MS 022A BONDAR Valentina TAMU Thesis Vol 1 (May 2001)

‘THE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF WATER-OIL-RATIO PERFORMANCE IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS Volume I A Thesis by VALENTINA BONDAR Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May 2001 Major Subject: Petroleum EngineeringTHE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF WATER-OIL-RATIO PERFORMANCE IN PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS VOLUME I A Thesis by VALENTINA BONDAR Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved a to style and content by: Sethe a “ee ? : as A.Blasingame Robert R. Berg / (Chair of Committee) (Member) a Ll bila 4 John Lee ‘Charles H. Bowman. (Member) (Department Head) May 2001 ‘Major Subject: Petroleum Engineeringiii ABSTRACT The Analysis and Interpretation of Water-Oil-Ratio Performance in Petroleum Reservoirs. (May 2001) ‘Valentina Bondar, B.S., Moscow State Academy of Oil and Gas (Russia) Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Thomas A. Blasingame Our goal in this work is to develop and validate a multivariate relation for the behavior of the water-oil-ratio (OR) and/or water cut (f,) functions, where this relation would incorporate the reservoir and fluid properties for both phases (oil and water). The only significant assumption that we make in this work is that pseudosteady-state flow conditions must exist in the entire reservoir system. Our proposed model is an extension of traditional (ce., steady-state) methods for the case of pseudosteady-state flow — for both the oil and water phases. In this work, the pseudosteady-state model reproduces observed field performance substantially better than any of the steady-state models. We believe that this approach can be applied to any reservoir system undergoing waterflood. The specific tasks achieved in this work include: 1. Development of a rigorous model for the simultaneous flow of oil and water at pseudosteady-state flow conditions. This model has been validated against 28 different field cases (all cases are included in Appendices A and B), and in all cases, the new model gives an excellent representation of the data. 2. Development of a "reciprocal rate plot" for the estimation of both the original oil-in-place (N), as well as the "movable oil" (Npmo.) at current producing conditions. This approach requires a plot of the reciprocal rate (I/q,) versus the “oil material balance time," (Np/4e).iv 3. Development of a diagnostic technique for assessing (qualitatively) the efficiency/ effectiveness of a waterflood. This technique involves the use of the following log-log format plots: (the "associated functions” include the WOR-derivative, the WOR-integral, and the IWOR-integral-derivative functions) = WOR and WOR associated functions versus production time. "WOR and WOR associated functions versus Np/qe = VOR and WOR associated functions versus (Np+Wp) (Go+qw)- 4, Application/interpretation of the following extrapolation methods for the water-oil-ratio (WOR) and the water cut (f,) functions: qo ,versus N,, mlog(f,) versus Np. mf, versus Np. mf, versus Np. mlog(WOR) versus Np. Unfortunately, the formulation of the two-phase (oil-water), pseudosteady-state flow relation does not provide for a simple extrapolation formula for the estimation of movable fluids. This is an area for further investigation.vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincerest gratitude and appreciation to the following members of my graduate advisory committee: Dr. Thomas A. Blasingame, chair of my advisory committee, for his support, guidance, his intellectual contributions, and for his help in completing this thesis. Drs. W. John Lee and Robert R. Berg for their service as members of my advisory committee. I would also like to thank the faculty and staff at the Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering for their support and encouragement during my studies at Texas A&M University. I would like to thank Fina Oi and Chemical Co. for providing the production data for the North Robertson Unit (Gaines County, West Texas). 1 would like to thank Spirit Energy (Unocal). for providing the production data for the West White Lake Field (Vermilion Parish, Southwest Louisiana) Finally, I want to thank my parents and my sister for their support, and their kind encouragement throughout my graduate studies.vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I CHAPTER Page 1 INTRODUCTION...... Background of This Research .. .2 Objectives of This Research... 1.3 Interpretation/Application of Results.. 14 Layout of This Thesis.. Il LITERATURE REVIEW 21 Steady-State Flow Models ....0.n 2.2 Other Methods for the Analysis of the YOR Function 2.3 Description of the North Robertson Unit (West Texas). 24 — Description of the West White Lake Field (South Louisiana)......20 Ill PSEUDOSTEADY-STATE WATER-OIL RATIO MODEL. 3.1 Derivation of Pseudosteady-State WOR Model 3.2 Application of Pseudosteady-State VOR Model 33 SUMMATY ..cerennnnenrnnnne IV ANALYSIS OF OIL AND WATER PRODUCTION DATA .. 41 Introduction. 4.2 Decline Curve Analysis : 43 Functions Used to Model the Fractional Flows of Oil and Water...42 44 New Method for Estimation of Movable Oil retnansee 4.5 Qualitative Methods for the Analysis of Production Data 46 Ershagi’s A-Plot Technique 47 Closure V_ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 5.1 Summary 5.2 Conclusions 53 Recommendations for Future Work.viii Page NOMENCLATURE... REFERENCES 279 APPENDIX A. 81 Volume II APPENDIX .... VITA 540FIGURE, 24d 3.2.1a 3.2.1b 3.2.10 3.2.1d 3.2.1e 3.2.20 3.2.2b 3.2.2¢ 3.2.24 3.2.1e 421 42.2 423 LIST OF FIGURES Volume I Page Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106 .....12 Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106 12) Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106... Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106 wo. Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106... 27 Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106 ... Comparison of the Calculated WOR Performance (Pseudosteady-State Model) with the Measured WOR Performance, NRU Well 3106... Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL 31 Well BAD seu Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41 .. Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well BAL... Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41 ......32 Comparison of the Calculated WOR Performance (Pseudosteady-State Model) with the Measured IVOR Performance, WWL Well Bal ....c.00.033 Oil and Water Production Rate History, NRU Well 3106... il and Water Production Rate History, WWL Well B41 Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106.FIGURE 4.2.4 431 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 44.1 442 443 444 45.1 45.2 453 Page Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well BAL. Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106 ......44 ‘Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41 ......44 Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106 ress Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41 . Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106 csrsennen at ct Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well BAl.. Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106 Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41 cesses Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oil Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106, Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well B4l Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Production AS Time, NRU Well 3106 . se : 34 Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Production Time, NRU Well 3106 .. er 54 Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, NRU Well 310645.7 458 45.9 45.10 45.11 45.12 45.13 4.5.16 xi Page Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106 .. Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106 .... Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106 Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well B41. Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well B41... Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41 Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41 58 Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41 Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41... oe 59 ‘Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106 Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106... Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production WWL. Well B41 . 62 Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41 58FIGURE 4517 4.5.18 45.19 45.20 4.6.1 46.2 4.6.3 xii Page 64 ‘Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Production, NRU Well 3106 Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance Time, NRU ‘Well 3106... Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Production, WWL Well B41... Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well Bal .. X- Plot, NRU Well 3106 X- Plot, WWL Well B41 X-Plot, WWL Well Al7TABLE 234 321 3.2.2 331 3.3.2 451 471 xiii LIST OF TABLES Volume I Page Reservoir and Fluid Property Data for the North Robertson (Clearfork) Unit... ‘Summary of Initial and Recent Production Data for NRU Well 3106... Summary of Initial and Recent Production Data for WWL Well B41......30 Summary of Models Used to Characterize WOR, fu, and f, Behavior, NRU Well 3106... Summary of Models Used to Characterize WOR, fy and fe Behavior, WWL Well BAT cnn a Qualitative Analysis of Production Data for NRU Well 3106.... Summary of Models Used to Characterize WOR, fx, and f, Behavior — NRU Well 3106 and WWL Well B41 Example Cases....CHAPTERI INTRODUCTION In this chapter we introduce the background for the analysis/interpretation of water-oil- ratio (WOR) and/or water cut (f,) data, In the first section of this chapter we discuss the background and motivation for this work, and in the subsequent sections, we discuss the objectives of this research as well as the results that were obtained. Finally, we present an outline of the work performed in this thesis. To initiate this discussion, we present the specific contributions that this work makes to petroleum technology. 1. The new techniques developed in this work include the following: a. A water-oil ratio (WOR) relation for pseudosteady-state flow behavior. b. A plot of the fractional flow of oil (f2) versus the cumulative oil production (N,) (an extrapolation of the straight-line yields the "movable oil," Np mos) c. A “reciprocal rate plot" (reciprocal rate (1/go) versus oil material balance time (Np/qo)) which is used to estimate the original oil-in-place (N) and the "movable oil” (Npmo:)- 4. A series of log-log "characteristic plots" of the WOR and WOR-derivative, integral, and integral-derivative behavior as a function of production time and "material balance” time functions. 2. Application/interpretation of the "conventional" straight-line extrapolation techniques used to predict recoverable (or movable) fluid volumes. Speci- fically, we apply the following methods: . qo Versus cumulative oil production, N,. b. log(/,) (f,= fractional flow of water) versus cumulative oil production, Np. ©. Uf, (f,= fractional flow of water) versus cumulative oil production, Np. 4. f, (f= fractional flow of oil) versus cumulative oil production, Np. e. log(WOR) versus cumulative oil production, Np. This thesis follows the style of the Journal of Petroleum Technology.1.1 Background of This Research Historically, it has been difficult to analyze and predict oil production behavior in waterdrive or waterflood reservoir systems (here we distinguish "waterdrive" as a natural condition of water influx, and waterflood as a manufactured condition of water injection). The difficulty arises in how to characterize two-phase (oil-water) flow performance using analytical solutions based on single-phase flow theory, or by using ified, steady-state solutions to represent two-phase (oil-water) flow. Neither approach is correct, and yet both are used regularly for the analysis of data taken from waterdrive/waterflood reservoir systems. We must be able to evaluate and predict waterflood performance in petroleum reservoirs — in-place and recoverable (and/or movable) oil volumes are required for evaluation and reservoir management purposes. A number of essentially empirical methods have been proposed for the evaluation of waterflood performance, and these are typically assumed to give acceptable results. A plot of the logarithm of the water-oil ratio (WOR) (or water cut function (f,)) versus cumulative production (N;) is the most widely used technique for the evaluation and ' This simple (and empirical) method is appli- prediction of waterflood performance. cable for the analysis of late time production behavior and it allows us to estimate the the straight-line trend of the fy function to an arbi- movable oil volume by extrapol trary value of water cut (often fv=l, or some other "high" value, such as f,-0.95). ‘This approach can be used once the function of interest (WOR or f,) can be approximated by a straight line. Unfortunately, in most cases, this method is not applicable for early stages of waterflood (e.g., a rule of thumb is that the log(IVOR or f,) versus N, plots can not be used for values of water cut function less then 0.5). Misuse of these semi-empirical techniques can result in substantial errors in extrapolation of movable reserves. ‘We recognize that the use of a model based on steady-state flow behavior is an approximation at best. The motivation for this work is the development of a model that can be used to represent the pseudosteady-state behavior of a water-oil reservoir flow system.‘We also recognize that the pseudosteady-state model is an approximation as well, and that mobility components can (and do) change substantially with time (which is a condition that we do not explicitly consider). However, our primary goal remains to be the development of a WOR or fy relation for pseudosteady-state flow conditions. Aside from the estimation of reservoir volumetric properties (N, Np.mov, etc), WOR data can be plotted versus time (or the material balance time functions) on a log-log plot and used as a diagnostic tool to identify the dominant reservoir performance mechanism (uniform displacement, water coning, or water channeling).’ Our intention is to develop a methodology that combines the classic techniques for well test and production data analysis (pressure derivative, pressure integral, and pressure integral-derivative functions) with our proposed model for the analysis of oil and water production data (in this, case the WOR, WOR-derivative, WOR-integral, and IVOR-integral-derivative functions). We believe that the qualitative analysis of water-oil ratio (WOR) performance data will significantly improve our evaluation and assessment of well problems, assist in injection/production balancing, and aid in the identification of the dominant reservoir drive mechanism, 1.2 Objectives of This Research Our primary objective is to extend the "conventional" water-oil ratio analysis techniques based on steady-state flow theory to the case for pseudosteady-state reservoir flow ‘behavior in both the oil and water phases. Goals and Objectives 1. To provide the development of a pseudosteady-state WOR equation — this relation uses the pseudosteady-state flow model for both the oil and the water phases. We demonstrate that this combined flow model gives the best representation of the actual water and oil production performance behavior.2. To estimate and compare values of "movable" oil using various straight-line extrapolation methods for the analysis of oil and water production data, These methods include: ‘© “Conventional” analysis of oil and water rate performance data ® log(qa) and log(q,) versus production time, # gpversus cumulative oil production, Np ‘© Two-phase pseudosteady-state flow model = Fractional flow of oil, f,, versus cumulative oil production, Ny, = Reciprocal fractional flow of water, fy, versus cumulative oil production, Ny, & log(f) (fe fractional flow of water) versus cumulative oil production, N. 1og(IOR) versus cumulative oil production, N, ‘© Cumulative WOR and fy: functions versus Np approach Logtfrc) Fue = Wo! Wp + Np)) versus cumulative oil production, Ny. ™ log(WOR.) (WOR. = We N,)) versus cumulative oil production, Np © Single-phase flow model (separate analysis for oil and water) m= Reciprocal oil rate (1/q,) versus oil material balance time (f,=Ny/). m Reciprocal water rate (1/gs) versus water material balance time (¢,=Wy/qu). 3. A new method for estimating Npov is introduced. We propose that 1/g, versus oil material balance time (1,=Ny/qo) plot (ce., the "reciprocal rate plot") can be used to evaluate Npmoy Since a linear trend was observed in all of the field cases that we considered. In addition, the resulting values of Np» correspond well with the results determined using the conventional evaluation techniques (decline curves, plots of log(WOR), log(f,), and f, functions versus N)4, Our objective is to investigate and analyze WOR and WOR derivative behavior as a function of the material balance and production time trends, and we also consider the WOR integral and WOR integral-derivative functions in this diagnostic approach. Our goals are to identify characteristic behavior, and (possibly) to use these techniques to evaluate reservoir properties. @ Extended Chan? approach — diagnostic plots: (log-log plots of the WOR and WOR associated functions, the “associated functions" include the WOR-derivative, the WOR-integral, and the WOR-integral-derivative functions) m= WOR and WOR associated functions versus production time. = WOR and WOR associated functions versus Nj/qo. m= WOR and WOR associated functions versus (Np+ I) (qo+4w). 5. We also discuss application of Ershagi and Omoregie™* X-function for evaluation of oil reserves. Our proposed straight-line extrapolation techniques for WOR and fu analysis gives better estimates of movable oil than the Ershagi-Omoregie extrapolation technique for all of the field cases investigated in this work. 1.3 Interpretation/Application of Results As a validation of our proposed methodology, we demonstrate application of the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model using oil and water production data from the North Robertson Unit (West Texas) and West White Lake Field (South Louisiana). We present our analyses of these oil and water production data using a variety of techniques to compare the predicted estimates of oil volumes at current conditions.Our work includes the following: 1. Single-phase analogs (separate analysis of the oil and water production data) log(q.) and log(q.) versus production time ("exponential decline" plot). ’. qoversus cumulative oil production, N, (EUR plot) . Reciprocal oil rate (1/g,) versus oil material balance time (/,=N;/4z). . Reciprocal water rate (1/q..) versus water material balance time (¢,=W,/qw). 