SPE 167350

Heterogeneity Index And Fast Screening Processes Used In A Large

Mature Field Designed For Quick Production Gains
Khalid Harami, Nelson Bolanos, Siddharta Sharma, Karim Slimani, Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Jose Antonio
Pimentel, Patrick Kiome, Jaime Alfonso Rodriguez, Schlumberger; Moudi Al-Ajmi, Ahmad El Daoushy,
Mishal Al Mufarrej, Kuwait Oil Company

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kuwait Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in Mishref, Kuwait, 7-10 October 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper
have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Heterogeneity Index (HI) process was utilized in order to demonstrate production gain
opportunities in a very short period of time, in a large mature ME field with around 500 wells
producing from different reservoirs. The HI process provided a quick screening method of
identifying preliminary candidate wells with anomalous behavior (over/under performance) for
further analysis and most importantly, provided the foundation for the overall Structure
Production Approach.

This process; HI, can be calculated by utilizing OFM. A Cross Hair Plot has also been utilized to
show the comparison of the HI of two variables in the same plot, creating an easy way to identify
wells behaving differently from the average. The cross hair plot can be combined with X-Y
Coordinated plot which reproduces the location of the wells.

The results from this screening tool were utilized to identify the families of productivity
problems at field level, and additional fast screening was done at well level to identify candidates
for production enhancement. Representative Wells were selected for detailed diagnostics based
on the relevance and size of productivity impact and, the potential of its production rate or well
deliverability.

Once a few “top potential” wells were identified, production engineering workflows were
implemented in order to assess and forecast the potential of production incremental and try to
determine and evaluate the best probable action.
2 SPE 167350

Some of the key innovate workflows used to complement production enhancement were: Time-
lapse nodal analysis (honoring production history and neighboring wells), rate transient analysis
(to consume sporadic/low frequency production data), single wellbore modeling (based on logs
and flow units), among others.

This paper will demonstrate the Production Enhancement Technologies Methodology, in

particular the HI process with real examples; pending on data release approval from the owner
and the progress of the operations.

INTRODUCTION

A process was put in place to quickly screen and capture production gain opportunities in the
Matured North Fields of the State of Kuwait. The North Fields started production in the late
1950’s with approximately 1000 wells being drilled to date from different reservoirs; carbonate
and clastic reservoirs, with different drive mechanisms and highly faulted areas. Different well
completion types and different artificial lift methods are also present, and a complex surface
network all had to be taken into account in developing the pre-screen process.

In order to meet the challenge of identifying pre-screen candidates, an Oilfield Manager (OFM)
base Heterogeneity Index, was utilized as part of the Production Optimization Process and found
to be the starting step of identifying these candidates. The entire methodology of the Production
Optimization Process is highlighted in figure 1, below with the Heterogeneity Index being
highlighted under the Data Collection and Screening.
SPE 167350 3

Figure 1 Production Optimization Workflow

In order to finally achieve production gains, the entire process will have to be followed including
utilizing additional tools, such as geology, Petrophysics…etc.

HETEROGENEITY INDEX (HI) ANALYSIS

Definition

Heterogeneity Index (HI) analysis is the process of comparing individual well performance to the
average performance of its group as a function of time as explained in (Figure 2) and defined as:

valuewell
HI = −1
valueaverage of wells

Heterogeneity Index (HI) analysis is the process of comparing individual well performance to the
average performance of its group as a function of time as explained in (Figure 2) and defined as:

valuewell
HI = −1
valueaverage of wells
4 SPE 167350

In this analysis, well performance is compared at the wellbore level. Individual well
performances can be viewed as better or worse than average and can be easily compared to each
other with scatter plots.

Strength of this analysis is the ease with which changes in a well’s performance can be
identified. Sudden changes in the trend of an HI curve may indicate a well and time where a
workover has been performed. Knowing the frequency and type of stimulations performed can
lead to an understanding of their positive or negative impact on well behavior. The analysis helps
determine a relationship between performance improvement and stimulation treatment
characteristics to assist in future treatment design.

The HI process provided a quick screening method of identifying preliminary candidate wells
with anomalous behavior (over/under performance) for further analysis and most importantly,
provided the foundation for the overall Structure Production Approach.

