SPE-171305-MS

Mature Field Gas Lift Optimisation: Challenges and Strategy, Case Study
of D-Field, Malaysia
W Rokiah Ismail and Kukuh Trjangganung, PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN. BHD

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia,
14 –16 October 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

ABSTRACT
As the world’s population continues to grow, the energy demand is forecasted to increase directly
proportional by 52% in between 2010 to 2035 (OPEC, 2013). With the oil prices predicted to be stable
in the long run and expected to be as high as $165 per barrel by 2035, the search for more oil continues
(OPEC, 2013). An estimation of 70% world’s oil and gas production originates from mature fields with
recovery at an average of 35% worldwide (Hull, 2012). This proves that there are still opportunities to
recover more through enhanced primary, secondary or tertiary recovery in creating further hydrocarbon
flow of a mature field.
Lower reserve with high operating and field redevelopment cost for a tertiary recovery program has
deteriorate the economics for a mature field. Developing tertiary recovery for a mature field requires
major modification at surface and sub-surface. Leaving the operators with the challenge to maximize
recovery under current operating conditions and limited work scope of a primary recovery mainly through
artificial lift method such as gas lift in oil wells.
Gas lift has been part of the primary oil recovery ever since the 1800s and the effectiveness has proven
to aid the acceleration of oil recovery in a well for centuries (Gas Lift: Wikipedia, 2014). Deterioration
in surface equipment and sub-surface well completion condition in a mature field, such as worsening well
integrity with leaks and holes, inaccurate production metering, instability of gas compressor availability
and efficiency, has resultant in the ineffective of gas lift distribution and injection downhole.
Despite the challenges faced, through prudent technical analysis and effective execution at site, the
production of D-field in Malaysia has managed to increase up to 8,000 bbl/d (barrel of oil per day)
instantaneously merely through production and gas lift optimization exercise.
This paper will run through the challenges faced and the technical analysis conducted in overcoming
the handicap at site. This has led to the successful implementation/formulation of production philosophy
and strategy to overcome challenges under different production scenarios, resulting an instantaneous
production gain of some 30%. To some extent the production has been sustained and the decline arrested.
2 SPE-171305-MS

Table 1—Gas lifts optimisation focus area.

FIELD OVERVIEW
D-field is an oil and gas producing field located at offshore Terengganu in Malaysia. The first hydro-
carbon discovery was in 1981. Following a series of appraisal wells, field development plan formulation,
and appropriate timing, first oil production was realised in early 1991.
Main production from D –field is oil from multi stack major reservoirs A1 and A2, with 70% CO2
concentration. There are a total of four producing platforms at D-field comprising of one central
processing platform (CPP) and three satellite platforms. All processing and separation equipment are
located at CPP. Full stream production from the satellite platforms will undergo separation processes at
the CPP, prior to collection at the floating storage and offloading facility (FSO) facility.
Located at the CPP are the separation process unit, water injection module, gas lift injection module,
and produced water treatment system (PWTS). In supporting the field’s production, there are two
compressor modules at D-field. The minimum and maximum discharge pressures at CPP are 1015 psia
and 1600 psia respectively. Meanwhile, at satellite platforms are 870 psia and 1400 psia respectively.
Currently the field is operating with a total of 215 completion strings whereby 186 strings are dual
completion (93 well slots). 80% of the total oil producing strings requires gas lift to flow indicating that
the total field production is highly dependent on the effectiveness of gas lift in a well.
Based on the inflow and out flow performance theory, gas lift optimisation strategy can be divided into
two major focus area as per described in Table 1 below.
Therefore, due to the limited platform space and resources availability, subsurface optimisation will
require more time and are conducted periodically thus surface optimisation is opted as the first stage of
gas lift optimisation before proceeding with subsurface optimisation. This paper will discuss the strategy
and methodology in conducting the surface gas lift optimisation.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Through the course of production for 20 years, a steep decline of 60% daily production was observed
between year 2010 and 2012. This phenomenon has triggered the operator to investigate and study on the
root cause of sudden production decline in order to reinstate the field’s production.
Operating a mature field as of D-field often poses challenges such as depicted in Table 2, which may
contribute to the steep production decline.
In addressing the phenomenon, methodology of gas lift optimisation was developed through a series
of workflow and case studies at site under the capacity of a mature field with the above associated
challenges.
METHODOLOGY

