Summary from Round Table Discussion

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
• RD

3
Pull vs. Push

• On a scale of 1 to 5 (1none/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 PDOs 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
RD

• 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 REs
• 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