This process; HI, can be calculated by utilizing OFM. A Cross Hair Plot has also been utilized to
show the comparison of the HI of two variables in the same plot, creating an easy way to identify
wells behaving differently from the average. The cross hair plot can be combined with X-Y
Coordinated plot which reproduces the location of the wells. Knowing the locations of High /
low performing wells provides another tool that can impose regional high and low performing
areas over the reservoir/field under study. Wells/areas that need more focus and detailed
analysis to identify gaps and opportunities for production enhancement (workover, stimulation
intervention, reactivation) can be identified when combining the results from HI Cross Hair
analysis, petrophysical evaluation data (Kh, net to gross, etc) and remaining reserves.

The results from this screening tool were utilized to identify the families of productivity
problems at field level, and additional fast screening was done at well level to identify candidates
for production enhancement. Representative Wells were selected for detailed diagnostics based
on the relevance and size of productivity impact and, the potential of its production rate or well
deliverability. Figure 3 shows example of HI analysis on oil, water and liquid rates based on
individual wells performance.
SPE 167350 5

HI analysis has been run on main reservoirs individually included in the area of the field
development study.

HI analysis has been run on total of ~ 350 oil wells included in three main reservoirs based on
oil, water and liquid production rates and cumulative. The HI prescreening process has yielded
total of ~ 88 initial prescreened candidates.
• 48 Wells for possible production enhancement (stimulation, add and/or re-perforation,
zone transfer, artificial lift optimization or installation, etc).
• 40 Wells for possible water shut off.
The same concept of HI has been run on Electrical Submergible PUMP (ESP) performance. The
HI of liquid production rate has been run versus ESP uptime to as a quick screening tool to
identify high/low performing ESP wells based on liquid and/or uptime performance. Example of
ESP HI analysis is shown in (Figure 4).

Once a prescreening has been performed, a ranking process has been applied to prioritize the
wells for detailed review (High, Medium and Low) as shown in Table 1 for one field under the
study area. Then, few “top potential” wells were identified, production engineering workflows
were implemented in order to assess and forecast the potential of production incremental and try
to determine and evaluate the best probable action.

Some of the key innovate workflows used to complement production enhancement were: Time-
lapse nodal analysis (honoring production history and neighboring wells), rate transient analysis
(to consume sporadic/low frequency production data), single wellbore modeling (based on logs
and flow units), among others.
6 SPE 167350

Figure 2 Heterogeneity Index

Low Performing area (Low oil, High

Water, and Low & High Liquid)
Scatter Plot
Date:6/1/2013
400
3312000

Low Oil High Oil Low Oil High Oil

High Water
300 High Water High Liquid High Liquid
3308000
CV.HI_Water.OD

200
3304000
Y-Coordinate

100
3300000

0
3296000

Low Oil High Oil

-100
3292000
Low Liquid Low Liquid
-80 -40 0 40 80 120
770000 772000 774000 776000 778000 780000
CV.HI_OilOD
Low Oil High Oil
X-Coordinate

Low Water Low Water

High performing area (High Oil,
low water, and Low & High Liquid)

Figure 3 HI – Oil Rate vs. Water and Liquid Rate Scatter plots
SPE 167350 7

Scatter Plot
Date:6/1/2013
High Liquid
12 3312000

Low Liquid
High Uptime High Uptime
6 3308000
CV.HI_Uptime_OD

0 3304000

Y-Coordinate
-6 3300000

-12 3296000

Low Liquid High Liquid

Low Uptime Low Uptime
-18 3292000
-80 -40 0 40 80 120 770000 772000 774000 776000 778000 780000

X-Coordinate
cv.HI.LiqRateOD

Candidates for production

enhancement (ESP uptime and/or High ESP Uptime area
well productivity)

Figure 4 HI – ESP Liquid Vs Uptime Scatter plot

# Excluded
Total Wells
# Total from H #
Res. in
Rank for Ranking Priority prescreen rank wells Remaining
Layer prescreening
ed wells after for Review
process
discussion
Prod Enhancement H 6 M 5 L 4 15 1 5
Res. 1 88
WSO H 5 M 6 L 7 18 4 1
Prod Enhancement H 6 M 7 L 6 19 0 6
Res. 2 59
WSO H 0 M 1 L 0 1 0 0
Prod Enhancement H 5 M 6 L 6 17 3 2
Res. 3 204
WSO H 6 M 3 L 6 15 2 4
Total Ranked Wells H 28 M 28 L 29 85 10 18 351

Table 1 Ranking of Prescreened Wel

8 SPE 167350

Example of HI Analysis Workflow (Low Oil & High Water Producers)

Field-wide considerations:

• Analyze trends in HI/CEI map

• Identify sub-performing wells in a selected region/sector

• Investigate location in structure, proximity to Faults, Winj, etc.

