapes require con-
siderable investment for a small increase in production or
revenue near the peak. Thus, when future well perfor-
mance is considered, an economic analysis over life
often dictates even less injection gas than that volume
which currently will balance incremental profit and cost.
In cases of ongoing field development, the total system
gas requirements may go up. One very important aspect
is that the system design should not result in significant
loss of reserves. If reserves are not lost, then the PVPAT
is not overly sensitive to injection gas rates, permitting
lower design gas injection rates.
Limited compression systems are cases where injec-
tion gas must be restricted or where a specific size
301
 system is installed already. By definition, then, the
available gas injection rate is less than the gas injection
rate to achieve the highest PVPAT, or where the income
from the incremental oil rate equals the cost of incremen-
tal gas lift cost. In these cases, the gas usually is
~ _ _- - WELL Wo. 2
distributed so that the highest daily oil rate is achieved
using the available lift gas. Such a distribution under
c;0z most common conditions will result in close to the
~ highest daily cash income. The method proposed by

Ie'"0::
::.:.1.---- WELL Wo. I
Kanu et al. should work satisfactorily for gas allocated in
a limited gas situation well. Individual plots of oil rate
Z
I
vs. injection gas also can be used, assuming equal in-
~ I
1 come and cost incremental values (Fig. 2). Large
~o I
I
I
systems may need to be computerized because of the
0::
Go I
I
many calculations that are necessary. In small fields, a
...o I
I
trial-and-error solution can be obtained relatively' quickly
I
I when one is experienced with the procedure.
I
I
I
I References
I
I I 1. Simmons, W.E.: "Optimizing Continuous Flow Gas Lift Wells,"
I I
I I Pet. Eng. IntI. (Aug. 1972) 46-48 and (Sept. 1972) 68-72.
I I
I I
2. Redden, J.D., Sherman,T.A.G., and Blann, J.R.: "Optimizing
Gas Lift Systems," paperSPE 5150 presented at the SPE49th An-
GAS INJECTION RATE (MCF/D)
nual Meeting, Houston, Oct. 6-9, 1974.

JPT
Fig. 2-To maximize oil production, M 1 and M 2 should be Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office for publication
equal and G 1 + G 2 = total gas available. Nov. 14. 1981.

302 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY


Author's Reply to Discussion of Economic
Approach to Oil Production and Gas Allocation
in Continuous Gas Lift
Eni P. Kanu, SPE, Johnston-Maceo Schlumberger
We thank J.D. Clegg for his "Discussion of Economic
Approach to Oil Production and Gas Allocation in Con-
tinuous Gas Lift" (Feb. lPT, Pages 301-302). The
discussion constitutes a good addition to the text (Oct.
lPT, Pages 1887-1892).
We agree with Clegg that the optimal injection gas
should not be based on "maximum daily operating cash
increase" but on profit. The paper advocates the use of
profit and nothing else.
MARCH 1982
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
SPE 10865
We believe that gas allocation to wells in a field should
not be a one-time deal. The producer should continue to
monitor the parameters that may vary with time: PI, Pr,
water cut, etc.-even profit and cost values. Once there
is an appreciable change in any of these parameters, gas
should be reaIlocated to the weIls. The method proposed
in the paper offers a means of allocating gas to wells at
any point in time.
519