Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

Chapter II : Reservoir Data

2.1. Initial Condition

Beta reservoir stretches along 4 km with direction of Northwest and Southeast and
width of 1.5 km. Top of Beta reservoir is penetrated on 364.31m SS. The reservoir
consists of 5 zones which called Z380, R10, Z450, Z550 and Z650. Among of 5 zones
only Z380, Z450 and Z650 which had been tested through MDT and production test.
Following figure shows Beta reservoir viewed from above and also showing reservoir
slices.

Lateral View Vertical view

Figure 2-1 - Reservoir View


Description of reservoir initial condition is obtained by performing reservoir fluid

analysis which taken during reservoir testing. At initial reservoir condition, only one
phase fluid (oil) which occurs in reservoir. This oil has low viscosity and its bubble
point pressure which close to initial reservoir pressure. Table 3-1 is summarizing
initial condition for Z380, Z450 and Z650.

Table 2-1 - Summary of Initial Condition

Parameter Z380 Z450 Z650


Reservoir pressure, psig 563.0 687.1 928.0
Reference depth, meter ss 365.4 433.0 637.9

Reservoir temperature, oF 135.0 142.0 165.0


Initial formation volume factor, RB/STB 1.148 1.244 1.451
Solution gas oil ratio, scf/stb 226.0 346.2 678.0
Bubble point pressure, psig 506.0 611.6 902.0

2.2. Rock Characteristic

2.2.1. Data Preparation

The first exploration well in this field, Beta-1 was logged in year 2007, the three
other exploration wells Beta-2, Beta-3 and Beta-4 were logged in year 2009. The
wireline logging program in all these wells is slightly different. In all the wells
conventional logs of Gamma Ray, Platform Express (PEX), Natural Gamma Ray
Spectroscopy (NGS or HNGS), and Dipole Shear Imager (DSI) were logged.

Table 2-2 - The four Beta wells general borehole environmental information

Well Name Beta-1 Beta-2 Beta-3 Beta-4

Drill Year 2007 2009 2009 2009

Well Type Vertical Vertical Vertical Vertical

Hole Type Open Hole Open Hole Open Hole Open Hole

Bit Size 17.5 and 12.25 and 12.25 and 8.5 12.25 and
12.25 in 8.5 in in 8.5 in

Hole 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Deviation

Mud Type WBM (KCL WBM (Kla- WBM (KCL WBM (Clay-
Polymer) Shield) Polymer) Trol)

Mud Salinity 20.8 ppk NaCl 1.115 ppk 90.0 ppk NaCl 4 ppk NaCl
@ 17.5in NaCl @ 12.25in

60 ppk NaCl 125.0 ppk NaCl


@ 12.25in @ 8.5in

Max Hole 79.5 80.0 78.8 78.7


Temp* (C)
@ Btm Hole

* The hole temperature information is provided based on long term production test
(LTPT) of Beta-1

The log data were depth matched to a reference log (HTNP, High Resolution Thermal
Neutron Porosity was used as the reference log, since this measurement was less
effected by the washouts) over the sections where needed, otherwise the field depth
matching by the engineer was adequate. Resistivity, neutron porosity, bulk density
and natural gamma ray logs were environmentally corrected as per borehole
conditions as listed in Table 3-3.
Table 2-1 - The log data in four Beta wells.

Well Name Beta-1 Beta-2 Beta-3 Beta-4


Wireline Available Available Available Available
(SLB) (SLB) (SLB) (SLB)
Neutron PEX (TLD- PEX (TLD- PEX (TLD- PEX (TLD-
HGNS) HGNS) HGNS) HGNS)
Density
Natural GR NGS NGS NGS HNGS

Spectroscopy
Resistivity HALS RT Scanner HALS and RT Scanner
HRLA
Accoustics DSI* DSI DSI DSI
Dip Image FMS FMI FMI FMI
NMR N/A N/A MR Scanner MR Scanner
Pressure MDT MDT MDT MDT
Fluid

Sampling
* The sonic log was not covering the whole logged interval in well Beta-1.
Table 2-4 - Beta wells, Environmental Corrections.

