H2S - CAPP Guidelines PDF

REPORT 62
61
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14
60
Stratigraphy 59
58
57
56
Maps 55
54
53
Contacts 52
H2S
H2s-search.com
Rakhit Petroleum Consulting Ltd.
H2S RELEASE RATE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
AND
AUDIT FORMS
Submitted to the CAPP Drilling and Completions Committee

November 26, 1998
Submitted by:
Steve Johnson, PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd.

Todd Wilson, Bissett Resource Consultants Ltd.
Rick Long, Gulf Canada Resources Ltd.
Ken Shewan, Frontier Engineering & Consulting Ltd.
Hank Nychkalo, AEUB
Russ Nelson, Shell Canada Ltd.
Michael Morand, Chevron Canada Resources, Chairman
DRAFT Updated 1999-03-18 Rev. 9
H2S RELEASE RATE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
With the development of the AEUB post-approval audit process for drilling licenses, CAPP’s
Drilling and Completions Committee, in conjunction with the AEUB, recommended that a
process to evaluate and calculate potential H2S release rates be documented. To facilitate this
request, the following has been developed.
1. A methodology and standard for the industry to calculate the potential H2S release rates of a
well.
2. A form that facilitates the audit process and provides the industry with a consistent format for
the documentation and retention of data.
The protection of the public through the development of safe drilling and well operation plans is
the primary objective of the H2S release rate determination process. This document does not
supplant any regulations designed for the protection of individuals such as those defined by
Occupational Health and Safety and it does not address the mechanical integrity of components
when subjected to H2S.
This Guideline describes a 4-step process, as outlined in Figure 1, with each step having an
increasing degree of complexity. It is the user’s responsibility to determine which step or
combination of steps is required for each specific application. Note that the user does not have to
complete each and every step; however, the user should use sound engineering judgment and due
diligence in the calculation decisions. (Example: A well is proposed for an existing gas pool
that consists of a sandstone body with a widely varying pay thickness. It would be inappropriate
to use the section in Step 4 to reduce the H2S release rate using a lower estimated reservoir
pressure, while completely ignoring the potential increase in H2S release rate due to increased
reservoir thickness). In general, the user must use the more complex Step 3 and Step 4 for
determining the H2S release rate for more complicated situations (e.g., high release rates in
densely populated areas, etc.).
When conducting an H2S release rate evaluation, the user of this guide is expected to make every
effort to obtain all available information, including confidential or proprietary. Confidential
information from a recently drilled well, such as a formation's H2S concentration, can often be
obtained by contacting the operator of that well.
2
FLOW CHART SHOWING H2S RELEASE RATE ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The well is located more than 1500m

from an urban centre and is more than NO
100m from a dwelling.
YES
Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 Step #4

Geologic and Engineering
Maximum H2S release Geologic and Engineering modeling
rate determination. analysis Use this step for horizontal wells
Zone H2S exclusion No data editing. Use of Geologic analogs. or wells with deviations greater or
area maps. Data editing is permitted. equal to 30 degrees.
Potential H2S
concentrations are less
than 500 ppm, (0.05% H2S)
Audit Form
Documentation of maximum potential H2S release rate determination
Figure 1
3
STEP 1: ZONE H2S EXCLUSION AREA MAPS
A suite of maps has been constructed using a 500 ppm (0.05% H2S) cut off value. An
operator can use these maps to quickly determine whether or not a particular horizon has less
than 500 ppm H2S and therefore be excluded from further analysis. These exemption maps
can be used if the following criteria are meet:
S1.1 The well is located more than 1500m from an urban centre.
S1.2 The well is located more than 100m from a dwelling.
These criteria were established with the understanding that a well with H2S concentrations
< 500 ppm must have an AOF potential of > 1000 103 m3/day before the emergency planning
zone would extend farther than 100m. This represents a reasonable maximum AOF potential
for sweet or slightly sour wells in Western Canada.
The following 500 ppm H2S cut off maps have been constructed for Step #1 evaluations:
• Upper Cretaceous System – Formation Equivalents
• Lower Cretaceous System – Formation Equivalents
• Jurassic – Formation Equivalents
• Triassic – Formation Equivalents
• Permo-Carboniferous – Formation Equivalents
• Wabamun Group – Formation Equivalents
• Winterburn group, Woodbend Group and Older – Formation Equivalents
If a horizon has the potential to have H2S concentrations > 500 ppm, the operator would then
have to utilize Step #2, and or #3, and or #4, to assess that well’s potential release rate.
STEP 2: MAXIMUM H2S RELEASE RATE DETERMINATION
Step 2 provides a method of determining H2S release rates through a data search process. To
utilize this step, all of the following criteria must be met:
Criteria:
S2.1 A minimum of 5 AOF and 5 H2S sample points per H2S-bearing horizon must be
gathered.
S2.2 A minimum 5 km search radius for H2S and AOF data.
S2.3 The highest H2S and highest AOF data point per horizon must be paired to calculate a
cumulative H2S release rate.
Qualifiers:
S2.4 In known H2S regions, data points that indicate 0% concentration of H2S are suspect,
therefore their utilization in a database requires a Step 3 interpretation.
S2.5 Within a defined pool, the highest H2S and highest AOF values that are found within a
producing horizon are to be used in the release rate calculation. The use of H2S or
4
AOF values other than the pool’s highest requires Step 3 use, which allows for
interpretation and justification.
S2.6 Step 2 is for vertical wells only. Highly deviated wells (>30º) and horizontal wells
require at least part of a Step 4 calculation.
S2.7 Continue to Step 3 if any of the following situations exist:
- the well is part of an enhanced recovery scheme;
- the well is within 5 km of an urban center;
- all 5 data points from a data search in a known H2S region indicate 0% H2S.
Calculation Test data to be extrapolated to a calculated AOF:

Simplified Flow Analysis Equation ( for n = 1)
Sandface Gas AOF = Gas Test Rate * Pr2

( Pr2 – Pf2 ) Equation 2.1
Vogels Equations.
Oil Test Rate * GOR

Sandface OIL Max Gas Rate = AOF = Equation 2.2
  Pf   Pf  
2
1 − 0 .2   − 0 .8   
  Pr   Pr  
AOF = Absolute Open Flow (m3/d)

Pr = Reservoir Pressure (kPa)
Pf = Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure (kPa)
GOR = Gas Oil Ratios (ratio is from the same well from which the oil test rate
is obtained). (m3/m3)
Test Rate = Rate at which the well was flowed during testing (m3/d)
To calculate H2S release rates and the corresponding EPZ use the following equation
from AEUB interim directive ID 97-6. Note: This equation may be subject to change.
H2SRR =H2S% * AOF * 0.01 Equation 2.3

86400
H2SRR <0.3 m3/s EPZ = 2.0 * (cum H2SRR)0.58 Equation 2.4

0.3 m3/s< H2SRR <8.6 m3/s EPZ = 2.3 * (cum H2SRR)0.68 Equation 2.5
for H2SRR>8.6 m3/s EPZ = 1.9 * (cum H2SRR)0.81 Equation 2.6
H2SRR = H2S Release Rate (m3/s)

Cum H2SRR =Cumulative H2S Release Rate (m3/s)
EPZ = Emergency Planning Zone (km)
5
STEP 3: GEOLOGIC AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
This Step provides instruction in the use of geologic analogs, data editing, and wellbore
design to further refine the cumulative H2S release rate and corresponding Emergency
Planning Zone from Step 2.
S3.1 Geologic interpretation of potentially sour formations
A well’s geologic setting must be clearly defined to more accurately estimate potential H2S
release rates. Since the objective of a H2S calculation is to determine the potentially highest
reasonable H2S release rate from a well, all prospective formations and their corresponding
H2S concentrations must be assessed individually.
It may be appropriate to exclude a formation from a release rate determination if it is wet,

non-porous, eroded or absent due to non-deposition. Criteria for exclusion must be based on
sound geologic and geophysical interpretation of features such as hydrocarbon/water contacts,
sub-crop edges, depositional edges, and porosity distribution. For example, isolated reefs,
which are located basin-ward of a shelf margin often have reservoir characteristics and H2S
concentrations that differ from the more regionally extensive shelf margin. If geologic and
seismic data indicate that a proposed well is going to encounter an isolated reef, then a
database consisting of analogous isolated reefs should be used to determine the H2S release
rate. Data from the shelf margin should be excluded from the assessment.
Factors such as poor seismic data quality or ambiguous geologic interpretations may lead to
uncertainty in the geologic assessment. In these circumstances the operator must utilize their
interpreted scenario that will err on the side of caution and yield a higher H2S
release rate.
S3.2 Gas cap versus oil leg flow rates.
Since H2S is very soluble in hydrocarbon liquids, solution gas H2S concentrations are
generally higher than those found in an associated gas cap. Consequently, if solution gas H2S
concentrations were combined with a gas cap release rate, the resulting calculated release rate
would be unrealistically high and unreasonable.
When there is uncertainty in the position of the gas/oil contact in the proposed well, or if it is
unknown whether the analogue data is from the gas cap or oil leg, use:
- The highest sampled H2S concentration, and

- The highest gas inflow rates as calculated in equations 2.1 and 2.2.
S3.3 Wellbore design considerations and deviated wells.
A drilling program’s wellbore design may have a direct impact on the well’s potential H2S
release rate, since only those formations that are exposed to the open wellbore are included in
6
the rate determination calculation. For example, if intermediate casing is run over any
potential H2S-bearing formation, the H2S release rate calculation for formations penetrated
below the casing shoe are summed separately from those formations above the shoe.
Conversely, if an operator of a well receives a waiver for intermediate casing, a recalculation
of the H2S release rate for the entire open-hole section is required.
When planning a well, careful consideration should be given to selecting the depth of the
surface and intermediate casing and also to determining the deepest possible H2S-bearing
formation to be tested. Adjusting the terminating formation to a deeper horizon after drilling
has commenced may require a recalculation of the H2S release rate and the initiation or
modification of an emergency response plan.
Wellbores that penetrate potential H2S-bearing formations at angles less than 30 degrees can
be considered to be equivalent to a vertical well for release rate calculation purposes. See
Step 4 for calculations for deviated wells.
S3.4 Pressure and H2S concentration data editing.
It is not uncommon to encounter errors in databases, therefore a basic quality check on the
data to determine that the reported formation pressure is consistent with the depth of the
evaluated formation should be performed. Confirmation that the reported flow rates and flow
pressures are from the corresponding instantaneous measurements should also be made.
Within the Cretaceous, H2S concentrations tend to generally undergo gradual areal changes
and therefore anomalous values may be suspect. For example, if a Viking well reporting 24%
H2S is surrounded by wells with no H2S in the Viking, a case for the elimination of the 24%
H2S could be made.
S3.4.1 Sample Points for the H2S concentration measurement.
H2S will be more concentrated in the gas phase in second and third stage separation. Whenever
water is present, the H2S reading may be inaccurate because of the large solubility of H2S in
water. Therefore, the order of accuracy in sampling points for H2S concentration is:
1. Gas sample from a first stage separator or a recombined gas analysis.

