IPTC-20254-MS

Numerical Simulation of Gas Lift Optimization Using Genetic Algorithm for a

Middle East Oil Field: Feasibility Study

Mustafa AlJuboori and Mofazzal Hossain, Curtin University; Omar Al-Fatlawi, University of Baghdad-Department of
Petroleum Engineering; Akim Kabir, Saudi Aramco; Abbas Radhi, Missan Oil Company

Copyright 2020, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 13 – 15 January 2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Gas-lift technique plays an important role in sustaining oil production, especially from a mature field when
the reservoirs’ natural energy becomes insufficient. However, optimally allocation of the gas injection rate in
a large field through its gas-lift network system towards maximization of oil production rate is a challenging
task. The conventional gas-lift optimization problems may become inefficient and incapable of modelling
the gas-lift optimization in a large network system with problems associated with multi-objective, multi-
constrained, and limited gas injection rate. The key objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of
utilizing the Genetic Algorithm (GA) technique to optimize the allocation of the continuous gas-lift injection
rate in a network system of a Middle Eastern oil field with 43 gas-lift injected wells through numerical
modelling and simulation studies. Reservoir pressure and water cut sensitivity studies are performed to
investigate the potential impacts of these parameters on well production performance and production life
cycle of the field. Sample economics analysis are exercised to broaden the understanding of potential benefit
of the implementation gas lift techniques in the field from both technical and economic viewpoint.
In addition, while application of GA is not a new idea, this paper elaborates the GA based optimization
techniques for improving the oil production rate by implementing gas lift in a large Middle Eastern oil
field. The optimization model is presented step by step, so it can easily be followed, and be used as a
guide, especially by frontline production engineers involved in designing and development of gas-lift system
towards optimally allocation of gas injection rate to individual well in a network system for a field with
limited gas injection rate.

Introduction
Artificial lift is a technique commonly used to increase the oil production rate of a well, when the reservoir
pressure in is not enough to provide sustainable oil production rate. Artificial lift techniques have gained
increasing importance because of the rising energy demand, and the dropping of the pressures of the mature
fields (OF Al-Fatlawi et al., 2015; Hossain and bin Mohd Ismail, 2013; Ismail and Hossain, 2013). The gas
lift is the one form of artificial lift technique, which includes the process of injecting gas through annulus
2 IPTC-20254-MS

mostly into the tubing through valves to decrease the density of the fluid, and thus, lower the required
bottom pressure resulting in increasing the oil flow production rate (Dale Beggs, 1991; Ghaedi et al., 2014;
Lake, 2010). The gas lift is generally considered to be most cost-effective economical artificial lift technique
especially for a large field for the improvement of field productivity (Dzubur and Langvik, 2012; Ghaedi
et al., 2014). The performance of artificial lift can be affected by many factors. For instance, the high-
water cut can cause substantial reduction of oil production and/or even shutting down the well due to higher
bottomhole pressure incurred by increasing the gradient of following fluid.
There are several constraints associated with gas lift operation, such as gas injection rate, injecti on
pressure, availability of lift gas, compressor capabilities, and water handling facilities etc. These constraints
require to take into consideration during optimization process. Considering these limitations, finding an
optimum allocation of the injection rate of lift gas for each well in a network system is a very challenging
task. Several gas-lift optimization techniques have been developed to optimally distribute the injection rate
of lift gas for each well within certain facility constraints (Rashid et al., 2012). However, conventional
gas lift optimization methods are mostly incapable of modelling the multivariate optimization schemes for
the optimization of continuous gas lift system encompassing multiples wells in a network. Also, it has the
difficulties of considering the backpressure effect arising from wells sharing the network system.
Several optimiation techniques are described in the literatures to optimize continuous gas lift systems. For
instance, the single well analysis technique uses nodal analysis concept to produce the gas lift performance
curve of a single well based on actual pressure and temperature surveys along with a suitable multiphase flow
correlation. It involves in isolation of all wells from each other with an assumption of constant wellhead or
gathering-system pressure. This assumption may be valid in some cases, such as: when the wells are choked
at the wellhead to maintain stable wellhead pressure; multiple wells are gathered at the separator under the
same pressure control system; and/or the pipeline network is dominated by the pressure drop across the well
tubing (Lu and Fleming, 2012). The main constraint considered in this technique is the limitation of gas
injection rate. It does not integrate the facility constraints. (Kanu et al., 1981).
Kanu et al. (1981) developed the equal-slope method which is devoted to maximizing profit in continuous
gas lift system by considering the gas injection (compression) in terms of cost and liquid production in terms
of profit. Then, finding the best allocation rate which minimizes the cost of gas usage while maximizing
oil production. The principle of equal slope technique is that profit maximization will occur at the point at
which the income of incremental oil equal or more than the cost of incremental gas injection. This approach
uses a manual procedure by making different tangents with equal slopes on each of the performance curves,
constructed previously at different values of gas injection rate.
Rashid et al. (2012) outlined some optimization approaches which used the Gas Lift Performance Curve
(GLPC) as a basis of their solutions. These solutions aimed to use the GLPC in a way that maximizes oil
production with minimizing injection cost concurrently. Economic considerations such as net profit after
excluding the cost of injection, and compression have been adopted by several optimization techniques.
Fang and Lo (1996) utilized the linear programming approach to optimally allocate gas injection with a
variety of flow rate limitations. Bergeron et al. (1999) assessed the gas lift optimization on one offshore well
practically using step-rate injection to construct well performance curve for optimum gas injection rate while
reducing flow obstruction due to freezing and monitoring the well stability. Rashid et al. (2012) stressed on
the importance of integrating the back-pressure effect. For instance, when two or more wells share the same
flow line, the back-pressure effects are typically ignored so the semi-steady state model can be considered
for the solution. Such approach may work reasonably for the individual well assessment. However, coupled
well solutions with the surface networks approach appears to be more efficient since this approach takes
into account the the effect of backpressure in the system while allocating gas lift rate, especially when there
are flow interactions between wells in the system. Dutta-Roy and Kattapuram (1997) developed a nonlinear
model using Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) coupled with full-network solutions. (Wang and
Litvak, 2004) considered iterative approach to solve gas lift distribution up to obtaining minimum lift
IPTC-20254-MS 3

efficiency for the full network. The nonlinear optimization technique is used to simulate a full network in an
offshore field to integrate the complex field production system with surface separator and compression for
around 200 wells with different well head pressure (Pwh). The merit of this nonlinear optimization is that it
incorporates system handling constraints and complicated production system concurrently with the optimal
result (Nadar et al., 2006). For more illustration regarding gas lift optimization in a network system, Figure
1 shows an example of the gas lift injection rate distribution for five wells based on gas lift optimizing tool.

