SPE 107630

A Performance Review of 14 Horizontal Wells in Baronia Field After 12 Years of

Production
Maharon Jadid and Mohd Fahmi Mustapah, Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd.
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American & Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1518 April 2007.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
As a production optimization strategy in a brown field,
horizontal wells were introduced in the Baronia Field some 22
years after the first production in 1972. With the help of a
reservoir simulation model, the performances of typical
horizontal wells were simulated to justify drilling of 14
horizontal wells in the infill drilling campaign of 1994. The
simulation results indicated a substantial increase in the
recovery factor with horizontal wells compared to
conventional wells due to delays in gas or water breakthrough.
In addition, with the better drainage coverage, less wells were
needed to drain the stratified reservoirs. During these early
days various types of horizontal completions were introduced
to compare the effectiveness of the various well constructions.

This paper presents a review on the actual performance of the
14 horizontal wells in Baronia based on the past 12 years of
production history. This review is highly desirable and timely,
firstly in verifying the initial reservoir simulation results in
order to improve and optimize on the horizontal well
technology applications in future wells. The second objective
is to determine the productivity and efficiency of different
types of horizontal well completions that were applied in
Baronia i.e. cased hole and perforated, open hole with pre-
perforated liner and open hole with pre-packed screen.

As expected, the performance review indicated that horizontal
well performance is much more superior than the performance
of the normal conventional deviated well. It is also clearly
shown that of the different horizontal well completion types,
the open hole completion with pre-perforated liner or pre-
packed screen yeilds a better productivity compared to cased
and perforated completion. In addition, the horizontal borehole
size (i.e. the size of the liner) has an impact on the
productivity. The results confirmed that the biggest liner size
i.e. 7 inch or 7-1/2 inch liner gave the best productivity.

The results of this review including the various advancements
in the horizontal well technology will be adapted as a general
reference for the future horizontal well construction and
application in PETRONAS Carigali fields.

Introduction
Horizontal wells are one of the most important strategic tools
in petroleum exploitation.
1
The history of horizontal wells
goes as far back as 1947.
2
Being a well-established
technology, the application of horizontal wells has added
significant value to oil and gas field development in terms of
increased recovery/reserves access and the improved well
rates that they can offer.
3
Several petroleum engineering
experts and authors have studied thoroughly the various
benefits of horizontal wells. In summary, the identified
benefits are as below
4-6
:

Maximized reservoir exposure
Targeted multiple zones/blocks
Exploitation of thin pay zones
Reduced drawdowns to minimize premature water and
gas coning
Improved production rates and increased recoverable
reserves

As a production strategy, horizontal wells were introduced in
the Baronia Field some 22 years after its first production in
1972. During those years horizontal well drilling technology
was just introduced within PETRONAS Carigali and Baronia
was the first field to be implemented. With the help of
reservoir dynamic simulation model, the performances of the
typical horizontal wells were simulated to justify drilling of 14
horizontal wells in the infill drilling campaign of 1994.

In this review, an analysis of the actual performance of these
14 horizontal wells in Baronia Field was made on the basis of
the past 12 years of actual production history. It was attempted
to present the comparison between the reservoir dynamic
simulation study results and the actual performance from the
field. This comparison approach will help in verifying whether
the assumptions and recommendations by the dynamic
reservoir simulation studies are valid and accurate or not.

2 SPE 107630
In addition, this review is intended to determine the most
efficient completion types for the horizontal wells that were
implemented in Baronia i.e. cased hole and perforated, open
hole with pre-perforated liner and open hole with prepacked
screen.

It was also attempted to demonstrate the effect of borehole
size and length on the well productivity and recovery. The
evidences which were seen in the well performance will be
used as a basis for future horizontal well planning and design
in PETRONAS Carigali operated fields.

Background
The Baronia Field is located at a water depth of 250 ft below
MSL (Mean Sea Level), in block SK15 of the Baram Delta
area, about 40 km offshore, North-West (NW) of Lutong,
Sarawak, Malaysia (Fig. 1). It was discovered in July 1967 by
well BN-1, which was drilled in near crestal position.
Production started in May 1972 from wells BN-4 and BN-5,
two isolated appraisal/development wells.

