Gas Lift Optimization of oil Producing wells Using Prosper

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

Sumanpreet Kaur (19BPE1023) & Nikhil Yadav (19BPE1022)

In partial fulfilment for the award of the

degree of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING

in

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

Under the Guidance

Of

(Mr. Abhishek Ranjan)

University Institute of Engineering

CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY

2022-2023

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, we would like to thank the department of Petroleum Engineering for giving us this
wonderful opportunity to work on this project and get knowledge about the prosper
software and how significant role it plays in the industry.

We thank our Professor & Head, Dr. Saubhagya Ranjan Mahapatra who had always
served as an inspiration for us to perform well.

We would like to express our faithful thanks to Mr. Abhishek Ranjan, for having
extended all the department facilities without the slightest hesitation.

We would like to express our unbounded gratefulness to Mr. Vinay Babu for their
valuable guidance and encouragement throughout the project.

We thank all faculty members and supporting staff for the help they extended to us for the
completion of this project

2
 CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report “Gas Lift Optimization of oil Producing wells Using
PROSPER” is the bonafide work of

NAME: UID:

1. Nikhil Yadav 19BPE1022

2. Sumanpreet Kaur 19BPE1023

who carried out the work under my Supervision Certified further that to the best of my
knowledge the work reported herein does not form part of any other thesis or dissertation on
the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion on this or any other
Candidate

Signature of the Head of the Department Signature of the Supervisor

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

Dr. Saubhagya Mahapatra Ranjan Mr. Abhishek Ranjan

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

Petroleum Engineering Petroleum Engineering

Chandigarh University Chandigarh University

3
 CERTIFICATE FOR EVALUATION

College Name : University Institute of Engineering

Branch : Petroleum Engineering.

Year / Semester: VII

Name of the Students Name of the

S.NO Who have done Title of the project Supervisor with
the project Designation

Nikhil Yadav
Mr. Abhishek Ranjan
(19BPE1022), Gas Lift Optimization of oil
1. (Assistant Professor)
Sumanpreet Kaur Producing wells Using Prosper
Chandigarh University
(19BPE1023)

The reports of the project work submitted by the above students in partial fulfilment for the

award of Bachelor of Engineering degree In Petroleum Engineering of Chandigarh University

were evaluated and confirmed to be the reports of the work done by the above students and

then evaluated.

INTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER

4
 Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...........................................................................................................................2
List Of Table...........................................................................................................................................7
List Of Figure..........................................................................................................................................7
ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER ONE......................................................................................................................................10
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................10
1.1. Importance of crude oil.......................................................................................................10
1.2. PVT Properties of Black Crude Oil........................................................................................10
1.2.1. PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE DIAGRAM:...............................................................11
1.2.2. VOLATILE CRUDE OIL:...........................................................................................13
1.3. Well Deliverability and Nodal Analysis.................................................................................14
1.4. Artificial Lift..........................................................................................................................15
1.5. Production and System Performance analysis software (PROSPER)....................................15
1.6. Objective..............................................................................................................................16
1.7. Scope...................................................................................................................................17
1.8. Task Planning.......................................................................................................................17
CHAPTER TWO.....................................................................................................................................18
2. Literature Review.........................................................................................................................18
2.1. Problem Identification.........................................................................................................20
2.2. Petroleum Reservoirs and Types..........................................................................................21
2.3. Well Production System.......................................................................................................22
2.4. Inflow and Outflow Performance.........................................................................................23
2.4.1. Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)........................................................................23
2.4.2. Vertical Lift Performance Relationship (VLP)................................................................23
2.5. Gas Lift System.....................................................................................................................24
2.6. Gas Lift Equipment...............................................................................................................25
CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................................26
3. Well Modelling in PROSPER.........................................................................................................26
3.1. Prosper Stimulation.............................................................................................................26
3.2. Reasons of using PROSPER...................................................................................................26
3.3. Summery Data of Field Data................................................................................................27
3.4. Outline Of the Calculation Steps..........................................................................................29

5
 3.4.1. Building a Base Model for Well Alpha.....................................................................29
3.4.2. PVT input Data..........................................................................................................29
3.4.3. PVT Correlation Parameters....................................................................................30
3.4.4. IPR Data Entry Window...........................................................................................31
3.5. Gas Lift Design Data Entry....................................................................................................33
3.6. VLP/IPR match and quality check.........................................................................................34
3.6.1. Well Test 1 Quality check..........................................................................................34
3.6.2. Well Test 2 Quality Check.........................................................................................35
CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................................37
4. Result and Discussion..................................................................................................................37
4.1. Input data............................................................................................................................37
4.2. Design strategy....................................................................................................................37
4.3. Gas Lift Design Process (Average reservoir Pressure = 2850 psig and Water cut 50%)........38
5. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................52
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................53

6
 List Of Table
Table 1: Data of Alpha well [23]........................................................................................................27
Table 2: IPR Data for Well Alpha [23]................................................................................................28
Table 3: Deviation Survey For Alpha [23]..........................................................................................28
Table 4: Downhole Equipment For Well Alpha [23]...........................................................................28
Table 5: Geothermal Data For Well Alpha [23]..................................................................................28
Table 6: Valve spacing results (Case 1)...............................................................................................42
Table 7: Valve spacing results (Case 1 revised)..................................................................................48

List Of Figure
Figure 1: Phase Diagram[6].................................................................................................................12
Figure 2: Typical phase diagram for volatile oil [6]............................................................................13
Figure 3: IPR and VLP Curves [9]......................................................................................................24
Figure 4: Basic Components of Gas Lift Method [9]...........................................................................25
Figure 5: PROSPER Stimulation Model..............................................................................................26
Figure 6: Options Summary in PROSPER...........................................................................................29
Figure 7: PVT input Data Section........................................................................................................30
Figure 8: PVT test Data.......................................................................................................................30
Figure 9: Correlation matching regression screen................................................................................31
Figure 10: Matching Parameters 1 and 2 for all black oil correlations.................................................31
Figure 11: IPR data input Screen.........................................................................................................32
Figure 12: IPR curve...........................................................................................................................33
Figure 13: Gas lift data input main screen...........................................................................................33
Figure 14: Estimated U-value for well test 1......................................................................................34
Figure 15: Pressure vs Bottom Measured Depth Quality Check for Well Test 1.................................35
Figure 16: Estimated U value For well test 2.......................................................................................35
Figure 17: Quality Check For well test 2.............................................................................................36
Figure 18: Gas lift design input: Main screen......................................................................................39
Figure 19: Gas lift design: Calculation screen.....................................................................................40
Figure 20: Gas lift performance curve.................................................................................................41
Figure 21: Valve spacing results..........................................................................................................42
Figure 22: Gas lift design: PvD plot....................................................................................................43
Figure 23: Stability criteria..................................................................................................................45
Figure 24: Gas lift design input: Main screen (Case1 revised)...........................................................46
Figure 25: Gas lift design: Calculation screen (Case 1 revised)...........................................................47
Figure 26: Gas Lift performance Curve (Case 1 Revised)...................................................................48
Figure 27: Valve spacing results (Case 1 revised)...............................................................................49
Figure 28: Gas lift design: PvD plot (Case 1 revised)..........................................................................50
Figure 29: Stability criteria (Case 1 revised).......................................................................................51

7
 ABSTRACT
Artificial lift systems are among the Foremost generally used Production technologies in
global oil and gas operations. Wells that unable to Produce Liquids to the surface under their
own pressure need lift technology. Some liquid wells want lift help from start and almost all
needed it sooner or later. The majority of the producing wells worldwide currently work
artificial lift. One of the most popular artificial lift methods applied in the oil industry, in
order to enhance oil recovery, is the gas lift method. Its main principal is that the injection of
gas in the well to the fluid column. As a result, the declined reservoir pressure is sufficient to
elevate the fluids up to the surface.

The main task is to design a gas lift system which is able to not only assist production during
the current operating conditions, however also in future unfavourable things where according
to reservoir forecasting. The procedure of designing an optimized gas lift System in
PROSPER is thoroughly described. The main plan behind design process was to recomplete
the well once to ensue that the project will be economically viable, on the other hand,
maximized production was achieved during all operational conditions.

