IPA12-G-085

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Sixth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2012

FLOW UNITS CHARACTERIZATION AND APPLICATION OF MATRIX EXPONENTIAL

VALUE (‘M-VALUE’) TO IDENTIFY SECONDARY POROSITY IN CARBONATES:
A SUCCESSFUL STORY TO IDENTIFY BY-PASSED OIL AND INCREASE PRODUCTION

Budi Abrar*
Fajar Wisaksono*
Achmad Soendaroe*
Harkomoyo*

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

This paper documents a technique for identifying
remaining or by-passed oil in carbonate reservoirs
utilizing Log (porosity and permeability prediction)
and Core (porosity and permeability measurement,
SCAL “m”) data to identify secondary porosity
from “m-value” where porosity and permeability
have high heterogeneity.
This procedure integrates porosity and permeability
from core and m- value to identify Flow Units
characterization. The result can be extrapolated to
other wells that have no core analysis data.
The deductive method uses permeability and
porosity provided to fill training data value as log
data partitioning. The logs data do not directly
measure the reservoirs or formation, but they are
derived from logs after calibration with core data.
This method is ordered to achieve a high level of
confidence analysis.
This paper presents a case study of application of
Flow Unit characterization method to increase oil
production at PH23 field and also demonstrate that
the Flow Unit characterization can be extrapolated
to other wells that have no core data. Various Flow
Units can be used to detect bypassed oil zones and
reservoir quality.
Up to now, the result of Flow Unit characterization
in PH23 Field has been relatively in-line with core
data measurements. A significant production
increase was achieved after re-perforation based on
this method.
* PT. Pertamina Hulu Energi – West Madura Offshore
This paper discusses and evaluates a method to
define and identify Flow Units with Rock Quality
Index (RQI) and Flow Zone Indicator (FZI)
approach. The main idea was to derive potential
reservoir intervals from the Flow Unit (FU)
characteristics driven by FZI values. Various FU
values will reflect a unique gradient distribution,
cluster trends that represents the rock character in
fluid delivery.
The new direction in this study was utilization of
the matrix exponential(m-exp) data as the primary
tool to identify secondary porosity presence, where
m-exp was derived from Special Core Analysis
(SCAL) data via investigation of the Formation
Factor (FF) and core porosity, hence this m-exp can
be utilized to generate m-transform.
The m-transform can be applied to other wells
without core data in a particular field to identify
secondary porosity, especially in fractured or vuggy
carbonates. In carbonate reservoirs, saturation
values calculated from log data are often dubious,
with petrophysical exponentials m and n being the
major contributors to errors (E.L. Bigelow, 1995).
Determination of m-exp based only on a single
value or a constant, results in inaccurate calculation
of porosity or in some cases, values that are too
pessimistic. Consequently, significant contributions
to oil & gas reserves are often undetected in
carbonate reservoirs because the secondary porosity
is not recognized. With this method, the m-exp will
vary based on the reservoir characteristics, and it is
very applicable for a quick-look evaluation as a
“secondary porosity detector”
and a flow unit determination tool. Eventually, this
method will be a guide for selecting intervals for
work-over in old wells and for perforating new
wells prior production phase. The actual application
of this method applied in work-over operations (re-
perforation) in twoPH23 wells.
Two PH23 wells were chosen as a trial for this
method. These wells underwent a significant
pressure decline that led to a significant natural
influx decrease. By utilizing SCAL data from
PH23_B1 and PH23_B4, and generating FU, it was
shown that FU was able to categorize various rock
types. The previous perforations were not the best
FU depth intervals, and optimum oil production
wasn’t achieved. A new interval was perforated
based on new information from FU evaluation and
the wells realized a significant increase in oil
production, from 0 to +- 400 BOPD and +-10000
MSCFD up to now.
METHODS
Permeability-Porosity Correlation
Permeability is the principal characteristic to
identify or differentiate Flow Units (FU) in a rocks
