Report

AES/PE/09-13 Title: History matching of the Fensfjord
reservoir and optimization of the Integrated

Production Model for the Brage field, Norway.
Date :16/07/2009 Student name: Walter Serafini
1/77
Title : History matching of the Fensfjord reservoir and optimization of the
Integrated Production Model for the Brage field, Norway.
Author(s) : Walter Serafini
Date : July 2009

Professor(s) : Jan Dirk Jansen
William Rossen
Supervisor(s) : Odd Anders Olsen
Jan Dirk Jansen
TA Report number : AES/PE/09-13
Postal Address : Section for Petroleum Engineering

Department of Applied Earth Sciences
Delft University of Technology
P.O. Box 5028
The Netherlands
Telephone : (31) 15 2781328 (secretary)
Telefax : (31) 15 2781189
Copyright ©2008 Section for Petroleum Engineering
All rights reserved.

No parts of this publication may be reproduced,
Stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
In any form or by any means, electronic,
Mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
Without the prior written permission of the
Section for Petroleum Engineering
2/77
Abstract
With the advent of smart fields new tools for monitoring and field management were
needed. Integrated asset modelling allows improving the understanding of the field’s
performance and production network, fluid flow behaviour and optimization at any stage and
level during the life of the field. This approach enables the optimization of production by
adjusting control parameters taking into account surface facilities constraints and the
interactions between surface and subsurface systems.
Using material balance modelling as a tool for history matching, the Fensfjord
reservoir showed that the North and West tanks are behaving as separate compartments. There
is some communication between the South and Central tanks and that the aquifer is giving
some support to the North and South but not to the Central tank.
In this work, given the design of the integrated model and the hierarchical structure of
the software it is best to define the objective function, control variables and constraints within
each application which has its own optimizer.
The impact of scenarios with respect to the total system can be modelled. This brings
valuable information on whether in fact the new scenario can be handled by the current
surface facilities or if an upgrade is needed and how cost effective it will be. Furthermore, the
premise that optimal gas lift rate allocation can bring significant changes in production when
gas processing is constrained by surface facilities was verified, yielding an increase in 4.2 %
of cumulative production over a period of 3 years.
3/77
Index
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Index ........................................................................................................................................... 4
List of figures.............................................................................................................................. 5
List of tables ............................................................................................................................... 6
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7
2 Objectives........................................................................................................................... 7
3 Background ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Brief Field History and Location ............................................................................... 8
3.2 Regional geology........................................................................................................ 9
3.2.1 Local Fensfjord Geology.................................................................................. 11
4 Procedure and Results ..................................................................................................... 12
4.1 MBAL model update................................................................................................ 12
4.1.1 STOIIP estimation............................................................................................ 15
4.2 History matching ...................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1.1 Model A ........................................................................................................ 21
4.2.1.2 Model B ........................................................................................................ 24
4.2.1.3 Model C ........................................................................................................ 26
4.3 Well and surface network model validation for the Brage field. ............................. 30
4.4 Production optimization ........................................................................................... 31
4.4.1 RESOLVE Model Overview............................................................................ 31
4.4.2 Optimizers Comparison.................................................................................... 35
4.4.3 Constraints, control variables and objective function ...................................... 37
4.4.4 Optimization Results ........................................................................................ 37
4.4.5 Case Studies ..................................................................................................... 40
4.4.5.1 New Drilling Targets.................................................................................... 40
4.4.5.2 Gas economics.............................................................................................. 42
4.4.5.3 Water Injection ............................................................................................. 47
5 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 50
6 Recommendations............................................................................................................. 51
7 References ........................................................................................................................ 52
8 Appendix........................................................................................................................... 55
8.1 Material Balance ...................................................................................................... 55
8.1.1 Theory and Tank model assumptions............................................................... 55
8.1.2 Material Balance Equations for an Oil reservoir.............................................. 56
8.1.3 Aquifer Models ................................................................................................ 59
8.2 History Matching...................................................................................................... 63
8.2.1 Nonlinear Regression ....................................................................................... 64
8.3 Nodal analysis .......................................................................................................... 65
8.4 Integrated Production Modelling ............................................................................. 66
8.4.1 RESOLVE - Software Overview ..................................................................... 68
8.5 Production Optimization .......................................................................................... 70
8.5.1 GAP and RESOLVE optimization – Software overview................................. 71
Sequential Linear Programming............................................................................... 72
8.5.2.................................................................................................................................. 72
8.5.3 Brage – Status Overview.................................................................................. 74
4/77
List of figures
Figure 1: Location of the Brage field. (Taken from the internal report Geology of the Brage
field, 2008) ................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2: Cross Section along the Brage Field. (Taken from the internal report Geology of the
Brage field, 2008)....................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Map with the four main reservoir units of the Brage Field. (Taken from the internal
report Geology of the Brage field, 2008) ................................................................................. 10
Figure 4: Stratigraphy of the Fensfjord formation (Taken from the internal report Geology of
the Brage field, 2008)............................................................................................................... 11
Figure 5: Old and new MBAL model on top and bottom, respectively................................... 13
Figure 6: Fensfjord structural map showing the new fault interpretations, its transmissibilities
and well location. Four main tanks were observed; Central (green), West (Red), North (Blue)
and South (Purple). (Taken from the document “Various Fensfjord maps” by Anders Torp,
October, 2007).......................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 7: Map of the Fensfjord reservoir with fine segments. (Taken from the internal report,
Remaining mobile oil at Brage, 2009 by Anders Torp) ........................................................... 15
Figure 8: History match results for the different models for the South Tank .......................... 18
Figure 9: History match results for the different models for the NorthTank ........................... 19
Figure 10: History match results for the different models for the Central Tank...................... 19
Figure 11: History match results for the different models for the West Tank ......................... 20
Figure 12: Model A, which includes a connection between the South and West tank and a
single tank on the right side for pressure support..................................................................... 21
Figure 13: Model B, which includes a connection between the North and West tank and two
aquifers (North 2 and Central 2) with a connection between them on the East side for pressure
support...................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 14: Model C, where the aquifer within the Central tank was removed and 5% of the
cumulative injected water was subtracted from all the injectors. ............................................ 27
Figure 15: Model C flow pattern between tanks. ..................................................................... 30
Figure 16: Integrated Asset Model........................................................................................... 33
Figure 17: Production Model. .................................................................................................. 33
Figure 18: Water Injection Model ............................................................................................ 34
Figure 19: Gas Injection Model ............................................................................................... 34
Figure 20: Oil rate comparison................................................................................................. 36
Figure 21: Gas Lift Usage comparison .................................................................................... 36
Figure 22: Cumulative production for the Brage field ............................................................. 38
Figure 23: Gas Lift usage for the Brage field........................................................................... 38
Figure 24: Results for Well A-20 with and without optimization............................................ 39
Figure 25: Results for Well A-09 with and without optimization............................................ 40
Figure 26: Drilling case study NPV comparison ..................................................................... 42
Figure 27: Gas Case Study NPV Comparison ......................................................................... 43
Figure 28: Effect of water injection in the Sognefjord reservoir for the Brage field. .............. 44
Figure 29: Example of unstable injection rate the whole field ................................................ 45
Figure 30: Example of unstable injection rate for well A-21................................................... 45
Figure 31: Time step stability comparison............................................................................... 46
Figure 32: Long term NPV comparison for the Brage field. ................................................... 47
Figure 33: NPV calculation for the water injection study case for the Brage field. ................ 48
Figure 34: cumulative oil production for the Bowmore reservoir. .......................................... 49
Figure 35: Plot of Rs Vs Reservoir pressure indicating that bubble point could be reached... 49
Figure 36: Tank Model. (Taken and modified from the Petroleum Experts Manual, 2007) ... 56
5/77
Figure 37: Sketch of the reservoir-aquifer system with encroachment angle. (Taken and
modified from Dake,1978) ....................................................................................................... 61
Figure 38: Pressure decline approximation. ............................................................................. 62
Figure 39: Sketch of an Integrated Asset Model...................................................................... 67
Figure 40: Time step synchronization. Taken and modified from the Resolve’s user manual.69
List of tables
Table 1: STOIIP values per tank. ............................................................................................. 16
Table 2: Regression results for Model A for the transmissibilities.......................................... 22
Table 3: Regression results for Model A for the different tank parameters............................. 23
Table 4: Regression and manual fitting results for Model B for the different tank
transmissibilities....................................................................................................................... 25
Table 5: Regression and manual fitting results for Model B for the different tank parameters.
.................................................................................................................................................. 26
Table 6: Regression and manual fitting results from Model C for the different tank
transmissibilities....................................................................................................................... 28
Table 7: Regression and manual fitting results from Model C for the different tank parameters
.................................................................................................................................................. 29
Table 8: Well and surface network model validation for the Brage field. ............................... 31
6/77
1 Introduction
The need for integrated modelling of oil and gas fields was recognized during the
seventies. This was mainly because oil companies found out that in order to have an efficient
field management they must have tools that can provide a better understanding of the
interactions between subsurface and surface systems. However, it is in the last 15 years that
oil and gas companies have reorganized their corporate structures into interdisciplinary asset
teams and only a decade ago when such required integrated tools became available in order to
facilitate field management.
The integrated modelling approach enables the optimization of field production by
adjusting control parameters taking into account surface facilities constraints and the
interactions between the elements that comprise the integrated asset model.
As in some mature oilfields, such as the case for Brage, oil production is assisted by lift-
gas injection and may be constrained by surface facilities capabilities. In this work we will
address the problem of maximizing field production by the selection of optimal gas lift rates
and choke settings for producing wells with a gradient-based non linear optimizer.
Furthermore several cases of interest which involve new well targets, economical viability of
gas injection and the outcome from water injection will be addressed and analyzed in terms of
their net present value (NPV).
2 Objectives
1. History match the Fensfjord reservoir as a multitank model. Split the reservoir in
different compartments based on seismic fault interpretation maps and pressure data.
2. Develop an Integrated Asset Model (RESOLVE) for the Brage field containing
reservoirs (MBAL), network (GAP), topside and economics (EXCEL).
3. Maximize the short term (three years) field production using the RESOLVE software
with a focus on gas economics, water injection, new well targets and topside
constraints.
7/77
3 Background
3.1 Brief Field History and Location

