You are on page 1of 13


9 . .

Society of PetroleumEngineers

SPE 36874

Field Development Optimization using Linear Programming coupled with Reservoir Simulation - Ekofisk Field
R.L. Nesvold, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Company Norway; T.R. Herring, SPE, Norsk AGIP; J.C. Currie, SPE, Phillips Petroleum Company Norway

Copyright 1966, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc Thts pap w prepared tm p+ese.ofatlon at the 19%3 SPE European Petroleum Conference in M!Ian, italy, 22-24 October 1996 held

Thm paper was selected for presentabon by an SPE Program Commmee following renew of Iudwmabm contmned m an bstract submttted by the author(s) Contents of the paper have not been rwewed by the Soaety of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correctum by the a@f@S) ~ material, aS presented, does nOt neCeSsaldy reflect any poslbon of the Society of i%bukwm EnOmeers, its officers, or members Papers pfesented at SPE meebngs are subject w P.Ibfii rer.ww by Edrtonal Commt fees of the So.aefy of Petroleum Engineers Permlss,on b W Is restricted to an abstract of not more than ?.00 vmrds IIlustratmns may Ot be cOpted The at6bacf should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the papef IS P O Box 8334136, Richardson, TX 75063 .36?.!3 u s A tax 01. pmetded Wr?te Llbrar!a., 214.952.9435


Early in the stages of the Ekotisk II project, it was decided to design [be ncw processing facilities to plateau production for the first few years. While plateauing production generally provides the most atlmctive ec(momic allemative, it significantly complicates (Iw dcvclopn]ent planning fur a field. In the case of the Ekofisk 11 project, a Iargc numlmx of economically viable opportunities existed to met-ease producti(m and a procedure was required to (q>tImizc scheduling {Ii these prqects. Table 1 summarizes the numhu of prolccts (hat lvuc under consideration The rate at which tlwsc pr~$xts could be developed was governed by t~v(~ n)[ijor c(mstraints; pr(wessing capacity and rig availability, The ncw Ekotisk 11Immssing facilities limited gas processing to 7X{)MMSLF1) and oil [o 274 MBOPD Drilling constraints varied hy platfolm. Fixed platform rigs capable of drilling SIXwells per year existed on Ekotisk X and 13LItisk 13ra\() p10tfo17ns. (he jackup rig was also available, and was capahlc of drilling six WCIIper year on Ekofisk X, Eldfisk Alpha, or Tor llatl[mns The Jackup was also capable of drilling on Ilmhla, but \vas lill~ltt.xi[o four wells pcr year due to the longer drilling tmws till-the deeper, hlgbcr pressured Ernbla reservoir, No drilling Iws prcnwd (m l;h,~lisk Alpha, Ekofisk Bravo or Ekofisk Char]icplat[imns. 1able2 summarizes the drilling constraints for (I)CEkt)lisk 11pr(qtxt. W ](1] tlwsc c(mst]-aints, a number of dilTerent development In strategies \vcrc possible. Four of the most significant options that req~lircd e~aluatitm Iicrc as f~dlows: 1) Accclc]-sting drilling (m [mt]ying liclds. Excess processing capocit~cwslcd pIl(N t( I stml up o~ the new process facilities in 109X. ( )plx,rtuni{iw CXISICCI increase production on the (o smaller (mllying liclds prior to I 99X, hut the long [mm proCIUCIILNI impact [,! Ihese pn)jects would reduce the processing capaci{y wallable alicr stall up of the new facilities, The value t)t (his accclcra(cd pr(duc[icm had to be weighed against the p,,(ct]tia] impac[ (,tdel;lying higher value Ekotlsk X Platform lvclls until atier the plateau pmod.

