SPE 169923-MS

Integrated Asset Modeling in Mature Offshore Fields: challenges and

successes
Roman Nazarov, SPE, Pedro Zalama, SPE, Mirko Hernandez, Cenobio Rivas, Repsol E&P T&T Ltd.

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Trinidad & Tobago Energy Resources Conference held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 9–11 June 2014.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Production management in mature fields is a very challenging task which involves a multidisciplinary technical
approach to minimize the decline rate and extend the life of the asset/field. Most of the time Integrated Asset Modeling (IAM)
techniques are applied to green fields with main objectives of identifying the “bottlenecks” or to forecast production with
different development cases. In the case of mature fields it is mostly considered as an optional study with less analytical value
due to low operating surface pressures, already existing facilities, known well performance and studied reservoir geology.
Nevertheless the processing of the reservoir, production and operational data in mature assets through one integrated workflow
facilitates field management overall, thereby helping in the estimation of the remaining reserves and indicating real
opportunities for optimization not seen by initial engineering scenarios. Additionally, IAM should be incorporated before
getting to EOR studies.
This paper describes the applied reservoir engineering workflow and integrated production model for the TSP fields
(Teak, Samaan and Poui) located in the South East of Trinidad. TSP fields are jointly owned by by Repsol (70%), Petrotrin
(15%) and NGC (15%) and are operated by Repsol. Current production of TSP is 13,500 bopd. The oil produced from these
fields is generally light oil, with an average range of 25-40 API and a solution GOR 200-1400scf/stb. Gas lift is the artificial
lift system used in 95% of the wells. Average water cut is around 85%.
Interaction of Production Engineering, Subsurface, Drilling, HSE, Facilities, and Maintenance departments is the key
aspect to sustain the efficient operability of the TSP fields and operate at peak performance in spite of ageing installations,
flow assurance problems and depleted reservoirs. The implementation of Operated Asset Structure in TSP in 2013 reinforced
the cooperation between departments to achieve the main goals: minimum production deferrals, production optimization,
screening of new opportunities and reserves, process improvement, facilities maintenance and effective logistics. Additionally,
the Integrated Asset Modeling has been incorporated as part of the engineering surveillance which includes 3 fields, 100 wells,
gas lift injection network, gas compressors, water treatment plant, etc.
Real data from different sources and platforms, such as pressure temperature sensors, daily measured well
parameters, reported operational figures, monthly welltests and screened remaining reserves are jointly transferred to the
integrated model, built in commercial software (GAP/RESOLVE), bringing the field data processing and production
management to the state-of-the-art level. Gas lift volume availability and system pressure, performed rigless intervention jobs
(including recompletion of new zones), change of the fluid composition in certain wells, reconfiguration of facilities are timely
reflected in the TSP integrated model. Based on the sensitivity runs and output results immediate actions are taken to comply
with the production target.

1. Introduction

Teak, Samaan and Poui (TSP) are three mature oil fields located approximately 20 to 40 km offshore the south
eastern coast of Trinidad in a water depth of almost 200 ft. These discoveries were made during late 1960’s, and production
started in early 1970’s achieving a production peak rate of 143,300 bopd in 1978. Currently the TSP asset produces around
13,500 bopd with a total of 100 active wells with a high average water cut of 85%.
Due to the mature nature of the fields, the vast majority of the wells (95%) are produced via gas lift as the only
artificial method used, with only 5 wells producing naturally namely three low pressure gas wells and two oil wells with
2 SPE 169923

associated gas.
Presently Repsol is undertaking different strategies in order to maintain the oil production rate and mitigate the oil
decline rate at the current stage of the asset. These are:
• Workover and new drilling campaigns: since Repsol took over operations, two workover campaigns and one
drilling campaign have been executed. Currently a new drilling campaign is being executed with two jack up rigs with the
utlimate objective to bring new oil and reserves to the asset.
• Annual Non rig campaigns: where the best well candidates are selected to conduct rigless jobs and
interventions such as re-perforations, acid pickles, de-wax, gas lift valve change outs, adding perforations, sand clean outs, etc.
• Gas lift optimizations: periodically well tests at different injection rates are performed to determine the
current optimimun injection rate.
• Other projects to optimize production and processes: different improvement opportunities have been
identified and projects are continuously being studied and eventually implemented. E.g. HP to LP project in Samaan A to
improve the compressors start-up and mitigate the lack of low pressure gas to allow the compressors to operate at optimum
conditions.
As clearly described in this document, integrated production modelling is a key tool to identify opportunities for the
Asset to mantain the maximum production rates and improve the system processes.