8
 UNDERTAKING

This is to declare that the project entitled “Gas Lift Optimization of oil Producing wells
Using Prosper” is the original work done by undersigned, in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree “Bachelor of Petroleum Engineering.

All the analysis, design and system development have been accomplished by the undersigned.
Moreover, this project has not been submitted to any other college or university.

Nikhil Yadav (19BPE1022) Sumanpreet Kaur (19PE1023)

9
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Importance of crude oil:
Crude oil is the most important natural source of energy in all industrialized countries. as
modern civilization and its remarkable accomplishments wouldn't exist while not oil. What
makes it so vital in our everyday lives is its broad variety of uses [1]. excluding fueling cars,
airplanes etc., its parts can be used to manufacture many types of chemical products such as
plastics, medicine, detergents and many other things. Even though oil is not an unlimited
source of energy, the proven reserves indicate that crude oil can supply the planet’s energy
demands for many decades to come back. OPEC, the total evidenced reserves of all oil
producing countries are 1.3 trillion barrels of oil. to realize the magnitude of the above
figures, it is estimated that we have already consumed about about trillion barrels. global
demand on energy is continuously growing and oil is global in larger quantities than it used to
some decades ago. Continuous discovery of new fields together with the improvement of
production on the existing ones has become a lot of essential than ever [2]. The concept of
production optimization was not introduced from the beginning of the oil age. Ever since, the
progress in technology has provided the tools to petroleum Engineers to exploit the oilfields
as efficiently as efficiently and maximize recovery factors.

1.2. PVT Properties of Black Crude Oil-

Petroleum (an equivalent term is a crude oil) could be a complicated mixture consisting
predominantly of hydrocarbons and containing sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, and helium as minor
constituents. The physical and chemical properties of crude oils vary considerably and rely on
the concentration of the many varieties of hydrocarbons and minor component gift [2]. crude
reservoirs divide according to initial reservoir pressure into the following categories: (1)
under-saturated oil reservoir; during which initial reservoir pressure is larger than the bubble
point pressure of reservoir fluid; (2) saturated oil reservoir; point initial reservoir pressure is
up to the bubble purpose pressure of reservoir fluid; (3) gas-cap reservoir; in which initial
reservoir pressure is below the bubble point pressure of reservoir fluid, therefore reservoir is
called as gas-cap or two-phase reservoir, since the gas or vapor phase is underlain by
associate degree oil section. fossil oil hydrocarbons exist as gaseous or liquid phase betting
on reservoir temperature [3]. If it's above the important temperature of the fluid, the reservoir
fluid is gas.

10
Apart from that, the reservoir fluid is oil. Black oil reservoir is considered in concert of the
most valuable reservoir fluids. It form the bulk of oil reservoirs and exists in each basin. An
correct description of physical properties of crude oils is of right smart importance within the
fields of each applied and theoretical science and, especially, within the answer of petroleum
reservoir engineering issues. some of these physical properties are of primary interest in
petroleum engineering studies and detected through PVT tests that aim to see reservoir fluid
behaviour at simulated reservoir conditions. information on these fluid properties is usually
determined by laboratory experiments performed on samples of actual reservoir fluids. within
the absence of experimentally measured properties of crude oils, it's necessary for the fossil
oil engineer to see the properties from empirically derived correlations [4]. However;
correlations are approximations and will be helpful solely in regional geologic provinces.

Crude oils cowl a wide range of physical properties and chemical compositions and divided
into black oils and near-critical or volatile-oils betting on their phase behavior. The section
diagrams of 2 reservoir types illustrated in Figures one and a pair of, whereas their physical
properties indicated in according to classifications established by Moses, McCain, Whitson
and Brule. From the diagram, following the pressure reduction path as specify by the vertical
line EF, the iso-lines scattered constantly around the reservoir temperature which can be
placed at any region between points C&F. it's apparent that the reservoir temperature (Tres)
in black oil reservoirs is a smaller amount than the important temperature (Tc) [2]. Besides,
the release gas below the bubble purpose pressure is taken into account as lean gas for
industrial applications. whereas in volatile oils, Tres is nearest to the important temperature.
Another main differentiation lies within the volume of evolved gas below bubble pressure
that is way larger in oil than that discovered for black oils Another necessary point is to
comprising gas oil ratio (GOR), and wherever GOR is obtained from field data and also the
mole is get from composition exploration[5]. PVT properties for black oils in almost all
reservoirs are required for production and surface facilities calculations to manage, develop,
and forecast oil field behaviour, as well as maximizing economic profit.

1.2.1. PRESSURE-TEMPERATURE DIAGRAM:

That is a typical pressure-temperature diagram of a multicomponent system with a specific

overall composition. Although a different hydrocarbon system would have a different phase
diagram. These multicomponent pressure-temperature diagrams are essentially used to:

11
  Classify reservoirs.
 Classify the naturally occurring hydrocarbon systems.
 Describe the phase behaviour of the reservoir fluid.

To fully understand the significance of the pressure-temperature diagram, it is necessary to

identify and define the following key points on these diagrams:

Figure 1: Phase Diagram[6]

In general reservoirs are conveniently classified on the basis of the location of the point
representing the initial reservoir pressure Pi and temperature T with respect to the pressure-
temperature diagram of the reservoir fluid. Accordingly, reservoirs can be classified into
basically two types. These are:

 Oil reservoirs: If the reservoir temperature T is less than the critical temperature Tc of
the reservoir fluid, the reservoir is classified as an oil reservoir.
 Gas reservoirs: If the reservoir temperature is greater than the critical temperature of
the hydrocarbon fluid, the reservoir is considered a gas reservoir.

Depending upon initial reservoir pressure Pi, oil reservoirs can be subclassified into the
following categories [6]:

 Undersaturated Oil Reservoir. If the initial reservoir pressure Pi, is greater than the
bubble-point pressure Pb of the reservoir fluid, the reservoir is labelled an
undersaturated oil reservoir.
 Saturated Oil Reservoir. When the initial reservoir pressure is equal to the bubble-
point pressure of the reservoir fluid, the reservoir is called a saturated oil reservoir.
 Gas-Cap Reservoir. If the initial reservoir pressure is below the bubble
point pressure of the reservoir fluid, the reservoir is termed a gas-cap or two-phase

12
 reservoir, in which the gas or vapor phase is underlain by an oil phase. The
appropriate quality line gives the ratio of the gas-cap volume to reservoir oil volume.
1.2.2. VOLATILE CRUDE OIL:-
Typical phase diagram for volatile oil

Figure 2: Typical phase diagram for volatile oil [6]

It’s also called high-shrinkage, the lines are close together near the bubble-point and are more
widely spaced at lower pressures. This type of crude is commonly characterized by a high
liquid shrinkage immediately below the bubble-point. The other characteristic properties of
this oil include:

 Oil formation volume factor less than 2 bbl/STB.

 Gas-oil ratios between 45-55 grados API.
 Lower liquid recovery of separator conditions.
 Greenish to orange in colour.
 Cricondentherm (Tct): The Cricondentherm is defined as the maximum temperature
above which liquid cannot be formed regardless of pressure (point E). The
corresponding pressure is termed the Cricondentherm pressure.
 Cricondenbar (Pch): The Cricondenbar is the maximum pressure above which no
gas can be formed regardless of temperature (point D). The corresponding
temperature is called the Cricondenbar temperature Tcb.
 Critical Point: The State Of Pressure And Temperature at which all intensive
properties are equal. At the critical point, the corresponding pressure and temperature
are called the critical pressure Pc and critical temperature Tc of the mixture.

13
  Bubble-Point Curve: The line separating the liquid-phase region from the two-phase
region is known as bubble-point curve.
 Dew-Point Curve: The Dew-point curve is defined as the line separating the vapor-
phase region from the two-phase region.
 Bubble-Point Pressure: The pressure at which a bubble of gas is first liberated from
the oil is called bubble-point pressure.

