Well Performance Analysis in a Multiwell

Gas Condensate Reservoir—

Arun Field, Indonesia

Presented at
SPE Advanced Technology Workshop
Well Testing in Gas Condensate Reservoirs
1-2 April 2000, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

T. Marhaendrajana, Texas A&M University

N.J. Kaczorowski, Mobil E&P (U.S.)
T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University
Summary—Well Test Analysis

 A representative summary of the analysis

and interpretation of well test data taken
from the Arun Gas Field (Sumatra, Indo-
nesia) (Single-phase gas analysis is used).
 2-zone radial composite reservoir model is
effective for diagnosing the effects of con-
densate banking at Arun Field.
 Application of a new solution for the
analysis and interpretation of well test data
that exhibit "well interference" effects.
Summary—Production Data Analysis

 Analysis and interpretation of production

data using (single-phase) decline type
curve analysis:
 Permeability-thickness product
 Skin factor
 Original and movable gas-in-place
 Comparison of results from well test and
production data analyses vary—but these
variations appear to be consistent.
General Information—Arun Field (Indonesia)

Arun Field Field Description

 Located in Northern part of
Ø
Ø Sumatra, Indonesia
 Retrograde gas reservoir
Ø  One of the largest gas fields in the
world
Ø  Arun Field has 111 wells:
 79 producers
Ø
Ø  11 injectors

Ø  4 observation wells
 17 wells have been abandoned
Ø

N Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
Major Phenomena Observed at Arun Field
 Liquid accumulation near wellbore (conden-
sate banking)
 Need to know the radial extent of the condensate
bank for the purpose of well stimulation.
 Well interference effects (well test analysis)
 Well interference effects tend to obscure the
"standard" flow regimes—in particular, the radial
flow response.
 This behavior influences our analysis and inter-
pretation efforts, and we must develop an alter-
native analysis approach for well test data
affected by multiwell interference effects.
Well Test Analysis Strategy
 Condensate banking phenomenon:
 Used a 2-zone radial composite reservoir
model—the inner zone represents the "con-
densate bank," and the outer zone represents
the "dry gas reservoir." (reported kh-values
are for the "outer zone")
 Well interference effects:
 Developed a new method for the analysis of
well test data from a well in multiwell reservoir
where we treat the "well interference" effect as
a "Regional Pressure Decline." (This pheno-
mena is observed in approximately 35 cases)
Well Test Analysis: Examples
 Well C-I-18 (A-096)—Test Date: 28 Sep. 1992
 Radial composite effects.
 Multiwell interference effects.
 Well C-IV-01 (A-060) [Test Date: 25 Feb. 1993]
 Radial composite effects.
 Multiwell interference effects.
WT Example 1: Log-log Summary Plot
Well C-I-18 (A-096) [Test Date: 28 September 1992]
3
10
Raw data
Functions, psi
Corrected

2
10
Pseudopressure Functions, psi

Improvement of
Infinite-acting Reservoir Model
pressure derivative.
(Does not include non-Darcy flow)
Pseudopressure

1
10

Condensate banking
region.
0 Higher mobility
10
region.
Closed boundary at 160 ft?
(includes non-Darcy flow).
-1
10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Effective Shut-in Pseudotime, t , hrs
Effective shut-in pseudotime,
ae
hrs
WT Example 1: Horner (Semilog) Plot

WellWell
C-I-18 (A-096)
C-I-18 (A-096)[Test
[Test Date: 28September
Date: 28 September 1992]
1992]
1160
Pseudopressure, ppws , psiapsia

1140 Condensate banking

region.
Pseudopressure,

1120

1100 Higher mobility

region.
1080

1060
Shut-in
Shut-in

1040 Raw data

Corrected
1020
3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10
Horner Pseudotime, ( ta+tpa)/ta (tpa=tp=1.56 hr), hr
Horner pseudotime, hrs (tp = 1.56 hr)
WT Example 1: Muskat Plot (single well pavg plot)

WellWell
C-I-18 (A-096)
C-I-18 (A-096)[Test Date:2828
[Test Date: September
September 1992]1992]
1150
Pseudopressure, ppws, psiapsia

1149 pp,avg = 1148.6 psia

Data deviate from the "Muskat line"
pseudopressure,

1148 —indicating interference effects

from surrounding
Onset wells.
of boundary
1147
dominated flow
1146 (single well analogy).
"Transient flow"
1145
Shut-in

1144
Shut-in

1143

1142
0 2 4 6 8 10
dppws
dp/d /dtt ,, psi/hr
pws a psi/hr
a
WT Ex. 1: "Well Interference" Plot (radial flow only)

WellWell
C-I-18 (A-096)
C-I-18 (A-096)[Test
[Test Date: 28September
Date: 28 September 1992]
1992]
15
Intercept is used to
10 calculate permeability.
Slope is used in the
pressure correction.
5
(pp')p ttae, psi
, psi
ae

0
(p ')

-5

-10 (pp')tae <0, indicating multiwell

interference effects.

