Global Optimization of Gas

Allocation to a Group of Wells in

Gabriel A. Alarcón
Carlos F. Torres
Thermal Science Department
University of Los Andes
Mérida, 5101 Venezuela
Luis E. Gómez
Petroleum Engineering Department,
University of Tulsa,
Tulsa, OK 74104
Artificial Lift Using Nonlinear
Constrained Programming
Continuous flow gas lift is one of the most common artificial lift methods widely used in
the oil industry. A continuous volume of high-pressure gas is injected as deep as possible
into the tubing, to gasify the oil column and thus facilitate the production. If there is no
restriction in the amount of injection gas available, sufficient gas can be injected into
each oil well to reach maximum production. However, the injection gas available is
generally insufficient. An inefficient gas allocation in a field with limited gas supply
reduces the revenues, since excessive gas injection is expensive due to the high gas prices
and compressing costs. Therefore, it is necessary to assign the injection gas into each well
in optimal form to obtain the field maximum oil production rate. The gas allocation
optimization can be considered as a maximization of a nonlinear function, which models
the total oil production rate for a group of wells. The variables or unknowns for this
function are the gas injection rates for each well, which are subject to physical restric-
tions. In this work a nonlinear optimization technique, based on an objective function with
constraints, was implemented to find the optimal gas injection rates. A new mathematical
fit to the gas-lift performance curve (GLPC) is presented and the numeric results of the
optimization are given and compared with those of other methods published in the spe-
cialized literature. The GLPC can be either measured in the field or alternatively gener-
ated by computer simulations, by mean of nodal analysis. The optimization technique
proved fast convergence and broad application. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.1488172兴

Introduction for the system. The gas allocation procedures developed by

Gómez 关6兴, Hong 关7兴, Nishikiori et al. 关3兴, and Buitrago
Mayhill 关1兴 was the pioneer, who analyzed the relationship be-
et al. 关4兴 use this approach. The optimization presented in
tween the gas injection rate and the oil production rate and desig-
this work falls on this category.
nated the curve illustrated in Fig. 1 as gas-lift performance curve
共GLPC兲. Kanu et al. 关2兴 were the first to use the method of the Mathematical Formulation of the Problem
equal slope allocation under both limited and unlimited gas sup-
ply. They presented the formulation of the economic slope and the The shape of the GLPC depends on the well response to gas
use of this slope to allocate a total amount of gas at the optimal injection. Curve A in Fig. 2 belongs to a well capable of producing
economic point for a group of wells. Nishikiori et al. 关3兴, pre- naturally; however, it is collocated in gas-lift to improve its oil
sented an extension of the equal slope allocation method based on production. Curve B represents the behavior of a well that cannot
the application of nonlinear optimization techniques of the quasi- produce naturally but it responds instantaneously to gas injection.
Newton type, to find the optimum gas injection rates for a group Curve C belongs to a well requiring a considerable amount of gas
of wells. Buitrago et al. 关4兴, reported a novel nonlinear methodol-
ogy for the optimal distribution of a given amount of gas to a set
of wells, without restriction in the well response to gas injection
and the number of wells in the system.
Development of optimal gas allocation can be categorized into
two different approaches:
1. The first approach is based on economical criteria. The op-
timum gas injection rate is the point where the cost of an
incremental amount of injection gas is equal to the profit
from an incremental increase of oil production. The methods
proposed by Mayhill 关1兴, Radden et al. 关5兴, and Kanu et al.
关2兴 can be included here.
2. The second approach based on hydrodynamic performance:
it is used to obtain the gas injection rate, which gives the
maximum oil production obtainable from a group of wells,
constrained for the amount of injection gas volume available

Contributed by the Petroleum Division and presented at the Energy-Sources Tech-

nology Conference and Exhibition, February 5–7, 2001, of THE AMERICAN SOCI-
ETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by the Petroleum Division,
March 20, 2001; revised manuscript received April 26, 2002. Associate Editor: S. A.
Shirazi. Fig. 1 Typical gas-lift performance curves, GLPC

