SPE 82284
Assessing Profitability of Well Interventions on Mature Fields: Well Intervention
Profitability Evaluation Method, case study from Cameroon.
Michael Buffet, SPE ; Eric Mastin ; Michel Maguerez, SPE ; Patrick Amiell, TOTALFINAELF
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage
Conference to be held in The Hague, The Netherlands 13-14 May 2003.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The Well Intervention Profitability Evaluation Project was
aimed at applying a BP Corporate methodology (WETS,
Wellwork Evaluation Tracking System, SPE 30649) to
TotalFinaElf’s Mature Fields.
When Oil Fields become “mature“, drilling new wells may not
necessarily be the appropriate solution to grab additional
barrels and counterbalance the natural production decline.
Progressively, TotalFinaElf Subsidiaries implement well
intervention programs designed to recover or boost
productivity. A wide range of such interventions is
investigated and usually end up performing “spot“ operations
(a fracturation job, an acid job, a water shut-off …).
Often, when spot interventions prove successful, the idea
comes to generalize these proven solutions and perform such
interventions more systematically (campaigns). In terms of
investments, although costs usually stay much lower than
drilling costs, the financial impact may still be significant in
subsidiaries where profitability can be “borderline“.
Therefore, assessing the real financial impact / profitability of
these campaigns needs more than “basic“ return on
investment calculations.
In one sentence, the method is aimed at Assessing the
Profitability (over the time) of a given Wellwork Intervention
(fracturations, acidifications, workovers, etc…). By plotting
“Cost versus Net Present Value (NPV)”, one can draw
“scorpion” plots gathering, in an ordered way (decreasing
NPV/Investment), all interventions perfomed on
corresponding wells. A comparison “Campain X versus
Campain Y, Z,…” can also be performed.
Then, the method, applied to an intervention campaign, is a 4
step process:
- Evaluate the oil gain over a significant period of time as
precisely as possible using an oil field management
production data base. An adjusted cost per well is also
computed at this stage,
- Build and run a “light“ economical model, taking into
account the production contract and fiscal particularities,
and this for each well,
- Draw the “scorpion” plots (different durations can be
considered) and highlight significant wells plus particular
cases on each campaign. Draw conclusions,
- Plot different campaigns (if applicable) on the same chart
(cumulative NPV versus cumulative cost). Draw
conclusions on relative profitability.
This paper comes back first on the methodology followed,
then presents the case study of Cameroon which helped
calibrating and assessing the interest of the method.
Conclusions on the profitability of stimulations campaigns in
Cameroon were straightforward and improvement tracks could
also be highlighted thanks to this method.
Evaluating the Oil Gain from a Wellwork Intervention
An incomplete oil gain evaluation. Often quite “marginal” in
the overall activity – even locally - of an oil company, a
wellwork intervention is not necessarily evaluated in details
over the time on the “real” oil gain point of vue. Often, a
“quick look” approach is used for determining the oil
gain/profitability of a specific intervention as follows:
- Wait stabilisation of oil production after the well has been
put back on stream (after the intervention, an acid job for
example),
- Calculate the corresponding absolute oil production
increase (oil gain), increase usually compared to the
anticipated one,
- Extrapolate the oil gain (often assumed constant) over a 6
month then a 1 year period of time for example (what we
could call a “plateau“ method),
- State “once for all” on the intervention’s benefit after this
given/chosen period of time, compare with previous
campaigns calculating a rough “pay-out“ time with the
mere equation :
Cost intervention = Production x $/bbl x time pay-out
2 SPE 82284
Although quite respectful of the overall success of an
intervention (+ comparison with other interventions made
possible), this quick look approach does not take into account
any economical model whatsoever, does not evaluate the
“real” oil gain (i.e. difference of decline curves including
potential “pay-back“ period, see after) and is not flexible for
considering various scenarios for the period of time of the
evaluation. When dealing with several interventions like a
complete campaign of such operations (i.e. several similar
interventions), the need for a deeper evaluation is
made obvious.
Evaluating the real oil gain. Figure 1 shows the oil
production profile of a well before and after an intervention
(real case from Cameroon, intervention is a matrix acid job).
Tracking this oil gain is possible using a classical data base
which all subsidiaries keep alive.
Such tool allows – for a given well - to:
- Build a pre-job decline curve, removing non-significant
events (see red curve before acid job), a “filtering” of the
production data is necessary to end up drawing realistic
trend lines as decline curves,
- Build a new decline curve after the intervention, taking
