SPE 65150
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021
Discussion on Integrating Monitoring Data into the Reservoir Management Process
D. J. Rossi, SPE; O. Gurpinar, SPE; R. Nelson, SPE; S. Jacobsen, SPE, Schlumberger
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Petroleum Conference held in
Paris, France, 24–25 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Optimum management of oil and gas reservoirs is a
continuous, iterative process which encompasses monitoring
the reservoir, interpreting the monitoring data, and deciding
from the results how best to continue reservoir development
and executing those decisions. Monitoring data vary widely in
time and space scales. Temporally, they range from
continuous to infrequent, episodic measurements; spatially,
they range from local well-centric to global reservoir
measurements.
The reservoir management workflow similarly operates at
multiple, parallel time-space scales. A “fast” workflow loop
handles continuous well and surface network data (e.g.
pressure, temperature, and rate), using fast data handling and
fast decision-making to optimize hydrocarbon delivery. A
“slow” workflow loop assimilates episodic reservoir data (e.g.
time-lapse seismic and borehole reservoir measurements) to
optimize reservoir drainage.
Reservoir monitoring data are assimilated at the most
appropriate time into the reservoir shared earth model, which
feeds both the “fast” and “slow” workflow loops. A
continuing industry challenge is to determine the best way to
do this, since the types of monitoring data are diverse and the
volume of data to assimilate is often vast.
This paper begins with a review of reservoir monitoring
data that are available today, with a focus on the range of
time-space scales. A reservoir management workflow is
introduced which has multiple time scales appropriate for
these data. The paper concludes with a review of key
challenges: (1) to develop improved interpretation
technologies to unify and integrate the fast well-network
centric and slow reservoir-centric workflow loops for faster
conversion of measurement signals into information, and (2)
to provide fuller support for uncertainties, including
determining how the level of uncertainty in the reservoir
model changes when assimilating monitoring data.
Introduction
During the production life cycle of oil and gas reservoirs, the
general phases of exploration, appraisal, reservoir
development, and the latter stages of production decline and
abandonment of the reservoir are followed. Important
decisions are made at each of these stages to properly allocate
resources and assure that the reservoir meets its production
potential. The early stages of the production life cycle are
characterized by a large degree of ignorance about the
distribution of internal reservoir properties. As development
continues, diverse types of field data are collected, such as
seismic, well logs and production data, and these data are
combined to construct an evolving understanding of the
distribution of reservoir properties. One key to making
optimum reservoir management decisions is proper validation,
interpretation and incorporation of field data that are obtained
during the production life cycle. This paper focuses on the
diversity of field data obtained during the production life cycle
and the associated integrated workflow processes to transform
these data into field management decisions.
Methodologies for reservoir management have been
previously reported in numerous books and technical journal
articles1-5. As one example, the reservoir management
workflow process described in the book by Satter and Thakur6
is shown in Fig. 1. In this process, short and long-term goals
for managing a gas or oil reservoir are first identified.
Collected data about the reservoir are then used to develop a
reservoir management plan. The plan is then implemented, for
example, by drilling wells, setting well off-take and injection
rates and performing workover operations. As hydrocarbons
are extracted from the reservoir, new data are obtained. If
field performance deviates sufficiently from the field plan, the
goals and plans for managing the reservoir are revised in order
to continually maximize value. Eventually the reservoir is
depleted and abandoned.
Monitoring Data
Optimum hydrocarbon field management is a continuous,
multi-step iterative process: (1) acquire monitoring data, (2)
interpret the monitoring data, (3) decide from the results how
2 D. ROSSI, O. GURPINAR, R. NELSON, S. JACOBSEN
best to continue field development and then (4) execute those
decisions. Field monitoring data vary widely, both in
frequency of acquisition and in spatial coverage. Temporally,
they range from continuously acquired permanent monitoring
data sampled on a scale of seconds to minutes, to much less
frequent, episodic data collected on a scale of months to years.
Spatially, measurements range from local or punctual wellbore
or surface network data representing physical properties at the
inch to foot scale, to much wider coverage reservoir
measurements representing physical properties on a scale of
tens to hundreds of feet.
