IPA18-219-E

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Forty-Second Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2018

IMPROVING THE UNDERSTANDING OF LONG TERM BEHAVIOR OF A MAJOR

FRACTURED BASEMENT RESERVOIR THROUGH MATERIAL BALANCE STUDY

Mugie Ginanjar*
Hani Mohede*
Martin Mlacnik*

ABSTRACT our understanding of the reservoir, further reduces

The Suban field is one of the largest gas fields in
South Sumatera producing from fractured pre-
tertiary basement, sandstone and carbonate
formations. Throughout the life of the reservoir
subsurface data acquisition such as static gradient
surveys, pressure build ups and production logging
tools have been continuously used to improve
reservoir characterization. Originally data
acquisition was concentrated on wells in flank areas
to address the risk of aquifer influx and in-place
uncertainty.
As the recovery factor increased, aquifer influx and
in-place uncertainties have been significantly
reduced, and focus has shifted to reservoir
connectivity and individual well performance. The
field is starting to reveal more complex internal
connectivity than the originally assumed single-tank
behavior. Additionally, measurements of well
deliverability have been historically limited by well
test equipment and facility constraints, resulting in
significant uncertainty of the actual shape of
individual well inflow performance relationships
(IPRs) at lower pressures. Future data collection
needs to be designed to address these uncertainties,
and the dynamic reservoir model must be adjusted to
capture the range of their impact on future
performance.
This paper will present the recent changes to the data
collection and reservoir surveillance program. It will
discuss the updated strategy of static pressure
collection and testing of well performance. Recently
gathered data has been combined with geologic
information and used to build a dynamic reservoir
model for the Suban field. This model considers
uncertainty from reservoir connectivity and well
deliverability. We will show the results of a
comprehensive performance uncertainty analysis.
The outcome of this modeling study helps to improve
* ConocoPhillips (Grissik) Ltd.
uncertainty in original gas in place, and characterized
the uncertainty in the production forecast for various
development scenarios. Furthermore, it helps to
refine the newly implemented strategy for future data
acquisition in the Suban field.
INTRODUCTION
Suban field is located in Corridor Block production
sharing contract (PSC) in South Sumatera that is
operated by ConocoPhillips Grissik Ltd. (CPGL).
The field was discovered in 1998 and has been
placed-in-service since 2003. The producing
formations are fractured pre-tertiary basement,
sandstone and carbonate formations. Suban field
contributes more than 70% of total sales gas from
Corridor Block. The field covers approximately
22,400 acres of area with about 1000m of gross
thickness (Mohede, et al, 2014). Suban field is gas
condensate reservoir with condensate gas ratio
(CGR) yield about 11 STB/MMscf. The field
temperature is ranging from 280-360 deg F. The
current field recovery factor (RF) is about 50% of its
original gas-in-place (OGIP). Based on bottom-hole
static pressure trend, Suban is subdivided into three
areas – West, Central, and East. The West and
Central area are in pressure communication while
East area is mostly isolated through interpreted
stratigraphic barrier. Figure 1 is showing the depth
structure map of Suban field at top of Pre-Tertiary
Basement.
Historic water production and salinity measurement
suggest that the field is only producing the
condensed-water without any evidences of formation
water breakthrough. It is also supported by straight-
line P/z plot which strongly indicates that the Suban
field is behaving like depletion drive reservoir.
However, the uncertainty around the presence of
water breakthrough and OGIP have been carried-out
as the main risk in developing Suban for many years.
Therefore, the data collection strategy has been
focused on the wells at periphery of the field.
Recently, a new perspective of data collection
strategy in Suban has been evaluated based on the
recent bottom-hole data analysis. Complex internal
connectivity and well deliverability understanding
are observed to be the key parameters of driving
long-term Suban performance and future
development strategy.
This paper will demonstrate a thorough analysis of
Suban data by developing multi-tank material
balance model to improve the understanding of long-
term reservoir behavior, especially on internal
connectivity and well deliverability, which is found
to have significant impact to the recovery of the field.
The analysis also provides a strong basis to refine
new strategy for the future data collection program.
MBAL software has been used to assist the analysis.
HISTORIC DATA AND INTERPRETATIONS
Suban field has been produced for about 14 years and
currently producing from 13 wells. Suban gas
production history is shown in Figure 2. Suban
Phase-2 project was online after four years of Suban
Phase-1 project. The project increased the processing
capacity of the plant by more than double from
phase-1 capacity. After that, there were two
optimizations in the plant, Suban beyond name plate
and Suban by-pass, to further increase the capacity.
Production decline seen in 2014 is not reservoir
driven but demand driven. Low demand period
occurs and the production allocation strategy in
Corridor Block was changed causing Suban to
become a swing field. It forces Suban to reduce the
production even though the maximum well
deliverability (MWD) is exceeding the plant
capacity.
Suban wells are producing at high rate, ranging from
20 to 180 MMscfd at Plant Inlet Pressure of 1250
psig. Given the facility constraint, the Inflow
Performance Relationship (IPR) of the wells can
only be tested at above 1250 psig. Hence, the
uncertainty around the IPR shape below 1250 psig
arises. Figure 2 also shows that the main contributor
to production are the wells located in the West area
of the field since the fractures are more developed
compared to Central and East areas.
Water production rate and water gas ratio (WGR) are
