SPE 88748

Development and Applications of Sustaining Integrated Asset Modeling Tool

T. T. Liao, SPE, BP Kuwait; G. E. Lazaro, BP America Inc.; A. M. Vergari, BP America Inc.; D. R. Schmohr, BP Alaska;
N. J. Waligura, BP America Inc.; and M. H. Stein BP EPTG Houston

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 11 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 1013 October 2004.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
An enabling application tool was developed for updating and
maintaining Integrated Asset Models (IAM) for production
optimization, surface network debottlenecking, and production
allocation. The tool automates the routine tedious tasks
required to update and maintain large-scale IAM models.
Application of this tool in many BP Business Units (BU)
consistently resulted in about a 90% reduction in model
maintenance and management time, streamlined the IAM
model application process, and improved production
allocation accuracy. Deployment of this tool in the last few
years has brought a step change to IAM model application
across asset teams within BP.
Introduction
IAM models bring together reservoir, well, and surface facility
models to form an integrated system for reservoir and well
optimization. This methodology ensures that the interactions
between all components are correctly accounted for. The IAM
approach has been discussed by Chow and Arnondin1, and
Zapata, et.al2.
Once an IAM model is created and properly validated, it
can be used in typical reservoir and well production
optimization analyses such as:
Identifying excessive pressure drops from the
reservoir to the sales point
Evaluating the impacts on production by reducing the
extra pressure losses in the system
Debottlenecking the surface network system
Optimizing lift gas distribution in a field with gas lift
wells
Optimizing Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP)
operating parameters for a field with ESP wells

Optimizing water injection with a fully coupled

system consisting of production and injection
subsystems
Evaluating the benefits of installing multiphase
pumps or gas compressors
Using IAM models has become a common process in most
of the BUs in BP. Asset teams have created and utilized fitfor-purpose IAM models in reservoir and well management,
optimization, and surveillance. Figure 1 shows the IAM
model for Pompano in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). In this
figure, semi-circles, triangles, and rectangles represent
reservoirs, wells, and pipeline segments respectively. All the
separators are also modeled. Some applications of this IAM
model are described later in this paper in the section titled
Application of SIAM Tool in Pompano.
To realize the full benefits of the IAM models, it is critical
to keep these models up-to-date along with changing reservoir
and well conditions. If an IAM model is not frequently
updated and properly maintained to reflect the new conditions,
it will rapidly lose its value as it ceases to accurately predict
well production rates in the system.
In a typical process to update an IAM model, existing well
models are used to match the new well test data. If the models
fail to predict the well test data, they are updated by
rematching to the new test. The task to update these models is
usually carried out manually by the model owners, and is labor
intensive and time-consuming. In a growing trend, engineers
have assumed more responsibilities and it has become a
challenge to keep the models updated. The demand for
keeping models up-to-date has driven the effort to automate
the routine tasks; which therefore allows engineers to use their
limited time resources more effectively in the analysis and
solution of engineering problems to maximize production.
In recent years, the data required for updating,
maintaining, and applying the IAM models have become more
readily available as the data acquisition technology has greatly
advanced. As Oberwinkler and Stundner3 point out, a new
way of reservoir management is dawning on the horizon. Our
industry is aggressively integrating real-time data into
reservoir management workflow processes and turning the
high frequency data into real value.
Sengul and Bekkousha4 outline a vision for application of
real-time data in production optimization. They point out the
key for success is seamless integration of data and minimizing
human interface in data capture and application.

