Selected work/Concept study review
An independent review of a consultant's concept study for free water knockout and produced water treatment at one facility, with a verdict and a numbered list of items to close.
Outcome
Objective met4 of 4 success criteria. Read the conclusionA consultant proposed free water knockout and produced water treatment at one facility to improve crude quality and relieve the dehydration train. The study assumed a high-asphaltene reservoir blend and a water cut of up to 80 per cent. Management needed to know whether to take the concept to the next stage gate and what it would cost in time to make it fit for that decision.
We reviewed the study against the operating record of the facility, the performance of the existing dehydration train, and the produced water balance. Nine items were missing or asserted without data: the recoverable oil and deferral benefit; field fluid, emulsion and bottle test data to support the chemical programme; separator sizing checked against an operating train in the same field; integration with disposal, re-injection, ponds and transfer lines; fouling of internals, sand, scale and pressure drop; maintainability; heating, energy, control and reliability; the seasonal performance envelope with construction and shutdown windows; and the project economics. We also flagged that the 80 per cent water cut and the asphaltene blend were study assumptions, not field measurements.
Verdict: hold. The concept was sound in principle and not ready for a spending decision. We issued the nine items as a numbered list with an owner and a data source for each, and recommended that hybrid cases combining internals, chemistry and selective heating be studied alongside the base case.
The objective was a verdict the stage gate could act on and a list that told the consultant what to close. Both were delivered three weeks after receipt. The verdict was hold. The nine items were assigned to owners, fluid sampling and bottle tests started first, and the study assumptions were recorded as assumptions in the operator's basis register.
| Success criterion | Met | How it was achieved |
|---|---|---|
| iA clear verdict from the four available: approve, approve with conditions, hold, do not approve | Met | Verdict of hold issued with the nine-item list in the review memorandum |
| iiEvery gap stated with the data that would close it and who holds that data | Met | Each item assigned to an owner; fluid sampling and bottle tests started as the first two |
| iiiStudy assumptions kept separate from field measurements in all downstream documents | Met | The 80 per cent water cut and the blend recorded as study assumptions in the operator's basis register |
| ivThe review delivered inside the stage gate calendar | Met | Review issued three weeks after receipt of the study, ahead of the gate meeting |
Deliverables
Evidence note
Work done for the operator of an onshore field in the Middle East. The study, the consultant and the facility are not named. The verdict applies to the revision reviewed.
We set the concept, worked the design through with the operator and the vendor, wrote the commissioning procedure with five hold points, supported execution and brought the line into service.
Met4 of 4 success criteriaOperator engagementRead the caseMiddle East·Restart after turnaroundA plan to bring a train back to about 87 thousand barrels of oil a day and 35 thousand barrels of water, one well at a time, with checks between phases and a hold on any abnormal condition.
Met4 of 4 success criteriaOperator engagementRead the caseNext case: One record per well for a 68-kilometre flowline programme
Send us the version you are dealing with. We will tell you what we would do first.
hello@assostechltd.com · 5 South Charlotte Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4AN