SPE 72114

Reservoir Monitoring Methodology for a Giant Gas Field

Igor Potapieff, TotalFinaElf E&P Indonesie; Joop de Wit, KAPPA

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

presently perforated. An average of 1.3 bcf/d and 40,000 stb/d
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery of condensate were produced during the year in 2000, with
Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8 – 9 October 2001.
commingled production through 4½ “ monobore and standard
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
completions (see figure 3).
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to In order to optimise production and ultimate recovery of
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 such a complex field, a comprehensive reservoir monitoring
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
process was initiated, with the following objectives:
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is • Understanding the present reservoir performance
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 • Quantify the uncertainty in reservoir management
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. • Identify under-performing layers and undeveloped
reserves
• Assist in well operations and planning
Abstract • Ensure that recommendations are followed up and
The Tunu field is the major gas supplier of the East identified problems rectified.
Kalimantan system (Indonesia). Production commenced in This paper describes the methodology developped to
1990 and more than 200 wells have been drilled to date. The maximise the interpretation results of classical reservoir
field exported an average 1.3 Bcf/d in 2000. monitoring tools.
In 1999, an extensive reservoir-monitoring program was
launched: successful implementation of Multi-Rate Production Methodology Used
Logging (MRPL), creation of reporting templates for MRPL In order to ensure that the above objectives are met, the
and Pressure Build Up (PBU). process needs to cover the data flow through every stage, from
This well-defined standardised process has resulted in a identifying what data is needed to implementing corrective
significant enhancement of the reservoir description and action.
understanding of the production performance with extensive Schematically the process is as follows:
use of classical reservoir monitoring tools. Well operations
have also been streamlined and optimised. 1) Objectives
So far, approximately 150 PBU and 40 MRPL have been Permeability, reservoir pressure, skin, water source
fully processed, with presently 5 MRPL’s acquired per month.
2) Selection of the most appropriate survey
PBU, MRPL, SGS, fluid sampling
Introduction
The Mahakam production-sharing contract (Inpex and 3) Data acquisition
TotalFinaElf Indonesie as operator) covers the Bekapai and
Handil oil fields and Tunu, Peciko, Sisi–Nubi, South 4) Interpretation
Mahakam gas condensate fields. The Tunu field, major gas Accounts for the entire well history
supplier of the East Kalimantan system, is located at the
eastern limit of the Mahakam delta (Figure 1), is 75-km long 5) Conclusions / Recommendations
and 15-km wide and composed of interbedded deltaic sands
between 2300 and 4500 meter. This very complex field is 6a) Integration with 6b) Monitor progress
composed of more than 400 independent accumulations. reservoir model on Recommendations
Presently, there are ~ 3500 reservoir pressures from MDT
measurements for gas and water bearing sands. Production
commenced in 1990 and more than 200 wells have been
drilled to date with 1800 different reservoir sand bodies
2 I. POTAPIEFF, J. DE WIT
1) The Objectives
The responsible reservoir engineer defines the objectives of
the test. Being a producing gas field, the requirement is mostly
determination of reservoir pressure and inflow performance
per layer. Additional issues include mainly the identification
of water producing sands in commingled wells and the
completion integrity.
2) Type of Survey
This depends on the completion and test objectives. Wells in
which a single reservoir is produced are surveyed with a
classical Pressure Build Up survey (PBU). In case of very low
influx or a dead well, a Static Gradient Survey is run mainly to
assess the wellbore pressure and wellbore content. Wells,
which produce commingled from multiple reservoirs
simultaneously, are tested with a multi-rate production logging
survey (MRPL). Discussions in this paper are limited to
PBU’s and MRPL’s.
The pros and cons of these surveys are:
PBU. Advantage: high (potential) accuracy in the
