SPE-169714-MS

Solvent Stimulation to Restore Productivity of Polymer Pattern Producer

Wells - A Case Study
Ali al kalbani, PDO,Thakuria Chandan, PDO,Saqr, Kawthar, PDO,Chakravarthi Ravula, PDO,Biswajit Choudhuri,Khalid Hashmi

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 31 March–2 April 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

The first field scale Polymer flood project in the Middle East region is under operation in an oil field of The Sultanate of
Oman since early 2010. The oil field discussed here contains viscous oil (90 cp) was discovered in 1956 and is located in
eastern part of South Oman Salt basin. First commercial production started in 1980 from this field. The field has gone through
different development phases in its 30 years of history prior starting tertiary recovery phase by polymer flooding.

This Polymer flood project comprises of 27 patterns coversing about one third of the total field IOIP (initial oil in place). It is
worth mentioning that whole field is under water flooding and water injection was going on prior to initiation of Polymer flood
in 27 injectors.

So far, this project has been running successfully with good performance contributing to significant oil gain. During this
successful journey of about 4 years, the project has passed through many expected and unexpected challenges. The well and
reservoir management team has been working actively in all those challenges with novel approaches to increase efficiency of
this project.

One of the key challenges encountered is reduction in productivity of producer wells in comparison to earlier water flood with
same injection volume. In a few polymer wells production rates even dropped by more than 50%. The main challenges for
these wells seeing higher drop in liquid rate is that there is no or minimal oil gain in-spite of reduction in water cut due to dis-
proportionate decline in liquid rate.

This reduction in production rate smay be attributed to decrease in producible fluid mobility, high fluid density with polymer
slug and skin formation near wellbore. At the same pressure drawdown of the artificial lift pump withdraws less fluid due to
increase in fluid density with polymer breakthrough. There are also possibilities of plugging as a result of moving solid fines
from the more viscous fluids near the well bore. These caused more drawdown and less fluid produced and resulted in high
gross reduction in some wells. In order to overcome these gross decline, chemical treatment using mutual solvent has been
carried out in a few wells as trial and has given good result. A detailed analysis is going on to investigate possible causes and
accordingly design suitable remedial actions. This paper describes briefly about the principles involved in this solvent
stimulation jobs and results of field implementation with real field examples.
2 SPE-169714-MS

Field overview and development history

 
The field discussed in this paper comprises sandstone reservoirs of Permo Carboniferous ages. It comprises a northeast/
southwest anticline of approximately 14km long and 8km wide. Mainly three hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs are developed in
this field at depth ranges 550 – 675m sub-sea (ss). The middle reservoir, Al Khalata formation is the major oil bearing
reservoir with IOIP about 60% of the total field. Currently, Polymer flood project has been implemented in Al Khalata
reservoir of the field and all discussion in this paper is only related to this reservoir. Oil in Al Khlata is of 220API and 90cp
viscosity. The reservoir in general is of good quality having porosity ranges 25-30% and permeability varies 100md to 2 darcy.

The Al Khalata reservoir is divided into several catchment areas on the basis of reservoir characterization, development of sub
layers and reservoir drive mechanism. Accordingly, field development strategy in this reservoir varies from one catchment
area to another. Basic reservoir properties, crude properties and reservoir catchments areas have been discussed in detail by
Choudhuri et al [1]. The historical performance of Al Khlata reservoir is also presented in Figure   1. Field has been on regular
production since 1980. Primary development with vertical oil producer’s started initially in the field from early 80’s.

In mid 80’s three EOR pilots – Steam Injection, Steam soaking and Polymer Injection were executed in different parts of this
field. The results of all these field pilots carried out during 1985-92, indicated polymer flooding as best EOR option for this
reservoir development.