The field is characterized by a simple, internally unfaulted,
relatively flat, low relief domal anticline structure elongated
towards the South-South-West (SSW). The anticline is
resulted from a rollover associated with growth faulting
combined with Pliocene compressional folding. The main
prospective sequences comprised of interbeded sandstones and
shales with minor siltstones of Late Miocene. The major
hydrocarbon accumulations occur in eight (8) producing
reservoirs viz. RM3/N2, RP1, RP2, RR2/RS2, RT1, RT2,
RU2/3 and RV2 reservoirs.

The first field development commenced in 1974 from the
drilling platform BNDP-A, and this continued to the end of
1979 from a second 12-slot drilling platform (BNDP-B) and
five 3-slot jackets (BNJT-C, BNJT-D, BNJT-E, BNJT-F and
BNJT-H). Production from the field is processed via Baronia
Field production facilities consisting of two bridge linked
production platforms (BNP-A and BNP-B), two gas
compression platforms (BNG-A and BNG-B), and one living
quarters platform (BNQ-A) as shown in Fig. 2.

To date, 54 production wells (14 horizontals and 40
conventionals), four (4) horizontal water injection wells and
two (2) gas injection wells were drilled from four (4) drilling
platforms and five (5) jackets. The 14 horizontal wells
(including one sidetracked well) were completed during the
drilling campaign in year 1994. The list of the 14 horizontal
production wells and the respective reservoirs drained is
presented in Table 1.

Dynamic Reservoir Simulation
3D static sector models were constructed and dynamic
reservoir simulation models were run using Eclipse 100
(Black Oil) to determine the economic viability of horizontal
wells whilst optimizing the number of wells for the infill
drilling campaign. The dynamic reservoir simulation models
were matched with the actual production history from the
earlier wells with reasonable accuracy. Hence the simulation
runs were focused on the completion objectives of horizontal
well primarily to optimize the production and to maximize
ultimate recovery from the field by addressing or solving the
following typical field characteristics and complexities:

Variable thickness of the oil rim reservoirs (net oil h
ranges from 10 to 105 ft)
Potential gas coning problems (initial m ranges from 1.1
to 2)
Sand production problems (limiting drawdown)
Relatively poor and heterogeneous reservoir qualities (k
ranges from 10 to 640 md; ranges from 15 to 25 %)

RR2/RS2 Dynamic Reservoir Simulation Study. RR2/RS2
reservoirs are fault and dip-closed, oil rim reservoirs with
initial gas cap (m = 2). Gas cap expansion with weak water
drive is the primary recovery mechanism. The 3D dynamic
reservoir simulation study was carried out in early 1993 to
quantify the merits of horizontal well development in
RR2/RS2 reservoirs. The specific objectives of the study are
listed below
7
:

To evaluate the merits of horizontal well development for
the RR2/RS2 reservoirs.
To determine the optimum horizontal well length,
direction and position within the oil column.
To study effect of zone horizontal completion strategy
with respect to gas and or water coning at various
production rates.
To optimize the number of horizontal wells required to
replace the planned vertical drainage points in the
RR2/RS2 reservoirs. Primarily aimed to reduce the
overall number of wells required.

In addition, the study was also meant to ensure that the bottom
hole pressures from the wells are below the CDP to avoid any
sand production from the reservoirs.

The main results of the RR2/RS2 simulation study are
summarized below:

Horizontal wells in RR2/RS2 reservoirs present the best
option for accelerating production and maximizing oil
recovery whilst not producing above the CDP.
Horizontal wells will increase the RF from 22.4% (with
conventional infill wells) to 27% under natural depletion
conditions.
Coupled with gas injection (for pressure maintenance)
horizontal wells will increase the oil RF from 27% to
32.8%.
The ratio of horizontal well to vertical well reserves will
be in the range of 1.9 to 2.9 with corresponding lower
GOR.

RV2 Dynamic Reservoir Simulation Study. RV2 reservoir
is a dip-closed crestal oil reservoir (no original gas cap) with
weak water drive as the primary recovery mechanism. The
RV2 dynamic reservoir simulation study was carried out in
1994 with the main objectives as listed below
8
:

SPE 107630 3
To evaluate the merits of horizontal well development for
the RV2 reservoir.
To maximize the ultimate recovery through
production/injection optimizations.

