Review Article  Open Access
Kashif Rashid, William Bailey, Benoît Couët, "A Survey of Methods for GasLift Optimization", Modelling and Simulation in Engineering, vol. 2012, Article ID 516807, 16 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/516807
A Survey of Methods for GasLift Optimization
Abstract
This paper presents a survey of methods and techniques developed for the solution of the continuous gaslift optimization problem over the last two decades. These range from isolated singlewell analysis all the way to realtime multivariate optimization schemes encompassing all wells in a field. While some methods are clearly limited due to their neglect of treating the effects of interdependent wells with common flow lines, other methods are limited due to the efficacy and quality of the solution obtained when dealing with largescale networks comprising hundreds of difficult to produce wells. The aim of this paper is to provide an insight into the approaches developed and to highlight the challenges that remain.
Introduction
The introduction of lift gas to a nonproducing or lowproducing well is a common method of artificial lift. Natural gas is injected at high pressure from the casing into the wellbore and mixes with the produced fluids from the reservoir (see Figure 1). The continuous aeration process lowers the effective density and therefore the hydrostatic pressure of the fluid column, leading to a lower flowing bottomhole pressure (). The increased pressure differential induced across the sand face from the in situ reservoir pressure (), given by ( − ), assists in flowing the produced fluid to the surface. The method is easy to install, economically viable, robust, and effective over a large range of conditions, but does assume a steady supply of lift gas [1]. At a certain point, however, the benefit of increased production due to decreased static head pressure is overcome by the increase in frictional pressure loss from the large gas quantity present. This has the effect of increasing the bottomhole pressure and lowering fluid production. Hence, each well has an optimal desirable gaslift injection rate (GLIR). However, when the entire gathering network is considered, the optimal gaslift injection rate differs from that which maximizes individual well production due to the back pressure effects (the pressure drop observed across flow lines due to common tie backs further downstream) imposed by connected wells further downstream.
As a field matures, the greater demand for lift gas in conjunction with limitations imposed by existing facilities and prevailing operating conditions (compression capacity, lift gas availability, well shutin for workover, etc.) can prevent optimal production from being achieved. In the absence of all operating constraints, other than the available lift gas, it is necessary to optimally allocate the available lift gas amongst the gaslifted wells so as to maximize the oil production. This is the most basic definition of the gaslift optimization problem and is equivalent to an optimal allocation problem. Consideration of additional operating constraints, choke control for wellrate management and the treatment of difficult to produce wells, gives rise to a broader problem definition. In general, either definition can additionally accommodate an economic objective function, by inclusion of production and injection cost factors. Although the choice of objective function has been stated as the differentiator between the methods developed by some [2], in actuality, most methods can handle either definition and should not be categorized on this basis.
It is worth noting that generally the gaslift design problem, that is, deciding the gaslift valve (GLV) number and their depths, is excluded from the allocation problem, largely because the well configuration is already complete by the production stage and is considered invariable. Additionally, lift gas injection normally takes place at the deepest valve at the available injection pressure, where the depths have been set in advance. This does not preclude well redesign scenarios (workovers) that could yield better production results, whose optimization may improve. For example, Mantecon [3] focused on studies to increase oil production by redesigning individual wells using data gathered at the well site. Individual well performance improvement was considered a necessary requirement prior to fieldwide optimization. This involved reevaluating depth of injection, GLIR, injection pressure, GLV size, packer installation and even changing the gaslift type to intermittent (IGL) or plunger gaslift (PL). The installation of packers enabled injection pressure increase and deeper GLV activation, collectively leading to increased production within facility handling limits. Although such improvements increase well stability and allow wells to produce more readily, the need for optimal allocation is not obviated. In fact, it is for the reason that the handling facilities and operating resources are constrained that an optimal allocation is required and is most effective when well operation is stable.
In the following sections, a review of methods and techniques developed for the gaslift allocation problem is presented. These concern, in chronological order of presentation, the generation of gaslift performance curves from well test data, singlewell nodal analysis and sensitivity studies, pseudo steadystate curvebased models that neglect well interactions, steadystate solutions based on network simulators, coupled reservoir and surface facility simulation, ultimately, leading to a fully integrated asset modeling approach. For the benefit of the reader, the key developments are summarized in Table 1 together with the main advantages and disadvantages which will be discussed next.

2. Well GasLift Performance
Actual well investigation concerns physical well tests conducted at the well site. Fluid composition, PVT and other related tests provide information about the conditions of the well and its potential productivity. In addition, steprate gas injection tests can provide an accurate description of the behavior of fluid production with increasing lift gas injection.
The nature of singlewell testing naturally gave rise to the development of tools to model the behavior of a single well, given certain input parameters to define the completion, fluid composition, pressures, and temperatures, both at the wellhead and at the point of contact with the reservoir. These Nodal Analysis tools enable a computational model of the well to be defined, with either a simple black oil or a more detailed compositional fluid description, commencing from the sand face, through the perforations, from bottom hole, through tubing, to the wellhead and further downstream to a delivery sink [4]. This model can then be used to predict the behavior of multiphase flow through the well (see Figure 1) and the more representative it is of the prevailing conditions the better. Thus, to overcome the complication of performing costly and timeconsuming steprate tests in a field with many wells, these tools can be used to provide lift performance curves for all lifted wells [5, 6]. Clearly, the analysis of a single well provides an incomplete picture with respect to the entire field performance and especially for optimal gaslift allocation. However, it serves two important purposes. Firstly, all network simulators, which couple the behavior of individual wells in a field by a common gathering network, are based on such singlewell models. That is, in solving a network solution, the underlying multiphase fluid flow behavior is calculated using nodal analysis tools. Secondly, in the absence of actual steprate test data, lift performance curves are estimated by running sensitivity models over each of the individual wells. It is these lift performance curves that are used in gaslift optimization studies. This is undertaken correctly, when the effect of interdependent wells is accounted for by updated lift performance curves at new conditions, but incorrectly when the resulting pseudo steadystate solution is accepted after only one cycle. The latter is a common assumption in many papers, often for the sake of simplicity, if not by oversight. The complete, or final, steadystate solution is one derived from the network simulator in which a rigorous pressure balance is achieved over all nodes in the network after the allocation of lift gas has been made to the wells. This is necessary since the back pressure imposed by the injection of lift gas in one well will affect the production from all connected wells. Hence, for optimal production the lift gas must be suitably allocated whilst accounting for well interaction. Lastly, facility handling constraints (i.e., constraints imposed at a fieldwide level, e.g., maximum water production, etc.) are also only applicable if the entire network model is considered.
3. Single Well Analysis
The use of nodal analysis to generate the gas lift performance curve of a single well based on actual pressure and temperature surveys along with a suitable multiphase flow correlation is well established [7–9]. The optimum GLIR is often simply set to that furnishing the highest production rate on the gaslift performance curve (GLPC) (see Figure 2). The maximum GLIR and maximum oil rate can be used to establish the optimal valve depth setting and the wellhead pressure () [9]. However, the singlewell configuration, considered in isolation of other wells, is not a field gaslift optimization solution.
A more accurate well model, based on mass, energy, and momentum balance, was proposed by VazquezRoman and PalafoxHernandez [10]. A singlewell case was examined to determine the injection depth, pressure, and the amount of gas injection, using a commercial optimization program based on a hybrid interior algorithm. The results were reported as being more accurate and therefore better suited for fieldwide simulation studies, than the standard nodal approach. However, no results were reported for a fieldwide application. Note that the use of compositional models over simple black oil models is also recommended practice for better accuracy [11, 12]. Indeed, the best possible well model, yielding representative gaslift performance curves, is desirable for both simulation and optimization purposes.
DuttaRoy and Kattapuram [13] investigated the introduction of lift gas to a single well using nodal analysis. The back pressure effects imposed by gas injection on two wells were considered, prior to an investigation of a 13 well network. It was noted that singlewell methods were inadequate for analyzing a production network of many gaslifted wells and that a general network solver is thus required. That is, optimizing wells systematically, but on a wellbywell basis, will not guarantee that an optimal solution will be obtained for the entire network. Equally, Mantecon [3] noted that for fieldwide optimization, accurate gas injection and liquid production estimates are desired, but more importantly, as the conditions in one well affect other connected wells, a computer simulation is required to effectively account for the interactions. This cannot be achieved manually.