The field scale Polymer flood project phase-1 was implemented in 26 water flood patterns of Al Khalata reservoir and 1
pattern in Haima reservoir by converting them to Polymer injectors from early 2010. The Al khalata polymer wells is shown
in Figure   2. The cumulative production from the reservoir was about 18% at the time of Polymer flood project was
implemented. The effectiveness of Polymer flood was one of the prime challenges for this project as most of the part of
reservoir already swept by injected water. On the other hand, significant water-flooding history has resulted in better
understanding of the flood system like connectivity to the producer, injection performance and setting surveillance
benchmarks.
 

Polymer Flood response

Polymer injection started from early 2010 in all 27 injectors. Polymer response has been observed in well level as well as in
pattern level. The expected behaviors of polymer flooding to oil producer wells are
• Reduction in water cut due to decrease in injected water mobility with increase in viscosity,
• Increase in oil cut due to improvement in sweep efficiency and
• Reduced gross inflow due to reduction in water phase effective permeability and
• Back production of polymer

Accordingly the key parameters used to monitor for polymer response in producer wells are water cut, oil cut, liquid
withdrawal rate and polymer break through concentration. A typical response on well level and pattern level is shown in
Figurex and Figure y respectively.

Water cut reduction due to polymer response has been observed in most of the pattern wells. Water cut reduction trend ranges
from 2 to 30% in well level. The water cut reduction trend in well level varies depending on well type, permeability-thickness
in the pattern area, position in patterns and water flood history. More effective reduction in water cut observed in uniform
vertical patterns in comparison to horizontal injectors or irregular vertical patterns that is combination of vertical as well as
horizontal off take. In addition, the oil producers located centrally, thus getting support from more than one polymer injectors
have also been found as most effective in water cut reduction.

Decline in productivity

All oil producers in the field produce with artificial lift and many wells show indication of reduction in inflow after polymer
flooding started. Overall liquid withdrawal from the polymer flood area shrinks by more than 10% in comparison to earlier
SPE-169714-MS 3

water flood with similar volume of injection. At well level about 50% of the polymer pattern producers have seen reduction in
liquid withdrawal rate from 5 to 40%. This effect is also seen in pattern level as shown in pattern performance Figure   3.
Similar decline in production rate by 20 to 50% was also described in polymer flooding performance of Regan reservoir by
Christopher et al (1988) [2].

In a few wells liquid withdrawal rate even dropped by more than 50%. This group of wells also recorded higher concentration
of polymer breakthrough indicating communication to polymer injectors through high permeability streaks or fractures. The
main challenges for these wells seeing higher drop in liquid rate is that was no or minimal oil gain inspite of reduction in water
cut due to dis-proportionate decline in liquid rate. The well perforamace of decline few well to be cosndiered for investigation
is shown in Figure  5.

This reduction in production rate may be attributed to decrease in producble fluid mobility, high fluid density with polymer
slug and skin formation near wellbore. At the same pressure drawdown the artificial lift pump withdraws less fluid due to
increase in fluid density with break through polymer. There are also possibilities of plugging as a result of moving solid fines,
asphaltenes and possibly heavy oil from un-swept zone to the wellbore. Chemical treatment using mutual solvent has been
carried out in a few wells as trial and has given good result.

Investigation methodology:

The decline in polymer wells investigation is shown in Figure  6. The main investigations are as follow and will be discussed
in details:

1. Confirm inflow or out flow issues. This is to confirm no issues with artificial lift methods.
2. Obtain further data including well head sample, pressure data, and viscosity and API gravity data.
3. Model wells in a commercial well performance package to understand well performance.
4. Industry and literature check on analogues for commercially large size polymer floods.

Literature Review

Despite the little publications on commercial large scale polymer floods, the decline in polymer wells has been reported by
Christopher et all [2] on Polymer flood of Sleepy Hollow Reagan Unit. The decline was reported to have been restored by the
treatment of xylene and mutual solvent regadless of the cause, which was thought to be polymer effect nearby the well bore.
The back produced polymer on the wells with large decline indicate possible effect of polymer nearby effect on the producer
from sweeping more of the less mobile phase towards the offtake point.

