SPE 94987
Beating the Marginal Well Performance in a Mature Field: San Francisco Field in
Colombia
A.F. Suárez, SPE, Hocol S.A.; W. Gaviria, Schlumberger; J. Pavas, Hocol S.A.; and M. Frorup, SPE, Schlumberger
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20 – 23 June 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Mature fields represent a special challenge in terms of
drilling, because the net present value of the wells compared
to the well investment diminishes with the degree of maturity.
As the value diminishes, less and less time can be invested in
reservoir studies to support field activities. Special workflows
are therefore required to allow for a screening of potential
infill drilling locations as well as a value assessment.
This paper presents the methodology and processes developed
to define the infill drilling locations in the San Francisco field,
as well as the execution and the results of the wells drilled,
completed, and produced. These processes were developed
after an unsuccessful drilling campaign in 2001 to 2002 and
have helped arrest the field production decline.
The San Francisco field is an example of a mature field
producing under a mature waterflooding project, at water cut
greater than 90% owing to the level of depletion, an
unfavorable mobility ratio, and high reservoir heterogeneity
caused by the estuarine depositional environment.
A multidisciplinary team was set up to end with
recommendations to ensure the coherence of the San
Francisco Field development plan and to establish the 2003
and 2004 Drilling Campaigns. The workflow to identify
drilling opportunities includes an analytical approach and a
numerical simulation approach.
The analytical approach consisted of accounting for the well
declines and the oil in place by sand and by area. This allowed
a definition of reserves block by block and assessment of the
possibility of production acceleration through drilling. A
significant effort had to be given to the production allocation
to support this workflow.
The numerical simulation approach consisted of
accounting for the difference between the simulation model
and the actual production observations. Being able to account
for the difference between model and reality allowed
determining how much effort is required to come up with a
“reasonable” model, when do we stop to do the history
matching, and how to adjust the production forecasts to
account for the difference between model and reality.
Introduction
The San Francisco field was discovered in 1985 in
Colombia (Figure 1) and is producing from the Caballos
formation. This is a highly heterogeneous reservoir in a
fractured anticlinal 3,000 feet deep. The initial pressure was
1,100 psia and bubble point pressure is aproximately 950 psia
with oil quality varying from 23° to 28° degrees API. The
field today is under a waterflood scheme. The current total
fluid production is 165,000 bbl with a water cut of 90%.
Figure 2 shows the structural map at the top of reservoir.
By 2001, the operator had already drilled a total of 136 wells
consisting of 87 producers and 49 injectors with varied results.
Due to the heterogeneity and multilayer aspect of the field,
complicated by dense faulting and water injection under
unfavorable mobility ratio, each sand body was contributing
quite differently to the total production for each well. The
operator needed to know for the upcoming drilling campaign,
not only future well locations but also to decide on optimal
wells between verticals, horizontals and high angles to drain
identified reserves while delaying water breakthrough.
The methodology presented fully integrates the geological
model, numerical simulation, a new technique called PASS
(Performance Assessment and Surveillance System), and
builds on past experiences in a “lessons learnt” fashion. This
paper presents the methodology and its integration, how it was
used and improved in 2003 and 2004, as well as the outcome
from the 16 wells identified by the infill drilling locations
study.
Geological Model
The Caballos formation is divided in the Upper and the
Lower sands. The Upper Caballos consist of coarse to fine
grained quartz sandstones in an estuarine environment and
contains 75% of the STOIIP, with average values of net sand
2 SPE 94987
of 53 ft, porosity between 12% and 23% (average 17%) and
permeability range of 20 mD to 2000 mD (average 950 mD).
The Lower Caballos member (25% of the STOIIP) consists of
stacked fluvial and crevasse-splay sandstones locally
intercalated with floodplain mudstones and siltstones, with
average values of net sand of 55 ft, porosity between 6% and
19% (average 12%) and permeability range of 10 mD to 1,500
mD (average 350 mD).
The Upper Caballos is described by nine hydraulic units in the
northern sector and by eight in the southern part of the field
while the Lower Caballos is described by only three zones
These twelve zones were defined based on the stratigraphic
model, sedimentary environments, reservoir engineering and
production data. The lower Caballos member consists of
stacked fluvial and crevasse-splay sandstones locally
intercalated with floodplain mudstones and siltstones.
Methodology
The detailed analysis of the reservoir performance to
determine potential infill locations was adressesed in two
