SELF-LEARNING RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT SPE 84064 L. Saputelli1,2,3, M. Nikolaou2, and M. J.

Economides2,3 1PDVSA, 2University of Houston, 3SPE member

PRH 034 - Formao de Engenheiros nas reas de Automao, Controle, e Instrumentao do Petrleo e Gs aciPG, participante do Programa de Recursos Humanos da ANP - Agncia Nacional do Petrleo - para o setor Petrleo e Gs - PRH - ANP/MME/MCT October 21 2004; Florianopolis

Agenda
Motivation: The reservoir management challenge
What is the Problem?, What have been done? What are the challenges?

Problem Formulation The specific objectives and scope of this research Reservoir modeling and identification Model Predictive Control Self Learning Reservoir Management Conclusions The Way Forward
2

Objective of this presentation To review current petroleum production issues regarding real time decision making and, To present the results of a continuous selflearning optimization strategy to optimize field-wide productivity while satisfying reservoir physics, production and business constraints.

Reservoir Management is about a careful orchestration of technology, people & resources

The Reservoir Management Challenge

Exploitation Plan Well location & number Recovery mechanism Surface facilities Well intervention

Drill, build & Operate Drill, build & Operate

Production Well & Facilities Compression & Treatment Plants Injection Facilities

Monitor Monitor

Establish or revise Establish or revise Optimum Plan Optimum Plan Control Control

Drainage Area

Subsurface Subsurface Characterization Characterization

Update Model Update Model

Hydrocarbon production system suffering major technical problems

Motivation
Traditional Problems
Complex & risky operations (Drilling, Workover, Prod.) Poor reservoir prediction & production forecasting Limited resources: injection volumes, facilities, people. Unpredictability of events: gas or water, well damage. Poor decision making ability to tune systems, thus, not optimized operations

Current Approach
More front-end engineering and knowledge sharing Integrated Characterization & Modern visualization tools Multivariable optimization, reengineering. Monitoring & control devices, Beyond well measurements Isolated optimization trials with limited success.

Challenges
More data for analysis and integration limitations. Long-term studies, Ill-posed tools, simple or incomplete. Models are not linked among different layers Poor Justification, real time analysis in early stage. Decisions made only on few pieces. Lack of Integration between subsurface-surface
5

To develop a field-wide continuous self-learning optimization decision engine

Research Specific Objectives

Model based control system used to continuously optimize three-phase fluid migration in a multi-layered reservoir A data-driven model that is continuously updated with collected production data. A self-learning and self-adaptive engine predicts the best operating points of a hydrocarbon-producing field, while integrating subsurface elements surface facilities and constraints (business, safety, quality, operability).
6

Combination of petroleum reservoir physics and process control technologies

Research Framework
Data Data Handling Handling Model Model Building Building System System Identification Identification Reservoir Reservoir Performance Performance Bi-layer Bi-layer Optimization Optimization Close-loop Close-loop Control Control

Data handling
Data acquisition, filtering, de-trending, outliers detection

Model building and identification

Gray box modeling: empirical reservoir modeling Partial least square impulse response, neural network and sub-space

Reservoir performance prediction

Real time Inflow performance and well restrictions Havlena-Odeh Material Balance

Bi-layer optimization of operating parameters

Reservoir best operating point based on the net present value optimization Regulatory downhole sleeves and wellhead choke controls

Closed-loop control with history-matched numerical reservoir model

Study of the system behavior in closed-loop
7

Attempt to solve two significant reservoir management challenges

Problem Definition
Injector - Producer Profile Mngt. Injector - Producer Profile Mngt.
Control undesired fluid production Exploit efficiently multilayer horizons Characterize inter-well relationship Maximize reserves and production Control from surface measurement

Field-Wide Management Field-Wide Management

Optimization fluid production (< bottle-necks) Commingle multilayer reservoirs Minimize production costs Maximize reserves and production Control from surface measurement

Gas Crudo

h1

k1

Agua

hn

kn

By collecting data, a digital image is used to make decisions

Traditional (Ideal) Integrated Management Approach

9 Implementation 1 System: Reservoir, Wells & Surface Facilities 2 Data Collection

Business Constraints

Database Parameters Check Condition Applications

7 8 Decision Making Optimization Well Model

Reservoir Model Surface Model

Business Model Exploitation Options 5

9

Spatial distribution of pressure as a time function of saturation

Reservoir Modeling: Fluid Transport in Porous media

Multiphase Darcys Law

vp =

krp K g p p p Z p gc

This realization is not used in this research, since it requires the knowledge of parameters that cannot be directly measured

