IADC/SPE-180689-MS Samarang Well Intervention Performance Evaluation For Production Enhancement Portfolio

IADC/SPE-180689-MS
Samarang Well Intervention Performance Evaluation for Production
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/16APDT/1-16APDT/D011S003R005/1355191/spe-180689-ms.pdf by The University of Texas At Austin user on 03 April 2021
Enhancement Portfolio
Toto Setiawan and Rohaizat B Ghazali, PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd; Leidy Pitre Granados, Willem Sepulveda,
Jayasharadha Chandrakalatharan, Ahmad Uzair Zubbir, Muhammad Mukrim Mohamed Hanafi,
Juan Cortez Vaca, and Rasim Yildiz, Schlumberger
Copyright 2016, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference held in Singapore, 22–24 August 2016.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 International Association
of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.
Abstract
Since 2010, Samarang Alliance, a partnership between Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd and Schlumberger
SPM, has been redeveloping the offshore Samarang oil field. The objective of the Alliance is to maximize
asset value through implementation of technology, processes and practices that enable infill drilling,
reservoir management, EOR, Integrated Operations (IO) and production enhancement activities.
One of the focus areas upon resource extraction initiatives of Samarang Alliance is through rigless
intervention activities for production enhancement. The dynamics of Production Enhancement (PE)
portfolio in Samarang requires the use of engineering and statistical tools to track their efficiency to be
able to channel and strategize resources aiming for the highest return on investment (ROI).
The Samarang Well Intervention Performance Evaluation (WIPE) methodology enables the user to
assess the profitability of a given well intervention activity over time. Productive layers, time and job type
are plotted which helps to triangulate the best avenues for investment. Incremental production is
specifically calculated for different time-lines. ⬙Budget Cycle⬙ (Calendar year) to evaluate the efficacy of
the current year planned work budget. ⬙PE Cycle⬙ when referring to the duration encompassing one year
(12 months) to compare similar PEs irrespective of the month of execution. ⬙PE Life⬙ for the entire
duration that the well production will be impacted by the PE. Additionally the calculation of Unit
Enhancement Cost (UEC) for the different time-lines is considered, which provides a numerical estimate
of the economic value of each PE.
Superimposed with intervention history and reserve estimation, WIPE plots enables the user to find a
specific profitable intervention solution to declining production. The ⬙Opportunity Cost⬙ can be calculated
to a degree of high accuracy which supports the selection of new candidates and fulfills the requirements
of a Signature Field like Samarang. Supported on available medium like Microsoft Excel, this powerful
tool improves the decision making and planning processes for Brown Field redevelopment.
2 IADC/SPE-180689-MS
Introduction
Oil fields that are considered past their peak production period and in an expected state of decline are
considered Brown Fields. Unlike Green Fields, which are usually in stages of exploration, appraisal or
early development, hydrocarbon recovery from brown fields is a far more complex problem where drilling
new wells is seldom the most economically viable solution. However, over 70% of the current worldwide
oil production is supplied from mature fields. Therefore, Brown field redevelopment has been and will
increasingly be the subject of concern for Oilfield Operators.
The Samarang field is a brown field located in offshore Sabah, Malaysia, approximately 49 km North
West of Labuan. The field was discovered in 1972 and was further appraised by three wells drilled in
1974. The field currently is considered the ⬙Signature Field⬙ for PCSB in the Sabah Region, with a high
number of new technologies and practices being evaluated and implemented annually. The hydrocarbon
is produced via seven production platforms and processed in three main allocation clusters. The wells are
artificially lifted using Gas Lift.
The Alliance Field Re-Development Plan categorizes incremental oil production efforts into three
categories: Infill Drilling, Production Enhancement / Optimization Activities and Enhance Oil Recovery.
In Mature/Brown Oil fields, infill drilling activities are more focused on targeting un- swept areas in the
reservoir layers to improve recovery factors where it can’t be accessed with remedial activities in existing
well stock. Whereas infill drilling may initially result in increased production, it may not effectively
counterbalance of the natural decline of existing wells. Servicing existing wells has been found to be more
robust as a means of arresting decline in maturing fields at a much lower unit cost. This remedial
intervention is repeated over the life cycle of a well until the net oil rate of the well is so low that it cannot
justify or pay out the cost of the intervention. This is considered the point at which the well reaches its
economic limit (well life) and is followed by well shut in (or abandonment).
A number of initiatives involve the implementation of well intervention programs designed to recover
or boost productivity. Well intervention programs encompass a plethora of well specific solutions, a
number of which can be carried out without the use of a ⬙Workover rig⬙. These are commonly categorized
as rigless interventions. The candidate selection work-flow includes an initial screening of under
performing wells as well as areas of remaining mobile oil, production history and mechanical well status.
Then, an estimation of initial production and economic analysis at reservoir level are done. This is
followed by a final, detailed subsurface and surface technical and economic analysis that is supported by
a comprehensive risk analysis and mitigation plan. A wide range of interventions are evaluated and the
most rewarding one is chosen. The interventions can range from simple Slickline operations like Gas Lift
Valve Change, Zone of Change and Sand Screen installation to more complicated and expensive Coiled
Tubing interventions like Cement Plug, Sand Consolidation, Water Shut Off and adding perforations.
Within four years Samarang total number of PEs have increased by 1000% from four PEs in 2010 to
44 PEs in 2014. The associated investment has increased by six times and the additional barrels brought
by these interventions have increased by a factor of eight. In terms of resources, during high intervention
activity, up to four Slickline units and three Coiled Tubing units have continuously worked over seven
producing platforms in the field. This rapid increase of Production Enhancement (PE) activities and the
complexity of the scope of work in Samarang, triggered the development of the WIPE methodology.
Statement of Theory and Definitions

