SOCIETY OF PETROLEW.IEi?GINEERSOF AII.

lE 6200 lbrth Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75206 THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTIOii

;;!&SPE . .,

5150

Optimizing

Gas-Lift
By

Systems

J. David Redden, T. A. Glen Sherman, and Jack R. BlannS Exxon Production Research CO., Members SPE-AIME

American

institute

@Copyright 1974 of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum

Engineers,

Inc.

This paper was prepared for the h9th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleux Engineers of AIME, to be held in Houston, Texas, Oct. 6-9, 197~+. Permission to cOPY ~.s restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may rmt be copies. The zbstract should cm?tain conspicuous acknowledg!nent where and by whom the paper is of presented. Publication elsewhere after publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOU~TAL is usually granted upon request to the Editor of the appr~priate journal provided agreement to give proper credit is made. Discussion of this _oaDeris invited. Three copies ofany discussion should be sent to meeting and, with the paper, may be c~nsidered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines. ABSTRACT The most profitable distribution of gas to wells in a continuous flow gas-lift system can be detemined by an analytical procedur~. The procedure utilizes well test information and calculations of vertical two-phase flow behavior to prediet individual well producing rate responses to changes f.ngas input rate. The eptimum distribution of the available gas can be calculated based on each wellfs contribution to the profit for the system. A computer program was developed to perform the calculations for the procedure. This program has been used in a Venezuela field with 1500 gas-lift wells. A modified version of the program has been used in a Texas field containing 150 gas-lift wells. INTRODUCTION For the past several years Exxon Production Research Company (EPRCO) has assisted their affiliate in Venezuela, Creole Petroleum Corporation, ill improving their gas-lift system efficiency. One of the results of this work has been the development of a calculation technique for determining the optimum distribution of gas to gas-lift wells. References and illustrations at end of paper.

The determination of the optimum gas distribution has particular significance to Creole because of their need to use a large portion of the existing compressor facilities to inject produced gas in subsurface reservoirs. As the allocation of available gas for pressure maintenance projects increases, less gas is available for gas-lifting oil wells. To maintain oil production at desirable levels, Creole must make optimum use of available gas on those wells which will supply the most oil consistent with good reservoir engineering practices. Creole also has other incentives for determining the optimum gas distribution in a gas-lift system. First, there ia a need to properly reallocate gas when a compressor station is down for regular maintenance or due to equipment failure. Second, bottlenecks in the gas-oil treating facilities may unnecessarily limit highly productive wells which require only small amounts of gas-lift gas. Therefore, Creole recognized they could improve their daily operations by minimizing the amount of gas required to maintain gas-lifted oil production.

OPTIMIZING GAS LIFT SYSTEMS

SPE 5150

With Creolets guidance, a calculation technique for determining the optimum gas distribution in their gas-lift system was developed and incorporated in a computer program. The purpose of the computer program is to gather well data from computer files, combine that data with manually input data, and perform the optimization calculation. The program reports results in a form suitable for direct implementation by operations personnel. Exxon Company, U.S.A. East Texas Division engineers heard of Creoles computer program through Company reports. They initiated action to try a similar program in their operations. Working with EPRCO, another computer program was developed for Exxon USA using the same basic calculation techniques but modified for their needs. Regardless of the situation in which the optimization program is applied, the basic calculations are the same. Data is retrieved from computer files and card input by an intermediary program. The rearranged data is then passed to the optimization program which first determines well capability based upon either the last test or an average of several tests. The well capability is then combined with a description of subsurface well equipment, fluid properties, and flowing conditions to calculate the wells performance for various gas-lift gas input rates. Two-phase vertical flow correlations are used in the calculations. A point is then located where the incremental increase in production revenue is equal to or slightly greater than the incremental increase in expense for gaslift input gas. This assumes that there are no gas availability limitations or total compressor capacity limitations. The program then checks total system gas requirements against total gas available and the production system capacity. If the production requirements exceed any limiting condition, the gas injection rate is reduced according to a priority ranking of the wells in such a manner that minimizes loss of revenue. This reduced rate is the optimum rate within the system limitations. THEORY For any gas-lift well there is some optimum gas injection rate. This optimum rate is the rate at which the expense for an added increment of gas injection is equal to or smaller than the increment of revenue returned. The amount by which the

