KN Estudios Production

Prepared by: Nur Asyikin Ahmad KINABALU Ref.
Verified by: Michael Gee Production Enhancement Project Rev. 3

Approved by: Wong Sim Siong Issued: 26 Sept, 2008
Kinabalu Production Optimization Study

Candidate Selection and Maturation
Schlumberger Confidential
Schlumberger, confidential.  Copyright 2008 Schlumberger, Unpublished Work. All rights reserved. This work contains the
confidential and proprietary trade secrets of Schlumberger and may not be copied or stored in an information retrieval system,
transferred, used, distributed, translated or retransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, in whole or in
part, without the express written permission of the copyright owner.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 4
2. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 5
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................................... 6
4. Scope of work ............................................................................................................................. 6
5. Data Gathering and Validation .................................................................................................. 6
6. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 8
7. Candidate Selection ................................................................................................................. 13
8. Nodal Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 13
9. Conceptual Job Program and Cost Estimation .................................................................... 15
10. Production Forecast................................................................................................................. 15
11. Summary of Findings and Recommendation........................................................................ 15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Summary of Production Enhancement Candidates ………………………………………. 4

Table 2 : List of dropped candidates from initial screening…………………………………………. 12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 : Log log plot of WOR versus time .................................................................................. 10

Figure 2 : Log-log plot of WOR and WOR’ for channeling case.................................................... 11
Figure 3 : Log-log plot of WOR and WOR’ for coning case .......................................................... 11
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Sensitivity on Inflow and Outflow Parameters ........................................................... 21
Appendix 2 : Historical Production Plot.......................................................................................... 25
Appendix 3 : Heterogeneity Index Plot .......................................................................................... 29
Appendix 4 : Water Control Diagnostic Plot .................................................................................. 31
Appendix 5 : Add Perforation Candidates – Well Location ........................................................... 37
Appendix 6 : Nodal Analysis .......................................................................................................... 38
Appendix 7 : Kinabalu Creaming Curve ....................................................................................... 43
Appendix 8 : Summary of Acid Stimulation Analysis..................................................................... 45
Appendix 9 : Summary of Add Perforation Analysis – Constraint Case (LP Mode) ..................... 45
Appendix 10 : Summary of Add Perforation Analysis – No Constraint Case (HP mode) ............. 45
Appendix 11: Production Forecast Summary – Acid Stimulation Candidates .............................. 46
Appendix 12 : Production Forecast Summary – Add Perforation Candidates .............................. 46
Appendix 13 : Simplified Workflow for Water/Gas Shutoff Candidate Screening ......................... 47
1. Executive Summary
A production enhancement study was conducted on the Kinabalu field as a part of supporting
and maturing the existing work that has been carried out by Shell Production Technologist. The
study is a collaboration between Schlumberger Data & Consulting Services and Well Services
(DCS and WS) and Sabah Shell Petroleum Company (SSPC). This report documents the
engineering analyses performed, methodology, findings and recommendation for production
enhancement opportunities. The project was completed within two months, from July to August
2008.
The objective of the study was to identify opportunities for water and gas shut off, in line with
other oil boost techniques that will increase oil production in Kinabalu Field.
The opportunities resulted from this study lie in the areas of mechanical water shut off; add
perforation, acid stimulation, and mechanical repairs. Most of the opportunities come from major
reservoirs which are K2 and L2 sand. The findings and recommendations are summarized in the
following Table 1.
Table 1 : Summary of Production Enhancement Candidates

Unrisked incremental Oil
Well String Layer Recommendation
(bopd)
KN 102 SS J7/8 Acid stimulation with mud acid and OilSEEKER (diverter) 60
KN 102 LS K2 Acid stimulation with clay acid and OilSEEKER (diverter) 275
KN 107 LS M3/4 Acid stimulation with clay acid and OilSEEKER (diverter) 100
KN 109 LS K3 Acid stimulation with clay acid and OilSEEKER (diverter) 200
KN 110 LS L2 Acid stimulation with mud acid and OilSEEKER (diverter) 520
KN 115 SS K2 Acid stimulation with mud acid and OilSEEKER (diverter) 140
KN 108 LS L2/3/4 Cement squeeze in K6 and add perforation at L2/3/4 660
KN 116 LS L2 Cement squeeze in L3/4 and add perforation at L2 440
KN 114 SS/LS J5 Cement squeeze in J6/7 and add perforation at J5 1690
2. Introduction
The Kinabalu field is located 55 km West-North-West of Labuan, in block SB1, 28 km SouthWest

of Samarang Field, with the water depth of 179 ft. The field was discovered in 1989 by KN-1 well
as their first appraisal well drilled. Kinabalu is a joint venture field between SSPC and Petronas
Carigali Sdn Bhd (PCSB), with sharing proportion of 80% and 20% respectively.
Five appraisal wells were drilled which are KN1, KN2, KN3, KN4 and KN104S2. Commercial oil
production came on line in December 1997. In total there are 20 wells drilled in Kinabalu, all are
on one jacket platform (KNDP). Liquid production is piped to Samarang A platform before being
sent to Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT). Produced gas from both LP and HP separators are
exported to Samarang. Compressor from LP has gas handling capacity up to 21 MMscf/d;
therefore the exceeded gas production is flared.
Kinabalu field primarily consists of main, east, and deep sands, with more than 50 stacked
sandstone layers separated by shale sequence. This study is only focusing on Kinabalu main,
which consists of major reservoirs of L1/2 and K2, and minor reservoirs of F3, G2, J2/3, J5,
J6/7/8, K3/4/6, L3/4, M3/4, and O5/6/7. The drive mechanisms for the field are water influx, gas
cap expansion, and solution gas drive, which vary from each reservoir.
Most wells in Kinabalu are dual completions, cased hole and perforated, with several horizontal
on the long string section. Each wellbore is completed with several intervals, being separated by
permanent packers. The production plan was from bottom up, with only one interval producing at
one time from each short and long string. Gas lift is used as the main artificial lift system for this
field. There are two water injector wells dedicated to K reservoir, being KN 112 and KN119, both
are using ESP. One appraisal well, KN4 is used as natural dumpflood.
From around mid October 2004 to late June 2005, Samarang field was shut in to replace
damaged oil export line, and this event impacted on Kinabalu operations. Only surface shut in
was done for Kinabalu, which resulted in several cross flow issues after the field was put back on
production in June 2005. A significant drop in production was observed after the event.
3. Objectives
The main objectives of this project are:
a. Mature existing WGSO candidates
b. Screen additional WGSO opportunities
c. Screen candidates for other through tubing production optimization opportunities
4. Scope of work
This study covers the following scope of work;
1. Familiarization of Kinabalu field
2. Perform data gathering

3. Review existing WGSO candidates
4. Conduct detailed well performance review and analysis

a. Perform candidate screening and selection for production enhancement and
come up with short list of wells with high GOR/WC
b. Perform nodal analysis for gain estimation
c. Develop conceptual job program for each recommended opportunity

d. Develop surveillance plan for candidates
e. Perform production forecast for production sustainability
f. Perform simple economics calculation for opportunity feasibility

5. Review previous study being conducted by PMU-SLB (STPE – Short Term Production
Enhancement Project)
6. Recommend additional data acquisition requirement (if applicable).
5. Data Gathering and Validation

