Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Petroleum Research
journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/
petroleum-research/

Influence of wellhead pressure and water cut in the optimization of oil

production from gas lifted wells
S. Hari a, b, Shanker Krishna a, b, *, Manav Patel b, Pooja Bhatia b, Rakesh Kumar Vij a, b
a
Drilling, Cementing & Stimulation (DCS) Research Centre, Pandit Deendayal Energy University, Knowledge Corridor, Raysan, Gandhinagar, Gujarat,
382426, India
b
School of Petroleum Technology, Pandit Deendayal Energy University, Knowledge Corridor, Raysan, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382426, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The worldwide increase in energy demand necessitates the development and optimization of marginal
Received 23 May 2021 oil fields for sustenance. In this regard, effective and economic production of fluids are heavily relied
Received in revised form upon the artificial lift techniques as the reservoir's natural energy may not be able to deliver the fluids to
15 September 2021
the surface. Gas lift is a widely practised and successful method that is suitable for rejuvenating the oil
Accepted 23 September 2021
Available online 27 September 2021
production from such fields. In this study, the influence of critical parameters like water cut, wellhead
pressure (WHP) and gas-lift gas injection rate on the output from a gas lifted well was analysed. A
significant reduction in the oil production was observed with the increase in water cut. For a fixed gas
Keywords:
Artificial lift
injection rate of 1 Mmscf/day, the production decreased by 26.90% when the water cut increased from
Continuous gas lift 15% to 30% and further by 50.80% when the water cut reached 45%. An increase in the gas injection rate
Productivity from 1 Mmscf/day to 8 Mmscf/day resulted in an increase in the production rate by 29.21%, 40.48% and
Water cut 56.56% for 15%, 30%, and 45% water cut conditions, respectively. It was observed that there is a drop in the
Wellhead pressure oil rate with the increase in WHP for a constant gas injection rate. An increase in the WHP from 100 psi to
300 psi resulted in a drop in the oil production rate by 11.01%, 11.78% and 12.74% for 15%, 30% and 45%
water cut conditions, respectively. The study sheds light on the significance of optimizing the critical
parameters to maximize the production from a well, with severely affected productivity, using a
continuous gas lift system.
© 2021 The Authors. Publishing services provided by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communication Co.
Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The demand for energy around the globe is growing remarkably
over the years (Pandian et al., 2021; Sivakumar et al., 2020). In this
context, the hydrocarbon production needs to be boosted by
implementing artificial lift and stimulating the existing low
permeable reservoirs through hydraulic fracturing (Behjoomanesh
et al., 2015; Davarpanah and Mirshekari, 2018; Hari et al., 2021;
Krishna et al., 2018; Liang et al., 2014; Sami and Turzo, 2020; Shao
et al., 2016a) in order to mitigate the energy crisis. This increasing
demand forces to develop and optimize marginal oil fields for
sustenance (de Souza et al., 2010). Oil production from offshore
environment is associated with huge costs of production. For
* Corresponding author. I/C e Drilling, Cementing & Stimulation (DCS) Research
Centre, School of Petroleum Technology, Pandit Deendayal Energy University,
Knowledge Corridor, Raysan, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382426, India.
E-mail addresses: shanker21.phd@gmail.com, shanker.krishna@spt.pdpu.ac.in
(S. Krishna).
boosting the profit, the oil production rate should be maintained at
a higher level (Eikrem, 2006). Natural flow occurs in most oil wells
during the initial phase of its production lifespan. Sufficiency of the
well pressure to overcome the losses encountered during the flow
to the offshore facility is indicated by natural flow of oil wells
(Santos et al., 2018). When the reservoir's natural energy is unable
overcome the fluid column weight inside the well and deliver the
fluid to the surface, artificial lift methods need to be employed to
ensure effective and economic production of the fluid (Namdar,
2019; Shen et al., 2013). Artificial lift method causes a reduction
in the pressure from fluid column inside the well that leads to
lowering of producing bottom hole pressure, abbreviated as BHP
(Lea, 2010). This results in a huge gap between well bottom pres-
sure and reservoir pressure that pushes the fluid to the surface.
Pumping mechanisms and gas lift are the two main types of arti-
ficial lift scheme that are capable of enhancing the production and
extending the life of the well (Guo et al., 2007). Owing to its
extensive practice records and widespread success, gas lift holds a
prominent position around the globe as an efficient method to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptlrs.2021.09.008
2096-2495/© 2021 The Authors. Publishing services provided by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communication Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
S. Hari, S. Krishna, M. Patel et al.
rejuvenate oil production (Rahmawati et al., 2020). It has been in
use since 1864 to lift the oil from wells and is applicable in offshore
as well as onshore fields (BenAmara, 2016; Nguyen et al., 2020;
Robertson et al., 1987). For instance, 30% of the monthly oil pro-
duction in Brazil comes from gas-lifted wells (Bezerra et al., 2019).
The contribution of gas lift projects to the country's oil production
is a whopping 70% (Shao et al., 2016b). Interestingly, almost 75% of
oil produced from the offshore fields in Brazil through artificial lift
depends on gas lift (Rodrigues et al., 2021). This technique is
currently considered perfect to revive the oil production in
Indonesia (Arachman et al., 2017; Gaol et al., 2020; Rahmawati
et al., 2020). This method is employed in almost 40% of artificial-
