Surveliance Best Practices

SURVEILLANCE
0 BEST PRACTICES
September 17, 1999
BY
M. (Mike) C. ARNONDIN
C. (Chlris) V. CHOW
A. (Tony) S. NWANKWO
R. (Ray) R. OTT
N. D. (Dave) BALLARD
0
TABLE OF CONTENCE
• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .3
1. Introduction
II. Management Commitment ...............................--.............................---.- 5
III. General Discussion ....... .... . .. . . . ... .. . .. .... ......... ... ........... . ......... ... . ..6
IV. Well and Reservoir Surveillance .............. ........................................... 8
V. Surveillance Process Structure

A. Process ............... ................................. 1 2
B. Data ............... .................................13
C. Analysis .......---..... .................................14
D. Recommendations ..... .......... ................................ 15
E. Implementation ............... ................................ 16
F. Continuous Improvement ............. ... ................................ 16
VI. Conclusions ..................................................................17
VII. Appendices
A. Best Practices Summary .............................................................. .....18
B. Successes
• C.
1. SHO-VEL-TUM AREA production vs. surveillance effort ............. .....19
2. Field A: Oil Production .................................................... ......20
AERA Energy Six Top Surveillance measures .............................. .....21
D. Process
1. New Orleans (MEPUS) "Field Surveillance Line of Sight" diagrams .., ,...23
2. SIPOCC ............................................................ ..... 30
3. Meeting Formats (McElmo Creek, MEPUS) ...................... .....38
4. Well Testing Practices (MEPTEC) ........................................... ....39
5. KPI ........................................................... ....41
6. What Is A Process ............................................................. .....44
7. Pattern Analysis Process Flow - High Level Summary ............. .....47
E. DATA
1. Steamflood Guidelines (AERA Energy) ................................ .....52
2. Subsurface Data Requirements .......................................... ....60
F. TOOLS
1. GRACE Tool (Midland, MEPUS) .......................................... ....62
2. Chevron Decline Analysis (Midland, MEPUS) ....................... ....65
3. WELL NOTES (Midland, MEPUS) .......................................... ....76
G. Other Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... . ..... .. . .88
•
2
^ Although surveillance is often recognized as important, it is subject to several interpretations as to its
definition, potential value, usefulness, execution, and impact on maximization of profit. Consequently, its
application is often underutilized. The goal of this report is to clarify the surveillance process and
document surveillance "best practices" as identified by the team. The report examines Well and Reservoir
Surveillance. It also gives insight into the process of surveillance and how to practice high quality
surveillance. Also included in the appendices are examples of how various tools and techniques have been
used by some affiliates and subsidiaries in their surveillance programs. This report does not cover detailed
surveillance analysis practices as this is beyond the initial scope. That would be the next logical step if
there were sufficient further interest. The report comes from brainstorming sessions with a wide cross-
section of affiliate engineers, visits to several affiliate offices to observe local best practices, competitor
analysis and literature reviews. Management must be committed to support structured surveillance
processes and to hold itself and staff responsible for success.
The surveillance process is best described within the context of the reservoir management process. Figure
I shows a high level description of this process from exploration through abandonment, with particular
focus on the depletion planning cycle. In this model of the integrated reservoir management framework
(IRMF), surveillance is a continual (looped) process for gathering and analyzing data to monitor and
optimize system (i.e., reservoir to sales line and beyond) perforrnance subject to constraints established in
the depletion plan.
The foundation of the surveillance process is captured in the bottom-most loop, where data is acquired,
validated, stored, and analyzed, and recommendations on changes are made. Since the analysis occurs at
several levels (e.g., individual well, pattern of wells, reservoir, and system) the surveillance process can
impact the entire IRMF'throu,gh changes in the reservoir description, infrastructure design, and depletion
• plan modifications and implementation. As an asset moves through its lifecycle time line from discovery
through abandonment, some data types, types of analyses, and surveillance support infrastructure will
change. However when done properly using the appropriate tools and practices and integrated to the
reservoir management process, surveillance will always increase corporate profits.
The different tasks and analyses over an asset's lifetime have resulted in some confusion in defining
surveillance and its focus (e.g., well, reservoir, flood, and pattern surveillance.) Another source of
confusion results from the way jobs have been aligned according to traditional, functional tasks (e.g.,
reservoir, drilling, completion, operations, and facility engineers.) According to the IRMF model, reservoir,
well construction, operations, facilities engineers, and geoscientists are all associated with surveillance
tasks. However, surveillance is usually associated with the operations engineer, primarily because of their
proximity to data collection. Some affiliates have adopted the job title of surveillance engineer, perhaps to
create greater emphasis on the entire process, yet it is clear that no single person can accomplish all of the
tasks described in the process above. Hence, a "best in class" surveillance program cannot be done without
people and requires management commitments to staffing and teamwork.
For the remainder of this report, surveillance will be grouped into two focus areas. One being "Well
Surveillance" the other being "Reservoir Surveillance". Using "best practices" for a combination of Well
and Reservoir surveillance will provide a complete surveillance package from reservoir to wellhead. We
recognize that surveillance does not stop here, but has a very important facilities component that goes
beyond the scope of this document.
^
L
L Y^^
i"t ci
Itnplement change in depletion O.ffl icti r r
=3 ^.
Acyu ire dat a
. .......,..< .
it^tte„• ^Ckjnarnu
Vslidate`St^xe d<ta t^l<nttiy:
•
q?tttnlrition
AllJ y'7 L' d1t,Y
Bptdc.ncL'k irtlCLL'.
\Vrll, re-Lional, reservoir, sv5tcm lccct R^fiitl?t itV
R(x)t cause.
t LC. Id pt i7:lfit^ti
{^\Y:^L 41tFi:ii'lh'y
WLi forCh.nioa•..
1),pledoi7F'lan? ^
.. ~ . . : .. }' . ... Inti'.S5t1UL.ti1Cc;r 'V ^ . . . ...

'es Descriptior
Figure 1. Integrated Reservoi r Management Framework
•
4
MANAGEMENT COMMITTMENT
Mana g ement always influences the surveillance effort of a company. Maximum positive impact occurs
when management has a full understanding of the profit value of surveillance and actively holds itself and
the staff accountable for maximizing profit through surveillance. Maximum negative impact from
surveillance occurs when management has other priorities. Experience tells us that all surveillance efforts
fall somewhere between these two extremes.
Surveillance can survive, but not flourish, if individuals are interested and committed to it. Surveillance
will most likely die as soon as these individuals relocate if it is not recognized as having merit, being the
best way to maximize profit, supported by management and by management holding themselves and the
organization accountable for the care and feeding of the surveillance effort. If we do not have a consistent
message, followed by rewards and enforcement, the message is lost and the effort is abandoned to do things
where the message is consistent and the effort rewarded. This means that if surveillance is deemed to be
how business is done, then staff and policy need to be directed to do it. Only then will surveillance flourish.
Initially the surveillance process improves production, which increases revenue, and reduces expenses
($/BO). Improvement is usually seen quickly and results are significant. As the process matures, returns
diminish and there is the temptation to think that the surveillance effort is no longer beneficial or needed.
What is taking place in this situation is that surveillance is maintaining the base just as a good preventative
maintenance program maintains runtime and reliability. All too often surveillance becomes a target of
expense reduction. History is littered with examples where surveillance is reduced or suspended. In every
case after some short period of time production falls precipitously, actual expenses increase and on a $/BO
basis expenses skyrocket.
0
GENERAL DISUCSSION
• Surveillance when practiced properly reduces expenses and increases production; both of these increase the
profit margin. Implementation of surveillance in the Beryl field in the early 1990s increased production by
15%. At SHO-VEL-TUM the field decline was arrested as can be seen in Appendix " B" on page 20. Other
operators have also experienced arrested field declines through surveillance as can also be seen in
Appendix "B" on page. 21.
The following definition of "field surveillance" was developed based on input from across MEPUS by field
surveillance personnel.
Field surveillance is the frequent and regular monitoring and analyzing of existing reservoirs and wells
including all related subsurface and surface production and injection systems, to generate recommendations
and implement actions that obtain hydrocarbon production in the most cost effective and efficient manner
possible.
Hydrocarbon target volumes can be realized and reservoir recovery maximized by rigorously employing
field surveillance techniques and striving to daily improve the procedures, processes and performance
indicators. Field surveillance, therefore, directly supports the overall reservoir management plan by
ensuring all production and injection rate targets are being met. When targets are not met, that deviation, as
identified by performing surveillance, triggers a response to either remedy the deviation or better
understand the reservoir and related mechanical circumstances responsible for the targets not being met.
The end result is that well-managed total reservoir and production systems are continually monitored and
analyzed to ensure performance is as planned. The ultimate goal of surveillance is to improve the profit
^ realized by the corporation.
Underlying any surveillance effort is data. Data accuracy, collection, storage, quality control, ease of
accessibility, and methods of presentation is a complex and difficult task. Involved are end devices (e. g.
transducers, meters, etc.), databases, hardware, software, personal and ideological considerations. One size
definitely does not fit all, however the concepts are universal. Data must be accurate to have value. It must
be collected to have value. It also must be easily retrieved to maximize value. Above all data must be
analyzed on a frequent and consistent basis and recommendations implemented to have any chance to
maximize value to the corporation. Aera Energy has determined that data should reside in one central
database that is accessible to all users. They have selected software that facilitates one time data entry and
allows analysis by all, with electronic capture of recommendations and transmission directly to those
responsible for implementation. Midland is implementing software to do much the same as Aera Energy.
There is a core of "Industry Best Practices" (IBP) for surveillance in any oilfield application. Other
complementary "Local Best Practices" (LBP) will be added for applications such as:
1. Primary Oil
2. Enhanced Oil
3. Primary Gas
4. Enhanced Gas
Surveillance efforts should be measured to insure that the data is sufficient and of high quality. Metrics
should also be used to determine if the analysis is being done and how many recommendations are being
generated per time period. Results of recommendations should be measured and fed back to the originators
and management to demonstrate the quality of the recommendation and how accurate the targets of the
• recommendations were. Appendix "C" page 22 lists Aera Energy's six top surveillance measures. These
have been determined to be their most important issues and are used throughout the organization.
6
Appendix "D" can be used as a "how" to aid in setting up a surveillance process. It includes a line of sight
diagram used in New Orleans this can be found on page 24. It also includes potential best practices for the
• Gulf of Mexico on page 25. Well review process flow diagrams (PFD) are found on pages 26 through 28.
Facilities review PFDs can be found on pages 29 and 30. The remainder of Appendix "D" contains
customer supplier relationship charts, Key Perforinance Indicators (KPIs) and other helpful guides for
setting up a surveillance program or enhancing a current program.
Appendix "G" is a listing of industry papers that address surveillance and can be found on page 89.
[:
•
WELL AND RESERVOIR SURVEILLANCE
. WELL SURVEILLANCE
Well surveillance efforts will normally include such activities as decline curve analysis, well failure
frequency studies, artificial lift optimization, pressure build up surveys, gradient surveys, production
logging, etc. When properly analyzed, the implementation of the results of these activities plays a very
fundamental role in realizing increased profit for the organization.
Well surveillance needs data to function as designed. In fact the quality of a well surveillance process is a
direct function of the data integrity. Apart from data, dedicated personnel and up-to-date tools are a must
for successful implementation of well surveillance practices
DATA, TOOLS AND PERSONNEL
In any well surveillance process, data collection is always a very difficult but critical first stage. Every
effort should be made to ensure that data quality is high. Recommendations based on erroneous data
("garbage") will never yield the desired results. Data collection is followed by data analysis, the outcome
of which is used to generate appropriate recommendations, which are then presented to Management for
implementation. Post mortem review of recommendations and implementation are routinely carried out for
continuous improvement.
Dedicated personnel are needed for high quality data collection. But data collection is certainly half the
story. It is not only important to collect and analyze accurate data: but also important to store and secure the
data for centralized online use. This obviously requires the use of a standardized database for fast and
optimum data access.
There is usually a QA/QC function charged with the certification of data integrity before it enters the
central database. The central figure in this QA/QC function is the Operations Engineer who, depending on
the data needs, co-ordinates data input from such personnel as reliability Specialists (operator), Electrical
Technicians, Production Technicians, Foremen, Engineering Technicians, Drilling & Reservoir Engineers
and Production Geologists. Operations Engineer therefore needs to setup an open and frequent
communication channel with these personnel in order to establish trust and team spirit which is a must in
the well surveillance business.
FOCUS AREAS
Well surveillance has to be designed to focus on the maintenance of a well or cluster of wells to maximize
deliverabilitti at optimum cost.
To this end, the following focus areas are normally expected of an effective surveillance setup:
1. Well mechanical equipment-accurate knowledge of casing, perforations, tubing, packers etc.,

wellhead equipment, and artificial lift equipment are critical for proper understanding of well
performance.
2. Completion/reservoir information or data-gravel pack data, skin, PI, PVT, flowing bottom hole
pressure (FBHP), etc. both current and historic are required in understanding of current production
and potential remedial actions and estimating results (based on economic assumptions).
3. Well performance monitoring-the central part of well surveillance is the day to day analysis of the
critical parameters that have been determined to be monitored to meet the production and reservoir
• management plans. These may include oil and gas rates, water rate, GOR, GLR, flowing pressure
gradients, etc.
4. Nodal analysis models-powerful tools for better understanding of well performance and of
optimizing production rates for both flowing and artificial lift operations. If developed correctly
^ and with the understanding of its limits, these tools can be used to optimize not only well
production but also the production system from the reservoir to the separator.
5. Measurement Tools-dynamometers, amp charts, pressure/chart recorders, iron counts, corrosion
coupons, etc. are examples of field measurement tools. The Operations Engineer should ensure
that the measuring devices are calibrated on a regular basis. Accuracy is important in data
acquisition or poor decisions will be derived from the analysis. For instance if the sum of the well
tests does not equal or come close to the volumes sold or disposed of there is a measurement
problem that must be addressed. Data must be collected and measured with enough frequency to
yield valid trends. For example, flowing gradient surveys used in conjunction with nodal analysis
tools will give warning of tubing flow problems, while static build up surveys can be used to detect
onset of reservoir plugging (skin).
DISCUSSION
Well surveillance in summary is a detailed day to day analysis of well performance as measured against
specific profit and asset management plans. The well surveillance process requires management support,
teamwork, performance measures, good data and accountability. The results of a well planned well
surveillance program will yield quick response to well performance deviating from plan, lower operating
expenses and reduced cycle time from data collection to implementation of recommendations
If there is a conflict in data, nodal analysis tools can be used to help trouble shoot the data, resolve the
conflict, or provide direction as to what additional or revised data may he required. When initially
implementing a surveillance process, more frequent data acquisition will err on the safe side. As the
process moves forward data trends will aid in determining just how frequent data needs to be gathered in
^ order to catch problems at the earliest time.
The goal in tool selection should be to select the tool(s) and technique(s) that gather appropriate, accurate
and reliable data in a safe and cost effective way that will lead to the most profitable solution(s). Risk is an
important consideration in this process. What is the risk of personal injury, damaging the well and getting
correct data? Often service companies are relied upon to select the tools or services they think will be
appropriate. There is risk in allowing a service company to do our job. More often than not our company
will pay more to use an inappropriate tool that will collect bad or inappropriate data, which does little or
nothing to give insights into how to solve the problem. Another risk is to "shoot from the hip" in selecting
data gathering tools or doing some work. Just as justification should be expected for recommendations
made by an Operations Engineer the engineer must demand justification for any work that may be proposed
by others that does not make sense. Well symptoms must be studied, analyzed and discussed with
Operations, Reservoir and others prior to picking up a tool and running it into the well or connecting it to
the wellhead. If two tools essentially collect the same data the Operations Engineer should ask which tool
works better in that field; in that type of well; with that type of fluid; which is more reliable; what is the
cost; what is the availability; are there mobilization costs; etc. It must be remembered that a service
company's goal is to make money for their company, not necessarily make the most money for the operator.
Best Practices:
1. All flowing, gas lifted and ESP wells have nodal inflow models.
2. Final tool selection should be done by company personnel not a service company.
RESERVOIR SURVEILLANCE
• Before we begin to talk about reservoir surveillance, an explanation of how it is different from reservoir
management seems to be in order. There are many viewpoints as to what reservoir management is within
our industry. Within Mobil, reservoir management is defined as, "the marshalling of all appropriate
9
business, technical, and operating resources to exploit a reservoir optimally from discovery to
abandonment". Reservoir management can be viewed as the master plan for the asset with reservoir
^ surveillance being the people, process, and tools necessary to implement the plan. The goal of this section
is to clearly identify what reservoir surveillance includes and what are the "best practices" that can be used
to build a "best in class" reservoir surveillance process.
Reservoir surveillance is a team effort and includes at least the following as core members, reservoir
engineer, production geologist, operation engineer, production technician and field reliability
specialist(operator). There are additional resources that will be called on from time to time and they include
drilling, petrophysicists, geophysicists and facilitity engineers. Surveillance can be thought of as the key to
optimal reservoir management.
The main areas of focus for a reservoir surveillance team will include the following:
1. Reservoir description-accurate knowledge of the reservoir is critical for understanding
historical and future performance and for implementation of the reservoir management plan.
2. Hydrocarbon in place-it is essential to know and constantly update the size of the reservoir and
the hydrocarbons it contains.
3. Reserve calculations-it is essential to know the recoverable portion of the hydrocarbons in
place as determined by historical performance and future predictions(based on economic
assumptions).
4. Performance monitoring-the critical part of surveillance is the day to day analysis of the critical
parameters that the team has determined has to be monitored to meet the reservoir management
plan.
5. Performance prediction-is a powerful tool for developing and managing reservoirs. If
developed correctly and with an understanding of its limits, this tool can be used to help
surveillance by setting production and injection targets and predicting future performance.
•
There are many tools available to the reservoir surveillance team. The use of uniform tools across an
affiliate has been identified as a best practice. Some of the tools available to the reservoir surveillance team
are listed below:
• Reservoir visualization-Landmark, Earthvision, 3-D seismic, 3-D reservoir model(stratamodel),
x-sections
• Original hydrocarbons in place-volumetrics, MBAL, simulation
• Reserve calculations-production curves, MBAL, simulation
• Performance monitoring-well reviews, pattern reviews, field reviews, PA, DSS, OFM, Well
Notes, Injection Management Tool, Chevron diagnostics spreadsheet
• Reservoir simulation-various models available, must choose best to fit a given set of reservoir
and fluid conditions
The "best practices" as identified for reservoir surveillance will have some common "best practices" with
artificial lift and well performance. These "best practices", along with a brief explanation are listed below.
1. Common Data Base-essential to maintain accuracy, ease of data retrieval, consistency, economics of
data handling
2. Uniform Tools Across Affiliate-consistency of data analysis, ease of technology transfer, improved
communications, ease of staffing re-assignments, cost control
3. Team Environment with Management Support-the team environment is essential to establish "best in
^ class" surveillance practices, will not survive without fidl management support
4. Careful Selection and Clear Definition of KPI's-identify a few critical KP! :r and clearly define the
measure, too many KPI' s can confuse the line of sight of the team, the key to remember is-you get
what you measure
10
5.Individual Well or Pattern Analysis Process Flow Diagrams-clearly identify the process to be used,
data requirements, tools, team members, responsibilities, deliverables
^ 6. Customer Supplier Relationship-clearly define the expectations of the teams that will be either
suppliers to the surveillance process or recipients qf recommendations.from the team, this will include
data requirements, process measures and results measures
7. Accountability and Results-it is critical to have a process in place that captures recommendations,
assigns them to an accountable party, sets delivery dates, and captures results. The results should be
evaluated as to technical success and economic competitiveness with other opportunities
Examples of the above best practices using the "best in class tools" can be found in Appendices "D", "E",
and "F".
Reservoir surveillance, in summary, is the detailed day-to-day analysis of reservoir performance as

