Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 1 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎2 𝑏1 +𝑎1 𝑏2
𝑥2 (𝑍2 ) = 𝑎 (𝑎1 𝑍2 + 2 (𝑏1 − 𝑏2 ) ) (7) 𝑦12 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑍22 [𝑎 1+𝑎2 ] + 𝑍2 [ ]+ [𝑐1 +
1 +𝑎2 1 2 𝑎1 +𝑎2
1 (𝑏 −𝑏 )2
𝑐2 − 4 (𝑎1 +𝑎2 ) ] (GLPC of previous 2 wells)
Recalling Eq. (4), the author gets allocation for the 1 2
rest of the wells, in this case this is the first well:\ 𝑦3 = 𝑎3 𝑥32 + 𝑏3 𝑥3 + 𝑐3 (GLPC of 3rd well)
The 𝑥1 and 𝑥2 above are optimum allocations for the 𝑍3 𝑦13 𝑚𝑎𝑥
first well and the second well in order to obtain 𝑥3 𝑦3
maximum oil production. After getting optimum 𝟏 𝟏
allocations, maximum oil production as a function of 𝒙𝟑 = 𝒂 𝒂 +𝒂
{𝒂𝟏 𝒂𝟐 𝒁𝟑 + 𝟐 [𝒂𝟐 (𝒃𝟏 −
𝟏 𝟐 𝟐 𝒂𝟑 +𝒂𝟏 𝒂𝟑
gas rate to be injected to 2 wells can be obtained by
substituting Eq. (7) to Eq. (6), yields: 𝒃𝟑 ) + 𝒂𝟏 (𝒃𝟐 − 𝒃𝟑 ) ]}
(Optimum allocation for 3rd well)
𝑎 𝑎 𝑎2 𝑏1 +𝑎1 𝑏2
𝑦12 𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑍2 ) = 𝑍22 [𝑎 1+𝑎2 ] + 𝑍2 [ 𝑎1 +𝑎2
]+ The third terms at above equation is neglected
1 2
1 (𝑏 −𝑏 )2 because it will not be used for the next process.
[𝑐1 + 𝑐2 − 4 (𝑎1 +𝑎2 ) ] (9)
1 2
The equation is then derived for nth number of wells.
With Eq. (9), maximum oil production by injecting Optimum gas lift allocation for 𝑛𝑡ℎ well as function
certain gas rate with certain optimum allocation can of total gas rate to be injected to n-wells, 𝑍𝑛 , as
be known. Then if we see further, Eq. (9) looks like shown :
another quadratic GLPC as shown in Eq. (1).
𝒏−𝟏
Formula Derivation 𝟏
𝒙𝒏 (𝒁𝒏 ) = 𝒏 [𝒁𝒏 (∏ 𝒂𝒊 )
𝒏
∏ 𝒋=𝟏 𝒂𝒋
∑𝒊=𝟏 (
𝒂𝒊 )
𝒊=𝟏
From previous derivation, the author can make a
summary of system “2 gas lift injection wells with a 𝒏−𝟏 𝒏−𝟏
certain total gas injection rate, 𝑍2 ” as shown 𝟏 𝒃𝒊 − 𝒃𝒏
+ ∑( ∏ 𝒂𝒋 )]
𝟐 𝒂𝒊
𝒊=𝟏 𝒋=𝟏
GLPC of 2 wells
(Ricky Model) (10)
𝑦1 = 𝑎1 𝑥12 + 𝑏1 𝑥1 + 𝑐1 (GLPC of 1st well)
𝑦2 = 𝑎2 𝑥22 + 𝑏2 𝑥2 + 𝑐2 (GLPC of 2nd wel) and
𝑥1 𝑦1 𝒁𝒏−𝟏 = 𝒁𝒏 − 𝒙𝒏 (11)
𝑍2 𝑦12 𝑚𝑎𝑥
with limitation such as :
𝑥2 𝑦2
𝟏 𝟏 GLPC is quadratic polynomial
𝒙𝟐 = 𝒂 (𝒂𝟏 𝒁𝟐 + 𝟐 (𝒃𝟏 − 𝒃𝟐 ) )(Optimum
𝟏 +𝒂 𝟐 𝑅 2 of GLPC is more than 95 %
allocation for 2nd well) Positive sloped section of GLPC is used
𝑎 𝑎 𝑎2 𝑏1 +𝑎1 𝑏2
𝑦12 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑍22 [𝑎 1+𝑎2 ] + 𝑍2 [ 𝑎1 +𝑎2
]+ [𝑐1 + For the next explanation, the author calls the model
1 2
1 (𝑏1 −𝑏2)2 the Ricky Model.
