Offshore Oilfield Development Planning under Uncertainty and Fiscal Considerations

Transcription

1 Carnegie Mellon University Research CMU Department o Chemical Engineering Carnegie Institute o Technology 2011 Oshore Oilield Development Planning under Uncertainty and Fiscal Considerations Vijay Gupta Carnegie Mellon University Ignacio E. Grossmann Carnegie Mellon University, grossmann@cmu.edu Follow this and additional works at: Part o the Chemical Engineering Commons This Working Paper is brought to you or ree and open access by the Carnegie Institute o Technology at Research CMU. It has been accepted or inclusion in Department o Chemical Engineering by an authorized administrator o Research CMU. For more inormation, please contact research-showcase@andrew.cmu.edu.

2 Oshore Oilield Development Planning under Uncertainty and Fiscal Considerations Vijay Gupta 1 and Ignacio E. Grossmann 2 Department o Chemical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA Abstract The objective o this paper is to present a uniied modeling ramework to address the issues o uncertainty and complex iscal rules in the development planning o oshore oil and gas ields which involve critical investment and operational decisions. In particular, the paper emphasizes the need to have as a basis an eicient deterministic model that can account or various alternatives in the decision making process or a multi-ield site incorporating suicient level o details in the model, while being computationally tractable or the large instances. Consequently, such a model can eectively be extended to include other complexities, or instance endogenous uncertainties and a production sharing agreements. Thereore, we present a new deterministic MINLP model ollowed by discussion on its extensions to incorporate generic iscal rules, and uncertainties based on recent work on multistage stochastic programming. Numerical results on the development planning problem or deterministic as well as stochastic instances are discussed. A detailed literature review on the modeling and solution methods that are proposed or each class o the problems in this context is also presented. Keywords: Multi-period optimization, Planning, Oshore Oil and Gas, Multistage Stochastic, Endogenous, Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) 1 Introduction The development planning o oshore oil and gas ields has received signiicant attention in recent years given the new discoveries o large oil and gas reserves in the last decade around the 1 vijaygup@andrew.cmu.edu 2 To whom all correspondence should be addressed. grossmann@cmu.edu 1

3 world. These have been acilitated by the new technologies available or exploration and production o oilields in remote locations that are oten hundreds o miles oshore. Surprisingly, there has been a net increase in the total oil reserves in the last decade because o these discoveries despite increase in the total demand (BP, Statistical review Report 2011). Thereore, there is currently a strong ocus on exploration and development activities or new oil ields all around the world, speciically at oshore locations. However, installation and operation decisions in these projects involve very large investments that potentially can lead to large proits, but also to losses i these decisions are not made careully. With the motivation described above, the paper addresses the optimal development planning o oshore oil and gas ields in a generic way and discusses the key issues involved in this context. In particular, a uniied modeling ramework (Fig. 1) is presented starting with a basic deterministic model that includes suicient level o detail to be realistic as well as computationally eicient. Moreover, we discuss the extension o the model or incorporating uncertainty based on multistage stochastic programming, and iscal rules deined by the terms o the contract between oil companies and governments. Basic Model: Oilield Development Planning under Perect Inormation Uncertainty in Model Parameters Stochastic Programming ormulation without/with Fiscal considerations Include Fiscal Calculations within the basic model Figure 1: A uniied ramework or Oilield Development planning under uncertainty and complex iscal rules The planning o oshore oil and gas ield development represents a very complex problem and involves multi-billion dollar investments (Babusiaux et al., 2007). The major decisions involved in the oilield development planning phase are the ollowing: (a) Selecting platorms to install and their sizes (b) Deciding which ields to develop and what should be the order to develop them (c) Deciding which wells and how many are to be drilled in the ields and in what sequence (d) Deciding which ields are to be connected to which acility 2

4 (e) Determining how much oil and gas to produce rom each ield Thereore, there are a very large number o alternatives that are available to develop a particular ield or group o ields. However, these decisions should account or the physical and practical considerations, such as the ollowing: a ield can only be developed i a corresponding acility is present; nonlinear proiles o the reservoir to predict the actual lowrates o oil, water and gas rom each ield; limitation on the number o wells that can be drilled each year due to availability o the drilling rigs; long-term planning horizon that is the characteristics o the these projects. Thereore, optimal investment and operations decisions are essential or this problem to ensure the highest return on the investments over the time horizon considered. By including all the considerations described above in an optimization model, this leads to a large scale multiperiod MINLP problem. The extension o this model to the cases where we explicitly consider the iscal rules (Van den Heever et al. (2000) and Van den Heever and Grossmann (2001)) and the uncertainties, especially endogenous uncertainty cases (Jonsbraten et al. (1998), Goel and Grossmann (2004, 2006), Goel et al. (2006), Tarhan et al. (2009, 2011) and Gupta and Grossmann (2011)), can lead to a very complex problem to solve. Thereore, an eective model or the deterministic case is essential. On one hand such a model must capture realistic reservoir proiles, interaction among various ields and acilities, wells drilling limitations and other practical trade-os involved in the oshore development planning, and on the other hand can be used as the basis or extensions that include other complexities, especially iscal rules and uncertainties as can be seen in Figure 1. The paper starts with a brie background on the basic structure o an oshore oilield site and major reservoir eatures. Next, a review o the various approaches considered in the literature or optimal oilield development under perect inormation is outlined. The key strategic/tactical decisions and details to be included with a generic deterministic model or multi-ield site are presented. Given the importance o the explicit consideration o the uncertainty in the development planning, the recent work on the multistage stochastic programming approaches in this context is highlighted. Furthermore, based on the above uniied ramework and literature review, discussions on the extension o the proposed deterministic model to incorporate uncertainty and generic iscal rules within development planning are also presented. Numerical results on several examples ranging rom deterministic to stochastic cases or this planning problem are reported. 3

5 2 Background (a) Basic elements o an oshore oilield planning The lie cycle o a typical oshore oilield project consists o ollowing ive steps: 1) Exploration: This activity involves geological and seismic surveys ollowed by exploration wells to determine the presence o oil or gas. 2) Appraisal: It involves drilling o delineation wells to establish the size and quality o the potential ield. Preliminary development planning and easibility studies are also perormed. 3) Development: Following a positive appraisal phase, this phase aims at selecting the most appropriate development plan among many alternatives. This step involves capitalintensive investment and operations decisions that include acility installations, drilling, sub-sea structures, etc. 4) Production: Ater acilities are built and wells are drilled, production starts where gas or water is usually injected in the ield at a later time to enhance productivity. 5) Abandonment: This is the last phase o an oilield development project and involves the decommissioning o acility installations and subsea structures associated with the ield. Given that most o the critical investment decisions are usually associated with the development planning phase o the project, this paper ocuses on the key decisions during this phase o the project. An oshore oilield inrastructure (Fig. 2) consists o various production acilities such as Floating Production, Storage and Oloading (FPSO), Tension Leg platorm (TLP), ields, wells and connecting pipelines to produce oil and gas rom the reserves. Each oilield consists o a number o potential wells to be drilled using drilling rigs, which are then connected to the acilities through pipelines to produce oil. There is two-phase low in these pipelines due to the presence o gas and liquid that comprises oil and water. Thereore, there are three components, and their relative amounts depend on certain parameters like cumulative oil produced. The ield to acility connection involves trade-os associated to the lowrates o oil and gas, piping costs, and possibility o other ields to connect to that same acility. The number o wells that can be drilled in a ield depends on the availability o the drilling rig that can drill a certain number o wells each year. 4

