Energy Sources, Part A, 36:12341248, 2014

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online
DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2010.536829

The Optimization of Gas Allocation to a

Group of Wells in a Gas Lift Using an
Efficient Ant Colony Algorithm (ACO)
M. Ghaedi,1 C. Ghotbi,1 and B. Aminshahidy2
1

Chemical and Petroleum Department, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

When the reservoir energy is too low for the well to flow, or the production rate desired is greater than
the reservoir energy can deliver, using some kind of artificial lift method to provide the energy to bring
the fluid to the surface, seems to be necessary. Continuous flow gas lift is one of the most common
artificial lift methods widely used in the oil industry during which, at appropriate pressure, gas is
injected in a suitable depth into the tubing to gasify the oil column, and thus assist the production.
Each well has an optimal point at which it will produce the most oil. In ideal conditions, at which there
is no limitation in the total amount of available gas, a sufficient amount of gas could be injected into
each well to get the maximum amount of production. However, often the total amount of available gas
is insufficient to reach the maximum oil production for each well. Therefore, allocating an optimum
amount of gas to each well to obtain field maximum oil production rate is necessary. In this work,
a continuous ant colony optimization algorithm was used to allocate the optimum amount of gas to
a group of wells for three fields with a different number of wells. Based upon the total production
rates of the studied oil fields resulting from the gas allocation to the wells, the continuous ant colony
optimization algorithm shows better gas allocation to the wells in comparison with the previous works
with other optimization methods.
Keywords: ant colony algorithm, gas allocation, gas lift, genetic algorithm, production optimization

1. INTRODUCTION
When the reservoir energy is too low for the well to flow, or the production rate desired is greater
than the reservoir energy can deliver, it becomes necessary to use some kind of artificial lift
methods to provide the energy to bring the fluid to the surface. The gas lift is considered as
the most economical method for artificial lifting of oil (Ayatollahi et al., 2004; Nakashima and
Camponogara, 2006).
In a gas lift, as the gas injection rate into the well increases, the oil production rate enhances
until a point called the optimal point, after which the oil rate declines with increasing the gas
injection rate. Having no concerns about the total amount of available gas, which is not often
Address correspondence to Prof. Cyrus Ghotbi, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, Sharif University
of Technology, Azadi Ave., Tehran, Iran. E-mail: ghotbi@sharif.ac.ir
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ueso.

1234

OPTIMIZATION OF GAS ALLOCATION

1235

the case, sufficient gas could be injected into each well to get the maximum oil production rate.
However, due to the limitation in available gas sources, it seems necessary to allocate an optimum
amount of gas to each well to obtain the field maximum oil production rate.
To allocate an optimum amount of gas to each well, gas lift performance curves (GLPC) are
used. The GLPC shows the injected gas rate versus oil production rate for each well. The GLPC
can be either measured in the field, or iteratively generated by computer simulations, by means
of nodal analysis (Alarcn et al., 2002).
Kanu et al. (1981) were the first to use the method of the equal slope allocation under both
limited and unlimited gas supply. Later, Nishikiori et al. (1995) presented an extension of the
equal slope allocation method, based on the application of nonlinear optimization techniques of
the quasi-Newton type. Buitrago et al. (1996) reported a novel nonlinear methodology for the
optimal distribution of a given amount of gas to some set of wells.
Alarcn et al. (2002) improved upon Nishikiori et al.s (1995) method by replacing the quasiNewton algorithm with sequential quadratic programming (SQP). Fang and Lo (1996) reformulated
the problem as a linear-programming problem. Wang et al. (2002) suggested a mixed-integer
non-linear programming (MINLP) model to generalize the previous approaches. Camponogara
and Nakashima (2003) developed recursive algorithms for lift-gas allocation. Camponogara and
Conto (2005) proposed a piecewise-linear reformulation, thereby rendering a mixed-integer linear
programming problem. Ray and Sarker (2007) used genetic algorithm (GA) for gas lift allocation.
Zerafat et al. (2009) used both GA and ant colony optimization (ACO) to allocate gas lift to wells.
In this work, a continuous ant colony optimization (CACO) algorithm was used to allocate
optimum amount of gas to a group of wells for three fields with a different number of wells.
Based upon the fields oil total production rate resulting from the gas allocation to the wells, the
CACO algorithm shows better gas allocation to the wells in comparison with the previous works
with other methods.

2. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM

Total oil production from n wells of a field is the summation of individual oil production of each
well and that is a function of gas injected into the wells:
max QoT D

n
X

Qoi D

i D1

n
X

f .Qgi / D f .Qg1 ; Qg2 ; : : : ; Qgn /:

(1)

i D1

QoT is the total oil production, which must be maximized. Instead of maximization, the problem
can define the minimization of 1=QoT . Thus, the gas lift optimization problem can be defined as:
min f .x/ D

1
1
D n
X
QoT
Qoi

i D 1; 2; : : : ; n;

(2)

i D1

n
X

Qoi  total available gas,

(3)

i D1

Qgi  Qgi min

i D 1; 2; : : : ; n;

(4)

Qgi  Qgi min

i D 1; 2; : : : ; n:

(5)

1236

M. GHAEDI ET AL.

Qgi min is a minimum amount of injection needed to start the oil production and Qgi max is the
gas injection rate at which the well produces the maximum amount of oil and beyond this point
by increasing gas injection rate, oil production rate declines.

3. CACO TECHNIQUE
In recent decades, use of evolutionary algorithms, such as genetic algorithm, simulated annealing,
and more recently, ant colony optimization (ACO), have been considered extensively. Ant colony
optimization technique was introduced in the early 1990s by Dorigo and Stutzle (2004). The
inspiring source of ant colony optimization is the foraging behavior of real ant colonies.
ACO has been applied successfully to solve various combinatorial optimization problems,
especially discrete problems, such as the traveling salesman problem (Dorigo and Gambaredella,
1997). Optimization problems can be formulated as continuous optimization problems too. These
problems are characterized by the fact that the decision variables have continuous domains, in
contrast to the discrete domains of the variables in a combinatorial optimization problem. ACO
has been also applied to continuous domains (Jalalinejad et al., 2007; Jayaraman et al., 2000;
Razavi and Jalali-Farahani, 2008).
Optimization of gas lift allocation is considered as a continuous problem. In this article, the
CACO algorithm introduced by Jalalinejad et al. (2007), Jayarman et al. (2007), and Razavi and
Jalali-farahani (2008) was used, and here by some modification applied it for gas lift allocation.
3.1. Data Structure for Continuous ACO Algorithm
In order to apply ACO algorithm in continuous domain a new data structure is needed. The data
structure, which has been used in this work, is shown in Figure 1. The two dimensional n  m
matrices are the search area where n is the number of optimization variables and m is the number
of ants (i.e., regions in continuous domain), which are used to search with m  n (Jalalinejad

FIGURE 1

CACO data structure.

OPTIMIZATION OF GAS ALLOCATION

1237

et al., 2007; Jayaraman et al., 2000; Razavi and Jalali-Farahani, 2008). fi and i are 1  m vectors
representing the ith region objective function and pheromone trail amount, respectively.

3.2. Steps of CACO Algorithm

The proposed CACO algorithm consists of four main steps. These steps are illustrated in the
following.
3.2.1. Initialization
In this stage, each region is randomly initialized for each variable in the feasible interval.
Feasible interval is defined by the problem constraints. The equal amount of pheromone is also
placed in a pheromone trail vector.
3.2.2. Global Search
The global search consists of three operations: crossover, mutation, and trail diffusion. The
crossover operation is done as follows: select a parent randomly and set the first variable of
the childs position vector same as that of the first element of the parents positions vector. The
subsequent values of the variables of the child are set to the corresponding values of a randomly
chosen parent with a probability equal to the crossover probability (CP). A crossover probability
equal to one means that each element of the childs position vector has a different parent, while a
CP of zero indicates that the child region has all the same elements as the chosen single parent.
After the crossover step, mutation is carried out by randomly adding or subtracting a value to
each and every variable of the newly created region with a probability equal to a suitably defined
mutation probability (Jayaraman et al., 2000; Razavi and Jalali-Farahani, 2008).
In trail diffusion, two parents are selected at random from the parent regions. The variables of
the childs position vector can have either (1) the value of the corresponding variable from the first
parent; (2) the corresponding value of the variable from the second parent, or (3) a combination
arrived from a weighted average of the above:
Newxi .j / D :xparent1 .j / C .1

