INTRODUCTION

The main objective of the history match, as discussed in Section 5, was to calibrate the
numerical model so it reproduces the historical behavior of the field, both in production as well
as in pressure. This was done in order to have more confidence in the second phase of
simulation, which is the predictive phase.

The conclusion of the history matching phase is that a reasonable simulation model for the Bush
Dome Field was obtained and that it can be used to predict the future behavior of the field
under various production scenarios. As described in the RFP from BLM, the original objective
for the prediction phase of the simulation modeling was to develop operating scenarios for the
depletion of the helium storage reservoir. During the project, it became clear that the
requirements for depleting the helium were not consistent with the usual reservoir depletion
strategies, but rather the recovery of the stored helium would occur with constraints imposed by
both the legal requirements and the surface helium processing facilities. Consequently, a
significant portion of the prediction phase was spent on defining the constraints affecting the
recovery of the helium, analyzing the impact of these constraints on the production mechanisms
inherent in the reservoir, and developing operating scenarios to optimize the helium recovery
within the confines of the production constrained environment.

Numerous prediction runs were made to ascertain the flow dynamics within the reservoir that
affect the helium recovery and methane invasion under a depletion scenario. The information
obtained from these preliminary predictions was analyzed against the operating constraints in
order to develop reasonable prediction cases that meet the final depletion objectives that were
defined by the BLM. The final results for the prediction phase are presented through four
prediction cases along with discussions on the various production sensitivities that were analyzed
during the 70 plus prediction runs that were made to develop these final cases.

NITEC LLC 7-1 BLM

 CONCLUSIONS

Reservoir Operations

1. The production constraints imposed by HPA-1996 (straight line depletion of stored helium)
combined with the operating limits of the HEU (maximum HE concentration and gas rate
limits), severely restrict the production operations of the field and conflict with the physics of
a normal reservoir depletion operations.

2. Replacing the current small diameter production tubing (2 3/8”) with larger tubing (3.5”)
significantly improves the length of time for maintaining the constant rate of helium recovery
by 12 months.

3. Adding compression to allow production down to 25 psia flowing well head pressure
improves the helium recovery period by 15 months.

4. Re-completion of the helium injector wells in the upper layers of the Brown Dolomite will
allow these wells to drain the fractures and matrix of helium that has migrated from the lower
layers.

5. Improvements in the length of time for maintaining the constant rate of helium are strongly
influenced by the production allocation to the wells.

6. Producing only from the helium injection wells and high invasion wells accelerates the rate of
methane invasion into the helium bubble, reducing the HE concentration and the length of
time that the field can maintain the objective helium rate.

7. Limited production (~3,000 MSCF/Day) from the outer methane wells while producing
from the central high helium wells improves the helium recovery.

NITEC LLC 7-2 BLM

8. In order to preserve reservoir energy in the Brown Dolomite, an additional source of
methane (from Panhandle or other sources) is needed to provide sufficient gas volume for
the HEU input gas stream.

9. The low productivity of the wells indicates that there may be formation or skin damage.
This results in larger than expected pressure losses between the reservoir and the well bore
at these relatively low gas production rates.

Prediction Cases

Four prediction cases for helium recovery were completed and analyzed along with a general
reservoir depletion case. The final cases are,

1. Brown Dolomite HEU Operations

2. Panhandle-Brown Dolomite (re-completing wells in Panhandle)

3. Panhandle-Brown Dolomite with 3 Infill Wells

4. Panhandle-Brown Dolomite with 6 Infill Wells

The following are the conclusions from these cases:

1. The Brown Dolomite formation does not have enough production potential to recover the
stored helium by 2015 (150 months) under the production constraints imposed by the HEU
and the HPA-1996. The helium rate can be maintained for only 117 months and the total
helium recovered by the end of 2015 was 29.0 BCF.

2. Depleting the reservoir without regard to the produced helium concentration or rate (usual
depletion method) and using the helium injector wells and high invasion wells produces 30.7
BCF of helium by the end of 2015.

NITEC LLC 7-3 BLM

3. Re-completing the wells in the Panhandle Limestone extends the helium recovery period by
8 months and improves the total helium recovered by an additional 100 MMCF, and
maintains a higher total gas production rate for a longer period.

4. Drilling of 3 infill wells helps extend the helium recovery period by 2 months and improves
the total helium recovered by an additional 400MMCF by the end of 2015.

5. Drilling of 6 infill wells extends the helium recovery period by 14 months and improves the
total helium recovered by an additional 600MMCF by the end of 2015.

6. None of the prediction cases are able to sustain the objective helium production rate (6,570
MSCF/Day) for the required 150 months.

7. The best case consists of drilling 6 infill wells in addition to re-completing wells in the
Panhandle formation, replacing the production tubing and adding more compression power.
It is able to recover all of the helium (29.9 BCF) by the end of 2015, however, this case
can not maintain the fixed helium rate (6,570 MSCF/Day) during the last year of
production.

NITEC LLC 7-4 BLM

 RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A program should be implemented to re-complete the production wells in the Panhandle

Limestone. The wells should have separate production, either through the annulus or
through a second tubing string. Initially 2 or 3 wells should be re-completed and tested to
confirm the productivity improvements that are indicated in the prediction cases. It is
suggested that either some of the wells that originally had production from the Panhandle
(Bi-A5, Bu-A4, or Bu-A5) or one of the wells from our evaluation of the reservoir
properties (Bi-A9 or Fu-A2) be selected as one of the first wells to be re-completed.

2. Re-completing the helium injection wells in the upper layers of the Brown Dolomite should
be considered as a means of draining the helium gas that has migrated to the top of the
reservoir.

3. Replacement of the production tubing string in as many wells as possible should be

considered. A larger tubing string will reduce the pressure losses through the tubing and
improve the gas production potential.

4. Work-overs for stimulating production and reducing the well bore skin should be
considered for all wells.

5. Careful monitoring of the reservoir pressures throughout the reservoir and the methane
invasion rate is required in order to revise the production allocation between the high helium
wells and the methane wells.

6. Drilling of infill wells should be considered as one of the applicable options for recovering
the helium at the target rate and within the timeframe specified by HPA-1996

7. Additional compression will be necessary later in the recovery process (2012 for the infill
well case or 2006 for the Brown only case) in order to maintain the helium rate and to
maximize the recovery of helium.

NITEC LLC 7-5 BLM

8. Careful monitoring and measurement of water production (or water build up in shut-in wells)
is necessary to determine if water movement in the reservoir could become a problem in
future years. (The current simulation model has no data for history matching of water
production. Consequently the current model can not be used to predict future water
production.)

9. Additional prediction runs should be made to determine if further optimization is possible be

changing the production allocation between the wells. Also, additional prediction runs will
be required once a more reliable helium production schedule is determined based upon the
market demand and market forecast. It is anticipated that the forecasted demand will be
significantly different than the current production schedule.

NITEC LLC 7-6 BLM

 PREDICTIONS – CASE DEVELOPMENT & RESULTS

Production Guidelines for Helium Recovery

The production guidelines for recovering the stored helium in the Bush Dome Reservoir are
governed by two factors: The legal requirements of the Helium Privatization Act of 1996
(HPA-1996) and the production limitations of the Helium Enrichment Unit (HEU). The HPA-
1996 requires the BLM to offer for sale all of the government owned crude helium in excess of
600 MMCF on a straight-line basis and in a manner that will cause minimum market disruption.
These prediction cases address the physical production of the sold helium. Based upon the
reservoir's historical injection and production records, the volume of government owned crude
helium at the anticipated start of the helium sales and recovery operation (March 2003) si
28,500 MMCF. In addition to the government owned helium reserves, there is another 1,400
MMCF of privately owned helium in the reservoir that is required to be produced at the same
time. Therefore, the total amount of helium to be recovered from the Bush Dome Reservoir is
29,900 MMCF. The BLM specified a 13 year period for producing this helium, which
translates to 2,300 MMCF per year at an average production rate of 6.57 MMCF/day (6,570
MSCF/Day) based upon 350 production days in a year.

Since the crude helium has been injected into a reservoir that already contained natural gas
(methane) with high concentrations of nitrogen and naturally occurring helium, the gas produced
from the reservoir during the helium recovery will be a mixture of the crude helium and the native
gas. This gas mixture requires processing through a Helium Enrichment Unit (HEU) to separate
the hydrocarbon gas from the gas stream and to purify the helium gas stream to crude helium
standards (70%-80% helium; 20%-30% nitrogen). The design specifications for the Bush
Dome HEU were determined by agreement between the BLM and the Cliffside Refiners
Limited Partnership (CRLP). The Bush Dome HEU will be able to process a gas stream that
contains between 2% to 20% helium at an optimal total gas flow rate between 30,000 to
40,000 MSCF/Day. Upon review of the HEU specifications, the BLM indicated that the HEU

NITEC LLC 7-7 BLM

could process a gas flow rate of 115% of the optimal flow range for an absolute minimum flow
of 26,000 MSCF/Day and an absolute maximum flow rate of 46,000 MSCF/Day.

By combining the helium production requirements from HPA-1996 and the processing
specifications of the HEU, the production limitation guidelines for the prediction cases can be
determined. Table 7-1 displays the range of helium production possible if the HEU were
operated at its capacity limitations for both total gas rate and helium concentration. This table
shows that the HEU has the ability to output processed helium in the range of 520 MSCF/Day
to 9,200 MSCF/Day. However, the constraint imposed by the HPA-1996, requiring a
constant fixed rate of HE during the total recovery period, reduces the effective operating
conditions of the HEU. Table 7-2 displays the possible range of total gas production and the
corresponding HE concentration necessary in order to produce the required 6,570 MSCF/Day
of helium. The data in this table shows the gas production range that is applicable to the
prediction cases.