determination of pressure, permeability and skin.
Disadvantage: not relevant for multi-layer reservoirs due to
crossflow. Even when the pressures of a build-up seem to be
interpretable, there remains substantial uncertainty about the
relevance of the derived parameters due to questions like the
impact of crossflow and which layer is producing what.
MRPL. Advantage: pressures and inflow performance of
multi-layer completions. Disadvantage: no distinction between
permeability and skin, generally greater uncertainty in average
reservoir pressures compared to those derived from a PBU on
a single layer.
3) Data Acquisition
The survey is conducted according to a standard work
program. Standardisation facilitates planning and
interpretation of the results, as it limits the number of variables
in the process. Thus comparison of results from different
surveys is simplified, as is the ongoing optimisation of
procedures. Close co-operation between the TFE personnel
and the Service Company responsible for the data acquisition
is considered to be of high importance to achieve consistency
in the data quality and to optimise the different stages in the
process.
4) Interpretations
a) People
Interpretations are done by a dedicated group of experienced
engineers from TotalFinaElf and Kappa. The data is analysed
using industry standard software packages. These engineers
are independent of the Service Company responsible for the
data acquisition and are located in the TFE office in
Balikpapan - Indonesia. This set-up allows them to have an
independent view on uncertainty and limits associated with the
acquired data and objectives. Specific emphasis is placed on
the collection of the knowledge of all involved people (eg.
geology, reservoir, well servicing, and production) in one
SPE 72114
place. By using a fixed group of people, local expertise can be
acquired relatively quickly and information is dissipated
efficiently.
b) Standardisation
At the core of the interpretation processes are the reporting
Templates. There are two types: one for the PBU’s and one for
the MRPL’s. These templates combine the results of the
interpretation with all other relevant data: geological
parameters, wireline logging analysis, production data, well
and perforation history and results from previous pressure
measurements like wireline logging surveys and PBU/MRPL
surveys if any.
Results and reservoir parameters are put into perspective by
the use of specific Quality Indicators eg: A (excellent), B
(good) and C (doubtful). These indicators facilitate comparing
the results of different surveys in the same or different wells
and reservoirs.
Once a report is fully validated by all the concerned parties,
the data are incorporated into a global database. The
consistency of the calculations and the interpretations as well
as the quality indicators allows fast and efficient correlation or
data research for any particular requirement.
The process of interpretations and analysis and the use of the
templates are described in two userguides: one for the PBU
and one for the MRPL, ensuring that everyone uses the same
method for analysis. The content of the two guides is changing
over time as the process is refined and new knowledge about
specific issues comes available.
c) Assessment of MRPL data
As the majority of the wells are producing commingled, Multi
Rate Production Logging is the most appropriate tool to obtain
reservoir pressure and rates.
Before embarking on the extensive MRPL campaign for
monobore and standard completions, TFE conducted a study
to assess the validity of the results obtained from the MRPL:
1. On the same well and within a very short time span, two
MRPL’s were done and interpreted by two different
Service Companies. A full set of MRPL consists of three
producing rates and one shut-in pass.
The tools had very similar response, but there were
differences in the interpretation, mainly due to a lack of
Tunu field knowledge and sharp understanding of well
behavior. To fully compare these MRPL, both surveys
were re-analysed by in-house interpretation engineers and
now the results of both surveys were very similar (see
figure 2). The differences in the initial results are
therefore due to the different interpreters and the
difference in their methodology, not the tools and their
sensors.
2. The reservoir pressures of each zone was compared with
the results of a single layer PBU for 2 wells. The reservoir
pressures from the Selective Inflow Performance curve
was within 200 psi (5%) of the PBU derived pressure.
