Control Optimization of Oil

Production under Geological

Uncertainty
Agus Hasan, Bjarne Foss,
Jon Kleppe

Department of Petroleum Engineering, NTNU

Department of Cybernetics Engineering, NTNU
Center for Integrated Operations in Petroleum Industry

Nordic Process Control Workshop 2009

Porsgrunn, Norway
29-30 January 2009

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Outline
Objectives and Motivations
Closed-loop Reservoir Management
Case Study
Part 1 Optimization
Optimization Methods
Reservoir Control Structure
Binary Integer Programming
Optimization Results
Part 2 Uncertainty
Geological Uncertainty
History Matching
Results
Conclusions and Recomendations

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Objectives and Motivations
Objectives:
Find operating combination conditions of down-hole valve settings that
optimize the water flood.
Investigate potential for improvement as function of reservoir properties and
operating constraints.

Objective function: Net Present Value (NPV)

N r q n x, u , m r q n x, u , m
N Prod Ninj
NPV rw,inj qinj , i
o o, j w o, j n

n 1 j 1 1 b i 1
tn

Which optimization method should we choose in our problem?

Efficient: Fast enough
Accurate
Robust
Applicable: can be used in practical way

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Closed-Loop Reservoir
Management
Production
System
(Reservoir,
Well)

Optimi
Data
zation
Control and
Optimization

Calc. Reservoir Identification

NPV Simulator and Updating
Geological
Uncertainty

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Case Study
Grid cells : 45 x 45 x 1 = 2025

2-phases : Oil-Water

Assumptions:
Incompressible and Immiscible fluids flow
No flow boundaries
No capillary pressure
No gravity effect

(Brouwer 2004)

1 Injector and 1 Producer well

Each well was divide into 45 segments

Each segments was modeled as a separated smart well

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Initial Data
Porosity : 0.2 (uniformly distributed)
IOIP : 324000 sm3 = 2041200 bbl
Injection rate : 405 sm3/day
Water Injection price : $ 0 / bbl
Oil produced price : $ 60 / bbl
Water produced price : $ 10 /bbl
Discount rate :0
Three different permeability cases:

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Reservoir Simulator
Mass balance

Darcys Law

Saturation Equation

Pressure Equation

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Non-optimized Results

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 PART 1 Optimization

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Optimization Methods

Reactive Control
Shut-in well with water cut above some threshold
Proactive Control
Delay water breakthrough
Binary Integer Programming (BIP)
On-off valves setting
min cT x
x

s.t
A x b
x Z 0,1

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Reservoir Control Structure
Start Finish
0 200 400 600 800 [days]

45 well segment aggregated into 9 control segments. Allow one segmen

to be closed at 200, 400, and 600 days.

Which well segment should be

closed?
(Optimize the shut in sequence)

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Binary Integer Programming
z1 qo1
Constrain:

z Qo 8 z1 L z9 9


z q
9 o 9
z 1 Open
z 0 Closed

max z T Qo min z T Qo
z z
1 1 L 1
s.t. s.t. A
1 1 L 1
Az b Az b 9
b
8
NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009
 Results (Water saturation after 800
days)
Non-optimize Case

Reactive

Proactive

BIP

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Results (Water cut and NPV)

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

Base 41,93 38,20 43,97
Case
Reactive 47,67 45,52 49,82
Proactive 48,80 46,15 49,63
BIP 51,24 46,05 52,85
Unit in million USD
NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009
 PART 2 Uncertainty

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Uncertainty
Origins:
Mathematical model (linear model)
Measurement devices (well loging, surface facilities, etc)
Reservoir geology (porosity, permeability, fault, etc)

Treatments:
EnKF
Bayesian Inversion
History matching
etc.

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Geological Uncertainty
Permeability Realizations

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 History Matching (Using 200
day production data)

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 History Matching (Contd)
True permeability fields Selected permeability fields from Realizations

True saturation profile (200 days) Saturation profile from Realizations (200 days)

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Final Results (BIP with and without
uncertainty)

Type Type Type

1 2 3
Base Case 41,93 38,20 43,97
BIP without UN 51,24 46,05 52,85
BIP with UN 48,62 46,16 51,62
Deviation (with 5,05 0,24 1,35
and without % % %
UN)
Unit in million USD

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Results (Contd)
Saturation profile without Uncertainty (800 days)

Saturation profile with Uncertainty (800 days)

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Conclusions
A new production optimization technique has been presented.
Optimization proces based on Binary Integer Programming has been
succesfuly applied and gives improvement in Net Present Value. Binary
Integer Programming gives more benets in the sense of NPV improvement
then regular Reactive or Proactive Control.
Binary Integer Programming is a robust optimization technique under
gealogical uncertainty such as permeability distribution. The optimization
process also showed that water saturation at breakthrough was observed to
be more uniformly distributed across the reservoir after the optimization
process as compared with the unoptimized case.
The scope for improvement depends on the type of heterogeneity in the
permeability field. Because the NPV performance of the optimal water
flood depends less on geological features than that of a conventional water
flood, the scope for improvement partly depends on the performance of
the conventional water flood.
The scope for improvement depends on the relative magnitudes of the oil
price and the water cost, and on the length of the optimization window.

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009

 Recommendations

The effects of capillary pressure, compressibility, and gravity were not

investigated in this study.

Results obtained in this study may therefore only be representative

for situations were gravity and capillary effects are relatively small. Gravity may
positively or negatively affect the sweep efficiency. The scope for improvement and
the shape of the optimal control functions may thus change if capillary or gravity
forces are signicant. Therefore, their exact effects should be investigated.

NTNU 02/07/17 NPCW 2009