6 Figure 2: A Complex Oshore Oilield Inrastructure The acilities and piping connections in the oshore inrastructure are oten in operation over many years. It is thereore important to anticipate uture conditions when designing an initial inrastructure or any expansions. This can be accomplished by dividing the planning horizon, or example, 20 years, into a number o time periods with a length o 1 year, and allowing investment and operating decisions in each period, which leads to a multi-period planning problem. (b) Development planning Problem Speciications We assume in this paper that the type o oshore acilities connected to ields to produce oil and gas are FPSOs (Fig. 3). The extension or including Tension Leg Platorm (TLP) is straightorward but or simplicity we only consider FPSOs with continuous capacities and ability to expand them in the uture. These FPSO acilities cost multi-billion dollars depending on their sizes, and have the capability o operating in remote locations or very deep oshore oilields (200m-2000m) where seabed pipelines are not cost eective. FPSOs are large ships that can process the produced oil and store it until it is shipped to the onshore site or sales terminal. Processing includes the separation o oil, water and gas into individual streams using separators located at these acilities. Each FPSO acility has a lead time between the construction or expansion decision, and its actual availability. The wells are subsea wells in each ield that are drilled using drilling ships. Thereore, there is no need to have a acility present to drill a subsea well. The only requirement to recover oil rom it is that the well must be connected to a FPSO acility. 5

7 Figure 3: FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Oloading) acility In this paper, we consider a typical oshore oilield inrastructure (Figure 4) as a reerence to model the problem o oilield development planning. In particular, given are a set o oil ields F = {1,2, } available or producing oil using a set o FPSO (Floating, Production, Storage and Oloading) acilities, FPSO = {1,2, pso}, that can process the produced oil, store and oload it to the other tankers. Each oilield consists o a number o potential wells to be drilled using drilling rigs, which are then connected to these FPSO acilities through pipelines to produce oil. FPSO FPSO Oil/Gas Production Field Field Field Field Figure 4: A typical oshore oilield inrastructure The location o production acilities and possible ield and acility allocation itsel is a very complex problem. In this work, we assume that the potential location o acilities and ieldacility connections are given. In addition, the potential number o wells in each ield is also given. Note that each ield can be potentially allocated to more than one FPSO acility, but once the particular ield-connection is selected, the other possibilities are not considered. Furthermore, each acility can be used to produce oil rom more than one ield. We assume or simplicity that there is no re-injection o water or gas in the ields. 6

8 WOR (stb/stb) GOR (ksc/stb) x (kstb/d) The problem considers strategic/tactical decisions to maximize the total NPV o the project under given constraints. The proposed model, as explained in the next section, ocuses on the multi-ield site presented here and includes suicient details to account or the various trade-os involved without going into much detail or each o these ields. However, the proposed model can easily be extended to include various acility types and other details in the oilield development planning problem Oil Deliveribility per well x(f1-fpso1) x(f1-fpso2) c (a) Oil Deliverability per well or ield (F1) Water-oil-ratio wor(f1-fpso1) wor(f1-fpso2) Gas-oil-ratio gor(f1-fpso1) gor(f1-fpso2) c c (b) Water to oil ratio or ield (F1) (b) Gas to oil ratio or ield (F1) Figure 5: Nonlinear Reservoir Characteristics or ield (F1) or 2 FPSO acilities (FPSO 1 and 2) When oil is extracted rom a reservoir oil deliverability, water-to-oil ratio (WOR) and gas-tooil ratio (GOR) change nonlinearly as a unction o the cumulative oil recovered rom the reservoir. The initial oil and gas reserves in the reservoirs, as well as the relationships or WOR 7

9 and GOR in terms o ractional recovery ( c ), are estimated rom geologic studies. Figures 5 (a) (c) represent the oil deliverability rom a ield per well, WOR and GOR versus ractional oil recovered rom that ield. The maximum oil lowrate (ield deliverability) per well can be represented as a 3 rd order polynomial equation (a) in terms o the ractional recovery. Furthermore, the actual oil lowrate (x ) rom each o the wells is restricted by both the ield deliverability, (b), and acility capacity. We assume that there is no need or enhanced recovery, i.e., no need or injection o gas or water into the reservoir. The oil produced rom the wells (x ) contains water and gas and their relative rates depend on water-to-oil ratio (wor ) and gas-to-oil ratio (gor ) that are approximated using 3 rd order polynomial unctions in terms o ractional oil recovered (eqs. (c)- (d)). The water and gas lowrates can be calculated by multiplying the oil lowrate (x ) with water-to-oil ratio and gas-to-oil ratio as in eqs. (e) and (), respectively. Note that the reason or considering ractional oil recovery compared to cumulative amount o oil is to avoid numerical diiculties that can arise due to very small magnitude o the polynomial coeicients in that case. Q d a 3 2 1, c, t) b1, ( c ) ( c c d 1, 1 (a) d x Q (b) 3 2 wor a2, ( c ) b2, ( c ) c2, c d2, 3 2 gor a3, ( c ) b3, ( c ) c3, c d3, (c) (d) w wor x (e) g gor x () The next section reviews several approaches to model and solve the development planning problem in the literature or the deterministic case where all the model parameters are assumed to be known with certainty. A generic MINLP model or oilield development planning is presented next taking the inrastructure and reservoir characteristics presented in this section as reerence. 8

10 3 Development Planning under Perect Inormation The oilield investment and operation planning has traditionally been modeled as LP (Lee and Aranosky (1958), Aronosky and Williams (1962)) or MILP (Frair, 1973) models under certain assumptions to make them computationally tractable. Simultaneous optimization o the investment and operation decisions was addressed in Bohannon (1970), Sullivan (1982) and Haugland et al. (1988) using MILP ormulations with dierent levels o details in these models. Behrenbruch (1993) emphasized the need to consider a correct geological model and to incorporate lexibility into the decision process or an oilield development project. Iyer et al. (1998) proposed a multiperiod MILP model or optimal planning and scheduling o oshore oilield inrastructure investment and operations. The model considers the acility allocation, production planning, and scheduling within a single model and incorporates the reservoir perormance, surace pressure constraints, and oil rig resource constraints. To solve the resulting large-scale problem, the nonlinear reservoir perormance equations are approximated through piecewise linear approximations. As the model considers the perormance o each individual well, it becomes expensive to solve or realistic multi-ield sites. Moreover, the low rate o water was not considered explicitly or acility capacity calculations. Van den Heever and Grossmann (2000) extended the work o Iyer et al. (1998) and proposed a multiperiod generalized disjunctive programming model or oil ield inrastructure planning or which they developed a bilevel decomposition method. As opposed to Iyer and Grossmann (1998), they explicitly incorporated a nonlinear reservoir model into the ormulation but did not consider the drill-rig limitations. Grothey and McKinnon (2000) addressed an operational planning problem using an MINLP ormulation where gas has to be injected into a network o low pressure oil wells to induce low rom these wells. Lagrangean decomposition and Benders decomposition algorithms were also proposed or the eicient solution o the model. Kosmidis et al. (2002) considered a production system or oil and gas consisting o a reservoir with several wells, headers and separators. The authors presented a mixed integer dynamic optimization model and an eicient approximation solution strategy or this system. Barnes et al. (2002) optimized the production capacity o a platorm and the drilling decisions or wells associated with this platorm. The authors addressed this problem by solving a sequence o MILPs. Ortiz-Gomez et al. (2002) presented three mixed integer multiperiod 9

