SPE 161280

A Unique Integrated Asset Modeling Solution to Optimize and Manage

Uncertainty in a Giant Offshore Oil Field Development Mega-Project
Osama Khedr, SPE, Jayant Amur, SPE, and Rakkad Al Ameri, SPE, ZADCO, and Richard Torrens, SPE and
Ahmed Amtereg, SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11–14 November 2012.

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
This paper presents the application of an integrated modeling approach to the facility design and construction stages of a
mega-project for a giant oilfield offshore Abu Dhabi. The scale of the EPC task is unprecedented in the UAE and requires
careful design to optimize the capital investment. In addition, the project uncertainties require that a high degree of flexibility
be factored into the design process.
The integrated modeling approach couples surface and subsurface flow models to achieve a complete system solution that
incorporates many levels of constraints and realistically represents future behavior. This approach addresses a number of key
issues. Firstly, multiple different quality reservoirs produce to a shared surface facility. Consequently, the field is highly
sensitive to back pressure variation and so requires a rigorous treatment of well and surface physics. Secondly, the sub-surface
uncertainties and sheer size of the investment requires a flexible approach to design, hence, many simulation scenarios are
required to provide improved decision support. Finally, close collaboration is required between the sub-surface and surface
teams to ensure optimization of facilities design and reservoir management for cost and recovery. The adopted methodology
utilizes an integration framework which couples reservoir and topsides models into a predictive tool for development planning.
This paper describes how the integrated modeling approach was utilized to provide input to design process for several aspects
of the field development plan during the design and construction stages. This will include discussion of the phasing of the
production facilities, requirement for temporary facilities, modular compression and separation units and the optimization of
the drilling program for planned infill wells.
The paper presents a best integrated modeling practice supporting facility design process which is applicable for similar scale
projects, highlighting the role of integrated model as a means to foster collaboration between surface and sub-surface teams.

Introduction
The work described in this paper represents the conclusion of a previous publication by Khedr et al (2009) on the importance
of Integrated Asset Modeling (IAM) for a giant offshore field. The published paper describes the application of the IAM
methodology for design of a new artificial island based facility and how it was used to assist in the decision making process of
the pre-FEED / concept select project phase. The paper highlighted the usefulness of integrated asset model in the facilities
design process. It focused on two key areas, tool validation and application of the tool for several scenarios in the pre-FEED
process. Notably, a number of scenarios were investigated to look at the routing of Medium Pressure (MP) and Low Pressure
(LP) flow streams, optimum use of MP and LP gas, and gas lift optimization based on pre-set criteria through asset
management strategy. At all stages, integrated modeling has been pivotal in providing accurate accounting of pressure
interactions, enabling collaboration between subsurface and facilities and providing reliable prediction profiles for decision
support.
The same asset is under consideration in this paper. It is one of the largest offshore oilfields in the world covering an areal
extent of 1,200 square kilometers. There are three distinct reservoir strata producing through approximately 450 single and
dual string wells. The three major reservoirs, Reservoirs I, II, and III, are geologically characterized as multiple carbonate
layers separated by impermeable strata. Each reservoir has its own layering scheme with different vertical and lateral
permeability distribution and thickness. The northeast area is generally highly faulted and fractured. These geological features
result in different well productivities and completion types. The field was initially developed with a peripheral waterflood
strategy. Subsequently, five spot pattern and staggered line drive water injection schemes were introduced. Ongoing field
2 SPE 161280