lifted unconventional wells in the United States (Kolawole et al.,
2020). The advantageous characteristics of this technology are lis-
ted below (Garrouch et al., 2020; Rahmawati et al., 2020):
(1) Nearly no moving components are involved in this method.
(2) This robust method has been found to be versatile over a
broad range well specifications and reservoir attributes.
(3) The operational expenditure for this method is compara-
tively low.
(4) The method is suitable for producing fluids loaded with sand,
from wells that are deviated and from wells having high gas-
to-liquid ratio.
This method involves injection of pressurized gas to the tubing
bottom. The production of oil occurs by virtue of two mechanisms,
(a) expansion of the gas that pushes the oil, and (b) reduction in
hydrostatic pressure of the fluid column within the well (Nalum,
2013). A schematic representation of the gas lift program is
shown in Fig. 1. Continuous gas lift method for oil production in-
volves injection of gas with a steady-state flowing condition while
injection of gas at regular intervals is the peculiarity of intermittent
gas lift method (Ayatollahi et al., 2004; Fang and Duan, 2014;
Mahmudi and Sadeghi, 2013; Santos et al., 2018; Tasmi et al., 2017).
The essence of optimization in engineering applications is to
“achieve the most with the least”. An optimization problem focuses
achieving the best design of a process or a product with respect to a
set of selected constraints or criteria, for e.g., maximization of
strength, productivity, efficiency etc. Often, engineers are required
to identify certain suitable design solutions from which the best
suited solution needs to be chosen. It is regarded as a strategy to
cause the best change in an inadequately appreciated situation
within the accessible resources (Kelley, 2010). A continuous gas lift
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a gas lift program, modified from Saepudin et al.
(2007).
254
Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262
operation aims at lowering the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid
column and the fluid density through continuous aeration using
compressed natural gas, that leads to reduction in flowing BHP
followed by increase in drawdown to enhance production of oil
(Mahdiani and Khamehchi, 2015; Rashid et al., 2012; Saepudin
et al., 2007; Sukarno et al., 2009). An increase in the difference
between in-situ reservoir pressure and the pressure induced across
the face of the sand governs the flow of produced fluid to the sur-
face. As the field maturation takes place, the demand for lift gas
increases whereas its availability may restrict achievement of op-
timum production. Basically, gas lift optimization deals with opti-
mum allocation of lift gas, considering its availability, among the
gas-lifted wells for maximizing the production of oil (Khamehchi
and Mahdiani, 2017; Mahdiani et al., 2019). Moreover, an escala-
tion in the rate of gas injection may produce a damping impact on
the rate of oil production due to increase in the pressure drop
resulting from frictional losses (Hamedi et al., 2011; Miresmaeili
et al, 2015, 2019).
Presently, the industry adopts two different approaches in this
regard. First approach envisages the use of innovative valve
placement, injection technique or equipment type and design that
are optimized on the basis of new technology and outcomes to
increase the efficacy of the system (Ashelm, 1988; Betancourt et al.,
2002; Decker, 2007; Mukherjee and Brown, 1986). The second
approach envisages the use of considerably complex algorithms
that are based on the domains of machine learning, artificial neural
network, non-linear optimization etc. (Camponogara et al., 2010;
Deng et al., 2019; Garcia and Rosa, 2012; Lu and Fleming, 2011;
Ranjan et al., 2015; Salazar-Mendoza, 2006; Samier, 2010; Wang
and Litvak, 2008). Gas lift performance curve (GLPC) is the
simplest yet highly recognized approach towards gas lift optimi-
zation (Rahmawati et al., 2020). It is built on nodal analysis method
wherein the recovery of the fluid with respect to incremental gas
injection in a well is analysed with the help of a curve. Several new
methodologies have been published based on the usage and
enrichment of this technique (Alarco
n et al., 2002; Fang and Lo,
1996; Kanu et al., 1981; Nishikiori et al., 1995; Schmidt et al.,
1990). In a highly dynamic condition, the production parameters
are understood to be altering. Gathering information to incorporate
these changes in GLPCs is difficult and may not be viable from
operational as well as economic point of view. Researchers have
been striving to minimize uncertainties in this method to model oil
production and predict the recovery. It is very essential to identify
the critical variables that affect the output from a gas-lifted well for
optimizing the process design.
In-flow performance curve (IPRC) is a representation of the well
producing BHP as a function of oil production rate. The flow in the
reservoir is described by this representation. In other words, it
describes what the reservoir delivers to well bottom. On the other
hand, vertical lift performance curve (VLPC) is a representation of
the flowing BHP as a function of wellbore liquid rate at the time of
reservoir fluid production. In other words, it describes what the
wellbore delivers to the surface. In this study, the influence of
critical parameters such as the rate of gas injection, water cut and
WHP on the oil production rate is analysed with the help of IPRC,
VLPC and GLPC using PROSPER of Petroleum Experts (PETEX) Ltd.,
an optimization program developed to design and analyse well
performance. The study aims at providing optimum conditions for
maximizing the production from a well with severely affected
productivity, using a gas lift system. Even though, individual opti-
mization for each well in a field leads to a very complex problem,
the observations of this study can be very useful in achieving full-
field optimization for maximum revenue.
S. Hari, S. Krishna, M. Patel et al. Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262

