You are on page 1of 42

First compiled: November 2007

Last modified: June 2014

Reservoir Evaluation Report

Aguarague Field
Huamampampa Reservoir
Reserves 1P (Proved)
Tarija Basin, Argentina
AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 1

AGUARAGUE FIELD
Huamampampa Reservoir
1. Field

1.1 General

The Aguarage Field is located in the southern part of the Tarija Basin, in the sub-Andean fold and thrust belt
of NW Argentina (Figs. 1-1 and 1-2). It was discovered and brought onstream in 1979. It had 64.7 Bm3G in-
place and EUR of 25.4 Bm3G plus 4.2 MMm 3C, with a gas-recovery factor of 39.3%. Reserves are contained
in three vertically separated, fractured sandstone reservoirs of the Lower Devonian Huamampampa, Icla, and
Santa Rosa formations, with the Huamampampa holding 86% of the fields GIIP. The trap consists of an
asymmetric thrust anticline near the outer deformation front of the fold and thrust belt. Quartz arenite
reservoirs in all producing formations were deposited on a shallow-marine shelf, and produce gas-condensate
by gas-expansion drive. The fields peak production of 4.12 MMm3GPD and 908 m3CPD was achieved in
1985, with a secondary peak of 3.50 MMm3GPD and 779 m3CPD in 1991 that reflected the addition of new
wells. The field, while in secondary decline, benefited from gas lift combined with rapid water production to
promote the release of residual gas. Gas and condensate rates in 2005 averaged 0.73 MMm3GPD and 35 m 3
CPD, respectively, and cumulative gas and condensate at year-end were 19.9 Bm3G and 3.89 MMm 3C.

1.2 Exploration History

The oil industry in Argentina began with small-scale extraction from surface tar deposits and oil seepages. The
first known historical record of hydrocarbons in the Tarija Basin is a reference from Jesuit missionaries who in
1787 mentioned the presence of oil seeps in the Sierra de Aguarage (Aguarage Range), ~2 km west of
Aguaray and ~35 km south of the Argentina-Bolivia border (Figs. 1-1 to 1-3) (Disalvo, 2002). In 1886,
Compania Mendocina de Petroleo put the Cacheuta oil field into production, and built the first Argentine oil
pipeline, which was 35 km long and ran from the wellhead to the city of Mendoza (Yrigoyen, 1993). In 1907, a
government water well discovered oil at 535 m TVD subsurface at a small port settlement that was later to
become the city of Comodoro Rivadavia, on the Atlantic coast of Patagonia. The search for oil in Patagonia
intensified and an important oilfield was discovered in Plaza Huincul in the Neuqun Basin (Fig. 1-1) . Oil
activities had increased sufficiently by 1922 for the government to reorganize and expand its own oil
enterprise, creating Yacimientos Petroleros Fiscales (YPF). Since the 1930s, oil exploration by private
companies has been mixed with periods of exclusive activity by the state-owned enterprise, largely due to
legislative and political factors.

In 1926, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey discovered the Bermejo Field in the Tarija Basin of Bolivia,
only ~150 m from the Argentina-Bolivia border, and later that same year well Agua Blanca-1 was drilled on the
Argentina side of the border, and became the Agua Blanca Field, the first commercial discovery in the Tarija
Basin of Argentina (Figs. 1-3 and 1-4) (Disalvo, 2002; Starck et al., 2002). The Lomitas and Cerro Tartagal
fields were discovered in 1927 in the northern Sierra de Aguarage. The same year, the Argentina state-
owned Yacimientos Petroleros Fiscales (YPF) commenced exploratory activities in the Tarija Basin and

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 2

discovered the Tranquitas and Rio Pescado fields. Exploration at the time involved field mapping of four-way
closed surface anticlines cored by Upper Devonian, Carboniferous, or Lower Tertiary rocks. The introduction
of rotary drilling technology and of gas injection were the most significant advances in the region during the
1930s, helping Standard and YPF reach a combined production of 986 m3OPD (Starck et al., 2002).

With the arrival of a rig capable of drilling to depths >2700 m MD, YPF drilled well YPF.CD6 in 1951 to a total
depth of 3614 m and discovered the Duran Field in the NE part of the basin at ~20 km south of the Argentina-
Bolivia border (Fig. 1-3). This was the first major hydrocarbon discovery in Argentina, with initial production
rates of 0.20 MMm3GPD and 302 m 3OPD (Starck et al., 2002). In 1953, the Madrejones Field was discovered
to the north along the same structural trend. These exploration successes led oil companies in the region to
intensify efforts to the east, where structures were not visible in the surface and 2-D seismic methods had to be
employed.

During the 1929-36 shallow (<1200 m) drilling campaign by Standard Oil in Cerro Tartagal Field (Sierra de
Aguarage) (Fig. 1-3), one of the wells penetrated a repeated section of the Lower Carboniferous Tupambi
Formation. The well tested oil in high-dip and recumbent strata, suggesting the presence of a regional thrust
fault and of deeper hydrocarbon potential in the Sierra de Aguarage (Kozlowski et al., 2005). However, this
exploratory concept was only attempted in earnest some 40 years later, when well YPF.Ra.x-11 discovered the
Ramos Field in the Serrana de San Antonio in 1976. The well tested gas and condensate from the Devonian
Huamampampa Formation and oil in the Santa Rosa Formation at a depth of ~4400 m MD, thus opening the
Devonian play in the Tarija Basin. The same year, YPFs wells Tranquitas 168 and 168bis failed to reach the
Devonian objectives in the Sierra de Aguarage beneath the shallow Tranquitas Field because of operational
problems.

In 1979, well Cuchara x-1 (Cu.x-1) became the discovery well of the Aguarage Field, producing 0.59 MMm3
GPD from clastics of the Huamampampa Formation, but the field was brought onstream the same year by well
Cu.x-2 at a rate of 0.55 MMm3GPD and 97 m 3CPD (Aguilera et al., 2002; Kozlowski et al., 2005; Pucci, 2007).
In 1992, Tecpetrol S.A. assumed operations of the Aguarage Field as part of the Acambuco block. The
concession is formed by Tecpetrol (23%) as operator, YPF (30%), ExxonMobil (23%), Petrobras Energa S.A.
(15%), CGC S.A. (5%), and Ledesma (4%) (Kozlowski et al., 2005). In 1995, well Aguarage xp-1 targeted
deeper objectives in the Aguarage structure, discovering gas and oil in the Devonian Santa Rosa and Icla
formations at a depth of 5325 m MD.

1.3 Basin Evolution

The Aguarage Field is located in the southern part of the Tarija Basin, in the sub-Andean fold and thrust belt
of northern Argentina (Figs. 1-4). The Tarija Basin was part of an extensive Late Ordovician-Middle Devonian
intracontinental sea that covered Bolivia, northern Argentina, and Paraguay, that also included the Santa Cruz,
Chaco, and Chaco-Paran basins (Fig. 1-1) (Urin et al., 1995). The term Noroeste (Northwest) Basin or
region includes the Tarija Basin and other adjacent basins such as Tres Cruces, Lomas de Olmedo, and
Metan (Fig. 1-2) (Starck, 1995; Urin, 2001; Disalvo, 2002). The limits of the Tarija Basin are poorly defined
but they are largely confined to the sub-Andean fold and thrust belt (Santa Cruz-Tarija fold and thrust belt) and
deformed foredeep strata of the greater Chaco foreland basin.

