REAL TIME PRODUCTION

OPTIMIZATION AND RESERVOIR

MANAGEMENT
Dr. Luigi Saputelli
Global Advisor Real-time Production Optimization
Halliburton Landmark Graphics
Delft Stanford Workshop on
Closed Loop Reservoir Management
28-30 June, 2004

Agenda

Background
The Oilfield Challenge and Real Time Definitions
Real Time Reservoir Management
Bi-level Optimization and Closed Loop Reservoir Management
Short-term Production Performance Optimization Examples
Model Predictive Control to optimize Flow Assurance Facilities
Remote Actuated Field to Optimize Oil Production
Multi-scenario modeling and optimum smart well development

Conclusions
Industry Views on Smart Fields

The Oilfield Management Challenge

A series of long-term and short term goals that impact NPV

Wells and
Facilities
Construction

Investment
Plan
Fleet
Availability

Field
Development
Planning

Workover
Candidates

Current Performance
Field Target Rate
Current
Model

New
Data

Valid
Models
Prospects

Producing
Wells

Integrated
Reservoir
Modeling

Production
Operations

Forecast
Performance
Current
Performance

Real-time has different meanings at different levels

Time-scale
Fast
cycle

Business Headquarters

Capacity Planning Design

[months/years]

-Asset life cycle and installed based maintenance or growth

-Supply Chain Management & Market and customer demands

Operational Planning
[months/years]

-Planning of injection/production plan and resources

-Planning drilling and workover resources
-Supply Chain Management & Market and customer demands

Scheduling
[days/months]

-Scheduling of injection/production plan and resources

-Opening and closing wells or partial completions
-Adjusting well operating parameters

Supervisory Control
[minutes/hours]

-SCADA systems for coordinating flow stations and pipelines

-Gas distribution/optimization on a pipeline network
-Monitoring wellheads, multiples and flow stations

Regulatory Control
[sec/minutes]

-Flow, pressure and temperature in wells and separator

-Fuel injection to produce heat out of a boiler

Well & Surface facilities

Automation level

Slower
cycle

Problem Definition and Motivation

Injector
Injector -- Producer
Producer Profile
Profile Management
Management

Exploit efficiently multilayer horizons

Control undesired fluid production

Characterize inter-well relationship

Optimize production bottle-necks

Commingle multilayer reservoirs

Control from surface measurement

Different Business Goals

Maximize reserves vs production

Minimize short-term production costs

Maximize net present value

Models not linked among different levels

Real time analysis in early stage
Decisions made only on few pieces
Lack of Integration subsurface-surface
Poor Justification for downhole devices

h1

k1

hn

kn

Upper optimization layer passes the best operating point to lower layer

Bi-level Optimization and Closed Loop Reservoir Management

Linear
Linear Programming
Programming
Optimizer
Optimizer

Net
Net Present
Present Value
Value
Function
Function

Longer
Longer Term
Term
Reservoir
Reservoir Forecasts
Forecasts

Optimization Level
Regulatory Level

System
System
Identification
Identification

qo , sp
qw, sp

Information

Model Parameters

qo

qg , sp

qo
qw

Process
Process

qg

Case Study 1

qwinj

qoT

Producer Flowing Pressure, pwf1 u1

Producer Flowing Pressure, pwf2 u2
Injection Flowing Rate, qwinj u3

pwf

MPC
MPC
Controller
Controller

Inputs (U)

Layer 1, kh1
Layer 2, kh2

Outputs (Y)
y1
y2
y3
y4
y5
y6

Reservoir Pressure: P
Oil Rate Layer 1: qo1
Oil Rate Layer 2: qo2
Water Rate Layer 1: qw1
Water Rate Layer 2: qw2
Water Injection Rate: qwi