The main conclusions or results of the RV2 simulation study
are listed below:

A three (3) horizontal well development is the best option
to fully develop RV2 reservoir.
Those three (3) horizontal wells are expected to recover
incremental reserves of 7.2 MMstb as compared to 1.3
MMstb with conventional wells.
Based on the optimized production and injection rates, the
existing plus the planned three (3) horizontal wells are
expected to recover 60.5 MMstb (an incremental reserves
of 12.9 MMstb).
No further development beyond the three (3) planned
horizontal wells is envisaged for the RV2 reservoir.

Comparison with the Actual Results. The forecasted Np of
horizontal wells based on the dynamic reservoir simulation
prediction models and the actual Np (after 12 years of
production) for RR2/RS2 and RV2 reservoirs are presented in
Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.

The RR2/RS2 simulation model has forecasted about 17
MMstb can be produced from the planned horizontal wells
after 12 years of production. However, the actual number is
doubled, that is 33.6 MMstb. For RV2 reservoir, the
forecasted Np from the three (3) wells (BN-64, BN-65 and
BN-66) was only 7.2 MMstb but the actual Np is 8.4 MMstb.
Based on these comparison results, it is very clear that the
actual performance of the horizontal wells is far better than the
simulated results.

Horizontal Wells and Normal/Conventional Wells
Fig. 3 shows the production performance of all the horizontal
wells/strings in Baronia Field. As shown in the figure, all
wells have peak oil rates of more than 500 b/d. The highest
peak oil rate (about 3000 b/d) was achieved by well BN-63.
The average oil rates for the horizontal wells vary from a
minimum rate of less than 100 b/d (BN-57S) to a maximum
rate of 1200 b/d (BN-53 and BN-65). In contrast, the average
rates for normal/conventional wells in RR2/RS2 and RV2
reservoirs are 150 and 220 b/d respectively.

Performance Results. To evaluate accurately the
performance between the horizontal wells and the
normal/conventional wells, RV2 reservoir was chosen since
all horizontal wells in this reservoir (BN-64, BN-65 and BN-
66) are completed using a same completion type, that is 5
pre-perforated liner in open hole.

Based on the historical production performance data, the Np
from the horizontal wells in the RV2 reservoir are far greater
than from the normal/conventional wells in the same
producing period of close to 12 years.
For example, the Np for horizontal wells BN-64, BN-65 and
BN-66 are 1.03, 4.78 and 2.51 MMstb respectively. In
contrast, almost all of the normal/conventional wells in the
RV2 reservoir have Np of less than 1 MMstb. Some of these
conventional wells have been producing for more than 12
years. From this comparison, it can be concluded that a
horizontal well is better in terms of accelerating production
than a normal/conventional well.

Table 4 shows the detailed production performance data
(including GOR and watercut) of all the horizontal wells in
Baronia Field. It is important to note that the reasons for the
low performance of some of the wells might be due to
operational problems or due to poor sand quality and/or
reservoir properties i.e. low permeability, porosity, pressure,
etc. There are cases that wells have to be shut-in or beaned
down due to high GOR or high watercut.

Different Horizontal Completion Types
During the early days various types of horizontal completions
were introduced to compare the effectiveness of the various
well constructions. For Baronia Field, a few types of
horizontal completions were implemented i.e. cased hole and
perforated, open hole with pre-perforated liner and open hole
with pre-packed screen.

The horizontal open hole completion in Baronia Field was the
first horizontal open hole completion adopted by PETRONAS
Carigali. The main reasons for adopting this type of
completion were to increase productivity and to reduce
completion cost since no perforation was required for the long
horizontal section.

Some of the horizontal wells were completed as dual tubings
or strings with different types of completion in each string. For
example, in BN-54 well, the short string (BN-54S) is
completed with conventional horizontal method (cased and
perforated) whereas in the long string (BN-54L), it was
completed with pre-perforated liner in open hole. The list of
all the horizontal wells with their respective completion types
is shown in Table 5.

Performance Results. For a better comparison, the data for
BN-55 (RN2) was screened out because it is the only
horizontal well that produces from RN2 and it is also the only
horizontal well in Baronia Field that was completed with a
5 prepacked screen in 8 open hole.

Tables 6 and 7 show the summary and the detailed data of the
horizontal well production performance based on their
completion practices respectively. From the data, generally we
can conclude that the pre-perforated liner in open hole is the
best completion type. Also based on this quick analysis
results, the conventional horizontal (cased and perforated)
well has the poorest production performance. These results are
as expected since open hole offers a greater open flow area
with least drawdown.

