. .

SPE

SPE 22025 How To Evaluate Hard-to-Evaluate

SPE Members

Reserves

R.H. Caldwell and D.1, Heather, The Scotia Group

Copyright This papar

1991, was

Society prepared

of Petroleum

Engineers,

Inc. Hydrocarbon Economtcs and Evalual!on Sympomum held m Dallas, Texas, April 11-12, 1991.

for presentahon

at the SPE

This paper was seleclad for presental,on by an SPE Program Committee fol[owmg es presented. ha$e not bean reviewed by the Socle!y of Petroleum Engmaera and any p.x!hon of the Sociely of Patrolaum Engineers, Its offtcers, cr members. Papers of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstrsct 0! not more than of where and by whom the paper is presented, Wnle Publications Manager, SPE,

rewew of information contained sre aubjecl 10 correction by the presented al SPE meatmga are 3#3 words. Illuatrat!ons may not P,O. Box 833s36, Rrchardaen,

m an abstract submtfed by the author(s). Con!en!s of the paper, aulhor(s). The ma!eriril, as presented, does not necessarily reflect subject 10 publlcalmn rewew by Eddonal Commdleas of the SocIely be copred. The abstract should conlarn conspicuous acknowledgment TX 75083-3S36. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL,

ABSTRACT Traditional reserve evaluations in the United States are based on tried and tested engineering principles, a wealth of local and general experience, and a set of reserve definitions that have evolved to become an indust~ standard. For the most part they work well. However, for some of the emerging technology plays, sometimes referred to as statisticid plays, where individual well performances are characterized by significant variability of recoveries, application of these definitions alone is insufficient, The problem for evaluation engineers is how to best evaluate such technology plays: tight sands, coalbed methane, Devonian shales, horizontal drilling in fractured reservoirs, redevelopment of depleted fields, all being typical examples. References and illustrations at end of paper.

This paper presents a method for evaluating plays that involve a significant variability (uncertainty) component. The method which employs probability analysis is not new and has indeed been formalized to a stage of definitions of proven, probable and possible reserve categories, The method is in use in many parts of the world. Use in U, S.-based reserve evaluations has to date been virtually non-existent.
Case

histories are presented illustrating the comparison of reserve evaluation methods in two hard-to-evaluate U.S. plays, specifically the Austin Chalk horizontal drilling. play and the San Juan Basin coalbed methane play. These case histories illustrate the benefit of complementing classical deterministic techniques with probability analysis so that uncertainty is expressed in a consistent and meaningful manner.

HOW TO EVALUATE

HARD TO EVALUATE

RESERVES

SPE 22025

BACKGROUND The reserve definitions most commonly used in the U.S. are those published by the Securities and Exchange Commission* (SEC) and the Society of Petroleum Engineers2 (SPE) in conjunction with the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers (SPEE). The most recent version published by the SPE in May, 1987 is comprehensively described in SPEE Monograph 13 dated December, 1988. Definitions are subdivided as follows: CATEGORY Proved Probable Possible STATUS Prodiicing Shut-In Behind Pipe Undeveloped

This report discussed the use of probabilistic reserve definitions, particularly where the degree of uncertainty associated with the estimate was large. These definitions may be summarized as follows:
q

Proven (P) Reserves: Are those that have a probability of existence greater than 85% to 95% (a 90% value is used in subsequent discussion). Are the Probable (P+ P) Rese&es: quantities added to proven reserves that extend the overall probability of existence to more than 50%. Possible (P+ P+P) Reserves: Are the quantities added to proven and probable reserves that extend the probability of overall existence to more than 5% to 15% (a 10% value is used in subsequent discussion).

