Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No.

HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

Technical Summary

Vol. I/ IX

Prepared for

By

Kanawara Project Team

Tender No:
HL/FDP/14-15/003

Rev Issue Date Prepared by Approved by

Kanawara Project
Final 31-Mar-2016 Team, SLB GOGL

Schlumberger confidential. © Copyright 2015 Schlumberger, Unpublished Work.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.
Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Document Information

Project: Field Development Plan of Kanawara Field – GOGL

Akshay Aggarwal, Project Manager

Suman Das, Geophysicist
Sudipan Shasmal, Senior Geologist
Amola, Petrophysicist
Varun Sharma, Senior Geomodeler, Ex-SLB
Alexander Rincon, Lead Reservoir Engineer
Karthik Kumar Natarajan, Senior Reservoir Engineer
Manish Kumar Singh, Geomodeler
Abhinav Mukherjee, Geologist
Contributors - SLB
Shivam Sharma, Reservoir Engineer
Vinil Reddy, Production Technologist
Chandreyi Chatterjee, Geomechanics Engineer
Ankit Agarwal, Reservoir Engineer
Ishank Gupta, Reservoir Engineer, Ex-SLB
Shubham Mishra, Reservoir Engineer
Vaibhav Jain, Geophysicist, Ex-SLB
Bhavik Shah, Reservoir Engineer
Khushboo Havelia, Geoscientist

Francois Bouchet, Technical Manager, MEA

Subrata Chakraborty, G&G Advisor, MEA
Agha Hassan Akram, RE Advisor, MEA
Reviewers - SLB
Anubrati Mukherjee, SRC Domain Technical Lead, MEA
Arathi L. Mahesh, Senior Petrophysicist
Somesh Bahuguna, Senior Geomechanics Engineer

BTV Seshavataram, Director G&G

Bharat Sastry, GM Technical
P. Subrahmanyam, Senior Manager Geosciences
Reviewers - GOGL
Ajit Bhandari, Consultant Reservoir
Avishek Kumar Poddar, Senior Petroleum Engineer
Mangesh Kalode, Senior Drilling Engineer

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements,
empirical relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or
assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may
differ. Accordingly, Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or
completeness of any such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or
recommendation. Customer acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that
Schlumberger makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or
description in respect thereto. Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does
not warrant that any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or
recommendation is fit for a particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with
any government request or regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that
such services are delivered with the explicit understanding and agreement that any action
taken based on the services received shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim
shall be made against Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Contents

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 15
2 Project Scope and Objective Statement ........................................................ 16
3 Field Description .............................................................................................. 16

3.1 Background ............................................................................................... 16

3.2 Development History ................................................................................ 18

3.3 Geological Setting ..................................................................................... 20

4 Static Modeling and Volumetric ..................................................................... 23

4.1 Static Volumetric ....................................................................................... 24

5 Dynamic Model Calibration ............................................................................. 30

6 Field Development Planning ........................................................................... 31

6.1 Cases Explored ......................................................................................... 31

6.2 Well Placement and Mud Weight Recommendation .............................. 37

6.3 Fracture Stages ......................................................................................... 37

6.4 Production Profiles and Economics ........................................................ 38

7 Surface Facilities ............................................................................................. 41

8 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 41
9 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 42

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: Location map of Cambay Basin and Tectonic block along with
Kanawara Field ....................................................................................................... 17

Figure 3-2: Production Plot of Kanawara Field .................................................... 19

Figure 3-3: Generalized Stratigraphy Map of Cambay Basin (Source: K10 WCR)
................................................................................................................................. 21

Figure 3-4: Porosity distribution for EP IV Upper and Lower formations,

Kanawara Field (Colors represent wells) ............................................................. 22

Figure 3-5: Permeability distribution for EP IV Upper and Lower formations,

Kanawara Field (Colors represent wells) ............................................................. 22

Figure 3-6: Horizon interpretation grids at different levels. Red polygon marks
the Kanawara field limit. ........................................................................................ 23

Figure 4-1: Segments in Kanawara Field ............................................................. 25

Figure 4-2: Schematic diagram showing 1P and 2P contacts ............................ 26

Figure 4-3 Tornado Chart showing sensitivity of different modeling parameters

................................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 4-4 Histogram Showing STOIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV (U) and EP-IV (L)
(150 Runs) ............................................................................................................... 29

Figure 6-1 Oil and Gas recovery wrt 1P static volumes ...................................... 32

Figure 6-2 Oil and Gas recovery wrt 2P dynamic volumes ................................. 32

Figure 6-3 New Vertical Well locations (New wells in red) .................................. 34

Figure 6-4: New Horizontal Well locations (KH1, KH2) ....................................... 35

Figure 6-4 Production Profiles for different scenarios ....................................... 38

Figure 6-5 Plot of NPV and DPI ............................................................................. 40

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Tables

Table 3.1 – Historical production data of well K#2 and K#3 (from ONGC) ........ 18

Table 4-1 : Summary of 1P and 2P Contacts ...................................................... 24

Table 4-2: 1P, 2P and 3P volumetric of Kanawara field ...................................... 26

Table 4-3 : Volumetric for 1P case (Segment and Layerwise) ........................... 27

Table 4-4 : Volumetric for 2P case (Segment and Layerwise) ........................... 27

Table 6-1 : Different Cases Considered for Preparing the FDP .......................... 31

Table 6-2 – Recovery Factors in 1P and 2P case ................................................ 33

Table 6-3 – Infill Wells in the FDP scenarios ........................................................ 36

Table 6-3: Mud weight recommendation for well KH1 ....................................... 37

Table 6-4: Economic parameters used for techno-economic analysis ............. 39

Table 6-5: Net Present Value (NPV) of prediction cases ..................................... 39

Table 6-6: Incremental production of new wells for Vert Max Drainage Case .. 40

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Abbreviations

GOGL GNRL Oil & Gas Limited

BCM Billion Cubic Meter
Bg Gas formation volumetric factor
Bo Oil formation volumetric factor
DPI Discounted Profit to Investment Ratio
ELAN Schlumberger software for well level volumetric analysis
FDP Field Development Plan
FWL Free water Level
GIIP Gas Initially In Place
GOC Gas Oil Contact
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
HCIIP Hydrocarbon Initially In Place
HCPV Hydrocarbon Pore Volume
HM History Match
KLPD Kilo liters per day
m. Meter
md Milli-darcy
MD Measured depth
MMSCF Million Standard Cubic Feet
MMSCM Millions of standard cubic meters
MMSTB Millions of Standard Barrels
msl Mean sea level
NFA No Further Action
NPV Net Present Value
OIIP Oil Initially In Place
OWC Oil Water Contact
Pb Bubble point pressure
Pc Capillary pressure
PTA Pressure Transient Analysis
pu. Porosity unit
PVT Pressure, Volume, Temperature
RCA Routine Core Analysis
RF Recovery Factor
Rs Solution Gas ratio
SCAL Special Core Analysis
SCF Standard Cubic Feet
SHF Saturation Height Functions
SLB Schlumberger
Sorw Residual Oil Saturation to water
STB Standard Barrels
STOIIP Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place
SWC Side Wall Core
Swirr Irreducible water saturation

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Techlog Schlumberger PC based petrophysical software

TVDSS True Vertical Depth Sub Sea
TVT True Vertical Thickness
WCR Well Completion Report

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 14 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Introduction
Field Development Plan (FDP) study for Kanawara Field in Cambay-Tarapur tectonic block
of Cambay basin was awarded to Schlumberger in December 2014 by GOGL under contract
number HL/FDP/14-15/003. Following this, the project execution started from January 2015
and finalized in March 2016 with continuous collaboration between Schlumberger and GOGL
technical teams.

All the technical work was carried out as per the agreed proposal and discussion held during
the multiple meetings with the GOGL team. This report presents the technical summary of
the FDP study carried out, with the detailed reports as mentioned below. Final Kanawara
FDP report contains nine (IX) separate volumes including this report–

1. I/IX Technical Summary

2. II/IX Seismic Interpretation Report
3. III/IX Petrophysics Report
4. IV/IX Geology and Static Modeling Report
5. V/IX Basic RE and History Matching Report
6. VI/IX FDP and Economics Report
7. VII/IX K-10 SWPM Report
8. VIII/IX Geomechanics Report
9. IX/IX Annexure

The interpreted data, Petrel Project (Static and Dynamic), Eclipse Data files are written in the
corresponding DVDs for making available to GOGL.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2 Project Scope and Objective Statement

The need for a detailed study in this field came out due to the confirmed existence of
hydrocarbons from the drilled wells in the field. GOGL decided to perform the seismic to
simulation study to best answer the challenges involved in exploiting the field. The scope
included a complete review of existing geophysical, geological, petrophysical, and reservoir
engineering and production data. In order to define the optimum field plan of the Kanawara
Field, the main objectives defined by the contract were –

1. Best possible reservoir characterization through seamless integration of

geophysics, geology, petrophysics, and reservoir engineering domain.
2. Devise the best field development strategy that gives maximum return with
minimal risk involved.
3. Evaluate the feasibility of a horizontal well and propose the drilling plan for it.
4. Recommendations on future data acquisition to reduce the uncertainty prevailing
in developing the field.

3 Field Description

3.1 Background
Kanawara field with mining lease area of 6.3 km2 is located in the state of Gujarat, India
(Figure 3-1). The main hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs are confined to the EP-IV reservoirs
of Eocene age. The main challenge involved in this field is low permeability (<2 mD) siltstone
reservoir which are difficult to develop to attain conventional recovery factors. The field has
proved static in-place of 1.7 MMsm3 with a recovery of ~2% oil till July, 2015.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 16 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Cambay-
Tarapur Block

Figure 3-1: Location map of Cambay Basin and Tectonic block along with Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.2 Development History

The presence of hydrocarbon in Kanawara Field was established by ONGC in 1971 with the
drilling of first appraisal well K#2. Another well, K#3, was drilled by ONGC in 1976. The field
was intermittently produced until Dec 1991. The field was not under production afterwards.
Prior to GOGL-GSPC JV overtaking the field, total 2300 sm3 of oil production is reported,
with no available data on gas production. The summary of production data as made
available before GOGL took over the field is mentioned in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 – Historical production data of well K#2 and K#3 (from ONGC)

Well Name Oil Production(m3) Oil Production (Bbl.)

K#2 2028 12756
K#3 273 1717
Total 2301 14473

The field was revived in Dec 2005 with additional 7 wells drilled as part of field development
by GOGL. All the wells drilled are vertical except for a deviated well K#5.

Production is primarily from the EP-IV upper and lower reservoirs, which are separated by a
laterally persistent coal and shale layers. Low permeability nature of reservoir requires wells
to be hydraulically fractured for commercial production. Artificial Lift using sucker rod pump
(SRP) has been deployed in two wells (K#3 and K#5) to maintain the production. Cumulative
oil production from the field after GOGL takeover is 32,289 sm3 along with 29.7 million sm3
of gas until July 2015 and negligible water production. Field production plot of Kanawara
field comprising oil and gas production is shown in Figure 3-2.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 18 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-2: Production Plot of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.3 Geological Setting

Cambay Basin is a narrow, elongated, intra‐cratonic rift basin. The general basinal axis is
NNW‐SSE and rift is bounded by N‐S trending faults in east and west. The basin also has
several east‐west trending transverse faults. These faults have divided the basin into several
smaller tectonic blocks, namely Narmada, Jambusar – Broach, Cambay – Tarapur,
Ahmedabad – Mehsana and Patan‐ Tharad‐ Sanchor from South to North. The Kanawara
Field lies within Cambay-Tarapur tectonic block. The generalized stratigraphy section of
Cambay Basin is shown in Figure 3-3. Only K#1 well has been drilled till the Deccan Trap
which is considered as technical Basement.

The major source rock of Cambay basin is thick Cambay shale. In Kanawara Field, the main
hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs are confined to the EP-IV within Kalol Formation of Eocene
age. These reservoirs are silty in nature and the reservoir quality is governed by Clay
volume and distribution.

Comprehensive analysis of conventional logs, mud logs and conventional core data
suggests complex mineralogy and there are presence of coal in EP IV Upper), mixed clay
types along with heavy minerals such as Siderite and Magnesite. Dispersed clays, quartz
overgrowth, cementation, compaction and development of isolated porosity affects the
permeability of these reservoirs. In the reservoir zones, the effective porosity computed from
logs in EP IV Upper varies from 10 to 17 p.u. and in EP IV lower varies from 10 to 18.7 p.u.
The permeability ranges from 0.06 to 0.8 md and 0.1 to 2 md in EP IV Upper and Lower
reservoirs respectively. The water saturation ranges from 60 to 90 %. Figure 3-4-Figure 3-5
show the distribution of effective porosity and permeability formation wise.

Seismic interpretation work was carried out to build a proper structural model to carry on
static modelling as well as to understand the temporal and lateral facies variation of
reservoir. To achieve this, a total of 8 horizons were interpreted: Tarapur, Kalol, EP-IV
Upper, EP-IV Lower, Upper Cambay Shale, Lower Cambay Shale, Near Olpad and Near
Deccan Trap top (also referred as Near Fracture Trap top) (Figure 3-6).

The seismic interpretation indicates, Kanawara field has a primary trend of faulting in the
NNW-SSE direction with downthrown side due East. The nature of faults varies from
upthrown and downthrown block. The deep rooted faults are limited to the older units and
not observed in the younger section. In the down thrown block, most of the faults originated
at the fractured trap level but die out in shallower part. The younger faults were formed due
to reactivation.

To understand the facies variation effectively, post-stack seismic inversion was carried out
for the area of interest. The purpose of running inversion was to output the Acoustic

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Impedance cube, which is a good indicator of lithology as observed at well level. The result
of the inversion showed that for EP-IV(U), lower the acoustic impedance value, better the
reservoir quality; whereas for EP-IV(L), higher the acoustic impedance values, better is the
reservoir quality. The structural and stratigraphic output from the seismic interpretation
study was incorporated in static modelling to build a robust static model for the field.

Figure 3-3: Generalized Stratigraphy Map of Cambay Basin (Source: K10 WCR)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-4: Porosity distribution for EP IV Upper and Lower formations, Kanawara Field (Colors represent wells)

Figure 3-5: Permeability distribution for EP IV Upper and Lower formations, Kanawara Field (Colors represent wells)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-6: Horizon interpretation grids at different levels. Red polygon marks the Kanawara
field limit.

4 Static Modeling and Volumetric

A 3D geological model for this field was built by integrating geophysical, geological,
petrophysical and reservoir engineering information using Petrel software. Areal resolution of
25x25 m was used in the grid. Vertical zonation of the model was made after establishing
the well markers for the target EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L) reservoirs. Zonation scheme included
8 zones with proportional layering used (Grid Size: 99x152x114). Vertical resolution of the
model is ~0.5 m.

A hierarchical approach of property modeling was followed. Initially total porosity was
populated, which was guided by seismic inversion derived acoustic impedance maps.
Subsequently effective porosity and permeability were populated, which were guided by total
porosity and effective porosity respectively. After population of all petrophysical properties,
rock types were defined in the model. Water saturation was modeled using a height based
function derived separately for each rock type, honoring the observed transition zone.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 23 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

4.1 Static Volumetric

The Static volumetric computation was carried out for all individual segments as identified
from the study. The different segments in Kanawara Field as shown in Figure 4-1, are
classified as:

1. K2-K6-K7 Segment – Wells K2, K6, and K7 are drilled in this segment
2. K1 Segment – Well K1 is drilled in this segment. This segment in place is most
affected from mining lease boundary.
3. K8-K9 Segment – Wells K8 and K9 are drilled in this segment.
4. K3-K5-K10 Segment – Wells K3, K5, and K10 are drilled in this segment.
5. Seg 4 – Between K1 and K2 segment. No wells are drilled in this segment.
6. Seg 5 – Left of K1. No wells are drilled in this segment
7. Seg 6- Left of Seg 4. No wells are drilled in this segment

As shown in schematic in Figure 4-2, following methodology was used to calculate 1P, 2P,
and 3P volumetric –

1. 1P volume based on deepest tested sand depth in the well. (Region above
ODT/GDT)

2. 2P volume based upon FWL determined from log saturation match. (Region above
FWL)

3. 3P Volumes equal to 2P volumes in segments with wells drilled, else spill point
assumed as 3P contact.

Contacts in the EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L) zones in Kanawara Field were finalized with inputs
from all domains (Table 4-1).

Table 4-1 : Summary of 1P and 2P Contacts

Block Layer GDT (m) ODT (m) GOC (m) FWL (m)
EP-IV (U) 1608 1629 1630
K1
EP-IV (L) 1622 1629 1630
EP-IV (U) 1653 1709 1710
K2-K6-K7
EP-IV (L) 1680 - 1710
EP-IV (U) 1588 1638 1638
K8-K9
EP-IV (L) 1610 - 1642
EP-IV (U) 1627 1668 1627 1740
K3-K5-K10
EP-IV (L) 1627 1698 1627 1740
EP-IV (U) 1709 1710
Seg 4
EP-IV (L) - 1710

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 24 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-1: Segments in Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 25 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-2: Schematic diagram showing 1P and 2P contacts

Uncertainty analysis was done on base case volumetric which is 2P. Table 4-2 below
summarize 1P, 2P and 3P volumes. The zone wise detailed volumetric estimation for base
case 1P and 2P volumes are presented in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4.

Table 4-2: 1P, 2P and 3P volumetric of Kanawara field

Volume in Place 1P (10^3 sm3) 2P (10^3 sm3) 3P (10^3 sm3)

STOIIP 1689.5 2533.0 2652.4

GIIP(Total Gas) 385783.5 5,63,129.03 5,77,006.6

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 26 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

For sensitivity analysis the following key group of uncertainty elements were considered.

Contact uncertainty: +/- 8 m.

Porosity modelling uncertainty: +/- 2 %

Sw modelling uncertainty:+/- 8 %

PVT modelling uncertainty: +/- 5% of defined Bo value

Ranking of these parameters in terms of their impact on volumetric is shown in Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-4 shows histograms summarizing the probabilistic results on STOIIP in EP-IV(U)
and EP-IV(L).

Table 4-3 : Volumetric for 1P case (Segment and Layerwise)

Zone STOIIP[*10^3 sm3] Free Gas[*10^3 sm3] GIIP[*10^3 sm3]

K1 Upper 5.8 19296.1 19296.1
K8-K9 Upper 3.7 12223.4 12223.4
K3-K5-K10 Upper 294.4 7774.2 41656.4
K2-K6-K7 Upper 19.0 63352.4 63352.4
Seg 4 Upper 0.0 0.0 0.0
K1 Lower 26.7 88999.6 88999.6
K8-K9 Lower 121.6 0.0 14105.3
K3-K5-K10 Lower 772.8 4997.2 94471.7
K2-K6-K7 Lower 445.5 0.0 51678.7
Seg 4 Lower 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 1689.5 196642.9 385783.5

Table 4-4 : Volumetric for 2P case (Segment and Layerwise)

Zone STOIIP[*10^3 sm3] Free Gas[*10^3 sm3] GIIP[*10^3 sm3]

K1 Upper 5.9 19690.7 19690.7
K8-K9 Upper 5.0 14407.6 14486.2
K3-K5-K10 Upper 473.3 7774.2 62411.9
K2-K6-K7 Upper 21.4 71253.1 71253.1
Seg 4 Upper 21.5 71763.2 71763.2
K1 Lower 26.7 89128.0 89128.0
K8-K9 Lower 125.8 0.0 14587.3
K3-K5-K10 Lower 973.5 4997.2 117744.4
K2-K6-K7 Lower 470.5 0.0 54582.2
Seg 4 Lower 409.3 0.0 47482.0
Total 2533.0 279013.97 563129.03

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 27 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-3 Tornado Chart showing sensitivity of different modeling parameters

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 28 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-4 Histogram Showing STOIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV (U) and EP-IV (L) (150 Runs)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 29 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

5 Dynamic Model Calibration

Static model was initialized using EclipseTM 100 black oil simulator. Contacts were
established as part of initialization exercise. It is to be noted that no contacts could be
established based on log evidence. FWLs were varied in each segment until a reasonable
match was obtained between log saturation and initialized model water saturation. Typical
reservoir parameters considered for production data history-matching are as follows:

 Global permeability multiplier

 Fluid contacts (GOC / FWL)
 Hydraulic Fracture Parameters like fracture length and width

Major challenge was to explain the gas production observed in the field. Limited drainage
area sensitivity could suffice that high GOR observed in the well production cannot be
explained from liberated gas only. This led to conclusion that EP-IV(U) is primarily gas
bearing except in K3-K5-K10 block. Fracture geometries in wells with high gas production
were revised to make them more conducive in EP-IV(U). Production history of all the wells
was calibrated against the flowing bottom hole pressure measurements estimated from
vertical flow correlation models of the wells. Good level of calibration of the dynamic model
could be achieved at field and well level. This is further elaborated in the volume VI – FDP
and Economics Report.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 30 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

6 Field Development Planning

6.1 Cases Explored

Different cases for field development were considered following the conclusion of the history-
match exercise. These cases ranged from scenarios that involve minimum to maximum
CAPEX. The strategy was to envisage the return expected with increasing investment in the
field development. Table 6-1 lists the cases considered for FDP.

Table 6-1 : Different Cases Considered for Preparing the FDP

Active
producers @ Vertical Horizontal Scheduling of
Cases Laterals
End Of Wells events
History wells
No Further Action
√ × × × ×
(NFA)
Laterals in Existing
√ √ × × ×
Producers
Vertical wells √ × √ × √
Vertical Wells:
√ × √ × √
Maximum Drainage
Horizontal √ × × √ √
Horizontal + Vertical
Wells: Maximum √ × √ √ √
Drainage

Comprehensive plan to deplete the reservoir efficiently was developed and later evaluated
economically. 1P and 2P recoveries from different scenarios for both oil and gas is shown in
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 with numbers mentioned in Table 6-2. As observed, Horizontal +
Vertical wells with maximum drainage case gives the maximum recovery.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 31 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
NFA Lateral Vertical Wells Vertical wells Horizontal Horizontal
maximum wells +vertical wells
drainage maximum
drainage
Oil RF% (based on 1P) Gas RF% (based on 1P)

Figure 6-1 Oil and Gas recovery wrt 1P static volumes

40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
NFA Lateral Vertical Vertical wells Horizontal Horizontal
Wells maximum wells +vertical
drainage wells
maximum
Oil RF% (based on 2P) Gas RF% (based on 2P) drainage

Figure 6-2 Oil and Gas recovery wrt 2P dynamic volumes

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 32 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 6-2 – Recovery Factors in 1P and 2P case

Horizontal
Vertical
+vertical
Vertical wells Horizontal
NFA Lateral wells
Wells maximum wells
maximum
drainage
drainage
Cum Oil (Msm3) 97.4 147.3 153.5 206.8 161.2 224.7
Cum Gas
70.0 77.0 116.3 131.3 83.2 134.9
(MMsm3)
Oil RF%
4.1 6.2 6.5 8.8 6.8 9.5
(based on 2P)
Gas RF%
10.9 12.1 18.2 20.6 13.1 21.1
(based on 2P)
Oil RF%
6.1 9.4 9.8 13.2 10.3 14.4
(based on 1P)
Gas RF%
16.6 18.5 27.9 31.5 20.0 32.3
(based on 1P)

Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-5 shows all the vertical and horizontal wells considered for infill
drilling in the various FDP scenarios. Please note that well symbols are at the subsurface
location in the figures. Table 6-3 outlines the new infill wells used in the different FDP cases.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 33 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 6-3 New Vertical Well locations (New wells in red)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 34 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Reservoir Entry Point

Figure 6-4: New Horizontal Well locations (KH1, KH2)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 35 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 6-3 – Infill Wells in the FDP scenarios

Number of
Number of Number of
Number of New
Case Existing New Vertical
Laterals Horizontal
wells Wells
Wells
NFA 9 - - -
2
Lateral Wells 9 K10_L, - -
K2_L
3
Vertical Wells 9 - -
KV3, KV6, KV2
6
Vertical Wells Maximum KV1, KV3,
9 -
Drainage KV3, KV6,
KV2, KV7
2
Horizontal Well 9 - -
KH1, KH2
4
Horizontal + Vertical Wells 2
9 - KV1, KV8,
Maximum Drainage KH1, KH2
KV6, KV7

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 36 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

6.2 Well Placement and Mud Weight Recommendation

The preferred direction of drilling a horizontal leg is in the direction of minimum in-situ stress.
The direction of stresses was derived from brief analysis of the direction of major faults in the
field, available regional geomechanics data, and regional geology. It was concluded that the
minimum stress direction is along NW-SE direction. The horizontal wells are planned along
the same direction so that fracture will be perpendicular to the drain hole. A vertical well
does not poses any such constraint as it is pivot to any direction.

Based on the well bore stability analysis for horizontal well KH1, it is recommended to place
a casing below the top of Kalol formation to decrease the risk of losses and wellbore failure.
Table 6-4 shows the mud weight recommendation for horizontal well KH1.

Table 6-4: Mud weight recommendation for well KH1

Well Depth (m, MD) Proposed Mud Weight

Formation
Name (ppg)
From To
886 1205 Babaguru 11
Kathana,
1205 1370 11.8
Tarapur
KH1 1370 1475 Tarapur 12.9
Tarapur,
1475 1670 13.6
Kalol
1670 2131 Kalol 14

6.3 Fracture Stages

The number of stages for the horizontal wells were optimized using SWPM workflow. A
single well homogenous layer cake model was constructed for well K10 and validated with
its pressure production history. Same model was used to study the frac stages sensitivity for
a horizontal well with 600 m drain hole length. Results were compared using Net-Present
Value (NPV) and Discounted Profit to investment ratio (DPI) as economic evaluation
indicators. Sensitivity analysis showed that three stages is the optimum frac strategy for
horizontal wells in this field.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 37 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

6.4 Production Profiles and Economics

Production profiles for oil and gas for all the scenarios is shown in Figure with Vertical +Hz case showing maximum cumulative production of
oil and gas.

Figure 6-5 Production Profiles for different scenarios

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 38 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Thereafter, economic analysis was done for all the cases with parameters provided by
GOGL as shown in Table 6-5. All the cases were evaluated in terms of NPV and DPI. These
economic calculations are made for prediction starting from July 2015 up to March 2028.

Table 6-5: Economic parameters used for techno-economic analysis

Input Base Economic Parameters

Parameters Cost Estimate ($)
Crude Oil Sale Price (per scm) 315
Natural Gas Sale Price (per M scm) 158
Oil OPEX (per scm) 22
Gas OPEX (per Mscm) 5
Water OPEX (per kl) NA
Fixed OPEX (per month) 120000
New Vertical Well Cost 2500000
New Horizontal Well Cost 6000000
New Lateral cost 2000000
Per stage frac cost 350000
Pipeline cost (per m) 60
Tax (%) 32.50%
Discount Factor (%) 15%

Table 6-6 lists both the economic indicators for all the cases.

Table 6-6: Net Present Value (NPV) of prediction cases

Prediction Case NPV (MM $) DPI

No Further Action 1.8 NA
Laterals from existing wells 5.1 0.83
Vertical wells 6 0.68
Vertical wells Max Drainage 8.3 0.47
Horizontal (Hz) wells 4.3 0.31
Vertical wells + Hz Wells Max Drainage 8.8 0.34

Figure 6-6 compares the economic indicators for all the development cases.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 39 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Plot of NPV and DPI

10 0.9
0.83 8.8
9 8.3 0.8
8 0.7
0.68
7 0.6
6
NPV (MM $)

6 5.1 0.5

DPI
5 0.47
4.3
0.4
4 0.34
0.31 0.3
3
2 0.2
1 0.1
0 0
Laterals from Vertical wells Vertical wells- Horizontal wells Vertical wells +
existing wells Maximum Horizontal Wells
Drainage Maximum
Drainage

NPV (MM $) DPI

Figure 6-6 Plot of NPV and DPI

On analyzing the prediction scenarios with both the indicators, the vertical wells with
maximum drainage case is the recommended case. Table 6-7 shows how different wells
perform in Vertical wells maximum drainage case.

Table 6-7: Incremental production of new wells for Vert Max Drainage Case

Incremental Incremental Cum

Well Segment Prod Start Date
Cum Oil (M sm3) Gas (MM sm3)
KV1 K3-K5-K10 1-Dec-17 23.61 2.90
KV3 K3-K5-K10 1-Jan-18 26.25 3.31
KV8 K3-K5-K10 1-Nov-21 15.43 1.84
KV6 K1 1-Nov-17 10.75 37.73
KV2 K2-K6-K7 1-Nov-19 14.76 4.45
KV7 K2-K6-K7 1-Jan-20 19.51 11.10

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 40 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

7 Surface Facilities

Currently GOGL has surface facilities near well K2 location that can process 50 scmd liquid
production and 100000 scmd gas production. In the planned development scenarios, field
production remains lower than the processing limit. However, initial spurt production from the
newly completed wells takes the field oil production ~ 60 scmd. This has been handled in the
past by GOGL with the existing facility. If same can be managed in future, no additional
processing capacity will be required.

8 Conclusions

Kanawara can be considered as a marginal field with no wells with natural flow (hydraulic
fracturing is necessary to put the wells in production), low recovery factors (~2% until July-
15), geological complexities along with uncertainties in volumetric evaluation.

The FDP is backed by comprehensive integration of multiple -domains like Petrophysics,

Geophysics, Geology, Geomechanics, and Reservoir Engineering. 1P and 2P volumes have
been defined based on contacts definition (Section 4.1) and limited areally by mining lease
boundary.

The study provides a roadmap to accomplish general field recovery close to Estimated
Ultimate Recovery (EUR) at the end of mining lease of the field (March 2028) by additional
infill wells drilling. The priority of infill wells is based on maximum return per well, drilling cost
and sweet spots in the field. However continuous model update based on data acquisition
from each infill wells will be critical in optimizing the well locations and recovery from the
field.

Various scenarios of FDP were evaluated as a part of this study. Of these cases, Vertical +
Horizontal Maximum Drainage case gives maximum recovery of ~14.5% on proved volumes.
However, on the basis of economic indicators, Vertical wells Maximum Drainage case gives
better return on investment as it has lower CAPEX and marginally lower NPV compared to
the Vertical + Horizontal case.

As Kanawara area is produced mostly after hydraulically fracturing of wells, better

understanding of the HF is recommended in the upcoming infill drilling campaign. Integration
of Geomechanics with advanced data acquisition for understanding of hydraulic fracture
geometry will help in the better assessment of the potential of Horizontal wells in the area.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 41 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

9 Recommendations

Over the course of study, we have come across significant technical challenges and data gaps in terms of reservoir characterization. We have
provided set of recommendations that range from data acquisition to advance technology that can address these challenges.

