OTC-24703-MS

A Simulation Approach for Optimization of Gas Lift Performance and

Multi-Well Networking in an Egyptian Oil Field
Mostafa S. Yakoot, Gulf of Suez Petroleum Company (GUPCO), Egypt; Shedid A. Shedid, NEXT -
Schlumberger, Texas, USA; Mahmoud I. Arafa, Petronas, Malaysia

Copyright 2014, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25–28 March 2014.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract
Gas lift has been applied successfully worldwide to increase well production. Artificial lift methods include pump
assisted lift and gas lift. Gas lift is an artificial lift technique used to increase flow rate of oil wells. In this method,
high pressure gas is injected into the well oil column to reduce its average density and make it flow to the surface.
The main objectives of this study are to (1) investigate the effects of injection gas gravity, and reservoir
temperature on the performance of gas lift, (2) develop a total-system production-optimization model using
PROSPER and GAP simulation programs, and (3) increase oil production through optimization of gas
injected/fluid-produced oil ratio in an Egyptian oil field utilizing the existing compression capacity. The
developed production model has been used for production optimization and allocation of lift gas in a multi-well
network, as well as for prediction of future system requirements and identification of any bottlenecking
opportunities. The attained results indicated that (1) artificial lift using gas lift is a complex process including
several variables, which have been considered for optimization, (2) the optimization of gas injection rate
increased the attained oil production, (3) gas gravity of injected gas has an important effect on attained oil
production while reservoir temperature has shown minimal effect on oil production, and (4) gas lift optimization
in Egyptian field can help in overcoming the high pressure gas (HPG) constraints, saving gas for the nearby oil
field and increasing the total production for both fields. The developed production model is completely
implemented, field wide optimization is pursued and multi-well networked model is established.
The application of the attained results is expected to have real impact in improving the gas lift performance in
similar fields in the Middle-East and worldwide.

1. Introduction and Literature Review

Artificial lift technology is a suitable method for elongating the life of oil wells. Artificial lift methods have been
classified into two main groups including; pump-assisted lift method and gas lift method. The pump-assisted lift
method is also subdivided into sucker rod pumping, gas gravity pumping and hydraulic pumping. The gas lift
method is completely different from these previous artificial lift methods because it requires very accurate design,
refined screening and more flexibility in application.
In the presence of sufficient gas volumes, the gas lift returns interesting economic feedbacks. This method has
earned much interest in modern industry (Hamedi, et. al., 2011). Gas lift is applied to wells with insufficient
reservoir pressure to produce at desired flow rates. Gas is injected into the tubing as deep as possible in order to
lighten fluid hydrostatic column and reduce back-pressure on the formation (Eikrem, et. al., 2008).
Gas lift valves are mounted on the production tubing to provide admission of the gas into the tubing. The valves
open and close according to the pressure involved. There are basically two types of gas-lifting methods used in
the oil industry; these are Continuous-Flow Gas Lift and Intermittent Gas Lift (Halliburton, 2008). Continuous-
flow gas lift is the only method of artificial lift that fully utilizes the energy in the formation gas production. Wells
that are gas lifted by continuous flow can be considered as an extension of natural flow by supplementing the
2 OTC-24703-MS

