OTC 14009 Deep Offshore Well Metering and Permutation Testing

Erich Zakarian, RSI; Arnaud Constant, TotalFinaElf Exploration & Production Angola; Lionel Thomas, TotalFinaElf; Martin Gainville, Institut Franais du Ptrole; Pierre Duchet-Suchaux, TotalFinaElf; and Philippe Grenier, RSI

Copyright 2002, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas U.S.A., 69 May 2002. This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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.

Abstract As production in very deep waters becomes a crucial challenge for many oil companies, a better management of the production is constantly required. This paper presents two complementary methodologies for operation support and improvement of the production conditions. The first one is based on data reconciliation between process measurements and flow modelling. It brings an additional level of information to the problem of continuous metering of deepwater subsea wells. As periodic well testing is required to achieve this predictive metering, the second methodology provides the optimal test sequences of well permutations. It involves flow process simulation and algorithmical sorting, according to production constraints and operating strategies. Finally, comparisons between numerical simulations and plant data demonstrate the ability of these two methodologies to provide strong and reliable information for deep offshore producers. Introduction The knowledge of the phase flow rates coming from each individual well of an oil field is mandatory for a better production and reservoir management. Generally, this information comes from a series of direct well testing, where a single well flows directly to a test separator. In deep offshore, this procedure turns out to be inappropriate: production developments are based on gathering network, where manifolds merge the production from several wells into a single flowline. This is the case on the Girassol oil field in Angola, see Fig. 1. Moreover, direct well testing implies deferred production, valve reliability and flow assurance issues: hydrate formation in dead branches, slugging at low flow rates, etc.

Whereas conventional solutions, such as hardware multiphase metering, supply a limited information, our methodology works as an overall field supervisor for: estimating individual well production with respect to appropriate pressure and temperature measurements; detecting abnormal behavior (sensor drift for instance); validating hardware measurements, and replacing them in case of failure. Typically, in deep offshore production, hardware sensors are not replaced in case of failure for financial and feasibility reasons. This methodology is based on data reconciliation. It assumes that measurements are not necessarily correct and can be corrected within a confidence interval. Meanwhile, unmeasured variables derive from redundancy between flow modelling and field data. Data reconciliation has been already successfully applied to a small production network, see Ref. 1. Our paper intends to go further in the study of this innovative technology and presents its application to the Girassol field. Well monitoring Given a set of temperature and pressure measurements, our methodology aims to provide an estimate of the phase flow rates produced by each individual well of an oil field. Problem modelling. Real-time plant data are completed with a global steady state simulation of the production network involving: mass, force, and heat balance equations; thermodynamic calculations; hydrodynamic modelling. For instance, assuming process data at both ends of a choke and an estimate of the fluid composition, one can derive a local estimate of the liquid and gas mass flow rates from hydrodynamic and thermodynamic calculations. Combination between physical modelling and plant data is applied to the whole production network, leading to multiple estimates of the same information. This multiplicity derives from our uncertain interpretation of the reality: this statement is precisely the main strength of the data reconciliation technology.