The sub-Andean fold and thrust belt extends NW-SE to NNE-SSW from the Peru-Ecuador border (Figs. 1-1
to 1-3). In northern Argentina, the fold and thrust belt is characterized by thin-skinned deformation that

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 3

extends from the Eastern Cordillera in the west to the Chaco Plains in the east (Fig. 1-2) . The southern
boundary of the thin-skinned sub-Andean ranges is defined by erosion of the Silurian Kirusillas Formation at
the Cretaceous-Paleozoic unconformity and by inverted basement-related extensional faults. The Eastern
Cordillera formed in response to compressive stress from the west that also involved crystalline basement.
Part of the shortening was transmitted toward the sub-Andean fold and thrust belt along a detachment at the
base of the Silurian Kirusillas Formation and part was accommodated by backthrusts at the front of the Eastern
Cordillera (Belotti et al., 1995) (Fig. 1-5). This deformation occurred throughout the Tertiary but reached its
peak in the Late Miocene or Early Pliocene. The Chaco Plains in the east represent the foreland (Fig. 1-2)
that was not affected by Andean deformation.

The fold and thrust belt in Argentina can be divided into the Western and Eastern sub-Andean ranges based
on structural geology and petroleum geology. The Western sub-Andean ranges are structurally more complex,
and only minor hydrocarbon discoveries have been made in Carboniferous and Tertiary rocks in the Baja de
Oran range. The Aguarage Field occurs in the Eastern sub-Andean ranges east of the Mandiyuti Thrust,
where deformation was less complex and a set of elongated NNE-SSW trending structures, comprising the
San Antonio, Aguarage, Campo Duran-Madrejones and Ipaguazu mountain ranges was formed. All of these
ranges contain hydrocarbon discoveries in Devonian, Carboniferous and Tertiary reservoirs (Fig. 1-4). The
major hydrocarbon accumulations are found in sedimentary sequences that are involved in fault-bend folds
overlying major thrusts. Only small hydrocarbon discoveries are associated with minor thrust folds that form
shallow and narrow detached anticlines. The Sierra de Aguarage or trend is a single and continuous, 250
km-long structure that extends into southern Bolivia (Figs. 1-3 and 1-4) (Belotti et al., 1995).

The stratigraphic succession in the sub-Andean ranges comprises ~10 km of marine and continental
sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic through Tertiary age, overlying up to 7 km of Cambrian-Ordovician rift strata
(Fig. 1-6). In the Tarija Basin of Argentina, this succession consists of four cycles reflecting a complex tectonic
history of episodic extension and compression along the western margin of South America (Disalvo, 2002): (1)
Silurian-Devonian (Cycle 1); (2) Carboniferous (Cycle 2); (3) Cretaceous-Triassic (Cycle 3); and (4) Tertiary
(Cycle 4). During the Silurian-Devonian, basal proximal sandstones and conglomerates, deposited by storm-
dominated processes in a shallow marine basin, were overlain by a muddy shelf succession (Belotti et al.,
1995). Initially, rifting resumed at a slow rate and marine conditions became suitably anoxic for the deposition
of the Kirusillas Formation organic-rich shales. Increased subsidence in the Devonian due to active oceanic
plate subduction to the west resulted in the deposition of several thousand meters of marine sediments. These
include the Lower Devonian silica-cemented quartzarenites of the Santa Rosa, Icla and Huamampampa
Formations, which are the main reservoirs in the Aguarage Field, and the Middle-Upper Devonian shale seals
and source rocks of the Los Monos Formation. The emplacement of the Chilenian terrane to the SW during
the Late Devonian (Chanic) Orogeny gave rise to another period of uplift, non-deposition and/or erosion.

Carboniferous major global plate interactions formed several intracratonic highlands in South America,
including the Asuncion Arch to the east and the Arequipa Massif to the west. These mountains were often
glaciated, and the Carboniferous rocks comprise glacially influenced fluvial to turbidite deposits infilling
topographic relief (Tarija Formation). In the Tarija Basin, the fluvial and deltaic sandstones of the Tupambi
Formation are the main reservoirs in the Campo Duran and Madrejones fields. A warmer Permian climate
coincided with the Hercynian orogenic episode of uplift and inversion in SW Gondwana and the Tarija Basin of
Argentina experienced limited clastic and carbonate deposition throughout the Permo-Triassic. Although
desert conditions are considered to have occurred throughout the Jurassic across SW Gondwana (Frana et
al., 1995), there was no net deposition in the Tarija Basin of Argentina. The Late Jurassic (Araucanian

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 4

Orogeny) marked the opening of the south Atlantic and rifting between South America and Africa. In the Tarija
Basin, uplift and erosion of the Michicola High (Fig. 1-4), related to the rifting and formation of the Cretaceous
Lomas de Olmedo Basin to the south, resulted in significant erosion into the Paleozoic. Paleozoic units were
eroded progressively deeper toward the south and east. As a result, Tertiary sediments (Tranquitas and
Chaco formations) overlie Triassic rocks of the Cuevo Group at the Bolivian border, and Silurian rocks of the
Kirusillas Formation at the southern end of the sub-Andean ranges (Belotti et al., 1995) (Fig. 1-6). During the
Cretaceous-Late Tertiary, as a result of the collision of the Nazca and South American plates, eastward-
propagating thrusts (Andean Orogeny) created the Andes Mountains, which loaded the easterly Chaco Plain
into a foreland basin that migrated towards the east through time (Fig. 1-5) (Lindquist, 1999). The sub-
Andean part of the deformation was initiated in late Oligocene time and a wedge of Cenozoic continental
sedimentation subsequently filled the foreland. Tectonic shortening ranges laterally from tens to several
hundreds of km across the sub-Andean fold and thrust belt in Bolivia and Argentina.

2. Reservoir Summary

GIIP and EUR in the fields main reservoir, the Huamampampa Formation, were 55.8 Bm3G and 22.0 Bm 3G,
for a 39.3% recovery factor. The 700 m-long column of gas-condensate is contained in a steep four-way trap
in an asymmetric thrust anticline. The Lower Devonian Huamampampa reservoir has a gross thickness of 400
m and was deposited as a succession of shallow-shelf sandbars separated by marine shales. The reservoir
interval displays layer-cake architecture, is unfaulted, and has a N:G ratio of 0.7. The fractured, strongly
quartz-cemented, very fine- to medium-grained quartzarenites have an average total porosity of 4.7%,
including 0.5% fracture porosity. The gas, with an average condensate yield of 168 Sm3/Sm 3, was initially
produced by gas-expansion drive. Production peaked in 1985 at 3.99 MMm3GPD. The subsequent decline in
gas rates was mitigated by the release of residual gas from microfractures, which was promoted by intentional
reservoir dewatering and related reductions in bottom-hole pressures. Incremental gas recovery owing to
reservoir dewatering was 11.7%. In 2000, there were 13 wells producing from the Huamampampa reservoir,
and rates averaged 1.18 MMm3GPD. At end-2000, cumulative gas was 16.4 Bm 3G.