/:xparent2 .j /;

(6)

where is a uniform random number in the range [0, 1].

The probability of selecting third option is set equal to the mutation probability while allotting
equal probability of selecting the first two steps (Jayaraman et al., 2000).
3.2.3. Local Search
Local ants search in a smaller region around the potential solution to improve the objective
function. Different methods, such as simulated annealing, could be used for a local search. The
probability of selecting a region i by a local ant is given by the same formula as before:
Pi D

i .t/
m
X

(7)

i .t/

i D1

In this work, complex algorithm introduced by Box (1965) has been used as the local search
procedure.

1238

M. GHAEDI ET AL.

3.2.4. Pheromone Update

Trail evaporation is used in order to ensure that the search during the next generation is not
biased by the proceeding iteration. The pheromone trail is updated after each iteration, as follows:

.tC1/

i

8
<.1
:.1

it D

/it C it

Fitness improved,

/it

Otherwise.

(8)

1
;
fi

(9)

where  is pheromone evaporation rate.

In Algorithm 1, the steps of the proposed method are listed. Algorithm 2 presents a global
search and its three different steps (cross over, mutation, and trail diffusion). Algorithms 3 and 4
show local procedure and pheromone updating respectively.

Algorithm 1. The main steps of the proposed CACO algorithm

1. Set the parameters of the algorithm:
(a) The number of ant, m.
(b) The number of local ant, L.
(c) The number of global ants, G.
(d) The maximum number of generations ITERMAX.
(e) The crossover rate pc .
(f) The mutation rate pm .
(g) Equal amount of pheromone in pheromone trail vector.
(h) Pheromone evaporation rate, .
2. Set iter D 0.
3. Initialize the m regions and store them to the set X D fx1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xm g. Every ant
xi is initialized randomly inside the feasible interval. Feasible interval is defined by
problem constraint.
4. Evaluate the fitness for every region.
5. Apply Global search by global ants as described in Algorithm 2.
6. Apply Local search by local ants as described in Algorithm 3.
7. Apply Pheromone update as described in Algorithm 4.
8. Set iter D iter C 1.
9. If the maximum number of generation reached, terminate, else goto step 4.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To implement the proposed CACO algorithm, three different examples were used: a set of 6 wells
and a set of 56 wells from Buitrago et al. (1996) and a set of 9 wells from an Iranian southern
west field. In the following, the CACO algorithm parameters as well as the results for the three
sets of wells are illustrated.

OPTIMIZATION OF GAS ALLOCATION

1239

Algorithm 2. The procedure of global search

1. Sort the regions x1 ; x2 ; : : : ; xm with respect to their fitness values f1 ; f2 ; : : : ; fm in a
way such that the best chromosome is placed at the beginning of the population and
the worst at the end.
2. For i D 1; : : : ; G, do
(Crossover operation)
(a). Randomly select a region, xR1 .
(b). Newxi .1/ D xR1 .1/
(c). For j D 2; : : : ; n, do
i. Let r a random number in (0, 1)
ii. If r  pc then
(1). Randomly select a region, xR2
(2). Newxi .j / D xR2.j /
iii. If r > pc then
(1). Newxi .j / D xR1 .j /
iv. Endif
(d). End for
(e). Accept new created regions and replace weakest regions, if it is feasible and its
fitness is improved.
(Mutation operation)
(f). For j D 1; : : : ; n, do
i. Let r a random number in (0, 1)
ii. If r  pc then (1). Randomly add or subtract a value to each and every
variable of the new region i .
iii. Endif
(g). End for
(h). Accept new created regions and replace weakest regions, if it is feasible and its
fitness is improved.
(Trail diffusion)
(i). For j D 1; : : : ; n do
i. Let r a random number in (0, 1)
ii. If r  pm then
(1). Newxi .j / D :xparent1 .j /C.1 /:xparent2 .j /, where a random number
in (0, 1).
iii. If pm  r  .1 pm =2/ then
(2). Newxi .j / D xparent1 .j /
iv. If .1 pm =2/  r  1 then
(3). Newxi .j / D xparent2 .j /
v. Endif
(j). End for
(k). Accept new created regions and replace weakest regions, if it is feasible and its
fitness is improved.
3. End for