For any estimate, the assignment of ca~egory reflects the degree of certainty of the estimate since the definitions of proved, probable or possible are based on applying a test of The status assignment reasonable certainty. provides an indirect confidence measure since the classifications at the top of the list will benefit from hard production data, while those lower on the list will rely on more inferential data and assumptions in order to derive an estimate. These definitions are strictly deterministic. That is, a single figure is estimated as to the future recovery of oil and gas from a well lease field or for a company as a whole. The fact that such estimates are imprecise is acknowledged by all professional reserve evaluators. In the words of the SPEE, In the final analysis, the reliability of reserve estimates is the direct function of the available data and the confidence and integrity of the estimator. In the SEC and SPE reserve definitions, no mention is made of the use of probability analysis in reserve evaluations. In the SPEE monograph, the use of probability analysis is explicitly rejected unless specifically requested by the client. In contrast, in 1983 a set of reserve definitions was issued by the World Petroleum Congress4 (WPC).

Please note that there are terminology differences in that the word proven is used for the highest confidence catego~ in contrast to the word proved. As is discussed later in this paper, the highest confidence categories are not equivalent. The evolution of these reserve categories was influenced by the need of the oil companies to have a better idea of ultimate potential recovery than could be gained using deterministic definitions alone. Such information was especially necessary where substantial capital investment decisions were required with only limited reservoir information. A typical example of this would be a development decision in the North Sea. As such, in certain areas of the world, the use of probabilistic analysis in reserve evaluation is commonly accepted both by the oil companies and regulatory authorities (e.g.; the London Stock Exchange). It is the authors opinion that reserve evaluation deterministic reserve using SEC/SPE/SPEE definitions is the most appropriate approach for the majority of U. S. oil and gas plays. Where

108

SPE 22025

ROBERT H, CALDWELL AND DAVID I. HEATHER

reserve evaluation is required for technology or statistical plays which by their nature yield wide variations in individual well performance, and as a consequence are more suited to significant multi-well development program commitment, the probabilistic approach enhances traditional reserve determination methods. Specifics and case histories are outlined below. TEC1-INOLOGY/STATISTICAL PLAYS

Technology/statistical plays are not new. Volatility in oil price, the tax reform act in 1986, Section 29 tax credits and the unrelated high potentials of certain horizonal well developments, have led to an emphasis on such plays in the In many cases, these plays are recent years, characterized by a few excellent wells together with a substantial number of average and marginal wells, Frequently, there is only a partial understanding as to what makes a good well and what makes a marginal well, As such, the operator must make a strztegic commitment to multi-well programs in order that he is exposed to the few good wells which make the play viable, A]~plying traditional reserve definitions in certain or these technology plays, for example tight sands, coalbed methane and horizontal drilling in fractured reservoirs, can be a difficult exercise because: 1, A considerable variation in recoveries from well-to-well is the norm. Even with all technical data (drilling, completion, stimulation) being identical, production performance can vary considerably. The normal technical data that is collected in support of a reserve estimate may be non-definitive or even misleading. Operator-specific drilling and completion techniques may substantially affect well recoveries,

As a result, for a new area or for assignment of reserves to proved undeveloped locations even with the application of all evaluation methods normally used in a deterministic reserve evaluation can still leave doubt in the mind of the estimator as to remaining reserve. In many cases the approach then becomes one of applying discount factors to result in a more conservative estimate or, at the very least, low-balling the various parameters that affect the estimate, In other words, the original intention of the reserve definitions (to impart levels of confidence), has been compromised by a risk weighting procedure that arbitrarily adjusts reserve volumes to allow assignment to higher confidence categories, This judgmental and very human reaction is the result of the lack of a definition for reasonable certainty within the reserve definitions themselves and has the effect of adding an arbitrary and potentially highly misleading component to the estimation process. EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES

The three principal methods used in reserve evaluations are analogy, volumetric and performance analysis and such methods apply for either deterministic or probabilistic analyses, As recognized by the WPC, when uncertainty is high the probabilistic methods become more meaningful and the deterministic methods less meaningful. As a result, probabilistic methods utilize analogy and volumetric as primary tools, since once a persistent performance history has been accumulated uncertainty is usually not dwelling in the reserves area but rather in the are of costs, prices, etc. affecting the economic limit and hence remaining recoverable volume. Figure 1 is a familiar graphic illustrating how evaluation methods and confidence in results change during the life of a producing reservoir, The normal clich6 is that the ultimate reserves are not known with certainty until the last drop of oil bas been produce(i. While a trite statement, it is worthwhile looking at the relative levels of uncertainty in more detail. During initial field development, analog and volumetric

2,

3 . ,

109

HOW TO EVALUATE

HARD TO EVALUATE

RESERVES

SPE 22025

techniques are used, with performance taking over as production history is accumulated. Note that the range of estimates is large at first and decreases with time. To the casual observer this graphic would imply that analog and volumetric estimation techniques are inherently imprecise and inferior to performance estimates, Not SO. The data available simply improves as production history accumulates and allows fine-tuning of both methods as time passes. The performance projection is preferred since it is real, it is simple to generate and to explain, and requires less work to generate than volumetric. Hence volumetric and analogs are usually abandoned as reserve estimation techniques once a persistent decline is established and provided a non-water drive reservoir is being considered. However, considering the range of reserve estimates with time and their classification into P, P+ P and P+ P + P, illustrates an interesting phenomenon. At initial development, volumetric indicate a range of estimates with corresponding P, P+ P and P+P+P. As production history is accumulated, estimates are refined as areas of uncertainty are eliminated. This has the effect of bunching the range so that the remaining reserve estimate is increasingly dominated by proven, with a diminishing contribution from probables and possibles. This can be thought of as losing probables and possibles both through revision as uncertainty decreases and by production, to result in the last drop of oil being proven. In contrast with a deterministic estimate which will asymptotically converge on the ultimate reserve figure from a high, low or middle position based on the validity of the very first estimate, the probabilistic estimate based on the same dataset will converge from the low end of the estimation range and grow towards the ultimate revision and by production of lower confidence categories. This contrast describes the conceptual difference between a probabilistic and a deterministic approach.

Considering the so called hard to evaluate reserves with horizontal drilling in fractured Austin Chalk and San Juan Basin coalbed methane being examples developed herein, there is a further conceptual hurdle. This involves the marked variability of recoveries from well-to-well that is noted in such plays. This single fact makes any estimate of reserves on a well-by-well basis very difficult and such difficulties are equally shared by both the deterministic and the probabilistic approaches. In order to embrace the variability of these situations, it is incumbent to consider reserves at the larger scale (field, lease, play) level and then allocate back to the smaller scale (well level) rather than visa versa, This is a major conceptual difference of approach and bears further examination. Consider a coalbed methane lease where an initial round of drilling has resulted in a few excellent wells, a few more average wells and even more sub-average wells resulting in a typical and expected lognormal distribution. The pattern drilled qualifies edge and infill locations as proved undeveloped (PUD) under normal reserve definitions, The coal is shown regionally to be continuous and structural elevation considerations Consider the different are not relevant. approaches to assigning reserves to the PUD locations: 1. The Deterministic Approach, Well-byWell: Existing wells on the lease plus are analyzed and offset producers Estimated Ultimate Recoveries (EURS) developed based on volumetric and on production history to date. EURS are assigned to PUD locations based on some form of averaging of EURS of the closest offsets. Allowances are made in the volumetric for drainage area differences and interference. The Probabilistic Approach, Lease Level: Identical analysis work to the above is performed but, rather than assigning EURS on a well-by-well basis, the distribution of EURS is used to develop

2.

