Summary from “Round Table” Discussion FORCE/JCR Workshop on Coupled Modeling for Reservoir Management

”Round Table” Discussion Issues Pull vs push Technical issues R&D

Pull vs. Push On a scale of 1 to 5 (1=none/5= complete) 1.Does your company consider coupled geomechanics/flow models mature? 2.Does your company used coupled models? 3.Does the RE community within your company use coupled models 4.Why or why not?

Pull vs. Push Shell: 2, 2, 1 CoP: 5,5,1 Mærsk: 3,3,3 Dong: 3,2,1 Statoil: 3, 3, 1 ENI: 3, 3, 3 Total: 3, 4, 2 Hydro: 3, 2, 1 BP: 4, 4, 1

Contractor ISAMGEO: integration VIPS: education, lack of geomech., work often justified economically UoLeeds: poor models, uncertainties IFP: 4, 3, 2 RDL: education, conservatism in RE, low oil price UoLiege: integration in single model, geomech. Effect on flow CMG: CPU is an issue, CIPR: education, easier for RE to og to geomech, if it is important RE is not concerned, lack of data Rockfield: Data availability is scarce, busy people in oil co., fault re- activation Geomec: reliability, understaning in oil companies WellTech: limitations in models, what is important data?

Technical Issues 1.Name the #1 limitation (real or perceived) for coupled models. 2.Does a coupled model add too much complexity? 3.Are the models mature and now the limit is fundamental physics and/or data (for calibration)?

Technical Issues NPD: no PDO’s filed with coupled model, education, in which reservoirs should it be applied?, technology not THAT mature yet VIPS: need as much data as possible, what are the expectations, often initiated after problems, requirement for better understanding on stress dependent permeabillity, will not be a part of RE without linkage to 4D, micro-seismicity and additional data, integration of coupled results in completion design, well cost/optimization –When do we not have enough data? If it too little data we can not do a project (1 well) BP: need the ability to investigate uncertainty range, i.e. probablistic RDL: compromise: full model from tuning run, then collapse into simple model (i.e. CIPR/UoB) Shell: calibration, what are the calibrated against well data, sector, data, field Limitations on fundamentals Geomec: scale effects, reliability issue around this, capture large scale properties, how do we calibrate reliably

R&D Shell: complicated tar sands, temperature effects DONG: different coupling methods gives different results Statoil: objective criteria on necessity of geomechanics integrated solution Total: we do not need coupled, but integrated models, ECLIPSE concept good. VIPS: coupled modeling for the sake is not the driver, provide enabling tools, CPU use etc., use of calibration data, reduce the non-uniqeness, money to educating RE’s Hydro: water injection, 4D seismic, safety and environmental issues CoP: 1) full field 3D: upscaling, input data 2) speed up of large processes, near wellbore problem, understanding the basics ENI: upscaling Mærsk: learning more from iterative couple BP: educate RE community with objective criteria for when touse this for RE purposes, quantify effects cum. prod CMG: too much emphasis on linking to ECLIPSE GEO: upscaling Statoil: localisation in large 3D grids Mærsk: 4D seismics, differentiate between the various responses rock physics modeling