Total Gas Rate Helium Rate Nitrogen Rate Methane Rate

% Helium MSCF/Day MSCF/Day MSCF/Day MSCF/Day
Minimum Rate
2.0 26,000 520 6,500 18,980
Minimum HE %
Maximum Rate
2.0 46,000 920 11,500 33,580
Minimum HE %

Minimum Rate
20.0 26,000 5,200 6,500 14,300
Maximum HE %
Maximum Rate
20.0 46,000 9,200 11,500 25,300
Maximum HE %
Table 7-1: HEU minimum/maximum HE gas production rate

Total Gas Rate Helium Rate Nitrogen Rate Methane Rate

% Helium MSCF/Day MSCF/Day MSCF/Day MSCF/Day
Minimum Rate
20.0 32,850 6,570 8,210 18,070
Maximum HE %
Maximum Rate
14.3 46,000 6,570 11,500 27,930
Minimum HE %
Table 7-2: HEU minimum/maximum gas production with fixed HE
production rate

NITEC LLC 7-8 BLM

Reservoir Mechanisms Affecting Helium Recovery

In addition to the constraints imposed by the HEU facility and the HPA-1996, there are several
reservoir mechanisms that can affect the helium recovery process and required consideration in
developing the prediction scenarios. These mechanisms are,

1. methane invasion into the high helium concentration area (helium bubble),

2. interactions between individual wells and groups of wells, and

3. loss of reservoir energy (pressure) from gas production.

Understanding these mechanisms and how they affect the recovery of helium was the focus of
the preliminary prediction runs. These mechanisms and their impact are discussed below.

Invasion

As the purpose of the reservoir is changed from conservation of helium through gas storage to
the recovery of helium through gas production, the effects of methane invasion into the helium
bubble becomes important and will affect the total volume of helium recovered from the
reservoir. During the early development of the helium bubble, it was observed by BLM that in
some portions of the reservoir the injected helium moved quicker than expected and has
invaded some nearby wells. The mechanisms behind this rapid movement of helium in the
reservoir were identified during the history match and were found to be related to the fractures
and transmissibility barriers influencing the direction of fluid flow. However, the movement
(invasion) of helium into the methane areas was found to be limited by the large volume of
methane in the outer region of the reservoir and the higher pressures in the outer region
(especially after methane production stopped from these wells).

Now, during the recovery of helium in the central (high helium concentration) portion of the
reservoir, the same fractures and barriers that allowed the helium to move out into the methane
wells will allow the methane to move rapidly into the helium bubble. In addition, as the helium is

NITEC LLC 7-9 BLM

produced from the central area, the pressure will be reduced locally, enhancing the potential of
the methane to invade into the helium bubble. As the methane migrates into the central area, it
dilutes the concentration of helium, requiring additional volumes of gas to be produced to meet
the helium production objective. In other words, as the methane begins to invade the central
area due to the helium production, it will be necessary to increase the gas rate from these wells
to increase the HE production, which in turn will cause an increase in the rate of methane
invasion. The invasion of methane must be carefully monitored to avoid the dilution of the
helium concentration too quickly. Since the objective is to produce 20% HE, once the helium
concentration in an area falls below 20%, the wells will hinder the helium recovery process and
shorten the length of time the reservoir can maintain the required helium production rate.

Well Interactions

How the wells are produced, which wells and at what volumes, will have a significant impact on
the ability of the reservoir to produce the helium at the required concentration and rates. During
the helium storage period, it was logical to inject the helium in the central portion, building up a
high helium concentration bubble and to produce methane from the outer wells as necessary for
reservoir pressure maintenance. Now that the reservoir is in production mode, it is not as
intuitive in how to determine which wells should be produced. This is apparent from the recent
reservoir behavior observed during the last year.

The BLM has been required to produce some of the privately owned helium and initially was
fulfilling this requirement by producing crude helium mostly from the northern wells, Bi-A3 and
Bi-A13. Although these wells are located in the top of the structure and have fully saturated the
surrounding area with helium, these wells have exhibited strong connections to other wells in the
helium-invaded areas (Bi-A5, Bu-A4, Bu-A5). In turn these outer wells also exhibit good
communication connection to the methane areas. Consequently, as we would expect from our
observations during the history matching phase, Bi-A13 and Bi-A3 are showing signs of early
methane invasion and the neighboring outer wells, Bi-A5, Bu-A4, and Bu-A5, are clearly
showing signs of methane migration into their drainage areas. As a result of these observations,

NITEC LLC 7-10 BLM

the helium production in the north has been significantly reduced for the time being. Any helium
production that is required between now and when the HEU is operation is being produced
primarily from the southern wells (BI-A6, Bi-A14, Bi-A4).

The well interactions have been commented on in the History Match Section (page 5-21) as
well as in the earlier report in the Basic Engineering Production Data Section. The conclusion
that was drawn from the analysis of the well interactions is that the wells can not be produced
without considering their effects on other wells and areas in the reservoir. The wells must be
considered and produced in groups and the effects of their production volumes must be
contemplated on the other wells and groups in the reservoir. The simple approach of producing
from a few central wells, which resolves the short term helium production requirements, does
not take into consideration the possible dilution and invasion effects of the neighboring wells
located in the high to medium helium invasion zones and will reduce the amount of helium
recovered in the 13 year period.

Well Groupings

In the Bush Dome reservoir the production behavior of the wells and the regional reservoir
characterization can be used to associate individual wells into production groups. These
production groups allow us to consider the production effects from one group or area on the
other groups and areas, as opposed to only looking at the individual well interactions. In
addition, in the simulator, if wells are produced as a group, then the production is allocated to
the individual wells by their current production potential. A well’s production potential takes
into account the current reservoir conditions, predominately pressure. So over time a group’s
production is allocated to the wells in a manner that assures uniform pressure depletion within
the group.

When assigning wells to production groups, the primary considerations used were the helium
concentration in the area, how the wells could be affected by invasion, and how we anticipate
using the wells during the helium recovery operations. Based upon the helium concentration in
the area surrounding the wells, the following wells groups were defined: HE-Injection, High

NITEC LLC 7-11 BLM

Invasion, Low Invasion, and Methane. In addition, as we contemplated the reservoir
characterization results from the history match, particularly the sealing effects of the Bi-A6 fault
which divides the reservoir into 2 areas, we decided to add a second grouping level for this
situation: North Area and South Area. Table 7-3 shows the initial well grouping assignments
that were considered during the development of the prediction cases. Different group
assignments were tested during the development of the prediction cases as well as testing the
effects of controlling production without groups.

Table 7-3 : Initial well groups

HE-INJ HI-INV LO-INV METHANE

Bi-A3 Bi-A5 Bu-A9 Fu-A2
North
Bi-A13 Bu-A4 Bi-A7
Area
Bu-A5
Bi-A6 Bu-A2 Bi-A15 Bi-A9, Bi-A11
South
Bi-A14 Bu-A3 Bu-A11 Bi-B1, Bi-B2
Area
Bi-A2 Fu-A3 Bu-A8, Bu-B1

Reservoir Energy

The loss of reservoir energy (pressure depletion) through gas production during the helium
recovery operation and general reservoir depletion has a significant effect on the field gas
production rate and individual well production rate over time. There are two effects, the local
pressure losses and the total field wide pressure decline, that need to be considered,. As
previously mentioned, a large production rate by a single well or in a single area will cause a
localized drop in pressure. This localized loss of pressure and energy will have two effects on
the wells in the area:

1. The well productivity or gas production will drop; and

2. Gas will migrate into the area to equalize the pressure differences, potentially enhancing
methane invasion.

NITEC LLC 7-12 BLM

The localized loss of pressure issues will be taken into consideration when dealing with the
methane invasion issue and well groupings, as previously discussed.

The bigger concern for the recovery of helium from this reservoir is the field wide pressure loss
from the depletion of the reservoir gas volume. Under the current prediction objectives, the
total gas production from the Brown dolomite over the 13 yearss ranges from 155 BCF to 218
BCF. This is calculated from the range of the total gas rate found in Table 7-2. Considering
that at the end of history, the simulation model has a total gas volume in the Brown dolomite of
only 218 BCF, the planned gas depletion from the reservoir represents a gas recovery of 73%
to 100% of the current gas in place.

A gas recovery of this magnitude will result in a significant reduction in reservoir pressure which
in turn effects the maximum gas production rate. Under normal reservoir depletion strategies, it
is expect that as the reservoir pressure drops, the field gas production decreases as well. For
our prediction objective, it is necessary to maintain a constant field gas production rate for the
entire 13 year period. In addition, as the helium is produced and the methane invades into the
central area, the individual well gas rates for the high helium wells will have to increase with time
to compensate for the changes in helium concentration. Our production objectives for the
recovery of the helium are in direct conflict to the physical reality encountered when depleting a
reservoir. This issue will have to be taken into consideration when developing the production
strategies for recovering the helium under the current operating constraints.