a) H2S concentration measurements from the gas of second and third stage separation
are inaccurate and may be twice the H2S concentration of the first stage separation.
This is primarily due to the large amount of H2S evolving from the water and
condensate in the lower pressure stages.
2. Gas from a wellhead sample, or gas from meter runs close to the wellhead.
3. Downhole gas samples.
a) Downhole gas samples taken after the well is on production: The accuracy of the
H2S concentration measurement may deteriorate depending on both the sample
metallurgy and the time lapse in sending the pressure container for lab analysis.
b) Open-hole samples taken from samplers, ie, Repeat Formation Testers (RFTs) or
Modular Dynamic Testers (MDTs): Since these samples are often contaminated
with drilling fluid, they yield low values of H2S concentration.
7
4. Gas from Drill Stem Tests (DSTs).
a) The accuracy is severely affected by the contamination of drilling fluid. This tends
to lower the measured H2S concentration in the gas (the drilling fluid dissolves
much of the H2S).
b) Often a water “cushion” is run in the drill string which, like the drilling fluid,
dissolves much of the H2S. Furthermore, H2S scavengers are often run in the
“cushion”.
S3.4.2 H2S Measurement Technique
For accurate measurement, it is desirable to sample the gas during the semi-steady state.
There are several techniques to measure the H2S concentration in a gas sample. The
measurement technique, the type of sample container and time lapse between sample
collection and the actual measurement are all important. Usually it is best to measure the H2S
concentration immediately upon sampling, which favours on-site measurement techniques.
Electronic meters tend to be the most accurate, but are not often used due to the cost,
calibration requirements, etc. Common field practice has been to use on-site Tutweiler
measurements for H2S concentrations greater than 2 to 3 %, and Length of Stain Detection
Tubes are used for measurements where H2S concentrations are less than 2 to 3 %. For more
details, refer to the Appendix, “H2S Concentration Measurement Techniques”.
STEP 4: GEOLOGIC AND ENGINEERING MODELING.
This final step contains information to assist in detailed geological and reservoir modeling to
further refine the cumulative release rate and the corresponding Emergency Planning Zone
from Step #3. The H2S release rate for highly deviated wells (>30 degrees) and for horizontal
wells would be determined in this step.
Input / Output Analysis should be retained for audit purposes.
S4.1 Stimulated versus Unstimulated Flow.
a) Drilling Case:
i) Use a mechanical skin of zero, smech = 0.
- For overbalanced and underbalanced drilling;
- If the AOF test of the analogue well has a negative or positive
mechanical skin, adjust the skin back to 0 using Darcy’s steady state
flow equation:
ln(re ( analogue ) / rw( analogue )) + s(analogue)

qproposed = qanalogue Equation 4.1
ln(re ( proposed ) / rw ( proposed )) + 0
where:
q = flowrate (m3/d)
8
re = drainage radius (m)
rw = wellbore radius (m)
ii) For cases where non-Darcy skin is the dominating skin factor, leave the skin as
calculated in the AOF test unless there is data, such as a multi-rate test, that
allows an adjustment of the mechanical skin portion to zero.
b) Completion/Servicing & Production Cases:

i) The adjustment of skin will vary depending on the stimulation planned for the
candidate well and on the historical evidence of post stimulation skin. As a
starting guide, the following is suggested:
- Matrix sandstone acidizing results in a 0 to -1 skin.

- Matrix carbonate acidizing results in a 0 to -2 skin.
- Fracture stimulations (propped or acid fracs) will result in a negative skin
value that depends on the half-length of the fracture. An estimate of
fracture half-length versus skin can be made using the following equation
(ref. 10, page 327):
Lf
rwe-s= Equation 4.2
2
 Lf 
⇒ s = − ln 
 2rw 
where:
s = skin
Lf = fracture half-length = length from wellbore to the leading edge of
the fracture
rw = wellbore radius
Skin (s) as a function of fracture half-length (Lf) and wellbore radius (rw)
rw (m) = 0.0492 0.0603 0.0762 0.1 0.1111
Lf (m) SKIN (s)
5 -3.9 -3.7 -3.5 -3.2 -3.1
10 -4.6 -4.4 -4.2 -3.9 -3.8
15 -5.0 -4.8 -4.6 -4.3 -4.2
20 -5.3 -5.1 -4.9 -4.6 -4.5
30 -5.7 -5.5 -5.3 -5.0 -4.9
40 -6.0 -5.8 -5.6 -5.3 -5.2
50 -6.2 -6.0 -5.8 -5.5 -5.4
60 -6.4 -6.2 -6.0 -5.7 -5.6
70 -6.6 -6.4 -6.1 -5.9 -5.8
9
80 -6.7 -6.5 -6.3 -6.0 -5.9
90 -6.8 -6.6 -6.4 -6.1 -6.0
100 -6.9 -6.7 -6.5 -6.2 -6.1
150 -7.3 -7.1 -6.9 -6.6 -6.5
200 -7.6 -7.4 -7.2 -6.9 -6.8
250 -7.8 -7.6 -7.4 -7.1 -7.0
300 -8.0 -7.8 -7.6 -7.3 -7.2
350 -8.2 -8.0 -7.7 -7.5 -7.4
400 -8.3 -8.1 -7.9 -7.6 -7.5
450 -8.4 -8.2 -8.0 -7.7 -7.6
500 -8.5 -8.3 -8.1 -7.8 -7.7
550 -8.6 -8.4 -8.2 -7.9 -7.8
600 -8.7 -8.5 -8.3 -8.0 -7.9
650 -8.8 -8.6 -8.4 -8.1 -8.0
700 -8.9 -8.7 -8.4 -8.2 -8.1
750 -8.9 -8.7 -8.5 -8.2 -8.1
800 -9.0 -8.8 -8.6 -8.3 -8.2
850 -9.1 -8.9 -8.6 -8.4 -8.2
900 -9.1 -8.9 -8.7 -8.4 -8.3
950 -9.2 -9.0 -8.7 -8.5 -8.4
1000 -9.2 -9.0 -8.8 -8.5 -8.4
S4.2 Adjustment from Sandface AOF
There are many flow models available today. The choice of the appropriate model should
be based on the type of fluid expected. That is to say, some models are best for black oil,
others for dry gas, etc. The user must have sufficient knowledge of the simulator used and
its limitations.
To simulate a blowout, it is appropriate to adjust the maximum flowrate at the sandface to

flow at the wellhead against zero pressure.
a) For the drilling case, adjust the flowrate at the sandface to flow at the wellhead
against zero pressure using:
- Flow up the casing/open hole using the configuration of the well when the
maximum flowrate is expected.
b) For the completion/servicing case, adjust the flowrate at the sandface to flow at the
wellhead against zero pressure using:
10
- Flow up casing, using the casing configuration of the well when the maximum
flowrate is expected.
c) For the production case, adjust the flowrate at the sandface to flow at the wellhead
against zero pressure using:
- Where a packer is in place, flow up tubing, using the tubing configuration of the
well when the maximum flowrate is expected.
- Where a packer is not in place, combine both tubing and anulus flow rates to
determine the maximum expected flow rate.
d) Tubular flow models:

i) For gas wells, do not use any water production (in order to simulate the worst
case). It is appropriate to use condensate in the gas stream if the
condensate/gas ratio is known from offset well data, and provided that this
ratio is corrected to the reservoir conditions for the candidate well.
ii) See Section 4.3 for details on Oil Well Inflow.
S4.3 Oil wells:
In Alberta and British Columbia, companies are only required to report the produced volumes
and production hours for oil wells. Flowing or pumping pressure data, at the sandface or
wellhead, is not publicly available. Therefore, it is difficult for a company to estimate the
maximum production potential of non-operated oil wells.
Obviously, if pressure data can be obtained for producing oil wells, the data can be directly
used in the applicable formulas. However, if the pressure data is not available, it is important
for the analyst to incorporate a safety margin to ensure that the estimated producing
bottomhole pressures are likely higher than the actual bottomhole pressure data. Good
engineering practices must prevail when making these assumptions. For example, an analyst
may be familiar with an area and may know that wells typically produce with near “pumped
off” conditions with 90% or more drawdown. In this case, the analyst may choose to cut the
drawdown in half and use a 45% drawdown for the purpose of determining the maximum
flow potential of each well. In this example, using Vogel’s formula, the analyst estimates a
maximum flow potential (using a 45% drawdown) that is 50% higher than maximum flow
potential corresponding to a 90% drawdown.
Oil wells may produce from reservoirs that are above, equal to, or below the bubble point
pressure. Reservoirs with a static pressure above the bubble point are undersaturated and do
not have a gas cap. Conversely, reservoirs with a pressure below the bubble point pressure
typically have a gas cap. In some cases, reservoirs which have a gas cap have a well defined
gas/oil interface. Wells which will contact the reservoir downdip of the known gas/oil
interface will not have a gas cap.
Wells which concurrently produce gas from the gas cap usually have relatively low oil rates
because of the high mobility of gas in comparison to oil. Nonetheless, wells which cone gas
often exhibit the highest produced gas rates. Because the H2S release rate potential is a
function of the maximum produced gas rate, it is important to analyze the gas flow rates (or
11
gas/oil ratios) for each offsetting well rather than focusing on the oil flow data only.
Assigning a single arbitrary gas/oil ratio to calculated oil rates will usually result in
inappropriate gas rate estimates as the gas/oil ratios will vary from well to well.
When analyzing the potential H2S release rate of an oil well, the company must indicate
whether a gas cap may exist. Any well which may potentially encounter a gas cap must
incorporate an assessment of the flow capability of the gas cap when determining the
H2S release rate potential of the well. Conversely, if it can be established that the
proposed well will not penetrate the gas cap, then flow rate calculations may be
restricted to the oil leg.
Flow analysis for undersaturated reservoirs (reservoirs without a gas cap)
The maximum inflow performance rate for wells in undersaturated reservoirs can be
determined if the reservoir pressure, bubble point pressure, test rate and flowing pressure are
known. The following sets of equations can be used to predict the maximum inflow rate:
i) For test conditions above the bubble point:

qb = qt (Pr - Pb)/(Pr - Pwf) Equation 4.3
ii) The relationship at the bubble point

qb/qc = 1.8 (Pr - Pb)/Pb Equation 4.4
iii) For test conditions below the bubble point:

qt/qc = 1.8 (Pr/Pb) - 0.8 - 0.2 (Pwf/Pb) - 0.8 (Pwf/Pb)2 Equation 4.5
iv) For determination of qmax

qmax = qb + qc Equation 4.6
where:
Pr = static reservoir pressure (kPa)