Bergeron et al. [14] used steprate well test data to obtain the characteristic lift performance curve for a single offshore well. A remotely actuated controller was used to manage the gaslift injection rate in real time for production maximization, cost reduction and mitigation of blockages resulting from flow line freezing. Accurate flow rate and injection measurements were deemed necessary to ensure accurate model interpretation and optimization, while also ensuring stability from heading and slugging effects. The singlewell optimization scheme adopted set the unconstrained optimum with an unlimited supply of lift gas or established the injection rate for production maximization in the presence of operating constraints, including the amount of lift gas available. Hydrate formation and low ambient temperatures, together with changes in lift gas supply, pressure, or quantity can lead to suboptimal levels of gas injection and consequently, a drop in cumulative well productivity. Continuous monitoring and sustained optimization were considered imperative to ensure that the well operated at maximum efficiency the majority of the time leading to an observable increase in total production. It was noted that to connectup multiple wells, a more sophisticated optimization routine was necessary to handle the interrelated well allocation problem. Although only a single well was considered and the optimization scheme was limited to setting the lift gas rate resulting in the highest flow rate, the elements necessary for remote realtime fieldwide gaslift optimization are evident.
4. Pseudo SteadyState Models
In the previous discussion, it should be noted that direct steprate wellsite data provides a field model of sorts (case 1). Using PVT and composition data to generate gaslift performance curves using nodal analysis tools can provide independent singlewell models (case 2). Thirdly, employing a rigorous multiphase network simulator, a composite fullfield model is obtained (case 3). Whereas the latter implicitly models the back pressure effects imposed, leading to a steadystate solution, the first two approaches choose to neglect them. Hence, such methods (case 1 and case 2), though perhaps extendible, provide only a pseudo steadystate solution.
In the following, methods established for case 1 & case 2 are considered as one, in that the descriptive well performance curves employed for any well may be obtained from a singlewell model or exemplifying actual well behavior, directly from wellsite steprate tests. The clear limitation of case 1 and case 2 is that they do not account for the true backpressure effects imposed by gas injection in one well on the other wells connected in the network. Although such methods result in pseudo steadystate solutions, unless explicitly stated, this limitation can be overcome by iterating on the procedure presented with updated well data and gaslift performance curves. In general, more detailed simulation models, including the reservoir and the process plant, can be defined with increasing complexity as case 4 and case 5, respectively. Note that the latter embodies the entire asset.
Simmons [15, 16], and Kanu et al. [17] describe the generation of well lift performance curves. Typically, tubing intake pressure as a function of the production rate is plotted for varying gas liquid ratios (GLR). The well inflow performance curve (IPR) is superimposed and the intersecting points with the tubing intake pressure curves identify the highest production possible for any given GLR. This data gives rise to the characteristic gaslift performance curve (GLPC) for each well [18, 19] (see Figure 2). The most efficient injection rate was noted as the point at which the incremental revenue is equal to the incremental cost of injection and not simply when production is maximized [15–18, 20].
Simmons [15, 16], Redden et al. [20], and Kanu et al. [17] accommodate economic factors by including the net gain (or profit) from oil and gas production, and the costs associated with gas compression, gas injection and water disposal, and so forth. For incremental profit as a function of gas injection Simmons [15, 16] considered the difference between the revenue and cost. The solution was defined at the point where the incremental profit is zero (see Figure 3(d)) and was referred to as the maximum daily operating cash income (OCI). Redden et al. [20] and Kanu et al. [17] similarly converted the GLPC into monetary units. Redden et al. [20] proposed the optimum point to occur when the slope of the revenue versus cost curve is one (see Figure 3(b)). Kanu et al. [17] referred to this solution on the GLPC as the economic slope (see Figure 3(a)) and the equilibrium between revenue and cost as the economic point. Under consistent revenue and cost factors, each of the aforementioned schemes gives rise to the same solution, including profit maximization as a function of gas injection at zero slope (see Figure 3(c)).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Kanu et al. [17] are often cited for the “concept” of the equalslope solution. Note that the term “method” is not used here, as the method implemented to obtain that solution can vary. Moreover, the equalslope concept arises only if the average economic slope is used based on averaged well properties (e.g., an average water fraction over all wells). In general, given the differing conditions of each well, each economic slope will differ. Kanu et al. [17] noted that, while the use of average properties simplifies the procedure, individual economic slopes should be used for increased accuracy. In actuality, the equalslope concept features more palpably in the work of Redden et al. [20] (solving for unitary slope on the revenue versus cost curve; see Figure 3(b)) and even earlier in the work by Simmons [15, 16] (solving for zero incremental profit, see Figure 3(d)). Both employ the equalslope concept, but as observed by Clegg [21], were not cited in the work of Kanu et al. [17, 22].
The reciprocal of the slope of the GLPC gives the incremental gasoilratio (IGOR) [23]. This notion was used to define an optimal solution based on equal IGOR for each well, referred to as the marginal GOR (MGOR) by Weiss et al. [24] and is the same as the equalslope concept. A proof of optimality for a twovariable model based on substitution is provided by Weiss et al. [24] and is stated to be inductively correct for higher dimensions. Notably, the optimal condition is based on satisfying the maximum gas capacity constraint. It overlooks the notion of an overabundance of available lift gas and therefore the likelihood of poor lift efficiency due to excessive lift gas utilization.
In recent work [25–27], the Newton Reduction Method (NRM) was presented as a means for optimal allocation. The method reduces the original problem to a solution of a composite residual function of one variable by treating the available lift gas as an equality constraint. The method is derived from a strict mathematical formulation and is provably optimal, assuming the GLPC are convex. The method is fast and returns an equalslope based solution.
Simmons [15, 16] noted that GLIR for maximum daily operating cash income (OCI) (the point at which the incremental profit is zero, see Figure 3(d)) is lower than the GLIR for maximum oil production and the GLIR for maximum present value operating cash income (PVOCI) (when well reserves are also considered) is lower still. The latter (PVOCI) is expressed as the desired quantity, though it was observed that the PVOCI was insensitive to gaslift rate variation above and below the optimum GLIR. However, exceeding the optimum GLIR causes facility overloading and yields lower PVOCI. The solution method is based on an incremental allocation of small units of gas until either maximum production, OCI or PVOCI are obtained. As the same slope is obtained for each well at the optimal point, this is an equalslope based approach. It is interesting to note that many early implementations for gaslift optimization adopted the same concept and a similar heuristic scheme [28, 29]. The gaslift allocation procedure within the ECLIPSE reservoir simulator also uses a similar approach [30].
The multiphase flow program and allocation procedure by Simmons [15, 16] proved useful in reducing the gas lift requirement to low producing wells when the gas supply was limited. A 20well system was considered, however the predicted performance observed differed from reality due to a number of reasons. These included overinjection for well stability, misestimation of injection rates or wellhead pressures, inaccuracies in well data, correlation error, model parameter uncertainty and the heading problems observed. The last item concerns the effects of oscillatory fluctuation of pressure in a well. In general, these issues will confound any simulationbased approach and signifies the need for accurate data with which to develop the underlying models. As previously noted, a stable well configuration is desirable before performing optimization. Hence, overcoming heading for greater well stability may require well redesign. In this regard, Mantecon [3] and Everitt [31] both employed measures to identify and mitigate these issues (using redesign and intervention) prior to successful gaslift allocation.
The Redden et al. [20] approach involves finding point at which the gradient of the monetarybased GLPC is one. However, no mention was made of the procedure to achieve this. If the lift gas allocation solution exceeds the available gas or separator capacity, a ranking of wells is made and the lift gas is removed from the lowest producing wells. The incremental reduction is continued until separator and compression limits have been met. This is not unlike the allocation scheme employed by Simmons [15, 16] however, in reverse. Such heuristicbased schemes are not proven to be optimal especially in the presence of multiple constraints and specifically in the given case where naturally flowing wells were excluded from receiving any lift gas at all. Results of a 10well model were presented with and without capacity limitations in place.