4 SPE 107630
Different Liner Sizes
To accurately analyze the effect of different liner sizes on the
performance of the horizontal wells, the RR2/RS2 reservoir
was chosen since this reservoir has the three liner sizes i.e. 7
or 7, 5 and 4. All these pre-perforated liners were
completed in open hole condition.

Performance Results. The detailed summary chart of the
horizontal well production performance in the RR2/RS2
reservoir is shown in Fig. 4.

From the chart, it is clear that the 7 or 7 pre-perforated
liner in open hole is the best completion type in terms of
performance. This is followed by the 5 pre-perforated liner
in open hole and the 4 pre-perforated liner in open hole for
the second and the third places respectively. These results are
in line with Darcys equation on the positive effect of
increasing wellbore radius on well productivity. In addition,
no sand production/problem has been reported in all the OH
horizontal wells so far.

Conclusions
Based on the performance review, it can be generally
concluded that:

1. Horizontal well development is better in terms of
increasing productivity and maximizing recovery than
conventional wells. The cumulative productions (Np) of
the horizontal wells are much better than what were
predicted by the dynamic reservoir simulation studies.
This could indicate conservative assumptions applied in
the models.
2. Completion types do have impact on the productivity. The
pre-perforated liner completions in open hole gave higher
production rates than conventional horizontal completions
(casing cemented and perforated).
3. The sizes of pre-perforated liner also have impact on the
productivity. The biggest liner size (7 or 7 ) gave the
highest production rate.

The results of this review, including the various advancements
in the horizontal well technology such as the ICD systems to
regulate the heel to toe effects, will be adapted as a general or
standard reference for future horizontal well construction and
application in PETRONAS Carigali operated fields.

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the management of Petroliam
National Berhad (PETRONAS) and PETRONAS Carigali
Sdn. Bhd. (PCSB) for the permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Biglarbigi, K., Mohan, H., Ray, R., and Meehan, D.:
Potential for the Horizontal Well Technology in the
U.S., JPT (May 2000), 23-31.
2. Ranney, L.: Drilling Wells Horizontally, Oil Weekly (20
January 1941) 12 14.
3. Levitan, M.M., Clay, P.L., and Gilchrist, J.M.: Do Your
Horizontal Wells Deliver Their Expected Rates? SPE
Drilling & Completion, March 2004.
4. Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., and Bietz, R.F.: Formation
Damage and Horizontal Wells A Productivity Killer?
paper SPE 37138 presented at the 1996 SPE International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary,
November 18-20, 1996.
5. Ahmed, U. and Jacobsen, S.: Practical Aspects of
Horizontal Well Technology: A Perspective, paper SPE
21260 presented at the 1990 SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, 31 Oct. 2 Nov., 1990.
6. Forster, J., Grigsby, T., and LaFontaine, J.: The
Evolution of Horizontal Completion Techniques for the
Gulf of Mexico. Where Have We Been and Where Are
We Going! paper SPE 53926 presented at the 1999 SPE
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Caracas, April 21 23, 1999.
7. Jaafar, E. (Dr.): Baronia Field Horizontal Wells
Simulation Study RR2/RS2 Reservoirs, PCSB Report,
June 1993.
8. Poh, T.C.: RV2 Reservoir Simulation Study, PCSB
Report, January, 1994.
9. Abd. Rahim Samsudin, Md. Zain Che Lah, Zakaria
Marzuki, M Ghazali Abd. Karim, Nasroffine Pauzi,
Adzman Sura, Nazri A Latiff, Azila Md. Yusuf, Mariani
Ibrahim, Jim Mackinnon, Mahzan Mohd and Amin
Manda: Baronia Field Post Drilling Review, PCSB
Report, August 1995.
10. Che Lah, M.Z., Westbury, J.K., Ciesla, G., Duncan,
W.B., Chan, C.S., Jaafar, E., Poh, T.C., Samsudin, A.R.,
Saberolle, W., Pheng, L.Y., Siegle, B. and Obeng, J.:
Baronia Field Development Plan Revision, PCSB
Report, September 1993.
11. Manrique, J.F., Husen. A., Gupta, S.C. and Raju, A.V.:
Integrated Stimulation Applications and Best Practices
for Optimizing Reservoir Development Through
Horizontal Wells, paper SPE 64384 presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Brisbane, Australia, October 16-18, 2000.
12. Radzi, B.M.: Baronia Field Review Part IV:
Production Technology (Vol. 1 & 2), PCSB/SSB Joint
Venture Study Report, June 1987.
13. Rostam Abbas and Riemens, W.G.: Baronia Field
Review Part III: Reservoir Engineering, PCSB/SSB
Joint Venture Study Report, June 1987.