The Kinabalu data set is fully documented on a specified computer server. The following are the
list of data that were used throughout this study:
1. FRMR Pack
Field and Reservoir Management Review was used as a reference overview of the Kinabalu
field. The main content summarizes geological and geophysical review, reservoirs, field
production and forecast, facilities overview, and forward plan of the field.
2. OFM Database
The database had been updated to the current status, and the data used are well locations,
monthly well test data, and allocated production data. Calculated variables and analysis
templates were already in place, which accelerated the process of the study.
3. Pressure Data
Bottomhole pressure (BHP) data available includes result from repeat formation test (RFT),
static gradient survey (SGS) and flowing gradient survey (FGS). Recent SGS and FGS are
available for most of the wells, and ongoing activity on the remaining wells is in plan. These
data were used as an input to the nodal analysis, corrected to the top perforation. Where
recent BHP data is not available, correlation on the offset wells were done. Surface pressure
such as flowing tubing head pressure (FTHP) and casing head pressure (CHP) are available
in the daily welltest monitoring data sheet.
4. PVT data
Only single point PVT data is available for each reservoir group. The data includes bubble
point pressure (Pb), initial reservoir pressure (Pi), reservoir temperature, API gravity,
viscosity, density, formation volume factor, and initial gas oil ratio.
5. Open Hole Logs
The interpreted logs consist of gamma ray (GR), resistivity, neutron-density, well deviation,
saturation, porosity, and permeability. The logs were both present in the form of along hole
depth (AHTHF) and true vertical depth (TVD). The logs were used to identify potential
additional perforation opportunities, and to better understand the hydrocarbon sequence for a
specified well.
6. Cased hole logs
Production logs, saturation logs, and cement bond logs are available for some of the wells.
The outcome of the surveys is very useful for well integrity check. Saturation logs provide a
good guide in current saturation profile for the specified well at a specified interval.
7. Well Completion Diagrams
Well schematic was updated to the current status.

8. Summary of Well History
Well events such as zone change, well intervention, and survey programs were summarized
in the well history file.
9. Welltest Data
Welltest data are available in the form of excel spreadsheet. Source from the excel
spreadsheet was synchronized with the OFM database. Summary of welltest data is also
available, listing average production of each well for every month.
6. Methodology
This section will review all of the techniques used in this study prior to summarizing the analysis
per well basis.
6.1 Water/Gas Shut Off Work Process
The following simplified workflow has been used as a guide to water shut off screening. Similar
approach was used to select gas shut off candidates. Nevertheless, no candidate for gas shut off
was selected since most of the gas is associated with the oil. Shutting off the gas is expected to
cause reduction in oil production as well.
6.1.1 Well and Reservoir Information review
A review of the production history was performed using plots of oil, water and gas production, the
ratios GOR and water-cut, cumulative production and the number of producing wells. This
overview helps in understanding of how the field and reservoirs were historically developed and
identifying significant trends, events and anomalies. Correlation of any production changes over
the well workover and production condition changes (chokes, gas lift, etc) were also incorporated
in the analysis.
6.1.2 Scatter Plot Analysis
The scatter plot functionality in OFM is a tool for multi-well analysis, where parameters from
selected wells can be analyzed. Data from a group of wells is plotted in one or more linked
graphs and correlations are analyzed.
Scatter plots can be divided into 4 major groups:

1. Plots of static data vs. static data (e.g., permeability vs. porosity)
2. Plots of static data vs. dynamic data (e.g., net pay vs. cumulative oil produced)
3. Plots of dynamic data vs. dynamic data (e.g., water rate vs. oil rate)
In this study, plots of dynamic data vs. dynamic data were used, enabling the animation of plots
to illustrate the changes in production behavior over time. Wells were grouped into reservoirs,
and the following concept was applied in OFM.
1. Scatter plots:
a. Heterogeneity index of water and oil rates
Heterogeneity index of oil rate for a well in particular sand is defined as:
Oil H.I. = Oil rate for well – 1
Average oil rate*

* Average oil rate of all wells in similar reservoir being evaluated.
Similar values are calculated for water and these numbers are plotted over time. Each quadrant
in this plot indicates a certain criteria that a particular well exhibits.
1. Quadrant 1 (+x and +y axis) – Wells with high volumes of water and oil.
2. Quadrant 2 (-x and +y axis) – Wells with high water and low oil volumes. These wells are
possible water shut-off candidates.
3. Quadrant 3 (-x and –y axis) – Wells with low volumes of water and oil, in other words, low
productivity. These wells are possible stimulation candidates, e.g. acid wash, reperf.
4. Quadrant 4 (+x and –y axis) – Wells with high oil and low water volumes
6.1.3 Water Control Diagnostic Plot
To better diagnose and understand the water behavior, water diagnostic plot was generated per
well basis. The plots are used to screen wells that are suitable candidate for water shut off, as
well as to determine possible type of problem to enable the suitable selection of water control
method.
This study incorporates several water control diagnostics plots which are described as following:
Production history plot

Log-log plot of water rate against oil rate. This plot was used to identify whether the water is
helping the oil to be produced or vice versa. Candidate for water control can be selected based
on the simultaneous change in water and oil production; where water rate shows increasing trend
and oil rate is decreasing at the same time.
Water Oil Ratio (WOR) Plot vs. Cumulative Oil Production

This plot is used to differentiate between coning and channeling problem. A reference on SPE
30775 was used as a guide to the problem description. From the plot, three periods of WOR
development can be recognized (Figure 1).
The first period of time usually demonstrate flat curve, which shows the expected initial
production (time t = 0, to A1 for water coning, and t=0 to A2 for channeling). For coning, the
departure time is often short. The predominant parameters affecting coning departure time are
the distance between the WOC and the bottom of the nearest perforation interval, vertical-to
horizontal permeability ratio, bottom water influx rate, production pressure drawdown or rate, and
relative permeability functions. For channeling, the main parameters affecting the departure time
are well spacing, injection rate at the injectors, producer drawdown or rate, initial water saturation
and distribution among layer, and relative permeability functions.
Figure 1 : Log log plot of WOR versus time for water coning (subscript 1) and water channeling
(subscript 2)
The second time period shows the WOR increasing with time. The rate of increase differs for a
different problem. For coning, the rate of the WOR increase (from A1 to B1) is relatively slow and
gradually approaches a constant value. During this period the bottomwater cone grows vertically
and horizontally to cover most of the perforated interval. The oil saturation within the cone
gradually decreases to reach the residual oil saturation level. For channeling, the water
production increases very quickly (A2 to B2). The slope of this part of the curve depends on the
relative permeability functions and on initial reservoir fluid saturation distribution. In the case of a
multilayered reservoir, the rate of increase of the WOR may diminish during the second time
period and mark the beginning of a transition period. The period of B2 to C2 corresponds to the
depletion of the first breakthrough layer. The end of the transition period marks the point at which
the rate of increase of the WOR returns to the ealier, higher rate. This point corresponds to the
moment when water breaks the next highest conductivity layer. Transition periods can be very
short, depending on the permeability contrast between the layers, layer crossflow, and capillary
pressures.
Pseudo steady state cones develop on the third period of water coning situation (C1 to D1). The
water cone becomes a zone of high water saturation and high conductivity, causing the well
mainly produce bottom water. The WOR begins to rapidly increase, similar to a case of water
channeling. The second departure point (C1) at which the WOR begins to rapidly increase can be
considered as the beginning of the third period. For channeling, the third period begins when
WOR resumes the rate of increase that characterized the first period.
Water Oil Ratio Derivative (WOR’) Plot vs. Cumulative Oil Production
Known as Chan Plot, the time derivative of the WOR, WOR’ plot was also used in this study to
differentiate between coning and channeling problem. For channeling case, WOR’ shows a
nearly constant positive slope, and for coning, the slope is negative (refer Figure 2 and Figure 3).
Figure 2 : Log-log plot of WOR and WOR’ for channeling case
Figure 3 : Log-log plot of WOR and WOR’ for coning case
The outcome of the analysis indicates that most of water issues in Kinabalu are due to
channeling issue, rather than coning. To further support this conclusion, a reservoir simulation
study needs to be conducted to investigate the type of water movement for each reservoir.
6.1.4 Well and Reservoir Information Review
In parallel with the above mentioned analyses, a review on current wellbore schematics, well
logs, drilling & completion report, and reservoir & fluid properties were evaluated to gather
information to be used in nodal analysis. Recent wellbore surveys conducted such as tubing
integrity test, static gradient survey, flowing gradient survey, saturation logging result were also
reviewed and incorporated into the screening workflow.
Pre-screening work based on the abovemention workflow was done, and a series of wells was
initially listed for further evaluation. Amongst those wells, some has to be dropped mainly due no
no zonal isolation to selectively treating the problem. The summaries of dropped candidates were
shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2 : List of dropped candidates from initial screening