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright © 2002 by ASME SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 1
 the proposed model against the gas injection rate, Q g , and oil
production rate, Q o , for a group of five wells presented by Nish-
ikiori 关9兴. Similarly, Fig. 4 compares the same data with the math-
ematical fit of a second-degree polynomial.
As can be seen from both Figs. 3 and 4, the proposed model is
more accurate than the second-degree polynomial method. Fur-
thermore, the response of the wells to the gas injection predicted
by the second-degree polynomial is completely different than that
predicted by the proposed model. The second-degree polynomial
induces uncertainties in the prediction of the GLPC, which affect
the optimization results. On the other hand, the mathematical ex-
pression of the proposed model is more complex, which would
probably increase the optimization computing time. Utilization of
the cubic spline to fit the data would results in some degree of
uncertainty, depending on the errors of the measured or calculated
values. Thus, this method could have the same disadvantage as the
second-degree polynomial method.
The total oil production, Q oT , from n wells, which is the sum
of the individual oil production rates, Q oi , can be considered as a
Fig. 2 Type of the GLPC of a well depending on its response function of the individual gas injection rates, Q gi . The math-
to gas injection ematical expression of the total oil production can be written as
n

injection to start production. Finally, curve D is similar to curve C,

Q oT ⫽ 兺Q
i⫽1
oi ⫽ f 共 Qg 兲 ⫽ f 共 Q g1 ,Q g2 , . . . ,Q gn 兲 (2)
but with a jump in the initial oil flow rate of a finite value higher
than zero. An n-dimensional column vector represents the gas injection rate
The GLPC can be generated numerically by simulations, using Qg⫽ 共 Q g1 ,Q g2 , . . . ,Q gn 兲 T (3)
appropriate calculation methods such as nodal analysis. Alterna-
tively, the GLPC can be generated with field data by measuring Therefore, the problem of finding the optimum gas injection rates
the rate of gas injection and the rate of oil production. This work to maximize total oil production is expressed as
uses the GLPCs of a group of wells as the basis of the optimiza-
Max Q oT ⫽Max f 共 Qg兲 (4)
tion technique for the gas lift allocation to each one of them. It is Qg
necessary to fit the field data with a mathematical expression to
help the computer handle the GLPC. The second-degree polyno- subject to the following constraints:
mial has been traditionally used for this purpose. However in this n
work, a new model is proposed to fit the field data.
兺Q gi ⭐Q g Available (5)
Q o ⫽c 1 ⫹c 2 Q g ⫹c 3 Q 2g ⫹c 4 ln共 Q g ⫹1 兲 (1) i⫽1

The technique used to develop the proposed model was a linear Q gi ⭓Q gi min i⫽1,2, . . . ,n (6)
combination of functions 共Nakamura 关8兴兲 utilizing the best corre-
Q gi ⭐Q gi max i⫽1,2, . . . ,n (7)
lation coefficient of the available field data. The unknown coeffi-
cients c 1 , c 2 , c 3 , and c 4 , are obtained from the data by using the The constraint defined by Eq. 共5兲 indicates that the sum of the
least square technique. Figure 3 compares the mathematical fit of individual gas injection rates should be less than or equal to the

Fig. 3 Mathematical fit of proposed model against field injection data of

Nishikiori †9‡

2 Õ Vol. 124, SEPTEMBER 2002 Transactions of the ASME

 Fig. 4 Mathematical fit of second-degree polynomial against field injection
data of Nishikiori †9‡