Prediction Case Design

Designing the prediction cases to take into account all of the identified issues is a challenging
task. Numerous discussions on determining the best methods for maximum helium recovery
were held between NITEC and BLM as well as within the NITEC team. The primary
considerations were how to preserve helium concentration and reservoir energy in order to
produce 6.57 MMCF/Day of helium during the last months of the recovery operation, 13 years
from now, and how to control the simulator to produce the helium at the proper mixed

NITEC LLC 7-13 BLM

concentration (20%) as the in-situ helium concentration changed with production, from 70%
down to 10% or less. These considerations were translated into the following issues: Helium
Concentration (Quality), Well Groups, and Rate Control. Fortunately, the Eclipse simulator
offers many prediction controls that we were able to use in designing the prediction cases

HE Quality

Controlling the concentration of the helium in the mixed gas stream was the most important issue
that had to be addressed in the prediction cases in order to obtain meaningful results. Most
compositional simulators do not allow the specification of production control for a particular
component (e.g. Helium), but only for the phase, in this case total gas production. The Eclipse
simulator has a feature, called Gas Quality, which allows us to define a quality factor for each
component in the model. The simulation can then be controlled by specifying a quality target for
the produced gas stream.

This feature requires that the wells be assigned to production groups, either several wells in a
group or each well assigned to its own group. One or more of the groups must be able to
produce gas at or above the target quality. The simulator then can adjust the production
between the “high quality” groups and “low quality” groups in order to produce the correct
quality (in our case helium concentration) at the specified total gas production rate. This means
that at every time step, the simulator is evaluating the production potentials for each of the wells
within the groups and for the groups themselves, adjusting the production rate allocations in
order to produce the correct mixed gas stream. Without this automated feature, the production
allocation for the prediction cases would have had to have been manually calculated in advance,
tested in the simulation for accuracy and then manually adjusted until a correct solution was
achieved. Attempting to solve the production allocation manually would have significantly
reduced the number of prediction cases that could have been run within the available time.

The Gas Quality feature in the simulator performed very well and efficiently. The CPU run times
for the prediction cases were reasonable, around 3 hours for each case. This allowed us to run
many cases and to test the reservoir's sensitivity to the various issues. By only assigning a

NITEC LLC 7-14 BLM

quality value to the helium component in the reservoir, we were able to directly report the helium
quality produced from each well, each group and the overall field production quality.

Well Groups

The gas quality feature required using production groups. Each well had to be assigned to a
production group. The simulator allocates the target field production rate to the various groups
based upon each group’s production potential. Each group’s production potential is determined
by calculating the sum of each well’s production potential in that group. In the early stages of a
gas storage depletion cycle, the sum of the group production potentials is usually greater than
the target field production rate, in which case each group’s production is proportionally reduced
to meet the field target.

When the gas quality feature is activated, producing the correct quality mixture has a higher
priority over producing the correct gas rate and affects how the simulator adjusts the production
allocation among the groups. In order to maintain quality, the simulator may temporarily
abandon the total gas production rate control. With the gas quality feature active, the well
group assignments now have to consider how each well's helium concentration will change over
time in addition to grouping wells with similar reservoir characteristics. How the wells are
grouped together and how the simulator allocates the production rate between the groups are
issues that were tested for their sensitivities to the helium recovery during the preliminary
prediction cases. Cases were run with each well defined as its own group, with the well’s
defined in the groupings found in Table 7-3, and with some variations of the group definitions in
that table.

Rate Control

The simulator has the ability to specify various rate controls for the wells and groups. Wells and
Groups can have guide rates, maximum rates, or can be specified to produce at a fixed rate.
These options were tested during the preliminary cases. However, since the objective is to

NITEC LLC 7-15 BLM

understand the reservoir’s potential and to optimize the recovery of helium, it was determined
not to use these types of rate controls for these prediction cases.

Overall Design

The overall design for the prediction cases had to consider the need to maintain the helium
concentration (minimize methane invasion), to produce the required HE gas rate, and to
minimize pressure depletion. These design objectives translated into producing the reservoir at
the lowest possible field gas rate and at the highest allowable HE concentration. Referring back
to Table 7-2, the initial prediction conditions were set to a field production rate of 32,850
MSCF/day and a HE concentration of 20%. The cases were specified to produce at this rate
and HE concentration for as long as possible. If the field gas rate could not be maintained, then
the field production would decline according to the calculated field production potentials. If the
gas quality of 20% helium could not be maintained, then the simulator was allowed to increase
the total gas rate and reduce the quality to maintain the HE production at 6,570 MSCF/Day.
This change was allowed to occur in 2 steps: 38,647 MSCF/Day at 17% HE and 46,000
MSCF/Day at 14.28% HE. Other design issues that were considered as the preliminary cases
were evaluated were,

1. Re-completing the helium injectors in the upper layers of the Brown Dolomite

2. Re-completing all the wells in the Panhandle Limestone with isolated simultaneous
production capability

3. Replacing the existing small tubing (2 3/8 “) with larger tubing (3.5”)

4. Reducing the production THP limits (adding additional compression capability)

These issues will be address in detail in the following section that discusses the results from the
preliminary cases.

NITEC LLC 7-16 BLM

Preliminary Cases

In order to define the final set of prediction cases, many preliminary prediction runs were made
to test the reservoir’s response to various operation scenarios. As the preliminary cases were
run and analyzed, the results showed that the reservoir could not meet the helium production
objectives. Therefore, the following operational changes had to be considered and tested for
their contribution and feasibility:

1. The Brown dolomite’s ability to meet the gas rate and helium concentration

2. The sensitivity to different well groupings (no groups, North/South, HE%)

3. The contribution of the Panhandle toward improved helium recovery

4. The effects of re-completing wells in high helium bubble in the upper brown layers.

5. The effects of drilling additional wells

6. The effects of replacing the production tubing

7. The effects of adding compression to reduce the producing pressure limit

Brown Dolomite & Well Groups

Our initial approach was to produce the reservoir under the current operating conditions,
namely producing from the Brown dolomite with the current wells in their current state. Three
different well groupings were considered with this scenario: Single well groups, North and South
groups and HE concentrations groups. In addition, some runs were made varying the timing of
production from the different groups. The overall results from all of these runs were similar.
The reservoir could not maintain the HE production rate or total gas rate for the entire 13 year
period and that the different well groupings affected the length of time that the reservoir can
maintain the target HE production. The shortfall in HE production was significant, starting as
early as 2007. It was clear from the analyses that the additional methane from the Panhandle

NITEC LLC 7-17 BLM

would help slow down the reservoir pressure decline and methane invasion in the Brown
Dolomite.

NITEC LLC 7-18 BLM

Panhandle Limestone & Re-completing upper Brown layers

The next step in developing the prediction cases was to re-complete the wells in the Panhandle
formation to tap into the abandoned native gas that was isolated during 1960’s re-completion.
In order to separately control the gas production from the Panhandle and Brown formations,
these wells need to be re-completed with isolated production, either through the annulus or if
necessary a second tubing string. The production potential from the Panhandle was evaluated in
a separate Panhandle only depletion case. The gas rate decline from the Panhandle along with
the cumulative production is presented in Figure 7-1 below.

Figure 7-1 : Panhandle Gas decline

These cases used the individual well groups and the HE% groups. Based upon the poor results
in the earlier runs, the North/South grouping was abandoned. The Panhandle completions were
open immediately along with the high helium concentration wells. The methane wells in the
Brown Dolomite were not opened until the Panhandle wells could no longer provide sufficient
methane production. During these runs it was observed that the upper layers of the Brown
dolomite contained higher helium concentrations that were not produced because the HE
injector wells were only completed in the lower layers. The high helium concentration in these
layers is due to normal gas migration to the top the reservoir.

NITEC LLC 7-19 BLM

The results from these cases showed considerable improvement, but could not maintain HE
production. The shortfall in HE production was still significant occurring between 2008 &
2009.

Drilling Additional Wells

Upon reviewing the results, specifically the helium/methane saturation maps over time, it was
observed that there would be certain areas in the reservoir that will contain sufficiently high
concentrations of helium (20-40%) at the end 2015. The results from the Panhandle-Brown
cases indicated that there was sufficient reservoir pressure to maintain the total gas rate, but that
the helium concentration and production potential from the center wells would no longer be
sufficient to maintain the target helium production rate. Thus, the focus for the next set of
prediction cases was to more efficiently drain the helium concentration areas and if possible to
reduce the rate of methane invasion. Areas with higher helium concentration were identified as
candidates for infill wells. It was thought that the additional wells would drain the high helium
area more efficiently and would help distribute the pressure loss in the central area, reducing the
rate of methane invasion.

Initially 3 wells were tested, but these results were short on HE production and contained some
areas that still contained decent HE concentrations. Additional cases were tested with 6 infill
wells. The production shortfall, occurring in 2010 - 2011, showed improvement over previous
runs.

Larger Tubing, Lower THP, & New Well Groups

Evaluation of the infill well cases still showed that methane invasion was a considerable problem.
In addition, the wells in areas with higher helium concentration were unable to maintain sufficient
gas production due to the low reservoir pressure, the pressure losses through the small tubing
string and the surface pressure limits (THP limit). Reviewing the completion records showed
that it should be possible to replace the 2 3/8” tubing with 3.5” tubing. Although the smaller
tubing has the ability to clear out any water build-up from the vaporized water dropping out of

NITEC LLC 7-20 BLM

the gas stream near the well bore, the water build-up should only occur if the wells are shut-in
for a significant time. Under the new operating scenario, these wells should not be shut-in for
any significant time periods and therefore should not develop a water build-up problem.

In order to lower the surface pressure production limit (THP), additional compression facilities
would be required. This issue was discussed with BLM and it was determined that additional
compression could be considered and that the lowest reasonable THP limit would be 25 psia.