11 optimization models o varying complexity or the oil production planning. The problem considers ixed topology and is concerned with the decisions involving the oil production proiles and operation/shut in times o the wells in each time period assuming nonlinear reservoir behavior. Lin and Floudas (2003) considered the long-term investment and operations planning o the integrated gas ield site. A continuous-time modeling and optimization approach was proposed introducing the concept o event points and allowing the well platorms to come online at potentially any time within planning horizon. Two-level solution ramework was developed to solve the resulting MINLP problems which showed that the continuous time approach can reduce the computational eorts substantially and solve problems that were intractable or the discrete-time model. Kosmidis et al. (2005) presented a mixed integer nonlinear (MINLP) model or the daily well scheduling in petroleum ields, where the nonlinear reservoir behaviour, the multiphase low in wells and constraints rom the surace acilities were simultaneously considered. The authors also proposed a solution strategy involving logic constraints, piecewise linear approximations o each well model and an outer approximation based algorithm. Results showed an increase in oil production up to 10% compared to a typical heuristic rules widely applied in practice. Carvalho and Pinto (2006) considered an MILP ormulation or oilield planning based on the model developed by Tsarbopoulou (2000), and proposed a bilevel decomposition algorithm or solving large scale problems where the master problem determines the assignment o platorms to wells and a planning subproblem calculates the timing or the ixed assignments. The work was urther extended by Carvalho and Pinto (2006) to consider multiple reservoirs within the model. Barnes et al. (2007) addressed the optimal design and operational management o oshore oil ields where at the design stage the optimal production capacity o a main ield was determined with an adjacent satellite ield and a well drilling schedule. The problem was ormulated as an MILP model. Continuous variables involved individual well, jacket and topsides costs, whereas binary variables were used to select individual wells within a deined ield grid. An MINLP model wad proposed or the operational management to model the pressure drops in pipes and wells or multiphase low. Non-linear cost equations were derived or the production costs o each well accounting or the length, the production rate and their maintenance. Operational 10

12 decisions included the oil lowrates, the operation/shut-in or each well and the pressures or each point in the piping network. Gunnerud and Foss (2010) considered the real-time optimization o oil production systems with a decentralized structure and modeled nonlinearities by piecewise linear approximations, resulting in a MILP model. The Lagrange relaxation and Dantzig Wole decomposition methods were studied on a semi-realistic model o the Troll west oil rim which showed that both the approaches oers an interesting option to solve the complex oil production systems as compared to the ullspace method. (a) Key issues and Discussions The work described above uses a deterministic approach to address the oilield development planning problem, and considers a sub-set o decisions under certain assumptions to ease the computational burden. One such approach used is to optimize the production proiles and other operation related decisions assuming that the investment decisions have already been ixed. Other simpliying approaches include optimizing the decisions associated with a ield or a acility independent o decisions or other ields, optimizing investment and operation decisions assuming linear or piece-wise linear reservoir behavior, simpliied reservoir characteristics, etc. In this paper, we emphasize the need to include the ollowing details and decisions in the deterministic model or it to be more realistic and consider various trade-os to yield optimal investment and operations decisions in a multi-ield setting: 1) All three components (oil, water and gas) should be considered explicitly in the ormulation to consider realistic problems or acility installation and capacity decisions. 2) Nonlinear reservoir behavior in the model should be approximated by nonlinear unctions such as higher order polynomials to ensure suicient accuracy or the predicted reservoir proiles. 3) Reservoir proiles should be speciic to the ield-acility connections. 4) The number o wells should be a variable or each ield to capture the realistic drill rig limitations and the resulting trade-os among various ields. 5) The possibility o expanding the acility capacities in the uture, and including the lead times or construction and expansions or each acility are essential to ensure realistic investments. 11

13 6) Reservoir proiles should be expressed in such a way so that non-convexities can be minimized in the model or it to be computationally eicient. 7) The planning horizon should be long enough, typically years. Notice that the inclusion o the other details in the model could urther improve the quality o decisions that are made. However, the model may become computationally intractable or the deterministic case itsel. Thereore, it is assumed that accounting or the above details will provide a model that while being computationally tractable, is realistic. (b) Proposed Deterministic Development Planning Model We outline in this section the proposed MINLP model (Gupta and Grossmann, 2011), in which we incorporate all the eatures mentioned above. The model takes the inrastructure (Fig. 4) and reservoir characteristics (Eq. (a)-()) presented in the earlier section as reerence. With the objective o maximizing the NPV considering a long-term planning horizon, the key investment and operations decisions included in the proposed multi-period planning model are as ollows: (i) Investment decisions in each time period include which FPSO acilities should be installed or expanded, and their respective installation or expansion capacities or oil, liquid and gas, which ields should be connected to which FPSO acility, and the number o wells that should be drilled in a particular ield given the restrictions on the total number o wells that can be drilled in each time period over all the given ields. (ii) Operating decisions include the oil/gas production rates rom each ield in each time period. It is assumed that all the installation and expansion decisions occur at the beginning o each time period, while operation takes place throughout the time period at constant conditions. There is a limit on the number o expansions or each FPSO acility, and lead time or its initial installation and expansion decision. The above decisions should satisy the ollowing set o constraints: Economic Constraints: The gross revenues, based on the total amount o oil and gas produced, and total cost based on capital and operating expenses in each time period are calculated in these constraints. Capital costs consist o the ixed FPSO installation cost, variable installation and expansion costs, ield-fpso connection costs and well drilling costs in each time period, while total operating expenses depend on the total amount o liquid and gas produced. 12