Tool Run Applied Environmental Correction


HRLA (High Resolution Laterolog Array) • Hole Size
• Mud Salinity
• Invasion

HALS (High Resolution Azimuthal Laterolog • Borehole Correction


Sond) • Hole diameter : Caliper-Eccentered

HGNS (High-resolution Gamma Ray and • Borehole Salinity


Neutron Porosity Sonde) • Hole Size
• Mud Weight
• Formation Temperature and Pressure
• Tools Standoff
• Formation Salinity

TLD (Three Detector Litho Density tool) • Hole Correction : Caliper

HNGS (Hostile environment Natural • KCl in the mud


Gamma Ray Spectrometry Sonde) and • Open Hole
NGS

2.2.2. Formation Water Resistivity

To have better define the likely water salinities, apparent formation water salinities
have been calculated. These calculations are made by first calculating the apparent
form a tion wa te r re sistivity using the Archie e qua tion (i.e . Rwa = Rt*(m), then using
the borehole temperature at each point to convert the resistivity to the salinity of the
water that would have that resistivity at that temperature. The Water samples were
acquired from Beta-3 and the comparison as follow.

Table 2-5 - Beta Water Samples


Beta-1 Beta-1 Beta-3

The different sources of water salinity are reasonably consistent and current log
evaluation is based on an average salinity of 22 Kppm (NaCl equivalent) meaning
average resistivity of 0.33 ohmm at 60F.
2.2.3. Formation Temperature

Temperature profile of Beta Fields were derived from the MDTs, wireline data and
LTPT which LTPT is the most reliable data. Summary of temperature profile is
described in the Figure below.

Beta

Figure 2-2 – Formation Temperature

The Indonesian water saturation equation was used in order to solve for different
fluid saturations. The formation water salinity was zoned for the petrophysical
analysis. Based on the SP (Spontaneous Potential) reading in well Beta-2, it was
found that the formation water salinity should be very fresh on the top logging
section about 4,000ppm NaCl, over the middle section a bit more saline about
7,000ppm NaCl and on the bottom logging interval it was based on the water sample
(22,000ppm NaCl).
The Indonesian water saturation factors were given constant values. Based on SCAL
information from well Beta-4 it was calculated to use, the "a"=1, "n"=2.12 and the
"m" value to be zoned, on top section to be "m"=2.0, middle section "m"=1.83 and
the bottom section "m"=2.14.
Effective porosity is computed from the density response after clay and hydrocarbon
corrections are applied. The gamma ray was used to estimate Vclay and the neutron
to estimate hydrocarbon density. Effective porosity was calculated using the formula:
PHIE = (RHOB – (Vclay * (RHOBclay - RHOMA)) - RHOMA) / (RHOF -
RHOMA)
Total porosity was calculated using the same formula with the exception that dry clay
density was substituted for wet clay density (RHOBclay). The dry clay density of
2.70g/cc was used. Shallow and deep resistivity curves were transformed to Rt and
the micro resistivity curve to Rxo.
The logic followed was to create a ‘core constrained’ log interpretation model at
Beta-4, and then apply this model to the remaining wells where core does not exist
while at the same time assuming the reservoirs in all wells have similar matrix and
clay properties to the cored interval.
Permeability is calculated from NMR log. Permeability from NMR methods is a
function of both porosity and pore size, which is a great improvement over traditional
permeability estimation methods based only on transform between porosity and
permeability. It should be noted that both producible porosity and permeability are
expected to increase with the pore throat diameter. The pore throat diameter ratio to
pore size is almost constant for most sandstone. However, it is necessary to have
core permeability for coefficients calibration for building a robust local permeability
model, to minimize the uncertainty on pore throat diameter to pore size ratio.
The NMR and brine permeability measurements on core samples have resulted in
several empirical correlations. The following permeability models are included in the
Geoframe MR Scanner processing software :
Schlumberger-Doll Permeability transform : KSDR = 4 * (T 2 LM ) * (TCMR )
2 4

Timur-Coates Permeability transform :


KTIM = 10 * ( FFV / BFV ) * (TCMR)
4 2 4

The NMR Timur-Coates permeability was computed in all the Beta wells, and
compared with core permeability data available in the well Beta-4. The core
permeability data and the MR Scanner high resolution pass permeability are showing
a good match with the default parameters.

2.2.4. Log vs. Core Porosity & Permeability

A good match was achieved with log data and core data at NOBP. Clay volume
estimation using the gamma ray together with appropriate GR minimum and GR
maximum inputs was used to ‘tune’ log derived porosity to core porosity in Beta-4. In
the other wells GRmin and GRmax were “normalised” to ensure good quality porosity
estimation over zones with no core. An attempt was made to relate MDT mobility
with core permeability for application to the un-cored formations.

