SPE 97113
Use of DST for Effective Dynamic Appraisal: Case Studies From Deep Offshore West
Africa and Associated Methodology
J.L.B. de la Combe, SPE, O. Akinwunmi, SPE, C. Dumay, and M. Tachon, Total S.A.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 – 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In the emerging West Africa deep offshore region, where
exploration is booming, the turbiditic series reservoirs are
mostly structurally trapped with a stratigraphic component.
Faulting is severe inducing high compartmentalisation.
Evaluation of connectivity and characterisation of the
reservoir heterogeneities before development decisions are the
main challenges.
These two long DST acquired at a relatively early stage of the
appraisal were a game changer for the development project.
Both demonstrated large scale reservoir continuity in a
complex geological setting, which in turn provided extra-
confidence on the feasibility of a large scale development
project. The confrontation of this wide scale dynamic
information to seismic data and geological concepts allowed
significant optimisation of the remaining appraisal sequence.
Testing methodology, based on Total experience, advocates
the setting of two cycles of draw-down and build-up to
generate significant depletion between the two build-up’s.
This test sequence allows discriminating between geological
models matching the derivative and assesses a minimum
hydrocarbon connected volume.
The first case study concerns a third appraisal well drilled to
recognise the turbiditic series of Late Miocene age in the
Southern panel of a structure discovered recently. This test
allowed us to prove a minimum oil connected volume of at
least 120 MMbbls, much larger than the pre-test volume of 55
MMbbls estimated from seismic interpretation, and proved an
extension of good reservoir facies beyond the seismic
visibility limit.
In the second case study concerning an exploration well
aiming to recognize the turbiditic sands of the same age, the
shallower oil-bearing interval was tested. The fault density
around the well being quite high, it was important to know if
the faults would act as dynamic barriers. This test proved a
minimum connected volume of around 90 MMbbls, and
indicated that the encountered reservoir facies was
developable as the high fault density around the location of
the well did not negatively affect the dynamic performance. In
this well, only one out of several faults at 130 meters from the
well, within the investigated area of the test, acted as a
dynamic barrier.
Introduction
This paper presents well testing work carried out on one
exploration and one appraisal well in two different fields in
the Nigerian deepwater.
For each of the cases presented, testing methodology is
expounded with focus on the well test design and
interpretation. Coherence with earth models is also
investigated in both of the cases.
Case Study #1
Well A is the third appraisal well of a Nigerian deep water
field discovered recently. The well is the first to be located in
the southern fault block of the field where the hydrocarbon
presence had previously been proved in the central and
northern compartments. The southern compartment is
separated from the central compartment by an E-W fault with
significant throw.
The objectives of the well were as follows:
• Prove significant OIL reserves in the previously undrilled
southern compartment of the field
• calibrate the amplitude anomaly event which could be
interpreted either as the eastern limit of the fairway or as an
OWC.
• assess as much as possible the reservoir connectivities both
laterally and vertically
• establish reservoir continuity across major fault.
2 SPE 97113

Well A encountered the reservoir series of interest more or The major results of this experience were to design an
less as prognosed from seismic. MDT measurements acquisition with two build-up in order to take into account the
confirmed the presence of oil in the reservoir sands (Fig. 1). transient depletion between the two build-up. As a matter of
fact, different models do not generate the same transient
Preliminary PVT analyses carried out on the MDT samples depletion: a channel model generate more transient depletion
indicated a fluid very close to saturation pressure while than a single fault model (Figs 3, 4 and 5). This allows the
permeability estimates from MDT mobility and CMR log well test analyst to diagnose events which are beyond the
indicated permeability ranging from 1000 mD to 3000 mD. build-up derivative.
Furthermore in this case the cumulative oil produced during
Based on these results, it was therefore decided to carry out a the drawdown between the two build-up was computed to
DST across the reservoir in order to fully satisfy the appraisal generate a 0.5 bar depletion for a 55 MMBBL connected
well objectives. STOOIP.
The last main objective was to design the test in order that it
Perforations were proposed to be made across the entire will be possible to characterize the seismic attenuation on the
blocky sand portion of the reservoir as shown in Fig. 2. east side of the well. Two hypotheses were presented (Fig. 6).
• The seismic attenuation could be the eastern limit of the
Test design fairway and in this case the derivative signature will exhibit
The main objective of the test was to prove at least a a no flow boundary (Model 1 Fig. B).
• The other hypothesis was to attribute the seismic attenuation
55 MMSTB connected oil volume in the reservoir of interest.
to the presence of an aquifer which means no mobility
The secondary objectives of the test were: change on the derivative signature as the water viscosity (0.5
cp) is very close to the presumed oil viscosity (0.45 cp). The
• Take representative fluid samples to conduct PVT,
compressibility reduction in the aquifer was taken into
process, assay and flow assurance studies
account, but it has no significant impact on the derivative
• Determine reservoir dynamic characteristics (kh, PI,
signature (model 2 Fig. B).
Skin). 2003/06/07-1400 : OIL

• Investigate reservoir geometry (channels, limits), lateral K=2000 mD

facies variation.
• Determine reservoir initial pressure and temperature.
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)
10-3

A design was performed with our Well Test Analysis software Model 1
(PIE) in order to establish an optimal test sequence. At this
point the test was designed in taking into account our
10-4

experience in Western Africa deep offshore field. The major

problem encountered on these deep offshore tests was the
impossibility of programming BU longer than 30 hours due to Model 2
10-5

2 problems. Both gauge resolution and tidal effect has a strong 10 -2 10-1 10 0
Delta-T (hr)
101 102

impact on late time derivative and even after deconvolution of USAN-4_R-630_DESIGN

tidal effect, it was not possible to obtain a denoised signal Fig. B
(Fig. A) as the reservoir transmissivity was around 50 000 to • Design cases were simulated (Fig. 7) for three permeability
100 000 md.m/cp due to high permeability (2 to 4 Darcy) of values (1000, 2000, 3000 mD). A skin value of 5 was
the unconsolidated sands of the turbiditic channels. assumed in order to model frac-pack completion. The flow
1996/03/22-2358 : OIL

Smoothing Coef = 0.,0.

rates were adjusted in order that bottom hole flowing
pressure remains above bubble point pressure. Tidal effect
was simulated with an amplitude of 0.01 bar, as on the
nearby wells. As tidal amplitude is smaller than in the
previous Western Africa deep offshore tests, build-up
DP + DERIVATIVE (BARS/STM3/J)

derivative will only be disturbed after 96 hours. Furthermore

our deconvolution algorithm has been improved. At first
10 -3

only a sinusoid was removed. Nowadays, the signal is

deconvolutated from the real signal, whether recorded with a
seabed gauge, or from the Lagos or Bony tide recorded on
10 -4

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 marine data base.

DT (HR)