added increment of expense for gas injection must be less than the increment of revenue returned will be determined by the operators requirements for profit returned on his money. For this report we have assumed that the optimum is at the point where the two incremental values are equal. Figure 1 shows a typical performance curve for a gas-lift well, Notice that as gas input rate is increased the production rate increases, flattens and passes through a maximum. Beyond the maximum, any further increase in gas input causes a decrease in production. The optimum gas input is a point to the left of the maximum which has the appropriate revenue-to-expense ratio. Figure 2 b the same curve as in Figure 1 but plotted on revenue versus expense scale. The slope of the curve at the optimum point depends upon whether the capacity of the gas-lift system is limited or unlimited. If the system is unlimited the slope at the optimum point is by definition equal to one. That is, the expense of an incremental increase in gas input equals the incremental return in revenue. If the system capacity is limited, then the optimum is further down the curve as indicated on Figure 2. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE WKX!Q All gas-lift wells within a system may not be able to produce at their individual optimum rates. There may be a limited supply of high-pressure gas available for gas lift; or, the capacity of the system for handling spent gas-lift gas or produced fluids may be restricted. To locate the optimum production rate for gas-lift wells within the system limitations, it is necessary to build a model of the system. Such a model is schematically represented by Figure 3. This model can be broken into four components: (1) compressors, (2) gaslift manifolds, (3) wells, and (4) separator stations. Compressors: Any group of compressors or sources of high pressure gas with a common discharge is regarded as a single compressor plant by the program. Therefore, a compresser plant may be an entire gas plant, a small field compressor, or a pipeline from which high-pressure gas is obtained. To determine the capacity of the compressor plant for supplying gas-lift Gas, the following data are required: 1. Compressor (source) capacity, MMcf/D. Fuel and losses, MMcf/D.

2.

SPE >1>[1
3.

.Wu-u., submersible electric pump. Therefore, they are not altered by the gas-lift optimization program. On the other hand, the continuoas flow gas-lift wells can be controlled by varying the injection gas rate from the gas-lift manifolds. To determine the optimum gas injection rate for each well, the wells performance as a function of its gas injection rate must be determined. The computer program calculates a theoretical optimum based on the last well test utilizing vertical flowing pressure correlations. Various correlations are available.~ A correlation based upon well test data for Creoles Lake Maracaibo operations was specially prepared for Creole by Dr. Herald Winkler, Chairman of Petroleum Engineering at Texas Tech in Lubbock, Texas, This correlation was determined to accurately represent Creoles producing well behavior. Exxon USA chose to use the more general 0rkiszewski2 correlation. Figure 4 illustrates how flowing pressure calculations are used by the program in determining a wells performance, Well tests provide information on the flowing wellhead pressure, fluid production rate, formation gas-liquid ratio, total gas-liquid ratio, and the water-oil ratio. This information, combined with the well description a>d the fluid properties, permits calculation of a flowing bottom-hole pressure, Knowing static bottom-hole pressure, a productivity index can be calculated for the given producing conditions. Assuming that this calculated productivity index remains constant and the flowing wellhead pressure, water-oil ratio, and formation gas-liquid ratio also remain constant over the operating range of producing rates, performance curves similar to the ones in Figures 1 and 2 can be construtted. These performance curves are the mathematical models of continuous flow gas-lift wells in the system. Separator Stations: Separator station capacity for handling oil, water and gas may also prohibit a well from producing at its unlimited optimum rate. Separator stations have both continuous flow gas-lift and other wells producing to them. To determine the capacity of a station for gaslift wells, the production rate of the other wells must be subtracted from the total capacity of the station. If the capacity of the separator station is insufficient for the gas-lift wells to produce at their unlimited rates, then these rates must be reduced.

Gas required for uses other than continuous flow gas lift such as reservoir pressure maintenance, MMcf/D. Gas sales, MMcf/D.

4.

