Steinar M. Elgster, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Olav Slupphaug, ABB Tor Arne Johansen, NTNU
Production optimization
Day-to-day optimization of production
u,d
* Elgsaeter, S.M., Slupphaug, O. And Johansen, T.A. (2007), Challenges in Parameter Estimation of Models for Offshore Oil and Gas Production Optimization, International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, 4.Dec 2007, IPTC11728
Excitation can close the loop, but has costs and risk
* Elgsaeter,S.M., Slupphaug, O. and Johansen, T.A.(2008), Production Optimization; System Identification and Uncertainty Estimation, Intelligent Energy 08, Amsterdam, Feb 2008, SPE112186
Deadlock
Practicioners do not see the value of excitation and hence will not allow us to implement it
Data-driven models
Stationary (no dynamic terms) Motivated by the concepts of system identification
Simple/pragmatic/inferred from data
Locally valid Model the oil, gas and water produced from each well, fitted to measured total rates of oil, gas and water Fitted paramters Two versions for comparison:
well test
Result:
uncertainty fans which express information content or lack thereof in data Several houndred similar but different paramters which are all plausible
What is the cost of not being able to differentiate among the models identified?
Production optimization
Profit Model Constraints
Profits(M) and constraints(c) are related to modeled rates of oil, gas and water
10
Profit: total produced oil Constraint 1: max total produced gas (<= current rate) Constraint 2: max total produced water (<= current rate) Constraint 3: (Uprc is design variable) Constraint 4: (flow assurance on some wells)
11
Solve production optimization problem for all models identified using bootstrapping For each plausible model identified using bootstrapping (model t) For each plausible model identified using bootstrapping (model f) Simulate how much of the potential production optimization is able to realize if we implement decision variable found by optimization with (model f) when in reality production is described by (model t)
12
Results
Blue:1.order(linear) model Green:2.order model Top: upper 95. percentile Center: mean Bottom lower 95.percentile
Po(%)
Lu (%)
Results model-dependent 1.order model results in more conservative losses (and with less variation) Lu and Po depend on choice of Uprc, the ratio between the two less so Analysis indicates that
Lu/Po
a potential in excess of 2% exists as much as half of this potential may be unrealized unless excitation is introduced
13
Conclusions
A way to estimate the value of closed-loop modeling/optimization that is consistent with data attempt to let the data speak A tool for communicating the value of closing-the-loop to non-control engineers.
The link between how a field is operated and the success of subsequent production optimization is highlighted This analysis can hopefully convince practicioners to operate their fields in a manner which introduces more excitation
14
15