Kanu et al. [17] solved for the economic point using a method derived graphically. The optimal operating condition is said to occur when the incremental revenue from production is equal to the incremental cost of injection in each well. The production and gaslift rates for a range of slope values are estimated for each well. These give rise to slope versus production and slope versus gaslift rate relationships. The economic point for each well is established and the associated liftrate and production values are obtained. Total production and the total lift gas used are established by summing the individual well solutions. The same can be performed for all slope values, allowing the relationships of Total Production and Total Lift gas to be plotted with respect to the slope. With a limited supply of gas, the amount of gas available will indicate the expected slope value from the total lift gas versus slope plot. The associated production value can be obtained from the Total production versus slope plot for the given economic slope. Similarly, the individual well responses can be read from the particular well plots.
It is worth noting that the economic slope solution is greater than the zero gradient necessary for maximal production, which indicates the benefit of optimizing for economic performance and not simply production. A 6well model was presented by Kanu et al. [17] with an unlimited lift gas supply using actual and an average estimate of the well properties. While the latter simplifies the evaluation process, the solution is less accurate. The constrained lift gas solution implicitly returns an average economic slope, leading to an allocation that is not strictly correct or optimal. In general, the procedure cannot easily handle additional constraints and can prove unwieldy for highdimensional problems and cases where the curves have to be regenerated frequently due to changing well conditions. For this, the authors note that an automated procedure is necessary.
The equalslope concept has been adopted in several other works [28, 31–33]. Typically, and incorrectly as the back pressure effects are neglected, when there is an unlimited supply of lift gas, the wells are often set to the GLIR that simply maximizes production in each well. With a limited supply, the equalslope concept is employed.
Edwards et al. [32] fit each GLPC generated from a multiphase flow simulator with a polynomial and identified the zerogradient point of each well as the unconstrained optimum. In the limited case, an equalslope solution was obtained using an iterative scheme, of which no particular implementation details were provided. Results for an 8well model were presented.
Ferrer and Maggiolo [33] discussed the use of two computer models. The first, to interpret well behavior, performs diagnostics and well redesign. The second, to generate well relationships (GLPC) and perform optimization. The equalslope concept is employed if the gas supply is limited, however, only a singlewell model was evaluated.
Everitt [31] used actual data to define the lift performance curve for each well. Although this can be costly and timeconsuming, in comparison to simulationbased relationships, the curves obtained were representative of actual field conditions observed. The work focused on individual well performance identification and presented measures to alleviate the heading problems observed in several wells. That is, the oscillatory well fluctuations that occur due to changing pressure conditions in a well. The decision to close high watercut wells helped reduce compression demand and cost.
Schmidt et al. [28] also employed the equalslope concept for allocating lift gas, but details of the method were not provided.
The gaslift optimization method cited by Chia and Hussain [29] is also based on the equalslope concept. However, instead of simply using lift curve data, a simplified black oil network tool (GOAL) [34], employing a family of lift performance curves to describe the behavior of each of the wells, was used. A fast flow rate and pressure balance calculation enabled the backpressure effects between connected wells to be accounted for during the allocation process. The available lift gas is discretized and allocated incrementally to the wells with favorable production gradients until an equalslope solution is obtained. The method is fast, but has the disadvantage of simplifying the fluid compositions of the wells, leading to some loss of accuracy in the solution.
The allocation of lift gas to a number of central processing facilities was considered by Stoisits et al. [23]. The composite lift performance curve was presented as the sum of the individual GLPCs for each of the wells connected to them. The MGOR concept, equivalent to the equalslope solution, was used to allocate the available lift gas, but implementation details were not provided. A neuralnetwork model was employed to simulate the behavior of the surface line hydraulics.
Weiss et al. [24] also employed the MGOR concept, in conjunction with developing a dedicated gaslift allocation correlation based on empirical data. This provides the optimal GLR as a function of particular well properties, but treats only a single well in isolation.
Stoisits et al. [35] compared the empirically derived correlation based on a log equation from Weiss et al. [24] with the adaptive nonlinear neural network model from Stoisits et al. [23]. The reported results differed markedly, possibly due to the difference in solution from the nodal analysis based runs used to train the neural network and the empirical data used to build the correlation. The latter is also potentially less versatile over a large range of conditions, as it conditioned to the well data employed.
Nishikiori et al. [2] presented the application of more standard nonlinear optimization procedures for the gaslift optimization problem. A firstorder quasiNewton method was developed. This is known to present superlinear convergence at a starting point close to the optimal solution. For this reason, three methods for automatically providing more informed GLIR starting points were considered. These include uniform lift gas distribution and the ratio of either the well productivity index (PI) or the maximum liquid production, to the corresponding sum for all lifted wells. The requirement of accurate first derivatives necessitated a costly centraldifference scheme. A 13well system was tested with both limited and unlimited gas availability. The method had the advantage of being fast and efficient.
Mayo et al. [36] used the Lagrange multiplier approach with each of the gaslift performance curves modeled using secondorder polynomials. The formulation gave rise to a convex constraint set and the imposition of KarushKuhnTucker (KKT) conditions for optimality guaranteed the resulting solution as being globally optimal [37, 38]. The method of solution was fast, though perhaps with some loss of accuracy due to the fitted polynomial, and was used to remotely actuate all 34 gaslifted well valves through a controller and not just for a singlewell as performed by Bergeron et al. [14]. In the unlimited case, the apex point of each GLPC, identifying maximal production, was set and for the limited case, the lift gas deficit (from the optimal lift gas requirement) was shared equally among the wells.
Lo [39] also used a Lagrangian formulation, but with the intent of dealing with multiple constraints. A general nonlinear optimizer was employed (of which no details were given) to solve the constrained allocation problem. With a lift gas inequality constraint only, the equal MGOR solution was obtained for production maximization. In the presence of additional production constraints, the MGOR was noted to differ for each of the 20 wells in the model tested. Lo observed, with some foresight, that if, as proposed, the lift performance curves are assumed concave, then the objective function is concave and the feasible region defined by the constraints is convex. Thus, “one possibility for future work… is to devise a faster algorithm to solve the well management problem compared to [the] general nonlinear program” employed. In addition, as the backpressure effects were not considered, the problem should be “solved iteratively until the predicted WHP are consistent.” Both these features happen to be the basis behind the gaslift optimization scheme encompassing the Newton Reduction Method (NRM) [27]. However, while the general nonlinear scheme adopted by Lo [39] enables the application of many constraints, including those at the manifold level, the NRM approach is somewhat limited [25].
Fang and Lo [40] and HandleySchachler et al. [41] both proposed the use of Sequential Linear Programming (SLP) techniques. The lift performance curves were assumed to be piecewise linear and the constraints were linearized using a firstorder Taylor series expansion. The approach can be fast, as it requires only first derivatives, and is able to handle bigger models with relative ease. However, the limitation is that the linear model maybe a poor representation of the highly nonlinear system and noninstantaneously flowing (NIF) wells can be problematic (see Figure 4). Both papers utilize separable programming, the adjacency condition and special order sets in order to qualify the lift performance curve of each well and to optimize the performance of the linear solver [40, 41].
HandleySchachler et al. [41] presented a 21well model for a debottlenecking study and a 250well model for produced gas usage optimization problem, including the amount used as injection gas. The objective was to maximize revenue by lift gas allocation, while controlling other factors such as, compressor power, suction and discharge pressures. Fang and Lo [40] examined two fullfield test cases, taking account of changing reservoir conditions, to maximize the cumulative oil production.
An improved procedure to generate the GLPC to more accurately match the test data collected was reported by SalazarMendoza [42]. On the other hand, Alarcón et al. [19] employed a modified secondorder polynomial to fit the well GLPCs obtained from nodal analysis. The addition of a correction term gave rise to a better fit than the use of standard secondorder polynomials reported by Nishikiori et al. [2] and Mayo et al. [36]. The standard nonlinear problem was posed and the convexity of the curves noted to yield a globally optimal solution. The Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) method was used for the solution of the problem, using an approximate Hessian update procedure.
The SQP method is the workhorse of constrained nonlinear optimization. A quadratic approximation is made at a point on the Lagrangian function and the constraints are linearized. The resulting quadratic subproblem is solved for the direction of search, along which a line search is performed to minimize the merit function [37, 38]. The matrix of secondorder derivatives, the Hessian, must be updated to improve the quadratic approximation of the Lagrangian function using a suitable update procedure, for example, the BFGS method [38]. The cycle is repeated iteratively until convergence to a local minimum. The method suffers from the requirement of secondorder derivatives, which can be costly and difficult to evaluate. The method can handle constraints well and from a good starting point can exhibit quadratic convergence. However, using approximate Hessian update procedures, only superlinear convergence can be guaranteed [37].