1240

M. GHAEDI ET AL.

Algorithm 3. The procedure of local search

i D 1; : : : ; L, do
Select region i for local search, with probability of Eq. (7).
Apply a local search procedure to the region i .
Accept new created regions and replace weakest regions, if it is feasible and its
fitness is improved.
3. End for
1. For
(a).
(b).
(d).

Algorithm 4. The procedure of pheromone update

1. For i D 1; : : : ; L, do
(a). If fitness of region i improved then
.tC1/
i. i
D .1 /it C it
(b). If fitness of region i did not improve then
.tC1/
i. i
D .1 /it
(c). Endif
2. End for

4.1. The Set of Six Wells

Total available gas for this set of six wells is 4,600 Mscf/day. Table 1 shows CACO algorithm
parameters for this set of six wells. Figure 2 represents the best and average values for each
generation and Table 2 shows the comparison between the obtained results for the proposed
CACO algorithm and the results of previous works. As it can be seen from this table, the results
of the proposed CACO algorithm are better than those obtained from the previous works. CACO
algorithm obtained 9.3 STB/day more in the total field production rate than the best of previous
works did.
4.2. The Set of 56 Wells
Total available gas for this set of 56 wells is 22,500 Mscf/day. CACO algorithm parameters for
this set of 56 wells are shown in Table 3. Figure 3 represents the best and average values for
each generation and Table 4 shows the comparison between the obtained results for the proposed
CACO algorithm and the obtained results of previous works. From this table, the results of the
proposed CACO algorithm appear to be better than the previous works. The total production rate
evaluated by the CACO algorithm is 25,374.71 STB/day, while the best previous result, which is
TABLE 1
CACO Algorithm Parameters for the Set of Six Wells

Ants
20

Crossover
Probability

Mutation
Probability

Evaporation
Rate

% Local
Ants

Maximum
Iteration

0.6

0.4

0.9

40

40

1241

OPTIMIZATION OF GAS ALLOCATION

FIGURE 2

Best and average value of fitness at each generation for the set of six wells with CACO algorithm.

TABLE 2
Comparison between the Results of Proposed CACO Algorithm and Previous Works for the Set of Six Wells
Total Available Gas D 4,600 MSCF/Day
Kanu et al. (1981)
(Equal Slope)

Well
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Qg =Qo

Buitrago et al. (1996)

(Ex-In)

Ray and Sarker (2007)

(GA)
Qg ,
MSCF/day

Qg ,
MSCF/day

Qo ,
STB/day

Qg ,
MSCF/day

Qo ,
STB/day

186.7
479.2
708
589.9
742.6
1,667.3
4,373.7

316.1
703.2
1,039
585.6
697.4
168.9
3,510.2

364.8
836.8
1,237.1
611
1,378
0
4,427.7

351.9
761.6
1,137.6
589
788.9
0
3,629

1.25

1.22

475.525
743.4451
1,350.922
827.7491quad
1,199.585
0.212049
4,597.438
1.22

CACO

Qo ,
STB/day

Qg ,
MSCF/day

365.053
755.421
1,146.155
622.693
774.668
0
3,663.99

482.25
768.52
1,132.41
898.75
1,285.87
32.2
4,600

Qo ,
STB/day

366.72
758.05
1,132.38
631.32
784.86
0.0003
3,673.33
1.25

TABLE 3
CACO Algorithm Parameters for the Set of 56 Wells

Ants

Crossover
Probability

Mutation
Probability

Evaporation
Rate

% Local
Ants

Maximum
Iteration

400

0.8

0.4

0.9

40

50

1242

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Well

225
0
60
0
0
0
0
58
1,295
0
201
617
0
128
153
69
0
0
0
215
189
270
0
399
0
0
0
0
0

