SPE-192080-MS

In-House Software Development for Gas Production Optimization: A South

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

East Asia Perspective

Chayut Wongkamthong, Kongphop Wongpattananukul, Chaiyaporn Suranetinai, Varoon Vongsinudom, and

Peerapong Ekkawong, PTT Exploration And Production Public Co., Ltd.

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, 23–25 October 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Several gas fields in South East Asia share some common traits among them, obviously on their geological
features but also on their complex field operation. With a large number of small gas accumulations spreading
across a large area with high degree of lateral compartmentalization, production from these fields are usually
accomplished by hundreds of wells through multi-branches field networks. The scope of this paper is to
present the challenging journey of the company's in-house innovative methodology which resulted in the
development of a robust software to address the above challenges. The main objective of the software is to
optimize field production under numerous constraints present in these fields.
With the target to optimize field production and enhance predictive capability, the company integrates
the experiences from operating several fields and proposes an innovative approach to tackle these field
management challenges. The resultant software optimizes and solves the network calculation by simplifying
and formulating the production network into a system of linear equations, then applying optimization
techniques as large-scale simplex and mixed-integer linear programming algorithms, to search for the best
production scheme while taking user-selected objective function into consideration. The workflow was
developed using MATLAB optimization toolbox to work in conjunction with a familiar Excel-formatted
input. Moreover, with the incorporation of the Decline Curve Analysis (DCA), it is also applicable for
generating long term production forecast. The tool was further combined with Production Data Management
System (PDMS) to provide a more efficient automated workflow. It was used to maximize condensate
production in Arthit field, where the main constraints are to capture the production loss from CO2 removal
unit and to limit mercury concentration in sales condensate. While, in Zawtika field, the application exploits
quadratic programing to minimize the sum of gas production rate square hence controlling wells to produce
at optimal rate, mitigating sand production problem.
In this paper, successful implementation examples and benefits gained will be discussed. It ensures that
the condensate production in Arthit field is kept at optimal level compared with about 91% efficiency when
subjected to conventional practices while, in Zawtika, applying the workflow and operation resulted in
dramatically lower sand production problem. For future forecast, a look-back study was performed to make
sure that the method of calculating future potential is accurate. Not only does this new tool provided a
2 SPE-192080-MS

more efficient way for the teams to manage their assets but, more importantly, it also helps to save costs by
reducing man-hours through its rapid computation.

Introduction
In operating any gas fields within PTTEP, there are three production prediction practices that must be
performed regularly: snapshot optimization; medium-term forecast; long-term forecast. In the following

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

sections, the general description of these processes, with their typical problems are discussed.

Snapshot Optimization
The objectives of this process are to evaluate the gas deliverability of a field while honoring every
operational constraint and to find optimal production scheme. Typically, after collecting potential of each
well from production tests, engineers will rely on trial and error process or some basic solvers in MS Excel
spreadsheets to find the suitable scheme. However, due to the limitation and the empirical nature of the
process, the result was never fully optimized and subjective to the person performing the task. Moreover,
since these fields are produced with a large number of producers, using commercialized software to perform
optimization is tedious and time-consuming.

Medium-Term Forecast
This is to assure that gas deliverability can be maintained above the Daily Contractual Quantity (DCQ) for
the next 6-12 months with the current operation schedule. Figure 1 depicts the example of a medium-term
profile which is subjected to an arbitrary well intervention schedule. The conventional process primarily
relied on performing DCA of all wells. Then the DCQ would be achieved by trying to produce wells
proportionally without selective production. Therefore, it was laborious and did not capture the nature of
field management in which wells are selectively produced based on their values in petroleum fluids.