total injection gas rate available for the system, Q g Available . The
constraint represented in Eq. 共6兲 ensures that each gas injection
rate must not be less that zero for wells with GLPC type A or B,
and that the user should impose an adequate Q gi min . for wells
with GLPC type C and D, as can be seen in Fig. 1. Finally, Eq. 共7兲
indicates that each gas injection rate cannot be greater than the gas
injection rate corresponding to the maximum individual oil pro-
duction rate, Q gi max . Therefore, the gas injection rates should
always satisfy the set of constraints defined by Eqs. 共5兲–共7兲 during
the optimization process. Others constrains can be added in the
future to the optimization technique, such as water cut and mini-
mum economical performance for each well. These new con-
strains must be written in the form of Eqs. 共9兲 and 共10兲.
Nonlinear Optimization Technique
Parametric optimization is used to find a set of parameters
x⫽(x 1 ,x 2 , . . . ,x n ), which can in some way be defined, as
optimal. In a simple case this may be the minimization or
maximization of some system characteristic, which is dependent
on x. In a more advanced formulation the objective function,
f (x), to be minimized or maximized may be subject to con-
straints which may be in the form of equality constraints,
g j (x)⫽0( j⫽1,2, . . . ,m e ), inequality constraints, g j (x)⭐0 ( j
⫽m e⫹1 , . . . ,m), and or parameter bounds, xl , xu . A general
problem 共G-P兲 description is stated as
Max f 共 x兲 (8)
x苸R n
subject to
g j 共 x兲 ⫽0, j⫽1, . . . ,m e (9)
g j 共 x兲 ⭐0,
j⫽m e⫹1 , . . . ,m (10)
xl ⭐x⭐xu (11)
equations are both necessary and sufficient for a global solution
point. Referring to G-P, the K-T equations can be stated as
m
f 共 x* 兲 ⫹ 兺 ␭ * ⵜg 共 x* 兲 ⫽0
j⫽1
j j (12)
ⵜg j 共 x* 兲 ⫽0 j⫽1,2, . . . ,m e (13)
␭ *j ⭓0 j⫽m e⫹1 , . . . ,m (14)
Equation 共12兲 describes a canceling operation of the gradients
between the objective function and the active constraints at the
solution point 共x*兲. In order for the gradients to be cancelled,
Lagrangian multipliers 共L-M兲 (␭ j , j⫽1,2, . . . ,m) are needed to
balance the deviations in magnitude of the objective function and
constraint gradients. Since only active constraints are included in
this canceling operation, constraints, which are not active, must
not be included in this operation and so are given L-M equal to
zero. This is implicitly stated in Eqs. 共13兲 and 共14兲. The nonlinear
programming algorithms based on K-T equations attempt to com-
pute directly the L-M. Constrained quasi-Newton, Q-N 共Schit-
towski 关11兴兲 methods guarantee superlinear convergence by accu-
mulating second-order information regarding the K-T equations
using a Q-N updating procedure. These methods are commonly
referred to as sequential quadratic programming, S-Q-P, 共Biggs
关12兴 and Powell 关13兴兲, since a quadratic programming 共Q-P兲 sub-
problem is solved at each major iteration. The S-Q-P methods
represent the state-of-the-art in nonlinear programming.
Given the general problem, G-P, of Eqs. 共8兲–共11兲, the principal
idea is the formulation of a Q-P subproblem based on a quadratic
approximation of the Lagrangian function
m
兺 ␭ g 共 x兲
L 共 x,␭ 兲 ⫽ f 共 x兲 ⫹ j j (15)
j⫽1

where x is the vector of parameters, (x苸R n ), f (x) is the objective The G-P is simplified by assuming that bound constraints have
function ( f :R n →R), and g共x兲 is the vector of equality and in- been expressed as inequality constraints. The Q-P subproblem is
equality constraints (g:R n →R m ). obtained by linearizing the nonlinear constraints and is written as
The nonlinear constrained optimization is based on the solution
of the Kuhn-Tucker 共K-T兲 equations 共Polak 关10兴兲, which are nec-
essary conditions for optimality of a constrained optimization
Max
d苸R n
冉 1 T
2
d Hk d⫹ⵜ f 共 xk 兲 T d 冊 (16)

problem. If the problem is a so-called convex programming prob-

lem, that is f (x) and g共x兲 are convex functions, then the K-T ⵜg j 共 xk 兲 T d⫹g j 共 xk 兲 ⫽0 j⫽1,2, . . . ,m e (17)