Fig. A: noisy signature after 30 hours build-up Data overview

The static data used for test analysis are available in Table 1.
The other constraint is that bubble point pressure is very To be noted that PVT analysis showed a higher viscosity
close to initial pressure. Thus in order to avoid to liberate gas value (2,2 cp) different from the previous wells.
in the reservoir, high flow rates could not be achieved.
SPE 97113
The pressure gauge with the smaller sampling rate was
selected to perform the analysis as all gauges are coherent.
The rate and pressure data are shown Fig. C.
Clean-up BU 1 BU 2
210.
pressure BARS
190.
Flow1
170.
0. 50. 100. 150.
800.
24H 45H
rates M3/D
400.
0.
0. 50. 100. 150.
Time (hours)
USAN-4 R635d DST#1
Fig. C: Rate and pressure history case 1
Surface read out was available during build-up.
Due to problems during clean up, and a high skin value during
BU1, another rate (flow1) and another build-up was
performed (BU2). So the test sequence designed really starts
from “flow1’’. Thus three build-up are available for analysis.
The maximum flow rate during “flow 2” was 875 m3/day,
with a pressure drawdown of 47 bars. The derivative signature
is perturbed by tidal effect after 10 hours shut-in (Fig. 8). The
tide effect was removed when possible with the seabed gauge.
As the seabed gauge did not work during the whole test, tide
time table in Lagos and Bony harbour was used. It has been
checked that similar results are obtained whatever the origin
of the reference marine tide. The surface tide amplitude is then
transformed to match the downhole tide amplitude and then
the tide signal derived from seabed gauge or time table is
subtracted on the complete set of gauge pressure data. On Fig.
9 build-up derivatives are compared after tide deconvolution.
They are practically superposed. BU2 and BU3 are selected
for analysis, as their durations are greater.
Pressure Transient Analysis – Base case
When looking at derivative one of the most obvious model is
the single no flow boundary model. We obtain a nice
derivative match with a permeability of 2100 mD (kh =27300
mD.m), a skin equal to 26.5 with a no flow boundary at 220 m
from the well. This boundary is in line with the seismic
attenuation seen on attribute maps. In this case the seismic
attenuation reflects the eastern limit of the fairway. The rate
history match is quite good but slightly overestimates the
transient depletion between BU2 and BU3 (Fig. 10).
The derivative can also be easily matched with a model with
two parallel no flow boundaries. In that case the late time
derivative signature is analysed as linear flow. The derivative
match is perfect but the rate history plot tell us that this model
cannot be retained as it overestimates significantly (1.4 bar)
transient depletion between BU2 and BU3 (Fig. 11). Without
a two build-up acquisition, this model would have been
retained.
3
Starting from the single no flow boundary, a good match was
obtained by adding a reduction of transmissivity which could
model transmissivity reduction between multi-storey channels
inside the fairway. Both derivative and transient depletion
20 03 /09/07-2 201 : O IL
between the 2 build-up are matched. The no flow boundary at
Flow 2
220 m corresponds to the East limit of the fairway as mapped
Final BU from seismic (Fig. 12).
Test investigation has been computed (Fig. 13) in looking at
the smallest reservoir coherent with the pressure data set
200. 250. 300.
(derivative and rate history plot). The no flow boundary
diagnosed on the derivative was located in the eastward
72H
direction. The northern and southern limit were fixed at 2200
72H
m (northward) and 2250 m (southward) from the well, in
200. 250. 300.
agreement with major faults seen on seismic maps. So the
matching parameter was the western limit (2200 m), which
was found far beyond the limit of seismic visibility (950 m,
Fig. 14) and the western fault, see discussion thereafter. This
investigation yields a 9.9 km2 area and a 150 MMSTB
STOOIP connected to the well.
Pressure transient analysis: additional
simulations to evaluate possible aquifer
presence
It was also checked whether it is possible to analyse the test
with the aquifer on the eastern flank. A model with an aquifer
on the eastern flank was run, but it implies the presence of a
no flow boundary whether in the westward (Fig. 15) or
northward, which is not in agreement with seismic data.
Furthermore, the aquifer modelled by mobility and storativity
change, has to be located at 1200 m from the well, which is
far beyond the decrease of seismic amplitude seen at 200 to
300 m from the well. The STOOIP connected to the well for
this model is 98 MMSTB.
A mobility reduction was introduced in the model to improve
the match on the rate history plot with an aquifer closer to the
well. The pressure data are matched with closer aquifer (750
m, Fig. 16), but the aquifer remains too far away to be in
agreement with seismic data (amplitude attenuation). In this
case the STOOIP computed is 66 MMSTB.
In conclusion, though models with aquifer on the eastern flank
can match pressure transient data, they are not retained as
incoherent with seismic data.
Test interpretation and coherency with
geological model
The tests results were analysed in term of dynamic
characteristics and geometries compared to the pre-defined
hypotheses as exposed in the test design.
The permeability deduced from the K.h, i.e. around 2D, is in
line with the core permeability measurements (1 to 3D)
realized later on in the good sand intervals.
The single no flow limit seen by the test is to be correlated
with the eastward fairway limit as interpreted before the test
4 SPE 97113
(Fig. 14). No other limit is recognised by the test, even the
major fault located 2 km North to the A well.
As the investigation to the west (2200 m, base case
interpretation) is beyond the western fault, alternative models
with various reservoir thickening beyond the transmissivity
reduction zone westwards were investigated. Successful
matches were obtained with three different thicknesses in the
western zone (17m, 21m, and 31m instead of 13 m at the
well). Derivative and rate history plot were both matched (Fig.
17). It does not modify significantly the STOOIP connected
which stay for the three models between 140 and 150
MMSTB. With these three models the western investigation is
reduced (1600 m, 1400 m, 1100 m). It is still beyond the
seismic visibility limit but now remains within the reservoir
panel extension defined by the fault on the western flank
mapped from the seismic data.
Then, if geological model is taken into account and East
fairway limit is retained, main challenge is to evaluate from
which reservoir level the oil is produced, by answering the
following question: is this volume totally related to the so
called A tested interval, or should it correspond partially to
overlying reservoir levels (as B or C levels)?
Case 1: (Fig. 18a) intra Level B reservoirs are developed West
to well A.
Case 2: (Fig. 18b) erosion at base C is considered (such
erosion should remove totally the 40 m of B Level).
Cases 3 a & b (Fig. 19): all connected volume pertains to A
tested Level. This requires an increase of net thickness of
Level A in addition to the surface involved:
- Case 3a: increase of level A net to 27 m over a surface of 5
km2 corresponding to the fairway cartography derived from
seismic amplitude distribution,
- Case 3b: increase of level A net to 21 m over a surface of
7.2 km2 overlapping the West (updip) visibility limit of the
fairway.
With the current depositional model available to date which
considers turbiditic depositional channels generally with no
strong erosions, scenario case 3b was retained as the most
probable one (Fig. 20). That was consistent with the re-
processed seismic data (Figs. 21 & 22) which shows an axis
of the fairway west to the A well and a more updip extension
of the amplitude and pseudo-GR seismic attributes.
Nevertheless, on-going work on additional seismic attributes
indicates that erosion at base C (case 2 scenario) cannot ruled
out.
So, the final interpretation would consider a composition of
the two cases 3b and 2, i.e. that the 120 to 150 MMBBL
proven connected volume may have to be allocated to both A
and C reservoir levels.
Impact on the earth model
DST interpretation was introduced into the geological and 3D
gridded model. The geometries were modified to take into
account the possible westward extension of A Level as well as
a fairway axis located west to well A, as confirmed by re-
processed seismic data.
Interpretation is still continuing by including a detailed
deterministic picking on re-processed seismic data as well as
the definition of geometrical features such as erosions. This
will constraint the new geological and dynamic model for the
next field development phase.
Case study #2
The second case study concerns well “X”, an exploratory well
drilled to test a deep offshore prospect, the main aim of the
well being to prove the presence of a commercial oil
accumulation and to acquire sufficient information for an
early appraisal programme in case of a significant oil
discovery.
The specific objectives of the well were as follows:
• prove significant oil accumulation and possibly the presence
or absence of gas cap within six identified reservoirs of
Middle to Upper-Miocene in age.
• test the prospectivity of the deep sands considered as
secondary objectives.
Well “X” encountered the reservoir series of interest with two
of the target sands with significant oil column and absence of
proved gas cap connected to the reservoir.
Level “R1” reservoir, the shallower of the two major oil
bearing reservoirs found by the well was encountered with a
net oil thickness of around 40 meters, a significant part of
which is located in thin laminated facies which were
tentatively interpreted as the over bank facies of laterally
nearby channel sands.
MDT pretests (Fig. 23) taken in the shallow gas zone above
the oil-bearing interval allow us to infer the presence of a
possible gas cap at about xx32 m/SL. There is an ambiguity
on the presence and position of a water contact at the base of
the reservoir. Log, MDT and core description enable us to
establish the presence of an OWC within the following range:
xx89 m/SL and xx93 m/SL. Bottom hole oil gradient
established from MDT gradient is about 0.834 g/cc.
Geophysical interpretation indicates high fault density around
the well location on both reservoirs of interest with the density
on the shallower “R1” being more significant. (Fig.24)
Preliminary PVT analyses carried out on the MDT samples
indicated a fluid very close to saturation pressure while
permeability estimates from regional analogy indicated
expected permeability of at least 1000 mD. Average
permeability indicated from CMR log across the interval is
800 mD.
Based on these results, it was decided to carry out a DST
across the shallower reservoir in order to prove significant oil
accumulation connected to the well.
SPE 97113 5

Test design
A quick STOIIP estimation was carried out for the R1
reservoir. Sensitivity was made based on the assumed surface
area impregnated as follows (Fig 25):
- impregnated surface area based on ultra-far seismic anomaly
gives 70 Mbbls
Furthermore in this case the cumulative oil produced during
the drawdown between the two build-up was computed to
generate at least a 0.5 bar depletion for 8 MMBBL connected
STOOIP, which is the volume limited by the two faults as
well as the amplitude extinction to the north and south of the
well.