measured against a detailed reservoir management plan. The reservoir surveillance process requires
management support, teamwork, clear measures and accountability, and good data. The results of a well
planned reservoir surveillance program will yield more accurate production forecasts, depletion plans for
every well (part of reservoir management plan also), quick response when the reservoir or well performance
deviates from plan and a better understanding of the economic value of capital/expense invested in
surveillance projects.
•
SURVEILLANCE STRUCTURE
• PROCESS
The ultimate goal of surveillance is to improve the profit realized by the corporation. The structure of the
surveillance process should be designed to understand and maintain system performance, to identify, and
correct performance deviations, and to continually address opportunities and risk.
An important factor in any endeavor is the process by which business is conducted. This is perhaps more
important for a successful surveillance effort than is generally realized. The more structured the process
the more likely that the proper surveillance will be conducted and the practices carried forward when
personnel changes take place. Structure also leads to consistency. Consistency leads to a better
understanding by all individuals, and a realization of the goals.
Appendix "D" has several examples of structures and tools used to bring focus to a surveillance process.
New Orleans utilized a process outlined in the Appendix on pages 24 through 30. The line of sight found
on page 24 illustrates process inputs for well reviews and facilities reviews, what levers are measured, what
key performance (KPIs) are generated, and the goals of the process. The goals used in the example are
volumes, cash flow and expense reduction. An example of a KPI is "Actual Production" vs. "Capacity".
The "GOM Surveillance Potential Best Practice" list can be found on page 25. This outlines what software
should be used and how it should be used. Process flow diagrams (PFD) can also be found for the well
review process on page 26, identification process on page 27, analysis and documentation on page 28. A
facilities PFDs can be found on pages 29 and 30.
Structure and consistency can be attained in many ways. One method that works well, albeit painful to
initiate, is to develop customer-supplier relationship diagrams also known as SIPOCCs. The SIPOCC is a
• methodology whereby a process is studied to identify the supplier(s), customer(s), process measures, and
results measures. These can not be worked in a vacuum. For example if a well surveillance team is
developing a SIPOCC it is imperative that operations, reservoir and contractors inputs are included. Where
differences are identified in deliverables or measures, negotiated solutions must be developed. It is a fact
that you can not get anywhere if you don't know where you are going. Development of a customer-supplier
relationship diagram identifies what goals, directions, and measurements are required for a successful
effort. Processes to conduct surveillance and fulfill the obligations of the customer-supplier relationship
will be developed or refined as soon as goals and measurements are quantified.
Examples of SIPOCCs can be found in Appendix "D" on pages 28 through 38. Results measures are
developed for both supplier and customers. Products and services are identified entering the process from
the supplier(s) and being delivered by the process to the customer(s). As stated earlier these items must be
agreed upon by the process team and the customers and suppliers.
Although there are key individuals in a surveillance effort, surveillance is a team effort. Teams could be
formed around crude lifting and measurement, reservoir surveillance, pattern review, flood review, etc.
Team membership depends on the structure of the affiliate or asset. But in each case the owners of the
tasks should be members of the team. For instance, operators performing well tests should be on the crude
lifting and measurement team. Another example would be Production Technicians, Operations Engineers,
Engineering Technicians, Operators, Electricians and Foremen should be members of the well review team.
These teams should meet regularly. Agendas should be used and action items recorded and reviewed.
Standard operating practices (SOPs) should be developed for data gathering, quality control, process
measurement, etc.
I Team members should be confident enough about the value of their knowledge and ideas to be able to
engage in frank and open discussions. All ideas should be heard. Feedback should be positive and
respectful of the individual's value. Good teams display a "family spirit".
12
Surveillance to be highly effective should be recognized as a separate and important process. Individuals
is working on surveillance teams should not be indiscriminately pulled off other tasks. For example a
separate group should do development wherever possible. The imposition of drilling duties on a
surveillance team effectively shuts down surveillance efforts in favor of drilling.
Best Practices:
1. Develop customer supplier relationship diagrams for all teams involved in surveillance.
2. Regular team meetings. (e.g. Weekly well reviews.)
3. Electronic agenda for use at meetings.
4. Electronic capture of action items and review of open action items at meetings.
5. Separate surveillance from development.
DATA
The purpose of this aspect of surveillance is to provide the most up to date, accurate, and applicable data in
the most useful format. These data should reside in a common database for the use of those conducting the
surveillance effort. You must have a clear understanding of the objective of why you are collecting data.
All surveillance is dependent upon data. Data must be first captured, then collected, next quality checked,
and set in a location where it may be retrieved and used by all who may need to work with it. If any one of
these steps is minimized or not complete then the quality of recommendations from analysis is reduced.
The types of data required for surveillance should be thought out thoroughly. As mentioned earlier
Appendix "E" has examples of types of data to be gathered and the frequency that the data should be
• gathered. Too much data creates the need for more management and quality control. Too little data will
not allow proper analysis to be preformed. The challenge is to identify the right data and as a best practice
to have all data go into one central database. This database should have QA/QC facilities that do not
necessarily involve engineers.
In many affiliates databases or applications perform the same or similar functions. In some cases the same
data must be entered into several separate databases. This is wasteful and redundant. One example of this
is welibore casing and tubing data. Another is wellbore deviation data. These data should be keyed in only
once and then be available for all applications.
In the context of this report the term "tools" has referred to software tools. However, the tools that gather
the data are an important component in the surveillance process and deserve some discussion.
Accurate well tests are a must in every operation. A starting point for well tests is that the rates from test to
test should be somewhat consistent and the sum of the tests should be no more than +/- 10% that of the
volumes shipped. A conunon problem with well tests is the gas rate. Orifice meters must be installed
properly if accurate gas rates are to be had. Liquid slugging through an orifice plate can deform the plate
inducing a source of great error.
If wells can not be tested frequently for production rates and pressures no valid analysis can be done.
When expansions are planned it is necessary to include provisions to test all wells frequently. The use of
common test lines for more than one well should be avoided when one well has to be shut in to test another
well. Some guidelines for data collection frequency can be found in Appendix "E" on page 54 figure 9-75
and page 62 Subsurface data requirements.
• If a nodal analysis model has been built (i.e. PROSPER) and matched, multi rate tests may be used to
calculate reservoir pressure. Nodal analysis tools can be used to compute the optimum GLR required for
13
gas lift operations. They can be used to review well test data to determine if the tests make sense. Gas lift
designs as well as ESP designs and optimization can be preformed. However, none of the analysis can be
• done without good test volumes and pressures.
Both Operations Engineers and Reservoir Engineers should review pressure build up surveys. The focus of
the Operations Engineer should be completion efficiency (PI) and changes in skin.
Production Logging Tools (PLT) may yield great insights into the well's operation. The challenge is to
determine which tool will give the most cost effective data and what the risk of not getting definitive data
is. Temperature tools are generally inexpensive and good at identifying leaking gas lift valves. They may
also be used to determine cross flow in commingled completions, however, they may not be definitive.
Spinner or tracer tools can be used to determine flow rates, but the engineer must be careful to choose the
appropriate one for the job. A small spinner tool in a high angle large bore completion may give output that
does not represent what is happening in the well. A tracer tool may be an option, however, using a water
soluble tracer at low cuts in high angle holes the readout could experience the same problems that a spinner
would have.
Downhole video cameras are expensive and require a clear fluid in the hole. They are generally the most
definitive in determining oil and gas entry into the hole. They are also the best method to determine the
type and extent of any damage that may be in the. hole. They are a real time read out and are infinitely
better than an impression (confusion) block. Problems with getting good data from the cameras are keeping
the fluid clear and temperature.
Flowing gradient surveys should be run in conjunction with a well test. The well test equipment should be
in such a state of operation that consistent and valid measurements will be obtained for oil, water and gas
production rates. A recently calibrated dial pressure gauge, dead weight tester or a downhole gauge should
be used to record flowing tubinghead pressures (FTHP). Without valid fluid rates and surface pressure
. measurements nodal analysis modeling can not be done with any sense of accuracy. The downhole gauges
do not have to be state of the art quartz or surface readout equipment. A pair of properly calibrated
Amerada pressure bombs can be effective if they are left in the hole long enough to allow the static pressure
to be obtained or extrapolated.
Best Practice:
1. Single input for each item of'datum.
2. Single database for data storage.
3. Identify and collect only the correct data.
4. Fewer software applications for data manipulation reduce maintenance and upkeep.
ANALYSIS
The overall goal of the analysis phase is to improve the process quality and efficiency so that system
performance and optimization is well understood and the team consistently addresses opportunities and
risks.
Those doing the analysis take the data and generate recommendations for implementation. Four levels of
analysis should be considered.
I. Well
2. Facilities
3. Reservoir
4. System
• Likewise, five primary analysis criteria should be considered.

1. Cost
14
2. Production
3. Reserves
4. Time
. 5. Profitability (Life Cycle Economics)
The purpose of the analysis phase is to quantify historic performance and to predict future performance.
This is done using tools that evaluate past decisions and strategies and can be used to build an optimized
future process. Basic tools would be decline curves, well models (nodal analysis), material balance models,
root cause analysis, risk assessment, etc.
Analysis should be performed on a routine basis. Any recommendations or action items should be captured
electronically. The number of recommendations, results of the recommendations, cycle time from
recommendation to implementation, and effectiveness of the process are the basic measures required to
insure that analysis is done and that the process is continually improved.
Tools used for analysis should be capable of downloading data stored in the common database and
transforming these data into useful quantifiable predictions. There are several off the shelf tools that may
be used. It is imperative that each affiliate standardizes on one application for each process. Examples of
tools to be used are OFM, DSS, PA, Well Notes, Injection Management Tool, PROSPER, Mbal, GAP,
WEM, Landmark, Earthvision, WORKS, and WELLMASTER. Appendix "F" gives examples "GRACE"
tool used by Midland to generate optimal correlations from a data set on page 63 and the Chevron Decline
Analysis also used by Midland for C02 WAG pattern analysis on page 67-73. DSS data may be populated
from OFM files or PA structure files.
Best Practice:
1. Uniform tools across an affiliate, such as PROSPER, WELLMASTER and DSS.
2. Nodal analYsis on wells where applicable.
. 3. Software tools are fed data directly, fi•om common database.
4. Key measures are formulated and utilized routinely to monitor the process and measure improvement.
5. Measures include but are not limited to expenses in $/BOE, estimated results vs. actual, number of
wells reviewed per time period, and failure frequency.
6. Well Notes and WORKS are excellent for capturing recommendations, cycle time and post work
reviews.
Recommendations and action items that are developed through the analysis of surveillance data can be
generated in several settings. These can include well reviews, pattern reviews, reservoir management team
meetings, morning meetings, etc. What route these recommendations take getting to the responsible party
for implementation and how quickly they are acted upon are critical for the successful outcome of any
depletion or surveillance strategy.
The form and clarity of recommendations are important for the proper implementation, so that no
misunderstandings or improper expenditures take place. Recommendations should be detailed enough to
explain the need, procedure and history, without being redundant or extraneous. Recommendations should
also quantify the expected results (e.g. BOPD, $/BOE, etc.)
Electronic capture and routing of recommendations and procedures reduce the risk of them being lost and
not acted upon. A recommendation is the result of an investment of time to gather data, analyze them and
formulate a plan. Money has been spent to do this; not to act upon it reduces the value of the affiliate by
wasting resources.
15
Software like Well Notes and WORKS have been successfully used to capture recommendations, route
them to the responsible party, calculate cycle time to implementation, and to evaluate the success of the
recommendation.
^ Best Practices:
1. Well Notes and WORKS type products for linking analysis to recommendations and implementation.
2. Routine follow up on process cycle time.
3. Metrics to measure the process. These could include number of recommendations per review, Number
of various types of recornmendations, time from recommendation to implementation, estimated result
vs. actual result, $/BOE (expense vs. incremental production), etc.
4. Expected results should be part of all recommendations so the individual responsible for
implementation may prioritize them.
IMPLEMENTATION
The motivation of all surveillance is to increase profit. Surveillance is a wasted effort without
implementation. Implementation is the enactment of action items and recommendations developed during
well reviews, pattern analysis, reservoir management team (RMT) meetings and flood reviews.
Implementation encompasses communication, action and follow up. This predicates the need for
developing a process that facilitates the collation, ranking, action and follow up on all recommendations.
Included in the process is identifying who is involved in implementation, what system(s) are to be used,
what hardware and software are to be used, how they are to be used and how often they will be used.
^ During the implementation stage recommendations should be ranked by expected results. A quality check
on recommendations should be made at this point in the process. The tools used should facilitate the
review of expected results vs. results from similar past recommendations. If the expected results vary
significantly from the past results a flag should be raised and the person responsible for implementation
should review the recommendation with the person (team) who made the recommendations.
Several measures should be considered at this point. Cycle time from receipt of the recommendation to
implementation of the work. Estimated results vs. past vs. actual results are other measures. Number of
times recommendations need to be reviewed for variations of expected vs. past or actual results is another
type of measurement. Measuring these and having mandatory periodic review are a necessary part of
keeping surveillance focused and on track. All measurements should be preformed electronically and be
reviewed at team meetings and routinely by supervision.
Best Practices:
1. Quality check recommendation expectations vs. past results of similar jobs.
2. Work (opportunities) should be ranked on expected results.
3. Review results at team meetings.
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
A good surveillance process includes a continuous improvement loop. The plan-do-check-act cycle will
bring about optimization of the data gathered, the frequency of the data gathered, how often team meetings
should be held, which stimulation methods are the most profitable, which tools are the most reliable, etc.
Most people learn best from mistakes. If no checks are made mistakes are not found and are likely
repeated. If no action is taken to change the processes and practices that lead to mistakes profits will be
reduced. All individuals involved in the surveillance process should be familiar with continuous
improvement methods and be held accountable for practicing them.
16
CONCLUSIONS
The starting point of a "best practices" surveillance program is to determine the proper data to collect and
^ the frequency with which it should be collected. Modifications can and will most likely be made as the
surveillance program matures and changes through continuous improvement.
Once the type of data is determined it should be captured once in a common electronic database that is
available to every individual that is involved with the surveillance effort.
The surveillance process should be structured so that everyone involved understands what is available, what
is required, and who is involved with each phase of the effort. The structure should also include what the
measures are and what the deliverables are.
Standard operating procedures should be developed for various tasks or portions of the process. Standard
tools such, as software should be used. Care should be taken to select tools that are robust, have a long
expected life and will allow easy transition to new tools when that is needed.
Surveillance efforts are best when practiced in a team environment. One individual should be responsible
for the team effort and should conduct routine meetings. These meetings should have set agendas that
should be followed with action item status being reviewed, and findings and recommendations being
electronically captured into the cornmon database.
Effective surveillance programs utilize process measurement. Measurements should be made on several
factors to ensure that tasks and processes are taking place and that the effort is improving. Individual teams
may use one set of measurements. Supervisors may use some of the same measurements as well as
additional ones. Management should include various measures to track the surveillance progress and
• benefit. Measures include actual costs/BOE vs. planned costs/BOE, number of recommendations,
incremental BOE from surveillance efforts, etc.
Total surveillance includes not only well and reservoir, but also Facility Surveillance. This is beyond the
scope of this study; however, it is a vital link in total program.
Surveillance done at any level, when using the appropriate tools, practices and processes, will always
increase corporate profits.
Finally management must be involved with surveillance to review progress and to give emphasis, direction,
and support to the individuals and teams. Without management involvement cohesive focused surveillance
efforts are difficult to implement and maintain.
•
17
APPENDIX A
^ BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY
l. All flowing, gas lifted and ESP wells have nodal inflow models
2. Single common database for data storage.
3. Uniform Tools Across Affiliate
4. Team Environment with Management Support
5. Careful Selection and Clear Definition of KPI's
6. Individual Well or Pattern Analysis Process Flow Diagrams
7. Develop customer supplier relationship diagrams for all teams involved in surveillance.
8. Accountability and Results
9. Regular team meetings. (E.g. Weekly well reviews.)
10. Electronic agenda for use at meetings.
11. Electronic capture of action items and review of open action items at meetings.
12. Separate surveillance from development.
13. Single input for each item of datum.
14. Identify the correct data to be gathered.
15. Fewer software applications for data manipulation reduce maintenance and upkeep.
16. Software tools are fed data directly from common database.
17. Key measures are formulated and utilized routinely to monitor the process and measure improvement.
18. Measures include but are not limited to expenses in $/BOE, estimated results vs. actual, number of
wells reviewed per time period, and failure frequency.
19. Well Notes and WORKS type products are excellent for capturing and linking analysis,
recommendations, implementation, cycle time and post work reviews.
20. Routine follow up on process cycle time.
• 21. Metrics could include number of recommendations per review, Number of various types of
recommendations, time from recommendation to implementation, estimated result vs. actual result, $/
BOE (expense vs. incremental production), etc.
22. Expected results should be part of all recommendations so the individual responsible for
implementation may prioritize them.
23. Quality check recommendation expectations vs. past results of similar jobs.
24. Work (opportunities) should be ranked on expected results.
25. Final too] selection should be done by company personnel not a service company
•
18
0 u •
SHO-VEL-TUM AREA
Mobil Operated Properties
W. 000 ACTUAL
PAOOUCi'I0N
sz coo
PROJECTED
DECLINE
C3 S0, 000
M
0
[Yl
LLi
¢ e,00
u1
7 ^
^
x 6.000,
CC
4, 000
1975 1976 1977 1978 079 19M OR 1882 1983 1984 1985 1968 067 1988
cYmr
Nate; Production Inclzides Field Code MOO

and lease 52950/208P-7.
Data via P0F/tiECC.
• . .
,^.
Field A: Oil Production

^t 5 FIELDS =wU'AD W aiEzs - 4avastiA h3 Pp - dKr-Ame. - PrtiLL I P5, OF-T,
4500
4000
3500
3000
p 2500
i]..
c 2000
^j
1500
1000
500
r^ ...^
01
Jan-87 Jan-88 Jan-89 Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 J an-96
^^-^-^------^----------^----P-r-o---.- --- . .
^Tt^tÎ Field F'ro^^trc^n - - ^-T'^^rx^ ôritriûtic^rt ^ ^ e^ked îeld._ li ,ne-
-^-----,^_.. .^. ^. -------- -^-
APPENDIX C
AERA Energy Six Top Surveillance Measures
0
Measurement Definition
TOP 6 MEASURES
1. Subsurface Injection Conformance
Purpose: To compare the desired distribution of injectant to the sandface compared to actual.
• Measure 1: % conformance (via profiles and by-layer targets) on a per well or area basis
I- E(Abs(Zone % Target - Zone % Actual))/100
• Measure 2: % of limited entry (surface measurements)
Actual BDS/Theoretical BDS
Theoretical BDS = (open perf. area*4.07*Cd -PSI "')/(vapor fraction)
Implementation Plan: This measure will be a result of implementing the "Sub-stnface conformance" best
practice. The "Sub-surface conformance "project has been passed on to IT for scoping (with a #1 ranking for
priority). Business Lead - BuddY Bothwell; Surveillance VT Contacts - Kim Knolletberg and Dirk Smith.
2. Base + Surveillance Production vs. Plan

Purpose: To quantify the difference between base production and the base production forecast. Measures how well we understand
the reservoir performance (decline).
• Measure 1: BDO above or below plan (Actual BDO - Plan BDO)
• Measure 2: % above or below plan ((Actual BDO - Plan BDO)/ Plan BDO)
• Base production: production online as of 12/3 1/,yy plus surveillance drilling - Surveillance VT Contacts : Dirk Smith
• Plan Production: base forecast put together for Operating- Plan.
Definition of "Base + Surveillance":

1. On 12/31/vyyy of each year, identify all producing wells as "B" (Base)
2. As new wells are drilled, label them as either "S" (Surveillance) or "D" (Development)
Possible well types include Exploration, Delineation, Development, Infill, and Replacement. Difficulty arises in
Is standardization across Assets i.e. - Infill wells in Diatomite are considered "Development", Infill wells in Tulare are
considered "Surveillance")
Implementation Plan:
1. The long term solution for this measure will be tied into the "Planning and Finance" and "Strategic
Development" project to integrate the operating plan and evergreen. !AD needs to identify a "Business
Lead"
2. In the short ternt, each Asset/field should begin to track this metric.
3. Produced Oil to Injectant Ratio Actual vs. Plan ( Base + Surveillance)

Purpose: To measure the effectiveness of the injectant in recovering oil. - Surveillance VT Contacts : Dirk Smith
• Measure: (Actual Oil/Actual Steatn)/(Plan Oil/Plan Steam)
• Plan: forecast put together for Operating Plan.
Implementation Plan (Analog to #2 metric):

I.- The long term solution for this measure will be tied into the "Planning and Finance " and "Strategic
Development" project to integrate the operating plan and evergreen. IAD needs to identify a "Business
Lead "
In the short term, each Asset/field should begin to track this metric.
4. Investment Performance
Purpose: To measure how cost efficiently production is being added as a result of wellwork or new well drilling opportunities
generated through pattern and/or flood surveillance.
1. The long term solution for this measure will be tied into the Aera-wide "Investment Tracking" project.
2. Short term - Surveillance VT to define "simple" investment tracking algorithm for well work and new
^ well drilling. Surveillance VT Contacts : Young Kirkwood, and Dave Homestead.
5. # of Pattern/Flood Recommendations by Type
21
Purpose: To measure the type and quantity of revenue generating and cost saving opportunities coming out of pattern
and
flood reviews.
• • Recommendation Types: producer stimulation, producer workover, injector stimulation, injector workover, injector target
change, redrill/infill, cycle steam
• Standard type definitions and categories to be finalized following asset interviews
1. Long Term - Tie into Comment/Action Item DB, Drilling Rig, and Workover Rig Scheduling Programs
2. Short Term - Either use existing Tulare tool or use IT Express Desk to a) Standardize Wellnotes Company
wide, and b) Add pattern identifier to MS Access forms. Surveillance VT Contact: Kim Knollenberg
6a. Pattern Reviews Actual vs. Plan