or reservoirs, mainly in carbonates.(Shedid and
Almehaideb, 2003). Permeability values are
strongly related to porosity in the rocks or
reservoirs, hence is a significant influence on FU
values.
The process used in this study included
permeability prediction from core data (SCAL), and
subsequent classification into zones/ranges based on
gradient of FZI distributions.
Two core samples from PH23 wells were combined
with core samples from surounding wells. These
data were used to develop a permeability – porosity
correlationships. Then, the RQI and the FZI
methodsalong with the “m-Value” distribution
approach were applied and evaluated for FU
characterizatian of the Kujung carbonate reservoir.
The results show that the FU concept and m-Value
are capable of identifying the flow units and
secondary porosity.
This method had been applied on PH23 Field,
which has good reservoir, but production has been
declining. The producing reservoirs have been
experiencing pressure decrease leading to a natural
decreasing influx to the wells. This caused a
significant impact on production rate.
Generating flow units from SCAL data have
improved understanding of the heterogeneity of the
carbonate reservoir, which is dominated by vuggy
and fracture porosity in some intervals.
The flow unit calculations indicated that porous
intervals had not been produced or perforated. A
work-over (re-perforation) job was conducted to
produce these overlooked reservoir intervals.
Data for this study was derived from Routine Core
Analyses (RCA) and SCAL analyses, the principal
parameters for Flow Unit analyses. FZI and RQI
calculations indicate that permeability strongly
effects Flow Unit values. Permeability values were
derived from porosity values integrated into the
“power” relationship, where the porosity -
permeability transforms are critical. Generic
porosity-permeability transforms in Carbonate was
also done by Lucia, 1995 on Classification of
Carbonate Pore Space.
Based on the different characteristics of the
permeability-porosity relationships, the
permeability transform was employed in order to
obtain the five characteristics that indicate a
different reservoir.All available data for
permeability versus porosity are shown in Figure1.
A mathematical expression was developed relating
the two variables with correlation coefficients R2 of
0.83 – 0.99. It then follows:
K1 = 3304*Ø2.926
K2 = 569.3*Ø3.938
K3 = 1451.0*Ø3.745
K4 = 124.8*Ø3.309
K5 = 35.78*Ø3.088
These five relationships can be used generally
throughout the reservoir to predict permeability
using porosity data for this reservoir. Additionally,
for each single well, a separate correlation is
developed so that permeability around wells can be
better estimated. The developed permeability
correlations have very good correlation coefficients
(0.83 – 0.99), assuring confidence of a good
representative tool for predicting permeability.It is
the K5 relationship that enables prediction of
permeability in fracture or vuggy zones.
Various permeability integration formulas played
important roles in analyzing secondary porosity in
Kujung Formation, where one porosity value can
have a wide range of permeability values. The
variation of permeability values have indications of
secondary porosity, where high permeability had
fractures or vuggy porosity that contributed
significantly to additional oil production. This
anomaly was confirmed with the core data.
The current method is an improvement from the
previous analyses utilizing only a single value for
the permeability transform. As a result, the potential
for not recognizing oil bearing fracture zones was
very high. The improved resultis seen in Figure 2.
Porosity-Formation Factor Correlation as the
“m-Value” estimation
The SCAL data, m-Value was measured at certain
depths in the best reservoir intervals. This was only
done at the key wells in the field. (This was another
challenge to conduct this study, to derive horizontal
and vertical relationships at Kujung reservoir, as the
main producing reservoir, from a control well to
surrounding wells without core data.)
A regression analysis was utilized to determine
Porosity vs. Formation Factor relationship. A
regression function from core data was used as a
reference or new functions to predict m-Value. New
variables of m-Value must be calibrated with core
data. Based on Bigelow classification, m<2 will be