Pb = bubble point pressure (kPa)
Pwf = flowing wellbore pressure at test rate qt (kPa)
qt = test rate (m3/d)*
qb = theoretical flow rate (m3/d) at a flowing wellbore pressure equal to the
bubble point pressure*
qc = incremental flow rate (m3/d) above qb at 100% drawdown (ie: 0 kPa
sandface pressure)*
qmax = maximum flowrate at 100% drawdown (m3/d)*
If the production test rate is above the bubble point pressure solve for qmax using equations
4.3, 4.4 and 4.6 in sequence. If the production test rate is below the bubble point
pressure, solve for qmax using equations 4.5, 4.4 and 4.6 in sequence.
12
Flow analysis for saturated reservoirs (reservoirs with a gas cap)
For reservoirs with pressures equal to or below the bubble point, the above equations can
be simplified into one equation as follows:
qmax = qt / (1 - 0.2 (Pwf/Pr) - 0.8 (Pwf/Pr)2) Equation 4.7

(Vogel’s relationship for a solution gas reservoir)
For very high gas/oil ratios (GOR > 2000 m3/m3) or production tests that are conducted in
the gas cap, the standard equations used for gas well AOF determinations is most
representative where:
qmax = qt (Pr)2n/ (Pr2 - Pwf2)n Equation 4.8
where n is assumed to equal 1.0 whenever multipoint flow data is not available
* Note: The produced gas oil ratio (GOR) for a given well is assumed to be constant
regardless of the drawdown. Therefore, the maximum potential oil rate (qmax(oil)) or the
maximum potential gas rate (qmax(gas)) can be determined by inputting either the oil test
rate (qt(oil)) or the gas test rate (qt(gas)) into the above equations.
S4.4 Adjustment to Net Pay:

a) If the analogue wells have a different net pay (h) than the proposed well, then adjust
the flowrate by the ratio of the net pay differences:
hproposed
AOFproposed = AOFanalogue Equation 4.9
hanalogue
S4.5 Reservoir Pressure:

a) If the reservoir pressure of the proposed well is different from the analogue well’s
reservoir pressure, then an adjustment can be made to the inflow. One method is
shown below:
AOFadj = AOForig (Z1/Z2) x (µ1/µ2) (Pwsadj)2n / (Pwsorig)2n Equation 4.10

where:
AOFadj = adjusted AOF potential (m3/d)

AOForig = original AOF potential (m3/d)
Z1= compressibility factor of gas - original conditions
Z2= compressibility factor of gas - adjusted conditions
µ1 = viscosity of gas - original conditions (• Pa·s)
µ2 = viscosity of gas - adjusted conditions (• Pa·s)
Pwsadj = adjusted reservoir pressure (kPa)
Pwsorig = original reservoir pressure (kPa)
n = inverse slope of isochronal data
13
Note 1: (µ1/µ2) = 1.0 for most wells
Note 2: assume n = 1.0 where data is not available
S4.6 Partial Well Completion
a) Use a numerical simulator to predict inflow provided sufficient knowledge of the input
parameters exist, or,
b) Use a pseudo-skin approach. That is to say, use the Darcy flow equations for a fully
penetrating well, but adjust the skin to account for flow convergence of a partially
penetrating well.
ln(re / rw)analogue + 0
q proposed = q analogue Equation 4.11
ln(re / rw) proposed + spseudo
where:
q = flowrate (m3/d)
spseudo = skin effect due to partial penetration
There are many methods outlined in the technical literature, some of them
being:
Chen et al, SPE 29121,
Jones and Slusser, SPE 4798,
Odeh, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. March 1968,
Brons, JPT Feb, 1961
A very simplified approach is to use the method developed by Brons and

Marting whereby the pseudo skin is determined as a function of two
parameters, the penetration ratio b and the ratio h/rw:
total interval open to flow (m)
b= Equation 4.12
total thickness of the producing zone (m)
h thickness of the producing zone (m)

= Equation 4.13
rw wellbore radius (m)
This approach is valid only for vertical wells in reservoirs with an isotropic
permeability distribution. For highly deviated or horizontal wells, it is
recommended to use a more sophisticated approach such as outlined in Chen et
al. A table from the paper by Brons and Marting is reproduced below.
h/rw = 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 300 500 700 1000 10000

b SKIN (s)
0.1 0.64 1.24 2.88 5.16 8.64 15.01 20.70 26.74 30.30 34.92 37.93 41.14 61.86
0.2 0.45 0.86 1.92 3.29 5.21 8.38 11.03 13.76 15.37 17.42 18.76 20.19 29.39
14
0.4 0.22 0.42 0.91 1.51 2.31 3.56 4.57 5.60 6.20 6.97 7.47 8.01 11.46
0.6 0.09 0.18 0.39 0.65 0.99 1.55 1.99 2.45 2.72 3.06 3.29 3.52 5.06
0.8 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.19 0.30 0.49 0.66 0.83 0.93 1.06 1.14 1.23 1.80
S4.7 Non-Darcy Factors for Gas Wells
a) One method of analyzing a gas well inflow test is the use of the Schellhardt and
Rawlins equation (Dake, page 265):
q = C(Pr2 – Pwf2)n Equation 4.14
where:
q = flowrate (m3/d)
C = coefficient in the deliverability equation
Pr = reservoir pressure (kPa)
Pwf = flowing wellbore pressure (kPa)
n = 1/(slope of line on log-log plot)
The value of n can vary between 0.5 and 1 and can be thought of as an indication of
the degree of Non-Darcy flow. n=0.5 for large non-Darcy flow effects and n=1.0 for
negligible non-Darcy flow effects. If the n value is not known, it should be assumed
to be one.
When the n value is well known for a pool based on many multi-point tests, one could
use this n value to apply against other tests in the same reservoir, provided that the
well configuration of the proposed well is expected to be similar to the multi-point test
wells. This is more appropriate for the completion/ servicing and production cases
rather than a drilling case.
b) Another method of analyzing inflow is to use (Dake, page 266):
m( P ) – m(Pwf) = Bq + Fq2 Equation 4.15
where:
q = flowrate (m3/d)
m( P ) = pseudo reservoir pressure (kPa)
m(Pwf) = pseudo flowing wellbore pressure (kPa)
B = Darcy coefficient
F = non-Darcy coefficient
F is the slope of the line on a plot of ‘m( P ) – m(Pwf)/q’ versus ‘q’. Hence the same
comments apply to this “F” factor as the “n” factor discussed in section S4.7a).
S4.8 Deviated Wells:
By having a reservoir exposure greater than a vertical well, a deviated well will result in a higher
gas inflow. However, this increase in inflow is not directly proportional to the increased
15
measured length of the wellbore in the reservoir. One way to account for the increased inflow of
a deviated well is to calculate a pseudo-skin. This is shown below.
a) For wells with a deviation <30o from vertical, ignore the effect of skin. The
justification of this is that the effect on skin is less than -0.5 for wells up to and
including 29o and for a kv/kh ratio of 0.5. The reader is directed towards references 1,
2, & 3 for further details.
b) For proposed wells with a deviation greater than or equal to 30o from vertical, one
can:
- Use a numerical simulator to predict inflow provided sufficient knowledge of the
input parameters exist.
- Use a pseudo-skin approach. That is to say, use the Darcy flow equations for a
vertical well, but adjust the skin to account for the increased flow attributed to the
slant penetration into the reservoir.
ln(re / rw) analogue + 0

qproposed = qanalogue Equation 4.16
ln(re / rw) proposed + spseudo
where:
q = flowrate (m3/d)
spseudo = skin effect due to wellbore deviation
- The Rogers et al, Besson, and Chen et al references all outline the details of this
approach.
- The following equation developed by Besson (ref. 2) may be used to estimate the
skin effect due to wellbore deviation. This equation assumes a fully penetrating
wellbore.
 4rw  h  2a LhY 
s = ln  + ln  
 LaY  YL  4rw(Y + 1) / Y 
Equation 4.17
where:
a = kh / kv (anisotropy ratio)
e = eccentricity of the horizontal well (distance between middle of the
reservoir and well axis)
h = reservoir thickness (m)
kh = permeability in the horizontal direction (md)
kv = permeability in the vertical direction (md)
kv/kh = permeability ratio
L = producing length of the well (m)
θ = hole angle (Cosθ = h/L)
Y = [(kv/kh) + (h/L)2(kh-kv)/kh]0.5
16
The following tables were calculated using the approach described in
reference 2 and may be used as a guideline. Skin factor is listed as a function of
wellbore radius, permeability ratio and reservoir thickness for well deviated up to 85o
from the vertical. Wells deviated by greater than 85o are considered to be horizontal.
For Deviated Wells (θ = angle of deviation)

rw (m) = 0.0492
kv/kh = 0.1
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 50 100
θ (deg) SKIN (s)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
25 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
30 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
35 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3
40 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4
45 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5
50 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7
55 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9
60 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2 -1.3
65 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4 -1.4 -1.6 -1.7
70 -1.6 -1.8 -1.9 -1.9 -2.2 -2.3
75 -2.2 -2.5 -2.6 -2.7 -3.0 -3.3
80 -3.1 -3.5 -3.7 -3.8 -4.3 -4.6
85 -4.6 -5.1 -5.4 -5.6 -6.2 -6.7
For Deviated Wells

rw (m) = 0.0492
kv/kh = 0.5
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 50 100
θ(deg) SKIN (s)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
25 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4
30 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6
35 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8
40 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -1.0 -1.1
45 -0.8 -1.0 -1.0 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4
50 -1.1 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8
55 -1.4 -1.6 -1.7 -1.8 -2.0 -2.3
60 -1.7 -2.0 -2.1 -2.2 -2.6 -2.8
65 -2.1 -2.4 -2.6 -2.7 -3.2 -3.5
70 -2.6 -3.0 -3.2 -3.4 -3.9 -4.2
75 -3.2 -3.7 -3.9 -4.1 -4.7 -5.2
80 -4.0 -4.5 -4.8 -5.1 -5.8 -6.3
85 -5.1 -5.7 -6.1 -6.3 -7.2 -7.8
17
For Deviated Wells
rw (m) = 0.0492
kv/kh = 1
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 50 100
θ(deg) SKIN (s)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4
25 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6
30 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9
35 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2
40 -0.9 -1.1 -1.2 -1.2 -1.5 -1.6
45 -1.2 -1.4 -1.5 -1.6 -1.8 -2.0
50 -1.5 -1.7 -1.8 -2.0 -2.3 -2.5
55 -1.8 -2.1 -2.2 -2.4 -2.8 -3.1
60 -2.1 -2.5 -2.7 -2.8 -3.3 -3.6
65 -2.5 -2.9 -3.2 -3.3 -3.9 -4.3
70 -3.0 -3.5 -3.7 -3.9 -4.5 -5.0
75 -3.6 -4.1 -4.4 -4.6 -5.3 -5.8
80 -4.3 -4.8 -5.2 -5.4 -6.2 -6.7
85 -5.3 -5.9 -6.3 -6.6 -7.4 -8.0
For Deviated Wells