Fig. 2 summarizes some key oil and gas field monitoring
data. In this figure, monitoring measurements are positioned
along two axes: (1) vertically, the relative sampling time scale
ranges from seconds-minutes at the top to months-years at the
bottom, and (2) horizontally, the relative spatial coverage
ranges from the inch-foot scale at the left to the 10s-100s of
feet scale on the right. The most frequent and spatially
localized monitoring data (upper-left quadrant) comprise
permanent monitoring sensors, such as permanent pressure
gauges7,8, multi-phase flowmeters and fiber optic sensors9 that
continuously measure pressure, temperature and fluid rates at
specific positions in the field. Much less frequent
measurements which are spatially more extensive (lower-right
quadrant) include 4D seismic measurements10,11 that
episodically measure rock-fluid attributes at coarser resolution
across the reservoir. If a large number of wells were
instrumented with pressure-temperature permanent monitoring
sensors, this would in principle allow frequent simultaneous
sampling at many points throughout the reservoir (upper right
quadrant). Entry into new or existing wells affords infrequent
localized sampling of the reservoir (lower left quadrant).
Other types of reservoir measurements lie at intermediate
positions in the plane, such as gravimetry and deep-reading or
cross-well formation evaluation sensors placed inside or
outside cased wells12.
The range over which monitoring data vary in space and
time is extensive. This presents an interpretation challenge,
similar to that in reservoir characterization, where static
reservoir measurements taken at disparate spatial scales (e.g.
core or log data versus seismic) are appropriately up-scaled
during the interpretation process. In comparison, streams of
monitoring data taken at disparate spatial and temporal scales
drive the reservoir management process. A process must be
developed which assimilates monitoring data into a single,
consistent, evolving reservoir model.
Reservoir Management Iterations
Integrated reservoir management involves a sequence or
succession of activities that collectively turn data into field
management decisions. Field performance, which is assessed
from monitoring data, is compared against the field
development plan, and the plan is iteratively reviewed and
updated accordingly. This sequence of activity, executed as
an iterative “loop”, is repeatedly carried out to insure that the
field is delivering to its potential.
SPE 65150
Owing to the wide range of monitoring data, no single,
unique activity loop transforms all monitoring data into
decisions. Different types of data, spanning the range of
scales shown in Fig. 2, require different activity loops. The
overall reservoir management process inter-twines several
nested multi-scale loops to provide an integrated reservoir
management workflow process. Before examining a multiple
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021
loop workflow process, turn first to Fig. 3 which illustrates the
six main components of a generic “data to decision” loop for
field monitoring and control.
(1) The first component is “Monitoring”, that is,
acquisition of monitoring data of the type reviewed in Fig. 2.
Sensor instrumentation is installed in the reservoir either
permanently or temporarily, in order to measure relevant time-
varying physical attributes. Pipeline, reservoir and well
sensors are often permanently installed, for example, pressure
gauges and flowmeters installed in the well completion8,
geophones implanted in the sea bottom13 or geophones or
electrodes cemented behind casing12. Permanent installation
of field sensors requires an up-front expenditure to cover
equipment cost, but does not require repeated re-deployment
and the associated problems of reproducing the sensor position
between deployments. Alternatively, sensors may be
temporarily positioned in the reservoir for the measurement
process and then retrieved. This is the case, for example, with
marine seismic surveys using towed geophone arrays,
geophones clamped inside wells or retrievably deployed on
the ocean bottom, or re-entry through-casing saturation,
gravity or resistivity measurements, see, e.g., Ref. 14.
Temporary deployment allows sensor equipment to be re-
used, which saves cost and allows equipment to be
periodically maintained, replaced and upgraded. Modern
techniques allow the position of temporarily deployed sensors
to be actively controlled, which significantly improves data
quality, for example, steering of towed marine seismic
arrays15.
(2) The second component is “Data Transmittal”, that is,
movement of the monitoring data acquired in the field to a
centralized site for analysis. The oil and gas industry actively
uses a variety of methods, including diverse SCADA
configurations with communication by radio frequency, fiber
optic or coax cables, microwave, cellular telephone and
geosynchronous or low-earth orbiting satellites, to name a
few.
(3) The third component is “Data Manipulation and
Storage”. Streams of incoming monitoring data are often high
frequency, leading to a large data volume. Further, the data