SPE Paper No. 84064

Decisions

Continuous self-learning optimization decision engine

Self Adaptive Reservoir Performance optimization Technique

k
qok = a0 + a1 pek + a2 pwfk + a3 ( pwf
)

qwk = b0 + b1 pek + b2 pwfk + b3 ( pwfk )

k
qgk = c0 + c1 pek + c2 pwf
+ c3 ( pwfk )

pk +1 , qk +1

Set point

Physical
Physical
Process
Process

pwfsp
qGsp

Measure

Control
Control
Implementation
Implementation

qo ,opt

QP Optimization Loop
m

ymin y k + j|k ymax ; j = [1, p ]

umin uk + j|k umax ; j = [1, m]
uk +i|k = uk + m 1|k ; i = [ m, p ]

Interpret

Model
Model
Identification
Identification

Optimize
Set point

min ( y k + j y SP ) + R uk2+ j
u
j =1
j =1

s.t.
p

Control

Reservoir
Reservoir Value
Value
Optimization
Optimization

LS Optimization Loop
Model

LP Optimization Loop
N

max NPV = f ( qo , qw , qg ,$, T )

qo , qw ,qg 1

pmin pk + p ,k pmax
s.t.
qmin qk + p qmax

{qo ,opt , q g ,opt , qw,opt

1
qok a0 a1 a2 a3 k

p
qk = b b b b ke
w 0 1 2 3 pwf
qk c c c c
g 0 1 2 3 ( pk )2
wf

= X + e
Y
-1
N
min ei2 ( X T X ) XT Y
a ,b
i =1

qo, g , w = f1 p k , p k 1 ... qTk , qTk 1 ,...

k
k 1
pres = f n p k , p k 1 ... qT , qT ,...

SPE Paper No. 84064

Predictions Using Empirical Structured Mdels

Case Study 1
SPE Paper No. 84064

Adaptation Coefficients Using Empirical models

Case Study 1
SPE Paper No. 84064

MPC minimizes future prediction error while satisfying input constraints

Model Predictive Control

At time k future predictions of the output y can be made as

y k + n + j|k =

n+ N

i = n +1

hi uk + n + j i + dk |k

dk |k = yk

where

n+ N

hu

i = n +1

i k i

Minimization Problem to solve

m

SP 2
2

m
in
y
y
R
u
)

( k + n + j |k

k + j 1| k
j =1
j =1

s .t .

=
y
y
y
j
p
"
1,
,
m in

k + n + j |k
m ax

j = 1, " , m
u m in u k + j 1| k u m ax

u
i = m ," , p 1
k + i | k = u k + m 1| k

Controls operation while optimizing performance

Done over a receding or moving horizon
Requires a setpoint from an upper level

Set Point Tracking Example

All Variables normalized so that They have zero mean and Std. Dev = 1

SPE Paper No. 84064

Best operating point (LP) problem subject to well constraints

Linear Optimization Problem

N

max NPV = f ( qo , qw , qg ,$, T )

qo ,qw ,qg 1

NPV =

k
k
k
k
( qok Po + qgk Pg qwp
(1 r k )

C
q
C
T
I
C
)
wp
wi
wi
k
T
F

(1 + i )

Down hole Flowing Pressure , psia

k =1

k Tk
365

VLP 4: fw,max +pTHP,min

Reservoir

Performan
c

pthp

e
4

pwf,max

VLP 3: fw,max +pTHP,max

VLP 2: fw,min +pTHP,min

fw

3
2

VLP 1: fw,min +pTHP,max

pwf,min
2

ql,min

ql,max

Total Liquid Rate, BPD

SPE Paper No. 84064

Attempt to solve a significant reservoir management challenges

Waterflood Management Problem Results

Experimental Base:

History-matched Model from El Furrial, HPHT, deep onshore, light oil, 2000 days

Base Case No control

Early water irruption
High water cut reduced wells
vertical lift
Further recovery possible at a
greater cost

Controlled Case
Water irruption detected and
controlled
Zone shut off permitted better wells
vertical lift
Recovery accelerated at a minimum
cost

Case Study 1
SPE Paper No. 84064

Clear benefits from extra little oil but with a lot less effort.

