SPE 157556

An Innovative Integrated Asset Modeling for an Offshore-Onshore Field

Development. Tomoporo Field Case
Fernando Prez, Edwin Tillero, Ender Prez, and Pedro Nio PDVSA; Jos Rojas, Juan Araujo, Milciades
Marrocchi, Marisabel Montero, and Maikely Pia, Schlumberger

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Doha Qatar, 1416 May 2012.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessar ily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohi bited. 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
A reliable future development plan of an oilfield would require that all of the elements in the petroleum system are
modeled in an integrated manner if a timely response, a more realistic economical evaluation, and risk analysis are needed for
better decisions making.
The main goal for future development of Tomoporo field is to change the traditional focus (petroleum system elements by
separated) by enabling to multidisciplinary team members to take advantage of their expertises within a collaborative
environment based on interaction among petroleum system components.
The Tomoporo field's hydrocarbon reserves have been largely developed in offshore, but barely in onshore. It has been
planned to increase production twice through new producing wells in onshore area which presents several limitations for
handling production. Also a plan for pressure support, and improved oil recovery have been considered by implementing a
waterflooding project.
This paper shows an innovative integrated asset methodology, applied for forecasting scenarios where reservoir, surface
network, geographic location aspects, economy, risk, and uncertainty analysis were considered. The evaluation of forecasting
scenarios was performed by implementing an integrated asset modeling (IAM) where all of simulation scenarios were
coupled with a surface network model. Such network modeling included itself three integration levels to address complexity
of surface facility needed for future offshore-onshore field development. In addition, an innovative link from reservoirsurface network models to the economic model was developed for a fully assisted asset modeling, resulting in faster and
more reliable scenarios evaluation.
The IAM for Tomoporo field provided valuable information for all team members of the production stream, maximizing
benefits from decision making based on a fully coupled asset model. This integrated approach determined that greater
recovery factor and less reservoir pressure drop are achieved if an onshore flow station is added for new onshore wells in
spite of existing capabilities in offshore surface facilities.
The IAM approach triggered warnings about future needs (investment, expenses), and also to be alert in minimizing
bottlenecks in order to ensure no violation of surface capacity constraints. In addition, it allowed to define operating limits of
water injection plants, enabling that optimum operation conditions are set, and the added value of the Tomoporo field
development be maximized.
Introduction
Lack of asset management policies for current and future production from oilfields may lead to an either overestimated or
underestimated added value during any stage of asset life cycle. It might also imply loss of production opportunities. In such
cases, an asset development based on an integrated modeling of all petroleum system components (reservoir model, surfaces
model, and financial model) that takes into account risk and uncertainty, becomes essential.
Some oilfields may have significant reserve volumes in zones with few drilled wells and limitations in surface facilities
capabilities owing to sensitive areas for exploration and production activities. Thus, an integrated approach that considers
such unfavorable conditions for better decision making and improvement in project definition in terms of field operations is a
must.
This paper attempts to explain how an integrated assessment of Tomoporo field was made considering its biased current
development (mainly offshore). This evaluation was based on an innovative workflow considering multiple integration levels

SPE 157556

in asset's components, also taking into account geographic nature where asset's component are set, type of reservoir model
(analytical or numerical), and so on. Also uncertainty and risk analysis are considered in order to improve project definition
and the success in terms of field operations (production, drilling campaign, etc).
The case study is developed in Tomoporo field, located in Maracaibo Lake basin, Venezuela. Details about field
characteristics, the methodology used for the assessment, and results derived from application of the methodology are
presented.
Project Background
Field Data
Tomoporo field is located southeast of Maracaibo Lake basin. This field becomes one of those which conform the
production growth axis in Western Venezuela, along with Franquera and La Ceiba fields. Basic data from Tomoporo field is
shown in figure 1.
Tomoporo field was discovered in 1988 with the offshore well VLG-3729. Later in 1999 an exploratory onshore well
(TOM-0007) pointed out Tomoporo's onshore reserves. A plan to increase production through drilling clustered wells was
visualized just after drilling some onshore delineation wells, as a result of the high productivity shown by earlier onshore
wells. Such plan also has triggered opportunities of reserves development from neighboring oilfields (Franquera and La
Ceiba). Tomoporo's production comes from Misoa formation (Eocene epoch), specifically from members B-1 to B-5, being
B-1 and B-4 the most prolific members (figure 2). Ninety five wells have been drilled with production rates vary from 800 to
6000 STBD.

