SPE-198974-MS

Design of a Computational Tool in Python for the Calculation of the Optimal

Potential in the Huyapari Field - Petropiar

Rommina Acosta, Universidad Central de Venezuela

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference originally scheduled to be held in Bogota,
Colombia, 17 – 19 March 2020. Due to COVID-19 the physical event was postponed until 27 – 31 July 2020 and was changed to a virtual event. The official proceedings
were published online on 20 July 2020.

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 prohibited. 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
The current demand for fossil fuels will promote the search for techniques to increase hydrocarbon
production, so methods are needed to accelerate the development of this resource. The use of computer
tools in the oil industry is indispensable today; we use increasingly powerful algorithms that perform
extremely complex analyzes, which enable us to obtain solutions to previously affected problems pending
in the industry. Most of the time the lack of parameters forces engineers to limit the study of a well,
making restrictions and predictions not so accurate, especially regarding production; Based on this, the main
objective is the development of a computational tool that allows to calculate the production potential of the
wells drilled in the Huyapari field, which will use the python programming language, encoded from such
a way to perform the calculations under the statistical methods of the analogous wells, the Joshi equation
and nodal analysis. This tool is divided into two phases: the first is the calculation of the potential for pre-
drilling and post-drilling of wells; the second phase is the adjustment of the potential that is carried out by
means of the individual nodal analysis of each well taking into account the current reservoir pressure and
the immersion limit of the pump.

Introduction
Among the countries with the largest reserves of oil and gas are Venezuela, however, having reserves does
not boost the economy, it is the extraction of resources and their effective production that fosters it. The
production is therefore clearly related to the potential, which is defined as the maximum stable production
rate that can be achieved under optimal operating conditions and thus know the final potential of the field
as the sum of the individual measures of the potential of the wells that conform it.
One of the best alternatives to increase the production of the fields, for costs, execution time and response,
is to ensure that the wells are operating to their full potential. The most recognized and reliable technique
that contributes to the increase in production is the nodal analysis, because it is a flexible tool that allows
analyzing the current conditions in which a well is operating, and then evaluating the different alternatives
for optimizing its productivity.
2 SPE-198974-MS

Theory and Definitions

Production Potential is defined as the maximum stable production rate of a well that can be achieved under
optimal operating considerations, which can be active or inactive with immediate production availability,
connected to surface facilities and complying with the applicable laws, regulations and norms regarding
safety, environment and gas use. This potential can be calculated by means of a nodal analysis or a numerical
simulation. In the nodal analysis it is important that IPR curves that have been developed with validated
information from the study well be used.
It is common to find production systems that do not operate efficiently, that is, the expected hydrocarbon
production is not obtained. The amount of gas and oil that flows into the well from the reservoir depends on
the pressure in the production system, because of this, the production system must be analyzed as a unit, the
production of a well can often be restricted by the behavior of a single component in the system. If the effect
of each component on the behavior of the production system can be analyzed in isolation, the behavior of
the system can be optimized economically.
The IPR curve represents the contribution capacity of the reservoir to the well at a given time in its
productive life, said capacity decreases over time due to different factors such as the deletion of pressure
due to the production of fluids, the reduction of permeability in the vicinity of the well and the increase
in oil viscosity.
When the reservoir is sub saturated, the shape of the IPR curve is a straight line as shown in Figure 1

Figure 1

When it comes to saturated reservoirs, the gas thrust in solution is the main mechanism and the
productivity index is not constant. Vogel developed a dimensionless IPR curve to describe the production
behavior when the reservoir acts with gas thrust in solution, which establishes a typical curvature and a
reasonable variation of the productivity index
In this case, the IPR curve ceases to be a straight line and takes a certain curvature as seen in Figure 2

Figure 2

The proportionality constant with which the productivity of a well is measured is called the productivity
index (IP)
SPE-198974-MS 3

Joshi developed an equation to calculate the productivity index in horizontal wells, considering an
anisotropic reservoir and in a stable state a relation of productivity whose drainage area is an ellipsoid, this
relation is expressed in equation 1

In other way, Python it is a programming language that stands out for its readable and clean code. The
open source license allows its use in different contexts. Its objective is the automation of processes to save
both compilations and time, fundamental for the optimization in the labor field. Python is ideal for working
with large volumes of data because it favors extraction and processing.