development planning studies call for intensive infill drilling and application of artificial lift and/or Enhanced Oil Recovery
(EOR) to different reservoir areas.
The wells produce into approximately 80 separate Well Head Platform Towers (WHPTs), which are connected to the
downstream production network infrastructure through transfer lines. The surface facility infrastructure is divided into 4
geographical areas: North, South, West, and Central. Each area has a satellite separation facility gathering production from
approximately 20 wellhead towers. The North, South, and West Satellite Platforms are gathering centers for each respective
area and are connected to the central complex platform by oil, gas, and water trunk lines. In the Central area, the Central
Separation Plant or Central Satellite Platform functions as a gathering station and is linked also to the Central Complex
Platform. The central complex contains major production, injection, and utility facilities.
The vision for the field is to substantially increase production through an aggressive program of infill drilling. Key to the
execution of this strategy will be ability of the field to produce against existing facilities. The existing offshore steel structure
is old and undersized for the additional fluids that would ensue from the infill drilling program. If the current steel platform
development plan were to be continued, numerous new well head towers, thousands of kilometers of subsea pipeline and
significant facility upgrades would be required (Modavi et al, SPE 118379). The proximity of the field to shore and the
relatively shallow water depths lend themselves to cost effective construction of artificial islands. Island based development
will provide a step change in flexibility and operational cost to enable the field to produce up to its expected operating life
of more than 100 years.
The figure below gives an illustration of the relative positions of the offshore processing structures and the new “onshore”
artificial islands. The offshore processing structures are shown on figure 1. They are the NORTH, WEST and SOUTH
satellite structures and the CENTRAL processing platform. Each of the satellite platforms are connected to the central island
through a multiphase sub-sea flow line.

Figure 1: Field Schematic

The new facility design concept calls for each satellite to be replaced by an artificial island The islands will be roughly 1.5 sq
km and will provide sufficient real estate for hundreds of well heads, multiple drilling and workover rigs, on-island processing
as wells as well as crew quarters, storage etc. The shift to the island based concept will effectively eliminate the HSE risks and
logistics problems associated with offshore operations.
The transition from off-shore to onshore will be phased. The dredging process to construct the islands began in (2010). The
first island to become visible above the water in (2011) was the SOUTH island. It is expected to become operational in 2012
for drilling start. Over time, existing wells producing to the satellite will gradually be replaced by Maximum Reservoir
Contact wells drilled from the islands. In the fullness of time, all the wells producing to platforms will be replaced by island
based wells and the structure will be decommissioned.
The scale of the construction project is huge. The Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) cost is estimated to run
into multi-billions of dollars which is unprecedented in the UAE. To give an idea of the magnitude of the project, consider
some of the following facts:
 The FEED process alone has required an excess of 100,000 man hours of engineering resource the cost of which
outstrips some EPC projects.
 The quantity of structural steel (discounting pipeline and pressure vessels, etc.) required for the project is equivalent
to twenty four Eiffel towers.
SPE 161280 3

 The amount of corrosion resistant alloy (CRA) piping required by the project is so large that will require the constant
manufacturing output of three manufacturing facilities for three months.

The artificial island construction is a "mega-project" in every sense, and in order to ensure optimal return on investment it is
critical to find the right balance between cost and flexibility. It is important to ensure that the facilities will be sufficiently
flexible to cope with the range of uncertainties in the reservoir. The consequences of “getting it wrong” in terms of under
sizing the facility are grave. However, due to the magnitude of the project it is imperative to optimize cost. The upfront
CAPEX must be justified in terms of project economics.
As stated above, the production target for the field is planned to increase by approximately 50%. This is to be achieved
through the application of a number of key initiatives:
 The shift from offshore to onshore artificial island based concept.
 Introduction of maximum reservoir contact wells to replace existing well.
 Installations of gas lift to all new MRC wells to maintain well production targets.
 Island based separation.
 Water injection and EOR schemes.

These aspects and various other design sensitivities and sub-surface realizations required detailed analysis in order to be sure
of arriving at the “right choice” for design concept without dramatic overspend. The methodology adopted to perform the
large number of simulation studies required as the Integrated Asset Modeling approach.

