Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
One of the most important outputs of the static model is the
volumetrics of the original hydrocarbon in place (OHIP).
According to the type of reservoir driving mechanism, the
reservoir engineer can assume the recovery factor and hence the
recoverable reserves. Most simulation studies are being
conducted on fields considering a period of production
performance to determine the remaining reserves and the best
scenario of development to produce these reserves, which is the
main function of the dynamic model.
The volumetrics could be approached using a Monte Carlo
technique, the end product of which is a range of probable
OHIP and, consequently using the proper recovery factor,
getting probability distribution of the recoverable reserves.
Therefore, using the probabilistic approach is superior in green
fields rather than brown fields because it captures the full range
of reality and where models are not yet calibrated to dynamic
data.
Sometimes, the dynamic data may take a surprise turn from
the geological understanding. Different realizations, even the
crazy ones, may help under the probability distribution
functions in defining some certainties that have not yet even
been imagined. In addition, each of the dynamic models
scenarios yields extra recovery, the certainty of which can be
evaluated using the probability distribution curve of the
remaining reserves. This certainty has direct influence on the
economics approval of one scenario over the others.
The current work introduces actual case histories
demonstrating how the probabilistic approach could be of real
help in selecting the production enhancement scenario and how
this tool also could be used to prioritize management interests.
Introduction
After many trials of trade off, both sides: geoscientists and
reservoir engineers could come to a mutual agreement whether
to accept the model, i.e., the static one for further use in
building the dynamic model. However, this does not mean,
under any circumstances, that the accepted model is certain. In
taking this static model to the dynamics, the domain of
uncertainties becomes wider. The main parameter that makes
the results of the dynamic model to be convergent is the
feasibility, which is, in turn, at high level of uncertainty, e.g.,
oil prices.
In almost all of the reservoir simulation studies you can
find deterministic figures counting to the second decimal of
MMBO or US$MM (i.e., ten thousand), which is sometimes as
small as daily production. The question is: how much
accuracy and certainty in our input that allows us to come
up with such deterministic numbers? Murtha (1) said Much
of risk analysis consists of estimating something with a range
of values rather than with a single value. We report that the
wildcat well drilling will require between 56 and 87 days
instead of saying it will take exactly 65 days. Instead of the
single-point estimate of US$ 34 MM, we say the water flood
NPV is a normal distribution with a mean of US$34 MM and a
standard deviation of US$1.7 MM (equivalent to a range of 29
to 39 MM US$).
The reliability of reserves estimates is the economic
foundation of the petroleum industry. This is the initial point
where $ sign appears. A dependable foundation for reserves
estimates helps to ensure sound choices and avoid errors in the
development of potential oil and gas properties. This, in turn,
positively affects the confidence of shareholders, corporate
staff, suppliers and contractors, government agencies, and
society as a whole (2).
In the next paragraphs will follow a backward process that
starts off by dynamic model results and ends with probabilistic
reserves. The current work tries to tie the output of the
simulator with the probability distribution of reserves in terms
of uncertainty or the chance of success.
No doubt that it will be a revolutionary approach if we
could use Monte Carlo simulation in dynamic models to
produce directly a distribution of uncertainty per each logic
scenario aiming recovery increase.
SPE 89983
SPE 89983
2.
Its an open invitation to simulator designers to build
in some uncertainty analysis for further improvement of
probabilistic reserve estimates.
3.
Bigger reservoirs give better reasonable results in
comparison as theyre subjected to higher level of exploitation
activities.
4.
Probability distribution functions could be used as a
quality check tool to evaluate the level of reservoir
management.
5.
Such approach in evaluating reserves reveals the
priorities in developing multiple choices.
6.
combination of oil volumes, uncertainty analysis and
economics could be effectively used in prioritizing
development schedule and making successful decisions.
Acknowledgments
The author extends his thanks to IPR Group of Companies for
permission upon using the data of the simulation study in
addition to the access to the current production performance.
He also does thank IPR Group of Company for supporting the
publication of this paper. Many other thanks are to be addressed
to Dr. Jim Pollin upon his valuable comments and Mr. Dale
Hinshaw upon his instructive directions.
