Oil after the Wellhead

And the Value of Data

A panel discussion featuring:

Emile Coetzer
Christine Kemp
Rhon Rose

Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

1
 OBJECTIVE

Equip Data Managers with an overview of what

happens to the product after the wellhead, so that
they can:

• Serve the Facilities world more effectively

• Expand their repertoire of offering

2 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 OVERVIEW

• Introductions
• Oilfield Left to Right
• Facilities Data Vernacular
• Case Studies
• Risk
• License to Operate
• Royalties
• Knowledge Digitization
• Discussion

3 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 INTRODUCTIONS

• Emile Coetzer P.Eng

• Rhon Rose P.Eng

• Christine Kemp P.Eng

• PPDM Support Staff

4 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 OILFIELD LEFT TO RIGHT

• Very simplified

• The downstream has thousands of individual types

of Subject Matter Experts, I am only qualified in
only a few.

5 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

6 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved
 The Allocation Envelope
Losses
Any Facility
• Fuel
Delineation
• Flare and Venting
Boundary
• Injection/Evaporation

Inputs Inventory OUTPUTS

• Production • Product
from Sales Points
Well(s) • Inputs to
• Outputs Downstream
from Facilities
Upstream
Facilities “Fudge” Factor
• = Inputs – Outputs – losses +/-
inventory change
• Called Proration Factor,
Measurement Error, etc.
 OILFIELD EQUIPMENT

8 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

9 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved
10 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved
 FACILITIES DATA VERNACULAR

• Flow Diagrams
• Numbering Systems
• Datasheet
• Basic Architecture
• Handover between Project and Operate Phases

11 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAMS

 Block Flow Diagrams (BFD)

 Process Flow Diagrams (PFD)
 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID), or sometimes called a
Mechanical Flow Diagram (MFD)
 Utility Flow Diagram (UFD) (P&ID for the OBL utilities)
 Material and Corrosion Flow Diagram (MCFD)

Raw Water Potable

Water Treatme Water
Storage nt Plant Storage

Chemica
l
Storage

Block Flow Diagram (BFD) Process Flow Diagram (PFD)

Sli © AAEL & ESA – all rights reserved

de
 TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAMS (CONT.)
Piping and
Instrumentation
Diagram
(P&ID)

