THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

STATISTICAL RESERVOIR ANALYSIS

WHITEPAPER

The University of Edinburgh, May 2011

Statistical Reservoir Analysis
This document is an outline description of a new technique to aid Enhanced Oil Recovery.
Statistical Reservoir Analysis or SRA is a revolutionary analytical technique developed in the
School of Geosciences at the University of Edinburgh by Prof Ian Main, co-workers and
industrial partners. The University holds a patent in the technique and is considering
commercialising it in the form of a software product with associated services via a spin out
company supported by commercial investors.

The purpose of this document is to brief prospective customers and to solicit their feedback
as to commercial value and future development priorities. Please visit our website
www.recoveryanalytics.com to take a short survey on the applications, software
requirements and value which you perceive for SRA. Results will directly inform the choice
on whether to proceed.

For further information, please contact:

Laurence Ormerod v1lormer@staffmail.ed.ac.uk +44 797 725 1290

Reservoir Engineering Advisor

David Richardson djcr@ed.ac.uk +44 794 135 4159

Senior Business Development Executive

Professor Ian Main ian.main@ed.ac.uk +44 775 733 3462

Principal Researcher

Summary
Getting more oil from reserves already discovered, by the processes known as Enhanced Oil
Recovery, is the first of the three actions listed by BP that will lead to the third trillion barrels
of oil being recovered1. In this article, Tony Meggs, BP's group vice president for
technology, notes that:

"For example, a one per cent increase in recovery factor from BP's reservoirs would
yield an additional two billion boe”, and “On a worldwide basis, a conservative five per
cent increase in recovery would yield an additional 300-600 billion boe."

The article goes on: “The analogy is that inside the reservoir is like being in a maze of
streets with only one lamppost every 50-100 acres - the lampposts are the wellbores
into the reservoir. Apart from the light from the occasional lamppost, all the other
streets are in darkness. If we could illuminate those streets too, we could see what is
happening between the wells. Given the massive digitisation that is taking place now,
this will happen in time. The reservoir will become a digital virtual reality and we will be
able to walk through it to optimise oil depletion and manage oil fields more effectively.”

1
See http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9019304&contentId=7035201
SRA uses data mining methods applied to production data in order to obtain new insights
into reservoir management issues. Well to well production performance correlations are
discovered by sophisticated statistical analysis.

The key outputs from SRA concern inter-well connectivity. Correlations between near-
neighbour wells are to be expected. Using SRA, distant well pair correlations can also be
revealed. These relate to high conductivity flow paths and/or to geomechanical coupling
over much larger ranges than typically assumed. Conversely, absence of correlations
between near neighbours can be indicative of the presence of flow barriers. Thus SRA
brings insights which can have major impact on reservoir recovery strategies such as well
locations and offtake strategy, and which are highly complementary to reservoir simulation.

What is unique about SRA is its use of existing production data (~3 years’ worth), generally
available at no extra cost in every hydrocarbon field, to obtain reservoir insights which are
quite independent of geoscience-based reservoir models and simulators.

The SRA technique has been applied in a number of application areas, which are
summarised on the next few pages. Each application segment has a name, short
description, and an example figure. The maturity of the application is shown using
Technology Readiness Level (TRL)2:

1. Inter-well Communications

Detect high conductivity flow paths which Example: Green coloured wells correlate with
may result in significant sub optimal the selected red coloured production well.
recovery. TRL 2. Each well can be analysed in this same way.

Example showing principal component

analysis of correlations, generated by SRA,
overlain on a fault map:

Example showing field-wide correlation

directions, compared to the local stress field:

2
See Appendix A Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), per API RP 17N
2. Fault Sealing
Detect barriers to flow by using SRA to
observe low correlation between - establish
boundaries of compartments. TRL 1.
Example showing local wells which correlate
(red) or do not (green) with a given
production well (blue), showing sealing fault
candidate (dashed line, plot on right)

3. Inter-well Communications (in time

lapse mode)

Detect changes in high conductivity flow

paths which may demand changes to
depletion strategy. TRL 1.

Example (right) shows changes over the

field life detected by SRA, and probably
related to hydraulic fault activation.

4. Local preferred flowrate direction

Determine local preferred directionality of

flow from production data. TRL 2.

Example (right) shows diffusivity tensors

interpolated between wells, from SRA.
 5. Inter-well Communications
combined with full geomechanical
modelling.

