Process For RAPID Projects - Suru - CDGL - Lacruz - Oct2011

Data and Consulting Services
Processes for RAPID

Projects
December 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1
2. DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................. 2-1
3. CONSIDERATION ....................................................................................................... 3-1
4. RAPID PROCESSES..................................................................................................... 4-2

4.1 Infill Candidate Selection .................................................................................... 4-3
4.1.1 Prediction of Previous Infill cycle ........................................................... 4-3
4.1.2 Validation and Selection of Process ........................................................ 4-6
4.1.3 Infill Well Selection................................................................................. 4-6
4.1.4 Product Delivery ...................................................................................... 4-8
4.2 Workover Candidate Selection .......................................................................... 4-10
4.3 Production Forecasting ...................................................................................... 4-10
Schlumberger Private
5. METHODOLOGIES..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Pressure Modeling ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Reservoir Data Review ........................................................................................ 5-1
5.3 Heterogeneity Index............................................................................................. 5-6
5.4 Completion Efficiency ......................................................................................... 5-7
5.5 Production and Interference Radius..................................................................... 5-9
5.6 Secondary Phase Movement .............................................................................. 5-13
5.7 Cursory Well Review......................................................................................... 5-14
5.8 Recovery ............................................................................................................ 5-15
5.9 Vintage............................................................................................................... 5-18
5.10 Performance Indicator........................................................................................ 5-21
6. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Appendix A: Process Level Flow Chart ............................................................. 6-3
6.2 Appendix B: Logic Level Flow Chart ................................................................ 6-5
6.3 Appendix C: Pressure Modeling Analysis Details.............................................. 6-7
6.3.1 Pressure Modeling ................................................................................... 6-8
6.3.2 Pressure Modeling Recommendations................................................... 6-18
6.3.3 Compartmentalization Analysis............................................................. 6-28
6.3.4 Introduction............................................................................................ 6-28
6.3.5 Procedure ............................................................................................... 6-28
6.3.5.1 Input Data................................................................................ 6-28
December 2003 Copyright @ 2003 Schlumberger – All Rights Reserved Data and Consulting Services
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.3.5.2 Calculated Variables ............................................................... 6-30

6.3.5.3 Plots......................................................................................... 6-31
6.3.5.4 Query....................................................................................... 6-33
6.3.5.5 Validation................................................................................ 6-33
6.3.6 Limitations ............................................................................................. 6-35
6.4 Appendix D: Reservoir Data Review Details ................................................... 6-36
6.4.1 Reservoir Performance........................................................................... 6-37
6.4.1.1 Management Overview........................................................... 6-37
6.4.2 Time Motion Study ................................................................................ 6-40
6.5 Appendix E: Heterogeneity Index Analysis Details ......................................... 6-53
6.5.1 Heterogeneity Index............................................................................... 6-54
6.6 Appendix F: Completion Efficiency Analysis Details...................................... 6-68
6.6.1 Scatter Plot Analysis – Completion Efficiency ..................................... 6-69
6.6.1.1 Scatter Plots ............................................................................ 6-69
6.6.2 Scatter Plot Sets ..................................................................................... 6-71
6.6.3 Scatter Plot Base Map............................................................................ 6-72
6.6.4 XYZ - Profiles (4D Scatter Plots).......................................................... 6-73
6.6.5 Multi-Variable Analysis......................................................................... 6-73
6.6.6 Dynamic Baselines................................................................................. 6-75
6.6.7 Analogs .................................................................................................. 6-81
6.6.8 Special Features of Scatter Plots............................................................ 6-82
6.7 Appendix G: Drainage / Interference Radius Analysis Details ........................ 6-86
6.7.1 Drainage Radius..................................................................................... 6-87
6.7.1.1 Vertical Well Drainage Radius Study..................................... 6-87
6.7.1.1.1 Overview.............................................................................. 6-87
6.7.1.1.2 Conditions, Equations and Definitions ................................ 6-87
6.7.1.1.3 Remark................................................................................. 6-88
6.7.1.1.4 Recommended Procedure .................................................... 6-89
6.7.1.1.5 Forecast Drainage Radius .................................................... 6-94
6.7.1.1.6 References............................................................................ 6-94
6.8 Interference Radius Calculations ....................................................................... 6-94
6.8.1 Introduction............................................................................................ 6-95
6.8.2 Theory .................................................................................................... 6-95
6.8.2.1 Semi-Steady State ................................................................... 6-95
6.8.2.2 Transient Flow ........................................................................ 6-96
6.8.2.3 Steady State............................................................................. 6-96
6.8.2.4 Skin Factors ............................................................................ 6-96
6.8.3 Procedure ............................................................................................... 6-96
6.8.3.1 Input Data................................................................................ 6-96
6.8.3.2 Calculation of m(Pwf) .............................................................. 6-97
6.8.3.3 Calculation of Pwf .................................................................... 6-98
6.8.3.4 Calculation of Interference Radius ......................................... 6-98
6.8.4 Appendix.............................................................................................. 6-100
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.9 Appendix H: Secondary Phase Movement Analysis Details.......................... 6-101

6.10 Appendix I: Recovery Analysis Details.......................................................... 6-106
6.11 Reserves ........................................................................................................... 6-107
6.11.1 Volumetric Mapping.......................................................................... 6-107
6.11.2 Recommended Procedure .................................................................. 6-107
6.11.3 Decline Curve Analysis and Depletion Maps.................................... 6-111
6.12 Appendix J: Vintage Analysis Details ............................................................ 6-116
6.13 Vintage............................................................................................................. 6-117
6.13.1 Overview............................................................................................ 6-117
6.13.2 Input Data Required........................................................................... 6-118
6.13.3 Analysis Steps.................................................................................... 6-118
6.13.3.1 Filter Data ........................................................................... 6-118
6.13.3.2 Eliminate Prior Cums.......................................................... 6-118
6.13.3.3 Find the Date of First Production........................................ 6-118
6.13.3.4 Create a Report ................................................................... 6-118
6.13.3.5 Export to Windows and Vintage Wells .............................. 6-119
6.13.3.6 Convert Report to a Load File ............................................ 6-119
6.13.3.7 Load Sort File ..................................................................... 6-120
6.14 Appendix K: Performance Indicator Analysis Details.................................... 6-121
6.15 Appendix L: Detailed Well Review Details ................................................... 6-124
7. BEST PRACTICES: PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT WORKFLOW ............. 7-1

7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Overview.............................................................................................................. 7-2
7.3 Business Model and Contract .............................................................................. 7-3
7.3.1 Opportunity Identification ....................................................................... 7-3
7.3.2 Business Model........................................................................................ 7-4
7.3.3 Contract.................................................................................................... 7-5
7.4 Project Initiation................................................................................................... 7-5
7.4.1 Project Resources..................................................................................... 7-5
7.4.2 Initial Client Meeting............................................................................... 7-6
7.4.3 Well Screening and Prioritization............................................................ 7-6
7.4.4 Well File Management............................................................................. 7-8
7.5 Database Construction ......................................................................................... 7-9
7.5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 7-9
7.5.2 PetroDesk................................................................................................. 7-9
7.5.3 OilField Manager (OFM) Project Database............................................. 7-9
7.5.4 Access/SQL Database............................................................................ 7-10
7.6 Petrophysical Analysis....................................................................................... 7-11
7.6.1 Petrophysical Objectives........................................................................ 7-11
7.6.2 Petrophysical Database .......................................................................... 7-11
7.6.3 Methodology of Analysis....................................................................... 7-11
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.6.4 Petrophysical Data Entry ....................................................................... 7-12

7.6.5 Identifying “Good” Potential Zones ...................................................... 7-13
7.6.6 Recommendations for Future Projects................................................... 7-14
7.7 Engineering Analysis ......................................................................................... 7-15
7.7.1 Data Sources .......................................................................................... 7-15
7.7.2 Well Files ............................................................................................... 7-16
7.7.2.1 AFE’s / Costs .......................................................................... 7-16
7.7.2.2 Previous Analyses................................................................... 7-16
7.7.2.3 Preparatory.............................................................................. 7-17
7.7.2.4 Government............................................................................. 7-17
7.7.3 Analogy of OffSet Wells ....................................................................... 7-17
7.7.4 Well Performance Analysis ................................................................... 7-18
7.7.5 Reserves Analysis .................................................................................. 7-19
7.7.6 Nodal Analysis....................................................................................... 7-20
7.7.6.1 Introduction............................................................................. 7-20
7.7.6.2 Types of Test Data .................................................................. 7-25
7.7.6.3 Case Scenario.......................................................................... 7-25
7.7.6.4 Base Case ................................................................................ 7-27
7.7.6.5 Sensitivities ............................................................................. 7-27
7.7.6.6 New Data ................................................................................ 7-29
7.8 Report................................................................................................................. 7-31
7.8.1 Well History........................................................................................... 7-31
7.8.2 Test History............................................................................................ 7-31
7.8.3 Petrophysics ........................................................................................... 7-31
7.8.4 Pool or Reservoir Data........................................................................... 7-31
7.8.5 Reserves ................................................................................................. 7-31
7.8.6 Production Performance......................................................................... 7-32
7.8.7 Nodal Analysis....................................................................................... 7-32
7.8.8 Recommendations.................................................................................. 7-32
7.8.9 Others..................................................................................................... 7-32
7.8.10 Attachments ......................................................................................... 7-32
7.9 Project Management Issues................................................................................ 7-33
7.9.1 Contract Changes ................................................................................... 7-33
7.9.2 Client Meetings...................................................................................... 7-33
7.9.3 Quality Assurance.................................................................................. 7-34
7.9.3.1 Peer Reviews........................................................................... 7-34
7.9.3.2 Client Service Reviews ........................................................... 7-34
7.9.4 Invoicing Administration ....................................................................... 7-35
7.10 Implementation of Recommendations ............................................................... 7-35
7.10.1 Product Line Support ........................................................................... 7-35
7.10.2 Production Monitoring......................................................................... 7-35
7.10.3 Feedback for Other Wells .................................................................... 7-36
Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.11 Appendices......................................................................................................... 7-37

7.11.1 Appendix 1: Detailed Workflow of Production Enhancement
Process ................................................................................................... 7-38
7.11.2 Appendix 2: Training for Well Review Projects ................................ 7-40
7.11.3 Appendix 3: Software Available for Production Enhancement
Projects................................................................................................ 7-42
7.11.4 Appendix 4: OFM Database Construction from PetroDesk ............... 7-44
7.11.5 Appendix 5: Sample Report................................................................ 7-58
Page v
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number Figure Description
Figure 1: Choosing the solution procedure is a balance between accuracy and speed............... 2-2
Figure 2: RAPID High-level Workflow. .................................................................................... 4-2
Figure 3: Productivity Index based on atmospheric backpressure.............................................. 4-3
Figure 4: Productivity Index based on SCADA collected data .................................................. 4-4
Figure 5: BHFP based on atmospheric backpressure ................................................................. 4-4
Figure 6: BHFP based on radial diffusivity equations................................................................ 4-5
Figure 7: Current Well Gas Rate ................................................................................................ 4-5
Figure 8: Last 6-Month Average Gas Rate ................................................................................. 4-6
Figure 9: Current Well Pressure ................................................................................................. 4-7
Figure 10: Forecasted Infill Well Rate........................................................................................ 4-7
Figure 11: Sorted Table of resulting forecasts by location ......................................................... 4-8
Figure 12: Top Infill locations highlighted on base map............................................................ 4-9
Figure 13: Bubble plot of forecast results................................................................................... 4-9
Figure 14: Confidence range of forecasts based on methodologies used ................................. 4-10
Figure 15: Individual maps placed in a matrix of parameters and time periods:........................ 5-5
Figure 16: Cross hair plot for Heterogeneity Indices calculated on ........................................... 5-7
Figure 17: Completion Heterogeneity Index plot of Cum HI Gas and HCPT............................ 5-9
Figure 18: Interference radius analysis bubble plot.................................................................. 5-12
Figure 19: Last 5-year water cum map ..................................................................................... 5-14
Figure 20: HCPT map illustrating the initial distribution......................................................... 5-16
Figure 21: Remaining Ultimate Recoverable Reserves ............................................................ 5-17
Figure 22: Current Well Gas Rate ............................................................................................ 5-17
Figure 23: Decline Rate ............................................................................................................ 5-18
Figure 24: Phases of reservoir development............................................................................. 5-19
Figure 25: Probability Plot of EUR by Vintage........................................................................ 5-20
Figure 26: Well Distribution by Vintage .................................................................................. 5-20
Figure 27: Best Year Gas Production by Date.......................................................................... 5-21
Figure 28: 5-year Cum Production versus Best Year Gas Rate................................................ 5-22
Figure 29: Best Year Gas Rate by Well Spacing when drilled................................................. 5-22
Figure 30: First order polynomial fit: ....................................................................................... 6-11
Figure 31: Improving the fit by taking out bad points from a previous fit ............................... 6-12
Figure 32: Final real time pressure model ................................................................................ 6-13
Figure 33: Pressure maps created with the real time pressure model ....................................... 6-15
Figure 34: Matrix of maps for time motion study..................................................................... 6-42
Figure 35: Analyze the change of the variables over time........................................................ 6-44
Page a
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 36: Relate the events from the delta maps to the static data maps ................................. 6-44
Figure 37: No negative cums can occur with regular production............................................. 6-50
Figure 38: Negative cums are caused by an infill well............................................................. 6-51
Figure 39: Calculated variables that access the data registers .................................................. 6-56
Figure 40: Plot to verify the calculated variables for the heterogeneity indices....................... 6-58
Figure 41: Cumulative heterogeneity indices for the oil and water rates ................................. 6-59
Figure 42: Cross hair plot ......................................................................................................... 6-60
Figure 43: Cross hair plot in combination with a scatter plot base map................................... 6-61
Figure 44: Cross hair plot displaying the cumulative HI for the daily absolute pressure......... 6-62
Figure 45: Scatter plot: static vs. static data ............................................................................. 6-69
Figure 46: Scatter plot: static vs. dynamic data ........................................................................ 6-70
Figure 47: Scatter plot: dynamic vs. dynamic data................................................................... 6-70
Figure 48: Scatter sets can be used to idendify regions with reservoir problems..................... 6-71
Figure 49: Scatter plot base map............................................................................................... 6-72
Figure 50: Scatter plots showing xyz - profiles ........................................................................ 6-73
Figure 51: Multi-variable analysis ............................................................................................ 6-75
Figure 52: Three ways to add a trendline.................................................................................. 6-76
Figure 53: The slope of the dynamic baselines changes over time........................................... 6-76
Figure 54: A trendline is added to the data to obtain the equation for the best fit.................... 6-77
Figure 55: Example for dynamic baselines............................................................................... 6-78
Figure 56: Trendline and fit equation for the slope of the baseline .......................................... 6-79
Figure 57: Lead/Lag plotted versus remaining ultimate reserves............................................. 6-80
Figure 58: Well with anomalous behavior................................................................................ 6-81
Figure 59: Region with a potential reservoir problem .............................................................. 6-82
Figure 60: Histogram and cumulative distribution frequency .................................................. 6-83
Figure 61: Statistics from a scatter plot in OFM....................................................................... 6-84
Figure 62: Historical scatter plot............................................................................................... 6-85
Figure 63: Table definition ....................................................................................................... 6-91
Figure 64: Make sure ‘Carry Forward’ is checked ................................................................... 6-91
Figure 65: Example for load format.......................................................................................... 6-92
Figure 66: Drainage radius bubble map.................................................................................... 6-93
Figure 67: Saved porosity map for grid arithmetic................................................................. 6-108
Figure 68: Saved net pay map for grid arithmetic .................................................................. 6-109
Figure 69: Saved initial oil saturation map for grid arithmetic............................................... 6-109
Figure 70: OOIP map calculated with grid arithmetic............................................................ 6-110
Figure 71: OOIP can be found in the output window............................................................. 6-111
Figure 72: Report to check calculated variables ..................................................................... 6-114
Figure 73: Depletion map ....................................................................................................... 6-115
Figure 74: Time periods of reservoir development................................................................. 6-117
Figure 75: Generalized Production Enhancement Process ......................................................... 7-2
Page b
APPENDICES
Appendices
Appendix Number Appendix Description
A Process Level Flow Chart
B Logic Level Flow Chart
C Pressure Modeling Analysis Details
D Reservoir Data Review Details
E Heterogeneity Index Analysis Details
F Completion Efficiency Analysis Details
G Production / Interference Radius Analysis Details
H Secondary Phase Movement Analysis Details
I Recovery Analysis Details
J Vintage Analysis Details
K Performance Indicator Analysis Details
L Detailed Well Review Details
Page c
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
The main goal of the Data and Consulting Services (DCS) is to transfer multi-domain data to
decision, which then can be utilized in all aspects of field management activities. Although any
single data, by itself, can provide an input for an aspect of a completion, well or the whole
reservoir, significantly more value can be obtained from that single data when it is integrated
with other data (variable domain, variable coverage, variable frequency). Accordingly, “DCS
Integrated Projects Processes” is prepared to provide discussion and process for data integration
that leads to the products DCS provides as consulting services to the Oil & Gas Industry. The
processes document is accessible in the DCS site in InTouch.
DCS project experience over the years indicated that there are cases where geological
information is insufficient for creating a static model and/or project time is limited for an
integrated 3D reservoir modeling. In such projects, DCS project teams gave more emphasis
given to analysis of production and pressure data in order to drive field applicable
recommendations. Such projects are called “rapid projects” and, therefore, those processes are
called Rapid Processes in this document. DCS Project types and data – project type relationship
is displayed in the chart below.
Page 1-1
INTRODUCTION
This document is prepared to capture our collective experience on executing Rapid type projects.
The document is not going to fit exactly to all our projects, but that they will provide general
guidance for how to conduct projects systematically. With that start we will establish quality and
consistency in our products. Furthermore, it will enhance internal communication & discussions
between our staff on technical issues.
This process “DCS Processes for RAPID Projects” became a reality with the contributions of
Blaine Hollinger, Iain Morrish, John Jochen and William Vargas.
Omer Gurpinar
Technical Director
Data and Consulting Services
Page 1-2
DESCRIPTION
2. DESCRIPTION
This document presents a uniform, process driven project framework for applying analytical
tools involving individual-well monthly production data with limited geological input to solve
three specific types of projects: (1) the identification and high-grading of potential infill
locations, (2) the identification and high-grading of potential production optimization candidates,
and (3) production forecasting. The process provided with this document is named RAPID and it
is consists of a thorough and logical combination of both industry standard and proprietary
Schlumberger analytical techniques. RAPID provides many opportunities to Data & Consulting
Services. Fast execution of RAPID technology is of great value to Schlumberger as the need for
“data to decisions” is increasing. Prior to this integrated process, utilization of analytical
methodologies was mostly limited to consulting projects and can vary depending on the engineer
or geographic location.
The RAPID processes consist of a series of common and proprietary analysis techniques geared
towards analyzing data on a large scale and in a short amount of time. It is a process to logically
work through a series of tasks in a structured, streamlined manner that is consistent from project
to project, engineer to engineer, or geographical location to geographical location. The process
is fast, flexible, thorough, and easily tailored to suit the field or basin being studied. Since many
of the analysis tasks in the process are automated wherever possible, the size of the field and
number of wells reviewed has little impact on the time to reach meaningful conclusions. The
RAPID process is designed around an OFM database populated with all available data.
The efficiency in DCS projects comes from utilizing the most optimal approach for each project.
Tradeoff between speed and accuracy is illustrated in Figure 1. The selection of which method to
use will be dictated by the amount of time available to do the project, the amount of data
available, and the level of accuracy required for designing the field application. Structurally, both
RAPID and Integrated projects of DCS follow the same path. The differentiation comes with the
final methods used for forecasting. Rapid projects, which are best suited for large data sets
(fields or basins) with practically no geological data, can operate from pressure, and production
data only.Integrated projects, on the other hand, have a geologically based 3D reservoir model
that makes the results of integrated projects more reliable. It is advisable to use RAPID process
in all DCS integrated projects, Since, combining RAPID with Integrated Projects could quickly
highlight production enhancement opportunities and data problems, improving efficiency of the
fully integrated study.
Page 2-1
DESCRIPTION
Figure 1: Choosing the solution procedure is a balance between accuracy and speed.
Page 2-2
CONSIDERATION
3. CONSIDERATION
Data Requirements
At a minimum, the RAPID Process requires individual-well monthly production data. Although
not all tasks within the RAPID Process framework can be accomplished, general information
about the study area and possibly some conclusions can be obtained with only production data.
If secondary fluid movement is important, then individual-well monthly production and/or
injection data is required. Finally, by including petrophysical and pressure data, all tasks within
the RAPID Process framework can be fully exploited, thus improving the interpretation,
conclusions, and recommendations.
When to Use RAPID Processes
RAPID Processes are more applicable when the following circumstances are encountered: (1)
many wells, (2) large data sets, (3) limited time frame for investigation, (4) very limited to no
geologic and/or petrophysical information available, (5) mature fields under primary depletion or
stable waterflood, (6) as a preliminary screening tool prior to a more advanced study, or (7) as a
quick evaluation tool at the beginning of integrated projects where interim results may be
desirable.
When Not to Use RAPID Processes
The following conditions are currently not easily addressed with the RAPID Process: (1) The
existence of commingled production, (2) where production data is unreliable, (3) thick reservoirs
with temperature gradients and critical fluids, (4) the presence of highly deviated, horizontal, or
multilateral wells, and (5) operated under EOR/IOR programs with the exception of stable water
floods.
Limitations of RAPID Processes

• The RAPID process produces results based on statistics rather than physics
• Not every technique will yield conclusive results
• Unsteady State systems are difficult to handle
The RAPID Process flow is defined in the Process Level schematic found in Appendix A. The
Process Level contains the actions or tasks required, the output from each task, and the tools
utilized. Appendix B contains the Logic Level of the process, which explains why each task is
necessary. The remainder of this document describes each task.
Page 3-1
RAPID PROCESSES
4. RAPID PROCESSES
The products of DCS’ RAPID processes are:
1. Infill Candidate Selection,

2. Workover Candidate Selection, are
3. Production Forecasting.
Figure 2 shows the process and the relationship between the products in a high level RAPID
workflow.
Figure 2: RAPID High-level Workflow.
Page 4-2
RAPID PROCESSES
4.1 Infill Candidate Selection
After the set data processing, four stages are identified within this objective; Prediction of
previous Infill cycle, Validation and Selection of Process, Infill Well Selection, and
Product Delivery.
4.1.1 Prediction of Previous Infill cycle
- Use statistical, spatial and temporal relationships to forecast outcome of

previous drilling phase.
- While withholding their data, attempt to forecast the most recent phase of
infill drilling using maps of recent rates, productivities, pressures,
declines, and any other correlations found.
- The objective is to determine which data warrants confidence and in
which areas it applies. All methods with reasonable forecasts can be used
to converge on a single prediction with a quantified range in expected
outcome.
The following two example maps of productivity index illustrate the potential
differences in forecasting, utilizing multiple techniques. One map was calculated
assuming wells were operated against atmospheric backpressure, while the other
is based on true bottomhole flowing pressures from a SCADA system. The
SCADA data was restricted by area and as a result warranted low confidence. In
areas where both methods give similar results and confidence in underlying data
is good, confident conclusions can be achieved.
Figure 3: Productivity Index based on atmospheric backpressure
Page 4-3
RAPID PROCESSES
Figure 4: Productivity Index based on SCADA collected data
Figure 5: BHFP based on atmospheric backpressure
Page 4-4
RAPID PROCESSES
The following two figures are grid maps of BHFP interpolated maps; one was
created using atmospheric backpressure at the wellhead, while the other was
based on the radial diffusivity equations, utilizing petrophysical properties to
derive the BHFP. A range of BHFP’s based on sensitivity to permeability can
also be created for this method. When used to represent the BHP in productivity
calculations each of these techniques will yield different results.
Schlumberger
umberger Private
Figure 6: BHFP based on radial diffusivity equations
The existing rate map can also be one forecast method, or a modification of such,
for example last 4 or 6 month moving average.
Figure 7: Current Well Gas Rate
Page 4-5
RAPID PROCESSES
Figure 8: Last 6-Month Average Gas Rate
4.1.2 Validation and Selection of Process
- Validate a methodology to forecast initial infill performance

- By comparing the forecast to actual results for the recent infill wells,
determine which techniques work best and where.
In the above example, certain methodologies can be reliable in certain areas.

These areas and methodologies are therefore selected, based on confidence in the
underlying data.
4.1.3 Infill Well Selection
- Locate all possible infill locations and calculate initial production

forecasts
The following plot displays the 994 infill locations that were tested against the
methodologies chosen, next to the current pressure map for the field.
Page 4-6
RAPID PROCESSES
Schlumberger
umberger Private
Figure 9: Current Well Pressure
Figure 10: Forecasted Infill Well Rate
Page 4-7
RAPID PROCESSES
4.1.4 Product Delivery
- Prepare and deliver presentation / report to client

- Output:
- Infill candidates list and range of forecasts
- Location map
- Table of expected recoveries
- Qualified impact of well mechanics
- Quantification of added value
- Reserves
- Money value
- Cursory workover and recompletion candidate list
The following was presented to a client with the recommendation to initially

target the 4 yellow highlighted areas with infill wells. Well ranking was based on
a calculated discounted cumulative production value. Ranges in expected results
are also presented, indicating confidence levels for each forecast. The smaller the
range in prediction values, the less risk associated with that forecast.
Figure 11: Sorted Table of resulting forecasts by location
Page 4-8
RAPID PROCESSES
Schlumberger
Figure 12: Top Infill locations highlighted on base map
umberger Private
Figure 13: Bubble plot of forecast results
Page 4-9
RAPID PROCESSES
Figure 14: Confidence range of forecasts based on methodologies used
4.2 Workover Candidate Selection
Detailed Well Review

- See Intouch Submission ID# 3300901
Appendix L contains an overview of the Detailed Well Review process.
4.3 Production Forecasting
Production forecasts for existing wells are estimated in the Recovery Analysis step of the
Rapid workflow.
Confidence level on the predictions is checked as more production data become

available. The forecasted performance is compare with observed data. If mismatch is
within the accepted tolerance then forecast is considered still valid. Otherwise, further
evaluation for the mismatch is required. If the cause appears to be primarily well problem
then the Detailed Well Review process underlying Workover Candidate Selection needs
to be performed, otherwise update the forecasting model.
Page 4-10
METHODOLOGIES
5. METHODOLOGIES
5.1 Pressure Modeling
Pressure versus time modeling is used to group wells that appear to be in hydraulic
communication to determine reservoir compartmentalization and verify pool boundaries.
This is an important part of the study as the relative performance of wells within
individual compartments or pools must be incorporated into the overall analysis.
For many applications (e.g., for the generation of isobaric pressure contour maps,
pressure grid maps, or the application of PVT correlations) it is important to have
reservoir pressure data for every month on a per well basis, rather than a single value
representing the average reservoir pressure. Unfortunately, reservoir pressure is rarely
available for every month and the distribution and frequency of pressure build-up data is
sporadic at best.
Real time pressure models provide the opportunity to evaluate pressure trends derived
from the existing pressure data. With the help of such a model, missing values can be
interpolated and a continuous function for reservoir pressure can be developed for each
well.
In order to do Pressure Modeling, a certain amount of pressure data must be available. If

the data are too sparse, interpolation may not be possible. Individual monthly pressure
data are plotted and compared to other wells. Those wells with similar pressure trends
are grouped together and a pressure model is developed.
Output from Pressure Modeling:

• Each well is grouped into appropriate reservoir compartments
• A pressure versus time model is developed for each compartment and possibly for
each well
• Pressure maps can be generated at any point in time to assess the level of depletion
within each compartment or reservoir
Appendix C contains details of the Pressure Modeling analysis.
5.2 Reservoir Data Review
The objective of this task is to become familiar with the amount and quality of data
available and the historical development and performance of the study area.
Page 5-1
METHODOLOGIES
In this task, the historical performance of the study area is reviewed and documented.
The steps involved include: (1) an inventory and overview of the data, (2) a review of
production characteristics as a function of time, (3) fluid distribution maps, and (4) time
motion maps. In this task, many tables, graphs, and maps will be generated allowing the
study team to assess the amount and quality of data available to them and to gain insight
into the historical development and performance of the study area. It will be up to the
study team to ascertain which tables, graphs, and maps contain meaningful information
and which should be included in presentations or reports. Not all documents generated in
this task will ultimately be useful; usually that is not known until after a document is
generated. In addition, it is difficult to specifically outline exactly which maps and
graphs should be generated, because quite often, one graph or map leads to another.
However, there are many standard graphs and maps that can and should be generated for
most projects.
Data can be divided into two groups: dynamic data, which includes any type of data that
changes during the production history of the field (e.g., production, pressure, etc.) and
static data, which does not change with time (e.g., petrophysical properties, such as net
pay, porosity, and initial water saturation).
Inventory and Overview of Data

The first step in this task is to inventory the data. Is monthly production available for all
wells? Is petrophysical data available for all wells, and if not, how many wells contain
petrophysical information. It is important to know the coverage of petrophysical data
because if the petrophysical information is limited, certain tasks in the RAPID Process
cannot be done, such as the drainage and interference radius analysis. How many wells
are in the database and how many different reservoirs are included in the study? Is there
more than one operator? If this is an enhanced recovery project, is secondary fluid
injection or production data available by well by month? Is the EOR project stable?
What about completion information, such as perforation history or stimulation practices:
is it available and is it complete?
During the first step, tables to summarize the range in static data values or graphs to
display the distribution in values would be appropriate. Also, contour or color grid maps
are useful to show the distribution of parameters geographically. This would be a good
time to generate maps of static properties, such as, net pay, porosity, initial water
saturation, etc. Since static data does not change with time, a single map or graph of
static data is sufficient for the duration of the project.
Page 5-2
METHODOLOGIES
Review of Production Characteristics as a Function of Time

In this step, graphs of parameters that can be plotted as a function of time are generated
and observed. For example, chronological graphs of oil, gas, and water production along
with well count gives a historical overview of the producing history of the study area
along with how many wells were producing at any point in time. It also might give a clue
as to the current status of the field, whether it is mature and on the decline or actively
being developed and field wide production is still increasing. Pressure, injection
volumes, and ratios like gas-oil ratio or water cut, can also be plotted as a function of
time or as a function of cumulative production or injection. At this stage in the study, the
graphs generated are generally on a field wide basis. Individual well graphs can be
generated in another task later in the study.
Fluid Distribution Maps

Many of the same parameters graphed as a function of time, can be mapped as a function
of time; however, maps are generated using values on an individual well basis as opposed
to grouping or summing on a field wide basis. This is where the results of the Pressure
Modeling task can be used, i.e., reservoir pressure at individual well locations can be
mapped at any point in time. The advantage of mapping certain parameters monthly,
yearly, or at some other time interval is that the study team can visualize changes over
time; for example, the change in fluid distribution or movement through time.
Contour, color grid, or bubble maps can be created. Bubble maps are especially
advantageous if two variables are to be shown at the same time.
Time Motion Study