14 Reservoir Constraints: These constraints predict the reservoir production perormance or each ield in each time period. In particular, the oil low rate rom each well or a particular FPSOield connection to be less than the deliverability (maximum oil low rate) o that ield. The cumulative water and cumulative gas produced by the end o time period rom a ield, are represented by a polynomial in terms o ractional oil recovery by the end o time period, and are urther used to calculate individual water and gas lowrates. The cumulative oil produced is also restricted by the recoverable amount o oil rom the ield. The other way to incorporate water and gas low rates is to use the water-oil-ratio and gas-oil-ratio proiles directly in the model, eqs. (c)-(d). However, it will add bilinear terms in the model, eqs. (e)-(). Field-FPSO Flow constraints: It includes the material balance constraints or the low between ields and FPSOs. In particular, the total oil low rate rom ield in time period is the sum o the oil low rates over all FPSO acilities rom this ield, which depends on the oil low rate per well and number o wells available or production. Total oil, water and gas lowrates into each FPSO acility, at time period rom all the given ields, is calculated as the sum o the low rates o each component over all the connected ields. FPSO Capacity Constraints: These equations restrict the total oil, liquid and gas low rates into each FPSO acility to be less than its corresponding capacity in each time period. The FPSO acility capacities in each time period are computed as the sum o the corresponding installation and expansion capacities taking lead times into considerations. Furthermore, there are restrictions on the maximum installation and expansion capacities or each FPSO acility. Well drilling limitations: The number o wells available in a ield or drilling is calculated as the sum o the wells available at the end o the previous time period and the number o wells drilled at the beginning o time period. The maximum number o wells that can be drilled over all the ields during each time period and in each ield during complete planning horizon, are restricted by the respective upper bounds. Logic Constraints: Logic constraints include the restrictions on the number o installation and expansion o a FPSO acility, and possible FPSO-ield connections during the planning horizon. Other logic constraints are also included to ensure that the FPSO acility can be expanded, and the connection between a ield and that acility and corresponding low can occur only i that acility has already been installed by that time period. 13

15 The proposed non-convex MINLP model or oshore oilield planning involves nonlinear and non-convex constraints that can lead to suboptimal solutions when solved with a method that assumes convexity (e.g. branch and bound, outer-approximation). The detailed description o the model is outlined in Gupta and Grossmann (2011) with two possibilities o MINLP ormulations. MINLP Model 1 consists o bilinear terms in the ormulation involving WOR, GOR and oil low rates. MINLP model 2 includes univariate polynomials that represent reservoir proiles in terms o cumulative water and gas produced. In addition, some constraints that involves bilinear terms with integer variables that calculates the total oil low rate rom a ield as the multiplication o the number o available wells in the ield and oil low rate per well, are also present. However, this MINLP ormulation (Model 2) can be reormulated into an MILP using piecewise linearizations and exact linearizations with which the problem can be solved to global optimality (Gupta and Grossmann, 2011). Table 1 summarizes the main eatures o these MINLP and reormulated MILP models. In particular, the reservoir proiles and respective nonlinearities involved in the models are compared in the table. Realistic instances involving 10 ields, 3 FPSO s and 20 years planning horizon have been solved and comparisons o the computational perormance o the proposed MINLP and MILP ormulations are presented in the paper. The computational eiciency o the proposed MINLP and MILP models have been urther improved by binary reduction scheme that yield an order o magnitude reduction in the solution time. A large scale example is explained in the results section 6 o this paper. Table 1: Comparison o the nonlinearities involved in 3 model types Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model Type MINLP MINLP MILP Oil Deliverability 3 rd order polynomial 3 rd order polynomial Piecewise Linear WOR 3 rd order polynomial - - GOR 3 rd order polynomial - - wc - 4 th order polynomial Piecewise Linear gc - 4 th order polynomial Piecewise Linear Bilinear Terms N*x N*x None N*x*WOR N*x*GOR MILP Reormulation Not Possible Possible Reormulated MILP 14

16 Remarks: The proposed non-convex MINLP model yields good quality solutions in ew seconds when solving with DICOPT directly even or large instances. There are various trade-os involve in selecting a particular model or oilield problem. In case that we are concerned with the solution time, especially or the large instances, it would be better to use DICOPT on the MINLP ormulations directly to obtain good quality solutions with modest computational times, although global optimality is not guaranteed. I computing times are o no concern, one may want to use the MILP approximation models that can yield better solutions, but at a higher computational cost as explained in the results section. Furthermore, these MILP solutions also provide a way to assess the quality o the suboptimal solutions rom the MINLPs, or inding better once using its solution or the original problem. These MINLP or MILP models can urther be used as the basis to exploit various decomposition strategies or global optimization techniques or solving the problems to global optimality. Moreover, the deterministic model proposed in the paper is very generic and can either be used or simpliied cases (e.g. linear proiles or reservoir, ixed well schedule, single ield site etc.), or extended to include other complexities as discussed in the ollowing sections. 4 Incorporating Uncertainty in the Development Planning In the previous section, one o the major assumptions is that there is no uncertainty in the model parameters, which in practice is generally not true. There are multiple sources o uncertainty in these projects. The market price o oil/gas, quantity and quality o reserves at a ield are the most important sources o the uncertainty in this context. The uncertainty in oil prices is inluenced by the political, economic or other market actors. The uncertainty in the reserves on the other hand, is linked to the accuracy o the reservoir data (technical uncertainty). While the existence o oil and gas at a ield is indicated by seismic surveys and preliminary exploratory tests, the actual amount o oil in a ield, and the eicacy o extracting the oil will only be known ater capital investment have been made at the ield. Both, the price o oil and the quality o reserves directly aect the overall proitability o a project, and hence it is important to consider the impact o these uncertainties when ormulating the decision policy. However, the problem that addresses the issue o uncertainty within development planning is very challenging due to the additional complexity caused by the model size and resulting increase in the solution time. 15

17 Although limited, there has been some work that accounts or uncertainty in the problem o optimal development o oil and/or gas ields. Haugen (1996) proposed a single parameter representation or uncertainty in the size o reserves and incorporates it into a stochastic dynamic programming model or scheduling o oil ields. However, only decisions related to the scheduling o ields were considered. Meister et al. (1996) presented a model to derive exploration and production strategies or one ield under uncertainty in reserves and uture oil prices. The model was analyzed using stochastic control techniques. Jonsbraten (1998) addressed the oilield development planning problem under oil price uncertainty using an MILP ormulation that was solved with a progressive hedging algorithm. Aseeri et al. (2004) introduced uncertainty in the oil prices and well productivity indexes, inancial risk management, and budgeting constraints into the model proposed by Iyer and Grossmann (1998), and solved the resulting stochastic model using a sampling average approximation algorithm. Jonsbraten (1998b) presented an implicit enumeration algorithm or the sequencing o oil wells under uncertainty in the size and quality o oil reserves. The author uses a Bayesian approach to represent the resolution o uncertainty with investments. Both these papers consider investment and operation decisions or one ield only. Lund (2000) addressed a stochastic dynamic programming model or evaluating the value o lexibility in oshore development projects under uncertainty in uture oil prices and in the reserves o one ield using simpliied descriptions o the main variables. Cullick et al. (2003) proposed a model based on the integration o a global optimization search algorithm, a inite-dierence reservoir simulation, and economics. In the solution algorithm, new decision variables were generated using meta-heuristics, and uncertainties were handled through simulations or ixed design variables. They presented examples having multiple oil ields with uncertainties in the reservoir volume, luid quality, deliverability, and costs. Few other papers, (Begg et al. (2001), Zabalza-Mezghani et al. (2004), Bailey et al. (2005), Cullick et al. (2007)), have also used a combination o reservoir modeling, economics and decision making under uncertainty through simulation-optimization rameworks. Ulstein et al. (2007) addressed the tactical planning o petroleum production that involves regulation o production levels rom wells, splitting o production lows into oil and gas 16