Detect and resolve between high hydraulic

and geomechanical conductivity flow paths
which may result in significant sub optimal
recovery. TRL 2.

Example (right) shows coupled reservoir –

geomechanical simulation with (black
overlay) SRA correlated well pairs. Shows
well correlations coincident with high stress.

6. Short-term Forecasting.

Generate 3 month forecasts based on

historical production correlations. A “smart
decline curve” which includes well to well
impacts as well as individual decline rates.
TRL 2.

Example (right) shows SRA forecast based

on historical production.

7. Production Optimisation. Initial test has shown behaviour such as

closing one well can increase net production.
Optimise allocation of production or of
limited injection fluid so as to maximise
production. TRL 1.

Software Implementation
There are two main ways in which SRA could be provided as a commercial product:

1. Provide a core SRA Engine and integrate this with clients’ existing applications or
standard industry packages. To access SRA functionality, users will get an interface
with a look and feel similar to that of an application they currently use. Access to data
by the SRA Engine is provided seamlessly through the current application.

2. Provide a standalone product. A new and common user interface is provided to

access SRA functionality, while client-specific data needs to be accessed directly by
the SRA Engine.

Broadly, the first of these is probably easier for users but at the cost of having different
integrations with each different existing products. The second is lower in cost but means
that the customer may need to spend more time getting data into and out of the SRM
application. There will also be the need to install and maintain the new standalone software.
Background
The background to SRA comprises a number of phases of work over the past few years.
Details of the results of this research are given in the section Summary of Research
Findings:

1. 2000-2, SRA was first developed as a concept at UoE with initial funding by BP and
NERC.

2. 2002-5, project COFFERS. This phase was to develop and prove up the SRA
technique specifically as applied to geo-mechanical changes in reservoirs. It was
supported by Amerada-Hess, BG, BP, Conoco-Phillips, TotalFinaElf, Kerr-McGee,
Shell and Statoil via the UK industry technology facilitator (ITF). 2 field studies were
performed: Gullfaks and Kuparuk. A patent was filed at the end of this phase.

3. 2006-8, project RESURGE. This phase was to further prove up the SRA method in
field trials, sponsored by the UK BERR/Technology Strategy Board. The aim was to
examine a wider range of fields for geo-mechanical changes related to production.
The technologies were applied to 5 oilfields located in the North Sea from the North
Viking graben to the Central graben [Gullfaks (StatoilHydro) re-analysis; Magnus (BP);
Miller (BP); Valhall (BP); Scott (Nexen)].

4. 2008-10, some consulting projects were requested and performed. In one fractured
chalk field well communications were provided for the prime purpose of assisting
reservoir model history-matching – feedback on how these communications were
utilised in further reservoir studies will be solicited during the market research exercise.
The other consultancy application is partially completed (it is currently waiting on
refined dataset from the Operator). A short analysis indicated that surface pressures
at the platform might be used to as proxies for flowrate to calculate correlations
provided that injectivity indices were not too high.

5. 2010-11, commercialisation assessment funded by NERC is being made with the aim
of forming a spin-out company to supply SRA software and services.

Applications of the SRA Technique

SRA is a technique which uses data mining methods applied to production data in order to
obtain new insights into reservoir management issues. Approximately 3 years’ worth of
production data is generally required to apply the technique.

The technique has been applied in a number of application areas. These are listed below.
The name of the application is in bold font, and a short description of its purpose follows:

1. Interwell Communications. Detect high conductivity flow paths which may result in
significant sub optimal recovery.

2. Fault Sealing. Detect barriers to flow - establish boundaries of compartments.

3. Interwell Communications (in time lapse mode). Detect changes in high conductivity
flow paths which may demand changes to depletion strategy.
4. Local preferred flowrate direction. Determine local preferred directionality of flow from
production data.

5. Inter-well Communications combined with full geomechanical modelling. Detect and

resolve between high hydraulic and geomechanical conductivity flow paths which may
result in significant sub optimal recovery.

6. Short-term Forecasting. Generate 3 month forecasts based on historical production

correlations.

7. Production Optimisation. Optimise allocation of production or of limited injection fluid

so as to maximise production.

8. CCS Trap Verification. Contribute to validation of integrity of CO2 trap.

Some of these are relatively well-established; some have had research and some are at the
concept stage. A fuller description is provided below in the section Summary of the
Applications.