-15
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
tt
 a //tae tae
2 , hrs
a
WT Example 2: Log-log Summary Plot
Well Well
C-IV-01 (A-060)
C-IV-01 (A-060)[Test Date:2525
[Test Date: February
February 1993]
1993]
3
psi 10
Raw data
Corrected
Functions,

2
10
Pseudopressure Functions, psi

Improvement of
pressure derivative.
Pseudopressure

1
10

Condensate banking
0
10 region.
ClosedInfinite-acting
boundary
Higher at 330 ft?
Reservoir
mobility Model
(Does not
(includes include non-Darcy
non-Darcy flow)
region.flow).
-1
10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Effective Shut-in Pseudotime, tae, hrs
Effective shut-in pseudotime, hrs
WT Example 2: Horner (Semilog) Plot

Well Well
C-IV-01 (A-060)
C-IV-01 (A-060)[Test Date:2525
[Test Date: February
February 1993]
1993]
1650
Pseudopressure, ppws, psia psia

Condensate banking
1600 region.
Shut-in Pseudopressure,

1550

1500

1450 Higher mobility

region.
1400
Shut-in

Raw data
1350
Corrected
1300
3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10
Horner Pseudotime, ( ta+tpa)/ta (tpa=tp=2.61 hr), hr
Horner pseudotime, hrs (tp = 2.61 hr)
WT Example 2: Muskat Plot (single well pavg plot)

Well Well
C-IV-01 (A-060)
C-IV-01 (A-060)[Test Date:2525
[Test Date: February
February 1993]
1993]
1575
ppws, psia psia

pp,bar = 1573.5 psia

1574
pseudopressure,

Onset of boundary
1573
dominated flow.
Shut-in Pseudopressure,

1572
"Transient flow"
1571

1570
Shut-in

1569

1568
0 2 4 6 8 10
dppws /d/dtta,,psi/hr
dppws a psi/hr
WT Ex. 2: "Well Interference" Plot (radial flow only)

Well C-IV-01
Well C-IV-01(A-060)
(A-060) [Test Date:
[Test Date: 2525 February
February 1993]
1993]
4

Intercept is used to
3
calculate permeability.

2
tae, psi

(pp')tae <0, indicating multiwell

 ae

interference effects.
pp') t

1
(pp(')

Slope is used in the

-1
pressure correction.

-2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2
ta / tae
ta /2tae, hrs
Correlation of Well Test Results—Arun Field

 Maps:
 kh (outer-zone (gas) permeability).
 skin factor.
 non-Darcy flow coefficient.
 Radius of condensate bank.
 Correlation of non-Darcy flow coefficient and the
permeability-thickness product (kh).
 Flow Capacity (kh, md-ft)
from Well Test Analysis (Arun Field, Indonesia)
kh Map 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000 16000
1x2 Perspective
 kh distribution ap- 15000 View 15000
A-103

pears reasonable. 14000 14000

30000
A-101

10000
A-081
A-036

30000
A-076 A-045 A-079ST
 3 major "bubbles" 13000 A-059 30000 13000

10000
A-074 40000 A-025ST
A-054 A-042
A-096 20000
A-104

of kh noted, pro-

x-position (relative distance)

12000 A-088 A-067 A-027 12000
A-092 A-032ST
A-032
A-061 A-021

30000
20000
bably erroneous. A-106 A-024

20000
11000 A-082
A-105ST2A-102 A-068 11000

10000
A-022ST2 A-078
A-029
20000
40000
 kh shown is for the A-083

20000
10000 A-033 10000
A-089 A-073

10000
A-040
30000

"outer" zone (when 9000

A-093
9000

10000
A-098 40000

10000
A-058 A-071
the radial compo-
A-015 A-080

20000
A-034

20000
8000 A-099 8000
A-077

10000
A-016

site model is used). 7000

A-095

A-107
10000
A-017
A-035

7000

40000
A-097

50000
A-070A-048

30000
A-041 A-060

20000
A-108 A-085
A-084
6000 A-062
50000
10000
A-049 6000
A-110ST A-046 40000 40000
A-100
5000 10000 A-053 60000 5000
A-09180000
Legend: (Well Test Analysis) A-051
50000
Flow Capacity ( kh) Contour Plot 100000
A-109
4000 (10,000 md-ft Contours) 4000
Arun Field (Indonesia)
3000 3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
y-position (relative distance)
 Skin Factor (Inner Zone)
from Well Test Analysis (Arun Field, Indonesia)
Skin Factor Map 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000 16000
These results represent
1x2 Perspective
the current completion
 Skin factor distri- 15000 (evaluated using well test data). View 15000
A-103

bution appears very 14000 A-101

1
0
A-036
A-081
14000

consistent.
A-076 A-045 A-079ST
13000 A-074
A-059
A-025ST 13000

5
A-042

5 4 2
A-054A-104

1
A-096

1
 Areas of "high skin"
3

3
x-position (relative distance)
12000 A-088 A-067 A-027 12000
A-092 A-032ST
A-032
A-061 A-021
indicate need for 3

-1
A-106 A-024

0
11000 A-082
A-105ST2A-102 A-068 11000

0
10 3 A-022ST2 A-078

individual well
A-029
1
A-083 0
4
A-033
10000 A-089 A-073
10000

5
stimulations.
A-040

2 2

0
4
2
A-093
9000 A-098
9000

4
4 A-058

10
 Skin factors are
A-071 A-015 A-080

5 5
A-099 A-034
8000 8000

3 1 2
A-077
A-016

calculated based on

10
A-095 A-035
15

15
2 A-017
7000 A-107 7000
the "inner" zone of
A-097 A-070A-048
2
A-041 A-060
5 A-085
A-108 3 A-084 20
6000 3
A-062 15
A-049 6000
the radial compo-