Development of Sustaining IAM (SIAM) Tool

Development and application of the SIAM tool is aimed at
taking advantage of (1) the vast amount of high frequency data
available and (2) the IAM models that have been created and
proven to add value to the reservoir management and
surveillance process. The objective is to establish a process
that smoothly integrates the models with the data needed to
perform typical engineering analyses.
First Prototype of the SIAM Tool. The Greater Prudhoe Bay
(GPB) BU was the first BP BU to expand the application of
IAM models from only conventional production optimization
to carrying out production allocation for gas lift wells. A large
number of wells and a high volume of data were involved in
the process. As a first step to prove the concept and establish
the process, GPB, working with BP Exploration and
Production Technology Group (EPTG) and a consultant firm,
successfully developed and applied a system with the basic
functions of the SIAM tool.
Building upon the initial success of GPB, the IAM Team
in EPTG proactively transferred the learning to other asset
teams within the company. Pompano was the first asset in the
GOM to adapt this new process.
In the process of deploying the SIAM tool to Pompano,
many new functions were added to make it a general
application that can be readily applied to any other asset team
globally.
Major Functions of SIAM Tool. The SIAM tool includes the
capability to access data, process data, compare well
performance models, update models as needed either
automatically or manually, and perform production allocation.
Accessing Reservoir Pressure Data. Reservoir pressure data
is required to update well performance models. In the fully
integrated systems, reservoir pressure for all wells at each time
step is obtained from the reservoir module5. However, in a
large number of applications, only the wells and surface
facility network are integrated. To effectively manage this
group of models, the SIAM tool provides an easy means for
the user to input reservoir pressure for the wells. A
straightforward approach was implemented that reads the
reservoir pressures for all the wells in a single pass. In
Pompano, for example, a spreadsheet file is regularly
maintained to keep up-to-date reservoir pressures for all the
wells. Each well has an individual worksheet where the
reservoir engineer, based on either pressure buildups or
reservoir model runs, updates the current reservoir pressure.
A single keystroke reads in the required reservoir pressures for
all the wells from this spreadsheet and transfers these to the
SIAM tool for updating the well performance models.
Accessing Well Test Data. Well test data is critical in
validating well performance models. The SIAM tool was
designed to access well test data from many existing data
sources such as:
Morning reports
User specified spreadsheets
Online databases

SPE 88748

The tool is easily configured to accept well test data from a

specific source, and this configuration needs to be done only
once.
Correcting Production Rates in Well Test Data from
Prevailing Separator Conditions to Standard Conditions.
In cases where the well test data is reported at the prevailing
separator conditions, the production rates need to be corrected
to standard conditions for input to the well models.
Historically, empirical formulas or correction charts were
developed to perform this type of correction; however, it is a
tedious and time-consuming process. And although using
macro-driven spreadsheets helps to a certain degree, it is still a
labor-intensive task.
In the SIAM tool, a function was added to perform this
correction automatically when required. The SIAM tool uses
fluid property data stored in the individual well performance
models to calculate the oil shrinkage and solution gas breakout
that occurs when converting from the prevailing separator
conditions to standard conditions. Subsequently, the well
production rates are corrected to the standard conditions.
Once again, this process accomplishes a very important task
effectively and easily.
Checking Current Well Performance Models. In SIAM,
well operating conditions at the time of a well test are
automatically sent to the current well performance models.
Typically, this data includes wellhead pressure, wellhead
temperature, lift gas rate, and ESP frequency if applicable.
The tool will call up the well performance models to calculate
production rates at the operating conditions during a well test.
The calculated rates are then compared with the reported
production rates, and the tool displays the differences. For a
given well, if the difference is within an acceptable level
defined by the user, the current model is still considered
applicable.
However, if the difference is outside the
acceptable level, the user has two steps to improve the well
models as described below.
Step 1. Verify Well Test Quality. At this time, the user can
perform a quality check of the well test data. In a few
instances of using the SIAM tool, problems in well test data
were identified and rectified. The differences between modelpredicted rates and the reported rates became acceptable once
the corrected data were used to repeat this step.
In applying the SIAM tool in GPB BU in Alaska, defective
pressure and temperature gauges were identified and replaced
as a result of investigating the differences between the well
test data and the well performance models.
In GPB BU and Pompano, a well is tested once every
month. Once all the new well tests are in place, the SIAM tool
is used to match and update all the well models. In applying
the SIAM tool in these two assets, inconsistent well test data
were identified. These well tests were repeated before the end
of the month to obtain good quality well test data to improve
the production allocation accuracy.
Step 2 - Option 1. Automatically Update Well Performance
Models. For well performance models that fail to calculate
production at well test conditions accurately, the user can

