Is this the same well? - Matching well data from multiple wells in a corporate repository

Transcription

1 Is this the same well? - Matching well data from multiple wells in a corporate repository Tarun Chandrasekhar BP Lower 48 Onshore Srinivasan Santhanam EnergyIQ

2 Vendor Well Data Gather, cleanse and provision well data disclosed by the oil companies to the government agencies. Governed by the non-uniform policies defined by the respective state commission. Well level vs. bore level vs. completion level vs. lease level disclosure Not all attributes are available for all states Difficult to populate one common data model Other Sources of Data Acquired through direct relationship with various oil companies & service provides Historical data acquired through mergers and acquisitions Employ specific team on the ground to supplement existing data Internal talent pool of industry experts Helping to fill data gaps, analyze and interpret existing data How do we treat a Recompletion - as a Well Completion or a new Wellbore? Should a Reentry be treated as a Wellbore or a new Well Completion? How about a Well Work Over?

3 Data Insights Oil Companies rely on multiple vendor data blended with internal data External data gives them industry perspective and insights. Provides competitor intelligence Managing risk, anti-collision Single vendor data is neither complete nor sufficient Especially on historical wells which state agencies lack and only specific vendor has IHS, Drillinginfo, TGS, Rextag HART

4 Challenges in Multi Vendor Data Where to load multi vendor data side by side? - Challenges Vendor data model or data delivery model is different & vendor specific - Solution Identify a common data model (industry leader PPDM) Leverage loader tools offered by product companies to load into common data model What to load? Identify what to load (typically well header data, well geoscience data, production data) How to load? Data disparity amongst vendor data and vendor specific data classification makes it difficult to match wellbore and completion even if a well can be matched Identify a common approach for well data matching Well data matching will not be a perfect more art than science

5 Is this the same well? BP Lower 48 Subscriptions: IHS, DI, TGS, Rextag HART, Texas RRC, OCC CDR EIQ Trusted Data Manager Challenges Identifying common data model is not sufficient as data quality is not same Well matching using API cannot be confidently done at a level more than API10 (Well Surface) Matching at the well hierarchy is hard Solution Approach IHS delivers data at Completion Event level DI delivers at Well, Wellbore & Completion level Defining common guiding principles to match at various levels of Well Hierarchy Well API 10/ (Well Name/Well Number/ Operator/Surface Latitude and Longitude) Completion Spud Date, Total Depth, Formation at TD, Wellbore Orientation (Vertical or directional), Completion Date

6 Methodology Set Vendor Priority Define Well Origin Matching Attributes Define Completion Matching Attributes Define Thresholds and Weightage Develop Well Matching Matrix Decision Choice

7 Methodology Set Vendor Priority Define Well Origin Matching Attributes 1. Load primary vendor first and define a UWI(ekey). BP L48 chose IHS as the primary vendor (legacy) 2. Use ekey as the Corporate Well ID a) Required to define a primary key around which data movement can be driven b) Share the primary key across internal applications 3. Load secondary vendor data (DI) in a staging location 4. Define basic minimum attributes to match well surface a) API10 - Within the continental US, API10 matching is widely accepted common and a fairly confident way to match well surface b) In the absence of API10 or to strengthen the well surface matching, a combination of common well surface centric attributes can be used - (Well Name, Well Number, Location, Geographical information, Operator)

8 Define Completion Matching Attributes Methodology 5. Define Completion matching attributes Define a list of primary attributes to match completion Spud Date, Wellbore Orientation, Total Depth, Formation at TD, Completion Date Define a list of secondary attributes to augment primary attributes (not substitute) Max/Min Perforation Top Depth and Base Depth Driller Depth Completion Status Date

9 Methodology Define Thresholds and Weightage 6. Define threshold for data value matching & define weightage based on the importance of the attribute & the quality of the data a) Defining attributes may not be sufficient as exact data matching is impossible b) Define data limit range & threshold depending on the attribute type and purpose i. Well name should be the same, removing all non-alphabetical characters and space ii. iii. iv. Distance between the locations (latitude & longitude) identified by the vendor sources has to be within a certain range Differences in Total depth between the 2 vendor sources should within a defined range Differences in number of days between spud date from one vendor source over another should be within a limit

10 Methodology Develop Well Matching Matrix v. All data that satisfies the threshold/range limit are not the same. Data Quality of data could vary within the range or threshold defined. vi. vii. Define weightage to classify the quality of data that fall within permissible threshold limits. That is, a difference in a data value that is close 0 is more valuable then the one that is close to the extreme ends of permissible data range. Define Data matching quality level matrix which include attributes, its allowable threshold/ data ranges, range brackets and weightage for various range brackets