rw (m) = 0.0762
kv/kh = 0.1
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 50 100
θ (deg) SKIN (s)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
25 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
30 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
35 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3
40 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4
45 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5
50 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7
55 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9
60 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2
65 -1.1 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4 -1.5 -1.6
70 -1.5 -1.7 -1.8 -1.8 -2.1 -2.2
75 -2.1 -2.3 -2.4 -2.5 -2.9 -3.1
80 -2.9 -3.2 -3.4 -3.6 -4.1 -4.4
85 -4.2 -4.7 -5.0 -5.2 -5.9 -6.4
18
For Deviated Wells
rw (m) = 0.0762
kv/kh = 0.5
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 50 100
θ(deg) SKIN (s)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
25 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4
30 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5
35 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7
40 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0
45 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 -1.2 -1.3
50 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2 -1.3 -1.5 -1.7
55 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.6 -1.9 -2.1
60 -1.5 -1.8 -2.0 -2.1 -2.4 -2.6
65 -1.9 -2.2 -2.4 -2.5 -3.0 -3.3
70 -2.4 -2.8 -3.0 -3.1 -3.6 -4.0
75 -2.9 -3.4 -3.7 -3.8 -4.4 -4.9
80 -3.7 -4.2 -4.5 -4.7 -5.4 -5.9
85 -4.7 -5.4 -5.7 -6.0 -6.8 -7.4
For Deviated Wells

rw (m) = 0.0762
kv/kh = 1
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 50 100
θ(deg) SKIN (s)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4
25 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6
30 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.8 -0.9
35 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 -1.2
40 -0.8 -1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.4 -1.5
45 -1.0 -1.2 -1.4 -1.4 -1.7 -1.9
50 -1.3 -1.5 -1.7 -1.8 -2.1 -2.4
55 -1.6 -1.9 -2.1 -2.2 -2.6 -2.9
60 -1.9 -2.3 -2.5 -2.6 -3.1 -3.4
65 -2.3 -2.7 -2.9 -3.1 -3.6 -4.0
70 -2.7 -3.2 -3.5 -3.6 -4.2 -4.7
75 -3.3 -3.8 -4.1 -4.3 -5.0 -5.5
80 -3.9 -4.5 -4.8 -5.1 -5.8 -6.4
85 -4.9 -5.5 -5.9 -6.2 -7.0 -7.6
19
For Deviated Wells
rw (m) = 0.1111
kv/kh = 0.1
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 50 100
θ(deg) SKIN (s)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
25 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
30 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
35 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3
40 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4
45 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5
50 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6
55 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9
60 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2
65 -1.1 -1.2 -1.2 -1.3 -1.4 -1.6
70 -1.4 -1.6 -1.7 -1.7 -2.0 -2.1
75 -1.9 -2.2 -2.3 -2.4 -2.7 -3.0
80 -2.7 -3.0 -3.3 -3.4 -3.9 -4.2
85 -4.0 -4.5 -4.8 -5.0 -5.6 -6.2
For Deviated Wells

rw (m) = 0.1111
kv/kh = 0.5
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 50 100
θ(deg) SKIN (s)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
25 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3
30 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5
35 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7
40 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9
45 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -1.1 -1.2
50 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6
55 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4 -1.5 -1.8 -2.0
60 -1.4 -1.7 -1.8 -1.9 -2.3 -2.5
65 -1.8 -2.1 -2.2 -2.4 -2.8 -3.1
70 -2.2 -2.6 -2.8 -2.9 -3.4 -3.8
75 -2.7 -3.1 -3.4 -3.6 -4.2 -4.6
80 -3.4 -3.9 -4.2 -4.4 -5.1 -5.7
85 -4.4 -5.0 -5.4 -5.6 -6.4 -7.0
20
For Deviated Wells
rw (m) = 0.1111
kv/kh = 1
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 50 100
θ(deg) SKIN (s)
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
20 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4
25 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6
30 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8
35 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -1.0 -1.1
40 -0.7 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4
45 -0.9 -1.1 -1.3 -1.3 -1.6 -1.8
50 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.7 -2.0 -2.2
55 -1.4 -1.7 -1.9 -2.0 -2.4 -2.7
60 -1.7 -2.1 -2.3 -2.4 -2.9 -3.2
65 -2.1 -2.5 -2.7 -2.9 -3.4 -3.8
70 -2.5 -2.9 -3.2 -3.4 -4.0 -4.5
75 -3.0 -3.5 -3.8 -4.0 -4.7 -5.2
80 -3.6 -4.2 -4.5 -4.7 -5.5 -6.1
85 -4.5 -5.2 -5.5 -5.8 -6.6 -7.3
S4.9 Horizontal Wells:

a) For proposed wells with a deviation greater than 85o from vertical, one can:
i) Use a numerical simulator to predict inflow provided sufficient knowledge of the

input parameters exists or
ii) Use a pseudo-skin approach. That is to say, use the Darcy flow equations for a
vertical well, but adjust the skin to account for the increased flow attributed to the
horizontal penetration into the reservoir.
ln(re / rw)vertical + 0
qhorizontal = qvertical Equation 4.18
ln(re / rw) horiz + spseudo
where:
q = flowrate (m3/d)
spseudo = skin effect due to horizontal wellbore
- The following equation developed by Besson (ref. 2) may be used to estimate