3
1
-1

15
0 2
A-110ST A-046

0 4
-1 A-100
A-053 3
5000 5000
site model (when rc-
2
-2
A-091

10
Legend: (Well Test Analysis) 1
0 A-051
-1

-1
Skin Factor Contour Plot 2

model is used).
A-109
4000 (Various Contours) 4000
Arun Field (Indonesia)

3000 3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
y-position (relative distance)
 Logarithm of the Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient (D, 1/MSCFD)
from Well Test Analysis (Arun Field, Indonesia)
D (Non-Darcy) Map 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000 16000
1x2 Perspective
View
 This map indicates a 15000 15000
A-103
No Data
uniform distribution. 14000 A-101
A-036
A-081
14000
A-076 -4
A-045 A-079ST
-3.8
 "high" and "low" 13000 A-074
A-096
A-059 -3.8
A-054A-104
-5 A-042
A-025ST 13000
-4.6 -4.8

-4.4
regions appear to be

x-position (relative distance)

12000 A-088 -4.2
A-067 A-027 12000
A-092 A-032ST

-4.6
A-032
A-061 A-021
focused near a single 11000
A-106
A-082
A-024
A-105ST2A-102 A-068 11000

-4.2
A-022ST2 A-078

well.
A-029

-4.4
-4.6
A-083
10000 A-033 10000
A-089 A-073
A-040

 Relatively small data A-093

-4
-4.2
9000 A-098
9000
-4.6
A-058

set (30 points).

A-071 A-015 A-080
-4.8 A-034
8000 A-099 -4.6 A-077 8000

-4.2
-5 A-016

-4.4

-3.8
-4
A-095 A-035
-4.8 A-017
7000 A-107 7000

-4.2 -4
A-097 A-070A-048

-3.6
A-041
-4 A-060 A-085
A-108

-3.8
A-084
6000 A-062 A-049 6000

-3.6
-3.8
A-110ST A-046

-3.4
A-053 A-100
5000 Legend: (Well Test Analysis) 5000
A-091
Logarithm of the Non-Darcy A-051
Flow Coefficient A-109
4000 (log(10) Contours) 4000
Arun Field (Indonesia)
3000 3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
y-position (relative distance)
 Condensate Bank Radius (ft) from Well Test Analysis
(Arun Field, Indonesia)
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Condensate Radius Map 16000 16000
1x2 Perspective
 Good distribution of 15000 View 15000
No Data A-103

values—"high" spots 14000 A-101

A-036
A-081
14000

probably indicate
A-076 A-045 A-079ST
13000 A-074
A-059
A-025ST 13000
30
A-042
A-096 A-054A-104 25
need for individual 25

x-position (relative distance)

12000 A-088 A-067 A-027 15 12000

25
A-092

well stimulations.
A-032ST
A-032
A-061 A-021

40
30
A-106 A-024
11000 11000

10
A-082
A-105ST2A-102 A-068

35
A-022ST2 A-078

10
 Relatively small data
A-029

15 20

15
A-083

5
10000 A-033 10000

25 30
A-089 A-073

set (32 points).

A-04030

7
A-093
5

20
9000 9000

25
A-098 35

5
A-058 A-071 A-015 A-080

3
A-099 A-034
8000 A-077 8000
A-016

25
A-095 A-035

10
20A-017
7000 A-107
10
7000
A-097 A-070A-048

25

7
A-041 A-060 A-085
A-108

20
A-084
6000 10 A-062 A-049 6000

15
5
5
A-110ST A-046

10
7
A-053 A-100
5000 5000

3
A-091

1 3
Legend: (Well Test Analysis) A-051 25
Condensate Bank Contour Plot

20
A-109
4000 (Various Contours) 4000
Arun Field (Indonesia)
3000 3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
y-position (relative distance)
D (Non-Darcy)—kh Crossplot

Comparison of Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient (D) from Well Test

Analysis versus Flow Capacity k( h) from Well Test Analysis
 D-kh crossplot indi- 3
(Arun Field -- Indonesia)
4 5 6
10 10 10 10

cates an "order of
-3 6
10 10

magnitude" correla-

from Well Test Analysis (D at Time of Well Test)

Slope = 2

Non-Darcy Flow Coefficient (D, 1/MSCFD)

tion.
 Verifies that non- 10
-4 5
10

Darcy flow effects are

systematic.
-5 4
10 10

Legend: DWT vs. khWT

Comparison of D from Well Test Analysis
versus kh from Well Test Analysis
(Arun Field -- Indonesia)
-6 3
10 10
3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10
Flow Capacity (kh, md-ft)
from Well Test Analysis (kh at Time of Well Test)
Production Data Analysis: Arun Field

 Well C-I-18 (A-096)

 Limited history (no EURMB analysis possible).
 Erratic performance.
 Reasonable match on decline type curve.
 Well C-IV-01 (A-060)
 Good history (well was down for almost two
years in 1993-1995).
 Sparse p/z data for EURMB analysis.
 Early data match on decline type curve is
questionable.
 Late performance data deviate from material
balance trend on decline type curve, indicat-
ing "well interference" effects.
WPA Example 1: Well History Plot

1.E+05 4000
Arun Well A-96 TWS Gas
Sep Gas
q g,TWS and q g,Sep [MMscf/D], q c and q w [STB/D]

