IPTC 11594

A New Approach to Gas Lift Optimization Using an Integrated Asset Model

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021

Fernando Gutierrez, Aron Hallquist, Mack Shippen and Kashif Rashid, Schlumberger

Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 4–6 December 2007.

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

Abstract
One of the most common methods of increasing production in
oil fields is through the continuous injection of lift gas into the
tubing. The injected gas reduces the bottomhole pressure,
thereby allowing more oil to flow into the well. The optimal
amount of lift gas to inject into individual wells depends on a
number of factors including inflow performance, tubing and
surface hydraulics. Additionally, careful consideration must
be given to operating constraints including cost, handling
capacities, compression requirements and the availability of
lift gas.
In traditional gas lift optimization projects, a gathering
network model is used to calculate the optimal amount of lift
gas to inject into each well based on static boundary
conditions at the reservoir and processing facility. However,
as reservoir conditions change over time, lift gas requirements
will change as will operating constraints. The design of the
processing facilities will need to accommodate these changes
while taking into account the power requirements for
compression and treatment processes. By including the
reservoir and processing components in an integrated model
together with the gathering network, static boundary
conditions become dynamic, enabling a true system-wide
optimization that greatly enhances field planning strategies in
the area of reservoir management.
A case study is presented that illustrates how this concept is
applied to an oil field during the conceptual design stage for
life of field forecasting.
Introduction
Optimization of oil and gas production occurs in various
Reservoir Management cycles depending on the timescale
involved in the decision-making process (Fig. 1).
Figure 1: Reservoir Management cycles
The Field Management cycle is a multidisciplinary practice
which involves detailed numerical modeling of each system
component and analysis of the economic impact of significant
capital expenditure projects. During this cycle, various field
development strategies are evaluated to determine optimal
system design and operation. Examples include planning of
step-out and in-fill drilling programs, analysis of enhanced oil
recovery methods, and facilities sizing and design.
The Production Optimization cycle involves a thorough
analysis of production data using analytical methods and
numerical simulation tools such as nodal analysis.
Additionally, well tests and production logs are peformed to
gain a better understanding of well characteristics and
behavior. This information is used to identify problem wells
and opportunities for increasing production. Examples
include well workovers, zonal isolation, artificial lift
installations, upgrades of field equipment, and remedial
operations to mitigate flow assurance issues.
During the Operations Efficiency cycle, daily monitoring and
surveillance activities take place based on high-frequency field
data collected through SCADA systems. To achieve optimal
operations efficiency, adjustments may be made in existing
field equipment. Example control devices include choke
settings, gas lift injection rates, production routing, and
pump/compressor speeds. These devices are often
manipulated through remote actuation, which means that the
engineer can make an adjustment from the office and receive
quick feedback on the result.
2 IPTC 11594
The Integrated Asset Model
All stages and cycles of the reservoir management process
require some degree of modeling to predict the outcomes of
decisions. This process focuses on three broad components:
1. The capacity of reservoir and wells to produce fluids
(upstream)
2. Production network hydraulics (mid-stream)
3. Processing facility requirements (downstream)
For most large fields, each part of the system is modeled using
domain-specific simulation tools including reservoir
simulation, well and surface network simulation, and process
simulation. In the past, simulation exercises have been
conducted in relative isolation, with operating conditions
communicated through static boundary conditions or
constraints describing the behavior and limitations of
neighboring components.
To address this, recent advances have been made in
developing open interfaces among simulation packages that
enable the use of common thermodynamic models and the
communication of operating conditions. This enables the
dynamic integration of simulation models that adequately
capture the complexities of the complete system and expose
variables necessary to practice large-scale optimization. This
concept has emerged as the Integrated Asset Model (IAM)1.
For optimization processes (i.e. gas lift allocation), an IAM
can be applied during the Field Management cycle (Fig. 1).
The sizing of the facilities and equipment are determined
during the FEED (Front End Engineering Design) stage of
the project to maximize economic KPI’s (Key Performance
Indicators) such as the NPV (Net Present Value) of the
project. This allows the system constraints to be balanced in
order to maximize the economics benefit for the project.
For example, a limitation on compression capacity in the
processing facilities may be the system bottleneck in
limiting production from the field. Operating and field
development strategies may then focus on the cost-benefit
analysis of reducing or eliminating this constraint.
The amount of data available during the Field Management
Cycle may be limited, especially if we are in the FEED stage
of the project. Once operations begin, however, a significant
amount of data becomes available to better describe fluid
behavior, individual well behavior, compressor performance
and other system performance characteristics. It is critical that
the models be continuously updated to reflect current
operating conditions in order to obtain accurate and
meaningful optimization results.
Part of this process involves routine well tests to calibrate
inflow performance and to match pressures, temperatures and
phase ratios. Once the well model is matched, we can