shown in Figure 3. From the figure, WGR of Suban
is observed to be increasing. However, based on
routine salinity measurement, it is confirmed that
produced water is only from water condensation.
This analysis is also supported by McKetta and Wehe
correlation which predicts water condensation
profile in the reservoir. The calculation of condensed
water from the equation fits to the actual WGR
profile which further confirms that produced water is
only condensed water not formation water.
Static gradient survey (SGS) is the primary data to
observe reservoir depletion in Suban field. The
selected wells were shut-in for 3 days before
running-in the gauge to ensure the stabilized
wellbore condition and reservoir pressure. Also,
three sets of bottom-hole gauges (lower-mid-upper)
were combined to reduce gauge accuracy
uncertainty. All Suban wells are equipped with
SCADA system which enable to retrieve real-time
wellhead data from the wells. Therefore, shut-in
tubing head pressure (SITHP) data is occasionally
used as secondary source in the absence of SGS.
Historic SGS program was concentrated on
peripheral wells to assess aquifer risk. The bubble
map that shows well’s location and number of SGS
presented in Figure 4.
Figure 5 shows the P/z plot for West – Central and
East area of Suban. A complex behavior of Suban
field has been observed in the last 2 years after new
infill well in East area comes online. West-Central
areas previously assumed to be single tank reservoir
with variation in the data considered as low and high
data points. The lines drawn from low and high data
points considered as low OGIP and high OGIP
respectively. A line drawn in the middle of data
considered as mid OGIP. The Suban East area shows
complex reservoir connectivity behavior which
being shown by the variation on reservoir pressure.
Interference tests to analyze the connectivity
between wells were conducted multiple times
during 2000 – 2003 period. The summary of the
test was presented in Figure 6. The communication
in direction of major faults are strong in the west
area (S-4, DM-2, S-8) but weaker in the East area
(S-5, S-3, S-2) due to the quality of the reservoir
deteriorates from West to East. There is a
communication across the major fault from West
area to Central area (S-4 & DM-2 to S-6) but is
observed to be weaker. Based on the results, it is
suggested that West and Central areas are in
pressure communication but separated from East
area. A stratigraphic barrier is interpreted to
separate the Central and East area (Mohede, et al,
2014).
RESERVOIR MODELING AND
FORECASTING
Multi-Tank MBAL Model Generation
A multi-tank material balance modeling approach
has been implemented to capture long-term forecast
uncertainty due to reservoir connectivity behavior
and well deliverability (IPR shapes) at low pressure.
This was done using MBAL software from
Petroleum Experts. A mixture PVT which already
account for impurities, condensed water and
condensate is fed into the model. The approach to
model PVT mixture is using Sutton correlation for
hydrocarbon gas mixtures, Kay’s mixing rule for
adjusting nonhydrocarbon content, Beggs & Brill for
Z-factor and Lee et al for gas viscosity. Production
history input using well by well basis will improve
the workflow of analyzing various number of tanks
in the reservoir which are suitable to historical
pressure data. Pressure data are primarily coming
from SGS data converted to certain datum depth.
P/Z History Matching, OGIP ranges
Suban material balance model is divided into 2 big
areas, West-Central area and East area. This division
is based on interference test which suggest West and
Central areas are connected but separated from East
area. Therefore, the P/z analysis of West-Central and
East area can be interpreted separately. Trial and
error approach was done to get suitable tank
configuration and transmissibility to match historic
data. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show comparison of P/z
vs Gp matching from West-Central areas as well as
East area using 2 and 3 tanks model. From the
figures, it is suggested that 3 tanks model from both
areas have superior matching. Therefore 3 tanks
model is selected as the basis for further analysis.
Single-tank model is not suggested as the data clearly
shows multi tanks behavior. On the other hand, there
is currently no strong justification to suggest more
than 3 tanks. This analysis, however, can be changed
if the future data suggests differently. Better data
acquisition strategy will help us to reduce the
uncertainty in the future.
Sensitivity analysis was performed on the OGIP
value by changing the configuration of tank OGIP
and transmissibility between tanks, to see whether
the simulation P/z can still match the historical data.
After numerous iterations, we observed that we could
have similar P/z history match using different sets of
tanks OGIP (Figure 9) even though only small
variations of total OGIP were observed from these
configurations. This suggests that the total OGIP
estimation from material balance model is robust.
Well Deliverability Modeling, IPR Limitation and
Sensitivity, Rate and THP Matching
Well deliverability model is generated by surface
performance matching (Rate-THP match). To do
this, in MBAL, “Manifold Pressure per Well Model”
must be selected in prediction options to constraint
the production on well by well basis. If this is not
selected, the constraints of prediction will be on field
level. Thus, we cannot perform wells matching in
rate and THP on each well. Trial and error analysis
then conducted on IPR parameters to get THP match.
Figure 10 is the last 2 years of THP matching
example of several wells in Suban. These results
suggest that the well deliverability model for Suban
had been well generated and the material balance
model is in good shape to forecast future gas
production. The other wells are having similar
matching quality to the wells presented in the figure.
However, due to high deliverability wells in Suban
field, the true shape of IPR especially at low
pressure, frequently cannot be estimated accurately.
This happens due to rate limitation in well testing
equipment and pressure limitation in the facility.