1.3. Well Deliverability and Nodal Analysis

Back in the late 1800s till the beginning of the 20th century, the analysis of a petroleum
production system was yet unknown. when the first oil reservoirs began to suffer from severe
depletion, the concept of production optimization became a necessity. optimization the
uncertainty and enormous amount of risk behind exploration for new fields, the need to
exhaust all possibilities within the existing reservoirs became urgent. Engineers within the oil
industry optimization production improvement in 3 domains [7]. From the reservoir
engineering point of view, software specialized in reservoir simulation was developed in
order to cut back the uncertainty that lies in a reservoir and predict the flow of fluids in
porous media and create production forecasts. software using the principles of material
balance were due to introduced to simplify calculations.

Lifting the fluids up to the surface is not enough. The fluids produced comprise mostly of oil,
water and gas and these phases must be separated and treated accordingly. Similarly to the
other domains of interest, specialized software on treatment plant style is used by all oil
companies around the world [8]. The analysis of the well as system of components was
introduced in middle 50s by Gilbert. the main objective of such analysis is to combine the
characteristics of each element in order to estimate production rates and optimize the
system’s productivity. In Nodal Analysis, the whole production system is considered as a
unit. Then, a certain point in the system e.g. the bottomhole or the wellhead is chosen to be
analyzed. Upstream of node is called inflow and downstream of node is called outflow. both
inflow and outflow performance are combined to provide the flowing pressure at the node for
a selected flow[8]. Nodal Analysis is the base for the majority of calculations run in
petroleum Production Engineering. All calculations run in the present thesis use the
principles of Nodal Analysis which will be discussed in detail throughout this study.

14
1.4. Artificial Lift
The reservoir pressure, after a long period of production, will drop to such levels that the
observed oil rates will not be economically viable. The worst case might be encountered
when the pressure is meagre to lift the liquids up to the surface and production can eventually
seize. the need to take care of production for as long as possible, the need the engineers
among the industry to develop methods in order to reinitiate or increase production [9].

The production optimization methods are called artificial lift methods and talk to the use of
mechanical means (such as pumps) to assist production by reducing pressure drop on the
well, or the injecting gas into the production vast majority. The vast majority of oil wells
round the world produce with some sort of artificial carry [5]. More specifically, the second
category of artificial lift mentioned above is named “gas lift” method. The decrease of the
burden of the hydrostatic column in the well renders it possible to increase the flow rate
above what would flow naturally with the current reservoir pressure. the application of Nodal
Analysis in the design process of these ways is imperative so as to use their full capacity in
production optimization. even so, economic restrictions and field experience combined
should always be taken into consideration.

1.5. Production and System Performance analysis software

(PROSPER)-
PROSPER is the industry standard single and multilateral well performance design and
optimization software. It can model and optimize most types of well completions and
artificial lifting methods. Sensitivity analyses for a wide range of operating conditions can be
held by means of Nodal Analysis. PROSPER generates a model for every component of the
producing well system separately that contributes to overall performance, then allows to
verify each model subsystem by performance matching. in this way, the program ensures that
the calculation is as accurate as possible [10]. All calculations in study regarding the
generation of a well model, sensitivity Analysis and design of an optimum gas elevate system
are carried out by using PROSPER.

Main features of prosper-

1. It can be used to accurately predict both pressure and temperature profiles in

producing wells and along surface flow lines.

15
 2. The sensitivity calculations capabilities easily allow the engineer to model and
optimise tubing, choke and surface flow line performance.
3. It can be used to design, optimise and troubleshoot gas lifted, coiled tubing, ESP,
PCP, HSP (hydraulic pump), Jet pump equipped well
4. The multiphase flow correlations implemented can be adjusted to match measured
field data to generate vertical lift performance curves (VLP) for use in simulators and
network models.
5. The tool can utilise externally programmed dynamic link libraries (DLL) for
multiphase flow correlations, Equation of State (EOS) PVT calculations, choke
calculations and Inflow (IPR) models.
6. The tool can be used in a matching or predictive mode. Matching of real data is
available in the PVT, IPR, Gradient matching and VLP matching sections [11].

The software also accepts Black Oil PVT tables directly from Petroleum Experts’ PVTP
thermodynamics analysis program. EOS fluid characterisation parameters can also be directly
imported.

1.6. Objective
The objective of gas lift optimization is to maximize the current output from a well by
addressing the relationship between oil production rate and gas injection rate. The key
parameter describing this relationship is the marginal increment in oil production rate per unit
change in the gas lift injection rate [5]. Under-injection of gas can lead to production rate loss
due to insufficient reduction in gravitational head of production fluids. In contrast, over-
injection of gas leads to high frictional head and wellhead pressure creating additional back-
pressure on the formation, resulting in production loss.

The major factors unsettling this fine balance include reservoir pressure or static bottomhole
pressure (SBHP), productivity index or in ow performance, wellhead pressure, gas injection
depth, produced Gas-Oil ratio, Water Cut, oil API gravity, tubing diameter, and tubing
roughness (i.e. friction factor). Some of these factors are not continuously measurable, and in
many cases, estimates are provided based on old measurements, proximal well properties, or
through engineering supposition [11]. The variability and transition in the well behavior
further complicate the equation.

16
Additionally, variability in production rates, Gas-Oil ratios, and Water Cuts in a short span of
evaluation may be due to the individual well’s daily production rates not being physically
measured but mathematically allocated. The trending or transition in production rates and
associated parameters can be due to the natural decline of the well or due to other
interventions such as a frac hit, workover, or restimulation. Considering all this, an injection
rate that is optimum at a given point in time may not be so at a later stage [4]. This challenge
leads production engineers to attempt to understand the underlying state and represent the
well using physics-based models.

1.7. Scope
1. Designing of a well model that will server the purpose of this study using relevant input data.

2. Appropriate selection of the best correlations available in the prosper nodal analysis
software that will aid in a more accurate performance prediction and matching of the well
data.

3. Generating the inflow performance relationship (IPR) of the well modal to characterize the
well’s performance.

4. Validating the well model with the help of available well test data

5. Designing a gas lift system for the well model.

6. Perform a sensitivity analysis and prediction study as part of the optimization process.

7. Comparing the optimization result derived from the gas lifted well modal and the natural
flowing well.

1.8. Task Planning

 Data collection
 Well analysis
 Build of well model
 Reviewing of model

17
 CHAPTER TWO

2. Literature Review
The paper tells that optimization opportunities can be realized at different levels for Alpha
wells. Based on the results of simulation experiments on well models and analyzing the
empirical data, it can be concluded that for optimization of Alpha wells, realization of
optimization opportunities starting from identification of Inlet, Outlet or Downhole problems
by real-time surveillance, empirical data analysis, GLP analysis, detail analysis, model based
diagnostic analysis and by allocation of optimum GLIR within the operational constraints can
bring out more effective results [10].

We have implemented an efficient gas lift optimization scheme in a general-purpose black-oil

and compositional reservoir simulator with fully coupled reservoir grid domain and sur- face-
network domain. The nonlinearly constrained optimization problem is solved by the GRG
method. Network constraints are satisfied strategically in the optimization scheme: All
surface- network constraints are satisfied at individual connections or nodes; all scale-type
targets are satisfied during optimization; and all ranking-type targets are satisfied through a
gas lift reduction procedure after optimization. The function evaluations for optimization can
be performed by two methods [4]. The first method repeatedly solves the full- network
equations using Newton iteration. The second method constructs a set of proxy functions
using partial- network solutions.

In an oilfield, the daily available lift gas, often constrained due to facility conditions, this is
prone to variation. In addition, operating conditions and handling facilities can dictate
compressor deliverability and separator limits during production, production, while poor
allocation of the available lift gas can be economically costly, leading to over-constrained or
over- designed facilities. As such, an optimal lift gas allocation is desirable to ensure that the
best possible oil production or profit can be realized. From above discussion, it is obvious
that gas lift gave a large increase in production compared to the base case. It is reason to
believe that the same difference would be seen in a full field artificial lift campaign. In this
study, from a production point of view, the gas lift is a best choice of lifting WL 14 [11].

