1887

Abstract

Summary

This paper addresses the challenge of incorporating offshore wind power into reservoir management. Traditionally, oil and gas production is powered by gas turbines. While stable, gas turbines are a major source of CO2 emissions. In contrast, wind power produces minimal emissions. However, due to its high variability and uncertainty, optimizing the production over extended periods can be challenging. Therefore, this paper optimizes production strategies over an ensemble of realistic wind power series. The ensemble is generated by a mathematical model consisting of an autoregressive model with a seasonal trend. The model is conditioned on relevant wind speed data from the North Sea with Bayesian inference. The wind speed data is selected from the open-access NORA10EI datase.

The methodology developed in this paper is applied to two multi-objective optimization problems, focusing on studying the tradeoff between profit and emissions. A benchmark test reservoir model and a detailed CO2 emissions calculator are employed. In both scenarios, wind power is combined with traditional gas power, and all results are compared with a reference where only gas power is used.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202437045
2024-09-02
2026-02-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angga, I.G.A.G., Bellout, M., Kristoffersen, B.S., Bergmo, P.E.S., Slotte, P.A. and Berg, C.F. [2022] Effect of CO2 tax on energy use in oil production: waterflooding optimization under different emission costs.SN Applied Sciences, 4(11), 313.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown, B.G., Katz, R.W. and Murphy, A.H. [1984] Time Series Models to Simulate and Forecast Wind Speed and Wind Power.Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 23(8), 1184–1195.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, Y., Oliver, D.S. and Zhang, D. [2009] Efficient Ensemble-Based Closed-Loop Production Optimization.SPE Journal, 14(04), 634–645.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Equinor [2020] Conseptual description for Drogon.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Equinor [2023] Hywind Tampen. Equinor.no.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fonseca, R.M., Chen, B., Jansen, J.D. and Reynolds, A. [2017] A Stochastic Simplex Approximate Gradient (StoSAG) for optimization under uncertainty.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 109(13), 1756–1776.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Forde, N. [2022] Forecasting with Structural AR Timeseries. In: PyMC examples, PyMC Team.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Goodarzi, E. and Ziaei, Minaand Hosseinipour, E.Z. [2014] Multiobjective Optimization. In: Introduction to Optimization Analysis in Hydrosystem Engineering, 25, chap. 4, Springer International Publishing, 111–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Haakenstad, H., Breivik, O., Reistad, M. and Aarnes, O.J. [2020] NORA10EI: A revised regional atmosphere-wave hindcast for the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea.International Journal of Climatology, 40(10), 4347–4373.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Musial, W., Beiter, P., Smith, A. and Tegen, S. [2016] Potential Offshore Wind Energy Areas in California: An Assessment of Locations, Technology, and Costs. This study was funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Nocedal, J. and Wright, S.J. [2006] Numerical Optimization. Springer, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Norwegian Offshore Directorat [2019] Resource Report 2019. Tech. rep., Norwegian Offshore Directorat.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Offshore Norge [2023] Klima og miljørapport 2023. Tech. rep., Offshore Norge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Oriol, A.P., Virgile, A., Colin, C., Larry, D., Fonnesbeck, C.J., Maxim, K., Ravin, K., Jupeng, L., Luhmann, C.C., Martin, O.A., Michael, O., Ricardo, V., Thomas, W. and Robert, Z. [2023] PyMC: A Modern and Comprehensive Probabilistic Programming Framework in Python.PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1516.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. PET [2023] Python Ensemble Toolbox.https://github.com/Python-Ensemble-Toolbox. NORCE Energy, Data assimilation and optimization group.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Rasmussen, A.F., Sandve, T.H., Bao, K., Lauser, A., Hove, J., Skaflestad, B., Klöfkorn, R., Blatt, M., Rustad, A.B., Sævareid, O., Lie, K.A. and Thune, A. [2021] The Open Porous Media Flow reservoir simulator.Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 81, 159–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Santos, D.R., Fioravanti, A.R., Santos, A.A.S. and Schiozer, D.J. [2021] Investigation of Well Control Parameterization with Reduced Number of Variables Under Reservoir Uncertainties.SPE Europec featured at EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Day 4 Thu, October 21, 2021. D041S012R003.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Skjerve, K.B., Martinsen, F., Solbraa, E. and Espelid, Ø. [2022] ECalc - A Computationally Efficient Tool for Emission Forecasting.SPE Norway Subsurface Conference, Day 1 Wed, April 27, 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Zhou, X.H., Wang, H., McClure, J., Chen, C. and Xiao, H. [2023] Inference of relative permeability curves in reservoir rocks with ensemble Kalman method.The European Physical Journal E, 46(6).
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202437045
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202437045
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error