The Need for integrated asset modeling

When considering reservoir forecasting for a project of this size and scope, it is standard practice to utilize numerical reservoir
simulation to arrive at the most accurate assessment of strategic asset performance. Modern high performance computing
facilities have made it possible to run extremely complex numerical simulations in reasonable runtimes. This enables multiple
scenarios to be run in order to study the impact of sub-surface uncertainty to help quantify development risk in support of
design decisions. A key drawback with regard to traditional reservoir simulation is the approach used to address the impact of
facility back pressure. This is typically achieved by an approximation using a well performance curve and a fixed pressure
constraint. This can lead to considerable inaccuracies due to neglect of the interactions in the surface network (e.g. multiphase
flow, surface equipment, back out effects, etc.). To illustrate, consider two wells which produce into the same manifold which
from the perspective of the simulation are controlled by a common tubing head pressure constraint. In reality, these wells are
hydraulically coupled – if one of the wells starts to produce more gas this may have an impact on the production of the other
well. However, from the perspective of the simulation, these wells are effectively isolated. In some cases this can be a fair
assumption (e.g. critical flow choke conditions); however for the case presented here the offshore wells producing to the well
head towers are extremely sensitive to the back pressure from the production system. Several cases have been observed where
new wells are brought online flowing to well head towers. The impact of the new well on existing wells was very significant.
An increase of as little as 50 psi resulted in older, weaker wells being killed.
Topside design does not incur such a heavy computational cost. However, design of the facilities cannot be done without due
consideration of reservoir performance. In many cases this is confined to a simplistic approximation (several points over the
field life, decline curve or in the best case a material balance). Complex carbonate reservoirs, EOR processes, complex wells
(multi-lateral MRC wells with inflow control device (ICD) completions, etc.) cannot be adequately characterized through the
application of simplistic reservoir proxies. Multi-billion dollar design should not be left to a simplistic approximation.
The surface and sub-surface domain approximations can introduce gross errors and lead to large safety margins being built
into design decisions (oversized facilities/sub-optimal CAPEX outlay) or a facility which is not capable of sustaining the
required production target. This is historically significant for the asset in question as a significant number of wellhead towers
and pipelines were installed for one of the relatively large reservoir areas with a high degree of subsurface uncertainty
resulting in an oversized facilities and a large number of cannibalized wellhead towers.
An additional and no less serious problem exists relating to silo’d operation. The traditional process for analyzing a surface
facility design change or an updated sub-surface scenario involves the following steps:
 Implement changes to sub-surface models to reflect new scenario (e.g. accelerated drilling activity).
 Run simulations to produce decline curve proxies.
 Transfer decline curve proxies to facilities engineer.
 Evaluate surface performance using the decline curve proxy.

The surface network may not be capable of producing the additional fluids, so there is potentially a need to iterate to find an
optimal solution. The process suffers from two key flaws. Firstly, the time required to execute the process can be long due to
its sequential nature. Secondly, it relies on effective communication between departments and there is a risk of data loss or
corruption at the interface between sub-surface and surface teams (e.g. using Excel spreadsheets for manual transfer of data
etc…). Using this “old” methodology, it could take up to one month to evaluate a single scenario.
4 SPE 161280

The integrated asset modeling (IAM) approach addresses the issues of approximation and collaboration between domain silos.
The approximation issue is addressed by considering the reservoir and the surface network within one simulation. Pressure
and material balance is achieved between the surface and sub-surface simulations at every time step using an explicit network
balancing algorithm as outlined by Ghorayeb et al (2003). This removes the need to make approximations at the boundaries of
the problem and provides the best possible physical representation of asset behavior. This holistic model of the asset provides
a basis for collaboration between surface and sub-surface teams. Changes in the reservoir and surface network models can be
tested far more quickly than using the traditional sequential method outlined above as illustrated in figure 2. This facilitates a
larger number of sub-surface scenarios, surface design concepts and uncertainties to be considered during the design phase
thereby helping to reduce risk.

Figure 2: Silo’d vs. Integrated Asset Modeling Scenario Timing

Integrated asset modeling was identified early in the project lifecycle as a critical technology for timely delivery of decision
support packages at each stage in the company’s engineering design process. This process is known as the Value Assurance
Process (VAP) and will be described in the next section.

Project planning and design process

The overall company process for project authorization consists of a staged approval process called Value Assurance Process
(VAP). There are four main stages in VAP, the first is the IDENTIFY stage, the second is the ASSESS/SELECT stage, the
third is the DEFINE stage and the final is the EXECUTE stage. Each of the stages within VAP has a recognizable equivalent
process in standard front end loading terminology. The IDENTIFY stage is equivalent to the feasibility stage, the SELECT
stage is equivalent to the concept selection (pre-FEED) stage, the DEFINE stage is equivalent to the FEED and the EXECUTE
stage is equivalent to EPC. The table below gives an overview of the main activities during each stage.
SPE 161280 5