are often of uncertain or mixed quality. Low-frequency
episodic data are almost always comprised of data of many
different types, and are typically contained in a variety of
database systems within an operator’s archives. In order to
prepare the data streams for use in subsequent semi-automated
or fully automated applications, the incoming data streams
must be quality checked and pre-conditioned for
interpretation16. Data must be suitably compressed, filtered,
and archived for later retrieval. This is a large data
management effort that can represent a significant portion of
SPE 65150 DISCUSSION ON INTEGRATING MONITORING DATA INTO THE RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT PROCESS
the time spent in the overall process17. Modern web tools and
security technologies allow access to monitoring data by
collaborators where it is needed and when it is needed18. Oil
companies have already begun adopting e-business strategies
to deliver significantly improved information management and
decision efficiency at a reduced business cost, including portal
links to petro-technical data.
(4) The fourth component is “Decision-making”, which is
the central focus of this paper. Here, monitoring data are
processed and interpreted in the field context, and transformed
into information to drive decisions which optimize continuing
field operations.
(5) The fifth component, labeled “Instructions”, involves
the movement of decisions developed in step #4 to the field
for execution. The same data transmittal methods from step
#2 may be appropriate for certain types of instructions (e.g.
opening or closing valves, changing pump activity), or the
instructions may be executed as field services such as
workovers, interventions, well placement, etc.
(6) The final step is “Actuate”, which executes the
instructions transmitted the field. In many cases, this is
achieved by remote operation of electrically or hydraulically
actuated valves, situated both downhole19, or on the seafloor
or surface. In-situ valves control fluid rates to opimize the
field performance, e.g. setting zonal off-take and injection
rates and controlling gas lift.
Due to the high degree of variability of field monitoring
data, there is not a single, unique activity loop transforming
monitoring data into decisions. The integrated reservoir
management workflow process comprises nested multi-scale
loops, as discussed in the following section.
Multi-scale Reservoir Management
The workflow process for integrated reservoir management
must assimilate widely variable input data, ranging from
infrequent global reservoir data like 4D seismic to frequent
local reservoir, well or pipeline data such as fluid pressures,
temperature and rates. Further, the workflow process brings
together diverse asset team members. The reservoir engineer
focuses on assimilating reservoir and well pressures,
temperatures and fluid rates, as well as global reservoir data
such as 4D seismic and deep-reading reservoir sensor data, to
optimize, for example, reservoir hydrocarbon drainage,
pressure depletion and water movement. The production
engineer focuses on assimilating downhole and surface
pressures, temperatures and fluid rates to optimize
hydrocarbon delivery from the sandface through the surface
network to the point of sale. In this process, “slow” or
infrequent global reservoir data and “fast” or frequent local
monitoring data are assimilated into a common multi-loop
workflow process to simultaneously achieve both objectives.
Fig. 4 shows a dual-loop integrated field optimization
workflow process that assimilates diverse monitoring data and
continually updates the reservoir development plan to
accomplish continuing optimization of field resources. This
reservoir management workflow has two parallel time-space
scales. A “fast” workflow loop handles potentially vast
3
amounts of continuous real-time or near real-time well and
surface data such as pressure, temperature, and fluid rates. It
performs fast data handling and fast decision-making to
optimize well and surface network hydrocarbon delivery to the
point of sale. This loop, labeled “PO” for Production
Optimization, operates at a day-week time-scale.
A “slow” workflow loop assimilates episodic reservoir
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021
data such as time-lapse seismic and deep-reading borehole
reservoir measurements, as well as more frequently sampled
reservoir boundary conditions of pressure, temperature and
fluid rates in producing or injecting wells. This loop also
handles potentially vast amounts of data having global
coverage, and performs slower decision-making to optimize
reservoir hydrocarbon drainage, pressure depletion and water
control.
The “slow” loop contains many of the activities typically
associated with classical reservoir management such as that
illustrated in Fig. 1. However, the slow loop is not identical,
and includes a feedback loop to assimilate episodic streams of
reservoir monitoring data. This loop is labeled “RO” for
Reservoir Optimization, and generally operates at a month-
year time-scale.
The first activity in the slow loop is Reservoir