Current Interested
Well String Status Pre-screened Opportunity Reason for not being selected
zone zone
1.High W/C. Suspect heel coning.
Flowing the well at full choke will
induce more drawdown, thus
1. K2 (bottom), K2 1. Close K2 bottom, test open K2
encouraging more water production.
(upper), K2 (new) upper, and perf K2 heel
KN 106 LS CI : HWC K2 (bottom) 2. Risk of water and gas
or or
breakthrough if to add perforation
2. K2 (bottom) 2. Selectively shut off K2 bottom
further up
3. Chosen well for Round 5
sidetrack.
To selectively shut off J5. Bad water No shale isolation in between J5.
KN 108 SS Active J5 J5 producer - observed decline in oil High perm zone observed.
production as water increased. Selectivity is not an option.
K2 Test open K2 and assess potential No isolation in the interest zone.

KN 111 SS CI L1/2/3 Selective shut off is not an option.
Bad water trend observed. Potential
L1/2/3 Dropped due to surface leak issue
shut off.
Marginal gain. Horizontal wellbore
section - risk of add perf zone has
KN 114 LS CI : HWC L2 L2 Squeeze off L2 and add perf at heel been swept since no shale isolation
in between existing and potential
zone.
Major drive mechanism - gas cap
KN 116 SS Active G2 J3 Potential gas shut off in G2 and J3 expansion. No sub -zonal isolation
in the potential zone.
6.2 Add Perforation and Matrix Acidizing Screening Method
Results from items in 6.1 were incorporated to further determine possible other production
enhancement opportunities.
For add perforation candidates selection, a review on open hole logs was conducted to
determine behind casing opportunities. The open hole logs available consists of Gamma Ray
(GR), Resistivity, and Neutron Density. Screening was based on the oil saturation profile along
the un-perforated interval. Additionally, a cross check against saturation log was done to further
confirm that the potential by passed oil has not been swept. To verify on current well status and
well accessibility issue, well schematic diagram were reviewed. Assessment also includes recent
well intervention history such as coiled tubing cleanout and tubing integrity test (item 6.1.4). An
evaluation of cement bond logs was carried out to verify cementing quality of the potential
candidates. In addition, candidate wells were compared with the neighboring wells performance,
to put a risk on possible GOC / OWC movement.
For matrix acidizing opportunities, the selection is based on production performance. Significant
drop in production due to bean up activity is a good criterion for potential fines migration issue.
Well history indicates that Kinabalu is experiencing massive fines migration issues. Screening
was not only limited to the active zone. Intermittent production trend was observed in some of the
idle zones, which may be a potential candidate for acid stimulation. From the drilling and
completion report, it was found that no acid stimulation activities were carried out since the well
was completed. This can be one of the possible reasons on the intermittent production behavior,
reduced in production due to drilling fluid or completion fluid damage. Skin estimation from
pressure build up survey is useful in verifying near wellbore damage. However, this data is not
available for Kinabalu wells; therefore good quantification on near wellbore damage for the
potential candidates could not be made.
7. Candidate Selection
The candidate selection process took into consideration the results from all the methods
mentioned above (item 7.1 to 7.2) to come up with a list of candidates for production
enhancement, which is then divided based on category of well-work type. Screened candidates
were further evaluated by doing nodal analysis to estimate on potential oil gain.
8. Nodal Analysis
Nodal Analysis is used to model the well performance and estimate production potential and
gains from remedial treatments. Data required to model well performance includes PVT data,
reservoir data (pressure, permeability, skin, thickness), wellbore and completion data
(perforation, deviation, tubing and casing). Prosper, the IPM software, was used to run the
analyses. Existing well models are available for Kinabalu; therefore the models were not built
from scratch. Nevertheless, a quality check on the model was carried out to identify any missing
or outdated data.
A total of 14 strings were evaluated for detailed nodal analysis, some of which had to be dropped
due to negligible oil gains. These strings were selected based on their potential for production
enhancement. The original well model is using PI model as the inflow performance correlation.
This study used the combination of PI model and Darcy model, depending on type of analysis
that needs to be carried out. For the outflow performance correlation, in general the VLP
correlation MMSM, was used to model the pressure drop in the tubing.
For additional perforation candidates, the Darcy model was used. Main input data required are
reservoir pressure, reservoir average permeability, net thickness, skin, wellbore radius, and
drainage area. Permeability and thickness value was obtained from the open hole logs.
Assumption on skin was made based on typical total skin for cased and perforated completion,
ranges in between 3 to 5. The base case is assuming well flowing naturally with no water
production at day one. Predicted potential production from the newly perforated layer was
compared with neighboring wells performance which are/were producing from the same reservoir
unit. The purpose of this practice is to avoid overestimation of potential gain from the add
perforation activity.
Add perforation opportunities are combined with the water shut off opportunities. This is because
the potential add perforation interval is within the same completion interval on the water shut off
candidate. Two cases were sensitized based on this situation, which are:
1. Assuming the watered out zone is not being shut off, production from the newly
perforated zone is commingled with the existing producing zone. Composite IPR was
calculated in Prosper.
2. Assuming the watered out zone is completely being squeezed off, only the newly
perforated zone is producing
Each of these two cases incorporates expected production through both low pressure (LP) and
high pressure (HP) separator. Several sensitivities were carried out on the main inflow and
outflow parameters including reservoir pressure, skin, water cut, formation GOR, and flowing
tubing head pressure (FTHP). The outcome of the analysis indicates the most sensitive
parameters in affecting the production performance on the well are reservoir pressure and water
cut.
For matrix acidizing modeling, the well was first matched at the initial condition where production
has just started and showing a stable trend using PI model. Once the PI has been established,
the model was then converted to Darcy model, at which negligible skin was input. The following
step was evaluating performance at several welltest points over the historical life of the well to
investigate on PI reduction and skin buildup. This evaluation also include sensitivity on gas lift to
substantiate the decrease in liquid production is due to near wellbore damage, and not lifting
issue. Once the skin at latest welltest data was obtained based on the production matching,
sensitivity on skin reduction was carried out, to represent production potential after the well is
stimulated. The base case on potential gain is assuming other parameters remain unchanged.
As per add perforation candidate workflow, sensitivities on the inflow and outflow parameters
were conducted to characterize the parameters that effect most in terms of production changes.
Reservoir pressure and water cut shows high range in terms of production difference compared
to other parameters.
9. Conceptual Job Program and Cost Estimation

Conceptual well intervention program was developed as a preparation prior to detailed job
design. This conceptual program helps to approximately estimate typical working days,
personnel and operational requirement that were then converted in terms of cost. This scope of
work was covered by Schlumberger Well Services Engineer.
10. Production Forecast
Reservoir engineer was involved in the production forecast. Gain estimation from static model in
Prosper was used as initial rate of production decline analysis. 13% of annual deferment was
included to predict on the annualized gain. The prediction includes both cases of production flow
to LP separator (gas constraint) and to HP separator (no constraint).
Wells that was sensitized to be flow under LP separator was included in Kinabalu “creaming
curve” evaluation. The purpose of “creaming curve” is to identify wells that breached the gas
ceilings, since the compressor limit is only 21 MMscf/d. In other words, this approach rank wells
from LP from the lowest to the highest total GOR (TGOR). If the 21 MMscf/d of total gas is
exceeded, well at the lowest rank (high TGOR, low oil rate) will be shut in to honor the flare
constraint. For that reason, once any of the candidates well are put on production, one or two
current active wells from LP separator need to be shut in so that the gas flaring limit is not
exceeded. The summary of the analysis and expected gain is demonstrated in Appendix 7.
11. Summary of Findings and Recommendation

