Recovering Historical Decline Rates and Maximizing Production in a
Transcripción
Recovering Historical Decline Rates and Maximizing Production in a
Recovering Historical Decline Rates and Maximizing Production in a Mature Field* Julián José Blanco1, Valeria Riveros1, Juan Tagliorette1, Flavio Donadio1, and Horacio Albarracín1 Search and Discovery Article #20312 (2015)** Posted June 30, 2015 *Adapted from oral presentation given at AAPG Latin America Region, Geoscience Technology Workshop, Extending Mature Fields’ Life Cycles: The Role of New Technologies and Integrated Strategies, Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 11-12, 2015 **Datapages © 2015 Serial rights given by author. For all other rights contact author directly. 1 YPF S.A., Argentina ([email protected]) Abstract A restoration plan has been applied in the Señal Picada Field since 2012 to recover the historical decline rate, which had deteriorated and doubled in the period 2007-2012. This situation led to P1 reserves loss in the same period. The field was discovered in 1963 and had several drilling campaigns, mainly between 1960’s and 1980’s. In the 1970’s water injection for IOR was implemented. Currently he field has 270 producers and 110 injector wells. This restoration plan involves drilling replacement and infill wells, and also includes work-over and maintenance activities for existing wells. An integrated subsurface model was proposed as the primary decision tool. A full field static model was finished in 2012. In 2012-2014 we used data from the static model to propose new wells, either replacement or infill. We used and compared a set of static and dynamic data as a method to maximize production: • OOIP, RF, injected pore volume per layer and pattern, acreage. • Last production rate and date in original wells (criteria for replacement wells). • DCA analysis per pattern. • Well integrity analysis, used to select work-overs (both injectors and producers) This method has proved to be successful, considering that the project was profitable and decline rate recovered to near historical values at the end of 2013. Major surface modifications were also needed to achieve this goal. In 2014 the method showed marginal results and the need for a full field dynamic model was clear if we wanted to maximize production and profit. This was created using dynamic software to evaluate current recovery factors and to assess new wells to be drilled in the field (replacement or infill). We had to validate fluid production and injection for more than 400 wells (with 3 or more active layers) and nearly 50 years of field history. Current investment proposal in the field is supported by this tool, adding to the previous criteria the following: • Current and final oil saturation, RF, and injected pore volume per pattern and layer. Identifies poorly drained zones. • Scenario analysis (e.g. do nothing vs. drill) with production curves supported by a model (not only by DCA method) Now we are drilling new wells and initial results are as forecasted by the model. We continue to gather new data from wells (e.g. logs not acquired before, such as NMR or RFT) to improve the static and dynamical models. EXTENDING MATURE FIELDS’ LIFE CYCLES: THE ROLE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES & INTEGRATED STRATEGIES 11-12 May 2015 | Buenos Aires, Argentina Nota Legal Declaración bajo la protección otorgada por la Ley de Reforma de Litigios Privados de 1995 de los Estados Unidos de América (“Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995”). Este documento contiene ciertas afirmaciones que YPF considera constituyen estimaciones sobre las perspectivas de la compañía (“forward-looking statements”) tal como se definen en la Ley de Reforma de Litigios Privados de 1995 (“Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995”). Dichas afirmaciones pueden incluir declaraciones sobre las intenciones, creencias, planes, expectativas reinantes u objetivos a la fecha de hoy por parte de YPF y su gerencia, incluyendo estimaciones con respecto a tendencias que afecten la futura situación financiera de YPF, ratios financieros, operativos, de reemplazo de reservas y otros, sus resultados operativos, estrategia de negocio, concentración