Condensate
1.E+04 Water
FW HP 3000
SIBHP

FWHP and SIBHP, psia

1.E+03

2000

1.E+02

1000
1.E+01

1.E+00 0
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998
WPA Example 1: Decline Type Curve Plot
Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve
(No Well Interference Effects)
WPA Example 2: Well History Plot

1.E+05 6000
Arun Well A-60
TWS Gas
Sep Gas
q g,TWS and q g,Sep [MMscf/D], q c and q w [STB/D]

Condensate
1.E+04
Water
FW HP
SIBHP

FWHP and SIBHP, psia

4000

1.E+03

1.E+02

2000

1.E+01

1.E+00 0
1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998
WPA Example 2: EURMB Plot

6000
Material Balance Model: Arun Well A -60
"Unit -st ep Production" Boundary Rat e Model for G pre :
p bar /z bar = 4983.3(( 1 - G p /519093.8) - u (Gp - 171464.0) 2.48(Gp - 171464.0)(1/519093.8))

5000

4000

3000

2000

G = G p (p bar = 0)
1000 = 519,093.8 MMSC F
(EUR )MB = 271,272.0 MMSC F

Extrapolation of
Early Trend
0
0.E+00 2.E+05 4.E+05 6.E+05 8.E+05
Cumulative Gas Production, G p , MMSCF
WPA Example 2: Decline Type Curve Plot
Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve
(No Well Interference Effects)
WPA Example 2: Decline Type Curve Plot
Fetkovich-McCray Decline Type Curve
(Includes Well Interference Effects)
Correlation of Production Analysis Results—Arun Field

Production data analyzed using decline type curve

analysis—single-phase (gas) pp and ta used.

Flow Properties: Volumetric Properties:

 Maps:  Plots:
 kh  G vs. time
 skin factor  EURMB vs. time
 Crossplots:  kh vs. time
 khWT—khWPA  Crossplots:
 sWT—sWPA  G—EURMB
 EURPI—EURMB
 Flow Capacity (kh, md-ft)
from Production Data Analysis (Arun Field, Indonesia)
kh Map 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000 16000
1x2 Perspective
 kh shown is com- 15000 View 15000
A-103

puted using decline 14000

A-044
A-101
A-090
3500
A-036
2500
A-081
2000
14000

type curve analysis

1500 A-076
1000 1500
A-045 A-079ST
13000 A-074
A-059
A-025ST 13000
A-054A-104 A-042

on early production A-075

1000 2000
A-043

x-position (relative distance)

12000 A-088 A-067 12000

2000
A-027
A-037
A-092

(pp and ta used). 11000

A-061 A-021
A-106
A-082
2500 A-032
4000
A-024
11000

3500
A-105ST2A-102 A-068
A-022ST2 A-078
4500
A-029

 kh distribution ap-

1500
3000A-083 A-033
10000 A-087 A-089 A-073
10000
A-040

2000
pears reasonable

3000
A-093
1000
9000 A-098
9000

1000
A-058
(albeit lower than
A-071 A-015 A-080

A-099 A-034
8000 A-077 8000
A-016

WT estimates).

2000

1000
A-095 A-035
A-1113000 A-030
A-017 2000

1500
7000 A-107 7000
A-097 A-070A-048

2500
 A few "bubbles" of A-108
A-041
A-084
2000
A-060 A-085
6000 2500
A-062 6000

1500
2500A-057 A-049

kh noted, these are

A-094

2000
3000
A-110ST A-046
A-047
A-100
5000 2500 A-053
5000
probably erroneous. Legend: (Production Analysis)
Flow Capacity ( kh) Contour Plot
1500 A-091
A-0512000 3000
2000
A-050

2500
A-109
4000 (500 md-ft Contours) 4000
Arun Field (Indonesia)
3000 3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
y-position (relative distance)
 Skin Factor (Inner Zone)
from Production Analysis (Arun Field, Indonesia)
Skin Factor Map 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
16000 16000
These results represent the initial 1x2 Perspective
completion (evaluated using early-
 Skin factors com- 15000 time production data). View 15000
A-103

puted using decline 14000 A-101 A-081

14000

-4
A-090 A-036

-4
A-044

type curve analysis

A-076 A-045 A-079ST
13000 -5 A-074 A-059
-5 A-025ST 13000
-4

-3
A-054A-104 A-042

-5
-2

on early production. A-075 -3 -4 A-043

x-position (relative distance)

12000 A-088A-067 A-027 12000

-3
A-037

-4
A-092 A-032
A-061 A-021

-5
 Skin factors from
-3
A-106 A-024

-2
11000 A-082
A-105ST2A-102 A-068 11000
A-022ST2 A-078

-4
WPA are lower than
A-029
-1
A-083
10000 A-033-3 10000

-2
A-087 A-089 A-073

-2
WT estimates.
A-040
A-093

-5
9000 A-098
9000
A-058 A-071 A-015 A-080

-5
A-034

-4
8000 A-099 -3 8000
A-077
A-016

-5
-1A-095 A-035

-2
A-111 A-030
A-017
7000 A-107 -4 7000

-2
A-097

-1
A-070A-048
-4 A-041 A-060 A-085
A-108
A-084
6000 A-057 -3 A-062 A-049
-2 6000
A-094
A-110ST A-046
A-047

-2

-3
A-100

-4
A-053
5000 -5 5000

-4
A-091
-5 A-050
Legend: (Production Analysis) A-051
Skin Factor Contour Plot A-109
4000 (1-increment Contours) 4000
Arun Field (Indonesia)
3000 3000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
y-position (relative distance)
khWT—khWPA Crossplot

 khWTestimates are Comparison of Flow Capacity (kh) from Well Test Analysis
versus Flow Capacity (kh) from Production Data Analysis
(Decline Type Curve Analysis) (Arun Field -- Indonesia)
clearly higher than 5
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
5
10 10
khWPA estimates.

from Well Test Analysis (kh at Time of Well Test)

 khWT estimates are
"current," khWPA

Flow Capacity (kh, md-ft)

4 4
10 khWT = 5khWPA 10

estimates are "ini-tial."