Purpose: To ensure patterns are reviewed on the frequency specified when the production forecast was generated.
• Measure: Actual # Reviews at a certain time/Plan # Reviews for the same time
• Pattern review: as defined by the process flow diagram
• Plan: forecast put together for Operating Plan.
Implementation Plan: Compile Contpany-wide pattern review schedule into I database, spreadsheet or MS
Project timeline (short term, easy,fix). Identify "Business Lead": ? Surveillance VT Contact : Kim
Knollenberg
6b. Flood Review Progress vs. Plan

Purpose: To track flood review progress as compared to plan so corrective action can he taken as necessary.
• Measure: Actual days complete at a certain time/Plan days complete for the same time
• Flood Review Progress: days completed for ALL of the steps (PFD) necessary to convert data and information into
strategies and recommendations for monetizing resources consistent with Aera's goals
• Plan: Gantt type chart showing activities and forecast days required to complete flood review process (created at the
beginning of each flood review)
^ Implementation Plan: Compile Cornpany- wide flood review schedules into l database, spreadsheet or MS
Project timeline (short tern, easy fix). Identify "Business Lead" : ?. Surveillance VT Contact : Ed Veit/rC
•
22
• • ^
Field Surveillance Line of Si g ht

GOM Goal eo Team KPl - .*- Levers We..%*-- Team Process Fundamental
Measure Activities
z
CD
Recovery Ewwto
^ Decline Curve Ana ;si6

Gas Litt Optimization
Volumes -*- Pro7

1inventoTy
ProJetatad -do*-- No. of Slimulations
CT^Gas LiR Anatysis
Review Well chokes Tf

Zone Changes
^- Well Review ti
Actual Prod. vs. "^_ Use Depletion Plan T^ [
Capacity
M44n Well Analysis
Choke Changes rTI
Water Shut Offs Verily Geo" p`.. ^ ro
W C'n O
Da.vntime Analysis S3 ^ Z'
Cash Flow Fi¢l6UpdateswithFRB's
Runiime Andl yZe E q ui pment Perfomtaance n v

FquipmenE EfCiciancy (D
-*t,
- Debottlenecklag ^
O.E.E. •r^ " -Rustime
-00- Perc2nt Facilities Review T
(Overall Equipment Compression Anafysis O
Effectiveness) ""W-1 Equipment Life
Gowntime Anatysis
Expense Predictive Maintenence
$IBCÊ prkove^ Costs $fL;OE ^^' -^ ^ ReriewlDocument Costs UQ

C te Tlme ^
$1BOE P PCA
Uolume Uplitt•Predictd^ Rev;evrlOoCUmen! Resutts ^
a Aeh ia )
Capturo Learnings Tech. Reviews
"BEST" PRACTICES
• GOM SURVEILLANCE POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICE LIST
l.) Production Analyst Can display/produce production curves, contour maps and bubble maps. Also displays
wellbore sketch information.
2.) Standard Plots RE Production Analyst production plots are standardized so they can be batch run by one
technician.
3.) KPI Spreadsheet Standard SS holds monthly data such as production vs. plan and number of
recommendations. It also keeps track of workovers and replacement wells. The information is linked to graphs
by area and total field.
4.) Mini Maps (Zone Maps) Well location map showing producers and offsetting wells. Zone size isopach maps
showing connectivity.
5.) Bubble Maps (PA) Net oil, gross rate, GOR, WOR, and water cut are shown graphically by the size/color of a
bubble at each map well location.
6.) Performance Modeling Use Saphire to model well performance, look for damage, barriers, and predict future
performance.
7.) OEDB Integrated system to enhance well research, package preparation and post analysis. Uses PRISM,
PETRIS, NOMAD, MAQ'S and AFE info from CBCR.
9.) PPCA All project information captured in one data base. Cost data, production data, estimates, results and
learnings.
6
9.) AFS Access to real time production, well test, facilities data.
•
24
• Field Surveillance Vam - Well Review Proct Zi
Identification
Is NO WHAT YOU NEED

Preparation
Complete,
i
Performance X-Sections
We] I Data--]
Data iViapsfVolumetrics
YES sm. Production
N
► Completions/Open Interval & ► Structure
Perfs. Permanent vs, PWOR ► Net Sand Isopach
Termporary Recovery ► Net Pay (OriginalfCurrent)
Evaluation ► (GF2,SP,CAL), s- Workover Histories Isopach
(Res,)(N-ti,)(Calculate ► Pressure (FP, BHP) P- Net/Gross Sand
Petrophysi:cs) ON available
n- Operator Observations *HC Pore Volume
► Saturation Logs-TMD's Ct*iLs, ► Aug. Pay by Well Zone
CO, ► "Base Map
s GOR ► -Drainage Data
► CorrelatediMarked ?ones
j► Offset Well Performance Volumetrics on an
Documentation P- Logging Data - All Original &
► After Studies Areal Basis
Cased Hole Logs
P- Core Data - ( Optional) P- Flow Unit
► Offset Well Data ► '41P, DOIP
► "Bulk Volume, (Net Acre Feet)
• = Critical
Well Review
0 Identification Process Flow Diagram
Establish Prioritizing C
M (see list below)
0
N
T fentrfy Exit Wells Exit Well Reviews for Exit
based on Wells
^"-~"
H Performance
L
Y
Determ ine Frequency of
Review by Well
W Analyze Data Based on

E Priority Established
E
K Generate Prioritized List
L
Move Down List
Y I
No
>II review within Yes

established
frequency?
No
Set date, review well * Ye s
-I ^ Review wells by field.
Criteria for Prioritizing Wells for Review

1. Well production rate 4. Pressure changes
2. Performance below predicted rate S_ Gas lift performance
3. Increasing water/sand production rates 6. Last review date
26
Well Review Process
Analysis & Documentation PFD
Field Surveillance Team
^ Prep Products Review Well
Displayed & Review Performance and
Available H Geology H Depletion Plan
Recovery %
•••^ WOR
Produobon,Trends
Perf Depth vs Zone Depth
GOR
Historical Notes
Pressure Data
/ Gas Lift Performance
Choke Size
Drive Mechanism
Zone Changes
Competitive Position
RICorW/O
Possible Choke Changes
G!L Optimization
Results of Prior Recomme
Operating Policy Changes
individual
Document Well
Well Done Analysis
Review Conclusions
• Ne^
cline Curve
Analysis
Zones
Completed
Fill out form or

request for each All
Lirnent Actions Document Well Wells
action (immediate, Due Dates, and
electronic request Analysis
o's Responsible H Conclusions
whenever possible)
Workover PossibiE"s^"
Weilbore Conditions
Sand Prod. Replacement Possibilities
Sidetracks Potential Opportunities
Well Review
at dilfferent Price Scenar9<
Complete
•
27
Facilities Review
Identification Process Flow Diagram
Establish Prioritizing Criteria
Q (see list below)
U
A
' Identify Shut
R Down Equipment Exit Reviews for Shutdown
based on
T condition, future
. production
E
R
L Determine Frequency of
Review by Equipment Type
Y
M Analyze Data Based on

0 Priority Established
N
Generate Prioritized
T Equipment List
H
Move Down List --7
L
Y
^ Yes
Equipment review ...
within established
No
Set date, review equipment ^ Yes
-_ J * Review equipment by field.

Criteria for Prioritizing Equipment for Review
1. Capacity of equipment 4_ Last review date
2. Age of equipment 5. Required safety review
3. Potential bottènecks 6. Regulatory requirements
•
28
I G41IIlY I\+V V IV VI 1 4^.av^ n vvv
Anal sis & Documentation PFD

Field Surveillance Team
• Prep Products Review Review Equipment
Displayed & Performance
Equipment
Available Design
'+( Downtime Ana Ws

OEE's
Bottlenecks
Maintenance
Upgrades
PMTS
Operating Conditions
Run Time Analysis
Historical Notes
OEES
Modifications
New Installations
Capacity Changes
Results of Prior Recorrnne
Operating Policy Changes
Individual
Done Document Equipment
Equipment
. Analysis
• Review
Conclusions
N°lrt
abng Conditions
capacities 'd
Fill out form or

All
request for each
Document Actions Document Equipment Wells
action ( immediate, and Due Dates. and
electronic request Analysis
Who's Responsible
whenever possible) Conclusions
Replacement Possibilities
New Equipment
Potential Opportunities
Modifications
Replacement at different Price Scenaric Facility Review
Complete
0
29
• • 0
Supplier-Input-Process-Qutput- Customer Chart - RSVT t^

Process Team: Pattern Surveillance Team (PST)
Cô
0
Su ppliers Product/Service Process ProductlService Customers n
Data Management Team Data
n
Convert Data & info into ----------------------------
rs^p^rtsraraphs- strate gies & recommendations
-- --- --- --- --- --------- --- ---
for maximizing asset vatue
at a pattern level.
-----------------------------
Results Measures Process Measures Results Measures

Lagging
lndicatorsforthe Meas. Measure Who Leading Mess Measure Who Lagging indicators h4eas Measure
Su liar Spec Freq system Owns Indicators Spec Freq System Owns for the Supplier Spec Freq S steni Who Owns
Oust satislaction survey qrtl Subsurface In] Conforrnancmonthty Si}E
C cle time Pattern revfews, act vs lanmonthl RSE
# Rev. recs. by type monthl PSE
ii of A.I. Uncompteted
Supplier Boundary Rec-aclion item that makes 64 Customer Boundary

Blue=Essential Metric
91ue=Es3enreel MB[HC
• • 0
Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer Chart - RSVT

Suppliers P roduct/Service Process Product/Service Customers

Aevela menU New Wells Convert Data & info into Drillinq Recommendations -- Development/
------- -- --- --- --- ---.
Constr/DrIlling Facillties strategies & recommendations Con rstdDrill ling
Res. Charactedzation for maximizin asset value
.Depletion Slydte9y_. at a pg1jenn level.
Lagging Indicators Meas Measure Who Leading Meas Measure Who Lagging Indicators Meas Measure
tor the Su Iler Spec Freq System Owns Indicators Spec Freq 5 tem Owns for the Su lier Spec Freq System Who Owns
Act. Vs. Est. Cost monthly Subsurface In Conformanemonthly SOE Recommendation ohecklist per rec
Cycle Time PG Rec• ROP monthly Pattern revfews, act vs planmonthi FtSE
Customer Satifaolion Survey annual # Rev. recs. by type monthl RSE
]D a, vs. lob submit CT rnontttl FtS E
fYof Al.
.Uncompleted monthl RSE
Supplier Boundary Rec=ai that makes o]u$ Customer Boundary

"Dialomite specific
Bluea Essential Metric
• • a

Suppliers Product/Service Process Product/Service Customers

Flood Review Team Convert Data & info into PST Documentation Hood tieview Team
strate ies & recommendations Currertt knowledLqe of Resv.IArea
for maximizing asset value ---------------------------------
at a pattern level.
--------------

Lagging
tJ lndicatorsfor the Maas Measure Who Leading Maas Measure Who Lagging Indicators Meas Measure
--suppler Spec Freq s y stem Owns Indicators Spec Freq S stern Owns for the Su lier Spec Fraq S ystem Who Owns
#Recs/ Flood Review per FR FRT Subsurface Ini Gonformancmanthi y SOE Document checklist/s urve par FR
OSR, OWR esUact. Qtd FRT Patton revlews, act vs ptanrnonthf RSE
BPD (all types) act/est atrl FRT # Rev. recs, by type monthl RSE
Cusr Seristaction SurveyJChec4 per FR FRT ID opp_ vs. job submit CT monthl RSE
Now W¢Ir Econ_ NPV, EP, $BDE Annual F RT ft of A. I. Uncompleted manthl RSE
Supplier Boundary Fisc=ai that maEcr Customer Boundary

"Diatomite speci
BIue=Essential Metric
• a a

Su p pliers Product/Service Process ProductlService Customers

O p erations Current Data _- Convert Data & info into In'ection tar ets b well CLAM (Operations)
(Includes CLAM, Steam
._J___-------^-----y ------------
--Problem Wall 10 strateg ies & recommendations
or Water Teams) Steam. Water, Oil for maximizing asset value
- Rwondiilioned wells at a pattern level.
w
w

Lagging indicators Meas Measure Who Leading 1vteas Measure Who Lagging Indicators Meas Measure
for the Supplier Spec Freq S tem Owns Indicators Spec Freq System Owns for the Su lier Spec Freq system Who Owns
Steam Quali ty @ [nj pYrws. O ns. Subsurface In) Ganforman monthly SOE Rase Production vs. Plan' month[ HSE
Surtdoe Irij Conformance monthly O ns. Pattern reviews, act vs lan monthly RSE Produced Oil to Injectant Rati monthl RSE
System Inj Pressure monthl y O ns. # Rev. rem by type monthly 1ASE [nvstmt Hs[ts, $1bdc, bde Act month] R$E
Gen BI)W Input vs sum of Inl. monlhl O ns. Do pp. vs. jab subrnit CT monthly RSE BSPD or BWPD, Act- Vs . Tar q. montht SOE
°b Pumped Off & Down Olt monthly 2ns. Surf & Subsurface IN Conf. monthly SOE PSOR and PS[R monthly FiSE
LACT vs AWT Welltests monthly op i n$_ Pun Rev HrslAv. His monthly SOE
Data Frequency ; cant to s pec monthly O ns. # of A.1. Uncompleted monthly HS E
YVetlwark CT (submit to compt) monthly O ns.
Rec=ac:tion item that makes aiU$ ` Non-Development
BIue=EssenGal Metric Blue=Essential Metric
• .

Process Team: Well Review Team
Suppliers Product/Service Process Product/Service Customers

CLAM / O r t . s (1) StJrv Data t R (11 Convert Data & into into Work recommendations CLAM I Opns
pattern Review Team 2 Economic Rpt._SIl3 strate g ies & recommendations
for maximizing asset value _(3)Failure1ysTpt
-°---°------ - ----- -------------_-_---------------•
PRT Notes i2lata wel I level.
--------------

Lagging
Indicators for the Maas Measure Who Leading Meas Measure Who Lagging Indicators Meas Measure
Supplier Spec Freq S tem Owns Indicators Spec Freq gstem Owns for the Su tier Spec Freq System Who Owns
Cust Satisfaction Surv Qrtl DMT Well reviews, act vs plan rnonthf RSE Subsurface In) Conformance, monthly SOE
Data Frequency; oonf to spec Monthl OI'NS 4 Rev. recs. by type monthf RSE Invslmt Rstts, "de, We Act montttl RSE
Prob ID to rac- C-F Month! SOE Surfnce Inf. Confomnsnce Monthi SOE
Due=Essential Metric Blue--Essential Metric
Customer Boundary
0 0 .

P roduct/Service I Process I ProductlServiCe Customers

Surv Data! Rpt_ (1! Work recommendations CLAM 1 O ns
Econqmic Rpt._i113
Failure Analysis rpt
PRT Nvtes_i2l ______

Lagging
Indicators for the Meas Measure Who Leading Measure Who Lagging Indicators Meas A1Measure
Su lier Spec Freq System Owns Indicators Spec Meas
Freq system Owns for the Supplier Spec Freq S stem Who Owns
Gust Sa6staclion Survey Qrtly bMT welt revEews, act vs plan monthf RSE Subsurface Inl Conformance, monthly SOE
Data Frequenay; conf to spec f,rtonth1 OPNS if Reva recs. b y typo monthl RSE Invsimt Ftslts, S16de, We Act monthl RSE
Prob ID to rec. CT Monthl SOE co Conformance
SurfaInj. f4lontt't! SQE
Blue=Essential Mairic Bluo=Essential Metric
Supplier Boundary Customer Boundary

s

Suppliers Product/Service Process ProdueVService

CLAM I d ns (1) 5uN DatA / RPt_ (11 Convert Data & info into Work recommendations
Pattern Review Team 2 ECanomio Rpt.-^^/3_
^ strategies & reconirnentiations -
Failure Anat is--t formaximizin asset value
---- ------- _-- ---------------------------------
PRT ^lat$s i?^----_- at a well leval. ---------------------------------

W Lagging
(71
Indicators for the Maas Measure Who Leading Meas Measure Who Lagging Indicators Meas Measure
supplier Spec Freq System Owns Indicators Spec Freq System Owns for the Su tier Spec Freq S stem Who Owns
Cust Satisfaction Surveyortl DMT Well reviews, act vs plan rnonthf RSE Subsurface In Conformanee. monthly SOE
Data >=re uerrc : tson f to s ec tytontht OF'NS 4 Rev. recs. by type monthf RSF- Invstmt Rslts, Slbde, bde Act monshi RSE
Prob iD to rec- CCF Manth! SCJE Surface tnj. Conforrt2ance Monthl SOE
Blue=Essential Metric Blue--Essential Metric
Customer Boundary
• • 1:1
Su pp liers p roduct/Service Process Prod tictlService Customers

CLAM ! O ns (1 ) Surv Data -.__
---- / R t. 1 !. Convert Data & info into Work recommendations CLAM / O p ns
---- -^ --^ - -..........^_____^--------------------
Pattern Review Team (2) Economic Rpt. ij /3 strategies & recommendatlons
DMT S Failure_Analysis
--- rpt for maximizing asset value ________________________________,
PRT EVotes {2^______ at a well level.

Lagging
Indicators for the M eas Measure Who Leading Meas Measure Who Lagging Indicators Meas Measure
Su lier Spec Freq System Owns Indicators Spec Freq S stem Owns for the Su Iier Spec Freq S stem Who Owns
Cust 5a6sfaclion Sunrey Ortly DMT Wel l reviews, act vs plan montht RSE Subsurface Inj Conformance. monthly SOE
Date Frequenoy: oonf to spec Monlh1 OPNS a Rev, recs. b type monthl RSE Invstmt Rslts, Slbde, bde Act rnonthl RSE
Nob ID to rec. CT Monthf SOE Surface Ini. Conformance Mol1d1! SOE
Blue=Essenlial Metric Blue=Essential Metric
Supplier Boundary Customer Boundary

3. Meeting Formats (McElmo Creek, MEPUS)
• MCELAIO CREEK UNIT

C02 SURVEILLANCE UPDATE 3/30/99
Completed 2 month effort of data clean-up and improvement of data input/loading processes
- Remaining issue with C02/Water injection, # days per month
Re-ran C02 diagnostics for all 99 patterns
Used 510.68/bo oil realization (adj. for current WTI posting)
Corrected initial oil rate at start of C02 for economic and technical base for some patterns
Adjusted some starting points for technical/economic base, because C02 was phased in, some patterns began
realizing response prior to C02 injection in that pattern
2 nd PASS - C02 DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS:

• 29 of 99 patterns with positive 6 month average C02 cash flow
• 14 patterns losing less than $50/day
• 14 patterns losing more than $200/day
DETAILED PATTERN ANALYSIS COMPLETED:

• Plan - 30 patterns completed w/ detailed pattern analysis by 4/1/99; 17 completed to date
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Increase Injection - recommended 15 injectors
- Completed 9 tlowbacks to date
• - Recommended 13 "bullhead acid jobs down tbg", completed 1, Work in Progress ($ IM each)
• Increase Production - recommended 2 producers

- Uneconomic at current oil price, need $15 oil realization to justify (hydro-jet horizontal)
• Shut-Off Fluid - recommended 5

- No additional expense money budgeted for 1999, spending budget on repairing failed NUT injectors
• Other - recommended 2
1- replace leaking CIBP over Zone 2, losing inj. out bottom, will try to do in 1999
• No Recommendation - 8 patterns
P&A's/TA's - Recommended 3 P&A's, 1 complete, 2 routing for approval
TD Checks - Recommended 99, 5 done, Work in Progress
• Step Rate Tests - Recommended 10 - Work in Progress
• WA(; Management Changes - Recommended 14, Implemented 14

Increased WAG Ratio - 5
Decreased WAG Ratio - 9
CURRENT PLANS:
Continue Detailed Pattern Analysis starting w/ Top 20% Patterns, Bottom 20% Patterns
•
38
0 4. Well Testing Practices (MEPTEC)
SUGGESTIONS FOR WELL TESTING PRACTICES
19-MARCH-1999
(M. C. Amondin, N. D. Ballard, C. V. Chow, and T. S. Nwankwo)
Well Testinjj Practices