A good way to get a feel for the reservoir is to divide the production history into time
slices and create maps for each time period and each parameter of interest. In this way, a
matrix of maps is created that allows the study team to find the sweet and bad spots of the
reservoir, analyze their changes over time, and relate them to reservoir development and
properties. Some of the same maps generated in the initial part of this task, for example,
net pay, porosity, initial water saturation, are also used in the Time Motion Study matrix
of maps.
The difference between maps generated in the Time Motion step and the maps generated
in the Fluid Distribution step is that the Time Motion maps are generally delta maps.
Delta maps display only the change that occurred for a particular parameter during a
specified time period. The proper length for the time period is dependent on the actual
Page 5-3
METHODOLOGIES
producing time of the reservoir. Five years can be considered the preferred value. Time
periods less than five years may provide too much detail, whereas time periods longer
than ten years may not show enough detail. Once the time period is chosen, it must
remain the same for all Time Motion maps through out the study. Examples of dynamic
data that can be mapped in the Time Motion Study are delta cumulative production, delta
cumulative injection, delta bottom hole pressure, delta gas-oil ratio, and delta water cut.
Generally delta maps are mapped as color grid maps. Once delta grid maps and grid
maps of static data are created, they should be printed and placed next to each other on a
wall or table forming a large matrix of maps. Figure 2 is an example of a matrix of delta
and static maps. Analyzing maps in this manner is called a Time Motion Study. Once
the individual maps are placed in a matrix format, they should be studied. Start with one
variable first, preferably the delta of the cumulative production, and follow it through
time. In this way the sweet spots as well as the poor parts of the reservoir can be
detected. The best producing areas can be found as well as the worst. This procedure
should be repeated working down the time periods for each parameter and working
across each time period for different parameters. Notes, comments, and observations can
and should be written on the matrix of maps.
Page 5-4
METHODOLOGIES
Dynamic Data Static Data
Time Water Water

Oil Cum Gas Cum GOR Water Cut BHP
Cum Injected
1956 – 1960
Structure
1961 – 1965
Netpay
1966 – 1970
Porosity
1971 – 1975
Permeability
1976 – 1980
Sw
1981 – 1985
Facilities
Schlumberger
Well Repair
1986 – 1990
umberger Private
Freq.
1991 – 1995
WOE
Figure 15: Individual maps placed in a matrix of parameters and time periods:
Time Motion Study
Output from Reservoir Data Review

• Knowledge of the amount and quality of data
• Knowledge of whether there is enough petrophysical information to calculate
volumetrics and drainage/interference radii as part of other tasks to be conducted later
in the process
• Tables, graphs, and maps of static data, for example, petrophysical properties
• Production, well count, etc. graphs as a function of time
• Fluid distribution maps at various time intervals displaying fluid movements through
time and the current conditions of the study area
• Knowledge of the historical development and performance of the field or study area
Appendix D contains details of Reservoir Data Review.
Page 5-5
METHODOLOGIES
5.3 Heterogeneity Index
Heterogeneity Index (HI) is the name of a calculated variable and provides a mechanism
to compare a parameter for an individual well to the average of that same parameter for a
group of wells as a function of time. Heterogeneity Index is defined as:
valuewell
HI = − 1
valueaverage of wells
where valuewell is the value of a parameter for a single well for one month and valueaverage
of wells is the average value of the same parameter for a group of wells for that same
month. Heterogeneity Index values are calculated each month. The number one is
subtracted from the ratio to normalize the Heterogeneity Index to zero, such that, the
average of the well group is equal to zero. Wells performing above the average during a
particular month will have a value for HI greater than zero. Heterogeneity Index values
less than zero indicates the well is performing below average.
Heterogeneity Indices are often graphed on cross hair plots. Cross hair plots are x-y
scatter plots with different Heterogeneity Indices on the x- and y-axes. Usually the scale
is set such that the origin of the axes, which is the point where the average lies, is in the
middle of the plot, point (0,0).
Figure 3 is an example of a cross hair plot for cumulative HI gas production and
cumulative HI average pressure. Notice that Figure 3 is a snap shot in time (August
2002). Each point on the graph represents a different well and its performance relative to
the average for the group. Remember, the average of the group is always at the point
(0,0) and the farther away from that point a well lies, the greater the deviation from the
average a particular well has been through history. A routine could be set up to animate
the points through time. To detect anomalies in the field, certain points can be traced to
capture their behavior (see Figure 3). Inflections in these traces may indicate a well and
time where a workover has been performed. If the occurrence of a workover is
confirmed, an improvement in well performance may highlight a successful field
practice. Otherwise, the inflection may be useful in identifying an unsuccessful field
practice. This information may be plotted on a base map and anomalous regions
identified. The under-performing wells can be further reviewed as optimization
candidates later in the RAPID Process.
Page 5-6
METHODOLOGIES
Figure 16: Cross hair plot for Heterogeneity Indices calculated on
cumulative gas and cumulative average pressure
Output from analysis:

• List of anomalous wells and locations
• Anomalous areas in the field can be identified
• Identification of successful/unsuccessful workover strategies
Appendix E contains details of the Heterogeneity Index analysis.
5.4 Completion Efficiency
Completion Efficiency (CE) is the process of integrating rock properties with production
properties at the completion level. This process identifies where well stimulation may be
beneficial.
Completion Efficiency analysis is similar in concept to Heterogeneity Index analysis,

except it incorporates petrophysical properties to establish a relationship between
formation quality and production performance. This is used to identify optimization and
infill potential by formation or region within the pool.
Page 5-7
METHODOLOGIES
Scatter plots are used to develop correlations between parameters; they can be animated
to observe changes over time. Trend lines can be added to scatter plots. Any
combination of variables is possible to graph on a scatter plot. Scatter plots can be
divided into four major groups:
• Plots of static data vs. static data (e.g., permeability vs. porosity)
• Plots of static data vs. dynamic data (e.g., net pay vs. cumulative gas produced)
• Plots of dynamic data vs. dynamic data (e.g., water rate vs. gas rate)
• Cross hair plots (e.g. cum HI pressure vs. Hydrocarbon Pore Thickness)
For example, a plot of Hydrocarbon Pore Thickness (HCPT) versus Cum HI Gas can be
generated several times with the data points grouped using various criteria. HCPT is
calculated at each well location by:
HCPT = h ⋅ φ ⋅ (1 − S wc )
where h = the net thickness of the reservoir rock

φ = the porosity, or volume fraction of the rock which is porous
Swc = the connate of irreducible water saturation and is expressed
as a fraction of the pore volume.
The groupings can be based on various categories such as drill date, area, quadrant,
stimulation types, stimulation date, by groupings determined from the Heterogeneity
Index Review, etc. With each plot, an accompanying graph of XY locations should be
generated and reviewed to determine trends or explain anomalies noted in the HI review.
Page 5-8
METHODOLOGIES
Figure 17: Completion Heterogeneity Index plot of Cum HI Gas and HCPT
For example, if the 6 points in the above plot identified as having an above average
HCPT with a below average gas performance are compared with plots where data are
grouped by drill date and stimulation information, it may be determined that the wells are
older, possibly utilized a unique workover practice, and scattered throughout the field.
Therefore the well performances may not be reflecting expected reservoir behavior at
these locations.
• List of anomalous completions and locations

• Possible explanations of anomalies
Appendix F contains details of the Completion Efficiency analysis.
5.5 Production and Interference Radius
If the study team had knowledge of the parts of a field or study area that have not been
swept or are producing too much water, then picking locations to drill additional wells
would be easier. In this task, the Production or Interference Radius for each well is
calculated. Portions of the study area not being drained by existing wells are quickly
identified visually by bubble mapping calculated radii. If reservoir pressure and
Page 5-9
METHODOLOGIES
petrophysical information (net pay, porosity, and water saturation) are not available for
every well, this task cannot be completed.
In this task, either production radius or interference radius can be calculated. Usually
production radius is associated with oil wells and interference radius is associated with
gas wells. Production radius calculations are a measure of swept volume, and as such,
are more applicable to oil wells. The goal of interference calculations, on the other hand,
is to determine the distance from a producing well at which the drawdown is a constant
value.
There are many assumptions that go into calculating production or interference radius;
these assumptions should be recognized and understood when drawing conclusions or
making recommendations. Typically, produced and injected volumes are known or can
be calculated with a reasonable degree of accuracy using standard engineering practices.
For example, cumulative production is usually known and estimated ultimate recoveries
can be calculated. However, translating volumes into a production area requires
knowledge of petrophysical properties. Lack of confidence in petrophysical properties
leads to a lack of confidence in area calculations. Furthermore, even though production
area can be calculated with reasonable confidence, the shape of that area must be
assumed in order to ascertain parts of the study area that are not being drained by existing
wellbores. It is customary to assume circular drainage patterns, and thus, production
radius can be calculated and mapped. If the actual drainage pattern is not circular, then
conclusions and recommendations based on circular drainage patterns could be wrong.
Production Radius (oil wells)
The definition of production radius, as used in this document, should not be confused
with the definition of drainage radius used in pressure transient testing and simulation. In
this task, production radius is based on volumetric calculations and does not incorporate
the compressibility of the reservoir fluids in the equation. Bubble maps created with this
equation will show the area drained and not, as is the case in well testing and simulation,
the area contributing to flow. Hence, one must not make the mistake and use this concept
to detect interference between oil wells.
Depending on the condition of the reservoir, there are two ways to calculate production
radius:
Page 5-10
METHODOLOGIES
• If the reservoir is under hydraulic control, i.e., there is no apparent decline in the
reservoir pressure because of water influx and/or water drive, use the following
equation:
7758 ⋅ A ⋅ h ⋅ φ ⋅ (1 − Sw − Sor )
Np = [STB ]
Boi
solving for re,
43560 ⋅ N p ⋅ Boi
re = [ft ]
7758 ⋅ π ⋅ h ⋅ φ ⋅ (1 − Sw − Sor )
• If the reservoir is under volumetric control, i.e., there is no water influx to replace the
displaced oil and the oil is replaced by gas (reservoir pressure declines as oil is
produced), use the following equation.
 1 − Sw 1 − Sw − Sg 
N p = 7758 ⋅ A ⋅ h ⋅ φ ⋅  −  [STB ]
 Boi Bo 
solving for re,
43560 ⋅ N p
re = [ft ]
 1 − Sw 1 − Sw − S g 
7758 ⋅ h ⋅ π ⋅ φ ⋅  − 
 Boi Bo 
where:
Np = Cumulative petroleum recovered, STB
A = Drainage area, acres
h = Net pay, ft
φ = Porosity, fraction
Sw = Water saturation at current conditions, fraction
Sg = Gas saturation at current conditions, fraction
Sor = Residual oil saturation, fraction
Bo = Formation volume factor at current reservoir conditions, RB/STB
Boi = Formation volume factor at initial reservoir conditions, RB/STB
Page 5-11
METHODOLOGIES
Interference Radius (gas wells)

For gas reservoirs, instead of calculating the production radius of a particular well,
pressure interference calculations should be used. Production radius calculations are a
measure of swept volume, and as such, are more applicable to oil wells. The goal of
interference calculations is to determine the distance from a producing well at which the
drawdown is a constant value, defined by the study team. Interference radii calculated in
this manner can be displayed on a bubble map. Existing wells that have overlapping
interference areas may be expected to display poorer production performance. Regions
in the study area where calculated interference radii do not overlap are potentially areas
available for infill drilling. These are the areas where interference is expected to be
minimal. By altering the drawdown criteria, a table of viable infill drilling locations can
be generated, giving the study team an idea of the interference that must be tolerated for a
given number of desired infill locations.
Schlumberger
For example, the interference analysis in this example case suggested the most severe
umberger Private
pressure drawdowns were located within 100 meters of the producing wells. In practical
terms, an inter-well distance of 100 meters is not likely to be achieved with even
moderately high well densities in this area. As a result, it is anticipated that any future
infill locations will not be drilled in a high interference region.
Interference Radius
Strathmore BLRV
0 0
41
0
0 80 0
71
0
70
75
94 43
67
24-25W4
95
79
98
61
88
67
30
89 70
Interference.radius final
83 Interference.Re
Calculated Spacing Radius : 640 Acre Max
Figure 18: Interference radius analysis bubble plot
Page 5-12
METHODOLOGIES
• Table of production or interference area and radius for each well

• Bubble map of production or interference radii indicating potential areas available for
infill drilling, or areas where existing wells are already in conflict.
Appendix G contains details of the Production and Interference Radius analysis.
5.6 Secondary Phase Movement
In this analysis, produced or injected water is tracked spatially over time. This allows
identification of unswept areas in the reservoir, and wells that are expected to be watered
out, as opposed to wells that may be exhibiting signs of coning or water channeling.
The aerial distribution of water production and injection around the field is analyzed to
determine if water movement is a concern. This is an important aspect in the overall
analysis to assist in determining which areas of the reservoir may already be wet or
swept. A map or a series of maps displaying the movement of water is the final result of
this analysis.
For example, the following delta cum water production map was generated in the
Reservoir Data review section of the example study. This delta map was for the last 5-
year production period from the field. The water production data in this area was
unreliable due to individual well water metering. Consequently, the results of the water
movement analysis were suspect and, as a result, no conclusions could be drawn.
However, the performances of the wells identified as the major water producers should be
compared with anomalies identified in the HI and CE sections. Finding a similar
relationship from multiple analyses will establish reliable conclusions.
Page 5-13
METHODOLOGIES
Figure 19: Last 5-year water cum map

• Identification of un-swept areas
• Identification of permeability trends
Appendix H contains details of the Secondary Phase Movement
5.7 Cursory Well Review
The outputs from all previous analyses are reviewed at this stage to determine the final
list of wells and data that will be used to forecast future performance. Any noted
anomalous behaviors are determined to be reservoir related or potentially the result of
completion mechanisms. Wells determined to be atypical due to completion mechanisms
or whose anomalous performance characteristics cannot be correlated or explained are
removed when predicting reservoir performance so as to not erroneously skew forecasts.
For example, wells identified as unusual in HI are reviewed in conjunction with results
from CE to determine if petrophysical properties explain their performance, or if
stimulation techniques have caused the unusual behaviors. Knowledge gained from the
Reservoir Data review can also assist in determining if the wells are anomalous due to
Page 5-14
METHODOLOGIES
reservoir conditions. These wells and their data will remain in the study to help forecast
future potential of the reservoir. However, if a well’s anomalous behavior cannot be
correlated with petrophysical properties to suggest its performance is reservoir controlled,
the well should be removed from the study prior to forecasting reservoir performance.

• Refined list of project wells for use in further forecasting
• List of potential wells for further production enhancement review
5.8 Recovery
The goal of the Recovery analysis is to identify areas where existing wells are not
draining the reservoir efficiently. This task has been divided into three steps: (1)
calculate and map original hydrocarbon (oil or gas) in place, (2) calculate the expected
recovery from each well, and (3) calculate recovery efficiency of existing completions.
Original Hydrocarbon In Place

Original oil or gas in place within the reservoir should be calculated using maps of net
pay, porosity, and water saturation (or hydrocarbon saturation). If petrophysical
information is not available for each well, grid properties can be interpolated using a
number of interpolation schemes. Once grid properties are calculated, the original oil or
gas in place can be calculated. A map of hydrocarbon pore thickness (see Figure 20) can
be used to visualize the distribution of oil or gas before the reservoir began producing.
Page 5-15
METHODOLOGIES
Figure 20: HCPT map illustrating the initial distribution
of oil volumes in the reservoir
Estimated Ultimate Recovery

Decline curve analysis is performed on every producing completion to estimate the
ultimate recovery (EUR) for each completion. If a well is no longer producing, its
cumulative production is its EUR. Values for EUR can be mapped. Such maps will
again illustrate the better and poorer parts of the study area.
Recovery Efficiency
Depletion maps are a fast way to get an overview of the stage of depletion in different
areas of the reservoir. Mature areas that are almost depleted can easily be distinguished
from areas that still have a lot of production potential for the future. Recovery efficiency
is calculated by dividing cumulative production by EUR. Reserve life index can also be
calculated. Recovery efficiency and reserve life index are time dependent as recovery
efficiency is dependent on the current cumulative production and reserve life index is
dependent on the current producing rate. Both recovery efficiency and reserve life index
can be mapped. Both maps represent the current status of the reservoir. Areas where the
reservoir life index is large and the recovery efficiency is small may be targeted as
potential areas for additional drilling, or areas where workovers and recompletions may
yield the greatest benefit.
Page 5-16
METHODOLOGIES

• EUR’s calculated by reservoir by well
• Original hydrocarbon in place for the reservoir
• Better areas for further drilling and workovers
For example the following maps were generated from decline analysis for this example
study:
Schlumberger
umberger Private
Figure 21: Remaining Ultimate Recoverable Reserves
Figure 22: Current Well Gas Rate
Page 5-17
METHODOLOGIES
Figure 23: Decline Rate
Appendix I contains details of the Recovery analysis.
5.9 Vintage
Vintaging refers to the grouping of wells by date for comparisons. Usually the date of
first production is the date used to place wells in groups, but may also be done by
stimulation date, the date a well was put on compression, the date a pump was installed,
etc. The groups, or date ranges, are set by the study team, which defines how the wells
performance is to be compared. Vintaging is another method that allows the study team
to visualize what is happening in the reservoir over time. The vintage groups can be used
to extend the HI and CE analysis.
For example, the study team may want to evaluate the effectiveness of various drilling
programs. Figure 24 illustrates when and how many wells were drilled in a reservoir.
Page 5-18
METHODOLOGIES
Figure 24: Phases of reservoir development
Figure 24 also helps to sort the wells into groups of (1) the initial exploration wells, (2)
the initial development wells, (3) the first round of infill wells, and (4) the second round
of infill wells. In this example the color code in Figure 24 is simply the total number of
wells equally divided into groups by date of first production. Initial production rates,
decline characteristics, expected ultimate recoveries, ratios, and other key indicators for
each group are analyzed and compared. Are the infill wells better or worse than the
original development wells? Does it look like the infill wells accelerated production or
are they recovering additional reserves? Answering these and other questions may help
the team anticipate the likely effectiveness of a future-drilling program. Utilizing
probability plotting can help in presenting the findings.
The following probability plot of EUR by vintage gives insight as to realistic

expectations from the next infill drilling cycle. The distribution of the wells must be
reviewed to ensure the vintage distribution geographical has minimal impact on findings.
Page 5-19
METHODOLOGIES
Figure 25: Probability Plot of EUR by Vintage
Figure 26: Well Distribution by Vintage

• Probabilistic expectation for the next drilling or workover program
Appendix J contains details of the Vintage analysis.
Page 5-20
METHODOLOGIES
5.10 Performance Indicator
This analysis incorporates statistical methods in an attempt to identify correlations among

production traits, with which to forecast the deliverability and reserve base of the next
infill drilling cycle. Common indicators include: Best 12, 6, or 3 month production
rates, initial production rates, moving averages of rates, well spacing, rate-cumulative
production relationships, etc. Groupings from previous analyses such as vintage, HI and
CI are used to explore for relationships among sub categories.
Following are a few of the plots that were generated in the example study while searching
for a correlation. No strong correlations were observed; therefore a prediction from this
analysis was not produced.
Figure 27: Best Year Gas Production by Date
Page 5-21
METHODOLOGIES
Figure 28: 5-year Cum Production versus Best Year Gas Rate
Figure 29: Best Year Gas Rate by Well Spacing when drilled.
Page 5-22
METHODOLOGIES
Plots such as the 5 Year Cum versus the Best 12 Month Average gas rate can be analyzed
to identify if the chosen indicator could be used as a measure of cumulative production.
In this case the indicator did not yield a strong correlation.

• Possible results for the next drilling phase
• Reliable indicators to use as forecasting tools
Appendix K contains details of the Performance Indicator analysis.
Page 5-23
APPENDICIES
6. APPENDICES
Page 6-1
APPENDICIES
APPENDICES
Appendix Number Appendix Description
A Process Level Flow Chart
B Logic Level Flow Chart
C Pressure Modeling Analysis Details
D Reservoir Data Review Details
E Heterogeneity Index Analysis Details
F Completion Efficiency Analysis Details
G Production / Interference Radius Analysis Details
H Secondary Phase Movement Analysis Details
I Recovery Analysis Details
J Vintage Analysis Details
K Performance Indicator Analysis Details
L Detailed Well Review Details
Page 6-2
APPENDIX A – PROCESS LEVEL FLOW CHART
6.1 Appendix A: Process Level Flow Chart
Page 6-3
APPENDIX A – PROCESS LEVEL FLOW CHART
Rapid Field Analysis Tool – Process Level

No
Constructed Yes Reservoir Heterogeneity Yes Com pletion Yes Secondary Phase Cursory W ell
Pressure Pressure M odeling es Rock Secondary
Dataset Data Review Index Efficiency M ovem ent Review
Data Data Phase
-W ell list for study (+offset data) Analyze reservoir pressures Analyze historical and current Identify anom alous com pletions Analyze m ovem ent and Differentiate between reservoir
Identify anom alous w ells and No No
-Production and com partmentalization reservoir perform ance and locations production of secondary and com pletion m echanism s for
locations
-Location reservoir fluids and injected anom alous behavior
Pressure m odel for each Knowledge of: List of anom alous com pletions phases
-Gas List of anom alous wells and
reservoir com partm ent. - Developm ent history and locations
locations
- Reservoir character Identification of unswept areas Differentiation betw een
-W ater Groupings of wells into - Fluid distribution with tim e reservoir and well m echanism s
OFM
appropriate com partm ents. - Tim e-m otion m ap OFM Identification of perm eability for anom alous behavior
-R ock and Fluid D ata Powerpoint
Powerpoint trends
- Mapping / tables of: Material Balance for each List of wells for further review
- Structure (Gross/Net OFM
com partm ents.
Reservoir and Net Pay) Powerpoint OFM Update forecasts w ith
- Porosity Frontsim OFM drilling/workover results
OFM Pipesim
- Saturations Mbal Pow erpoint and recently acquired data
- Perm eability Eclipse
Powerpoint
- Shale percent Excel
Production / Interference
-Pressure Data Radius
-C om pletion / W orkover Data ations are

D eterm ine if infill loc
- Production Logging already swept, or ar e likely to
interfere with existing wells
-Injection Data
-Tracer Data
List/m ap of existing ells
w and
prints
their drainage foot
-Special spacing/operational
considerations
OFM
-Avail. Studies (Sim , Geo,...)
-PTA
-Land Rights
-AOF
-Econom ic cutoffs
(rates/reserves)
-Fiscal regim e
-Operating expense ($/w/m o, Perform ance Recovery
Vintage
gather, transm ission, process) Indicator
-C apital expense (drill,
com plete, tie-in) Analyze possible indicators to Quantify recoveries and their
Investigation of completion and
-Prices (oil, cas, ngls, etc.) assist in forecasting distribution
operating m ethods by vintage
-D isposal costs (water)
-Available capital - Possible results for next W ells grouped by vintage R ecovery by well and reservoir
drilling phase
- Reliable indicators to use as Knowledge of com pletion and Identify value of additional
forecasting tools operating m ethods by vintage drilling
- Dependence of indicators on
dependent variables Probabilistic expectation for Identify areas for future drilling
- Identification of anom alous next drilling phase
wells and their location Volum etric Mapping
- Current and historical well
Rapid Response:
spacings OFM Opportunities for Field Applications
Powerpoint OFM
Access Mbal
Excel Pow erpoint
OFM D rilling
Powerpoint NDS Design
MDx
Infill Candidate Prediction of Logging
Selection previous infill Validation & Selection Infill W ell Testing
Product Delivery C om pletions
cycle of Process Selection
Facilities
Validate a m ethodology to Locate all possible infill
Use previously determ ined ce M onitoring
forecast initial infill perform an locations and calculate initial Prepare and deliver
statistical, spatial and tem poral
production forecasts presentation/report to client
relationships to forecast
outcom e of previous cycle Methodology with which to
on
forecast initial infill producti List of Infill Locations Presentation
Tables
Results of applying prediction Forecasts for infill locations Figures
OFM
methods Support
Access
Excel OFM
OFM Excel OFM
Access Powerpoint Econom ic Powerpoint
Excel Evaluation W ord
Excel
Project W orkover Candidate Determ ine economically viable Peep
recomm endations
Objective Selection
Rapid Response:
1. Reduce selection using
Opportunities for Field Applications
econom ic criteria
2. Build im plem entation plan
3. Adjust forecasts Pow erStim
4. Reiterate econom ics until Fracturing
im plem entation plan is
stable Cased HoleLogging
Testing
Detailed OFM Recom pletions
W ell
Revi PEEP Product Delivery Stim ulations
ew Artificial Lift
form detailed Increm ental Facilities
Yes Per well analysis Sand M anagem ent
aloguing of av Prepare and deliver database/
Cat ailable data presentation/report to client M onitoring
Yes
Production Is there a Define Deviation is a W ell m odel
Forecasting Monitoring D eviation Cause W ell Problem s built
IDR
rform ance ga
No Pe ps identified
W orkover candidates list
Identify deviations from No potentials cal W orkover solutions
W ella variety of s culated using
forecasts W orkover Forecasts
olutions
Location Map
Determ ine cause of deviation
Econom ic comparison of
Report Increm ental Production
solutions
List of deviating wells Increm ental forecast
Preferred solution to rem ove
Quantification of Added Value
OFM gaps is identified
Reserves
Money Value
Forecasts generated
Excel OFM
OFM Powerpoint
Update Model Powerpoint W ord
Excel
Color Coding
Pipesim
SPAN
Actions SCEPTRE
Logic ProCade
FracCade
Tools Stim Cade
Page 6-4
APPENDIX B – LOGIC LEVEL FLOW CHART
6.2 Appendix B: Logic Level Flow Chart
Page 6-5
APPENDIX B – LOGIC LEVEL FLOW CHART
Rapid Field Analysis Tool – Logic Level

No
Constructed Yes
Pressure Yes
Pressure M odeling
Reservoir es Heterogeneity Rock
Rock Com pletion Secondary Yes Secondary Phase Cursory W ell
Dataset Data Review Index Data Efficiency Phase M ovem ent Review
Data Data
-W ell list for study (+offset data) Analyze reservoir pressures Analyze historical and current Identify anom alous wells and Identify anom alous com pletions Analyze m ovem ent and Differentiate between reservoir
No No
-Production and com partm entalization reservoir perform ance locations and locations production of secondary and com pletion mechanism s for
-Location reservoir fluids and injected anom alous behavior
1. QC pressure points, 1. Use tim e-m otion to identify 1. Cross plot Cum HI Gas vs 1. Cum HI G as and W ater vs. phases
-G as quantitatively Petrophysical param eters by
secondary phase presence Cum HI Pressure
2. P/Z derivative defines and quality of 2ndary phase 2. Identify outlying wells from com pletion and well, 1. Integrating HI and CE
-W ater 1. Create m aps of secondary
com partm ents data cross plots found between highlighted by drilling/ results, elim inate wells from
phase production and
3. QC pressure points through 2. Use petrophysical maps to 75 o – 195 o and 255 o – 15 o perforation/ stim ulation/ and subsequent analysis that do
-R ock and Fluid D ata injection with tim e
com parison to compartm ent determ ine sufficiency of segm ents. A suitable Production techniques. not represent reservoir
- Mapping / tables of: 2. Incorporate tracer and
avg. coverage for volum etrics distance from the origin to 2. Identify outliers as for HI and perform ance
- Structure (G ross/Net geological data to verify
4. Fits and extrapolation for 3. Determ ine operational result in approx. 10% well post on m ap 2. Qualify im pact of well
Reservoir and Net Pay) perm eability trends Update forecasts w ith
each well by com partm ent lim itations: identification. mechanics for report
- Porosity 5. Maps of P vs tim e by drilling/workover results
-regulatory 3. Identify outliers on map O FM
- Saturations com partm ent OFM and recently acquired data
-W I/ownership Powerpoint
- Perm eability 6. Continue analysis by Frontsim O FM
- Shale percent -surface conditions
com partm ent OFM Powerpoint Pipesim
Production / Interference Eclipse
Powerpoint
-Pressure Data O FM Radius
O FM
Powerpoint
-C om pletion / W orkover Data M bal Determ ine if infill locations are
- Production Logging Powerpoint already swept, or are likely to
Excel interfere with existingwells
-Injection Data 1. Use petrophysical datato
-Tracer Data calculate a radius of influence for
a gas well, using eitherX% of
-Special spacing/operational total dynam ic drawdow n or Y
considerations KPA.
2. For oil wells use cum roduction,
p
petrophysics and reco very factor
-Avail. Studies (Sim , G eo,...) to calculate swept radius
-PTA 3. Avoid drilling within interference
-Land Rights and production radius
-AO F
OFM
-Econom ic cutoffs
(rates/reserves)
-Fiscal regim e
-O perating expense ($/w/m o, Perform ance Recovery
Vintage
gather, transm ission, process) Indicator
-C apital expense (drill,
com plete, tie-in) Analyze possible indicators to Investigation of completion and Q uantify recoveries and their
-Prices (oil, cas, ngls, etc.) assist in forecasting operating m ethods by vintage distribution
-D isposal costs (water)
-Available capital 1. Create m aps of decline rate,
1. Produce perform ance 1. Choose vintage groups
indicator suite of plots according to #w ells/n rem aining reserves, and
2. Exam ine plots for trends and 2. Define expectations for wells current rate
exceptions. by vintage. 2. For reporting, include m ap of
3. Extrapolate expectations for reserve life
Access next infill phase
Excel O FM
OFM O FM Mbal
Rapid Response:
Powerpoint Powerpoint Pow erpoint
O pportunities for Field Applications
MDx
D rilling
NDS Design
Infill Candidate Prediction of Logging

on Testing
Selection previous infill Validation & Selecti Infill W ell Product Delivery C om pletions
cycle of Process Selection
Facilities
to
Validate a m ethodology Locate all possible infill
Use previously determ ined ance M onitoring
forecast initial infill perform locations and calculate initial Prepare and deliver
statistical, spatial and tem poral
production forecasts presentation/report to client
relationships to forecast ults to
outcom e of previous cycle 1. Com pare expected res
actual 1. Populate area with infills 1. Infill candidates list and
ques
2. Determ ine which techni range of forecasts
2. Apply forecasting process to
1. Isolate last set of infill wells work best by area establish range of expected 2. Location m ap
2. Forecast this set of infill 3. Q ualify exceptions results and w eighted / m ost- 3. Table of expected recoveries
wells results using m aps of: likely outcom e 4. Q ualified im pact of well
- Recent rates 3. Rank wells based on: m echanics
- Recent productivities OFM - Discounted Cum 5. Q uantification of added
- Recent pressures Access Econom ic value
- Special
- Declines Excel Evaluation 6. Reserves
spacing/O perational
- MDA considerations 7. Money value
Project W orkover Candidate 3. Verify expected results - Proxim ity to Determ ine economically viable 8. Cursory w orkover and
O bjective Selection through vintaging underutilized w ellbores recomm endations recom pletion candidates list
and workover Rapid Response:
candidates 1. If individual OFM O pportunities for Field Applications
OFM
recom mendations fail to Powerpoint
Access
m eet operators econom ic W ord
Excel O FM Pow erStim
criteria rem ove from Excel
Excel Fracturing
candidate list. Peep
Powerpoint
2. Using rem aining candidates
adjust forecasts considering Cased HoleLogging
increased decline rate. Testing
Det Recom pletions
ailed W ell 3. Rerun econom ics to
R determ ine if any other Product Delivery Stim ulations
eview Artificial Lift
candidates should be
Perform det rem oved from the list. Increm ental Facilities
Yes ailed well analysis 4. If no further candidates are Sand M anagem ent
rem oved continue with Prepare and deliver database/
Yes process, otherwise return to presentation/report to client M onitoring
Production Is there a Define Deviation is a
Detailed P rocedure found in
step 2.
Intouch sub m ission #3300901
Forecasting Monitoring Deviation Cause W ell Problem IDR
O FM
No PEEP W orkover candidates list
Identify deviations from No Excel W orkover solutions
forecasts OFM W orkover Forecasts
Powerpoint Location Map
Determ ine cause of deviation
Pipesim Report Increm ental Production
Determ ine if w ell issue or SPAN Increm ental forecast
reservoir related SCEPTRE
Quantification of Added Value
ProC ade Reserves
O FM FracCade Money Value
Stim Cade
OFM
Powerpoint
Update Model W ord
Excel
Color Coding
Actions
Logic
Tools
Page 6-6
APPENDIX C – PRESSURE MODELING ANALYSIS DETAILS
6.3 Appendix C: Pressure Modeling Analysis Details
Page 6-7
6.3.1 Pressure Modeling
For many applications (e.g. for the generation of isobaric pressure contour maps,
pressure grid maps, or the applicability of PVT correlations) it is important to
have reservoir pressure data for every month on a per well basis instead of a
single value for the average reservoir pressure. Unfortunately reservoir pressure is
never available for every month in the production history and the distribution of
the build-up data is more or less sporadic.
Real time pressure models provide the possibility to evaluate pressure trends that
can be derived from the existing pressure data. With the help of such a model
missing values can be interpolated and a continuous function for the pressure can
be developed for each well.
The prerequisite for this method to work is a certain amount of available pressure
data, which must be loaded into a monthly table. Data from sporadic tables cannot
be used because interpolation on sporadic data is not possible.
The following section provides a guideline for the generation of a real time
pressure model.
• Selection of Wells
• Filter Wells
Filter the data and select only wells in reservoirs that presumably have the same
pressure trend.
• Query No. 1
Query for all the wells in your filter that also have pressure data in the database
using e.g. prd.press > 0 as the criteria.
• Plot Data
Create a plot of the pressure data. To see the pressure trend for the whole field,
group the data together. Remember that OFM will add up all grouped data, unless
the Math Options in the table definitions are set to some kind of average
(arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic). To change this option setting go to
Edit/Project/Definition, select the table that contains the pressure data, click on
Page 6-8
the Fields box and choose the Math tab. To average the pressure values, which
occur in the same month, select one of the three averaging methods.
A better way to see the pressure data of all the wells in the filter without
averaging any values is to create a data safe plot. This is a fast way to get an idea
what the pressure trend is like and also provides the possibility to detect wells that
have a different behavior. Such wells have to be excluded by applying a more
specific filter.
• Query No. 2
Query again with the same criteria, but this time look for wells that have 3 or
more pressure points. This can be done by setting the number of occurrences to 3,
but the Consecutively box has to be left unchecked.
Wells with only one or two pressure points cannot be used at this stage since less
than three pressure points cannot show trends. However, this data will be taken
into consideration again later when the real time pressure model is used to create
pressure maps.
• Select Wells for Model
Scroll through the pressure vs. time plots of the individual wells and make notes
which wells show good pressure trends and which contain so many bad data
points that no trends can be found and no analysis can be performed on them.
To speed up the process of building the equations for the pressure model it is
recommended to create a filter file containing the selected wells with good
pressure trends.
• Calculated Variables for the Pressure Model
• Calculated Variables for the Date Range
The real time pressure model cannot be used for extrapolation of the pressure
data. Hence, the date of the first and the date of the last existing pressure point are
the time limits of the model. Since these dates will be different for every well, a
calculated variable has to be created to retrieve the necessary dates from the
database.
Page 6-9
To find the first date where a well has pressure data create the following
calculated variable:
cv.dofpress = @CFirst(date, prd.press > 0)