Obtaining the optimum gas injection rate is important because excessive gas injection rate
reduces oil production rate and increases operation cost. To obtain the optimum gas injection
and oil production rate, all wells had been modelled properly. Flash data of recombined

18
reservoir fluid had been used for PVT matching. Standing and Beal et al correlations were
found best-fit correlation for PVT matching. All available well test data including current
well test data had been considered for quality checking. Since the reservoir parameter is
continuously changing from inception of production, current well test data was the focus for
quality checking of well test data. In this work, it was found that current well test data for all
wells had been matched with calculated data in Prosper. For correlation comparison of VLP,
Petroleum Expert 2 was found very close to well test data for all well tests. Parameter 1 and 2
was close to unity. Thus PE-2 correlation had been used for VLP matching in Prosper. While
matching surface flow line in Gap program, Dukler Fannigan was found the best-fit
correlation for production and test flow line. Calculated manifold pressure was compared
with the measured wellhead pressure and found very close results [12].

This study primarily focused on exploring the feasibility of the implementation of Genetic
Algorithm based optimization technique in numerical modelling for optimizing the gas lift
wells on daily basis in a large field with complex network system. Accordingly, GA
technique is utilized to optimize the allocation of the continuous gas lift injection rate for 43
wells in one of the giant Middle Eastern oil field through numerical stimulation. Based on the
study Genetic algorithm (GA) technique appears to be an efficient technique with an ability
to model large number of wells produced concurrently in a network system for the prediction
of optimally allocating the gas injection rate towards maximization of oil production rate.

• Gas lift techniques is found to be more beneficial for well with relatively higher water cut.

• In event of reservoir pressure depletion, gas lift appears to be not only beneficial for
improving the well production performance but also for increasing the field life cycle by
allowing the well to continue production even at a very low flowing wellbore bottom hole
pressure (Pwf) at its given minimum well head pressure.

• Sample economic analysis demonstrates that the gas lift technique can substantially increase
the daily oil production rate of every well in the field; and thus, the net profit as compared to
naturally producing wells [13].

In this study, a smart gas lift valve unit with the corresponding control line was
experimentally simulated on a dedicated apparatus. This enables real-time data on the gas lift
valve to the surface to be demonstrated and accordingly analysed. In this investigation, the
port size of the gas lift valve was remotely adjusted from the assumed surface using the
apparatus. A devoted
19
computer program LabVIEW was also used in the determination of the gas passage through
the smart gas lift valve, thus distilling the real time data. The result shown those
optimizations are achievable at high gas injection pressure at 87 psi is used and when the
valve is 15% open (or 0.95mm port size diameter). Also, the wellhead pressure reaches to the
minimum value of
0.9 psi in which high- pressure drop between the reservoir pressure and the top surface will
occur. Throughout this investigation, water was used as a working fluid since the column of
corresponding water in petroleum production tubing has the highest hydrostatic pressure of
2.8 psig compared with crude oil. Hence, during the gas lift process crude oil will be less
cumbersome to produce than water. The maximum production rate of 18.3 lit/min (with 83%
improvement on production) could be achieved [14].

The gas injection rate must be controlled to achieve and maintain the critical flow. To
determine the amount of gas to inject, it is necessary to find the critical velocity. Therefore,
enough gas should be injected to keep the velocity above the critical level. In this study smart
gas- lift valve was used to control gas injection rate by opening the valve with different
percentage using computer program [15]. The results indicated that injecting high amount of
gas increases the bottom hole pressure which lead to reduction of the production rate. This is
due to the high gas injection rate which causes slippage. In this case gas phase moves faster
than liquid phase, leaving the liquid phase behind and less amount of liquid will flow along
the tubing. Hence, there should be an optimum gas injection rate [8].

The solutions available for the gas lift optimization problem were evolved rationally with the
rising computational power and the computer abilities that were available to be utilized to the
solution of the problem. The availability of the gas lift data and their amount plays a major
part in the selection of the optimization technique that will be used for the task and the degree
of accuracy that will be a result of this technique [16]. The available gas lift optimization
techniques were compared on two main factors the first one is the increase and enhancement
in the oil production rare and the second one is the time required for the technique to
converge and reach the optimal answer for the problem. The traditional method faced some
problems when it comes to a big number of variables that are being studied so the new
methods based on artificial intelligence raised and took a huge part of interest by the
researchers [17].

2.1. Problem Identification

20
When the reservoir energy is too low for the well to flow, or the production rate desired is
greater than the reservoir energy can deliver, it becomes necessary to put the well on some

21
form of artificial lift to provide the energy to bring the fluid to the surface. Hence, one of the
challenges faced in lifting the oil and gas from the reservoir via the production tubing to the
surface facilities is an unnecessary production decline which poses a serious problem to the
oil and gas industry today or inability of the well to flow (expected rate) due to the viscous
nature of the fluid. This decline may be as a result of mismanagement of wells, excessive
pressure drops along the production system, oversized or undersized tubing, and improper
perforation method etc [15]. A change in a single component of the production system may
lead to a change in the pressure drop behavior of the other components since the various
components are interactive.

In addition, for the fact that artificial lift installed in wells increases the production rate, there
are some problems encountered after the installation of these lifting techniques to help
recover the column of fluid to the production facilities at the surface. Such as solid/sand
handling ability, corrosion/scale handling ability, the stability, number of wells, flowing
pressure and temperature limitation, well depth, production rate, flexibility, high GOR,
electrical power, space, economics etc. which are factors to consider in the selection prior to
the installation of any of the artificial lift techniques [5]. Hence, this study presents a
sensitivity analysis on some of these factors for production optimization on gas lift system

2.2. Petroleum Reservoirs and Types

Reservoirs are characterized based on the initial reservoir pressure (pi) and temperature (T)
with respect to the pressure-temperature diagram. Accordingly, reservoirs can be
characterized into basically two types [6].

 Oil reservoirs: If the reservoir temperature T is less than the critical temperature Tc
of the reservoir fluid, the reservoir is classified as an oil reservoir.
 Gas reservoirs: If the reservoir temperature is greater than the critical temperature of
the hydrocarbon fluid, the reservoir is considered a gas reservoir.

Oil Reservoirs

Depending upon initial reservoir pressure pi, oil reservoirs will be subclassified into the
subsequent categories [6]:

22
  Undersaturated oil reservoir. If the initial reservoir pressure pi is greater than the
bubble-point pressure pb of the reservoir fluid, the reservoir is labelled an
undersaturated oil reservoir.
 Saturated oil reservoir. When the initial reservoir pressure is up to the bubble-point
pressure of the reservoir fluid, the reservoir is termed a saturated oil reservoir.
 Gas-cap reservoir. If the initial reservoir pressure is below the bubble point pressure
of the reservoir fluid, the reservoir is termed a gas-cap or two-phase reservoir, within
which the gas or vapor phase is underlain by an oil phase.

In general, crude oils are commonly classified into the following types:

 Ordinary black oil

 Low-shrinkage crude oil
 High-shrinkage (volatile) crude oil
 Near-critical crude oil

Gas Reservoirs

In general, if the reservoir temperature is higher than the critical temperature of the
hydrocarbon system, the reservoir is classed as a gas reservoir. On the premise of their phase
diagrams and therefore the prevailing reservoir conditions, natural gases will be classified
into four categories:

 Retrograde gas-condensate
 Near-critical gas-condensate
 Wet gas
 Dry gas

2.3. Well Production System

Petroleum production involves 2 distinct however intimately connected general systems: the
reservoir, that could be a porous medium with distinctive storage and flow characteristics;
and therefore, the artificial structures, that embrace the well, bottom hole, and wellhead
assemblies, and the surface gathering, separation, and storage facilities Production
engineering is that a part of petroleum engineering that makes an attempt to maximise
production (or injection) during a cost effective manner [9]. One or more wells may be
involved.

23
2.4. Inflow and Outflow Performance
2.4.1. Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)
IPR (Inflow Performance Relationship) Graphical representation of the relationship that
exists between the oil flow rate and hole flowing pressure [18].

