SPE 20979
SPE
A Gas-Lift Optimization and Allocation Model for
Manifolded Subsea Wells
by R.Edwards and D.L. Marshall, Amerada Hess Ltd., and K.C. Wade,
Baker-Jardine & Assocs. Ltd.
~ 1lIII0. SoJCiIIyol~ ens;r-Inc.
ThIa~-IftIlINdIll"- .~IIO.lhe~,""""""22·24a-1IIIIO.
ThIa~ _ _ tor _ _ b\''' SPE ~CcImiIWetlllawing_oI_""-1n .. _1UbmiIIId b\'1IIe8Ulhor(.~ ConwMoIthe_
.. ~ _nat --. _ b\'1IIe SociIIyol PwIIoIIum ens;r- _ _ IUbjecIIII- b\'the8Ulhor(.~ lhe-'''~ _nat~reIIKl
iliff poeitian 01 the SociIIyof PeIIIum ~ ilaoltlc8ra or _ _ '"--__'.SPE -.ga _1UbjecI1II JIIIIIiI*ion _
SociIIyolPwllollum~ I'8rmiaaIanIllCC!ll'is_III .. _oInat_tIwI300_I_"..natbeccp;.d. lhe _ _ Clll'llllin~
_ _"dg.iI_dol _ _ b\'wllamllle~is _ _ _ \MtIa~~ SPE. p.o. BalB33838. ~ TX 75083-3836. r.. 73OII88SPElW..
ABSTRACf
The increasing need to develop marginal
accumulations using subsea equipment and common
facilities has highlighted the challenge of the allocation
and optimum distribution of fluids within these systems.
The commingling of produced fluids requires that an
auditible procedure is employed to accurately back-
allocate fluids produced from different fiscal regimes.
Similarly, there is a requirement to optimise lift gas
allocation to ensure that the available gas provides the
maximum incremental oil production. A method of
optimising lift gas allocation and allocating production
within a manifolded subsea development has been
developed for use on a portable computer. The basic
requirements for the model were that it should be
usable by offshore personnel and allow a quick
comparison of different operating scenarios.
INTRODUCTION
Prior to start up of the Ivanhoe and Rob Roy
fields, one of the development scenarios considered
early water breakthrough with an immediate need for
gas lift as an artificial lift mechanism. The variable
nature of the two reservoir units within each field
dictates that some method of optimising the distribution
of lift gas between wells will be necessary to ensure that
the available gas-lift gas is used to best effect.
Software has been developed to allocate the lift
gas in order to maximise productivity by balancing
incremental oil production per unit of injected gas for
each well. The gas lift optimisation model can then be
operated as a decision support system whereby the
current and optimum production rates can be compared
to recommend operator action according to a set of
decision criteria. The production asllocation model can
be used to monitor production by utilising the wellhead
pressure performance curves created by the system
Page 535
b\' EdIcriII ~ofllle
performance module of the optimisation model. This
feature enables the correct allocation of total production
to individual wells between well tests. The model will be
fully employed in the day-to-day management of the field
when gas-lift is required to maintain production rates.
In its predictive mode the model can be used in
combination with reservoir simulation data to identify the
incremental improvements that may be achieved through
gas lift later in the field life and the impact of gas
deficiency.
PROJECf BACKGROUND
Reservoirs
The Ivanhoe and Rob Roy fields are located in
the UK Sector Block 15/21a, approximately 110 miles
north east of Aberdeen. As development of the Ivanhoe
and Rob Roy fields progressed, exploration in the 15/21
area continued, resulting in the discovery of the Hamish
field with well 15/21b-21. Hamish was appraised,
developed and on production two years after its
discovery, using the existing IvanhoelRob Roy
infrastructure (Figures 1 and 2).
The Ivanhoe and Rob Roy and fields produce
from two Jurassic intervals, the Main and Supra Piper.
The Hamish field produces only from the Main Piper.
The Main Piper sands are thicker and generally more
productive than the Supra Piper. There are thiee
distinct crude types within the fields (Table 1).
System Architecture
The field architecture is shown in Figure 3
depicting the commingling of the fluids at the Ivanhoe
and Rob Roy production manifolds through the riser
base manifold (RBM) and then onto the floating
 2 GAS UFT OPTIMISATION AND ALLOCATION FOR MANIFOLDED SUBSEA WELlS
production facility (FPF) for processing. The FPF was
built using a converted semi-submersible construction
vessel. A total of nine production and six injection
wells have been drilled and completed sub-sea during
development of the fields. Of these, half were
completed prior to first oil. The wells were not drilled
through a conventional template but instead were
positioned in clusters around the two production
manifolds.
The two well clusters are located two miles
apart on the seabed in approximately 460 feet of water.
Each subsea production well has a remotely operated
subsea choke controlling production. Similarly, the gas
lift line to each production well has a remotely operated
choke system which controls the volume of gas delivered
for gas lift. This gas is metered for each well using
orifice plate meters located on the subsea manifold
upstream of the choke. The ability to remotely control
and measure the gas volume delivered to each well
makes a gas lift optimisation programme feasible.
Accurate production allocation however, is
complicated by the manifolding of the production wells.
Each manifold incorporates hydraulically operated
valves and chokes which control the commingling and
distribution of oil production. The manifold system is
remotely controlled via retrievable control modules.
Connection to individual wells is by flexible flowlines
and electro-hydraulic control lines.
