Abonnement à la biblothèque: Guest

THE ROLE OF FLOW MEASUREMENT IN HYDROCARBON RECOVERY FORECASTING IN THE UKCS

Volume 22, Numéro 8, 2019, pp. 957-973
DOI: 10.1615/JPorMedia.2019025067
Get accessGet access

RÉSUMÉ

In terms of maximizing economic recovery (MER) in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS), the measurement of well production rates is essential to optimize the hydrocarbon production strategy from within the well itself. This is achieved through a process called a well test in which a snapshot of production is monitored by measurement equipment and instrumentation. The data collected are then used to characterize the reservoir near the wells and to optimize the wells' production rates. However, the measurement accuracy required to provide sufficient control has not been established, and there is little information in the public domain that shows what the current typical operational measurement uncertainty is. Given that modeling and reservoir management are highly dependent on these measurements, the allowable uncertainty must be known to fully assess whether the equipment and the methodology of verifying the measurements are fit for purpose. This paper details an investigation of the effects of flow measurement errors on interpreting well testing data and estimating the recoverable reserves. In addition, current MER strategies for the UKCS are discussed, and the importance of using downhole flow measurement data in well testing for MER has been emphasized.

RÉFÉRENCES
  1. Abdolhosseini, H. and Khamehchi, E., History Matching Using Traditional and Finite Size Ensemble Kalman Filter, J. Natural Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 27, pp. 1748-1757, 2015.

  2. Abdollahzadeh, A., et al., Bayesian Optimization Algorithm Applied to Uncertainty Quantification, SPE J, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 865-873,2012.

  3. Adams, C., Kavanagh, M., and Tighe, C., North Sea Oil: That Sinking Feeling, Financial Times, February 25, 2015.

  4. Ahmadi, R., Aminshahidy, B., and Shahrabi, J., Well-Testing Model Identification Using Time-Series Shapelets, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., vol. 149, pp. 292-305, 2017.

  5. Barbe, J. and Boyd, B., Short-Term Buildup Testing, J. Petrol. Technol., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 800-804, 1971.

  6. Bottomley, W., Schouten, J., McDonald, E., and Cooney, T., Novel Well Test Design for the Evaluation of Complete Well Permeability and Productivity for CSG Wells in the Surat Basin, J. Natural Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 33, pp. 1002-1009, 2016.

  7. Bourdet, D., Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002.

  8. Chase, R., Improved Estimation of Gas Well Deliverability from Single-Point Tests, J. Canadian Petrol. Technol., vol. 41, no. 11, 2002. DOI: 10.2118/2000-012.

  9. Earlougher, R.C., Advances in Well Test Analysis, SPE Monograph Series, No. 5, Dallas, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1977.

  10. Emerson Automation Solutions, PID Control in 3-Phase Oil and Gas Separation, accessed February 12, 2017, from https://www.emersonautomationexperts.com/2015/industry/oil-gas/pid-control-3-phase-oil-gas-separation/, 2014.

  11. Falcone, G., Hewitt, G., Alimonti, C., and Harrison, B., Multiphase Flow Metering: Current Trends and Future Developments, SPE Annual Technical Conf. and Exhibition, Richardson, TX, 2001.

  12. Foster, G., Wong, D., and Asgarpour, S., The Use of Pressure Build-Up Data in Pressure Transient Testing, J. Canadian Petrol. Technol., vol. 28, no. 6,1989. DOI: 10.2118/89-06-10.

  13. Hajizadeh, Y., Christie, M., and Demyanov, V., Ant Colony Optimization for History Matching and Uncertainty Quantification of Reservoir Models, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 78-92, 2011.

  14. Hamdi, H., Well-Test Response in Stochastic Permeable Media, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., vol. 119, pp. 169-184, 2014.

  15. Hegeman, P.S., Hallford, D.L., and Joseph, J.A., Well Test Analysis with Changing Wellbore Storage, SPE Formation Eval., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 201-207,1993.

  16. HM Revenue and Customs, Government Revenues from UK Oil and Gas Production, London, 2014.

  17. HM Treasury, Driving Investment: A Plan to Reform the Oil and Gas Fiscal Regime, London, 2014.

  18. Houze, O., et al., Dynamic Data Analysis: The Theory and Practice of Pressure Transient, Production Analysis, Well Performance Analysis, Production Logging and the Use of Permanent Downhole Gauge Data, Houston, TX: KAPPA Engineering, 2015.