In the effort of arresting the production decline, the operator has embarked on the cheapest, easiest and
fastest way to enhance the field’s production. Since field’s production is consist of 80% wells flowing
SPE-171305-MS 3

Table 2—Summary of challenges operating a mature field

Table 3—Terms and definition used to gauge gas lifted wells’ behaviour.

with the assistance gas lift, therefore, by conducting gas lift optimisation, 80% of the total production can
be secured and enhanced. Through this objective, a methodology was developed to ensure the success of
the activity at site.

Concept
Based on the basic concept of gas lift, the following terms and definitions, depicted in Table 3 were used
to gauge the well’s behaviour.
In order to ensure the correct allocation of gas to a well and the production of the well are optimised
via efficient gas lifting, it is important to note on the indicator that depicts the behaviour of the well.
Execution of well by well optimisation at site, should not compromise the stability of total field
production. Therefore, a systematic approach was developed based on several field trials. The improved
4 SPE-171305-MS

systematic approach with specific focus area has

strengthened the gas lift optimisation strategy which
resulted in the increase of oil production without
disturbing the total field production system.
The approach should follow the following steps:
Optimise the existing high oil producer
Based on the production well test data, the oil pro-
ducers were ranked. The focus of optimisation or
gas lift supply should first focus on the top high
producers to secure the production of the field. The
technique should apply during the production
start-up after a certain period of shut down or during
the limited gas lift volume supply for total field.
Optimise lifting efficiency based on TGLR
The FGLR for every well is then calculated based
on the production well test data. Theoretically, any
well with FGLR value exceeding 1000 scf/bbl is
able to flow naturally (without the assistance of gas
lift). However, this should be confirmed with the
well model and condition at site.
Afterwards, the efficiency of lifting is then in-
vestigated by calculating the TGLR. TGLR value
exceeding 1000 scf/bbl indicates that the well is
overexposed to gas lift. Therefore, the wells under
this category will be the candidate for gas lift re- Figure 1—Excessive gas lift injection contribute to minimal gain in
liquid rate due to increase in GLR (Brown & Beggs, 1977)
duction to optimise the liquid lifting and balance the
gas lift demand (avoid wastage of gas lift).
In the case of gas lift, the more amount of supply
is not necessarily beneficial to the well based on the
vertical flow gradient curves as shown in Figure 1.
Oversupply of gas lift in a well will induce the
following condition that deprives the well from
producing optimally:
●Upper valve remains open due to excessive
gas lift supply
● Increase of friction pressure and reduction of
drawdown.
Optimise gas lift utilisation factor (GUF)
Once excess gas lift volume is identified, the extra
gas is then allocated to wells with low GUF values.
Figure 2—Summary of gas lift optimisation approach.
The lower the GUF value indicates that the less gas
lift volume is required to lift up one unit of oil thus
if the well is supplied with extra gas lift (not exceeding TGLR of 1000 scf/bbl), more liquid is being able
to be lifted and more production is expected.
SPE-171305-MS 5

Figure 3—Well test validation using A-1 modelling software.

Gas lift valve redesign

Based on the analysis result, in the case whereby a
deepening of injection point or change of orifice
size is required to further optimise gas lift injection,
a gas lift valve redesign and change out is required.
This candidate should be registered as the candi-
dates for well intervention under the subsurface
Figure 4 —A-2 well parameters validation.
optimisation.
Figure 2 below depicts the summary of the ap-
proach.
Workflow
Based on the formulated approach, the following
workflow was developed to support the gas lift
optimisation at site.
Obtain gas lift related data
As per the concept tabulated in Table 3, the required
data in order to conduct the gas lift optimisation are:
Figure 5—Sensitivity on gas lift rate via A-1 with gas lift rate vs. oil rate
●Liquid rate, Ql (bbl/d) curve.