Both production manifolds produce to the
RBM located midway between the two fields. The
RBM is remotely controlled via a retrievable control
module and also acts as a distribution point for injection
water and lift gas to the production manifolds. A total
of eight flexible risers connect the RBM to the FPF
(Reference 1).
COMPUTER MODEL
System design
The gas lift and allocation model has been
designed for use in two modes of operation, namely;
... Onshore by an experienced engineer and
... Offshore, as a day-to-day prediction tool.
The model is designed to be used in these two
modes of operation by users with very different
computing skills. The analytical part of developing the
well models has been kept separate from the day-to-day
modelling of the system. Thus the overall model
consists of two distinct sections; a data base gathering
section and an interrogation section.
Data base gathering
The onshore engineer uses a multi-phase flow
simulator to generate a set of system performance
curves for each well and flowline system in the field.
Page 536
SPE 21)979
These curves are then sent offshore (on floppy disk) to
be installed in the data base of the gas lift optimisation
and allocation model.
After a well has been placed on test, the
resulting performance data is used by the engineer
onshore to check and recalibrate the well model, and if
required, produce a new set of system performance
curves to be sent to the pla.tform.
While the user on the platform is primarily
interested in the current state of the field, the onshore
engineer will be concerned with future well performance.
Models of possible future scenarios can be built to
include new wells, or different reservoir and production
performance characteristics. The same optimisation and
allocation models used on the platform can then be used
to examine the system in detail and give, for example,
estimates of future gas lift requirements. These future
models can be stored in the data base, onshore or
offshore, and compared with operational data as the
performance of the field and the wells changes. The
storage of the data will provide a history map of the field
and allow its performance to be monitored.
Data base interrogation
The interrogation section can be run in three distinct
mode of operation, namely;
... Gas lift optimisation,
• Production allocation and
• Well monitoring.
Once the new data had been incorporated into
the data base the platform user would follow a
procedure for assessing the possibility of resetting the
gas lift chokes to optimise production from the system.
This procedure consists of;
1: Using the allocation model to predict the
current flowing rates for each well.
2: Using the optimisation module to predict the
optimal flowing conditions, given any current
field constraints.
3: Assessing the overall gain (or loss) of moving
the current choke settings controlling the
amount of lift gas to each well.
The models have been developed using a menu
based user interface. The results are displayed
graphically in a form that corresponds to the layout of
the field infra-structure. The user can gain immediate
access to the data base and all calculated results by
selecting individual system components directly from the
graphical screen presentation using the mouse. Any of
the performance curves generated can be immediately
recovered and displayed on the screen for inspection. A
 SPE 20979 D L MARSHALL, R J E EDWARDS and K C WADE
tabular summary is also available through the same
interface.
For application in a predictive "real-time" mode
offshore, the algorithm within the model must execute
quickly. Once the data base has been established the
system developed can optimise all the wells in the
Ivanhoe, Rob Roy and Hamish fields in about eight
seconds (real time) on an 20 MHz, mM compatible, 386
PC.
Gas lift optimisation model
The gas lift optimisation model is designed to
allocate lift gas resources amongst wells in order to
maximise total field oil production while taking account
of operational and reservoir constraints. The model also
has the capability to allow "what-if! scenarios by closing
in any number of wells.
A multi-phase fluid flow simulator was used to
generate a system performanCe curve, artificial lift
quantity versus liquid flow rate, for each well. The
system performance curves for eight wells, operating
under current conditions, are shown in Ftgure 4.
Examination of these data points showed that although
the gross liquid is a function of many variables, the
underlying trend is dependent upon the total quantity of
gas injected. The optimisation model utilises this set of
system performance curves as its data base.
From this data base the performance curve for
a well, j, is selected and a mathematical function of the
form;
''(x) - L" bj,l x I (1)
i-l
where x is the gas injection rate and the coefficients are
determined by least squares. A function of the above
form is provided for every well in the system.
The next stage in the optimisation is to find the
unconstrained optimum assuming an unlimited supply of
lift gas. The optimisation can be performed on either
the gross liquid produced or on stocktank barrels of oil.
This is defined as the sum of the individual wells
producing at their local maximum. Mathematically this
is where the gradient of a performance curve is O. Thus
for well j,
dl/. 9 _0 (2)
dx
where X, is the optimal gas lift quantity for well j.
The Newton-Raphson method was used to
locate the optimal quantity X, for each well. Clearly, for
any numerical method there are conditions for which it
may not converge. The use of a smooth polynomial
