PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2004-097

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022

Quantification of Uncertainty in Production
Forecast Using Experimental Design, Case
Study: Tiguentourine and Taouratine Fields
A.M. ATBI, A. AISSAOUI
SONATRACH, Algeria.

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 5th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (55th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8 – 10, 2004. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract Including the development parameters in the design made

Almost all the data used in reservoir simulation are subject
to uncertainty, which may be quite large especially for an
immature reservoir, consequently, reserves cannot be estimated
with accuracy for such reservoirs. Current stochastic
procedures as the multiple realization approach require large
number of simulation runs, such intensive computational effort
is sometimes prohibitive. The experimental design method has
been used in this study to quantify uncertainty in production
forecast by running only a reasonable number of simulation
runs.
This study has been carried out as follow, first the uncertain
parameters have been identified, a screening design was
performed to restrain the analysis to the key parameters, then a
more elaborated set of sensitivity runs was designed and run,
the design included the key uncertain parameters and the
development parameters like well spacing and abandonment
pressure, the results of these sensitivity runs have been then
used to substitute the reservoir simulation model by a nonlinear
function. After verifying the quality of the fit, this nonlinear
function was used to carry out Monte Carlo simulation. This
procedure was illustrated through Tiguentourine gas
condensate field case.
possible the estimate of uncertainty in reserves and production
profiles for different development scenarios. One major
advantage of using experimental design technique is that during
the progress of this study as a new well has been drilled, the
probability distributions of some uncertain parameters have
been reviewed, using the fit of the reservoir simulation model,
an update of the production forecasts was possible almost
instantaneously and without any extra simulation run.
Introduction
Reserves estimates are generally highly uncertain at early
stage of field development given the sparse geological data.
Considering the large initial capital investments associated
with most fields development, decisions should be made in full
awareness of geological risk. Many stochastic methods have
been used to quantify uncertainty, those methods generally
require large number of expensive fluid flow simulation runs,
most of them may lead to significant time and manpower
commitment. The problem can be exacerbated if different
development options have to be considered since reserves
should be estimated for each development option separately.

