SPE 152878

South Sen Field Dynamic Analysis, Mexico South Region

M. B. Cabrejos, OGO; L. F. Guevara, G. Sanchez Orozco, PEMEX



Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Mexico City, Mexico, 1618 April 2012.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.


Abstract

Sen field was discovered in mid 1984 with full exploration beginning in May 1987. The exploration area consisted
of 30 wells, 6 of them which remain active today; reservoirs are from dolomites, where fractured Middle and upper
Cretaceous limestones currently provide the majority of `production. The field produces 40 API volatile oil with
extremely low matrix porosity (0-3% average) and natural fractures as the primary production source.
A need to evaluate the fluid diffusion inside the pore system arises from well depletions rates, sudden water
breakthrough, so as to find production opportunities and non-drained areas. A dynamic analysis and its
integration with a productivity analysis was proposed to help us understand the reservoir dynamics and the well
productivity behavior.
Well tests interpretations and matching with production rate record, the so called dynamic analysis, is nowadays
one of the main reservoir characterization methods and thus, can become a very important tool to set the right
reservoir developing strategy.
.
This paper discusses the applied methodology, for this purpose well test and production analysis specialized
software were used. The first step was to interpret the buildup and draw-down well tests under a Pressure
Transient Analysis outline; then, these analyses and the production record were matched to achieve an improved
reservoirs model definition. Once these analyses were over, equivalent time synchronization was done to the
production and pressure performance of each well, having as a basis the reservoirs model that was built from the
well test interpretations. As a result, a great data matching was established thereby obtaining the reservoirs
parameters, oil in place, depletion rate and production forecast to rely on better reservoirs characterization and
overview, thus increasing reservoirs productivity




2 SPE 152878
Introduction

The Well Tests interpretation is one of the best ways to characterize a reservoir or to determine the Well
performance. The good use of this information will allow us to obtain valuable and indispensable information to
define the right reservoir exploitation strategy and to settle the Well optimal operation conditions.

The pressure measurement is one of the best monitoring tools for diagnosing and understanding the reservoir's
condition. Hence, information obtained from the Well Tests will help us to reduce the economical risk from a
variety of decisions taken throughout the Well and Reservoir productive life and, at the same time, recommend
some decisions to optimized and preserve the best conditions.

Recently people's interest on the Well Tests Analysis has build-upd by the use of advanced technology such as
modern measuring instruments, mathematical models and easy to use computerized systems. Nevertheless,
besides all those achievements, mistakes continue to be done at the moment of reading, validating and
interpreting the Well Tests. Additionally, Information's full advantage from the Well Test is not taken.

This essay shows, in a simple integrated and practical way, a methodology that spans all the principles previously
settled, displaying Well Test features and analysis methods,
by reinterpreting the Well Test from the very beginning of the reservoir exploitation to the current tests. Applying a
wide criteria involving the geoscience branches we can quarry for the information taken from the Well Test to
integrate all the factor that will have an influence on the analysis. Helping us to give solutions and a real
understanding of the Well- Reservoir system.

Background

Proyecto Integral Delta del Grijalva is 50 km away from Villahermosa, Tabasco in Mexico, with north-east
direction (figure 1). It has a 1, 343.12 km extension on shore at 18 11 and 18 35 North latitude and 92 42
and 93 03 West longitude from the Greenwich Meridian within the towns of Centla, Nacajuca, Centro, Jalpa de
Mendez and Paraiso.

Its geological structure places it in the Alto of Chiapas-Tabasco, inside the South-East Tertiary Basins. It has
tight and highly fractured limestones from the Upper Cretaceous and Mid-Inferior Kimeridgian Upper Jurassic.
Due to the high organic material level present in these carbonates, they are considered as the main hydrocarbon
producing rocks. The sealing rocks are given by the Tertiary shales and the local salty bodies.
Methodology

Theres ample scientific basis behind the reservoirs characterization through dynamic analysis, requiring wide
engineering knowledge to logically interpret data and reservoirs parameters with the aid of modern tools and
techniques; all this cant be done without first having gathered and validated as much information as possible and
SPE 152878 3
specially, without having a clear and strong understanding of the problem. Only under these circumstances, the
reservoirs definition and evaluation becomes convenient.
Accordingly, checking and data corroborations were performed to validate all Sen South field available
information, such as PVT analyses, dynamic and static well tests, build-up and draw-down tests, production tests,
petrophysical analyses and any other information that could bring forward representative data.