2. Empirical and semi-analytical methods (simultaneous analysis of the oil and water production data): 2. Fractional flow of oil, f,, versus cumulative oil production, N,.. b. Reciprocal fractional flow of water, f,, versus cumulative oil production, Np. c. log(f.) (fu= fractional flow of water) versus cumulative oil production, Np. 4. log(WOR) versus cumulative oil production, Np. 1os(fue) (foe = W,/(Wy + Np)) versus cumulative oil production, Np. log(WOR,) (WOR. = Ws! N,)) versus cumulative oil production, Np, g. Ershagi and Omoregie™* X-function plot (Np versus the X-function) 1.4 Layout of This Thesis © Chapter1 ~ — Introduction ™ Background of this research. = Objectives of this research. = Interpretation/application of results.‘© Chapter II — Literature Review = Steady-State Flow Models for the Water-Oil Ratio Function (17OR). ~ Empirical plot of water-oil ratio (WOR) or fractional flow of water (fy) versus cumulative oil production (N,) = Ershagi and Omoregie™ method. — Liu’ modification of Ershagi-Omoregie method. = Lijek* method. ~ Lo’ investigation — correlation of reservoir characteristics with the slope of the plot of IVOR versus production time. ™ Other Methods for the Analysis of the WOR Function Chan’ approach — the WOR derivative diagnostic plot. — Yortsos, ef al® models. © Chapter Ill — Pscudosteady-State Model for the WOR Function, = General pseudosteady-state flow model for a closed reservoir system, single-phase liquid case. = Proposed pseudosteady-state model for the WOR function. © Chapter IV — Analysis of WOR Data Conventional Analysis Techniques log(q.) and log(qy) versus f 1 log(WOR) and log( fx) versus t. mq versus Np, mf, versus Ny, log(f,) versus Np. = log(IVOR) versus Np‘New Analysis Techniques Uff, versus Ny. log(VOR) and log(f,) versus t. log(fne) versiis Np. log(WOR,) versus Ny. 1/go versus oil material balance time (t.=Np/qo)- 1m L/qy versus water material balance time (4=Wp/q). = WOR and WOR associated functions versus production time. = IVOR and WOR associated functions versus Np/go. WOR and WOR associated functions versus (Np+W,)/(qo+4u). 1og(WOR) versus cumulative total production (N+ M7). tog(f,) versus total material balance time (=(Np+Wp)!(go+w)). Ershagi-Omoregie X-function plot (N versus X-function). © Chapter V — Summary and Conclusions = Summary. = Conclusions. = Recommendations for Future Research. © Appendix A — Oil and Water Production Data Analysis for West White Lake Field (Southwest Louisiana). © Appendix B — Oil and Water Production Data for the North Robertson Unit (West Texas).CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter we present our review of the literature concerning the analysis of oil and water performance data ~ in particular, water-oil-ratio or WOR analysis. We begin by reviewing the empirical method of plotting the log(OR) and/or log(/,) functions versus N,. This technique is widely used in the petroleum industry for predicting the "estimated ultimate recovery" of oil (or ZUR). This "semilog WOR" method is easy to use and does not require any tedious computations or analysis procedures ~ it is recognized as an approximate technique, but it also remains one of the most widely used mechanisms to estimate movable reserves. ‘We next discuss the steady-state flow model presented by Ershagi and Omoregic™* for the water-oil-ratio (J7OR) function, We also review several new techniques that attempt to modify and extend the Ershagi-Omoregie model. Our intention is to review the application and establish the limitations of this method — and then to compare this, approach with the conventional log(WOR) versus N, technique. We note that Lo” discussed the dependence of the slope of the log(WOR) versus N, plot on different reservoir and well characteristics. In the next section we review the Chan* approach which uses the WOR and WOR derivative functions versus time plot as a diagnostic tool — this is a qualitative approach that can be used to determine the reservoir drive mechanism. Yortsos, et al.” provide further development of this method, including detailed analytical and numerical studies of WOR versus time trends. Finally, we present an overview of the reservoir characteristics of the North Robertson Unit (West Texas, US) and West White Lake Field (South Louisiana, US). We use the production data from these reservoirs to validate the pseudosteady-state WOR model and to demonstrate the analysis and interpretation of oil and water production performance.2.1 Steady-State Flow Models Several articles have been presented that consider the linearity of late-time behavior of the WOR function. The objective of those efforts was to provide a semi-analytical representation for natural water drive and/or waterflooding mechanisms in oil production. Recalling the expression for the steady-state radial flow of an incompressible fluid,’ we have kh 1 141.2By In(r,/r,) dp sevne(21.1) ¢ For the individual oj] and water phases flowing in the reservoir we can re-write Eq. 2.1.1 for the oil and water phases (respectively) as follows: _ as (oil) (2.1.2) 4° Ta12B,m, ing,ir,) ? ae Kh __1__ny (watery (2.1.3) 4-728, n, ing, /r,) By definition, the fractional flow of water (f,) in the reservoir is the ratio of the water production rate and the total liquid production: te (2.1.4) Ge * Io Substituting Eqs. 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 into Eq. 2.1.4 and rearranging, we obtain the following model for the fractional flow of water (f,) function: All of the analysis techniques presented to date in the literature utilize Eq. 2.1.5 as the basis for the interpretation of oil and water production data. Eq. 2.1.5 implicitly assumes that the liquid flowrate and the pressure distribution throughout the reservoir system remain constant"* (i.e., the steady-state flow assumption). For WOR analysis, we will further simplify Eq. 2.1.5 by assuming that the ratio of the formation volume factors (B,/B,) is unity. Some developments make the further assump-u tion that the mobility ratio (4, /44,) is also equal to unity. These assumptions yield the following results: (vater-oil ratio). (2.1.6) (fractional flow of water) ...cm (21.7) The plot of the logarithm of the water-oil ratio or the water cut functions versus the cumulative production! is a very widely used technique for the evaluation and prediction of waterflood performance. This "conventional" approach is assumed to apply only for the analysis of late-time WOR behavior ("fully developed” steady-state flow). This approach allows us to estimate the volume of "movable oil” by extrapolating the WOR straight-line trend to arbitrary values of the WOR function. When plotted versus N, the WOR function yields a straight-line trend that can be extrapolated to any arbitrary value of the IWOR function in order to establish a "movable oil” volume at that WOR value (j.e., the EUR at that condition). The equation of the straight-line trend is given by: WOR (2.1.8)10 T T T Ie) 4 WOR = 1.6819 exp(2.5096x10°N,) _| Water-0il Ratio (Wor: Legend: NRU 3108, © WOR Function |--~- WOR Exponential N, Model] 4 L r L L © 20,000 40,000 60,000 £0,000 100,000, 10 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, Nyy STB Fig. 2.1.1 — Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106. 16,8198x10" exp(4.40962x10°N,) Fractional Flow of Water OMG) 4 Legend: NRU 3106 © f, Function j-~=- f, Exponential N, Model} 1 1 L 1 L L L © 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Cumulative Oil Production, Nj, STB Fig. 2.1.2 — Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106The data for Well 3106 from the North Robertson Unit (i.e, NRU Well 3106) is given in the log(JVOR) versus N, format as shown in Fig. 2.1.1. We can also use the fractional flow of water (f,) function instead of the water-oil ratio (WOR) function as a plotting function, in particular, we can use the following definition: WOR We THVOR 4,49, 2.1.9) An example plot of log(f,) versus Np is presented in Fig. 2.1.2 (this is the same case that was considered in Fig. 2.1.1 (i, NRU Well 3106). The principle advantage of using the f, function is that its value can not exceed unity, thus the value of movable oil (Njn.) can be estimated by extrapolating the straight-line trend to the /-=1 line (as noted in Fig. 2.1.2). The disadvantage of this technique is that it can not be applied until the straight- line trend has fully developed. Several modifications of this method have evolved in an attempt to "generate" the straight-line trend at lower values of the fy function (ce., earlier in the performance schedule). The objective of those efforts was to forecast "movable" reserves as early as possible in the producing life of the system. In 1978 Ershagi and Omoregie,” and then later (1984) Ershagi and Abdassah’ presented a technique for the extrapolation of water-cut versus recovery curves for the waterflood process. The proposed method is based on the concepts of fractional flow and the ‘| Assuming that the frontal advance theory (Buckley and Leverett) discussed in Cole. Jog (y/k.) versus S, is a straight line, the following relationship between the recovery (ie., the movable oil) and the fractional water cut function can be derived: (2.1.10) Where E, = overall reservoir recovery, volume of hydrocarbon recovered divided by the oil in place (i.¢., Np/N) 2111)SS PA Sei) 1 1S yr C=alp,/t,) (2.1.12) soos(2A.13) 2.1.14) ‘The coefficients a and b are obtained from the following empirical ret ): nship (observed from a variety of laboratory measurem KL Ky = ae (2.1.15) This technique assumes that the waterflood process is fully developed, with stabilized injection/production operations, This approach also provides an estimate of the oil recovery by extrapolating the straight-line trend to the ultimate water cut (usually assumed to be 100 percent water). In 1989, Liu’ proposed a modification of Ershagi’s method (refs. 3 and 4) by using the “cumulative water cut" function (f..=W,/(W,+N,)). The proposed model for the "cumulative water cut" function is given by: 2.1.16) This equation indicates that a linear relationship exists between Z, and the [In(¥,/77,) ~ NjJW], with stope by, and intercept ayy. The intercept term (aj) gives the volume of the ultimate oil recovered (i.e., the EUR estimate). ‘This method can be applied as soon as the straight-line portion of the plot is attained (ie., £, versus [In(W,/%,) - N,/W,) yields a straight line). According to Liu, this method can be used to make predictions earlier in the life of a waterflood for water cut values lower than 50 percent (we did not pursue application of this method, but instead elected to use the Ershagi-Omoregie* technique, as itis the more commonly accepted approach). In 1989, Lijek" investigated various WOR analysis techniques and presented analytical methods by which the oil rate can be modeled as a function of time. Lijek examined the linearity of the following trends:© WOR versus Np, © The Ershagi-Omoregie’ X-plot method, © (V/OR)+WOR versus cumulative water injection (17), and © Gross rate (qa) versus WOR. It was shown that predictions were possible for either the constant rate or constant producing pressure cases — if the logarithm of water relative permeability versus S, could be approximated by one or more linear relationships. In such cases, the gross rate (watertoil) can be represented by a power law function of the WOR, in the following form: (2.1.17) p= Yipee *WOR™ Alternatively, the logarithm of the gross rate can be represented as a linear function of the cumulative oil production. Lijek also presented an analytical method by which a more direct solution of oil rate with time could be established — if the injection rate were held constant, The rate relation provided by Lijek’ is given as: q=ai+ Dy ‘The decline of the oil rate can be expressed as” (2.1.18) D, = 0.3654), (2.1.19) In Eq, 2.1.19, the b. term is the slope of the WOR versus cumulative oil production straight-line trend. In 1990, Lo’ examined the dependence of the slope of the WOR versus Np plot on different reservoir and well characteristics. The authors also suggested using the log(OR) versus cumulative oil production to estimate the ultimate oil recovery (as well as the water-oil relative permeability characteristics of the reservoir). Lo’ proposed the following relation to describe linear relationship between the logarithm of WOR and Np: log(WoR) = 2A =S.) Y, Hoof af, sese(21.20) OOPWhere [b(1~S,)/OOIP] is the slope of the line and [to aty/ }+05.--45] is -) in intercept. The constants a and b are determined by the relationship of the relative permeability ratio and the water saturation, as prescribed by the following model: toal*y ) = log(aybS, A black-oil numerical reservoir simulator was used to evaluate the change in slope due 2.1.21) to different reservoir parameters. The sensitivity of the process to the following characteristics was investigated: pattern geometry, fluid viscosity ratio, gravity, permeability contrast, and infill drilling. The results establish that the slope of the straight line trend does not depend on the pattern geometry, the viscosity ratio, or infill drilling (unless additional reserves has been added). However, the development of the straight line trend can be affected by gravity and/or change(s) in field operations. Zones of varying permeability do affect the value of the slope, as well as the time for the start of the straight line trend. 2.2 Other Methods for the Analysis of the WOR Function In 1995, Chan? presented a new technique for the diagnosis and evaluation of water production mechanisms (reservoir water coning or channeling). Chan suggested that log-log plots of the WOR and WOR derivative functions versus time illustrate different characteristic trends for different reservoir performance mechanisms, It may be possible to use the time derivative of the WOR function as a mechanism to determine whether the well is experiencing either water channeling or water coning at the present operating conditions It was observed that the OR and WOR derivative trends exhibit a constant, positive slope for water channeling, and a constant, negative slope for a water conning, Various drive mechanisms and waterflood scenarios were considered using a threo-dimensional, three-phase black-oil reservoir simulator. These simulated scenarios were verified using monthly and daily production data, as well as completion and well stimulation data. For changes in production (such as a change in the drawdown pressure, changes in theproduction rate, well simulation) all affect the trend of the WOR plot. Chan® suggests that the use of these diagnostic plots (i.e., the WOR and WOR derivative functions versus time), together with detailed analyses of the well workover history, can provide a qualitative assessment of waterflood performance. In 1997, Yortsos, et al.” presented analytical and numerical studies of WOR wends under a variety of conditions. ‘They analyzed the behavior of the OR function versus time for different periods of time (following breakthrough and at late times), and developed @ methodology to interpret the observed behavior. Yortsos, ef ai’ suggest that this behavior illustrates two effects — one effect is due to relative permeability (and mobility) effects and the other effect is due to the production scenario. The analytical studies of the following cases were conducted — displacement in a © 1D, single layer homogeneous reservoir system, © 2D, homogeneous or heterogeneous systems with different well configurations, © 3D, homogeneous or heterogeneous systems with different well configurations. As might be expected, the underlying dependence of the relative permeabilities on water saturation is required to establish a relationship between WOR and time. Yortsos, et al.® divided the relative permeability curve into two separate regions, an “exponential” region and a "power-law" region. The functional approximations for these cases are given as follows: kg pg ® aexP(-BS,) (2.2.1) Kgl y= (1S Soe)? senes(22.2) ‘Yortsos, ef al.” used these approximations for the development of semi-analytical solutions for the following cases: “after breakthrough” and "late time" performance, For the 1-D case, the log-log plot of WOR versus time yields a straight line with a unit slope for the times following water breakthrough, and exhibits a slope of b/(b — 1) at “late times” (i.e, fully developed water displacement). From these observations, we can18 presume that the value of the slope of the log-log IWOR versus time trend can be used to estimate the exponent of the power-law model used to describe relative permeability and water saturation (Eq, 2.2.2) Yortsos er al. showed in their investigations of the 2-D and 3-D displacements that different slopes are exhibited for homogeneous and heterogeneous systems with various well patterns. In short, there is no clear correlative relation between the slope of the log- Jog WOR versus time trend and reservoir (or relative permeability) characteristics. Yortsos ef al. suggest that four specific flow regimes can be observed on the log-log, WOR versus time plot: © "Pre-breakthrough" performance (i.e., the performance prior to water breakthrough), © Immediate "Post-breakthrough" performance (i.e., the performance just after water breakthrough), © An intermediate regime (this results from the presence of a high permeability streak or in a two-layer reservoir system with a high contrast in permeability), © A late-time flow regime. ‘The first and the second regimes were not of interest for the authors — their studies were concentrated on the last two regimes, which they believed best represented conditions that are encountered in practice. Yortsos et al. showed that the log-log WOR versus time performance following water breakthrough exhibits a straight-line trend, with the slope depending on the well pattern characteristic, n, (this is a "polarity" term defined by Yortsos, et al.): WOR =”? , At late times, Yortsos, ef al. observed that the log-log plot of WOR versus time yields a (2.2.3) straight line trend with a slope of b/(b-1) b logVOR) =< (2.2.4) log(t) + constant...19 Eq. 2.2.4 proves that, at very large times, all cases of displacement (1-D, 2-D, and 3-D flow) should yield a unit slope trend on a log-log plot of WOR versus time. Yortsos et al, provide numerically generated type curves for different time/flow regimes and suggest that the HOR versus time plot can be a valuable diagnostic tool for reservoir characterization. 