FRANQUERA FIELD

Basic Data

MOPORO FIELD
STOIIP : 5.217 MMbls

Porosity (%): 15

Recovery Factor = 22 % (Oficial)

Permeability (Md): 50-1100 mD

Recoverable Oil : 1.147 MMBls

Average Depth: 16000 Pies

Remaining Oil : 753 MMBls

Natural Drive Mechanism:

- Rock and liquid expansion Drive
- Water Drive

API gravity : 22.5

Artificial Lift Method :

Cummulative Production : 394 MMBls

Venezuela

300 KM

LA CEIBA FIELD

- Electric Submersible Pumps (ESP)

Inicial Pressure= 7500 LPC

- Gas Lift

Average Pressure: 2000 - 5000 Lpc

Bubble Pressure =1494 Lpc
Formaciones Productoras:

Coast Line

Misoa

EPOCH

FORMATION

PLEISTOCENE

Figure 1. Geographic Location and Basic Data of Tomoporo Field.

EL MILAGRO

B-1.0
B-1.1
ONIA

PLIOCENE

LAGUNILLAS

MIOCENE

Bachaquero

B-1

B-1.2
LA PUERTA

B-1.3
B-1.4

Laguna

B-1.5

Ojeda

B-1.6

LA ROSA
PAUJI

B-2

M I S O A

B-1

EOCENE

B-2
B-3
B-4

B-3

B-5
B-6

B-4.0
B-4.1

B-4

South
America

B-4.2
B-4.3
B-4.4

B-4.5
B-4.6
B-4.7
B-4.8

Figure 2. Stratigraphic Column of Tomoporo Field

Production Rate (January 2011):

- Oil:
93.2 MBNPD
- Water : 24,4 MBD
- Gas : 23.8 MMPCD

SPE 157556

Geologic Framework and Simulation Model

A 3D geo-cellular model that included estructural, stratigraphical, sedimentological, and petrophysical aspects was generated
and resulted in a simulation mesh with aproximately 267,000 actives cells (figure 3). From this model an OOIP about 5,200
MMSTB was obtained after equilibrium and convergence of initial conditions were achieved. History matching of produced
fluids and pressure behavior were achieved so that forecasting scenarios were generated to evaluate several exploitation
strategies such as base case (no activities), drilling campaign, and flank-waterflooding scenarios at different injection rates.

Figure 3. Geocellular Model of Tomoporo Field

Surface Facilities Network

7RPRSRUR ILHOGV FXUUHQW SURGXFWLRQ FRPHV IURP  RQVKRUH ZHOOV  FOXVWHUV FRPSOHWHG ZLWK (63 DQG  RIIVKRre
wells completed with gas artificial lift method. Onshore production is addressed through multiphase pipeline to Cluster #7
(TOM-7) in land, and from there to 2 offshore flow stations (EF7-7 and EF11-7) which are connected to low pressure gas
network along with the others 8 offshore flow stations and 2 production manifolds that handle the offshore production (figure
4).

BARUA V

TOM-1X

LA CEIBA

COAST LINE
FRANQ

Figure 4. Current Distribution of Tomoporo Field's Surface Facilities

SPE 157556

Integrated Asset Evaluation Workflow

The main goal of the assessment of Tomoporo field is to optimise both the onshore and offshore production stream from
reservoir to surface facilities handling its complexity and minimizing bottlenecks. Ensuring no violation of surface capacity,
and defining operating limits are also main objetives.
All these expectations are based on the comparison among visualized exploitation scenarios in which analysis of
uncertainty and risk will be considered in order to improve project definition and the success in terms of field operations
(production, drilling, etc). Figure 5 shows a simplified workflow used to fully assisted asset modeling based on an innovative
interface from integrated reservoir-surface network model to the economic model.
This innovative integrated asset methodology firstly set production profiles from reservoir which was coupled with
surface network, and evaluated at the same time surface facilities capabilities for each scenario, and possible needs of new
investment. Lately, decision making techniques were applied based on economical indicators such as risk, NPV, and
investment efficiency, among other.