Characterization, a procedure that is well described in a
number of books and articles; see, e.g. Ref 20. This activity
integrates all available reservoir data (e.g. geophysical,
geological, petrophysical, and production data) into a shared
earth model, and often creates a predictive numerical reservoir
simulator model. The numerical reservoir model is used for
Field Development Planning, to evaluate alternative field
development scenarios, assessing the anticipated production
and economic valuation. Field Development Planning also
includes the definition and design of an appropriate
monitoring program for the field, to insure an adequate
amount of monitoring data to continuously optimize the field.
Once the field development plan has been established, it is
carried out by Implementing the Capital Program, for
example, by constructing wells and surface facilities. The
capital program takes time to execute; in parallel, day-to-day
field production operations continue.
The Operate/Monitor activity is focused on day-to-day
production optimization. It comprises (1) identification of
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), (2) frequent updating of
the field operating plan (for example, daily update of well or
zonal off-take or injection rates, workover operations, etc), (3)
carrying out the operating plan, and (4) monitoring against the
KPIs. The last activity is based on comparison of KPIs to
high-frequency monitoring data, e.g. pressure, temperature
and fluid rates measured in wells and along the surface
network and facilities. This comprises the integrated reservoir
management “fast loop” of production optimization,
specifically, monitoring well and network performance in
order to optimize field hydrocarbon delivery.
In parallel, and with lower frequency, the loop of
Reservoir Optimization is performed, beginning with
Reservoir Monitoring using time-lapse monitor data.
Reservoir production predictions, obtained during the earlier
4 D. ROSSI, O. GURPINAR, R. NELSON, S. JACOBSEN
Field Development Planning step, are compared against
infrequent episodic or time-lapse reservoir monitoring data,
e.g. time-lapse seismic, gravimetry or behind-casing sensor
data. This activity, described in more detail below, comprises
the “slow loop” of reservoir optimization in integrated
reservoir management – monitoring reservoir hydrocarbon
drainage and water movement as well as pressure depletion to
optimize long-term reservoir behavior.
The Fast Loop Workflow Process
Fig. 5 provides detail about the fast loop workflow process,
i.e. the “Operate/Monitor” activity shown in Fig. 4.
Beginning at the top, the capital plan is incrementally
advanced, for example, by continuing to drill new wells or
develop surface facilities. The day-to-day operating plan and
KPIs are established or updated and the plan is incrementally
executed. High frequency monitoring data are gathered,
quality-checked, and conditioned. Quality checking and data
conditioning are crucial, particularly if subsequent field
control activities are carried out in a semi-automated or
automated manner.
Moving down the left-hand “Well-Network” branch, the
performance of the wells and the surface network are
compared against the current operating plan and KPIs. The
high-rate monitoring data are used to update numerical models
for the wells and surface network. Table 1 lists a series of
typical well and surface network numerical modeling analyses
and activities that are carried out that this stage, driven by
high-frequency monitoring data. The fast loop is iteratively
repeated (return to Incrementally advance capital plan) in
order to continuously optimize the performance of the wells
and surface network. As appropriate at any point in this
looping, the well and network operating plans are updated, for
example, by planning workover or interventions in under-
performing wells.
As illustrated by the right-hand “Reservoir” branch in Fig.
5, high-frequency monitoring data are not only used to assess
the performance of the wells and surface network, but also
provide information about the operating performance of the
reservoir. For example, data about wellbore and surface
pressures and fluid flow rates may indicate uneven lateral or
vertical pressure decline in a reservoir layer. Or, they may
indicate uneven or unbalanced hydrocarbon sweep in multi-
well patterns. Reservoir performance is reviewed by
comparing measured high-frequency monitoring information
with reservoir predictions.
Depending on the outcome of this reservoir performance
assessment, it is decided either to by-pass or to enter the slow
loop of reservoir optimization. The decision is made to by-
pass the slow loop of reservoir optimization if the high-
frequency data:
(1) indicate that current reservoir performance is consistent
with the field development plan, or
(2) indicate that current reservoir performance is
inconsistent with the field development plan, and this can be
addressed via a well or surface workover or intervention by
SPE 65150
updating the daily operating plan. This might include, for
example, changing injection or off-take rates to affect a sweep
