MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1971855728 · doi:10.2118/158497-ms

Integrated Asset Modeling for Reservoir Management of a Miscible WAG Development on Alaska's Western North Slope

2012· article· en· W1971855728 sur OpenAlexaff
R. D. Roadifer, Robert Sauvé, Richard Torrens, H. W. Mead, N. P. Pysz, David Uldrich, Thorsten Eiben

Notice bibliographique

RevueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Établissements canadiensConocoPhillips (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGas liftPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceWater injection (oil production)Fossil fuelEnhanced oil recoveryArtificial liftGeologyEngineeringWaste management

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract An integrated asset modeling (IAM) approach has been implemented for the Alpine Field and eight associated satellite fields on the Western Alaskan North Slope (WNS) to maximize asset value and recovery. The IAM approach enables the investigation of reservoir and facilities management options under existing and future operating constraints. Oil, gas and water production from these fields are processed at the Alpine Central Facility (ACF). A number of local constraints exist for the asset, such as the requirement that all associated gas be used for facilities power generation, gas lift or re-injection. All produced water must be re-injected and, for pipeline integrity reasons, must be segregated from imported make-up sea water used for injection. Additionally, surface gas and water handling capacity is limited at the ACF. To further complicate matters, gas injected for EOR purposes is enriched such that it is miscible or near-miscible at reservoir conditions. These conditions create a unique and changing relationship between the oil, gas and water production, gas lift, miscible water alternating gas (MWAG) injection, lean gas injection, facilities constraints and injection availability. The scope of the current IAM project has been multi-fold. Optimization of oil production across all WNS fields requires the placement of injection fluids be simultaneously optimized. The optimization procedure begins by allocation of oil production targets based on current operating conditions, the potentials of the wells in each field to deliver fluids, and total gas lift availability. Excess gas compression capacity is utilized for gas lift and is allocated via an incremental gas-oil ratio sort on the production wells. Given the constraints on water injection noted above, optimization of injection fluids begins by determining pump requirements for produced water and the optimal field or injection manifold placement of the produced water. Following this, optimized placement of the miscible injectant (MI) and lean gas injectant (LGI) is determined based on a dynamic MWAG scheduling methodology developed to maximize oil recovery and ensure the number of gas injection wells have sufficient capacity to inject the required volume of gas in each reservoir. The volumetric split of gas into MI and LGI streams falls out directly from the specification of a target minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) constraint for the MI and the volume of condensates driven off the top of the condensate stabilizer column at the process facility. Finally, the volume of the make-up fluid (sea water) is determined based on the minimum of the remaining pump capacity or potential of the remaining wells to inject the water and allocated to each field based on a fractional oil voidage replacement scheme. Maximizing production across multiple fields necessarily requires that the best player (well) plays, regardless of the field to which it belongs. This requirement relates to both instantaneous production as would be considered under a gas lift optimization scenario as well as the longer term MWAG performance and recovery of each individual well pattern across all the fields. The IAM technology utilized for managing the WNS fields consists of full-field compositional reservoir simulation models for each reservoir integrated with a pipeline surface network model and a process facility model. Spreadsheet based allocation routines and advanced mathematical coupling algorithms complete the IAM model enabling not only the prediction of the assets’ performance under the aforementioned constraints, capacities and operating conditions, but to optimize overall performance and analyze the impact of decisions. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time integrated asset modeling has been applied to bring the entire production stream including reservoir, wellbore, surface network and process simulation together for planning and managing MWAG injection to optimize recovery from an existing development.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,098
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,195

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,301
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations17
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionMême sujetReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsTravaux en français237 207