SPE 132781

Understanding First, Simulation Later: Using Basic and Modern Reservoir-

Engineering Techniques To Understand Reservoir Dynamics: A Proven Case
Gomez Alonso, Hector SPE Sarawak Shell Berhad

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19–22 September 2010.

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

In this paper is described a mature field in which water production is seen very early on in production life and rapidly increased to
the current level of 80%. At well level a similar behavior has been a noticed, high initial oil rates with subsequent strong decline
once water breakthrough occurs. This type of behavior has been observed in most of the wells completed among the different
reservoirs that make up the field. Long term production data and modern decline analysis strongly indicated the presence of two
systems in the reservoir.

Initially it was considered normal water production behavior. Petrophysical interpretation indicated the presence of five different
facies. The production data was imported directly into the simulation model and with some “adjustments” a reasonable match was
achieved. This resulted in highly optimistic forecasts, never reproduced by the new wells. This paper presents an analysis and
explanation of the production behavior observed in the field. Which proved to be in line with the subsequent acquisition of field
data. Indicating the reservoir shows a behavior similar to a dual porosity dual permeability one, with two systems dominating the
production behavior in the wells.

This paper shows how important it is to have a strong understanding of reservoir dynamics before using 3D reservoir simulation
models, and specially in this case, how the use of simple and modern analytical techniques, like for instance Chan plots, transient
tests, conventional and modern decline analysis among others, can provide the reservoir engineer with a enough background to
confidently take the next step. This paper also describes how pseudo-steady state calculations provided information regarding the
characteristics of the second system. Which helped to optimize the original petrophysical interpretation in the static model. This
represents a simple approach at the time to consider how detailed a geological model should be to reproduce production behavior.

This work had a direct impact on completion strategies and future IOR projects to be evaluated through the use of reservoir
simulation, and it clearly represents a new “way of thinking” by integrating and making sense of different analytical techniques as
input for building new models (static and dynamic). Similar production behavior has also been observed in other fields in the same
area, which can be explained following the methodology here presented.

Introduction

Usually in mature fields there is available a considerable amount of information regarding production, pressures, fluid samples,
transient tests, which sometimes is not properly analysed simply because there is no time or the data is not easy to find. Reservoir
engineers sometimes have the tendency to directly jump into dynamic simulation, to understand the dynamics in the reservoir and
generate predictions. For this, and in previous studies the objective of following the methodology here presented, before engaging
the use of reservoir simulation, is to try to understand or “paint the picture” of what is really going on at subsurface level. If this is
achieved, the reservoir engineer will be always ahead of the simulation model and not the other way around. Simulation models
should be treated as tools in which equations are solved, by using input data (rates, pressures, PVT, rel perm….), nothing less
2 SPE 132781

nothing more.

Frequently, it is believed that the level of understanding of the reservoir is acceptable just by looking and analysing the results
from simulation models (history match/forecast). But there is a potential risk, history matching is not always achieved by using
reasonable input parameters, for instance pseudo relative permeabilities, permeability multipliers, or even pore volume multipliers.
By applying such factors or modifying input parameters sometimes the real problem can be masked. Thus the importance of trying
to be always ahead of reservoir simulation models, by analyzing all the available data and trying to get the real picture of the
reservoir dynamics. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how by carrying out basic data analyses a good understanding of
the reservoir can be achieved, which will provide the reservoir engineer with enough knowledge to later, be in a good position to
calibrate the results from reservoir simulation.

In the following sections analysis of basic data is presented and explained.

Available Data

For the purpose of this paper, first pressure data from logs is presented followed by a complete section dedicated to production
data analysis. One of the first variables analysed in this study was the intial reservoir pressures acquired from logs. Figure 1 shows
such pressure values from different wells.

Add BHP 108 M4 Pressure

Pressure (Psi)
(Psig)
3600 3600 36503650 3700
3700 37503750 3800 3800 3850 3850 3900 3900
8600 8650

8650 8700
2000
2000
Depth (TVDSS)

8700 8750 1999

1999
(TVDss)
VDSS)

2000
2000
2000
8750 8800 2000 1999
1999 1999
2000
2000 200
2000
D e tp h (T

0 1989
1989
Depth

8850 2000
2001
2001
8800 2000
2000 2000 1999
2000 2000
8900
8850 2001
2001
2001 2000
2000 1989
2000
8950
8900
Oil Gradient Gas Gradient Water Gradient KN1 KN2 KN103S1 KN107 2001
KN115S2 KN116 KN111S1
2000

8950

Interval Open to Flow in all the wells Initial Pressure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 1. Reservoir Pressure for reservoir A*.

The reservoir pressure is on the “x” axis and the depth in true vertical depth on the “y”axis, the green bar indicates the perforated
interval in the existing wells. The exploration well was drilled in 1989, followed by series of appraisal wells in 1999. It is clear that
the reservoir pressure depletion in this reservoir does not occur uniformly, even for the same well at different depths different
pressure depletion levels can be observed. For instance, looking at well number 6 drilled in 2001, reservoir pressure depletion is
not as high as shown by well number 3, which was drilled one year earlier. And the reservoir pressure for well 3 at 8920 ftss is
higher than the value found at 8855 ftss for this very same well.