ensures that a solution can be found.
If the total quantity of available lift gas is less
Page 537
3
than the unconstrained optimum, as defined above, then
the problem reduces to allocating the available lift gas
most efficiently between wells.
The definition of the constrained optimum is
that the gradients of all producing wells are equal, ie. all
wells would increase their flowrate by the same quantity
if an extra incremental amount of gas was injected. Thus;
d!,.(X1) _ dJ,.(X;> _ ... _ df.,(x,,) _ G (3)
dx dx dx
where G (bbl/d per mmscf injected) is the gradient of all
the wells (m) in the system. This optimum can be
obtained for all wells providing that each well, j;
1: Can flow at the specified gas lift value, X, and
2: Is not bound by any other overriding constraints.
There are many numerical techniques available
for solving linear system of the form;
Max: !t(x1) + h(X;> + •.. + I.(x,,)
Xl + Xz + ••• + XIII S X (4)
x,O!:O
these range from sophisticated optimisation methods to
simple iteration procedures. However, the introduction
of more complicated non-linear constraints ego
maximum flow down any given flow line, etc, makes the
setting up of more constraints mathematically complex.
Thus an iterative technique is employed to provide
greater flexibility and speed of solution.
Production allocation model
Production allocation is important because each
field has its own production consent and fiscal regime.
Conventional fixed platform developments allow easy
replacement of data acquisition hardware where as
subsea developments require diving intervention to
perform the same task. The production allocation
system must be sufficiently flexible to function with an
incomplete data set.
Production allocation is calibrated via well tests.
When a well is on test the flow bypasses the subsea
choke and produces through the test line to the
separator. A surface choke can then be used to produce
the tubing head pressure of the well measured subsea
under normal manifolded flowing conditions. Each of
the eight wells currently producing are put on test about
twice per month for between 12 and 24 hours, depending
upon system conditions.
One set of approved fIScal meters is available for
measuring the production from the five separate
accumulations containing three contrasting crude types.
The accurate allocation of produced hydrocarbons from
such a system is obviously of great importance.
 4 GAS UFf OPTIMISATION AND AlLOCATION FOR MANIFOLDED SUBSEA WEllS
The production allocation model is designed to
estimate individual well production on a day-to-day basis
between well tests and to correct the measured flow test
flow rates on the basis of measured wellhead pressure.
After analysis of the system configuration and
the flow characteristics of the Ivanhoe, Rob Roy and
Hamish fields, an allocation method has been devised
which takes into account the maximum amount of field
data available at anyone time. Currently each well on
the field is choked back at the well head to such a
degree that critical flow exists through all chokes under
production conditions. This implies that the pressure
downstream has no bearing on the flow as it does in
sub-critical flowline wells.
The multi-phase flow simulator was used to
generate a data base containing a well head
performance curve for all wells. This simulator can also
be use to predict any unknown well head pressures,
Figure 6 shows these curves for the current system.
Each well was modelled from the down hole
pressure gauge to the production manifold inlet for the
conditions given by the test data. As stated above, there
is currently no need to model the flowlines in the
system. These system curves consisted of total liquid
flow against well head pressure.
The system performance curves in the data base
can be mathematically smoothed by the fitting of a n'th
order polynomial of the general form, for well j;
•
~(q) - L aJ•1 ql
1-1
(5)
where the ~/s are coefficients determined by the
method of least squares, q is the total liquid flow rate
and m is the number of wells. The fitting of a function
to the base data enables any minor irregularities to be
"smoothed out" and a "well-behaved" function obtained.
In this case a 2nd order curve was deemed most
appropriate. Thus well head pressure becomes a
function of flow rate by;
(6)
for each well.
The algorithm devised requires the use of the
rate of change of flow rate with respect to pressure
(gradient). By fitting a smooth function through the
points this derivative is now readily available as the
inverse of
dp.
_J _ a + 2a'j"q (7)
dq 'j.1 ...
Page 538
SPE 20979
The actual flow rate for a given wellhead
pressure can now be calculated. If it is not available
then we can assume that it is the same as it was when
the well was on test. Assuming that the well PI has not
changed by a significant amount from the last well test,
then the flow rate, 01 at a given well head pressure PI'
corresponds to;
WeD monitoring
The well monitoring module is designed to aid
in the quick identification of production upsets.
Characteristic curves for weUhead pressure versus
flowrate are compared with operational wellhead
pressures. Any significant deviations in wellhead
pressure from the expected characteristic curves are
flagged to the operator and a particular well can then be
placed on well test.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the mathematical models
developed above are used to allocate production and
predict optimum rates for the field. Two scenarios that
consider all the wells in the current field flowing will be