2. Methodology

2.1. Reservoir, well and fluid PVT data

Well performance and optimization is carried out using PROS-

PER, an industry standard software that can model several types of
completions and artificial lift methods. Nodal analysis for a wide
range of operating conditions can be carried out through sensitivity
assessments using PROSPER. This study is carried out on the basis of
data from an onshore well A-1 positioned in Alpha field (Tetoros,
2015) with an aim of designing a continuous gas lift system to
initiate production in the dead well. As the reservoir has been
operational for a considerable amount of time, it may require the
support of an artificial lift scheme in the days to come. The reservoir
fluid PVT data, shown in Table 1, is associated with single-stage
separation from the reservoir to the standard conditions. As the
reservoir pressure is beyond the bubble point, the fluid is in mono-
phase under the present reservoir conditions.
The reservoir is characterized by a pressure of 3844 psig,
permeability of 100 mD, drainage area of 100 acres and pay-zone
thickness of 100 ft. The skin factor is corrected to 1.8 after the
well test. The well path is described as build and hold deviated type.
The build rate is 3
/100 ft, with the kick off point being set at
1000 ft. 8.5 in is the wellbore diameter at the pay-zone. Production
packers are placed at a TVD of 11000 ft and a sub-surface safety
valve is placed at 800 ft. The outer diameter of the production
casing is 7 in with a wall thickness of 0.3 in. The tubing inner
diameter is 4.052 in. In the well, a gas lift system is installed and the
gas has a specific gravity of 0.7 with maximum purity. The down-
Fig. 2. Downhole completion summary with depth.
hole completion summary with depth is indicated in Fig. 2.

2.2. Modeling calculated by considering the formation temperature as 250
F at a

measured depth of 15443 ft. The average heat capacities for oil, gas
The type of fluid is set as oil and water and the black oil method and water are considered as 0.53, 0.51 and 1 BTU/lb/
F. Darcy model
is chosen. Single-stage separation is assumed and the emulsions are is used for determining the IPRC. The gas is injected at a depth of
considered to be absent. Newtonian fluid viscosity model is used 12000 ft. A flow-chart representing the scheme of this study is
and the flow is deemed to take place along the tubing. The well is shown in Fig. 3.
considered to be a producer type well with cased hole completion.
The method of artificial lift employed is continuous gas lift with
friction loss being considered in the annulus. The inflow is assumed
to be single branch type.
The thermodynamic behaviour of the reservoir fluid can be
described by the PVT data parameters like solution GOR, water
salinity, API gravity and gas gravity. Further, the measured PVT data
from the laboratory is matched with the black oil correlations. Oil
viscosity and formation volume factor (FVF) are obtained using the
standard equations. Glaso's correlation (Glaso, 1980) is used for
modeling the GOR, oil FVF and BPP, while Beggs' correlation (Beggs,
2003) is used for oil viscosity modeling. The overall heat transfer
coefficient is taken as 8.2 BTU/h/ft2/
F. The geothermal gradient is

Table 1
Fluid PVT properties.