Analytical work:

The well performance relative to start of the plymer flood is is shown in Figure  7, which shows that many wells showed gross
decline. Furthermore, larger decline in gross in more well was noticed in the subsequent year, indicating many wells will
behave similarly.

The operating envelope to make the oil gain from polymer flood is shown in Figure  8. The Figure shows to what extent the
water cut need to reduce to offset the large gross reduction in order to not to loose oil from polymer flood. The decline of
wells that showed the effect was marked on the plot and it fit well within the envelope.

The wells with large reduction on liquid rate were reviewed to ensure no issues with the artificial lift. Furthermore, samples
were taken for API check and it was find not changing. It was then assumed that the production decline was due to nearby well
bore effects.

The wells were modeled in a commercial well performance package to cofirm if the decline is nearby well effect. There was
no inflow model for “Non Newtonian Effects” and the modlleing was implicitly by chnagin the viscosity manually on PVT
tables, and by implicit effect modeling on Real Perm Tables. The inflow Performance relationship with viscoisty change is
4 SPE-169714-MS

shown in Figure  9. The modeling indicate the the wells are constrained by a neaby well bore effect. Furthermore, numircial
simulation was suggested to address the problem, but was not done and focus was put on industy experience.

Design of solvent jobs

Based on industry experience, it was deciced to try solvent to assess if it can improve production. The solvent trial were
planned to address the following:

1. The choice of mutual solvent.

2. Deployment method.
3. Variation of solvent volume. These will be termed Phase1 and Phase 2.

The solvent that was considered for the polymer wells was mixtures xylene and diesel with initial volume of 8 m3/d based on
radial flow model to enable well bore removal of skin. The deployment methods considered were as follow:

1. Pumping thought casing. This is low cost and quick.

2. Concentric Coil Tubing, CCT: this is using CCT to put the solvent on depth. This is more expensive

The wells have rod lifting and single completion, apart from few wells, and therefore, the completion need to be pulled to
access the reservoir. A typical well completion is shown in Figure 10. The type of completion added high cost to the
Concentric Coil Tubing option as the wells need to be prepared first and then re-completed.

A comparsion of the solvent deployment method is shown in Table 1. The comparison will be reviewed again once the results
of the trials have been disciussed. The coil tubing option, despite known to be more expensive, was considred if selective
solvent deployment is adding more production gains relative to the cheaper bullheading option. The deployment method is
shown graphically in Figure 11.

The solvent recipe for phase 1 wells consists of the following:

1. Xylene Aromatic Solvent.

2. Diesel
3. Surfactant
4. Non Emulsifier

The solvent will be displaced by brine and the well will be kept down for half day. The operation programme for solvent jobs
is as follow:

1. The well need to be shut-down, and if the well has Beam Pump it is preferably advised to shut down the well on the
downstoke pump so the standing valve is closed.
2. Rig up the tanks, pumping unit, pumps and pressure test surface lines.
3. Start pumping the solvent throught the annlus slowly at steady rate.
4. Displace the solvent with brine, and watching pressure not to exceed maximum allowable pressure.
5. Once pumping has been done, rig down & keep the well closed for half day.

Implementation of Solvent Jobs

The solvent trials were done for 5 wells in 2012 and 7 wells in 2013. The Phase one objectives were as follow:

1. To demonstrate that production decline can restored by solvent.

2. To check the performance of the deployment method used.

The phase 2 results were really an extension of Phase 1 to answer more questions:

1. To undersand the extent of wells responding solvent.

2. To understand the effect of solvent volume.
SPE-169714-MS 5

The results of both phases will be discussed in details below.

There will be further variation on solvent trials related to concentration, ratio of xyelene and dieslel, and soak time. These will
not be discussed in this paper.

