SPE 101388
Dynamic Production Optimization in Khafji Offshore Field
E.O. Ghoniem, M.A. Al-Khaldi, N. Samizo, and A. Al-Thuwainy, Al-Khafji Joint Operations
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 5–8 November 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The gas lift, by limited capacity of 25 MMSCF/D, was
introduced for Khafji field in 1988 which could successfully
sustain target rate until mid of 2004. Even though, additional
artificial lift energy was planned as long term solution due to
the increase of field water cut and depletion of reservoirs,
production optimization was found to be the best way to
sustain field target until commissioning of these new facilities.
For that purpose, general optimization and gas lift allocation
models have been built and applied for Khafji field as
presented by Ghoniem et al1.
Although, production system modeling is a powerful
technology to optimize and understand the whole production
system, the individual well modeling hence dynamic nodal
analysis and the reliable field measurements are still highly
contributed to increasing oil rate. Consequently, the present
work is a further and more comprehensive optimization study
for Khafji crude production by:
• Updating the previously built optimization models
• Screening for new effective wells for gas lift
operation
• Review the design of existing gas lift installations
• Optimizing the choke size for many natural flow
wells
• Practical adaptation to the dynamic process of
production optimization.
As a result, several high productivity wells were selected
and put recently on gas lift operations, also gas lift re-design
was made for many wells. Furthermore, wellhead choke size
was optimized for many natural flow wells. As a result, a
significant marginal oil gain was obtained and confirmed by
field measurements. Also, a lot of recommendations for gas
lift operations and for mature oil fields were concluded.
Introduction
Production optimization has been considered as a dull activity
in some quarters and has not had the same attention which
paid to reservoir simulation which still has some limitations in
daily field prediction and optimization. Besides, the impact of
surface flow line network is always being considered as fixed
input into reservoir simulator, this practice might lead to
inaccurate prediction results which are often taken as a design
basis for future field development planning.
Therefore, the future technology challenge is either to
extent reservoir model to include wells actually up to wellhead
then through flow lines until the delivery point, or to link the
optimization model with reservoir model as one unit in order
to recognize for future uncertainties. However, the continuous
updating for production optimization model can overcome
these limitations.
Nevertheless, the gain in oil production has to be large
enough to warrant the resources necessary for updating the
optimization models, because the management has an interest
in seeing an increase in oil rate and that production system is
operated as efficiently as possible in Khafji field.
Khafji field lies in the Arabian Gulf, 40 km east of Al-
Khafji city, Saudi Arabia (Fig. 1). The field is composed of
several reservoirs for sweet crude. The most prolific ones are
1st and 2nd Bahrain sand. Where, a strong and an active
aquifer provides pressure support and water drive to 2nd
Bahrain and to a lesser extent to 1st Bahrain. In addition, four
other oil reservoirs are currently active namely Ahmadi
limestone, B-limestone, Wara sand and Zubair sand which are
commonly referred to as minor reservoirs.
In Khafji field, there are approximately a hundred wells
which are already completed with gas lift injection system.
But only 44 wells can be operated by the limited capacity of
lift gas. Even though, many remaining gas lift wells are still
producing naturally with lower rate, some others are currently
being shut in. Thus, the most effective wells for gas lift
operation were defined by performing lot of screening runs
using gas lift allocation models.
In addition, it was concluded that the design for existing
gas lift installations should be reviewed because valves design
and mandrels spacing are often being done before drilling or
work-over in order to be installed with initial well completion.
As a result, the design sometimes is based on minimal well
2 SPE 101388
information since other data are not readily known but very
crucial like; bottom-hole pressure/temperature, well
productivity index, gas oil ratio, water cut and etc.
Furthermore, the well performance is a subject for change
over the time and the mechanical troubles for gas lift valves
are expected.
However, the main concern in gas lift design is the
specification, spacing and dome pressure setting for unloading
and operating valves in order to initiate and maintain well
desired production with optimum gas injection. Therefore, it is
necessary to review and adjust such design when accurate well
test information is being available. Where, the wire line
retrievable gas lift valves can be replaced without killing a
well or pulling the tubing furthermore it is rig-less operation
and does not cost a lot compared with its benefits. The
measured flowing gradients while well ability testing, static
bottom-hole surveys and real time monitoring by multiphase
flow meters and well head recorders, were employed in
parallel with the computerized well models to accomplish that
task.
Meanwhile, many wells, mainly in 2nd Bahrain reservoir,
are still producing naturally since water cut is still within
acceptable range which can be lifted by reservoir driving
force. The increase in water production is almost the main
cause why many wells in Khafji field die or slug. However,
the proper wellhead choke size was used to eliminate water
coning hence assure steady and stable flow conditions.
Gas Lift Wells History Matching
Individual well model was constructed for each production
well in Khafji field (Fig. 2). The multi phase flow simulator
was used to update well models based on the most recent data.
Reservoir performance was modeled for each well by using
straight line IPR2 where Khafji field major reservoirs are
under-saturated. Also, Vogel3 IPR was used for wells when
bottom-hole flowing pressure is being below the bubble point.
Fluid properties and PVT parameters were taken from the
measured PVT analysis data and estimated at wide range of
temperatures. Besides, the latest well ability and flow tests
were used to adjust well models.
The tuning of well vertical lift performance requires the
measured flowing gradients which measure the pressure and