  19. Khosravi, V. and Ketabi, S., Well Test Analysis of Gas Condensate Reservoirs from Pressure Build Up and Draw Down Tests, Offshore Technology Conf., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 25-28, 2014.

  20. Lake, L. and Walsh, M., A Generalized Approach to Primary Hydrocarbon Recovery of Petroleum Exploration and Production, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV, 2003.

  21. Lee, J., Well Testing, New York: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1982.

  22. Lindsay, G., Hay, J., Glen, N., and Shariatipour, S., Profiling and Trending of Coriolis Meter Secondary Process Value Drift due to Ambient Temperature Fluctuations, Flow Measure. Instrument., vol. 59, pp. 225-232, 2017.

  23. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D.G., Pressure Buildup and Flow Tests in Wells, SPE Monograph Series, Dallas, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1967.

  24. McAleese, S., Operational Aspects of Oil and Gas Well Testing, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000.

  25. Meunier, D., Wittmann, M., and Stewart, G., Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Test Using In-Situ Measurement of Afterflow, J. Petrol. Technol, vol. 37, no. 1,pp. 143-152, 1985.

  26. Nezhad, M.M., Javadi, A., and Rezania, M., Modeling of Contaminant Transport in Soils Considering the Effects of Micro- and Macro-Heterogeneity, J. Hydrology, vol. 404, nos. 3-4, pp. 332-338, 2011.

  27. Office for Budget Responsibility, Fiscal Sustainabality Report, London, 2014.

  28. Oil and Gas Authority, Guidance Notes for Petroleum Measurement, Aberdeen, UK, 2015.

  29. Ramy, H., Kumar, A., and Gulati, M.S., Oil Well Test Analysis under Water-Drive Conditions, Arlington, TX: American Gas Association, 1973.

  30. Ross, A., Well Testing - An Evaluation of Test Separators and Multiphase Meters, 28th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, London, pp. 214-235, 2010.

  31. Rumbles, L., Importance of Flow Measurement for Separators, accessed November 3, 2017, from http://www.emersonprocessxperts.com/2014/01/importance-of-flow-measurement-for-separators/, 2014.

  32. Sadri, M., Shariatipour, S., and Hunt, A., Effects of Flow Measurement Errors on Oil and Gas Production Forecasts, Comput. Experiment. Methods Multiphase Complex FlowIX, vol. 115, p. 133, 2017.

  33. Sadri, M., Shariatipour, S., and Hunt, A., Effect of Systematic and Random Flow Measurement Errors on History Matching, The 5th Int. Conf. on Oil and Gas Engineering and Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2018.

  34. Scheidt, C. and Caers, J., Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Performance Using Distances and Kernel Methods-Application to a West Africa Deepwater Turbidite Reservoir, SPEJ., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 680-692, 2009.

  35. Stewart, G., Well Test Design and Analysis, Tulsa, OK: PennWell Corporation, 2011.

  36. Terry, R.E., Rogers, J.B., and Craft, B.C., Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2013.

  37. U.S. Energy Information Administration, North Sea Oil Production, 2016.

  38. van Golf-Racht, T.D., Fundamentals of Fractured Reservoir Engineering, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1982.

  39. Wood, I., UKCS Maximising Recovery Review: Final Report, 2014.

  40. Zeng, L., Chang, H., and Zhang, D., A Probabilistic Collocation-Based Kalman Filter for History Matching, SPE J., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 294-306,2011.

  41. Zhao, H., et al., History Matching and Production Optimization of Water Flooding based on a Data-Driven Interwell Numerical Simulation Model, J. Natural Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 31, pp. 48-66, 2016.

CITÉ PAR
  1. Sadri Mahdi, Shariatipour Seyed M., Hunt Andrew, Ahmadinia Masoud, Effect of systematic and random flow measurement errors on history matching: a case study on oil and wet gas reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 9, 4, 2019. Crossref

  2. Sadri Mahdi, Shariatipour Seyed M., Mitigating Allocation and Hydrocarbon Accounting Uncertainty Using More Frequent Flow Test Data, Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 142, 4, 2020. Crossref

  3. Lindsay Gordon, Glen Norman, Hay John, Shariatipour Seyed, Henry Manus, Coriolis meter density errors induced by ambient air and fluid temperature differentials, Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 73, 2020. Crossref