Stage Key Activities

IDENTIFY  Alignment with long term facility plan
 Overall cost of the project is acceptable ($/barrel or NPV)
 Analysis of all configurations (HSE Aspects)
 Adaptability to changes in Field Development Plan (FDP)
 Identification of risks for next phase and investigation
ASSESS/SELECT  Confirmation of overall cost
 Assurance that best option selected – Best Available Technology (BAT)
 Pilot requirement/ results
 Adequate definition to proceed with FEED
 Authority approvals such as EIA, HSE, etc.
 Alignment with updated FDP information
 Overall plot plan definition
DEFINE  Confirmation of overall cost
 Clear definition of all equipment including redundancy
 Clear definition of space (plot plan)
 Clear definition of utility systems
 Clear definition of HSE aspects
 Identification of risks for EXECUTE phase and contractual scope and
mitigations.
 Clear definition of all modes of operation
EXECUTE  Safe to operate
 Easy to maintain
 All documentation HSEIA/ Equipment manuals/ operations manuals are
available.
 Alignment with updated FDP
 Special operating scenarios

When making the transition between VAP phases it is necessary to prepare a Decision Support Package (DSP) for the stage
gate review process. This DSP is a comprehensive set of supporting evidence which enables key stakeholders to have
confidence in the decision to move forward with the particular design concept. There are two key metrics which are
components of the DSPs and are used as a basis for the decision making process. These are:
 Robustness of the scope of the design to adapt to the sub-surface and project uncertainties.
 Optimization of the CAPEX/OPEX of the identified scope.

The first item deals with key reservoir management issues relating to physical uncertainties (e.g. deliverability, water and gas
ingress, etc.) and project timing uncertainties (e.g. well phasing, gas lift timing, etc.). The second items deals with
optimization of both capital and operational costs to ensure that the project remains on budget. Put more simply, the first item
ensures the design concept will be sufficiently flexible to cope with the range of uncertainties while the second item optimizes
cost. It is imperative to strike the right balance between these two competing objectives.
The following gives an overview of some of the high priority items which required careful study during the design process.
The section is split in to the two key factors (flexibility and cost).

Robustness of scope to address uncertainty (flexibility)

The first key component of the DSP relates to ensuring that the facility design concept will be adequate to be able to cope with
the outcome of the field development plan. Some of the key items which were subject to scrutiny were;
 The allocation of wells to either the MP or LP production system on the island was of key importance in sizing the
corresponding separation requirements and handing system.
 The sizing and phasing of water treatment plant was critical to ensure that the production system on each island
would not become bottlenecked as water cut increases.
 The location (centralized vs island based), sizing and phasing of the gas lift compression and handling system.
6 SPE 161280

 The design and installation of power plant based on the analysis of overall power demand, phasing and sizing of
individual power generation turbines, and the analysis of drivers of major equipment (i.e. turbine versus motor).
 Dry gas and water alternating gas (WAG) injection are in the long term reservoir management plan as potential routes
for enhanced oil recovery. Due consider of gas injection was made in the facilities design to ensure sufficient space
provision for future gas injection compression, and utility provision for future design in terms of cooling water, flare,
etc.

Expenditure Optimization (cost)

The second component of the DSP relates to optimization of CAPEX and OPEX. This focused on optimization of the
following items:
 Phased implementation of the island facilities taking into account the optimal utilization of existing infrastructure and
wells.
 Optimizing the installation of island based facilities to ensure production targets can be met subject to acceptable
uncertainty with respect to project financing.
 Installation of temporary facilities to allow early production and early well testing for performance evaluation of new
type wells.

The decision support packages were supported by simulation based results which involved running numerous sensitivity
scenarios. It should be evident from the above that there were many design parameters to be investigated, which created a
large matrix of simulation scenarios to run. The size of this matrix was further increased by consideration of sub-surface
uncertainty. In all cases, these simulation scenarios were run using the integrated asset modeling methodology.

Integrated modeling Scenarios

As described in the previous section, integrated asset modeling was used extensively to fully integrate subsurface and surface
models during the various VAP development planning cycles. A large number of integrated modeling studies were conducted
aiming at meeting the following objectives:
 Including the full impact of the production system pressure effects in the reservoir simulation predictions.
 Establishing a framework for production system optimization under different development schemes.
 Reducing uncertainty in the design of the surface facilities.
 Supporting the decision for early finalization of facility layout for artificial islands which represents a significantly
lower CAPEX investment with more flexibility.