Carbon Steel
T,= 12343
P=, 3344

Material and Carbon Steel

T,= 12343
P=, 3344

Carbon Steel
T,= 12343
P=, 3344

Corrosion
Flow Diagram Carbon Steel
T,= 12343
Carbon Steel P=, 3344

(MCFD)
Carbon Steel
T,= 12343
T,= 12343
P=, 3344
P=, 3344

Carbon Steel
T,= 12343
P=, 3344

Sli © AAEL & ESA – all rights reserved

de
 NUMBERING SYSTEMS COMPARISON

Source: Max-i Association

Sli © AAEL & ESA – all rights reserved

de
 SAMPLE DATA SHEET : PUMP

Pump-Centrifugal

Identification Equipment Tag No

Classification PUCE ISO14224

RDS416834 ISO15926
Discipline Code M - Mechanical EPISTLE

As-built Criticality
Attribute Class Specific Requirement Accountable UoM required? required? dependance Users
Uses/Location Attributes System No EPC
P&ID No EPC
Parent Tag No Owner
Equipment Attributes Equipment Description Vendor
Manufacturer Vendor
Model No Vendor
Serial No Vendor
Date/Batch Vendor
Engineering Attributes Diameter Vendor Yes
Height Vendor Yes
Length Vendor Yes
Weight Dry Vendor Yes
Wight (operating) Vendor Yes
Power Consumption Vendor Yes
Rated Capacity Vendor Yes
Rated Flow Vendor Yes
Rated pressure Vendor Yes
Rated pressure Vendor Yes
Normal Psuct Vendor Yes
Normal Pdis Vendor Yes
No of stages Vendor Yes
No of vanes per stage Vendor H, M PdM Pgm
Body Type Vendor
Shaft Sealing Configuration Vendor H, M
Radial Bearing Type Vendor
Radial Bearing Number Vendor
Thrust Bearing Type Vendor
Thrust Bearing Number Vendor
Normal Operating Speed Vendor Yes H,M PdM Pgm
Impeller Material Vendor H Integrity Pgm
Casing Material Vendor H Integrity Pgm
Rotor 1st Critical Speed Vendor Yes H PdM Pgm
Design Code Specifications Vendor
Project Attributes PO Number EPC
Supplier EPC
Order Date EPC
Delivery Date EPC
FAT/QA Specification Reference Owner
Required Documentation General Arrangement EPC yes
Sectional Drawing Vendor
P&ID Number EPC yes
Seal Plan Drawing EPC yes
Operating Manual Vendor
Maintenance Manual Vendor H, M
Repair Manual Vendor H, M
FMEA Vendor H
Pump Curves Vendor
Base and alignment specifications Vendor
Condition Monitoring Baselines EPC H, M PdM Pgm
Lubricant Specifications Vendor PdM Pgm
Coolant Specifications Vendor
FAT/Performance Certificates EPC yes H, M
Operational Attributes Normal Capacity Utilization % EPC H, M
Normal Operating Mode EPC H, M
Initial Installation Date EPC H, M
Initial Commissioning Date EPC
Equipment Criticality Owner
Maintenance Strategy No Owner H, M
Vibration envelope settings Yes H PdM Pgm
BOM Ref No Owner
Type of Driver EPC
Fluid Handled EPC Integrity Pgm
SPIR Ref No EPC
Additional Components (separate data sheets) Sealing arrangements and associated equipment EPC yes
Transmission EPC yes
Instrumentation EPC yes
Cooling EPC yes
Lubrication EPC yes
Valves EPC yes
PSVs EPC yes

15
 ENGINEERING INFORMATION
ARCHITECTURE

16
 HANDOVER DOCUMENTATION

Sli © AAEL & ESA – all rights reserved

de
 CASE STUDIES

• Risk
• License to Operate
• Royalties

18 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 CASE STUDY: RISK

19 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 CASE STUDY : RISK

20 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 CASE STUDY : LTO

• Within Alberta there are literally 1,000’s of

regulatory requirements.
• Some are super important, others less so, but a
culture of ignoring requirements will cause the
Alberta Energy Regulator to move you up the
escalation ladder. The top of the ladder is loss of
your right to operate in Alberta.
• Measurement Schematics are 4 pages of a 300
page Directive 17 (Measurement).

21 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

HISTORY

• Only new requirement that came out of discussions

with regulator to improve royalty accounting.
• Alberta formally added requirement in 2010,
effective 2012.
• B.C. formally photo copied requirement latter in
2010, effective 2011.
• Saskatchewan adding the same requirement in
2016, effective 2017-18.
WHY DO MEASUREMENT SCHEMATICS?

• Measurement Schematics are a the foundation for

avoiding errors and costly accounting and royalty
payment re-work.
• The key is to have them owned and agreed by the
Production Accountants, by Operations, and by
Engineering/Measurement.
• A single agreed picture is worth more than 30
separate Excel spreadsheets.
LOTS OF REQUIREMENTS/DATA

• Provincial Requirements cover;

• Wells (all I will review)
• Well Test, Satellites and Headers
• Fuel Measurement and Estimation
• Flare and Venting
• Flow Lines
• Process Equipment
• Measurement Points
• Storage Tanks and Vessels
• Delineation & Facility Sub-types
• General Layout
• Updating Frequency
• Sharing Them
WELLS – REQUIRED INFO

• Include all producing, shut-in, water source, and

injection/disposal wells. Suspended and abandoned
wells are optional.
• Identify the energy/fuel source
• Identify if on artificial lift – default to Flow
• Identify VGWL – Volumetric Gas Well Liquid – default
to COND
• Required to show water source plants that pull water
from fresh water sources like lakes and rivers.
• Must show UWI and type of well (oil, gas etc.).
• Optional to show well Operator, surface location,
working interest, last month’s production, etc..
WELL – UWI’S (NOT PPDM’S)

LSD of the BOTTOM hole location,

where the well penetrates the top of
the producing zone

100/16-06-056-02W5/02

Location Exception Code; Event Sequence;

This is used when there is Indicates chronological sequence
more than one drill per legal of drilling or completion activities,
subdivision, 100 then 102,103 00 then 02, 03 etc.
etc.
WELL – TYPICALS

VS.