SPE72114 RESERVOIR MONITORING METHODOLOGY FOR A GIANT GAS FIELD
3. A methodology was developed to assess the source of
water production from individual layers. The very low
water hold-up values require a in-depth analysis,
including a detailed study of the historical production
performance (rates, BSW, zone status, well head
pressures etc.)
4. The viability of a multilayer transient test analysis using
the rate de-convolution method was assessed. With this
type of analysis, the permeability-thickness and skin can
be established for each layer. Although this method can
work in stable producing wells, the acquired sensor data
in our gas producing wells is too noisy to achieve reliable
results.
Special Issues and Limitations of the MRPL are:
a) For standard completions whereby several layers produce
via one entry port into the tubing, the flow can only be
assessed for the combined set of perforations. Except for
the bottom zone where the perforations flow directly into
the production casing (see figure 3).
b) The bottom zone in a standard completion is 7". In case of
small gas inflow, it is likely to have a standing water
column with gas bubbling through. The resulting data is
often so noisy that no reliable interpretation of small
producing sands can be done. The resulting density,
capacitance and spinner fluctuations make interpretation
especially challenging
c) The flow parameters from low productivity sands often
have large uncertainties. The actual contribution of the
layer is calculated by subtracting the flow values from
above and below the interval. As these values have their
own uncertainty, the relative error in the difference is
proportionally very large. For this type of reservoir, the
only way to obtain a rough estimate of reservoir pressure
is based on the shut-in pass: the reservoir pressure is
higher / lower than bottom hole flowing pressure if this
reservoir is producing or taking fluids in shut-in
conditions.
d) Even though the water detection methodology has been
improved, it is often difficult to identify the source of
water when the water hold-up values in the measured part
of the conduit are very small. Typically the water hold-up
is less than 3% in a gas filled tubing, and the sensor
measurement can vary between different flowrates.
Alternatively, in the case of a standing water column,
where limited amounts of water flow into a fully loaded
casing section, the source of water might only be
determined using secondary qualitative information, e.g.
temperature, variations in liquid level during rates change
and variations in density.
5) Integration
a) PBU:
All interpretations are done using the same transient analysis
software (Saphir). The parameters derived are average
reservoir pressure, permeability-thickness, skin, Inflow
3
Performance factor (c factor) and type of reservoir model
(homogeneous, boundaries, layering etc.). The integration of
these results in the template allows an automatic estimation of
the connected volume.
Two quality indicators are used to assess the results of the
PBU analysis, one for the accuracy of the derived permeability
and a second indicator for the average reservoir pressure. The
Quality Indicator for the permeability is dependent on the
model’s match with the pressure data, i.e. reliability of the
model, quality of the pressure data etc. This value is based on
engineering judgement. The Quality Indicator for the average
reservoir pressure is done automatically by comparing the
estimated average reservoir pressures from different reservoir
models and the latest measured pressure value in the Build-
Up.
An example of the first page of the PBU template report is
shown in figure 4.
b) MRPL
The MRPL data of all four Multi-Rate surveys are interpreted
together using the same production analysis software
(Emeraude). Results are then imported into the report template
and Selective Inflow Performance curves are plotted using
either surface rates or the rates as calculated by the production
logging program versus measured or pseudo pressures. This
gives an average reservoir pressure and a Productivity Index
per layer. The different plots give the range of reservoir
pressure, therefore a range of uncertainty.
The consistency of the Selective Inflow Performance plot is a
quality check of the accuracy/limits of the interpretation (see
figure 5).
The following stage is an assessment of the connected volume
per layer.
c) Well performance history matching
‘Predic’, a TotalFinaElf ‘multi-layer material balance’
software is used to perform the history match to assess
