SPE 145879

Reservoir/Well Production Assurance Strategies for Successful Field

Development Projects
Keng Seng Chan, Rahim Masoudi, Abdolrahim Ataei, Nasir H. Darman, Mohamad B. Othman, SPE, PETRONAS

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 20 –22 September 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is pro hibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Wells drilled and completed following the approved field developed plan (FDP) may not yield satisfactory performance
results as predicted at the FDP phase. The gap could be due to accumulation of various uncertainties and risks encountered in
each phase of field development planning from reservoir characterization, flow dynamic properties, well reservoir penetration
and production optimization, well design, drilling and completion, to well support surface facilities design and
implementation.

This paper delineated the issues/challenges in each key task of field development planning focusing on three key areas for
improving quality assurance in (1) reservoir simulation, (2) drilling and completion, and (3) production system. Real field
example cases were used to illustrate the need to improve integration of pre-during-post FDP strategies and approaches. The
paper also provides simple and short check lists on requirements and workflow for helping to assure FDP well production
throughout the field life.

Introduction
The today study trend of the Full Field Reviews (FFR) and the Field Development Projects (FDP) are toward using more
detail and comprehensive methodologies and modeling/predictive tools. Typically the Field Development Plan is finalized by
multi-disciplinary teams after a detail study in geology, geophysics, petrophysics and reservoir engineering sections by using
all the historical and available info/data supported by the predictive models/tools. For improving oil and gas recovery, FDP
well plan is developed by reservoir model simulation after a successful history match. The best well location and orientation,
the required number of wells, the individual well optimum angle and length, and the most suitable type of completion are to
be progressively evaluated with cost estimate.

However, the wells drilled and completed following the FDP well plan may not yield the expected production performance.
Lack of valid reservoir and layer data, uncertainties in reservoir characterization, PVT and dynamic flow properties may be
the main causes but the associated risks should be systematically studied. The well simulation, for instance, and reservoir
simulation must be checked for consistency/integrity and monitored/updated by subsequent actual production and pressure
data. It is quite obvious that for the success of any development plan to ensure on the expected production assurance, there
should be a systematic monitoring-evaluating-updating strategies pre, during, and more importantly post FDP.

Reservoir Simulation Assurance

The quality of the reservoir simulation history match may vary based on the objectives and error tolerance between the
historical data and simulation results. Quite often, the focus is on matching the pressure and production rates. WOR
(Water/Oil Ratio) and GOR (Gas/Oil Ratio), which may shed some light on gas cap gas and aquifer water anomalous flow
behaviors, were grossly neglected particularly at the late time (Fig 1).
2 SPE 145879

HM & Simulation Comparison;

Water Rate, Cum vs time
2,000 1.8
HisWtrMonRate bbl/d
1,800 1.6
A1WaterCD bbl/d
1,600 HisCumWtr Mbbl
1.4
A1WaterCum bbl
1,400
1.2
1,200
1
1,000
0.8
800
0.6
600
0.4
400

200 0.2

0 0
01/01/1989

01/01/1990

01/01/1991

01/01/1992

01/01/1993

01/01/1994

01/01/1995

01/01/1996

01/01/1997

01/01/1998

01/01/1999

01/01/2000

01/01/2001

01/01/2002

01/01/2003

01/01/2004

01/01/2005

01/01/2006
Fig 1. A comparison between actual vs. simulation history match on water production rate. Note the significant gap between the simulation
results (solid lines) and the actual production data (solid points).

For achieving the desired match, a host of “transmissivity multipliers” were applied to limit vertical/lateral flow and flow
near the faults sometimes without rigorous physical understanding. Aggravated by using large grid size and homogeneous
flow properties description, the prediction for water and gas breakthroughs and the impact on production and recovery can be
very optimistic.

For wells planned in such high risk area, a recommended approach is to conduct a sector and single well simulation to study
the mechanism of water and gas coning and channeling and to predict production rate and trend corresponding closely to
local reservoir conditions (Fig 2). In addition, the sector and single well simulation can also yield optimized well orientation,
angle and reservoir penetration length.

Fig 2. A sector model simulating number of branches, angle and length of a multi-lateral well. (Jim Liu, personal communication, 2009)

A full field simulation can then be conducted with optimized sector wells to predict and confirm field production and
recovery.