Description and Application of Equipment and Processes

To find the optimal operation of the wells and with them to be able to deduce how production can be
maximized, a compilation of all the information from the different equipment was made

• Drilling campaigns from 2010 to April 2019

In each campaign, it provided information on the design and completion of wells drilled in
the field from the drill used in the drilling to information on the target sand, as well as drilling,
completion and production dates, initial potential (pre-drilling) potential reviewed (post-drilling),
effective side length, actual thickness.
• Potential databases taken since January 2019
In this database it provides a follow-up of the production potential in it specifying the category
of the well throughout its useful life and the associated potential that the reservoir team has carried
• Database of sensor pressure records provide the information the well sensor records classified by
date and time, thus providing the speed value at the time of pressure.
• Production Distribution Database
This information provided on production distribution that is given by the official closures from
the beginning of production and updated until November 2017, has the accumulated oil (Np) data
and the monthly average of oil production for each of the wells
• LOWIS - BCP Group Status
It is a tool designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of well management processes.
Cover the life cycle of oil and gas production operations and include real-time monitoring with
alarms, controller configuration settings, design and analysis of artificial survey systems, trends,
reports and instantaneous graphs.
• Field Viscosity Database
This database contains the fluid analysis by well where the viscosities at different temperatures
are recorded

Database Development
The tool calculates several reservoir parameters based on the information entered in the interface.
In these databases all the necessary information of the wells of the base that are used for the calculation
of the potential and to visualize their data of the selection of required wells was organized.

• Sand / Pad / Zone / Length / Thickness come from the drilling campaign database

• Potential led by the reservoir team

• Viscosities of the fluid analysis database

4 SPE-198974-MS

• Decline of the presentations carried out by EEII @ 2017 of the declination values

• Pressure and temperature of the field of pressure and temperature consolidation database

• Database of petrophysical properties

To obtain the petrophysical data, it was based on the static model, having to make in Petrosys cuts per
well of the polygons of the lateral length of the well and that this calculated the average of the properties
within the polygon as seen in Figure 3

Figure 3

Creation of the tool. This tool is divided into two phases to optimize the calculation and adjustment of the
potential of the field wells. Which will be described below:
Phase I: Potential Calculation. The first phase consisted in the calculation of pre and post drilling
potentials. The pre-drilling potential (Potential Plan) is calculated to obtain an estimated rate to start drilling
the well. This phase is carried out with the objective of making the necessary changes for automation.
Subsequently, the calculation of the post-drilling potential (Potential revised) was analyzed. This is obtained
through the final drilling data such as the final lateral length (Lw) and net thickness of the contacted sand
(H). These values are modified in the initial calculations of the potential plan by the real ones until obtaining
a production test of the well confirming these values.
In Figure 4, the tool is shown by selecting the potential calculation.

Figure 4

Potential Pre-Perforation Calculation

The tool algorithm is designed to perform optimal potential calculations using two methods.
SPE-198974-MS 5

a) Analogous wells: this is the objective of obtaining a range of the calculated values of production
potentials based on nearby wells that are drilled in the same sand and that also have the petrophysical
properties, lateral length and thickness of the well contacted. For the tool, the main objective is to
conduct a search of the wells that meet the aforementioned characteristics and thus filter the wells
of interest from the database and provide the properties and potentials of the wells that meet these
characteristics.
The tool contains within it a matrix with the positions corresponding to each of the pads in the
field as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5

This matrix resembles the field map shown in Figure 6

Figure 6

This matrix is made with the objective that when the user selects the pad to which the plan well is directed,
the tool performs a search and also selects the nearby pads with the objective of expanding the analysis of
the area of interest and knowing the behavior of nearby wells. In Figure 7, it can be seen how the user must
enter the location of the new well to make comparisons according to the steps shown in the figure to be
performed. On the other hand, as shown in Figure 8, taking as an example the selection of the pad I4 and
the pads near it that the tool would look for would be I3, H4, I5, J4.
6 SPE-198974-MS

