Well

Well Number
Engineer
Date
Economic Data
Frac Fluid Unit Cost
Proppant Unit Cost
Fixed Equipment Cost
Workover Cost
Unit Revenue for Production Oil/Gas
Revenue Escalation Rate
Discount Rate
Time Period
Frac Costs

Base
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario

Frac
Size
(Tonnes)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

Fluid
Volume
(m)
0

Frac Prop
Cost
()
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

USER GRAPH

12.00

NPV

10.00

8.00

6.00

years

NPV

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
0

6
Frac Size (tonnes)

CHART 1

Economics
Net Price

1170 ron / t Merisani Oil

500 ron / 1000 m3 Merisani Gas

/m
/kg

/m
%
%
years

Reservoir Data
Formation
Reservoir Fluid
Bottomhole Temp
Reservoir Btm Pressure
Reservoir Drainage area
Porosity
Permeability
Water Saturation
Gas Specific Gravity

Frac Fluid
Cost
()
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

years

Frac Cost
()
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Initial
Investment
()
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Adrian M. Feb 10, 2011

Propped
Length
(m)
0

Upper Propped
Height
(m)
0

6
Size (tonnes)

HART 1

10

12

Top

Bottom

Perforation Intervals
Oil/Gas/Water
C
bar
ha
%
mD
%

TVD Top Perforation

Net Pay Height

Lower Propped
Height
(m)
0

Avg. Propped
Width
(mm)
0

Fcd

Cumulative
Production
(m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Net
Production
(m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Recommended frac size (tonnnes):

Time to Recover Initial Investment (days):

NPV
Rt/(1+i)^t
where
t = the time of the cash flow
i = the discount rate (the rate of return that could be earned on an investment in the financial market
Rt = the net cash flow (the amount of cash, inflow minus outflow) at time t. For educational purposes,

12
10
8

Net Present Value Tonnes

Net Present Value Tonnes

12
10

NPV

8
6
4
2
0
0

6
Days

Net Present Value Tonnes

CHART 2

m
m
m
m

Fluid System
Gel Loading
Proppant
Proppant Size

kg/m3
Mesh

m
m

Net
Value
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

NPV
years
()
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

the financial markets with similar risk)

ducational purposes, Ro is commonly placed to the left of the sum to emphasize its role as (minus) the investme

lue Tonnes

lue Tonnes

T2

10

12

minus) the investment

BASE
Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

BASE

1
Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

2
Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

(J/Jo|avg)

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

(bar)

3
Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

4
Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

(bar)

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

5
Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

Time

Flow Rate

(%GIP)

(bar)

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

(d)

(sm^3/d)

6
Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

Time

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

(d)

7
Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

8
Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

9
Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

10
Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

Flowing
Pressure

(J/Jo|avg)

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

(bar)

10

Choosen Tonnes
Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

Time

Flow Rate

Cum. Prod.

Cum. Prod.

Average
Pressure

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

(d)

(sm^3/d)

(10^6 m^3)

(%GIP)

(bar)

Choosen

Tonnes

Net Cumulative Production

Flowing
Pressure

Prod. Ratio
Q/Qbase

Prod. Ratio
V/Vbase

Cum. Prod.

(bar)

(J/Jo(t))

(J/Jo|avg)

(10^6 m^3)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

sen

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Net Choosen

mulative Production
Net Cash Flow

Initial Investment for Tonne Frac

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.00
Input

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Net Choosen

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

RESERVOIR DATA:

FORMATION:

RESERVOIR FLUID:

BOTTOMHOLE TEMPERATURE:

RESERVOIR BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE:

RESERVOIR DRAINAGE AREA

0.0

POROSITY:
PERMEABILITY:

0
0.000

WATER SATURATION:
GAS SPECIFIC GRAVITY

0
0.000

NET PAY THICKNESS:

PERFORATIONS:

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

TVD TOP PERFORATION:

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

OBJECTIVES:

1. Predict post fracture geometry in formation for well .

2. Determine optimum frac size using Net Present Value (NPV) analysis.
PROCEDURE:

1.

Determine rock properties from customer supplied logs and information. Create
model in Meyers Fracture Simulator.

2. Use Meyers Fracture Simulator (MFRAC) to predict fracture geometry.

3. Use Meyers Production Simulator (MPROD) to predict post fracture production.
4. Perform NPV analysis and report results.

ECONOMIC INPUTS:

Frac Fluid Unit Cost

Proppant Unit Cost
Fixed Equipment Cost
Workover Cost
Unit Revenue for Production Gas (Net)
Revenue Escalation Rate
Discount Rate
Time Period

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

MISCELLANEOUS INPUTS:

Fluid System
Gel Loading
Proppant Type
Proppant Size

0
0

0
0

FRAC COSTS:

Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Frac Size
(Tonne)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Fluid Volume
(m)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Frac Cost
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Initial Investmen
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

FRAC GEOMETRY:

Propped
Length
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

(m)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Upper
Propped
Height
(m)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Lower
Propped
Height
(m)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Average
Propped
Width
(mm)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Fcd
(Dim.
Frac
Cond.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Estimated
Net Cumulativ
Production
(m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

In itia l In v e s t m e s t ( )

Initial Investmest vs. Frac Size

12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

P ro p p e d L e n g th ( m )

6
Frac Size (tonnes)

10

Propped Length vs. Frac Size

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

F lo w R a te (m /d ay)

6
Frac Size (tonnes)

10

Production Rate vs. Time

Bas e

12

10

T
T

T
T

0
0

6
Time (days)

10

12

T
T

Net Present Value vs. Time

NPV ()

12.00
10.00
8.00

? tonnes

6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0

6
Frac Size (tonnes)

10

12

Net Present Value Tonnes

NPV ()

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

6
Time (days)

CONCLUSIONS:
Various sized fracture treatments were modeled in Meyers Fracture Simulator. In conjuction
with Meyers Production Simulator, net present value analysis was performed for the
formation at . Based on the year NPV the optimum treatment size
would be in the tonne range. The initial investment is estimated to be recovered in
days.
Reported by:

10

0
0
0 C
0 bar
0.0 ha
0%
0.000 mD
0%
0.000
0.0 m
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

m
m
m
m

0.0 m

mation. Create

production.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

/m
/kg

/m
%
%
years

0
0 kg/m

0
0 mesh

Initial Investment
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Estimated
Net Cumulative
Production
(m)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Size

10

12

ze

10

12

Bas e
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

12

T
T

12

10

12