Brage is a medium-sized oil field operated by StatoilHydro, which has been developed
using an integrated production/drilling/accommodation platform in 137 meters of water. It’s
located in the west-central part of Block 31/4, between the Oseberg and Troll Fields (Figure
1).
The field started production in December 1993 and produces hydrocarbons from four
separate reservoirs: Statfjord, Fensfjord, Sognefjord and Brent. Current production is around
30.000 bopd. The Brage field is in the decline phase, but still has significant upside. The main
upside is within increased recovery from the Fensfjord formation, new discoveries on the
Brent plus the development of the Brage North area.
Figure 1: Location of the Brage field. (Taken from the internal report Geology of the Brage field, 2008)
8/77
3.2 Regional geology
The Brage field has a classic rotated fault block geometry, defined by a down to the
West, large displacement, NNE-SSW trending extensional fault system along its Western
margin and a long, gently easterly tilted dipslope along its Eastern margin (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Cross Section along the Brage Field. (Taken from the internal report Geology of the Brage field,
2008)
The field formed during the Middle to Late Jurassic extensional episode, and can be
regarded as occupying a transitional setting between the moderately extended Horda Platform
in the East and the deeply buried Viking graben in the West. According to Hage et al (1987)
and Dreyer (1993), four main reservoirs units are present in the field:
• Fluvio-Deltaic deposits of the Lower Jurassic Statfjord Formation, forming the main
reservoir interval in the narrow Brage Horst.
• Mid-Late Callovian to Early Oxfordian shoreface-shelfal deposits of the Fensfjord
formation forming the main reservoir interval east of the Brage Horst.
• Shelfal-shoreface deposits of the Upper Jurassic Sognefjord Formation, forming a
minor reservoir interval present only in the north-eastern part of the field
9/77
• The Brent Group (Middle Jurassic) is generally absent or extremely thin in the Brage
Horst, represented by a 5-10m thick interval of Early Bathonian offshore-onshore
transition heterolithic facies of the Tarbert formation (Sharp, 1999).
On Figure 3 a map of the Brage Field is shown with the four reservoir units:
Sognefjord
Fensfjord
Brent
Statfjord
Figure 3: Map with the four main reservoir units of the Brage Field. (Taken from the internal report
Geology of the Brage field, 2008)
10/77
3.2.1 Local Fensfjord Geology
The Fensfjord Formation comprises a stacked series of silt to fine grained sands with
high amounts of glauconite, bioturbation and calcite cemented stringers. The sequence is
interpreted as a shoreface, back barrier and inner shelf depositional environment (Geology of
the Brage field Internal report, 2008). It has a maximum gross thickness of 300 m and
porosities from 25 to 30%. Only a portion of the hydrocarbons of the whole field is
accommodated in the Fensfjord formation, but this formation contains the bulk of the
underlying aquifer (Wijngaarden. 2007).
In Figure 4 the stratigraphy of the formation is shown:
Intra-Rift
Upper Fensfjord source
Middel Fensfjord
Rift marginal
source
Lower Fensfjord
Figure 4: Stratigraphy of the Fensfjord formation (Taken from the internal report Geology of the Brage
field, 2008)
11/77
4 Procedure and Results
4.1 MBAL model update
In this step the MBAL model was updated and refined by means of analysing the
structural maps generated from up to date seismic interpretations, pressure measurements
from well tests and PLT / RFT logs. In Figure 5 the old model is shown in contrast with the
new model with its modifications regarding the well placements within their specific
compartment.
The field can be subdivided into four main compartments as the previous model
(North, West, Central and South), since no major structural changes were observed from the
current seismic interpretation. In Figure 6 one can see the seismic interpretation with some
information regarding the sealing nature of the faults (For further information about material
balance modelling please refer to section 8.1 in the appendix)
The changes made were the following:
• Well relocations of A-27, A2 Q1k, A-30 A to the west tank. These relocations are
supported by PLT, RFT measurements and seismic.
• Well relocations of A-17A and A-17 AT2 is supported by seismic and RFT
measurements.
• A-21 may have a connection to the north tank. This production relocation is supported
by different pressure measurements (RFT) along the well in the different tanks.
• Production relocation for A-19 to the West tank since different pressure measurements
(RFT) indicates fault is partially sealing.
• Well tests from wells neighbouring well A-12 support the theory of no communication
between the West and the South Tank.
12/77
Figure 5: Old and new MBAL model on top and bottom, respectively.
13/77
A-22T4A-37A 3A-20T4
(Sogn)
A-17AT2 A-14 A-16T2

A-19
A-32T2 A-40
A-21 A-17BY3
A-28T7
A-30B A-39
A-5K A-36
A-34 A-27 5
A-30A A-15 A-18
A-11 A-38
A-23B
A-23
A-1K
9
A-25 iOWC
A-26
A-12A A-35 (2149m TVDMSL)
A-2K = Sealed fault
6
A-33DT2 = T.Mult = 0.001
A-13T2
= T.Mult = 0.01
A-33AT2 = T.Mult = 0.1

All other faults are open
Figure 6: Fensfjord structural map showing the new fault interpretations, its transmissibilities and well
location. Four main tanks were observed; Central (green), West (Red), North (Blue) and South (Purple).
(Taken from the document “Various Fensfjord maps” by Anders Torp, October, 2007)
14/77
4.1.1 STOIIP estimation
The STOIIP estimation per tank was done by means of the map shown in Figure 7.
1
2
4 3
A-
22 6 A-20T4 5
8 T4
A- 7 A-14
9 19 30
32
A- 31 A-16T2
A-17AT2
A- 21
30 10 A- A-40 27
29
B/ 39 A-28T7
C A-17BY3
A-
11 A-5K 26
36 25
A- A-A- A- 28
12 30 2738 A-18
15
A- A
34 A- 24
13 23 A-23
A-1K
22B
21
A-
12 A- A-26
15 A A-25 35
23
A-2K 14 A- 20
33 A-13T2
D iFWL
T2 A- 19 (2147m TVDMSL)
16 33
A
T2 Red wells : current producers
Blue wells : current injectors
17 Black wells : shut
Green wells : exploration
18
Figure 7: Map of the Fensfjord reservoir with fine segments. (Taken from the internal report, Remaining
mobile oil at Brage, 2009 by Anders Torp)
15/77
The criteria for the subdivision of the Fensfjord reservoir shown in Figure 7 were
rather subjective but guided by:
• Faults
• Distance to wells
• Structural closures
This map was compared to the one on Figure 6 and determined which number of
segments contributed overall to the West, North, Central and South tanks. The STOIIP was
determined per tank as a percentage of the total as shown on Table 1:
West STOIIP [Sm3] Central STOIIP [Sm3]

17 706.302 11 2.935.118
19 798.081 13/2 1.256.734
20 900.999 10 2.790.183
21 2.020.400 9 4.808
22 3.428.519 8 297.116
23 2.800.585 7 450.593
24 2.479.261 3 26.310.049
25 1.309.877 6 4.353.157
26 759.310 5 1.707.562
Sum 15.203.334 Sum 40.105.320
South STOIIP [Sm3] North STOIIP [Sm3]

16 59.166 1 5.085.217
15 1.540.634 2 3.627.151
14 804 30 2.224.711
13/2 1.256.734 29 892.616
12 2.190.524 4 3.275.665
18 1.424.641 27 816.971
Sum 6.472.503 28 1.788.612
Sum 17.710.943
STOIIP [Sm3] % of total

South 6.472.503 8,1
West 15.203.334 19,1
North 17.710.943 22,3
Central 40.105.320 50,5
Total 79.492.099 100
Table 1: STOIIP values per tank.
These values of STOIIP were later used as input for each tank for the history matching
process as original oil in place.
16/77
4.2 History matching
Once the model was updated with the most recent production and geologic data it was
necessary to estimate the reservoir pressure history for each tank.
This pressure history was obtained by computing the arithmetic average from the
pressures given by each well. This average consists on shut in tests performed on the wells
and soft sensing of all the wells (when sufficient data were available) that are producing from
that particular tank.
When soft sensing was performed the procedure followed was:
1. Match the well model to the well test.

2. If bottomhole pressure is available:
a. Estimate the reservoir pressure by adjusting the PI and make sure that the liquid
flowrate and bottomhole pressure are matched within 1% difference.
3. If bottomhole pressure is not available:
a. Estimate the reservoir pressure by first calculating the bottom hole pressure using
correlations and later adjust the PI and make sure that the liquid flowrate and
bottomhole pressure are matched within 1% difference.
After this, non linear regression was performed per tank (when possible) on the most
uncertain parameters that define it. Some of the parameters were excluded from the regression
process since some a priori geological knowledge was available (e.g. Fault transmissibilities,
STOIIP, porosity, etc).
During this regression process the model was modified as one gained more insight on
how the reservoir behaved in order to match the pressure history.
When the model was history matched a simulation was performed in order to verify
the quality of the match. In essence with this step what is done is to use the mass balance
equations with the simulated flowrates and back calculate the pressures for each tank. If the
model was properly history matched then the difference between the simulated and measured
pressure should be small (for more information about non-linear regression and history
matching please refer to sections 8.2 and 8.2.1 in the appendix).
Three different models were created which will be referred to as Model A, Model B
and Model C. These models were the result of previous geological knowledge. However,
17/77
some degree of trial and error was required since little information about the aquifers and tank
connectivity was known.
Models A and B reflect the geological uncertainties regarding aquifer support and size
and connectivity between tanks. Model C, in addition of taking geological uncertainties into
consideration it also takes into account the uncertainty attributed to the injected water
volumes to maintain reservoir pressure. In Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11
simulation results are shown per tank along with its respective modifications from the new
MBAL model (Figure 5).
By observing this charts one can see that Model C is the one that is able to represent
more accurately the reservoir pressure history per tank, especially at the late stage. Below a
more detailed discussion per model is done.
Figure 8: History match results for the different models for the South Tank
18/77
Figure 9: History match results for the different models for the NorthTank
Figure 10: History match results for the different models for the Central Tank
19/77
Figure 11: History match results for the different models for the West Tank
20/77
4.2.1.1 Model A
This model includes a connection between the South and West tank and with a single
aquifer tank on the East side for pressure support (both encircled in red in Figure 12). The
aquifer models within the Central and South Tank are represented by the radial aquifer model
from Hurst-van Everdingen-Modified. For simplification in the following sections
transmissibilities between tanks will be referred with a capital letter T followed by a number.
For example, Trans01 is equivalent to T 01
Figure 12: Model A, which includes a connection between the South and West tank and a single tank on
the right side for pressure support
Values on transmissibilities are presented on Table 2 and other regressed parameters for
each tank on Table 3, respectively. It is important to bring to attention that parameters such as
OIIP, permeability, reservoir thickness and porosity for the South and Central tank were not
allowed to iterate during the regression as they tend to grow out of proportion giving
unrealistic geological results.
Analysing the results from the transmissibilities on Table 2 one can infer that in order to
history match the data, the regressions indicate that there is no communication of the West
tank with the rest. Being the fault between them sealing.
In general the Tank 01 is not giving support to the reservoir even with the aid of
injectors, this may be indicative that the injected water is perhaps going somewhere else.
21/77
However, the value of T 09 indicates that there is communication between the North and
Tank 01 (aquifer).
Furthermore the values of T 02 indicate that there is communication between the South
and Central tank which corresponds to the fault interpretation map (Figure 6) in which some
of the faults are partially sealing. T 11 shows no communication between the South and Tank
01 (aquifer). However, Figure 6 suggests that there should be communication between them.
The value of T 01 indicates that there is almost no communication between the North and
Central tank which also corresponds to the fault interpretation map.
Tanks
West North South Central
Parameter Before After Before After Before After Before After
T 01
0.1 3 3 1.68 - - 1.68 2.76
(m3/day * mPa.s/bar)
T 02
2 34.5 - - 34.25 24.5 24.5 30.83
T03
0.1 2.40E-10 - - 2.49E-10 1.11E-07 1.11E-07 1.10E-12
T 04
- - - - - - - -
T 05
- - - - - - - -
T 06
- - - - - - - -
T 07
- - - - - - - -
T 08
2 1.62 - - 1.64 2.84E-12 - -
T 09
- - 5 643 - - - -
T 10
- - 5 4.50E-10 4.52E-10 2.24E-77 2.42E-77 3.02E-35
T 11
- - - - 1 1.94E-09 1.94E-09 -
Table 2: Regression results for Model A for the transmissibilities.
22/77
Tanks
Parameter Before After Before After Before After Before After
Standard Deviation - 322,98 - 302,84 - 375,17 - 305,7
OIIP (Ksm3) 15203 5120 17710 11739 6472 - 40105 -
Initial Water Volume