𝑐2 − ]
4 (𝑎1 +𝑎2 )
ALGORITHM OF THE MODEL
Then, using the summary above, the gas allocation
method for 3 wells to be conducted in a similar way Let us say that there are n wells in the field with total
as the following: Simplify the 3 wells problem into a gas injection rate, 𝑍𝑛 , using Eq. (10) optimum gas lift
2 wells problem - 1 well is 3rd well and another is the allocation for 𝑛𝑡ℎ well, 𝑥𝑛 , as function of gas
result from previous calculation of 2 wells gas lift injection rate for n wells, 𝑍𝑛 can be obtained. Then
using Eq. (11) obtaining the rest rate of gas supply to production will not be used as it is not efficient
be injected to (n-1) wells, 𝑍𝑛−1 , after some gas has anymore.
been injected to 𝑛𝑡ℎ well. Then using Eq. (10) again,
obtaining optimum gas lift allocation for (𝑛 − 1)𝑡ℎ The result of the Ricky model is shown in the table
well, 𝑥𝑛−1 , as function of gas supply for (n-1) wells, 2.
𝑍𝑛−1 . Then the procedure continues repeating until
allocations for all wells are obtained. Thus, all From the table 2, with total gas injection rate 4
allocations should satisfy the equation . MMSCFD and certain GLPC of each well as shown
in the figure 4, the author obtained optimum
allocation for each well which would produce
∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑋𝑖 = 𝑍𝑛 (12) maximum oil production rate of 10226.9 BOPD.
The algorithm of the Ricky model is shown . Sensitivity to Gas Injection Allocation
𝑍𝑛 𝑍𝑛−1 𝑍𝑛−2 To make sure that the allocations shown in the table
= 𝑍𝑛 = 𝑍𝑛−1 2 are the most optimum allocations, the author
− 𝑋𝑛 − 𝑋𝑛−1 performs sensitivity and makes variation in
𝑋𝑛 (𝑍𝑛 ) 𝑋𝑛−1 (𝑍𝑛−1 ) 𝑋𝑛−2 (𝑍𝑛−2 ) 𝑋2 (𝑍2 ) allocation data but with the same amount in total gas
injection rate of 4 MMSCFD. The sensitivity results
are shown in the table 3 .
𝑋1
= 𝑍2 In same amount of total gas injection rate, the
Where
− 𝑋2 sensitivity yields lower oil production than the result
obtained by Ricky model which is lower than
𝑋𝑛 = gas allocation for 𝑛𝑡ℎ well
10226.9 BOPD. The result supports the theory that
the allocation result which is obtained by the model
To use this model, the user should input GLPC
is the most optimum gas injection allocation.
values of each well and the number of gas lift wells.
After all data has been inputted, the model will
Injection with Unlimited Gas Supply
process it to obtain optimum gas injection allocation
results for all wells. But the user should do an
When gas supply in the field is unlimited, then to
additional algorithm if one or more gas lift wells are
obtain total maximum oil production, each well
zero allocated, which means that those wells should
should be produced in a maximum oil rate. This will
not be gas lifted. The User is to eliminate those wells
be obtained if the gas injection rate of each well is
and repeat the calculation without including them
optimum which is the highest point in GLPC. The
until all wells which are included have been non-zero
highest point in GLPC has zero gradient in which
allocated. Figure 3 shows the algorithm to use the
gradient is obtained by first derivative.
model.