To determine the compressor plant gaslift availability, all compressor (source) capacities included in the group (compressor plant) are added. The gas available for gas lift is the total compressor plant capacity minus the sum of the fuel and losses, minus other gas requirements, minus gas committed to sales. There may be several compressor plants in a system. That is, all of the sources of high pressure gas do not necessarily have a common supply point. The capacity of the system to handle gas from gas-lift wells (the spent injection gas plus the formation gas) may also limit the rate at which gas-lift wells can produce. This limitation is determined by calculating the compressor (source) capacity for gas-lift gas. Note that as illustrated in Figure 3, although individual compressors may have a common discharge point and therefore form a compressor plant, they do not necessarily have a common gathering system or suction point. So, wells must be identified with the compressers to which their gas is produced. Then the limitation is calculated by adding the permissible flare rate to the compressor suction capacity for all compressers with a common suction and subtracting the gas produced by wells which are not continuous flow gas-lift wells. The remainder is the capacity available for continuous flow gas lift. Gas-Lift Manifolds: Compressors discharge gas through pipelines to distribution manifolds. These manifolds may have metering and flow regulation devices which allow the operators to regulate the flow of gas to gas-lift wells. Manifolds are assumed to offer no limitations on the system. Rather they serve as a convenient means of grouping wells to assist the operations personnel in implementing the program recommendations. Wells: There are two basic types of producing wells in the model - (1) continuous wells. flow gas-lift wells and (2) other Other wells are assumed to be producing at some fixed rate (i.e., their last test rate) which cannot be reduced to allow a continuous flow gas-lift well to produce at a higher rate. These oth?r wells may be either flowing, on intermittent gas lift, rod pumping, or producing by

, WST~S

SPE 5150 I

Calculating the Optimum Gas Distribution Using the performance curves which describe the wells production characteristics, the program calculates for each continuous flow gas-lift well the optimum gas injection and fluid production rate; i.e., the point on the curve in Figure 2 where the slope is equal to one. Thj.srate assumes limitations on gas availability no or system production capacity. However, a check is made to see if the well should be receiving any gas-lift gas at all. The routine in the program for calculating gradient curves is limited to total gas-liquid ratios less than 3000 CU ft/bbl. Therefore, if the input data for a well specifies a total gas-liquid ratio greater than 3000 cu ft/bbl, the program will digress and calculate a theoretical total ratio for the well based upon a minimum flowing pressure gradient attainable for the specified conditions. Using this method, optimum injection gas is then obtained by subtracting the formation gas produced from the total gas requirements determined as above. If the calculated injection gas is negative (i.e., formation gas-liquid ratio is greater than the calculated total gasliquid ratio) the program assumes that the well will flow naturally and no gas injection is required. If the sum of the optimum gas requirements for all wells in the system exceeds the system limitations, a priority ranking of the wells is established and gas usage is curtailed to save the most gas for the least loss of oil. This is done by incrementally stepping down from the optimum point on the revenue-expense curve (Figure 2) for priority wells. That is, a small decrease in production rate is assumed (e.g., 10 B/D) and the performance curves of all wells are examined. The well which will result in the maximum savings in gas-lift gas (i.e., has the flattest performance curve) is adjusted LO the lower rate. The process is repeated each time examining all of the wells, including the one just adjusted, until the total gas injection requirement falls within system limitations. This represents optimum use of the available gas. Appendix A illustrates the application of the gas-lift optimization procedure for a hypothetical ten-well field. A simplified outline of Gas-Lift Optimization Logic is given in Appendix B.