- - 1,00E+09 272278 272278 237044 237044 -
in place (Tank 01-Ksm3)
South Outer/Inner Radius - - - - 2,5 1,55 - -
South
- - - - 2000 1125 - -
Reservoir Radius (m)
South
- - - - 180 117 - -
Encroachment Angle (deg)
South
- - - - - - - -
Reservoir Thickness (m)
South - Porosity - - - - - - - -
South
- - - - - - - -
Aquifer permeability (mD)
Central Outer/Inner Radius - - - - - - 10 1,29
Central
- - - - - - 500 406
Central
- - - - - - 180 345
Encroachment Angle (deg)
Central
- - - - - - - -
Central - Porosity - - - - - - - -
Central
- - - - - - - -
Table 3: Regression results for Model A for the different tank parameters.
From the results of the simulation one can see that for the Central, South and North
tanks the pressures are being overestimated by the model whereas in the West tank the model
is able to reproduce the pressure decline with a minor underestimated part at the end of the
simulation. It was found that the single aquifer (Tank 01) was over pressuring the rest of the
tanks due to the injectors. In order to bleed off this overpressure a sink tank was added to the
23/77
aquifer with a one way transmissibility (from the aquifer to the sink tank). However, this
approach did not show any improvements on the simulated results.
4.2.1.2 Model B
In this model (Figure 13) a connection between the North and the West tank and the
two aquifers (North 2 and Central 2) were added (encircled in red). Another significant
change was the inclusion of an aquifer (Small pot model, encircled in blue) within the North
Tank. The aquifer models used in the Central and South tanks were Hurst- van Everdingen
Modified (Radial Aquifer) and Hurst-van Everdingen-Odeh (Radial Aquifer), respectively.
Figure 13: Model B, which includes a connection between the North and West tank and two aquifers
(North 2 and Central 2) with a connection between them on the East side for pressure support
Values on transmissibilities are presented on

Table 4 and other regressed parameters for each tank on
Table 6, respectively. It is important to bring to attention there was no regression performed
on the Central and South tank. Manual fitting was performed since the software did not
converge into a solution with the defined model.
24/77
Tanks
Parameter Before After Before After Manual fit Manual fit
T 01
0.1 3 0.1 2.57E-11 - 2.57E-11
T 02
2 34.5 - - 34.25 34.25
T03
0.1 2.40E-10 - - - 2.49E-10
T 04
- 4 7.36E-11 - 7.36E-11
T 05
- 6.5 0.023 - -
T 06
- - - 0.6 -
T 07
- 2 1.71E-09 - 1.71E-09
T 08
2 1.62 - - 1.62 -
T 09
- - 1 5.14E-11 - -
Table 4: Regression and manual fitting results for Model B for the different tank transmissibilities.
Analysing the results from

Table 4 one can conclude that the low transmissibilities on the east flank (T 04, T 05
and T 06) indicate that the aquifer is not giving the appropriate support to the reservoir. There
is no communication between the West tank and the rest of the tanks (T 03, T 08 and T09),
indicating that the fault on the seismic interpretation is indeed sealing. There is some
communication between the Central and the South tank as evidenced by the value of T 02.
Furthermore there is no communication between the North tank and the rest of the tanks as
evidenced from the values of T 09, T 01 and T 05 which correspond to some extent with the
sealing nature of the fault which separates the North from the Central Tank.
OIIP on the West tank decreased almost 2/3 of its original value (from 15203 to 5120
Ksm3) while the North tank increased by almost 1650 Ksm3 (from 17710 to 19345 Ksm3).
As mentioned before there was no regression performed on the Central and South tanks and as
a result all the parameters were manually fitted.
25/78
Tanks
Parameter Before After Before After Manual fit Manual fit
- -
Standard Deviation - 322.98 - 336.82
OIIP (Ksm3) 15203 5120 17710 19354 6472 40105
North Porosity - - 0.2 - - -
North Aquifer Volume

- - 1.70E+07 2.31E+08 - -
(Mm3)
South Outer/Inner
- - - - 5 -
Radius
South
Aquifer Constant - - - - 2.306 -
(m3/bar)
South
- - - - 0.01 -
tD Constant
Central Outer/Inner
- - - - - 1.1
Radius
Central
- - - - - 2000
Central
Encroachment Angle - - - - - 180
(deg)
Central
- - - - - 50
Central - Porosity - - - - - 0.2
Central
Aquifer permeability - - - - - 100
(mD)
Table 6: Regression and manual fitting results for Model B for the different tank parameters.
Comparing the simulation results to Model A one can appreciate a much better trend.
In model B, even though the pressure for the Central is somewhat overestimated and for the
South tank the pressure is underestimated, the overall pressure trend for both tanks is there.
An important result of Model B is the addition of an aquifer to the North tank which helped to
match the pressure decline that particular tank was experiencing.
4.2.1.3 Model C
In this model the aquifer within the Central tank was removed (encircled in red in
Figure 14) and 5 % of the cumulative water injection was removed from every injector in the
whole model. This is due to the fact that there were some models experiencing over
26/78
pressuring of the reservoirs. The aquifer model used in the North tank was Small pot and in
the South tank was Hurst- van Everdingen Modified (Radial Aquifer).
Figure 14: Model C, where the aquifer within the Central tank was removed and 5% of the cumulative
injected water was subtracted from all the injectors.
Values of transmissibilities are presented on

Table 8 and other regressed parameters for each tank on Table 9, respectively. There
was no regression performed on the North and South tanks. Manual fitting was performed
since the software did not converge into a solution with the defined model.
Analysing the results from Table 5 one can conclude that the values for the
transmissibilities of T03, T08 and T09 indicate that there is no communication between the
West and rest of the tanks. This tank is behaving as a separate compartment being the fault
that separates the West from the rest of the tanks sealing.
For the North tank one can see that there is no communication between the West and
Central tanks (T01 and T09) however, there is some communication with the North2 tank
evidenced from the value of T05. This result indicates that the injectors on the East flank are
in fact giving some support to the North Tank.
27/77
Tanks
Parameter Before After Manual Fit Manual Fit Before After
T 01
- - 0.1 - 0.034 0.93
T 02
- - - 3.315 2.00 3.315
T03
0.1 0.034 - - 0.03 0.01
T 04
- - - - 4.00 3.68E-12
T 05
- - 6.5 - - -
T 06
- - - 5 - -
T 07
- - - 2.60E+07 2.00 3.50E+05
T 08
2 3.82E-11 - 3.82E-11 - -
T 09
1 1.42E-11 1.42E-11 - - -
Table 8: Regression and manual fitting results from Model C for the different tank transmissibilities
From the values of T03, T01 and T04 one can conclude that there is no
communication between the Central tank with the West, North and Central 2 tanks. However
T02 value suggests that there is communication between the South and the Central tanks. This
matches with the sealing nature of the faults displayed in Figure 6. Furthermore, the value of
T06 suggests that there is some communication between Central2 and the South tanks.
If we analyse the results from Table 9, one can see that there has been a significant
reduction of the OIIP for both the West (from 15203 to 5513 Ksm3) and Central tanks (from
40105 to 13959.8 Ksm3) which means an overall drop of 45 % of the original oil in place
shown in Table 1. This can be attributed to the heterogeneities of the reservoir which are lost
given the assumptions of the tank model, meaning that in order to match the history a
significant amount of oil is left behind and is not contributing to the pressure-production
history
28/77
Tanks
Parameter Before After Manual Fit Manual Fit Before After
Standard Deviation - 383.4 - - - 325.34
OIIP (Ksm3) 15203 5513 17710 6472 40105 13959.8
North Porosity - - 0.2 - - -
North Aquifer Volume

- - 3.00E+02 - - -
(Mm3)
South Outer/Inner Radius - - - 2.5 - -
South
- - - 2000 - -
South
Encroachment Angle - - - 180 - -
(deg)
South
- - - 50 - -
South - Porosity - - - 0.2 - -
South
- - - 100 - -
Table 9: Regression and manual fitting results from Model C for the different tank parameters
Comparing the results of the simulation to models A and B one can appreciate a better
trend of the pressure history, especially for the South and Central tanks in Model C. An
important result for this model is that the overpressure in Model A affecting the rest of the
tanks was removed and better match for the late stage of the history for the South and Central
tanks was achieved.
Overall, the flow pattern of Model C is shown in Figure 15. The North and West tanks
are behaving as separate compartments. There is some communication between the South and
Central tanks and the aquifer is giving some support to the North and South but not to the
Central tank. This flow pattern partially agrees with the results from the Senergy Report,
2007. Main differences are the major direction of flow from North-East towards South-West
and flow from the North towards the Centre. Furthermore, flow patterns within tanks cannot
be established due to the tank model assumption limitations and hence no comparison can be
made.
29/77
Figure 15: Model C flow pattern between tanks.
4.3 Well and surface network model validation for the Brage field.
After the history match was done, a validation of our model from the sand face up to the
surface facilities was performed in order to check whether in fact our model is representing
what is being observed at surface. For this, the simulated production of every producing well
was compared to the most recent well test. Any discrepancy in water cut and gas-oil ratio
(GOR) was resolved by adjusting the fractional flow curves for both phases. With this we
ensure that a proper evolution of GOR and water cut with time will be represented in the
forecast. The liquid rate was fine tuned by making minor adjustments to the productivity
index (PI) or the reservoir pressure. In Table 10 we can see the results of the comparison.
From this table one can conclude that the model is representing the reality of the production
system since the differences between the model and the well tests, with exception of well A-
01, are fairly small.
The difference in A-01 is due to the history matching of the Knockando reservoir. A
rapid increase in water cut for the producer combined with very poor pressure support gives a
30/77
model with an overestimation of the reservoir pressure of more than 20 bars and hence the
significant difference in oil rate.
Measured Estimated Difference

