Reservoir Performance Analysis

Introduction

Once the reservoir characterization model is complete reservoir performance

analysis must be integrated into the creation and development of the static
reservoir model. The steps taken currently to incorporate reservoir performance
analysis follow below:

Prepare PVT data for use in the reservoir simulation model and well test data
Analysis of production logging data in relation to other performance data
Integration of well test data with petrophysical data

PVT, PLT, and WTA data exists for use in the evaluation of reservoir performance.
Evaluation of properties such as permeability and skin was required to identify
changes with pressure over time. In the future we will utilize the Material Balance
technique to identify our OHIP. The PVT report includes laboratory tests for four fluid
samples, production rate of each well for all phases, multiple drawdown and build-
up tests for many wells, and production logging data. Identification of formation
compressibility is of primary concern for utilization in future material balance
calculations and well testing analysis. Analyzing production data can indicate the
efficiency of stimulation methods in place such as water flooding as well as
determine reservoir behavior. Plotting various attributes such as GOR and WC
versus time helps identify future field tendencies and production capacities. The
analysis utilizing PLT data and PTT data helps check permeability values and other
petrophysical data. PLT data is already interpreted so only integration is required.
PTT analysis requires the use of Saphir.

PVT Properties and Pressure-Dependent Rock Properties

PVT properties can be determined through several correlation methods but PVT lab
data is the primary and most accurate method. Oliphase Houston conducted a
complete PVT analysis study and performed the following tests:

Constant Composition Expansion

Differential Vaporization at reservoir temperature
Oil Viscosity at reservoir temperature
Separation Test

Multiple samples were obtained from Mississippi Canyon 127 #1 and sidetrack #1.
Two samples were from the M sand, one from the J sand, and one from the N sand
for a total of four. The M sand is of primary concern so focus will be placed upon the
two samples representing the M sand. Determining the bubble point pressure P b at
reservoir temperature and isothermal oil compressibility of the oil above bubble
point pressure requires the use of the Constant Composition Expansion test. The
Differential Vaporization test allows us to estimate the o, o, g, g, and Rs. The
Separation Test results allow for further correction to our values.

Figure 1 - Different Samples at Different Pressures, Temperatures and Deph

Figure 2- Bubble point pressure for the M sand from the Constant Composition Expansion
Test. Fig _____ shows the Separation Test correction of our Gas Oil Ratio.
Figure 3 - This is the solution gas-oil ration from the M sand from sample #1.04.

-Fluid System Type

PVT data indicates the presence of black oil in our reservoir with an initial reservoir
pressure of 7048 psia which exceeds our bubble point pressure of 3251 psia. The
gas oil ratio of solution should be constant at any pressure above the bubble point
pressure. GOR should remain constant and be equal to the solution gas oil ratio
during early time because reservoir pressure remains above bubble point Fig. ____.
Pg. 88 PVT analysis gives a GOR value starting at 748 SCF/STB which is near the
corrected separation test lab value of 718 SCF/STB. The average GOR is about 866
SCF/STB. This comparison illustrates the validity of the data and gives confidence to
the use of our reservoir fluids data. Black oil reservoirs are known to have beginning
gas oil ratios of less than 2000 SCF/STB so this helps solidify the validity of our
analysis (McCain et al., 1990).
 GOR for All Wells
12

10

GOR (SCF/STB) 6

0
April-01 January-04 October-06 July-09

Time (Month)

Figure 4 - GOR for All Wells

-PVT Property Table

This reservoir study focuses primarily on the M sand so the following PVT table
provides data only for the M sand. One of the two M samples has a higher bubble
point pressure so more weight during analysis was given to this sample because it
indicates less liberation of gas during the sampling process.