- assumption surface area of entire structure being
impregnated with oil gives 400 Mbbls
A test was thereafter proposed with the following objectives:
• Establish productivity and dynamically characterise the
“R1” lobe sands in a typical development completion
configuration with sand control. Frac-pack completion
which would have been a more ideal sand control system
was not feasible because of the nearness of the proposed
completions to a possible water contact.
• Establish the presence or otherwise of nearby flow
barriers (faults and/or stratigraphic limits) thereby
proving connected volumes and validating/updating
sedimentological model(s).
• Sample fluids for PVT flow assurance and assay studies.
A design was performed with our Well Test Analysis software
(PIE) in order to establish an optimal test sequence. As for the
first case study, the test was designed by taking into account
our experience in Western Africa deep offshore field.
As stated previously, it was believed that the bubble point
pressure is very close to initial pressure as indicated from
preliminary fluid PVT estimates from measurements on OBM
polluted MDT samples. Thus in order to avoid 2-phase flow in
the reservoir, high flow rates could not be envisaged.
As we have observed from Figure 24, several NE-SW
trending faults of varying throw have been interpreted over
the reservoir. The closest two of these faults in opposite
It is important to note in the design calculations that while it is
almost impossible to discriminate the derivative solutions of a
model with a single no-flow boundary from the model with 2
parallel no-flow boundaries, the transient depletion plot shows
a 1 bar difference which should help in constraining the model
(figure 27).
Having very limited information on the fluid properties as
well as the expected reservoir permeability and completion
efficiency, we also decided to carry out the long build-up just
after the clean-up and first stabilises flow period in order to
reduce the risk of sub-bubble point production. Thus, we
stood a higher chance of having the all the reservoir properties
after the first flow and first BU period and to therefore utilise
the second BU mainly to calibrate the depletion. This was
done after verifying that interchanging the sequence of the
long and short BU had no effect on our initial design.
Data overview
The static data used for initial test analysis are available in
Table 2. The perforated zone is shown in figure 28.
The pressure gauge with the smaller sampling rate was
selected to perform the analysis as all gauges gave consistent
and coherent data. The rate and pressure data are shown Fig.
E.
2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

directions to the well are indicated in Fig. D below. Seismic Clean-up

BU 1 Final BU
studies indicated that the two faults were of similar
280.

characteristics. Towards the north and south of the well, we

pressure BARS

Flow 2
48H
observe a dimming of amplitude which could correspond to
240.

48H
facies limit or could be linked to a possible OWC in the south. Flow1
200.

50. 100. 150. 200.

Our test design was therefore carried out in order to have a

500.

sequence and duration that would allow discriminating

rates M3/D
200.

between possible responses given the reservoir configuration

0.

(Figure 26). 50. 100. 150.

Time (hours)
200.

EGINA-1.T1 DST

Reservoir Fig. E: Rate and pressure history case 2

limits?
575 m

300 m Surface read out was available during build-up.

The two build-up’s are available for analyses, even if the first
BU is affected by a choke decrease at surface prior to bottom-
hole shut-in (figure 29). The maximum flow rate during the
875 m

Fig. D: Map with simplified fault schematic case 2

6 SPE 97113
test was 555 m3/day (3490 bopd), with a pressure drawdown
of 47 bars.
The derivative signature is affected by tidal effect after
approximately 10 hours shut-in as can be observed in figure
29. The tide effect was deconvoluted with the seabed gauge as
well as the tide correction module in our in-house software,
according to the processes defined earlier (figure 30). Mean
reservoir amplitudes for both data sets is 0.02 bars.
In Fig. 32 build-up derivatives are compared after tide
deconvolution, and are shown to practically be super-imposed
at late time. At early time derivative differs due to shut-in
problems before BU1. In view of the better data quality, the
final build-up has been chosen to perform the derivative
interpretation.
Pressure Transient Analysis – Diagnostics
The stabilisation of the build-up leads to an estimation of the
permeability-height product as 51400 mD.m, therefore giving
a permeability value of 2100 mD for a net height of 24.5 m.
The skin value is around 138.
There is a clear improvement of skin from BU#1 to BU#2.
The estimated high skin is possibly due to damage around the
wellbore during drilling operations (extensive logging and
several wiper trips would theoretically induce the formation of
thick mud cake across very permeable formation). It is
important to note also that the average permeability estimated
from MDT mobility is significantly lower (280 mD) than the
test permeability indicating that there is some drilling damage
around the wellbore.
At the late times, the derivative shows a decrease of the
mobility which is characteristic of 2 parallel no-flow boundary
model (slope of 0.5).
Pressure transient analysis: transient depletion
interpretation
Logs interpretation gives 24.5 m of net reservoir. The
perforations are located at the top of the reservoir. (cf. figure
28). In order to distinguish between skin due to perforations
and total skin, the partial penetration model was used;
sensitivity to Kv/Kh was also performed.
The most obvious match for the late time from the derivative
signature would be a model with 2-no flow boundaries
parallel to the well: the so-called “channel” model. As shown
in figure 32, this model gives an excellent match on the
derivative with no-flow boundaries at 130 m and 220 m from
the well. One of the matching no-flow boundaries (130 m)
correspond to the distance of a mapped fault close to the well.
However, this model cannot be retained as a possible solution
because of the poor match of the transient depletion: depletion
is over-estimated by 0.3 bars. Two build-up’s are needed to
confirm that this solution is erroneous.
Thereafter, we endeavoured to find a geologically coherent
model which could match the transient depletion without
losing the good match of the derivative. This solution is
possible only when we introduce a “linear composite” model
(Figure 33). This solution advocates for the introduction of at
least one zone of reduced mobility which is parallel to the
sealing boundary. The first attempt is to introduce this zone of
poor mobility at 200 m from the well while the parallel no
flow boundary is kept at around 120 m. As can be observed in
figure 34, the derivative match is acceptable while the
transient depletion match is perfect. As seen earlier, the no-
flow boundary corresponds to the approximate distance of the
Western fault as mapped from seismic.
To improve the derivative match, we observe that we have to
limit the lateral extent of the degraded zone i. e introducing
similar reservoir characteristics as in the near well-bore just at
a short distance, thereby creating a 3-zone linear composite
model (Fig. 35). Matching of the late time of the derivative is
improved and the transient depletion match still remains
perfect (Figure 36). If the no-flow boundary corresponds to
the Western fault as mapped from seismic, then good facies
beyond the East levee or leaky fault is necessary to match the
transient depletion between the two builds ups.
Test investigation
Based on the geological hypothesis, and on the matches so far
realised in the previous section, we endeavoured to match the
derivative and the whole pressure plot and more particularly
the transient depletion, in order to prove a corresponding
minimum connected STOOIP.
Apart from the no-flow boundary at a distance of 120 - 130 m
from the well and the explicit need to introduce a low mobility
zone in the other direction at about 200 m from the well in
order to respect the transient depletion, no other limits or
heterogeneities are recognised within the test investigated
radius. To obtain the minimum connected volume we
introduce additional limits north, south and east.
With this first hypothesis, the distance investigated by the test
is around 1800m to the North and South. That means an area
of 2.95 km2 and at least 90 MSTB of STOOIP (figure 37).
This could be coherent with the sedimentological model
proposed for the tested interval as shown in the figure 38. On
this model, a facies variation is located close to the well in the
eastward direction. It is to be noted that the sedimentary
interpretation does not take into account the numerous faults
in the vicinity of the well.
The well test analysis show that only one of the numerous
faults is sealing and thus only this one impacts the dynamic
performance.
SPE 97113
Sensitivity of Test Investigation and Coherence
with Earth model
We have gone further to compare the geological model to the
possible investigation models suggested by the test.
Additionally, we attempt various other possible interpretation
models based on the test response that could match other
possible geological scenarios.
The map proposed from the ultra far cube amplitude
extraction which gives (in case of good seismic quality) some
HC-bearing indications on reservoir extension. This map is
the one shown earlier in the text (Figure 24) and could be
interpreted as a more restrictive HC-bearing reservoir
extension hypothesis.
Our aim was to see if we could propose a simultaneous match
of the derivative and transient depletion which could be
coherent with the above reservoir configuration i.e
significantly reducing the reservoir extent in the north and
south directions while increasing eastwards. We tested at least
three models which gave satisfactory results. In all theses
models the degraded mobility zones could either be a non
sealing fault or a sedimentary facies degradation.
Model #1 and the match results are presented in figure 39. If
the north and south no-flow boundaries are moved nearer to
the well, it is necessary to move away the east no-flow
boundary at least beyond 1900m to keep a good derivative
and pressure history match. Test investigation gives 2.83km2
that implies at least 86 MSTB of STOOIP.
There are many combinations for width and transmissivity
reduction of the poor permeability zone that can match the
derivative and pressure history data.
Model #2 and its match result are presented in figure 40. With
this model, we represent the succession of good and poor
facies (poor facies could be indicative of non-mapped minor
faults or lineaments) seen on the structural map with the
available linear composite model on PIE. The test
investigation and the STOOIP are the same as previously
observed.
Model #3 and its match result are presented in figure 41. This
model shows an increase of thickness in zone 3, the eastern
boundary is closer to the well and the derivative shape and
pressure history are well matched. Test investigation gives
approximately the same STOOIP as seen in the two previous
models.
There are several possible models in terms of thickness
increase versus distance to the east no-flow boundary. In
conclusion, it seems clear that the mapped fault west of the
well (F06 from fig 42) is a sealing fault and we believe that it
is this fault that is interpreted by the test as a no-flow
boundary.
7
On the other hand, the faults east of the well (fault throw less
than reservoir thickness) are at best a leaking fault which
could act as a dynamic transmissivity reducer. We note that
whatever the model used to obtain an acceptable match, the
connected volumes calculated from this test extend beyond
theses faults.
Based on one of the models tested, we note that there is a
possibility of an eastward thickening of the good reservoir
facies (from 24.5 meters at well to over 30 meters).
More Recent Work Based on Updated Fault
Picking
Quite expectedly, the first result of this test interpretation was
confronted with the upstream geophysical and geological
work including the detailed interpretation of the faults and
lineaments in the vicinity of the tested well.
Figures 42 and 43 are schematics of the near-well bore fault
description as well as sedimentological image of the reservoir.
We have used the information from these interpretations as
constraints for the model and to carry out another match. The
western limit is assumed to be fault F-06. The investigation in
the eastern direction is limited to 900m which is the location
of F-15 faults, which exhibits the major throw. The northward
and southward investigations are determined by the test.
The resulting reservoir configuration is shown in figure 44
and the match obtained constraining certain parameters as
fixed by upstream 2G work is shown in figure 45 and it also
of similar quality to the previous matches with approximately
same connected STOIIP of 85 Mbbls.
Conclusions
Theses two DST’s highlight the interest of test sequences
including two build-ups and a drawdown. This drawdown
should be long enough to generate transient depletion between
the two build-ups. The drawdown allows, by matching of the
pressure and rate history plot, to discriminate between models
matching the pressure derivative. The test sequence with two
build-ups is a key point when the major objective of the test is
to prove connectivity and a minimum OOIP connected to the
well.
These DST’s acquired at a relatively early stage of the
appraisal was in both cases a game changer for the
development project. In one of the cases, it demonstrated large
scale reservoir continuity in a complex geological setting,
which in turn provided extra-confidence on the feasibility of a
large scale development project. The confrontation of this
wide scale dynamic information to the seismic data and
geological concepts allowed significant optimisation of the
remaining appraisal sequence.
In the second case, it demonstrated feasibility of conventional
development as the most of the numerous faults around the
well were not having any dynamic impact thereby fast-
tracking first appraisal decision.
8 SPE 97113