Well-by-Well:

• Verify CWOC against OWOC (PNC logs)

• Check the perf interval and zonal contributions (PLT) to oil and water rates

• Identify “water-problem type”

• Check well construction and completion for suitability of intervention

• Diagnose production and reservoir data to characterize and model well performance

• Perform NODAL to quantify estimated oil gain

Models and Production analysis Performed

Example1: Well xx
Figure 5takes a closer look at the location of Well XX relative to other wells in the “section”.
An X-Section plot was used to aid in the analysis. Figure 6 show perforations of 2 nearby wells
and well xx under study and Figure 7 of another 2 nearby wells with well xx. These are located
in good clean sands and the wells are good dry producers (Figure 8). Both wells have
correlatable sands, but produce at relatively low oil rates. The early water breakthrough in these
wells (Figure 9) may explain the observed decline in production. PLT’s to investigate water
sources in the wells are recommended, as is PNC to verify hydrocarbon zones.
SPE 167350 9

Legend:
High Oil – Low Water
High Oil – High Water
Low Oil – Low Water
Low Oil – High Water

Well xx

Figure 5: Potential candidate identification -

Low Oil – Low Water High Oil – High Water

This should be Perfs in Poor sands

produce more
Good Sand

Check perfs

RA-0256-LBL PNC available RA-0088-LBL PLT ??

Figure 6: X-Section-1 of selected SW flank wells

10 SPE 167350

Well XX
: Example opportunity analysis

RA-0279 RA-0384 RA-0048

Near
- by well Near
- by well Well
- XX

High Oil – Low Water High Oil – Low Water

Low Oil – High Water

Figure 7: X-Section-2 of selected SW flank wells

Good well Good well

Last
5 Cum Oil Prod : 2274.08 Mbbl Last
5 Cum Oil Prod : 1349.56 Mbbl
10 100 10 100

4
10
4
80 10 80

3
3 10 60
10 60

2
2 10 40
10 40

1
10 Axis 1 RA-0384:T:LBL:01 20
1
10 Axis 1 RA-0279:T:LBL:01 20 Oil Rate CD ( bbl/d )
Oil Rate CD ( bbl/d ) Water Rate CD ( bbl/d )
Water Rate CD ( bbl/d ) Gas Rate CD ( Mcf/d )
Gas Rate CD ( Mcf/d ) oil.well.count
oil.well.count Gas / Oil Ratio ( cf/bbl )
0 BWPD on ( bbl/d )
Gas / Oil Ratio ( cf/bbl ) 10 0
0 MAR
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
10 BWPD on ( bbl/d ) 0
2009 10 11 12 2011 2012
Date
Date

Figure 8: Production profiles for 2 nearby wells

SPE 167350 11

Last
5 Cum Oil Prod : 7634.46 Mbbl
10 100

4
10 80

3
10 60

2
10 40

Axis 1 RA-0088:TS:LBL:01
Oil Rate CD ( bbl/d )
Water Rate CD ( bbl/d )
1 Gas Rate CD ( Mcf/d )
10 oil.well.count 20
Gas / Oil Ratio ( cf/bbl )
BWPD on ( bbl/d )
WHP
Axis 2
0 Water Cut ( % ) RA-0088:TS:LBL:01
10 0
1993 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Date

Figure 9: Production profiles for water breakthrough nearby wells

Figure 10 reveals a persistent water encroachment from Well xx that is the main cause of oil rate
decline. Increased drawdown after ESP installation has increased the water off take. The
location of Well xx close to a fault (Figure 11) may contribute to the sharp increase in %WC.

RA-0048:LBL
Well XX : is “in the group”.
Could production be improved?

Figure 10: Candidate selection analysis

12 SPE 167350

PLT ?
PBU ?
PNL ?

Figure 11: HI Field-level screening

Figure 12 shows the Completion (7” csg; 3 ½” tbg) and Petrophysical data for well xx. The
perforated interval is in moderately good sands. A PLT and PNC are recommended. Successful
WSO’s have been performed in 7” casing.
p p p y

Perfs: Jul 2005

8186 8176
8184 8190
8204 8209

Figure 12: Completion and petrophysical data

Figure 13 shows the base map and PGOR test data used in the NODAL analysis. PI = 4.0 is
established based on results of Figure 14. Figure 15 verifies the choke settings (36-38/64), while
Figure 16 shows the Nodal match with a QO=740 bopd, (QL = 2500 bpd), a drawdown of 600 psi
SPE 167350 13

and a FBHP=2800 psi (Pb=2600 psi). Using the July 2012 Portable (PGOR) production test data
as a base case, a %WC sensitivity analysis predicts an oil gain of 1100 bopd at 30%WC and a
2000 bopd peak oil gain for a successful WSO (0%WC), as shown in Figure 17.