●Oil rate, Qo (bbl/d)

●Total gas rate, Qg (scf/d)
●Gas lift rate, Qgl (scf/d)
●Well head pressure, WHP (psia)
●Casing head pressure, CHP (psia)
Review of well data
One of the challenges of operating a mature field as
per depicted in Table 2 is regarding the well data
measurement or integrity issue. Therefore, to ensure
that the well data obtained is valid, review of well
data via well modelling is required. Figure 6 —Sensitivity on gas lift rate via A-2.
6 SPE-171305-MS

Figure 7—Summary of gas lift optimisation workflow.

Table 4 —Effect of gas lift optimisation towards total field production

Figure 9 —FGLR distribution of the oil producers indicating the ability

Figure 8 —Well ranking based on oil rate indicating the focus on top 10
of well to flow naturally.
producers.

There are several well modelling software attainable in the market. In this study, two modelling
software that is readily available was utilised namely A-1 and A-2.
For wells with flowing gradient survey (FGS) information, it is recommended to utilise A-1 to confirm
on the well parameters. FGS data was utilised to estimate the injection point. The FGS curve and
theoretical flowing curve was then compared. Adjustment on formation gas was first made to match the
flowing gradient line below the injection point between the two curves. Once the curves below the
injection point are matched, the gas lift injection rate is then reallocated to match the curve above the
injection point. Figure 3 indicates the process of well data validation using A-1 software.
Meanwhile, for wells with limited FGS information, well data validation was conducted via A-2 well
modelling software. Figure 4 depicts an example of the well data validation whereby the gas lift injection
rate was estimated based on the given CHP or vice versa.
SPE-171305-MS 7

Figure 10 —FGLR distribution of the oil producers indicating the ability Figure 11—Well ranking based on GUF values indicating the target well
of well to flow naturally. to supply extra gas lift.

In the case of unavailable gas lift injection rate,

an estimation based on the Thornhill-Craver equa-
tion can be utilised for estimation as per depicted in
Equation 1 below (Takacs, 2005). The estimated gas
lift injection value should then be confirmed with
the well model.

Where;
qg sc ⫽ flow rate at standard condition
(14.7 psia and 600F), Mscf/d
Cd ⫽ discharge coefficient
d ⫽ choke diameter, in
P1 ⫽ flowing pressure upstream of the
choke, psia
P2 ⫽ flowing pressure downstream of
the choke, psia
Equation 1: Thornhill-Craver Equation
Besides validating the well test data, sensitivity Figure 12—Well model calibration based on latest well test via A-2
software.
on gas lift injection rate towards oil or liquid pro-
duction is also conducted. This is to estimate the
optimum gas lift injection rate for a well and to
confirm on the analysis based on the gas lift param-
eters such as FGLR, TGLR and GUF.
The objective of the well data review is to obtain
the values that are representative of the well’s con-
dition and behaviour for best estimation to conduct
the gas lift optimisation despite the issue on accu-
racy. The analysis will then be confirmed at site and
recalibration of well model.

Figure 13—Sensitivity plot on injection depth and gas lift injection rate.
8 SPE-171305-MS

Table 5—Multi rate test at various gas lift rate for well D-X1.

Table 6 —Overall result of gas lift optimisation at CPP D-Field.

Well ranking
Once the well data is validated and acceptable, the wells are then ranked in order based on the gas lift
parameters involved with gas lift optimisation namely FGLR, TGLR and GUF.
Based on the ranking, the inefficient gas lift performance was identified to reduce the gas lift supply
from these wells. The excess gas is then allocated to wells with low GUF.
Execution at Site
The implementation at site was then conducted to confirm the analysis based on the approach listed in
Figure 2. In order to enhance the understanding of well behaviour, a four point test or a multi-rate test
(MRT) is conducted at site. Well test is conducted for every gas lift rate. The result is recorded and utilised
to calibrate the well model. Should the MRT is insufficient to confirm on the well behaviour, it is highly
recommended to conduct FGS.
The summary of the workflow is depicted in below Figure 7.