Figure 1—Example of medium-term production forecast

Long-Term Production Forecast

In order to select the best field development plan (FDP), production and potential profile until the end of field
life must be evaluated. Traditionally, commercialized material balance software was used. Nevertheless,
the constructing of the field model and running simulations might be time-consuming. Figure 2 shows an
example of this kind of forecast where each line represents a potential profile from one of the development
scenarios in which the company is interested.
SPE-192080-MS 3

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

Figure 2—Example of long-term production forecast

In-House Software Development Initiative

As neither manual calculation nor commercialized software applications seem practical, the idea to represent
the system as a more simplified mathematical formula, a system of linear equations, was proposed. The
main advantage of doing so is that such system can be undergone an optimization process relatively
easily with numerous optimization algorithms pervasively available. The company has constructed the in-
house software to solidify all the processes and named it "LINOPT". Since its initiation, the company has
implemented the software in several fields including Arthit, and Zawtika.
In this paper, the focus would be to elaborate on the implementation of the software in each of the fields
and provide their respective improvements in the process numerically.

Statement of Theory and Definitions

For constructing a production profile, the process is divided into two parts: formulating problem and finding
solution for one time step; updating parameters for production forecast. These steps, which are similar to
the ones the industry usually applies when reservoir simulation problems must be carried out, are explained
in more details in the following sections.

Formulating Problem and Finding Solution for One Time Step

Mathematically, in formulating any scenarios into a linear programming problem, three major parts must
be defined (Nash 2000):
1. Variables that are under our control to represent the elements of our interest
2. Objective function, which would be optimized, written in the form of the variables
3. Constraints indicating any restrictions on our variables
Lo (1995) provided a general concept in defining a petroleum production system as a linear optimization
problem. The following set of equations obtained by expanding on and refining his idea represents the
general linear programming formulation for any gas fields where we prefer to maximize condensate
production.
Variables: Gas rate from each well (qg,i)) where i is an integer from 1 to the number of wells (n)
Objective Function: Maximize condensate production (Qo) where
(1)
Subject to (Constraints):
4 SPE-192080-MS

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
In this context, the gas rate of our wells (qg,i) controlled by adjusting the wellhead chokes are the variables
since we would like to find the optimal production scheme.
For objective function, it mostly depends on what engineers would like to maximize or minimize. In this
example, the condensate production is maximized (Eq. 1).
Lastly, constraints are all of the operational concerns. In this example, we want to maintain gas production
at nomination (Eq. 2) as well as control total water and total liquid rates as per Eq. 3 and Eq. 4, respectively.
To represent the impurities of the production stream like CO2, we can represent them in term of their
concentration. In this case, CO2 of this gas stream is restricted to be within the range between CO2,min and
CO2,max according to Eq. 5 and Eq. 6. The next two equations are meant to pose engineering constraints for
maximum gas rate flowing in any pipelines where j represents the jth pipeline (Eq. 7) and the maximum gas
rate for each well to honor erosional velocity (Eq. 8). Lastly, Eq. 9 represents the range of allowable gas
producible rate for each well according to its minimum allowable gas rate (qg,i (min)) and the gas potential
(qg,i (max)).
Note that some constraints can be omitted given that they are not present; moreover, additional constraints
can be added (e.g., maximum allowable mercury content in sales condensate) to suit each field's scenarios
and characteristics.
Once the process of formulating the linear programming problem is finished, a simplex algorithm in
MATLAB optimization toolbox is used to solve the optimization problem and find the optimal set of
variables.

Updating Parameters for Production Forecast

While the idea presenting in this section may not be necessary if only optimal production scheme at the
current state of the field is required, it becomes mandatory when we need to construct a production profile
for medium-term and long-term forecasts. In order to achieve this, exponential decline model (Eq. 10) is
applied so that the time-dependent aspect of the problem, the potential of each well, can be taken into
account practically. For other fields that may show other types of production decline, hyperbolic or even
harmonic decline, their corresponding equations (Arps 1945) can be applied in a similar manner.

(10)

By firstly obtaining the nominal decline rate (d) from the current reserves of each producing unit and its
respective production rate, at the end of each time step, we can update our parameters as follows:

• Update the remaining reserves by subtracting the production of the previous time step, the result
of the linear programming problem, from the primary reserves
SPE-192080-MS 5

• Update the potential of the well by using Eq. 10 where Gp and qi are the production and the potential
of the previous time step, respectively
Wherever the history of the field suggests that condensate-gas ratio (CGR) and water-gas ratio (WGR)
tend to change with cumulative gas production (Yu 2014), equations similar to Eq. 10 for those two
parameters can be constructed and applied in the same manner. The processes to update gas potential, CGR,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

and WGR at the end of time step t are illustrated in Figure 3. This example shows the case when gas potential
denoted by qg, max and WGR change with time in a linear trend while CGR is constant.