Figure 2-3 - Beta-4 Log vs. Core porosity and Permeability matching

2.2.5. Water Saturation


A number of plugs from the Beta-4 Core were subjected to formation factor and
resistivity index analysis. Water saturation is derived from Indonesian equation (m =
2, n = 1.8 for Z380 and Z450, n = 2.14 for Z650). These assumptions has been
cross-checked with SCAL results (Appendix-2).

2.2.6. Log Interpretation Plots

Log interpretation plots for each well complete with core data (for Beta-4), formation
tops and fluid contacts are displayed below.

Figure 2-4 - Beta-1 Log Interpretation of Z380 sands (scale : 1/200)

Figure 2-5 - Beta-1 Log Interpretation of Z450 sands (scale : 1/200)


Figure 2-6 - Beta-1 Log Interpretation of Z650 sands (scale : 1/200)

Figure 2-7 - Beta-2 Log Interpretation of Z380 sands (scale : 1/200)


Figure 2-8 - Beta-2 Log Interpretation of Z450 sands (scale : 1/200)

Figure 2-9 - Beta-2 Log Interpretation of Z650 sands (scale : 1/200)


Figure 2-10 - Beta-3 Log Interpretation of Z380 sands (scale : 1/200)

Figure 2-11- Beta-3 Log Interpretation of Z450 sands (scale : 1/200)


Figure 2-12 - Beta-3 Log Interpretation of Z650 sands (scale : 1/200)

Figure 2-13 - Beta-4 Log Interpretation of Z380 sands (scale : 1/200)


Figure 2-14 - Beta-4 Log Interpretation of Z450 sands (scale : 1/200)

Figure 2-15 - Beta-4 Log Interpretation of Z650 sands (scale : 1/200)


2.2.7. Net to Gross

Summary of net to gross (NTG) ratio that used for static modelling and volumetric
calculation is shown by Table 2-6, see Appendix-3 for detail cut off plot.
Table 2-2 Average Net to Gross
Zone Cut off Average NTG, %

Vsh, % PhiE, % Sw, %

Z380 55 17 76 56

R10 55 17 76 44

Z450 55 14 76 55

Z550 55 14 76 52

Z650 55 18 76 35

2.2.8. Reservoir Summations

Average effective porosity and water saturation that used for static modeling and
volumetric calculation is shown by Table 3-7.
Table 2-3 Average Effective Porosity and Average Sw
Average
Zone Average Sw
PhiE
Z380 17% 60%
R10 15% 60%
Z450 17% 69%
Z550 16% 70%
Z650 15% 70%

2.3. Reservoir Testing

Well Beta-1 (exploration well) was drilled to a total depth of 2300 meter and
penetrated two zones of interest. The first zone of interest is the Lower Talang Akar
Formation (TAF) which containing dry gas with high CO2 (±36%). The second zone
of interest is the Air Benakat Formation (ABF) which is contains oil. The Air Benakat
Formation (ABF) comprises 3 main oil bearing zone referred to as Z-380, Z-450 and
Z-650. Production tests were conducted on the formations (TAF and ABF) to evaluate
reservoir properties and productivity. An openhole DST was conducted on the lower
Talang Akar Formation and a long term production test was conducted on the Air
Benakat Formation.
The following schematic of well Beta-1 shows location of the tested zones.
20' @36.6 m

13-3/8' @301 m
Upper Section
Air Benakat Fm

9-5/8' @1300 m

7' @2142 m
Lower Section
Lower Talang Akar Fm

TD 2300 m

Figure 2-1 - Well Schematic of Beta-1

2.3.1. Lower Talang Akar Formation (LTAF)

A barefoot DST was conducted to test a 6 meter gross interval (2147 to 2153 m KB)
of Lower Talang Akar formation lying on top basement, together with the underlying
basement below 2147 meters. A multi-rate test was conducted to establish the
inflow performance relationship (IPR) and measure reservoir parameters. The
maximum flow rate achieved was 13.3 MMscf/d through a 1”choke at a flowing
tubing head pressure (FTHP) of 1110 psig via 2-7/8”tubing. From these results the
absolute openhole flow potential (AOF) of the test interval is estimated to be 37
MMscf/d.
The produced gas has zero condensate and is sour, with around 36% CO2 and some
H2S (33 ppm). Some water was also produced at an average rate 137 b/d. About
half of this can be explained as water of hydration (i.e. a vapor phase component of
the gas at reservoir conditions), which means that another 70 b/d was free water.
This conclusion is supported by a production logging survey over the test interval,
which detected a small volume of water flowing from the basement below 2153
meters KB. The following is a summary of the test results:
 Flowing wellhead pressure : 1110 psig
 Maximum gas rate : 13.3 MMscfd
 Gas gravity : 0.94
 CO2 content : 36.0%
 Water rate : 137 bwpd
 Reservoir pressure and temperature : 3850 psia and 340o F at 2150 mKB
 Estimated Absolute Open Flow : 37.0 MMscfd
Although the test is showing a significant gas rate, the Talang Akar Formation is not
become primary means in monetizing Centaury PSC block. The reason behind this
decision is because there is a significant amount of CO2 which is causing high
investment in the processing facilities. Since development of Talang Akar Formation
requires high investment, it will be better that TAF development project conducted
after the Centaury block is commercialized through development of Air Benakat
Formation.