temperature profile in the tubing while well ability testing.
However, the identification of the more appropriate
multiphase flow correlation, to calculate pressure and
temperature profile in the vertical lift, plays an important role
in well performance nodal analysis, gas lift design, diagnose
and optimization. Since, the used simulator contains 25
correlations (Table-1); an evaluation was done by using 40
flowing gradient surveys to define those correlations which
probably match measured data (Fig. 3) by applying the delta
pressure error percentage according to the following equation:
ΔP Error % = ΔP − ΔPLoss Calculated × 100 % .… (1)
Loss Measured
ΔPLoss Measured
Where, ∆PLoss = pressure losses between two consecutive
pressure measurement stations.
This equation used to calculate the error of each station
independently. This approach will help in identifying bad data
since each station data set will be analyzed separately.
Sometimes, error occurs due to inaccurate measured data
because of mechanical or human error. Also, problems with
simulator input data like incorrect data and misplaced data will
lead to error with the calculation results. More than that
correlation method error is embedded within its calculation.
Eventually, the average of absolute delta pressure error
was calculated for the 25 correlations as mentioned in Table-1.
Only the correlations with average error percentage less than
5% were accepted for Khafji field history matching (Table-2).
Among all, Gray Modified correlation found to be the most
appropriate one to be used by well model for gas lift design,
diagnosis, and nodal analysis. Fig.4 shows the good accuracy
with average error of 3.51% for over than 460 test points by
using Gray Modified therefore it was used during history
matching as shown in Fig. 5 & 6.
Updating of Optimization and Allocation Models
In Khafji field, the pressure setting for offshore production
separators is varied from one gas/oil separation platform
(GOSP) to another. For that reason, the field was modeled as
four separate models; each represents one GOSP with all
relevant wells and flow lines as shown in Fig. 7.
Basically, production optimization is a dynamic process
and it is often affected by the changes in the reservoirs and the
operating conditions as presented by Stewart et al.4.
The largest effort, in updating models, was adjusting and
matching for all individual well models to reflect the latest and
exact well performance. In addition, new models were
constructed for the newly drilled and worked-over wells.
However, well performance curves were re-generated for all
natural flow and gas lift wells in order to work as a source
function in the optimization model. Also, the new flow lines
were added into surface network.
By using the optimization module, the wells which are
already equipped with gas lift mandrels were treated as gas lift
wells either they are producing by natural flow or being shut
in due to limitation of lift gas.
Many screening sensitivity runs, were performed to
allocate existing lift gas volume amongst such large number of
wells. Then, those wells which revealed higher tendency for
more lift gas allocation, based on higher oil production, were
defined and subjected for further screening. Consequently, the
more effective wells for gas lift operation were identified.
Moreover, prediction module of GOSP-3 model, was used
to predict how much oil gain if its separator pressure reduced
by 10 psig. However, the actual field measurements confirmed
the accuracy of model prediction results as it will be shown
later in this paper.
SPE 101388
Continuous Gas Lift System
The typical continuous gas lift system, in Khafji field, consists
of two gas lift compressors of total capacity of 25 MMSCF/D
and equipped with gas dehydration unit by using tri-ethylene
glycol. The gas lift station is located offshore and bridge-
connected to gathering station complex. However, the high
pressure gas, of 1200 psig, is distributed via 8" main lines to 4
GOSP's then distributed to different wellhead jackets via 4"
branches.
The injection gas, for individual well, is controlled by
adjustable choke and measured by gas flow recorder (orifice
plate meter) at the wellhead. In the well, gas passes from
annulus to tubing through an orifice valve placed in a mandrel
at optimum point of gas injection, in addition to the nitrogen
charged unloading gas lift valves above the operating depth
(Fig. 8). The injected gas reduces tubing fluid column weight
sufficiently to enable reservoir pressure to deliver up to
wellhead then through the flow line until offshore production
separator where pumping facilities are existed. Also, pressure
recorder is installed at wellhead that registers both tubing and
casing head pressures.
In Khafji field, at the beginning of gas lift operation, gas
lift valves of port size of 5/16” or 1/4" have been used. But, in
1994, it was decided to change it with smaller port size of
3/16". The smaller port size improved the stability of casing-
head pressure and eliminated the severe hydrate formation at
surface gas choke. However, by using smaller port size, the
control of gas injection rate has been shifted, to some extent,
from surface choke to down-hole and the large throttling of
surface gas choke was greatly reduced. Also, the smaller port
size offered higher and more stable casing pressure for deeper
gas injection which helped to maximize the benefits of the
limited lift gas volume same as concluded by Alhanati 5.
Gas Lift Diagnostic Analysis
In gas lifted fields, the optimization usually refers to the
proper allocation of lift gas to each individual well, but this
may lead to over gas injection if the wells are considered in
isolation and the impact of surface flow lines is neglected.
However, the optimization model can recognize the impact of
the flow lines during the gas allocation process.
Also, one of the challenges, in gas lift optimization, is the
difficulty to obtain proper and stable gas lift design by
identifying the optimum gas injection depth based on surface
injection pressure and overall well performance. Some other
important design issues are acquiring proper dome pressure
setting for bellows-charged gas lift valves, and the availability
of flexible mandrels spacing.
Anyway, diagnostic analyses, for more than 40 gas lift
wells, were performed by using actual field measurements in
parallel with the computerized well models. However, the data
of measured flowing gradients (pressure/temperature) while
well ability testing and static bottom-hole surveys, which have
been conducted since 1995, were collected then used for well
history matching. Then, the most appropriate multiphase flow
3