3. Source

Biomarker analyses of the seep oils of the sub-Andean foothills show that the oils originated from Silurian-
Devonian marine shale source rocks of the Kirusillas, Icla, and Los Monos formations, deposited in a
restricted, marine extensional basin that covered most of the region (Fig. 1-6) (Dunn et al., 1995; Vistalli et al.,
2005). These source rocks are preserved throughout the sub-Andean region and have a combined maximum
thickness of 4000 m. The shales are mixed oil- and gas-prone, with Type II/III kerogen (Dunn et al., 1995;
Frana et al., 1995; Starck, 1995). The Kirusillas, Icla, and Los Monos source rocks have relatively low TOCs
(0.5-1.6%, 0.5-1%, and 0.4-1.9%, respectively), but are productive because of their significant thicknesses.
The hydrogen indices of the Los Monos Formation are 100-300 mg HC/g TOC but can be up to 500 mg HC/g
TOC (Dunn et al., 1995). The Los Monos has been subdivided into a lower interval with greater marine
kerogen content, and an upper section with greater terrestrial influence (Vistalli et al., 2005).

Maturity studies show that Silurian rocks are overmature at depth in the sub-Andean and Santa Cruz-Tarija
fold and thrust belts and that they would have generated oil in Carboniferous-Permian times, prior to Tertiary
sub-Andean thrusting and trap formation (Fig. 3-1A) . At the time of trap development, the Kirusillas
Formation was generating dry gas and the Icla Formation was expelling dry gas and condensate in the fold

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 5

and thrust belt and liquid hydrocarbons and gas in the platform region (Fig. 3-2B) . Therefore, although
Silurian rocks contain good Type II marine amorphous kerogen, they are probably not the primary source for
the oil in sub-Andean Tertiary traps (Dunn et al., 1995). The principal generating source rocks of the sub-
Andean region are the anoxic dark grey shales and siltstones of the Devonian Los Monos Formation (Belotti et
al., 1995; Dunn et al., 1995), which is 1000 m thick. At the time of trap formation, the lower section of the Los
Monos Formation was generating oil, gas and condensate while the upper section was generating oil (Figs. 3-
1C and 3-1D) . The lower zone caused migration of gas and condensate toward the underlying
Huamampampa Formation, whereas the upper zone, close to the top of the formation, caused the migration of
oil or gas and condensate toward Carboniferous and Tertiary reservoirs (Belotti et al., 1995). The primary oil-
generative area is in the central and eastern parts of the sub-Andean foothills in the western Tarija Basin,
where surface oil seeps are abundant and corridors of more oil-prone kerogen are found. Biomarker analyses
and burial history modeling in the sub-Andean belt show that the primary source rocks entered the peak oil
window during the Late Tertiary (Fig. 3-2). Gas in the Santa Rosa and Icla reservoirs was probably sourced
from the Kirusillas Formation during the Late Tertiary.

4. Trap

The Aguarage Field produces from the Devonian Huamampampa, Icla, and Santa Rosa formations (Fig. 1-6)
in an asymmetric thrust anticline that formed during Oligocene development of the sub-Andean fold and
thrust belt (Fig. 4-1) (Kozlowski et al., 2005). The axis of the deep Aguarage trap is offset west of the axis
of the surface anticline that exposes Carboniferous-Tertiary strata (Figs. 4-2 and 4-3A). The surface
anticline, which extends well to the north of the field, consists of a series of structural culminations that
developed in Carboniferous-Tertiary strata, and which correspond from north to south to the older Cerro
Tartagal, Lomitas, Vespucio, and Tranquitas fields (Fig. 1-3). The deep level within the imbricate structure
involves shales of the Devonian Los Monos Formation, where the anticlinal structure reached its greatest
vertical growth (Fig. 1-5). The Aguarage Thrust separates the surface structural domain from the deeper
folds (Figs. 4-3A and 4-4). The dip of the thrust plane is ~80 to the west near the Lomitas area, and
decreases to ~15 to the south, where structural harmony is reached and the folds are predominantly parallel.

The structure that corresponds to the Aguarage trap formed during a post-Oligocene Andean fold and thrust
event as a fault-bend fold associated with a triangle zone near the outer deformation front of the fold and thrust
belt (Fig. 4-3A). At that time, the unproductive surface fold was translated eastward along a roof detachment
in the Los Monos shales. The detachment displaced the axis of the shallow structure >1600 m to the east
relative to the deeper structure (Blangy, 2002). The deeper, productive fold in the Aguarage Field is intensely
fractured, but is virtually unfaulted, and is four-way dip closed, dipping ~22 in the western flank and 44-52 in
the eastern flank (Fig. 4-1) (Aguilera et al., 2002). The crest of the structure at the Huamampampa reservoir
occurs at ~3100 m TVDSS and the original GWC is found at 3800 m TVDSS, for a gas column of ~700 m
(Fig. 4-3A). At Santa Rosa level, the crest is found at ~4000 m TVDSS and the original GWC at 4492 m
TVDSS, for a gas column of 492 m. Total productive area is estimated at ~22,700 ac (92 km2).

5. Seal

The three reservoirs, the Huamampampa, Icla, and Santa Rosa, have independent reservoir pressure
gradients and gas compositions (Kozlowski et al., 2005). Top-seal for the gas column in the Huamampampa
reservoir is provided by ~500 m of shales of the Los Monos Formation. The lower part of the Icla Formation

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 6

acts as top-seal for the Santa Rosa gas column, with >200 m of shales.

6. Reservoir

6.1 Stratigraphy and Depositional Facies

Reserves in the Aguarage Field occur in the Lower Devonian Santa Rosa, Icla, and Huamampampa
formations (Fig. 6-1). The Santa Rosa Formation lies conformably on the Silurian Kirusillas Formation and is
transitionally overlain by shales and sandstones of the Icla Formation, which act locally as top-seal for the
Santa Rosa reservoir. The Huamampampa, the main reservoir interval, lies conformably on the Icla Formation
and is overlain by shales of the Los Monos Formation. The Huamampampa Formation has been subdivided
into four sections, named from top to base sections I-IV (Fig. 6-2). Section I is locally known as the B-Sucio
(B-dirty) or BS unit, while sections II-IV correspond to the B-Limpio (B-Clean) or BL unit. Section IV has
only been penetrated by a few wells because the Santa Rosa reservoir was developed after 1994. The BS
and BL units have been further subdivided into BS1-BS3 and BL1-BL5, for a total of eight units. In other parts
of the Tarija Basin, the Huamampampa Formation is divided into five units, named 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 3C,
and the Icla Formation is divided into layers 5 and 7 (Fig. 6-1).

The Lower Devonian reservoirs represent a succession of transgressive-regressive cycles that ended with the
deepening event recorded in the Los Monos Formation (Lquez et al., 2002). The Santa Rosa Formation has
a gross thickness of >500 m in the Tarija Basin but decreases to <300 m in the Aguarage Field and to <100
m to the west (Fig. 6-3A). The interval consists of a coarsening-upward succession of sandstones deposited
in a proximal shallow-marine shelf surrounding this trough (Fig. 6-4) (Belotti et al., 1995; Schulz et al., 2002).
The shelf sandstones become progressively thinner to the north (Fig. 6-3B). The Icla Formation is 100->500
m thick and in the Aguarage Field averages 250 m (Fig. 6-3A). The lower part is characterized by basinal
facies, followed by a coarsening-upward succession from distal shelf to coastal and/or shelf sandstone bars
(Figs. 6-1 and 6-4). The Huamampampa Formation was deposited as a succession of sandstone shelf bars
separated by marine shales in a shallow shelf. It has a gross thickness of ~400 m in the Aguarage Field.
The upper part of the Huamampampa Formation, the B-Sucio of BS unit, represent the transition to deep-
water facies of the Los Monos Formation, and it is locally regarded as a waste zone.