categorized as a fractured zone, while m>2 will be a
vuggy zone.
The Archie relationship for Porosity, Formation
Factor and “m” is defined as:
FF = 1/ Øm
Where, m = - log FF/Log Ø
In this study, the m-Value in the wells that have no
core data was calculated on the basis of equality
between the FF and porosity logs. A mathematical
expression was developed relating the FF and
Porosity Core variable with a correlation coefficient
R2 of 0.973. It is given as follows:
FF = 0.427*Ø-2.62
Rock Type and Porosity Type
E.L. Bigelow, 1995 -discussed carbonate rocks and
assigned to intergranular or intercrystalline porosity
those that have primary cluster at or near m = 2
response line. Oolitic limestone, chalks, and rock
types such as grainstone, packstone, wackestone,
and mudstone variety fall in this part of the
envelope.
Rocks assigned to m>2 or m<2 coefficients are
intercrystalline dolomites, limey-dolomites, sandy-
dolomites, or similar rocks that might also contain
evaporite. Grainstone and wackestone occur here
also, but boundstone is unique to the group.
Porosity description of vuggy, oomoldic, and
sucrosic fit the m>2 grouping. In carbonates, the
suggested values for “m” will vary, depending on
whether the m>2 or m<2 term was used. If rocks are
described as non-fractured, m>2 term was used and
the response line curves to the right, similar to the
Kujung variable m-equation. If rocks are described
as fractured, m<2 term was imposed and the
response line curves to the left because m is
severely affected by the conductive influence of
open fractures diminishes as matrix porosity
increases. (Bigelow, E.L, 1995 and Doveton, J.H,
2009).
Competent predictions of m-Value, require a large
quantity of data, ideally. In this study,since few
PH23 wells were cored, other data from
surrounding wells was integrated and combined
after careful correlation and examination.
Statistically, less data will result in greater
uncertainties. But, this study relied on the
description of the Core.
The RQI and FZI Technique to Identify
Reservoir Characterization
The heteregonity of carbonate rocks is highly
variable. To classify or distinguish each zone, a
Flow Unit evaluation was conducted using FZI and
RQI calculation.
Amaefule et.al developed a practical and
theoretically correct methodology to identify the
flow unit(s) constituting the reservoir of interest.
RQI and FZI function is given as follows:
FZI = RQI/ Ø, where RQI = 0.0034√K/ Ø
In the case study at PH23 field, the FZI andRQI
calculation is shown in Table1 and Figure4.Flow
Unit (FU) based on Porosity, Permeability and FZI
cluster is shown in Table 2.
Referring to zone division based on Core data, a
classification of Flow Unit based on FZI and RQI
can be finalized simultaneously. The same FZI
gradient will reflect on a same Flow Unit cluster.
Analysis of actual carbonate core samples from
Kujung reservoir was obtained.The obtained
porosity and absolute permeability data were usedto
develop a permeability-porosity correlation for this
carbonate reservoir, and also in calculating the FZI
and the RQI. In addition, these along with all other
measured data were used to investigate the validity
of the developed m-Value.
This method uses core data to describe the
variations in pore geometry within carbonate
reservoirs. This variation defines characteristics for
similar flow units.
The application of the FZI and/or the RQI concepts,
however, may or may not determine whether a
formation can be considered to have a single or
multiple ones.
It is well recognized that an improved and effective
reservoir description is a prerequisite for efficient
development of oil and gas reservoirs.
Analysis of “m-Value” (matrix exponential)
In 1942, G.E. Archie introduced that FR related to
pore volume by the well-known equation,
FF = a/Øm
Where
a = unit volume of reservoir rock (in most reservoir
rocks, Archie proposed that a=1)
Ø = pore volume
m = pore geometry factor
The math for the envelope’s variable m exponent is
simple, functional, and flexible enough to adapt to
the user’s own petrophysical number if necessary.
But, for better accuracy, the value of ‘m’ is
determined based on porosity-FF relationship, and
clarified by core data. In the equation below:
FR = 1/Øm, this is the first Archie equation where
‘m’ is known as the ‘cementation exponent’
and on a logarithmic scale, the Archie equation is
described by a straight line:
log F = -m.log Ø
m = - log F/ log Ø