into account a significant “real historic“ of production (in
order to be able to estimate the post-job decline curve),
- Extrapolate the post-job decline curve over a period of
time corresponding to the desired duration taken into
account for the economical profitability calculation,
- Estimate on a monthly basis the incremental oil gain (see
histograms in Figure 1) either as “accelerated production”
or “payback period”.
Note1: There is not necessarily a “pay-back“ period as shown
on Figure 1. New decline curve may tangent previous one
after some time if the intervention leads partially to an
additional oil recovery.
Note2: The incremental oil production may also be negative if
the intervention on the well is a failure (increased formation
damage due to a bad treatment design for example).
Building an appropriate Economical Model
Discounting. Clearly, when speaking about assessing the
profitability of an intervention/campaign over the time,
economical calculations are key and financial flows generated
by the increased oil production from the intervention must be
discounted. When dealing with mature fields, financial
resources may be limited and profitability borderline enough
to make the precise evaluation of the interventions a major
challenge if not, a concern.
Still, local Production Sharing Agreements (PSA) may be
unecessarily convoluted for wellwork interventions’
evaluation which may follow “easier” financial rules. Clearly,
there is a need for an adapted, what we could call a “light”,
economical model not necessarily handled by professional
economists but instead available to “technicians” for a quick, a
flexible but nevertheless reliable evaluation of their
operations. This is the main idea behind the Well Intervention
Profitability Evaluation Project as adapted by TotalFinaElf
& Partners.
A “light” economical model. Building the light economical
model roughly requires to:
- Identify a limited number of INPUT parameters to make
the model friendly to use and avoid rambling around the
parameters’ choice and end up with difficulties
to conclude,
- Adapt the local production contract to the considered
intervention (fiscal system may differ according to the
specificity of the intervention), a “light” version of the
contract may be adapted to the evaluation of the
given intervention,
- Secure the cost per well taking into account: the
production lost during the time of the intervention, the
equipment/intervention medium cost (Rig, Barge, Coil
Tubing Unit…), the products cost, a pro rata of any
additional time lost outside of intervention period etc…
All this can be called the “corrected cost“ of
the intervention,
- Calculate the monthly (the usual “time unit” of such
interventions) financial flows then the Net Present Value
(NPV) for each well (repeat the calculation when dealing
with a full campaign).
Such model is built using a mere spreadsheet, an example of
which (input section) may be found in Figure 2. In the
illustrated case (Cameroon, see after), the number of
parameters is limited to 5 so that the user can easily assess the
profitability of a given intervention (on a well or on several
wells) upon a reduced number of variables allowing
flexibility, rapidity, simplicity and meaningful comparisons.
Field Case - Cameroon
Why Cameroon. To calibrate and assess the interest of the
Well Intervention Profitability Evaluation Method, a real field
case was necessary. In Cameroon, almost on a yearly basis,
well stimulation campaigns are conducted on 15 to 20 oil
wells with a Self-Elevated Work-Over Platform (SEWOP).
These interventions consist in Acid Pumping / Scale Removal
Operations (carbonates) with Coil Tubing (through
completion) on gravel packed or frac packed wells in
sandstone reservoirs. The first task at hand was to identify
several stimulation campaigns on which enough data were
comparable (similar types of interventions), available and
“checkable“ such as:
- A reliable cost control,
- Production data (including “real” data and data that can be
“extrapolated”– using decline curves – according to the
time frame considered for the evaluation).
The last four campaigns performed (1997, 1998, 2000 and
2001 - no campaign in 1999) have therefore been considered
for the exercise.
SPE 82284
The 4 steps of the evaluation process. The study performed
in Cameroon was a 4 step process:
Step1. Evaluate the oil gain over a significant period of time
(from a couple of months to 5 years maximum, oil gain may
therefore include “real” production and “anticipated”
production) as precisely as possible using the oil field
management production data base. The “corrected” cost per
well is also computed at this stage.
Step2. Build (identifying a limited number of parameters,
see after) and run a “light“ economical model, taking into
account the subsidiary’s production contract and fiscal
particularities, and this for each well of each campaign.
Step3. Draw the scorpion plots (different durations must be
considered) and highlight significant wells & particular cases
on each campaign. Draw conclusions and recommendations
for upcoming stimulation campaigns.
Step4. Plot all campaigns on the same chart (cumulative
NPV versus cumulative cost). Draw conclusions and
recommendations for upcoming stimulation campaigns.