FIELD RESULTS Two major problems have caused the program to have only limited success to date. These are (1) the requirement for good well data, and (2) the computer time required to perform the calculations for a large system. However, the program has been successfully used in Creoles Lake Maracaibo operations in Venezuela in a group of thirzy wells. By implementing the recommendations of the program, Creole was able to increase oil production by 2050 B/D with an increased gas injection rate of only 1920 Mscf/D. Creole is presently in the process of updating their computer files which store well test data and well completion data. When this data storage is complete, Creole plans to use the program on a routine basis. They have also made steps to reduce the computer time required by the program by eliminating portions of the program which were unnecessary for their application. Another step made to improve the computer time required was to break the total field into several smaller areas of supervisory responsibility. This made a considerable reduction in the size of the model re+uir.,d to describe the field. Exxon Company, USA has used the program on a very limited basis but realized a significant improvement in the wells which were tested. Six wells were selected from approximately 150 wells in an East Texas field near Houston. The programs recommendations were implemented and a net increase of 180 barrels of oil per day was observed for an increase of only 145 Mscf/D of gas-lift gas. The program has been made available in three ~ther East Texas fields but presently is not in use. Exxons plans are to simplify the output and t en to use 9 the procedure on a larger scale. CONCLUSIONS Based on the observed field results, the following conclusions are made. 1. The optimum distribution of gas in a continuous flow gas-lift system can be analytically determined, For the calculated optimum gas distribution to be meaningful, an accurate description of producing facilities along with accurate well data is required. If the field production capacity limitations can be described and if accurate well test data is easily accessible, a computerized

2.

3.

CDW .-

<1 %f)
...4.

T. n. Rlmn17N
. . ------

gas-lift optimization program can be a valuable tool for daily operation of a continuous flow gas-lift oilfield. NOMENCLATURE dt D Df Dvalve Fwo J P Ptf Pwf Pws q PO = = = = = = = = = = = = tubing diameter depth formation depth operating gas-lift valve depth producing water-oil ratio productivity index pressure producing wellhead pressure producing bottom-hole pressure static bottom-hole pressure production rate oil density

total compression capacity of 5600 Mcf/D, However, 3600 Mcf/D are normally allocated to meet sales contracts, gas injection requirements for reservoir pressure maintenance, and system losses. This leaves only 2000 Mcf/D for gas-lifting the ten wells in the field. The gas is normally distributed equally to each of the ten wells (200 Mcf/D/well). All of the wells are completed in the same manner as illustrated in Table 1, However, the wells do not all perform equally (Table 2), Due to the unequal. performance of the wells, it is obvious that the gas-lift gas needs to be redistributed to maintain production at the highest possible level within the system capacity limitations. The first step in the optimization procedure is to calculate the maximum economic production rate assuming no system capacity limitations, The unlitited optimum production rate for each of the gas-lift wells is illustrated in Table 3, By increasing the compressor capacity available for gas-lift by 496 Mcf/D, a production increase of 277 B/D (189 BO/D) can be expected. Note that well number 4 was reduced by 5 B/D even without system limitations. This is due to the well normally producing at a rate in excess of its economic optimum limit, based on injection gas valued at $0.25/Mcf and oil valued at $1.00/bblo For a higher value of oil and a lower cost of gas, the unlimited optimum production rate for well number 4 could be greater than its normal producing rate. The next step in the optimization procedure is to dettirminethe most economically desirable distribution of gas within the systernlimitations, Table 4 illustrates this distribution. Note that by decreasing the gas to some wells (1, 2, 4, 7, and 10) and increasing the gas to others (3, 5, 6, 8 and 9) the production rate can be increased by 36 B/D (13 BO/D) while maintaining the total gas requirement at approximately the same rate (10 Mcf/D less), For example purposes, suppose that the compressor capacity available for gas lift is reduced to 1000 Mcf/D due to a compressor down for maintenance or due to a temporary increase in sales demand. This requires a drastic redistribution of the available gas. The goal is to minimize the loss of revenue by changing to the new system capacity lititation, Table 5 illustrates the economic optimum distribution, Note that by cutting the gas-lift gas in half, the field production rate was decreased by 643 B!D (567 BO/D). However, if the gas-lift gas had been distributed equally to the ten wells, the decrease in production would have been 1322 B/D (879 BO/D),

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We express our appreciation to Mr. Gordon Bystrom and Sr. Juan Bless of Creole for their assistance in the development of the gas-lift optimization computer program used in Venezuela$ and to Mr. Terry Mayhill for his engineering assistance in implementing a similar computer program in Exxon Company, USAs operations. REFERENCES . 1. Simmons, W. E.: Optimizing Continuous Flow Gas Lift Wells, PetPolewn Engineer (August, 1972) 46-48, and (September, 1972) 68-72. 2. Orkiszewski, J.: Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Tubing, paper SPE 1546 presented d SPE 41st Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, October 2-5, 1966. 3, Mayhill, T. D.: Simplified Method for Gas-Lift Well Problem Identification and Diagnosis, paper SPE 5151 presented at SPE 49th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, October 6-9, 1974.