ways, one is the analytical aproach and the other is the
numerical simulation approach. The Figure 3 represents the
General Workflow Methodoly.
Having taken into consideration the new geological model had
identified 12 producer sands, the first obligatory step was to
back allocate the production and injection volumes into each
of the sands (12) in order to have a robust production data
base that will support the reservoir and production processes
that will find the best prospectives areas to drill new wells.
The back allocation processes consisted in a detail distribution
of production and injection in monthly volumes by wells and
by sands (136 wells & 12 sands). During this detailed
engineering work different well events were taking into
account in order to understand the well behavior by sands. The
main operational events considered during the production and
injection distribution were the followings:
• Production (PLT) & Injection (ILT) Logging test.
• Sands Isolations.
• New Perforations.
• Petrophysical & Geological updated models.
• Water Injection effect.
• Selective Stimulations.
• Artifitial Lift changes.
Crucial to good results was the listing and identification of
each production alteration during the entire life of each well in
the field. The total oil production is initially distributed by an
initial PLT taken after the well completion job or if this log
there isn´t exist the production is distributed using then
petrofisycal model (Kh). This distribution into each sand
remains constant until a second production distortion occurs.
At that moment an analysis, of wich the well event and which
sand are responsible of this alteration, is carried out. This
detailed production evaluation continues identifying the well
event and the sand responsible in each production alteration
during the entire well production history. At the end of this
process a detailed well by well and sand by sand production
data base (DB) is obtained.
Once a detailed production DB is ready, the analytical process
begins. The objective is the evaluation, interpretation and
integration of key analytical Reservoir and Production
Engineering Processes in order to determine the best
prospective infill well locations. This methodology is called
PASS™ (Performance Asset Surveillance System) technique.
The analytical aproach take into account 24 “processess”
which were applied sand by sand. Fourteen processes were
defined as primary criteria to define potential infill areas.
After this first filter, some possible infill drilling areas were
“eliminated” for low infill potential, and other areas remained
to be analyzed further. Three processes were defined as
secondary criteria and Seven processes were define as
“support” to analyze further remaining areas. As an example
of this procedure, in the Northen area of the field, initially 23
possibles areas were selected but using the different filter
processes, only 6 potential locations remained as “best
selected areas”. Those good potential infill-drilling locations
were compared with the locations defined in the Numerical
simulation, which was conducted in the North area.
Each of the potential well locations is targetting different sands
from the analytical analysis. Five locations are targetting
primarily in the Upper Caballos sands. Three locations are
targetting primarily in the Lower Caballos sands. Four
locations are targetting both Upper & Lower Caballos.
On the other hand, a simulation model was built using the
updated geological and petrophysical models in order to
identify by itself the best prospective infill well locations.
The integration of the analytical, and numerical processes plus
the operational experience (lessons learnt) is represented by
the figure 4 and is called the Processes Integration Model.
This methodology will give the best prospective areas for infill
well locations.
PASS™ Technique
Infill drilling studies, based on the OFM™ database, follow
the guidelines of a “system tree”. This tree begins with the
tools available on the software (mapping, decline analysis,
etc.). When two or more of these tools are combined together,
they form a process. The process begins to highlight key
reservoir characteristics, but needs to be combined together in
order to perform a deep analysis. The combination of two or
more processes forms a system. Final recommendations and
decisions on infill drilling locations are performed at the
system level.
The following 11 processes were performed and integrated as
primary criteria.
Reserves Analysis
The simple principle behind this process is to analyze, block
by block and sand by sand initial volumetrics (STOIIP),
Production, Mobile Oil and EUR values. Decline curve
analysis was performed on every producing completion of
every sand in the field. Rate-time analysis was backed up
SPE 94987
with water cut versus cumulative oil analysis to determine the
remaining as well as estimated ultimate recoverable reserves.
Estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) for non-producing wells
were taken as their cumulative oil to date. The EUR results
from the reserves analysis, broken down by sands and drilling
date, were used to generate a probability distribution of
cumulative oil production from a new well in a possible sweet
spot. Results were visualized with bubble maps for each