2.3 Description of North Robertson Unit (West Texas) The North Robertson Unit (NRU) is a large, low permeability carbonate (dolstone) reservoir located in Gaines County (West Texas).'” There are two producing formations in the Unit, the Glorieta and Clearfork Formations, with a total production interval of about 1,430 feet. A total of 259 wells were drilled as of June 1995. NRU has a surface area of approximately 5,633 acres and includes 144 production wells, 109 injection wells, and 6 water supply wells. Production from NRU began in the early 1950s and in 1987 the field was "unitized” and waterflood and infill projects were simultaneously initiated across the unit. Reservoir and fluid properties of the North Robertson Unit are summarized in Table 2.3.1. ‘Table 2.3.1 — Reservoir and Fluid Property Data for the North Robertson (Clearfork) Unit. Reservoir Properties Wellbore radius, ry ..0.31 feet Estimated average gross pay interval 1,200 ~ 1,500 feet Average net pay thickness, / Varies Average porosity, ¢ Average irreducible water saturation, Sw 0.075 (fraction) 0.30 (fraction) Formation permeability, k.. 0.1-10 ma Reservoir temperature 110 DegF Original nominal well spacing 40 acres Current nominal well spacing. seve 20 ATS20 Table 2.3.1 — (Continued). uid Prope Initial saturation pressure. ..1,700 psia (UCF) 1,540 psia (LCF) ..1.285 RB/STB (UCF) ..1.382 RB/STB (UCE) 1.05 cp (UCF) 0.81 ep (LCF) .12.0x10° psi‘! Initial formation volume factor, B.. Initial oil viscosity, 1. Initial total compressibility, cx. Initial API oil gravity 34.4 Deg API (UCF) : = 39.6 Deg API (LCF) Average formation volume factor, B. 1.3 RB/STB 1.3 op Average oil viscosity, 1 1=-25,0x10° psi? Average total compressibility, cy Produ te Initial reservoir pressure, 7; 2,625 psia (UCF) 2,950 psia (LCF) sees UNKOWN, Flowing bottomhole pressure, py. 2.4 Description of the West White Lake Field (South Louisiana) The West White Lake Field (WWL) is located in the Oligocene and Miocene oil and gas producing trends of south-central Coastal Louisiana. " The structure of the field is five miles long and 2 miles wide. The discovery well in this field was drilled in 1943. * Most of the oil and gas production is taken from a Miocene sand sequence that contains 12 separate producing zones. Our work focuses on the Miocene Bigenerina 3-2 sand, which is currently under waterflood. At present, reservoir and fluid property data are not available for the for the West White Lake Field (WWL).2 CHAPTER III PSEUDOSTEADY-STATE WOR MODEL, In this chapter we discuss the extension of the conventional WOR analysis for the case of pscudosteady-state flow in the reservoir and present the development of a pseudosteady- state WOR equation. The proposed pseudosteady-state model does not require the assumptions made for the steady-state WOR model (ie., the “conventional” straight-line extrapolation technique). In the first section of this chapter we provide the derivation of the pseudosteady-state WOR equation. We use the rigorous, single-phase pseudosteady-state flow equation to describe the behavior of oil and water production behavior. We believe that the proposed pseudosteady-state YOR model represents oil and water production data more accurately than the VOR models currently available in the literature. Tn the next section we attempt to validate the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model by matching the proposed WOR model with the oil and water production history. We demonstrate the application of the pseudosteady-state WOR model using production data from the North Robertson Unit (West Texas) and the West White Lake Field (South Louisiana). To illustrate the comparison of results, we include both the observed production performance and the calculated model results for the IVOR (or fx) functions on the same plots The following functions are plotted versus cumulative oil production (N,) and are used for the validation of our proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model: © The fractional flow of oil (f,) © ‘The reciprocal of fractional flow of water (1/fa) © The logarithm of the fractional flow of water (i.¢., log(f,)) ‘© The logarithm of the water-oil ratio (ie., log(WOR))3.1 Derivation of Pseudosteady-State WOR Model ‘As was mentioned previously, the "conventional" YOR analyses techniques for oil and water production data use the steady-state flow model to derive an expression for the WOR behavior. This derivation makes several potentially limiting assumptions — in particular, the primary assumptions used in the conventional WOR (steady-state) analysis, are: © The pressure and the flowrate throughout the system remain constant. © The mobility ratio is assumed to be equal to unity © Linearity of the relative permeability ratio versus water saturation relationship. The prevailing assumption for the existing WOR models is that these models can be applied only after the OR (or f,) function develops a straight-line trend — in most of the cases this occurs when the value of the fy function approaches 0.5-0.7, or higher. Our goal is to extend the conventional YOR analyses for the case of pseudosteady-state flow beha water production data. We do not expect to develop a relation that represents the entire ,, and to develop a relation that can represent the entire spectrum of oil and production history for a particular well, but we do anticipate significantly improved r into the WOR model. behavior when we incorporate pseudosteady-state flow beha ‘We begin by using the relation presented by Blasingame and Lee'® for single-phase variable-rate, pseudosteady-state flow a bounded reservoir. This result is given as: 2 70,6 2H p44 q ih eC, G.1.1) Eq. 3.1.1 is subject to the following assumptions: © Pseudosteady-state (i.e., boundary-dominated) flow conditions must exist in the entire reservoir system. Radial flow geometry. © Homogeneous and isotropic reservoir. Constant porosity and permeability. ‘Small and constant fluid compressibility.2B © Constant fluid viscosity. ‘© Small pressure gradients, © ‘Negligible gravity forces. For simplicity, Eq. 3.1.1 can be written in the following, more compact form: —e_ eral f yt, earniam) where: fea (cumulative production/rate) B = 0.2339. a hc A Buy 44 Dyes =70.6 In ” Cyne Using the general form of the pseudosteady-state flow equation (Eq. 3.1.2), we can write relations for single-phase oil and water flow: oe oe Gil)... -GB.1.3) —?_ sg ete (water) .. G14) where the “oil” and "water" variables are defined as: I =H Gn m, = 0.2339 m, =0.2339 22 ” he, A eS he, A and the pseudosteady-state constants for the "oil" and "water" cases are given by: Brot, 4A i 0,6" In kyh eC yr24 Recalling the definition of the water-oil ratio function, WOR, we have: FOR Be cee Co . _.G.1.5) q Substituting Eqs. 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 into Eq. 3.1.5, we obtain an expression for the WOR function: Mite * Pare WOR G.1.6) Mgt + Ppa Eq. 3.1.6 is specifically valid for pseudosteady-state flow behavior — and we implicitly assume that the entire reservoir is at pseudosteady-state flow conditions (i.e., both the oil and water phases). To extend this concept, we can re-write Eq. 3.1.6 in terms of the fractional flow of oil and water functions (f,, fy (respectively). Re-writing Eq. 3.1.6, we obtain: 1.7) to Wily +B pane fp uci de Mgt, +B xg 1 aa (3.1.8) 1+ ee ae It is important to note that we have made no assumptions regarding a relationship between the relative permeability functions and water saturation, although we do note that in Eqs. 3.1.6-3.1.8 we presume that the mobility ratio is constant (but not necessarily unity). 3.2 Application of Pseudosteady-State WOR Model Introduction In this section we present an example application of the pseudosteady-state WOR equation (Eq, 3.1.6). In particular, we use the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model to match the production data for selected wells from the West White Lake Field (WWL) and the North Robertson Unit (NRU). Specifically, we will review two cases — NRU Well 3106, WWL Well B41. For reference, we provide the detailed analysis and25 production history data for all cases taken from the West White Lake Field (8 wells) and the North Robertson Unit (20 wells) in Appendix A (WWL cases) and Appendix B (NRU cases). In order to validate the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR equation, we utilized multivariate regression analyses and determined the values of the model parameters (i.¢., oy Bossy My, and Besse) for each case. As a practical issue, the pseudosteady-state WOR ‘model is not applicable for transient flow behavior — so we would not expect to apply this relation to the earliest data, In addition, itis quite typical to observe a high degree of scatter in the earliest production data due to production operations, well stimulation {and cleanup), etc, In our analysis, we have typically disregarded the first few points — either due to data scatter, or due to the realization that these data represent transient or transition flow behavior — not pseudosteady-state flow behavior. Once we did obtain a fit (or regression) of the WOR function, we then calculated the WOR, fr and f, fanctions and compared these results with the field data by plotting the calculated and measured data on the same plots. The following plots are used for comparison of results: © log(f,) versus Np © fe versus Np fo versus Ny © 1og(7OR) versus Np As a “global” comparison, we also made log-log plots of the calculated WOR function versus the measured IVOR function — in addition, a unit slope line (i.e., a 45 degree trend) is included on these plots as the reference for a perfect correlation. It is important to note that this plot generally showed excellent correlation of the measured and calculated WOR functions.26 Example Cases ‘The analysis plots for example cases taken from the West White Lake Field (WWL) and the North Robertson Unit (NRU) are provided in Figs. 3.2.1a — 3.2.1e and in the figures on pp. 31 — 33. The particular wells considered are Well 3106 (NRU) and Well Bal (WWL), whtre these wells were selected because they represent "typical" behavior for that particular field. All of the NRU and WWL cases can be found in Appendices A and B — wells from the West White Lake Field are provided in Appendix A and wells from the North Robertson Unit are provided in Appendix B. As noted in the previous section, we use a standard suite of plots to evaluate our regression-based analysis of the WOR function using the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model. The following suite of plots is used: Late-Time Extrapolation for Movable Oil © log(f,) versus Ny © Ufy versus Np, © f, versus Np © log(OR) versus Np Regression Analysis — Global Summary Plot © log(WORcai) versus log(WORmea:) Example 1: NRU Well 3106 NRU Well 3106 is the first case considered, and the analysis/interpretation plots for this case are provided in Figs. 3.2.1.a-3.2.1.¢. NRU Well 3106 was completed on July 9 1989, The total depth of the well is 7,350 ft with two perforated intervals — 6,667- 7,185 ft and 5,964-6,538 ft. The well was acidized and hydraulically fractured in two stages on 15 July 1989 and again on 17 July 1989. The initial and current production data for NRU Well 3106 are summarized in Table 3.2.1.Fractional Flow of Water y=AAA 1) (Gu I VIy) Ce Reciprocal of the Fractional Flow of Water T Fy T T poo \ Np oy * 88,800 STB we fy" 6.8198x10" exp(4.40962x10°N,) oh 4 Pseudosteady-tate Model: JF ptI(A + (3.2561x10° + 2.2669x10°F,\(1.2754x10" + 1.2956x10°F,)) / Variables: Legend: NRU 3106 © f, Function , Exponential N, Model ==, pps Model 1 L L 1 L L ° 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, Nj, STB 1a— Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU- Well 3106. 2a T T T dl agent RU S108 22 eo aryFuncion = | d --=~ tif, Linear N, Model aa ---— tiepssmoder || : 2° SSocevdstnty site Mot! 18E OR sat (3.256tct0" + 226601041, N(1.2764x10" + 1.2956x10°%)4 \ Eo 4 tape . 4 : 1H1,=14287 -4.99804110"N, ae . 1 No.moy™ 98,600 STB 10 1 1 List 1 ‘0 20,000 40,000 60,000 90,000 100,000 420,000 140,000 ‘Cumulative Oi Production, Nj, STE. Fig. 3.2.1b— Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106. 2710 0 Fractional Flow of Oil PIN) osb T T T T Legend: NRU 3106 ‘© f, Function f, Exponential N, Model{ | =--—_f, pss Model Pseudosteady-State Model: ei 521K + (1.2754x10" + 1.2956x10%1 3.256110" + 2.2868x10",)) Variables: t= Nar ty = Welty = 3,6814x10" - 4.2408x10%(N,/g,) Lo N,, mov = 86,800 STB L L L ta L Fig. 3.2.1e— Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well Fig. 3.2.1d— Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106. 720,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Cumulative Oil Production, N,, STB 3106. WOR Exponential N, Model ---— WOR pss Model 4 L L n © 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 10 Cumulative Oi! Production, N,, STB 28Calculated Water-Oil Ratio (pss model) 10" 10° 10! 10 Measured Water-Oil Ratio (WOR=4,/9,) Fig, 3.2.1e— Comparison of the Calculated WOR Performance (Pseudosteady-State Model) with the Measured YOR Performance, NRU Well 3106. Table 3.2.1 — Summary of Initial and Recent Production Data for NRU Well 3106. Initial ofl rate (August 1989) 380 STBOD Initial water rate (August 1989) 101.0 STBW/D Oil rate (a8 of June 1996) ever sora 4.0 STBO!D Water rate (as of June 1996) scnononsnn 1130 STBWD Curmulative oil production (as of June 1996) ... 67.41 MSTBO ‘Cumulative water production (as of June 1996) 256.12. MSTBW In Figs. 3.2.1a — 3.2.1d we find that the pseudosteady-state WOR model represents the production data functions extremely well — especially in the late-time region, but surprisingly, the WOR model also matches all but the very earliest production data, For comparison we have plotted the "conventional" (i.e., steady-state) straight-line extrapolation models for each analysis plot, and we note very good correlation of these straight- line models with the late-time production data. Based on Figs. 3.2.1a-3.2.1d, we can conclude that the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model best represents the perfor-30 mance of the WOR functions for NRU Well 3106. We can also conclude that the conventional straight-line extrapolation models also work well for this case. We also provide a direct comparison of the calculated and measured JOR functions for NRU Well 3106 in Fig. 3.2.le, and we note that with the exception of the very early time (ce,, low WOR) data, the correlation of the calculated and measured WOR functions is excellent. Example 2: WWL Well B41 In this case we consider the production data from WWL Well B41. It is relevant to note that West White Lake Field is a Miocene sandstone reservoir sequence with good porosity and permeability characteristics. This is relevant because it may help us to understand the water and oil production performance more clearly, and this case is in significant contrast to the case of the North Robertson Unit where the reservoir in that case is a low permeability dolstone with very heterogeneous reservoir properties WWL Well B41 was completed on 2 July 1987. The total depth of the well is 7,300 ft and is perforated from 7,038 to 7,064 ft. The initial and current production data for WWL Well B41 are summarized in Table 3.2.2. Table 3.2.2 —Summary of Initial and Recent Production Data for WWL Well B41. STBOD STBWwD STBOD STBWD MSTBO. MSTBW: Initial oil rate (February 1992) Initial water rate (February 1992) Oil rate (as of March 1998) ... Water rate (as of March 1998) «osu Cumulative ol production (as of March 1998) Cumulative water production (as of March 1998) ‘The analysis plots for this case are presented in Figs, 3.2.2a-3.2.24, and we immediately note good agreement between the pseudosteady-state WOR model and the measured production data, We also note good agreement for the conventional straight-line (ie., steady-state) extrapolation models. In this case, we do observe that the proposed pseudosteady-state MOR model best represents the "late time” performance,10 Fractional Flow of Water WA Gt I) . al z - Legend: WWL B41 . ef, Function . -=-+ 4, Exponential N, Model mon fy pss Model 407 o° 1 1 1 L ° 100,000 200,000 «300,000 «400.000 ©——~600,000 Cumulative Oi Production, Ny STB Fig. 3.2.2a— Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B4l. 7 T T 2 Legend: WWL B41 2 iit, Function : === tf, Linear N, Model is . === tifzpss Modet zs ' Psoudosteady-State Model: ae iS. angen « a6t rato! -2.6276x10%4 I -247@x10"+ 2.10644, ge fF i varies ge we i ss LEN fay eS : ee i Boe i 4 8 i at ims ao0at-zzeseret0'n, j _ Ny moe * 360,000 STB aaa L 1 a ° 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Cumulative Oil Production, N, STB. Fig. 3.2.2b— Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41. [Legend: WWL B41 © Function f, Linear N, Model} f, pss Model .< Pseudostesdy State Model: a .A7Bx10" + 2.10641,)(1.3617x10° - 3.6275x10"4,)) 1Qy*9,)) Variables: SEN de by = Wildy q Fractional Flow of Oil = 360,000 STB 7.3124x10" -2.03122x10° Np,mov 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 ‘500,000 ‘Cumulative Ol! Production, N,, STB. Fig. 3.2.2e— Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B4l. 10° T T T WOR = 4.124x107 exp(1.74525x10°N,) \ e 10°F q ga se seo. ig 1° 4 g ge nd: WWL BAT 4 WOR Function WOR Exponential N, Model [=--— WOR pss Model jo? i i © 400,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, N,, STB Fig. 3.2.2d— Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41.Calculated Water-Oil Ratio (pss model) 77 Unit Slope Line Measured Water-Oil Ratio (WOR=4,/4,) Fig. 3.3.2e— Comparison of the Calculated WOR Performance (Pseudosteady-State Model) with the Measured WOR Performance, WWL Well B41 Our emphasis on the late-time data is warranted — this is region where both the steady- state and pseudosteady-state models would be best expected to work. While we do not expect the pseudosteady state IWOR relation to work at early times, it is worth noting that the early time data are dominated by oil flow (see Fig. 3.3.2.c). The pseudosteady-state relation presumes a constant mobility ratio, and this may not be the case where such a dramatic change in WOR performance occurs. Regardless, we are satisfied that the proposed pseudosteady-state relation does accurately represent the data for this case. As in the previous case (NRU Well 3106), we provide a direct comparison of the calculated and measured IVOR functions for WWL Well B41 in Fig, 3.2.2e, and we note also note in this case that the correlation of the calculated and measured IYOR functions is excellent. For reference, the early time WOR data are not shown on Fig. 3.2.2e, we have only plotted the YOR data that were actually used in the regression process.34 3.3 Summary Our goal in this chapter was to present and validate the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR relation. Recalling this result, we have: Mabe + Pree WOR = (3.1.6) Mbt Byyy Substituting the definitions for material balance time for each phase, Eq. 3.1.6 becomes: In reviewing Eq. 3.3.1, we immediately recognize that the rate and cumulative production functions can not be uncoupled, we can rearrange the variables to perhaps yield a more useful form, but the rate and cumulative functions remain. Multiplying through Eq. 3.3.1 by the (go/gy) ratio gives: 1 tN +b poe mW + Pras or, =m,N, +B pe (3.3.2) mW + Ppa We now note that although Eq. 3.3.2 could be considered a "more simple" form of Eq. 3. 