SPE 88748

instruct the SIAM tool to use the corrected well test data to
automatically update the well performance model.
Adjustments to pertinent parameters, such as productivity
index or skin, are used to match the new well test data. This
step is performed once the well test data is checked and
confirmed.
Step 2 - Option 2. Manually Update Well Performance
Models. If desired, the user can manually update the well
performance model to get the model-calculated rates to match
the reported values. This manual process is not necessary, but
it may provide the user with some useful information about
the well in question.
Once all the well models are updated, the IAM models can
be used in production optimization, network debottlenecking,
gas lift optimization, ESP optimization, and production
allocation.
Data Flow in the SIAM Tool. Figure 2 illustrates data flow
in the SIAM tool. It shows data inputs to the system,
interaction between the IAM models and the SIAM tool,
updating well models for system optimization, and output of
allocated production.
Data to the SIAM Tool. Data flow into the SIAM tool
includes monthly well test data and daily measurements that
describe well operating conditions, including wellhead
pressure, injection gas volume, and pump operating frequency.
This data comes from the data historians of SCADA systems,
such as the PISystem from OSI Soft used on Pompano.
Another important input to the SIAM tool is the total field
daily volumes of produced fluids, which need to be allocated
back to each individual well for the given day.
Data Exchange Inside the SIAM Tool. This process includes
sending the corrected well test data to the well performance
models, and then correcting the well model parameters, such
as productivity index and skin, to match the test data.
Updated IAM Models. The updated well performance models
along with the network models can be sent to the engineer for
reservoir and well optimization applications.
Allocated Production Rates for Each Well. Allocated
production rates (oil, water, and gas) are loaded back to any
location the user selects, such as the data historian, and is then
available for reservoir management and fiscal purposes. The
accuracy of this allocation process is especially important in
fields with varying working interest and royalty owners per
well. This tool provides the best engineering solution to
ensure equity among the owners.
Applications of the SIAM Tool
The SIAM tool was initially developed and applied in the
Greater Prudhoe Bay Business Unit (BP). Later on, the tool
was extended and enhanced with additional capabilities to suit
the needs of assets in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), North Sea,
and Trinidad.

Application of the SIAM Tool in Greater Prudhoe Bay,

Alaska. Historically, production allocation for gas lifted wells
at Prudhoe Bay was based on single point well test data. This
allocation method was not desirable for gas lifted wells,
because production varies with changes in wellhead pressure
and gas lift gas rate. Gas lift rate can vary with supply
pressure and wellhead pressure can fluctuate significantly as
wells are either added or shutin from the system. These
changes can cause significant production rate variations,
which cannot be captured from the snapshot monthly well
test. Accurate production allocation is important for good
reservoir management, so a better allocation methodology was
developed.
After analyzing this requirement and reviewing
alternatives, it was decided to develop a new production
allocation methodology utilizing IAM models. In this system,
all the well models were integrated into a surface model,
which included all piping to the processing facility. A well
performance model was created for each well and matched to
the latest well test data. Then, well performance curves were
generated using the tuned well model. These performance
curves were uploaded into the field data gathering system for
daily production allocation.
When this system was initially developed, it made it
possible for one individual to keep the well models up-to-date
and carry out daily allocation for 120 wells. The system was
then expanded to include nearly 200 gas lifted wells, still
maintained by one individual. Figure 3 shows the IAM
models used in this production allocation project. In this
figure, each row of well models represents a production pad.
Nine production pads were covered in this application.
The immediate benefit of using the new production
allocation technology was that the allocation accuracy was
improved by 5%. In the year after the new production
allocation system was implemented, the State of Alaska
accepted this allocation methodology. In addition to improved
accuracy, engineers have been using the integrated models in
production optimization and system de-bottlenecking after the
new system was developed. To date, the production allocation
system has been functioning smoothly since it was completed
about three years ago.
Application of the SIAM Tool in Pompano, GOM. The
SIAM tool was deployed to deepwater production BU
Pompano in the GOM in an effort to transfer the learning from
GPB BU in Alaska. Pompano requires a relatively complex
allocation process since it has gas, oil, condensate, ESP, gaslifted, and high gas-oil-ratio and water-oil-ratio wells. In
addition, the field has ten subsea wells that must be tested at
different pressures than that of their normal flowing
conditions. A final complication is that many of the wells are
depleted and their tendency to slug or load-up makes it
difficult to obtain consistent welltests. The SIAM tool has
been enhanced and molded to work with these well types and
flowing conditions. It also has the capability to be linked to
Pompanos electronic morning reports that pull the daily
facility total volumes, average flowing pressures, downtimes,
and well test information for each well. This has allowed
Pompano to develop a process for computing daily allocation
figures for all of its wells. Currently, work is being done to