pattern, or by perforating a zone to address uneven pressure
decline.
The decision is made to enter the slow loop of reservoir
optimization if:
(1) The review of reservoir performance using high-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021
frequency data indicates that the field development plan needs
to be updated. This might include, for example, drilling in-fill
wells to access part of the field that is not draining properly.
This option may be performed using only the available high-
frequency data without acquiring new reservoir monitoring
data.
(2) The design of the monitoring data acquisition program,
done as part of the field development planning, includes the
scheduled acquisition of additional reservoir monitoring data
such as a 4D seismic survey or a survey from permanent
reservoir sensor equipment.
The Slow Loop Workflow Process
Fig. 6 illustrates the slow loop workflow process related to
reservoir optimization. One entry point into this process is via
the “New Time-Lapse Data” path in the upper left-hand
corner. This entry point is used if additional reservoir
monitoring survey data are scheduled at the current time T1,
given that the last reservoir monitoring survey was done at an
earlier time T0. Prior to acquiring the new survey at time T1,
an analysis is performed to determine if the changes in the
reservoir from T0 to T1 are expected to be large enough to be
reliably observed in the time-lapse difference surveys. A
second objective of the analysis is to use the current reservoir
model to design the new acquisition survey.
The first step is to update the numerical reservoir model
from time T0 to time T1 to take into account all of the available
high-frequency monitoring data. This generally involves
automated or semi-automated history-matching21 a numerical
reservoir simulator, as well as updating the associated
uncertainties in the reservoir parameters22. The updated
reservoir model becomes the input to a numerical model for
the measurement process (e.g. simulate seismic data from
updated rock-fluid distributions). The numerical model for the
measurement process is used to evaluate the expected
difference in the reservoir monitoring measurements between
times T0 and T1, which are compared to the expected
measurement noise amplitude. Assuming that the expected
signals are measureably large, the numerical model of the
measurement process is used to design the time-lapse
monitoring survey. For example, the survey is designed by
defining the best positions and other parameters of the energy
sources and monitoring receivers during acquisition.
Based on the foregoing sensitivity and pre-design analyses,
it is decided whether or not the anticipated benefit of the
survey is sufficiently large to justify the survey cost. If
affirmative, the time-lapse reservoir monitoring data are
acquired. These might include, for example, 4D seismic, or
behind-casing, through-casing or crosswell reservoir sensors,
such as borehole gravimetry, formation resistivity, or borehole
SPE 65150 DISCUSSION ON INTEGRATING MONITORING DATA INTO THE RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT PROCESS
seismic. After acquisition, the data are quality-checked,
processed (e.g. inversion of surface or borehole seismic or
deep-reading resistivity surveys), and interpreted in terms of
water-oil-gas fluid movements and pressure changes. Here,
the workflow process branches, with two possibilities:
(1) In some cases, the interpreted reservoir monitoring data
may have immediate diagnostic capability. For example, the
survey may be sufficient to identify the movement of
waterfronts within the reservoir or toward a well23. In such a
case, a field development decision may be made immediately,
such as the decision to reset well rates to improve reservoir
drainage, or the decision to place a new well in an undrained
portion of the reservoir. Alternative scenarios are evaluated
based on the expected economic return, and the field
development plan is updated accordingly. The workflow
process returns to the fast loop in Fig. 5 to execute the updated
field development plan.
(2) In other cases, the interpreted reservoir monitoring data
are not immediately diagnostic. This is the case, for example,
with time-lapse seismic measurements in layers thinner than
the seismic resolution, or with deep-reading reservoir
resistivity measurements related to water movement in thin
layers. In this case, the data are used to update the numerical
reservoir model and uncertainties. One way this is done is to
couple the reservoir fluid flow simulator with a numerical
model for the reservoir monitoring measurements24. As in the
previous case, the updated reservoir simulator allows the
evaluation of alternative scenarios based on the expected
economic return, and the field development plan is updated
accordingly. The workflow process returns to the fast loop in
Fig. 5.
A second entry point into the workflow process shown in
Fig. 6 is via the “High-Frequency Data Only” path in the
middle. This entry point is used if it was decided earlier
(exiting Fig. 5) to update the field development plan without
acquiring more data. This might be the case, for example, if