formation gas with additional high-pressure gas from an outside source. Gas is injected continuously into the
production conduit at a maximum depth on the basis of available injection gas pressure. The injection gas mixes
with the produced well fluids and decreases the flowing pressure gradient of the mixture from the point of gas
injection to the surface. The lower flowing pressure gradient reduces the flowing bottom-hole pressure (BHFP) to
established the drawdown required for attaining a design production rate from the well (Gamal, 2005).
Many parameters are involved in a successful gas lift operation. Specifying these parameters leads to improved
production and the operations net present value to be maximized. The most important parameter in a gas lift
operation is the optimum injection rate. Finding the optimum rate is important because injecting extra amount of
gas not only does not improve production but can decrease it through increased slippage between liquid and gas
(Ebrahimi, 2010). The problem of allocating the correct amount of gas to each well arises as the amount of gas
injected is not directly proportional to the oil produced. Fluid characteristics, well completion and surface network
all affect the amount of gas needed (Kissoon, et. al., 2012).
The production optimization process is one of the most complex and multi-disciplinary tasks in the oil and gas
industry from an operational point of view. It requires a continuous improvement process which creates the
necessity to manage and optimize production scenarios with a more frequent time-frame (Giorgio, et. al., 2012).
Gas lift optimization consists of finding the optimal allocation of gas over an entire network of wells and
pipelines. Several established techniques exist for solving this non-linear problem including sequential quadratic
programming (SQP), augment lagranian models (ALM) and stochastic solvers such as genetic algorithm (GA)
(Gutierrez et al., 2007). The technique applied in this study is nodal analysis. This is a systematic approach to the
optimization of production from oil and gas wells and is used to evaluate an entire producing system (Brown and
Lea, 1985). In this process, each component in the system is optimized to achieve optimum flow rates, including
the reservoir, the well completion, the tubing string (which may have down-hole restrictions and safety valves),
the horizontal flow lines, and the separation facilities.
Integrated simulation models have been widely used for better field management and computer applications are
playing a vital role in production optimization processes. Integrated production/asset modeling is quite beneficial
because it can help in predicting daily production rates, eliminate time spent in an offshore environment and
reduce manpower and logistics constraints for optimization scenarios (Abdallah et al., 2010). The model can be
used to monitor the reservoir, and update optimization scenarios while requiring less manpower (Tournier, et. al.,
2010).
The IPM (Integrated Production Modeling) tool is a useful mean for simulating actual production systems and
assessing their responses to different production scenarios, challenges, and the impact of various solutions on
production systems before field implementation. It also improves the understanding of the overall production
system performance and provides an analytical tool to assist in the optimization of the entire production system
(Campos, et. al., 2010).
The IPM is a mathematical representation of a petroleum production system which includes the simultaneous
interactions of reservoirs, wells, and facilities. The main purpose is to compute multiphase flow rates, pressure
and temperature through pipe lines and the deliverability of the reservoirs through the producing life of the field.
The IPM tool gives fast, reliable results and it is the industry standard with major operators worldwide. It is now
considered as an essential part of well and reservoir management, well performance evaluation, and optimization
of producing and injection systems (Bin Amro, et. al., 2010).
The IPMs are used as the basis to optimize field performance and they have demonstrated great usefulness in
many oil and gas field applications. Using IPMs involves a proactive, creative process of searching, identifying
and realizing opportunities to improve performance and results in an oil and gas field (Pothapragada, et. al.,
2012). Thomas, et. al., (2012) showed that IPMs may be used to; (1) allow continuous surveillance of the field,
(2) optimize field performance by evaluating various scenarios while honoring constraints, (3) increase field
uptime by identifying performance gaps, and (4) ensure field integrity by operating in safe envelope.
Two software packages were used in this study for optimization process. The first is a well performance design
and optimization program for modeling well configurations (PROSPER), while the second is a multiphase oil and
gas optimizer tool which models the surface gathering network of field production systems (GAP). PROSPER is a
PROduction and Systems PERformance analysis software. It helps petroleum producers to maximize their
production earnings by providing the means of critically analyzing the performance of each producing well
(Petroleum Experts, 2009b).
GAP is a General Allocation Package modeling software. It can be used for complete surface production/injection
network modeling, production optimization, lift gas allocation, and predicting production forecast. GAP can link
OTC-24703-MS 3

with PROSPER to model entire production systems which contain oil, gas and water, in addition to gas or water
injection systems (Petroleum Experts, 2009a). The Optimization feature allows the user to determine the best
settings to apply in the field (wellhead chokes, inline chokes, gas lift allocation, etc.) in order to maximize a
certain objective function (for example, oil production) and at the same time honor constraints entered in the
system.
This paper describes how PROSPER and GAP have been used and applied for the purposes of managing and
optimizing the production of oil, gas, and water in two Egyptian nearby oil fields. The two fields namely field
“A” and “B” are located offshore in the Gulf of Suez, Egypt. This is achieved by combining regular surveillance
with a clear understanding of elements of the production system and how they perform in an integrated manner.
An integrated oil production model (wells and surface network) was developed for the Egyptian oil field “A”, for
best gas allocation and benefit from the saved gas in operating more wells in field “B”.
Some other parameters which are believed to have an effect on gas lift performance and involved in a successful
gas lift operation are also investigated. Some of these parameters include; injection gas gravity, and reservoir
temperature.