6.2 Reservoir Architecture

The three vertically separate reservoirs in the Aguarage Field have layer-cake architecture. The Santa Rosa
and Icla reservoirs are effectively separated by ~200 m of marine shales and siltstones, while the
Huamampampa reservoir is separated from the Icla by 2-3 shales units averaging 50 m (Fig. 6-1). The Santa
Rosa, Icla, and Huamampampa reservoirs have average net thickness of 90 m, 50 m, and 280 m, and a N:G
ratio of 0.3, 0.2, and 0.7, respectively (Lquez et al., 2002). The BS and BL units of the Huamampampa
reservoir were divided into 11 layers for simulation purposes. These layers, labeled 1-11 from top to bottom,
correspond to reservoir and non-reservoir intervals. Reservoir zones include layer 2 (BS2) and layers 4-7 (unit
BL1). Owing to the absence of faulting, the reservoirs consist of one structural compartment.

Natural fractures in the Aguarage Field are of tectonic origin, resulting from folding and faulting. Most of the
fractures are tensional and open and occur along the axis of the anticline, and are observed parallel and
perpendicular to the maximum horizontal stress direction (WNW). Thus, fractures are both Type 1 and 2

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 7

(sensu Nelson, 1985) (Fig. 6-5). Fractures with highest permeability are Type 2. There is a large population
of microfractures with spacing of <0.5-3.6 cm, and the distance between fracture swarms is 18-33 m (Aguilera
et al., 2002).

6.3 Reservoir Properties

The Santa Rosa and Icla formations consist of fine- to medium-grained quartzarenites that are strongly
cemented by quartz overgrowths. Hydrocarbons in the Huamampampa reservoir produce from fractured, very
fine- to medium-grained quartzarenites with disseminated micas and pervasive quartz overgrowths (Lquez et
al., 2002).

Matrix porosity measured in cores of the Huamampampa Formation is insignificant. However, for gas storage
estimates, the reservoir is characterized as a dual porosity system, with microfractures used as matrix
porosity and macrofractures as fracture porosity. In this regard, matrix porosity is 1.5-6.2% (5.2% average)
and fracture porosity is 0.2-1.2% (0.5% average) (Aguilera et al., 2002; Girardi et al., 2001, 2002). The
average total porosity is 5.7%, and the average partitioning coefficient (fraction of total porosity consisting of
fractures) is 7.3%. Fracture permeability is estimated at 0.71-24.17 mD (Aguilera et al., 2002). Matrix and
fracture porosity in both the Santa Rosa and Icla reservoirs are 2.5-3% and 0.8-1%, respectively, while matrix
and fracture permeability are 0.01-10 mD and 500-1000 mD (Lquez et al., 2002).

7. Fluids

Produced gas has a density of 0.66 and the average condensate gravity is 49 API. The gas has an average
condensate yield of 168 Sm3/Sm3. The reservoirs are produced by gas-expansion drive, and although water
breakthrough in wells represented a major obstacle to gas recovery, aquifer drive is not considered significant.
The pressure gradient in the Huamampampa is abnormally low, with ~0.333 psi/ft, while the underlying Icla
and Santa Rosa reservoirs are normally pressured at 0.498 psi/ft (Degni et al., 2001).

8. Resources

The Aguarage Field has EUR of 25.4 Bm3G (Kozlowski et al; 2005). Applying the 39.3% recovery factor in
the fields largest reservoir, the Huamampampa, provides a field GIIP of 64.7 Bm3G.

The Huamampampa reservoir has GIIP of 55.8 Bm 3G, which is 86% of the fields in-place gas (Aguilera et al.,
2002, 2003). Reserves calculated for primary recovery and for enhanced recovery (reservoir dewatering) are
15.4 Bm3G, for a 27.6% recovery factor (RF), and 21.9 Bm 3G (39.3% RF). Gas storage is partitioned between
the rock matrix (83%) and fractures (17%).

9. Reservoir Performance

The Aguarage Field came onstream in 1979 at a rate of 0.63 MMm3GPD and 115 m 3CPD (Fig. 9-1). Wells
were drilled in a single line parallel along the structural crest at an average spacing of 1800 m (Fig. 4-1) .
Operators cemented in production liner before drilling into the Santa Rosa reservoir to avoid mud loss to
fractures during circulation (Fig. 9-2). Operations were further complicated owing to wellbore instability and
cement losses; therefore, foamed cement slurries were applied across the low-pressured productive intervals.

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 8

A peak production rate of 4.12 MMm3GPD and 908 m 3CPD from ~10 producers was achieved in 1985, while
water production remained at a minimum (Kozlowski et al., 2005). With the drilling of six new wells in 1990-91,
a second production peak of 3.50 MMm3GPD and 779 m 3CPD occurred in 1991. However, in 1991-94, five
high-deliverability gas wells from the Huamampampa reservoir in the northern and southern flanks of the
structure watered out, resulting in a decrease in 1998 of the fields gas rate to 1.43 MMm3GPD (Fig. 9-1) .
Adding a new well in 1999 helped increase gas production by 2001 to 1.86 MMm3GPD. Wells located along
the structural crest were originally completed in the Santa Rosa and Icla formations, but after watering out, the
wells were recompleted in the Huamampampa reservoir and produced through a separate tubing string (Fig.
9-2). Gas and condensate rates in 2005 averaged 0.73 MMm3GPD and 35 m3CPD, respectively, and
cumulative gas and condensate at year-end were 19.9 Bm3G and 3.89 MMm 3C. The gas recovery efficiency
was 30.7% of GIIP (Kozlowski et al., 2005). Condensate yields declined from a high of 303 Sm3/Sm(3) in 1981
to a low of 48 Sm3/Sm3 in 2005.

As of 2005, 16 wells had been drilled into the Aguarage Field and 13 produced from the Huamampampa
reservoir (Fig. 4-3A) . Gas production in the Huamampampa peaked in 1985 at 3.99 MMm3GPD and a
secondary peak was established in 1992 owing to step-out development drilling in 1991-93 (Fig. 9-3). The
use rapid reservoir dewatering for enhanced gas production from microfractures flattened the decline rate of
gas production in the late 1990s (Fig. 9-4) . Consequently, as gas settled at ~1.5 MMm3GPD in 1996-99,
water rates shot up from ~20 m 3 WPD in the early 1990s to >1000 m3 WPD in 2000 (Fig. 9-3). The
Huamampampa averaged 1.18 MMm3GPD in 2000 and, at year-end, cumulative gas for the reservoir was 16.4
Bm3G, for a recovery efficiency of 29.4% (Girardi et al., 2001).

10. Improved Recovery Methods

Reservoir Dewatering

Reservoir dewatering has been the only significant improved recovery method in the Aguarage Field. It is
credited with extending field life by increasing gas recovery from the Huamampampa reservoir (Aguilera et al.,
2002). Field simulation suggested that the Huamampampa would stop producing by 1999. It indicated that
maximizing production of water from the watered-out Huamampampa reservoir would increase ultimate gas
recoveries by allowing gas trapped by water in microfractures to flow because of the reduced pressures
(Girardi et al., 2002). Produced water and the additional gas were to be recovered through gas lift. Under
primary recovery, the gas recovery factor was 27.6%. By maintaining water extraction at 1400 m3WPD, gas
recovery was projected to be 36.1%. By increasing the water rate to 1800 m3WPD ultimate recovery improved
to 39.3% (Aguilera et al., 2003). Most of the wells that had watered out showed a correspondence between
the increased water production and the resultant increase in gas rate (Fig. 10-1) (Aguilera et al., 2003).