110

SPE 22025

ROBERT H. CALDWELL AND DAVID I. HEATHER

an EUR model for all the PUD locations. Sampling this distribution at the 90%, 50% and 10% confidence levels yields the P, P+P and P+P+P values. The same allowances are made for drainage area difference and interference. The PUD locations are then treated as a group expectation rather than as individual entities. The advantages of the probabilistic approach can be summarized as follows: 1. Well Level Error: Assignment of EURS individually based on offset performance is subject to considerable error in statistical plays. The best wells are given the best offset PUDS and most engineers will not sign off on such estimates without applying a healthy dose of conservatism since they know that the variation will seldom work in favor of their estimates. Similarly, for the poor producers, most engineers will be very hesitant to give more reserves to a PUD location than are indicated in the direct offsets, In other words, the PUDS adjacent to the better wells are arbitrarily down graded or even worse, carried at identical values to the offsets while PUDS adjacent to the poorer wells are not given the benefit for the potential to perform better than their neighbors. The probabilistic approach recognizes that variation is a key characteristic of the lease, develops an EUR distribution for the existing wells and another for the PUDS, and assigns reserve values for the PUDS as a whole based on this distribution. Acknowledgment of Variability: The use of a reserve distribution model for the PUDS not only acknowledges the expected variation, it utilizes this variation as the basis for assigning reserve values. The weakness of the deterministic approach becomes the strength of the probabilistic approach.

3.

A More Conservative and Defendable Approach: Since the P value is defined as the 90% confidence figure, it will represent a lower figure than a normal proved estimate in most cases, while still acknowledging the upside in the form of the PI- P and P+ P+P figures. The conventional proved estimate will usually lie somewhere between the P and P+P values prior to the application of adjustment factors by an individual estimator. Using the most likely values for a volumetric calculation and calling that value Proved will result in equivalence to the P+ P value derived from the same volumetric input using normal distributions around the most likely values for each variable. Orderly Reserve Revisions: As the PUDS are drilled and production history is accumulated, the volumetric and analogy based estimates will be replaced by performance estimates. At first such performance estimates will be tied to the original estimate but, as history accumulates, the original estimate will be abandoned revised to and the performance related estimate. The potential for major reserve revisions will thus occur in the first few years of production with the major revisions being centered on the lower confidence categories. This is the logical way for a revision process to work. SAN JUAN BASIN

4.

CASE HISTORY: OALBED METHANE

2.

To illustrate the evaluation problems associated with coalbed methane gas reserves, a two township area comprising the best San Juan coalbed methane production was chosen. This area, T30N-R6W and T30N-R7W, contains many of the best coalbed wells and some of the longest production histories available, dating back to the mid-1980s. This area is characterized by thick coal sequences, up to 70 feet, is over-pressured,

111

HOW TO EVALUATE

HARD TO EVALUATE

RESERVES

SPE 22025

and is dominated by two principal operators (Meridian, and BlackWood and Nichols) who both Public use the cavity completion technique. domain production data to September, 1990 indicates 88 wells (replacement wells not counted) with cumulative production of 114 BCF and 13.9 MM13W or an average of 1.3 BCF/well to date. Total production was just over 300 MMCFD with individual wells ranging from 100 MCFD to over 12 MMCFD, averaging 3.4 MMCFD/well. Production rates are increasing in the majority of wells so, despite several years of production history, no decline is available for history projection. Firstly, approaching the reserves evaluation from a volumetric standpoint, the following parameters are relevant:
PARAMEII!R Dminagc Area (acrca) c-hidmiCbcss (fed) Gas Content(tuft/Iba) Cd Density (tofla/acfi) Rcanmy Fractkm HIGH w ?% :fg &-Y m 60 3s0 lfw 050 Low 20 30