CASE STUDY
Background
For the purpose of this case study. 17 active oil producers from the CPP were evaluated and identified for
gas lift optimisation opportunities. The candidates were selected from the CPP due to the availability of
gas lift metering and the close distance with the gas lift source.
Once the pilot wells were selected, onsite optimisation was conducted resulting in the 1,000 bbl/d gain
in oil production.
During the conduct of onsite optimisation, non-efficient gas lifted wells were shut-in due to the limited
gas lift supply from the gas compressor. These are the wells with high GUF and high water cut. The
SPE-171305-MS 9

Figure 15—Production plot at various gas lift supply performance with

Figure 14 —Multi rate test plot for well D-X1.
continuous gas lift optimisation at site.

exercise has helped to maintain the discharge pres-

sure of the compressor and contribute better produc-
tion from high producer wells.
Data Review and Well Ranking
Based on the tabulated well test data, the wells were
ranked according to the gas lift parameters. The
result is as shown in Figure 9 to Figure 11 below.
Well models were then calibrated with the latest
well test. Action items were identified based on the
analysis accordingly.
Figure 16 —Implication of gas lift optimization.
Execution at Site
Previous analysis and identified action items were
then confirmed at site by conducting MRT. The optimum gas lift rate for a well was determined. Table
5 below shows the result of the exercise conducted at site.
Besides that, through the MRT data obtained, the well model was then further calibrated for better
prediction of well behaviour.

Implication
In view with the significant result of the gas lift optimisation activity at site has led to the formation of
eight (8) production scenarios. This is to assist in sustaining the production at times whereby gas lift
supply is limited.
Besides that, an increase in the awareness to obtain well data has been observed among the team
members. Teamwork among all stakeholders were enhanced and capability in surveillance were devel-
oped. The summary of gas lift optimisation implication is as per Figure 16.

CONCLUSION
Despite the difficult challenges encountered in the mature field where multiple gas lift injection points
were aplenty, gas lift optimisation continues to be conducted and adopted at site. This has proven
significant improvement field production. The exercise has assisted in stabilising the total field production
even under various challenging process conditions. Subsequently the field decline has been arrested. With
continuous support from the management team and good team cooperation at site, this effort had been
proven successful in a mature field.
10 SPE-171305-MS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The above study was supported by the following members:
Resource Integrity Team
● Mohamed Wahid B. Kario
● M Nasser B. Ismail
● Ahmad Ramzi B. A Rahman
● Agoes Irawan Soedjono
● Alfonso Corona
● M Shaliheen B. Hatta
● Saradha Tirugnanasambandan
● Husmidi B. Hussin
● Suhenri Kurniawan B. Nazwar
Production and Operations Team
● M Mazlan B. Tamyis
● Rasha Bt. Sidek
● Nur Sa’adiah Bt. Mohd. Yusof
● Jamalludin B. Mansor
● Khoo Kheong Heng
● Nor Azyyati Bt. Azmi
● Offshore team
Production Technology Department
● Benny Rajah
● Maharon B. Jadid
● Khairul Nizam B. M Zaini
● M Zain B. Abdullah
● Shahrizal B. Shahari
● Zaidil B. Yahia
● Latief Riyanto

References
Brown, K. E., & Beggs, H. D. (1977). The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods. Tulsa: PennWell
Books.
Gas Lift: Wikipedia. (2014, June 23). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_lift
Hull, R. (2012, April 26). Mature Fields: What is a Mature Field: Halliburton Solutions Blog.
Retrieved from Halliburton Solutions Blog Web site: http://halliburtonblog.com/what-is-a-mature-field/
OPEC, O. o. (2013). 2013 World Oil Outlook. Vienna: OPEC Secretariat.
Takacs, G. (2005). Gas Lift Manual. PennWell Books.