 Variation is system-
atic—decline type 3 3
10 10
curve analysis uses
Legend: khWT vs. khWPA
earliest production Comparison of kh from Well Test Analysis
versus kh from Production Data Analysis
data for kh (and s) (Decline Type Curve Analysis)
(Arun Field -- Indonesia)

estimates. 10
2

10
2
10
3
10
4
10
10
5
2

Flow Capacity (kh, md-ft)

from Production Data Analysis (Early-Time Production Data)
sWT—sWPA Crossplot
Comparison of Skin Factor Estimates from Well Test Analysis
 sWT estimates are versus Skin Factor Estimates from Production Data Analysis
(Decline Type Curve Analysis) (Arun Field -- Indonesia)
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
"current," sWPA 10 10

from Well Test Analysis (Skin Factor at Time of Well Test)

Virtually all cases of

estimates are "ini- 8

the skin factor increase
as a function of time.
8

tial." 6 6

 Could argue that this 4 4

Skin Factor Estimate

plot shows the "evolu- 2 2

tion" of the skin fac- 0 0

tor. -2 -2

-4 -4
 sWPA estimates should Legend: sWT vs. sWPA
-6 -6
be higher, tied to kh -8
Comparison of s from Well Test Analysis
versus s from Production Data Analysis
(Decline Type Curve Analysis) -8
estimation in decline -10
(Arun Field -- Indonesia)
-10
type curve analysis. -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
Skin Factor Estimate
4 6 8 10

from Production Data Analysis (Initial Skin Factor)

Gas Reserves from Decline Type Curve Analysis

Comparison of Gas Reserves Computed from DeclineType Curve Analysis

(No Well Interference Case) Versus Date -- Arun Field, Indonesia
1,000,000
Legend: All Wells
900,000 Comparison of Computed Reserves
versus Date at Arun Field. All Results
1977-80
based on production taken through
Well
800,000 Completions May-83
October 1997.
1981-83 A-047 (C-4-06)
Computed Gas Reserves, MMSCF

Well
Completions
700,000 Jun-77
Sep-79
A-016 (C-3-04)
(No Well Interference)

A-032 (C-2-03) Sep-92

1984-90
Sep-77May-78
Nov-78 Jan-84 Well A-105 (C-2-21)
600,000 May-77
A-017 A-024A-028
(C-2-04)
(C-3-06) (C-3-09)Nov-79 Nov-82 A-050 (C-4-08) Completions
Apr-80
A-015 (C-3-02) Dec-78
A-034 (C-3-03) Apr-81 A-022 (C-2-06)
1991-93
A-029 (C-2-16)
Jan-81
A-033 (C-2-07) Well
A-041 (C-3-15)
Completions Post-1993
500,000 A-035 (C-3-05)
Jan-81
Apr-81 Aug-83 Well Completions
Apr-79 A-040 (C-2-15) Oct-83
Feb-78 A-030 (C-3-16)
A-037 (C-2-01) A-048 (C-4-09) Mar-87 (Deviated and
May-83
A-049 (C-4-04)
A-068 (C-2-05)
Aug-93 Horizontal Wells)
400,000 A-021 (C-2-09) A-046 (C-4-02)
Aug-82
Apr-83 Jul-85
Dec-86
Nov-87
Apr-92 A-109 (C-4-18)
A-027Oct-82
(C-1-08) Dec-87 Jun-91
Apr-83 A-060 (C-4-01)Dec-87 Sep-88 A-102 (C-2-19)
A-036 (C-1-02) A-054 (C-1-07) A-071 (C-3-11) Jan-90
Dec-78 A-067 (C-1-15) May-91
A-095 (C-3-14)Jun-92
A-044A-043
(C-1-09)
(C-1-16) A-062 (C-4-03)
A-077 (C-3-01)
A-080 (C-3-13)
Sep-90
300,000 A-025 (C-2-08) Jun-82
Nov-86
A-094 (C-4-13)
Oct-90
May-91
A-081 (C-1-01)
May-92
A-104
Oct-91
(C-1-21)
Mar-92
Jul-95
A-042 (C-1-06) Dec-84 Oct-87 Jul-91
A-085 (C-4-05) Jun-93
A-059 (C-1-05) A-103 (C-1-20)
A-100 (C-4-14)
Jan-86 May-87 Aug-90
A-053 (C-4-07) Aug-88 A-093 (C-3-19)
A-089 (C-2-17) A-108 (C-3-20) A-111 (C-3-18)
A-073 (C-2-14) A-097 (C-3-08)
A-057 (C-4-10)
A-061 (C-2-10)
Nov-86 Dec-89
A-083 (C-2-13) Nov-91 Nov-93
A-075 (C-1-14)
200,000 Apr-87
A-058 (C-3-10)
Sep-88
Feb-88 Feb-89
Aug-90Mar-91
Feb-91
Jun-90 Mar-91
A-079 (C-1-12) A-099 (C-3-12) Apr-93A-110 (C-4-12)
Mar-85 A-076 (C-1-03) A-084A-090 Aug-91
(C-4-11)
(C-3-14)Mar-92
Apr-83 A-074 (C-1-11)
A-070 (C-3-07) A-078 (C-2-12) A-088 (C-1-13)
Mar-91
A-091
A-082 (C-2-11)(C-4-15) A-107 (C-3-17)
A-051 (C-4-16) A-098A-101
(C-2-18)
(C-1-19)
A-045 (C-1-04) A-092 (C-1-17) Dec-92

