Oil field operators dedicate significant resources to improve the recovery of hydrocarbons from reservoirs while reducing recovery costs. To achieve these goals, reservoir engineers both monitor the current state of the reservoir and attempt to predict future behavior given a set of current and/or postulated conditions. Reservoir monitoring, sometimes referred to as reservoir surveillance, involves the regular collection and monitoring of measured data from within and around the wells of a reservoir. Such data may include, but is not limited to, water saturation, water and oil cuts, fluid pressure and fluid flow rates. As the data is collected, it is archived into a historical database.
The collected production data, however, mostly reflects conditions immediately around the reservoir wells. To provide a more complete picture of the state of a reservoir, simulations are executed that model the overall behavior of the entire reservoir based on the collected data, both current and historical. These simulations predict the reservoir's overall current state, producing simulated data values both near and at a distance from the wellbores. Simulated near-wellbore data can be correlated against measured near-wellbore data, and modeled parameters are adjusted as needed to reduce the error between the simulated and measured data. Once so adjusted, the simulated data, both near and at a distance from the wellbore, may be relied upon to assess the overall state of the reservoir. Such data may also be relied upon to predict the future behavior of the reservoir based upon either actual or hypothetical conditions input by an operator of the simulator. Reservoir simulations, particularly those that perform full physics numerical simulations of large reservoirs, are computationally intensive and can take hours, even days to execute.
A better understanding of the various disclosed embodiments can be obtained when the following detailed description is considered in conjunction with the attached drawings, in which:
It should be understood that the drawings and corresponding detailed description do not limit the disclosure, but on the contrary, they provide the foundation for understanding all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the scope of the appended claims.
Disclosed herein are methods and systems for gas lift rate management of a monitored hydrocarbon production system with multiple wells, a surface network, and a facility. As described herein, the production of hydrocarbons from one or more reservoirs feeding a surface network and facility involves controlling the production of individual wells (i.e., individual well production can be throttled up or down). One way to throttle up individual well production is by applying gas lift operations to a well. Because gas lift operations are costly and their effectiveness is limited (i.e., there is a point where injecting more gas does not result in higher well production), such operations should not be applied arbitrarily to all production wells. The disclosed gas lift rate management techniques determine gas lift rates as part of an overall hydrocarbon production system solution that aligns well production with surface network and facility production limits, and that throttles well production over time as needed to maintain production at or near facility production limits.
In some embodiments, the overall hydrocarbon production system solution is determined by modeling the behavior of production system components using various parameters. More specifically, separate equations and parameters may be applied to estimate the behavior of fluids in one or more reservoirs, in individual production wells, in the surface network, and/or in the facility. Solving such equations independently or at a single moment in time yields a disjointed and therefore sub-optimal solution (i.e., the production rate and/or cost of production over time is sub-optimal). In contrast, solving such equations together (referred to herein as solving fully-coupled equations) at multiple time steps involves more iterations and processing, but yields a more optimal solution.
Hydrocarbon production systems can be modeled using many different equations and parameters. Accordingly, it should be understood that the disclosed equations and parameters are examples only and are not intended to limit embodiments to a particular equation or set of equations. The disclosed embodiments illustrate an example strategy to expedite convergence of a production system solution modeled using fully-coupled equations by fixing certain parameters and floating other parameters (the floating parameters may still be subject to range restrictions as described herein).
Hydrocarbon production simulation involves estimating or determining the material components of a reservoir and their state (phase saturations, pressure, temperature, etc.). The simulation further estimates the movement of fluids within and out of the reservoir once production wells are taken into account. The simulation also may account for various enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques (e.g., use of injection wells, treatments, and/or gas lift operations). Finally, the simulation may account for various constraints that limit production or EOR operations. With all of the different parameters that could be taken into account by the simulation, management decisions have to be made regarding the trade-off between simulation efficiency and accuracy. In other words, the choice to be accurate for some simulation parameters and efficient for other parameters is an important strategic decision that affects production costs and profitability.