Category Formation Challenges Proposed Activity Mitigation plan

Recovering the gathers and running prestack

inversion will enable to obtain Vp/Vs (Poisson’s
Seismic Reservoir Resolution Pre-Stack Seismic Inversion Ratio) volume cube which will not only help in
fluid characterization, but will also be crucial
component in 3D geomechanical analysis.
Core data for multiple wells to see variation of
formation properties over the field- Integration
Core data Acquisition with Seismic Inversion
CS measurements and Klinkerberg corrections
Reservoir Characterization at lab
Selective wells to run advanced spectroscopy
Advanced logging - to understand Complex mineralogy
Petrophysics Spectroscopy, NMR NMR data for pore size distribution and rock
typing
Lab Tests Formation water tests to determine salinity
Saturation Computation and Rw
determination Advanced logging - Dielectric Dielectric Scanner with OBM for resistivity
Scanner independent saturation
NMR station logs for fluid typing (Diffusion
Fluid Contacts NMR Station
profile)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 42 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Category Formation Challenges Proposed Activity Mitigation plan

Hydraulic Fracturing is carried out in all the

wells. It is recommended to use actual
Temperature logs, Microsiesmic
Stimulation Hydraulic Fracture Geometry measurements like temperature logs,
survey
Microsiesmic surveys to understand fracture
geometry.
Lateral variation of rock mechanical properties
and stresses is observed across faults in
Kanawara block. Accurate estimation of
Sonic Data, Multi-arm caliper stresses at each fault block is necessary for
Lateral Stress Variation
and image data Acquisition hydraulic fracturing. For this purpose, sonic
data which can characterize sonic
measurements azimuthally, radially and
Geomechanics vertically should be acquired.
Multi-stage tri-axial laboratory tests on cores
should be performed at different depths to
Multi-stage tri-axial laboratory obtain rock strength and failure parameters
Rock Properties
tests more accurately to further refine MEM
parameters at all depths and hence make
precise predictions for drilling, completions.
Acquisition of representative gas-condensate
samples based on controlled drawdown
downhole fluid sampling techniques (MDT).
Also, the downhole sample needs to be
Reservoir Formation Tester data , PVT supplemented by acquisition of surface
Fluid Understanding
Engineering study recombined samples based on proper well-
stabilization. The representative samples must
be analysed with PVT experiments for
composition, dew point determination and CVD
experiments.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 43 of 44

Kanawara FDP - Technical Summary Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Category Formation Challenges Proposed Activity Mitigation plan

One well can be drilled in Segment 4 to book

the reserves from 2P to 1P category. The
location of the new well in segment 4 has been
Reserves Probable to Prove Volumes Infill well in Segment 4
proposed in ‘Recommendation’ section of FDP
and Economics Report. Flow after flow test is
recommended for the flow potential.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 44 of 44

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

Seismic Interpretation and Inversion Report

Vol. II / IX

Tender No:
HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Document Originator Name: Vaibhav Jain Position: Reservoir Geophysicist

Technical Authority Name: Suman Das Position: Senior Geophysicist

Reviewed by Name: Francois Bouchet Position: Technical Manager

Schlumberger confidential. © Copyright 2015 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.
Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Amendment Summary

Revision No Date Description

0.1 25-Aug-2015 Preliminary Issue
1.0 16-Sep-2015 First Version
2.0 31-Mar-2016 Final Version

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements, empirical
relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or
assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may
differ. Accordingly, Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or
completeness of any such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or
recommendation. Customer acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that
Schlumberger makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or
description in respect thereto. Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does
not warrant that any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or
recommendation is fit for a particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with any
government request or regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that such
services are delivered with the explicit understanding and agreement that any action taken
based on the services received shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim shall be
made against Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Contents

1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 15

2 Structural Interpretation................................................................................. 16
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 16
2.2 Data available ....................................................................................... 16
2.3 Seismic interpretation workflow ......................................................... 16
2.4 Selection of seismic volume ............................................................... 17
2.5 Available seismic velocity data ........................................................... 19
2.6 Well Data ............................................................................................... 20
3 Seismic Well Tie ............................................................................................. 20
4 Structural interpretation................................................................................. 23
4.1 Horizon Interpretation .......................................................................... 23
4.2 Fault interpretation ............................................................................... 28
4.2.1 Structural Smoothening ............................................................ 28
4.2.2 Variance ...................................................................................... 28
4.2.3 Ant–Tracking .............................................................................. 29
4.2.4 Result and Analysis ................................................................... 31
5 Time structure map ........................................................................................ 33
6 Attribute analysis ........................................................................................... 38
7 Seismic Inversion ........................................................................................... 39
7.1 Inputs..................................................................................................... 39
7.2 Workflow ............................................................................................... 40
7.3 Inversion results ................................................................................... 53
7.4 Rock Physics analysis ......................................................................... 54
7.5 Results .................................................................................................. 57
8 Velocity model ................................................................................................ 58
9 Analysis in depth domain .............................................................................. 60
9.1 Depth structure map ............................................................................ 60
9.2 Isopach maps ....................................................................................... 65
9.3 Fault seal analysis ................................................................................ 67
10 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 71

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Figures
Figure 2-1: The seismic interpretation workflow. .............................................................. 16
Figure 2-2: Two 3D seismic surveys (blue: TN_Merged volume, green: PSTM_Filtered
volume) available for the Kanawara field (red polygon). Well K#1 is also marked in the
image as a reference............................................................................................................ 17
Figure 2-3: Temporal mistie of ~88 ms between two 3D seismic volumes. ..................... 18
Figure 2-4: InLine 37 at well location K#1 showing (a) average velocity & (b) interval
velocity with coarse sampling and (c) stacking velocity & (d) RMS velocity with vertical
stripping. .............................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 3-1: Seismic well tie for K#7 and K#1E. .................................................................. 21
Figure 3-2: Seismic well tie for K#10 and extracted wavelet. ............................................ 22
Figure 4-1: Horizon interpretation grids at different levels. Red polygon marks the
Kanawara field limit. ............................................................................................................ 23
Figure 4-2: Horizon interpretation density at Tarapur and Kalol. Blue polygon marks the
Kanawara field limit. ............................................................................................................ 24
Figure 4-3: Horizon interpretation density at Tarapur and Kalol. Blue polygon marks the
Kanawara field limit. ............................................................................................................ 25
Figure 4-4: Horizon interpretation density at Upper and Lower Cambay Shale. ............. 26
Figure 4-5: Horizon interpretation density at Near Olpad and Near Fracture Top. .......... 27
Figure 4-6: Inline and time slide display for (a) original seismic volume (PSTM_Filtered)
and (b) structurally smoothed volume. Yellow line shows the boundary of Kanawara
field. ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4-7: Inline and timeslice display for (a) variance cube and (b) ant-tracked cube.
Yellow line shows the Kanawara field boundary. .............................................................. 29
Figure 4-8: Final interpreted fault sticks in the Kanawara field ........................................ 30
Figure 4-9: Seismic image showing two different generation of faults as discussed in
detail in text. ......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 4-10: Left: EP-IV Lower time structure map with major fault polygons marked on
it. Right: different compartments as defined by faults. ..................................................... 33
Figure 4-11: Composite between K#5 and K#2 well shows continuous reflector at
reservoir level ruling out presence of fault between the sub-blocks consisting K#5, K#3
and K#2, K#6, K#7). .............................................................................................................. 33
Figure 5-1: TWT structure map of Tarapur and Kalol top.................................................. 34
Figure 5-2: TWT structure map of EP-IV upper and EP-IV lower. ..................................... 35
Figure 5-3: TWT structure map of Upper and Lower Cambay shale................................. 36
Figure 5-4: TWT structure map of Near Olpad top and Near (Fracture) Trap top ............ 37
Figure 6-1: Well section window showing response of RAI and Sweetness at well
locations K#7 and K#10 against GR. .................................................................................. 38

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 6-2: Left: minimum amplitude of RAI and Right: maximum amplitude of
sweetness, in a window of 20ms below EP-IV Lower. Light blue spheres mark the EP-IV
lower markers....................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 7-1: Workflow for post-stack inversion................................................................... 41
Figure 7-2: Seismic Well Tie for well K#7 ........................................................................... 42
Figure 7-3: Seismic Well Tie for well K#1 ........................................................................... 43
Figure 7-4: Seismic Well Tie for well K#10 ......................................................................... 44
Figure 7-5: The extracted wavelet from the well K#10, which was used for inversion.... 45
Figure 7-6: Frequency spectrum of the zone of interest, marking the 11 Hz frequency,
below which frequencies are not present. ......................................................................... 46
Figure 7-7: Extracted low frequency model values on the EPIV Upper (left) and EPIV
Lower (right) reservoirs. ...................................................................................................... 46
Figure 7-8: Low frequency model on an intersection passing through all wells. (EPIV
Upper is marked by white line; EPIV Lower is marked by black line) .............................. 47
Figure 7-9: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Inline 21 passing through
the well K#7. ......................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 7-10: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Crossline 622 passing
through the well K#7. ........................................................................................................... 48
Figure 7-11: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Inline 80 passing through
the well K#10. ....................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 7-12: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Crossline 630 passing
through the well K#10. ......................................................................................................... 49
Figure 7-13: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Inline 37 passing through
the well K#1. ......................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 7-14: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Crossline 591 passing
through the well K#1. ........................................................................................................... 50
Figure 7-15: Acoustic Impedance on an intersection through well K#10, K#7 and K#1. 51
Figure 7-16: Acoustic Impedance on an intersection through all wells. .......................... 52
Figure 7-17: Inversion QC Plot for well K#7. (Red: Resampled original AI log; Blue:
Acoustic Impedance from Seismic Inversion) ................................................................... 53
Figure 7-18: Inversion QC Plot for well K#10. (Red: Resampled original AI log; Blue:
Acoustic Impedance from Seismic Inversion) ................................................................... 53
Figure 7-19: Inversion QC Plot for well K#1. (Red: Resampled original AI log; Blue:
Acoustic Impedance from Seismic Inversion) ................................................................... 54
Figure 7-21: Effective porosity vs Clay volume fraction, colored by acoustic impedance
values. .................................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 7-22: Final acoustic impedance maps for both the reservoirs. ............................. 57
Figure 8-1: Velocity modelling workflow ............................................................................ 58
Figure 8-2: Average velocity vs. TWT plots for K#6, K#7 and K#10 after seismic well
ties. ....................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 8-3: Left: intersections showing the grid and the layering used for velocity
modelling. Middle: original stacking velocity cube with vertical stripping. Right:

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 12 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

average velocity cube after structural smoothing and Dix conversion from the stacking
velocity cube. ....................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 8-4: Results from data analysis of the average velocity seismic cube which was
used as a trend for kriging. ................................................................................................. 60
Figure 9-1: TWT and depth structure map of EP-IV Upper. ............................................... 61
Figure 9-2: TWT and depth structure map of EP-IV Lower................................................ 62
Figure 9-3: Residual analysis for EP-IV upper and lower reservoir shows very good
consistency with the well result.......................................................................................... 63
Figure 9-4: Residual analysis map EP-IV upper and lower reservoir shows very good
consistency with the well result.......................................................................................... 64
Figure 9-5: Isopach map for EP-IV Upper-EP-IV Lower and EP-IV Lower to Cambay
shale. .................................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 9-6: Possible type of reservoir juxtaposition ......................................................... 67
Figure 9-7: The main faults separating different sub blocks. Also shows the fault throw
and the Juxtaposition analysis of each fault ..................................................................... 69
Figure 9-8: Seismic cross section connecting K-1 block and K-7 block .......................... 70
Figure 9-9: Seismic cross section from NW of the study area to SE................................ 70

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Executive Summary
The seismic interpretation report presents the work carried out during the Field Development
Plan (FDP) carried out by Schlumberger for GOGL, India.
The main objective of the geophysical analysis of the project was,
 Produce high resolution mapping of the producing zone (EP-IV upper and EP-IV lower)
by fault mapping, improved horizon picks with accurate well ties, obtain critical inputs
for improving/ reinforcing current understanding of the structural entrapment
mechanism in the region duly calibrated by all available well data.
 Seismic attribute analysis to understand the facies variation. Additionally, to
understand the reservoir distribution better, seismic inversion was carried out.
As a part of the seismic interpretation workflow, seismic reflectors were chosen to cover the
reservoir zones (EP-IV upper, EP-IV lower and Olpad formation), the source rock (Cambay
shale), the seal (Kalol top and Tarapur shale). Olpad top was picked in order to study upside
potential of the formation. The deepest reflector (Near Deccan Trap top also referred as Near
Fracture top) is picked to have good control in velocity modelling. Due to absence of deeper
penetrating well and poor seismic quality, it is not conclusive to comment whether deeper
reflector can be named as Near Trap Top. However, this will not have any impact on the
objective of the present study.
The fault interpretation was carried out by utilizing different seismic edge enhancement
attributes to understand the regional fault architecture of the area and to study its role in fluid
compartmentalization.
Close scrutiny reveals that faults play an important role in establishing fluid equilibrium
between different sub-blocks in Kanawara field. In the down thrown structural block, the most
of the faults originated at the fractured trap level but die out by the time they reach the lower
Cambay Shale top, which is confirmed by the continuity of seismic reflector. The faults in the
upper Cambay Shale and younger section (EP-IV) appear to be reactivated faults against the
pre-existing older fault lineaments.
To study the stratigraphic variation inter and intra faults blocks, deterministic seismic inversion
of full stack data was carried out yielding subsurface acoustic impedance with higher
resolution, hence improving the reservoir mapping.
Integration of fault interpretation and post-stack attribute analysis along with the pressure data
clearly indicates that most of the hydrocarbon accumulation in the Kanawara field is both
structural and stratigraphy controlled.
This report attempts to capture the detail work focusing the characterization of the main
reservoirs zones, the structural and stratigraphic control in fluid equilibrium in different sub-
blocks. Finally providing geologically consistent results, which is considered as the main
structure for the static modelling, are discussed in details in following chapter.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

2 Structural Interpretation

2.1 Introduction

The main objective of the work were as follows,

 Provide the structural framework (horizon and faults) for the field as input to the static
geological model.
o Interpretation of 8 Horizons including zone of interest (EP-IV upper and EP-IV
lower)
o Major and minor fault interpretation.
o Building of velocity model and creation of time and depth surfaces.

2.2 Data available

For the seismic evaluation following dataset were available,

1. 2 seismic volumes (TN merged and Scaled filtered)
2. Velocity cube (RMS, Stacking, Average and interval)
3. VSP\ Checkshot data for 7 wells)

2.3 Seismic interpretation workflow

Following diagram shows the seismic interpretation workflow. At first, the seismic volumes,
VSP\ checkshots, velocity data were received from GOGL. And were loaded petrel for seismic
interpretation. Once all the data were loaded the following workflow was followed to carry out
the interpretation (Figure 2-1).

Figure 2-1: The seismic interpretation workflow.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 16 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.4 Selection of seismic volume

Two seismic volumes, namely “TN_Merged”, with bin size 30 mt. X 15 mt, covering an area of
487 km2 and “PSTM_Filtered”, with bin size 40 mt. X 20 mt., covering an area of 124 km2
were received which were then input into Petrel.

Figure 2-2: Two 3D seismic surveys (blue: TN_Merged volume, green: PSTM_Filtered
volume) available for the Kanawara field (red polygon). Well K#1 is also marked in the
image as a reference.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Quality check of the different seismic volumes was carried out which shows a temporal mis-tie
of 88 ms between two 3D volumes (Figure 2-3).
In general “PSTM_Filtered” volume shows better signal to noise ratio in the reservoir zones
compared to “TN_Merged” volume. As shown in the Figure, the presence of noise in
TN_Merged volumes (in right) does not satisfy the right volume to carry out structural
interpretation. Hence, “PSTM_Filtered” volume was used for seismic interpretation. The
seismic interpretation was carried out in an area of 6.3. Sq. Km. (the red polygon in Figure 2-
2).

PSTM_Filtered TN_Merged

~88 ms

Figure 2-3: Temporal mistie of ~88 ms between two 3D seismic volumes.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 18 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.5 Available seismic velocity data

Four velocity cubes were provided by GOGL for PSTM volume: Stacking velocities, RMS
velocities, Average velocities and Interval velocities. The average and interval velocity cubes
provided are very coarsely sampled vertically (100 ms. Figure 2-4). This reduces confidence
in these two cubes and thus these were not used in velocity modelling. Stacking and RMS

a b

c d

Figure 2-4: InLine 37 at well location K#1 showing (a) average velocity & (b) interval velocity with
coarse sampling and (c) stacking velocity & (d) RMS velocity with vertical stripping.

velocity cubes (sample interval 2) show vertical stripping (Figure 2-4) which was smoothen
out and average velocity cube was generated using Dix Conversion from stacking velocity
cube. This was used in velocity modelling as a guiding trend for the average velocities
extracted from the wells.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.6 Well Data

The seismic interpretation includes 9 wells with 1 deviated well (K#5). Figure 2-1 shows the
available well data.

The 3D seismic surveys and velocity data were loaded in Petrel and realized in bricked format
as .zgy file for enhanced efficiency during interpretation. All the well logs, checkshot/ VSP and
markers were also loaded.
Table 2-1: Available well data

Well Name DENSITY SONIC TDR Deviation survey

K#1 Yes Yes VSP Vertical Well
K#2 No Yes Checkshot Vertical Well
K#3 Yes No Checkshot Vertical Well
K#5 No Yes Checkshot Available
K#6 Yes Yes Checkshot Vertical Well
K#7 Yes Yes Checkshot Vertical Well
K#8 Yes No Checkshot Vertical Well
K#9 No No No Vertical Well
K#10 Yes Yes No Vertical Well

3 Seismic Well Tie

The main objective of seismic well tie process is to correlate well markers\ formation tops with
seismic events in time domain, to enhance the accuracy of seismic interpretation. Seismic well
tie was carried out for 4 wells (K#1, K#6, K#7 and K#10). Overall the sonic and density logs
were good except in few zones, where log conditioning was required to enhance the accuracy
during well-tie process. This is explained in detail in “Petrophysics” section. After well log
conditioning a pilot wavelet (here negative polarity 30 Hz Ricker wavelet) with frequency
corresponding to that of surface seismic at reservoir level is considered to compare synthetic
seismogram with surface seismic. A good correlation is observed between 3D seismic around
the well and synthetic seismograms, usually with bulk time shifts and very minimal stretch and
squeeze, which is applied to match the corresponding events. After a good match, wavelet is
then extracted from the surface seismic around the reservoir interval using ISIS Time
Extraction method. Characteristics of the wavelet define the quality of the match and can be
used as a pilot wavelet for other wells penetrating the same field.
Due to the presence of coal streaks in the upper part of the EP-IV upper formation in
Kanawara field, there is a sudden drop in acoustic impedance at EP-IV upper top. Combined
with the negative polarity of the 3D seismic data, this gives a bright peak at EP-IV level which
is used as a guide for the bulk shifts applied in the well tie process. Figure 3-1 shows the well
ties for wells K#1, K#7. Figure 3-2 shows the extracted deterministic wavelet for K#10 which
was used in inversion as explained in the inversion section (Section 7).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-1: Seismic well tie for K#7 and K#1E.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-2: Seismic well tie for K#10 and extracted wavelet.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

4 Structural interpretation
Structural interpretation consists of two parts, horizon and fault interpretation. The following
section discusses the selection of reflectors, the challenges, fault interpretation and its
implication in hydrocarbon migration.

4.1 Horizon Interpretation

After calibration of the seismic data at well locations with the created synthetic seismograms,
eight reflectors were identified: Tarapur, Kalol, EP-IV Upper, EP-IV Lower, Cambay Shale,
Lower Cambay Shale, Near Olpad and Near Fracture top (also referred as Near Deccan Trap
top) (Figure 4-1). All the horizons were interpreted in close grid of 2 inline and 2 crossline.
Figure 4-2 to Figure 4-5 show the interpretation grid used for 8 horizons.

Figure 4-1: Horizon interpretation grids at different levels. Red polygon marks the Kanawara
field limit.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 23 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-2: Horizon interpretation density at Tarapur and Kalol. Blue polygon marks the Kanawara field limit.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 24 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-3: Horizon interpretation density at Tarapur and Kalol. Blue polygon marks the Kanawara field limit.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 25 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-4: Horizon interpretation density at Upper and Lower Cambay Shale.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 26 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-5: Horizon interpretation density at Near Olpad and Near Trap (Fracture) Top.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 27 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

4.2 Fault interpretation

Fault interpretation was carried out with the aim to build structural framework to understand
the presence of different sub-blocks in the field and to understand the migration pathways. To
achieve this, different conditioned volumes were used to enhance accuracy in fault
interpretation.
4.2.1 Structural Smoothening

The structural smoothing technique was used for smoothing (Parameter Inline: 1, Crossline: 1
vertical: 1.5) the input signal (PSTM_Filtered volume) guided by the local structure to increase
the continuity of the seismic reflectors by reducing the noise in the data (Figure 4-6). Since the
original seismic cube already had low bandwidth and appears quite smooth already, the
structurally smoothed cube was used only for the horizon interpretation. The original cube was
used as an input for the variance cube creation and for the manual fault interpretation.

a b

Figure 4-6: Inline and time slide display for (a) original seismic volume (PSTM_Filtered) and
(b) structurally smoothed volume. Yellow line shows the boundary of Kanawara field.

4.2.2 Variance
The variance cube has the local variance as a measure of signal unconformity. For each
voxel, the local variance is computed from horizontal sub-slices. If this slice is within an
unbroken reflection layer, the amplitude variance will be small whereas amplitude changes

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 28 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

due to a discontinuity will result in a larger variance. Next, the variance estimate is smoothed
by a vertical window and normalized amplitude (Figure 4-7). The variance attribute may
furthermore be done dip insensitive by performing the variance estimation in dip corrected
slices. The variance cube helped in detecting and confirming many fault trends.
4.2.3 Ant–Tracking
Ant tracking is a term for attributes that come from the similar behavior of two ants starting at
the same time at a nest. The ant choosing the shorter path will arrive at the nest before the
ant choosing the longer path. The shorter path will thus be marked with more pheromone than
the longer path, and hence the next ant, influenced by the pheromone, is more likely to
choose the shorter path.
The ant tracked attribute volume is an enhanced discontinuity volume when compared to the
variance input volume; time slices at a specific time value show the orientation and the
distribution of the faults along the whole area (Figure 4-7), but its applicability is data specific

a b

Figure 4-7: Inline and timeslice display for (a) variance cube and (b) ant-tracked cube. Yellow
line shows the Kanawara field boundary.

and sometimes (as in the present case), the results obtained using ant-tracking have no value
addition to variance attribute and may be highly susceptible to noise.
During fault interpretation, different variance time slices were used to control and QC the
manually interpreted faults.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 29 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-8: Final interpreted fault sticks in the Kanawara field

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page30of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

4.2.4 Result and Analysis

Fault interpretation was aimed to understand the fluid dynamic equilibrium between different
structural blocks. This was further validated with the pressure data in order to generate an
integrated structural model. The current study reveals Kanawara field is predominantly
characterized by a NNW-SSE trending fault with downthrown side due East. The nature of
faults varies from upthrown and downthrown block.
The older generation of faults were originated at the fractured trap level but gradually die out,
which is confirmed by the continuity of seismic reflector (Figure 4-9). The faults in the upper
Cambay shale and younger section (EP-IV) appear to be reactivated faults against the pre-
existing older fault lineaments. These faults were formed at much later stage due to
differential compaction.
Initial attempt was made to understand the possible compartmentalization in the reservoir
levels from existing fault interpretation. As shown in Figure 4-10, the Western upthrown sub
block (Well K#1) is separated from Northern downthrown sub block (K#8 and K#9) by Fault3
with the throw ranging from 18ms to 23 ms. Fault 4 separates the sub block consisting K#8,
K#9 wells from the eastern block consisting K-3, K-5 and K-10. Fault 4 shows maximum throw
towards north (~ 24 ms), hence may act as barrier for fluid movement across the blocks. The
observation is also validated with the pressure data which further supports
compartmentalization between these sub-blocks. Towards South, the fault throw decreases to
9 ms. indicating possible communication. No well has been drilled in this block (West of K-2,
K-6, K-7 block). Small throw indicates less chance of compartmentalization unless the fault
plane itself act as barrier for fluid migration.
Fault-2 shows throw in order of 22 ms and separates the block consisting of K-8, K-9 from the
southern block suggesting possible compartmentalization in this block separated from
adjacent blocks by Fault-4, Fault-3, and Fault 2.
Summarizing, the fault interpretation and the preliminary fault throw study of individual block
suggest possible compartmentalization in the Kanawara field. Although, fault throw analysis
cannot always guarantee sealing or leaking nature of a fault. The study provides initial
understanding on possible compartmentalization suggesting at least 3 compartments i.e.
Block consisting of K#1; Block with K#8, K#9; Block with K-2, K-6, K-7, K-3, K-5, K-10.
It is important to note, seismic interpretation does not show presence of any fault separating
K-2, K-6, K-7 sub-block from K-3, K-5, K-10 sub-block (Figure 4-11). However the well data
indicates these two blocks behave differently hence possible compartmentalization between
these 2 sub-blocks. One of the geological explanations can be attributed to presence of older
generation of fault at deeper level which affects the hydrocarbon dynamic equilibrium between
these two sub blocks, which is difficult to establish due to poor seismic quality in the deeper
part.
The more reasonable explanation can be attributed to reservoir heterogeneity between these
two blocks causing impedance in fluid migration. For most of the tight reservoir worldwide,
stratigraphic barrier plays a very important role in fluid migration. Seismic Inversion study
(discussed in seismic attribute section) shows the facies variation between these sub-blocks,
further strengthening the theory of stratigraphic barrier, which was incorporated and discussed
in static modelling section.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 31 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-9: Seismic image showing two different generation of faults as discussed in detail in text.

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page32of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Fault4

Fault2 Fault3

Fault1

Figure 4-10: Left: EP-IV Lower time structure map with major fault polygons marked on
it. Right: different compartments as defined by faults.

Figure 4-11: Composite between K#5 and K#2 well shows continuous reflector at reservoir
level ruling out presence of fault between the sub-blocks consisting K#5, K#3 and K#2, K#6,
K#7).

5 Time structure map

After horizon interpretation, TWT structure maps were generated for each horizon and fault
polygons were digitized (Figure 5-1 to Figure 5-4). Convergent interpolation method was used
for gridding with a grid interval of 20x20 m. The TWT map shows at present day all reflectors
regionally dip towards South-East. The shallowest part is located towards the North-West of
the block.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 33 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5-1: TWT structure map of Tarapur and Kalol top

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page34of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5-2: TWT structure map of EP-IV upper and EP-IV lower.

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page35of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5-3: TWT structure map of Upper and Lower Cambay shale

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page36of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5-4: TWT structure map of Near Olpad top and Near (Fracture) Trap top

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page37of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

6 Attribute analysis
Post-stack attribute analysis was carried out to understand the facies distribution in the area;
particularly at EP-IV level, which is the main reservoir in the field. Presence of coal streak
between the EP-IV reservoirs is the major challenge for post-stack attribute analysis. To
understand the response of reservoir units to seismic attribute, it is important to establish the
relation at well locations. As shown in Figure 6-1, it was observed that post-stack attributes
give a combined response from the presence of coal streaks and reservoir in between.

Coal

Coal

Figure 6-1: Well section window showing response of RAI and Sweetness at well locations
K#7 and K#10 against GR.
For the EP-IV lower level, a lowering in RAI and increase in sweetness attribute were
observed. However a clear correlation cannot be established between these attributes and the
EP-IV lower sands. Thus these attributes cannot directly be used to characterize the reservoir
in this area. With certain limitations, the RAI and Sweetness attributes were used to
understand the main fairway of the EP-IV lower reservoir. These two attributes for the EP-IV
lower reservoir were used for qualitative assessment of the reservoir facies (Figure 6-2).
To overcome the limitation of conventional post-stack attributes, deterministic inversion was
run to improve the resolution of the acoustic impedance cube, derived from seismic volume.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 38 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 6-2: Left: minimum amplitude of RAI and Right: maximum amplitude of sweetness, in a
window of 20ms below EP-IV Lower. Light blue spheres mark the EP-IV lower markers.

7 Seismic Inversion
The objective of seismic inversion was to generate acoustic impedance cube, which can act
as good indicator of lithology. Since application of conventional seismic attribute is limited in
this area (discussed in previous section), seismic inversion is an important approach for
reservoir characterization.

7.1 Inputs
To achieve this, the following inputs were used:

1) Acoustic Impedance logs – These logs are required to create the low frequency
model, which will act as a prior model for inversion. Also these are required to validate
the results from inversion. 3 wells were used, as only these have the required sonic
and density logs:

 K#1
 K#7
 K#10
2) Time depth relationships – Checkshots or VSP data are necessary in order to
correctly place the well logs with respect to the seismic volume. The existing
checkshots are calibrated and corrected using the Seismic Well Tie process. Seismic
Well Tie was done for the three wells, using density and sonic logs.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 39 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

3) Wavelet – An extracted wavelet from the Seismic cube is needed to convert the
Seismic cube into a P-Impedance cube. This wavelet is extracted from the seismic
data, after the synthetic (generated from the P-sonic and density well logs) and the
seismic data are tied. Hence a good seismic to well tie is important here. The wavelet
was extracted from well K#10, using the ISIS Time algorithm.

4) Seismic Cube – The seismic cube should cover the entire area for which inversion
has to be done. Inversion was done for an area of 7 square km laterally and from
1300ms to 1800ms vertically.

5) Seismic Interpretation – Seismic horizon interpretations are needed to guide the low
frequency model. The following horizon interpretations were used:

 Tarapur Top
 Kalol Top
 EPIV Upper
 EPIV Lower
 Cambay Shale

7.2 Workflow
The generalized workflow for simultaneous inversion requires Data import and QC, Seismic
Well Tie, Structural Interpretation and log conditioning as preparation. A wavelet is extracted
during the Seismic Well Tie process. Then a Low frequency model (LFM) has to be made.
Then Simultaneous Seismic Inversion is run on the Seismic cube, using the Low Frequency
Model and wavelet as input. These results are then quality checked. (Figure 7-1)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 40 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-1: Workflow for post-stack inversion

1) Seismic Well Tie – Seismic to well tie was done for the three wells lying in the seismic
area (Figure 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4). The wavelet was extracted from K#10 (Figure 7-5).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 41 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-2: Seismic Well Tie for well K#7

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 42 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-3: Seismic Well Tie for well K#1

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 43 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-4: Seismic Well Tie for well K#10

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 44 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-5: The extracted wavelet from the well K#10, which was used for inversion.

2) Relative Acoustic Impedance (RAI) – Relative Acoustic Impedance was calculated

using an average Acoustic Impedance as a prior model, the seismic cube and the
wavelet. This would be used as guide for the Low Frequency Model generation. The
average AI value was taken as 5500 kPa.s/m.

3) Low Frequency Model – Low frequency model was built, guided by RAI and using the
structural interpretation and acoustic impedance well logs as inputs. A high cut filter of
11 Hz was applied to the output to retain only the low frequency component of the logs
(Figure 7-6, 7-7 and 7-8).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 45 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-6: Frequency spectrum of the zone of interest, marking the 11 Hz frequency, below
which frequencies are not present.

Figure 7-7: Extracted low frequency model values on the EPIV Upper (left) and EPIV Lower
(right) reservoirs.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 46 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-8: Low frequency model on an intersection passing through all wells. (EPIV Upper is
marked by white line; EPIV Lower is marked by black line)

4) Simultaneous Seismic Inversion – Inversion was run using the Low frequency
model, seismic cube and extracted wavelet as the input (Figure 7-9 to Figure 7-16).

Figure 7-9: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Inline 21 passing through the well
K#7.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 47 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-10: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Crossline 622 passing through
the well K#7.

Figure 7-11: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Inline 80 passing through the
well K#10.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 48 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-12: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Crossline 630 passing through
the well K#10.

Figure 7-13: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Inline 37 passing through the
well K#1.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 49 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-14: Acoustic Impedance (from Seismic Inversion) on Crossline 591 passing through
the well K#1.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 50 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-15: Acoustic Impedance on an intersection through well K#10, K#7 and K#1.

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page51of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-16: Acoustic Impedance on an intersection through all wells.

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page52of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

7.3 Inversion results

The inversion results from the Simultaneous seismic inversion have to be validated and
quality checked. For this, the approach followed was:

1) Inversion QC Plot - This P-Impedance volume from simultaneous inversion was

quality checked by comparing it with the resampled Acoustic Impedance logs (they
were resampled to the Seismic sampling rate, which was 2ms) (Figure 7-17 to Figure
7-19). A good correlation was found between the resampled AI logs and P-Impedance
volume.

Figure 7-17: Inversion QC Plot for well K#7. (Red: Resampled original AI log; Blue: Acoustic
Impedance from Seismic Inversion)

Figure 7-18: Inversion QC Plot for well K#10. (Red: Resampled original AI log; Blue: Acoustic
Impedance from Seismic Inversion)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 53 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-19: Inversion QC Plot for well K#1. (Red: Resampled original AI log; Blue: Acoustic
Impedance from Seismic Inversion)

7.4 Rock Physics analysis

The raw and petrophysical logs were analyzed separately for the upper and lower reservoir.

1) Upper reservoir - The upper reservoir is bound by coal seams on its upper and lower
side. These seams have considerably low acoustic impedance values (~ 2000-3000
kPa.s/m). Hence the overall response of acoustic impedance for the upper reservoir
was lower, in the inverted acoustic impedance cube. To study the relationship
between this low resolution acoustic impedance, from seismic cube, and the reservoir
quality, the acoustic impedance logs were blocked for the zone, along with the two
coal seams. They were then plotted against reservoir porosity for the three wells, and
colored using the rock quality log. (Figure 7-20). The quality log was made, by
separating the reservoir using the following cut-offs:

 Volume of clay<0.6
 Effective porosity>0.1

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 54 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-20: Blocked AI values vs Effective Porosity, colored by quality log.

It was seen that, the lower the acoustic impedance value in the map (blocked AI
log), better the reservoir quality.

2) Lower reservoir – The lower reservoir analysis was done by cross-plotting effective
porosity vs clay volume fraction, colored by the acoustic impedance values at the log
level. It was seen that the reservoirs of higher quality (lower clay volume and higher
effective porosity) had higher acoustic impedance values. (Figure 7-21).

Hence it was concluded that, the higher the acoustic impedance values in the map,
better is the reservoir quality.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 55 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-21: Effective porosity vs Clay volume fraction, colored by acoustic impedance values.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 56 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

7.5 Results

Acoustic Impedance maps, for both the reservoirs were created as the final result. (Figure 7-
22).

EPIV Upper EPIV Lower

Figure 7-22: Final acoustic impedance maps for both the reservoirs.

The inversion result undoubtedly brings out more detail information on reservoir
characterization than conventional post-stack attribute. The impedance cube generated by the
inversion can be considered as “litho cube” and was incorporated in the static model. This
approach made the static model more robust and brought more confidence on lithology even
away from the well.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 57 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

8 Velocity model
The aim of making velocity model is to convert the TWT maps to depth maps, tied with the
wells and showing a reliable structural setting. A simple 3D model with grid size of 20mx20m
in the X and Y direction is prepared with the top surface at -350ms and base surface at -
3000ms. The vertical layering of the model is ~20ms on an average.

Figure 8-1: Velocity modelling workflow

As explained before, the average and interval seismic velocity cubes are very coarsely
sampled and the stacking and RMS velocity cubes showed vertical stripping. To generate
average velocity cube for velocity modelling, stacking velocity cube was cropped to the area of
interest and then smoothened to remove vertical stripping and then Dix converted to the
average velocity cube (Figure 8-1 ). These seismic average velocities are up-scaled into the
3D grid model. Average velocity from the wells used in seismic well ties (K#6, K#7 and K#10)
were quality checked (Figure 8-2) and then up-scaled into the 3D grid model as well (Figure
8-3). Exploratory Data Analysis is performed to guide the well velocity data of key wells for
propagation in the grid honoring the regional velocity trend coming from seismic velocity data
(Figure 8-4). Ordinary kriging with locally varying mean was used as the algorithm for the
propagation of velocities within the zones. This average velocity cube was used to generate
velocity model using key time equivalents of Tarapur, Kalol, EP-IV Upper, EP-IV Lower,
Cambay Shale and Olpad surfaces and well correction. Using the velocity model, faults,
horizons, TWT surfaces and fault polygons were converted to depth domain to generate depth
structure maps.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 58 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-2: Average velocity vs. TWT plots for K#6, K#7 and K#10 after seismic well ties.

Figure 8-3: Left: intersections showing the grid and the layering used for velocity modelling.
Middle: original stacking velocity cube with vertical stripping. Right: average velocity cube
after structural smoothing and Dix conversion from the stacking velocity cube.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 59 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-4: Results from data analysis of the average velocity seismic cube which was
used as a trend for kriging.

9 Analysis in depth domain

9.1 Depth structure map

The velocity model was used to convert the surface from time to depth domain. As shown in
Figure 9-1 and 9-2, no anomalous structures (like bull’s eyes) appear in the depth structure
maps, when compared with the TWT maps. To QC the depth conversion, residual analysis
was carried out and is shown in Figure 9-3 and 9-4.The residual surface was generated for
both reservoirs (EP-IV upper and EP-IV lower). Both the intervals show very low residual
except near K#3. For K#3, due to absence of density log it was generated from sonic. The
seismic well tie for K#3 well will have some uncertainty due to data limitations. In the final
static model, it was further calibrated without affecting the well top in surrounding wells.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 60 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-1: TWT and depth structure map of EP-IV Upper.

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page61of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-2: TWT and depth structure map of EP-IV Lower.

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page62of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-3: Residual analysis for EP-IV upper and lower reservoir shows very good
consistency with the well result.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 63 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page64of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

9.2 Isopach maps

Isopach maps were prepared, as shown in Figure 9-5, for the reservoir levels to understand
the variation in thickness across the field.