Production Enhancement is a broad term that encompasses a wide variety of operations. Usually, a variety
of techniques are tried in ⬙spot⬙ operations and as more successes are recorded, the selection criteria for
candidates become better, more candidates for such operations are found and campaigns can be planned.
A detailed portfolio for executed Production Enhancement activities enables the team to better enforce
continuous improvement efforts and increase the probability of success of a proposed intervention. It also
IADC/SPE-180689-MS 3
adds value, in the form of historic data, to the cost benefit analyses done before every intervention. This
also aids in comparing and contrasting different wells and different problems so that the limited resources
can be channeled into the solution that is most likely to deliver the best result. Maintenance of a proper
portfolio/database also eliminates the needless human resources spent on background study.
Samarang Well Intervention Performance Evaluation (WIPE) methodology enables the user to assess
the profitability of a given well intervention activity over time. The approach includes the construction of
Scorpion plots as one of the tools to maintain a record of the resources that were invested in each PE
activity along with the returns observed over time. Scorpion plot is Trademark of BP Plc. (WETSTM),
courtesy of Mr. JP Martins et all and has been presented in SPE ATC in Dallas, TX in 1995 (SPE 30649).
The scorpion plot is created by ordering all the intervention activities in decreasing order of returns and
plotting cumulative cost against cumulative value. Returns for most PE activities is measured by cost over
gain. Value is predominantly measured in terms of gain over a certain period depending on the kind of
time frame that is most crucial to the decision. The resulting plot of Cost vs. Gain is shown below in the
Fig. 1
Figure 1—Scorpion plat data significance
The data points in figure 1 that creates the lower flat portion of the graph represent the less expensive
interventions and the further right these points lie, the more value (in terms of gain) they represent. The
vertical part of the graph represent those activities that have drained significant resources from the project,
but have given no yield. Much like a scorpion whose venom resides in its tail, the tail (upper flat portion)
of this graph represent the poor intervention decisions that have been counterproductive by consuming
precious resources and decreasing production instead of improving it. By representing the efficacy of
intervention operations in a graphical format, the Scorpion Plot equips the user with a substantiated and
easily readable way of estimating the best avenues to channel resources to mimic previous successful
campaigns.
Production Enhancement (PE) Activities

