SPE 140625

Using Integrated Production Modeling (IPM) as an Optimization Tool for Field

Development Planning and Management
E.A. Ageh, SPE, A. Adegoke, O.J. Uzoh, SPE, Shell Nigeria E&P

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa – Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July–7 August 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by
the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract facilities to sales or export. For deepwater subsea

IPM offers a cost effective technique for assessing and systems this includes all the subsea infrastructure and
optimizing field development concepts, it allows for topsides processing facilities. The components of the
evaluation of various scenario plays whether they be model should be sufficiently accurate to represent the
well pairing, well count, well phasing, subsea layout, behaviour of the system at least in terms of pressure and
pipeline sizing, flow stream scheduling or process rate.
configuration to achieve maximum recovery of any
particular fluid stream. IPM can also be used as a The Modeling Challenge
change management tool during the execution phase of
a development project to understand the impact of The Bonga assets pose a complex system with two
change on the system. subsea tie-backs and an injection system. The modelling
The petroleum experts (PETEX) modeling tool has been challenge with such a system includes:
employed for the evaluation of the Bonga North - Managing pressure loss in the integrated
deepwater subsea tie-back development, the software production system
enables the integration of flow assurance with - Managing flow assurance issues
subsurface deliverability and the topside constraints - Handling of combined flow streams of dissimilar
(both envisaged and existing) for all considered options. fluids
The tieback development was designed as a haulage - Production optimization of the overall system
filler to an existing Bonga FPSO and hence the IPM against common system constraints
model was built to provide answers to pertinent Using a model of a complete production system
development and production concerns such as the best improves the understanding of complex systems and
timing for bringing the tie-back development on stream provides an analysis tool to assist optimization of the
and the impact of the tie-back on the host field total system.
production and recovery. The PETEX IPM suite was used for modelling of the
Bonga Assets. The PETEX suite has applications such
as GAP, MBAL, PROSPER, REVEAL, and RESOLVE.
This paper describes the structure of the IPM model and
The modelling strategy for Bonga assets couples the
its various components, it also highlights some of the
network systems platform of GAP with Shell’s proprietary
benefits and challenges of deploying IPM for field
reservoir simulator – MoReS.
development optimization using the PETEX GAP
The Bonga GAP-MoReS Integrated Production Model
production modeling tool coupled with an in-house
(IPM) was constructed to provide a robust tool for
reservoir simulator.
generation of production profiles for the Bonga North
tieback to the Bonga FPSO. More specifically it was
design to help:
Introduction
- Determine the range of likely rates and ultimate
An Integrated Production System Model (IPSM) is a recovery expected from the Bonga North Field taking
model which simulates a field (or group of fields) from into account the subsurface, subsea and surface
reservoir through the wells, pipelines and process facility constraints.
2 Adegoke, .A., Ageh, E.A., Uzoh, O.J.
- Achieve a ‘go-forward’ development scenario
supported by economics (NPV, VIR) and robust in
most likely geologic scenarios.
- Propose a realistic drilling sequence capable of
achieving the goal of keeping the Bonga FPSO full
while taking into account geologic risks and
appraisal during development drilling.
- Investigate the need and requirement for riser base
gaslift
- Explicitly model the water injection system
- Model the impact of smart wells
- Help determine an optimum pressure rating for
the Bonga North injection pump.
IPM Tool
Figure 1 attempts to describe the structure of the IPM
tool. As mentioned in the previous section, an IPM tool
must be able to integrate models from the reservoir level
to the surface level.
The Bonga IPM adopts a full field numerical model in
MoReS and uses GAP for the wells, subsea and surface
networks (for wells, PROSPER models are used).
All of these models are tied together on the RESOLVE
platform. In RESOLVE, for a particular time step, the
simulation models are initialized and reservoir
production/injection data is transmitted to the network
models (in form of a three phase IPR look up tables for
each well). This data point is solved and optimized
against preset objective functions in GAP. GAP solves
the network for operating points for each well. RESOLVE
then transmits the optimized result (either as a fixed flow
rate for each well or a fixed flowing bottom hole
pressure) back to the simulator which treats it as
constraints for the next time step. The whole process is
repeated until completion of the prediction time. The
data flow process is illustrated in figure 2.
The Bonga GAP-MoReS Model
The model includes the Bonga Main producing asset,
the Bonga Northwest (BNW) tie-back, Infield
Opportunities (IFO) Reservoirs and the Bonga North
subsea tie-back development.
The model premise and input data are as listed below:
- 14 Reservoirs – All Bonga Field Reservoirs
(BM+BNW+BN)
- 50 producers – All Bonga Field Reservoirs
(BM+BNW+BN)
- 44 injectors – All Bonga Field Reservoirs
(BM+BNW+BN)
- Max oil rate 225 MSTBD (Nameplate Capacity)
- Max produced water 100 MSTBD updated to
160 MSTBD on 1/1/2012
- Max injection capacity of 340 MSTBD
upgradedable to 360 MSTBD
SPE 140625
- Max total liquid capacity is 280 MBPD
- Max gas handling is 220 MMSCFD
- Uptime: Injection is 86%, and production is also
86%
- Max available for RB gas lift is 60 MMSCF/D
- The Bonga North Specific assumptions are:
- 160,000 BBL/d water injection (WI/P = 1.6
assumed)
- Riser base gas lift at 40% water cut
- 2x10” single-loop production pipeline
- 1x12” water injection pipeline
- Flexibility in well routing depending of line
pressure load
- 4x6 slot daisy-chained production drill centers
- 3x6 slot branched water injection manifolds
- 5500 psi water injection pressure at topside
dedicated to Bonga North
Going by the share size of the components, the model is
not only very large but also very complex (Figure 3). For
all assets, water flooding is required for pressure
maintenance and voidage replacement. The modelling
strategy adopted was to couple GAP to MoReS, this was
done for the following reasons:
- Explicit modeling of the water injection network
- The GAP/Prosper imbedding which allowed
seamless integration of the well models
generated by Production Engineers into the
network model
- Imbedded fluid blending functionality in GAP
- Smart well modeling functionality
- Ease of use of the GAP model building interface
- Ease of obtaining support from PETEX when
needed.
Modeling SMART Wells
The Bonga North field is to be developed with Smart
wells GAP provides a better platform for modelling smart
wells.
All Smart wells were designed for dual zone control and
modelled in GAP as shown in Figure 4 and 5
The inflow elements (purple) are linked to the inflow
performance response (IPR) in the dynamic simulator
(MoRES).
Two modelling approaches were explored based on the
options of well layouts for the smart well, whether siphon
string configuration (Figure 6a) or concentric
configuration (Figure 6b).
For Option A, the bottom zone flows through a pipe
element (modeling tubular flow) to the bottom Interval
Control Valve (ICV). Another pipe element is added at
the point of commingling. The upper zone flows through
a pipe element added to model annular flow from the
upper zone to the ICV.
A check valve is also added to prevent backflow. After
the connection, where pressure equilibrium is reached,
the model
SPE 140625 Using Integrated Production Modeling (IPM) as an Optimization tool for Field Development Planning and Management
is hooked up to an outflow model (green element). Here
the outflow, based on pressures of the previous element,
is modelled.
This outflow model has a fixed PVT input, which will not
be an issue for sand bodies within the same reservoir. In
the case of a smart well completed across two distinct
reservoirs with fluid commingling, the input PVT data
could be a hybrid of both zones. For the Bonga North
models, there was no significant variation in the fluid
properties. Thus one of the PVT tables from either of the
two zones was used. The outflow is modelled from the
point of commingling flow (top of upper ICV) to the
wellhead and is reflected in the subsurface equipment
input data in Prosper.
When the total model is optimized, the inflow models can
be
choked. The optimum pressure difference (dP, psia) is
calculated at the inflow element (purple).
The model option (b) is similar to (a) except that it has
two
check valves. This is particularly suitable for intra-
reservoir smart wells where it is assumed that the zones
can be within the same pressure regime and crossflow
can occur in any direction. Both model approaches yield
about the same result when tested. Modelling smart
injectors is similar to the description for the producers.
For the injectors, however, the check valves are not
included since crossflow is not considered to be so much
of an issue.
Production System Model
The production system in GAP comprises producing
elements
(wells or sources) that are connected via common
manifolds and pipelines to a fixed system pressure (the
separator). The separator in GAP does not have to be
the physical separator in the field; it is simply a point of
fixed pressure in the network.
To a great extent, the model attempts to mirror the
subsea layout for all the fields involved (Bonga Main-,
Bonga NW
and Bonga North). The BN and BNW fields were
modelled as tie-backs to the Bonga infrastructure. All
three fields produce into a single FPSO with the
following design capacities:
- Oil Production: 225 Mbbl/d (gross production
capacity of 280 Mbbl/d)
- Water Handling: 100 Mbbl/d (upgradeable later
in field life to 160 Mbbl/d)
- Water Injection: 300 Mbbl/d
- Lift Gas: 65 MMscf/d
- Gas Export: 170 MMscf/d.
Thus the production separator in the GAP model is
assigned
the following constraints:
- Max Oil rate: 225 Mbbl/d
- Max Water rate: 100 Mbbl/d changed to 160
Mbbl/d after 1/1/2012
- Max Liquid rate: 280 Mbbl/d
3
- Max Gas rate: 220 MMscf/d.
The production system is depicted in Figure 7.
Injection System Model
For all of Bonga development, water injection is required
for
reservoir pressure maintenance and sweep efficiency
through
waterflood. A series of studies indicated that natural
aquifer
support is inadequate to sustained planned production