Well Oil rate WCT GOR Oil rate WCT GOR Oil Rate
Name (Sm3/day) (%) (Sm3/Sm3) (Sm3/day) (%) (Sm3/Sm3) (Sm3/day)
A-01 583.00 61.40 199.00 853.18 58.18 164.85 270.18

A-02 23.00 0.00 906.00 22.91 0.01 906.10 -0.09
A-04 417.60 90.90 56.00 417.38 90.12 57.70 -0.22
A-05 67.20 92.20 306.00 66.95 92.27 306.27 -0.25
A-08 84.00 96.60 60.00 84.13 96.49 61.81 0.13
A-09 115.00 97.31 56.00 115.57 96.71 57.70 0.57
A-10 295.20 94.00 56.00 296.15 93.06 57.70 0.95
A-11N 74.40 94.60 60.00 74.40 95.21 61.81 0.00
A-14 45.40 62.00 304.00 43.96 62.70 300.39 -1.44
A-16 322.00 91.80 56.00 322.19 91.78 57.70 0.19
A-17 48.00 93.90 380.00 48.05 93.86 376.62 0.05
A-19 45.60 58.70 178.00 45.23 57.09 178.03 -0.37
A-20 93.60 85.60 67.00 94.04 85.68 63.74 0.44
A-23 67.00 75.20 412.00 66.91 75.03 412.07 -0.09
A-28 2407.20 0.00 166.00 2322.23 0.00 165.99 -84.97
A-30 24.00 90.70 582.00 23.79 90.96 584.71 -0.21
A-31 163.20 87.70 1616.00 163.76 87.50 1531.25 0.56
A-37 91.20 94.80 972.00 91.35 94.55 966.47 0.15
A-38 45.00 96.60 271.00 44.87 96.05 271.30 -0.13
A-39 24.00 95.80 782.00 23.86 95.65 788.92 -0.14
A-40 213.60 91.90 810.00 214.93 91.10 849.67 1.33
System 5249.20 5435.84 186.64
Table 10: Well and surface network model validation for the Brage field.
4.4 Production optimization
4.4.1 RESOLVE Model Overview
In Figure 16 the integrated asset model is shown, along with its components in Figure
17, Figure 18, Figure 19 and its associated excel sheets (calculation sheets).The blue arrows in
Figure 16 indicate the flow of data.
31/77
The model is formed by a production system (green circle), two injection systems,
one for water (blue circle) and one for gas (red circle) and several excel sheets which control
the separation process and transfer of information from one system to the next one.
The separation process excel sheet handles the output (liquid and gas produced) from
the separators and distributes the information (oil, water and gas available from production) to
the other systems. Water is sent to the water injection system which is comprised of two
independent sub-systems; the DD and the Utsira injection systems. The DD injection system
handles the water produced from the entire production system while the Utsira is fed from two
wells drilled in the Utsira formation with the sole purpose of producing water for a later
injection to the Statfjord and/or the Fensfjord reservoir.
All the available produced gas, after subtracting the daily energy requirements for the
platform, is sent to the production system in order supply its demand of lift gas via the Total
Lift Gas stream. After this, the system determines the amount of unused lift gas and it’s sent
to the injection system. The remnant gas after injection is sent for export.
The oil and gas exports are sent to the Economics calculation sheet (downstream) in
order to keep track of the revenue (NPV), production costs, water production, injection and
disposal; gas production, gas lift usage and gas injection (for further information about
integrated asset modelling please refer to section 8.4 in the appendix).
32/77
Figure 16: Integrated Asset Model
Figure 17: Production Model.
33/77
Figure 18: Water Injection Model
Figure 19: Gas Injection Model
34/77
4.4.2 Optimizers Comparison
Three simulations where performed in order to test the performance of the two
optimizers: the one from RESOLVE which is based on Sequential Linear Programming (SLP)
and the one from GAP which is a gradient-based non linear optimizer. This is due to the fact
that objective functions, constraints and control variables can be defined across several
applications or modules within the integrated asset model and this may have an impact in the
forecast (for an overview of how the software works please refer to section 8.4.1 and 8.5.1 in
the appendix). Below a detailed description of how the simulations were carried out:
• Simulation 1: It was set up as a forecast without optimization from RESOLVE

removing the control variables and leaving them defined within GAP. The
objective function was defined in GAP and it was to maximize oil production.
• Simulation 2: It was set up as a forecast with optimization from RESOLVE. The
objective function and control variables were defined in the Economics excel
sheet and it was to maximize oil production.
• Simulation 3: It was set up as a forecast with optimization from RESOLVE. The
control variables and objective function were defined both within RESOLVE and
GAP and it was to maximize oil production.
Below in Figure 20 and Figure 21 we can see the results from the three simulations.
From the charts one can immediately appreciate that depending in which module we define
the control variables has an effect in production. From the results of simulation 1 we can
conclude that leaving the control variables defined within the module, which has its own
optimizer, yields better and more stable results. Furthermore, computing time of simulation 1
when compared to the other two was significantly lower (almost 1/3 the time) and, not to
mention that for simulations 2 and 3 the solver iterations were almost always exceeded giving
convergence problems.
When comparing both figures (Figure 20 and Figure 21) around February 2010 (blue
circle) one may raise the question whether in fact the value reached is a local or global
optimum or even if it is a unique one since for different gas lift rates we obtained the same
production.
35/77
Given the non linear nature of gas lift rate allocation, it is best to leave the objective
function and control variables defined in GAP and be determined by its non linear optimizer
rather than the SLP from RESOLVE.
Figure 20: Oil rate comparison
Figure 21: Gas Lift Usage comparison
36/77
4.4.3 Constraints, control variables and objective function
As stated in section 8.5 of the appendix, objective functions are fit for purpose and
include constraints and control variables. Also, given the results in section 4.4.2 our objective
function, constraints and control variables will be defined within GAP.
The objective function will be to maximize instantaneous oil production for the next 3
years at the separator in the production system, taking into account topside constraints, which
will be a maximum liquid rate of 32,500 Sm3/d and 2.3 MM Sm3/d of gas. These constraints
reflect the processing capacities of the surface facilities.
The water injection system is limited by the performance curves of the injection
pumps and some well injection rates were constrained to represent the physical limits of
measuring devices.
As mentioned earlier the control variables for the production system were choke
settings and gas lift injection rate for the required wells.
4.4.4 Optimization Results
The following section was motivated on the premise that optimal gas lift rate
allocation may bring significant changes in production when gas processing is constrained by
surface facilities. For this, two scenarios were analyzed; the do nothing scenario in which the
field would be left to produce as it is with fixed control variables without optimization and,
the scenario in which optimal gas lift rate and choke settings are implemented. Below the
results from both scenarios are shown. It is important to bring to attention that from this point
onwards all simulations were performed as in Simulation 1 in section 4.4.2 using GAP as the
optimizer. The red curves reflect the case where no optimization was done while the blue
curves represent the case where optimization was performed.
Figure 22 shows an increase of cumulative production of almost 4.2 % for the next 3
years. This may be an indication that perhaps a global optimum was achieved by the solver.
37/77
Figure 22: Cumulative production for the Brage field
Figure 23: Gas Lift usage for the Brage field
38/77
In Figure 24, an example from a well (Well A-20) is shown. Here we can clearly see
the increase in production due to new allocated gas lift injection rates. A similar behaviour
was observed in almost all the wells. However, as we can see from Figure 25 (well A-09)
shows a time period in which the optimizer decides to relocate gas lift to another well which
could produce more rather than to continue optimizing on this well.
With these results one can conclude that the goal of maximizing the field’s production
was achieved. On the other hand we cannot say whether in fact a global optimum was reached
by the solver (for further information about optimization please refer to section 8.5 in the
appendix).
Figure 24: Results for Well A-20 with and without optimization
39/77
Figure 25: Results for Well A-09 with and without optimization
4.4.5 Case Studies
4.4.5.1 New Drilling Targets
Unlike a numerical simulator that has a 3D description of the reservoir, the material
balance tool has no knowledge of the physical location of wells within the reservoir. As was
stated in section 8.1.1 of the appendix, material balance is a zero-dimensional technique.
Since we are dealing with new wells and therefore, dealing with the absence of
production data which allows for fractional flow matching, in order to predict the evolution of
GOR and water cut versus time the use of pseudo-relative permeabilities was implemented.
Given that the new wells are producing from a reservoir with historical data we will
use the overall tank pseudo relative permeabilities obtained from the Fw and Fg matching
since this should reflect the tank’s current state.
Two wells, A-34 A and A-13 A, are planned for the near future and their targets are
the Statfjord South and Fensfjord reservoirs (Central Tank - MBAL), respectively. With this
case study we want to answer the following questions:
40/77
1. Which of the two wells will yield higher profits when drilled first taking into
account the predicted reservoir behaviour?
2. By when should it be drilled? It is important to bring to attention that the
answer to this question is linked to a triggering condition and subject to
topside constraints; otherwise the obvious answer will be to drill it and
produce it as soon as possible. Our triggering condition will be when oil
production falls below the required plateau of 5000 Sm3/d.
In Figure 26 an NPV comparison is shown for the two drilling scenarios. Drilling
Scenario 1 is where well A-13 A is drilled first and Scenario 2 is where well A-34 A is drilled
first. For each drilling scenario the start up of the second well was triggered four months after
the first well was opened. For both scenarios the opening of the first well to be drilled was
triggered around October 2009, which is when the oil rate falls below the desired plateau. A
total of 3.7 % increase in NPV is given by Drilling Scenario 2.
Based on previous experience from the reservoirs, the use of tank pseudo relative
permeabilities gave an optimistic performance of the new wells since water cut evolution was
not similar to previous wells in those reservoirs. Given this results several alternatives were
tried, among them the use of a production profile from one of the recent wells in order to be
able to derive the pseudo relative permeabilities and the relative permeabilities which are used
in Eclipse®. However these approaches did not show any improvement in the water cut
evolution.
41/77
Figure 26: Drilling case study NPV comparison
4.4.5.2 Gas economics
With this case study we want to find out two main questions about the benefits of gas
injection in the Sognefjord reservoir and how this will affect the whole field’s performance:
1. Whether in fact is worth to inject the total amount or just a part of the
remnant gas (500.000 Sm3/d) after gas lift injection when compared to the
NPV generated by the extra oil production.
2. Or whether is better to just export all the remnant gas.
In Figure 27 we have the results of three NPV calculations in which the benefits of gas
injection are evaluated.
42/77
Figure 27: Gas Case Study NPV Comparison
When comparing the two cases in the plot above one can clearly see that it is better to
sell the remnant gas rather than inject partially or completely. The no gas injection scenario
yields a 6.6 % increase in NPV when compared to the complete injection of the remnant gas.
This is due to the fact that the extra oil being produced from gas injection is not enough when
compared to the initial investment of drilling the well. An extra simulation was run in order to
evaluate if injecting only part of the remnant gas was economically viable. Never the less,
even though injection was partial, it still gave a lower NPV (0.5 % lower) than to not inject at
all we can also say that it has the potential to yield a higher NPV.
Given these results a different oil recovery strategy was applied in which the gas
injector was turned into a producer and a new water injector was added to the Sognefjord
reservoir.
In Figure 28 we present a NPV comparison of the previous cases with water injection
and how this will affect the whole field. Here we can see that even the change in injection
strategy yields a lower NPV (2.9 %) when compared to the scenario with no gas injection.
Furthermore, short term water injection in Sognefjord did not bring any significant increase to
the NPV when compared to the gas injection.
43/77
These may strike as surprising since water injection generally yields higher recoveries
and hence a higher NPV. However, we have to bear in mind that Brage is a mature field in its
late stages and is considered as a marginal asset, therefore, drilling costs play a significant
role.
Figure 28: Effect of water injection in the Sognefjord reservoir for the Brage field.
These results motivated the realization of long term simulations with GAP as the
optimizer since proper injection assessment cannot really be done in a short term basis. In this
process we came across unstable water injection rates after a certain period of time. In Figure
29 the results of water injection for the entire field are shown. This behaviour was observed in
all injectors (in Figure 30 water injection from well A-21 is shown) which in turn gave
unrealistic reservoir pressure variations.
44/77
Figure 29: Example of unstable injection rate the whole field
Figure 30: Example of unstable injection rate for well A-21
Given these results a time step sensitivity was performed. In Figure 31 a comparison
of the different time steps is shown. They indicate that stability was achieved partially by
45/77
decreasing it to ¼ the original time step. This behaviour may be due to oscillations in the
gradients determined by the solver and is of course undesirable from an optimization point of
view.
Figure 31: Time step stability comparison
Other alternatives such as modifying the pressure perturbance and well initial rate
fraction were performed but no significant improvement was observed. Since the optimizer
works with derivatives which are created with a certain delta in pressure, changing this
parameter will change the magnitude of the perturbance. The well initial rate fraction is the
fraction of the initial rates that is used to get the first guess. If there are small chokes and long
pipelines in the system a smaller value could be used in order to ensure that the calculations
do not start at critical conditions at these elements. Furthermore, a long term simulation was
also run without using GAP’s optimizer and the injection flowrates continued to be unstable
in spite of it. This suggests that perhaps the injection model should be re-designed to make it
more robust and less sensitive to changes.
In Figure 32 we present the NPV comparison of three long term scenarios; the do
nothing case in which there is no water nor gas injection in Sognefjord, the water injection
case and the gas injection case with a fixed rate of 500.000 Sm3/d. From this plot we can
observe that water injection in Sognefjord yields a higher NPV (3.3 %) than gas injection (2.4
46/77
%), when compared to the do nothing scenario. However, we have to bear in mind that these
results come from an unstable response in the model and further research needs to be done.
Figure 32: Long term NPV comparison for the Brage field.
4.4.5.3 Water Injection
In this case study we want to find out what are the benefits of the start up of the
injector well A-22 in the Bowmore aquifer. An unexpected five meter oil column was found
when drilling the well and the main focus is to investigate what will be the production loss in
NPV terms if injection started in one year’s time.
To evaluate this case, three simulations were run; one starting water injection in July
2009, one without any injection and another one with an injection delay of one year, thus
starting in July 2010.
In Figure 33 the NPV calculation for the whole field is shown. The injection in the
Bowmore reservoir yields a 9.3 % increase in NPV if injection starts in July 2009 when
compared to the delayed water injection scenario. The latter yields an NPV increase of 3.2 %
when compared to the no injection scenario.
47/77
Figure 33: NPV calculation for the water injection study case for the Brage field.
In Figure 34 a plot of the cumulative oil production for the Bowmore reservoir is
shown. In this plot one can appreciate the results of the different water injection scenarios.
Naturally, the scenario where injection takes place in July 2009 yields a higher cumulative
production. Hence water injection is recommended to start right away.
If water injection is performed no evidence of GOR decrease from the reservoir was
observed indicating that the reservoir will be above bubble point for the next couple of years.
On the other hand, as it is shown in Figure 35 if there is no water injection bubble point
pressure could be reached (Pb=193 bar) and according to the forecast it should happen around
October 2009. One of the main issues when a reservoir hits bubble point pressure and keeps
decreasing is the change in fluid properties, such as viscosity, which makes the oil more
difficult to produce. Therefore, it is very important to try and keep the reservoir pressure
above bubble point.
48/77
Figure 34: cumulative oil production for the Bowmore reservoir.
Figure 35: Plot of Rs Vs Reservoir pressure indicating that bubble point could be reached.
49/77
5 Conclusions
On the use of integrated asset modelling:
• Compared to traditional modelling where each part of the production system is