A PE activity in Samarang refers to any rigless Well Intervention activity that is carried out by Sabah Well
Intervention (SWI) on behalf of Samarang Alliance which directly aims at increasing and sustaining field
oil production. As shown in Fig. 2, the Slickline intervention of GLVC (Gas Lift Valve Change) is the
most frequent type of intervention in Samarang constituting almost 28% of all the interventions carried
out in Samarang since Jan 2010.
Figure 2—PE activity breakdown
PE Resources
PE resources include the direct and indirect resources used in the execution of the PE activity. Direct
resources include the physical resources used in the well entry or well fluid processing. The most
commonly used direct resources in Samarang PEs are Slickline, Wireline, Coiled Tubing and Desanders.
Indirect resources include all associated services and equipment needed to enable the operation such as
Workboat, cranes, lighting, supply vessels, etc.
Well Test
Every month, all the producing wells in Samarang are tested as part of standard practices. This information
includes (but is not limited to) record of the well contribution (BOPD), settings (Gas Lift Injection Rate
(GLIR), Choke Size, etc.) and parameters (Tubing head pressure, Casing head pressure, water cut, etc.).
Well Tests are particularly crucial in evaluation of PE efficiency because they provide the raw data to
evaluate the incremental oil produced as a result of the well intervention.
PE Timeline
The gain associated with a PE is usually categorized as rate (BOPD) or volume (Barrels) averaged or
accumulated respectively over a certain duration of time. The duration of time can be decided depending
on the interest variables in the decision making process. The timelines can be better understood through
the example based on Fig 3 shown below.
Figure 3—Example of schedule table for PE timelines
PE Execution period (EXP) refers to the month in which the PE activity was fully completed. For
example, in Well 1 in Fig. 3, PE 1 Execution month is March – 14, even though the PE begin date is in
Feb 2014. Baseline month (BM) refers to the month before the PE activity on the well began. This enables
recording of the well conditions (BOPD) before the execution of the PE thereby providing a baseline to
evaluate the PE results. Usually the baseline month is the month immediately before the execution of PE
began. However, in case the duration of the PE is very long (ex. two months) the baseline month is more
than one month prior to the PE execution month. For example, the PE 1 on Well 1 in Fig. 3, has Jan 2014
as it is baseline month even though the execution month for the same PE will be March 2014. First oil
Month refers to the month in which the first oil from the PE is realized. This is ideally the month after
the PE execution. However, in some cases, well open up and optimization can be delayed due to other
reasons (weather, total site maintenance, surface facilities, etc.) which could delay the first oil month
(FOM) to be more than one month after the PE execution date. The well conditions recorded during the
first oil month when contrasted with the statistics in the baseline month enable us to evaluate the
instantaneous effect of the PE. For example, the PE 1 on Well 1 in Fig. 3, has April 2014 as it is First Oil
month
Instantaneous Gain
Instantaneous Gain is the difference between the oil rates (BOPD) recorded during the well test of the first
oil month (FOM), and the one recorded in the baseline month. It is essential to validate the well test and
only compare tests conducted in similar flowing settings (Choke size, GLIR, etc.) so as to accurately
measure the effectiveness in the PE activity. According to the examples given above in Fig. 3, to evaluate
the instantaneous gain of PE 1 on Well 1 would be the difference between the April well test for the well
and January well test.
Budget Cycle
Budget cycle refers to the duration between First Oil month and the end of the particular calendar year.
Since PE budgets are decided annually and revised monthly, it is essential to evaluate how much of the
investment can be recovered in oil within the calendar year of the execution. The gain evaluated using
Budget Cycle helps to evaluate scheduling decisions.
In case a second PE is conducted on the same well in the same calendar year, the budget cycle of the
first PE will be until (and inclusive of) the baseline month of the second PE. This is to avoid duplicity in
gain attribution. For example, in fig 3, the PE 1 in well 1 will be evaluated from April 2014 to Oct 2014
whereas that for PE 2 will be only for Dec 2014. In addition, for PE 1 in well 3, there is no budget cycle
gain as the first oil is not realized in the calendar year of the PE execution which implies that for the year
of execution (2014), the money spent on the well during the PE has not been recovered at all.
PE Cycle
PE cycle refers to the duration encompassing one year (12 months) starting from the First Oil month.
Gains calculated over PE cycle help us compare similar PEs irrespective of the month of execution. This
is a true estimation of the PE results. In case a second PE is conducted on the same well within 12 months
from the first oil month of the first PE, the PE cycle of the first PE will be until (and inclusive of) the
baseline month of the second PE. This is to avoid duplicity in gain attribution. For example, in fig 3, the
PE cycle of PE 1 in well 1 will be from April 2014 to Oct 2014 whereas that for PE 2 will from Dec 2014
to Nov 2015.
PE Life
PE Life refers to the duration that the well production is influenced by the PE. This is usually from the
first oil month of a PE until the well is no longer economic to produce (Less than 50 BOPD for Samarang
case) or till another PE is performed in the well. For example, in fig 3, the PE Life of PE 1 in well 1 will
be from April 2014 to Oct 2014 whereas that for PE 2 will from Dec 2014 until the month in which the
recorded well test is below 50 or until PE 3 whichever is earlier.
Unit Enhancement Cost (UEC)