Results of Phase 1 Trials:

 
The  solvent  trial  was  considered  for  5  wells  in  2012  with  large  decline  in  production.  The  result  of  of  the  jobs  is  
shown  in  Table 2.  The  deployment  method  was  4  pumping  and  1  Concentric  Coil  tubing.  The  resuts  can  be  further  
discussed  as  follow:  
 
 
1. The  first  well,  with  pumping  solvent,  the  response  is  great,  and  gross  and  oil  rate  doubled.  The  result  of  
this  well  is  shown  in   Figure 12.  Further  more,  there  was  no  decline  of  the  well  production  after  this  for  
almost  a  year.  
2. The  second  well,  with  solvent  placed  through  casing,  showed  no  response  at  all.  
3. The   third   well,   with   treatment   done   using   Concentric   Coil   Tubing,   showed   improvements   of   30   %   in   in  
gross  and  oil  rate.  The  result  of  this  well  is  shown  in  Figure 13.  
4. The   fourth   well   showed   improvements   of   gross   rate   by   70   %   and   seems   stable.   However,   in   this   well,   the  
water  cut  increased  by  3  %  which  offset  the  gain  from  gross  improvements.  The  well  production  is  shown  
in  Figure 14.  
5. The  fifth  well  showed  minor  increase.  However,  the  performance  of  the  well  could  have  been  adversely  
affected  by  a  water  injection  well  which  coincidently  was  closed  during  and  after  solvent  treatment.  

So  in  summary  3  out  of  5  wells  showed  improvements  in  gross  by  30  %  to  200  %  ,  one  well  result  was  not  clear  
and  no  well  showed  no  response  at  all.  The  deployment  method  of  concentric  coil  tubing  does  not  show  better  
performance   and   hence,   it   is   more   economic   to   do   casing   pumping,   as   the   cost   of   such   solvent   deployment   is  
nearly  10-­‐15  %  of  the  cost  of  concentric  coil  tubing.  

Results of phase 2 trials:

 
The   phase   2   trials   were   done   in   2013   to   build   up   on   phase   1   results,   focusing   more   solvent   volume   and   more  
wells   to   be   tried   to   improve   performance   of   polymer   wells.   The   initial   objective   of   the   more   volume   solvent   is   to  
answer  the  following:  
 
1. Will  the  well  with  200  %  gross  improvents  responds  further  with  double  solvent  volume.  
2. Will  the  well  that  showed  no  gain  at  all,  respond  with  double  solvent  volume.  
 
In  total  three  repeat  jobs,  with  double  solvent  volume,  and  6  further  wells  were  treated  in  2013,  with  base  line  
volume.  The  results  of  the  jobs  are  shown  in  Table  3.  The  well  results  are  as  follow:  

1. Repeat  well  1:  the  double  volume  solvent  added  additional  50  %  gross  rate  &  well  gross  increased  3  times  
before  solvent  jobs.  This  is  the  well  with  first  200  %  increase  in  gross  from  Phase  1.  
2. Repeat  well  2:  The  double  volume  solvent  added  some  improvements.  The  Fluid  level  measured  indicates  
lots  of  improvmements.  This  is  the  well  that  does  not  show  any  gross  improvements  from  phase  1.  
3. Repeat  well  3:  The  well  responded  more  with  double  solvent  volume.  The  well  has  high  FAP  but  was  not  
yet  beaned  up.  
6 SPE-169714-MS

4. The  third  well,  was  not  a  good  candidate,  but  was  considered  to  try  solvent  as    cheaper  option  as  the  well  
has  sand  infill  &  fishing  issues  above  the  reservoiur.  The  solvent  was  not  be  pumped  due  high  pressure.  
5. The   fourth   well   showed   70   %   increase   in   gross.   This   well   was   nearby   pumping   off   gradually   after   polymer  
reached  the  well.  The  well  was  then  operated  at  low  speed.  After  the  solvent,  the  well  inflow  improved  
and   well   was   then   ramped   up.   The   well   showed   great   response   and   now   stable   for   3   months.   The   results  
of  well  is  shown  in  Figure  15.  
6. The  fifth  well,  was  just  done  and  was  not  yet  assessed.  