sand, probability production plots by sand and EUR versus
KH*Phi correlations.
Drainage Radius Analysis
Drainage radius was calculated at both current conditions
(cumulative oil) and at end of the life of the wells (EUR) for
each productive sand. The outcome of this process is a set of
several bubble maps at current conditions and final conditions
for each sand to identify undrainaged areas (Figure 5).
Reservoir Compartmentalization Analysis
Static bottom hole pressures reported at a common datum
for all producing sands were analyzed to determine reservoir
compartments. This is an important aspect in identifying infill
locations, as the relative performance of wells within
compartments must be incorporated into the overall analysis.
The change in pressures for each well as related to an average
reservoir pressure were evaluated with dynamic scatter plots
to determine which wells were in similar pressure
compartments. Overlay plots of static bottom hole pressures
and production were then used to verify the reservoir
compartments that were identified.
In order to use the datum pressure for analysis of the
compartmentalization, the datum pressures were fitted with a
polynomial curve for wells with three or more historical static
pressure points. For wells with only two datum pressure
points, a straight line fit was applied.
A resulting map of the compartmentalization was generated to
determine areas with more or less depleted.
Volume Balance In/Out for Average Saturations by
Area/Sand.
The concept behind this process is to compute the new
average oil saturation by block and by sand from a material
balance approach:
New average oil saturation today = (Initial oil in place –
Produced oil) / (Initial fluids in place – Produced oil –
Produced water + Injected Water + Water influx or efflux.
The output of this process is a set of maps for each sand of the
new geological model that shows in a visual fashion the
average (and approximate) remaining oil saturation by block.
Obviously, the most attractive infill areas could be in zones of
highest remaining oil saturation for particular sand.
Scatter Plots Analysis
The Concept behind this process is to create Cross-Plots (or
scatter plots) to observe correlations between static data (H, K,
KH, Tops, Phi, etc..) and dynamic data (Oil or water rates, oil
or water cum volumes, cumulative oil volume normatlized by
.
3
cumulative active days, etc. One can synchronize such a plot
with a base-map of the field, so that if most wells follow a
“tendency”, the wells that are ‘abnormal’ from that tendency
can be clearly identified on the actual field map. This can help
identify on the base map, zones of better and poorer behavior.
In this study, the dynamic variables most useful to plot were
oil rates (BOPD) and normalized cumulative oil. The most
useful static variables to plot were Net pay and KH (Figure 6).
Normalize Reserves Maping
OFM™ (Oilfield manager production software) can
approximate an original-oil-in-place map for reservoirs if the
data is available. This technique uses the volumetric equation
and grid arithmetic (assuming oilfield units)
OOIP = Grid Area * Netpay * Por * (1 - Swi) / (5.615 * Boi)
[stb]
Where the net pay, porosity and water saturation are grid
maps within OFM. Using grid calculations, these maps can
then be used in mathematical operations such as the
volumetric equations.
Once we have an OOIP map, we can define a “Qualitative
Reserves Location Map” by doing the following map
operation:
[Reserves map] = [OOIP map] – [cumulative production map].
This operation has to be done on a map level and not on a well
level. In OFM, the OOIP map has a unit of feet (=
hydrocarbon feet or net oil column), while the cumulative oip
production map has a unit of bbls, hence the need to first
normalize OOIP and OIL CUM maps (to values between o
and 1). The reserves maps will therefore be a qualitative map
showing values between –1 and +1. On the Normalized
reserves map:
The positive values indicate areas where OOIP is higher than
cumulative produced volumes, hence possible un-drained
areas and reserves.
Negative values indicate areas where cumulative oil produced
is higher than OOIP, indicating drainage may take place from
other areas, or other sands (vertical communication), or poor
data quality (back allocation; petrophysics, etc.).
Production Maps Analysis
Using interpolated maps (both cumulative oil production and
current oil rates), one has to consider that areas of highest
cumulative production and/or highest oil rates are probably the
best drained areas, but, similarly they are also the areas of
better connectivity between pores and better connectivity
between the sands and the wellbores. Those areas could
therefore be possible infill drilling candidates as log as we can
show that there are still un-drained reserves.
Liquid PI Maping Analysis
This process is identifying zone of highest productivity
index [ PI = Qliq / (Pr-Pwf) ]. Hence in this case, we are not
only looking at the oil phase but are interested in zones of
4 SPE 94987
highest oil&water production, as a sign of best petrophysical
properties.
Due to the uncertainty on the actual measurement of reservoir
pressure Pr sand by sand, and given the fact that almost all
wells are producing with an almost similar bottom hole