Drilling and Completion Assurance

Single well simulation can also perform sensitivity studies on well orientation, angle and length (Fig 3) and develop a range
of acceptable well trajectory and well design deviation allowance. Together with petrophysical and rock mechanical drilling
studies, this could generate a road-map for drilling to assure targeted production.
SPE 145879 3

Fig 3. A single well angle and length optimization based on layer thickness and dip angle in a specific reservoir sector [1].

Based on geological uncertainties and risks due to the potential lithofacies change vs. depth, the potential of drilling through
shallow gas or layer of gas hydrates, the risk of drilling through Karsts zone, and unexpected location shift of a fault, initial
well drilling trajectory may have to be changed (Fig 4). An alternate plan including completion change should be developed
to assure production drilling.

Fig 4. An example showing multiple potential well trajectories

Production System Assurance

A production system model (Nodal) analysis shall be performed using the reservoir inflow parameters as used in the
simulation model in the corresponding sector (Fig 5).

Focusing on evaluation of vertical lift potential, a suite of sensitivity studies can be conducted for determining proper tubing
size, gas lift requirement, and generate a specific VLP hydraulic table for the proposed well and completion..

It can also be used to generate different levels of production as a function of skin, an expression of either reservoir flow
restriction or formation damage.
4 SPE 145879

Fig 5. A typical Nodal Analysis study showing the production sensitivity on inflow restriction or formation damage. This example also shows
a requirement for lift optimization or optimizing the tubing size.

FDP Production Optimization Work-Flow

For a “Brown Field”, there should be more reservoir and production data available. Existing well production behavior study
and production history data analysis should provide more insight to reservoir drive mechanism. Relatively more core and
fluid samples shall also be available for SCAL and PVT studies.

A comprehensive production optimization workflow can then be developed for continuous FDP improvement. Fig 6 shows a
simple loop of workflow and tasks and their interplay for continuous FDP improvement.

Well Plan Mud Loss

Initial Production Data

Review Logs and

FDP Plan
Key Reservoir
Drilling & Completion Initial Wellbore Core Profiles

Approval Data Review Clean-Up & Start-Up

Layers, KhP Cores, Fluids
Contacts
PVT, Reactions
Revised Well Plan
Production &
Flow Assurance
Evaluation
PVT, K, Pc Laboratory Test
& Evaluation

Stable Flow
PI Gap

Simulation Model
Optimized PI
History Match Formation Damage
FDP Revision Evaluation
Lift Optimization
& Stimulation

Fig 6. A simple workflow and task loop showing the interplay between key tasks.
SPE 145879 5

The key tasks are again listed as below:

1. Well Drilling and Completion Implementation and Review

2. Laboratory Test and Evaluation
3. Initial Wellbore Clean-Up and Production Start-Up
4. Initial Production and Flow Assurance Evaluation
5. Formation Damage Evaluation
6. Lift Optimization and Stimulation
7. Production Monitoring and Data Verification
8. Simulation Model History Match and Prediction Revisit
9. Field Production and Recovery Improvement Plan Revision

Task 1. Well Drilling and Completion Implementation and Review

First task is to drill following the drilling plan and implement designed completion and well flow control tubular. It is critical
that actual well trajectory and any discovery on litho-facies and fault orientation change should be documented and data
provided for reservoir model and well production system model update.

During the drilling, the zones of mud loss, volume and rate of mud loss shall also be quantified for pre-production wellbore
clean-up and simulation consideration. Fig 7 shows a flow chart for decision making during the drilling operation.

Fig 7. A suggested workflow for checking the actual drilling, well test, and comparison with well plan and completion design.

Task 2. Laboratory Test and Evaluation

Cores and fluid samples shall be carefully handled on-site and sent for a series of laboratory tests to acquire PVT property
and dynamic flow property data. These information and data, together with open-hole log data including layer thickness,
pressure and fluid contacts shall be extremely valuable for updating and refining the reservoir simulation and well production
system models.