Conclusions

The   solvent   has   been   done   to   establish   if   production   decline   canbe   restored,   and   to   to   decide   on   best   solvent  
design  and  deployment  method.  The  main  results  from  the  trials  are  as  follow:  
 
 
1. Polymer   flooding   in   a   brown   oil   field   with   water   flooding   history   shows   successful   results   with  
significant  incremental  oil  gain  
2. Typical  polymer  response  was  observed  in  producer  wells-­‐  reduction  in  water  cut  due  to  decrease  
in  overall  system  mobility  and  increase  in  oil  cut  due  to  improvement  in  sweep  efficiency.  
3. One   of   the   key   challenges   is   drastic   reduction   in   productivity   in   few   producer   wells.   In   house  
designed  solvent  formulations  and  treatment  techniques  have  resulted  in  productivity  restoration  
in  many  wells.  
4. Results  shows  Solvent  jobs  help  in  increasing  efficiency  of  polymer  flood  
5. Variation  of  solvent  volume  showed  more  improvement  on  production.  
6. Solvent  has  been  established  as  a  routine  acitivity  to  restore  gross  decline  in  polymer  wells.  
7. Various  combination  of  solvent  recipe  may  be  tried  in  future,  examples  are  more  concentration  and  
more  time  for  solvent  to  soak  before  the  well  is  opened  for  production.  
8. The  deployment  method  for  concentric  coil  tubing  is  not  recommended  due  to  large  expenses  and  
results  were  comparable  to  pumping  jobs  at  fraction  of  the  cost.  

Acknowledgement

Authors would like to thank management of Petroleum Development Oman and Ministry of Oil and Gas (MOG), Sultanate of
Oman for reviewing the study and granting permission to publish this paper.

References
 
1. Choudhuri B, Al-Qarshubi I, Sadek E, Bharati S and Mahrooqi S : ‘Effective WRM reverse production
decline in a Major brownfield of South Oman’ SPE -101381; presented at IPEC in Abu Dhabi, Nov’2006
2. Christopher C A, Clark T J and Gibson DH: ‘Performance and Operation of a Successful Polymer Flood in
the Sleepy Hollow Reagan’ SPE-17395; presented at SPE EOR Symposium held at Tulsa, Apr’1988
3. Chandan Thakuria; Mohsin Amri; Kawthar Saqri; Henri Jaspers; Khalid Hashmi & Khalid Zuhaimi of P,
"Performance Review of Polymer Flooding in a Major Brown Oil Field of Sultanate of Oman”, SPE
165262, presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2-4
July 2013
 SPE-169714-MS 7

Figures:

Figure 1: Field Production History [reference SPE [reference

312000 313500 315000 316500 318000 319500

00 2010000

00 2008500

00 2007000

00 2005500

Water Injector
00 2004000
312000 313500 315000 316500 318000 319500

Figure 2: Location of the Polymer Pattern in Al Khalata.

8 SPE-169714-MS
Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

60 307 100

246 90
Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

Calendar Day Liquid Rate ( m3/d )

45

Beam Pump failure

184 80

Water cut (%)

30

123 70

15
61 60

0 0 50
2008 09 10 11 12 13

Date
600
Figure 3: Typical Polymer Response at well Level.
Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d ):Completion: MARMUL-213H1:03:0600-7400

450
Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d )

300

150

0
2008 09 10 11 12 13

Date

Figure 4: Typical Polyer Response at Pattern Level [3].

MARMUL-482H2:01:0600-7400
Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

60 300 105

240 90
Calendar Day Liquid Rate ( m3/d )
Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

45

180 75
Water cut (%)

30

120 60

15
60 45

0 0 30
JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR

2009 2010 2011

Date
600

Figure 5: Gross Decline of PolymerCalendar

well Day Water Inj. ( m3/d ):Completion: MARMUL-213H1:03:0600-7400

450
Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d )

300

150

0
2009 10 11 12 13
SPE-169714-MS 9

Figure 6: Polymer wells Decline Investigation Methodology

Figure 7: Polymer well performance relative to start of polymer (to be edited)

Figure 8: Polymer response and oil loss operating envelope.