modelled separately without taking into account their interaction, this method gave a
more accurate insight of the fields future needs and project economics.
• The impact of particular scenarios with respect to the total system can be modelled.
This brings valuable information on whether in fact the new scenario can be handled
by the current surface facilities or if an upgrade is needed and how cost effective it
will be.
On the software:
• Material Balance modelling is a quick tool which allows you to have an estimate on
unknown reservoir parameters and gives you an insight on how is the flow direction
between different compartments.
• Contrary to previous experience in these reservoirs the forecasts showed to be
optimistic since water cut evolution for new wells were not similar to old ones when
tank pseudo relative permeabilities were used.
• Given the design of the integrated asset model when a software has its own optimizer
it is best to leave the objective function and the control variables defined in the same
application rather than in RESOLVE. Simulations showed that when defined in both
applications it will bring conflicts between the two of them regarding which value of
the defined control variable is the most optimum. As a consequence this increases
computing time and at times non convergence.
On the case studies:
• Optimum gas lift rate allocation, when constrained by surface facilities, showed an
increase in cumulative production of almost 4.2 % over a period of 3 years.
• Drilling Scenario 2 showed an increase of 3.7 % in NPV over Drilling Scenario 1.
50/77
• In the short term period the gas economics case study showed that is best to sell the
gas rather than to inject it. It yields a 6.6 % increase in NPV when compared to the gas
injection scenario.
• Long term water injection in the Sognefjord reservoir has potential to yield higher
NPV. However, more research needs to be done in order to solve the fluctuating
injection rates for long term simulations.
• Water injection on the Bowmore reservoir showed an increase of 9.3 % in NPV over
the postponed scenario.
• According to the forecast without pressure support in the Bowmore reservoir bubble
point could be reached around October 2009 if there is no pressure support.
6 Recommendations
• The use of a 3D numerical simulator linked to the integrated model would bring
significant benefits in terms of reducing the uncertainty on the prediction of reservoir
behaviour.
• Redesign the water injection model in order to make it more robust and less sensitive
to changes for long term simulations.
• Water injection in some wells is being limited by the range in which measurement
devices operate. A study in which these constraints are challenged, and perhaps
suggesting an upgrade in the measuring devices, can further optimize injection and
therefore increase recovery.
• The inclusion of an updated topside model in the integrated asset model would bring
more realism to the simulations as it will take more details into consideration during
the separation process and will allow performing feasibility studies regarding facility
upgrades, modifications and de-bottlenecking.
• During the realization of this study many warnings appeared due to chokes limiting
production and gas lift valves limiting gas lift injection rates. Therefore a study in
which these constraints are challenged can give an idea of the potential for the
increase in production.
51/77
7 References
• ARIAS, B et al. “ Role of integrated asset modelling in optimizing Na KiKa