6, we can not reduce Eq. 3.3.2 further into a direct "analysis" relation. The point of this discussion is that the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model (Eq, 3.1.6) is valid (at least for pseudosteady-state flow, presuming a constant mobility ratio). ‘However, we can not reduce this approach into a direct analysis methodology, we must use Eq. 3.1.6 as an analysis model, and fit that model to the field performance data, ‘We are quite pleased with the performance of the pseudosteady-state WOR model (and its auxiliary models), and we believe that this approach is both robust and appropriate, While we did not obtain a direct solution or even an extrapolation formula from Eq. 3.1.6, we strongly recommend its application, At this point our recommendation is to35 use regression analysis — it is our hope that future efforts yield a direct analysis method, in the form of a single-variable relation, or (perhaps) in the form of a "type curve" or some other type of comparative solution technique. In closing, we provide Table 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, which contain the specific relations obtained using regression for the WOR, fy, and, functions. Table 3.3.1 —Summary of Models Used to Characterize WOR, fy, and f, Behavior, NRU Well 3106. Pscudosteady-State Models Nan (for WOR, fu and f.) Linear/Exponential N Model (STB) 1.275410"? +1.2956x107* (W/o) WOR = 1.6819 exp(2.5096 «10% N,) 3.256x10"? +2.266910"(, Jay) 325610? +2.266% 10°, /a,) SEGA 22669610" 9) Vhy=l+ Uf, =14287-4.93894.10°N, 1275410" 412956210? (Np/9) 86,800 —————EEE ° 1p 2286107 4 22660510", |) J, = 3.681110" ~ 4.240910, 86,800 12754410"? +1.2956%10"* (Wp /40) Table 3.3.2—Summary of Models Used to Characterize WOR, fy and f, Behavior, WWL Well B41. Pseudosteady-State Models Name (for WOR, fs andy) Lincar/Exponential N, Model (iB) = 2.178110" +1.7928( /'96) WwoR=——— NO NPN te) 2 2 ‘ eee WOR = 4.12410"? exp(.74525 «10° oe Ute ROUTED 2352750107 fy ae Vf fy = 2.0021 ~ 2.78361«10°N, = 2.17810? +1,7928(N, /ae) Whe P 360,000 fo= = 7.3124 «10 ee ee . 360,000 1, SSIT 10" 63.5295 110710 jan) 2.03122 ~10" Ny = 2.178 «10? + 1.1928 (¥, /40)36 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF OIL AND WATER PRODUCTION DATA 4.1 Introduction In this chapter we focus our efforts on a discussion of the "conventional" analysis methods for water and oil production data. In particular, we present methods that are commonly used in petroleum industry to estimate the movable oil volume (Np). The primary advantage of the methods we discuss is that these methods are very simple — wwe only require production data in order to estimate the movable oil volume and make a production forecast. No tedious calculations are required, and most of the methods discussed are well accepted in the industry. ‘The disadvantage is that these methods are not rigorous, and can fail (sometimes in a spectacular fashion) — however, we believe that the practical value of these simple approaches makes a strong contribution to the area of production data analysis. Exponential Decline Curve Methods We begin our discussion with a focus on the estimation of the movable oil volume, Npmow (ot the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)) using the simple, exponential rate decline relation. In particular, we utilize the following plotting techniques that are derived from the exponential rate decline relation: © log(qo) versus ¢ © go versus N, The 1og(q.) versus 1 plot is the most common production analysis mechanism — unfortunately this plot is only rigorously valid for the case of liquid flow at a constant bottombole flowing pressure. The g, versus N, plot is derived from the exponential rate decline relation, and also requires the assumption of a constant bottomhole pressure,37 Conventional YOR Extrapolation Methods We will again discuss the various straight-line models proposed for the water-oil ratio (WOR) functions: WOR, the fractional flow of oil (f,), and the fractional flow of water. ‘These functions are plotted in various formats versus the cumulative oil production (Np) as indicated in the list of plotting functions given below. © log(WOR) versus Np © log(f.) versus Ny © fa versus Np ‘The application of these functions was discussed in Chapter III — our present goal is to apply and compare these functions with other analysis techniques. New Met for the Anal of Production Data In addition to the methods previously identified for the analysis of water and oil production data, we also present two new techniques that can be used to estimate the movable oil, Npmow oF the oil-in-place, N. These new techniques use the following plotting functions © Uf, versus Ny (yields an estimate of Npnov) © Ugo versus tg (yields an estimate of N) The /f, versus Np plotting function yields an apparent linear trend that can be extrapolated to provide an estimate of the movable oil, Npmov. In contrast, the 1/g, versus f, plotting function yields a linear trend (predicted by pseudosteady-state theory), where the slope of the trend is equal to 1/N. ive Methods for the Analysis of Producti We also provide a qualitative analysis of the behavior of the WOR, WOR derivative, te integral, and integral-derivative functions plotted versus production time (t), oil material balance time (f,), and total material balance time (¢,). We provide a systematic presenta- tion of examples for these plots later in this Chapter. In particular, we review typical trends and characteristics of these plotting functions.38 The specific plotting functions considered in this discussion are as follows Log-Log Diagnostic Plots: © log(WOR) and log(WOR Derivative) versus log(?) © log(WOR Integral) and log(WOR Integral-Derivative) versus log(¢) © log(WOR) and log(WOR Derivative) versus log(t,) © log(IOR Integral) and log(IOR Integral-Derivative) versus log(t,) © Jog(WOR) and log(WOR Derivative) versus log(t,) © Jog(WOR Integral) and log( VOR Integral-Derivative) versus log(s,) Cumulative WOR and Cumulative fy Plots: © log WOR.) versus Np © log(fnc) versus Np Total Production Function Plots: © log(WOR) versus total production (N,+ I») © log(/,) versus log() Brshagi X-Plot Technique Our final effort is to demonstrate the Ershagi "X-plot" technique, and to compare the results of this method with the "conventional" (steady-state) straight-line extrapolation techniques.'® In all of the cases we considered, the X-plot technique gave the least consistent results compared to the other methods used. Based on our results, we believe that conventional" straight-line extrapolation methods will produce more accurate (and more consistent) estimates of the movable oil than the X-plot technique. Example Cases In our demonstration of these techniques we use the oil and water production data taken from NRU Well 3106 (NRU) and WWL Well B41 (WWL) (we also use the data for WWL Well A17 (WWL) to demonstrate the failure of the Ershagi "X-plot" technique The complete suite of analyses for all WWL and NRU wells is included in Appendixes A and B, respectively.39 4.2 Decline Curve Analysis In this section we discuss the production decline curve analysis technique, in particular, the analysis of rate-time and rate-cumulative data functions. Although there are uncer- tainties involved in the estimates of movable oil, these methods are widely used because the techniques use only oil and water production data (which are commonly available), and there are no complicated or tedious calculations required. Oil Production Rate versus Production Time The exponential decline curve technique uses a semilog plot of oil production rate versus production time, In most cases, a semilog plot of oil production versus time will yield a straight-line trend, where this trend can be extrapolated to any future time or a desired production economic limit. The corresponding value of cumulative oil production can be estimated from that extrapolation. The governing relation for the exponential production decline case is given by: Go=doie f : se(4.21) This exponential oil rate relation allows us to determine the oil rate at any time. Examples of exponential rate decline performance for NRU Well 3106 and WWL Well B41 are presented in Figs. 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. Qil Production Rate (¢,) Versus Cumulative Oil Production (N,) Using Eq, 4.2.1, we can develop closed form relation for the cumulative production. We can then use this relation, in conjunction with the exponential rate decline relation to develop a “rate-cumulative production" relationship. ‘The definition of cumulative production is given by: ‘ fe (4.2.2)Legend: NRU 3108 © 9, Function © g, Function |--- 9, Exponential t Model] qo= 4.8771x10" exp{ -5.61878x10"t), STBID ~~ ~~~] N,,mov™ 86,800 STB. 10° L 1 L n 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Production Time, Days Fig. 4.2.1 — Oil and Water Production Rate History, NRU Well 3106. 5,000 10 Legend: Ww B41 © g, Function 10 © gy Function PQs PEO }--~ 4, Exponential Mode = 4.4008x10" exp{ -1.22247x10°, STBID = 360,000 STB ll and Water Rates, g, and q,, STB/D Np, mov 1,000 2,000 3,000 Production Time, Days Fig. 4.2.2. — Oil and Water Production Rate History, WWL Well B41. 40Ol Production Rate, q,, STB/D 60 Legend: NRU 3106 oO © 9g, Function i 4% Linear N, Model 40 J ‘es 9e= 4.877 4x10" -5.61878x10°N,, STB/D 30F 4 ws 20f- 4 oF 4 SY N,, mov ™ 88,800 STB. 0 1 L L Ds L © 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 420,000 140,000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, Nj, STB Fig. 4.2.3 — Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well il Production Rate, q,, STE/D. 600 3106. T T T T Legend: WWL B41 © gq, Function |--~ g, Linear N, Model qo = 4.800810" - 1.2247x10°N,, STBID t ss = 360,000 STB We L L 100,000 200,000 300,000 490,000 600,000 Cumulative Oil Production, N, STB. Fig. 4.2.4 — Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well BAL a42 Substituting Eq. 4.2.1 into Eq. 4.2.2, and integrating we have ' Np= fue athe ae (4.23) D 0 Substituting Eq, 4.2.1 into the last part of Eq, 4.2.3, we obtain 9;-4) (42.4) Solving Eq. 4.2.4 for the "rate-cumulative form," we have Nee . (4.2.5) Eq, 4.2.5 predicts that oil production (g,) is a uniquely linear function of the cumulative oil production (N,) (with slope D and intercept qi). Using Eq. 4.2.5 as a plotting function we recognize that we can plot the oil rate versus cumulative production, and extrapolating the straight-line trend to q.=0 yields an estimate of the movable oil (Njun) The “rate-cumulative" performance for NRU Well 3106 and WWL Weil B41 are presented in Figs. 4.2.3 and 4.2.4. This plot is often called the "rate-cumulative" or EUR plot. In Figs. 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 we observe a distinct late-time linear trend of rate versus cumulative production. ‘The trends in both figures are constructed in conjunetion with other analyses of these data (to be presented later) so that the extrapolated estimates of movable oil are consistent over several analysis techniques. 4.3 Functions Used to Model the Fractional Flows of Oil and Water In this section we pursue the analysis and interpretation of the oil and the water production data using the WOR, f. and fp functions. These functions take into consideration presence of both the oil and water phases flowing simultaneously in the reservoir. The f, and fy functions are given by: fo ily Go*Fw fe Iw = (water)... fw letty (water)B In this section we discuss and apply several methods that can be used to analyze the performance of the WOR (and related functions) as a function of the cumulative oil production. In particular, the following methods are to be used: © log(WOR) versus N, © log(f,) versus Ny, fo versus Np Logarithm of the Water-Oil Ratio versus Cumulative Oil Production A plot of the log(OR) function versus the cumulative oil production is one of the most common techniques for estimating the recovery of "movable oil," (Npmos)- Although this approach is commonly applied, it has its roots in an empirical observation rather than a rigorous flow theory. The assumed model for the FOR function in this case is given by: (4.3.3) (43.4) Eq. 4.3.4 illustrates that the maximum recoverable oil is always dependent on the selected value of the OR function. ‘This means that the movable oil (Np) is dependent on the selection of a value of the VOR function. The example cases for this approach are shown in Figs. 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 (NRU Well 3106 and WWL Well B41). Logarithm of the Fractional Flow of Water versus the Cumulative Oil Production Similar to the previous methodology, we can also consider the logarithm of the fractional flow of water log(f,) as a function of the cumulative oil production. This formulation is presumed to yield a straight line that can be extrapolated to f,=1 in order to provide an estimate of the movable oil, NpmovLegend: NRU 3108 ‘© WOR Function -~ WOR Exponential N, Model WOR pss Model 0 L Toot L © 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Cumulative Oil Production, Ny, STB. Fig. 4.3.1 — Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106. 10 T T T WOR = 4.124x10" exp(1.74525x10°N,) Legend: WWL B41 LJ © WOR Function |---~ WOR Exponential W, Model] WOR pss Model L L i o 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Cumulative Oil Production, Nj, STB Fig. 4.3.2. — Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41. 4410! T T lp moy = 886,800 STB. fy= 6.8198x10" exp(4.40962x10N,) a SF Te 3 g 4 Pseudosteady-State Model: ae pptitt + (3256110 + 2.2668x10°t, M1.2764x10° + 4.2956x10") ae & |Legend: NRU 3106. e 4 @ f, Function === f, Exponential N, Model pps Model 1 \ 1 1 i i 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 = 100,000 120,000 140,000 Cumulative Olt Production, Ny, STB. Fig. 4.3.3 — Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106. 10 35 33 ag BS to" . 4 if : . Tagen BAT ef,runction ° 1, Exponential N, Model === 1 pss Model . 12 La L 0 100.000 200,000 300000 400,000 600,000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, Np, STB Fig. 4.3.4 — Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41. 45ae T T T T Legend: RU 3106 ef, Function ole J==-= £, Exponential N, Mode!| | =" fps Model 33 Pseudosteady-State Model: Be (1+ (1.2754x10 + 1.2956x10°L,1(9.2561x10° + 2.2669x10",)) 4 ie Variables ge EN ty = Wylty q E . . £,= 36811x10" -4.2409x10°(N/q,) 4 Ny, mov = 86,800 STB a L L L i L 020.000 40,000 60,000 @0.000 109,000 120,000 140,000 ‘Cumulative Oi Production, N,, STB Fig. 4.3.5 — Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106. [Legend: WWL B41 © % Function J-=-= f, Linear N, Model 7 f, pss Mode! ~. ae, '~. Pseudosteady-State Model: M+ (-2.178x10 + 2.1064t,1(1.9817x10° -3.5275x10%%,)) | Variables: SEN by = Wel dy 4 Np, mov = 360,000 ST. Lo 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 ‘500,000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, Np, STB 46 Fig. 4.3.6 — Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well BAl.‘The assumed model for the f, function in this case is given as follows: BNy Syme ..(4.3.5) Eq. 4.3.5 shows that the f, function can be extrapolated to a single value of Np (i.e., at fv"). This behavior is very useful (and very important) in a practical sense we should be able to make a unique extrapolation of the straight-line trend to obtain an estimate of the movable oil, Np. The results for the example cases (NRU Well 3106 and WWL Well B41) are presented in Figs. 4.3.3 and 4.3.4), Eractional Flow of Oil versus Cumulative Oil Production Another empirical technique that can be used to determine the volume of movable oil is a plot of the fractional flow of oil versus the cumulative oil production. One could argue that this is essentially the same as considering the oil rate, however, the f, function uniquely approaches 0 (zero) as the water production increases and oil production de- clines, therefore, the f, function represents both the oil and water date functions. As noted, this is essentially an empirical model — the assumed f, function is given by: So=0-BN po (4.3.6) Figs. 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 show the f - Np behavior for the examples cases (i.¢., NRU Well 3106 and WWL Well B41). We can comment that this formulation appears to yield a very distinct straight-line trend. 4.4 New Methods for the Estimation of Movable Oil In this section we present two new extrapolation techniques for the estimation of the movable oil Npnoy. This new methods are: © I/f, versus Np (yields an estimate of Np mor) © 1g. versus t, (yields an estimate of N) We will demonstrate these new techniques and compare the performance (i.e., linearity of trends, clarity of extrapolation or interpretation, etc.) and comment on the potential that these functions offer for improved analysis.48 Reciprocal of the Fractional Flow of Water versus Cumulative Oil Production The reciprocal of the fractional flow of water (1/f,) appears to yield a straight-line trend at late times and we will attempt to exploit this behavior in the development on a new extrapolation methodology that can be used to estimate the movable oil, Nemo. The application of this technique is very similar to the f, versus ‘\ extrapolation method. In application, the apparent straight-line trend is extrapolated to 1/f,=1, which yields an estimate of the movable oil, Noo» The linear model for the 1/fy - Np function is given by: (44.1) ‘The example cases using the I/fy - Np analysis is given in Figs. 