the skin effect due to a horizontal wellbore.
21
 4rw  ah  
s = ln   + ln 
2ah
 − (ah / L )
2
[ 0.167+2(e/h)2 ]Equation 4.19
 L  L  2πrw(1 + a )Cos (πe / h) 
where:
a= kh / kv (anisotropy ratio)
e = eccentricity of the horizontal well (distance between middle of the
reservoir and well axis)
h = reservoir thickness (m)
kh = permeability in the horizontal direction (md)
kv = permeability in the vertical direction (md)
kv/kh = permeability ratio
L = producing length of the well (m)
The following tables were calculated using the approach described in ref. 2 and may be used
as a guideline.
22
rw (m)= 0.0492
kv/kh = 0.1
e/h = 0
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L (m) SKIN (s)
200 -6.7 -6.3 -5.9 -5.5 -4.6 -3.7 -2.7 -1.7 -0.7 0.4 1.4 2.5
400 -7.5 -7.3 -7.1 -6.9 -6.4 -6.0 -5.5 -5.0 -4.4 -3.9 -3.4 -2.8
600 -7.9 -7.8 -7.7 -7.5 -7.2 -6.9 -6.6 -6.2 -5.9 -5.5 -5.2 -4.8
800 -8.2 -8.2 -8.1 -7.9 -7.7 -7.5 -7.2 -7.0 -6.7 -6.4 -6.2 -5.9
1000 -8.5 -8.4 -8.3 -8.2 -8.1 -7.9 -7.7 -7.5 -7.2 -7.0 -6.8 -6.6
1500 -8.9 -8.9 -8.8 -8.7 -8.6 -8.5 -8.4 -8.2 -8.1 -7.9 -7.8 -7.6
2000 -9.2 -9.2 -9.1 -9.1 -9.0 -8.9 -8.8 -8.7 -8.6 -8.5 -8.4 -8.3
2500 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.3 -9.3 -9.2 -9.1 -9.0 -8.9 -8.8 -8.8 -8.7
3000 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.5 -9.5 -9.4 -9.3 -9.3 -9.2 -9.1 -9.1 -9.0
rw (m)= 0.0492
kv/kh = 0.5
e/h = 0
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L (m) SKIN (s)
200 -6.8 -6.7 -6.5 -6.3 -5.9 -5.5 -5.1 -4.7 -4.2 -3.7 -3.3 -2.8
400 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.1 -6.9 -6.7 -6.5 -6.2 -6.0 -5.8 -5.5
600 -8.0 -7.9 -7.9 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6 -7.4 -7.3 -7.1 -7.0 -6.8 -6.6
800 -8.3 -8.2 -8.2 -8.2 -8.1 -8.0 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3
1000 -8.5 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4 -8.3 -8.2 -8.2 -8.1 -8.0 -7.9 -7.8 -7.7
1500 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.6 -8.6 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4
2000 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.1 -9.1 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -8.9 -8.9 -8.8
2500 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.1
3000 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4
rw (m)= 0.0492
kv/kh = 1
e/h = 0
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L (m) SKIN (s)
200 -6.9 -6.8 -6.6 -6.5 -6.2 -6.0 -5.7 -5.4 -5.0 -4.7 -4.4 -4.1
400 -7.6 -7.5 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.1 -7.0 -6.8 -6.7 -6.5 -6.3 -6.2
600 -8.0 -8.0 -7.9 -7.9 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.2 -7.1
800 -8.3 -8.3 -8.2 -8.2 -8.1 -8.1 -8.0 -7.9 -7.8 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6
1000 -8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4 -8.3 -8.3 -8.2 -8.2 -8.1 -8.0 -8.0
1500 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6
2000 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.1 -9.1 -9.1 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -8.9
2500 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.4 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.3 -9.2 -9.2
3000 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.6 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.5 -9.4
23
rw (m)= 0.0762
kv/kh = 0.1
e/h = 0
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L (m) SKIN (s)
200 -6.3 -5.9 -5.6 -5.2 -4.4 -3.5 -2.6 -1.7 -0.7 0.3 1.2 2.2
400 -7.1 -6.9 -6.7 -6.5 -6.1 -5.7 -5.2 -4.7 -4.2 -3.7 -3.2 -2.7
600 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.1 -6.9 -6.6 -6.3 -5.9 -5.6 -5.3 -4.9 -4.6
800 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6 -7.5 -7.3 -7.1 -6.9 -6.6 -6.4 -6.1 -5.9 -5.6
1000 -8.1 -8.0 -7.9 -7.8 -7.7 -7.5 -7.3 -7.1 -6.9 -6.7 -6.5 -6.3
1500 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4 -8.3 -8.2 -8.1 -8.0 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6 -7.4 -7.3
2000 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7 -8.6 -8.5 -8.4 -8.3 -8.2 -8.1 -8.0 -7.9
2500 -9.0 -9.0 -8.9 -8.9 -8.8 -8.8 -8.7 -8.6 -8.5 -8.5 -8.4 -8.3
3000 -9.2 -9.2 -9.1 -9.1 -9.1 -9.0 -8.9 -8.9 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.6
rw (m)= 0.0762
kv/kh = 0.5
e/h = 0
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L (m) SKIN (s)
200 -6.4 -6.3 -6.1 -5.9 -5.6 -5.2 -4.8 -4.4 -4.0 -3.6 -3.1 -2.7
400 -7.1 -7.1 -7.0 -6.9 -6.7 -6.5 -6.3 -6.1 -5.9 -5.7 -5.5 -5.3
600 -7.6 -7.5 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.2 -7.0 -6.9 -6.7 -6.6 -6.4 -6.3
800 -7.9 -7.8 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.2 -7.1 -7.0 -6.9
1000 -8.1 -8.1 -8.0 -8.0 -7.9 -7.8 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3
1500 -8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4 -8.3 -8.3 -8.2 -8.2 -8.1 -8.0 -8.0
2000 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7 -8.6 -8.6 -8.5 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4
2500 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7
3000 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.1 -9.1 -9.1 -9.1 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -8.9
rw (m)= 0.0762
kv/kh = 1
e/h = 0
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L (m) SKIN (s)
200 -6.4 -6.3 -6.2 -6.1 -5.9 -5.6 -5.3 -5.1 -4.8 -4.5 -4.2 -3.9
400 -7.2 -7.1 -7.1 -7.0 -6.9 -6.7 -6.6 -6.5 -6.3 -6.2 -6.0 -5.9
600 -7.6 -7.5 -7.5 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.2 -7.1 -7.0 -6.9 -6.8 -6.7
800 -7.9 -7.8 -7.8 -7.8 -7.7 -7.7 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.4 -7.3 -7.2
1000 -8.1 -8.1 -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 -7.9 -7.9 -7.8 -7.7 -7.7 -7.6 -7.6
1500 -8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4 -8.3 -8.3 -8.3 -8.2 -8.2 -8.1
2000 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.5
2500 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -9.0 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9 -8.9 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8
3000 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.2 -9.1 -9.1 -9.1 -9.1 -9.1 -9.0 -9.0
24
rw (m)= 0.1111
kv/kh = 0.1
e/h = 0
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L (m) SKIN (s)
200 -5.9 -5.6 -5.3 -4.9 -4.2 -3.4 -2.5 -1.6 -0.7 0.2 1.1 2.0
400 -6.7 -6.6 -6.4 -6.2 -5.8 -5.4 -5.0 -4.5 -4.1 -3.6 -3.1 -2.7
600 -7.1 -7.0 -6.9 -6.8 -6.6 -6.3 -6.0 -5.7 -5.4 -5.1 -4.7 -4.4
800 -7.4 -7.4 -7.3 -7.2 -7.0 -6.8 -6.6 -6.3 -6.1 -5.9 -5.6 -5.4
1000 -7.7 -7.6 -7.6 -7.5 -7.3 -7.2 -7.0 -6.8 -6.6 -6.4 -6.2 -6.0
1500 -8.1 -8.1 -8.0 -8.0 -7.9 -7.7 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.1 -7.0
2000 -8.4 -8.4 -8.3 -8.3 -8.2 -8.1 -8.0 -8.0 -7.9 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6
2500 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.5 -8.5 -8.4 -8.3 -8.3 -8.2 -8.1 -8.0 -8.0
3000 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.6 -8.6 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4 -8.3 -8.3
rw (m)= 0.1111
kv/kh = 0.5
e/h = 0
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L (m) SKIN (s)
200 -6.0 -5.9 -5.8 -5.6 -5.3 -4.9 -4.6 -4.2 -3.8 -3.4 -3.0 -2.6
400 -6.8 -6.7 -6.6 -6.6 -6.4 -6.2 -6.0 -5.8 -5.6 -5.4 -5.2 -5.0
600 -7.2 -7.1 -7.1 -7.0 -6.9 -6.8 -6.7 -6.6 -6.4 -6.3 -6.2 -6.0
800 -7.5 -7.5 -7.4 -7.4 -7.3 -7.2 -7.1 -7.0 -6.9 -6.8 -6.7 -6.6
1000 -7.7 -7.7 -7.7 -7.6 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.3 -7.2 -7.1 -7.0
1500 -8.1 -8.1 -8.1 -8.1 -8.0 -8.0 -7.9 -7.9 -7.8 -7.8 -7.7 -7.6
2000 -8.4 -8.4 -8.4 -8.4 -8.3 -8.3 -8.3 -8.2 -8.2 -8.1 -8.1 -8.1
2500 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4 -8.4
3000 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6
rw (m)= 0.1111
kv/kh = 1
e/h = 0
h(m) = 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
L (m) SKIN (s)
200 -6.1 -6.0 -5.9 -5.8 -5.5 -5.3 -5.1 -4.8 -4.5 -4.2 -4.0 -3.7
400 -6.8 -6.7 -6.7 -6.6 -6.5 -6.4 -6.3 -6.1 -6.0 -5.9 -5.7 -5.6
600 -7.2 -7.2 -7.1 -7.1 -7.0 -6.9 -6.9 -6.8 -6.7 -6.6 -6.5 -6.4
800 -7.5 -7.5 -7.4 -7.4 -7.4 -7.3 -7.2 -7.2 -7.1 -7.0 -7.0 -6.9
1000 -7.7 -7.7 -7.7 -7.7 -7.6 -7.6 -7.5 -7.5 -7.4 -7.3 -7.3 -7.2
1500 -8.1 -8.1 -8.1 -8.1 -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 -7.9 -7.9 -7.9 -7.8 -7.8
2000 -8.4 -8.4 -8.4 -8.4 -8.4 -8.3 -8.3 -8.3 -8.3 -8.2 -8.2 -8.2
2500 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.6 -8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8.5 -8.4
3000 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.8 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7 -8.7
25
References:
1. Rogers, E.J., & Economides, M.J.: ”The Skin due to Slant of Deviated Wells in
Permeability-Anisotropic Reservoirs”, paper SPE 37068, presented at the 1996 SPE
International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology in Calgary, Alberta, 18-20Nov.
2. Besson, J.: “Performance of Slanted and Horizontal Wells on an Anisotropic Medium”,
paper SPE 20965, presented at the 1990 SPE Europec 90 in the Hague, Netherlands, 22-24
Oct.
3. Chen, G., Tehrani, D.H., & Peden, J.M.: ”Calculation of Well Productivity in a Reservoir
Simulator (I)”, paper SPE 29121, presented at the 13th SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation held in San Antonio, Texas, 12-15 Feb., 1995.
4. Dake, L.P.: ”Fundamental Reservoir Engineering”, Development in Petroleum Science 8,
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1993.
5. Cinco-Ley, H., Ramsey, H.J., Jr., and Miller, F.G.: “Pseudo-skin Factors for Partially-
Penetrating Directionally-Drilled Wells”, SPE paper 5589, 1975.
6. Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (now AAEUB): “Gas Well Testing,
Theory and Practice”, Guide G-3, fourth Edition, 1979.
7. Jones, L.G. and Slusser, M.L.: “The Estimation of Productivity Loss Caused by
Perforations – Including Partial Completion and Formation Damage”, paper SPE 4798,
presented at the Second Midwest Oil and Gas Symposium of SPE in Indianapolis, Ind
March 28-29, 1974.
8. Odeh, A.S.: “Steady-State Flow Capacity of Wells with Limited Entry to Flow”, Society
of Petroleum Engineering Journal, March, 1968, pages 43-51.
9. Brons, F., and Marting, V.E.: “The Effect of Restricted Fluid Entry on Well Productivity”,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, Feb, 1961, pages 172-174.
10. Gidley, J.L., Holditch, S.A., Nierode, Nierode, D.E., & Veatch R.W.: “Recent Advances
in Hydraulic Fracturing”, SPE Monograph, Volume 12.
26
Appendix
H2S Concentration Measurement Techniques
Technique Accuracy Comments

On-site Electronic meter ± 10% 1. Some models are far more accurate than ± 10%.
2. Not often used in conjunction with well tests due to cost, robustness,
continued calibration checks needed.
On-site Tutweiler 1. Accuracy depends on:

a) Condition of chemicals. Iodine has a relatively short shelf life,
For 100 mL Burrette Size: cannot be exposed to sunlight, and cannot be frozen. Starch
solution must be made accurately.
H2S Iodine b) Normality of the Iodine solution compared to the H2S
% Normality concentration.
0.5 0.01345 ± 15% • 0.01345 N recommended for H2S less than 1.6%. The
1.0 0.01345 ± 8% minimum measurable volume of iodine that can be titrated
1.5 0.01345 ± 5% is 0.5 mL, which represents 0.08% H2S concentration
2.0 0.01345 ± 4% increments using a 100mL burette.
• 0.0269 N recommended for H2S greater than 1.6%. The
1.5 0.0269 ± 10% minimum measurable volume of iodine that can be titrated
2.0 0.0269 ± 8% is 0.5 mL, which represents 0.16% H2S concentration
2.5 0.0269 ± 6% increments using a 100mL burette.
3.0 0.0269 ± 5% • 0.1 N is the most commonly used iodine solution in the
field. The minimum measurable volume of iodine that can
0.5 0.1 ± 120% be titrated is 0.5 mL, which represents 0.6% H2S
1.0 0.1 ± 58% concentration increments using a 100mL burette.
1.5 0.1 ± 39% c) Size of the gas burette.
2.0 0.1 ± 29% • Recommend 500 mL burette or H2S concentrations less than
4.0 0.1 ± 15% 0.16%, or when more accuracy is desired.
6.0 0.1 ± 10% • Most commonly used burette in the field is 100 mL.
8.0 0.1 ± 7% d) To reduce measurement error, the iodine normality should be
10.0 0.1 ± 6% selected so that no more than 10 mL of iodine is needed (the
size of the titration cylinder).
2. For the above accuracy reasons, the common industry practice has
been to use Tutweiler measurements for H2S concentrations
down to as low as 2 to 3%. Below this value, Length of Stain
Detector Tubes are commonly used.
On-Site Length of Stain ± 25% 1. Most often used for H2S levels less than 2% to 3%.
Detector Tubes 2. ± 25% is from reference 4. Reference 3 indicates better accuracy is
obtainable under certain circumstances.
3. Accuracy more questionable with high H2S concentrations (due to
the large scale range of concentration on the tube, especially the
older tubes).
4. Reading should be corrected for gas temperature and ambient
pressure, but this has not been a common field practice.
5. Single pull plunger type pumps are considered slightly more accurate
than the bellows type pump when multiple inflation of the bellows is
required.
Lab Analysis:
Transport Technique: 1. Accuracy depends upon the type of pressure container that the gas
sample is transported to the lab in. The H2S will react with the walls
of normal carbon steel containers and so the subsequent H2S
measurement will be low. Silianized glass containers and high nickel
steel alloy containers are the best.
27
Technique Accuracy Comments
2. Even with silianized glass containers and high nickel steel alloy
containers, the concentration of H2S will decrease with time. See
reference 5 for details.
3. Tedlar Bags are sometimes used to transport a gas sample to the lab.
These are not recommended for high H2S concentrations, as testing
has shown that the H2S measurements may be 20% too low after 20
days (Reference 6).
Lab Measurement Method:
1. Tutweiler or Length of Stain 1. Not recommended because of accuracy of measurement and loss of
Detector Tubes. accuracy when transporting the gas in a pressure cylinder to the lab.
2. Gas Chromatograph. 2. Very Accurate. Measures all sulfur compounds. Accuracy is limited
by the transportation method and time delay as mentioned above.
References:
1. “Hydrogen Sulfide in Gases by the Tutweiler Method”, UOP Method 9-59, Universal Oil
Products Company, Des Plaines, Illinois, USA, 1959.
2. “Test for Hydrogen Sulfide in LPG and Gases (Tutweiler Method)”, Plant Operations Test
Manual, Gas Processor’s Association (GPA), 1812 First Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
3. “Tentative Method of Test for Hydrogen Sulfide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain
Tubes”, Adopted as a tentative standard in 1997 by the Gas Processors Association, GPA
publication 2377-77.
4. “Standard Test Method for Hydrogen Sulfide in Natural Gas Using Length of Stain
Detector Tubes”, ASTM Designation D 4810-88 (re-approved 1994).
5. “Influence of Containers on Sour Gas Samples”, J.G.W. Price & D.K. Cromer, Petroleum
Engineer International, March, 1980.
6. “Loss of H2S from Tedlar Bags”, Personal Communication, Core Laboratories Canada
Ltd.
28
EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETED AUDIT FORM
The following example shows how the audit forms are to be used to document potential
H2S release rates. The hypothetical example used is a horizontal Leduc well, which in
addition to the Leduc, has three potentially sour formations in the overlying section.
These three formations, Viking, Glauconite, and Basal Quartz will be penetrated in the
vertical section of the well. Intermediate casing will be run prior to drilling the Leduc
horizontal section.
Form A1 is used to summarize all of the well’s geologic and basic information.
Potentially productive formations are listed along with the intermediate casing point and
the well’s total depth. A Step #1 analysis of the Viking formation was performed which
determined that the Viking did not contain H2S concentrations equal or greater than 500
ppm. Therefore this formation would be exempt from further analysis and a statement
documenting the Step #1 analysis was made in the footnotes box on Form A1. Also, to
facilitate AEUB internal routing, the number of the Step used to evaluate each
formation is noted on Form 1A in the column titled "Step #(s) used in assessment"
A Step #2 analysis was performed on the Glauconite Formation and documented on Form
A2. In a Step #2 analysis, a minimum five kilometer data search radius is required.
Within a given search radius a minimum of five AOF and five H2S data points are
required. The search radius is expanded until the required number of data points is
achieved. In the example sheet, the required data was obtained with a five kilometer data
search and Form A2 was used to document all of the data obtained in the data search.
The Basal Quartz Formation underwent a Step #3 analysis because some of the H2S
concentration data was edited to differentiate between gas cap and solution gas H2S
concentrations. Since representative gas cap H2S concentrations were sought in the data
search, the operator was able to cull the solution gas H2S concentration data. Both the
culled and utilized AOF and H2S concentration data is documented on Form A2.
The example well has intermediate casing set prior to penetrating the Leduc Formation.
To evaluate the potential H2S release rate for the vertical section of this well, the
individual release rates for the Glauconite and Basal Quartz Formations were determined,
summed and documented on Form A3.
The Leduc AOF and H2S concentration data was documented on Form A2. However
since a 400m horizontal section is planned for this well, Step #4 methodology was used
to adjust the release rate to reflect a 400m Leduc horizontal wellbore. The release rate
was then documented on Form A3. The operator must keep a record of all calculations
used to determine the adjusted H2S release rate.
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL H2S RELEASE RATE DETERMINATION - AUDIT SHEETS
Operator Name: Fiction Resources Ltd.

Well Location: LS 4-5-44-22 W4M
Type of Well (Vertical, Directional, Horizontal): Horizontal (Leduc Formation)
GEOLOGICAL SUMMARY
Name of Potentially Common Names for Estimated Fluid type Gas Cap Exempt Search Area for Analogous Data Foot- Step#(s)
notes used in
Productive Formation Same Formation Top Depths (Gas, Oil) Present?A Area?B (Indicate either the search radius
(for use in data search) around the proposed well or the names of
(also list intermediate casing points in assess-
analogous fields and pools.)
the geological sequence) m KB (MD) m KB (TVD) (Yes, No) (Yes, No) ment
Viking 1150 1150 Gas Yes Not required 1 1

Glauconitic Upper Manville 1200 1200 Gas No Regional 5-km 1 2
Basal Quartz Lower Manville, Ellerslie 1250 1250 Oil Yes No Regional 10-km 1 3
Intermediate Casing Point 1600 1550
Leduc D3 1610 1550 Oil No No Malmo D3A Pool 2 4
Total Depth 2010 1550
Footnotes:
1. All prospective formations, excluding the Leduc, will be contacted in the vertical portion of the wellbore.
2. The Leduc formation will be penetrated, through the side of the reef, after the intermediate casing is set in the horizontal position.
NOTE: The Viking is exempt from further analysis since the exemption area maps show the Viking does not contain H 2S (refer to Step 1 analysis).
Supplemental Instructions:
A. For oil wells where a gas cap is not expected to be present, include supporting information indicating why a gas cap is not present (eg. undersaturated reservoir; top below established gas/oil contact).
B. Refer to the Exemption Area Maps (Step 1 analysis) for indentifying the formations which are in the exempt area. No further analysis is required for these formations.
C. Separate H2S release rate potentials may be determined for drilling operations in the intermediate and main-hole sections of the well. Therefore, the intermediate casing points should be listed in
the above table in geological sequence. Also include the measured and true vertical setting depths of the intermediate ca sing points.
D. Formations that are expected to be nonproductive, but are productive in offsetting lands, should be listed with an explanat ion why they are nonproductive (eg. low and wet).
Prepared by: John Doe Date: 30-Sep-98 Form A1

MAXIMUM POTENTIAL H2S RELEASE RATE DETERMINATION
H2S CONCENTRATION DATA AND FLOW RATE DATA
(Complete a separate copy of this form for each potentially productive sour formation)

FORMATION NAME: Glauconitic
POTENTIAL H2S CONCENTRATION DATA
Unique Well I.D. Sample Sample Interval Sample Sample H2S Foot-
(5 or more samples with H2S Date From To Point Pressure Conc. notes
recommended for Step 2
analysis of sour zones) m KB m KB kPa %
00/13-22-043-22W4/0 77 12 04 1199.1 1210.1 H.P Sep. 2000 0.09
00/16-30-043-22W4/0 79 10 10 1198.0 1200.0 H.P Sep. 1210 0.18
00/01-32-043-22W4/2 66 06 06 1201.0 1205.0 DST 1 600 0.12
00/01-34-043-22W4/0 97 12 25 1210.0 1212.0 DST 2 1500 0.10
02/11-12-044-23W4/0 92 01 01 1209.0 1214.0 Wellhead 2800 0.07
00/01-13-044-23W4/0 92 06 30 1198.0 1208.0 H.P Sep. 1234 0.16
02/16-13-044-23W4/2 95 05 31 1205.0 1207.0 DST 2 909 0.01
POTENTIAL FLOW RATE DATA
Unique Well I.D. Test Type Start Test Interval Static Flowing Test "n" Sandface Foot-
(5 or more flow rates and Test Reservoir Bottomhole Gas Rate or name AOFP notes
recommended for Number Date From To Pressure Pressure of
3 3 C 3 3
Step 2 analysis) m KB m KB kPa kPa 10 m /d correlation 10 m /d
00/12-23-043-22W4/0 AOF 77 11 18 1199.1 1210.1 14000 5000 100.0 0.95 113.8 1
00/14-31-043-22W4/0 AOF 79 10 01 1198.0 1200.0 13350 7980 335.0 0.75 466.7 1
00/01-32-043-22W4/2 DST 1 66 06 06 1201.0 1205.0 12202 9009 303.0 1.00 666.1
00/01-34-043-22W4/0 DST 2 97 12 25 1210.0 1212.0 11009 8000 220.0 1.00 466.2
02/10-12-044-23W4/0 AOF 91 12 27 1209.0 1214.0 13700 3000 55.0 1.00 57.8 1
00/01-13-044-23W4/0 AOF 92 03 03 1205.0 1207.0 13700 6000 28.5 1.00 35.3 1
FOOTNOTES
1. Multipoint AOF Test Data
NOTE: The well information shown above is fictitious and is intended for illustration purposes only. A Step 2 analysis is shown
for this formation since all of the data within 5 kilometres is accepted without further analysis and a minimum of 5 data
points is obtained. If less than points were available in the 5 kilometre radius, the search radius must be expanded for
a Step 2 analysis.
A. A minimum of five representative sample points should be included for the H2S concentration listing and the flow rate data. Data
from wells that is not considered to be representative, but would otherwise increase the H2S release potential, should also be included in
the list along with a footnote explaining the reason the data is not representative.
B. Formations that are confirmed to be sweet do not require completion of the potential flow rate data.
C. If the AOF is determined using a correlation other than Schellardt and Rawlins equation (Q = c(Pr2 - Pwf2)n), state the name of the
correlation used (eg. Vogel's).
D. Include supporting documentation if bottomhole pressures are estimated from surface pressures or production data. Also include
documentation supporting the use of an "n" value less than 1.0 for DSTs or single-point test data. Generally, n = 1 for DSTs.
E. Any data within the search area that is not used must be shown above with a footnote explaining why the data was not used.