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the management of Total
SA, and its partners for permission to publish this work and
would also like to thank their co-workers for their
contributions to the material presented herein.

Values
3 3
Formation Volume Factor, Bo [m /m ] = 1.21
Oil viscosity, µo [cP] = 2.22
-4
Oil Compressibility, Co [1/bar] = 1.40 x 10
-4
Water Compressibility, Cw [1/bar] = 0.37 x 10
-4
Rock Compressibility, Cr [1/bar] = 1.05 x 10
-4
Total Compressibility, Ct [1/bar] = 2.29 x 10
Porosity, φ [%] = 26.7
Water Saturation, Sw [%] = 15.1
Perforated Height, hp [m] = 15.0
Net vertical thickness, hu [m] = 13.0
Wellbore radius, rw [m] = 0.155

Table 1: Static data used for test analysis: case 1

Values
3 3
Formation Volume Factor, Bo [m /m ] = 1.20
Oil viscosity, µo [cP] = 1.60
-4
Oil Compressibility, Co [1/bar] = 1.00 x 10
-4
Water Compressibility, Cw [1/bar] = 0.37 x 10
-4
Rock Compressibility, Cr [1/bar] = 1.05 x 10
-4
Total Compressibility, Ct [1/bar] = 1.94 x 10
Porosity, φ [%] = 29.0
Water Saturation, Sw [%] = 18.0
Perforated Height, hp [m] = 14.0
Net vertical thickness, hu [m] = 24.5
Wellbore radius, rw [m] = 0.155

Table 2: Static data used for test analysis: case 2

SPE 97113 9

Well A
Usan-4 MDT Information
R-630/635 MDT Pressure
-2020
XX
2 PVT oil samples Usan-4 R-630a
(Run#1) Usan-4 R-630b
-2040
XX
Usan-4 R-630c
-2060
XX Usan-4 R-635b
Usan-4 R-630/635 Run#2
-2080
XX
1 gallon oil sample R-630/635 Run#1 oil gradient
(Run#2)
R-630/635 Run#2 oil gradient
-2100
X1

2 PVT oil samples

-2120
X1 (Run#1)
OFA indicates
-2140
X1 presence of oil
Run#2 oil gradient = 0.804 g/cc
(Run#2)
Run#1 oil gradient = 0.798 g/cc
-2160
X1 tested zone

3 PVT oil samples

-2180
X1
@ diff pump-out 2 PVT oil samples
(Run#2) (Run#2)
-2200
X2
3180 3200 3220 3240 3260 3280 3300 3320 3340 3360 3380
Pressure (psia)

Fig. 1: MDT Information obtained from well A

Fig. 2: DST Perforated interval

10 SPE 97113

1989/11/03-0204 : OIL 1989/11/03-0204 : OIL

220.
pressure BARS

DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M 3/D)

10 -1
180.

10 -2
140.

0. 50. 100. 150. 200.

rates M 3/D

10 -3
400.

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
Delta-T (hr)

2 BU
-200.

0. 50. 100. 150. 200.

Time (hours)

2 BU

Fig. 3: Pressure simulation generated with one no flow Fig. 4: Build-up derivative generated with one no flow
boundary model boundary model

1 989/11/03-02 04 : OIL 1989/11/03-0204 : OIL

246.
pressure BARS
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)
10 -1

244.
242.
10 - 2

0. 50. 100. 150. 200.

rates M3/D
400.

PD = 1/2
10 -3

10 -3 10-2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
-200.

D elta- T (hr)

0. 50. 100. 150. 200.

2 BU Time (hours)

2 BU
Fig. 5: Single flow boundary model matched on the derivative plot with 2 parallel no flow boundaries model
which overestimates transient depletion on the rate history plot
boundaries model which overestimates transient depletion on the rate
Model 1 Model 2
No communication
WOC

Well B
Aquifer
(kw=k)
(Φw=Φ)
µw=0.5 cpo

2300 m 2300 m

100 m 100 m
1000 m 1000 m 1000 m
Well A

3200 m 3200 m

0 km 2 km

Fig. 6: Test design with two different hypotheses on seismic

attenuation seen at the east flank of the well
SPE 97113 11

Two parallel boundaries Model (width of 640 m)

20 0 3 /0 6 /0 7 - 1 4 0 0 : O IL
2003/06/07-1400 : OIL
Improve quartz gauge metrology & tidal effect

238 .
2003/09/07-2201 : OIL
∆P = 1.38 b 2003/09/07-2201 : OIL

236 .
pres sure BARS
234 .

223.
pre ssu re B ARS
Kh.H/µ

232 .
10-3

1000 mD

221.
DP & DER IVATIVE (BARS/M3 /D)
2000 mD
DP&DERIVATIVE(BARS/M3/D)

230 .

10-2
0. 50. 1 00 . 150 . 20 0 . 250 . 190 m
450 m

219.
0. 100. 200. 300.

rates M3/D

10-3

800.
PD=1/2

rate s M3/D
500 .

400.
PD=1/2
10-4

640 m

0.

10-4

0.
0. 50. 1 00 . 150 . 20 0 . 250 .
10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 0. 100. 200. 300.
Time (hours) Del ta-T (hr) Tim e (ho urs )

U SAN-4_R -630_D ESIGN USAN USAN-4 DST#1 USAN USAN-4 DST#1

3000 mD Homogeneous Reservoir

** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
Homogeneous Reservoir
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
Homogeneous Reservoir
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
well. storage = 0.01000 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.600 vol/vol well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol
skin = 5.00 () Thickness = 30.00 METRE skin = 26.7 Thickness = 13.00 METRE skin = 26.7 Thickness = 13.00 METRE
permeability = 2000. 1000. 3000. MD Viscosity = 0.4500 CP permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 2.220 CP permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 2.220 CP
Perm-Thickness = 60000. 30000. 90000. MD-METRE Total Compress = 0.0003291 1/BAR Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR
10-5

+x boundary = 100. METRE Rate = 1200. M3/D +x boundary = 190. METRE (1.00) Rate = 813.6 M3/D +x boundary = 190. METRE (1.00) Rate = 813.6 M3/D
+x boundary = 1.00 FOG-FACTOR Storivity = 0.002271 METRE/BAR
-x boundary = 1000. METRE Diffusivity = 20860. METRE^2/HR -x boundary = 450. METRE (1.00) Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR -x boundary = 450. METRE (1.00) Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR
-2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 -x boundary = 1.00 FOG-FACTOR Gauge Depth = N/A METRE Initial Press. = 225.291 BARS Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR Initial Press. = 225.291 BARS Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Gauge Depth = N/A METRE Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Delta-T (hr) +y boundary
+y boundary
=
=
2300.
1.00
METRE
FOG-FACTOR
Perf. Depth
Datum Depth
= N/A METRE
= N/A METRE Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
-y boundary = 3200. METRE Analysis-Data ID: DATA Datum Depth = N/A METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
-y boundary = 1.00 FOG-FACTOR Analysis-Data ID: DATA2 Analysis-Data ID: DATA2
USAN-4_R-630_DESIGN Initial Press. = 240.000
Average Press. = 239.362
BARS
BARS
Based on Gauge ID: Based on Gauge ID:

• In all the permeability cases: 10 hr BU is sufficient to characterise kh, skin and close limit (100 meters) • Derivative shape is correctly matched but the depletion is too important
• For permeability > 2000 mD: 96-hr BU is required to characterise area defined by model 1 • This type of model cannot be retained. It is necessary to have at least two build-ups to
• For permeability = 1000 mD: ~300-hr BU needed to characterise area defined by model 1 confirm model simulation

Fig. 7: design simulations with quartz gauge resolution and Fig. 11: Two parallel no flow boundaries model
tidal effect for 3 different permeabilities : 1000, 2000, 3000
mD

2003/09/07-2201 : OIL 2003/09/07-2201 : OIL

2003/08/29-0112 : OIL 2003/09/01-2040 : OIL 2003/09/07-2201 : OIL Kh.H/µ *0.25

224.00
pressure BARS
223.00
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)
Kh.H/µ
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

Kh.H/µ
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

BU 1 BU 2 Final BU
10 -2
10-2

10 -2

10-2
220 m

222.00
0. 100. 200. 300. 450 m

10-3
10 -3
10-3

10 -3

PD=1/2

800.
500 m

rates M3/D
400.
10-4

0.
10-3 10 -2 10-1 100 101 102
10 -4
10-4

10 -4

Delta-T (hr) 0. 100. 200. 300.