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 for NRU Well 3106 and WWL Well B4l, respectively. We generally find very strong linear trends in the 1/f, versus Np data plot — and we conclude that this approach is both accurate and consistent when compared with conventional extrapolation methods used to estimate the movable oil, Nav: Reciprocal of Oil duction versus Oil Mater In reviewing the pseudosteady-state theory for the single-phase flow case, we noted the following relation can be derived for the constant wellbore pressure case: qo =a+b(Ny /40) We immediately recognize that Eq. 4.4.2 suggests a plot of 1/q, versus the "material (4.4.2) balance time” ( =N,/q,), where the intercept and slope terms (a and b, respectively) can be easily obtained. In order to develop a mechanism for estimating the movable oil volume, Npoy, We multiply through Eq. 4.4.2 by go. This gives: (4.4.3) 1=ag,+bN,T T T T T T Legend: NRU 3108 © tf, Function 4 |---- 1if, Linear N, Mode! t,pssModet | Pseudosteady-State Model: + (3.2864x10° + 2.2669x10%t,)/(1.2754x10° + 1.2956x10%,) Variables: 2 fF My by = Wey, 11t, = 1.4287 -4,93894x10°N, Reciprocal of the Fractional Flow of Water (ME,=(4 +1 N Ay) N, mov = 86,800 STE. oT 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 Cumulative Ol! Production, N, STB 1 — Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106. 10 Fig. 4. 24 1 Legend: WWL Bat 22 i @tt,Funetion == | v ~ ‘tif Linear M, Model 20 F == tunes moder | 4 i Pseudosteady-State Model: 18 AUf,=4 + (1.3647x10° -3,5275x10%,)( - 2.178xt0" + 2.10644, (ayaa) 16 (ut, 14 12 = 360,000 STB Reciprocal of the Fractional Flow of Water Np,mov 10 ° 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 ‘500,000 ‘Cumulative Ol! Production, N,, STE. Fig. 4.4.2. — Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41 490.10 0.08 0.068 0.04 Reciprocal of Oil Rate, 1/q,, 1/STBID Fig. 4.4.3 — Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oi! Material Balance Time, NRU Well 0.08 0.04: 0.02 Reciprocal of Oil Rate, 1!q,,1/STBIDay 0.00 a ee Legend: NRU 3107 © 1/4, Function 41g, Linear (N,/a,) Model] Ny, mov 164,500 STB 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 (il Material Balance Time (N/q,), days 3106. Legend: WW Bat © tg, Function ‘iq, Linear (N,/a,) Model a al Whig, = 24024xi0° + 2.77778x10" (WN /a,), VSTEID N,, mov = 360,000 STB. 2000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 Oil Material Balance Time (Nach days 50 Fig. 4.4.4 — Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well Bal31 Ifwe let qo=0, we obtain Npmoy = 1/b, which means that the movable oil volume is equal to the reciprocal of the slope term (1/6). Technically, we can also use the slope (b) to estimate the oil-in-place, N — however, this process requires detailed knowledge of the pressures and the total compressibility function. Jn practice, we will use this approach 10 estimate Npmov (we could also use these results to estimate the oil-in-place, N). Figs. 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 show the application of this technique for NRU Well 3106 and WWL Well B41. As it can be observed a straight-line trend is developed in both cases and the values of movable oil determined by using these plots are equal to those estimated by conventional decline curves WOR/f, analysis. 4.5 Qualitative Methods for the Analysis of Production Data As we indicated in the Introduction section of this Chapter, we will also employ a number of "characteristic" or diagnostic plots from which we will derive a "qualitative" analysis. Such an analysis could give an indication of the reservoir drive mechanism, the (relative) damage or stimulation condition, the balance of production and injection, and/or any major production problems (plugging, channeling, ete.). Our approach is to utilize a wide array of specialized plots (and specialized plotting functions) in order to create a mechanism for the visual inspection/interpretation of specific data trends. Our inventory of the various qualitative analysis plots is presented in Table 4.5.1. Table 4.5.1 — Qualitative Analysis of Production Data for NRU Well 3106, NRU WWL Log-Log Diagnostic Plots: Well 3106 Well Bat © log(IOR and WOR Derivative) versus log(t) 44. 4 © log(OR Integral and Int.-Der.) versus log(e) 42 448 © log(IVOR and WOR Derivative) versus log(t.) 443 449 © log(WOR Integral and WOR Int.-Der.) versus log(t.) 444 44.10 © log(VOR and WOR Derivative) versus log(4) 445 4a.Table 4.5.1 — (Continued). NRU WWL © log(VOR Integral and WOR Int.-Der.) versus log(t,) 446 44.12 Cumulative WOR and Cumulative fy Plots: © log(WOR,) versus N, 44.13 4417 © log( fac) versus N, 44.14 4418 Total Production Function Plots: © log(HOR) versus total production (+1) 44.5 44.19 © Logi) versus logts) 44.16 4.4.20 Discussion: Log-Log Diagnostic Plots Our objective in this study of log-log diagnostic plots is to evaluate the characteristic behavior exhibited by the various WOR functions, and to establish a general understanding of data trends. For example, a unit slope (i.e., 45 degree) trend suggests that the reservoir is at some type of stabilized flow or stabilized displacement condition, NRU Well 3106 Fig. 4.5.1: We note that the JOR and WOR derivative functions are reasonably well-behaved, although the WOR derivative does appear erratic at early times. Fig. 45.2: The WOR integral and WOR integral-derivative funetions are quite smooth — however, we note a suspicious change in slope, from unit slope through a transition and back to unit slope. We have no insight as to what would cause such a feature, but clearly this is not an artifact, Fig. 4.5.3: The WOR and WOR derivative functions (as a function of the oil material balance time) are consistent, and we again note the change from unit slope, back to unit slope at late times. : The WOR integral and WOR integral-derivative functions (as a function of the oil material balance time) are very well behaved, in particular these functions appear to be converging on a late-time unit slope trend,Fig. 4.5.5: Fig. 4.5.6: The IVOR function (as a function of the total material balance time) lies on or near a unit slope trend for the entire span of data. The WOR derivative is somewhat erratic, indicating an apparent change in slope. The WOR integral function (as a function of the total material balance time) is well behaved, and lies near the unit slope trend. The WOR integral-derivative function is very smooth, and approaches, then deviates systematically away from the unit slope trend. WWL Well B4] Fig. 4.5.7: Fig. 4.5.8: Fig. 4.5.9: Fig. 4.5.10: Fig. 45.11: Fig. 45.12: The WOR and WOR derivative functions (as a function of time) systematically increase at a rate higher than a unit slope trend (log-log slope of approximately 2). The trend does appear to stabilize on the unit slope trend at very late times The WOR integral and WOR integral-derivative functions (as a function of time) reflect the behavior noted in Fig. 4.5.7. The data trends are smoother than the raw trends, and the convergence to a unit slope trend at late times is noted. The WOR and WOR derivative functions (as a function of the oil material balance time) lie almost entirely on a unit slope trend, ‘The WOR integral and WOR integral-derivative functions (as a function of the oil material balance time) are somewhat smoother than the raw WOR functions, and these functions do appear to converge to a unit slope trend at late times. The WOR and WOR derivative functions (as a function of the total material balance time) are quite noisy or erratic, though these data do appear to converge to a unit slope trend at late times. ‘The WOR integral and WOR integral-derivative functions (as a function of the total material balance time) are smooth, but develop into a unit slope trend at very late times.Fig. 45.1 — Fig. 4.5.2 — Water-Oit Ratio and ‘Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Functions. 107 10" 10" Legend: NRU 3106 ‘@ WOR Function (WOR, Function] 2 10 10 40° ProductionTime, days Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Production Time, NRU Well 3106. 10" T 3 Ut Supe Lime. FE wh 4 33 es of 3 al EP 3 /. [Regend: NRU S106 7 “ @ WOR, Function © WOR, Function we L I 10° 10° 10° 10° ProductionTime, days Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Production Time, NRU Well 3106. 34Fig. 4.5.4 — g pe se zs a: 38 z g Ef = : Legend: NRU 3106 : o WOR Function 5 © WOR, Function| i Material Balance Time (N,/a,), days Fig. 4.5.3. — Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106. Ratio Integral Derivative Functions Legend: NRU 3106 ‘© WOR, Function © WOR, Function| 10° 10° 10° il Material Balance Time (N,/a,), days. Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106. 35Fig. 45.5 — T Unit Slope Line [Legend: NRU 3106 ‘@ WOR Function © WOR, Function L 10 : Es 10 ee aa SE 10° 8 2 = 10° 107 10° 108 10! Total Material Balance Time, (W,+N,Vq,*a,), Days Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106 Water-Oll Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Functions T Unit Slope Line S , [Legend: NRU 3106 WOR, Function © WOR, Function Total Material Balance Time, (W,+N,V(q,+d.), Days. 10° L 10° 10° 56 Fig. 4.5.6 — Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106.10 T T 7 Unit Slope Line” Ratio and. Water Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Functions Legend: WWL B44 ‘© WOR Function © WOR, Function| 10° 10° 10° Production Time, days Fig. 4.5.7 — Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well B41. 10° T 55 #2 3s ae 38 3E 32 = Legend: WWL B41 z @ WOR, Function © WOR, Function] Production Time, days. Fig. 4.5.8 — Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well B41.Legend: WWL B41 ea © WOR Function (© WOR, Function! 4 . Unit Slope Line Cede = il Material Balance Time (W,/4,), days Fig. 4.5.9 — Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41 2 © WOR, Function] é es 1 ss # 3 z 2 = Unit Slope Line 0? toto t0® Oil Material Balance Time (N,/a,), days Fig. 4.5.10— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41. 5859 Legend: WWL B41 © WOR Function WOR, Function Unit Slope Line NX ve Water-Oll Ratio and ‘Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Functions 10° 10! 10° 10° 10° ‘otal Material Balance Timo, (N,+M,(dg¥d,), Days Fig. 45.11— Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41. Legend: WWL B41 ‘© WOR, Function 0 WOR, Function} ‘Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Functions 10 : 10° 10° 107 10° 10 Total Material Balance Time, (N,+W,V(q,*q,), Days Fig. 4.5.12— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well B41.60 Discussion: Cumulative WOR and Cumulative /,, Plots We developed the “cumulative” WOR and fy functions because we found that we needed a "smoother" family of extrapolation functions. Unfortunately, it is not clear that the “cumulative” functions are better than the WOR and fy functions defined based on flowrates. In particular, we do obtain much smoother data functions, but the extrapolation of the "cumulative" functions is unclear — the extrapolation results obtained using the cumulative functions are substantially (and consistently) different that the results obtained using the WOR and fy functions defined based on flowrates. Given this dilemma, we have elected to use the cumulative VOR and fy functions to check data quality and consistency, RU Well 3106 Fig. 4.5.13: The WOR. - Np data clearly establish a linear trend, virtually of the transition and late-time data lie directly on or near the observed trend. Fig, 4.5.14: The fre - Np data also establish a strong linear trend. We note that there is a flattening "tail" feature in the latest data, This is likely to be a relevant feature, but at present we have little understanding of the actual cause of the "tail" feature. WWL Well B41 Fig. 4.5.15: In this case the WOR, data do appear to establish a late-time straight line — however, the erratic nature of the data at early times can not be resolved (at present) Fig. 4.5.16: The fee trend also shows poor behavior at early times, but does ulti- mately yield a linear trend at late times.a 10) T T T No conclusions to be drawn - only character of trend is noted. Cumualtive Water-0il Ratio [Legend: NRU 3106 ‘© WOR, Function WOR, Exponential Fit 4 L L L L © 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Cumulative Oi! Production, Ny STB Fig. 4.5.13— Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106. 10 N,max= 95,000 STB. ue Legend: NRU 3106 © fye Function fe Exponential Fit] 1 L L L 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Cumulative Oil Production, Ny» STB Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Wy *N)) Fig. 4.5.14— Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, NRU Well 3106.cy No conclusions tobe drawn,” only character of trend Is noted. 7” ‘Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio . ‘Legend: WWL B41 ‘© WOR, Function WOR, Exponential Fit © 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 ‘Cumulative Ol! Production, N, STB Fig. 4,5.15— Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B41. 10 T T a Legend: WWL B41 ‘© f, Function --+ f, Exponential Fit 2 |e L L L T o 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 ‘500,000 ‘Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water ‘Cumulative Oil Production, Ny STB Fig. 4.5.16— Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well B418 Discussion: Total Production Function Plots These analyses focus on the concept of total production — ice, oil plus water rates and cumulative production, as well as a "total material balance time." Our premise is that the “total” functions will represent the system behavior of both phases — it is intuitive to assume that the total funetions will represent an aggregated behavior, but it is possible that this approach may provide a unifying analysis scheme. At present, we only focus on the qualitative aspects of this concept, we have not tried to obtain quantitative results. NRU Well 3106 Fig. 4.5.17: We find that the log(WOR) versus (N;+W,) trend is strongly linear at late times, and actually very well-behaved throughout the production history. 4.5.18: In this case we consider a log-log plot of f versus (N,+W,)(qotgu), and ‘we note that the late time data converge on a declining unit slope trend. This behavior is very similar to the behavior expected for the single- phase flow case, which suggests that the "total production” approach may yield an aggregated behavior that can be analyzed with simple conceptual models. WWL Well B4l Fig. 4.5.19: We also note a very strong linear trend for the log(1OR) versus (Nyt W,) data, and this again confirms our concept of the total production giving an aggregated behavior. Fig. 4.5.20: Similarly, the log-log plot of f, versus (Np+W,)/(qorqu) shows a strong linear trend (except for the earliest production data). We again note a consistent unit slope behavior of the f, function at late times.Fig. 4.5.17— Fig. 4.5.18— 10° T T aa" ian eg se dog? B= 10° |S q Legend: NRU 3106 fe ener oo Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Production, NRU Well 3106. Fractional Flow of =dAGy*,)) 10 a Unit Slope Line [Legend: NRU 3108] S @ f, Function 10° 10° 10° 10° Total Material Balance Time, (W,#N,N(qy-+d,) Days 64 Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance Time, NRU Well 3106,: ; 10° 4 g . ie es <1 od WE q ars ru ° @ WOR Function| Total Production, (N,+W,), STB Fig. 4.5.19 — Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Production, WWL Well B41 u Fractional Flow of (f=afa,+4,)) ‘© f, Function N 2 n L 10° 10° 10° 10° Total Material Balance Time, (N+W,)(4,*a,), Days Fig. 4.5.20— Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL. Well Bal.66 4.6 Ershagi's X-Plot Technique Ershagi et al proposed a theoretically-derived plotting function for the analysis of WOR (or f.) data, The concept put forth is that the simplified steady-state flow model can be used, given certain assumptions and conditions, to analytically represent the WOR (or f,) behavior for a particular system. Our goal in this work is to compare the X-plot approach to the various other techniques for the estimation of movable oil, No» Based on our results, we do not believe that the X-plot has any advantages over the more widely applied IVOR (or f,) extrapolation tech- nigues. Further, we believe that the conventional techniques (i.e., go versus Np, log(WOR) versus Np, log(f,) versus N,, and f, versus N,) and new methods proposed in this Chapter (ie., the Vif, versus N, and I/f, versus Ny/qp plots), all give more accurate estimates of movable oil than does the X-plot approach. We note in Fig. 4.6.1 (the X-plot for NRU Well 3106) that we obtain a very consistent straight-line trend.. One of the major pitfalls of the X-plot approach is that this method does not provide a direct estimate of the movable oil, pmo. For example, if we .99, then we obtain an Npnov Value of 149,000 STB. This estimate is in substantial disagreement with the Npmov value of 86,800 STB extrapolate the X-function to fy obtained using each of the other extrapolation techniques — this is cause for concer. The A-plot for WWL Well B41 is presented in Fig. 4.6.2, and we immediately note a strong straight-line trend at late times. Extrapolation of the X-function trend gives an estimate of movable oil of 520,000 STB at f,=0.99, while the movable oil estimate obtained using the "conventional" as well as the new techniques is about 360,000 STB. ‘We noted that the Ershagi X¢plot tends to almost always overestimate movable oil. ‘We noted earlier that sometimes these approximate plotting functions completely fail to represent the behavior of the reservoir system. We have such a case in WWL Well A17 (Fig. 4.6.3). We note immediately that the trend is propagating in the wrong direction — this case can clearly be classified a failure of the X-plot approach.oo TTP rer y T . : ’ = ae 5 100,000 }— 4 Fm 2 . é L : 1 1 L te ae X- Function (In(1Hf,) = 1) -40f,) Fig, 4.6.1 — X-Plot, NRU Well 3106. sonano e a 400000 = g 3 s00000 z re 200900 g Z F to0000 4 3 2 X-Funetion, (In((f,) = 1) -114,) Fig. 4.6.2. — X- Plot, WWL Well B41. 1 or68 00000 -—— ee 2 5 = 3 200000}- 4 5 ie © 0000}- A z g 1 Bo c pl et L a a EY X- Function, (In(1if, 1} tif) Fig. 4.6.3 — X- Plot, WWL Well A17. 