Assessment of
reservoir and surface
models

NO
Segmentation of the
surface model
Production Profile

Strategy
accomplishment

YES

Economic Evaluation,
Risk and Uncertaintly
Analysis

Reservoir -Wells
Coupling

Wells-Surface
connections

Figure 5. 7RPRSRUR)LHOGV,QWHJUDWHG$VVHW Workflow

Forecasting Scenarios Assessment

One of the main strategies for TomoporoVUHVHUYHVGHYHORSPHQWLQRQVKRUH FRPSULVHV GULOOLQJFDPSDLJQ RISURGXFLQJ
wells as cluster (figure 6). Some of these wells will be drilled having as objective the upper sand (B1), and anothers the lower
sand (B4). Also injection wells will be drilled for implementing a waterflooding project as pressure maintenance alternative
to pressure decline observed in existing wells.
Forecasting scenarios were comprised by a base case (depletion), primary recovery (new producers), and 3 possible
waterflooding project scenarios: low-rate injection, medium-rate injection, and high-rate injection (figure 7). All those water
injection scenarios were evaluated because of the uncertainty generated by unsuccessful results in injectivity tests performed
during all field history (high surface injection pressure).
Table 1 shows all water injection scenarios along with respective regions, objectives, and rates. The most reliable
injection scenario will be selected based on future injectivity tests which must be designed and performed by a
multidisciplinary team taking into account learned lessons earned in the past, and minimising operational troubles.

SPE 157556

Figure 6. Clustered Drilling Campaign of Future Producing and Injection Wells

Petrleo
Diferencia
Field Oil
Primary
Recovery
Production
Total Sin
Acumulado
Difference
Iny.
MMSTB
MMSTB
MMSTB

High-Rate Injectors
Medium-Rate Injectors
Low-Rate Injectors

MMSTB

Primary Recovery
(new producers)

Tasa
High-Rate
Injectors
Alta

950
950

+150

Tasa
Medium-Rate
Injectors
Intermedia

925
925

+125

880
880

+80

Tasa
Low-Rate
Injectors
Baja

Base Case
(do nothing)

Figure 7. Profile Production of Forecasting Scenarios

Injection Scenarios

High-Rate Injectors

Medium-Rate Injectors

Low-Rate Injectors

Objectives, Regions and Rates

B1_Region 1

(Rate: 4000 STB/d/Well)

B4_Region 1

(Rate: 6000 STB/d/Well)

B4_Region 3

(Rate: 6000 STB/d/Well)

B1_Region 1

(Rate: 2000 STB/d/Well)

B4_Region1

(Rate: 5000 STB/d/Well)

B4_Region 3

(Rate: 4000 STB/d/Well)

B1_Region 1

(Rate: 2000 STB/d/Well)

B4_Region 1 (Rate: 2000 STB/d/Well)

B4_Region 3

(Rate: 2000 STB/d/Well)

Table 1. Description of Water Injection Scenarios

High-Rate Injectors
Medium-Rate Injectors
Low-Rate Injectors

Primary Recovery
(new producers)

Base Case
(do nothing)

SPE 157556

Future Surface Network Assessment

To support future production, 44 onshore new producing wells and new surface facilities will be required for production
increase in Tomoporo area (figure 8). Most relevant new infraestructures that will support additional production are a new
power sub-station, an onshore flow station (EF-MOP-I) with capacity of 150,000 BPD, and an onshore gas compressing plant
(PC-MOP-I) with gas processing capability about 120 MMSCFD (figure 9). All produced gas will aim to support artificial
lift needs. Also a water injection plant, required for IOR scenarios will be designed based on injection limits (150,000
BWPD) and evaluation of optimal location (figure 10).