geográfica y de negocio, volumen de producción, comercialización y reservas, así como con respecto a gastos futuros de capital, inversiones planificados por YPF y expansión y de otros proyectos, actividades exploratorias, intereses de los socios, desinversiones, ahorros de costos y políticas de pago de dividendos. Estas declaraciones pueden incluir supuestos sobre futuras condiciones económicas y otras, el precio del petróleo y sus derivados, márgenes de refino y marketing y tasas de cambio. Estas declaraciones no constituyen garantías de qué resultados futuros, precios, márgenes, tasas de cambio u otros eventos se concretarán y las mismas están sujetas a riesgos importantes, incertidumbres, cambios en circunstancias y otros factores que pueden estar fuera del control de YPF o que pueden ser difíciles de predecir. En el futuro, la situación financiera, ratios financieros, operativos, de reemplazo de reservas y otros, resultados operativos, estrategia de negocio, concentración geográfica y de negocio, volúmenes de producción y comercialización, reservas, gastos de capital e inversiones de YPF y expansión y otros proyectos, actividades exploratorias, intereses de los socios, desinversiones, ahorros de costos y políticas de pago de dividendos, así como futuras condiciones económicas y otras como el precio del petróleo y sus derivados, márgenes de refino y marketing y tasas de cambio podrían variar sustancialmente en comparación a aquellas contenidas expresa o implícitamente en dichas estimaciones. Factores importantes que pudieran causar esas diferencias incluyen pero no se limitan a fluctuaciones en el precio del petróleo y sus derivados, niveles de oferta y demanda, tasa de cambio de divisas, resultados de exploración, perforación y producción, cambios en estimaciones de reservas, éxito en asociaciones con terceros, pérdida de participación en el mercado, competencia, riesgos medioambientales, físicos y de negocios en mercados emergentes, modificaciones legislativos, fiscales, legales y regulatorios, condiciones financieras y económicas en varios países y regiones, riesgos políticos, guerras, actos de terrorismo, desastres naturales, retrasos de proyectos o aprobaciones, así como otros factores descriptos en la documentación presentada por YPF y sus empresas afiliadas ante la Comisión Nacional de Valores en Argentina y la Securities and Exchange Commission de los Estados Unidos de América y, particularmente, aquellos factores descriptos en la Ítem 3 titulada “Key information– Risk Factors” y la Ítem 5 titulada “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” del Informe Anual de YPF en Formato 20-F para el año fiscal finalizado el 31 de Diciembre de 2013, registrado ante la Securities and Exchange Commission. En vista de lo mencionado anteriormente, las estimaciones incluidas en este documento pueden no ocurrir. Excepto por requerimientos legales, YPF no se compromete a actualizar o revisar públicamente dichas estimaciones aún en el caso en que eventos o cambios futuros indiquen claramente que las proyecciones o las situaciones contenidas expresa o implícitamente en dichas estimaciones no se concretarán. Este material no constituye una oferta de venta de bonos, acciones o ADRs de YPF S.A. en Estados Unidos u otros lugares. 2 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Authors: J. Blanco – V. Riveros – J. Tagliorette – F. Donadio – H. Albarracín Index Introduction Problem description Methodology proposed Initial Results Methodology reviewed Remarks & Final Conclusions RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Geographic Location 0 ESCALA GRAFICA 2 5 5 0 k m Señal Picada field is located in Neuquén Basin, in Río Negro and Neuquén States, 60 km from Catriel town and 190 km from Neuquén City. Geology RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Upper Fm Loma Montosa is the main reservoir in Señal Picada field. Hydrocarbon production also provides from the Lower Member of It and Centenario Fm. The reservoirs of Upper Loma Montosa Fm consist of shallow marine deposits represented by Sandstone, Limestone Sandy and less Cluster Limestone. Its petrophysical properties are good. The reservoirs of Lower Loma Montosa Fm consist of Limestone Conglomerates, Limestone and Sandstone. It has worse petrophysical conditions than the Upper Member. 