Pressure Laplacian as a function of the saturation change

Continuity Equation

c + ( cv ) = 0 t

krp K

S p g c p p p Z = gc t p
yi zi+1 yi+1 zi yi-1 zi-1
10

c=

M W Ax S p p S p = = p VM Ax

Molar density in terms of Porous Volumes

Oil, water and gas flow as linear functions of the drawdown pressure

Reservoir Modeling: Flow through Wellbore

Radial Diffusivity Equation

2 p 1 p p K 2 + = (c f + c) r r r t
General Solution given by Exponential Integral

re rs rw k pe pwf
Proposed IPR for continuous monitoring
k k k qo = a0 + a1 pek + a2 pwf + a3 ( pwf ) k k k qw = b0 + b1 pek + b2 pwf + b3 ( pwf ) 2 2

ct r 2 q p (r , t ) = pi Ei 4kt 4kh

Wellbore flow given by logarithmic approximation

pwf = pi

q 4kt ln 2 4kh ct rw

Steady-state Equation for the Undersaturated Oil-Flow

qo ,b =

kkro h ( pe pwf )

141.2 Bo o ln (re rw ) + s
*

Inflow Performance (IPR) for Saturated reservoirs

2 pwf pwf pb J 1 0.2 qo = qo ,b + 0.8 1.8 pb pb

q = c0 + c1 p + c2 p + c3 ( p
k g k e k wf

k wf

11

Average Reservoir Pressure is a function of net mass production

Reservoir Modeling: Average Pressure Modeling

Material Balance Equation

Expansion of Oil and Original dissolved gas, Eo + Expansion of Gas Caps, Eg + Reduction of Hydrocarbon Pore Volume, E fw + Natural Water Influx, We

Net Underground = Withdrawal, F

Simplification

f p ( t ) = g ( N p , G p , W p , We )
p = a0 + a1 qo + a2 qw + a3 qg + a4 qwi

dp = b1qo + b2 qw + b3 qg + b4 qwi dt
1 t

p p

k 1

k k k k c0 + c1 p + c2 pwf 1 + c3 ( pwf 1 ) + c5 pwf 2 + c6 ( pwf 2 ) k 2

Proposed Pressure Modeling for continuous monitoring

( p) = ( p)
k

k 1

+ c1 + c2 p

k wf 1

+ c3 ( p

2 k wf 1

+ c4 p

k wf 2

+ c5 ( p

2 k wf 2

12

Vertical flow as non-linear functions of flow rates

Reservoir Modeling: Flow Through Pipes

Mechanical Energy Equation

dp

2 f f u dL udu g + + dz + + dWs = 0 gc gc gc D
Single-Phase Solution, Incompressible
Depth (ft)

0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

1000

Pressure (psia) 2000 3000

4000

5000

1,000 STB/D @ 500 SCF/STB; WOR=1 1,000 STB/D @ 1000 SCF/STB; WOR=1 1,000 STB/D @ 500 SCF/STB; WOR=0 1,000 STB/D @ 1000 SCF/STB; WOR=0

2 f f u 2 dL g 2 p = p1 p2 = u + z + 2 gc gc gc D

( u 2 gc ) & dp fm 144 =+ + 10 5 dz z ( 7.413 10 D )

2 2 m

Two-Phase Solution, Hagerdorn & Brown (1965)

12000 14000

Proposed Pressure Drop Modeling for Continuous Monitoring

(p

k wf

pth

= b q + b q + b q + b4 ( q
k 1 o k 2 w k 3 g

k 2 o

+ b5 ( q

k 2 w

+ b6 ( q

k 2 g

13

Well operating point given by the intersection of reservoir and tubing performance

Reservoir Modeling: Well Deliverability

Tubing Head Pressure Choke Tubing Performance pwf , [psia] q, [BPD] pwf , [psia] Fractional Flow of Phases q, [BPD] Reservoir Performance pwf , [psia]

Bottomhole Flowing Pressure Reservoir Pressure

q, [BPD]

14

Knowing input-output relationships, reservoir could seen as a process plant

Reservoir as a Process Control System Structure

Backpressure Ambient Temperature Flow Restrictions Injection Fluid Restriction

Measured Disturbances

Unmeasured Disturbances

Reservoir Rock Heterogeneity Reservoir Fluid Distribution Scheduling

Feed forward path

Manipulated Inputs
Flow Choke Zone Control ESP Speed Gas Lift
Gas Crudo

Unmeasured Outputs
Well flowing Pressure: pwf Reservoir Pressure: pres Reservoir Saturations: So, Sw Flow Impairment: S, Krs Zone Multiphase Flow: qo, qw, gq Drainage Area: A Tubing Head Pressure: pTHP