The need for a good GLIR starting condition was addressed by Alarcón et al. with a distribution of available lift gas proportional to the maximum flow rate over the sum of all wells, as also suggested by Nishikiori et al. [2]. For noninstantaneous flow (NIF) wells (i.e., those requiring a minimum level of gas injection before they can flow, see Figure 4), minimum GLIR rates were specified. This has the effect of forcing the wells to produce, but can lead to a suboptimal solution as certain wells unnecessarily consume large amounts of lift gas simply to produce small amounts of oil. Lo [39] noted that NIF wells break the concavity assumption and incorrectly suggested that as long as the minimum GLIR is far from the GLIR required for the unconstrained maximum flowrate, the use of minimum GLIR constraints is reasonable. However the excessive allocation of lift gas to low producing wells that results, prevents better solutions from being obtained.
Alarcón et al. examined test cases of 5, 6, and 13wells, of which the first two were also considered by Buitrago et al. [43] using a global derivativefree method. In addition, the 6well problem was addressed by Ray and Sarker [44] using a multiobjective evolutionary approach. However, [19] only compared results from Buitrago et al. [43], from which the test cases were taken. The solutions from Alarcón et al. differed to those from Buitrago et al. [43] somewhat due to the method of solution employed and the curve interpolation scheme used. In general, the improved polynomial fit and the robust SQP solver yielded better results for Alarcón et al. Note, however, that the single NIF well present in the 6well case was treated in a binary manner, that is, either on or off. The necessary treatment of a problem with a greater number of NIF wells was not made clear.
The complications arising from wells with nonsmooth gaslift performance curves, discontinuities and indeed with noninstantaneous flow can impede the progress of conventional gradientbased optimization methods (see Figure 4). This results in suboptimal solution due the poor handling of such wells and due to simplification made by curve fitting. For example, the flat section of a NIF well returns a gradient that is of little use in the optimization procedure. Hence, a minimum lift gas injection constraint is often implemented to overcome this issue, but this leads to an inefficient allocation and a suboptimal solution, especially with increasing dimensionality. Conventional methods also tend to find only local solutions. To overcome these concerns, several researchers resorted to the use of more robust global search algorithms. Buitrago et al. [43] developed a global derivativefree search algorithm for the gaslift allocation problem using heuristic measures to evaluate the descent direction. The method explores promising areas of the search space using a predefined number of samples using random search and a clustering method. The method is reported as being able to handle any number of wells, including wells with irregular profiles and noninstantaneous flow (NIF) (see Figure 4). The paper presented test cases of 5, 6, and 56 wells. The last two cases comprised 1 and 10 NIF wells, respectively. The method is compared to solutions obtained using an equalslope approach. It is interesting to note that the solutions of the reported method by Buitrago et al. [43] are with the NIF wells turned off. However, a comparative study has shown that better solutions are possible with certain NIF wells activated [27]. Hence, although the method is robust, it does not appear to show any advantage in being able to accommodate NIF wells at all.
Buitrago et al. [43] proposed the metric of gas lift per barrel of oil at the solution point as a means of comparing solutions for different methods. However, while certain methods allocate all the available lift gas and find only local solutions, others will not. As such, the best comparative metric can only be solution quality, based on the overall objective value (e.g., the total oil production) in the absence of the computational cost necessary to obtain it. Note that many papers provide no function call count as a measure of computational cost or the efficiency of the method presented with increasing dimensionality. Lastly, it should be noted that for the third test case in Buitrago et al. [43], the sum of allocated lift gas is misstated. This should be 20,479 MSCF/D for the reported method and 24,661 MSCF/D, which exceeds the quantity of available gas, for the equalslope solution used for comparison. This changes the metric ratios reported from 0.939 and 1.059, to 0.94 and 1.16, respectively.
The use of a genetic algorithm (GA) for the gaslift allocation problem for production maximization was reported by Martinez et al. [45]. A genetic algorithm is a stochastic population based global search strategy in which an initial set of candidate seeds, often randomly selected, is evolved over a number of generations using the key operations of crossover, reproduction, and mutation. The fittest candidate in the final gene pool is the solution to the optimization problem. The method is derivativefree, robust and can potentially find a global solution. In addition, both integer and continuous variables can be handled with ease. However, the method has the disadvantage of requiring a great number of function evaluations, which can be computationally expensive. Many variations and extensions exist to speed up convergence, maintain population diversity and to avoid binary string encoding. Algorithm parameter tuning may also be necessary for optimal performance. For example, in Martinez et al. [45], a greedy step was included to prioritize wells for preferential gas lift allocation and constant lift curves were used to test models of 10 and 25 wells. In addition, uniform and average crossover, mutation, short and longcreep steps were considered for algorithm performance improvement. The method reportedly outperformed individual well schemes for production maximization by twenty percent.
Ray and Sarker [44] posed the gaslift optimization problem as a multiobjective problem (MOP), with the intent to maximize production while minimizing lift gas usage. In the single objective problem of maximizing production alone, the second objective is treated as a constraint. A variant of the NSGAII algorithm [46] was employed as a means of maintaining population diversity. The acronym refers to the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm, which indicates that the best solutions identifying the Pareto front are retained [46]. Contrary to Martinez et al. [45], where the robustness of the GA was used to help overcome the irregularities observed in the GLPCs, the lift curves were instead assumed to be piecewise linear. The 6 and 56well cases from Buitrago et al. [43] were employed for testing. The derivativefree algorithm was robust and able to deliver solutions to the problems, each with 1 and 10 NIF wells, respectively. They reported improvements compared to the results by Buitrago et al. [43]. However, it should be observed that the simulations were run 96 times each and the best result obtained was used for comparative purposes. If the median or the average result is employed instead, the improvement is eroded or overcome completely.
The use of the MOP solution set to derive a production versus total gas injected profile in Ray and Sarker [44] is useful. However, retention of the solution configuration at each point on the profile is necessary, and no mention is made of this. In general, the MOP solution set is expensive and unnecessary given that much effort is required simply to filter out the dominated set of points. For example, the Newton Reduction Method will return the production versus total gas injected profile at selected values of the total available lift gas directly [25]. The benefit of multiobjective optimization could have been explored with more complex and conflicting operating constraints.
The shortcoming of curvebased network models, while better than undertaking singlewell analysis, is evident in their neglect of the back pressure effects imposed by the entire network. The injection of lift gas in one will have an effect on all connected wells and this is not treated when the wells are considered separable. In addition, significant changes in well condition, bottomhole pressure, productivity, watercut or wellhead pressure, all necessitate the update of the lift performance curves. As gas injection tends to lower BHP and increase WHP due to the fixed delivery point pressure, performance curve update is imperative. Hence, curvebased models give rise to pseudo steadystate solutions only and these will suffer from significant fluctuation in either well, operating or facility conditions, and with increasing model dimensionality. In the following section, network models are utilized to overcome this shortcoming.
5. NetworkBased Solutions
The use of a nonlinear constrained optimizer was reported as a necessity by DuttaRoy et al. [47] when considering fields with many interconnected gaslifted wells and facility components. A rigorous multiphase flow network solver was used to solve the pressure and flow rates across the network in conjunction with a SQP solver for the constrained allocation problem. Function evaluation count was not reported, but the benefits of a simultaneous solution for more accurate results was shown [13, 47].
Nadar et al. [48] defined a network system to fully account for the production and gaslift system interaction simultaneously for a complex offshore gaslifted operation for production gain and cost reduction. A family of lift performance curves for varying WHP was generated for each well. The surface gaslift components were modeled in the network simulator, including a detailed compressor model. The curves were assumed piecewise linear and the SLP method employed for optimization. The separator pressure, gaslift header pressure and the gaslift injection rates were assigned as control variables. The approach was tested on 2 configurations of a composite model based on 4 fields, comprising 40 production platforms and 200 wells, for revenue maximization under equipment and network constraints. The method is able to handle large complex looped networks and can treat constraints simultaneously. A number of studies were examined, including gaslift compressor train shutdown, establishing the gaslift injection pressure and evaluating the gas transfer across fields. The difficulty of defining the gaslift performance curves at low injection rates was noted, and thus can affect the solution quality. In general, inclusion of the gas compression and gas injection system enhances the overall merit of the optimization solution, in comparison to the production pipeline model alone.