Quadratic GLPC of the simulation case:
SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS
𝑦1 = −804.23𝑥12 + 1673.7𝑥1 + 867.62
Simulation using Published Data
𝑦2 = −787.14𝑥22 + 1686.3𝑥2 + 580.24
The simulation of a gas lift field consisting of 6 wells 𝑦3 = −716.86𝑥32 + 1687𝑥3 + 939.32
is constructed here. The simulation data is obtained 𝑦4 = −412.16𝑥42 + 1332.2𝑥4 + 939.22
from Kanu et all. The gas supply is limited at 4 𝑦5 = −724.07𝑥52 + 1769.1𝑥5 + 780.66
MMSCFD. There are 6 six points in each well to 𝑦6 = −883.52𝑥62 + 2090.3𝑥6 + 1197.5
construct GLPC. Table 1 shows the data of the gas
lift performances of each well. Taking zero first derivative of each GLPC, the author
gets optimum allocation for each well for unlimited
GLPC of 6 gas lift wells shown in figure 4 is satisfied gas supply as shown in table 4 :
with quadratic polynomial proposed by Gomez with
𝑅 2 > 0.96 in this case. To make this more satisfying The table 4 shows that to obtain maximum total oil
in quadratic GLPC, it is suggested to plot the data in production, 7.31 MMSCFD gas injection rate is
the curve until maximum oil production point, needed with certain allocation for each well as shown
because the data which is higher than maximum oil above. Then, if the point of view of the case above is
changed, let gas supply in the field be 7.31 make any error because it is always related with
MMSCFD. With the Ricky model, optimum numbers and algebra.
allocations are obtained and shown in the table 5 :
The result is absolutely matched with the previous On the other hand, with this Ricky method, the
results which uses highest point of GLPC as an operation is not only much more simple-effective-
optimum gas injection allocation. efficient and faster, but also very valid. This method
just needs one graph which is GLPC, and input data
Comparison with Equal Slope Allocation Method of the number of gas lift wells and total gas injection
rate and the Ricky method yields very matched gas
Because the equal slope method has commonly been injection allocation compared with equal slope. If
used for many years, it is desirable to compare the there are any alterations in input data, the user can
Ricky model with it. Actually, either the Ricky easily change the data, and the new result will appear
model or equal slope method uses the same immediately. The model is therefore very flexible to
fundamentals that is gradient or first derivative of be applied from one gas lift system to others. In
GLPC. But related with simplicity, operation speed comparison,if there are any alteration in input data in
and efficiency, these models are good to be the equal slope method, it will be significantly harder
compared. work because the user needs to draw the graphs
again.
From GLPC which is given in the simulation case,
the equal slope method establishes first derivate to Simulation using Field Data
get gradient of GLPC as a function of gas injection
rate. Figure 5 shows the relationship between The author uses an oil and gas field which is located
gradient vs gas injection rate for each well. Then, in East Kalimantan., named field “X”. The field is a
establish the master plot, shown in figure 6, which is mature field with hundreds of wells where almost all
gradient of GLPC vs total gas injection rate. Total of them use either conventional gas lift or PCTGL
gas rate itself is the sum of gas injection rates of all (Permanent Coiled Tubing Gas Lift) as their artificial
wells associated with the same gradient. lift. Table 8 and Table 9 in the Appendix shows
wellbore and reservoir characteristics of the field.
By the equal slope method, for total gas injection gas
rate of 4 MMSCFD as discussed in the simulation Production History Matching
case, gradient 750 is obtained. For sensitivity, total
gas injection rate of 5 MMSCFD yields gradient 525. In this simulation, the author uses PROSPER and
Then by inputting these numbers back to figure 5, GAP software from Petroleum Expert. The algorithm
allocation for all wells can be obtained. Table 6 starts with constructing the wellbore model using
shows the results of the Ricky model and equal slope PROSPER, then continued by matching process.
method as a comparison. After constructing all wells, the author constructs a
pipeline network model using GAP, then continued
by matching process. Running simulation is done
As shown in the table 6, the result between the Ricky after both wellbore model and pipeline network
model and equal slope are very matched. This result model have been constructed. Figure 11 shows the
shows that the Ricky model is very valid although the algorithm.
equal slope method has also been valid for many
years. However, the Ricky model offers a simple- Well test data which is used in the simulation is the
effective-efficient way to directly and simply obtain latest data taken by the company. Table 10 in the
optimum gas injection allocation to produce Appendix shows well test data.
maximum total oil production without doing any
graphical method that the equal slope uses. Constructing Wellbore Model
Specifically, the equal slope method needs to
establish at least 3 graphs including GLPC to get Almost all wells in Field “X” have dual-monobor
optimum allocation for each well. More wells makes completion as the reservoir is braded type. So lots of
equal slope more difficult to be done because lots of bottom-up perforation should be done alongside
graphs have to be constructed. Moreover, in the production. This dual-monobore completion will
graphical method, the error is always bigger than the make it easy for engineers to do bottom-up
analytical method for sure. The graphical error often perforation without using any packer. Figure 12
occurs when the process is not computerized while shows a well sketch of a dual-monobore completion
the analytical method, computerized or not, will not system
The algorithm to construct the wellbore model is As can been seen in Table 11 above, the biggest
shown in figure 13 deviation from matching process is 1%. So wellbore
Well system data consists of: models which have been constructed can be
accepted.