Abstract The Ekofisk Field in the Nolwegian NoIIh SCo is cunently being redeveloped with the installation of a new processing platfcmn and a new 50 slot wellhead plattbnn The new processing tiwili[ics wc scheduled to be installed in 199X and \vill sent as a central processing point for the Ekofisk lield and all (JFthe (mtlylng lickls in the C1reater Ekofisk Area. Dri]ling opLwItI(ms (m the IICIY \\ell head platfbml will commence in 1996 and will result in (Iw dnllmg of up to 50 wells over the next eight years. In order 10 maxilmzc the value of this major redevekqmwnt, a P1LJJCC( was lni[iatul (() optimize the development strategy for Ekotisk and the twtlying fields. This paper desaibe-s the tools developed during this pro,jcc[. Two ditkrent techniques of coupling linear progranuning al)d reservoir simulation were developed indepcndcn[[y using itcratifw approaches to obtain solutions. The results of the IWOappr~mclws yielded wy similar solutions, which provides a lugh dcgi-cc td confidence in the solution ttxluuqucs.

The redevelopment of (he Ekotisk field, also kn(Nvn as tbc Ikdisk H project, has a significant impact (m h[)th Ekofisk anLIthc {m[lying fields in the Cirealer Ekotisk Area. 1hcnmv 2/4 J l1[HSll)~ Platiorrn will he installed in 19(X4and will c(ms(~lidatc all (irca(cr Ekofisk Area Oil and Gas processing (m [mc plalfcmn. 1lwnet{ processing platform will aecomulate pr(xhwti(m Ii-onl the 1klliskl Eldtlsk, Embla and Tor fields, as well as any ~uturt dcd(qmumts The new 50 slot 2/4 X Wellbcad Platf{ml~ lvlll hc installed II) 1996 and used to redevelop the Ekofisk Field, wcntually rcplaci[lg Ihc existing 2/4 Alpha and 2/4 Bravo Platf(mns.




2) AcceleratingEkofisk X Platfo~ml Drilling The new Ekofisk 2/4 X drilling platform was designed to ulilize one permanent platform based drilling rig, with the option to drill simultaneously with a second jackup based drilling rig. Use of both rigs would result in a significant acceleration of production, but the wells from the jackup rig cost almost twice as much as wells from the platform rig The value of accelerating production with the jackup rig bad to be evaluated against the higher well cost associated with using the jackup drilling rig. 3) Extending producing life of Ekotisk 2/4 Alpha and 2/4 13ravc) Platforms. The original Ekotlsk II design premises assumed Ekofisk 2/4 Alpha and 2/4 Bravo platforms would be shutdown in 1999. Additional analysis suhsequent]y indicated the two Platforms could be produced past 1999 with minor capital costs, The option of extending the prcxlucing life 2/4 Alpha and 2/4 Bravo had to weighed against the cost and value of drilling wells from 2/4 X platform 10 replace production fiinn the platforms, 4) Choking back or shutting in production (m existing fields. During-plateau periods, i_tmay be necessa]y to bal;tlcc the value of choking back high volume, low cost Ek~)lisk production versus potent ial reserve k)ss thot may occur iiom shutting in lower volume, higher cost outlying tickls.

Method Formulation of Approach

This method is based on an i[erative solution to linearize the rwemoir dcscript ion stdlicient Iy to obtain meaningful results with minimum computw time, The method was designed and used on a single w(N-lwtat The umlerlying philosophy used in this method ion. is to incoqlorfite all of Ihe necessary calculations into the linear program opt imisa[ion code and allow the linear program to determine [Iw project schedule, choking requirements and e conomics. This is done by using linear constraints on all variables to pertbnn post tax economic calculations based on investment and production profile input The individual production profiles are linearized into discrete clilferences for easy manipulation within the linear program, The objective iimct ion used in the linear program formulation is the post tax net present value (NPV). The optimisation fiction is subject to various constmints. These constraints are related to dril ]ing rig availability and processing capacity as mentioned earlier.

