SOCIETY OF PETROLEW.IEi?GINEERSOF AII.

lE
6200 lbrth Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas 75206

;;!&SPE
. .,

5150

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTIOii

Optimizing

Gas-Lift

Systems

By
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!nentof where and by whom the paper is
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

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

SPE 5150

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.

2.

Fuel and losses, MMcf/D.

SPE >1>[1

3.

Gas required for uses other than

continuous flow gas lift such as
reservoir pressure maintenance,
MMcf/D.

4.

Gas sales, MMcf/D.

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

.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.

SPE 5150

, WST~S

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
no limitations on gas availability
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,

2.

For the calculated optimum gas

distribution to be meaningful,
an accurate description of producing facilities along with
accurate well data is required.

3.

If the field production capacity

limitations can be described and
if accurate well test data is
easily accessible, a computerized

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

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

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),

(WTTMT7TNC

/?AS T.T171SYST17MQ

...--...

.-...

----

----------

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.

5.

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.

Simplified Outline
of Gas-Lift Optimization Logic
Retrieve well test data, well descrip~~ons, and field producing sYstem
description from data cards and computer
data storage files.

b.

Let change in expense be DX.

c.

The slope of the line (rate of

change) between the two points
is DY/DX.

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.

b.

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.

c.

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.

For each continuous-flow gas-lift well,

calculate its productivity index,
Use last test production data and
well completion description.

2,

Calculate the flowing bottom-hole

pressure usj.nga two-phase vertical
flowing pressure correlation.

3* Productivity index.
J .~

Pws - Pwf

****,*. ,...

calculate the economic optimum producing

rate without system limitations,
1,

2,

d. Calculate the gas injection

requirements at the optimum productimn rate. This is the
optimum gas injection rate.

(1)

co For each continuous-flow gas-lift well,

Increase the production rate of the

well by some small amount (e.g.,
5 percent) above the last well test.

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.

2,

Calculate the gas injection rate

available for continuous-flow gas
lift,

Calculate the producing bottom-hole

pressure at the new rate using the
wells productivity index.
pwf=pw8-J

Q .**,..,**.*...*

(2)

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

--Az

Convert the new production rate to a

dollar reven~e value and the gas
injection rate to a dollar expense
value.

6.

1.

4.

APPENDIX B

B.

two-phase vertical flow correlation.

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.

A.

~Pl? %1<

From the total compressor plant

capacity, subtract the amount for
fuel and system losses, sales,

u7n.

7
I

u,

@nm

nw m-mx7
LU.IWIJX4AV

gas injection for reservoir pressure maintenance, and other

demands. This leaves an amount
available for gas lift.
b.

3.

4*

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,

E.

If the compressioncapactty 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.

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,

b.

Convert the changes in production

rate and gas injection to a change
in dollars revenue (DY) and a
change in dollars expense (DX).

c.

Calculate the rate of change

(DY/Dx) between the two points
for each well,

d,

e.

4
f.

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.

F.

g.

Insert the well into the list

of wells depending on its
slope.

b..

Repeat the process until the

gas requirement is equal to
or less than the compressor
plant gas available.

c1 En
JJ. JU

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.

2.

Calculate the available capacity

of each separator station for the
continuous-flow gas-lift fluid
production.

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,

urn

a.

Sum the fluid protection ratea

for all wells other than continuous-flow gas-lift wells
which are being optimized,

b.

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.

Compare the ~v~ilabl~ separator

station capacity for continuousflow gas-lift fluid production to
the rates being produced to the
station,

4.

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.

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).

2.

Calculate the available capacity

of each compressor plant for the
gas from continuous-flow gas-lift
wells.

OPTIMIZING G/

8
a.

b.

Sum the gaa produced to the plant

from wells other than continuoueflow gas-lift wells (intermittent
gas--liftwell 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,

4.

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,

TABLE 1
(ZNERAL WELL DATA
35 API
2.992 in.
5500 ft (subsurface)
5000 ft (subsurface)
1400 psig
100 psig
0.8
$1.00/bbl
$0.25/Mcf

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

TPBLE 2
EXAMJLEWELLT EST

Total
Liquid
J!l!Q-

Water
Oil
!UL!U!L

1000
1000
1000
700
600
500
500
500
500
500

1000
750
500
700
600
500
300
250
500
.500

6800

5600

25:
500
0
0
20:
250
0
0
1200

DATA

Formation
Gas-Oil
Ratio
CU
ft/bbl

Gas-Lift
Gas
_!!Q&-

500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
550
600

200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
2000

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

TABLE 3
OPTIMIZATION WITHOUT SYSTEM LIMITATIONS
.