Figure 1—shows a gas lift injection rate for each well individually by the (×) mark

E. Camponogara and P. Nakashima (2006b) used a dynamic programming algorithm method to allocate
gas injection rate optimally. In general, owing to full-network computational solutions, the cost for this
type is considerably high as compared to the single well solution. Particle swarm algorithm developed by
Eberhart and Kennedy (1995) was also used along with penalty function for optimum gas allocation in some
wells to obtain a fast result and accurate model. However, implementation of this approach in a routine
industry environment could be very challenging.
OF Al-Fatlawi et al. (2015) worked on a giant Iraqi filed to achieve the optimum design of gas lift
that included many unsolved difficulties. They created a new model is designed for matching PVT data,
matching vertical pressure drop calculations, making sensitivity analysis of productivity index variation,
making sensitivity analysis of wellhead temperature variation, the achievement of optimum design of gas
lift and finding optimum values of injected gas rate and oil production.
The optimization approaches as discussed earlier may work with limited capacity, mainly for very few
constraints. These conventional approaches are not well capable of handling wells which share the same
network system due to neglecting back pressure; and the difficulty in integrating the facility and production
constraints. It is quite challenging to accurately model and simulate a large network system using these
approaches since it requires huge computation time; and often results misleading outcomes. In addition,
finding a local solution to the problem is part of the suboptimal solutions. Therefore, using dynamic global
algorithms may be necessary to cope with these issues as suggested by Buitrago et al. (1996) who presented a
derivative-free algorithm by implementing a heuristic method for gas lift distribution solving two significant
issues, which are non-instantaneous flow (NIF) and unsmooth curve for a notable number of wells. This
4 IPTC-20254-MS

study focuses on optimizing the gas lift using Genetic Algorithm (GA) optimization for its capability of
effectively integrating all these limitations of gas lift problems in an efficient manner.

Genetic algorithm
The genetic algorithm (GA) is a kind of optimization technique which solves constrained and unconstrained
optimization problems through natural selection process based on the concept of evolutionary biology,
including the fundamental processes of selection, crossover, and mutation. Instead of considering a single
point or solution, a population of solutions is designed. The algorithm modifies the population of individual
solutions repetitively; selects individuals randomly from the current population as parents; and uses these
parents to produce the children for the next generation. The population evolves over the successive
generation towards an optimal solution. The solution process of GA follows different principles as compared
to conventional approaches. The fundamental differences are as follows:
1. GA is not used derivative in its procedure instead it uses objective function;
2. Instead of using single point, it uses a population of design points or variables that leads to avoid local
optimum solution (obtaining global optimum solution);
3. Strings of binary numbers represent the design variables, which are the similar to chromosomes in
genetics, so discrete and integer problems are naturally applicable are solved by GA.
Gen and Cheng (1997) illustrated that conventional techniques, which use a single point solution and
deterministic sequence of a derivative based objective function, result in mostly local optimum solution
because of the point to point techniques as shown in Figure 2. In comparison, GA solution, which adopts the
population solutions, will avoid falling into local optimum by sustaining multiple points to multiple point
approaches of each generation. In such method, the probability of surviving the best fittest solution is high
as compared to low fitness solution. As a result, the GA will mostly result in a global optimum solution.

Figure 2—illustrates the genetic algorithm and other optimization method procedure as proposed by (Gen and Cheng, 1997).

GA has several advantages over the conventional optimization technique in modelling the gas lift
technique optimization problems, which are summarized below (Ruhul Sarker et al., 2003):
IPTC-20254-MS 5

• There is no need to assume concavity, convexity, and continuity of algorithm in GA as compared

to other optimization method.
• GA can integrate some conventional method such as Hybrid algorithm to improve its efficiency in
solving the constraints existing in the gas lift problems;
• Conventional methods can provide only the best single point solution, whereas GA can provide
multi-point solutions such as first, second, third etc. This feature is specifically significant for the
decision maker in oil field industry, since some decision maker may need to review other alternative
solutions. GA can provide the first, second and third best solutions; even these solutions can be
matched to the objectives of decision maker, while investigating the optimum solution of gas lift
method (Seydel and Olson, 1990)
• GA has capacity to integrate the penalty function for solving all optimization problems based on
constraints by proposing the change in the structure to obtain feasible solution meeting the multi-
constraints objective functions;
• GA usually provide faster solution of optimization problem as compared to conventional approach.
Even sometimes it needs a small generation to provide a quick approximate solution (Sakawa
and Kato, 2003);
• The capability of GA to solve multi-objective or multivariate optimization problems is a
key driving factor in selecting this technique to solve gas lift optimization problem, because
it is beneficial in providing many alternative solutions in one simulation run considering
simultaneously gas-lift constraints such as water and gas handling system, flowing bottom well
pressure, and gas injection rate (Coello, 1999; R Sarker et al., 2002; Zitzler et al., 2000);
• The starting point solution is randomly generated without the need to use any methodology to create
an appropriate initial solution, which makes this technique more significant, since this procedure
reduces substantial time to obtain initial point solution, and also decrease the effort required to
provide the initial point information to start optimization;
• In the oil industry, the oil well and field data are changing continuously, especially production data
of each well, such as GOR, water cut and oil flow rate which may require adjusting the objective
function. In this case, GA can deal with such adjustment very easily to provide the optimum
solution.
GA techniques consists of five basic phases, which are: initial population; fitness function; selection;
crossover, and mutation. The process starts with initial population, which comprises of a set of individuals
(i.e. solutions) within a search space. An individual is characterized by a range of combinations of the
design variables (or parameters) termed as "genes", which are joined into a string to form a chromosome
(or solution). For each solution, the objective function is assessed, which is representative of its level of
fitness. Each solution is paired with another to form a mating pair, used for reproduction of subsequent
populations. The mating pairs produce new solutions as offspring which have values of the design variables
generated by crossover of the parent’s values. In addition, random mutation is introduced to some of the
new solution’s values. Mutations are useful to assess the wide range of variables, which can help to reduce
early convergence. The process of GA technique is random, even though its optimization permits to one
solution to establish the level of control. The procedures for modelling gas lift problem using GA technique
is summarized below:
1. Initial population generation: As shown in Figure 3, lift gas injection rates is considered as
chromosomes; and 4 chromosomes are generated (A, B, C, and D) with specifying the gas injection
rate;
2. Evaluation of fitness function: The oil flow rate is considered as fitness function, which is a function
of lift gas injection rate;
6 IPTC-20254-MS