Finally, when reviewing the methane invasion issue one more time, it was determined that a
change in the production strategy with adjustments to the well groupings should slow the
methane invasion rate. The then current tested strategy had been based upon preserving the
reservoir pressure in the Brown dolomite by first producing methane only from the Panhandle
wells. Although there was improvement through this strategy, it resulted in a larger pressure
difference within the Brown reservoir, between the central area and the outer methane area. It
was decided to test opening some of the outermost methane wells in the Brown dolomite and
initially limit their production to 3,000 MSCF/Day. Figure 7-2, on the next page, shows the
new well groups for the final set of preliminary runs.

The results from these runs were very encouraging. Although these runs still had a HE
production rate shortfall occurring between 2012 to 2013, the total HE production results by
the end of December 2015 were very close to the target goal of 29,900 MMCF.

NITEC LLC 7-21 BLM

 Well Groups-1

Field

Methane HELIUM

METH-2 BR-M3 LO-INV HI-INV HELINJ

METH-1 BR-M2 Bi-A7 Bi-A2 Bu-A3 HE-2 HE-1

Bu-A4 Bi-A5
Bu-A5 Bi-A4
PANHD Bi-B2 Bu-A2 Bi-A13 Bi-A3
Bu-A8 Bi-A6
Bu-A11 Bi-A14
Bi-A15
All BR-M1 Bu-A9
Panhandle
Wells
Bi-A9
Bi-A11
Bi-B1
Bu-B1
Fu-A3
Fu-A1
Figure 7-2 : Production Group Hierarchy

Final Prediction Scenarios

Based upon the results and analyses from all of the preliminary prediction runs, the final cases
were developed. In addition to the helium recovery cases that have been discussed, an extra
case was run to determine the amount of helium that can be recovered under a normal depletion
scenario - without regard to helium production rate or helium quality. The final cases that are
reported are,

1. Brown Depletion (P46-BRDEPL)

2. Brown HEU Operations (P47-BRONLY).

3. Panhandle – Brown HEU Operations (P48-PANBR).

4. Panhandle – Brown HEU Operations with 3 Infill Wells (P49-PANBR-INF3).

NITEC LLC 7-22 BLM

 5. Panhandle – Brown HEU Operations with 6 Infill Wells (P50-PANBR-INF6-G1).

In addition to these cases, sensitivity runs were made to define the benefits associated with the
larger tubing string and additional compression. These sensitivity runs were made for the Brown
Only case and the Panhandle-Brown with 6 infill wells case.

Common Elements in All Prediction Cases

The following design elements are common to all of the prediction cases:

• Initial HE quality set to 20%

• Initial field gas production set at 32,850 MSCF/day

• Automatically open the LO-INV and BR-M3 groups when field production falls below
32,350 MSCF/Day

• Stepwise change of quality and rate when rate or quality can not be sustained. First change:
17% HE at 38,647 MSCF/Day Second change: 14.3% at 46,000 MSCF/Day Third
change: No quality control, Field gas rate at 46,000 MSCF/Day

• Helium injection wells are re-completed in all of the upper layers in the Brown dolomite
(see Table 7-3 below)

• Original 2.375" tubing is replaced with 3.5" tubing for all wells

• THP limit set to 25 psia for additional compression

• All wells shut-in from Nov 2002 until March 2003 (corrects for 800MMCF over
production of HE in history match)

As previously mentioned, the preliminary prediction runs indicated that there would be an
incremental benefit to re-completing the helium injection wells in the upper layers of the Brown

NITEC LLC 7-23 BLM

dolomite. Table 7-3 shows the wells and new layers that were re-completed for all of the
prediction cases.

Brown Wells
Dolomite
Bi-A3 Bi-A4 Bi-A6 Bi-A13 Bi-A14
Layers
4 X X X X
5 X X X X
6 X X X
7 X X
Table 7-3 : Re-completed layers for the helium injection wells

Revised Well Groups

During the development of the final cases some revisions to the well group assignments were
tested to see if the results could be further improved. One issue that was tested was to assign
production rate targets to the methane groups in the Brown dolomite (Groups BR-M1 & BR-
M2). The objective was to see if the methane invasion could be managed better with specific
rates versus the simulator assigned rates. This test was not successful and the run produced less
helium than the simulator calculated rates.

The second issue that was tested was to revise the well group hierarchy. The changes involved
moving methane group BR-M2 down to the same level as BR-M1, elevating the PANHD
group up one level and moving the LO-INV group out of the METHANE branch to the field
level branch. Figure 7-3, on the following page, displays the new revised hierarchy, which is
referred to as Well Group 2.

It was observed that the helium recovery could be improved if more methane was produced
from the flanks of the Brown dolomite during the earlier depletion time. In the previous runs the
BR-M2 wells were not opened until 2006 or later. By moving the BR-M2 group down and
equal to the BR-M1 group, the simulator will consider both sets of wells when determining the

NITEC LLC 7-24 BLM

early rate allocation for the Brown dolomite wells. By moving the PANHD group up one level,
it allows the simulator to allocate the methane production between the group of Panhandle wells
(PANHD) and the combined group of Brown dolomite wells (METH-1).

The second change was to promote the LO-INV group to the Field level. It was observed that
when the simulator turned on these wells, the HE concentration was too high to have this group
effectively considered as part of the Methane wells. When the group is first opened, it should be
considered as a helium source as its HE concentration is above 20%. But as the reservoir is
depleted this group's HE concentration drops quickly below 20% and the simulator needs to
switch the group to be a methane source. By moving the group to the Field level it allows the
simulator to consider this group's contribution independently, taking into account its fluctuating
helium concentration.

Well Groups - 2

Field

Methane LO-IINV HELIUM

METH-2 BR-M3 Bi-A2 HI-INV HELINJ

Bu-A4
Bu-A5
METH-1 PANHD Bi-A7 Bu-A3 HE-2 HE-1
Bi-A5
Bi-A4
BR-M1 BR-M2 All Bu-A2 Bi-A13 Bi-A3
Panhandle Bi-A6
Wells Bi-A14
Bi-A9 Bi-B2
Bi-A11 Bu-A8
Bi-B1 Bu-A11
Bu-B1 Bi-A15
Fu-A3 Bu-A9
Fu-A1
Figure 7-3 : Revised Well Groups showing new group hierarchy

Case Descriptions

The different prediction scenarios were run to obtain the best production strategy for Bush
Dome Field, complying as much as possible with the previously discussed BLM production

NITEC LLC 7-25 BLM

guidelines. The cases were run from March 1, 2003 (startup date for HEU) until 2023. The
results are reported every month in the simulation results files. For each case a summary table
(Table 7-4 to Table 7-7) for the yearly production volume and the average daily rates for each
component (methane+, nitrogen, and helium) has been prepared. In addition the following
graphs have been prepared for each case and are found in Appendix 7.A:

1. Field Gas Rate, Field Gas Quality

2. Field Gas Rate, Field Gas Quality, Group Gas Rate - Helium, Methane, Lo-inv

3. Group Gas Rates - all groups

4. Group Gas quality - all groups

5. Well Gas Rate - Helium group wells

6. Well Gas Quality - Helium Group Wells

7. Well Helium Gas Rate - Helium group wells

8. Well Gas Rate - HI-INV group wells

9. Well Gas Quality - HI-INV group wells

10. Well Helium Gas Rate - HI-INV group wells

11. Well Gas Rate - LO-INV, BR-M3 group wells

12. Well Gas Quality - LO-INV, BR-M3 group wells

13. Well Helium Gas Rate - LO-INV, BR-M3 group wells

14. Well Gas Rate - BR-M2 group wells

15. Well Gas Quality - BR-M2 group wells

NITEC LLC 7-26 BLM

 16. Well Helium Gas Rate - BR-M2 group wells

17. Well Gas Rate - BR-M1 group wells

18. Well Gas Quality - BR-M1 group wells

19. Well Helium Gas Rate - BR-M1 group wells

20. Well Gas Rate - Panhandle wells

For each case a six image montage display of the changes over time in the helium concentration
have been created as figures in Appendix 7.B, Figure 7.B-1 to Figure 7.B-5. In addition, for
each case a movie presentation of the changes in helium concentration is provided in digital
format only (CD-ROM) as part of Appendix 7.C.

Case 1 - Brown Depletion (P46-BRDEPL)

The objective for the Brown Depletion case was to determine the total amount of helium that
could be recovered if there was no constraint on the concentration of helium in the mixed gas
stream. The field rate for this run was set to 46,000 MSCF/Day. Only the HE-INJ, HI-INV,
and LO-INV wells were open for production. All of the outer methane wells (groups BR-M1,
BR-M2, and BR-M3) were closed. Figure 7-4, on the following page, shows the production
results - field gas rate, helium gas rate and helium concentration.

The helium recovery results for this case were,

Helium Recovered by Dec. 31, 2015 30.7 BCF

Helium Recovered by Mar 1, 2023 32.4 BCF
A sensitivity run was made to test if more helium could be produced using all of the wells. The
result was negative with less helium being recovered if all the wells were open.

NITEC LLC 7-27 BLM

This case was only run to obtain the total helium recovered volumes. No additional tables or
graphs are presented for this case. Appendix 7.B, Figure 7.B-1 does display the montage
figure of changes in helium concentration over time.