Field-wide life cycle comparison Results

Oil Cumulative

Oil rate

5%

Self-Learning

Np=500 Mbbls
Rev=$5 Million

Non-Controlled

Self-Learning

Non-Controlled

Water rate
Wp, Produced Water Cumulative

Wp= -18 MMbbls

Wi= -19 MMbbls

Winj, Injected Water Cumulative

on c o
W N

d
ntrolle

inj

Non-Controlled

-55%

Rev= -$92.5 Million

W p Non

lled
contro

Winj Controlled

Controlled

-78%

Wp Controlled

Case Study 1

SPE Paper No. 84064

Real Time (Short and Long Term) Production Optimization by

continuous allocation of Wells Injection and Production Rates
Oil In Place
Gas In Place
Peak Production
Current Production

~ 24,000 MMSTB
~ 45 TSCF
~ 1,400 MSTB/DAY
Oil ~ 600 MSTB/DAY
Gas ~ 7,500 MMSCF/DAY
1000+ Production Wells

Pipelines & Headers

Pad 1
HP
LP
SC
TS

Integrated Reservoir
& Facility Model

Separator Banks

High Pressure
Low Pressure

HP
Gas

NGL

LP

Slug Catcher

SC

Test Separator

TS

Chokes
Water

From the reservoir

To the sales point

Oil

Pad 2

Gas Lift
Network

Well Tubing
Strings

Central
Gas
Facility

Lean
Gas
Injection

Reservoir

The objective is to maximize NPV by modifying well reconnections, chokes and gas-lift rates from the continuous solving
of an MILP problem subject to the constraints of a full field continuously history-matched model
SPE paper No. 77643

Real Time Closed-Loop Flow Assurance Facilities

Topside
Export Gas
Compressor

Power Plant
p

Original

Injector

Producer

Separators

setpoint

$$$
Optimal

setpoint

Product Specification

Distillation
Columns

Poor Control
( without APC)

Better Control
( with APC)

Optimized

Condensate

Methanol injected in subsea wells, and recovered in the aqueous phase.

Advanced Process Control used to continuously monitor, stabilize and
control the transient behavior of the platform

setpoint

Monitoring and Control of both subsurface and surface

sensors and valves

Downhole and Surface sensors and Control Vales

For Smart Well completion and Dynamic Gas Lift Optimization

200 bpd gain (+40%) when optimizer is on

South Furious, Satellite Oil Development in Offshore Malaysia

Remote
Terminal
Unit

Link

Database
Server

FTHP

FTHT

Control
Algorithms

QGP

FLP

GLP
GLR

SP

CHP

Gas
Flow

QOP

Adjustable
Choke

Gas Lift
Compression

Gas Lift
Choke

Oil Flow

Production
Manifold

QWP

Water Flow

Gas Lift
Manifold
Downhole
Internal
Control
Valves

OTC paper
No. 16162

Overview of DMS framework for uncertainty and optimization

workflows

Analyze Results

Subsurface geologic

Relational data
table

realizations

Integrated
Scenario and
Stochastic analysis
driven by Case
Rules:

Well facility

configurations

Dynamic

Monte Carlo
Sensitivity
Experimental Design
Sampling

properties

Drainage strategies
and schedules
Facility alternatives

Execute
economics

Execute flow
simulator

Optimization
flow and surface
simulator models

Fiscal model

Cycle reduction 10:1

Reduced uncertainty Analysis
Value of Information
Value Option Analysis

Summary & Conclusions

Real-time production optimization and reservoir management
multilevel framework
Continuous field measurement and automatic model tuning maintain up-todate field behavior predictors
Upper level calculates the (long-term) optimum operating point, based on NPV
and subject to constraints
Optimum set point is passed to underlying control level

Feasibility of the method demonstrated through case studies and

case histories
Reservoir and surface facilities performance continuously optimized by an
adaptive self-learning decision engine
Method capitalizes on available real time data and remotely actuated devices
Multi-scenario modeling helped identify life-of-field optimum plan for Smart
Wells
Fully justifiable and viable projects; Investment recovered in less than 6
months

Algorithm feasible for field implementation

Impart intelligent to downhole and surface actuation devices
Delivered the digital smartness to the oilfield, today!