Early in the process of developing a procedure to optimize the project schedule, it was recognised that simply drilling the best projects first was not the most prudent approach. The lost value from delaying less attractive projects could result in a lower (wcrall project value. Thus, considering the stnlcture of the Im)blcm, it was determined that a linear programming approach w(mld bc the preferred method of developing a project schedule. lhnvever, there was one major problem that had h) be addressed bckwc a linear programming techniques could be appiitd 10 the problem; how to handle well interference. Each well in a field is influenced hy all of the other WCIISin [IN field which produced before and after it is completed. As a result, the change in production proiile resulting ii(m) dcloying drilling is a function of not only time, hut also the drilling sequence t)f all the other wells in the field. This type of behav]~mr u(nnplicatcs Iincw programming applications. To address this problem, two novel iterative techniques were developed independently using reservoir simulators ctmplcd with linear programming techniques to address the problcm The techniques are as described in the following sections.

A two step upproach was used to address the well interference impact on pr(xluct ion, First, the intluence between new wells was estimated by using a slope function The second step was to estimate the impact the of [he new wells on the existing field producti(m protlles, k sic)pe Ihnct ion is used to account for the effects of time and interference during the simulation. The procedure is initiated by pertbnning tlvo simulilliim rims, with random and different drilling schedules. Ilw IIV(Jdri}ling schedules provide two profi]es for each well ot diflercnt p(ml[s in time, and the slope between these points arc used to finwast the profile for a given well starting in ,awy year. Thcw intitial production proliles and slopes are used to ini[ifllizc the first iteration. For subsequent iterations, slopes and input producti~m protiles are continually updated to reflect the results 01 previous run. tk T(1acc(mnt fi)r tk product i(m impact of choking production on an individual WCII,a supelp(jsiton approach was used to modifj the individual WCI1pr[dile. Equations la, 1b and Ic summarize the cII(Ac Iiwl(n calculatitm. qo,l <= z, qoi)( I)a) q(JJ~ (qoil~ - q[)ill)zl + qoi,l ZI <= q(J3 <= (q(~i,l - qoi,z)zl + (qolJ~- qui,l )Z~+qoill z3 elc,.. (la) (lb) (It)






for each project in each period t, The z term represents the percentage of pnKIuct m (hat is choked back for an individual well in a time step. An example of a slope adjustd well profile and the practical result is given in Figure 1, This figure shows how the linear program used the production slopes and choke factors to moditJ the base production profile to accurately predict the rate of the well when drilled in 1999. One of the advantages behind such a shilling choke formulation is the speed in which the linear program solver can obtain an solution. If the choke factors are removed, solution time can increase 10 fold and occasionally the nm will terminate due to memory limits, The choke factors work as a cushion fi]r the rigorous integer solution. If choking is not physically desired, it is recommended the z factor be set at 0.95 to provide some tlcxibility to the linear program solver, The gas rates are not treated with the above slope fonnulatitm and are instead updated explicitly from the previous nm. This implies more diilculty in obtaining wnvergence on gas rates which will he demonstrated later in the paper.

One of the potcn[ial problems related to the above solution process is the possibility that the s(duti(m will he dependent on the starting point, This has been invest igated using two different random dri IIing scheduics as stalling points. Both cases resulted in the same cnd drilling schcdu]e demonstrating that the solution will be independent ofthe statling input schedule. Input to Linear Program The input to the linear program code is quite simple. The production protile for each well and platfom] from the previous simulation nm together with the slope of the production rate with time calculated ftxml the previous two runs are input. The investment t(wthe project and operating cost for the platforms are alst) input A F( )RTRAN pr(~gram IMs been made which reads the various simulati[m data output, cost input and generates the input to a commercial Linear Programming sofiwat-e package. The iteration pr(xxss and quality check is hig~ly automa~ed, -