Figure 8. Onshore Surface Network for New Wells in Tomoporo Field

Onshore

Offshore
Oil Pipeline 30x 51 Km

Electrical
Substation Q

Coast Line

Moporo I Compressor

Moporo I Flow Station

FRANQ

High Gas Pipeline 16x 16 Km

LA CEIBA

Figure 9. Future Surface Network of Tomoporo Field

SPE 157556

Figure 10. Water Injection Network for Tomoporo Field

Reservoir-Surface Network Coupling Methodology

Understanding the behavior of each one of the petroleum system components of Tomoporo field is vital for emulating as
close as posible real operation conditions (flow and pressure) from surface network to reservoir, also for modeling and
optimising wellbore completion, flowline dimensions, among others so that future strategies of investment are less risky.
To address complexity on surface facility configuration due to a biased offshore-onshore field development, all of the
simulation scenarios were coupled considering three integration levels of the surface network model using AVOCET as
software to integrate reservoir and network models (figure 11). This configuration also aimed to simplify the analysis of
pressure drop and flow behavior in subelements of network and also helped to identify more easily bottlenecks through
surface facilities (individual flow stations).

Flow direction

Level III

Level II

Gas Network

Unigas Compressor

Level I
Multiphase Flow (Reservoir and
Surface Models)

Internal Equipments of Flow Station

Ceutagas Compressor

Reservoir Wells
Coupling

FS5
FS1
FS6
Q multiphase

FS2

Scrubber
outlet

FS3

BQ
FS4

Ta

Flow Station (FS)

DQ

Q gas

Tb

Separator

Tc

Td
P

Production
manifold Inlet
Liquids

Multiphase Source
(wells from neighboring
reservoirs )

Figure 11. Integration Levels of TomoporoV1HWZRUN

Integration Level I
Level 1 aimed to pass wells boundary conditions from reservoir model to wells model in the network. Coupling was
located on borehole so that fluids behavior can be evaluated by pressure-gradient prediction for multiphase flow in pipes
(without VFP tables). Productivity Index (PI) of both existing and new producing wells was modeled and tunned according to
wellbore conditions and multiphase flow patterns.

SPE 157556

In this level, multiphase flow in each well was evaluated from borehole to flow station, specifically to production
manifold inlet. 86 existing wells and 45 new wells were modeled into 6 flow stations (EF7-7, EF8-7, EF9-7, EF10-7, EF11-7,
and EF-MOP-I). 25 injection wells were connected to a water injection plant (PI-MOP-I). Both reservoir and this level of
network are solved sequentially with the goal of obtaining a balanced system.
Integration Level II
In this level was modeled pressure drop in flow station, water injection plants, etc. Multiphase flow was evaluated from
production manifold inlet to gas scrubber. Wells from neighboring reservoirs were modeled as single source, hence flow
streams converge into a node before arrive the production separator. Liquid flow behavior after separator (from pipeline to
tank farm) was not modeled. The gas flow after gas scrubber was modeled instead. Also new flow station (EF-MOP-I) and
water injection plant along with two water injection manifolds were modeled as sources with defined boundary conditions.
Integration Level III
In this level, single phase flow of gas at low pressure from flow stations to gas plant (MOP-I) was modeled. Both
compressor inlet pressure and gas rate represented boundary conditions for gas plant MOP-I. Gas flow and pressure from
neighboring flow stations to gas plant were also modeled, considering flow station as a source. Compressor inlet pressure
governed pressure profile from integration level III to I.

Reservoir-Network Model Calibration and Predictions

Reservoir-network calibration process was performed based on base case scenario, where productivity index (PI) was the
FULWLFDOYDULDEOHLQWKH SURFHVVRI PRGHOVFRXSOLQJ. Wells' PI from both reservoir and network were calibrated so that the
restart of reservoir conditions at the end of history matching was mimiced as similar as possible by the wells in the network.
As calibration of base case scenario was obtained, all of visualized future exploitation strategies (table 2) were performed
in an integrated manner considering surface facilities's constrains (figure 12). All of future scenarios required the evaluation
of both current surface network capabilities and additional investments in surface facilities, as showed in table 3. Also
geographic location aspects were considered mostly in waterflooding scenarios. Elements such as ESP systems, pipelines
from onshore to offshore production manifolds, optimum location of injection plan and flow station were evaluated.
Capabilities such as separation, purifying, storage, and pumping of flow stations were used as constraints in order to
trigger warnings about needs of surface facility adaptations, new elements in the surface network, wells rate target control,
etc.