10-3 10-2 10 -1 100 10 1 10 -3 10-2 10-1 100 10 1 10 -3 10-2 10-1 100 10 1
Time (hours)
Delta-T (hr) Delta-T (hr) Delta-T (hr)
USAN USAN-4 DST#1
USAN-4 R635d DST#1 USAN-4 R635d DST#1 USAN-4 R635d DST#1 USAN USAN-4 DST#1
Linear-Composite 3-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants Linear-Composite 3-Zone
well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol ** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
skin = 26.7 Thickness = 13.00 METRE well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol
permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 2.220 CP skin = 26.7 Thickness = 13.00 METRE

Fig. 8: Build-up derivatives before tide deconvolution

X-Interface(1) = -500. METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 2.220 CP
Mob.ratio(1) = 0.200 Rate = 813.6 M3/D X-Interface(1) = -500. METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR Mob.ratio(1) = 0.200 Rate = 813.6 M3/D
X-Interface(2) = -550. METRE Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR
Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE X-Interface(2) = -550. METRE Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR
Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
+x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: DATA2 Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
-x boundary = 5000. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID: +x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: DATA2
Initial Press. = 225.175 BARS -x boundary = 5000. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID:
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Initial Press. = 225.175 BARS

• Derivative shape and transient depletion correctly matched

2003/09/07-2201 : OIL 2003/09/07-2201 : OIL

• The no-flow boundary corresponds to the East limit of the fairway as mapped from seismic

Fig. 12: Model linear composite 3 zones and 1 no flow

DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

10-2

10 -2

BU 2 vs Final BU
BU 1 vs Final BU

boundary
10-3

10 -3
10-4

10 -4

20 03/09/07-2201 : OIL 2003/09/07-2201 : OIL

10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 10 -3 10-2 10-1 100 101

One no-flow
Delta-T (hr) Delta-T (hr) One no-flow
2200 m
224.00

USAN-4 R635d DST#1 USAN-4 R635d DST#1 -x = 2200m

pressure BARS
223.00
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

-x = 2200m
10-2

Fig. 9: Build-up derivatives after tide deconvolution -x = 950m

222.00

0. 100. 200. 300.

10-3

PD=1/2 950 m
800.
rates M3/D
400.

-x = 950m
10-4

0.

10-3 10-2 10-1 10 0 101 10 2

0. 100. 200. 300.
Delta-T (hr)
Time (hours)
Hu=13 mv
USAN USAN-4 DST#1
USAN USAN-4 DST#1

Model one linear boundary @ 220 m

Linear-Composite 3-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants Linear-Composite 3-Zone
well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol ** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
skin = 26.7 Thickness = 13.00 METRE well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol
permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 2.220 CP skin = 26.7 Thickness = 13.00 METRE
X-Interface(1) = -450. METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 2.220 CP
Mob.ratio(1) = 0.250 Rate = 813.6 M3/D X-Interface(1) = -450. METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR
∆P = 0.08 b
2003/09/07-2201 : OIL 2003/09/07-2201 : OIL 200 3/09/0 7-220 1 : OIL
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR Mob.ratio(1) = 0.250 Rate = 813.6 M3/D
X-Interface(2) = -500. METRE Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR
Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE X-Interface(2) = -500. METRE Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR
Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
224.00

Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE

210.

Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE

pressure BARS
pr essure BARS

+x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: DATA2 Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
-x boundary = 2000. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID: +x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: DATA2
+y boundary = 2200. METRE (1.00) -x boundary = 2000. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID:
223.00
190.

-y boundary = 2250. METRE (1.00) +y boundary = 2200. METRE (1.00)

D P & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

Initial Press. = 225.180 BARS -y boundary = 2250. METRE (1.00)

10 -2

Average Press. = 224.628 BARS Initial Press. = 225.180 BARS

Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Average Press. = 224.628 BARS
222.00
170.

0. 100. 200. 300. 0. 100. 200. 300 .

10 -3

800.
800.

PD=1/2
rates M3/D
r ates M3/D
400.

400.
10 -4

0.
0.

10-3 10-2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 0. 100. 200. 300. 0. 100. 200. 300 .

Delta-T (hr) Time (hours) Time (hours)

USAN USAN-4 DST#1 USAN USAN-4 DST#1 USAN USAN-4 DST#1

Homogeneous Reservoir
** Simulation Data **
well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR
skin
permeability
=
=
26.7
2100. MD
Static-Data and Constants
Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol
Thickness
Viscosity
= 13.00 METRE
= 2.220 CP
Homogeneous Reservoir
** Simulation Data **
well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR
skin
permeability
=
=
26.7
2100. MD
Static-Data and Constants
Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol
Thickness
Viscosity
= 13.00 METRE
= 2.220 CP
Fig. 13: Test investigation: 2200m in the westward direction,
which means a 150 MMSTB STOOIP connected to the well
Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR
+x Distance = 220. METRE (1.00) Rate = 813.6 M3/D +x Distance = 220. METRE (1.00) Rate = 813.6 M3/D
Initial Press. = 225.157 BARS Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR Initial Press. = 225.157 BARS Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR
Gauge Depth = N/A METRE Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
Datum Depth = N/A METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
Analysis-Data ID: DATA2 Analysis-Data ID: DATA2
Based on Gauge ID: Based on Gauge ID:

• Results : K=2100 md, S=26.5 with Hu=13m and µo=2.2 cpo

• Derivative shape is correctly matched but this model does not generate enough depletion

Fig. 10: Single no flow boundary model

12 SPE 97113

Model linear composite 3 zones

Well B
2003/09/07-2201 : OIL

2200 m Limit of

224.00
Kh.H/µ Kh.H/µ
Kh.h/µ

pressure BARS
2200 m
visibility
Kh.h/µ

223.00
2200 m

222.00
220 m
0. 100. 200..
200 300..
300
450 m
450 m

800.
500 m

rates M3/D
500 m 23

400.
220 m 0 m - X (m)
7

0.
95 00 m
0. 100. 200..
200 300..
300

950 m
0m Well A Time (hours)

USAN USAN-4 DST#1 2250 m

Linear-Composite 3-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol

2250 m No flow skin

permeability
=
=
26.7
2100. MD
Thickness
Viscosity
= 13.00 METRE
= 2.220 CP

boundary 22 X-Interface(1) = -450. METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR

50 Mob.ratio(1)
Stor.ratio(1) =
= 0.120
1.00
Rate
Storivity
= 813.6 M3/D
= 0.0007964 METRE/BAR (Kh.H/µ)*XX
Kh.h/µ @ 220 m m X-Interface(2) =
Mob.ratio(2) =
-500.
1.60
METRE Diffusivity
Gauge Depth
= 5487. METRE^2/HR
= N/A METRE
Stor.ratio(2) = 1.60 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE

5
+x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: DATA2
-x boundary = 1400. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID:
+y boundary = 2200. METRE (1.00)
-y boundary = 2250.
Initial Press. = 225.180
METRE (1.00)
BARS
Hu1=13 mv
Hu2=xx mv
Connected volume Average Press. = 224.613 BARS

2000 m
120/150 Mbbls (STOOIPs)
0 km 2 km Hu2 (m) XX -X (m) Area (km2) STOOIP (Mstb)
• One no flow boundary @ 220 m
Full offset Amplitude L2/3
• With the three hypothesis, derivative shape and 31 0,10 1100 5,9 142
• No other limit is recognised transient depletion are correctly matched
21 0,12 1400 7,2 148
17 0,15 1600 8,1 147

Fig. 14: Test investigation and seismic map Fig. 17: Model with reservoir thickening in the western zone
Well A Well A

Model linear composite 2 zones GR GR

RES RES
2003/09/07-2201 : OIL 2003/09/07-2201 : OIL
224.00
pressure BARS

E E
223.00

Kh.H/µ Aquifer
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

Φ.Ct.H Very slight Very slight

10-2

(Kh.H/µ)*4
µ=2.2 cp (Φ.Ct.H)*0.5 erosion features erosion features
222.00

Ct=0.229 10-3 bar-1 µ=0.6 cp

0. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350.