Archie found the tortuosity of the pore system to be
proportional to the reciprocal of porosity (1/Ø) and
proposed ‘m’ as a cementation exponent. It should
be noted that ‘m’ is a parameter that allows the
tortuosity of the pore system to be correlated to a
measurable quantity, namely porosity.
The Core measurements results of Porosity, FF and
m-exp, can be seen in Table 3.
In Core Wells, m-Value isdefined by Archie
equation, ie m = - log F / log Ø
For wells withnocore data, porosity was obtained
from neutron-density logs calculationsand then
clarified bythe Core measurements. This calculated
porosity was used as a transform of the FF. As a
result, each well is represented indirectly witha
pseudo-F, which is then used inthe calculation of m-
transform.
Application to determine new perforation zone
The original perforation intervals in PH23 B-3 and
B-4 wells were not at the best FU depth intervals,
hence optimum oil production had not been
achieved. A new perforation interval was chosen
based on the information from new FU evaluation
and m-Value estimation.
Figure 5 and Figure 6illustrate the successful re-
perforation of the two wells. The result isthe latest
performance in perforated zones with a zone of FU
1 with a dominant value of m<2.
CONCLUSION
1. Flow Unit Characterization and m-Value
applications were able to reveal heterogeneity
in Kujung carbonate reef reservoir and
improved characterization enhancing oil & gas
recoverable reserves at PH23 Field.
2. The improved Flow Unit and m-Value provide
higher confidence for determination of new
perforation zones in heterogeneous carbonate
reservoirs.
3. Application of FZI gradient group/cluster also
represents the variance of actual carbonate
reservoir as shown by FU characterization.
4. The best perforation interval normally is
represented by FU 1 or FU 2 and dominate
m<2;demonstratedfrom the actual case at PH23
wells
5. This work has provided a significant production
increase with low cost allocation and quick
decision analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank everyone who have been
involved with development of the PHEWMO. We
particularly thank Doni Hernadi as Senior
Petrophysicist in Pertamina Hulu Energi, Adi
Benanjaya, Septian Diametrica, Ria Putra for
production and reservoirdata support, and the
remaining Exploitation and Exploration team for
their contributions. We also thank PT. PHE WMO
Management for their support and DITJEN MIGAS
for permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCE
Edward L. Bigelow, 1995, The Carbonate
Envelope, SPE 29515, presented at the SPE
Production Operation Symposium held in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 2-4, 1995.
Shedid A. Shedid, Reyadh A. Almehaideb, UAE
University, 2003, Robust Reservoir
Characterization of UAE Heterogeneous Carbonate
Reservoirs, SPE 81580, presented at the SPE 13th
Middle East Oil Show & Conference held in
Bahrain.
Amaefule, J. O.,Atunbay, M., Tiab, D., Kersey, D.
G., and Keelan, D., 1993, Enhanced Reservoir
Description: Using Core and Log Data to Identify
Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict Permeability in
Uncored Interval/Wells, SPE 26436, presented at
the 66th Annual Technical Conference
andExhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers held in Houston, Texas, p. 205-217
Archie, G. E., 1947, Electrical Resistivity as an Aid
in Core Analysis Description, AAPG Bulletin,
No.2.
Lucia, F.J., 1995, Rock-Fabric/Petrophysical
Classification of Carbonate Pore Space for
Reservoir Characterization, AAPG Bulletin, V.79,
No.9, P.1275-1300.
John H. Doveton, 2009, Reservoir Petrophysical
Log Analysis Course and Workshop, Bali,
Indonesia.
Rasmus, J. C., 1983, A Variable Cementation
Exponent, m, for Fractured Carbonates, The Log
Analyst, No.6
Watfa, M. And Nurmi, R, 1987, Calculation,
Secondary Porosity and Producibility in Complex
Middle East Carbonate Reservoirs, Trans., SPWLA
Twenty-Eighth Annual Logging Symposium,
London.
Ebanks, W. J., Jr., Scheihing, M. H. and Atkinson,
1983, Flow Unit for Reservoir Characterization,
AAPG., P. 282-289.
A Carnel, PT. Robertson Utama Indonesia, 2001,
Core Sedimentology KE-23B-1, prepared for
Kodeco Energy Company Limited in Jakarta,
Indonesia.
C.B.P. Cook, PT. Corelab Indonesia, 2002,
Geological Description Of Core from The KE-23B-
4 Well, prepared for Kodeco Energy Co. Ltd. in
Jakarta, Indonesia.
 TABLE 1 - THE FZI AND RQI CALCULATION IN PH23