The next step was to look into the geology and petrophysics interpretations, and one of the first things noticed was the presence of
different facies with considerable differences in rock quality. Only then figure 1 started to make sense. Figure 1 suggests there may
be an opportunity to produce additional oil since there is still potential in the low to moderate quality rock facies. The challenge is
to identify such facies/sands with producible remaining volumes (less depletion), and determine if such volumes will justify further
infill drilling. For this it is important to understand, how these facies behave dynamically. As petrophisical interpretation identified
six facies, understanding how and what is the contribution from each of the facies as a system is really important to estimate
remaining volumes. A similar analysis was carried for the rest of the reservoirs that make up this mature field. Most of the
reservoirs show similar differential depletion profiles. Figure 2 shows the initial pressures for different reservoirs within the same
field.
SPE 132781 3

Pressure (Psi)

Zone 1
Depth (TVDSS)

Zone 2

Zone 3

Oil Gradient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9

Figure 2. Reservoir Pressure for reservoir B*.

For reservoir “B” it is clear that three different zones can be identified. This highlights the importance of reviewing this data in
detail, which was previously reviewed and filtered. This type of behavior has to be linked to the production performance of the
existing wells.

This field has been on production for more than 10 years, and production data (oil, gas and water rates), are available for the entire
period. PVT data is available for most of the reservoirs, and diagnostic plots indicate that the mixture was in equilibrium at the
time when such experiments were carried out.

Figure 3 shows the production profile of one of the reservoirs.

Figure 3. Production performance plot of reservoir C*.

4 SPE 132781

Data Analysis

Oil production started at the beginning of 2000 reaching a peack at the end of 2001. In 2002 there is an abrupt increase of water
production and oil rates drop by more than 60%, to sustainable rates until 2005. This is what it is observed at the surface, but how
does this production take place at reservoir conditions. Based on the RFT analysis, and confirmed by geology, different facies are
present in the reservoir. Chan plots(1) have been used to diagnose water production mechanism as seen in production wells. Using
water oil ratio (WOR) and water oil ratio derivative (WOR’) versus time in a log-log plot, the water production behavior can be
characterized. Figure 4 shows the Chan plot for well D.

Figure 4. Water Production analysis of well D*.

This figure clearly indicates the presence of two different production systems, named “A” and “B” (circled areas). Focusing on the
“A” section, and following the methodology explained in reference 1, this type of behavior was interpreted as Multilayer
Channeling. There are two separate clear increasing trends in the WOR’ (derivative) that supports this assumption. But also the
WOR shows two increasing trends, which is in line with the presence of different facies with considerable differences in rock
quality.

This type of behavior can be interpreted as two different systems, one with a higher flow capacity than the other one. Initial water
saturation is very similar among the different facies, therefore the variable that will have the highest impact on such behavior is
permeability. Different techniques were used to confirm this hypothesis.

Conventional decline curve analysis mostly used for reserves estimation. However, additional information such as reservoir
properties can be obtained using this technique. It is important to keep in mind that such estimates rely not only on data quality but
also on production surface conditions, since in order to apply this technique a constant or almost constant flowing bottom pressure
should be achieved for considerable periods of time.

In this particular field the majority of the wells produce with gas lift. From the production history it can be seen that choke sizes
and gas lift rates have been kept constant for long enough periods of time, hence the “stable” production decline observed in some
wells. This enables the use of decline analysis for properties estimation. Figure 5 shows the production decline for one of the
existing wells.
SPE 132781 5

Figure 5. Conventional Decline Analysis in well X.

This figure shows the match that was achieved by using conventional decline analysis. Input data like fluid properties, skin,
reservoir pressures, were available from PVT reports, transient tests and static and flowing gradient surveys respectively.
However, a permeability of 140 mD and a decline exponent higher than 1 were required. Such a decline exponent could make
sense for multilayer reservoir producing without crossflow(2). Next a two system decline analysis was tested and the match
achieved is shown in figure 6.

Figure 6. Conventional Decline Analysis Two Layer System in well X.

Also, in the previous figure an acceptable match was achieved. For layer 1 (system 1) the value for permeability was 410 mD and
a decline exponent of 0, while for layer 2 (system 2) a value of 120 mD and 0.4 were required respectively. The total system
represents the combination of system 1 and system 2. Since Chan plots indicated the presence of a two layer system, the last
interpretation is better aligned with the findings from the analysis of the WOR and WOR’.
6 SPE 132781

Transient tests were available in few wells, and some of them were carried out at the beginning of the production life of the field.
In Figure 7 the production performance of one of these wells is shown.

Figure 7. Production Performance Plot in well D.

This well after few months of being on stream showed a different behavior than the rest of the wells. The well produced at a
reasonable initial rate. It was then when a transient test was carried out (circle), data was analysed using commercial software.
Figure 8 shows the match obtained for the transient test from well D.

Figure 8. Transient Test in well D.