Iterative Analysis

Influence on Existing Wells

To minimize the size of the linear program input file, (he basis production from existing wells was simulated on a plaIItNIl) as opposed to an individual well basis. The inilucnce of ncw Ivclts on existing production was estimated by evaluating the anl~mnt of production hat was lost from the existing plat~imn base protiles as a result of interfkrcnee from the new wells. Iniliol]y a base plalfonn profile was generated, and then simulntitms were performed li~r each well to evaluate the impact each well had (m [he base pla(~oml profile. These simulations provided a da(a base of loss factors which could be used to estimate the amount of intcrfencc each Jvell would have on existing production. This means that when a given well is sclectccl ti(m] Ihc drilling queue, a negative production prolile based ~m the loss Iimcl]{MIS will be added to the existing platforms producti(m in {mlcr to obtain the correct field production. This is checked during cdl iteration by comparing the estimated plattimn production fr(ml (Iw linear program with the actual platfom] proclucti{m thin) the simulator. If large errors exist, an additi[mal intema] l(Nql is performed normalizing [he loss fimctions ((~ the nclv pla(thml production, Well interference is accounted for in the Iincar pr(lgr;llu hy combining simulation results with the (NIIpUI(JfIhc op[lmiscr 1hc objective is to obtain the same well schedule tvith llttle Inlluencc of the input schedule. Sensitivities have been made to clwck th]s assumption, Only one full field simulation run is made l(w each iteration thus minimizing the tunoun[ of cxm]puler lime rcqulred. An example ilow chart is shown in Figure 2.

m basease mIl rccplircd 6 Iterations to converge. Approximately c ((II each iteration ( 1,51u for simulation, and 0,5 2 hrs IS rcquII-e~ his tin the linear program ~)ptimisati(m). Figures 3 and 4 show the c(mvcrgcnce otthe Imcar pr(~gram prediction versus the simulation KXI]LS tiw UN IIu)lisk Fold. Based on the findings of the base case results, onl) the Ekotisk nl(xlcl needed to he iterated to obtain a drilling schedule. The c(nlvcrgtmce is quite good for the oil rate and the Iwginning of the gas rate. This is due to the explicit nature of the gas prutictions versus the slope formulation used for the oil ra[c pmlictions, one of the advantages to this method is the internal econ(mlic calculation made by the linear program. Since the inpul costs are divided twtween capital investments, fixed t)pcratlng c{wts, and ra[e variable operating costs, if a well or platli)nn is CINAIXJ(w shut in, the change in the economics is ;Icc(lulltcd tiu automatically
Method 2 This mcth{>d uses an iterative approach to develop a unique pr(}jcct schedule to optimize a defined objective, This approach requires a large number of reservoir simulations to rigorously mntch [he oil and gas profile for each well and as a result, this method requires that a large computing capacity is available,

Simulation Concepts
dctmnine he CC(UIOIIUC c[mtribut ion of each project, economic [c) e~nlua[l[ms\wrc hxwl [u] a each projects impact on the field wide prod ucli~m prolile 1he.wincremental production profiles were used to capture tlw in{cr(crcnce and otyset drainage effects which result in the tield wide incremental impact of a well being signiti -




ri) cantly less than the wells individual production prolilc. determine the field wide increment al product i(m from a well, two fill-field simulations are required: one without the well in question and the other including the well. The iirst simulaticm produc(ioo profile is subtracted from the second simulation producti(m pmii]e to determine the field wide incremental profile. This type of incremental evaluation oflen results in well profiles which have a negative production tail due to acceleration of production. The advantage of this approach is that the linear program coul~ simply add the individual incremental project protiles to obt ain a reaswlably close estimate of total field perfommnce.
In the case of Ekofisk Field, any of the proposed new wells can be drilled during any of at least 9 different years. Due to the impact of well interference, it is impractical to simulate all the potcntiol combinations of drilling schedules that can impact a well for MCI] potential drilling year. To clevclop the base case scenario pri(w to iteration, a simplifying premise is employed \*hereby CilCll \vcll is simulated in a best case and worst case scenari[). All intcnncdia~c cases are estimated through simple linear intcqxdati(m The best case for each wells tic%l wide incremental pr(dilc is developed by assuming the well is chilled in the lirst year of the drilling schedule, with no other WCIISdrilled atlcr the Iirst year. Conversely, the worst case is estimated by assuming the \\Jcll is drilled in the last year of the drilling schcdulc and all uthcr \\ CIIS are drilled earlier in the schedule. TIN best usc results in the least drainage intluence from oillct wells, while the lv[wst caw vickis the maximum offset drainage etTects.
to For the initial estimates, simple limm inteqx]lnti(m \ii]s uwl develop forecasts for the interim years. A set of incremental oil production forecasts, one for each year, sh{)wing the simulated best and worst case scenarios, and the inteqxdatcd timxwsts is shown on Figure 5.