confidently predict the wells response to gas lift for the near
future. Deviations from expected performance can help to
identify problems such as valve failures, skin buildup,
unstable well behavior and flow assurance problems. In
combination with other analytical methods, such monitoring-
correction is an important aspect of the Production
Optimization cycle.
Once these constraints are set, the IAM enables the
optimization of gas lift allocation during daily operations in
the Operations Efficiency cycle, based on the overall
constraints that were initially determined during the design
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021
phase of the Field Management cycle.
A fundamental advantage of the IAM, is that it facilitates
collaboration among disciplines, thereby providing an
increased understanding and appreciation for the interaction
among downstream and upstream components. By integrating
these components into a single environment, the asset can
maximize the economic success of the project while better
understanding the uncertainty and risk to enable more
informed decisions.
An IAM implementation is a highly cooperative task that
requires a high level of organizational change management
to experience the greatest benefit. The objective is to
maximize the collective benefits for all people involved in
the change and minimize the risk of failure in implementing
the IAM approach.
Gas Lift Optimization
Optimization, by definition, is a mathematical procedure that
aims to determine the optimal configuration of a set of control
variables for a prescribed objective function that is to be
optimized, possibly including constraints. In production
operations, the objective function may be to maximize oil or
gas production rates, minimize gas-oil or water-oil ratios, or
maximize economic KPI’s.
Basic Principle
The basic principle behind gas lift injection in oil wells is to
lower the density of the produced fluid in the tubing. This
results in a reduction of the elevational component of the
pressure gradient above the point of injection and a lower
bottomhole pressure. Lowering the bottomhole pressure
increases reservoir drawdown and thus production rate5.
In terms of the overall pressure gradient, the trade-off to the
increased presence of gas is an increased frictional pressure
gradient. As shown in Fig 2, as the rate of injection gas
increases, a point is reached where the benefits of reducing the
elevational gradient equals the drawback of increasing the
frictional gradient. Further increase of injection gas has a
detrimental effect on the overall production rate. This point is
called the “optimal unconstrained gas-lift injection rate” and
for individual wells is relatively easy to calculate.
IPTC 11594
Qoptimal
QLiquid
Gas
Lift
GLopt GLma
Figure 2: Gas Lift vs. Liquid Production
In practice, however, when dealing with a network of many
gas lifted wells, the optimal injection rate is largely dependent
on the flowline hydraulics where a reduced elevational
pressure gradient may provide little benefit. Additionally, the
complex interaction of wells producing into a common
gathering network determines the backpressure against which
the individual wells must produce. Furthermore, operating
constraints may restrict the amount of gas that may be injected
into the well. Thus, optimization of the complete system
necessitates an optimal allocaton of the available lift gas
amongst all the gas lifted wells. For networks with hundreds
of wells this becomes a mathematically complex problem.
Solution Approach
Defining the Model
The first step in the optimization exercise is to develop a
representative model of the production system using a
multiphase flow simulator. The full production network
model is described in PIPESIM which defines the wellbores,
surface equipment, fluids, flow conditions, and boundary
conditions.
Careful consideration must be given to operating constraints
including handling capacities, compression requirements and
the availability of lift gas. In addition, local, global or mid-
level constraints may be specified. Local constraints are those
which pertain to the local behaviour of individual wells or
branches and include for example:
• Maximum coning GOR
• Maximum drawdown pressure drop
• Bubble-point drawdown
• Maximum water rate
• Maximum wellhead temperature
• Maximum injection pressure
• Min / Max gas lift injection rate
• Maximum erosional velocity ratio
• Min / Max liquid rate
Mid-level constraints are those which act at the group level.
For example, maximum liquid rate at a manifold. Finally,
3
global constraints are those which apply to the entire network.
For instance, if we want to optimize oil production from a
field, we may be limited by the following global constraints:
• Maximum or fixed available lift gas
• Maximum or fixed total produced gas
• Maximum produced oil, gas, or water
A thorough understanding of how the limitations affect the
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021
performance of the field can be modeled, and help the operator
to optimize the system while still maintaining controls over:
• Erosional velocity
• Water handling capacity
• Compression limits
• Gas limits due to fuel gas and gas sales
Once the model is defined, a system of performance curves is
generated to describe the relationship of liquid flow rate with
respect to the gas lift injection rate for varying wellhead
pressure, as shown in Fig. 3. Noticeably, as the wellhead
pressure increases the potential liquid flowrate decreases for a
given level of lift gas injection. These lift profiles are
generated for each well in a pre-processing step and are
employed in an offline optimization procedure in which the
well performance is accounted for without directly having to
run the entire network. Once an optimal allocation is obtained,
an online call to the real network simulator is made in order to
obtain the real wellhead pressures. This decoupling
significantly aids the speed up of the optimization procedure,
which will be elaborated below.
Figure 3: Lift performance Curves
The Gas-Lift Allocation Problem
The optimal gas lift allocation problem over the set of gas
lifted wells is a non-linear optimization problem. In addition,
as discussed above, there maybe many constraints imposed on
the system. Several well established techniques exist for the