In addition, reservoir fluids (oil, formation water, solution gas and gas -cap gas) shall also be analyzed and check for
compatibility with intended workover (brine), wellbore clean-up (solvents and acids) and stimulation (acid and fracturing)
fluids for tendency of scaling, emulsification, wax and asphaltene precipitation.
6 SPE 145879

The following is a comprehensive list of laboratory tests and studies (Fig 8) that can be very useful in improving our
reservoir flow and production behavior understanding:

Collect appropriate fluid sample

Subsurface sample
Single phase
Contamination concern
Recombined surface sample
GOR and recombination concern
Conduct all the required PVT tests on the sample
QC and Check sample validation
Compositional, flash vaporization and differential liberation tests
QC and develop the fluid model with one of the commercial fluid packages (e.g., PVTi)
Use the correct data for reservoir study
Check the consistency of the data
Trends of GOR, °API, BP or DP
Check against the reservoir P, WOC and GOC
Compositional grading concern
Check the CO2 and H2S contents and comment on potential compartmentalization and non-
equilibrium concern
Geochemistry Analysis (if required!)
Other Considerations
For Brown fields: How the applied PVT model comply with the production data?
How reliable can the PVT model capture the changes with the production life of the reservoir?
How is the affect of various injections (e.g., water, gas, chemical) on the fluid model

Fig 8. A list of suggested laboratory tests and studies including sample handling, quality control, data consistency checks and impact to
production.

Task 3. Initial Wellbore Clean-Up and Production Start-Up

Mud damage and drilling debris at the wellbore need to be cleaned up and unloaded from the well prior to the production
start-up. The best practice is to use coiled tubing with a jetting tool using a formation compatible wellbore clean-up fluid.
Fig 9 illustrates a step-by-step but simple workflow.

To start-up, the initial return of fluid shall be carefully monitored. Native fines (in-situ), invasion fines and silts (from mud)
and flow (velocity) induced fines in the near wellbore formation can jam up at the wellbore due to convergent flow
(production). Initial production start-up flow shall then focus on near wellbore clean-up. Plan a progressive choke size
increase or a pressure draw-down increase schedule. Choke size can be increase when the rate in steady not declining and the
return fluid becomes progressively less turbid.

Task 4. Initial Production and Flow Assurance Evaluation

Flow assurance is vital for the success of any production operation especially in offshore and deepwater operations [2], which
might be characterized by hostile environment (water depth and cold seabed temperature), difficulties of intervention and
remediation operations, and challenging fluid properties. In such an environment, flow assurance is increasingly crucial in
maintaining high reliability of subsea systems as it governs field architecture, installation requirements, flow activation and
operating philosophy. It needs to consider, assess and monitor proven flow assurance strategies and modeling [3] to ensure
uninterrupted flow of production from subsurface reservoirs to surface through the implemented production system at
minimum capital and operation costs.

In addition to laboratory fluid tests and studies mentioned above, relevant information and data can also be obtained from
work over histories. Fig 10 shows again a check list for an appropriate and integrated flow assurance evaluation.
SPE 145879 7

E valuate M ud Loss
N ear W ellbore Invasion
Volum e
S tud y M ud D am age
M ud C om p osition
M ud C ake F orm ation
D evelop M ud Rem oval Flu ids
M ud D issolution b y acid and solvent
M ud C ake D ispersion by surfactant
D ebris S uspension by surfactant
D evelop W ellbore C lean -U p M ethods
C oile d T ubing w ith B laster Jetting
Energizing fluids
Ensure fluid return
O ptim ize clea n- u p fluid pum ping
procedure

Fig 9. Simple wellbore clean-up workflow showing the importance of 4 basic elements: (1) Mud Cake Dissolution, (2) Mud Cake and Fine
Debris Dispersion, (3) Residual Mud Cake and Debris Suspension, and (4) Hydrodynamic Flow for transporting the whole clean-up fluid out of
the well.

S tu dy P h y sico-c hem ic al P ro p erties

A sphaltene, w ax, naphthanates precipitation
H ydrate form ation/condition/location
M ineral scale form ation and location
F orm ation O f D ispersions
E m ulsions, foam
H igh viscosities, separation problem s
P revention and controlling m ethod for all the above
(if any)
P rod uctio n & M ain tenan ce
S lugging, fatigue
C orrosion and erosion
W ell integrity and M echanical failure

F luid and C h em ical C om p atib ility

A sphaltene com patibility w ith oilfield solvent, C O 2,
injection gas, com pletion fluids etc
E m ulsion com patibility of various elem ents -
acids/frac fluids etc
W ater com patibility in the w ater injection cases
C om patibility of various applied chem icals/inhibitors

Fig 10. Flow Assurance Revisited.