A total of 9 strings were listed as the potential candidates for production enhancement
candidates. The opportunities include add perforation , water shut off ( in line with add
perforation), and matrix acidizing (acid stimulation). Findings and recommendation per well basis
is summarized as per below:
11. 1 KN 102L L2 – Acid Stimulation Candidate
Well is currently flowing with gas lift from L2 sand via long string. Latest welltest recorded was in
July 2008, with QL of 1958 blpd, WC of 76% and FGOR of 2820 scf/stb. The annotated
production is shown in Appendix 2.
Historical well production demonstrates dropped in liquid production from 3450 blpd to 1958 blpd,
within 2007 to 2008. Several peak fines production was spotted throughout 2007 to 2008, with
the highest point of 227 pptb in July 2008.
The potential opportunity for this well is to introduce acid stimulation treatment. Drop in
production is suspected due to fines migration. It is proposed to stimulate the well with clay acid
to control fines migration issue. Normal water production trend observed, hence no opportunity
for water shut off. The acid stimulation treatment will require OilSEEKER* as the diverter to
temporarily isolate the water zone, enabling stimulation only in oil zone.
Nodal analysis was conducted to estimate potential skin build up for this well. Assuming
production coming from the heel, average permeability of 65 mD and thickness of 160 ft was
used in the model, based on the input from open hole logs. Model was first matched at the
condition where the production is stable in 2007. A Skin of 9 was obtained from the analysis.
Model was then matched at latest welltest data recorded, and skin of 57 was obtained. To
sensitize on potential gain from acid stimulation job, sensitivity on skin reduction was carried out
assuming other inflow and outflow parameters remain constant, as shown in Appendix 6.
11. 2 KN 102S J7/8 – Acid Stimulation Candidate
High liquid production was recorded from KN102S J7/8. Historical production trend demonstrate
that water is needed to produce oil. Production from J7/8 was switched to J6 in 2008 due to high
water cut (85%). Comparison on well location with the neighboring wells shows that KN120S
J7/8 was located downdip, which is one of the reasons why the zone is producing high water. J6
produced water directly after zone change, possible indication of either communication behind
casing, or the layer itself has been watered out. Since no saturation log or cement bond log is
available to further evaluate, the conclusion made was only based on the production data and
water diagnostic plot.
Potential opportunity for this well is acid stimulation. Sudden dropped was observed in between
2006 to 2007, potentially due to near wellbore damage. Well was flowing naturally, and no
significant changes were observed from nodal analysis when gas lift injection rate was sensitized
on the outflow performance response. Estimated skin of 22 was obtained in order to match
welltest data in August 2007. Skin was then sensitized to simulate acid stimulation case,
assuming other inflow and outflow parameters remain the same. The base case analysis is
shown in Appendix 6.
11.3 KN 107L M3/4 – Acid Stimulation Candidate
Potential opportunity for this well is acid stimulation. Well is currently producing commingling
between M3/4 and L2/3/4. In between 2007 and 2008, well was bean up gradually however
decline in liquid production was observed. PLT result indicates that major contribution from the
commingled zone is coming from M3/4, with only 5% from L2/3/4. On top of that, several tubing
leaks were identified, suspected due to fines production. Leaking point was spotted at 7682 ft
(G2 blast joint), 8482 ft (J2/3 blast joint), and 11268 ft. An attempt was made to close SSD in
May 2008 on L2/3/4 zone but failed due to HUD at 8600 ft. Fines production was recorded from
the welltest monitoring data, with peaked spot reading of 182. pptb in June 2008. Water
diagnostic plot demonstrate the water is needed in order to produce oil, therefore water shut off
option is not proposed.
Nodal analysis was modeled based on prior-commingle region (2007). Appendix 6 summarized
on unrisked potential gains expected from acid stimulation job.
11.4 KN 108L – Add perforation (L2/3/4) and Water Shut Off (K6) Candidate
Long string production from KN108 was coming from M4 reservoir (2001 to 2006). Zone was
switched to J7/6 in May 2006 but closed in in Oct 2007 due to high watercut. Leak in F3 blast
joint was observed during recent MPLT survey. Diagnosis on water production trend indicates
that this well is relatively high water producer in M4 reservoir (Quadrant 2 in the HI Plot). Since
there is no shale isolation within this zone, selective water shut off is considered not possible.
Review on open hole logs shown un-perforated oil zone in K2/3/4 and L2/3/4. Saturation logging
was done in February 2008. The survey concludes that K2/3/4 has gassed out, and oil bearing
zone remain in L2/3/4. Existing M4 zone has watered out, but oil still remain in K6, yet there is a
risk of water coming from the bottom K7 zone (water zone) since no shale boundary between
these two units.
The potential opportunity for this well is to test open K6 and add perforation in L2/3/4. Last
welltest recorded from K6 (SS) was in March 2002, with QL = 365 blpd, WC = 60% and FGOR of
approximately 700 scf/stb. In order to do through tubing perforation in L2/3/4, M4 has to be
sacrifice (bottom zone) and K6 may also need to be squeeze off, depending on the economics.
Nodal analysis was conducted, assuming production from only L2/3/4, and production commingle
with K6. The analysis process was mentioned in section 9. Estimated oil gain from non-
commingle case is 660 bopd (LP mode) or 645 (HP mode). Estimated gain from commingle case
is 560 (LP mode) and 620 bopd (HP mode). Summary of initial gain is demonstrated in Appendix
9 and Appendix 10.
11.5 KN 109L K3 – Acid Stimulation Candidate
Potential opportunity for KN109L K3 is to do acid stimulation. Tracers of very fine sand were
recorded from welltest daily monitoring. Peaked reading spotted was in July (56 pptb) and
August (47 pptb) 2008. No significant dropped was observed from the production trend; however
by proposing clay acid to the well, fines migration may also be controlled. A long, clean un-
perforated K2 zone was identified, potential opportunity of add perforation at heel once K3 has
been depleted.
Nodal analysis was conducted to estimate on possible skin build up for the well. Skin of 19.7 was
obtained in order to match current liquid production of 1197 blpd, with WC = 63% and FGOR of
1666 scf/stb. Well is flowing with gas lift, with current gas lift injection rate of 0.8 MMscf/d.
Assuming skin is reduced to 10, the expected oil gain is 200 bopd (Appendix 6). Analysis on
lifting performance indicates that by increasing the gas lift injection rate from 0.8 MMscf/d to 2
MMscf/d, liquid production can be increased to 1344 blpd.
11.6 KN 110L L2 – Acid Stimulation Candidate
KN110L L2 was only come into production within a year (1998). Well was closed in due to high
GOR with no water production recorded. Only several data points are available, hence trending
in production could hardly be distinguished. Production from long string was coming from K3/4
zone, which was closed in March 2008 for zero flaring concern. Bad water production trend
observed from K3/4. Zone was selectively perforated yet selective water shut off is not suggested
since no shale isolation observed between K3 and K4, plus unknown water entry, either from K3
or K3, or from both zone.
Open hole logs shows unperforated oil bearing zone in J7/8. Comparison on neighboring wells
performance was made, and there is risk of producing water if this zone is perforated since the
offset wells which are perforated at similar depth has watered out. Consequently, bottom zone
has to be sacrificed in order to perforate through tubing in J7/8 zone.
Potential opportunity for this well is acid stimulation in L2. Zone was only producing for a short
period of time, it is possible to open test this zone and assess the potential performance from L2.
Nodal model was matched based on the available test point data. High skin of 86 was obtained
in order to matched the last welltest data recorded. Sensitivity on skin reduction was done to
simulate on potential gain by acid stimulation. The sensitivity is assuming reservoir pressure at
current status (2008), since depletion in pressure was observed from the static gradient survey
plot for K2.
11.7 KN 114S – Add Perforation (J5.1) and Water Shut Off (J6/7) Candidate
The potential opportunity for KN114S is to add perforation in J5.1 and water shut off in J7/8.
Analysis from the water diagnostic plot indicates bad water production from J6/7, since water
was dominating the flow causing oil to be left behind. Recent saturation logging (January 2008)
indicate that J6 zone has been watered out. No leak was detected in the tubing according to the
PLT survey run in February 2008.
Observation from the interpreted open hole logs shows there is unperforated oil zone in J5 and
J5.1 sand. High permeability streak was observed from J5.1 sand, compared to J6/7 sand
quality. Incorporating the results from saturation logging, the findings indicate that J5 is gas zone,
and J5.1 still consists of oil. There is a risk of water has moved up from bottom J5.1. To add
perforation in J5.1, bottom L2 has to be sacrificed, and so do J6/7.
Nodal analysis was carried out assuming two cases; non-commingle and commingle (with J6/7),
where each case consider well is flowing both in LP and HP separator. Expected initial gain and
is summarized in Appendix 9 and Appendix 10.
11.8 KN 115S K2 – Acid Stimulation Candidate
Production from short string was only coming from K2 zone. Intermittent production was
observed based on the production trend from early 2000 to 2004. No record was found from the
well history to explain on the changes of production behavior. Well was tested to flow between
2005 and 2006, and low liquid production was recorded, average of 100 blpd, with high watercut
of 90%.
Potential opportunity for this well is acid stimulation, subject to the zone performance once K2 is
open to produce. Nodal model was matched at last welltest point recorded, prior to well shut in
(2004). Skin of 9 was obtained to match liquid production of 1870 blpd, watercut of 70%, and
GOR of 2300 scf/stb. Sensitivity on gas lift was also carried out, indicating that well will benefit
some oil gain if gas lift is being introduced.
11.9 KN 116L – Add Perforation (L2) and Water Shut Off (L3/4) Candidate
Production from long string is coming from B4 sand. Since this zone has just been open to
produce, trending on water production could not be clearly analyzed. Analysis on the idle zones
signifies watered out zone in M3/4, L3/4, and J3. Production logging done in February 2008
found leak in blast joint at J3 zone, a possible sign of fines production through this zone. Last
welltest recorded from J3 indicate 99% watercut, hence to introduce clay acid treatment will
involve risk of stimulating only water.
The potential opportunity for this well is to shut off L3/4 zone and add perforation in L2 zone. L3
and L4 sand were selectively perforated, possible selective water shut off treatment. However,
unknown water entry remain unknown, whether it was coming from both L3 and L4, or from
either layer, and for this reason selective water shut off opportunity is not included. Attempt was
made to run RPM in early 2008 but the work plan had to be suspended due to operational issue.
It is recommended to run saturation logging survey to confirm the remaining oil bearing zone L2
prior to running the through tubing perforation. The opportunity will require bottom zone, M3/4 to
be sacrificed.
Nodal analysis was carried out assuming two cases; non-commingle and commingle (with J6/7),
where each case consider well is flowing both in LP and HP separator. Expected initial gain is
summarized in Appendix 9 and Appendix 10.
Appendix 1: Sensitivity on Inflow and Outflow Parameters
KN 102L K2 Acid Stimulation Candidate
1800
Reservoir Pressure
1600 Permeability
Skin
1400 WaterCut
FGOR
1200
Oil rate (bopd)
1000
800
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