11 Sample Well Matching matrix Minimum API10 should match between IHS and DI data Conditions Matching Criteria Match Percent Matching Criteria Match Percent Matching Criteria Match Percent Matching Criteria Match Percent Remarks API12 Set flag = 1 API14 Set flag = 1 Count of Well Completion Well Name Both IHS and DI values are same IHS and DI values are NOT same 0 No other attribute matches are considered as both IHS and DI recognizes the presence of only 1 Completion Well Number Total Depth Drillers Depth Both IHS and DI values are same 5 Delta between IHS and DI value < = 100 ft 15 Delta between IHS and DI value < = 100 ft 15 IHS and DI values are NOT same 0 DI value > 100 and < = 300 ft 10 DI value > 100 and < = 300 ft 10 DI value > 300 ft and < = 500 ft 5 DI value > 300 ft and < = 500 ft 5 DI value > 500 ft DI value > 500 ft 0 0 Spud Date Wellbore Orientation Delta between IHS and DI value < = 30 days 10 Both IHS and DI values are same 10 DI value > 30 days and < = 60 days 5 IHS and DI values are NOT same 0 DI value > 60 days 0 Completion Date Completion Status Date Min Perforation Top Depth Max Perforation Bottom Depth Delta between IHS and DI value < = 30 days 15 Delta between IHS and DI value < = 30 days 5 Delta between IHS and DI value < = 30 ft 10 Delta between IHS and DI value <= 30 ft 10 DI value > 30 days and < = 60 days 10 DI value > 30 days and < = 60 days 0 DI value > 30 ft and < = 60 ft 5 DI value >= 30 ft and <= 60 ft 5 DI value > 60 days 0 DI value > 60 days 0 DI value > 60 ft 0 DI value > 60 ft 0 Weightage is higher than Spud date as the Completion date is very specific to Completion Completion Status date is hardly available for records in both IHS and DI. Hence lower percent Total

12 Decision Choice 7. Decision Choice (Finally select the matched records) Minimum API10 should match between one vendor data over the other Decision Choice If the count of Completion is equal between different vendor sources, then irrespective of the value of the other attributes, it can be considered to be a perfect match If the count of Completion differs, then based on the other conditions, a minimum percent match of 50% should exist between IHS and DI completion to be treated the same If more than 1 completions matches the condition, then the one with the maximum value will be picked If none of them matches, then individual analysis might need to be performed.

13 DI Well Name : SAN JUAN 30 6 UNIT API 12 : Well Number : 065R Total Depth : 5675 Drillers Depth : null Spud Date : 08/16/1970 Wellbore Orientation : null Ex: UWI (ekey) : Source : DI Main wellbore IHS Well Name : SAN JUAN 30 6 UNIT API 12 : Well Number : 65Y Total Depth : 5705 Drillers Depth : 5705 Spud Date : 08/16/1970 Wellbore Orientation : V Well Name is same : 5% Well Number is different: 0% Total Depth is within the 100ft range : 30% Drillers Depth is different : 0% Spud Date is same : 20% Wellbore orientation is different : 0% Overall Weightage : 55% > 50% (minimum criteria). There are no other wells. So these 2 wells match IHS Well Name : SAN JUAN 30 6 UNIT API 12 : Well Number : 65Y Total Depth : 5705 Drillers Depth : 5705 Spud Date : 03/17/1994 Wellbore Orientation : V Well Name is same : 5% Well Number is different: 0% Total Depth is within the 100ft range : 30% Drillers Depth is different : 0% Spud Date is same : 0% Wellbore orientation is different : 0% Overall Weightage : 35% < 50% (minimum criteria). There are no other wells. So these 2 wells do not match Ex: UWI (ekey) : Source : IHS

14 DI Well Name : STATE LLA API 12 : Well Number : 001 Total Depth : null Drillers Depth : null Spud Date : 06/03/1959 Wellbore Orientation : null Ex: UWI (ekey) : Source : DI Main wellbore IHS Well Name : STATE `LLA` API 12 : Well Number : 1 Total Depth : Drillers Depth : Spud Date : 07/06/1994 Wellbore Orientation : D Well Name is different: 5% Well Number is different: 0% Total Depth is different: 0% Drillers Depth is different : 0% Spud Date is different: 0% Wellbore orientation is different : 0% Overall Weightage : 5% < 50% (minimum criteria). There is one more wellbore. These 2 well completions do not match based on minimum criteria IHS Well Name : STATE LL-SHELL A API 12 : Well Number : 1 Total Depth : Drillers Depth : Spud Date : 06/03/1959 Wellbore Orientation : V Well Name is different: 0% Well Number is different: 0% Total Depth is different: 0% Drillers Depth is different : 0% Spud Date is same: 20% Wellbore orientation is different : 0% Overall Weightage : 20% < 50% (minimum criteria). There is one more wellbore. These 2 well completions do not match based on minimum criteria Ex: UWI (ekey) : Source : IHS?

15 Limitations Data matching is a more of an approximation exercise based on loosely defined attributes and could lead to ambiguities and indecisiveness What if more than 1 completion matches between 2 sources for the defined criteria? In such a scenario, which of the Completions from one source should be matched with the other? What if there are more than 1 completions and none of them could be matched with the Completions with the other source? Answers to the above questions cannot be clearly defined and hence may not be possible to automate data matching in such occasions. Nothing but manual comparison could help. In some cases, even that may not be possible One possible suggestion, is to accept them as a new well information. Another possibility is to accept the differences and avoid forcefully matching. This could lead to information loss. Hence, the decision will vary depending on guiding principles

16 Is it easy to do? No Is it completely automatable? No Is it worth doing it to get the maximum value of your data subscriptions and to become truly vendor neutral? Yes