Qg ,
MSCF/day

290
487
481
280
281
287
790
209
1,568
233
727
459
108
277
493
198
892
1,151
310
213
251
195
944
1,420
487
82
353
1,044
184

Qo ,
STB/day

Kanu et al. (1981)

(Equal Slope)

504.9
234.6
725.7
478.8
54.3
363.9
221
333.5
431.7
365
591.6
2,435.4
194.9
184.2
649.6
228.8
188.4
428.8
644.7
929.5
542.3
385.8
44.5
1,713.9
805.4
591.6
247.8
140.2
268.5

Qg ,
MSCF/day
357.1
583
626.6
304.2
287.1
356.6
833.6
279.6
813.2
206.7
871.4
657.9
118.3
301.2
655.2
295.3
918.9
1,234.3
340.7
383.1
384.6
214.9
945.6
1,752.6
546.6
127.2
355.9
1,052.7
196.4

Qo ,
STB/day

Buitrago et al. (1996)

(Ex-In)

672
450
521
0
0
157
235
268
1,295
0
1,048
800
0
186
598
460
0
282
0
975
772
370
0
1,030
0
120
0
0
0

Qg ,
MSCF/day
386
626
605
280
281
333
836
276
1,568
233
957
510
108
302
648
361
892
1,213
310
391
455
214
944
1,680
487
105
353
1,044
184

Qo ,
STB/day

Wang et al. (2002)

(MILP)

812.3447
447.2224
150.8009
25.72567
2.681695
428.4005
443.1134
550.4224
1,431.407
9.943476
1,186.703
1,797.354
0.292891
381.3879
855.1724
966.7526
572.052
835.341
53.06131
1,417.769
674.1595
260.7425
0.062342
738.5139
142.1995
3.961657
1.579943
180.759
25.61667

389.2922
621.576
521.0045
279.6338
279.3014
360.2759
861.4855
296.3572
1,567.67
231.1562
968.2653
644.1792
105.0039
330.8143
683.0084
381.7123
964.1574
1,275.154
311.4512
435.0734
434.5178
190.4233
941.0026
1,580.227
502.8872
79.96662
350.0281
1,051.767
182.767

Qo ,
STB/day

Ray and Sarker (2007)

(GA)
Qg ,
MSCF/day

Total Gas Available D 22,500 MSCF/day

TABLE 4
Comparison between the Results of Proposed CACO Algorithm and Previous Works for the Set of 56 Wells

614.258
537.250
404.258
42.147
510.985
418.321
510.721
506.214
1,069.475
330.252
646.258
709.872
104.698
367.258
413.258
702.522
125.268
236.147
117.258
534.214
717.253
447.147
79.254
832.140
368.125
184.258
110.247
654.214
89.124

Qg ,
MSCF/day

381.109
637.447
586.311
284.011
305.840
361.708
870.224
300.202
1,477.112
259.210
889.307
487.768
116.961
331.386
603.203
566.769
908.563
1,204.862
319.259
314.906
446.680
222.757
946.991
1,617.447
527.245
111.793
355.021
1,061.503
188.848

Qo ,
STB/day

(continued )

CACO

1243

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Total
Qg =Qo

Well

0
0
0
184
0
0
0
0
112
168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,042
1,633
1,418
1,301
2,224
2,830
1,304
2,594
2,317
1,655
22,508
1.059

Qg ,
MSCF/day

308
354
618
185
209
179
64
270
174
0
372
372
200
0
47
397
83
441
197
232
146
223
317
186
278
152
403
21,265

Qo ,
STB/day

Kanu et al. (1981)