Disclosed herein is a simulation strategy to efficiently converge the solution for a fully-coupled set of equations that model a production system. In at least some embodiments, the disclosed simulation strategy identifies the production wells and the default production level for each well needed to match production output from the wells to a facility production limit. As used herein, the default production level for a well refers to a well's maximum production level without use of EOR techniques. Alternatively, the default production level for a well may refer to a well's production level using default EOR operations such as reservoir injections, treatments, and/or gas lift injections. Over time, the default production level for one or more wells may drop as the pressure in the reservoir is affected by fluid extraction. Accordingly, default EOR options applied by the simulation strategy may correspond to low levels of available EOR operations. In this manner, the costs and complexities of EOR operations are initially small and can be raised over time. As needed (e.g., in response to a decrease in the default production level of one or more wells), the simulation solution calls for increased application of available EOR over time to maintain production from the wells at or near the facility production limit. However, if a predetermined EOR limit is reached (e.g., a gas lift capacity limit, a treatment limit, and/or a reservoir injection limit), then the simulation solution honors the EOR limit even though production from the wells may drop below the facility production limit. This disclosed strategy is intended to enable efficient convergence of a solution to a fully-coupled set of equations that model the production system. Once the solution has been determined within an acceptable tolerance, further simulations can be avoided or reduced in number since production levels can be throttled up or down as needed to match a facility production limit using swing wells and/or available EOR operations.
Based on the above-described data input to the fluid model 16, parameters and/or parameter values are determined for each fluid component or group of components of the reservoir. The resulting parameters for each component/group are then applied to known state variables to calculate unknown state variables at each simulation point (e.g., at each “gridblock” within the reservoir, at wellbore perforations or “the sandface,” and/or within the surface network). These unknown variables may include a gridblock's liquid volume fraction, solution gas-oil ratio and formation volume factor, just to name a few examples. The resulting fluid component state variables, both measured and estimated, are provided as inputs to the fully-coupled equations 24. As shown, the fully-coupled equations 24 also receive floating parameters 22, fixed parameters 26, and reservoir characterization data 21 as inputs. Examples of floating parameters 22 include EOR parameters such as gas lift injection rates. Meanwhile, examples of fixed parameters 26 include facility limits (a production capacity limit and a gas lift limit) and default production rates for individual wells. Reservoir characterization data 21 may include geological data describing a reservoir formation (e.g., log data previously collected during drilling and/or prior logging of the well) and its characteristics (e.g., porosity).
The fully-coupled equations 24 model the entire production system (reservoir(s), wells, and surface system), and account for EOR operations and facility limits as described herein. In some embodiments, Newton iterations (or other efficient convergence operations) are used to estimate the values for the floating parameters 22 used by the fully-coupled equations 24 until a production system solution within an acceptable tolerance level is achieved. The output of the solved fully-coupled equations 24 include well and EOR operating parameters 28 that honor facility and EOR limits. The simulation process 10 can be repeated for each of a plurality of different timesteps, where various parameters values determined for a given timestep are used to update the simulation for the next timestep.
In at least some embodiments, the well and EOR operating parameters 28 output from the simulation process 10 enable production output from the wells to match a facility production limit. However, if EOR limits are exceeded, the production output from the wells will decrease over time because they cannot be further enhanced. Once the solution has been determined within an acceptable tolerance, further simulations can be avoided or reduced in number since production levels can be throttled up or down as needed to match a facility production limit using swing wells and/or available EOR operations. As previously noted, the simulation process 10 can be executed for different timesteps (months or years into the future) to predict how the behavior of a hydrocarbon production system will change over time and how to manage EOR operations.
In
As shown, the simulator 120 includes a gas lift rate manager 122 that determines the gas lift rates for individual wells based on well production rate parameters 124 and hydraulic parameters 126. In some embodiments, at least some of the well production parameters 124 and/or hydraulic parameters 126 are input into the simulator 120 as measurements or fixed value estimates. Meanwhile, others of the well production parameters 124 and/or hydraulic parameters 126 are floating parameters and are determined during the simulation as part of the production system solution. Once a solution has been determined, the simulator 120 is able to provide gas lift rates for individual wells to a gas lift interface 118 that manages gas lift operations.
In some embodiments, the disclosed gas lift rate management operations optimally allocate available lift gas to wells in order to maximize hydrocarbon production under various facility constraints. Rather than treat both gas lift rates and well production rates as decision variables, the disclosed gas lift rate management operations treat only the well production rates as decision variables, and directly calculate the required gas lift rates. More specifically, surface facility equations (e.g., well and tubing hydraulics equations) are solved with fixed reservoir conditions at the beginning of a time step, to obtain the gas lift rates for each well as a function of the well production rates. An optimizer is then used to optimize a benefit function, subject to facility constraints, with the well production rates used as decision variables. Once the optimizer has calculated the well production rates for a time step, these rates are imposed as constraints for the overall production system solution (reservoir, well, and surface network) and the gas lift rates can be adjusted. If, for example, reservoir pressure declines during the time step (or the fluid mobilities change) such that the previously determined gas lift rates are insufficient to maintain the desired well production rate, then new gas lift rates are determined.