Ct=0.142 10-3 bar-1. (from OBMI) (from OBMI)

2200 m
10-3

PD=1/2
D at base C Level D at base C Level
800.
rates M3/D
400.

C Level: C Level:
10-4

220 m
0.

10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102

Delta-T (hr)
0. 50. 100. 150. 200.
Time (hours)
250. 300. 350.
1200 m Depositional channel Depositional channel
Linear-Composite 2-Zone
USAN USAN-4 DST#1 USAN USAN-4 DST#1 C C
Linear-Composite 2-Zone
** Simulation Data **
well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR
Static-Data and Constants
Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants 2000 m
well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol
skin
permeability
=
=
26.7
2100. MD
Thickness
Viscosity
= 13.00 METRE
= 2.220 CP
skin
permeability
=
=
26.7
2100. MD
Thickness
Viscosity
= 13.00 METRE
= 2.220 CP
Potential
X-Interface(1) = 1200. METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR
Mob.ratio(1) = 4.00 Rate = 813.6 M3/D
X-Interface(1) = 1200. METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR
reservoir development
Stor.ratio(1) = 0.600
Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE
Storivity
Diffusivity
= 0.0007964 METRE/BAR
= 5487. METRE^2/HR
Mob.ratio(1)
Stor.ratio(1) =
= 4.00
0.600
Rate
Storivity
= 813.6 M3/D
= 0.0007964 METRE/BAR
2250 m B intra B
B
+x boundary = 2000. METRE (1.00) Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR
Erosion
40 m 40 m
+x boundary = 2000. METRE (1.00) Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
-x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00) Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
+y boundary
-y boundary
=
=
2200.
2250.
METRE (1.00)
METRE (1.00)
Datum Depth = N/A METRE
Analysis-Data ID: DATA2
-x boundary
+y boundary
=
=
220.
2200.
METRE (1.00)
METRE (1.00)
Perf. Depth
Datum Depth
= N/A METRE
= N/A METRE
West of Well A
-y boundary = 2250. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: DATA2
Initial Press. = 225.149 BARS Based on Gauge ID:
Initial Press. = 225.149 BARS Based on Gauge ID:
Average Press. = 224.505 BARS
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0.
Average Press. = 224.505 BARS
A A
A Level : A Level :
Sandy sheet like Laminated features Sandy sheet like Laminated features
fairway at base A Level fairway at base A Level
• Derivative shape and transient depletion are not perfectly matched
• Results: aquifer @ 1200 m, Area (oil) = 6.3 km2, STOOIP = 97.5 MSTB
Fig. 18: Well A - Scenarios 1 (intra Level B reservoirs are
Fig. 15: Model with aquifer on the eastern developed) and 2 (erosion at base C)
flank
Well A

Model linear composite 3 zones

GR
2003/09/07-2201 : OIL 2003/09/07-2201 : OIL
RES
Kh.H/µ Kh.H/µ)*.45
224.00

Φ.Ct.H
pressure BARS

µ=2.2 cp
223.00

Ct=0.229 10-3 bar-1

DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)
10-2

Aquifer
222.00

(Kh.H/µ)*3.5
(Φ.Ct.H)*0.6
0. 100. 200. 300.

2200 m
E
10-3

PD=1/2
µ=0.6 cp
800.
rates M3/D

Ct=0.142 10-3 bar-1.

400.

Very slight
10-4

220 m
0.

10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102

0. 100. 200. 300.

erosion features
Delta-T (hr)
Time (hours)
450 m
USAN USAN-4 DST#1
USAN USAN-4 DST#1
Linear-Composite 3-Zone

(from OBMI)
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants Linear-Composite 3-Zone
750 m
D
well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol ** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
skin = 26.7 Thickness = 13.00 METRE well. storage = 0.00368 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.000 vol/vol
permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 2.220 CP skin = 26.7 Thickness = 13.00 METRE

at base C Level
X-Interface(1) = 450. METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 2.220 CP
Mob.ratio(1) = 0.450 Rate = 813.6 M3/D X-Interface(1) = 450. METRE Total Compress = 0.0002294 1/BAR
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR Mob.ratio(1) = 0.450 Rate = 813.6 M3/D
X-Interface(2) = 750. METRE Diffusivity = 5487. METRE^2/HR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.0007964 METRE/BAR
Mob.ratio(2)
Stor.ratio(2) =
= 3.50
0.600
Gauge Depth
Perf. Depth
= N/A METRE
= N/A METRE
X-Interface(2) =
Mob.ratio(2) =
750.
3.50
METRE Diffusivity
Gauge Depth
= 5487. METRE^2/HR
= N/A METRE 2250 m 3000 m
Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE Stor.ratio(2) = 0.600 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
+x boundary = 3000. METRE (1.00)Analysis-Data ID: DATA2 Perm-Thickness = 27300. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
-x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00)Based on Gauge ID: +x boundary = 3000. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: DATA2
+y boundary = 2200. METRE (1.00) -x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID:
-y boundary = 2250. METRE (1.00) +y boundary = 2200. METRE (1.00)

C
Initial Press. = 225.194 BARS -y boundary = 2250. METRE (1.00)
Average Press. = 224.666 BARS Initial Press. = 225.194 BARS
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Average Press. = 224.666 BARS

• Derivative shape and transient depletion correctly matched

• Results: aquifer @ 750 m, Area (oil) = 4.3 km2, STOOIP = 66 MSTB
B
• The match needs a WOC too far from the well to be coherent with seismic attenuation 40 m
A

Laminated features
Fig. 16: Model with aquifer on the eastern flank and mobility at base A Level
reduction

Fig. 19: Well A - Scenario 3 (all connected volume allocated to

A Level)
SPE 97113 13

Fairway axis
(West of well A) Fairway limit
(200 m East of Well A)
Fairway West limit
of visibility Well A
Before Test
D Level
C Level
B Level
13m A Level

Case 1a & b D Level

Erosion process C Level
of B Level by C Level Erosion B Level
or 13m A Level
reservoir developments into C Level
D Level
After Test Case 2a : C Level
USAN-4
Strong increase in thickness B Level
of A Level (from 13 to 27 m) 13m A Level
27m

Case 2b D Level
Westward A level fairway extension C Level
and moderate increase in thickness B Level
21m 13m A Level

Fig. 20: Schematic illustration of the different reservoir

architecture interpretations

Sandy
fairway

A Fairway
Well B Extension
Limit of
visibility Limit

Well A

1000 m

Net well A
A Fairway Extension 32 m for all levels
Limit 13 m on A sub-level

Amplitude Full offset reservoirs D

Fig. 21: location of A to D fairways on map and NW-SE cross

section
Well A

NW SE

A tested Level

Imaging improvement : 0 1 km
• probable NTG increase West to the well
• better visibility updip

Fig. 22: detailed location of the fairway axis and the A to D

updip fairway extension on a NW-SE cross section
14 SPE 97113

Well "X" Level R-1 MDT Pressure Potential

xx
-2700

Gas gradient = 0.245 g/cc

xx
-2720

GOC @ ~ xx
2732.45 mTVD/MSL
xx
-2740

Oil gradient = 0.824 g/cc 4.3 m of uncertainty on

xx
-2760 the OWC position

xx
-2780

x1
-2800
Water gradient = 0.977 g/cc ?

x1
-2820

Water gradient = 1.006 g/cc ?

x1
-2840
220 225 230 235 240 245 250 255
Water Head (m)

Fig. 23: MDT plot of well X Level R1

Well X

Fig. 24: Fault Network around well X

SPE 97113 15

m
5
52

m
0
15
525 m
m
m 0
5 15
87
300 m

FULL
CLOSURE 875 m

Minimum STOIIP to be tested

based on “sealing” closest faults

UFAR 8.2 Mbbls

ANOMALY
AN OMALY LIMIT Model 1: Fault @ 150 m Model 2: 2 Faults each @ 150 m Model 3: Fault @ 150 m and
OWC @ 300 m*

m
150 m
m 150
150
Well “X” m
150
m 300

k/µ*1
1.3
300 meters is the minimum lateral distance of the bottom
perfs to OWC @ 2815 m/MD

2 km Gross Oil Map (m)

Fig. 26: Basis for test design and associated models

Fig. 25: Pressure simulation generated with one no flow
boundary model

One fault @ 150 m 1935/10/25-1756 : OIL 1935/10/25-1756 : OIL

296.
END PBU

pressure BARS
292.
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)
10-1

288.

-596480.-596460.-596440.-596420.-596400.-596380.-596360.
10-2

250.

PD=1/2
rates M3/D
100.
-50.
10-3

10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 -596480.-596460.-596440.-596420.-596400.-596380.-596360.