10 SPE-169714-MS

Figure 9: Inflow Performance Relation ship for Decline Wells

Figure 10: Typical completion of MM wells

SPE-169714-MS 11

Figure 11: Solvent Deployment Methods

Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

MARMUL-51H1:01:0600-7400

75 200 100
Fishing Parted Rod (Bad diagno

Beam Pump failure (LOP)

Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

60 160 80
Calendar Day Liquid Rate ( m3/d )

Bullheading

45 120 60

Water cut (%)

30 80 40

15 40 20

0 0 0
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

2012
Date
600

Figure 12: Results of first solvent job. Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d ):Completion: MARMUL-213H1:03:0600-7400 Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )
Change pitted polish rod with

450 MARMUL-482H2:01:0600-7400
Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d )

75 150 105
300
CCT, Solvent Wash & Squeeze

60 120 90
Calendar Day Liquid Rate ( m3/d )
Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

Recompletion Post CCT

150
Parted rods

45 90 75
Water cut (%)
Prepare for CTU

30 0
60 1981 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
60

15 30 Date 45

0 0 30
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

2012
Date
600

Figure 13: Results of third solvent job. Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d ):Completion: MARMUL-213H1:03:0600-7400

450
Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d )

300

150

0
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

2012
Date
12 SPE-169714-MS
Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

MARMUL-427H2:01:0600-7400

50 200 105

40 160
Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

Calendar Day Liquid Rate ( m3/d )

Pump Solvent/xylene
90

Workover - LOP
30 120

Water cut (%)

75
20 80

60
10 40

0 0 45
MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

2012 2013
Date
600

Figure 14: Results of fourth solvent job.

Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d ):Completion: MARMUL-213H1:03:0600-7400
Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

450 MARMUL-103H1:01:0600-7400
Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d )

107 200 100

300

160 80
Calendar Day Oil Rate ( m3/d )

Calendar Day Liquid Rate ( m3/d )

Standalone pumping
150
120 60

Water cut (%)

54

0
80 MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 40

2012
40 Date 20

0 0 0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

2013
Date
600

Figure 15: Results of Phase 2 fourth well solvent trial.

Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d ):Completion: MARMUL-213H1:03:0600-7400

450
Calendar Day Water Inj. ( m3/d )

300

150

0
AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

2012 2013
Date
SPE-169714-MS 13

Tables

Table 1: Comparison between solvent depolyment methods before trial

Deployment method Cost duration Acid placment Planning Exposure

Concentric Coil Tubing
Pumping

Table 2: Results of Phase1 solvent trials in 2012

Year Wells solvent Deployment Gross increase Net increase Cost Remarks
m3/d
2012 Well 1 baseline NCP 200 % 200 % 20 K Great performance
2012 Well 2 baseline NCP No change No change 20 K No improvement
2012 Well 3 baseline CCT + 30 % I +30 % 200 K Good performance
2012 Well 4 baseline NCP +70 % +70 % offset by +3 % 20 K Great performance
2012 Well 5 baseline NCP Minor increase Minor increase 20 K Minor
improvements

Table 3: Results of Phase 2 solvent trials in 2013.

Year Wells Solven Deployment Gross Net Cost Remarks

t increase Increase
2013 Well 6 Doubl NCP + 50 % +50 % 52 Great performance, with further
e K room to improve
2013 Well 7 Doubl NCP TBC tbc 52 FAP indicated good response, to be
e K beaned up
2013 Well 8 Baseli NCP N/A N/A 52 Well has sand fill and solvent not
ne K done.
2013 Well 9 Baseli NCP +70% +70 % 52 To be done Sep-2013
ne K
2013 Well 10 Doubl NCP 20% 20 % FAP indicate good response
e
2013 Well 11 Single NCP To be assessed