Vazquez et al. [49] proposed an approach combining a genetic algorithm with the Tabu Search method. The latter performs a local search and retains a set of search points marked as in viable, known as the tabu steps. The search progresses in a direction where the objective function improvement is most likely. The method was tested on a 25well system and a 5% increase in production was reported compared to the original state. The system considered comprised the production wells, the surface facility model and included a number of operating constraints. Although other forms of artificial lift (sucker rod pump and electric submersible pumps) were considered, the scheme can equally be applied to a gaslift scenario. The main drawback of the approach was the high function evaluation cost resulting from the global stochasticbased scheme.
To ease the computational burden of simulation cost, Stoisits et al. [50] introduced an adaptive nonlinear model to replace the actual network production simulator. The production model comprised the individual wells, surface line hydraulics model, and the production facility model. A GA was combined with a Neural Net (NN) based production simulation model for production optimization. The GA was used to return a global solution, while the NN model provided a fast proxy of the actual objective function once successfully trained. The problem investigated concerned the allocation of wells to production facilities and the lift gas to the wells, under multiple production constraints. The GA was used to find the optimal well activation state and the optimal drill site IGOR (for a collection of wells), which returns the GLIR for each individual producing well. Results from the GA were compared with and without parameter tuning and a production increase between 3% to 9% was achieved. In Stoisits et al. [35], the NN model was compared to the empirical correlation by Weiss et al. [24] using the composite IGOR curve definition developed [23].
An iterative offlineonline procedure for gaslift optimization was developed by Rashid [26, 27]. Gaslift performance curves are extracted and used to solve the gaslift allocation problem offline. Contrary to the assertion that splinefitted GLPCs are unsuitable [19], the method uses smoothing and splines to ensure convexity of both the GLPC and the inverse derivative profiles required by the NRM solver (see Figure 5). The offline solution is passed to the network model [5] for updated wellhead pressures (WHP). The procedure repeats until convergence on WHP has been achieved [27]. This approach has the benefit of speed through the use of well curves, while retaining the rigor of the actual network model. Hence, flow interactions are fully accounted for. Note that the NRM solves a residual equation of one variable assuming GLPC convexity and a strict allocation of all available lift gas [27]. However, a GA solver is also embodied to handle nonconvex cases and the imposition of manifold level constraints that NRM is unable to handle with ease [25]. The method is particularly effective for managing high dimensional cases [51], including noninstantaneous flow wells and has also been extended to treat both gaslift and choke control in each well using a mixedinteger formulation [52].
Kosmidis et al. [53] presented a mixedinteger nonlinear program (MINLP) formulation for simultaneously treating well rates and GLIR for production optimization over multiple constraints using an iterative mixedinteger linear programming (MILP) scheme. The integer variables determined well activation status and the continuous variables the amount of lift gas received by each well. The well curves were assumed to be piecewise linear. The method accounted for the well interactions and was reported as being able to handle nonsmooth and noninstantaneous flow wells. A detailed production model was employed based on a black oil reservoir model (using the Peaceman inflow performance relationship [54]), a multiphase wellbore model, a choke model [55], and a facility gathering model [53]. The MILP approach was defined using separable programming, special ordered sets, and the adjacency assumption, similar to the formulation adopted by HandleySchachler et al. [41] for the SLP approach. The CPLEX solver from ILOG was used for the solution of the MILP subproblem [56]. Two test cases were examined comprising 10 naturally flowing wells and 13 gaslifted wells. The simplification arising from linear assumptions, both for the objective function and the constraints, can be a limitation of such an approach. However, results compared favorably to traditional heuristic approaches.
Camponogara and Nakashima [57] used a dynamicprogramming(DP) based formulation for the wellrate and lift gas allocation problem. The problem of determining which wells to produce and how much gas to allocate is a MINLP problem (as previously considered by Kosmidis et al. [53] and more recently, in Rashid et al. [52]). However, the DP algorithm solves the discretized gaslift optimization problem approximately using precedence constraints to determine the activation of wells. Results were presented for a number of cases varying from 6 to 48 wells. The DP algorithm is relatively fast and despite the approximate nature of the approach, provides nearoptimal solution for midsized networks (10–20 wells) with a sufficiently large model discretization. In general, the proposed formulation is NPhard (this refers to nondeterministic polynomial time hard algorithm complexity) which indicates that the problem cannot be solved efficiently with increasing dimensionality due to the complexity arising from the increasing size of the connectivity graph.
The MINLP formulation for wellrate and lift gas allocation in Kosmidis et al. [53] was extended to accommodate the well scheduling problem [58]. The connection of wells to particular manifolds was treated simultaneously with wellrate management and lift gas allocation. The local solution method was deemed better than rulebased schemes, namely, those employing rules to rank and select well activation. However, the complexity of solving a large composite model for a local solution cannot guarantee a good solution overall unless executed from a good starting point or, at a higher cost, from many starting points.
6. Network and ReservoirBased Solutions
Davidson and Beckner [59] used the SQP method for wellrate allocation with a reservoir simulator. A simple reservoir with 3 production wells was considered with specified production target rates.
Wang et al. [60] used the SQP solver to simultaneously solve the wellrate and lift gas allocation problem for production optimization under many constraints, including minimum and maximum flow rates, pressure limits on wells or nodes, along with available lift gas and water production limits. The method was compared to an earlier MILP plus GAbased approach by the same authors [60]. The MILP formulation excluded the back pressure effect by arbitrarily estimating the WHP in building the gaslift performance curve. A deliverability constraint is included in the revised approach to help determine the activation state of wells and to account for the flow interaction between them. Networks of 2, 10, and 50 wells were compared with water only, water and gas, or no constraints imposed. The SQP solver was shown to be fast and robust. The MILP approach, like other simplified approaches, ignored the effect of coupling and the constraints imposed by the network. As a downside, the proposed SQPbased method does not reportedly work with looped networks due to the greater potential of flipflopping in the solution process.
The performance of three types of solver were compared by Fujii and Horne [61] for general application to a system for production optimization: a Newtonbased method, a GA, and a polytope method. The latter is a derivativefree method that uses a fixed set of points describing a polytope in the search space. The points undergo operations of expansion, contraction and reflection in pursuit of a local optimum. The method is alternatively known as the Downhill Simplex method by Nelder and Meade [62]. Two test cases (of 2 and 10 wells) were considered, with the tubing size in each well as the decision variable, although the lift gas rate could equally have been used. The polytope was effective for small problems and the GA was effective at finding the global solution, even with greater number of variables present. The quasiNewton method became trapped in local minimum and required costly derivative evaluations. For these reasons, the method proved less suited to problems with discontinuous objective functions (see Figure 4) and comprising many variables.
Carroll and Horne [63] compared a modified Newton method with the Polytope method. A reservoir component was included in the model and an economic cost function based on present value defined. A twovariable model comprising tubing size and separator pressure was considered. The benefits of simultaneous multivariate optimization were shown over a timestepped simulation with changing reservoir conditions. The nonsmoothness of the observed noisy function can complicate algorithm convergence and the finitedifferencebased derivative evaluation scheme. The secondorder Newton method required evaluation of both Jacobian and Hessian matrices. In order to obtain meaningful derivatives, a large finitedifference step was suggested. However, this can affect both the performance and quality of the solution. In general, the derivativefree polytope method proved more efficient and successful at finding good solutions. Performance metrics, in the form of objective function evaluation or time cost, however, were not provided.