VS
.
SOME OF THE VALUE VECTORS FROM AN
ACCURATE MEASUREMENT SCHEMATIC
• Joint Interest can use them to see what facilities
third party wells flow through.
• HSE can confirm where the dehydrators are that
need annual benzene testing.
• Schedulers know which meters need calibrating
(accounting), and which do not (non-accounting).
• Production Accountants know which wells are on
artificial lift and thus might get a royalty break.
• But; Getting a common, standard view across a
company is difficult, though every new user (and
shut-down private Excel spreadsheet) strengthens
the whole system.
 CASE STUDY : ROYALTIES & SUSPENDED

• Two examples of communications failing because

of non-standard terms

29 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

EXAMPLE 1

• The Alberta Energy Regulator allows Production

Accountants to count planned “off” hours as “on”
when counting production hours.
• Field data systems accurately track the “off” and
“on” production hours.
• Because Alberta has sliding scale royalties more
hours mean lower royalties for the same amount of
production.
EXAMPLE 1 (RESULT)

• Someone made the connection and the rework

spread across industry as one company learned
from another.

• Roughly $100 million in royalty refunds resulted.

• Who thinks everyone is doing it correctly now??

EXAMPLE 2

• Within the Alberta Energy Regulator there are at

least two definitions of “Suspended Well”
1. Engineering; drives liability ratings and annual
maintenance activities. The regulations force you on
suspended status generally after 12 months shut-in,
and it takes at least 3 months of continuous production
to get off the status.
2. Production Accounting; means you do not need to
submit zeros every month for a non-producing well.
Prevents any volumes being accidentally reported for a
shut-in well. Entirely optional, no direct financial impact.
• I once 98% aligned these two lists for my
company.
EXAMPLE 2 (RESULT)

• Six months latter the CFO called and asked why

the number of suspended wells had increased by
over 120, resulting in the DD & A amounts had
gone up (incorrectly he hoped) by about $ 6
MM/year.

• They had used the wrong list.

 KNOWLEDGE DIGITIZATION

• How do we avoid 100 specialized digital tools

(replacing way more Excel spreadsheets) that can
not interact?

• What standards are needed to unite this data?

34 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

TRENDS TOWARDS DIGITIZING
MEASUREMENT SCHEMATICS
• About 7 service providers have built digital
versions of tools, designed to replace the
traditional Excel, Visio and AutoCAD methods.
• These are everything from turbo-Visio to full data
models with data importing and cross checks.
• There are no agreed standards just some
traditional practices.
OBSERVATIONS TO DATE

• A very slow process to change company thinking

or develop new standards.
• Most companies use very little of their available
digital knowledge.
• Knowledge silos are common.
• Companies learn and forget the same thing many
times and at the same time within the
organization.
MY CHALLENGE

• As we learn about bad data/missed opportunities

we digitize them, so they do not become un-
learned.
• In this the earlier examples we perhaps add a test
to look for wells that have reported zero
production for the last 10 months and have not
been suspended, or a test to look for wells that
have partial month production too often.
• But would not agreed definitions of “suspended”
and “Production Hours”, and creation of new terms
to cover the other situation, also help?
 DISCUSSION

38 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 SUPPORT SLIDES

39 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 PRIMARY SEPARATION

40 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 CARBON CHAINS AND BASIC DISTILLATION
COLUMN

41 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 OIL GATHERING & REFINING

Image provided by

42 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 SAGD

Image provided by

43 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

 OILSANDS

Image provided by

44 Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

MEASUREMENT
SCHEMATICS AS
DATA
Rhon B.F.M. Rose
Measurement Guru, Facility Studio

PPDM Calgary Conference

October 2015
WELLS – OIL EXAMPLE

• Note the suspended

well
LEGEND
 FEL ILLUSTRATION

Unsuccessful Projects
Mismanaged FEL
Level of Effort

Well-managed FEL

Construction &
FEED Commissioning Successful Project
Phase

Inadequate FEL

Project Start Start-up

Time

Sli © AAEL & ESA – all rights reserved

de
 TYPICAL WORK MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Reliability Design Work Analyze Work

Everyone Identify Work

Management Prioritize Work Review Work

Planning &
Plan Work Schedule Work Record Work
Scheduling

Maintenance Execute Work

Warehouse Spares

49
 THANK YOU

Copyright 2015, PPDM Association. All Rights Reserved

50