treatment on non-linear constrained problems, including for
example Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) or
Augment Lagrangian Methods (ALM). Alternately, stochastic
based solvers, such as the Genetic Algorithm (GA) can be
4 IPTC 11594
employed. However one shortcoming of simply applying these
solvers for direct optimization (optimize the system as given)
is the cost associated with running the network simulation for
each objective function call. If numerical derivatives are
required the problem is further compounded. In order to
overcome this computational and time burden, a new solution
approach is presented, that uses an iterative offline-online
procedure, to provide greater solution flexibility and
performance.
Offline-Online Optimization Procedure
The optimization scheme calculates the optimal injection rates
for all of the wells based initially on given wellhead pressures
using the extracted lift profiles. Subsequently, an online call to
the real network model provides updated well pressures. The
procedure repeats iteratively until convergence of wellhead
pressures is reached. The actual optimal allocation can be run
to maximize on either total liquid produced or total oil
produced based on specified available injection gas or the
constrained total permissible produced gas. This approach
achieves a significant solution speed up while maintaining the
rigor of the full network model6.
Optimization Methods
Two methods are available to determine the optimal allocation
of lift gas. These are the Newton Reduction Method (NRM)
and the Genetic Algorithm (GA)6. The choice of which
method is used depends on the constraints applied to the
network model. Selection can be made automatically. In
general terms, the NRM technique does not handle mid-level
constraints, such as those imposed on a manifold. The GA on
the other hand, penalizes those solution candidates that exceed
the constraint. Following is a description of each of these
methods.
Newton Reduction Method (NRM)
NRM is a deterministic solver specifically designed to allocate
all the available lift gas. That is, the sum of the gas lift
injection rates will always equal the amount of gas made
available. Treating the available lift gas as an equality
constraint enables NRM to convert the original multi-
dimensional problem to a solution of a composite residual
function of one variable. It must be called several times to
ensure true solution optimality with respect to the original
inequality constraint. It is fast, but limited with respect to
manifold (branch) level constraints and used for networks that
have only primary well-level and global constraints.
Genetic Algorithm (GA)
The GA is a probabilistic solver that belongs to the class of
evolutionary algorithms that use the principles of evolution to
(stochastically) evolve a population of candidate seeds to
progressively better states. The best candidate after a given
number of generations is accepted to be the optimal. The GA
performs a multi-dimensional parallel search and does not
require derivative information. Because of the higher number
of function evaluations required and potentially a greater
number of network sovles, it can be more costly in calculation
time, but is generally robust. The GA is most useful when mid
level constraints (eg. maximum flow at a manifold) are
imposed in the network model. The GA solver is useful in
these situations, as its use of implicit global search through the
use of a population of search points allows it to overcome
poorer local solutions.
Integration- How Adding Dynamically Linked Models
Improves the Solution
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021
Our overall goal is to optimize a dynamic system. To run
dynamically, the network model of the gas-lifted gathering
system needs to be coupled to both the upstream reservoir
model and the downstream process model. Within a short time
frame, conditions downstream of the reservoir typically
change most rapidly. Thus integrating the downstream
components ensures a validation of total system behavior.
At each timestep, reservoir conditions are supplied to the
network model from the reservoir model. Global constraints
can also be supplied using the IAM integration platform to
link in external constraints from the process simulator and the
gathering network model. Once these constraints have been set
up, the optimizer can be run to find the maximum amount of
oil or liquid that can be produced for a given amount of
available lift gas within the defined constraints.
In practice, the constraints often reside in the process
simulation model in terms of overall fluid handling capacity
and available lift gas. The oil, water and gas flowrates and
pressures are supplied from the outlets of the production
network model into the source of the process model. The
separator pressure from the process model can then be fed
back as a boundary condition to the optimizer model. After
the fluids are separated, some of the produced gas may used as
fuel gas and that which remains is available for gas lifting
wells. In this case there may be a need to iterate to balance the
solution, as the constraints are not known on the first pass
through the solver. Alternatively, a time-lagged approach can
be used to transfer the maximum available lift gas to the
production network in the following timestep. This approach,
which is faster, was applied in the case study and is discussed
in more detail below.
Ability to Update Model in Real-time
SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems
have become commonplace in most large oilfields and
generally provide high-frequency measurements of pressures,
temperatures and sometimes metered single-phase flow rates.
More recently, the development of multiphase flowmeters,
fiber-optic flowing temperature sensors, and permanent
downhole pressure gauges allows for a more thorough
assessment of operating conditions. These measurements,
together with history matching can provide valuable
information in calibrating the simulation model to confidently
represent field operating conditions.
When running an optimization, it is critical that the models
reflect current field operating conditions. To do this, a link
between the real-time field data and the models has been
implemented, so that they can be frequently updated.
IPTC 11594 5