3. If results meet optimization criteria, optimization process terminates;

4. If not, the solution is modified by selecting two chromosomes;
5. Conducting crossover of each of two chromosomes selected for crossover having probability less than
pre-defined value for crossover;
6. Mutation of some chromosomes. if required to acquire new generation;
7. Calculating fitness values of new generations with standard deviation;
8. Solved iteratively until acquiring optimum solution unless limiting the number of new generations.

Figure 3—The cycle or workflow GA to obtain the optimum results

Table 1 and Table 2 illustrate an example about how the GA method works to optimize the solution in gas
lift optimization problem. Firstly, it generates number of chromosomes representing the size of population,
and each chromosome represents a specific lift gas injection rate. Secondly, it will find the equivalent oil
flow rate (fitness function) to each of these chromosomes (gas injection rate) as shown in Table 2. Thirdly,
the best solutions will have a high chance to be selected for the next generation or process in order to modify
the solution because this method depends on the principles of survival of best solution or best chromosome.
Fourthly, conducting crossover for the selection of best chromosome in order to modify the lift gas injection
rate to maximize the oil flow rate as show in Table 3. Finally, both Tables 1 and 2 show how the average
solution of oil rate are changed from 1572 STB/day to 3000 STB/day after modifying the solution. This
process will continue until reaching the optimum solution that meets the optimization criteria, which already
set to maximize the oil flow rate from this field.

Table 1—GA cycle optimization processes before performing Crossover stage

Lift Gas
Chromosome Encoded
injection rate, Qo (STB/day) = f (lift gas injection rate)
No. gas lift rate
MMscf/day

A 01101 1 1000

B 11000 2 2000

C 01000 0.8 800

D 10011 1.5 1500

Average 1.325 1575

IPTC-20254-MS 7

Table 2—GA cycle optimization processes after Crossover stage

Lift Gas Qo (STB/day)

Encoded
Chromosome No. Crossover stage injection rate, = f (lift gas
gas lift rate
MMscf/day injection rate)

A 01101 01100 2 2000

B 11000 11011 3 3000

C 01000 01111 3.5 4500

D 10011 01011 2.5 2500

Average 2.75 3000

Problem formulation
The field oil production rate (Qo) under lift gas injection (Qgi,inj) can be represented by the summation of
oil produced from each well (qoi) as shown in Equation (1) (Ghaedi et al., 2014; Hamedi and Khamehchi,
2012). As mentioned earlier, the lift gas injection rates are represented by chromosomes or genes, and the
size of lift gas injection rate divisions are represented by population size in GA technique.

Gas lift optimization aims to increase total oil production while minimizing gas injection rate, so Equation
(1) can be expressed as Equation (2)

Since the amount of gas injection is limited in the proposed oil field, the optimum gas injection to
maximize the oil production can be expressed by Equation (3) and Equation (4) according to, Alarcón et
al. (2002)and E. Camponogara and P. Nakashima (2006a):
3

4
In addition, minimum injection rate (Qgi,inj (min)) represents the smallest amount of gas required to
unload dead well or maintain oil production while maximum injection rate (Qgi,inj (max)) represents the
highest amount of gas needed to maximize oil production above which the oil rate decrease, as expressed
in Equations (5) and (6).
5
6
E. Camponogara and P. H. Nakashima (2006) integrated the facility constraints in the gas lift optimization
problem based on the following equations (7), (8), (9), and (10), where qpn, qpmax, qgmax, qwmax, and qomax
represent fluid production rate, the capacity of the separator, and gas, water, and oil system handling
constraints, respectively. Also, γw, γg, and γo water, gas, and oil fraction of production fluid, respectively.
7

9
8 IPTC-20254-MS

10
The equations presented above are used for the optimization of gas lift system in the case of limited gas
injection rate using GA following the workflow described in Figure 4. The facility handling constraints was
formulated mathematically to understand the concept for dealing with such problems. The details of building
well and field, and steps of performing GA optimization using PIPESIM simulator are elaborated below.

Figure 4—Workflow of gas lift optimization process using GA method (after Owais, et al, 2005)

Numerical modelling and simulation

The implementation of GA method in a real case can effectively assess its power in modelling the problems
of gas lift well considering all numerical simulation constraints being discussed above to find the feasibility
of the use of such technique on daily basis in the oil fields. This work vastly involves with modelling and
numerical simulation for a giant Middle Eastern oil field using the GA based optimization tool. The model
considered 43 wells of this field, each of which is being installed with gas-lift injection system in a network.
GA uses the survival of best solution principles depending on generating the initial solutions, finding the
results, selecting the best solutions of multi-objective and multi-constrained functions, and improvement of
the solutions to obtain the optimum result, as elaborated earlier.

Field background
The field is situated in Middle East which has a vast reserve of nearly 2.7 billion STB of oil with almost
low API number (around 23 degree). The producing layer is situated at around a depth of 4000 m with
initial reservoir pressure around 6300 psi. This field consists of two domes: North; and South domes. The
average reservoir pressure varies from North to South dome is nearly 4700 psi to 4259 psi. This field
IPTC-20254-MS 9

consists of 43 production wells with field average oil production rate of around 72,740 STB/day. Because
it has weak aquifer support, the field is considered to be producing under depletion drive mechanism. Thus,
several water injections wells have been drilled in this field to maintain its reservoir pressure. Due to having
depletion drive mechanism, and deep wells around 4000m, the reservoir pressure drops relatively faster
causing a decrease in oil production rate, and an increase in water cut in some wells. Therefore, the reduction
in average reservoir pressure and well performance drive the attention to consider the gas lift technique with
an aim to maximize oil production.