The SRA Technique Explained

The principle behind SRA is simple. The flow rates of individual wells are influenced by the
flow rates of other wells in the same field. This seems obvious for near-neighbour pairs of
wells. However, what SRA can be used to reveal is, for all the wells, which ones have an
influence on each other and which ones do not. These correlations are quantified.

There are a variety of kinds of result which SRA can reveal, depending on what aspect and
processing of the mined production data is used. These have been outlined above, and
more details on the underlying geoscience and engineering principles are provided in this
section.

SRA Principles
SRA can be thought of as a data mining exercise based on data which is already collected
and reported and used for the important task of well production allocation.

SRA is based on the statistical analysis of reservoir production data. Monthly well test or
allocated production data can be used and over time (of the order of 36 months) these will
contain “hidden” correlation patterns between wells which SRA can reveal.

The SRA technique, which is patented, uses a Bayesian information model to extract the
most meaningful correlations from the whole set of well data. The parsimonious nature of
the method means that computations can run in a few hours on a desktop computer and that
the most meaningful well pair correlations are extracted.

The first few principal components of the regression matrix describing the response of each
well to all the others represent coherent modes of well rate fluctuation across the field. They
can be interpolated over the areas between wells (using geomechanically-based
interpolation functions) and plotted as maps to reveal a network of paths through the
reservoir along which coherent fluctuations occur: because some of those paths overlay
major faults, the most rational explanation is that the faults or fault zones are being
activated, with displacements that are probably very small, but sufficient to change
conductivities. Analysis of the correlations between close wells can reveal preferential flow
(effective permeability) directions. The same underlying technique can also be used to
detect flow barriers between close wells by finding an absence of flow correlation. The
regression coefficients can be used to forecast production or to optimise it.

Inter-well communication Applications

SRA reveals and ranks the interactions between all wells. There are two physical
mechanisms that can explain high inter-well interactions:

A. The wells are connected by high permeability channels, possibly of sedimentological

origin, or due to fracture corridors or fracture zones around faults. These can create
preferential flow paths through the field, which can have a drastic effect on secondary
recovery efficiency.
B. The well connections involve mechanical coupling, in which the flow at either well is
associated with stress and strain changes which are part of field-scale alterations in
stresses and strains. The strain changes affect the permeability and hence
production. Even though the communication may be due to coupled hydro-
mechanical processes and conductive paths that are not necessarily continuous
between wells, the practical result of this phenomenon can again be large changes in
secondary recovery efficiency.

We have not provided definitive diagnosis between these explanations for well pairs in close
proximity. Further information from the field in question (e.g. tracer data for known flow
paths) is important to make a geoscientific interpretation; this may prompt attention to
geomechanical details in the field hitherto not considered. However, the surprising result
commonly observed in trial studies to date is that wells which are quite distant can correlate
to each other, in addition to wells which are near neighbours. For those long-range
correlations, direct hydraulic communication of type A within the same month would imply
levels of permeability that are generally inconsistent with the observed values obtained from
conventional tests; some component of geomechanics coupled with fluid flow is a much
more likely explanation. An important indicator is that the orientation of the remote
correlations tends to be related to the direction of principal horizontal stress, which itself is a
factor in fault activation processes. A combination of SRA with coupled reservoir simulation -
geomechanical modelling will aid diagnosis of the connection type, but would have to be
done externally to the proposed company. Instead the technique can determine whether to
first order such an exercise would be necessary.

Both mechanisms can have large implications for preferential flow paths during secondary or
tertiary recovery schemes, and hence the future offtake strategy.

When used in this manner in a time-lapse mode, SRA can be used to determine changes in
inter-well communications. Such changes can be brought about by changes in the
geomechanical conditions in the reservoir as average pressures change with unbalanced
depletion or injection. This can lead to changes in conductivity on individual faults or
between different faulting trends. The value of this information again is in identifying and
understanding physical changes which may demand a response in reservoir development
strategy if the recovery is to be optimal.
Local preferred flowrate direction
This extension of SRA uses the analysis of correlations between local wells to establish the
local preferred flow direction (effectively governed by the 2-D permeability tensor). This can
have a dramatic impact on recovery in water floods.

Fault Sealing
The Fracture Paths application concerns interactions between surprisingly distant wells. The
opposite effect can also be observed – that comparatively near-neighbour wells do not show
any correlation of production flow rates. One explanation in this case is that a flow barrier
exists between the pair of wells. This application of SRA (currently the basis of a research
project) can be used to detect flow barriers and hence trace the boundaries of reservoir
compartments and find which wells share a common compartment. This technique is
valuable since it is derived entirely from production data and is therefore independent of
other compartmentalisation indicators. The main value is in determining future well locations
and secondary recovery strategies.