Figure 3—The process to update gas potential (qg, max), CGR, and WGR when the cumulative
production from the unit increases from Gp, t at time step t to Gp, t+1 at time step t+1

Moreover, whenever field operations, drilling or well services operation, are expected to be performed,
gas potentials together with the fluid characteristics of those wells can be added to the linear programming
problem (newly drilled wells) or updated accordingly (intervened wells). The workflow of a single time
step snapshot optimization and production forecast is illustrated in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4—Optimization and forecast workflow

Description and Application of Equipment

LINOPT Software
While all optimization and calculation steps are performed using MATLAB optimization toolbox, MS Excel
is chosen for the user interface since most engineers are familiar with it. Both of them together would be
referred to as LINOPT. After receiving user input from MS Excel, the software would pass the data to
MATLAB where all calculations are performed. Then, it provides the results back in MS Excel format for
future uses.
Additionally, with the integration with Production Data Management System (PDMS), most of data used
in the process can be automatically updated once new data like a new production test is available in the
database.
6 SPE-192080-MS

Software Evaluation Approach

With the ability to perform optimization based on various optimization objectives under most operational
constraints, LINOPT is adopted and being implemented in several gas fields operated by PTTEP. Four
elements are needed to numerically evaluate the potential benefits from the software:
Comparison between the condensate target from the conventional approach and the actual condensate
potential from LINOPT. One goal of the software is primarily to provide a more optimal production

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

scheme. In many gas fields, this is to optimize condensate or barrel of oil equivalent (BOE) that we produce.
Therefore, by comparing the targeted condensate production from the conventional approach with the real
potential from LINOPT, we can obtain the efficiency that the fields were being operated without LINOPT.
Such comparison, defined at any particular time, is described in Eq. 11. In this equation, Qo,Conventional is
the condensate target from conventional optimization approach, the rate we once believed that it was the
maximum rate, and Q*o,LINOPT denotes the actual condensate potential from LINOPT which we should have
achieved.

(11)

After relying on production plan from LINOPT, the condensate production would reach what should
really be the true productivity of the fields.
Achievability of the target from LINOPT. For any software, another point that should be validated is the
practicability of the result. In this case, we need to ensure that the condensate target from LINOPT that we
plan to produce is really obtainable with real field practices. In other words, the scheme provided from the
software and the predicted result is pragmatic. Therefore, after we applied LINOPT, the actual condensate
production is compared with the target resulted from LINOPT as per Eq. 12.

(12)

The achievability over 100% shouldn't pose any problems since it can be the case when the max potential
of some wells are not fully captured. However, the figure much lower than 100% might suggest either the
appearance of some unexpected operational problems or the impractical production target from the software.
Potential forecast error. Another aspect that should be validated is the future potential forecast method
on which the medium-term and the long-term forecasts are based. This is achieved by comparing the gas
potential from medium-term forecast done in the past with the actual potential realized at each time step as
per Eq. 13 where Q*g denotes gas potential.

(13)

Man-hour reduction. Implicitly, the man-hour spent on any tasks is subjective to the ability and the
experience of each operator. In eliminating possible biases, each field and for each type of forecasts, the
persons generally do the tasks are asked to perform production forecasts with both the conventional approach
and LINOPT separately. Then, the amount of time spent with each methods is compared and reported. This
process is meant to roughly evaluate the program numerically in term of how it makes the process become
easier and faster.
SPE-192080-MS 7

Presentation of Data and Results

In this section, the stories of the full-field software implementation in Arthit, and Zawtika are reported
separately. For each field, field overview is provided followed by the software application and the results
from using LINOPT.