18 products, urther processing o gas and transportation in a pipeline network. The model was solved or dierent cases with demand variations, quality constraints, and system breakdowns. Elgsæter et al. (2010) proposed a structured approach to optimize oshore oil and gas production with uncertain models that iteratively updates setpoints, while documenting the beneits o each proposed setpoint change through excitation planning and result analysis. The approach is able to realize a signiicant portion o the available proit potential, while ensuring easibility despite large initial model uncertainty. However, most o these works either consider the very limited lexibility in the investment and operations decisions or handle the uncertainty in an ad-hoc manner. Stochastic programming provides a systematic ramework to model problems that require decision-making in the presence o uncertainty by taking uncertainty into account o one or more parameters in terms o probability distribution unctions, (Birge and Louveaux, 1997). This area has been receiving increasing attention given the limitations o deterministic models. The concept o recourse action in the uture, and availability o probability distribution in the context o oilield development planning problems, makes it one o the most suitable candidates to address uncertainty. Moreover, extremely conservative decisions are usually ignored in the solution utilizing the probability inormation given the potential o high expected proits in the case o avorable outcomes. In the next section, we irst provide a basic background on the stochastic programming. Furtheremore, given the importnace o uncertianty in the reserves sizes and its quality (decisiondependent uncertianty) that directly impact the proitabiltiy o the project, a detailed review o the model and solution methods recently proposed are discussed (Goel and Grossmann (2004), Goel et al. (2006), Tarhan et al. (2009)). (a) Basics Elements o Stochastic Programming A Stochastic Program is a mathematical program in which some o the parameters deining a problem instance are random (e.g. demand, yield). The basic idea behind stochastic programming is to make some decisions now (stage 1) and to take some corrective action (recourse) in the uture, ater revelation o the uncertainty (stages 2,3, ). I there are only two stages, then the problem corresponds to a 2-stage stochastic program, while in a multistage stochastic program the uncertainty is revealed sequentially, i.e. in multiple stages (time periods), 17

19 and the decision-maker can take corrective action over a sequence o stages. In the two-stage and multistage case the cost o the decisions and the expected cost o the recourse actions are optimized. The problems are usually ormulated under the assumption that uncertain parameters ollow discrete probability distributions, and that the planning horizon consists o a ixed number o time periods that correspond to decision points. Using these two assumptions, the stochastic process can be represented with scenario trees. In a scenario tree (Figure 6-a) each node represents a possible state o the system at a given time period. Each arc represents the possible transition rom one state in time period t to another state in time period t+1, where each state is associated with the probabilistic outcome o a given uncertain parameter. A path rom the root node to a lea node represents a scenario. t=1 θ 1 =1 θ 1 =2 θ 1 =1 θ 1 =1 θ 1 =2 θ 1 =2 t=2 θ 2 =1 θ 2 =2 θ 1 =1 θ 1 =1 θ 1 =1 θ 2 =1 θ 2 =2 t=3 1, (a) Standard Scenario Tree with uncertain parameters θ 1 and θ 2 (b) Alternative Scenario Tree Figure 6: Tree representations or discrete uncertainties over 3 stages. An alternative representation o the scenario tree was proposed by Ruszczynski (1997) where each scenario is represented by a set o unique nodes (Figure 6-b). The horizontal lines connecting nodes in time period t, mean that nodes are identical as they have the same inormation, and those scenarios are said to be indistinguishable in that time period. These horizontal lines correspond to the non-anticipativity (NA) constraints in the model that link dierent scenarios and prevent the problem rom being decomposable. The alternative scenario tree representation allows to model the uncertainty in the problem more eectively. Jonsbraten (1998) classiied uncertainty in Stochastic Programming problems into two broad categories: exogenous uncertainty where stochastic processes are independent o decisions that are taken (e.g. demands, prices), and endogenous uncertainty where stochastic processes are aected by these decisions (e.g. reservoir size and its quality). Notice that the resulting scenario tree in the exogenous case is decision independent and ixed, whereas endogenous uncertainty 18

20 problems yield a decision-dependent scenario tree. In the process systems area, Ierapetritou and Pistikopoulos (1994), Clay and Grossmann (1997) and Iyer and Grossmann (1998) solved various production planning problems that considered exogenous uncertainty and ormulated as the two-stage stochastic programs. Furthermore, detailed reviews o previous work on problems with exogenous uncertainty can be ound in Schultz (2003) and Sahinidis (2004). These approaches or exogenous uncertainty can directly be exploited or the oilield development planning problem under oil/gas price uncertainty. In this paper, we ocus on the endogenous uncertainty problems where limited literature is available. In the next section, we review the development planning problem using a multistage stochastic programming (MSSP) approach with endogenous uncertainty, where the structure o scenario tree is decision-dependent. (b) Development planning under Endogenous Uncertainty Most previous work in planning under uncertainty has considered exogenous uncertainty where stochastic processes are independent o decisions (e.g., demands, prices). In contrast, there is very limited work in problems in which the stochastic processes are aected by decisions, that is with endogenous uncertainty. Decisions can aect stochastic processes in two dierent ways (Goel and Grossmann, 2006). Either they can alter the probability distributions (type 1), or they can be used to discover more accurate inormation (type 2). In this paper, we ocus on the type 2 o endogenous uncertainty where the decisions are used to gain more inormation, and eventually resolve uncertainty. Ahmed (2000), Vishwanath et al. (2004) and Held et al. (2005) considers type 1 decisiondependent uncertainty. Ahmed (2000) presented examples on network design, server selection, and acility location problems with decision-dependent uncertainties that are reormulated as MILP problems, and solved by LP-based branch-and-bound algorithms. Vishwanath et al. (2004) addressed a network problem having endogenous uncertainty in survival distributions. The problem is a two-stage stochastic program in which irst-period investment decisions are made or changing the survival probability distribution o arcs ater a disaster. The aim is to ind the investments that minimizes the expected shortest path rom source to destination ater a disaster. Held et al. (2005) considered the problem that includes endogenous uncertainty in the structure o a network. In each stage o this problem, an operator tries to ind the shortest path rom a 19

21 source to a destination ater some o the nodes in the network are blocked. The aim is to maximize the probability o stopping the low o goods or inormation in the network. Another way the decisions can impact the stochastic process is that they can aect the resolution o uncertainty or the time uncertainty resolves (type 2). Type 2 uncertainty can urther be classiied into two categories. Immediate Uncertainty Resolution: The irst category o type 2 decision-dependent uncertainty assumes that the revelation o accurate inormation (resolution o endogenous uncertainty) occurs instantaneously (Plug (1990); Jonsbraten et al. (1998); Goel and Grossmann (2004, 2006); Goel et al. (2006); Boland et al. (2008)). Plug (1990) addressed endogenous uncertainty problems in the context o discrete event dynamic systems where the underlying stochastic process depends on the optimization decisions. Jonsbraten et al. (1998) proposed an implicit enumeration algorithm or the problems in this class where decisions that aect the uncertain parameter values are made at the irst stage. In the context o oilield development planning, Goel and Grossmann (2004) considered a gas ield development problem under uncertainty in the size and quality o reserves where decisions on the timing o ield drilling were assumed to yield an immediate resolution o the uncertainty, i.e. the problem involves decision-dependent uncertainty as discussed in Jonsbraten et al. (1998). The alternative scenario tree representation described earlier is used as a key element to model the problem in this work. Linear reservoir models, which can provide a reasonable approximation or gas ields, were used. In their solution strategy, the authors used a relaxation problem to predict upper bounds, and solved multistage stochastic programs or a ixed scenario tree or inding lower bounds. Goel et al. (2006) later proposed the theoretical conditions to reduce the number o non-anticipativity constraints in the model. The authors also developed a branch and bound algorithm or solving the corresponding disjunctive/mixed-integer programming model where lower bounds are generated by Lagrangean duality. The proposed decomposition strategy relies on relaxing the disjunctions and logic constraints or the nonanticipativity constraints. Boland et al. (2008) applied multistage stochastic programming to open pit mine production scheduling, which is modeled as a mixed-integer linear program. These authors consider the 20