FORMATION NAME: Basal Quartz
(5 or more samples with H2S Date From To Point Pressure Conc. Notes
00/08-08-043-22W4/0 75 11 04 1249.1 1254.1 Separator 200 0.50 1
00/09-09-043-22W4/0 79 10 31 1248.0 1250.0 Separator 150 0.30 1
00/12-11-043-22W4/2 76 06 06 1251.0 1255.0 DST 1 80 0.35 1
00/13-32-043-22W4/2 90 12 25 1260.0 1262.0 DST 2 1500 0.19
02/11-12-044-22W4/0 92 02 29 1269.0 1274.0 Wellhead 7000 0.16
00/16-19-044-22W4/0 55 11 18 1225.0 1230.0 H.P Sep. 3800 0.18
00/01-26-044-22W4/0 78 03 02 1230.0 1235.0 H.P Sep. 5000 0.13
3 3 C 3 3
00/08-08-043-22W4/0 IPR 75 11 04 1249.1 1254.1 14000 700 9.0 Vogel's 9.1
00/09-09-043-22W4/0 DST 1 79 10 31 1248.0 1250.0 15125 7980 8.0 Vogel's 11.9
00/12-11-043-22W4/2 DST 2 76 06 06 1251.0 1255.0 14111 12111 14.0 Vogel's 58.6
00/13-32-043-22W4/2 DST 2 90 12 25 1260.0 1262.0 12222 10900 220.0 1.00 1075.1
02/11-12-044-22W4/0 AOF 92 02 29 1269.0 1274.0 13700 8000 182.0 0.90 264.9 2
00/16-19-044-22W4/0 AOF 55 11 18 1225.0 1230.0 14200 13000 72.0 1.00 444.8 2
00/01-26-044-22W4/0 AOF 78 03 02 1230.0 1235.0 10900 3000 310.0 0.70 327.6 2
FOOTNOTES
1. The identified samples are analysis of solution gas from oil wells. The wells were producing with gas/oil ratios between 80 m3/m3 and
90 m3/m3 when the samples were taken. Therefore, these analysis are not considered to be representative of gas cap gas and should
not be used when determining the H2S release rate potential of the gas cap.
2. Data taken from multipoint AOF test.
NOTE: The well information shown above is fictitious and is intended for illustration purposes only. Because some data has been
culled (ie. some gas analysis were determined to be solution gas rather than gas cap gas) a Step 3 analysis was used
for this formation.

POTENTIAL H2S RELEASE RATE SUMMARY SHEET

(complete on sheet for each grouping of formations that may be simultaneously produced)

Wellbore Section (eg. Intermediate, Main): Intermediate Hole
Nearest Urban Centre: Name: Wetaskiwin Distance From Well: 25.0 km
H2S RELEASE RATE SUMMARY
B
Formation Name H2S Concentration AOF Potential H2S Adjusted H2S Release Rates Foot-
A A
Reference Well H2S Reference Well Sandface AOF Release Rate Drilling Servicing Susp/Prod notes
3 3 3 3 3 3
Unique ID Conc. % Unique ID 10 m /d m /s m /s m /s m /s
Glauconitic 00/16-30-043-22W4/0 0.18 00/01-32-043-22W4/2 666.11 0.0139 0.0139 0.0139 n/appl. 1
Basal Quartz 00/13-32-043-22W4/2 0.19 00/13-32-043-22W4/2 1075.10 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 n/appl. 1
Total 0.0375 0.0375
EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE SUMMARY
D
Operation Type Adjusted H2S Calculated EPZ Footnotes
3
Release Rate - m /s km
Drilling 0.0375 0.298 1
Servicing 0.0375 0.298 1
LEVEL DESIGNATION SUMMARY
Operation Type Adjusted H2S Facility Level Footnotes Refer to Guide G-56 for land-use set-back
3
Release Rate - m /s (1,2,3 or 4) requirements corresponding to each facility
Suspended/Producing n/applic. 2 2 level.
Footnotes:
1. The drilling, servicing, and producing H2S release rate calculations apply only to the intermediate portion of the wellbore. The corresponding emergency planning
zones apply to intermediate wellbore drilling and servicing operations.
2. The suspended/producing level designation is determined by the suspended/producing rate for the main-hole section of the wellbore. Refer to the main-hole
summary sheets for details.
NOTE: The well information shown above is fictitious and is intended for illustration purposes only. This sheet applies to the intermediate section
of the wellbore. A release rate for the Leduc would also be included if the Leduc were to be intersected during the build section of the well.
A. All formations may not be open to the wellbore during servicing and producing operations. Therefore, the potential H 2S release rate for servicing may
be limited to the formation or formations that are anticipated to be open to the wellbore during the planned operations. Similarily, the potential H2S release
rate for producing operations should be based on the formation or formations that contribute the maximum producing H 2S release rate throughout the life of
3
the well. The H2S release rate potential for formations not open to the wellbore for the servicing or producing calculations may be shown as 0 m /s.
B. Any adjustments to the H2S release rates must be supported with appropriate calculations and assumptions.
C. All critical (special) sour wells required a full ERP and a detailed drilling program. Refer to Alberta Guide G-56 (or BC Oil and Gas Handbook) for definitions of
critical (special) sour wells.
D. In some cases, companies may propose an emergency planning zone (EPZ) size which varies in shape or diameter from the calculated EPZ. Refer to emergency
planning guidelines for EUB or BC oil and Gas Commission, as appropriate, for details related to the selection of the proposed EPZ.
Prepared by: John Doe Date: 30-Sep-98
Form A3

FORMATION NAME: Leduc
(5 or more samples with H2S Date From To Point Pressure Conc. notes
00/07-08-043-22W4/0 76 12 04 1549.1 1554.1 H.P Sep. 4500 19.00
00/08-09-043-22W4/0 80 08 31 1548.0 1550.0 H.P Sep. 6200 21.00
00/10-11-043-22W4/2 77 06 06 1551.0 1555.0 H.P Sep. 3100 13.00
00/14-32-043-22W4/2 91 12 25 1560.0 1562.0 DST 2 1500 16.00
02/13-12-044-22W4/0 93 02 29 1569.0 1574.0 Wellhead 7000 22.00
00/10-19-044-22W4/0 66 11 18 1525.0 1530.0 B.H. Sam. 3800 8.00
00/08-26-044-22W4/0 72 03 02 1530.0 1535.0 H.P Sep. 5000 18.00
3 3 C 3 3
00/07-08-043-22W4/0 IPR 76 12 04 1549.1 1554.1 17000 16010 25.0 Vogel's 244.8 1
00/08-09-043-22W4/0 DST 1 80 08 31 1548.0 1550.0 16800 12000 6.0 Vogel's 13.4
00/10-11-043-22W4/2 DST 2 77 06 06 1551.0 1555.0 17200 10800 28.0 Vogel's 50.1
00/14-32-043-22W4/2 DST 2 91 12 25 1560.0 1562.0 16100 10900 16.0 Vogel's 32.1
02/13-12-044-22W4/0 AOF 93 02 29 1569.0 1574.0 15800 8000 9.0 Vogel's 13.0
00/10-19-044-22W4/0 AOF 66 11 18 1525.0 1530.0 17050 15000 24.0 Vogel's 117.2
00/08-26-044-22W4/0 AOF 72 03 02 1530.0 1535.0 16900 3000 7.0 Vogel's 7.5
FOOTNOTES
1. The oil test rate for the well in LS 7-8-43-22 W4 was 125 m3/d with a GOR of 200 m3/m3. The resulting test gas rate was 25.0 103m3/d.
The calculated maximum inflow performance at 0 kPa sandface pressure is 1224 m3/d oil and 244.8 103m3/d gas (with a 200 m3/m3 GOR).
NOTE: The well information shown above is fictitious and is intended for illustration purposes only. Because a horizontal well
is planned, a Step 4 analysis is required. Refer to the Summary Data Sheets for the main-hole section for details related
to the flow-rate adjustments.



Wellbore Section (eg. Intermediate, Main): Main
Nearest Urban Centre: Name: Wetaskiwin Distance From Well: 25.0 km
B
A A
3 3 3 3 3 3
Leduc 02/13-12-044-22W4/0 22.00 00/07-08-043-22W4/0 244.83 0.6234 2.56 2.56 0.64 1
Total 2.56 2.56 0.64
D
3
Drilling 2.56 4.35
Servicing 2.56 4.35
Operation Type Adjusted H2S Facility Level Footnotes Refer to Alberta Guide G-56 or BC Oil and Gas
3
Release Rate - m /s (1,2,3 or 4) Handbook for land-use set-back requirements
Suspended/Producing 0.64 2 corresponding to each facility level.
Footnotes:
1. The adjusted H2S release rate for the drilling and servicing operations incorporates the flow adjustments for a 400-m horizontal wellbore. The flow adjustment
for the suspended producing configuration incorporates adjustments for vertical multiphase flow losses. Refer to the attachments for the related calculations.
NOTE: The well information shown above is fictitious and is intended for illustration purposes only. This sheet applies to the main-hole section
of the wellbore. Calculations showing the adjustments for the drilling, servicing and suspended/producing release rates must be attached.
A. All formations may not be open to the wellbore during servicing and producing operations. Therefore, the potential H 2S release rate for servicing may
rate for producing operations should be based on the formation or formations that contribute the maximum producing H 2S release rate throughout the life of
3
the well. The H2S release rate potential for formations not open to the wellbore for the servicing or producing calculations may be shown as 0 m /s.
D. In some cases, companies may propose an emergency planning zone (EPZ) size which varies in shape or diameter from the calculated EPZ. Refer to emergency
planning guidelines for EUB or BC Oil and Gas Commission, as appropriate, for details related to the selection of the proposed EPZ.

