Unlocking True Reservoir Potential Through Integrated Assets Modeling

Transcription

1 Unlocking True Reservoir Potential Through Integrated Assets Modeling Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services Presenter: Khaled Elghanduri Senior Reservoir Engineer, Schlumberger, UK

2 Overview Production modeling Integrated silos New integration achievements The potential North Sea example Summary 1

3 Production modeling Hydrocarbon journey 2

4 Production modeling Processing Engineering Production Engineering Hydrocarbon journey Economics Reservoir engineering Geophysical & Geological Input 3

5 Current integrated silos Processing Engineering Production Engineering Economics Reservoir engineering Geophysical & Geological Input 4

6 Multi assets integration? 5

7 What are the problems with current integration? Equipment failure Flow assurance System bottlenecks Failed contracts Oversized facilities Wellbore and surface network models Unnecessary drilling Process facilities Economic models Reservoir models and proxies Common problems faced as a result of disjointed, discipline-specific workflows attempting to plan and optimize production systems. 6

8 New integration achievements Reservoir Model A Processing Facility Model Reservoir Model B Reservoir Model C Network Model Integrated Asset Modeling Economic model 7

9 Breaking Down Barriers Integrated Asset Modeler breaks down barriers between disciplines, enabling accurate, total-system simulation for planning and optimization Network Model Processing model Reservoir Models Economic models 8

10 The potential FEED studies Subsea network design, pipeline design Right-sizing facilities Development planning Validate the true $ value of new wells /field in context of the integrated asset model Accurate reserves values considering back pressure effect Operational optimization through the life of the field Back pressure effect Accurate flow assurance strategy Wax, hydrates, and emulsion 9

11 North Sea example North Sea (Norwegian sector) Field A must be developed in conjunction with adjacent discovery field B Reservoir heterogeneity Gas cap 10

12 Facilities Field A 5 producers & 4 injectors Subsea tie-back to FPSO or host platform Field B 1 Producer & 1 Injector Subsea tie-back to Field A Field B is 11Km from Field A Closest Platform is 26 Km Water depth is 110m Maximum gas capacity 1.5 MSm3/d 11

13 Integrated model objectives 12

14 Integrated model results Field B -10%-13% Off reserves -21% Initial production was less than originally estimated 01/02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/2019 Field B (Host Case) Cumulative Production Field B (FPSO Case) Cumulative Production Field B (Uncoupled Eclipse Model) IAM model Oil_Rate (m3/d) Original Eclipse Oil Rate (m3/d) Field A Similar cumulative Deferred production Deferred production A1.Produced Oil Rate (m3/d) A2.Produced Oil Rate (m3/d) A3.Produced Oil Rate (m3/d) A4.Produced Oil Rate (m3/d) B Produced Oil Rate (m3/d) Field A (Host Case) Cumulative Production Field A (Uncopuled Eclipse Model) Field A (FPSO Case) Cumulative Production 13

15 Tubing head pressure B1 THP IAM Model (Bar) B1 Original Eclipse Model (Bar) Well B THP > originally thought A1 THP > originally thought Tubing head pressure dominated by the gas break through Shut one well in Field A (Hi GOR) Increased production Ms$ unnecessary drilling Impact of wells on each other and nearby field can be quantified A1 THP IAM Model (Bar) A1 Original Eclipse Model (Bar) 120 A2 THP < than originally thought A2 THP IAM Model (Bar) A2 Original Eclipse Model (Bar) A3 THP > originally thought A3 THP IAM Model (Bar) A3 Original Eclipse Model (Bar) A4 THP has a mixed picture A4 THP IAM Model (Bar) A4 Original Eclipse Model (Bar) 14

16 Subsea network pressure and temperature Junctions Pressure (bar) /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/2028 B_Manifold.Pressure (bara) Riser_Base.Pressure (bara) A_Manifold.Pressure (bara) Host.Pressure (bara) /02/2013 Junctions Temperature ( C ) 01/02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/2019 B_Manifold.Temperature (C) Riser_Base.Temperature (C) 01/02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/2026 A_Manifold.Temperature (C) Host.Temperature (C) 01/02/ /02/2028 Arrival temperature q Flow assurance strategy q Wax deposition q Hydrates 15

17 Other sensitivities FPSO +3.75% over Host Platform tie-in option 01/02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/ /02/2019 Field B (Host Case) Cumulative Production Field B (Uncoupled Eclipse Model) FPSO % over Host platform tie-in option Field B (FPSO Case) Cumulative Production Sensitivities ü Tie-in options FPSO or Host ü Tubing size 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, & 6.5 ü Pipeline diameter 12.7, 13.7, & 14.5 ü Gas constraint 1.5 Msm3/d & 2.0 Msm3/d Field A (Host Case) Cumulative Production Field A (Uncopuled Eclipse Model) Field A (FPSO Case) Cumulative Production 16

18 Summary New integration tools can integrate reservoirs, networks, surface facilities and economic models New integrated workflows is carrying integration a step forward Interdependence of wells, field, and surface facilities should be fully examined for true production potential Unnecessary drilling, wrong facilities, pipeline sizes can be avoided Flow assurance strategies enhanced with the new workflow 17