correlation was used for diagnostic analysis of existing gas lift
installations in Khafji field.
The measured temperature gradients were also used to
determine the most likely overall heat transfer coefficient
through vertical lift from mid of perforations up to wellhead.
The flowing temperature profile is necessary for proper
calculation of test rack opening (TRO) pressure for down-hole
gas lift valves, because these valves are usually nitrogen
charged and calibrated at corrected lower temperature in the
laboratory before being installed down hole. So, any
discrepancy between the actual down-hole flowing
temperature and those used to calculate for test rack opening
pressure will lead to interference with valve operation.
If the actual temperature at valve depth is significantly
higher than that used in the design, the required opening
pressure for such valve will be higher than design value.
Therefore, higher surface injection pressure will be required
otherwise gas lift valve will not open. This explains why some
gas lift wells do not accept gas injection hence do not initiate
the flow.
On the other hand, if the actual temperature opposite to the
unloading valve is lower, this valve may remain open and does
not close therefore a multi-point for gas injection or shallow
gas injection depth will take place. Ultimately, this will lead to
deficiency in lifting performance.
Nevertheless, heat transfer between the dynamic well
fluids and its surroundings depends upon many factors.
However, it was modeled by using the geothermal gradient
and overall heat transfer coefficient (U valve). From the
temperature gradients which used in history matching, the U
valve for Khafji gas lift wells (Fig. 9) found to be 3.3
BTU/hr/ft2 as an average value.
The identification of the optimum gas injection depth is a
main issue in gas lift design as same as dome pressure setting.
The deepest possible point of gas injection is important to lift
the desired liquid rate with economic gas injection rate, thus a
minimum adiabatic power is required6. However, the optimum
depth of gas injection assures steady and stable lifting
performance without oscillations for casing and tubing
pressure. The improper depth for gas injection either, causes
the well not injecting gas through the operating orifice valve
due to higher tubing pressure at such depth, or an excessive
gas injection rate will take place if the differential pressure at
orifice valve depth is significantly high.
During design phase, some parameters are not exactly
known but very crucial to determine the optimum depth for
gas injection. Always, mandrel spacing and gas lift design is
done while drilling or work-over before testing the well. For
that reason, some parameters like; bottom-hole
pressure/temperature, productivity index, gas oil ratio, water
cut & etc. are not readily known although reservoir people
tries to estimate but it is still a subject for discrepancy. In
Khafji field, an orifice valve is always recommended at the
injection point for stable gas lift operation. Definitely, the
4 SPE 101388
injection through an orifice valve will avoid the mechanical
stresses and troubles of using nitrogen charged gas lift valve at
injection depth.
Also, the proper spacing and correct dome pressure setting
for the gas lift valves are essential in order to easily unload
annulus fluids after drilling or workover. Wrong spacing or
dome pressure might cause failure to unload annulus fluids
hence failure to initiate well flow. However, the maximum
available surface injection pressure and unloading fluids
gradient play an important role in valve spacing. The proper
design will help to initiate well flow and to transfer the
injection of gas downward the operating valve. Also, it will
assure closing the upper unloading valves respectively to
avoid gas recycling or multi-point for gas injection.
Eventually, the gas lift design should be flexible for wide
range of operating conditions and to accommodate future
changes in down-hole parameters for long lifting life.
Optimizing choke size for many natural flow wells
The excessive opening at wellhead choke, for oil wells, might
create water coning or breakthrough at bottom hole which will
lead to further increase in water production ratio. Definitely,
higher water cut has adverse effects on well productivity index
and effective permeability to oil, further more it will require
higher bottom-hole pressure to steadily lift fluid column up to
wellhead then through the flow line.
Sometimes, natural flow stops as reservoir driving energy
is overwhelmed by fluid column weight. After that, the
bottom-hole pressure starts to increase and the flow potential
increases. This phenomenon might be repeated causing the
slugging or intermittent flow conditions. Generally, smaller
choke size will reduce water coning or breakthrough, therefore
water cut tends to decrease.
In view of that, it is necessary to optimize the wellhead
choke size in order to control water production ratio below a
limit that can be lifted steadily and assure stable natural flow
conditions. For that purpose, nodal analysis by using the
calibrated well models and real time monitoring by the
multiphase flow meters were employed in parallels to
optimize the wellhead choke size for many wells in the field
hence survived them.
Practical Adaptation to the dynamic process of
production optimization
In order to apply production optimization plan successfully,
Khafji field must have appropriate tools and means to put this
plan into practice. More practical and reliable tools were
installed in Khafji field to help operation groups get adapted to
the dynamic process of production optimization as listed
below:
• Install multi-phase flow meters on the flow stations
and on the major well platforms
• Replace gas flow chart recorder by digital gas flow
meter
• Introduce intelligent and integrated dynamic
surveillance software to serve engineers in daily
surveillance, interpretation, and data analysis.
Multi-phase Flow Meters. In petroleum industry a special
care is given to well testing. Where, well testing data is
fundamental in well surveillance and monitoring. Also, it is a
main element in reservoir operations and management. Multi-
phase flow meter (MPFM) is brilliant tool in the modern well
testing. This tool is portable and stand-alone with no moving
parts that require calibration. Its results are accurate and
generate high quality data. Also, it is very sensitive to the flow
dynamics and response to any tiny change. In addition, flow
regimes do not influence the measurements accuracy to a large
extent. Since, it is unmanned operation; the operation cost is
