Capacitance Resistance Model Update

Larry W. Lake
The University of Texas at Austin
Larry_Lake@mail.utexas.edu
 Outline

• Introduction
• The Model
• Validation
• Updates of Technology
 Prior and Current Work

Past
• Belkis Refunjol
Present
• Jorge S’Antana Pizarro (Petrobros) • Tom Edgar, ChE

• Isolda Griffiths (Shell) • Leon Lasdon, IROM

• Alejandro Albertoni (Nytec) • Tad Patzek, PGE

• Alireza Mollaei, PGE
• Pablo Gentil (Galp)
• Anh Phoung Nguyen, ChE
• Ali Al-Yousif (Aramco) • Fei Cao, PGE
• Danial Kaviani (TAMU) • Wenle Wang, PGE
• Thang Bui (TAMU) • Jong Suk Kim, ChE
• Xming Liang
• Morteza Sayarpour (Chevron)
• Sami Kaswas (ExxonMobil)
• Daniel Weber (Shell)
What others say about modeling…

• Bratvold and Bickel…Two types

– Verisimilitude- the appearance of reality
– Cogent- enables decisions
• Haldorsen….the progress of ideas
– Youth= simple, naïve
– Adolescence=complex, naïve
– Middle age=complex, sophisticated
– Maturity= simple, sophisticated
 Hypothesis

• Characteristics of a reservoir can be

inferred from analyzing production
and injection data only
 Boundary Conditions

• Must be injection project

• Rates are most abundant data type
• Rates must vary
• No geologic model required
• Input, output in a spreadsheet
 Outline

• Introduction
• The Model
• Validation
• Updates of technology
 CRM Continuity Equation
Continuity: Production Rate:
i(t) q(t)
c t Vp
dp
dt
 i(t)  q(t) 
q(t)  J p  pwf 
Ordinary Differential Equation:

dq(t) 1 1 dpwf
 q(t)  i(t)  J
dt   dt
c t Vp

J

Solution: Primary Injection BHP

t t0  t t0   t t0 
 pwf,t  pwf,0 
 
( ) ( ) ( )
q(t)  q(t0 )e  
 I(t) 1 e    c t Vp  
 1 e  
   t  t0   
   
Signal Response

Production response to an injection signal

Connectivity
ττijij==61days day
ffijfijij===100%
65%
0%
Capacitance-Resistance Model (CRMT)

ctV p
I(t) q(t) 
J
Time constant

qk  qk 1e
 t
 
 1  e
 t
  I
  k
Capacitance-Resistance Model (CRMP)
 ctV p 
 j   
qj(t)  J j
I5 I4
Time constant
f5j f4j I3
I6
f6j
j I2
f3j
I1 f2j
f1j
np


f11
f ij  1 f12 f13
Drainage volume
j 1 around a producer
Inter-well connectivity or gain

 t   t  ni
 f ij I ik
j j
q jk  q j k 1e  1  e
  i 1
 Capacitance-Resistance Model (CRMIP)
 ctV p 
qj(t)
 ij   
 J ij
Ii(t)
Time constant

ij
np fij

f
j 1
ij 1
Inter-well connectivity or gain

ni
  t   t
 ij  
q jk   qij k 1e
 ij
 1  e  f ij I ik 
i 1    
Mature West Texas Waterflood

Gains > 0.5

Gains >0.5
Injector
Producer
Mature West Texas Waterflood
Gains >0.4
Injector
Producer
Mature West Texas Waterflood

Gains > 0.3

Gains >0.3 Injector
Producer
Mature West Texas Waterflood
Gains > 0.2
Gains >0.2Injector
Producer
 Outline

• Introduction
• The Model
• Validation
• Updates to technology
 Validation
How do we scientifically validate
geoscience hypotheses?

Remember:
Characteristics of a reservoir can be inferred
from analyzing production and injection data
only
 Recognizing testable hypotheses can be subtle and
requires practice. To do it, ask “how would one test this
hypothesis”.