Short-term Forecasting
A further application of the SRA is that it may be used to predict performance in a short term
forecast, based only on historical data and the results of the statistical analysis. The method
is automatic and compares favourably with other forecasting methods over a period of about
3 months’ ahead. This is because instead of projecting the decline of each well, the
influence of each well on the others is included. So for example a shut-in well will influence
the production of other wells – and this effect will be included in the forecast.

Production Optimisation
In a similar manner to the short term forecasting application, the optimum allocation of
injected water or gas in secondary recovery schemes can be determined from the regression
correlations between production and injection wells in the historical data set. This
application is only at the conceptual stage but is one believed to have much promise since it
is based on actual production and requires no reservoir model, although conventional
simulation may be desirable to test the longer-term consequences of changes indicated by
the optimisation.
Summary of the Applications
The following table shows the applications for SRA. For the key to the TRL (Technology Readiness Level) see Appendix A.

Application Candidate field attributes Value Addition Data/system Requirement Skills requirement TRL
typical

Inter-well An advantage if known Identify faults and high conductivity Production data, good Reservoir simulation 2
Communications fractured but not requirement. flowpaths otherwise unseen until allocation. OR monthly well skills with basic
Vertical wells desirable (if early breakthrough. Use to tests. PLT desirable if statistical background.
horizontal, PLT). Widely constrain reservoir simulation horizontal. Well locations,
vertically spaced layers not history match and inform reservoir geological maps. Use of
ideal. Approx. 3 years recovery strategy. Guide to infill reservoir simulation useful.
production. ~20 wells +. drilling.

Fault Sealing Vertical wells desirable (if Identify compartments. Ensure Production data, good Statistics awareness. 1
horizontal, PLT). Widely injectors are supporting producers. allocation. PLT desirable if Fault seal
vertically spaced layers not Improve well placement and infill horizontal. Well locations, awareness/geology.
ideal. Approx. 3 years locations. geological maps. Field
production. ~20 wells +. uses reservoir simulation.
Fault seal analyses.

Inter-well As for Inter-well Identify changes to faults and high As for Inter-well Strong geomechanical 1
Communications Communications. Longer- conductivity flowpaths, caused by Communications. 4D knowledge (growing
(in time lapse term data set useful. changes in geomechanical seismic very useful. trend).
mode) properties. These would otherwise
not be seen until early
breakthrough.
Application Candidate field attributes Value Addition Data/system Requirement Skills requirement TRL
typical

Local preferred Vertical wells desirable (if Identify preferential flow directions Production data, good Reservoir engineering 2
flowrate direction horizontal, PLT). Widely (~ permeability tensor) which can allocation. PLT desirable if skills with basic
vertically spaced layers not impact secondary recovery by horizontal. Well locations, statistical background.
ideal. Approx. 3 years several % points. Use to constrain geological maps. Awareness perm
production. ~20 wells +. reservoir simulation history match tensors, waterflood and
and injection pattern. Guide to infill simulation implications.
drilling.

Inter-well An advantage if known As for Inter-well Communications Production data. PLT Strong geomechanical 2
Communications fractured but not requirement. plus: High level of constraints on desirable if horizontal. Well knowledge (a growing
combined with full Vertical wells desirable (if geomechanical simulation, leading locations, geological maps. trend).
geomechanical horizontal, PLT). Widely to higher level of confidence in Use of geomechanical
modelling vertically spaced layers not results. simulation. Stress data inc.
ideal. Approx. 3 years breakouts, micro seismic,
production. ~20 wells +. wave propagation
anisotropy.

Short-term No changes to production Potential for automatic, model free, Production data, good Low requirement, use 2
Forecasting strategy over matched and data driven forecast at very low allocation. Shut in forecast as black box.
forecast period. High enough extra effort. Black box. Can 3 months ahead.
susceptibility to interference include downtime scenario. "Smart"
within ~3 month period. decline curve plus interference.