1
 Experimental design was proposed by Damsleth et al1 to get
around of this problem by running only a limited a set of well
designed sensitivity runs and fit the results of the simulation
model by a mathematical function that is then used as a
substitute of the real reservoir numerical model to carry out
Monte Carlo simulation.
The uncertain development design parameters can be
incorporated into the design, so the fit of the reservoir model
can be used for the analysis of the different possible
development strategies.
This work reports the application of experimental design
technique to a real field case where different development
scenarios have been under study.
Procedure
Experimental design is how to conduct and plan experiments
in order to extract the maximum amount of information from
the collected data in the presence of noise, in the fewest number
of experimental runs. The basic idea is to vary all relevant
factors simultaneously over a set of planned experiments and
then connect the results by means of a mathematical model.
This model is then used for the interpretation, prediction, and
optimization. In our case the mathematical model is used
instead of the real simulation model to carry out Monte Carlo
Simulation.
One of the most important parts of the experimental design is
the factorial design, it is used in experiments involving several
variables where it is necessary to investigate the joint effects of
the factors on a response variables. The commonly used
procedure in determining the main effects of more than one
variable on a certain response is to design a comparative
experiment to determine the effects of the first variable while
the others are at their most likely value, then a second
comparative experiment to determine the effect of the second
variable, and so on. This is one way sensitivity analysis. This
design is very inefficient from an experimental design point of
view, because the experiment number is large and the results
provide no information about the interaction of the factors.
Factorial design is one in which all levels of a given variable
are combined with all levels of every other variables in the
experiment, depending on the number of levels there can be
different types of factorial designs.
2K Experiments: If the complete set of the variables has two
levels coded –1 and +1 minimum and maximum respectively,
the experiment is called 2K factorial design, where K is the
number of variables. This kind of experiment is very useful to
illustrate the main and the interactions effects. This design is
generally used in the screening process, or to fit the response by
a first order model.
3K Experiments: In this kind of design there is K variables at
three levels coded –1, 0 and +1, respectively minimum, most
likely and maximum values. This design plays an important role
in more complicated design problems, because in addition to the
main effect and interaction this design can be used to determine
the curvature effects. A disadvantage of the factorial design is
that the number of experiment combinations increase rapidly as
the number of variables increase.
If these data have to be fitted by a polynomial model, many
of these experiments are unnecessary. One way to overcome
this problem is to consider only a subset of all possible
combinations, or a so called fractional factorial design.
Many kind of fractional factorial designs are available. The
design used in this study is the D-optimal design. D-Optimal
designs are computer generated designs that maximize
information from a limited number of experiments.
2
But as a result of the fractionalization the design do not give
full resolution; that is, there are certain interaction effects that
are confounded with (identical to) other effects. The resolution
depends on the number of runs in a fractional factorial design,
The possible resolutions are:
Resolution III designs: Where main effects are confounded
with 2 factor interactions. Resolution IV designs: Where two
factor interactions are confounded with each other. With both
resolution III and IV designs, the only model that can be
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022
selected is a linear model. There is also Resolution V designs,
where main effects and all two-factor interactions are clear of
each other’s (unconfounded). With resolution V designs,
interaction model can be generated ( quadratic model). This part
of the study using experimental design was carried out in two
stages the first stage consisted in carrying out a screening
design. The screening design is the first stage of an
investigation where the goal is just to identify the important
factors that can cause a substantial changes in the response
when it varies. Generally a 2 levels fractional factorial design is
used, after identifying the factors that have a substantial effect
on the response(s). A new design is generated including only
the important variables in terms of their impacts. The objective
of this new design is to carry out Response Surface Modeling.
D-Optimal design was chosen for both screening and
response surface modeling. A Windows-based software was
used for this purpose, providing design of experiments,
analysis, and optimization in one package. It allows a
polynomial fitting with Multi Linear or Partial Least Square
Regression, it allows refining and reviewing of the models as
well.
The variables considered in the design have been the
reservoir static, dynamic and development uncertain data2.
Uncertainty analysis should be carried out for one
development scenario at the time, including the development
data in the design can allow the quantification of uncertainty for
different possible development options. The responses of the
experiments are the output results of the simulation runs.
Uncertainty analysis was mainly applied to reserve
estimates, it can be extended to production profiles3 providing
some assumptions.
By breaking up the production profile into specific
characteristics (periods), the set of simulation runs used to
generate reserve distribution can also be used to generate
distribution for each one of the production profile
characteristics.
Any production profile can be generally characterized by
three periods and eight key coefficients Figure1. The buildup,
plateau and decline periods, each of these production period
can be represented by the following simple equations:
Build up: Q = ((Qp-Qi)/tb).t + Qi 0 ≤ t ≤ tb …(1)
Plateau period: Q = Qp tb ≤ t ≤ tp…(2)
Decline period: Q = Qp.(1+ Di b t)-1/b t ≥ tp …..(3)
Abandonment: Q = Qa t = ta …..(4)
Assuming standard hyperbolic decline with parameters:
b: Hyperbolic decline exponent.
Di: Initial decline rate.
Because in our case the available number of appraisal wells
drilled in the prospect insure to reach the plateau at the
beginning of the production, it was possible to fully characterize