100,000 A-106 (C-2-20)

Feb-91

A-087 (C-2-02)

0
1976
1977
1978

1979
1980
1981
1982

1983
1984
1985
1986
1987

1988
1989
1990
1991

1992
1993
1994
1995

1996
1997
1998
1999

2000
Well Completion Date (Year)
Estimated Ultimate Recovery from Material Balance

Comparison of Material Balance Gas Reserves (EUR

MB) Versus Date
Arun Field, Indonesia
1,000,000
Legend: All Wells
900,000 Comparison of Material Balance Gas
Reserves (EURMB) versus Date at Arun
Material Balance Gas Reserves (EURMB), BSCF

1977-80
Well Field. All Results based on production
800,000 Completions taken through October 1997.
1981-83
Well
Completions
700,000
1984-90
Oct-82 Well
600,000 Jun-77 Apr-79 Jan-81
Completions
A-016 Sep-77
(C-3-04) Nov-78
A-030 (C-3-16) A-040 (C-2-15) May-83Jan-84
A-044 (C-1-09)
Sep-79Apr-80 1991-93
A-017 (C-3-06)
A-028 (C-3-09) Jan-81 A-050 (C-4-08)
May-83
A-047 (C-4-06)
May-77 A-032 (C-2-03)
A-033 (C-2-07) Well
Nov-79 A-035 (C-3-05)
Completions Post-1993
500,000 A-015 (C-3-02)
May-78 A-034 (C-3-03)
A-046 (C-4-02)
Aug-82
Well Completions
A-027 (C-1-08)
A-024 (C-2-04) Aug-93 (Deviated and
Apr-83
Dec-78
Aug-83
Oct-83
A-109 (C-4-18) Horizontal Wells)
400,000 A-025 (C-2-08)
Apr-81
A-043 (C-1-16)
A-048 (C-4-09)
A-049 (C-4-04)
Sep-92
Feb-78
Dec-87
Oct-87
A-037 (C-2-01) A-105 (C-2-21)
A-021 (C-2-09)
Dec-78 Nov-82
Jun-82 Apr-83
Apr-81 Jul-85 A-062
A-073 (C-4-03)
(C-2-14)
A-022 (C-2-06)
A-036 (C-1-02)
300,000 A-029 (C-2-16) A-042
A-041 (C-3-15)
(C-1-06)
A-054 (C-1-07) Dec-86
May-87
Apr-87 Sep-88 Jan-90
Jan-86 Nov-86
A-061 (C-2-10) Apr-92
Dec-84 A-060 (C-4-01) A-077 (C-3-01)
A-080 Oct-90 Jul-91Mar-92
(C-3-13) Jun-93
A-070 (C-3-07)
A-059 (C-1-05) Dec-89 Jun-91
Aug-91
A-057 (C-4-10) A-102 (C-2-19) Nov-93
A-053 Mar-85
(C-4-07) A-097 (C-3-08)
A-085 (C-4-05) A-100 (C-4-14)
Feb-89
Aug-88 May-91
A-095
A-098 Jun-92
(C-3-14)
(C-2-18) A-108
Dec-92 (C-3-20)
Mar-91
200,000 Apr-83
A-051 (C-4-16) Dec-87
Mar-87 A-075
Sep-88
A-078
A-079
(C-2-12)
(C-1-12)
Jun-90
Sep-90
Aug-90
Mar-91
A-094
Nov-91
A-104A-106
(C-4-13) (C-1-21)
A-110
(C-2-20)
(C-4-12)
A-045 (C-1-04) A-076(C-1-14)
(C-1-03) A-082
A-081
A-084 A-092
(C-2-11)(C-1-17)
(C-1-01)
Feb-91
A-099 (C-3-12)
(C-4-11)
Nov-86 Nov-87 May-92
A-067 (C-1-15) A-091 (C-4-15)
Mar-91
May-91 Apr-93
A-068 (C-2-05) A-088 (C-1-13)
A-058 (C-3-10)
A-071 Feb-88
(C-3-11) Oct-91
A-103 (C-1-20)
A-090
A-093(C-3-14)
(C-3-19) A-107 (C-3-17)
Aug-90
100,000 A-074 (C-1-11) A-089 (C-2-17)
A-083 (C-2-13)
Mar-92

Feb-91A-101 (C-1-19)

A-087 (C-2-02)
0
1976

1977

1978

1979
1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000
Well Completion Date (Year)
Flow Capacity (kh) from Decline Type Curve Analysis