Rather than arbitrarily adjust gas lift rates, in some embodiments, the simulator 120 determines well rate production parameters 124 (including EOR parameters) such that production output matches a facility production limit. By fixing the individual well production rates so that the facility production limits are satisfied, the simulator 120 is able to expedite convergence of a solution for suitable EOR parameters including well-specific gas lift injection rates. The fixed well production rates are associated with the following well production rate constraint equation:
Q
pi(qwt,xw,qgt,xg)=Ci ,(1)
where Ci is the well rate constraint for a particular well (well “i”), Qpi is the flow rate of the constrained phase p in a particular well, qwt is the total mass flow rate flowing from the reservoir into a particular well, xw is the composition of the fluid flowing into a particular well, qgt is the total mass flow rate of gas lift for a particular well, and xg is the composition of gas lift gas for a particular well. The composition of gas lift applied to a well may be based on gas lift measurements/characterizations.
In order for the total mass flow rate of gas lift applied to a well to be optimal, hydraulic parameters 126 should be considered. The hydraulic parameters 126 determine the difference between pressure at the bottom of a well and pressure at the top of the well. By taking this difference into account, an optimal value for the total mass flow rate of gas lift applied to a well is determined (i.e., not more or less than what is needed). In some embodiments, the hydraulic parameters 126 that constrain well production are associated with a hydraulic equation of the form:
P
b
−P
t
=f(Pb,Pt,qwt,xw,qgt,xg), (2)
where Pb is the pressure at the bottom of a particular well, and Pt is the pressure at the top of the particular well. The result of using equations 1 and 2 in the system of fully-coupled equations 24 is that the production system solution determines the gas lift rates necessary to maintain the specified well production rates without using more or less gas lift gas than is necessary. In other words, well production is partly a function of gas lift rate. As the gas lift rate increases, the well production rate first increases, reaches a maximum, and then declines. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the disclosed gas lift rate management operations apply equations 1 and 2 to maintain well production rates and gas lift rates at their optimal levels.
In some embodiments, the right hand side (Ci) of equation 1 is fixed (the result of performing the optimization with fixed reservoir conditions). By using equations 1 and 2, the simulator calculates the independent variables qwt, xw, qgt, Pb and Pt. In some cases, the zo composition of the gas lift gas xg is known or predetermined (e.g., from another equation in the fully-coupled equations 24). Meanwhile, the total mass flow rate and composition of fluid estimates are calculated by the simulator. In contrast to other simulators that use fixed gas lift rate constraints, the disclosed technique enables calculation of gas lift rates based on well production rates (allowing gas lift rates that adjust themselves as the reservoir depletes).
As previously discussed, selected well production rates may be based on facility production limits. For example, selected well production rates may enable the total production from a set of production wells to match facility production limits. In some scenarios, facility gas lift limits may be reached while attempting to match total production from a set of production wells with facility production limits. In such case, further gas lift operations are not available and well production rates may decline over time. Even so, the gas lift rate manager 122 will provide gas lift rates that maintain total production close to facility production limits. As long as the total production cannot be improved upon by further EOR operations and/or swing wells, further simulation operations are not needed or at least the frequency of simulations can be reduced, which saves considerable time and reduces costs. If it is determined that production can be improved upon by further EOR operations and/or swing wells without violating facility production limits, additional simulations may be performed to determine new well production rates and corresponding gas lift rates. This process may continue as needed until the production system is aligned with facility limits such as production limits, water cut limits, gas collection limits, gas lift limits, and/or other limits.
The disclosed gas lift rate management operations may be combined with other production system management operations to ensure production stays near optimal levels without exceeding facility limits. With the disclosed gas lift rate management operations, the well production rates enable production to stay at or near facility production limits, even if some wells cannot produce at the rates calculated by the optimizer (e.g., due to pressure decline, changing fluid mobilities, and/or the gas lift rate reaching the point where additional gas lift does not increase production).
The systems and methods described herein rely in part on measured data collected from various production system components including fluid storage units, surface network components, and wells, such as those found in hydrocarbon production fields. Such fields generally include multiple producer wells that provide access to the reservoir fluids underground. Measured well data is collected regularly from each producer well to track changing conditions in the reservoir.