For the last date use:
cv.dolpress = @CLast(date, prd.press > 0)
• Fit Functions
A.1.1. Create Fit Functions
The system function @Fit(…) utilizes the least square method to fit a polynomial
to the measured data and interpolates the missing data points. The order of the
polynomial can be varied to represent the pressure trend in different ways. Fits on
a logarithmic scale are also possible.
• Here are two examples for a first and a second order fit function:
cv.press1 = @Fit(Date, prd.press, prd.press > 0, @monthly(Date),
“Deg 1 date”)

“Deg 2 date”)
A.1.2. Plot the Data and the Curve Fits

Show the real data and the curve fit on one plot. Compare polynomials of
different order.
Page 6-10
Figure 30: First order polynomial fit:
Linear Fit (solid line) and Logarithmic Fit (dashed line)
A.1.3. Improvements to the Curve Fit
Look for possible improvements that can be made to make the curve fit represent
the trend more accurately. For example, try to plot the pressure data on a log scale
to see if a logarithmic fit might be suitable. If yes, the option “ylog” can be used
to fit the pressure on a logarithmic scale.
To perform a linear fit on a y-axis with a logarithmic scale use:

“Deg 1 ylog date”)
Another way to improve the curve fit is to exclude bad data points i.e. data points
that are way off the average trend and are pretty likely a result of inaccurate
measurement or bad documentation. Taking this points out can be done with a
combination of conditions in the @Fit(…) system function to limit the number of
data points which are actually used for the curve fit.
Page 6-11
Here is an example: Instead of using only “prd.press > 0” the condition

“prd.press > 0 & abs(prd.press - cv.press3) < 100”
can be used to exclude all the data points that are more than 100 psi from the
previous fitted curved.
The fit function will then be:
cv.press4 = @Fit(Date, prd.press, prd.press > 0 & abs(prd.press -

cv.press3) < 100, @monthly(Date), “Deg 1 ylog date”)
Figure 31 shows the effect of taking the last data point, which is obviously bad
data, out of a previous first order fit on a logarithmic y-axis.
Figure 31: Improving the fit by taking out bad points from a previous fit
Page 6-12
• The Final Model
A.1.4. Limit Model in Time

Once the best fit is determined, the trend line has to be truncated at both sides.
Extrapolation is not a valid thing to do, therefore another calculated variable for
the final model has to be created that uses the system function @If(…) to
determine whether a date is within the date range between the first and the last
date with pressure data or not. If it is inside the range, the best fit will be used to
interpolate the pressure. If it is outside, the system function @Null() will be used
to declare that the pressure model does not exists there:
cv.pressuremodel = @If(Date >= cv.dofpress & Date <= cv.dolpress,

cv.press4, @Null())
Figure 32: Final real time pressure model Schlumberger Private
A.1.5. Check all Wells in Reservoir

After the final model is created a graphical comparison of the model and the
actual measured data should be made for every single well with pressure data.
This time all the wells - even those with only one or two pressure points - are
taken into consideration. Notes should be taken which wells are modeled properly
and which aren’t. Wells with meaningless curve fits, i.e. trends that show
Page 6-13
increasing pressure, should be taken out. With the remaining ones a filter file
should be created.
The calculated variable for the pressure model in combination with this filter file
can now be used whenever the real pressure time pressure model is needed e.g. to
create isobaric pressure maps (see Figure 33).
Page 6-14
Figure 33: Pressure maps created with the real time pressure model
Page 6-15
A.1.6. Test of Applicability on Other Reservoirs

Once the model is finalized step A.1.5 can be repeated for other reservoirs where
a similar pressure behavior is suspected. A quick check of the pressure data -
again on a per well basis and not on grouped data - can be done to see if the same
model is applicable for this reservoir as well. If a good correlation can be found
the model can be applied. If not, the whole procedure has to be repeated to create
a different real time pressure model.
• Advanced Features
• Several Trends in One Model
It is possible to create a single calculated variable for pressure models, which

show more than one trend during the production history. There are two ways to
create such models. The first one is to use a calculated variable containing if -
statements that select which curve fit should be applied:
cv.press4 = @If(@YYMM(Date) <= 8906, cv.press1, @If(@YYMM(Date)
< 9301, cv.press2, cv.press3))
However, remember that there is a limit of 255 characters in one calculated

variable i.e. complicated models might have to be set up with several calculated
variables.
User functions provide a more sophisticated way to create a real time pressure
model with more than one trend. A user function for the same model as shown
above will be:
Pressure(date)
num yymm;
yymm=@yymm(date);
if( yymm <= 8906 )
Pressure = cv.press1;
else
if( yymm >= 9301 )
else
A calculated variable has to be used to access the data from the user function:
model.Pressure = #Pressure(@monthly(Date))
Page 6-16
User functions appear to be a more complicated and time consuming way to set
up the model, but they have certain advantages. They are not only more readable;
they also have increased functionality. Here is another example for a user
function:
Pressure(a,b)
if( a < b )
else
It could be used with the following calculated variables:
model.Pressure = #Pressure(date,19890101)
model.Pressure = #Pressure(cv.press1,cv.press2)
In the first case the model switches between trends at a give date. In the second
case the date, where the pressure model switches from one trend to the other, does
not have to be same one on each well. The model determines where the models
cross each other and switches at that point.
• Additional Pressure Points
If the pressure data sets are rather sparse in the database, but certain additional
pressure points are known, one might consider adding them to gain a larger
amount of pressure data. For example, the initial pressure of the reservoir
(corrected to the right depth) or the bubble point pressure (at the time where the
gas-oil ratio increases and bubble point is reached) could be added.
Additional points can be added simply by typing the value and the date at the end
of the table (Edit/Project/Data…). It doesn’t matter that the date is out of
sequence because OFM will rearrange the table once the changes are saved.
It is recommended to export the table data whenever new data points are added. In
this way an ASCII backup file is created that can be reloaded if files in the
database are corrupted.
Page 6-17
6.3.2 Pressure Modeling Recommendations
Page 6-18
Step A: Creating the Database

Step B: QC’ing the Data
Step C: Fitting Curves to Individual Well Data
Step D: Converting Daily Pressure Data to Monthly Pressure
Step E: Fitting Curves to Grouped Data: Part I
Step F: Fitting Curves to Grouped Data: Part II
Step G: Creating the Final Pressure Model: PresModel.Well
Page 6-19
Step A: Creating the Database
1. A table definition file is attached to this document, called PresModel.def. Within you
will find the OFM definitions for tables XY, PRS, PRS_QC, Useful_data, PresWell, and
ZonePres. Also attached is the parser file PresModel.par, which contains all the
calculated variables shown in the following procedure.
2. If the user is beginning his analysis from scratch, he will have to:
a. Create a New Database in OFM.
b. Select “Create it from the data source specified below”
c. Data source should be “Ascii Flat Files”
d. File-Get External Data-Data Loader PresModel.def.
e. File-Get External Data-Data Loader PresModel.par.
f. Define a SORT table including the Well name and producing Zone.
g. Populate the XY (well definition) table.
h. Populate the PRS (pressure) table.
i. Populate the SC (sort) table.
3. If the user already has a populated database, it is recommended that the following
procedure be modified to fit your existing data structure. Use the attached definition file
as a reference for the data structure that has been used in the development of this
procedure. The calculated variables will also likely require modification to fit the user’s
own variable naming convention: use the attached parser file for guidance.
Page 6-20
4. File-Export-Table Data
Export the PRS data to a *.dly table. Edit this file and change the table name to
PRS_QC. Using this PRS_QC table for subsequent analysis will allow changes to be
made, while preserving the integrity of the original pressure data in the PRS table.
Example PRS_QC.dly (first few lines only):

*Metric
*TableName PRS_QC
*DATE *BASE *BHFP *Comments *DATUM_PRS
*Flag *GRADIENT *INIT_PRS *OBSNO
*POOL_DATUM *RDTEMP *RUNDEPTH
*SIPERIOD *TOP *WELL_DATUM
// None ft psia None psia None None psia None ft Deg. F ft hours ft ft
*KeyName "00/01-01-060-21W5/0"
19990201 2430.000000 17942.000000 "" 17942.000000 1.000000 -
99999.000000 18300.000000 1 -1432.900024 91.000000 2412.800049
358.299988 2412.500000 2428.800049
*KeyName "00/01-01-060-22W5/0"
19950101 2562.000000 19643.000000 "" 19676.000000 1.000000 1.560000
22200.000000 2 1519.500000 98.000000 2555.000000 430.000000
2558.000000 2576.000000
*KeyName "00/01-01-060-22W5/2"
19980101 2527.500000 17098.000000 "" 17098.000000 1.000000 -
99999.000000 17830.000000 1 1543.400024 94.000000 2526.399902
191.800003 2525.199951 2599.899902
.
.
.
etc.
5. File-Get External Data-Data Loader

Load in *.dly file.
Page 6-21
Step B: QC’ing the Data
1. Edit-Project-Data
Open the PRS_QC table. Create a plot that simultaneously displays PRS_QC.BHFP and
PRS_QC.DATUM_PRS.
Scroll through the individual well plots one by one.
2. The following criteria are recommended:

a. Run depth and well datum are within 100 m of each other, to avoid unreasonable
extrapolations.
b. Shut-in time, where recorded, is reasonably long.
c. The recorded gradient is reasonable
d. For cases where there is more than one test in a given month, only use the most
reasonable one; usually the latter.
3. Where required, correct the PRS_QC.DATUM_PRS values to a common datum.
4. Place a “1” in the Flag column where you’d like to keep the pressure point.
Page 6-22
Step C: Fitting Curves to Individual Well Data
1. A straight line function going through the first and last of the QC’d points is calculated,
and is called PresWell.Line. It uses the calculated variables PresWell.Line_Slope and
PresWell.Line_Intercept.
PresWell.Line_Slope=(@last(Prs_qc.Datum_prs, prs_qc.flag>0)-@first(Prs_qc.Datum_prs,
prs_qc.flag>0))/ (@julian(@last(date, prs_qc.flag>0))-@julian(@first(date, prs_qc.flag>0)))
PresWell.Line_Intercept=((@julian(@first(date, prs_qc.flag>0))*@last(Prs_qc.Datum_prs,
prs_qc.flag>0)) – (@julian(@last(date, prs_qc.flag>0))*@first(Prs_qc.Datum_prs,
prs_qc.flag>0))) / (@julian(@first(date, prs_qc.flag>0)) - @julian(@last(date, prs_qc.flag>0)))
PresWell.Line=@if(date>@first(date, prs_qc.flag>0), PresWell.Line_Slope*@julian(date) +
PresWell.Line_Intercept, @null())
2. A quadratic equation is fitted to the QC’d points using PresWell.2nd_order. A cubic

equation is fitted using PresWell.3rd_order.
PresWell.2nd_order=@Fit(date, Prs_qc.Datum_prs,Prs_qc.Flag > 0, @daily(date), "deg 2 date" )
PresWell.3rd_order=@Fit(date , Prs_qc.Datum_prs, prs_qc.flag>0, @daily(date), "deg 3 date" )
3. Plot pressure versus time and include the PRS_QC.datum_prs, PresWell.Line,

PresWell.2nd_order, and PresWell.3rd_order. Include the PRS_QC.Flag variable on the
2nd Y axis.
4. Ensure that the static table, “Useful_Data” is defined, using the completion as the key.
There should be an integer field called fit_number defined within.
5. Edit-Project-Data. Simultaneously display the pressure plot (#3, above) and the
Useful_Data table. Choose the best fit curve for each well’s pressures. If there are no
suitable curves, or if there is only one pressure for a well, leave the fit_number blank.
Otherwise, use “1” for a straight line, “2” for a 2nd order fit, and “3” for a 3rd order fit.
6. Plot the chosen pressure curve, PresWell.Fit_Trunc on the same plots to ensure the fit is
adequate. Note that PresWell.Fit_trunc is PresWell.Fitted, truncated to interpolate only.
Extrapolation is not recommended at this stage in the pressure modeling.
PresWell.Fitted=@if(date >= @first(date,Prs_qc.Flag>0), @if(Useful_data.Fit_number=1,
PresWell.Line, @if(Useful_data.Fit_number=2, PresWell.2nd_order,
@if(Useful_data.Fit_number=3, PresWell.3rd_order, @null()))),@null())
PresWell.Fit_trunc=@if(date <= @last(date,Prs_qc.Flag>0), PresWell.Fitted, @null())
Page 6-23
Step D: Converting Daily Pressure Data to Monthly Pressure

1. Create a report with:
• Xy.well, date, PresWell.Fit_trunc where @day(date)=@dom(date)
• Set date range = ALL
• View-Summary-By Item
This will create a report for all the fitted data, but only at the end of each month. Print
this data to a text file (PresWell.txt in this case).
2. Create a second report with:

• xy.well, date, PRS_QC.Datum_prs where (@rsum(prs_qc.flag)=1 & prs_qc.flag=1 &
useful_data.fit_number=@null() & prs_qc.datum_prs >@null())
• Set date range = ALL
• View-Summary-By Item
This will create a report for the wells with only one QC point. Print this data to another
text file, and append to the file from step #1 (PresWell.txt in this case).
3. Edit the text file to include the following headers:
*Metric
*Tablename PresWell
*Well *Date *Fit
Example PresWell.txt (first few lines only):
*Metric
*Tablename PresWell
*Well *Date *Fit
00/01-17-060-22W5/0 19971130 11529
00/01-17-060-22W5/0 19971231 11438
00/01-17-060-22W5/0 19980131 11347
00/01-17-060-22W5/0 19980228 11264
00/01-17-060-22W5/0 19980331 11172
00/01-17-060-22W5/0 19980430 11084
00/01-17-060-22W5/0 19980531 10992
00/01-17-060-22W5/0 19980630 10904
00/01-19-060-22W5/0 19970531 16425
.
.
etc.
4. Define this table in OFM (Make sure that it’s monthly), and then import the data.
Page 6-24
Step E: Fitting Curves to Grouped Data
1. Apply the appropriate filter. Group Data.

2. Make sure that the variable PresWell.Fit is averaged when grouped, not summed.
3. Tools-Data Registers.
4. Unlock Register #1. X should be “Date” and Y should be “PresWell.Fit”. Lock the
register.
5. The calculated variable PresAvg.Reg accesses this register:
PresAvg.Reg=@Reg(1 , date, "date" )
6. Plot PRS_QC.Datum_Prs, PresWell.Fit, PresAvg.2nd_order, PresAvg.3rd_order, and
PresAvg.4th_order. These curves will fit 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order curves to PresWell.Reg.
PresAvg.2nd_order=@Fit(date, PresAvg.Reg, (date>19960601 & date<20011201) |
(date>19800101 & date < 19930601), @monthly(date),"Deg 2 date" )
PresAvg.3rd_order=@Fit(date, PresAvg.Reg, (date>19960601 & date<20011201) |
PresAvg.4th_order=@Fit(date, PresAvg.Reg, (date>19960601 & date<20011201) |
7. Determine your pressure and date limits, to eliminate poor early and late pressure
extrapolations.
8. Edit the calculated variable PresAvg.3rd_trunc to express your limits appropriately.
PresAvg.3rd_trunc=@if(date>19790601, PresAvg.3rd_order, @null())
Page 6-25
Step F: Fitting Curves to Grouped Data
1. Write a report to output group name, date, and PresAvg.3rd_trunc.

2. Create the report for each group to be analyzed. Save each report as a text file.
3. Concatenate all output files, and convert them to an OFM input file (ZonePres.txt).
4. Define a monthly table (ZonePres in this example), with a key linked to your chosen
category (in this example, the category is “Zone”, from the SC table). Add a field for
Fit_Pres (which is the PresAvg.3rd_trunc output).
Example ZonePres.txt (first few lines only):

*Metric
*Tablename ZonePres
*Zone *Date *Fit_Pres
DNVG 19790701 17796
DNVG 19790801 17762
DNVG 19790901 17729
DNVG 19791001 17696
DNVG 19791101 17664
DNVG 19791201 17632
DNVG 19800101 17599
DNVG 19800201 17567
DNVG 19800301 17538
DNVG 19800401 17506
DNVG 19800501 17476
DNVG 19800601 17445
DNVG 19800701 17415
DNVG 19800801 17384
DNVG 19800901 17354
DNVG 19801001 17325
DNVG 19801101 17295
DNVG 19801201 17266
.
.
.
etc.
5. Load in the file.
Page 6-26
Step G: Creating the Final Pressure Model: PresModel.Well
1. Plot PresModel.Well, Prs_QC.Datum_Prs, Prs_QC.Flag and make sure you’ve done it

right.
PresModel.A=@first(ZonePres.Fit_pres, ZonePres.Fit_Pres>0)
PresModel.B=@ValueAt(ZonePres.Fit_pres, PresModel.Date.B)
PresModel.C=@first(PresWell.Fit, PresWell.Fit>0)
PresModel.D=@last(PresWell.Fit, PresWell.Fit>0)
PresModel.E=@ValueAt(ZonePres.Fit_pres, PresModel.Date.E)
PresModel.F=@last(ZonePres.Fit_Pres)
PresModel.Date.A=@First(date, ZonePres.Fit_pres>0)
PresModel.Date.B=@first(date, PresWell.Fit>0)
PresModel.Date.C=PresModel.Date.B
PresModel.Date.D=@last(date,PresWell.Fit>0)
PresModel.Date.E=PresModel.Date.D
PresModel.Date.F=@last(date, ZonePres.Fit_pres>0)
PresModel.Fac_ABC=(1-(1-PresModel.C/PresModel.B)*
@Elapsedmonths(PresModel.Date.A,date)/@Elapsedmonths(PresModel.Date.A,
PresModel.Date.B))
PresModel.Fac_DEF=PresModel.E - PresModel.D
PresModel.Phase_I=@if(PresModel.C<PresModel.B,ZonePres.Fit_pres*PresModel.Fac_
ABC, (PresModel.C-PresModel.A)/(PresModel.B-PresModel.A)*(ZonePres.Fit_Pres-
PresModel.A)+PresModel.A)
PresModel.Phase_II=PresWell.Fit
PresModel.Phase_III=ZonePres.Fit_pres - PresModel.Fac_DEF
PresModel.Well=@if(date<PresModel.Date.B, PresModel.Phase_I,
@if(date>=PresModel.Date.B&date<=PresModel.Date.D, PresModel.Phase_II,
@if(date>PresModel.Date.D, PresModel.Phase_III, @null())))
Page 6-27
6.3.3 Compartmentalization Analysis
Pressure - Derivative Grouping
6.3.4 Introduction
Many analysis techniques require wells to be grouped into common pools. In

some instances, geological interpretation of pool boundaries is used to accomplish
this. If geological interpretation is unavailable it is possible to utilize pressure
data to assist in identifying wells producing in a common pool.
The basic premise is that wells in a common pool should exhibit similar pressure
or P/Z trends as a function of time. Traditionally, plots of pressure (or P/Z) vs
time are constructed and visually inspected to identify wells with similar pressure
trends. If the wells with a common pressure trend are close to one another, fit
within a geologically defined pool or are completed in the same formation, then
they are interpreted to produce from a common pool. This approach is
conceptually very straightforward and for a small number of wells is reasonably
efficient. Unfortunately, when a large number of wells are examined, this process
becomes unwieldy and time-consuming.
In an effort to remedy this disadvantage, a semi-automatic process to identify

wells with similar pressure trends was developed. It utilizes several calculated
variables to determine the derivative of (p/Z) with respect to time and a simple
filter query to determine wells with similar pressure trends.
6.3.5 Procedure
6.3.5.1 Input Data
The primary input is pressure data. All calculated variables used in the process
access a monthly pressure table named “Prs”. It is imperative the pressure data be
stored in a monthly table even though the data frequency is sporadic, so the built-
in OFM interpolation functions can be employed. Although other pressure related
data (e.g. gradients, depths, temperatures) could be stored in this table, two data
elements are necessary:
Prs.Datum_Prs: Pressure data converted to a common datum depth. This

datum depth could be a pool gas-water contact, geological marker or an
arbitrary depth. Conversion of the pressure data to a common datum
Page 6-28
depth is done outside of this process, possibly before importing the data.
The calculated variables currently defined for this process make no
attempt to depth correct the pressure data to a common datum. If the
Prs.Datum_Prs data is available, it is used preferentially in the calculated
variables in this process.
Prs.RunDepth_Prs: Pressure data at pressure gauge run depth. If
Prs.Datum_Prs is not available for a given pressure point, then the
calculated variables used in the process use the gauge run depth pressure
instead. No depth conversion from run depth is applied to this data.
A sub-set of a sample “Prs” table definition (*.def) file is provided:
*TableName PRS Monthly

DATUM_PRS Float
*rh "" "Datum" "Pressure"
*rf 10 0 "Right"
*pn "Datum Pressure"
*pa "Cyan" "Solid" "Filled Square" 4
*u "psia" "kpa"
*ma "No" "Arithmetic"
RunDepth_prs Float
*rh "" "Static" "BHP"
*rf 10 0 "Right"
*pn "Static Bottom Hole Pressure"
*pa "Red" "Solid" "Filled Circle" 4
*u "psia" "kpa"
POOL_DATUM Float
*rh "" "Pool" "Datum"
*rf 10 2 "Right"
*pn "Pool Datum"
*pa "Black" "Solid" "Filled UpTriangle" 4
*u "ft" "m"
.
.
.
Population of the Prs.Datum_Prs or Prs.RunDepth_Prs data fields for every well

within the area of interest is necessary for this process. As noted previously, this
data is loaded in a monthly table even though the data frequency is sporadic.
OFM interpolation functions are used to determine pressures between the sporadic
data points.
Page 6-29
In addition to the pressure data, the calculated variables make use of the built-in
OFM PVT routines. As a result, it is necessary to input certain PVT parameters
from the Edit/Project/PVT… menu. As a minimum, the initial reservoir pressure,
reservoir temperature and gas gravity fields need to be input as shown in the
following screen capture.
As a minimum, these fields are

required to generate gas PVT
parameters
This preceding implies the same PVT properties will be applied to all wells within
the area of interest. If PVT is variable among the wells, then a specially
constructed PVT table could be used, however, the calculated variables employed
in this process would need modification.
6.3.5.2 Calculated Variables
Several calculated variables are used to assist in identifying common P/Z trends.
They include:
cv.InterPrs: This variable computes an interpolated monthly pressure based on

the data present in either the Prs.Datum_Prs or Prs.RunDepth_Prs fields. It is
defined as follows:
cv.InterPrs=@if(prs.Datum_prs != @NULL(), @interpolate(date, prs.Datum_prs,

prs.Datum_prs >0, date, "date"), @interpolate(date, prs.RunDepth_prs,
prs.RunDepth_prs >0, date, "date"))
Page 6-30
The calculated variable utilizes the datum pressure, if available, otherwise the run
depth pressure is used. As noted previously, it is preferable that datum pressures
be obtained for all pressure points prior to conducting the analysis. The
calculated variable defined above utilizes linear interpolation. If a higher order
polynomial fit is more appropriate for the pressure data, then the calculated
variable would need modification.
cv.PZ_Inter: This variable computes P/Z from the interpolated pressure data.
cv.PZ_Inter=cv.InterPrs/@pvtZ(cv.InterPrs)
Since the variable uses the built-in OFM system function @pvtZ, it is necessary
to populate the PVT data in the Edit/Project/PVT… menu. If applying the same
PVT properties to each well is inappropriate for the area, then a PVT table could
be used to define per well PVT properties. The calculated variable defined above
would need to be altered to access this data.
cv.PZ_Inter_Deriv: This variable computes derivative (slope) of the pressure-
time trend. Since linear interpolation is used, the derivative will yield a constant
value as a function of time. The fact the variable returns a constant value is
important since it is possible to use an OFM filter query in the form of
(cv.PZ_Inter_Deriv value ± range) to select wells that have a similar slope,
and thus, a similar pressure trend. In this instance “cv.PZ_Inter_Deriv value” is
the representative numerical value of the slope for the pool and “range” is a
tolerance band designed to select wells that have similar, though slightly different
slopes.
cv.PZ_Inter_Deriv=(cv.PZ_Inter-@Previous(cv.PZ_Inter))/@dom(date)
If a higher order polynomial function is used to interpolate pressure data, then a

second or higher order derivative is necessary to obtain a constant value. As a
result, the variable cv.PZ_Inter_Deriv would need additional modification to
account for non-linear pressure interpolation.
6.3.5.3 Plots
Several plots can be constructed to assist in establishing pooling.
Page 6-31
The first plot constructed is P/Z as a function of time. While this plot is not used
in the semi-automated analysis, it does provide a visual indication of the rough
proportion of wells in a common pool. For example:
This group of wells

shares similar P/Z trend
and may possibly be in a
common pool.
The second plot constructed is d(p/Z)/dt as a function of time. As noted
previously, the value of d(p/Z)/dt should be a constant, though the value of the
constant will change over time as the slope of the P/Z vs time plot changes. This
plot is used to establish the range of d(p/Z)/dt values to be selected using the
query. For example:
d(p/Z)dt for mostwells is in

this range.Other wells
havedissimilar slopes.
Notethe plot was zoomed
into focus in on wells inthis
region. Severalother
d(p/Z)/dt valuesare off
scale.
Page 6-32
Most data points fall between –0.80 < d(p/Z)/dt < -0.20. This range of d(p/Z)/dt
values can be used in a query to automatically select all wells that fall within this
range.
6.3.5.4 Query
Once a suitable range of d(p/Z)/dt values are selected from the plots noted
previously, a filter query is used to select all wells that fall within that range. This
is accomplished by entering the query dialog box located under the Filter/Filter
By/Query… In general, the query will take the form of:
cv.PZ_Inter_Deriv > value1 & cv.PZ_Inter_Deriv < value2 & date > value3
Where value1 and value2 are the upper and lower limits of the d(p/Z)/dt range
identified from the d(p/Z)/dt vs time plot. The query examines all wells and
filters to those wells that have a similar pressure trend slope. It may be beneficial
Schlumberger
to set the number of consecutive occurrences to at least 6 months, to ensure only
umberger Private
wells with a long-term trend are selected. This is illustrated in the following
screenshot:
Setting the consecutive occurrences

to 6 months selects only wells with
long-term trends.
The date clause in the above query was used limit selection of wells based on
similar slopes to a given time frame. This may be useful if the slope of the
pressure trend changes several times over the life of the well, as evidenced from
the sample P/Z – time plot shown previously. If the pressure trend slopes do not
change significantly with respect to time, the date clause can be omitted from the
query.
6.3.5.5 Validation
Once the query has selected wells that have similar pressure trends, it is advisable
to examine the wells both on the P/Z vs time plot and on a base map to validate
Page 6-33
the selection process. The P/Z vs time plot will help identify wells that had
similar pressure trend slopes but different magnitudes, since the process only
selects wells based on similar pressure trend slopes rather than actual magnitude
of the pressure value. This is illustrated in the following plot:
Similar pressure trend

slope, but the magnitude
of the pressure is much
Schlumberger
higher than the main
trend.
umberger Private
Once the well list has been validated to ensure similar pressure magnitude and
pressure trend, it is recommended that the selected wells be viewed on a base map
to ensure they are proximate. Isolated wells that are a long distance from the
main group(s) of wells are not likely in a common pool, despite a pressure trend
and magnitude that may be coincidental with other wells. If geological mapping
is available, it can be used as further validation of pooling.
Page 6-34
Wells are isolated

from main body of
the pool and, as a
result, are assumed
to be separate,
despite similar
pressure trends.
6.3.6 Limitations
There are several limitations associated with this technique including:
• Since the technique relies on using pressure data as a means to identify wells
in a common pool, it is obvious that wells without pressure data cannot be
analyzed using this process. If pressure data does not exist for many wells in
the area of interest, then this approach will be of limited value.
• If only a single pressure point exists for a given well, the semi-automated
approach presented herein cannot be used, since at least two points are
required to obtain a slope of the pressure trend. Wells with only a single
pressure point must be plotted against the wells identified as having a
common pressure trend then visually examined to determine inclusion in the
pool.
• The calculated variables used in this process apply a linear interpolation
between existing pressure points. It is possible to apply a 2nd or higher order
polynomial fit through the pressure data, however the cv.PZ_Inter_Deriv
calculated variable would have to be altered incorporating 2nd or higher order
derivatives.
Page 6-35
APPENDIX D – RESERVOIR DATA REVIEW DETAILS
6.4 Appendix D: Reservoir Data Review Details
Page 6-36
6.4.1 Reservoir Performance
6.4.1.1 Management Overview
The first step in historical production performance analysis is to gather the most
important information about the reservoir. This first overview should be kept brief
and should not contain any details. It should summarize the data of the reservoir
with tables, graphs and maps in such a way that it can be presented to the
management in a short 10 - 15 minute presentation. The following section
provides a good guideline of what data to look for in your database and include in
the overview.
• Geological & Geographical Data