2.3.2. Air Benakat Formation (ABF)

Extensive testing using the Modular Dynamic Tester (MDT) tool was carried out to
determine formation pressures and identify hydrocarbon fluid type in the ABF
reservoirs. The data acquired for Beta-1 included cased-hole, dual packer testing as
well as open-hole testing. Meanwhile the data acquired for Beta-2, 3 and 4 was for
open-hole testing but many of the tests were carried out using dual-packer. The
summarize table of MDT results from each of the wells were showed in Appendix 4.
A long term production test was conducted in well Beta-1 during period of 21
September through 5 November 2008 to measure reservoir continuity and
deliverability. Each oil zone in Air Benakat Formation was tested separately starting
from the lower-most Z-650 and moving upwards to the Z-380. Table 3-8 shows long
term production test result summary.
Table 2-4 - Summary of Long Term Production Test
Average Production
Zone Interval, mss Oil Rate, Water Cut, GOR, PI, b/d/psi Skin
bopd % scf/stb

Z380 368.9 - 372.9 121 0.0 175 0.72 25.4


Z450 437.1 - 464.6 60 8.0 650 0.25 12.1
Z550 636.1 - 648.1 27 0.0 590 0.13 33.9

The recorded pressure response and production rate over time during long term
production test for each zone and its pressure transient analysis are presented in
Appendix 5.
The above table is showing that each of the Beta-1 test intervals had high formation
damage as indicated by the calculated skin values. The high formation damage was
suspected to have been caused during well drilling and in the case of the Z650 zone,
also by killing operations during well completion.
After clean-up zones Z-380 and Z-650 produced clean dry oil with no sign of
sustained water production. However, zone Z-450 produced a sustained level of
formation water with an average water cut of around 8%. Samples of the water
were collected for laboratory analysis and later proved to be formation water. No
production logging was carried out during the testing program so the exact source of
the water is not known. However, the Z-450 perforated test interval was 29 meters
and subsequent analysis and interpretation of all available formation pressure data
has shown that part of the perforated test interval was below what is now believed
to be the FWL of the Z-450 reservoir.
The long term production test result in Z650 is considered as not representatives
since the formation suffer very high damage. In order to have representative data in
Z650, a production test was carried out in well Beta-4 during 3rd quarter 2010.
Objective of the test was to get good quality of data in Z650 which can be used as
guidance in developing Z650. The following table summarizes test result in well Beta-
4.
Table 2-5 - Summary of Production Test in Beta-4
Average Production
Zone Interval, mss Oil Rate, Water Cut, GOR, PI, b/d/psi Skin
bopd % scf/stb

Z650 634.9 - 639.4 82.8 0 835 0.17 10.3

Detail of production test including its pressure transient analysis in well Beta-4 is
presented in Appendix 6.

2.4. Reservoir Fluid Characteristic

Reservoir fluid samples from MDT and production testing were sent to laboratory for
fluid analysis. In total there were 8 sets of fluid samples from wells Beta-1 and Beta-
4. Some of the samples were surface recombination sets (i.e.fluid samples taken
from the production separator during production testing) and the others were
downhole samples (i.e fluid samples obtained by pump-out downhole using the MDT
tool in wells Beta-1 and Beta-4).
The fluid samples obtained from Beta-1 (surface recombination and downhole) in
2007 were sent to LEMIGAS laboratory for analysis. Samples obtained from Beta-4 in
2009 (downhole samples) were sent to CoreLab for analysis. In general, all reservoir
fluid samples indicate that the Beta structure contains a low viscosity, light oil with
bubble point pressure close to initial reservoir pressure.
The following tables summarize and compare the results of the various fluid
analyses.