nati\v start d;ltc, (Iw input k) the linear program included incremental oil and gas pr(xluction proiiles over time, capital costs, and net present vnlucs (NPV) at several tlxed discount rates. Most wells could bc drilled in any year from 1997 to 2005, and as a rcsul I nine scpertite threcasts and economic evaluations were generated for each well and input into the Linear Program Data base. in the case of Ekolisk X Ilatfoiml, wells which could also be chilled with a Jackup rig frcml 1997 to 2000, four additional input ca.scs \\Icre dcvclopcd using the same production profiles, but with higher capital costs associated with drilling with the jackup rig. Linear Program Functions A Iincar program data hasc was developed to store the individual and cc{m(mlics fi~reach project for each year. The oil and gas pr[sxssing c(mstraints and well drilling limits for each platform were buil( intt) the Iincw pr(~granl model. The model also included illtcr-dcl>cllde]~cics het\vecn projects For example, new wells coutd not hc drilled to an area hetbre the existing platform in that allxl \\:ls Shllt down.

The Ekofisk Field reservoir simulator used for this mcthtxl required approximately 90 CPU minutes for each simulali(m. 1hcctmlputing capacity to perform the multiple simulatitms came ti[)tn spare capacity in the existing rcswvoir cnguuxmng \*(wkst:l[l(ms. to firm m intcrc(uuwc(ud Specialized sohware was employed cluster of four workstations. This soiiwarc all[nved up t~) 50 simulation runs to be submitted si]lltllt[]t]eollsly and then he executed during non-working hours, cllktivcly using an idle resource and allowing fc)r a large numtwr of simulati(ms tt~hc 1111). Input to Linear Program The linearprogram fbr this method requires cc[m~unic ICSUIIS tind production profiles for each project altcmativc. Sales pr(~lilcs for economics were generated from the Iickl \\idc mcrcmcn[al production profiles developed through simul:lti(m and interpolation. Project capital costs and expenses \\urc dckmlincd allct fill project economics were dcvckqwd. I:or each Im)jccl altcl--