Comparison of Flow Capacity ( kh) Computed from DeclineType Curve Analysis

(No Well Interference Case) Versus Date -- Arun Field, Indonesia
10,000
Legend: All Wells
9,000 Comparison of Computed Flow Capacity
(kh) versus Date at Arun Field. All Results
based on production taken through Post-1993
October 1997. Well Completions
8,000 (Deviated and
Computed Flow Capacity ( kh), md-ft

Horizontal Wells)
---
7,000 Sep-92
Aug-93 These cases will
A-105 (C-2-21)
A-109 (C-4-18) yield kh estimates
that are too high
1977-80 1981-83 1984-90 1991-93 because the well
6,000 Well Well Well Well model is vertical.
Completions Completions Completions Completions ---
Computed volume
5,000 May-92 estimates are
Apr-92
A-103 (C-1-20)
valid regardless
A-102 (C-2-19) of well orientation.
4,000 Jan-81 Nov-93
Dec-87 Jun-93 Jul-95
Mar-87 Jun-91
A-040 (C-2-15) A-110 (C-4-12)
Sep-77 A-062 (C-4-03) A-108 (C-3-20) A-111 (C-3-18)
A-068 (C-2-05) A-095 (C-3-14)
3,000 A-017 (C-3-06) Nov-87
Dec-87 May-91
Apr-81 A-071 (C-3-11) Aug-90
Nov-86
Oct-83 A-067 (C-1-15) Oct-90
A-093 (C-3-19)
Nov-78 A-041 (C-3-15) May-83
A-059 (C-1-05) A-083 (C-2-13) Mar-92
Jan-81 A-085 May-91
A-049 Jan-84
(C-4-04)Dec-84 Jun-90(C-4-05)
Jul-91 Jun-92
2,000 A-028 (C-3-09)
Dec-78
Sep-79
Apr-80
A-035 (C-3-05)
Jun-82
A-047 (C-4-06)
Aug-82
Nov-82
May-87 Jan-90 Mar-91
Feb-91
A-094
A-100 (C-4-14)
(C-4-13)
Nov-91
A-104 (C-1-21)
A-042 (C-1-06)A-050 (C-4-08) A-097
A-082 (C-2-11) (C-3-08)
Oct-91
May-78 A-032 (C-2-03)
Dec-78 Aug-83 A-053 (C-4-07)
Apr-83
May-83 Mar-91
Sep-90
Mar-92
A-029 (C-2-16)
A-033 (C-2-07) Oct-82
Apr-83 Jul-85 A-061 (C-2-10)
Oct-87 A-080 A-091
A-088
(C-3-13)
Dec-89 (C-4-15)
(C-1-13)
Mar-91 Dec-92
Jun-77 Nov-79 Apr-81 A-027 (C-1-08)
A-022 (C-2-06) Jan-86 Dec-86 Aug-88 A-099
Aug-91
A-089 (C-3-12)
(C-2-17) Apr-93
May-77A-024 (C-2-04) A-043
A-046 (C-1-16)
A-048(C-4-02)
(C-4-09) A-101
A-090 (C-3-14) (C-1-19)
A-025
Feb-78 (C-2-08) A-044 (C-1-09)
A-036 (C-1-02) A-054 (C-1-07) A-073 (C-2-14) Feb-89 A-081 (C-1-01)
A-092
A-079 (C-1-12) (C-1-17) A-106 (C-2-20)
A-016 (C-3-04) A-034 (C-3-03) A-060
A-057 (C-4-10) Apr-87
(C-4-01) A-075 (C-1-14)
1,000 A-015 (C-3-02)
A-021 (C-2-09)
Apr-79 A-037 (C-2-01)
Apr-83 A-078 (C-2-12)
A-070 (C-3-07) Sep-88
Aug-90A-098 (C-2-18) A-107 (C-3-17)
Feb-91
A-030 (C-3-16) A-084 (C-4-11)
Nov-86 Feb-88
A-045 (C-1-04) Mar-85 A-087 (C-2-02)
A-077
A-076 (C-3-01)
(C-1-03)
A-074 (C-1-11)
A-051 (C-4-16) A-058 (C-3-10)

0
1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000
Well Completion Date (Year)
G (Decline Type Curve)—EURMB Crossplot

Comparison of Gas Reserves from DeclineType Curve Analysis

(No Well Interference Case) versus Material Balance EUR
 G-EURMB crossplot 10
4
(Arun Field -- Indonesia)
10
5
10
6
10
7
7 7

indicates excellent 10
Legend: Computed OGIP vs. EUR MB
10

Gas Reserves from Decline Curve Analysis, BSCF

Comparison of Gas Reserves from Decline
agreement of com- Type Curve Analysis (No Well Interference
Case) versus Material Balance EUR MB.

puted results. (Arun Field -- Indonesia)

(No Well Interference Case)

6 6
10 10

5 5
10 10

4 4
10 10
4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10
Material Balance Gas Reserves (EURMB), BSCF
EURPI—EURMB Crossplot
Comparison of Gas Reserves from Productivity Index EUR
versus Material Balance EUR
(Arun Field -- Indonesia)
 EURPI—EURMB cross- 7
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
7
10 10
plot shows excellent Legend: Computed EUR PI vs. EUR MB
Comparison of Gas Reserves from Decline

correlation of results. Type Curve Analysis (Well Interference

Case) versus Material Balance EUR MB.