the production profile by two periods and two parameters,
(1) the plateau period characterized by the plateau length and
(2) the decline period, fitted by a harmonic decline,
characterized by an initial decline rate constant Di.
Tiguentourine gas condensate field case
study
Tiguentourine field is situated in the South East of the
Algerian Sahara desert near the Libyan border in the Illizi basin,
Figure2.
This field was discovered in the 50’s and comprises three
independent reservoirs, the Carboniferous, the Devonian and the
Cambro Ordovician.
The Carboniferous and the Devonian are two oil reservoirs.
The Cambro Ordovician, subject of this study, is a gas
condensate reservoir.
The two first Horizons have been the only one produced. The
Cambro Ordovician reservoir was not exploited since the 50’s
because of no available gas sailing contract at that time.
In the late 90’s a production sharing agreement was signed
between two operators for a joint development of the Block
234, a prospect area including three structures:
Tiguentourine/La Reculée and Taouratine, Figure3.
In order to better constrain the potential of the field and
optimize development strategy, an appraisal work has been
performed in this prospect, consisting of a 3D seismic survey,
drilling of new wells and a series of well tests. The production
is expected to begin in 2005.
Tiguentourine field Structure :
The Tiguentourine Ordovician structure is a relatively high
relief faulted anticline trending in NNE-SSW direction and
covers 233 km2.
The structure is comprised of two peaks: the Tiguentourine
peak in the South and La Reculée peak in the North. The
structural dip is toward the North.
The structure is bounded on the East and West by two major
faults. The dominant fault orientation is Northeast Southwest
limiting the structure at the East, the Western fault has the same
orientation and separates Tiguentourine/La Reculée structure
from the Taouratine structure Figure4.
Reservoir Geology :
The Tiguentourine Cambro Ordovician reservoir was
interpreted as a succession of pre-, syn- and post- Glacial
sedimentary packages.
They have been gathered in two main reservoir layers or
Megasequences.
1st Megasequence : The lowermost division, it contains all
the pre glacial sediments. It is interpreted as fluviatile with
some marine influence deposits.
2nd Megasequence : It comprises all the syn and post glacial
sediments. It is interpreted as succession of ice proximal
tractional and high density turbidites deposits. Mainly found
along the axis of the two Glacial Paleo valleys, Found one in
the North and the other in the South, called respectively North
and South Paleo Valley Figure5.
The 2nd Megasequence represent the best play in term of
original volumes in place and petrophysical properties .
the 3D seismic was acquired in this prospect to :
- Precise structural maps of the top and the base of the
reservoir.
- Locate precisely the faults network.
3
- Help constrain the structural form of the good reservoir
intervals and enable to map the base and top of the syn-glacial
package.
Uncertain variables:
Tiguentourine/La Reculé structure is relatively well
appraised compared to the Taouratine area where only few
wells have been drilled.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022
The extension and potential of the two Glacial Paleo Valleys
in this zone have not been proven with certainty, the acquired
3D seismic helped constrain their shapes only to certain degree
given the limits of seismic resolution.
The extensions and original volumes in place of the two
Paleo valleys in the western area of the prospect have been
considered as uncertain parameters and have been attributed
three different values, corresponding to three different
confidence levels.
Using the results of the core, log and well test data gathered,
probability distributions have been also attributed to each one of
the static and dynamic parameters: Porosity, Net to Gross
Thickness, Water Saturation, Horizontal and Vertical
Permeability and the Critical Condensate Saturation, Wells
Mechanical Skin, Non-Darcy flow factor and finally the
transmissibility of the main western fault separating
Tiguentourine/La Reculé from Taouratine area.
Development Design Parameters:
While this work was under progress no final development
strategy have been adopted yet for Tiguentourine field, different
scenarios were still under consideration.
To be able to quantify uncertainty for the different probable
development scenarios and since uncertainty estimates in
reserves should be performed for one development strategy at
the time, the uncertain development parameters have been
incorporated in the Experimental Design.
The uncertain development parameters considered are:
Well Spacing: three well spacing have been considered 2000,
1000 and 500 acres spacing.
Minimum Tubing Head Pressure (Abandonment Pressure):
three abandonment pressures have been studied 650, 250 and
120 psi.
And finally Plateau Rate: three plateau rates have been
studied 700, 1000 and 1500 MMscf/D.
Response variables :
A full field 3D simulation model was used to carry out the
sensitivity study, the responses used from each simulation run
have been the cumulative gas produced after 20 years and gas
production plateau length, other responses have been used but
for brevity considerations not reported here.
Screening Design:
the first stage was to carry out a screening design in order to
discriminate between the variables in terms of their importance
in affecting the simulation output results (Response variables).
This stage is important, its purpose is to restrain the study to
the significant variables in order to limit the number of response
surface modeling sensitivity runs.
The screening design chosen was a D-optimal design with
resolution IV at 2 levels, in this type of designs the response can
only be fitted by a first order polynomial, the screening design
matrix is given in Table1.
The Plot 6 & 7 represent the coefficients of the polynomial
scaled and centered. The scaling makes the coefficients
comparable. The size of the coefficient represents the change in
the response when a factor varies from 0 to 1, in coded units, Where:
while the other factors are kept at their averages. The coefficient Gp: cumulative gas produced after 20 years in this case
is significant (different from the noise), when the confidence tp: is the plateau length.
interval does not cross zero. qp: the plateau rate (MMscf/d).
We noticed that the water saturation Sw, the fault Di: the initial decline constant rate.
conductivity, the Non Darcie flow coefficient Dfactor, the t: in this case is 20 years.
absolute permeability K, the critical condensate saturation Scc, The P90 gas production profiles for the three scenarios are
the skin, the vertical anisotropy Kv/Kh had an insignificant given in the Figure11.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022