(Equal Slope)
Qo ,
STB/day

68.7
309.2
1.5
354
451.8
681.2
358.8
220
459
215.6
772.3
265.6
198.5
216.3
170.5
73.2
668.2
325
235.1
190.6
114.9
27.9
315.1
373.4
33.7
201.2
1,284
404.9
95.6
404.7
33.2
83.4
289.3
65.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,453.9
21,789.9
0.939

Qg ,
MSCF/day

Buitrago et al. (1996)

(Ex-In)

0
0
131
280
0
195
108
0
157
301
98
0
0
797
0
0
14
3,042
2,466
1,418
0
0
0
1,484
0
0
1,770
22,500
0.994

Qg ,
MSCF/day
308
354
654
211
209
216
204
64
282
207
27
372
200
337
397
83
50
441
483
232
0
0
0
267
0
0
452
22,632

Qo ,
STB/day

Wang et al. (2002)

(MILP)

2.85942
2.491896
175.8315
500.2639
1.078196
211.7989
0.031785
1.727461
242.6654
313.905
13.69307
329.8575
0.099835
1,199.252
34.83983
59.72461
2.538431
1.812014
2572.13
0.075651
0.044171
0.37171
5.910134
11.68654
16.88857
5.103219
2,274.167
22,376.39
1.016

Qg ,
MSCF/day
304.0543
354
657.6575
240.9669
207.0639
216.4891
176.0157
61.10487
292.9252
206.4406
5.077453
371.1076
198.0036
390.0909
398.9659
81.55598
45.06269
0
459.3049
1.015529
0
0
10.72841
0
34.24514
0
501.3664
22,033.4

Qo ,
STB/day

Ray and Sarker (2007)

(GA)

Total Gas Available D 22,500 MSCF/day

TABLE 4
(Continued)

69.214
0.000
398.214
467.254
82.619
208.147
396.145
99.472
358.214
667.721
381.217
429.214
105.269
702.150
174.125
64.214
481.257
82.125
59.300
427.932
139.245
2,741.210
510.250
115.241
545.842
121.249
278.147
22,487.38

Qg ,
MSCF/day

0.886

CACO

309.228
354.000
655.833
239.341
209.959
217.946
231.477
70.626
311.640
236.547
31.792
373.409
203.454
313.846
407.958
83.677
158.918
0.000
0.000
2,479.870
0.000
461.404
585.219
0.000
599.316
0.000
154.807
25,374.71

Qo ,
STB/day

1244

M. GHAEDI ET AL.

FIGURE 3 Best and average value of fitness at each generation for the set of 56 wells with CACO algorithm.

obtained by mixed integer linear programming (Wang et al., 2002) method, is 22,376.39 STB/day.
CACO algorithm resulted in 2,742.7 STB/day more in the field total oil production rate than the
best result of previous works.
4.3. The Set of Nine Wells
This set of nine wells belongs to an Iranian southern west field. Wells 1 through 6 have been
completed in the Asmari reservoir, while wells 7 through 9 produce from the Bangestan section.
Tables 5 and 6 show the reservoir data and the production data of these nine wells respectively.
GLPCs of these wells were calculated with VFPi module of Eclipse commercial software. Without
any gas lift operation in this field, total oil production rate of the field is 6,502 STB/day. If there
is not any limitation in the amount of available gas, and gas is optimally injected into each well
to reach the maximum oil production rate as well, the total oil production rate of the field would
be 23,344.88 STB/day. Table 7 shows the optimum gas injection rate as well as the oil production
rate of each well.
It is supposed that only 100 MMscf/day of gas is available and this amount of gas optimally
distributed among the wells. CACO algorithm parameters for this set of nine wells are shown in
Table 8. Figure 4 represents the best and average values for each generation. Table 9 shows the
gas injection rate along with oil production rate of each well.