4.7 Closure As part of our closure, we summarize all of the quantitative results in Table 4.7.1 for the example wells NRU Well 3106 and WWL Well B41. We again note that the data and results (plots and tables) for all of the sclected wells in the West White Lake Field and the North Robertson Unit are presented in Appendixes A and B, respectively. While we might be tempted to favor one (or two) analysis methodologies over the others, we strongly recommend that a suite of analyses always be used. Some cases will be problematic, and (hopefully) the use of a suite of techniques will identify the correct behavior and provide the correct results. Our only caveat is that we do not recommend the use or the X-plot technique — this technique is based in theory, but it is extremely difficult to obtain representative results (the evaluation is arbitrary) and the X-plot can yield completely erroneous data trends (i.e., WWL Well Al7 — Fig. 4.6.3).9 Table 4.7.1 —Summary of Models Used to Characterize WOR, fw, and, Behavior — NRU Well 3106 and WWL Well B41 Example Cases. NRU Well 3106 WWL Well Bal Noor Nomor Linear/Exponential N, Model_ (STB) __Linear/Exponential Np Model__ (STB) Gp =4.88+10'~5.62210*N, — 86800 g, = 4.4410? -1.22.10°N, 360,000 4.88 «101e*" "+ 86,800 g, =4.4.10%@ 0" 360,000 1/g,=1.95:107 41.15.10, 5800 1/9, =1.4744.934.10%r, 360,000 WOR =1.68exp(2.50 «10 N,) WOR = 4.124 «10°? exp(l.75 «10° Np) If, =1.43-4.94.10°N, 86,800 1/f,, = 2.0021-2.78361x10*N,, 360,000 Fp = 6.828088 86,800 f= 3,99. 197 eM 360,000 3.68110" = 4.241 ae f 36,800 7.3110"! ~ 2.03 «10 nTCHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Summary Introduction In this chapter we summarize the tasks accomplished in this work and we provide the specific conclusions derived from this work. In the previous chapters of this work we presented empirical and semi-analytical models for the analysis and interpretation of oil and water production data. In particular, we provide the development, verification, and application of a new water-oil performance relation for pseudosteady-state flow conditions. This model was found to be superior to all other models considered for the representation of field production data (WOR, fo, and the water and oil flowrate functions). We provide a demonstration for a broad spectrum of analyses for oil and water production data — from “conventional” extrapolation plots to a several new analysis and diagnosis plots, including the new pseudosteady-state flow relation for the simultaneous flow of oil and water. The oil and water production data used in this study were obtained from the North Robertson Unit (NRU) located in Gaines County (West Texas) and the White Lake Field located in Southwest Louisiana, Pseudosteady-State WOR Model In accordance with the primary objective of this work — the development of a more representative model for the simultaneous flow of oil and water, we presented the development and validation of a pseudosteady-state water-oil ratio model. This model does not require the limiting assumptions of the conventional (steady state) WOR model (the mobility ratio is not required to be unity, nor are any assumptions made regarding the relative permeability functions).We utilized the new pscudosteady-state oil-water flow model in the following analysis/ interpretation plots: © Fractional flow of oil (f,) versus cumulative oi production (N,) © Logarithm of fractional flow of water (f,) versus cumulative oil production (N,) ® Reciprocal of fractional flow of water (1/f,) versus cumulative oil production, (N;) © Water-oil ration (WOR) versus cumulative oil production (N;) In each of these plots the pseudosteady-state flow model is plotted as a comparison to the given data function, We note in summary that the new pseudosteady-state model is an excellent interpolation model — but we (regrettably) must also note that our new pseudosteady-state model does not provide a practical approach for the estimation of reserves by extrapolation. This is an area for future research consideration. Estimation of Movable Oil ‘Though often considered an empirical (and sometimes suspect approach), the estimation of movable oil reserves (Npmos) by extrapolation of a function versus cumulative production (or some other production-related function) is a very popular (and effective) method for estimating such reserves. It is our belief that, because of the uncertainty in the accuracy of the "conventional" extrapolation methods, as well as the lack of a completely rigorous mathematical foundation, the best approach is to apply as many of these extrapolation techniques as possible. Such an approach will provide duplication (hence validation), and though there is no single "perfect" extrapolation technique, the comparison of results obtained from different approaches does provide consistency and an element of validation, Our process of estimating the ultimate recovery using straight-line extrapolations of production data function incorporates a sequence of simultaneous analysis for all data functions (€.g., dor for fon WOR, Wf W/q, and other functions versus cumulative production). The goal for such an analysis is to develop estimates of movable oil that best represent most, if not all, ofthe extrapolation methods.Specifically, we use the following extrapolation techniques for the simultaneous estimation of movable oil (or EUR) at current producing conditions: © Oil production rate (g.) versus production time (f) © Oil production rate (q.) versus cumulative oil production (N,) Fractional flow of oil (f,) versus cumulative oil production (N,) Logarithm of fractional flow of water (f,) versus cumulative oil production (Np) Reciprocal of fractional flow of water (I/f,) versus cumulative oil production (N;) © Reciprocal of oil production rate (1/qe) versus oil material balance time (,) Qualitative Analysis of Oil and Water Production Data In addition to the estimation of movable oil, we also can also perform a "qualitative" analysis of the water and oil production data. These techniques provide a visual analysis of the data and may provide a qualitative assessment of the performance. While our focus was on the qualitative analysis of data, some of these techniques can also provide a quantitative estimate of movable oil. In particular, we considered the following analysis techniques: © Logarithm of cumulative fractional flow of water (fy.) versus the cumulative oil production (Np) © Logarithm of cumulative water-oil ratio (WOR,) versus the cumulative oil production (Np) Reciprocal of the water rate (1/g,,) versus water material balance time (¢,,.) © Logarithm of the water-oil ratio (1¥OR) versus total production (N,+W¥,) © Logarithm of the fractional flow of oil (f,) versus logarithm of total material balance time (#) ‘© Logarithm of the oil production rate (g,) versus logarithm of oil material balance time (f.) © Cumulative oil production versus X-function (refs. 3-4) ‘A complete suite of data analysis was performed on § wells from the White Lake Field (Southwest Louisiana) and 20 wells from the North Robertson Unit (West Texas). TheB compilation of analyses for the White Lake Field are given in Appendix A and the analyses for the North Robertson Unit are given in Appendix B. 5.2 Conclusions ‘The following conclusions are derived from this study: Pseudosteady-State WOR Model 1, We have developed a new pseudosteady-state WOR model for boundary-dominated reservoir behavior. The proposed model is a combination of the analytical solutions for single-phase oil and water flow at pseudosteady-state conditions, and the only significant assumption that arises in this relation is that of a constant (non- unity) mobility ratio. While this may seem a limiting assumption, we successfully matched all of the production data cases considered in this work using this new model. 2. The proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model clearly provides the best representation for the oil and water production data cases that we investigated. We found very good agreement between the predicted data and the field data for virtually all stages of production. 3. The only limitation to our new model is that it does not provide a mechanism for the prediction of future production, Previous approaches considered the prediction of future production as a function of time or cumulative oil production, our new model is expressed in terms of oil and water production rates and cumulative production, and it is not possible to write a predictive formula (or even an extrapolation formula) using this new relation. Estimation of Movable Oil 1. We provide a compilation of the "conventional" straight-line extrapolation The techniques methods used in the industry for the estimation of movable oii considered are: © Jog(q,) versus ¢"4 © qo versus Np © log(f,) versus Np © log(f,) versus Ny These techniques should be applied simultaneously in order to obtain consistent estimates of the movable oil. Application of only one or two techniques can lead to substantial misinterpretations of the correct model behavior, which in tum will Jead to over- or underestimation of movable reserves. 2, We proposed two new methods for estimating movable oil reserves. These techniques are: © Mf, versus Ny © 1/go versus Npldo Applot of I/f, versus N, should yield a straight-line trend which can be extrapolated to 1/f.=1, which yield the movable reserves, Npmov- Similarly, a plot of I/go versus Nplqo should yield a straight-line trend, where the slope of this trend is equal to UNpmov. The results obtained by these new methods correspond quite well to the results obtained by the "conventional" WOR techniques (i.e., the straight-line extrapolation methods discussed in the previous point). Analysis of Oil and Water Production Data 1. In reviewing the behavior of our new plotting functions, fy. and WOR. versus Ny, for production data taken from the North Robertson Unit and White Lake Field, we note that virtually every case illustrates straight-line behavior. However, the extrapolation of these straight-line trends does not lead to similar values of movable oil as the "conventional" extrapolation techniques. In short, we have found that the cumulative water-oil ratio (VOR.) function and the cumulative fractional flow of water (fa) function can not be used to estimate reserves by extrapolation of the observed straight-line trend. This behavior presents an opportunity for future work,15 2. We have extended the diagnostic plots proposed by Chan’ (i.e., the WOR and WOR derivative, integral, and integral-derivative functions plotted versus production time, oil material balance time, and total material balance time). ‘The following observations are noted: ‘© The WOR and WOR integral, and integral-derivative functions typically exhibit a clearly defined unit slope trend when plotted versus time and material balance time. © The WOR derivative function is typically very erratic, and can not be used for routine analysis due to poor overall behavior. Log-log plots of the WOR functions versus t (or t,) tend to be reasonably well behaved, with the noted exception of the WOR-derivative function, which is typically very erratic. It is our strong recommendation that these plots only be purposes — although we would encourage a future study ‘ona "type curve" analysis approach for WOR data, 3. We believe that the X-plot method (refS. 3,4) provides no substantive advantage over the “conventional” extrapolation techniques discussed previously. In fact, the X-function typically does not develop a clear straight-line trend, Of most concem is the observation that the estimates of movable oil obtained using the X-plot do not typically correspond to the estimates obtained by the conventional and proposed extrapolation techniques. Finally, the extrapolation of X-function tends to significantly overestimate the value of movable oil. 5.3 Recommendations for Future Work We recommend the following future research efforts: 1. Investigate the possibility of using the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model for the estimation of movable oil (ie., the development of a simple extrapolation formula). 2. We used regression analysis to determine the parameters on the proposed pseudosteady-state WOR model (i.¢., byssor bosom Moy and my). It may be possible to6 develop an analysis scheme to estimate these parameters directly (ie., not using regression). Further, we suggest that the model parameters can be further used for reservoir analysis — and we encourage future study in that area, We suggest further qualitative and quantitative analyses for the various WOR trends as a function of time, cumulative production, as well as material balance time, The quality of the production data may make this approach difficult to formalize into an analysis technique, but we suggest that a "type curve" approach may be possible.nN NOMENCLATURE intercept of log(kro/kry) versus S, plot, fraction reservoir drainage area, ft” [m] intercept of conventional log(WOR) versus Np plot, fraction intercept of Ershagie’s N, versus X-function plot, STB [std m’] constant defined by Eq. 2.1.7 intercept of N, versus In(N;/W,) - Np/I¥, plot, STB [std m*] formation volume factor, RB/STB [res m’/std m’] lope of of log(kro/kry) versus S,, plot, 1/STB [1/std m’] = slope of conventional log(¥OR) versus Np plot, V/STB [1/std m’] lope of Ershagie’s N, versus X-function plot, STB [std m*] constant defined by Eq. 2.1.7 = slope of Np versus In(Nj/W;) - Np/W, plot, STB [std m’] 44 = 70624 in th e'Cre rate case, psi/STB/D (kPa/std m°/d] = constant defined by Eq. 2.1.5 reservoir shape factor, dimensionless ‘otal system compressibility, psia' [kPa] decline oil rate, STB/D [std m'/d] VpIN, overall reservoir recovery, fraction fractional flow of oil, fraction cumulative fractional flow of oil, fraction = fractional flow of water, fraction = cumulative fractional flow of water, fraction total formation thickness, ft [m] = effective formation permeability, md = relative formation permeability, md , intercept of Ap/q versus ¢ plot for general variable- = ose gt slope of Ap/ versus 1 plot for general variable-rate case, psi/STB/D/hr [kPa/std m’/d/hr] polarity (well pattern characteristic) cumulative oil production, STB [std m’] = movable oil, STB [std m’] original oil-in-place, STB [std m*] Pi Pwf, pressure drop, psi [kPa] = pressure, psia [kPa]Pi pss Pwf i g B Subscripts B = initial reservoir pressure, psia {kPa] = pseudosteady-state = flowing bottomhole pressure, psia (kPa] = production flow rate, STB/D [std m'/d] = total liquid production (gross) rate, STB/D [std m’/d] = initial production flow rate, STB/D [std m’/d] reservoir drainage radius, ft [m] = wellbore radius, ft [m] = water saturation, fraction = connate water saturation, fraction = irreducible water saturation, fraction = time, days = material balance time, days = Np/o, oil material balance time, days = (Nyt W,\/(qorqw), total material balance time, days = Wo!quy water material balance time, days cumulative water injection, STB [std m*] water-to-oil ratio, fraction = cumulative water-to-oil ratio, fraction = cumulative liquid production, STB [std m’] Su = 0.577216, Euler's constant = reservoir porosity, fraction = fluid viscosity, ep [Pas] = “4 E e Ershagie’s X-function initial oil = water = total10. 1 12. nm REFERENCES Robert S. Thompson, John D. Wright: Oi! Property Evaluation, Thomson — ‘Wright Associates, Golden, CO, 1985. Chan, K.S.: "Water Control Diagnostic Plots," paper SPE 30775 presented at the 1995 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 22-25 October. Ershaghi, I. and Omoregie, O.: "A Method for Extrapolation of Cut vs. Recovery curves," JP? (February 1978) 203-204. Ershaghi, I. and Abdassah, D.: "A Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes Using Field Performance Data," JPT (April 1984) 664-670. Liu, R.J.: "Discussion of a Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes Using Field Performance Data’, JPT (May 1989) 558-559. Lijek, SJ: "Simple Performance Plots Used in Rate-Time Determination and Waterflood Analysis,” paper SPE 19847 presented at the 64” Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, San Antonio, TX, October 8-11, 1989. Lo, K.K., "A Study of the Post-Breakthrough Characteristics of Waterfloods," paper SPE 20064 presented at the 60th California Regional Meting, Ventura, CA, 4-6 April, 1990, Yortsos, Y.C., Choi, Y. and Yang, Z.: "Analysis and Interpretation of the Water- Oil Ratio in Waterfloods," paper SPE 38869 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 5-8 October. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc,, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1959. Hurst, W.: Advances in Petroleum Engineering, PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1981. - Cole, F.W.: Reservoir Engineering Manual, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, ‘TX, 1961. Doublet, L.A., Pande, P.K., Clark, M.B., Nevans, J.W., and Blasingame, T.A.: "An Integrated Geologic and Engineering Reservoir Characterization of the North13. 4 16. 80 Robertson (Clearfork) Unit; A Case Study, Part 1," paper SPE 29594 presented at the 1995 Joint Rocky Mountain Regional Meting and Low-Permeability Symposium, Denver, CO, 20-22 March 1995. Steinhoff, R.O.: "Geology of the West White Lake, South Bosco-Duson-Ridge, Abbeville-Perry-South Perry Structures, South Louisiana," Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, TX, January 1965. Ross, L.M., Ames, R.L., McConnell, D.R., and Seilhan, K.A: “Economic Impact of Oil Geochemistry on West White Lake Field, LA," paper presented at the 78" ‘Annual AAPG Convention, New Orleans, LA, 25-28 April 1993. . Blasingame, T.A. and Lee, W.J.: "Variable-Rate Reservoir Limits Testing,” paper SPE 15028 presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Con- ference, Midland, TX, 13-14 March 1986. Startzman, R.A and Wu, CH: "Discussion of Empirical Prediction Technique for Immiscible Processes," JPT (December 1984) 2192-2194.81 APPENDIX A. ANALYSIS OF OIL AND WATER PRODUCTION DATA FOR WELLS IN THE WEST WHITE LAKE FIELD (SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA) In this appendix, we provide the analysis and interpretation of the oil and water production data for 8 selected wells in the West White Lake Field (WWL). We provide the history and analysis plots as well as the associated data tables required for the analysis of the water and oil production performance data in the West White Lake Field. In this appendix we provide the analysis and interpretation of the following 8 well cases from West White Lake Field. Well Inventory © Well B35 (WWL_B35) © Well B36 (WWL_B36) © Well A17 (WWL_AI7) © Well B39 (WWL_B39) © Well A30 (WWL_A30) © Well B41 (WWL_B41) © Well B30 (WWL_B30) © Well B7 (WWL_B7) Production Data Summary Tables of the oil and water production data for each case are provided, as well as, a summary table for each case, where we include well completion data and a summary of the following production parameters: © Initial oil rate Initial water rate Current oil rate Current water rate Current cumulative oil production Current cumulative water production82 Conventions jis Techniques © log(g.) and log(qu) versus t. © log(¥OR) and log(f,) versus t. © go versus Np, © f, versus Np, © log(f,) versus Np. © Log(WOR) versus Np. New Analysis Techniques © Uf, versus Np. log(VOR) and log(f,) versus ¢ © log(fue) versus Np. log(WOR,) versus Np. 1/o versus oil material balance time (f5=N,/qo). ee . 