Overall the thickness variation in reservoir level is quite small with overall thinning from SE to
NW. The conformable nature of EP-IV upper and EP-IV lower shows absence of any tectonic
events during that time. Thus, the thickness variation is deposition related and indicates
possible NW-SE trending sediment supply.

Similar trend is observed in deeper EP-IV lower reservoir. Both the reservoirs were deposited
in marginal marine condition which is discussed in Geology section.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 65 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-5: Isopach map for EP-IV Upper-EP-IV Lower and EP-IV Lower to Cambay shale.

31stMarch, 2016 Confidential Page66of80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

9.3 Fault seal analysis

After depth conversion of time surfaces and faults, fault seal analysis was performed (in depth
domain) to understand the intra and inter reservoir juxtaposition and the impact of fault in
compartmentalization.
As shown in Figure 9-6, there can be various situations like partial self, full shelf, Non
juxtaposition and cross reservoir juxtaposition.

Figure 9-6: Possible type of reservoir juxtaposition

It is important to note that in addition to juxtaposition, a fault plane itself can be sealing or
leaking due to deformation process involved like fault zone diagenesis, clay smear, grain
sliding and cataclasis (Kaldi, 2008). Therefore even if there is reservoir juxtaposition, the fault
itself can act as barrier in fluid continuity. For the juxtaposition analysis, the reservoir zones
are colour coded accordingly and the juxtaposition between reservoirs across fault plane are
marked as red. As evident from the diagram (Figure 9-7), the fault throw of F11 at EP-IV level
is very low; hence reservoir –reservoir juxtaposition is very likely. In absence of any
information outside study area towards east, it is difficult to comment on the effect of F-11 on
hydrocarbon dynamic equilibrium. F3 fault show minor juxtaposition in places and can be
considered as sealing in most part. F4 fault although shows considerable through towards
North, the throw diminishes considerably towards South. Therefore on the basis of
juxtaposition study, this fault shows probable communication. However, as discussed earlier,
juxtaposition alone can be inconclusive in the nature of fault. The nature of fault plane
(leaking\sealing) itself can play important role. In absence of any well data on the western side
of the fault, the volumetric can be reported as 2P.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 67 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

As discussed before, the compartment between K-2, K-6, K-7 sub-block from K-3, K-5, and K-
10 sub-block is not supported from seismic interpretation due to absence of any visible fault.
Therefore the deeper fault probably played important role for the compartment between these
blocks, which is supported from production characteristics.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 68 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

22.50 mt.

10.50

0.00 mt.

Figure 9-7: The main faults separating different sub blocks. Also shows the fault throw and the Juxtaposition analysis of each fault

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 69 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

F-3 fault shows large throw in most part and can act as barrier in hydrodynamic equilibrium. F-
4 fault although shows significant throw but diminishes towards south as shown in Figure 9-8
and Figure 9-9. This observation is integrated in RE section and is discussed accordingly.

Figure 9-8: Seismic cross section connecting K-1 block and K-7 block

Figure 9-9: Seismic cross section from NW of the study area to SE.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 70 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

10 Conclusion
This report summarizes seismic interpretation of 6.6 Sq. km. of the 3D seismic data
incorporating well information from 9 wells. On the basis of the integration of seismic data,
well data, and other available information, the development potential of the study area is
investigated and depth surfaces and fault planes are generated for static modelling. Post
stack attribute analysis is carried out, which can be used to understand the main fairway of the
EP-IV lower reservoir, within certain limitations like low resolution of seismic data, thin sands
at EP-IV level and presence of coal streaks at the top of EP-IV which results in a combined
response for the attributes. To delineate fine sands and their continuity, inversion was run
improving the resolution of the acoustic impedance cube, derived from seismic cube.
Combination of structural analysis, fault seal analysis and inversion study indicates faults
solely cannot explain compartmentalization in the Kanawara field. This is likely to be due to
stratigraphic variation which is very common in this kind of setting worldwide.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 71 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPENDIX

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 72 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 73 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 74 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 75 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 76 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 77 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 78 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 79 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Seismic Interpretation Report Tender No. : HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 80 of 80

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Kanawara Field Development Study

Petrophysics Report

Vol. III / IX

Tender No:
HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Document Originator: Name: Amola Panda Position: Petrophysicist

Technical Authority Name: Arathi L Mahesh Position: Senior Petrophysicist

Schlumberger confidential. © Copyright 2015 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.
Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Amendment Summary

Revision No Date Description

0.1 14-Aug-2015 Preliminary Issue
1.0 26-Aug-2015 Version 1
2.0 10-Sep-2015 Version 2
3.0 14-Dec-2015 Version 3
4.0 31-Mar-2016 Final Version

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements, empirical
relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or assumptions
are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may differ. Accordingly,
Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or completeness of any
such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or recommendation. Customer
acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that Schlumberger makes no
representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or description in respect thereto.
Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does not warrant that any
interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation is fit for a
particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with any government request or
regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that such services are delivered with
the explicit understanding and agreement that any action taken based on the services received
shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim shall be made against Schlumberger as
a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 19

Introduction.................................................................................................... 20
Project Scope ...................................................................................... 20
Project Workflow ................................................................................. 20
2.2.1 Data Collection and Inventory 20
2.2.2 Data Preparation 21
2.2.3 Petrophysical Evaluation 22
Petrophysical Analysis ................................................................................. 24
Database .............................................................................................. 24
3.1.1 Log Data 24
3.1.2 Conventional Core Data 27
3.1.3 Well Tests 33
3.1.4 Mud Logs 33
3.1.5 Data Evaluation, Limitations and Quality Control 34
Porosity and Lithology Model ............................................................ 37
3.2.1 Availability of Log and Conventional Core Data 37
3.2.2 Lithology and Porosity Model 37
3.2.3 Validation and QC 41
Water Saturation .................................................................................. 44
3.3.1 Formation Water Resistivity: 44
3.3.2 Saturation Parameters 46
3.3.3 Saturation Equation 47
3.3.4 Fluid Contacts from Logs 49
3.3.5 Validation 51
Permeability and Petrophysical Rock Typing ................................... 51
3.4.1 Background 51
3.4.2 Permeability 51
3.4.3 Petrophysical Rock Typing 55
3.4.4 Validation and Quality Check 63
Log Conditioning and Attribute Analysis .......................................... 65
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 70
Conclusion and Results ...................................................................... 70
Recommendations from Petrophysical Analysis ............................. 73
References ..................................................................................................... 74
Annex 1: Tables ............................................................................................. 76
Annex 2: Average Petrophysical Properties ............................................... 78
Annex 3: Strike and Dip Sections ................................................................ 80

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

List of Tables

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

List of Figures

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 14 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Abbreviations
RM Mud Resistivity
RMB Mud Resistivity at Bottom hole
RMF Mud Filtrate Resistivity
MRT Maximum Recorded Temperature
CBLO Casing Bottom Logger
MSL Mean Sea Level
ELAN Schlumberger software for well level volumetric analysis
Techlog Schlumberger PC based petrophysical software
RCA Routine core analysis
SCAL Special core analysis
Pc Capillary pressure
MICP Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure
HPMI High Pressure Mercury Injection

Definitions

FWL Level below this depth is 100% water

GDT Gas down to based on evidence from samples / well test
ODT Oil down to based on evidence from samples / well test Collective
OWC Oil water contact
WUT Water Up To

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Executive Summary
Petrophysical evaluation was carried out for Kanawara Field, which includes estimation of total
and effective porosity, mineralogy, permeability and water saturation from well log data, followed
by petrophysical rock typing. The end result of the petrophysics is achieved by wholly integrated
analysis, considering all available data such as well logs, conventional core, well tests, mud
logs and results in a robust evaluation. This report discusses all aspects of the petrophysics
work undertaken in the study. The computed parameters are key input for static modelling in
EPIV zonation, reservoir-non reservoir classification and initial in place computation.
Majority of the wells have basic wireline logs consisting of GR, RHOB, NPHI and Resistivity
Logs. K#2 has only resistivity and sonic logs, whereas K#3 and K#5 do not have neutron and
density logs respectively. Advances logs including CMR and ECS are not available. EP IV upper
reservoir in between two coal layers and EP IV Lower top section are the main hydrocarbon
bearing reservoir (Refer geology section for overall geological setting description).
Petrophysical analysis is carried out for wells K#1, K#5, K#6, K#7, K#8, K#9 and K#10 wells
using simultaneous solver (Quanti ELAN) with basic logs as input.
The reservoir is primarily fine grained siltstone with clay volume more than 35 percent. The
mineralogy is quite complex and there are presence of coal (EP IV Upper), mixed clay types
along with heavy minerals such as Siderite and Magnesite. This is consistent with low energy
depositional environment. Saturation parameters are derived from clay corrected core electrical
parameters and formation water resistivity is estimated using Pickett plots.
To validate petrophysical parameters, total and effective porosity, matrix density, dry mineral
weights have been compared to core porosity, grain density and XRD measurements
respectively in key well K#10. Mud logs have been used extensively to validate lithology and
wetness parameters were computed to identify formation fluid and compare saturation
estimation with mud gas recordings. Well tests have also been used for determination of fluid
properties.
Permeability was computed as an intrinsic function of mineralogy using Herron’s equation
(SPWLA 1987). Log permeability has been used compared with net confining stress corrected
air permeability measurements to validate the results. Petrophysical rock typing is primarily
based on grouping similar capillary pressure and MICP parameters followed by evaluating the
core porosity and permeability relationships. R35 Aguilera classification has been used to
distinguish these groups as the porosity-permeability fit the trend and distinguish the
characteristics observed in MICP data. This classification is populated to log domain using log
effective porosity-permeability relationship. Heterogeneous rock analysis which is beneficial for
characterizing unconventional reservoirs, has been also carried out to further refine these
petrophysical rock types.
Along with petrophysical analysis, log conditioning has been carried out to improve well to
seismic ties for 3 wells which have Sonic-Density logs available. It is also attempted to derive
qualitative relations between seismic attributes such as AI and petrophysical parameters such
as porosity and clay volume to facilitate static modelling.
In the reservoir zones, the effective porosity in EP IV Upper varies from 10 to 17 p.u. and in EP
IV lower varies from 10 to 18.7 p.u. The permeability ranges from 0.06 to 0.8 md and 0.1 to 2
md in EP IV Upper and Lower reservoirs respectively. The water saturation ranges from 60 to
90 %. The low permeability observed in these reservoirs can be attributed to grain size, pore
size distribution and effect of diagenesis. High pressure mercury injection data also suggest
small pore throat sizes resulting in high values of irreducible water saturation.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Introduction
Project Scope
The objective of this report is to document procedures followed in the petrophysical formation
evaluation of wireline logs for the given wells in zonation EP IV Upper and EP IV Lower.
Petrophysical analysis is carried out for wells K#1, K#5, K#6, K#7, K#8, K#9 and K#10 wells
using simultaneous solver (Quanti ELAN). Due to lack of adequate data in K#3 and K#5 porosity
is computed using density and sonic respectively followed by saturation estimation using deep
resistivity logs. Shale volume is computed using normalized GR logs. Only resistivity and sonic
logs are available for K#2, neutron count rates are given which could not be used for
computation of Neutron porosity due to lack of conversion information.

The goal of the petrophysical study is to provide key inputs for structural, stratigraphic and
reservoir framework which includes rock types for the zone of study. Conventional core data is
used for derivation of important parameters such as clay corrected saturation parameters, clay
typing, matrix density, permeability estimation, rock typing and Saturation height modeling. The
Petrophysics overview is presented in the Figure 2.1.1

Figure 2.1.1: Petrophysics Overview: Integrated Reservoir Studies

This is part of the reservoir study and the results are integrated with other geological,
geophysical and reservoir data to arrive at common understanding of reservoir and hydrocarbon
distribution. This study will lead to a reasonable prognosis of reservoir characterization and
hydrocarbon potential.

Project Workflow

The workflow can be split into three major categories:

2.2.1 Data Collection and Inventory

Interpretation of 9 wells was carried out using wireline logs. This step comprises of data
mining of logs, mud parameters, conventional core, mud logs and production tests
(DSTs). A considerable amount of time was allocated to systematically reviewing and
organizing all the available information. Table 2.1 summarizes the available
information.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Table 2.1 : Well data inventory for Kanawara field

Data Availability No of Wells

Total Wells 9

Wells with Conventional Core Analysis 1

Side Wall Core 0

CMR-ECS 0

FMI 3

Mud Logs 6

Deviated Well 1

Well Test 8

Wells excluded from Petrophysical Evaluation 1

2.2.2 Data Preparation

Prior to well level analysis, the input log data is conditioned. Quality check of each well’s
log data was carried out and edited wherever needed such as depth matching, rugosity
correction etc. Since the data were provided as las file, no environmental correction
except hole condition was carried out. A Techlog project was created by integrating
logs, conventional core measurements- routine, electrical measurements, XRD and
capillary pressure data, well tests and geological markers.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Figure 2.2.1: Well Locations for Kanawara Field, Key Well (K#10) highlighted in Red

Well deviation and header information such as location (X, Y), elevation, and total depth were
also loaded to compute well trajectory and depth in true vertical sub-sea (TVDSS). Only well
K#5 is the deviated and hole deviation and azimuth is used to compute TVD (Figure 2.2.1).

2.2.3 Petrophysical Evaluation

Based on understanding of formation through all the available information, key well is selected
to build a multiwell ELAN model. This model is developed and applied to all the wells after
normalizing logs. For the wells which have Triple Combo data, the input logs are Neutron, Bulk
Density, Gamma Ray and Resistivity logs. Input parameters like matrix density, clay end point,
saturation parameters are selected based on the analysis of conventional core data and log
crossplots. Figure 2.2.2 demonstrates the key objectives of Petrophysical evaluation.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Figure 2.2.2: Petrophysical Evaluation Objectives

Software: Techlog

Techlog 2014.3 is the software tool used for the petrophysical work involved in the project.
Various pre-existing modules and python scripts have been used for interpretation (Figure
2.2.3).

Figure 2.2.3: Techlog 2014.3 Software Modules

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 23 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Petrophysical Analysis
Database

3.1.1 Log Data

Wireline logs of 9 wells were provided for Kanawara field. List of wells with data availability are
provided in Table 3.1

Table 3.1: Log availability of Kanawara Wells

Well Resistivity SP GR RHOB NPHI DT
Logs
K#1 Y Y Y Y Y Y
K#2 Y N N N N Y
K#3 Y Y Y Y N N
K#5 Y Y Y N Y Y
K#6 Y Y Y Y Y Y
K#7 Y Y Y Y Y Y
K#8 Y Y Y Y Y N
K#9 Y Y Y Y Y N
K#10 Y N Y Y Y Y

First step in data preparation was to combine multiple logs available from different runs into one
final dataset LQC with constant sampling rate of 0.1524m using variable splicing tool in Techlog.
Table 6.1 (Annex 1) summarizes the abbreviations used for input logs and variables utilized in
Petrophysical studies. Next the Triple combo (GR-RHOB-NPHI-Resistivity) logs were depth
matched using resistivity as the main reference to ensure consistency in the interpretation
depth. Figure 3.1.1 illustrates the density-neutron logs provided for K#5 well suggesting that
density logs cannot be used for interpretation.

Any bad data as a result of washed out or rugose hole on the density or the neutron logs were
handled via incorporating a bad hole flag using caliper readings (Figure 3.1.2). Also at this
stage, invalid log response due to casing effect or spikes was removed. EPIV Upper formation
has coal layers, evident from log response and mud logs. Coal flag was also created for the
(Figure 3.1.2).

Figure 3.1.1: Neutron-Density response for K#5 showing a linear trend

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 24 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/03

Figure 3.1.2: Bad hole and Coal Flag for K#10 along with Pre-Computations

Data normalization was another important step in data preparation, and was carried out to
compensate any anomalous measurement relating to vintage data, tool calibration issues etc.
This involved comparing similar log measurement in geographically nearby wells using multi-
well cross plotting techniques and the well data in question is compared with logs from a nearby
/ newer well that is more reliable (in terms of measurement accuracy / robust environmental
corrections). It is necessary to normalize some of the logs such as Gamma Ray before building
multi-well ELAN models. Data quality and consistency of GR measurements across marker bed
(Shale Top) is an important criterion in selecting the well for calibration. In Figure 3.1.3, GR
response for 3 different wells is shown across Kalol Top showing large variation in readings in
Shale bed. Box plots for GR before and after normalization is shown in Figure 3.1.4 for Kalol
Top formation. The normalized data is within a certain minimum and maximum range for all the
wells.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 25 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.1.3: Gamma Ray for K#1E, K#10 and K#5, Kalol Top

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 26 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.1.4: Gamma Ray before and after Normalization for Kanawara Field, Kalol Top used
as Marker Shale

Information about acquisition of logs, type of tools and borehole parameters like mud filtrate
resistivity, surface and bottom hole temperature and mud density were accumulated from
available well headers and report. This information is used in computation of temperature
gradient, borehole pressure, mud filtrate resistivity and water resistivity as discussed in details
in the following section (Figure 3.1.3). This information is used in precomputations before ELAN
to account for effect of borehole and formation conditions on log measurements.

Prior to petrophysical evaluation, it is crucial to understand formation and fluid characteristics.

In order to select input parameters for building petrophysical model and understand lithology
better, all the available information is examined.

3.1.2 Conventional Core Data

The key well K#10 was provided for permeability estimation, rock tying and saturation height
modeling. They provide a validation, derive key parameters and quantify formation
characteristics. Figure 3.1.5 illustrates the wells locations w.r.t K#10. It is used to validate the
final petrophysical results due to availability of advanced core measurements as summarized
in Table 6.2 (Annex 1).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 27 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.1.5: Well Locations w.r.t Key Well (K#10) highlighted in Red

Core gamma ray measurements, initial saturation (Dean Stark measurements), whole core
images and thin sections are also available. All the given data was loaded in Techlog as discrete
or array datasets. Whole core lithology description was provided for K#10 in the report was also
loaded using lithology codes. MICP measurements are also loaded for each sample.

There are abbreviations used for tables for core measurements in figures and in this report are
provided in Table 6.3 (Annex 1).

In order to validate log interpretations with core measurements, it is also necessary to account
for laboratory conditions under which these measurements were made. For example, for the
core porosity measured in routine core analysis, electrical measurements and high pressure
mercury injection (HPMI) samples are dried at vacuum dry oven. These conditions are not
sufficient to completely dry the clay bound water, hence the core porosity is considered more
representative of effective porosity. Core electrical measurements measure brine saturated
porosity. However, in Dean Stark measurements, samples were dried in the convection oven at
90-95 °C for a period of 24 hours. Each sample was further dried in a convection oven and their
individual weights monitored periodically until a constant weight was achieved. This difference
can also be visualized in Core porosity-permeability crossplot (Figure 3.1.6).

Petrophysical rock typing is based on effective porosity computations as these are shaly
reservoirs. For validation, total porosity from logs is compared with Dean Stark measurements
and effective with the remaining dataset.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 28 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.1.6: Core Porosity-Permeability Crossplot represented by different dataset, K#10

The next step is core to log depth match. Whole core images, top of each core and gamma ray
counts are available. In this study, core to log depth match is carried out by applying a bulk shift
(in one direction for whole core samples) using the porosity trend and gamma ray counts trend
which range from 0 to 1200 (Figure 3.1.7). Same bulk shift on depth is applied systematically
for the remaining datasets such as Core electrical measurements, XRD, Dean Stark and HPMI
measurements.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 29 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.1.7: Depth shift applied to core data for K#10 (0.33 m)

The next step was application of overburden pressure corrections to ambient core porosity and
permeability measurements. Porosity and permeability corrections were developed as a linear
function and applied to the data given. Ambient condition for routine core analysis is 500 psi
confining pressure. From mechanical earth model (MEM) of K#10 provided by Geomechanics
team, the reservoir effective stress is around 2050 psi. Linear Regressions are created for
porosity correction using ambient and measurements at 1500 psi at which electrical
measurements have been carried out (Figure 3.1.8). Two point measurements are not sufficient
for NCS corrections; hence analogs from CoreLab Catalogue were also selected with similar
formation characteristics. The effect of confining stress on permeability is also a function of the
absolute permeability of the formation (Figure 3.1.9).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 30 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.1.8: Core porosity regression for correction from ambient to reservoir confinement
pressure, K#10

Figure 3.1.9: Core permeability regression for correction from ambient at reservoir pressure,
K#10 using Analogs

Klinkerberg corrections should be applied at the lab to correct for gas slippage effect. However,
for the wells, air permeability measurements are provided for given RCA and SCA core plugs.
In gas to brine permeability conversion, the rock texture will have an effect, for example
considering rocks with flat pores or fractures and rocks with multiply connected intergranular
porosity. Texture may also relate to lithology and to apply this correction Kair vs Kbrine
relationship derived for the rock type at different confining stress is required. Moreover, even
though there is a difference in scale and measuring technique of average permeability thickness
from DSTs, the ranges of permeability should be comparable provided correct parameters have
been used to estimate Kavg.

In this study, the permeability transforms, rock typing is based on air permeability and it is
recommended to use appropriate conversions at the dynamic modelling stage. Core electrical
measurements, XRD and HPMI data is available for EP IV lower reservoir.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 31 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Pc curves are available from high pressure mercury injection data for EP IV Lower reservoirs.
This is a fluid system Air-Mercury; hence have specific contact angle and interfacial tension.
Before Pc modeling or rock typing, Pc from lab is converted to Pc IFT (Pc lab divided by
interfacial tension) using standard values of these fluid systems. Fluid IFT measurements are
not available. Table 3.2 shows values used for pressure transformation.

Table 3.2: Standard Contact Angle and IFT value for different fluid systems

MICP measurements were quality checked to discard any sample showing unrealistic Pc trend.
The sample in black as shown in the Figure 3.1.10 is discarded from rock typing due to possible
closure effect.

Figure 3.1.10: The sample in the Black has been discarded

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 32 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

To summarize this section, core data has been depth matched, necessary overburden
correction and pressure transformations have been applied. At this stage, the data is also
quality checked and impractical data is discarded from petrophysical modeling.

3.1.3 Well Tests

Well tests such as DST are useful in identifying contacts, fluid properties such as density, fluid
typing, permeability (Kh or MDT mobility) ranges and QC results. The available information on
perforations, produced fluid properties, average permeability and permeability thickness is
integrated in Techlog. Please refer to Reservoir Engineering report for detailed availability and
interpretation of well tests. In the Figure 3.1.11, the last track shows the intervals producing oil
from EPIV Upper and Lower formation for K#1.

MDT gradient and DST analysis has been carried by reservoir engineering domain and details
have been mentioned in the classical R.E report.

3.1.4 Mud Logs

Mud logs are indicators of fine lithology and hydrocarbon shows. Moreover, they are continuous
and hence available for the whole intervals unlike core data and provided for majority of the
wells. They were studied for lithology, hydrocarbon shows and fluid typing (Figure 3.1.11).
Wetness parameters were computed from mud gas recordings using gas ratio analysis provided
by Harowth, et al, 1985 shown in 3rd last track below. The exact values for which fluid can be
classified as oil, gas or coal bed gas will vary from formation to formation. However, this helps
in identifying hydrocarbon zones and fluid typing in this study.

Figure 3.1.11: Digitization of Mud logs and computation of wetness parameters along with well
tests

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 33 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.1.5 Data Evaluation, Limitations and Quality Control

The petrophysical evaluation is intertwined with data auditing, understanding the limitations and
attempting to address the challenges. In a relatively complex depositional environment, with
lateral variation of facies, limited data availability of formation information, logs and core
measurements should be accounted for through uncertainty in petrophysical evaluation.

In general the data quality control shows scope of improvement in the following aspects:

 Certified information about log acquisition conditions and reliability, hole quality and log
data. Wells such as K#2 and K#5 have data issues such as ambiguous density logs
and tool counts for Neutron.

 The routine and special core analysis availability must be improved to define workflow
for better definition of rock types and flow units. Conventional core data was provided
for K#10 after the beginning of study and this data was incorporated leading to
changes in the model.

To conclude this section, the limitations are summarized as following:

• Complex mineralogy and effect of diagenesis with limited log data for interpretation

• Low salinity formation increases the uncertainty in water saturation calculations and
formation water test is not available in EP IV formation

From NPHI-RHOB crossplot in Figure 3.1.12, coded by normalized GR, coals, heavy minerals
and high neutron in reservoir can be observed. In a complex mineralogy formation, in absence
of advanced spectroscopy measurements it is not possible to solve for each clay type or mineral
separately. Generic clay which is most representative of log response is used in the mineral
model. The clay end parameters are derived from NPHI-RHOB crossplots. Coal model is
created for EP IV upper and combined with the main model to give the final mineralogy, porosity
and saturation.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 34 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.1.12: NPHI-RHOB crossplot color coded with GR_Norm for EP IV Upper

As discussed in previous section, measurement of caliper is very important to check borehole

quality for both rugosity and washouts to identify depth interval where logs (especially density
log) are not true representation of formation properties. In general, borehole quality is good at
reservoir interval.

Routine and special core analysis carried out for K#10 is detailed and well documented.
However, the special core and petrography data is limited to EP IV Lower formation. The
mineralogy observed is consistent with depositional environment.

It is concluded from crossplot analysis, geological background, and core data that mineralogy
of the area is complex. As majority of the wells have triple combo data, a simple ELAN model
has been created to simultaneously solve for lithology, porosity and water saturation. The
results are validated by core measurements and Mud logs in sections where they are available.

For saturation estimation, saturation parameters are derived from core electrical measurements
for EP IV lower formation. These are also used for EP IV Upper formation. Formation water
salinity is unavailable from well tests in EP IV reservoir. The Oligocene interval for which well
test is available in K#10 zone produces hydrocarbon along with water and the resistivity
measurements are variable due to the contamination with mud filtrate than formation water,
possibly the sample was contaminated due to length of the test. Hence, Pickett plots have been
used for various wells in clean water bearing formation to determine Rw.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 35 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

The final petrophysical model is built using GR-RHOB-NPHI-RESD as input and compared with,
core measurements and production data for validation.

Permeability is estimated as a function of mineralogy. Petrophysical rock types are determined

on the basis of MICP data. These rock types are populated to routine core domain using R35
Aguilera bins as they follow the trend observed in PC curves. In these unconventional
reservoirs, Heterogeneous rock analysis (HRA) has been carried out as a function of log
properties such as effective porosity, permeability and clay volume for refining rock types and
reservoir-non reservoir classification. It was observed that it is consistent with R35 Aguilera
bins.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 36 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Porosity and Lithology Model

Based on data evaluation, understanding of reservoir properties from production tests and core
data analysis, additional information available by client reports and mud logs; input parameters
are selected to build a petrophysical model.

3.2.1 Availability of Log and Conventional Core Data

A brief repetition of data availability is:

 Wells with GR-RHOB-NPHI logs: 6/9

 DT: 5/9

To build a multiwell ELAN model for Kanawara field, the input logs selected on the basis of their
availability. The final model is created using GR-RHOB-NPHI-Resistivity logs for all the wells
with complete data. PEF was initially used in the model; however it was later removed due
invasion effects. K#2 has not been interpreted due to lack of data. It is not possible to interpret
complex mineralogy in absence of RHOB-NPHI logs, however to improve well control in static
modeling, porosity, shale volume and saturation has been computed in K#3 and K#5.

3.2.2 Lithology and Porosity Model

In conventional field level petrophysical studies, mineralogy is selected based on core XRD,
thin section, SEM images and in consistency with depositional environment. However, the log
response or ELAN model should be sensitive to selected minerals. A detailed model to solve
for each trace minerals and clay type is possible with advanced logs such as spectroscopy and
magnetic resonance. As summarized in section 3.1, majority of wells have basic logs and wells
with advanced logs do not have measurements for complete interval.

Based on data availability and formation understanding with integration of various data-
geological, petrophysical and reservoir engineering a model was selected with components
summarized in Table 3.3. The key objective is to solve for lithology within acceptable ranges of
uncertainty, which will lead to a good correlation between log porosity and core measurements.

ELAN is an abbreviation of “Elemental Analysis.” Quanti ELAN provides level-by-level multi-

mineral (complex lithology) quantitative formation evaluation with an optimized simultaneous
equation solver and model combining method. Elan solves a set of equations (formed by logs,
formation components volume and parameters) to derive the volume of each formation
components first and calculates the formation properties (such as porosity, water saturation,
volume of shale) from the derived volumes. In model selection, clay typing, mineral model,
formation water salinity and saturation parameters are the key inputs. The selected equations
should be sensitive to the minerals defined in the model.

Illustrations of end parameters selected are shown in the Neutron-Density crossplot in Figure
3.2.1 and Figure 3.2.2 for EP IV Upper and Lower respectively. Neutron-Density crossplot
suggests that coal is also present in EPIV Upper formation. The end parameters are taken
similar to Bituminous coal which is commonly found in this setting. Generic clay type was used
in the model with end parameters from crossplot. Wet clay porosity is computed within the ELAN
pre-computation module as a function of borehole temperature, salinity and clay type. Quartz
was used with density of 2.65 gm/cc. A special mineral was included in the model to account
for effect of heavy mineral and Silt. It is not possible to solve individually for each of these
minerals due to limitation on number of logs available. Presence of these minerals is also
consistent with depositional environment- Delta plain.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 37 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.2.1: N-D crossplot showing Clay and Matrix end parameters, EP IV Upper

Figure 3.2.2: N-D crossplot showing Clay and Matrix end parameters, EP IV Lower

Fluid parameters such as density are selected from well tests. In general, hydrocarbon
produced EP IV reservoir show an API of 43-45°. Formation water density is assumed at 1.02
gm/cc based on salinity information. The XRD measurement in EP Lower formation (Figure
3.2.3) show consistent presence of heavy minerals such as Magnesite with variable quantities
of Siderite and K-Feldspar. CEC computation from variable salinity measurements also indicate
presence of mixed clays as seen in XRD below, commonly associated with diagenesis.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 38 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

(%)

Figure 3.2.3: Mineral Percentages for XRD Samples, K#10

Presence of detrital clay affects porosity and permeability. Other factors affecting porosity are
cementation and compaction. Scanning electron microscope images (SEM) are useful in
understanding the texture, grain size and factors contributing to flow characteristics of the
reservoir. The dominant clay type is Kaolinite as seen in Figure 3.2.4.

Figure 3.2.4: SEM image at 1500X magnification showing fine grained quartz, detrital clays
such as Illite and Smectite mixed layer, along with Kaolinite Sample C3-11S at 1662.27 m,
K#10

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 39 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 3.3: Input Minerals and End Parameters for ELAN Model

Component Description Source of End Parameters

Quartz Quartz, Matrix NPHI and GR standard

parameters for Quartz are
selected as both Silt and
Sandstone consists of Quartz
Clay Generic clay representative of log N-D crossplot
response

Special Mineral To account for heavy mineral, Silt N-D crossplot, Core porosity and
Grain density

Coal Coal Model for the coal layers in Similar to Bituminous coal
EP IV Upper

Fluid Water, Oil Well tests, Borehole salinity and

temperature

ELAN mineral model is compared with broad lithology from mug logs for K#1 in Figure 3.2.5 below. Important validation for mineralogy and
porosity is comparison with core porosity, grain density and XRD measurements.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 40 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.2.5: Comparison of Lithology with Mud Logs in K#1 EP IV Reservoirs

3.2.3 Validation and QC

As briefly mentioned in the previous section, the fact that log porosity matches well with core
porosity is a very crucial validation in this study. Figure 3.2.6 systematically present the core
total and effective porosity and XRD dry weight comparison for the well over both the formations.
As mentioned, Dean Stark measurements are close to total porosity and routine core data is
close to effective porosity from logs. The conditions are considered insufficient to dry the clay
bound water hence, in this study these samples are more representative of both porosity
measurements.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 41 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.2.6: Core to Log Porosity and dry mineral weights to XRD measurements comparison
for K#10

As a QC step, effective porosity-clay volume crossplots are created to visualize the effect of
decreasing effective porosity w.r.t an increase in clay volume. It is presented for EP IV Upper
and Lower formation in Figure 3.2.7. Also, the spread of the data is another important
consideration. Any scatter from the general trend is investigated further and is accounted for
through data quality issues. In wells where data quality is poor due to washouts, lower input
weight is given to logs with shallower depth of investigation the ELAN model.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 42 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.2.7: VCL-PHIE crossplot (color coded by wells), Kanawara wells

The porosity uncertainty can be derived from cross plotting the core and log porosity to arrive
at a preliminary porosity uncertainty range of ± 2 p.u as shown in Figure 3.2.8

Figure 3.2.8: Core Porosity and Log Porosity crossplot with ± 2 p.u scatter

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 43 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Water Saturation

3.3.1 Formation Water Resistivity:

As discussed in section 3.1, the formation water resistivity at reservoir condition is derived from
Pickett plots. For EP IV Lower formation, since core electrical parameters are known, Rw is
estimated assuming those values. Same parameters are also used for EP IV Upper considering
depositional similarity. Figure 3.3.2 show an example of Pickett plot and highlighted saturation
zone. When Pc data is converted to height using IFT transforms and fluid density, it can be seen
(Figure 3.3.5) even for the best rock type (Yellow) at a height of 100m above FWL, the Sw
cannot be lower than 60 %. Rw is estimated at 0.2 ohm-m from the plot in Figure 3.3.2 for the
well K#1E.

Salinity information from well tests for K#10 in the shallower section (depth difference of around
500m) shows the sample was contaminated in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4: Salinity from Well Test, K#10 (Oligocene Formation)

As per GOGL’s later request, a sensitivity on Sw was carried out with Rw value as 0.1 ohm-m
(represented in green). For the key well K#10, results are shown in Figure 3.3.1 indicating the
difference in water saturation is around 7-8 p.u.

Figure 3.3.1: Rw Sensitivity on Water Saturation Estimation

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 44 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.3.2 (a) & (b): Determination of Rw by fixing a=1, m*=2.13, n*=2.72, K#1E

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 45 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.3.2 Saturation Parameters

Cementation exponent (m*), saturation exponent (n*) and Archie’s constant (a) are derived from
clay corrected core electrical parameters. In the reservoirs, the clay content is higher than 35%.
Clay contributes to additional conductivity in the formation hence, multipoint salinity
measurements have been carried out as shown in Figure 3.3.3.

Figure 3.3.3: Multipoint Salinity Measurements, K#10

CEC values derived from the measurement above also indicate presence of mixed clays.