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 9

KEY REFERENCES

Aguilera, R., Conti, J.J., and Lagrenade, E., 2002, Reducing gas production decline through dewatering: A
case history from the naturally fractured Aguarage Field, Salta, Argentina: SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Calgary: SPE 75512, 14 p.

Aguilera, R., Conti, J.J., and Lagrenade, E., 2003, Reducing gas production decline through dewatering: A
case history from the naturally fractured Aguarage Field, Salta, Argentina: SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering, v. 6, no. 6, p. 376-386.

Belotti, H.J., Saccavino, L.L., and Schachner, G.A., 1995, Structural styles and petroleum occurrence in the
sub-Andean fold and thrust belt of northern Argentina, in Tankard, A.J., Surez S., R., and Welsink, H.J., eds.,
Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG Memoir, no. 62, p. 545-555.

Blangy, J.-P., 2002, Target-oriented, wide-patch, 3-D seismic yields trap definition and exploration success in
the sub-Andean thrust belt Devonian gas play, Tarija Basin, Argentina: The Leading Edge, February, p. 142-
151.

Constantini, L.A., Rodriguez, A., Fontana, C., Hernandez, R.M., and Rodriguez S., M.L., 2002, Los reservorios
del Conglomerado Galarza y la Serie Abigarrada, in Schiuma, M., Hinterwimmer, G., and Vergani, G., eds.,
Rocas reservorio de las cuencas productivas de la Argentina: V Congreso de Exploracin y Desarrollo de
Hidrocarburos, Mar del Plata, p. 753-766.

Degni, C.D., Fuller, G.A., and Chumpitaz, D., 2001, Successful liner application using foamed cementing
technology for low-pressure, naturally-fractured formations: SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires: SPE 69489, 11 p.

Disalvo, A., 2002, Cuenca del noroeste: marco geolgico y resea histrica de la actividad petrolera, in
Schiuma, M., Hinterwimmer, G., and Vergani, G., eds., Rocas reservorio de las cuencas productivas de la
Argentina: V Congreso de Exploracin y Desarrollo de Hidrocarburos, Mar del Plata, p. 663-677.

Dunn, J.F., Hartshorn, K.G., and Hartshorn, P.W., 1995, Structural styles and hydrocarbon potential of the sub-
Andean thrust belt of southern Bolivia, in Tankard, A.J., Suarez S., R., and Welsink, H.J., eds., Petroleum
basins of South America: AAPG Memoir, no. 62, p. 523-543.

Echavarria, L., Hernndez, R., Allmendinger, R., and Reynolds, J., 2003, Subandean thrust and fold belt of
northwestern Argentina: Geometry and timing of the Andean evolution: AAPG Bulletin, v. 87, p. 965-985.

Flores, R.F.A., and Alonso, J.L., 2002, Convergencia de los ejes de Aguarague y San Antonio en el extreme
sur del cinturon plegado subandino y su vinculacion con los escalones del rift Cretacico: Proceedings IV
INGEPET, Lima, Per, Paper EXPR-3-FA-41, 17 p.

Frana, A.B., Milani, E.J., Schneider, R.L., Lopez P., O., Lopez M., J., Suarez S., R., Santa Ana, H., Wiens, F.,
Ferreiro, O., Rossello, E.A., Bianucci, H.A., Flores, R.F.A., Vistalli, M.C., Fernandez-Seveso, F., Fuenzalida,
R.P., and Munoz, N., 1995, Phanerozoic correlation in southern South America, in Tankard, A.J., Suarez S.,

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 10

KEY REFERENCES
(continued)

R., and Welsink, H.J., eds., Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG Memoir, no. 62, p. 129-161.

Funes, A.F., Rodriguez, J.C., Farina, M.O., Lpez, J.G., and Lardies, R., 2000, St. Aguarage XP-1: uso de
caones TCP direccionales: Proceedings Congreso de Produccin, Puerto Iguaz, Argentina, 14 p.

Girardi, F., Lagrenade, E., Mendoza, E., Marn, H., and Conti, 2001, Improvement of gas recovery factor
through the application of dewatering methodology in the Huamampampa sands of the Aguarage Field:
Proceedings SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires: SPE
69565, 7 p.

Girardi, F., Lagrenade, E., Mendoza, E., Marn, H., and Conti, J.J., 2002, Aplicacin del mtodo de extraccin
de agua (dewatering) para incrementar el factor de recuperacin del gas en la Formacin Huamampampa
del yacimiento Aguarage: Proceedings IV INGEPET, Lima, Per, Paper GAS-1-FG-39, 12 p

Kozlowski, E.E., Flores F.A., and Hofman, C., 2005, Gas en el Devonico de las Sierras Subandinas, Provincia
de Salta, Argentina, in Kozlowski, E., Vergani, G., and Boll, A., eds., Las trampas de hidrocarburos en las
cuencas productivas de Argentina: VI Congreso de Exploracin y Desarrollo de Hidrocarburos, Mar del Plata,
Argentina, p. 17-35.

Lindquist, S.J., 1999, The Santa Cruz-Tarija Province of central South America: Los Monos-Machareti(!)
Petroleum System, USGS Open-File Report 99-50-C,
http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/WorldEnergy/OF99-50C.

Luna, J.C., and Yelmini, M.G., 1999, Ensanchando mientras perfora con herramienta de dos piezas:
Proceedings III INGEPET, Lima, Per, Paper EXPL-4-(PUB)-12, 10 p.

Lquez, J., Hofman, C., and Constantini, L., 2002, Los reservorios de las formaciones Santa Rosa, Icla y
Huamampampa, in Schiuma, M., Hinterwimmer, G., and Vergani, G., eds., Rocas reservorio de las cuencas
productivas de la Argentina: V Congreso de Exploracin y Desarrollo de Hidrocarburos, Mar del Plata, p. 683-
697.

Nelson R.A., 1985, Geological analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs: Gulf Professional Publishing,
Contributions in Petroleum Geology and Engineering, no. 1, 320 p.

Pucci, J.C., 2007, Argentina-2: Potential assessed in Argentinas association contract areas: Oil & Gas
Journal, v. 105, January 15,
http://www.ogj.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=ReguA&ARTICLE_ID128&KEYWORDS=
%7BAguarague%7D.

Repblica Argentina Secretara de Energa (RASE), 2013, Reservas comprobadas y probables de petroleo y
gas natural al 31/12/2012:
http://energia3.mecon.gov.ar/contenidos/verpagina.php?idpagina=3312.

Schulz, A., Alarcn, M., Santiago, M., and Ashby, W.J., 1996, Exploration in the Sub Andean thrust/fold belt of

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 11

KEY REFERENCES
(continued)

north west Argentina: AAPG Bulletin, vol. 80, no. 1335.

Schulz, A.E., Alarcn, M.E., and Santiago, M.F., 2002, Caracterizacin estructural de las Sierras Baja de Orn
y Pintascayo, Sierras Subandinas occidentals, noroeste Argentino: Proceedings IV INGEPET, Lima, Per,
Paper EXPR-3-AS-42, 15 p.