impact on the cumulative gas produced and the plateau length.
all of them were ignored for the Response Surface Modeling
Design stage.
Response Surface Modeling Design:
The second part consisted in designing a set of sensitivity
runs in order to carry out response surface modeling, the design
matrix used for this purpose is given in Table2.
A D-optimal design was chosen with resolution V at 5 levels,
three center points were included, 0, 0,333 and –0,333. the
responses were fitted with quadratic polynomials including
curvature and interaction terms.
The software used allowed the refining and refitting of the
model, only the significant parameters were kept.
The refitted coefficient scaled and centered obtained for the
cumulative gas produced and plateau length are given in the
Table3 & 4.
An excellent quality of the fit was obtained for both the
cumulative gas produced and plateau length, as indicated by the
values of R2adj, 0.984 and 0.987, for both responses very close
to 1. The very good quality of the fit can also be noticed on the
plot of the predicted versus observed values, Figure 8 & 9.
Monte Carlo Simulation Results:
Monte Carlo Simulation was carried out using a risk analysis
software. The input variables have been sampled 10000 times.
The probability distributions of cumulative gas produced, for
the three development scenarios are given in the Figure 10.
From economic standpoint the rate at which hydrocarbons
can be produced is as important as the ultimate recovery. The
production profile can be divided into different periods having
each one a specific characteristic. The set of sensitivity runs
used to generate response surface for reserves can be used to
generate response surface for each one of the production profile
characteristics.
In our case the production profile have been divided into two
periods:
1) a plateau period characterized by the plateau length, and
2) a decline period fitted by a harmonic decline characterized
by an initial decline constant Di.
Having the cumulative gas produced Gp (t) and the plateau
length tp , for a given confidence level, we can get the initial
decline constant rate Di of the same confidence level.
For example: the constant Di P90 is the one that when
combined with a plateau length P90, restitutes a cumulative
production P90.
The initial decline constants Di can be calculated solving the
following equation for Di
Update of the production forecasts:
Before finishing this study, a new well have been drilled in
the western part of the prospect to confirm the extension of the
North Paleo Valley, the analysis of its data suggested that the
North Paleo Valley deteriorates in this area.
In the light of these new information, the parameter
“Extension of the North Paleo Valley “ (North-PV) has been re-
adjusted.
The last response surface models were used combined with
Monte Carlo Simulation to update the production forecasts. The
same input distributions were used to carry out Monte Carlo
simulation, only the distribution of the variable “North Paleo
Valley” (North PV) was changed (updated).
The updated unrisked estimates of the Cumulative gas
produced and production profile, for the third development
scenario, are given in the Figures 12 & 13.
Conclusions
The experimental design technique has been applied to
assess uncertainty in production forecasts of Tiguentourine field
. From the analysis of the last results the following conclusions
have been drawn :
· Uncertainty estimates can be carried out using less
simulation runs by applying Experimental Design.
· the Screening design gives access to the ranking of
parameters in terms of their impacts in affecting the output
simulation results, attention can be then focused to appropriate
contingency plans to reduce the impact of the key uncertain
parameters.
· By including the development design parameters in
the Response Surface Model, it was possible to estimate
reserves for different development scenarios.
· The response surface model offered the advantage of
being available to update reserve estimates promptly and
without excessive computational effort as new information
became available.
· At the origin of all uncertainty evaluation there is a
need to assess probabilities in a subjective way. By using the
last procedure, it is possible to test different input probability
distributions in Monte Carlo Simulation with almost no
computational effort.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Sonatrach for its support in
the preparation and for permission to publish this paper.