E. ZAKARIAN, A. CONSTANT, L. THOMAS, M. GAINVILLE, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, AND P. GRENIER

OTC 14009

Whatever the complexity of a model, one should be aware that it always remains an approximation. However, the latter can be restricted to a small number of modelling parameters embedded in residual equations. Again, any hardware sensor contribution is a residual equation weighted by vendor uncertainty. Both hardware measurements and modelling equations are involved on the same level of analysis through a global data reconciliation and parameter estimate, leading to an optimization problem. Conversely, experience feedback is expected to get optimal values of model uncertainties. A major innovative aspect of this work is the systematic computation of the accuracy of any estimated variable. We notice that the accuracy of a measured variable can be slightly increased since data reconciliation works as a global computation where any piece of information is likely to be improved by the other ones. We also emphasize that information on the solution uncertainty is as important as the solution itself: whenever redundancy remains, a physically incorrect solution can satisfy the problem. Therefore, a supervisor checks the consistency of the solution against intuitive expectations. Example. Let us consider the following scenario. Given one well tubing followed by a choke, six sensors are installed upstream and downstream these equipment to measure the pressure and the temperature of the fluid, see Fig. 2. We derive six equations: Pi - Pmi = 0,.....................................................................(1) Ti - Tmi = 0, .....................................................................(2) where i = 1, 2, and 3 refer respectively to the following positions: upstream the well tubing, downstream the well tubing, and downstream the choke. Calibrated values of the water-liquid ratio and gas-oil ratio give two additional equations: BSW - BSWm = 0,............................................................(3) GOR - GORm = 0............................................................(4) A well tubing model provides a pressure drop relation and a heat balance between positions 1 and 2: fWP (P1, T1, P2, T2, Flow, BSW, GOR, WP) = 0,..............(5) fWT (P1, T1, P2, T2, Flow, BSW, GOR, WT) = 0. ..............(6) A choke model gives the same kind of relations between positions 2 and 3: fCP (P2, T2, P3, T3, Flow, BSW, GOR, CP) = 0,...............(7) fCT (P2, T2, P3, T3, Flow, BSW, GOR, CT) = 0................(8) Every measurements involved in this system are not necessarily correct since hardware sensors are subject to errors and the flow is not perfectly stable in the entire production system. As far as BSW and GOR, their a priori values

(calibrated) might be trusted with a relative confidence as the fluid composition may change between two consecutive measurements performed on a test separator. Therefore, equations (1) to (4) are replaced by residual equations and weighted by the standard deviation (uncertainty): ePi = (Pi - Pmi)/Pi, .......................................................... (9) eTi = (Ti - Tmi)/Ti,......................................................... (10) eBSW = (BSW - BSWm)/BSW, ......................................... (11) eGOR = (GOR - GORm)/GOR,........................................ (12) where i = 1, 2, and 3. As reminded before, an additional parameter calibrates each modelling equation with respect to a reference value (tuned from test measurements) and an uncertainty. Four residuals complete the system: eWP = (WP - WP,ref)/WP, ............................................. (13) eWT = (WT - WT,ref)/WT, .............................................. (14) eCP = (CP - CP,ref)/CP, ............................................... (15) eCT = (CT - CT,ref)/CT,................................................ (16) We finally get 16 equations, namely (5) to (16), and 13 variables: BSW, GOR, Flow, WP, WT, CP, CT, Pi, and Ti, where i = 1, 2, and 3. The system seems redundant. However, redundancy can only be ensured from a detailed analysis: to avoid any singularity, the rank of the jacobian must be equal to the number of the variables at any operating point. Note: the jacobian of the system is the matrix given by the partial derivatives of the equations (modelling equations and residuals) with respect to the variables. This condition is necessary to find a solution, which is a minimization of an objective function given as a sum of the squares of the residuals. Meanwhile, the modelling equations are exactly satisfied (optimization constraints). Three phase flow modelling. Several models are involved in the simulation of a Girassol production loop, see Table 1. As a mixture of oil, gas and water is expected during the field life, intensive efforts are required to get an acceptable physical representation, due to the complexity of three-phase flows. A gridded modelling is used for long tubings (well, sealine, riser) since local effects such as slope changes may strongly impact pressure and thermal profiles. A complex three-phase hydraulic module ensures a correct representation of the different flow regimes. Local flash and thermal calculations improve the physical modelling as well. A rather sophisticated modelling is used for the chokes since flow criticity and gas expansion may seriously affect pressure and temperature variations. The choke discharge coefficient must be initially calibrated and periodically validated against field data. Three-phase flow meters could be used. Meanwhile, test separator instruments provide sufficient