Controller

Solvent Injection Water Injection Heat Injection Gas Injection

Agua

Feed back path

Tubing Head Temperature: TTHT Multiphase Flow: qo, qw, gq Solid Production, Water Analysis

Measured Outputs
15

Recursive self-adaptive identification

Reservoir Model Identification

Physical System Set point

pk +1 , qk +1

sp wf

Reservoir Reservoir Simulator Simulator

Measure

sp qG

Control Control Implementation Implementation

Control

Interpret

Model Model Identification Identification

yk + n + j | k =
n+ N

qo ,opt
Set point

Optimize

Reservoir Value Reservoir Value Optimization Optimization

Model

i = n +1

hu

i k + n + j i

+ d k |k

k k k qo = a0 + a1 pek + a2 pwf + a3 ( p wf )

) 2 k k k q g = c0 + c1 pek + c2 pwf + c3 ( pwf )

q = b0 + b1 p + b2 p
k w k e k wf k wf

+ b3 ( p

q q q

k o k w k g

a0 = b 0 c 0

a1 a2 b1 b2 c1 c2

1 k a3 pe b3 p k wf c3 k 2 ( pwf )

LS Optimization Loop Y = X + e
-1 N min ei2 ( X T X ) XT Y a ,b i =1 k k qo, g , w = f1 p k , p k 1 ... qT , qT 1 ,... k k 1 pres = f n p k , p k 1 ... qT , qT ,...

16

Example for Model Identification and Block Diagram

Empirical model whose structure is determined by first principles Identification Identification

Empirical Empirical Model Model

d
+

qo qw qg

pwf

Reservoir Reservoir (Simulator) (Simulator)

Outputs (Y) Inputs (U) Producer Flowing Pressure, pwf1 u1 Injector Flowing Pressure, pwf2 u2 qwinj qo y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 Reservoir Pressure: P Oil Rate: qo Water Rate: qw Water Fraction: fw Gas Rate: qg Water Injection Rate: qwi
17

Model Identification Experimental Set-up

Windows and Eclipse Environment Generate Data File Matlab Environment Level Subspace Identification Plot Rsc Calculated & Measured x,y Read Excel File Run Eclipse Reservoir Numerical Model Run Summary File Convert Eclipse To Excel Run Matlab

Neural Network

Split Data Test & Pred

x=0 =1

Auto Scale

U, Y

Select Input and Outputs

Ac , Ad

A
cumsum(A) diff(A)

FIR PLS

Rescale Parameters

Least Squares Estimator

18

Predictions Using Empirical Structured models

19

Errors Using Empirical models

20

Coefficients Using Empirical models

21

MPC minimizes future prediction error while satisfying input constraints

Model Predictive Control

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

yk + n + j |k =

n+ N

i = n +1

hi uk + n + j i + d k |k

where

d k |k = yk

n+ N

i = n +1

hu

i k i

Minimization Problem to solve

p SP m in ( y k + n + j | k y j =1 s .t . y m in y k + n + j | k y m a x u m in u k + j 1| k u m a x u = u k + m 1| k k + i |k

m + R u k2 + j 1| k j =1 j = 1, L , p j = 1, L , m i = m ,L , p 1

Controls operation while optimizing performance Done over a receding or moving horizon Requires a setpoint from an upper level
Set Point Tracking Example All Variables normalized so that They have zero mean and Std. Dev = 1 22

Example for Control and Block Diagram

PLS Impulse PLS Impulse Identification Identification Empirical Empirical Model Model

qo , sp qw, sp qg , sp
+ -

d
+

qo

MPC MPC Controller Controller

pwf

qo qw qg

Reservoir Reservoir (Simulator) (Simulator)

Outputs (Y) Inputs (U) Producer Flowing Pressure, pwf1 u1 Producer Flowing Pressure, pwf2 u2 Injection Flowing Rate, qwinj u3
Layer 1, kh1 Layer 2, kh2

qwinj

qoT

y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6

Reservoir Pressure: P Oil Rate Layer 1: qo1 Oil Rate Layer 2: qo2 Water Rate Layer 1: qw1 Water Rate Layer 2: qw2 Water Injection Rate: qwi
23