Figure 7

Figure 8

The tool only selects the wells that are in the same target sand as determined by the user.
The user must enter the following parameters with the values he estimates his planhole will possess:
Horizontal permeability (Kh, mD), thickness of the sand to be contacted (H, feet), water saturation (%),
porosity (%), lateral length of the well (Lw, feet), as shown in Figure 9.
SPE-198974-MS 7

Figure 9

These 5 parameters in turn are specified by well in the database entered at the beginning by the user. This
is how the parameters of the wells selected by sand within the database are compared with the parameters
entered by the engineer thanks to the estimates made by the equipment within EEII for the plan well.
To make the comparison of the parameters is done as follows:

Where:
Lω2 = Database well length (feet)
Lω1 = Length of plan well from EEII (feet)
Lwc = Comparison length (%)
In addition to the parameters estimated by the EEII team that must enter the tool of the plan well, the
user must also enter a percentage of coincidence that they want to have the wells similar to the plan well,
this index was implemented because it was necessary to establish a criterion so that the wells are the most
exact in properties to the well plan and thus call them analogous wells.
This is how after having each of the comparison percentage of the established parameters, the tool
makes the last comparison with respect to the percentage of coincidence that the user established. This last
comparison allows the user to decide if he is satisfied with the coincidence of the nearby wells, if he wishes
to have greater accuracy or not.
The tool was designed so that the search for the nearby pads, the code performs the search in the initial
matrix at which point the planar pad is located, this is done by handling rows and columns within the matrix
and thus it is established at what point of the code enters to perform the calculations. As the example of the
I4 pad, there are 4 nearby pads, plus the planned pad, which means that within 5 pads the calculations are
made which are called b0, b1, b2, b3, b4 and within each of them calculations are performed per well of
the comparison and the percentage of coincidence, which results in similar wells per pad that identified the
tool as analogous by the criteria established above.
To fully understand the tool procedure, the following steps are described:
1. Given the engineer of the planhole well, the position is located within the matrix of pad (Figure 8)
2. To enter the code, the first question you ask in the "IF" (conditional on programming) is whether it is
located on the edge of the matrix, in the center of the matrix or on the sides since this will determine
how many pads you will select for the study. If you are in any corner, be superior, inferior will be
only 2 close-up, plus the plan, give a total of 3 pads to study. Otherwise and being in the center of
the matrix are 4 pads that surround the plan with close up giving a total of 5 pads to study. On the
8 SPE-198974-MS

other hand, if it is located on one side, there will be only 3 turtles nearby, plus the tumble plan gives
a total of 4 tufts to study.
3. Comparison vectors and match vector are performed as follows:
With the example of the I4 pad, it is in the center of the matrix so it has 5 pads to compare, calling
as follows within the code: b0 = I4, b1 = I3, b2 = I5, b3 = J4, b4 = H4.
Now you study separately each pad.
Ex: b0 corresponds to the wells inside the I4 pad that coincide with the objective sand of the plan
well.
Within b0 there are 4 wells that coincide with the target sand and the following analysis is
performed:
A "FOR" cycle (conditional within the programming) is used to pass through each well present
and make the following vector:
Vector Length (vl), each vector box corresponds to each of the selected wells and the comparison
with equation 8 is calculated as follows:
V1=[60%;65%;40%;30%]
Well1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4
This vector is created for each parameter, obtaining: Vk, Vs, Vp, Vh.
Subsequently, each box is compared by vector with the percentage of coincidence that the user
established, this being the minimum percentage established that allows considering that the well is
analogous, so if the engineer established that the comparison range was 50% coincidence, be in 50% and
100%, perform the following analysis:
% match = 50%
V1=[60%;65%;40%;30%]
If it complies If it complies It does not comply It does not comply
Well1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4
Therefore, only wells 1 and 2 would be considered as analogous wells with respect to the parameter of
the lateral length of the well.
This same procedure is carried out with the vectors of the other parameters looking for the analogous
wells to be those that meet the percentage of coincidence for the 5 established parameters. That is, as
in this example, wells 3 and 4 already did not meet the length parameter, so they comply with the other
parameters and are discarded as analogous wells to enter the analysis, the user could change the percentage
of coincidence to 40 or less if you want to get more wells to analyze but you will have less accuracy in
the parameters you have of them with respect to the plan well. At the end, the results of b0 are reflected
as an analogous well.
This determines the analogous wells for b0 and follows the same methodology for the wells of b1, b2,
b3 and b4.
Now, in the event that the pad of the plan well is at the edge of the matrix, such as L5B it will only have
b0 = L5B, b1 = K5A, b2 = L5 or in another case it is on the side as E6 It will have b0 = E6, b1 = E5, b2 =
D6, b3 = F6 and the steps outlined above are carried out as appropriate.
After having the set of analogous wells that determined the tool, the minimum and maximum potential
is established within the wells obtained in order to know the range of potential for the analogous wells, in
turn in the tool the information of these is shown. It has within the database in the graphical interface in
order to observe the rest of its parameters.
In Figure 10, the last step is shown inside the tool where the user only has to click on the button to
generate and obtain the analogous wells in the red box and the range of estimated potential as explained.
SPE-198974-MS 9