Gas Reserves from Productivity Index

(Arun Field -- Indonesia)
 Verifies that these

EUR Technique (EURPI), BSCF

6 6
10 10
analyses are consis-
tent.
5 5
10 10

4 4
10 10
4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10
Material Balance Gas Reserves (EURMB), BSCF
Well Performance Analysis in a Multiwell
Gas Condensate Reservoir—
Arun Field, Indonesia

Presented at
SPE Advanced Technology Workshop
Well Testing in Gas Condensate Reservoirs
30 September- 1 October 1999, Houston, TX.

T. Marhaendrajana, Texas A&M University

N.J. Kaczorowski, Mobil E&P (U.S.)
T.A. Blasingame, Texas A&M University
Well Test Analysis: Examples (extra)
 Well C-IV-11 (A-084)—Test Date: 5 Jan. 1992
 Multiwell interference effects.
 Well C-IV-11 (A-084)—Test Date: 4 May 1992
 Radial composite effects.
 Multiwell interference effects.
Example 3: Log-log Summary Plot

Well C-IV-11 (A-084)

Well C-IV-11 [Test
(A-084) Date:
[Test Date:5 5January
January 1992]
1992]
3
10
psi

Raw data
Functions,

Corrected
Pseudopressure Functions, psi

Improvement on
2
10 pressure derivative.
Pseudopressure

1
10

Closed boundary atReservoir

Infinite-acting 150 ft? Model
(includes
(Doesnon-Darcy
not include flow).
non-Darcy flow)

0
10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10

Effective Shut-in Pseudotime,tae, hrs

Effective shut-in pseudotime, hrs
Example 3: Horner (Semilog) Plot
Well Well
C-IV-11 (A-084)
C-IV-11 (A-084)[Test Date:5 January
[Test Date: 5 January 1992]
1992]
2100
Pseudopressure, ppws, psiapsia

2000
Pseudopressure,

1900

1800

1700

1600

1500
Shut-in

1400
Shut-in

Raw data
1300 Corrected
1200
3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10
Horner Pseudotime, ( ta+tpa)/ta (tpa=tp=1.62 hr), hr
Horner pseudotime, hrs (tp = 1.62 hr)
Example 3: Muskat Plot (single well pavg plot)

WellWell
C-IV-11 (A-084)
C-IV-11 (A-084)[Test Date:5 5
[Test Date: January
January 1992]
1992]
1922
Pseudopressure, ppws, psia psia

pp,bar = 1920 psia

1920
Shut-inpseudopressure,

1918 Onset of boundary

dominated flow.
1916
"Transient flow"
1914
Shut-in

1912

1910
0 5 10 15 20
dppws /d/dtta,,psi/hr
dppws a psi/hr
Example 3: "Well Interference" Plot (radial flow only)

WellWell
C-IV-11
C-IV-11(A-084)
(A-084)[Test Date:55January
[Test Date: January 1992]
1992]
25

20 Intercept is used to
calculate permeability.
Slope is used in the
15
pressure correction.
(pp')taep , tpsi
ae
(p ')

10

0 Presence of multiwell
interference effects is unclear
-5
0 5 10 15 20 25
2
ta / hrs
tae
ta /2tae,
Example 4: Log-log Summary Plot

Well C-IV-11 (A-084)

Well C-IV-11 [Test
(A-084) Date:
[Test Date:44May
May 1992]
1992]
psi

3
10
Raw data
Functions,

Corrected
psi

Improvement on
Pseudopressure Functions,

2 pressure derivative.
10
Pseudopressure

Condensate banking
1
10 region.
Infinite-acting Reservoir Model
Closed(Does
boundary at 197
Higher
not include ft?
mobility
non-Darcy flow)
(includes non-Darcy flow).
region.
0
10
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10
Effective Shut-in Pseudotime,t , hrs
Effective shut-in pseudotime,
ae
hrs
Example 4: Horner (Semilog) Plot

WellWell
C-IV-11 (A-084)
C-IV-11 (A-084) [Test Date:
[Test Date: 4 May
4 May 1992]
1992]
1950
Pseudopressure, ppws, psiapsia

1900
Pseudopressure,

1850

1800
Condensate banking
1750 region.
1700 Higher mobility
region.
1650
Shut-in

1600
Shut-in

Raw data
1550 Corrected
1500
3 2 1 0
10 10 10 10
Horner Pseudotime, ( ta+tpa)/ta (tpa=tp=1.63 hr), hr
Horner pseudotime, hrs (tp = 1.63 hr)
Example 4: Muskat Plot (single well pavg plot)

WellWell
C-IV-11 (A-084)
C-IV-11 (A-084)[Test Date:4 May
[Test Date: 4 May 1992]
1992]
1884
Pseudopressure, ppws, psia psia

pp,bar = 1882.8 psia

1882
Shut-inpseudopressure,

1880 Onset of boundary

dominated flow.
1878

1876

1874 "Transient flow"

Shut-in

1872

1870
0 5 10 15 20
dppws /d/dtta,,psi/hr
dppws a psi/hr
Example 4: "Well Interference" Plot (radial flow only)

Well C-IV-11
Well C-IV-11(A-084) [TestDate:
(A-084) [Test Date: 4 May
4 May 1992]
1992]
40

30 Intercept is used to
calculate permeability.
Slope is used in the
(pp')(tpaep'), tpsi

pressure correction.
 ae

20

10
(pp')tae >0, no clear indication of
multiwell interference effects.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2
ta / tae
ta /2tae, hrs