6 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Production and Injection History e-81/e-82/204/223/224/230/281/... E+05 WINJ m³/d LIQ m³/d E+04 E+03 OIL m³/d E+02 3601965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 qoP[m³/DC] qlP[m³/DC] qwiP[m³/DC] 1983 e-81/e-82/204/223/224/230/281/... 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 300 First oil (year) Production Wells Injection Wells Oil bbl/d Water inj bbl/d 240 OIL Producer Wells 180 120 1965 +250 +100 5600 157000 Water cut % RF % Lease exp. date >96 27 2027 60 Water Injection Wells 0 1965 1968 PWP I WP 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 7 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Problem description In the period highlighted the field had a severe decline rate (twice than previous rate), the main reasons were: • Shut down of injector and producer wells by mechanical integrity. • Poor vertical sweep efficiency (% conventional wells) • Surface injection system damaged (pipes, tanks, pumps). Water injection was discontinuous. OIL Production EVOLUCION DE SECUNDARIA SEÑAL PICADA EVOLUCION DE SECUNDARIA SEÑAL OIL PICADA [m³/d] Liq Prod & WInj As a result the field lost P1 Reserves in consecutive periods EVOLUCION DE SECUNDARIA SEÑAL PICADA Liq [km³/d] Inj Wells Number Inj [km³/d] WO Iny Pz INY.CONVENC. Pz INY. SELECTIVA 8 Methodology RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD To recover the historical decline of the Field we focus on optimizing Oil production & Water Injection by: • Workover in injection and producer wells. • Replacement of injection and producing wells. • Run selective completion in new injection wells • Identification of new pay zones. • Drill infill wells • Repair and build surface facilities Well Selection Period 2012 - 2014 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD In the period 2012-2014 we use data from the static model to propose new wells, either replacement or infill. We used and compared a set of static and dynamic data as a method to maximize production: • Last production rate and mechanical condition in original wells (criteria for replacement wells). • DCA per pattern. • OOIP, RF, acreage, Net Pay. • Well integrity analysis: used to select workovers (both injectors and producers). GERENCIA DE PERFORACION UNAO INGENIERIA DE WORKOVER PROTOCOLO VALORACION DEL RIESGO EN WORKOVER DE POZOS INYECTORES POZO: YPF.Nq.SP-206 51 27 62 Condición del CASING 1 21 30 30% 88 67 Maximo Estado 1.1 Estado de corrosion 25% Desconocido 1.2 Existe fuga y/o comunicación entre tbg y anular? 15% 1.3 El cielo de cemento se encuentra desde la guia? 15% Mas de 200 mts 1.4 Tiempo en años como Pozo Inyector de agua? 20% Entre 4 & 8 años 1.5 Condición de la Cementación en la Zona de Interés? 10% Bueno 1.6 Existe comunicación entre cañerias guía y aislación? 141 85 29 15% Riesgo Casing 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Condicion de Instalación de Inyección Actual Hay obstrucción en el tubing según calibre de últimos 3 meses? Indicios de rotura de tubing ? La Instalación es Selectiva? Sin válvulas reguladoras dentro de los Mandriles de Inyeccción? Tiene Instalación con tubing de acero? (No Revestido) Diámetro de Tubing menor de 2-7/8"? Tiempo en años del Ultimo WO con movimiento de instalación? Maximo 20% 10% 20% 10% 15% 5% 20% Riesgo Instalación Posibilidad de Cumplimiento del Objetivo: No No 15 70% Riesgo No No Convencional No Acero revestido 2 7/8" Menor a 4 años 6 79 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Well Selection Period 2012 - 2014 ORIGINAL WELL147/147(I) 1000 • Last production rate and mechanical condition in original wells (criteria for replacement wells) 10 REPLACEMENT WELL LIQ m³/d 80 100 60 10 121/121(I) 00 100 40 ORIGINAL WELL REPLACEMENT 1 WELL 00 80 20 OIL m³/d LIQ m³/d 60 0.1 1971 qoP[m³/DC] 10 1974 1977 1980 qlP[m³/DC] PWP 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 40 OIL m³/d 1 0.1 Only productive wells with integrity issues were replaced. 