Starck, D., 1995, Silurian-Jurassic stratigraphy and basin evolution of northwestern Argentina, in Tankard, A.J.,
Suarez, S.R., and Welsink, H.J., Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG Memoir, no. 62, p. 251-267.

Starck, D., Rodrguez, A., and Constantini, L., 2002, Los reservorios de las formaciones Tupambi, Tarija, Las
Peas y San Telmo, in Schiuma, M., Hinterwimmer, G., and Vergani, G., eds., Rocas reservorio de las
cuencas productivas de la Argentina: V Congreso de Exploracin y Desarrollo de Hidrocarburos, Mar del
Plata, p. 699-716.

Urin, C.M., 2001, Present and future petroleum provinces of southern South America, in Downey, M.W.,
Threet, J.C., and Morgan, W.A., eds., Petroleum provinces of the twenty-first century: AAPG Memoir, no. 74, p.
373-402.

Urin, C.M., Zambrano, J.J., and Yrigoyen, M.R., 1995, Petroleum basins of southern South America: an
overview, in Tankard, A.J., Suarez S., R., and Welsink, H.J., eds., Petroleum basins of South America: AAPG
Memoir, no. 62, p. 63-77.

Vistalli, M.C., Hernndez, R., Disalvo, A., Starck, D., and Sylwan, C., 2005, Cuencas Paleozoicas del Noroeste
Argentino, in Chebli, G.A., Cortias, J.S., Spalletti, L.A., Legarreta, L., and Vallejo, E.L., eds., Frontera
exploratoria de la Argentina: VI Congreso de Exploracin y Desarrollo de Hidrocarburos, Mar del Plata, p. 41-
61.

Yrigoyen, M.K., 1993, The history of hydrocarbon exploration and production in Argentina: Journal of
Petroleum Geology, v. 16, p. 371-382.

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 12

TABLE OF PARAMETERS

1.1 Field Summary


Field name AGUARAGUE

Latitude -22.6272

Longitude -63.8762

Country ARGENTINA

Region LATIN AMERICA

Basin name TARIJA


221:RAMP WITH BURIED GRABENS
Basin type (Bally) BUT WITH LITTLE OR NO
BLOCKFAULTING
Basin type (Klemme) 2A:CRATON MARGIN - COMPOSITE
INVERSION/COMPRESSION/
Tectonic regime EXTENSION
Operator company TECPETROL

Main hydrocarbon type GAS-CONDENSATE

Discovery year(yyyy) 1979

Discovery well name CU.X-1

Discovery well gas rate (1.0E+6Sm3PD) 0.5

First production year (yyyy) 1979

Current production status year (yyyy) 2005

Current field status PRIMARY RECOVERY

Current production stage SECONDARY DECLINE

Well count (total) 16

Onshore or offshore ONSHORE

Elevation (m) 670.0

Reservoir count 3

Original in-place gas (1.0E+9Sm3) 64.66

Original in-place oil equivalent (1.0E+6Sm3) 60.53

Resources EUR gas (1.0E+9Sm3) 25.411

EUR condensate (1.0E+6Sm3) 4.19

EUR oil equivalent (1.0E+6Sm3) 27.97

Reference year (yyyy) 2005

Gas (1.0E+9Sm3) 19.9


Production (cumulative)
Condensate (1.0E+6Sm3) 3.89

Oil equivalent (1.0E+6Sm3) 22.52

Gas (1.0E+9Sm3) 5.54


Remaining EUR Condensate (1.0E+6Sm3) 0.3
resources
Oil equivalent (1.0E+6Sm3) 5.48

Reference year (yyyy) 2005

Gas rate (1.0E+6 Sm3PD) 0.7


Current production Condensaterate (Sm3PD) 35.0

Oil equivalent rate (Sm3PD) 690.17

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 13

TABLE OF PARAMETERS
(continued)

1.1 Field Summary (continued)


Data quality CATEGORY I

1.2 Field Resource Summation Table


Field Resource Summation Table
Reservoirs included : HUAMAMPAMPA
Resource Category Resource Uncertainty
Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate
Gas (1.0E+9 Sm3) 55.84 55.84 55.84
In-Place
Oil Equivalent (1.0E+6 52.26 52.26 52.26
Sm3)
1P 2P 3P
Gas (1.0E+9 Sm3) 21.95 21.95 21.95
Reserves
Oil Equivalent (1.0E+6 20.54 20.54 20.54
Sm3)
Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate
Remaining Gas (1.0E+9 Sm3) 5.55 5.55 5.55
Recoverable
Reserves Oil Equivalent (1.0E+6 5.19 5.19 5.19
Sm3)

2 Reservoir Summary
Reservoir unit HUAMAMPAMPA

Resource category RESERVES

Resource uncertainty 1P (PROVED)

Resource maturity ON PRODUCTION

Basin name TARIJA


221:RAMP WITH BURIED GRABENS
Basin type (Bally) BUT WITH LITTLE OR NO
BLOCKFAULTING
Basin type (Klemme) 2A:CRATON MARGIN - COMPOSITE
INVERSION/COMPRESSION/
Tectonic regime EXTENSION
Operator company TECPETROL

Hydrocarbon type (main) GAS-CONDENSATE

Discovery concept STRUCTURAL

Technical basis for discovery well 2-D SEISMIC/SURFACE MAPPING

Discovery year (yyyy) 1979

Discovery well name CU.X-1

Discovery gas rate (1.0E+6 Sm3PD) 0.5


Well Rate
Maximum gas rate (1.0E+6 Sm3PD) 0.8

First production date (yyyy-mm) 1979


DEVELOPING/PEAK OR
PLATEAU/DECLINE/PRIMARY
All production stages REJUVENATING/SECONDARY PEAK
OR PLATEAU/SECONDARY DECLINE
Current status year (yyyy) 2000

Current reservoir status ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY


SECONDARY DECLINE

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 14

TABLE OF PARAMETERS
(continued)

2 Reservoir Summary (continued)


Current production stage
Total all well 13

Well count Total producer 13

Total gas producer 13

Well pattern (current) CRESTAL LINE

Current gas average (km2) 5.52

Well spacing (current) Current gas minimum (km2) 2.16

Current gas maximum (km2) 12.4

Gas (1.0E+6 Sm3PD) 1.18


Current production
Oil equivalent (Sm3PD) 1104.48

Reference year (yyyy) 1985

Production (peak) Gas (1.0E+6 Sm3PD) 3.99

Oil equivalent (Sm3PD) 3734.45

Reference year (yyyy) 2000

Production (cumulative) Gas (1.0E+9 Sm3) 16.4

Oil equivalent (1.0E+6 Sm3) 15.34

Onshore or offshore ONSHORE

Elevation (m) 670.0

Reservoir temperature (original) (deg C) 142.78

Temperature depth (m TVDSS) 3800.86

Reservoir pressure (original) (kPa) 47504.88

Pressure depth (m TVDSS) 3800.86

Pressure gradient (kPa/m) 10.63

Drive mechanism (main) GAS EXPANSION

Data quality CATEGORY I

3 Source
Source rock unit LOS MONOS

Source rock period DEVONIAN

Source rock epoch DEVONIAN MIDDLE

Source rock age GIVETIAN/EIFELIAN

Source rock tectonic setting RIFT

Source rock lithology SHALE


DEEP MARINE/LACUSTRINE/MARINE
Source rock depositional environment SHELF
Source rock thickness Average (m) 304.8