Figure 10

Now of wanting to perform the second method, the Joshi equation is used to estimate the IP of the plan
well and by means of the Vogel equation the estimated potential at which it finally gets the name of the pre-
drilling potential is determined. The selection of this method is shown in Figure 11

Figure 11

The current way of calculating the IP does not comply with the behavior of the reservoir under study,
which is for an already saturation state, it means that the reservoir pressure is below the bubble point and
for its calculation it is recommended to use the Vogel equation.
It should be noted that the estimated accumulated oil production (Np) in FPO varies between 1,000.00
BN to 1,500,000 BN for each well and are the figures currently used by the EEII team and with which they
obtain an average vertical drainage area of 32 acres. However, due to the production history of the field,
it is known that the Np can be greater than 1,500,000 BN, which is why in the database there is a column
with the Np figures of the field wells (updated until November, 2017) so that when obtaining the analogous
wells. In the first method, the Np codes of said wells are visualized to have approximately when they have
been produced and thus be able to take a more exact reference value to the reality of the area and conditions
to which the plan well is directed.
It should be noted that for method 2 all equations are in the code within the tool, so the Engineer must
only enter the parameters and the tool will calculate the potential alone.
10 SPE-198974-MS

Finally, the user only has to click on generate and obtain both the calculated IP and the Pre-drilling
Potential, in addition it will show if the potential is outside or within the range established in method 1 of
the analogous wells.
Potential Post-Perforation Calculation. For the creation of the tool in this second part of phase I, it was
carried out by a single method for the optimal and real calculation of post-drilling potential.
The method consists in using the Joshi equation to know the IP, taking into account the formation damage
or Skin factor due to the perforation and also modifying the parameters such as: effective lateral length and
actual contacted sand thickness, that is to say, the values that were determined after drilling.
In the tool the user must only enter all the necessary values for the equations and with that they perform the
calculations as mentioned previously in method 2 of part 1, for the calculation of the pre-drilling potential.
To conclude phase I, the tool ends up developing a comparison between the potential obtained in method
2 by the Vogel equation and the Joshi IP with respect to the range of potential obtained in method 1 of the
analogous wells. In part 2, compare the pre-drilling potential with respect to the post-drilling potential.

Phase II: Potential Adjustment

It is opportune for the development of this methodology to give priority to the realization of the IPR curves
of the reservoir because through them the contribution data of the reservoir can be obtained. To perform
these curves for a saturated reservoir as is the case, it was necessary to use the Vogel equation, one of the
necessary parameters for the calculation of this equation is the current reservoir pressure.
For this phase within the tool it is necessary for the engineer to enter the 4 databases pre-established:

• Pressure History

• Production Distribution

• Properties of the reservoir

• LOWIS in it the main thing is the pressure data at the pump inlet.