Production histories were used to construct a theoretical production performance curve for each well and hence develop EURS. The distribution of EURS (Figure 3) for existing wells exhibits a wider range of values than the volumetric estimates with: 0.35 BCF @ P or 90% confidence level 3.70 BCF @ P+P or 50% confidence level and 9.10 BCF @ P+ Pi-P or 10% confidence level. Constructing a model for the PUD locations involves selection of volumetric and/or analog data that is considered to be most representative of the PUD Iocatiops. This requires adjustments to the data developed above to compensate for the following factors: 1. Mechanical Considerations: Well completion techniques vary (cavity versus cased hole) as to drilling and completion practices of the various operators. The PUD model should reflect the drilling, completion and operator-specific factors that are likely to be used in exploitation of the PUDS. Subsetting Existing Reserve Distributions: Examination of the EUR distribution for existing wells indicates a composite of About three distributions (trimodal). 45% of the wells have EURS over 4 BCF, another 459Z0have EURS between 0.4 BCF and 4 BCF, and the remaining 107o have EURS less than 0.4 BCF. The lower 109ZO have been excluded from the PUD model since they mainly represent mechanical difficulties or are experiencing dewatering problems and are redrill candidates. ln other words, such wells should be compensated for in the economics through additional cost rather than in the reserves. Depletion of the Reservoir With Time: The study area chosen is a sweet spot with the exceptional wells generally clustered in the center and poorer wells

0.10

1s00

Recoverable coalbed methane reserves are computed as the product of the above parameters. Additional recovery will occur from free gas within the cleat system which may approximate an additional 15% over desorbed gas. This component has been ignored for the sake of simplicity in construction of this example. Generating a Monte Carlo simulation using the above distributions results in per well recoveries Ofi 1.4 BCF @ P or 909% confidence level 4.0 BCF @ P+ P or 50% confidence level 8.1 BCF @ P+ P+ P or 10% confidence level (Figure 2) The deterministic volumetric estimate based on most likely data and prior to any adjustment is calculated as 6.1 BCF which lies between the P+ P and P+ P+ P values, and would approximate the P+ P figure if all input distributions were normal (they are not).

2.

3.

112

SPE 22025

ROBERT H. CALDWELL AND DAVID I. HEATHER

on the margins, As development drilling continues, this pattern becomes more clearly defined, This can be attributed to a variety of factors including the natural permeability development or lack thereof, interference between wells and local dewatering, and depletion of the reservoir with production. Ile following figures illustrate this phenomenon:
EURS VERSUSTIME (B(W) Phase3 Avmge Wctl W% CIxdidcncc Wo Ccmfidcncc 10% Cmfidcnm 7.1 1.7 S.8 18.0 Phase1 5.7 1.2 4.s 10,0 Phase2 4.9 0.9 4.4 7.8

CASE HISTORY: AUSTIN I-]C)RIZOPITAI. DRILLING

CHAL>K

The second example considered is the evaluation problem fiaced for horizontal drilling in the fractured Austin Chalk, South Texas. Spurred on by recent success, particularly the Pearsall Field area, the Austin Chalk is experiencing a horizontal drilling boom. Horizontal wells are being drilled on leases containing depleted vertica I chalk wells and intersecting untapped fracture systems. For development of this l~xample, an area in the Pearsall Field comprising 55 leases was chosen. In contrast to the previous example where a sweet spot was chosen, the Pearsall study area is mediocre in terms of horizontal well This area contains 154 vertical performance. chalk wells that have combined EURS of 5,224 MBO (34 MBC1/well) and were producing at 141 BOPD (4 BOPD/active well) as of September, 1990. A total of 19 horizontal wells have been completed on the subject leases and these wells are producing 3,264 BOPD (172 BOPD/active well) as of September, 1990, Examination of vertical well EURS (Figure 4) shows two populations, one with E~JRs less than 20 MBO (40% of the wells) and another with EURS greater than 20 MBO (60% of the wells). The former represents kilure to communicate with a fracture system (matrix population) while the latter represents wells that have encountered or fracd into a fracture swarm (fracture population), Horizontal drilling has the effect of substantially improving not only the chance of encountering a fracture swarm but also several fracture swarms may be encountered in a single wellbore, EURS for the horizontal wells in the study area average 119 M130 while the fracture population vertical wells average 55 MB(3, This can be thought of as two average fracture systems per average horizontal well, although the relationships are more complex as described below, -