Delta-T (hr) Time (hours)
One fault @ 150 m
& OWC @ 300 m

Derivative response not conclusive on the possibility to differentiate ~ 1 bar of ∆P induced

the OWC response at 300 meters from the well. Long BU duration of between model 1 and model
> 100 hours seems to be needed 3 in transient depletion
Fig. 27: Response of the models at design stage showing that depletion (2 BU sequence) needed to discriminate the models

Perforated interval
14 meters
Ht = Hu =24.5m

Fig. 28: Log of reservoir showing perforated zone and schematic of perforation configuration
16 SPE 97113

2003/11/21-0337 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

BU1
Final BU
10-1

10-1
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

10-2

10-2
10-3

10-3
10-4

10-4
10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101
Delta-T (hr) Delta-T (hr)

EGINA-1.T1 DST EGINA-1.T1 DST

Fig. 29: Derivative signature from the two build-up’s showing problem due to surface production reduction before shut-in at
bottom hole
2003/11/25-1606 : OIL
.010

• Tidal effect corrected by means of PIE module and

BARS

tide pressure recorded at sea bed

-.010

• Mean reservoir amplitude is around 0.020 bar for

BU1 for final BU
-.030

50. 100. 150. 200.

500.
M3/D
200.
0.

50. 100. 150. 200.

Time (hours)

EGINA 1 T1 DST
Fig. 30: Tidal effects correction

2003/11/21-0337 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

BU 1 Final BU
10-1

-1
10
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

10-2

-2
10
10-3

-3
10

Fig. 9: Build-up derivatives before and after tide deconvolution

-4
10-4

10

10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101
Delta-T (hr) Delta-T (hr)

EGINA-1.T1 DST EGINA-1.T1 DST

Fig. 31: Build-up derivatives before and after tide deconvolution

SPE 97113 17

p p ( )
2003/11/25-1606 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

291.50
∆P = 0.30 b

290.50
pressure BARS
10-1
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

289.50
10-2

288.50
100. 150. 200.
10-3

400.
rates M3/D
PD=1/2

200.
10-4

0.
10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 100. 150. 200.
Delta-T (hr) Time (hours)

EGINA-1.T1 DST EGINA-1.T1 DST

Partial Penetration Well No-Flux Partial Penetration Well No-Flux
** Simulation Data ** Type-Curve Model Static-Data ** Simulation Data ** Type-Curve Model Static-Data
well. storage = 0.00146 M3/BAR Perf. Interval = 14.0 METRE well. storage = 0.00146 M3/BAR Perf. Interval = 14.0 METRE
Skin(perf.) = 83.0 Perf Location = 7.00 METRE Skin(perf.) = 83.0 Perf Location = 7.00 METRE
permeability = 2100. MD permeability = 2100. MD
Kv/Kh = 0.100 Static-Data and Constants Kv/Kh = 0.100 Static-Data and Constants
Eff. Thickness = 23.0 METRE Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol Eff. Thickness = 23.0 METRE Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
Skin(Global) = 140. Thickness = 23.00 METRE Skin(Global) = 140. Thickness = 23.00 METRE
Hp/Heff = 0.609 Viscosity = 1.500 CP Hp/Heff = 0.609 Viscosity = 1.500 CP
+x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00) Total Compress = 0.0001905 1/BAR +x boundary = 220. METRE (1.00) Total Compress = 0.0001905 1/BAR
-x boundary = 130. METRE (1.00) Rate = 450.0 M3/D -x boundary = 130. METRE (1.00) Rate = 450.0 M3/D
Initial Press. = 292.400 BARS Storivity = 0.0009640 METRE/BAR Initial Press. = 292.400 BARS Storivity = 0.0009640 METRE/BAR
Smoothing Coef = 0.0050,0. Diffusivity = N/A METRE^2/HR Diffusivity = N/A METRE^2/HR
Gauge Depth = N/A METRE Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
Datum Depth = N/A METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
Analysis-Data ID: DATA1 Analysis-Data ID: DATA1
Based on Gauge ID: 1767T Based on Gauge ID: 1767T

• Derivative shape is correctly matched but the depletion is too important

• It is necessary to have at least two build-ups to confirm model simulation

Fig. 32: Derivative and depletion match with two parallel no-flow boundaries

Kh.H/µ (Kh.H/µ)*0.012

120 m
200 m

Fig. 33: Linear composite model with 2-zones an one no-flow boundary
18 SPE 97113

2003/11/25-1606 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

ENDWBS

291 .
pressure BARS
10 -1

290 .
DP & DE RIVA TIVE (BARS /M3/D)

289 .
10 - 2

288 .
100. 150. 200.

500 .
10 - 3

rates M 3/D
PD=1/2

200 .
10 -4

0.
10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 100. 150. 200.
Delta-T (hr) Time (hours)

EGINA-1.T1 DST EGINA-1.T1 DST

Linear-Composite 2-Zone Linear-Composite 2-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants ** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE
permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP
X-Interface(1) = 200. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR X-Interface(1) = 200. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR
Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0200 Rate = 450.0 M3/D Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0200 Rate = 450.0 M3/D
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR
Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR
+x boundary = 5000. METRE (1.00) Gauge Depth = N/A METRE +x boundary = 5000. METRE (1.00) Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
-x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Perf. Depth = N/A METRE -x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
Initial Press. = 292.242 BARS Datum Depth = N/A METRE Initial Press. = 292.242 BARS Datum Depth = N/A METRE
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD
Based on Gauge ID: Based on Gauge ID:

• Derivative shape not perfectly matched at late time

• Depletion correctly matched
Fig. 34: Match of Linear composite model with two zones and 1 no-flow boundary

(Kh.H/µ)*0.012
Kh.H/µ
(Kh.H/µ)*1

120 m
200 m

300 m

Fig. 35: Linear composite model with 3-zones and one no-flow boundary
SPE 97113 19

2003/11/25-1606 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

ENDWBS

291 .
pres sure B ARS
10 -1

290 .
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

289 .
10 -2

288 .
100. 150. 200.
10 -3

500 .
rates M3/D
PD=1/2

200 .
10 -4

0.
10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1
100. 150. 200.
Delta-T (hr)
Time (hours)

EGINA-1.T1 DST
EGINA-1.T1 DST
Linear-Composite 3-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants Linear-Composite 3-Zone
well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol ** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE
X-Interface(1) = 200. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP
Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0120 Rate = 450.0 M3/D X-Interface(1) = 200. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0120 Rate = 450.0 M3/D
X-Interface(2) = 300. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR
Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE X-Interface(2) = 300. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR
Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
+x boundary = 5000. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
-x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID: +x boundary = 5000. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD
Initial Press. = 292.242 BARS -x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID:
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Initial Press. = 292.242 BARS

• Derivative shape and pressure transient depletion well matched

• Necessary to have good facies beyond the poor facies zone in order to have a good match

Fig. 36: Match of Linear composite model with three zones and 1 no-flow boundary

2003/11/25-1606 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

291.00
pressure BARS
10 -1
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

290.00
10 -2

289.00

100. 150. 200.

10 -3

500.
rates M3/D

PD=1/2
200.
10-4

0.

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
100. 150. 200.
Del ta-T (hr)
Time (hours)

EGINA-1.T1 DST EGINA-1.T1 DST

Linear-Composite 3-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants Linear-Composite 3-Zone
well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol ** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE
X-Interface(1) = 180. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP
Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0150 Rate = 450.0 M3/D X-Interface(1) = 180. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0150 Rate = 450.0 M3/D
X-Interface(2) = 250. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR
Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE X-Interface(2) = 250. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR
Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
+x boundary = 700. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
-x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID: +x boundary = 700. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD
+y boundary = 1800. METRE (1.00) -x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID:
-y boundary = 1800. METRE (1.00) +y boundary = 1800. METRE (1.00)
Initial Press. = 292.232 BARS -y boundary = 1800. METRE (1.00)
Average Press. = 291.806 BARS Initial Press. = 292.232 BARS
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Average Press. = 291.806 BARS

• Assumption relative to geological and geophysical interpretation

• Closest western fault at same distance as nearest no-flow boundary

Fig. 37: Match of derivative and depletion showing minimum connected STOIIP
20 SPE 97113

(Kh.H/µ)*0.012
Feeder
Crevasse-splay Lobe
Complex
Northwestern
Channelized
Lobe Complex
1800 m
Kh.H/µ (Kh.H/µ)*1

Distributary
120 m Channels
180 m

250 m
1800 m
Shale-plugged
Channels
700 m

Faults
Southeastern
N Channelized
Lobe Complex
20 km
Hu = 24.5m

Fig. 38: Test investigation and seismic map based on near amplitude offset

2003/11/25-1606 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

(Kh.H/µ)*0.018
291.00
pressure BARS
10-1

525m
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

290 .00

Kh.H/µ (Kh.H/µ)*1
10 -2

289.00

100. 150 . 200 .