600
400
200
0
% change in parameter
KN 102S J78 Acid Stimulation Candidate
500
Reservoir Pressure
450 Permeability
Skin
400
WaterCut
FGOR
350
Oil rate (bopd)
300
250
200
150
100
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
50
0
KN 107L M34 Acid Stimulation Candidate
1200
Reservoir Pressure
Permeability
1000 Skin
WaterCut
FGOR
800
Oil rate (bopd)
600
400
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
200
0
KN 108L L234 Add Perforation Candidate
2000
Reservoir Pressure
Permeability 1800
Skin
WaterCut 1600
FGOR
1400
Oil rate (bopd)
1200
-40% -30% -20% -10% 1000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
800
600
400
200
0
1200
1000
800
Oil rate (bopd)
600
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
400
Reservoir Pressure
Permeability
200 Skin
WaterCut
FGOR
0
KN 110L L2 Acid Stimulation Candidate
1800
Reservoir Pressure
Permeability 1600
Skin
WaterCut
1400
FGOR
1200
Oil rate (bopd)
1000
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

800
600
400
200
0
KN 114 J5 Add Perforation Candidate
3600
Reservoir Pressure
Permeability 3200
Skin
WaterCut 2800
FGOR
2400
Oil rate (bopd)
-40% -30% -20% -10% 2000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1600
1200
800
400
0
2000
Reservoir Pressure
1800 Permeability
Skin
1600 WaterCut
FGOR
1400
Oil rate (bopd)
1200
1000
800
-40% -30% -20% -10% 600 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
400
200
0
KN 116L L2 Add Perforation Candidate
1400
Reservoir Pressure
Permeability
Skin 1200
WaterCut
FGOR
1000
Oil rate (bopd)
800
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

600
400
200
0
Appendix 2 : Historical Production Plot
Producing Day Liquid ( bbl/d )
Producing Day Oil ( bbl/d )
Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d )

Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d ) KN-102S
4000 3000
KN 102S Historical Production Plot
3200 2400
2400 1800
1600 1200
800 600
0 0
1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d ) KN-102S
Date CHOKEKN-102S
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d )
1500 100
1200 80
CHOKE
900 60
600 40
300 20
0 0
1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Date
7500 100
GORKN-102S
Water Cut ( % )
6000 Water Cut ( % ) KN-102S 80

4500 60
GOR
3000 40
1500 20
0 0
1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
K2 Date J7/8 J6
KN 102S Historical Production Plot

Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d ) KN-107L
3000 15000
2400 12000
1800 9000
1200 6000
600 3000
0 0
2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d ) KN-107L
Date
CHOKE KN-107L
500 75
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d )
400 60
CHOKE
300 45
200 30
100 15
0 0
2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
GOR KN-107L Date

15000 Water Cut ( % ) KN-107L 100
Water Cut ( % )
12000 80
9000 60
GOR
6000 40
3000 20
0 0
2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Date
M3 O5 L2/3/4 M3/4
KN 107L Historical Production Plot


4000 5000
3200 4000
2400 3000
1600 2000
800 1000
0 0
2001 02 03 04 05 06 07
Date
CHOKE KN-108L
500 60
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d )
400 50
CHOKE
300 40
200 30
100 20
0 10
2001 02 03 04 05 06 07
GOR KN-108L Date

15000 Water Cut ( % ) KN-108L 100
Water Cut ( % )
12000 75
9000 50
GOR
6000 25
3000 0
0 -25
2001 02 03 04 05 06 07
Date
M4 J7/8

10000 20000
8000 16000
6000 12000
4000 8000
2000 4000
0 0
1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Date
CHOKE KN-109L
1000 120
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d )
800 100
CHOKE
600 80
400 60
200 40
0 20
1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
GOR KN-109L Date