Gas Rate & Quality - Brown Depletion

48 0.6

40 0.5

Field Gas Rate

32 0.4
Gas Rate (MMCF/Day)

HE Quality
24 0.3
HE Quality

16 0.2

HE Gas Rate
8 0.1

0 0
Apr-03 Apr-05 Apr-07 Apr-09 Apr-11 Apr-13 Apr-15 Apr-17 Apr-19 Apr-21
Date

Figure 7-4: Brown Dolomite Production decline results

Case 2 - Brown HEU Operations (P47-BRONLY)

The objective for the Brown HEU Operations case is to recover the Helium from the Brown
dolomite reservoir at a fixed 20% concentration in the mixed gas stream. The field production
rate is set at 32,850 MSCF/Day, which should contain 6,570 MSCF/Day of helium. This case
uses the Well Groups 2 group assignment and hierarchy, with the exception that no Panhandle
wells are active. Initially the methane groups BR-M1 and BR-M2 are open along with
HELIUM group (HE-1, HE-2, and HI-INV). This case uses the larger production tubing, has
re-completed the helium injection wells in the upper layers and is using the lowest THP limits
(25 psia).

NITEC LLC 7-28 BLM

The first time the field production rate falls below 32,350 MSCF/Day, the LO-INV and BR-
M3 are opened. The second time the field production declines nothing more can be done. The
field is producing at its maximum capacity and its production rate is limited by the pressure

Num. of Months Last Month HE HE Production HE Production

He Production Production (BCF) (BCF)
Case Name Description 6.6MM/day 6.6MM/day Dec 31 2015 Mar 1 2023
Using only completions in the Brown
Brown Only reservoir to produce 6.6mm/day HE; Well 117 Dec-1-2012 29.0 32.1
Grouping 2

decline of the field. The results for this case are summarized in the following table:

As can be seen in the results table, this case can not meet the helium production objective. The
case maintains the target helium rate for only 117 months, 33 months short of the goal.
Although the total recovered helium at the end of 2015 is 29.0 BCF, the shortfall of 900
MMCF is a large amount when considering the price of helium. It should be noted that the
simulator had some difficulties controlling the quality and it allowed the quality to raise above
21% for over 72 months. This over production of helium may extend the number of months this
case could maintain the required helium production.

Table 7-4 contains the detailed yearly production summary for this case. Figure 7.A-1 through
Figure 7.A-19 in Appendix 7.A contain the result graphs for this case and Figure 7.B-2 in
Appendix 7.B contains the montage figure of changes in helium concentration over time.

A sensitivity case using smaller tubing and a higher THP limit was run for this case to
demonstrate the benefits of making these changes to the field operations. The sensitivity case
results are discussed at the end of this section.

NITEC LLC 7-29 BLM

Case 3 - Panhandle – Brown HEU Operations (P47-PANBR)

The objective for the Panhandle-Brown HEU operations case was to improve the results of the
prior case by re-completing the wells in the Panhandle to produce methane. Presumably the
methane from the Panhandle wells will help maintain reservoir pressure in the Brown dolomite
and reduce the rate of methane invasion into the helium bubble. All of the parameters for this
case are the same as the Brown only case, with the exception that the wells are all completed in
the Panhandle with separate production capabilities. This case uses well grouping 2. The
Panhandle wells start production on March 2003 along with the BR-M1 and BR-M2 Brown
dolomite methane wells.

The first time the field production rate falls below 32,350 MSCF/Day, the LO-INV and BR-
M3 are opened. The second time the field production declines, due to the effort to maintain
quality, the quality and rate parameters are adjusted. The first adjustment, for 3 months, is to
17% HE at a field gas rate of 38,647 MSCF. The second adjustment, for 4 months, is to
14.3% HE at a field gas rate of 46,000 MSCF/Day, the maximum rate for the HEU. Once the
rate declines for a fourth time, the quality controls are turned off and the field is allowed to
produced whatever helium it can at the maximum rate of 46,000 MSCF/Day. The results for

Num. of Months Last Month HE HE Production HE Production

He Production Production (BCF) (BCF)
Case Name Description 6.6MM/day 6.6MM/day Dec 31 2015 Mar 1 2023
Re-complete all wells in Panhandle; use both
Panhandle-Brown formations to produce 6.6mm/day HE; Well 125 Jul-1-2013 29.1 32.9
Grouping 2

this case are summarized in the following table:

As can be seen in the results table, this case can not meet the helium production objective.
However, the case did show improvement over the previous, Brown-only case. This case
maintains the target helium rate for only 125 months, 25 months short of the goal but 8 months
longer than the Brown only case. Although the total recovered helium at the end of 2015 is
29.1 BCF, the shortfall of 800 MMCF is still a large amount.

NITEC LLC 7-30 BLM

Table 7-5 contains the detailed yearly production summary for this case. Figure 7.A-20
through Figure 7.A-39 in Appendix 7.A contain the result graphs for this case and Figure
7.B-3 in Appendix 7.B contains the montage figure of changes in helium concentration over
time.

Case 4 - Panhandle – Brown HEU Operations with 3 Infill Wells

(P48-PANBR-INF3)

The objective for the Panhandle-Brown HEU operations with 3 Infill Wells case was to improve
the results of the prior case by drilling 3 infill wells in areas that had some helium concentration
at the end of the prior prediction case. Figure 7-5 shows the infill well locations.

NEW A

NEW B
NEW C

Figure 7-5 : HE concentration map showing infill well locations

The locations were selected by reviewing the changes in helium saturation over time from the
prior case. Areas that had moderate helium concentration at the end of the prior simulation and
had exhibited slower drainage than other areas in the reservoir were identified. The goal for the
infill wells is not only to help fully drain the helium concentration, but also to divide the helium

NITEC LLC 7-31 BLM

production between more wells reducing the pressure depletion effects, which are related to the
rate of methane invasion.

The remaining case parameters are identical to the prior case. The results for this case are
summarized in the following table:

Num. of Months Last Month HE HE Production HE Production

He Production Production (BCF) (BCF)
Case Name Description 6.6MM/day 6.6MM/day Dec 31 2015 Mar 1 2023
Re-complete all wells in Panhandle; Drill 3
Panhandle-Brown
infill wells; use both formations to produce 127 Sep-1-2013 29.4 33.1
3 Infill Wells
6.6mm/day HE; Well Grouping 2

As can be seen in the results table, this case can not meet the helium production objective.
However, the case did show improvement over the previous Panhandle-Brown case. The case
maintains the target helium rate for only 127 months, 23 months short of the goal but 2 months
longer than the Panhandle-Brown case. Although the total recovered helium at the end of 2015
is 29.4 BCF, the shortfall of 500 MMCF is still significant. It should be noted that this case
might be improved if the well groupings are switch from group 2 to group 1, similar to the next
case. This was not tested because even though this case may show some improvement, it will
still have a shortfall in production as demonstrated in the following case.

Table 7-6 contains the detailed yearly production summary for this case. Figure 7.A-40
through Figure 7.A-59 in Appendix 7.A contain the result graphs for this case and Figure
7.B-4 in Appendix 7.B contains the montage figure of changes in helium concentration over
time.

Case 5 - Panhandle – Brown HEU Operations with 6 Infill Wells

(P50-PANBR-INF6-G1)

The objective for the Panhandle-Brown HEU operations with 6 Infill Wells case was to improve
the results of the prior case by drilling a total of 6 infill wells (the 3 wells from the prior case plus
3 new wells), in areas that had some helium concentration at the end of the prior prediction
case. Figure 7-6, on the following page, shows the infill well locations.

NITEC LLC 7-32 BLM

The location criterion for the additional 3 wells was the same as applied in the previous case.
Areas were identified that had moderate helium concentration at the end of the prior simulation
plus exhibited slower drainage than other areas in the reservoir.

NEWNEW
D NEW A
E
NEW F

NEW B
NEW C
NEW F

Figure 7-6 : HE concentration map showing the 6 infill well locations

The remaining case parameters are identical to the prior case except for the well groupings.
Both well groupings (well group 1 and well group 2) were run and it was found that the results
were better using well group 1. This may be due to the interactions between the central area,
now able to produce at higher volumes and the simulator's attempts to allocate more rate to the
outside methane wells. The results for this case are summarized in the following table:

Num. of Months Last Month HE HE Production HE Production

He Production Production (BCF) (BCF)
Case Name Description 6.6MM/day 6.6MM/day Dec 31 2015 Mar 1 2023
Re-complete all wells in Panhandle; Drill 6
Panhandle-Brown
infill wells; use both formations to produce 141 Sep-1-2014 30.0 33.3
6 Infill Wells
6.6mm/day HE; Well Grouping 1

This is the best result that we have achieved. Even though this is the best result out of all of the
cases, as can be seen in the results table, this case can not meet the helium production objective

NITEC LLC 7-33 BLM

in terms of the number of months of production. However, the case did show considerable
improvement over the previous, Panhandle-Brown Infill 3 well case. The case maintains the
target helium rate for 141 months, only 9 months short of the goal. In addition, the total
recovered helium at the end of 2015 is 29.97 BCF, which meets our target objective for total
helium production. The difference between our prediction design target and this case, is that this
case requires an additional 4 months to produce the target helium volume of 29.9 BCF.

Final sensitivity runs on the effects of the tubing size change and the THP limit change were
made to quantify the benefits of making these facility modifications. The results from these
sensitivity runs are discussed later in this section.

Table 7-7 contains the detailed yearly production summary for this case. In addition electronic
tables containing the monthly gas production and monthly gas quality for each well and for the
production groups have been prepared and are included on the CD-ROM. As an example,
Table 7-8 contains a portion of the table for the monthly gas production and Table 7-9
contains a portion of the table for the monthly gas quality. Figure 7.A-60 through Figure 7.A-
79 in Appendix 7.A contain the result graphs for this case and Figure 7.B-5 in Appendix 7.B
contains the montage figure of changes in helium concentration over time.