Considering the adjustments described above, a reserves distribution model for remaining PUD locations is developed with the following characteristics: ().8 13CF @ P or 90% confidence level 3,3 BCF @ Pi-P or 50!??0 confidence level and 6.5 BCF @ P+ P + P or 10% confidence level The approach to developing a probabilistic reserves model is identical to the process for developing a deterministic one. The difference is that by basing the reserve definitions on probability or confidence levels, the natural tendency to risk weight is accomplished by the definitions rather than by an arbitrary process. This example is extreme in that enormous reserve variation from 320-to-320 acre location is observed, This highlights the other major contrast to the deterministic approach, The PUD model developed herein refers to the PUDS as a whole and are not location-specific. The model recognizes that while it may be unrealistic to assign reserves to specific locations clue to the observed variability, a development program should honor the model as a whole,

113

HC9W To EVALUATE

HARD TO EVALUATE

RESERVES

SPE 22025

In order to utilize available vertical well EUR data on the same leases to model likely horizonal well recovery, the following horizonal well recovery model was developed. HR = VR Where: HR = Horizontal well recovery (MBO) VR = Vertical well recovery (MBO) HL = Horizontal length (feet) D = Fraction of fractures depleted w = Fraction of fractures water filled FS = Fracture system spacing (feet) This model uses the distribution of recoveries from vertical wells (using the fracture population as opposed to the matrix population), calculates the number of fractures intersected (HL/FS), and deducts depleted and water filled fracture systems, The model is calibrated by matching to actual horizontal well results and can be used to simulate depletion of the undrilled locations by offsetting production by increasing the water filled Using the parameters and depleted fractures. specified in Figure 5, the following expectation per well for horizontal exploitation of the undrilled locations on the studied leases results:
49 MBO (@ P or 90% confidence
X

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Probabilistic reserve estimates utilizing the definitions described herein offer advantages over traditional deterministic definitions in evaluation situations where uncertainty is a key issue. Such situations are not restricted to exotics such as the examples cited herein, but also include many where evaluations volumetric or analogy represent the primary evaluation approach. For properties with an established production performance history and an established decline, the conventional deterministic approach is tried, tested and preferable. Where uncertainty is an issue, the probabilistic reserve definitions offer the following advantages: 1. Uncertainty, quantified by a reserves distribution and associated probabilities is the basis for the reserve definitions, thus representing the strength of the methodology. The methodology offers a consistent way of handling uncertainty thus avoiding the normal human reaction of applying arbitrary adjustment factors in order to qualify reserves into higher confidence categories. The definitions quanti& upside potential in the form of P+P and P+P+P estimates, having important exploitation planning implications. The P or highest confidence category provides a solid, defendable and conservative estimate. The process of reserve revisions is orderly and smooth with less impact from the occasional bad initial estimate.

HL X (l-D) X (l-W) / FS

2.

level 115 MBO @ P+ P or 507 confidence level and 230 MBO @ P+ P+ P or 10% confidence level 3. This compares with the most likely deterministic estimate of 73.5 MBO before consideration of any adjustment factors based on the Modal values specified in Figure 5. 4.

Again, the above results are representative of the expectation for all undrilled locations on the leases and are not well-specific. The probabilistic reserve definitions successfully bracket the anticipated range of outcomes based on history to date while honoring volumetric considerations.

5.