In (mlcr to alltnv the Iincar program to filly optimize existing pr(duc(i(m as lwll as IIC!V projects, a series of choke back profiles lVWC gcneratul tiw IIWusisting base production for each platform. l-hcsclmlfilcs \\cre dctcl[qmd hy using the reservoir simulator to Iinucast the I(mg [cm] incremental impact of a 50V0 choke back of produc[i(m in onc vcar ( )nc choke hock case was developed for each plattimn ti)r WA vcar. Each protile was loaded into the linear program prujcct data base including a till economic evaluation of the pr(dile. Although choking back production oflen had a minimal impwt (In rcscwcs, the ecommlic impact was always negative due to the dccclcrat ion of production. The choke back cases were trc:ltcd as c(mtinuims variables, hut the choke back was limited to 5(F!4(ia platlimns pr(xlucti[m. Hmore than a 50%0 choke back of existing pr(xluction was required, it was assumed the platforms \uNdd lWunwmunic to [qwrate and the linear prc)gram was force lo shul in the cxistillg pl~ltlimn A separate set of projects for plat I(mu sh~ltin, \vllich \vcre loaded as a negative production profites, Ivcrc also ilwllkl tiw cad pla(folml. 1hc(q>tion I(J CINAChack existing production allowed the linear pn)gr;an I(Jclxdw back existing high gas oil ratio production to free up capwity tiu h)wcr gas oil ratio projects during periods when the !iclds \\crc c(mstraincd by gw and not oil processing capacity. The Iilw:lr program lv(mld (yltimize the negative value impact of cl~(king back cxis[ing pr(xluction against (he additional oil pr(xttlct it)ll \; IliIc OIM oincd from bringing on lower gas oil ratio prtductl(m NW (@cti\v ftu)ct](m(dthe Iincar program was designed to allow Ilmhllity to nmi]llvc vilri;~hlciiacti(ms of either NPV or reserves. Constraints (m capita] lvcre also included, thus allowing the linear program to he USUJfor uxm)mic sensitivity analysis and capital Aiuicncv cvalutiti(ms.







Iterative Analysis Early in the design of this linear prt]gramming approach [o the Ekofisk optimization problem, il \vas delenninccl an ilcralivc solution would be required (o account for \vcll in(crfcrcnce ci~ccts, The generation of the initial prt~ject data hasc using the Iincw interpolated production profiles was desigmxl [o pr~widc a reasonably close approximation for the tirst pass of the itcrati{m This was necessary to minimize the number (i iteration runs because of the large commitment of sinlulati~m time rcquiwd f(~r each iteration. After each iteration, a new reservoir simulation is perlbnncd fur each project based on the project schedule provichxi by the output tiom the linear program. These new incremental prolilcs arc added to the input database and a new set of inteqxdatul pmtilcs arc generated. For project forecasts which fall lw[I\ ten (Iw iirst and last year, two independent linear Intetlmlati(ms arc pcr[(mncd between the new proli]e and (Iw existing hcs[ :ud \v[wst cosc profiles. The new economic cvalua[i~ms al-c thel] pCrI~NTIICd (,11 each of the profiles and the database IS re-subml[tcd to tlw IIIWU program. This iterative procedure \vas repcn[cd ti)uI t]mcs tin Ekofisk Field. The fourth itcra(itm ycikkl a Iincar prt)gl-anl generated forecast which agreed \wy \vcll \vi[l~ [hc I<cscrl{lii Simulaton results and the procedure was c(msidcrcd I() hII\IC converged at this point. Figure 6 sho\Vs IKNVthe pr(xluctitm liu II)C variance between the linear prt)gratll pt(xlLIcI I(M) prt)fIIc Ekofisk Field improved as c(mlparccl to (Iw actwil rescr\(liisimulation with each itmati(m. Figure 7 sll{n\s ho\\ Ihc li]u]l timrth WI(I} full ticld slmul:itlol) iteration total field protile LXIIIIpaI-C results, Both linear programming approaches uti]lzcd m (his c\Lilmi{itx~ yielded similar project schedules, which acklcd a high dcgrcc {)1 Cotildence to the results of the study rhe results of the SIULl~ iIIC summarized as follows: 1) Seven wells on the Eldtisk Field were ickmtiticd m comldatcs for drilling prior to the 1998 processing plO(IXII A jackup based drilling rig [[) supplement [he platlimll hascd on the new Ekollsk X Platfimn was rcc(mlmcndcd It) lW used in 1997 and 1998, Drilling atler 199K lUNLICI Iim]tcd (UIII hc to the platform based rig. The optimum shutdown date ti)r the IXotisk 2/4 AlplM and 2/4 Bravo platforms was detennimxl to be 1){)). None of the fields evaluated in this stmly were rcctmmlcmlcd to be shutin, but significant choking of pr(ducti(m (m [Iw high after gas oil ratio fields will be required during the pl:]tcou I998.