Wel1
No.

lx

Change from Last Well Test

Gas-Lift
Total
Oi1
Gas
Liquid
Mcf/D
w
-&l!!_

~-Lift
Total
Liquid
-w!_

Oil
Iw._

1013
1049
1098
695
608
530
527
532
519
506

1013
787
549
695
608
530
316
266
519
506

258
312
316
176
216
262
248
245
247
216

13
49
98
-5
3:
27
32
19
6

3:
16
16
19
6

7077

5789

2496

277

189

Gas
~

;;

49
-5

496

TABLE 4
OPTIMIZATION WITH COMPRESSOR CAPACITY LIMITATIONS
(2000 Mcf/O AVAILABLE)

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

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

983
978
1048
695
608
520
497
512
509
486

983
734
524
695
608
520
298
256
509
486

160
160
240
176
216
237
197
214
222
168

-17
-22
48
-5

-17
-16
24
-5

2:
7;

2;
-2
6

-1:

-1:

6836

5613

1990

36

13

-10

TABLE5
OPTIMIZATIONWITH COWRESSORCAPACITY LIMITATIONS
(1000 Mcf/D AVAILP8LE)
Calculated Optimum Rate
Total
Gas-Lift
Liquid
Oil
Gas

J!L-

!w_

913
959
968
655
498
430
447
442
419
426

913
719
484
655
498
430
268
221
419
426

6157

5033

-!!!!m-

Change from Last Well Test

Total
Gas-Lift
Oil
Limid
Gas
Mcf/D
!!l!2

.JiL!L_

1
148
157
62
58

-87
-41
-32
-45
-102
-70
-53
-58
-81
-74

-87
-31
-16
-45
-102
-70
-32
-29
-81
-74

-193
-73
-19
-88
-139
-119
-52
-43
-138
-142

994

0643

-567

-1006

12;
181
112

TA8LE 6
OPTIMIZATION WITH SEPARATOR CAPACITY LIMITATIONS
(4000 BO/D MAXIMUM)

Wel1
No.

Calculated Optimum Rate

Total
Gas-Lift
Gas
Liquid
Oil
J@_
m
_!!wQ__
903
679
648
515
418
340
307
252
329
346

903
509
324
515
418
340
184
126
329
346

4737

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

-97
-241
-176
-185
-182
-160
-116
-124
-171
-154

-200
-179
-113
-189
-170
-156
-97
-89
-170
-181

-2063

-1606

-1544

--
---
F
I
I

I
I
I
I
I

LIMITED
.---- --

I
l!

MCF/D
GAS-LIFT

$/DAY

GAS

INPUT

GAS

Fig. 1 - Typical performance curve for a gas

lift well.

COMPRESSION

COST

Fig. 2. - Gas lift well performance in monetary

units.

Pd,,

GIVEN:
d,

FWo
P.

Pt[
~

------+----1
D

Rsx!QD

valve
I

Df

\\\

u&r&+

}/00

O.OO0.l

I
L

..

HIGHPRESS.

GAS

---

LOW?RESS.

GAS

---

GAS,OIL&

--- OIL*

WATER

OCOMPRESSORPLAN1

o GAs

LIFT

A GAS
A

INJECTION

J-J

I-----J

WELL

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

WATER

. . ..

x$.o~

WELL

GL MANIFOLD

Fig. 3 - Schematic representation of system

model.

Pwf

Ws

= pw~.pwf

Fig. 4 - Use of flowing pressure calculations

in determining well performance.

OIL AND WATER

FLARE

=O

SEPARATOR

~1

5700

STATION

CAPACITY

BO/D

SEE TABLES 1
AND2 FOR WELL
DATA

WELL NO,

GAS LIFT

MANIFOLD

t1
LOW PRESSURE

COMPRESSOR

GAS

PLANT

b
5600 MCF/O

v
SALES, FUEL
REINFECTION,
ETC.
3600 MCFID

Fig.

5 -

Example

gas 1ift

system model.

CAPACITY