20 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 0 11 2016 2019 0 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Well Selection Period 2012 - 2014 • OOIP, RF, acreage (Infill Wells) For the selection of Infill Wells, we calculated the drainage radios of wells in Señal Picada field, with the following considerations: Rd Np Bo Hutil 1 Swini Phi FR We considered that the selected positions were in zones with good net pay. Net Pay Net Pay Current wells Net Pay Proposed wells 0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 Espesor Util [[m]] 18.000 20.000 22.000 24.000 26.000 28.000 30.000 32.000 34.000 36.000 Net Pay map with drainage radios bubbles. The selected wells are marked RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Well Selection Period 2012 - 2014 • DCA per pattern. Pozo/Location 1E+04 18 47 25 56 21 20 74 42 123 62 19 16 LIQ m³/d 1E+03 14 REPLACEMENT WELL 12 WINJ m³/d 10 1E+02 ORIGINAL WELL 8 6 OIL m³/d 1E+01 4 OIL Producer Wells 2 Water Injection Wells 1E+00 1986 1988 qoP Pozo[m³/DC] 1990 1992 qlP Pozo[m³/DC] 1994 1996 1998 2000 qwiP Pozo[m³/DC] IWP Pozo 2002 2004 2006 PWP Pozo 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 13 2020 0 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Well Selection Period 2012 - 2014 • Well integrity analysis: used to select workovers (both injectors and producers) GERENCIA DE PERFORACION UNAO INGENIERIA DE WORKOVER Calculated PROTOCOLO VALORACION DEL RIESGO EN WORKOVER DE POZOS PRODUCTORES POZO: YPF.RN.SP-290 Condición del CASING 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Condicion de Instalación de Productor 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.4 40% Maximo Estado 5% 7 25% Buena 15% Por encima de la Guia 10% Bueno 15% No 20% Entre 4 & 8 años 10% No Riesgo Casing 4 Diametro de Casing Estado de corrosion El cielo de cemento se encuentra desde la guia? Condición de la Cementación en la Zona de Interés? Tiene Rotura de Casing? Tiempo en años como Pozo Productor? Existe comunicación entre cañerias guía y aislación? 60% Maximo 20% 30% 15% 20% 15% Riesgo Instalación Tipo de Sistema de Produccion Tiene alguna Pesca el Pozo? El Pozo se encuentra parado desde ? Tiempo en años del Ultimo WO con movimiento de instalación? Tipo de Pozo? Posibilidad de Cumplimiento del Objetivo: GERENCIA DE PERFORACION UNAO INGENIERIA DE WORKOVER PROTOCOLO VALORACION DEL RIESGO EN WORKOVER DE POZOS INYECTORES POZO: YPF.Nq.SP-206 Condición del CASING 1 30% Maximo Estado 1.1 Estado de corrosion 25% Desconocido 1.2 Existe fuga y/o comunicación entre tbg y anular? 15% 1.3 El cielo de cemento se encuentra desde la guia? 15% Mas de 200 mts 1.4 Tiempo en años como Pozo Inyector de agua? 20% Entre 4 & 8 años 1.5 Condición de la Cementación en la Zona de Interés? 10% Bueno 1.6 Existe comunicación entre cañerias guía y aislación? 15% No Riesgo Casing 15 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Condicion de Instalación de Inyección Actual Hay obstrucción en el tubing según calibre de últimos 3 meses? Indicios de rotura de tubing ? La Instalación es Selectiva? Sin válvulas reguladoras dentro de los Mandriles de Inyeccción? Tiene Instalación con tubing de acero? (No Revestido) Diámetro de Tubing menor de 2-7/8"? Tiempo en años del Ultimo WO con movimiento de instalación? Maximo 20% 10% 20% 10% 15% 5% 20% Riesgo Instalación Posibilidad de Cumplimiento del Objetivo: No 70% Riesgo No No Convencional No Acero revestido 2 7/8" Menor a 4 años 6 79 Riesgo PCP S/PESCA Produciendo Menor a 4 años Vertical 9 87 (2015+) Calculated WO 2012 Well Percent of Success WO_INY_1 WO_INY_2 WO_INY_3 WO_INY_4 WO_INY_5 WO_INY_6 WO_INY_7 WO_INY_8 WO_INY_9 WO_INY_10 WO_INY_11 WO_INY_12 WO_INY_13 WO_INY_14 WO_INY_15 WO_INY_16 WO_INY_17 Average % Success 43% 77% 55% 38% 42% 58% 49% 70% 73% 86% 63% 62% 80% 64% 80% 39% 58% 61% Well Current Campaign Interventions (Total/Failure) % Success 2012 44 / 15 66 2013 7/0 100 2014 12 / 1 92 Total 63 / 16 75 % Success WO-1 67 WO-2 91 WO-3 91 WO-4 87 WO-5 61 WO-6 73 WO-7 66 WO-8 62 WO-9 72 WO-10 71 WO-11 91 WO-12 71 WO-13 64 WO-14 87 Promedio 75 14 Initial Results 2012 - 2014 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD • After 3 years overall results were satisfactory. The project included new wells, workovers and investment in surface facilities. • Campaigns 2012-2013 showed results higher than forecasted. PROJECT • Field decline rate was improved. • P1 Reserves