Properties Values

Bubble point pressure (BPP) 2241 psiga

Gas e Oil Ratio (GOR, at bubble point) 493 scf/stba
Viscosity (at bubble point) 0.41 cpa
API gravity 38.7

Specific gravity 0.798
Density (at bubble point) 694.45 kg/m3
Water salinity 80,000 ppma
a
scf/stb e standard cubic feet e per e stock tank barrel; psig e pounds per square
inch in gauge; cp e centipoise; ppm e parts per million. Fig. 3. Flow-chart representing the scheme of this study.

255
S. Hari, S. Krishna, M. Patel et al.
Fig. 4. IPRC (red-line) and VLPCs for 15% water cut and different gas-lift gas injection rates.
Fig. 5. Variation in the rate of oil production with gas injection rate for 15% water cut.
3. Results
3.1. Effect of water cut on oil rate for varying gas-lift gas injection
rate
In order to evaluate the oil production rate under the effect of
water cut and varying gas-lift gas injection rate, three test cases
were modelled. Three test cases were modelled by varying the
water cut percentage as 15, 30 and 45, and each case was analysed
for different gas-lift gas injection rates of 0, 4 and 8 Mmscf/day.
Here Mmscf stands for million standard cubic feet.
The nodal analysis corresponding to 15% water cut and different
gas-lift gas injection rates of 0, 4 and 8 Mmscf/day is carried out.
The IPRC and the VLPCs are shown in Fig. 4. The maximum oil
production rate for each rate of gas injection varying from 0 to 8
Mmscf/day is shown in Fig. 5. The well is initially in flowing con-
dition, but with the aid of the gas lift the production rate has
improved considerably.
256
Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262
The nodal analysis corresponding to 30% water cut and different
gas-lift gas injection rates of 0, 4 and 8 Mmscf/day is carried out.
The IPRC and the VLPCs are shown in Fig. 6. The maximum oil
production rate for each rate of gas injection varying from 0 to 8
Mmscf/day is shown in Fig. 7. The well is initially in flowing con-
dition, but with the aid of the gas lift the production rate has
improved considerably.
The nodal analysis corresponding to 45% water cut and different
gas-lift gas injection rates of 0, 4 and 8 Mmscf/day is carried out.
The IPRC and the VLPCs are shown in Fig. 8. The maximum oil
production rate for each rate of gas injection varying from 0 to 8
Mmscf/day is shown in Fig. 9. The well is initially in flowing con-
dition, but with the aid of the gas lift the production rate has
improved considerably.
The variation in oil production rate with respect to gas-lift gas
injection rate for the three water cut test cases is compared in
Fig. 10. The additional oil rate achieved with the increment in gas-
lift gas injection rate is also determined, which is shown in Table 2.
S. Hari, S. Krishna, M. Patel et al. Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262

Fig. 6. IPRC (blue-line) and VLPCs for 30% water cut and different gas-lift gas injection rates.

Fig. 7. Variation in the rate of oil production with gas injection rate for 30% water cut.

Fig. 8. IPRC (blue-line) and VLPCs for 45% water cut and different gas-lift gas injection rates.

257
S. Hari, S. Krishna, M. Patel et al. Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262

Fig. 9. Variation in the rate of oil production with gas injection rate for 45% water cut.

Fig. 10. Comparison of oil rate vs gas-lift gas injection rate between the three water cut test cases.

Table 2
Comparison of oil rate produced for different gas-lift gas injection rates and water cut.

Gas-lift gas injection Oil production rate (stb/ Increase in oil Oil production rate (stb/ Increase in oil Oil production rate (stb/ Increase in oil
rate (Mmscf/day) day) at 15% water cut production rate (stb/ day) at 30% water cut production rate stb/ day) at 45% water cut production rate (stb/
day) day) day)

1 6749 0 4932.9 0 3320.35 0

2 7548 799 5726.7 793.8 4100.8 780.5
3 8007 1258 6205.5 1272.6 4564.4 1244.05
4 8262 1513 6482.7 1549.1 4881 1561
5 8551 1802 6652.8 1719.9 4994.5 1673.7
6 8568 1819 6772.5 1839.6 5094.1 1773.35
7 8738 1989 6829.2 1896.3 5188.7 1868.35
8 8721 1972 6930 1997.1 5198.5 1878.15