Well flow model

The shortage of required data always makes huge challenges in the process of building numerical simulation
model, especially when this model represents the whole field. Performing pressure-volume-temperature
(PVT) analyses of reservoir fluids, finding matching PVT correlations, determination of accurate flowing
bottomhole pressure (Pwf) and obtaining the accurate outflow performance or vertical lift performance (VLP)
correlations for the wells are very challenging.
The field PVT data obtained from lab data, are considered as an average for the whole field depending on
the PVT experimental measurements of four wells in this field, especially because the difference between
them is found to be insignificant according to the lab data. Secondly, after matching the PVT data with
correlations, the data were tuned further using the reservoir fluids of a similar Middle East reservoirs
(Elsharkawy and Alikhan, 1999; Hassan, 2011; Sadiq and Hassan, 2010; Sadiq and Hassn, 2009).
The accurate calculation of all gas properties such as viscosity, gas density, gas formation volume
factor is primarily depended on the accurate estimation of gas compressibility factor. Moreover, the gas
compressibility is generally highly dependent on pressure and temperature, and it is hardly possible to
find a matching correlations that can be applicable to entire range of pressure and temperature (Al-Jawad
and Hassan, 2012; Ekundayo and Rezaee, 2019; Hassan, 2004; Hassan and Al-Jawad, 2005). The gas
compressibility factor in this study was computed using the lookup tables of Z-factor developed by Omar
Al-Fatlawi et al. (2017) for the entire range of reservoir pressure and temperature. The available production
data were measured against the wellhead pressure along with oil production rate and some test points.
Finding the matching multiphase flow correlation is the key to perform accurate nodal analysis (El-
Moniem and El-Banbi, 2018; Ottba and Al-Jawad, 2006). Therefore, using the available production data
and PVT properties, the bottomhole flowing pressure, Pwf is calculated using multiphase correlations. The
calculated Pwf data then used in PIPESIM simulator for finding the best history matched tubing flow
correlations. Interestingly, the matching flow correlation for North and South dome were observed to be
different. Mukherjee & Brill correlation were found to provide better matching for North dome, whereas,
Gray correlation appears to work better for South Dome. The minimum absolute average percentage error
(AAPE) from the production data predicted by each correlation are presented in Table 3.

Table 3—shows the flow correlations selected for the North and South domes
depending on the minimum absolute average percentage error for all producing wells.

APEE (%) Error % Correlation

APEE (%) for the wells located 1.73 Mukherjee & Brill
in the North Dome of the field

APEE (%) for the wells located 3.40 Gray modified

in the South Dome of the field

Building well model

There are many properties of the well, which needs to be defined in order to build the well model such as
PVT data, casing and tubing information, perforation, test point to find the productivity index (PI), and fluid
10 IPTC-20254-MS

properties. These data are found to be different from one well to another. Figure 5 shows model schematic
after being built using PIPESIM simulator. The well model building is started with inserting the location
of the well, type of well, casing details, perforation characteristics, tubing diameter, nodal point, flow line
diameter and temperature, well head pressure. Inserting these data results in building the well model, which
were then history matched in order to prepare for modelling the gas lift performance in this field.

Figure 5—shows a well schematic (Well-A) after being built by simulation.

Gas lift design data

The gas injection is assumed to be sourced from the associated gas, which produces along with oil from the
same field. The gas produced from this field is reported to be on average around 36 MMscf/day. Initially,
the associated gas is separated at the separator, then treated, collected, and recycled again by injecting this
gas into the oil wells. All wells are completed with 4.5″ tubing according to completion programs. The
operating gas lift valve is set at 100 ft above the packer as reported in reference, OF Al-Fatlawi et al. (2015).
The surface temperature is around 113°F, as obtained from the field data. The minimum Pwf is assumed to
be 50 psi more than the bubble point pressure (Pb), to ensure single phase inflow into the well. In addition,
the PIPESIM simulator has gas lift valve bracketing feature or error envelope, which allows modeling the
additional equal space valves at the end of suggested operating valve to cope with any design error (Mach
et al., 1983). This design accounts for any error in the multiphase flow correlation in vertical and horizontal
direction or uncertainty in productivity index of a well, and thus assist on overcoming any uncertainty in
gas lift design as shown below in Figure 6.
IPTC-20254-MS 11

Figure 6—shows the gas lift design proposed for a production well with bracketing feature being activated

This idea is supported by Laing (1991), and Laing (1989) who applied this feature on two oil
field resulting in increasing oil production and improved well performance. Also, unpredicted or poor
productivity index of the well is already being considered and accounted by giving a flexible design to cope
with this effect.

Building field model

After finishing the well modelling, the surface network model is built using PIPESIM simulator as shown
in Figure 7. The network model contains 43 production wells, which are considered for gas lift optimization
using GA technique to optimally distribute the gas injection for each well in the network system.
12 IPTC-20254-MS

Figure 7—shows the whole field network model for wells located at the South and North domes.

Sensitivity analyses
Sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate potential impact of change in reservoir pressure and
water cut on the performance of natural flowing and gas lift wells, especially in the long run when there
will be declining trend of reservoir pressure, and increasing trend of water cut.
IPTC-20254-MS 13

Water cut sensitivity

The water cut sensitivity studies were performed for both natural flowing and gas lift wells to investigate
the effect of water cut on the well as well as field performance. The water cut considered in this study were
varied from 10% to 50%. The sensitivity study was conducted after and before the application of gas lift
for each well at the same wellhead pressure to compare the well behavior in each case without bias against
one method.

Reservoir pressure sensitivity

The reservoir pressure sensitivity studies were carried to: investigate the effect of reservoir pressure
depletion on the well performance profile; identify its potential influence in the field production life cycle
for the both natural flowing and gas lift wells; and investigate whether the gas lift wells can have any positive
influence in relation to improvement of well performance in the case of reservoir pressure depletion. The
average reservoir pressure considered for the sensitivity studies were 4700 psi, 4000 psi, 3200 psi, 2400
psi, 1600 psi and 800 psi for a given minimum well head pressure of 250 psi. The wellhead pressure of
250 psi is assumed to be the minimum pressure required to support the surface system requirement (e.g.
separator system).