Data taken from well tests will not have any meaning if there is no routine maintenance preformed on the
well test equipment. Even in a benign environment, well test equipment used to measure product must be
periodically calibrated. An analogy for this is a cash register at a super-market that is only good to +/- 25%
of the price of the goods leaving the store. Well testing equipment is a well's cash reaister.
Freguency
The frequency of well tests should be determined based on several factors. Some considerations are; how
much is the well making, how many wells are being tested by the same equipment, how long required to
obtain a good test, how accessible is the test equipment, is the equipment automated or manual, etc.
Generally wells making the most oil or gas should be tested more frequently than lower producing wells.
All producing wells should be tested on a regular basis. Even in flowing well operations a minimum test
frequency of one test per well per month should be considered.
. Test frequency should be tracked and the well test spreadsheet developed by M. C. Amondin is a good tool
for tracking purposes. Test frequency has been used as a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) in other
affiliates and has yielded significant value. A plot of tests per day for each platform/field with a
management review weekly should be considered. With modem day computing systems, much of this
process can and should be automated to improve cycle time and efficiency.
Accuracy
The well test spreadsheet should be updated weekly. All new tests should be reviewed using the choke
model in the spreadsheet. The person reviewing the test data should ask two questions:
1. Are we getting consistent results?
2. Do the trends make sense?
By using this method problems with well equipment and test equipment can be rapidly detected and
corrected. One suggested KPI is the sum of the well tests vs. volumes shipped. This KPI is sometimes
called the allocation factor (AF) and can be plotted daily (more of a leading indicator). It is a direct
indication of the quality of the well test measurements. Another useful presentation of the AF is the
monthly average (lagging indicator).
Another KPI is gross fluid from a test separator/platform area vs. the sum of the well tests. This last KPI
requires a gross meter at the site; an orifice plate will generally suffice since trends are looked at not
absolute volumes. This pinpoints the location of production changes.
Modeling
The goal of modeling is to quantify well performance and level of accuracy of results. Various software
tools can be used to model well performance and assist with well test quality control, our tool of choice is
PROSPER. Some questions should be asked when using these tools:
39
1. Can the tests be predicted? (Using VLP/IPR relationships.)
2. Does the model reproduce the test results without making gross corrections to reservoir pressure or skin?
•
Maintenance
Gauges:
Pressure gauges are one of the most important pieces of well test equipment for flowing wells. All wellhead
and separator gauges should be calibrated on a routine basis? Calibration dates should be record and a file
maintained that will not only keep a history, but also notify the responsible person when calibration is
required. Gauges should have the proper range and resolution for the operating conditions experienced at
the location of use. Most bourdon tube gauges are only accurate for the upper portion of the middle third of
the scale. Gauges should be selected to operate in this area. If a gauge experiences overrange damage it
should be replaced, as no amount of calibration will make the gauge accurate.
Meters:
Orifice flow meters should have the orifice plates routinely checked for proper size, straightness and
installation. The correct beta ratio of an orifice meter is important to assure accuracy. The beta ratio should
be between 0. 15-0.75 for liquids and between 0.20-0.70 for gas. Orifice plates used in gas service should
be inspected more frequently than those in liquid service should. Periodically the spring and water column
value being used should be evaluated to insure that they are appropriate for the rates and pressures that are
being experienced. This mandates that the plates can be changed. Meter tube length is also important, if the
design criteria are unknown the meter tube length should be checked and corrected as needed. As with
pressure gauges a record of meter inspections should be maintained for history and for notification of
• pending inspections.
Well Test Spreadsheet:

Use of the well test spreadsheet will determine where the largest errors are being experienced ( i.e. which
platform, separator, AWT, etc.). Maintenance and calibration efforts should be focused on problem areas
first. Over time systems will become more accurate and the data will make more sense. Also with time
corrective maintenance will decrease as routine maintenance is employed. This process will also find
production uplift candidates.
•
40
5. KPI
,e Lou F Marczynski 09/24/98 08:56 AM
To:Doug Owens/Houston/Mobil-Notes@ Mobil

cc:
Subject:Action Item: Reservoir Management KPI's
FYI
---------------------- Forwarded by Lou F Marczynski/Houston/Mobil- Notes on 09/24/98 08:52 AM ----

Lou F Marczynski 09/23/98 03:19 PM
To:Mark H Meeks/Houston/Mobil-Notes@ Mobil, Marc Calvin/Houston/Mobil-Notes @Mobil

cc:
Subject: Action Item: Reservoir Management KPI's
At our meeting on August 20th, we set an action item to recommend KPI's for East Mallet. Please see my e-mail on
KPI's and depletion plan. I have come up with the following recommendations for KPI's. Please review, I would like to
meet and discuss the week of September 28th.
1.
Lease Level Overview KPI's updated weekly using the daily data in M. Deer's SUM-DATA.XLS file. All 7 day
averages. Weekly meeting and conference call with Sundown to review KPI's. Primary emphasis on maintaining
^ C02 Injection Rate and spotting trends early so as to investigate further.
a. C02 Injection Rate vs Target Rate in Mcfpd.
b. Oil Production Rate in Bopd vs Plan
c. Gas Rate in Mcfpd vs Plan volume
d. GOR (cu ft/bbl) vs Plan volume
e. Current WAG Ratio vs Target
f. Processing Rate (total withdrawals in Rbpd) vs Target
g. I/W Ratio vs Control Limits
Performance Charts of daily performance at each battery and updated weekly from the Sundown Server using
daily data. Also reviewed at the weekly meeting and conference call. Need to have FSR's annotate charts to
account for facility upsets, well failures, routine maintenance, workovers, etc.
a. Oil Production (Bopd)
b. Water Production (Bwpd)
c. Gas Production (Mcfpd)
d. Oil Cut (%)
e. Gas Cut (Rbpd as a percent of total withdrawals of oil, water and gas)
f. GOR (cu ft/bbl) and GLR
3. Pattern Diagnostics updated monthly using data from PA or OFM to detect trends or anomalies and evaluate WAG
decisions and Injection rate targets. Only for the "new" pattern configurations that include multi-injector patterns
(approximately 17 WAG patterns). Monthly WAG Meeting to discuss patterns that have unfavorable Diagnostics.
Diagnostic Unfavorable Condition

a. Pattern processing rate (Rbpd) vs; field average. Declining processing rate, much lower than field avg.
b. GOR (cu ft./bbl and GLR Increasing GOR or GLR
^ c. Gas Production (Mcfpd) Significant increase in gas
d. Monthly I/M Ratio with a 6 month moving average Outside control limits of .75 and 1.25 for more than 3
mos.
41
e. Oil Production Rate (Bopd) Significant decrease in oil rate
f. C02 Utilization Mcf/Bo (both gross cumulative Instantaneous util. increase and crossing
utilization and gross instantaneous utilization) over cum util.
g. Current cashflow/day ($) Negative or decreasing cashilow
h. Injection rate (both C02 in Mcfpd and H20 in Bwpd) Outside target range or lower injectivity
i. Oil production incremental response Pattern produc tion at or below the technical base
4. Surveillance Process KPI's recorded on a monthly basis to evaluate effectiveness of the process and measure
activitv level.
a. Number of patterns or injectors with a kh distribution.
b. Number of WRC jobs completed for the month.
c. Number of WRC recommendations under evaluation.
d. Number of injectors outside target volume range.
e. Number of pattern changes made on slug size, target rate, or WAG Ratio.
f. Number of patterns outside I/W range.
g. Number of patterns with declining processing rate.
h. Number of patterns with increasing instantaneous C02 utilization.
i. Number of patterns with negative cashflow.
j. Number of patterns with declining oil rates.
k. Number of injectors exceeding the maximum wellhead injection pressures for water.
I don't know if all of this is necessary. I tried to include everything that I thought might be important. Please look it over
and give it some serious thought. Since we need to get back with Dan Callens on KPI's prior to October 6th, I would
recommend that we meet Wednesday September 30th in my off ice at 9:00 AM. Please let me know as to your
availability.
Regards,
I Lou M.
Lou F Marczynski 10/01/98 04:09 PM
To: Mark H M eeks/Houston/Mobil- Notes@ Mobil, Marc Calvin/Houston/Mobil-Notes@ Mobil

cc:
Subject: East Mallet KPI's
The following is a summary of what we agreed on for KPI's. Please review and let me know if your understanding
was different.
Lease Level Overview KPI's

Updated at least monthly using the daily data in M. Deer's SUM-DATA.XLS. Use a 7-day average and the plot the
items la through lg as shown in my previous e-mail. The plan number for the KPI's would be the projected values
needed to meet the oil production volumes in the TERAS run for 1999.
Performance Charts by Satellite

Data is desirable, but not currently available. It might be possible to add up sporadic producer well tests in OFM for
the wells in each satellite. However, this may not be possible if OFM is scraped and I don't know if DSS can perform
this function.
Pattern Diagnostics
Updated monthly either in OFM or from downloads from PA. Changes made were as follows:
03a. - Add injection data to help interpret changes in processing rate. Processing rate along with field average plotted
Vs time.
3b through 3f plotted vs time.
42
3g - Current cashflow/day plotted vs time using 1999 plan oil price.
Add 3j - Technical base oil cum incremental recovery plotted vs C02 hcpvi along with the lease average curve or
model curve. Unfavorable condition would occur when oil cum drops below field average or model prediction.
• Surveillance Process KPI's

Recorded monthly with the following changes:
4a. - % patterns with a kh distribution
4b. - year-to-date total of WRC jobs completed.
4c. - year-to-date number of recommendations coming from pattern analysis. This would include WRC, lift
optimization, WAG ratio and slug size changes, target rates on wells, etc.
4d. - will be tracked by the FRS's not Midland
4e. - included in 4c above.
4f,4g,4h,4i and 4j - should be lumped together as the number of patterns each month with unfavorable conditions
based on the monthly pattern diagnostics.
4k - will or is being tracked by the FRS's and not by Midland.
This is how I remember it. Any comments, changes or suggestions.
Regards,
Lou
43
6. What Is A Process
• What Is A Process?
Input Process Output
I Personnel
Equipmem
Adding Value Prluas
Macerials
Through And
Methods
Woi k Serviccs
Fnvirnnmem
Mcaxummenc.s
"Process" =* 'Any Activity Or Group Of Activities That 1) Takes An

Input From a Supplier 2) Adds Value To It Through Work
And 3) Provides An Output To A Customer."
Two Important Corollaries:

"Work" ^"What Customers would Pay You To Do If They Knew You Were
Doing It."
"Value" "The Difference Between Something's Benefits And Its Costs."
(VALUE = BENEFITS • COSTS)
-<,'-Êxplor h n tC P,r Jucina u S.
/\/11
• The Customer - Supplier

Relationship
Process
Activity
Supplier -' Customer (Processor' Supplier Customer
Role)
In A" Process", Everyone Acts As A Customer,

Processor And Supplier In Meeting The Needs
Of Their Customers.
r-..,Exploiah:.n K Producmg US
C. cx?c•.+:nq;.^.eBOc
44
Balance Results and Process
0 Measures
At The Different "Steps"
F°,nne,, Eq°;Fm^,r, In The Value Chain, The
a`^
Envb°nment Measurements. Customer's Results
wavwkY Measures Can Become
The Supplier's Process
R m Measure
:::;E:: ^
_____ ______ __ Measurements
-------------- ---- -
Muasuremanl
F--w^z F nacor^,k Results
---- ------ Measurements
"Intelligent people solve problems, geniuses prevent them."

- Albert Einstein
! ' ^ ^'. ?S
.,. iFzPlor:aon ^ ProG',,.inq C.S.

^^ _..... s::ela ^- E^FO+:•^r: _^ :nn B^=_
What's Your Process?

Requirements- 'What are Your Customer's Needs And Expectations"
-Who Are Your Customers?

-What Products/Services Do you Provide?
-Who Are Your Suppliers?
-What are Your Measurements?
-.. -! ^zao•;,r.;n3?roduar.nJ.S.
^ ^_ ,:. . ^'.c'^p ^^. . J[.•^.,:n:;^ ••in ^ ^SB
.
45
' • 0
SuppliE!r-Input-Process-Output-Custorrier Chart
Process Team: Diatomite Surveillance Team
lost updata: 1R4r1999
PtOdttoV9trvice ProductJGervlce
uppffCrs FrQ-Cess Customers
DOVero mcnt Tea m t 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ COnYtnL'aW a fnf0 Ia1D Dn;.l anI Tetm f,2+.10'
D1,1C(SuNr Cq assTtam^ 5 __ sualr IesarecrnvnendaGans 20 CLAM Te am 3 - 9.12,1311
OLnJA Tearr^ ( '
, 3 A 9.i0,11,12.t1) fo(oellmleinOvalueaf
.•^,•„•,.•.., Team , 13 . 11 ,
W. Rec 000 04 104
New R<COetfJ T U ^;_ __. . al re^2dnevc OArei 9- 5balc Team 4
sndkp^r Tta.n I, a
DALT 3
UWt(e,1Y1
Resu lts M easures Process Measures Results Measurts

449ro Mw-- Me490tt W)p We* Measun
ts lrKricston fbr a1e 5 Irof ec. Meea F Aleasure ROOM Owna Leadin g lndreaso2 S e Fnt 3 lfem O.at L* Z0Z lMn:atoq forlhe S ' r S F S atcm WAO b.wu
./.55c to
(1}Lycle iMsu; CaD71al RecOm'S,
mo Per
ft- CER sobm6lted to Dey,1o f-91 M4e D., ( 3) Actual vS.Plan: Total Bise(Ino. CLAM; pn
teat 31(4. mnnlhy Devtl Aet.ys.Plan:Well RtyltN^f inettplan tnanth7 E4ES ayg-)&Su1y.ProdDDlienWedge npttoryenr monlhy scoB,Ra
11)Actwe10rci:o7lef WA On101tot
(t}pttveAFg'dvs.Plen:nurv.CapltaI
orv.ea Rccoen ' s PerJeD oDty Noel Act.ys.Plan: Pattern Reviews menpkn l-nfhy DavldG , yeu manenty
'---.-^ Er endiwresf Bob 8,
aT 10% Pt.
UI C'Kte tiû[ Can6tmatbn of we1 n0l601o9 entertd Mo WiT, 171 At vs Pltn: Surv.Erpensa Expenduaes S -a: 04 irqt Dava W.,
dsane rtarWremaert. 7wk tneaaute lrantfehedlet* DD8 CLAM ADt.vs.Pian:Flood Reylewe mcclPit n monlay Uhk rcwnlh t Krs. CLAM fo+year monthy 3colt
4-
CPN
(3) Cytk Tine: New & Slmelakd wAn * Suev.Recom'S by type & % ependtn9 ( 3) Aat,vs.Plan: Surveillance Expense
t days
Deê W^
wellstested kmeDDDlOnce 0tr0ot -thy CLAM Implem, pLn monthly wNlnotr! Scott todueerwork ;lboe dinNalv fl}1' hIkOU.
(7) Map to f DS (DDB) cunpaflson Acl " TerOet. It peltems it vo1630e -501u
for enwef aests (piod. d InJf loknnee(tatdit 10 be sel d MI-- to ba •700 Keg. 4 3I Act.vs.Ptan; SurYt((tanes Capital
(t7Ur0n 978A trrmR4y CLAM rcvlsed I Ilc kam 3/iH9 ePdTxe ~thy t3kn0 lodu¢ellarorkil6oe dlnklalu plift" DavldG.
0) ERP 9ptoodod to ED910DBJ on eo Ora0ln0 'had luat Aclualvs p1en: Y PJCIl faryueo dae I. 1121allmas ( 13) Cjele TYMt FNhLe Dulfiu Wa W
tstwontOaYoitnaMh.'Esh.un 100% monM a re vesleC S pec CLAM wbtktence (f09 ^&1::2 (b LFtI In'99 monlht Phtl W , lettmellt retdn 1 W. m nlh . &a0 G .
(Jj COUnto} error bQt lot dala na lost tick ( bom Mie A<tuel vs plan: rotal hoapd 38 bonPd
Iranstets, lae e) mon* Keenan CLAM aSfn!IatedWith WcllFallu, es PhiIW.
erwetl monl>t
Pla n b [aP1n11obs vs #lobt
(1) Cycle Ti- Expcnst reeonywea 45 handtd off In Deve1 (of laad sched
dntetcl,JaDSuhmltluback-anIlne de t mOafA CLAM i- IemtnlalWn alYJwie by 3rno. mcneh $abB.
•!, ot. rc(rals handed ON ro
( 0)AC1.va.esGn:Coslof 10% Devetoomcnt(onCi;R) readscDed 7HFFULL0N9'NG.IRETDBE
$yrv.ExDen1eRacern>1s(nis r lab tr CLAM allowsiars ec.leadlme Smo. monlh BeDe. ldiPLEMfNTEDATALATER DATB
(9) ACt.vsT01.-OPOAVm(y0it' Rclualvs.Plan:Sury^Penst etpfaleGlS
Radilo0 tot 8mv. EnOtO.Epns Mhded 44 to CWA lot lmpkmendlaon tetd sched. SCott,
rtcan's RlA wcrk CIAM alloritar m.lcad4ne D 45d. monlh DsvsW.
1 te T
cte : At1n Items lot Gel] ^^- AcOral IS P131, Bate 6 S1xVuredQe by
surv. non•weuROak fteeODeck wAn SnEf erta-LOTS.4t7MS QHod, 4 OSRA3W7jr-.. CLAM d
atnmin08ellonL44Deenlahen) 2wka moalh CIAtA con»rOCJtowOrltfNixrNBeftD7etCt^lAS6 •1-2y,7 .- Mly Sorv,
90% ^^fhn]rk Y cOnOnYei 01 CejMef 7a60M'] UaG
+/- nwn0ltytn TRFFOLLOS4TNGfitET09E 1nv,TIk9,TON(0rtp9pwWk u8etoot afcAakafn
1f0 Surfaccln ConfoOnantt 20Si oretre . C(AM
_ IAiPLEMENTEDhrAUTERDATE... Nst kv1948wp
Per )nJ.pi0ff7^% on ot:nattee n
ppslxorAFCWqnicso7rapensaawstun
YuYUaI hold unr7! ltave Gedopld
confMntn 1nvTrkp,TOarsar 1999 WOrY; (use NO ofchoicro
yz Wen On-Tim ieammen Rh CLAM dosed ffan d ROC 4C et^ nn.n ce we rn f sl qfi kx 19aJ
(17)Sha4rn er PlncheaNtctf Aeafal vt 0190: t»f qte Or(upduc0"nryro•
P1o6u0Na tuckln0. 1n0u6n0 irtTrlanxnled aunroi0ance nMF l
feas0"t R7n menthy CLAM YtO/fN1elfdlfAYlt )17 ACI.YSp19n: tCGncnJL1 /fJ$lu'Y l4'tN7e
SOP
f121 Mc.s-n.cnt Of producllOn, -"'
LACT, inê_âY dal OWT
.:......-....-...,.....-....-._.--... ---._-._ ._.__.... .. __ • - I
arR. W.wnc..aY.IVDwqnq^qryy.^^pnninfum^wOrxQA+FefNptW41nq5^»..IMnbM1
07h to taê teedbaok to RcV.Sun.Vhtuel Team
uv.u ^..p•........rrtlnaone•5.^..NM.bpâftl`H
^+Ya Nunnt.rtro;)a:allcl.K.b.•r<NNart.dn.
httcoll0:prolsc(fMiaVsro(btccnsJSIPOC OblBurvzh
prlnted 74 610 (Q 0 54 PM
7. RACI
is Pattern Anaylsis Process Flow - High Level Summary
RA OE
RACE
PG
ng eo K
Tech Tech Tech
;Sub-
prooass Tools Documentation
A. R G,3 0.1 0,1 0.1 C.l Y
lGa#her 4 Format Oata I A, R R R R R R Ch60kGet
A. R R R R R R Ch9ck ►ist
R A,R R R R R Y
& Surrounding
A,R R R R R R Y
R A,R R R R R Y
& VertiGw
A,R A R R R R Y
I h'Jare Data Needed? -

Y
A, R R R R R R IN Access Pattam Rimer. dafabd,se
PPASS Pre project Was

A,R R R R R R N PPASS farTOSArea
M pro19G Res
A, R R R R R R N PPASS for TOS Area
attom Notes and

ResuEts, Go 10 Access PPASS Post project Was
A, R I R R R R R Y PPASS torTC3S Area
47
Select Pattern to Analyze Sub-Process Flow
• RE
R=
ng
OE PQ Tech 7e¢h Tech
FQ
ao
Resource
SPE #3`,383, 36E'•3395
Tools aoCUmOntation
C02 Surveillance Beat

NR I G R I f Practlr,g htaGkl Shara
by performance and map DSS Bubbl®rnaps,

rmanco Indicators AIR I C R ! I Monta ges
SbHCPV Inj, Utilization,
& Ni Rates. WA Ra1io
ve predicted and by
AIR I C R E 1
FJR C C R I C DSS
/41R I C R I I
A/R C I R I f
• for any ot the IolEowing event

prompting a need for pattern
review AlR R R R R R
Wall FailurGs
• Unexpctd breafanrough
Unusual prod- dacline
- Poor IN. Profile Rasull
•
48
0 0 0
Gather and Format Data - Pre Session Data List