Task 5. Formation Damage Evaluation

The nodal analysis shall again be conducted when the initial production shown lower than expected. The observed
production impairment can be evaluated as a portrait of having a flow restriction skin. If there was no flow assurance issue
in the whole production system, the wellbore clean-up was successfully performed; the vertical lift was properly optimized
8 SPE 145879

that there was no issue of applying proper draw-down across the sand-face, the production impairment may be attributed to
formation damage. Fig 11 is an example of production impact due to formation damage. Again a workflow of formation
damage skin evaluation is shown in Fig 12.

600

500

400
Pre ssur e, kg/cm²

A
1
300

200

100

2 1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000

Inflow @Sandface (1) Not Used

Oil Rate, Bbl/D Inflow
Inflow (1) Outflow (A) (1) 0.000
Inflow
Case 2 (2) Case 2 (B) (2) 10.000
Not Used Not Used Reservoir Skin
Not Used Not Used
Not Used Not Used
Not Used Not Used
Not Used Reg: Schlumberger - Companies

Fig 11. A case of simply formation damage

Study Production History

Discern Flow Regimes
Set Up Production System Model
Verify IPR Model
Verify VLP Model
Selective History Match
Study Production Impact
Mechanical Skin
Chemical Removable Skin
Production Gap and Stimulation Gain
Type of Formation Damage
Sands, Silts and Fines
Organic Deposits
Scales
Water Induced Flow Damage

Fig 12. The workflow of the formation damage production impact evaluation using a total production system analysis method. It starts with
setting up the reservoir and well models (IPR and VLP) and its verification by History Match using a stable flow regime production period. The
mechanical skin (most likely by gravel pack completion), and the chemically removable skin shall be differentiated.
SPE 145879 9

Task 6 Lift Optimization and Stimulation

The well-by-well production system can be further improved by reservoir stimulation and well vertical lift optimization.
Fracture stimulation has been shown to be an effective mean to increase the well productivity in multi-layer reservoirs with
multiple hydraulic fractures [4]. Lift optimization certainly becomes a necessity for producing from low pressure or “Brown-
Field” reservoirs.

The following is an example of multiple fracture stimulation (Fig 13) for a single well that can achieve much more than 5
times increase in productivity index.

Fig 13. A well simulated and having 8 hydraulic fractures as shown by a micro-seismic survey.

The lift optimization is becoming an indispensable skill for production technologists. Many commercial softwares are
available for systematic case studies and evaluations. The following is a list of key data and analysis that need to be studied.

1. PI & Production characteristics (Rate, Water-Cut, GLR etc)

2. SBHP & FBHP
3. Fluid Properties & PVT data
4. Lifting Method selection
5. Tubing Selection
6. Lifting Design & Optimization
7. Maintenance & Operation Problems (Sand, Paraffin, Scale, Corrosion, Emulsion, Temperature, etc.)

Task 7. Production Monitoring and Data Verification

Nothing more critical than having a good production data base for monitoring the performance of the FDP wells. The
following is a list of studies that can be conducted:

1. Real Time Data Analysis and Monitoring

2. PDG data analysis and verification
3. Periodic Intervention Analysis
4. Pressure transient analysis
5. Extended Well Testing
6. Production Logging
7. Interference testing
8. Production allocation and verification
9. Well productivity and trend analysis
10. GOR and WOR Monitoring and Analysis
11. Well Integrity and monitoring
12. Problem diagnosis
13. Downhole gauges
14. Interference pressure, productivity, injectivity and connectivity tests
10 SPE 145879

In a “Brown Field”, the simulation model should also predict the water and gas breakthrough time and the trend of Water/Oil
and Gas/Oil Ratios. These factors can shed some lights on the energy balance between the gas cap and the aquifer as a
function of fluid withdrawal (production rate and volume) from the reservoir.

The following examples (Figs 14 and 15) show a gas-cap gas breakthrough and a water breakthrough by just plotting GOR
and WOR derived from available production data:

100

Gas Gap Gas Breakthrough

GOR, KSCF/Bbl

10

0.1
100 1000 10000
Cumulative Days

Fig 14. GOR trend showing Gas Cap early-time gas coning and late-time channeling

Fig 15. A simulation results showing different trend of WOR for bottom water coning and channeling [5].

Task 8. Simulation Model History Match and Prediction Revisit

A comparison between the actual production and simulation prediction for those FDP wells shall be conducted. Quite often,
the FDP wells productions were not as predicted by reservoir simulation model.