Once this validation was done, there was a production and pressure behavior at equivalent time match per well
adjusted to the reservoir model; this later step provided reliable reservoir parameters, decline trend, hydrocarbon
volumes and production forecasts.

Interpretation of the pressure testing

The first part of this methodology involves the interpretation of pressure tests, its what we call regularly Pressure
Transient Analysis (Pressure Transient Analysis). We initially collected all ASCII files of evidence taken in the
field, these were classified on the type of test and validated according to operating conditions in which the test
was taken and considering how much time it lasted.

Then, we selected the representative periods of draw-down and build-up to be interpreted according to the design
and execution of the test, in order to achieve a reliable interpretation.

The reservoir model, as well as its parameters is as close as possible to the actual well behavior, with the firm
intention to get a reservoir model that is accurate enough to reproduce qualitatively and quantitatively the
production mechanisms of the system.

After this first analysis, a second analysis of pressure interpretation was performed to synchronize the pressure
test with the wells life record
.
The build-up and draw-down pressure tests were synchronized at an equivalent time. Understanding the test
under this premise, trying to get a better adjustment, improving the performance in the post-flow conditions, which
can expose and minimize the effect of storing inside the well, which is translated into a greater scope of
investigation, that would help to compare the reservoir model.

The ideal circumstances would be to have a history of representative production record along with draw-down and
build-up tests with enough study time to enable us to investigate the boundaries of the well in the reservoir.

During the analysis and interpretation of pressure in the South Sen field 21 draw-down and build-up tests were
performed, using the methodology of conventional pressure interpretation. On those interpretations some fairly
reliable adjustments were made, some acceptable tests and other tests were inconsistent.

4 SPE 152878
Those tests were performed using a working software simulator named Saphir, From Kappa platform. In each of
these interpretations an analytical model was conducted, it was later corroborated with a simulation model,
establishing at the same time a synergy with other geosciences to achieve adjustment of the geological model in
the vicinity of each of the wells tested. It also validated the pressure data and reservoir parameters obtained in
these interpretations.
ANALYSIS OF INTERPRETATION. Well 1
Pressure Tests were interpreted in two-phases, initially with the production periods that were used during the test
and then synchronizing the whole production behavior of the well in well 1. The interpretation was made by
synchronizing the 2 build-up tests taken in October 2005 and March 2008 with full production history, as shown in
Figure 2. In this case since this well production began in 1998 we have a fairly typical pressure history but a little
unstable for the interpretation of the test.

After synchronizing all pressure tests with a production history within an equivalent time. We use interpretation
logs to simultaneously compare and interpret tests, as shown in Figure 3. In the semi-log plot we have two tests,
and as shown, they are forming very similar straight lines, although in the first test the straight line was originated
at a longer time, due to higher inertial effects. In this test we can see the behavior of the reservoir pressure and
how much it has declined through these three years according to the production history.

All statements and issues that could be raised by interpreting the two pressure tests, can be explained with the
log-log plot (Figure 4), and although the two tests have different flow closing times, we can see which one is more
representative, showing a shorter period of storage and getting a better model.

As seen, the more representative test and with the best outcome, either on the reservoir model or calculated
parameter, was taken in 2008 (Figure 5), but we must consider, from another point of view, that it was used for
comparing a model of dual porosity fracture, taking a model of two parallel faults limit, which are present in the
geological model.

Reservoir parameters obtained were a permeability of 57.3 md with a skin factor of 4.39 with a reservoir pressure
of 7525 psia in the model of limit. According to geological information it was modeled with two parallel faults. The
distances of these 2 failures were: The first of 2028 feet and the second about 7200 feet, which is the farthest on
the map. If we compare these values with those obtained previously in the conventional analysis, they remain
close and are within a set range.

As shown and according to the results of the calculated parameters with this type of interpretation, we can say
that this gives a better view of the initial problems of the well. Where we consider the history of production to
achieve a better definition of the test, where the points where those post-flow effects are minimized, and thus we
can identify the reservoir model with greater precision. This procedure was performed on 21 analysis,
corresponding to total pressure testing found for Sen South field