2. TSP Asset Description:

2.1 General

The TSP asset is comprised of three fields (Teak, Samaan and Poui) which are interconnected by a complex pipeline
network of produced fluids, high pressure and low pressure gas and export fluids. Each TSP field consists of a main central
complex or alpha platform which contains processing facilities to separate oil, water and gas. Nearby satellite platforms with
dry well heads and well testing facilities are
connected to the alpha platform. Caribbean Sea
Samaan C
Samaan B

The high pressure gas for gas lifting is

transferred by adjacent bridge-linked platforms with Samaan AP
Teak B

Port of Spain
compression facilities. In Teak A and Poui A Samaan AD
Samaan AC

complexes these platforms are operated by National

16
Teak E

"–
Trinidad

19
Gas Company (NGC), who receives the low pressure

km
Teak D

gas produced in these fields, compress and deliver Teak AP

Teak AD
km
back as high pressure gas. In Samaan A complex the 16
"–
37

km
41
adjacent compression platform (Samaan AC) is Teak C
"–

NGC
18

Poui AP
operated by Repsol and demands solid maintenance bpTT COP
Poui AD

19km
support due to higher discharge pressure for gas lift. 18” –
NGC
bpTT
In addition, high pressure sales gas lines Stabilization Tanker
Poui B
Condensate / Oil line

Galeota Gas lines

owned by NGC pass through Teak B and Poui A Multiphase lines

platforms. These pipelines provide additional Columbus Channel

Two phase pipelines

flexibility to the systems, where external high

pressure gas for field start-up and additional required Figure 1: Schematic of pipelines in TSP.
gas for normal operation can be obtained.
Samaan A is connected to Teak A by a 19km
16” export line while Poui A is connected to Teak A by a 22km 18” export pipeline. Samaan and Poui export fluid streams are
merged at Teak A complex. Further Teak and Samaan-Poui liquid streams are processed in the offshore oil crude treatment
plant (OCOT) to achieve pipeline specifications within 0.5% water cut limit.
Downstream of the OCOT plant, all of the produced TSP oil is routed to bpTT Galeota terminal through a 37km 16”
pipeline for custody transfer and sales.

2.2 Production process:

The main production process in TSP is common to the three fields and can be generally described as follows:
The process essentially consists of one stage of separation for the produced fluids coming from the wells in three-
phase production separators at a low pressure (30-40 psig); depending on the field there are either two or three separators in
parallel. The separated oil is then routed to the OCOT plant (at Teak A complex) from each field for export.
SPE 169923 3

On the water treatment side: separated

water is handled by a secondary wash tank type
vessel. The water is then sent to an air flotation
unit where the skimmed oil is routed back to the
export pumps header and the treated water is
disposed of into the sea. By thus, the quality of
water complies with the Ministry regulations.
The flashed gas at the production
separators is gathered in a common header line
routing the low pressure gas (25-35 psig) to the
adjacent platform for compression.
Although the three fields operate
following a common process, each has its own
individual peculiarities as explained below.
Teak Field is the biggest field in TSP in
terms of production and facilities. It is operated
with 5 production platforms, one separation
process facility platform and one 3rd party
Figure 2: TSP production flowlines and process interaction compressor platform (NGC). The low pressure
gas from the separation process is compressed to
850 psig and then sent back to the gas lift system network to sustain the production. At Teak B platform there is a connection
to a third party (NGC) 24” high pressure export gas line, which provides the flexibility to obtain additional high pressure gas
as required.
Samaan Field is operated by 3 production platforms, one separation process facility platform and one compression
platform operated and maintained by Repsol. To sustain the entire field production higher Gas Lift Pressure (GLP) is required.
Under normal conditions gas lift is operated at 1150psi.
Poui Field is operated with 2 production platforms, one separation process facility platform and one 3rd party
compressor platform (NGC). The low pressure gas from the separation process is compressed to 850 psig and then sent back to
the gas lift system network to sustain the production. In addition, at Poui A platform there is a connection to a third party
(NGC) 24” high pressure export gas line, which provides the flexibility to obtain additional high pressure gas as required.

2.3 Reservoirs and fluid characteristics

TSP fields are located in the Columbus Basin, which is considered as the extension of the eastern part of the eastern
Venezuelan Basin. Columbus Basin is limited to the North by the Darien Ridge and to the South by the Amacuro Shelf.
The Teak field is a steeply dipping anticline structure along an east-west trending compressional ridge, bisected by a
single major regional fault with a vertical displacement of up to 3000ft. This major fault appears to influence the hydrocarbon
phase, dominated in the west by oil and in the east by gas. The overall structure is complicated by numerous crosscutting
normal faults that divide the reservoir into multiple compartments (Fig 1). The reservoir consists of a stacked series of
Pliocene sandstones in combination dip and fault closures (3 ways-closure against faults) supporting oil columns of up to
700ft.

Figure 3: Schematic section of Teak field showing

highly compartmentalized reservoirs.
4 SPE 169923

The Samaan field has a trend orientation of NNE-SSW. There are two families of faults highly tilted that
compartmentalize the field. One fault set is dipping to the NE-East with an average displacement of 150-500 ft and a second
fault set, which is dipping to the West-SW, has an average displacement of 200 ft. Poui’s anticline has its main trend direction
northeast, and similar to the Teak and Samaan fields, it has a complex faulting system. Producing reservoir units can be found
as shallow as 3000 ft TVDSS (Poui field) and as deep as 10,000 ft TVDSS (Teak field). Most of the shallow reservoir units in
TSP fields are unconsolidated sandstones above a depth level of around 8000 ft TVDSS.
Reservoir mechanism is predominantly aquifer support; however there are some volumetric reservoirs that in the past
have been under water injection. Reservoir quality is not unique along the three fields; it varies from blocky clean well
developed sandstones with excellent properties to thin bedded reservoirs with intercalation of shale bodies.Reservoir
permeability for example, has been observed to be inversely proportional to the reservoir depth. Shallow reservoirs have
registered permeabilities above the Darcy values; and for the deeper reservoirs permeability can be as low as 1 md.
The quality of the fluids produced from TSP fields is medium light oil (API 25-40) with viscosities lower than 5 cp. It
has several flow assurance issues, especially related to wax precipitation and scale deposition along the production stream.