114

SPE 22025

ROBERT

H, CALDWELL AND DAVID I. HEATHER

As with deterministic reserve estimates, probabilistic reserve estimates and distribution models on which they are based are only as good as the quality of input data, rigor of the evaluation and analysis, and competence and integrity of the estimator will allow. Bad interpretation, misleading data and bogus estimations will give just as bad an estimate independent of whether probabilistic or deterministic reserve definitions are used. .Adoption of probabilistic reserve definitions for <commonplace use in the U.S. has several significant hurdles to overcome: 1. Lack of linkage to deterministic definitions will cause not only confusion but will open the door for misuse. Provision of guidelines by an authoritative body such as the SPEE would alleviate this concern. Since the probabilistic P value is normally more conservative than a proved figure and because much of the reserve estimation activity is centered on standardized reporting (SEC cases), most oil companies will hesitate to take advantage of the knowledge provided by P+ P and P+ P+ P due to the confusion created by a proven (P) versus conventional proved reserve figure. A reasonable certainty consensus that equates to (say) the 75940confidence level (between P and P+P) would provide linkage between the systems and remove much confusion. When should it be applied and when should it not be applied? While the authors believe that certain applications are obvious, the development of guidelines to suit all circumstances is required.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank Wayne Beninger and the staff of The Scotia Group for data extraction and preparation for the examples used in this paper as well as for manuscript review and critical commentary. REFERENCES
1.

Securities and Exchange Commission, Reserve Definitions as shown in Bowne & Co., Inc. pamphlet dated March, 1981 as Regulation S X, Rule 40-10--Financial Accounting and Reporting of Oil and Gas Producing Activities. Reserve Definition Approved, Journal of Petroleum Technolow, May, 1987, 576578. Monograph I, Guidelines For Application Of the Definitions For Oil and Gas Society of Reserves, Petroleum Evaluation Engineers, December, 1988. Eleventh World Petroleum Congress, London 1933 and 1983, Study Group Report, Classification and Nomenclature Systems for Petroleum and Petroleum Reserves, 1984. Rules Hydrocarbon Classification Pr;posed, Oil & Gas Journal, August 13, 1990, 62.

2.

2,

3.

4,

5.

.. 3,

115

3i

0%,

If-u

z o

z < z

L5

J-

<

. ,. .
q

Si In
. . ,.X x.

a a Ill ! . I I . I 1 . I . .: I .

-.

II

I I . . .

I .

I .,

L ........................y ...............................

t!

~~~~~~~~ .................. ... ..

Id

& U3

I
I

. . 1
. . .. . . :.:. ;.. .
L. I I I
[!

,,. . . .
I 1 I

.: ~ ,[
,. .
I 1 I I I 1 I

.
I

0 1 \

Ill x, ...:..:.:

I I I

1!11 . .,....:.

I I

11111 . . . .

I .

I .

I .

I I .

a m

mkl HI-12

SPE

22025

INPUT

DRTR

CIISTRIBUTI(3NS
FRRCTURE 5PRCI ffi IFCR t

F RRC TURE RE COVERT IFIBOI RU5T1N CHFILK tUIRIZONTRL HELL PEtlRSRLL F iELD S11J71 RFIER S} HULRTICW

100

Ho 200.0 HORIZ13NTRL

?0.0 LENGTN IF t]

u 1s00.0 PERCENT

800.0 OEPLETEO

90

80
Ku qooo. o 2s00.0 PERCENT l19TER o.20Em 0.65 FILLEO 0.20

7D

.i :/

. .K1

b 0.40

0.10

SJ.JMMFII?Y 13F RESULTS

CUHUL mm 10 20 30 v 50
,;: ,

IE!-UE 230. iBU.55 153.69 131. qo llq.63 96.73 79.58 EW.11 ~8,65 Prirmi pal IS

~w Hinimm Ha. irn.m Range tlcdi.3n tkan Std Oevlation 17. LW U29. U12.10 llq.53 127.98 71.65 0.93 0.27 3000. 16

60 70 200. H3bl, ,, Scotia *F Ril[SIH Systems. Ltd ICI 1908 ITtll : Resm-vss Sitmla tm250. 3CXJ. 350. Uoo. Wo. 50Q

Skevnees Kw-tosio Oata Hydrocarbon: Points OIL

0.

5+3.

I@).

150.

80 90

FIGullll S AUSTIN CHALKllORIZONIAL WELLSlMUL4T10N P-ALL FIELll STUDY AREA

:,