Core Sample Ø (v/v) K (md) RQI FZI RockType

211 0,0990 0,018 0,013463 0,122529 5
217 0,1220 0,038 0,017501 0,125952 5
208 0,1180 0,043 0,018911 0,14135 5
113 0,2190 0,427 0,043845 0,156361 5
218 0,1380 0,093 0,025708 0,160579 5
206 0,0810 0,017 0,0143 0,162245 5
130 0,0390 0,002 0,006839 0,168516 5
220 0,0970 0,034 0,01859 0,173061 5
216 0,1280 0,107 0,028709 0,195579 4
312 0,284 1,76 0,078168 0,19707 4
215 0,1180 0,088 0,027055 0,202221 4
210 0,1030 0,058 0,023481 0,204493 4
203 0,1340 0,139 0,03198 0,20668 4
315 0,217 0,791 0,05995 0,216317 4
213 0,1180 0,108 0,03004 0,224537 4
212 0,1240 0,129 0,032027 0,226254 4
156 0,0430 0,005 0,010458 0,232755 4
201 0,1310 0,176 0,036396 0,241434 4
149 0,2630 2,27 0,09225 0,258509 4
101 0,2000 1,34 0,081277 0,325108 3
205 0,1220 0,256 0,045485 0,327344 3
126 0,1460 0,492 0,057642 0,337164 3
328 0,294 5,94 0,14114 0,338927 3
111 0,2000 1,46 0,084838 0,339353 3
207 0,1280 0,339 0,0511 0,348122 3
209 0,1170 0,260 0,046808 0,353263 3
204 0,1320 0,460 0,058617 0,385449 3
326 0,347 15,3 0,208502 0,392369 3
324 0,329 12,8 0,195856 0,399451 3
202 0,1560 0,886 0,074831 0,404857 3
117 0,2230 3,09 0,116884 0,407261 3
154 0,1890 2,16 0,106151 0,455496 2
103 0,1500 1,08 0,084255 0,477445 2
105 0,2050 3,33 0,126554 0,490781 2
148 0,2440 6,35 0,160185 0,496311 2
147 0,2110 4,05 0,137568 0,514411 2
143 0,1890 2,99 0,124892 0,535912 2
145 0,2570 9,16 0,187461 0,541959 2
322 0,333 25,3 0,273696 0,548213 2
118 0,2350 6,89 0,170022 0,553476 2
112 0,2280 6,63 0,169324 0,573326 2
129 0,1670 2,29 0,116276 0,579986 2
127 0,1320 1,05 0,08856 0,582349 2
120 0,2030 4,53 0,148331 0,582362 2
125 0,0880 0,283 0,056309 0,583571 2
313 0,256 10,7 0,203003 0,589976 2
131 0,1090 0,579 0,07237 0,591571 2
133 0,2050 5,43 0,161604 0,626709 2
102 0,1760 3,60 0,142012 0,664874 2
155 0,2190 7,93 0,188949 0,673831 2
137 0,1860 4,56 0,155473 0,680404 2
114 0,2130 7,59 0,187439 0,692558 2
142 0,2380 11,4 0,217317 0,695779 2
115 0,2080 7,26 0,18551 0,706363 2
325 0,303 29,2 0,308248 0,709071 2
135 0,1740 4,40 0,1579 0,74957 2
152 0,2240 11,1 0,221038 0,765739 2
139 0,1950 7,50 0,194735 0,803904 2
159 0,1870 6,92 0,191013 0,830445 2
302 0,321 50,4 0,393453 0,832256 2
307 0,288 33,7 0,339663 0,839723 2
157 0,1740 5,60 0,178135 0,845629 2
323 0,267 26,0 0,309857 0,850655 2
136 0,2240 13,9 0,247351 0,856893 2
150 0,1930 8,64 0,210091 0,878464 2
134 0,1760 6,32 0,188162 0,88094 2
160 0,1820 7,30 0,198864 0,893794 2
309 0,332 68,1 0,449712 0,904842 2
144 0,2300 17,9 0,277008 0,927374 2
327 0,306 52,1 0,409721 0,929236 2
305 0,320 65,9 0,450606 0,957539 2
319 0,231 19,4 0,287756 0,957941 2
318 0,333 78,3 0,481491 0,964428 2
301 0,313 65,9 0,455617 1,000029 2
158 0,2040 13,7 0,257321 1,004056 2
308 0,317 71,8 0,472566 1,018178 2
306 0,331 97,2 0,538082 1,087544 2
304 0,329 97,9 0,541655 1,104714 2
106 0,1550 6,52 0,203651 1,110229 2
138 0,1670 8,67 0,226246 1,128521 2
310 0,286 61,9 0,461947 1,153252 2
311 0,307 81,8 0,512551 1,156996 2
303 0,337 137 0,633104 1,245543 1 Frcs/Vugs
317 0,226 35,0 0,390759 1,338265 1 Frcs/Vugs
321 0,201 26,7 0,361899 1,438593 1 Frcs/Vugs
316 0,234 54,5 0,479203 1,568675 1 Frcs/Vugs
314 0,289 133 0,673607 1,657213 1 Frcs/Vugs
123 0,0760 1,49 0,139032 1,690341 1 Frcs/Vugs
141 0,1630 26,2 0,398095 2,044205 1 Frcs/Vugs
116 0,2040 75,1 0,602469 2,350809 1 Frcs/Vugs
320 0,158 35,8 0,472653 2,518823 1 Frcs/Vugs
TABLE 2 - FLOW UNIT (FU) BASED ON POROSITY, PERMEABILITY AND FZI CLUSTER