locate SIAM on a server so it can automatically produce

allocation reports on a daily basis.
Pompano has used SIAM for updating and maintaining its
IAM models for production optimization and allocation on a
regular basis. With limited engineering resources available to
maintain the models, SIAM has made it a much easier task to
keep them updated. SIAM has also provided the best method
for allocating production given the limitations of a facility
system without individual well meters. It demonstrates the
capacity for providing defendable production allocations that
can be updated daily depending on the facility status. It also
unlocks production enhancement opportunities by associating
production losses to specific wells. Using the traditional
methodology of utilizing well tests for allocation, the well
production could be incorrectly allocated when the operating
conditions change during the month. This could result in lost
revenue for the company if the wells in question are allocated
unfavorably. With the new allocation tool, production can be
allocated daily or hourly based on the average wellhead
pressure, downtime, and well performance models.
Figure 4 shows the SIAM calculations for production
allocation, using SCADA data and updated well models to
calculate production. These production rate predictions are
termed Virtual Flow Meters, since they represent what the
well should be producing based on the real-time data and
updated well performance models.
A step change in
allocation accuracy was achieved with less than a 3%
difference between the well allocation volumes and total
facility volumes (for oil, gas, and condensate). For a system
as complex as Pompano, this achievement would not be
possible with the traditional allocation methodology.
For Pompano, the corporate volume accounting system
will use the Virtual Flow Meters from SIAM as the input for
payment of working interest and royalty owners. Whenever
required, production rates from each well will be determined
from the measured operating conditions and the updated well
performance models.
For reservoir management and well surveillance purposes,
it is very important to understand the well production trend.
Figure 5 shows the production rates computed by using SIAM
for all the wells in Pompano for one month. From this data,
the engineer was able to identify time periods with production
losses (as circled on the graph) and seek remedies for these
losses.
Numerous applications of these maintained models have
added value to the asset, including analysis of wellwork
opportunities and selection of artificial lift methods. For
example, 3-mboepd was added by installing an ESP pump.
The models were also used to justify a $5million subsea
template optimization project that delivered 4-mboed, and to
evaluate options for multiphase pumps to increase production
from subsea wells. On a daily basis, the models help the team
to maximize production by identifying the optimum well
combinations to flow through the platforms five separators.
Improvements in gas handling with gas lift optimization were
also achieved.
The tool identified a 3-mboe monthly
allocation discrepancy in a well with different partners
compared with the previous allocation method, which used
only well test and monthly average wellhead pressure.