Production No changes to production Unique and very quick discovery of Production data, good Reservoir management 1
Optimisation strategy over matched and opportunities to change allocation. Water cuts if skills with basic
forecast period. High enough offtake/injection allocation to water optimisation statistical background.
susceptibility to interference increase production. Subject to objective. Injection
within ~3 month period. reservoir depletion strategy constraints.
validation.
Summary of Research Findings
1. 2002-5, project COFFERS. This phase was to develop and prove up the SRA
technique specifically as applied to geo-mechanical changes in reservoirs. It was
supported by Amerada-Hess, BG, BP, Conoco-Phillips, TotalFinaElf, Kerr-McGee,
Shell and Statoil via the UK industry technology facilitator (ITF). 2 field studies were
performed: Gullfaks and Kuparuk. A patent was filed at the end of this phase.
The results of the COFFERS project were:

A. Long-range correlations in well rate fluctuations were observed in both fields.

B. Interpretation of long-range fault reactivation due to perturbation of pressure was

supported by geo-mechanical simulations with the reservoir near a critical point.

C. Principal components of correlation matrix (most important modes of rate

fluctuations across all wells) show patterns that overlay major faults in the fields:
these were interpreted as hydraulically-reactive faults.

D. Some relationship of high correlations with local stress was observed, but not as
clear as for injector-producer pairs as in previous BP studies.

E. A good history match, and successful prediction of production rates were made.

F. Patent filed (UK patent application 0524134.4, 26/11/2005), Publication: Main et

al (2006)

2. 2006-8, project RESURGE. This phase was to further prove up the SRA method in
field trials, sponsored by the UK BERR/Technology Strategy Board. The aim was to
examine a wider range of fields for geo-mechanical changes related to production.

The technologies were applied to 5 oilfields located in the North Sea from the North
Viking graben to the Central graben [Gullfaks (StatoilHydro) re-analysis; Magnus (BP);
Miller (BP); Valhall (BP); Scott (Nexen)], with the following results:

A. The long-range nature of rate correlations was again generally found, consistent
with the concept that the physics of fluid flow in reservoirs entails not only Darcy
flow, but also hydro-mechanical changes near a critical point. Nevertheless it is
difficult to definitively rule out the possibility that long-range correlations arise
from field-wide influences that are not reservoir-related but due to changes in
topside parameters or maintenance downtimes.

B. A new technique of extracting rate diffusivities was developed: these compare

very encouragingly with independent (microseismic and casing collapse) data
from the Valhall field.

C. A coupled geomechanical-flow model of the Valhall field was built and found to
be consistent with the analysis of rate correlations and with independent field
data.
 D. The SRA was verified in prediction of short-term production rates through a
refereed ‘blind test’ applied to data from the Gullfaks field3.

E. A possible geomechanical boundary effect was modelled that would explain

observed rate correlations from one side of a field to the other.

F. The patterns of orientational distributions of rate correlations from all 5 fields

were consistent with induced shearing on faults or fractures as an inherent
mechanism of reservoir communication.

G. Changes in the orientational patterns of rate correlations from fields in the north
to those in the south of the North Sea were consistent with known changes in the
stress state regimes.

H. Successful application of the technologies were made to a field (Valhall) that was
undergoing primary depletion, rather than secondary recovery schemes hitherto
analysed.

I. Time-lapse behaviour of rate correlations (Spearman rank using daily rate data
in 5-year tranches) was calculated for the Magnus field: that indicated changes in
principal modes of fluctuation, with the main trends of patterns varying with time
from along field axis to across field axis back to along field axis. This behaviour
was tentatively ascribed to changes in the stress regime as general reservoir
pressure fell during early depletion and then increased again with cumulative
water injection.

J. In addition maps, tables and vectors of inter-well communications were made

available for each of the fields: these can be used in history-matching, production
optimisation or other exercises in reservoir management. Geomechanical
models have been built for 3 of the fields that help explain the rate analyses and
can be further developed for explanation or prediction of coupled
geomechanical-flow processes.

3. 2008-10, some consulting projects were requested and performed. In one fractured
chalk field well communications were provided for the prime purpose of assisting
reservoir model history-matching – feedback on how these communications were
utilised in further reservoir studies will be solicited during the market research exercise.

The other consultancy application is partially completed (it is currently waiting on

refined dataset from the Operator). A short analysis indicated that surface pressures

3
(Reservoir Deformation Research (RDR, associated with the University of Leeds) were asked to act as
independent referees to compare production predictions for the Gullfaks field with actual measured production
rates. RDR were supplied independently with the flow rates predicted by the SRA (from University of
Edinburgh) and the actual flow rates (known only to the operator StatoilHydro) for the first 3 months beyond
the end of the calibration period. RDR found that more than 70% of the production figures for individual
wellbores lay within the predicted 95% intervals; as expected, the error between predicted and observed rates
increases with time. This 70% success rate may have increased had a shorter history-match over steadier
behaviour been performed. However, since conventional reservoir simulations typically require far larger
numbers of parameters, fair comparisons with the SRA have yet to be drawn.)
 at the platform might be used to as proxies for flowrate to calculate correlations
provided that injectivity indices were not too high.