OTC 14009

DEEP OFFSHORE WELL METERING AND PERMUTATION TESTING

and accurate information for calibration. This tuning procedure is described in a further section. In terms of computation, tuning is a particular use case of this well metering methodology. Thermodynamic issues. Physical phenomena such as vaporization in wells or expansion in chokes require accurate thermodynamic calculations. Therefore, the mixture composition is tracked along the flow line, and the whole unit operations perform local vapor/liquid/liquid equilibrium calculations to get an estimate of the phase properties. However, it is an illusion to believe that an accurate estimate of the reservoir fluid molar composition can be found: neither the system, nor the available sensors are able to catch the effect of a composition change (at constant phase properties) between C9 and C10 cuts, for instance. Conversely, gas coning or water breakthrough does affect sensor data. Therefore, the fluid composition is corrected with BSW and GOR variations by addition or removal of water and/or gas from the first stage separator. Software issues. The basic domains involved in an industrial well monitoring tool are: compositional thermodynamic calculation; hydrodynamic modelling in pipes and wells; thermal modelling in pipes and wells; valve modelling; reservoir PI modelling; data reconciliation; real-time process data recording and analysis. For each domain, several approaches have to be tested and selected. For example, a particular thermodynamic server might be suitable for certain operating conditions but unacceptable to other cases. Note: a server is a software component that provides services for other software components (client components) through defined interfaces. Therefore, it should be easy to combine different modules with the minimum effort. In addition, many pieces of software from different sources might fulfill our requirements. For these reasons, we decided to build our well monitoring simulator as an open software, using the CAPE-OPEN (Computer-Aided Process Engineering) standard, see Ref. 2. The compliance to this standard is another major and innovative aspect of this work. It provides high model flexibility for the end user, it makes implementation of new features much easier and faster: plug and play integration of any CAPE-OPEN compliant component is carried out with the minimum effort. Built on a component-based architecture, see Fig. 3, our well monitoring simulator includes: CAPE-OPEN compliant components: unit operations, thermodynamic servers; external components: solver, man machine interface, data interface, supervisor. CAPE-OPEN standard interfaces ensure the communication between components through a simulator

executive framework. The latter runs the whole application and its components, like the configuration of a production network or the use cases of a well monitoring application. Sensor failure detection. The data interface component makes the connection between the simulator executive framework and external components that provide hardware measurements: Distributed Control System, database. To avoid any undesirable effect on data reconciliation, the data interface performs a preliminary analysis to detect any possible failure (unlikely value, excessive variation) or unsteady behavior when the average of the measurements depends significantly on time. A sensor is declared invalid in case of failure and its contribution is removed from the system. It does not participate to the data reconciliation, leaving the determination of the measurement to the optimizer. This preliminary detection is as important as the data reconciliation itself. Let us present an example to confirm this statement. We consider a network with a well producing in a single flowline through a choke and a manifold, see Fig. 4. Pressure and temperature sensors are located upstream and downstream these equipment. Assuming an initial calibration of the system, we define a particular scenario with hardware sensor failures, see Fig. 5: at a fixed period of time (five minutes), the data interface sends sensor measurements to the simulator executive framework and a new solution is computed. Fortyfive minutes after starting up, the pressure sensor at the bottom hole returns zero, which is of course an unacceptable value. This failure lasts half an hour. Two hours after starting up, both pressure sensors at the bottom hole and the manifold return zero again. First, let us consider the case where the data interface does not perform a detection of sensor failure. At the beginning of the run, the simulator computes reconciliated data, see Fig. 6. The latter are very close to the real measurements reproduced on the figure as dotted lines. At 45 minutes where the first pressure sensor collapses, the simulator manages to rebuild a measurement at the bottom hole. The rebuilt value is physically acceptable but likely far from reality. At the same time, the production is overestimated (the productivity index remains the same in the whole run) and the gas-oil ratio decreases, see Fig. 7. The wellhead pressure is also strongly affected because of its direct dependence on the bottom hole pressure through the well tubing model. The pressure drop increases by 106 Pa. At 75 minutes where the sensor starts running again, the initial solution is recovered but at 120 minutes, both pressure sensors at the tubing ends stop to run. The simulator fails to find a solution. Let us run the same simulation but with detection of sensor failure. We notice that the data reconciliation works perfectly in this case, showing its ability to rebuild unmeasured variables, see Fig. 8, 9. The sensor failure does affect the redundancy of the problem, which is lower than before, but it does not affect the results.