MPC minimizes future prediction error by satisfying input constraints

Model Predictive Control Response

24

Continuous self-learning optimization decision engine

New Self-learning Reservoir Management Technique

Physical System Set point

pk +1 , qk +1

sp wf

Reservoir Reservoir Simulator Simulator

Measure

sp qG

Control Control Implementation Implementation

Control

Interpret

Model Model Identification Identification

yk + n + j |k =
n+ N

qo ,opt
Set point

Optimize

Reservoir Value Reservoir Value Optimization Optimization

Model

i = n +1

hu

i k + n + j i

+ d k |k

LP Optimization Loop
N max NPV = f ( qo , qw , qg ,$, T ) qo ,qw ,qg 1 pmin pk + p , k pmax s.t. qmin qk + p qmax

{qo ,opt , qg ,opt , qw,opt

25

Upper optimization layer passes the best operating point to lower layer

Multilayer Reservoir Control Model

Linear Programming Linear Programming Optimizer Optimizer Net Present Value Net Present Value Function Function Reservoir Forecasts Reservoir Forecasts

Optimization Layer Regulatory Layer PLS Impulse PLS Impulse Identification Identification Empirical Empirical Model Model Information

qo , sp qw, sp qg , sp
+ -

d
+

qo

MPC MPC Controller Controller

pwf

qo qw qg

Reservoir Reservoir (Simulator) (Simulator)

26

Best operating point (LP) problem subject to well constraints

Linear Optimization Problem

N max NPV = f ( qo , qw , qg ,$, T ) qo ,qw ,qg 1

NPV =
k =1

k k k k k k ( qo Po + qg Pg qwp Cwp qwi Cwi ) Tk IT CF (1 r k )

(1 + i )
Performan c e
4 3

k Tk 365

Down hole Flowing Pressure , psia

VLP 4: fw,max +pTHP,min

Reservoir
pwf,max

pthp

VLP 3: fw,max +pTHP,max VLP 2: fw,min +pTHP,min

1

fw 2

VLP 1: fw,min +pTHP,max

pwf,min
2

ql,min

ql,max

Total Liquid Rate, BPD

27

The self-learning cased permitted less water and more oil produced

Injector-producer Management Problem Results

Experimental Base: History-matched Model from El Furrial, HPHT, deep onshore, light oil

Base Case No control

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

Self Learning Case

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

28

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

Field-wide life cycle comparison Results

Oil rate
Self-Learning

Oil Cumulative

5%

Np=500 Mbbls Rev=$5 Million

Self-Learning Non-Controlled

Non-Controlled

Water rate
Wp, Produced Water Cumulative Non-Controlled
Winj Non co ntrolled

Wp= -18 MMbbls Wi= -19 MMbbls Rev= -$92.5 Million

Winj, Injected Water Cumulative

-55%
d olle ontr on c N Wp Winj Controlled

-78%

Self-Learning

Wp Controlled

29

Continuous self-learning optimization decision engine

New Self-learning Reservoir Management Technique

Physical System Set point

pk +1 , qk +1

sp wf

Reservoir Reservoir Simulator Simulator

Measure

sp qG

Control Control Implementation Implementation

Control

Interpret

Model Model Identification Identification

yk + n + j |k =
n+ N

qo ,opt
Set point

Optimize

Reservoir Value Reservoir Value Optimization Optimization

Model

i = n +1

hu

i k + n + j i

+ d k |k

QP Optimization Loop
m p 2 min ( yk + j y SP ) + R uk2+ j u j =1 j =1 s.t.

LP Optimization Loop
N max NPV = f ( qo , qw , qg ,$, T ) 1 qo ,qw ,qg pmin pk + p , k pmax s.t. qmin qk + p qmax

LS Optimization Loop Y = X + e
-1 2 min ei ( XT X ) XY a ,b i =1 k k qo , g , w = f1 p k , p k 1 ... qT , qT 1 ,... k k 1 pres = f n p k , p k 1 ... qT , qT ,...

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

{qo ,opt , qg ,opt , qw,opt

30

Summary & Conclusions

Novel multilevel self adaptive reservoir performance optimization architecture
Upper level calculates the optimum operating point Based on NPV Optimum set point passed to underlying level

Feasibility of the method demonstrated through a case study

Reservoir performance continuously optimized by an adaptive self-learning decision engine Method capitalizes on available remotely actuated devices

Algorithm feasible for downhole implementation

Impart intelligent to downhole and surface actuation devices
31

Acknowledgement
Research work was done under the guidance of Dr. Michael J. Economides and Dr. Michael Nikolaou at the University of Houston Research partially funded by PDVSA and Cullen College of Engineering Research Foundation at the University of Houston Academic access to software technology: EPS, Stonebond Technologies, KBRs Advanced Process Control framework.

32