– If the duck is lighter than this woman, then she is

a witch.
 Validation
Characteristics of a reservoir can be inferred from
analyzing production and injection data only
Field Injectant Independent Data Agree
Synfields Water Simulation Very well

Snyfields Water Retrodiction Very well

Chuido Water Faults from seismic Reasonably

SWCFU Water Anecdotal fractures Reasonably

NSF I Water Structure Well

NBDU Gas Tracer data Fairly well

Will. Basin Water Acoustic impedance Reasonably

SELU Water Oil in tank Maybe

 Outline

• Introduction
• The Model
• Validation
• Updates to Technology
 Updates to Technology

• Input data screening (Cao, 2011)

• New graphical methods (Wang, 20110
• Integrated CRM (error intervals) (Kim, 2011)
• Extension to primary recovery (Nguyen, 2011)
• Extension to subsidence problem (Wang, 2011)
 Possible Data Problems
• Missing flowing
pressures, flow rates
• Unexplained 3000
Example 1
oil production

discontinuous changes

production rate (rb/day)

2500 total production

2000 water production

• Inconsistencies with 1500

gas production

rates, pressures 1000

500

• Wrong water 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time, month
production data
• Unknown operational
changes
 Data Issues Remedies

• Get to know data set

• Replace with averages

• Restart CRM

• Outlier detection

• Fill in blanks with CRM

Model Fit and Prediction Algorithm
Remove Remove gains
inactive wells Remove outliers
based on distance

Warm start
Gainfit Remove small
Gainfit #1
gains

Calculate residuals
Gainfit #2 Gainfit #3
and replace outliers

Calculate residuals
Fracfit #1 Fracfit #2
and remove outliers

~2.5 hrs
computation
Reservoir
model
time

Maximize NPV of future oil recovery

Model Fit and Prediction Algorithm
Remove Remove gains
inactive wells Remove outliers
based on distance

Warm start
Gainfit Remove small
Gainfit #1
gains

Calculate residuals
Gainfit #2 Gainfit #3
and replace outliers

Calculate residuals
Fracfit #1 Fracfit #2
and remove outliers

Reservoir <1 min

model computation
time

Maximize NPV of future oil recovery

Model Fit and Prediction Algorithm
Remove Remove gains
inactive wells Remove outliers
based on distance

Warm start
Gainfit Remove small
Gainfit #1
gains

Calculate residuals
Gainfit #2 Gainfit #3
and replace outliers

Calculate residuals
Fracfit #1 Fracfit #2
and remove outliers

<10 min
Reservoir
computation
model time

Maximize NPV of future oil recovery

Updates to Technology

• Input data screening (Cao, 2011)

• New graphical methods
• Integrated CRM (error intervals)
• Extension to primary recovery
• Extension to subsidence problem
 Well connectivity for time interval 11/06/2006-
07/29/2007

•For gain>0.2

0.85 - 1
0.75 - 0.85 I19 I21 P29 I26
P89
0.65 - 0.75 P9 I98
P4
I99 P84
I96
I113
I75 P110

0.55 - 0.65 I6 P27 I79 P28 I24 P111

0.45 - 0.55 P8 I97
P31 P26 I4 P88 I80
P109
0.35 - 0.45 P10 I22
I23 P30
P60 P61 I28
I112
0.25 - 0.35 I93 I92
P85
I94
P5
0.15 - 0.25 P11 I29 P32 I50 P63
P62
I102 P91 I103

0 - 0.15 I91 I53 I51 P59 I95 I90

P112
I100 P13 P35 I52 P82
I34 I46 P93 I104 P116
P33 I108
P36 I35 I49
P2 I37 P38 P64 I89 I88
I47 P65
P80 I38 P39 I48
I32 P14 I36 P15 P94 I78 P115
P18 I39P47 P34 P66 I67
I33 I41 I87 P122
P12 P37 I70 I68 P100
P19 I40 P67 P99 I110
P44 I42 P71 P118
P16 I69 I30
P98 P117
P17 P6 I45 P45 P96 I81
I43 P7 P68 I31
I57
P46 I115
I14 I44 P97 I109
P43 I58 P74 I56 P107
P81 P42 I15 P40 I61 I86
P75 I82 P95 P121
I59
P20 P53 P76 I106
P72 P105 P108 I77
P3 I65
I55 P51 I84 I83
I66 I2 P1
P21 P48 P86
I71 P52 I54 P50 P106
I7 P73 I105 I76 P119
I64 P25 I62 P49 P101
I1 I111 P102 I85
P77 I3 P103
I63 P24 P104
I18 P56
P22 I25 P79 I107 P120
I101
P23 P78
P54 P57
P55
•Gain vector sum for time interval 11/06/2006-
07/29/2007
Gain Orientation Histogram
for Different Time Periods
Gain Orientation from 11/06/2006-07/29/2007 Gain Orientation from 08/13/2007-06/29/2008
90 90 20
15
120 60 120 60
15
10