Figure 11 is the example of actual data if plotted in
the IPR chart. The data only covers small percentage
of potential absolute open flow (AOF). As
consequences, 3 shapes of IPR curves can be drawn
(as example low, mid, high) with similar high-
pressure regime rate-THP matching quality. The
impact of this uncertainty will be addressed in the
following section.
Long Term Reservoir Forecast: OGIP and IPR
sensitivity Impact to Forecast
One of the simplest method to understand the
significance of the uncertainty is to use it to predict
the production forecast. Both OGIP and well
deliverability uncertainties which are mentioned
above will be used to predict production forecast
using various development scenarios. There are
currently four (4) development scenarios planned for
Suban field. The scenarios are:
1. As is, no additional project.
2. Install Compressor
3. Install Compressor and 1 future well
4. Install Compressor and 2 future wells
Figure 12 shows production forecast result of 4
development scenarios above based on OGIP
uncertainties while Figure 13 is showing the results
based on well deliverability uncertainties. Stronger
variances of decline period and decline rate are
observed from well deliverability uncertainty. Figure
14 is summarizing the range of EUR impact. The
impact of the well deliverability uncertainty is almost
double the impact of OGIP uncertainty based on raw
gas recovery. Both uncertainties, however, have
significant effect to the field especially to the
fulfillment of the current demand as well as the
ability to capture potential future demand. Therefore,
future data acquisition strategy must be refined to get
better understanding of the long-term behavior and
reduces uncertainties.
FUTURE DATA ACQUISITION STRATEGY
SGS and PLT Data Acquisition Strategy
Historic data acquisitions are concentrated on
peripheral wells due to aquifer concern. With
diminishing needs to monitor aquifer (because no
evidence of water influx until recently), and
increasing needs to better characterize reservoir
tanks, it is important to acquire data not only in the
periphery wells. Newly refined strategy of SGS and
PLT data acquisition for future years has been
communicated to management. Over the years, the
data will be more concentrated on area of interest to
anticipate the interpretation of additional tanks in
material balance model and to support the analysis of
future development wells.
Production Test Beyond Current Limitation
Current facility pressure will limit the ability to
estimate the full shape of the well’s IPR especially at
low pressure. As mentioned before, the impact from
this uncertainty is significant to the long-term
production behavior. This behavior will dictate our
ability to fulfill current demand as well as capture
potential new market. Therefore, it is critical to
acquire the production data beyond current facility
limit.
The project to test the wells beyond facility limit is
ongoing and had been discussed with production
engineer, operations and facility engineer. Flare
system in the plant will be used to test the well with
much lower THP without distracting current
processing facility. Slight modification is necessary
to bypass the system and connect separator directly
to the flare. This modification will make the project
able to test high deliverability wells and will not
create any potential hazard to the gas processing
system in the plant.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Multi-tank material balance model has been
generated to analyze the range of original gas-in-
place, internal connectivity and well deliverability of
Suban, which strongly affects the long-term
production behavior from the field. The model
performed well to capture more complex
connectivity than the originally assumed single-tank
behavior thus reducing the uncertainty of OGIP
range. On the other hand, well deliverability model
has been matched to actual rate-THP profiles but
limited to small portion of AOF due to system
constraints. Both connectivity and well deliverability
uncertainties have significant impact to the recovery
and thus the future development plan of Suban field.
To further reduce the uncertainty of connectivity and
well deliverability, newly refined data acquisition
strategy and production test beyond current facility
limitation have already been planned. This will
enhance the accuracy to predict the long-term
production behavior and boost our confidence to
fulfill current and future market demand.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank ConocoPhillips
Grissik Ltd., Corridor PSC partners (Talisman
(Corridor) Ltd., PT Pertamina Hulu Energi Corridor,
PT Pertamina EP) and MIGAS for permission to
publish this technical paper. We also would like to
thank all ConocoPhillips colleagues which names
cannot be mentioned one by one who support the
authors in many technical discussions to makes this
paper complete.
REFERENCES
Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H.D., 1974, Two-Phase Flow
in Pipes, paper presented at the U. Tulsa
INTERCOMP Course, The Hague (1974)
Kay, W.B., 1936, Density of Hydrocarbon Gases and
Vapors at High Temperature and Pressure, Ind. Eng.
Chem. (1936) No. 28, 1014
Lee, A.L., Gonzales, M.H., and Eakin, B.E., 1966,
The Viscosity of Natural Gases, JPT (August 1966)
997, Trans, AIME, 237
McKetta, J.J.Jr., and Wehe, A.H., 1962,
Hydrocarbon/Water and Formation Water
Correlations, Petroleum Production Handbook, T.C.
Frick and R.W. Taylor (eds.), SPE, Richardson,
Texas (1962)) II, 22.
Mohede, H., Malick, K., and Tyberoe, G, 2014,
Suban-South Sumatra Giant Fractured Gas Reservoir
Development and Challenges, Proceedings of the
Indonesian Petroleum Association Thirty-Eight
Annual Convention and Exhibition, May 2014
Sutton, R.P., 1985, Compressibility Factors for
High-Molecular Weight Reservoir Gases, paper SPE
14265, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sep 1985
Whitson, C.H., & Brule, M.R., 2000, Phase Behavior
(Vol.20, SPE Monograph Series), Richardson,
Texas: Henry L. Doherty Memorial Fund of AIME,
Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Figure 1 - Suban top Pre-Tertiary depth structure map. Generally, Suban is divided into West, Central and
East Area.