• Geographical Location (Country, State, Lease)
• Geological Maps
• Trapping Mechanism
• Average Petrophysical Data
• Drive Mechanism
• Initial Pressure
• Depth
• Closure
• STOOIP, Reserves, Recovery Factor
• Well & Production Issues

• Well Count: Total Number of Wells
Production Wells
Injection Wells
Special Wells (e.g. Horizontal Wells,
Disposal Wells, Steam Injection etc.)
Active Wells
• Fluid Properties
• Production Methods
• Completion Practices
• Stimulation Practices
• Important Dates: Start of Production
Initiation of Waterflood
Start of Steam Cycles etc.
• Major Operating Problems (e.g. Sand, Corrosion, Asphaltenes, Scale); this can
also be shown on a map
• Infill Program
Page 6-37
• Production History
The following six plots should be created to show the reservoir performance over
time. Multiple graphs on each of the six plots should be used to increase the
readability. For each of the bulleted items a separate graph is required:
Oil Production vs. Time:

• Actual Wells on Production vs. Date
• GOR and Water Cut vs. Date
• Oil Rate and Cumulative Oil Production vs. Date
Oil Production vs. Cumulative Oil Production:

• Actual Wells on Production vs. Cumulative Oil Production
• GOR and Water Cut vs. Cumulative Oil Production
• Oil Rate vs. Cumulative Oil Production
Injection vs. Time:

• Water Injection vs. Date
• Steam Injection vs. Date
Injection vs. Cumulative Production:

• Water Injection vs. Cumulative Oil Production
• Steam Injection vs. Cumulative Oil Production
Pressure Behavior:
• Bottomhole Pressure (BHP) vs. Date
• Bottomhole Pressure (BHP) vs. Cumulative Fluid Produced
• For gas fields the same plots can be made for the tubing head pressure (THP).
Special Production Graphs (e.g. for Cyclic Steaming, Water Injection Response,
Horizontal Wells)
Page 6-38
• Fluid Distribution Maps (“The Big Picture”)

Bubble maps and grid maps should be used to visualize the change of the fluid
distribution over time and the current state of the reservoir. Bubble maps are
especially advantageous if two variables have to be shown on the same map (e.g.
GOR and water cut). The following maps should be created to get the “big
picture” of the reservoir:
Rate & Cum Maps for each of the 3 phases at the last date in the database:
• Oil Rate
• Gas Rate
• Water Rate
• Cumulative Oil Production
• Cumulative Gas Production
• Cumulative Water Production
Water Cut & GOR Maps, both current and cumulative:
• GOR
• Cumulative GOR
• Water Cut
• Cumulative Water Cut
Pressure Maps:
• for the current state of the reservoir
• for key dates
Special maps of other important available data (e.g. oil or water properties
throughout the reservoir)
Remember that all the maps have to be on a per well basis, no other grouping is
allowed when these maps are created.
It might not be necessary to have both a gas rate map and GOR map, and likewise
a water map and a map showing the water cut. It is dependent on the type of the
field, the map itself and the preference of the engineer. Some maps tell you more
than others.
If pressure data is not available for every well at the time of interest a real time
pressure model has to be created first. A real time pressure model uses the
Page 6-39
existing pressure data points in the database and fits a curve to the trend. This
model can then be used to interpolate and extrapolate the missing pressure data
points, which are necessary for a grid map on a per well basis.
Real Time Pressure Model
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Date
Conclusions
Recovery Efficiency: Is the reservoir produced efficiently or is there oil left
behind?
Major Problems
Major Recommendations (e.g. future requirements like infill drilling,
waterflood, etc.)
6.4.2 Time Motion Study
A good way to get a feeling for the reservoir is to divide the production history
into time slices and create maps for each time period and each parameter of
interest. In this way a matrix of maps is created that allows the engineer to find
the sweet and the bad spots of the reservoir, analyze their changes over time and
relate them to reservoir properties and recovery processes. This type of analysis is
called time motion study.
The Methodology
The data that is used for time motion studies can be divided into two groups:
dynamic data, which includes any type of data that changes during the production
history of the field, and static data, which does not change (e.g. reservoir
properties). For static data only one map has to be created that is valid for the
whole length of the study. Dynamic data, however, has to be plotted differently.
For each time period a so-called delta map has to be created that displays just the
change that occurred during that period of production. This can either be done
with grid arithmetic or with the help of calculated variables, but it should be kept
Page 6-40
in mind that each of the delta maps has to be created for the same time period
length.
The proper length for the time periods has to be chosen depending on the actual
producing time of the reservoir. 5 years can be considered as the preferred value.
Anything below 5 years will show too many details, whereas periods longer than
10 years will not show enough details. Once the time period length is chosen it
has to remain the same throughout the whole study.
For the dynamic data the following maps should be created for every time period:
Delta Cumulative Oil Produced
Delta Cumulative Gas Produced
Delta Cumulative Water Produced
Delta GOR
Delta Water Cut
Delta Cumulative Water Injected
Delta Cumulative Gas Injected
Delta Cumulative Steam Injected
Delta Bottomhole Pressure (BHP)
This list can be considered as a reference case. It can be extended whenever

necessary to include other dynamic data like e.g. cumulative injected polymer. As
was pointed out earlier it might be required to build a real time pressure model
first before a delta pressure grid map including all wells can be created.
For the static data these maps should be created:

Structure
Netpay
Permeability
Porosity
Initial Water Saturation etc.
The concept of the time motion study allows incorporating new ideas and
different grid maps wherever they might be useful. To give an example it should
be mentioned here that grid maps showing e.g. facilities, downtime, well repair
frequency and workover efficiency can be included although it might not really be
static data. Nevertheless those maps can be very helpful for spotting typical
patterns in the reservoir.
Page 6-41
Once all the grid maps and delta grid maps are created, they should be printed in
color and placed next to each other on a wall forming a big matrix of maps (see
Figure 34). The recommended paper size for each map is 8 ½” x 11”. Some space
should be left between the individual maps to have room to stick notes to the
maps as the time motion study progresses. Also make sure that the maps are
labeled and in the right chronological order.
Time • Gas • Water • Water • Water

• Oil Cum • GOR • BHP
Cum Cum Cut Injected
1956 – 1960
Structure
1961 – 1965
Netpay
1966 – 1970
Porosity
1971 – 1975
Permeability
1976 – 1980
Sw
1981 – 1985
Facilities
1986 – 1990
Well Repair Freq.
1991 – 1995
WOE
Figure 34: Matrix of maps for time motion study
For the time motion study the maps should now be analyzed. It is good to start
with one variable first, preferably the delta of the cumulative oil production, and
follow it through time. In this way the sweet spots as well as the bad spots of the
reservoir can be detected. The best producing areas can be found as well as the
worst. Furthermore it can also be detected if they shift between different parts of
the reservoir as time progresses (see Figure 35).
This procedure should be repeated for each time series of the different variables to
get an idea of the changes inside the reservoir and also to get a feeling for the
processes that are going on during each time period.
Page 6-42
It is important to have the management overview of the reservoir available at that

stage of the study. It allows the engineer to quickly access the most significant
facts of the reservoir and provides the basis for a faster and better understanding
of the reservoir.
Once the first look at the delta grid maps is finished and a basic knowledge of the
events inside the reservoir is gained, the static data maps should be included in the
study. The attempt should now be made to relate the events from the delta grid
maps to the features of the static maps (see Figure 36).
Page 6-43

1956 – 1960
Structure
1961 – 1965
Netpay
1966 – 1970
Porosity
1971 – 1975
Permeability
1976 – 1980
Sw
1981 – 1985
Facilities
1986 – 1990
Well Repair Freq.
1991 – 1995
WOE
Figure 35: Analyze the change of the variables over time

1956 – 1960
Structure
1961 – 1965
Netpay
1966 – 1970
Porosity
1971 – 1975
Permeability
1976 – 1980
Sw
1981 – 1985
Facilities
1986 – 1990
Well Repair Freq.
1991 – 1995
WOE
Figure 36: Relate the events from the delta maps to the static data maps
Page 6-44
The dynamic data maps will have to be reinvestigated once a better understanding
of the reservoir is gained and after that static data maps will reveal even more
information. Time motion study can therefore be considered to be an iterative
process where the engineer constantly goes back and forth between the dynamic
and the static data as the knowledge about the reservoir increases.
On one side time motion study looks for trends and patterns inside the reservoir,
which will then be related to reservoir features and problems. On the other side
randomness of some events is an indication for well problems.
• Recommended Procedure
If several engineers are working on the time motion study at the same time, it is
critical to follow a common procedure and to use the same files and a common
name convention. The following section outlines the recommended procedure that
should be followed in order to keep the files compatible and the maps
comparable.
A.1.1. Mapping Area
Determine the area of interest on your map and agree on the coordinates enclosing
this area.
A.1.2. Filter File

Create a filter file (binary sort file with the extension *.bsf) for those wells inside
the determined map area. This filter file should then be distributed to every
engineer on the project.
A.1.3. Binary Map Fila

Create binary map files (*.bmf) for the dynamic data, which has the type monthly,
and the static data, which has the type static. If possible those two files should
contain all the variables of interest (refer to page Error! Bookmark not defined.
for the variable reference list). In this way the number of binary map files is kept
as low as possible and the unnecessary confusion, which is usually caused by too
many files with similar names, can be avoided.
Remember that the maximum number of characters is 255 for the variable list
inside OFM. This is the reason why it is recommended to keep the names of table
variables as well as the names of the calculated variables short.
It is further recommended that the binary map files be also shared among each
person on the project. Only if every engineer uses the same binary map files for
Page 6-45
the generation of the different grid maps, it can be assured that the different grid
maps actually originate from the same data.
For hints on how to speed up the process of generating grid maps and delta grid
maps, refer to chapter “Alternate Procedure” on page 6-48.
A.1.4. Grid Area File

On the actual grid map the area of interest should be outlined and saved into a
grid area file (*.ga). It has to be kept in mind that the purpose of grid maps is to
interpolate between data points. Outside the area where data is available OFM
will extrapolate. Values found by extrapolation are not valid for the analysis of
the grid maps. Therefore the grid area should be used to cut out the areas where
extrapolation takes place.
Again it is crucial for the analysis that the grid area file used is the same on every
grid map.
A.1.5. Date Intervals and Name Convention
Agree on the time period length that will be used for the delta grid maps. It should
be close to 5 years and it has to be the same for all the delta maps. The first and
the last period can be adjusted, but only if it is really necessary. In this case those
different time periods have to be labeled explicitly on the matrix of the grid maps.
This is done to point out that those maps show data on a different scale and they
have to be handled with care.
End of Period Beginning of Period

4.5 60/12 - 56/06
65/12 - 60/12
70/12 - 65/12
75/12 - 70/12
5 years 80/12 - 75/12
85/12 - 80/12
90/12 - 85/12
95/12 - 90/12
1 year 96/12 - 95/12
Table 1: Example for date intervals
Page 6-46
A name convention for the grid map files and for the grid variables, which will be
used for the grid arithmetic, has to be agreed on. A variable name should always
contain the abbreviated name of the variable on the map plus the year of the data
shown on the map to make the variable list easily readable for everyone.
The following list gives some suggestions:
• OCYY for the cumulative oil produced until the year YY

• GCYY for the cumulative gas produced until the year YY
• WCYY for the cumulative water produced until the year YY
• GORYY for the gas oil ratio in the year YY
• WCTYY for the water cut in the year YY
• WICYY for the cumulative water injected until the year YY etc.
To use OCYY, GCYY, WCYY for the cumulative oil, gas and water production
until the year YY has the advantage that the variables will be grouped by the
phase name i.e. all the oil variables will be next to each other. Using COYY,
CGYY etc. will stick the cumulative values into one group and make it harder to
find a specific variable in a long list.
When working with delta grid maps one should use D as a prefix plus the
abbreviated variable name and both years e.g. DOC6560 for delta grid map of the
cumulative oil produced between the years 65 and 60.
A.1.6. Grid Maps

To save time it is recommended to create and save all the grid maps that will be
used for the delta grid maps first. The name convention has to be strictly
followed. In addition to that there are some more critical requirements. For every
grid map it is important to use
• the same interpolation method

• the same number of neighbors
• the same search radius
• the same control points
• the same grid size
• the same grid area
For further information on interpolation methods, number of neighbors and

control points refer to “Geological Mapping” on page OOOOOOOOOOOO.
Page 6-47
A.1.7. Compute Delta Grids

Once the grid maps have been saved, grid arithmetic can be used to calculate the
delta grid maps. Again make sure to follow the name convention.
A.1.8. Hardcopy Grids

Go through all the saved delta grid maps and decide on the color scale that suits
each map in a time series. Make sure the same scale is set on each delta grid map
for the same variable before it is hardcopied. Also remember to label the map
before adding it to the matrix of maps for the time motion study.
• Alternate Procedure
There are several ways to speed up the generation of the binary map file. A very
simple one is to create only the maps for certain dates instead of creating maps for
every date in the database. This can be done using WHERE plus a condition for
the date.
Here is an example, which creates only maps for January in years ending on 0 or
5 (e.g. 01/1960, 01/1965, 01/1970, etc.):
WHERE @Month(date)=01 & @Mod(@Year(date),5)=0
Another approach is to create the delta maps using calculated variables instead of
grid arithmetic. In this case the @Rrec(…) function is used to retrieve data from
previous dates which is then subtracted from the data of the current map date as
the binary map file is created. No grid arithmetic is necessary, and no individual
maps for the selected dates will have to be saved by the engineer.
The paragraphs “A.1.6. Grid Maps” and “A.1.7. Compute Delta Grids” can now
be done in one step.
Step 0 “A.1.8. Hardcopy Grids” also goes a lot faster because all the delta grid
maps are in the same file. Therefore OFM automatically detects the maximum
variable range and uses it on every grid map. In addition to that the WHERE
function can be used to create maps only for certain dates and gain even more
speed.
A description of the calculated variables for this process can be found in “A.1.10.
Calculated Variables”.
• Equations
Page 6-48
A.1.9. Definition of the Delta Grid Map

To create delta grid maps with grid arithmetic use the following equation:
time 2
∆GridMapoilcum time1 = GridMapoilcum
time 2
− GridMapoilcum
time1
A.1.10. Calculated Variables

The following table lists some examples for calculated variables that can be used
to create delta grid maps for the cumulative produced oil, gas and water, GOR and
the water cut over a 5-year period. These examples can easily be modified for any
other purpose.
grd.Delta = -60 time period in months

grd.DOC = Oil.Cum-@Rrec(Oil.Cum,grd.Delta) delta of the variable oil.cum
grd.DGC = Gas.Cum-@Rrec(Gas.Cum,grd.Delta) delta of the variable gas.cum
grd.DWC = Water.Cum- delta of the variable
@Rrec(Water.Cum,grd.Delta) water.cum
grd.DeltaGOR = Ratio.GOR- delta of the variable
@Rrec(Ratio.GOR,grd.Delta) ratio.GOR
grd.DWCT = Water.Cut-@Rrec(Water.Cut,grd.Delta) delta of the variable water.cut
Table 2: Calculated Variables for Delta Grid Maps
In this case the @Rrec(…) function retrieves the values of the variable 60 months
before the actual date. Since those values are subtracted from the values at the
actual date in the calculated variables, grid arithmetic is no longer necessary.
The WHERE function should be used to specify the end of the time period for
which the delta grid maps are created.
Pitfalls
- Be careful when using composite variables on grid maps. A grid map
displaying a composite variable (e.g. porosity * water saturation *
thickness) does not necessarily look the same like a grid map calculated
with grid arithmetic from the individual maps (e.g. a porosity map, a water
saturation map and a thickness map). The difference is that in case of
composite variables the original data from the well locations is multiplied
and then the missing (composite) values are interpolated on one grid map.
If primary variables are used, interpolation takes place on each of the
primary variable maps and both the exact and the interpolated map values
are then used for the multiplication. Composite variables have the
Page 6-49
disadvantage that there is no way of verifying the interpolated values.

Using primary variables, however, allows the engineer to check each map
individually and provides the possibility to modify maps with the help of
control points. Therefore, whenever possible, primary variables should be
used instead of composite ones.
- Grid arithmetic can only be performed on grids with exactly the same size.
Make sure that the same grid area and the same grid size is used on every
grid map, which will be used for grid arithmetic.
- Grid areas can only be introduced before grid arithmetic is applied. It is
not possible to change the grid area on grid maps resulting from grid
arithmetic.
- Be aware of the fact that the only known values are the measured ones at
the well location. All other values between wells are interpolated.
Therefore they depend on the interpolation method and do not necessarily
have to represent reality. Plausibility of the maps should always be
verified visually.
Schlumberger
- Outside the area where measured data exists, OFM will extrapolate. Such
umberger Private
extrapolated values have no meaning and therefore must be eliminated
prior to the interpretation of the map. Grid areas should be used to limit
the mapped area to regions with measured data.
• Negative Values on Delta Cumulative Oil Grid Maps

Although it might not appear to be logical at the first glance, it is possible to get
negative values on delta grid maps showing the cumulative production. There is
one case where negative values can occur over a short time period.
Cumulative Oil Production
Period 2
Period 1
Well Well
Figure 37: No negative cums can occur with regular production
Page 6-50
Figure 37 shows the cumulative production of two wells producing over two time
periods. The delta grid map with the production data from those two wells will
contain only positive values for the cumulative production.
In Figure 38, an infill well comes online in period 3. In the periods 1 and 2 the
values at the infill location have been interpolated. In period 3 real production
data exists which is lower then the previously interpolated values. This causes the
delta grid map to become negative in this part of the map. In the following period
i.e. on the next delta grid map, however, those negative cums will disappear
again.
If negative values can be found on the same spot of a delta cumulative production
grid map over several time periods, the delta grid map is presumably wrong. In
such a case the delta grid map should be recreated from scratch.
meson line cause
Schlumberger
Cumulative Oil Production
umberger Private
Period 3
Period 2
Period 1
Well #1 Infill Well Well
Figure 38: Negative cums are caused by an infill well
• Example
An example for a small and very basic time motion study can be found on the
next page.
Page 6-51
1.1.1.1 DYNAMIC DATA 1.1.1.2

STATIC
DATA
••cum oil ••cum gas ••cum water ••GOR ••water cut Netpay
1st PERIOD
So
2nd PERIOD
Porosity
3rd PERIOD
Permeability
4th PERIOD
Page 6-52
APPENDIX E – HETEROGENEITY INDEX ANALYSIS DETAILS
6.5 Appendix E: Heterogeneity Index Analysis Details
Page 6-53
6.5.1 Heterogeneity Index
Definition
The heterogeneity index provides the possibility to compare individual wells to
the average of a well group. It is defined as
valuewell
HI = −1
valueaverage of wells
One is subtracted from the ratio to normalize the heterogeneity index to zero i.e.
the average of all the wells is equal to zero. Wells performing above average will
have a value for HI, which is larger than zero. HI values below zero indicate wells
performing below average.
Recommended Procedure
The following section provides a guideline how to create calculated variables for
the heterogeneity index for the daily oil rate and the daily water rate, which can
then be used for cross hair plots. The procedure can easily be modified to suit
other purposes (see “Another Example for HI and Cross Hair Plots” on page
6-61).
A.1.1. Filter Wells

Filter for the wells of interest and zoom into the area of the reservoir that will be
analyzed. It is recommended that a filter file for the well selection be created.
A.1.2. Calculated Variables for the Calendar Day Rate/Well

Production data is loaded as monthly production rates in monthly tables. To get
the average daily oil rate for each well, the following calculated variables have to
be created:
cv.cdoil = prd.oil / @dom(date)

cv.cntoilw = @CountInput(prd.oil)
cv.cdoilw = cv.cdoil / cv.cntoilw
In the first calculated variable the monthly oil production is divided by the
number of days in each month, which can be found with the system function
@dom(…). The system function @CountInput(…) in the second calculated
variable counts the number of wells. A simple division of the daily oil rate by the
number of wells will then give the average oil rate per day per well.
Page 6-54
Note that this calculated variables apply to whatever is in the filter. If only a
single well is in the filter, cv.cdoil will return the same result as cv.cdoilw. For a
group of wells, however, cv.cdoil will return the daily rate for all wells in the
filter added together, whereas cv.cdoilw will give the average daily oil rate per
well.
The same calculated variables have to be created for the water phase:
cv.cdwat = prd.water / @dom(date)

cv.cntwatw = @CountInput(prd.water)
cv.cdwatw = cv.cdwat / cv.cntwatw
A.1.3. Data Registers

For the heterogeneity index it is necessary to divide the individual daily rate of
each well by the average daily rate of all the wells. The calculated variables
cv.cdoilw and cv.cdwatw deliver these average values, but since they are just
regular calculated variables, their results will change depending on the content of
the filter.
To have the average values available no matter what is in the filter, it is required
to group the data, open a data register, place the date plus cv.cdoilw in one
register, and the date plus cv.cdwatw in another register. Lock the registers and
remember the register numbers.
A.1.4. Calculated Variables to Access the Data Registers

Data in registers cannot be displayed or used in other calculated variables unless a
calculated variable exists that has access to the register. Therefore create the
following two calculated variables, but make sure that the register numbers
coincide with the registers in which the data was placed.
wf.Avgoilperwell = @Reg(1,date,"date")
wf.Avgwatperwell = @Reg(2,date,"date")
Note that these two calculated variables have a different prefix. This was done for
a reason: All the variables with the prefix ‘wf’ can only be applied to the wells in
the current filter. They won’t produce valid results on other data. However,
calculated variables with the prefix ‘cv’ are general and can be used on other data
as well. This naming convention will be continued as other calculated variables
are created throughout this chapter.
Page 6-55
A.1.5. Plot Data in Register

Verify the calculated variables by displaying them on a graph. Scroll through the
wells and compare daily rates to the average. If the data registers where set up
properly, the average curve will be the same on each graph.
Figure 39: Calculated variables that access the data registers
A.1.6. Calculated Variables for the Heterogeneity Index

Create calculated variables for the heterogeneity index according to the definition
in *. Using the previously created calculated variables this definition can be stated
as:
cv.cdoil / wf.Avgoilperwell - 1
However, there is one problem that will be encountered if this definition is used
without any modification. In months where the well is shut-in and no production
data is in the table, the heterogeneity index will be equal to minus one. Hence, if a
cumulative heterogeneity index is used, the value will decrease in months without
Page 6-56
production. This introduces an error that can be taken care of with the help of a
simple if - statement. If production data exists for a certain month, the
heterogenity index is calculated. If not, the system function @Null( ) is used to
say that the index does not exist at this point:
wf.Hicdoilwf = @If(prd.oil > 0, cv.cdoil / wf.Avgoilperwell - 1, @Null( ))
wf.Hicdwatwf = @If(prd.water > 0, cv.cdwat / wf.Avgwatperwell - 1, @Null( ))
There is simpler way to set up the same variable, but the way it works is not as
obvious. If cv.cdoilw is used instead of cv.cdoil, the original definition can be
used without modification. The calculated variables are then:
wf.Hicdoilwf = cv.cdoilw / wf.Avgoilperwell - 1
wf.Hicdwatwf = cv.cdwatw / wf.Avgwatperwell - 1
Note: If applied to single wells cv.cdoil and cv.cdoilw will give the same result.
In this case no if - statement is needed for the heterogeneity index because these
calculated variables produce results only in months with production data and not
in the months without production data. There is no way that the result could be
equal to minus one.
The explanation to this phenomenon is simple, but - as mentioned earlier - not

obvious. The difference lies in the way cv.cdoil and cv.cdoilw are set up:
• cv.cdoil is defined as monthly oil rate divided by the number of days in the
month; if there is no production, it will return zero. The heterogeneity index
will be equal to minus one.
• cv.cdoilw is defined as cv.cdoil divided by the number of wells contributing to
the production:
• If the well is producing, the number of wells contributing to the
production will be equal to one. cv.cdoil and cv.cdoilw will give the same
result.
• If there is no production, the wells contributing to the production are zero.
A division by zero occurs and no value will be returned. In this case the
heterogeneity index is not defined and won’t be calculated.
Check the calculated variables with a plot.
Page 6-57
Figure 40: Plot to verify the calculated variables for the heterogeneity indices
A.1.7. Cumulative Heterogeneity Index

Instead of using the monthly value for the heterogeneity index, a cumulative value
can be calculated and used for the analysis. There are two reasons why one would
do this:
• If there are gaps in the production data i.e. if there are months where the well
was shut-in, the heterogeneity index will also contain gaps. Using the
cumulative heterogeneity index will remove those gaps and result in a
continuous function.
• The second reason to use a cumulative heterogeneity index is to reduce the
sensitivity. Monthly indices might have large variations and will then be
difficult to analyze. Using the cumulative value decreases the level of detail
and makes the functions smooth.
For the cumulative heterogeneity index use the system function @RSum(…).
@CumInput(…) won’t work here because it is restricted to table variables and
cannot be applied to calculated variables.
Page 6-58
To use the cumulative heterogenity indices create the following calculated

variables:
wf.Rsumhicdoil = @RSum(wf.Hicdoilwf)
wf.Rsumhicdwat = @RSum(wf.Hicdwatwf)
Again check your variables by plotting them and scrolling through the wells.
Figure 41: Cumulative heterogeneity indices for the oil and water rates
• Cross Hair Plots

Cross hair plots are scatter plots with heterogeneity indices on both axes. Usually
the scale is set to have the origin of the axes, which is the point where the average
lies, in the middle of the plot.
To make a cross hair plot create a binary map file (*.bmf) for a scatter plot that
contains the calculated variables wf.Rsumhicdoil and wf.Rsumhicdwat. Open the
Page 6-59
bmf - file and assign the heterogeneity index for oil to one axis, the heterogeneity
index for water to the other axis.
Figure 42: Cross hair plot
This cross hair plot can now be animated and synchronized with other scatter
plots. To detect anomalies in the field, points can be traced to see their behavior
during the production history. Set files can be used to reference the wells on the
cross hair plot to the same wells on other cross plots. As described earlier a scatter
plot base map with the x- and the y-coordinates can be used to find the location of
the anomalies.
Page 6-60
Figure 43: Cross hair plot in combination with a scatter plot base map
• Another Example for HI and Cross Hair Plots

• The following variables are for computing the heterogeneity index for a daily
gas flow rate. Only wells with a minimum flow rate of 10,000 are taken into
consideration:
cv.Rateflow = @If(Dly.Rate > 10000, Dly.Rate, @Null( ))

Cv.Ratewells = @If(Dly.Rate > 10000, @CountInput(Dly.Rate), @Null( ))
Cv.AvgRate = Cv.Rateflow / Cv.Ratewells
Cv.Ravgflow = @Reg(1, Date, "date")
Cv.HIRate = @If(Cv.Rateflow > 0, Dly.Rate / Cv.Ravgflow - 1, @Null( ))
Cv.CumHIRate = @RSum(Cv.HIRate, Dly.Rate > 0)
• The following variables are for computing the heterogeneity index for the
daily absolute pressure (AP), which was measured at the wellhead. Again only
wells with a minimum flow rate of 10,000 are taken into consideration:
Page 6-61
Cv.Apflow = @If(Dly.Rate > 10000, Dly.Ap, @Null( ))

Cv.Apwells = @CountInput(Dly.Ap)
Cv.Avgap = @If(Dly.Rate > 10000, Cv.Apflow / Cv.Apwells, @Null( ))
Cv.RAvgap = @Reg(2, Date, "date")
Cv.Hiap = @If(Cv.Apflow > 0, Dly.ap / Cv.RAvgap - 1, @Null( ))
Cv.Cumhiap = @RSum(Cv.Hiap)
Figure 44: Cross hair plot displaying the cumulative HI for the daily absolute pressure
vs. the cumulative HI for the rate
Page 6-62
• Parser File for the PDVSA Database Template

The following pages show a parser file containing the calculated variables for the
heterogeneity indices using the variable names from the standardized OFM
database template that PDVSA uses:
c[ Reg1.OilCount=@CountInput(Zprodpetroleo.volumen) ]
*pn "Oil Input Count"
*pa Red Solid None 0
*u None
*mu 1
*rh "Oil" "Input" "Count"
*rf 8 0 Right
c[ Reg2.WtrCount=@CountInput(Zprodagua.volumen) ]
*pn "Water Input Count"
*u None
*mu 1
*rh "Water" "Input" "Count"
*rf 8 0 Right
c[ Reg3.GasCount=@CountInput(Zprodgas.volumen) ]
*pn "Gas Input Count"
*u None
*mu 1
*rh "Gas" "Input" "Count"
*rf 8 0 Right
c[ Reg4.OilRate=Zprodpetroleo.volumen/@dom(fecha) ]
*pn "Loaded Wells Oil Rate"
*u None
Page 6-63
*mu 1
*rh "Loaded Wells" "Oil Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ Reg5.WtrRate=Zprodagua.volumen/@dom(fecha) ]
*pn "Loaded Wells Water Rate"
*u wells
*mu 1
*rh "Loaded Wells" "Water Rate" ""
*rf 10 0 Right
c[ Reg6.GasRate=Zprodgas.volumen/@dom(fecha) ]
*pn "Loaded Wells Gas Rate"
*u None
*mu 1
*rh "Loaded Wells" "Gas Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ Avg.OilRate=@Reg(4,fecha,"fecha")/@Reg(1,fecha,"fecha") ]
*pn "Avg Well Oil Rate"
*u None
*mu 1
*rh "Avg Well" "Oil Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ Avg.WtrRate=@Reg(5,fecha,"fecha")/@Reg(2,fecha,"fecha") ]
*pn "Avg Well Water Rate"
*u None
Page 6-64
*mu 1
*rh "Avg Well" "Water Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ Avg.GasRate=@Reg(6,fecha,"fecha")/@Reg(3,fecha,"fecha") ]
*pn "Avg Well Gas Rate"
*u None
*mu 1
*rh "Avg Well" "Gas Rate"
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ HI.OilRate=(Zprodpetroleo.volumen/@dom(fecha))/Avg.OilRate ]
*pn "HI Well Oil Rate"
*u fraction
*mu 1
*rh "HI Well" "Oil Rate" ""
*rf 12 4 Right
c[ HI.WtrRate=(Zprodagua.volumen/@dom(fecha))/Avg.WtrRate ]
*pn "HI Well Water Rate"
*u fraction
*mu 1
*rh "HI Well" "Water Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ HI.GasRate=(Zprodgas.volumen/@dom(fecha))/Avg.GasRate ]
*pn "HI Well Gas Rate"
*u fraction
Page 6-65
*mu 1
*rh "HI Well" "Gas Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ HI.NOilRate=HI.OilRate - 1 ]
*pn "HI Net Well Oil Rate"
*u fraction
*mu 1
*rh "HI Net Well" "Oil Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ HI.NWtrRate=HI.WtrRate - 1 ]
*pn "HI Net Well Water Rate"
*u fraction
*mu 1
*rh "HI Net" "Well" "Water Rate"
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ HI.NGasRate=HI.GasRate - 1 ]
*pn "HI Net Well Gas Rate"
*u fraction
*mu 1
*rh "HI Net" "Well" "Gas Rate"
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ HI.CNOilRate=@RSum(HI.NOilRate, Zprodpetroleo.volumen > 0) ]