examined. The two scenarios can be described as;
I: Current operational conditions with no water
cut or gas lift;
ll: A possible future case, consisting of higher
water cuts, lower productivity indices and the
same reservoir pressures. (It is intended to
maintain reservoir pressures at their current
level).
For both scenarios wells RH16 and RE31 are producing
down one of the Rob Roy flowlines and HC40, RM25
and RL24 down the other. All Ivanhoe wells, IE32, m27
and ID19, are producing down the Ivanhoe production
line (Figures 2 and 3).
Gas lift allocation and optimisation
F'tgure 4 shows typical system performance
curves for the eight currently flowing wells at operational
conditions, (scenario I). It is clear from these that
certain wells, ego RL24, would produce less oil if gas
was injected, as the curves of production rate decreases
with increased gas lift quantity. Other wells, ego ID19,
would clearly benefit, although only marginally, from gas
lift.
 SPE 20979 D L MARSHALL, R J E EDWARDS and K C WADE
Similar curves are produced, Figure 5, for
scenario II. Under these conditions most wells would
benefit from lift gas being injected. Indeed, some wells,
HC4O, RL24, etc will not flow unless gas is injected.
This is indicated by no liquid values for a gas lift
quantity of zero.
The optimisation module of the model was used
to optimise the oil production rate from the fields under
the two scenarios. It was assumed that the optimisation
would give Ivanhoe, Rob Roy and Hamish equal priority
in the allocation of the 11 mmscfd available (priorities
can be given to either reservoir). Tables 2 and 3
summarise these optimised rates for both scenarios.
The first column in each table shows the production rate
if no gas is injected into the wells and the final column
the gain in bbVd of injecting the specified amount of lift
gas.
The model predicts that for scenario I, [Table
2], there would be a gain of 6,974 bbVd over current
production rates (approx. 8% rise) if a total of 11
mmscfd was injected in the amounts given.
If the situation modelled in scenario II is ever
reached then production will fall to 25,140 bbVd, [Table
3], if no gas was injected. Clearly, under these
conditions gas must be injected to maintain a reasonable
production rate. By injecting the available 11 mmscfd,
the production can be increased to 54,446 bbVd (approx.
116% rise).
Production Allocation
The aim of the allocation model is to predict
the individual well rates given the wellhead pressures.
Table 4 summaries the main quantities used and
calculated in the model. The flowrate and the wellhead
pressure, in the first two columns, are taken from the
available test data. The rate of change of flow with
pressure (dQ/dp) is shown as an indication of the
stability of the well. A large dO/dp value indicates that
a small change in pressure will result in a large change
in flow rate. The next two columns show the actual
wellhead pressure and the predicted flow, from equation
(8). Finally the difference (%) between the test flow
rate and the predicted are shown along with the overall
contribution to the total measured production.
The wellhead pressure for well RM25 was
unavailable and was estimated using the multiphase flow
simulator. For wells without a well head pressure. value,
the test line values are automatically used.
A commonly used statistic to evaluate the
performance of a mathematical model is to calculate the
field factor. This is defmed as the ratio of the field's
production rate to the mathematical models prediction
of the production rate. Using this criteria the model
gives a field factor of 1.0238 for 14/05/90, the field
factors for neighbouring dates are shown in Table 5.
The calculated production rates are then used
to determine the actual production rates on a pro rata
Page 539
5
basis, ie. multiply the production from each well by the
field factor. Thus, even though the model under predicts
the production by between two and five percent, the fmal
allocation will match.
CONCLUSIONS
The above results show clearly that the
allocation models developed for use on the Ivanhoe, Rob
Roy and Hamish fields can effectively predict the current
performance of the wells given certain operational data
available from well tests. Even if crucial data is
unavailable, as will often happen in the day-to-day
running of the field, the model can still be used to
predict performance.
The gas lift optimisation module will be used
when the wells begin to cut significant volumes of water.
The scenarios dicussed, indicate that within a subsea
manifolded system, the optimisation of field production
will only be achieved by simulation of the entire gas lift
system.
NOMENCLATURE
G Incremental change
Any particular well in the
system
m Number of wells in the system
q Flow rate
~(q) General function for well j
PI Pressure for well j
PI Well head pressure for well j
PI.test Pressure from well test, wellj
01 Required flow rate
<I),test Flow rate for well test, well j
"t Gas lift quantity for well j
X Total gas lift quantity
a,b Polynomial coefficients
n Order of polynomial
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank Amerada Hess
Limited, Deminex UK Oil and Gas Limited, Kerr-
McGee Oil (UK) pIc and Pict Petroleum pIc for their
permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. S Jewell, P Collins, D L Marshall "The
IvanhoelRob Roy Fields: Operational Innovation
on a Major Subsea Development" presented at
the European Petroleum Conference, The
Hague, October 21 - 24 1990.
 SPE 20979
SCENARIO 2
20000,-------,------....,.....-------,-------,--------,