Case studies can show that some are better than expected may be due to a delay of water and gas breakthrough. In some cases,
the FDP well production was much less than expected which could be either due to wells were drilled into layers that may not
SPE 145879 11

have the same quality and property as used in the simulation model, or due to various completion and drilling damage
problems.

Production data studies as mentioned above could also discern the predominant production drive mechanism for different
production periods. Therefore it is very necessary to revisit the original history match and FDP predictions.

The following is a short list for updating reservoir simulation input:

1. Update Reservoir Inputs (Contacts, Facies, Layer Properties)

2. Update Well Inputs (Well Trajectory, Length, and Angles)
3. Update VLP Hydraulics
4. Update Production Data (Data Acquisition and Verification, Rate and Pressure Decline Analysis)
5. Update WOR, GOR Trends and Mechanism

The following (Fig 16) illustrates a match of reservoir pressure after implementation of FDP wells:

Fig 16. An example of reservoir pressure history match after implementation of FDP production well and injection well plan.

The new History Match can take into account any change in reservoir description based on new logs and survey on the new
FDP wells. History Match focus may also need to change from having just the hydrocarbon rate and pressure match to
matching WOR and GOR in selected reservoir sectors. Drainage pattern may change as a result, OOIP and GIIP could be
further refined, recovery factor could also be improved. Number of the FDP wells required, optimum well location,
orientation and reservoir penetration may have to be re-defined. The original FDP plan may then be modified.

Task 9. Field Production and Recovery Improvement Plan Revision

The revised FDP plan shall not only show the new well location and orientation, potential production gain, production facility
requirement and investment cost, but also show the following results from the new reservoir studies:

1. Optimized Well Placement and Reservoir Penetration

2. Minimized Well Counts
3. Maximized Well Productivity
4. Feasibility of achieving Higher Hydrocarbon Recovery
5. Accelerated Production (Shorten Time to 80% Recovery)
6. Minimized Investment and Operation Cost
7. Maximized NPV

Below is an example of a modified FDP well plan after a continuous history match:
 12 SPE 145879

Fig 17. Example of a continuous history match after FDP well drilling and completion which yield a need for adding additional wells. Note that
horizontal wells are oriented differently in different sectors.

The benefit of new infill wells can also be illustrated as in the example shown below (Fig 18):

Fig 18. Oil rate and recovery improvement as shown by incremental gain due to continuous additional infill wells drilling plan.

Conclusions
In the quest of improving the FDP well production, lists of relevant key technical tasks with their respective work-flows and
their interplay have been delineated. The workflows can be considered as a system of best engineering practices. They can
serve as general suggestions for production and reservoir engineers to conduct necessary and sufficient studies in order to
improve or maintain the FDP well productivity.

These workflows are to be rigorously reviewed by peers in the industry for further refinement and simplification.
SPE 145879 13

Case studies shall be conducted to check the applicability of these workflows. By working through these workflows,
technical competency of our engineers can also be improved with focus and direction as suggested by these workflows.

Nomenclature
FFR Full Field Review
FDP Field Development Project
WOR Water Oil Ratio
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
PVT Pressure Volume Temperature
SCAL Special Core Analysis
VLP Vertical Lift Potential
SBHP Static Bottom Hole Pressure
FBHP Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure
OOIP Original Oil in Place
GIIP Gas Initial in Place
NPV Net Present Value

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of PETRONAS for their permission to publish this paper. Thanks are also due to all other
members of the project team for their continuous enthusiasm and dedication to study and evaluate mature and marginal field
developments, and the development of a series of concepts on improving and ensuring the success of the field develop plans.

Reference
1. Smith R.W. et al, “Optimized Reservoir Development with High Angle Wells, El Furrial Field, Venezuela”, SPE 69738,
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, February, 2001
2. Lim, L.C. et al, “Reservoir Fluid Evaluation and Flow Assurance Analysis: Offshore Field, South East Asia”, SPE
141604, paper presented at the SPE Production and Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, 27-29 March, 2011
3. Ng, C., Tatimeti, K., and Lowry, T., “Flow Assurance Benchmarking – Bridging the Gap between Initial Design and
Ongoing Operations”, OTC 20049, paper presented at the 2009 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 4-7 May,
2009
4. Forrest, G., et al, “Using Microseisms to Monitor Hydraulic Fractures Within the Bakken Formation of North Dakota”,
SPE 131778, paper presented at SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, 23-25 February 2010
5. Chan K.S., “Water Control Diagnostic Plots”, SPE 30775, paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October 1995