E. ZAKARIAN, A. CONSTANT, L. THOMAS, M. GAINVILLE, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, AND P. GRENIER

OTC 14009

At 120 minutes, both sensor failures are detected at the well tubing ends. The solution remains acceptable. However, the manifold pressure drops significantly and its a posteriori confidence interval as well. In other words, there is not enough redundancy to trust the reconciliated value of the manifold pressure. This second computation confirms the ability of our methodology to replace hardware sensors in a production system. It also shows its weakness whenever the number of valid sensors is not sufficient to allow redundancy. Real-scale validation Production at the Girassol field started in late 2001. We propose to use a first series of measurements to validate our methodology and confirm its ability to provide reliable information. These measurements were recorded from December 4th to 24th, 2001. Calibration. We focus our presentation on a single well flowing into the right branch of the P10 loop. We consider the network from the well tubing to the test separator on FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading), see Fig. 10. Note that riser tubing and riser choke are not simulated in this presentation. Modelling parameters derive from a single simulation with the following configuration: At the test separator: set the uncertainties of the phase flow-rate sensors to vendor accuracy (we assume accurate measurements) At the upstream equipment and inflow model: remove the residuals of the modelling parameters (GOR, BSW, choke discharge coefficient, productivity index and friction factors). The vendor accuracy of the flow-rate sensors is small. Therefore, the phase flow-rates computed by the optimizer are necessarily close to their measured values. Meanwhile, the phase flow-rates derived from the modelling have to match these measured values. Assuming a small uncertainty on the pressure/temperature measurements, the optimizer is forced to change the values of the modelling parameters (a particular situation occurs here since the system has no redundancy, and solution is independent on the sensor accuracy). Twice a day in December 2001, measurements on a test separator were carried out at the Girassol field to estimate the production of the well. We propose to calibrate our system on one of these tests. Then, after a certain period of time, we will compare the oil, water, and gas flow-rates predicted by the simulation and those derived from real testing. Well metering. A demonstrative test can be found from December 7th to 12th. During this period of time, the production of a well was progressively increased with a choke opening from 36 % to 49 %, see Fig. 11. Meanwhile, the pressure drop in the well tubing remained approximately constant and the one through the choke dropped from 5 106 Pa to 2.5 106 Pa.

We calibrate the simulator with data recorded on December 7th, between 02:00 and 08:00 am. Then, we run a metering, up to December 12th. With a sampling DCS period of five minutes, production is estimated every thirty minutes, using data filtered on the past hour. If we assign the same level of confidence to the models (choke, inflow, tubings), the system overestimates the production, but the predicted trend is consistent with reality, see Fig. 12. A detailed analysis shows that the choke model is responsible for this deviation: tuning with subsequent tests shows that the discharge coefficient drops from 0.92 to 0.6 on December 8th, see Fig. 13. Meanwhile, productivity index and friction factors remain roughly constant. This observation reveals some inconsistency between plant data and the choke modelling. Further analysis will be required to get a better understanding of the real choke behavior. If we set a lower relative confidence on the choke model (by increasing the discharge coefficient uncertainty), we verify that the initial tuning is sufficient to get, five days latter, a good estimate of the expected oil and gas production, see Fig. 14. This implies that the initial tuning of the GOR was good enough for the five following days of metering. We effectively notice that the GOR derived from tuning remains constant, see Fig. 15. Permutation testing Assistance tool Periodic calibration is required to keep the modelling close to the real process. Three-phase flow meters could be used but test separator measurements through well testing can also provide sufficient and accurate information. Production at the Girassol field is based on a loop configuration where sea-lines are connected to each other through subsea manifolds, see Fig. 1. Each well of a loop is routed to a production line, either left or right. There is no specific line for well testing. This network architecture and flow assurance issues strongly impact the well testing strategy: direct testing leads to increase deferred production; direct testing at low flow-rates may lead to instability in the flowlines (slugging); direct testing at flow rates below 10 000 bbl/d may lead to a fluid temperature lower than the paraffin formation temperature (about 40C); direct testing for the nearest wells leaves the upstream flowline full of dead fluid during the test, and hydrate inhibition with methanol is required. Therefore, permutation testing (in addition to direct testing) has been included in the Girassol well monitoring strategy: a direct testing connects a single well to a single production line; estimating the phase flow rates of the well is straightforward; a permutation testing connects several wells to both production lines (but a well is necessarily allocated to a single line). A series of different permutations leads