connected volume layer-wise on a well basis.
Inputs per layer are:
• Initial reservoir pressure (wireline logging data)
• porosity, net pay and depth
• Present reservoir pressure (MRPL)
• Present flow contribution (MRPL)
• Production data - well production history
Matching parameters are:
• Split of cumulative production per layer
• Productivity Index per layer
History match done on:
• Well production profile
• Reservoir pressure per layer at MRPL time
• Flow contribution per layer at MRPL time
• Cumulative production per layer at MRPL time
• Previous surveys (PBU, MRPL) on the well
4 I. POTAPIEFF, J. DE WIT
This manual history match is an iterative process to get the
best match on the performances with the observed production
data (see figure 6 – 7). The present methodolgy has shortened
the history matching duration to less than one day per well.
This method assumes that the well behaviour is independent of
other wells. This is a reasonable assumption as long as the
wells connected to the same layers have been producing under
the same conditions, i.e. the drainage area of the well under
observation has remained constant over time (steady state
behavior).
Quality indicators are assigned to the reservoir pressure
estimated layer-wise, the IPR of the reservoir and the
connected volume derived after the history match.
Once the history match is done, a production forecast can be
performed to assess the impact of proposed future well
servicing operations.
The interpretation engineer, the reservoir engineer, the
geologists and the well servicing department discuss the
performance of difficult wells and the relevant interpretation
results. Final conclusions are then drawn and
recommendations made.
Following these recommendations, well servicing operations
done have confirmed the interpretations. Few well examples:
- Confirmation of water source: isolation with a bridge plug
(+ 10 mmscf/d).
- Confirmation of high skins obtained: successful
reperforation (+ 9 mmscf/d) and fracturation operation (+
9 mmscf/d).
6) Integration with Geological model
So far, 350 reservoir pressures have been obtained from
MRPL’s and PBU’s data. These dynamic reservoir pressures
layerwise derived from PBU’s and MRPL’s are then included
in the geological model in order to improve the geological
accumulation geometry.
For a given accumulation, the integration of static and
dynamic reservoir pressure versus time allows a very good
understanding of the unit once all the wells have been fully
processed (see figures 8 and 9).
For a given accumulation, there is an estimation of the
connected volume per well once all the producing wells have
SPE 72114
their own dynamic survey. The sum of these connected
volumes is then compared with the volume from the
geological model.
This step is fundamental to improve the field knowledge and
especially to detect heterogeneities. Furthermore, it allows a
better estimate of the depleted sands for locating the future
wells drilled; infill well locations can be proposed in non-
drained areas.
Conclusions
The MRPL logging is the most suitable tool for reservoir
management with commingled production like Tunu field. The
methodology developed with the MRPL allows first deriving
reservoir pressure and production layerwise, then assessing the
connected volume per layer per well.
For a giant field with such complexity, standardisation,
building local expertise and flexibility to adjust methods to
optmise the process are the key tool to properly cope with the
amount of data.
The use of templates optimizes the reservoir monitoring by
consistent interpretations, by reducing the interpretation time,
by estimating the uncertainties and it allows integration of all
the relevant informations into a global database.
This process drives the identification of production and
reserves optimisation activities such as reperforation,
additionnal perforations, acid, fracturation, water shut-off, grid
and infill well locations…
References:
1. C. A. Ehlig-Economides: ”testing and interpretation in
layered reservoirs”. September 1987. SPE 17089
2. C. A. Ehlig-Economides: ”testing and interpretation in
layered reservoirs”. SPE formation evaluation. September
1993. SPE 20923
3. Kucuk F, Karakas M and Ayestaran L: “Well testing for
layered reservoirs”, SPE formation evaluation (Aug. 1986)
342
4. H. Vogelij, M. Leach and P. Kapteyn: “Multilayer
flowmeter testing combined with 3D field modeleing to
enhance the Ameland field development”, SPE formation
evaluation (Mar. 1993). SPE 20897
SPE72114 RESERVOIR MONITORING METHODOLOGY FOR A GIANT GAS FIELD 5