FORECAST

CASE

NAME

PRIMARY
RECOVERY

NEW
PRODUCERS

CasoRP_Eclipse2_sin_MPOI

Local_4

CasoRP_Eclipse2
inj_B1_6
LOW-RATE
INJECTION

CasoRS_Eclipse2
CasoRS_Baja_Eclipse2_MOPI
inj_B1_7

WATERFLOODING
SCENARIOS

MEDIUM-RATE
INJECTION

CasoRS_Medio_Eclipse2
CasoRS_Medio_Eclipse2_MOPI
inj_B1_2

HIGH-RATE
INJECTION

CasoRS_Alto_Eclipse2
CasoRS_Alto_Eclipse2_MOPI

Figure 12. Production Integrated Profiles of Tomoporo Field

SPE 157556

20 YEARS EVALUATION PERIOD

DESCRIPTION

Np (MMBN)

RF (%)

Gp (MMMSCF)

Wp
(MMBW)

NOT INTEGRATED

802.5

11.9

189.5

172.2

INTEGRATED

745.6

11.0

168.8

128.3

CasoRP_Eclipse2

INTEGRATED WITH ONSHORE FLOW

STATION

751.0

11.1

170.1

129.9

inj_B1_6

NOT INTEGRATED

879.9

13.0

202.1

235.9

CasoRS_Eclipse2

INTEGRATED

846.8

12.5

190.7

199.6

CasoRS_Baja_Eclipse2_MOPI

INTEGRATED WITH ONSHORE FLOW

STATION

848.5

12.5

191.0

202.8

inj_B1_7

NOT INTEGRATED

925.9

13.7

212.9

316.8

CasoRS_Medio_Eclipse2

INTEGRATED

904.3

13.4

203.8

284.0

CasoRS_Medio_Eclipse2_MOPI

INTEGRATED WITH ONSHORE FLOW

STATION

909.2

13.4

205.0

284.0

inj_B1_2

NOT INTEGRATED

949.6

14.0

214.6

366.3

CasoRS_Alto_Eclipse2

INTEGRATED

949.4

14.0

213.3

345.9

CasoRS_Alto_Eclipse2_MOPI

INTEGRATED WITH ONSHORE FLOW

STATION

954.1

14.1

214.3

344.2

FORECAST

CASE

NAME

PRIMARY
RECOVERY

NEW
PRODUCERS

CasoRP_Eclipse2_sin_MPOI

Local_4

LOW-RATE
INJECTION

WATERFLOODING
SCENARIOS

MEDIUM-RATE
INJECTION

HIGH-RATE
INJECTION

Table 2. Resulting Integrated Escenario of Tomoporo Field

SEPARATION CAPACITY

FLOW
STATION /
MANIFOLD

N OF
EQUIPMENTS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

EF-1-7
MP-2-7
EF-4-7
MP-5-7
EF-6-7
EF-7-7
EF-8-7
EF-9-7
EF-10-7
EF-11-7
EF-MOPORO I

4
0
3
0
4
4
4
3
3
3
4

SCRUBBER CAPACITY

LIQUID
GAS
CAPACITY CAPACITY
(MBD)
(MMSCFD)
60
0
45
0
60
60
72
54
54
75
152

72
0
54
0
72
72
100
75
75
20
75

N OF
EQUIPMENTS
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
2
2
1
2

STORAGE CAPACITY

GAS
N OF
CAPACITY
EQUIPMENTS
(MMSCFD)
55
0
55
0
53
75
90
90
90
60
75

2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

PUMP CAPACITY

LIQUID
CAPACITY
(MBD)

N OF
EQUIPMENTS

LIQUID
CAPACITY
(MBD)