258
S. Hari, S. Krishna, M. Patel et al.
Fig. 11. IPRC (blue-line) and VLPCs for 15% water cut and different WHPs, gas-lift gas injection rate ¼ 4 Mmscf/day.
Fig. 12. IPRC (blue-line) and VLPCs for 30% water cut and different WHPs, gas-lift gas injection rate ¼ 4 Mmscf/day.
3.2. Effect of wellhead pressure (WHP) on oil rate for a constant
gas-lift gas injection rate and water cut
In order to evaluate the oil production rate under the effect of
varying WHP, a constant gas-lift gas injection rate of 4 Mmscf/day is
chosen. Three test cases were modelled by varying the water cut
percentage as 15, 30 and 45, and each case was analysed for
different WHP of 100 psi, 200 psi and 300 psi.
The nodal analysis corresponding to 15% water cut and different
WHPs of 100 psi, 200 psi and 300 psi is carried out. The gas-lift gas
injection rate is maintained at 4 Mmscf/day throughout the pro-
cedure. The IPRC and the VLPCs are shown in Fig. 11. This is followed
by the nodal analysis corresponding to 30% and 45% water cuts,
each with different WHPs of 100 psi, 200 psi and 300 psi. The
resulting IPRC and the VLPCs are shown in Figs. 12 and 13
respectively.
The variation in oil production rate with respect to WHP for the
three water cut test cases is compared in Fig. 14. The decrease in oil
259
Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262
rate with respect to the increase in WHP is also determined, which
is shown in Table 3.
4. Discussion
The output from a gas lifted well is influenced by several factors
like gas-lift gas injection rate, water cut, WHP, etc. It is observed
that once the water cut increases the well production rate declines
rapidly. It is seen from the nodal analysis that as the water cut
reaches 45% the well ceases to flow and is in need for an artificial lift
support. The effect of water cut on oil rate for varying gas-lift gas
injection rate was analysed. For a fixed gas injection rate of 1
Mmscf/day, in comparison with the oil produced during 15% water
cut a decrease by 26.90% was observed during 30% water cut and a
decrease by 50.80% was observed during 45% water cut. The
decrease in the oil production rate is associated with the increase in
flowing BHP due to the presence of higher density water in the
tubing. An increase in the gas injection rate from 1 Mmscf/day to 8
S. Hari, S. Krishna, M. Patel et al. Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262

Fig. 13. IPRC (blue-line) and VLPCs for 45% water cut and different WHPs, gas-lift gas injection rate ¼ 4 Mmscf/day.

Fig. 14. Comparison of oil rate vs WHP between the three water cut test cases.

Table 3
Comparison of oil rate produced for different WHP and water cut.

WHP Oil production rate (stb/day) at Decrease in oil rate Oil production rate (stb/day) at Decrease in oil rate Oil production rate (stb/day) at Decrease in oil rate
(psig) 15% water cut (stb/day) 30% water cut (stb/day) 45% water cut (stb/day)

100 9071.2 0 7143.5 0 5370.2 0

200 8602 469 6759.2 384.3 5049 321.2
300 8071.6 999.4 6301.4 841.9 4686 684.2

Mmscf/day shall cause in an escalation in the oil rate by 29.21%,
40.48% and 56.56% for 15%, 30%, and 45% water cut conditions,
respectively. The average fluid density above the injection point
reduces considerably with a rise in the rate of gas-lift gas injection.
It is also observed that there is a reduction in the oil pro-
duction rate with an increase in the WHP for a constant rate of
gas-lift gas injection. Pressure losses at the surface are often
caused by the separator pressure. The pressure decrease available
for inflow of fluid and subsequent movement towards the surface
facilities is limited by the restrictive back pressure caused by the
WHP. It is observed that with an increase in the WHP from 100
psi to 300 psi produces a drop in the oil production rate by
11.01%, 11.78% and 12.74% for 15%, 30% and 45% water cut con-
ditions, respectively. In the mature phase of reservoir develop-
ment, reduction in the WHP is an important scheme for
improving the wells output potential.

260
S. Hari, S. Krishna, M. Patel et al.
5. Conclusions
The influence of key factors like gas-lift gas injection rate, water
cut and WHP on the output from a gas lifted well are analysed. The
salient observations of the presented study are mentioned below:
(1) From the nodal analysis, a rapid decline in the well produc-
tion rate is seen with an increase in the water cut. This
decline reflects the increase in flowing BHP due to the
presence of higher density water in the tubing.
(2) An increase in the gas injection rate produces a growth in the
oil rate as the average fluid density above the injection point
drops down considerably.
(3) A decrease in the oil production rate is caused by an increase
in the WHP for a constant rate of gas-lift gas injection. The
pressure drop available for inflow of fluid and subsequent
movement towards the surface facilities is hampered by the
back pressure caused by the WHP. This emphasizes the role
of reduction in the WHP in improving the wells output po-
tential during the mature phase of reservoir development.
Acknowledgement
Petroleum Experts (PETEX) Ltd. and Computer Centre, Pandit
Deendayal Energy University (PDEU) are deeply acknowledged for
providing the access to the academic license of the PROSPER
software.
References
Alarco
n, G.A., Torres, C.F., Go