Data RACI
Eng Gefl Field
RE OE PG Tech Tech Tech Pre-Session Anal ys is Comments
Wel Ihore pla rams A R Update Note corWllEon of casIn and cement to uali
Well Histories A E R U datelReview Bnef Hiqhliqhls. Brln Well filesllo s to Se°sion
WorkovF-r ResuI4S- COStlbenerlfiE R E 1 1 I Post-Look
Lift E ui ent Uelalis AIR [ R IncEudes 1heoreclical ca p aGilifasIderA q nslAllernalives ( BU on loo? )
Well Failure Rate,'Fiistoncat Anal ysis A t 1 R Gather Info Include in indiv6eEual well economics
Updated In DSS database - Includes DitMPalerJi3asrCO2 Content,
Well Test Intorrrbation A t R Y+1ir1j, CID], 19J . PrgBSlrres, E3HP
Graph format tnr displaying single well graphs of injection or
Sin g le Well Prodrtn Gra p h Formal A/R R ConstntcW ate P roduction and P I dravrdown vs rate and In jectIvIly
Chemlcal Treatment Schedule A R Gather Info
Related Surface Facilities C& cities A 1 R Gather Wo
Profile Lo gs - Current and historical A E 1 R Inte ret Profi;es I nduda BHP surveys. of Ftowln Wells
Geolo ical ma ps AIR R Construcl Ma ps Stn-ictvre, Iso sch
Cross SeclionslFence Dia grams NR 1 R 3 Construct Thra.i h attern and edraoent atlerns
3D Geola ic tJlodel- Vlsuatlzatio;l A/R I R 3 Construct Flow Units wf4xilor conliasl of p erm Variations
Zone. Interval Flow EJnlt VolUrneUiCS A/R I R I Calculate
ResmoirAtUibutes in 3D Model NR I R ] ConslrucE Porosit , Perm, HCPV, Salurations
U dsta C:am lellOll Into In G?o1 Database A I R C In put, forrriat well pa nels
Pattern Reserves AIR R I CaECUlaletAna) e
Reooue EO Data, EUH WR I 1 1 CalCulalelAns! a
Rec vs HCPV ActuaUPredlcted AIR I R Cexislruct Plots
Zone inlerval 96HCPV Enjectea AIR I H 1 Calculate
Well Economics A,R 1 I I R CalcuIala Incremantal Vanahle - EIecJCh6mlESP costs and Fixed Costs
Pattern Eoonomics Actual/Predlcted A+'R C R I Cak;ulaEe U p dated DSS pattern allocated database
Pattern Produr,tlONlri eotion A/R ! R 1 Determine Pat. Allocation Updated aSS attem aliocatetl database
WAQ1 Histo Cause/Effect A/R C R Analy ze --
CPattern Dia gnostics
CO2 JR 1 I 1 Cor^slructlAnal ze
3niectorlPruducer CauselEffeCt Histo !R R 1 AnaE ze, Construct Overlays Us$ DSS to construct prod and In rate overlays of pM rn wells
+^rea_^tuflE-patternf proleci^tfom?nCe t 4l R 411 R 3 Ane_•vzQ _ 'MuEti•ttem C02dla nostles
Unit pert 1rn3nce A/ I R An '1 +3 Ur,^r'i::lciCD2dla ttosliosfOrnoirnalization p u Mo sas
Pattern Anayisis Session Sub-Process Flow
• RE 0P PG
RACE
Eng G90 Field

Tech Toch Tech 61a1n-process Tools Documentation
Review Area Zrnap,
Contour, R R A, R R R R Geotogy Stralm4del
Pc)rfn, Porosity and Flow Unit Ravlew Area 2map,

R R IA. R R R R Geology $tratmodeJ
ringlampirical data of tnjtProduc

- Revise Modol a& necessary to Review Area Zmap,
R R k Ft R R R Geology Stratmodel
Diagnoatic Curves and

ionllnjectoon Run Charts vs Review Pattem
onsV Note Anarrrlles, Performance and Surrounding
is, Economics and Potantial Area
, R R R R R R Perlonl?ance 8S
ew Injector Mec[iarkal Condition and

History. Rrofila History and Injection
rPressure Aclual and Targels Run Review Individual
t - Compare wlTheoracticai tnjeation Well
e and Rate - ID Opportunily for Ferformanpa/Fiev
Svemenl If Theory does not match - law ArealNertica! SS, Well
; , RJ R R R R Conformance Files
• Rgview Ovgrtaya of PrqduCtiqn and lnjeCtion Review Individual

Rate For pattern producers and irhector and Well
oftsatling injector - ID InjactorJproducer PerformancelRav
teJationatupa and periomwce analmoltes few AreaitVertica!
R , R R R R R ronformance SS
law Individual Producer Production plots

ells in pattern. Inotude run oh&rt of oil, Review Individual
rr, gas, %C02' PIP, Watercut, and IPR Well
(Rate vs Drawdam or PIP). - JD PerfarmancelRev
ntial opportunities to FrtWmve productJcn iew AreaWerlical
R . Fi i 3 R R Donformance SS
anamollea A,R A R R R R
A, R R R R R a:i Access Pattern Nolea
Back 10 Summary Pro0es3 (More Uala

Hooded)?
•
50
S 0 •
Post Analysis Sub-Process Flow

START
on inrecasted incremental
tlori or expense reduction
Hates)
data from end

end
share
of Project?
* RAC I varies by project- Team wil I define, RACI per type of project
APPENDIX E
DATA
• 1. Steamflood Guidelines (AERA Energy)
Steamflood Reservoir Management ♦ 423
Steamflood Monitoring Program

Steamflood reservoir management requires a large amount of data to be collected, processed, and
interpreted. For the data to produce meaningful information, it is important to:
1. Collect the data before the project is initiated to establish baseline levels
2. Formulate a monitoring program during the project's design phase
3. Maintain the program throughout the project life.
To determine the types of data needed, it is helpful to use Figure 9-75, a reproduction of Figure
9-4. The exact data required to understand the Steamflood process, however, varies from project to
project.
It is recommended that as a minimum the following data be collected for the heat and material
balance analysis:
1. Oil production volume and temperature

2. Water production volume and temperature
3. Heat injection
4. Steam injection volume
5. Casing effluent rate and temperature
6. Temperature profile (heat accumulation).
Data such as revenue, margin, and operating costs must also be collected and analyzed to determine the
economic viability of the project.
Data Collection Guidelines

The frequency of collection must be balanced between the cost and value of the information. Figure
9-75 gives some general guidelines regarding the frequency of data collection. However, the frequency
is dependent on the goals and operating cost limitations of the project. Pilot projects require more
frequent measurements than established stearnfloods.
It is desirable to use a statistically representative sample of wells to obtain heat injection and casing
effluent data. Data from sampled wells can yield the same conclusions as data from all wells but at a
reduced cost.
•
52
0 424 ♦ Chapter 9
Figure 9-75 ♦ Steamflood Monitoring Data
Source Data CeHectlon Data Evaluation and Interpretation
Type Frequency Presentation Derived Information

Rals ^-WirW y RUl.iuew.rnaCanaurxrn PêamtnalaP^7,C^+NYwMwPieysa
anloam
Ouxlty 7wwurF,SeuaaaWeus MetrnritbotMaaalD 34+mOwiq4rt6vUOOe.Eraqydyucr
NlanaBOenufuNq t•3Yeus manw+Prany Aua010 PCSVatl,C0.TCklna
^ $qtqPRRyR 6rAa04 Yqr prpplYf.Pi{3lyeY1rU71Pnfs4tCSeoeUrt SItAm31n1PnfuWTroW=.Na.eumV4qh0
PPoCkq HamRnwit NrtSa+sMaPl.SRtLltee SeuMnq6:vuE?o^ba
iromen PnfJleme Non•RO:cn! Timpron^cers-Pnyun Pfelt wwlmerhiitors<i,..
TraAlfl
lrnswn[T^t .vBn.Ro•tne lu9•IPJ.HOn:r.rP[ctS.AmonsWUrTyPS PpXrSdn-301unMnlYOpUn1.9&2WYF
Dlurvawn Temp^lahu! : •TMa+ma T^mprtlunP•eet4,A'pr4mppyweeMUr hWrunwamn.Araten4RUW SfevnLeuPrtquq

Wtpt tNClo9an0GDNL 6Mocs•ttu 6u5iLPrenk,ydomwraetmcs-StiMai S9.SxrdDEAlwnq.9ammturr6rprnAaY.-
G4•0RSrl49 A1nYi0/•Ii.lapoGql+ 01$ayQ00i1PtoNi.MCI OISind h47E! Sy,SDr PoecertryfYO'.e.Jwec74p-
UrJ,aPx>ts ^ 4Yrtly PMu_Buew,inaC411wur7oars hnormv.^,UP1^9,*+WWSVtnn-

Er3WnlAar. annuurStlMcsNYls Um 0413 aum6-r.Idene7ouAFawNf'S+mqe
N41:
^ G:GPmsun M PaWg 8uoaruocamurrNOi SY20 dT.IEenChGCan•PneayJR
FLT Mennf 8ueex>rbCe:i7na/mua 54ayo90Arna-M6ifT931wunPL.
ShT ,MhuiWd!'lê^wer^ duensaiaCema,rni. te.ld+9vft"PP,SYunlT.karMUnen
FS4o7 9wrxr3`•rrnmmy Milo a'+OBcSpt9i6[s%1Pa hnnOrPtcarremlrqaaoa
404hxps:n9 NoaNaranr 9e11armuln[ras515eiaex 6pP0.0h'P4,reCF?patlAty ►qsivrtOyLan
f47q99 N04PAUDli1 k1111 SVM6EmOtre.YNlGS 0.Ou^V,rwWqpM1/,AfWSwi" Ellldrflq
%Si" VOW Laqm3AIura DsFP GtiCSEmenlrs.sre3nrlnNmynWlt EntoP/6YUiw,4b,a4m-Ymarr•b „a_

Calllqae Si:ertqPNtluq PioFF ?iRiYl, ri,4uRJpAdo Eplcian C;CPctuvmVA 0ikaauctnn
sylaro 6uC==wcn AatN9tca! GaCaroms7otfmt T..i^,a, Er.-;s rn W aae Ruit
"=9
pom^•vonr RoieMw^tS^ reai•ISaua^t ' cenCnera F rtwMr,^rp^Cwa^.Sy ,

• Con CenFYw r ao Nm•Pxuou DA Aecn eqrL YTl f^no P .v.ory r nll^ry- +iloenryixiu. 3 er
q+uurPrne Nen-14utrJt ParrueR-wury!Ou"a 5971tiuxmal13
The following recommendations are given with regard to the type of data and the frequency required
to understand the process in established steamfloods.
Injection Wellhead Tests

Well Selection Guidelines
1. Wellhead rate and quality should be measured periodically on 10% to 20% of the project injection
strings.
2. Monitored wells should be distributed across the project area, but an emphasis should be placed
on injectors in patterns with observation wells.
3. Monitored wells should include injectors that are near the steam generator facilities as well as at
the end of the steam distribution network.
4. A monitoring program should include injectors that are at low and high elevation relative to the
generators.
5. It is necessary to test both strings of a dual injector because there are usually unequal splits
between the upper and lower strings.
Collection Frequency Guidelines

1. Measure the steam rate and quality of the candidate monitoring wells when project steam injection
is initiated.
2. Continue to monitor the steam rate and quality at these injection strings at least on an annual basis.
53
3. The steam rate and quality should also be monitored whenever a significant change in the steam
distribution system is made or when steam rate reductions result in low steam velocities in the
distribution system.
It is recommended that the steam quality be measured downstream of the choke. Consideration should
be given to utilizing a surveillance tester to ensure that the generators are running at normal conditions
throughout the quality measurements.
Shut-In Injector Pressures

1. For mature, low-pressure steamfloods (like most Kern River projects), measure the stabilized
shut-in wellhead pressure for every injection string.
2. For less mature or high pressure projects where shut-in injection results in a liquid column above
the injection interval, run pressure surveys on 10% to 15% of the injectors.
3. These candidate wells should be selected so that they represent downdip and updip structural
positions, as well as confined and unconfined patterns.
1. When sandface pressures can be approximated by measuring shut-in pressures at the wellhead,
take measurements twice a year at every injector.
2. When pressure surveys are required, run the pressure transients on candidate wells once a year.
3. Consider running these pressure transients prior to project start-up and just prior to terminating
injection.
Casing Effluent Tests
1. Casing effluent tests should be performed on at least 10% to 15% of the project producers in a
time-lapse manner.
2. These monitoring wells should be representative of the project area.
3. Focus on selecting wells that are in observation well patterns.
4. Pick both corner and infill wells in order to monitor if infill wells break through first.
5. These candidate wells should be representative of the different completion types (e.g., slotted
liners that are open at the top of the drive zone vs. selectively perforated wells).
I. Test the candidate wells just prior to vertical expansion start-up to establish baseline effluent rate
from existing drive.
2. Casing effluent rates should be tested again when flowline temperature and casing pressure
indicate that breakthrough has occurred.
3. Run tests at least annually on all candidate wells that exhibit steam breakthrough.
4. Run casing effluent tests just prior to significant steam rate reductions in order to establish
baseline.
It is important to record the corresponding separator pressure because effluent rates are highly
sensitive to backpressure.
Observation Well Temperature Profiles

1. Run temperature surveys in all observation wells that have good mechanical integrity.

1. Run temperature surveys every two months for the majority of the observation wells.
54
^ 2. It maybe desirable to survey some Wells on a monthly basis in order to ensure timely
identification of areal steam-zone coverage.
3. Consider running temperature surveys once every three months for maturing projects that exhibit
little change in heat content vs time.
Observation Well Gas Saturation Logs

1. Run gas saturation logs in all observation wells that have a good cement bond across the zones of
interest.

1. Run baseline gas saturation logs prior to initiating steam injection.
2. Run gas saturation logs at least annually once steam injection is initiated (it may not be necessary
to run the gas saturation log if the temperature profile infers that a steam zone has not developed).
3. Schedule gas saturation logs so that they are run with in several days, of the temperature log.
4. Consider decreasing the frequency to once every two years for maturing steamfloods.
5. Run gas saturation logs just prior to shutting-in a steam injection project in order to establish a
baseline prior to blowdown.
Steamflood Monitoring Program Document

An effective technique to communicate and document the monitoring strategy is to prepare a
Steatnf'iood Monitoring Prograrn Document (SMPD). The SMPD communicates the goals and objectives
of the project to the personnel involved. All personnel, from engineers to field staff, should be involved
0 with the creation of the SMPD before tile project starts. An SMPD is prepared once the sources and
respective types of data collection have been determined.
The SMPD ensures that the necessary data are collected with a frequency that enables the reservoir,
production, and facilities engineers, as well as the EOR geologists, to evaluate project performance in a
timely manner. The document also simplifies the transfer of information whenever a team member is
reassigned. The document is periodically revised as needed.
An SMPD should include the following information:
1. A summary of the goals and objectives

2. Location maps of the project
3. Geologic cross-section
4. Rate and cumulative production and injection forecasts
5. Forecast economics
6. Reservoir parameters
7. Heat balance and heat requirements
8. Forecast temperature profile
9. Brief list of monitoring requirements
10. Functional work group assignments
11. Definitions and purposes of the various data types.
Additional items that could be included in the SMPD are:

1. Cost estimates for the data collection
. 2. Documentation of how the data is stored (well files, monitoring program databases, etc.).
55
^ Each individual involved with the project should have a laminated copy of the SMPD for reference.
The SMPD information sheets have been extremely effective, especially with field personnel. The SMPD
helps field personnel understand:
1. Why well or operating work is required

2. How important their work is to the success of the project.
The success of the SMPD depends on the participative efforts of each of the functional work groups.
Team members should meet regularly. Required remedial work is often identified as a result of the
monitoring-program data evaluation process. As a result, the economics of the project are enhanced.
Data Collection and Transfer

A large volume of data needs to be collected on a routine basis in order to effectively monitor a
steamflood project.
Although the collection frequency for routine data varies, the frequency is generally based on
minimizing the cost of acquiring data, while providing adequate information in a timely manner. Many
types of nonroutine data are also collected, depending on the performance characteristics of each
steamflood (see previous sections "Injection Well Monitoring..." through "Cross Well Tomography" for
discussion on the mechanics of data collection).
The most important measure of the success of a steamflood project is the oil production rate.
Therefore, attention should be placed on developing a process for collecting, transferring, evaluating, and
interpreting liquid production data accurately.
Automatic Well Test units (AWTs) are used to meter oil and water production rates at regular
. intervals. Each well is tested for oil and water production about once a week_
Once the AWT gauges the production of a particular well, that gauge must be transferred to the data
storage base. In computerized database systems, there are three distinct components involved with
transferring gauges from the AWT site to the host computer:
1. AWT site computer
Communication software
Host computer.
The host computer is the central computer where the data is stored and processed.
Each AWT site retains its own computer and program. The collected gauges and data are stored on the
AWT computer. The site computer stores:
1. The gauge sequence
2. Test duration
3. Baseline criteria for determining the success status of each test.
The AWT site computers act independently, and they are not in constant communication with the host
computer. Each site is assigned a. "hardwired" number as its address. Communications between the site
and the host computer are always initiated by the host computer calling the site's number.
The AWT site computer stores the completed gauge. The host computer contacts each site in some
sequence. Contact is made with a site when the site recognizes the number being broadcast. The gauge
data is transmitted to the host computer where it is stored in the main data base. This process can be
continuous; that is, the host computer continually and sequentially communicates with the AWT site
computer.
The communication between the site and host computers is facilitated with radio wave, microwave, or
telephone lines.
Data Storage and Processing

56
Figure 9-75 shows the many steamflood-monitoring data types that require collection and subsequent
storage at a given frequency. Collected data also require processing so that they can be presented in a
format that simplifies interpretation. Hence, computer systems are employed to manage effectively the
storage and processing of monitoring data.
Oil/water production and steam injection rates are considered essential data because they are required
to operate the steamflood on a daily basis. These data are stored on mainframe or on microcomputer
systems. In most steamflood operations, the transfer of production data is accomplished by automatic
means, such as the transfer system previously described. This system also transfers and stores other types
of data. These data types include:
1. Steam injection pressures

2. Casing pressures
3. Flowline temperatures
4. Casing effluent rates.
Routine processing, report writing, and data plotting are performed by a database management system.
Databases are developed for each data type that is required to evaluate and understand the steamflood
process. It is useful to divide the monitoring databases into two categories:
1. Data collected vs depth (e.g., temperature profiles)
2. Data collected at surface vs time (e.g., casing effluent rates).
Monitoring databases, designed for data vs depth applications, are similar to those used for managing
digitized open-hole logs. The typical depth-recorded surveys for steamfloods are:
1. Temperature surveys
2. Pressure surveys
3. Neutron logs.
Consider the following when designing the database for the depth-recorded surveys:
1. Digitized temperature and pressure data, provided by the contractor on a floppy disk, can be
directly loaded onto the database via a PC terminal.
2. Geologic markers, well completions, and other well information are also maintained on the
database.
3. Plotting routines should be available so that all data types can be plotted vs depth.
4. Routines should be available to automatically process and report average temperatures per
interval.
Computer support groups can generate useful contour maps of operating data to evaluate a
steamflood's performance. An example of this is shown in Figure 9-76, which gives contours of oil and
water production rates, well flowline temperature, and casing backpressure for a steamflood project area.
A visual inspection of these types of plots can quickly identify a close relationship between fluid
production and temperature trends.
When dealing with large amounts of monitoring data, specialized manipulation of the data can be
cumbersome. In most cases, personal computer and workstation software are more adept and useful for
special evaluations. These database manipulators, such as OGCI's Production Analyst (PA) and Eclipse's
Oracle Database Management, have many useful features. Large volumes of data can be stored and
manipulated, including:
1. Production/ injection histories

2. Log traces
3. Well completions
57
• 4. Other depth- or time-varying data.
The data can be processed and displayed on map, cross section, or 3-D cubes.
OGCI's PA software was specifically designed as a data manager for oil recovery projects. This
software can store, manipulate, and report data. The most significant data storage and processing features
of PA are:
1. Production plots can be generated by well group of wells, or project.
2. Contour, bubble, and grid maps can be generated for a specified area.
3. Log data can be stored and cross-sections can be developed.
4. Completion data and diagrams can be created and stored.
Figure 9-76 ♦ Production, Flowline, Temperature, and Casing Pressure Distributions in a Steamflood
Project
. *- . 1 . . • . ♦ • •
! +I • ^ i f • ♦ f • #
100^\^^ î A
4150 , ,. ^ • . , . , . .
`~-72Da
, . . . ^ • -40 ^ + 600*
^
• , * ^ . .
/D/Well
Oil Production. B Water Production, B/D/Well
• ^ . ^ •
^ * + a •
• r • • a
^7' 200 Jd
so ,d 20 ^ d
• • • /• •
•^ w • • ^ •
.A( lid d 10 ^
} • + • ,
• • • ! • ^ A ♦ •
Flowline Temperature, °F Casing Backpressure, Psig
• Production Well
. ^ Injection Well
58
Figure 9-77 is a PA production plot for a well in Field A, California. Contour maps like the one shown
in Figure 9-76 can also be generated using PA. Other types of plots that can be generated by PA include:
1. Cumulative oil/water production bubble maps
2. Geologic maps
3. Log traces and correlations.
•
59
i 2. Subsurface Data Requirements
60
• • •
Subsurface Data Requirements
Y^hîct_v_olv.ed ir^TaEcino.
DATA When (f=requency} Data? Who analyzes data?, , What is it used for?
Identify seating/conductive faults, Injector/producer