Table 2-6 - Summary of Downhole PVT Analysis


Beta-1
Budi-1 Beta-4
Budi-4
Parameter
Z380 Z450 Z650 Z380 Z650
Analyst LEMIGAS CORE Lab

Type of Fluid Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil


Fluid Density, deg API 52.8 52.2 51.7 57.9 56.3
Initial Reservoir Pressure, psig 562.6 657.5 927.7 563 940
Drawdown Pressure, psi ~ 210 ~ 375 ~ 400 ~ 50 ~ 40
Bubble Point Pressure, psig 400 500 696 506 902
Solution GOR, scf/stb 219 447 445 226 678
Oil Viscosity, cP 0.6 0.57 0.51 0.36 0.26
Table 2-7 - Summary of Surface Recombination PVT analysis
Beta-1
Budi-1
Parameter
Z380 Z450 Z650
Analyst LEMIGAS

Type of Fluid Oil Oil Oil


Fluid Density, deg API 52.4 52.3 53.2
Initial Reservoir Pressure, psig 485 660 945
Bubble Point Pressure, psig 485 660 945
Solution GOR, scf/stb 302 412 498
Oil Viscosity, cP 0.59 0.54 0.56

During long term production test, the separator gas rates were too low for accurate
gas measurement meaning that the calculated gas oil ratios (GOR) used for
recombination were not considered reliable. For this reason it was decided that
results from surface recombination samples were not suitable for PVT modeling.
In order to select which downhole fluid samples used for PVT modeling, the lowest
drawdown pressure during sample acquisition is the key. Sample acquisition must be
carried out when the reservoir fluid is in one phase. By comparing drawdown
pressure between well Beta-1 and well Beta-4, it is apparent that during sample
acquisition in Beta-1, the reservoir fluids were in two phase. Meanwhile in well Beta-
4, when fluid samples were acquired, reservoir fluid was in one phase. Based on this
consideration fluid samples from well Beta-4 are selected for PVT modeling in Beta
structure.
Since only 2 fluid samples are available from well Beta-4, fluid properties for
modeling in other zones such as Z450 and Z550 are derived based on interpolation.
Molecular weight and specific gravity of Heptane plus from Z380 and Z650 were
plotted over depth to get molecular weight, specific gravity and its characteristic for
Z450 and Z550. Then by using same correlation which applied in Z380 and Z650,
fluid properties in Z450 and Z550 can be derived.

2.5. Reservoir Contact

Hydrocarbon contact in Beta Field is determined based on intersection between oil


gradient with water gradient lines. In common practice, formation pressure data are
plotted versus depth and the fluid gradients (for gas, oil and water) are calculated
from plotted data. However since the Beta structure has thin reservoirs with short,
independent oil columns, it is not possible to accurately determine formation oil
gradients directly from the pressure plots.
To overcome this problem, oil gradients for Beta structure are derived from PVT
analysis on downhole reservoir fluid samples from Beta-4. Meanwhile, the water
gradient line is derived from Beta-2 MDT data, since Beta-2 penetrated the water
leg. Meanwhile the FWL for Z550 and R10 are determined based on lowest MDT
point in well Beta-3 and result of petrophysic analysis respectively. The interpreted
FWls for each of the main oil reservoirs in the Beta structure are shown in the
following Figure 3-17 to Figure 3-19 and summarized in Table 3-12.
Beta-1, 2, 3 & 4

Figure 2-2 - Free Water Level Z-380


Beta-1, 2, 3 & 4

Figure 2-3 - Free Water Level Z450


Beta-1, 2, 3 & 4

Figure 2-4 - Free Water Level Z650.


Table 2-8 - Summary of Free Water Level
Free Water Level
Zone
Meter SS
Z380 383.8
R10 407.2
Z450A 454.8
Z450C 460.6
Z550 548.0
Z650 652.1

2.6. Reservoir Driving Mechanism

Driving mechanism which occurred in Beta reservoir is predicted based on


information from long term production test in well Beta-1 and production test in well
Beta-4.
The tests are indicating that no sustain water were produced while testing zone Z380
and zone Z650. However, zone Z450 produced a sustained level of formation water
with an average water cut of 8%. No production logging was carried out during the
testing program so the exact source of the water is unknown. However, the Z-450
perforated test interval was 29 meters and subsequent analysis and interpretation of
all available formation pressure data has shown that part of the perforated test
interval was below what is believed to be the FWL of the Z-450 reservoir.
Based on the observation on long term production test in well Beta-1 and production
test in well Beta-4, it is believed that Beta reservoir is a depletion reservoir with little
support of edge water for Z380 and Z650 and bottom water for Z450.