3. General Methodology: TSP IAM workflow and application

The implementation of IAM for TSP assets has been a challenge due to mainly technical constraints and resource
availability. The data collection and quality control of the information is an important process to build the viable and reliable
model. IAM is being incorporated with the help of different disciplines such as Subsurface, Production, Operations,
Maintenance and Drilling. The required data has to be properly organized and structured from all of the parties to facilitate an
efficient access in order to proceed with the construction of the model and continuous updating. To comply with the best
practice in modeling of IAM ideally is to involve technically competitive Reservoir engineers with Production experience into
the team and vice versa. The administrative resource is an issue for this type of activity; nevertheless once the objective is
achieved the management of the brown field becomes straight forward.
To succeed with the project the explicit workflow should be developed, emphasizing the main strategy and objectives
of its application. Coordination with the group of professionals working offshore is critical to provide support for IAM, to
finetune model according to process constraints, modified flowlines, operational changes etc.
TSP IAM workflow comprises four phases, which are distinguished by time scales, data arrangement and
implementation purposes:

Phase 1: Input data preparation, IPM construction with single Network Run and Field Potential Validation. Once the
model matches as per the list of single well tests, it should be appropriate for optimizing short term scenarios, and
making operational decisions, and certain process improvement proposals among others.

Phase 2: IPM adjustment, Mid-term validation and optimization. The constructed model is positioned to simulate the
dynamic field data reflecting the gas lifting environment and variations in the system pressure. The output results are
subject to verification with oil production meter (Coriolis) readings. Due to the fact that gas lift pressure varies in
TSP, the individual well has to be constrainted based on its Gas lift design and setting pressures of the valves. The
open server script is used to mask the well once the casing pressure goes below the Pdome. This phase is one of the
key steps to attain the reliable IAM. The model implies numerous field applications including the production
allocation and the deferral reporting approach. The model at this stage helps one to understand if any of the stream
data such as production, water handling is under- or over- estimated, and if the calibration of the measurement tools is
required.

Phase 3: Incorporation of the Real time data enables one to observe possible upsets in the process, un-seen failures
etc. Since most of the TSP wells are tested only once a month, any daily discrepancy between IAM calculated data
and Coriolis would initiate a prompt engineering response to look at the group of the wells and substract the
problematic producer for further troubleshooting.
The TSP daily monitoring stream and production figures are captured into the unified data base handled by
Energy Components software. The PI SCADA system is fed with field data from pressure, temperature sensors and
flow meters and via Resolve is transferred to the model. Downstream of the process, HYSIS simlulation of the OCOT
plant could be incorporated to IAM where calculated liquid rates advise on levels of surge vessels and pumping
capacities.

Phase 4: The objective of this phase is for medium-to-long term forecasting. This has been under evaluation via
incorporation of the reservoir models (material balance or simulation model outputs) in order to get a proper
interaction with the reservoir. Then the complete system would be simulated and a proper forecasting would be
achieved. For the time being this model is being used for the medium term for 1 to 2 years forecasting, in which
yearly schedules of downtimes are included as well as the incorporation of well interventions and/or new wells.
SPE 169923 5

TSP IAM WORKFLOW

Subsurface Input
IAM Construction and Short term

DCA (OFM) as Qc (or when WT

Daily monitoring FIELD data Last Valid test (EC)
is unavailable)
capturing: EC, PI
Validation

Update of IPRs based on last

Well Prosper Validation
BHP data (Monthly)

Inputs for IAM:

Daily Morning
-Gas lift Pressure data
Report (Excel)
-Stream data (Gas lift Injection, LP GAP solver network match by PVT validation
gas volume, HP gas bought from field per last valid test (1 Run)
NGC, Gas Lift Fuel Consumption, HP VBA is used to
Gas TBD Sales, Flare etc.) arrange the data into
-Separator Pressures specified format Open Server Mbal/Eclipse models
-Corriolis meter data (Rate, Wc%)
incorporation for Long Term

Verify Field Data

Mediumd-term Validation.

Monthly GAP network Appication:

Validation (Coriolis Data from • Coriolis data reading verification
Qc & Optimization.

• Production allocation as per Integrated Model

past month vs. IAM results)
• Is any deferrals have been skipped out or any
production underestimated from report?
• Is any Optimization seen for upcoming month?
Match achieved? • Is any pressure back wells appeared?

No Model OK

Submit Montly Report

RESOLVE
CONNECTION

Verify Field Data

(Meters/PI data)
Daily RealTime Application:
Real Time data incorporation
Daily Production Follow up.