The tool algorithm calculates several reservoir parameters based on the data provided.
Steps to follow for phase II. The tool algorithm design captures the databases and the user starts the
calculations when entering them.
In Figure 12, the step-by-step tool for potential adjustment is shown

Figure 12
SPE-198974-MS 11

In this step, the greatest interest is to define the current reservoir pressure (Pyac) value to perform the
IPR curves. To calculate the current Pyac the following methodology is performed:

• Based on the pressure history provided by the well sensor, the tool algorithm is designed to filter
those wells with the RPM data at zero, this in order to see how the pressure restoration acts Repeated
data is discarded since the pressure recording made by the sensor is taken at different times during
the same day.
• It was established for the design of this algorithm as a time criterion 10 days necessary to obtain
the static pressure values and with this an analysis can be performed in order to obtain the Pyac,
this filter is made by means of the difference of dates in the pressure recording at the time that the
meter obtains 10 days, select this pressure as a valid point for the study with 10 continuous for
the restoration of the pressure.
• Once this filter has been made and the static pressure obtained at that point, the tool searches the
associated NP in the production distribution database.
At the end, there will be a table of static pressures that meet the established criteria and provide the Np
associated with each of them to obtain the graphs Pressure Vs Np, as shown in Figure 13

Figure 13

After estimating the current reservoir pressure, the IPR curve can be generated using the Vogel equation
using the Joshi equation as the calculation of IP as explained in phase I. The Vogel equation gives the rate
for each of the pressure ranges, it should be noted that for this step the database of the properties that are
vital data within the Vogel and Joshi equation is necessary for the calculation of the rate. After performing
these calculations, the IPR curve is performed.

• Next, it is necessary to intersect the IPR curve to obtain the pressure data that were established
through agreements between the reservoir and optimization equipment. There are several important
points at the intersection they are:
Point 1: Suction pressure (PIP) is calculated by the following formula:
Psum = PIP — PCAB
Where:
PIP = Pressure at pump inlet (psi)
Pcab = Head pressure (psi)
Psum = Pump immersion pressure (psi)
Taken to the limit suggestion pressure (150 psi) established by the regulations of the Huyapari field, the
head pressure of the determined well is taken from the database.
12 SPE-198974-MS

This calculated PIP is the first point to be evaluated in the curve with which the ideal potential worked
at the limit suggestive pressure will be obtained.
Point 2: In the database there are the values of suction pressures of each of the wells either by the bottom
sensor or by the fluid level intake and this pressure represents the pressure at which the well is producing.
Two rates are obtained thanks to these two points, which are taken as a reference to establish the current
production given by point 2 and the estimated potential of the well under conditions of the submergence
pressure limit given by point 1.
An example of the intersections in an IPR curve is shown in Figure 14

Figure 14

Presentation of Data and Results

Results of the Analysis of the Current Potential. From the information obtained from the various work
teams, an analysis of the database that tracks the production potential was carried out and it was obtained
that from a total of 801 wells that appear in the database which are classified as follows way in Table 1

Category N° Wells Potential

A 113 Above 350 BN

B 348 Between 349 - 150 BN

C 340 Under 139 BN

It was determined that 570 wells have more than 300 days without modifying the potential, corresponding
to 71% of the total wells in the field. It should be noted that the standard methodology established to update
the potentials, as explained in Chapter III, determines that all category A wells must be tested monthly,
every category B wells every 3 months and category C wells every 6 months.
Table 2 shows the percentages of the wells according to each category that have not been modified or
potential, which correspond to 570 wells throughout the year 2018 and 2019

N° Wells Category Percentage

66 A 58,4%

229 B 65,80%

275 C 80,88%
SPE-198974-MS 13

A high percentage of wells that have not modified or updated the calculations of production potentials
can be observed. This is the result of the lack of well tests in recent years, since without the test it is difficult
to know the current contribution of the well and if it is optimized reaching its production potential at a
stable operating condition.
Results of the error study. The information provided on the drilling campaigns was analyzed and the
calculations were carried out, resulting in an example of the 2018 campaign: 70 wells were drilled in 12
pads of which only the potential pre and post drilling, 8 wells representing 11.4% of the total wells, 36
wells where the potential was overestimated being 51.4% and 26 wells their potentials were underestimated
which contributes 37.1% of all the wells of The drilling campaign.
Tool Results. To demonstrate the applicability of the equations described, an example was made for each of
the phases; With this process, knowing all the necessary information for the algorithm and even the answers
by the EEII and reservoir teams, it will be possible to determine if the algorithm is effective or not.