• IPR Predicting

The following empirical methods that are designed to generate the current and future inflow
performance relationships:

1. Vogel's Method
2. Standing's Method
3. Fetkovich's Method
4. Couto's Method
5. Al Saadoon's Method

2.4.2. Vertical Lift Performance Relationship (VLP)

The pressure drop knowledgeable in lifting reservoir fluids to the surface is one in every of
the most factors touching well deliverability. As much as eightieth of the entire pressure loss
during a flowing well could occur in lifting the reservoir fluid to the surface [18]. Wellbore
flow performance relates to estimating the pressure-rate relationship within the wellbore
because the reservoir fluids move to the surface through the tubulars. This flow path may
include flow through perforations, a screen and liner, and packers before entering the tubing
for flow to the surface [9], [19]. The tube could contain completion instrumentation that acts
as flow restrictions like profile nipples, slippy sleeves, or subsurface flow-control devices. In
addition, the tube string is also composed of multiple tube diameters or provide
tubing/annulus flow to the surface. At the surface, the fluid should go through wellhead
valves, surface chokes, and through the flowline consisting of surface piping, valves, and
fittings to the surface-processing instrumentality. The pressure drop experienced as the fluid
moves from the reservoir sand face to the surface is a function of the mechanical
configuration of the wellbore, the properties of the fluids, and the producing rate [20].

24
 Figure 3: IPR and VLP Curves [9]

2.5. Gas Lift System

Not all the oil wells start producing fluid naturally right after they put back online due to low
Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) which is insufficient to lift the fluid to the surface. At some
purpose, the reservoir energy won't be sufficient to bring the reservoir fluid up to the surface
as a result of its energy is depleted. One way to assist a well flow is to energize the reservoir
fluid with a lighter fluid because the carrying fluid. In that case, the overall fluid density will
drop which results in larger lift capability of the reservoir [21]. Gas lift is that the type of
artificial lift that almost all closely resembles the natural flow method. It may be treated
because the extension of the natural flow method. In a naturally flowing well, because the
fluid travels upward toward the surface, the fluid column pressure is reduced causing the gas
to expand and move faster upward. Injected gas can help carrying some diluted liquid to the
surface; but, if the gas velocity isn't high enough, some liquid may start to fall off at some
point near surface. Gas lift is frequently used in lifting water for the purpose of gas
reliquefication. In this approach, a high-pressure gas is injected into the fluid column to
reduce the flowing pressure gradient. In different words; gas lift is that the method of
supplementing additional gas (from AN external source) to extend the gas-liquid magnitude
relation (GLR) resulting in reducing the flowing fluid density [21]. This method considered
an growth of natural flow phase.

There are 2 kinds of gas lift systems: continuous flow and intermittent flow. In each gas raise
systems, high pressure natural gas is injected from the surface to lift formation fluid.
25
Continuous flow gas, that is very similar to the natural flow, is that the most typical gas raise
technique within the industry. In this technique, injecting gas into the production conduit at
the maximum depth depending on the injection pressure and well depth results in an increase
in the formation gas liquid ratio [10], [21]. Hence, both the density of the produced fluid and
flowing pressure gradient of the mixture decrease which lead to a lower bottom hole pressure.
Lower bottom hole pressure improves wellbore productivity index

Figure 4: Basic Components of Gas Lift Method [9]

2.6. Gas Lift Equipment

Downhole gas lift instrumentality consists primarily of the gas lift valves and also the
mandrels within which the valves are placed [9], [22].

The main equipment’s are the following:

• Compressor horsepower
• Tubing- and wireline-retrievable equipment
• Open and closed installations
• Bellows

26
 CHAPTER THREE

3. Well Modelling in PROSPER

3.1. Prosper Stimulation

PROSPER is a software package used in the oil industry for production and well performance
analysis purposes by the petroleum production engineers. This software provides a good
prediction on the production aspects of a specific well after being utilized to enhance its
production. PROSPER is also able to optimise (simulate) the defected existing system, this is
achieved by providing the ways of critically analysing the performance of each well [23]. The
software allow building of well models with the ability to address all variables such as well
configuration, fluid characteristics (PVT), multiphase VLP correlations and various IPR
models.

Figure 5: PROSPER Stimulation Model

3.2. Reasons of using PROSPER

Using PRSOPER simulator allows petroleum production engineers to design a complete
production model. These models can include reservoir data, wells and surface gathering
station (manifold). PROSPER can model and optimise the production and the water or gas
injection system simultaneously. With the reservoir, wells and complete surface systems
model completed and the production history matched, the production system can be
optimised and production forecasts run.

27
The goal of using PROSPER simulator for optimisation sensitivities permits the engineer to
determine the optimum setting to maximum production or enhance the well live, taking
account of all constraints that are set in the system, for example, in this dissertation gas lift
implemented and various sensitivities have been tried to determine the final results of these
modification. Finally, these results can then be used to implement adjustments at the field
level to achieve the optimisation goals[24]. With PROSPER a detailed flow assurance can be
carried out at well and vertical tubing level. PROSPER also provides a unique matching
correlation which tune PVT, multiphase flow correlations and IPR to match measured field
data, allowing a consistent model to be built prior to use in prediction (sensitivities or
artificial lift design).

The overall PROSPER Advantages are:

• Anticipates future well conditions

• Determines optimal amount of injection gas
• Ensures correct placement of injection valves

By adapting both current and future well conditions, the outflow gas lift system ensures
optimal production throughout the life of the well.

3.3. Summery Data of Field Data

Table 1: Data of Alpha well [23]

Parameter Quantity

GOR 493 SCF/STB

Oil Gravity 38.7 API

Gas Gravity 0.798

Water Salinity 80000 ppm

28
 Table 2: IPR Data for Well Alpha [23]

Parameter Quantity

Reservoir Pressure 3844 psig

Reservoir Temperature 250 F

Water Cut 20.3 %

PI 9 STB/day/psi

Table 3: Deviation Survey For Alpha [23]

Measured Depth ft TVD ft

0 0

15443 11500

Table 4: Downhole Equipment For Well Alpha [23]

Parameter Depth ft

4.5” Tubing 14900

6.4” Casing 15443

Table 5: Geothermal Data For Well Alpha [23]

Depth ft Temperature F

0 70

4000 200

29
3.4. Outline Of the Calculation Steps
The below flow chart illustrates an outline of the calculation processes that are required to

model a system analysis using PROSPER:

3.4.1. Building a Base Model for Well Alpha

The first step when modelling a new well in PROSPER is to define the system summary as
shown in the below figure. The Black Oil model, with the oil and water option describing the
fluid, is used and gas lift (continuous type of unloading) method is made, which allows filling
in information and design.

In the system summery, fluid description well type (producer or injector), artificial lift
method, well completion and reservoir type should be defined as shown below for well
Alpha.

Figure 6: Options Summary in PROSPER

3.4.2. PVT input

Data
The next step is to fill in the PVT data. Firstly, the basic data for the Black Oil model for the
well Alpha is entered. Secondly, PVT test data is entered and matched to the Black Oil
correlations.
30
 Figure 7: PVT input Data Section

Figure 8: PVT test Data

3.4.3. PVT Correlation Parameters

The correlations are mathematical fittings to fit the lab measurement data. They represent the
PVT behaviour of average hydrocarbons. However, each individual fluid sample behaves
similarly on average, but not exactly as predicted by the correlation. Through comparing the
values predicted by the correlation and measure lab data, adjustment factors for the
correlation can be found that minimise the overall difference.

31
 Figure 9: Correlation matching regression screen

Figure 10: Matching Parameters 1 and 2 for all black oil correlations

3.4.4. IPR Data Entry Window

For the data provided in this dissertation, the IPR input data, is recommended to be through
productivity index because the available permeability is for matrix not for both matrix and
fracture; also, there are not accuracy value for drainage area and mechanical skin.

32
To generate the IPR curve, the average reservoir pressure and temperature are entered with
the fluid properties in terms of water conning (water cut) and the GOR of the reservoir fluid.
The model is based on below equations which generate a straight line above bubble point and
through Vogel empirical solution is used to draw multiphase flow IPR line below bubble
point.

Figure 11: IPR data input Screen

33
 Figure 12: IPR curve

3.5. Gas Lift Design Data Entry

During modelling a gas lifted well a number of parameters have to be inputted into the gas
lift system window.