Tubing Size & THP Sensitivities

Additional prediction runs were made for 2 of the final cases to establish the benefits of
changing the production tubing size from 2 3/8” to 3.5” and lowering the THP limit from 100
psia to 25 psia with additional compression power. The cases were the Brown Only and the
Panhandle-Brown with 6 infill wells. The Brown Only case was selected in order to compare
the current operating conditions (smaller tubing and higher THP) with the reported results for
this case. The 6 infill well case was also selected to establish the incremental benefits for each
suggested change to the reservoir’s operations (tubing size, adding compression, drilling 3 wells,
and drilling an additional 3 wells.) Table 7-10, on the following page, contains a summary of
the result for these additional sensitivity runs.

NITEC LLC 7-34 BLM

The results show that there is a significant improvement for both cases, 2–3 years of additional
helium production, when implementing these changes to the reservoir. The change in tubing size
alone accounts for an additional 13 months of fixed rate production and a 1.2 BCF increase in
the volume of helium recovered by Dec 2015 for the 6 infill well case. Lowering the THP limit
has a bigger impact, adding 20 months of production and recovering an additional 1.8 BCF of
helium.

Num. of Months Last Month HE Production HE Production

He Production HE Production (BCF) (BCF)
Case Name Description 6.6MM/day 6.6MM/day Dec 1 2015 Mar 1 2023
THP 25 psia;
Brown Only 125 Jul-1-2013 29.0 32.1
3.5" Tubing
THP 100 psia;
Brown Only -THPTS 95-101 Jul-1-2011 27.4 30.5
2.375" Tubing
Panhandle-Brown THP 25 psia;
141 Sep-1-2014 30.0 33.3
6 Infill Wells 3.5" Tubing
Panhandle-Brown THP 100 psia;
121 Apr-1-2013 29.2 32.6
6 Infill Wells 3.5" Tubing
Panhandle-Brown THP 100 psia;
108 Mar-1-2012 28.0 31.9
6 Infill Wells 2.375" Tubing
Table 7-10 : Prediction cases showing the benefits of 3.5” tubing and lower
THP limit

NITEC LLC 7-35 BLM

Case Summaries & Comparisons

Table 7-11 contains the summary of the results for all of the prediction cases. When comparing
the results from these cases, one can observe that considerable improvement has been achieved
from the efforts to optimize the helium recovery. On the following pages, a number of
comparison graphs and charts have been prepared to display the differences between these
cases. The parameters compared are the helium daily gas rate (Figure 7-7), the cumulative
helium production (Figure 7-8), the months of constant helium production (Figure 7-9), the
cumulative helium production on Dec 31 2015 (Figure 7-10), and the cumulative helium

Num. of Months Last Month HE HE Production HE Production

He Production Production (BCF) (BCF)
Case Name Description 6.6MM/day 6.6MM/day Dec 31 2015 Mar 1 2023

Prediction Case Produce Helium rate at 6.6 MMCF/Day to

150 Sep-1-2015 29.9+ n/a
Design recover 29.9 BCF of Helium

Depletion of reservoir with HE injectors and

Brown Depletion n/a n/a 30.7 32.4
high invaision wells; no HE quality limits

Using only completions in the Brown

Brown Only reservoir to produce 6.6mm/day HE; Well 125 Jul-1-2013 29.0 32.1
Grouping 2

Re-complete all wells in Panhandle; use both

Panhandle-Brown formations to produce 6.6mm/day HE; Well 125 Jul-1-2013 29.1 32.9
Grouping 2

Re-complete all wells in Panhandle; Drill 3

Panhandle-Brown
infill wells; use both formations to produce 127 Sep-1-2013 29.4 33.1
3 Infill Wells
6.6mm/day HE; Well Grouping 2

Re-complete all wells in Panhandle; Drill 6

Panhandle-Brown
infill wells; use both formations to produce 141 Sep-1-2014 30.0 33.3
6 Infill Wells
6.6mm/day HE; Well Grouping 1

production after 20 years (Figure 7-11)

Table 7-11 : Case results summary

NITEC LLC 7-36 BLM

 Field Helium Daily Gas Rate - Case Comparison

Prediction Design P47 Brown Only P48-Pan-Brown P49-PanBrown 3 Wells P50-PanBrown 6 Wells
8.00

7.00

6.00
Gas Rate (MSCF/Day)

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
Apr-03 Apr-05 Apr-07 Apr-09 Apr-11 Apr-13 Apr-15 Apr-17 Apr-19 Apr-21
Date

Figure 7-7 : Case comparison of Field Helium gas Production Rate

Cumulative Helium Production - Case Compare

Prediction Design P47 Brown Only P48-Pan-Brown
P49-PanBrown 3 Wells P50-PanBrown 6 Wells P46 Brown Depletion
35,000

30,000
29.9 BCF

25,000
Gas Volume (MMCF)

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
Apr-03 Apr-05 Apr-07 Apr-09 Apr-11 Apr-13 Apr-15 Apr-17 Apr-19 Apr-21
Date

Figure 7-8 : Case comparison of Field Helium Cumulative Production

NITEC LLC 7-37 BLM

 Months of Helium Production at 6.57 MMCF/Day

Prediction Design 150

Pan-Brown 6 Infill Wells 141

Pan-Brown 3 Infill Wells 127

Panhandle-Brown 125

Brown Only 117

Brown Depletion

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Months

Figure 7-9 : Case Comparison Number of Months of Helium Production at

Cumulative Helium Production on Dec 31, 2015

Prediction Design 29.9

Pan-Brown 6 Infill Wells 30.0

Pan-Brown 3 Infill Wells 29.4

Panhandle-Brown 29.1

Brown Only 29.0

Brown Depletion 30.7

28 28.5 29 29.5 30 30.5 31

BCF (He)

6.57 MMCF/Day

Figure 7-10: Case Comparison Cumulative Helium Production on Dec 31 2015

NITEC LLC 7-38 BLM

 Cumulative Helium Production on Dec 31, 2023

Prediction Design

Pan-Brown 6 Infill Wells 33.3

Pan-Brown 3 Infill Wells 33.1

Panhandle-Brown 32.9

Brown Only 32.1

Brown Depletion 32.4

31.4 31.6 31.8 32 32.2 32.4 32.6 32.8 33 33.2 33.4

BCF (He)

Figure 7-11: Case Comparison Cumulative Helium Production on March 2023

Case Discussion

There are several criteria that can be used to evaluate these prediction cases:

1. The number of months of sustained HE production at 6.57MMCF/Day,

2. The total volume of helium recovered by Dec 31, 2015, and

3. The total volume of helium recovered after 20 years of production.

Now in the strictest sense, the primary objective for the prediction cases is that the helium is to
be produced at a constant rate for 12.5 years for a total recovery of 29.9 BCF. Using this
criterion, none of the prediction cases meet the objective. The best case, the Panhandle-Brown
with 6 infill wells, is the closest to fulfilling the helium production rate objective. This case only
misses the objective by 9 months.

NITEC LLC 7-39 BLM

By the second criterion, the 6 infill well case is successful in producing 29.9 BCF by the end of
December 2015. This criterion represents the intent of the helium recovery operations to sell
and produce all of the government owned helium. The third criterion is included as a means to
evaluate the economic benefits of the proposed changes to the reservoir in the long term (20
years) as opposed to only looking at the short term criteria.

Under all of the evaluations, the Panhandle-Brown with 6 infill wells, is the best case and is
closest in meeting all of the evaluation criteria. The other cases along with all of the preliminary
prediction runs have clearly shown that in order to maximize the helium recovery a number of
recovery strategies must be employed. Improvements in well productivity (tubing size changes
and re-completions) have a sizable impact, are easy to implement, and have a relative low cost
associated with the work. Re-completing the wells in the Panhandle formation also had a strong
impact and in order to receive the most benefit, this change must take place earlier in the
recovery process. Finally, the decision to drill infill wells and to add compression must be
considered in order to meet the objectives of HPA-1996.

The other lesson that the prediction cases teach us, is that managing the distribution of the
production in the reservoir is extremely important. Changes in the well grouping, which change
the rate distribution, directly affects the recovery of the helium. Unbalanced production from
only the central area clearly lowers the recoverable volumes of helium and the length of time that
the fixed rate of helium can be produced. Careful monitoring of the production rates, reservoir
pressures and helium concentration are needed in order to optimize the recovery of the helium
and maintain the helium production rate.