•
GAS LIFT QUANTITY Immscfdl
•
LEGEND
1. <So ~ RE 31 2. @ ® R M 2 5 3 . ~ ·~HC 40 4. Ar£---.t,,j, IE 32
5 ......- - _ . IB 27 6.""$----~$ ID 19 7.~$----~$ RL 24 8. $ $ RH 16
FIGURE 5
FUTURE WELL PERFORMANCE

1750

~
.:

. .
: :
- : :
- .
1Il00 ••• > ••••• ~ •••••••••• , •••••••••• 0;

<
(ij
e:
w
a:
;:)
en
en
w
a:
C-
O
<
W
X
....I
....I
W 500
~

o 5 w " ~ H so
WELL FLOW RATE IMSTB/DI
LEGEND
1. <So E> RE 31 2.0 ORM 25 3.~ ~HC 40 4. bA---'!>,i, IE 32
5.--~ IB 27 6.""$----~$ ID 19 7. $ $ RL 24 8.-f1:$___~-ffi-$ RH 16

FIGURE 6
WELL PERFORMANCE CURVES

Page 540
 SPE 2097 9

".. GAS Lon - - - - - . ;

c- otl PRODUCTION

IVANHOE
PRODUCTION
......FOI.D

r PROQUCTtON
(PlUS CHEMICAL ..." r PRODUCTION

UrWATEAINJECTION S-OASLIFT
'·OL

==~rnE~~==
PROOUCTlON
r TUT ".. GAS UFT
.·TEST TGASLIF'T
S-GASLtF'T L..,crWATERKJECTJON

1+--::",....- •• WATER
INJECTION

rOL
flOATING PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION
FACILlTY "..GASLon
WEUUYOUf
..DlCAnvE ONLY

FIGURE 3
INFIELD FLOWLINES (FPF TO IVANHOE AND ROBROy)

SCENARIO 1
IOODOr---------------~--------------~----------------~--------------~--------------_,

...~..~..~..~.. ~.. i.. ~..~..~..~..~..~.. ~.. ..

2~Oo~..~.~~~t ~t..~..~..~
.. ~.. ~.. i.. ~..~..~..~..~.. ~...~.$c.~~~~~~~~~~~------------_J

Q
......
lID
I-
~ 20000
., ............................. ; ............................... ; ............................... ; ..............................................................