Phase I: Potential Pre-Perforation Calculation

The graphical interface was made in Qt Designer, using the objects (Widgets) as buttons, to make it more
practical for the engineer to use.
Execution of the tool: the algorithm will calculate several reservoir parameters based on the information
entered in the interface. For this, one must have knowledge, no matter how minimal the site and its basic
characteristics. In order to present the results in this phase, well P1 was selected to visualize the calculations
developed by the tool.
To perform the method of the analogous wells, the "P" pad will be taken as an example using the
methodology
The "P1" plan well is located in the center area of the field and aims to be drilled in the N1 sand
corresponding to the lower reservoir.
This well has the following information in Table 3 to compare the values of its properties and establish
analogous wells that meet the percentage of coincidence:

Lw planned 4556 pies

H planned 30 pies

Φ 0.3

Sw 0.12

Match Percentage 20%

In the interface, the user must select the files as shown in the Figures 16 and 17
14 SPE-198974-MS

Figure 16

Figure 17

It is here that you must enter the data that the algorithm will use for your mathematical calculation. For
the algorithm to work, the percentage of coincidence must be selected and thus the following analogous
wells are obtained for the plan well as shown in Figure 18:
SPE-198974-MS 15

Figure 18

The tool provides the information of the similar wells found as shown in Table 3, (NaN means value not
found for those wells in that variable). And finally the tool provides the range of potential achieved by the
analogous wells as shown in Figure 19:

Figure 19

The range of potential obtained is 450 to 1100 bpd, with the minimum potential value being that of well
P5 and the maximum potential value of P4.
In the studies by the EEII team for this method they establish the comparison by reviewing the production
of the current rates of the neighboring pad to the south and it shows crude oil rates higher than 1000 bpd,
the well neighboring well of well P1, however drilled in another sand with a shorter horizontal section
across the entire 2874-foot and 52-foot thickness, currently producing 970 bpd on average. The neighboring
east, shows an average production of 600 bpd, but it has horizontal sections on average of 3400 feet and
thicknesses between 20-30 feet, being the wells of lower potential east of the thicker pad and lower ANP
contact than that observed in well P1.
The tool did not show the wells of the other pads as analogous wells because they did not comply with
the filter belonging to the same sand, so it is understood that the EEII study was directed those wells that
had similar characteristics and that are drilled in sands near the target of well P1 and the range found by
EEII was 600-1000bpd.
16 SPE-198974-MS

Now the study of the potential is carried out by the second method, by using the Joshi equation to estimate
the value of the IP and the Vogel equation to know the pre-drilling potential, the necessary data from well
PI for these calculations They are shown in Table 4:

Pressure 990 psi

Temperature 125 °F

Viscosity 2348.8 cps

K 11.100 mD

Well P1 was estimated by the EEII team initially with a potential of 600 bpd, this evaluation was made
based on a thickness of 30 feet and an effective length of 4108 feet. The fluid properties of the crude in
this well at the time of the plan indicated that original pressures of 990 psi were expected, viscosities in
the order of 2500-3000 cp.
Using the planning parameters for well P1, the values are entered in the tool as shown in Figure 20:

Figure 20

The tool performs the calculations and obtains a potential plan of 966 bpd which is within the potential
range found in method 1, with an IP of 3.2 bpd / psi.
This calculation with respect to the calculation by the reservoir team varies 366 bpd, but the post-drilling
calculation must then be performed to estimate the revised potential.