Prepared by:
Operator Name:
Well Location: Date:
Type of Well (Vertical, Directional, Horizontal):
GEOLOGICAL SUMMARY
Name of Potentially Common Names for Estimated Fluid type Gas Cap Exempt Search Area for Analogous Data Foot- Step #(s) used
A B notes in assessment
Productive Formation Same Formation Top Depths (Gas, Oil) Present? Area? (Indicate either the search radius
(also list intermediate casing (for use in data search) around the proposed well or the
points in the geological sequence) m KB (MD) m KB (TVD) (Yes, No) (Yes, No) names of analogous fields & pools)
Total Depth
Footnotes:
A. For oil wells where a gas cap is not expected to be present, include supporting information indicating why a gas cap is not present (eg. undersaturated reservoir; top below established gas/oil contact).
B. Refer to the Exemption Area Maps (Step 1 analysis) for indentifying the formations which are in the exempt area. No further analysis is required for these formations.
C. Separate H2S release rate potentials may be determined for drilling operations in the intermediate and main-hole sections of the well. Therefore, the intermediate casing points should be listed in
the above table in geological sequence. Also include the measured and true vertical setting depths of the intermediate casing points.
D. Formations that are expected to be nonproductive, but are productive in offsetting lands, should be listed with an explanation why they are nonproductive (eg. low and wet).
Form A1
H2S Release Rate Determination.xls (Geological Summary)

Operator Name:
Well Location:
FORMATION NAME:
Minimum of 5 samples
with H2S is
recommended for Date From To Point Pressure Conc. notes
known sour zones (Step
2) m KB m KB kPa %
(Minimum of 5 samples and Test Reservoir Bottomhole Gas Rate or name AOFP notes
3 3 C 3 3
FOOTNOTES
Prepared by: Date: Form A2
H2S Release Rate Determinatin.xls (Formation Data Sheet)


Operator Name:
Well Location:
Wellbore Section (eg. Intermediate, Main):
Nearest Urban Centre: Name: Distance From Well: km
B
A A
3 3 3 3 3 3
Total
D
3
Drilling
Servicing
Operation Type Adjusted H2S Facility Level Footnotes Refer to Alberta Guide G-56 or BC Oil and Gas
3
Release Rate - m /s (1,2,3 or 4) Handbook for land-use set-back requirements
Suspended/Producing corresponding to each facility level.
Footnotes:
A. All formations may not be open to the wellbore during servicing and producing operations. Therefore, the potential H2S release rate for servicing may
rate for producing operations should be based on the formation or formations that contribute the maximum producing H2S release rate throughout the life of
the well. The H2S release rate potential for formations not open to the wellbore for the servicing or producing calculations may be shown as 0 m3/s.
D. In some cases, companies may propose an emergency planning zone (EPZ) size which varies in shape or diameter from the calcuated EPZ. Refer to emergency
planning guidelines for EUB or BC Oil and Gas Commission, as appropriate, for details related to the selection of the proposed EPZ.
Prepared by: Date: Form A3
H2S Release Rate Determination.xls (Summary Sheet)

Stratigraphy
Click on any Map Unit
ERA PERIOD SERIES STAGE POTENTIAL PRODUCING STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS
Alberta Group Dunvegan

Upper Belly River Second White Specks
Cardium Wapiti Group
Cretaceous
Basal Colorado Fahler

Blairmore Group Ft. St. John Group
Bluesky Gething
Lower Bow Isand Mannville Group
Mesozoic
Cadomin Notikewin
Cadotte Viking
Jurassic
Nordegg Sawtooth
Rock Creek Swift
Triassic
Charlie Lake Montney

Doig Pardonet/Baldonnel
Halfway Toad Grayling
Permian Belloy Kindle
Penn-
Taylor Flat
sylvanian
Mississippian
Banff Mount Head

Debolt Pekisko
Etherington Shunda
Elkton Turner Valley
Paleozoic
Kiskatinaw
Big Valley Palliser

Famenian
Crossfield Wabamun
Devonian
Arcs Nisku
Beaverhill Lake Group Slave Point
Frasnian Elk Point Group Swan Hills
and Gilwood Winnipegosis
older Granite Wash Winterburn Group
Keg River Woodbend Group
Leduc
H2S
H s-search.com
2
Stratigraphy
Click on any Map Unit for Area A

Cretaceous

Bluesky Gething
Mesozoic
Cadomin Notikewin
Cadotte Viking
Jurassic
Nordegg Sawtooth
Rock Creek Swift
Triassic

Penn-
Taylor Flat
sylvanian
Mississippian
Banff Mount Head

Debolt Pekisko
Etherington Shunda
Paleozoic
Kiskatinaw
Big Valley Palliser

Famenian
Crossfield Wabamun
Devonian
Arcs Nisku
Leduc
H2S
H s-search.com
2
Stratigraphy
Click on any Map Unit for Area B

Cretaceous

Bluesky Gething
Mesozoic
Cadomin Notikewin
Cadotte Viking
Jurassic
Nordegg Sawtooth
Rock Creek Swift
Triassic

Penn-
Taylor Flat
sylvanian
Mississippian
Banff Mount Head

Debolt Pekisko
Etherington Shunda
Paleozoic
Kiskatinaw
Big Valley Palliser

Famenian
Crossfield Wabamun
Devonian
Arcs Nisku
Leduc
H2S
H s-search.com
2
Stratigraphy
Click on any Map Unit for Area C

Cretaceous

Bluesky Gething
Mesozoic
Cadomin Notikewin
Cadotte Viking
Jurassic
Nordegg Sawtooth
Rock Creek Swift
Triassic

Penn-
Taylor Flat
sylvanian
Mississippian
Banff Mount Head

Debolt Pekisko
Etherington Shunda
Paleozoic
Kiskatinaw
Big Valley Palliser

Famenian
Crossfield Wabamun
Devonian
Arcs Nisku
Leduc
H2S
H s-search.com
2
Stratigraphy
Click on any Map Unit for Area D

Cretaceous

Bluesky Gething
Mesozoic
Cadomin Notikewin
Cadotte Viking
Jurassic
Nordegg Sawtooth
Rock Creek Swift
Triassic

Penn-
Taylor Flat
sylvanian
Mississippian
Banff Mount Head

Debolt Pekisko
Etherington Shunda
Paleozoic
Kiskatinaw
Big Valley Palliser

Famenian
Crossfield Wabamun
Devonian
Arcs Nisku
Leduc
H2S
H s-search.com
2
Stratigraphy
Click on any Map Unit for Area E

Cretaceous

Bluesky Gething
Mesozoic
Cadomin Notikewin
Cadotte Viking
Jurassic
Nordegg Sawtooth
Rock Creek Swift
Triassic

Penn-
Taylor Flat
sylvanian
Mississippian
Banff Mount Head

Debolt Pekisko
Etherington Shunda
Paleozoic
Kiskatinaw
Big Valley Palliser

Famenian
Crossfield Wabamun
Devonian
Arcs Nisku
Leduc
H2S
H s-search.com
2
Stratigraphy
Click on any Map Unit for Area F

Cretaceous

Bluesky Gething
Mesozoic
Cadomin Notikewin
Cadotte Viking
Jurassic
Nordegg Sawtooth
Rock Creek Swift
Triassic

Penn-
Taylor Flat
sylvanian
Mississippian
Banff Mount Head

Debolt Pekisko
Etherington Shunda
Paleozoic
Kiskatinaw
Big Valley Palliser

Famenian
Crossfield Wabamun
Devonian
Arcs Nisku
Leduc
H2S
H s-search.com
2
Stratigraphy
Click on any Map Unit for Area G

Cretaceous

Bluesky Gething
Mesozoic
Cadomin Notikewin
Cadotte Viking
Jurassic
Nordegg Sawtooth
Rock Creek Swift
Triassic

Penn-
Taylor Flat
sylvanian
Mississippian
Banff Mount Head

Debolt Pekisko
Etherington Shunda
Paleozoic
Kiskatinaw
Big Valley Palliser

Famenian
Crossfield Wabamun
Devonian
Arcs Nisku
Leduc
H2S
H s-search.com
2
Contacts
For further information
Contact:
Mr. Ian Scott
(Manager of Pipelines Environment and Frontier)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Email: scott@capp.ca
Web Site: www.capp.ca
Canadian Association
of Petroleum Producers
H2S
H2s-search.com

H2S - CAPP Guidelines PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

H2S - CAPP Guidelines PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

REPORT 62

Submitted to the CAPP Drilling and Completions Committee

Steve Johnson, PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd.

H2S RELEASE RATE ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

The well is located more than 1500m

Step #1 Step #2 Step #3 Step #4

STEP 2: MAXIMUM H2S RELEASE RATE DETERMINATION

Calculation Test data to be extrapolated to a calculated AOF:

Sandface Gas AOF = Gas Test Rate * Pr2

Oil Test Rate * GOR

AOF = Absolute Open Flow (m3/d)

H2SRR =H2S% * AOF * 0.01 Equation 2.3

H2SRR <0.3 m3/s EPZ = 2.0 * (cum H2SRR)0.58 Equation 2.4

H2SRR = H2S Release Rate (m3/s)

S3.1 Geologic interpretation of potentially sour formations

It may be appropriate to exclude a formation from a release rate determination if it is wet,

S3.2 Gas cap versus oil leg flow rates.

- The highest sampled H2S concentration, and

S3.3 Wellbore design considerations and deviated wells.

S3.4 Pressure and H2S concentration data editing.

S3.4.1 Sample Points for the H2S concentration measurement.

1. Gas sample from a first stage separator or a recombined gas analysis.

S3.4.2 H2S Measurement Technique

STEP 4: GEOLOGIC AND ENGINEERING MODELING.

Input / Output Analysis should be retained for audit purposes.

S4.1 Stimulated versus Unstimulated Flow.

ln(re ( analogue ) / rw( analogue )) + s(analogue)

b) Completion/Servicing & Production Cases:

- Matrix sandstone acidizing results in a 0 to -1 skin.

S4.2 Adjustment from Sandface AOF

To simulate a blowout, it is appropriate to adjust the maximum flowrate at the sandface to

d) Tubular flow models:

S4.3 Oil wells:

Flow analysis for undersaturated reservoirs (reservoirs without a gas cap)

i) For test conditions above the bubble point:

ii) The relationship at the bubble point

iii) For test conditions below the bubble point:

iv) For determination of qmax

Pr = static reservoir pressure (kPa)

qmax = qt / (1 - 0.2 (Pwf/Pr) - 0.8 (Pwf/Pr)2) Equation 4.7

qmax = qt (Pr)2n/ (Pr2 - Pwf2)n Equation 4.8

S4.4 Adjustment to Net Pay:

S4.5 Reservoir Pressure:

AOFadj = AOForig (Z1/Z2) x (µ1/µ2) (Pwsadj)2n / (Pwsorig)2n Equation 4.10

AOFadj = adjusted AOF potential (m3/d)

A very simplified approach is to use the method developed by Brons and

h thickness of the producing zone (m)

h/rw = 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 300 500 700 1000 10000

S4.7 Non-Darcy Factors for Gas Wells

q = C(Pr2 – Pwf2)n Equation 4.14

m( P ) – m(Pwf) = Bq + Fq2 Equation 4.15

S4.8 Deviated Wells:

ln(re / rw) analogue + 0

For Deviated Wells (θ = angle of deviation)

For Deviated Wells

For Deviated Wells

For Deviated Wells

For Deviated Wells

S4.9 Horizontal Wells:

i) Use a numerical simulator to predict inflow provided sufficient knowledge of the

- The following equation developed by Besson (ref. 2) may be used to estimate

H2S Concentration Measurement Techniques

Technique Accuracy Comments