5. CONCLUSIONS
1. A CACO algorithm for optimization of gas allocation to a group of wells in gas lift was
introduced.
2. The applied CACO technique seems to be an efficient optimization method for optimizing
the gas lift allocation (improvement of 9.3 STB/day relative to the best previous results of
previous works for a field with 6 wells and of 2,742.7 STB/day relative to the best previous
results of previous works for a field with 56 wells, confirms this fact).

1245

Well depth (ft)

Reservoir pressure (psia)
Bubble point pressure (psia)
Formation gas liquid ratio (scf/STB)
API oil gravity (API)
Water cut (%)
Bottom hole temperature ( F)
Well head temperature ( F)
Tubing I.D. (in.)
Casing I.D. (in.)
PI (STB/day/psi)
Well head flowing pressure
Specific gravity of produced water
Specific gravity of gas
Well deviation

7,910
3,738
2,925
853
30.2
0
190
100
5
7
1.56
880
1.16
0.751

Well 1
7,720
3,738
2,925
853
30.2
0
190
100
5
7
1.7
810
1.16
0.751

Well 3
7,825
3,738
2,925
853
30.2
0
190
100
5
7
1.82
805
1.16
0.751

Well 4

Well 5

7,865
3,738
2,925
853
30.2
0
190
100
5
7
1.9
945
1.16
0.751
Straight
Vogels equation for IPR below bubble point pressure

7,635
3,738
2,925
853
30.2
0
190
100
5 1/2
9 5/8
2.2
970
1.16
0.751

Well 2

Asmari Reservoir

7,900
3,738
2,925
853
30.2
0
190
100
5
7
2.15
935
1.16
0.751

Well 6

TABLE 5
Asmari and Bangestan Reservoir Data of One of the Iranian Southern West Fields

10,250
5,304
2,995
940
28.4
0
238
100
4 1/2
5
1.41
1,720
1.14
0.65

Well 7

10,200
5,304
2,995
940
28.4
0
238
100
4
5
1.59
1,710
1.14
0.65

Well 8

Bangestan Reservoir

10,265
5,304
2,995
940
28.4
0
238
100
5
7
1.7
1,690
1.14
0.65

Well 9

1246

M. GHAEDI ET AL.

TABLE 6
Production Data of One of the Iranian Southern Field Wells

Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Rate,
BPD

FWHP,
psia

FBHP,
psia

P.I.,
bbl/dayay/psi

Drawdown,
psi

AOF,
BPD

502
1,020
650
720
930
1,060
480
540
600

880
970
810
805
945
935
1,720
1,710
1,690

3,415
3,275
3,355
3,340
3,250
3,245
4,965
4,960
4,950

1.56
2.2
1.7
1.82
1.9
2.15
1.41
1.59
1.7

322
463
383
398
488
493
339
339
354

3,366
4,842
3,693
3,943
4,200
4,743
4,295
4,830
5,150

TABLE 7
Optimum Gas Injection Rate and Oil Production Rate of Each Well,
for the Set of Nine Wells with CACO
Total Available Gas D Unlimited

Well

Qg ,
MSCF/day

Qo ,
STB/day

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total

41,769.5
54,678.3
41,342.3
41,206.2
42,305.9
43,867.9
45,812.2
46,256.8
45,926.1
403,165.2

2,211.167
3,383.803
2,344.323
2,551.114
3,005.679
3,252.963
2,066.432
2,187.667
2,341.732
23,344.88

TABLE 8
CACO Algorithm Parameters for the Set of Nine Wells

Ants

Crossover
Probability

Mutation
Probability

Evaporation
Rate

% Local
Ants

Maximum
Iteration

200

0.8

0.4

0.9

40

50

3. It is recommended to use stochastic optimization methods like the CACO algorithm in the
case of dealing with a large number of wells (as in the mentioned problem with 56 wells).
4. The effect of optimum gas allocation was very well shown by the studied three practical
cases.
5. This work shows very well the effect of gas lift on increasing the field production rate. For
instance, in the last studied case (Iranian field), a 280.6% increase in the field production
rate could be reached by optimally allocating only 100 MMSCF/day of gas to the wells
(from 6,502 STB/day to 18,249.69 STB/day).