Results Analysis and Discussions

Simulation results
The simulation was conducted for both natural flowing wells and continuous gas lift wells. The gas lift
performance is optimized using GA technique for limited gas lift injection rate of 81 MMscf/day. The other
constraints considered in the optimization study are presented in Table 4. The optimization results obtained
from the simulation study are presented in Table A1, in Appendix A. The optimum lift gas injection rate,
location of gas lift valve and bottomhole flowing pressure are also presented in Table A2 in Appendix A.
The simulation results for naturally flowing wells and gas lift wells compared in Figure 8 demonstrates that
there is significant increase in daily oil production rate (% of increase in oil production) from each well
for this field as compared to natural flowing wells. The overall increase of daily filed production rate is
found to be increased from 72,740 STB/day to 180,162 STB/day(~187% of natural flowing well) as shown
in Table A1, in Appendix A.

Table 4—the constraints of the gas lift optimization in this study

No. Constraints Value

1 Limited gas injection rate 81 MMscf/day

2 Max drawdown pressure drop for each well 50 psi above the bubble point pressure

3 Max gas lift rate for each well 4 MMscf/day

4 Max water production rate 1000 STB/day

5 Minimum bubble point pressure margin 2660 psi

14 IPTC-20254-MS

Figure 8—Simulation results of oil production rate from each well (before and after gas lift)

Note that the Well-PP and Well-QQ have showed weak response to gas lift technique resulting in very
negligible increase in oil production; and consequently, these two wells were identified as incompatible for
gas lift, and the remaining 41 wells were considered for gas lift.

Water cut sensitivity results

The water cut (WC) sensitivity was studied for 41 oil wells for naturally producing wells and gas lifted
wells; and results are presented in Figure 9. As expected, Figure 9 demonstrates that the increasing water
cut (WC) decreases the oil production rate for both natural flowing and gas lift wells. It can also be observed
from Figure 9 that the increasing WC also requires higher lift gas injection rate. However, the overall oil
production rate appears to be improved significantly after the application of gas lift. The overall production
gain due to application of gas lift is found to be very substantial, especially at higher water cut.
IPTC-20254-MS 15

Figure 9—Water cut sensitivity results.

Reservoir pressure sensitivity results

The reservoir pressure sensitivity study was performed to investigate the effect of decreasing reservoir
pressure on the performance of 41 oil wells; and to determine the minimum the average reservoir required
for a well to remain productive. This sensitivity starts from current reservoir pressure of 4700 psi to until
reaching pressure value at which the wells becomes incapable of flowing for both naturally producing wells
and gas lifted wells. Initially the nodal analysis was carried out at various reservoir pressure to determine
the minimum average reservoir pressure required to continue production at the given well head pressure.
The nodal analysis results for natural flowing well at a well head pressure of 250 psi are presented in Figure
10. The minimum average reservoir pressure required to continue production from each well at a well head
pressure of 250 psi in natural flowing condition are determined accordingly and presented in Figure 11.

Figure 10—The inflow and outflow performance for different reservoir pressure in case of naturally producing wells.
16 IPTC-20254-MS

Figure 11—Minimum reservoir pressure required to continue production at a wellhead pressure off 250 psi for each well.

As shown in Figures 10-11, most wells will stop production naturally when reservoir pressure drop to
about 3500 psi (on average), and the field oil production rate will decrease significantly during the depletion
of average reservoir pressure from 4700 psi to 3500 psi. However, the result of average reservoir pressure
sensitivity in the case of gas lift provides with very positive incentive to implement gas lift since almost all
wells appears to be able to maintain the production during the depletion of average reservoir pressure up to
600 psi as shown in Figure 12. This demonstrates that all gas lift wells will remain productive even with low
average reservoir pressure as compared to naturally production well; and implies that the implementation
of gas lift in all 41 wells will substantially increase the lifecycle of this field.

Figure 12—The inflow and outflow performance curves for different reservoir pressure in case of gas lifted wells.

Economic Analysis
The economic analysis was exercised to evaluate the commercial viability of implementing gas lift
optimization technique in the field. The equation used in this analysis is adopted from Huh et al. (2010)
and Nakashima and Camponogara (2006) as given by Equation (11). The analysis was performed based on
assumed oil and gas price of $55/STB, and $5,500/MMscf, respectively. The water disposal cost, gas lift
IPTC-20254-MS 17

operational cost, other operation cost are assumed to be, respectively $1/bbl of water, $3,500/MMscf, and
$8/STB produced well (Huh et al. (2010).

11

Where
N Number of wells;
 qoi    Oil production rate, STB/day;
 qg    Gas production rate, MMscf/day;
 Qgi,inj    Gas lift injection rate, MMscf/day;
 qwi    Water production rate, STB/day;
 po    Oil price, $/STB;
 po    Gas price, $/MMscf;
 cop    Operational cost per each STB of oil, $/STB.
The calculated daily production of oil, water, gas, gas injection rate, and net profit for each well are
presented in Figure 13 and Figure 14 for natural flowing wells and gas lift wells, respectively. The daily
net profit with and without gas lift and overall gain in daily oil production rate for 41 wells are compared
in Figure 15. The calculated results are also provided in Table A3 and Table A7 in Appendix A. As can be
seen in Figures 13-15 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.

Figure 13—Optimum Production and without gas lift (natural flowing well) from each of the 41 wells
18 IPTC-20254-MS

Figure 14—Daily production and net profit with gas lift from each of the 41 wells

Figure 15—Comparison of daily net profit with and without gas lift and oil production gain for 41 wells

Conclusions
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
IPTC-20254-MS 19

simulation. The principles of GA, and mathematical model including the workflow for performing the
simulation studies are comprehensively discussed in this paper. Sensitivity studies, and sample economic
analysis were also performed to get an insight into the benefit of implementing gas lift techniques for
depletion drive reservoir, especially in the event of increasing the water cut and very low reservoir pressure.
Based on the study following conclusions are made:

• 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.

Acknowledgment
Authors thank Schlumberger Company for giving their permission to use the academic version of PIPESIM
simulator.