Palke and Horne [64] considered the application of Newton, GA and Polytope algorithms in order to optimize NPV as a function of the wellbore configuration. Control variables included tubing diameter, separator pressure, choke diameter and the depth and rate of lift gas injection. The coupled simulation considered a reservoir with a single gaslifted well comprising reservoir, well, choke and separator component models. The Newton method (with Marquardt extension), the polytope method and the GA were compared using three problems. The first two problems concerned the tubing diameter and separator pressure, like Carroll and Horne [63], with two different fluid compositions in the well. As Fujii and Horne [61] and Carroll and Horne [63] also concluded, the use of numerical derivatives over a nonsmooth surface complicates the application of gradientbased methods. The results from the Newton method were expensive and poor. The third problem examined the variation of tubing diameter and lift gas rate over 4 time steps. The polytope method did not always converge and could not easily handle problems of many variables. The GA was robust and stable but required a great number of function evaluations at significant time and computational cost. Parameter tuning was attempted to increase convergence efficiency by varying mutation rate, changing the crossover scheme, employing fitness scaling and undertaking population culling [64].
Hepguler et al. [65], Kosmala et al. [66] and Wang and Litvak [67] all considered the integration of surface facilities with a reservoir simulator to better account for the reservoir effects over a timelapsed simulation study. The latter employed an approximate iterative scheme using heuristics (referred to as the GLINC method) while the first two used the defacto SQP solver.
Hepguler et al. [65] considered the variation of GLR for a model with 10 producers and 10 injectors over a 1300day production period. Kosmala et al. [66] considered a coupled reservoir and network system for well management using downhole flow control valves and also for optimal gas allocation. The implicit SQP solver in the commercial network simulator (GAP) was employed [6]. The authors note that although the cost of coupling can be high, the results are more accurate as they take account of the limits imposed by the network model over the reservoir timesteps.
Wang and Litvak [67] introduced a multiobjective condition (besides maximizing production) to minimize the lift gas rate variation between iterations using a damping factor. This had the effect of reducing the level of fluctuations encountered. The proposed method, GLINC, was compared to previous work based on a separable programming technique using a SLP formulation, using the approach of Fang and Lo [40], together with a GA and the trust region polytope based on COBYLA method (constrained optimization by linear approximation) by Powell [37]. Although the GLINC method is easy to implement and handles flow interactions directly, it does not guarantee even a locally optimal solution due to the simplified function employed during optimization and the local nature of the search. The separable programming approach does not handle flow interactions but does return the optimal solution of the SLP problem. Comparison of the methods showed that the GLINC method was the most computationally efficient.
In the paper by Wang and Litvak [67], the longterm development plan of a North Sea field comprising 21 wells was considered for both lift gas and wellrate allocation over a period of 10,000 days. The impact of the damping factor was shown in a second test case of 18 production wells with oil, water, liquid and gasrate constraints. While not significantly impacting cumulative oil production, the addition of the damping factor significantly reduced computational cost by reducing oscillations. Computational performance measures were provided by the authors; however, as the methods differ in their implementation, these should not be considered conclusive. It is also worth noting that the optimization procedure is called at the first few Newton iterations of each reservoir simulation time step. There is no certainty that convergence will be completed in those steps and indeed if the Newton steps are even progressing in the right direction in that period before convergence. Hence, the optimization method and the lack of damping may not be the only cause of the oscillations encountered.
7. Integrated Modelling Approach
Gutierrez et al. [25] present an integrated asset approach using decline curves for the reservoir along with network and process models [68]. The integrated asset model gives a more definitive treatment of the conditions imposed by coupling in the real world. The iterative offlineonline scheme proposed by Rashid [27] was utilized for gaslift optimization. The instabilities presented by a rigorous reservoir coupling with the production network model were avoided using predictive reservoir conditions and gaslift allocation is performed at each coupling step. A simulation comprising 10 production wells was managed over a 20year period for gaslift optimization under various production constraints. These included water handling, compressor horsepower, field oil and liquid production constraints.
An integrated model comprising the reservoir, wells, surface facility model and a detailed economic model, with the purpose of optimizing the NPV of the asset, was presented by Mora et al. [69]. The model was designed to handle changes in compression, gas availability and handling capacities. The study indicated that maximum NPV does not occur when production is maximized over a common lift efficiency condition, defined as the level of production per unit gas injection over all wells, but at higher lift efficiencies. Sensitivity of the solution to oil price variation was also considered and optimization performed over a range of lift efficiencies. Results showed that depending on the price scenario selected (i.e., low to high oil price) field value is optimized by operating under different lift efficiencies. It is evident that a high oil price tends to saturate the NPV calculation. In other words, when the oil price is low, the gas and water components have a bigger impact on the NPV sensitivity to the lift efficiency employed, but if the oil price is comparatively high, these components contribute less to the NPV revenue calculation. For optimization purposes, the multi level optimization scheme from a commercial simulator (Landmark VIP) was employed [70].
Bieker et al. [71] presented the elements necessary for an offshore oil and gas production system for realtime optimization in a closedloop. These include the acquisition, storage and processing of field data, simulationmodel management, together with optimization and control activation procedures. The intent was to devise a system that can remotely optimize production by managing facility constraints under changing operating conditions. For example, changes in pressure, lift gas availability, separator and compressor handling limits. The daily operation was managed in a fast control loop for the shortterm, while a longerterm slow loop was used to account for the changing reservoir conditions. It was noted that separate optimization levels for the slow and fast loop are necessary to handle the complexity of the composite model. Generally, the application of automatic control measures enable optimal configuration settings to be implemented with minimum intervention and time delay, helping to maximize daily production. Such schemes are particularly beneficial for remote offshore locations. Bergeron et al. [14] and Mayo et al. [36] both demonstrated these concepts in practice for a single offshore well and on a field with multiple wells, respectively.
8. Conclusion
In an oilfield, the daily available lift gas, often constrained due to facility conditions, is prone to variation. In addition, operating conditions and handling facilities can dictate compressor deliverability and separator limits during production, while poor allocation of the available lift gas can be economically costly, leading to overconstrained or overdesigned facilities. As such, an optimal lift gas allocation is desirable to ensure that the best possible oil production or profit can be realized.
The purpose of this paper was to present a survey of the methods developed specifically to treat the continuous gaslift optimization problem. While the basic problem concerns the optimal allocation of lift gas, the broader problem can additionally include the wellrate management problem and the well strategy problem. The former concerns the control of downhole chokes for pressure and flowrate control, while the latter concerns the activation state or connection of wells. In some cases, the well design for gaslift is also considered alongside the well gasinjection rate.
The problems tackled and methods employed have evolved logically, with growing computational power and confidence, stemming from singlewell analysis, to lift performance based schemes, to those utilizing rigorous network solutions, all the way to fullfield integrated and closedloop configurations. The methods and techniques employed cover a spectrum ranging from simple singlevariable maximization to more sophisticated mixedinteger nonlinear (MINLP) optimization schemes. In the intervening, SLP, SQP, DP, MILP, GA, TS, Polytope and Newtonbased methods have all been applied in some manner. In addition, the equalslope concept (including the marginal GOR approach) has led to the application of heuristic schemes and the development of solutions based on the separable and nonlinear convex nature of the lift performance curves. Clearly, some optimization methods can be applied more readily than others depending on the formulation adopted, the solver selected and the availability of derivative information from the model. Derivativefree schemes, such as GA, TS and Polytope can be applied in most settings, but suffer from a high computational overhead if the function is costly to evaluate. On the other hand, the effectiveness of gradientbased solvers is reduced if the function is non smooth or numerical derivatives are required from an expensive simulation case, as evidenced by most coupled and integrated models. Note that the use of adjoint schemes to elicit gradient information is possible, but will be limited to a single simulation model as sensitivity information from a coupled or integrated model must be obtained collectively, most likely, by numerical means.
Thus, while some methods are more robust and extensible to large production constrained fields comprising hundreds of wells with a great number and type of variables, others are clearly limited. Classical singlewell analysis neglects the interaction of other wells in a field, curvebased models neglect the backpressure effects imposed by connected wells and networkbased simulations neglect the impact of the reservoir and the process facility model. For the latter fullfield simulation, the foregoing schemes are critical to ensure speed, stability and versatility of an optimization solution in real time over the fast inner loop, while the slow outer loop can be accommodated by timestepping the inner loop. In other words, in this case, successful control and optimization of the inner loop is a necessary prerequisite in the composite fullfield integrated solution. Hence, the methods devised to ensure this must be able to handle large fields, tackle difficult and noninstantaneously flowing wells and provide accurate nearoptimal solutions in a reasonable time under many operating constraints. That is, they should be able to provide solutions over the period in which a well is monitored without intervention and in which operating conditions are unlikely to change significantly. In this regard, a hierarchical optimization approach may be preferential rather than an allinone approach. Note that when a coupled simulation includes the reservoir model not based on decline curves, the rigor of the coupling scheme, and indeed any up scaling procedure adopted, will affect the cost of the objective function evaluation and ultimately the quality of the result achieved. However, as in any enterprise, the model should be representative of the system of interest and robust for the purpose of practical optimization.