rates of over 15,000 bbls/day. Thus pressurized
seawater is conditioned at the water injection plant
topsides to meet water injection requirements
maintaining reservoir pressures above the bubble point.
In GAP the injection system (Figure 8) comprises water
injection elements (wells or sinks) that are connected via
common injection drill centres, manifolds and pipelines
to a fixed pressure system, in this case a topsides water
injection manifold.
Specification for the water injection manifold is as given
below:
- Water Injection Rate: 340 Mbbl/d (upgraded to
360 Mbbl/d by 2009)
- Water Salinity: 35,000 ppm
- Injection Temperature: 80°F
- Injection Pressure: 5,500 psia
Model Verification
The Bonga Asset IPM model was built to mirror the
subsea
layout for all the fields involved. A model verification
exercise was carried out to ascertain the validity,
accuracy and functionality of the model. This involved
comparing a history matched production trend of the
Bonga Main asset that is already on-stream and
producing for more than four years with the simulated
result from the model.
The history matched Bonga Main models used in this
IPM
model were completed in November 2007. This provided
an
opportunity to verify the accuracy of the model in
predicting
Bonga Main production. To do this the water production
rate
for 3/2009 was compared with rate predicted by the
model.
The results are shown in Figure 9
For subsea engineering purposes, an independent
model of the
production system was built using UNISIM and PIPESIM
for the Bonga North field. An exercise was conducted in
which the UNISIM and PIPESIM inputs and results were
compared with those from the IPM model. The purpose
of this exercise was to assure alignment and model
consistency, thus improving the confidence level of the
4 Adegoke, .A., Ageh, E.A., Uzoh, O.J.
predictive capability of the IPM (GAP-MoReS model). Six
cases of results from UNISIM, PIPESIM, and IPM were
evaluated. Early life, mid life, and late life scenarios
corresponding to the flow rates in years 2018, 2025, and
2034 respectively were considered. Tables 1 and 2 list
the results from this benchmarking exercise.
The tables show a strong corroboration between the
UNISIM,
PIPESIM, and IPM results. Pressures at the manifolds
are all within +/- 10% deviation between models,
validating the accuracy of each independent calculation
of multiphase flow
hydraulics. Furthermore, manifold temperature
predictions between all three models are all within 6°F.
The inputs to the different software models were
carefully aligned before running the cases and analyzing
the results.
Each software model used the same flowline elevation
profiles, dimensions, compositional fluid models, heat
transfer properties, etc.
Use of Tool for Field Development Optimization
Haven built and validated the model, a number of
simulation runs were carried out to test various scenarios
on the development options for the Bonga North subsea
tie-back development. The results yielded a number of
production profiles and forecasts for which project
economics were evaluated to determine NPVs and VIRs.
The model also enabled the well creaming exercise to
arrive at the optimum well count for the ‘go-forward’
development scenario supported by economics. The
cartoon in figure 10 illustrates the workflow for optimizing
the development concept.
The model also enabled the investigation on the need for
riser base gaslift for the project. The study show that
riserbase gaslift will be required at water cut level of 40%
this represents the optimum watercut value to introduce
gaslift.
Benefits of the GAP-MoReS Model
Besides the user friendliness of the model, the tool lends
itself to use by users from different disciplines and
encourages cross functional ownership of the models
and data. It allows for explicit modeling of the Water
Injection System and allows for optimization of both the
injection and production systems
There’s industry expertise on the PETEX suite of
applications and thus a broad spectrum of the support
system is readily available.
SPE 140625
An integrated resource will be required for the
development, maintenance of the model and
management of any asset for which this tool is deployed.
See Figure 11.
Conclusion
The Bonga GAP-MoReS Integrated Production Model
proved to be an effective and robust tool for
development planning and management of a complex
system. It help in the development strategy and selection
of a most profitable development scenario for a
deepwater subsea tie-back project.
In addition the following was also observed:
- GAP-MoReS IPM Workflow encourages cross-
functional ownership
- Allows for modeling of injection networks
- The systems is also good for modeling smart
wells
References
1. Welte, K.A, Jager, J. 1996. IPSE: A Production
System Modelling Toolkit for Shell Expro. Paper
SPE 35557, presented at the European
Production Operations Conference and
Exhibition, Stavanger, 16-17 April.
2. Sadegh, A., et al, 2009. Bonga Integrated
Production Model, An effective tool for complex
asset development planning. Shell EPJT 2009
(8): 40-46
3. Howel, A., 2006. From Reservoir Through
Process, From Today to Tomorrow – The
Integrated Asset Model. Paper SPE 99469,
presented at the Intelligent Energy Conference
and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 11-13 April.
SPE 140625 Using Integrated Production Modeling (IPM) as an Optimization tool for Field Development Planning and Management 5