150 30 150 10 30
5
5

180 0 180 0

210 330 210 330

240 300 240 300

270 270

Gain Orientation from 06/29/2008-06/28/2009

90 15
120 60

10

150 30
5

180 0

210 330

240 300
270
Updates to Technology

• Input data screening (Cao, 2011)

• New graphical methods
• Integrated CRM (error intervals)
• Extension to primary recovery
• Extension to subsidence problem
Integrated Capacitance Resistive Model for
Primary Recovery
HYPOTHESIS
In primary recovery, reservoir properties such as pore
volume, reservoir pressure, productivity index, producer-
producer interaction can be inferred from production data
ADVANTAGES
 A quick, simple diagnostic tool for engineer
 No additional cost
 No well shut-in required as to measure productivity
index, reservoir pressure

OUTCOME
 Reservoir property estimates (volume, pressure, etc.)
 Future production forecast
 Support production planning (number of wells, production
rate schedule, producing life)
 ICR Model

•Assumptions
•No gas •Well
•Well 2
•No volatile oil 1
•No aquifer •Reservoi •Reservoi
r2
r1
•Well
3
•Reservoir 3


 
c
V
   

tpi
q (
c
V)P P
(
0
)i N tp
i wi
fi pi
Ji i i i

•Known - Production rates – •Unknown - Pore Volume

q – Vp
• - Bottom hole • - Productivity
pressure – P Index – J
 ICR Model Validation
• ICR has been tested to on different fields to consider the
effects of
 Field size
 Permeability
 Initial oil saturation
 Heterogeneity
 Number of producers, producers start at different times
ICR results – CMG synthetic field

Dynamic pore volume Vp (bbl)

4.5E+07
4.0E+07
3.5E+07 Actual pore volume 37.7e6 bbl
3.0E+07 P1
2.5E+07 P2
2.0E+07
P1+P2
1.5E+07
1.0E+07
5.0E+06
0.0E+00
12/6/1999 3/15/2000 6/23/2000 10/1/2000 1/9/2001 4/19/2001
ICR Case Study – Oman field
•Estimated dynamic pore volumes

•Estimated productivity index over time

Updates to Technology

• Input data screening (Cao, 2011)

• New graphical methods
• Integrated CRM (error intervals)
• Extension to primary recovery
• Extension to subsidence problem
 Contents
• CRM Introduction
• ICR Model Applied on Synfields:
 Synfield-1 (Streak case)
 Confidence limits by linear regression
 Synfield-2 (Complete sealing barrier)
 Synfield-3 (Partially sealing barrier)
 Synfield-4 (Wells in random locations)

• Summary
• Future Work

•Application of the ICR •40

 Nonlinear CRMP (CRM-Producer
Based)    ni pwfjk  pwfj k 1 
qˆ jk  qˆ j ( k 1) e
t / j

 1 e
t / j
   fij I ik  J j j
 i t


•(4)
 
•Weight on •Weight on the
the rate at injection signals
previous time at current time
• qjk, Iik, and pwf,jk are assumed to be constant over the time step
length (t)
• qj0 is the actual production rate of producer j at k=0
- Fully model driven
• Parameters to be determined by nonlinear regression are
- fij is the connectivity between injector i and producer j
- j is the time constant of producer j
- Jj is the productivity index of producer j

•Application of the ICR •41

 Objective Function and Constraints of CRM
• Least Mean Squares(LMS) parameters estimation
nt nP
min z   q  
2
obs
jk  qˆ jk (5)
k 1 j 1

• Constraints
nj

f
j 1
ij 1 for all i (6)

fij , j  0 for all i and j (7)

Equation 7 ensures that injected water does not adversely affects the
reservoir production.

