Q#1: Attempt a match by halving the aquifer permeability, and use the program to determine the best matched

OGIP.

The best matched OGIP 60.19Bscf

ther attempt to quantify the possible OGIP, try using other aquifer models: Fetko rter-Tracey, for the base case parameters presented. Carter-Tracey:

46.82Bscf

Fetkovich semi steady state

Question: OGIP in red color is changeable, The rest of them can not change Cause these data are fundamental data from core and logging. Am I right?

Are these aquifer data changeable in order to match history data? If changeable, is the outer/inner radius ratio the most important, because I find this parameter is more sensitivity to the simulation result.

atched very well, but the basic data changed, tank porosity: 0.07, The input basic data P51.7Bcf, far away from the data required in the title.

or match, but the basic data did not change, GIP=65.08bcf(close to the data requ he title).

Permeabilit y change from 1200md to 600md, the rest of them are the same

May 10, 2013

Carter- tracey radius 40

Carter- tracey radius 48.8

GIIP = 57.7 Bcf

GIIP = 61.7 Bcf

GIIP = 65.1 Bcf

Halving the permeability

New one since May 13 after discussion with leo

57.7

58.5609, 63452.9

Having permeability ( 1200-600md)

Havin the b ShutAssoc Gas p Also, The b 1100 There Right

Fetkovich (65.1)

63.0952, 31794.7

Gas in place

Aquifer volume

Reservoir width, reasonable

Reservoir thickness

Aquifer permeability, not very well

Fetkovich (61.7) 63.1309, 31794.7

As a further attempt to quantify the possible OGIP, try using other aquifer models: Fetkovich and Carter-Tracey, for the base case parameters presented. What are your conclusions? ccording the two matching process of Fetkovich Semi Steady State Linear, In this case, how reasonable is it to use the Fetkovich formulation? he acquifer permeability is more sensitive than other parameters. orover, from the sensitivity analysis, deviation for other parameters are big which means that this parameters are not so accurate or this model is not Well for this kind of aquifer.

aquifer volume is 178.424Bft3 and the total pore volume is only 0.528Bfts, comparison of aquifer and total pore volume of reservoir, the property of aquifer ervoir seems to infinite, this is the reason that fetkovich can not be used in this k ifer, and moreover result in the parameters in big deviation in probability distribu

Carter-Tracey(48.8)

46.6058

Aquifer permeability, not best one

Gas in place, not best one

Reservoir radius, best one

Reservoir thickness, best one

Carter-Tracey(40.0)

46.6138, 35511.9

Aquifer permeability, not the best one

Gas in place, not the best data

Reservoir radius, reasonable

Encroachment angle, reasonable

Reservoir thickness, reasonable

In addition to matching pressures (using the given production history), how well are you matching the contact rise? Assume various residual gas saturations and comment on the results.

ferent residual gas saturations in reservoir will definitely affect the depth of GWC cause production is determined by the history data, higher Sgr in reservoir result re volume swept by water, and lead to higher GWC.

GWC is 1184m ss in 1998-03, and 1165m ss 2000-11. e Fetkovich semi steady state linear model, GWC can match 1184mss very well w dual gas saturation is between 0.50 and 0.55, but it can not match the real GWC 0. e redial model has the similar result, it can match 1184mss very well while residu on is around 0.5, but it can not match the real GWC of Nov., 2000 very well even

e Carter-tracey radial model, it can match 1184mss very well while the residual g d 0.4, and match 1165mss while the residual gas is approximately 0.5.

, all the parameters in above table are assumed with 100% water sweep efficien , 100% water sweep efficiency can not true.

Could you also vary the volumetric sweep efficiency and obtain similar results? Try out this option and comment on results obtained.

sweep efficiency will change the water influx volume in reservoir under the sam ction and also the GWC. water sweep efficiency will need more water influx volume in reservoir in order the historical production data than higher water sweep assumed that Sgr is dete

use the Fetkovich model does not fit for this specific case due to the infinite aqui g stength, the dake model is the only model can be considered in this case. ollowing is to figure out the water sweep efficiency in order to match the historic very well.

he water sweep efficincy is 80%, the depth of GWCs in all the model are lower he ones while WSE is 100%. he Fetkovich semi steady state linear model, GWC can match 1184mss very well sidual gas saturation is approximately 0.45, but it can not match the real GWC of 000 very well even the Sgr is 0.55. he Dake radial model, GWC can match 1184mss very well while sidual gas saturation is 0.45-0.40, and it can also match the real GWC of 000 while Sgr is 0.50-0.55.

he Carter-Tracey model, GWC can match 1184mss very well while sidual gas saturation is 0.25-0.35, and it can also match the real GWC of 000 while Sgr is 0.40-0.45. However, residual gas saturation is approximately 0 0% water sweep efficiency is not logical in real field data. Therefore, this model c ery well.