Press Rs Oil Relative

Co muo mug
ure Bo Bg (SCF/bb Density Gas
(psi) (cp) (cp)
(psia) l) (g/cc) Density
Pi =
7048 1.312 719 8.77 0.693 0.735
6015 1.324 719 9.57 0.651 0.728
10.7
5015 1.337 719 9 0.6 0.721
12.7
4015 1.353 719 9 0.566 0.712
14.6
3415 1.364 719 7 0.554 0.706
15.2
3274 1.367 719 2 0.551 0.705
Pb = 15.3
3251 1.368 719 2 0.549 0.704
0.005 0.019
2865 1.334 3 635 0.566 8 0.712 0.736
0.006 0.018
2465 1.298 1 552 0.625 4 0.722 0.733
0.007 0.016
2015 1.259 6 468 0.685 8 0.733 0.716
0.009 0.015
1615 1.23 5 384 0.794 6 0.74 0.711
0.001 0.014
1215 1.198 29 301 0.907 4 0.749 0.723
0.019 0.013
815 1.16 8 214 1.1 1 0.762 0.729
0.011
415 1.126 0.04 130 1.496 5 0.772 0.804
1.195 0.006
14.696 5 2.071 6 0.816 1.704

-Pore Volume Compressibility

SCAL data provides pore volume compressibility versus net overburden stress for
each of the core samples. Again, the M sand is the primary focus of this study so the
average compressibility (Cf) must be determined over the depth of interest. First,
MDT data is acquired to obtain the formation fluid pressure. Next, an overburden
gradient of 1 psi/ft was assumed to find the overburden stress at the relevant depth.
The average of these values was used because the formation total vertical depth
varies and therefore so does overburden stress. The average value is 6430 psi. The
following figures show the compressibility for three of the core samples.

Cf = 9x10-6 psi-1

Pore Volume Compressibility vs Net Confining Stress

220
200
180
160
140
120
100
Pore Volume Compressibility (1E-06), vol/vol/psi
80
60
40
20
0
1,000 3,000 5,000 7,000 9,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Net Confining Stress, psi

Figure 5 - Formation Compressibility vs. Net Confining Stress (Well #126-1ST1, Sample
Depth 14201.4 ft-MD)

Pore Volume Compressibility vs Net Confining Stress

220
200
180
160
140
120
100
Pore Volume Compressibility (1E-06), vol/vol/psi
80
60
40
20
0
1,000 3,000 5,000 7,000 9,000
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Net Confining Stress, psi

Figure 6 - Formation Compressibility vs. Net Confining Stress (Well #127-1ST1, Sample
Depth 13113.4 ft-MD)

Pore Volume Compressibility vs Net Confining Stress

Pore Volume Compressibility (1E-06), vol/vol/psi
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Net Conf ining Stress, psi

Figure 7 - Formation Compressibility vs. Net Confining Stress (Well #127-1ST1, Sample
Depth 13720.6 ft-MD)

Analysis of Production Logging Data

Production logging data analysis can help define the flow profile along the surveyed
interval and help identify the source of water influx. The ability of this tool helps
quantify and characterize the volume of produced fluids. These logs can illuminate
fluid entry areas and help determine the types of fluid flowing into the wellbore.
They can also aid in finding zones with high permeability channels while detecting
cross flow and fluid migration. The production logging tools took 30, 60, 90, and 120
fpm passes through production intervals while the well was flowing and while it was
shut-in. Stationary measurements were also acquired while the well was flowing and
stationary water flowing logging measurements were used during flow to help
identify the source of water production.

-Interpretation of PLT Data

Summary of Wells A2, A3, A8, A9

Deviati
Well Interval Level on Results
A2 13600 13820 26
13708 13740 Majority of hydrocarbon production occur
13762 13770 Majority of hydrocarbon production occur
Little water
13642 13700 production
Cooling effect due to gas
13720 breaking out
A3 14200 14600 24
Hydrocarbon
14312 14342 production
Hydrocarbon
14358 14387 production
Hydrocarbon
14407 14460 production
14469 14492 Minor crossflow
14500 Minor crossflow
A8 14000 14550 38
Majority of hydrocarbon and water
14225 14255 production
14504 Below No production
A9 18900 19325 61
Majority of hydrocarbon
19045 19070 production
Majority of hydrocarbon
19078 19146 production
Majority of water
19270 19315 production

Tops and Bases for Each Well per Sand

J
Well J Bas M1 M1 M2 M2 M3 M3
Number Top e Top Base Top Base Top Base
128 131
A-2 13 10 13634 13673 13683 13833
133 136
A-3 97 65 14307 14343 14347 14573 14622 14674
132 134
A-8 99 76 14112 14196 14205 14355 14425 14558
162 167
A-9 98 92 18947 19020 19031 19341