reduced and can be used for long well test. The wells that
require long time to stabilize flow are no problem any more.
Moreover, the frequency of the well tests can be increased.
Now, well test data, well test frequency, and well performance
can be monitored easily over wide range of time as in Fig. 10.
Khafji Field already had one MPFM installed on one flow
station (GOSP-1). Five other MPFM’s of the latest phase-
watcher venture-x were installed on some major wellhead
platforms. After trial tests, these MPFM’s have acceptable
results accuracy and found to be reliable for Khafji field well
testing use.
Each MPFM provides real-time monitoring for well test
data and has its own data analysis system. This kind of close
surveillance will enable the engineers to cope up with the
dynamic process of production optimization. In the same time,
faster actions will improve well control and reservoir
management.
Gas Flow Meters. At present, Khafji field has circular chart
recorders for gas injection metering at wellhead. The paper
chart needs to be replaced and analyzed daily to get the gas
injection rate. There are some disadvantages of using this type
or recorder: margins of error, chart recorders breakdowns,
need to refill ink, and can not perform any of these tasks
during rough weather in offshore field.
However, two digital gas flow recorders were trial tested.
They were used for both sour and sweet gas metering. They
present acceptable and accurate results compared with chart
recorders. The digital gas flow meter turned to be reliable for
gas flow measurements in Khafji field. This device can
provide real-time remote mentoring of gas flow with other
variables such as gas pressure and temperature. This will help
to optimize the usage of gas and achieve optimal gas
allocation for gas lift wells.
Dynamic Surveillance Software. This software is
engineering tool that assist in daily surveillance of the oilfield
to manipulate field data. It helps the user to browse database,
analyze data, and quick interpretation of data. Information can
be filtered by the user specifications. Moreover, it has many
modules available for plotting, reporting, forecasting,
mapping, scenarios, and history matching. Besides, it can be
SPE 101388
integrated with other modules suite tools. Ultimately, this
surveillance software makes it easy to perceive the production
optimization process and review wells and reservoir
production potential.
Results and Discussions
Updated optimization models
In addition to daily gas allocation capabilities for optimization
models, they were also employed for many prediction
sensitivities, like how much expected oil gain by reducing
separator pressure. However, GOSP-3 model was used to
calculate how much oil gain if separator pressure reduced by
10 psig. The actual field measurements confirmed such
predicted gain which was approximately 2,400 BPD as shown
in Fig. 11. Anyway, this model has become a brilliant tool for
daily field predictions.
Another role for model is the capability to screen for
effective wells for gas lift operation from those equipped with
mandrels. In fact, Khafji field comprises a hundred wells
which are already completed with gas lift mandrels whereas a
limited lift gas is available. For that reason, such screening
sensitivities have important role in proper lift gas allocation as
per the followings examples:
Example Well-A
This well was producing naturally with an oil rate of 1,600
BPD where it was recognized by the model to be one of the
good candidate wells for gas lift operation since it contains
mandrels. Lift gas of rate 0.5 MMSCF/D was allocated for
such well consequently produced higher oil rate of 4600 BPD.
Fig. 12 is gas lift performance curve which is working as
source function in the model and Fig. 13 is typical nodal
analysis which reveals oil production rate on natural flow and
with 0.5 MMSCF/D gas injection rate.
Example Well-B
Due to gradual increase in water cut up to 30%, this well was
ceased to flow naturally so kept shut in since 2003. However,
the screening sensitivity by gas allocation module revealed its
high productivity with gas lift. Thus, approximately 0.54
MMSCF/D of lift gas was allocated and resulted in 3,500 BPD
net oil gain. Fig. 14 & 15 show gas lift performance curve and
nodal analysis for this example well.
However, total of 7 wells were recently selected and put into
gas lift operation which resulted in 6,000 BPD of net oil.
Gas Lift Performance
The overall purpose of analyzing and troubleshooting gas lift
wells is to audit the gas lift system performance to insure
maximum and most economical rate of oil production. Many
gas lift wells revealed good performance where they are
operating from the bottom orifice valve and gas injection rate
is almost within target range with steady and stable lifting
performance. However, in troubleshooting gas lift designs, all
possible trouble cases in Khafji field are summarized as the
following cases:
5
Example Well-C (multi-point for gas injection)
Real time monitoring, by multi-phase flow meter MPFM (Fig.
16), indicted some oscillations for well production rate. So, a
gradient survey was conducted to evaluate gas lift
performance. The diagnostic analysis revealed that gas is
being injected through the orifice valve at 3rd GLM, but the
upper unloading valve, in 2nd GLM, is sometimes opening
causing such oscillations (Fig. 17). The reason was identified
as low dome pressure for such valve (TRO pressure =1117
psig @60 °F). Next, gas lift re-design was made and replaced
2nd unloading valve with new TRO one (1137 psig @60 °F).
An excellent performance was achieved with one injection
point at 3/16” orifice valve with stable flow.
Example Well-D (Shallow injection depth)
The gradient survey and diagnostic analysis by calibrated well
model revealed that gas is being injected at 2nd GLM via 3/16"
orifice valve but gas injection point can go deeper through the
existing 3rd GLM (Fig. 18). The reason for such situation is
due to lower well productivity index than that used for original
design. However, re-design was made to deepen the point of
gas injection at 3rd GLM. An oil gain of 200 BPD was
obtained with lower injection gas rate.
Example Well-E (no possibility to go deeper)
The possibility to deepen the injection point is sometimes
restricted by the existing well completion. In other words, well
performance sometimes accepts to deepen gas injection but
there are no lower mandrels as shown in Fig. 19. Work-over
opportunity could help to equip completion string with lower
mandrels if packer depth permits. Anyway, in Khafji field, the
gas lift design is always updated and reviewed for any work-
over job.