Figure 3.3.4 shows cementation exponent provided for K#10 well under lab conditions derived
from formation factor and porosity. The saturation exponent is computed as a function of
resistivity index and saturation and ‘a’ is fixed at 1. The correlation coefficient for both Saturation
and cementation exponent is high showing consistent regression for all the samples.

Figure 3.3.4 (a) & (b): Saturation parameters estimation from Core electrical parameters
gives a=1, m*=2.13, n*=2.72

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 46 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Estimated n* is high as compared to probable values as finer grain sizes are expected to be
strongly water wet. The SW vs HAFWL is compared to get approximate ranges of Sw for
different rock types as shown in Figure 3.3.5. This also justifies the use of n* as 2.72.

Figure 3.3.5: Variation of water saturation w.r.t to Height above FWL from MICP Data

It is important to consider that uncertainty in tool readings (log), Rw and saturation parameters
contribute to uncertainty in saturation estimation from logs.

3.3.3 Saturation Equation

Thus, the Dual Water (Clavier, et al, 1984) shaly sand analysis model was employed in this
study. It attempts to account for effect of conductivity of formation due to presence of clay
minerals. . Dual water equation is based on the assumptions that the conductivity of clay (Cx)
is because of its cation exchange capacity (CEC), which in pure clays is proportional to the
specific surface area of the clay. In saline solutions, the anions are excluded from a layer of
water around the surface of the grain. The thickness of this layer expands as the salinity of the
solution (below a certain limit) decreases, and the thickness is a function of salinity and
temperature. . Cx is a function of cation exchange capacity (CEC) which is expressed in meq/g.
Moreover, in Dual Water model for accurate saturation evaluation both the cementation factor
(m) and saturation exponent (n) are important. They both depend on the porous structure of the
rock and more specifically on tortuosity, which is the squared ratio of the mean flow path length
to the medium length. Tortuosity varies with the presence of different clay types and grain size
in the formation.

The equation can be written as:

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 47 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Where:
C - free water conductivity
wf

C - bound water conductivity

wb

S - bound water saturation

wb

Φ - total porosity
t

WCLP – Wet clay porosity

In summary, this model has been used to account for fresh water formation and effect of clay
conductivity in Shaly reservoirs.

As mentioned, XRD and SEM images suggest Kaolinite as dominant clay type with presence of
mixed layer Illite-Smectite. Considering the log availability, it is not possible to individually solve
for each clay type. A generic clay has been used which is representative of the lithology as
mentioned in Section 3.2. The dry end parameters for the clay are kept consistent with grain
density measurements from core data. Moreover, total and effective porosity along with dry
weight fraction of clay has been compared. WCLP is estimated at 13-14 p.u considering the
clay type, formation temperature and salinity. Bound water saturation is a function of wet clay
porosity.

The C is computed by the inbuilt pre-computation module of Techlog 2014.3 which uses
wb
algorithms developed by Reference 14. It uses formation temperature, formation water
resistivity and clay property as inputs. Bound water conductivity is 15.95 mho/m.

Table 3.5: Summary of Saturation Parameters

Parameters Value Source/Assumptions

Saturation (1, 2.13, 2.72) Core Electrical Measurements

Parameters

Rw ~ 0.21-0.25 ohm-m Pickett Plot with Core Electrical

Parameters, PC curves and Dean Stark
core measurements have been
considered for Sw ranges
CBW ~15 mho/m Estimated as a function of formation
properties such as Temperature and
Salinity
WCLP ~ 13 p.u Function of clay type and formation
properties

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 48 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.3.4 Fluid Contacts from Logs

Fluid contacts represent interfaces that separate fluids of different densities in the reservoir.
These interfaces are mapped as surfaces in the 3D geological model. The information to map
the fluid contacts as surfaces in the 3D model comes from well level fluid contact marker
correlations. Needless to say that fluid contact definition plays an important role in the final
volumetric computed for the field.

The key terms in this report associated with fluid contacts interpretation include GDT (Gas Down
To); GOC (Gas-Oil contact); OWC (Oil Water Contact); ODT (Oil Down To); HDT (Hydrocarbon
Down To) and FWL (Free water level – level where the pressure in the oil and in the water
phase are equal).

This section covers preliminary contacts defined at well level from log saturation. The final fluid
contacts are defined based on an integrated approach by reservoir engineers. This includes
considering conclusive well tests, contacts provided by Petrophysicist based on well logs, match
between SwLog and Sw from Saturation Height Model and other dynamic data.

Advanced downhole logging techniques such as NMR diffusion profiling can help in fluid typing
and defining contacts. In practice, GOC is defined from MDT or XPT gradient analysis. Density
and Neutron log may show a crossover in selected cases such as clean sandstone reservoirs
and gas zones can be identified from logs. However, this must be further be validated from well
tests such as MDT or DST, sidewall cores and mud logs. With the current dataset and reservoir
type, fluid typing cannot be carried out to define GOC.

OWC is a function of reservoir rock types. Conventionally, OWC can be defined in reservoirs
with a clear transition zone and water bearing interval from Sw. In case of shale breaks, i.e.
reservoir is encountered by shale or non-reservoir OWC or GOC cannot be defined. In such
cases as in EP IV reservoirs, hydrocarbon down to’s has been defined (HDT/ODT).

Based on above methodology, HDT and ODT has been determined for EPIV Upper and Lower
in Figure 3.3.6 for K#6. K#7 and K#9. Eventually, the hydrocarbon type in EPIV Upper reservoir
has been determined with collective production data. Hence, at this stage, Track 1 represents
reference depth along with flags for Coal and Bad hole followed by log data. Tracks 6-8
represent Sw, Wetness parameter estimated from mud gas readings, and intervals with DST
data respectively. To further elaborate, one continuous hydrocarbon bearing interval is present
in EP IV Upper and EPIV lower reservoir encounters a shale break. It is not possible to comment
on the connectivity of these reservoirs from log data hence preliminary down to’s have been
established and provided to reservoir engineers for their analysis on reservoir pressure data.

The final contacts for dynamic modeling have been established based on well tests and
pressure data. Please refer to Reservoir Engineering and Static Model reports for final contacts
used in volumetric estimation.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 49 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.3.6: Preliminary contacts defined for K#6, K#7 and K#9

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 50 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.3.5 Validation
The saturation from logs is compared against the zones which have been tested for
hydrocarbon by DST and Mud gas measurements (Figure 3.3.6). Saturation estimation in K#3
and K#5 upper reservoirs is especially unreliable due to lack of adequate data. However, for
most cases log saturation computation is reasonable against producing zones. For comparison
of log saturation with SHF all the factors contributing towards uncertainty in Sw estimation must
be considered.

Permeability and Petrophysical Rock Typing

3.4.1 Background
There is no logging tool which practically measures permeability. Sources of direct permeability
measurements include those from core measurements; MDT (Modular Dynamics Tester tool
provides mobility which is converted to permeability with a fluid viscosity assumption) and well
test (provides a Kh; mD ft and needs more information such as the contributing interval for
conversion to permeability). There are many means of log derived permeability where the
permeability estimated needs calibration by means of direct external permeability information
(such as from core). One of the advantages of such permeability estimation would be a
continuous calibrated permeability that accurately represents the producibility of the rock. Some
log derived permeability methods include log permeability; NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance
based permeability calibrated to core data) and Stoneley mobility. In this study, analytical
equation (intrinsic permeability as a function of mineral composition) has been used to compute
log permeability. Log permeability is tested at well level using core data and well tests, prior to
firming up on the rock type based permeability to populate this property in the static model.

Petrophysical units, or rock types, are defined to assign characteristics to different zones of a
reservoir. Rocks are clustered into groups assumed to have similar flow and storage capacity.
In practice, relationships are used to link the petrophysical properties to the geological models,
along with log typing to estimate initial hydrocarbons-in-place. Reservoir engineers prefer to
define rock types based on their two-phase flow characteristics (i.e. relative permeability). In
this case fluid properties (i.e. viscosity, interfacial tension) can be a major factor controlling the
flow and distribution of fluids in porous rocks which in turn greatly impacts ultimate recovery of
hydrocarbons. Integrating conventional geologic, petrophysical and multiphase flow rock typing
methods requires studies which incorporate 3D imaging of rock material, 2D petrographic
studies, fluid-fluid and fluid-solid interactions (i.e. wettability) and geological facies descriptions.

In this study, based on available information and reservoir understanding and MICP data, rock
types are defined based on MICP parameters which are further grouped based on their R35
Aguilera pore throat radius. Heterogeneous rock analysis was also carried out using effective
porosity, permeability and clay volume for refining of these rock types.

3.4.2 Permeability
In many consolidated sandstone and carbonate formations, plots of core data show that the
logarithm of permeability is often linearly proportional to porosity. The slope, intercept, and
degree of scatter of these log(k) - Φ trends vary from formation to formation, and these variations
are attributed to differences in initial grain size and sorting, diagenetic history, and compaction
history. In unconsolidated sands, better sorting systematically increases both permeability and
porosity. In sands and sandstones, an increase in gravel and coarse grain size content causes

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 51 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

k to increase even while decreasing Φ. Diagenetic minerals in the pore space of sandstones,
such as cement and some clay types tend to decrease log (k) proportionately as Φ decreases.
In the Figure 3.4.1, the core data points are presented color coded by dataset for the K#10. It
can be observed that Dean Stark dataset (in pink) shows higher porosity as compared to RCA
dataset (green) suggesting the effect of clay bound porosity contribution.

Figure 3.4.1: CPOR-CKH crossplot color coded by Dataset (Pink represents Dean Stark
measurements and Green Routine core samples)

Permeability is estimated in this study based on clay and mineralogy using Herron’s (SPWLA
1987) approach determined from geochemical data of clastic reservoir and porosity of the
formation. In the ELAN model, porosity, mineral volume and corresponding matrix density is
computed. Herron’s study uses geochemical logging in fields which have mineralogy associated
with mixed clays and K-Feldspar. He postulated that the porosity, textural maturity, and
framework grain abundances define a maximum permeability curve as a function of porosity.
The clay mineral abundances act to reduce the observed permeability from this maximum
permeability curve. For a given amount of clay, kaolinite is less harmful than illite, which is less
harmful than Smectite. Furthermore, from a physical point of view, it is clear that the permeability
of a porous medium is largely independent of the composition of the solid. Permeability, like
porosity, is a function of the pore system rather than the solid matrix. In a natural sedimentary
system, when one property of a formation changes, other properties generally change as well.
Changes in depositional environment and provenance are paralleled by changes in the
deposited mineralogy.

Changes in mineralogy are accompanied by changes in particle size, shape, morphology, and
location. Consequently, changes in mineralogy accompany changes in the pore system
geometry, and this directly impacts the permeability. Permeability factor of quartz, clay, coal
and special mineral have been established calibrating to core permeability. This is also
compared with Kavg from well tests.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 52 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Effect of Dispersed Clay on Permeability:

These formations have considerable effective porosity; however the core measurements and
well tests suggest that the permeability is very low. In order to understand the underlying cause,
two selected SEM samples were compared:

Case 1: High magnification (50 µm) view displaying the interior of an intergranular pore for the
figure below. Note the coating of framework grains by detrital clay. The clay consists of a mixture
of Illite and mixed layer Illite-Smectite (Figure 3.4.2).

Figure 3.4.2: Case 1- Depth= 1660.87m, Φ= 21.2 p.u, K=0.04 mD

Case 2: Where clay coatings were less extensive, quartz grains are overgrown by micro quartz
crystals (G-5) or by small Euhedral quartz overgrowths. These may develop into more extensive
quartz overgrowths (Figure 3.4.3).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 53 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.4.3: Case 2- Depth= 1665.91m, Φ= 18.3 p.u., K=2 mD

The impact of dispersed clay and its distribution around the pore throat to drastically affect
permeability is clear with these examples. In the Figure 3.4.4 below, porosity development is
rather patchy due to the occurrence of detrital clay within the rock matrix. Hence, to summarize
dispersed clays, quartz overgrowth, cementation, compaction and development of isolated
porosity affects the permeability of the formation. The grain size of quartz is fine to very fine
leading to smaller pore throat sizes which is further affected by diagenesis.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 54 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.4.4: Low magnification (50 µm) view shows very fine to fine grained quartz with
preserved primary intergranular porosity; sample C3-11S at a depth of 1662.27m

3.4.3 Petrophysical Rock Typing

Petrophysical rock types aims at grouping rock deposited under similar conditions which
experienced similar diagenetic process resulting in unique porosity-permeability relationship,
capillary pressure profile and water saturation for a given height above free water in the
reservoir. This requires an understanding of formation, depositional setting and factors that will
contribute to variation of above mentioned characteristics. Figure 3.4.5 shows rock typing
propagation from MICP to logs.

Figure 3.4.5: Petrophysical Rock Typing Workflow

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 55 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

The characterization of reservoir quality was carried out by analyzing the pressure curves (IFT
transformed MICP measurements) with their relationship to core porosity (Figure 3.4.6) and
permeability trends. Corresponding Φ-K relationships are examined these petrophysical
groups in routine core analysis domain as shown in Figure 3.4.9.

Figure 3.4.6: Pc-CSW crossplot color coded by porosity of the samples

From the available samples, Pc Lab vs. Sw is plotted. The data is grouped on the basis of entry
pressure and shape of the curves (Figure 3.4.7 a). Based on the amount of fluid displaced,
apparent pore size distribution can also be calculated which helps in further refining the
petrophysical groups (Figure 3.4.7 b).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 56 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.4.7 (a) & (b): PC_Lab vs. Sw and apparent pore size distribution derived from Pc
data, color coded by petrophysical group

MICP parameters such as slope and constant of these hyperbolic fits are used in grouping
these samples as shown in Figure 3.4.8.

Figure 3.4.8: Petrophysical grouping using MICP Parameters

Once Petrophysical groups or rock types are defined in Pc domain, porosity-permeability

relation of these groups is explored. It was observed that R35 Aguilera values can classify these
groups and they fit the trend as shown in Figure 3.4.9. At log level there will be intermediary
rock types which are not sampled in core data. This data gap is a major challenge while carrying
out rock typing from logs and defining SHF per rock type. In this study, based on data evaluation,
results and understanding, 4 petrophysical rock types are defined. PRT 0 is the non-reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 57 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

and remaining reservoir rock type with 3 being the best rock type (R35Agu>0.5 um). The
saturation height function has been defined as a function of RQI (J Function) which shows a
clear correlation with core data (please refer to classical R.E report for detailed methodology on
SHF and comparison with log saturation).

Figure 3.4.9: Population of Petrophysical Group from MICP (Empty Squares) to RCA Data
(Triangles) color coded by Rock Types; Chart is R35 Aguilera

Log porosity and permeability are used to compute R35Agu at well level. Petrophysical rock
types are defined based on the bins mentioned above. Another approach which was also
attempted here was defining rock classes based on HRA technique with clay volume, effective
porosity and permeability as input. Heterogeneous Rock Analysis (HRA) is a clustering workflow
to define rock classes based on multivariate input data. First the Principal Components Analysis
(PCA) is carried out to transform the input data onto independent axes that front-load the
variance, and ensure that the data used in the clustering are functionally independent. After the
PCA analysis, the principal components are used in a K-means clustering algorithm to create
the HRA classification. Heterogeneous reservoirs are difficult to classify and heterogeneity
exists at many scales such as core, log or reservoir scale. The approach is to define these
classes using petrophysical interpretations and compare it with core data in the key well. Then
this model is implemented to other wells. This is a standard practice for unconventional

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 58 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

reservoirs and this approach was tested in this study. It is consistent with rock types defined
from R35Agu and has helped in refining the reservoir- non reservoir classification.

The combination of Φ and k data in terms of reservoir quality index (RQI) provides a convenient
starting point to address the differences between samples and between reservoir zones.
Mathematically, RQI is defined as:

𝐾
𝑅𝑄𝐼 = 0.0314 √
𝛷
The process or delivery speed k/f can be used in many instances to define a flow unit.
Correlation of flow units between wells helps to establish reservoirs containers and to forecast
reservoir performance. Aguilera’s work (SPE 71725) showed that flow units can be determined
reliably from the integration within one single log-log graph of Pickett plots, capillary pressures,
pore throat apertures and Winland r35 values. Aguilera (1990a) extended the Pickett plot to the
analysis of laminar, dispersed and total shale models which is relevant in this study. Kwon and
Pickett (1975) published and empirical correlation to generate capillary pressure curves. From
their data, Aguilera (2001) developed the following equation for calculating pore throat radius at
35% mercury saturation:

𝑘 0.45
𝑟𝑃35 = 2.665 ∗ [ ]
100∅

As mentioned in Section 3.4.2, permeability equation is defined using Herron’s approach.

R35Agu is computed at log level. Further cut offs can be applied to VCL or K to refine reservoir-
non reservoir classification.

Figure 3.4.10: Reservoir summaries cut offs

Net pay is the thickness of the porous, permeable interval containing commercial hydrocarbon
saturations. There are no universal cut offs available and in absence of PLTs, it is extremely
difficult to define a fixed number which distinguishes whether a zone will flow or not. In this
study, well tests, crossplots and sensitivity analysis on pore thickness and hydrocarbon pore
thickness are used to define cut offs. These cut offs are not used for final volumetric but are
useful in sand-shale classification for geophysical and geomodeling tasks. While creating final
summaries, intervals lower than 1 ft., which satisfy the net pay cut offs are considered as
anomalies and ignored.

The net pay can be approximated using PHIE, VCL and SWE cutoffs. Figure 3.4.11 shows the
VCL and PHIE cut offs used in defining net reservoir color coded by HRA classes. Blue and
light blue colors represent reservoir rock types. For net reservoir, effective porosity greater than
10 p.u and clay volume fraction lower than 0.6 v/v is selected. These cut offs are also consistent
with reservoir- non reservoir defined based on PRTs. Similarly, net pay intervals can be

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 59 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

distinguished from net reservoir by applying an additional SW cutoff based on sensitivity

analysis on HCPORTH (Hydrocarbon pore thickness).

Figure 3.4.11: VCL-PHIE crossplot color coded by HRA Classes for determining cut offs

Figure 3.4.12- Figure 3.4.13 show zone wise sensitivity analysis on hydrocarbon pore thickness
w.r.t clay volume, effective porosity and saturation for wells producing hydrocarbon.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 60 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.4.12: Sensitivity analysis on HCPORTH w.r.t clay volume, effective porosity and
saturation, EP IV Upper

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 61 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.4.13: Sensitivity analysis on HCPORTH w.r.t clay volume, effective porosity and
saturation, EP IV Lower

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 62 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.4.4 Validation and Quality Check

Figure 3.4.14 shows a good match between core permeability and log computed permeability.
It should be noted that logs cannot resolve very fine changes in lithology or thin beds; hence
there is possible mismatch between the two rock types shown in last and 2nd last track. The last
track shows reservoir section. Average well test permeability also matches well as shown in
Figure 3.4.15.

Figure 3.4.14: PRTs from core data (2nd Last track, with log Classes), K#10

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 63 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.4.15: Comparison of log permeability with well test perm in K#6

Log porosity-permeability crossplot color coded by well color is presented in Figure 3.4.16 for
Kanawara field.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 64 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.4.16: PHI and K from logs color coded by Petrophysical Groups

In the static model, acoustic impedance (AI) has been used for population of porosity. A
combined approach showing petrophysical results such as log porosity, permeability, SHF and
static modeling has been presented in the Static Modeling Report.

Log Conditioning and Attribute Analysis

Log conditioning requires identification of unrealistic measurements in sonic and density logs
which creates problems in well to seismic ties. Sonic and density are formation properties which
are closely related to each other. Figure 3.5.1 (a) shows a crossplot between compressional
velocity and density color coded with clay volumes computed from ELAN. The chart in the figure
is Hashin-Shtrikman bounds for quartz-brine system. The outlier data points can be identified.
These inconsistent data points are checked for lithology variation in mud logs and also log
interpretation.

The next step in conditioning is creating density logs from other logs which show consistent
responses, in this case resistivity, neutron and gamma ray logs. In Figure 3.5.1 b, it is
highlighted that the reconstructed values matches well with logged data, except in intervals
which show unrealistic responses. These points are replaced by reconstructed values as shown
in QC plot (Figure 3.5.2).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 65 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.5.1: (a) & (b): Unrealistic sonic highlighted in Blue and Yellow, and the reconstructed
logs in K#1

The data is reconstructed using MLR (Multi linear regression) and replaced for these points.
The final QC crossplot is shown in Figure 3.5.2.

Figure 3.5.2: Conditioned RHOB-Vp crossplot for K#6

Another input required for inversion was petrophysical cut offs for Reservoir-Non Reservoir
classification and their sensitivity to Acoustic properties such as acoustic impedance (AI). For
providing such information, crossplots in EP-IV(L) between AI-PHIT, Effective Porosity – Clay
Volume with AI color coded were analyzed as shown in Figure 3.5.3 (a) and (b). Broad AI cut
offs were provided formation wise for seismic inversion analysis.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 66 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.5.3 (a) and (b): (a) AI vs. PHIT color coded by Zonation (b) Effective porosity Clay
Volume crossplot, Color coded by AI, EP IV Lower

AI logs are representative of a combined effect of changing lithology and (total) porosity. As a
result, we see different total porosity trend in different rocks (where AI decreases with increasing
porosity). Clear trend between effective porosity and AI is not observed. However, AI shows
sensitivity to lithology which is implied by clay volume (Figure 3.5.4) and GR logs in EP IV Lower
(Figure 3.5.5).

Figure 3.5.4: AI Vs Clay Volume crossplot, Color coded by well, EP IV Lower

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 67 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Average effective porosity Vs AI from seismic to determine reservoir quality can be misleading
because the variation in avg. porosity in wells is 2-2.5 p.u and extent of shales within EP IV
upper reservoir may vary from well to well which affects the average values. Higher AI is towards
cleaner and better rocks. Last track in Figure 3.5.5 shows AI extracted from seismic with AI
computed at log level. The difference in resolution of AI from well logs and seismic can be noted.

The reservoir thickness in EP IV Upper and lower is approximately 5-15 m. AI from seismic
amplitude is an average of the overall reservoirs which shows vertical heterogeneity. In EP IV
Upper, the reservoir is between coal layers which reduces the average AI at seismic resolution
scale (Figure 3.5.5). Moreover, the reservoirs have lower grain density (as reflected in logs and
core grain density measurements); and small volume of coal (organic material) is expected
within the reservoir (supported by whole core descriptions, mud logs). Hence AI is lower in
reservoir intervals when compared to shales.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 68 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3.5.5: Log AI in each track showing the relationship with logs, K#7, K#1E, K#10

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 69 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Hence to conclude, AI doesn’t follow a precise straightforward relationship with density or

effective porosity due to the mineralogy. Total Porosity and VCL, which has near linear relation
with Gamma Ray (Figure 3.5.6), can be related with AI to give qualitative relationship between
AI and Reservoir Quality. Among the 3 wells, the AI is comparable in reservoir section (Figure
3.5.5), it is apparent higher AI is better Reservoir in terms of clay volume for EP IV Lower.
Defining AI cut offs to distinguish reservoirs from non-reservoirs or comment on the quality of
reservoir is not straightforward due to variable lithology and porosity.

Figure 3.5.6: VCL-GR crossplot for K#1, K#7 and K#10 color coded by well color

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusion and Results
Some of the key discussions from study carried out are as follows:

1. Multiwell ELAN model consisting of Coal and Reservoir Model has been carried
2. Broad lithology is finely grained siltstone, shaly sand with heavy minerals reservoirs
3. Log derived permeability is defined using mineralogy model using core measurements
as input parameters
4. Conventional Core data has been used for validation of results, SCA data is available
for EP IV Lower reservoir
5. Presence of multiple clay types and dispersed clays has affected permeability; effective
porosity measurements are used in rock typing
6. Petrophysical Grouping using MICP classification and log derived properties (PHIE,
VCL, PERM, HRA classes) with R35 Aguilera classification
7. Contacts are defined as Down Tos as clear OWC/GWC is not visible from logs
8. GR logs normalized for consistency of evaluation, K#2 has inadequate data and has
been removed from Petrophysical evaluation; K#3 and K#5 have incomplete data

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 70 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

(Missing Density and Neutron Logs), simple model is used for better control in
geomodeling however there is higher uncertainty

The key challenges for this study are summarized as:

 Uncertainty in Mineralogy: Mineralogy variations are attributed to depositional

environment and provenance. Log response shows variation in mineralogy by formation.
XRD data shows presence of heavy minerals such as Magnesite, Siderite; mixed clays,
K-Feldspar associated with diagenesis and trace minerals. For accurate estimation of
porosity and permeability, it is crucial to have widespread information of mineralogy. It
is not possible to solve for these minerals with basic logs.
 Uncertainty in Saturation Estimation: Formation water has low salinity and exact Rw
information is not available from well tests. ‘n*’ from core data is higher than expected
considering the grain size. Although Dean Stark measurements are available it is
possible Sw is higher or lower than true values due to invasion or dehydration of
samples. Saturation computation is a big challenge in tight reservoirs with conventional
log dataset.
 Limited Core Measurements: Despite the fact that detailed core analysis is available for
K#10 EP IV lower reservoir, for better understanding of formation properties and
predicting its petrophysical properties such as porosity, permeability, rock types; core
information in multiple wells is indispensable to be integrated with seismic inversion
results. The main variables as input for static model are clay volume, total and effective
porosity, water saturation, permeability and rock types. The effective porosity correlates
well with net confining stress corrected core porosity and it is a very important factor in
validating the model. The permeability and water saturation are dynamic reservoir
properties and are expected to have higher uncertainty. However from comparison of
permeability with core data and well tests average permeability, it can with be concluded
that the computed values are within the acceptable uncertainty range. The m factor
suggests the inter-granular porosity is predominant. Petrophysical groups or rock types
are defined on the basis of flow properties and MICP data. Saturation estimation is
compared with well tests and mud gas measurements.

Figure 4.1.1-Figure 4.1.2 show the distribution of porosity and permeability formation wise. In
the reservoir zones, the effective porosity in EP IV Upper varies from 10 to 17 p.u and in EP IV
lower varies from 10 to 18.7 p.u. The permeability ranges from 0.06 to 0.8 md and 0.1 to 2 md
IN EP IV Upper and Lower reservoirs respectively.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 71 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4.1.1: Porosity distribution for EP IV Upper and Lower formations, Kanawara Field (Colors represent wells)

Figure 4.1.2: Porosity distribution for EP IV Upper and Lower formations, Kanawara Field (Colors represent wells)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 72 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Recommendations from Petrophysical Analysis

Consistent to depositional environment, the mineralogy is complex for EPIV reservoirs. The clay type and its distribution around the pores in
the reservoir (disperse, laminar or structural) is important consideration in porosity and permeability evaluation. Dispersed clays, quartz
overgrowth, cementation, compaction and development of isolated porosity affects the permeability of these reservoirs. Majority of the wells
are hydrocarbon bearing and saturation computation is carried out using shaly sand model. Due to low formation salinity and absence of well
tests in EPIV formation, the uncertainty in water saturation is significant. Capillary pressure curves from HPMI measurements suggests that
these rocks have small pore throat sizes and high values of irreducible water saturation, consistent with low permeability tight rocks. Log
derived permeability, which is a static measurement should be compared with dynamic estimates inferred from well tests or production in order
to adjust the final values. This petrophysical study is part of an initial FDP, it is recommended the model and results should be updated with
acquisition of advanced data and further production. A summary of formation complexity and further acquisition to improve the study is
recommended in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Key Formation Characteristics and Recommendations

Formation Challenges Recommendation

Reservoir • Core data:

Characterization o Core data for multiple wells to see variation of formation properties over the field- Integration
with Seismic Inversion
o NCS measurements and Klinkerberg corrections at lab
• Selective wells to run advanced spectroscopy to understand Complex mineralogy
• NMR data for pore size distribution and rock typing

Saturation Computation • Formation water tests to determine salinity

and Rw determination • Dielectric Scanner with OBM for resistivity independent saturation

Fluid contacts • NMR station logs for fluid typing (Diffusion profile)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 73 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

References
1. Amaefule, Jude O., Altunbay, Mehmet, Core Laboratories; Tiab, Djebbar, U. of Oklahoma;
Kersey, David G., Keelan, Dare K., Core Laboratories; (1993) “ Enhanced Reservoir
Description: Using Core and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict
Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells”; 26436-MS ; SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 3-6 October 1993, Houston, Texas.

2. Gunter G.W, SPE, Amoco EPTG, Finneran J.M, Hartmann D.J DJH Energy and J.D Miller,
Amoco E&P, (1997) “Early Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Usinf an Inegrated
Petrophysical Method” SPE 38679.

3. Herron, M.M., 1956, “Estirnating the Intrinsic Permeability of Clastic Sediments from
Geochemical Data”, SPWLA Twenty-Eighth Annual Logging Symposium, June 29-July 2, 198.

4. Clerke, E. A., Mueller III, H. W., Phillips, E. C., Eyvazzadeh, R. Y., Jones, D. H.,
Ramamoorthy, R., Srivastava, A., (2008) “Application of Thomeer Hyperbolas to decode the
pore systems, facies and reservoir properties of the Upper Jurassic Arab D Limestone, Ghawar
field, Saudi Arabia: A Rosetta Stone approach”, GeoArabia, Vol. 13, No. 4, p. 113-160, October.

5. Chen H.C. and J. H. Fang; “Sensitivity Analysis of the Parameters in Archie´s Water
saturation”; the log Analyst, September, 1986.

6. Worthington Paul F., SPE, Gaffney, Cline & Associates; “The Petrophysics of Problematic
Reservoirs”; SPE 144688, JPT, DECEMBER 2011.

7. Schneider James H.; Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability Correlation; 2003

8. Ayan Cosan et al, Measuring Permeability Anisotropy: The latest Approach; Oilfield Review,
SLB, October 1994.

9. Basal A.M.K.; Analytical Treatment of Neutron-Density Crossplot for Shaly Sand Reservoirs;
Geology Department, Damietta Faculty of Science, Damietta - 34517, Egypt JKAU: Earth Sci.,
vol. 10, pp. 115-142 (1419 A.H. / 1998 A.D.)

10. Gunter Gary, Eduardo Viro, and K. Wolgemuth; Identifying Value added opportunities by
integrating well log interpretation, Petrophysical rock types and flow units; Introducing a new
multi-component Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Method; 2012. SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging
Symposium, June 16-20, Cartagena.

11. Worthington Paul F.; Recognition and evaluation of low resistivity pay; Petroleum
Geoscience, Volume 6, 200, pp.77-92.

12. Kolodzie, S., 1980; “The analysis of pore throat size and the use of the Waxman-Smits
equation to determine OOIP in the Spindle field, Colorado”: SPE Paper 9382, Proceedings of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, p. 2-4.

13. Pittman, E. D., 1992, Relationship of porosity and permeability to various parameters
derived from mercury injection-capillary pressure curves for sandstone: AAPG Bulletin, v. 76,
p. 191-198.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 74 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

14. C. Clavier (Schlumberger Technical Services), G. Coates (Schlumberger Well Services),

J. Dumanoir (Schlumberger Well Services), 1984, Theoretical and Experimental Bases for the
Dual-Water Model for Interpretation of Shaly Sands: Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal
Volume24 Issue02

15. Aguilera R., (SPE, Servipetrol Ltd.), Aguilera M.S., (SPE, Servipetrol Ltd), 2001 ‘The
integration of capillary pressures and pickett plots for determination of flow units and reservoir
containers’, 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans,
Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.

16. Aguilera, R., 1990a, Extensions of Pickett plots for the analysis of shaly formations by well
logs: The Log Analyst, v. 31, no.6, p. 304-313.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 75 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Annex 1: Tables

Table 6.1: Input logs and variables

Log/Variable Unit Description

MD m Measured depth
TVDSS m True vertical depth subsea
GR gAPI Gamma Ray Log
CGR gAPI Uranium Corrected Gamma Ray
SP mV Spontaneous Potential
DRHO gm/cc Density correction Log
RHOB gm/cc Density Log
NPHI/TNPH fraction Neutron Log
RESD ohm.m Deep Resistivity Log
RESS ohm.m Shallow Resistivity Log
RXO ohm.m Flushed Zone Resisitivity Log
PEFZ b/e Photoelectric Factor
DT us/ft Compressional Slowness
POTA % Potassium Concentration
THOR ppm Thorium Concentration
URAN ppm Uranium Concentration
CALI In Caliper
BS In Bit Size

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 76 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Petrophysics Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 6.2: Core Measurements available for Key Well

Core Laboratory Tests Formation

Routine Core Analysis- Porosity, Permeability, Grain Density EP IV Upper and Lower
Dean Stark Measurement EP IV Upper and Lower
Core Electrical Parameters EP IV Lower
Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure EP IV Lower
XRD EP IV Lower
C.E.C Measurements EP IV Lower

Table 6.3: Core Measurement Abbreviation and Meaning

Abbreviation Meaning
CPOR Core Porosity
CKA Air Permeability
CKB Brine/Liquid Permeability
CPOR_NCS Core Porosity Corrected for Net Confining Stress
CKA_NCS Core Permeability Corrected for Net Confining Stress
NOB Net Overburden
GD Core Grain Density
CSW Core Water Saturation (Array)
FRF Formation Resistivity Factor
RI Resistivity Index
a Archie’s Constant
m Cementation Exponent
n Saturation Exponent
PC_IFT Capillary Pressure corrected for Interfacial Tension
PV Pore Volume
PTR Pore Throat Radius
SHg Mercury Saturation

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 77 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Annex 2: Average Petrophysical Properties

This section has been added as per requirement from GOGL. The average petrophysical properties such as porosity, clay volume, porosity
and permeability has been estimated per well per zone. It was communicated that the results are to be confined to reservoir section i.e.
Siltstone reservoirs. In EP IV Upper zone, the reservoir is present between the coal layers. The well markers have been provided by the
geologist and this zone has been labeled as EP IV Upper Coal-1. Average petrophysical parameters have been computed for this interval.
In case of EP IV lower, K-7 shale is present between the two siltstone reservoirs. Hence, a VCL cut off of 0.55 v/v was used to exclude this
section. A combined average property for the two siltstone has been estimated.

For the wells K#3 and K#5, there is high uncertainty as triple combo data is incomplete and the consistent multi-well ELAN model has not
been used in the study.