GAP/RESOLVE network Sensitivity Run against Daily Gas Lift Pressure

Run and Sensitivity
Model complies with
Facilities Input Coriolis Daily readings?
Verification of Estimated Model Production Potential
vs.Coriolis Meter (Daily)
OCOT upsets expected?
Gas balance checks
Other advantages: water handling/estimated allocation

HYSIS No Yes
(OCOT)

Submit Daily Concern to Prod

Engineering and Operation

Maintenance Input
Medium-Long Term (1-2

Medium-Long term
Maintenance statistic failures
GAP/RESOLVE network
years) Application

to predict Down Time Forecasting

Appication:
Proper planning and production prediction
Reserves forecasting for new sands
EOR scenarios etc.

Submit New Reserves for Budget

and Planning purposes as per IAM

Figure 4: TSP IAM Workflow

6 SPE 169923

4. TSP IAM construction and short term validation

This comprehensive approach to gain oil production is ongoing on a regular basis: gas lift optimization and rigless
interventions. The production changes have to be immediately considered in the operational environment. Moreover the
fluctuation of FTP, flow rate, gas lift usage, water cut or newly perforated zones in individual wells affect the whole system
multiphase flow dynamic, header pressure and PVT of combined fluid and flow assurance. Therefore TSP IPM is considered
as a multiview technical tool to encompass the well/flowline interaction at a complex level and to advise on optimization of
the entire network.
Besides production, gas lift process, including the cycle of the injection gas lift through the system, its conversion
from high pressure to low pressure state, merge with formation gas/liquid stream, furher separation and compression, requires
thorough understanding of thermodynamic, compositional variations, compressibility effect, metering in order to achieve
precise volume calculation at each stage. Based on the existing facilities and agreements with other parties gas volume balance
is important for TSP: acquisition of extra volumes of gas lift usage needs to be economically justified, and any excess of the
LP gas, such as at the Teak Field, will be compressed and sold to obtain the maximum value from the Asset.
For simplicity purposes the field injection gas composition was matched to the black oil model with aligned gas
specific gravity.
The short term IPM modeling represents a kind of steady state modeling. All wells have been matched to their last
valid well tests and joined together to platform clusters. The Integrated Production Models in TSP have been built for each
individual field. Single IPM includes the production and associated gas lift networks.

4.1 Data gathering and validation

During the project execution the massive scope of data has been analyzed and structured. The data management and
quality control determines the execution time and fidelity of the model. The following list of information was used to
guarantee a comprehensive TSP IPM model construction:

• Process flow diagrams and platforms P&IDs

• Operational SOPs
• Screening reserves data: maps, well location
• PVT reports for corresponded sands
• Production logging information (pressure/temperature/injection point).
• Reservoir Pressure history. Buildup analysis
• Well completion details, deviation survey, gas lift design.
• Production well performance and decline analysis.
• Daily monitoring data and metering data.

The extended production history in TSP over 40 years assumes that data is available almost at any required phase. In
the case of the missing or inconsistent data, such as flowing gradient surveys, reservoir pressures etc. indirect analytical
engineering techniques and/or analogue information are used to comply with recent welltest records.

4.2 Well Modeling and Calibration

Well modeling is the fundamental base for IPM. The accuracy in well
performance simulation can be achieved with consistent completion details,
reservoir characterization data (thickness, permeability) and estimated
pressure/temperature gradient from wellhead to bottomhole.
Following the best Petroleum Engineering practice the Nodal
Analysis is being performed on a monthly basis for all wells to represent the
production deliverability. Nodal Analysis for TSP wells is being performed
with Prosper software (by Petex) using the solution node at the bottom for VLP
and IPR crosssection. Drilling provides the well schematic and deviation
survey.
An essential input for the well model is the productivity of the well,
which depends on the reservoir properties and the fluid properties. For the fluid
properties, a dedicated team of Reservoir Engineers have embarked on a full
review of all the PVT experiments done in TSP2. Although the database is
extensive it has been demonstrated that reliable data is limited. Therefore
careful consideration has to be taken in order to select the best fluid properties Figure 5: Typical completion of the well with
gravel pack. Teak example
SPE 169923 7

for each reservoir. Then, the well productivity is obtained by evaluating well by well taking into account petrophysical
parameters and buildup test derived data (such as permeability and skin). Different models are used (multilayer, composite,
etc.) in order to match the production test and performance of the well.
Ninety percent (90%) of the Teak and Poui wells are shallow 4000-7000 ft’ TVDSS, and to prevent sand production
from unconsolidated reservoirs the gravel pack completion is placed, while the Samaan wells are deeper, 6000-10000’ TVDSS
and do not require the sand control. The completion example in a Teak wells shown in Fig.5. For such wells the additional
pressure drop has to be assumed in the model by including the gravel pack option.
For VLP calculation the flowing bottomhole pressure and injection point are determined with MLT tool which one is
equipped with pressure/temperature sensors and small spinner.
Pressure gradient points from MLT are matched to correlation and
respective coefficients are obtained. For 80% of the TSP oil
producers Petroleum Expert 2 is used as a flow correlation with
minor adjustment coefficients.
PE 2 is based on the Gould et al Flow Map and for the
various flow regimes following the flow correlations applied:
• Bubble flow: Wallis and Griffith
• Slug flow: Hagedorn and Brown
• Transition: Duns and Ros
• Annular Mist flow: Duns and Ros
As stated by Petex the PE2 correlation mainly has been
tested for numerous high flow rate cases and it was found to provide
a good estimate of the pressure drops. As well PE2 provides reliable
prediction of low-rate VLPs and well stability. This correlation
proved its conformance for TSP wells.Once main VLP curve is Figure 6: Nodal Analysis with Sensitivity on VLP
calculated sensitivity VLP pattern has to be run for GAP model to vs. CSG pressures
be able to extrapolate the production as conditions change in the
system (Fig.6)