Figure 13: Gas lift data input main screen

34
When performing a gas lift design in PROSPER, the following outcomes must be entered

for the simulation of the well:

• Optimum production and lift gas injection rates.

• Inject gas as deep as possible.

• Max. Depth and number of unloading valves.

3.6. VLP/IPR match and quality check

3.6.1. Well Test 1 Quality check
Estimate U-value
PROSPER estimates the overall heat transfer coefficient that matches the wellhead
temperature of the well test. The calculations for temperature prediction along the wellbore
can be more accurate with the revised U-value.

Figure 14: Estimated U-value for well test 1

The value is very close to the initial 8.2 BTU/h/ft2/F. value which was an initial estimation.

Correlation comparison
Prior to the selection of the most appropriate correlation to describe pressure drop in the
tubing, a quality check of the well test data shall be made. These two correlations create an
envelope. The existence of the plotted well test point in this envelope indicates data
consistency, while, on the other hand, revision of the provided data is essential, if it lies
outside the envelope [25]. The latter means that the measured data have no physical meaning
since the correlations are modified to represent the worst and the best cases once the pressure
losses in the system are considered. Like the PVT matching section, a valid test point is of
great importance once the matching process takes place. If correlations are about to be
matched with erroneous data, they can result to erroneous output in turn. The extreme
correlations are Duns and Ross modified and Fancher and Brow.

35
  Fancher and Brown: This is a no-slip correlation which means that the gas and
liquid are assumed to be travelling at the same velocity. The no slip conditions will
predict the lowest possible hold-up and this will have the impact of calculating the
lowest pressure drop which is physically possible.
 Duns and Ross modified: This correlation is modified by Petroleum Experts to over
predict the pressure drop when the well is producing in the slug-flow regime.

Figure 15: Pressure vs Bottom Measured Depth Quality Check for Well Test 1

3.6.2. Well Test 2 Quality

Check Estimate U-value

The U-value provided by PROSPER is equal to 1.99 BTU/h/ft2/F. According to PROSPER

manual, it should be used as a rule of thumb that oil have U values ranging from 5 to 8. The
calculated value is far away from the initial estimate.

Figure 16: Estimated U value For well test 2

36
Correlation Comparison
The second test is plotted along with the pressure gradients derived by the two correlations,
as previously. The results show that test point 2 lies outside the envelope and on the right
hand side of the pressure gradient calculated by Duns n Ross correlation. Recall that Duns n
Ross correlation does not consider hold-up phenomena, and represents an unrealistic situation
with the least pressure drop possible along the tubing. Well test 2, with the presence of a gas
lift system and, hence, the larger possibility of pressure losses due to friction as a result of
large quantities of gases (gas lift gas and gas previously dissolved in oil) travelling through
the tubulars, appears to be somewhat unaffected by that fact. Given the previous results, VLP
matching cannot be performed with the use of well test 2.

Figure 17: Quality Check For well test 2

37
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. Result and Discussion

In this chapter, the design procedure of a continuous gas lift system for various reservoir
pressures and water cut levels is discussed in detail. At the beginning of this chapter, a study
on various tubing sizes is held, in order to take full advantage of the well’s production
capacity. An increase of the production tubing ID leads to an optimized VLP curve and
consequently to an increase in production. The pressure drops in the tubing decreases so that
a greater pressure drawdown is created for the same reservoir and separator pressure. In this
chapter, a detailed description on how a gas lift system is configured (valve spacing) is also
provided.

4.1. Input data

For gas lift system to be designed, the maximum available injection gas is 8 MMscf/day
whereas the casing has been designed to withstand injection pressures up to 2,000 psi. The
gas lift system is to be designed to improve the flowing conditions which are encountered at
the same time the well test data was collected.

Moreover, the designed gas lift system needs to take into account the prediction of future
performance of the well when the operating conditions, according to the existing reservoir
simulation scenario, are expected to deteriorate to 30% WLR and Pr=3,400 psi, 40% WLR
and Pr=3,100 psi and 50% WLR and Pr=2,850 psi. According to the operating company, the
minimum production rate required to sustain an economically vital well is 2,000 stb/day.

4.2. Design strategy

It was decided that, the gas lift system and the positions of the side pocket mandrels in the
production tubing where gas lift valves are to be placed for the unloading process must be
done based on the worst situation in terms of well productivity. This situation corresponds to
the case where the reservoir pressure will drop to 2,850 psi and the water cut will be as high
as 50%. Recall that, in these conditions, water to liquid ratio is greater than the initial one and
pressure losses due to gravity are much larger due to the presence of a larger fraction of water
in the tubing, which is known to have a greater density than oil.

Generally, the deeper the gas injection point is, the larger is the column to be lightened, the
less are the pressure losses due to the gravity term and hence the better are the production
rates that can be achieved. For this reason, the maximum injection depth will be placed at a
38
point very

39
close to the production packers. Prior to the gas lift design, it was investigated whether a new
tubing with a greater ID would serve the optimization purpose. Sensitivity analysis is
conducted on the worst case, in terms of injection rate at various injection depths and then,
the optimum combination of these two variables is examined on various tubing diameters.
The optimum tubing ID derived will be used in the gas lift design process. As far as the gas
lift system for the rest of the operating conditions is concerned, only well workovers are
necessary to replace the unloading valves with dummy valves or orifices, depending on the
needs of the unloading process.

4.3. Gas Lift Design Process (Average reservoir Pressure = 2850

psig and Water cut 50%)
This case will be the groundwork for the recompletion design of the well according to the
design strategy. All input data edited in this section will serve the purpose of the new valve
spacing design.

The first step is to generate the IPR curve for the new reservoir conditions. New Pr and water
cut level are used as input in the IPR section of PROSPER. The next step now is the design of
a new continuous gas lift system. In the main gas lift design screen, the following input data
are inserted.

The flowing and the unloading top node pressures are 264 psig as restrictions of the surface
facilities still occur. The injection and the kick off injection pressure i.e. the initial injection
pressure during the unloading process, are selected to be equal to 1,800 psig so as to respect
the casing pressure restriction set initially. Note that even though the maximum casing
pressure allowed at the surface is 2,000 psig, a more conservative approach is decided to be
applied. The dP across valves is set to 100 psig. This means that the pressure in the annulus
should be at least equal to the tubing pressure plus 100 psig that are consumed in the valve. In
practice, this is a safety measurement to ensure that gas will flow through the valve. Its effect
on the calculations is that during the design process, valves are placed a few feet shallower
than they were intended to. Maximum depth of gas injection is set at 14,000 ft MD very close
to the production packers (14,740’). Minimum spacing of the unloading valves is left to its
default value (250’). If during calculations the next valve is calculated to be at a depth less
than 250’, calculations will stop. The completion fluid is a brine, slightly heavier than pure
water and has a static pressure gradient equal to 0.45 psig/ft.

40
Conformance with the IPR is enabled to ensure that the calculated liquid rates can be
delivered by the reservoir. This the reason why a very large amount of desired production rate
is entered at the beginning, so to ensure the calculation of the highest liquid rate possible. The
use of the IPR curve in the unloading process is also used. In this case, during sensitivity
analysis based on various gas injection rates, the minimum gas injection rate that initiates
well flow is determined. This injection rate is used to size the valve.

Finally, normal R-20 valves manufactured by Camco are selected with port sizes varying
from 8 to 32 64th inch.