Arthit

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

Field Overview. Arthit field located in the Gulf of Thailand started production in 2008. It is generally
characterized by highly heterogeneous reservoirs with poor connectivity. At the current state of the field, it
is contractually deliver DCQ of over 200 MMscf/D with more than 400 producers and almost 40 platforms.
The location of the field is depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5—Arthit field map

One of the challenges in this area is that gases from several reservoirs in different areas show much higher
CO2 content than our sales-gas specifications. As a result, CO2 removal unit was implemented requiring
operators to control the feed CO2 level at a specific value in order to serve the CO2 specs at sales condition
(Suebsook et.al 2011). Producing it at lower than this value of feed CO2 may cause loss in value if some
reservoirs with higher CO2 are left unblended and non-producible. In contrast, producing at higher than this
feed specification lessen the value of the sales gas.
In addition, the condensate from this field shows a wide range of mercury (Hg) content
(Charoensawadpong et.al 2018). Therefore, to meet the sales-condensate specifications, condensate
blending has to be performed.
Software Application. In Arthit field, the optimization objective is to maximize the BOE while maintaining
DCQ resulting in the maximum revenue. Eq. 14 is the formula for the objective function, where Conv is the
unit conversion factor to convert from BTU to BOE. Since generally the GCV for each well is quite close
to that of the others, with this objective function, condensate production would be maximized as well.

(14)

For constraints, other than general pipeline constraints that must be obliged in every asset, this field also
strives to control the Hg content of its condensate as well as CO2 in the gas stream. In order to limit the Hg
content, an equation similar to Eq. 15 can be used in the definition of linear programming problem.
8 SPE-192080-MS

(15)
Implementation Results.
1. Comparison between the condensate target from the conventional approach and the actual condensate
potential from LINOPT
For illustrating the benefit of the software in snapshot optimization, we collect the well data which we

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

used to perform the conventional optimization approach in the past and optimize it with LINOPT. Figure 6
shows the plot of the target from our conventional approach (line with black markers), and actual condensate
potential from LINOPT (black dashed line) over 6 months in the past. The actual sales condensate line
(green line) is viewed as a quality control to ensure that the field was operated in the similar manner as the
production plan from the conventional approach.

Figure 6—Arthit comparison between the condensate target from conventional

optimization (line with black markers) and that form LINOPT (black dashed line)

In the figure, the sharp drop in condensate sales at the start of month 5 was due to planned shutdown for
maintenance. Compared with the actual production, the target from the conventional approach was generally
achieved with mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 4.84%. When compared with the actual potential,
the conventional approach tended to provide production scheme at only 91.39% of the true potential. This
gap represents the portion of the field management that could be optimized further by LINOPT.
2. Achievability of the target from LINOPT
After applying LINOPT in optimizing the field production, the condensate production and its respective
production target from LINOPT were collected over the six-month period and plotted in Figure 7.
SPE-192080-MS 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

Figure 7—Arthit field condensate production and its corresponding target from LINOPT

As the figure above suggests, the condensate target from LINOPT which must be the maximum
possible condensate production at any time periods can be achieved successfully. Numerically, the target
achievability is 100.03% in average with the MAPE between the predicted rate and the actual sales of
6.52%. Therefore, it can be concluded that the production scheme provided from the software is reasonably
achievable.
3. Potential forecast error
In order to ensure that the method of potential decline is consistent with the reservoirs’ characteristics,
the potential profile generated from medium-term forecast in LINOPT is plotted together with the actual
gas potential at each period of time in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8—Art hit look-back study on accuracy of medium-term forecast compared with the actual data

The reason why the actual potential was generally lower than the medium-term potential is that, in
performing snapshot optimization, we must take some additional unexpected restrictions into account. This
includes emergency shutdown of some platforms, the element that is unpredictable, and hence hard to
capture for medium-term forecast.
Considering the overall result, even though the field, at this period of time, was subjected to lots of well
intervention activities every day, it can be observed that the general trend of actual gas potential is captured
10 SPE-192080-MS

in the medium-term forecast. This is the good indicator that the way that engineers calculate potential gains
or losses from each operation and also the method that the software uses to calculate potential decline are
accurate. The medium-term potential forecast error according to Eq. 13 during that period was on average,
5.76%.
4. Man-hour reduction
After using LINOPT in all three optimization tasks, the comparison of the time required to perform each

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

task when we used the conventional approach and that of LINOPT is reported in Figure 9.