Journal of Energy Resources Technology SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 3

 ⵜg j 共 xk 兲 T d⫹g j 共 xk 兲 ⭐0 j⫽m e⫹1 , . . . ,m (18)
where, d is an n-dimensional vector indicating a search direction,
Hk is a positive definite approximation of the Hessian matrix of
the Lagrangian function, Eq. 共15兲, and k is the number of the
actual iteration. This subproblem can be solved using any Q-P
algorithm and the solution used to form a new iterate
xk⫹1 ⫽xk ⫹ ␣ k dk (19)
The step length parameter, ␣ k , is determined by an appropriate
line search procedure so that a sufficient decrease in a merit func-
tion is obtained. The matrix Hk can be updated by any of the Q-N
methods.
The S-Q-P implementation consists of three main stages, 共de-
tails are given in The MathWorks Inc. 关14兴兲:
1. updating the Hessian matrix of the Lagrangian function,
2. quadratic programming 共Q-P兲 problem solution,
3. line search and merit function calculation.

Procedure for Estimating Initial Gas Injection Rates

The gas allocation optimization technique requires an initial
0
guess for the gas injection rates, Q gi which satisfy all the con-
straints defined by Eqs. 共5兲–共7兲. Initial guesses can be easily as-
sumed with the GLPC range of each well. However, it is recom-
mended that the initial guess should be close to the value of the
optimum gas rate in order to guarantee fast convergence with less Fig. 5 Schematic of group of oil wells producing by gas-
lift †12‡
computing time. The following procedure for the initial guesses is
used in this work:
Q oi max Table 1 Gas lift allocation and oil production for a set of five
0
Q gi ⫽Q g Available i⫽1,2, . . . ,n (20) wells †9‡ and 84,950 std m3Õd available gas
兺 i⫽l
n
Q oi max
where Q oi max is the maximum oil production rate for well i ac-
cording to Fig. 1. If the available gas injection rate is unlimited,
then the initial guesses are restricted to
0
Q gi ⭐Q gi max i⫽1,2, . . . ,n (21)

Termination Criteria for the Iterative Calculation

Process
The termination criteria for the computational algorithm are the
following: Termination for maximum tolerance allowed in the in-
dependent variable vector is given by 储 Qg储 :1•10⫺4 . Termination
for maximum tolerance allowed in the objective function is given
by Q oT ⫽ f (Qg):1•10⫺4 . Termination for maximum violation al-
lowed in the constraint vector is given by 储 g储 :1•10⫺5 . The opti-
mization process does not terminate until all the criteria are simul-
taneously met. If values smaller than the proposed three criteria
are attempted, non-significance improving in the results of the
optimization process will be obtained, and the computation time Table 2 Gas lift allocation and oil production for a set of six
would be increased unnecessarily. wells †9‡ and 130,257 std m3Õd available gas
For target set of wells with GLPC type C, see Fig. 1, the opti-
mum gas allocation for those wells should be larger than the mini-
mum given by the well GLPCs and is restricted by the following
condition
opt
Q gi ⬎Q gi min i⫽1,2, . . . ,n (22)
In the case of optimum gas allocation values equal to the mini-
mum, these wells are automatically removed from the original set
of wells by the optimization algorithm. Thus, the optimization
process is conducted with the new group of wells.

Computational Results
A simulator for gas allocation optimization was developed us-
ing sequential quadratic programming in order to demonstrate
convergence speed and accuracy of the proposed model. Which, it
is used to simulate three examples of a group of wells under
gas-lift, as shown schematically in Fig. 5.