The following section describes three typical scenarios which were examined:
Scenario 1: Optimize phased transition from offshore to onshore wells
Scenario 2: Water flood optimization to mitigate production shortfall due to back pressure effects
Scenario 3: Mitigation Strategy for delayed project completion dates

Scenario 1; Optimize transition from offshore to onshore wells

Scenario 1 considers the transition of offshore to onshore wells. In order to maximize return on investment from existing
infrastructure and to minimize CAPEX it is advantageous to minimize the addition of new island wells and maximize the
production from existing offshore wells whilst ensuring the proscribed production target can be achieved. In order to achieve
this it is necessary to have an accurate prediction for future production. Consider two separate simulation cases. The first is a
standalone “uncoupled” case which has been run with a traditional reservoir simulator using a fixed tubing head pressure
assumption during the prediction for well control. The second is a “coupled” simulation case which uses an integrated asset
model for improved prediction of pressure interactions in the surface. The results from these two cases are shown in figure 3.
The figure shows as separate plots the sum of production from offshore satellite wells and onshore island wells for both the
uncoupled and couple cases. It is evident from the figure that in the uncoupled case, more fluid is produced from the offshore
wells and less from the island wells; whereas in the coupled case the reverse is true. The contribution in the production system
varies between the coupled and uncoupled case because of the pressure coupling effect on the WHPT wells. In the uncoupled
case, more fluid is produced from the WHPT wells and less from the island wells due to an unrealistic, optimistic constant
tubing head pressure constraint imposed in the reservoir simulator. In the coupled case, the higher potential islands based
MRC wells offset the production shortfall from the WHPT wells that are flowing against more realistic pressures constraints
imposed by the dynamic coupling of the surface facility model in the IAM.
SPE 161280 7

Figure 3: Scenario 1 Oil Production Rate

Figure 4 shows the coupled model production profiles from the island wells (solid line) and the total field production (dotted
line). The highlighted point (peak production) show the proposed design volume which was used to ensure that the green field
facilities (e.g. interconnecting pipelines, island dimensions/layout) would be sufficiently flexible to cope with future
production from both brownfield and green field infrastructure over the life of the asset. Of particular interest were decisions
concerning the definition of strategic items mentioned above which needed to be made upfront and cannot be readily changed
after commissioning (e.g. common header).
As described above, the offshore wells will be gradually replaced by island wells. This means that there is a limited upfront
requirement for facilities infrastructure on the islands. At some point in the future, the offshore infrastructure will be retired,
all production will come from the island wells and all island based facilities will be installed as per the peak production basis
of design. However, the well transition phasing from offshore to onshore is subject to considerable uncertainty. For example,
under certain circumstances it would be necessary to accelerate production of island wells to replace unplanned lost production
from offshore wells (e.g. due to corroded offshore pipeline, scaling etc…). Because of this it was necessary to consider a
percentage safety margin in the definition of the islands facilities design to ensure that the facilities would be sufficiently
flexible to cope with the range of phasing uncertainty during the ramp up phase.

Figure 4: Proposed basis of design

Based on the above, two sets of model flow streams generated from the integrated asset model were provided to the project
team as a basis of design. The first set represents the contribution to total production from the island wells plus the agreed
percentage margin for facility phasing during transition from offshore to onshore. The second set represents the maximum
8 SPE 161280

production volume as defined above for strategic design decisions (e.g. interconnect pipelines, etc.).

Scenario 2; Water flood optimization to mitigate production shortfall due to back pressure effects;
As part of continued optimization of the field development planning cycle, the pressure maintenance strategy was revised to
target a lower reservoir pressure. The original plans were to slowly build pressure in all reservoirs to reach 4600 psia or
greater by the time the WAG injection begins post-2025. The revised plan was to reach and sustain a constant reservoir
pressure equal to the initial reservoir pressure of between 3800 to 4000 psia. This strategy requires lower injection volumes,
reduces drilling risk, and was initially considered to be favorable because of the expected later start of WAG and general
availability concerns of make-up gas for dry gas injection. In addition, the front-end CAPEX for the new injection facilities on
the islands could be deferred.