Nomenclature
b/d : Barrel per day
MMstb : Million stock tank barrel
h : Reservoir thickness
m : Gas cap size
k : Permeability
: Porosity
RF : Recovery Factor
GOR : Gas Oil Ratio
STOIIP : Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place
UR : Ultimate Recovery
Np : Cumulative oil production
SDTR : Sidetracked well
HZ : Horizontal
CDP : Critical Drawdown Pressure
ICD : Inflow Control Device
SPE 107630 5
Table 1 List of 14 Horizontal Production Wells in Baronia Field

Well Name Location Reservoir
BN-8 (SDTR) BNDP-A RS2
BN-53 BNDP-I RS2
BN-54 BNDP-I RR2/RS2
BN-55 BNDP-I RN2
BN-56 BNDP-I RR2/RS2
BN-57 BNDP-I RR2/RS2
BN-59 BNDP-J RS2
BN-61 BNDP-I RR2
BN-62 BNDP-J RR2/RS2
BN-63 BNDP-J RR2
BN-64 BNDP-J RV2
BN-65 BNDP-I RV2
BN-66 BNDP-J RV2
BN-67 BNDP-I RS2


Table 2 RR2/RS2 Reservoir Simulation Predictions vs. Actual
Current Results


Simulation
Results
Actual
Results
Np (MMstb) 17 33.6


Table 3 RV2 Reservoir Simulation Predictions vs. Actual Current
Results


Simulation
Results
Actual
Results
Np (MMstb) 7.2 8.4














Table 4 Production Performance Data of Horizontal Wells

Well Reservoir Production Performance Data
BN-8
(SDTR)
RR2/RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1160
387
934
26
BN-53 RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1837
1200
7000
11
BN-54S RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1635
220
7000
40
BN-54L RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1380
350
8670
16
BN-55 RN2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1836
800
4500
15
BN-56 RR2/RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
972
600
6000
8
BN-57S RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
700
50
3000
40
BN-57L RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1300
300
4000
22
BN-59L RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
2774
450
5000
25
BN-61 RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1449
300
5000
8
BN-62S RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
2904
600
8000
20
BN-62L RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1685
450
6000
15
BN-63 RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
2952
750
4000
12
BN-64 RV2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
2200
1000
1000
10
BN-65 RV2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
2450
1200
2500
12
BN-66 RV2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1210
600
1600
20
BN-67 RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
Average GOR (scf/stb):
Average watercut (%):
1730
500
8000
5


6 SPE 107630
Table 5 List of All Horizontal Wells with Their Respective
Completion Types

String Name Completion Type Reservoir
BN-55
5 Pre-packed Screen in
8 Open Hole
RN2
BN-8 (SDTR) RR2/RS2
BN-54S RS2
BN-57S
Conventional Horizontal
(cased and perforated)
RS2
BN-53 RS2
BN-59L RS2
BN-62S
7 or 7 Pre-Perforated
Liner in Open Hole
RS2
BN-54L RR2
BN-57L RR2
BN-62L
4 Pre-Perforated Liner in
Open Hole
RR2
BN-56 RR2/RS2
BN-61 RR2
BN-63 RR2
BN-67 RS2
BN-65 RV2
BN-66 RV2
BN-64
5 Pre-Perforated Liner
in Open Hole
RV2













Table 6 Summary of Performance Data (by completion types)


Completion Type
Average Production Performance
Data
Conventional Horizontal
(cased and perforated)
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1165
219
7 or 7 Pre-Perforated
Liner in Open Hole
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
2505
750
4 Pre-Perforated Liner
in Open Hole
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1455
367
5 Pre-Perforated Liner
Open Hole
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1775
538


SPE 107630 7
Table 7 Detailed Performance Data (by completion types)

String Name Completion Type Reservoir Production Performance Data
Average Oil
Rates
BN-55 5 Prepacked Screen in 8 Open Hole RN2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1836
800
1836
800
BN-8 (SDTR) RR2/RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1160
387
BN-54S RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1635
220
BN-57S
Conventional Horizontal (cased and perforated)
RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
700
50
1165
219
BN-53 RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1837
1200
BN-59L RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
2774
450
BN-62S
7 or 7 Pre-Perforated Liner in Open Hole
RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
2904
600
2505
750