Example Well-F (gas lift orifice valve submerged and
upper unloading valves with slightly high dome pressure)
In some cases, the gas lift orifice valve is being submerged so
the upper bellows charged gas lift valve should open to keep
steady lifting. But, in few cases, such bellows charged valve
has high dome pressure at valve depth so it requires
continuous high injection pressure in order to remain open.
Fig. 20 shows such case where orifice valve no. 3 is
submerged and gas is being injected via bellows charged valve
no. 2 which was originally dressed at slightly high test rack
opening pressure of 1123 psig @ 60 °F so it was frequently
cease to remain open causing fluctuation for well production
rate.
However, this bellows charged valve no. 2 was replaced by an
orifice valve (3/16") resulted in well stability. Definitely,
injection through an orifice valve at optimum depth will
eliminate the mechanical stresses that can result by opening
and closing forces in case of injection through bellows
charged gas lift valve. Furthermore, the orifice valve will
remain open continually even the injection pressure decreases
due to some operational troubles or hydrate formation at
surface gas choke especially in winter session.
6 SPE 101388
Example Well-G (well does not take lift gas)
Well productivity index, reservoir pressure/temperature, GOR,
WC and etc. are essential factors to identify optimum point of
gas injection and to assure proper gas lift valve design. These
crucial parameters are sometimes not readily known during
gas lift design phase. It might cause either improper gas
injection depth or lift gas is not being injected at all. However,
upper unloading valves should work provided that their dome
pressure is properly dressed. As discussed before, the actual
temperature is important for sequent opening of unloading gas
lift valves if the orifice valve is being submerged. Fig. 21
shows an example for these wells which are not taking
injection gas in Khafji field mainly due to improper dome
pressure setting for the upper unloading gas lift valves. Since
it is impractical to set each gas lift valve at it operating well
temperature, the test rack opening or closing pressure is set at
a base standard temperature of 60 °F. If actual downhole
temperature is higher than those used in design phase, this
valve will require higher injection pressure to open. Gas lift
re-design was made and installed for this example well and
resulted in resuming its production with an oil rate of
approximately 2,300 BPD. However, same procedures were
used to resume productivity for 3 other wells in the field.
Choke Size Optimization
Optimizing wellhead choke size is mainly concerned to
stabilize well flowing conditions to avoid surging which has
severe impact against surface facilities like; creating
operational troubles for production separators, fluctuating gas
feed for gas lift compressors, and causing inaccuracy for well
testing data and etc.
So, ten (10) natural flow wells were stabilized by optimizing
their choke size as the followings examples:
Example Well-H
Fig. 22 shows real time monitoring by multiphase flow meter
that was successfully employed to stabilize a lot of natural
flow wells. Flow conditions were fluctuating and slugging
during the period from 20 to 25 April 2005 since choke size
was 48/64". The reason behind such slugging, in example well
performance, is the frequent increase in water cut due to
downhole water coning or breakthrough.
From nodal analysis, the stable flow can be attained if water
cut is less or equal to 34% (Fig. 23). Therefore, choke size was
decreased to 40/64” subsequently water cut was dropped to a
value around 26%. As a result, steady natural flow was
resumed with liquid rate of about 1250 BPD for this well as
indicated in Fig. 22.
Example Well-I
Fig. 24 shows the flow was unstable at choke size 56/64” and
water cut reaches 80 %. However, when the choke size was
decreased to 40/64” the water cut decreased to 43 % and stable
flow started again with liquid rate of 1500 BPD. And that met
what was anticipated in Fig. 25 where water cut must not
exceed 43 % to achieve steady flow of liquid rate about 1500
BPD.
Conclusions
• The optimization models for Khafji field were
successfully updated then utilized to screen for most
effective wells for gas lift operation. Seven (7) wells
were newly put on gas lifting which resulted in
approximately 6,000 BPD of net oil gain with same
limited lift gas capacity.
• Field optimization model is a powerful tool to
optimize and understand the whole production
system. Furthermore, its prediction capabilities for
different operating conditions such as quantifying the
effect of reducing the working pressure for offshore
production separators.
• The existing design for gas lift installations was
successfully reviewed for Khafji field. Consequently,
gas lift re-design was made and installed for eight (8)
wells which gave an oil gain of approximately 9,000
BPD.
• Review of gas lift design is strongly recommended
when accurate and enough data is available by well
testing. That’s because the design is often being done
during drilling or work-over to equip completion
string with gas lift mandrels.
• Effective gas lift design should be flexible for wide
range of operating conditions and accommodate
future changes in down-hole parameters.
• Identification of the more applicable multi-phase
vertical flow correlation plays an important role for
individual well nodal analysis, gas lift design,
diagnose, and optimization. However, the appropriate
correlations for Khafji field were categorized and
Gray Modified found to be the most applicable one.
• The most appropriate overall heat transfer coefficient
(U value) was determined for Khafji gas lift wells to
be 3.3 Btu/hr/ft2. Accurate coefficient will assure
proper setting for test rack opening pressure (PTRO)
for gas lift valves.
• In Khafji field smaller port size of unloading valves
and orifice valve helped to maximize the benefits of
the limited lift gas volume and eliminate many
problems:
o Decreased the large throttling of surface gas
choke which helped in eliminating hydrate
formation
o Offered higher and stable casing pressure for
deeper gas injection
• Individual well modeling and reliable field
measurements are still highly contributed to
increasing oil rate. So, the real time monitoring by
multi-phase flow meters and dynamic nodal analysis
were employed to get stability for ten (10) natural
flow wells by optimizing wellhead choke size.
• In order to apply successful production optimization,
the field needs to be equipped with practical and
reliable tools for monitoring, and surveillance.
SPE 101388 7