References
1. James A. Murtha: Monte Carlo Simulation: Its Status and
Future, SPE 37932 presented at the SPE ATCE, San Antonio,
TX, Oct. 5-8, 1997.
2. W. Gary McGilvray: Independent Evaluation for Reliable
Reserves Estimates, JPT, Dec. 2004.
3. Howard Bradley: Petroleum Engineering Handbook, Third
Edition, Richardson, TX, USA, 1992.
4. Einar Sverdrup: Modeling Streamlines Workflows, E&P,
Aug. 2004, pp. 69-72.
5. E.C Capen: Probabilistic Reserves! Here at Last?
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Oct. 2001, pp. 387-94.
6. E. A. Idrobo et al: A New Tool to Make Quick Estimates of
Probabilistic Reserves from Production Trends, SPE 68597
presented at SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation
Symposium, Dallas, TX, Apr. 2001.
7. John Wright: Irreducible Uncertainty: A Fact of Life in
Reserve Estimates, SPE 84146 presented at SPE ATCE, Denver,
CO, Oct. 5-8, 2003.
SPE 89983
8. www.spe.org
Petroleum
Reserves
and
Resources
Definitions .
9. Rini Verbruggen et al: Understanding Reserves Uncertainties
in a Mature Field by Reservoir Modeling, SPE 77896 presented
at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition
(APOGCE) held in Melbourne, Australia, Oct. 8-10, 2002.
SPE 89983
NAME
MEAN
MIN
MAX
P10
P50
Simulation Study
P90
Determ.
MBC
MMSTB
AR/G
OOIP
Reserves
17.13
4.27
5.00
1.20
27.50
7.20
12.86
2.93
16.90
4.21
21.79
5.68
17.48
1.788
N.A.
RS
OOIP
Reserves
39.89
12.95
15.00
5.90
65.00
22.50
28.85
9.17
39.61
11.99
51.39
17.15
45.071
5.83
N.A.
DS
OOIP
Reserves
11.83
4.16
2.50
1.00
20.00
8.00
8.17
2.72
11.65
4.17
15.82
5.64
12.737
3.501
12.51
AD
OOIP
Reserves
189.55
59.58
125.00
40.00
250.00
80.00
192.966
62.881
209.84
AS
OOIP
Reserves
6.99
1.06
3.00
0.38
12.00
2.50
7.193
0.09
N.A.
OOIP
Reserves
265.80
82.35
200.00
60.00
350.00
105.00
Total Field
4.98
0.73
6.86
1.06
9.28
1.42
270.11
74.09
Name
Do Nothing
Best Scenario
AR/G
238
446
RS
264
404
DS
50
AD
76
446
AS
87
161
TOTAL FIELD *
665
1459
SPE 89983
Frequency Chart
.036
36
.027
27
.018
18
.009
9
Mean = 59.27
.000
40.00
50.00
60.00
0
70.00
80.00
Frequency Chart
.746
718
.560
538.5
.373
359
.187
179.5
.000
0
0.00
2.25
4.50
6.75
9.00
Frequency Chart
.029
29
.022
21.75
.015
14.5
.007
7.25
Mean = 4.25
.000
1.50
3.00
4.50
0
6.00
7.50
Fig. 3 Reservoir AR/G Probabilistic Reserves and Certainty of Cumulative Oil Produced
SPE 89983
Frequency Chart
.032
32
.024
24
.016
16
.008
8
Mean = 12.94
.000
5.00
9.38
13.75
0
18.13
22.50
Overlay Chart
Frequency Comparison
.212
3-Reservoirs Remaining Reserves
.159
AR/G Remaining Reserves
.106
RS Remaining Reserves
.053
Dolomite Remaining Reserves
.000
0.00
6.88
13.75
20.63
27.50
Fig. 5 Overlay Plot Showing the Share of each Reservoir in the Remaining Reserves
Trend Chart
Trend Chart: P10, P50 and P90 for the Three Reservoirs
15.00
90%
10.00
50%
5.00
10%
0.00
AR/G Remaining Reserves
RS Remaining Reserves
Fig. 6 Trend Chart Showing How Much Certainty of Remaining Reserves within Each Reservoir
SPE 89983