Figure 7.1: Graphical representation of Zones considered for tabulation of average properties
31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 78 of 83
Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 7.1: Average Petrophysical Properties for EP IV Upper

Reference
Well Zones Top Bottom Av_VCL Av_Phi Av_SW Av_Perm
unit
K#7 EP-IV-Coal1 1666.36 1671.22 m 0.47 0.13 0.92 0.09
K#1E EP-IV-Coal1 1624.46 1629.73 m 0.46 0.15 0.83 0.19
K#3* EP-IV-Coal1 1644.32 1648.09 m 0.43 0.17 1 0.11
K#5* EP-IV-Coal1 1732.19 1739.55 m 0.33 0.17 0.81 0.31
K#6 EP-IV-Coal1 1650.08 1655.98 m 0.47 0.18 0.87 0.28
K#8D EP-IV-Coal1 1601.36 1606.17 m 0.45 0.15 0.85 0.19
K#9 EP-IV-Coal1 1597.39 1603.15 m 0.45 0.16 0.78 0.31
K#10 EP-IV-Coal1 1643.75 1649.83 m 0.46 0.16 0.83 0.26

Table 7.2: Average Petrophysical Properties for EP IV Lower

Reference
Well Zones Top Bottom Av_VCL Av_Phi Av_Sw Av_Perm
unit
K#7 EP-IV-Lower 1677.47 1697.71 m 0.45 0.158 0.88 0.49
K#1E EP-IV-Lower 1635.18 1643.96 m 0.46 0.14 0.89 0.71
K#3* EP-IV-Lower 1653.2 1670.96 m 0.37 0.15 0.85 0.76
K#5* EP-IV-Lower 1747.62 1770.32 m 0.38 0.15 0.72 1.36
K#6 EP-IV-Lower 1662.37 1682.28 m 0.46 0.17 0.80 0.92
K#8D EP-IV-Lower 1612.52 1628.69 m 0.47 0.16 0.84 0.67
K#9 EP-IV-Lower 1609.62 1617.49 m 0.39 0.18 0.70 2.11
K#10 EP-IV-Lower 1656.6 1670.32 m 0.40 0.16 0.82 1.87

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 79 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 80 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 81 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 82 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No.: HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 83 of 83

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

Geology and Static Modeling Report

Vol. IV / IX

Tender No:
HL/FDP/14-15/003

Schlumberger confidential. © Copyright 2015 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.
Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Amendment Summary

Revision No Date Description

0.1 25-Aug-2015 Preliminary Issue
1.0 1-Sep-2015 First Version
2.0 14-Mar-2016 Second Version
3.0 31-Mar-2016 Final Version

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements, empirical
relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or assumptions
are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may differ. Accordingly,
Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or completeness of any
such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or recommendation. Customer
acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that Schlumberger makes no
representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or description in respect thereto.
Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does not warrant that any interpretation,
research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation is fit for a particular purpose,
including but not limited to compliance with any government request or regulatory requirement.
Customer further acknowledges that such services are delivered with the explicit understanding
and agreement that any action taken based on the services received shall be at its own risk and
responsibility and no claim shall be made against Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Contents

1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 17

2 Introduction..................................................................................................... 20
2.1 Objectives ............................................................................................. 20
2.2 Data Availability .................................................................................... 20
2.3 Regional Geology ................................................................................. 22
2.4 Stratigraphy of Cambay Basin ............................................................ 24
3 Well Correlation .............................................................................................. 30
4 Litho-facies interpretation ............................................................................. 38
5 Depositional environment.............................................................................. 44
6 3D Geological Model ...................................................................................... 51
6.1 Definition of Model Boundary ............................................................. 51
6.2 Workflow used in study ....................................................................... 53
7 Structural Framework Modeling .................................................................... 55
7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 55
7.2 Methodology ......................................................................................... 55
7.3 Fault Modeling ...................................................................................... 56
7.4 Pillar Gridding ....................................................................................... 59
7.5 Horizon Modeling ................................................................................. 61
7.6 Model Zonation ..................................................................................... 63
7.7 Model Vertical Layering ....................................................................... 72
8 Reservoir Property Modeling......................................................................... 78
8.1 Seismic Inversion Study ...................................................................... 78
8.2 Total Porosity Modeling ....................................................................... 83
8.3 Effective Porosity Modeling ................................................................ 93
8.4 Permeability Modeling ....................................................................... 102
8.5 Rock Type modeling .......................................................................... 108
8.6 Water Saturation Modeling ................................................................ 113
8.7 PVT parameters .................................................................................. 116
9 Volume Calculation ...................................................................................... 117
9.1 1P, 2P, 3P volumetric and Analysis of fluid contacts...................... 118
9.2 Analysis of Base Case STOIIP/GIIP estimation ............................... 129
9.3 Comparison of volumetric results with production data: ............... 143
9.4 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis ................................................ 145
10 Conclusions .................................................................................................. 155
11 References .......................................................................................................... 157

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Tornado chart displaying results of Sensitivity Analysis................................ 19

Figure 2-1: Location map of Cambay Basin and Tectonic block along with Kanawara Field
.............................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 2-2: Generalized stratigraphy of Cambay Basin (Source: K10 WCR) ................... 24
Figure 2-3: Hydrocarbon generated (HCG) and hydrocarbon expelled (HCE) from the
Cambay Shale Formation in Cambay basin (Banerjee et. al. 2002) .................................. 28
Figure 2-4: Structural section along dip and possible migration pathway in Kanawara Field
.............................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3-1: Well log responses of each Formations along with stratigraphic reference;
Zoomed section shows EP-IV reservoir zone .................................................................... 32
Figure 3-2: Well top correlation panel along northern dip section of Kanawara Field .... 34
Figure 3-3: Well top correlation panel along southern dip section of Kanawara Field ... 35
Figure 3-4: Well top correlation panel along western strike section of Kanawara Field . 36
Figure 3-5: Well top correlation panel along eastern strike section of Kanawara Field.. 37
Figure 4-1: Litho-Facies classification using IPSOM for Multi-Well using Techlog software
platform ................................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 4-2: Calibration of Litho-facies model with FMI log ............................................... 40
Figure 4-3: Litho-facies validation with core image........................................................... 41
Figure 4-4: Facies refinement applied on Multi-Well ......................................................... 42
Figure 4-5: Comparison of litho-facies and RRT along with others Petrophysical logs . 43
Figure 5-1: Schematic of Paleo-Environment during Eocene ........................................... 45
Figure 5-2: (a) Analog Depositional satellite imagery; (b) Marked fine clastic sediment
distribution ........................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 5-3: Conceptual litho facies distribution along with Image log and core photograph
to understand the facies character ..................................................................................... 47
Figure 5-4: Laminated siltstone facies observed in image logs and core of EP-IV upper
zone ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 5-5: Various sedimentary features visible in the image logs and core in EP-IV lower
zone without prominent lamination .................................................................................... 49
Figure 5-6 Comparison of Depositional Environment model with Seismic AI & Rock typing
.............................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 6-1 : Model boundary for Kanawara area ................................................................ 52
Figure 6-2 : Workflow for Kanawara static modeling ........................................................ 54
Figure 7-1 : 3D Visualization of seismic interpreted faults in the study area .................. 57
Figure 7-2 : 3D Visualization of fault modeling in the study area ..................................... 58
Figure 7-3: Top view of faults and Trends used in Pillar gridding .................................... 60

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-4: 3d QC of top, mid and bottom grid in Pillar gridding process ....................... 61
Figure 7-5 : Different inputs for horizon and zones for modeling .................................... 62
Figure 7-6 Well top correlation panel showing sub-zones along northern dip section of
Kanawara Field..................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 7-7 Well top correlation panel showing sub-zones along southern dip section of
Kanawara Field..................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 7-8 Well top correlation panel showing sub-zones along western strike section of
Kanawara Field..................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 7-9 Well top correlation panel showing sub-zones along western strike section of
Kanawara Field..................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 7-10: Example of EP-IV Upper Siltstone and EP-IV Lower siltstone Isochores taken
in Kanawara model .............................................................................................................. 70
Figure 7-11 : Input for zonation process (well tops and isochore maps) ......................... 71
Figure 7-12 : Variogram analysis for layering scheme ...................................................... 72
Figure 7-13 : QC of layering scheme by displaying input log and upscale log in well
section. ................................................................................................................................. 73
Figure 7-14 : Quality Check of structural grid (Bulk volume)............................................ 75
Figure 7-15 : Quality Check of structural grid (Cell height). ............................................. 75
Figure 7-16 : Quality Check of structural grid (Cell inside out) ........................................ 76
Figure 7-17 : Quality Check of structural grid (Cell Angle) ............................................... 76
Figure 8-1 Blocked AI values vs Effective Porosity, colored by quality log. ................... 79
Figure 8-2 Effective porosity vs Clay volume fraction, colored by acoustic impedance
values. .................................................................................................................................. 80
Figure 8-3 Sand Shale Pie diagram on RMS AI map of EP-IV upper................................. 81
Figure 8-4 Sand Shale Pie diagram on RMS AI map of EP-IV Lower ................................ 82
Figure 8-5 : Workflow for Porosity Modeling. ................................................................... 83
Figure 8-6 : Log upscaling with different averaging method. .......................................... 84
Figure 8-7 : Variogram search cone .................................................................................. 87
Figure 8-8 : Variogram Model ............................................................................................. 87
Figure 8-9 : Results and workflow for Total Porosity Modeling in Kanawara field ......... 89
Figure 8-10 Variogram model used in Total Porosity Modeling of EP-IV Upper Reservoir
.............................................................................................................................................. 90
Figure 8-11 Variogram model used in Total Porosity Modeling of EP-IV Lower Reservoir
.............................................................................................................................................. 91
Figure 8-12 : QC of modeled, upscaled and input porosity total log for zone EP-IV Upper
Siltstone................................................................................................................................ 92
Figure 8-13 : QC of modeled, upscaled and input porosity total log for zone EP-IV Lower
Siltstone................................................................................................................................ 92
Figure 8-14 : Fence diagram across 3D Total Porosity model .......................................... 93
Figure 8-15 : Results and workflow for Effective Porosity Modeling in Kanawara field 95

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 12 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-16 Variogram model used in Effective Porosity Modeling of EP-IV Upper
Reservoir .............................................................................................................................. 96
Figure 8-17 Variogram model used in Effective Porosity Modeling of EP-IV Lower
Reservoir .............................................................................................................................. 97
Figure 8-18: A comparison to AI with Total and Effective porosity model in EP-IV Upper
reservoir ............................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 8-19: A comparison to AI with Total and Effective porosity model in EP-IV Lower
reservoir ............................................................................................................................... 99
Figure 8-20: QC of modeled, upscaled and input porosity (Eff.) log for zone EP-IV Upper
Siltstone.............................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 8-21: QC of modeled, upscaled and input porosity (Eff.) log for zone EP-IV Lower
Siltstone.............................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 8-22 : Fence diagram across 3D Effective Porosity model .................................. 101
Figure 8-23 Results and workflow for Permeability Modeling in Kanawara field .......... 103
Figure 8-24 Variogram model used in Permeability Modeling of EP-IV Upper Reservoir
............................................................................................................................................ 104
Figure 8-25 Variogram model used in Permeability Modeling of EP-IV Lower Reservoir
............................................................................................................................................ 105
Figure 8-26: QC of modeled, upscaled and input permeability log for zone EP-IV Upper
Siltstone.............................................................................................................................. 106
Figure 8-27: QC of modeled, upscaled and input permeability log for zone EP-IV Lower
Siltstone.............................................................................................................................. 106
Figure 8-28: Fence diagram across 3D Permeability model ........................................... 107
Figure 8-29: 3D diagram across 3D Rock type model ..................................................... 108
Figure 8-30: Fence diagram across 3D Rock Type model............................................... 109
Figure 8-31: Porosity-Permeability cross plot ................................................................. 110
Figure 8-32 : Quality check of PP & Model rock types against other processed logs . 111
Figure 8-33 : Quality check of PP & Model rock types against other processed logs . 112
Figure 8-34 : Function showing relationship between Sw and Height above contact . 114
Figure 8-35 : Fence diagram across 3D saturation model ............................................. 114
Figure 8-36 : Fence diagram across 3D NTG model ........................................................ 115
Figure 9-1 Cartoon demonstrating SPE criteria of P1, P2 and P3 reserves ................... 119
Figure 9-2 Cartoon showing the criteria of contact definitions ...................................... 120
Figure 9-3 : Segment limits in the study area. ................................................................ 122
Figure 9-4 : Structure Contour Map of EP-IV(U) with 1P contacts marked. .................. 123
Figure 9-5 : Structure Contour Map of EP-IV(U) with 2P contacts marked ................... 124
Figure 9-6 Structure Contour Map of EP-IV(L) with 1P contacts marked. ...................... 125
Figure 9-7 Structure Contour Map of EP-IV(L) with 2P contacts marked ....................... 126
Figure 9-8 STOIIP distribution in different Rocktypes in field ........................................ 130
Figure 9-9 GIIP distribution in different Rocktypes in field ............................................. 130

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-10 STOIIP distribution in different Porosity bins in field .................................. 131
Figure 9-11 GIIP distribution in different Porosity Bins in field ...................................... 131
Figure 9-12 STOIIP distribution in different Sw bins in field ........................................... 132
Figure 9-13 GIIP distribution in different Sw Bins in field ............................................... 132
Figure 9-14 Net Pay Effective Porosity Map for EP-IV Upper .......................................... 133
Figure 9-15 Net Pay Effective Porosity Map for EP-IV Lower .......................................... 134
Figure 9-16 Net Pay Water Saturations Map for EP-IV Upper.......................................... 135
Figure 9-17 Net Pay Sw Map for EP-IV Lower .................................................................. 136
Figure 9-18 Net Pay thickness map for EP-IV Upper ....................................................... 137
Figure 9-19 Net Pay thickness map for EP-IV lower ........................................................ 138
Figure 9-20 HCPV(Oil) , 2P case height Map for EP-IV Upper ........................................ 139
Figure 9-21 HCPV(Oil) 2P case height Map for EP-IV Lower ........................................... 140
Figure 9-22 HCPV(Gas), 2P case height Map for EP-IV upper ........................................ 141
Figure 9-23 HCPV (Gas),2P case height Map for EP-IV Lower ........................................ 142
Figure 9-24 Normalized production bubbles plotted on HCPV (oil) map ....................... 143
Figure 9-25 Tornado Chart showing sensitivity of different modeling parameters ....... 146
Figure 9-26 Schematic Diagram showing Uncertainty analysis workflow ..................... 148
Figure 9-27 Histogram Showing STOIIP Uncertainty in Kanawara field (150 Runs) ...... 149
Figure 9-28 Histogram Showing STOIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV Upper Zone (150 Runs) . 150
Figure 9-29 Histogram Showing STOIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV Lower Zone (150 Runs). 151
Figure 9-30 Histogram Showing GIIP Uncertainty in Kanawara field (150 Runs) .......... 152
Figure 9-31 Histogram Showing GIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV Upper Zone (150 Runs) ..... 153
Figure 9-32 Histogram Showing GIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV Lower Zone (150 Runs) ..... 154

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 14 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report
Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Abbreviations

GOGL GNRL Oil & Gas Limited

WCR Well Completion Report
Fr Fraction
FWL Free water Level
GIIP Gas Initially In Place
GOC Gas Oil Contact
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
Km Kilometer
m. Meter
md Mili-darcy
MD Measured depth
MMSCF Million Standard Cubic Feet
MMSTB Millions of Standard Barrels
msl Mean sea level
OIIP Oil Initially In Place
OWC Oil Water Contact
pu. Porosity unit
SCF Standard Cubic Feet
SGS Sequential Gaussian Simulation
SLB Schlumberger
STB Standard Barrels
STOIIP Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place
SWC Side Wall Core
TVD True Vertical Depth
VPC Vertical Proportion Curve
GIIP Gas Initially In Place
TVT True Vertical Thickness

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report
Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Executive Summary
This report describes the geology and static modeling approach implemented in field development
planning study of Kanawara Field situated in Cambay basin. Cambay basin is subdivided into five
tectonic blocks amongst which the Kanawara Field is located within Cambay-Tarapur tectonic
block. Total 9 wells have been drilled in the study area which is covered by 3D seismic data.
The stratigraphic correlation was performed in this study to correlate the reservoir level markers
and to understand their electrical log natures over the study area with reference to the background
geological information. As per the objective of the study, the following well markers viz. Tarapur
Shale, Kalol top, sub zonation of EP-IV, Cambay shale, Olpad and Deccan Trap were correlated
wherever data was available. The EP-IV reservoir was further subdivided into 8 zones based on
the petrophysical properties.
A 3D geological model for this field was built by integrating geophysical, geological, petrophysical
and reservoir engineering information using Petrel software. The 3D framework of this model was
built using the domain converted seismic marker horizons tied up with well markers and the faults
interpreted from seismic and well data. A vertical zonation of the model was made after studying
the upscaled logs vertical resolution for the target EP-IV upper and EP-IV lower reservoirs.

A hierarchical approach of property modeling was followed in which total porosity was populated
with trend from seismic derived acoustic impedance maps. Effective porosity was populated with
trend from modeled total porosity. Subsequently, permeability was populated with trend from
modeled effective porosity. After population of all petrophysical properties, a flow unit based rock
types were generated using transforms established at well levels. Water saturation was modeled
using a height based function derived separately for each rock type honoring the observed
transition zone. This 3D geological model was used to compute the 1P, 2P and 3P of hydrocarbon
in-place volume for the field. The 2P model was used as the base case model for dynamic studies.
The tables below summarize 1P, 2P and 3P volumes, and the zone wise detailed volumetric
estimation for base case.

Table 1-1 1P, 2P and 3P volumetric of Kanawara field

Volume in Place 1P (10^3 sm3) 2P (10^3 sm3) 3P (10^3 sm3)
STOIIP 1689.5 2533.0 2652.4
GIIP(Total Gas) 385783.5 5,63,129.03 5,77,006.6

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report
Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 1-2 Detailed Volumetric spreadsheet of base (2P) case

Bulk Net Pore

STOIIP STOIIP GIIP, Free GIIP, Total
Volume Volume Volume
Layer/Segment (10^3 (10^3 Gas Gas (10^3
(10^6 (10^6 (10^6
m3) bbl.) (10^3 m3) m3)
m3) m3) m3)
K1 EP-IV Upper 3.8 2.8 0.4 5.9 37.2 19690.7 19690.7
K8_K9 EP-IV Upper 2 1.6 0.2 5.0 31.5 14407.6 14486.2
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Upper 18.2 16.8 2.7 473.3 2977.3 7774.2 62411.9
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Upper 8.3 7.6 1.2 21.4 134.5 71253.1 71253.1
Segment4 EP-IV Upper 8.5 7.4 1.1 21.5 135.4 71763.2 71763.2
K1 EP-IV Lower 9.8 8.6 1.3 26.7 168.2 89128.0 89128.0
K8_K9 EP-IV Lower 5.3 4.4 0.7 125.8 791.0 0.0 14587.3
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Lower 35.9 34.1 5.4 973.5 6122.9 4997.2 117744.4
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Lower 19.4 18.6 3.1 470.5 2959.6 0.0 54582.2
Segment4 EP-IV Lower 17.3 15.9 2.7 409.3 2574.6 0.0 47482.0
Total 128.5 117.8 18.8 2533.0 15931.9 279013.97 563129.03

Extensive Petrel workflow based uncertainty analysis was carried out on this base case model
involving all parameters of the model to find out the likely uncertainty in this in-place hydrocarbon
volume estimation. Based on 150 runs of this workflow a probabilistic distribution of in-place oil
and gas was estimated.

A mono-sensitivity analysis was also carried out on this model to find out the ranking of the key
uncertainty parameters. The generated tornado chart shows water saturation to have the highest
impact on the uncertainty, followed by Porosity, Contact and then PVT (Bo). The tornado chart
showing this sensitivity analysis result is shown on next page.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 18 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 1-1 Tornado chart displaying results of Sensitivity Analysis

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2 Introduction
Kanawara Field (Figure 2-1) is situated in the onshore Cambay-Tarapur tectonic block of Cambay
basin. In terms of coordinate system, the mining lease area lies between 22033'39.17”N-
22031'49.15"N latitude and 72031'38.29”E-72032’48.11’’E longitude. The main hydrocarbon
bearing reservoirs are confined to the EP-IV reservoirs of Eocene age.
Presence of commercial hydrocarbon was established in the Kanawara structure in 1971 with the
first well K#2 producing oil/gas in EP-IV reservoir during conventional testing. Total 9 wells have
been drilled so far within the study area.
The study area is covered by 3D seismic data and is used for interpretation of Kanawara Field’s
structural framework. The main structural trend existing in the present day structure at EP-IV
reservoirs is NNW-SSE.
As per contract number HL/FDP/14-15/003 awarded by GOGL, Schlumberger took up a study to
develop a 3D reservoir model for this field for the selected reservoirs, i.e., EP-IV upper and EP-
IV lower.

2.1 Objectives
Following is the scope of work for this study
 Develop a structural framework for the EPlV reservoir
 Develop the 3D property model i.e. Porosity, Permeabilty and water saturation
 Establish STOIIP and GIIP volumes
 Uncertainity analysis on static volumetrics
 Prepare static model for reservoir simulation.

2.2 Data Availability

The static modeling work started with preparing a database in Petrel which included input of all
wells in this study area and importing basic logs into each well. Basic logs which were mostly
available and extensively used in correlation were gamma, resistivity, neutron, density. Following
data was used for the study of the Kanawara field:
 Deviation surveys, KB, well header,
 Spliced logs for each well
 Seismic and fault interpretation
 Petrophysical analysis result
 Testing information
 Fluid contacts
Table 2-1 displays the data availability for the study.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 2-1: Data availability for the study

Data Name Data Availability

Well information 9 wells

Formation Tops 9

Completion data 9

Image logs 3

Core data 1

Fluid information (PVT Reports) 2

Seismic Horizons (Depth) 3

Seismic cube PSTM filtered scaled volume

Well logs Available, Image logs in 4 wells

Evaluation logs Available

CC/SWC CC present in 1 well, SWC not available

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.3 Regional Geology

Cambay basin is an intracratonic rift graben and classified under Proved category by Directorate
General of Hydrocarbon (DGH). The basin has an elongated form, oriented predominantly NNW
– SSE. It is approximately 420 km long and a maximum of 205 km wide and covers an area of
about 62,400 sq.km (Source: WCR of well K#8, GOGL Ltd.). Cambay basin came into existence
at the end of Mesozoic (Mukherjee, 1983) as a result of breakup of Gondwana continent (Near
Antarctica) along a major North-South lineament containing various trijunction points. The basin
was formed along one such failed arm of the trijunction as an intracratonic rift graben between
Saurashtra craton to the west and Aravalli ranges to the east and north east in roughly N-S
alignment (Biswas, Rangaraju, Thomas, & Bhattacharya, 1994). There were concomitant
eruptions of lava flows which formed the technical basement for the deposition of younger tertiary
sediments. Further, Cambay basin was traversed by more or less east- west transverse faults
dividing the basin into various highs and lows which subdivided the basin into five major tectonic
blocks (Figure 2-1) wherein the Kanawara Field lies in the Cambay-Tarapur tectonic block.
The main rift section of the Cambay Basin is structurally defined by N – S trending normal faults
against basement and pre-rift sections. The succeeding post-rift section subsequently expands
the total width of the basin, onlapping onto basement and pre-rift succession such as Deccan
Trap volcanics to the east and west. The sedimentary thickness of the Cambay reaches a
maximum of 5,000 m in the center of the basin, which thins to about 1,500 m in a northerly
direction and towards the margins. The 3D interpretation brought out clearer picture in Kanawara
Field. The fault blocks at Eocene level are Western Upthrown Block (WUB), Southern
Downthrown Block (SDT) and Northern Downthrown Block (NDT). Two generations of faults are
observed in the region. Kanawara Field has a primary trend of faulting in the NNW-SSE direction
with downthrown side due East.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Cambay-
Tarapur Block

Figure 2-1: Location map of Cambay Basin and Tectonic block along with Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 23 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.4 Stratigraphy of Cambay Basin

The regional stratigraphy of Cambay basin (Figure 2-2) is described below. The Formation top
names are primarily considered as per the WCR of the wells in the Field.

Figure 2-2: Generalized stratigraphy of Cambay Basin (Source: K10 WCR)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 24 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Deccan Trap
Deccan Trap is believed to be deposited as a result of Deccan volcanism approximately 69 Ma
back after Indian plate got separated from Seychelles. This volcanism had taken place during
Late Cretaceous period. One of the most commonly believed theory is that; volcanism is related
to deep mantle plume, commonly known as Reunion hotspot. The trap has been found to be rich
in minerals like labradorite and augite. In Kanawara Field, only K#1 well has penetrated till this
formation.

Olpad Formation
This formation got deposited as thick synrift sediment derived from trap escarpments. This is the
first sediment of Tertiary epoch that got deposited in the basin. This sediment is believed to been
deposited in the lacustrine- alluvial fan system. Over the basin, this formation shows an overall
association of sandstone, claystone, siltstone, shale and volcanic-wacke. Only two wells were
able to penetrate this formation within the block (K#1 & K#2).

Cambay Shale
Onset of Eocene epoch saw widespread transgression in the basin which resulted in the
deposition of Cambay shale across the basin. Cambay shale is believed to be the main source
rock for the entire basin. The transgressive episode was followed by period of unconformity.
Reactivation of basement fault was due to tectonic activity, which lead to the formation of horst
and structural high across the basin. In the Kanawara Field Cambay shale is predominantly
composed of mainly shale and siltstone. The character of shale in most of the wells of Kanawara
Field is light grey to dark grey, brown, laminated, sub-fissile to fissile, moderately hard.

Kalol Formation
The Middle Eocene saw deposition of deltaic sediment across the basin as a result of marine
regression. Kalol Formation got deposited during this epoch. This Formation is present in the
central part of the basin and composed of intercalations of sandstone, coal, and shale. The Kalol
Formation is overlain conformably by the Tarapur Shale in the northern part of the basin. The
Kalol Formation is not recognized in the southern part of the basin, so that the Ankleshwar
Formation directly overlies the Cambay Shale. The Kalol Formation displays an overall regressive
‐ transgressive ‐ regressive nature. The regressive depositional system is comprised of
sandstones, siltstones, carbonaceous shale, shale and coals. However, in Kanawara Field no
prominent sandstone litho-facies are observed. The average thickness of Kalol Formation within
Kanawara Field is about 150 m.

Tarapur Shale
Tarapur Shale got deposited as result of marine transgression during Late Eocene-Early
Oligocene epoch. This is envisaged as the second source rock for the basin. It consists
dominantly of siltstone with intercalations of shale and carbonaceous shale bands particularly in
the bottom portion. In Kanawara Field, grey to dark grey shale with medium to fine grained
sandstone in the near middle part are present. The average thickness of Tarapur Shale Formation
within Kanawara Field is about 206 m.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 25 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kathana Formation
The Kathana Formation, composed of carbonaceous shale and variegated claystone,
disconformably overlies the Tarapur Shale with local development of sandstone in various parts
of the basin. In Kanawara Field, loose sand has also been observed. The average thickness of
Kathana Formation within the study field is about 130 m.

Babaguru Formation
Babaguru Formation is overlain and underlain by Kand and Tarkeshwar Formations respectively
with conformable contacts. The main lithology is ferruginous, current bedded sandstones,
conglomerate and grey clays. This formation has a dual depositional system as demonstrated by
the litho occurrence in North Cambay (fluviatile) and South Cambay (shallow marine) basin. In
the Kanawara Field, Babaguru Formation is composed of medium- to coarse grained sandstone
and gray shale and claystone with thin sandstone layers. The average thickness of Babaguru
Formation is about 240 m.

Kand Formation
Kand Formation consists of gray shale and claystone with thin sandstone layers; it is of early
Miocene age. These claystone/shale are mostly fossiliferous with minor intercalations of sand and
siltstone. Occasionally thin coal bands and pyrite traces are also present in the well. The Average
thickness of Kand Formation within the Kanawara Field is about 260 m.

Jhagadia formation
The Jhagadia Formation is composed of calcareous and micaceous sandstone and
unconsolidated sand. The sand in this formation is characterized by translucent, smoky white to
colorless and fine to medium grained. Jhagadia Formation is of middle to late Miocene age and
conformably overlies the Kand Formation. The average thickness of Jhagadia Formation within
this field is about 215 m.

Broach Formation
The Broach Formation is of Post Miocene age which composed of sandstone with minor
claystone/shale. In Kanawara Field, the character of claystone is variegated, dark gray, greenish
gray, soft and sticky and the claystone is highly dispersible in water. The average thickness
encountered by the well of Kanawara Field is about 118 m.

Jambusar Formation
The Jambusar Formation is composed of loose sand, characterized with colorless to clear
transparent, fine to medium grained, sub angular to sub-rounded grains. This formation is of Post
Miocene age and conformably overlain by Jambusar Formation. The average thickness of
Jambusar Formation within the Kanawara Field is about 100 m.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 26 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Gujarat Alluvial
The Gujarat Alluvium of Holocene age covers the older sediments in the Cambay basin and
average thickness within Kanawara Field is about 270 m.

Possible Migration Concept

An attempt was made to infer the possible migration pathway for this block. Kanawara Field is
part of Cambay-Tarapur tectonic block of Cambay basin. The block boundary imposes a limitation
in comprehending the hydrocarbon migration, which resulted in entrapment of hydrocarbon in
Kanawara Field. Cambay basin covers an area of about 62,400 sq.km, whereas Kanawara Field
covers only an area of 6.30 sq. km.
Literature survey suggest there are three potential source rock which charge the Cambay basin
(A. Banerjee, 2002). The source rocks are Tarapur shale in Kalol Formation (middle Eocene),
Cambay Shale Formation (middle Eocene-upper Paleocene) and Olpad Formation (lower
Paleocene). Tarapur shale and Cambay shale is mature in south of the basin whereas the Olpad
is mature in the north of the basin (A. Banerjee, 2002). The Cambay shale is the major source
rock unit for the Kanawara field.
The major source kitchen is located south of Kanawara Field (Figure 2-3). The probable migration
direction is inferred as south-east to north–west which is in alignment with the regional basin slope
NNW-SSE.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 27 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara
Field

Figure 2-3: Hydrocarbon generated (HCG) and hydrocarbon expelled (HCE) from the Cambay
Shale Formation in Cambay basin (Banerjee et. al. 2002)

Based on the structural trend, it also suggest hydrocarbon migration direction is from SE to NW
where hydrocarbon got entrapped by faults that are discussed in the Geophysics report.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 28 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-4: Structural section along dip and possible migration pathway in Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 29 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3 Well Correlation
Identification of the dominant wire-line log characters is essential to recognize the stratigraphic
surfaces of the main formations in the correlation exercise. The stratigraphic correlation
performed in this study led to unifying the formation top markers and their electrical log characters
over the study area. The specific characters of each stratigraphic boundary will support the robust
stratigraphic interpretation and correlation. As per the scope of work and objective of the study,
the following formation well tops viz. Tarapur Shale, Kalol top, sub zonation of EP-IV, Cambay
shale, Olpad and Deccan Trap are correlated wherever data is available. The major well top
markers are further used in seismic horizon interpretation and geological modelling. To keep well
top naming consistent, markers were followed as provided by GOGL except ‘Tarapur Shale’ is
used instead of Oligocene top. Well K#1 is considered as the type well for well correlation
exercise, as this well penetrated maximum depth with majority well log measurement Figure 3-1
represents the type well (Well K#1) with the wireline measured logs.

Deccan Trap (Fractured Basement)

Deccan Trap has only been encountered in well K#1 of Kanawara Field. There is a sharp break
in GR log motif and Resistivity log motif between Olpad Formation and Deccan Trap (Figure 3-1).
There is distinct fall in NPHI log reading as compared to Olpad Formation. Well completion report
suggests the upper part of Deccan Trap is highly weathered and fractured which is commonly
described as Trapwash. Secondary mineralization has taken place within fracture in the form of
quartz, calcite and zeolite deposition.

Olpad Formation
Wells K#1 and K#2 has encountered Olpad Formation in Kanawara Field. In well K#1, there is a
small break in GR log motif between Olpad Formation and Cambay Shale (Figure 3-1), Olpad
Formation shows a fall in GR log reading compared with Cambay Shale Formation above it.
Resistivity log shows an increasing trend from top to bottom of Olpad Formation. The Neutron log
and Density log shows a decrease in separation from bottom to top. Olpad Formation primarily
consist of siltstone, claystone and Trap derived material with secondary minerals like calcite,
quartz, zeolite as per well completion report of well K#1.

Cambay shale
Cambay shale shows a bell shape trend at the upper part of the formation whereas the lower half
shows cylindrical trend in GR (Figure 3-1). There is a sharp break in GR log motif between
Cambay shale Formation and Kalol Formation above it. The well completion report describes the
formation is mostly composed of shale and carbonaceous shale. In well K#1, the upper part of
the formation is silty, pyritic, and non-calcareous; whereas, the lower part finely laminated with
occasional siltstone bands.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 30 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kalol Formation
Kalol Formation shows a two minor funnel shape trend in the GR log reading (Figure 3-1-zoomed
section). There is a break in GR log between Kalol Formation and Tarapur Shale Formation above
it (Figure 3-1). The EP-IV unit is the major reservoir zone within Kalol Formation of Kanawara
Field which is characterized by two cycles of low GR log and high Resistivity corresponding to
EP-IV Upper and EP-IV Lower. In the present study, EP-IV Upper and Lower are named as EP-
IV-Upper-Coal Top and EP-IV-Lower-Siltstone Top respectively. The detail correlation and
discussion of EP-IV zone is described in Section 7.6. Well completion report of well K#1 describes
the Kalol Formation consists of carbonaceous shale, thin band of coal and siltstone.

Tarapur Shale
The GR log motif shows a cylindrical trend in well K#1 (Figure 3-1). There is a break in GR log
reading between Tarapur Shale and Kathana Formation. There is also a break in resistivity
between Tarapur Shale Formation and Kalol Formation below and also with Kathana Formation
above it. Well completion report describes the Formation mainly consist of laminated, splintery,
sederitic shale.