Figure 9—Arthit man-hour reduction from using LINOPT (green) instead of the conventional approach (blue)

For any of these three tasks, using LINOPT significantly shortens the time to perform optimization and
construct production profile. While the traditional snapshot optimization and medium-term forecast take
more time than that with the new software because they require some manual calculations, the long-term
forecast takes more time due to a more computationally expensive approach adopted by material balance
software than that of LINOPT.
Note that the reason why petroleum engineers usually take longer time in performing medium-term
forecast than the long-term forecast is that in medium term forecast, we are required to optimize drilling
and well services schedule, a trial-and-error process. Therefore, the task is more complicated and requires
more simulation cases than coming up with the long-term profile.

Zawtika
Field Overview. Zawtika field, a dry gas field in offshore Myanmar, started production in 2014 with DCQ
over 250 MMscf/D. While it is not relatively heterogeneous or geologically complicated compared with
the reservoirs in Arthit, it has several unconsolidated reservoirs resulting in high risk of sand production
(Junmano et.al 2016). Consequently, the main challenge here is to make sure that all wells, while serving
enough gas for DCQ, are producing at sand free rates. The Zawtika map is shown in the Figure 10.
SPE-192080-MS 11

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

Figure 10—Zawtika field map

Software Application. As per the nature of the unconsolidated sands, the maximum allowable production
rate for each well are constrained in the program in order to mitigate the sand problem. Moreover, the
optimization objective is set to minimize the sum of gas production rate square (Eq. 16 where i is an integer
from 1 to the number of wells n). This would further help us ensure that fewest wells are forced to produce
at high draw down pressures resulting from high production rates. Even though this objective forces us to
rely on quadratic programming instead of linear programming, it is easy to implement since the solver of
this programming problem is already available in MATLAB library.
(16)
Implementation Results. Since the reservoirs in this area are dry gas reservoirs, the objective function of
the optimization is not intended to maximize condensate production. Therefore, any evaluations involving
condensate production are not meaningful. Consequently, only mid-term potential forecast error to confirm
the validity of the decline approach and the man-hour reduction are analyzed. Since the final goal of
optimizing this field is to obtain the production scheme with lower sand problems, the sand production
result after implementing the software is duly addressed.
1. Potential forecast error
In evaluating the error of the gas decline method, as performed in Arthit, the potential profile generated
from medium-term forecast in LINOPT is plotted together with the actual gas potential in Figure 11 below.
12 SPE-192080-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

Figure 11—Zawtika look-back study on accuracy of medium-term forecast compared with the actual data

During the year of observation, there were several efforts initiated to prolong the productivity of the field.
The increase in potential was therefore due to additional perforation. The medium-term potential forecast
error according to Eq. 13 during that time period was on a low average of 1.72%. This shows that both the
method to calculate the additional potential from future wells and the gas decline approach being used in
LINOPT are accurate.
2. Man-hour reduction
In this field, we have been implementing LINOPT in doing medium-term and long-term forecasts since
the beginning; therefore, the time spent on those forecasts with conventional approaches is not available.
The result is reported Figure 12.

Figure 12—Zawtika man-hour reduction from using LINOPT (green) instead of the conventional approach (blue)

Considering snapshot optimization task, using LINOPT shortens the time required significantly.
3. Effect of the optimization approach on sand production
In evaluating the effectiveness of the objective function to help mitigate sand production problem in this
field, the yearly average of the sum of square of daily gas production rate is plotted together with the sand
SPE-192080-MS 13

production rate in Figure 13. During this period, the field was produced at the same DCQ; therefore, the
reduction in this parameter was not due to the change in DCQ.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

Figure 13—Zawtika sand production problem before and after changing the production philosophy

It is clear from the results that as the sum of square of daily gas production rate reduces, the sand
production rate reduces as well. Since late Year 2, when this production scheme has been strictly honored,
the sand production problem has been reported to be at minimum.