Production”. Paper IPTC 11751. 2007
• BRILL, J.P AND MUKHERJEE, H: “Multiphase flow in wells”. SPE Monograph
Series, 17. Richardson, 1999.
• BIEKER, H.P et al: “Real time production optimization of oil and gas production
systems: a technology survey”. Paper SPE 99446. May. 2007
• BROWN, K AND LEA, J: “Nodal system analysis of oil and gas wells. Paper SPE
14714. October, 1985.
• BROUWER, D and JANSEN, J.D: “Dynamic optimization of waterflooding with
smart wells using optimal control theory”. Paper SPE journal 78278. December. 2004.
• CAMPOZANA, F et al. “ optimization of surface network and platform location
using a next generation reservoir simulator coupled with an integrated asset
optimizer—An application to an offshore deep water oil field in Brazil”. Paper IPTC
12500. 2008.
• DREYER, et al. “Syn-rift development in the Bathonian-Ryazanian succession on the
north-eastern margin of the Viking Graben”. January (1998). Hydro Intenal report
• DAKE, L.P: “Fundamentals of reservoir engineering”. Elsevier Science Publishing.
New York. 1978.
• GUTIERREZ, F et al. “A new approach to gas lift optimization using an Integrated
Asset Model”. Paper IPTC 11594. 2007.
• HANDLEY-SCHACHLER, et al. “New mathematical techniques for the
optimization of oil and gas production systems”. Paper SPE 65161. October, 2000.
• HAVLENA, D. AND ODEH, A.S: “The Material Balance as an equation of a
straight line”. JPT. August, 1963. (896-900)
• JANSEN, J.D et al: “Closed-Loop reservoir management”. Paper SPE 119098.
February, 2008.
• JANSEN, J.D et al: “Model-based control of multiphase flow in subsurface oil
reservoirs”. Paper, Journal of Process control. 2008.
• JANSEN, J.D: “Systems theory for reservoir management”. Lecture notes for the
course AES1490. November, 2008.
52/77
• JANSEN, J.D AND, CURRIE, P.K: “Modelling and optimization of oil and gas
production systems”. Lecture notes for the course “Production Optimization”, April
2008.
• LARSON, S: “Brage Fensfjord Reservoir Analytical Study”. Senergy Report. 2007
• LAWRENCE, K AND ARTHUR, J: “Robust regression: analysis and applications”.
New York and Basel, 1990. (59-85).
• RATKOWSKY, D. “Handbook of nonlinear regression models”. New York and
Basel, 1990.
• TEHRANI, D.H: “An analysis of a volumetric balance equation for calculation of
oil in place and water influx”. JPT. September, 1985. (1664-1670).
• MACH, J. M et al: “A nodal approach for applying systems analysis to the flowing
and artificial oil and gas wells”. Paper SPE 8025. 1979
• MBAL Petroleum Experts User Manual. 2007
• PRESS, W.H et al: “Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing”.
Cambridge University Press. 1999. 430-433 p
• RESOLVE, Petroleum Experts User Manul, 2007
• ROTONDI, M et al. “The benefits of integrated asset modelling: lessons learned
from field cases”. Paper SPE 113831. 2008.
• SAPUTELLI, L et al: “Production optimization, a moving-horizon approach”. Paper
SPE 99358. April, 2006.
• SCHAAF, T et al. “Using experimental designs, assisted history matching tool and
Bayesian framework to get probabilistic production forecasts”. Paper SPE 113498.
June, 2008.
• SEILER, A et al: “Advanced reservoir management workflow using an EnKF based
assisted history matching method”. Paper SPE 118906.February, 2009.
• SHARP, I et al. “1999 Update of the Fensfjord Formation Reservoir Geological
Model, Brage”. January (2000). Hydro Internal Report.
• SILLS, S.R. “Improved material-balance regression analysis for water drive oil and
gas reservoirs”. SPE. May 1996. (127-133)
• STATOILHYDRO INTERNAL DOCUMENTS
o GEOLOGY_BRAGE_OCT 2008 (POWERPOINT PRESENTATION)
o FENSFJORD RESERVOIR STATUS JAN2009 (POWERPOINT
PRESENTATION)
53/77
o GEOLOGY GEOFYSYK BRAGE. (POWERPOINT PRESENTATION)
o Remaining mobile oil at Brage, 2009 (POWERPOINT PRESENTATION)
• WATSON, et al. “History matching with cumulative production data”. JPT. January,
1990.
• WANG,P et al. “Optimization of production operations in petroleum fields”. Paper
SPE 77658. October, 2002.
• WANG,P et al. “Gas lift optimization for long-term reservoir simulations”. Paper
SPE 90506. February, 2008.
• WIJNGAARDEN, et al. “Regional effects of Troll Production”. May 2007.
54/77
8 Appendix
8.1 Material Balance
8.1.1 Theory and Tank model assumptions
One of the fundamental principles used by engineers is the law of mass conservation.
Material balance for reservoir analysis is based on this principle and is used to calculate
different reservoir parameters (hydrocarbons in place; the presence, type and size of an
aquifer, and the depth of fluid contacts) in order to predict its future behaviour from past
behaviour (modified from Marsman, 2001). The material balance equation is derived as a
volume balance which equates the cumulative observed production, expressed as underground
withdrawal, to the expansion of the fluids in the reservoir resulting from a finite pressure drop
(Dake, 1978). This equation is zero dimensional and is based on a conceptual tank model
which doesn’t take into account the reservoir’s actual geometry, the locations of the wells, etc.
A picture of the tank model is shown in Figure 36. Throughout the reservoir the assumptions
of the tank model are as follows (taken from PETEX user’s manual, 2007):
• Homogeneous pore volume, gas cap and aquifer.
• Constant temperature.
• Uniform pressure distribution.
• Uniform hydrocarbon saturation distribution.
• Gas injection in the gas cap.
55/77
Water Injection
Aquifer Production
Main Production
Gas Injection
Gas Cap
Production
Gas Cap
Gas Cap Expansion
Reservoir
Aquifer Influx
Aquifer
Figure 36: Tank Model. (Taken and modified from the Petroleum Experts Manual, 2007)
8.1.2 Material Balance Equations for an Oil reservoir

As it was previously stated Material Balance is directly related to volume balance,
meaning that what was originally in place should be equal to what has been produced plus
what has remained. In this work we will only deal with a two-phase reservoir (for both above
and below the bubble point) with no initial gas cap since the Fensfjord reservoir can be
classified as a Solution Gas Drive (for further information regarding material balance for
different reservoir types please refer to Dake, 1978).
Let’s start with some definitions before casting the material balance equation:
• OIP = Oil In Place (at reservoir conditions)
56/77
• STOIIP = N = OIP/Boi =
Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (at standard conditions)
• Gp = produced gas (at standard conditions)
• HCPV (total hydrocarbon pore volume)
• Np = produced oil (at standard conditions)
• We = cumulative water influx (at standard conditions)
• Wp = produced water (at standard conditions)
• Produced Gas/Oil ratio
• Solution Gas/Oil ratio
• Water formation volume factor
• Oil formation volume factor
• Gas formation volume factor
First let’s take the case in which the reservoir is above bubble point. In this case we
need to take into consideration the expansion of the fluids only. Thus:
Then the material balance will be:
57/77
Second let’s take the case when bubble point pressure is reached. In this case we have
to take into account the liberation of solution gas plus the expansion of the other reservoir
fluids. Thus:
Then the material balance will be:
There is also the need to take into account how the pore volume reacts to the combined
effects of connate water expansion and pore volume reduction (HCPV). This can be expressed
as:
Where;
Since the total HCPV is equal to , then the reduction in hydrocarbon pore volume can be
expressed as:
Finally the complete material balance equation would be as follows:
In order to determine the original oil in place (N) by means of the material balance
analysis a method for estimating water influx is needed. This is when analytical aquifer
models come to play a role in the history matching process. However, the aquifer description
must be known or determined as part of the OIIP estimation analysis since mathematically
valid solutions may be obtained with unrealistic aquifer descriptions (i.e. perform a check
against the known range of aquifer properties to ensure realistic aquifer behaviour)
An improved material balance formulation is presented for determining the original
hydrocarbons in place in water-drive oil and gas reservoirs (Sills, 1996). This formulation
58/77
reduces the number of unknowns in the regression analysis through the definition of a
combined aquifer/reservoir expansion term. Other material regression techniques for
determining the original hydrocarbon in place have been proposed by Havlena and Odeh,
1963; Tehrani, 1964; and Klins, 1988.
8.1.3 Aquifer Models
It should be noted that there are a lot of uncertainties regarding this subject. And this is
simply because oil companies seldom drill wells into an aquifer just to gain the necessary
information about its reservoir parameters (properties, geometry and areal continuity) and
fluid properties. Instead, these properties, quite often have to be inferred from what has been
observed in the reservoir. Therefore, the best approach from the reservoir engineer would be
to consult both the production and exploration geologists, concerning this data (Dake, 1978).
Due to these inherent uncertainties the aquifer fit obtained from history matching is
seldom unique and the aquifer model may require frequent updating as more production and
pressure data become available.
As stated earlier, analytical aquifer models play a role in the history matching process
when material balance is being performed as they help reproduce the pressure-production
history. Usually small aquifers can be approximated by the basic definition of water influx
while large aquifers require a mathematical model which takes into account time dependence,
as it is well known that it will take a finite time for the aquifer to react to a pressure change in
the reservoir (Dake, 1978). In the following paragraphs the aquifer models used in this work
will be briefly described:
Small pot
This model assumes a fixed volume for the aquifer and a time-independent water
influx. It can be represented by natural water influx for both gas and oil reservoirs. Thus if we
use the material balance equation and we want to calculate the amount of influx we obtain:
Where;
59/77
Wi = the initial aquifer volume
pi = initial aquifer/reservoir pressure
p = current reservoir pressure
ct = total aquifer compressibility (rock compressibility + water compressibility)
Hurst-van Everdingen –Odeh (Radial Aquifer)
This model, instead of assuming that the pressure pulse travels instantaneously
through the aquifer, has the assumption that the speed will depend on the pressure diffusivity
of the system (Petroleum Experts Users Manual, 2007).
For the description of water influx from an aquifer into a reservoir there is greater
interest in calculating the influx rate than the pressure drop. This is why we need to determine
the influx as a function of a given pressure drop at the inner boundary of the system.
Knowing that the flow equations into a wellbore are identical in form to the equations
describing the flow from an aquifer into a cylindrical reservoir and only the cylinder scale is
different; the radial diffusivity equation for the aquifer-reservoir system can be solved by
applying the Laplace transformation to flow equation, (Dake, 1978). Expressed in
dimensionless variables we have:
Where;
and
In which, is the outer radius of the reservoir and all the other parameters refer to the
aquifer.
Since we need to model aquifer behaviour we need to solve the equation with constant
terminal pressure solutions in terms of the cumulative water influx thus getting:
(1)
60/77
Where;
is the cumulative water influx due to a pressure drop imposed at at t=0
is the dimensionless cumulative water influx function giving the dimensionless influx
per unit of pressure drop imposed at the reservoir aquifer boundary at t=0
Equation (1) can be expressed as:
(2)
Where;
Which is the aquifer constant for radial geometry and F= (encroachment angle θ)°/ 360 (Note:
this is to be used for aquifers which subtend angles of less than 360° at the centre of the
reservoir-aquifer system Figure 37 ).
Figure 37: Sketch of the reservoir-aquifer system with encroachment angle. (Taken and modified from
Dake,1978)
In the more practical production case however, this terminal pressure does not remain
constant but changes. It is necessary to extend the theory to calculate the cumulative water
influx corresponding to a continuous pressure decline at the reservoir-aquifer boundary. In
order to perform these calculations it is customary to divide the continuous pressure decline
61/77
into a series of discrete pressure steps. For the pressure drop of each step, , the
corresponding water influx can be calculated using equation (2). In the end, superposition of
the separate influxes, with respect to time, will give the cumulative water influx (for further
information please refer to Dake, 1978).
Hurst- van Everdingen Modified (Radial Aquifer)
This aquifer model is similar to the previous one. The main difference is the manner in
which the pressure decline is approximated. In the original model they divided the pressure
decline into a series of time steps with constant pressure. In this modified one it is
approximated as a linear decline for each time step (shown in Figure 38). This approach
allows us to have a varying rate within a time step rather than it being constant as in the
original model.
Pressure
Time
Figure 38: Pressure decline approximation.
If we express the solution of the constant terminal pressure (equation 2) case in the
time domain we get:
62/77
And since the pressure decline with time is linear, dP/dtD is a constant equal to the
slope of the linear pressure decline given by:
The influx function thus becomes for the linear decline,
Given the fact that the functions are still linear we could use the superposition principle again.
Thus if we approximate the pressure decline by a series of linear declines, the water influx
solution is given by (in field units):
(Note: Taken and modified from the Petroleum Experts User Manual, 2007)
8.2 History Matching