Well A2

Analyzing the production logs, the majority of hydrocarbon production occurred in

intervals 13708 13740 in the Upper M2 in the channel sand facies. Intervals
13708 13740 is producing the most hydrocarbons with some water production in
the Lower M2 which is also a channel facies. The majority of the water production
occurs in the Lower M2 channel facies at 14407 14492 which indicates an initial
high water saturation. There is no evidence of an influence of water injection into
the aquifer for enhanced oil recovery. This well does not have any crossflow due to
no thief zones in Table __. By analyzing Figure __, there appears to be a slighting
cooling effect at around 13720. This cooling is interpreted to have come from the
gas breaking out below the bubble point pressure. The temperature and the fluid
velocity also changes around that interval. Well A2 is currently the best well with the
highest oil rate with the lowest watercut percentage.

# Inter Total Oil Water Gas WaterC Oi Water Gas

val (bbl/ (bbl/ (bbl/d) (bbl/d ut (%) l (%) (%)
d) d) ) (
%
 )
137 138.4
1 13642 00 1 51.25 48.71 38.45 48.73 1 63 3
137 6821. 5543. 1253.0
2 13708 40 68 76 24.87 5 0.45 71 32 97
137 476.8 474.9
3 13743 58 9 4 1.95 0 0.41 6 3 0
137 1777. 1776.
4 13762 70 7 37 1.33 0 0.07 23 2 0
5 Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 8 - Downhole Flow Profile - Well Flowing

Figure 9 - Downhole Zonal Flow Profile - Well Flowing
 Well A3

The downhole zonal production in Table _ shows that the majority of the oil
production is coming from the intervals 14312 14387 MD. In this table, the
majority of the reservoir is channel facies with the evidence of high porosity and
permeability. The vertical distribution of the effective oil permeability shows that the
M2 is a good reservoir with minimal effect of water at the top. The majority of the
water production occurs in the Lower M2 channel facies at 14407 14492 which
indicates the influence of injection in the aquifer. The effect of injection wells can be
seen in this well because of the injection well A6 is near well A3 and they both share
the layer M3. At the production intervals, there is a decrease in temperate from the
bottom to the top of the log. This is also more evidence of the injection well
communicating with this well. The shut-in zonal data shows that there are thief
zones at the intervals 14312 14460. This is due to the negative production shown
in Table __. At the intervals 14469 14500, minor crossflow can be seen with
different flow rates of 270 bbl/d and 110 bbl/d due to the high pressure of depletion
of the top of reservoir with low pressures in lower zones due to injection in aquifer.
Well A3 is currently producing at 50% watercut.

Interv Total Water Gas WaterC Water Gas

# al (bbl/d) (bbl/d) (bbl/d) ut () (%) (%)
1434
1 14312 2 -17.7 -17.7 0 100 100 0
1438
2 14358 7 -186.16 -186.16 0 100 1051 0
1446
3 14407 0 -84.23 -48.22 0 57.25 272 0
1449
4 14469 2 160.52 124.51 0 77.57 -703 0
1454
5 14500 2 101.32 101.32 0 100 -572 0
6 Below 8.54 8.54 0 100 -48 0
 Well A8

The downhole zonal production shows the majority of the hydrocarbon production
from intervals 14112 14504. By analyzing this production log, the majority of the
water production is coming from intervals 14427 14504. This well is also
influenced by the injection into the aquifer marked by the water production
intervals. The M2 are good quality reservoirs with majority of channel facies, while
the Upper M1 and Lower M3 are at a lower quality with overbank facies. Highest
production of oil occurs in the Middle M2 and Lower M3 with channel facies. The
shut-in zonal data shows that there are thief zones at the intervals 14112 14185
and 14427 14506. This creates a cross flow from the high pressure of depletion
of the top of reservoir with low pressures in lower zones due to injection in aquifer.