Flow Unit Porosity Perm FZI

FU 1 Mean 0.227 65.413 1.761

FU 2 Mean 0.230 22.612 0.776

FU 3 Mean 0.200 3.552 0.363

FU 4 Mean 0.151 0.512 0.219

FU 5 Mean 0.114 0.084 0.151

TABLE 3 - CORE MEASUREMENTS RESULTS OF POROSITY, FF AND M-EXP

Porosity m-exp
CorePlug FF
(V/V) (-log FF/log Por)
A1 0,32 9,41 1,96
A2 0,33 6,92 1,75
A3 0,33 7,67 1,83
A4 0,33 8,07 1,88
A5 0,28 13,35 2,05
A6 0,20 29,55 2,08
B1 0,22 23,50 2,11
B2 0,26 13,95 1,94
B3 0,26 13,26 1,93
B4 0,23 18,53 2,01
 Kujung Reservoir, PH23
Core Porosity vs Core Permeability

y = 3304.x2.926
R² = 0.844
100
y = 5693.x 3.938
R² = 0.978

10 y = 1451.x 3.745
R² = 0.832
Perm (mD)

1 y = 124.8x 3.309
R² = 0.985

0.1
y = 35.78x 3.088
R² = 0.968

0.01

0.001
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Porosity (V/V)

Figure 1 - Permeability versus Porosity Correlation and Regression (five characteristic permeability types
are defined)
 FracturePorosity

Vuggy Porosity

RockType 1
(best flow unit)