BN-54L RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1380
350
BN-57L RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1300
300
BN-62L
4 Pre-Perforated Liner in Open Hole
RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1685
450
1455
367
BN-56 RR2/RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
972
600
BN-61 RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1449
300
BN-63 RR2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
2952
750
BN-67 RS2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1730
500
1775
538
BN-65 RV2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
2450
1200
BN-66 RV2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
1210
600
BN-64
5 Pre-Perforated Liner
Open Hole
RV2
Peak oil rate (b/d):
Average oil rate (b/d):
2200
1000
1953
933

8 SPE 107630
Lutong Lutong Lutong Lutong


Figure 1 - Location Map of Baronia Field




BNQ-B BNG-B
BNDP-J
BNP-B
BNDP-B
BNWJ -14
BNV-A
BNV-B
BNJ T-F
BNJ T-E
BNDP-A
BNP-A
BNDP-I
BNJ T-D
BNJ T-C
BNJ T-H
LEGEND
BNQ Living Quarters Platform
BNG Gas Compression Platform
BNP Production Station Platform
BNDP Drilling Platform
BNJT Jacket Platform
BNWJ Water Injection Jacket Platform
BNV Gas Venting Platform
BNQ-B BNG-B
BNDP-J
BNP-B
BNDP-B
BNWJ -14
BNV-A
BNV-B
BNJ T-F
BNJ T-E
BNDP-A
BNP-A
BNDP-I
BNJ T-D
BNJ T-C
BNJ T-H
LEGEND
BNQ Living Quarters Platform
BNG Gas Compression Platform
BNP Production Station Platform
BNDP Drilling Platform
BNJT Jacket Platform
BNWJ Water Injection Jacket Platform
BNV Gas Venting Platform
Figure 2 Production Facilities Schematic Layout of Baronia







SPE 107630 9



Average rate from
conventional wells in
RV2 reservoir is 220 b/d
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Horizontal Well Performance
Peak oil rate (b/d): 1160 1837 1635 1380 1836 972 700 1300 2774 1449 2904 1685 2952 2200 2450 1210 1730
Average oil rate (b/d): 387 1200 220 350 800 600 50 300 450 300 600 450 750 1000 1200 600 500
BN-8
(SDTR)
BN-53 BN-54S BN-54L BN-55 BN-56 BN-57S BN-57L BN-59 BN-61 BN-62S BN-62L BN-63 BN-64 BN-65 BN-66 BN-67
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Horizontal Well Performance
Peak oil rate (b/d): 1160 1837 1635 1380 1836 972 700 1300 2774 1449 2904 1685 2952 2200 2450 1210 1730
Average oil rate (b/d): 387 1200 220 350 800 600 50 300 450 300 600 450 750 1000 1200 600 500
BN-8
(SDTR)
BN-53 BN-54S BN-54L BN-55 BN-56 BN-57S BN-57L BN-59 BN-61 BN-62S BN-62L BN-63 BN-64 BN-65 BN-66 BN-67
Average rate from
conventional wells in
RR2/RS2 reservoir is
150 b/d






















Figure 3 Summary of Horizontal Well Performance Data



0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Oil Rates (b/ d)
Conventional HZ (7"
Casing - Cemented &
Perforated)
4 Pre-Perforated
Liner in OH
5 Pre-Perforated
Liner in OH
7 or 7 Pre-
Perforated Liner in
OH
Peak Oil Rate (b/ d) Avg. Oil Rate (b/ d)
Average HZ
length: 2205
Average HZ
length: 2185
Average HZ
length: 2120
Average HZ
length: 2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Oil Rates (b/ d)
Conventional HZ (7"
Casing - Cemented &
Perforated)
4 Pre-Perforated
Liner in OH
5 Pre-Perforated
Liner in OH
7 or 7 Pre-
Perforated Liner in
OH
Peak Oil Rate (b/ d) Avg. Oil Rate (b/ d)
Average HZ
length: 2205
Average HZ
length: 2185
Average HZ
length: 2120
Average HZ
length: 2000
Figure 4 Summary of Performance Data of Horizontal Wells in RR2/RS2 based on Completion Types