Phase I Calculation of Post-Perforation Potential

Tool Execution. For the calculation of the Post-Perforation potential, the same previous procedure of
method 2 for the pre-drilling calculation is performed, only giving the tool the actual values obtained after
drilling as shown in Figure 21:
SPE-198974-MS 17

Figure 21

Obtaining a potential of 902 bpd by the tool coinciding in 93% with respect to the calculated in the
potential plan by the tool.
The post-drilling potential has a difference of 64 bpd below the plan potential, this is because after the
drilling, the value of the viscosity of the fluid was higher than that of the planning, the reservoir pressure
decreased, the thickness contacted later of the drilling was 5 feet above the planned and a final lateral length
of 9 feet more than the planning.
The EEII team when performing this study obtained a post-drilling potential of 1100 bpd, which with
respect to the initial potential calculated by its team was 600 bpd, which results in a difference of 500 bpd,
having a coincidence of 55%. On the other hand, the pre-drilling and post-drilling potential calculated by the
tool coincided 93% with a difference of 64 bpd only and coinciding with the estimation of the potential range
by the analogous wells in phase I, which allows verifying the efficiency and accuracy provided by the tool.

Phase II Potential Adjustment

To present the results and analyzes carried out in this phase, which corresponds to the adjustment of the
potential of the wells, a well was taken as an example.
The example well was P2 since it is located in the center area of the field drilled in the N1 sand
corresponding to the lower reservoir, this well has a bottom sensor communicating with LOWIS. It has a
potential of 160 bpd currently registered according to the registry of the potentials that the reservoir team
carries.

Python Algorithm Design and tool execution

The values of net oil sand (ANP), current reservoir pressure (Pyacact), as well as other petrophysical and
fluid properties, were studied in a particular way in each well in order to know the characteristics that are
presented in its vicinity, since this directly affects your productivity.
To start the tool interface, as a first step the user must enter the pre-designed databases so that the tool
can generate the calculations.
These databases are used to create the graphs of P vs Np, which seek to determine the current reservoir
pressure per well.
They are divided into different databases due to the large amount of information within them. As an
example in the pressures button, the database of the well you wish to study is selected and you will have
a record of your pressures taken by the sensor that are recorded at various times of the day and in turn the
speed of the pump that had the well at that moment of pressure taking.
The LOWIS database is to create the intersection in the IPR curve by the current background pressure
data measured by the sensor or by taking the fluid level. The database of properties to create the IPR curve
18 SPE-198974-MS

using the Vogel equation by Joshi's IP. The values of the properties that are used in the aforementioned
equations need to be registered.
The tool, as the first calculation step, searches the database for the well under study and its database
of pressures recorded by the sensor since its inception. With the method proposed the analysis for the
current reservoir pressure is performed, where the first filter for RPM = 0 is performed. Repeated dates are
eliminated (since the sensor records information at different times of the day) and the continuous 10-day
count is made with the well off to obtain a static pressure point, thus continuing the tool until it ends with
the base of data for that well. Subsequently, when obtaining all the static pressure points found and their
dates respectively, it performs a search in the Production Distribution database to obtain the Np that each
previously selected static pressure point had, this phase is carried out so that the dates that coincide for both
cases, after having the static pressure and Np at the same date, these points are plotted to achieve a trend
within the pressures, this trend is calculated under a line, where by means of the equation of the line you
can achieve the current reservoir pressure using the current Np.
These graphs are shown in Figure 22 and 23 for well P2

Figure 22

Figure 23

As a result for this example, a current reservoir pressure of 535 psi was obtained.
SPE-198974-MS 19

Now, as a second calculation within the tool, it is sought to create the IPR curve that starts from the
current reservoir pressure decreasing by 50 psi to achieve the Background Pressure (Pwf) values that will
be used in the Vogel equation. The Joshi equation is used to calculate the IPs of the horizontal wells, since
it considers parameters such as the anisotropy of the reservoir, its petrophysical properties, the horizontal
section of the well and the properties of the fluid that significantly affect productivity in the horizontal wells.
However, the calculated IP according to the Joshi equation was introduced as a characteristic IP in the
Vogel equation to generate the IPR curve using Vogel. For the IP calculation, the property database is used to
extract the necessary parameters requested by the equation. For the intersection, the database from LOWIS
is used where there is a suction pressure of 343 psi recorded by the background sensor at which in the
cut with the IPR curve generates a rate of 188 bpd this would be the estimated current production of well
P2. Now to calculate the ideal potential it is carried out by means of the submergence pressure to achieve
the suction pressure, where the following well parameters are obtained. Table 5 shows the pressure values
recorded by this well at the time of the study