1/q,, versus water material balance time (¢v=W/q.). WOR and WOR associated functions versus production time. © WOR and WOR associated functions versus Np/qo. © WOR and WOR associated functions versus (Np+Wp)!(qo+4u)- © Jog(OR) versus cumulative total production (N,+W,). © log(/,) versus total material balance time (t=(Np+)(Gordu))- © Ershagi-Omoregie X-function plot (N, versus X-function).83 A.l Well Summary WWL Well 35 was completed on 16 Nov 16 1986. The total depth of the well is 7,310 ft with upper and lower perforation depths of 7,064 ft and 7,072 f, respectively. Table A.1.1 — Summary of Initial and Current Production Data go, qu, Np, and Wp, WWL Well 35. Initial oil rate, gor 126.0STBO/D Initial water rate, gyi. 2.4 STBW/D Oil rate (as of Feb 1993), ... 7.3 STBO/D ‘Water rate (as of Dec 1992), dw ..15.5 STBW/D ‘Cumulative oil production (as of Feb 1993), Np ....nnnm63.855 MSTBO Cumulative water production (as of Dec 1992), Wy ++... 18.380 MSTBW Table A.1.2 — Summary of Models used to Characterize IVOR, fy, and fe Behavior, WWL Well 35. Pseudosteady-State Models Name (for WOR, fn anf) Linear/Exponential Ny Model___ (STB) 3.7701 x 10° ~ 1.4975 «10, / 4) ms 5 7 BOR = eld R= 1.6<10°? exp(22410°Ny) ~ 4.7796 x10" ~ 2.9872(N, /qo) pol ives e7s 0 fp ate RUDI =14975:10'0 5/90) yg, araisgsaoisesio°n,, 7976 4.7796. 10" ~2.9872(Np /96) 75,156 ofp = 2.2046 - 2.91013 x10 : 3.770110 =1.4975x 10, /dy) Ferenc cece SL = 4.779610" = 2.98721, /4q)go and gy Versus Production Time: WWL Well 35 4 10 T T T T Legend: WW 35 ©, Function © 4g, Function === 9, Exponential t Model Ny, moy = 75,756 STB il and Water Rates, q, and q,, STE/D 9, = 5.801310" exp{ -7.6679x10"f), STBID se a4 1 ! 1 ° "000-2000 ~*3000 ~~ 4000 000 Production Time, Days Fig. A.1.1 — Oil and Water Production Rate History, WWL Well 35. WOR and f,, Versus Production Time: WWL Well 35 10° T T 10° Bg SP PFELEL ° ”. z go qe ae es 3B £> z ee 23 gg a2 g= és ; 1. é a0 w “3 Legend: WWL 35 “ Wor Function - © f, Function 107 L 4 40° o 7.000 2000 3008 Production Time, Days Fig. A.1.2 — Water-Oil Ratio and Fractional Flow of Water Versus Production Time, WWL Well 35.Versus Np: WWL Well 35 ll Production Rate, q,, STBID 100 3 & Legend: WWL 35 © g, Function -=- 9, Linear N, Model / % = 6.8013x10".7.6579x10“N,, STBID . wr Nem ® 75766518 | L L Poa Zo000” sa000” 60000 0,000 100,000 ‘Cumulative Ol Production, N,, ST. Fig. A.1.3 — Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well 35. WOR Versus WOR Model: WWL Well 35 10" Caculated Water-Oi Measured Water-Oit Ratio. (worsq,/q,) Fig. A.1.4 — Water-Oil-Ratio Water-Oil Ratio Pscudosteady-State Model WWL Well 35. 85Versus N,: WWL Well 35 28 T - T = Legend: WWL 35 fh © f, Function 207 ~s. f, Linear N, Model] —| 5_ = fwe te 3B SS, BF ask seuostndy sate Model: a g f= (1 + (4.7796x10? -2.9872t,)( - 3.7704x10°- 14.975t,)) cS : Variabies: gS tonsenanagh he Mle te Mte , Ohm PTE STB Cumulative Ot Production, N,, STB 86 Fig. A.1.5. — Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production WWL Well 35. Ufo Versus Ny: WWL Weil 35 25 TT T T T 1 Legend: WWL 35 A ‘© 1/f, Function 2oF ‘ = 4if, Linear Ny Model] ~] (H7,=(4,+9.14,) T Reciprocal of the Fractional Flow of Water |—-— 1if, pss Model Pseudosteady-State Model: 4 1h + (-3.7701x10" - 14,9781,)(4.7796x10 -2.98721,) . Variables LEN Jy by = Wy 4 1h, = 7.2134 - 8.20186x10°N,, Np, mov = 78,786 STB | ‘* L wal a 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, N,, STB Fig. A.1.6 — Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well 35.fe Versus Np 10° 10 Fractional Flow of Water ,74,A4,+9,)) : WWL Well 35 T T T T b re fits Ale 7 f og" wei L ry | 1, 2.6457x107 exp(4.79465x10°N,) _| . . a“ Legend: WWL 36 - © f, Function . -==> f, Exponential N, Model Jn=-— fps Modet L L i L ° 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Cumulative Oil Production, Ny, STB 87 Fig. A.1.7 — Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well 35. Nj: WWL Well 35, W,AW,*N,)) (Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Cre 10 FN, mov = 89,858 STB Legend: WWL 35 © f, Function -=> f, Exponential Fit L L L L ° 20,000 40,000 60,000 180,000 100,000 Cumulative Ol Production, N,, STB Fig. A.1.8 — Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well 35.WOR Versus N,: WWL Weil 35 10° T WOR = 1.6x10exp(7.2x10°N,) wee Legend: WW 35 J ‘© WORFunction @ |--=- WOR Exponential N, Mode! |---— WOR pss Model 10° L ° 60,000 100,000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, Ny, STB. Fig. A.1.9 — Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well 35. WOR, Versus Np No Conclusions to be drawn - only character of trend is noted. Legend: WWL 35 ‘© WOR, Function WOR, Exponential Fit 3 1 r L r © 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, Ny, STB. Fig. A.1.10 - Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well 35, 8889 Mqo Versus Oil Material Balance Time: WWL Well 35 0.30 [Legend: WWL 35 © 4lg, Function es |--~ 11g, Linear (N,/q,) Model 0.25 0.20 AUq, = 1.9264x10" + 1.32003x10"(N,/q,), 1ISTBID @ Np moy® 75,756 STB. 0.18 0.10 0.05 Reciprocal of Oil Rate, 1/q,,1/STBIDay 0.00' ° 5,000 10,000 15,000 ll Material Balance Time (N,/a,), days. Fig. A.1.11 — Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well 35, 1/qy Versus Water Material Balance Time: WWL Well 35 0s T T T Legend: WWL 35 © tig, Function |--~ 11g, Linear (W,/q,) Model] Reciprocal of Water Rate, 1Iqy, 1ISTBIDay 0.0 ° 7,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Water Material Balance Time (W,/4,), days Fig. A.1.12— Reciprocal of Water Rate Versus Water Material Balance Time, WWL Well 35,WOR and WOR Derivative Versus Production Time: WWL Well 35, “0 : f 2 [legena wwe ss 5 © WWoR Function , 3 © WOR, Function E2 we & q ee aa odes 5 we . 4 g ee = é oe Unt Siope Line ° wt 1 ! 10° 10° 10° 10° Production Time, Days “ 90 Fig. A.1.13 ~ Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well 35. WOR Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Production Time: WWL Well 35 10° Legend: WW 36 ‘© WOR, Function (© WOR,, Function} Water-Oil Ratio Integral 10 , Production Time, Days 107 10" Fig. A.1.14— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well 351 WOR and WOR Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time: WWL Well 35, 10 7 : 7 Unit Slope tm ? ze @ Be 10°F 2 q ze ° ef . ge “ge se Oo 32 iL Spetee J 3 aes g (Legend: WWL 36 3 @ WOR Function o |_2_ WOR, Function 10? ! I 10° 10° 10° 10° Oi Material Balance Time (N,/a,), days. Fig. A.1.15 — Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well 35. WOR Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time : WWL Well 35 10 BZ 10! zt 33 7 Ee 107 7 4 52 ° 3 0 [Legends WWL 35 5 ” ‘© WOR, Function 5 © WOR, Function| 10° 10° 10° 10° 10° ll Material Balance Time (N,/q,), days Fig. A.1.16- Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well 35.92 WOR and WOR Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time: WWL Well 35 0 ge 38 ES 54 10" a8 ge a 7 Tegend: wiv 36 2 5 ‘@ WORFunction © WoR,Funetion : 1 ft I 10° 10° 10 tof 10° Total Material Balance Time, (N,+W,\(q,*q,), Days Fig, A.1.17— Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well 35. Balance Time: WWL Well 35 jerivative Versus Total Mat WOR Integral and Integral ‘0 7 2 Unit Siope ——, a ze 2 o'r os BE Bz _ Legend: WWLIE Wor, Function oe © WOR, Function! 10° 10° 10° 10° 10° 10° ‘Total Material Balance Time, (N,+W,(q,*g,), Days Fig. A.1.18— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Total MaterialWOR Versus Q, : WWL Well 35, 10 T T T T Exponent Trene? at ga > ie 4 ? ge 107 4 ° Legend: WWL 35 WOR Function gee td © 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Total Production, (N,+W,), STB Fig. 4.1.19 — Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Production, WWL Well 35. WOR Versus : WWL Well 35 10° T eae Unit Stope Line N Legend: WWL 35 ‘© WOR Function| a ! rT 10° 10° 10" Total Material Balance Time, (N,+W,)(q,*a,), Days < ‘0° Fig. A.1.20— Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well 35. 93Versus f;; WWL Well 35 10° i ES BR ed q : egend Ww 35] . 2 faFuncton wo! 1 10° 10° 10° Total Material Balance Time, (N,+W,V(q,+9,), Days Fig. A.1.21 — Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance Time WWL Well 35. w Versus Water Material Balance Time: WWL Well 35 10° T T Legend: WWL 36 © go Function a ==> g, Linear (N,/q,) Model & a z s 3 é q 3 w 1 ! 10° 10° 10° 10° il Material Balance Time (N,/a,), days Fig. A.1.22— Water Rate Versus Water Material Balance Time, WWL Well 35.Jot: WWL Well 35, 100,000 rr T T T T T T T ge 80,000 + - = é .% 5 ssocof- 20° ~ ° 4 i m6 $5 50 45 40 36 30 25 20 48 X-- Funetion (In((t/f,) = 1) =f) Fig. 4.1.23 - X- Plot, WWL Well 35. 95Table A.1.3 - Summary Table of Production Data, WWL Well 35. Date Time q qu (STBD)__(STB/D) Np (STB) 10.3 10.2 99 a 71 15 42 3.2 68 65 12 34 88 34 83 35 69 116 1.9 13.3 13.3 10 10.1 10.8 10.4 96‘Table A.1.3 — (Continued). Date Time % Qe Np Wy (month year) (months) (STB/D) _(STB/D)_ (STB) _ (STB) “a 2435 «99 «51929 7405. 43 18 127 52487 7798 44 16.8 14 52992 8219 45 15.8 15.8 53482 8709 46 118 16.8 53849 9229 Aug-90 47 12 15.5 54209 9695 Sep-90 48 12.5 n 54595 10035 Oct-90 49 13.6 12.8 5500410418 Nov-90 50 16.2 18 55507 10785 Dec-90 51 141 109 3594311122 Jan-91 52 a 10.4 56209 11412 Feb-91 _ rE 10.5 56604 11738 Mar-91 54 12.5 o1 56978 12012 Apr-91 55 13.2 10.1 57388 12326 May-91 56 13.2 11.6 57785, 12673 Jun-91 ST 14.8 8.5 58244 12938 Jul-91 58 mn M3 58774 13288 Aug-91 59 11.3 11.6 59113 13635 Sep-91 60 10.8 9 59447 13914 Oct-91 61 7 209 59798 14541 Nov-91 62 54 9 39926 14757 Dec-91 63 5.6 83 60101 1SO15 Jan-92 64 14.4 69 60518 15216 Feb-92 65 16 5.5 61013 15385 Mar92 66 141 95 6143715671 Apr-92 67 sete 83 61819 15929 May-92 68 19 85 6217516184 Jun92 69 97 12.7 6247716579 Jul-92 70 12.8 10.8 62860 16903 Aug-92, 71 13.2 113 63255 17243 Sep-92 72 83 12.5 63512 17631 Oct-92 73 78 17 63746 18141 Nov-92-74 73 16 63840 18349 Dec-92 15 73 15.5 63855 183802 Well Summary 98 WWL Well A17 was completed on 25 May 1985. The total depth of the well is 7,300 ft swith upper and lower perforation depths of 7,043 ft and 7,071 f, respectively. Table A.2.1 ~ Summary of Initial and Current Production Data go, guy Np» and Wp, WWL Well A17. Initial oil rate, ger Initial water rate, gui Oil rate (as of March 1998), q, . Water rate (as of March 1998), qy ‘Cumulative oil production (as of March 1998), Np .. ‘Cumulative water production (as of March 1998), 25.8STBO/D 0.6 STBW/D 21.2 STBOD. 30.4 STBW/D 199.054 MSTBO -43.642 MSTBW Table A.2.2 — Summary of Models used to Characterize WOR, f., and f, Behavior, WWL Well A17. Pseudosteady-State Models (for WOR, fu, and fo) 6.5642 «10° + 1.8164 (N. pon « £82210" 21.16) = 7.1749 10-7 + 1.8164 (7/94) Wipet+ Vis 65642 «10 + 18164 (N, /99) 1 So = TATAD «1077 + 1.816479 ay) EE NO TNE le) 6564210 + 18164(N, /4,) = TTA9 «10°? + 1.81680", Jay) Nomov Linear/Exponential Np Model__ (STB). WOR = 7.048610" *xp(3.71444 «10° Np) 217,210 Vf_ =13.8~ 589291 10, fo = 3.8456~1.77045+10°N 217,210o.and gw Versus Production Time: WWL Well A17 1 T T T Legend: WWL A17 © 4g, Function © 4g, Function |--~ g, Exponential t Model il and Water Rates, q, and qy, STE/D q,=7.0014x10" expl - 8.97749x10"f), STBID | M, nor” 778,880 878_| 4,000 6,000 8,000 Production Time, Days. Fig. 4.2.1 ~ Oil and Water Production Rate History, WWL Well A17. WOR and f, Versus Production Time: WWL Well A17 10 - 1 1 10° dio" tio? oe 00% Legend: WWL Ai? ae ¢” WOR Function oft © f,Function ° hae si L 1 I cA ° 14000 2000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Production Time, Days Fig. A.2.2 ~ Water-Oil Ratio and Fractional Flow of Water Versus Production Time, WWL Well A17. > ° 2 g J010M Jo MO100 qo Versus Ny: WWL Well A17 : foe ar ; one £ 160 =~ a, Linear N, Model] 1 g ¢ 3255x10"N,, STED g E 100 4 i E ao 4 ° 17,210 STB ° 100,000 200,000 300,000 Cumulative Oil Production, N,, STB Fig. A.2.3 - Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well A17. WOR Versus WOR Model: WWL Well Al7 Calculated Water-Oil Ratio (pss model) 10° 10? 10” 10 10 Measured Water-Oll Ratio (wor=,/a,) Fig. A.2.4 - Water-Ojl-Ratio Water-Oil Ratio Pseudosteady-State Model WWL Well AI7.fo Versus Ny: WWL Well A17 20 16h Fractional Flow of Ol! (=a A9,*9,)) 00 oneney 4 Verne Ifa T Legend: WWLA17 ‘© f,Function f, Linear N, Model j=" f,pss Model Pseudosteady-State Model: ~ £2110 + (6.8842x10" + Be =7A749x10" + 1.8164) Eonors 27210878 8458 - srressxto'n, & is 100,000 200,000 300,000 Cumulative Oil Production, N, STB ig. A.2.5 — Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production WWL Well Al7. 1f/» Versus Ny: WWL Well A17 _ : : 2 [Legend: WWL A17 3 oy Function 3 af = 11f, Linear N, Modell Z, . = Ai pse Model _ BS ack Pseudosteady State Model: 4 as eo iget + (4x10! + 92.193, "(9.9796xt0" + 30.7781,) Ss fs t En . Varabes: £2 ob : LEN/an ty Way | of pi Bosh ip S- AM, = 13.8 -6.89281x10°N, é : Ngmoy™ 247,210 STB S L Q 166,000, 700,000 900,000 00,000 Cumulative Oil Production, N,, STE: Fig. A.2.6 — Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well Al7. 101Versus Ny: WWL Well A17 102 Fractional Flow of Water (,=9,A9,*9.)) 1 0 eT Wa T Ny, mor = 247,210 STB ,0001x10" exp(2.67444x10"N,) y a regend WL ATT ef, Function i --=- f, Exponential N, Model ---— fy pss Model \ \ i 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 (Cumulative Oil Production, N, STB Fig. 4.2.7 — Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well foc Versus Np 10 yc Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water W/W, 4N,)) AIT. : WWL Well A17 Legend: WWL A17 © fee Function fe Exponential Fit 100,000 200,000 300,000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, N,, STB Fig. A.2.8 — Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well Al7.WOR Versus Ny: WWL Well A17 Water-Oil Ratio (WoR=q,/q,) Legend: WW ATT. ‘© WOR Function WOR Exponential N, Model WOR pss Model ° 100,000 200,000 300,000 ‘Cumulative Ol Production, N, STE. Fig. A.2.9 — Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well Al7. WOR. Versus Np: WWL Well A17 10° T : No conclusions tobe drawn = only character of trend Ie noted. @ "2 3 £5, 00" 4 g8 z 8 Legend: Wil AT? © WOR, Function === WOR, Exponenta Fit < L i ° 100,000 200,000 300,000 ‘Cumulative Oll Production, Np, STB Fig. A.2.10- Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL_ ‘Well Al7.1/o Versus Oil Material Balance Time: WWL Well AI7 104 0.10 ~e T [Legend: WWL A17 ‘© 11g, Function 08 }-~~ 41q, Linear (N,/q,) Model] ~| 0.06 |- ° asf 0.02 i Reciprocal of Oll Rate, 1/4,, 1/STB/Day ‘Aq, = 5:6112x10° + 4,60385x10°(N,/q,), USTBID snoy "217,210 STB i L 0.00 ° 5,000 70,000 ‘Oil Material Balance Time (N/a), days 15,000 Fig. 4.2.11 — Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well AIT. gw Versus Water Material Balance Time: WWL Well A17 10 [Legend: WWL ATT © 1g, Function as 06 Reciprocal of Water Rate, t/qy, 1ISTBIDay 04 eo . c2rewe g° 8° ae . oe a . 00 2,000 3,000 Water Material Balance Time (W/), days 4,000 Fig. 4.2.12 — Reciprocal of Water Rate Versus Water Material Balance Time, WWL ‘Well Al?7.WOR and WOR Derivative Versus Production Time: WWL Well A17 ‘ 10 1 — : Unit lope Line { oy’ BS we 4 2 53 Et Se 4 & o °, 2 [Legend: WWLA17 3 WOR Function % | 0. WoR, Function a i 108 10 Production Time, days Fig, 4.2.13 — Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well Al7. WOR Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Production Time: WWL Well A17 10° T T Unit Slope Line 55 z§ 10" q 44 92 3 BE 0? q z Legend: WWL ATT © WOR, Function © WOR,, Function 10° ! I 10° 10° 10° 10° Production Time, days Fig. A.2.14— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well A17.106 ‘OR and WOR Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time: WWL Well Al7 * 4 4 10 2 Fe 2 F cegenar ween aOR Fanon a - 10° 10° 10° Oit Material Balance Time (N,/a,), days Fig. 4.2.15 — Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well A17. 10 g Untsiopetine "| ES 10° Oey 4 ee Teyee 3 u . 8° Ze 5 3 z z *, 7 410° 10 WOR Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time: WWL Well A17 ww Legend: WWLA17 ‘© WOR, Function © WOR, Function Water-Oll Ratio Integral ‘and Integral-Derivative Functions Olt Material Balance Time (N/a), days Fig. A.2.16— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well Al7.107 WOR and WOR Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time: WWL Well A17 10! Unit Slope Line i Water. ‘Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Functions 10%, Legend: WWL A17 © WOR Function (© WOR, Function| - 10° 10° 10° Total Material Balance Time, (N,+W,N(q,*a,), Days Fig. A.2.17— Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well Al7. WOR Integral and Integral-Derivative_ Versus Total Material Balance Time: WWL Well A17 0° T Tr g Ee st Unt stop ine ze 3 i Capen WATT 2 ron Function pee 8 WoR, Function qo Pow ou r 10° 10° 10" 10° Total Material Balance Time, (N,+W,)(q.#4,), Days Fig. A.2.18— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well A17.108 WOR Versus Q, : WWL Well A17 Exponential Trend? Water-Oil Rat Legend: WWLA17 ‘© WOR Function L L ° 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Total Production, (N,+W,), STB Fig. A.2.19— Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Production, WWL Well Al7. WOR Versus t,: WWL Well Al7 40 10° se é se, ok 10 gs 107 Legend: WWL ATT ‘@. WOR Function 10° > 5 10° 10° 10 10" 10° ‘otal Material Balance Time, (N,#M,(q,¢ah Days Fig. A.2.20~ Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well A17.109 Versus 7: WWL Well A17 10 Fractional Flow of Oil =a AIy*9,)) Legend: WWI A17] © f, Function 40° 10° 10° 10 Total Material Balance Time, (N,*W,)(qq+d,), Days Fig. 4.2.21 — Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance Time WWL Well Al7. qu Versus Water Material Balance Time: WWL Well A17 10° T T ll Production Rate, q,, STBID Legend: WL AIT © 4, Function == g, Linear (N,/4,) Model ° 1 n 10° 10° 10 107 i Material Balance Time (N/a), days A.2.22~ Water Rate Versus Water Material Balance Time, WWL Well A17. 