2. Field Description
The Egyptian oil field “A” and its production platforms are located in the Gulf of Suez. It is located
approximately five miles northwest of the nearby “B” Field, and twelve miles north of onshore process area, in
water depths of between 75 and 220 ft.
All field production comes to E-platform (complex) separators and subjected to a first stage of gas/liquid
separation before being pumped onshore where all the separated liquid flows through 18" OD subsea line to
onshore facilities for processing.
The separated gas flows to the gas lift platform (tied back to E-Complex) where it is dehydrated and compressed.
Two gas turbines (X&Y) are used to drive two gas compressors in a three stage system where a low pressure gas
is compressed and high-pressure gas discharged and then redistributed to small platforms for Gas-Lift needs.
All field wells are producing by gas lift with produced gas being reinjected at a rate of 1.0 to 3.0 MMSCFPD. All
wells have side-pocket gas-lift mandrels spaced down to the packer (semi-closed gas lift system) and are equipped
with injection-operated gas-lift valves with an orifice installed at the designed point of injection.
On the surface, many wells have manual gas injection chokes. Pressure gauges are used to measure tubing
pressure and casing pressure and digital gas scanners are connected to gas-injection line to measure lift-gas rate.
On the other hand, most of wells are equipped with an automatic controller for remote-adjustment of the lift-gas
rate. Pressure and temperature transmitters are connected to both flow line and injection line to measure tubing
pressure, tubing temperature, header (manifold) line pressure, casing pressure (downstream), gas injection rate
and upstream pressure. Automation system in field “A” helps in monitoring the field performance and
consequently, faster detection and diagnosis of problems and quicker response to failures.

3. Field-Operation Constraints
All wells in the Egyptian oil field “A”, Gulf of Suez, are under gas lift and most of them have high water cut
which means more high pressure gas needs.
Through the last few years, low performance of gas lift modules in the field “A” was repeatedly observed due to
some operational problems, the most common of which is recycle problem raised during summer season.
Some other repeatedly-occurring operational problems which may lead to increasing downtime and hence
decrease modules efficiency are; fault signals, electric and fuel system problems, gas leak, lube oil system
problems, and turbine over speed.
On the other hand, more downtime is unwillingly consumed in maintenance requirements such as; monthly
preventive maintenance, complete or partial gas compressor overhaul, compressor inspection, check and
maintenance of fire system, and repair or change of any part in the system.
Due to the relative decrease of modules efficiency, the total compressed gas has decreased gradually from the
maximum capacity upon installation to current level of 75% of its capacity. This leads to oil production
oscillation which resulting in presence of an average annual difference between the target and actual oil
production.
With the general water cut increase in the field, the need for high pressure gas increases, and Field “A” gas
compressors should be reliable to meet the increasing demand of high pressure gas. Also, there are new
development wells in field “A” with high expected potential as prescheduled in the rig schedule for the next year
4 OTC-24703-MS

which means an additional volume will be required to cover future anticipated lift gas demands.
The nearby field “B” is suffering from high pressure gas shortage problem but the gas shortage problem in field
“B” is more severe than field “A” because field “A” compressors are still much more reliable than field “B”
compressors which suffer from great deterioration in performance, Fig.1. Using PROSPER and GAP modeling
programs to find the optimum gas allocation for field “A” can help to increase the field production and in the
same time save more gas for operating some high potential wells in field “B”, keep one of the exhausted
compressors in field “B” standby, that will minimize the compressors down time in that field.
Optimal gas allocation will maximize profitable utility of available compression capacity maximizing oil
production from both “A” and “B” fields, hence increasing revenues and enhancing profitability for the company.

