1. Final Presentation College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 Chulhwan SONG Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 (USA) rimomeru@tamu.edu APPLICATION OF NUMERICAL MODEL-BASED DYNAMIC FLOW ANALYSIS ON A GAS FIELD WITH COMPLEX BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

2. Outline ● Purpose of the Study: ■ Apply modern model-based PA and PTA to a gas field case. ■ Characterize complex properties and geometries of reservoir using numerical composite model. ● Statement of the Problem: ■ Unstable operating conditions. Insufficient spatial information ■ Operating issues: condensate banking, edge-water influx ● Model-Based Production Analyses: ■ Analytical circular reservoir model-based PA for determination of average reservoir properties and GIIP ■ Non-uniqueness of the model-based PA ■ Gas material balance analysis for GIIP comparison and drive mechanism verification. ● Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis: ■ Numerical composite model-based PTA based on close interpretation of pressure derivative response ■ Diagnosis of reservoir properties, and analysis of condensate banking zone and edge-water influx ● Summary & Conclusions: ■ Summary of the work done. Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 Slide — 2/30

3. Purpose of the Study ● Our Primary Objectives: ■ Present a workflow for modern dynamic flow analyses. ■ Present applicability of model-based PA and PTA to accurately diagnose reservoir properties and boundary characteristics in a gas field. ■ Demonstrate how to build numerical composite model corresponding pressure derivative responses during the model-based PTA ■ Investigate characteristics of condensate banking zone and aquifer, which are major operating issue of target field Slide — 3/30 Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015

4. Statement of the Problem Slide — 4/30 ● Reasons why modern dynamic flow analysis is necessary: ■ Conventional rate-time analysis is not applicable (due to non-constant operating conditions of this field). ■ Limited spatial information about reservoir boundary: measured dynamic data are the only data source for analysis ■ Possibility of condensate banking issue ■ Possibility of edge-water drive in B5 Layer ■ Good pressure data quality (measured by permanent bottomhole gauge) Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 Reservoir structure map of DH-1 field

5. Model-Based Production Analysis (PA) Final Presentation College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 Chulhwan SONG Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 (USA) rimomeru@tamu.edu

6. Slide — 6/30 Model-Based Production Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Model-Based Production Analysis Concepts: ■ Diagnostic Plots — “Blasingame Plot” — Pseudopressure-normalized rate functions — “Loglog Plot” — Rate-normalized pseudopressure functions — Plotted against material balance time (t e ) in loglog scale ■ Procedure — Data loading & editing — Extraction of flow period of interest. — Model generation and refinement using diagnostic plots — Forecast and sensitivity study.

7. Slide — 7/30 Model-Based Production Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015  Synchronize all rate and pressure data  Refine the production history (i.e. remove obvious error data) Data Loading & Editing Model Generation & Refinement Sensitivity Study / Forecast  Extract interval(s) of time on which PA will be performed  Diagnostic tools  Blasingame Plot  Loglog Plot  History Plot  Objectives:  To obtain a match between the models and the real data in all the diagnostic plots  Known model parameters and well configurations are imposed  Unknown parameters should be adjusted  By manually, with trial and errors  By using non-linear regressions  Assess the sensitivity of each parameter  Forecast the future production with producing pressure scenario  Recommendations for future operations ● Detailed Procedure:

8. Slide — 8/30 Model-Based Production Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Production Analysis Concepts: ■ Blasingame plot ■ Loglog plot

9. Slide — 9/30 Model-Based Production Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Matching Results of Well-1P ■ Diagnostic Discussion — All diagnostic plots well-matched — Avg. k can be estimated by level of early stabilizations @ 100 days, t e — Pseudo-steady flow regime is shown in late time.

10. Slide — 10/30 Model-Based Production Analysis ParametersWell-1PWell-2PWell-3PWell-4PUnit Model typeAnalytical Well modelVertical Reservoir modelHomogenous Boundary modelCircle pipi 3520352434853530psia Skin factor123513 dimensionles s Permeability60192590mD R e (no flow)2666167018453550ft GIIP4352.964.375.3BSCF Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Summary of Model Parameters for Each Well

11. Slide — 11/30 Model-Based Production Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Matching Results of Well-2P ■ Diagnostic Discussion — All diagnostic plots well-matched

12. Slide — 12/30 Model-Based Production Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Matching Results of Well-3P ■ Diagnostic Discussion — All diagnostic plots well-matched

13. Slide — 13/30 Model-Based Production Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Matching Results of Well-4P ■ Diagnostic Discussion — History plots are NOT well-matched in late production days — Need further analysis on reservoir boundary

14. Slide — 14/30 Gas Material Balance Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Gas Material Balance Analysis for Wells-1P, 2P, and 3P ■ Objectives — GIIP comparison for verification of the previous model-based PA — Identification of drive mechanism (especially targeting well-4P) ■ Discussions — A linear relationship between the values of p/Z vs G p can be confirmed by the straight trend line — Pressure support from a region outside the reservoir may be very small or negligible for Wells-1P, -2P and -3P