SPE 88748

Application of SIAM Tool in Andrew, North Sea. The

Andrew field deployed SIAM to match the well tests as the
data became available. It helped the engineers to track well
performance for surveillance purposes and provided more
reliable near-term production forecasting. It also enabled the
asset to run scenarios for determining field potential at any
point in time and to calculate actual well flowing conditions
based on archive wellhead pressure and well test data. It
contributed to delivering 2-4mbopd production gain by
optimizing wells.
Application of SIAM Tool in Trinidad. An integrated asset
modeling (IAM) approach was used to evaluate gas
compression and operating strategies for all six of Trinidads
offshore gas fields6 (Amherstia, Cassia, Flamboyant,
Immortelle, Kapok, and Mahogany). Figure 6 shows the IAM
model containing the six gas fields in Trinidad. In this study,
the reservoir, wells, and pipeline network were integrated to
investigate the entire system. Reservoirs and well models
were linked to a pipeline network to form the integrated
model.
This multiple-field IAM model was successfully used to
evaluate the benefits of compression and looping of the main
pipeline segment. The modeling allowed the impact of
interference between fields, different sand units within a field,
wells, and facility constraints to be quantified. The IAM
model was used to optimize the compression horsepower and
compression startup time. This study found that the optimum
compression strategies could increase the gas recovery from
all six Trinidad fields by between 8.9% and 11.7% of the
original gas in place.
Another IAM application at the multiple-field level was
evaluating the impacts of raising the delivery point operating
pressure by 200 psi for a period of one year. It was also used
to evaluate if the gas delivery capacity for the entire system
would be affected when a major pipeline connecting
Mahogany A to the main export line was shut-off for repair.
This would occur while a new horizontal well with high
production rate in Mahogany B was to be brought on line to
make up the affected production on Mahogany A.
In addition to optimizing and evaluating the performance
of the multiple-field system to make financial decisions that
impacted the entire business unit, engineers have used the submodels for their fields in reservoir management, production
optimization, and the production technical limit challenge
process. The Trinidad BU also recently updated the model to
include the newly discovered Cannonball gas field.
It was a huge task to update the full Trinidad IAM model
by using the conventional manual process. The SIAM tool
was implemented in Trinidad recently to streamline this
process. Data communication was established and the semiautomatic model updating process was successfully deployed
in five producing fields out of the six fields in the asset. The
sixth field, Kapok, will be added to the system once it starts to
produce. The SIAM tool reads in well test information from
two different automation systems in Trinidad, with three fields
on one system and three on another. Similar to the results
from implementation in other assets, the time saving in
updating and maintaining the Trinidad IAM models was
substantial. It now takes an engineer one hour to update all

SPE 88748

the well models on a given platform. Previously, the same

task would take a few days. This time saving enables
engineers to spend more time on studying the wells, the
reservoirs, and the integrated systems. We are actively
training our engineers in Trinidad to take full advantage of this
process and coordinate the effort between the various assets.
Technical Contributions of the SIAM Tool
Development and application of the SIAM tool has made
significant contributions to BP in the following aspects:
Promoted Team Work and Networking. Many groups and
individuals were involved in the development and application
of SIAM tool. They included engineers from different assets
such as GPB in Alaska, Pompano in GOM, Andrew in North
Sea, Trinidad, and EPTG groups in Houston and Sunbury.
The software provider and engineering consulting firms
played very important roles.
Streamlined Maintenance and Application Process for
IAM Models. IAM models have become an essential part of
company asset management. Using the traditional approach,
model maintenance and application required enormous
personnel resources. The SIAM tool automated most of the
repetitive, time consuming tasks and made model maintenance
and updating quick and easy.
Innovative Utilization of Automation Data with IAM
Models. As data acquisition technology has improved in the
last few years, a large amount of data can be gathered at a high
frequency. The SIAM tool takes advantage of the available
data and the existing IAM models. It effectively transfers the
required data between the data sources and the models. The
process maintains data quality by minimizing the human
handling of the data.
Development of the Virtual Flow Meter. By using realtime or near real-time measurements of the well operating
parameters, such as wellhead pressure, lift gas injection rate,
and ESP operating frequency in the updated well performance
models, the SIAM tool acts as a Virtual Flow Meter to
determine well production rates at a high frequency. This
improves production allocation accuracy and enables
engineers to quickly establish well production trends for
reservoir management and surveillance purposes
Allocation Accuracy. The accuracy of the allocation process
is especially important in fields with production exemptions or
varying working interest owners and royalty owners per well.
This tool has provided a step change in allocation accuracy of
up to 5% improvement in several BP assets, and provides the
best engineering solution to ensure equity among the owners.