high-frequency well pressure monitoring data had indicated
uneven pressure decline, suggesting the presence of a
previously unmodeled sealing fault or permeability barrier. In
this case, no new reservoir monitoring data may be needed,
but the reservoir model needs to be updated to insure the best
field development decisions are made.
First, all of the available high-frequency monitoring data
are used to update the numerical reservoir model and
uncertainties. As earlier, the updated reservoir model allows
alternative scenarios to be evaluated based on the expected
economic return, and the field development plan is updated
accordingly. The workflow process returns to the fast loop in
Fig. 5.
Discussion
Figs. 4-6 describe a dual-scale workflow process bringing
together fast production optimization activity with slower
reservoir optimization activity. This representation of the
overall workflow process as a nested structure of multiple
time-scale loops reflects the general approach within the
industry. The details about how the nested workflow
5
processes are implemented depend on a number factors, and
will vary from one user to another. In particular, the
“interface” between activity in the two nested processes will
be defined in different ways, as will the details of sharing of
high- and low-frequency data between the two processes.
Ideally, from the viewpoint of information usage, both the
fast and slow loop processes use both high frequency and low-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021
frequency data. The fast loop activity includes numerical
computation of well production. The well models used in this
fast loop step contain representative reservoir near wellbore
boundary conditions, which can be extracted from the slow
loop reservoir simulator model25. This insures consistency
across spatial scales by using a common shared earth reservoir
model for both the fast and slow loop computations.
Similarly, slow loop reservoir optimization uses a reservoir
simulator that is calibrated using both low-frequency reservoir
monitoring data and high-frequency production data. For the
history matching process, however, the raw high-frequency
production data are typically not used directly. Instead, “roll-
up” figures representing daily, weekly or monthly average
production are used; the roll-up process may be thought of as
the temporal analog to spatial upscaling.
Conclusions
This paper presents a multiple time-scale nested workflow
process for integrated field optimization. The nested
workflow simultaneously executes fast and slow activities
related to production and reservoir optimization, with an
appropriate interface and data sharing between the two nested
workflow loops. The workflow is driven by streams of high
frequency continuous and low frequency episodic monitoring
data, all of which are assimilated into a common shared earth
numerical model.
Industry R&D activity continues in the areas of production
optimization and reservoir optimization. One challenge facing
the industry is to develop improved interpretation technologies
to unify and integrate the reservoir optimization workflow
components to obtain faster conversion of measurement
signals into information.
A second industry challenge is to develop improved
technologies for handling uncertainties, including determining
how the level of uncertainty in the reservoir model changes
when assimilating monitoring data. Integrated field
optimization is a dynamic process in which iterative decisions
are made allocating resources to maximize short-, medium-
and long-term value. Economic analysis is used to assess
alternative field development scenarios and their
cost/risk/benefit tradeoffs. Economic analysis, in turn, is
based on estimates of the uncertainty about various reservoir,
well and surface network model parameters, and these
parameters themselves are dynamic and changing with time.
The estimate of the level of uncertainty about any reservoir
parameter is strongly influenced by the quantity and quality of
measurement data about that parameter. Parameter
uncertainty may be iteratively estimated each time new
monitoring data are assimilated into the field predictive
6 D. ROSSI, O. GURPINAR, R. NELSON, S. JACOBSEN
model22, that is, at each pass through the fast and slow
workflow loops.
Data acquisition has a cost, and this cost represents an
investment in improved understanding about the field,
decreased future uncertainty and decreased future economic
risk. The decision to expend resources to acquire future
monitoring data should be treated like other decisions about
field development expenditures – the decision should be based
on a cost-benefit analysis carried out in the two-loop workflow
process. At each iteration, economic analysis uses the current
levels of parameter uncertainty, together with measurement
models, to quantify the benefit of future monitoring
measurements -- is it worth acquiring specific monitoring
data? If so, how much, and when? On-going industry R&D is
addressing this topic of how to assess the value of future
monitoring data. Future research may have a significant