OPTIMIZATION OF GAS ALLOCATION

FIGURE 4

1247

Best and average value of fitness at each generation for the set of nine wells with CACO algorithm.

TABLE 9
Gas Injection Rate and Oil Production Rate for the Set of Nine Wells
with CACO Algorithm When the Amount of Available Gas is Limited
Total Available Gas D 100,000 MSCF

Well

Qg ,
MSCF/day

Qo ,
STB/day

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total

8,621.677
10,806.63
17,082.79
11,480.12
8,440.89
7,946.661
10,548.68
12,037.9
13,034.65
100,000

1,644.183
2,755.742
1,942.741
1,986.983
2,488.846
2,610.393
1,478.036
1,587.696
1,755.076
18,249.69

REFERENCES
Alarcn, G. A., Torres, C. F., and Gmez, L. E. 2002. Global optimization of gas allocation to a group of wells in artificial
lift using nonlinear constrained programming. ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol. 124:262268.
Ayatollahi, S., Narimani, M., and Moshfeghian, M. 2004. Intermittent gas lift in Aghajari Oil 488 Field, A mathematical
study. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 42:245255.
Box, M. J. 1965. A new method of constrained optimization and a comparison with other methods. Comput. J. 8:4252.
Buitrago, S., Rodrguez, E., and Espin, S. D. 1996. Global optimization techniques in gas allocation for continuous flow
gas lift systems. SPE Paper 35616. SPE Gas Technology Conference, Calgary, Canada, April 28May 1, pp. 375379.

1248

M. GHAEDI ET AL.

Camponogara, E., and Conto, A. M. 2005. Gas-lift allocation under precedence constraints: Piecewise-linear formulation
and K-covers. 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and the European Control Conference, Seville, Spain,
December 1215.
Camponogara, E., and Nakashima, P. H. R. 2003. Applying dynamic programming to a gas-lift optimization problem. 2nd
Brazilian Congress on Research and Development in Oil and Gas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Dorigo, M., and Gambardella, L. M. 1997. Ant colony system: A cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman
problem. IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput. 1:5366.
Dorigo, M., and Stutzle, T. 2004. Ant Colony Optimization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fang, W. Y., and Lo, K. K. 1996. A generalized well-management scheme for reservoir simulation. SPE Reserv. Eng.
11:116120.
Jalalinejad, F., Jalali-Farahani, F., Mostoufi, N., and Sotudeh-Gharebagh, R. 2007. Ant colony optimization: A leading
algorithm in future optimization of chemical process. In: 17th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process
Engineering. Elsevier: Amsterdam, pp. 16.
Jayaraman, V. K., Kulkarni, B. D., Karale, S., and Shelokar, P. 2000. Ant colony framework for optimal design and
scheduling of batch plants. Comput. Chem. Eng. 24:19011912.
Kanu, E. P., Mach, J. M., and Brown, K. E. 1981. Economic approach to oil production and gas allocation in continuous
gas lift. J. Pet. Tec. 33:18871892.
Nakashima, P., and Camponogara, E. 2006. Optimization of lift-gas allocation using dynamic programming. IEEE Trans.
Syst. Man Cybern., Part A, Syst. Humans 36:407414.
Nishikiori, N., Redner, R. A., Doty, D. R., and Schmidt, Z. 1995. An improved method for gas lift allocation optimization.
ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol. 117:8792.
Ray, T., and Sarker, R. 2007. Genetic algorithm for solving a gas lift optimization problem. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 59:8496.
Razavi, F., and Jalali-Farahani, F. 2008. Ant colony optimization: A leading algorithm in future optimization of petroleum
engineering processes. ICAISC, LNAI 5097:469478.
Wang, P., Litvak, M., and Aziz, K. 2002. Optimization of production operations in petroleum fields. 17th World Petroleum
Congress, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September 15.
Zerafat, M. M., Ayatollahi, S., and Roosta, A. 2009. Genetic algorithms and ant colony approach for gas-lift allocation
optimization. J. Jpn. Pet. Inst. 52:102107.