Nomenclature
GLO Gas lift optimization
GLIR Gas lift injection rate
GLPC Gas lift performance curve
PIProductivity index
GA Genetic algorithm
SQP Sequential quadratic programming approach
Qo Total oil production, STB/day
Qgi,injGas lift injection rate, Mscf/day
qoiIndividual well oil production rate, STB/day
IPR Inflow performance relationship
VLP Vertical lift performance
Fluid production rate
Fluid production rate
qpmax The capacity of the separator
qgmax, qwmax, and Gas, water and oil system handling constraints
qomax
γw, γg, γo Water, gas, and oil fraction of production fluid
Pwf Flowing bottom hole pressure, psi
Pwh Wellhead pressure, psi
WHT Wellhead temperature, °F
Pr Average reservoir pressure, psi
Pb Bubble point pressures, psi
20 IPTC-20254-MS

References
Al-Fatlawi, O., Al-Jawad, M., Alwan, K., Essa, A., Sadeq, D., & Mousa, A. (2015). Feasibility of Gas Lift to Increase Oil
Production in an Iraqi Giant Oil Field. Paper presented at the SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Al-Fatlawi, O., Hossain, M. M., & Osborne, J. (2017). Determination of best possible correlation for gas compressibility
factor to accurately predict the initial gas reserves in gas-hydrocarbon reservoirs. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 42(40), 25492-25508. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.030
Al-Jawad, M. S., & Hassan, O. F. (2012). Comprehensive Model for Flash Calculations of Heavy Oils Using the Soave-
Redlich-Kwong Equation of State. Paper presented at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Alarcón, G. A., Torres, C. F., & Gómez, L. E. (2002). Global optimization of gas allocation to a group of wells in artificial
lift using nonlinear constrained programming. Journal of energy resources technology, 124(4), 262-268.
Bergeron, T., Cooksey, A., & Reppel, J. S. (1999). New Automated Continuous Gas-Lift Control System Improves
Operational Efficiency. Paper presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
https://doi.org/10.2118/52123-MS
Buitrago, S., Rodriguez, E., & Espin, D. (1996). Global Optimization Techniques in Gas Allocation for Continuous
Flow Gas Lift Systems. Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. https://
doi.org/10.2118/35616-MS
Camponogara, E., & Nakashima, P. (2006a). Optimizing gas-lift production of oil wells: piecewise linear formulation and
computational analysis. IIE Transactions, 38(2), 173-182.
Camponogara, E., & Nakashima, P. (2006b). Solving a gas-lift optimization problem by dynamic programming. European
Journal of Operational Research, 174(2), 1220-1246.
Camponogara, E., & Nakashima, P. H. (2006). Optimal allocation of lift-gas rates under multiple facility constraints: A
mixed integer linear programming approach. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 128(4), 280-289.
Coello, C. A. C. (1999). A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multiobjective optimization techniques.
Knowledge and Information systems, 1(3), 269-308.
Dale Beggs, H. (1991). Production Optimization Using NODALTM Analysis. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Oil. Gas Consultants
International Inc.
Dutta-Roy, K., & Kattapuram, J. (1997). A new approach to gas-lift allocation optimization. Paper presented at the SPE
western regional meeting.
Dzubur, L., & Langvik, A. S. (2012). Optimization of Oil Production-Applied to the Marlim Field. Retrieved from
Eberhart, R., & Kennedy, J. (1995). A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. Paper presented at the Micro Machine
and Human Science, 1995. MHS'95., Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on.
Ekundayo, J., & Rezaee, R. (2019). Effect of Equation of States on High Pressure Volumetric Measurements of Methane-
Coal Sorption Isotherms-Part 1: Volumes of Free Space and Methane Adsorption Isotherms. Energy & Fuels.
El-Moniem, M. A. A., & El-Banbi, A. H. (2018). Development of an expert system for selection of multiphase flow
correlations. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 8(4), 1473-1485.
Elsharkawy, A., & Alikhan, A. (1999). Models for predicting the viscosity of Middle East crude oils. Fuel, 78(8), 891-903.
Fang, W., & Lo, K. (1996). A generalized well management scheme for reservoir simulation. SPE Reservoir Engineering,
11(02), 116-120.
Gen, M., & Cheng, R. (1997). Genetic algorithms and engineering design / Mitsuo Gen, Runwei Cheng. New York: New
York : Wiley.
Ghaedi, M., Aminshahidy, B., & Ghotbi, C. (2014). Improving Gas Allocation Optimization to a Group of Wells in
Gas Lift Using an Efficient Hybrid Genetic Algorithm (HGA). Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects, 36(21), 2361-2375. doi: 10.1080/15567036.2011.569835
Hamedi, H., & Khamehchi, E. (2012). A Nonlinear Approach to Gas Lift Allocation Optimization With Operational
Constraints Using Particle Swarm Optimization and a Penalty Function. Petroleum Science and Technology, 30(8),
775-785. doi: 10.1080/10916466.2010.490815
Hassan, O. F. (2004). Prediction of Optimum Separation Conditions for Sequential Field Separation System. MSc thesis,
University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq (July 2004),
Hassan, O. F. (2011). Correlation for solution gas-oil ratio of Iraqi oils at pressures below the bubble point pressure. Iraqi
Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, 12(2), 1-8.
Hassan, O. F., & Al-Jawad, M. S. (2005). Prediction of Optimum Separation Conditions for Sequential Field Separation
System. Journal of Engineering, 11(3), 541-552.
Hossain, M. M., & bin Mohd Ismail, M. D. (2013). Potential Application of Downhole Gas Compressor to Improve
Productivity for Gas Reservoir. Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China.
https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-16982-MS
IPTC-20254-MS 21