Pwh 120 psi

Submergence Pressure 150 psi

Suction Pressure 270 psi

These data are used to intersect the IPR curve and obtain the theoretical production potential of the well
which corresponds to 241 bpd.
On the other hand, in the study, the IP of the well were obtained as results, being 1.17 BPD / PSI and
current reservoir pressure of 534 psi, so a stable drawdown of 264 psi is estimated at stable conditions of
the submergence pressure.

Conclusions

• This computational tool allows you to perform potential calculations in a more practical and simple
way. The implementation of the tool facilitates the analysis of the optimization of the wells of the
field reducing the time to only 120 seconds to perform the calculations.
• The percentage of error in the calculations is reduced from the results obtained using the basket of
selected wells; thus increasing the certainty and reliability of the values obtained in the optimization
of the potential through the computational tool since the value of the average error obtained is 7%.
• The coincidence in the calculation of potential is 55% average for the methodology used by the
EEII team, the coincidence by the tool is 93% average.
• Although the tool was made to be applied in the Huyaparl field, it should be noted that its
methodology and implementation is not limited only to this field, but that it has a wide applicability
range to be used in fields with different characteristics.
• With the proposed methodology, the pressure values of the current reservoirs were determined
analogously, thus obtaining a more real value and adjusted to the requirements of production
optimization.

Acknowledgments
This work was possible thanks to the help of the departments involved in the implementation of the tool
and the adjust of the potential in the Huyapari Field.

Nomenclature
API Specific Gravity in API degrees
20 SPE-198974-MS

ANP Net Oil Arena

% AyS Water and sediment percentage.
Bo Petroleum Volumetric Factor, BN / BY.
BCP Progressive Cavity Pumps
BPPD Oil Barrels per Day
Wcut Water Cut Percentage
F Degrees Fahrenheit
FPO Orinoco Oil Belt
H Net Formation Thickness, feet.
Kh Effective Horizontal Permeability, mD
Lh Effective horizontal length, feet.
Pb Bubble Pressure, psi.
PIP Pressure at pump inlet, psi.
Pyac Reservoir Pressure, psi.
Pwh Head Pressure, psi.
Pwf Flow Pressure Background, psi.
Ql Liquid flow rate, bpd.
Qo Oil Flow, bpd.
Rd Drained Petroleum Radio, in.
S Training Damage (Skin)
Sw Water Saturation,%.
Uo Viscosity of Petroleum, cp.
VSH Clay Volume

References
PDVSA. (2013). Determination and monitoring of oil production potential. Vol. 3. Manual of integrated reservoir studies.
Anzoátegui.
Rivas, G. (2014). Determination of the percentage of production decline of the Huyaparí field reservoirs, block h,
belonging to the Orinoco oil belt, Anzoátegui State.
Fragoza, M. (2013). Optimization of the production of heavy and extra heavy oil in wells with artificial lifting by
mechanical pumping and pumping of progressive cavities of the Orocual field, Monagas State.
Marin, M. (2018). Optimization of the production in wells of a heavy oil field in the southeast area of the eastern basin
of Venezuela. Caracas.
Sclumberger. (2019). Glossary of Terms: Well tests.
Nind, T. (1987). Fundamentals of production and maintenance of oil wells. Mexico.
Economides, M., Hill, A. and Ehlig-Economides, C. (1994). Petroleum production systems United States of America.
Prentice Hall Petroleum Engineering Series.
Vogel, J. (1968). Inflow performance relationships for solution gas drive wells. JPT
Joshi, S. (1991). Horizontal Well Technology. United States of America. PennWel Publishing Company.