Justification of Major Projects. BP assets have used

integrated asset models maintained with SIAM to justify
major projects such as an Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP)
installation with 3-mboepd incremental, subsea template
optimization project that added 4-mboepd, and compression
strategies that increased a fields gas recovery between 8.9%
and 11.7% of the original gas in place.
Conclusions
The SIAM tool has become an enabling application that:
Works with all well types, including gas, oil,
condensate, high gas-oil-ratio and water-oil-ratio, gas
lift, ESP, offshore platforms, subsea, and onshore
wells.
Automates the routine data processing tasks so that
engineers can emphasize on engineering
Significantly reduces (almost eliminates) the manual
entering of data for model updating and usage
Produces a step change improvement in scope and
frequency in the application of IAM models within
the company
Improves the accuracy of production allocation over
traditional allocation methodology
Acknowledgement
We would like to express our gratitude to BP for allowing
publication of this paper. We would also like to thank the
many individuals from different BUs who have contributed to
the success of the development and applications for SIAM tool
over the last few years. We would also like to thank SAIC
and APA (USA) Inc. for working with us in the development
of the SIAM tool.
References
1. Chow, C.V., and Arnondin, M.C.: Managing Risks Using
Integrated Production Models: Process Description, JPT
(March 2000), 54.
2. Zapata, V.J., Brummett, W.M., and Van Nispen, D.J.: Advances
in Tightly Coupled Reservoir/Wellbore/Surface Network
Simulation, SPE Res. Eval. & Eng. (April 2001), 114.
3. Oberwinkler, C., and Stundner, M.: From Real Time Data to
Production Optimization, paper SPE 87008 presented at the
SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modeling for Asset
Management held in Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia, 29-30 March
2004.
4. Sengul, M., and Bekkousha.: Applied Production Optimization:
I-Field, paper SPE77608 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio,
Texas, 29 September-2 October 2002.
5. Dake, L.P: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, 36, Elsvier,
Armsterdam (1964).
6. Liao, T.T., and Stein, M.H.: Evaluating Operating Strategies Via
Integrated Asset Modeling, paper SPE 75525 presented at the
SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 30 April-2 May 2002.

SPE 88748

Figure 1. Pompano IAM model integrating reservoirs, wells,

subsea risers, and platform facility network.

Daily data
from PI
database
(Pressure and
volumes)

Well Tests
Validation and
Calculation at
Standard
Conditions

Using the
Calculated rates to
do the well
allocation with the
total volumes.

The model provide

input to optimize
the facilities
(Make physical
Changes)

Daily Allocation Data

loading in PI to see
the Morning Report &
Trends.
Input to define daily
production losses

Figure 2. Data flow in SIAM tool.

IAM: Use the

corrected well
tests and runs
the model to
calculate the
Calculated rates
(oil, water & gas)

All Daily data &

Well tests can
be used in
Reservoir
Analyses

Well Allocation,
Well conditions &
Pressure are used
to do simulation
models & Shapes

SPE 88748

Figure 3. IAM model for GPB BU gathering centers 1 and 2.

Production rate
predictions

Pompano
wells

Current flowing
conditions

Figure 4. The SIAM tool acting as a Virtual Flow Meter

calculating well production rates from automatically collected
data and using updated well performance models.

SPE 88748

Compression Downtime
35,000

30,000

Oil Rate (bpd)

25,000

20,000

A-18 well is not producing continuously

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
1

5
A01
A15
A24
B07

9
A04
A16
A28
B08

13
15
11
A05
A07
A17
A18
A29
A31
Series27
BO9

Figure 5. Daily production trends for Pompano using the

production allocation functionality in SIAM.

Figure 6. Full IAM model for Trinidad gas fields.

17
A09
A19
B02
B10

19
A11
A20
B03

21

23
A12
A21
B05

25
A13
A23
B06

27

29