flowing pressure, Pwf, we can make the assumption that
almost all completions within specific sand are producing with
quite similar drawdown values.
Therefore, a map of total liquid PI should be very similar to a
map of current liquid rates.
The Figure 7 showed for each sand of interest, an interpolation
grid map of current liquid rates. Zones of highest rates are
thoses with best rock quality and productivity potential.
Heterogenety Index - Identify high/low risk Analysis
The heterogeneity index (HI) provides the possibility to
compare individual wells to the average of a well group. It is
defined as:
HI=(Value well/Value average of wells)-1
One is subtracted from the ratio to normalize the heterogeneity
index to zero i.e. the average of all the wells is equal to zero.
Wells performing above average will have a value for HI
which is larger than zero. HI values below zero indicate wells
performing below average.
The most common HI analysis, as performed in San Francisco,
consists in computing month after month the HI values for oil
and for water production for each completion within each
sand. By plotting HI_oil versus HI_water, we can identify on a
field map, the location of best and worst area in term of
productivity as well as water production.
Ideally, the visualization of the heterogeneity index (HI) is by
combining the HI plot with a base map of well coordinates.
The HI cross plot can then be divided in 4 different cuadrants:
(1) Oil & Water production above average, (2) Oil above
average and water below average, (3) Oil and Water below
average and (4) Oil below average and water above average
(Figures 8 & 9). After the cuadrants have been defined on the
HI plot, OFM will show on the base map (X,Y coordinates
plot) the location of the 4 families of wells. Infill candidates
should ideally be in zones of higher than average (positive
HI_oil) oil production, independantly of the water production.
Water Injection Movement Analysis
Water injection wells around the periphery of the field were
analyzed to determine which direction the injected water was
moving. This is an important aspect in the overall infill
analysis to assist in determining which areas of the reservoir
may already be swept. Overlay plots displaying both the
water injected by the injection well and the production for
wells within a given radius around the injectors were used.
Wells that responded to nearby injectors exhibited
corresponding production to the injection rate within four to
six months.
A map displaying the movement of the water injection is the
final result of this analysis. Arrows pointing in the appropriate
direction display this injection fluid movement.
Reservoir Performance Analysis (Normalized maps)
Special grid maps called normalized maps were used to
analyze combined production and petrophysical properties of
the different sands.
Production efficiency maps were generated by importing the
permeability and net thickness maps into OFM and saving
them as grid files. Cumulative oil maps were then generated
from the different reservoir layers and saved as grid files in
OFM. The production efficiency map was generated by
subracting the Kh Unity grid from the Cumulative Oil Unity
grid. This resulting production efficiency map quickly
highlights areas in the reservoir, which are underproducing
(negative numbers) and overproducing (positive numbers)
based on their flow potential.
Geometrical Grid Spacing Analysis
The simple idea behind this process is to draw lines between
existing wells on a field map to build grid cells, which is
numbered sequentially. It allows the identification of inter-
well areas bigger than average where an additional well could
place in. An example of the geometrical grid cells spacing for
the Northern area is shown in the Figure 10. High areal
spacing for infill drilling in cells 10, 11, 16 & 21 are observed,
however, it is important to integrate the results from the other
processes to validate and corroborate this observation from the
geometrical grid spacing. The following 3 processes were
performed and integrated as a secondary criteria
Dykstra-Parson Heterogeneity Map
The Dykstra Parson concept is to compute a vertical
heterogeneity criteria based on the shape of the cumulative
distribution function (CDF) of core permeability
measurement.
If we plot all measured K values on a CDF curve (% greater
than), the heterogeneity is then defined as:
Dykstra Parson Heterogeneity = [P84.1(K) –P50(K)] / P50(K)
The higher this value is, the more heterogeneous the
formation. Values below 0.3 are considered very
homogeneous; Values above 0.7 are considered very
heterogeneous. Ideal Infill wells should be drilled in low
heterogeneity areas, to avoid early fingering or channeling of
water.
Peak Oil versus EUR
The concept behind this process is to identify on a field
map wells with highest and lowest overall production decline.
We defined as Peak oil the maximum (peak) oil production
value during 12 consecutive months – also called “best year
production”.
In most reservoirs, there is a clear linear trend between this
Peak Oil value and the corresponding EUR of the wells. A
well with a high Peak Oil and low EUR will show a high
SPE 94987
production decline. On the contrary, a well with a high EUR
for medium Peal Oil will show a low production decline.
Ideally we would like to put infill wells in areas of lower
decline (higher EUR than the average reservoir trend
compared to Peak Oil), and not in areas of higher decline
(lower EUR than the average reservoir trend compared to Peak
Oil).
Clorides (Cl, ppm) maps to map water origin:
San Francisco field has a natural tracer combining the
formation and the injected water since there is a clear
difference in ppm Cl- concentration among the Upper Caballos
(5000 to 6000 ppm Cl-), Lower Caballos sands (> 9000 ppm
Cl-) and water injection (<3000 ppm Cl-).
Taking into account the consideration mentioned above,
different analysis can be carried out to determine potential
areas for infill drilling.
Numerical Simulation
A dynamic simulation model of the San Francisco field was
constructed using a black oil simulation application (Figure
11). The model was constructed on a sand-by-sand basis
allowing for an individual model for each level and later
recombining the results. The segmented approach was taken to
speed up the simulation work allowing more people to work
simultaneously.
The single largest issue in obtaining a match of the model to
the observed production was the fractional flow. Water moves
faster than the information from the relative permeability
indicates. The study was carried out in a short timeframe, as
the information did not validate a time consuming nor
expensive study. As a result coarse match was obtained and
the model was therefore associated with a difference between
the historical observations and the model performance. This
difference was accounted for in each of the wells. The
fractional flow match was obtained by adjusting the relative
permeability function on a sand-by-sand level but with no
local area adjustments. In the model the wells were all obeying
the total liquid rate. An example of a match obtained on a send
level is illustrated in Figure 12.
Once a match was obtained the next issue was to account
for the model versus history. This was done by accounting for
the differences in producing water cut historical values versus
model values well by well and then to create some correlations
by regression. In the forecasting the prognosis was corrected
with respect to the correction correlation. For new wells the
correction was found as a distance weighted average of the
adjustments in the offset wells (Principle schetched in Figure
13). The correctiong was typically between model water cut
range of 90%, corrected to 91 to 93%. In terms of total fluid
no correction was made. This correction was typically within
the accuracy of what match can be expected with a model to
what had been observed. Applying this process, several infill-
drilling locations were defined with good oil saturation and
less water cut. In order to define the best infill drilling
.
5
locations, the simulation results were integrated with the
analytical matrix results.
Processess Integration
The objective of the integration phase is to obtain the best
prospective areas (grid cells) for drilling new development
infill wells. Each prospective grid cell has to be related with
each sand and each analytical process. In order to quantify the
best prospectives areas were necessary to built a 3D matrix
combining the results of the all 24 processess using a grading
scale as follow: Bad = 0, Average = 1 & Good = 2. Then,
each grid cell, sand by sand, will have a number, which has to
be added vertically. Finally, the grid cells with the highest
values represent the best prospective areas for infill drilling
taking into account all the processes involved. Those
analystical results were integrated with the numerical analysis
outcome to validate and corroborate the best infill drilling
areas.
Infill Drilling Locations Results
The integration of the analytical and numerical processes
was used to select the best infill drilling locations for the
drilling campaigns 2003 & 2004.
Nine wells locations were identified for the 2003 drilling
campaign and eight for the 2004. The wells were drilled
successfully with an incremental oil production of 3,800 bopd
and proved undeveloped reserves of 5 MMbls to 7 MMBbls.
The finance project results: Net Present Value, Expected
Monetary Value and Unit Techncial Cost, showed a robust
economical evalution.
Conclusions
• Sixteen high potential locations for infill drilling were
defined from 89 grid areas evaluated.
• The 2003 & 2004 drilling campaigns were successful
representing an incremental oil production of 3,800 bopd and
reserves of 5 MBbls to 7 MBbls.
• The economical results of the drilling campaigns were
positive and very strong supporting the operator’s portfolio.
• The methology and procedure described in this apper was
successfully applied using the PASS™ technique.
• A multidisciplinary team approach was strongly
recommended to perform this kind of integrated study.
• It is crucial and vital for the success of the infill drilling
locations study to have a good and reliable data to be able to
build an integrated technical database sand by sand.
Nomenclature
STOIP = Stock tank original initial in place barrels.
PLT = Production Logging test.
ILT = Injection Logging test.
PASS™ = Performance Asset Surveillance System.
EUR = Estimated Ultimate Recovery.
6 SPE 94987

OOIP = Original oil in place.

PI = Productivity index.
HI = Heterogeneity index.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Hocol S. A. and Schlumberger for the
permission to publish this paper. The support received from
Luis Eduardo Goyeneche from Hocol and the Schlumberger
Data and Consulting Services (DCS).

References
1. Gaviria, W; Borja, H., Hocol S.A.; Groff F. and Gamble S.,
Schlumberger. “Optimización de Producción mediante una
Metodología Estructurada de Análisis de Información en el
Campo San Francisco”. ACIPET Colombian Petroleum
Congress. October 2001.
2. Gamble, S., Gaviria, W.: “San Francisco Field Well
Performance and Infill Location Study” Hocol S.A. Internal
Report (1998).
3. Ames, L.C. Reese, R.D.: "Tools, Processes and Systems: An
Integrated Approach to Petroleum Software Training". SPE
paper No. 27582. March 1994.
4. Reese, R.D.: "Completion Ranking Using Production
Heterogeneity Indexing" papel SPE 36604 presentado al
congreso anual de la SPE en Denver, Octubre 1996.
5. Schlumberger, OFM Manual Advanced Training Course. 2002.

HO COL / ECP.
% WI / RI
50 / 40

Balcon
Field
Figure 2. San Francisco Field.
San Francisco
Field

Palermo
Methodology
Field

Analytical Process Numerical Process

Figure 1. Location Map Colombia. “Back-allocation Reservoir &

Methodology OFM Production
DB processes
Proposed
locations

Integration & Detailed

Evaluation

Conclusion Economic Evaluation

Figure 3. General Workflow Methodology.

SPE 94987 7

Production Performance
Analytical Evaluation PASS
Log we llprop.kh
Well productivity.
Drainage areas. 0.74 2.93 5.11
Decline Analysis.
Reserves Normalized. 57W
102W
Pressure Model. 79W 29
Scatter Plots. 103W
Heterogeneity Index. 6
78 74 32
Completion Efficiency. 105W
104W
Bubble maps. 30 73 35
116W 41 71
Prospective Areas. 89 111 42 33 37PW
112
101PW4 40 11
85 75 26
12PW 117W
106W 93 90 34
Dynamic Model 27139 24
38PW
Static Model Simulation 15PW 121W14
94 67
36
123
86 118
28 131 25 91 9PW
115W 2 7
Formation Tops. Prospective Areas. 80 51
1PW 122
Markers. Saturation Maps. 113W 95
376 23 70 45
Sand Continuity. Wells Productivity. 98
119W 82 97 22
Petrophysical Water Cut Performance. 62 17 16PW 114
Evaluation. Formation Pressure. 88 47
81 43PG 50PW
Flow Units. Incremental Oil 133
136 63 5
Directional Plan. Production. 120PW 53 8PW 142 19
60 48GW92 44 72PW
18141
21 20PW 54PW
Operational Experience 58W 96
69 100 10110PW
Lessons Learnt 65 126
64
68
107PW59 61 31PW
83 77
Decrease Flat Time. 108PW
66 55PW
39
Cost Reduction. 109PW
56PW
Longer Deviated Section.
New Technology Application.

Figure 5. Drainage Radius Example

Figure 4. Main Processess Integration Model.
Combined with KH map.

125000
UKB LIQ PI
0 10 20
SF-004:UKBc1
SF-006:UKBc2
SF-101:UKBc3
100000

SF-004:UKBc3
SF-004:UKBc2SF-093:UKBC1 78 74
SF-093:UKBC2 30 73
SF-041:UKBc3
11142 33
75000 SF-071:UKBc2
SF-078:UKBc2 4085
11
4 26
24 34
SF-093:UKBC3 27
SF-041:UKBc2
SF-040:UKBc1
KH

SF-139:UKBc1
SF-012:UKBc2 36
SF-006:UKBc1 SF-040:UKBc2 86
SF-123:UKBC2 28 25 130 91
80 51
50000
SF-012:UKBc3
SF-078:UKBc1 76 23 70 45
SF-013:UKBc1
SF-078:UKBc3
SF-027:UKBc2
SF-024:UKBc1
SF-085:UKBc2
SF-012:UKBc1 127 17
SF-089:UKBc1
SF-041:UKBc1
SF-139:UKBc2 SF-071:UKBc1
SF-071:UKBc3
SF-006:UKBc3 81 43PG
SF-013:UKBc2
SF-024:UKBc2 53 19 63 5
SF-123:UKBC3 60 44
92
25000 18
SF-027:UKBc1 129
SF-027:UKBc3 Trend 69
126 68
10
64
Low Cum Oil 59
77
61
SF-085:UKBc1 83
66
SF-040:UKBc3
SF-085:UKBc3 39

0 SF-024:UKBc3
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Cum.Oil Normalized Activeday ( Mbbl/d )

Figure 6. Scatter Plot Analysis.

Figure 7. Liquid PI map.

.
8 SPE 94987

400

SQUARE 4 SQUARE 1
300 SF-036(12)
Net H I W ater Produc tion

High Water Production High Water Production

& &
Low Oil Production High Oil Production 200

UKBA2.sumHiwater
SF-009(12)
100
SF-131(2)

Low Water Production Low Water Production

SF-003(13)
SF-038(12)
& & 0 SF-001(12)
SF-095(3)
SF-080(13)
Low Oil Production High Oil Production SF-076(12) SF-067(8)
SF-082(13)
SF-025(12) SF-094(10)
SF-028(11) SF-023(12) SF-007(12)

-100
SQUARE 3 SQUARE 2
SF-051(11)

-200
-100 -50 0 50 100 150

Net H I Oil Production UKBA2.SumHioil

Figure 8. HI Cuadrants. Figure 9. HI Example for Upper Caballos sand.

2
4
3

8
5
6 7

13 A
11 10
9
B
12 15 17
14 C 16 60

22
21 D 19 18
23 F 59
20
61 E

Figura 10. Geometrical Grid Spacing Analysis.

SPE 94987 9

Figura 12. History Match Plot.

Figure 11. Northen area Simulation Model.

1 1
WWCTH
WWCTH

0
0
0 WWCT 1
0 WWCT 1
1
WELL-2
WWCTH

WELL-1

d-1

NEW WELL
0
0 WWCT 1

WELL-3

The data from the simulator is corrected according to the wcut behavior of every near-by well, taking into account the
distance to the well
Wcut corrected = WCUTwell1*(1/d1)/(1/d1+1/d2+1/d3)+ WCUTwell2*(1/d2)/(1/d1+1/d2+1/d3)+ WCUTwell3*(1/d1)/(1/d1+1/d2+1/d3)

Figure 13. Water Correction Principle.