Unit Enhancement cost is the cost spent (in USD) to recover one barrel of incremental oil. This value is
a direct measure of economic prudence when it comes to the selection of a PE. The gain used in this
measurement can be calculated over any of the above-mentioned PE time-lines. For example, The UEC
PE cycle of PE 1 in well 2 of the example given above will be the total cost of the PE over the cumulative
gain experienced from Feb 2015 to Jan 2016. To calculate the cumulative gain, the ideal method would
be to multiply the rate by the up-time (the time that the well was in production during the period of
interest).
Framework Description
As previously mentioned, the methodology behind Samarang Well Intervention Performance Evaluation
(WIPE) plots is to arrange the activities in decreasing order of returns and plot Cumulative Cost vs
Cumulative Gain to analyze ROI based on the relative positions of the activities. The method of
calculating the required numbers to plot uses Microsoft Excel. The file calculates the PE efficacy in
different frameworks. It showcases multiple plots plotted for gains calculated for different PE time-lines
(PE Cycle, BC Cycle, YTD Rate and YTD Volume) and also for different subgroups of PEs categorized
on the basis of year, layer and job type. Although the tool is developed in Microsoft Excel, it can easily
programmed using any other software or graphic interface.
The general framework of information flow in the chart is shown below in Fig 5. It is further explained
in the following sections.
Figure 4 —Basic WIPE framework
Inputs
Well Test The data in the well test sheet can be further subdivided into two categories based on the
source. The first set of information represents the declination of the layers that are being produced by the
wells in Samarang. This number signifies the expected natural declination of the particular layer according
to current reservoir models. It enables us to calculate the baseline of a PE. For example, in Fig 3 the
incremental oil (BOPD) obtained as a result of PE 1 in Well 1 over its budget cycle will be the average
(April 2014 – October 2014) of the differences between the well test of the respective months and the
declined baseline well test.
The second set of data available in the Well Test sheet is the Net Rate in BOPD that is captured from
the monthly well test conducted on all the flowing wells in Samarang since January 2009. For the idle
wells this value is entered as 0. The source of this data is Offshore Data Management System where the
well tests are entered as and when they’re completed offshore.
Master Cost As the name suggests, this sheet captures all the cost associated with a PE. To best
understand this sheet, it is important to have an overview of the cost calculation process in Samarang. In
this process, all the monthly invoices of SWI (Sabah Well Intervention) are distributed among the
intervention activities that they directly (e.g.: cement for Zone Abandonment Job) or indirectly (e.g.:
Lighting for Slickline night shift operations) facilitated and the cost is attributed to the well that the
activity was intended for. The activities are in turn classified as PE, Maintenance, Data Acquisition, etc.
Since the objective is to track Production Enhancement Portfolio, only the cost associated to the PE and
Data Acquisition for PE is filtered, then, the final compilation of PE specific monthly expenditure is
recorded in the monthly Cost Control Letter. The master cost contains:
● Total PE cost Well: This is the well or string that is the target of the PE activity. Considering that
Samarang has several wells with dual strings; and in some cases PE activities designed to improve
production of a particular string can require operations to be carried out through the other strings.
● PE type: showcases the unique label that is created to identify different intervention activities.
This label is essential in tracking all the PE activities since it is very common to have multiple PEs
in the same well. Well name, PE number, PE year, etc. are used to identify each intervention.
● PE End Date: This capture’s the end date of the PE when all the associated activities of the PE
were completed. This provides the information to calculate the PE Execution month which marks