Parameters kept for evaluation of interventions in
Cameroon. In the specific case of well stimulations in
Cameroon, the production contract and fiscal particularities
are relatively easy to modelize when dealing with such
operations. Only 5 INPUT parameters have been identified to
evaluate the profitability of well stimulation campaigns
in Cameroon.
Parameter1. Discount rate, calculated on a monthly
basis (to match monthly gains) from the annual discount rate
used by Economists in Cameroon.
Parameter2. The $/barrel scenario which must include a
discount versus the cost of the brent.
Parameter3. The “marginal” opex. It has been decided,
for the economical evaluation of such interventions
(production contract particularity allows to do so), NOT to
apply full opex costs of the field to the additional barrels
grabbed thanks to these campaigns. Still, to be as accurate and
realistic as possible, a “marginal” opex has been included,
accounting for side costs such as: extra maintenance on
platforms/wells, marginal production costs, shipping…
Parameter4. The considered share on the production
contract. We can consider either the only share of
TotalFinaElf, or the share of the whole consortium, the share
of two specific partners… Costs of the interventions and all
financial flows (noted Fk on Figure 2) are calculated for the
considered share.
Parameter5. Acid jobs on our candidate wells may
generate an additional production of water. Treating these
barrels of water has a cost which interferes (negatively) with
the profitability of the operations. By estimating the $/bbl cost
of treating this water and estimating the monthly oil
production increase after an intervention, financial flows (and
therefore overall NPV) can include this effect.
3
Note: A (further) interesting development of the methodology
in Cameroon will be to add a sixth parameter, taking into
account the additional m3 of high pressure gas grabbed from
the interventions. This HP gas can be used for gas lift and
therefore interferes (positively) with the profitability of the
operations. Considering the complexity of the gas lift system
of the subsidiary and the difficulty to find a reliable “relation”
between additional m3 of HP gas and additional barrels of oil,
this parameters as not yet been incorporated to our case.
Drawing “Scorpion” Plots. Once NPV has been calculated
for each well of a given campaign (and for a given time
period), all interventions are ordered by increasing
profitability (decreasing NPV/Investment) and a “Scorpion”
plot is built (Figure 3) for a particular Campaign. On the plot,
we can identify 3 main types of wells/interventions:
- High Profitability Wells,
- Medium/borderline Profitability Wells. An Economical
“cut-off” can be decided for the split,
- Non-Profitable Wells, the “tail” of the scorpion.
Note: Each stimulation campaign being around one month
long in duration (performed at month “0”), the cost of the
intervention does not need to be discounted in our specific
case.
What can be done for one campaign can be repeated for
several (over the same period of time) so we therefore plotted
on the same graph the 4 campaigns selected for the calibration
and evaluation of the method (Figure 4). It is important to
remember, when speaking about comparing the relative
profitability of these campaigns, that – depending on the
period of time considered for the evaluation – some campaigns
may have a production history partially anticipated. For
example, if one wants to compare the 4 campaigns over a 5
year period, only campaigns 1997 and 1998 have a 100% real
production history.
Analysing “Scorpion” Plots – general advantages of the
method. The advantages of using scorpion plots are
numerous.
Relative Profitability and identify failures and sucesses . As
previously mentionned, we must be careful when comparing
the relative profitability of one campaign versus the other(s)
since the production historic may only be partially anticipated.
Still, the split among High Profitability / Medium Profitability
/ Non-Profitable wells for each campaign is interesting. The
number of the last category wells (i.e. Non-Profitable) for a
given period of time (changing the evaluation time frame may
make some wells “move” from one category to another) is a
clear indicator of the quality of the candidate well pool.
Investigating common characteristics among these “poor”
candidates may help reducing the number of these non-
profitable interventions in future campaigns.
Possibility to pinpoint technical limitations. As a direct
consequence of the above point, it is possible to single out
some wells that we have difficulties treating (we will come
back on this on the detailed analysis). Technical limitations are
therefore easy to spot using scorpion plots of several
4 SPE 82284
campaigns by identifying recurrent failures on
“similar” candidates.
Possibility to identify best treatment methodology. Provided
that candidate wells are of similar “quality” from one
campaign to another, changes in the treatment methodology
may be validated using relative comparison of scorpion plots.
Possibility to state on the benefits of a technology. It is
possible to check whether a technology / methodology used
for the interventions is coming “to an end” as far as efficiency