Nomenclature Acknowledgements

GOSP = Gas oil separation platform The authors wish to thank the management of Al-Khafji Joint
FDP = Field Development Plan Operation (Kuwait Gulf Oil Company and Aramco Gulf Oil
Company) for the permission to publish this paper.
General Optimization and Artificial
GOAL =
Lift Allocation
References
BPD = Barrel Per Day
IPR = Inflow Performance Relationship 1. Ghoniem, E.O., et al.: “Successful Application of
Pressure Volume Temperature Production Optimization Models to Sustain Field
PVT =
Behavior Target and Defer Capital Investment in Offshore
Khafji Field”, SPE 93555 paper presented at the 14th
Pressure Losses between consecutive SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show, Bahrain, March
ΔPLoss =
Stations 12-15, 2005.
TRO = Test Rack Opening
GLM = Gas Lift Mandrel 2. Gilbert, W.E.: “Principles of Oil Well Production,”
McGraw-Hall Book Company, pp. 45-50, 1981.
MPFM = Multi-Phase Flow Meter
DAS = Data Analysis System 3. Vogel, J.V.: “Inflow Performance Relationship for
RTU = Remote Terminal Unit Solution Gas Drive Wells,” J. Pet. Tech., January,
MTU = Master Terminal Unit 1968, pp. 83-93.
OCP = Offshore Control Platform
4. Stewart, G., Clark, A.C., and McBride, S.A.: “Field-
Well Data Acquisition and Control Wide Production Optimization,” paper SPE 59459
WADACS =
System presented at 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Conference on
SSV = Surface Safety Valve Integrated Modeling for Asset Management,
SSSV = SubSurface Shutdown Valve Yokohama, April 25-26.
OFM = Oil Field Manager Software
5. Alhanati, F.J.S., et al.: “Continuous Gas-Lift
Instability: Diagnosis, Criteria, and Solutions,” paper
SPE 26554 presented at SPE 68th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, October 11-14,
1993.

6. Craft, B.C., Holden, W. R. and Graves, E. D., Jr.:

Well Design Drilling and Production, Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1962) 368-452.
8 SPE 101388

Table-1: Multiphase flow correlations

No. Abbreviation Correlation Name

1 ANSARI Ansari
2 BJA Baker Jardine Revised
3 BBO Beggs & Bril Original
4 BBOTD Beggs & Bril, Taitel Dukler map
5 BBR Beggs & Brill Revised
6 BBRTD Beggs & Brill Revised, Taitel Dukler map
7 DR Duns & Ros
8 DRTD Duns & Ros, Taitel Dukler map
9 GA Govier, Aziz & Fogarasi
10 GRAYM Gray (modified)
11 GRAYO Gray (original)
12 HBR Hagedorn & Brown
13 HBRDR Hagedorn & Brown, Duns & Ros map
14 LOCKMARK Lockhart & Martinelli
15 LOCKMARTD Lockhart & Martinelli, Taitel Dukler map
16 MB Mukherjee & Brill
17 NOSLIP No Slip Assumption
18 ORK Orkiszewski
19 TBB Tulsa Beggs & Brill
20 TDR Tulsa Duns & Ros
21 TGA Tulsa Govier, Aziz
22 THBR Tulsa Hagedorn & Brown (Revised)
23 THB Tulsa Hagedorn & Brown (Original)
24 TMB Tulsa Mukherjee & Brill
25 TORK Tulsa Orkiszewski

Table-2: The most appropriate correlations with error less than 5%

Average
ΔP
Rank Correlation Type
Error
%
1 GRAYM Gray (modified) 3.51
2 GRAYO Gray (original) 3.70
3 LOCKMARTD Lockhart & Martinelli, Taitel Dukler map 3.84
4 LOCKMAR Lockhart & Martinelli 3.84
5 NOSLIP No Slip Assumption 3.84
6 ORK Orkiszewski 4.04
7 ANSARI Ansari 4.58
8 THBR Tulsa Hagedorn & Brown (Revised) 4.28
9 HBR Hagedorn & Brown 4.34
10 HBRDR Hagedorn & Brown, Duns & Ros map 4.34
SPE 101388 9

Khafji Field
Khafji
(KJO)

Fig. 1: Khafji Field location map Fig. 2: Typical individual well model

0
-200 TYPE=ANSARI
-400 Measured Data
-600 TYPE=BJA
-800 TYPE=BBO
-1,000 TYPE=BBOTD
TYPE=BBR
-1,200
TYPE=BBRTD
-1,400
TYPE=DR
-1,600
TYPE=DRTD
-1,800 TYPE=GA
-2,000
Elevation (ft)

TYPE=GRAYM
-2,200 TYPE=GRAYO
-2,400 TYPE=HBR
-2,600 TYPE=HBRDR
-2,800 TYPE=LOCKMAR
-3,000 TYPE=LOCKMARTD
-3,200 TYPE=MB
-3,400 TYPE=NOSLIP
-3,600 TYPE=ORK
-3,800 TYPE=TBB
-4,000 TYPE=TDR
TYPE=TGA
-4,200
TYPE=THBR
-4,400
TYPE=THB
-4,600
TYPE=TMB
-4,800 TYPE=TORK
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
Pressure (psig)
Elevation :: TYPE=GRAYM : Y = -2359.575 : X = 699.086