22 endogenous uncertainty in the total amount o rock and metal contained in it, where the excavation decisions resolve this uncertainty immediately. They ollowed a similar approach as Goel and Grossmann (2006) or modeling the problem, with the exception o eliminating some o the binary variables used in the general ormulation to represent conditional nonanticipativity constraints. Furthermore, they solved the model in ull-space without using a decomposition algorithm. These authors also compared the ullspace results or this mine-scheduling problem with the one where non-anticipativity constraints were treated as lazy constraints during the solution in CPLEX. Colvin and Maravelias (2008, 2010) presented several theoretical properties, speciically or the problem o scheduling o clinical trials having uncertain outcomes in the pharmaceutical R&D pipeline. These authors developed a branch and cut ramework to solve these MSSP problems with endogenous uncertainty under the assumption that only ew non-anticipativity constraints be active at the optimal solution. Gupta and Grossmann (2011) proposed a generic mixed-integer linear multistage stochastic programming model or the problems with endogenous uncertainty where uncertainty in the parameters resolve immediately based on the investment decisions. The authors exploit the problem structure and extend the conditions by Goel and Grossmann (2006) to ormulate a reduced model to improve the computational eiciency in ullspace. Furthermore, several generic solution strategies or the problems in this class are proposed to solve the large instances o these problems, with numerical results on process networks examples. Ettehad et al. (2011) presented a case study or the development planning o an oshore gas ield under uncertainty optimizing acility size, well counts, compression power and production policy. A two-stage stochastic programming model was developed to investigate the impact o uncertainties in original gas in place and inter-compartment transmissibility. Results o two solution methods, optimization with Monte Carlo sampling and stochastic programming, were compared which showed that the stochastic programming approach is more eicient. The models were also used in a value o inormation (VOI) analysis. Gradual uncertainty Resolution: The second category o decision-dependent uncertainty o type 2 assumes that uncertainty resolves gradually over time because o learning (Tarhan and Grossmann (2008); Solak (2007); 21

23 Tarhan et al. (2009); Stensland and Tjøstheim (1991); Dias (2002); Jonsbraten (1998); Harrison (2007)). Stensland and Tjøstheim (1991) have worked on a discrete time problem or inding optimal decisions with uncertainty reduction over time and applied their approach to oil production. These authors expressed the uncertainty in terms o a number o production scenarios. Their main contribution was combining production scenarios and uncertainty reduction eectively or making optimal decisions. Dias (2002) presented our propositions to characterize technical uncertainty and the concept o revelation towards the true value o the variable. These our propositions, based on the theory o conditional expectations, are employed to model technical uncertainty. Jonsbraten (1998) considered gradual uncertainty reduction where all uncertainty is assumed to resolve at the end o the project horizon. The author used a decision tree approach or modeling the problem where Bayesian statistics are applied to ind the probabilities o branches in the decision tree that are decision dependent. The author also proposed an algorithm that relies on the prediction o upper and lower bounds. Harrison (2007) used a dierent approach or optimizing two-stage decision making problems under uncertainty. Some o the uncertainty was assumed to resolve ater the observation o the outcome o the irst stage decision. The author developed a new method, called Bayesian Programming, where the corresponding integrals were approximated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations, and decisions were optimized using simulated annealing type o meta-heuristics. Solak (2007) considered the project portolio optimization problem that deals with the selection o research and development projects and determination o optimal resource allocations under decision dependent uncertainty where uncertainty is resolved gradually. The author used the sample average approximation method or solving the problem, where the sample problems were solved through Lagrangean relaxation and heuristics. Tarhan and Grossmann (2008) considered the synthesis o process networks with uncertainties in the yields o the processes, which are resolved gradually over time depending on the investment and operating decisions. In the context o oilield development planning problem, Tarhan et al. (2009) address the planning o oshore oil ield inrastructure involving endogenous uncertainty in the initial maximum oil lowrate, recoverable oil volume, and water breakthrough time o the reservoir, where decisions aect the resolution o these uncertainties. 22

24 The authors extend the work o Goel and Grossmann (2004) and Goel et al. (2006) but with three major dierences. i. Model ocuses on a single ield consisting o several reservoirs rather than multiple ields. However, more detailed decisions such as the number, type, and construction decisions or inrastructure are considered. ii. Nonlinear, rather than linear, reservoir models are considered. Nonlinear reservoir models are important because Goel and Grossmann (2004) ocused on gas ields, or which linear models are oten an adequate approximation, while or oil ields nonlinear reservoir models are required. iii. The resolution o uncertainty is gradual over time instead o being resolved immediately. Compared to the instantaneous uncertainty resolution, gradual resolution gives rise to some challenges in the model, including the underlying scenario tree and the nonanticipativity constraints. Tarhan et al. (2009) developed a multistage stochastic programming ramework that was modeled as a disjunctive/mixed-integer nonlinear programming model consisting o individual non-convex MINLP subproblems connected to each other through initial and conditional nonanticipativity constraints. A duality-based branch and bound algorithm was proposed taking advantage o the problem structure and globally optimizing each scenario problem independently. An improved solution approach was also proposed that combines global optimization and outer-approximation to optimize the investment and operations decisions (Tarhan et al. (2011)). (c) Discussions The explicit modeling o endogenous uncertainty in the multistage stochastic programming ramework, and the proposed duality based branch and bound solution strategies (Goel et al. 2006, Tarhan et al. 2009, 2011) can be very useul or the oilield development planning problem. The examples considered in these papers show considerable improvement in the expected NPV compared to the solution where uncertainty is handled by simply using expected values o the parameters (expected value solution). The added value o stochastic programming is due to the more conservative initial investment strategy compared to the expected value solution. In particular, stochastic programming solution proposes higher investments only when 23