NITEC LLC 7-40 BLM

 Production Volume (BCF) Average Daily Rate (MMcf/day)
Methan Methan
Year e Nitrogen Helium Total Gas e Nitrogen Helium Total Gas
2003 5.5 2.5 2.0 10.1 18.058 8.332 6.593 32.983

2004 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 18.040 8.313 6.591 32.944

2005 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 17.951 8.288 6.612 32.851

2006 6.5 3.0 2.5 12.0 17.795 8.294 6.762 32.850

2007 6.3 3.0 2.5 11.8 17.354 8.209 6.896 32.459

2008 6.4 3.0 2.6 12.0 17.505 8.345 7.091 32.940

2009 6.4 3.0 2.6 12.0 17.442 8.325 7.084 32.851

2010 6.4 3.0 2.6 12.0 17.434 8.325 7.073 32.833

2011 6.4 3.0 2.6 12.0 17.517 8.330 6.989 32.836

2012 6.5 3.0 2.5 12.0 17.748 8.352 6.837 32.937

2013 5.9 2.6 1.9 10.5 16.174 7.255 5.290 28.719

2014 5.0 2.2 1.4 8.6 13.794 5.913 3.796 23.502

2015 4.3 1.8 1.0 7.2 11.870 4.917 2.821 19.608

2016 3.7 1.5 0.8 5.9 10.067 4.076 2.150 16.293

2017 3.1 1.2 0.6 5.0 8.624 3.422 1.661 13.706

2018 2.8 1.1 0.5 4.3 7.587 2.956 1.321 11.863

2019 2.5 0.9 0.4 3.8 6.725 2.581 1.069 10.375

2020 2.2 0.8 0.3 3.4 6.018 2.280 0.880 9.178

2021 1.9 0.7 0.3 2.9 5.257 1.974 0.724 7.954

2022 1.7 0.6 0.2 2.6 4.762 1.770 0.609 7.141

2023 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 4.415 1.633 0.544 6.592

Total 2015 78.7 36.4 29.0 144.1

Total 2023 96.9 43.5 32.1 172.5

Table 7-4 : Results Summary P47 Brown Only

NITEC LLC 7-41 BLM

 Production Volume (BCF) Panhd Average Daily Rate (MMcf/day) Panhd
Year Methane Nitrogen Helium Total Gas Total Gas Methane Nitrogen Helium Total Gas Total Gas
2003 5.5 2.5 2.0 10.1 4.2 18.068 8.320 6.592 32.979 13.878
2004 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 4.7 18.053 8.300 6.588 32.941 12.937
2005 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 4.3 18.005 8.276 6.570 32.851 11.905
2006 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 3.9 18.002 8.278 6.570 32.851 10.685
2007 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 3.5 17.997 8.283 6.570 32.850 9.589
2008 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 3.1 18.039 8.313 6.588 32.940 8.493
2009 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 2.7 17.982 8.298 6.571 32.850 7.397
2010 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 2.3 17.975 8.306 6.571 32.852 6.301
2011 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 2.0 17.965 8.312 6.569 32.845 5.479
2012 6.8 3.1 2.3 12.3 1.4 18.686 8.496 6.418 33.600 3.836
2013 9.8 4.0 2.3 16.1 2.6 26.843 11.063 6.239 44.145 7.123
2014 10.5 4.1 1.9 16.5 2.8 28.767 11.277 5.182 45.226 7.671
2015 8.8 3.4 1.4 13.5 2.1 24.051 9.225 3.805 37.081 5.753
2016 7.2 2.7 1.0 11.0 1.8 19.763 7.452 2.796 30.011 4.932
2017 6.0 2.2 0.8 9.0 1.4 16.537 6.140 2.097 24.774 3.836
2018 5.1 1.9 0.6 7.6 1.2 14.027 5.143 1.612 20.781 3.288
2019 4.3 1.6 0.5 6.3 1.1 11.799 4.293 1.271 17.363 3.014
2020 3.8 1.4 0.4 5.5 0.9 10.315 3.721 1.029 15.065 2.466
2021 3.3 1.2 0.3 4.8 0.8 9.077 3.249 0.842 13.168 2.192
2022 2.9 1.0 0.3 4.2 0.8 8.059 2.866 0.700 11.625 2.192
2023 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 7.415 2.628 0.621 10.665 1.667

Total
94.0 41.4 29.1 164.5 39.7
2015

Total
127.1 53.5 32.9 213.6 47.8
2022

Table 7-5 : Results Summary P48 Panhandle-Brown

NITEC LLC 7-42 BLM

 Production Volume (BCF) Panhd Average Daily Rate (MMcf/day) Panhd
Year Methane Nitrogen Helium Total Gas Total Gas Methane Nitrogen Helium Total Gas Total Gas
2003 5.5 2.5 2.0 10.1 4.2 18.068 8.320 6.592 32.979 13.878
2004 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 4.8 18.058 8.296 6.587 32.941 13.168
2005 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 4.4 18.006 8.276 6.570 32.853 11.948
2006 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 4.0 18.002 8.280 6.570 32.852 10.959
2007 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 3.5 17.996 8.285 6.570 32.850 9.589
2008 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 3.2 18.039 8.314 6.588 32.940 8.767
2009 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 2.7 17.986 8.300 6.570 32.855 7.397
2010 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 2.4 17.975 8.306 6.569 32.851 6.575
2011 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 1.9 17.968 8.314 6.569 32.851 5.205
2012 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 1.4 18.012 8.345 6.586 32.942 3.836
2013 9.4 3.9 2.4 15.7 2.1 25.778 10.818 6.496 43.092 5.753
2014 10.6 4.2 2.0 16.8 2.6 29.104 11.479 5.423 46.006 7.123
2015 9.5 3.6 1.5 14.6 2.3 26.068 9.952 4.004 40.023 6.301
2016 7.6 2.9 1.0 11.5 1.8 20.914 7.838 2.838 31.590 4.932
2017 6.3 2.3 0.8 9.4 1.5 17.269 6.370 2.081 25.719 4.110
2018 5.2 1.9 0.6 7.7 1.2 14.355 5.229 1.563 21.147 3.288
2019 4.4 1.6 0.4 6.4 1.1 12.052 4.351 1.212 17.615 3.014
2020 3.8 1.4 0.4 5.5 0.9 10.478 3.750 0.970 15.198 2.466
2021 3.3 1.2 0.3 4.8 0.9 9.154 3.252 0.786 13.191 2.466
2022 3.0 1.0 0.2 4.2 0.7 8.094 2.857 0.649 11.600 1.918
2023 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 7.441 2.618 0.574 10.632 1.667

Total
94.2 41.6 29.4 165.2 39.5
2015

Total
128.3 54.0 33.1 215.5 47.7
2022

Table 7-6 : Results Summary P49 Panhandle-Brown with 3 Infill Wells

NITEC LLC 7-43 BLM

 Production Volume (BCF) Panhd Average Daily Rate (MMcf/day) Panhd
Year Methane Nitrogen Helium Total Gas Total Gas Methane Nitrogen Helium Total Gas Total Gas
2003 5.5 2.5 2.1 10.1 6.1 17.942 8.294 6.722 32.959 19.845
2004 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 6.9 18.061 8.293 6.587 32.941 18.990
2005 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 6.6 18.007 8.273 6.570 32.850 18.096
2006 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 5.5 17.985 8.276 6.569 32.830 15.158
2007 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 1.7 17.981 8.300 6.570 32.851 4.709
2008 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 1.8 18.028 8.325 6.588 32.941 4.840
2009 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 1.5 17.973 8.307 6.570 32.850 4.091
2010 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 1.4 17.971 8.311 6.570 32.851 3.836
2011 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 1.2 17.967 8.314 6.569 32.851 3.288
2012 6.6 3.0 2.4 12.0 1.1 18.011 8.341 6.587 32.940 3.014
2013 7.0 3.2 2.4 12.5 0.7 19.059 8.684 6.569 34.312 1.918
2014 10.1 4.2 2.4 16.6 0.6 27.579 11.399 6.474 45.451 1.644
2015 8.3 3.3 1.6 13.1 0.0 22.642 8.956 4.274 35.872 0.000
2016 6.5 2.5 1.0 10.0 0.0 17.819 6.802 2.735 27.355 0.000
2017 5.3 2.0 0.7 7.9 0.0 14.496 5.400 1.884 21.780 0.000
2018 4.4 1.6 0.5 6.5 0.0 12.064 4.413 1.362 17.840 0.000
2019 3.7 1.3 0.4 5.4 0.0 10.203 3.682 1.024 14.909 0.000
2020 3.2 1.1 0.3 4.6 0.0 8.763 3.128 0.794 12.685 0.000
2021 2.7 1.0 0.2 4.0 0.0 7.533 2.667 0.625 10.825 0.000
2022 2.3 0.8 0.2 3.3 0.0 6.310 2.222 0.494 9.026 0.000
0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.785 2.030 0.435 8.251 0.000