*pn "HI Cum Net Well Oil Rate"
*u fraction
Page 6-66
*mu 1
*rh "HI Cum Net" "Well Oil Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ HI.CNWtrRate=@RSum(HI.NWtrRate, Zprodagua.volumen > 0) ]

*pn "HI Cum Net Well Water Rate"
*u fraction
*mu 1
*rh "HI Cum Net" "Well Water Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
c[ HI.CNGasRate=@RSum(HI.NGasRate, Zprodgas.volumen > 0) ]
*pn "HI Cum Net Well Gas Rate"
*u fraction
*mu 1
*rh "HI Cum Net" "Well Gas Rate" ""
*rf 12 3 Right
Page 6-67
APPENDIX F – COMPLETION EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS DETAILS
6.6 Appendix F: Completion Efficiency Analysis Details
Page 6-68
6.6.1 Scatter Plot Analysis – Completion Efficiency
6.6.1.1 Scatter Plots

Scatter plots provide the potential for true multi-well analysis. Data from a large
number of wells can be plotted in one or several linked graphs and correlations
can be analyzed. Scatter plots can be animated to see the changes over time and
plots can also be synchronized i.e. as the animation progresses, each scatter plot
will display the data from the same month.
Basically any combination of variables is possible on a scatter plot. Table

variables can be plotted as well as calculated variables; static variables can be
shown on the same graph as dynamic variables.
Scatter plots can be divided into 4 major groups:
• plots of static data vs. static data (e.g. permeability vs. porosity)
• plots of static data vs. dynamic data (e.g. net pay vs. cumulative oil produced)
• plots of dynamic data vs. dynamic data (e.g. water rate vs. oil rate)
• cross hair plots
Figure 45: Scatter plot: static vs. static data
Page 6-69
Figure 46: Scatter plot: static vs. dynamic data
Figure 47: Scatter plot: dynamic vs. dynamic data
Page 6-70
6.6.2 Scatter Plot Sets
Scatter sets are used to mark certain data points on scatter plots. Each scatter set
will appear on every scatter plot. Using different symbols and colors makes it
possible to distinguish between the different groups of points and identify the
location of the same data points on the other scatter plots. This allows the
engineer to correlate multiple variables for the same wells.
There are two ways to create scatter sets:
The first method is to create them directly on the scatter plot. To do so, go to
‘Edit/Set Edit/Creation …’ while the scatter plot is active. Add a new set, name it,
select the color, the symbol and the symbol size. After that either select the data
points by clicking on them, pick them through a bounding polygon or pick them
by a value range. After that refresh the other scatter plot(s) and the same set will
appear on these plots as well.
Figure 48: Scatter sets can be used to idendify regions with reservoir problems
Page 6-71
The second way to create scatter sets is with the help of scatter set files.
Everything that is in the filter can not only be saved as a filter file, it is also
possible to save it as a scatter set file. Once a scatter set file is saved, it can be
opened and displayed on a scatter plot. To do so, go to ‘Edit/Set Edit/Creation …’
while the scatter plot is active, select ‘Open …’ and open your scatter set file.
Whichever wells were in the filter when the scatter set file was created will now
be in the new set and can be displayed in a different color. The process can be
repeated for a different filter, since it is possible to load several different set files
into one scatter plot.
This feature has a very important application when it comes to vintaging wells on
scatter plots. If vintage sort categories are already created in the database, the
procedure above can be applied to mark the data points from wells, which have
about the same age, on the scatter plot. Simply sort for the vintage category, save
the filter as a scatter set file and open it on the scatter plot.
6.6.3 Scatter Plot Base Map
For scatter plot analysis an additional scatter plot, which displays the x- and y-
coordinates of the wells, can be opened. The scatter plot will replicate the base
map with one big advantage: If now scatter sets are applied, the location of each
data point in the scatter set is also shown on the scatter plot base map.
Figure 49: Scatter plot base map
Page 6-72
6.6.4 XYZ - Profiles (4D Scatter Plots)
Scatter plots can be used in combination with xyz - coordinates to display data
versus depth or versus the x- or y- coordinate axis. In this way cross sections of
dynamic and static reservoir data in all three dimensions can be created which can
then be viewed at different dates or animated.
This time dependency of the xyz - profiles allows the incorporation of time as the
fourth dimension and provides a very powerful tool for 4D analysis of the data.
Figure 50: Scatter plots showing xyz - profiles
6.6.5 Multi-Variable Analysis
Multi-variable analysis is the combination of everything described so far in this

chapter. It uses all four types of scatter plots, a scatter plot base map, xyz -
profiles and, of course, scatter plot sets to perform a 4D analysis of the reservoir.
Page 6-73
Basically any combination of scatter plots is possible and dependent on the data
and the scope of the analysis, each multi-variable analysis will be different. The
procedure and the methodology, however, remain the same.
A.1.1. Calculated Variables

Look for the table variables and calculated variables that might be interesting and
meaningful for the analysis. If necessary create new calculated variables (e.g.
heterogeneity indices).
A.1.2. Binary Map File

Create a binary map file (*.bmf) containing all the variables of interest. Stick
everything that might be useful into this file, but remember that OFM limits the
number of characters for the variable list to 255. So keep the name of the
calculated variables short.
There is no need to specify the x- and y-coordinates in the variable list. These two
variables are automatically included in the binary map file.
A.1.3. Create Scatter Plots

For the multi-variable analysis create the following scatter plots:
• scatter plot base map

• xyz - profiles with static and dynamic reservoir data
• regular scatter plots with the variables of interest
Synchronize the scatter plots.
A.1.4. Apply Set Files and Look for Anomalies

Animate the scatter plots and analyze the behavior over time. Look for anomalies
in the scatter plots and use scatter sets to find these wells on the other scatter
plots. Try to relate them to reservoir problems or well problems. Utilize problems
that have been identified and successfully corrected as analogs and try to find new
analogs.
Page 6-74
Variable1 Variable3
Variable2 Variable4
depth Variable3
Variable5 x - coord
y - coord y - coord
Variable6 x - coord
Figure 51: Multi-variable analysis
6.6.6 Dynamic Baselines
Through the analysis of correlations on scatter plots trendlines - the so-called

dynamic baselines - can be found. These baselines are used to identify
underperforming wells and anomalous reservoir performance.
There are three ways to add trendlines:
• Best (or Normal) Fit: This trendline goes right through the middle of the data
and represents the average of all data points. It would be used if the
performance of each well has to be compared to the average performance of
all wells.
• Trailing Edge: This trendline represents the worst performers among all the
wells. It is drawn through the outermost wells to which the correlation still
applies. This line is used if the performance of each well should be compared
to the ones with the worst performance in the field.
• Leading Edge: Again the trendline is drawn through the outermost data points
that still show a correlation, but this time the line is on the side of the best
Page 6-75
performance. This trendline can be used to compare wells to the best ones in
the field.
Trailing edge
Normal
Leading edge
Figure 52: Three ways to add a trendline
Schlumberger
umberger Private
If the correlations are time dependent, the trendlines will vary with time. For each
time step in the analysis a different trendline can be found. These trendlines are
called dynamic baselines.
R ∆Rate R ∆Rate R ∆Rate

Slope = m1 = Slope = m2 =
∆Cum ∆Cum Slope = m3 =
∆Cum
Cum Cum Cum
Figure 53: The slope of the dynamic baselines changes over time
The slope of the baseline for each time step is measured. A table with the elapsed
time in days and the corresponding measured slopes has to be created in EXCEL.
This table can now be used to plot the data, fit a trendline to the data, and obtain
the equation for the best fit.
Page 6-76
Fit data
m
time
Figure 54: A trendline is added to the data to obtain the equation for the best fit
The obtained equation describes the change of the slope as a function of the time.
This equation can now be used to calculate the slope of the dynamic baseline for
every time step.
Schlumberger
umberger Private
Once we know all the slopes and respectively all the dynamic baselines, we can
compare the performance of each well to the dynamic baseline at any time during
the production history. Simple calculated variables could do the comparison using
the following formulas:
Slope of performance baseline: m = a ⋅ days b where a, b are constants from the fit
Average cumulative production from baseline: Baseline Cum Gas = Rate/m

Performance compared to baseline: Lead/Lag = Actual Cum - Baseline Cum Gas
Compared to the baseline some wells will show a better performance than the
baseline i.e. they will ‘lead’. Other wells will lag behind i.e. their performance
will be worse than the baseline performance.
The lead/lag can be analyzed on scatter plots in combination with other static or
dynamic data or on cross hair plots with other dynamic data.
The following section shows an example of how dynamic baselines are found and
used for further analysis.
A.1.5. Scatter Plots and Base Lines

Scatter plots for the daily gas rate versus the cumulative gas produced are created
for certain dates. In this case only the scatter plots for 1 month, 3 months, 6
months, 12 months, 36 months and 60 months are shown in Fig. 11, although
Page 6-77
several more were created. Trendlines are fitted to the data and the slope of each
one is measured. In this case a leading edge was used for the dynamic baseline
since it should describe the performance of the best wells.
Figure 55: Example for dynamic baselines
Page 6-78
A.1.6. Trendline and Fit Equation for the Slope

The measured slope values are entered into an EXCEL spreadsheet and plotted
versus the elapsed time in days. A power function fit was used to obtain the
equation for the best fit:
slope m = 1037 ⋅ days −1.0351
35.00
30.00
slope m
-1.0351
25.00
y = 1037x Power (slope m)
20.00
slope
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
elapsed days
Figure 56: Trendline and fit equation for the slope of the baseline
A.1.7. Calculated Variables for the Slope

Several calculated variables were created for the following analysis:
• The number of elapsed days since the start of production is needed as an input
for the slope calculation:
cv.Elapseddays = @ElapsedDays(date, 19920101)
• The slope is calculated according to the best fit found in EXCEL:

cv.Slope = 1037 * @Pow(cv.Elapseddays, -1.0351 )
• Since the dynamic baselines were chosen on the leading edge, they will
represent the best producing wells. Therefore the best cumulative production
can be defined as:
Best Cumulative Gas = Rate / m
Page 6-79
The calculated variable for this equation is:

cv.Bestcum = @If(dly.rate > 10000, Dly.Rate * 1000 / cv.Slope, @Null( ))
The if-statement assures that only wells with a certain daily gas production are
taken into consideration.
The lead/lag is defined as:

Lead/Lag = Actual Cumulative Gas - Best Cumulative Gas
The calculated variable for the lead/lag is:

cv.LeadLag = @If(dly.rate > 10000, cv.Cumdgas-cv.Bestcum, @Null( ))
Where cv.Cumdgas = @CumInput(Dly.Rate)
Again the if-statement is used to assure that only wells with a certain minimum
daily production are considered. In addition to that a where-statement has to be
added because the lead/lag is only defined where a value for the actual cumulative
production exists.
A.1.8. Evaluate Lead and Lag
Figure 57: Lead/Lag plotted versus remaining ultimate reserves
Page 6-80
The calculated variable for the Lead/Lag can now be used in different kinds of
scatter plots to spot good and poor performing wells. In the example (Fig. 13) it is
plotted against a static variable, the ultimate recoverable reserves.
6.6.7 Analogs
Analogs are examples from the past with known solutions. This could be a
problem well, which was correctly diagnosed and repaired, but it could also be
successful a water flood or steam flood pattern, or an unsuccessful pattern that
was optimized.
Figure 58: Well with anomalous behavior
Once a well with anomalous behavior is detected and its problem is successfully
corrected, the whole process can be regarded as an analog i.e. the path it took on
the scatter plot or the quadrant it went into on a cross hair plot before and after the
well treatment and the treatment itself can be regarded as the fingerprint of a
successful operation.
Such analogs, and similar ones on a reservoir level, are the basis for successful
long-term surveillance.
Page 6-81
Figure 59: Region with a potential reservoir problem
6.6.8 Special Features of Scatter Plots
A.1.9. Histograms and CDF

OFM provides the possibility to perform statistical analysis on the data of the
cross plot. Histograms and cumulative distribution frequency curves are two of
these statistical features. To use them simply check the CDF and Histogram box
in the ‘Edit Scatter Plot/Edit Plot’ menu.
For the histogram the x-axis will display the variable and the y-axis will show the
number of wells that produce the assigned variable on the selected date.
The cumulative frequency distribution curve will have the same x-axis, but it will
display the percentage of the wells, which produce the assigned value on the
selected date, on the y-axis.
Furthermore it is possible to report the result of the statistical analysis in the

output window. To do so, select ‘Edit/Print Statistics’ while the scatter plot is
active.
Page 6-82
Figure 60: Histogram and cumulative distribution frequency
Page 6-83
Statistical Analysis
----------- --------
Oil Rate (Cal. Day) ( bbl/d )
Samples: 64
Minimum: 72.5161
Maximum: 789.5806
Range: 717.0645
Medium: 431.0484
Sum: 21772.1240
Arithmetic Average: 340.1894
Geometric Average: 308.4070
Variance: 20318.8818
Abs Deviation: 116.1165
Sample Std Deviation: 143.6712
Pop. Std Deviation: 142.5443
Range
---------------------------
Minimum Maximum Frequency CDF
------------- ------------- --------- -------
48.1391 96.2782 1 0.0625
96.2782 144.4173 3 0.1250
144.4173 192.5564 4 0.2813
192.5564 240.6955 10 0.4063
240.6955 288.8346 8 0.5625
288.8346 336.9737 10 0.6719
336.9737 385.1128 7 0.7656
385.1128 433.2519 6 0.8125
433.2519 481.3910 3 0.8594
481.3910 529.5301 3 0.9688
529.5301 577.6692 7 0.9844
577.6692 625.8083 1 1.0000
770.2256 818.3647 1 1.0000
Figure 61: Statistics from a scatter plot in OFM
A.1.10. Historical Scatter Plots

Historical scatter plots display all the data points in the production history for all
the wells. Wells of special interest can be selected and displayed in a different
color. This feature makes it possible to compare the historical performance of
certain wells to all the other data points in that binary map file.
Page 6-84
Figure 62: Historical scatter plot
Page 6-85
APPENDIX G – DRAINAGE / INTERFERENCE RADIUS ANALYSIS DETAILS
6.7 Appendix G: Drainage / Interference Radius Analysis Details
Page 6-86
6.7.1 Drainage Radius
6.7.1.1 Vertical Well Drainage Radius Study
6.7.1.1.1 Overview
The drainage radius of a vertical well can be extremely useful information for the
engineer. First and foremost, it can give a picture of the drainage area per well in
the reservoir. Areas not being drained by wells are quickly identified visually with
bubble mapping. Bubble maps showing the drainage radius can serve a rapid
process to quickly identify areas for new infill drilling locations. Additionally, the
drainage radius of a vertical well rev is needed for the evaluation of horizontal
wells. The rev is necessary to calculate the drainage radius of a horizontal well reh,
which is a requirement in the Joshi equation for calculating the horizontal well
productivity Jh.
The vertical well drainage radius can be used to
• Determine the drainage areas of the wells in the reservoir

• Identify areas of the reservoir not being drained
• Supplement infill drilling locations
• Calculate horizontal well productivity (Jh)
6.7.1.1.2 Conditions, Equations and Definitions
Depending on the condition of the reservoir there are two ways to derive the
equation, which is needed for the calculation of the drainage radius:
• If the reservoir is under hydraulic control i.e. there is no apparent decline in

the reservoir pressure because of water influx and/or water drive, the
following equation has to be used:
7758 ⋅ A ⋅ h ⋅ φ ⋅ (1 − S w − S or )
Np = [STB ]
Boi
solving for rev gives
43560 ⋅ N p ⋅ Boi
rev = [ ft ]
7758 ⋅ π ⋅ h ⋅ φ ⋅ (1 − S w − S or )
Page 6-87
• If the reservoir is under volumetric control, i.e. there is no water influx to

replace the displaced oil and the oil is replaced by gas, use this equation:
1 − S w 1 − S w − S g 
N p = 7758 ⋅ A ⋅ h ⋅ φ ⋅  −  [STB ]
 Boi Bo 
solving for rev results in
43560 ⋅ N p
rev = [ ft ]
1 − S w 1 − S w − S g 
7758 ⋅ h ⋅ π ⋅ φ ⋅  − 
 Boi Bo 
where
Np - cumulative petroleum recovered (STB)
A - drainage area (acres or ft2) or π ⋅ rev2
h - net pay (ft)
φ - porosity (%)
Sw - water saturation (%) at current conditions (or abandonment for total
recovery)
Sg - gas saturation (%) at current conditions (or abandonment for total
recovery)
Sor - residual oil saturation (%)
Bo - formation volume factor (RB/STB) at current reservoir conditions
Boi - formation volume factor (RB/STB) at initial reservoir conditions
6.7.1.1.3 Remark
This definition of the drainage radius must not be confused with the definition
used in pressure transient testing and simulation. This drainage radius estimation
is based on volumetric calculations and does not incorporate the compressibility
of the reservoir fluids in the equation. Bubble maps created with this equation will
show the area actually drained and not - as it is the case in well testing and
simulation - the area contributing to flow. Hence, one must not make the mistake
and use this concept to detect interference between wells.
Page 6-88
6.7.1.1.4 Recommended Procedure
The calculation of the vertical well drainage radius follows the two equations
stated above, under the specified conditions. For this example, it is assumed that
the reservoir is under hydraulic conditions (constant reservoir pressure due to
water influx). The OFM procedure is summarized as below.
A.1.1. Inventory Data

Always perform a data inventory on the existing OFM project to check and see if
the data is readily available for each well. It is important to get the data on a
wellbore basis in order to generate a quality-mapping product. Otherwise,
reservoir averages are used and that does not help identify particular areas of the
reservoir. If the above data is ready available in the OFM database, then go to
“A.1.3. Format Data” on page 6-90. If the data is not readily available in the
OFM project, check if there is measured data and see if it is accessible. The
thickness and porosity values are normally available on a wellbore basis in most
oil companies. The saturation and formation volume factor data usually are not,
unless an integrated study has been performed on the reservoir and/or a SCAL
(special core analysis). Also check if relative permeability curves and/or capillary
pressure data are available – the more the better. Make a list of data available and
not available.
A.1.2. Estimate Missing Data

If data is not readily available, use the following guidelines to estimate saturation
and formation volume factors.
A.1.2.1. Estimation of Boi

Check if there is any PVT data available at all. If not, try to estimate Bo at the
initial pressure pi with the help of the PVT correlations inside OFM or McCain's
Properties of Petroleum Fluids Book, figure 11-9. Boi should be the same for all
wells.
A.1.2.2. Estimation of Bo
Bo can be different for all wells. Again try to find existing measurement data, or
use OFM’s PVT correlations to get values for Bo at the current pressure (by
wellbore if available). It is also possible to estimate Bo using Craft and Hawkins’
equation (above bubble point)
Page 6-89
Bo = Bob ⋅ e c ( p − p )
o b
or the approximation
Bo ≈ Bob ⋅ [1 + co ( pb − p )]
or use McCain’s book for correlations, chapter 11, figures 11-9 and 11-11.
A.1.2.3. Estimation of Sw
Like Bo the water saturation can be different for each well. If no data is available,
try to get it from relative permeability curves/capillary pressure curves. Another
approach is to get Sw from production data. Determine producing GOR, compute
krw/kro using
qw k rw µ o Bo
= ⋅ ⋅
qo k ro µ w Bw
Use the krw/kro curve to estimate water saturation and correlate the depth with the
water saturation.
A.1.2.4. Estimation of Sor

This value should be the same for all wells, but it is difficult to obtain without
relative permeability and/or capillary pressure curves.
Craft and Hawkins have a correlation on oil viscosity using their table 5.2 (the
deviation is +/- 12% of the pore space).
An estimated range for Sor could be 0.2 in sandstones to 0.4 in carbonates.
A.1.2.5. Estimation of Sg
The gas saturation could be different for every well. To obtain it use relative
permeability curves/capillary pressure, Sg = 1 - So - Swi (if you have the data) or
table 3.3 “Residual gas saturation after water flood” from Craft and Hawkins to
estimate Sgr. Generally Sg will be higher than this number.
A.1.2.6. List of Assumptions

Keep a list of the values and the assumptions made, so you can keep track of your
work. This is important in case any corrections need to be made to the data.
A.1.3. Format Data

For simplicity inside the OFM project, use the following format and nomenclature
to assist with your process.
Page 6-90
To create a new table definition go to ‘Edit/Project/Definition…’. Call the table

DRAINRAD and ensure the data type is monthly (see Figure 63).
Figure 63: Table definition
For the definition of the fields (i.e. variables) ensure that the following are defined
with the ‘Carry Forward’ option clicked on. The data must be loaded as monthly
with the carry forward on or the bubble maps will not work.
Figure 64: Make sure ‘Carry Forward’ is checked
Page 6-91
Define the following table variables:
Variable Unit
Boi bbl/bbl
h ft
phi none
Sw none
Sor none
If some of these variables are already in the OFM database, e.g. if the thickness is
already loaded into a static table containing geological information, there is no
need to load it again. Just modify the calculated variable for the drainage radius to
use the appropriate variables (see “A.1.5. Calculated Variable for the Drainage
Radius”).
Once the table is defined, format the data into the correct OFM load file. The
following example shows what the format has to look like. Save the file as
‘Drainrad.dat’.
*tablename DRAINRAD
*Date *WELL *Boi *h *phi *Sw *Sor
19440101 A2246 1.145 18.25 0.231 0.252 0.25
19440101 A6007 1.145 41.25 0.258 0.33 0.25
19440101 A6112 1.145 41.25 0.28 0.238 0.25
19440101 A6242 1.145 41.25 0.28 0.238 0.25
19440101 A6268 1.145 38.25 0.281 0.333 0.25
Figure 65: Example for load format
Note: Date must be added in order to load as monthly data. Just add the first
month of production for all the wells, and then the carry forward option will
repeat the values for all of the following times. If some of the values vary with
time, load the actual values into the corresponding months.
A.1.4. Load Data Into OFM

Use the data loader function to load the file into OFM. Make sure the file is
loaded properly and no errors occur.
Page 6-92
A.1.5. Calculated Variable for the Drainage Radius

Create a calculated variable for the drainage radius according to the condition of
the reservoir and the formulas listed in 6.7.1.1.2 ‘Conditions, Equations and
Definitions’. If necessary, modify them to match your table variable names:
DR.Radius = @Sqrt((Oil.Cum * Drainrad.Boi) / (7758 * 3.14159 * Drainrad.H * Drainrad.Phi *

(1 - Drainrad.Sor - Drainrad.Sw)) * 43560)
A.1.6. Create a Bubble Map of the Drainage Radius

Create a new binary map file for the bubble map analysis with the variables Date
and DR.Radius. Make sure the data type ‘monthly’ is activated. The bubble map
will now be created with the values for the drainage radius and the data for each
month. Select the DR.Radius variable and a time (i.e. last month).
Display the bubbles on the map calibrated to the proper scale. To do so, go to
‘Edit Bubble Map’ and make sure that ‘Vary Size’ is checked and Radius is set to
‘Variable’.
Figure 66: Drainage radius bubble map
Display the grid and verify the drainage radius bubble map with a report.
Page 6-93
6.7.1.1.5 Forecast Drainage Radius
To forecast a drainage radius scenario, run a decline curve analysis for a certain
number of years. Save the case and create a calculated variable using the system
function @DCAResults(…) to retrieve the forecasted estimated ultimate recovery
(EUR) from the decline curve case. Use EUR instead of Np (i.e. oil.cum) in the
calculated variable for the drainage radius. Remember that new estimates for Bo,
Sw and Sg will be needed to get valid results.
6.7.1.1.6 References
• Horizontal Well Technology – Sada D. Joshi

• The Property of Petroleum Fluids – William D. McCain
• SPE Handbook of Petroleum Engineering
• Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering – Craft and Hawkins
Pressure Transient Testing Design & Analysis – James T. Smith
6.8 Interference Radius Calculations
Introduction
Theory
Semi-Steady State
Transient Flow
Steady State
Skin Values
Procedure
Input Variables
Calculation of m(Pwf)
Calculation of Pwf
Calculation of Interference Radius
Appendix
Page 6-94
6.8.1 Introduction
For gas reservoirs, instead of calculating the drainage radius of a particular well,
pressure interference calculations should be used. Drainage radius calculations
are more a measure of swept volume, and as such are more applicable to oil wells.
The goal of the interference calculations is to determine the distance from a
producing well at which the drawdown is a constant value of X kPa or a constant
fraction of the total drawdown, say 20% or so. It should then be possible to plot a
bubble map displaying this radius, which will indicate the areas available for infill
drilling, where interference is expected to be minimal. By altering the drawdown
criteria, a table of viable infill drilling locations can be generated, giving the
analyst an idea of the interference that must be tolerated for a given number of
desired infill locations.
6.8.2 Theory
6.8.2.1 Semi-Steady State
The calculations have been performed assuming the producing wells are at semi-
steady state. The semi-steady state solution to the radial diffusivity equation,
assuming minimal compressibility, is:
qµ  r r2 
pr − p wf =  ln − 2 
2πkh  rw 2re 
Dake, eq’n 6.6
Substituting for field units, and applying the linearization technique of Russell,
Goodrich, et al, the equation becomes:
1422QT  r r2 
m( pr ) − m( p wf ) =  ln − 2 
kh  r 
 w 2re 
Where m(p) is the gas pseudo pressure, defined as :
p
pdp
m( p ) = 2 ∫
pbase
µz
Page 6-95
The value of pbase, while not very important (as long as consistency is maintained
throughout the calculation), is usually taken as atmospheric pressure. The pseudo
pressure is numerically approximated using the trapezoidal rule. PVT values for
Z and µ are calculated using internal OFM functions.
6.8.2.2 Transient Flow
The very nature of transient flow makes its modeling of limited use within the
context of a rapid analysis infill study. The calculation of the exponential integral
is, however, trivial using OFM’s user function capability, and is included in the
appendix (User Function Ei(x)). A generally applicable (ie. variable radius)
drawdown equation will have to be created for a compressible system (using
pseudo-pressures), if the transient state is to be considered.
6.8.2.3 Steady State
The equations will have to be modified if steady state is to be modeled. This is,
however, unlikely in many gas reservoirs, where considerable influx or water
injection would be required to maintain the steady state.
6.8.2.4 Skin Factors
Skin factors have been neglected in this analysis, since they represent the
magnitude of the near well bore drawdown due to factors such as damage, partial
penetration, turbulence and fracturing. As such, it can be seen to be independent
of the drawdown due to reservoir parameters.
If skin factors are thought to be significant, then an undamaged bottom hole

flowing pressure should be substituted for the true Pwf in the equations. A small
modification of the equations will be required.
6.8.3 Procedure
Load in interference.def (table definition file) and interference.par (calculated

variables)
6.8.3.1 Input Data
interference.Press_final: Current reservoir pressure (kPa), at each well location,

input as table data. It is recommended that this data be extracted from an
Page 6-96
interpolation of the mapped variable. This ensures that a value is available at

each well location.
interference.Re: Drainage radius (m), input as table data. As an approximation,

can be set equal to well spacing.
interference.Rw: wellbore radius (m), input as table data.
interference.rate: latest 6 months average production rate(Mscf/d). Can be
altered to suit.
interference.rate = (@ValueAt(cv.cumgas, 20010901) - @ValueAt(cv.cumgas,
20010301))/182.5 * 35.32/1000
interference.temp: user’s choice of reservoir temperature (oR)
interference.temp = (9*1.8 + 32) + 460
interference.k: user’s choice of permeability (mD) – points to a primary variable
interference.k = slb_petro.K
interference.h: user’s choice of net thickness (ft) – points to a primary variable
interference.h = slb_petro.h*3.281
6.8.3.2 Calculation of m(Pwf)
The semi-steady state equation is rearranged to solve for m(pwf).
interference.m_Pwf = #Pseudo_pressure(Interference.Press_final)-
1422*(interference.rate * interference.temp) /
(interference.k*interference.h)*(@ln(Interference.Re / Interference.Rw)-0.75)
User Function Pseudo_pressure(x)
NUM base, dx;
NUM j, temp;
base = 101.3;
dx = 1;
temp = 0;
j = base;
temp = temp + j*(dx/2)/(@PvtZ(j )*@PvtVg( j));
while (j < x)
{
temp = temp + j*(dx)/(@PvtZ(j )*@PvtVg( j));
j = j + dx;
}
Page 6-97
temp = temp + j*(dx/2)/(@PvtZ(j )*@PvtVg( j));

Pseudo_pressure = 2*temp*@pow(14.7/101.3, 2);
6.8.3.3 Calculation of Pwf

The calculated value for m(Pwf) is then passed to an iterative routine which tries to
solve for Pwf (User Function Interference_pwf). This is a fairly slow procedure,
since the iterative pseudo pressure user function is itself enclosed within a loop.
interference.Pwf = #Interference_pwf(interference.m_Pwf )
User Function Interference_pwf(target)

NUM test_P;
NUM test_m_Pwf;
test_P = 1;
test_m_Pwf=1;
while (test_m_Pwf < target )
{
test_m_Pwf = #Pseudo_pressure(test_P);
test_P = test_P + 1;
}
if(test_P=1)
{
test_P=@null();
}
else
{
test_P=test_P;
}
Interference_pwf = test_P;
6.8.3.4 Calculation of Interference Radius

Once the drawdown pressure at the wellbore is calculated, a suitable interference
drawdown can be chosen and entered into User Function Interference_radius().
interference.radius=#Interference_radius( )/3.281
User Function Interference_radius()

NUM tolerance, drawdown, Pwf;
NUM k, h ,Q, T, Re, Rw;
Page 6-98
NUM LHS, RHS;