impact on the detailed implementation of the two-scale
workflow process.
Finally, we face a more human challenge, to incorporate
the vast amounts of data we learn from the reservoir during its
producing life. Smarter workflows and software that
incorporates decision triggers will allow operators to better
use the data without information overload. Today, the first
attempts at “smart” software running on central servers
monitoring continuous data streams for deviance from
standards is being used. This software automatically initiates,
for example, a PDA (phone or Palm pilot type device) alert to
the operator that a well is headed out of “tolerance” or has
changed operating evelope. The future will see more of this
automation of what has been referred to here as the fast loop,
in order to facilitate better operations.
References
1. Briggs, P., et. al., “Trends in Reservoir Management”, The
Oilfield Review (1992), 4 (1), pp. 8-24.
2. Beamer, A., et. al., “From Pore to Pipeline, Field-Scale
Solutions”, The Oilfield Review (1998), 10 (2), pp. 2-19.
3. Trayner, P.M., “Defining Business Critical Workflows for
Integrated Reservoir Optimization”, paper SPE 39576 presented
at the 1998 SPE India Oil and Gas Conference Exhibition, New
Delhi, India, 17-19 Feb.
4. Currie, J.C., et. al., “Optimized Reservoir Management Using
Mixed Linear Programming”, paper SPE 37963 presented at the
1997 SPE Hydrocarbon Econ. & Evaluation Symp., Dallas, 16-
18 Mar.
5. Bittencourt, A.C., “Reservoir Development and Design
Optimization”, paper SPE 38895 presented at the 1997 Annual
SPE Tech. Conf., San Antonio, 5-8 Oct.
6. Satter, A. and Thakur, G.C., Integrated Petroleum Reservoir
Management, A Team Approach, PennWell Publishing Co.,
1994, 335 pages.
7. Baker, A., et. al., “Permanent Monitoring – Looking at Lifetime
Reservoir Dynamics”, The Oilfield Review (1995), 7 (4), pp. 32-
46.
8. Ogunlowo, R.F., et. al., “Use of Downhole Permanent Gauges
in Reservoir Description and Management of a Gas Injection
Project in Edop Field, Offshore, Nigeria”, paper SPE 9909
presented at the 1998 23nd Annual International Conference and
Exhibition held in Abuja, Nigeria, 4-6 Aug.
SPE 65150
9. Williams, G., “Down Well Fibre Optics” presented at the 2000
Smart Reservoirs II conference, The Hatton, London, 21-22
June.
10. Verbeek, J., et. al., “Time-lapse Seismic Surveys in the North
Sea and Their Business Impact”, The Leading Edge (2000), 19
(3), 286-293.
11. Pedersen, L., et. al., “Seismic Snapshots for Reservoir
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021
Monitoring”, The Oilfield Review (1996), 8 (4), pp. 32-43.
12. Babour, K., et. al., “Method and Apparatus for Surveying and
Monitoring a Reservoir Penetrated by a Well Including Fixing
Electrodes Hydraulically Isolated Within a Well”, US Patent
5,642,051, June 24, 1997.
13. Kristiansen, P., et. al., “Foinaven 4D: Towed Streamer and
Buried Sea-bed Detectors in Deep Water for 4D Seismic”,
presented at the 2000 62nd EAGE Meeting, Glasgow, Scotland,
Expanded Abstract X-54.
14. Harness, P., et. al., "Accurate Oil Saturation Determination and
Monitoring in a Heavy Oil Reservoir", paper SPE 46245
presented at the 1998 Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield,
California, 10-13 May.
15. Bittleston, S., et. al., “Marine Seismic Cable Steering and
Control”, presented at the 2000 62nd EAGE Meeting, Glasgow,
Scotland, Expanded Abstract L-16.
16. Athichanagorn, S., "Development of an Interpretation
Methodology for Long-Term Pressure Data from Permanent
Downhole Gauges", Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, June
1999.
17. Kotlar, H .K., et. al., “An Integrated Approach For Evaluating
Matrix Stimulation Effectiveness And Improving Future Design
In The Gullfaks Field”, paper SPE 50616 presented at the 1998
SPE European Petroleum conference, The Hague, Netherlands,
20-22 Oct.
18. Murchie, S., et. al., “Innovations in Global Electronic Data
Delivery”, paper SPE 56686 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3-
6 Oct.
19. Algeroy, J. et al., “Controlling Reservoirs from Afar”, The
Oilfield Review (1999), 11 (3), pp 18-29.
20. Linville, B. (ed), Reservoir Characterization III, Proc. Third
International Reservoir Characterization Technical Conference,
Tulsa, OK, 3-5 Nov 1991, PennWell Publ. Co., 1993, 1008 p.
21. Grussaute, T., and Gouel, P., “Computer Aided History
Matching of a Real Field Case”, paper SPE 50642 presented at
the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference held in The
Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22 Oct.
22. Bouska, J., et. al., “Validating Reservoir Models to Improve
Recovery”, The Oilfield Review (1999), 11, (2), 20-35.
23. Sonneland, L., et. al., "Detecting Flow Barriers with 4D
Seismic", Journal Of Seismic Exploration, Dec. 1999 Special
Issue on 4D Seismic, p. 433.
24. Sønneland, L., et. al., “Seismic Reservoir Monitoring on
Gullfaks”, The Leading Edge (1997), 16, (9), 1247-1252.
25. Near Wellbore Modelling User Guide, Schlumberger GeoQuest,
Abingdon, U.K. (2000A).
SPE 65150 DISCUSSION ON INTEGRATING MONITORING DATA INTO THE RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT PROCESS 7