Q
5
o
::::;
'5000

4
GAS LIFT QUANTITY ImmecfdJ
• 10

LEGEND
1.~--......€> RE 31 2. <!I ®RM 25 3.6 !!lHC 40 4. A. .t, IE 32
5. _.- - - 18 27 $ ID 19
6.$ 7. $ $ RL 24 8.$ $ RH 16
FIGURE 4
CURRENT WELL PERFORMANCE

Page 541
SPE 20979 15/16

Scapa

- 011 Pipeline
••••• Gas Pipeline

FIGURE 1
IVANHOE AND ROB ROY FIELD LOCAnON

"
•
PRODUCER
INJECTOR
)
E'il3 MAIN PIPER
c:J SUPRA PIPER

FIGURE 2
IVANHOE AND ROB ROY RESERVOIRS

Page 542
 SP.E 2097 9

Date Measured Production Field Factor

13/07/90 77,152 1.0370

14/07/90 76,164 1.0238

15/07/90 78,474 1,0548

16/07/90 78,241 1.0517

TABLE 5
FIELD FACTORS

Page 543
 SEE 20979

Gross Liquid Gross Liquid

Lift Gas Gross Liquid
Well Name (No Lift Gasl Gas Lifted
stb/d stb/d mmscfd stb/d Gain

RH16 12,391 16.186 2.2 3,795

RL24 0 10,873 4.1 10,873

RE31 79 3,235 0.8 3,156

HC40 0 1,956 1.1 1,956

RM25 0 2,005 1.0 2,005

1019 9,850 10,796 0.8 946

IB27 2,590 2,981 0.3 391

IE32 229 6,411 0.8 6,182

TOTAL 25,140 54,446 11.0 29,306

TABLE 3
RESUL TS FROM OPTIMISATION MODEL (SCENARIO 2)

Simulated Flow Well

Flow WHP dO
Well WHP Flow
Name
Test
stb/d
Test
PSIA
-
dP
Flow
stb/d
PSIA
Olff.
%
%
Of Total

RH16 24,777 907 -36.8 24,813 906 -0 32.6

RL24 10,613 1,226 -50.7 6,605 1,305 38 8.7

RE31 4,776 1,120 -36.7 4,776 • 0 7.4

HC40 3,054 1,122 -14.1 3,054 1,144 0 7.0

RM25 4,464 773· -80.5 4,464 • 0 4.0

1019 18,629 816 -46.0 14,759 900 21 19.4

IB27 4,188 620 -12.8 4,198 619 -0 5.5

IE32 11,142 689 -17.1 11,724 655 -5 15.4

TOTAL 81,641 74,393 100

·No WHP data avanable.

TABLE 4
ALLOCATION COMPARISON

Page 544
FORMA TION - UPPER JURASSIC SANDSTONE INITIAL RESERVOIR PRESSURE AT DATUM - 3510 pais
RESERVOIR DATUM - 7700ft TVDSS INITIAL RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE AT DATUM - 175 F

IVANHOE ROB ROY HAMISH

MAIN PIPER SUPRA PIPER MAIN PIPER SUPRA PIPER MAIN PIPER

PorosIty 1%1 23 24 23 23 21

Permeability Imdl 1.000-10.000 100-1,000 1.000-10.000 100-1,000 1.000-10.000

Connate Water Saturation 1%) 5 10 6 9 6

Oil/Water Contact 1ft TVDSS) 8.052 8.052 7.994 7.931 7.962

Bubble Point Pressure (pslae 175°F) 1.628 1.628 1.942 3,419 1.942

Gas:OIl Ratio (act/stb) 380 360 813 1.391 813

Formation Volume Factor (rb/atb) 1.188 1.188 1.344 1.679 1.344

Stock tank Crude Gravity Ideg API) 30 30 39 41 39

Dead Crude Pour Point 1°f) 48 48 10 -29 10

TABLE 1
RESERVOIR FORMATION AND CRUDE PROPERTIES

Gross Liquid Gross Liquid

Lift Gas Gross Liquid
Well Name INo Lift Gas) Gas Lifted
mmscfd stb/d Gain
stb/d stb/d

RH18 25.506 25.506 0.0 0

RL24 13.384 15.593 3.8 2.209

RE31 4.881 5.142 0.5 281

HC40 3.131 4.224 1.4 1.093

RM25 4.422 4,422 0.0 0

1019 15.042 18,205 2.6 1,163

IB27 2,880 3,500 1.0 820

IE32 7.970 9,378 1.8 1.408

TOTAL 77,000 83,974 11.0 6.974

TABLE 2
RESUL TS FROM OPTIMISATION MODEL (SCENARIO 1)

Page 545