The use of simulators to predict well and reservoir performance is an important and well
established process in reservoir engineering. One of the main concerns of the oil and gas
industry is generating reliable production forecasts. However, the reliability of these
predictions is limited by the accuracy with which the input reservoir properties are determined
(Watson, 1990).
The usual procedure is to first estimate reservoir parameters and properties, compute the
past field history (either pressure or production) and then compare it to the one measured. If
this comparison is not satisfactory, the properties are re-estimated until an acceptable match is
obtained. Care must be taken when doing this procedure since one might end up with an
unrealistic matched model which doesn’t represent the geology and has no predictive
capability whatsoever. This procedure however, can consume considerable computing time
and resources. As a consequence new and improved techniques for history matching have
63/77
been developed (Jansen et al, 2008; Schaaf et al, 2008; Seiler et al, Feb 2009). Some involve
regression techniques and others data assimilation using the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF)
in an effort to automate reservoir model updating and also be able to cope with large
quantities of measurements and state variables. Needless to say that the word automate does
not mean the removal of engineering judgement from the process.
In this work we will focus on history matching based on nonlinear regression since the
commercial software used for this project applies this technique for history matching.
8.2.1 Nonlinear Regression
The difficulties in fitting a data set to a model are well known when the model is linear.
However, when the model to be fitted is non linear in the parameters, the problem is further
complicated by the numerical difficulties one can encounter in trying to obtain the best
estimates for the model’s parameters. Because nonlinear regression problems are essentially
nonlinear programming (NLP) problems, all of the known difficulties in solving NLP
problems are present in these situations. One major difficulty in NLP problems is the accuracy
of the initial estimates provided to the iterative optimization routine (Lawrence, 1990).
Nonlinear regression is a form of regression analysis in which observational data are
modelled by means of a function which is a nonlinear combination of the model parameters
and depends on one or more independent variables. The data is fitted by a method of
successive approximations; the most common is nonlinear least squares. Below a brief outline
of the method is shown, for further information refer to Ratkowsky, 1990 and Lawrence,
1990.
Nonlinear Least Squares
Consider a set of m data points, and a curve (model function)
that in addition to the variable x also depends on n parameters,
with . It is desired to find the vector of parameters such that the curve fits best the
given data in the least squares sense, that is, the sum of squares
64/77
is minimized, where the residuals (errors) ri are given by
for
The minimum value of S occurs when the gradient is zero. Since the model contains n
parameters there are n gradient equations:
In a non-linear system, the derivatives are functions of both the independent
variable and the parameters, so these gradient equations do not have a closed solution.
Instead, initial values must be chosen for the parameters. Then, the parameters are
refined iteratively, that is, the values are obtained by successive approximation,
Here, k is an iteration number and the vector of increments, is known as the shift
vector. At each iteration the model is linearized by approximation to a first-order Taylor series
expansion about
8.3 Nodal analysis
Production systems require detailed analysis of all its components; inflow into the
wells, the flow within the well, flow through restrictions and flowlines, through the manifold,
etc.
65/77
Nodal analysis, defined as a system approach to the optimization of oil and gas wells
can be used in any part of the production system in order to evaluate the performance of its
elements (Brown, 1985). When performing this type of analysis, one has to bear in mind that
this elements are part of a much larger system and that performing optimization in its
individual components does not guarantee a complete optimized system as a result. There is
extensive material on nodal analysis, for further references please refer to Brown, 1985 and
Mach, 1979.
There are two commonly used methods for analysing the production from oil wells. In
each method the behaviour of the system to be analysed is reduced to two relationships
between the pressure and flow rate (Jansen, 2008). In this work we’ll deal only on the analysis
performed downhole since it was the one used in the analysis. Using the condition of known
tubing head pressure and the pressure profile along the tubing, the tubing intake pressure
curve can be calculated at the bottom of the well. It is the intersection of this curve with the
inflow performance relation which determines the operating production rate.
The use of multiphase flow correlations for pressure drop determination and flow
regime estimation is very important in nodal analysis. To describe multiphase flow in pipes
numerous methods have been developed and many of them are not unique to the oil and gas
industry, which has turned to the use of empirical flow correlations. Some are very general
and others only apply to very specific conditions. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that
the engineers understand their range of applicability and limitations when designing wells,
performing calculations for optimization, etc. A more detailed discussion on empirical flow
correlations can be found in Brill and Mukherjee, 1999.
8.4 Integrated Production Modelling
The needs and benefits of integrated asset modelling were identified in the seventies.
However, it is not until the last decade when tools capable of simulating and monitoring the
whole oilfield system became available and encouraged the oil and gas industry to apply it
into field management. This approach enables to optimize field production by adjusting
control parameters taking into account the interactions between surface and subsurface
systems and their limitations.
Integrated Asset Modelling is simply a methodology which is used to describe fluid
flow through different and interacting parts of the production system (e.g, reservoir, wells,
66/77
production facilities, pipelines, etc). An integrated model is formed when two or more parts of
the system are combined. A simplified sketch of such model is presented in Figure 39 .
Revenue Facilities Wells Reservoir
Figure 39: Sketch of an Integrated Asset Model
The aim of this type of modelling is to be able to address the following issues
(Rotondi, 2008):
• Pressure interaction between the subsurface and surface systems.
• Mixing of different fluids and flow assurance
• Accounting for facilities constraints
• Identification of system bottlenecks and back pressures
• Facilities upgrade studies
• Gas lift optimization
The list of benefits and advantages is enormous. However, production engineers have
discovered that without a rigourus focus on maintaining and updating such models they can
quickly become a useless tool. Therefore, it is very important to keep them up to date and
ensure the value of data obtained is acceptable to have reliable forecasts and identify
production optimization opportunities (Arias, 2007).
Furthermore it has been shown that this approach is on a fit-for-purpose basis and that
the level of detail in the model depends on the study at hand. Several field cases have been
published where this type of modelling has had significant results. For further reference
please refer to Campozana, 2008; Arias, 2007 and Gutierrez, 2008.
Rotondi (2008) explains the coupling of the systems that make up an integrated asset
model can be either Implicit or Explicit:
• Implicit, is where the equations describing multiphase fluid flow in the
reservoir, well inflow relationship, well tubing, and the surface facility model
are solved simultaneously by treating the wellheads and nodes of the surface
network equivalently to additional gridblocks of the reservoir model. Thus
additional derivatives need to be computed and accommodated in the Jacobian
matrix of the reservoir simulator. This method offers higher stability and
improved convergence. On the other hand, a downside of this method is that it
67/77
requires a single code for the entire simulation from subsurface to surface
which is not a very practical solution.
• Explicit, is where the network model is solved at the beginning of each
synchronization time step and the well’s bottomhole or tubing head pressure
limits are set accordingly. Usually during the explicit mode the communication
between the reservoir and the network modules is carried out by a message
passing open interface.
The method used in this work was the explicit, meaning that the network and the
reservoir models are solved independently and only boundary conditions are passed along.
The interface between the network and the simulator modules are managed by a
controller program (in our case, RESOLVE) that simulates production by running both
models along a unique timeline. However, care must be taken and consistency between the
network and the simulator computations must be checked. For example, if the well is
controlled by means of the Pwf then the issue will be to maintain consistency in the tubing and
use the same hydraulic lookup tables. Notably, if the IPR used by the network is calculated by
solving the well equations with pressures and saturations at time t, while other variables,
including well rates or pressures, are updated with IPR holding at time t+Δt. This may induce
discrepancies between the reservoir Pwf and the network Pwf when the wells are controlled by
the master program under a specific fluid rate (Rotondi, 2008).
8.4.1 RESOLVE - Software Overview
This tool allows dynamic coupling between different software packages, such as
economic spreadsheets, reservoir and process simulators. In order to establish these
connections, each application has its own driver so that they can communicate with
RESOLVE.
These drivers enable the of transfer data from one application to the other, making the
data formats compatible and synchronise each application timesteps during a prediction. The
RESOLVE timesteps are the times at which dynamic coupling between the applications takes
place: at this point in time data are passed from one application to another and results are
written in RESOLVE.
68/77
The internal application timesteps are those required by certain applications (i.e. more
often the reservoir simulators) for convergence purposes. These timesteps will be respected
when running a model through RESOLVE; however, there will be a synchronisation
performed to obtain an internal timestep that is consistent with the RESOLVE timestep
chosen. For instance, if the RESOLVE timestep specified is 1 month, the numerical simulator
will take as many timesteps as needed during this one month period, but will have to stop
after running exactly for a month period, to be synchronized with the other applications, as
illustrated below in Figure 40.
Let’s now imagine that we are running a prediction forecast and that our asset model is
like this: Reservoir Simulator (MBAL) – GAP (Network) - Process Simulation (Excel) –
Economic Spreadsheet model (Excel), the RESOLVE procedure applied at every timestep
will be the following:
1. The simulation models are initialised at the start date of the RESOLVE run.
2. Reservoir data is passed to the network models (i.e. production and injection
system) under the form of well inflow performance lookup tables.
3. The production and injection systems are solved and optimised against the GAP
objective function.
Resolve Timestep
Timeline
Application Internal
Timestep
Figure 40: Time step synchronization. Taken and modified from the Resolve’s user manual.
69/77
4. The fluids at the separators are passed to the process models. Both flowing (i.e.
fluid rates) and fluid characteristics (i.e. fluid composition for instance) are passed to the
process model input feeds. The process model is solved.
5. The optimisation results are passed back to the simulation models under the form
of:
- fixed well flowing rate
- fixed well bottom hole pressure
- fixed well wellhead pressure
If a global optimisation setup has been introduced in the RESOLVE model, RESOLVE will
iterate on the points 3 and 4 in order to solve the system against the overall objective function
before passing back any data to the simulator models.
6. The simulation models then take time steps up to the next synchronisation time of
RESOLVE. The process is then repeated until the RESOLVE schedule is completed.
Note: this information was taken and modified from the Petroleum Experts
RESOLVE user’s manual, 2007.
8.5 Production Optimization
Throughout the life of a field production facilities need to be designed, built, maintained
and altered to meet the developing needs of the hydrocarbon reservoirs to which they are
connected (Handley-Schachler, 2000). In the daily operation of an oil and gas production
system, many decisions have to be taken affecting the volumes produced and the associated
cost of production. These decisions are taken at different levels in the organization and they
will at some point reach the physical production system (Bieker, 2007).
The optimization of a production system comes down to answering how can we
maximize (revenues, NPV, oil production, etc) or minimize (costs) a specific objective
function. Such function is a single value which indicates a performance measure. However,
this function, also subject to different types of constraints, is fit for purpose and depends on
the study at hand. Several optimization techniques are presented in the literature. Some use
70/77
optimal control theory (Brouwer, 2004; Jansen, 2008) and others use a more simple
alternative such as “moving horizon” (Saputelli, 2006).
According to Wang (2002) a key aspect in the practical use of solving optimization
problems is their proper formulation. Once formulated, the problem can be linearized and then
solved on the basis of sequential programming. Furthermore, Bieker (2007) states that the
solver should be chosen using information about the problem’s structure.
Various numerical techniques are available to solve optimization problems. An
important distinction must be made for those which attempt to find a global optimum, and
those which find a local one. Almost all of the optimization algorithms involve some sort of
iteration, especially the ones that try to find a local optimum which will yield answers that are
dependant on the initial guess used as a starting point.
Another important distinction is between gradient based and gradient free methods.
Gradient based methods make use of gradients to guide the iteration process. The reason
behind this is that the gradients of a function have the inherent property of pointing in the
direction of the greatest rate of increase. Hence, their usefulness in finding a maximum or a
minimum of a function. However, a drawback of this method is that it tends to converge into
local optimum.
On the other hand, gradient free methods tend to search for a global optimum but they
require many more function evaluations than gradient based methods (Jansen, 2008).
Many other methods are available and have been implemented successfully; among
them we have genetic algorithms, proxy models and hybrid solvers. For further information
please refer to Bieker (2007) for an overview of each method.
In many mature oilfields, such as the case for Brage, oil production is assisted by
continuous gas lift injection and constrained by liquid and gas handling capabilities of the
surface facilities. Because of this, optimal allocation of gas lift rates is a subject of continuous
research (Wang, 2002 and 2008; Gutierrez, 2007).
8.5.1 GAP and RESOLVE optimization – Software overview
Most of the problems we deal within a production system are non linear in nature.
Therefore, in order to solve such problems we also require non linear techniques. This is only
but a mere reflection of how the various elements, which make up a production system,
71/77
interact with each other. For example, the response of a well (with respect to changing choke
size or gas lift rate) depends on what the other wells are doing as they may be sharing a
pipeline and hence affecting the back pressure other wells are experiencing. This means that
to be able to solve the problem, not only do we need to know how the total rate changes with
respect to each control variable (first order derivative), but also how each rate of change
changes with respect to each control variable (second order derivative).
The general allocation program GAP uses a gradient-based non linear optimizer while
RESOLVE uses a technique called sequential linear programming (SLP). SLP is a family of
techniques used for the solution of large scale non linear optimization and simulation
problems. (For a brief outline of sequential linear programming please refer section 8.5.2.)
When RESOLVE performs an optimization, it starts by making a single pass through
the system (GAP) to provide a starting point. After this, linear equations to describe the
system response with respect to the objective function and constraint equations will be
derived by perturbing each of the control variables. A linear optimizer (SLP in our case) will
then be run on the resulting set of linear equations to obtain a proposed new optimum. The
resulting values for the controls obtained are then inserted back into the system (GAP). The
process will repeat itself over several iterations until convergence is achieved.
In other words in RESOLVE, the objective function, control variables and constraints
(which are all non linear) are distributed across many applications (EXCEL, GAP and
HYSYS). Essentially, SLP is used here to treat the problem linearly with the underlying
applications optimization to get the starting point (first order derivatives or gradients) before
taking control of where to go next.
8.5.2 Sequential Linear Programming