25 the uncertainty parameters are ound to be avorable. Moreover, stochastic programming based model generate solutions that not only provides higher expected net present values, but also oers more robust solutions with respect to the uncertainties that are not included explicitly in the uncertainty space. The stochastic solutions have low risk in terms o probability o leading to a negative NPV as compared to expected value solution. These results support the advantage o using stochastic programming approach or development planning o oilields. The model considered by Goel et al. (2006) is or gas ields only, where linear reservoir proiles is a reasonable assumption. The model considers multiple ields but acility expansions and well drilling decisions are not considered. On the other hand, the model considered in Tarhan et al. (2009) assumes either gas/water or oil/water components or a single ield and single reservoir at a detailed level. Hence, its extension to realistic multiple ield instances can be expensive to solve with this model. Also, the model cannot be reormulated as an MILP or solving large instances to global optimality. Thereore, the proposed deterministic model, (Gupta and Grossmann, 2011), presented in the earlier section can be used as a basis to incorporate uncertainty in the decision-making process (either exogenous or endogenous) under the proposed uniied ramework (Fig. 1). The model includes multiple ields, oil, water and gas, nonlinear reservoir behavior, well drilling schedule and acility expansions and lead times to represent realistic oilield development project while being computationally tractable or large instances. The interaction among various ields, possibility o capacity expansions, lead-times and well drilling decisions allows incorporating recourse actions in a more practical way. Moreover, the model is suitable or either immediate (Goel et al. 2006) or gradual uncertainty resolution (Tarhan et al. 2009) using multistage stochastic program as the underlying model. However, there are still certain points in the proposed uncertainty modeling approaches and solution algorithms in these papers (Goel et al. 2006, Tarhan et al. 2009) or which there is scope or urther improvement: 1. The duality based branch and bound method can urther be improved e.g. use o logic inerence during the generation o cuts in the branch and bound tree, robust procedure to generate easible solution rom the solution o Lagrangean dual, use o parallel computing and scenario reduction algorithms to solve large instances etc. 24

26 2. Other solution approaches (e.g. Gupta and Grossmann (2011)) or multiage stochastic problems with endogenous uncertainties can be explored. 3. Some heuristic approaches and model approximations can be explored to handle the realistic large scale development planning problems with uncertainty. 4. The importance o considering other uncertain parameters, most notably oil price, might be interesting to consider. 5. The decision maker is assumed to be risk neutral in the proposed models where the objective is to maximize the expected net present value. In reality with such huge investments, companies are interested in models that consider not only uncertainty but also the risk explicitly, which can make the problem even more challenging to solve (You et al. 2009). 6. The available reservoir simulators ECLIPSE (Schlumberger, 2008) could be incorporated into the model to improve the accuracy o the reservoir proiles, although the potential computational expense would be too large. 7. Although the real options methods, (Lund (1999, 2005), Kalligeros (2004), Dias (2004)), seems to be limited to the number o decisions and the lexibility to incorporate complex system structures, some insight about its advantages and disadvantages over stochastic programming methods would be worth investigating. It should also be noted that the development planning models are not intended to solve only once to plan or next years. Instead the model can be updated and resolved multiple times as more inormation reveals. 5 Development Planning with Fiscal Considerations In previous sections, we considered the development planning problem under perect inormation and proposed a deterministic model that can be applied to a project with multiple ields. Furthermore, we also outlined the multistage stochastic approaches to incorporate uncertainty and their solution methods. The deterministic model, (Gupta and Grossmann, 2011), can be used a basis to incorporate uncertainty according to the uniied ramework (Fig. 1). Including iscal considerations, (Van den Heever and Grossmann (2001), Lin and Floudas (2003)), as part o the investment and operation decisions or the oilield development problem can signiicantly impact the optimal investment and operations decisions and actual NPV. 25

27 Thereore, in this section we extend the proposed deterministic model that considers multiple oil and gas ields with suicient detail to include generic complex iscal rules in development planning under the proposed ramework (Fig. 1). We irst consider the basic elements o the various types o contracts involved in this industry, review the work in this area and provide a generic approach to include these contracts terms in the model. (a) Type o Contracts There are a variety o contracts that are used in the oshore oil and gas industry (World Bank, 2007). These contracts can be classiied into two main categories: I. Concessionary System: A concessionary (or tax and royalty) system usually involves royalty, deduction and tax. Royalty is paid to the government at a certain percentage o the gross revenues each year. The net revenue ater deducting costs becomes taxable income on which a pre-deined percentage is paid as tax. The total contractor s share involves gross revenues minus royalty and taxes. The basic dierence as compared to the production sharing agreement, is that the oil company obtains the title to all o the oil and gas at the wellhead and pay royalties, bonuses, and other taxes to the government. II. Production Sharing Agreements: The revenue low in a typical Production Sharing Agreement can be seen as in Figure 7. Some portion o the total oil produced is kept as cost oil by the oil company or cost recovery purposes ater paying royalties to the government that is a certain percentage o the oil produced. There is a cost recovery ceiling to ensure revenues to the government as soon as production starts. The remaining part o the oil called proit oil is divided between oil company and the host government. The oil company needs to urther pay income tax on its share o proit oil. Hence, the total contractor s (oil company) share in the gross revenue comprises o cost oil and contractor s proit oil share ater tax. The other important eature o a PSA is that the government owns all the oil and transers title to a portion o the extracted oil and gas to the contractor at an agreed delivery point. Notice that the cost oil limit is one o the key dierences with a concessionary system. 26

28 Production Cost Oil Proit Oil Royalty Contractor s Share Government s Share Contractor s atertax Share Income Tax Total Contractor s Share Total Government s Share Figure 7: Revenue low or a typical Production Sharing Agreement The speciic rules deined in such a contract (either PSA or concessionary) between operating oil company and host government determine the proit that the oil company can keep as well as the royalties and proit share that are paid to the government. These proit oil splits, royalty rates are usually based on the proitability o the project (progressive iscal terms), where cumulative oil produced, rate o return, R-actor etc. are the typical proitability measures that determine the tier structure or these contract terms. In particular, the raction o total oil production to be paid to the government in terms o proit share, royalties are to be calculated based on the value o one or more proitability parameters (e.g. cumulative production, daily production, IRR, etc.), speciically in the case o progressive iscal terms. The transition to the higher proit share, royalty rates is expressed in terms o tiers that are a step unction (g) linked to the above parameters and corresponding threshold values. For instance, i the cumulative production is in the range o irst tier, L 1 xc t U 1, the royalty R 1 will be paid to the government, while i the cumulative production reaches in tier 2, royalty R 2 will need to be paid, and so on. In practice, as we move to the higher tier the percentage share o government in the total production increases. Notice that i the iscal 27