Illustrative Example
The following example illustrates the concepts described
above. The example first demonstrates the process for
generating an overall performance forecast based on a series
of time-stepped optimization runs. Once the global operating
constraints have been determined, the gas lift optimization
process at a specific point in time will be examined in greater

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021

detail based on future operating conditions.

In this example, the optimization of gas lift uses a combination

of software tools including a reservoir proxy model (look-up
tables), multiphase flow simulator (PIPESIM* production
system analysis software), gas lift optimizer (Avocet* GLO),
process simulator (HYSYS®), and integration platform
(Avocet* Integrated Asset Modeler).

System Description
The development plan for an offshore oil field consists of 10
production wells producing from 3 reservoir zones with
associated well groups. The wells are produced through a
subsea gathering network to a floating production, storage and
offloading (FPSO) vessel situated in 5,000 feet of water where Figure 4: Reservoir Performance Forecast
the produced fluids are processed.

Production Network Model

Reservoir model
Reservoir performance forecasts are described by look-up
table proxy models in place of a more rigorous 3-D reservoir
simulation model. The look-up tables (Fig. 4) tabulate
average (static) reservoir pressure and water cut for each well
group as a function of time. The tables account for partial
voidage replacement through water injection as a means of
reducing the rate of pressure decline once the reservoir
pressure falls below 7000 psia. Note, that while each table is a
function of produced time, the well groups are brought online
at different points in time.
The production network model extends from the reservoir to
the separator located on the FPSO. The drawdown for each
well is calculated based on the supplied average reservoir
pressure and a productivity index.
The four wells comprising Group A produce through an 8-
mile dual 7-in. tieback-riser system to an FPSO. The four
wells comprising Group B produce through a 5.3-mile dual 7-
inch tieback-riser system. The two wells comprising Group C
join the Group C tieback 0.3 miles from the base of the FPSO.
A schematic of the system is shown in Fig. 5. Well data and
fluid models for each group are provided in Tables 1 and 2.