Conclusions
1. LINOPT software has been developed internally in PTTEP for years and now it has been used for
snapshot optimization and future production forecast in several gas fields in the Gulf of Thailand
where PTTEP is the main operator.
2. The core idea, which eventually leads to the success, is to formulate the field production system as a
linear optimization problem where a variety of production goal can be selected and most, if not all,
operational constraints can be taken into account.
3. Regarding the snapshot optimization, which is used to devise the daily production strategy, the
software is proven to provide a more optimal production plan than those from any conventional
approaches applied.
4. The production target obtained from the software is practical and achievable with normal field
practices.
5. For future production forecast, the implementation of the gas potential decline approach similar to the
exponential decline in DCA is justified by the low error in future potential forecast.
6. As a result of simple but robust software structure including user-friendly workflow, the man-hour
spent on each task can be reduced significantly.

Acknowledgement
This research was supported by PTTEP. We are truly grateful to PTTEP management for their continued
support and review on the project. We also would like to express our deepest gratitude and appreciation
to the following for their technical advice and assistance; Saran Sirimongkolrat, Sujaree Worapotpisan,
Mohamad Kamal Bin Hamdan, Sittichod Srihirunrusmee, Vartit Tivayanonda, Watanapong Ratawessanun,
and Chuayrach Wongrattananon, PTTEP.
14 SPE-192080-MS

Nomenclature
qg,i = gas production rate of ith well
qo,i = condensate production rate of ith well
WGRi = Water-Gas-Ratio of ith well
CGRi = Condensate-Gas-Ratio of ith well
LGRi = Liquid-Gas-Ratio of ith well

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/18APOG/2-18APOG/D021S012R003/1221605/spe-192080-ms.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 15 December 2021

CO2,i = carbon dioxide content of ith well
qg-line(j),i = gas production rate of ith well in jth pipeline
qerosional,i = erosional gas production rate of ith well
qg,i(min) = minimum allowable gas production rate of ith well
qg,i(max) = maximum allowable gas production rate of ith well
Gp = cumulative gas production
d = nominal gas decline rate
Qo, Conventional = condensate target from the conventional approach
= condensate potential from LINOPT
Qo, Actual = actual condensate production
Qo, Target = condensate target from LINOPT
= actual gas potential from snapshot optimization
= gas potential from medium-term forecast
GCVi = gas calorific value of ith well
Conv = unit conversion from BTU to BOE
Hgi = mercury content of ith well

References
Arps, J. J. (1945, December 1). Analysis of Decline Curves. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/945228-G
Charoensawadpong, P., Chatwarodom, P., Manit, P., Atibodhi, N., Yongmanitchai, M., Hayook, C., … Suwanvesh, K.
(2018, March 20). Unlocking Field Potential from High Mercury Wells: New Opportunities, Challenges and Solutions.
Offshore Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/28524-MS
John C. Nash, (2000, January 1). The [Dantzig] Simplex Method for Linear Programming. Computing in Science and
Engineering (CiSE) vol. 2. doi:10.1109/5992.814654
Junmano, T., Lee, B., Grant, G., Raipairi, P., Viriyasomboon, N., & Nopsiri, N. (2016, November 12). Sand Production
Management the Critical Challenge in Zawtika Gas Production. International Petroleum Technology Conference.
doi:10.2523/IPTC-18839-MS
Lo, K. K., Starley, G. P., & Holden, C. W. (1995, February 1). Application of Linear Programming to Reservoir
Development Evaluations. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/26637-PA
Suebsook, J., Eksaengsri, A., Lertsakulsup, S., Suwanvesh, K., Iswigrai, J., & Sillapacharn, T. (2011, January 1).
Process Optimization in Acid Gas Removal System. International Petroleum Technology Conference. doi:10.2523/
IPTC-14641-MS
Yu, S. (2014, April 1). A New Methodology to Predict Condensate Production in Tight/Shale Retrograde Gas Reservoirs.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/168964-MS