To prepare the well for the IPM the gas lift design for individual well has to be properly analyzed. TSP oil production is very
sensitive to Gas lift system Pressure. Samaan field is the most dependent field; there are certain wells which have high PI and
are operated with high CSG pressures. If the system pressure goes below operating CSG pressure certain wells stop producing
due to Pdome cannot be achieved and valves remain closed. (fig.7). Injection of the gas lift into the bottom valves in such wells
is not possible due to high tubing pressure and gas lift system pressure constraints. To investigate the gas lift performance and
perform diagnostic analysis functionalities of PROSPER, such as “GasLift Adjustment”, “Quicklook” or “GasLift Design”
could be used.
Nevertheless the setting pressure is not accounted for in GAP
due to the following reasons. The setting pressure of the valve is
calculated during the gaslift design based on pressure in the tubing and
in the annulus at the valve depth. It is adjusted to ensure that the valve
remain open during unloading. Once unloaded the assumption is that
the deepest valve that can be reached for the specified conditions will
be open and used for injection. The above assumption is used to
generate VLP curves for GAP. Provided that the design is performed
correctly the assumption will be valid and prediction in GAP will
return valid results. For VLP generation it is assumed that the deepest
valve that can be reached based on the pressure gradients and it will be
opened and used for injection. The sensitivity of CSG pressure will
assume only pressure gradient and not the Ptro of the valves.This
assumption is valid and allows running prediction in GAP where the
main focus is in general production trends. Therefore special algorithm
Figure 7: Quicklook of gas lift design indicating
applied to account the GLV design for each well in TSP (see below
that well is operating at high CSG pressure challenges to model the associated network).

4.3 Production and Gas Lift System Modeling

In Production network modeling there were not encountered such difficulties as in the gas lift network. Graphically,
examples of Teak and Samaan IPM models are shown in Fig.8. Pressure drop predictions in production downstream flowlines
are not a main objective in brown-fields due to low operating pressures, nevertheless some bottlenecks were discovered.
8 SPE 169923

Sensitivity on flowline roughness and overall heat transfer coefficient, showed minimum impact for TSP network model, and
therefore values were used as default. Beggs and Brill correlation was used for horizontal surface flowlines.
As mentioned above Samaan production relies on gas lift system pressure more than Teak and Poui. Due to
compressors constraints the maximum pressure in Samaan cannot overcome 1180psi. Factors defining the stability of the
system pressure are the planned Maintenance activity, conducted in time for overhaul of the compressors, operational process
adjustments to supply continous volumes of LP gas for suction. Surge problems, automation, unpredicted failures and as a
result Downtime on Compressor Train, directly impact Gas lift System pressure. When the Train is down in order to sustain
production in Samaan, the HP gas is transported from Teak D platform at 860psi pressure. To improve the performance and to
facilitate the startup of the Compressor after Shut Down, HP-LP project was implemented. This would allow after Train SD to
increase the pressure to 1150psi in approximately 10-15 hours rather than waiting 2-3 days by supplying the LP formation gas
from the wells. In summary, HP gas lift system pressure in Samaan ranged from 850psi (when compressor is down) to
1180psi, with erratic behavior at 1050-1180 psi.

Challenges to model the associated network: Gas lift rates in each well are regulated by a flow control valve
(commonly known as Merla choke). If the pressure drops, the merla has to be opened more to supply the recommended
volume of gas to achieve the optimum performance of the well. The Qinj value should be set based on Chart recorder
measurements. But due to unstable pressure behavior from compressor and availability of the injection gas the merla choke
cannot be manually adjusted as frequent as pressure changes.

GL system pressure reduction can create the following problems:

a. In certain wells Pcsg becomes less than Pdome of the injection valve, therefore the injection point is switching to
upper unloading valve, drawdown reduces and production rate drops.
b. In certain wells Pcsg becomes less than Ptbg at the current injection depth, therefore the injection point is switching
to upper unloading valve where the Pcsg>Ptbg; then drawdown reduces and production rate drops.
c. In certain wells Pcsg become less than Pdome of all of the unloading valves. Injection in these wells stops and
liquid plus associated formation gas production into the system ceases. This affects directly to the availability for LP gas
required for the compressors to function properly.
d. Reduction of delta P across Merla choke and as a result decrease in injection gas rate (Q= f (ΔP)) impacts on Gas
Liquid Ratio and worsen vertical lift performance of produced fluid.