The homogeneous reservoir model was selected. The light blue colour line represents infinite acting radial flow, which indicated a
permeability of 472 mD, which is quite close to the permeability value obtained by using the two-system interpretation (system 1)
with conventional decline curve analysis. The message here is quite clear, there is a system that contributes with high rates, and
apparently there is another one that provides the low stable rates for longer periods of time. More transient tests were analysed and
in most of them similar values for permeability were obtained.

There is another technique that can be applied to verify the presence of two different dynamic systems. Such technique is modern
decline analysis, and takes into consideration all the available production and pressure data. Several papers have been written
SPE 132781 7

regarding this technique(3), and its application to different cases. In this particular study, it was used not only to estimate contacted
volumes, but also to help us to understand/confirm the idea of having a reservoir that dynamically is controlled by two systems.
The analysis was carried out by using commercial software and it was applied to all the wells. Figure 9 shows the match obtained
for one of the wells.

Figure 9. Modern Decline Analysis in well E.

The best match was achieved by using a two layer reservoir model, using as input values for permeability the ones estimated by
conventional decline analysis and transient tests. Skin input values were also obtained from transient tests. All the wells showed an
acceptable match by using the same reservoir model.

Figure 10. Modern Decline Analysis in well F.

Different analytical techniques have shown that the idea of having two different systems acting dynamically in the reservoir makes
sense. This finding is extremely important not only for further infill drilling campaigns, but also for evaluating the feasibility of
secondary recovery projects.
8 SPE 132781

Interpreting the results (Painting the Picture)

Seeing mainly water at surface does not mean that all the sands are, or almost are, watered out. The way this behavior was
interpreted is the following, high quality sand facies provide high oil rates for a period of time (transient test figure 8), then later
water is produced through this very same high permeability sands. However, what happens with the moderate to low permeability
facies that make up the system 2. Since the permeability of the system 2 is known, identifying such facies and estimate initial and
remaining volumes will be the key to estimating the current potential for future infill drilling in this reservoir.

All of this detail and understanding was incorporated into material balance and reservoir simulation models. The details of such
work are not included since the objective of this paper is to show how, by integrating different analytical techniques, a good
understanding of reservoir behavior can be achieved before embarking on the adventure of reservoir simulation.

Testing the Finding

Once the study was finalized, potential in-fill candidates were identified. Figure 11 shows the interpreted log, with the rock quality
and saturations, for one of the wells that was drilled.

A B C

Figure 11. Saturation Log from the new well drilled.

Columns at the top of this figure named A, B and C represent quality of the rock, oil saturation and absolute permeability
respectively. The figure clearly confirms the existence of attractive oil saturations. Notice how the best quality sands show low
remaining oil saturations and in some cases almost residual (purple square). While the facies from low to moderate quality (green
circles), still showing quite acceptable oil saturations, in some cases close to initial saturation values. The green square in the
middle of figure 11 indicates the interval where most of the old wells are completed. This result is in line with the findings from
the use of all the analytical techniques previously included in this paper, and simply demonstrates the importance of always
carrying out this type of analysis before jumping into reservoir simulation models. Production potential from this almost undrained
facies was assessed with the production from the new well, showing very good performance so far.
SPE 132781 9

Conclusions

• The presence of different facies give rise to non-uniform reservoir depletion.

• Abrupt decline in oil rate right after water breaks through.
• Chan plot indicates the water production mechanism is mainly dominated by two different systems.
• Conventional decline analysis confirms the possibility of having two systems. Also provided reservoir properties for each
of the systems.
• Transient tests show permeability values close to the ones obtained by using conventional decline analysis for sytem 1.
• Modern Decline Analysis also suggests the presence of two systems.
• Log from the new well indicated the presence of undrained facies (from moderate to low quality rock), while higher
permeability facies showed a considerable reduction in oil saturation.

Recommendations

The main recommendation is to never underestimate the potential of integrating basic techniques to understand reservoir
dynamics. Most of the times analytical tools are not used in an integrated manner, for instance, conventional decline analysis is
used to estimate reserves, modern decline analysis to check volumes, or chan plots just to determine whether water production is
caused by coning or fingering, without trying to go further and integrate all the learning’s. This is a task that requires a
considerable amount of time, and sometimes if the time frame is tight in order to deliver a project, this analytical phase is
disregarded. This paper demonstrates the benefit of including all these types of analysis as part of an integrated study. It not only
has a clear impact on infill drilling campaigns but also on any improved oil recovery project to be considered.
(*)
For this paper not permission was granted to show rates, wells, reservoir and field names. Hence, in most of the figures, numbers
were left blank and generic well names were used instead. Also main results from some of the analytical techniques like transient
tests, have been hidden in some figures.

References

1. K.S. Chan. Water Control Diagnostic Plots. SPE 30775

2. Fetkovich , M.J. Depletion Performance of Layered Reservoirs without crossflow. SPE 18266.
3. Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves – Analysis of Oil Well Production Data Using Material Balance Time:
Application to Field Cases. SPE 28688.
4. Enhanced Reservoir Description : Using Core and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic (flow) Units. SPE 26436.
5. Production Data Analysis – Challenges, Pitfalls, Diagnostics. Author : T.A. Blasingame and L. Mattar. SPE 102048