•Application of the ICR •42

 CRMP vs. ICR model
• using instantaneous • using cumulative
quantities
 ni p jk  p j k 1 
quantities
n

    q j 0  q jk  j    fij CWIik   J j j  pwf0 , j  pwfk , j 

i

  fij Iik  J j j
t / j t / j k
qˆ jk  qˆ j ( k 1)e  1 e 
wf wf
N
 i 
p, j
 t  i 1
•where
•  NP,j is the cumulative total liquid
production from a producer j
•  CWIi is the cumulative water injection
into a injector i •* Reservoir barrel
(rb)
Independent variables used for the CRMP Independent variables used for the ICR
3000 3.00E+06 model
Water injection rates (rb/day)

2500

Total water injected or liquid

2.00E+06
I
2000 W4
1 1.00E+06

produced (rb)
I -Np4
1500 2 W1
0.00E+00
I 50 70 90 W2
1000 3 W3
-1.00E+06
W5
500
-2.00E+06
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 -3.00E+06
Time periods (month) Time periods (month)

•Application of the ICR •43

 Schematics of Convex Function
with Constraints which form Convex Sets

•g2(x1,x2
) •g3(x1,x2
)
•g1(x1,x2
)
•g4(x1,x2
)
f(x1,x2)

•Global minimum
•Global minimum x2 •With constraints
•without constraints x1

Convex optimization problem: Minimize: f(x1,x2)

Subject to: gi(x1,x2) ≤ 0 i=1, 2, … , m
 Streak Case – Inverted 5-Spot Pattern

• Square reservoir (2480 ft by 2480 ft)

• 5 water injectors & 4 producers
• Isotropic and homogeneous reservoir
• - except 2 high permeability
channels
• Water flood for 100 months (8.33 years)
• Fitting periods from 58th to 100th month
• Number of fitting periods is 42
•2480 ft
• Radial distance limit of 4000 ft
• CRMP used

•2480 ft
•(Same example as in Sayarpour, 2008)

•Application of the ICR •45

 ICR Model Results
ICR model is comparable to the CRMP
P01-fi1 P02-fi2
1.0 0.25
0.9
0.8 0.20
0.7
0.6 0.15 fi2_nonlinear
fi1_nonlinear
fi1

fi2
0.5 fi2_linear_Np
0.4 fi1_linear_Np 0.10
0.3
0.2 0.05
0.1
0.0 0.00
I01 I02 I03 I04 I05 I01 I02 I03 I04 I05

P03-fi3 P04-fi4
0.20 0.8
0.18 0.7
0.16
0.6
0.14
0.12 0.5
fi3

fi4

0.10 0.4
fi3_nonlinear fi4_nonlinear
0.08 0.3
fi3_linear_Np f4_linear_Np
0.06
0.2
0.04
0.02 0.1
0.00 0.0
I01 I02 I03 I04 I05 I01 I02 I03 I04 I05

•Application of the ICR •46

 ICR Model Results
ICR model is comparable to the CRMP
Fit Qualities
Time Constants
30 R2_CRMP R2_ICR
1.0
Tau_CRMP Tau_ICR
0.9
25
0.8
20 0.7
Taus (day)

0.6
15

R2
0.5
0.4
10
0.3

5 0.2
0.1
0 0.0
P1 P2 P3 P4 P1 P2 P3 P4

fij I1 (i=1) I2 (i=2) I3 (i=3) I4 (i=4) I5 (i=5) j (day)

P1 (j=1) 0.8961 0.5926 0.1981 0.2515 0.1625 5.16

P2 (j=2) 0.0357 0.0351 0.0402 0.2047 0.0330 13.64

P3 (j=3) 0.0199 0.1808 0.0856 0.0400 0.1660 12.27

P4 (j=4) 0.0586 0.1992 0.6634 0.5511 0.5929 10.60

•Application of the ICR •47

 ICR Model Results
NP(t) vs time
P02
P01 5.00E+05
4.00E+06
4.50E+05
3.50E+06
4.00E+05
3.00E+06
3.50E+05
2.50E+06 3.00E+05

Np (rb)
Np (rb)

2.00E+06 2.50E+05
2.00E+05
1.50E+06
1.50E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+05
Data Data
5.00E+05 5.00E+04
Linear_Npk Linear_Npk
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
50 60 70 80 90 100 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time period (month) Time period (month)