4. Field Optimization Process

All small fields in the area of field “A” are related and tied together with the same source of HPG which is
obtained from two gas compressors set-up on E- complex platform.
Egyptian oil field “A” wells are distributed in five platforms; A, B, D, E (Complex), and F, in addition to only
two-currently shut-in wells (C-1 and C-2) on C platform.
Wells of small fields are distributed in three platforms; C, G, and H. In addition to these wells, only one well (B-
4) on B platform is considered. These wells consume ± 20% of the total HPG output as most of them are gas-
lifted wells.
All fluids from all platforms are commingled in E-complex platform where they are processed for gas separation
and then pumped to onshore for final processing and shipment.
The optimization work had been carried-out with current producing wells in the field “A” in addition to well B-4
only excluding all other wells of small fields. For future gas requirements of small fields’ wells, as most of them
considered high potential wells, the share of HPG consumed for lifting these wells had been considered in
calculations of the total available quantity of gas.
An integrated production model was constructed starting with well model construction, surface network
construction, integration of the wells with the surface network, and finally running sensitivity analysis and
optimization process.
4.1. Well Model Construction
All wells were modeled individually using PROSPER. Actual PVT data were entered into the model. Input data
consisted of the deviation survey, down-hole completion, geothermal gradient, and average heat capacities. The
gas lift data were entered for each well and included gas properties, valve positions, casing pressures and the gas
injection rate.
The down-hole equipment, inflow performance and the existing gas lift design were then modeled. Vertical lift
performance (VLP) curves were generated for each well and the output files exported into the surface network
GAP simulator. The parameters selected were those which would most affect the oil production rate and included
water cut and gas lift gas injection rate. Table 1 provides a comparison of the actual measured rates with the
model rates. The latest well test data were used for this production optimization and therefore allow for the most
accurate predictions.
4.2. Surface Network Construction
The surface network simulator, GAP, was used to model the surface equipment as indicated in Fig. 2. The
production system consisted of the wells, wellheads, flow lines from the wellhead to the production manifold, and
the production line from the production manifold to the low pressure separator. As indicated in Fig. 3, the
injection system consisted of the low pressure separator, the compressor, flow lines from the compressor to the
injection manifold, flow lines from the injection manifold to the wellheads, and from the wellheads down the
wells. Both systems were then coupled together with the linking parameter being the casing pressure. The wells
were integrated into both the production and injection systems by importing the previously generated IPR and
VLP files. The pipelines were defined by entering their lengths and inner diameters, and multiphase flow
correlations were used to calculate the pressure drop along the pipelines. After validating the integrated
production model, optimization process was ready to be run. Fig. 4 indicates the proposed high pressure gas
system.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Investigation of Reservoir Temperature and Injection Gas Gravity Effect
Figs. 5 through 7 present the total liquid production versus reservoir temperature for different values of gas
OTC-24703-MS 5