Table 3-1 summarizes the depth (in MD) of individual well tops from each wells. Marker
Correlation panel is displayed in Figure 3-2 to Figure 3-5 according to approximate strike and dip
direction.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 31 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

KALOL

EP-IV_UPPER_COAL_Top
EP-IV-Upper-Coal-Top

EP-IV_Lower_SILTSTONE_Top
EP-IV-Lower-Siltstone-Top

CAMBAY

CAMBAY
SHALE

(Modified after Banerjee et. al. 2002)

Figure 3-1: Well log responses of each Formations along with stratigraphic reference; Zoomed section shows EP-IV reservoir zone

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 32 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 3-1: Summary well top of all the wells of Kanawara Field

Well top K#1 K#10 K#2 K#3 K#5 K#6 K#7 K#8 K#9
TARAPUR
SHALE 1344.64 1331.13 1334.57 1332.26 1371.69 1336.49 1341.78 1327.11 1318.32

KALOL 1535.45 1537.89 1540.68 1536.11 1602.95 1540.99 1555.2 1513 1516.05
EP-IV-Upper-
Coal_Top 1623.2 1642.45 1644.9 1643.23 1730.11 1647.65 1665.01 1599.87 1596.17
EP-IV-Lower-
Siltstone_Top 1635.18 1656.6 1657.9 1653.2 1747.62 1662.37 1677.47 1612.52 1609.62
CAMBAY
SHALE 1660.39 1685.56 1692.87 1686.74 1790.08 1698.4 1713.31 1642.5 1639.9

OLPAD 2113.32 -- 2222.88 -- -- -- -- -- --

DECCAN TRAP 2704 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Depth in MD(meter)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 33 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-2: Well top correlation panel along northern dip section of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 34 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-3: Well top correlation panel along southern dip section of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 35 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-4: Well top correlation panel along western strike section of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 36 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-5: Well top correlation panel along eastern strike section of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 37 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

4 Litho-facies interpretation
In this project, GR, Density, Neutron and Deep Resistivity logs were primarily been used to infer
basic lithology using neural network technique viz. IPSOM in Techlog platform. The neural
network technique is to combine the core descriptions and the openhole logs to generate a facies-
log for the non-cored well-intervals. Artificial neural networks are a family of models inspired by
biological neural networks and are used to estimate or approximate functions that can depend on
a number of inputs and are generally unknown. Initially unsupervised modeling was carried out
with six type of facies. Later the same indexation was further used in supervised method for all
the wells. These six types of facies were then classified based on core and image log information
using indexation template and applied for all the wells (Figure 4-1) by using supervised method
of neural network.
The litho-facies generated from this method has been validated with Image log (Figure 4-2).
Subsequently the litho-facies result were brought to Petrel platform from Techlog and colored
according to petrel lithology template (Figure 4-3).
Litho-facies were refined more precisely within the zone of interest (EP-IV) for the present FDP
study to understand the depositional environment and reference for Reservoir Rock Typing
(RRT). This refinement of litho-facies was carried out based on the output of Petrophysical
analysis (Figure 4-4) such as Vshale, Porosity etc.
The final output of litho-facies and RRT comparison reveals optimum match (Figure 4-5). In the
EP-IV, all the good and best reservoir are falling in siltstone which is main reservoir litho-facies of
EP-IV.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 38 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-1: Litho-Facies classification using IPSOM for Multi-Well using Techlog software platform

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 39 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-2: Calibration of Litho-facies model with FMI log

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 40 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-3: Litho-facies validation with core image

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 41 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

EP-IV-Upper-Coal Top

Cambay Shale Top

Figure 4-4: Facies refinement applied on Multi-Well

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 42 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-5: Comparison of litho-facies and RRT along with others Petrophysical logs

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 43 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

5 Depositional environment
The conceptual depositional environment was attempted for EP-IV reservoir zone which got
deposited within the Kalol Formation. As discussed in the regional geology section, the Kalol
Formation displays an overall regressive – transgressive – regressive nature. The regressive
depositional system is comprised of sandstones, siltstones, carbonaceous shale, shale and coal.
Generally the occurrence of thick sandstone are present in relatively northern part such as
Mehsana area. Whereas towards southern part such as present study area (Kanawara Field) are
grades to Siltstone instead of sandstone which is evident by litho-facies model (previous section).
The background understanding of depositional environment is shown in the Figure 5-1.
In order to achieve the understanding of depositional environment of Kanawara Field, an attempt
has been made by using analog satellite imagery of present day sedimentary process. Figure 5-2
represents the satellite imagery map (analog area). The visible bright features which was
considered as clastic deposits from satellite imager were digitized in PetrelTM (Figure 5-2). The
polygons have been colored according the color scheme of litho-facies (Figure 5-3).
To validate the conceptual litho-facies distribution, the well log derived litho-facies and GR logs
were superimposed on the map (Figure 5-3). Further to validate the model, available image log
and core were also displayed and indicating low energy highly laminated siltstone facies. Subtle
difference facies was observed in the image log for EP-IV upper & lower. For example EP-IV
upper shows prominent lamination feature (Figure 5-4), whereas, cruder lamination feature is
observed in EP-IV lower (Figure 5-5).
In EP-IV upper presence of siltstone is observed in all the wells. The distribution pattern of silty
reservoir facies is based on seismic inversion result which is validated with analogue silty
environment (Figure 5-6). The dominance of siltstone and presence of coal layer in EP-IV upper
throughout the study area and their nature of distribution possibly indicate swampy environment
within shallow marine or the part of delta plain. Highly laminated features in EP-IV upper could
also be inferred as levee deposits with very low energy condition although no evidence of levee
associated channel facies is observed within the area of interest.
The depositional setting of the EP-IV lower can be inferred as lacustrine (restricted environment)
delta fill or lower delta plain of shallow marine setting. The EP-IV lower could be lagoonal facies
also but since there is no evidence of barrier bar (within the study area), it is difficult to conclude.
The depositional models developed for EP-IV upper and lower reservoir units are compared and
validated against the Inversion model and Rock typing map from static model (described detail in
facies modeling chapter). The overall result shows that the EP-IV upper and lower are silty
reservoir with heterogeneity captured through petrophysical analysis. Primarily clay volume and
distribution within the siltstone governs the good/bad facies distribution within the reservoir.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 44 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5-1: Schematic of Paleo-Environment during Eocene

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 45 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5-2: (a) Analog Depositional satellite imagery; (b) Marked fine clastic sediment distribution

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 46 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1647.2m

1648.2m

Figure 5-3: Conceptual litho facies distribution along with Image log and core photograph to
understand the facies character

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 47 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5-4: Laminated siltstone facies observed in image logs and core of EP-IV upper zone

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 48 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5-5: Various sedimentary features visible in the image logs and core in EP-IV lower zone without prominent lamination

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 49 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5-6 Comparison of Depositional Environment model with Seismic AI & Rock typing

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 50 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

6 3D Geological Model
The aim of static geocellular model is to integrate multi-scale data and interpretations available
from different disciplines. The model captures necessary structural complexity, associated
sedimentary fill sequences, and evaluation of lateral and vertical continuity of hydrocarbon
bearing reservoirs. This section describes the methodology and results of static reservoir
modelling for EP-IV reservoirs. The 3D geological modeling process involves structural modeling,
3D stratigraphic grid modeling, reservoir facies and property modeling.

The structural model for the Kanawara reservoirs contains a collection of three seismic interpreted
horizons i.e. EP-IV Upper, EP-IV Lower, and Cambay Shale and a network of 11 faults. The
details about horizon and fault interpretation are described in section 4.2.4 of Volume II, seismic
interpretation report. As per seismic interpretation, no fault has been observed between sub
blocks identified by wells K2, K6 and wells K3, K5, K10. A possible structural/stratigraphic barrier
was inserted in the frame work, which is consistent with the regional structural understanding.
This enabled to define separate compartments for these wells. These faults were combined to
produce a structurally coherent framework of the geometric relationships and geologic boundaries
of the reservoir. Reservoir properties and associated heterogeneity was populated using
petrophysical modeling driven by the well data, conceptual geological model and seismic
attributes (seismic inversion). The integration of core data, conceptual geological model,
production data and seismic attribute, was evaluated individually to select the best fit for purpose
data to populate properties in inter-well spaces.

6.1 Definition of Model Boundary

The definition of model boundary is the first essential step in reservoir modelling that decides size
and subsequently, resolution of reservoir model. It involves several considerations such as type
of sedimentary deposits, lateral and vertical extent of the reservoir, connectivity, structural
closure, fluid contact, etc. and requires detailed analysis of available data to acquire such
information.
The area of Kanawara 3D reservoir model was defined by the interpretation limit of the seismic
data, whereas the stippled blue rectangle demarcates mining lease boundary of GOGL in Figure
6-1.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 51 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 6-1 : Model boundary for Kanawara area

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 52 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

6.2 Workflow used in study

The workflow for static modeling was designed in a way to achieve an optimal integration of multi-
disciplined data that comprised of geophysical, geological, petrophysical, and reservoir
engineering data. The workflow meets the technical objective of this study and ensures right level
of integration of available data. The basic steps of this workflow are shown in details in Figure
6-2, which is summarized as:
 Database preparation and QC
 Structural modeling and QC
 Seismic inversion integration
 Qualilty check with the Petrophysical results
 Property modeling and QC
 Volumetric Estimation of Inplace hydrocarbon
 Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
 Preparing static model for dynamic simulation.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 53 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 6-2 : Workflow for Kanawara static modeling

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 54 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

7 Structural Framework Modeling

7.1 Introduction
Building the structural framework model is first step in developing reservoir model of the field. The
structural framework for the model was constructed by depth converted seismic interpreted
horizons and faults. The intermediate stratigraphy was mapped using well markers.
7.2 Methodology
The following points describe stepwise methodology applied to build the structural framework of
3D grid:
Fault Data Preparation
 Fault Data Preparation and Import fault sticks
 Select faults to include in the model
 QC fault sticks and edit where necessary
 Assemble the fault framework by merging and truncating where applicable
Horizon Data Preparation
 Import depth seismic horizons & QC and eliminate spikes
 Edit any anomalies in areas around faults
 QC with the well data
Building the 3D Grid
 Select faults to be used in the model
 Define the grid boundary
 Use zig-zag type for faults layout
 Assign a horizontal increment of 25x25 m
 QC the 3D frame visually
Horizon and Zone Modeling
 Model the seismically mapped horizons
 Intermediate well markers are used to generate the intermediate zones
 Zonation scheme includes 8 zones
Layering
 Ensure heterogeneity is retained by having the sufficient number of layers in the geological
grid
 Assign proportional layering (layer thickness of ~0.5m for all these zones had been taken)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 55 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

This workflow was applied to available Kanawara data set and is described in detail in the
following section.
Interpretation results from the different disciplines were imported into Petrel 2015; these included
well information, log data, interpreted horizons, faults and the seismic volumes. All of the input
data were quality checked prior to the modeling process to maintain consistency between the
different data sets.
Prior to structural modeling exercise, the available fault interpretations were analyzed in details
with respect to the regional structural trend of the area. The dominant fault trends observed in the
study area are mainly in NNW-SSE orientation.

7.3 Fault Modeling

A total of 22 faults were identified and interpreted on 3D seismic merged dataset covering the
entire study area during seismic interpretation (Figure 7-1). All these faults are normal faults,
which are expected in a syn rift-drift basin setting. Detailed analysis of faults geometry, throw, and
genesis is described in section (4.2.4) of geophysics report. These faults were imported into the
project as fault sticks and conditioned to make them suitable for building a consistent 3D structural
grid. Prior to conditioning, their importance was reviewed on the basis of structural influence; for
example, influence on current study reservoir section, fault throws, and vertical and horizontal
extents were considered. Using these criteria, 11 faults were selected and modeled (Figure 7-2).
The main fault conditioning processes included fault editing and connection. Minor editing was
performed for the faults to maintain consistency of the pillar height and spacing.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 56 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-1 : 3D Visualization of seismic interpreted faults in the study area

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 57 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-2 : 3D Visualization of fault modeling in the study area

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 58 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

7.4 Pillar Gridding

Pillar Gridding is the process followed to generate the structural framework (skeleton framework).
In this process, the faults in the fault model are used as a basis to generate the skeleton
framework. During the pillar gridding process, the boundary of the model is defined first. The
skeleton consists of 3 levels of 2D grids that represent the top, middle and base of the 3D model.
Each level is quality controlled prior to acceptance.
A sensitivity analysis was carried to define the aerial increment of the grid. To capture the
heterogeneity in inter-well spaces, the aerial resolution was defined at 25 x 25m. The pillar grid
was generated for the interval from EP-IV Upper to Cambay Shale top. To support a consistent
grid structure for dynamic simulation, zigzag fault pattern had been taken. I and J trend direction
were added to bring more regularity to the cells. Figure 7-3 shows faults and trends used in Pillar
gridding.
After this diligent QC, the grid appeared regular in cell size and shape. The resulting grid mesh
for the geomodel: the top, middle, and base of the structure, were also reviewed. Figure 7-4
displays the QC of top, middle, and base grid.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 59 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-3: Top view of faults and Trends used in Pillar gridding

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 60 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-4: 3d QC of top, mid and bottom grid in Pillar gridding process

7.5 Horizon Modeling

There are 3 seismic surfaces defining the geological setting of the reservoir. The EP-IV upper
surface provides the upper limit and the Cambay Shale surface provides the lower limit for
structural zonation based on available seismic interpretation. The “Make Horizon” process is first
step for defining the vertical layer in the 3D grid. This process in Petrel allows the seismically
interpreted surfaces to be incorporated in the 3D structural grid and honor the corresponding well
tops.
The three surfaces: EP-IV upper, EP-IV lower and Cambay shale were used as an input for ‘Make
Horizon’ process. The well tops were used to control the surfaces and the fault interpolation
distance was set for each fault to ensure that the correct throw is maintained. Figure 7-5 displays
the input for horizon modeling.
In make horizon process, well correction of these seismic horizons had been performed for each
segment and horizon. The convergent gridding algorithm had been chosen to model the horizons.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 61 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-5 : Different inputs for horizon and zones for modeling

A suitable distance to fault influence radius (from 50 to 200m) was set on each side of the faults,
to make the grid honor the structural dip trend. This was done to remove the artificial smoothing
on the output surface, created by the interpolation algorithm. The process was iterative and
involved testing and fine tuning of the parameters, until the expected result was obtained.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 62 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

7.6 Model Zonation

A detailed sub-zonation was done for EP-IV reservoir using processed petrophysical logs and
reservoir engineering data. This sub zonation divided EP-IV reservoir into 8 sub units. The EP-IV
upper siltstone and EP-IV lower siltstone sub zones are main reservoir units. The thicknesses of
these sub-zones at well level were used to generate isochore maps, which were used in second
step of horizon modeling. Figure 7-6 to Figure 7-9 show well sections in strike and dip directions
describing the sub-zonation scheme. Table 7-1 shows depth of the markers defining the sub-
zones, thickness of zones and their characteristic description.

The ‘Make Zone’ process is the second step in horizon modeling that is used to model the
remaining reservoir horizons, which are not defined by seismic interpretation data. The remaining
horizons in between the input horizons were built conformably and constrained with the well
markers.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 63 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-6 Well top correlation panel showing sub-zones along northern dip section of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 64 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-7 Well top correlation panel showing sub-zones along southern dip section of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 65 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-8 Well top correlation panel showing sub-zones along western strike section of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 66 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-9 Well top correlation panel showing sub-zones along western strike section of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 67 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 7-1 Table showing sub zonation scheme of EP-IV Reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 68 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

The first step in stratigraphic modeling is generation of isochores for stratigraphic layering based
on marker pairs. In Petrel, isochores are only obtained from True Vertical Thickness (TVT). This
is the thickness between two layers measured vertically. The generation of TVT involves surface
gridding of the markers, generation of dip and azimuth surface attributes, and calculation of TVT
for each pair. The TVT value is then used to generate isochore maps by convergent interpolation.
The isochores are in turn used for reservoir model zonation.
The isochore maps are evaluated individually for their degree of smoothness, consistency is
checked for sudden variation in thickness. For instance a sudden thinning of one zone can be
associated with abnormal thickening of an overlying or underlying zone (presence of faults may
cause such abrupt change in thickness). This quality control step triggers an additional revisit of
the markers against logs, when bull’s eyes are identified and subsequent fine level editing of the
markers when required.
The combination of geological well makers and the isochores maps constitute the two main types
of input data used for zonation.
The objective of zonation was to model the intermediate zones between the main seismic events,
viz. EP-IV Upper to EP-IV Lower and below EP-IV Lower till Cambay Shale. Figure 7-10 shows
example of 2 isochore surfaces for EP-IV Upper Siltstone and EP-IV lower Siltstone reservoirs,
which were used in make zone process. Table 7-2 describes the zonation scheme involving
seismic horizons and well markers.
Table 7-2 : Zonation scheme

Seismic Horizons used for Well markers from

Modeling Correlation
EP-IV Upper EP-IV Upper Coal Top
EP-IV Upper Siltstone Top
EP-IV Upper Coal 2
EP-IV Upper Shale
EP-IV Lower EP-IV Lower Siltstone Top
K-7 Shale Top
K-7 Siltstone Top
K-8 Shale Top
Cambay Shale Cambay Shale

At the completion of “Make Zones”, a quality control of the zones was run through the model.
Isochore maps of every reservoir were generated to check for unwanted pinch outs. The zone
scheme was checked along I & J intersections of the model, to screen for possible anomalous
pinch outs and thickening of zones at and away from the wells. In addition, the structural trend
and throw behavior was evaluated in the vicinity of faults, and checked for any other structural
inconsistencies inherited from the horizon gridding process.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 69 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

.
Figure 7-10: Example of EP-IV Upper Siltstone and EP-IV Lower siltstone Isochores taken in Kanawara model

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 70 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-11 : Input for zonation process (well tops and isochore maps)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 71 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

7.7 Model Vertical Layering

The layering process is the final step to define the vertical cell layer thickness of the reservoir
model. A proportional layering scheme is used to develop the fine grid model. The layering
scheme for each zone is decided such that there are enough layers to capture the vertical
variation of the properties corresponding to the log scale. A systematic way to evaluate the
maximum cell thickness that can be used in the model and still maintain the log and geological
reservoir heterogeneity, is obtained by running vertical variogram. Applying a standard upscaling
rule the average cell thickness should not exceed half of the variogram range, in order to capture
the heterogeneity and vertical trend variation in the reservoir model.
Figure 7-12 shows the results of this exercise performed for the EP-IV reservoirs. Another criterion
based on histogram comparison of raw and upscaled logs, was used to optimize the cell thickness
distribution in the reservoir model. Figure 7-13 displays the QC of layering scheme by displaying
the original log and upscale logs. Table 7-4 gives the number of sub-layers/cells assigned to each
zone for the Kanawara reservoirs. An average of 0.5m was taken for layer thickness.

Figure 7-12 : Variogram analysis for layering scheme

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 72 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-13 : QC of layering scheme by displaying input log and upscale log in well section.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 73 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Finally the structural gridding result was quality checked by generating several geometrical
properties and cells statistics listed below:

1. Bulk volume (Figure 7-14) is checked for negative volume cells: Values must be positive.
2. Cell height (Figure 7-15): Minimum value should not be very close to zero or relatively
insignificant.
3. Cell inside out property (Figure 7-16) is checked for cell distortion: Values must be zero.
4. Cell angle property (Figure 7-17) is checked for cell orthogonality: Values should be
approximately equal or less than 25 degrees, though higher values are not critical.

Distributions of these geometrical properties indicate a consistent structural grid with regular cells
(no distortion).

Table 7-3 : Summary of Geometrical properties

Model Kanawara Grid Properties

Aerial Resolution 25m x 25m
Vertical Resolution 0.52 m
Grid Cells 99 x 152 x 114
Total Number of Grid Cells 1715472
Total Number of Defined
Cells 1418502
Number of Zones 8
Number of Segments (in
Model) 9

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 74 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-14 : Quality Check of structural grid (Bulk volume)

Figure 7-15 : Quality Check of structural grid (Cell height).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 75 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 7-16 : Quality Check of structural grid (Cell inside out)

Figure 7-17 : Quality Check of structural grid (Cell Angle)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 76 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 7-4: Thickness analysis of reservoir units and the basis of vertical layering.

Zone thickness
from drilled wells Number of Vertical
Major Units Sub-zones Minimum Maximum layers resolution (m)
Thickness (m) Thickness (m)

Coal 1 0.76 3.56 1 1.76

EP-IV Upper
3.5 16.25 20 0.38
Siltstone
EP-IV Upper
Coal 2 0.56 4.61 1 1.94
EP-IV Upper Shale 3.41 13.41 12 0.58

EP-IV Lower
5.9 29.84 30 0.57
Siltstone
K-7 Shale 0.48 3.70 2 0.85
EP-IV Lower
K-7B Siltstone 1.27 3.92 12 0.19
K-8 Shale 11.64 34.26 36 0.57

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 77 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

8 Reservoir Property Modeling

The objective of the study is to build a comprehensive 3D reservoir model that truly simulates the
heterogeneities that are encountered in the wells. In this respect, the aim of static reservoir
modelling is to integrate the relevant data spanning from core to conceptual geological model,
into a coherent and meaningful reservoir description for the EP-IV reservoirs. This reservoir
description will serve as a deterministic basis for volumetric estimation and history matching.
The key inputs to property modelling include stratigraphic well correlation, core information,
scaled up petrophysical interpretation, review of reservoir engineering and SCAL data. To
integrate and optimize the multi-scaled input data, property modelling workflow is devised within
a framework of geological conceptual model guided by a geostatistical modelling scheme.
By nature, geology is essentially hierarchical in its distribution of properties and heterogeneities.
To capture the hierarchy of heterogeneities, a hierarchical workflow was adopted for building the
reservoir model of Kanawara area. The reservoir container facies is siltstone in the Kanawara
area. In the well-level, a very good correlation between Acoustic Impedance and total porosity
was observed. So the first level had represented the population of scaled up Total Porosity log to
the grid which was co-krigged with the inversion results (acoustic Impedance map of the
respective zone). The output total porosity model was utilized as a bivariate distribution for the
geo-statistically modeling of effective porosity and permeability. Once the petrophysical properties
in the model were established, the rock type was defined within the model.
The workflow of property modeling can be divided in the following steps:
Step 1: Population of total porosity
Step 2: Population of effective porosity
Step 3: Population of permeability
Step 4: Defining the container facies using porosity and permeability bins. This was done by
calculating R35 using transformation R35=2.665*(Pow(Permeability/ (100*Porosity_Eff), 0.45))
obtained from the constants of petrophysical results.

8.1 Seismic Inversion Study

Post-stack seismic inversion was carried out for the area of interest. The purpose of running
inversion is to output the Acoustic Impedance cube, which will be a good indicator of lithology. In
this seismic inversion study 3 wells (K-1, K7 & K-10) have been used, because only these 3 wells
have required sonic and density logs available.

The raw and processed logs were analysed separately for EP-IV Upper and EP-IV Lower
reservoir with results of seismic inversion study.

EP-IV Upper reservoir - The upper reservoir is bound by coal seams on its upper and lower side.
These seams have considerably low acoustic impedance values (~ 2000-3000 kPa.s/m). Hence
the overall response of acoustic impedance for the upper reservoir was lower, in the inverted

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 78 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

acoustic impedance cube. To study the relationship between this low resolution acoustic
impedance, from seismic cube, and the reservoir quality, the acoustic impedance logs were
blocked for the zone, along with the two coal seams. They were then plotted against reservoir
porosity for the three wells, and colored using the rock quality log. The quality log was made, by
separating the reservoir using the following cut-offs

 Volume of clay<0.6
 Effective porosity>0.1

After detailed analysis of results, a negative correlation between the acoustic impedance values
and reservoir quality (porosity) was established.

Figure 8-1 Blocked AI values vs Effective Porosity, colored by quality log.

EP-IV Lower reservoir – The lower reservoir analysis was done by cross-plotting effective
porosity vs clay volume fraction, colored by the acoustic impedance values at the log level. It was
observed that the reservoirs of higher quality (lower clay volume and higher effective porosity)
had higher acoustic impedance values.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 79 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

After detailed analysis of results, a positive correlation between the acoustic impedance values
and reservoir quality (porosity) was established.
The results of inversion study were quality checked by plotting pie diagram on sand-shale
thickness on RMS acoustic impedance map for each reservoir (Figure 8-3 and Figure 8-4).

Figure 8-2 Effective porosity vs Clay volume fraction, colored by acoustic impedance values.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 80 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-3 Sand Shale Pie diagram on RMS AI map of EP-IV upper

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 81 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-4 Sand Shale Pie diagram on RMS AI map of EP-IV Lower

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 82 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

8.2 Total Porosity Modeling

Data Preparation
Data preparation for total porosity modelling starts with importing all of the evaluation logs in to
the Petrel project. Once all the input data is uploaded, quality controlled and edited, it is ready for
upscaling. The workflow followed for porosity modelling is illustrated in Figure 8-5

Figure 8-5 : Workflow for Porosity Modeling.

8.2.1 Scaling Up well logs

An advanced setting in the Porosity upscaling is how to treat the well log - as points or as line.
When the log is treated as points, all sample values within each cell are used for averaging
(without being weighted) and if no points are present in the cell, the cell will be undefined. When
the log is treated as lines, each sample value is weighted by a factor proportional to its interval.
Line sample values outside the cell will be taken into account if the midpoint between two line
samples falls inside the cell.
A further advanced setting is how the input values from the raw logs are used for averaging. It
can be done in three ways:

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 83 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Simple - All cells penetrated by the well path will get a value. Even if just a tiny corner of a cell is
penetrated by the well path, it will get a value. (Figure 8-6A)
Through cell - The well trajectory must go through two opposite cell walls (top and base - opposite
sidewalls) of a cell for the cell to be included. (Figure 8-6 B)
Neighbor cell - This option will average log values from all cells immediately adjacent to the
upscaled cell and belonging to the same layer as the upscaled cell. The Neighbor cell method is
the most advanced method in terms of selecting raw values from input logs, especially in presence
of number of deviated wells and is the method used in this porosity upscaling (Figure 8-6 C).

Figure 8-6 : Log upscaling with different averaging method.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 84 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

8.2.2 Data Analysis

Data analysis is a quality control process of exploring the data and preparing inputs for the
petrophysical modeling. Continuous data analysis involves defining data transformations and
generating variograms. Data transformation enables the user to make the data stationary and
normally distributed, which are requirements of Gaussian based geostatistical algorithms. Spatial
trends in the data will be extracted from the data prior to property modeling to ensure stationarity
and these trends will be reapplied to the modeled property, ensuring their preservation.
Unidentified trends in the data can invalidate data interpolation during property modeling. Data
analysis is performed on each facies and zone by zone basis.
Stationary and normal scored data is then ready for input into petrophysical modeling using
Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS). By default if any trend is captured, it is added back after
the SGS run as part of the integrated post processing of the algorithm.
One important consideration is that data transformations are not commutative, i.e., changing the
order in which two transformations are applied will have a significant effect on the result. It is
important to apply all the transformations in the right order.
Data transformation makes the data stationary and normally distributed before the actual
modeling process. Back-transformation is automatically performed in the exact reverse order of
the modeling result, to preserve the spatial trends and original data distribution in the final resulting
property. Data analysis for porosity consists of Normal Score Transformation (NST) and
Variogram analysis, in this order.
Input and Output truncation
Input Truncation option allows defining the min and max values to ensure that outliers in the input
data are ignored.
Output Truncation option allows defining the min and max values for output to ensure that extreme
values outside the defined range will be truncated in the realization.
Normal Score Transform
Normal score transformation will force any distribution to a standard normal distribution. Normal
distribution of data means that most of the samples in a set of data are close to the Mean value,
while relatively few samples tend to one extreme or the other. Normally distributed data will have
something similar to a "bell curve" shape.
This transformation is always used as the last transformation performed during the data analysis.
The second controlling factor for facies distribution away from wells is the variogram. In this
scenario, variograms are established from well data analysis for each reservoir sub-zones
individually.
Vertical Proportion and Variogram Modelling
The second controlling factor for facies distribution away from wells is the variogram. In this
scenario, variograms are established from well data analysis for each reservoir sub-zones
individually. For the upscaled porosity logs vertical facies proportion analysis is done in the data
analysis module of Petrel. This is a method to investigate and edit the vertical porosity distributions
of each facies in a selected zone. These values can be used automatically in the Facies Modeling
process to control the vertical distribution of the different facies. Then the variograms for facies
were modeled.
In Petrel Data analysis module, the variograms of porosity is analyzed. Before describing that a
brief description of the different elements of variogram modelling is explained below.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 85 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Search Cone
If the search cone is set up correctly, the sample variogram will automatically plot as allowed by
the data quality. Figure 8-7 gives a good explanation of the concepts of direction, search radius,
angular tolerance, bandwidth, lag, and lag tolerance. Together these parameters define lag bins.
Data pairs are identified based on a lag bin methodology. All data pairs to the same base lag
contribute to the experimental variogram value for that respective lag distance.
Bandwidth: A distance cut-off used to prevent the lag bin search area from becoming too large
(such as wide) at lag distances far from point of origin.
Angle Tolerance: It would be too restrictive to expect all pairs in a given direction to lie along the
exact line representing the selected direction. This tolerance provides some flexibility so that data
pairs can be identified that approximate a given direction without being too restrictive.
Lag tolerance: Distance +/- the lag spacing within which data will be considered belonging to a
given lag. Typically, this tolerance defaults to ½ the lag spacing. This ensures that all data pairs
within the maximum lag distance and angle tolerance-bandwidth end up contributing to some lag
distance or another. The different parameters of a variogram model are explained below and are
shown in Figure 8-8.
Azimuth: This defines the direction of major variogram direction depending upon the data
anisotropy. In a carbonate depositional environment it is always related to the basin orientation
and the carbonate depositional axis.
Major Range: Defines the direction where the sample points have the strongest correlation. The
angle of this major direction can be changed interactively by editing the direction in the search
cone. The angle is specified as the clockwise angle from the north (in degrees) for the main search
direction.
Minor Range: This variogram range in a direction perpendicular to the major direction.
Nugget: The degree of variance between two observations at the same location.
Sill: Maximum degree of variance of the observations. For normal scored data it is always taken
as 1.
Variogram dip: The dip is specified as the inclination (upward angle) in degrees between the
major direction and the horizontal.
Variogram sill: The semi-variance where the separation distance is greater than the range (on
the plateau). It describes the variation between two unrelated samples. Transformed data should
have a value of 1 and values much higher or lower than this (e.g. +-0.3) may indicate a spatial
trend.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 86 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-7 : Variogram search cone

Figure 8-8 : Variogram Model

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 87 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

8.2.3 Propagation Methodology

“Gridding” or “population” is the process by which randomly-spaced data samples of some
property are transformed into a complete model in the form of an organized 3D grid lattice.
For propagation methodology - Sequential Gaussian Simulation is preferred over the conventional
methodologies like functional interpolation, kriging interpolation, moving average interpolation.
Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) is a sequential simulation algorithm based on kriging and
conditional simulation. It requires data to be normalized with Normal Score Transform; each
output grid value is then back transformed upon calculation. As this is a kriging-based algorithm
a variogram is required; as interpolation is performed it is suitable for continuous data. As with
many algorithms, the search radius should be large enough so that null nodes are minimized.
Like most simulation algorithms a controlled randomness is introduced so that multiple
realizations can be computed.
The total porosity modeling was run with Sequential Gaussian Simulation. Each reservoir unit was
modeled independently in order to maintain the correct porosity distribution within each unit by
adjusting input data truncation iteratively to honor input data. Then it was run using variogram
ranges and orientation obtained from data analysis.
The total porosity in the reservoir zones was co-krigged with the Acoustic Impedance maps
generated from seismic inversion study. A constant coefficient between total porosity and acoustic
impedance, of -0.8 for EP IV Upper and 0.8 for EP IV Lower reservoir was taken for property
population.
Figure 8-10 to Figure 8-11 present the variogram analysis carried out for porosity for different
rock types and for different stratigraphic zones.
The quality control of porosity modeling was done by histogram analysis of modeled data versus
upscaled log data. Figure 8-12 to Figure 8-13 present the porosity data histogram used for quality
control.
A 3D fence diagram from the generated porosity model is shown in Figure 8-14. The result of the
porosity model is presented in Figure 8-9.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 88 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-9 : Results and workflow for Total Porosity Modeling in Kanawara field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 89 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-10 Variogram model used in Total Porosity Modeling of EP-IV Upper Reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 90 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-11 Variogram model used in Total Porosity Modeling of EP-IV Lower Reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 91 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-12 : QC of modeled, upscaled and input porosity total log for zone EP-IV Upper
Siltstone

Figure 8-13 : QC of modeled, upscaled and input porosity total log for zone EP-IV Lower
Siltstone

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 92 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-14 : Fence diagram across 3D Total Porosity model

8.3 Effective Porosity Modeling

Data Preparation
Data preparation for effective porosity modelling starts with importing all of the evaluation logs in
to the Petrel project. Once all the input data is uploaded, quality controlled and edited, it is ready
for upscaling.

8.3.1 Scale Up Well Logs

The effective porosity logs were upscaled using the arithmetic averaging method. This process
ensures each cell penetrated along the well has a value. The layout and the resolution of the 3D
grid will control how many and which cells each well penetrates. The geological grid has an
average cell thickness of 0.1m-0.5m and due to the fine grid resolution of the geological grid, the
effect of the well log averaging is very minor and the heterogeneity is preserved in the blocked
wells. Evaluation between raw and upscaled logs at the reservoir units is done to check that
vertical heterogeneity is preserved in all wells. The details of the process is described in Section
8.2.1.