To overcome the previous problems, the IAM gas lift network has to include the boundaries at the injection sink with
the set control at injection valve. The amount of the injection gas into individual well and CSG pressure defines the
consistency of the whole model. Gas Injection control could be introduced into the model within 2 methods:

• Adjustable gas lift choke –assumes the choke as an automatic pressure

control valve; the supplied volume of gas is constant. Minor changes in
Casing well pressures unless GLP goes close to annulus pressure. Casing
pressure remained constant in those wells where the system pressure
never drops below the annulus pressure. Despite of manual adjustments
made on field, chosen control would not reflect the real Qinj volumes due
to erratic gas lift pressure trend.

• Fixed gas lift choke- provides better estimate of the Qinj in the field. The
drawback is that it underestimates the Casing pressure. But this drawback
was converted to an advantage because of following reasons. To match
the GAP model one injection gas rate is used with specified fixed orifice
size. The model was pushed to inject the constant amount of gas at stable
gas lift system pressure as per last welltest. When the pressure changes in
the field the majority of the low pressure CSG wells kept the same
pressure, but in certain wells CSG pressure decreases; injection rate
decrease in all wells unless Merla is not adjusted manually. But due to
GAP underestimated Pcsg at current settings VLP is extrapolated from
prosper sensitivity pattern to lower the production rate. In fact, the
reduction in Qinj is artificially compensated by lowering of Pcsg. Figure 8: Gas lift injection control
Moreover, lowered Pcsg will be compared with adjusted Pdome in principles in IAM.
openserver.Therefore current control was considered as an appropriate
method to match TSP IAM to field data.
SPE 169923 9

Figure 9: Example of Samaan (above) and Teak (below) IPMs.

Production networks are at the left, gas lift networks are at the right.

4.4 Short term model validation and matching

Matching of the model is crucial step to attain a reliable IPM model. Due to all of the data interconnected it is
extremely difficult to obtain the ideal match in all wells at the same time. Nevertheless the iteration process is applied to get
results as close to reality as possible. The relative error criteria applied to match TSP wells to the model is within +/-5% for oil
rate, formation and injection gas rate, +/-10% casing and flowing pressure values (Table 1). As can be seen from Quality
assurance plots coefficient of determination (R2) indicates that real field data quite well fits the model data within range
0.9763-1 range (Fig.10).
10 SPE 169923

Matching. WT data - Model data

ΔBOPD % ΔFG Mscfd ΔBWPD ΔGLI MsΔCSGP WHP WHT Sens vlp Choke Merla
Well - SA01 -2 -2 31 -87 0 -6.71 21 -31 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SA03 -1 -1 -62 -6 0 -4.90 8 -14 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SA05 5 7 47 21 0 -4.94 4 22 Sens Prosper Delta P
Well - SA06 -2 -1 -9 -6 0 -4.26 3 -13 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SA09 1 3 5 7 0 -9.08 -26 7 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SA13 3 1 4 37 0 -7.18 -36 1 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SA15 -1 0 -2 2 0 5.06 -36 7 Sens Prosper Delta P
Well - SA16 10 3 41 128 0 -3.67 -22 -9 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SA18 -2 -3 82 -1 0 -7.18 9 5 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SA20 -4 0 -4 0 0 0.00 30 -11 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SB01 -1 -2 255 -25 0 10.60 20 -7 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SB03 -1 0 -10 -33 0 7.67 20 0 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SB06 4 2 1 34 0 -1.56 17 20 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SB07 0 -215 0 0 0.00 25 0 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SB09 2 1 5 3 0 54.10 15 3 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SB10 -1 0 -4 -15 0 7.68 16 2 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SB11 1 0 4 33 0 27.68 20 -5 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SB12 10 4 21 9 0 18.52 -5 -29 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SB14 4 2 22 5 0 4.98 15 -11 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SB15 5 1 9 11 0 21.74 1 -4 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SC01 6 6 72 68 0 4.91 1 7 Sens Prosper Delta P
Well - SC02 4 3 27 -7 0 33.03 6 5 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SC03 -4 -2 -8 -5 0 13.20 11 -5 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SC05 4 4 46 48 0 11.07 26 -8 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SC06 2 1 12 -10 0 12.83 1 -12 Sens GAP Fixed
Well - SC07 -2 -5 -11 48 0 -19.73 -9 19 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SC10 0 0 6 -14 0 19.91 6 -15 Sens Prosper Delta P
Well - SC12 -1 0 0 101 0 5.06 6 -2 Sens Prosper Fixed
Well - SC16 4 3 15 303 0 0.00 1 1 Sens Prosper Fixed
LIMITS 20 10 500 300 10.00 150.00 40 35

Table 1: Quality control table.

Figure 10: Quality assurance crossplots.

SPE 169923 11

5. Medium term model validation and Quality control.

After Phase 1 when the IPM model is built and matched, the model has to be checked with dynamic field data. The
same month period was selected, as estimated production from well tests matched in the model. Daily gas lift pressure data
was entered. The Gas lift design of each well was thoroughly reviewed. In the Open script environment Pdome limits for each
well were placed to constrain the production if the system pressure drops. At lower GLP but before reaching the Pdome the
production is calculated as per sensitivity VLP chart. As can be seen from the chart below (Fig. 11) the status and production
of the well can be determined everyday. The most sensitive wells will be grouped and analyzed for possible GLVCO to
minimize downtime from lowering GLP.