Huh, S., Park, C., Kang, J. M., & Kim, S. (2010). The Economic Optimization of a Continuous Gas Lift System
Considering Lift and Cycle Efficiency in a Mature Oil Field. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects, 32(17), 1614-1624. doi: 10.1080/15567030902842228
Ismail, M. D. M., & Hossain, M. (2013). The application of downhole gas compression to improve productivity for
depleted natural gas reservoirs. The APPEA Journal, 53(1), 369-374.
Kanu, E. P., Mach, J., & Brown, K. E. (1981). Economic approach to oil production and gas allocation in continuous gas
lift (includes associated papers 10858 and 10865). Journal of Petroleum Technology, 33(10), 1,887-881,892.
Laing, C. M. (1989). Gas-lift design and production optimization offshore Trinidad. SPE Production Engineering, 4(02),
135-141.
Laing, C. M. (1991). Gas-Lift Design and Performance Analysis in the North West Hutton Field. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 43(01), 96-102.
Lake, L. (2010). Petroleum Engineering Handbook (Vol. Volume IV). ZULIA, VENEZUELA: MERCADO NEGRO.
Lu, Q., & Fleming, G. C. (2012). Gas lift optimization using proxy functions in reservoir simulation. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering, 15(01), 109-119.
Mach, J., Proano, E., Mukherjee, H., & Brown, K. (1983). A new concept in continuous-flow gas-lift design. Society of
Petroleum Engineers Journal, 23(06), 885-891.
Nadar, M. S., Schneider, T. S., Jackson, K. L., McKie, C. J., & Hamid, J. (2006). Implementation of a total system
production optimization model in a complex gas-lifted offshore operation. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition.
Nakashima, P., & Camponogara, E. (2006). Optimization of lift-gas allocation using dynamic programming. IEEE
>Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 36(2), 407-414. doi: 10.1109/
tsmca.2005.855754
Ottba, D. J., & Al-Jawad, M. S. (2006). Well Preformance Analysis Based on Flow Calculations and IPR. Journal of
Engineering, 12(3), 822-841.
Rashid, K., Bailey, W., & Couët, B. (2012). A Survey of Methods for Gas-Lift Optimization. Modelling and Simulation
in Engineering, 2012, 1-16. doi: 10.1155/2012/516807
Sadiq, D. J., & Hassan, O. F. (2010). New Correlation of Oil Compressibility at Pressures Below Bubble Point For Iraqi
Crude Oils. Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies, 86(1st), 22-29.
Sadiq, D. J., & Hassn, O. F. (2009). New Correlation for Oil Formation Volume Factor at and Below Bubble Point Pressure.
Journal of Engineering, 15(4), 4347-4355.
Sakawa, M., & Kato, K. (2003). Genetic algorithms with double strings for 0–1 programming problems. European Journal
of Operational Research, 144(3), 581-597.
Sarker, R., Kamruzzaman, J., & Newton, C. (2003). Evolutionary optimization (EvOpt): a brief review and analysis.
International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications, 3(04), 311-330.
Sarker, R., Liang, K., & Newton, C. (2002). A new evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization. European
Journal of Operational Research, 140(1), 12-23.
Seydel, J., & Olson, D. L. (1990). Bids considering multiple criteria. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 116(4), 609-623.
Wang, P., & Litvak, M. (2004). Gas lift optimization for long-term reservoir simulations. Paper presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Zitzler, E., Deb, K., & Thiele, L. (2000). Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results.
Evolutionary computation, 8(2), 173-195.
22 IPTC-20254-MS

Appendix A

Table A1—illustrates the percentage of oil flow rate increased for each well after applying the gas lift optimization technique.

Oil flow with Oil flow with % of oil

Natural oil flow Increasing oil Natural oil flow
Well No. Gas Lift, Well No. Gas Lift, production
rate, STB/day flow rate % rate, STB/day
STB/day STB/day Increased %

A 766 1762 130.1 V 997 4331 334.3

B 517 4363 744.6 W 2511 7605 202.9

C 2331 5358 129.8 X 2072 2452 18.4

D 1316 2531 92.3 Y 2087 4147 98.7

E 1836 4410 140.2 Z 678 2862 321.8

F 985 3475 252.8 AA 884 1360 53.8

G 2520 5383 113.6 BB 1600 2340 46.2

H 937 3365 259.4 CC 2760 5775 109.2

I 1584 6247 294.4 DD 2447 5368 119.3

J 1443 5365 271.8 EE 2657 6427 141.9

K 864 3630 320.3 FF 3026 6398 111.4

L 1531 4084 166.7 GG 3327 6884 106.9

M 1434 4078 184.4 HH 3100 5468 76.4

N 1274 3025 137.5 II 400 1085 171.3

O 1129 3145 178.6 JJ 1000 2960 196.0

P 1100 3024 174.9 KK 860 3066 256.5

Q 1700 5184 204.9 LL 2970 5583 88.0

R 1235 4094 231.5 MM 3288 4504 37.0

S 1357 5693 319.5 NN 1100 4479 307.2

T 2295 6408 179.2 OO 3650 7314 100.4

U 1486 5131 245.3 Total 72740 180162 Average= 187 %

Table A2—Simulation results of gas lift distribution for each well depending on the
limited gas injection rate, location of g as lift valve and bottomhole flowing pressure

Gas injection Max. oil rate, Max. liquid Depth of Injected gas-
Well No. Pwf, psi
rate, MMscf/day STB/day rate, STB/day operating valve, ft oil ratio, scf/STB

A 1.37 1762 2025 12274 675 3249

B 3.34 4363 4902 12261 681 2714

C 2.50 5358 5401 12296 463 3068

D 1.00 2531 2609 12256 383 2945

E 1.79 4410 4419 12537 405 2972

F 2.00 3475 3492 12524 573 2670

G 1.14 5383 6409 12101 177 3797

H 3.27 3365 3619 12642 904 3073

I 2.15 6247 6310 12562 340 3298

J 2.76 5365 5365 12458 515 3071

IPTC-20254-MS 23

Gas injection Max. oil rate, Max. liquid Depth of Injected gas-
Well No. Pwf, psi
rate, MMscf/day STB/day rate, STB/day operating valve, ft oil ratio, scf/STB