Minimum (mg HC/g TOC) 100


Hydrogen index
Maximum (mg HC/g TOC) 500

Kerogen type TYPE II/TYPE III

TOC (minimum %) 0.4


TOC
TOC (maximum %) 1.9

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 15

TABLE OF PARAMETERS
(continued)

3 Source (continued)
Timing of hydrocarbon expulsion (period) PALEOGENE
MIOCENE/OLIGOCENE/EOCENE/
Timing of hydrocarbon expulsion (epoch) PALEOCENE

4 Trap
Structural setting FORELAND/THRUST

Trapping mechanism (main) 1111:THRUST ANTICLINE

Timing of trap formation (period) PALEOGENE

Timing of trap formation (epoch) OLIGOCENE

Structural compartment count 1

Minimum (deg) 22
Structural dip
Maximum (deg) 52

Depth to top reservoir (m TVD) 3770.0

Reservoir top subsea (m TVDSS) 3100.0

Closure area (km2) 92.48

Productive area (original) (km2) 92.48

Fluid contact (original) Original GWC (average) (m TVDSS) 3800.0

Hydrocarbon column height (original gas) (m) 700.0

Hydrocarbon column height (original total) (m) 700.0

5 Seal
Seal unit (crestal) LOS MONOS

Seal period DEVONIAN

Seal epoch DEVONIAN MIDDLE

Seal age GIVETIAN/EIFELIAN

Seal tectonic setting RIFT

Seal depositional system DEEP MARINE

Seal lithology SHALE

Seal classification CONVEX SIMPLE TOP SEAL

Seal thickness Minimum (m) 500.0

6 Reservoir
Reservoir period DEVONIAN

Reservoir epoch DEVONIAN EARLY

Reservoir age PRAGHIAN

Reservoir tectonic setting RIFT

Depositional system (main) 24:COASTAL

Depositional environment (main) 2414:SHOREFACE-SHELF

Sandbody type (main) S420:OFFSHORE BAR

Reservoir architecture (main) LAYER-CAKE

Fluid flow restrictions Macro-scale SHALE

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 16

TABLE OF PARAMETERS
(continued)

6 Reservoir (continued)
Meso-scale NONE

No. of reservoir stratigraphic layers 5

Gross thickness Average (m) 400.0

Net thickness Average (m) 280.0

Net/gross ratio Average 0.7

Reservoir lithology (main) SANDSTONE


FINE-GRAINED SAND/MEDIUM-
Grain size for clastics Dominant GRAINED SAND
Depositional composition for clastics (main) QUARTZ ARENITE

Diagenetic reservoir type FRACTURED

Fractured reservoir type TYPE II/TYPE III

Porosity (matrix average) (%) 5.22

Porosity (matrix minimum) (%) 1.54

Porosity (matrix maximum) (%) 6.19


Porosity
Porosity (fracture average) (%) 0.48

Porosity (fracture minimum) (%) 0.2

Porosity (fracture maximum) (%) 1.2

Permeability (air average) (1.0E-3 m2) 4.046386

Permeability Permeability (air minimum) (1.0E-3 m2) 0.700716

Permeability (air maximum) (1.0E-3 m2) 23.853936

7 Fluids
API gravity (average)/Oil Density 0.78
(average)(g/cm3)
API gravity (minimum)/Oil Density 0.81
Oil (maximum)(g/cm3)
API gravity (maximum)/Oil Density 0.76
(minimum)(g/cm3)
Viscosity (oil average) (mPa.s) 1.81

Gas specific gravity (average) 0.66

Gas saturation (original average) (%) 70


Gas
Condensate yield (initial average) (Sm3/1.0E+6 168.44
Sm3)
Formation water salinity (average) (mg/L) 39000
Water
Water saturation (initial average) (%) 30

8 Resources
Oil Reference year (yyyy) 2000

Original in-place gas (1.0E+9 Sm3) 55.84

Resource density (gas)(1.0E+6 Sm3/km2) 603.793

EUR gas(1.0E+9 Sm3) 21.95


Gas
Remaining EUR gas (1.0E+9 Sm3) 5.55

Reference year (yyyy) 2000

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 17

TABLE OF PARAMETERS
(continued)

8 Resources (continued)
Recovery factor (primary gas %) 39.3

Recovery factor (ultimate gas %) 39.3

Recovery to date (% of EUR gas) 74.7

EUR gas per production well (1.0E+9 Sm3) 1.688

Gas-condensate Reference year (yyyy) 2000

Original in-place oil equivalent (1.0E+6 Sm3) 52.26

EUR oil equivalent (1.0E+6 Sm3) 20.54

Remaining EUR oil equivalent (1.0E+6 Sm3) 5.19

Reference year (yyyy) 2000

8.1 Reservoir Resource Summation Table


Reservoir Resource Summation Table
Resource uncertainties included : HUAMAMPAMPA-1:RESERVES-14:1P (PROVED)
Resource Category Resource Uncertainty
Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate
Gas (1.0E+9 Sm3) 55.84 55.84 55.84
In-Place
Oil Equivalent (1.0E+6 52.26 52.26 52.26
Sm3)
1P 2P 3P
Gas (1.0E+9 Sm3) 21.95 21.95 21.95
Reserves
Oil Equivalent (1.0E+6 20.54 20.54 20.54
Sm3)
Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate
Remaining Gas (1.0E+9 Sm3) 5.55 5.55 5.55
Recoverable
Reserves Oil Equivalent (1.0E+6 5.19 5.19 5.19
Sm3)

9 Reservoir Performance (see Table of Performance and Recovery for details)

10 Improved Recovery
Remaining hydrocarbon characterization techniques RESERVOIR SIMULATION
ARTIFICIAL LIFT/OTHER RESERVOIR
IR Methods MANAGEMENT
Other improved Artificial lift GAS LIFT
recovery methods
DEWATERING/SIDETRACKING/STEP-
Other reservoir management OUT DEVELOPMENT DRILLING
Completion type Vertical/deviated well PERFORATED LINER/DUAL TUBING
WIRELINE GUN
Perforation type PERFORATION/TUBING CONVEYED
PERFORATION (TCP)
Total incremental Artificial lift (%) 6.4
recovery

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
TABLE OF PERFORMANCE AND RECOVERY

PRIMARY SECONDARY PEAK


STAGE DEVELOPING PEAK OR PLATEAU DECLINE SECONDARY DECLINE
REJUVENATING OR PLATEAU
Starting date (YYYY-MM) 1979 1985 1986 1989 1992 1994

Ending date (YYYY-MM) 1984 1985 1988 1991 1993 2000

Time duration (month) 72 12 36 36 24 84

Well spacing (gas average 5.5


km2)
Well pattern CRESTAL LINE CRESTAL LINE CRESTAL LINE CRESTAL LINE CRESTAL LINE CRESTAL LINE
STEP-OUT STEP-OUT STEP-OUT
Improved recovery DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT ARTIFICIAL LIFT
methods (other) DEWATERING
DRILLING DRILLING DRILLING
STEP-OUT STEP-OUT
Improved recovery best DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT ARTIFICIAL LIFT
practices (other) DEWATERING
DRILLING DRILLING
Daily gross gas rate 3.579 3.989 1.87 2.649 2.67 1.177
(1.0E+6 Sm3PD)
Daily net gas rate (1.0E+6 3.579 3.989 1.87 2.649 2.67 1.177
Sm3PD)
Daily water rate (Sm3PD) 16.48 21.46 23.4 81.56 140.38 1015.35