the beginning of the one year long PE cycle.
● Cost Control Month: This is the month the cost was settled through an invoice as captured. This
information is vital as it provides the context for deciding which Budget cycle the PE falls in. The
year is used for determining the year that is used in creating the BC Label. So for a PE that was
carried through Dec 2014 to Jan 2015, the cost that was paid for in Dec will have the associated
year as 2014, thereby producing a BC label of ⬍PE Name⬎/2014 and the cost in Jan will produce
the BC label of ⬍PE Name⬎/2015.
● Layer before PE: It captures the layer that was producing before the well was intervened. This
information is vital in understanding possible well flow rates and thereby accurately determining
incremental oil due to the PE itself.
● Intervention Target Layer: captures the layer that will be produced after the intervention.
● Job: captures the information represented in the PE name itself as the job description. This is to
allow us to filter the Pes by specific job type should the need arise.
● PE Resources: description of the primary resources used in the PE (Coiled Tubing, Slickline,
Wireline, etc.).
● Cause of zero incremental: remarks about the potential problems associated with the PE that
resulted in zero gain.
● Cost Summary: Cost is evaluated in two times cycle (PE cycle and BC).
Outputs
Decline & Gain Gain can be calculated in different forms (rate and volume) and for different timelines
(PE cycle, Budget Cycle, PE Life, and year-to-date (YTD). All gains are incremental oil. Incremental oil
is calculated as the difference between actual production and baseline. Baseline is an evaluation of the
projected production of the well should the intervention not occur. Since all production is meant to decline
with time as the reservoir depletes, an accurate estimation of baseline can only be made by taking into
account the predicted declination according to the reservoir models. This production data is what is used
to determine the baseline, actual production and future projections of production. For every PE, the
baseline is calculated from before the start of the PE (one month before PE execution) and the actual
production is tracked from the first oil month (one month after PE execution) and projected into the future.
For every PE, the decline sheet captures production information on a monthly basis.
Since the well has been intervened after the baseline month, further baseline data will have two
projections of the baseline month data. Every value is populated with the declined value depending on the
producing layer’s decline factor. The producing layer used for this calculation is the layer that was flowing
before the PE was started. The production data after PE is tracked from the month after the PE execution
(First Oil Month). This data is obtained in BOPD from the Well test per the well and month. The
difference between ⬙Qo Post-PE⬙ (well test after PE) and ⬙Qo Pre-PE⬙ (well test prior PE) is the
gain/incremental oil (in BOPD); which is calculated for every month. Incremental cumulative oil in
barrels is also calculated by multiplying the gain in rate (BOPD) by the number of days in that particular
month. It is important to realize that this calculation of incremental volume should consider the well
⬙Up-time⬙ percentage. Up-Time, when represented in %, is the actual time that the well was flowing over
the total calendar days (time) in that particular month.
Unit Enhancement Cost Unit Enhancement Cost (UEC) is the cost associated to every barrel produced.
It is a widely used and a potent way of evaluating investment decisions across the Oilfield. Since the
purpose of Samarang WIPE plots file is to evaluate investment decisions in production enhancement
activities, the most relevant form of calculating UEC is to calculate the cost associated to every
additional/incremental barrel produced as a result of a PE. Much like the other indicators, the UEC is
calculated for different time-lines by well, by year and general for the project: UEC PE Cycle, UEC
Budget Cycle, UEC Year Today (YTD) and UEC PE Life.
Well Intervention Performance Evaluation Plots
Figure 5—WIPE plots output examples