were added in consecutive periods • But campaign 2014 exhibited poorer results, especially in new wells. • Methodology had to be improved 15 Initial Results 2012 - 2014 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Field decline rate was improved. Entire Projet (New Wells and Workovers, both producers and injectors) New Injection wells and WO Current Decline Δ 40% Decline before Project Current Decline Δ 65% Decline before Project RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Proposed methodology 2015+ [mMD] -0,50 • To reduce uncertainties a full field dynamic model was proposed. Time to deliver was a constraint and an analytic tool was chosen to build the model. • Static model was used as an input for layer properties, well tops, OOIP, etc. • Extensive data gathering and analysis: more than 400 wells (with 3 or more active layers) and 50 years of field history. Data quality is poor if it is old (>15 years). • Time expended to build up the model: 10 months 1,04 100,00 251,43 851,81 855,00 857,00 858,23 860,07 861,00 864,84 869,96 870,67 872,00 874,50 0 0 0 0 0 875,02 875,75 876,69 877,58 • When the model was adjusted, it allowed us to: • Evaluate current and final So, RF, PVI • Identifies poor drained areas • Make scenario analysis • Support for new data acquisition: NMR logs, RFT, cores, well test. 881,00 0 887,50 0 897,00 0 0 0 900,25 906,45 907,58 909,00 0 0 910,28 918,03 927,49 928,36 930,00 952,19 27/12/2004 31/12/2004 06/01/2005 09/01/2005 11/01/2005 12/08/2005 16/08/2005 20/08/2005 21/08/2005 23/08/2005 06/01/2009 08/01/2009 20/05/2009 24/05/2009 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Well Selection Period 2015+ • Pre-selection 2568000 2569000 2570000 2571000 2572000 2573000 2574000 2575000 2576000 2577000 2578000 2579000 2580000 2581000 2580000 2581000 5837000 0.00 2566000 2567000 0.20 2568000 0.40 0.60 2569000 0.80 2570000 1.00 2571000 1.20 1.40 2572000 Petróleo in Situ [[m³/m²]] 1.60 1.80 2.00 2573000 2574000 2.20 2575000 2.40 2576000 2.60 2.80 2577000 3.00 2578000 3.20 5827000 5828000 5829000 5830000 5831000 5832000 5833000 5834000 5835000 5836000 5837000 5836000 5835000 5834000 5833000 5832000 5831000 5830000 5829000 5828000 Infill Wells Current RF of locations with larger acreage than field average. 5827000 Replacement Wells Current RF of abandoned wells or wells that are going to be abandoned soon 5838000 2567000 5838000 2566000 3.40 2579000 18 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Well Selection Period 2015+ • Dynamic Model So RF PVI 19 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Well Selection Period 2015+ Infill well proposed RF y So: better than field average FR SoAVG 20 RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Well Selection Period 2015+ Replacement proposed: producer well RF SoAVG Production lost in original well SP-0090 100 7 6 10 4 3 1 1 0,1 2005 qoP[m³/DC] 2006 2007 qlP[m³/DC] 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 SumergP[m] QoP[m³/DC] QlP[m³/DC] 21 0 2014 2015 QwiP[m³/DC] RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Well Selection Period 2015+ Replacement proposed: injector well PVI SoAVG RF 1000 SP-0114/SP-284/SP-141/SP-140/SP-141(I)/... 100 Production lost in original injection pattern 10 1 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 qoP[m³/DC] qlP[m³/DC] qwiP[m³/DC] RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD Scenario Analysis LIQ SIM Project LIQ SIM BASE CASE LIQ REAL Do nothing vs Proposed wells RF increase 0,4% (12 years period) OIL SIM Project OIL REAL OIL SIM BASE CASE OIL CUM SIM Project OIL CUM SIM BASE CASE REMARKS & FINAL CONCLUSIONS RECOVERING HISTORICAL DECLINE RATES AND MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION IN A MATURE FIELD • The project showed initial success. • Decline rate was restored and P1 reserves were added • Even if successful, a methodology needs to be reviewed periodically to maximize profit in a mature field • Until now analytic software for dynamic full field model is our best decision making tool. It is recommended to evaluate feasibility of a numerical full field model (cost-benefit of the tool). • New wells drilled in 2015 showed results according to dynamic model simulation Thanks NUESTRA ENERGÍA