Stand-alone reservoir simulations showed similar profiles for the original and the revised pressure maintenance strategies,
particularly for the most influenced reservoir. This profile similarity was attributed to the fact that these models were run with
fixed well head flowing pressure boundary condition, and therefore do not account for wells allocation to the two MP and LP
island production systems. When the same reservoir simulations models were run using the Integrated Asset Model to
dynamically couple with the surface production network model, the impact of the surface network back pressure on the lower
reservoir pressure case was significant. Figure 5 shows the base case oil production plots for the lower pressure strategy. The
following shows the relevant plots:
 The base uncoupled plot shows the uncoupled standalone simulation run with the lower reservoir pressure injection
strategy;
 The base coupled plot shows the same case coupled to the surface network using the integrated asset modelling tool;

Coupled Vs Uncoupled Profiles

8 00 ,0 00

7 50 ,0 00

7 00 ,0 00
Production Rate, STBOPD

6 50 ,0 00

6 00 ,0 00

5 50 ,0 00

5 00 ,0 00

Date
Base_Uncoupled Base_Coupled

Figure 5: Coupled vs Uncoupled Profile with lower water injection

The large calculated shortfall between the coupled and the uncoupled case was described as “a downside case with no
mitigation”. Figure 6 shows a typical well performance for the coupled and uncouple case. The uncoupled production profile
is considerably higher than its coupled counterpart for the majority of the simulation time. This is due to the higher back
pressure which can be observed in the flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP) plots. The uncoupled tubing head pressure (THP)
is constant for the later stage of the simulation indicating that the well is controlled by the unrealistic THP limit in the
simulator. In the coupled case, the well is controlled by the dynamic coupling rather than the reservoir simulation THP limit.
SPE 161280 9

Figure 6: Well performance for uncoupled and coupled un-mitigated case

As indicated above, the decision had been made to utilize the lower reservoir pressure strategy for CAPEX savings. It was
necessary to consider several mitigation strategies to increase production in line with the original levels dictated by the “high-
pressure” reservoir injection plan. The first of these mitigation plans was to apply a targeted increase in water injection in only
the most affected reservoir model (Reservoir II) in order to raise the reservoir pressure to approximately 4500 psia. The
injection began in 2017 and would build up reservoir pressure to the required level by 2020. The second of the mitigation
plans was to operate the MP separator as an LP separator starting in 2025. This would facilitate lower back pressure against
the pre-existing MP wells to allow improved performance for those wells whose water cut increases over time.

Coupled Vs Uncoupled Profiles

8 00,000

1
7 50,000

3
2
7 00,000
Production Rate, STBOPD

6 50,000

6 00,000

5 50,000

5 00,000

Date
Base_Uncoupled Base_Coupled Base_Coupled_Mitigated

Figure 7: Production profile showing standalone, un-mitigated coupled and mitigated coupled scenarios

The plots in figure 7 are labeled 1 to 3. Plot 1 represents the uncoupled “low water injection case” which is not realistic due to
unrealistic pressure constraints which are imposed without dynamic coupled to the surface network. Plot 2 is the “downside
case with no mitigation” with considerably reduced production as seen on the figure 5. Plot 3 represents the mitigation
strategy where targeted water injection is started in 2017 and the change from MP to LP separation begins in 2025. This
additional injection boosted reservoir pressure to approximately 4250 psia, compared to 4000 psi in the uncoupled base case
which provided the addition pressure support required to mitigate the production loss. The amount of additional water
injection in the subject reservoir was within the capacity of currently planned injection facilities negating the need for
additional investment.