Oil
Interv Total (bbl/d Water Gas WaterC
# al (bbl/d) ) (bbl/d) (bbl/d) ut (%)
14049.
1 58 14080 245.12 126.95 118.16 0 48.21
-
2 14112 14185 -1017.82 705.57 -312.26 0 30.68
3 14201 14250 1555.91 662.6 893.31 0 57.41
4 14300 14341 1035.64 224.85 810.79 0 78.29
-
5 14427 14506 -1818.85 308.84 -1510.01 0 83.02
6 Below 0 0 0 0 0
 Well A9

The downhole zonal production shows the majority of the hydrocarbon production
from intervals 19045 19146. By analyzing this production log, the majority of the
water production is coming from intervals 19045 19192, and 19270 19315.
This well is also influenced by the injection into the aquifer marked by the water
production intervals. The M1 and Upper M2 are producing hydrocarbons in the
channel facies as well as the overbank facies. The highest production occurs in
intervals 19270 -19315 which is in the Upper M2 with a channel facies, while
reasonable production occurs in the Middle M2. The shut-in zonal data shows that
there are no thief zones, thus no cross flow.

Total Oil Gas Wat

Inter (bbl/d (bbl/ Water (bbl/ Water Oil er Gas
# val ) d) (bbl/d) d) Cut () (%) (%) (%)
1805.
1 19045 19070 2019.7 75 213.95 0 10.59 76 6 0
1086.0 344.3
2 19078 19146 7 7 741.7 0 68.29 15 19 0
150.2
3 19182 19192 156.37 9 6.08 0 3.89 6 0 0
4 19207 19260 642.07 7.76 634.31 0 98.79 0 16 0
5 19270 19315 2312.5 63.48 2249.02 0 97.26 3 58 0
6 Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pressure Transient Analysis

-Methodology

Pressure Transient Analysis provides an information gathering protocol that requires

the analysis of pressure changes within the reservoir. These pressure changes occur
during shut-in and flow of the wells. Buildup and draw down can both help to
identify the size and shape of the formation as well as the production ability of the
reservoir in the future. 87 buildup tests were gathered for A1, 80 for A2, and 41 for
A4. Drawdown is characterized as being too noisy for proper pressure transient
analysis so only buildup data was utilized during the PTA. The analysis allows for
determination of skin, wellbore storage, horizontal permeability, average reservoir
pressure, the distance to flow boundaries, directional permeability values, and other
attributes.

A couple parameters were needed to be found first before performing the well test
analysis. The intermediate parameters include porosity, wellbore radius, height of
formation, water saturation, viscosity, formation volume factor, and total
compressibility factor. The porosity and water saturation was found through
Geographix. These were developed for all the wells. The effective wellbore radius
was found by looking at the wellbore schematics of each well that were being
tested. Our viscosity, formation volume factor were found by going through the PVT
data and interpolating for the pressures at the dates that the well test analysis were
being performed. Total compressibility was gathered and averaged through the
core data. The height of the M2 formation was used from the logs.

To perform the well test analysis, the intermediate parameters were first inputted
into Ecrin. After the parameters were inputted, the pressure and rate history were
uploaded for each well into Ecrin. These were uploaded so a deconvolution of the
build up being considered can be run. The pressure derivative was then extracted to
make a Horner Plot. The structural cross plots and logs, as well as the location of the
well, were then considered to determine which model would best fit the well. If the
lines did not match the Horner plot, an iterative process was done. This process was
first done by adjusting the simulated line with the data. Every iteration includes
changing the constant wellbore storage, skin, permeability, and distance from the
boundaries/faults (if there are any).

This analysis was performed by the whole class with each team assigned wells and
dates of the buildup. The buildup tests that were assigned to us were for wells A2,
A4, and A9 at different dates. All of the wells showed boundary effects in late time.
The type of boundaries that were seen ranged from intersecting faults to no faults.
These boundaries can be estimated by maps like Figure __. All the tests for the
wells were performed as a vertical well, despite the deviations to keep it simple and
more straightforward.
Test for A2

Using the buildup test conducted on February 12 th, 2003 for well A2, the
permeability, skin, pressure, and distance to the boundaries for each well test were
determined. Test from well A2 show a single fault boundary which represents the
large bounding fault to the north of A2. There is also a flow barrier south of well A2.
This can be interpreted to be parallel or intersecting faults especially during late
time, the permeability, skin, and other features were determined. The model used
took account for the changing wellbore storage on a vertical well.