mez, L.E., 2002. Global optimization of gas allocation to
a group of wells in artificial lift using nonlinear constrained programming.
J. Energy Resour. Technol. 124, 262e268. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1488172.
Arachman, F., Utami, F., Wasonoaji, A., Tobing, D., 2017. Brownfield redevelopment
strategies in offshore North west Java. In: SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Jakarta, Indonesia.
https://doi.org/10.2118/186970-ms.
Ashelm, H., 1988. Criteria for gas-lift stability. J. Petrol. Technol. 40, 1452e1456.
https://doi.org/10.2118/16468-pa.
Ayatollahi, S., Narimani, M., Moshfeghian, M., 2004. Intermittent gas lift in Aghajari
oil field, a mathematical study. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 42, 245e255. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2003.12.015.
Beggs, H.D., 2003. Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis, Second. OGCI and
Petroskills, Oklahoma, USA.
Behjoomanesh, M., Keyhani, M., Ganji-azad, E., Izadmehr, M., Riahi, S., 2015.
Assessment of total oil production in gas-lift process of wells using Box-
Behnken design of experiments in comparison with traditional approach.
J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 27, 1455e1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.10.008.
BenAmara, A., 2016. Gas lift - past & future. In: SPE Middle East Artificial Lift
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Manama, Kingdom
of Bahrain, pp. 1e6. https://doi.org/10.2118/184221-MS.
Betancourt, S., Dahlberg, K., Hovde, Ø., Jalali, Y., 2002. Natural gas-lift: theory and
practice. In: SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Villahermosa, Mexico. https://doi.org/10.2118/
74391-MS.
Bezerra, M.F., Vigano, G.C., Giuriatto, J.L., 2019. Optimization methodology of arti-
ficial lift rates for Brazilian offshore field. In: Offshore Technology Conference
Brasil. Offshore Technology Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. https://doi.org/
10.4043/29889-MS.
Camponogara, E., Plucenio, A., Teixeira, A.F., Campos, S.R.V., 2010. An automation
system for gas-lifted oil wells: model identification, control, and optimization.
J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 70, 157e167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2009.11.003.
Davarpanah, A., Mirshekari, B., 2018. Experimental study and field application of
appropriate selective calculation methods in gas lift design. Pet. Res. 3,
239e247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptlrs.2018.03.005.
de Souza, J.N.M., de Medeiros, J.L., Costa, A.L.H., Nunes, G.C., 2010. Modeling,
simulation and optimization of continuous gas lift systems for deepwater
offshore petroleum production. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 72, 277e289. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2010.03.028.
Decker, K.L., 2007. IPO gas lift design using valve performance. In: SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Califor-
nia, USA, pp. 869e874. https://doi.org/10.2523/109694-ms.
Deng, L., Olalotiti-Lawal, F., Davani, E., Castin ~ eira, D., 2019. Hypervolume-based
multiobjective optimization for gas lift systems. In: SPE Oklahoma City Oil and
Gas Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Oklahoma, USA. https://
261
Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262
doi.org/10.2118/195208-ms.
Eikrem, G.O., 2006. Stabilization of Gas-Lift Wells by Feedback Control. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
Fang, H., Duan, M., 2014. Marine petroleum (gas) engineering and equipment. In:
Offshore Operation Facilities. Elsevier, pp. 341e536. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-396977-4.00003-2.
Fang, W.Y., Lo, K.K., 1996. A generalized well-management scheme for reservoir
simulation. SPE Reservoir Eng. 11, 116e120. https://doi.org/10.2118/29124-PA.
Gaol, A.H.L., Daton, W.N., Aziz, P.A., Chandra, S., Yoga, H.F., 2020. Mechanistic
multiphase flow modeling: a new approach for gas lift design using dimen-
sionless scaling curve for tubing size optimization. In: AIP Conference Pro-
ceedings. American Institute of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0019752.
Garcia, A.P., Rosa, V.R., 2012. A genetic algorithm for gas lift optimization with
compression capacity limitation. In: SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petro-
leum Engineering Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Mexico City,
Mexico, pp. 1008e1016. https://doi.org/10.2118/153175-ms.
Garrouch, A.A., Al-Dousari, M.M., Al-Sarraf, Z., 2020. A pragmatic approach for
optimizing gas lift operations. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 10, 197e216. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13202-019-0733-7.
Glaso, O., 1980. Generalized pressure-volume-temperature correlations. J. Petrol.
Technol. 32, 785e795. https://doi.org/10.2118/8016-PA.