4. 2010-11, commercialisation assessment is being made with the aim of forming a spin-
out company to supply SRA software and services.

Limitations of the technique

Surface Conditions
Given that surface changes do occur frequently in practice, an issue often raised in
presentations to operators is whether the correlations in rate changes are dominated by
correlations in the changes in surface conditions; or by signals passing through the
reservoir. The characteristics of correlations in field data that we have examined to
date indicate the latter, viz:

• zero-lag correlations are stress-related and often fault-related; the chance of such
associations if influences from surface facilities were dominant is intuitively very small
over the very large number of well-pairs that we have analysed.

• correlations are often strong for wellpairs separated by large distances, where they
have no connection in the surface facilities

• the first few principal components from the overall correlation matrix (which 'explain'
most of the variance in the fluctuations') have been examined for patterns that reflect
just injectors, just producers, or wells on the same 'pad': no strong indication of such
has been found.

Obviously, if changes in surface conditions are to influence rate correlations significantly,

then they need to be consistently (anti-)correlated between wells over a substantial history of
the field. Our data preparation incorporates preventative measures that reduce the potential
correlations that might arise from shut-ins involving multiple wells such as annual
maintenance downtimes etc.

Nevertheless, even if surface-derived contamination of the correlations has been seen to be

low on average over a large amount of data, it could be significant in individual situations,
and all apparently strong inter-well communications that result from our analyses should be
examined in detail for such a possibility as a post-hoc quality control measure. If reliable
and complete histories of choke-settings are available for a field, then their correlations
might also be calculated for comparison with the rate correlations; unmeasured erosion of
chokes is a problem for that purpose of course.

Flowrate Quality Data

There are also concerns about the quality of some flowrate data. Although field total
production rates are metered to a reasonably high accuracy, allocation of rates to the
individual wells in a field generally has a degree of uncertainty. However, unless the errors
fluctuate such that they correlate between wells, which seems unlikely, this is not thought to
be a critical factor in applications of the SRA; the characteristics of applications to date, as
listed above, also supports this.
Other
• Horizontal wells present a difficulty for providing an areal map of interactions purely
because their subsurface locations are extended: this can be ameliorated if there is
independent information available about the profile of flow along the wellbore, which
would allow calculation of a mean weighted location to represent the well as a point on
the map.

• If the wells in a field are arranged in a particular pattern, such as a ‘line drive’ (parallel
lines of alternating producers and injectors), investigation of the possible
communication paths across the reservoir may be limited. Nevertheless, calculating
long-range correlations provides a reasonable tomographic coverage.

• The interpretation that high correlation paths which coincide with fault traces implies
geomechanical activation of those faults is consistent with the long-range nature of the
correlations as well as other theoretical considerations; however the possibility that the
faults are acting as sealing membranes with no time variation in properties has not
been definitely ruled out, but a time-invariant permeability is not consistent with the
pattern of behaviour of correlations as time-lag is varied.

Figures
Figure 1 Interwell Communications example output:

Tabular presentation of output from SRA Map of first principal component

(independent mode of rate fluctuations that
‘best explains’ variance in fluctuations across
all wells), superimposed on field fault map,
indicating strong role that particular faults
have in field behaviour
Map showing green coloured wells Field-wide correlation directions, compared
correlated with the selected red coloured to the local stress field direction.
production well. Each well can be analysed
in this same way.

Figure 2 Fault Sealing example output: showing local wells which correlate (red) or do not
(green), showing sealing fault candidate (dashed line, plot on right)
Figure 3 Inter-well Communications (in time lapse mode) example output: change
(between the early and later production histories) in the first principal component of the
matrix of binary correlations between individual well pairs (1=significant correlation output
from SRA; 0=no significant correlation)

Figure 4 Inter-well Communications (in time lapse mode) example output: (top) time
progression of 1st principal component from daily data, showing changes in the trends of
communications across a field. The changes are possibly explained by geomechanical
changes induced by the severe changes in average reservoir pressures during this period
(bottom).