OTC 14009

DEEP OFFSHORE WELL METERING AND PERMUTATION TESTING

to different measurements of the phase flow rates of each production line. The phase flow rates of each individual well derives from solving a set of linear equations. Testing strategy. Since the wells of a production loop may produce into either left or right production line, a permutation can be considered as a set of two well arrangements, left and right. The number of possible arrangements is necessarily much greater than the number of wells. For example, let us consider four producers: WA, WB, WC, WD. Any sequence involving these four wells can be acceptable. One of them is shown on Table 2; notation: WA + WB + WD means a test with WA, WB, and WD. The number of possible test sequences increases drastically with the number of wells, see Table 3. This observation and the complexity of involved phenomena prevent us from deriving a simple synthetic rule that could be used in operation to select the best test sequences. The latter have to be compliant with the whole production constraints. A permutation testing assistance tool has been specifically designed to achieve this work. Basically, a steady state process simulator is used for network and gaslift computation, providing well production in any arrangement, see Table 4 for few examples. Then, sequence sorting is carried out versus user strategy, see Fig. 16. Flow modelling. Flow rates and production losses are estimated from a simplified flow modelling: well performance curves and pressure loss tables derive from experiments or simulations performed on predictive multiphase software. Specific unit operations implement these tables in the process simulator. Thus, any code can be used to generate the flow modelling. Contrary to the well monitoring tool, this permutation testing assistant is an off-line software. However, a periodic tuning against real process data is recommended in order to adjust BSW or GOR of each individual well. Sequence sorting. After network configuration and calculations, a sorting service provides an ordered succession of permutations. The initial number of possible sequences is Ckj where k is the length of the sequence and j is the total number of possible arrangements, see Table 3. Some of them do not comply with thermal constraints and are removed. The same applies for singular sequences. For one sequence of k arrangements, there are k! orders. Applying an order-dependent criterion, the best order is selected. The simulator computes the expected test accuracy, namely the accuracy of each individual well production, GOR, and BSW. Finally, the remaining sequences are sorted with respect to user strategy, see Fig. 16. Typical simulation results are shown on Table 5. Features. Direct testing is intuitively the best solution to reach