TABLE 1 -- Well and Surface Network Modeling, Analyses and Services

MODELING, ANALYSIS SERVICE
Well model (Nodal, Near-wellbore) Well surveillance & optimization
Workover & stimulation design

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021

Gas lift analysis (advanced Nodal)
Water control diagnostics
Production well test
Pump mechanical model
Pipeline/network hydraulic modeling
Compressor/facilities model
Production forecast, decline analysis, history
match, material balance, economic model
Event handling (planned, unplanned)
Asset tracking
Gas lift optimization
Water control surveillance and design
Production well test scheduling & interpretation
Production reporting system
Pump surveillance (Beam, ESP, PCP)
Network surveillance
Back-allocation
Production management
Condition monitoring of critical equipment
Maintenance scheduling
Field development planning
Manage oil system
Manage gas system (inject, lift, sales)
Event & situation detection, diagnostics, management
Asset tracking

Reservoir Characterization

Development Plan

Implementing

Revise
Monitoring

Performance
Matches
Plan?

Completing

Fig 1. Reservoir Management Process (Satter and Thakur, 1994)

8 D. ROSSI, O. GURPINAR, R. NELSON, S. JACOBSEN SPE 65150

Continuous-time

P, T, Q Microseismic
Downhole Monitoring

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021

Surface
Multiple
Cemented instrumented
arrays P, Sw wells

Spatially Fluid
Global
Samples
localized
BH gravity, BH
seismic, sonic
Re-entry imaging, radar,
logging crosswell, transient
New wells testing, Pres, 4D
LWD, logs FSMT Seismic

Time-lapse

Fig. 2. Key oil and gas field monitoring measurements:

spatial coverage versus sampling frequency.

Actuate Monitoring

Data
Instructions
Transmittal

Decision- Data Manipulation

making and Storage

Fig. 3. Six main components of a “data to decision”

loop for field monitoring and control.
SPE 65150 DISCUSSION ON INTEGRATING MONITORING DATA INTO THE RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT PROCESS 9

Reservoir Characterization

Field Development Planning

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021

Implement Capital Program
RO (months-years)
Operate/Monitor
“Slow loop” Identify Drivers (KPIs)

PO Update Operating Plan

(days-
weeks) Execute Plan High-frequency
monitor data
“Fast loop” Monitor AgainstKPIs

Time-lapse
Reservoir Monitoring
monitor data

Fig. 4. Reservoir management process “Fast” amd “Slow” loops.

Incrementally advance capital plan

Update operational plan, KPIs

Execute Plan

High-frequency
Acquire, QC monitor
data

WELL-NETWORK RESERVOIR
• Review well & network performance • Review reservoir performance
• Update well & network model

Update
field development
plan; acquire reservoir To Fig. 6
monitor
data?

Fig. 5. Reservoir management process fast loop detail.

10 D. ROSSI, O. GURPINAR, R. NELSON, S. JACOBSEN SPE 65150

From Fig. 5
From Fig. 5
New Time-Lapse
Data
High-Frequency
Data Only
Update reservoir
Time-lapse
model and uncertainties

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEEURO/proceedings-pdf/00EUROPEC/All-00EUROPEC/SPE-65150-MS/1905347/spe-65150-ms.pdf/1 by University of Aberdeen user on 28 August 2021

reservoir monitor
data
Sensitivity analysis,
survey pre-design

QC, process, Update reservoir

Proceed?
direct interpretation model and uncertainties

Update field
Update economic analyses
Immediately development plan
diagnostic

To Fig. 5 “fast loop”

Fig. 6. Reservoir management process slow loop detail.