Figure 18: Gas lift design input: Main screen

After the introduction of the basic input data, the design process the optimum injection rate
calculated by PROSPER is visible. The gas lift performance curve is plotted. The optimum
gas injection rate according to the calculations is 8 MMscf/day, the maximum gas injection
rate available. Optimum gas rate refers to the rate which yields maximum oil production.
However,
41
it is not the final gas injection rate, as the unloading process is not yet taken into
consideration. The depths and the injection rates are randomly spaced by PROSPER. It is
important to note that, they are not plotted for a fixed maximum depth of injection and this
should not be confused. The curve provides the optimum injection rate that constitutes a
design parameter for the valve spacing process. After 10 MMscf/day of gas injected, the
curve is declining due to the fact that, when large quantities of gas are present in the tubing
friction forces prevail in the system (friction is dominant over gravity term reduction) and
pressure drop in the tubing becomes larger, which eventually reduces the production rate. The
gas lift performance curve is used to derive to the equilibrium curve

Figure 19: Gas lift design: Calculation screen

42
 Figure 20: Gas lift performance curve

If Figure 19 is recurred, at the bottom of the design screen and after the valve spacing
process, the final operating conditions are visible. A constant gas injection rate (GIR) of 6.38
MMscf/day with an injection pressure of 1,600 psi, can deliver 2826.01 bbl/day of oil. The
maximum depth of injection at 14,000’ MD has not been reached and gas is injected at
12,562’. The port size of the orifice is 31 64ths inch.

the main reason of gas injection at a lower depth than the desired one is that gas injection
pressure plus the gas gradient are not sufficient to displace the fluid in the annulus. In other
words, the gas pressure and the annular liquid static pressure are equal well above 14,000’.
Recall that, the depth at which the two above mentioned pressure lines are intersected in a
pressure versus depth diagram is the depth that a valve or an orifice is placed. Due to the
casing pressure restrictions, a compromise is made. Even though, the injection depth lies at a
shallower depth than the desired one, oil rate obtained exceeds by far the minimum rate
restriction (2,000 stb/day).

43
 Note that, the gas injection rate is not the optimum one, as this was initially calculated at 8
MMscf/day. The new calculated gas injection rate is the optimum rate at the specific depth
where the orifice is set. The main reason behind the decrease of the gas injection rate is that
gas already evolved from oil at this depth and a gas rate of 8 MMscf/day would seriously
increase pressure losses due to high gas velocities in the tubing.

Table 6: Valve spacing results (Case 1)

Valve Valve MD (ft) TVD (ft) Tubing Casing Transfer Temperature Gas lift gas Port R
type pressure pressure pressure @Valve rate size Value
(psig) (psig) (psig) (deg F) (MMscf/day) (64ths
inch)
1 Valve 4259.1 3592 784.929 1930.4 1071.3 207.435 0.63882 12 0.038
2 Valve 7828.87 6116.2 1193.89 1970.82 1388.12 228.601 0.63882 12 0.038
3 Valve 10142.3 7751.99 1468.16 1980 1596.12 239.024 0.63882 12 0.038
4 Valve 11550.5 8747.89 1643.12 1966.32 1723.92 243.849 0.63882 12 0.038
5 Orifice 12040.2 9094.21 1705.95 1928.98 1705.95 245.232 6.38819 34

Figure 21: Valve spacing results

44
The Pressure vs Depth plot illustrating the valve spacing design is given in the following
figure 22 . Positioning of the valves, valves’ opening and closing pressures and mainly the
flowing pressure gradient in the tubing are visible. The effect of gas lift is seen at the below
and above the injection point. Below this depth, the flowing pressure gradient of the produced
fluid has a steeper slope, which means that the fluid column in the tubing below the orifice is
heavier and the pressure gradient is larger. Above the injection point, and as a result of the
large quantities of gas being injected in the production tubing combined with the free gas
previously dissolved in oil, the fluid column is lighter which is depicted by the milder slope.

Figure 22: Gas lift design: PvD plot

The final step of the gas lift design is to check whether the system is stable or not. The first
criterion (F1) is the inflow response of the well. If the reservoir fluid rate is more sensitive to
pressure than the lift-gas rate, then the average density of the mixture will increase in
response

45
to a decrease in tubing pressure. This causes the tubing pressure to increase, which stabilizes
the flow. This criterion is calculated as:

𝜌 𝐵 𝑞2 𝐽
𝐹= 𝑔𝑠𝑐 𝑔 𝑔𝑠𝑐
1 𝑞𝐿𝑠𝑐 (𝐸𝐴ⅈ)2

ρ
g
= Lift-gas density at SC

Bg = FVF of gas injection point

q
gsc = Lift-gas flow rate at standard conditions

qLsc = Liquid flow rate at standard conditions

J = Productivity index

E= orifice efficiency factor

A = Injection port area

If the first criterion is not fulfilled, tubing pressure decrease will cause the injected gas flow
rate to increase more than the liquid flow rate. This will cause the tubing pressure to decrease
as well as the casing pressure. If the casing pressure decreases faster than the tubing pressure,
then the pressure difference between the casing and the tubing will decrease and so will the
injected gas rate. This stabilizes the flow. This Criterion (F2) namely pressure-depletion
response is calculated:
𝒗𝒕 𝟏
F2 = ⋅ 𝒑𝒕 𝒒𝒇𝒊+𝒒𝒈𝒊
𝒗𝑪 𝒈𝑫
⋅𝝆
𝒇𝒊−𝝆𝒈𝒊 𝒒𝒇𝒊(𝟏−𝑭𝟏)

Where:

Vt = Tubing volume downstream of injection point

Vc = Casing volume

g = Acceleration due to gravity

D = Vertical depth to injection point

Pt = Tubing Pressure

46
ρ
=
f
Reservoir fluid density at the injection point

ρ
= Lift gas density at injection point
g

One of the two criteria must exhibit a value greater than unity. Should both values are less
than one, the system is considered unstable and the design must be reviewed. In this case,
Criteria F1 and F2 are equal to 0.71 and 1.21 respectively (Figure 23), indicating an
unstable gas lift system. It is stressed out that modifications on the design parameters should
be made to ensure stability. Among all parameters, the maximum injection depth is the most
appropriate variable to change,

Figure 23: Stability criteria

47
Revision of Case 1

The basic scenario lacks stability, as described by stability criteria F1 and F2 based on
Asheim’s original work. The only difference between Case 1 in and its revised version
described in this section is the change of the maximum injection depth. This will provide new
results for valve spacing, injection depth and injection rate and most importantly the oil rate
obtained.
Reservoir pressure and water cut level remain the same, as this is a revised design of Case 1,
hence the modelling of the IPR remains unchanged.
The only variation from Case 1 is the maximum injection depth set at 11950’ MD instead of
14,000’ MD set previously.

Figure 24: Gas lift design input: Main screen (Case1 revised)

After the introduction of the basic data input, the design process takes place. The optimum
injection rate calculated by PROSPER can be seen at the top of Figure 25. The gas lift
performance curve is plotted in Figure 26. The optimum gas injection rate according to the
calculations is 8 MMscf/day, the maximum gas injection rate available.

48
Figure 25: Gas lift design: Calculation screen (Case 1 revised)

49
 Figure 26: Gas Lift performance Curve (Case 1 Revised)

If Figure 25 is recurred, at the bottom of the design screen and after the valve spacing
process, the final operating conditions are visible. A constant gas injection rate of 6.5097
MMscf/day with an injection pressure of 1,650 psi, can deliver 2803 bbl/day of oil.

The maximum depth of injection of 11950’ MD has been reached by the PROSPER design.
The port size of the orifice is 31 64ths inch

Table 7: Valve spacing results (Case 1 revised)

Valve Valve MD (ft) TVD (ft) Tubing Casing Transfer Temperature Gas lift gas Port R Value
type pressure pressure pressure @Valve rate size
(psig) (psig) (psig) (deg F) (MMscf/day) (64ths
inch)
1 Valve 4327.79 3640.52 790.345 1952.26 1080.82 207.731 0.65097 12 0.038
2 Valve 8002.66 6239.06 1210.09 2009.66 1409.98 229.395 0.65097 12 0.038
3 Valve 10426 7952.6 1496.82 2031.18 1630.41 240.051 0.65097 12 0.038
5 Orifice 11931.4 9017.24 1683.83 2025.9 1769.35 244.916 6.5097 31

50
 Figure 27: Valve spacing results (Case 1 revised)

The Pressure vs Depth plot is given in the following Figure 28. Positioning of the valves,
valves opening and closing pressures and the flowing pressure gradient in the tubing are
visible. An important observation is that in this revised scenario of Case 1, 3 unloading valves
before the orifice are required, unlike the scenario of gas injection at 14,000’ seen previously,
where 4 unloading valves and 1 orifice were required. The main reason is that the injection
point is shallower and less valves are necessary. Gas injection pressure is now sufficient to
displace all annular fluids down to 11950’. Optimum gas injection rate is 6.509 MMscf/day,
slightly less than the optimum initially calculated. 6.509 MMscf/day of gas is the optimum
gas injection rate for the specific valve configuration.