7500 Water Cut ( % ) KN-109L 100
Water Cut ( % )
6000 80
4500 60
GOR
3000 40
1500 20
0 0
1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
K2 Date K3


6000 6000
4500 4500
3000 3000
1500 1500
0 0
1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Date
CHOKE KN-110L
500 100
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d )
400 80
CHOKE
300
60
200
100 40
0 20
1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
GOR KN-110L Date

5000 Water Cut ( % ) KN-110L 100
Water Cut ( % )
4000 80
3000 60
GOR
2000 40
1000 20
0 0
1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
L2 Date
K3/4

7500 20000
6000 16000
4500 12000
3000 8000
1500 4000
0 0
1997 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Date
CHOKE KN-114L
2500 150
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d )
2000 120
CHOKE
1500 90
1000 60
500 30
0 0
1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Date
3000 100
GOR KN-114L
Water Cut ( % )
2400 Water Cut ( % ) KN-114L 80
1800 60
GOR
1200 40
600 20
0 0
1997 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Date
K2 L2


Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d ) KN-115S
3750 10000
3000 8000
2250 6000
1500 4000
750 2000
0 0
1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d ) KN-115S
Date
CHOKE KN-115S
500 100
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d )
400 80
CHOKE
300 60
200 40
100 20
0 0
1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06
GOR KN-115S Date

10000 Water Cut ( % ) KN-115S 100
Water Cut ( % )
8000 80
6000 60
GOR
4000 40
2000 20
0 0
1999 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06
Date
KN 115S K2 Historical Production Plot


3750 12500
3000 10000
2250 7500
1500 5000
750 2500
0 0
2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Date
CHOKE KN-116L
500 60
LIFT_GAS ( Mcf/d )
400 50
CHOKE
300 40
200 30
100 20
0 10
2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Date
3000 100
GOR KN-116L
Water Cut ( % )
2400 Water Cut ( % ) KN-116L 80
1800 60
GOR
1200 40
600 20
0 0
2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
M3/4 Date L3/4 J3 B4
KN116L Historical Production Plot
Appendix 3 : Heterogeneity Index Plot
0
Het Indexed – W ater Rate
Low Oil High Oil

High Water High Water
Possibility: Bad water Edge water
0
Low Oil High Oil

Low Water Low Water
Possibility : Low PI Edge water
Het Indexed – Oil Rate

Guide to Heterogeneity Index Plot
D ate:2008/04
20
High O il,High W ater

KN-114L:MAINK 23
Low O il, High W ater
Low O il, Low W ater
High O il, Low W ater
10
K N-111S :MAINK 21
K N-114L:MAINK KN-115L:MAINK
22 21
HI Water
K N-109L:MAINK22
K N-102L:MAINK26
KN-109L:MAINK 23
KN-106L:MAINK 23
-10
K N-102S :MAINK 21
K N-115S:MAINK21
-20
-30
-15 0 15 30 45
HI O il
Heterogeneity Index Plot for Wells in K2 Reservoir

Date:2008/04
20
High Oil, High Water

KN-114L:MAINL22 Low Oil, High Water
Low Oil, Low Water
High Oil, Low Water
0 KN-102L:MAINL23
KN-110L:MAINL22
KN-118N:MAINL22
KN-111L:MAINL12
KN-111L:MAINL22
KN-102L:MAINL12
KN-107L:MAINL23
KN-113L:MAINL22
KN-118N:MAINL2.21
KN-115L:MAINL22
KN-105N:MAINL22
-20
HI Water
-40
-60 KN-111S:MAINL22
KN-105L:MAINL25
KN-111S:MAINL12
-80
-100 -50 0 50 100 150
HI Oil
Heterogeneity Index Plot for Wells in L1/2 Reservoir

Date:2008/04
10
KN-102S:MAINJ7/85
KN-109S:MAINJ7/81
5
0
HI Water
KN-108L:MAINJ7/83
-5
KN-114S:MAINJ6/71
-10
KN-120S:MAINJ7/85
-15
-12 -6 0 6 12
HI Oil
Heterogeneity Index for Wells in J6/7/8
Appendix 4 : Water Control Diagnostic Plot
KN-102S:MAINJ7/85 KN-102S:MAINJ7/85
2
10 10000
KN-102S:MAINJ7/85
1
Water Oil Ratio 5000
10 WOR Derivative
0
10
1000
-1
10 500
-2
10
-3
100
10
50
-4
10
Producing Day Water ( bbl/d )
-5
10 10
10 50 100 500 1000 10 50 100 500 1000 500010000
Cumulative Oil Produced ( Mbbl ) Cumulative Production Days
KN102S Diagnostic Plots

KN-102L:MAINK26 KN-102L:MAINK26
5 1
10 10
KN-102L:MAINK26
4 0
10 10 Water Oil Ratio
WOR Derivative
3 -1
10 10
2 -2
10 10
1 -3
10 10
0 -4
10 10
-1 -5
10 10
-2 -6
10 10
-3 -7
10 Producing Day Water ( bbl/d ) 10
-4 -8
10 10
10 50 100 500 1000 500010000 10 50 100 500 1000 500010000
Cumulative Production Days Cumulative Oil Produced ( Mbbl )
KN102L Diagnostic Plots
KN-107L:MAINM3/44 KN-107L:MAINM3/44
2 5
10 10
KN-107L:MAINM3/44 Producing Day Oil ( bbl/d )
Water Oil Ratio Producing Day Water ( bbl/d )
1
10 WOR Derivative Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d )
4
0 10
10
-1
10
3
10
-2
10
-3
10 2
10
-4
10
-5 1
10 10
10 50 100 500 1000 500010000 10 50 100 500 1000 500010000
KN 107L M3/4 Diagnostics Plot

KN-108L:MAINJ7/83 KN-108L:MAINJ7/83
10000 100
Producing Day Oil ( bbl/d ) KN-108L:MAINJ7/83
5000 Producing Day Water ( bbl/d ) Water Oil Ratio
WOR Derivative
10
1000
1
500
0.1
100
50
0.01
10 0.001
10 50 100 500 1000 10 50 100
KN108L J7/8 Diagnostic Plots
KN-108L:MAINM45 KN-108L:MAINM45
2
10000 10
Producing Day Oil ( bbl/d ) KN-108L:MAINM45
Producing Day Water ( bbl/d ) 1 Water Oil Ratio
10 WOR Derivative
1000
0
10
-1
10
100
-2
10
10 -3
10
-4
10
1
-5
10
-6
0.1 10
1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000
KN108L M3/4 Diagnostic Plots

KN-109L:MAINK32 KN-109L:MAINK32
1
10000 10
Producing Day Oil ( bbl/d ) KN-109L:MAINK32
Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d ) WOR Derivative
0
10
1000
-1
10
500
-2
10
100
50 -3
10
-4
10 10
10 50 100 500 1000 10 50 100 500 1000
KN-114L:MAINL22 KN-114L:MAINL22
2
10000 10
Producing Day Oil ( bbl/d ) KN-114L:MAINL22
1 WOR Derivative
Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d ) 10
0
1000 10
500
-1
10
-2
100 10
50
-3
10
-4
10 10
10 50 100 500 1000 1 5 10 50 100 500 1000

KN-114S:MAINJ6/71 KN-114S:MAINJ6/71
2
10000 10
Producing Day Oil ( bbl/d ) KN-114S:MAINJ6/71
1 WOR Derivative
Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d ) 10
0
1000 10
500
-1
10
-2
100 10
50
-3
10
-4
10 10
10 50 100 500 1000 10 50 100 500 1000
KN-115S:MAINK21 KN-115S:MAINK21
1
10000 10
KN-115S:MAINK21
0
Water Oil Ratio
10 WOR Derivative
1000 Producing Day Water ( bbl/d ) -1
10
-2
10
100
-3
10
-4
10
10
-5
10
-6
1 10
10 50 100 500 1000 10 50 100 500 1000 500010000