The alternative approach to the timestepped procedure outlined above is to optimize the entire coupled or integrated system collectively over the simulation period of interest. Due to the cost associated with a single objective function evaluation, this is achieved using derivativefree methods, still at some cost, or more practically, using proxybased methods. Here, a fast analytical approximation model is developed from a collection of representative samples using neural network, kriging or radial basis function methods. The approximation model is then used in place of the actual simulation model in the optimization step. Iterative proxy schemes have the benefit of further reducing the number of expensive function evaluations required by sampling only in the areas of the perceived optimum at each iteration [72, 73]. These methods have been demonstrated as robust, but are often limited to several dozen variables in dimensionality for practical reasons.
Thus, in general, the effectiveness of any approach adopted must consider the scalability of the solution method with increasing dimensionality (e.g., the objective function cost and, if required, the cost of derivative evaluation) along with the efficiency of the evaluation (e.g., the use of suitable proxy models) in order to minimize the overall computational cost. Mitigation of these factors is necessary for longer term simulation of largescale fields for production optimization and especially when uncertainty is considered in the underlying models.
In summary, demonstration of a fully automated model, for gaslift optimization in particular and for production optimization in general, that can handle the changing operational conditions and predict future development needs in a timely and robust manner is of value, and remains a challenging goal.
Symbols
:  Gaslift injection rate 
:  Oil flowrate 
:  Wellhead pressure 
:  Bottomhole pressure 
:  Reservoir pressure 
:  Slope value on a gaslift performance curve. 
Acroynms
BFGS:  BroydenFletcherGoldfarbShanno method 
BHP:  Bottomhole pressure 
COBYLA:  Constrained optimization by linear approximation 
DP:  Dynamic programming 
EXIN:  Method by Buitrago et al. [43] 
GA:  Genetic algorithm 
GOAL:  PipeSim gaslift optimization module 
GL:  Gaslift 
GLIR:  Gaslift injection rate 
GLINC:  Method by Wang and Litvak [67] 
GLPC:  Gaslift performance curve 
GLR:  Gas liquid ratio 
GLV:  Gaslift valve 
GOR:  Gas oil ratio 
IGL:  Intermittent gaslift 
IGOR:  Incremental GOR 
IPR:  Inflow performance relationship 
KKT:  KarushKuhnTucker conditions 
MGOR:  Marginal GOR 
MILP:  Mixed integer linear programming 
MINLP:  Mixed integer nonlinear programming 
MOP:  Multiobjective optimization problem 
NIF:  Noninstantaneous flow 
NP:  Nondeterministic polynomial time hard algorithm complexity 
NPV:  Net present value 
NRM:  Newton reduction method by Rashid [27] 
NSGA:  Nondominated sorting GA by Deb [46] 
OCI:  Operating cash income 
PGL:  Plunger gaslift 
PI:  Productivity index 
PVT:  Pressure volume and temperature 
PVOCI:  Preset value OCI 
SLP:  Sequential linear programming 
SQP:  Sequential quadratic programming 
SOP:  Singleobjective optimization problem 
TS:  Tabu search 
WHP:  Wellhead pressure. 
References
 K. Brown, “Overview of artificial lift systems,” SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 2384–2396, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
 N. Nishikiori, R. A. Redner, D. R. Doty, and Z. Schmidt, “Improved method for gas lift allocation optimization,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (ATCE '89), pp. 105–118, San Antonio, Tex, USA, October 1989. View at: Google Scholar
 J. C. Mantecon, “Gaslift optimisation on Barrow Island, Western Australia,” in Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, pp. 237–246, February 1993. View at: Google Scholar
 H. Beggs, Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis, Oil & Gas Consultants, 2nd edition, 2008.
 Schlumberger Information Solutions, PipeSim Network Simulator, Schlumberger SIS, Abingdon, UK, 2007.
 Petroleum Experts, GAP Network Simulator, Petroleum Experts, Edinburgh, UK, 2002.
 A. Bahadori, S. Ayatollahi, and M. Moshfeghian, “Simulation and optimization of continuous gas lift system in aghajari oil field,” in Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 2001. View at: Google Scholar
 D. Denney, “Simulation and optimization of continuous gas lift,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 54, no. 5, p. 60, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
 S. Ayatollahi, A. Bahadori, and A. Moshfeghian, “Method optimises Aghajari oil field gas lift,” Oil and Gas Journal, vol. 99, no. 21, pp. 47–49, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
 R. VazquezRoman and P. PalafoxHernandez, “A new approach for continuous gas lift simulation and optimization,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (ATCE '05), Dallas, Tex, USA, October 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 A. Bahadori and K. Zeidani, “Compositional model improves gaslift optimization for Iranian oil field,” Oil and Gas Journal, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 42–47, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
 A. Bahadori and K. Zeidani, “A new approach optimizes continuous gas lift system,” World Oil, vol. 227, no. 11, pp. 45–52, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
 K. DuttaRoy and J. Kattapuram, “New approach to gaslift allocation optimization,” in Proceedings of 67th Annual Western Regional Meeting, pp. 685–691, Long Beach, Calif, USA, June 1997. View at: Google Scholar
 T. Bergeron, A. Cooksey, and S. Reppel, “New automated continuous gaslift system improves operational efficiency,” in Proceedings of the SPE MidContinent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma, Okla, USA, March 1999. View at: Google Scholar
 W. Simmons, “Optimizing continuous flow gas lift wells—part1.,” Petroleum Engineer, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 46–48, 1972. View at: Google Scholar
 W. Simmons, “Optimizing continuous flow gas lift wells—part2,” Petroleum Engineer, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 68–72, 1972. View at: Google Scholar
 E. P. Kanu, J. Mach, and K. E. Brown, “Economic approach to oil production and gas allocation in continuous gaslift,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1887–1892, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
 T. Mayhill, “Simplified method for gaslift well problem identification and diagnosis,” in Proceedings of the SPE Fall AIME Meeting, Dallas, Tex, USA, October 1974. View at: Google Scholar
 G. A. Alarcón, C. F. Torres, and L. E. Gómez, “Global optimization of gas allocation to a group of wells in artificial lift using nonlinear constrained programming,” Journal of Energy Resources Technology, Transactions of the ASME, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 262–268, 2002. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Redden, T. Sherman, and J. Blann, “Optimizing gaslift systems,” in Proceedings of the SPE Fall AIME Meeting, pp. 1–13, Dallas, Tex, USA, October 1974. View at: Google Scholar
 J. Clegg, “Discussion of economic approach to oil production and gas allocation in continuous gas lift,” SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 310–302, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
 E. P. Kanu, “Author’s reply to discussion of economic approach to oil production and gas allocation in continuous gas lift,” SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, p. 519, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
 R. Stoisits, P. Scherer, and S. Schmidt, “. Gas optimization at the kuparak river field,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (ATCE '94), pp. 35–42, New Orleans, La, USA, September 1994. View at: Google Scholar
 J. L. Weiss, W. H. Masino, G. P. Starley, and J. D. Bolling, “Largescale facility expansion evaluations at the Kuparuk river field,” in Proceedings SPE Regional Meeting, pp. 297–304, Bakersfield, Calif, USA, April 1990. View at: Google Scholar
 F. Gutierrez, A. Hallquist, M. Shippen, and K. Rashid, “A new approach to gas lift optimization using an integrated asset model,” in SPE International Petroleum Technology Conference (IPTC '07), pp. 1371–1380, Dubai, UAE, December 2007. View at: Google Scholar
 K. Rashid, “A method for gas lift optimization,” in Proceedings of the SIAM Annual Meeting, Boston, Mass, USA, May 2008. View at: Google Scholar
 K. Rashid, “Optimal allocation procedure for gaslift optimization,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 2286–2294, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Schmidt, D. R. Doty, B. Agena, T. Liao, and K. E. Brown, “New developments to improve continuousflow gas lift utilizing personal computers,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (ATCE '90), pp. 615–630, New Orleans, La, USA, September 1990. View at: Google Scholar
 Y. Chia and S. Hussain, “Gas lift optimization efforts and challenges,” in Proceedings of the SPE Asia Improved Oil Recovery Conference, pp. 2–9, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 1999. View at: Google Scholar
 Schlumberger Information Solutions, Eclipse Reference Manual, Schlumberger SIS, Abingdon, UK, 2006.