is concerned. In case successive campaigns show a recurrent
decrease in profitability, we may question the viability of such
type of interventions on the field (progressive shortage of
good candidates?) which, in turns, may wisely be replaced by
other technologies to improve the productivity of the field.
Clearly and as we will see on the following §, this is not the
case in Cameroon where more campaigns are planned, and one
recently completed in 2003.
Analysing “Scorpion” Plots – detailed analysis and
key/specific learnings from the evaluation in Cameroon.
Let’s consider the last two campaigns, 2000 and 2001, and
have a closer look at the well interventions that proved to be
failures (among the “Non-Profitable” interventions).
High BSW wells. Figure 5 clearly shows that most wells with
a BSW > 25% treated in 2000 and 2001 are failures in terms
of profitability (60 month evaluation). In 2000 already, our
capacity to successfully treat wells with BSW > 25% was
doubtful. What the scorpion plot showed later “quantitatively”
was already anticipated “qualitatively” since:
- Most high BSW wells were removed from
2001 campaign,
- Anti-scale (carbonates) treatments were tested on
two wells.
However, this trend needed to be confirmed economically to
push for fine-tuning in our candidate well’s selection, spot a
clear technical limitation (how to treat high BSW wells, more
and more numerous as the field is ageing?) and investigate
further the anti-scale treatments.
Still, if one well in 2000 was treated with anti-scale with an
undoubtful success (well noted well 1 on Figure 5), this is less
obvious with the second well (well 2) over the considered
period of time in the chart. More evaluations were therefore
performed over several periods of time, ranging from 6 to 60
months. Figure 6 shows the evolution in absolute and relative
profitability from the evaluation after 6 months to the
evaluation after 60 months.
The anti-scale slows down carbonate deposition with
subsequent skin effect (slows down the skin “re-building“). A
sufficient time is necessary for the intervention to become
profitable since the carbonates deposition is quite a long
process and the extra cost generated by the anti-scale
chemicals & pumping is economically long to recover from.
This kind of profitability evaluation was necessary to push
towards further use of scale inhibitors.
Thus, for early 2003 campaign, which included a significant
number of high BSW wells (excellent “0” BSW candidates
becoming a scarce resource!), anti-scale treatments could be
justified and implemented (results are, obviously, still
to come).
Validate and fine tune candidates’ selection. The process of
candidate wells’ selection is a 6 step process:
Step1. Identification by Reservoir and Production
department of abnormally producing wells (rougly 50 wells
singled-out yearly at this stage),
Step2. Round-table meetings to discuss each well
individually with reservoir, production, drilling and
completion people. Half of the wells are usually removed from
potential candidate wells’ list, mainly based on poor
anticipated oil gain potential (50% yield at this stage)***,
Step3. On remaining wells, a logging/measurements
campaign is decided to gather additional information for
thorough oil gain evaluation and damage diagnostic such as:
pressure build-ups, static pressure measurements, laboratory
analysis of scales…
Step4. A well performance software is then used to:
calculate Productivity Indexes (PI), differential pressures
accross the reservoir-wellbore interfaces, mechanical skins…
and evaluate precisely the potential oil gains (based on the
anticipated post-intervention reservoir-wellbore interface’s
quality). A maximum of 20 wells (the best potential ones) are
kept at this stage.
Step5. Ranking of all remaining wells per expected oil gain.
A probability (coefficient) of success for each well is then
computed using several key parameters for the success of the
operations, such as:
- Reservoir/production characteristics: permeability,
mobility, BSW, perforated height, origin of water (if
known), depletion..
- Completion/Drilling damage: access to screen, sediments
and/or fish in hole, potential problems while drilling…
- Type of formation/ reservoir-wellbore interface damage.
This probability coefficient is used to “weight” the oil gain
and give a “probable” gain for each well. Probable gains are
added per wellhead platform (the SEWOP is used to go from
one platform to another) and the final ranking for the
interventions is done on a “platform gain” basis.
Step6. “Quick-look” economical calculations until now,
Well Intervention Profitability Evaluation Method used as a
“decisional” tool from now on.
*** Each year (or so), a lump sum is dedicated to the
stimulation campaign. This lump sum usually allows to treat
between 15 and 20 wells maximum.
As a result of this selection process and beyond a number of
useful evaluation information, a global “mark” can be alloted
to the 20 wells of the final selection. Figure 7 shows the
distribution of these pre-intervention marks on the 60 month
scorpion plot for 2001 campaign. Clearly, all candidates
initially ranked as “good” performed well, all “poor”
candidates were failures and one “medium” candidate well
SPE 82284 5