Guo, B., Lyons, W.C., Ghalambor, A., 2007. Artificial lift methods. In: Petroleum
Production Engineering. Elsevier Science, pp. 159e223. https://doi.org/10.1016/
b978-075068270-1/50074-8.
Hamedi, H., Rashidi, F., Khamehchi, E., 2011. A novel approach to the gas-lift allo-
cation optimization problem. Petrol. Sci. Technol. 29, 418e427. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10916460903394110.
Hari, S., Krishna, S., Gurrala, L.N., Singh, S., Ranjan, N., Vij, R.K., Shah, S.N., 2021.
Impact of reservoir, fracturing fluid and proppant characteristics on proppant
crushing and embedment in sandstone formations. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 95,
104187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104187.
Kanu, E.P., Mach, J., Brown, K.E., 1981. Economic approach to oil production and gas
allocation in continuous gas lift. J. Petrol. Technol. 33, 1887e1892. https://
doi.org/10.2118/9084-PA.
Kelley, T., 2010. Optimization, an important stage of engineering design. Technol.
Teach. 69, 18e23.
Khamehchi, E., Mahdiani, M.R., 2017. Gas Allocation Optimization Methods in
Artificial Gas Lift, SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering.
Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-51451-2.
Kolawole, O., Gamadi, T.D., Bullard, D., 2020. Artificial lift system applications in
tight formations: the state of knowledge. SPE Prod. Oper. 35, 422e434. https://
doi.org/10.2118/196592-PA.
Krishna, S., Sreenivasan, H., Nair, R., 2018. Hydraulic fracture studies of reservoirs
with an emphasis on pore fracture geometry studies by developing fracture and
Microseismic estimations. Ann. Geophys. 61. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7638.
Lea, J.F., 2010. Artificial lift selection. In: Clegg, J.D. (Ed.), Petroleum Engineering
Handbook: Volume IV - Production Operations Engineering. Society of Petro-
leum Engineers, Texas, USA, pp. 411e456.
Liang, Z., Wang, F., Deng, X., 2014. A novel technology of combining foam injection
and compression to lift liquid in water flooded gas wells. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 19,
147e151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2014.04.020.
Lu, Q., Fleming, G.C., 2011. Gas-lift optimization using proxy functions in reservoir
simulation. In: SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Texas, USA, pp. 127e138. https://doi.org/10.2118/140935-ms.
Mahdiani, M.R., Khamehchi, E., 2015. Stabilizing gas lift optimization with different
amounts of available lift gas. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 26, 18e27. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jngse.2015.05.020.
Mahdiani, M.R., Khamehchi, E., Suratgar, A.A., 2019. Using modern heuristic algo-
rithms for optimal control of a gas lifted field. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 183, 106348.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106348.
Mahmudi, M., Sadeghi, M.T., 2013. The optimization of continuous gas lift process
using an integrated compositional model. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 108, 321e327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.05.008.
Miresmaeili, S.O.H., Pourafshary, P., Farahani, F.J., 2015. A novel multi-objective
estimation of distribution algorithm for solving gas lift allocation problem.
J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 23, 272e280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.02.003.
Miresmaeili, S.O.H., Zoveidavianpoor, M., Jalilavi, M., Gerami, S., Rajabi, A., 2019. An
improved optimization method in gas allocation for continuous flow gas-lift
system. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 172, 819e830. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.petrol.2018.08.076.
Mukherjee, H., Brown, K.E., 1986. Improve your gas lift design. In: International
Meeting on Petroleum Engineering. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Beijing,
China, pp. 615e622. https://doi.org/10.2523/14053-ms.
Nalum, K., 2013. Modeling and Optimization in Oil Production. Norwegian Uni-
versity of Science and Technology.
Namdar, H., 2019. Developing an improved approach to solving a new gas lift
optimization problem. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 9, 2965e2978. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13202-019-0697-7.
Nguyen, V.T., Rogachev, M.K., Aleksandrov, A.N., 2020. A new approach to improving
efficiency of gas-lift wells in the conditions of the formation of organic wax
deposits in the Dragon field. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 10, 3663e3672.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-020-00976-4.
Nishikiori, N., Redner, R.A., Doty, D.R., Schmidt, Z., 1995. An improved method for
gas lift allocation optimization. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 117, 87e92. https://
S. Hari, S. Krishna, M. Patel et al.
doi.org/10.1115/1.2835335.