 
Figure 2 - Suban gas production history. Most contributors of production are the well in West area due to
higher deliverability. Several projects increase the capacity of the plant overtime. Decline of
production is due to demand driven not reservoir driven.

Figure 3 - Water production and water gas ratio of Suban. Increasing water gas ratio fits with the line from
correlation of condensed water prediction from reservoir.

 
Figure 4 - Static Gradient Survey (SGS) location and count bubble map. Peripheral wells have more data
acquisition than wells in the middle.

 
Figure 5 - P/z plot of West-Central and East areas. Recent data in West-Central and East areas suggest
compartmentalization or internal connectivity might be more complex than previously assumed.

Figure 6 - Interference test summary. West-Central areas are in pressure communication but separated from
East area.

 
 Figure 7 - West-Central Areas P/z match using 2 and 3 tank model. 3 tank model suggested to have better match

 
Figure 8 - East area p/z match using 2 and 3 tank model. Similar with West-Central areas, 3 tank model suggested to have better match because it honors the most
recent data

 
.

Figure 9 - Sensitivity of OGIP with different configuration of West and central OGIP. With different value
of transmissibility between tanks, all 9 cases could be matched to historic pressure data. However,
the total OGIP remains similar for all cases.

 
Figure 10 - Good THP matching of several wells in Suban. Other wells having similar quality of matching. Note that this matching is the results of forcing the rate of
the well in the model to the actual rate.

 
Figure 11 - IPR derived from actual data for Suban-15 well (converted to bottom-hole). Due to pressure limitation, only small percentages of AOF is captured by
actual data. Therefore, the uncertainty of actual shape of IPR is quite significant. Low-mid-high IPR having similar match to actual data.

 
 Figure 12 - Resulted forecast from 9 cases of OGIP configuration using 4 development scenarios. Similar production behavior is observed for all 9 cases.

 
Figure 13 - Resulted forecast from low mid high well deliverability (IPR) estimation. Observed different production profile with different decline period and decline
trend of produced gas.

 
 Figure 14 - Gas recovery impact derived from max – min total gas recovery. Observed both impacts are
significant with stronger impact coming from well deliverability uncertainty.
Scenario 1: Suban as is, Scenario 2: Suban as is + Compressor, Scenario 3: Suban as is +
Compressor + 1 well, Scenario 4: Suban as is + Compressor + 2 wells.