Fig. 3: Vertical Lift Performance with Different Correlations

10 SPE 101388

100%
80%
60%

DP Error % 40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
0 100 200 300 400 500

Test Point

Fig. 4: Delta Pressure Error Percentage by Using Gray Modified Correlation

Fig. 5: Example of Pressure Profile during History

Fig. 6: Example of Temperature Profile during History
Matching by Gray Modified Correlation
Matching by Gray Modified Correlation
SPE 101388 11

Fig. 7: Example for Field Surface Schematic Network

(GOAL model)

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0
U valve, BTU/hr/ft2

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Test Point

Fig. 9: Overall heat transfer coefficient (U valve) history Fig. 8: Typical down-hole gas lift injection system
matching for different wells
12 SPE 101388

3500 70
Choke Size: 64/64" Choke Size: 56/64" 65
3000 60
Oil Rate (bopd), Liquid(bpd), GOR (scf/b)

55
2500 50
45
2000 40

BS&W (%)
35
1500 30
25
1000 20
15
500 10
5
0 0
Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06
Oil Rate (bopd) Liquid (bpd) BS&W (%)

Fig. 10: Well test and well performance over wide range of time

80000

75000

Separator P = 70 psig
Liquid Rate, BPD

70000 Separator P = 80 psig

65000

60000
04-09-05

05-09-05

06-09-05

07-09-05

08-09-05

09-09-05

10-09-05

11-09-05

12-09-05

13-09-05

14-09-05

15-09-05

16-09-05

17-09-05

Operation Day

Fig. 11: Liquid rate of GOSP-3 before and after reducing separator pressure
SPE 101388 13

B o tto m -h o le P re s s u re (p s ig )
L iq u id F lo w ra te a t O u tle t (S T B /d )

1,900
4,500 1,800
1,700
1,600
4,000
1,500
IPR
1,400
3,500 1,300
1,200
3,000 1,100
1,000
2,500 900
800
700
2,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

0 1 2 Liquid Flow Rate (STB/d)

Total Injection Gas (mmscf/d)
Inflow: Inflow= Outflow: INJGAS=0 mmscfd
Series0 Outflow: INJGAS=0.503 mmscfd
Schlumberger Schlumberger
Created by Sayed Ouda Ghoniem on 01/10/05 15:48:23

Fig. 12: Example Well-A gas lift performance curve Fig. 13: Example Well-A nodal analysis on natural flow
and gas lift
B o tto m -h o le P re s s u re (p s ig )

8,000
7,500 2,400
L iq u id F lo w R a te (S T B /d )

7,000
2,300
6,500
2,200
6,000
5,500 2,100
5,000 2,000
4,500 1,900
4,000
1,800 IPR
3,500
3,000 1,700
2,500 1,600
2,000 1,500
1,500
1,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
500
0 Liquid Flow Rate (STB/d)
0 1 2
Inflow: Inflow= Outflow: INJGAS=0 mmscfd
Total Injection Gas (mmscf/d) Outflow: INJGAS=0.545 mmscfd
Schlumberger
Schlumberger
Created by Sayed Ouda Ghoniem on 01/10/05 16:06:58

Fig. 14: Example Well-B gas lift performance curve Fig. 15: Example Well-B nodal analysis gas lift
14 SPE 101388

5500

5000

4500
Liquid Rate (BPD)

4000

3500

3000
Due to low dome pressure, upper unloading valve Replaced Second unloading valve w ith new
sometimes open causing oscillations in w ell production TRO one (1137 psig @60 degF).
2500 rate (TRO pressure =1117 psig @60 degF).
28-May-05 to 1-Jun-05 13-Jun-05 20-Sep-05 11-Jan-06 30-Jun-06

2000
Test points

Fig. 16: Example Well-C liquid flow rate as measured by MPFM

Temperature [F]
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0
Available Inj Pressure
Valve Dome Pressure
500
Valve Opening Pressure
Ambient Temperature
1,000 Production Temperature
Prod.Pressure(calculated)
1,500 Production Pressure Survey
Equilibrium Curve
2,000 Transfer Point
Production Temperature Survey
TVD [ft]

2,500 Static Gradient

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Pressure [psig]
Orifice Valve @ 3707.60 ft tvd : Fully Open
Percent
Port Percent Dome Open Production Injection Production Injection
TVD Model Ptro Status Gas Rate Max
Size Open Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature
Rate
- [ft] [inches] [psig] [mmscf/d] [%] [%] [psig] [psig] [psig] [psig] [F] [F]
SLB
1 2180 0.180 1105.0 Closed -- 0.0 -- 1250.3 1265.2 690.7 1245.2 134.4 127.1
N-17R
SLB
2 3213 0.180 1117.0 Throttling 0.11197 18.0 16.2 1274.9 1283.2 964.7 1286.4 139.0 135.2
N-17R
3 3708 Orifice 0.180 -- Fully Open 0.51616 100.0 67.9 -- -- 1101.6 1248.9 140.9 138.2

Fig. 17: Plot for Diagnostic Analysis for Example Well-C with Gas Lift Valves Data Sheet According to Performance
Survey
SPE 101388 15

Temperature [F]
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0
Available Inj Pressure
Valve Dome Pressure
500
Valve Opening Pressure
Ambient Temperature
1,000 Production Temperature
Prod.Pressure(calculated)
1,500 Production Pressure Survey
Equilibrium Curve
2,000 Transfer Point
Production Temperature Survey
TVD [ft]

Static Gradient
2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0 500 1,000 1,500