Figures

IPM Tool
- PETEX SUITE - GAP, MBAL, PROSPER, REVEAL & RESOLVE
Schema tic of RESO LVE Setup
RESOLVE
Others
RESOLVE: Master Controller

Excel, etc

Surface and Process

(DLL)

GAP, UniSim, Olga, Pipesim

Wells and Gathering Networks:

Wells: WePs, PROSPER
Gathering Network: GAP

Reservoirs:
None Physical Model: Decline Curve
Material Balance Tank Models: MBAL
Full Field Numerical Models: MoReS, Eclipse, IMEX, REVEAL, CMG, etc

Figure 1: Schematic description of the IPM tool

M oReS to GAP via RESO LVE: Da ta flow

IPR tables passed to GAP GAP solves network
GAP Well Models for operating point
of each well
Gathering Network Models
Some Subsea/ Surface Equipment
model

MoReS2RESOLVE DLL

Reservoirs Model

MoReS generates Full Field Numerical Models:

MoReS receives
Three phase IPR table MoReS Operating Point
of each well
of each
MoReS treats the OP as Well
Constraints for next TS

Figure 2: Dataflow process between MoReS and RESOLVE

6 Adegoke, .A., Ageh, E.A., Uzoh, O.J. SPE 140625

Figure 3. The Bonga GAP-MoReS Model- One of the Largest IPM models ever

Figure 4. GAP Modeling alternatives for Smart Producer Wells

SPE 140625 Using Integrated Production Modeling (IPM) as an Optimization tool for Field Development Planning and Management 7

Figure 5. GAP Modeling alternatives for Smart Injector Wells

(a) (b)
Figure 6. Completion Schematics of Smart Well layout options
8 Adegoke, .A., Ageh, E.A., Uzoh, O.J. SPE 140625

Figure 7. GAP representation of the Bonga IPM Production System

Figure 8. GAP representation of the Bonga IPM Injection System

SPE 140625 Using Integrated Production Modeling (IPM) as an Optimization tool for Field Development Planning and Management 9

BS&W

Figure 9. History Matched actual field data vs IPM Model generated data

A) Build Model B) Production Profile

Resolve

C) Run Economics

D) FIDÆExecutionÆFirst Oil

Figure 10. Concept Development Optimiztion Process

10 Adegoke, .A., Ageh, E.A., Uzoh, O.J. SPE 140625

RE
Voidage Monitoring
Discipline Principals
Forecasting
Business Plan
PE/ T Subsea/
Asset/ Project Process Eng
Lift Curves Subsea Layout/ Network -
Teams
Smart Well Modelling UNISIM
Flow Assurance
WELLS

Well Sequence / Pre-drills

Govt Drill Centres External
Regulatory Stakeholders
Bodies

Figure 11. Integration required to manage an Integrated Production System

SPE 140625 Using Integrated Production Modeling (IPM) as an Optimization tool for Field Development Planning and Management 11

Table 1. Comparison of pressure (figures show psia) results at manifolds on flowline A

Table 2. Comparison of pressure (figures show psia) results at manifolds on flowline B