t
NOMENCLATURE
t tp

∫ ∫ ∫ Di = Initial decline rate.

q

Gp(t) = q dt = p dt + qp/(1+Di (t-tp)) dt………..(5) Gp = Cumulative gas produced.

0 0 tp
tp = Plateau length.
Qp = Plateau rate (MMscf/d).
( )) ..................(6)
qp
G p ( t ) = q p .t p +
Di
.2.303 .log 1+ D i t − t p ( t
Q
=
=
Time.
Rate.
North PV = North Paleovalley.

4
South PV = South Paleovalley.
Phi = Porosity.
NTG = Net to Gross Thickness.
Sw = Water Saturation.
Kh = Horizontal Permeability.
Kv = Vertical Permeability.
Scc = Critical Condensate Saturation.
S = Mechanical Skin.
Dfactor = Non-Darcy flow factor.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022

FTrans = Fault transmissibility.
WSpacing = Well spacing.
APressure = Abandonment pressure.

REFERENCES
1. Damsleth, E., A. Hage, and R.Volden: “ Maximum Information
at Minimum Cost: A North Sea Field Development Study With
an Experimental Design,” Paper SPE 23139 Presented at the
Offshore Europe Conference held in Aberdeen, 3-8 September
1991.
2. Ovreberg, O., Damsleth, E. and Haldorsen, H.H. : ”
Putting Error-Bars on Reservoir Engineering Forecasts,”
Paper SPE 20512 Presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans.
3. P.J. Smith, D.J. Hendry, and A.R.Crowther: “The
Quantification and Management of Uncertainty in Reserves,”
paper SPE 26056 presented at the Western Regional Meeting
Anchorage, 26-28 May 1993.

5
Exp No Phi Sw NTG Ftrans Dfactor KH Scc S Kv North PV South PV WSpacing Qp Apressure
1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1
2 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1
3 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
4 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1
5 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1
6 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1
7 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1
8 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1
9 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1
10 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1
11 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1
12 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022

13 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1
14 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1
15 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
16 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1
17 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1
18 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1
19 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1
20 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1
21 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1
22 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1
23 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1
24 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1
25 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1
26 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1
27 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1
28 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1
29 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1

Table 1: Screening Design Matrix.

Exp n° Phi NTG WSpacing Apressure Qp North PV South PV

1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1
3 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1
4 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1
5 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1
6 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1
7 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1
8 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1
9 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1
10 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1
11 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1
13 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1
14 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1
15 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1
16 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1
17 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1
18 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1
19 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1
20 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1
21 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 0,333
22 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 0,333
23 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -0,333 -1
24 -1 -1 -1 1 0,333 1 -1
25 -1 -1 -1 -0,333 -1 1 1
26 -1 -1 -1 0,333 1 -1 -1
27 -1 -1 1 -1 1 0,333 -1
28 -1 -1 1 -1 -0,333 1 1
29 -1 -1 1 1 1 -0,31 1
30 -1 -1 -0,333 1 1 -1 1
31 -1 -1 0,333 1 1 1 -1
32 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -0,333
33 -1 1 -1 1 0,333 -1 1
34 -1 1 -1 0,333 -1 -1 1
35 -1 1 1 -0,333 1 1 1
36 -1 1 0,333 -1 1 1 1
37 -1 1 -0,333 1 -1 1 1
38 -1 -0,333 -1 -1 1 1 1
39 -1 0,333 -1 1 1 -1 -1
40 -1 0,333 1 -1 -1 -1 1
41 -1 -0,333 1 1 -1 1 1
42 1 -1 -1 -1 -0,333 -1 -1
43 1 -1 -1 1 1 -0,333 -1
44 1 -1 1 -1 -1 0,333 1
45 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -0,333
46 1 -1 1 1 0,333 -1 -1
47 1 0 -0,333 0 0 0 0
48 0 1 -0,333 0 0 0 0
49 0 0 -0,333 0 0 0 -1
50 0 0 -0,333 0 0 0 0

Table 2: Response Surface Modeling Design Matrix

6
 Cum Gp (20years) Coeff, SC Std, Err, Conf int(+/-)
Constant 6,88393 0,0777407 0,16011
Phi 0,544558 0,0333825 0,0687526
NTG 0,36529 0,0331433 0,0682599
WSpacing -0,617144 0,0347597 0,0715889
Apressure -0,372236 0,034586 0,0712312
Qp 0,964206 0,0339501 0,0699216
North PV 0,805326 0,0344999 0,071054
South PV 0,365549 0,0343684 0,0707831

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022

Qp*Qp -0,494485 0,090945 0,187305
North PV ^ 2 -0,651427 0,0905195 0,186428
Phi*WSpacing -0,0417602 0,0349823 0,0720474
Phi*Apressure 0,0698683 0,0346624 0,0713886
Phi*Qp 0,332011 0,0339113 0,0698416
Phi*North PV -0,148256 0,0359863 0,0741152
Phi*South PV -0,0613698 0,0350723 0,0722327
NTG*Apressure -0,10439 0,0354661 0,0730439
NTG*Qp 0,179685 0,0357043 0,0735344
NTG*North PV -0,119487 0,0350317 0,0721492
NTG*South PV -0,0647714 0,0350145 0,0721137
WSpacing*Apressure 0,0635609 0,036604 0,0753875
WSpacing*Qp -0,420409 0,0356203 0,0733615
Apressure*Qp -0,291591 0,0352552 0,0726094
Apressure*North PV 0,121795 0,0354191 0,072947
Apressure*South PV 0,103441 0,0355256 0,0731664
Qp*North PV 0,568667 0,0361532 0,0744591
Qp*South PV 0,196107 0,0358164 0,0737652
North PV*South PV -0,0925707 0,0364533 0,075077
Table 3: cumulative gas produced response surface model coefficients (scaled and centered).