Scenario 3: Mitigation Strategy for delayed project completion dates

10 SPE 161280

A multiphase flow line from each island during the initial production phase was to be routed to its corresponding offshore
satellite (e.g. North Island to North Satellite) for separation and further treatment until the separation facility becomes
available at each islands.
Because of this, it is critical to ensure timely installation of island based separation facilities at the point where the satellite LP
system becomes a production bottleneck. The case under study here looked at a scenario where island facilities were delayed
resulting in a potential for deferred production due to this bottleneck. In order to mitigate against the shortfall, the scenario
considers the installation of temporary separation facilities during production ramp up while maintaining phased installation of
the remaining facility. Since the separated LP gas is the major bottleneck in the existing satellite facility, it was decided to
temporarily install MP separators on one or two islands to release the load on the existing bottlenecked gas treatment plant.
The question was: “On which island(s) should MP separator trains be installed?”
The first option considered was to install an MP separator on the main central island to release the LP load from the existing
facility by evacuating the MP gas through a separate flow line, and diverting the liquid to the nearby Central satellite separator.
This option resulted in less production gain due to the limited liquid handling capacity at satellite. The second option
considered was to place MP separation trains on the North and Sound islands. The rationale for this was that their
corresponding satellites have more separation capacity to handle MP liquid. Figure 8 shows the production profile for the two
options as compared to the base profile assuming all facilities are on time.

Figure 8: Production profiles for different temporary separator locations

The “Temp Sep @ Central Island” plot shows the profile corresponding to the first option. It is clear that installation of
separation on the central island results in considerable production shortfall. The “Temp Sep @ South & North Islands” plot
shows the profile corresponding to the second options. In this case the deferred production is considerably lower due to the
larger liquid capacity of north and south satellite separators. At a later stage, it was decided to install the MP separation
facilities on all islands.

Conclusions
The work presented in this paper is an overview of an extensive application of integrated asset model which was a key
component in finding the right balance between asset flexibility and capital investment. It has been shown that integrated
modelling provided critical input in all phases of the project. The key input came in two forms: firstly in terms of improved
accuracy due to correct accounting for interactions in the surface network; secondly in terms of accelerated simulation process
which allowed more simulation scenarios to be studied thereby reducing risk of making an incorrect design decision and by
accounting for sub-surface uncertainty.
The scenarios presented above have shown that the integrated asset modelling methodology has been critical to the success of
this project in the following ways:
 It has been possible to provide robust definitions for strategic design decisions (e.g. sizing of flow lines, sizing and
layout of artificial islands, power requirements for facilities). The improved accuracy provided by the integrated
asset modelling methodology helped to define the requirements earlier in the design cycle.
 It has provided a mechanism to more accurately specify the facilities design margin imposed during the transition
from offshore to onshore wells. This was crucial in assuring shareholders that the facility design would not limit the
production target within the targeted cut-off date.
 It demonstrated that the strategy of reducing water injection into Reservoir II would result in deferred production. It
SPE 161280 11

has also helped in the definition of mitigation strategies which do not require additional CAPEX.
 It was used to investigate the feasibility of installing temporary MP separation facilities on the artificial islands as a
means to deferred potential losses caused by offshore processing surface network bottlenecks.

The scenarios presented in this paper represent a handful of the cases run during the facilities design process. In all cases, it
would have been extremely difficult to provide accurate results for the decision making process without the use of integrated
asset modelling.

Lessons Learnt
For a facilities project of this size it is imperative to utilize any technology which will improve the ability to make informed
decisions. The integrated asset modelling paradigm allows the following:
 More design concepts can be considered further into the design process thereby “keeping the options open” and
reducing the risk of undersizing/oversizing facilities.
 More sub-surface uncertainties may be considered when building supporting evidence for design scenarios. This
improves the decision making process by putting better information in the hands of the key stakeholders.
 Complex interactions in the surface network may be considered which may otherwise lead to poor design decisions.

The authors believe that integrated asset modelling of this type should be adopted as a best practise in the design process of all
major engineering infrastructure projects in order to find the right balance between project flexibility and project cost.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and Zakum Development Company (ZADCO)
for granting permission to publish this paper. The authors would also like to thank Schlumberger for their support.

References
1. Khedr, et al.: “On the Importance and Application of Integrated Asset Modeling of a Giant Offshore Oil Field”, SPE
123689-PP.
2. Modavi, et al.: “Field Development Expansion of a Giant Oil Field in Abu Dhabi Using Artificial Islands as Drilling and
Production Centers”, SPE 118379-PP.
3. Modavi, et al.: “Managing the Life of a Giant Offshore Oilfield in the UAE where Facilities and Infrastructure Mature
ahead of the Reservoir”, SEP 137542-PP.
4. Ghorayeb, et al.: “A General Purpose Controller for Coupling Multiple Reservoir Simulations and Surface Facility
Networks”, SPE 79702.