Real Time Production Optimization (x-Fields) - Industry View

CERA Definition on digital oil field of the future
The digital oil field of the future (DOFF) uses full asset awareness to
continuously optimize asset performance in real-time or near real-time to
maximize profitability.
Monitor all aspects (SS), remotely, linked to experts and better modeling.

SPE TIG on Real Time Optimization

Process of Measure-Calculate-Control cycle at a frequency, which
maintains the systems optimal operating conditions within the timeconstant constraints of the system

Technology
Technology

Training
Cultural
Change Management
Other People Issues

People
People

Measuring
Telemetry
Data
Analysis
Visualization
Control & Optimization
Integration

Process
Process

Business Mission
Integration
Collaboration
Other Process Issues

CERA and SPE Paper No. 83978 / 90213

Real Time Systems: Classification and Assessment (SPE-90213)

Project Complexity
After

Project 1

Measuring
3
2

Telemetry

1
0
Control System &
Actuation

Data

Cum. Dist. Function

1
Integration & Automation
for Optimization

Before

After

0.8

p-10 = 44.8
p-50 = 90.6
p-90 = 129.6

0.6
0.4

0.9

0.2
0
0

50
100
NPV, MM$

150

200

Analysis

Project 2

Measuring
3
2

Telemetry

1
0
Control System &
actuation

Data

Cum. Dist. Function

1
Integration & Automation
for Optimization

1.0

14. - NPV Cum. Distribution Function

-50
Visualization

Project Benchmark

14. - NPV Cum. Distribution Function

0.8

p-10 = 44.8
p-50 = 90.6
p-90 = 129.6

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-50

Visualization

Analysis

50
100
NPV, MM$

150

200

Complexity of Solution X Magnitude of Deployment

Before

Project Value

Circles radial = Value Created for the Pilot Implementation

Slotted Circles Radial = Further Implementation Forecasted Value
Arrow = Project Direction

0.8

0.7

0.6
1
4

0.5

0.4

0.3

5
0.2

Integration & Automation

for Optimization

Project 3

Measuring
3

1
2

Telemetry

1
0
Control System &
Actuation

Data

14. - NPV Cum. Distribution Function

0.8
0.6
0.4

0.1

Analysis

Integration & Automation

for Optimization

Measuring
3

50
100
NPV, MM$

150

200

Telemetry

1
0
Control System &
Actuation

Visualization

Data

Analysis

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Legend

Project Complexity Adoption Value

Project n
Cum. Dist. Function

After

0.2

Organizational/Enterprise Adoption (People, Process, Ownership)

Before

0.2
-50

Visualization

0.1

p-10 = 44.8
p-50 = 90.6
p-90 = 129.6

14. - NPV Cum. Distribution Function

0.8

p-10 = 44.8
p-50 = 90.6
p-90 = 129.6

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-50

50
100
NPV, MM$

150

200

Low

Low

Low

Comments
Initial Pilot with proven value

1'

Low

Low

1''

Medium

High

High

Full deployement with large value and large complexity

Medium

Low

Low

Initial Pilot with proven value and medium complexity

2'

Medium

Low

3'

Medium

Medium Increased adoption with increased complexity will increase value

Medium Medium Increased value with increased adoption without more complexity
Medium

Low

Initial Pilot with proven value and low complexity

Medium Medium Increased value with increased complexity without more adoption

High

Low

4'

Medium

Low

Medium Initial Pilot with proven high value high complexity and low adoption
Low

Project downsized to reduce complexity and value reduced

Low

High

High

High value project fully deployed and low complexity. No further grow

Medium

Low

Low

Low value initial pilot with medium complexity. Project abandoned.

SPE Paper No. 90213

After

Cum. Dist. Function

Before

Thank you