8.3.2 Data Analysis

Data transformation makes the data stationary and normally distributed before the actual
modeling process. Back-transformation is automatically performed in the exact reverse order of
the modeling result, to preserve the spatial trends and original data distribution in the final resulting
property. Data analysis for effective porosity consists of Normal Score Transformation (NST) and
Variogram analysis. The details of the process is described in Section 8.2.2.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 93 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

8.3.3 Propagation Methodology

The effective porosity modeling is run with Sequential Gaussian Simulation. Each reservoir unit
is modeled independently in order to maintain the correct porosity distribution within each unit by
adjusting input data truncation iteratively to honor input data. Then it is run using variogram ranges
and orientation obtained from data analysis. The workflow for the effective porosity model is
presented in Figure 8-15.
As discussed earlier, the total porosity in the reservoir zones was co-krigged with the Acoustic
Impedance. Effective Porosity was modelled as a bivariate distribution of Total Porosity.
The quality control of effective porosity modeling was done by histogram analysis of modeled data
versus upscaled log data. Figure 8-20 to Figure 8-21 present the porosity data histogram used
for quality control.
Figure 8-16 to Figure 8-17 present the variogram analysis carried out for porosity for different
rock types and for different stratigraphic zones
A 3D fence diagram from the generated effective porosity model is shown in Figure 8-22.
Figure 8-18 and Figure 8-19 show an overall comparison of inverted AI with Total Porosity and
Effective porosity for EP-IV Upper and EP-IV Lower respectively.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 94 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-15 : Results and workflow for Effective Porosity Modeling in Kanawara field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 95 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-16 Variogram model used in Effective Porosity Modeling of EP-IV Upper Reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 96 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-17 Variogram model used in Effective Porosity Modeling of EP-IV Lower Reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 97 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-18: A comparison to AI with Total and Effective porosity model in EP-IV Upper reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 98 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-19: A comparison to AI with Total and Effective porosity model in EP-IV Lower reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 99 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-20: QC of modeled, upscaled and input porosity (Eff.) log for zone EP-IV Upper
Siltstone

Figure 8-21: QC of modeled, upscaled and input porosity (Eff.) log for zone EP-IV Lower
Siltstone

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 100 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-22 : Fence diagram across 3D Effective Porosity model

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 101 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

8.4 Permeability Modeling

Data Preparation
Data preparation for permeability 3D geocellular model requires processed permeability logs and
the 3D effective porosity model.

8.4.1 Sale up Well logs

The permeability logs are upscaled using the harmonic averaging method because of its
sensitivity to lower values. This process ensures each cell penetrated along the well has a value.
The layout and the resolution of the 3D grid will control how many and which cells each well
penetrates. The geological grid has an average cell thickness of 0.1m-0.5m and due to the fine
grid resolution of the geological grid, the effect of the well log averaging is very minor and the
heterogeneity is preserved in the blocked wells. Evaluation between raw and upscaled logs at the
reservoir units is done to check that vertical heterogeneity is preserved in all wells. The details of
the process is described in Section 8.2.1.
8.4.2 Data Analysis
Data transformation makes the data stationary and normally distributed before the actual
modeling process. Back-transformation is automatically performed in the exact reverse order of
the modeling result, to preserve the spatial trends and original data distribution in the final resulting
property. Data analysis for effective porosity consists of Variogram analysis. The details of the
process is described in Section 8.2.2.

8.4.3 Propagation Methodology

The permeability modeling was run with Sequential Gaussian Simulation for the reservoir
zones. Each reservoir unit was modeled independently in order to maintain the correct
permeability distribution within each unit by estimating output data truncation to honor
input data. A bivariate distribution method with effective porosity as the secondary
property was used to decide how to back-transform the modeled permeability from the
normal-scored data that is initially produced by SGS. Then it was run using variogram
ranges and orientation obtained from data analysis.

The quality control of permeability modeling was done by histogram analysis of modeled
data versus upscaled log data. Figure 8-26 to Figure 8-27 present the permeability data
histogram used for quality control.

Figure 8-24 to Figure 8-25 present the variogram analysis carried out for porosity for
different
Rock types and for different stratigraphic zones
A 3D fence diagram from the generated permeability model is shown in Figure 8-28.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 102 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-23 Results and workflow for Permeability Modeling in Kanawara field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 103 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-24 Variogram model used in Permeability Modeling of EP-IV Upper Reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 104 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-25 Variogram model used in Permeability Modeling of EP-IV Lower Reservoir

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 105 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-26: QC of modeled, upscaled and input permeability log for zone EP-IV Upper Siltstone

Figure 8-27: QC of modeled, upscaled and input permeability log for zone EP-IV Lower Siltstone

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 106 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-28: Fence diagram across 3D Permeability model

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 107 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

8.5 Rock Type Modeling

Subsequent to porosity and permeability modeling, rock type modeling was done using R35,
which was calculated using the following formula:

R35=2.665*((Permeability/(100*Porosity_Eff), 0.45))

Depending on the distribution of R35, the rock types were defined in the model using the following
equation:

Rock_Type=If(R35<0.1 ,0 ,If( R35<0.2,1 , If( R35<0.5,2 ,3 )) )

Where, rock type 0 is non-reservoir, rock type 1 is poor reservoir, rock type 3 is good reservoir
and rock type 4 is the best reservoir.

A 3D diagram from the generated rock-type model is shown in Figure 8-29. 3D Fence diagram
for rock type model is also shown in Figure 8-30.

Figure 8-29: 3D diagram across 3D Rock type model

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 108 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-30: Fence diagram across 3D Rock Type model

As a quality check, Figure 8-31 shows the comparison of rock type bins in porosity
permeability cross plot as obtained from Petrophysics at well level (on the left) and from Static
model (on the right) after property modeling. The distribution in properties is comparable in
both cross plots. This comparison confirms that that porosity –permeability relationship for
each rock type at well level is preserved in model for each rock type. Figure 8-32 and Figure
8-33 show the comparison with Petrophysics rock typing and static model rock typing along
well section (last 2 tracks).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 109 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Z-values: Rock_Type
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

10

10
5

5
1

1
0.5

0.5
0.1

0.1
0.05[mD]

0.05
Permeability,
0.01

0.01
0.005

0.005
0.001

0.001
RRT

0.0005

0.0005
Non-reservoir
Poor
Good
Best
0.0001

0.0001
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24
Porosity_Eff, [m3/m3]
Symbol legend
Porosity_Eff vs. Permeability vs. Rock_Type (All cells)

Por-Perm relationship – Petrophysics Por-Perm relationship - Static Model

Figure 8-31: Porosity-Permeability cross plot

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 110 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-32 : Quality check of PP & Model rock types against other processed logs

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 111 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-33 : Quality check of PP & Model rock types against other processed logs

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 112 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

8.6 Water Saturation Modeling

The water saturation was modeled using a saturation height based approach. In the geocellular
domain, the saturation model was calculated in the 3D grid for each cell based on rock-types,
permeability, porosity, and the saturation height function.
In the model, height above contact property was generated and used to calculate Sw along with
porosity and permeability model. Water saturation function was derived separately for each of the
rock types. The details on how this relationship were derived are described in the Basic Reservoir
Engineering Review. The derived relationship is applied on the 3D porosity and permeability
models to generate the 3D water saturation model.
• Petrophysical analysis showed that majority of reservoir sands show presence of HC
saturated intervals having mainly ODTs. Hence OWC or FWL had to be inferred from log
saturation match. Details about this are described in next section.
• Classical Reservoir engineering study carried out in the drilled wells indicates that there
are likely different pressure gradient compartments.
• From the analysis, it became evident that the reservoir traps could be structural bounded
by fault segments.
The following steps are necessary to calculate the initial water saturations in the geomodel.
In Kanawara reservoir (with oil API ~ 45), following are the equations to compute water saturation,
R35=2.665* (Pow (Permeability/ (100*Porosity_Eff), 0.45))
R35 is defined to classify each rock-type within the obtained ranges to differentiate 4 classes
which are termed as PRT.
Sw was calculated from equations derived from capillary pressure data analysis (Figure 8-34).
Sw= -0.094 * ln (HAFL) + 1.2928, for PRT 1 and 2
Sw= -0.145 * ln (HAFL) + 1.4071, for PRT 3

Where,
PRT= Rock type
Sw = 3D water saturation model
Porosity = 3D porosity model
HAFL = height above oil water contact

A 3D fence diagram from the generated water saturation model is shown in Figure 8-35.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 113 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8-34 : Function showing relationship between Sw and Height above contact

Figure 8-35 : Fence diagram across 3D saturation model

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 114 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Net cut-off was defined for reservoir that contributes to flow.

If rocktype was Non-Reservoir, NTG was taken as 0; for all other rocktypes NTG was defined as
1.
A 3D fence diagram from the generated NTG model is shown in Figure 8-36.

Figure 8-36 : Fence diagram across 3D NTG model

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 115 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

8.7 PVT parameters

Table below lists the various PVT parameters in different segments -
Table 8-1 Segment wise PVT Parameters

Vap Oil-Gas
Layer/Segment Bo (v/v) Bg Rs (v/v)
Ratio (v/v)

K1 EP-IV Upper 1.65 0.004 0.0003 116

K2_K6_K7_Segment4 EP-IV Upper 1.86 0.004 0.0003 116
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Upper 1.44 0.004 0.0003 116
K8_K9 EP-IV Upper 1.69 0.004 0.0003 116

K1 EP-IV Lower 1.65 0.004 0.0003 116

K2_K6_K7_Segment4 EP-IV Lower 1.69 0.004 0.0003 116
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Lower 1.46 0.004 0.0003 116
K8_K9 EP-IV Lower 1.52 0.004 0.0003 116

The values mentioned in this table are average values for corresponding segment/layer. The
mean Isopay thickness was calculated by multiplication of mean isochore thickness (TVT) with
NTG.
This table is for representation purpose, detailed volume calculation was performed using Petrel
utility, which takes geocellular static model and fluid contacts as an input for estimation. In this
exercise different fluid contact criteria were defined for 1P, 2P and 3P volumetric calculation. The
details of this process are described in next section.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 116 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

9 Volume Calculation
A volumetric calculation was done in this model after propagating all the petrophysical properties
in the grid. In 3D model based estimation, a range of property values (e.g. range of porosity,
permeability, saturation, etc.) were used. The volume calculation utility of Petrel was used for this
exercise. This utility calculates volume for every single cell defined in the 3D grid and then sums
them up for final volumetric reporting.
The In-Place-Volumetric of a reservoir model typically include the total bulk volume, pore volume,
net volume and Hydrocarbon initial in place (HCIIP). The HCIIP was calculated using the following
equation:
HCIIP = HCPV (oil or gas) / (Bo or Bg)
Where,
Bulk Volume = Total Rock Volume
Net Volume = Bulk Volume * Net/Gross
Pore Volume = Bulk Volume * Net/Gross * Porosity
HCPV (oil/gas) = Bulk Volume * Net/Gross * Porosity * (1-Sw)
Bo = Oil formation volume factor
Bg = Gas formation volume factor

Base case represents the volumetric in ‘Net Sand’ (In case of Kanawara it is Siltstone), above the
FWL and including area bounded within defined polygons (mainly areas covered by producing
wells and adjoining blocks).
STOIIP and GIIP was calculated by defining the fluid contacts for different segments. Based on
the latest SPE, Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS-2011) guidelines 1P, 2P and
3P volumetric cases were defined using respective contacts. Details about this are described in
Section 9.1. The 2P case was selected as the base case for dynamic reservoir simulation,
sensitivity analysis and uncertainty analysis.
Volumetric calculations for the base case model are performed presented in the Table 9-1.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 117 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 9-1 Table showing Zone wise volumetric for field (Base Case)
Bulk Net
Pore STOIIP STOIIP GIIP, Free GIIP, Total
Volume Volume
Layer/Segment Volume (10^3 (10^3 Gas (10^3 Gas (10^3
(10^6 (10^6
(10^6 m3) m3) bbl.) m3) m3)
m3) m3)
K1 EP-IV Upper 3.8 2.8 0.4 5.9 37.2 19690.7 19690.7
K8_K9 EP-IV Upper 2 1.6 0.2 5.0 31.5 14407.6 14486.2
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Upper 18.2 16.8 2.7 473.3 2977.3 7774.2 62411.9
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Upper 8.3 7.6 1.2 21.4 134.5 71253.1 71253.1
Segment4 EP-IV Upper 8.5 7.4 1.1 21.5 135.4 71763.2 71763.2
K1 EP-IV Lower 9.8 8.6 1.3 26.7 168.2 89128.0 89128.0
K8_K9 EP-IV Lower 5.3 4.4 0.7 125.8 791.0 0.0 14587.3
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Lower 35.9 34.1 5.4 973.5 6122.9 4997.2 117744.4
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Lower 19.4 18.6 3.1 470.5 2959.6 0.0 54582.2
Segment4 EP-IV Lower 17.3 15.9 2.7 409.3 2574.6 0.0 47482.0
Total 128.5 117.8 18.8 2533.0 15931.9 279013.97 563129.03

9.1 1P, 2P, 3P volumetric and Analysis of fluid contacts

A detailed analysis of fluid contacts was performed based on available petrophysical and reservoir
engineering data. 1P, 2P and 3P contacts were defined for different segments following the norm
established by SPE, PRMS, 2011. The cartoon in Figure 9-1 shows a simplified demonstration
of 1P, 2P and 3P volume definitions based on well penetration in the segment. The 1P, 2P and
3P volumetric are defined in following manner also:

P1, Volume in Place = 1P, Volume in place = Proved Volume in Place

P2, Volume in Place = 2P, Volume in place -1P Volume in place = Probable Volume in Place

P3, Volume in Place = 3P Volume in place - 2P Volume in place = Possible Volume in Place

Table 9-4 to Table 9-6 show the 1P, 2P and 3P volumetric for Kanawara field in detail.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 118 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Proved Probable Possible

P1 P2 P3

Proved In-place Volume Probable In-place Volume Possible In-place Volume

S
ch
lu
m
be
rg
er
-P
riv
at
e

Figure 9-1 Cartoon demonstrating SPE criteria of P1, P2 and P3 reserves

Sedimentary sections in Kanawara field is comprised of geological events in the form of Deltaic
regime possessing silty to shaly reservoir layers interbedded within coal belonging to Eocene age.
The coal layers which are likely to have formed due to swampy environment, though it separates
the reservoir, but vertical communication between EP-IV Upper and EP-IV Lower seems certain
as per the available classical RE data. Petrophysical analysis confirmed that majority of reservoir
sands show presence of HC saturated intervals having mainly Oil / gas down to. Hence OWC or
FWL had to be inferred from log saturation match extrapolation. Classical Reservoir engineering
study carried out in the drilled wells indicates that there the fault compartments for a seal and the
reservoir traps in fault segments have no lateral communication. Details of this analysis is
described in basic RE report. The 1P, 2P and 3P contacts were define in following manner:
 1P Contact: These contacts were defined in segments with well penetration. The contact
was taken as deepest tested sand depth in the most down-dip well (Region above
ODT/GDT).
 2P Contact: These contacts were defined in segments with well penetration and in
segment 4, which is bounded by segments with well penetrations from 3 sides. The
extrapolated J-Function contact (Free water level, FWL) identified from Petrophysics and
RE study was taken as 2P contact. Figure 9-2 shows schematic diagram showing ODT
and FWL.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 119 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

 3P Contact: These contacts were defined for all the segments. In segments with well
penetration and segment 4, 3P contacts were taken same as 2P contacts. For other
segments with no drilled wells, spill point was taken as the contact. The segment definition
scheme is presented in Figure 9-3

Figure 9-2 Cartoon showing the criteria of contact definitions

Figure 9-3 shows the segment definition for Kanawara field. Hydrocarbon presence observed in
these segments, as discussed in History matching Report, is as below:
 GDT in EP-IV(U) and ODT in EP-IV(L) in K8-K9 segment
 ODT in K3-K5-K10 segment
 GDT in EP-IV(U) and ODT in EP-IV(L) in K2-K6-K7 segment
 GDT in K1 segment
 Segment 4 shows good Acoustic impedance. Since hydrocarbon has been encountered
both in segments K1 and K2-K6-K7, the migration pathway understanding suggests that
in-between segment (segment 4) should also be hydrocarbon bearing. Middle cartoon in
Figure 9-1 demonstrates this case. Therefore even if no wells are drilled in this segment,
contacts of K2-K6-K7 segment are used to calculate probable reserves in this segment.
 Segment 5 and 6 show medium high Acoustic impedance but presence of HC needs to
be established. It is likely to be a tight reservoir. Spill point was used for volumetric
calculation in 3P case.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 120 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

The fluid contacts inferred after history matching stage are mentioned in Table 9-2. This table
shows the following contacts –

GDT – Gas Down to

ODT – Oil Down to
GOC – Gas Oil contact
FWL – Free Water Level

It is to be noted that GDT and ODT defines the region for volumetric calculation of 1P reserves.
Whereas, GOC and FWL defines the region for volumetric calculation of 2P reserves. Figure 9-4
to Figure 9-7 show the structural contour maps of EP-IV upper and EP-IV Lower reservoir with
1P and 2P contacts marked on them.

Table 9-2 : Summary of 1P and 2P Contacts

Block Layer GDT (m) ODT (m) GOC (m) FWL (m)
EP-IV (U) 1608 1629 1630
K1
EP-IV (L) 1622 1629 1630
EP-IV (U) 1653 1709 1710
K2-K6-K7
EP-IV (L) 1680 - 1710
EP-IV (U) 1588 1638 1638
K8-K9
EP-IV (L) 1610 - 1642
EP-IV (U) 1627 1668 1627 1740
K3-K5-K10
EP-IV (L) 1627 1698 1627 1740
EP-IV (U) 1709 1710
Seg 4
EP-IV (L) - 1710

Table 9-3 : Contact for 3P Volumetric in Segment 5 and Segment 6

Segment FWL(from spill point)
Segment 5 1660 m
Segment 6 1665 m

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 121 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-3 : Segment limits in the study area.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 122 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-4 : Structure Contour Map of EP-IV(U) with 1P contacts marked.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 123 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-5 : Structure Contour Map of EP-IV(U) with 2P contacts marked

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 124 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-6 Structure Contour Map of EP-IV(L) with 1P contacts marked.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 125 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-7 Structure Contour Map of EP-IV(L) with 2P contacts marked

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 126 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 9-4 : Volumetric for 1P case (Layer wise)

GIIP, Free
Bulk Volume Net Volume Pore Volume STOIIP STOIIP GIIP, Total Gas
Layer/Segment Gas (10^3
(10^6 m3) (10^6 m3) (10^6 m3) (10^3 m3) (10^3 bbl.) (10^3 m3)
m3)
K1 EP-IV Upper 3.7 2.7 0.4 5.8 36.4 19296.1 19296.1
K8_K9 EP-IV Upper 2 1.6 0.2 3.7 23.1 12223.4 12223.4
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Upper 9.7 8.9 1.5 294.4 1851.8 7774.2 41656.4
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Upper 7 6.4 1.1 19.0 119.5 63352.4 63352.4
Segment4 EP-IV Upper 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
K1 EP-IV Lower 9.6 8.4 1.3 26.7 167.9 88999.6 88999.6
K8_K9 EP-IV Lower 5.1 4.2 0.6 121.6 764.8 0.0 14105.3
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Lower 22.1 21.5 3.4 772.8 4861.0 4997.2 94471.7
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Lower 16.4 15.9 2.7 445.5 2802.1 0.0 51678.7
Segment4 EP-IV Lower 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 75.6 69.6 11.2 1689.5 10626.7 196642.9 385783.5

Table 9-5 : Volumetric for 2P case (Layer wise)

GIIP, Free
Bulk Volume Net Volume Pore Volume STOIIP STOIIP GIIP, Total Gas
Layer/Segment Gas (10^3
(10^6 m3) (10^6 m3) (10^6 m3) (10^3 m3) (10^3 bbl.) (10^3 m3)
m3)
K1 EP-IV Upper 3.8 2.8 0.4 5.9 37.2 19690.7 19690.7
K8_K9 EP-IV Upper 2 1.6 0.2 5.0 31.5 14407.6 14486.2
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Upper 18.2 16.8 2.7 473.3 2977.3 7774.2 62411.9
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Upper 8.3 7.6 1.2 21.4 134.5 71253.1 71253.1
Segment4 EP-IV Upper 8.5 7.4 1.1 21.5 135.4 71763.2 71763.2
K1 EP-IV Lower 9.8 8.6 1.3 26.7 168.2 89128.0 89128.0
K8_K9 EP-IV Lower 5.3 4.4 0.7 125.8 791.0 0.0 14587.3
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Lower 35.9 34.1 5.4 973.5 6122.9 4997.2 117744.4
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Lower 19.4 18.6 3.1 470.5 2959.6 0.0 54582.2
Segment4 EP-IV Lower 17.3 15.9 2.7 409.3 2574.6 0.0 47482.0
Total 128.5 117.8 18.8 2533.0 15931.9 279013.97 563129.03

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 127 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 9-6 : Volumetric for 3P case (Layer wise)

GIIP, Free
Bulk Volume Net Volume Pore Volume STOIIP STOIIP GIIP, Total Gas
Layer/Segment Gas (10^3
(10^6 m3) (10^6 m3) (10^6 m3) (10^3 m3) (10^3 bbl.) (10^3 m3)
m3)
K1 EP-IV Upper 3.8 2.8 0.4 5.9 37.2 19690.7 19690.7
K8_K9 EP-IV Upper 2 1.6 0.2 5.0 31.5 14407.6 14486.2
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Upper 18.2 16.8 2.7 473.3 2977.3 7774.2 62411.9
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Upper 8.3 7.6 1.2 21.4 134.5 71253.1 71253.1
Segment4 EP-IV Upper 8.5 7.4 1.1 21.5 135.4 71763.2 71763.2
Seg 5 and 6 Upper 1.8 1.6 0.2 44.3 278.6 0 5146.8
K1 EP-IV Lower 9.8 8.6 1.3 26.7 168.2 89128.0 89128.0
K8_K9 EP-IV Lower 5.3 4.4 0.7 125.8 791.0 0.0 14587.3
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Lower 35.9 34.1 5.4 973.5 6122.9 4997.2 117744.4
K2_K6_K7 EP-IV Lower 19.4 18.6 3.1 470.5 2959.6 0.0 54582.2
Segment4 EP-IV Lower 17.3 15.9 2.7 409.3 2574.6 0.0 47482.0
Seg 5 and 6 Lower 2.2 2.2 0.4 75.2 472.9 0 8730.8
Total 132.5 121.4 19.5 2,652.4 16,683.1 2,79,014 5,77,006.6

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 128 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

9.2 Analysis of Base Case STOIIP/GIIP estimation

The following analysis of the Base Case STOIIP and GIIP estimates was further carried out.
Facies wise break-up of the base case STOIIP & GIIP was generated and presented as bar
chart in Figure 9-8 to Figure 9-9 respectively.

A break up of GIIP and STOIIP in different porosity classes was generated and the results are
plotted as bar charts and are shown in Figure 9-10 and Figure 9-11 respectively.

Further, a break-up of GIIP and STOIIP in different Sw classes was generated and are
plotted in bar charts and are shown in Figure 9-12 and Figure 9-13 respectively.

From the base case model Net Pay Effective Porosity, Net Pay Water Saturation (Sw) and
hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV oil/gas) height maps were generated for all the zones.
(Figure 9-14 to Figure 9-23). The well locations shown in the map are the surface locations with
demarcated well paths for deviated wells.
Table 9-7 shows segment wise detail of petrophysical properties generated from static model.

Table 9-7 Segment wise Average Petrophysical properties

Net Pay
Area Net Pay Net Pay
Layer/Segment Thickness
ML(km2) Porosity Sw(2P)
(m)

K1 EP-IV Upper 0.81 4.1 0.12 0.78

K2_K6_K7_Segment4
2.558 6.2 0.15 0.77
EP-IV Upper
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Upper 2.123 8.0 0.16 0.74

K8_K9 EP-IV Upper 0.435 4.3 0.13 0.75

K1 EP-IV Lower 0.81 10.1 0.15 0.75

K2_K6_K7_Segment4
2.558 14.2 0.165 0.75
EP-IV Lower
K3_K5_K10 EP-IV Lower 2.123 19.3 0.15 0.74

K8_K9 EP-IV Lower 0.435 9.9 0.14 0.73

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 129 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-8 STOIIP distribution in different Rocktypes in field

Figure 9-9 GIIP distribution in different Rocktypes in field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 130 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-10 STOIIP distribution in different Porosity bins in field

Figure 9-11 GIIP distribution in different Porosity Bins in field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 131 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-12 STOIIP distribution in different Sw bins in field

Figure 9-13 GIIP distribution in different Sw Bins in field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 132 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9
2496800

2496800
0.18
0.15 K#10
K#8
0.14
2496400

2496400
K#5

0.15
K#3

8
0.1
2496000

2496000
0.14
2495600

2495600
0.17
0.1
4
2495200

2495200
5
0.1
0.18

K#1 K#2
2494800

2494800
0.
17
K#6
0.1
6
0.1
2494400

2494400
5
0.14

4
0.1 .13
0
K#7
15
0.

0.
2494000

2494000

14 0.1
5
0.
0.16 15
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-14 Net Pay Effective Porosity Map for EP-IV Upper

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 133 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9
2496800

2496800
K#10
K#8

0.1
0.1
2496400

2496400
6

6 K#5
K#3
2496000

2496000
0.16
0.14
2495600

2495600
16
0.
2495200

2495200
0.1
K#1 8 K#2
2494800

2494800
81
0.

K#6
16
0.
2494400

2494400
8
0.1

K#7

0.
2
2494000

2494000
0.1
8

0.16

14
0.
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-15 Net Pay Effective Porosity Map for EP-IV Lower

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 134 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9
2496800

2496800
66
0.
K#10

0.6
K#8
6

8
0.7
2496400

2496400
0.7
K#5

2
K#3

0.7
2496000

2496000
0.68

0.7
0.7

4
6
0.78
2495600

2495600
0.8
2495200

2495200
0.78

0.
K#1 K#2 76
0.7
2494800

2494800
2
0.7 K#6
0.74 6
0.7
2494400

2494400
8
0.7
K#7
0.82
0.8

4
0.8
2494000

2494000
0.7.88
0.82
0

0.78

0.76
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-16 Net Pay Water Saturations Map for EP-IV Upper

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 135 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9
2496800

2496800
K#10
0.72
8

0.72
K#8
0 .6

0.64
2496400

2496400
K#5
68
0. K#3

0.68
2496000

2496000
2

0.72
0.7
6
0.7
2495600

2495600
2495200

2495200
K#1 K#2
2494800

2494800
2
76 0.7

0.72
K#6
0.

6
8
2494400

2494400
0.7
0.

0K#7
84

.8
0.
2494000

2494000

8
0.
0.88
0.92
0.96
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-17 Net Pay Sw Map for EP-IV Lower

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 136 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9
2496800

2496800
10
K#10

8
4

6
K#8
2496400

2496400
2

8 K#5

4
8
K#3
2496000

2496000
6
4

6
2495600

2495600
6
6
6

6
2495200

2495200
6
6
6

K#1 K#2
2494800

2494800
8
6

K#6 12
10
2494400

2494400
6

K#7
6

4
12
2494000

2494000
10

10
8
8
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-18 Net Pay thickness map for EP-IV Upper

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 137 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9
16
2496800

2496800
14

14
16
12
K#10
K#8

14
18
2496400

2496400
14
12
12 10

12
K#5

14
8
10

18
10
K#3
2496000

2496000
8
8

16
18
2495600

2495600
8
14

10 12
20
18
16

12
2495200

2495200
16

K#1 K#2
20

2224
2494800

2494800
14

22
24

18
K#6
16
12

26
12

8
2494400

2494400
26

16
12

K#7
24
14

20
12
2494000

2494000
22

16
16
14

16

18

20
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-19 Net Pay thickness map for EP-IV lower

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 138 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9
2496800

2496800
0.5

6
0.4

0.
0.3
K#10

0.2
K#8
2496400

2496400
0.4
0.2
K#5
0.4

0.3
K#3

0.4
2496000

2496000
0.3
2495600

2495600
2495200

2495200
0.2
K#1 K#2
2494800

2494800
K#6 0.3
2494400

2494400
K#7 3 0.4
0.
2494000

2494000
0.2
0.3

3
0.
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-20 HCPV(Oil) , 2P case height Map for EP-IV Upper

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 139 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9
2496800

2496800
6
0.

0.8
K#10
K#8

6
0.
2496400

2496400
0.4
0.4 0.8
K#5

0.8
0.8
K#3
2496000

2496000
0.4
2495600

2495600
0.8
0.6 8 1
0.
2495200

2495200
1
1
0.8

K#1 K#2
2494800

2494800
2

K#6
1.

0.6 0.8 1
0.6
2494400

2494400
0.6 0.8
0.2
0.4

K#7 0.6
2494000

2494000
0
0.6

0.4

0.4
0.2
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-21 HCPV(Oil) 2P case height Map for EP-IV Lower

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 140 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9
2496800

2496800
6
0.

0.8
K#10
K#8

6
0.
2496400

2496400
0.4
0.4 0.8
K#5

0.8
0.8
K#3
2496000

2496000
0.4
2495600

2495600
0.8
0.6 8 1
0.
2495200

2495200
1
1
0.8

K#1 K#2
2494800

2494800
2

K#6
1.

0.6 0.8 1
0.6
2494400

2494400
0.6 0.8
0.2
0.4

K#7 0.6
2494000

2494000
0
0.6

0.4

0.4
0.2
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-22 HCPV(Gas), 2P case height Map for EP-IV upper

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 141 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

2497200

2497200
K#9

0.72
2496800

2496800
K#10
K#8
8
0.
2496400

0.72

2496400
4
0.6
K#5
0.48
K#3
2496000

2496000
0.4

2
0.3
2495600

2495600
24
0.
2495200

2495200
K#1 K#2
2494800

2494800
K#6
2494400

2494400
K#7
2494000

2494000
2493600

2493600
2493200

2493200

0 200 400 600 800 1000m

1:20000
245600 246000 246400 246800 247200 247600 248000

Figure 9-23 HCPV (Gas),2P case height Map for EP-IV Lower

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 142 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

9.3 Comparison of volumetric results with production data:

The results obtained from volumetric exercise were analysed in detail. The hydrocarbon pore
volume (HCPV) maps were used as criteria to compare the reservoir potential with recorded
production data. The cumulative oil production for each well, after one year of fracking was
selected as a normalized production data to compare it with the HCPV maps of EP-IV upper and
EP-IV lower reservoir. As PLT data is absent, zone-wise segregation of production was not
possible, so in this comparison exercise combined HCPV map of EP-IV upper and EP-IV lower
was used. Figure 9-24 combined HCPV (Oil) map for EP-IV upper and EP-IV lower reservoir with
normalized production bubble for each well plotted on it.

Figure 9-24 Normalized production bubbles plotted on HCPV (oil) map

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 143 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

This bubble map shows a significant correlation between the results of volumetric estimation and
production data observed.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 144 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

9.4 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis

A detailed Petrel workflow based uncertainty analysis was carried out to find out the ranges of
distribution of the STOIIP and GIIP due to the various uncertainties associated with the input data
and the model building related processes. 2P case defined in section 9.2 was taken as the base
case for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis exercise.
9.4.1 Stochastic Model Based Mono sensitivity Analysis
For sensitivity analysis the following key group of uncertainty elements were considered. A
detailed sensitivity analysis on petrophysical parameters (effective porosity and Water saturation)
was carried out and is described in section 3.2 and section 3.3 of Petrophysics report. This
petrophysical analysis provided the uncertainty ranges of petrophysical parameters. For contact
and PVT uncertainty the ranges were obtained from history match analysis. The ranges obtained
are mentioned below.

Contact uncertainty: +/- 8 m

Effective Porosity modelling uncertainty: +/- 2 %

Sw modelling uncertainty: +/- 8 %

PVT modelling uncertainty: +/- 5% of defined Bo value

For sensitivity analysis a Petrel workflow was designed. In this workflow sensitivity of each
uncertainty group was evaluated serially keeping all other uncertainties unchanged from base
case value. While evaluating the sensitivity of a particular uncertainty element, only two runs were
made, one with extreme high case value and other with extreme low case value. A tornado chart
showing the results of the sensitivity analysis is shown in Figure 9-25. This analysis shows water
saturation uncertainty as having the highest ranking, followed by Porosity uncertainty, Contact
and PVT (Bo) uncertainty.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 145 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-25 Tornado Chart showing sensitivity of different modeling parameters

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 146 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

9.4.2 Stochastic Model Based Uncertainty Analysis

Following major group of uncertainties were recognized in Kanawara field. A Petrel workflow was
designed in which a number of variables were introduced in the model related to various
parameters used. In essence these variables vary in a set of 150 realizations of the model
generated and the resulting models are each some way different from other and for all such cases,
in-place hydrocarbon volumes were estimated and the results are stored. This uncertainty
workflow is schematically shown in Figure 9-26. The main elements of this workflow are explained
below.

Contact Uncertainty
For contact uncertainty, +/- 8m to the defined FWLs is considered. Deeper the FWL, the STOIIP
increases whereas shallower FWL reduces the same.

Porosity Uncertainty
Interpretation uncertainty: The estimation of porosity from logging tool recorded data and their
calibration from core measurements has its own associated uncertainty. In this case an
uncertainty of +- 0.02 pu was considered. A variable was defined for this in the workflow which
varied from -0.02 to +0.02 pu in a normal distribution in the uncertainty runs and in
each case this value is either subtracted or added to the generated porosity model keeping
the values unchanged at the well locations.

Water saturation Uncertainty

Interpretation uncertainty: In this case an uncertainty of +- 8% Sw for EP-IV reservoirs was
considered. A variable was defined for this in the workflow which varied from -0.08 to +0.08 in a
normal distribution in the 150 uncertainty runs for EP-IV Reservoirs and in each case this value
is either subtracted or added to the generated saturation model keeping the values unchanged at
the well locations.

PVT Uncertainty
The value of Bo was varied +/-5% from its original value. This variation was defined using a normal
distribution.
9.4.3 Results of Uncertainty Analysis
The results of STOIIP estimation from 150 runs show a log normal distribution. Zone wise STOIIP
uncertainty histogram plots are given from Figure 9-27 to Figure 9-29. Zone wise GIIP uncertainty
histogram plots are given from Figure 9-30 to Figure 9-32.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 147 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-26 Schematic Diagram showing Uncertainty analysis workflow

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 148 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-27 Histogram Showing STOIIP Uncertainty in Kanawara field (150 Runs)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 149 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-28 Histogram Showing STOIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV Upper Zone (150 Runs)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 150 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-29 Histogram Showing STOIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV Lower Zone (150 Runs)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 151 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-30 Histogram Showing GIIP Uncertainty in Kanawara field (150 Runs)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 152 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-31 Histogram Showing GIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV Upper Zone (150 Runs)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 153 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9-32 Histogram Showing GIIP Uncertainty in EP-IV Lower Zone (150 Runs)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 154 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

10 Conclusions
 The Kanawara Field holds hydrocarbon bearing zone of Eocene age viz. EP-IV which
predominantly comprises of Siltstone as reservoir litho-facies.
 In the present study, the EP-IV reservoir was subdivided into eight sub zones based on
petrophysical analysis result. Out of these eight zones, two are the main reservoir zones
viz. EP-IV-Upper-Siltstone and EP-IV-Lower-Siltstone.