NUM count, R;
tolerance=0.001;
k=interference.k;
h=interference.h;
Q=interference.rate;
T=interference.temp;
Re=Interference.Re;
Rw=Interference.Rw;
R=Rw*3.281;
Pwf=#Interference_pwf(interference.m_Pwf );
drawdown=0.03*(Interference.Press_final-Pwf);
LHS=(#Pseudo_pressure(Interference.Press_final-drawdown)-
#Pseudo_pressure( Pwf));
LHS=LHS*((k*h)/(1422*Q*T));
RHS=@Ln(R/Rw)-(@Pow(R,2)/(2*@Pow(Re,2)));
count = 0;
while(LHS-RHS>tolerance)
{
count=count+1;
R = Rw+(Re-Rw)*3.281*count/10000;
RHS=@Ln(R/Rw) - (@Pow(R,2)/(2*@Pow(Re,2)));
}
Interference_radius=R;
The user function can be modified to accept a constant Pwf instead of the
interference_Pwf variable. As well, the drawdown value can be set as a constant,
instead of a fraction of (Interference.Press_final-Pwf).
A note on units: The equations have been derived using standard oilfield units,
whereas the Canadian Infill projects were created in OFM using SI(metric) units.
For this reason, the calculated variables and user functions are converting input
data to field units on the fly as necessary.
Page 6-99
6.8.4 Appendix
The Exponential Integral: Ei(x)

NUM max, dx;
NUM j, temp;
max = 8;
dx = 0.001;
temp = 0;
j = max;
while (j > x)
{
if (j = max)
temp = temp + @Exp(-j)/j*(dx/2);
else
temp = temp + @Exp(-j)/j*(dx);
j = j - dx;
}
temp = temp + @Exp(-j)/j*(dx/2);
Ei = temp;]
Page 6-100
APPENDIX H – SECONDARY PHASE MOVEMENT ANALYSIS DETAILS
6.9 Appendix H: Secondary Phase Movement Analysis Details
Page 6-101
PET W ater Solutions - OFM Project Database W orkFlow

May 2001
Always first!! Load XY data Load production data
using provided Excel using provided Excel
Create a new OFM
form at files form at files
project and load the
Create OFM "w atersol_xy.xls". Make "w atersol_prod.xls".
Gather definition file
Project sure there are no spaces Make sure there are no
Data "w atersol.def". Do not
Database and null value (-99999 or *) spaces and null value (-
m odify this file - only
is used. Save as text 99999 or *) is used. Save
load.
form at with extension *.xy as text form at with
(keydata)! extension *.prd!
Minim um Data
Load pressure data using Lo ad well property
Requirem ents include - Load injection data using
W ell XY provided Excel form at files (petro physical) data using
provided Excel form at files
W ell Type "w atersol_press.xls". provid ed Excel form at files
"w atersol_inj.xls". Make
Monthly Production Make sure there are no "w ate rsol_w ellprop.xls".
Data by W ell (Oil, sure there are no spaces
spaces and null value (- Make su re there are no spaces
W ater, Gas) and null value (-99999 or *)
Monthly Injection Data 99999 or *) is used. Save and null value (-99999 or *) is
is used. Save as text
by W ell (W ater as text form at with used. S ave as text form at with
form at with extension *.win!
Inejected) extension *.dat! e xtension *.dat!
W ell Monthly Pressure
Data
Petrophysical Data by
W ell (h - net pay, phi -
porosity, swi - initial
water saturation) Load sort inform ation
Load patte rn configuration
W ater Analysis Data by (welltype) using provided Load PET water solutions
W ell inform ation using provided
Excel form at files parser file ("w atersol.par") to
E xcel form at files
"w atersol_sort.xls". activate all water solutions
"w aters ol_p attern.xls". Make
Make sure there are no calculated variables. Do not
sure the re a re no spaces and
spaces and null value (- m odify this file - only load.
null valu e (-9 9999 or *) is used.
99999 or *) is used. Save Ensure extension *.par is
Save as text form at with
as text form at with setup.
e xten sion *.pat!
extension *.srt!
QA/QC Data within the

Begin PET water solu tions analysis Yes project
Page 6-102
PET Water Solutions - Pattern Level Water Diagnosis

WorkFlow
May 2001
Pattern setup must take place as
first step. Patterns need to be
Create 1 Data Safe Perform decline curve
loaded by wells, date, factor and
File for all of the analysis on each pattern
Open Water loss. Patterns can be loaded by
patterns present in using log rate versus time.
Solutions OFM ASCII format or interactively
the database. Save the DCA results into
Project created within OFM. Allocation
Store these files on a case file named
factors are crucial - geometric
harddrive. "PATTERN".
allocations should be used at a
minimum.
Run the pattern level

Multi Well (Data Safe) diagnostic plots, maps,
Contour (Grid) Maps* Plots*
Plots* scatter plot and multi
well graphs
* Note - see water diagnostic

methods formats.xls for
detailed explanations and
format name
Document all work! Very important

Final interpretation of step. Store all analysis figures in
Pattern Level Water MS Powerpoint or MS Word
Diagnostics - evaluate through "edit .. copy". Additionally,
trends in the pattern keep track of all files saved to
performance for water harddrive (i.e. data safe files, etc.)
problems/challenges
Page 6-103
PET Water Solutions - Reservoir Level Water Diagnosis

WorkFlow
May 2001
Check the validity of the Filter well for active wells
User must setup the initial water cut threshold value only using the Filter by
water cut threshold value. This by using the "well Query option. Perform
number must be input into the breakthrough.grf" format. decline curve analysis on
Open W ater OFM project by modifying the If problems exist, modify each active well using log
Solutions OFM variable "WS.watercut_thre". the number as necessary. rate versus time and water
Project A constant water cut threshold More advanced features cut versus cum oil options.
can be entered. For example, exist to correct the water Save the DCA results into
a field wide 30% water cut can cut threshold, including a case file named "DCA"
be entered as 0.3. sorts, static tables and and the water analysis into
calculated variables. a case file named "WCA".
Filter the wells for

producing wells only. Create 2 Data Safe Files
Using the Tools Data for all of the wells present
Run the reservoir level Register feature, lock away in the database. Filter and
diagnostic plots, maps, the "WS.HI_avgoil" create a datasafe for
Plots*
scatter plot and multi variable into data register 1 producing wells only.
well graphs and the "WS.HI_avgwater" Create another for injection
variable into register 2. wells only. Save these files
Ensure the filter group is to the harddrive.
for all producing wells.
* Note - see water diagnostic

methods formats.xls for
Contour (Grid) Maps*
detailed explanations and
format name
Document all work! Very important

Final interpretation of step. Store all analysis figures in Advanced users may
Reservoir Level W ater MS Powerpoint or MS W ord choose to run Sweep
Multi W ell (Data Safe) Diagnostics - evaluate through "edit .. copy". Additionally, (streamtube) calculations
Plots* trends in the reservoir keep track of all files saved to for the reservoir level
performance for water harddrive (i.e. data safe files, etc.) analysis.
problems/challenges
Page 6-104
Page 6-105
APPENDIX I – RECOVERY ANALYSIS DETAILS
6.10 Appendix I: Recovery Analysis Details
Page 6-106
6.11 Reserves
6.11.1 Volumetric Mapping
If a grid map is active, several parameters are reported in the output window.
These parameters include the sum, the area, the average, and the volume of the
displayed cells. The reported volume is the product of the cell value z and the cell
extensions dx and dy summed up for the number of cells N inside the grid area:
N
Volume = ∑ z j ⋅ dx ⋅ dy
j =1
Cells that are only partially inside the selected grid area are accounted for i.e. the
area of such cells is approximated by trapezoids.
The reported volume can be used to determine the original-oil-in-place (OOIP).
Simply create a grid map of the hydrocarbon feet i.e. the height of the
hydrocarbon column, which is defined as
φ ⋅ h ⋅ S0
HCFT = [ STB ]
5.615 ⋅ Boi
where φ , So dimensionless
h feet
dx, dy feet
OFM will multiply the hydrocarbon feet with the cell extensions for each cell, add
it up and the number reported as volume will be the OOIP.
6.11.2 Recommended Procedure
A.1.1. Filter Data

Filter for wells that have porosity, thickness, and initial oil saturation data in the
database. To do so, either filter for the reservoir properties table or query for these
table variables.
A.1.2. Binary Map File

Create a binary map file containing porosity, net pay and the initial oil saturation.
Page 6-107
A.1.3. Grid Maps for Each Variable

Open the grid map for each variable and do the following:
• Apply the same grid area on each map

• Use the same grid size for each map
• Use the same interpolation method, the same number of neighbors, and the
same search radius
• Use control points to modify the grid maps and represent the true data more
accurately
• Save the map as a grid file (*.grd)
Figure 67: Saved porosity map for grid arithmetic
Page 6-108
Figure 68: Saved net pay map for grid arithmetic
Figure 69: Saved initial oil saturation map for grid arithmetic
Page 6-109
A.1.4. Estimate Boi

Get an estimate for the formation volume factor for oil Boi at the initial reservoir
pressure. Use known field data or obtain the value with the help of OFM’s PVT
correlations.
A.1.5. Perform Grid Arithmetic

Use the grid arithmetic tool, which can be found under ‘Tools/Calculate…’ while
a grid map is active, to calculate the original-oil-in-place according to the
following formula:
Area ⋅ Net Pay ⋅ Porosity ⋅ Oil Saturation

OOIP = [ STB ]
5.615 ⋅ Boi
where Area feet2

Net Pay feet
Porosity dimensionless
Oil dimensionless
Since the area is automatically taken from the grid, it is not necessary to specify it
in the formula for the grid calculation. Therefore use just the porosity, the net pay
and the oil saturation variable from the previously saved grid maps and the value
for Boi.
Here is an example:
Grid Equation = (netpay * por * So)/(1.09*5.615)
Figure 70: OOIP map calculated with grid arithmetic
Page 6-110
The map displayed in Fig. 4 shows the hydrocarbon feet and hence the best and
the worst areas in the reservoir. Hydrocarbon feet times the area gives the
original-oil-in-place.
A.1.6. Display Output Window

Make sure the output window is showing on the screen. If not, select
‘View/Output Window’. The value for the volume, which will in this case be the
original-oil-in-place, can be read from there.
Total Cells: 40000

Dx: 52.35
Dy: 81.25
Valid Cells: 28258
Sum: 19567.3
Area: 1.20194e+008
Average: 0.692453
Volume: 8.32284e+007
Figure 71: OOIP can be found in the output window
Remark
Using a calculated variable - a so-called composite variable - which multiplies
porosity, thickness and initial oil saturation would speed up the process of
determining OOIP because only one grid map has to be created instead of three
and no grid arithmetic is involved. However, keep in mind that this is not the
recommended approach and the results from this method will differ from the
results obtained with grid arithmetic.
6.11.3 Decline Curve Analysis and Depletion Maps
The following section gives a brief guideline on how to use the auto decline tool
to make a quick decline curve analysis and how to use calculated variables to
retrieve the forecast data and create a depletion map. For detailed explanations
and descriptions of other OFM decline curve features refer to the OFM manual.
Recommended Procedure for Auto Decline
A.1.7. Filter Wells

Filter for the active producing wells in the database that should be used for the
analysis. Group the data.
Page 6-111
A.1.8. Check Date Range

Start the decline curve analysis and scroll through the wells to see what date range
is suitable for the auto decline. This will be used to determine the length of time
to forecast.
A.1.9. Start Auto Decline

Select ‘Tools/Auto Decline…’ to start the auto decline. Create a new case, select
it from the drop down list, set the scenario for the decline curve technique and the
forecast period. If necessary, add a schedule to your forecast. There has to be at
least one schedule to be able to forecast the decline into the future. Select the date
range that shall be used for the historical fit of the decline curve. Note: It is
enough to specify the year and the month. The day is not necessary. Select ‘Save
Case’ and ‘Pause after each’. Then start the auto decline.
A.1.10. Modify Individual Decline Curves
For each well check the decline curve that auto decline suggests. If it is ok, just hit
the ‘Enter’ key. If it is not ok, modify it first using a new date range, upper and
lower limits, a different DCA technique etc.
Keep doing this for every well until ‘Auto Decline Completed!’ appears on the
status bar.
If the decline of some wells was not modified properly, scroll to the well and
modify it.
A.1.11. Display Legend

Show the legend and check if a star appears next to ‘Case Name‘. If it is there it
means that the DCA case has been saved. If not, save the case manually (use
‘File/Save’).
Calculated Variables to Retrieve DCA Forecast Data
Calculated variables are needed to access and retrieve the forecast data from the
saved DCA case. For this purpose three system functions can be found in OFM:
• @Forecast(…) will retrieve DCA forecast rates for oil, gas and water. To use
this function specify the date, the phase and the case name. For example:
fcst.oil_scenario1 = @Forecast(Date, "oil", "scenario1")
fcst.water_scenario1 = @Forecast(Date, "water", "scenario1")
Page 6-112
• @DCACalc(…) can be used to look up the forecast ratios p/Z, WOR, GOR,
oil cut and water cut. It works only for “Rate vs. Cum” forecast plots. This
function requires the variable name from the x-axis, the ratio name and the
DCA case name e.g. to get the GOR use:
fcst.GOR_scenario1 = @DCACalc(oil.FcstCum, ”GOR”, ”scenario1”)
• @DCAResults(…) can be used to get values that are displayed in the legend
of a decline curve analysis. In this way it is possible to retrieve the value for
the remaining recoverable reserves (RRR), estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)
etc. To use it simply specify the phase variable name, and the DCA case name
e.g. to retrieve the remaining recoverable reserves for the oil phase use:
fcst.oil_RRR = @DcaResults("oil RRR", "scenario1" )
Depletion Maps
Depletion maps are a fast way to get an overview of the stage of the depletion in
different areas of the reservoir. Mature areas that are almost depleted can easily be
distinguished from areas that still have a lot of production potential for the future.
To create a depletion map follow the guidelines below.
A.1.12. Calculated Variable for EUR

After a DCA case has been created and saved, create a calculated variable that can
retrieve the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) for oil. Make sure you use the
proper case name of the previously saved DCA case:
fcst.oil_EUR = @DcaResults("oil EUR", "case_name" )
A.1.13. Calculated Variable for the Depletion

Create a calculated variable that divides the cumulative oil production (oil.cum)
by the estimated ultimate recovery (fcst.oil_EUR):
cv.depletion = oil.cum / fcst.oil_EUR *100 (percent depleted)
A.1.14. Check Calculated Variables

Use a report with the well name (system function @loadname()), the cumulative
oil production, the calculated variable for the estimated ultimate recovery and the
calculated variable for the depletion. View the report as a summary by item for
the last date and check the results. Also make sure you have the same well in the
filter as there are in the DCA case.
Page 6-113
Cumulative Estimated
Well Oil Ultimate
Name Production Recovery Depletion
Mbbl Mbbl %
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
3130:C 51.3 166.099 30.90
3054:B 66.1 204.986 32.23
2549:C 156.4 372.595 41.97
2401:B 130.3 295.236 44.15
3621:C 184.2 403.316 45.68
2635:C 86.2 186.999 46.12
2543:C 182.1 389.135 46.80
2472:B 137.9 256.868 53.69
2356:C 287.6 529.729 54.29
2634:C 313.7 577.669 54.31
2474:B 175.0 322.142 54.31
2471:B 84.9 156.232 54.32
2362:B 168.9 310.406 54.42
2514:C 263.7 479.784 54.96
2308:B 116.1 210.982 55.05
2463:B 169.5 307.800 55.06
3623:B 171.1 310.673 55.08
2604:B 82.4 148.903 55.33
2470:B 173.9 313.994 55.37
2506:C 296.0 533.990 55.44
2550:C 201.1 361.759 55.60
2636:C 389.2 698.960 55.68
2361:B 60.7 108.866 55.75
3627:B 128.2 229.910 55.77
2469:B 278.6 498.581 55.87
2502:C 244.5 436.323 56.04
3052:B 244.9 435.290 56.26
1975:B 116.4 206.823 56.28
2360:C 138.0 245.180 56.29
3619:B 151.3 268.177 56.42
Figure 72: Report to check calculated variables
A.1.15. Create Depletion Map

Create a grid map (type monthly) with the calculated variable cv.depletion.
Animate it over time to see the historical performance and display it at the last
date to analyze the current depletion state of the reservoir.
Page 6-114
Figure 73: Depletion map
Page 6-115
APPENDIX J – VINTAGE ANALYSIS DETAILS
6.12 Appendix J: Vintage Analysis Details
Page 6-116
6.13 Vintage
6.13.1 Overview
To be able to compare the performance of wells, which were drilled in different

time periods of the field development, it is necessary to determine the date of first
production for each well. The wells can then be sorted according to their age and
assigned to groups for specific time intervals in a sort category. This process is
called vintaging.
Number of Wells Drilled

14
12
no. of wells drilled
10
8
6
4
2
0
58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98
exploration field year infill period infill period
development #1 #2
Figure 74: Time periods of reservoir development
Vintaging is not limited to grouping wells according to the date of first

production. If desired, vintaging can also be done with other important dates in
the production history. For example, dates of special well treatment operations
like frac jobs can be used, if the performance of these operations at different times
should be compared. However, in this case the recommended procedure remains
as it is described in the next section. Vintaging allows in the general sense for the
engineer to visualize what is happening in the reservoir over time. Initial
production rates, decline performance, ratios and other key indicators are shown
in vintaging. These indicators describe effects of the pressure performance,
saturation changes, perhaps some structural interpretations, etc. in the reservoir
that assist in making well based decisions for future infill drilling programs,
workover recommendation or other future development plans.
Page 6-117
6.13.2 Input Data Required
Minimum input information required:
• Basic well location/information

• Monthly production data by well
Advanced studies can include:
• Other key dates (workovers, recompletions, etc)
6.13.3 Analysis Steps
6.13.3.1 Filter Data
Make sure that only wells of interest are in the filter.
6.13.3.2 Eliminate Prior Cums
When production data from the early producing time of the field is not available
on a monthly basis, only one value for the cumulative production during the
whole early period will be in the database. This cumulative production, the so-
called prior cum, will be assigned to the wells on a date before the actual monthly
production data is on record.
Be aware that there are two ways that prior cums can be present in a database.
Either they can be assigned to the first date in the database or to the last date
before the recorded production data starts, which, of course, will then be different
for every well. Hence, the engineer has to be very careful with the approach they
take to detect wells with prior cums.
6.13.3.3 Find the Date of First Production
The first date of production is necessary to establish the age of the vintage. This
will help sort the wells by drilling campaign, so the effects of infill drilling can be
seen over the life of the reservoir. Ensure that this first date of production is
verified (many times wells have prior production rates not captured).
6.13.3.4 Create a Report
Make a report of the wells from your query (for one date only) where you show
the well name and the first date of production.
Page 6-118
Verify that the displayed name is really the full well name and not just the alias.
Only the complete well name can be used for vintaging. The alias won’t work. If
the alias name is displayed, the database has to be fixed before proceeding any
further.
6.13.3.5 Export to Windows and Vintage Wells
Now there are two ways to vintage wells. The first one is to save the report as a
text file and edit it with EXCEL. Sort the wells according to their starting year,
select the time intervals that will be used to group the wells and add another
column containing the vintage information.
The second way to vintage the wells is simply sort the report in OFM according to
their starting year and select the time intervals for the vintaging process. Then
create a calculated variable to vintage the wells.
In both ways you should now have a text file looking like this:
Vintaging Wells
Wellname vintage year vintage category
--------------- ---------- ----------

AGO_23 83 80to85
AGO_33A 83 80to85
GAT_42 86 85to90
IZA__8 83 80to85
IZA__9 83 80to85
LL1014_2 95 after95
LL1091_2 85 85to90
LL1164_2 97 after95
LL1250_2 95 after95
LL1290_2 89 85to90
LL1359_2 97 after95
6.13.3.6 Convert Report to a Load File
Edit the text file and cut out all the existing headers. Format properly and load
into OFM for analysis in the project.
Page 6-119
6.13.3.7 Load Sort File
Load the file into OFM. If the same names were used in the sort file as shown
above, two new sort categories named year and vintage should now be in the
database. Check the new created sort category visually or with the help of reports.
Page 6-120
APPENDIX K – PERFORMANCE INDICATOR ANALYSIS DETAILS
6.14 Appendix K: Performance Indicator Analysis Details
Page 6-121
Average Production Profile Comparaison for Rate vs Time Best Year Gas to OGIP Correlation
Aggieland Field Rudder Formation 350
12000
1.6
Average Monthly Production,
Average gas production rate, Mscf/D

300
10000 1.4
PROMAT OGIP, Bscf

1.2
8000 Best 250
Mscf/month
Medium 1
6000 Poor 200 0.8
0.6
4000 150
0.4
2000 2
y = -9E-09x 2 + 0.0002x + 0.0454
100 0.2
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
50 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Best Year (Mscf/month)
D ays Best
Time, day
Generate a Best Year Gas to Original Gas in Plac e ( OGIP) Correlation
Use Best Year Gas to OGIP correlation to calculate drainage Compute Drainage Areas for New Well
area for all existing wells Expectations-Spot Infill locations
12000
NewBest Year Vs Qi
1400
QivsEUR
New Infill Wells - Summary Table
10000 1200
8000 1000
Well bore_ID Completion_ID X Y Qi Dn EUR (MMcff)
EUR MMcf
800
A029X1 A029X1 541299.1 5571771 10656 62.4 1266
Qi
6000
600
4000
400
2000 200
A006X1 A006X1 541218 5572903 10646 62.4 1265
0 0 A058X1 A058X1 540064.6 5574450 10051 62.4 1194
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
NewBest Year Qi A034X1 A034X1 541270.1 5583223 9384 62.4 1111
A031X1 A031X1 541055.5 5581161 9351 62.4 1107
Calculate Estimated Ultimate Recovery’s (EUR) A019X1 A019X1 539917.3 5577114 8131 62.4 955
Page 6-122
Field:
Field: NNoo TTitle,
itle, RReservoir:
eservoir: RRuudd dderer Fo
Form
rmatio
ationn FFiield
eld:: NNoo TTitle
itle, , RReeseserv rvooirir:: RRuuddddeerrFFoorrm matio
ationn
M
Meedia
diann YY-V
-Vaalu
lueess Als
Alsoo Plo
Plotted
tted DData
ata Filter
Filter CCriteria:
riteria: AAllll W
Wells
ells MMed
edian
ian YY-V
-Valu
alues
es Als
Alsoo Plo
Plotte
ttedd DDaatata FFilte
ilterr CCrrite
iteria
ria:: AAllllW Weellllss
75
75 W
Wells
ells M
Meet
eet Filter
Filter CCriteria
riteria Fro
From m aa TTootal
tal ofof 150
150 WWells
ells in
in DData
ata BBase
ase 75
75 W
Weells
lls MMeeeett FFilter
ilter CCririte
teria
ria FFro
rom m aa TToota tal l ooff 1150
50 WWells
ells in
in DDaata
ta BBas
asee
1144,0
,00000 1,6
1,600,00
00,0000
1,4
1,400,00
00,0000
1122,0
,00000
AAnnnu
nuaall M
Meeddia
iann VVaalu
lueess An
Annu
nual
al M
Med
edia
iann Va
Value
luess
1,2
1,200,00
00,0000
Mcf
Production, Mcf
1100,0
,00000
Best Year Gas, Mcf/Month
Gas Production,
1,0
1,000,00
00,0000
88,0
,00000
BBeest
st Fit
Fit LLin
inee 8800,00
00,0000 Best
Best Fit
Fit LLine
ine
Cumulative Gas
66,0
,00000
Cumulative
6600,00
00,0000
44,0
,00000
4400,00
00,0000
22,0
,00000 2200,00
00,0000
00 00
19
197700 00 2200
0000 440000
00 60
6000
00 80
8000
00 110000
0000 112200
0000 14
1400
0000
D
Date
ate ooff First
First G
Gaass PProd
roduuction
ction Best
Best Yea
Yearr G
Gaas,
s, M
Mcf/M
cf/Mon
onth
th
A c q u ire d D a ta P o p u la te M o v in g C o m p u te p ro d u c tio n s ta tis tic s a n d G e n e ra te , c o rre la tio n s ,

D o m a in D B d is trib u tio n s a n d P re lim in a ry M a p s
Date of Best Year Vs Best Year Gas -- Rudder C o m p a ra iso n o f Ac tu a l a n d N e w B e s t Ye a r fo r C o mp a raiso

raiso n
noo ff A
Actua
ctuall aand
nd NNeewwB
Beesstt Yea
Yearr fo
forr PPro
roba
babilit
bilityy PPlot
lot C
Coommpapariso
risonn -- Ag
Aggigiee Fie
Fieldld -- R
Ruudd
dder
er FoForm
rmaatio
tionn
C
Com
ompa paris
rison
on ooff Ac
Actu
tual
al B
Beesstt YYea
earr to
to N
Neew wBBes
estt YYea
earr
Formation va lid atio n w e lls vvalid
alid ation
ation wweells
lls 10
10,0
,00000
14,000 10 0 0 0 11000000
00
Be st Year Gas Mscf/Month
Ne w Be st Year (M scf/month)
9000 990000
00
New Best Year (Mscf/month)

12,000 11,0
,00000
8000 880000
00
Mcf/month
Gas, Mcf/month
10,000 7000 770000
00
8,000 6000 660000
00 OOl ldd W
W elellsls // NNewew WWeellllss
CCou
ount nt == 88 // 88
Year Gas,
110000
5000 550000
00 MMiniinim
muum m == 11,33
,3300 // 2,5
2,51100
6,000 MMaaxximimuum m == 6,46

6,4644 // 7,3
7,35555
Best Year
AAvvereraage
ge == 4,3
4,31188 // 44,3
,318
18
4000 440000
00 MMeedi dian
an == 44,217
,217 // 4,1
4,13737
Best
4,000 3000 330000
00 yy == 00..79
790088xx ++ 99003.
3.0044
AActctua
YYear
ear
ual l BBest
est
2000 y = 0 .1 91 77xx ++ 44112288.2

.2 2
2,000 22
220000
00 R 2 == 0.
R 0.5522
2277 1100 NNeeww BBes
est t YYea
earr
1000 R = 00.0 .019

1977 110000
00
0
0 00
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
0 2 00 0 4 00 0 6 0 00 880000
00 11000000
00 00 2200
0000 44000000 6600
0000 80
800000 1100
000000 11
22 55 10 15 20 3300 40 5500 6600 7700 9955 98 9999
Date of Be st Ye ar Ac tu a l B e s t Y e ar (M sc f/m o n th )) Ac
Actua
tuall Be
Be sstt Y
Y eeaarr (M
(M sc
scf/
f/mo
month
nth ))
11 10 15 20 40 8800 8855 9900 98
PPro
robbab
abiliility
ty ,, %
% LLeess
ss Th
Than
an
V a lid a tio n S tu d y
B e st Ye a r Vs N e w B es t Yea r P
P ro
roba
bability
bility P
Plot
lot Co
Commpariso
parisonn -- Ag
Aggie
gie Fie
Field
ld -- Ru
Rudd
dder
er Fo
Form
rmatio
ationn
Com
Com paris
parison
on ooff N
New
ew Bes
Bestt Yea
Yearr to
to BBest
est Ye
Year 55558860
ar 600000
10
100,0
0,000
00
15000
55558840
400000
110,0
0,000
00
55558820
200000
Mcf/month
Gas, Mcf/month
10000 55558800
000000
New Best Year
1,0
1,000
00
S
Ser
erie
ies1
s1
55557780
800000
Year Gas,
S
Ser
erie
ies2
s2
Best Year
1100
00 O
O ld
C
Cou
ld W
ount
W eellslls // N
nt == 75
Neew
75 // 75
75
wW W ell
ellss 55557760
600000
Best
5000 M
Minim
inim um um == 313155 // 1,6
1,632
32 BBest
est Ye
Year
ar
M
Maxaxiimm umum == 1122 ,763
,763 // 8,6
8,688
88
Av
Avee ra
M
ra ge
ge == 44 ,561
,561 // 4,4
4,427
27 55557740
400000
Meded ia
ia nn == 4,
4,28
2800 // 4,18
4,1822 N
Neew
w Bes
Bestt YYeear
ar
10
10
55557720
200000
0
11 55557700
000000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 11 22 55 10
10 15
15 2200 3300 40
40 5500 6600 70
70 8800 85
85 90
90 95
95 98
98 9999
Best Ye ar
55 35
35 000000 5540
40 000000 5544 50
50 0000 55550000
0000 55555500
0000
Pro
Probab
bability
ility ,, %
% LLess
ess Than
Than
C o m p u te P ro d u c tio n B a s e d N e w W e ll E x p e c ta tio n s
Page 6-123
APPENDIX L – DETAILED WELL REVIEW DETAILS
6.15 Appendix L: Detailed Well Review Details
Page 6-124
Detailed W ell Review: Perform a detail evaluation in order to confirm Production

Enhancement Candidates from the previous screening process. Topics covered:
•W ell Files Review
•Pressure Data Analysis (Permeability, Skin, Productivity Index,etc)
•Cased Hole Logs: Applications and Limitations (PLT, W FL, RST, CBL-VDL, etc)
•Geological and Petrophysycal Review
•Reserves on a well basis and Production History Review
“Based on what is known about the field, well fil es and data can be examined with an
eye for likely opportunities. These opportunities, if required, will be confirmed by well
tests or additional wireline logs to determine net pa y, Pr, K, Skin, Saturations,
M echanical availability. etc
Detailed Well Review Pressure Welltest Analysis Geological and Case d Hole Logs, RST, Reserves Review Production History
Welltest200*, Kappa* Petrohysical Review USIT, PLT OFM, OilMat, GasMat OFM*
Page 6-125
Page 6-126
Solutions To Increase production: The Objective is to recom m end solutions and services
that w ill close identified gaps betw een current w ell output and potential production. To
achieve this goal the com ponents that contribute to a production gap m ust be identified
and understood.
“Engineering optim um production rates requires that reservoir deliverability, w ell
stim ulation, recovery efficiency, w ellbore hydraulics and surface constraints be addressed
During The production Enhancem ents process various screening m ethods and w ell
analysis techniques (sensitivity analysis) are used to determ ine the m ost convenient
solutions to increase production.
Rem
Remedial
edial Action/Solution:
Action/Solution: Rem
Remedial
Remedial
Remedial
edial Action/Solution
Action/Solution
•• Fracture/Acidize
Fracture/Acidize •• Reperforate
Reperforate •• Clean
Clean out
out fill
fill •• Rod
Rod pumps
pumps
•• Perforate
Perforate •• Acidize •• Gas
Gas lift
Acidize •• Remove
Remove scale
scale lift
•• Drill
Drill drainholes
drainholes •• Sand
Sand Control
Control •• Acidize
Acidize •• ESP
ESP
•• Control
Control water
water and
and Gas
Gas •• Squeeze
Squeeze cement
cement •• Replace
Replace tubing,
tubing, etc
etc •• Operating
Operating conditions
conditions
•• Mitigate fines
Mitigate fines
P O S T C O M P L E T IO N
Damaged zone
diameter 3 1 /2 " , 9 .3 lb /f t, N 8 0 , E U E
Openhole c s g 1 0 -3 / 4 " 4 0 . 5 # J 5 5 , @ 1 7 1 5 ´
diameter 1 1 G a s lif t M a n d re ls
: 1 3 0 9 ´ , 21 0 3 ´,
26 4 4 ´ , 3 05 8 ´, 34 0 7´,
37 2 6 ´ , 4 23 8 ´, 47 5 3´,
52 3 8 ´ , 5 75 6 ´, 62 4 1´
2 . 7 5 " X N n ip p le @ + / - 6 3 1 5 '
Crushed zone Q u a n t u m P k r @ + / -6 3 3 7 '
diameter 2 3 / 8 " H y d r il 5 1 1 C o n c e n t ric