Figure 1: Mahakam PSC

3200

C o m pan y 1
Z on e 2
3000
C o m pan y 2

2800

2600
Z on e 3
Pressure (psi)

2400

2200

Z on e 1

2000
c o m m ing le d p ro d u c tio n

1800
-5 0 5 Q gas (M M scf/d ) 10 15 20

Figure 2: Comparison of Selective Inflow Performance curves on the same well at the same time
6 I. POTAPIEFF, J. DE WIT SPE 72114

4”1/2 monobore 4”1/2 Standard completion

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3
7” casing

Figure 3: Type of completion used on Tunu field

SPE72114 RESERVOIR MONITORING METHODOLOGY FOR A GIANT GAS FIELD 7

I. G ENERAL DAT A W eighted av erage v alues from the sev eral sands
Reserv oir res. 1 res. 2 T otal
Field : TUNU av erage phi [% ]
W ell : well 1 av erage Sw [% ]
Zone : 2 Av erage Vsh (% )
Reserv oir(s) : reserv oir 1 net pay [m ] (% )
Test date : 03/06/00 initial pressure: [psia]
Ref. G auge : m bRT/SS gauge… nb reserv oirs
top perfo : m bRT/SS G eological layer
bottom perfo : m bRT/SS Initial CG R
II. O BJECT IVE O F T HE BPT
Determ ine kh, skin and reserv oir pressure
III. FLO W PERIO D DAT A
Period DD 1 DD2 DD3 BU
Choke ../64 "
Duration hrs
W ell Head Flowing Pressure psia
W ell Head Flowing Tem perature °F
Separator pressure psia
Separator Tem perature °F
Q gas M M scf/d
Q condensate stb/d
Q water stb/d
Condensate yield stb/M M scf
W GR stb/M M scf
SG gas (air = 1 )
Condensate density g/cm ³
Bottom hole flowing pressure psia Present salinity
last PBU @ gauge depth psia ppm
Pm ax during PBU psia
M axim um bottom hole flowing tem perature °F
Q uality indicators: Best M atch Alternatives
IV. RESULT S kh & skin A Param eter M odel
Reserv oir pressure Bbarriers (m )
A v ery good - B good - C doubtfull kg.h m D.m Kcorrel
Inflow perform ance A&B A= B= kg mD
Assum ing n=1 the v alue for c = scf/psi^2 S total
Reservoir Pressure at gauge depth Pini (Saphir) dS/dQ (M M scf/d)-1
P* (superpos) Skin at q=0
last PBU Pav. res top gauge
av erage pressure at gauge depth psia top res.
gradient to top res. g/cm 3 D eq.
Cum ulative production bcf up to Jun-00 BPT date G IIP bcf
bcf up to Jun-01 last value G p Jun-00
eq. R. drainage
V. CO NCLUSIO NS / CO MMENT S

VI. RECO M MENDAT IO NS:

Figure 4: Example of first page of PBU template report

8 I. POTAPIEFF, J. DE WIT SPE 72114

3500

re se rvo ir 1

re se rvo ir 2
3250
re se rvo ir 3
B H F P at to p reservo ir(p si

re se rvo ir 4
3000

2750

2500

2250

2000
-4 0 4 8 )
Q g (m m scf/d 12 16 20

Figure 5: Selective Inflow Performance curve from MRPL data

6000
In itia l p re ssu re (M D T )
re se rvo ir 1

5000
re se rvo ir 2

re se rvo ir 3
4000
re se rvo ir p re ssu re s fro m M R P L re se rvo ir 4
P /Z

3000

2000

1000

co n n e cte d vo lu m e fo llo w in g h isto ry m a tch

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
C u m u la tive p ro d u ctio n (b cf)

Figure 6: P/Z plot following history matching

SPE72114 RESERVOIR MONITORING METHODOLOGY FOR A GIANT GAS FIELD 9

Figure 7: history match parameters following MRPL interpretation

10 I. POTAPIEFF, J. DE WIT SPE 72114

P ressure at datum vs Tim e

6000 90

80

C um ulative production for the accum ulation (bcf)

5500
70

60
P ressu re at d atu m (p sia)

5000
50

40
4500
30

20
4000
M D t m e as u re m e n ts
M R P L - P B U m e as u re m e n ts 10

3500 0
Feb-97 A ug-97 M ar-98 S ep-98 A pr-99 O ct-99 M ay-00 D ec-00 Jun-01

Figure 8: Integration of static and dynamic data for a given accumulation

In te g ra tio n o f s ta tic + d y n a m ic d a ta (g e o lo g y - re s e rvo ir)

W ellw ith M RPL /PB U data

7 km

W ellw ithout M RPL /PB U data

M inim um proven connected volum e

from reservoir pressure PB U,M RPL data
Figure 9: Comparison with geological model