2000
0
2000
0
2000
2000
3000
3000
3000
2000
26960

2
0
3
0
4
4
4
6
6
5
8

20400
0
36900
0
49200
50400
63900
81200
63000
62500
96

Table 3. Capabilites of Surface Facilities Asociated to Tomoporo Field

Integrated Economic Evaluation and Risk/Uncertainty Analysis

Evaluating added value of an integrated asset model becomes essential if better decision making on exploitation strategies
is the goal. Therefore, economic, risk, and uncertainty analysis must be incorporated to the petroleum system assessment.
Once integrated production profiles were defined along with infrastructure capabilities for each forecasting scenarios, a
programming-assisted economic model connected with the reservoir-surface model was built in order to transfer integrated
production profiles and other variables in an automatic manner to economic evaluation software. For accomplishing of that,
an innovative link developed in a regular programming language was developed for having a totally coupled and integrated
asset model (figure 13).

Surface Models
Reservoir Model

Economic Evaluation

Multidisciplinary
Integrated Model

Network Economics Link

Figure 13. Configuration of Reservoir-Network-Economic Models as Integrated Asset Modeling

10

SPE 157556

Assisted Economic Evaluation

An innovative way for economic evaluation of assets with complexities on surface facilities was implemented taking
advantage of the builW DUFKLWHFWXUH IRU 7RPRSRURV LQWHJUDWHG PRGHO (level of integration). This configuration aimed to
simplify the analysis of pressure drop and flow behavior in subelements of network.
As production profiles from each flow stations and water injection plants were generated, economic evaluations were
performed automatically through the implemented link which passed all needed variables (production and injection profile,
operating costs, investments, oil and prices, number of wells, etc) to the economic evaluation software (figure 14). After that,
all of economic results were consolidated in order to perform sensitivity, risk, and uncertainty analysis based on Monte Carlo
Simulation.

Economic Evaluation for

Each Flow Station

Scenarios Consolidation

Economic Evaluatin

Deterministic Assessment
Strategies
and Sensibility Analysis

Stochastic Assessment
Strategies

Results

Forecast
Production

Base Case

Primary Recovery
Operation Cost

Low-rate Injection

Investment
Medium-rate
Injection
OPERATION COST

High-rate
Injection

Prices

Figure 14. Workflow for Economic Evaluation of Tomoporo Field

This methodology allowed to get faster economical evaluations, and also to evaluate economical indicators as function of
time (figure 15). Also allowed visualizing how investments, profits, and others variables were being performed as functions
of time. It yielded to detect differences between scenarios that impact the planning and design of exploitation strategies.

NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) Vs Time

Base Case

Primary Recovery

Low - rate Injection

Medium - rate Injection

High - rate Injection

Figure 15. NVP Profiles of Forecasting Scenarios as Function of Time

Sensitivity Analysis
In order to determine which variables had greater impact on WKH VFHQDULRV profitability, a sensitivity analysis was
performed for each one of proposed scenarios. Variables such as net present value (NPV), rate of return, investment
efficiency were used. It also allowed identifying critical variables in order to make efforts to mitigate risk. In this study was
found that production and oil prices showed high sensitivity resulting in those of highly impact on project implementation
(figure 16).

SPE 157556

11

Figure 16. Example of Sensitivity Analysis

Stochastic Analysis
After finishing sensitivity analysis, stochastic analysis was performed applying stochastic methods such as decision tree
and Monte Carlo analysis.
Decision tree allowed analizing, in a schematic way, several pathways of actions that a project might take considering
decision making under uncertainty (figure 17).

Figure 17. Decision Tree Analysis.

Monte Carlo simulation was evaluated under FRPSDQ\V HFRQRPLFDO VWDWHPHQWV $OVR WKH SUobability distributions of
variables with uncertainties such as capital, operating costs, fluids production, and oil prices were considered.
A risk analysis was performed plotting net present value (NPV) vs. semi-standard deviation of NPV, which is known as
HIILFLHQF\WKUHVKROGJUDSK. This graph allowed classifying scenarios selecting those that present low risk (standar deviation
of NPV) and high NPV.
Also cumulative probability curves were generated to show the probability of having negatives and positives NPV from
forecasting scenarios. None of evaluated scenarios showed negative NPV. The high-rate scenario is one of the least risky,
which represents the drilling campaign of both producing and injector wells and total injection rate of 100,000 BWPD (figure
18).