SPE 152878 5
Production analysis
In order to assess the decline production trend of wells, reservoirs or fields, production decline curves are used;
on the production record basis; these are the easiest way to estimate the recoverable reserves.
Its dynamic peculiarity rises from the fact that it uses the fluids production record, whether of a single well or the
entire reservoir, to predict the amount of recoverable reserves. This method can only be applied when having a
production record that is big enough so as to establish a behavior trend, since an extrapolation is done departing
from that very same trend.
On the other hand, when one handles the production decline value its possible to propose projects and activities
that generate or maintain potential, as well as maximize and/or modify the current production method in wells.
This important decline value its used to perform production programs. The purpose of obtaining the decline value
is to know the recoverable and remaining reserves of each well in the field which, in a given study time, could be
extracted. In this way, it is possible to determine the reservoirs life, its economic limit and establish productions
plans for its development.
In the dynamic analysis period of the Sen South Field, production analyses were made. During this,
representative and recent events had to be located. With this purpose, a behavior production study was used with
decline curves analysis widely discussed in literature such as J. J. Arps and M. J. Fetkovich.
Through the use of computer tools (Topaze Software from Kappa platform) representative events could be
selected. With this software, production rates versus time plots were made to observe the lapses in which the
production record had no major fluctuations, but remained stable.
Having this done, exponential, harmonic and hyperbolic decline methods were applied. This shed light on the
corresponding decline for each well to finally obtain the particular decline type and percentage of the field.
Well 2 was set as the representative period of production decline from 2007 to march 2011, producing from the
KSM formation as seen in blue on figure 6.
The Arps decline analysis was done using the stabilized chosen zone that included a steep decline period,
necessary to perform a good study (Figure 7).
The Qo versus time log plot shows that the best match with real well behavior is give by the hyperbolic decline
with a b=0.9 value and an yearly decline of 1.87 ye . The initial rate value is 1,850 STB and 0.39 MMSTB as
remaining reserves.
ar

ar

Likewise, the Fetkovich method was applied to this well, the result is a dimensionless curve with matching real
daily and cumulative production data.
As figure 8 shows, the best match was achieved with a hyperbolic decline and the obtained results were very
close to the ones computed with Arps.
The final results are: b=0.9, yearly decline= 1.87 ye and Qi= 1,820 STB.




6 SPE 152878
Production analysis with dynamic pressures

Once the available well tests had been interpreted using log-log and semi-log plots with derivative and Horner
methods, a representative reservoir model was chosen. Simultaneously, an Arps and Fetkovich classic production
analysis was performed. The proceeding step was to match the production behaviors with the dynamic gradient
tests obtained from the production record. In this way, it was possible to match the reservoir model taking
advantage of the Topaze software.
This procedure was applied to the net oil production as well as to the raw production of Well 2 (Figure 9). In this
case, the water production will be added to mimic the real behavior; nevertheless, it must be remembered that the
dynamic gradients were taken under representative water influx.
The purpose of this procedure was to achieve a representative match so that in the end, a similar match was
obtained and adjusted to the net oil production. At the beginning of the decline trend, one can appreciate a good
match since is the period with more values of dynamic pressure; on the other hand, the match deteriorates at the
end of that production period given the fact that there are few point of dynamic pressures belonging to it.
Nevertheless, there is a good match in the first points that in turn, gave room for the application on specialized
type-curves.
The raw production analysis for well 2 will be shown as a comparison using the Log-Log plots and the Blasingame
Plot. As seen in Figure 10 (Blasingame curve), the plot shows the normalized rate corresponding to the
productivity index, the normalized rates integer and the normalized rate integer derivative with the equivalent
time.
This wells matching is pretty acceptable and the computed parameters were the following: Re= 2720 ft, Influx
capacity= 835 md/ft, k=1.63 md, skin factor=3.6867 and Npi= 22.7 MMSTB.
The analysis went on using the Blasingame curve plot method. Figure 11 shows the normalized rate
corresponding to the productivity index, the normalized rates integer and the normalized rate integer derivative
with the equivalent time.
The computed parameters were the following: Re= 2720 ft, Influx capacity= 835 md/ft, k=1.63 md, skin
factor=3.6867 and Npi= 22.7 MMSTB.
It can be said that both plots have a simultaneous match, hence, the values are similar y la matching is confirmed.
However, when the values are compared its possible to appreciate a parameters deterioration in the reservoir
model, such as a permeability decrease and a skin increase, phenomenon that can be explained by the water
present inside the porous net.
Thus, as it was said at the beginning of these analyses, los values of k, Skin and kh were obtained from the well
tests interpretation being the most ideal and representative may to compute this information, keeping in mind that
the main purpose of these curves is not to obtain parameters, but to provide additional information when not
having well tests. It is also needed to see that the original volume in situ increases considering the water
production; in these cases, it is very advisable to compare results and only choose de remarkable points of each
analysis.