15. Slide — 15/30 Gas Material Balance Analysis Well (in Layer) GIIP estimated by model-based PA (BSCF) GIIP estimated by gas material balance (BSCF) well-1P (in B2 Layer)43.040.8 well-2P (in B3 & B4 Layers) 117.2120.5 well-3P (in B3 & B4 Layers) well-4P (in B5 Layer)75.366.2 Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Gas Material Balance Analysis for Well-4P ■ Discussions — Deviation from straight line: suspected case of aquifer affecting reservoir. — GIIP Difference is significant compared to other wells. — Need further analysis

16. Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis (PTA) Final Presentation College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 Chulhwan SONG Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 (USA) rimomeru@tamu.edu

17. Slide — 17/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Concepts: ■ Diagnostic Plots — “Loglog Plot” — Pseudopressure-drop — Bourdet pseudopressure-drop derivative — Plotted against shut-in time in loglog scale — “Semilog Plot” — Pseudopressure function — Plotted against superposition time ■ Procedure : basically similar with previous model-based PA — Data loading & editing — Extraction of pressure buildup period(s) of interest. — Model generation and refinement using diagnostic plots — Forecast and sensitivity study.

18. Slide — 18/30 Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days. — Power law D(t) and b(t) character. — Excellent q g (t) match. ■ Match Parameters — q gi = 1715 MSCFD — Ď i = 0.068 — n = 0.45 — D ∞ = 0 (default). ■ EUR — 1.63 BSCF

19. Slide — 19/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015

20. Slide — 20/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

21. Slide — 21/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis ParametersWell-1PUnit Model typeNumerical C2.4bbl/psi Skin factor time-dependent (7.5 ~ 11) dimensionless pipi 3550psia k68mD Reservoir modelHomogeneous Composite zone 1 Mobility ratio (M)4dimensionless Diffusivity ratio (D)4dimensionless Leakage factor (α)1dimensionless Composite zone 2 Mobility ratio (M)600dimensionless Diffusivity ratio (D)600dimensionless Leakage factor (α)0.06dimensionless Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

22. Slide — 22/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

23. Slide — 23/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

24. Slide — 24/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

25. Slide — 25/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days. — Power law D(t) and b(t) character. — Excellent q g (t) match. ■ Match Parameters — q gi = 1715 MSCFD — Ď i = 0.068 — n = 0.45 — D ∞ = 0 (default). ■ EUR — 1.63 BSCF

26. Slide — 26/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis ParametersWell-4PUnit Model typeNumerical C0.2bbl/psi Skin factor4dimensionless pipi 3600psia k90mD Reservoir modelHomogeneous Composite zone 1 Mobility ratio (M)16dimensionless Diffusivity ratio (D)8dimensionless Leakage factor (α)1dimensionless Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

27. Slide — 27/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

28. Slide — 28/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis ParametersWell-4PUnit Model typeNumerical C0.2bbl/psi Skin factor time-dependent (1.5~6) dimemsionless pipi 3600psia k90mD Reservoir modelHomogeneous Composite zone 1 Mobility ratio (M)10dimemsionless Diffusivity ratio (D)2.8dimemsionless Leakage factor (α)0.05dimemsionless Aquifer modelCarter-Tracy φ0.01dimensionless k0.9mD riri 7500ft rere 12000ft Thickness of aquifer12.5ft Encroachment angle180 ° Total compressibility3.00E-06psi -1 Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

29. Slide — 29/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

30. Slide — 30/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Buildup Starting time of shut-in (Days) Duration of shut-in (Days) Skin factor (dimensionless) Buildup-3476722.3 Buildup-55911334 Buildup-68392666 Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

31. Slide — 31/30 Model-Based Pressure Transient Analysis Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 ● Field Case #2 ■ PLE Relation — We focus on data > 20 days.

32. Final Presentation College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 Chulhwan SONG Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 (USA) rimomeru@tamu.edu Summary and Conclusions

33. ● Summary: ■ Performed independent production data and rate-time analyses. ■ Integrated the two analyses with an iterative correlation scheme. ■ Discussed challenges in unconventional well performance analysis. ■ Presented a workflow that attempts to reduce non-uniqueness. ■ Introduced PTA as an analysis tool in unconventional reservoirs. ● Conclusions: ■ From this work we conclude the following: — Rate-time diagnostics exhibit primarily hyperbolic decline character for our 55-well data set. — PLE relation produces the most conservative EUR estimates. — Bilinear flow (1/4 slope) is the predominant flow regime. — Linear flow (1/2 slope) is the exclusive PTA diagnostic. — Correlation scheme using a "tuning" technique improved the EUR relationship between model-based and rate-time analyses. — Model-based production analysis is an effective tool for cases of erratic production history, while rate-time analysis requires smooth, lightly-interrupted flow periods. Slide — 33/30 Final Presentation — Chulhwan SONG — Texas A&M University College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015

34. Final Presentation College Station, TX (USA) — 11 August 2015 Chulhwan SONG Department of Petroleum Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3116 (USA) rimomeru@tamu.edu APPLICATION OF NUMERICAL MODEL-BASED DYNAMIC FLOW ANALYSIS ON A GAS FIELD WITH COMPLEX BOUNDARY CONDITIONS