APPENDIX A Example Optimization Problem The results of utilizing the gas-lift optimization calculations are illustrated here for an example ten-well field. Figure 5 is a model of the example field containing one compressor plant, one separator station, and ten gas-lift wells, During normal opersting conditions, the compressor plant, which has several individual compressors, has a

(WTTMT7TNC
. . . . ...--...

/?AS T. T171 SYST17MQ

.-... -------------

~Pl? %1<
. --Az

A similar problem which may occur is a temporary 10SS of a portion of the separation capacity if there are several separators at a station. Table 6 illustrates the optimum response to a 1700 B/D decrease in oil handling capacity at the separation station. The required production decrease can be accomplished by reducing the total g~s-lift gas by 1544 Mcf/D according to the schedule shcwn in Table 6. Similar capacity limitation checks can be made for any component of the system. Or, the procedure can be used to determine the anticipated increase in production which can be expected if additional system capacity, such as more compression facilities or more separation facilities, is provided.

two-phase vertical flow correlation. 4. Convert the new production rate to a dollar reven~e value and the gas injection rate to a dollar expense value. Compare the calculated revenue and expense values to the similar revenue and expense values for the well at the last test rate. a. Let change in revenue be DY. b. c. Let change in expense be DX. The slope of the line (rate of change) between the two points is DY/DX.

5.

6. APPENDIX B Simplified Outline of Gas-Lift Optimization Logic A. Retrieve well test data, well descrip~~ons, and field producing sYstem description from data cards and computer data storage files. For each continuous-flow gas-lift well, calculate its productivity index, 1. Use last test production data and well completion description.

Compare the calculated slope of the performance curve (DY/DX) to the desired slope at the economic optimum rate without system limitations, a. Required slope at optimum point is 1 + ROR/100, where ROR is the required rate of return (percent) on the incremental expense. If DY/DX is greater than the required slope, increase the preduction rate by another small increment and repeat the calculation for the slope between the new points. If DY/DX is equal to or less than the required slope, calculate a production rate midway between the two production rates used to determine the slope. This is the optimum production rate.

b.

B.

c. 2, Calculate the flowing bottom-hole pressure usj.nga two-phase vertical flowing pressure correlation.

3* Productivity index. J .~
q

Pws - Pwf

****,*. ,...
q

(1)

d. Calculate the gas injection requirements at the optimum productimn rate. This is the optimum gas injection rate. D. For all the continuous flow gas-lift wells supplied by a compressor plant (source of high pressure gas), determine if the gas available is sufficient to produce the wells at their unlimited optimum rate. 1. Sum the optimum gas injection requirements for all continuous-flow gas lift wells supplied by a compressor plant. Calculate the gas injection rate available for continuous-flow gas lift, a. From the total compressor plant capacity, subtract the amount for fuel and system losses, sales,

co For each continuous-flow gas-lift well,

calculate the economic optimum producing rate without system limitations, 1, Increase the production rate of the well by some small amount (e.g., 5 percent) above the last well test. Calculate the producing bottom-hole pressure at the new rate using the wells productivity index.

2,

2, pwf=pw8-J Q .**,..,**.*...* (2)

3. Calculate the gas injection rate required at the new rate using a

7
I

7n u .

u,

nw m-mx7
LU.IWIJX4AV

urn

@nm

c1 En JJ. JU

gas injection for reservoir pressure maintenance, and other demands. This leaves an amount available for gas lift. b. From the amount available for gas lift, subtract the volume required for intermittent lift and continuous flow wells which must be deleted from the optimization calculation due to missing data or other reasons. This leaves an amount available for continuousflow gas-lift optimization,

g.

Insert the well into the list of wells depending on its slope. Repeat the process until the gas requirement is equal to or less than the compressor plant gas available.

b ..

E.