4 Õ Vol. 124, SEPTEMBER 2002 Transactions of the ASME

Table 3 Gas lift allocation and oil production for a set of 13
wells †6‡ and 283,168 std m3Õd available gas
The first example is conformed by five wells, with an available
gas injection rate of 84,950 std m3/d. The second example in-
cludes six wells, with an available gas injection rate of 130,257
std m3/d. It is important to notice that well number 6 does not
respond instantaneously to gas injection. The GLPCs for these
two examples were taken from Nishikiori 关9兴. The third example
is a gas lift system consisting of thirteen wells, which are di-
Fig. 6 Comparison between Nishikiori et al. †3‡ results and the proposed model for
Gómez †6‡ data
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Table 4 Gas lift allocation and oil production for a set of five
wells †9‡ and 130,257 std m3Õd available gas, after removing
well no. 6
rectionally drilled from an offshore platform, with an available
injection rate of 283,168 std m3/d. The GLPCs were taken from
Gómez 关6兴.
The optimization results obtained in this work by the proposed
GLPC model are reported in Tables 1 and 2 for the set of wells in
examples 1 an 2, respectively. Which are also compared with the
‘‘ex-in’’ method 共Buitrago et al. 关4兴.兲 and with the equal slope
method 共Kanu et al. 关2兴兲. The results for those two methods,
namely, ex-in and equal slope, were presented by Buitrago et al.
关4兴. Table 3 presents the results obtained in this work by the pro-
posed GLPC model applied to example 3, and are compared with
the results presented by Nishikiori et al. 关3兴.
Table 1 shows that the optimization global result for example 1
is similar for the three procedures presented since an average Q oT
of 538.3 stock-tank m3/d is obtained with a relative error of ⫹0.4
and ⫺0.5 percent. However, the individual gas allocation and oil
production for each well strongly depends on the method em-
SEPTEMBER 2002, Vol. 124 Õ 5
ployed. This phenomenon is consequence of the technique used in f (Qg) ⫽ objective function for gas injection
each method to predict the performance of GLPCs using the data g ⫽ vector of equality and inequality constraints
points for each well. g ⫽ equality or inequality constraint
Table 2 shows optimizations results for example 2. The average m ⫽ total no. of constrains
Q oT is 567.9 stock-tank m3/d with a relative error of 1.6 and ⫺1.7 n ⫽ no. of wells
percent. In this example the GLPC type D was used to model the x ⫽ vector of parameters
performance of the well 6. The optimization point for well 6 is the ␣ ⫽ step length
minimum necessary for the well to produce, namely, that well 6 is ␭ ⫽ Lagrangian multiplier
a strong candidate to be removed from the group, based on an Subscripts
economical analysis. The results of the optimization process with-
out well 6 are presented in Table 4. e ⫽ no. of equality constraints
As can be seen in Table 3, the Q oT given by the proposed model i ⫽ indices for each well
is different from the one presented by Nishikiori et al. 关3兴 for j ⫽ index for number of constrains
example 3. The Nishikiori et al. 关3兴 method predicts a very high k ⫽ kth iteration
value of Q oT . The observed discrepancy is due to the fact that the l ⫽ lower bound
predicted optimal individual points given by Nishikiori et al. 关3兴 max ⫽ maximum value
lie outside the GLPCs points presented by Gómez 关6兴, as can be min ⫽ minimum value
seen in the Fig. 6. The advantage of using the proposed model is u ⫽ upper bound
that this model offers the best prediction to honor the GLPCs, and Superscripts
also that it provides more realistic and reliable results for the
performance of each well. 0 ⫽ initial condition
T ⫽ transposed
Conclusions opt ⫽ results of the optimization
* ⫽ solution point
The following can be concluded from the present work:
Operators
• Numerical experimentation with the method developed in this
