Uncertainty Management and Risk Mitigation Over Asset Lifecycles

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Committee Chairs Ian Bryant, Co-chairperson Schlumberger Marko Maucec, Co-chairperson Halliburton Committee Ahmed Al Neaimi ADMA-OPCO Ellen Cooper-Smith Decision Frameworks Ernesto Della Rossa Eni François-Michel Colomar IFP Middle East Consultancy- Beicip-Franlab Iain Percival Shell (Retired) Jonathan Carter Imperial College Mark Sykes ExxonMobil Michael Scanlon Schlumberger Moncef Attia ADMA-OPCO Paul van den Hoek Shell Ralf Schulze-Riegert SPT Group Reidar Bratvold University of Stavanger Rik Sneep South Rub Al-Khali Company Roger Ekseth Gyrodata Segun Jebutu Baker Hughes W. Scott Meddaugh Chevron Thirty Years of Innovative Thought and Accelerated Results 28 November–1 December 2011 Dubai, UAE Uncertainty Management and Risk Mitigation Over Asset Lifecycles Forum Description Effective management of lifecycle risk and uncertainty is critical to the success of oil and gas projects: many feel it is in fact the central challenge of the E&P business. In spite of the focus on uncertainty assessment and risk management in the last generation of reservoir development projects, surprises continue to occur. The field development and management process covers a broad range of decisions (technical as well as commercial), involving all E&P disciplines (sub-surface, wells, surface engineering and operations) and functional domains, over a time period that can span 25-35 years in which the asset will go through several development phases (primary, secondary and tertiary recovery). The “objective or target function” for the asset in terms of production, recovery or business value may change over its lifecycle. There are accepted E&P practices for describing, evaluating and handling risks and uncertainties in the course of a development (probabilistic, deterministic, stochastic, scenario based or a combination of these). A distinction is made between the treatment of risks, as potential future events that can influence the achievement of project objectives, and uncertainties which can have different sources, being model or data dependent. There is a growing sense in the industry that a more integrated, lifecycle approach to the above challenges is required, specifically to understand how risks and uncertainties can be factored into technical or commercial decisions and “evaluated” dynamically (using e.g. real options theory). Last but not least the propagation of risks and uncertainties through the project lifecycle is only understood for very obvious–low dimensional–decisions involving a limited number of parameters. New capabilities are beginning to emerge that should allow the industry to reduce development surprises and improve management of assets and reservoirs. These include advanced modelling of uncertainty, integrated workflows, robust uncertainty frameworks, improved surveillance and increased computing capacity. The forum aims to bring together a multi-disciplinary group of E&P specialists and generalists, as well as external experts to provide input and perspectives of non-E&P fields. It will address emerging developments and holistic approaches to the treatment and management of E&P risk and uncertainty. Challenges that the forum will address include: • Estimation and prioritisation of uncertainties • The limitations of the current risk/uncertainty models, decision models and management practices • Determination of the simplest models to appropriately model and predict the impact of uncertainties and development options • The impact of discipline specific models and work-processes on the overall quality of decisions across the asset lifecycle • The state-of-the-art in risk/uncertainty modelling and complex integrated technical and commercial decision making • Application of a Bayesian framework for uncertainty assessment • Whether an integrated risk/uncertainty management framework can be defined that allows consistent handling and propagation across disciplines and field phases • Whether a hierarchy of risks/uncertainties can be identified, to allow for cost-effective evaluation and management • How non-technical risks/uncertainties and objectives can be incorporated into the management process and effectively communicated to decision makers at all levels • How increased computing power can be effectively deployed to handle complex E&P risk and uncertainty problems Output of the forum will be a summary on the status of the field and recommended directions and priorities for improving the robustness of field development planning and lifecycle asset management. Who should attend? The target audience includes staff working in academia, service companies and oil companies. Exploration staff, geoscientists, petroleum engineers, drilling and facility engineers and project and asset management staff will benefit from attending this forum. Academics and specialists from non-E&P industries will be actively encouraged to attend and contribute their insights. The forum is aimed at people whose principal job falls into any one of the following categories: Exploration and appraisal, geophysics and geology, petroleum engineering, drilling and completion, engineering, production, field development, reservoir management, economics and portfolio management, health, safety and environment. www.spe.org/events/11fsm2 Application Deadline: 15 September 2011 Society of Petroleum Engineers