Check to see if there are any production capacity limitations on the gss lift wells at the separator station. 1. Determine the continuous-flow gaslift well fluid production ratea (oil, water, total liquid, and gaa) to each separator station. Calculate the available capacity of each separator station for the continuous-flow gas-lift fluid production. a. Sum the fluid protection ratea for all wells other than continuous-flow gas-lift wells which are being optimized, Subtract the prodiictionrates (oil, water, total liquid, and gas, respectively) for the non-gas-lift wells from the capacity of each separator station. This gives the capacity of the station for continuous-flow gas-lift wells.

3.

If the compression capactty available for continuous-flow gas-lift optimization is greater than the sum of the individual well requirements, go to the next compressor plant in the system and repeat the procedure. If any compressor plant has insufficient gas available for the continuoua-flow gas-lift wells to operate at their unlimited optimum rate, calculate a reduced gaa injection requirement in the following manner. a, For each gas-lift well supplied by the compressor plant with insufficient capacity, subtract some small amount (e.g., 10 B/D) from the unlimited optimum fluid production rate and calculate the gas injection requirement, Convert the changes in production rate and gas injection to a change in dollars revenue (DY) and a change in dollars expense (DX). Calculate the rate of change (DY/Dx) between the two points for each well, Rank the well according to their DY/DX value (slope) with the well having the smaliest numerical slope at the top of the list. For the well at the top of the list, subtract the change in gas injection rate between the unlimited optimum rate and the lower calculated rate from the total required gas injection rate. Subtract another small amount from the n- production rate for the top well in the list and calculate a new slope between the two points.

2.

4*

b.

b.

3.

c.

Compare the ~v~ilabl~ separator station capacity for continuousflow gas-lift fluid production to the rates being produced to the station, If the station capacity ia less than the production rate, continue the procedure described above for reducing the production rate until the capacity limits are met.

4.

d,

F.

e.

Check to see if there are any production limitations on the gas-lift wells due to compressor plant gas inlet capacity. 1. For each compressor plant, c3lculate the amount of gas being produced to it from continuous-flow gas-lift wells (gas-lift gas plus formation gas). Calculate the available capacity of each compressor plant for the gas from continuous-flow gas-lift wells.

4 f.

2.

8
a.

OPTIMIZING G/ Sum the gaa produced to the plant from wells other than continuoueflow gas-lift wells (intermittent gas--lift well gas, formation gas from flowing and pumping wells, etc.) Subtract the sum calculated above from the sum of the compressor plant capacity plus the allowable flare limit. The remainder is the capacity available for gaalift wells,
3.

Compare the capacity available for continuous-flow gas-lift wells to the amount of gas being produced to the compressor plant, If the capacity is less than the rate being produced-co the plant, reduce the production rate of the continuouaflow gas-lift wells ~ccording to the procedtiredescribed above,

4.

b.

TABLE 1 (ZNERAL WELL DATA Oil Density Tubing Inside Diameter Depth of Producing Interval Depth of operating Gas-Lift Valve Static Bottom-Hole Pressure Producing Wellhead Pressure Gas Specific Gravity (air = 1.0) Value of Oil Cost of Gas-Lift Gas 35 API 2.992 in. 5500 ft (subsurface) 5000 ft (subsurface) 1400 psig 100 psig 0.8 $1.00/bbl $0.25/Mcf

TPBLE 2 EXAMJLEWELLT EST Formation Gas-Oil Ratio CU ft/bbl 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 550 600 DATA Calculated ProcJ:J:jvity B/D/psi 1.12 1.28 1.64 0.72 0.61 0.51 0.66 0.73 0.50 0.49 _

Total Liquid J!l!Q1000 1000 1000 700 600 500 500 500 500 500 6800

Water Oil !UL!U!L 1000 750 500 700 600 500 300 250 500 500 . 5600 25: 500 0 0 20: 250 0 0 1200

Gas-Lift Gas _!!Q&200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 2000

TABLE 3 OPTIMIZATION WITHOUT SYSTEM LIMITATIONS

. lx

Wel1 No.

