1 / 8

Summary from “Round Table” Discussion

Summary from “Round Table” Discussion. FORCE/JCR Workshop on Coupled Modeling for Reservoir Management. ”Round Table” Discussion Issues. Pull vs push Technical issues R&D. Pull vs. Push. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=none/5= complete)

garry
Download Presentation

Summary from “Round Table” Discussion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary from “Round Table” Discussion FORCE/JCR Workshop on Coupled Modeling for Reservoir Management

  2. ”Round Table” Discussion Issues • Pull vs push • Technical issues • R&D

  3. Pull vs. Push On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=none/5= complete) • Does your company consider coupled geomechanics/flow models mature? • Does your company used coupled models? • Does the RE community within your company use coupled models • Why or why not?

  4. Pull vs. Push • Shell: 2, 2, 1 • CoP: 5,5,1 • Mærsk: 3,3,3 • Dong: 3,2,1 • Statoil: 3, 3, 1 • ENI: 3, 3, 3 • Total: 3, 4, 2 • Hydro: 3, 2, 1 • BP: 4, 4, 1

  5. Contractor • ISAMGEO: integration • VIPS: education, lack of geomech., work often justified economically • UoLeeds: poor models, uncertainties • IFP: 4, 3, 2 • RDL: education, conservatism in RE, low oil price • UoLiege: integration in single model, geomech. Effect on flow • CMG: CPU is an issue, • CIPR: education, easier for RE to og to geomech, if it is important RE is not concerned, lack of data • Rockfield: Data availability is scarce, busy people in oil co., fault re-activation • Geomec: reliability, understaning in oil companies • WellTech: limitations in models, what is important data?

  6. Technical Issues • Name the #1 limitation (real or perceived) for coupled models. • Does a coupled model add too much complexity? • Are the models mature and now the limit is fundamental physics and/or data (for calibration)?

  7. Technical Issues • NPD: no PDO’s filed with coupled model, education, in which reservoirs should it be applied?, technology not THAT mature yet • VIPS: need as much data as possible, what are the expectations, often initiated after problems, requirement for better understanding on stress dependent permeabillity, will not be a part of RE without linkage to 4D, micro-seismicity and additional data, integration of coupled results in completion design, well cost/optimization • When do we not have enough data? • If it too little data we can not do a project (1 well) • BP: need the ability to investigate uncertainty range, i.e. probablistic • RDL: compromise: full model from tuning run, then collapse into simple model (i.e. CIPR/UoB) • Shell: calibration, what are the calibrated against well data, sector, data, field • Limitations on fundamentals • Geomec: scale effects, reliability issue around this, capture large scale properties, how do we calibrate reliably

  8. R&D • Shell: complicated tar sands, temperature effects • DONG: different coupling methods gives different results • Statoil: objective criteria on necessity of geomechanics integrated solution • Total: we do not need coupled, but integrated models, ECLIPSE concept good. • VIPS: coupled modeling for the sake is not the driver, provide enabling tools, CPU use etc., use of calibration data, reduce the non-uniqeness, money to educating RE’s • Hydro: water injection, 4D seismic, safety and environmental issues • CoP: 1) full field 3D: upscaling, input data 2) speed up of large processes, near wellbore problem, understanding the basics • ENI: upscaling • Mærsk: learning more from iterative couple • BP: educate RE community with objective criteria for when touse this for RE purposes, quantify effects cum. prod • CMG: too much emphasis on linking to ECLIPSE • GEO: upscaling • Statoil: localisation in large 3D grids • Mærsk: 4D seismics, differentiate between the various responses rock physics modeling

More Related