K 1.63 3630 3652 12071 446 2728

L 1.40 4084 4092 12061 342 2684

M 2.03 4078 4078 12544 498 3224

N 1.81 3025 3087 12094 585 2675

O 1.64 3145 3243 12094 506 2705

P 1.59 3024 3024 12101 527 2736

Q 2.45 5184 6098 12171 402 3214

R 2.23 4094 4094 12114 544 2786

S 3.55 5693 6620 12199 537 3251

T 1.77 6408 6434 12137 276 3482

U 2.64 5131 5345 12183 495 2970

V 2.21 4331 4465 12137 496 2710

W 2.60 7605 11946 12127 218 4215

X 1.50 2452 2528 12147 593 2670

Y 1.12 4147 4172 12058 269 2902

Z 2.10 2862 3577 12065 587 2675

AA 1.00 1360 1658 12151 603 2689

BB 0.88 2340 2340 12081 376 2829

CC 1.96 5775 5833 12074 337 3276

DD 2.50 5368 5378 12151 464 3106

EE 2.62 6427 6459 12151 405 3257

FF 1.96 6398 6398 12151 306 3569

GG 1.80 6884 6912 12151 260 3650

HH 2.69 5468 5468 12151 491 2757

II 0.26 1034 1034 12151 251 2680

JJ 1.00 2960 2960 12151 338 2733

KK 1.45 3066 3066 12151 473 2747

LL 2.08 5583 5583 12151 373 3498

MM 3.03 4504 4643 12151 652 3106

NN 2.07 4479 4479 12151 462 2735

OO 2.25 7314 10017 12151 225 3795

Total 180111 193234 Average = 445

Table A3—Results of economic analyses for Gas lifted wells.

Qg,inj qg Net Profit Qg,inj qg

Well qo (STB/ qw (STB/ Well qo (STB/ qw (STB/
(MMscf/ (MMscf/ with gas (MMscf/ (MMscf/ Net profit ($/day)
No. d ay) day) No. day) day)
day) day) lift ($/day) day) day)

A 1.37 1762 0.42 285.0 80038 W 2.60 7605 1.34 846.0 354859

B 3.34 4363 0.185 457.6 193939 X 1.50 2452 0.83 73.2 114501

C 2.50 5358 1.05 39.7 248803 Y 1.12 4147 1.3 24.4 198103
24 IPTC-20254-MS

Qg,inj qg Net Profit Qg,inj qg

Well qo (STB/ qw (STB/ Well qo (STB/ qw (STB/
(MMscf/ (MMscf/ with gas (MMscf/ (MMscf/ Net profit ($/day)
No. d ay) day) No. day) day)
day) day) lift ($/day) day) day)

D 1.00 2531 0.54 74.6 118346 Z 2.10 2862 0.26 692.5 127881

E 1.79 4410 0.94 9.8 206168 AA 1.00 1360 0.3 288.8 61763

F 2.00 3475 0.38 17.0 158387 BB 0.88 2340 0.76 0.0 111072

G 1.14 5383 1.35 1192.7 255264 CC 1.96 5775 1.2 61.0 271067

H 3.27 3365 0.45 207.4 148987 DD 2.50 5368 1.2 10.6 250129

I 2.15 6247 0.87 64.5 290831 EE 2.62 6427 1.2 32.3 299456

J 2.76 5365 0.55 0.0 245492 FF 1.96 6398 1.5 0.0 302107

K 1.63 3630 0.45 21.7 167376 GG 1.80 6884 1.8 29.1 327146

L 1.40 4084 0.9 7.9 191979 HH 2.69 5468 2 0.0 258600

M 2.03 4078 1 0.0 190045 II 0.26 1085 0.2 0.0 51202

N 1.81 3025 0.58 56.1 138999 JJ 1.00 2960 0.5 0.0 138353

O 1.64 3145 0.46 98.7 144522 KK 1.45 3066 0.4 0.0 141210

P 1.59 3024 0.65 0.0 140139 LL 2.08 5583 1.5 0.0 263380

Q 2.45 5184 1 824.8 239713 MM 3.03 4504 1.7 117.4 210312

R 2.23 4094 0.43 0.0 186994 NN 2.07 4479 0.7 0.0 207120

S 3.55 5693 0.52 849.0 257156 OO 2.25 7314 2.2 94.8 347877

T 1.77 6408 1 27.4 300452

U 2.64 5131 0.56 185.6 234808 Total 81 180162 8372462

V 2.21 4331 0.4 111.9 197884

Table A4—gives the results of economic analyses in case of having naturally producing wells.

Net Revenue Net Revenue

qg qg
Well qo (STB/ qw (STB/ with naturally qo (STB/ qw (STB/ with naturally
(MMscf/ Well No. (MMscf/
No. day) day) producing day) day) producing
day) day)
wells ($/day) wells ($/day)

A 766 0.42 285 38008 W 2511 1.34 846 124541

B 517 0.185 458 24840 X 2072 0.83 73 101872

C 2331 1.05 40 115302 Y 2087 1.3 24 105233

D 1316 0.54 75 64762 Z 678 0.26 693 32622

E 1836 0.94 10 91467 AA 884 0.3 289 42907

F 985 0.38 17 48370 BB 1600 0.76 0 79380

G 2520 1.35 1193 124672 CC 2760 1.2 61 136265

H 937 0.45 207 46284 PP 749 0.38 0 37270

I 1584 0.87 64 79169 QQ 603 0.3 0 29971

J 1443 0.55 0 70846 DD 2447 1.2 11 121603

K 864 0.45 22 43051 EE 2657 1.2 32 131430

L 1531 0.9 8 76896 FF 3026 1.5 0 150472

M 1434 1 0 72898 GG 3327 1.8 29 166223

N 1274 0.58 56 63012 HH 3100 2 0 156700

O 1129 0.46 99 55494 II 400 0.2 0 19900

IPTC-20254-MS 25

Net Revenue Net Revenue

qg qg
Well qo (STB/ qw (STB/ with naturally qo (STB/ qw (STB/ with naturally
(MMscf/ Well No. (MMscf/
No. day) day) producing day) day) producing
day) day)
wells ($/day) wells ($/day)

P 1100 0.65 0 55275 JJ 1000 0.5 0 49750

Q 1700 1 825 84575 KK 860 0.4 0 42620

R 1235 0.43 0 60410 LL 2970 1.5 0 147840

S 1357 0.52 849 65794 MM 3288 1.7 117 163783

T 2295 1 27 113356 NN 1100 0.7 0 55550

U 1486 0.56 186 72740 OO 3650 2.2 95 183555

V 997 0.4 112 48955 Total 72406 3595664