Conceptually, the method requires the provision of a mathematical model of the system
to be solved. This methodology proceeds iteratively. The first step is to build a linear
approximation to the original mathematical model which will be solved using standard linear
programming techniques (i.e. Simplex Method). This is followed by convergence check
which measures how well the solution to the linear approximation fulfills the non-linear
constraints and whether in fact the value of the defined objective function has stopped
changing. If this check is passed, the process terminates, otherwise it continues building a new
linear approximation to the original mathematical model (Handley-Schachler, 2000).
72/77
Linear programming, also called linear optimization, concerns itself with the following
problem: for N independent variables x1, …, xN, we want to maximize the function:
Subject to the following primary constraints
, …
And simultaneaously to M=m1+m2+m3 additional constraints, m1 of them of the form:
( ) , for i=1, … , m1
m2 of them of the form
, j=m1+1, …, m1+m2
and m3 of them of the form:
, k = m1+m2 +1, … , m1+m2 + m3
A set of values x1, …, xN that satisfies the above constraints is called a feasible vector.
The feasible vector which maximizes the objective function is called the optimal feasible
vector. This vector can fail to exist due to different reasons:
1. There are no feasible vectors

2. There are no maximums
One may ask why linear programming is so important. The reasons behind it are the
following:
• Nonnegativity is a usual constraint on variables Xi which are tangible.
• Because one is often interested in in additive limitations or bounds imposed
either by man or nature.
73/77
• Because the objective function that one wants to optimize may be linear or else
may at least be approximated by a linear function.
Note: for more details please refer to Press, 1999
8.5.3 Brage – Status Overview
Before optimization was performed a status overview of the producing wells in Brage
was done. In this overview an outline of each producing well per reservoir will be described
in addition to whether in fact optimization will be performed on the well due to flow
instabilities during production. Our control variables will be choke diameter settings and gas
lift injection rate.
• Brent
Well A-01: Production in this well is assisted with gas lift. Flow during
production is stable. It needs to be choked back to prevent sand production.
Experience has shown that keeping the well producing at a liquid rate of maximum
1500 sm3/d prevents sand influx. Optimization will be performed on gas lift rate and
choke settings to keep it at a constant liquid rate within a constraint of 1500 Sm3/d of
liquid production
Well A-28: Is a naturally producing well. Flow during production is stable and
declining. Optimization will be performed on choke settings and gas lift injection rate.
• Statfjord North
Well A-11 N: Production in this well is assisted with gas lift. Flow during
production is stable. Optimization will be performed on the choke settings and gas lift
injection rate. This well along with A-11 S, forms A-11 which is a well with a
complex completion. For the modelling purposes its split into two different wells.
74/77
Well A-32: This well is closed due to H2S production. The well is being
plugged and prepared for sidetrack.
Well A-08: Production in this well is assisted with gas lift. However, flow
during production is unstable. No optimization on gas lift rate and choke settings will
be performed since gas lift is used to stabilize flow.
Well A-06: This well is closed due to100% water cut. Furthermore it has
operational problems with leakage of hydraulic oil when trying to open SSSV (Sub
Surface Safety Valve).
• Statfjord South
Well A-11 S: This well is closed and will not be opened due to scale problems
on downhole control equipment. Furthermore with current injection system the
reservoir pressure cannot be maintained if this well is opened.
injection rate.
injection rate.
injection rate.
injection rate.
75/77
Well A-34 A: This well is empty and it’s awaiting a target designation for
drilling.
• Sognefjord
production is stable. It’s temporarily closed due to leakage in tubing hanger seal. The
planned start up is on July 1st, 2009. Optimization will be performed on the choke
settings and gas lift injection rate.
injection rate.
Well A-31: Is a naturally producing well. Flow during production is stable.

Optimization will be performed on choke settings and gas lift rate.
• Fensfjord
injection rate.
production is stable. It’s temporarily closed due to leakage in the topside gas lift
system. The start up is planned on July 1st, 2009. Optimization will be performed on
the choke settings and gas lift injection rate.
production is stable. It’s temporarily closed due to several barrier issues, failure of
ASV and leakage in gas lift valve. The start up is planned on August 1st, 2009.
Optimization will be performed on the choke settings and gas lift injection rate.
76/77
injection rate.
production is unstable. No optimization on gas lift rate and choke settings will be
performed since gas lift is used to stabilize flow.
injection rate.
production is unstable. No optimization on choke settings and gas lift will be
performed since it this well has a history of becoming unstable when changing gas lift
rate or choke settings.
production is unstable. No optimization on gas lift rate and choke settings will be
performed since gas lift is used to stabilize flow.
Well A-33: This well is closed since it has no liquids being produced. Possible
problems with completion screens down hole.
injection rate.
injection rate.
77/77

Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AES/PE/09-13 Title: History matching of the Fensfjord

reservoir and optimization of the Integrated

Date :16/07/2009 Student name: Walter Serafini

Author(s) : Walter Serafini

Date : July 2009

Postal Address : Section for Petroleum Engineering

Copyright ©2008 Section for Petroleum Engineering

All rights reserved.

3.1 Brief Field History and Location

4.1 MBAL model update

A-17AT2 A-14 A-16T2

A-33AT2 = T.Mult = 0.1

West STOIIP [Sm3] Central STOIIP [Sm3]

South STOIIP [Sm3] North STOIIP [Sm3]

STOIIP [Sm3] % of total

Table 1: STOIIP values per tank.

1. Match the well model to the well test.

Standard Deviation - 322,98 - 302,84 - 375,17 - 305,7

OIIP (Ksm3) 15203 5120 17710 11739 6472 - 40105 -

Initial Water Volume

South Outer/Inner Radius - - - - 2,5 1,55 - -

Central Outer/Inner Radius - - - - - - 10 1,29

Values on transmissibilities are presented on

Analysing the results from

OIIP (Ksm3) 15203 5120 17710 19354 6472 40105

North Porosity - - 0.2 - - -

North Aquifer Volume

Values of transmissibilities are presented on

Standard Deviation - 383.4 - - - 325.34

OIIP (Ksm3) 15203 5513 17710 6472 40105 13959.8

North Porosity - - 0.2 - - -

North Aquifer Volume

South Outer/Inner Radius - - - 2.5 - -

Measured Estimated Difference

A-01 583.00 61.40 199.00 853.18 58.18 164.85 270.18

4.4 Production optimization

4.4.1 RESOLVE Model Overview

Figure 17: Production Model.

Figure 19: Gas Injection Model

• Simulation 1: It was set up as a forecast without optimization from RESOLVE

Figure 20: Oil rate comparison

Figure 21: Gas Lift Usage comparison

4.4.4 Optimization Results

Figure 23: Gas Lift usage for the Brage field

4.4.5 Case Studies

4.4.5.1 New Drilling Targets

4.4.5.2 Gas economics

Figure 30: Example of unstable injection rate for well A-21

Figure 31: Time step stability comparison

4.4.5.3 Water Injection

On the use of integrated asset modelling:

• Compared to traditional modelling where each part of the production system is

On the case studies:

• ARIAS, B et al. “ Role of integrated asset modelling in optimizing Na KiKa

8.1 Material Balance

8.1.1 Theory and Tank model assumptions

Gas Cap Expansion

8.1.2 Material Balance Equations for an Oil reservoir

• Solution Gas/Oil ratio

• Water formation volume factor

• Oil formation volume factor

• Gas formation volume factor

Then the material balance will be:

Then the material balance will be: