Full Thesis

INTEGRATED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION
OF KAILASHTILA GAS FIELD
MD. MIZANUR RAHMAN
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
DHAKA-1000, BANGLADESH
NOVEMBER 2015
OF KAILASHTILA GAS FIELD
A Thesis
by
MD. MIZANUR RAHMAN
Roll No.: 0412132025
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING
November 2015
DECLARATION
It is hereby declared that this thesis or any part of it has not been submitted elsewhere for the
award of any degree or diploma.
..
Md. Mizanur Rahman
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my beloved parents who have supported me at every moment in
every possible way.
ABSTRACT
An integrated reservoir characterization technique is used to integrate the geological,

engineering and reservoir performance data to describe the reservoir and to develop an
appropriate reservoir management plan. This study has developed an approach using
geological and engineering data to characterize the hydraulic flow unit. It has tabulated
reservoir characteristics for each hydraulic flow unit and reevaluated the reserves for each gas
sands in the field.
A new correlation was developed following Amaefule et.al approach. This new relationship
includes the effect of shale volume, Vsh as a parameter in the porosity permeability
correlation for shaly sand reservoir. This will overcome the limitation of identifying the
hydraulic flow unit of pure sandstone by the present method. The new formula is capable of
accommodating shaly sand as well.
This thesis evaluated reservoir performance potential of Kailashtila Gas Field located at
Sylhet, Bangladesh using the production history; well test data, core data and openhole well
log data. At first, hydraulic flow units were delineated using the core data and openhole well
log data. Then, reservoir parameters like permeability, porosity, skin factor, average reservoir
pressure and absolute open flow potential (AOFP) were estimated by analyzing well test data.
The values of these parameters were compared with the parameters obtained from core and
well log analysis as well as previous study results. Identifying the aquifer type and its effect
on gas production is also a major concern of this study. Finally, updating Gas Initially In-
Place, optimizing field production and prediction of reservoir future performance were done.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the Beginning, I would like to acknowledge the blessing of Almighty Allah, the
beneficent and the merciful for enabling me to successfully complete my thesis work.
I am highly indebted to my honorable thesis supervisor, Dr. Mohammad Tamim,

Professor and Head of the Department of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Engineering
(PMRE) at Bangladesh University of Engineering& Technology (BUET), Dhaka-1000,
Bangladesh, for the allocation of his valuable time in formulating the thesis design,
correcting and revising the write-up of the thesis. Without his academic guidance, active help
and sincere cooperation it would not have been possible for me to complete this thesis in
time.
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Mohammed Mahbubur Rahman, associate

professor of the Department of PMRE at BUET, for his invaluable guidance and help in
every aspect of this thesis.
I am highly grateful to Mohammad Mojammel Huque, assistant professor of the Department

of PMRE, BUET and Afifa Tabassum Tinni, assistant professor of the Department PMRE,
BUET for their moral and technical support during the preparation of this thesis.
My special thanks to Farhana Akter, honorable lecturer of the Department of PMRE, BUET
for her valuable advice, inspiration and important suggestion regarding the study.
I would also like to pay my special thanks to my friends and family.
Finally, I want to thank the Department of Petroleum and Mineral Resources

Engineering of Bangladesh University of Engineering& Technology, Dhaka-1000,
Bangladesh.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................................... ii
LITS OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... vi
LISTS OF TABLES................................................................................................................................ x
NOMENCLATURE .............................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER I ............................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction to Integrated Reservoir Characterization ............................................................ 1
1.2 Introduction to Kailashtila Gas Field ...................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER II........................................................................................................................................... 7
INTEGRATED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSES AND TECHNIQUES ............. 7
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Core Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Interpretation of Openhole Well Logs .................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Shale Volume .................................................................................................................. 8
2.3.2 Formation Water Resistivity ........................................................................................... 9
2.3.3 True Resistivity (RT) .................................................................................................... 10
2.3.4 Estimating Water Saturation (Sw) ................................................................................ 10
2.3.6 Permeability .................................................................................................................. 12
2.4 Delineation of Hydraulic Flow Units .................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Modification of Amaefule et.al Method........................................................................ 16
2.5 Reservoir Management ......................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER III ....................................................................................................................................... 18

STRUCTURE, STRATIGRAPHY AND PETROLEUM SYSTEM.................................................... 18
3.1 General Geology ................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 20
3.3 Stratigraphy ........................................................................................................................... 27
3.4 Petroleum System ................................................................................................................. 27
3.4.1 Traps ............................................................................................................................. 27
3.4.2 Source Rocks ................................................................................................................ 28
3.4.3 Vertical Seal .................................................................................................................. 28
iii
3.4.4 Timing and Migration ................................................................................................... 28
3.4.5 Reservoirs ..................................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER IV ....................................................................................................................................... 29
INTEGRATION OF THE GEOLOGICAL AND PETROPHYSICAL MODELS .............................. 29
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Description of Hydraulic Flow Units of Kailashtila Gas Field ............................................. 29
4.2.1 Description of Hydraulic Flow Unit Upper Gas Sand (HU- UGS)............................... 29
4.2.2 Description of Hydraulic Flow Unit Middle Gas Sand (HU- MGS) ............................ 34
4.2.3 Description of Hydraulic Flow Unit Lower Gas Sand (HU- LGS)............................... 38
4.2.5 Application of Modified Approach of Amaefule et.al Method .................................... 42
4.3 Deliverability Test Analysis.................................................................................................. 44
4.3.1 Kailashtila Well KTL-01 .............................................................................................. 44
4.3.4 Comparison of Deliverability Test Analysis Results with Previous Study ....................... 54
4.4 Pressure Transient Analysis .................................................................................................. 55
4.4.4 Comparison of Pressure Transient Analysis Results with Previous Study ................... 60
CHAPTER V ........................................................................................................................................ 62
WELL PERFORMANCE AND INDIVIDUAL WELL MODELING ................................................ 62
5.1 Well and Reservoir Data ......................................................................................................... 62
5.2 Prosper Models ....................................................................................................................... 62
5.2.1 Reservoir Pressure......................................................................................................... 63
5.2.2 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)........................................................................ 63
5.2.3 Tubing (Outflow) Performance (TPC) and Tubing Size Optimization......................... 64
5.2.4 Well Liquid Loading Rate Predictions .......................................................................... 65
5.3 Field Summary ...................................................................................................................... 66
5.4 Kailashtila Well Model Study Predictions Using Prosper ............................................. 67
5.4.1 Kailashtila Well KTL-01 Study (Middle Gas Sand) ..................................................... 67
5.4.2 Kailashtila Well KTL-02 Study (UPPER GAS SAND) ............................................... 78
5.4.3 Kailashtila Well KTL-03 Study (UPPER GAS SAND) ............................................... 88
5.4.4 Kailashtila Well KTL-04 Study (MIDDLE GAS SAND) ............................................ 98
5.4.5 Kailashtila Well KTL-06 Study (UPPER GAS SAND) ............................................. 108
iv
CHAPTER VI ..................................................................................................................................... 118
HISTORY MATCHING AND PRODUCTION PREDICTION ........................................................ 118
6.1 MBAL Material Balance Tool ............................................................................................ 118
6.2 History Matching for Upper Gas Sand ............................................................................... 119
6.3 History Matching for Middle Gas Sand (MGS).................................................................. 127
6.4 History Matching for Lower Gas Sand (LGS) .................................................................... 131
6.5 Predicting the Future Performance ....................................................................................... 135
6.5.1 Production Prediction for Upper Gas Sand ................................................................. 136
6.5.2 Production Prediction for Middle Gas Sand ............................................................... 141
6.5.3 Production Prediction for Lower Gas Sand ................................................................ 144
CHAPTER VII .................................................................................................................................... 147

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................. 147
REFERENCE...................................................................................................................................... 150
APPENDIX-A..................................................................................................................................... 153
Core Data for Case Study ............................................................................................................... 153
APPENDIX-B ..................................................................................................................................... 154

CORE DATA OF KAILASHTILA GAS FIELD ............................................................................... 154
Upper Gas Sand .............................................................................................................................. 154
Middle Gas Sand ............................................................................................................................. 156
Lower Gas Sand .............................................................................................................................. 159
APPENDIX-C ..................................................................................................................................... 160

WELL LOGGING DATA OF KAILASHTILA GAS FIELD ........................................................... 160
Upper Gas Sand .............................................................................................................................. 160
Middle Gas Sand ............................................................................................................................. 161
Lower Gas Sand .............................................................................................................................. 162
v
LITS OF FIGURES
CHAPTER I
Figure 1.1: Integrated Reservoir Characterization Approach for Kailashtila Gas Field ........................ 3
Figure 1.2: Location Map of Kailashtila Gas Field ................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER III
Figure 3.1: Regional Tectonic Map of Bangladesh ............................................................................. 19
Figure 3.2: General Stratigraphy and Petroleum System of Bangladesh ............................................. 19
Figure 3.3: Depth Structure Map of Upper Gas Sand and Well Locations ........................................... 21
Figure 3.4: Depth Structure Map of Sand A and Well Locations ......................................................... 22
Figure 3.5: Depth Structure Map of Sand B and Well Locations ......................................................... 23
Figure 3.6: Depth Structure Map of HRZ and Well Locations ............................................................. 24
Figure 3.7: Depth Structure Map of MGS and Well Location .............................................................. 25
Figure 3.8: Depth Structure Map of LGS and Well Locations ............................................................. 26
CHAPTER IV
Figure 4.1: RQI and NPI Correlation for HU-UGS .............................................................................. 30
Figure 4.2: Permeability and Porosity Correlation for HU-UGS .......................................................... 31
Figure 4.3: Water Saturation as a Function of Capillary ...................................................................... 31
Figure 4.4: Comparison between continuous Porosity from Core and Well Log Data ........................ 32
Figure 4.5: Well Log Porosity versus Core Porosity ........................................................................... 32
Figure 4.6: Permeability versus Porosity for HU-UGS ....................................................................... 33
Figure 4.7: Cross Plot of Porosity versus Irreducible Water ................................................................ 33
Figure 4.8: RQI and NPI Correlation for HU-MGS ............................................................................ 35
Figure 4.9: Water Saturation as a Function of Capillary pressure for HU-MGS ................................. 35
Figure 4.10: Comparison between continuous Porosity from Core and Well Log Data....................... 36
Figure 4.11: Well Log Porosity versus Core Porosity ......................................................................... 36
Figure 4.12: Permeability versus Porosity for HU-MGS ...................................................................... 37
Figure 4.13: Cross plot of porosity versus irreducible water ................................................................ 37
Figure 4.14: RQI and NPI Correlation for HU-LGS ............................................................................ 39
Figure 4.15: Water Saturation as a Function of Capillary pressure for HU-LGS ................................ 39
Figure 4.16: Comparison between continuous Porosity from Core and Well Log Data....................... 40
Figure 4.17: Well Log Porosity versus Core Porosity ......................................................................... 40
Figure 4.18: Permeability versus Porosity for HU-LGS ...................................................................... 41
Figure 4.19: Cross plot of porosity versus irreducible water ................................................................ 41
vi
Figure 4.20: RQI and NPI Correlation generated using Ameafule et.al. Method ................................. 43
Figure 4.21: RQI and NPI (1-Vsh) Correlation generated using modified approach ........................... 43
Figure 4.22: The Flow after Flow Test for Kailashtila Well KTL-01................................................... 45
Figure 4.23: Flow after Flow Test C&N Plot to Estimate the AOF for Kailashtila Well KTL-01 ....... 46
Figure 4.28: Semilog Plot for Kailashtila Well KTL-01....................................................................... 56
Figure 4.29: Type Curve Analysis, Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage and Skin Effects
for Kailashtila Well KTL-01 ................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 4.30: Semilog plot for Kailashtila Well KTL-02 ....................................................................... 58
for Kailashtila Well 02 .......................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 4.32: Semi log plot for Kailashtila Well KTL-04 ...................................................................... 59
for Kailashtila Well KTL-04 ................................................................................................................. 60
CHAPTER V
Figure 5.1: Tubing Outflow Performance Basics4 ................................................................................ 66
Figure 5.2: KTL-01 Middle Gas Sand Production History ................................................................... 68
Figure 5.3: KTL-01 November 2007 Test Inflow Performance Relationship31.................................... 69
Figure 5.4: Downhole configuration for KTL-01 ................................................................................. 70
Figure 5.5: KTL-01 Gradient Matching (November Test 2007) .......................................................... 71
Figure 5.6: KTL-01 Dec 2012 Gradient Curve (13.9937 MMscfd @ 2,455 Psig) ............................... 72
Figure 5.7: IPR/VLP Matching for KTL-01 ......................................................................................... 73
Figure 5.8: KTL-01 Rate Sensitivities to Reservoir and First Node Pressure ...................................... 75
Figure 5.9: KTL-01 Model Sensitivities to Reduced Tubing Diameter to 3 inches ......................... 76
Figure 5.10: KTL-01 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3181 Psig Reservoir Pressure and First
Node Pressure 2675 Psig) ..................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 5.11: KTL-02 Upper Gas Sand Production History .................................................................. 78
Figure 5.12: KTL-02 November 2007 Test Inflow Performance Relationship .................................... 79
Figure 5.13: Downhole configuration for KTL-02 ............................................................................... 80
Figure 5.14: KTL-02 Gradient Matching (November Test 2007) ........................................................ 81
Figure 5.15: KTL-02 Dec 2012 Gradient Curve (18.0315 MMscfd @ 2,355 Psig) ............................. 82
vii
Figure 5.16: IPR/VLP Matching for KTL-02 ....................................................................................... 83
Figure 5.17: KTL-02 Rate Sensitivities to Reservoir and First Node Pressure .................................... 85
Figure 5.18: KTL-02 Model Sensitivities to Increase Tubing Diameter to 4 inches ........................ 86
Figure 5.19: KTL-02 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3181 Psig Reservoir Pressure ............ 87
Figure 5.20: KTL-03 Upper Gas Sand Production History .................................................................. 88
Figure 5.21: KTL-03 November 2007 Production Inflow Performance Relationship ......................... 89
Figure 5.22: Downhole configuration for KTL-03 ............................................................................... 90
Figure 5.23: KTL-03 Gradient Matching (November Test 2007) ........................................................ 91
Figure 5.24: KTL-03 Dec 2012 Gradient Curve (15.2414MMscfd @ 2,630 Psig) .............................. 92
Figure 5.25: IPR/VLP Matching for KTL-03 ....................................................................................... 93
Figure 5.26: KTL-03 Rate Sensitivities to Reservoir and First Node Pressure .................................... 95
Figure 5.27: KTL-03 Model Sensitivities to Increased Tubing Diameter to 4 inches ...................... 96
Figure 5.28: KTL-03 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3,291 Psig Reservoir Pressure) .......... 97
Figure 5.29: KTL-04 Middle Gas Sand Production History ................................................................. 98
Figure 5.30: KTL-04 November 2007 Test Inflow Performance Relationship .................................... 99
Figure 5.31: Downhole configuration for KTL-04 ............................................................................. 100
Figure 5.32: KTL-04 Gradient Matching (November Test 2007) ...................................................... 101
Figure 5.33: KTL-04 Dec 2012 Gradient Curve (16.6264MMscfd @ 2,860 Psig) ............................ 102
Figure 5.34: IPR/VLP Matching for KTL-04 ..................................................................................... 103
Figure 5.35: KTL-04 Rate Sensitivities to Reservoir and First Node Pressure .................................. 105
Figure 5.36: KTL-04 Model Sensitivities to Increased Tubing Diameter to 4 inches .................... 106
Figure 5.37: KTL-04 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3,709 Psig Reservoir Pressure and 2650
Psig Top Node Pressure) ..................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 5.38: KTL-06 Middle Gas Sand Production History ............................................................... 108
Figure 5.39: KTL-06 November 2007 Test Inflow Performance Relationship .................................. 109
Figure 5.40: Downhole configuration for KTL-06 ............................................................................. 110
Figure 5.41: KTL-06 Gradient Matching (November Test 2007) ...................................................... 111
Figure 5.42: KTL-06 Dec 2012 Gradient Curve (22.3811MMscfd @ 2,600 Psig) ............................ 112
Figure 5.43: IPR/VLP Matching for KTL-06 ..................................................................................... 113
Figure 5.44: KTL-06 Rate Sensitivities to Reservoir and First Node Pressure .................................. 115
Figure 5.45: KTL-06 Model Sensitivities to Reduced Tubing Diameter to 3 inches ..................... 116
Figure 5.46: KTL-06 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3,176 Psig Reservoir Pressure) ........ 117
viii
CHAPTER VI
Figure 6.1: Cole Plot for Upper Gas Sand ......................................................................................... 120
Figure 6.2: Ratio of Different Drive Mechanism for Upper Gas Sand ............................................... 121
Figure 6.3: Analytical Method for Upper Gas Sand .......................................................................... 122
Figure 6.4: Analytical Method Comparison with and without Aquifer Influx Model ........................ 123
Figure 6.5: History Matching of Gas Production and Pressure of Upper Gas Sand ........................... 124
Figure 6.6: History Matching of Water Production and Pressure of Upper Gas Sand ....................... 125
Figure 6.7: Determination of GIIP in a Water Drive Gas Reservoir................................................... 126
Figure 6.8: Ratio of Different Drive Mechanism for MGS ................................................................ 127
Figure 6.9: Analytical Method Comparison with and without Aquifer Model for MGS ................... 128
Figure 6.10: Gas Production History Matching for MGS ................................................................... 129
Figure 6. 11: Water Production History Matching for MGS .............................................................. 129
Figure 6.12: Selecting Correct Water Model and Determination of GIIP in Water Drive Reservoir . 130
Figure 6.13: Ratio of Different Drive Mechanism for LGS................................................................ 131
Figure 6. 14: Analytical Method Comparison with and without Aquifer Model for LGS.................. 132
Figure 6.15: Gas Production History Matching for LGS .................................................................... 133
Figure 6.16: Water Production History Matching for LGS ................................................................ 134
Figure 6.17: Selecting Correct Water Model and Determination of GIIP in Water Drive Reservoir . 134
Figure 6.18: Fw flow matching curve for determining of water breakthrough30 ................................ 136
Figure 6.19: Predicted Water and Gas Saturation with Reservoir Pressure for UGS ......................... 137
Figure 6.20: Predicted Cumulative Water Production for UGS up to 2050 ....................................... 137
Figure 6. 21: Predicted Cumulative Gas Production and Reservoir Pressure for UGS ...................... 138
Figure 6. 22: Predicted Gas Recovery Factor and Reservoir Pressure for UGS ................................. 138
Figure 6. 23: Predicted Cumulative Gas Production and Reservoir Pressure for UGS with two more
new wells ............................................................................................................................................ 139
Figure 6. 24: Predicted Gas Recovery Factor and Reservoir Pressure for UGS with two more new
wells .................................................................................................................................................... 139
Figure 6.25: Fw (fractional flow of water) Matching for MGS .......................................................... 141
Figure 6.26: Predicted Cumulative Gas Production for MGS ............................................................ 142
Figure 6.27: Predicted Gas Recovery Factor for MGS ....................................................................... 142
Figure 6.28: Fw (fractional flow of water) matching for LGS ........................................................... 144
Figure 6. 29: Predicted water saturation with reservoir pressure for LGS .......................................... 144
Figure 6.30: Predicted Cumulative Gas Production for LGS up to 2035 ........................................... 145
Figure 6.31: Predicted Gas Recovery Factor for LGS ........................................................................ 145
ix
LISTS OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Discretization of Hydraulic Flow Units for Kailashtila Gas Field....................................... 29
Table 4.2: Reservoir Properties for HU-UGS ....................................................................................... 34
Table 4.3: Reservoir properties for HU-MGS ...................................................................................... 38
Table 4.4: Reservoir properties for HU-LGS ........................................................................................ 42
Table 4.5: Flow after Flow Test Analysis Results for Kailashtila Well KTL-01 ................................. 45
Table 4.8: Various parameters for deliverability test analysis obtained from current study and Al
MansooriWireline Services study for all three wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTl-04 ........................... 54
Table 4.9: Results of Horners Analysis for Kailashtila Wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTl-04 ............ 55
Table 4.10: Results of Type Curve Analysis, Homogeneous Reservoir with wellbore Storage and Skin
Effects for Kailashtila Wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTl-04 ................................................................ 55
Table 4.11: Pressure Transient Analysis Results for Kailashtila Well KTL-01 ................................... 55
Table 4.14: Various parameters for well test analysis obtained from current study and Al Mansoori
Wireline Services study for all three wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTl-04 ........................................... 60
Table 5.1: Summary of Kailashtila Well Production ........................................................................... 67

Table 5.2: KTL-01 December 2012 Well Performance Model Prediction (Reservoir Pressure
Calculation) ........................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 5.3: KTL-02 December Well Performance Model Prediction (Reservoir Pressure Calculation)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 82
Table 5.4: KTL-03 November 2007 Backpressure Equation Calculations........................................... 89
Table 5.5: KTL-03 December Well Performance Model Prediction (Reservoir Pressure Calculation)92
Table 5.6: KTL-04 December Well Performance Model Prediction (Reservoir Pressure Calculation)
............................................................................................................................................................ 102
Calculation) ........................................................................................................................................ 112
Table 6.1: Production prediction results for UGS .... 140
Table 6. 2: Production prediction results for MGS .... 143
Table 6.3: Production prediction result for LGS .... 146
x
NOMENCLATURE
As = Surface area of flow medium

a = tortuosity factor
AOFP = Absolute open flow potential
Bg = Gas Formation volume factor (Rbbl/scf or Rbbl/MMscf)
BVW = Bulk volume water
BHP = Bottom hole pressure, Psia
CD = Dimensionless wellbore storage constant
C = Wellbore storage constant (MMscf/psi)
Cg = Gas compressibility (1/psia)
Co = Oil compressibility (1/psia)
Cw = Water compressibility (1/ psia)
Ct = Total compressibility (1/ psia)
DST = Drill stem test
FBHP = Flowing bottomhole pressure
Fs = Shape factor
ft = Feet
FZI = Flow zone indicator
GR = Gamma ray
HC = Hydrocarbon
HU = Hydraulic flow unit
IPR = Inflow performance relationship
k = Permeability (md)
KTL = Kailashtila
LGR = Liquid gas ratio
LGS = Lower Gas Sand
LIT = Laminar inertial turbulent
LPG = Liquefied petroleum gas
m = Cementation factor
mD = Mille Darcy
MGS = Middle Gas Sand
N = North
n = Saturation exponent
xi
NaCl = Sodium Chloride
NEN = North Eastern North
NNE = North northern east
NPI = Normalized porosity index
PVT = Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Pi = Initial reservoir pressure (psia)
Pi (syn) = Synthetic initial reservoir pressure (psia)
P* = Extrapolated pressure (psia)
Pm = Measured pressure (psia)
PPd = Dimensionless anomalous pressure
Pr = Average reservoir pressure
Pb = Base pressure (14.696)
Pw = Wellbore pressure (psia)
PwD = Dimensionless wellbore pressure
Pwf =Wellbore Flowing pressure (psia)
Pwfo =Final flowing pressure (psia)
Pws = Shut-in pressure (psia)
qg = Gas rate (MMscf/d)
qo = Oil rate (stbbl/d)
qw = Water rate (bbl/d)
RFT = Repeat formation test
Rmf = Mud filtrate resistivity
Rmfe = Equivalent mud filtrate resistivity
rmh = Mean hydraulic radius
Rt = True resistivity
RQI = Rock quality index
rw = Wellbore radius (ft)
rD = Dimensionless wellbore radius
Rw = Water resistivity
Rwe = Equivalent water resistivity
S = Skin
SP = Spontaneous potential
SSP = Static spontaneous potential
Sgv = Surface area per unit grain volume
xii
Sgt = Total surface area per unit grain volume
Sw = Water saturation
SWS = South western south
SSW = South southern south
Swirr = Irreducible water saturation
TPC = Tubing performance curve
UGS = Upper Gas Sand
VLP = Vertical lift performance
Vgs = Grain volume of sand
Vgt = Total grain volume
Vsh = Shale volume
WGR = Water gas ratio
Xe = Reservoir length
Ye = Reservoir width
= Total porosity (fraction)
N = Porosity from Neutron log
D = Porosity from Density log
nsh = Porosity of shaly sandstone from Neutron log
Dsh = Porosity of shaly sandstone from Density log
z = Normalized porosity index
T = Reservoir temperature ( )
R = Gas constant (10.73 ft3psia / lbmol R)
Z = Gas compressibility factor
h = Formation thickness (ft)
t = Time (hr)
tc = Effective producing time (hr)
tD = Dimensionless time
tp = Producing time (hr)
Ps = Pressure drop due to skin
xiii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction to Integrated Reservoir Characterization

The proper management of a petroleum reservoir requires considerable efforts in geologic
and engineering characterization to adequately define and exploit the reservoir, and thus to
maximize its economic recovery. In this sense, one must carefully consider both the volume
of available data and the analysis and interpretation of geologic and engineering data in order
to generate an appropriate and realistic reservoir description. The focus of this work is to
develop a detailed reservoir characterization study for the Kailashtila Gas Field, Sylhet,
Bangladesh. The main goal is to incorporate the core, well log and reservoir performance data
into a working reservoir description that can be used for production optimization of the
current field configuration and to use this reservoir description to plan future reservoir
developments.
Geological interpretations are used to understand and describe the depositional sequences
within reservoir systems. The theory of oil and gas migration together with the growth of
faults is also a matter for discussion in the development of a geological interpretation. The
objective in the study of depositional environments is to predict the size and shape of a
reservoir sequence. The textural changes and the composition of the reservoir rock may help
to confirm the interpretation of the processes as well as to indicate the controls on the
distributions of porosity and permeability. The interpretation of the reservoir environment
from cores is correlated with the well logs to map and predict reservoir morphology and
continuity.
The development of petrophysical model provides information about the reservoir rock
properties, such as porosity, permeability, water saturation and lithology. Core data and well
log data provide essential information to construct the petrophysical model. Evaluation of the
initial reservoir pressure is one of the most important tasks in developing a well performance
model. Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) analysis provides information about the
reservoir fluid, initial reservoir pressure, which should be correlated with the other available
tests, such as pressure transient test and repeat formation test (RFT) data. Pressure transient
test data and RFT data provide correlation with PVT data which helps to establish initial
reservoir pressure.
1
Analysis of pressure transient test provides information about formation permeability and the
production potential of the sand. Well test analyses also indicate reservoir boundaries
(presence of faults and no-flow boundaries) and provide an understanding of near-well
phenomena, including the skin factor and harmonic permeability. In contrast, well log and
core analyses provide permeability as a function of depth, and the method of averaging
vertical permeability is useful for interpreting the log and core analysis and integrating with
well test analysis.
Reservoir performance is evaluated based on the production data, well test analysis, and
changes in water saturation. The drill stem test (DST) data and repeat formation test data are
correlated with the production data and pressure surveys. A DST is run under openhole
conditions and provides information as to whether a formation can sustain production. A DST
provides information about the fluid type, formation pressure, and formation permeability
and DSTs can be used to collect formation fluids for laboratory analysis (PVT, water salinity
etc.). Similarly, an RFT is also run under openhole conditions and can provide information
about reservoir pressure, reservoir fluid and permeability.
To understand the hydraulic conductivity and continuity of a particular reservoir, it uses

hydraulic flow units1 which are defined by the reservoir geometry, pore-throat size
distribution and a variety of petrophysical properties. These flow units are developed from
and correlated to the available well log and core data for the field. Hydraulic flow units are
defined by their net and gross pays, water saturations, porosity and permeability values.
These data are used to estimate the reserves using isopach-type maps. Considering all the
practical aspects of geological, petrophysical and the reservoir engineering models, the
integrated characterization approach helps to identify the problems critical to the reservoir.
Figure 1.1 shows the schematic flow chart representing the current approach to reservoir
description.
1.2 Introduction to Kailashtila Gas Field

The Kailashtila field is located about 15 km east of the town of Sylhet in north eastern
Bangladesh (Figure 1.2). The field structure is 10 km long by 5 km wide and trends SWS to
NEN. The field was discovered in 1962 by Pakistan Shell, developed by the Bangladesh
National Company and is now operated by Sylhet Gas Fields Limited (SGFL). Gas
production with condensate started in 1983. Sales gas is delivered to a pipeline network after
treatment through a gas plant.
2
Integrated Reservoir
Characterization
Geological Model Petrophysical Model
Openhole Core Openhole Core

Logs Data Logs Data
Well Performance
Presence of HC Model
Depositional Environment Porosity
Oil and Gas Migration Permeability
Production Data
Water Saturation
Lithology
Well Test Data
Flow Unit Delineation

Sand Performance
Well Performance
Hydraulic Connectivity
Reserve Estimation
Recommendation for Recompletion
Pressure Maintenance
Figure 1.1: Integrated Reservoir Characterization Approach for Kailashtila Gas Field2
3
Figure 1.2: Location Map of Kailashtila Gas Field3
4
The Kailashtila structure is in the Northeast Surma basin of Bangladesh. The Surma Basin
contains almost exclusively clastic sequences of deltaic, fluvial, and to a lesser degree of
marine sandstones, siltstones, shale and clay stones. These sediments thicken to the West and
to the Southwest. Tectonically the Surma Basin has been subjected to two major forces, a
westward compressional force which resulted in the formation of the Indo-Burma fold belt
and a northern component associated with movement along the Dauki fault parallel with the
Shillong Massif 4.
The gas producing reservoirs are sand layers of early to late Miocene age and are about 7,000
to 9,000 feet (ft) deep. Three main sand reservoirs are confirmed in this field. Gas and
condensate are being produced from six wells. The Kailashtila field reserves are primarily
contained within three distinct horizons that were discovered by well KTL-014:
1. Upper Gas Sand (UGS) 7,483 to 7,662 ft KB (7,422 to 7,601 ftss)
2. Middle Gas Sand (MGS) 9,665 to 9,734 ft KB (9604 to 9673 ftss)
3. Lower Gas Sand (LGS) 9,808 to 9,990 ft KB (9,747 to 9,929 ftss)
A New Gas Sand was identified as being present in all of the wells. The new gas sand thins
out in the region of KTL-03 as it dips below the gas-water contact identified by the KTL-02
logs at 8,908 ftss. Drill stem testing of two deep sands in KTL-02 reported oil production in
association with gas and water4, 5.
1.3 Objectives
The main objectives of this study are to:
1. Characterize the reservoir, Kailashtila Gas Field, Bangladesh, based on geological,

petrophysical and engineering data analyses.
2. Describe the continuity and connectivity of the net pay sand by delineating the
hydraulic flow units for the formation members present in Kailashtila Gas Field.
3. Evaluate the reserves from isopach-type maps and investigate the prospects to
estimate reserves from material balance.
4. Evaluate well performances and optimization of the production strategy.
5. Locate potential sites for infill drilling in order to exploit untapped areas.
5
1.4 Methodology
The Kailashtila Gas Field has been chosen for this study because of its extensive database of
openhole logs, core data, PVT analysis, well test data and production history.
Methodology for this work followed this sequence:
1. Develop a geological model based on the openhole well logs and core information.
The main information of the depositional environment will be based on the openhole
well logs and core data.
2. Developing a petrophysical model depending on the openhole well logs and core data.
The correlation between the openhole well logs and core data will be used for the
determination of porosity, permeability and water saturations. The identification of
lithology and shale content will be based on the correlation of core and openhole well
log information.
3. Delineate hydraulic flow units based on the analyses of the well log and core data,
where flow units represent the continuity and the hydraulic connectivity of the net
sand in the reservoir.
4. Evaluate well performance based on the production data, PVT analysis, and well test
data.
5. Estimate movable reserves using net pay maps.
6
CHAPTER II
ANALYSES AND TECHNIQUES
2.1 Introduction
The main goal of reservoir characterization is to comprehend the reservoir in terms of its
geological, petrological and reservoir performance data. In this chapter, the theory of
integrated reservoir characterization will be discussed. The following techniques will be
discussed in detail:
Core analysis
Openhole well log analysis
Hydraulic unit delineation
Production optimization technique
2.2 Core Analysis

Although there are several new techniques available (advanced seismic processing and cross
well tomography) to assist geologists and petroleum engineers in the evaluation of oil and gas
reservoirs, core analysis still remains the most basic tool for obtaining reliable information on
the reservoir rock. Core analysis provides the direct measurement of many important
formation properties, in particular porosity, permeability, grain size distribution, fluid
saturations, capillary pressure, relative permeability and wettability.
Porosity6 is the measure of the void space or storage capacity of a reservoir material and is
normally expressed as a percentage of the bulk volume. The void volume is usually
determined on a previously cleaned and dried sample by one of the following procedures:
Extraction of gas or air content

Saturation with liquid
Calculation from Boyles law (upon compression or expansion of gas in the pore
space of the sample)
The permeability7 of a formation is a measure of its ability to conduct fluid. The
determination of permeability involves the measurement of the rate of flow of a fluid of
known viscosity through a cylindrical sample under a pressure differential. Air or nitrogen is
the fluid normally used because of its convenience, availability and relative inertness with
respect to the reservoir rock.
7
Information obtained from the core analysis is extensively used in the development of the
geological and petrophysical model. Lithological descriptions are based on the combination
of core and well log data and the relation of porosity and permeability is often used to
delineate the reservoir flow units. Core data can also be used to determine the irreducible
water saturation by plotting the core porosity and water saturation.
2.3 Interpretation of Openhole Well Logs

Only openhole well logs can provide a continuous record of various formation properties by
recording electrical resistivity, bulk density, natural and induced radioactivity, and hydrogen
content versus depth. These measurements can be used to estimate a continuous record of
formation properties such as porosity, water saturation and rock type versus depth. The
following procedures are used in analyzing the openhole well logs for Kailashtila Gas Field.
2.3.1 Shale Volume

Shale is a mixture of clay minerals and silt laid down in a low energy environment. Clays
have an ability to bind water onto their surface, which complicates the evaluation of water
saturation. Silt is fine grained particles, mostly consisting of silica and small amounts of
carbonates and other non-clay minerals. Silt is difficult to identify since on average it has
nearly the same Neutron and Density log properties as matrix quartz and is also electrically
non-conductive. In analysis involving shaly sands, use the shale volume to correct the values
of the water saturation. These volumes are lower than the values calculated if shale or clay
effects are ignored.
Over-correction of shale effects by computing to a large shale volume will tend to reduce the
water saturation7 and will make a water-producing zone. Using data from the Gamma Ray
log, the Gamma Ray Index relationship can be calculated to determine the shale volume8:
. (1)
Where,
Ish = Gamma Ray index
GR = Gamma Ray log reading
GRmin = Gamma Ray log reading of the clean sand
GRmax = Gamma Ray log reading of the shaly sand
8
The shale volume is calculated by the Bates9 correlation as:
For consolidated rock,
( ) ... (2)
For unconsolidated rock,
( ) ... (3)
Shale volume can be calculated from Density and Neutron logs as8
....... (4)
Where is the shale volume, N and D are the Neutron and Density log readings, and
nsh and dsh are the Neutron and Density log readings in the shaly sand.
Vsh can also be calculated from Spontaneous Potential (SP) logs by using following
equation8:
......... (5)
Where SP is the normal log reading, SPcl is the SP log reading in clean sand, and SPsh is the
SP log reading in the shaly sand.
2.3.2 Formation Water Resistivity

Formation water resistivity, Rw, calculated using the maximum spontaneous potential, SP log
response in clean water sand. Fresh water mud was used in Kailashtila Gas Field.
The static SP (SSP) value in the clean formation is related to the equivalent resistivity Rwe
and Rmfe. Rwe is the equivalent formation water resistivity and Rmfe is the equivalent mud
filtrate resistivity. The relationship between SSP and the equivalent resistivity (Rwe and
Rmfe) can be expressed as8,
.......... (6)
Where K is a constant, which depends upon the formation temperature as follows8:
.... (7)
We can solve the resistivity ratio using the SSP in a porous and permeable, non-shaly
formation.
9
Arranging Equation (6) it can solve for resistivity ratio as
.. (8)
Rmfe can be determined by correcting the mud filtrate resistivity (Rmf), which is measured
from a sample of mud filtrate. This is done by using chart SP-2, from Schlumbergers Chart-
Book.9 Chart Gen-9 is then used for the temperature correction. Knowing Rmfe, Rwe is
calculated from Equation (6).
After calculating Rwe, it can estimate for total NaCl salinity. It found that the original
formation water for the Kailashtila Gas Field is very saline, with NaCl reading of about
237,000 ppm. This value was used for environmental correction of the neutron porosity logs.
2.3.3 True Resistivity (RT)

The tornado charts9 for the resistivity tool is used to correct the shallow, medium and deep
resistivity into an equivalent true resistivity. In the highly permeable and porous pay zones,
invasion should be extremely shallow; thus, the deep resistivity could be assumed as Rt. The
true resistivity is used in calculation of water saturation.
2.3.4 Estimating Water Saturation (Sw)

There are several models10, 11, 12 available for the calculation of openhole water saturation, and
each of these models depends on the availability of well log and formation data and the type
of formation. The Saturation-Ratio method and Bulkwater-Saturation method require the
resistivity data and information of the formation water resistivity, Rw. The main advantage of
the Saturation-Ratio method is that it is independent of the porosity and lithology. However,
the accuracy of this method depends on the resistivity devices. The Bulk water-Saturation
method is also independent of porosity measurements but requires accurate estimate of
formation resistivity.
The Resistivity-Overlay method is an easy and quick procedure for determining water
saturation from openhole well logs. The analysis is independent of porosity but does require
accurate estimates of resistivity. The method assumes the porosity is constant and that water
salinity is the water bearing zone. The interpretation is accurate in thick, homogeneous sands
with a distinct oil-water contact.
10
The modified Simandoux13 and Dual-Water11 models are used for accurate analysis in the
shaly sands.
Archies equation is used for accurate analysis in the clean sands. Because of the clean sand,
the Archies equation was used to determine water saturations from openhole well logs for
Kailashtila Gas Field.
Water saturation calculation procedure using Archie equation is described below in a step by
step. This procedure is adapted from George Asquith8.
Data required:
1. Read resistivity (Rt), porosity values from Density and Neutron logs (D, N) in the
sand of interest.
2. Read Rw from log header.
Where,
Rt = True resistivity
D= Porosity from Density log
N = Porosity from Neutron log
Rw = Resistivity of formation water
The procedure for calculating openhole water saturation is as follows:

1. Porosity calculation from the combination Density-Neutron log:
..... (9)
2. Calculation of formation resistivity factor:

... (10)
Where,
a = tortuosity factor
m = cementation factor
3. Calculation of water saturation of the clean sand, Sw:
( ) ...... (11)
Where,
n = saturation exponent
11
2.3.6 Permeability
In many cases, there exists a relationship between the values of porosity and permeability, but
such correlations usually are empirical and limited to a given formation in a given area. The
general expression relating porosity and permeability proposed by Wyllie and Rose14 is given
as:
........ (12)
( )
Several investigations15, 16, 17

have proposed various empirical relationships with which
permeability can be estimated from porosity and irreducible water saturation derived from the
well logs. Some of the expressions are as follows:
Based on 230 core reports, Tixier18 proposed C=250, x=3, and y=1, which results in
. (13)
Based on 155 sandstone cores from Gulf Coast, Colorado and California, Timur16 proposed a
similar model with C=100, x=2.25 and y=1, whish yields
...... (14)
Coates and Dumanior17 presented a modified form of the general equation, in which they
used w, an empirical parameter related to the cementation and saturation exponents m and n.
....... (15)
The permeability for Kailashtila Gas Field was calculated using Coates19 Equation by using
irreducible water saturation. This value was estimated from bulk volume water at transition
zone.
Permeability: ( ) ....... (16)
Where, Kcoef = 62500, EXP = 6.0
12
2.4 Delineation of Hydraulic Flow Units
The key to improved reservoir description and exploitation is developing and understanding
the complex variations in pore geometry within different lithofacies. Core data provides
information on the various depositional and diagenetic controls on pore geometry. Variations
in the pore geometrical attributes in turn define the existence of distinct zones, classified as
flow units, similar reservoir structure and fluid flow characteristics. The discrimination of the
rock type is based on subjective geological observations and on empirical relationships
between the log permeability and porosity. However, for a given rock type, permeability can
vary by several orders of magnitude, which coupled with reservoir structure and other
reservoir properties indicates the existence of several flow units.
Hydraulic flow units are related to the distribution of geologic facies, but do not necessarily
coincide with facies boundaries. Therefore, a hydraulic unit may not be necessarily vertically
contiguous. Hydraulic units are often defined by the following:
Geological attributes off texture (which includes mineralogy, sedimentary structure,
bedding contacts, and permeability barriers)
Petrophysical properties of porosity, permeability and capillary pressure
Knowledge of permeability and permeability distributions20, 21 is critical to developing an
effective reservoir description. Although the distributions of permeability are usually
determined from core data, most wells are not cored. In the case of Kailashtila Gas Field,
only one well was cored. As a result, permeability of the uncored well is estimated from the
permeability and porosity relationship developed from well logs as well as core data. The
general expression for the porosity-permeability relationship can be written as
( ) ..... (17)
There is no rigorous theoretical basis to support the traditional cross plot of the logarithm of
permeability versus porosity, but some analogy can be made with the Kozeny-Carmen22
equation. The general rationale for plotting the logarithm of permeability as a function of
porosity is that permeability is assumed to be log-normally distributed. However, correlation
of two normally distributed parameters does not necessarily establish causality, and because
porosity is generally independent of grain size and porosity and permeability may or may not
be directly proportional. Several investigators17, 19-21, 1
have noted the inadequacy of this
classical approach and proposed alternative models for relating porosity, permeability and
irreducible water saturation.
13
It can conclude from the classical approach that for a given rock type, the different porosity-
permeability relationships are evidence of the existence of different hydraulic units. Several
investigators1, 20, 21,
have arrived at similar conclusions about porosity-permeability
relationships.
The mean hydraulic radius is the key to interpreting the hydraulic units and relating porosity,
permeability and capillary pressure. Amaefule, at al.1 considered the role of hydraulic mean
radius in defining hydraulic flow units and correlating permeability from the core data. This
approach is essentially based on a modified Kozeny-Carmen22 equation coupled with the
concept of mean hydraulic radius.
.. (18)
Where r is the pore throat radius in m and rmh is mean hydraulic radius in m.
Kozeny23 and Carmen22 considered the reservoir rock to be composed of a bundle of capillary
tubes. They used Poisseulles and Darcys laws to derive the following relationship between
porosity and permeability:
( ) ... (19)
Where k is permeability and is effective porosity and is tortuosity.
The mean hydraulic radius can be related to the surface area per unit grain volume, Sgv, and
the effective porosity, , by Equation (20).
* + ..... (20)
Combining Equation 19 and 20,
*( )
+ ... (21)
Where k is in m2 and is a fraction. A more generalized form of the Kozeny-Carmen22

relationship is presented as equation (21), where Fs is the shape factor (2 for circular
cylinder). The term Fs2 has classically been referred to as Kozenys constant. For uniform
and unconsolidated rock, Carmen22 and Leveratte24 computed the value of Fs2 to be 5.
However, Rose and Bruce25 showed that the Fs2 could vary from 5 to 100 in real reservoir
rocks.
14
Amaefule et al.1 addressed the variability of Kozenys constant in terms of dividing Equation
(21) by effective porosity, .
*( )
+ ... (22)
Where, k is in m2.
For a permeability expressed in md, the following parameter representing the measure of pore
throat size radius of a particular hydraulic unit is defined as
....... (23)
Where RQI is the reservoir quality index expressed in m and 0.0314 is the conversion factor
from milidarcy to m.
Normalized porosity index z, or NPI, can be defined as
[ ] .... (24)
( )
Amaefule et.al.1 defined another term FZI (m), designated as Flow Zone Indicator, and
expressed as
....... (25)

In an attempt to develop a unified theory to correlate data, Amaefule et.al.1 tried to define a
single constant; this could replace the surface grain volume and the Kozeny constant. They
combined Equation (22) and (25), which results in
*( +
)
....... (26)
In Equation 26 the unit for k is m2 and if k is expressed in milidarcies, then Equation (26)
becomes
*( +
)
...... (27)
15
Amaefule et.al.1 combined Equation (23), (24), and (27) and developed the relationship
between RQI, z, and FZI which was expressed as .
Taking logarithm of both sides of this relation yields
Log RQI = log z + log FZI ..... (28)
According to Amaefule et.al.1 Equation (28) indicates that for any hydraulic unit, log-log plot
of the Reservoir Quality Index (RQI) versus the Normalized Porosity Index (z) should
yield a straight line of unit slope.
The authors showed that all samples with similar FZI values will lie on the straight line with
unit slope. Sample with different FZI values lie on other parallel lines.
The value of the FZI constant can be determined from the intercept of the unit slope line at
NPI = 1. Samples that lie on the straight line have similar pore throat attributes and thereby
constitute a unique hydraulic flow unit.
This approach was used directly for Kailashtila Gas Filed as most of the core data fall on the
unit slope line.
2.4.1 Modification of Amaefule et.al Method

As the applicability of Amaefule et.al method is limited to shaly sandstones, it necessary to
modify this method in order to account for the preseence of shale.
According to the definition of the surface area for clean sandstones , Sgv, is given by;
..... (32)
Where, Vgs is the grain volume for clean sandstones, but in general, in shaly sands it can
define a total grain volume (shale + sandstone) which can be expressed by Vgt.
It can define the total surface area per unit grain volume Sgt, including shale volume as,
or ......... (33)
16
Again, including the shale volume in the Sgv parameter it can get,
( ) ... (34)
Substituting equation (33) into equation (34) gives,
.. (35)
The original Amaefule et.al equation is,
*( +
)
..... (36)
Now, the Equation (35) substitute into equation (36),
*( +
)
or, *( +
)
or, RQI = NPI*FZI(1-Vsh) ........... (37)

Where,
RQI = Rock Quality Index = 0.0314
NPI = Normalized Porosity Index = * +

( )
FZI = Flow zone Indicator =

Taking the logarithm of both sides of Equation (37) gives
Log (RQI) = log [NPI(1-Vsh)] + log (FZI) . (38)
On a log-log plot of RQI versus NPI(1-Vsh) all points with equal FZI values will lie on a
straight line.
2.5 Reservoir Management

After establishing a basic geological and petrophysical model, the reservoir performance is
evaluated using the production data.
17
CHAPTER III
STRUCTURE, STRATIGRAPHY AND PETROLEUM SYSTEM
3.1 General Geology

In relation to regional tectonic history, the Kailashtila structure has developed in the foredeep
located west and south of massive orogenic uplifts. It is a north-south trending elongated
anticline with the axis on the north swinging gently towards east like other structures in this
Fold Belt. The Kailashtila structure is considered to be quite young and formed during Late
Pliocene-Early Pleistocene time 3, 5.
The depositional environment of these fields was one of prolific, younger, Tertiary clastics
accumulation along a mobile delta front, developing in a sinking basin, which affected the
lower reaches of the continental slope. However, these main directions of sedimentary flow
are not always reflected in the local thickness trends encountered in the Kailashtila
succession.
The sediments making up the reservoirs are composed of sandstone and shale and considered
to have deposited in the delta or delta front environment. These sediments were subjected to
the later phases of the Himalayan/Arakan orogeny, resulting in the formation of the relatively
gentle folds of the frontal folded belt (Figure 3.1)3.
The stratigraphy of the Kailashtila area is related to the stratigraphy of the Surma Basin and is
based on lithological correlation with rocks in the Assam oil fields (Figure 3.2)3. The
formations that have been reached by wells in the Surma Basin are the DupiTila, Tipam,
BokaBil and Bhuban. Sediments deposited in the later stages of the Indian Plate collision
include the Upper Bhuban and BokaBil units and are overlain by the Tipam and DupiTila.
This stage is represented by sedimentation contemporaneous with the major phase of
continental collision (Late Miocene Recent), when the main uplift Himalayan and Indo-
Burma ranges occurred. Deposition occurred in fluvial-deltaic to estuarine environments
during the Miocene Pliocene, accompanied by extensive channeling and sediment reworking.
18
Figure 3.1: Regional Tectonic Map of Bangladesh3
Figure 3.2: General Stratigraphy and Petroleum System of Bangladesh3
19
3.2 Structure
The Kailashtila field is located in the Surma basin which is a gas prolific Tertiary basin in the
northeastern part of Bangladesh. Actually the Surma basin is in fact the northern extension of
the Bengal basin. The deposition in the Surma basin was almost exclusively clastic sequences
of deltaic to fluvial and to the lesser extent marine sandstone, siltstone and shale.
The Surma basin was formed structurally by the contemporaneous interaction of two major
tectonic elements, i.e. the emerging Shillong Massif to the north and the westward moving
mobile Indo-Burma fold belt. The tectonic movement is considered to have occurred during
Neogene to the present age with the strongest period of crustal disturbance during the middle
Miocene. The primary result of this tectonics is a series of almost N-S oriented asymmetrical
anticlines.
The Kailashtila field is an elongate asymmetrical anticline with a simple four way dip
closure. The structural trend main axis lies almost NS with about 10 degree tilts towards
northeast-southwest. Structural maps are shown in Figure (3.3 to 3.8)3. The structure lies on
the northeast part of the Surma Basin. The structural dip at the Kailashtila closure is quite
steep estimated to be about 11-15 degrees. This indicates the strong and long duration of
compression had occurred in Kailashtila. The structure was first mapped by Shell in 1960
with a single fold seismic grid which acquired in the late 1950s.
No fault was observed from the 2D seismic data at the Kailashtila structure and vicinity. This
is probably due to the low resolution of the variable quality 2D seismic data and probably
more faults can be expected to be seen in a higher resolution 3D seismic data set.
20
Figure 3.3: Depth Structure Map of Upper Gas Sand and Well Locations
21
Figure 3.4: Depth Structure Map of Sand A and Well Locations
22
Figure 3.5: Depth Structure Map of Sand B and Well Locations
23
Figure 3.6: Depth Structure Map of HRZ and Well Locations
24
Figure 3.7: Depth Structure Map of MGS and Well Location
25
Figure 3.8: Depth Structure Map of LGS and Well Locations
26
3.3 Stratigraphy
The stratigraphic sequence of Kailashtila structure is mainly represented by sandstone and
shale of Miocene to Plio-Pleistocene age. As the results of drilling activities following
sedimentary sequences are confirmed in the Kailashtila structure:
DUPI TILA (Plio-Pleistocene), dominated by loosely consolidated sand with occasional clay
stone intercalation, containing lignite and wood fragments.
TIPAM Group consists of Girujan Clay and Tipam Sandstone.
Girujan Clay: composed of clay stone containing traces of carbonaceous debris, interbedded
with sandstone.
Tipam Sandstone: consists of massive sandstone units with interbedded clay stone horizons.
BOKABIL Formation (MiddleLate Miocene), this formation mainly consists of sandstones,

shale and siltstones. The shales are light to medium gray, occasionally dark gray with minor
coal inclusion, soft, silty, micromicaceous and calcareous. The sandstones are light gray, very
fine to fine grained, generally calcareous. The siltstone is light to medium gray with thin
argillaceous lamination, slightly calcareous and sandy. Depositional environment: lower delta
plain.
BHUBAN Formation (Middle Miocene), this zone mainly consists of very fine to medium
grained, well sorted, and sub-angular to sub-rounded, calcareous sandstone. Interbedded gray
shales are common with laminations of siltstone and lignite beds. Paleo-environment seems
to be of persistent marine influence.
3.4 Petroleum System

Regionally, Kailashtila area is a part of the Hatia Petroleum System that located in the south
of the Tangail-Tripura High. The hydrocarbon system is characterized by Plio-Pleistocene
traps in sandstone reservoirs of upper Miocene to Pliocene age. Gas with little or no
condensate is produced. The hydrocarbon source is probably from Miocene Bhuban shale,
which has generated primarily natural gas with minimal condensate.
3.4.1 Traps
Elongate asymmetrical anticline with trending almost NNE-SSW is the trap type for
Kailashtila Gas Field. This compression of structure took place from Miocene to Recent.
27
3.4.2 Source Rocks
It has been mentioned above that all the Kailashtila wells penetrated the Bhuban shale. The
Miocene Bhuban Shale is widely developed over the Bengal Basin, including the Eastern
Fold belt, and is probably the youngest source rock unit capable of generating gas. The
formation, deposited under a wide range of environmental regimes, from shallow marine
deltaic to fluvio-deltaic, has been characterized by different proportions of alternating shale,
silts and sands, with an overall increase of shale content southwards. The sequence is poor to
lean in terms of source rock potential, with TOC values averaging from 0.2 to 0.7 %.
3.4.3 Vertical Seal

The Upper Marine Shale (late Miocene-early Pliocene) is clearly recognized from seismic
and supposed to be a regional vertical seal in Kailashtila area. Intra-formational seal also
recognized both from well and seismic section.
3.4.4 Timing and Migration

In the Kailashtila as a part of Hatia area, the rapid sedimentation rates during the Miocene
pushed the Oligocene and earlier source rocks through the oil and gas windows well before
the formation of the structural traps in the Pliocene to Recent. The most likely gas source is in
shaly sections of the middle to lower Miocene. The migration pathway is probably a
combination of vertical migration from earlier Miocene through flanking faults and lateral
migration form upper Miocene in basinal, "kitchen" areas.
3.4.5 Reservoirs
Proven reservoir rocks in Kailashtila areas are sandstones of the Upper Gas Sand, New Sand
A, High Resistivity Zone, New Sand B, Middle Gas Sand & Lower Gas Sand. The reservoirs
sandstones are Middle to Late Miocene of age3.
28
CHAPTER IV
INTEGRATION OF THE GEOLOGICAL AND PETROPHYSICAL
MODELS
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, a modified approach is used for the identification and characterization of
hydraulic flow units within a particular geological unit. The technique is based on the theory
described in Chapter II. Hydraulic units can be thought of as depositional sequences with
unique geological and Petrophysical properties. In a particular hydraulic unit, there should
exist a unique relationship between the RQI (reservoir quality index) and NPI (normalized
porosity index) 23. This relationship can be derived from the core data and can be used to
estimate permeability and irreducible water saturation. All figures for different correlation in
this chapter were generated by Microsoft Exel software.
This chapter deals with the definition and characterization of hydraulic flow units for
Kailashtila Gas Field, the inter-connectivity of these units and evaluation of flow properties
based on the irreducible water saturation and pore throat size distribution.
4.2 Description of Hydraulic Flow Units of Kailashtila Gas Field

Kailashtila Gas Field is one of the gas bearing sands in Surma Basin. It was deposited within
a fluvial/distributaries channel and the major composition consists mainly of clastic quartz
arenite. The hydraulic flow units for Kailashtila Gas Sands are listed in Table 4.1. The
description of each flow unit is presented in the following sections.
Table 4.1: Discretization of Hydraulic Flow Units for Kailashtila Gas Field
Sand Flow unit Interval (feet)

Upper Gas Sand UGS 7422-7601
Middle Gas Sand MGS 9604-9673
Lower Gas Sand LGS 9747-9929
4.2.1 Description of Hydraulic Flow Unit Upper Gas Sand (HU- UGS)
The hydraulic flow unit UGS was deposited in a clastic sequence of deltaic, fluvial and to a
lesser degree marine sandstones, siltstones, shale and clay stones. The sands in this flow unit
are mainly fine to medium grained occasionally coarse.
29
Figure 4.1 shows the log-log correlation of NPI and RQI based on the well log data for this
unit. The relationship between RQI and NPI was obtained by regression analysis, and
represented by the equation shown within Figure 4.1. The square of the residuals (R2) for
NPI and RQI is 0.90, which indicates a good correlation between the NPI and RQI functions.
According to Figure 4.1, all the RQI values for HU-UGS are between 0.1 and 1, which is
indicative of smaller pore throat size with fine-grain, uniformly distributed sand. After
establishing the relationship between NPI and RQI from the well log data, permeability was
estimated using Equation 28,
( )
* + * + .... (29)
All data points of RQI and NPI formed a straight line with unit slope on Figure 4.1 which is
indication of single hydraulic flow unit of HU-UGS.
The well log permeability is shown as k-Computed in Figure 4.2. Well log data were used to
estimate the values for e and NPI. Recall that NPI is defined by Equation (24) as
*( )
+....... (24)
Hydraulic flow units are characterized by their distributions of reservoir properties, most
notably:
Porosity
Permeability
Composition and texture
Pore throat size distributions
Irreducible water saturations
10
y = 32.881x2.3475
R = 0.9059
RQI, m
0.1
0.1 1
NPI, fraction
Figure 4.1: RQI and NPI Correlation for HU-UGS

30
K-Core K-Computed
10000
1000
Permeability, mD
100
10
1
0.1 1
Porosity, Fraction
Figure 4.2: Permeability and Porosity Correlation for HU-UGS
In particular, RQI represents the pore throat size of a flow zone, whereas the irreducible
water saturation strongly depends upon the pore throat size. The permeability distribution of a
hydraulic flow unit also depends on the irreducible water saturation present in that particular
unit. Irreducible water saturation for each hydraulic flow unit estimated using capillary
pressure data.
To check the estimate of irreducible water saturation, water saturation was plotted as a
function of capillary pressure obtained from core analysis. Figure 4.3 gives an estimate of
irreducible water saturation, which appears 10 percent.
250
200
Capilary Pressure
150 Capilary Pressure at

7536 ft
100 Capillary pressure at
7560 ft
50 Capilary Pressure at
7615
0
0 50 100 150
Water Saturation %
Figure 4.3: Water Saturation as a Function of Capillary pressure for

HU-UGS26
31
The matches between core and well log porosity for HU-UGS are shown in Figure 4.4 and
4.5. Figure 4.4 shows the comparison of porosity values from core and porosity values
calculated from well logs. Figure 4.5 represents a log-log plot of well log porosity versus core
porosity, with negligible deviations. Figure 4.5 appears a good correlation between well log
porosity and core porosity and near about all data points lie on straight line. Which approved
the data were from a single hydraulic flow unit.
2360
2340
2320
Depth(m)
2300
Porosity-Core
2280 Porosity-Log
2260
2240
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.4: Comparison between continuous Porosity from Core and

Well Log Data
1
Log Porosity, fraction
0.1
Good
Correlation
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
Core Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.5: Well Log Porosity versus Core Porosity27
32
To find a correlation between permeability and porosity for HU-UGS the log of permeability
is plotted versus porosity and a power trend line is fitted through the data points, as shown in
Figure 4.6. The square of the residuals (R2) 0.46 indicates a poor match between porosity and
permeability but all data points created a single trend line. A single trend line is proving of
single hydraulic flow unit.
Figure 4.7 shows a correlation between irreducible water saturation and porosity which is
used to determine bulk volume water. When values of bulk volume water plot along
hyperbolic lines the formation is homogeneous. Figure 4.7 shows that all points are near
about along the hyperbolic line. So the formation of hydraulic flow unit HU-UGS may
homogeneous.
10000
y = 525826x4.5012
R = 0.4605
1000
Permeability, mD
100
10
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.6: Permeability versus Porosity for HU-UGS28
0.2
fraction
0.15
0.1
(Sw)irr,
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.7: Cross Plot of Porosity versus Irreducible Water

Saturation used to Determine Bulk Volume Water8
33
Table 4.2 lists the geological and petrophysical properties for HU-UGS and the analyses
shows that this unit is uniform. This Table also shows the difference between well log
anslyses values and core analyses values. Though analyses section of well log analysis and
core analysis were not same.
Table 4.2: Reservoir Properties for HU-UGS

Properties Well log Analysis Core Analysis
Interval, ft 7366-7700 7476-7665
Gross Sand, ft 334 189
Net Sand, ft 268 189
Net/Gross 0.802 1.0
, fraction 0.21 0.24
K, md 501 909
Sw, fraction 0.44 0.30
Swirr, fraction 0.10 0.10
BVW, fraction 0.09 0.07
4.2.2 Description of Hydraulic Flow Unit Middle Gas Sand (HU- MGS)
The hydraulic flow unit HU- UGS is defined in a similar manner as HU-UGS, but it was
found that the porosity and permeability distributions in this flow unit are lower than that of
HU-UGS.
NPI and RQI is 0.99, which indicates an excellent correlation between the NPI and RQI
functions. According to Figure 4.8, all the RQI values for HU-UGS are between 0.1 and 0.4,
which is considerably lower than HU-UGS. The relationship between NPI and RQI indicates
that HU-MGS is lower quality than HU-UGS. After establishing the relationship between
NPI and RQI from the well log data, permeability was estimated using Equation 30,
( )
* + * + ..... (30)
indication of single hydraulic flow unit of HU-UGS.
34
10
y = 75.258x2.8812
R = 0.9991
RQI, m
1
0.1
0.1 1
NPI, fraction
Figure 4.8: RQI and NPI Correlation for HU-MGS28
To estimate the irreducible water saturation, water saturation was plotted as a function of
capillary pressure obtained from core analysis. Figure 4.9 gives an estimate of irreducible
water saturation, which appears 10 percent.
250
200
Capilary Pressure, Psi
Pc at 9613 ft
150 Pc at 9639 ft
Pc at 9655 ft
100 Pc at 9673 ft
Pc at 9701 ft
50 Pc at 9725 ft
Pc at 9726 ft
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Water Saturation, %
Figure 4.9: Water Saturation as a Function of Capillary pressure for HU-MGS26
35
The matches between core and well log porosity for HU-UGS are shown in Figure 4.10 and
calculated from well logs. Figure 4.11 represents a log-log plot of well log porosity versus
core porosity, with negligible deviations. Figure 4.11 appears a good correlation between
well log porosity and core porosity and near about all data points lie on straight line. Which
approved the data were from a single hydraulic flow unit.
2980
2970
2960
Depth, m
2950
2940 Porosity-Core
Porosity-Log
2930
2920
2910
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.10: Comparison between continuous Porosity

from Core and Well Log Data
1
0.1
Good
Correlation
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
36
To find a correlation between permeability and porosity for HU-UGS the log of permeability
Figure 4.12. The square of the residuals (R2) 1.0 indicates an excellent match between
porosity and permeability and all data points created a single trend line. A single trend line is
proving of single hydraulic flow unit.
10000
y = 2E+08x8
Permeability, mD 1000
R = 1
100
10
1
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.12: Permeability versus Porosity for HU-MGS
about along the hyperbolic line. So the formation of hydraulic flow unit HU-MGS may
homogeneous.
0.2
(Sw)irr, fraction
0.15
0.1 y = 0.0201x-1
R = 1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.13: Cross plot of porosity versus irreducible water

saturation used to determine bulk volume water
37
Table 4.3 lists the geological and petrophysical properties for HU-MGS obtained from
current analysis and the analyses shows that this unit is uniform. This Table also shows the
difference between well log anslyses values and core analyses values. Though analyses
section of well log analysis and core analysis were not same.
Table 4.3: Reservoir properties for HU-MGS
Properties Well Log Analysis Core Analysis

Interval, ft 9560-9740 9600-9734
Net Sand, ft 180 134
Net/Gross 1.0 1.0
Porosity, fraction 0.19 0.21
K, md 531 753
4.2.3 Description of Hydraulic Flow Unit Lower Gas Sand (HU- LGS)
The hydraulic flow unit HU-UGS is defined in a similar manner as HU-UGS, but it was
found that the porosity and permeability distributions in this flow unit are lower than that of
HU-UGS.
NPI and RQI is 0.99, which indicates an excellent correlation between the NPI and RQI
functions. According to Figure 4.14, all the RQI values for HU-LGS are between 0.1 and 0.3,
which is considerably lower than that of HU-MGS and HU-UGS. The relationship between
NPI and RQI indicates the HU-LGS is lower quality than HU-UGS and HU-MGS. After
establishing the relationship between NPI and RQI from the well log data, permeability was
estimated using Equation 31,
( )
k * + * + .... (31)
38
indication of single hydraulic flow unit of HU-LGS.
10
y = 86.486x2.9683
RQI, m
R = 0.9997
1
0.1
0.1 1
NPI, fraction
Figure 4.14: RQI and NPI Correlation for HU-LGS28
To estimate the irreducible water saturation, water saturation was plotted as a function of
capillary pressure obtained from core analysis. Figure 4.15 gives an estimate of irreducible
water saturation, which appears 9 percent.
Pc at 9903 ft Pc at 9919
250
Capilary Pressure, Psi
200
150
100
50
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Water Saturation, %
Figure 4.15: Water Saturation as a Function of Capillary pressure for HU-LGS26
The matches between core and well log porosity for HU-LGS are shown in Figure 4.16 and
39
calculated from well logs. Figure 4.17 represents a log-log plot of well log porosity versus
core porosity, with negligible deviations. Figure 4.17 appears a good correlation between
well log porosity and core porosity and near about all data points lie on straight line. Which
approved the data were from a single hydraulic flow unit.
3040
3035
Depth, m
3030
Porosity-Core
3025
Porosity-Log
3020
3015
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.16: Comparison between continuous Porosity from Core and Well
Log Data
1
0.1
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
To find a correlation between permeability and porosity for HU-LGS the log of permeability
Figure 4.18.The square of the residuals (R2) 1.0 indicates an excellent match between
40
porosity and permeability and all data points created a single trend line. A single trend line is
proving of single hydraulic flow unit.
1000
y = 2E+08x8
R = 1
Permeability, mD
100
10
1
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.18: Permeability versus Porosity for HU-LGS
about along the hyperbolic line. So the formation of hydraulic flow unit HU-UGS may
homogeneous.
0.2
fraction
0.15
y = 0.0201x-1
R = 1
0.1
(Sw)irr,
0.05
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Porosity, fraction
Figure 4.19: Cross plot of porosity versus irreducible water

saturation used to determine bulk volume water
41
Table 4.4 lists the geological and petrophysical properties for HU-LGS obtained from
current analysis and the analyses shows that this unit is uniform. This Table also shows the
difference between well log anslyses values and core analyses values. Though the total height
of analyses section of well log analysis and core analysis were not same.
Table 4.4: Reservoir properties for HU-LGS
Properties Well Log Analysis Core Analysis

Interval, ft 9910-9970 9899-9928
Net Sand, ft 60 29
Net/Gross 1 1.0
Porosity, fraction 0.17 0.20
K, md 206 847
4.2.5 Application of Modified Approach of Amaefule et.al Method

Porosity and permeability data generated on a typical South American clastic rock were used
to compute RQI, NPI and FZI. The Figure 4.20 and 4.21 are plotted using of these data
functions. Figure 4.20 is generated using Amaefule et.al method without considering shale
volumes and all data points did not lie on straight line. Figure 4.21 is plotted using modified
approach with considering shale volumes and all data points well positioned on a straight
line. So, the modified approach approved that the data are taken from a single hydraulic flow
unit in a shaly sand reservoir as the same value of flow zone indicator (FZI) obtained from
both plot (Figure 4.20 and Figure 4.21). Thus the modified approach may apply to identify
the hydraulic flow unit for shaly sand reservoir.
42
100
10
RQI, m
1
0.1
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
NPI, fraction
Figure 4.20: RQI and NPI Correlation generated using Ameafule et.al. Method
100
10
RQI, m
0.1
0.01
0.01 0.1 1
NPI (1-Vsh), fraction
Figure 4.21: RQI and NPI (1-Vsh) Correlation generated using modified approach
43
4.3 Deliverability Test Analysis
There are two types of deliverability analysis available as the simplified analysis or the
laminar-inertial-turbulent (LIT) analysis. LIT analysis is more rigorous than simplified
analysis and is usually only used in tests where turbulence is dominant and the extrapolation
to the AOFP is large. However, in most cases the simplified analysis is sufficient to
determine the AOFP and deliverability. For both of the simplified and LIT analysis, two
pressure options are available, the pressure squared or the pseudo-pressure approach. Here
simplified analysis is used in terms of Pseudo-pressure and Pressure squared method to
obtain the actual open flow potential (AOFP) for Kailashtila well KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTL-
04.
4.3.1 Kailashtila Well KTL-01

The Kailashtila well no. KTL-01 was drilled in 1961 to 13577 ft. The well was dually
completed in the lower (9810 ft to 9870 ft) and upper gas sands (7487 ft to 7547 ft). The well
completion had a packer at 8740 ft and a tailpipe at 8785 ft. The KTL-01 well produced from
the lower gas sand which was subsequently shut in November 1997 having produced 43 BCF
of gas. On February 28, 1998, a tubing bridge plug was set above the lower gas sand
perforations and 10.5 feet of cement was dumped on top and tested. Intervals in the middle
gas sand were perforated from 9652ft to 9722 ft. The current KTL-01 tubing string is a 4
API string landed 8783.78 feet (869 feet above the midpoint of perforations).
A flow after flow survey was conducted in Well KTL-01 of Kailashtila Gas field on 24th Nov
2007 to 26th Nov2007. The survey was conducted by Al Mansoori Wireline Services using
quartz memory gauges S/No. 20468 lower and 20389 upper and the sample rate for each
gauge was 30 second. The gauges were calibrated to 10K Psi pressure and 350 0F
temperature. The pressure accuracy is 0.02% of full scale and resolution is 0.00006% of full
scale. The temperature accuracy is 0.45 0F and resolution is <0.009 0F. The gauges were
hanged at a depth of 9300 ftWzl. The gauge recorded complete survey data successfully and
the data quality is excellent. Figure 4.22 shows the flow-after-flow test for well KTL-01. The
flow-after-flow test involved many sequences of drawdown followed by a build-up. It was
observed that the rates were not stabilized in all the flow periods, except for the last
drawdown just before the build-up. The production test was carried out by Al Mansoori
Production services. The well was flowed for approximately 6 hrs in different chokes and
shut in for approximately 24 hrs. The Test Summary is based on the average on specified
choke during the test. The test utilized a surface shut-in.
44
Company: SYLHET GAS FIELD LIMITED. Formation name: MIDDLE GAS SAND
Field Name : KAILASTILLA Type of survey: FLOW AFTER FLOW TEST
Well Name : KTL-1 Survey Date : 24-Nov-2007 TO 26-Nov-2007
Well Type: GAS PRODUCER Country: BANGLADESH
40
3520
3500 36
3480
32
3460
3440
28
3420
3400 24
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

Pressure (psi(a))
3380
20
3360
3340
16
3320
3300 12
3280
8
3260
3240
4
pdata
3220
qgas
3200 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Time (h)
Figure 4.22: The Flow after Flow Test for Kailashtila Well KTL-01
Based on the 3 draw-down periods of the flow-after-flow test, it analyzed the well for the
Absolute Open-Flow-Potential (AOFP). Using the C&N plot shown in Figure 4.23, the
parameter N and C are computed and extended the line to a theoretical bottom-hole flowing
pressure of 1 4.7 Pisa, which will give the theoretical maximum AOFP. The results from the
current study analysis of the C&N IPR plot in Figure 4.23 are given in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Flow after Flow Test Analysis Results for Kailashtila Well KTL-01
Parameters Pseudo-Pressure Method Pressure Squared Method
Pavg(Pisa) 3499.3 3499.3
AOF (mmscfd) 336.961 293.10

C[mmscfd/(106psi2/cp)n] 1.80 8.50*102
n 0.778 0.781
45
Figure 4.23: Flow after Flow Test C&N Plot to Estimate the AOF for Kailashtila Well KTL-01
46
The Kailashtila well no. KTL-02 was spud on August 6, 1988 and drilled to a total depth on
October 19, 1988. The well was drilled as a straight hole but deviated slightly to a total depth
of 10600ft (3230 m) with a measure depth of 10780 ft (3285 m). Two zones below the lowest
proven gas sand were identified but were not production tested due to project constraints. In
addition to four expected gas sands in the lowest zone, a fifth production zone was discovered
capable of producing more than 25 mmscfd with 150 bpd of condensate. The well was tested
across various intervals and was completed in the Upper Gas Sand from 7390 ft to 7430 ft
with 88.9mm tubing and a packer at 7280ft. The tailpipe has a 2.67 internal diameter that
was landed at 7316 ft. The rig was released on October 23, 1988.
The KTL-02 well was placed on production in February of 1995 from the upper gas sand at
reported rates of 6 mmscfd with 104 bpd of condensate and no reported water. Latest reported
production from March 2009 is at 21 mmscfd of gas with 255 bpd of condensate and 3.28
bpd of water at a flowing tubing pressure of 2320 psig.
2007 to 22nd Nov 2007. The survey was conducted by Al Mansoori Wireline Services using
quartz memory gauges S/No. 20468 lower and 20389 upper and the sample rate for each
gauge was 30 sec. The gauges were calibrated to 10K Psi pressure and 350 0F temperature.
The pressure accuracy is 0.02% of full scale and resolution is 0.00006% of full scale. The
temperature accuracy is 0.45 0F and resolution is <0.009 0F. The gauges were hanged at a
depth of 7290 ftWzl. The gauge recorded complete survey data successfully and the
dataquality is excellent. Figure 4.24 shows the flow-after-flow test for well KTL-02. The
flow-after-flow test involved 4 periods of increasing draw-down followed by a build-up. The
production test was carried out by Al Mansoori Wireline services. The well was flowed for
approximately 6 hrs in different chokes and shut in for approximately 24 hrs. The test utilized
a surface shut-in.
47
3230 60
3225 55
3220 50
3215 45
3210 40
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

Pressure (psi(a))
3205 35
3200 30
3195 25
3190 20
3185
15
3180
10
3175
5
pdata
3170 qgas
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Time (h)
analysis of the C&N IPR plot in Figure 4.25 are given in Table 4.6.
Pavg(psia) 3222.4 3222.4
AOF 1824.36 1552
C[mmscfd/(106psi2/cp)n] 4.53 6.48*102
n 0.908 0.909
48
49
The Kailashtila well no. KTL-04 was spud as a vertical appraisal well on 7th August 2006 and
reached the target depth 10,909 ft. on November 27, 1996. Two zones were tested with DST
#1 from 10,260 ft (3,127 m) 10,274 ft (3,131 m) tested 8.6 mmscfd with 53 bpd
Condensate and 124 bpd water and DST#2 from 9,882 ft (3,012 m) 9,932 ft (3,027 m)
tested 11.8 mmscfd with 102.6 bpd condensate and 11.4 bpd water. A completion was
run which consisted of a permanent packer at 9,714 ft on a 3 tubing with a 3
tailpipe to 9,761 ft. The KTL-04 well was placed on production from the Lower Gas Sand in
March 1997 at initial reported rates of 19.2 mmscfd gas with 200 bpd of condensate. Rates
continued until November 2006.
A work over was initiated in September, 2006 and the Lower Gas Sand was
abandoned with a cement plug, and select intervals were perforated in the Middle Gas
Sand from 9,612.9 ft (2,930 m) to 9,675.2 ft (2,949 m); 9,698.2 ft (2,956 m) to 9,704.7 ft
(2,958 m). The well was flow tested after an initial buildup pressure recorded a
surface pressure of 2,730 psi. The Middle Gas sand was put on production in December
2006 at an initial rate of 12.55 mmscfd with 8.4 bbl/mmscf condensate and 0.56 bb/mmscf
measured water. Current production from the Upper Gas sand is 14 mmscfd of gas, 169
bpd of condensate and 3.27 bpd of water at 2,660 psig.
2007 to 18th Nov 2007. The survey was conducted by Al Mansoori Wireline Services
using quartz memory gauges S/No. 20468 lower and 20389 upper and the sample rate for
each gauge was 30sec. The gauges were calibrated to 10K Psi pressure and 350F
temperature. The pressure accuracy is 0.02% of full scale and resolution is 0.00006% of full
scale. The temperature accuracy is 0.45F and resolution is <0.009F. The gauges were
hanged at a depth of 8750 ftWzl. The gauge recorded complete survey data successfully and
the data quality is excellent. Figure 4.26 shows the flow-after-flow test for well KTL-04.
The flow-after-flow test involved 2 periods of increasing draw-down followed by a build-up.
The production test was carried out by Al Mansoori Production services. The well was
flowed for approximately 9 hrs in different chokes and shut in for approximately 24hrs. The
Test Summary is based on the average on specified choke during the test. The test utilized a
surface shut-in.
50
Data Chart
3490
18
3480
16
14
3470
Sandface Pressure (psi(a))
12
Gas Rate (MMscfd)

3460
10
3450 8
6
3440
3430
2
Pressure Data
Gas Rate
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
Time (h)
51
analysis of the C&N IPR plot in Figure 4.27 are given in Table 4.7.
Pavg(psia) 3491 3491
AOF 199.86 179

C[mmscfd/(106psi2/cp)n] 2.63 4.73*103
n 0.644 0.646
52
53
4.3.4 Comparison of Deliverability Test Analysis Results with Previous
Study
Table 4.8 compares the value of various parameters obtained from the deliverability analysis
between current study and Al Mansoori Wireline Services study.
The calculated values of n for all three wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTL-04 from current
study are 0.78, 0.91 and 0.64 respectively. These values indicate that the flow condition for
KTL-01 is in between laminar and turbulent, for KTL-02 is laminar dominant and for KTL-
04 is turbulent dominant. On the other hand, the obtained value of n from Al Mansoori
Wirelines Services study is 1.15 for KTL-01 which is not possible because the value of n
generally in between 0.5 and 1.0. Al Mansoori Wirelines Services acknowledged about this
error but they did not give any explanation behind this. This erroneous result was might be
due to negligence in calculation or data inputting were wrong.
The calculated values of AOF for KTL-01 and KTL-04 from current study are reasonable but
for KTL-02 is unrealistically high with respect to highest production rate of 21 mmscfd. This
is because; it was not possible to record the production test appropriately for KTL-02 due to
malfunction of the process flow separator gas flow meter and also condensate flow rate was
not possible to measure individually. On the other hand, the values of AOF obtained from Al
Mansoori Wirelines Services analysis for all three wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTL-04 are
unrealistically high with respect to production rate 22 mmscfd, 21 mmscfd and 14 mmscfd
respectively.
So it can be supposed that current analysis is better than previous analysis.
Table 4.8: Various parameters for deliverability test analysis obtained from current study and
Al Mansoori Wireline Services study for all three wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTL-04
Current Study Al Mansoori Wireline Services
Well
Pavg AOF C [mmscfd/ Pavg AOF C [mmscfd/
No. n n
(Psia) (mmscfd) (106psi2/cp)n] (Psia) (mmscfd) (106psi2/cp)n]
KTL-01 3499.3 336.96 1.80 0.78 3515 852.2 486 1.15
KTL-02 3222.4 1824.36 4.53 0.91 3221 3575 7.99e-2 0.638
KTL-04 3491 199.86 2.63 0.64 3489 2490 1.03e-2 0.72
54
4.4 Pressure Transient Analysis
There are three well tests available for the analysis of Kailashtila wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and
KTL-04 and Table 4.9 shows a summary of the well test analysis for these wells using the
Horner29 analysis and the results of type curve30 analyses are shown in Table 4.10.
Table 4.9: Results of Horners Analysis for Kailashtila Wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTL-04
Well K, mD S P*
KTL-01 283 9.8 3485
KTL-02 3207 35 3322
KTL-04 331 18.1 3487.7
Table 4.10: Results of Type Curve Analysis, Homogeneous Reservoir with wellbore Storage
and Skin Effects for Kailashtila Wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTL-04
Well K, mD S
KTL-01 280 6.5
KTL-02 3400 38
KTL-04 330 19
It is noted from Table 4.9 and 4.10 that the estimated permeability and skin from the two
different analysis methods are quite close.

Pressure transient analysis was carried out for Kailashtila Well KTL-01. A permeability of
283 md as estimate was determined from semilog plot Figure 4.28, then a pressure match is
forced to determine the reservoir properties and final type curve match is shown in Figure
4.29.
The current study results of well test data are presented in Table 4.11 in details.
Table 4.11: Pressure Transient Analysis Results for Kailashtila Well KTL-01
Value
Parameters Remarks
Semi Log Type Curve
K(mD) 283 280 Permeability
S 9.8 6.5 Skin factor
C(bbl/Psia) - 0.72 Wellbore Storage Coefficient
CD - 314221 Dimensionless Wellbore Storage constant
Pi (Psi) 3515 3515 Initial Reservoir Pressure
*
P (Psia) 3485 3516.5 Extrapolated Pressure
Pavg(Psia) - 3506 Average reservoir pressure
Ps (Psia) 22.9 15.3 Pressure drop due to skin
Xe (ft) - 60874 Reservoir length
Ye (ft) - 6800 Reservoir width
55
Radial
3500
830

3480
p (psi(a))
820
data 3460
model
pavg
810 Ext. model 3440
104 7 6 5 4 3 2 103 7 6 5 4 3 2 102 7 6 5 4 3 2 101 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.0
Radial Horner Pseudo-Time ([(tc + t) / t]a) (h)
Figure 4.28: Semilog Plot for Kailashtila Well KTL-01
For derivative analysis the model chosen a homogeneous, vertical well to analyze the
build-up response with changing wellbore storage in an elongated rectangular reservoir.
The late-time positive slope line in Figure 4.29 is indicative of a well in a channel
system, bounded on either side by parallel faults or low permeability features. Also
the pressure response continues to rise and there is a steep drop in the derivative response
at the end, indicating that there is a communication with some other source of pressure,
and it is assumed a constant pressure boundary on the far ends of the channel.
/q / Derivative ((106psi2/cP)/MMscfd)
Derivative
1.0
10-1 /qdata
/qmodel
4 Derivativedata
2 Derivativemodel
10-3 2 3 4 5 6 7 10-2 2 3 4 5 6 7 10-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 102
Pseudo-Time (h)
Figure 4.29: Type Curve Analysis, Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore

Storage and Skin Effects for Kailashtila Well KTL-01
56
3207 md as estimate was determined from semilog plot Figure 4.30, then a pressure match is
4.31.
For derivative analysis the model chosen was a vertical well in a channel, bounded by 2
sealing faults on either side. The response of the derivative curve, Figure 4.31 with an upward
+1/2 slope is indicative of a well within a channel. The channel could be a high permeability
feature within a low permeability background or it might be a channel bounded by two
sealing faults on either side. The late time upward +1/2 slope line on the derivative is
indicative of a well bounded on 2 sides by the channel boundaries or 2 sealing faults.
The current study results of well test data are presented in details in Table 4.12.
Values
Parameters Remarks
Semi Log Type Curve
K(mD) 3207 3400 Permeability
S 35 38 Skin factor
*
P (Psia) 3222.4 3223.4 Extrapolated Pressure
Pavg(Psia) - 3222.5 Average reservoir pressure
57
Radial
740
3220
738

3215
p (psi(a))
736
Semi Log Analysis Result
kh 1.3e+05 md.ft 3210

734 k 3207.1487 md
s' 34.970
p* 3222.4 psi(a) 3205
732 pskin 14.9 psi(a)
m 0.1857 (106psi2/cP)/cycle data
104 7 6 5 4 3 2 103 7 6 5 4 3 2 102 7 6 5 4 3 2 101 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.0
Figure 4.30: Semilog plot for Kailashtila Well KTL-02
Derivative
1.0
10-1
3
10-2
10-3
3 /qdata
10-4 /qmodel
Derivativedata
3
Derivativemodel
10-5
10-3 2 3 4 5 67 10-2 2 3 4 5 67 10-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.0 2 3 4 5 67 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 102
Pseudo-Time (h)
Figure 4.31: Type Curve Analysis, Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore

Storage and Skin Effects for Kailashtila Well 02
58
3207 md as estimate was determined from semi log plot Figure 4.32, then a pressure match is
4.33.
The current study results of well test data are presented in details in Table 4.13.
Values
Parameters Remarks
Semi Log Type Curve
K(mD) 330.5 330 Permeability
S 18.1 19 Skin factor
*
P (Psia) 3487.7 3491 Extrapolated Pressure
Pavg(Psia) - 3488.5 Average reservoir pressure
Radial
3490
832

3480
Analysis
p (psi(a))
828
kh 22808.57 md.ft
k 330.5590 md
3470
s' 18.117
p* 3487.7 psi(a)
824
sd 18.117
pskin 32.8 psi(a)
m 0.8193 (106psi2/cP)/cycle data 3460
104 7 6 5 4 3 2 103 7 6 5 4 3 2 102 7 6 5 4 3 2 101 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.0
Figure 4.32: Semi log plot for Kailashtila Well KTL-04
For derivative analysis the model chosen was a vertical well in a channel, bounded by 2
sealing faults on either side. The response of the derivative curve with an upward +1/2 slope
in Figure 4.33 is indicative of a well within a channel. The channel could be a high
59
permeability feature within a low permeability background or it might be a channel bounded
by two sealing faults on either side. The late time upward +1/2 slope line on the derivative is
indicative of a well bounded on 2 sides by the channel boundaries or 2 sealing faults.
Derivative
101
1.0
10-1
10-2
3 /qdata
10-3 /qmodel
Derivativedata
3
Derivativemodel
10-4
10-3 2 3 4 5 6 7 10-2 2 3 4 5 6 7 10-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 101 2 3 4 5 6 7 102
Pseudo-Time (h)
Figure 4.33: Type Curve Analysis, Homogeneous Reservoir with Wellbore Storage
and Skin Effects for Kailashtila Well KTL-04
4.4.4 Comparison of Pressure Transient Analysis Results with Previous Study
This section presents the comparison and discussion for various parameters obtained from the
current study and Al Mansoorib Wireline Services for all three wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and
KTL-04.
Table 4.14: Various parameters for well test analysis obtained from current study and Al
Mansoori Wireline Services study for all three wells KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTL-04
KTL-01 KTL-02 KTL-04

* *
Properties Current * Current Previous Current Previous
Previous Study
Study Study Study Study Study
K(mD) 280 147 3400 4700 330 342
S 6.5 3 38 25 19 20.6
C(bbl/Psia) 0.72 0.154 1.01 1.5 0.23 0.179
Pi (Psi) 3515 3515 3221 3221 3491 3491
P* (Psia) 3516.5 N/A 3223.4 N/A 3491 N/A
Pavg(Psia) 3506 N/A 3222.5 N/A 3488.5 N/A
Ps (Psia) 15.3 N/A 15.3 N/A 34.4 N/A
Xe (ft) 60874 N/A 130000 N/A 70360 N/A
Ye (ft) 6800 N/A 35000 N/A 25280 N/A
*
Al Mansoori Wireline Services
N/A = Not available
60
From Table 4.14 it is obtained that the total skin effects are positive for all three wells. The
derived skin factor for well KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTL-04 are 6.5, 38 and 19 respectively.
With the exception of KTL-01 the values of skin for other two wells might seem excessive.
These high skin values may be due to plugged perforation or formation damage.
The calculated values of permeability, skin and wellbore storage for all three wells obtained
from current study are slightly differed from the results obtained from Al Mansoori Wireline
Services. This may due to the selection of either calculation methods or used software.
Pressure is the main energy or driving force of a reservoir for producing hydrocarbon. So, it
is essential to know the average reservoir pressure for describing reservoir conditions. But Al
Mansoori Wireline Services did not estimate average reservoir pressure. The average
reservoir pressures obtained from current study are very close to initial reservoir pressure for
all three wells though productions have been started in 1983 and data used here from the well
test made in 2007. This high average reservoir pressure after 24 years of production may be
due to external pressure support which is identified in Chapter VI from production history.
The reservoir areal extents are also important parameter to estimate reserve. Current study
anticipated the reservoir length and width those can be used to estimate reserve. On the other
hand, Al Mansoori Wireline Services did not calculate reservoir areal extents.
61
CHAPTER V
WELL PERFORMANCE AND INDIVIDUAL WELL MODELING
Through the development of wellbore models, well performance sensitivities reviewed the
effects of varying reservoir pressure, flowing tubing pressure, water gas ratio, and well
configurations. Recommendations have been made to assist in future operations and
completion design practices to optimize production and to help maximize reserve
recoveries.
5.1 Well and Reservoir Data

To assess the inflow performance characteristics and the tubing performance curves,
well models require a good understanding of well geometry along with the static and
flowing reservoir and surface pressures. Accurate stabilized well flow measurements
(gas, water, condensate, flowing temperatures) and fluid analyses are essential to the
development of reliable well models.
The quality of the collected data is variable and the resulting interpretations are highly
dependent on the accuracy of the measurements and data.
5.2 Prosper Models

Well models were constructed using collected well geometries. Well inflow performance
relationships were defined using the backpressure equation from data obtained during testing
operations. The simplified backpressure equation has limited ability to predict inflow
performance changes as a function of changing water gas ratio; however, the quality of the
data was such that a simplified approach was needed to assess current conditions. More
elaborate analytical methods that allow for evaluating the impact of increasing water/gas -
ratios and water influx on the reservoir gas inflow will require much higher quality
test data including more individual multi -point well testing and build-up analysis.
The current data allows review of the potential effects of changing well outflow
parameters such as wellhead pressure, water gas ratio, and tubing size on the wells ability to
sustain steady outflow rates.
62
5.2.1 Reservoir Pressure
In addition to the well flow measurements (gas, water, condensate, flowing pressures
and temperatures), the wellbore models require a reasonable estimate of the static
reservoir pressure. Some pressure histories of static reservoir pressure measurements that
were taken from various wells in Kailashtila are collected.
The reservoir pressure is best obtained via extrapolation from extended build up tests,
but accurate estimates can also be obtained if a well is shut in for sufficient time to
stabilize the bottomhole pressure . Decreases in reservoir pressure are anticipated from
natural depletion and lack of pressure support. In general, a much more complete set of
historical static pressure data is required.
5.2.2 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)

The backpressure equation is an inflow relationship for gas reservoirs based on the theory of
inflow data plotted as rate versus Pr2-Pwf2 on log-log paper results in a straight line with slope
1/n and intercept C. The inflow equation developed from these observations is therefore
comprised of two empirical coefficients and is best suited for cases where a multi-rate test
is available. The empirical coefficient C is based on test data at a specific reservoir pressure
and water cut. Adjustments can be made for depletion and water encroachment
reflecting fluid property changes, saturation changes and the effect of the hydrocarbon
competing with the water for net pay. The backpressure equation was used to create the
IPR curves, although no changes were made in the C coefficient for changes in
reservoir pressure and water cut to simplify the task. More frequent well tests will allow
for better definition of how the well inflow performance is impacted by changing water or
condensate influx, and by changing reservoir pressure.
Each well was reviewed and well Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) curves were
defined on the basis of the respective inflow performance relationship determined from
a multipoint test where surface and bottomhole flowing pressures, gas flowrates, and
static reservoir pressures were measured. It is possible in some cases that the flow
periods were not sufficient for stabilized flow which would affect the accuracy in the
model predictions. The reservoir pressure used in the determination of the IPR curve was the
static shut-in pressure from well-tests. The program uses the center of the producing interval
as the datum for reservoir pressure.
63
The Kailashtila well KTL-03 and KTL-06 did not have flowing test measurements with
bottomhole pressure and temperature gauges. Assessing the well performance in these
cases was somewhat more complex given the lack of information to calibrate the models and
more accurately define the IPRs. For these two cases, an attempt was made to define the
wells inflow performances using well production data (simulated bottomhole flowing
pressures) at points in time where the reservoir pressure was known.
5.2.3 Tubing (Outflow) Performance (TPC) and Tubing Size Optimization

The well completions and Tubing Performance Curves (TPC) were characterized in the
PROSPER model using information obtained from the deviation surveys and the
available completion diagrams to describe the wellbore architecture . The schematics
generally outline the tubing and component sizes and depths. Pressure losses in the wellbore
are critical component of the total system pressure loss from static reservoir pressure to
separator pressure. The TPCs were calculated and compared to measured data, whenever
possible. Correction factors were applied to the correlations as required matching the
measured data.
Sensitivities were conducted for various tubing sizes and outflow pressures to address
well productivity predictions. Production performance tables with varying WGR,
Reservoir Pressure, and Surface flowing pressure detail the results of the various
configurations. A more detailed time dependent flow model could be investigated integrating
reservoir parameters with surface facilities to further help in assessing ultimate well
recoveries and economic viabilities.
Flowing Bottomhole Pressure Matching Process

Data from available multi-rate well-tests which included gas and liquid rate
measurement in addition to surface and bottomhole pressures was used to calibrate the
predicted pressure losses in the tubular. The accuracy in the models are a function of
the collected data (gas flow measurement, liquid flow measurement, tubular
specifications, gas and liquid compositional analyses). In cases were no flowing
bottomhole data exists, the vertical flow correlations are utilized without any corrections.
A) PVT Match:
Upon loading the data into the model, test and PVT data were reviewed through
model matching to help validate the test data and the wellbore configurations.
64
B) Matching Gradient Traverse / VLP (Quality Checks):
In matching the well pressure gradients, several vertical lift correlations were investigated to
identify which correlation most effectively matched the available test data. The best
suitable correlation was selected in each case based on the best fit to the measured data.
PROSPER suggests that if the gravity correction (Parameter 1) is found to exceed
10%, then there is an implied inconsistency in the PVT data. If the friction correction
(Parameter 2) multiplier is too high, it is an indicator that the equipment description may be
in error. In many cases, the statistical fits exceeded the recommended ranges, suggesting that
the reported gas rates and flowing pressures are not consistent.
C) BHP from Wellhead:

Once the correlation correction factors were assigned for a particular well, bottomhole
flowing pressures were calculated from the current producing well surface flowing
pressures and rate information to estimate the existing well IPR. Given the well
specific IPR, an estimated reservoir pressure was established and model sensitivities
were calculated from the resulting estimated reservoir pressure.
5.2.4 Well Liquid Loading Rate Predictions

Well outflow and decline rate is influenced by several factors including fluid
properties, reservoir and wellhead pressures, reservoir quality (permeability, net-pay,
drainage area, boundaries), as well as the producing liquid/gas ratios and the
configuration of the surface facilities (e.g. flow line pressures, compressors, etc .) The critical
gas rate to lift liquids is a function of the surface flowing pressure, bottomhole flowing
pressure, producing water gas ratio, and well geometry. Gas wells that produce significant
volumes of free water or condensate typically cease producing as reservoir pressure depletes
and the gas velocity within the tubing string decreases to critical gas rate that can no longer
transport liquids efficiently to surface. As the gas rate continues to decline and/or the LGR
increases, the completion can be flooded with fluid influx and liquid loading of the tubing
flow path continually increases until the well kills itself.
Well conditions can be modeled to simulate the conditions that lead to liquid loading
behavior. As the gas flow rates decline, there is a flow regime transition from
mist/annular flow to slug flow, and then ultimately, bubble flow. The overall result is an
increase in back-pressure on the reservoir and a reduction in gas production that causes the
well to cease producing if no intervention is implemented.
65
This study typically advocate the analysis of the intersection point of the Inflow
Performance Relationship (IPR) and Tubing Performance Curve (TPC) as well as the
internal flowing gas velocity to predict the minimum required flow rate required to lift the
produced water. In general, if the producing well conditions (wellhead backpressure)
cause the intersection point of the reservoir IPR and TPC to occur to the left of the TPC
minimum gas flow rate as shown in Figure 5.1 liquid loading will occur and eventually the
well will kill itself.
Figure 5.1: Tubing Outflow Performance Basics4
The model for calculating the minimum gas velocity for removing liquid droplets from
wells was presented by Turner et al in 1969. This used this model for liquid loading rate
prediction.
5.3 Field Summary

Table 5.1 outlines the historical well production characteristics over the produced
periods as reported by Petrobangla for the various sands in the designated wells. The
main sand groups produced to date are the Lower Gas Sand, the Middle Gas Sand, the Upper
Gas Sand and the High Resistivity Zone. Wells are producing at relatively high surface
operating pressures ranging from 2,320 psig to 2,675 psig. This suggests the potential
for increased well productivity and reserves recovery through the addition of more
compression capacity.
66
Historical gas production rates have been as high as 31.05 mmscfd (KTL-02) with
water gas ratios ranging up to 82.70 bbl/mmscf (KTL-05) and condensate gas ratios up to
31.02 bbl/mmscf (KTL-03). The majority of the wells in Kailashtila have been completed
with 88.9 mm tubing strings as noted in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Summary of Kailashtila Well Production

Tubing
Wells Formation Perforation Interval, ft Production Period
Size, inches
KTL-01 LGS 2 7/8 9810-9870 June 83-Jan 98
KTL-01 MGS 4 9652-9722 Feb 98-Dec 13
KTL-02 UGS 3 7390-7430 Feb 95-Dec 13
KTL-03 MGS 3 10304-10440 Mar 95-June 06
KTL-03 UGS 3 7906.8-8050 Jul 06-Dec 13
KTL-04 LGS 3 9882-9932 Mar 97-Nov 06
KTL-04 MGS 3 9614-9704 Dec 06-Dec 13
KTL-05 HRZ 3 9522.6-9557 Sep 06-Mar 09
KTL-06 UGS 4 7929.8-8087.3 Aug 07-Dec 13
The future well performance will be dictated on the rate at which the reservoir
pressure drops or the WGR increases along with Petrobanglas ability to maintain the
lowest possible flowing wellhead pressure. It is possible to increase a gas wells ability to lift
water by reducing the tubing size, however, this also reduces the overall recovery as the
smaller tubing can have significantly increased friction drops that results in less overall
pressure drawdown at the reservoir interface. Most often the depletion of moderate to
high permeable reservoirs can be optimized through a reduction of the well delivery
pressure to impart higher drawdowns and an increased ability to carry liquids at lower TPC
pressures.
5.4 Kailashtila Well Model Study Predictions Using Prosper

The Kailashtila well performances were simulated using a PROSPER Model for each
well.
5.4.1 Kailashtila Well KTL-01 Study (Middle Gas Sand)

Figure 5.2 illustrates the production history for the KTL-01 Middle Gas Sand which has
been on production in February 1998 at 24.8 mmscfd with 234 bpd of condensate and 5
bpd of water at 3,139 psig. The latest reported production in March of 2012 is 13.9937
mmscfd of gas with 99.16 bpd of condensate and 5.31 bpd of water at a flowing tubing
pressure of 2,455 psig. A notable increased gas rate decline since February of 2008 may be
related to liquid loading at the current flowing tubing pressures although no major
increase in the reported water or liquid rates is yet apparent. Liquid rates should be
67
validated with testing. The plots for flowing wellhead pressure and water production rate
are discontinuous this is because the recorded data were not found in particular times for
these two parameters.
KTL-01 Middle Gas Sand Production

3500 35
3000 30
Condensate Rate, bbl/day
Wellhead Pressure, Psig
2500 25
Water Rate, bbl/day

Gas Rate, MMscfd
2000 20
1500 15
1000 10
500 5
0 0
Oct-95 Jul-98 Apr-01 Jan-04 Oct-06 Jul-09 Apr-12 Dec-14
Date
Condesate Rate (bbld) Flowing Well Head Pressure (Psig)
Gas Rate (MMscfd) Water Rate(bbld)
Figure 5.2: KTL-01 Middle Gas Sand Production History
5.4.1.1 Kailashtila Well KTL-01 Inflow Model

Figure 5.3 illustrates the KTL-01 well inflow performance relationship using the
November 2007 static and multipoint flowing data. An AOF of 170.06mmscfd was
calculated with a C value of 2.86177 and an n of 0.67345 generated from the test
points at the Mid-Point of Perforation.
68
Figure 5.3: KTL-01 November 2007 Test Inflow Performance Relationship31
Once IPR is drawn the next step is to draw the downhole configuration. To do so, deviation
surveys, geothermal gradient, downhole equipment and tubing size are specified here.
Prosper drawn the downhole configuration as the Figure 5.4 shown below for KTL-01.
In prosper, several tubing correlations are available, here tubing correlation has been checked
and it is possible to choose the best one. PROSPER uses a non-linear regression technique to
adjust the VLP correlations to best match the measured data. Gradient match results of the
test points noted the best convergence using the Gray Equation shown in Figure 5.5.
69
MD : 0 (feet)
Xmas Tree
TVD : 0 (feet)
Tubing 3.958 (inches)
N80 VAM Tube
MD : 146.95 (feet)
TVD : 146.95 (feet)
SSSV 3.958 (inches)
3.813 MD : 147 (feet)
TVD : 146.95 (feet)
4-1/2" 12.5
MD : 8503.95 (feet)
TVD : 8503.9 (feet)
Restriction 3.958 (inches)
3.813 MD : 8504 (feet)
Sliding Door TVD : 8503.9 (feet)
N80 VAM Tube
MD : 8674.95 (feet)
TVD : 8674.85 (feet)
3.813 MD : 8675 (feet)
Landing nipp TVD : 8674.85 (feet)
N80 VAM Tube
MD : 8750.95 (feet)
TVD : 8750.8 (feet)
2.992 MD : 8751 (feet)
TVD : 8750.8 (feet)
3-1/2" 9.2P
MD : 8761.95 (feet)
TVD : 8761.75 (feet)
Restriction 2.992
2.75 ( (inches)
inches) MD : 8762 (feet)
Landing nipp TVD : 8761.75 (feet)
MD : 8771.95 (feet)
TVD : 8771.7 (feet)
Casing 8.755 (inches)
9 5/8" 47 PPf
MD : 9299.95 (feet)
TVD : 9299.7 (feet)
Casing 6.5 (inches)
13 Casing
MD : 9687 (feet)
TVD : 9687 (feet)
C:\Documents and Settings\Admin\Desktop\KTL-1(mgs).Anl
Figure 5.4: Downhole configuration for KTL-01
70
Figure 5.5: KTL-01 Gradient Matching (November Test 2007)
PROSPER was used to calculate a bottomhole flowing pressure of 3133 psia at the
reported Dec 2012 flowing conditions of 13.9937 mmscfd at the flowing wellhead
pressure of 2,2455 psig, condensate gas ratio CGR of 7.09 bbl/mmscf, and water gas ratio
(WGR) of 0.38 bbls/mmscf. Figure 5.6 shows the wells flowing gradient curve.
71
Figure 5.6: KTL-01 Dec 2012 Gradient Curve (13.9937 MMscfd @ 2,455 Psig)
The November 2007 backpressure equation (C and n) was used to back calculate a
reservoir pressure of 3,181 psig from the PROSPER December 2012 calculated
flowing bottomhole pressure of 3,133 psig as shown in Table 5.2. It is recommended that a
current static reservoir pressure be measured to validate this estimation.
Calculation)
Calculated
Gas Water Condensate Simulated
FTP, C Reservoir AOF
Rate, Rate, Rate, BHFP, n
Psig Mscfd/Psi2 Pressure, MMscfd
MMscfd bbl/day bbl/day Psig
Psig
13.9937 5.31 99.16 2,455 3,133 0.67345 2.86177 3,181 170.06
72
5.4.1.2 Finding out the Solution Node for the Above System
Once the best correlation has been chosen, it can proceed for finding the solution node with
the best correlation found in previous steps. Prosper compare the calculated and measured gas
rate and bottomhole pressure. If the error is within 10%, it can choose the model as normal;
however, various steps tried to minimize the error by tuning the IPR curve. Figure 5.7 shows
the selected solution node.
Figure 5.7: IPR/VLP Matching for KTL-01
73
5.4.1.3 Sensitivity Analyses
Figure 5.8 illustrates the predicted KTL-01 December 2012 conditions with sensitivities to
top Node Pressure (wellhead pressure) and Reservoir Pressure. Using the calculated inflow
performance relationship for KTL-01, an acceptable range of flows up to 87mmscfd are
available up the current tubing string at a tubing pressure of 250 psig for the calculated
reservoir pressure of 3,181 psig. The IPR/VLP plot shows that 13 mmscfd could be
maintained from the well down to a reservoir pressure of 750 psig for the current reported
WGR and CGR.
On the other hand, if the tubing diameter is changed to 3 inches the highest flow rate
remain about same as tubing diameter 4.5 inches at same reservoir and top node pressure.
The minimum gas rates will be 17 mmscfd at reservoir pressure 1000 psig and top node
pressure 500 psig shown in Figure 5.9.
Figure 5.10 illustrates the predicted Inflow / Outflow curve intersection points for the KTL-
01 well with varying water gas ratios (WGR) at current operated wellhead and
reservoir pressures. The predicted rates are affected considerably as the tubing lift curves
shift to the left at increased WGRs. At a very minimal LGR of 0.05bbls/mmscf no
intersection point is noted at current operating conditions, the well is predicted to load up and
stop producing. This illustrates the importance of measuring and tracking the individual well
gas and liquid rates on a consistent basis so as to be able to predict when each well will load
up.
74
First Node Pressure (Psig)
6=2675
5=2000
4=1500
3=1000
Legend
2=500
1=250
Figure 5.8: KTL-01 Rate Sensitivities to Reservoir and First Node Pressure
75
6=2675
5=2000
4=1500
3=1000
Legend
2=500
1=250
Figure 5.9: KTL-01 Model Sensitivities to Reduced Tubing Diameter to 3 inches
76
Water Gas Ratio (STB/MMscf)
2=1000
1=1500
Legend
6=100
5=200
4=400
3=800
7=10
8=0
Figure 5.10: KTL-01 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3181 Psig Reservoir Pressure and First Node Pressure 2675 Psig)
77
5.4.2 Kailashtila Well KTL-02 Study (UPPER GAS SAND)
The KTL-02 well was placed on production in February of 1995 from the Upper Gas Sand
at reported rates of 6 mmscfd with 104 bpd of condensate and no reported water.
Latest reported production from December 2012 is at 18.015 mmscfd of gas with 153.22 bpd
of condensate and 3.25 bpd of water at a flowing tubing pressure of 2,355 psig. Figure 5.11
shows the KTL-02 production decline over the course of its life. Gas rates and wellhead
pressures have been relatively stable suggesting very gradual depletion of the reservoir
pressure. It may be possible to increase well off take dramatically at this location. The plots
for flowing wellhead pressure and water production rate are discontinuous this is because
the recorded data were not found in particular times for these two parameters
KTL-02 Upper Gas Sand Production

3000 40
35
2500
Water Rate, bbl/day

Gas Rate, MMscfd
30
2000
25
1500 20
15
1000
10
500
5
0 0
Jan-93 Jul-98 Jan-04 Jul-09 Dec-14
Date
wellhead Pressure, Psig Condensate Rate, bbl/day

Gas Rate, MMscfd Water Rate, bbl/day
Figure 5.11: KTL-02 Upper Gas Sand Production History

November 2007 static and multipoint flowing data. An AOF of 580.204 mmscfd was
78
IPR Plot
3,200
3,100
3,000 AOF : 580.204 (MMscf/day)
C : 1.2398 (Mscf/day/Psi2)
2,900 n : 0.80821
2,800
2,700
2,600
2,500
2,400
2,300
2,200
2,100
2,000
1,900
1,800
Pressure (Psig)
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Rate (MMscf/day)
Figure 5.12: KTL-02 November 2007 Test Inflow Performance Relationship
test points noted the best convergence using the Petroleum Experts 3, Pressure
equation shown in Figure 5.14.
79
Xmas Tree
MD : 0 (feet)
TVD : 0 (feet)
Tubing
2.673 (inches)
3 1/2" New V
MD : 177.115 (feet)
TVD : 177.115 (feet)
SSSV
2.673 (inches)
2.313
MD : 177.165 (feet)
TVD : 177.115 (feet)
Tubing
2.673 (inches)
3 1/2" New V
MD : 7247.95 (feet)
TVD : 7247.9 (feet)
Restriction
2.673 (inches)
2.313
MD : 7248 (feet)
TVD : 7247.9 (feet)
Casing
6.094 (inches)
7" 32ppf, 4
MD : 7390 (feet)
TVD : 7390 (feet)
I:\Mizan_0412132025\M.Sc\KTL_02.Anl
80
PROSPER was used to calculate a bottomhole flowing pressure of 3063 psig at the
(WGR) of 0.18bbls/mmscf. Figure 5.15 shows the wells flowing gradient curve.
81
Figure 5.15: KTL-02 Dec 2012 Gradient Curve (18.0315 MMscfd @ 2,355 Psig)
Table 5.3: KTL-02 December Well Performance Model Prediction (Reservoir Pressure
Calculation)
Calculated
Psig
18.0315 3.25 153.22 2,355 3,040 0.80821 1.2398 3,063 580.204
82
83
first Node Pressure and Reservoir Pressure. Using the calculated inflow performance
relationship for KTL-02, an acceptable range of flows up to 44mmscfd are available up the
current tubing string at a tubing pressure of 250 psig for the calculated reservoir pressure of
3,063 psig. The IPR/VLP plot shows that 06mmscfd could be maintained from the well down
to a reservoir pressure of 750 psig for the current reported WGR and CGR.
On the other hand if the tubing diameter is changed to 4 inches the highest flow rate
increased to 132 mmscfd at same reservoir and top node pressure. The minimum gas rates
will be 12mmscfd at reservoir pressure 500 psig and top node pressure 250 psig shown in
Figure 5.18.
reservoir pressures. No intersection points are noted for 50 bbls/mmscf of WGR as the
tubing lift curves shift upward at increased WGRs due to higher fluid densities. If WGRs
increase over time, the well could load up and stop producing if the flowing wellhead
pressure is not reduced.
84
7=2320
6=2000
5=1500
4=1000
Legend
3=750
2=500
1=250
85
7=2320
6=2000
5=1500
4=1000
Legend
3=750
2=500
1=250
Figure 5.18: KTL-02 Model Sensitivities to Increase Tubing Diameter to 4 inches
86
Legend
3=100
2=200
1=500
6=10
5=15
4=20
8=0
7=5
Figure 5.19: KTL-02 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3181 Psig Reservoir Pressure
and Top Node Pressure 2320 Psig)
87
Figure 5.20 illustrates the production history for the KTL-03 Upper Gas Sand which has been
on production in July2006 at 6 mmscfd with 50 bpd of condensate and no measured water.
The latest reported production in December of 2012 is 5.1424 mmscfd of gas with 128.66
bpd of condensate and 1.82 bpd of water at a flowing tubing pressure of 2,630 psig. A notable
increased gas rate decline since February of 2008 may be related to liquid loading at
the current flowing tubing pressures although no major increase in the reported water
or liquid rates is yet apparent. Liquid rates should be validated with testing.
KTL-03 Upper Gas Sand production

3000 30
2500 25
Water Rate, bbl/day

Gas Rate, MMscfd
2000 20
1500 15
1000 10
500 5
0 0
May-05 Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12 Aug-13
Date
Wellhead Pressure, Psig Condensate Rate, bbl/day

Figure 5.20: KTL-03 Upper Gas Sand Production History

Without multi-rate test results a range of Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOFP) is possible
based on assumed n values between 0.5 and 1.0 as shown in Table 5.4. Based on the
prosper calculated bottomhole flowing pressure for November 2007 measured rates and the
extrapolated reservoir pressure 3,291 psig that was determined at that time from KTL-03,
calculated AOFs range from 58 mmscfd (n=0.5) to 240 mmscfd (n=1.0).
88
Table 5.4: KTL-03 November 2007 Backpressure Equation Calculations
BHFP
C C C
Gas WGR CGR Reservoir at
FWHP (mmscfd) (mmscfd) (mmscfd)
Rate Bbls bbls/ Pressure 7978 2
AOF 2
AOF AOF
Psig /psi /psi /psi2
mmscfd /mmscf mmscf Psig ft, KB
n=0.5 n=0.7 n=1.0
Psig
14.24 0.13 8.10 2490 3,232 3,135 0.018 58 1.26E-3 103 2.3E-5 240
Figure 5.21 illustrates the resulting 2007 KTL-03 well inflow performance relationship
derived from Prosper using the values form Table 5.4. An AOF of 190.792 mmscfd was
calculated with a C value of 0.11408 (mmscfd/psi2) and an n of 0.88671.
IPR Plot
3,200
3,100
3,000 AOF : 190.792 (MMscf/day)
C : 0.11408 (MMscf/day/Psi2)
2,900 n : 0.88671
2,800
2,700
2,600
2,500
2,400
2,300
2,200
2,100
2,000
1,900
1,800
Pressure (Psig)
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Rate (MMscf/day)
Figure 5.21: KTL-03 November 2007 Production Inflow Performance Relationship
89
test points noted the best convergence using the Gray equation shown in Figure 5.23.
MD : 0 (feet)
Xmas Tree
TVD : 0 (feet)
3 1/2" New V
MD : 177.115 (feet)
TVD : 176.936 (feet)
2.813
MD : 177.165 (feet)
SSSV Landing TVD : 176.936 (feet)
3 1/2" New V
MD : 1066 (feet)
TVD : 1064.92 (feet)
3 1/2" New V
MD : 1230 (feet)
TVD : 1227.76 (feet)
3 1/2" New V
MD : 1548 (feet)
TVD : 1542.01 (feet)
3 1/2" New V
MD : 7767.96 (feet)
TVD : 7260.77 (feet)
2.813
MD : 7768.01 (feet)
SSD TVD : 7260.77 (feet)
MD : 7775.54 (feet)
TVD : 7267.86 (feet)
9 5/8" 43.5
MD : 7844 (feet)
TVD : 7332.32 (feet)
9 5/8" 43.5
MD : 7906.8 (feet)
TVD : 7391.44 (feet)
90
Table 5.5 shows the December reservoir pressure determination at KTL-03 well for the
Upper Gas Sand. A Prosper calculated flowing bottomhole pressure of 3,291 psig at the
flowing conditions of 15.1424 mmscfd was used to back calculate a 3,291.04 psig reservoir
pressure from the KTL-03 IPR backpressure equation. The calculated pressure is an increase
from the November 2007 measurement of 3,232 psia and is higher than the December 2012
calculated reservoir pressure from KTL-02 of 3,063 psig. Errors in the calculations can be
attributed to errors in flow measurement, an uncalibrated well model, and a lack of
multiple flow points to define the IPR effectively. Figure 5.24 shows the wells flowing
gradient curve.
91
Calculation)
Calculated
Psig
15.1424 1.82 128.66 2,630 3,391 0.88671 0.11408 3,291.04 190.792
Figure 5.24: KTL-03 Dec 2012 Gradient Curve (15.2414MMscfd @ 2,630 Psig)
92
93
3,291 psig. The IPR/VLP plot shows that 7 mmscfd could be maintained from the well down
On the other hand if the tubing diameter is changed to 4 inches the highest flow rate will be
75 at same reservoir and top node pressure. The minimum gas rates will be 12 mmscfd at
reservoir pressure 1000 psig and top node pressure 500 psig shown in Figure 5.27.
shift to the left at increased WGRs. No intersection point is noted at current operating
conditions for LGR 10bbls/mmscf, the well is predicted to load up and stop producing. This
illustrates the importance of measuring and tracking the individual well gas and liquid rates
on a consistent basis so as to be able to predict when each well will load up.
94
7=2000
6=1500
5=1000
Legend
4=750
3=500
2=250
1=100
8=2525
95
7=2000
6=1500
5=1000
Legend
4=750
3=500
2=250
1=100
8=2525
Figure 5.27: KTL-03 Model Sensitivities to Increased Tubing Diameter to 4 inches
96
Legend
2=200
1=500
5=10
4=20
3=50
7=0
6=5
Figure 5.28: KTL-03 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3,291 Psig Reservoir Pressure)
97
5.4.4 Kailashtila Well KTL-04 Study (MIDDLE GAS SAND)
Figure 5.29 illustrates the production history for the KTL-04 Middle Gas Sand which has
been on production in December 2006 at 12.55 mscfd with 8.4 bpd of condensate and 0.56
bb/mmscf measured water. The latest reported production in December of 2012 is 16.6264
mmscfd of gas with 173.96 bpd of condensate and 1.55 bpd of water at a flowing tubing
pressure of 2,860 psig. Flowing tubing pressures have declined slightly as have the gas rates.
The plots for flowing wellhead pressure and water production rate are discontinuous this
is because the recorded data were not found in particular times for these two parameters
KTL-04 Middle Gas Sand Production

3000 20
18
2500
16
Water Rate, bbl/day

Gas Rate, MMscfd
2000 14
12
1500 10
8
1000 6
500 4
2
0 0
May-05 Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12 Aug-13
Date


November 2007 static and multipoint flowing data. An AOF of 208.099 mmscfd was
98
test points noted the best convergence using the Gray equation shown in Figure 5.32.
99
Xmas Tree
MD : 0 (feet)
TVD : 0 (feet)
3 1/2" 9.2
MD : 157.863 (feet)
TVD : 157.863 (feet)
SSSV 2.992 (inches)
2.813
MD : 157.913 (feet)
TVD : 157.863 (feet)
3 1/2" 9.2
MD : 8666.52 (feet)
TVD : 8666.47 (feet)
2.813
Sliding Door MD : 8666.57 (feet)
TVD : 8666.47 (feet)
Tubing 2.97 ( inches)
MD : 8705.13 (feet)
TVD : 8705.03 (feet)
MD : 8740.11 (feet)
TVD : 8740.01 (feet)
7" Liner 32P
MD : 9612.86 (feet)
TVD : 9612.86 (feet)
I:\MSc Thesis\Prosper\Copy of KTL_04.Anl
Figure 5.31: Downhole Configuration for KTL-04
100
PROSPER was used to calculate a bottomhole flowing pressure of 3666 psig at the
(WGR) of 0.09 bbls/mmscf. Figure 5.33 shows the wells flowing gradient curve.
101
Table 5.6 shows the December 2012 reservoir pressure determination of 3,709 psig for the
Middle Gas Sand from the KTL-04 IPR backpressure equation and the Prosper model
calculated flowing bottmhole pressure of 3,666 psig at the flowing conditions of 16.6264
mmscfd.
Calculation)
Calculated
Psig
16.6264 1.55 173.96 2,860 3,666 0.69738 2.37422 3,709 208.099
102
103
4.4.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis
relationship for KTL-04, an acceptable range of flows up to 42 mmscfd are available up the
to a reservoir pressure of 1,000 psig for the current reported WGR and CGR.
The minimum gas rates will be 09mmscfd at reservoir pressure 1000 psig and top node
shift to the left at increased WGRs. At a very minimal LGR of 20 bbls/mmscf no
up.
104
7=2650
6=2000
5=1500
4=1000
Legend
3=750
2=500
1=250
105
7=2650
6=2000
5=1500
4=1000
Legend
3=750
2=500
1=250
Figure 5.36: KTL-04 Model Sensitivities to Increased Tubing Diameter to 4 inches
106
Legend
2=200
1=500
5=10
4=20
3=50
7=0
6=5
Figure 5.37: KTL-04 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3,709 Psig Reservoir Pressure and 2650 Psig Top Node Pressure)
107
The well was placed on production in August 2007 and initial reported rates were 14.9
mmscfd gases with 122 bpd of condensate and 4.8 bpd of water. Current production from the
Upper Gas Sand is 22.3811mmscfd of gas, 190.27 bpd of condensate and 2.91 bpd of
water production at the current wellhead operating pressure of 2,600 psig. Figure 5.38
shows the KTL-06 production from the Upper Gas Sand over the course of its life.
KTL-06 Upper Gas Sand

3000 30
2500 25
Water Rate, bbl/day

Gas Rate, MMscfd
2000 20
1500 15
1000 10
500 5
0 0
Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12 Aug-13
Date


Figure 5.39 illustrates the KTL-06 well inflow performance relationship. An AOF of
331.303 mmscfd was calculated with a C value of 0.19106 and an n of 0.88755
generated from the test points at the Mid Point of Perforation.
108
test points noted the best convergence using the Petroleum Experts 4, Pressure
equations shown in Figure 5.41.
109
MD : 0 (feet)
Xmas Tree
TVD : 0 (feet)
N-80 4 1/2"
MD : 108.972 (feet)
TVD : 108.972 (feet)
SSSV 3.958 (inches)
3.813
MD : 109.022 (feet)
TVD : 108.972 (feet)
MD : 1722.44 (feet)
TVD : 1722.44 (feet)
MD : 1811.02 (feet)
TVD : 1810.96 (feet)
MD : 2194.88 (feet)
TVD : 2193.34 (feet)
MD : 7634.89 (feet)
TVD : 7201.35 (feet)
3.813
MD : 7634.94 (feet)
SSD TVD : 7201.35 (feet)
N-80 4 1/2"
MD : 7672.26 (feet)
TVD : 7236.64 (feet)
3.5" 9.3 p
MD : 7701.72 (feet)
TVD : 7264.49 (feet)
7" Liner
MD : 7883.86 (feet)
TVD : 7436.75 (feet)
110
The December 2012 flowing conditions of 22.3811mmscfd at 2,600 psig wellhead flowing
pressure with a CGR of 8.50bbl/mmscf and a WGR of 0.13bbl/mmscf were modeled
in Prosper to produce a bottomhole flowing pressure of 3,094 psia. Figure 5.42 shows
the Prosper generated flowing gradient curve at these conditions.
111
Calculation)
Calculated
Psig
22.3811 2.91 190.27 2,600 3,094 0.88755 0.19106 3,176 331.303
112
5.4.5.2 Finding out the Solution Node for the above System
113
The minimum gas rates will be 05mmscfd at reservoir pressure 500 psig and top node
shift to the left at increased WGRs. At a very minimal LGR of 20bbls/mmscf no
up dictate.
114
7=2650
6=2000
5=1500
4=1000
Legend
3=750
2=500
1=250
115
7=2650
6=2000
5=1500
4=1000
Legend
3=750
2=500
1=250
Figure 5.45: KTL-06 Model Sensitivities to Reduced Tubing Diameter to 3 inches
116
Legend
2=200
1=500
5=10
4=20
3=50
7=0
6=5
Figure 5.46: KTL-06 Model Sensitivities to Water Gas Ratio (3,176 Psig Reservoir Pressure)
117
CHAPTER VI
HISTORY MATCHING AND PRODUCTION PREDICTION
The aim of this study is to find out or recalculate the Original Gas In Place (OGIP) for all the
three gas zones of Kailashtila Gas Field (namely Upper Gas Sand, Middle Gas Sand and
Lower Gas Sand) after quality checking of available data. The quality check is based on what
is physically possible and focused towards determining inconsistencies between data and
physical reality. It is now 31 years before production started from the Kailashtila Gas Field.
This study will try to check the existence of any aquifer support within the reservoir and its
consequences on gas reserve estimation and gas production. Once calculation of the OIGP
has been completed, then it will be compared with the reserve previously calculated by other
studies. Then it will prepare the history match model for forecasting (Fractional Flow
Matching) and production forecasting would be done by MBAL.
Material balance methods e.g Havlena-Odeh32 are important reservoir engineering tool for
estimating OGIP/OOIP and aquifer parameters for water drive reservoirs. A material balance
approach can also be used to predict reservoir pressure once OGIP/OOIP and aquifer
parameters are known. The results from procedure are however, only as accurate as the water
influx calculations for the reservoir.
Van Everdingen and Hurst29 presented a formula that is commonly used to calculate water
influx.
6.1 MBAL Material Balance Tool

This incorporates the classical use of Material Balance calculations for history matching
through graphical methods (like Havlena-Odeh, Cambel, Analytical Method, Cole and so on).
Detailed PVT models can be constructed (black oil and compositional) for oils, gases and
condensates. Furthermore, predictions can be made with or without well models and using
relative permeabilites to predict the amount of associated phase productions.
In this study, workflow of Material balance Study given below.
1. Check for appropriate data availability

PVT
Production History
Reservoir Average Pressure history
All data of Reservoir and Aquifer
118
2. After entering the data, it can check the validity and consistency of all data in every
step.
3. Finding the possible match using the MBALs non-linear regression, the Analytical
Method.
4. Confirming the quality and correctness of the match, using the Graphical Method.
5. Running a simulation to test the validity of the match.
6. Production prediction.
6.2 History Matching for Upper Gas Sand

After providing all necessary inputs in production history, next step is to proceed for the
history matching. In this section, the investigation of the behavior of the various plots such as
Cole plot, Energy plot and Analytical method.
Figure 6.1 is the Cole plot33 for the Upper Gas Sand of Kailashtila Gas Field. The Cole plot
is a useful tool for distinguishing between water drive and depletion drive reservoirs. The plot
is derived from the Havlena-Odeh33 Equation, F = GEg+WeBw for water drive gas reservoir.
Where,
F = Production terms = GpBg + BwWp
G = Initial reservoir gas, scf
Eg = Expansion of gas = Bg- Bgi
Bg = Gas formation volume factor, ft3/scf
Wp = Cumulative produced water, STB
Bw = Water formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Gp = cumulative produced gas, scf
We = Water influx into reservoir, bbl
Rearranging the Equation F = GEg+WeBw becomes . After constructing a
plot of F/Eg versus Gp (gas production), it should get a horizontal straight line intersecting
the Y-axis from the Cole plot and all data points should lie on that straight line for depletion
drive gas reservoir. This intersecting point gives the value of OIGP.
Here the input data points (11, 16, and 25) for the Upper Gas Sand of Kailashtila Gas Field
are not align to horizontal straight line and overestimated the OIGP value. It is an indication
of the presence of water drives.
119
Method : Cole - No Aquifer (F/Et) - Kailashtila
6e+6
4.5e+6
25
16
F/Et (MMscf)
11
3e+6
1.5e+6
1
0
0 40000 80000 120000 160000
Gp (MMscf)
Tank Temperature 147.8 (deg F) Aquifer Model Hurst-van Everdingen-Modified
Tank Pressure 3332 (psig) Aquifer System Radial Aquifer
Tank Porosity 0.28 (fraction) Outer/Inner Radius 14.7412
Connate Water Saturation 0.15 (fraction) Encroachment Angle 332.271 (degrees)
Water Compressibility Use Corr (1/psi) Calc. Aquifer Volume 1.72727e+6 (MMft3)
Formation Compressibility 3.20615e-6 (1/psi) Aquifer Permeability 182.302 (md)
Gas in Place 1.80137e+6 (MMscf) Tank Thickness 179 (feet)
Production Start 06/28/1983 (date m/d/y) Tank Radius 7900 (feet)
Figure 6.1: Cole Plot for Upper Gas Sand34
Energy Plot: This plot shows the relative contributions of the main source of energy in the
reservoir and aquifer system. It does not in itself provide the user with detailed information,
but indicates very clearly which parameters and properties should be focused on (i.e. PVT,
Formation Compressibility, and Water Influx). The energy plot shows the relative importance
of each drive mechanism in the model35.
The energy plot (Figure 6.2) shows that there are three sources of energy for gas production
as Fluid Expansion, PV Compressibility and Water Influx. Among these three energy sources
the Pore Volume (PV) Compressibility is near about negligible, the Fluid Expansion is largest
one and the Water Influx has also a great contribution.
120
Drive Mechanism - Kailashtila
1 Fluid Expansion
PV Compressibility
Water Influx
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
12/31/1983 07/01/1991 12/31/1998 07/01/2006 12/31/2013
Time (date m/d/y)
Figure 6.2: Ratio of Different Drive Mechanism for Upper Gas Sand
Analytical Method: The analytical plot shows the Reservoir Pressure vs. Cum Production
from the historical data and the model .This method uses a non-linear regression engine to
assist in estimating the unknown reservoir and aquifer parameters. This method is plot based,
i.e. the response of the model is plotted against historical data. The parameters to select for
regression will be the ones least trusted or the ones for which values were assumed rather
than measured. At the end of regression the values for which the best match is achieved are
displayed36.
The analytical plot (Figure 6.3) is showing that there is a great variation between the straight
line of simulated data and real field history data points. This deviation may due to the effect
121
of aquifer acting. Therefore, a step tunes the analytical method with adding aquifer influx
model.
Analytical Method
3360
Match Points Status :
Off
High
Medium
Low
3320
Tank Pressure (psig)
3280
3240
3200
0 40000 80000 120000 160000
Calculated Gas Production (MMscf)
Tank Temperature 147.8 (deg F) Aquifer Model None
Tank Porosity 0.28 (fraction)
Connate Water Saturation 0.15 (fraction)
Water Compressibility Use Corr (1/psi)
Formation Compressibility 3.20615e-6 (1/psi)
Gas in Place 1.79e+6 (MMscf)
Production Start 06/28/1983 (date m/d/y)
Figure 6.3: Analytical Method for Upper Gas Sand34
122
An aquifer model is added to the tank and the regression is performed on the analytical plot
as shown in Figure 6.4. The selection of aquifer model was the trial and error method. The
best fitted aquifer model for Kailashtila Gas Field is Hurst-Van Everdingen model which is
applicable for radial and infinite acting aquifer system. This gives a GIIP approximately
1.8Tscf. The Figure 6.4 shows a great difference between the Analytical method with Aquifer
Influx and without Aquifer Influx which indicates an active aquifer model for the Kailashtila
Upper Gas Sand.
Analytical Method - Kailashtila
3360 with Aquifer Influx

without Aquifer Influx
Off
High
3320 Medium
Low
3280
3240
3200
0 40000 80000 120000 160000
Figure 6.4: Analytical Method Comparison with and without Aquifer Influx Model
Hence, the above three methods (Cole plot, Analytical method and Energy plot) indicate the
existence of external water drives within the Kailashtila Gas field.
123
The next step in MBAL is running a simulation. A simulation was run to check the validity of
the results obtained by Analytical and Graphical methods. The technique was used in MBAL
by calculating the average reservoir pressure, production history, and reservoir/aquifer model
parameters. Then, pressure and production histories were matched. The history matches are
shown in Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6. Figure 6.5 shows the history matching of pressure and
gas production from the start in1983 to 2013 for Upper Gas Sand. Gas production history
excellently matched with simulated data. Pressure history also matched well with a slight
(negligible) deviation. This deviation may due to the lacking of enough pressure data. Figure
6.6 shows the history matching of water production and it is well matched between historical
data and simulated data.
Figure 6.5: History Matching of Gas Production and Pressure of Upper Gas Sand
124
Figure 6.6: History Matching of Water Production and Pressure of Upper Gas Sand
125
Once water drive has been identified, now it should examine whether the selected aquifer
model was correct or not. This can be done by a method described by Bruns et.al37. The
procedure of this method is explained below.
The depletion drive material balance Equation30 can be solved for determining
the apparent gas in place as ..... (32)

( )
For active water drive the successive calculated values of Ga will increase as the deviation of
P/Z above the depletion material balance line increases, due to the pressure maintenance
provided by the aquifer. The correct value of the gas in place can be obtained from
Equation30, ( ) . After rearranging this equation becomes,
.. (33)
( )
Subtracting equation 32 from equation 31 gives,
.. (34)
If the calculated values of Ga, Equation (31) are plotted as a function of WeE/(1-E/Ei) the
result should be a straight line, provided the correct aquifer model has been selected.
Figure 6.7 shows the aquifer model selection process for Upper Gas Sand of Kailashtila Gas
Field. As the plot of ( ) versus yield a straight line on Figure 6.7, so the correct
aquifer model has been selected30.
UGS
7000000
6000000
Ga=Gp/(1-E/Ei)
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
WeE/(1-E/Ei)
Figure 6.7: Determination of GIIP in a Water Drive Gas Reservoir

by Selecting Correct Water Model30
126
6.3 History Matching for Middle Gas Sand (MGS)
For the Middle Gas Sand all procedures will not describe in details here like Upper Gas Sand
as before but showing the main features graphically.
The Figure 6.8 shows that there are three sources of energy for gas production as Fluid
Expansion, PV Compressibility and Water Influx. Among these three energy sources the PV
Compressibility is near about negligible, the Fluid Expansion is largest one and the Water
Influx is not so strong but it is active and has contribution to gas production.
Drive Mechanism
1 Fluid Expansion
PV Compressibility
Water Influx
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
12/31/1995 06/30/2000 12/30/2004 07/01/2009 12/31/2013
Time (date m/d/y)
Tank Temperature 168 (deg F) Aquifer Model Hurst-van Everdingen-Modified
Water Compressibility Use Corr (1/psi) Calc. Aquifer Volume 73703.1 (MMft3)
Gas in Place 716272 (MMscf) Tank Thickness 69.3098 (feet)
Production Start 01/01/1995 (date m/d/y) Tank Radius 7114.48 (feet)
Figure 6.8: Ratio of Different Drive Mechanism for MGS
127
The Figure 6.9 shows a great difference between the Analytical method with Aquifer Influx
and without Aquifer Influx which indicates an active aquifer model for the Kailashtila Middle
Gas Sand.
Analytical Method

Off
High
4225 Medium
Low
3950
3675
3400
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Gas in Place 716272 (MMscf) Tank Thickness 69.3098 (feet)
Production Start 01/01/1995 (date m/d/y) Tank Radius 7114.48 (feet)
Figure 6.9: Analytical Method Comparison with and without Aquifer

Model for MGS
128
The history matches are shown in Figure 6.10 and Figure 6.11. Figure 6.10 shows the history
matching of pressure and gas production from the start in1995 to 2013 for Middle Gas Sand.
Both the Gas production history and pressure history are excellently matched with simulated
data. Figure 6.11 shows the history matching of water production and it is well matched
between historical data and simulated data.
Figure 6.10: Gas Production History Matching for MGS
Figure 6. 11: Water Production History Matching for MGS
129
Figure 6.12 shows the aquifer model selection process for Middle Gas Sand of Kailashtila
Gas Field. As the plot of ( ) versus yield a straight line on Figure 6.12, so the
correct aquifer model has been selected30.
MGS
1000000
950000
Ga=Gp/(1-E/Ei)
900000
850000
800000
750000
700000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
(WeE)/(1-(E/E)
Figure 6.12: Selecting Correct Water Model and

Determination of GIIP in Water Drive Reservoir
130
6.4 History Matching for Lower Gas Sand (LGS)
For the Lower Gas Sand all procedures have not been described in details here like Upper
Gas Sand as before but showing the main features graphically.
The Figure 6.13 shows that there are three sources of energy for gas production as Fluid
Expansion, PV Compressibility and Water Influx. Among these three energy sources the PV
Compressibility is near about negligible, the Fluid Expansion is largest one and the Water
Influx is not so strong but it is active and has contribution to gas production.
Drive Mechanism - Kailshtilla
1 Fluid Expansion
PV Compressibility
Water Influx
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
12/31/1983 09/30/1989 07/01/1995 03/31/2001 12/31/2006
Time (date m/d/y)
Gas in Place 195190 (MMscf) Tank Thickness 89 (feet)
Figure 6.13: Ratio of Different Drive Mechanism for LGS
131
The Figure 6.14 shows a great difference between the Analytical method with Aquifer Influx
and without Aquifer Influx which indicates an active aquifer model for the Kailashtila Lower
Gas Sand.
Analytical Method - Kailshtilla

Off
High
4400 Medium
Low
4200
4000
3800
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Gas in Place 195190 (MMscf) Tank Thickness 89 (feet)
Figure 6. 14: Analytical Method Comparison with and without Aquifer Model for LGS
132
The history matches are shown in Figure 6.15 and Figure 6.16. Figure 6.15 shows the history
matching of pressure and gas production from the start in1983 to 2013 for Lower Gas Sand.
Both the Gas production history and pressure history are excellently matched with simulated
data. Figure 6.16 shows the history matching of water production and it is well matched
between historical data and simulated data.
A near about horizontal straight line is seen in both the Figure 5.15 and 5.16 this is because
gas production were about same in 1995 and 1996.
Figure 6.15: Gas Production History Matching for LGS
133
Figure 6.16: Water Production History Matching for LGS
Figure 6.17 shows the aquifer model selection process. As the plot of ( ) versus ( )
yield a straight line on Figure 6.17, so the correct aquifer model has been selected.
LGS
260000
250000
Ga=Gp/(1-E/Ei)
240000
230000
220000
210000
200000
190000
3000 5000 7000 9000 11000
(WeE)/(1-E/Ei)
Figure 6.17: Selecting Correct Water Model and Determination of

GIIP in Water Drive Reservoir
134
6.5 Predicting the Future Performance
To predict the future performance with material balance, a procedure is followed using a
discrete time steps. By this time, MBAL optimizer will calculate a static reservoir pressure at
the end of the discrete time step. Once estimated reservoir has been established it will
proceed for new time steps and predicting the reservoir for next time step.
This study will discuss several field production strategies starting from 2014 to 2035over a
period of 22 years by MBAL. Predictions are run with a time steps of 4 per year.
Once the prediction has been completed for the current conditions for Upper Gas Sand and
Middle Gas Sand, then changing different production strategies, run the prediction for
different possible cases and try to investigate the behavior and difference between the
production strategies by different graphical results.
The different production plans are as follows.

Production prediction based on current plant conditions
Production prediction by two more infill drilling in the Upper Gas Sand
Factors Considered in Predicting Future Performance of the Reservoir:

i. Reservoir pressure only from production schedule
ii. Thumb Rule: total prediction time will be the half life of production history
iii. Condensate gas ratio (CGR) usually correlates considering the past reservoir
performance
In the following sections, the all possible results for the mentioned cases with graphical
representation are discussed.
135
6.5.1 Production Prediction for Upper Gas Sand
Before making prediction it should find out when water breakthrough will happen as it is
water drive reservoir. Water breakthrough can be determined from Fractional Flow Curve
Matching (Fw matching). The purpose behind this tool was to generate a set of Corey
function parameters that would give the same fractional flows at given saturations while
running the simulation. Corey function assumes the wetting and non-wetting phase-relative
permeabilities to be independent of the saturations of the other phases and requires only a
single suite of gas/oil-relative permeability data. Fw matching curve generated using
fractional flow of water (Fw) versus water saturation.
The Figure 6.18 below indicates that the water breakthrough will happen at the water
saturation of 0.44. The Figure 6.19 below shows this water saturation (0.44) will be in 2034.
Fw Matching - Tank
0.75
Fractional Flow
0.5

Off High
Medium Low
0.25 Water Breakthrough
Water End Point 0.028591

Water Exponent 0.120352
Gas End Point 4.82787
Gas Exponent 19.8374
Breakthrough Sat 0.15
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Water Saturation
Figure 6.18: Fw flow matching curve for determining of water breakthrough30
136
Figure 6.19: Predicted Water and Gas Saturation with Reservoir Pressure for UGS
But from the Figure 6.20 it is seen that water production trend started to rapid upward
bending at a high rate after 2035. For this prediction of gas production are made up to 2035.
Figure 6.20: Predicted Cumulative Water Production for UGS up to 2050
137
Production Prediction Based on Current Plant Conditions
Set average gas rate 66.5 (KTL-02: 16.07, KTL-03:13.42, KTL-05: 7.05 and KTL-06: 30)
MMscfd from UGS.
Figure 6.21 and Figure 6.22 show the cumulative gas production and gas recovery factor with
pressure respectively.
Figure 6. 21: Predicted Cumulative Gas Production and Reservoir Pressure for UGS
Figure 6. 22: Predicted Gas Recovery Factor and Reservoir Pressure for UGS
138
Production Prediction with Two more New Wells
Average gas rate are set 111 (22 for both two new wells) MMscfd.
Figure 6.23 and 6.24 show the cumulative gas production and gas recovery factor with
reservoir pressure respectively.
Figure 6. 23: Predicted Cumulative Gas Production and Reservoir Pressure for UGS
with two more new wells
Figure 6. 24: Predicted Gas Recovery Factor and Reservoir Pressure for UGS with two
more new wells
139
Summary and discussion for production prediction of UGS
Table 6.4: Production prediction results for UGS
Set gas rate Producing Final Reservoir Recovery

Situation
(MMscfd) time Pressure (Psig) factor (%)
Current plant 66.5 2035 2920 45
condition
Drilling Two more 111 2035 2636 65
new wells
The Table 6.4 shows a comparative description for the Upper Gas Sand with current plant
condition and drilling two more new wells.
With current plant condition gas rate set by Gas Field Company it is seen that only 45%
ultimate gas recovery is possible as it is a water drive gas reservoir. So if it is wanted to
increase ultimate gas recovery new in fill drill is necessary. For this if two more new wells
are drilled then ultimate recovery can increase from 45% to 65%.
140
6.5.2 Production Prediction for Middle Gas Sand
The Fw matching curve (Figure 6.25) shows that water breakthrough will not happen untill
the water saturation reach at about 85%. Before this water saturation it is possible to recover
the maximum amount.
Fw Matching - Tank
1 Water End Point 0.85

Water Exponent 0.96
Gas End Point 0.8
Gas Exponent 1.4
0.75 Match Points Status :

Off High
Medium Low
Water Breakthrough
Fractional Flow
0.5
0.25
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Water Saturation
Figure 6.25: Fw (fractional flow of water) Matching for MGS
141
Prediction
Gas rate are set at 30.5 (KTL-02: 14 and KTL-04: 16.5) MMscfd.
Figure 6.26 and Figure 6.27 show the cumulative gas production and recovery factor with
Figure 6.26: Predicted Cumulative Gas Production for MGS
Figure 6.27: Predicted Gas Recovery Factor for MGS
142
Summary and discussion for production prediction of MGS
Table 6.5: Production prediction results for MGS

Situation
Current plant 30.5 2035 2083 66
condition
Table 6.5 shows that with current plant condition gas rate set by Gas Field Company 66%
ultimate gas recovery is possible. To recover this amount gas reservoir pressure will decline
from 3250 to 2120 psig. This means 1130 psig pressures will be decreased by 19 years which
is much greater than Upper Gas Sand. So, the aquifer strength for Middle Gas Sand is lower
than Upper Gas Sand. Gas recovery factor for Middle Gas Sand is high with existing wells,
so no new well is added.
143
6.5.3 Production Prediction for Lower Gas Sand
The Figure 6.28 below indicates that the water breakthrough will happen at the water
saturation of 0.40. The Figure 6.29 below shows this water saturation (0.40) will not be
reached by 2035. So the prediction up to 2035 may yield correct result.
Fw Matching - Tank
0.75
Fractional Flow
0.5

Off High
Medium Low
0.25 Water Breakthrough
Water End Point 15.3039

Water Exponent 8.50678
Gas End Point 0.000356425
Gas Exponent 10.3114
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Water Saturation
Figure 6.28: Fw (fractional flow of water) matching for LGS
Prediction: Tank Pressure Prediction: Water Saturation

3100 0.36
3000
Water Saturation, fraction
0.35
2900
Pressure (Psig)
2800 0.34
2700
0.33
2600
2500 0.32
2400
0.31
2300
2200 0.3
5/28/05 11/18/10 5/10/16 10/31/21 4/23/27 10/13/32
Time (m/d/y)
Figure 6. 29: Predicted water saturation with reservoir pressure for LGS
144
PREDICTION
Gas rate is set at 2.7 MMscfd for Lower Gas Sand with one well only.
Figure 6.30 and Figure 6.31 show the cumulative gas production and recovery factor with
Figure 6.30: Predicted Cumulative Gas Production for LGS up to 2035
Figure 6.31: Predicted Gas Recovery Factor for LGS

145
Summary and Discussion for production prediction of LGS
Table 6.6: Production prediction result for LGS

Situation
Current plant 2.7 2035 2274 61
condition
Table 6.6 shows that with current plant condition gas rate set by Gas Field Company 61%
ultimate gas recovery is possible. To recover this amount gas reservoir pressure will decline
from 2940 to 2274 psig. This means 666 psig pressures will be decreased which is much
greater than Upper Gas Sand. So, the aquifer strength for Lower Gas Sand is lower than
Upper Gas Sand. Gas recovery factor for Lower Gas Sand is high with existing wells, so no
new well is proposed to drill.
146
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The accuracies of all analysis in this study are dependent on the quantity, reliability, and
accuracy of the data collected.
Core and Well Logging Data Analysis

The Flow Zone Indicator methods developed by Amaefule et.al.1 was directly applied for
Kailashtila Gas field and this method worked explicitly for all Gas Sands of Kailashtila Gas
Field. So, the formation of Kailashtila Gas Field may be clean sandstone. Three reservoirs are
defined namely Upper Gas Sand, Middle Gas Sand and Lower Gas Sand and each reservoir
has only one hydraulic flow unit.
As Amaefule et.al methods is applicable for clean sandstones for shaly sand reservoir a
modification is added to Amaefule et.al equation by including shale volume. The modified
equation is tested using real field shaly sand reservoirs core data. The modified method is so
simple and easier than others developed method for identifying hydraulic flow unit for shaly
sand reservoirs till to date. But accuracy of new approach should be checked by comparing
with other methods using same data.
Well Test Data Analysis

The calculated values of Absolute Open Flow Potential (AOFP) for KTL-01 and KTL-04
from current study are 336.96 MMscfd and 199.86 MMscfd respectively which are
reasonable. But the AOFP for KTL-02 is 1824.36 MMscfd which is unrealistically high with
respect to highest production rate of 21 MMscfd. This is because; it was not possible to
record the production test appropriately for KTL-02 due to malfunction of the process flow
separator gas flow meter and also condensate flow rate was not possible to measure
individually.
The calculated values of inverse slope of back pressure equation n for all three wells KTL-
01, KTL-02 and KTL-04 from current study are 0.78, 0.91 and 0.64 respectively. These
values indicate that the flow condition for KTL-01 is in between laminar and turbulent, for
KTL-02 is laminar dominant and for KTL-04 is turbulent dominant.
The derived skin factor for well KTL-01, KTL-02 and KTL-04 are 6.5, 38 and 19
respectively. So, the total skin effects are positive for all three wells. With the exception of
147
KTL-01 the values of skin for other two wells might seem excessive. These high skin values
may be due to plugged perforation or formation damage.
The average reservoir pressures obtained from current study are 3506 Psia for KTL-01, 3222
Psia for KTL-02 and 3488 Psia for KTL-04, which very close to initial reservoir pressure for
all three wells though productions started in 1983 and data used here from the well test
performed in 2007. This high average reservoir pressure from buildup test after 24 years of
production may be due to external pressure support by water drive which is identified by
material balance simulation study.
Down-hole shut-in and down-hole flow measurements are necessary for a better analysis.
With down-hole flow measurements, it will be possible to deconvolve the pressure response
and analyze even the draw-down periods. It is recommended that the build-up test be
performed for a longer period to properly analyze the boundary effects. The flow rate should
be measured accurately with a flow measurement device. Production testing for KTL-02 was
not carried out due to malfunctions of the process plant separator gas flow meter at the time
of the test. Gas flow rates were not reported and the analysis is performed on the build-up
portion of the test. Consequently, all the data and results reported in this section may not be
very accurate or representative of the formation characteristics. It is recommended that
another production test could be run to infer formation characteristics.
History Matching and Production Prediction

An aquifer support is identified as an external driving force for gas production. Pressure
support by aquifer is comparatively high in Upper Gas Sand with respect to Middle Gas Sand
and Lower Gas Sand. The maximum reservoir void spaces are filled by encroached water for
Upper Gas Sand, Middle Gas Sand and Lower Gas Sand are about 74%, 20% and 22%
respectively. The prediction about reservoir abandonment pressure is not possible due to
aquifer support. For this gas production is predicted using rules of thumb prediction time of
gas production should be half time of production history. New total reserve is estimated at
about 2.71 Tcf, whereas the previous volumetric estimation by IKM was 1.62 Tcf. Significant
increase in gas reserves have been identified. In 2009, the recent study4 performed by
company also indicated a higher reserve than the volumetric estimation that is a good
harmony with reserve estimation in this study. Based on the performed scenarios a
recoverable volume of 1.41 TSCF gas is achievable for the field i.e. 52% recovery factor
using the existing wells. Recovery factor could be increased to 65% by drilling two more new
148
wells. However, the recovery factor could be increased by optimizing the well number and
well locations.
This study provides all the necessary information required for the reservoir simulation
studies. Reservoir simulation can be performed for history matching and future forecasting. It
can also be carried out to evaluate the coning performance in a particular well and establish
the pseudo relative permeability for a typical coning well.
149
REFERENCE
1. Amaefule, J.O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D., Kersey, G.D. and Keelan, D.K.: Enhanced
Reservoir Description: Using Core and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units
and Predict Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells, paper SPE 26436 presented at
the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3-6.
2. Ashraf, Ejaz: Integrated Reservoir Characterization for the Mazari Oil Field,
Pakistan, thesis paper at Texas A&M University, 1994.
3. RPS Energy, Kailashtila Geological Study, Bangladesh, October 2009.
4. PRS Energy, Kailashtila Petroleum Engineering Report, Bangladesh, August 2009.
5. Intercomp-Kanada Management Limited, Gas Field Appraisal Project Geological,
GeoPhysical and PetroPhysical Report of Kailashtila Gas Field, Bangladesh, July
1989.
6. Fraser, H.J. and Garton, L.C: Systematic Packing of Sphere-With Particular Relation
to Porosity and Permeability, J.Geol. (Dec.1935) 785-909.
7. Stevens, A.B.: A Laboratory Manual for Petroleum Engineering 308, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX (1954).
8. George Asquith: Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists, The American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104, USA.
9. Log Interpretation Manual/Charts, Schlumberger, Dallas (1986)
10. Poupon, A., Loy, M.E., and Tixier, M.P.: A Contribution to Electrical Log
Interpretation in Shaly Sands, JPT (March, 1963) 15, 27.
11. Clavier, C., Coated, G. and Dumanoir, J,: Theoretical and Experimental Bases for
the Dual-Water Model for interpretation of shaly Sands, JPT (April 1984) 104.
12. Waxman, W.H. and Smits, L.J.M.: Electrical Conductivities in Oil-Bearing Sands,
Oil and Gas Eng.J (June 1986) 116.
13. Simandoux, P.: Measures Dielectriques an Milieu Poreux, application a Measure des
Saturations en Eau, Etude du Comportement des Massifs Argileux, Revue de
Iinstitut Francais du Petrole, Supplementary Issue (1963) 253.
14. Wyllie, M.R.J and Rose, W.D.: Some Theoretical Considerations Related to
Quantitative Evaluation of the Physical Characteristics of Reservoir Rock from
Electrical Log Data, JPT (April 1950) 189, 105.
150
15. Raymer, L.L., Hunt, E.R., and Gardner, J.S.: An Improved Sonic Transit Time-to-
Porosity Transform, Trans., 1980 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Paper p.
16. Timur, A.: An Investigation of Permeability and Porosity and Residual Water
Saturation Relationships for Sandstone Reservoirs, The Log Analyst (July-August
1968) 9, 164.
17. Coates, G.R. and Dumanior, J.L.: A New Approach to Improved Log Derived
Permeability, The Log Analyst (Jan.-Feb. 1974) 9, 61.
18. Tixier, M.P.: Evaluation of permeability from Electric Log Resistivity Gradients,
Oil and Gas J. (June 16, 1949) 113-222.
19. Coates, G.R: A Modified Approach to Improved Log Derived permeability, The log
Analyst (1977) 12, 115.
20. Shirer, J.A., Langston, E.P., and Strong, R.B.: Application of Field-Wide
Conventional Coring in the Jay-Little Escambia Creek Unit, JPT (Dec. 1978) 1774-
1780.
21. Stiles, J.H. Jr. and Hutfilz, J.M: The Use of Routine and Special Core Analysis in
Characterizing Brent Group Reservoirs, U.K. North Sea, paper SPE 183388
presented at the 1988 Spe Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Oct. 2-5.
22. Carmen, P.C.: Fluid Flow through Granular Beds, Trans., AIChe (1937) 15,150-
166.
23. Kozeny, J,: Uber Kapillare Leitung des Wassersim Boden, Sitzungsberichte, Royal
Academy of science, Vienna (1927) 136, 271-306.
24. Leverett, M.C: Capillary Behavior in Porous Solids, Petroleum Technology, (1940),
152-169.
25. Rose, W. and Bruce, W.A: Evaluation of Capillary Character in Petroleum Reservoir
Rock, Trans., AIME (1949), 24, 127-142.
26. Crains Petrophysical Handbook.
27. Cabral, Ricardo, J.P.: A Reservoir Engineering Characterization of the North Study
Area of the C2/VLE-305 Reservoir, Lamar Field, Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela, thesis
paper at Texas A&M University, 1994.
28. M. Fazel Alavi, Independent Consultant, IPTC Senergy and Kansas Geological
Survey; Determination of Reservoir Permeability Based in Irreducible Water
Saturation and Porosity from Log Data and Flow Zone Indicator (FZI) from Core
Data, paper IPTC-17429.
151
29. Van Everdingen, A.F., and Hurst, W.: The Application of the Laplace Transform to
flow Problems in Reservoir, Trans., AIME (Dec. 1949) 305-324.
30. Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam-London-
New York-Tokyo.
31. Economides, J. Michael; Hill, A., Daniel and Ehlig-Economides, Christine:
Petroleum Production System.
32. Havlena, D., and Odeh, A.S., The Material Balance as an Equation of a straight
Line, JPT (1963), 896-900.
33. Ahmed, Tareq and Mckinney, D., Paul: Advanced Reservoir Engineering, ISBN: 0-
7506-7733-3.
34. Petroleum Experts IPM Suite user manual.
35. http://www.petex.com/products/?id=60
36. Bruns, J.R., Fetkovitch, M.J and Meitzen, V.C.:The Effect of Water Influx on P/Z-
Cumulative Gas production Curves, J.Pet.Tech., March, 1965: 287-291.
152
APPENDIX-A
Core Data for Case Study
Depth,ft K, md Porosity, fraction GR, API Vsh, fraction
12358.3 2300 0.269 51.6 0.32

12363.4 610 0.247 59.2 0.4
12364.9 1100 0.267 55.6 0.36
12365.6 240 0.226 54 0.35
12366.8 450 0.254 48.1 0.29
12368.7 420 0.253 52.1 0.33
12369.9 170 0.244 54.1 0.35
12376.7 1700 0.269 56.8 0.37
12377.6 1100 0.26 55.1 0.36
12378.6 1000 0.25 50.9 0.32
12379.8 290 0.229 47.3 0.28
12381.1 1500 0.241 43.3 0.24
12382.1 1600 0.243 43.3 0.24
12383.9 180 0.228 47.9 0.29
12384.9 1100 0.263 48.1 0.29
12388.3 880 0.233 40.3 0.21
12390.2 1800 0.262 35.1 0.16
12391.6 2300 0.269 35.2 0.16
12392.6 1300 0.243 38.1 0.19
12394.7 940 0.245 44.5 0.25
12418 770 0.191 67.4 0.48
12421.4 240 0.216 62.7 0.43
12423.8 160 0.227 67 0.48
12428.1 0 0.021 65 46
12429.1 1 0.034 62 0.43
153
APPENDIX-B
CORE DATA OF KAILASHTILA GAS FIELD
Upper Gas Sand

Core Depth, ft K, (mD) Sw, percent Grain Density,(gm/cc) , fraction
7476 351.8 30.4 2.75 0.117

7479 496 27 2.72 0.309
7480 972 44.2 2.71 0.274
7482 1068 35.2 2.71 0.295
7483 1013 38.2 2.71 0.306
7503 683 24.7 2.74 0.204
7506 338 45.8 2.67 0.235
7507 436 28.2 2.68 0.233
7509 511 16 2.69 0.251
7513 1117 23.7 2.67 0.229
7515 688 31.6 2.73 0.22
7516 541 44.6 2.67 0.233
7520 1013 37.4 2.71 0.258
7527 1105.8 28.3 2.71 0.211
7531 1407 12.7 2.7 0.239
7536 1445 53.2 2.71 0.23
7537 1381 17 2.66 0.223
7541 1335 29.1 2.66 0.235
7545 822 46.2 2.66 0.243
7549 794 29.1 2.68 0.238
7550 1121 37.5 2.67 0.226
7555 973 29 2.69 0.215
7558 1055 21.1 2.63 0.226
7559 1093 32.2 2.65 0.245
7560 925 27.5 2.67 0.232
7561 648 34.6 2.69 0.306
7585 1239 52.6 2.71 0.283
154
7589 901 37.2 2.71 0.251
7590 1547 42.5 2.7 0.272
7598 1333 12 2.71 0.252
7600 1372 15.9 2.66 0.228
7601 1470 30.2 2.67 0.237
7602 1248 23.8 2.67 0.227
7603 1133 17 2.65 0.225
7604 768 19.1 2.7 0.201
7607 1379 34.9 2.67 0.234
7609 1462 24.4 2.66 0.227
7612 1546 29.6 2.67 0.221
7615 317 25.4 2.7 0.247
7629 434 13.4 2.67 0.201
7633 694 22 2.68 0.23
7634 861 20.9 2.67 0.232
7636 772 42.5 2.7 0.243
7638 710 19.3 2.68 0.228
7640 697 33.2 2.65 0.238
7643 1261 19.6 2.71 0.269
7647 587 24.8 2.7 0.229
7655 433 18.4 2.73 0.243
7657 389 38.2 2.69 0.236
7660 852 46.7 2.71 0.277
7662 327 50.3 2.69 0.235
7663 340 21.6 2.69 0.241
7665 797 36.7 2.74 0.303
155
Middle Gas Sand
Core Depth, ft K, (mD) Sw, Percent Grain Density (gm/cc) , fraction
9600 309 18.2 2.67 0.205
9601 492 27.7 2.69 0.221
9602 701 25.1 2.67 0.217
9603 894 37.5 2.71 0.229
9604 475 12.8 2.67 0.221
9605 707 39.1 2.7 0.227
9606 760 28.9 2.67 0.196
9608 826 24.8 2.7 0.253
9609 222 19.4 2.76 0.144
9610 890 31.1 2.66 0.21
9612 948 15.3 2.66 0.219
9613 622 18.6 2.67 0.211
9614 841 22.9 2.66 0.219
9615 776 22.7 2.66 0.218
9616 1080 24.7 2.68 0.223
9617 913 29.8 2.69 0.228
9618 1062 33.8 2.7 0.235
9619 773 30.7 2.65 0.21
9620 952 23.2 2.66 0.217
9621 844 30.4 2.66 0.222
9624 823 41.7 2.66 0.205
9625 1619 33.4 2.69 0.196
9626 639 25.7 2.66 0.211
9627 471 37.9 2.7 0.218
9628 453 11.2 2.8 0.223
9629 496 17.1 2.66 0.202
9634 1028 33.7 2.66 0.205
9635 1586 14.9 2.65 0.221
9636 1448 30.1 2.66 0.222
9637 716 21.1 2.67 0.209
9638 1591 17.5 2.67 0.224
156
9639 1294 24.3 2.66 0.219
9641 365.3 21.7 2.66 0.217
9643 1338 32.7 2.7 0.213
9644 890.3 27.4 2.7 0.216
9645 704 21.9 2.69 0.224
9646 839 11.4 2.66 0.222
9647 883 37.4 2.66 0.22
9648 1072 36.8 2.66 0.224
9650 774.8 14.2 2.72 0.2
9651 776 32.4 2.66 0.213
9652 602 27.1 2.72 0.237
9654 889 15.8 2.66 0.212
9656 1294 26.4 2.7 0.106
9657 957 17.8 2.65 0.213
9662 669 19.9 2.66 0.231
9663 910 28.2 2.68 0.242
9666 387 36.9 2.7 0.235
9667 122 15.4 2.73 0.082
9668 876 19.7 2.65 0.205
9669 856 28.4 2.67 0.228
9670 605.7 23.2 2.72 0.249
9671 518 41.5 2.66 0.215
9672 321.8 32.1 2.71 0.225
9673 1180 36.3 2.65 0.193
9674 485 28.7 2.78 0.193
9675 130 21.4 2.66 0.182
9677 460 30.8 2.65 0.205
9678 1048 41.9 2.67 0.228
9679 361 31.7 2.67 0.202
9680 1310 24 2.7 0.263
9681 266 32.9 2.66 0.195
9682 659 18.4 2.66 0.221
9687 1336 16.1 2.71 0.285
157
9688 701 37.5 2.72 0.283
9695 642 24.1 2.7 0.129
9697 766 11.6 2.7 0.297
9698 1275 37.2 2.66 0.194
9699 895 28.9 2.66 0.22
9701 884 31.6 2.66 0.217
9702 884 24.4 2.66 0.221
9703 869 21.5 2.66 0.217
9704 937 32.5 2.66 0.221
9706 909 12.9 2.69 0.219
9709 120 30.7 2.68 0.044
9715 533 27.8 2.66 0.205
9717 517 29.2 2.66 0.209
9718 328 40.2 2.67 0.214
9720 268 34.3 2.66 0.179
9721 427 24.2 2.68 0.216
9722 459 31.4 2.66 0.207
9724 220 23.2 2.7 0.186
9725 1540 36.2 2.71 0.206
9726 358 21.4 2.67 0.211
9727 454 28.5 2.72 0.22
9728 336 27.6 2.69 0.215
9729 308 27.1 2.71 0.191
9730 1165 30.7 2.71 0.247
9731 1107 31.9 2.71 0.247
9732 234 28.8 2.74 0.219
9734 247 24.2 2.68 0.203
158
Lower Gas Sand
Core Depth, ft K, (mD) Sw, Percent Grain Density (gm/cc) , fraction
9899 144 11.7 2.67 0.185

9901 230 31 2.7 0.097
9903 304 26.2 2.67 0.204
9904 584 21.7 2.65 0.214
9905 1276 31.6 2.65 0.213
9906 1761 32.4 2.65 0.224
9907 1099 16.2 2.65 0.206
9908 973 24.4 2.65 0.205
9909 1213 18.9 2.65 0.213
9911 1076 30.2 2.65 0.201
9912 482 32.4 2.66 0.206
9914 776.2 26.4 2.7 0.19
9915 841 22.1 2.65 0.211
9916 1131 22.5 2.65 0.224
9917 568 25.7 2.65 0.215
9918 562 31.2 2.66 0.212
9920 1103 30.7 2.64 0.213
9921 942 26.2 2.64 0.209
9922 1448 24.7 2.66 0.226
9923 676 29.1 2.64 0.2
9925 130 30.2 2.7 0.12
9926 1195 28.2 2.69 0.204
9928 971.7 30.2 2.7 0.25
159
APPENDIX-C
WELL LOGGING DATA OF KAILASHTILA GAS FIELD
Upper Gas Sand

Depth(ft) Rt D N , fraction F Swa, fraction
7366 31 27 18 0.2275137 19.54 0.63

7370 63 22 22 0.215 22.07 0.47
7374 62 24 19 0.2164486 21.75 0.47
7378 68 24 18 0.212132 22.71 0.459
7382 90 22 19 0.205548 24.31 0.412
7386 41 18 24 0.212132 22.71 0.591
7390 40 14 25 0.202608 25.07 0.628
7394 78 26 22 0.2408319 17.29 0.374
7398 53 23 21 0.2202272 20.96 0.499
7402 69 25 20 0.2263846 19.75 0.425
7406 82 25 18 0.2178302 21.46 0.406
7410 101 29 17 0.235929 18.07 0.336
7414 120 26 16 0.2158703 21.88 0.339
7418 118 25 17 0.2118077 22.79 0.349
7422 105 26 16 0.2158703 21.88 0.362
7426 82 22 18 0.2009975 25.5 0.443
7430 100 26 17 0.2196588 21.07 0.364
7440 118 24 18 0.212132 22.71 0.348
7450 40 25 23 0.2378287 17.76 0.529
7456 102 26 16 0.2158703 21.88 0.368
7460 95 25 17 0.2137756 22.34 0.385
7472 90 25 20 0.2263846 19.75 0.372
7480 70 22 20 0.2078762 23.72 0.462
7484 70 23 20 0.210535 23.09 0.456
7490 78 22 20 0.2076355 23.78 0.438
7500 67 20 18 0.190263 28.7 0.519
7510 89 22 20 0.2052438 24.38 0.415
7520 70 21 20 0.205061 24.43 0.469
160
7530 70 18 24 0.212132 22.71 0.452
7540 100 22 18 0.2009975 25.5 0.401
7550 82 20 20 0.2 25.78 0.445
7560 75 16 21 0.1866815 29.9 0.501
7570 81 20 19 0.1950641 27.2 0.46
7580 70 19 19 0.19 28.78 0.509
7592 78 20 20 0.2 25.78 0.456
7600 90 21 19 0.2002498 25.71 0.424
7606 101 21 19 0.2002498 25.71 0.4
7620 67 21 18 0.1955761 27.05 0.504
7630 52 20 22 0.210238 23.16 0.53
7640 70 19 20 0.1950641 27.2 0.495
7650 68 19 22 0.205548 24.31 0.475
7660 40 16 22 0.1923538 28.03 0.664
7670 40 19 22 0.205548 24.31 0.619
7700 16 22 27 0.2462722 16.48 0.806
Middle Gas Sand

Depth,(ft) Rt D N ,(fraction) F Swa, (fraction)
9560 17 25 27 0.26019 11.96 0.419
9574 48 6 16 0.12083 55.48 0.538
9582 30 6 19 0.14089 40.81 0.583
9596 100 21 18 0.19558 21.18 0.23
9608 160 22 18 0.201 20.05 0.177
9620 150 21 20 0.20506 19.26 0.179
9630 80 20 20 0.2 20.25 0.252
9640 68 19 22 0.20555 19.17 0.265
9650 120 20 22 0.21024 18.33 0.195
9660 80 19 21 0.20025 20.2 0.251
9670 17 12 22 0.1772 25.8 0.616
9680 62 19 19 0.19 22.44 0.301
9690 50 20 22 0.21024 18.33 0.303
161
9707 135 20 19 0.19506 21.29 0.199
9712 110 20 20 0.2 20.25 0.215
9720 70 20 19 0.19506 21.29 0.276
9730 74 21 19 0.20025 20.2 0.261
9740 57 17 23 0.20224 19.8 0.295
Lower Gas Sand

Depth(ft) Rt D N , (fraction) F Swa, (fraction)
9910 63 6 14 0.108 69.83 0.526
9916 82 22 16 0.192 21.89 0.258
9920 78 21 17 0.191 22.19 0.267
9924 75 21 17 0.191 22.19 0.272
9928 70 21 17 0.191 22.19 0.282
9934 110 15 14 0.145 38.48 0.296
9938 104 24 15 0.2 20.22 0.22
9940 70 23 16 0.198 20.64 0.271
9944 47 21 15 0.182 24.32 0.36
9950 31 16 21 0.187 23.24 0.433
9957 28 16 18 0.17 27.93 0.499
9964 24 15 20 0.177 25.92 0.52
9970 21 13 19 0.163 30.57 0.603
162

Full Thesis

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Full Thesis

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

INTEGRATED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION

OF KAILASHTILA GAS FIELD

MD. MIZANUR RAHMAN

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING

An integrated reservoir characterization technique is used to integrate the geological,

I am highly indebted to my honorable thesis supervisor, Dr. Mohammad Tamim,

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Mohammed Mahbubur Rahman, associate

I am highly grateful to Mohammad Mojammel Huque, assistant professor of the Department

I would also like to pay my special thanks to my friends and family.

Finally, I want to thank the Department of Petroleum and Mineral Resources

CHAPTER III ....................................................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER VII .................................................................................................................................... 147

APPENDIX-B ..................................................................................................................................... 154

APPENDIX-C ..................................................................................................................................... 160

Table 5.1: Summary of Kailashtila Well Production ........................................................................... 67

As = Surface area of flow medium

1.1 Introduction to Integrated Reservoir Characterization

To understand the hydraulic conductivity and continuity of a particular reservoir, it uses

1.2 Introduction to Kailashtila Gas Field

Geological Model Petrophysical Model

Openhole Core Openhole Core

Well Test Data

Flow Unit Delineation

1. Upper Gas Sand (UGS) 7,483 to 7,662 ft KB (7,422 to 7,601 ftss)

2. Middle Gas Sand (MGS) 9,665 to 9,734 ft KB (9604 to 9673 ftss)

3. Lower Gas Sand (LGS) 9,808 to 9,990 ft KB (9,747 to 9,929 ftss)

1. Characterize the reservoir, Kailashtila Gas Field, Bangladesh, based on geological,

Methodology for this work followed this sequence:

2.2 Core Analysis

Extraction of gas or air content

2.3 Interpretation of Openhole Well Logs

2.3.1 Shale Volume

For consolidated rock,

For unconsolidated rock,

2.3.2 Formation Water Resistivity

Where K is a constant, which depends upon the formation temperature as follows8:

2.3.3 True Resistivity (RT)

2.3.4 Estimating Water Saturation (Sw)

The procedure for calculating openhole water saturation is as follows:

2. Calculation of formation resistivity factor:

3. Calculation of water saturation of the clean sand, Sw:

Several investigations15, 16, 17

Permeability: ( ) ....... (16)

Where, Kcoef = 62500, EXP = 6.0

Where k is permeability and is effective porosity and is tortuosity.

Combining Equation 19 and 20,

Where k is in m2 and is a fraction. A more generalized form of the Kozeny-Carmen22

Normalized porosity index z, or NPI, can be defined as

between RQI, z, and FZI which was expressed as .

Taking logarithm of both sides of this relation yields

Log RQI = log z + log FZI ..... (28)

2.4.1 Modification of Amaefule et.al Method

Substituting equation (33) into equation (34) gives,

The original Amaefule et.al equation is,

Now, the Equation (35) substitute into equation (36),

or, RQI = NPI*FZI(1-Vsh) ........... (37)

RQI = Rock Quality Index = 0.0314

NPI = Normalized Porosity Index = * +

FZI = Flow zone Indicator =

Taking the logarithm of both sides of Equation (37) gives

Log (RQI) = log [NPI(1-Vsh)] + log (FZI) . (38)