The use of measurement devices permanently installed in the well along with the gas lift system facilitates monitoring and control of gas lift operations. In some embodiments, different transducers send signals to the surface, where the signals are stored, evaluated and used to control gas lift operations. Measured well data is periodically sampled and collected from the production well and combined with measurements from other wells within a reservoir, enabling the overall state of the reservoir to be monitored and assessed. These measurements (e.g., bottom hole temperatures, pressures and flow rates) may be taken using a number of different downhole and surface instruments. Additional devices coupled in-line with production tubing 212 include gas lift mandrel 214 (to control the injected gas flow into production tubing 212) and packer 222 (to isolate the production zone below the packer from the rest of the well). Additional surface measurement devices may be used to measure, for example, the tubing head pressure and temperature and the casing head pressure.
Referring again to
In at least some illustrative embodiments, additional well data is collected using a production logging tool, which may be lowered by cable into production tubing 212. In other illustrative embodiments, production tubing 212 is first removed, and the production logging tool is then lowered into casing 206. In other alternative embodiments, an alternative technique that is sometimes used is logging with coil tubing, in which production logging tool couples to the end of coil tubing pulled from a reel and pushed downhole by a tubing injector positioned at the top of production wellhead 210. As before, the tool may be pushed down either production tubing 212 or casing 206 after production tubing 212 has been removed. Regardless of the technique used to introduce and remove it, the production logging tool provides additional data that can be used to supplement data collected from the production tubing and casing measurement devices. The production logging tool data may be communicated to computer system 45 during the logging process, or alternatively may be downloaded from the production logging tool after the tool assembly is retrieved.
In some embodiments, control panel 232 includes a remote terminal unit (RTU) which collects the data from the downhole measurement devices and forwards it to a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system that is part of computer system 45. In the illustrative embodiment shown, computer system 45 includes a set of blade servers 54 that includes several processor blades, at least some of which provide the above-described SCADA functionality. Other processor blades may be used to implement the gas lift rate management operations described herein. Computer system 45 also includes user workstation 51, which includes a general processing system 46. Both the processor blades of blade server 54 and general processing system 46 are preferably configured by software, shown in
As shown, the computer system 502 includes a processing subsystem 530 with a display interface 552, a telemetry transceiver 554, a processor 556, a peripheral interface 558, an information storage device 560, a network interface 562 and a memory 570. Bus 564 couples each of these elements to each other and transports their communications. In some embodiments, telemetry transceiver 554 enables the processing subsystem 530 to communicate with downhole and/or surface devices (either directly or indirectly), and network interface 562 enables communications with other systems (e.g., a central data processing facility via the Internet). In accordance with embodiments, user input received via pointing device 535, keyboard 534, and/or peripheral interface 558 are utilized by processor 556 to perform gas lift rate management operations as described herein. Further, instructions/data from memory 570, information storage device 560, and/or data storage interface 542 are utilized by processor 556 to perform gas lift rate management operations as described herein.
As shown, the memory 570 comprises a simulator module 572 that includes gas lift rate management module 574. In alternative embodiments, the gas lift rate management module 574 and simulator module 572 are separate modules in communication with each other. The simulator module 572 and gas lift rate management module 574 are software modules that, when executed, cause a processor to perform the operations described for the simulation process 10 of
In some embodiments, the determined gas lift rates and related information may be displayed to a production system operator for review. Alternatively, the determined gas lift rates may be used to automatically control gas lift operations of a production system. In some embodiments, the disclosed gas lift rate management operations are used to plan out or adapt a new production system before production begins. Alternatively, the disclosed gas lift rate management operations are used to optimize operations of a production system that is already producing.
Numerous other modifications, equivalents, and alternatives, will become apparent to those skilled in the art once the above disclosure is fully appreciated. For example, although at least some software embodiments have been described as including modules performing specific functions, other embodiments may include software modules that combine the functions of the modules described herein. Also, it is anticipated that as computer system performance increases, it may be possible in the future to implement the above-described software-based embodiments using much smaller hardware, making it possible to perform the described gas lift rate management operations using on-site systems (e.g., systems operated within a well-logging truck located at the reservoir). Additionally, although at least some elements of the embodiments of the present disclosure are described within the context of monitoring real-time data, systems that use previously recorded data (e.g., “data playback” systems) and/or simulated data (e.g., training simulators) are also within the scope of the disclosure. It is intended that the following claims be interpreted to embrace all such modifications, equivalents, and alternatives where applicable.
This application claims priority to Provisional U.S. Application Ser. No. 61/660,678, titled “Method for Optimizing Gas Lift Injection Rates in an Integrated Reservoir and Surface Flow System” and filed Jun. 15, 2012 by Graham Christopher Fleming and Qin Lu, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/US13/42841 | 5/28/2013 | WO | 00 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61660678 | Jun 2012 | US |