10 .X~Plot: WWL Well Al7 300,000 ee gz 2 200000 J : i 6 g 3 100,000}- 4 2 é o. aa gle Meet a a ae) X--Funetion, (In((Alfy=1) = fy) Fig. A.2.23 — X- Plot, WWL Well Al7. 10 no‘Table A.2.3 ~ Summary Table of Production Data, WWL Well A17. Date Time Jo dw Ny Wy (month-yeat) (months) (STB/D) _(STB/D) (STB) _ (STB) Apr a 25.8 0 Th 0 May-85 2 39 0.6 896 20 Jun-85 3 712 54 3212 181 Jul-85 4 98.4 0 6262 181 Aug-85 5 83.4 25 8846 257 Sep-85 6 89.2 34 11522 349 Oct-85 7 OLd 17 14345 401 Nov-85 8 87 0 16955 401 Dev-85 9 97.7 0 19984 401 Jan-86 10 90.5 0 22790 401 Feb-86 ul 85.1 35 25174 498, Mar-86 12 86.9 18 27868 554 Apr-86 13 87.2 22 30484 619 May-86 4 914 13 33317 659 Jun-86 15 81.1 54 35749 822 Jul-86 16 87.4 4 38459 947 Aug-86 17 844 39 410751068 Sep-86 18 81 18 43505 1121 Oct-86 19 84.7 0 461301121 Nov-86 20 83.3 7 486301171 Dec-86 21 83.3 2.2 512121238 Jan-87 2 785 5.2 536471400 Feb-87 23 72.1 55 55665 1555 Mar-87 24 10.2 OL 559801559 Apr-87 25 97.7 0 589111559 May-87 26 78.9 0 613571559 Jun-87 27 675 29 633821646 Jul-87 28 60.5 58 65256 ‘1826 Aug-87 29 72.6 56 67508 1999 Sep-87 30 BA 0 69851 1999 Oct-87 31 798 09 72325 2026 Nov-87 32 68.7 0.3 74385 2034 Dec-87 33 675 0 76476 2034 Jan-88 34 70.1 0 78649 2034 Feb-88 35 7.6 53 79740-2188 Mar-88 36 40 2 30981 2250 Apr-88 37 36.5 03 82077-2258 May-88 38 35.7 25 83185 2337 Jun-88 39 311 ay 84119 2389 Jul-88 40 22.4 0 84813 2389 Aug-88 AL 03 417 848142514Table A.2.3 ~ (Continued). Date Time iA qe Ny iW, (month-year) (months) (STB/D) _(STB/D) (STB) _ (STB) Sep-88 a 0 229 84814 3200 Oct-88 43 178 7 85367-3417 Nov-88 44 18.7 45 85592-3471 Dec-88 45 28.5 17 86361-3788 Jan-89 46 29.6 59 87190 3954 Feb-89 47 32.1 6.1 88088 4124 Mar-89 48 37.6 6.1 89214 4307 Apr-89 49 40.5 63 90430 4495 May-89 50 46 4 918574618 Jun-89 51 42.2 47 93123 4760 Jul-89 52 27 28 93961 4847 Aug-89 53 217 38 94819 4965 Sep-89 34 28.6 3 95647 5051 Oct-89 55 2 29 96330 5142 Nov-89 56 30.8 53 97255 5301 Dec-89 57 21.6 49 98112 5454 Jan-90 58 272 18.9 93927 6021, Feb-90 59 28.5 43 99724 6142 Mar-90 60 249 63 1013936471 Apr-90 61 30 3.6 1023236584 May-90 62 30.8 48 1032156723 Jun-90 63 32.2 42 1042126854 Jul-90 64 33.2 26 1052076931 Aug-90 65 316 5 106156 7082 Sep-90 66 32.7 88 107138 7346 Oct-90 or 33.3 5.1 108139 7499 Nov-90 68 313 18 109109740 Dee-90 69 29 12.9 1100098141 Jan-91 70 36 94 1110178395 Feb-91 1 42.9 63 1122198570 Mar-91 nD 43.6 10.1 1135268873 Apr-91 B 915 22.1 116361 «9557 May-91 m4 SL 78 1178949791 Jun-91 5 52.5 3. 1195219888 Jul-91 16 53.1 85 12111510142 Aug-91 7 58.5 8.6 122869 10401 Sep-91 B 63.9 8 124275 10576 Oct-91 0 63.4 99 126177 10874 Noy-91 80 59.4 248 12801711644 Dec-91 81 62.3 17 12994912171 Jan-92 82 65 95 131443 123903 Table A.2.3 - (Continued) Date Time % Gwe Np Wp (month—year) (months) (STB/D) _(STB/D) (STB) _ (STB) Feb-92 83 65.5 145133472 12847 Mar-92 84 55.2 144 13507213258 Apr-92 85 56.2 14.6 136816 13712 May-92 86 66 91 138794 13985 Jun-92 87 8B 81 14121114236 Jul-92 88 74.1 19 14350914481 Aug-92 89 70.1 5.7 14540214635 Sep-92 90 65.4 ol 14743014917 Oct-92 an 64.9 10.8 149378 15242 Nov-92 92 76.2 84 151741 15502 Dec-92 93 515 5.1 15333715661 Jan-93 94 53.1 121 154824 15999 Feb-93, 95 49 12.8 156343 16397 Mar-93 96 476 13.3 15777016797 Apr-93 97 419 95 159069 17092 May-93 98 52.7 108 160651 17415 Jun-93 99 43.2 i 161989 17755 Jul-93 100 44 10.8 16335218091 Aug-93 101 48 87 164793 18353 Sep-93 102 42 126 166094 18745 Oct-93 103 46.7 129 16749419133 Nov-93 104 449 13 168885 19536 Dee-93 105 42.6 10.5 170205 19862 Jan-94 106 39.1 12.9 171301 20224 Feb-94 107 317 19.7 172285 20834 Mar-94 108, 28.8 20 173150 21435 Apr-94 109 33.5 168 174188 21955 May-94 110 29.8 16.4 17508122446 jun-940 111 247 15.6 17584822931 Wuh94 112 35 4 176932 23283 Aug-94 113 36 12.9 17801323669 Sep-94 114 35.1 13 179100 24072 Oct-94 115 35.4 15 180162 24522 Nov-94 116 345 14.7 181232 24979 Dec-94 117 33.3 15.5 182263 25460 Jan-95 118 35.2 16.9 183144 25882 Feb-95 119 318 16.5 184034 26344 Mar-95 120 279 18.3 184872 26894 Apr95 121 20.6 21.8 18551127570 May-95 122 23 15.6 186201 28039 Jun-95 123 16.8 149 186654 28442‘Table A.2.3 — (Continued). Date (month — year) (months) Time Go (STB/D) qw (STBD) Np (STB) uA (STB) 144 146 91 8.1 19 57 91 10.8 84 51 12.1 12.8 13.3 9.5 10.8 a 10.8 87 126 12.9 1B 10.5 12.9 19.7 20 16.8 16.4 15.6 4 12.9 1B 15 147 15.5 16.9 16.5 18.3 28 15.6 149 135072 136816 138794 141211 143509 145402 147430, 149378 151741 153337 154824 156343 157770 159069 160651 161989 163352 164793, 166094 167494 168885 170205 171301 172285, 173150 174188 175081 175848 176932 178013, 179100 180162 181232 182263, 183144, 134034 184872 185511 186201 186654 14us A3 Well Summary WWL Well A30 was completed on 2 Jul 2 1987. The total depth of the well is 7,300 ft with upper and lower perforation depths of 7,038 ft and 7,064 ft, respectively. Table A.3.1 — Summary of Initial and Current Production Data go, gn, Np, and W, WWL Well A30. Initial oil rate, gor .98.5 STBO/D Initial water rate, gu: 5.0 STBW/D Oil rate (as of January 1993), go . .58 STBO/D Water rate (as of January 1993), gw 96.9 STBW/D 157.239 MSTBO 195.329 MSTBW ‘Cumulative oil production (as of January 1993), Np Cumulative water production (as of January 1993), Wp Table A.3.2 - Summary of Models used to Characterize WOR, f,, and f, Behavior, WWL Well A30. Pseudosteady-State Models Nanos (for WOR, fy and fe) Linear/Exponential Np Model___ (STB) 45.10 + 79857210" (y/o) wor: Lna.10"+19892.10°07,/g,) WOR=3.2467%10" exp(S.3122110°N,) 1.00216 +1.989210(H,/q,,) 162,033, Yu 2165 1.36793 10° N, liossaid +7985%16 (%p/49) ’ 1 ie 1.74124 ~1.07462 «10° N , 162,033 12a 4198920107 /4u) = 1.1045-10" +7.9857«10" (N/a)Jo an \d gw Versus Production Time: WWL Well A30 ll and Water Rates, q, and g,, STBID © @, Function © 4g, Function a |--~ q, Exponential t Model p= 1.4811x10" exp) - 8.95558x10"N, STEID ~~~. Nip moe ™ 162,093 STB ° 1000 2,000» 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Production Time, Days Fig. A.3.1 — Oil and Water Production Rate History, WWL Well A30. and fy Versus Production Time: WWL Well A30 WOR © Water-0il Ratio (WoR=q,/q,) 10° Legend: wwL Azo | “3 1° ‘@ WOR Functlon| © f, Function L L 10 2,000 3,000 “4,000 Production Time, Days 16 =) ((Cba"oy't: 4919M 40 Moly reuoRse © Fig. A.3.2 — Water-Oil Ratio and Fractional Flow of Water Versus Production Time, WWL Well A30.7 qo Versus Ny: WWL Well A30 150 Legend: WWL ASO © 4g, Function 4, Linear N, Model » STBID 50 ll Production Rate, qq, STE/D / Np.mov™ 162,033 STB 0,000 400,000 150,000 200,000 260,000 Cumulative OW Production, N,, STB Fig. 3.3 — Oil Production Rate Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well A30. WOR Versus WOR Model: WWL Well A30 10 T T 10 Calculated Water-Oil Ratio (pss model) 10 Measured Water-Oll Ratio (WoR=q,/a,) Fig. A.3.4 — Water-Oil-Ratio Water-Oil Ratio Pseudosteady-State Model WWL Well A30.Fractional Flow of Oil =a Aay*9,)) Versus Ny: WWL Well A30 40 Legend: WWL A30 © f, Function ~ f, Linear N, Model fps Model 08 i ‘° Pscudosteady-State Mode! 4 1,2 AUC + (= 1.404810" + 7.9887%10%,)(1.002x10" + 4.9892«10%t,)) Variables: %, 06 oa 02 00 ° 50,000 100,000 10,000 200,000 250,000 Cumulative Oil Production, Nj» STB Fig. 4.3.5 — Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Cumulative Oil Production WWL Well A30. Ufy Versus Np: WWL Well A30 (qt 4.04) (in Reciprocal of the Fractional Flow of Water 35 [Legend: WWL A30 © 4, Function -~ ‘Mf, Linear N, Model] Uf, pss Model anf. eswnSeeady.siate Mae 20 18 10 ° 60,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 260,000 Cumulative Oil Production, N, STB. Fig. A.3.6 — Reciprocal of Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well A30. 189 Jo Versus Ny: WWL Well A30 10° T Teste" expttesnetothy wo nov” 182,033 STB Fractional Flow of Water IAG +90) 107 & = le . a [Legend: WWL A30 oo ‘© f, Function 7 |-~-~ , Exponential N, Model J---— f, pss Model E fy PSS Mo o L ° 60,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 Cumulative Olt Production, N, STB. Fig. A.3.7 — Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well A30. Versus Np: WWL Well A30 foc Versus Np; 10° T 2 Ny moy® 162,033 STE) A 2? is B= atk 4 $> 10 — * see ° i a Tegend: WWL ASO : ~~. fy Function bd owt : |--- f, Exponential Fit 107 4 ° 50,000 100,000 460,000 200,000 Cumulative Oil Production, N,, STE Fig. A.3.8 — Cumulative Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well A30.120 : WWL Well A30 10° T WOR = 3.2467x10" exp(5.31221x10°N,) ' WOR Versus Ratio (WOR=q,/q,) Legend: WWL A30 © WORFunction WOR Exponential Nl, Model WOR pss Model o 100,000 200,000 ‘Cumulative Oi Production, Nj STB Fig. A.3.9 — Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL Well A30. WWL Well A30 108 T No conclusions to be drawn - only character of trend is noted. WOR Versus Np eae 1 i em a2 BF ] z oO Legend: WWL A30. | [al || renterpcnant 40° / 1 ; wooo0 Zon 00 ‘Cumulative Ol! Production, Ny, STB. Fig. A.3.10- Cumulative Water-Oil Ratio Versus Cumulative Oil Production, WWL ‘Well A30121 1/go Versus Oil Material Balance Time: WWL Well A30 [Legend: WWLA30 Function Linear (N,/q,) Model a tq, = 6.9012x10" + 6.1746x10°(N/q,), STEID | mov = 162,033 STB ° 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 il Material Balance Time (N,/q,), days Fig. A.3.11 — Reciprocal of Oil Rate Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well A30. 1/gy Versus Water Material Balance Time: WWL Well A30 0.08 T T rT Legend: WWLA30 © tig, Function 0.02 Reciprocal of Water Rate, 1/g,, /STBIDay 0.00 1 L L ° 4,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Water Material Balance Time (W,/a,), days Fig. 4.3.12 — Reciprocal of Water Rate Versus Water Material Balance Time, WWL_ Well A30.12 5 g z x $ o 3 a3 we ? 2 5 gr [legend a wa0 5 * , HO | © WoRFicton | 3 wor, Function 407 1° M1 mt 10° 10° 10° 10° 10° Production Time, days Fig. 4.3.13 — Water-Cil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well A30. \erivative Versus Production Time: WWL Well A30 ‘OR Integral and Integral 10° T Unit Slope Line,” I Ratio Integr (Legend: WWI A30 ‘© WOR, Function f © WOR, Function] 2 Fo suul L 10° 10° 10° 10° Production Time, days Fig. A.3.14— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Production Time, WWL Well A30.WOR and WOR Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time: WWL Well A30 10° T T mT Legend: WWL A30 4 ‘© WOR Function + [| 0° wor, Function Unit Slope Line Water-Oll Ratio and Water-Oll Ratlo Derivative Functions. T [ory L il Material Balance Time (N/q,), days Fig. 4.3.15 — Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well A30. il Material Balance Time: WWL Well A30 WOR Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus 10 T T T T Unit Slope Line T Legend: viwiL A30 ‘@ WOR, Function |] < © WOR, Function L L L 10° 10° 10° 10° il Material Balance Time (N,/a,), days Fig. A.3.16— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Oil Material Balance Time, WWL Well A30. ‘Water-Oil Ratio Integral ‘and Integral-Derivative Functions 10!WOR and WOR Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time: WWL Well 430 2 10 T Water-Oll Ratio and Water-Oll Ratio Derivative Functions T T Unit Slope Line gs 3 [Legend: WwL A30 ‘© WOR Function mo 124 © WOR, Function} L L 10° 10° 10° 108 10° Total Material Balance Time, (N,+W,)(q,+g,), Days Fig. A.3.17— Water-Oil Ratio and Water-Oil Ratio Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well A30. WOR Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time: WWL Well A30 10" 1 mT 7 oe 2 9 fe % BE Euntsiope tine 3 fe “3 3s / g oe J & ; 8 aa ILA Sho Haton og |S womgraeton Oli ee pee 10° 10° 10° 10° 10° Total Material Balance Time, (N,#W,V(q,+9,), Days Fig. A.3.18— Water-Oil Ratio Integral and Integral-Derivative Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well A30.125 WOR Versus Q, : WWL Well A30 10° T T T Exponential Trend? NX Water-Oll Ratio (WOR=q,/q,) wb ‘ a 17-2 . _ Oe gen Aap 2 Won Futon we L L L & 1000028600 200900" 405,000 Total Production, (N,+W,), STB Fig. A.3.19 — Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Production, WWL Well A30. WOR Versus t: WWL Well A30 107 Unit siope Line 10°F 4 : g3 ‘ es a Hf we Con q ~ J sot ° q wy legend: Wn A30 . fe WoRTFunetion ‘0 i i 10° 10° 10° 10° Total Material Balance Time, (N,#+W,)(q,¢q,), Days Fig. A.3.20— Water-Oil Ratio Versus Total Material Balance Time, WWL Well A30.126 1 _ 4 Bf : BB ’ gf ‘ ae ° Ewe 4 Tegends wa A35 os _ I 1 10° 10° 10° 10° Total Material Balance Time, (N,+W,)(4,*4,), Days Fig. A.3.21 — Fractional Flow of Oil Versus Total Material Balance Time WWL Well A30. q» Versus Water Material Balance Time: WWL Well A30 10 T T Q 2 |. ee Paze. 4 2 @ & 2 10! 4 5 ‘Legend: WWL ASO 4, Function == 4, Linear (N,/a,) Mode} 10° 2 : 7 s to" 10° 10° 10° il Material Balance Time (N,/q,) days Fig. 4.3.22 — Water Rate Versus Water Material Balance Time, WWL Well A30.X- Plot: WWL We ell A30 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 ‘Cumulative OU Production, N,, STE. 0,000 F- 0 5.0 45 «40 38 30 25 20 48 410 X-- Function (in((¥f,) = 1)- if) Fig. A.3.23 — X- Plot, WWL Well A30. Fractional Flow of Water vs. and Calculated Measured Np WWL Well A30 10 T T [=7- 4.63184x10" exp(.t1895«10"H,) won i 5 g i 5S se ie ES 10’ 4 zm 37 je % i one Tegenat WL AS ‘ . =F Exponent N, Mose = Function : a ! \ 1 0 Foo ‘00,600 “0,000 70.000 ‘Cumulative Oil Production, N, STB. Fig. 4.3.24 - Fractional Flow of Water Versus Cumulative Oil Production WWL Well A30.Table A.3.3 ~ Summary Table of Production Data, WWL Well A30. Date Time Jo qu (month — year) (months) (STB/D) _(STB/D) Jul-87 T 955 3 Aug-87 2 145.5 42 ‘Sep-87 3 113.8 22 Oct-87 4 117.2 02 Nov-87 E] 98.1 0.6 Dec-87 6 105.5 08 Jan-88 7 92.3 13 Feb-88 8 88.3 25 Mar-88 - 83.8 3.2 Apr-88 10 80.4 41 May-88 u 81 3 Jun-88 12 60.1 35 Jul-88 B 66 3.5 Aug-88 14 B84 3 Sep-88 15 96.8 08 Oct-88 16 872 13 Nov-88 7 64.1 12 Dec-88 18 1013 148 Jan-89 19 95.3 14.5 Feb-89 20 94.2 14.7 Mar-89 21 85.1 118 Apr-89 2 904 13.2 May-89 23 © 1045 203 Jun-89 4 98.4 228 Jul-89 25 80.4 18 Aug-89 26 69.2 19.2 Sep-89 2 68.4 23 Oct-89 28 68.2 27.1 Nov-89 29 64.4 30 Deo-89 30 572 314 Jan-90 31 58.6, 30.9 Feb-90 32 448 374 Mat-90 3 44.1 375 Apr-90 34 395 369 May-90 35 319 355 Jun-90 36 307 348 Jul-90 37 284 353 Aug-90 38 254 339 Sep-90 39 28 39.9 Oct-90 40 317 333 Nov-90 4L 33.9 43.3 Np W, (STB) _ (STB) 2939 156 7471 285 10886 351 14519 356 20734 376 24003 401 26680 438 29417 ae 31932 613 34424 740 36853 832 44598 941 46578 1045 49008 1137 52010 1163 66246 1377 682341413 75700 1872 78559 2306 81101 2703, 834853034. 86017 3404 89153 4013 92105 4698 94599 5255 96674 5830 98793, 6522 100908 7362 102840 8262 1046139235 106369 10162 10775911321 109126 12484 11023313518 112402 16092 11335417172 11420718231 11499519282 115863 20520 116814 21519 117865 22861 128Table 4.3.3 — (Continued). Date Time (month ~ year) (months) ~Dec90 «a2 Jan-91 43 Feb-91 44 Mat-91 45 Apr-91 46 May-91 4 Jun-91 48 Jul-91 49 Aug-91 50 Sep-91 SL Oct-91 52 Nov-91 ae Dec-91 54 Jan-92 55 Feb-92 56 Mar-92 Ze Apr-92 58 May-92 59 Jun-92 60 Sul-92 61 Aug-92 62 Sep-92 6 Oct-92 64 Nov-92 65 Dec-92 66 Jan-93 67 Feb-93 68 Mar-93 69 Apr-93 70 May-93 nN Jun-93 ap Jul-93, 73 Aug-93 74 Sep-93 75 Oct-93 716 Noy-93 WW Dec-93 8 Jan-94 9 Feb-94 80 Mar-94 81 Apr-94 82 qo (STBD) Np (STB) Wy (STB) 28.2 447 33.6 24.4 24.6 26.1 201 24,7 26.1 27 28.5 28.9 26 25.6 26.2 22.4 20.9 2L1 228 20 218 25.5 23 22 20.2 176 21 20.4 20.6 18.2 Wa 16.2 176 19.4 219 19.7 18.2 17.6 19.3 19.5 119568 120952 121927 122682 123421 124229 125042 125807 126589 127399 128282 129150 129955 130748 131376 132071 132698 133353 134038, 134658 135510 136277 136990 137630 138255 138802 139389 140022 140640, 141203 141715 142218 142763 143285 143964 144554 145117 145663 146204 146810 101291 103028, 105397 108032 110141 112765 114957 117096 119225, 121209 123736 129Table A.3.3 - (Continued), Date {month —year) (months) Time qo (STB/D) Qu (STB/D) 164 76.1 819 75.2 66.9 66 69 65.5 63.9 60.4 648 23 70 68.5 68.3 60.3, 58.6 96 59.2 68.4 66.7 318 72 96.9 36.8 112 103.4 90.6 74.1 748 102.2 69.9 96.9 147951 148612 149197 149634 149958 150265 150629 150941 151296 151615 151793 151899 152004 152248 152493 152796 153124 153429 153795 154237 154600 154774 155001 155242 155532 155819 156121 156367 156612 156858 157044 157187 157239 128354 130638 133096 135427 137433, 139479, 141549 143580, 145561 147071 148755 150924 153095 155151 156994 158863 160620 163595 165372 167425 169493 170382 172613 175520 176660 179797 183002 185448 187671 189991 193058 194457 195329131 A4 Well Summary WWL Well B30 was completed on Feb 1985. The total depth of the well is 7,310 ft with upper and lower perforation depths of 7,064 ft and 7,072 R, respectively. Table A.4.1 — Summary of Initial and Current Production Data qo, gy Np, and py WWL Well B30. Initial oil rate, gor 118.9 STBO/D Initial water rate, gy. 137.6 STBW/D Oil rate (as of March 1998), .... .45.8 STBOD Water rate (as of March 1998), qu ... ..652.9 STBW/D. Cumulative oil production (as of March 1998), Np 578.619 MSTBO ..2,661.764 MSTBW ‘Cumulative water production (as of March 1998), W .... Table A.4.2 — Summary of Models used to Characterize WOR, fu, and f, Behavior, WWL Well B30. Pseudosteady-State Models Npmov (for WOR, fon and f,) Linear/Exponential Np Model__ (STB) 1.1259x10" +1.2075%10" (Wp /Go) Wor 2 8 WOR= 44175010"? exp(.1493« 14761«10' +3.6531x10°(, /4,,) Ce 10" ex 0.1493*10° Np) Lena 13683010" en) sss361 Vf, =1+- Y fu = 1,88124-1.6375% 10° N,, 1.125910! 412075410" (Np/q4) 1 LAT6T10'+ 3.6531 <10°(Y,/ay) fo = 76134610" 1.4147 «10% NW, S386 1.125910! + 1.2075 «107 (W, /9,)and gw Versus Production Time: WWL Well B30 10 T T T T T [Legend: WWL 630 ©, Function © 4, Function |--~ q, Exponential t Model] 10 .5556X10" exp - 1.08978x10°N), STBID 948,060 STB Oil and Water Rates, q, and q,. STE/D e L 1 L L L 0 4000 2,000 «=«3,000 «4,000 5000 6,000 Production Time, Days. Fig. 4.1. — Oil and Water Production Rate History, WWL Well B30. WOR and fy Versus Production Time: WWL Well B30 10" 10 10" 32 qu s e u ay § 10° 2 ag ‘s == .& 5 10 1 Legend: WWL B30 © WOR Function © fy Funetion 107 40° oO 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Production Time, Days Fig. 4.4.2 — Water-Oil Ratio and Fractional Flow of Water Versus Production Time, WWL Well B30. 427M JO Moly UOTE ©

MS 022A BONDAR Valentina TAMU Thesis Vol 1 (May 2001)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MS 022A BONDAR Valentina TAMU Thesis Vol 1 (May 2001)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like