Figure 5: PIPESIM model of wells and gathering network

6 IPTC 11594
Table 1: Well Properties
Table 2: Group Properties
Injection Network Model
The injection network models the distribution of lift gas from
the compressor discharge on the FPSO through the injection
network and well annuli to the gas lift injection points. The
main lines in the injection network are all 4 in.
Process Model
The process simulation model consists of a 2-stage separation
system. The produced oil is stored for periodic offloading and
the water is treated and re-injected into the reservoir. The
produced gas is used for fuel gas to power the facilities and
feed into the gas injection network. Remaining gas is re-
injected. The process simulation model is shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 6: HYSYS model of separation and compression
Integrated Asset Model
The connections in the Integrated Asset Model are shown
schematically in Fig. 7.
3
1
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021
4b
4
Figure 7: Flow of Information in the IAM
At each time-step, reservoir conditions (static pressure and
watercut) are passed to the network model by the look-up
table (1). The production network model then solves to
determine the optimal gas lift injection allocation based on the
total available gas lift supplied from the process model that
was calculated from the previous time-step (2). The resulting
gas lift injection pressures in the tubing and total gas lift
consumed is passed to the injection network to determine the
required injection source (compressor discharge) pressure (3).
The fluid arrival temperature and individual phase rates are
passed to the process model (4a) from the production network
model. Together with the required injection source pressure
and total allocated gas lift that are passed to the process model
from the injection network (4b), the total available lift gas can
be calculated based on the horsepower limit. If the used gas
rate is less than this limit, the process model will calculate the
actual horsepower used.
Performance Forecasting
To generate a performance forecast for the field, various
system constraints must first be defined based on initial design
assumptions. The constraints applied to this example are:
• Maximum field liquid production rate: 80,000 BPD
• Maximum water handling capacity: 25,000 BPD
• Maximum total gas lift injection rate: 100 mmscfd
• Maximum gas lift injection rate per well: 10 mmscfd
• Maximum compressor power requirement: 9,000 Hp
• Maximum gas lift injection pressure: 5,000 psia
The three groups of wells are drilled and brought online
sequentially in order to maintain the plateau production rate of
80,000 BPD by natural flow. The intial reservoir pressure for
Group A is high enough that the four wells in that group can
maintain the production target while being choked back at the
FPSO topsides. When the wells from Group A can no longer
meet this rate Group B (at 1.5 years), and eventually Group C
(4 years) are brought online. Approximately 5 years after
initial production, the field cannot meet the group production
and gas lift injection begins (Fig. 8).
IPTC 11594 7

As shown by Fig. 8, the dominant system constraint from

years 5-10 is the total liquid production rate. From years 10-
13, the constraint switches to maximum compressor power as
shown by Fig. 10. From years 14-18, the production is
contrained by total water handling capacity (Fig. 8). In year
18, the production is once again constrained by overall
compressor horsepower. In years 19 and 20, the gas lift is

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021

allocated based on the “unconstrained optimum” as the
individual wells require less than the maximum available gas
lift to maximize production rates (Fig. 9) Fig. 10 shows the
allocation of gas lift per well over time.

B C Gas

Figure 10: Allocated Gas Lift Per Well

At this stage, one may ask if the initial assumptions have

resulted in the optimal long term field development plan.
While it is good that no single constraint dominates at all
Water
Handling
points in time, to answer this question economic cost benefit
Constrain analysis must be run.
t

For example, from years 10-13, when compressor power

constrains the amount of lift gas available, it might be worth
investigating the costs of a larger compressor and related
equipment. However, during this phase, the total gas injection
Figure 8: Field Production Rates rate is 90-95 mmscfd which is near our total gas injection rate
limit (100 mmscfd). To remove this limit as well, we may
need to install larger pipe in our injection network at a
considerable capital cost. Also note that during years 14-18,
we are using only approximately half of our available
Comp
HP
compressor power which drops the total gas lift rate by about a
Constrai third. Installing facilities to handle this excess water is an
nt
option that may result in increased production.

It is in this Field Development cycle that the impact of

constraints can be determined and adjusted to maximize the
projected economic value of the field.

Once the system is in operation, most of these constraints

remain fixed and the optimal solution at any point-in-time will
depend on the most limiting constraint.

Point-in-time Optimization

Solutions from instantaneous (point-in-time) optimization

cases will be examined for years 10, 15 and 20.

Year 10
In year 10, the total amount of available gas lift is limited by
Figure 9: Compressor Power, Total Injected Gas, and the compressor power supplying the injection network. As
Compressor Discharge Pressure shown by the solution curves below (Fig. 11), only wells from
8 IPTC 11594

Group C are able to produce naturally. Wells comprising

Group B are supplied with the maximum gas lift limit per well
of 10 mmscfd. These wells exhibit the most incremental oil
rate increase per unit of gas injection as shown by the slope of
the curves at the injection rates.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021

Figure 12: Optimized Gas Lift Curves – Year 15

Year 20
In year 20, the production has declined to the point where
no one constraint limits the amount of gas lift available to
the wells (Fig. 13). At this stage, wells produce their
“unconstrained optimum” gas lift injection rate. Indeed at
this stage in the life of the field, it is likely that only wells in
Group B remain economic producers.