P03 P04
8.00E+05 3.00E+06
7.00E+05
2.50E+06
6.00E+05
2.00E+06
5.00E+05
Np (rb)

Np (rb)

4.00E+05 1.50E+06
3.00E+05
1.00E+06
2.00E+05
Data 5.00E+05 Data
1.00E+05
Linear_Npk Linear_Npk
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
50 60 70 80 90 100 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time period (month) Time period (month)

•Application of the ICR •48

ICR Model Results
q(t) vs time

•Application of the ICR •49

 95% Confidence Intervals – ICR Model
Narrow error bars show the estimates are trustworthy

• Confidence limits calculated by the linear model (ICR) is smaller than

those calculated by the nonlinear model (CRMP).
•Application of the ICR •50
 95% Confidence Intervals – ICR Model
Narrow error bars show the estimates are trustworthy

Time Constants
30
Tau_CRMP Tau_ICR
25
Taus (day)

20

15

10

0
P1 P2 P3 P4

•Application of the ICR •51

Synfield-2: Complete Sealing Barrier

•Synfield-2 is a homogeneous isotropic reservoir (k=50

md and =0.2) and consists of three compartments that
do not communicate to each other because of the
presence of fault seals.

•ICR parameters for Synfield-2

fij I1 (i=1) I2 (i=2) I3 (i=3) I4 (i=4) I5 (i=5) j (day)

P1 (j=1) 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.359

P2 (j=2) 0.0000 0.0000 0.9995 1.0000 0.0000 33.04

P3 (j=3) 0.0000 0.7461 0.0001 0.0000 0.5002 25.98

P4 (j=4) 0.0000 0.2539 0.0005 0.0000 0.4996 22.89

• The ICR model is able to detect the presence of

no-flow boundaries.

•Application of the ICR •52

Synfield-2: Complete Sealing Barrier
q(t) vs time

•Application of the ICR •53

 Synfield-3: Partially Sealing Barrier

•Synfield-3 is a homogeneous isotropic reservoir

(k=50 md and =0.2) with a partially sealing barrier
(navy diagonal blocks).

•ICR parameters for Synfield-3

fij I1 (i=1) I2 (i=2) I3 (i=3) I4 (i=4) I5 (i=5) j (day)

P1 (j=1) 0.0326 0.4670 0.0409 0.0827 0.1257 27.79

P2 (j=2) 0.6286 0.0737 0.3560 0.4568 0.1410 13.84

P3 (j=3) 0.1000 0.3550 0.1717 0.1470 0.3659 13.45

P4 (j=4) 0.2388 0.1043 0.4314 0.3135 0.3674 13.40

 The presence of transmissibility barrier could be

inferred by low gains calculated from the ICR model.

•Application of the •54

Synfield-3: Partially Sealing Barrier
q(t) vs time

•Application of the •55

Synfield-4: Wells in Random Locations

•Synfield-4 is a homogeneous isotropic reservoir (k=50 md

and =0.2).

•Application of the ICR •56

 Synfield-4: Relationship between the
interwell-distance and interwell-
connectivity (gain)
Distance (ft) fij (ICR) fij(CRMP) Gains vs Distance (CRMP)
0.6
110 0.5409 0.5321 fij_CRMP
198 0.4294 0.4091 0.5 Linear (fij_CRMP)
260 0.1968 0.2977 0.4
y = -0.0003x + 0.402
310 0.4837 0.2868

fij
0.3 R² = 0.3681
388 0.2401 0.2314
0.2
426 0.2068 0.2010
0.1
426 0.2751 0.2510
442 0.1270 0.1418 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
493 0.0444 0.1646
Distance between well-pair (ft)
510 0.3100 0.4077
527 0.2742 0.2643 Gains vs Distance (ICR Model)
0.6
543 0.3502 0.3413 fij_ICR
576 0.1253 0.1250 0.5 Linear (fij_ICR)
650 0.2059 0.2369 0.4 y = -0.0003x + 0.401
677 0.1246 0.1226 R² = 0.2487
fij

0.3
745 0.0861 0.1439 0.2
806 0.2895 0.2504
0.1
815 0.2756 0.2323
860 0.2457 0.1878 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
959 0.1687 0.1722 Distance between well-pair (ft)
 The results show that as the distance between interwell-pairs increases, the well
connectivity tends to decrease.
 fij = -0.0003(ft-1)*dij (ft)+ 0.402 for 110 ft < dij < 959 ft
•Application of the ICR •57
Synfield-4: q(t) vs time