KN-116L:MAINM3/45 KN-116L:MAINM3/45
1 5
10 10
KN-116L:MAINM3/45
Water Oil Ratio
WOR Derivative
0 4
10 10
-1 3
10 10
-2 2
10 10
-3 1
10 10 Producing Day Oil ( bbl/d )
-4 0
10 10
10 50 100 500 1000 10 50 100 500 1000
KN116L M3/4 Diagnostic Plots
KN-116L:MAINL3/44 KN-116L:MAINL3/44
100 1000
KN-116L:MAINL3/44
Water Oil Ratio
WOR Derivative 500
10
1 100
50
0.1
0.01 10
1 5 10 50 100 10 50 100 500 1000
KN116L L3/4 Diagnostic Plots

Appendix 5 : Add Perforation Candidates – Well Location
KN-115L (Mar 2008)

Qo = 320 stb/d
GOR = 874 scf/stb
WC = 63%
Np = 0.53 MMstb
KN 115S2
KN 108
KN 114S2
KN-114S2 (Dec 2007)
KN 113S2 Closed in
Qo = 200 stb/d
GOR = 789 scf/stb
KN-113 (Jan 2001) WC = 92%
Closed in Np = 0.18 MMstb
KN 108L Add Perforation – Offset Wells Location
Qo = 366 stb/d
GOR = 3687 scf/stb
WC = 0%
Np = 2.38 MMstb
KN 108L Add Perforation Candidate – Offset Wells Location (L sand)
KN-108 (June 2008)

KN-102 (May 2008) Flowing
Closed in Qo = 419 stb/d
Qo = 46 stb/d GOR = 2236 scf/stb
GOR = 3750 scf/stb KN108 WC = 81%
WC = 98% Np = 0.16 MMstb
Np = 0.006MMstb KN102S2
KN114S2
KN-113 (Mar 2007)
Closed in KN113S2
Qo = 117 stb/d KN110S2
GOR = 975 scf/stb
WC = 81% KN-110 (Mar 2007)
Np = 0.52 MMstb Closed in
Qo = 105 stb/d
KN105S2 GOR = 19043 scf/stb
WC = 4.27%
Np = 0.05 MMstb
KN 114L/S Add Perforation Candidate – Offset Wells Location (J5)

KN-115L (Mar 2008)
Qo = 320 stb/d
GOR = 874 scf/stb
WC = 63% KN118S1
KN116
Np = 0.53 MMstb
KN115S2 KN-118 (Mar 2008)
KN108 Qo = 524 stb/d
GOR = 3852 scf/stb
WC = 63%
Np = 6.9 MMstb
KN113S2
KN110S2
KN-113 (Jan 2001)
Closed in
Qo = 366 stb/d
GOR = 3687 scf/stb
WC = 0%
Np = 2.38 MMstb
KN116L Add Perforation Candidate – Offset Wells Location (L sand)
Appendix 6 : Nodal Analysis
1125
722 blpd
352
blpd
blpd Gradient Match
MMSM Correlation
Skin Skin Skin

22 10 5
KN 102S J7/8 – Sensitivity to Skin Value

2678 blpd 3630 blpd
1955 blpd 3085 blpd
S= 10
S= 57 S= 30 S= 20
KN 102L K2 – Sensitivity to Skin Value
2050
blpd
Skin
1272 1670 0
blpd
blpd
Skin
5
Skin
12
KN 107L M3/4 – Sensitivity to Skin Value

1408 blpd 1732 blpd
1194 blpd
S= 10
S= 15
S= 19.7
KN 109L K3 – Sensitivity to Skin Value
KN 110L K2 – Sensitivity to Skin Value and Reservoir Pressure

2835
2325 blpd
blpd
Skin
1
1869
blpd Skin
5
Skin
9
KN 115S K2 – Sensitivity to Skin Value
KN 108L New Perf – Sensitivity to FTHP


Appendix 7 : Kinabalu Creaming Curve
KN 108L L2/3/4 - GOR Creaming Curve Closed in KN102L

Qo = 512 bopd
Qg = 2349 Mscf/d
10000
Add Perf KN108L
Nett oil = 8752 - 7520 - 512 = 720 bopd
9000 Gas reduction = 22.06 - 20.55 - 2.35 = 0.84 Mscf/d
8000 Add Perf KN108L (commingle)

Nett oil = 8643 - 7520 - 512 = 611 bopd
Gas reduction = 21.87 - 20.55 - 2.35 = 1.03 Mscf/d
7000
Oil rate, bbl/day
6000
5000
4000
Current Status
3000
After KN 108L Add Perf
2000
Compressor Limit
1000 After KN108L Add Perf (Commingle)
0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00
Gas rate, MMscf/day
KN 108L L2/3/4 GOR Creaming Curve Evaluation
Add Per KN114L

KN 114L J5 GOR Creaming Curve Closed in KN102L
Qo = 512 bopd
Add Perf KN114L Qg = 2349 Mscf/d
10000 Nett oil = 9874 - 7520 - 512 = 1842 bopd
Gas reduction = 22.07 - 20.55 - 2.35 = 0.83 Mscf/d
9000
Add Perf KN114L (commingle)
Nett oil =9308 - 7520 - 512 - 520 = 756 bopd
8000 Gas reduction = 23.77 - 20.55 - 2.35 - 1.83 = 0.96 Mscf/d Add Per KN114L
(Commingle)
7000 Closed in KN102L
Qo = 512 bopd
Oil rate, bbl/day
6000 Qg = 2349 Mscf/d

and
Closed in KN115L
5000 Qo =520 bopd
Qg = 1828 Mscf/d
4000
Current Status
3000
Compressor Limit
2000
After KN114 Add Perf
1000
After KN114 Add Perf (Commingle)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Gas rate, MMscf/day
KN 114L J5 GOR Creaming Curve Evaluation

KN 116L L2 GOR Creaming Curve
Single Zone Case
Closed in KN102L
10000 Add Perf KN116L Qo = 512 bopd
Nett oil = 8354 - 7520 - 512 = 322 bopd Qg = 2349 Mscf/d
Gas reduction = 21.81 - 20.55 - 2.35 = 1.09
9000
Mscf/d
8000 Add Perf KN116L (commingle)

Nett oil =7869 - 7520 - 351 = -2 bopd
Commingle Zone Case
Closed in KN116L B4
Oil rate, bbl/day
6000 Qo = 351 bopd

Qg = 929 Mscf/d
5000
4000
Current Status
3000
Compressor Limit
2000
After KN116 Add Perf
1000 After KN116L Add Perf (Commingle)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Gas rate, MMscf/day
KN 116L L2 GOR Creaming Curve Evaluation
KN GOR Creaming Curve

Acid Stim KN102S
Nett oil = 7643 - 7520 - (before stimulation oil) = 65 bopd
14000 Gas increment = 20.69 - 20.55 = 0.14 Mscf/d
Acid Stim KN102L

12000 Nett oil = 7814 - 7520 = 294 bopd Acid Stim
Gas increment = 21.4 - 20.55 = 0.85 Mscf/d KN115S
Closed in KN102L
If closed in KN116L (lowest oil) Qo = 512 bopd
10000
Nett oil = 7814 - 7520 - 351 = -57 bopd Qg = 2349 Mscf/d
Gas reduction = 21.4 -20.55 - 0.93 = 0.08 MMscf/d
Oil rate, bbl/day
8000 Acid Stim KN115S

Nett oil =8281 - 7520 - 512 - (before stimulation oil) = -360
bopd
Current Status
4000
Compressor Limit
After KN102S Acid Stimulation
2000
After KN115S Acid Stimulation
After KN102L Acid Stimulation
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Gas rate, MMscf/day
GOR Creaming Curve for Acid Stimulation Candidates from LP Mode

Appendix 8 : Summary of Acid Stimulation Analysis
Current Predicted post-stimulation

Well String Layer Date FGOR (scf/stb) WC (%) Matched QL (blpd) Qo (bopd) Skin QL (blpd) Qo (bopd) Skin Est. Gain (bopd)
KN102 SS J7/8 9-Aug-07 1137 85 350 53 22 750 113 10 60
KN102 LS K2 Jul-08 2820 76 1958 470 57 3110 746 20 276
KN107 LS M3/4 18-Nov-07 8000 78 1270 265 12 1670 367 5 100
KN109 LS K3 14-Jun-08 1666 63 1190 440 18 1732 640 10 200
KN110 LS L2 1-Dec-99 1043 0 415 415 86 935 935 20 520
KN115 SS K2 9-Dec-04 2300 70 1870 560 9 2325 698 5 140
Appendix 9 : Summary of Add Perforation Analysis – Constraint Case (LP Mode)
New layer Produce from New Zone Commingle with Existing Zone
LP mode (THP =6barg) LP mode (THP =6barg)
FGOR Qgi QL Qo FGOR Qgi QL Qo
Well String Existing layer Interval (mdft) Interval (tvdft) h (ft) k (mD) WC (%) (scf/stb) (MMscf/d) (blpd) (bopd) WC (%) (scf/stb) (MMscf/d) (blpd) (bopd)
9590 to 9620 8400 to 8430
9650 to 9710 8450 to 8490
KN 108 LS K6 L2/3/4 9750 to 9780 8520 to 8540 90 20 0 1200 0 1130 1130 34 1150 0 1560 1030
KN 116 LS L3/4 L2 10710 to 10770 8440 to 8500 60 20 0 1500 0 765 765 79 1780 0 1575 320
KN 114 SS/LS J6/7 J5 7870 to 7900 7140 to 7160 20 100 0 640 0 2160 2160 69 1776 0 5220 1640
Appendix 10 : Summary of Add Perforation Analysis – No Constraint Case (HP mode)
New layer Produce from New Zone Commingle with Existing Zone
HP mode (THP = 26 barg) HP mode (THP =26barg)
Interval Interval FGOR Qgi QL Qo FGOR Qgi QL Qo
Well String Existing layer (mdft) (tvdft) h (ft) k (mD) WC (%) (scf/stb) (MMscf/d) (blpd) (bopd) WC (%) (scf/stb) (MMscf/d) (blpd) (bopd)
9590 to 9620 8400 to 8430
9650 to 9710 8450 to 8490
KN 108 LS K6 L2/3/4 9750 to 9780 8520 to 8540 90 20 0 1200 0 646 646 34 1755 0 1018 620
KN 116 LS L3/4 L2 10710 to 10770 8440 to 8500 60 20 0 2000 0 537 537 79 4070 0 1594 328
KN 114 SS/LS J6/7 J5 7870 to 7900 7140 to 7160 20 100 0 640 0 1426 1426 69 1776 0 4096 1295
Appendix 11: Production Forecast Summary – Acid Stimulation Candidates
Initial
Annualized Gain Reserve within PSC
Well Reservoir Gain
(bopd) (MMstb)
(bopd)
KN102 K2 270 270 0.25
KN102 J7/8 100 90 0.06
KN107 M3/4 100 120 0.13
KN109 K2 200 120 0.08
KN110 L2 330 170 0.08
KN115 K2 0 0 0
Appendix 12 : Production Forecast Summary – Add Perforation Candidates
KN 108 L2/3/4
Initial Gain Annualized Gain Reserve within PSC
Case Separator Mode
(bopd) (bopd) (MMstb)
No commingle LP 660 250 0.09
Commingle LP 560 200 0.07
No commingle HP 645 350 0.17
Commingle HP 620 340 0.16
KN 114 J5
Case Separator Mode
Commingle LP 1170 660 0.32
Commingle HP 1295 800 0.51
KN 116L J5
Case Separator Mode
Commingle LP 0 0 0
Commingle HP 330 0.19 0.09
Appendix 13 : Simplified Workflow for Water/Gas Shutoff Candidate Screening
Data Acquisition
OFM Analysis
FIELD LEVEL ASSESSMENT
-Grid Map
- Cross Hair Scatter
Remaining Plots
Reserve etc.
Estimation
Field/Reservoir Reservoir Fluid

Performance Flow
Well Production Water Inflow &
Performance Mechanism
WELL LEVEL ASSESSMENT
Logs Review
Potential
Production
Evaluation
Nodal Analysis
Well Mechanical
Condition Review
Good NO
Dropped
Candidate?
YES
Solution,
Identification,
Design
Execution
Evaluation
References
SPE 54357: Water/Gas Shut Off Candidate Selection
SPE 30775: Water Control Diagnostics Plot

KN Estudios Production

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

KN Estudios Production

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Prepared by: Nur Asyikin Ahmad KINABALU Ref.

Verified by: Michael Gee Production Enhancement Project Rev. 3

Kinabalu Production Optimization Study

Table 1 : Summary of Production Enhancement Candidates ………………………………………. 4

Figure 1 : Log log plot of WOR versus time .................................................................................. 10

Table 1 : Summary of Production Enhancement Candidates

The Kinabalu field is located 55 km West-North-West of Labuan, in block SB1, 28 km SouthWest

b. Screen additional WGSO opportunities

c. Screen candidates for other through tubing production optimization opportunities

1. Familiarization of Kinabalu field

2. Perform data gathering

4. Conduct detailed well performance review and analysis

c. Develop conceptual job program for each recommended opportunity

e. Perform production forecast for production sustainability

f. Perform simple economics calculation for opportunity feasibility

5. Data Gathering and Validation

5. Open Hole Logs

6. Cased hole logs

7. Well Completion Diagrams

Well schematic was updated to the current status.

6.1 Water/Gas Shut Off Work Process

6.1.1 Well and Reservoir Information review

6.1.2 Scatter Plot Analysis

Scatter plots can be divided into 4 major groups:

Oil H.I. = Oil rate for well – 1

Average oil rate*

6.1.3 Water Control Diagnostic Plot

Production history plot

Water Oil Ratio (WOR) Plot vs. Cumulative Oil Production

Figure 3 : Log-log plot of WOR and WOR’ for coning case

Table 2 : List of dropped candidates from initial screening

K2 Test open K2 and assess potential No isolation in the interest zone.

6.2 Add Perforation and Matrix Acidizing Screening Method

9. Conceptual Job Program and Cost Estimation

11. Summary of Findings and Recommendation

11. 2 KN 102S J7/8 – Acid Stimulation Candidate

11.3 KN 107L M3/4 – Acid Stimulation Candidate

11.5 KN 109L K3 – Acid Stimulation Candidate

11.6 KN 110L L2 – Acid Stimulation Candidate

11.8 KN 115S K2 – Acid Stimulation Candidate

KN 102L K2 Acid Stimulation Candidate

-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

KN 102S J78 Acid Stimulation Candidate

-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

-40% -30% -20% -10% 1000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

-40% -30% -20% -10% 2000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

-40% -30% -20% -10% 600 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d )

6000 Water Cut ( % ) KN-102S 80

Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d )

GOR KN-107L Date

Producing Day Liquid ( bbl/d )

Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d )

GOR KN-108L Date

Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d )

GOR KN-109L Date

Producing Day Liquid ( bbl/d )

Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d )

GOR KN-110L Date

Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d )

Producing Day Liquid ( bbl/d )

Producing Day Gas ( Mcf/d )