ⵜ ⫽ operator
work for gas lift allocation optimization has confirmed that it is
储 储 ⫽ norm of vector
robust in convergence, offered fast computation and honor the
GLPC performance.
• The different optimization methods generally result in a simi- References
lar values for Q oT . However, individual gas allocation and oil 关1兴 Mayhill, T. D., 1974, ‘‘Simplified Method for Gas Lift Well Problem Identifi-
production vary significantly depending on the method used. cation and Diagnosis,’’ Paper SPE 5151, SPE 49th Annual Fall Meeting, Hous-
• The performance of the different optimization techniques de- ton, TX.
pends upon the accuracy of the GLPC points used. Therefore both 关2兴 Kanu, E., Mach, J. M., and Brown, K. E., 1981, ‘‘Economic Approach to Oil
Production and Gas Allocation in Continuous Gas Lift,’’ JPT, J. Pet. Technol.,
field data or predictions by multiphase flow models uncertainties 33, pp. 1887–1892.
should be minimized to obtain good results. 关3兴 Nishikiori, N., Redner, R. A., Doty, D. R., and Schmidt, Z., 1995, ‘‘An Im-
• The mathematical fit of the GLPC strongly influences the gas proved Method for Gas Lift Allocation Optimization,’’ ASME J. Energy Re-
allocation for each individual well. The results predicted by the sour. Technol., 117, pp. 87–92.
关4兴 Buitrago, S., Rodrı́guez, E., and Espin, D., 1996, ‘‘Global Optimization Tech-
proposed model are more reliable and accurate, since it has the niques in gas Allocation for Continuous Flow Gas Lift Systems,’’ SPE Paper
best capability to fit the GLPC data points. 35616, Gas Technology Conference, Calgary, Canada.
关5兴 Radden, J. D., Sherman, T. A. G., and Blann, J. R., 1974, ‘‘Optimizing Gas Lift
Systems,’’ Paper SPE 5150 SPE 49th Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, TX.
Acknowledgments 关6兴 Gómez, V., 1974, ‘‘Optimization of Continuous Flow Gas Lift Systems,’’ M. S.
thesis, University of Tulsa, OK.
This research was supported by CDCHT—University of Los 关7兴 Hong, H. T., 1975, ‘‘Effect of Variables on Optimization of Continuous Gas
Andes 共U.L.A.兲. The authors are grateful to all the personal of Lift Systems,’’ M. S. thesis, University of Tulsa, OK.
Computational Thermal Sciences Group 共CTC—U.L.A.兲 for their 关8兴 Nakamura, S., 1991, Applied Numerical Methods With Software, Prentice Hall,
stimulating and helpful discussions during this project. New York, NY.
关9兴 Nishikiori, N., 1989, ‘‘Gas Allocation Optimization for Continues Flow Gas
Lift Systems,’’ M. S. thesis, University of Tulsa, OK.
Nomenclature 关10兴 Polak, E., 1997, Optimization: Algorithms and Consistent Approximations,
Springer Verlag, New York, NY.
H ⫽ approximation to Hessian matrix 关11兴 Schittowski, K., 1985, ‘‘NLQPL: A FORTRAN-Subroutine Solving Con-
Qg ⫽ vector of gas injection rates strained Nonlinear Programming Problems,’’ Ann. Operat. Res., 5, pp. 485–
Q g ⫽ gas injection rate for each well, std m3/d 500.
Q g Available ⫽ total injection gas volume available, std m3/d 关12兴 Biggs, M. C., 1975, ‘‘Constrained Minimization Using Recursive Quadratic
Programming, Towards Global Optimization,’’ Towards Global Optimization,
Q o ⫽ oil production rate for each well, stock-tank m3/d L. C. W. Dixon and G. P. Szergo, eds., North-Holland, pp. 341–349.
Q oT ⫽ total oil production rate from system, stock-tank 关13兴 Powell, M. J. D., 1978, ‘‘A Fast Algorithm for Nonlinearly Constrained Opti-
m3/d mization Calculations,’’ Numerical Analysis, G. A. Watson, ed., Lect. Notes
c k ⫽ coefficients obtained by using minimum square Math., 630, Springer Verlag.
关14兴 The MathWorks Inc., 1990, Optimization Toolbox User’s Guide, Version 4.2,
technique The MathWorks, Inc., Natick.
d ⫽ vector indicating search direction 关15兴 Golan, M., and Whitson, C. H., 1991, Well Performance, Prentice Hall, 2nd
f ⫽ objective function Edition, Portland.

6 Õ Vol. 124, SEPTEMBER 2002 Transactions of the ASME