injection rate, water cut, and GOR. These figures provide a general conclusion that the increase of reservoir
temperature increases liquid production. This can be attributed to the reduction of oil viscosity because of the
increase of reservoir temperature. However, these Figs. also reveal that reservoir temperature still has minimal
effect on oil production.
Fig. 5 shows that GOR value is the dominant parameter in delineating liquid production curve which reveals that
reservoir temperature has minor effect on liquid production. Fig. 6 shows that for increase of reservoir
temperature from 260 to 320 F, liquid production increases by 0, 1.3, 0.3, 1.8, 0, 0, 0, 0, and 1.4 STBPD for gas
injection rates of 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 3.5 MMSCFD. Fig. 7 shows that liquid production will
increase by 0, 0, 0.4, 0, 0, 0, 1.7, 5, and 0 STBPD for water cuts of 0, 5, 10, 15, 50, 70, 80, 90, and 95 %.
In fact, reservoir temperature is a major factor in reservoir classification. It is co-dependent with reservoir
pressure to classify reservoirs, classify the naturally occurring hydrocarbon systems, and describe the phase
behavior of the reservoir fluids (Ahmed, 2010). However, the reservoir temperature is not the dominant factor for
the fluid movement in the well from the bottom up to the wellhead.
Figs. 8 through 10 present the total liquid production versus injection gas gravity for different values of gas
injection rate, water cut, and GOR. These figures provide a general conclusion that the effect of injection gas
gravity is very important because it has a direct effect on the gas lift system which is known to be a major factor
in the outflow performance of a well.
The effect of gas gravity interfered with GOR effect as shown in Fig. 8. This figure, Fig. 8, indicates that the oil
production increases steadily with an increase in gravity until certain value of 0.8, after which any small increase
in gravity leads to rapid increase in production.
It is known that increase in GOR increases production rate relatively for depleted wells (Brown, 1980). At
constant GOR, the increase of gas gravity is known to increase the gas gradient in the casing annulus (semi-closed
gas lift system), which will change pressure against down-hole gas lift valves and according to valves sensitivity
to pressure changes, the point of gas injection may be changed. On the other hand the increase of gas gradient
affects the vertical flow in tubing when gas is admitted to lighten the flow coming from the reservoir. This may
lead to changing the flow regime in the tubing which finally affects the total production.
Fig. 9 indicates that liquid production increases with the increase of injection gas gravity at higher values of gas
injection rate, specifically, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 3.5 MMSCFD. For low values of gas injection rate (0.5, 0.75, 1,
and1.25 MMSCFD), production decreases with an increase in gas gravity.
Gas lift injection rate is considered the most important parameter, controlling the performance of gas lift system
so change of injection gas rate makes it the dominant parameter, controlling VLP and hence oil production, not
gas gravity. It is obvious that the value of optimum gas injection rate for that well configured the curves as
indicated, and the slope of injection gas gravity curve depends on the injection gas rate at which the well will be
lifted.
Fig. 10 indicates that liquid production decreases with the increase of injection gas gravity at higher values of
water cut (70, 80, 90, and 95 %). For low values of water cut (0, 5, 10, and 15 %), production increases with
increase in gas gravity.
Water cut is known to be a major factor in the outflow performance of the well as the BHFP is affected greatly by
water cut percentage and hence oil production. Here, again, the water cut is the dominant parameter not gas
gravity and the change of water cut percent configured the curves as indicated. Briefly, the slope of injection gas
gravity curve will depend on the values of water cut, and the injection gas rate at which the well will be lifted. In
summary, the gas gravity can have an important role in enhancing the well production as long as there is no
contribution from other important parameters affecting the outflow performance of the well.

5.2. Optimized Surface Network

Table 2 summarizes the results from the surface network simulator into which the previously generated IPR and
VLP files were imported. The results of gas lift allocation along with oil and water production rates are presented.
The results of gas lift allocation indicated that wells can be divided into three categories, as shown in Fig. 11.;
wells operated at the optimum injection rate, wells suffers from higher injection rate, and wells operated at
injection rate lower than the optimum. The model has allocated the available HPG optimally to maximize
6 OTC-24703-MS

production and enhance the company profitability. GAP simulator results have shown that HPG of ± 5.5
MMSCFD has been saved from allocation process and oil gain of about ± 200 BOPD has been recovered.
As shown in Fig. 4, the saved gas can be easily directed to the nearby field “B” through the existing piping system
passing through A-platform to operate three wells, currently shut-in, due to gas shortage. The shut-in wells
consume 5.2 MMSCFD gas and produces 310 BOPD. This results in total gain of 510 BOPD with the same HPG
capacity.

6. Conclusions
This study investigated the optimization of gas lift process and its best networking and the following conclusions are drawn
1. Gas lift has been used extensively as an artificial lift method worldwide. Gas lift design and operation system
is and will stay to be the most important means in production operations and field development planning.
2. Based on the analysis and investigation of the injection gas gravity and reservoir temperature parameters
affecting gas lift, gas gravity of injected gas has been proven to have an important effect on attained oil
production and should be optimized while reservoir temperature has shown minimal effect on oil production.
3. A computerized integrated production model was developed for a gas lift system in an Egyptian oilfield “A”
located offshore, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. It was used to analyze and provide the optimal allocation of available
gas lift gas over the entire network of wells using nodal analysis.
4. The integrated production model can be used to further manage the reservoir. As the production performance
changes, water-cut, reservoir pressure and gas/oil ratios can be updated in the model. New vertical lift curves
can be generated to continuously assess the need for re-allocating lift gas, and predict oil rates and net cash
flows.
5. Wide field optimization and gas lift allocation using PROSPER and GAP modeling programs have resulted
in increasing oil production and optimizing the gas injected/fluid produced ratio in field “A” utilizing the
existing compression capacity. This results in individual well profitability, optimization of injection gas
usage and increasing reserve recovery with low risk investment, from both “A” and “B” fields.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Gulf of Suez Petroleum Company (GUPCO). The authors of this study are grateful for the
management of GUPCO and present their thanks to the production technology, base management, and reservoir engineering
teams for their technical assistance and allowance to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
ALM Augment Lagranian Models
BHFP Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure
BOPD Barrel Oil per Day
GA Genetic Algorithm
GAP General Allocation Package
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
HPG High Pressure Gas
IPM Integrated Production Modeling
IPR Inflow Performance Relationship
MMSCFD Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
OD Outside Diameter
PROSPER Production and Systems Performance
PVT Pressure, Volume, and Temperature
SQP Sequential Quadratic Programming
STBPD Stock Tank Barrel per Day
VLP Vertical Lift Performance
OTC-24703-MS 7