Pressure [psia]
Orifice Valve @ 3398.27 ft tvd : Fully Open
Fig. 18: Example Well-D for shallow injection depth

Temperature [F]
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0
Available Inj Pressure
Valve Dome Pressure
500
Valve Opening Pressure
Ambient Temperature
1,000 Production Temperature
Prod.Pressure(calculated)
1,500 Production Pressure Survey
Equilibrium Curve
Transfer Point
2,000 Production Temperature Survey
TVD [ft]

Static Gradient
2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Pressure [psig]
Orifice Valve @ 4212.07 ft tvd : Fully Open

Fig. 19: Example Well-E where there is no possibility to go deeper

16 SPE 101388

Temperature [F]
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0
Available Inj Pressure
500 Valve Dome Pressure
Valve Opening Pressure
Ambient Temperature
1,000
Production Temperature
Prod.Pressure(calculated)
1,500 Production Pressure Survey
Equilibrium Curve
2,000 Transfer Point
Production Temperature Survey
2,500
TVD [ft]

Static Gradient

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Pressure [psig]
Orifice Valve @ 4532.84 ft tvd : Submerged
Percent
Percent Dome Open Production Injection Production Injection
TVD Model Port Size Ptro Status Gas Rate Max
Open Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature
Rate
- [ft] [inches] [psig] [mmscf/d] [%] [%] [psig] [psig] [psig] [psig] [F] [F]
SLB
1 2312 0.180 1113.0 Closed -- 0.0 -- 1269.4 1284.8 693.2 1272.5 138.6 131.3
N-17R
SLB
2 3753 0.180 1121.0 Fully Open 0.54686 100.0 76.7 1294.6 1299.3 1119.8 1331 145.4 142.5
N-17R
SLB
3 4533 0.180 -- Submerged -- 100.0 -- -- -- 1407.9 1305.2 147.5 146.4
N-17R

Fig. 20: Example Well-F (orifice is submerged but upper unloading valve is working)

`
SPE 101388 17

Temperature [F]
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0
Available Inj Pressure
500 Valve Dome Pressure
Valve Opening Pressure
1,000 Ambient Temperature
Production Temperature
1,500 Prod.Pressure(calculated)
Production Pressure Survey
2,000 Equilibrium Curve
Transfer Point
2,500 Production Temperature Survey
T VD [ft]

Static Gradient
3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Pressure [psig]
Orifice Valve @ 4102.22 ft tvd : Submerged
Percent
Percent Dome Open Production Injection Production Injection
TVD Model Port Size Ptro Status Gas Rate Max
Open Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature
Rate
- [ft] [inches] [psig] [mmscf/d] [%] [%] [psig] [psig] [psig] [psig] [F] [F]
SLB
1 2400 0.180 1148.5 Closed -- 0.0 -- 1335.4 1354.7 610.0 1294.8 149.1 140.4
N-17R
SLB
2 3131 0.250 1158.0 Closed -- 0.0 -- 1297.2 1326.3 877.8 1321.1 151.3 145.4
N-17R
SLB
3 3549 0.180 1148.5 Closed -- 0.0 -- 1343.0 1351.0 1041.5 1336.2 152.3 147.6
N-17R
SLB
4 3778 0.180 1153.0 Closed -- 0.0 -- 1349.3 1355.1 1131.4 1144.4 152.7 148.7
N-17R
5 4102 Orifice 0.180 -- Submerged -- 100.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Fig. 21: Example Well-G (orifice is submerged and unloading valves with high TRO)
18 SPE 101388

2,000

1,990
3500 100
1,980

P re s s u re a t N A p o in t (p s ig )
Choke Size 48/64" Choke Size 40/64" 90 1,970
3000
1,960
80
1,950
2500 70 1,940
1,930
60
2000 1,920

WC %
BPD

50 1,910
1500 1,900
40

I
1,890
1000 30 1,880
1,870
20
500 1,860
10 1,850
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500
0 0
Stock-tank Liquid at NA point (STB/d)
20-Apr 21-Apr 22-Apr 23-Apr 24-Apr 25-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr
Time Inflow: Inflow= Outflow: WCUT=30 % Outflow: WCUT=32 %
Outflow: WCUT=34 % Outflow: WCUT=36 % Outflow: WCUT=38 %
Liquid Rate (BPD) WC %
Schlumberger
Created by Sayed Ouda on 19/09/05 11:30:25

Fig. 22: Example Well-H choke size optimization Fig. 23: Example Well-H nodal analysis water cut

2,420

2,415
4000 100 2,410
Choke Size 56/64" Choke Size 40/64"
90 2,405
P r e s s u r e a t N A p o in t (p s ig )

3500
2,400
80
3000 2,395
70
2,390
2500
60 2,385
WC %
BPD

2000 50 2,380

40
2,375 IPR
1500 2,370
30
2,365
1000
20 2,360
500 2,355
10
2,350
0 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500
19-May 20-May 21-May 22-May 23-May 24-May 25-May Stock-tank Liquid at NA point (STB/d)
Time
Inflow: Inflow= Outflow: WCUT=40 % Outflow: WCUT=41 % Outflow: WCUT=42 %
Liquid Rate (BPD) WC % Outflow: WCUT=43 % Outflow: WCUT=44 % Outflow: WCUT=45 % Outflow: WCUT=46 %
Schlumberger
Created by Sayed Ouda on 19/09/05 09:37:58

Fig. 24: Example Well-I choke size optimization Fig. 25: Example Well-I nodal analysis water cut