Figure 11: GLP vs. Well Oil Production per well in GAP simulator

The model was fine tuned until the predicted values were consistent with the readings of the field Coriolis meters.
The model essentially proved that any impact on GLP will be reflected in total oil production. The sudden humps in the GLP
find the corresponding reflection in the IPM as well as metered data.
Based on the IPM, the model is consistently matched to Coriolis meter readings from 8th to end of the month and
matched to Field estimated production, except 8th to 13th period (Fig.12). It is supposed that Daily field production have been
overestimated in the period from 8th to 13th, because model and Coriolis indicate the same trend. But at the same time the
model advised that Coriolis production was possibly underestimated. These findings have been considered by relevant field
engineers to report production figures for allocation procedure correctly.

Possible overestimate of
Possible underestimate of field reported production
coriolis meter

Figure 12: Comparison of Samaan Coriolis Readings, Field Production Estimates, IPM Profile vs. GL pressure
Lower trends (violet and red) represent quality check on oil production deferment.
12 SPE 169923

Visualization of the simulated and real parameters in crossplots provides the confidence in the model.

Figure 13: Crossplot. Coriolis oil readings vs. IPM oil production.

Attained level of the accuracy in TSP models promotes for further investigation and optimization in the process.
Any outlayi from the Coriolis readings simulated trends will provide another type of control. Such operational issues
as un-seen equipment failures, breach in metering, shift in calibration can be noticed by IAM based on the divergence of the
model and field data.
The IPM model provides additional support for production forecasting in maintenance planning. It is especially useful
when the activity involves the downtime on the compressors etc.

6. Daily Monitoring: Incorporation of the real time data (SCADA)

One of the possible challenges faced in a brown field like TSP is the lack of modern automated process and real time
data due to the inherited old days systems for metering and difficulty sometimes to implement some of these new data
monitoring technologies, especially in an offshore environment.

Figure 14: Samaan Real time Gas lift pressure visualized in PI PROCESSBOOK 2012 software (left) and hourly
average values shown on PI excel add-in (right).

In a big effort to optimize the process and identify opportunities for improvement, recently TSP is gradually
incorporating more and more data points tied to the PI system (SCADA). PI is a system that provides real time data from the
field available anywhere with internet connection. The data is also recorded in a physical server in Repsol Port of Spain offices
where proper back-up and data management is conducted.

There are two main tools used with PI, first PI PROCESSBOOK is a visualization tool that allows the user to monitor
the operating parameters. The second one is a Microsoft excel add-in (PI DataLink) that enables information retrieval from the
PI System directly into a spreadsheet allowing complete data analysis
SPE 169923 13

Currently in TSP some of the key operating parameters are monitored and recorded in PI, such as: gas lift pressures,
production separators pressures and levels, gross liquids and net oil export etc. For the IAM the gas lift pressure from each
field has been incorporated as a first step to include real time data for automatic update of the model. Gas lift is the main
driver of the production in TSP, therefore having a model with real time gas lift pressure provides a very valuable tool for the
asset.
The methodology used to incorporate this data is based on the PI DataLink excel add-in, where real time data for gas
lift is retrieved and placed on the excel spreadsheet. Gas lift pressure hourly averages are calculated with this software and
linked to the GAP asset model by Open Server/RESOLVE, which takes the corresponding data into the model.
Once the IAM meets all matching requirements and real time data connected to system Facilities Simulator HYSIS of
OCOT plant can be incorporated. The increase in liquid rates can cause the surge vessel level to upset and this can be predicted
with the model thus helping the Operation to adjust pumping capacities etc. Current integration is under evaluation.

7. Medium-Long Forecasting

As described in the General Methodology section, the objective of the Phase 4 of the workflow is to get the IAM to
predict the medium to long term forecasting, incorporating the subsurface models. The current stage of the IAM only includes
Material Balance models for certain reservoirs. For example it has been used for forecasting the medium term production life
of a recently reactived reservoir, which was found at initial reservoir pressure. There is only one well producing from that sand
and according to geological interpretation the reservoir block is isolated from any other surrounding reservoirs currently on
production. This case was ideal to use a Material balance model which was incorporated into the IAM. It has been already 8
months since this well was online and the predictions obtained are remarkably in line with the real production.
Cases like the one described above are few along the TSP fields. In the reservoir description section it has been noted
that the reservoirs found in TSP fields are multi-stack compartmentalized ones. Different approaches are currently under
evaluation: from incorporating only Decline Curve Analysis well by well, to full 3D simulation models.
Examples where simulation models are under evaluation are to be incorporated are in the Teak field. Since this field
is currently under Infill drilling, there has been extensive subsurface work on building simulation models. These models are
expected to be used in conjunction with the IAM.
Not only the subsurface domain is of interest in the medium-long term forecasting, also proper prediction of
downtimes is required. Due to the maturity of the TSP installations, maintenance is a major issue. Although there have been a
lot of efforts implementing preventive maintenance, failure of equipments could be unpredictable. For this reason, to predict
downtimes past historical performance is being evaluated and statistics are obtained. From these analyses better downtime
estimations are obtained and are used as input in the IAM. Planned downtimes are also incorporated.
Model Incorporation assumes Sensitivity analysis with such parameters as gas lift pressure system to forecast the
possible losses or gains.