Prochains articles

Effects of Momentum Slip and Convective Boundary Condition on a Forced Convection in a Channel Filled with Bidisperse Porous Medium (BDPM) Vanengmawia PC, Surender Ontela ON THERMAL CONVECTION IN ROTATING CASSON NANOFLUID PERMEATED WITH SUSPENDED PARTICLES IN A DARCY-BRINKMAN POROUS MEDIUM Pushap Sharma, Deepak Bains, G. C. Rana Effect of Microstructures on Mass Transfer inside a Hierarchically-structured Porous Catalyst Masood Moghaddam, Abbas Abbassi, Jafar Ghazanfarian Insight into the impact of melting heat transfer and MHD on stagnation point flow of tangent hyperbolic fluid over a porous rotating disk Priya Bartwal, Himanshu Upreti, Alok Kumar Pandey Numerical Simulation of 3D Darcy-Forchheimer Hybrid Nanofluid Flow with Heat Source/Sink and Partial Slip Effect across a Spinning Disc Bilal Ali, Sidra Jubair, Md Irfanul Haque Siddiqui Fractal model of solid-liquid two-phase thermal transport characteristics in the rough fracture network shanshan yang, Qiong Sheng, Mingqing Zou, Mengying Wang, Ruike Cui, Shuaiyin Chen, Qian Zheng Application of Artificial Neural Network for Modeling of Motile Microorganism-Enhanced MHD Tangent Hyperbolic Nanofluid across a vertical Slender Stretching Surface Bilal Ali, Shengjun Liu, Hongjuan Liu Estimating the Spreading Rates of Hazardous Materials on Unmodified Cellulose Filter Paper: Implications on Risk Assessment of Transporting Hazardous Materials Heshani Manaweera Wickramage, Pan Lu, Peter Oduor, Jianbang Du ELASTIC INTERACTIONS BETWEEN EQUILIBRIUM PORES/HOLES IN POROUS MEDIA UNDER REMOTE STRESS Kostas Davanas Gravity modulation and its impact on weakly nonlinear bio-thermal convection in a porous layer under rotation: a Ginzburg-Landau model approach Michael Kopp, Vladimir Yanovsky Pore structure and permeability behavior of porous media under in-situ stress and pore pressure: Discrete element method simulation on digital core Jun Yao, Chunqi Wang, Xiaoyu Wang, Zhaoqin Huang, Fugui Liu, Quan Xu, Yongfei Yang Influence of Lorentz forces on forced convection of Nanofluid in a porous lid driven enclosure Yi Man, Mostafa Barzegar Gerdroodbary SUTTERBY NANOFLUID FLOW WITH MICROORGANISMS AROUND A CURVED EXPANDING SURFACE THROUGH A POROUS MEDIUM: THERMAL DIFFUSION AND DIFFUSION THERMO IMPACTS galal Moatimid, Mona Mohamed, Khaled Elagamy CHARACTERISTICS OF FLOW REGIMES IN SPIRAL PACKED BEDS WITH SPHERES Mustafa Yasin Gökaslan, Mustafa Özdemir, Lütfullah Kuddusi Numerical study of the influence of magnetic field and throughflow on the onset of thermo-bio-convection in a Forchheimer‑extended Darcy-Brinkman porous nanofluid layer containing gyrotactic microorganisms Arpan Garg, Y.D. Sharma, Subit K. Jain, Sanjalee Maheshwari A nanofluid couple stress flow due to porous stretching and shrinking sheet with heat transfer A. B. Vishalakshi, U.S. Mahabaleshwar, V. Anitha, Dia Zeidan ROTATING WAVY CYLINDER ON BIOCONVECTION FLOW OF NANOENCAPSULATED PHASE CHANGE MATERIALS IN A FINNED CIRCULAR CYLINDER Noura Alsedais, Sang-Wook Lee, Abdelraheem Aly Porosity Impacts on MHD Casson Fluid past a Shrinking Cylinder with Suction Annuri Shobha, Murugan Mageswari, Aisha M. Alqahtani, Asokan Arulmozhi, Manyala Gangadhar Rao, Sudar Mozhi K, Ilyas Khan CREEPING FLOW OF COUPLE STRESS FLUID OVER A SPHERICAL FIELD ON A SATURATED BIPOROUS MEDIUM Shyamala Sakthivel , Pankaj Shukla, Selvi Ramasamy
Portail numérique Bibliothèque numérique eBooks Revues Références et comptes rendus Collections Prix et politiques d'abonnement Begell House Contactez-nous Language English 中文 Русский Português German French Spain