•Application of the ICR •58

Updates to Technology

• Input data screening (Cao, 2011)

• New graphical methods
• Integrated CRM (error intervals)
• Extension to primary recovery
• Extension to subsidence problem
 Comparison of Actual and Model
Subsidence

Average subsidence vs. time

0
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825

-0.2
Surface subsidence (ft)

Actual average cumulative

-0.4
subsidence

Model average cumulative

-0.6 subsidence

-0.8

-1

-1.2

•Elapsed days between 12/31/2003-9/16/2008 (days)

 Acknowledgment
• Dr. Edgar (Principal advisor)
• Dr. Lake (Co-advisor)
• Lab mates

• This work was supported by the

sponsors of the Center for Petroleum
Asset Risk Management (CPARM) at UT
Austin

•Application of the ICR •61

 Future Work
• Working spreadsheet
– Couple to GAMS
– Excel vs. MATLAB
– Multiplotting (visualization)
• Integrate with DA/VOI approaches
• Propagating error/uncertainty
• More validation (oil in tank)
• Extend to primary recovery
• Fluid allocation studies (conformance)
• Optimize to produce more oil
• Add EOR model(s)
Gardner Hype Curve

Jim Honefenger (P.E. Moseley & Associates, Inc.) The Gardner Group63
 Validation
Characteristics of a reservoir can be inferred from
analyzing production and injection data only
Field Injectant Independent Data Agree

Synfields Water Simulation Very well

Snyfields Water Retrodiction Very well

Chuido Water Faults from seismic Reasonably

SWCFU Water Anecdotal fractures Reasonably

NSF I Water Structure Well

NBDU Gas Tracer data Fairly well

SELU Water Oil in tank Msybe

Williston Basin Field
 Basic Definitions

ObjectiveÊfunction    actualÊrate  mod elÊrate

2
Pr oducers FittingÊ
window

F fittingÊwindow, mod elÊparameters 
Np t
qöj t  qj t;mod elÊparameters
Last 2
  
j1 tt First

  CRMT

mod elÊparameters    j , fij CRMP
  ,f CRMIP
 ij ij
fittingÊwindow  int ervalÊwithÊnoÊexternalÊchanges
 Basic Definitions

ScatterÊof ÊproducerÊrateÊaboutÊmod el
R 2Pr oducer  1 
ScatterÊof ÊproducerÊrateÊaboutÊmean


R 2j fittingÊint erval 
qöj t  qj t;mod elÊparameters
t Last 2

tt First
 1

qöj t  qj 
t Last 2

tt First
Steady-State Connectivity Map
80

60

40

Better CO2
Performance
20
Producer
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
 Interwell Connectivity
Two Equally Viable Solutions
80

60

40

20
Produce r
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Transient Interwell Connectivity
After 10 days
80

60

40

20
Produce r
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Transient Interwell Connectivity
After 30 days
80

60

40

20
Produce r
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Transient Interwell Connectivity
After 90 days
80

60

40

20
Produce r
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Transient Interwell Connectivity
After 180 days
80

60

40

20
Produce r
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Transient Interwell Connectivity
After 365 days
80

60

40

20
Produce r
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Transient Interwell Connectivity
After 2 years
80

60

40

20
Produce r
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Transient Interwell Connectivity
After 4 years
80

60

40

20
Produce r
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Transient Interwell Connectivity
4 years <<
80

60

40

20
Produce r
Water Injector
Carbon Dioxide Injector 0 1,000 ft
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mature West Texas Waterflood

Gains > 0.5

Gains >0.5
Injector
Producer
Mature West Texas Waterflood
Gains >0.4
Injector
Producer
Mature West Texas Waterflood

Gains > 0.3

Gains >0.3 Injector
Producer
Mature West Texas Waterflood
Gains > 0.2
Gains >0.2Injector
Producer
 Mature West Texas Waterflood
e
u R-squared
l 1
a
V
0.5
d
e
r 0
a
u
q -0.5
s
-
R -1

-1.5
0 50 100 150 200 250
Producer
ProducerNumber
Number
Oil Rate vs. Cumulative Oil Production