VuggyPorosity

Low Por and High Perm, indicate secondary porosity, M_measurement and M_transform is
and the rocktype is depicted by RockType 1 relatively match. M>2 (purple fill)
indicates vuggy porosity, M<2
indicates fracture (black fill)

Figure 2 -Calculated Values compared with Core Measurements

100

Formation Factor
PH23 CARBONATE

y = 0.4271x-2.62
R² = 0.973
10
1

0.1

Porosity

Figure 3 - Porosity versus Formation Factor Correlation and Regression

 PH23B_FZI on Carbonate Kujung
100
90 1
Sample Number 80
70
60 2
50
40
30 3
20 4
10 5
0
0.1 1 10
Flow Zone Indicator

Figure 4 -Five rocktypes based on FZI gradient changes

 PERFS.TREATMENT
PHE_KE23_B3
PH23_B3 dt

ROCK_TYPE2_PAT
140 US/F 40 VOL_UOIL_3
0 v/v 1
PEF_1 VOL_UGAS_3
0 B/E 10 0 v/v 1

VOL_DOLOM_3
cali LLD_1 drho 0 V/V 1
DEPTH

TVDSS
6 IN 8 0.2 OHMM 20000

PERF
-0.25 G/C3 0.25 VQUA_1
FEET

FEET
0 V/V 1

GR_COR_1 LLS_1 RHO_COR_1 m VOL_CALCITE_3

0 v/v 1
0 GAPI 150 0.2 OHMM 20000 1.71 G/C3 2.71 1.5 2.5
VOL_UBNDWAT_3
bs_1 MSFL_1 NPHI_COR_1 MA_KE23_1 0 V/V 1

6 IN 7 VOL_WETCLAY_3
0.2 OHMM 20000 0.6 V/V 0 1.5 2.5 0 V/V 1

7350

7375
5750

Add PerforatedAdd Perforate

Add Perforation based on FU_1 and m<2
7400
PRODUCTION
Perforated: 7386 – 7393MD, 7718-7728MD,
7425
7446-7452MD

Ad
5800 Gain : 100 BOPD

dd Perforated
7450 6240 MSCFD, 471 BWPD

7475

7500
5850
7525

7550

7575
5900

7600
First Perforation

Perforated
No Production (no flow contribution)
7625

7650 5950

7675

7700

Figure 5 -Application to add perforationsin PH23_B3 well

 PERFS.TREATMENT
PHE_KE23_B4
PH23_B4 dt

ROCK_TYPE2_PAT
140 US/F 40 VOL_UOIL_4
0 v/v 1
PEF_1 VOL_UGAS_4
0 B/E 10 0 v/v 1

VOL_DOLOM_4
cali LLD_1 drho 0 V/V 1

DEPTH

TVDSS
6 IN 8 0.2 OHMM 20000

PERF
-0.25 G/C3 0.25 VQUA_1

FEET

FEET
0 V/V 1

GR_COR_1 LLS_1 RHO_COR_1 M_1 VOL_CALCITE_4

0 v/v 1
0 GAPI 150 0.2 OHMM 20000 1.71 G/C3 2.71 1.5 2.5
VOL_UBNDWAT_4
bs_1 MSFL_1 NPHI_COR_1 MA_KE23_1 0 V/V 1

6 IN 7 VOL_WETCLAY_4
0.2 OHMM 20000 0.6 V/V 0 1.5 2.5 0 V/V 1

7675

Add PerforatedAdd Perforated

7700
5750
7725 Add Perforation based on FU_1 and m<2
PRODUCTION
7750 Perforated: 7700 – 7706 MD, 7731-7739MD,
7825-7843MD
7775
5800 Gain : 169 BOPD,
3327 MSCFD,
7800 309 BWPD

Add Perforated
7825

7850
5850
7875

7900

7925
5900
7950

First Perforation

Perforated
7975 No Production (no flow contribution)

8000
5950
8025

8050

Figure 6 -Application to add perforationsin PH23_B4 well