Figure 15: Snapshot example of a well in which the reservoir model was incorporated to the existing IAM.

To reach this goal, very close cooperation between different disciplines is required. Any change or update of a
reservoir model has a direct impact in the ultimate output of the IAM model, therefore close communication is mandatory.
14 SPE 169923

8. IAM Findings and recommendations

In summary, main findings and recommendations from TSP IAM can be described as follows:

Application Findings / Results Recommendation

GL system pressure The model proves its dependence on GL system
sensitivity pressure. At any point of time the well status and
its production can be known
Production Wells with high CSG pressure and high PI have
Optimization been grouped and proposed for GLVCO campaign
and for gas booster installation
To minimize deferrals in certain wells the
adjustments in Merla choke should be made more
often if the GL sys pressure is down. (based on the
divergence Coriolis and GAP model evidence)
Run Installation Booster Scenario (SB) and perform
economics based on the expected gain.
Integrated GLO based on the gas balance.

Production reporting Underestimated or overestimated field reported Once the model is fully finetuned to Coriolis data,
production observed. Quality control on deferral field estimation production has to be verified with
and allocation procedure. IAM on daily basis

Pressure bottlenecks or Some evidence on bottlenecks passed to F&C
Slugs/ Errosional areas dept for further investigation
Integration with Real Real time data from field incorporated into the
time data IAM allows close follow up of field production
with minimum reaction time for
engineering/operational decision. Unseen failures
can be identified.
Based on P&IDs IAM has to be detailized for
identifying the critical piping areas.
Estimate errosional risk in HP gas lines.
The impact of variation in the liquid production,
water cut in IAM has to be properly analyzed to
improve level control system in surge vessels of
OCOT plant.

Mbal/Eclipse Full Integration dynamic models are under Full integration of the dynamic models into the
incorporation construction. For certain wells the models were system. Model Interconnection effect to be studied,
integrated with forecast production profiles also will assist in fault sealing analysis.
obtained

9. Conclusions.

• An Integrated Asset Model was built for TSP fields. The model incorporates information from the reservoir to
the production stream. A team approach was used for building the model, which required the close collaboration
of several disciplines.
• The validity of the IAM was tested with real data and the benefits of the model are already evident. Some
examples are related to the impact of GL pressure system in the field production. These observations were
validated with real field measurement data.
• Although the current objective of the IAM is post fact quality control, there are steps being taking to bring the
model to the next level: live monitoring with the aid of SCADA systems.
• The medium-long term plan is to use the IAM for proper forecasting, incorporating the full spectrum of the TSP
fields: from the pore to the sales point.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the management of Repsol E&P T&T Ltd and its partners for permission to publish
this paper. The authors would also like to thank their colleagues for their contributions and support.
SPE 169923 15

Nomenclature

API – American Petroleum Institute

BLPD – Barrels of Liquid per Day
BOPD – Barrels of Oil per Day
BHP – Bottom Hole Pressure
CSG – casing
EOR – Enhanced Oil Recovery
FA-Flow Assurance
F&C – Facilities & Construction
FTP- Flowing Tubing Pressure
GAP – Integrated Production Modeling Simulator by Petex
GL –Gas Lift
GLO – Gas Lift Optimization
GLVCO – Gas Lift Valve Change Out
GLP- Gas Lift Pressure
GP – Gravel Pack
HP – High Pressure
HSE –Health Safety Environment dept.
IAM –Integrated Asset Modeling
IPM – Integrated Production Modelin/Model
IPR – Inflow Performance Relationship
LP – Low Pressure
MLT – Mini Logging Tool
Non-Rig – Rigless Intervention
OCOT – Offshore Crude Oil Treatment Plant
Pdome –dome pressure of the valve (Recalculated Ptro at injection depth, based on P and T)
PI – Plant Information Software
PVT – pressure volume temperature analysis
PSI – Pound per Square Inch
PTA – Pressure Test Analysis
RESOLVE – Integrated Asset Modeling Simulator by Petex
SCADA – Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SD – Shut Down
TSP – Teak, Samaan, Poui
VLP – Vertical Lift Performance
WHP – Well Head Pressure
WHT - Well Head Temperature

References

1. C. Correa Feria, Repsol: “Integrated Production Modeling: Advanced but, not Always Better,” SPE 138888.
2. Bagoo, D.; Ramnarine, M.; Segnini, C.; Hernandez, M. “Validation and Analysis of Past PVT Studies from a Complex and
Mature Offshore Asset in Trinidad”, SPE 169928
3. S.K. Moitra and Subhash Chand, Oil & Natural Gas Corp., Santanu Barua, Deji Adenusi, and Vikas Agrawal, Schlumberger
Data & Consulting Services “A Fieldwide Integrated Production Model and Asset Management System for the Mumbai High
Field”, OTC 18678
4. Gillian Bates, Danelle Bagoo, Daniel Garcia de la Calle, Andres Finol, Roman Nazarov, Cenobio Rivas, Mirko Hernandez,
SPE, Clayton Bunraj, Repsol E&P T&T Ltd.”Production Optimization of a Mature Offshore Asset” SPE 158782-MS