120 m
10 -3

500.

180 m
rates M3/D

PD=1/2
200.
10 -4

0.

10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
100. 150 . 200 .
Del ta-T (hr)
Time (hours)
200 m
EGINA-1.T1 DST EGINA-1.T1 DST 875 m
Linear-Composite 3-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants Linear-Composite 3-Zone
well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol ** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
permeability =
X-Interface(1) =
2100.
180.
MD
METRE
Viscosity = 1.600 CP
Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR
skin
permeability
=
=
140.
2100. MD
Thickness
Viscosity
= 24.50 METRE
= 1.600 CP 1900 m
Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0180 Rate = 450.0 M3/D X-Interface(1) = 180. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0180 Rate = 450.0 M3/D
X-Interface(2) = 200. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR
Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE X-Interface(2) = 200. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR
Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
+x boundary = 1900. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
-x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID: +x boundary = 1900. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD
+y boundary = 525. METRE (1.00) -x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID:
-y boundary = 875. METRE (1.00) +y boundary = 525. METRE (1.00)
Initial Press. = 292.267 BARS -y boundary = 875. METRE (1.00) Hu = 24.5m
Average Press. = 291.823 BARS Initial Press. = 292.267 BARS
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Average Press. = 291.823 BARS

Fig. 39: Alternative test match model #1

2003/11/25-1606 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

(Kh.H/µ)*0.018 (Kh.H/µ)*0.1
291.00
pressure BARS
10-1
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

525m
290.00

Kh.H/µ
(Kh.H/µ)*1
10-2

289.00

100 . 150. 200.

10-3

500.

120 m
rates M3/D

PD=1/2

180 m
200.

(Kh.H/µ)*1
10-4

0.

200 m
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10
100 . 150. 200.
Del ta-T (hr)
Time (hours)

EGINA-1.T1 DST EGINA-1.T1 DST

Linear-Composite 5-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants Linear-Composite 5-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants 875 m 800 m
well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE
X-Interface(1) =
Mob.ratio(1)
180.
= 0.0180
METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR
Rate = 450.0 M3/D
permeability =
X-Interface(1) =
2100.
180.
MD
METRE
Viscosity = 1.600 CP
Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR 820 m
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0180 Rate = 450.0 M3/D
X-Interface(2) = 200. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR
Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE X-Interface(2) = 200. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR
Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Mob.ratio(2) = 1.00 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
X-Interface(3) =
Mob.ratio(3) =
800.
0.100
METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD
Stor.ratio(2) =
X-Interface(3) =
1.00
800. METRE
Perf. Depth
Datum Depth
= N/A METRE
= N/A METRE 1900 m
Stor.ratio(3) = 1.00 Based on Gauge ID: Mob.ratio(3) = 0.100 Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD
X-Interface(4) = 820. METRE Stor.ratio(3) = 1.00 Based on Gauge ID:
Mob.ratio(4) = 1.00 X-Interface(4) = 820. METRE
Stor.ratio(4) = 1.00 Mob.ratio(4) = 1.00
Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Stor.ratio(4) = 1.00
+x boundary = 1900. METRE (1.00) Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE
-x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) +x boundary = 1900. METRE (1.00)
+y boundary
-y boundary
=
=
525.
875.
METRE (1.00)
METRE (1.00)
-x boundary
+y boundary
=
=
120.
525.
METRE (1.00)
METRE (1.00)
Hu = 24.5m
Initial Press. = 292.264 BARS -y boundary = 875. METRE (1.00)
Average Press. = 291.820 BARS Initial Press. = 292.264 BARS
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Average Press. = 291.820 BARS

Fig. 40: Alternative test match model #2

SPE 97113 21

2003/11/25-1606 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

(Kh.H/µ)*0.018

291.00
pressure BARS
10-1

525m
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)

(Kh.H/µ)*1.3

290.00
Kh.H/µ
10-2

289.00
100. 150. 200.
120 m
10-3

500.
180 m

rates M3/D
PD=1/2

200.
10 -4

200 m

0.
10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2
100. 150. 200.
Del ta-T (hr)
Time (hours) 875 m
EGINA-1.T1 DST EGINA-1.T1 DST
Linear-Composite 3-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants Linear-Composite 3-Zone
well. storage = 0.00100
skin = 140.
M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
Thickness = 24.50 METRE
** Simulation Data **
well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR
Static-Data and Constants
Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
1500 m
permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE
X-Interface(1) = 180. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP
Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0180 Rate = 450.0 M3/D X-Interface(1) = 180. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0180 Rate = 450.0 M3/D
X-Interface(2) = 200. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR
Mob.ratio(2) = 1.30 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE X-Interface(2) = 200. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR
Stor.ratio(2) = 1.30 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Mob.ratio(2) = 1.30 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE Stor.ratio(2) = 1.30 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
+x boundary = 1500. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
-x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID: +x boundary = 1500. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD Hu = 24.5m Hu = 31.8m
+y boundary = 525. METRE (1.00) -x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID:
-y boundary = 875. METRE (1.00) +y boundary = 525. METRE (1.00)
Initial Press. = 292.207 BARS -y boundary = 875. METRE (1.00)
Average Press. = 291.761 BARS Initial Press. = 292.207 BARS
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0. Average Press. = 291.761 BARS

Fig. 41: Alternative test match model #3

NW F-11 F-09 F-10 F-08 F-06 F-05 F-04 F-01 F-15 F-17 SE

F-13

Distance (m) 200 330 260 130 50 200 300 350 450 400
LOBE
25 m thick.
App. Throw (m) 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 40 20 15

500 m

Well to seismic positioning uncertainty

Fig. 42: Schematic Cross section around well “X”

22 SPE 97113

SW NE

Channel

LOBE
25 m thick.

960m

Problable Erosion of Lobe

by Channel Complex
Obliquity w/ Fault Network = 45deg
(but less erosion to the SW)

500 m

Fig. 43: Schematic Section parallel to faults

• Proposing a coherent match with the constraining factors in purple :

• Agrees with DST interpretation in terms of derivative & depletion data match
• Basic assumption is that nearest fault west of the well (~ 120 m) is sealing
20 m

(Kh.H/µ)*0.018
525 m
< 960m (Kh.H/µ)*1.7 Impossible in this configuration to
Kh.H/µ
consider this fault as semi-permeable
(max perm < 1 mD)
Constrained by
lobe erosion 120 m
by shallow 180 m Obligatory to increase kh/µ in this
channel. zone to be able to match with the imposed
200 m constraints from 2G interpretation
- Eastward investigation < 900m (major fault)
- Narrow degraded zone (fault corridor)
1300 m < 900 m
900 m

Volume Investigated : 85 MMbbls

Hu = 24.5m Hu = 41.7 m

Fig. 44: Constrained Test Interpretation: Reservoir configuration

SPE 97113 23

2003/11/25-1606 : OIL 2003/11/25-1606 : OIL

291.00
pressure BARS
10-1

289.50
DP & DERIVATIVE (BARS/M3/D)
10-2

288.00
100. 150. 200. 250.
10-3

rates M3/D
300.
PD=1/2

-100.
10-4

10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 100. 150. 200. 250.
Delta-T (hr) Time (hours)

EGINA-1.T1 DST EGINA-1.T1 DST

Linear-Composite 3-Zone Linear-Composite 3-Zone
** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants ** Simulation Data ** Static-Data and Constants
well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol well. storage = 0.00100 M3/BAR Volume-Factor = 1.200 vol/vol
skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE skin = 140. Thickness = 24.50 METRE
permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP permeability = 2100. MD Viscosity = 1.600 CP
X-Interface(1) = 180. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR X-Interface(1) = 180. METRE Total Compress = 0.0001937 1/BAR
Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0180 Rate = 450.0 M3/D Mob.ratio(1) = 0.0180 Rate = 450.0 M3/D
Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR Stor.ratio(1) = 1.00 Storivity = 0.001376 METRE/BAR
X-Interface(2) = 200. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR X-Interface(2) = 200. METRE Diffusivity = 8304. METRE^2/HR
Mob.ratio(2) = 1.70 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE Mob.ratio(2) = 1.70 Gauge Depth = N/A METRE
Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE Stor.ratio(2) = 1.00 Perf. Depth = N/A METRE
Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE Perm-Thickness = 51400. MD-METRE Datum Depth = N/A METRE
+x boundary = 900. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD +x boundary = 900. METRE (1.00) Analysis-Data ID: 1767TD
-x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID: -x boundary = 120. METRE (1.00) Based on Gauge ID:
+y boundary = 525. METRE (1.00) +y boundary = 525. METRE (1.00)
-y boundary = 1300. METRE (1.00) -y boundary = 1300. METRE (1.00)
Initial Press. = 292.215 BARS Initial Press. = 292.215 BARS
Average Press. = 291.540 BARS Average Press. = 291.540 BARS
Smoothing Coef = 0.,0.

Fig. 45: Constrained Test Interpretation: Derivative and Transient depletion match