SPE 152878 7
Production forecasts

This study achieved purposes such as the production and pressure matching, reservoir models match, validation
of representative cumulative production data, computing of drain radius, limits, decline trends and original
hydrocarbon volumes. Additionally, it was needed to obtain production forecasts that made a distinction between
well and producing formations; all the later is a useful tool to predict future production behaviors.
In this stage, the forecasting began from the last bottom dynamic pressure, using the previously obtained
matches, until it reached the abandonment pressures.
In despite of the lack of dynamic pressure tests, it was possible to perform a forecast with a production behavior
match as showed in figure 12. The last periods of production behavior could not be adjusted, resulting in an initial
forecasting uncertainty since it begins with a lower than real rate; thus, the forecast is not reliable.
Given the uncertainty derived from the forecasting analysis, this later one was also performed for the raw
production (oil + water) since the well produces and will keep on producing water.
On figure 13 its possible to observe the raw production match and it forecasting analysis. It is seen that it grows
better than the net production analysis, since it has no such a steep drop; nevertheless, the problem remains as
not having enough dynamic pressures for that lapse. If the production forecast is analyzed on a raw production
bases, it turns a little more representative that the preceding one. If the last dynamic pressure prevailed (6132
psi), the well could remain producer until December 2017, where the abandonment production would be 50
STB/day and the cumulative production would have reached 11.5845 MMSTB. This method, explained with the
Well 2 example, was applied to the 6 producing well of the field.
Conclusions

1. The drain radius, porous volume and original oil in place per well and formation were obtained from the
dynamic analysis.
2. The results obtained from the dynamic analysis were acceptable, according to the production behavior, to
compute the drain radius.
3. The obtained value for the dynamic analysis for computing of different drain radius, indicate that there is
no homogenous fluids entry to the fracture.
4. To carry on the dynamic analysis and qualitative and quantitatively reproduce the reservoirs model, there
must be enough representative information.
5. With this method, the computed values (volumes, declines and reserves) allow for a match that departs
from time=0 on the chosen-for-analysis decline period.
6. Some wells production forecasts had lags on the production prediction since there were not enough
flowing bottom whole pressures at the end of the chosen period.
7. To interpret a well test, the total production period must be considered, as well as the stabilized flow
period. This, given that the restoration period will be affected by the stabilized period, with longer lapses
appearing at the total production time.
8. The tests reinterpretation made it possible to confirm certain geological events, which are translated into
a better comprehension of the field structural model.

8 SPE 152878
References

1. Palacio J, Blasingame T. Decline-curve analysis using type curves-analysis of gas well production data.
Paper SPE 25909, (1993).
2. Doublet, Pande, McCollum, Blasingame. Decline curve analysis using type curves-analysis of oil well
production data using material balance time: Application to field cases. Paper SPE 28688, (1994).
3. Crafton J. Oil and gas well evaluation using the reciprocal productivity index method. Paper SPE 37409,
(1997).
4. Camacho, Vasquez, Castrejon, Arana. Pressure transient and decline curve behaviors in naturally
fractured vuggy carbonate reservoirs. Paper SPE 77689, (2002).
5. Houz O. Viturat D. Fjaere O. Et Al. Dynamic Flow Analysis Suggested Workflows for Real Time
Reservoir Surveillance. V4.10.01. Kappa, (2008).
6. Houze O. Viturat D. Fjaere O. Et Al. Dynamic Data Analysis. V4.12.01. Kappa, (2011).
7. Houz O. Viturat D. Fjaere O. Et Al. Dynamic Flow Analysis. V4.12.01. Kappa, (2008).






















SPE 152878 9

Figure 1: Geographical Location



Figure 2: Match. Build Up Test, Well 1




Figure 3: Match. Semilog Plot, Well 1



10 SPE 152878


Figure 4: Match, Log-Log Plot, Well 1



Figure 5: Log-Log Plot, 2008 Test, Well 1






Figure 6: Production Decline, Well 2




SPE 152878 11


Figure 7: Production Decline From Arps, Well 2



Figure 8: Production Decline, Fectkovich Curve-Type, Well 2





Figure 9: Pressure.Production Analysis, Well 2



12 SPE 152878


Figure 10: Log-Log Curve, Pressure-Production Analysis, Well 2







Figure 11: Blasingame Curve, Pressures Production, Well 2






Figure 12: Net Production Forecasting Analydis, Well 2
SPE 152878 13


Figure 13: Raw Production Forecasting Analysis, Well 2