Figure 5 Local preferred flowrate direction example output: (top left) epicentres of micro
seismic events recorded in a crestal well in the Valhall field plotted alongside the major axes
of rate diffusivity tensors (inferred to be related to local preferred flowrate directions) inverted
from the time behaviour of rate correlations; (top right) zoom in on crestal area to show that
the orientations of the local rate diffusivity axes agree with the linear trends that can be
picked out from the cloud of microseismic events; (bottom right) further zoom in on 2 clusters
isolated by Teanby et al (2004) in which the shear wave splitting of individual events was
analyzed. The directions of fast shear waves (indicating fracture strike) are shown together
with the rose diagrams of the orientational distribution of these directions for either cluster
which display the 2 main trends of the local diffusivities. Also added in the bottom right is the
composite focal mechanism inverted from the micro earthquakes by Zoback & Zincke (2002)
indicating normal faulting on planes striking parallel to the solid red line (or possibly the
dashed red line).

(Bottom left) diffusivity tensors interpolated between wells.

 Figure 6 Inter-well Communications combined with full geomechanical modelling
example output: (left) Map of the RMS values of induced inelastic X-Y and Z-Y shear strains
at the end of modelling time from the VISAGETM coupled model of Valhall depletion. These
values are representative of the degree of normal shear on sub-vertical faults or fractures.
The superimposed rate diffusivities derived from the Spearman rank rate correlations of the
raw rate histories show high values in similar locations, implying that the diffusivities are
derived from faults and fractures activated in normal shear; (centre) first principal component
of Spearman rank rate correlations across field, interpolated with special functions; (right)
overlay of left and centre plots.

Figure 7 Short-term Forecasting example output: (left) flow rate for an individual well
showing 95% confidence intervals (green lines) from fitted model over history and predicted
for 20 months into the future, compared with the actual well production (blue); (right)
comparison of the actual and predicted (with confidence intervals) flow rates for individual
wells over 3 months of forecast; dashed red line represents perfect prediction.

43 171
month month

References
1 Main, I.G., L. Li, K.J. Heffer, O. Papasouliotis & T. Leonard (2006). Long-range,
critical-point dynamics in oilfield flow rate data, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L18308,
doi:10.1029/2006GL027357.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/imain/igmpapers/grl2006main.pdf

2 Heffer, K., X. Zhang, N. Koutsabeloulis, I. Main and L. Li (2007). Identification of

activated (therefore potentially conductive) faults and fractures through statistical
correlations in production and injection rates and coupled flow-geomechanical
 modelling, Society of Petroleum Engineers, paper no. 107164, 9pp.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/imain/igmpapers/spe2007heffer.pdf

3 Main, I.G., L. Li, K. Heffer, O. Papasouliotis, T. Leonard, N. Koutsebaloulis and X.

Zhang (2007). The statistical reservoir model: Calibrating faults and fractures, and
predicting reservoir response to water flood, in Jolley, S., Barr, D., Walsh, J.J. & Knipe,
R.J. (eds.), Structurally Complex Reservoirs, Geol. Soc. London special publications,
292, 469-482. http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/imain/igmpapers/geolsoc2007ch25.pdf

4 Zhang, X., N. Koutsebaloulis, K. Heffer, I. Main and L. Li (2007a). Coupled

geomechanics-flow modelling at and below a critical stress state used to investigate
common statistical properties of field production data, in Jolley, S., Barr, D., Walsh,
J.J. & Knipe, R.J. (eds.), Structurally Complex Reservoirs, Geol. Soc. London special
publications, 292, 453-468.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/imain/igmpapers/geolsoc2007ch24.pdf

5 Zhang, X., Koutsabeloulis, N.,C., Heffer, K.J., (2007b), Hydro-Mechanical Modelling of

Critically Stressed and Faulted Reservoirs, AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, no. 1 (January 2007),
pp. 31–50

Appendix A Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)

Per API RPI 17N

TRL Category Level Description

0 Concept Unproven Basic R&D, paper concept

Concept

1 PoC Proven Concept Paper study or R&D experiments

2 PoC Validated Experimental proof of concept using physical

Concept model tests

3 Prototype Prototype System function, performance & reliability tested

Tested

4 Prototype Environment Pre-production system environment tested

Tested

5 Prototype System Tested Production system interface tested

6 Field System Production system installed & tested

Qualified Installed

7 Field Field Proven Production system field proven

Qualified