 T. A. Everitt, “Gaslift optimization in a large, mature GOM field,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (ATCE '94), pp. 25–33, New Orleans, La, USA, September 1994. View at: Google Scholar
 R. Edwards, D. L. Marshall, and K. C. Wade, “Gaslift optimization and allocation model for manifolded subsea wells,” in Proceedings of the European Petroleum Conference (EUROPEC '90), pp. 535–545, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 1990. View at: Google Scholar
 A. A. Ferrer and R. Maggiolo, “Use of a computerized model in the optimization of continuous gaslift operations,” in Proceedings of the SPE Production Operations Symposium, pp. 87–96, April 1991. View at: Google Scholar
 Schlumberger Information Solutions, ,GOAL GasLift Optimizer, Schlumberger SIS, Abingdon, UK, 1998.
 R. F. Stoisits, E. C. Batesole, J. H. Champion, and D. H. Park, “Application of nonlinear adaptive modeling for rigorous representation of production facilities in reservoir simulation,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (ATCE '92), pp. 425–434, Washington, DC, USA, October 1992. View at: Google Scholar
 O. Mayo, F. Blanco, and J. Alvarado, “Procedure optimizes lift gas allocation,” Oil & Gas Journal, vol. 97, no. 13, pp. 38–41, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
 P. Gill, W. Murray, and M. Wright, Practical Optimization, Academic Press, 12th edition, 2000.
 R. Fletcher, Practical Methods of Optimization, John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edition, 2000.
 K. K. Lo, Optimum LiftGas Allocations under Multiple Production Constraints, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1992.
 W. Y. Fang and K. K. Lo, “A generalized wellmanagement scheme for reservoir simulation,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 116–120, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
 S. HandleySchachler, C. McKie, and N. Quintero, “New mathematical techniques for the optimization of oil & gas production systems,” in Proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum Conference (EUROPEC '00), pp. 429–436, October 2000. View at: Google Scholar
 R. SalazarMendoza, “New representative curves for gas lift optimization,” in Proceedings of the SPE 1st International Oil Conference, Cancun, Mexico, August 2006. View at: Google Scholar
 S. Buitrago, E. Rodriguez, and D. Espin, “Global optimization techniques in gas allocation for continuous flow gas lift systems,” in Proceedings of the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, pp. 375–383, Calgary, Canada, May 1996. View at: Google Scholar
 T. Ray and R. Sarker, “Multiobjective evolutionary approach to the solution of gas lift optimization problems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC '06), pp. 3182–3188, British Columbia, Canada, July 2006. View at: Google Scholar
 E. R. Martinez, W. J. Moreno, J. A. Moreno, and R. Maggiolo, “Application of genetic algorithm on the distribution of gas lift injection,” in Proceedings of the 3rd SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, pp. 811–818, Buenos Aires, Argentina, April 1994. View at: Google Scholar
 K. Deb, MultiObjective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
 K. DuttaRoy, S. Barua, and A. Heiba, “Computeraided gas field planning and optimization,” in Proceedings of the SPE Production Operations Symposium, pp. 511–515, Oklahoma, Okla, USA, March 1997. View at: Google Scholar
 M. S. Nadar, T. S. Schneider, K. L. Jackson, C. J. N. McKie, and J. Hamid, “Implementation of a totalsystem productionoptimization model in a complex gas lifted offshore operation,” SPE Production and Operations, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 5–13, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
 M. Vazquez, A. Suarez, H. Aponte, L. Ocanto, and J. Fernandes, “Global optimization of oil production systems, a unified operational view,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (ATCE '01), New Orleans, La, USA, October 2001. View at: Google Scholar
 R. Stoisits, D. MacAllister, M. McCormack, A. Lawal, and D. Ogbe, “Production optimization at the kuparak river field utilizing neural networks and genetic algorithms,” in Proceedings of the SPE MidContinent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma, Okla, USA, March 1999. View at: Google Scholar
 S. Moitra, S. Chand, S. Barua, D. Adenusi, and V. Agrawal, “A fieldwide integrated production model and asset management system for the mumbai high field,” in Proceedings of the SPE Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Tex, USA, April 2007. View at: Google Scholar
 K. Rashid, S. Demirel, and B. Couët, “Gaslift optimization with choke control using a mixedinteger nonlinear formulation,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 2971–2980, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 V. D. Kosmidis, J. D. Perkins, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “Optimization of well oil rate allocations in petroleum fields,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 43, no. 14, pp. 3513–3527, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 D. W. Peaceman, “Interpretation of wellblock pressures in numerical reservoir simulation,” Society of Petroleum Engineers, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 183–194, 1978. View at: Google Scholar
 R. Sachdeva, Z. Schmidt, J. P. Brill, and R. M. Blais, “Two pahse flow through chokes,” in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, 58 October 1986. View at: Google Scholar
 ILOG, ILOG CPLEX User's Manual, ILOG, 2002.
 E. Camponogara and P. H. R. Nakashima, “Solving a gaslift optimization problem by dynamic programming,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 174, no. 2, pp. 1220–1246, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 V. D. Kosmidis, J. D. Perkins, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “A mixed integer optimization formulation for the well scheduling problem on petroleum fields,” Computers and Chemical Engineering, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1523–1541, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. E. Davidson and B. Beckner, “Integrated optimization for rate allocation in reservoir simulation,” in SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Tex, USA, February 2003. View at: Google Scholar
 P. Wang, M. Litvak, and K. Aziz, “Optimization of production operations in petroleum fields.,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (ATCE '02), San Antonio, Tex, USA, September 2002. View at: Google Scholar
 H. Fujii and R. Horne, “Multivariate optimization of networked production systems,” SPE Production & Facilities, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 165–171, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
 W. Press, S. Teukolsky, W. Vetterling, and B. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C++, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 3rd edition, 2002.
 J. Carroll and R. Horne, “Multivariate optimization of production systems,” SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 782–789, 1992. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. R. Palke and R. N. Horne, “Nonlinear optimization of well production considering gas lift and phase behavior,” in Proceedings of the SPE Production Operations Symposium, pp. 341–356, Oklahoma, Okla, USA, March 1997. View at: Google Scholar
 G. G. Hepguler, K. DuttaRoy, and W. A. Bard, “Integration of a field surface and production network with a reservoir simulator,” SPE Computer Applications, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 88–92, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
 A. Kosmala, S. I. Aanonsen, A. Gajraj et al., “Coupling of a surface network with reservoir simulation,” in Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition (ATCE '03), pp. 1477–1487, Denver, Colo, USA, October 2003. View at: Google Scholar
 P. Wang and M. Litvak, “Gas lift optimization for longterm reservoir simulations,” SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 147–153, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
 Schlumberger Information Solutions, AvocetIAM Integrated Asset Modeller, Schlumberger SIS, Calgary, Canada, 2007.
 O. Mora, R. A. Startzman, and L. Saputelli, “Maximizing net present value in mature gaslift fields,” in Proceedings of the SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium: Hydrocarbon Development—A Global Challenge, pp. 123–131, Dallas, Tex, USA, April 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 Landmark Graphics Corporation, VIP Simulator, Landmark Graphics Corporation, 2003.
 H. P. Bieker, O. Slupphaug, and T. A. Johansen, “Realtime production optimization of oil and gas production systems: a technology survey,” SPE Production and Operations, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 382–391, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
 B. Couët, H. Djikpesse, D. Wilkinson, and T. Tonkin, “Production enhancement through integrated asset modeling optimization,” in SPE Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition (POCE '10), pp. 375–384, Tunis, Tunisia, June 2010. View at: Google Scholar
 K. Rashid, S. Ambani, and E. Cetinkaya, “An adaptive multiquadric radial basis function method for expensive blackbox mixedinteger nonlinear constrained optimization,” Engineering Optimization. In press. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 Kashif Rashid et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.