1. completion
2. production method Figure 15 and Table 12 shows GLPC of all wells
after matching process is finished with their
PVT data consists of: quadratic polynomial. 𝑅 2 value is more than 96%.
SUGGESTIONS
Well 1 Well 2
Qg Qo Qg Qo
MMSCFD BOPD MMSCFD BOPD
2.84 1420 2.62 1310
1.66 1660 1.42 1420
1.34 1680 1.14 1430
1.02 1700 0.85 1415
0.66 1660 0.53 1330
0.34 1330 0.16 800
Well 3 Well 4
Qg Qo Qg Qo
MMSCFD BOPD MMSCFD BOPD
3.32 1660 3.9 1755
1.85 1850 1.99 1990
1.5 1875 1.57 1960
1.13 1880 1.14 1900
0.74 1840 0.7 1750
0.27 1330 0.24 1200
Well 5 Well 6
Qg Qo Qg Qo
MMSCFD BOPD MMSCFD BOPD
3.51 1755 3.7 1850
1.83 1830 2.25 2250
1.47 1835 1.85 2310
1.07 1790 1.43 2380
0.68 1700 0.96 2390
0.22 1120 0.37 1850
TABLE 2
Qg Qo
MMSCFD BOPD
Well 1 0.579 1567.4
Well 2 0.592 1302.7
Well 3 0.655 1736.7
Well 4 0.709 1676.4
Well 5 0.705 1668.1
Well 6 0.760 2275.5
Total 4.000 10226.9
TABLE 3
Case 1 Case 2
Qg Qo Qg Qo
MMSCFD BOPD MMSCFD BOPD
Well
0.71 1650.5 0.58 1567.8
1
Well
0.59 1302.7 0.71 1380.7
2
Well
0.65 1736.7 0.65 1736.7
3
Well
0.58 1573.2 0.59 1581.7
4
Well
0.71 1668.1 0.71 1668.1
5
Well
0.76 2275.5 0.76 2275.5
6
Total 4.00 10206.8 4.00 10210.6
Case 3 Case 4
Qg Qo Qg Qo
MMSCFD BOPD MMSCFD BOPD
0.58 1567.8 0.77 1679.5
0.59 1301.2 0.71 1380.7
0.76 1807.4 0.76 1807.4
0.59 1581.7 0.59 1581.7
0.71 1668.1 0.59 1572.4
0.77 2283.2 0.58 2112.7
4.00 10209.4 4.00 10134.4
TABLE 4
Qg Qo
MMSCFD BOPD
Well 1 1.04 1738.4
Well 2 1.07 1483.4
Well 3 1.18 1931.8
Well 4 1.62 2015.7
Well 5 1.22 1861.3
Well 6 1.18 2433.8
Total 7.31 11464.4
TABLE 6
TABLE 9
Last test
Well String FTHP, Qg, Qo,
Ref Date
psig MMscfd BOPD
X-107 LS 2/17/2015 140 0.5 101
X-147 LS 2/19/2016 90 0.5 187
X-148 LS 4/27/2016 155 0.341 50
X-157 LS 11/22/2015 100 0.5 604
X-170 SS 3/16/2016 150 0.207 201
X-172 LS 7/13/2015 85 0.35 50
X-175 LS 9/10/2015 110 0.28 86
X-175 SS 2/2/2016 125 0.25 528
X-189 SS 4/16/2016 220 0.402 367
X-905 SS 3/27/2016 140 0.6 245
X-916 SS 2/8/2016 140 0.3 432
X-919 LS 4/14/2016 60 0.528 230
X-938 LS 2/1/2016 110 0.5 346
X-940 LS 4/8/2016 200 0.89 432
TABLE 11
TABLE 13
TABLE 15
FTHP GLPC R2
50 y = -925.3x2 + 1629.9x + 1264.8 0.983
70 y = -936.57x2 + 1678.7x + 1177.3 0.983
90 y = -969.37x2 + 1738.1x + 1090.8 0.983
110 y = -977.51x2 + 1761.5x + 1011.9 0.981
130 y = -987.08x2 + 1780.6x + 937.2 0.98
150 y = -1002.2x2 + 1804x + 863.34 0.98
170 y = -1012.8x2 + 1822.5x + 790.25 0.98
190 y = -1018x2 + 1829.8x + 723.13 0.978
210 y = -1020.2x2 + 1833.9x + 656.21 0.977
TABLE 16
Case 1 Case 2
2000
Qo (BOPD)
1500
1500
Gradient (BOPD/MMSCFD)
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Qg (MMSCFD)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Total Qg (MMSCFD)
X-107
1600
X-147
X-148
1400
X-157
1200 X-170
X-172
Qo, BOPD
1000
X-175 EE
800 X-175 FF
X-189
600 X-905
X-916
400
X-919
200 X-938
X-940
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Qg, MMscfd
0.9
0.8
Gas Allocation, MMscfd