Cumulative gas production 3.814 5.27 7.814 10.212 12.206 16.4


(1.0E+9 Sm3)

HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
Cumulative gas production 3.814 5.27 7.814 10.212 12.206 16.4
(1.0E+9 Sm3)
Cumulative water 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.16 2.19
production (1.0E+6 Sm3)
Gas decline rate (%) -51.32 21.95 -11.5 4.38 10.61

Annual gas recovery of 0.29 2.61 1.93 1.31 1.83 1.59


GIIP at start of stage (%)

Annual gas recovery of


ARGENTINA

2.35 2.61 1.23 1.73 1.75 0.77


GIIP at end of stage (%)

18
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
TABLE OF PERFORMANCE AND RECOVERY (continued)

PRIMARY SECONDARY PEAK


STAGE DEVELOPING PEAK OR PLATEAU DECLINE SECONDARY DECLINE
REJUVENATING OR PLATEAU
Annual gas recovery of 0.75 6.63 4.92 3.32 4.64 4.05
EUR at start of stage (%)
Annual gas recovery of 5.97 6.63 3.12 4.41 4.44 1.96
EUR at end of stage (%)
Recovery to date (% of 6.83 9.44 13.99 18.29 21.86 29.37
GIIP at end of stage)
Recovery to date (% of 17.37 24.01 35.6 46.53 55.61 74.71
EUR gas at end of stage)
Remaining gas reserves 18.136 16.68 14.136 11.738 9.744 5.55
(1.0E+9 Sm3)
Remaining gas reserves to 13.85 11.46 20.65 12.14 10 12.89
annual production ratio
Water/gas ratio (annual) 0.82 0.96 2.23 5.48 9.36 153.69
(Sm3/1.0E+6 Sm3)

HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

19
AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 20

Figure 1-1 - Map of southern South America, showing the distribution of sedimentary basins in Argentina and
surrounding countries, and the location of the Neuqun Basin and Aguarage Field (Urin, 2001). 2001
American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission of American
Association of Petroleum Geologists.
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA
AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 21

Figure 1-2 - Basin distribution map of NW Argentina, southern Bolivia, and western Paraguay, and location of the Aguarage
Field in the Tarija Basin. See Figure 1-1 for map location (Urin, 2001). 2001 American Association of
Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission of American Association of
Petroleum Geologists.
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA
AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 22

Figure 1-3 - Hydrocarbon fields and structural trends of the Tarija Basin, NW Argentina. The Aguarage Field is located
in the Aguarage range (Sierra de Aguarage), one of several NNW-trending folds of the sub-Andean fold and thrust
belt. See Figure 1-2 for map location (Constantini et al., 2002).

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 23

Figure 1-4 - Main structural elements of the Tarija Basin, NW Argentina. The Aguarage trend occurs east of the
Mandiyuti thrust. See Figure 1-2 for map location, and Figures 1-5, 4-3A, 4-3B, and 4-4 for cross-sections A-
A', B-B', C-C', and D-D' (Flores and Alonso, 2002).

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
Figure 1-5 - NW-ESE structural cross-section A-A across the southern Santa Cruz-Tarija fold and thrust belt, showing the eastward-younging fold-thrust systems. See Figure
1-4 for section location (Echavarria et al., 2005). 2003 American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission of
American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
ARGENTINA

24
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 1-6 - Lithostratigraphic chart and elements of the petroleum systems of the Tarija Basin in NW Argentina (Belotti et al., 1995). 1995 American Association

25
of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission of American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 3-1 - Present-day vitrinite reflectance maps of Silurian-Devonian source rocks in the Tarija Basin of NW Argentina (Vistalli et al., 2005): (A) Top of
Kirusillas Formation, showing that present-day source rocks are overmature; (B) top of Icla Formation; (C) base of Los Monos Formation; and (D) top of Los
Monos Formation.

26
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 3-2 - Burial history chart, thermal history, and elements of the petroleum system for a typical hanging-wall syncline in the Tarija Basin (Lindquist,
1999).

27
AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 28

Figure 4-1 - Depth-structure map on top of the Huamampampa Formation, Aguarage Field. See Figure 1-3 for map
location (Aguilera et al., 2002).
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA
AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 29

Figure 4-2 - Depth-structure map on top of the Santa Rosa Formation, Aguarage Field, and surface geology of the
Aguarage trend. See Figure 1-3 for map location (Kozlowski et al., 2005).

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 4-3 - (A) WNW-ESE structural cross-section B-B across the Aguarage Field, showing the two main reservoir intervals (Huamampampa and
Santa Rosa) and the offset in locations of the surface and deep anticlines; and (B) S-N structural cross-section C-C along the Aguarage Field,
showing northward increase in thickness of the Los Monos Formation (Kozlowski et al., 2005). See Figure 1-4 for section locations.

30
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 4-4 - W-E TWT seismic line D-D across the southern Aguarage Field (Echavarria et al., 2003). See Figure 1-4 for location. 2003 American

31
Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission of American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 32

Figure 6-1 - Type log of the Huamampampa, Icla, and Santa Rosa formations in the Tarija Basin of NW Argentina
(Luquez et al., 2002).

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 33

Figure 6-2 - Type log (XP-1 well) of the Huamampampa reservoir in the Aguarage Field, showing stratigraphic
zonation. Location shown in Figure 4-1 (Degni et al., 2001).

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 34

Figure 6-3 - (A) Gross sandstone thickness and reservoir quality of the Santa Rosa, Icla, and Huamampampa
reservoirs; and (B) S-N regional schematic cross-section of the Silurian-Devonian interval of NW Argentina and southern
Bolivia. The Lower Devonian reservoir rocks are better developed in NW Argentina (Luquez et al., 2002).

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 6-4 - NNW-NE stratigraphic cross-section E-E across Sub-Andean ranges in the Tarija Basin, showing lateral variations in depositional systems. Datum:
top of Huamampampa Formation. See Figure 1-3 for section location (Schulz et al., 2002).

35
AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 36

Figure 6-5 - Type log of the Huamampampa reservoir, Aguarage Field, showing preferential orientation and relative
frequency of open fractures. Note that fractures are oriented parallel and perpendicular to the regional ESE maximum
horizontal stress direction, suggesting that both Type I and II fractures are present (Luquez et al., 2002).

RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA


RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 9-1 - Production history of the Aguarage Field, 1979-2005 (modified from Kozlowski et al., 2005).

37
AGUARAGUE FIELD HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR 38

Figure 9-2 - Completion diagram of well XP-1, Aguarage Field, after workover operation to open the
Huamampampa Formation to production. Note that the Icla and Santa Rosa reservoirs produce through separate
tubing (Funes et al., 2000).
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT ARGENTINA
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 9-3 - Production history of the Huamampampa Formation, 1979-2000 (Girardi et al., 2001).

39
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 9-4 - Gas rate stabilization after dewatering in the Aguarage Field, 1995-98 (Girardi et al., 2002).

40
RESERVOIR EVALUATION REPORT

AGUARAGUE FIELD
HUAMAMPAMPA RESERVOIR
ARGENTINA

Figure 10-1 - Gas and water rates resulting from gas lift after dewatering of well Tr.XP-199, Aguarage Field. Note the correspondence of the increased gas rate with
increased water production (Aguilera et al., 2003).

41