28 November–1 December 2011 Dubai, UAE Uncertainty Management and Risk Mitigation Over Asset Lifecycles These exciting topics will be discussed in an open setting designed for optimal input from all participants. Session 1: Characterisation of Static Uncertainty Session Managers: Mark Sykes, ExxonMobil W. Scott Meddaugh, Chevron Uncertainty is ubiquitous in the oil and gas industry. A careful consideration of uncertainty must be embraced throughout the lifecycle of a petroleum asset in order to fully characterise the range of possible geologic, production and economic-performance outcomes. Static uncertainty, the range in possible oil or gas volumes in-place in the reservoir and their connectivity prior to production start-up, is the first uncertainty that petroleum companies must address. Failure to recognise, understand and quantify static uncertainties renders attempts to control or harness uncertainties in subsequent elements of an asset’s lifecycle futile. Recent scientific literature and industry practices have refined the geological, conceptual and computational methodologies available for use in uncertainty assessment and mitigation. This session of the forum looks to critically examine these established approaches, and to discuss alternatives, which may be more effective at identifying and mitigating static uncertainty. Session 2: Characterisation of Dynamic Uncertainty Session Managers: Ian Bryant, Schlumberger Paul van den Hoek, Shell Following evaluation of static uncertainty, it is necessary to evaluate uncertainty in the anticipated dynamic performance of an oil or gas asset. Early characterisation of a range of potential production profiles, often based on well tests, will control investment decisions in infrastructure and evaluation of alternative field development plans. Subsequently, surface measurements, downhole pressure and temperature measurements and repeat seismic surveys may be used to revise production forecasts. This session of the forum looks to evaluate how these measurements can be incorporated into contingency planning and optimisation over the lifecycle of assets. Session 3: Forecasting Risks Session Managers: Marko Maucec, Halliburton Francois-Michel Colomar, IFP Middle East-Beicip-Franlab The presence of a large number of geological uncertainties and limited well data typically increase the challenges associated with forecasting hydrocarbon recovery. Traditionally, reservoir development decisions are based on a production forecast from a single history-matched reservoir model. Challenges mainly emerge in the characterisation of the main features of the reservoir uncertainty space to understand uncertainties impact on production forecast, identify and mitigate risk. This in practice requires considering only a few (but which?) of the many probable realisations and scenarios. How can we quantify the uncertainty parameters range including structural framework, stratigraphic, facies and petrophysical model, properly rank their impact in order to define the critical factors and reduce their range for more accurate production forecast? Can we clearly identify state-of-the-art technologies for pre-screening geological models and sensitivity analyses in terms of usability Application Information Participants at SPE forums are selected by the Forum Steering Committee on the basis of ability to contribute to the discussion of the topic. Attendance is limited to maximise each person’s opportunity to contribute. Online: www.spe.org/events/11fsm2 Mail: SPE Middle East FZ, North Africa and India, DMCC, PO Box 215959, Dubai, UAE Fax: +971.4.457.3164 and industrial economic impact? When does such methodology become too sophisticated and advanced for routine use and how to stimulate a faster knowledge transfer from academia to industrial implementations? Session 4: Simplicity Versus Complexity Session Managers: Rik Sneep, South Rub Al Khali Company Segun Jebutu, Baker Hughes ‘Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication’ according to Leonardo da Vinci. In the petroleum industry, the truth is that the level of complexity required to establish an economically acceptable value proposition can be quite a challenge to define. It will require a delicate balance between dynamic universal factors such as time, technology and integration potential. To harness the full benefit of the system, we must challenge all the fundamental assumptions for our simplistic model, and have a pre-determined process to guide us from the simplistic model to that optimal level of technical detail required to establish a maximum value proposition at an acceptable risk level. We will explore the fine balance between simple and complex and the associated merits and pitfalls covering amongst other topics: • How to define the required level of complexity to fully understand the petroleum system? • Change of complexity requirements through the project lifecycle • Uncertainty as a function of data availability—the risk of creating ‘false certainties’ ‘Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler…’ Einstein knew it all along. Session 5: Heuristic Approaches in Complex E&P Uncertainty and Risk Management: Advancing the Industry by Synergising Intelligent Data Mining and High-Performance Computing Session Managers: Ralf Schulze-Riegert, SPT Group Moncef Attia, ADMA-OPCO Advances in high-performance computing allow reservoir engineers to run highly complex simulation models. Multiple reservoir simulation or process models representing predefined uncertainty distributions are processed concurrently on multiple computing units. Workflows for estimation of prediction uncertainties are supported by generating large amount of information, which are mostly condensed to expected means, variances etc. Result presentation and the quality of data analysis are always critical. Data mining and smart data analysis techniques become even more important as the amount of information increases. At the same time heuristic approaches and expert knowledge remain a key success factor for any reservoir study supporting field development projects. Application Deadline: 15 September 2011 An electronic version of the printed application form is available for downloading and printing at www.spe.org/events/11fsm2. You may also contact SPE at +971.4.457.5800 or sjubran@spe.org to receive a printed application form via mail, fax or email.
Page 1: Uncertainty Management and Risk Mit

Uncertainty Management and Risk Mitigation Over Asset Lifecycles

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?