T u b in g
Perforation 1 . 8 7 5 " R IV S lid in g S le e v e @ 6 4 6 3 .8 ´

3 1 /2 " A L L P A C S c r e e n
diameter T U S a n d (6 4 5 7- 64 8 5 ' ) 1 2 S P F
Perforation 1 . 7 9 1 " X N ip p le @ 6 4 8 5 ´
spacing IS O - A L L PA C P A C K E R @ 6 4 8 7 '
1 . 6 2 5 " R IV S lid in g S le e v e @ 6 4 9 8 ´
(dependent on 1 . 6 2 5 " X N N i p p le @ 6 5 5 1 ´
T L S a n d ( 6 4 9 5 - 6 5 5 0 ') 1 2 S PF
shot density) IS O - A L L PA C P A C K E R @ 6 5 5 4 '
3 1 /2 " A L L P A C B la n k s
Perforation 3 1 /2 " A L L P A C S c r e e n
U2L San d ( 6 6 6 0 - 6 6 8 0 ') 1 2 S P F
length
S u m p p a c ke r a t 6 6 8 3 '
φ = phase angle
FC @ 68 56'
c s g 7 " , 2 3 lb , N 8 0 , L T C @ 6 9 6 2 '
+ = Econom
Economic
ic Evaluation
Evaluation and
and proposal
proposal
Page 6-127
S o lu tio n s E c o n o m ic E v a lu a tio n : O n c e a te c h n ic a l a lte rn a tiv e h a s b e e n id e n tifie d a n

e c o n o m ic E v a lu a tio n is p e rfo rm e d in o rd e r to c o n firm th e v ia b ility o f th e
re c o m m e n d e d w o rk . A d e c is io n tre e a n d ris k a n a ly s is m u s t b e c o m p le te d in o rd e r to
s e le c t th e b e s t a lte rn a tiv e fro m a n e c o n o m ic a l p o in t o f v ie w D iffe re n t s c e n a rio s a re
b u ilt c o n s id e rin g s e v e ra l a lte rn a tiv e s a n d ris k s a s s o c ia te d w ith e a c h
Page 6-128
Execution of the Recommendation
Execute proposed work with an appropriate supervision to meet

all the technical requirements to increase possibilities of success
from an operational point of view.
Page 6-129
BEST PRACTICES: PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT WORKFLOW
7. BEST PRACTICES: PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT WORKFLOW
7.1 Introduction
During the past 5 years, the Production Enhancement Process being utilized in the
Canadian Geomarket has evolved significantly. Although each project is designed
individually to meet a client’s particular needs, an initiative was undertaken to document
the general workflow so that the process descriptions could be used as guidelines for future
DCS Production Enhancement Projects. This report documents the recommended
workflow, which should be utilized to conduct a Well Review Project. Such a project may
include identifying opportunities for increasing production rates at existing completion
intervals and/or identifying re-completion opportunities in by-passed formations. The
workflow is based upon experiences gained on Production Enhancement Projects
conducted for clients in the Canadian Geomarket. Modifications to the workflow may be
required for similar types of projects in other Geomarkets due to differences in client needs
or due to differences in data availability. Contributors to this document are: Overall
Workflow & General Comments: Steve Burynuik, Mehran Joozdani, Craig Lamb,
Mohamed Reda, Warren Griswold Training: John Belgrave, Mansour Shaheen Database
Construction: Michael Lambert Petrophysics: Alan Gunn (contractor), Jim McDonald
Production Engineering: Mohamed Assem, Salome Bonilla, Dean Colborne, Ron Harisch,
Dinh La, Eugene Pantella. In addition to the above, comments and suggestions provided by
our clients to improve the well evaluation process have been incorporated into the
recommended workflow described in this document. Craig F. Lamb, P.Geol. Project
Leader
Page 7-1
7.2 Overview
A project is initiated with the identification of a need to review a number of client wells.
Once this need has been identified, a business model must be developed which is mutually
beneficial to Schlumberger (SLB) as well as the client. This business model becomes the
foundation for the contractual arrangements under which the project will be conducted.
Once the client has decided to proceed, a finalized list of wells to be included in the project
is prepared by the client and is submitted to SLB. A team, formed predominantly of
Production Engineers and Petrophysicists, then prepares to perform the work using the
workflow, which is detailed in the flowchart in Appendix 1 and is summarized in Figure
75.
Figure 75: Generalized Production Enhancement Process
Once the candidate well list is received from the client, a database is created for subsequent
analysis. Using the database, the wells are screened to develop a list of high potential
priority wells. The criteria for this selection include those provided by the client and the
screening is performed using either EXCEL or ACCESS software programs. The data from
those priority wells are then subjected to petrophysical and by production engineering
analyses to determine:
• Opportunities within an existing producing zone for well stimulations or treatments

which may enhance production; and
Page 7-2
• Uphole and/or downhole zones which contain hydrocarbons and which may warrant
exploitation through recompletions in those zones.
As opportunities are identified, these are discussed with the client to obtain the client’s
“local” knowledge and to finalize the recommendations. Positive recommendations are
evaluated by the client for their economic viability and then a detailed program is
developed with the assistance of SLB’s Wireline and Well Services personnel.
Once the field program has been implemented, the production is monitored to determine if
the incremental rates are as were predicted during the engineering analysis. The results can
then be used to modify recommendations on adjacent wells. The results may also be the
basis for the amount of payment SLB received if there is a risk/reward component to the
contract.
As indicated previously, a detailed workflow diagram of the well Production Enhancement
Process is shown in Appendix 1. Each box shows the tasks required as the project
progresses. Associated with each task is the software utilized (where applicable) and the
related output. On the vertical axis, 5 major subdivisions of tasks are shown:
• Client – those tasks undertaken by the client

• Business Model/Contract – tasks related to development of a business model and
negotiation of the contract
• Project Initiation and Management – project management and administration tasks
• Well Analysis – the petrophysical and engineering tasks required to evaluate wells
• Field Related Services – tasks related to detailed intervention design and subsequent
implementation.
The details of the various tasks of a project are discussed in the following chapters.
7.3 Business Model and Contract
7.3.1 Opportunity Identification
The realization of the need for a Production Enhancement Project is often made by
the client operating company. The company has an objective to increase production
of oil and/or gas but does not have available internal resources to carry our well
evaluations to achieve the objective. A SLB Production Enhancement Team can
provide those resources in order to enable the client to meet the production targets.
This type of opportunity may be identified by the client contacting SLB directly or
Page 7-3
by a DESC or Sales Engineer learning of the need while discussing SLB services
with the company representatives.
A second means of identifying an opportunity for a project is by proactively

screening wells in an area to determine wells and/or fields, which may be under-
producing. This may be done utilizing PetroDesk and/or OilField Manager (OFM)
depending upon the data availability. Production in specific formations is analyzed,
not only to identify specific wells, which may be under-performing, but also to
identify operators whose wells may consistently under-perform those of competitor
companies. These companies can then be approached to point out the apparent
opportunities for increased production.
No matter which way the opportunity is identified, the challenge is to move that
opportunity into an active project.
7.3.2 Business Model
Once an opportunity has been identified, and the client company expresses interest
in having SLB analyze wells, it is important to obtain a list of potential project
wells from the client. Using this list, a project well database is prepared (see
DATABASE CONSTRYCTION).
The database enables the development of a scope of work and provides the ability
to do a quick review of some of the wells to determine the potential incremental
production targets which may be achieved through well interventions.
Once the scope of the project is known, a business model has to be developed for
presentation to the client. Business models, which have been used in Canada, are:
• Engineering services provided for a monthly fee with SLB engineers working as
part of a team with the client’s staff.
• An engineering fee per well for each well reviewed plus a bonus for production
increases. With this model, it is recommended that the engineering fees for each
well be sufficient to cover consulting costs in case the fieldwork is not done.
• Engineering services are provided free but the client pays a bonus for increases
in production. With this model, it is necessary to include a means of forcing the
client to carry out identified interventions or to provide for a payment in lieu of
work not being done. This is the least preferred model.
Page 7-4
With all 3 models, a necessary component is that SLB perform all field services
arising from the engineering recommendations on the evaluated wells.
7.3.3 Contract
Once the client company indicates that it interested in having SLB proceed with a
project, a Letter of Intent (LOI) should be signed by both parties. This letter may
provide the foundation for the contract and, depending on the circumstances, may
allow the project to commence prior to the finalization of the final contract.
The final contract will provide all details of the scope of work and the contractual
terms. It will also outline, in detail, the criteria for payments, including any bonuses
which may be due during the term of the contract. If bonuses are included, the term
of the contract should be sufficiently long to allow for interventions and monitoring
which may not occur until several months after the engineering analysis is
completed. Contract details should be handled by lawyers for both parties.
7.4 Project Initiation
7.4.1 Project Resources
Once the scope of the project is known, it is necessary to staff the project team.
Initially, a project manager must be appointed and the team structure must be
created. If only a small team is required (2 or 3 SLB staff), the project manager will
probably one of the engineers working on the project. However, if the project is
large, a dedicated project manager may be required. In the latter case, this person
may not be a production engineer but rather, will have strong project management
skills.
The project team as a minimum will require a production engineer, who will act as
the project manager, and a pertrophysicist. Additional engineers and petrophysicists
may be required, depending on the size of the project. For planning purposes, it
should be assumed that a well will take, on average 2 days to review, depending on
the data available and the age of the well; a petrophysicist should be able to analyze
2 to 3 wells per day.
If sufficient staff are not available within the local geomarket, it will be necessary
acquire those staff from other geomarkets, from other product lines, or by hiring
external staff. New staff, unfamiliar with the well review process will require
training in the methodology and in the use of the software (ACESS, PetroDesk,
Page 7-5
OFM, PERFORM) that is to be used. A recommended training program has been

prepared by DCS Canada and consists of 9 modules (Appendix 2).
In addition to the main software programs mentioned above, other software

programs may be required, depending on the scope of work and the available data.
Software available for use during production enhancement projects is listed in
Appendix 3.
7.4.2 Initial Client Meeting
Once the project team has been assembled and the methodology to be employed has
been established, an initial project meeting should be held with the client
representatives, who should be the client’s project manager and the staff who will
be reviewing work performed by SLB. At this meeting the following should be
openly discussed:
• Introduction of SLB and client project personnel and the responsibilities of each
• Methodology to be employed
• The procedures to be used in obtaining information from field locations as may
be required
• Economic criteria for interventions
• The schedule for SLB-client project meetings to present and discuss results
• Reporting requirements; and
• Criteria to be used for screening wells so that “low-hanging fruit” can be
identified and analyzed on a priority basis.
7.4.3 Well Screening and Prioritization
If the scope of work includes a large number of wells, it may be necessary to

prioritize the order of analysis by screening all the wells. This process can be done
with either ACCESS or EXCEL. An OFM database and the client list are used to
obtain data such as Working Interest, Producing Formation, Production Data,
Completion Date, and Remaining Reserves.
A set of criteria is selected for analyzing the data. These criteria are then ranked as
to their relative importance, based on input provided by the client. For example
weighting factors may be:
Page 7-6
Production Gap 30%

Productivity Ratio (q/qbest) 30%
Remaining Reserves 20%
Completion Date 15%
Water-gas Ratio 5%
User Defined 0%
On a field-by-field basis, the following tasks are performed:
1) Group all wells (including non-Client interest wells) by pool or zone.

2) Determine average gas production rate for each pool or zone.
3) Using average, compute production gap for Client wells.
4) Calculate productivity ratio for each Client well (current rate divided by max historical rate).
5) Estimate remaining reserves by decline analysis.
6) Check to see if completion is older than 10 years.
7) Determine WGR.
8) Data input into an EXCEL spreadsheet or an EXCEL database.
1. Each criteria is normalized (between 0 and 1).
2. Weighting factors are applied.
3. The relative ranking is determined.
4. Data are summarized at the field level for comparison.
The following is an example of the screening format:
Page 7-7
The following is a sample output of the results obtained from the analysis:
In the above example, it was found that the most desirable well to evaluate on a
priority basis were those that had:
• High Client working interest

• High ranking factor
• Large average production gap.
7.4.4 Well File Management
The evaluation process requires access to the client’s well files. If the project is
being conducted within the client’s offices, the management of these files may not
be an issue; the files will be signed in and out of the file room.
If the project is being done in SLB’s offices, arrangements will have to be made to
gather and transport the files to the project office. These files must be inventoried
when they arrive and must be tracked when the work is finished and they are
returned to the client. This may be done via an EXCEL worksheet or, for a larger
project, a tracking mechanism can be an integral part of the ACESS/SQL database,
which the well data is entered into (see DATABASE CONSTRUCTION).
Page 7-8
7.5 Database Construction
7.5.1 Introduction
The methodology for construction of the project well database will be dependent
upon the location of the project. In Canada, there is public domain well data
available for every well due to government reporting requirements. The process
outlined below therefore assumes such data will be available.
In this chapter, 3 tools and related databases are described. PetroDesk is used to
access public data and download that data to initiate an OFM project. The OFM
database is then used to analyze the production data. ACCESS and SQL are used to
capture data from the well files and to produce reports for the client.
7.5.2 PetroDesk
PetroDesk is an oilfield engineering software tool that compiles public production
data. This data is purchased from data vendors who ultimately purchase production
data from provincial governments. Operating companies are required to submit
production and pressure data to those governments.
PetroDesk links the front end user to the data vendor and supports the data through
production plots, well event tables, well detail tables, pressure data, DST data, and
coring information. It also displays pipeline information, formation horizon depths,
and detailed data relating to surface operations infrastructure.
Well Tickets, Gas Pressure Analysis, and Well Locations Maps are included in the
engineering report that is submitted to the client. PetroDesk production data was
used as the basis for the OFM project creation. The procedure for downloading
PetroDesk information into OFM is described in detail in Appendix 4.
7.5.3 OilField Manager (OFM) Project Database
OFM oilfield engineering software tool for analyzing production data by

incorporating well location field maps, production plots, decline analysis, and more
elaborate plotting techniques for a field study or well by well analysis. Well logs
may also be loaded into the database so that basic geological cross sections may be
constructed.
After the subject wells are identified for analysis, individual fields are created that
contain the subject wells along with offset wells. These fields are created from the
Page 7-9
public data contained in PetroDesk, then exported in ASCII format to a local hard
drive. The exported data can then be uploaded into OFM for engineering analysis
on the well review project.
The client OFM project folder can also be located on a local server. The engineers
involved in the well review project can then copy the data folder on their local
drives for individual analysis. The OFM production data should be updated from
PetroDesk, at least on a quarterly basis since available public is typically 3 months
old.
Production and decline analysis plots are printed out and used as part of the
engineering reports that are submitted to the client. Scatter Plots, XY Plots,
Heterogeneity Index’s, and Bubble Maps are also created on an individual needs
basis to aid in the engineering process.
A copy of the OFM database may be a required deliverable to the client at the end
of the project, depending on the specified deliverables in the contract.
7.5.4 Access/SQL Database
An Access database is usually created as an electronic tool for tracking and

recording well data for use in the client well review project. ACCESS may be used
for small projects where there are only 1 or 2 engineers accessing the database.
However, ACCESS may be unstable when there are many users (5 to 10) with
simultaneous access. Therefore DCS Canada has utilized an ACCESS Database on
a SQL server (MS Access front end, with SQL database framework), permitting
multiple user interface on a single version of the database. This interface is a real
time interaction that enables engineers, petrophysicists, and administrative staff to
input well data simultaneously into the same database. This common database
avoids having to merge individual databases and allows project management to
track wells and progress from a single source.
The Access Database is set up to store data that includes well details, well events,
pressure tests, NODAL analysis, petrophysical analysis, and well recommendations.
The well details, recommendations, and petrophysics pages are printed out and
included in an engineering report that is submitted to the client.
A CD-ROM version of the database is usually submitted to the client and the end of
the project, and includes all of the wells analyzed during the project, well data and
events, petrophysical evaluations, and the proposed recommendations.
Page 7-10
7.6 Petrophysical Analysis
7.6.1 Petrophysical Objectives
Petrophysical analysis is conducted on the current producing zone(s) to assist the

engineering analysis. Up-hole and down-hole zones are also evaluated to determine
if there is additional hydrocarbon potential in each well. A quick-look method of
log analysis is used to determine properties such as porosity, permeability, water-
saturation, bed thickness and hydrocarbon thickness. The objective of this type of
quick-look method is to identify hydrocarbon-bearing intervals.
Typically, the primary focus is to identify “low hanging fruit” or intervals that
require simple intervention such as additional perforations to increase production. A
secondary focus is to identify all other up-hole potential hydrocarbon-bearing
zones, for future completions.
7.6.2 Petrophysical Database
Log data is entered into a spreadsheet type form within the ACESS/SQL database.
Within the spreadsheet, a “tic box” is used to identify if this interval had been
perforated, cored or DST’d.
Potential hydrocarbon-bearing intervals are identified in the Comments section and

Recommendations section on the spreadsheet itself. These flag areas of interest for
the SLB engineer or the client to focus their attention on. This information can then
be used in the engineering analysis and can be incorporated into the Well Report for
that well. A printout of the petrophysical analysis forms part of the well report that
is sent to the client (Appendix 4).
7.6.3 Methodology of Analysis
Once the well and log files are received from the client, formation tops, core data,
well history and DST information are downloaded using the Merak PetroData
system. Because these data are often incomplete, or different from what is found
within the well file, both the well and log files should be reviewed for information
concerning client formation tops, more complete DST recoveries or helpful water
analysis, or other documents that may prove useful.
Of great value are the sample lithology logs, which indicate sample description, oil
shows and mud gas readings (if available, but very useful). In Western Canada,
connate formation water resistivity (Rw) is almost always taken from the water
Page 7-11
catalogue published by the Canadian Well Logging Society. In other geomarkets, a

suitable source for formation water resistivity values will have to be used.
Prior to entering any information into the spreadsheet, a check is performed to

verify that any existing perforation intervals identified on the GR-CCL log are on
depth with the formation Open Hole GR curve. Additionally, all DST, Core and
Perforated intervals, identified using the Merak system or obtained from the wellfile
itself, are annotated on one of the well logs, if they were not already drawn on
previously.
The next step involves overlay techniques, using a light table, to independently
identify hydrocarbons. Gas effect is readily identified by overlaying Neutron and
Sonic curves, and looking for an increase in the Sonic and a “Mae West” decrease
in Neutron. This works very well, even in shalier sand intervals, where the Neutron
and Density curves may have an indicated gas approach, but do not produce the
crossover gas effect. When No Neutron curve exists, overlays using the Sonic and
Resistivity curve are used to identify hydrocarbons. This results when a Mae West
effect occurs as Sonic porosity and Resistivity increase in opposite directions, and
no longer track each other.
When TDT logs or Schlumberger’s Reservoir Saturation Tool (RST) logs are
available, they should be scanned to look for those intervals were the Gas intervals
are identified by separation of the overlain Neutron Near and Far counts or by the
Neutron inelastic counts.
The above procedures are used to identify Potential zones of interest prior to
entering data into the petrophysical spreadsheet in ACESS/SQL.
7.6.4 Petrophysical Data Entry
Input parameters required are Formation Name, Top & Bottom depth interval,
Porosity (Phi), Rw, Rt, estimate of percent Shale and Tic Boxes to indicate Core,
DST and Perforations.
Spreadsheet calculations use these inputs to determine, Formation thickness (H),

Permeability (K), Water saturation (Sw) and Hydrocarbon thickness (H*Phi*(1-
Sw)). The spreadsheet formula for Sw typically uses the Archie formula with
standard A, M & N values of 1,2,2. No Simandoux type equation corrections are
used for conductive clay effects, although this could be done by modifying the
calculations within the spreadsheet.
Page 7-12
The last portion of the spreadsheet, includes a section for “Remarks”. Rather than
just identifying if the zone has “Potential, No Potential, Wet”, etc. additional
comments are included, where possible. To further indicate potential zones,
comments concerning mud gas increased response, oil fluorescence, or nearby
offset potential from a similar zone that may have been DST’d favorably, are
typically included
When multiple petrophysical staff are working on a project, each is assigned wells
within separate field or areas, where possible, so that they can become familiar with
log responses and potential within that area. When this is not possible, and log
analysts are working in the same area, shared communications between those log
analysts are necessary to insure consistency of methodology and recommendations.
Additional information from the client, which can be used in the analysis, includes
bubble maps of net pay, 3-month production histories, or pressure maps. These data
are often useful in explaining the production history of certain perforated intervals
in relation to the petrophysical properties.
Finally, there is a spreadsheet section “Petrophysical Conclusions”, where relevant

information may be added by the petrophysicist. It is usually left up to the
petrophysicist as to what information is deemed worthwhile to include.
7.6.5 Identifying “Good” Potential Zones
As is often the case, the obvious pay zones are usually easy to identify. It is more
difficult to identify potential in shalier intervals that can damage and produce poor
DST recoveries, and which may require stimulation to become good producers.
This is the case in many formations such as the Cadomin/Bluesky in Western
Canada. Overlay techniques mentioned previously, indicating gas effect from
Neutron versus Sonic overlays, or mud Gas increase during drill bit penetration are
very useful to identify these as Potential zones.
Even more difficult, is identifying good potential within clay-rich, mineralogically

and hydrodynamically complex formations such as the Belly River in Alberta.
Owing to the fact that the Rw of individual sands is very variable, the overlay
techniques are likely one of the best ways to identify potential. Seldom is the Belly
River tested and sample or mud gas readings are usually collected below this
formation. Recommendations to do additional logging, such as the RST tool, could
be very beneficial to identify potential intervals in reservoirs such as these and to
eliminate other poorer potential intervals, likely reducing completion costs overall.
Page 7-13
When several potential intervals are identified within a wellbore, there becomes a
challenge to discern which potential zones are worth pursuing. To reduce this
number, additional work may be required. This work may include cross-sections,
mapping, additional log data, or trying completion techniques in some of these
identified potential zones and, if successful, looking more carefully at the logs to
suggest why one completion interval is successful and the other is not.
Petrophysics is not an exact science, but the is a first crucial step that requires
feedback of geology, engineering input and nearby completions to locate new
“missed” potential zones or to eliminate potential petrophysical zones of less
interest. A typical example is knowledge of heavy oil zones that appear on logs
similar to conventional oil zones, but may not be of interest to the client.
Another method for identifying the best potential zones by using the calculated
cumulative hydrocarbon-meters across a formation, multiplied by (100.- Vclay) to
correct for Shale or Clay volume effects, to produce an effective hydrocarbon-meter
number. This is a good technique and effective hydrocarbon-meters can be plotted
to identify best potential within that formation. The technique can also identify
anomalies that can be spotted & rechecked to make sure data are valid.
7.6.6 Recommendations for Future Projects
1. Client log and well files to be worked on should be area or field specific. The
log analyst and engineers should begin with those wells with the most reliable
data, and build up a knowledge base that will allow better informed assessment
of potential in those older wells which have less data to work with.
2. Feedback and exchange of ideas is essential to identify and eliminate potential
zones worthy of attempted completions. Occasional meetings among the team
members representing the geology, petrophysics and engineering disciplines is
worthwhile to find new solutions, rather than rehashing older standard practices
that may have already been tried. Regular meetings should also be held with
those involved from the client side for feedback along the way to improve
understanding. This may necessitate early work within the client workplace
during the initial stage if the project is being done in SLB’s offices.
3. The current petrophysical spreadsheet had no correction for conductive clay
effects. This would not result in any missing of potential, but would result in
lower hydrocarbon-meters, due to calculation of a higher Sw. Future projects
could benefit by inclusion of a Shale Resistivity (Rsh), that could then used to
Page 7-14
calculate a lower Simandoux water saturation correction. This should result in

fewer anomalies if effective hydrocarbon meters are plotted.
4. Lastly, a concern is mentioned about people that are not routinely familiar with
log analysis, who tend to focus on Sw, and possibly shy away from completions
where this is slightly high Sw for their comfort level. Unfortunately, situations
occasionally arise, where Sw tends to be high, but other indicators, such as
overlay techniques, strongly suggest hydrocarbons. In an effort to give some
weighting to the probability of hydrocarbons actually being present. A
weighting factor, on the database petrophysical spreadsheet that includes a tic
box for Possibility of Potential Present, and that includes Fair, Good, or
Excellent (F,G,E) may be an additional way of indicating intervals within the
wellbore that are more likely to be successful.
7.7 Engineering Analysis
7.7.1 Data Sources
Generally, there are two main sources of data available for the well review process.
They are 1), well files / proprietary data, and 2), publicly available data. In many
cases, the source of public data is usually excerpts from proprietary data. There are
instances where the data conflicts and both public data and proprietary data need to
be compared for discrepancies and commonalities to be used in an analysis to best
determine which data is most accurate for the situation. The experience of the well
evaluator plays an important role in determining what source of data is most
accurate.
Other sources of data such as competitors in the area and third party studies are also
available, however, the ethics behind utilizing such sources may come into question
in addition to the reliability of the data itself. Another source, which is useful and
valuable, particularly in North America, is the evaluator’s own local knowledge and
experience. This source can best be used as a quality control tool to qualify the
validity and secondly, a check that the data is reasonable with respect to other
producing wells in the area.
One significant advantage of having public data available is the availability of

software, such as PetroDesk and OFM, to extract, organize, analyze and present the
information in a quick and easy manner for well evaluations.
Page 7-15
Table 1 illustrates the types of data available and the best sources for those data. In
many instances, the same data is available in more than one location and then can
be confirmed by comparing the data from those different sources.
7.7.2 Well Files
Well files kept by the client should contain a complete history of events related
each respective well. It must be emphasized, however, that sometimes, procedures
conducted in the field are sometimes not recorded in a well file and therefore, it is
important to check with field personnel to insure that all knowledge is captured
prior to completing the analysis. Typical sections in a well file, which may provide
valuable information, are described below.
7.7.2.1 AFE’s / Costs
AFE’s provide insight to what work was planned, and what work was executed.
AFE summaries and “scorecards” provide insight to workover costs and is a useful
tool to estimating costs of future proposed interventions. Special considerations for
particular wells (and fields) may be identified by reviewing AFE’s generated in the
past.
7.7.2.2 Previous Analyses
Pressure tests, flow tests, fluid analyses, are included in both public data systems
and well files. The difference being, the well files usually include raw field data and
interpretation reports, whereas the public data normally has only results of
interpretations.
Page 7-16
Table 1: Data Sources
7.7.2.3 Preparatory
This section has records of correspondences prior to spudding the well. Information
includes; drilling licenses, sand surveys, lease access agreements, lease and access
construction.
7.7.2.4 Government
All correspondence sent to and received from government organizations is found in

this section. This correspondence includes requests and approvals (or denials) for
exemptions to regulations, requests to perform work, and applications to flare.
7.7.3 Analogy of OffSet Wells
This part of the engineering analysis process focuses on looking at offset wells.
These are wells in the same geographic area, which have similar characteristics, and
are producing from the same formation. Utilizing this comparison enables the
Page 7-17
identification of well performance and pressures in adjacent wells and allows the
further identification of trends and anomalies in production. Therefore, the use of
pool or reservoir data enables the identification of potential problems within a
specific well and/or the identification of a major reservoir or production problem
within the pool.
7.7.4 Well Performance Analysis
This step in the process looks at how the well is producing. A production plot is
generated in OFM to determine how the well has behaved historically. A review of
this production profile enables the identification of unusual changes in performance
which may provide indications of opportunities for production enhancement.
The Fetkovich model can be used to match past performance trends. With this
correlation, it is then possible to obtain a forecast of future production and to
determine reserves. It is also possible to calculate recovery factor in terms of
permeability, Skin and pressure gradient.
Page 7-18
7.7.5 Reserves Analysis
The estimation of hydrocarbon reserves and the prediction of future recovery

performance of gas and oil reservoirs is a frequent task in a well review project.
Reserves are defined as those quantities of hydrocarbon, which are anticipated to be

commercially recovered from a given reservoir, based on future economic
conditions.
Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) is defined as those quantities of gas and oil,
which are estimated, based on given data, to be potentially recoverable from an
accumulation, plus those quantities, which are already produced.
Estimating Reserves methodology (see following figure), in a well review project,

may include:
1. The Volumetric Method which involves the estimation of hydrocarbons in place
based upon the review and analysis of such documents and information as
development maps, geological maps, electrical logs and formation tests, core
data, information regarding the completion of the wells and production
performance.
2. Analyzing Production Performance and Decline Rates. The estimates derived by
this method may be primarily predicated on an analysis of the rates of decline in
production and on appropriate consideration of other performance parameters
such as reservoir pressure, oil-water ratio, and gas-oil ratio
3. Analogy to Comparable Reservoirs. If performance trends have not been
established with respect to oil and gas production, future production rates and
reserves may be estimated by analogy to reservoirs in the same geographic area
which have similar characteristics and established performance trends.
4. The Alberta Energy and Utility Board (AEUB) Book which includes estimates
of initial and remaining established reserves and ultimate potential of crude oil,
gas, bitumen, natural gas liquids and sulphur in Alberta. It is updated annually
from the Board’s records. A common Reserves Data Base Book exists for each
province in Canada.
Page 7-19
7.7.6 Nodal Analysis
7.7.6.1 Introduction
Nodal analysis is a technique used to maximize well productivity by analyzing and

optimizing the complete producing well system. The analysis can lead to
identifying the production gap, and can potentially yield higher income from oil and
gas investment by improving completion design, increasing well productivity, and
increasing producing efficiency.
Page 7-20
Page 7-21
PERFORM*, Nodal analysis, is a simulator that allows the user to perform, and
analyze the producing/injecting well system. The system, illustrated in the figure
below, includes flow between the reservoir and the wellhead (separator if a flow
line is included), and contains the following components:
• Flow through the reservoir to the sandface