5) A I[mg [em) drilling schedule, including projects through 2004, was generated. I)ost maluation of [hese premises indicated a significant increase in over all vduc \vas obtained as a result of this evaluation. These results will be continwdly reevaluated as more information bcctmws availahlc (m the perf(mnance of new wells and the actual pci-f(mnatwc ()( tllc ncw pr(wmsing facilities.


I) The fcasibi]ity (fusing an iterative solution to couple reservoir simulatitm and linear programming has been proven using Ilvo dillcrcnt flpproaches, 2) I.IIWN pr,)gramnltng coupled with reservoir simulation ;Illocati(m problems and developing is a mul[ilicld pr(xi(IcII(MI p,nleltill :IIILI cffccliic IIIclh[xl [)1 solving complex long term llclclopn)clll pluns

The auth(nx aclimwlcdge pennissmn to publish the above paper fr(m) lhillips Pe[r(dcum C(mlpany Norway and Coven[urers, lnclmll]~g Fina Expl(rati(ul Nonvay SCA, Norsk Agip /VS, Elf lc[rolcml~ Norgc AS, N(wsk Hydro a.s., Den norske stats (IIIcsclskap a s., T( )TAI. N[wge A.S, and Saga Petroleum ASA. SpCzI:~l;~ckl][]\\lcclgcll~clltis given to the following individuals for their u(mltncn[s, suggcstiol~s and support thoughout this work: (lie Ilcg, 131Aasb,w. C J. KWIUXIV, F.N(wotnak J







EkofiskAlpha platform
Ekofisk Bravo Platform Ekofisk Charlie Platform Ekofisk X Drilling Eldtisk Alpha Platform Eldfisk Bravo Platform Eldtisk Alpha Drillinq Eldfisk Bravo Drilling Eldfisk IOR Embla Platform Embla Drilling Tor Platform Tjalve

Numberof Projects 1
1 1



Existing Production Existinq Production Existing Production


Platform Rig Maximum


Jackup Rig Maximum Wells/Year

45 1 1 6

New Wells Existing Production Existing Production New Wells New Wells IOR Project Existing Production New Wells Existing Production New Field Development

Ekofisk Alpha Ekofisk Bravo Ekofisk Charlie Ekofisk X Eldfisk Alpha Eldfisk Bravo

o 0 0



1 1 1 1 1



N \

( ?



() I

? +
/ ,





t,, /\

+ + + + +


o /


.= o


o c

o 0 0



u ti

o [!0


m Ww uo!wPoJd


Base Production Profiles

Wells starting in time 1 /wells starting from LP schedule



Solution !

LP Optimization
Is schedule same as simulation ?


Simulate with Schedule from LP F

Figure 2

Ekofisk Field Final Match - Method 1

Full Field Simulation vs Linear Program Estimate
-. ., \-


G% >. -






:: 6.0

Iol!z. c

: C .


Simulated Oil Rate

LP Predicted Oil Rate

Figure 3

/ K) [1



a) IA

a) , IL





[.-1. 1- 1

3 000 2.000 1.000


Profiles - Method 2





. .... . . .. .. .... . . . ,.

.. ..

.. .







. . . ... . . .... ..... . . . . ,,,








Case Profile



Worst Case Profile A

Figure 5

Ekofisk Field Variance Analysis - Method 2

Full Field Simulation vs Linear Program Estimate
40 30 20
?...., ... .... .. ...

o m

10 0

& ..-, , ..> .~. 8 .:. .:. :


j .



- lo - 20 - 30 1996

. :

2000 2004 Time (Years)








Figure 6

Ekofisk Field Final Match - Method 2

Full Field Simulation vs Linear Program Estimate
300 250

n 200 n

100 50 0 1 996 2000 2004

Time (Year)
Est. Profile from Linear Program -aAct. Profile from Full Field Sim



Figure 7