the maximal accuracy. For instance, if we consider a production loop with four wells, sixteen different sequences of four direct tests will estimate the production, without any loss of accuracy. But, only few of them may satisfy operation constraints. According to our assistance tool, only one sequence does not require hydrate inhibition with methanol, see Fig. 17: no dead branch is created if we consider the first arrangement as the initial loop configuration. Conversely, if we accept a relative loss of accuracy, permutation testing will keep the production at its optimal level, see Fig. 18. Since both maximal accuracy and minimal production loss strategies may be required, a global weighted criterion is actually used to bring all the strategies together and perform the sequence sorting. Theoretically, there is no limitation on the number of wells to consider. However, let us remind that the number of possible test sequences increases drastically with the number of wells, see Table 3. In the case of six wells or more, the computation time can be prohibitive unless one or several wells are exclusively allocated to a production line. Conclusion This paper demonstrates the ability of a well monitoring software to provide reliable information for producers: production estimate of each individual well, abnormal behavior detection, validation of hardware measurements and replacement in case of failure. Although the described methodology can be applied to any type of onshore/offshore development scheme, this work is mainly intended to deep offshore developments, such as the Girassol field in Angola. Based on data reconciliation between field data and flow modelling, our well monitoring tool requires a periodic calibration to keep its modelling close to the real process. This tuning derives from test separator measurements. Since a combination of direct and permutation well testing is presently involved at the Girassol field, we also designed a second tool to compute the optimal test sequences versus usual production and operating constraints. Intensive use and positive feedback will confirm the usefulness and reliability of this work. This will be the main topic of a second paper. Nomenclature BSW = Basic Sediment and Water (water volume flow/liquid volume flow), m3/m3 BSWm = Measured value of BSW, m3/m3 Flow = Total mass flow rate, kg.s-1 GOR = Gas-Oil Ratio (gas volume flow/oil volume flow), Sm3/m3 GORm = Measured value of GOR, Sm3/m3 P1 = Well tubing upstream pressure, Pa P2 = Well tubing downstream pressure, Pa P3 = Choke downstream pressure, Pa Pmi = Measured value of Pi, (i = 1, 2, 3), Pa

E. ZAKARIAN, A. CONSTANT, L. THOMAS, M. GAINVILLE, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, AND P. GRENIER

OTC 14009

T1 T2 T3 Tmi

WP WT CP CT WP,ref WT,ref CP,ref CT,ref Pi Ti BSW GOR WP WT CP CT

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Well tubing upstream temperature, K Well tubing downstream temperature, K Choke downstream temperature, K Measured value of Ti, (i = 1, 2, 3), K Tuning parameter for well tubing pressure drop Tuning parameter for well tubing heat balance Tuning parameter for choke pressure drop Tuning parameter for choke heat balance Calibrated value of WP Calibrated value of WT Calibrated value of CP Calibrated value of CT Uncertainty of Pmi (i = 1, 2, 3) Uncertainty of Tmi (i = 1, 2, 3) Uncertainty of BSWm Uncertainty of GORm Uncertainty of WP Uncertainty of WT Uncertainty of CP Uncertainty of CT

Choke Pm2, Tm2

Pm3, Tm3

Well tubing

Pm1, Tm1
Fig. 2: Example of a production network
EXTERNAL COMPONENTS Man Machine Interface Solver Supervisor DCS

References
1. Van der Geest, R., Reliability Through Data Reconciliation, OTC 13000 presented at the 2001 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas (2001). 2. Braunschweig, B., Paen, D., Roux, P., and Vacher, P., The Use of CAPE-OPEN Interfaces for Interoperability of Unit Operations and Thermodynamic Packages in Process Modelling, The European Refining Technology Conference, Paris, France (2001). See also http://www.colan.org.
Simulator Executive Framework
CAPE-OPEN SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT

Figures

Unit Operation

Thermo Server CAPE-OPEN COMPONENTS

Wellhead

Manifold

Fig. 3: Well monitoring software overview

Fig. 1: Girassol subsea loop

Fig. 4: Sensor failure simulation

OTC 14009

DEEP OFFSHORE WELL METERING AND PERMUTATION TESTING

3.00E+07

3.00E+07

2.50E+07
2.50E+07

2.00E+07
2.00E+07 Pressure (Pa)

Pressure (Pa)

1.50E+07

Reconciliated bottom hole pressure Reconciliated wellhead pressure Reconciliated manifold pressure