Figure 11: Optimized Gas Lift Curves – Year 10

Year 15
In year 15, total oil production is constrained by the water-
handling capacity at the FPSO. Wells 5 and 6 respond best to
gas lift due to their proximity to the FPSO, as increased gas
lift does not create a high degree of frictional pressure loss in
the subsea tieback relative to other wells that must produce
through longer tiebacks (Fig. 12). Wells in Group A receive
the least amount of gas lift due to their high watercut in
deference to the limit on the water handling capacity.

Figure 13: Optimized Gas Lift Curves – Year 20

IPTC 11594 9

Conclusions Table 3: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations used in

this paper.
Gas lift optimization is seen as a significant opportunity to
enhance production for many fields throughout the world. IAM Avocet Integrated Asset
With the costly nature of implementing production systems Modeler
such as these, it is imperative that proper foresight and FPSO Floating production, storage
testing is performed to ensure the maximum economic and offloading vessel
return of a project. This process has typically been

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021

simplified through the use of independent system models. GLO Gas Lift Optimization
However, to truly optimize a system, the interactions of GOR Gas Oil Ratio
each of these models must be understood. The gas lift PIPESIM Multiphase flow simulator
optimization routine described in this paper accomplishes ECLIPSE Reservoir simulator
this by enabling the complex integration of all models. The HYSYS Petroleum and chemical
benefits of this solution as described in this paper are as processes simulator
follows: WHP Well Head Pressure
WHT Well Head Temperature
1. Using this method in field planning mode gives more
CHP Casing Head Pressure (Well
accurate understanding of future needs and the ultimate
head Injection pressure)
economics of the project. Facilities can be sized
CHT Casing Head Temperature
appropriately to give the highest payout for the initial
GLIR Gas Lift Injection Rate
amount of cash layout, resulting in the best ultimate
FBHP Flowing Bottom Hole
return on investment.
Pressure.
2. Field planning scenarios such as drilling additional SCADA Supervisory Control and Data
wells can be modeled to understand their effect on the Acquisition
total system, whether they can be handled, and how FEED Front End Engineering
cost effective they will be. Design
3. Point in time allocation is also important to take into NLP Non-linear problem/program
consideration fluctuating operating parameters (wells ALM Augmented Lagrangian
going offline, temporary reduction in water-handling, method
higher or lower commodity prices), allowing the system SQP Sequential Quadratic
to be optimized for varying market and operational programming
factors. GA Genetic Algorithm
4. Further enhancement to this new gas lift optimization NPV Net Present Value
solution could be made by adding in economics and by KPI Key Performance Indicators
tying in a dynamic reservoir description, which would
allow modeling the two-way effects of surface
conditions on reservoir, and vise-versa.
References
This solution is the first step into the realm of intelligent
1. Howell, A. Szatny, M., Torrens, R. “From Reservoir
field operations that bring together the data, tools, and skills
Through Process, From Today to Tommorow – The
of various operating segments to fully model and understand
Integrated Asset Model”, SPE 99469 presented at the
system interactions into what we call the “Digital Oil Field”.
2006 SPE Intelligent Energy Conference, Amsterdam, 11-
13 April 2006.
2. El-Massry, Y.A., Price, A.d.: “Development of a Network
and Gas Lift Allocation Model for Production
Optimization in the Ras Budran Field”, SPE 29782,
presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 11-
14 March 1995.
3. Sugiarto, G.: “Novel Approach to Optimizing Gas Lift in
the Jene Field”, presented to the IATMI International
Symposium on Production Optimization”, Bandung, July
24-26, 1995.
4. Marshall, D.L. et. Al: “A Gas Lift Optimisation and
Allocation Model for Manifolded Subsea Wells”, SPE
20979, presented at Europec 90, The Hague, 22-24 Oct.
1990.
5. Brown, K.E.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods,
1 and 4, Pennwell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1977)
6. Rashid, K., A Method for Optimal Lift Gas Allocation
and other Production Scenarios, Schlumberger-2006.
10 IPTC 11594

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express appreciation to Conrad Geirer,
Trevor Tonkin and Andy Shand, who developed the new
software functionality and provided valuable insight and
guidance to enable us to perform this study.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/IPTCONF/proceedings-pdf/07IPTC/All-07IPTC/IPTC-11594-MS/1802014/iptc-11594-ms.pdf/1 by Robert Gordon University user on 16 March 2021