Seawater communication, Produced water • aquifer or injected
Sampling Monthly Pad Operator Lab, APEs water, timing of breakthrough
Pattern ranking to determine Ml injection targets,
Identify seal inglconductiva faults, Indication of EOR
MI Sampling Quarterly/ Monthly PCCil.ah Lab Reservoir En oil, Injettof/producer communication
Cleatly identify which injector is supporting a
producer, identify sealing/conductive faults,
Tracers Monthly Pad Op erator Lab, Reservoir Engs, APEs Qualitative assessment of reservoir eropertieg
As Required for
Reservoir surveinance, AccCSs reservoir performance, Fluid saturations in
developments, & Reservoir Engs, APEs, near well•bore region, Reduce risk on future
Lo s wellwork NSPEs Petro h sics Geologists developments, Identify wel[work
Pressures: Access reservoir pertormance, Identify
PRus, Stalics, sealinglconductive faults, Reduce risK on future
Fluid Levels Generally Opportunistic htSAEs Reservoir En s, APEs developments. Identify weilwork
Monthly Welltests, Reporting, injection targets (WE managemeni), Input
Production Random Zero Rate AP Es, I;eservoir Eng, tvSRE, to simulation models, Determine recovera0le
Dala • Testing FOG OE, GL PE rernainin oil, Identify wellwork
SCA0A Reporting, Optimize production througb facilities, GL
Automatic APEs, Reservoir Eng, NSRE, Clptimizelion, Reservoir Performance, Allocate
Readings .Continually PCC - Verify Accuracy OE, ^L PE Production
Calibrate Micro-motion meter, Coniirm WCs from test
separalor, Determine whether a well is economical to
q
APPENDIX F
TOOLS
1. GRACE Tool (Midland, MEPUS)
Objective:
The GRACE program generates an optimal correlation between a dependent variable (say, y) and multiple
independent variables (say, x , x2, x3 ...up to x30). This is accomplished through non-parametric
transformations of the dependent and independent variables. Non-parametric implies that no functional
form is assumed between the dependent and independent variables and the transformations are derived
solely based on the data set. The final correlation is given by plotting the transformed dependent variable
against the sum of the transformed independent variables. The correlation thus obtained can be shown to
be optimal (Breiman and Friedman, 1985; Xue et al, 1996).
Installation:
You need Win'95. Unzip the GRACE.ZIP file by clicking it. The following files will be created:
GRACE.EXE (this is the program) perm.dat and pvt.dat (these are sample data files) and
• PERSONAL.XLS (how to use this file will be discussed later.) You may wish to put this stuff into a
separate folder.
Steps in running GRACE:
(1.) Create a data file arranging your data in columns. The first line should contain the names of the
columns. If possible, use simple names for columns without spaces and other fancy characters inside
(underscore is allowed.) Use space and/or tabulator to separate columns. Sample data files are
included. Any data line can be temporarily left out from calculations by putting an asterisk at the
beginning.
(2.) Start GRACE. Input your data using the input menu. You can either select the variable itself or for
positive data, you can select the natural logarithm of the variable.
(3.) Execute calculations using the RUN menu item.
(4.) The program generates and plots optimal transformations for the dependent and independent
variables. (Several options are available for these transformations. The default option for the
dependent variable is 'monotonic' transformation and for the independent variables is simply
'orderable' transformation. You can select the appropriate transformations using the option menu and
^ repeating the RUN command. The monotonic transformation is more restrictive but is necessary if
you are interested in back transformations.)
62
• (5.) The program generates a plot of transformed dependent variable and sum of transformed independent
variables. This is the optimal correlation.
(6.) The program generates a plot of observed vs. predicted values of the dependent variable based on the
correlation developed. Mean absolute deviation and standard errors are computed. (If youselected the In of a variable
(7.) Finally, the GRACE program generates an EXCEL file that summarizes the results for use in
generating functional forms as discussed below.
Deriving functional forms:
The non-parametric approach adopted by GRACE program generates a transformed value corresponding
to each data point for the dependent and independent variables. However, it does not give you a functional
form for these transformations. In order to generate a functional form for the final correlation, you must fit
these transformations using appropriate functions. In our experience, simple polynomials are generally
good enough to fit these transformations. This is accomplished using the EXCEL macro that is provided in
the disk.
To open EXCEL ( ver. 7) it is enough to click on the Gracetr.xls file created by the last run of the Grace
program. (It is in the same folder where your data file was.)
. If your EXCEL macro file is properly installed, you should see a GRACE command in the TOOLS menu
as the last item. Clicking the GRACE command will start the macro. The macro will generate the plots and
polynomial fits to the transformations. The default order of the polynomials is 2. You may change this by
putting the appropriate orders (1,2, ..6) into subsequent empty cells (starting with cell Cl) on the first line
of the spreadsheet and rerunning the macro. If you like what you see, save it under a unique name as an
EXCEL (.xls) file.
Installation of the EXCEL macro:
If you have never worked with macros, you may put the PERSONAL.XLS file into the EXCEL startup
folder (most likely called MSOffice\EXCEL^XLS TART\). The procedure is more complicated if you have
already a PERSONAL.XLS file in that folder, but then you should know what to do!) You need EXCEL
ver. 7.0 or higher.
Sample runs:
1) Run the perm.dat data set. Select permeability as dependent and porosity as independent
variable. You may experiment with selecting the logarithm as well. (Note that some questionable
observations are commented out in the data file.)
•
63
2) Run the PVT data set. Select _In_Rsb ( the In of the solution gas ratio at the bubble
• point) as the dependent variable. Select API, Gas_gravity, Temperature and the _ln_pb
(the In of the bubble point pressure as independent variables.)
Feedback:
Let us know how you like it by sending email to the following address:
Datta-Gupta@spindletop.tamu.edu
References:
Breiman, L. and Friedman, J. H., Estimating Optimal Transformations for Multiple Regression
and Correlation, Journal of the American Statistical Association (September, 1985) 580.
Xue, G., Datta-Gupta. A., Valco, P. and Blasingame, T. A., Optimal Transformations for
Multiple Regression: Application to Permeability Estimation from Well Logs, SPE/DOE 35412,
presented at the Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 21, 1996.
FItted Stdev = 0.7442
8
^n pb 7Y 2..t2^58-07^ • 7,8877Eappx• t,7997E•(70
API-Tr= 4.6927E-04x2 . 7-7.78EE-02x - 7.3962E.p0
•
Cie6_Otev_Trc S.S2076+flOx2 ti 12$29Er01x.4.3747Erl;0 • ^: +
T_degF_Tt= 7-4327E-0W - 9.6725E-039 ♦ 1.236SE,00 •♦ • ^•
7 ♦ • + +♦
♦ ^ ^
• o g
♦
•
♦ ♦♦
♦
+
♦
••♦♦ • •♦
+ ♦
♦ ♦ ^
SurnYt=JRptLII.APL'ft. Ciag_grav_Tr.7_degF 7r
•
5
- -^ ^ 25067E- Sum72.8.7228E-07 $ umTr+&4230E.pp
d L
4 5 6 7 8
_InJisb_Meaa
9
2. Chevron Decline Analysis (Midland, MEPUS)
•
65
• • •
'attern Analysis Best Practice

'xarnple : Chevron D iagnostics ^
cline Analysis
FROM CHEVRON PAPER 1966 SPE 35363
DIAGNOSING C02 FLOOD
Phase 1: Total
PERFORMANCE USING ACTUAL 30UU0O
PERFORMANCE DATA
Del e Range for Be fn t-0 6J
Match In Da a Endin 911f93
25DOOo
Date C02 injection Started 1011193 14floo
Define Qoi, Qti Di 0 Date: 9J1l93
Formation Volume Bo 1.24
^ Factors Bw 1-0O
^ 200000
Decline Technique uYperboilc z
lo00
Variables 0 t=0 Best Fit <= Constraints =>
Est. DI = 0.Q021 0,2618 0.00 0.40
15000U
4oi = 13594 13594
Oki = 2.00663 190630 190630 210696
n R.SQOU 0-14 0.80 to0
Input Variables for QFM at 9/1/93 51/0 100000
Omi101l
Variarwe >
100%
DI 0.2032
1D
Sum al Least 50000
Doi 914984
9813.86 uates
Peroent of
100/0
all - 190630 Tests Used.
b 0.6000 A . Fit = 60 bo d off
0
Cum. TerYlaryOil Prod., MB0 15758.6 - _.......----...-._.WOR -Catcalated Oil -PrOCCSSing Rate
spPO """AcWaIWOR -Caico4,i®d
A.06°k
i LJ a
attern Analysis Best Practice Example:

hevron Diagnostic Plots
Figure 1 ÂctuaE, Base Economic, and Base Technical Oil Production
C02kr1ecblonAPRtt 1994 PATTERSVC C552W
Match Parameters
,® - qti: 3521
Qai: 149
Di-. 16.37
I- nio
w •
+J ey
f ^
!'f \j
! ty
1m-
I ryi
sa-
Cumulative Oil Since VVtr Injection ( bbl)

-,^-- Oil Pate lmm- Prior to C02 fnj.
0;1 Rafe (C,al D4,y) Cbb^'^# }
tp -
M E3 ' w ' M , ^1 ' 9^ ' S^ 4 ^^ ' 1 1 0 4 1
• . a
Wag Management Best Practice

Example: Target Rate / Wag Ratio
Salt Creek Field Unit ;Chav.a crease Decrease ÎZes[easeÂy,sl.easej rytÛaal
Target Rates ^FR^2{^NV^:':^ increase Inrreasa Irtcrease ! li3r-rease Wet Wap
;Last Uoda led i324^9g ^r, :, °^ r: l3a ô r^ t far. ` SQrt a
Grou^
CO2 Water Target

Battery C02 1 1121) Target Comments
Pattern Type Phase Wag Group Target Wag
Schedul e Schedule Rate Rate Ratio
B052W AWAG
.. F...... .... a _.._... AWOI
i . ...._ _._.._.._......... .... .._ ^ .... ._..,. ? . ' 3570 4200 7U0 _
E037AW E _.. .ii . AVsIAG 11 -- ^.. AV1I01 3 5 - 4930 I 5809 1.E7 . ' ... .. ..... . . .. ..
C^ ^.
0C ,. H061
_ . __ . _AW
_ .... .. . AWAG . - - - . .._.AW01
.... 3-.. .. ..
2.._.. ... 6 ?395 ^ _._ 3 00.. .
--^-- - .... .. .. ..:.. .^ ..... . ...... .
E3 1 5W E AWAG ^^ ` - 1 AWtli ; 2 a 6 5525 65DD 3.D0
- k ~ !N pressure ^ 7100 psi Indicding
®47W i E AWAG 1 AW02 1 5 4250 5000 5.00 k^ Is going beyond pattem
unctanes
--- - ........._... . 1 ..._...._.._.;..._...

C565W
B053W I
a
,i--_ ..............I F
F
. . . . ......
AWAG
-
AVtÂG
..: :.......... ..^.._.
. --- . ?-. ........_..._...._._.
1
1
+
s
AW02
AWD2 ^
2
1
. _. _.. . .. _.
--- - - . . _. i.. ..._..-...-._ .
._-_..__ . . a _.... ...._.._._.. ..._r-._._......_.........
4
i 5
i d965
4250
:._...
9Q0
5000
-
2.00
5.00
_._ ._. i _.._....---.. _ . .. .. .
. .. .. .
... `
..
Iry pressure = 7500 psi indicatlng
E31OW B AWAG 1 AW02 2 4 6000 7000 1.98 IN is going beyond pattern
boundaries.
®36W E . f . AWAG .. . ... 1 AM3 2 ! 6 3570 4200 3.00
.
C069W ,. C '• AWAC AV03 2 4335 51QR 3.00
HO63PtUV _..._..^C ......................
AWAG I..... AWM . 1 , 7 3400
.. . .. 4000 7.00
FO?2W AWAG AW113 7 5270 200 .00
8055W' ..__._F ._ ._...- AWAG
..--•--._..__..._ -- - 1 .... ..
... AVW3 _ ._. _7.. ... 2850 3400 7.00
VVW'ng Wag seemed to help f-417
8051 W F AWAG 1 AM ; 1 7 2041) 24UO 7 . 00
breaEAhrough problems
0 a a
Conformance Best Practice Example:

Zonal Allocation of Injection
ISM HCPV °lo TTL PATRN CUM H20 ISM CUM C02 ISM
MRBBL HCP'+! % HCPV % HCPV
6201
CIsCO
f .3. yr 1
CS
6301 ^ - ----j-----
C3
ff
r28
:
6401 ---- '---- -----^-----
^ - ----;-----
T"i ^
v C2A
.... :
^
v CJ B
6501 i ---_ --•-r--.. _--_-•- _-_-r_....,._

r
C1A
6609 :• ,...-.._....^
;^.•âx ^ `' ^, STRA
Fl^^`l^ s{ \
STP,B
STRC
R7f19
0 500 1000 1500 0 8 16 24 0 200 400 600 0 30 60 9a

i • •
FM - Gr id Mapping
Production Car+tours
DA7<;A 987112
It wt o-<. em7tbhla ^
! Om> • a.i
• a.+n • e+:,
• 11.2 i> rX,s
0c-M> +a.a
ron. zxca
Cs 252.0-- AR* a.
29<1.>< Dd3,
z5u><7rssS
re5i5> ^ 14111e
^ !6526 5!t Jo
îl • ^`J
obilShare Used for Best

Practices Implementation
2
SpreadstieetAvallahle forCslculaiin4 Donfarmance Faclors 4 28 Atay 9998 tp Phillips
Clarificafion for iCPI fUr Conformance Measures O 13 May 1996 PhiUiAs
Pattern Analysis
nfa
Chevron piagnaslics Spreadsheet 0 3,1=1998 Phillips
Chevron Diagnostics SPNadll3hevt O 3Jun 1908 Phillips
Drilting - 1999 Sceping Figures 0 3,1=1998 Phillips
'MvbiY' Diagnostics Spreadsheet 0 30Apr1898 J- Phillips
Performance Prediudows
^ n/a
Y Effect of Of] 5aturation on 002 U1111xa6oa
C02 Ulilitaliari (Lou F Marczynsld-18 May 1998)
WAG Process
^ ► n!a
New topic AV 3JUn 79ss Phillips Aclfon Required
C02 Fiaod Strjitqgy- Slaughter Field •!!] 2914ay1998 cA Deer Response Requested
WAG Slug 1Yaclaing Spr2adsheel 0 29 Rpr 9 998 Marczynskl FYI
• • i
xplanation of Best Practices with

Link to Actual Best Practice Tool(s)
^'Mnbil" Diagnostics Spreadsheet, JSP, 43098
sub ât The Chevron Pattern Diagnostics have been recommended by the Best Practices Team
as an Industry Best Practice. In order to utilize these diagnostics, you must first determine the
tertiary oil "twedge'j for a given pattern or area. SPE 36695 discusses a new decline analysis
technique that will more accurately predict base waterflood response. TerryAnthcnyhas
developed a spreadsheet whicli uses the Solver in Excel to minimize the sum of least squares
between the actual and predicted oil rates for a given history match period. The solver modifies
Qti (Initial Total Processing Rate, rbpd)? Di (Initial Decline Rate), and b; (Hyperbolic Exponent) in
order to forecast water-oil-ratio. The predicted base waterflo od forecast is then generated from the
forecasted water-oil-ratio and the total processing rate. Steve Pl-îllip$ has modified the spreadsheet
to streamline the process and to read data fron2 OFM. Before using the spreadsheet you will need
to create areport format in QFM. An example of the Salt Creek report, i°chevron.rpt" is available
in the Salt Creek OFM Database. You may access the database by clicking on the following path:
Wid- do 1\d atcÂP P DATA^QFI^^^^ QnSALTQRK. OFM
once you have created the report format, simply load an individual well, a pattern, or an area of
the field yo u are interested in evaluating. Then simply click on i` Edif', "Copy" iiihile you are
reviewing the rep ort and launch the spreaclsheet: \1IUIID -DOI}.Data\ShareÊQ Mi spcllevron.xls
Then., click on the macro-button "Import Data from 0 FM" to begin the analysis. I have atternpted
to put ahote in many of the input cells to explain their imp ortance.
0 a a
9est P ractice Classification

UI : Good Id e a
Ûnproven or not yet substantiated by data, but makes sense intuitively and
could have a positive impact on the business performance. Requires
further review and analysis.
♦ GP :Good Practice
#Techniquey methodology, procedure, or process that has been
implemented and has improved business results for the team. This is
substantiated by data collected by the team, but with little arnount of
comparative data from other teams or organizations.
^► LBP : Local Best Practice

♦ A good practice that has been determined to be the best approach for
teams in the business unit based on analysis of performance data within or
outside the organization.
* IBP : Industry Best Practice

^ A practice that has been determined to be the best approach for all teams
based on both internal and external benchmarking and the analysis of
performance data. .
0 • a
Best Practices Identified

Parrnian flil:
_ .. , 5ori:..... ,..By Spansor ......
and-ca..
.leôry . ..... . .r. .
, Best pracHces
. . . . . Recommendations Slrrerds6eel:
......... ..... ......_....... .. , . .. . . . . .....---_. .... . - ... . r.r
EOR SuNeilIdnCf
No. ITesui Kion Praciice S p onsor Source Cate o Irn act Difficul
18 Midland Sits Trainin g for C02 redictior, methods GP Catvin Cslvin C02 Prediction 2 3
16 C42 Pro he1 Model performance prediclicros I BP Catvin Anthon y C02 Prediction 2 2
15 C02 Analo g p read sheet mudat; Ott LAN Directo ry GP Calvin Calvin 002 Prediction 3 4
17 LAN Location for all PO TERAS CCfl flood forecasts and assum p tions l.sP Cat41it MaTkle y Data hlana omont 3 3
3 3-D DistributiCn of De p ositional Environments ( Lithofacias I BP Harman Harrnan,BEG MEP'EEC Ras. Char. 1 2
1 3-0 Resenrair model in Stratarnodel isualization I BP Harman 6EG,Southwell Res. Char. 1 1
6 3•0 hydraulic Flow Uni1 Model based on fluid! erformance data IBP Harman BEG Res- Char. 1 1
2 Chronoslrati ra hic Fran-êra•nrks for Reserooir Architecture IBP Harman Harrnan H^G,MEPTEC Res. Char. 2 2
6 3•0 Parmeabilil Modal non aramelric slalistics LBP Harman Sharma Res. Char. .Z 1
4 Addifive.Rtlutti licative rid-to- «d Geoto ic Ma in IBP Harman Harman Pas. Char. 3 4
B Volumetric Sensitevil Runs GI Harman Harman Res. Char. 3 4
7 3•D Saturation Model based on etro p h y sic airtluid analysis J-curves GP Harman BEG Res. Char. 3 2
J 23 PO,r,ccass Database for p attern notes. o. ortundies, recs and M's L BP Horne Fussell Da1a Mana ornant 2 2
4^- 22 Chavron Paltert't Diagnoslics in OFM UP Horne Hinds/Calvin /Anthony 1 3
19 SCF S raailsheet for for p attern ri¢ritization and surveillance L8P Horne Fussell Pattern F,nal sis 2 3
34 5Jau hler "Pair-Ana1 sis rasiq OFM GP Horne Deer Paltem Anal y sis 2 2
12 Stauqruar "Cluster Meetings or producer well reviavrs LOP Home Deer Paltem Anal sis 3 3
20 SCF Pattem Anal y sis data reuest form LBP Home Horne Paitam .r',nal sis 4 4
^ 24 Unit-wide WAG ratio and half-c ete slu g size a pp roach at Postle.lSlaa hter IBP Home OeerlHinds W,r.f_+ Procass 2 3
35 Yearly to monlhly production schedulin g for "Permian Oil Production Plan- GP Marczynski Owens CCr2 Prediction 4 4
14 Patlern p erformance p redictions in OFM (B ase WF and C02 L OP Marcz nski Hinds Dala Mana ement 1 2
36 Linear Pr G rarnrTlin Model to allocate C02 in'¢clion b y attarn to ntaXim729 CF GI tvtarcz nski Marcz mski Patio mAnal sis 1 1
9 Sim. model sensitivit y runs and economicsfor slu g sizet WAG ratio schemes IBP tylarcryneki Mancz nski WAG Process 1 t
13 WAG Meetin gs with FRSs LHP Marcr nski Marcz mski WAG Process 2 4
it SCF S reacishaaifurLVAG chan g es and tar et iri eelion roles LOP tvtarcz nski Phillip s WAG Process 2 3
10 Slau htar g ra p hical a roach Io halFcyole slug size evaluation GP M2rcryuski Veer 'NAG Process 3 3
33 Use Strearrdine ro ramtor.alculateOFMd y namic atternallocation fa ctor s LHP Phillips CaNin Conformance 1 2
32 Profile injection aficianc y nankin u:inq'Larenz Coefficient a pp roach" L8P Phirli s Shaw Conformance 1 1
27 Vandar re• rofila re aralion roC9dures and data L f3P Philli p s Philli p s Conformance 2
31 OFM - Aflocate" Is track C02 inlection b y zone and dis p la y as % HCPV I_ 8P Phillip s Philti s Conformance 2 3
24 Forurn on injection p rofile inter retalion Gt Philli p s Jones Conformance 3 4
29 Modify "Kumar" p rocedure lo a field•s pecitie tat L BP Philli p s Phillip s Conformance 3 4
26 Document field-specific irf rrofile schadnlin fra uenc . - usliFtalion & riorilization G P Philli p s Phillip s Conf3rmanee 3 3
2 Theoretical and Weal injection p tofle deGnllions BP Phillips Phillips Conformance 4 4
3Injection rofite header data in PO F,ccess D8 L BP Phillips Philli p s Data Mana emenl 2 3
H Inieclion rofire data stora e and filirn L 6P Phlti s Phillip s Crate Mana amenl 2 2
0 • a
latrix of D ifficultv. . vs. Impact