•Confidence band
for regression
line

•103,042 •109,252

•39,956 bbl
•~
$2,800,000
 Producer 184 – Good Fit
200
Historic Total Production
180
Modeled Total Production
160
y R2 = 0.961
Bbl/ a 140
d err = 0.146
day / 120
l
100
b
b 80

60

40

20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Month
Month
 Producer 127 – Good Fit
600
Historic Total Production
Modeled Total Production outliers
500

y
a 400 R2 = 0.696
Bbl/ d
err = 0.037
day /
300
l
b
b 200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Month Month
 Producer 74 – Poor Fit
180

160

140
y
a 120
Bbl/ d
day / 100
l
80
b
b R2 = -1.03
60
err = 0.143
40

20
Historic Total Production
Modeled Total Production
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Month
Month
 Producer 201 – Poor Fit
1200
Historic Total Production
1000 Modeled Total Production
y
a 800
Bbl/ d R2 = 0.793

day / err = 6.58

600
l
b
b 400

200

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Month Month
 728000
Gain Map
Injector
726000
Producer

724000

722000

720000
ft

P210
718000
P103

716000
I 58

714000

712000
475000 480000 485000 490000 495000 500000
ft
 Producer 210 (large distance)
600
Historic Total Production
Modeled Total Production
500
Bbl/ R 2  0.882
y err  0.093
daya 400
d
/
300
l
b
b 200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Month
 Producer 103 (skipped over)
150

Histor ic Total Production

Modeled Total Production

y
a 100
d R 2  0.635
Bbl/
/ err  0.110
l
day
b
b
50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Month
 t
c
e Lost Injection
j 1
n
0.9
I
0.8
Np f
1  fij o 0.7
j1
0.6
n
o 0.5
i 0.4
t
c 0.3
a 0.2
r
F 0.1

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Injector Number
Injector Number
 Time Constants

100000
Time Constant (days) .......

Before Outlier Removal

After Outlier Removal
10000

1000

100

10

1
11
21
30
42
56
75
87
1

101
111
123
133
142
153
163
175
184
195
205
216
225
234
Producer Number

Reservoir A
 CRM Fit – Total Field
4
x 10
6

Bbl/
5.5 R2 = 0.956
day
5
y
a
d 4.5
/
l
b 4
b

3.5

Historic Injection
3
Historic Total Production
Modeled Total Production
2.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Month
Month
 Future Injection

• Historic Period – 131 Active Injectors

• Prediction Period – 97 Active Injectors
• Injection has been concentrated in fewer wells (37
injectors shut-in)
• 27.3% of historic field injection from injectors shut-
in throughout prediction period
 Addressing Risks Throughout the E&P Asset Lifecycle

Appraisal and Define

Evaluate
Conceptual GATE GATE Selected GATE Execute GATE Operate
Alternatives
Analysis Alternative

Portfolio Management and

Project Selection
Financial Risk
Concept Selection & Development Optimization Management

Cost and Schedule Estimating; Execution Risk Management

HSE Risk Management

Real-Time Optimization
MPD & and Risk Management
Contracting
Blowouts;
Strategies
Inevitable VOI; Impact Drlg Safety;
(lump sum v
Dis- of Estimates Offshore FUTURE:
cost plus?)
appointment & Methods Spills Life Cycle
Assessments
Uncertainty
Updating Capital
Allocation w/
Valuing Price Simple Model
Uncertain
Forecasts Development
Arrivals
Portfolio
Real Options
Optimization
Optimal Injection and Predicted Oil Production for
x 10
the Field
4

5
bbl/day

3 Historic
Optimal
2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Month
3000

2500
bbl/day

2000

1500
Historic Oil Production
1000 Predicted Oil Production
Extrapolated Oil Production
500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Month
 e
i
F Injection Shares
l 3.5
a Historic Share
t 3 Predicted Share
Percent ofo
Total T 2.5

f 2
o
t 1.5

n
e 1
c
r 0.5
e
P 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Injector
InjectorNumber
Number
 i
O
Production Shares
d 2.5
l Historic Share
e Predicted Share
i
Percent of
2
F P195
Total P112
f 1.5
o
t 1
n
e
c 0.5
r
e
P 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Producer
Producer Number
Number
Retrodiction