Presentation of Data and Results

After 2016 candidates screening and selection; the most rewarding interventions were chosen. Candidate
list includes all first screening jobs from work plan budget and additional opportunities. Cost estimation
includes services and supporting resources and annualized oil gain was calculated based on the estimated
timing of job execution and oil production.
Risk Profile
Subsurface wise consideration was given to offset wells’ studies, water cut, sand production, remaining
oil saturation, estimated productivity, etc. WIPE plots were used as base criteria for the classification and
definition of job complexity and historical operational cost for each well intervention. The evaluation also
included (not limited to) well integrity, resources availability, % of success by job and by layer.
Risk Profile Outcome
Negligible ⫽ None
Low ⫽ 22% (8 jobs). UEC-BC ⫽ 8.7 US/Bbl.
Medium ⫽ 20% (7 jobs). UEC-BC ⫽ 6.6 US/Bbl.
High ⫽ 36% (13 jobs). UEC-BC ⫽ 16.2 US/Bbl.
Very high ⫽ 22% (8 jobs). UEC-BC ⫽ 21.4 US/Bbl.
Figure 6 —WIPE combined risk profile for future candidates

UEC Ranking
Figure 7—WIPE plot 2016 Candide Ranking by UEC
Projected UEC Budget cycle was set as base criteria to proceed with execution (benchmark).
UEC Budget Cycle (BC)
● 66% below benchmark (24 jobs)
UEC PE Cycle
●
85% below benchmark (30 jobs)
UEC vs Risk Map
Figure 8 —Risk mapping for future candidates

The figures above show that 41% of the jobs comply with EUC and low-mid risk profile.
After the use of WIPE methodology, the team set different scenarios for budget utilization and
management (Fig. 9)
Figure 9 —WIPE Benchmark and Scenario Planning
Conclusions
Samarang well performance evaluation methodology exhibits the efficacy of previous decisions in a
graphical format this enabling the user to observe patterns and extrapolate to find the most profitable
avenues to allocate the limited resources.
Remarkable enhancement has been observed on:
● UEC reduction.
● Exclusion of low return jobs
● Resources redirection into PEs that have yielded high return on investment (ROI) in the past
● Identify and investigate operations with unexpectedly low returns.
● Estimate the cost variance in the same type of job and invest in process standardization to reduce
variance.
● Estimate the layers that have exhibited high returns in the past and increase investment in the same.
● Standardization of operations time & cost technical limits
● Support for engineering decision making respond
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Samarang Production Management team from PETRONAS
Carigali Sdn Bhd and Schlumberger for their permission to publish this data.
References
S. van Gisbergen et al: ⬙Case History of Cost reduction Optimization Efforts in a Mature Field⬙, paper SPE 93387
presented at the 2005 SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, March 2005.
SCORPION PLOT’ trademarks of BP plc.
M. Postnikov.: ⬙TNK-BP Well work Performance Management⬙, presented at the 2005 SPE European Formation Damage
Conference held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, May 2005

IADC/SPE-180689-MS Samarang Well Intervention Performance Evaluation For Production Enhancement Portfolio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IADC/SPE-180689-MS Samarang Well Intervention Performance Evaluation For Production Enhancement Portfolio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IADC/SPE-180689-MS

Samarang Well Intervention Performance Evaluation for Production

Copyright 2016, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference

Statement of Theory and Definitions

Figure 1—Scorpion plat data significance

Production Enhancement (PE) Activities

Figure 3—Example of schedule table for PE timelines

Unit Enhancement Cost (UEC)

Figure 4 —Basic WIPE framework

Figure 5—WIPE plots output examples

Presentation of Data and Results

Figure 6 —WIPE combined risk profile for future candidates

Figure 8 —Risk mapping for future candidates

You might also like