mâct•
• Very
.___ H.--^- h High
•--- ._..........._.,....._.......
i ... .. . .. . ... . ...: . .. .. .
!.....-.,. !9.... I. ....._....... ---._.._ _....----..-..._.... .; . i....
Medium.,_....... ..
! 4 - Low !
...._.....--------^-----------^
^.....:_..._....--^- --- ---- •------- --------....-----,-------._...-- ---
i Diff^ûl ^' . -axis --- -...-- -------- ! -- -----'
_.........._. têmn . ,. ... ..............i
!. 2..............-----
-
... . Sornev^hat dift«ult .^
----- -._.i.... j
--
^3 ------- -----•-----^
! 4 - Quick and easy .,... ^ ..--•--..-._.....
-^------._!._._....---- ......,..,.. ... } ......... _.._..-->
.^ ... ... . . - --- - .. ....... _.........;
_ . ............ ...•S•-•• --••-•---- -i
r,
,t r 1t^`^-j z h'
^^^l.cSNt''k+ y^.r^ }♦n ^^''^^ Er^r?.tsffsf^¢i t ^r ; ^
^^^ r̀Yf^^c^^
Y^^ry^t
i ^/ .-...... .... _-..^
f 1 <^ }( ,y / / Y 1
^•^^,G^f^^:klie-:^
, ..171i5^rt^r ^^'1c^^C1"^
...._. .. .. F ^
I^.. f ` ^_-j r } '7- ^ i7,r F-S•^ ^.'^ ^r ). +-^ ti
tr t { ^ r. j^. ^ iY ` ... . ^ ^
+^ llt r :^^ < it ^ ^ k{• ;r ^^^ „ ,r k ^ ry ^" i'^.
.. . . U
^`^'` 4;^^#,^"Sif^+.^ yr^•s7^PikFT'^^''. r`^.i^,j'^C],^
3 ^l i^^ f E}^Ê y^„
.. 3 0
NF:f ^ . t:;3 .>
.............. . .^
F/+.y.^ ^ ..^ ^ f
K £^hr F ^wkk. 4
^^j,♦ J^^4 <^ r^^s i^f^ 3f ^}•..
,1j;' ^^t 7^ f^' /!'^.^^°-' .r J [L`:. , i^
• . . . .... . ....i
1 . .. .-.-__.. . . ___- .._ . . . -__.__ - . _ _ _-. .-....-._1 _ _..._ . __!_.... ^, ._.
Imâct on Business Unit ..__..- , .. ..._.^ ._ . _.._.. -..^.,' )

• • .
Pattern: WM•547 Month; 0 ecemU er
VOWR1 ► t
INrrr: v.l.l-7]01) vWFNrre: w.'fÎC WNINOMS: 1N.2<8E 00 d, / bill.
rnstlNar. ^30 ]9 GrotlfNot• 25a 10} 0raas7N ►_122 î Cyclic Steam 0 bWs
AIIPC,CItFtINN; 0 0 /V10C.Grott7Nic AIqe,GfO1lNu1: 0 0 Contim7ovs Simon I7,518 bblt
00P0lf7: 0.70 BOPDIFT: 1.03 0OPD7FT: OJI 7otarFlVio I6,101 ba6
Cyc6cvoLmolOSR: 0 Cytllcvownw705A 0 CytFCVONmo70SR. 0
LITIVRt: 9 to lITfVR7; 7 t0 llTlvAT: 1 10 14^
VRAa:. IVRP. 11 12 VRRale1VRP: 11 12 VRRalalvAP: 11 12 ClIm111r11iYe rlfYlîme>
Caosa lNelPn}: f00 0 Oral, lNuLPay. vf0 D CiroSflNU1P ►7; 100 ^ oil 97.719 651s
ImesiCarpPay: 1R£FI 10 Zanc]ICUa7Ppay, aR4Fl 70 Zonal /C9mPPay! YRffl 70 Cyclic Swann 181.?28 b41s
f.cbr! lo1.s; facIOr f lou: Facbr / Lws: Cont'nuous Steam 1, 126.327 bWs
^
Total Fluid 324.018 Utao
Patteln 7brgeta z
Oil Rat6 O
N,+mc W.216D wtll: WN•547 VvullNamo: W.257O Conlinuol'S SlESrri 183 h•^
f1/Her, 38 25 MJRa4: 324 CrDttlNq% 115 47 Cyclic Sqcarn
Alo l, _ 0 0 IryR ► ts: 177 Apx,Gross+Nd: 0 0 Pattern Flor
SCFID ; FT' 4D.25 O,,alar. 57 170PD1 sT, 017
yrivVhrne/OSR: 0 Tarptl: 483 CycleVaAmolOSR O
LYIVRS: 9 10 TarpOt % 644L LLyfVRT: 9 10 Rntios
0 RyelVAP; tl 12 ;anotQPMr N1f.G VRRole fVW'. 11 12 LO5fi 0.1Y
Grms7NqPay: ]00 9 GrotsfNelPay, 100 G COSR 0.07 _
7AnnlCOrnPPay. aRFce 10 2WInlCP.nPPSy. rN£FI 10 WTI 0.55 Q..
Fauor r left' Faaprl IGCF: VRSOR
C71
Hatt
mmbtu
cum inmDtu
..i
g.PV IryCCtcd
NaInF: 5H4.25513 Vv^n Namo: W1.255 well Nane. 'rM2C7O

roaslWC 01 96 GroKlNe^ ____ 0 0 Cw6s7Ntt: 7]5 57
kc Cra11 I MfC 0 0 AlPa Groti! Ntt' 0 0 AOat Gbss I Not 0 0 ROIP:
SOPOIFT: 03ti tf09D7FT: 0.00 90PDIFT: 0.s1 Pv_
CycL[VUMNIOSk: 0 Ly'*CVo141u10SR: 0- CyAicVakrm ► IOSR; O 1.1OPV:
LLYIVRT: 0 10 lli7VRF; 0 10 117/VRT: 9 10 XROCOVery:
vRRalolVRP. It T! VRRNelVRP; ]1 72 VA RaqlVRP: 17 Aacovky Aim, •
Gross7N11Pa7; 1M 9 amt, lNSlPAY: 160 0 GwsilNeiP►y: s00 y Pslterri Flv::
Z4INtfC011PPay! lR6F1 10 Zp1917COmPPay: tREFI f0 ZOt1pt7CMIPP4y: ►r^l:Fl 10 6ress Foat:
FvcWrtlcff: , FEtWr/tetf. ---- Feturlfnri' Total Not Fcnt:
II
Comp Nct Fact:
Paltern Comments: - ACrOD:'
So;
S wlr
SoitF:
JVlrw^
• • •
• 0 •
C, t;,tc:rV;l Slt t I r'i t;
Nome
^_ .
Garr,
EiaornOnrl,r,6
sneeE
G4^.TG
Eccsnamic:5
v St€rnsstaty
00
F^.ore Limit jv,;Pr`l

.,.
,
- > > .< ,- .^ ^.. ,. . , ..;^-,_, _ , - . . . ^., .^s _ • . - . _ _ _ -
PERTINENT DATA FOR G216
8/8ths Workover Cost $46,000
• Gross WI Workover Cost $34,861
Starting Oil Price $9.57
Starting Gas Price $0.00
Starting NGL Price $0.00
Rig Days 6
MOBIL OIL SHARE ECONOMIC INDICATORS

P / I Undiscounted 7.00
P/1 Discounted (0.12) 6.16
NPV (0.12) $214,640
ROR -9904.9%
Payout - Undiscounted ( Months ) 3
Payout - Discounted (Months ) 1
Net WI Incremental Oil Reserves (MBBLS) 73.4
Net WI Incremental Gas Reserves (MMcf) -30.7
Net WI Incremental NGL Reserves (MBBLS) -1.6
Risked Data for Well G216
•
79
««««f%«88E°«v9
âo .
^ .A R ^»^^»m»^
« «««»n«»= ^»»»«___
««» ««««»«« »A»^S« S««y«
" ^ A&3AA3&AAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAAS&AAAAAASiSSASASAAAAAAAAA
w ^ SASSSSSSSSSS»ASSRRSSSS S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSAA«AA3S
z
'^ 5 ;°^êh "ln ê$".no6

we ar.:^..o
Di ^ «««A A x^t ^ ^ ^1^ ^h » ^««:,:,« H h » « « «H«»:,"^»« ^2^»^^ A«»»»»
P 8 8888 S 8 888 888 888 888 888 8 8 8 8 8 8 888888888888888888888888888888888.$888888.88888888fi888.8888888888.$$8.$8$

NAs 26. 9 $^$A3$$$^ ^ S 5 A Q^^R^^RQS3$S$A^^^$A9, ASSISS^S^StA8^fiÂSA^851^SS$S$52$S8$$&AaS95 t ^R$^& SSAAA S A
; SR888S8888 888888$88888888888888R.8888$8.8S8R8S8888S88S8888888888.8888.888.88888888888888$8$8.8888$88$8
a 9 5i zi 9$2SS:;Y$SSS«4SS2S a 3 ARSSSdSSa 2 3A2 9 5i 9a9 $$$u 9£i2 L^ AAsi ASx:iS$$a 2 2 5:2 61$5:$&SISASSBA&S51 A $ $B 2 SSu SS &
a«`2Ze«^ m'«m °' m$o 08« n.N. r.8.$ni97:9n^^n8^.^°k^^ m$$&4sdo88l4d_ CRCry°.^^«Sel.°,r^tn$8$$k",^r°.;q<a$$&&5N'88N

^ 3 »"«"«R^»î»».°t9°»'°»
O
«««M.,h « «««« «:,«« :,.; «M««.; »«««»««»»««« « »«h«^«««»«n««««««»w«««w« »« »«»»».;»«:.«««»«»« 00
. a°an° .> a. °ovaaaa°°a aaaaaaa^°°ooooô a°a '

^ m $
aoa°°o ao oaooaoooeoao
o 0 o e o 0 00000oooooaooooooo°
` ^ 3 s mm'! '1 ♦ NÎ`° A 9 ^'1 '1

YW mR mSs n^ c a"i « 2- .n ^^ a a a a ry^"rynn ^Nry^:vrvNti
$nn,inqp.n . n NN W .
^ ^ r n S'^ elaFri ^,mr,on. ^n^pNmc?^

w M^^^ 'Y
o n
a ^ ^.̀^+î
«^ _
e^^NN ^&o^fi$^ô^m ^3^SmîAA^^1^3::Tâ:38°cq•
o oa o 0 0 0 •.^.
^ m S% ood6oooooodoo6ôooood ecd oaooooaoaoooaoaoaoooTj
w o
00
0^0 °aooooonoaooooa
2 V a d o 0 o a c d o o d o 0 o d o 0 o a o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 'd d d o c^^
EYa-^1e^,rS^Bn n ^^$g«a "a .,

^ m 0 ^' ^`«,i a Sm 3 m ^ ^;° ^ ^Î^+g^^^S^ra^^:7:
ea. ^'d,•^`^,
ary.^:^^^^^:c::s.:c:^R^«axa:4:'^^3;;<,^«aASimBS°^tt^^^°^°^smîRaSSaSSxWsaÂx
0 49 •
^ .id»»^dx^r#ddîaaaaa^ddaddax^^»^:..;»w
« R R« A A A«« R R R as R A« R R as 2 a a S« S A A A A A A«A «« ««««« ««« ««
^ ^ 823 Egg
w
w ^ »^ «pi7^«»»»^,w»..»w»h».. SRRRRSuR»x»: -':, Ae - »» :. Zi
««R9 «A«R:tSt:`sS«AA«A«RAR R R R R R 2 RRRRRRSiRA««R«««««««2
fFA«RRa Rgas ARSZ««RAR«S«R«&«ARRR«R««AR«R««««R&R«RR«
R A A R «$ « 5 « « 222 «R R « « « «A « R « A R A «» «R «««««««««««««««^R
21
^^^SA@^n^^8^'^^^5^^
aRA ix R«wU. dA«A»»h ^^'" ---,-^^^t^^
sFf X FW^
a x ^t^^^»w««w»«ww«„»^ ^^ ti w»»» » ^ 5 ^^« « »» a ^^^^^«»»«^^
60
u'"' ««A«ARRARAA«R«RRRRRR«RAARRAAARRRRRB«Si«Si&«SiRS«««R
u
w. R8««««««R«R«RRRARRR«AA«R«as «bt«RA«AAAA«RA««R«««««
0
Ul$
.Ì
«««&«P,A«RARRAARAARA A A A R «A««AR«xARRRRRRas A««««
q pg ry
V `^ Y ^^^^^^wmww..:n...wwwww.^«wwww«ww.+w:»1dR:i:i£11X:lS4ti:dFS:3.`d`^wyN
y ffi^+ q ^g1 p n n g gQ g
... w^ d ;iS
mng R-MBF`p ^'. ffi 8= $-«WS^1b^^^9-nR
o U LS'$n, ^^2SZ
a
^ ^-
4n
0 0 ^
• • •
^
n r^ r3 Nr> ww^^^w^^m NwN w««w«
^
A t i _n s ^
V NN ^n N_M_wN
_N as
II (n XRKGNNK N w Yv^^ Y
AI N^Y ^$^j SS^^,^^^K . ^. iYSNNwt!
'
r.^
P # KS
ttA Ob- ODÂ NAP^WA Y -j
c^
m FDs^. Or ^ y W KYnNaH^
F GM 9 8'; 4:W^VUIIv^mN^ Nm^ >'DAwsi3^^t
R' -- a
0
c^
Y ti t3 23 a °'nVr,ffit: Geo««N
¢j^! O Y^
t^ ffi^^
N } >^y y`tO, T
Oe 12 r^^ N (m
P u
- E P
YdKNry^XvNNk1"Y^Kkvn, wNw
O ^ w NNN !c 12 N
C w_^Nww
V^ W v V. m-N !
D m m m m m a W ~^ ^V P s m N^^ Ei y ^ ^ m N SS m ^ Y^ V
m m ^ J ^ ^ ^
k Z.
^B
A^SY B
m ^^ ru ^ 9t
Y
ti
D
. • •
oc
w
shut-dawn}j B to E f:erfs sirtce only active injector in the
P kr 'as 5.i6
.^..^n.rFyv
50d (frZ1n i
t^^-#^ s!w JA Ja
Est Oil Benefit
ernairring perfs from 663•Tfa open. 3

E390` with water if Money Perrilits,
Est Oil Senefit
W^..^
ile after pkr lowered Last profile durii able

mire transilioL
0 Open Task
Where RSVR_SRVL ARE4NME ='61' And WELL TASK_DTE >_ #111/99# And WELL_TASK_DTE <_ #3/2/99# And
PROD UNIT CDE ='891' And RSPB PRSN ID ='821269'
Responsible Person
821269 Besly JA Jason
Well Name Task Dat Due Date Oil Benefit Task
BL2161-12 2/8/99 RDR Parted Rods
(AL) No production: well was pulled 1/8/99 for a polish rod change. Operator found well tapping down. Try to respace. FACT
sheet in 2/8/99 for rod part. (John unable to get pumping on 2/9. Pritchard suggested high pressure hot water wash)
BL3011-11 2122/99 QEN Review: Engineering
Monitor for pump off - run dyno if neccessary. If prodcution rate continues to decline reapidly, perform high rate water flush.
BL3062-11 1/29/99 SPH Acidize - increase rate
Acid dump, making sure to pump away with pressure to get below. (May not be pumped off after AD.)
BL3086-11 1/28/99 25 SPH Acidize - increase rate
Expect 100-200 gross increase from acid dump. ( soaked 3 times, never dumped)
BL3112A-2 3/1/99 15 DRT RTP
Submitted FACTS on 3/1/99 for 40g/15n.
BL3134-11 2/19/99 QEN Review: Engineering
Check for plugged casing line. If not plugged and well is pumped off, pressure wash.
BL3137-11 1114199 10 SPH Acidize - increase rate
Have Champion pull sample before acid dump. ( No water concerns).
BL3164-11 1/8/99 20 SSS Steam Soak
Soak 10 MBS with cups below 910'. (wait unlit RTP of 3165A, 3165) Kim says the well needs it really bad!
• BL3165A-11 2/19/99 0 QEN Review: Engineering
Last pull 1/21/99 pump was raised to 1111' because of running sand at 1154'. Reconsider Steam soak with cups? (taken
out of STUD)
BL3184-11 2/19/99 CHP High Casing Pressure
check for plugged casing line. If no plug is found, try pressure wash.
BL3191-11 118/99 1/14199 100 AMU Mechanical Failure Uneconomic to Repair
Coded uneconomic 11/24/98 due to repeated pump failures due to sanding. Acid dump has killed this well & NPO. Did
scab (2' above OWC) breakdown? Yes. Mike P. confirmed. [Unable to pay for liner pull (S20k), so no caliper run.]
Closed casing vent WHP=16 psi. CVR=19 psi. (Looks like vent needs to opened after first test since CCV. )
BL3300A-1 2/17/99 CHP High Casing Pressure
CCV after blow down of CVR line. (Success. Gained 200g. Why did cut drop?)
CCV after blow down of CVR line. (Success. Increased 400g.)
BL3326-2 2/11/99 SPH Acidize - increase rate
acid dump (submit for high pressure hot water wash)
BL3426-1 2122199 QEN Review: Engineering
well is cold, is there a reason not to steam soak? Well is low net, how do offset wells compare?
Access Database - C:WROGRA-11wELLNO-1lWelNotas.mde 3l2199 g16:27 AM Page 1 of 3

Report = 210_Open_Taskjpt
85
^ Responsible Person
BL3455-2 2122/99 PWB Pump Wash Back
Well had big decline (unnatural) end of 1/99. Appears to have inflow problem. Possible Biiumen. (Try pressure wash)
BL3551-2 2/17/99 USD Decrease SPM
CCV after blow down of CVR line. (oil improved 5 bond on 1st test)
BL3664A-2 2/22199 QEN Review: Engineering
Well appears to be goad steam cycle candidate. Based on weil commnets, Perhaps use cups to isolate hot E4 sand?
Check with Kim and Jim.
BL3579A-2 2122/99 QEN Review: Engineering
Make sure that casing is not plugged and that well is pumped off. Decline after soak is very steep.
BL3582A-2 2/22/99 QEN Review: Engineering
Confirm well is pumped off, run dyno If necessary. Consider acid dump- with acid, not water followed by 5000 BSPD.
BL3604-2 2J19/99 QEN Review: Engineering
Check to see if well is pumped off. Have Caldwell complete earlier action items
BL4255-2 2/4/99 NMD Move Packer Down
Isolate top perfs. Do we cmt sqz top perfs? Set packer below 676' perf; but leave 694'. 756', 764', 970' open. [Saves 417
bspd].
BL4255-2 214/99 NRS Injector Run Survey
Request survey from Pat after packer lowered.
BL4283-2 2/5/99 NRS Injector Run Survey
Get injection profile survey after lowering packer and reducing steam target
Lower packer below perf @ 756', leaving only the perfs @ 778', 796', 840'. 939', 970' open. (Saves 400 bspd)
BL4307-2 2118/99 NRS Injector Run Survey
Get injection profile survey after target reduction to ensure most of steam is going into B3. If not, evaluate lowering packer
and/or plugging back the C pers.
BL4327A-2 2/11/99 NRS Injector Run Survey
is get injection profile survey after stimulation
BL4327A-2 2/11/99 20 SPI Acidize - Profile Improvement
Clean out fill and stimulate perfs @ 940' & 952' only. Perfs have never been broken down. Risked 20 BOPD uplift.
BL4330A•2 2/19/99 NDT Injector Decrease Target
Decrease target from 549 to 250 BSPD while waiting on cleanout and stimulation..
BL4330A-2 2/19199 NIT Injector Increase Target
After cleaning out to TD and stimulating bottom 4 perfs, increase target from 250 to 500 BSPD.
BL4330A-2 2/19/99 NRS Injector Run Survey
After cleanout and stimulation and target increase, get injection profile survey.
BL4330A-2 2/19/99 SPI Acidize - Profile Improvement
Cleanout to TD (possible bitumen) and stimulate perfs from 738'-919' (4 1/4" perfs). Perfs have never been broken down.
BL4330A-2 2/19/99 YMN Monitor
Profile survey (1/98) shows injector taking 1/3 of ERP rate. Current pressure of 100 psi is unbelievably low unless there is
split casing. Need to check and confirm choke size, rate, and WHP before lowering target.
BL4379A-2 2119/99 NRS Injector Run Survey
DOGGR may need profile after the job? (Ask pat.)
Moses Database - C:WROGRA-71wELLNO-1iWeilNaes.mde 3f2/99 416:28 AM Page 2 of 3
Report- 210-oWjasX_ribt
86
• Responsible Person
BL4379A-2 2119/99 NMD Move Packer Down
Lower pkr to 620'. Plan on getting steam to 3 B3 perfs (634'.644',660') and hope for some steam to reach 2 C perfs @ 709'
and 732'.
Cleanout to Td. Lower pkr to xxx'