12

SPE 157556

NPV @ 10%

VPN@10%

GrficoThreshold
de Frontera
Efficient
Graph

Semi
Desviacin
Estndar
Semi-Standard
Deviation
Figure 18. Efficiency threshold Graph

Curva
de probabilidad
Acumulada
Cummulative
Probability Curve

NPV @ 10%
VPN@10%
Figure 19. Cumulative Probability Graph

Conclusions
Coupled models provide common asset management strategies for all disciplines of the petroleum production system.
More realistic and accurate predictions were obtained for Tomoporo field from this new approach on integrated asset
modeling, reducing uncertainties, assuring control of field operations, and adding value for this asset.
Integrated simulation models are robust and versatile, allowing reservoir, facilities, and processes engineers run
sensibilities over any components of the total asset, detecting their impact on the whole system.
The IAM for Tomoporo field provided valuable information for all team member of the production stream, maximizing
benefits from decision making based on a fully coupled asset model.
This integrated approach determined that greater recovery factor and less reservoir pressure drop are achieved if an
onshore flow station is added for new onshore wells in spite of existing capabilities in offshore surface facilities.
The IAM approach also triggered warnings about future needs to minimize bottlenecks, to ensure no violation of surface
capacity constraints, and to define operating limits of water injection plants, enabling that optimum operation conditions are
set, and the added value of the Tomoporo field development be maximized.

SPE 157556

13

None of evaluated forecasting escenarios showed negative NPV cumulative values (risk), hence all scenarios are
profitable. Nevertheless, high-rate water injection scenario was the best case.
Production volumes and cash flow from both integrated and no-integrated models showed significant differences (from
15% to 35%).
Integrated simulation models are robust and versatile, allowing reservoir, facilities, and processes engineers run
sensibilities over any components of the total asset, detecting their impact on the whole system.