1.50E+07 Bottom hole pressure Wellhead pressure M anifold pressure

1.00E+07

1.00E+07

5.00E+06

0.00E+00
5.00E+06

20

40

60

80 Time (min)

100

120

140

160

0.00E+00 0 20 40 60 80 Time (min) 100 120 140 160

Fig. 8: Reconciliated pressure sensor measurements (activated failure detection)

1.60E+02

Fig. 5: Pressure sensor measurements

1.40E+02

3.00E+07
1.20E+02

2.50E+07
1.00E+02

2.00E+07 Pressure (Pa)

8.00E+01

Gas-Oil Ratio (Sm3/m3) Total mass flow rate (kg/s)

1.50E+07
Reconciliated bottom hole pressure Reconciliated wellhead pressure Reconciliated manifold pressure

6.00E+01

1.00E+07

4.00E+01

2.00E+01

5.00E+06
0.00E+00

0.00E+00 0 20 40 60 80 Time (min) 100 120 140 160

20

40

60

80 Time (min)

100

120

140

160

Fig. 9: Production estimate (activated failure detection)

Fig. 6: Reconciliated pressure sensor measurements (no preliminary failure detection)

1.60E+02

1.40E+02

1.20E+02

1.00E+02

8.00E+01

Gas-Oil Ratio (Sm3/m3) Total mass flow rate (kg/s)

6.00E+01

4.00E+01

2.00E+01

0.00E+00 0 20 40 60 80 Time (min) 100 120 140 160

Fig. 7: Production estimate (no preliminary failure detection)

Fig. 10: Typical Girassol production line

E. ZAKARIAN, A. CONSTANT, L. THOMAS, M. GAINVILLE, P. DUCHET-SUCHAUX, AND P. GRENIER

OTC 14009

Bottom hole pressure

Wellhead pressure

Choke downstream pressure

Choke opening

Time

Fig. 11: Pressure measurements and choke opening (%) at a Girassol well

Fig. 14: Girassol well: production simulation (second case)

Fig. 15: Girassol well: GOR calibration Fig. 12: Girassol well: production simulation (first case)

Production loss Subsea valve operation Gas production uncertainty Methanol consumption Water production uncertainty

Oil production uncertainty

Dead branch creation

Fig. 16: Various strategies for well permutation sequence sorting

Fig. 13: Girassol well: calibration of the modelling parameters

OTC 14009

DEEP OFFSHORE WELL METERING AND PERMUTATION TESTING

P1021 P1022

P1011

Right
M102 M101 TEST

Fluid source Manifold Pipeline Piping Sensor Inflow

Left
P1012

P1021 P1022

P1012

Gas-lift model Connection between wells and production loop Three-phase flow model. Gridded model. Used for well tubing, sea-line, and riser Simulation of small scale piping networks Hardware sensor model Definition of fluid composition and Productivity Index relation Table 1: Well monitoring unit operations Test number Well arrangement 1 WC 2 WA + W B + WD 3 WB + WC 4 WB + WD Table 2: Example of a well test sequence

Right
M102 M101 TEST P1011

Left

P1021

P1011 P1012

Right
M102 M101 TEST

Left
P1022 P1011 P1012

P1022

Number of Number of well Number of well testing wells arrangements sequences 3 12 220 4 28 20475 5 60 2.12E+06 6 124 1.52E+09 Table 3: maximal number of well testing sequences

Right
M102 M101 TEST

Left
P1021

Fig. 17: direct testing sequence

P1021 P1022

Right
M102 M101 TEST

Left
P1012 P1011

P1021

P1012

Right
M102 M101 TEST P1022 P1012

Left

Table 4: Well permutation tests

P1021

P1012

Right
M102 M101 TEST P1022 P1011

Left

P1021

P1012

Right
M102 M101

TEST

Left
P1022 P1011

Fig. 18: Permutation testing sequence

Tables
Unit operation Block valve Choke Description Routing valve (open/closed) Three-phase model Table 5: Test sequences (production loss minimization)