~-Lift Total Liquid -w!_ 1013 1049 1098 695 608 530 527 532 519 506 7077

Oil Iw._ 1013 787 549 695 608 530 316 266 519 506 5789

Gas ~ 258 312 316 176 216 262 248 245 247 216 2496

Change from Last Well Test Gas-Lift Total Oi1 Gas Liquid Mcf/D w -&l!!_ 13 49 98 -5 3: 27 32 19 6 277
;;

49 -5 3: 16 16 19 6 189 496

TABLE 4 OPTIMIZATION WITH COMPRESSOR CAPACITY LIMITATIONS (2000 Mcf/O AVAILABLE) Calculated Optimum Rate Total Gas-Lift Liquid Oil Gas B/D B/D Mcf/D Change from Last Well Test Total Gas-Lift Oil Gas Liquid B/D B/D Mcf/D

Wel1 No, 1 2 3 4 5 6 ; 1:

983 978 1048 695 608 520 497 512 509 486 6836

983 734 524 695 608 520 298 256 509 486 5613

160 160 240 176 216 237 197 214 222 168 1990

-17 -22 48 -5 2: 7; -1: 36

-17 -16 24 -5 2; -2 6 -1: 13

-10

TABLE5 OPTIMIZATION WITH COWRESSORCAPACITY LIMITATIONS

(1000 Mcf/D AVAILP8LE) Calculated Optimum Rate Total Gas-Lift Liquid Oil Gas Change from Last Well Test Total Gas-Lift Oil Limid Gas Mcf/D !!l!2 -87 -41 -32 -45 -102 -70 -53 -58 -81 -74 0643 -87 -31 -16 -45 -102 -70 -32 -29 -81 -74 -567 -193 -73 -19 -88 -139 -119 -52 -43 -138 -142 -1006

J!L-

!w_
913 719 484 655 498 430 268 221 419 426 5033

-!!!!m12; 181 112 1 148 157 62 58 994

.JiL!L_

913 959 968 655 498 430 447 442 419 426 6157

TA8LE 6 OPTIMIZATION WITH SEPARATOR CAPACITY LIMITATIONS (4000 BO/D MAXIMUM) Calculated Optimum Rate Total Gas-Lift Gas Liquid Oil J@_ m _!!wQ__ 903 679 648 515 418 340 307 252 329 346 4737 903 509 324 515 418 340 184 126 329 346 3994 456 Change from Last Well Test Gas-Lift Total Gas= Oil Liquid Mcf/D m J!@__ -97 -321 -352 -185 -182 -160 -193 -248 -171 -154 -2063 -97 -241 -176 -185 -182 -160 -116 -124 -171 -154 -1606 -200 -179 -113 -189 -170 -156 -97 -89 -170 -181 -1544

Wel1 No.

MCF/D GAS-LIFT GAS INPUT

-- --- F
I
I

LIMITED .---- --

I I I I I

I
l!

$/DAY

GAS

COMPRESSION

COST

Fig. 1 - Typical performance curve for a gas lift well.

Fig. 2 - Gas lift well performance in monetary . units.

Pd ,,

P
GIVEN: d,

FWo
P. 4

Pt[ ~

------+----1
I

D I

valve
I

Df

I L
HIGHPRESS. ----LOW?RESS. GAS,OIL& WATER GAS GAS WATER A GL MANIFOLD OCOMPRESSORPLAN1 o GAs LIFT WELL

Rsx!QD
\\\
u&r&+

}/00
0

x$.o~

O.OO0.l

..

. . ..

J-J
I

sE.pARA,oR~~A,,o~ ?f&WJ%%U
A GAS INJECTION WELL

q J = pw~.pwf

Pwf

I-----J
Ws

--- OIL*

Fig. 3 - Schematic representation of system model.

Fig. 4 - Use of flowing pressure calculations in determining well performance.

OIL AND WATER

FLARE

=O

SEPARATOR 5700

STATION BO/D

CAPACITY

~1

WELL NO,

SEE TABLES 1 AND2 FOR WELL DATA

GAS LIFT

MANIFOLD

? t1
LOW PRESSURE GAS b b 5600 MCF/O COMPRESSOR PLANT CAPACITY

v SALES, FUEL REINFECTION, ETC. 3600 MCFID

Fig.

5 -

Example

gas 1ift

system model.