Portable test data 3430 psi

Portable Date QL WHP FLP WC
08/12/2012 2,458.00 573.00 140.00 70.00

GOR RC Qo Qw
972.00 36 737.40 1720.6

Figure 13: Base map and test data

14 SPE 167350

RA-0048: LBL - ESP - Single; GC-15 RA-0048 LBL-ESP Nodal match (QL)
3,400
3,200

3,200

Pressure at NA point (psia)

2,800

Pb = 2600 psi
Pressure (psia)

2,400
3,000

2,000 2,800
Portable test data DD (3400 – 2800) = 600 psi
Portable Date QL WHP FLP WC
08/12/2012 2,458.00 573.00 140.00 70.00
1,600 2,600
WHP = 573 psia GOR
972.00
RC
36
Qo
737.40
Qw
1720.6
1,200 2,400

800
2,200

0 800 1,600 2,400 3,200 4,000 4,800 5,600 6,400 7,200 8,000 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200 3,600 4,000 4,400
Total Distance (ft) Stock-tank Liquid at NA point (STB/d)

LPI=4.035184 stb/day/psi Operating Point Inflow: Outflow:

Pressure :: LPI=4.035184 stb/day/psi : X = 8240 : Y = 573.163 Coords - x: -240.546755979083 y: 3614.04051176485

Figure 14: PI determination Figure 16: Nodal Analysis Match

RA-0048 LBL Choke setting Match

RA-0048 LBL ESP - %WC Sensitivity
0
3,400
-800
3,200
-1,600
Pressure at NA point (psia)

3,000 70%: 737

-2,400
2,800 %WC Qo Gain/Loss
Elevation (ft)

95 105 (632)
Choke = 38/64
-3,200
2,600
Portable test data 30 1874 1137
-4,000
WHP = 573 psia 2,400 Portable Date QL WHP FLP WC 0 2782 2045
-4,800 FLP = 140 psia 08/12/2012 2,458.00 573.00 140.00 70.00
2,200
GOR RC Qo Qw
-5,600
2,000 972.00 36 737.40 1720.6

-6,400
1,800
-7,200
1,600
-8,000
1,400
400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200
Pressure (psia) 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200 3,600 4,000 4,400
Stock-tank Liquid at NA point (STB/d)
Flowrate = 2445.012 sbbl/day
Operating Points Inflow: Outflow: WCUT=0. % Outflow: WCUT=30 % Outflow: WCUT=95 %
Schlumberger
Created by User on 14/12/12 18:31:27 Coords - x: 28.326075967176 y: 3689.24507194471

Figure 15: Choke settings match Figure 17: %WC Sensitivities

SPE 167350 15

Similarly, Figure 18 predicts a loss of 120 bopd should the PI drop from 4 to 1 bpd/psi, and a
gain of 600 for a PI of 2.
g

3,200
Pressure at NA point (psia)

2,800
35% WC
2,400 PI Qo Gain/Loss
1 857 120
2,000
2 1331 594
1,600
4 1723 986
Portable test data
Portable Date QL WHP FLP WC
1,200
08/12/2012 2,458.00 573.00 140.00 70.00

800 GOR RC Qo Qw
972.00 36 737.40 1720.6

400

0
0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200 3,600 4,000 4,400
Stock-tank Liquid at NA point (STB/d)

Operating Points Inflow: LPI=1 stb/day/psi Inflow: LPI=2 stb/day/psi Inflow: LPI=4 stb/day/psi Outflow: WCUT=35 %
Outflow: WCUT=70 %
Schlumberger
Created by User on 14/12/12 20:51:31

Figure 18: Nodal – Declining PI @ 35%WC

Well XX: WSO opportunity – :

• Last PNL – 2004, TOC @8250’ MD

• COAL1 is wet

• Potential WSO candidate (7” casing); but need 2012 PLT and PNL over perforated
interval

• Petrophysical review to confirm availability of interval 8204 – 8221.

• An oil gain in the range of 500 (PI from 4 to 2) to 2000 bopd (complete WSO and
PI=4)

• Change zone if/when flushed-out (Qo< 200 bpd; >90%WC)

• Re-perforate under balance.