Plateau Length Ceff. SC Std. Err. Conf. Int(+/-)

Constant 126,428 6,88098 14,2704
Phi 40,837 2,81083 5,82934
NTG 26,3095 2,7265 5,65445
Wspacing -60,2347 2,85514 5,92122
Apressure -23,9758 2,87959 5,97192
Qp -108,483 2,79018 5,7865
North PV 62,4574 2,87891 5,97052
South PV 26,4127 2,84492 5,90004
Wspacing ^ 2 25,4432 8,68455 18,0107
Qp*Qp 31,4799 7,66338 15,893
Phi*NTG 6,75875 2,74963 5,70241
Phi*Wspacing -139597 2,85053 5,91166
Phi*Apressure -8,04552 2,85927 5,92979
Phi*Qp -25,2632 2,80146 5,8099
Phi*North PV 18,1468 2,94211 6,10159
Phi*South PV 9,77953 2,8452 5,90061
NTG*Apressure -6,57921 2,94681 6,11133
NTG*Qp -14,638 2,96916 6,1577
NTG*North PV 10,9491 2,93095 6,07845
NTG*South PV 11,031 2,89191 5,99749
WSpacing*Apressure 6,76581 3,01157 6,24565
WSpacing*Qp 17,551 2,9175 6,05056
WSpacing*North PV -22,8966 2,9229 6,06175
WSpacing*South PV -9,0012 2,91109 6,03726
Apressure*Qp 14,8774 2,90164 6,01766
Apressure*North PV -11,3285 2,90028 6,01484
Apressure*South PV -10,8727 2,91855 6,05273
Qp*North PV -32,4671 2,992 6,20505
Qp*South PV -13,1886 2,94477 6,10711
North PV*South PV 5,24748 2,99689 6,21519
Table 4: plateau length response surface model coefficients (scaled and centered).

7
 Q

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022

Qp
Qi
Qa
t
tb tp
Figure 1 : Characteristics of production profile.

Figure 2 : Tiguentourine field Location. Figure 3 : Contract Area.

Figure 4 : Tiguentourine Field structure. Figure 5 : Situation of the North & South
Paléo Valleys in the field.

8
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022
APressure
FTrans

Wspacing

North PV

South PV
Phi

NTG

Dfactor
Sw

APressure
Scc
Kh

Qp

Wspacing
Kv

North PV

South PV
S

Dfactor
FTrans
Phi

NTG

Scc
Kh

Kv
Sw

Qp
Figure 6 : Cumulative Gas produced coefficients, Figure 7 : Plateau Length Coefficients, screening design.
screening design.

Figure 8 : Cumulative Gas Produced , observed versus Figure 9 : Plateau Length, Observed versus predicted values plot..
predicted values plot.

100% 1200

90%

1000
80%

70%
800
Gas rate(MMscf/d)

60%
Pobability(%)

50% Scenario1 600

Scenario1
Scenario2
Scenario2
Scenario3
40% Scenario3
400
30%

20% 200

10%

0
0% 0 5 10 15 20 25
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ti ( )

Figure 10 : The three development scenarios Cumulative Figure 11 : The three development scenarios P90
Gas Produced, Cumulative probability chart. Production Profiles.

9
 100%

90%

80%

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/PETSOCCIPC/proceedings-pdf/04CIPC/All-04CIPC/PETSOC-2004-097/1855532/petsoc-2004-097.pdf/1 by Chulalongkorn University user on 19 July 2022

70%

Probability(%) 60%

50%
Old Cum Gas
New Cum Gas
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Figure 12 : Old and Updated Cumulative probability chart of the

Cumulative Gas produced for the third development scenario.

1200

1000

800
Gas Rate (MMscf)

600
Old Production Profile
New Production Profile

400

200

0
0 50 100 150 200 Time(Month) 250 300

Figure 13 : Old and Updated P90 production profile for the

third development scenario.

10