was among the successful treatments. This validates the borderline interventions (the period of time considered for the
candidates’ selection process as implemented by TotalFinaElf economical evaluation is a critical parameter).
Cameroon & Partners and Headquarters’ Specialists.
Since most “medium” and all “poor” candidates end-up being
non-profitable, one may suggest to “cut” the tail of the Acknowledgments
scorpion i.e. remove “a priori” such candidates from the
campaign to save money. If this is a wise decision for “poor” - Authors wish to thank all people from TotalFinaElf
candidates, it is somehow risky to remove “medium” Cameroon that brought their support to this project and
candidates. Statistically, these anticipated borderline wells accepted to challenge their very good achievements.
have a significant chance of success (this is the case for one
- Authors wish to thank TotalFinaElf’s Partners in
well with mark 2 on Figure 7). Therefore, it is systematically
Cameroon: Société Nationale des Hydrocarbures (SNH)
decided to keep a number of “borderline” candidates to
and Pecten Cameroon Company (PCC) for supporting
increase chances of success. Keeping only a limited number of
stimulation campaigns.
“good” candidates for interventions may lead to a
disproportionate impact of a potential major failure on one of
such wells on the overall campaign (borderline wells may help References
to make up for such potential failure).
Still, the Well Intervention Profitability Evaluation Method, as 1. J. P. Martins, SPE, J.M. MacDonald, C.G. Stewart, SPE,
calibrated in Cameroon, permitted to point out the possibility and C.J. Philipps, SPE, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.: “The
of significant cost saving (up to 30%) cutting “wisely” the tails Management and Optimization of a Major Wellwork
of the scorpion plots. Figure 8 shows the cumulated NPV Program at Prudhoe Bay” paper SPE 30649 presented at
versus cumulated inflated cost for all 4 campaigns, sorted in the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held
an increasing profitability manner (red curve). Cutting in Dallas, U.S.A., 22-25 October 1995.
artificially the “tail” of each campaign’s scorpion plot, we can
imagine a theoretical profitability curve for all campaigns
(green curve) and estimate the cost saving that could have
been obtained if anticipated “poor” candidates had been
removed. They are from now on…