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
X-107 X-147 X-148 X-157 X-170 X-172 X-175 X-175 X-189 X-905 X-916 X-919 X-938 X-940
LS SS
Actual GAP RM
Oil Production
700
600
Oil Production, STBd
500
400
300
200
100
Actual GAP RM
0
Actual GAP RM
Qg Total 6.148 3.676 3.674
Qo Total, STBD
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Dev = -0.71 %
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Actual GAP RM
Qo Total 3859 3980.4 3952.3
1
0.9
0.8
Gas Allocation, MMscfd
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
X-107 X-147 X-148 X-157 X-170 X-172 X-175 X-175 X-189 X-905 X-916 X-919 X-938 X-940
LS SS
GAP RM
Oil Production
700
600
Oil Production, STBd
500
400
300
200
100
0
X-107X-147X-148X-157X-170X-172X-175 X-175 X-189X-905X-916X-919X-938X-940
LS SS
GAP RM
4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
GAP RM
Series1 4.434 4.434
Qo Total, STBD
4500
4000
3500
3000
2000
1500
1000
500
0
GAP RM
Series2 3924.4 3914
Figure 26 - Comparison of total oil production case 2
0.6
0.5
Gas Allocation, MMscfd
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
X-107 X-147 X-148 X-157 X-170 X-172 X-175 X-175 X-189 X-905 X-916 X-919 X-938 X-940
LS SS
GAP RM
700
600
500
Oil Production, STBd
400
300
200
100
0
X-107 X-147 X-148 X-157 X-170 X-172 X-175 X-175 X-189 X-905 X-916 X-919 X-938 X-940
LS SS
GAP RM
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
GAP RM
Qg Total 2.999 3
Qo Total, STBD
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500 Dev =
-1.77 %
2000
1500
1000
500
0
GAP RM
Qo Total 3994.8 3924.2
0.4
0.35
0.3
Gas Allocation, MMscfd
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
X-107 X-147 X-148 X-157 X-170 X-172 X-175 X-175 X-189 X-905 X-916 X-919 X-938 X-940
LS SS
GAP RM
Oil Production
700
600
Oil Production, STBd
500
400
300
200
100
0
X-107 X-147 X-148 X-157 X-170 X-172 X-175 X-175 X-189 X-905 X-916 X-919 X-938 X-940
LS SS
GAP RM
1.5
0.5
0
GAP RM
Qg Total 2.002 2
4000
3500
3000
2500 Dev =
-1.15 %
2000
1500
1000
500
0
GAP RM
Qo Total 3896.7 3851.9
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
-500
-1000
-1500
0 50 100 150 200 250
FTHP, psig
a b c -b/(2a)
𝑏
Figure 36 - 𝑎, 𝑏, − 2𝑎 vs FTHP
Figure 37 - Some section of field “X”
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
Well - X-114 Well - X-147 Well - X-196 Well - X-919
FTHP Case 1 59.47 28.77 67.65 69.7
FTHP Case 2 60.14 28.77 70 69.17
0.6
0.5
Qg, MMscfd
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Well - X-114 Well - X-147 Well - X-196 Well - X-919
Qg Case 1 0.388 0.165 0.619 0.13
Qg Case 2 0.386 0.165 0.619 0.132
FTHP
70
65
60
55
FTHP, psig
50
45
40
35
30
25
Well - X-114 Well - X-147 Well - X-196 Well - X-919
Series1 54.13 28.61 61.74 63.52
Series2 54.77 28.61 64.04 63.07
0.5
0.4
Qg, MMscfd
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Well - X-114 Well - X-147 Well - X-196 Well - X-919
Series1 0.264 0.132 0.539 0.028
Series2 0.261 0.132 0.541 0.029