References
Abdallah, Y.A., Gaber, N.S., Saad, E.A., and Bedair, E.A., “Gulf of Suez Continuous Gas Lift Real-Time
Optimization Strategy”, SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, Society of
Petroleum Engineers 128533, Feb. 14-17, 2010.
Ahmed, T., “Reservoir Engineering Handbook”, Gulf Professional, 4th edition, 2010.
Bin Amro, A.A., Sakaria, D., Lestariono, Y., McAlonan, N., and Shere, A.J., “Benefits From Implementing an
Integrated Asset Operations Modeling System”, Society of Petroleum Engineers 127893, SPE Intelligent
Energy Conference and Exhibition, Utrecht, The Netherlands, March 23-25, 2010.
Brown, K.E. and Lea, J.F., “Nodal Systems Analysis of Oil and Gas Wells”, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
37, 10, 1985, pp. 1751-1753.
Brown, k. E., “The Technology of artificial lift methods, volume 2a”, PennWell Publishing Company, 1980.
Campos, S., Teixeira, A., Vieira, L., and Sunjerga, S., “Urucu Field Integrated Production Modeling in Occidental
of Sultanate of Oman”, Society of Petroleum Engineers 128742, SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and
Exhibition, Utrecht, The Netherlands, March 23-25, 2010.
Ebrahimi, M., "Gas Lift Optimization in one of Iranian South Western Oil Fields", "SPE Trinidad and Tobago
Energy Resources Conference", Society of Petroleum Engineers, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, Society of
Petroleum Engineers 133434, June 27-30, 2010, pp. 1-2.
Eikrem, G.O., Aamo, O.M., and Foss, B.A., “On Instability in Gas Lift Wells and Schemes for Stabilization by
Automatic Control”, Journal SPE Production & Operations , Volume 23, Number 2, Society of Petroleum
Engineers 101502-PA, May 2008, pp. 1-5.
Gamal, A.A., “Gas Lift and Gas Pumping”, GUPCO In-house Publication, Dec. 2005, pp. 1-15 and 67-86.
Giorgio, V., Danilo, A., Marco, D., and Almatasem, S., “Integrated Production Optimization and Surface
Facilities Management through Advanced Optimization Techniques”, SPE Production and Operations
Conference and Exhibition, Doha, Qatar, Society of Petroleum Engineers 156798, May 14-16, 2012, pp. 1-7.
Gutierrez, F., Hallquist, A., Shippen, M. and Rashid, K., “A New Approach to Gas Lift Optimization Using
Integrated Asset Model”, IPTC 11594, the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, U.A.E,
Dec. 4-6, 2007.
Halliburton, “Basic Artificial Lift”, Canadian Oil Well Systems Company Ltd., 2008, pp. 2-8.
Hamedi, H., Rashidi, F., and Khamehchi, E., “A Novel Approach to the Gas-Lift Allocation Optimization
Problem”, Petroleum Science and Technology, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 2011, pp. 418-419.
Kissoon, L., Persad, N., De-Silva, J.M., and Abder, C., “Optimal Gas Utilization for Maximum Recovery in A
Mature Oil Field”, SPETT Energy Conference and Exhibition, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, Society of Petroleum
Engineers 158931-MS, June 11-13, 2012, pp. 1-5.
Petroleum Experts, “user manual, GAP”, version 11, 2009a.
Petroleum Experts, “user manual, PROSPER”, version 11, 2009b.
Pothapragada, V., Al Kooheji, H., Al Hajri, S., and Siyabi, I., “Integrated Production System Modeling of the
Bahrain Field”, Society of Petroleum Engineers 155596, SPE International Production and Operations
Conference & Exhibition, Doha, Qatar, May 14-16, 2012.
Thomas, A.O., Tohira, S., Edidiong, T., and Linus, N., “Practical Application of the IPSM in Resolving gas
Availability Challenges and Overall System Optimization to Maximize Production”, Nigeria Annual
International Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nigeria, Society of Petroleum Engineers 162951, Aug. 6-8,
2012, pp. 1-3.
Tournier, E., Jaffres, B., Geoge, B., Sabally, L. and Total, A.A., “Production Optimization and Monitoring in a
Mature Field”, Society of Petroleum Engineers 137969, Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Nov. 1-4, 2010.
8 OTC-24703-MS