51
 Figure 28: Gas lift design: PvD plot (Case 1 revised)

Finally, the gas lift stability criteria are checked. In this case, Criteria F1 and F2 are equal to
1.03 and -10.06 respectively (Figure 29), indicating a stable gas lift system. More information
on gas lift stability criteria.

52
Figure 29: Stability criteria (Case 1 revised)

53
 CHAPTER FIVE

5. Conclusion
The use of gas lift has been increased widely because of its valuable benefits which involve
increasing production and eliminating low production problems. Furthermore, it is the best
way to enhance the productivity index of the wells.

The first step in Gas Lift system design is analysing mechanical and petrophysical properties
of the to identify whether a specific well is likely to be lifted by gas lift or not. Nodal analysis
science is the scientific aspect of production engineering to analyse the production
optimisation through various methods. For example, artificial lift methods, effect of well
configuration on production and total system analysis.

The design of the gas lift system was run so that the production was optimized for all
examined cases. Under these optimal design, the obtained oil rates exceed by far the
economic limit which was set at 2,000 stb/day. The achieved oil rates vary from 2500 to
8,593 stb/day depending on the operating conditions. Those production rates, in combination
with a single recompletion workover for a wide range of reservoir pressure and water cut
levels, provide an economically efficient design which can deliver large quantities of liquid
with the same well configuration for several months after the examined period.

As far as the gas lift design process is concerned, sensitivity analysis on tubing diameters up
to 4.5” indicated that the gas slip effect on the well deliverability, which could lead to
significant productivity reduction for enhanced tubing diameters, is minimal. Therefore, the
new production tubing, upon which the gas lift design took place, is chosen to be the
maximum possible, i.e. 4.5” ID due to casing ID restriction (6.4” ID) so as to maximize
production

The valve spacing based on the worst case scenario (Pr=2,850 psi, water cut 50%) fits
adequately to the rest of the scenarios. Maximum injection depth was set at 11950’ because
pre-calculations showed that the stability of the gas lift system is at stake if injection of gas is
about to take place at a very deep point (14,000’) even though the increased injection depth
yields greater oil rates.

54
 REFERENCES
[1] M. Haq, E. Gomes, and M. Tamim, “Production Optimization of Saldanadi Gas
Field by Nodal Analysis Method,” J. Chem. Eng., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 602–607, 2010,
doi: 10.3329/jce.v23i0.5571.

[2] A. El-Hoshoudy and S. Desouky, “PVT Properties of Black Crude Oil,” Process.
Heavy Crude Oils - Challenges Oppor., no. December, 2019, doi:
10.5772/intechopen.82278.

[3] J. H. and I. Flood, “No TitleФормирование парадигмальной теории

региональной экономики,” Экономика Региона, no. Kolisch 1996, pp. 49–56,
2012.

[4] Q. Lu and G. C. Fleming, “Gas lift optimization using proxy functions in

reservoir simulation,” SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 109–119, 2012,
doi: 10.2118/140935-PA.

[5] O. Sylv[1] O. Sylvester, “Gas Lift Technique a Tool to Production Optimization,” Int.
J. Oil, Gas Coal Eng., vol. 3, no. 3, p. 41, 2015, doi:
10.11648/j.ogce.20150303.12.ester, “Gas Lift Technique a Tool to Production
Optimization,” Int. J. Oil, Gas Coal Eng., vol. 3, no. 3, p. 41, 2015, doi:
10.11648/j.ogce.20150303.12.

[6] T. Ahmed, Fundamentals of Reservoir Fluid Behavior. 2010. doi: 10.1016/b978-1-

85617-825-9.00001-6.

[7] S. J. Majani, “PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION USING RESERVOIR

RECOVERY TECHNIQUES,” no. September, 2018.

[8] M. Abdalsadigh, A. Nourian, G. G. Naser, and M. Badaie, “Gas lift Optimization to

Improve Well Performance,” Int. J. Mech. Aerospace, Ind. Mechatron. Manuf. Eng.,
vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 490–498, 2016.

[9] J. Muhammad, “Li Technique Koya University BSc in Petroleum Engineering

Production Optimization Using Gas Lift Technique By : Jarjis Muhammad,” 2007.

[10] A. L. Dutta and M. Das, “Optimization of continuous gas lift wells based on well
modeling, surveillance, diagnostics and lift gas re-allocation in a mature offshore oil

55
field,” Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 6037–6049, 2019, doi:

56
 10.35940/ijeat.A1876.109119.

[11] O. Sylvester, “Gas Lift Technique a Tool to Production Optimization,” Int. J. Oil, Gas
Coal Eng., vol. 3, no. 3, p. 41, 2015, doi: 10.11648/j.ogce.20150303.12.

[12] Abu Taher Md. Ibrahim, “Optimization of Gas Lift System in Varg Field,” One Petro,
vol. 0, no. June, pp. 1–96, 2007.

[13] M. AlJuboori, M. Hossain, O. Al-Fatlawi, A. Kabir, and A. Radhi, “Numerical

simulation of gas lift optimization using genetic algorithm for a middle east oil field:
Feasibility study,” Int. Pet. Technol. Conf. 2020, IPTC 2020, 2020, doi: 10.2523/iptc-
20254-ms.

[14] M. A. G. H. Abdalsadig and P. D. Thesis, “Gas Lift Optimization Utilizing

Automation Gas Lift Valve,” 2017.

[15] R. M. Kahfie, F. Kurniawan, and R. Saputra, “Breaking the challenge of brownfield

by delivering 10,000 BOPD with implementation of gas lift supply strategy. The
success story of facility upgrading, integration and optimization in oil field,” Soc. Pet.
Eng. - SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil Gas Conf. Exhib. 2019, APOG 2019, 2019, doi:
10.2118/196450-ms.

[16] C. Chrismon, R. S. T. Kartoatmodjo, and D. A. Mardiana, “Optimization of Oil

Production by Gas Lift Macaroni in ‘X’ Field,” J. Earth Energy Sci. Eng. Technol.,
vol. 1, no. 1, 2018, doi: 10.25105/jeeset.v1i1.3034.

[17] M. A. M. Al-Janabi and O. Al-Fatlawi, “Gas lift optimization: A review,” AIP Conf.
Proc., vol. 2443, no. July, 2022, doi: 10.1063/5.0091901.

[18] “Spe vlp and Ipr.pdf.”

[19] T. Odjugo, Y. Baba, A. Aliyu, N. Okereke, L. Oloyede, and O. Onifade, “Optimisation

of artificial lifts using prosper nodal analysis for barbra-1 well in niger delta,” Niger. J.
Technol. Dev., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 150–155, 2020, doi: 10.4314/njtd.v17i3.1.

[20] M. S. Yakoot, S. A. Shedid, and M. I. Arafa, “A simulation approach for optimization

of gas lift performance and multi-well networking in an Egyptian oil field,” Proc.
Annu. Offshore Technol. Conf., vol. 1, pp. 266–279, 2014, doi: 10.4043/24703-ms.

57
[21] J. Vol, N. Fitrianti, D. F. Putra, and D. Cendra, “Issn 2540 - 9352,” vol. 7, no. 2, pp.
46–54, 2015.

[22] E. M. E. M. Shokir, M. M. B. Hamed, A. E. S. B. Ibrahim, and I. Mahgoub, “Gas

Lift Optimization Using Artificial Neural Network and Integrated Production
Modeling,” Energy and Fuels, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 9302–9307, 2017, doi:
10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01690.

[23] N. Of, “N Ational T Echnical U Niversity of a Thens,” Comput. Eng., no. April, 2003.

[24] “Production_Optimization_of_Saldanadi_Gas-68311004.pdf.”

[25] “well bore.pdf.”

58