Main Conclusions

A useful and common decision making tool. One of the

biggest interest of this economical evaluation methodology is
that it allows to, somehow, see on a single chart (the
“scorpion” plot), both technical and economical informations.
Technicians and Economists then have a common decision
making tool. As we could see in the case of Cameroon, despite
the high overall profitability of the campaigns, there is still
room for improvement. As the good candidates will become
scarce and financial resources more and more limited, fine-
tuning of interventions’ profitabilities may justify the interest
of stimulations campaigns for a longer time than if the
methodology had not been introduced.

A technical analysis tool. The methodology is proved useful

and adapted to pinpoint successes and failures. In the case of
high BSW wells in Cameroon for example, what everybody
was basically “supposing” about these wells could definitely
be proved and new solutions (scale inhibitor treatments)
justified technically and economically.

Validation/improvement of candidates’ selection process.

The candidates’ selection process in Cameroon was already
quite elaborated. Adding the Well Intervention Profitability
Evaluation Methodology to this selection’s process was
nevertheless a plus. It permitted not only to validate the
process (confirming the relevance of the ranking) but also to
show the evolution of the profitability over the time of some
“borderline” candidates, thus justifying some of these
6 SPE 82284

Figure 1

EXAMPLE WELL – Production Historic

Building of pre-job decline curve

Accelerated production
Oil Rate (m3/day)

Payback period

Intervention
Acid job

″Real″ production curve Extrapolated curve

SPE 82284 7

Figure 2

Discounting Section Barrel Cost Section Opex Section Contract Section

-Io = corrected cost of intervention Includes de-rating compared to brent Opex limited to "marginal" Production contract
opex (shipping, additional specifications adapted to type
Gx = Oil Gain of month x maintenance...) in this table of intervention.
Ox = Marginal Opex applied to gained barrel but may be customized as per Possibility to evaluate
local constraints. intervention from different
points of vue (i.e. % share).
Hypothesis
G1 G2
G3
G4 Contract Partner A (a%) Partner B (b%) TotalFinaElf (t%)
Gn
G60

Incremental Monthly Oil Production

month "0"

O1 O2 O3 O4 On O60
Marginal 16 (US$/bbl) Marginal 1 (US$/bbl) Share 25,00%
Opex Discount every Scenarios 20 (US$/bbl) Opex of 2 (US$/bbl)
financial flow at
Barrel Cost 24 (US$/bbl) Intervention 3 (US$/bbl)
month "0" (month of
-Io the intervention)

Parameter4 : Share
Monthly Gain

Inputs

Annual Discount Rate 10% Scenario 20 Scenario 2 Chosen Share Scenario 25,00%
Monthly Discount Rate 0,797%
Cost per Additional Water Barrel 2 (US$/bbl)
Results
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Campaign 2000 Gain Gain Gain Gain Gain Gain Gain
order Well Cost Intervention Corrected Cost Cost @ share 100% Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7
1 Well1 580 416 624 440 Oil (bbls) 11 932 12 120 11 618 11 806 11 618 10 362 11 241
Water (bbls) 3 030 2 998 2 905 2 955 3 006 2 790 2 549
Fk 52 179 52 623 50 027 50 435 49 190 43 473 47 016
NPV 10% 1 671 772

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 Well2 345 561 371 584 Oil (bbls) 6 154 5 840 5 338 5 150 4 836 4 145 4 270
Water (bbls) 1 246 998 1 027 1 005 925 1 117 971
Fk 27 072 25 579 23 137 22 137 20 632 17 389 17 860
NPV 10% 270 789

Parameter1: Discount Rate Parameter2: $/bbl Parameter3: OPEX Parameter5: Water Cost

Figure 3

Scorpion Plot - Campaign A (xx month evalution)

Each yellow dot is a well Economical Cut-off line
0,5
of the given campaign

0,4 TOWARDS INCREASED

PROFITABILITY
Cumulative Cost

0,3 Non-Profitable Wells

0,2

High Profitability Wells

0,1
Medium Profitability Wells

0,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cumulative NPV
8 SPE 82284

Figure 4

All campaigns (60 month evaluation)

0,6

2000 2001
0,5

1997

0,4
Cumulative Cost

0,3

1998

0,2

0,1

0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cumulative NPV

Figure 5

Campaigns 2000 & 2001(60 month evalution)

0,6

2000 2001
0,5

0,4 BSW > 25%

Cumulative Cost

well 2 Anti-scale
0,3 BSW < 25%

well 1
0,2

0,1

0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Cumulative NPV
SPE 82284 9

Figure 6

Anti-Scale profitability over the time

1

6 months 60 months
1

well 2
0
Cumulative Cost

well 1
0

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cumulative NPV

Figure 7
10 SPE 82284

Figure 8