Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Challenges in Global Standardisation | EnergySys Hydrocarbon Allocation Forum


Published on

The slides from Dr Esther Hayes (Operation Director, EnergySys) presentation on the implementation challenges associated with standardised production models at the recent EnergySys Hydrocarbon Allocation Forum.

This insights are taken from her new Whitepaper 'Challenges in Global Standardisation'. If you would like a copy of the whitepaper, please contact us via

Published in: Software
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Challenges in Global Standardisation | EnergySys Hydrocarbon Allocation Forum

  1. 1. Challenges in Global Standardisation Hydrocarbon Allocation Forum 29 September 2014
  2. 2. Why standardise? • Ease the integration of production data across multiple assets; • Minimise the cost and schedule of each new implementation; • Reduce the cost of maintenance and support; • Ensure that user’s system knowledge is transferable between assets; • Lower lifetime cost of ownership.
  3. 3. What would be required? A system that • Supports the specific details of the asset and the calculations to be performed; • Provides sufficient flexibility that it can be easily adapted to future business change; • Offers an integrated presentation of total production across the asset portfolio.
  4. 4. How has it gone so far? Standardisation on a single Vendor has taken place, providing: • Standardisation of skill sets • Similarity of look and feel of systems across assets But all instances are different, reflecting the requirements of the asset. Typically, it is difficult to upgrade the technology once installed and changes must be applied, as necessary, to each asset instance.
  5. 5. What’s the problem? • Asset differences • Continuous change • Commercial/Statutory environment • Exchange of data • Allocation philosophy • Data storage models • Commercial pressures
  6. 6. Differences between Assets • Onshore or Offshore; • Type of products and their relative proportion; • The type of processing; • The statutory jurisdiction; • Whether there is co-mingling of production fluids; • Whether plant/asset is shared with another operator; • How the well fluids are measured and/or tested; • The type of export route; • The type, quality and location of instrumentation.
  7. 7. Sources of Change • Development of new wells or tie-backs • Equipment/instrumentation failure/replacement • Acquisition of new assets • Engineering enhancements • Modification of accounting philosophy or agreements with Partners • New staff • Management demands
  8. 8. License/Lease/Ownership • USA Onshore: Individuals own mineral rights, leading to widespread development of small production facilities. Production Companies operate individual leases on behalf of a number of owners in return for royalties. • UK: Government confers time-restricted rights for different types of activities through Licenses related to “blocks” or areas, for which rent is paid. • Developing Countries: Typically use Production Sharing Agreements in which “profit oil” is shared with the government.
  9. 9. Receipt of Data • SCADA/Historian system in structured form via automated interface • Manually entered in the Field, in the form of Excel workbooks, paper, CSV or other • Third Party data from Partners, in any form they fancy.
  10. 10. Allocation Philosophy • Different product streams: Production, Export, Flare or Fuel; • Mass, Volume, or Energy; • By difference, proportional, or some other method; • Stocks managed and allocated; • Recognition of the different value of co-mingled products (e.g. a quality bank).
  11. 11. Reconciliation and Reallocation • Reconciliation and reallocation may be required for: • Sales figures received on a monthly basis • Product quality adjustments after receipt of lab analysis • Improved accuracy production values received on a longer period (eg monthly) basis
  12. 12. Competing Data Models • PPDM • ProdML • OGP • Vendor’s own • Client’s own
  13. 13. Commercial Preferences • For Vendors whose consulting division is a key source of revenue, product standardisation offers little appeal • Off-the-shelf software applications and tools are available to support a restricted set of requirements or part of the process. • For assets with relatively low complexity, software products compete primarily with Excel
  14. 14. Conclusion • A single global “out-of-the-box” standard for Production Allocation and Reporting for all assets globally is not practical. • The solution must instead provide flexibility to the end user to modify and extend the system as needs change without reliance on specialist or proprietary skills. • The base technology must be independent of the application/asset configuration. • Pre-configured modules of functionality would aid their efforts.
  15. 15. Example: What is a Well? Typical Well Name in Production Reporting system: • Initially, W01 • Then, W01-SS and W01-LS
  16. 16. Why does it matter? • The Reservoir Engineer, as the manager of the company’s assets, is a key client for the production data. • He needs to be able to correlate production rates with geographical location and sub-surface infrastructure • A Well Name such as “W01-SS” needs string processing to identify this as associated with “W01-LS”
  17. 17. PPDM Well Model UWI Well Production String UWI Prod_String_ID Well Test UWI Test_Type Test_Num Run_Num Prod_String_ID
  18. 18. Implementation Issues • The production string is optional, that is, a well may exist without any associated production string. • Therefore, no single table exists to provide the full list of well and production string combinations. • This means that related tables have to create the association with Production String themselves. • Finally, it is not possible to create a new Well or Production String until the UWI is known and this is often issued by head-office.
  19. 19. An Alternative Model Well_UWI UWI Well Test Well_ID Production_Date ….. Well_ID Well UWI Prod_String_ID