Development Optimization Using Reservoir Response Surfaces: Methods for Integrating Facility and Operational Options

The objective of a field development optimization process, or workflow, is to investigate various options and determine a course of action that will deliver the largest expected value from an asset. The analysis is often complicated by uncertainty in important inputs. Ideally, operators desire workflows and tools that integrate reservoir engineering and optimization principles in a fast-solving model that can be used to explore the full range of the uncertain inputs. This need is acute in the screening and concept selection stage where the primary objective is to determine the sensitivity of competing concepts to the sources of uncertainty. In these early stages, model results can be used to determine whether additional information should be collected, and to narrow down the number of competing options. The objective of this research is the development of a workflow and tool that integrates reservoir response surfaces within a project optimization model that contains facility and operational options, and to use this model to investigate the impacts of uncertainty on decision making. The integration of technical options is critical because a static view of capital investment and facility constraints causes a systematic undervaluation and can introduce error to development decisions. The new workflow and integrated reservoir-economic optimization tool developed in this research leverage methods and engineering work products that are already known to industry, for example, experimental design (ED) and response surface methods (RSMs). A demonstration is provided for a gas flood project using a stylized reservoir. Specifically, we investigate the selection of initial well configurations and injection capacities while simultaneously accounting for the options to update these decisions after production information is acquired in the early periods of production. The workflow is used to optimize the development of a gas flood. As a second step, the workflow is used to solve a value of information problem.

[1]  Brian J. Willis,et al.  Identifying and estimating significant geologic parameters with experimental design , 2001 .

[2]  R. Bratvold,et al.  Improving Investment Decisions Using a Stochastic Integrated Asset Model , 2001 .

[3]  Raul Fernando Rodriguez,et al.  Feasibility of using electrical downhole heaters in Faja heavy oil reservoirs , 2008 .

[4]  Sanjay Srinivasan,et al.  Optimum Control of Unwanted Water Production in Stratified Gas Reservoirs , 2007 .

[5]  B. Li,et al.  Novel Multiple Resolutions Design of Experiment/Response Surface Methodology for Uncertainty Analysis of Reservoir Simulation Forecasts , 2005 .

[6]  Damsleth Elvind,et al.  Maximum Information at Minimum Cost: A North Sea Field Development Study With an Experimental Design , 1992 .

[7]  Denis José Schiozer,et al.  Risk Assessment of Petroleum Fields—Use of Numerical Simulation and Proxy Models , 2008 .

[8]  Reidar Brumer Bratvold,et al.  Value of Information in the Oil and Gas Industry: Past, Present, and Future , 2009 .

[9]  Kassem Ghorayeb,et al.  Field Planning Using Integrated Surface/Subsurface Modeling , 2005 .

[10]  Christopher J. Jablonowski,et al.  Gas Storage Facility Design Under Uncertainty , 2010 .

[11]  G. Box,et al.  Some New Three Level Designs for the Study of Quantitative Variables , 1960 .

[12]  Assessment of Optimal Operating Conditions in a SAGD Project by Design of Experiments and Response Surface Methodology , 2008 .

[13]  David Heath,et al.  Optimizing Multiple-Field Scheduling and Production Strategy with Reduced Risk , 2003 .