Reservoir and Economic Uncertainties Assessment for Recovery Strategy Selection: Use of Stochastic Decision Trees
- Philippe Vincent (Neptune Energy) | Thomas Schaaf (Storengy)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Europec featured at 80th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, 11-14 June, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2018. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 7.2 Risk Management and Decision-Making, 7 Management and Information, 7.2.1 Risk, Uncertainty and Risk Assessment, 5.7 Reserves Evaluation, 5 Reservoir Desciption & Dynamics
- Risk analysis, Joint technical and economic evaluation, Recovery strategy, Uncertainty management, Decision making process
- 2 in the last 30 days
- 108 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 28.00|
The field development phase prior to investment sanction is characterized by relatively large uncertainties at the time important decisions have to be made. It is, for instance, crucial to select an appropriate recovery strategy (depletion or injection) to obtain optimal hydrocarbon cumulative production whilst ensuring good profitability of the project. Evaluation of reservoir as well as economic uncertainties and quantification of their impact are needed before the field development concept selection.
This paper describes how to stochastically assess reservoir and economic uncertainties and the screening process used to select the best recovery strategy. The chosen methodology is the combination of uncertainty studies, including both continuous, discrete and controllable parameters. The different screened scenarios are combined in a stochastic decision tree, built-up through decision and chance nodes, to establish a distribution of recoverable volumes and rank the recovery strategies given a chosen criterion. A second uncertainty study is performed by adding economic uncertainties to the initial set of reservoir uncertain parameters. Eventually a new decision tree is established and scenarios ranked using economic criteria.
The application of this methodology to an oil field from the Norwegian continental shelf and how recovery strategies are ranked are presented in this paper. The described methodology has exhibited the risks and uncertainties carried by the project, as it was possible to rank the different solutions based on the dispersion of the recoverable volumes distribution and/or on the net present value (NPV). In the context of a marginal or large capex project, a robust P90 case is required and this may therefore influence the choice of the recovery strategy. For instance, a scenario yielding the largest hydrocarbon volume may not be selected because it requires too many wells and/or too large investment if one of these criteria is defined as the most important. In addition, the combination of uncertainty studies enabled a full economic evaluation covering the entire recoverable volumes distribution whereas in many projects economic evaluation is focused on the P90, Mean and P10 scenarios.
The two-step integrated approach allows a decision to be made whilst taking into account both reservoir and economic aspects. Having a combined stochastic approach to the reservoir and economic uncertainties avoids a biased decision. All cases are stochastically covered and screened using a systematic and unified methodology that gives the same weight to each scenario.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||23|
Adeyinka, A., Olatunde, F., Bodunrin, A. 2017. Deepwater Infill Drilling Evaluation Using Experimental Design: The Agbami Case Study. Presented at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Nigeria, 31 July-2 August. SPE-189103-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189103-MS.
Damsleth, E., Hage, A., Volden, R. 1992. Maximum Information at Minimum Cost: A North Sea Field Development Study With an Experimental Design. Presented at the 1991 SPE Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, September 3-6. JPT 44 (12): 1350-1356 SPE-23139-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/23139-PA.
Egeland, T., Holden, L., Larsen, E.A. 1992. Designing Better Decisions. Presented at the SPE European Computer Conference, Stavanger, Norway, 24-27 May. SPE-24275-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/24275-MS.
He, J., Xie, J., Sarma, P.. 2015. Proxy-Based Work Flow for a Priori Evaluation of Data-Acquisition Programs. SPE J 21 (4): 1400-1412. SPE-173229-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/173229-PA.
Helton, J.C., Davis, F. 2003. Latin Hypercube Sampling and the Propagation of Uncertainty in Analyses of Complex Systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 81 (1): 23-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00058-9.
Itotoi, I.H., Ojeke, A., Nnamdi, D.Umurhohwo, J., Benjamin, O., Akachidike, K. 2010. Managing Reservoir Uncertinty in Gas Field Development Using Experimental Design. Presented at the 34th SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa - Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July-7 August. SPE-140619-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/140619-MS.
Kullawan, K., Bratvold, R.B., Nieto, C.M. 2017. Decision-Oriented Geosteering and the Value of Look-Ahead Information: A Case-Based Study. SPE J. 22 (3): 767-782. SPE-184392-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/184392-PA.
Litvak, M., Onwunalu, J., Baxter, J. 2011. Field Optimization with Subsurface Uncertainties. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October-2 November. SPE-146512-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/146512-MS.
Manceau, E., Feraille, M, Zabalza-Mezghani, I., Portella, R.C.M., Reis, L.C. 2005. Advanced Risk-Analysis Approach for Optimization of a Water-Injection Program: Illustration on a Brazilian Field Case. Presented at the SPE Latin American and Carribean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20-23 June. SPE-94845-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/94845-MS.
Manceau, E., Mezghani, M., Zabalza-Mezghani, I., Roggero, F. 2001. Combination of Experimental Design and Joint Modelling Methods for Quantifying the Risk Associated With Deterministic and Stochastic Uncertainties - An integrated Test Study. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September-3 October. SPE-71620-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/71620-MS
McVay, D.A. 2015. Industry Needs Re-Education in Uncertainty Assessment. JPT 67 (02): 72-76. SPE-0215-0072-JPT. https://doi.org/10.2118/0215-0072-JPT.
Passone, S., McRae, G.J. 2007. Probabilistic Field Development in Presence of Uncertainty. Presented at the International Petroleum Technology, Dubai, UAE, 4-6 December. IPTC-11294-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-11294-MS.
Scheidt, C., Zabalza-Mezghani, I., Feraille, M, Collombier, D. 2007. Toward a Reliable Quantification iof Uncertainty on Production Forecasts: Adaptive Experimental Designs. Oil & Gas Science and Technology - Revue de l'IFP. 62 (2): 207-224. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:2007018.
Yeten, B., Castellini, A., Guyaguler, B., Chen, W.H. 2005. A Comparison Study on Experimental Design and Response Surface Methodologies. Presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium held in Houston, Texas, USA, 31 January-2 February. SPE-93347-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/93347-MS.