BL4456-2 2/16/99 2123/99 SPH Acidize - increase rate
Request high-priority Ballout. Expect 490 bspd increase to return to 100% target. Drive pressure=890ps1. Prefer
WHP<650psi.
BL5108A-2 2/16/99 SPH Acidize - increase rate
Submit as 4th candidate since 4456-2 down for Diatomite drilling this week. 5004A-1 1 had lower chance of success.
BL5166-11 1/8l99 5i1/99 NRS Injector Run Survey
get profile survey after CTU/cups (jet wash done to save money)
BL5255-2 214/99 NDT Injector Decrease Target
Decrease target to 280 bspd. (previously 386 bspd).
BL5405A-2 2/25/99 NDT Injector Decrease Target
Decrease target to 260 bspd (from 643 bspd)
BL5405A-2 2/25/99 NMD Move Packer Down
Cleanout to TD. Lower pkr to 650' (covers 4 ports @ 592',613',629, and 645'). Remaining perfs from 663-TD open. 3 bigs,
3 smalls. Breakdown 895' and 890' with water if money permits.
BL5405A-2 2/25199 NRS Injector Run Survey
Get profile after pkr lowered. Last profile during questionable rate/pressure transition.
BL58A-2 2/4/99 SPH Acidize - increase rate
Acid dump. OK to produce steam since B-injection reduced today.
BLC3112A-2 311/99 15 DIRT RTP
. Submitted FACTS on 3/1/99 for 40g/15n.
BLC3455-2 2/22/99 PWB Pump Wash Back
Well had big decline ( unnatural) end of 1/99. Appears to have inflow problem. Possible Bitumen. (Try pressure wash)
BLC58A-2 2/4/99 SPH Acidize - increase rate
Acid dump. OK to produce steam since B-injection reduced today.
Count of tasks for Besly JA Jason = 48
Access Database • C:WROGRA-11wELLNO-7tweNhotes.mde 321999:16:26PJd Page 3 oi3

Report = 210_Open_Task_rpt
87
APPENDIX G
OTHER READING
Gunton,e Field: Development and Management of a Multiple- Reservoir

Offshore Waterflood
Amran Nong Chik, SPE, Sainsuddin Selamat, SPE, Mohd Rohani Elias, J. P. White,
SPE, M.T. Wakatake, SPE, Esso Production Malaysia - JPT December 1996
2 Measuring Engineered Oil Recovery

Benjamin F. Sloat, SPE, Tiorco, Inc - JPT January 1991
3 Reservoir Management of the Prudhoe Bay Field

Andrew D. Simon SPE, ARCO Exploration and Production Technology; Eric J.
Petersen, SPE, ARCO Exploration and Production Technology - Presented at SPE
Exhibition at San Antonio 5 - 8 October 1997
4 An Overview of Water flood Surveillance and Monitoring

A. W. Talash, SPE, Mobil E&P Services Inc - JPT December 1988
5 Water flood Surveilliance Techniques - A reservoir Management Approach

G. C. Thakur, SPE, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. - JPT October 1991
6 Measuring the Quality of a Reservoir Management Program

E. D. Holstein, SPE; A. R. Berger, SPE, Exxon Co. U.S.A - JPT January 1997
9
7 Brief.• Reservoir Manazement in the Ninian Field, UK North Sea - A Case
History
Z. S. Omoregie, SPE, West Australian Petroleum Pty. Ltd.; G. R. King, SPE, Cevron
Overseas Petroleum Inc.; Christopher Strang, SPE; Peter Hodgson and R. A. Pressney,
SPE, Chevron U. K. Ltd - JPT December 1996
A Focus Development for Heavy Oil Reservoird: The Last Frontier At The
South Belridize Field
C. S. Chiou, SPE; S. D. Badger, SPE; M.M Carlsen; K.S. Pereira; AERA ENERGY -
Presented at SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage Alaska, 26-28 May 1999
Innovative Reservoir Management - Key to Highly Successful Jay/LEC

Waterflood
E.P. Langston, SPE, Exxon Co. U.S.A.; J..A. Shirer, SPE, Exxon Co. U.S.A.; D.E.
Nelson, SPE, Exxon Co. U.S.A - SPE publication, 1981
10 Data-Gathering System To Optimize Production Operations: A 14-Year

Overview
S.M. Bucaram, SPE and B.J. Yeary, ARCO Oil & Gas Co - JPT April 1987
11 Innovative Engineering Boosts Wasson Denver Unit Reserves

• W. K. Ghauri Shell Oil Co. Houston - Petroleum Engineer, December 1974
88
12 Areal Pattern Distribution Of RemaininQ Oil Saturation in a Mature West
Texas Waterf lood -A Case History
Arun K. Sharma, SPE, Mobil Exploration & Producing, U.S. Inc., Anil Kumar, SPE,
Mobil Exploration & Producing Technical Center - Presented at Midland Texas, 27-29
March 1996
13 An Expert System For Analyzing well Performance

L.A. Hutchins, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., R.K. Burton Ph. D and D.J. MacIntosh Ph.
D., Computing Visions Inc - SPE Meeting at Anchorage Alaska, 22-24 May 1996
14 Recommended Practices For Heat ManajZement Of Steam flood Projects

V.M Ziegler, R.B. Crookston and S.J. Sanford, Chevron USA Production Co., and J.M
Merrell, Chevron Overseas Petroleum Inc - SPE Symposium at Bakersfield 8 - 10
February 1993.
15 A Case Study of a Multi-Disciplinary Asset Management Team, With Special
J.M Wade, SPE Phillip Petroleum Company Norway, and V. 1. Fryer, Phillips Petroleum
Company - SPE Annual Technical conference at San Antonio Texas, 5 - 8 October 1997
16 A systems Approach to Production Management: Beryl Field Case Study

M.C. Arnondin, SPE, Mobil North Sea Limited, and M.A. Jackson, SPE, Petroleum
Experts Limited - SPE conference at Stavanger, Norway 16 - 17 April 1996.
17 Reservoir Management: Principles and Practices

Rafi Al-Hussainy, SPE, Mobil E&P Technical Center, and Niel Humphreys, SPE, Mobil
New Business Development - JPT December 1996
18 Intejzrated Reservoir Management for The Lon,- Term

(synopsis of paper SPE 38284 by E.M. Whitney et - JPT December 1997)
•
89
%1* 40 ' .o
Integrated Production S
Production System Tools & Applications

GAP, PROSPER, MB AL
Development Strategy / Development Planning
[ik 4pY"s Edk t0ttdt Apu• tdidion u1N NbcNt ^wAlA Btsults Rtyoe U nfts CQ ous )nr 1Idp
La Ceiba Network 1 Reverse Gas Lift Case - Dec 1996

Data Validation 00
a n
llr^^l .6 ^
MwwL
Quality control of field data

00 ►•
#A"
^^ FS Fl
Examples ^^ ^ ^Û r.as>t -

. Pd
Uj•..- . litda^l..,^
La Ceiba - Venezuela
Eti,» - Nigeria
fSll
uwna-.^'-'`:
Pd
^râ^
M M .I
uZ) Janar i
Sensitivity plot - on 01/05197 at 16:20:55
- - - - - - - - --- - - - -
, . . , , . . , ,
. . , , , , . .
-- -- -- -- -------- ---- ► --- - - - -
-----
- - - - --- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
- - - - -- - - - --- - - - --- - - - --
'-. r - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - ' t - - - - r - ' _ , ' - - , - - - -
--------------------------------- --------------
------------------- -----------
, , . ^ . , . , .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - -' - - ^ - i ^ - - ' - - - - - - - -
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
Gaslift Gas Injection Rate (MMscl/day)
Fluid: Oil Pressure:450.0 (psig) IPR:Vogel

Flow: Tubing T H temp: Res temp:188.0 (degrees F)
Type: Producer B H temp: Res pres:2546.0 (psig)
Lift: Gas Lift - No Friction dP B H md:6285.0 (feet;
Comp: Cased Hole B H lvd:5725.9 (feet)
Corr: Petroleum Experts 2
M M r
Integrated Production S
(;AP
Gathering System Model

Pr
Dynamically linked to Prosper & MBAL
Combined well, tank and network response

^sn
Optimizes rates and pressures

r,e
Allocates lift gas and power
Production forecasts including pressure maintenance
Uses matched lift curves from Prosper
Linked to decline curves, simulation output or MBAL tank models

(;ener^rl ;,Iluc,rliun I'rur1 r,rrir - I Iral) er;r 11!Jr,.ili rlrI
e d icti o n fluild Allo cate 3
Beryl Alpha GAP Model - Sept. 95

Wells 32
Êeryl.4 Sep
Tanks 0
.^.;^.:•a., ,^;.
SS Header
M24X0V
q6^ Marnfold
.i n^ 4 .. P,r;bPHA4FG TI IA4PH.A6FG TI
S20 Prod
Area 6PH Area 6FG Area 4PH
*542 GLO
!^4cPH J„Xu q44PH
S48GL0 Area 4FG
^',,:•,.^ A02 Prod
A19 Prod
418 Prod A4
V4FG • A22 GLO
'A34 GL0 A49Z G LO • A26: G LO
A35 Prod
A39 GLO
A37 GLO
A45 GL0 'A40 Prod
A46 Prod A44 GLO
A47 GLO A30 GLO A51 Prod
A46 Prod A54 G LO A53 GL0
A55 GL0
A50 GLO A56 Prod
A60 GL0
452 GLO A.62 GLO A61 GLO
459 Prod A63
R^ ; : :. It R'
% Absolute Error
0
C °o °o °o o °o O °
O
°. o 0 0 0 0 o c
O N M !t lt) CD i^
1 010 St's
010 ZtrS
POJd OZS
07) 99b'
0,10 55d
OM tr9d
POJd £9b'
0lJ ZSb'
010 l9d
^ 015 05b'
POJd Z6Vb'
X
^ POJd 8Vt1
t v POJd LVb'
Q L Q W POJd 9Vb'
aa a:
f CO >
V
m
L
o
^
V)cu
°
-
I ^ 010 Sled
POJd "`d
^ ^
POJd Obd
m
2 n
4- , 07J 6£d
n
OlJ L£`d
POJd 9£b'
010 V£d
Poid Z£b'
010 0£t/
010 Z9Zv
010 ZZv
01J 8ly
01J 90t!
o g o 0 0 So 0 °
° ° CD 0 0
°
(ad08) alea I!O
Uplift Rate (BOPD)
c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 0 0 0 0 0 o 0
N
7 O N co tP CD
► CL
O -
n ' 010 8tiS
010 ZvS
co
0 POJd OZS
un _
015 99t1
_
OlJ95b'
ro r
(D OTD tb9d
0
CL
Pad £9b'
010 ZSd
010 1.9b'
010 09b'
Pad Z6Vd
M
Pad 8Vb'
L c
POJd Lbd
a
Pad 9Vb'
0
PA CL
n
010 9t7b'
Pad bt^t/
Pald O'Vb'
Ol J 6£d
070 L£b'
C
Pad 9£`d
U
V1 -
OT D V£t1
C7
^ poJd Z£d
m
LO CL
(D 0 OTD 0£b'
co -
O O OTD Z9Zb'
a -o ^ -
010 ZZd
E u) m i -
a a^ o
0 2 015 8lt/
n OlJ 90d
n
0
°o o °o o° °
o °c
h O O o°
O O O o
co CI) C\j
(OdO8) el% I!O

a(frri^r;ri.^Ff!7{!s^ttît rikânkr!^rtJl(J;k;J,;:7:lIF fi Na+
a kl:St tl IS - til_,M(.(:11:1" I:F.Ix 1R7 I i ►R

ka^ri+iRd!+kda;tr:N0 nr;;+;:IF :^^n, 6!);f V.'! ,:'lIF it if .r:r+ k
System : 8cry1 A1pba GAP INwlt^.! Iu(tc$4

Systcm typc : F'mdttc'[IQri
Optimisation Method : l'rcAU4kicut
Pi p eline p rediction
Gas Available : S 10 30 25 3@ 35 40 45 $0 MMscf/day

Gas injected : 5 lU 14..t5 18.19 22.5 2S.5h 2K_7 32, IJ .14-42 36:3 MMscl7day
Oil produced 41506.8 42213E76 42731.2 43018.9 43151 43238,7 43307:7 43324.3 43328.4 ti'1'B/day
Gas produced : 28t1:23 298..-19 2.0.01 259.48 299.74 300. 17 3(H).6 3UD.UG 3M9{'^ 301,02 MMscf/day
Water produced: ttd.r,r; i 191I 1Q r J i ^ ltt^b '?!^t#Q 2'S041 ) 9 ti"I'R/day
Name. Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas G. Is Gas Gas ()as Ga's
Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injecied
MMu:f/d MMscf/c MMscfh MMscfA MMscf/c MMsu:f/c MMscf/c MMrcfh MMscf!( MM-0:f/d
A06 (;LU
A 18 Prod
A 19 Prod q U 0 A (? n; u` ji
A22 (:1.() 0.5 1.02 J.S1 2.03 2.49 &a ;#,2 i i.il 4.1
A26z GLO Q.s I.2« I It i.49 4.78 5
A30 (:1.( ) #(.$ 0,0 $.9fI 0.94 1.32 1.77 1.&^ 3.Y)7 2.f 2-kf
A34 (:LO 10.S 0,73 ^ e;t O.91 2.3 2."►# ?.îx 147 V 7.84
^
(I
A35 Prod H (t tl ## 0`` b` t^
A37 GLO ^. S H.5 #► .5 N.5 0.5 U.S 41.5 0 +).S
A39 GLO A R A 0 tl $s A Q U
A40 Prod B B N 8 8 (f ' U. 1t d
A44 Prod i1 -, q 0 0 i1- #.
A45 (,L() #:s t►^ @.4 Uc o.5 q ^ `< . . ^.5 q5` ^1., t:^x
A46 Prod q t) 1t 8 0' q. N. U (t
A47 (:1.() its H.5 H.5 H. : 8.5 " B.5 1#.S ` HS +lf 11.K
A48 Prod 0 0 0 tl q U.` H` (t a
A497. Prod 1) tt N H V 0 N' #! ry
ASO (:I.( ) Z.75 5 5 ^ ^ 5
A51 (:LO t► (t, ^ U^ U.S t15 0.3 @.4 0.5 0
A52 Prod it kt A H (f A` kf li
A53 Prod (► #i 8 U 8 U t► q fl
A54 (:I,O (I t► .^ #1.'^ 0.5 $.S 8.^5 0.5 l1.$ 0 0-5{
ASS cLO N 0,5 (t_ ^ 0.5 0.?5 1.79 i
A56 Prod tt #1 0' . N 17 U.: : il' b U
A59 Prod (} U # U U q';: 13 .. A=.
A60 GLt) t) 4 i;15 ;.84 Z.37 Z.fi+) t. .)(w :` 3.75 4
A61 GLO (t 8 q t# ?; U
S20 Prixi U U 0 A o. Q
S42c(o (►.5 1.64
ti4li (:L() a t^ q.5 0.5 (i.5
M r
Optimum GLR Sensitiv ity Plot
q
Rate (b/d)
-0- -Total GLR (sct/b)
--{]----GOR (scf/b)
-O-WHP (psig)
40 •
9/13A-A44
-0-- Gas Lift Rate ( Mscf/d) -M••-- Casing Pressure (psig)
--fl-Water Cut (9^0)
Well Performance
4000 - 20
3500 17.5
3000 15
J
as
2500 12.5
x
2000 10
O
C7
ai
1500 7.5
n
1000 5
500 2.5
01 0
15/7/94 12/8/94 9/9/94 7/10/94 4/11/94 2/12/94 30/12/94 27/1/95 24/2/95 24/3/95 21/4/95 19/5/95
Date
^71 to r
ul
M M .^
ETIM WELL TEST
Measured/Predicted Mass Flow Rates
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.2t)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00 AML
Il Z 1.0 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.7 4.4 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.2 7.9 8.6 9.2 9.9 10.6 11.3
Measured/Predicted Mass Flow Rates

r to to
PVT Matching T^nperatw ^ depresei
little POW 4375 0 Pill
ww" 049 up now we rrr N
ede :dlSTB RR/SIR C"PpifE
Flash Liberation Experiment 1 10000

2000 0
253 7
495 2
1 1914
1 3029
1.1048
0 7875
2500 0 624 2 1 3604 0.6695
3000 0 761 3 1 A208 0.5721
Quality Control 3500 0 908.0 1 4845 0.4916

4000 0 1065.6 F-5524 0.4247
4375 0 1132 2 1 6L164 0 3816
4500 0 1192.2 1 6D29 0 3BB5
Oil Density - most significant 5000 0 „9Z.2 1 5898 0 4166
6D00 U 1192 2 1 5667 0 4737
component of the
pressure drop prediction
Tune PVT to measured data
Beryl - 14 PVT regions generated from

150+ matched experiments
using EOS
^ ^ 40
Integrated Production System

Data Validation - Flow Correlation Matching
Similar process as PVT
Uses FBHP survey

results
Head and friction

component tuned
< 10% correction of

head term indicates
good data
Êatrnr; ^ h'arerTk &d
lion
> 10% may indicate poor tocffted µ 7
+f1 0961911
quality PVT, test data or
1 09691
pressure measurement
nts 0,960439 01
Flow correlations use in
Na 2 1 05877 1
quality control x
l( 's

Surveliance Best Practices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surveliance Best Practices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SURVEILLANCE

September 17, 1999

II. Management Commitment ...............................--.............................---.- 5

IV. Well and Reservoir Surveillance .............. ........................................... 8

V. Surveillance Process Structure

VI. Conclusions ..................................................................17

Vslidate`St^xe d<ta t^l<nttiy:

.. ~ . . : .. }' . ... Inti'.S5t1UL.ti1Cc;r 'V ^ . . . ...

Figure 1. Integrated Reservoi r Management Framework

DATA, TOOLS AND PERSONNEL

1. Well mechanical equipment-accurate knowledge of casing, perforations, tubing, packers etc.,

Reservoir surveillance, in summary, is the detailed day-to-day analysis of reservoir performance as

• Likewise, five primary analysis criteria should be considered.

^ BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY

Nate; Production Inclzides Field Code MOO

Field A: Oil Production

AERA Energy Six Top Surveillance Measures

2. Base + Surveillance Production vs. Plan

Definition of "Base + Surveillance":

3. Produced Oil to Injectant Ratio Actual vs. Plan ( Base + Surveillance)

Implementation Plan (Analog to #2 metric):

5. # of Pattern/Flood Recommendations by Type

6a. Pattern Reviews Actual vs. Plan

6b. Flood Review Progress vs. Plan

Field Surveillance Line of Si g ht

^ Decline Curve Ana ;si6

Volumes -*- Pro7

Review Well chokes Tf

Water Shut Offs Verily Geo" p`.. ^ ro

Cash Flow Fi¢l6UpdateswithFRB's

Runiime Andl yZe E q ui pment Perfomtaance n v

Expense Predictive Maintenence

$IBC^E prkove^ Costs $fL;OE ^^' -^ ^ ReriewlDocument Costs UQ

Is NO WHAT YOU NEED

W Analyze Data Based on

>II review within Yes

Set date, review well * Ye s

-I ^ Review wells by field.

Criteria for Prioritizing Wells for Review

Fill out form or

M Analyze Data Based on

Set date, review equipment ^ Yes

-_ J * Review equipment by field.

Anal sis & Documentation PFD

'+( Downtime Ana Ws

Fill out form or

Supplier-Input-Process-Qutput- Customer Chart - RSVT t^

Results Measures Process Measures Results Measures

Supplier Boundary Rec-aclion item that makes 64 Customer Boundary

Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer Chart - RSVT

Suppliers P roduct/Service Process Product/Service Customers

Results Measures Process Measures Results Measures

Supplier Boundary Rec=ai that makes o]u$ Customer Boundary

Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer Chart - RSVT

Suppliers Product/Service Process Product/Service Customers

Results Measures Process Measures Results Measures

Supplier Boundary Fisc=ai that maEcr Customer Boundary

Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer Chart - RSVT

Su p pliers Product/Service Process ProductlService Customers

Results Measures Process Measures Results Measures

Supplier-Input-Process-Output-Customer Chart - RSVT

Suppliers Product/Service Process Product/Service Customers

Results Measures Process Measures Results Measures