• Flow through the completion
• Flow through the bottomhole restriction
• Flow through the tubing
• Flow through the surface flow line restrictions
• Flow through the flowline into the separator
The PERFORM program simulates the entire system, from the reservoir sandface
condition to the separator facility; it models each component within the system
using equations or correlations to determine the pressure loss through the
component as a function of flow rate. The total pressure loss through the system for
a given flow rate is the summation of the pressure losses through all components.
Minimizing pressure loss in individual components within the system results in less
overall pressure loss and increased flow rate from a well.
Page 7-22
The total pressure loss is ultimately realized as the overall difference between
average reservoir pressure, Psandface, and the wellhead or separator pressure, Pwh
or Psep. The average reservoir pressure and the wellhead or separator pressure
constitute the endpoints of the system (inlet and outlet), and are the only pressures
in the system that do not vary with flow rate.
System analysis analyzes the entire system by focusing on one point within the
series of components. This point is generally referred to as a node. The primary
interest of the application generally dictates the location of the node. For example,
if the main interest is an investigation of the effects of the components near the
wellhead, such as a flow line or surface choke, then the node is chosen at the
wellhead or separator. If the effects of the downhole components are the primary
interest, such as the bottomhole flowing pressure, then the node is chosen at
downhole.
In addition, the simulator can use as a sensitization technique that allows the user
see the effects of changing inflow, outflow, and fluids parameters. The solutions
from the analyses are presented in two forms - a summarized table, and a graphical
solution. An example of these solutions are shown below:
Page 7-23
Page 7-24
On the system nodal plot, the solution is the intersection of the inflow and outflow
curves. This intersection indicates the producing capacity of the system and
provides the flow rate, Q, and the corresponding flowing node pressure.
7.7.6.2 Types of Test Data
Test data are derived from many sources depending on the type of well conditions,
and the producing/injecting phase. The test data provide reservoir parameters that
are required in the system analysis. The type of reservoir parameters from the
particular test data will dictate the case study. The following are tests can be
conducted for the producing, or injecting interval:
• Absolute Openhole/ Deliverability Test (AOF)
• Drawdown Test
• Buildup Test • Injection Test
• Falloff Test
• Interference Test
• Drill Stem Test (DST)
The design of the above tests is dependent on the objectives, which usually fall into
three major categories:
• Reservoir evaluation
• Reservoir management
• Reservoir description
The availability of these test data is dependent on the data acquisition during the life
of the well. In most cases, one of these test data is available in the well file.
7.7.6.3 Case Scenario
Identify the type of wellbore, flow component of the well system, downhole
network, producing or injecting phase, and the node location to be analyzed.
Input Data
1. Wellbore Data – Input all wellbore data, which collected from the well file, and
the available public database.
2. Fluid Properties – Fluid data can be entered into one of the following fluid
properties tab depending on the availability of the well fluid data:
Page 7-25
• Fluid Data Tab

• PVT Lab Data Tab
• Gas Composition Tab
3. Reservoir Data – The reservoir component of the system is composed of the

flow between the reservoir boundary, and the sandface. This component is
combined with the completion component to form the entire inflow segment.
The flow through the reservoir is often referred to as the inflow performance
relationship (IPR) of a well. The reservoir ability to produce fluid depends on
many factors, including reservoir type, producing drive mechanism, reservoir
pressure, formation permeability, near wellbore damage, fluid properties, fluid
and rock compressibilities, drainage radius.
The construction for one of the IPR curve requires the understanding of the
reservoir lithology, current static reservoir pressure, and well production history.
Here are some of the vertical/ horizontal IPR correlations available for the oil and
gas wells:
• Back Pressure Equation/ Back Pressure – 4 Point Test

• Transient Flow Equation
• Darcy
• Vogel/Harrison
• Jones et al • Giger et al
• Joshi
• Renard and Dupuy
• Kuchuck
• Babu and Odeh
(a) Reservoir: Completion Data

The type of reservoir completion can significantly contribute to the total
pressure loss to the system. Here are some completion types are available in the
PERFORM program.
• Open Perforations
• Stable Perforations
• Collapsed Perforations
• Gravel Pack Open Hole
• Gravel Pack Open Perforations
Page 7-26
• Gravel Pack Stable Perforations

• Gravel Pack Collapsed Perforations
• Gravel Pack
For most cases, open perforations and openhole completion are used in the
analyses. These completions have the least number of input variables, less
adjustments, and are fitted well for most of the Western Canadian shallow gas
wells.
4. Heat Transfer - Rigorous prediction of wellbore and pipeline temperature

distribution is a complex issue. It requires solutions for momentum, continuity,
and energy balance. The solution is further complicated by thermal
environmental reactions, especially from the reservoir. For this reason, rigorous
analytical solutions are impossible; therefore, numerical algorithms or
approximate analytical solutions have been developed. These numerical
algorithms are identified below, and available in the program.
• Linear Temperature Gradient

• Temperature Survey
• Heat Transfer Correlation
The availability of the data will govern the type of usage for these numerical
algorithms or approximate analytical solutions. In most cases, linear temperature
gradient was used in the model.
7.7.6.4 Base Case
Once the data is entered to create a base case for the well system, and confirmed
through matching. The results are analyzed to satisfy earlier defined objectives, or
are used to solve “what if” scenarios. Furthermore, the base case scenario can be
used to update a current situation when new data become available.
7.7.6.5 Sensitivities
Sensitivity scenarios can be used to simulate various conditions to solve “what if”
situations. Many variables can be simulated, optimized, and the production gap can
be identified. The importance of each sensitized variable is dependent on the
specific well condition, and objective. The items used most often in nodal analysis
to optimize oil and gas production include the following:
Page 7-27
• Reservoir Skin
• Completion Effects
• Tubing Size
• Wellhead or Separator Pressure
Each of the above components is useful to gauge the accuracy of that component,
and the results are compared against the base case for the production gap.
a. Well Completion
Tubing Size – Properly sized tubing is very important in an efficiently designed
well system. If the tubing size is too small, friction loss will become excessive. If
tubing size is too large, additional pressure loss will be encountered due to liquid
loading. In some cases, this loading can prevent the well from flowing at all.
Wellhead or Separator Pressure – The wellhead pressure (if no flow line) or
separator pressure (if a flow line is included) is the outlet pressure of the total
system. In most cases, the reduction of wellhead pressure for a typical oil, or gas
well by installing larger chokes in the wellhead, or by installing a compressor,
results in increased well capacity.
b. Reservoir Parameters
Reservoir Pressure – Proper gauge static reservoir pressure, under natural depletion
or secondary recovery, is very important in determining the reservoir potential, and
the ability to drive gas, oil, and fluid molecules from the reservoir to the sandface
completion.
Reservoir Skin – The magnitude of the reservoir Skin is the amount of near
wellbore damage from drilling and completion fluids or from enhancement through
stimulation. The effect of altering the Skin is the removal of the damage by
stimulation. A highly damaged wellbore can be in the neighborhood a Skin of +20,
and a successful stimulation treatment can resulted a Skin of –5.
c. Completion Effects
The following items are variables in the completion design that are generally
subject to change, and optimize:
• Perforation shot density

• Perforation size
• Perforation diameter
• Perforation length
Page 7-28
• Perforation interval
• Gravel pack size
• Gravel pack permeability
• Damaged zone radius and permeability
• Perforation crushed zone effects
• Perforated interval
With any combination of the above, variables can be sensitized to assess the effect
of one variable to the other(s), or to use the results to justify potential workover.
7.7.6.6 New Data
New data can be acquired from geology, well completion, stimulation, pressure
transient analysis (PTA), compressor, chokes, and artificial lift system. The new
data can be updated in the base case, and revised to represent current well
productivity as shown in the following figure.
Page 7-29
Page 7-30
7.8 Report
A Well Review report is one of the most significant deliverables to the client. As such, it is
vital that it contain sufficient information for the client to understand the production
problems at the well and perform due diligence on the recommended intervention program.
In addition, one of the major benefits of the report is that it provides a summary of
pertinent information and data available for the well. The report can then serve as a source
of data for day-to-day operations, rather than searching for, and using data from the often
poorly organized and voluminous well files.
Ideally, the Well Review report should contain at least the following information.
7.8.1 Well History
The well history discussion includes a summary of completion and workover

history, tubular information and drilling dates.
7.8.2 Test History
This includes a summary of results from drill-stem tests, pressure transient tests,
absolute open flow tests, static gradient surveys, and any other tests that may assist
in characterizing reservoir pressure or reservoir properties. If available, interpreted
results from these tests, such as permeability, Skin factor, location of boundaries
and others, should be presented.
7.8.3 Petrophysics
This discussion should include petrophysical parameters for the active formation(s)
plus a review of uphole and downhole hydrocarbon potential.
7.8.4 Pool or Reservoir Data
If available, pool or reservoir data such as geological mapping, pool-wide material

balance, reservoir studies or any other information that extends beyond the
individual well but is pertinent to the well review should be summarized in this
section of the report.
7.8.5 Reserves
The report should contain a discussion relating to the reserves for the active
formation(s) and, possibly uphole or downhole formations, provided sufficient
Page 7-31
information is available. In order to validate the economic viability of the proposed

intervention program, the client must have a reserve base. Within the reserves
discussion, a caveat should be used to ensure the reserves values presented within
the report are only used in the context of the well review process. The client should
not misconstrue the reserve values to be suitable for inclusion in regulatory or
financial submissions.
7.8.6 Production Performance
This area of the report should focus on the historical production performance of the
well, noting any unusual production behavior and correlating these anomalies to
operational issues, if possible.
7.8.7 Nodal Analysis
The nodal analysis section should highlight the methodology used, major
assumptions and the results of nodal analysis. It would be appropriate to identify the
size of the production gap and discuss potential well optimizations that would
reduce or eliminate the production gap.
7.8.8 Recommendations
This segment of the report is arguably the most important, since in many instances,
the client will review this information first, or perhaps solely. A discussion of the
type of interventions or recommendations, projected incremental production rates
and reserves (if applicable) and anticipated costs should be included. In addition,
uphole or downhole hydrocarbon potential should be identified.
7.8.9 Others
Depending on the well review detail, other relevant analyses such as surface
network modeling or economic analysis should be documented.
7.8.10 Attachments
Figures and tables can be used to convey complex information easily and should be
used to supplement the text portion of the report. Suggested attachments include,
but are not limited to:
• Base map highlighting the well location relative to pipelines, offsetting wells,
etc.
Page 7-32
• Well ticket summarizing pertinent well information

• Wellbore schematic
• Production plots
• Decline analysis plots, if available. • Material balance plots, if available
• Nodal analysis plots, if available
• Petrophysics summary
• Others, as necessary
A sample report is contained in Appendix 5. In some projects, the well reports for a
particular field or area may be compiled onto a CD and delivered to the client. Also, if the
FOM database is used as an integral part of the well evaluations in a specific field, that
OFM database may be part of the report submitted for that field.
7.9 Project Management Issues
The amount of dedicated time required for project management will be dependent upon the
size of the project. However, there are a number of issues, which arise in any project and
will require the action of the project manager. These are described below.
7.9.1 Contract Changes
As the project progresses, it may be found that certain of the terms specified in the
contract are unworkable. In such cases, the SLB project and client project managers
should discuss the problem and resolve it with a workable and administratively
feasible solution. Any such changes to the contract must, however, be formalized
with amendments to the original contract. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the
Project Manager to relay the changes to the legal representative and have the
contract formally amended.
7.9.2 Client Meetings
Regular meetings should be held with the client to technically review the work
completed to date. These meetings are usually designed to present the work done by
SLB and to solicit input form the client’s engineers and field personnel regarding
additional knowledge and experience, which should be incorporated into the final
recommendations.
In cases where the work is being done in the client’s offices, the need for these
meetings may be less, depending on the amount of ongoing communication
between SLB and client personnel. However, when projects are being done in
Page 7-33
SLB’s offices, or if the client has little continuous involvement in the process, it is
imperative that these meetings take place on a regular basis.
7.9.3 Quality Assurance
An essential part of nay project is to insure that the technical quality of the work
being performed is of excellent quality. This can be done internally through the use
of a Peer Review process and, externally, by the use of Client Service Reviews. It is
the Project Manager’s responsibility to schedule these reviews on a regular basis.
7.9.3.1 Peer Reviews
Peer reviews are conducted within the DCS organization on a regular basis. The
procedure was previously developed and documented for H-RT integrated study
projects. For Well review Projects, the process is less formal but the objective is the
same – to improve the quality of DCS services.
Well review peer reviews can be done in two ways. For small projects, it is
recommended that project staff meet weekly and discuss the wells they have
worked on. By sharing their methodologies and results, peers can make suggestions
to improve the quality of recommendations. It may also be advantageous to request
senior consultants/engineers with specific knowledge or experience (from DCS ort
other product lines) to attend these meetings and mentor the project staff.
For larger projects, where there area large number of wells (100’s) being evaluated,
it may be advantageous to have a Principal Engineer dedicated to reviewing all
work performed in order to insure quality and consistency of reports and
recommendations.
7.9.3.2 Client Service Reviews
Meetings are held with the client, at least quarterly, to discuss the project progress
and to determine areas in the methodology, recommendations, and/or reports, which
require improvement. These meetings should be set up by the Project Manager and
will involve, as a minimum, both project managers, and possibly, at least some of
the other project staff. The results of the reviews should be used to improve the
current and future projects.
Page 7-34
7.9.4 Invoicing Administration
It is the Project Manager’s responsibility to insure that all invoicing for the project
is completed accurately. Where the project revenue is based solely on fees for well
reviews, this is straightforward. However, when field bonuses related to predicted
incremental production are involved, the administration is more complex. Under the
latter scenario, bonuses may not be realized until several months after the wells are
evaluated; therefore, a tracking and invoicing system must be established. The
system used will be dependent upon the scope of the project and the invoicing and
accounting procedures in place within the geomarket where the work is being
performed.
7.10 Implementation of Recommendations
7.10.1 Product Line Support
Support for the Well Evaluation process must be provided by the Product Line
Sales and DESC Engineers responsible for the client. It is these people that design
the specific detailed field programs after the client has approved them based on
economics. Therefore, these staff have to be kept informed of the recommendations
made and the opportunities for interventions. They can provide the cost estimated
for the field work being recommended.
Once the client approves a program, these engineers provide the detailed design and
insure that SLB field personnel are prepared to do the work in a timely manner.
7.10.2 Production Monitoring
When production bonuses are part of the fee schedule, it is imperative that a
monitoring process be established to insure that all eligible bonuses are realized.
This means that the Project Manager must establish a process, in conjunction with
the client’s Project Manager, to track evaluated wells and, when interventions are
conducted, track the production results. Depending on the contract, the bonuses
may not be related to initial results, bur rather, to a period of production (for
example, 3 months).
The basis for the production increment and the monitoring should be specified in
the contract. If there is government reporting of production data, as is the case in
Canada, this data can be used to monitor the wells.
Page 7-35
Invoicing for production bonuses may require close communication between DCS
and SLB product line accounting staff to insure that there is no duplicate invoicing
or lost revenue.
7.10.3 Feedback for Other Wells
As field work is implemented, the results of well review recommendations can be

evaluated. The monitoring of results will enable the project engineers to determine
if their recommendations are being effective. Additional feedback may be provided
by communicating with the client’s personnel. These results should be utilized in
evaluating future wells and modifying recommendations to reflect the results of the
completed interventions.
Page 7-36
7.11 Appendices
Page 7-37
7.11.1 Appendix 1: Detailed Workflow of Production Enhancement
Process
Page 7-38
Page 7-39
7.11.2 Appendix 2: Training for Well Review Projects
Page 7-40
Well Review (WR) Training Modules
Module 1: WR Methodology
Course Duration: 1 day
Module 2: Access DB and PetroDesk

Module 3: OFM Users

Course Duration: 2 days
Module 4: Geology of Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin

Module 5: Basic Reservoir Engineering

Module 6: Sand Face Intervention
Module 7: Well Test Analysis

Module 8: Nodal analysis

Module 9: Artificial Lift

Total length of the training plan is 14 days (distributed on 8 working weeks)
Page 7-41
7.11.3 Appendix 3: Software Available for Production Enhancement Projects
Page 7-42
Page 7-43
7.11.4 Appendix 4: OFM Database Construction from PetroDesk
Page 7-44
OFM Project Database Creation using

Merak Online-Petrodesk 2001
Step by Step Simplified Procedure
Create a new folder on local drive for the data files to be exported to be exported by Petrodesk.
Must be on hard drive, not on desktop to be accessible. (e.g. Kaybob_Data)
Create a new folder on local drive for the new OFM project folder. (e.g. OFM Kaybob)
Open Merak Online, Petrodesk 2001. http://asp.merak.com/
Create a map of the desired field containing the subject wells. Have wells as the selected layer
from the drop down menu.
Choose “Select to List” from the Petrodesk toolbar.
Click and drag mouse pointer across map to select desired wells. This will highlight the wells red.
Select the working list tab at the bottom left of the screen. From the toolbar, choose Edit, Select
All. (This will turn all wells ID’s and well names blue)
Click PD Exporter from the Petrodesk toolbar.
The PD Exporter window will now open. Export settings should be as follows
Export Type: Oilfield Manager

Export File: Select the data folder created in step 1. (e.g. Kaybob_Data)
Export Log File: Leave Blank
**Leave all other items as the default settings as shown below**
Page 7-45
Click Export
***This may take sometime, depending on the number of wells exported***
All production data has now been exported from Petrodesk to the created data folder. It is now
time to return to your base map to export desired annotation.
Select Map / Properties / Layer Tree Tab
Page 7-46
Toggle ON only Sections and Townships.Single click on each of these annotations to highlight
them, then choose . The Style button is where you would change the colors or line
thickness of the annotations. Pipelines are also available if desired.
Fit your map window to only the area you desire to export. Do this by zooming, horizontal page
split screen, or dragging the window breaks.
Page 7-47
Select File / Export / Layers To ASCII
The Export Layers Window will open:
Export Layers: Grid Layers \ Townships

Grid Layers \ Sections
Export Format: OFM Map Annotation
Export Limited to Map Extent
Destination File: Same file created in step 1. (e.g. Kaybob_ Data)
Page 7-48
All data has now been exported from Petrodesk.
Page 7-49
Open OFM 3.1.4
Click File / New

Select folder created in step 2. (e.g. OFM Kaybob)
Name this folder accordingly. ( i.e. “field” Kaybob)
Click OK
Page 7-50
Leave the Path as the default setting.
Ignore passwords for Read and Write.
Change Template to Company Standard.
Data Source ASCII Flat Files
Click OK
The OFM Data Loader Window will now open:
Now load the data files exported from Petrodesk. Double Click on each file to move to Files to
Load window. Include master.par in the upload, which is located in OFM control files.
Leave everything else as the default setting, and Click Load.

The New OFM project blank database will now open.
Page 7-51
To add a well status legend:
Edit / Map / Association / Welltype-Sort / Status / OK / User Supplied.
Search OFM control files for Status-IPL, and OK.
Now right click on your map. Legend
Draw legend, Move Legend to place in desired position.
Now give the map a title:
Edit / Map / Headers
Name the field and select the desired font and click OK.
Your map should look like this depending on the area chosen.
Page 7-52
To set up the Production plots:
You can use the predefined plots, or generate a plot from scratch.
Select a well from the drop down bar.
Click on the Production Plot symbol.
This window will be blank because no plot has been set up. Cancel the Edit Plot Window.
Click File / Open / OFM control files / Production plots / (e.g. bp gas) A plot will appear:
Page 7-53
This plot can be edited to suit your personal preference by double clicking on it.
To set up the decline plot requires variable association.
Click on the Decline Curve Analysis button.
Click Yes to set up variable association.
Select the settings as shown below:
Plot Type: Log Rate vs. Time
Phase: Oil or Gas
X Axis: Date
Y axis: CV.CDGAS
Cum Gas: CV.CUMGAS
Leave the remaining settings on the Technique Tab as the selected defaults.
Page 7-54
Page 7-55
The forecast tab is for personal preference of analysis ( e.g. Start and End Time, Economic Limit
etc.)
To change the projects units to metric:
Page 7-56
Tools / Settings / Units / Use Metric Units
You should now have a decline plot similar to this one:
Double click on the plot to change to personal preference.
The OFM Database is created.
Page 7-57
7.11.5 Appendix 5: Sample Report
Page 7-58
Well Report Location: Sample Well
Well Name: Sample Well Status: Flowing Gas

Field: KIRBY Formation: Clearwater D
Drill Date: 1985-12-04 Completion Date: 1986-01-16
Date On Production: 3/11/1986
Casing: 114.3 mm, 14.10 kg/m

Tubing: 60.3 mm, 6.99 kg/m, from 0 m to 390 m KB; Date 1986-01-16
Perforations: 386.0m to 390.0m, Date: 1986-01-16
Stimulation: The well was not stimulated.
Recognized Production Parameters: July 2001

Static Bottom Hole Pressure, BHP (kPa) = 650 kPaa (from nodal analysis)
Flowing Wellhead Pressure, FWHP (kpa) = 340 kPag
Flowing Wellhead Temperature, FWHT ( C)=
Permeability, k (mD) = 925 md (from nodal analysis)
Net Pay, h (m) = 11.5
Skin Factor, S = 0 (assumed for nodal analysis)
Discussion:
General
The Kirby field is located in TWP 71 to 75, RGE 4 to 9 W4, approximately 150 miles
northeast of Edmonton, Alberta. The well is located near the northeastern edge of the field,
as shown on the attached base map.
The well was drilled in December 1985, and perforated in the Clearwater D formation the
following month. As of July 2001, the well was producing at a gas rate of approximately 60
e3m3/d, and had recovered a cumulative gas volume of 293.5 e6m3.
Operations History
On January 16, 1986 the well was perforated in the Clearwater D formation over the
interval 386.0 to 390.0 m KB at 13 SPM using a 101.6 mm casing gun.
Page 7-59
A four-point modified isochronal flow test was conducted between March 28 and April 1,
1986. Unfortunately, no field notes were included in the well file, though pressure gauge
data was available. A review of the public data for this test indicated the well produced at a rate of
77.8 e3m3/d against a flowing BHP of approximately 1850 kPaa. Although an AOF value was
presented in the public database, no corresponding test interpretation was included in the well file.
Static gradient pressure surveys were conducted on the Clearwater D interval in January
and April 1986, prior to placing the well on stream. These tests indicated a static pressure
of 1925 kPag after extended shut-in periods.
Petrophysics Review
A detailed petrophysics review was conducted and is presented on the attached table. A
summary for the Clearwater D interval follows.
Porosity: 34.0 percent
Water saturation: 25.0 percent
Gas net pay: 11.5 m
The Clearwater D interval consists of 11.5 m of gas pay overlying 1.5 m of low resistivity
reservoir (3 ohms) and below that, 26.5 m of heavy oil and transitional zones.
Uphole potential exists in the Clearwater C (370.5 to 375.0 m KB), the Clearwater B
(356.0 to 359.0 m KB), and the Colony A (256.0 to 261.0 m KB) intervals. While the
Clearwater C formation does not contain a water contact evident on well logs, both the
Clearwater B and Colony A intervals consist of thin gas intervals overlying water. All other
intervals appear wet or contain heavy oil. Please refer to the attached petrophysics
datasheet for additional information.
Production History and Reserves
Given the high production rates obtained from the well, it was assumed the Clearwater D
interval historically produced up the tubing and annulus. Although production for the first
six years of the well life was erratic, the interval generally produced at rates between 50
and 90 e3m3/d. Production peaked at rates in excess of 100 e3m3/d throughout 1996;
however, beginning in 1999, the gas production rate began to decline at approximately 9
percent per year to the current rate of 60 e3m3/d.
Reserves were assigned by decline analysis. Based on the current production rate of
approximately 60 e3m3/d and a 9.1 percent per year exponential decline, ultimate
Page 7-60
recoverable raw gas reserves of 476.3 e6m3 were estimated. This corresponds to a 3.5
section drainage area with a 90.0 percent recovery factor (see attached Volumetric
Reserves Summary Sheet for details). Considering the offset well density producing from
the Clearwater D formation, it seems unlikely this well will drain three to four sections.
Instead, it is more likely the decline rate will accelerate at some time in the future due to
interference from offset wells. Therefore, the reserve values quoted above should be
considered an upper limit only.
The reserves presented in this report are intended solely for BP internal use in the well
review process. They are not intended to be included in regulatory or financial submissions
or for any other use outside of BP.Nodal Analysis
Since the current reservoir pressure is unknown, it was not possible to utilize nodal analysis
as a tool to optimize gas production rates. Instead, nodal analysis was used to estimate the
current reservoir pressure. The following methodology was adopted:
- Using results from the 1986 4-point flow test and information from well files, a nodal
analysis model was constructed.
- The model was calibrated to the operating conditions of the 1986 flow test.
- Using the current wellhead pressure and the calibrated model, the reservoir pressure
required to match the current gas production rate was determined.
The attached nodal analysis plot provides the basic model parameters. Unfortunately,
neither Skin nor permeability were known. As a result, the reservoir permeability was
back-calculated to match the flow rate from the extended rate flow period observed during
the 1986 flow test, assuming the well was undamaged (i.e. a Skin factor of zero was
applied). This required a permeability of 925 md. Although somewhat higher than other
Clearwater D wells in the area, this permeability value was reasonable given the sustained
high gas production rates from this well. It should be noted the permeability obtained in
this manner was a minimum. If the Skin factor were higher through some form of
formation damage, then the permeability would have to be higher to compensate.
Unfortunately, the current reservoir pressure was not known. As a result, the current
reservoir pressure was back-calculated, given the current gas production rate and flowing
tubing pressure. Based on the current gas production rate of approximately 60 e3m3/d and
a BP supplied flowing tubing head pressure of 340 kPag, the estimated current reservoir
pressure was 650 kPaa. This value was lower than predicted by the surface network model
constructed by PHH Petroleum Consultants in April 2001, which suggested the reservoir
pressure was between 667 and 800 kPaa.
Page 7-61
Future Potential
As noted previously, the most recent estimate of pressure was derived from nodal analysis.
If any of the assumptions used in the nodal analysis model were incorrect, then the pressure
estimate may be incorrect. If the current reservoir pressure is approximately 650 kPaa, then
nodal analysis suggests the well is producing at capability and, therefore very little
intervention potential exits.
Since the reservoir data was limited, several assumptions and back-calculated parameters
were required for nodal analysis. In order to improve the nodal analysis, it is recommended
to conduct and analyze a flow and build-up test on the Clearwater D formation. This will
provide valuable information on reservoir permeability, Skin and current reservoir
pressure.
If the current reservoir pressure is not as low as predicted, then liquid loading may be
impairing gas flow. Since water production data from the public data is unreliable,
conducting a water-gas ratio (WGR) test on the well is the best method to assess whether
excessive water production is an issue. If WGR testing indicates excessive water
production, then artificial lift, such as plunger lift or a sucker-rod pump system, should be
considered.
A petrophysical review of uphole and downhole intervals indicated several zones with gas
potential including the Clearwater C (370.5 to 375.0 m KB), the Clearwater B (356.0 to
359.0 m KB), and the Colony A (256.0 to 261.0 m KB) intervals. Both the Colony A and
Clearwater B intervals appear to have a relatively thin gas interval, 3.0 m thick, overlying
water. Although a water contact was not evident from well logs in the Clearwater C
interval, the formation generally produces water in the Kirby area. Thus, the water contact
for the Clearwater C interval may be in close proximity to the wellbore. As a result, the
uphole intervals may be plagued by water production problems. Despite this, it is
reasonable to complete, test, and if possible, produce these uphole intervals when the
Clearwater D interval is depleted.
Recommendations
1. Determine the current reservoir pressure. At the very least, obtain a wellhead pressure
after a 48 to 72-hour shut-in. This would allow an estimate of current bottom-hole
pressure. A better alternative would be a flow and build-up test with downhole gauges.
This would allow estimation of current reservoir pressure, Skin and permeability and
possibly identification of reservoir boundaries.
Page 7-62
2. If pressure testing indicates a reservoir pressure of approximately 650 kPaa, then no

further intervention is recommended.
3. If pressure testing indicates a reservoir pressure higher than 650 kPaa, conduct WGR
testing to see if liquid loading is impairing production.
4. If liquid loading is discovered to be problematic, then consider installing some form of
artificial lift. The best mechanism for artificial lift should be determined once the
current reservoir pressure and producing WGR are known through testing. Incremental
gas production is difficult to assess at this time; however, if the current reservoir
pressure is 800 kPaa, instead of 650 kPaa, then an incremental gas rate of at least 20
e3m3/d is expected, if the cause of production impairment is corrected.
Page 7-63
Nodal Analysis:
File: 1011clrd.pf3
Inflow:
Case 1: P= 1925 kPa,k=925 mD, Skin=0
Match point case - extended flow period during 1986 four-point modified
isochronal test. Permeability was back-calculated, assuming a Skin of zero.
Case 2: P= 650 kPa, k=925 mD, Skin=0
Current operating conditions. Reservoir pressure was back-calculated to match
current flow rate.
Outflow:
A: FWHP = 1850, Tubing + casing
Match point case - extended flow period during 1986 four-point modified
isochronal test. Permeability was back-calculated, assuming a Skin of zero.
B: FWHP = 435, Tubing + casing
Current operating conditions. Reservoir pressure was back-calculated to match
current flow rate.
Page 7-64
Page 7-65
Page 7-66
Page 7-67
Page 7-68
Page 7-69
Page 7-70
Page 7-71
Petrophysical Well Summary
Page 7-72
Petrophyscial Well Summary
Page 7-73
Page 7-74

Process For RAPID Projects - Suru - CDGL - Lacruz - Oct2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Process For RAPID Projects - Suru - CDGL - Lacruz - Oct2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Data and Consulting Services

Processes for RAPID

3. CONSIDERATION ....................................................................................................... 3-1

4. RAPID PROCESSES..................................................................................................... 4-2

6. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.3.5.2 Calculated Variables ............................................................... 6-30

6.9 Appendix H: Secondary Phase Movement Analysis Details.......................... 6-101

7. BEST PRACTICES: PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT WORKFLOW ............. 7-1

7.6.4 Petrophysical Data Entry ....................................................................... 7-12

7.11 Appendices......................................................................................................... 7-37

Figure Number Figure Description

Appendix Number Appendix Description

A Process Level Flow Chart

B Logic Level Flow Chart

C Pressure Modeling Analysis Details

D Reservoir Data Review Details

E Heterogeneity Index Analysis Details

F Completion Efficiency Analysis Details

G Production / Interference Radius Analysis Details

I Recovery Analysis Details

J Vintage Analysis Details

K Performance Indicator Analysis Details

L Detailed Well Review Details

When to Use RAPID Processes

When Not to Use RAPID Processes

Limitations of RAPID Processes

The products of DCS’ RAPID processes are:

1. Infill Candidate Selection,

Figure 2: RAPID High-level Workflow.

4.1 Infill Candidate Selection

4.1.1 Prediction of Previous Infill cycle

- Use statistical, spatial and temporal relationships to forecast outcome of

Figure 3: Productivity Index based on atmospheric backpressure

Figure 5: BHFP based on atmospheric backpressure

Figure 7: Current Well Gas Rate

4.1.2 Validation and Selection of Process

- Validate a methodology to forecast initial infill performance

In the above example, certain methodologies can be reliable in certain areas.

4.1.3 Infill Well Selection

- Locate all possible infill locations and calculate initial production

Figure 10: Forecasted Infill Well Rate

4.1.4 Product Delivery

- Prepare and deliver presentation / report to client

The following was presented to a client with the recommendation to initially

Figure 11: Sorted Table of resulting forecasts by location

Figure 13: Bubble plot of forecast results

4.2 Workover Candidate Selection

Detailed Well Review

Appendix L contains an overview of the Detailed Well Review process.

4.3 Production Forecasting

Confidence level on the predictions is checked as more production data become

5.1 Pressure Modeling

In order to do Pressure Modeling, a certain amount of pressure data must be available. If

Output from Pressure Modeling:

Appendix C contains details of the Pressure Modeling analysis.

5.2 Reservoir Data Review

Inventory and Overview of Data

Review of Production Characteristics as a Function of Time

Fluid Distribution Maps

Time Motion Study

Dynamic Data Static Data

Time Water Water