Pandian, S., Dahyalal, P.C., Krishna, S., Hari, S., Subramanian, D., 2021. A study on
cashew nut shell liquid as a bio-based flow improver for heavy crude oil. J. Pet.
Explor. Prod. Technol. 11, 2287e2297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-021-
01162-w.
Rahmawati, S.D., Chandra, S., Aziz, P.A., Daton, W.N., Gaol, A.H.L., 2020. Integrated
application of flow pattern map for long-term gas lift optimization: a case study
of Well T in Indonesia. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 10, 1635e1641. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13202-019-00821-3.
Ranjan, A., Verma, S., Singh, Y., 2015. Gas lift optimization using artificial neural
network. In: SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Manama, Bahrain, pp. 970e980. https://doi.org/10.2118/
172610-ms.
€t, B., 2012. A survey of methods for gas-lift optimization.
Rashid, K., Bailey, W., Coue
Model. Simulat. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/516807.
Robertson, J.O., Chilingarian, G.V., Carter, W.G., Kumar, S., 1987. Gas lift. In: De-
velopments in Petroleum Science. Elsevier, pp. 415e465. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0376-7361(08)70541-7.
Rodrigues, H.T., Almeida, A.R., Barrionuevo, D.C., Fraga, R.S., 2021. Effect of the gas
injection angle and configuration in the efficiency of gas lift. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
198, 108126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.108126.
Saepudin, D., Soewono, E., Sidarto, K.A., Gunawan, A.Y., Siregar, S., Sukarno, P., 2007.
An investigation on gas lift performance curve in an oil-producing well. Int. J.
Math. Math. Sci. 1e15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/81519.
Salazar-Mendoza, R., 2006. A new representative curves for gas-lift optimization.
In: SPE International Oil Conference and Exhibition in Mexico. Society of Pe-
troleum Engineers, Cancun, Mexico. https://doi.org/10.2118/104069-MS.
Sami, N.A., Turzo, Z., 2020. Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modelling of tran-
sient flow in the intermittent gas lift. Pet. Res. 5, 144e153. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ptlrs.2020.03.001.
Samier, P., 2010. Comparisons of various algorithms for gas-lift optimization in a
coupled surface network and reservoir simulation. In: SPE EUROPEC/EAGE
Annual Conference and Exhibition. Barcelona, Spain, pp. 7073e7087. https://
262
Petroleum Research 7 (2022) 253e262
doi.org/10.2523/130912-ms.
Santos, L.S., de Souza, K.M.F., Bandeira, M.R., Aho
n, V.R.R., Peixoto, F.C., Prata, D.M.,
2018. Dynamic optimization of a continuous gas lift process using a mesh
refining sequential method. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 165, 161e170. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2018.02.019.
Schmidt, Z., Doty, D.R., Agena, B., Liao, T., Brown, K.E., 1990. New developments to
improve continuous-flow gas lift utilizing personal computers. In: SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Louisiana,
USA, pp. 615e630. https://doi.org/10.2118/20677-ms.
Shao, W., Boiko, I., Al-Durra, A., 2016a. Plastic bag model of the artificial gas lift
system for slug flow analysis. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 33, 573e586. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jngse.2016.05.055.
Shao, W., Boiko, I., Al-Durra, A., 2016b. Control-oriented modeling of gas-lift system
and analysis of casing-heading instability. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 29, 365e381.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.01.007.
Shen, Z., Huang, X., Zhang, L., Hao, Z., Lei, D., Jin, J., 2013. Artificial lift technique of
multistage sliding vane pump used in thermal production well. Petrol. Explor.
Dev. 40, 651e655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1876-3804(13)60086-5.
Sivakumar, P., Krishna, S., Hari, S., Vij, R.K., 2020. Electromagnetic heating, an eco-
friendly method to enhance heavy oil production: a review of recent ad-
vancements. Environ. Technol. Innov. 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eti.2020.101100.
Sukarno, P., Saepudin, D., Dewi, S., Soewono, E., Sidarto, K.A., Gunawan, A.Y., 2009.
Optimization of gas injection allocation in a dual gas lift well system. J. Energy
Resour. Technol. 131, 033101. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3185345.
Tasmi, T., Rahmawati, S.D., Sukarno, P., Soewono, E., 2017. Applications of line-pack
model of gas flow in intermittent gas lift injection line. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 157,
930e940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.08.010.
Tetoros, I.E., 2015. Design of a Continuous Gas Lift System to Initiate Production in a
Dead Well. Technical University of Crete.
Wang, P., Litvak, M., 2008. Gas lift optimization for long-term reservoir simulations.
SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 11, 147e153. https://doi.org/10.2118/90506-pa.