Nomenclature
AVOCET = Integrated Asset Modeler (Schlumberger)
BWPD
= Barrels of Water per Day
EF
= Flow Station named in field operations
EF-MOP_I =Flow Station MOP_I
ESP
= Electrical Submersible Pumo
FE
= Flow Station
IAM
= Integrated Asset Modeling
IOR
= Improved Oil Recovery
MMSCFD =Million Standard Cubic Feet Per Day
MMSTB =Million Standard Barrels
NPV
= Net Present Value
OOIP
= Original Oil in Place
PC-MOP-I =Compressor Plant MOP-I
PI-MOP-I = Water Injection Plant MOP-I
PI
= Productivity Index
STBD
= Standard Barrels per Day
VFP
= Vertical Flow Performance
References
6DWWHU$,QWHJUDWHG3HWUROHXP5HVHUYRLU0DQDJHPHQW$7HDP$SSURDFKPennWell Books, Tulsa Oklahoma, 2004.
Rodriguez, R., Solano, K., Guevara, S., and Velasquez, M. 2007. Integration of Subsurface, Surface and Economics under Uncertainty in
Orocual Field. Paper SPE 107259 presented at the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, 1518 April.
E. Tillero, E. Perez, J. Gonzalez, A. Ungredda, D. Ferraira, G.E. Griborio, and J.L. Mogollon. 2011. Optomisation, Uncertainty, and Risk
Analysis for Asset Development with Limited Data and Multiple Geographical Environments: A Heavy-Oil Field Case. Paper SPE
148903 presented at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exibition, Kuwait City, Kuwait, 12-14 December.
Keshav Narayanan, A. S. Cullick, and Matthew Bennett. 2003. Better Field Development Decisions from Multiscenario, Interdependent
Reservoir, Well, and Facility Simulations. Paper SPE 79703 presented at the Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Texas, 3-5
February.
L.M. Acosta, J. Jimnez, A. Guedez, E.A. Ledezma, J.A. Bello, A.J. Millan, M. Guzman, E. Marin, F.J. Gomez, I. Herrera, and P.
Crdoba. 2005. Integrated Modeling of the El Furrial Field Asset Applying Risk and Uncertainty Analisys for the Decision Making.
SPE 94093 presented at the Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June.
Michael L. Litvak, Lynda A. Hutchins, Roger C. Skinner, Bruce L. Darlow, Robert C. Wood, L. John Kuest. 2002. Prudhoe Bay E-Field
Production System Based on Integrated Reservoir and Facility Simulation. Paper SPE 77643 presented at the Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September 2 Octuber.
Rosa Rodrguez, Karen Solano, Siulenna Guevara, Maria Velasquez, Luigi Saputelli. 2007. Integration of Subsurface, Surface and
Economics Under Uncertainty in Orocual Field. Paper SPE 107259 presented at the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Aregentina, 15-18 April.
S.K. Moitra and Subhash Chand, Santanu Barua, Deji Adenusi and Vikas Agrawal. 2007. A Field-Wide Integrated Production Model ans
Asset Management System for the Mumbai High Field. Paper OTC 18678 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, 30 April 3 May.
1LHWR 1DWDOLD 'HVDUUROOR iUHD 7RPRSRUR &RQVWUXFFLyQ HVWDFLyQ GH IOXMR 0RSRUR , 3ODQWD FRPSUHVRUD 0RSRUR , \ VXEHVWDFLRQHs
HOpFWULFDV3'96$([SORUDFLyQ\ Produccin, Venezuela, September 2008.
%ULFHxR 0DUFR (YDOXDFLyQ +LGUiXOLFD \ 0DQWHQLPLHQWR 0D\RU HVWDFLyQ GH IOXMR ()-7-3'96$ ([SORUDFLyQ \ 3URGXFFLyQ ,QWHUQDO
Technical Report, Access No. DT-010.V04.01.001", Venezuela, March 2008.
Perdomo J., et al., "Sometimiento de reservas de los yacimientos MISB1 TOM0007; MISB2 VLG3783; MISB3 VLG3862; MISB4
VLG3729; MISB5 VLG3729. rea 8 Sur, Campo Ceuta-Tomoporo", PDVSA Exploracin y Produccin, Internal Technical Report,
Access No. IT-OC-2006-790, TJ, Venezuela, July 2008.
Perdomo J., et al., "Plan de desarrollo Campo Franquera Yacimientos B-1 FRA-0001, B-3 FRA-0001 y B-4 FRA-0001", PDVSA
Exploracin y Produccin, Internal Technical Report, Access No. IT-OC-2009-1126, Venezuela, December 2008.
Prez FernandoHWDO3UR\HFWRGH,QWHJUDFLyQ6XEVXHOR6XSHUILFLH<DFLPLHQWR(RFHQR%6XSHULRU9/*-3'96$([SORUDFLyQ\
Produccin, Internal Technical Report, Access No IT-OC-2011-1593,DLS, Venezuela, Agoust 2011.

14

SPE 157556

Rosa Rodrguez, Karen Solano, Siulenna Guevara, Maria Velasquez, Luigi Saputelli. 2007. Integration of Subsurface, Surface and
Economics Under Uncertainty in Orocual Field. Paper SPE 107259 presented at the Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Aregentina, 15-18 April.
S.K. Moitra and Subhash Chand, Santanu Barua, Deji Adenusi and Vikas Agrawal. 2007. A Field-Wide Integrated Production Model ans
Asset Management System for the Mumbai High Field. Paper OTC 18678 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, 30 April 3 May.
9HQWUHVFD0DULD/XLVDHWDO$FRQGLFLRQDPLHQWRGHO$JXDGH,Q\HFFLyQHQHO<DFLPLHQWR%-Superior VLG-3729 para evitar/minimizar
GDxRDOD)RUPDFLyQ3'96$,17(9(3,QWHUQDO7HFKQLFDO5HSRUW$FFHVV1RINT-11658, 2007, Venezuela, December 2007.