Table 1. Comparison of actual well production rates with modeled rates

Actual Rate, STBPD PROSPER Model Rate, STBPD
P/F Well Liquid Water Liquid
Oil Rate Oil Rate Water Rate
Rate Rate Rate
1 3290 263 3027 3308 265 3043
2 772 31 741 763 30 733
A
4 1744 837 907 1655 993 662
6 214 51 163 244 58 186
1 850 85 765 850 85 765
B 2 510 449 61 514 452 62
4 1460 1022 438 1482 1038 444
1 185 74 111 186 74 112
D 2 385 154 231 385 154 231
4 1350 81 1269 1331 80 1251
1 530 133 397 520 130 390
2 753 113 640 755 113 642
3 2430 365 2065 2563 384 2179
E 6 404 323 81 403 322 81
8 728 364 364 728 364 364
10 3610 361 3249 3611 361 3250
11 80 38 42 78 38 40
F 3 513 492 21 514 473 41
Total Production 19808 5236 14572 19890 5414 14476
OTC-24703-MS 9

Table 2. Comparison of simulated integrated model with actual well production rates
Actual Rate GAP Model Rate
Liquid Oil Water Inj. Gas Liquid Oil Water Inj. Gas
P/F Well
Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate
STBPD STBPD STBPD MMSCFD STBPD STBPD STBPD MMSCFD
1 3290 263 3027 2.5 3,123 250 2,873 0.8
2 772 31 741 3 737 29 707 1.9
A
4 1744 837 907 3 1,691 1,184 507 3.4
6 214 51 163 2 203 49 155 0.8
1 850 85 765 1.7 870 87 783 2.5
B 2 510 449 61 1.2 422 371 51 1.1
4 1460 1022 438 2.3 1,473 1,031 442 2.0
1 185 74 111 1 187 75 112 0.5
D 2 385 154 231 2 372 149 223 1.9
4 1350 81 1269 2 1,326 80 1,247 0.7
1 530 133 397 2.2 477 119 358 3.3
2 753 113 640 3 754 113 641 3.6
3 2430 365 2065 3 2,404 361 2,043 2.6
E 6 404 323 81 1.7 392 314 78 2.1
8 728 364 364 3 705 353 353 2.8
10 3610 361 3249 1.5 3,625 363 3,263 0.5
11 80 38 42 2.1 76 36 39 0.5
F 3 513 492 21 1.2 512 471 41 2.1
Total
19808 5236 14572 38.4 19,349 5,434 13,916 33.0
Production

Fig. 1. Comparison of compressors in “A” and “B” fields

10 OTC-24703-MS

Fig. 2. Field “A” production network.

Fig. 3. Field “A” injection network.

Fig. 4. Proposed HPG allocation

OTC-24703-MS 11

Fig. 5. Liquid rate vs. reservoir temperature at different GORs.

Fig. 6. Liquid rate vs. reservoir temperature at different gas injection rates.
12 OTC-24703-MS

Fig. 7. Liquid rate vs. reservoir temperature at different water cuts

Fig. 8. Liquid rate vs. injection gas gravity at different GORs.

OTC-24703-MS 13

Fig. 9. Liquid rate vs. injection gas gravity at different gas injection rates

Fig. 10. Liquid rate vs. injection gas gravity at different water cuts.
14 OTC-24703-MS

Fig. 11. Comparison of simulated integrated model with actual well injection gas rates.