29 terms are not linked to the speciic parameters, e.g. royalties, proit share are the ixed percentage o total production, then the tier structure is not present in the problem. Royalty Rate R R R R L xc U L 1 L : Tier 1 : Tier : Tier : Tier 2 ( g) 3 4 Given that the resulting royalties and/or government proit oil share can be a signiicant amount o the gross revenues, it is critical to consider these contracts terms explicitly during oilield planning to access the actual economic potential o such a project. For instance, a very promising oilield or block can turn out to be a big loss or less proitable than projected in the long-term i signiicant royalties are attached to that ield, which was not considered during the development planning phase involving large investments. On the contrary, there could be the possibility o missing an opportunity to invest in a ield that has very diicult conditions or production and looks unattractive, but can have avorable iscal terms resulting in large proits in the long-term. In the next section we discuss how to include these rules within a development planning model. (b) Development Planning Model with Fiscal Considerations The models and solutions approaches in the literature that consider the iscal rules within development planning are either very speciic or simpliied, e.g. one ield at a time, only one component, simulation or meta-heuristic based approaches to study the impact o iscal terms that may not yield the optimal solutions (Sunley et al. (2002), Kaiser, M.J. and A.G. Pulsipher (2004), World Bank (2007), Tordo (2007)). Van den Heever et al. (2000), and Van den Heever and Grossmann (2001) used a deterministic model to handle complex economic objectives including royalties, taris, and taxes or the multiple gas ield site. These authors incorporated these complexities into their model through disjunctions as well as big-m ormulations. The results were presented or realistic instances involving 16 ields and 15 years. However, the model considers only gas production and the number o wells were used as parameters (ixed well schedule) in the model. Moreover, the iscal rules presented were speciic to the gas ield site considered or the study, but not in the generic orm. Based on the continuous time ormulation or gas ield development with complex 28 1 xc U L xc U xc U 3 3 4

30 economics o similar nature as Van den Heever and Grossmann (2001), Lin and Floudas (2003) presented an MINLP model and solved it with a two stage algorithm. With the motivation or optimal investment and operations decisions in a realistic situation or oshore oil and gas ield planning project, we incorporate the generic iscal terms described earlier within proposed planning models (MINLP and MILP) and uniied ramework (Fig. 1). Notice that we ocus on the progressive production sharing agreement terms here that covers the key elements o the most o the available contracts, and represent one o the most generic orms o iscal rules. Particular iscal rules o interest can be modeled as the speciic case o this representation. The objective here is to maximize the contractor s NPV which is the dierence between total contractor s revenue share and total cost occurred over the planning horizon, taking discounting into consideration. The idea o cost recovery ceiling is included in terms o min unction (h) to limit the amount o total oil produced each year that can be used to recover the capital and operational expenses. This ceiling on the cost oil recovery is usually enorced to ensure early revenues to the Govt. as soon as production starts. CO t CR min( CR, REV ) t t t t Moreover, a sliding scale based proit oil share o contractor that is linked to some parameter, or instance cumulative oil production, is also included in the model. In particular, disjunction (i) is used to model this tier structure or proit oil split which states that variable (h) Z i, t will be true i cumulative oil production by the end o time period t, (Gupta and Grossmann, 2012), lies between given tier thresholds L i xc t U, i.e. tier i is active and split raction i PO i is used to determine the contractor share in that time period. The disjunction (i) in the model is urther reormulated into linear and mixed-integer linear constraints using the convex-hull ormulation (Lee and Grossmann, 2000). Z, i t ConSht i Li xc t U beoretax i PO i PO t t (i) We assume that only proit oil split is based on a sliding scale system, while other ractions (e.g. tax rate, cost recovery limit raction) are ixed parameters. Furthermore, the proposed model 29

31 is also extended to include the ring-encing, which is the provision that are usually part o iscal terms and have signiicant impact on the NPV calculations. These provisions determine that all the costs associated with a given block (which may be a single ield or a group o ields) or license must be recovered rom revenues generated within that block, i.e. the block is ringenced. It basically deines the level at which all iscal calculations are need to be done, and provide restriction to balance the costs and revenues across various projects/blocks that are not part o that ring-ence. The other constraints and eatures remains the same as the proposed MINLP and MILP models described in earlier sections. Notice that the deterministic model with iscal consideration presented here can also be used as the basis or the stochastic programming approaches explained in the previous section to incorporate uncertainty in the model under the uniied ramework (Fig. 1). Optimal investment and operations decisions, and the computational impact o adding a typical progressive Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) terms, is demonstrated in the results section 6 with a small example. (c) Key issues and Discussions The extension o the deterministic oilield development planning problem to include iscal rules explicitly in the ormulation raises the ollowing issues: 1. The model can become expensive to solve with the iscal rules, especially the one that involves progressive iscal terms due to the additional binary variable that are required to model the tier structure and resulting weak relaxation o the model. This is due to the relatively weak bounds on some o the key variables in the model, e.g. contractor share, proit oil, cost oil etc. which are diicult to estimate a priori. 2. Specialized decomposition algorithms that exploit the problem structure may be exploited to improve the computational eiciency. 3. Alternative ways to disjunctive models or the iscal rules can be analyzed, e.g. including iscal terms in approximate orm, especially or the progressive iscal terms so that multiield site problem is tractable. 4. Although we include the most general basic elements o the iscal rules, there might be some additional project speciic iscal terms that can have signiicant impact. Thereore, it is important to include the corresponding iscal terms deined or a particular project o interest. 30

32 In a orthcoming paper, we will discuss the details o the generic model or the development planning problem with iscal considerations and ways to improve its computational eiciency, (Gupta and Grossmann, 2012). 6 Examples In this section we consider a variety o the examples or the oilield development planning problem that covers deterministic, stochastic and complex iscal eatures as discussed in the earlier sections. (a) Instance 1: Deterministic Case In this section we present an example o the oilield planning problem assuming that there is no uncertainty in the model parameters. We compare the computational results o the various MINLP and MILP models proposed in the respective section (see Gupta and Grossmann, 2011 or more details). We consider 10 oil ields (Figure 8) that can be connected to 3 FPSOs with 23 possible connections. There are a total o 84 wells that can be drilled in all o these 10 ields, and the planning horizon considered is 20 years, which is discretized into 20 periods o each 1 year o duration. We need to determine which o the FPSO acilities is to be installed or expanded, in what time period, and what should be its capacity o oil, liquid and gas, to which ields it should be connected and at what time, and the number o wells to be drilled in each ield during each time period. Other than these installation decisions, there are operating decisions involving the lowrate o oil, water and gas rom each ield in each time period. The objective unction is to maximize total NPV over the given planning horizon. Figure 8: Instance 3 (10 Fields, 3 FPSO, 20 years) or oilield problem 31

33 Number o Wells Qliq (kstb/d) Qgas (MMSCF/d) The problem is solved using the DICOPT 2x-C solver or MINLP Models 1 and 2, and CPLEX 12.2 or MILP Model 3. These models were implemented in GAMS and run on Intel Core i7 machine. The optimal solution o this problem that corresponds to reduced MINLP Model 2-R solved with DICOPT 2x-C, suggests to install all the 3 FPSO acilities in the irst time period with their respective liquid (Figure 9-a) and gas (Figure 9-b) capacities. These FPSO acilities are urther expanded in uture when more ields come online or liquid/gas low rates increases as can be seen rom these igures. Liquid Capacity pso1 200 pso2 100 pso Year Gas Capacity pso1 150 pso2 100 pso Year (a) Liquid capacities o FPSO acilities (b) Gas capacities o FPSO acilities Figure 9: FPSO installation and expansion schedule Well Drilling Schedule Figure 10: FPSO-ield connection schedule Year Figure 11: Well drilling schedule or ields Ater initial installation o the FPSO acilities by the end o time period 3, these are connected to the various ields to produce oil in their respective time periods or coming online as indicated in Figure 10. The well installation schedule or these ields (Figure 11) ensures that the maximum number o wells drilling limit and maximum potential wells in a ield are not 32