Total 2015 89.9 40.4 30.0 160.3 35.1

Total 2022 118.4 50.9 33.3 202.5 35.1

Table 7-7 : Results Summary P50 Panhandle-Brown with 6 Infill Wells

NITEC LLC 7-44 BLM

 P50-PANBR-INF6-G1 Well Gas Production Rate
WGPR NEW HELIUM
DATE NEWA NEWB NEWC NEWD NEWE NEWF BI-A3 BI-A6 BI-A13 BI-A14
2-Nov-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1500.0 1572.0 760.8 1249.0
1-Dec-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1-Jan-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1-Feb-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1-Mar-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1-Apr-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 540.1 9716.1 18.0 54.9
1-May-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 297.9 9326.5 19.9 30.3
1-Jun-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 159.0 9158.4 21.2 30.5
1-Jul-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3883.6 3462.9 1000.7 1497.6
1-Aug-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3200.2 2853.5 1585.9 2459.5
1-Sep-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3349.1 2489.8 1680.4 2663.0
1-Oct-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3363.6 2506.4 1673.2 2676.7
1-Nov-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3381.6 2522.2 1672.4 2692.5
1-Dec-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3401.2 2537.6 1674.7 2708.9
1-Jan-04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3423.3 2553.9 1679.2 2726.5
1-Feb-04 534.5 591.2 1829.9 745.8 422.5 472.3 1940.8 1449.4 970.8 1542.9
1-Mar-04 537.5 595.3 1847.3 751.8 424.2 472.6 1961.3 1465.6 988.7 1561.4
1-Apr-04 540.9 599.1 1860.8 757.6 426.4 474.1 1975.5 1474.9 998.7 1573.1
1-May-04 544.1 602.5 1872.8 763.0 428.6 475.8 1988.7 1483.3 1006.7 1583.5
1-Jun-04 547.3 605.8 1884.6 768.3 430.7 477.6 2002.3 1491.6 1014.1 1593.6
1-Jul-04 550.4 608.8 1895.9 773.3 432.9 479.5 2015.1 1499.6 1020.9 1603.3
1-Aug-04 553.6 611.9 1907.5 778.3 435.1 481.5 2028.7 1507.8 1027.6 1613.0
1-Sep-04 556.8 615.0 1919.1 783.3 437.3 483.5 2042.3 1516.1 1034.1 1622.8
1-Oct-04 560.0 618.1 1930.4 788.2 439.6 485.6 2055.5 1524.2 1040.4 1632.3
1-Nov-04 563.2 621.2 1942.3 793.2 441.9 487.8 2069.4 1532.6 1046.9 1642.2
1-Dec-04 566.4 624.3 1954.0 798.1 444.2 489.9 2083.0 1541.0 1053.2 1651.9
1-Jan-05 569.8 627.5 1966.1 803.2 446.7 492.2 2097.3 1549.7 1059.7 1662.1
1-Feb-05 573.2 630.8 1978.6 808.3 449.2 494.5 2111.9 1558.6 1066.3 1672.4
1-Mar-05 576.3 633.8 1989.9 813.1 451.6 496.6 2125.2 1566.8 1072.3 1681.8
1-Apr-05 579.8 637.2 2002.2 818.3 454.2 499.0 2140.4 1576.1 1079.1 1692.5
1-May-05 583.2 640.5 2015.2 823.5 456.8 501.4 2155.0 1585.1 1085.6 1702.8
1-Jun-05 586.9 644.0 2028.4 829.0 459.6 504.0 2170.1 1594.8 1092.5 1713.9
1-Jul-05 590.4 647.3 2041.3 834.3 462.2 506.4 2185.7 1604.1 1099.1 1724.5
1-Aug-05 594.1 650.9 2055.2 839.8 465.1 509.0 2201.7 1614.0 1106.1 1735.8
1-Sep-05 597.8 654.5 2069.3 845.5 468.0 511.7 2217.9 1624.0 1113.2 1747.2
1-Oct-05 601.5 658.1 2083.3 851.0 470.9 514.3 2233.9 1633.9 1120.1 1758.3
1-Nov-05 605.5 661.8 2098.0 857.0 473.9 517.2 2250.8 1644.2 1127.3 1770.1
1-Dec-05 609.3 665.4 2112.3 862.6 476.9 519.9 2267.2 1654.5 1134.5 1781.7
1-Jan-06 613.4 669.3 2127.3 868.7 480.0 522.8 2284.7 1665.1 1141.9 1793.8
1-Feb-06 617.4 673.2 2142.7 874.8 483.2 525.8 2302.4 1676.0 1149.5 1806.2
1-Mar-06 621.1 676.7 2156.8 880.3 486.1 528.4 2318.4 1686.1 1156.5 1817.5
1-Apr-06 625.4 680.7 2172.7 886.7 489.4 531.5 2336.8 1697.2 1164.1 1830.2
1-May-06 629.5 684.6 2188.3 892.9 492.7 534.5 2354.7 1708.3 1171.7 1842.7
1-Jun-06 633.9 688.7 2204.5 899.4 496.1 537.7 2373.6 1719.8 1179.7 1855.9
1-Jul-06 638.2 692.8 2220.6 905.8 499.5 540.8 2392.2 1731.2 1187.5 1868.7
1-Aug-06 642.7 697.0 2237.4 912.5 503.0 544.1 2411.6 1743.2 1195.7 1882.3
1-Sep-06 647.2 701.3 2254.6 919.3 506.6 547.4 2431.5 1755.4 1204.0 1896.0
1-Oct-06 651.7 705.5 2271.6 926.0 510.1 550.7 2451.0 1767.3 1212.2 1909.4
1-Nov-06 652.8 711.2 2283.1 925.8 512.0 550.4 2460.2 1784.5 1226.6 1925.2
1-Dec-06 346.0 379.9 1218.1 491.2 272.4 287.6 1311.2 954.3 656.0 1028.2
1-Jan-07 350.7 389.4 1242.9 498.0 276.7 289.8 1330.9 976.9 669.9 1051.4
Table 7-8 : Monthly Gas Production – Wells (Nov 2, 2002 – Jan 1, 2007)

NITEC LLC 7-45 BLM

 P50-PANBR-INF6-G1 Well Gas Quality
WGQ NEW HELIUM
DATE NEWA NEWB NEWC NEWD NEWE NEWF BI-A3 BI-A6 BI-A13 BI-A14
2-Nov-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.6 68.1 59.8 59.0
1-Dec-02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 68.0 57.2 54.5
1-Jan-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.8 68.1 57.1 53.8
1-Feb-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.9 68.1 57.0 53.5
1-Mar-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 68.1 57.0 56.4
1-Apr-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.6 67.6 58.3 54.7
1-May-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.3 66.8 58.3 52.4
1-Jun-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.3 65.9 58.3 51.2
1-Jul-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.5 65.7 58.4 53.2
1-Aug-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.6 65.4 58.2 54.0
1-Sep-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 65.2 57.9 54.6
1-Oct-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.4 65.0 57.5 54.8
1-Nov-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 64.8 57.0 54.9
1-Dec-03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.6 64.6 56.6 54.7
1-Jan-04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.1 64.4 56.1 54.5
1-Feb-04 58.2 63.5 61.6 58.6 52.5 40.7 59.0 64.3 55.7 52.9
1-Mar-04 57.9 62.4 60.3 57.7 52.7 40.9 58.9 64.2 55.4 51.9
1-Apr-04 57.6 61.9 59.7 57.0 52.7 41.0 58.7 64.1 55.1 51.1
1-May-04 57.3 61.5 59.2 56.5 52.7 41.0 58.4 64.0 54.8 50.4
1-Jun-04 57.1 61.1 58.8 56.0 52.7 41.1 58.1 63.9 54.5 49.8
1-Jul-04 56.9 60.7 58.4 55.6 52.6 41.1 57.8 63.8 54.1 49.3
1-Aug-04 56.7 60.4 57.9 55.1 52.6 41.1 57.5 63.6 53.8 48.8
1-Sep-04 56.4 60.0 57.5 54.8 52.5 41.1 57.1 63.5 53.5 48.3
1-Oct-04 56.2 59.7 57.2 54.4 52.4 41.1 56.8 63.3 53.2 47.8
1-Nov-04 56.0 59.3 56.8 54.1 52.3 41.1 56.4 63.1 52.8 47.4
1-Dec-04 55.8 59.0 56.4 53.8 52.2 41.1 56.1 62.9 52.5 47.0
1-Jan-05 55.6 58.6 56.0 53.5 52.0 41.0 55.7 62.7 52.2 46.5
1-Feb-05 55.4 58.3 55.6 53.2 51.8 41.0 55.4 62.5 51.9 46.1
1-Mar-05 55.2 58.0 55.3 52.9 51.7 41.0 55.0 62.3 51.6 45.7
1-Apr-05 55.0 57.7 54.9 52.6 51.5 40.9 54.7 62.1 51.2 45.3
1-May-05 54.8 57.3 54.5 52.3 51.3 40.9 54.3 61.8 50.9 44.9
1-Jun-05 54.6 57.0 54.1 52.1 51.1 40.8 53.9 61.6 50.6 44.5
1-Jul-05 54.5 56.7 53.8 51.8 50.9 40.7 53.6 61.3 50.2 44.1
1-Aug-05 54.3 56.3 53.4 51.5 50.7 40.7 53.2 61.0 49.9 43.7
1-Sep-05 54.1 56.0 53.0 51.3 50.4 40.6 52.8 60.7 49.6 43.2
1-Oct-05 53.9 55.6 52.6 51.0 50.2 40.5 52.5 60.5 49.2 42.9
1-Nov-05 53.7 55.3 52.3 50.8 50.0 40.4 52.1 60.2 48.9 42.5
1-Dec-05 53.5 55.0 51.9 50.5 49.7 40.3 51.8 59.9 48.5 42.1
1-Jan-06 53.3 54.6 51.5 50.3 49.5 40.2 51.4 59.5 48.2 41.7
1-Feb-06 53.1 54.3 51.2 50.0 49.2 40.1 51.0 59.2 47.9 41.3
1-Mar-06 52.9 53.9 50.8 49.8 48.9 40.1 50.7 58.9 47.5 40.9
1-Apr-06 52.7 53.6 50.5 49.6 48.7 39.9 50.3 58.6 47.2 40.6
1-May-06 52.5 53.2 50.1 49.3 48.4 39.8 50.0 58.2 46.8 40.2
1-Jun-06 52.2 52.9 49.7 49.1 48.1 39.7 49.6 57.9 46.5 39.8
1-Jul-06 52.0 52.5 49.4 48.8 47.8 39.6 49.3 57.6 46.2 39.5
1-Aug-06 51.8 52.2 49.0 48.6 47.5 39.5 48.9 57.2 45.8 39.1
1-Sep-06 51.6 51.8 48.7 48.3 47.2 39.3 48.5 56.8 45.5 38.7
1-Oct-06 51.4 51.5 48.3 48.1 46.9 39.2 48.2 56.5 45.1 38.4
1-Nov-06 51.2 51.1 47.9 47.9 46.6 39.0 47.8 56.1 44.8 38.0
1-Dec-06 51.2 50.9 47.9 47.7 46.5 39.0 47.7 56.0 44.5 37.0
1-Jan-07 51.3 50.8 47.8 47.6 46.3 39.0 47.6 55.8 44.3 36.6
Table 7-9 : Monthly Gas Quality – Wells (Nov2, 2002 – Jan 1, 2007)

NITEC LLC 7-46 BLM