Test for A4

Using the buildup test conducted on May 24 th, 2003 for well A4, the permeability,
skin, pressure, and distance to the boundaries for each well test were determined.
Tests for well A4 shows two boundaries which are the large bounding fault north of
the well and shows a flow baffle west of the well.

Test for A9

There results of the well test analysis for well A9 shows that there are intersecting
faults. On the map in Fig. _, shows that there are two flow baffles that are east and
west of the well.
Figure 10 - Pressure Transient Analysis Interpretation Diagnostic Plot for Well A2 -
2/12/2003
Figure 11 - Pressure Transient Analysis Interpretation Horner Plot for Well A2 2/12/2003

Figure 12 - Pressure Transient Analysis Interpretation Diagnostic Plot for Well A4 -

5/24/2003
Figure 13 - Pressure Transient Analysis Interpretation Horner Plot for Well A4 5/24/2003
Figure 14 - Pressure Transient Analysis Interpretation Diagnostic Plot for Well A9 -
11/13/2003
Figure 15 - Pressure Transient Analysis Interpretation Horner Plot for Well A9 11/13/2004

Table _ - Intermediate Parameters For Wells for WTA

Intermediate Parameters
Test Date
We (Start of
ll Shut-In) qo pwf rw h phi Sw visc Bo ct
(stb/ (ft (1/ps
D) (psia) (ft) ) (cp) (rb/stb) i)
1240 5433.8 0.40 13 0.2 0.4 0.6213 1.4005
2 2/12/2003 0 43 1 7 1 7 61 55 9E-6
5143.6 0.40 13 0.2 0.4 0.6065 1.4043
2 5/24/2003 6266 63 1 7 1 7 62 27 9E-6
4503.8 0.40 13 0.2 0.4 0.5826 1.4146
2 9/24/2003 7795 06 1 7 1 7 19 9 9E-6
4071.1 0.40 13 0.2 0.4 0.5679 1.4220
2 4/9/2004 7400 11 1 7 1 7 08 46 9E-6
5454.3 0.40 23 0.2 0.6224 1.4002
4 5/24/2003 7846 01 1 4 0.2 9 04 89 9E-6
1420 5627.3 0.40 23 0.2 0.6312 1.3980
4 3/19/2003 6 33 1 4 0.2 9 29 4 9E-6
1408 5463.1 0.40 23 0.2 0.6228 1.4001
4 4/17/2003 1 91 1 4 0.2 9 58 74 9E-6
4 5/1/2003 1360 5387.6 0.40 23 0.2 0.2 0.6190 1.4011 9E-6
 7 22 1 4 9 04 56
4784.8 0.40 31 0.2 0.5921 1.4099
9 11/13/2003 6669 73 1 0 3 0.2 76 12 9E-6
3432.0 0.40 31 0.2 0.5543 1.4346
9 4/9/2004 6611 51 1 0 3 0.2 41 59 9E-6

Table _ - Boundary Effects for Each Well for WTA

Boundary Effects (include as applicable)

Analy Dist Dist
Test Date sis Skin to to
We (Start of Sectio Fact Pav Boun Boun
ll Shut-In) n Interpretation Model k or g d1 d2
(m (psi
d) a) (ft) (ft)
2/12/200 30 613
2 3 501 Intersecting Faults Pi/N 8 5.6 3 3.67 3.67
5/24/200 Intersecting Faults Any 26 553
2 3 501 Angle 9 9.39 7 8 8
-
9/24/200 19. 0.94 501
2 3 501 Circle 5 1 1
22 417
2 4/9/2004 501 Intersecting Faults Pi/N 7 2.13 8 8.24 8.24
5/24/200 54. 405
4 3 501 Infinite 3 2.68 2
3/19/200 18 606
4 3 501 Intersecting Faults Pi/N 2 7.76 3 0.8 0.8
4/17/200 21 585
4 3 501 Intersecting Faults Pi/N 6 9.37 2 80 80
19 588 234. 234.
4 5/1/2003 501 Intersecting Any Angle 7 2.69 3 5 9
11/13/20 54. - 518 96.0 202.
9 03 501 Intersecting Faults Pi/N 4 1.67 4 6 9
-
48. 0.19 454 156. 251.
9 4/9/2004 501 Intersecting Faults Pi/N 9 6 2 78 26