 Simultaneous seismic inversion study was performed. Acoustic impedance maps

generated as an output of this study which were used as a trend while populating
petrophysical properties in geocellular grid.
 Total Porosity was populated Geostatistically using Sequential Gaussian simulation
algorithm by co-krigging with seismic AI map as a horizontal trend.
 Effective porosity was populated as bivariate of modelled total porosity.
 Permeability log was upscaled and Geo-statistically modelled as a bivariate of the
modelled effective porosity.
 R35 was calculated using Pore-Perm transform which is classified in four RockTypes.
These rocktypes are quality checked against the Petrophysically interpreted rock types.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 155 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

 Water Saturation modeling is based on Saturation height function for each rock type.
 1P, 2P volume in place is calculated using SPE, PRMS-2011 criteria. Oil Down to (ODT)
was used for 1P volume calculation, history matching contacts for 2P volume calculation
and spill points in segments with no well penetration was used of 3P volume calculation.
For segments with well penetration same 2P and 3P contacts were taken.
 PVT parameters were taken as per the analysis in RE and are assigned to respective
zone/region.
 Static volume estimates for STOIIP are as below:
Volume in 1P (10^3 sm3) 2P (10^3 sm3) 3P (10^3 sm3)
Place
STOIIP 1689.5 2533.0 2652.4
GIIP(Total
385783.5 5,63,129.03 5,77,006.6
Gas)

 Results of volume calculation exercises show that more than 75 % of STOIIP is in EP-IV
lower siltstone reservoir, while a little less than 25 % STOIIP is in EP-IV upper siltstone
reservoir. Results of volume calculation exercise also suggest that more than 90% of
STOIIP and GIIP is in ‘good’ and ‘best’ rocktype.
 Comparison of HCPV (oil) map with production data shows a good positive trend, which
validates this study.
 Mono sensitivity analysis suggests water saturation and porosity as the most sensitive
parameters towards in-place calculation.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 156 of 157

Kanawara FDP – Geology & Static Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

11 References
Exploration Consultants Ltd., 2002 Integrated Basin Modelling and Hydrocarbon Prospect
Evaluation
IPA, 2006 Sedimentation in the Modern and Miocene Mahakam Delta, 1998
Shepherd, M., 2009, Braided fluvial reservoirs, in M. Shepherd, Oil field production geology:
AAPG Memoir 91, p. 273– 277.
Snedden, J.W., and D.G. Kersey, 1982, Depositional environments and gas production trends,
Olmos Sandstone, Upper Cretaceous, Webb County, Texas: Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc.
Trans., vol. 32, p. 497-514.
A. Banerjee, 1. S. (2002). The effective source rocks in the Cambay basin, India. AAPG Bulletin
, 433-456.
Biswas, S., Rangaraju, M. K., Thomas, J., & Bhattacharya, S. K. (1994). Cambay - Hazad (!)
Petroelum System in the South Cambay Basin, India. The petroleum system-from source
to trap:AAPG Memoir 60.
Mukherjee, M. K. (1983). Petroleum Prospect of Cretaceous sediments of the cambay
basin,Gujarat, India. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 275-286.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 157 of 157

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

Basic RE and HM Report

Vol. V / IX

Tender No:

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Name: Akshay Aggarwal Position: Reservoir Engineer

Document
Originator(s) Name : Shubham Mishra Position: Reservoir Engineer

Reviewed by Name: Agha Hassan Akram Position: Reservoir Engineering Advisor

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Amendment Summary

0.1 8-Dec-2015 Preliminary Issue

1.0 31-Mar-2016 Final Version

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER
Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished
with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements, empirical
relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or
assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may
differ. Accordingly, Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or
completeness of any such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or
recommendation. Customer acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that
Schlumberger makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or
description in respect thereto. Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does
not warrant that any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or
recommendation is fit for a particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with any
government request or regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that such
services are delivered with the explicit understanding and agreement that any action taken
based on the services received shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim shall be
made against Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Contents

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 15

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 16
3 Reservoir Engineering ............................................................................................... 17

3.1 PVT Analysis ....................................................................................................... 17

Initial Methodology ...................................................................................... 17

Quality Rating of PVT samples ................................................................... 17

PVT Samples Quality – Well K#6 and Well K#9 ......................................... 19

PVT model of well K#9 ................................................................................. 19

3.2 Special Core Analysis (SCAL)............................................................................ 21

Data Availability of RCA/SCAL .................................................................... 21

Rock-Types, Permeability-Porosity Transforms and Saturation-Height

Functions .................................................................................................................... 21

3.3 Production and Pressure Analysis .................................................................... 29

Individual Well Production Analysis........................................................... 29

Segment Production Analysis .................................................................... 41

Review of Pressure Transient Analysis and Pressure Surveys ............... 47

3.4 Material Balance Analysis .................................................................................. 51

4 Dynamic Modeling and History Matching................................................................. 53

4.1 Model Initialization .............................................................................................. 53

4.2 History Match ...................................................................................................... 59

K1 block and K2 block History Match ........................................................ 60

K8-K9 block and K3-K5-K10 block History Match ..................................... 66

4.3 Final Dynamic Volumetrics ................................................................................ 76

5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 78

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: Pressure Behavior during a Static / Semi-Static Sampling ......................... 18

Figure 3-2: PVT model of well K-9.................................................................................... 20

Figure 3-3: Poro - Perm Plot from Routine core data ..................................................... 22

Figure 3-4: Capillary Pressure data with water saturation ............................................. 24

Figure 3-5: Water saturation vs height above contact ................................................... 25

Figure 3-6: Relative permeability data for oil-water from Sample 8S ............................ 26

Figure 3-7: Generated relative permeability curves from Corey’s method ................... 28

Figure 3-8: Section from well K8 to K2 ............................................................................ 30

Figure 3-9: Production Plot of Kanawara Field ............................................................... 31

Figure 3-10: Production Plot of well K-1.......................................................................... 32

Figure 3-11: Production Plot of well K-2.......................................................................... 33

Figure 3-12: Production Plot of well K-3.......................................................................... 34

Figure 3-13: Production Plot of well K-5.......................................................................... 35

Figure 3-14: Production Plot of well K-6.......................................................................... 36

Figure 3-15: Production Plot of well K-7.......................................................................... 37

Figure 3-16: Production Plot of well K-8.......................................................................... 38

Figure 3-17: Production Plot of well K-9.......................................................................... 39

Figure 3-18: Production Plot of well K-10 ........................................................................ 40

Figure 3-19: Segments in Kanawara Field ....................................................................... 41

Figure 3-20: Production plot of K1 segment ................................................................... 42

Figure 3-21: Production plot of K2 segment ................................................................... 43

Figure 3-22: Production plot of K8-K9 segment ............................................................. 45

Figure 3-23: Production plot of K3-K5-K10 segment ...................................................... 46

Figure 3-24: SBHP measurements in different wells ...................................................... 49

Figure 3-25: Campbell plot from K3-K5-K10 block material balance ............................. 51

Figure 3-26: Pressure vs Production trend from K3-K5-K10 block material balance ... 52

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 10 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-1: Log Saturation match in Well K1 .................................................................. 54

Figure 4-2: Log Saturation match in Well K10 ................................................................ 55

Figure 4-3: Log Saturation match in Well K5 .................................................................. 55

Figure 4-4: Log Saturation match in Well K8 .................................................................. 56

Figure 4-5: Log Saturation match in Well K9 .................................................................. 56

Figure 4-6: Log Saturation match in Well K6 .................................................................. 57

Figure 4-7: Log Saturation match in Well K7 .................................................................. 57

Figure 4-8: Active area in history matching .................................................................... 59

Figure 4-9: PipesimTM vertical flow calibration................................................................ 60

Figure 4-10: K1 and K2 segment initialized ..................................................................... 61

Figure 4-11: K1 and K2 segment history match .............................................................. 63

Figure 4-12: Material Balance in K1 segment –Case1 .................................................... 64

Figure 4-13: Localized K#1 pool....................................................................................... 64

Figure 4-14: Well K#1 pressure match............................................................................. 65

Figure 4-16: Initial water saturation in K8-K9 and K3-K5-K10 segment ........................ 66

Figure 4-17: Initial history match in K8-K9 and K3-K5-K10 segment ............................ 67

Figure 4-18: Localized K#8 well pool ............................................................................... 68

Figure 4-19: Sector model match for well K8 compared to initial .................................. 68

Figure 4-20: Initialized K8-K9 segment with primary gas cap in EP-IV(U)..................... 69

Figure 4-21: HM improvement in K8 Segment by primary gas cap sensitivity ............. 70

Figure 4-22: HM improvement in Well K8 ........................................................................ 71

Figure 4-23: HM improvement in Well K9 ........................................................................ 71

Figure 4-24: Cross-section through wells K10 and K3 ................................................... 72

Figure 4-25: 3D view of K3 and K10 well penetrating EP-IV(U) ...................................... 72

Figure 4-26: Possible gas contribution from fault segment next to well K10 ............... 73

Figure 4-27: GOC in K3-K5-K10 well section................................................................... 74

Figure 4-28: 3D view of initial gas saturation in K3-K5-K10 segment ........................... 74

Figure 4-29: HM improvement in Well K3-K5-K10 wells ................................................. 75

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 12 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Quality ranking I - Whether the sampling condition was Single Phase ....... 17

Table 3.2: Criteria for Quality Rating II to Evaluate the PVT Samples ........................... 18

Table 3.3 – K-9 PVT sample .............................................................................................. 19

Table 3.4 – Rock Type Classification ............................................................................... 21

Table 3.5 – MICP core data information........................................................................... 23

Table 3.6 – Parameters for relative permeability ............................................................ 26

Table 3.7 – Historical production data of well K#2 and K#3 (from ONGC) .................... 29

Table 3.8 – Parameters – Well Test review results ......................................................... 48

Table 3.9 – SBHP and FBHP measurements in Kanawara Wells ................................... 50

Table 4.1 – Initial FWLs during initialization ................................................................... 54

Table 4.2 – Initial Pressures per segment ....................................................................... 58

Table 4-3 : Kanawara EP-IV: Number of cells in the Model ............................................ 58

Table 4-4 : Kanawara Model initialization for Segment K1 ............................................. 60

Table 4-5 : Kanawara Model initialization for Segment K2 ............................................. 60

Table 4-6 : 2P volumes from dynamic model in Segment K1 and K2-K6-K7 ................ 61

Table 4-7 : Modified fracture parameters in K2, K6, and K7 well ................................... 62

Table 4-8 : Fracture parameters in K1 well ...................................................................... 62

Table 4-8 : Kanawara Model initialization for K8-K9 and K3-K5-K10 segment ............. 66

Table 4-9 : Finalized contacts for K8-K9 segment .......................................................... 69

Table 4-10 : Modified fracture parameters in K8 and K9 ................................................ 70

Table 4-11 : Finalized contacts for K3-K5-K10 segment................................................. 75

Table 4-8 : Fracture parameters for K3-K5-K10 segment wells ..................................... 75

Table 4-12 : 2P volumetrics from Dynamic model .......................................................... 76

Table 4-13 : 1P volumetrics from Dynamic model .......................................................... 77

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Executive Summary

Static model of Kanawara Field was initialized after interpretation of relevant basic reservoir
engineering data like PVT data, SCAL data, and well test data. PVT sample of well K#9 was
found representative and thus used for PVT modeling. PVT model was modified to account
for wet gas properties. Vaporized oil gas ratio, as estimated from production data of well K1,
was specified for different pressures below dew point. Water Saturation in the dynamic model
was initialized from the Capillary pressure measurements available from high pressure
mercury injection data in well K#10. This lab data was converted to oil-water laboratory system
to represent in-situ conditions. Since relative permeability lab data was found unreliable,
Corey’s method was used to generate relative permeability functions. The permeability
estimates from the well tests were reviewed and used to calibrate the permeability estimated
from petrophysical interpretation. Pressure estimates from the well test were used to define
the initial pressures at the datum for different segments in the model.

Major parameters that were revised to realise a conclusive history match quality are –

1. Fluid System understanding - EP-IV(U) in K8-K9 segment and K2-K6-K7 segment

was considered primarily gas bearing.
2. Fracture Geometries – This was revised so as to make fracture more conducive in
EP-IV(U) to account for high gas production.

With reasonable modifications, a good quality of history match quality could be obtained at
field as well as well level. Production history of all the wells was calibrated against the flowing
bottom hole pressure measurements estimated from vertical flow correlation models of the
wells. Total in place from the final history match model came out to be 2.36 MMsm3 oil and
635.1 MMSCM gas, of which 1.56 MMsm3 oil and 416.8 MMSCM gas is under Proved
category. This calibrated dynamic model was then used for different prediction scenarios.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2 Introduction

As part of GNRL Oil and Gas Ltd (GOGL) contractual terms for the Field Development Plan
(FDP) of the Kanawara Field, a report on the Basic Reservoir Engineering (RE) Analysis and
history matching exercise has been prepared.

The primary Classical RE methods investigated in this report are the Pressure-Volume-
Temperature (PVT) analysis, Routine Core Analysis-Special Core Analysis (RCA-SCAL) and
the historical production and pressure performance of the EP-IV reservoir.

Dynamic modeling part of the report details the methodology for the model initialization and
then changes made while dynamic modeling to calibrate it with the pressure production history
of the field.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 16 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3 Reservoir Engineering

3.1 PVT Analysis

Initial Methodology

Two PVT samples were available from the Kanawara area as provided by GOGL. These
samples were acquired in well K-6 and K-9. Well K-6 sample was acquired before the
production from the well started, whereas from well K-9 afterwards.

Of these two samples, only sample from well K-9 was deemed representative and used for
PVT modeling.

Quality Rating of PVT samples

The interpretation of the representative nature of all PVT samples was undertaken by
subjecting the PVT tests to a quality rating procedure. The procedure to check the quality of
the samples was based on two conditions:

I. Whether the sampling condition was single phase i.e. saturation pressure of the
PVT sample was lower than the sampling pressure at the sampling depth.

For Quality Rating I, the PVT sample had to satisfy the criteria as given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Quality ranking I - Whether the sampling condition was Single Phase

Sampling Condition Criteria Quality Rating I

1
Flowing
3

Static/Semi-static 2

Where,

𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓1 = 𝐹𝐵𝐻𝑃 @ 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ − 𝐵𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒

𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓2 = 𝑆𝐵𝐻𝑃 @ 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ – 𝐵𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒

1 = Good, 2 = Medium, 3 = Poor

Figure 3-1 schematically explains the pressure behavior in terms of FBHP and SBHP during
a static/semi-static sampling

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 78

 Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

SBHP during
sampling

FBHP prior to
sampling

Flow Shut-in

Figure 3-1: Pressure Behavior during a Static / Semi-Static Sampling

II. Whether the sample was acquired at close to the initial conditions of the reservoir i.e. when
significant pressure depletion had not set in the reservoir.

The criteria for Quality Rating II characterizes whether the PVT samples were acquired at the
initial reservoir conditions. Table 3.2 describes this criterion.

Table 3.2: Criteria for Quality Rating II to Evaluate the PVT Samples

Sampling Condition Criteria Quality Rating II

𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓 >= − 50 𝑝𝑠𝑖 1

Flowing
𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓 < − 50 𝑝𝑠𝑖 0

Where,

Diff = Reservoir Press during sampling @ mid perf – Initial Reservoir Press @ mid perf

1= Good 0 = Poor

For a sample to be considered representative, it would have to satisfy both the following
conditions:

Quality Rating I = 1 or 2 and

Quality Rating II = 1

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 18 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

PVT Samples Quality – Well K#6 and Well K#9

Table 3.3 lists the important PVT parameters from PVT sample of well K9 and K6. Well K-6
sample was acquired before the production from the well started, whereas from well K-9
afterwards.

 Sample from well K#6 – Sampling pressure of well K-6 is 29 ksc below the bubble point
pressure calculated which violates the sampling requirement of the fluid to be single
phase. The sample did not satisfy the criterion for Quality rating I. Since the primary
requirement is not fulfilled for the sample to be representative, sample from K#6 has
not been considered.
 Sample from well K#9 – The sample was subject to the quality rating procedure
described above. As both the quality ratings conditions required for the sample to be
representative are met, sample from k#9 will be used for modeling.

Table 3.3 – K-9 PVT sample

Initi Gas
Samp
al Bottl Oil Gra
Samp Samp SBH Reser ling GOR Bo GOR
WE Res e Op API vity
ling ling P@ voir Press Pb Differe Differe Flas
LL Pres Pres Stock Flas
Date Depth SD Temp , ntial ntial h
s@ s Tank h
FBHP
SD Gas
v/v @
Kg/c
Reserv
SSTV Kg/c Kg/c Kg/cm m2, Kg/c 14.7,
deg C v/v oir v/v
Dm m2 m2 2 26 m2 60 F
Pressu
°C
re

11-
~22 225.4 141. 141.8 118.72 116. 1.06
K-9 Apr- 1600 104 226 43.5 1.463
7 000 05 654 6 946 9
14

11-
1612. 206. 194.
K-6 Dec- 175.8 109 148 128 177 45.5 130.2 1.638 0.99
5 4 3
07

PVT model of well K#9

Sample from well K-9 satisfies both the criterion. Suitable correlations were used to match the
PVT data. Resulting PVT model is given in Figure 3-2.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

OIL FVF Solution GOR

Figure 3-2: PVT model of well K-9

Same PVT model was extended to include the vaporized oil gas ratio. In absence of
compositional PVT experiments, average vaporized oil gas ratio (Rv) at dew point was
assessed from the producing oil-gas ratio. Since well K-1 is producing entirely from gas
bearing zones, initial Rv estimate was made from it. Each pressure node in the gas property
table below dew point has a value of Rv specified. These values were so presumed that values
of Rv decrease down the column (starting from the value for saturated gas). However, in
absence of lab data, uncertainty prevails on Rv vs Pressure trend below dew point. The
approach used gives best approximation to the observed production.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.2 Special Core Analysis (SCAL)

Data Availability of RCA/SCAL

Out of 9 wells, one well (K#10) has conventional core data. Conventional core data comprises
of conventional porosity and Air permeability measurements on different core plug samples at
ambient conditions. These measurements are corrected for overburden pressure to correct
for insitu values as mentioned in Petrophysics report (Section 3.1.2).

Two special core analysis samples were available from well K#10 for relative permeability
experimental data. Capillary pressure measurements are available from high pressure
mercury injection data using Air-Mercury fluid system. The report converts the lab data to oil-
water laboratory system. Since fluid IFT (Interfacial Tension) measurement are not available,
standard values for wettability contact angle and IFT are used to convert the data to reservoir
conditions (Table 3.2 in Petrophysics report).

Rock-Types, Permeability-Porosity Transforms and Saturation-Height

Functions
3.2.2.1 Rock-Types

Detailed methodology of rock typing is mentioned in Petrophysical Report in Section 3.4.3.

Aguilera (2001) methodology was observed to classify the petrophysical grouping using MICP
parameters. Quality of a rock can be expressed in terms of pore throat radius. Aguilera
mentions the following relationship to calculate the pore throat radius at 35% mercury
saturation –

𝑘 0.45
𝑅35 = 2.665 𝑥 [ ]
100∅

Based on R35 bins, the rock types were then defined. Table 3.4 gives the bin ranges for
different rock types.

Table 3.4 – Rock Type Classification

Rock Type Aguilera R35 Range (µm)

0 (Non-Reservoir) < 0.1

1 0.1 - 0.2

2 0.2 – 0.5

3 > 0.5

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-3 shows the porosity permeability crossplot of the core data samples with Aguilera
rock type classification.

Core Permeability vs Core Porosity with Aguilera R35

Rock Types
10.00
Core Permeability (md)

1.00 RT3

R35 - 0.1
RT2 R35 - 0.2
0.10
R35 - 0.5
RT3
RT1
RT2
0.01
RT1

0.00
0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25
Porosity (%)

Figure 3-3: Poro - Perm Plot from Routine core data

3.2.2.2 Saturation Modeling: Capillary Pressure Data

Total fourteen cores were used for MICP experiments (Table 3.5). NCS corrected core
porosity and air permeability were used to classify the rock type bins for these samples based
on Aguilera R35 method.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Depth Poro Perm NCS_Poro NCS_Perm

Sample No. RQI R35 Ag NCS PRT_NCS
m (%) (md) (%) (md)
C3-10S 1661.84 0.191 0.154 0.187 0.132 0.026 0.29 2
C3-14S 1662.12 0.191 0.106 0.187 0.091 0.022 0.24 2
9 1661.49 0.224 1.610 0.220 1.380 0.079 0.77 3
C3-22S 1665.91 0.183 1.996 0.179 1.711 0.097 0.93 3
11 1662.18 0.213 1.050 0.209 0.900 0.065 0.65 3
12 1662.53 0.205 1.180 0.201 1.011 0.070 0.69 3
2 1659.17 0.231 2.440 0.226 2.091 0.095 0.91 3
3 1659.34 0.224 1.730 0.220 1.483 0.082 0.79 3
8 1661.22 0.223 1.760 0.219 1.508 0.082 0.80 3
13 1662.77 0.194 1.540 0.190 1.320 0.083 0.80 3
C3-1S 1659.04 0.227 2.625 0.222 2.250 0.100 0.95 3
C3-6S 1660.45 0.218 0.041 0.214 0.035 0.013 0.15 1
C3-7S 1660.87 0.212 0.042 0.208 0.036 0.013 0.15 1
C3-17S 1664.31 0.179 0.042 0.175 0.036 0.014 0.16 1

Plot of capillary pressure data of the core samples (highlighted in orange in above table)
converted to reservoir conditions against the water saturation from HPMI data is shown in
Figure 3-4. This plot clearly illustrates similar Pc trend for RT 1 and RT 2, but different for RT
3. Oil water Pc tables for dynamic modeling were prepared using the polynomial equations
from curve fitting in figure. The equations are –

For RT 1 and 2 –

𝑃𝑐 (𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎) = 679.8 𝑆𝑤 3 − 923.1𝑆𝑤 2 − 138.3𝑆𝑤 + 385.84

For RT 3 –

𝑃𝑐 (𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎) = −247.8𝑆𝑤 3 + 938.8𝑆𝑤 2 − 1112.5𝑆𝑤 + 425.28

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 23 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-4: Capillary Pressure data with water saturation

3.2.2.3 Saturation Height Functions

Based on capillary pressure data, saturation height functions were generated which were used
in computation of static volumetric. Capillary pressure is the difference in pressure across the
interface between two immiscible fluids. Mathematically,

𝑃𝑐 = ∆𝜌 𝑔 ℎ

With oil density of 0.68 (subsurface oil density), height above contact can be calculated from
following equation –

3.28
ℎ=
((1 − 0.78)𝑥1.422)𝑥𝑃𝑐

where, h is in ft and Pc is in psia

Height above contact then thus be calculated using above equation and is shown in Figure
3-5. The figure shows the change in water saturation with increase in height above contact for
RT 1, 2 and RT 3.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 24 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Sw vs Height above contact

1.2

1
y = -0.094ln(x) + 1.2928
0.8
Water Saturation

Sw RT1
0.6
Sw RT3
Log. (Sw RT1)
y = -0.145ln(x) + 1.4071 Log. (Sw RT3)
0.4
R² = 0.9865

0.2

0
0 200 400 600 800

Height above contact, ft

Figure 3-5: Water saturation vs height above contact

3.2.2.4 Relative Permeability Data

Basis of Rel-perm tables is generally the absolute permeability of the formation. The
permeability in the Kanawara model is geostatistically populated from the logs. As described
in Petrophysics report, the permeability is estimated in this study based on clay and
mineralogy using Herron’s (SPWLA 1987) approach. Permeability calculated from this
approach is also calibrated with well test permeability and NCS corrected air permeability.

Two core samples in well K#10 were used for relative permeability experiments. However
none of the experiments were found ideal to be used in simulation. Log computed water
saturation and capillary pressure derived saturation shows average water saturation in all
Kanawara wells more than 50%. However, experimental data of relative permeability
experiments (Figure 3-6) shows water to be mobile phase above 25% water saturation. In
absence of any reported water production, experimental data was thought to be inconclusive.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 25 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Also, irreducible oil from the experiment is ~50%. With such high irreducible, oil should not
have flown inside the reservoir as initial oil saturation is <50%. Therefore, analytical methods
were used to generate relative permeability functions. Endpoints for generation of these
curves were also determined from literature.

Relative Permeability Curves

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Kr

0.5
Krw
0.4
Kro
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Sw

Figure 3-6: Relative permeability data for oil-water from Sample 8S

Corey’s method was used to generate relative permeability functions. Literature was searched
for suitable Corey exponents for oil and gas in water wet rock characteristics and tight sands.
Goda and Behrenbruch (2004) mentions the Corey exponents for oil and water for different
wetting conditions of rock. Table 3.6 lists the various parameters considered for generation of
relative permeability tables.

Table 3.6 – Parameters for relative permeability

Corey exponent Sorg (in oil

Rock Types oil-water oil-gas Swirr phase
oil water oil gas system)
RT 1,2 1.8 7 3.5 2.5 0.65 0.15
RT 3 1.8 7 3.5 2.5 0.45 0.1

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 26 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Corey method involves normalizing the phase saturation. Relative permeability for different
phases were obtained using the following equations-

𝑆 − 𝑆𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑆∗ =
𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑆𝑚𝑖𝑛

𝐾𝑟 = (𝑆 ∗ )𝑛

Where, S* = Normalized phase saturation

n = Corey’s exponent for the phase

Denormalised OW Rel Perm Curve wrt Sw RT1,2

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sw Krwn Kro

Denormalised OW Rel Perm Curve wrt Sw

1.0000 RT3

0.8000

0.6000

0.4000

0.2000

0.0000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw Krwn Kro

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 27 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Denormalised G-O Rel Perm Curve wrt Sliq

RT1,2
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Sliq Krg Kro

Denormalised G-O Rel Perm Curve wrt Sliq

RT3
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Sliq

Krg Kro

Figure 3-7: Generated relative permeability curves from Corey’s method

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 28 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.3 Production and Pressure Analysis

Individual Well Production Analysis

Total 9 wells are drilled in Kanawara Field. All the wells mainly produce from the EP-IV
reservoir which comprise of upper and lower zones. EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L) are separated by
a lateral persistent coal and shale layer. K2 and K3 wells were initially drilled in this field in
1971 by ONGC. Initial testing was first carried out in well K#2 in March 1971. The field was
intermittently produced until Dec 1991. The production from the field was kept subdued after
Dec1991. Prior to GOGL-GSPC JV overtaking the field, total 2300 m3 of oil production is
reported, with no available data on gas production. Production data as made available before
GOGL took over the field is mentioned in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 – Historical production data of well K#2 and K#3 (from ONGC)

Well Name Oil Production(m3) Oil Production (Bbl.)

K#2 2028 12756
K#3 273 1717
Total 2301 14473

It is to be noted that there is no monthly data reported. In the information docket given by
GOGL, GOR observed in testing carried out in Jul 1988 is very high (above 2300 v/v) and is
mentioned the well was shut in after Dec 1991 owing to very high GOR. As per data available,
well K2 has produced 2028 m3 of oil in four years (1988-1991) which can be approximated to
1.38 m3/d of production. This production evidence though suggests the fluid system to be gas
condensate, geologic evidence suggests otherwise. In a cross-section drawn across K8 well
to K2 well, fluid system is marked for each zones as shown in Figure 3-8. Since the fault
system is post migration, gas accumulation in EP-IV(L) in down dip K2 block is unexpected
when there is presence of oil in segment K8-K9 which is upthrown to K2 block. This was
deliberated with GOGL team who then suggested that production data may be uncertain for
this block. Production data prior to GOGL takeover was changed to account for pressure
depletion inside the block. The block was thus initialized with EP-IV(U) as gas and EP-IV(L)
as oil system.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 29 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-8: Section from well K8 to K2

The field was revived in Dec 2005 with additional 7 wells drilled as part of field development
by GOGL. Low permeability nature of reservoir requires wells to be hydraulically fractured for
sustainable production. Overall oil production from the field after GOGL takeover is 32,289
sm3 along with 29.7 million sm3 of gas until July 2015 and negligible water production. Field
production plot of Kanawara field comprising oil and gas production is shown in Figure 3-9.
Production plot of the wells are also represented in Figure 3-10 to Figure 3-18.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 30 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-9: Production Plot of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 31 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-10: Production Plot of well K-1

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 32 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-11: Production Plot of well K-2

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 33 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-12: Production Plot of well K-3

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 34 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-13: Production Plot of well K-5

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 35 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-14: Production Plot of well K-6

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 36 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-15: Production Plot of well K-7

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 37 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-16: Production Plot of well K-8

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 38 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-17: Production Plot of well K-9

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 39 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-18: Production Plot of well K-10

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 40 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Segment Production Analysis

Wells are drilled in four different segments in Kanawara Field as shown in Figure 3-19. These
segments are classified as:

1. K2 Segment – Wells K2, K6, and K7 are drilled in this segment

2. K1 Segment – Well K1 is drilled in this segment. This segment in place is most
affected from mining lease boundary.
3. K8 Segment – Wells K8 and K9 are drilled in this segment.
4. K3-K5-K10 Segment – Wells K3, K5, and K10 are drilled in this segment.

Figure 3-19: Segments in Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 41 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

The production plot of K1 and K2 segment is shown in Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21 respectively.

Figure 3-20: Production plot of K1 segment

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 42 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-21: Production plot of K2 segment

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 43 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

th these segments have produced GOR in excess of 1000 v/v. Average oil production from
the wells completed in these segments varies 1-5 sm3/day. Production characteristics of both
the segments correspond to a gas reservoir with vaporized oil production.

Production plots of K8 and K3-K5-K10 segment are shown in Figure 3-22 and Figure 3-23. It
is to be noted that there is no pre frac gas production reported in well K#8. K#8 well was
completed in Jan 2008 and fractured in April 2014. The gas production is reported from Apr
2014 onwards only. K#9 was completed in May 2008 and fractured in Dec 2008 in EP-IV Kalol.
However the well was kept shut in and revived in June 2013. The well is producing with steadily
declining oil rate and increasing GOR thereafter.

Late increase in GOR trend in segment K3-K5-K10 is attributed to production from well K10
only. Well K10 produced only post hydro fracturing and with high GOR from Apr 2014 onwards.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 44 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-22: Production plot of K8-K9 segment

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 45 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-23: Production plot of K3-K5-K10 segment

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 46 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

There are multiple pressure surveys, both static and flowing, available for the wells though not
very frequent. There is a maintained record of static and flowing tubing head pressure for the
wells. Most of the wells have initial recorded static bottom hole pressure surveys. Individual
segment pressure is estimated therefore from the pressure transient analysis. Following
section reviews the pressure transient results of different wells available to SLB.

Review of Pressure Transient Analysis and Pressure Surveys

A total of 11 well tests interpretations were made available in the study area. The details and
main results in these well tests are shown below in Table 3.8. A flag quality was raised for
each sample indicating the suitability of the interpreted results.

The important parameters which were analyzed for the estimation of the reservoir pressures
from the well tests, were the LRBUP (Last Read Buildup Pressure) and the average pressure
(P*) estimates. P* estimates (extrapolated reservoir pressure after infinite shut in time - a
better estimate of reservoir pressure) become more reliable, if a good signature of radial flow
is evident in the Bourdet’s derivative curves. The P* estimates in the well test reports have
been done through both semi log plots/Horner plots analysis and analytical model regression,
to match production/pressure data during the well test flow/shut-in periods. The P* estimates
from the well tests with a very good confidence on the radial flow identification were given the
highest rating. Along with it, the permeability estimates from the same tests were given the
highest rating. Those tests where the radial flow identification was only slightly apparent or
dubious were rated as moderate confidence for P* and permeability estimates. In the poor
confidence test, either the data was predominated with well bore storage effects or excessive
noise in the data; which hindered the identification of an apparent radial flow regime. Good
and moderate rating tests were carried out early in the production life of the well.

The P* estimates from the good and moderate confidence interpretations were used to
initialize the pressure in the dynamic model. The permeability estimates from the well tests
were reviewed and used to calibrate the permeability estimated from petrophysical
interpretation (Section 3.4.4 of Petrophysics Report).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 47 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 3.8 – Parameters – Well Test review results

Well Test Gauge

S.No. Well Formation Perforation Hydrofrac status Mid Perf Flow rates Well Test Results Comments
Date Depth

LRBUP @
bbl/d, Permeability ( K*h, md- Total Shut-in P* @Gauge
m MDKB m MD m MD Gauge
MCF/D ko) mD m Skin Time (hrs) Depth (psia)
Depth(psia)

Pseudo radial flow regimes identified. Horner time apporximation

1624.5 -1630.0
1 K-1 Mar-13 EP-IV Post HydroFrac 1634.5 1614 Oil-23.87 0.34 4.7 -3.4 136.8 2405 2989 considered to account for long production rate history before actual build
1635.5 -1644.5
up. Post frac production of about 1 month before pressure buildup test.
1676.0 - 1671.0
Oil - 31.0 Only semi log analysis done. Type curve match appears to be good. No
2 K-2 Mar-71 EP-IV 1668.0 - 1667.0 Pre Hydro Frac 1667.8 1630 0.40 2.4 1.024 151 3643 3800
Gas - 0.247 production reported in well test report, before the pressure buildup survey.
1659.5 - 1662.5
1676.0 - 1671.0
1668.0 - 1667.0 Noisy data. Phase redistribution effects. Results not reliable. The well was
3 K-2 Aug-11 EP-IV Post HydroFrac 1667.8 1630 Gas - 75 0.16 2.6 n/a 72.00 1346.40 1511.3
1659.5 - 1662.5 self flowing with high GOR post hydro frac since Mar,2005.
1662.5 - 1664.0
1654.5 - 1658.5 Inconclusive as oil production not measured. Initial SBHP reported (no
4 K-3 May-04 EP-IV 1663.0 - 1667.0 Post HydroFrac 1663.5 1580 Oil-16.51 n/a n/a n/a 48.00 n/a 2123.3 diigital data): 2123.3 psia. Well was hydrofraced in Feb,1991, and was on
1670.5 - 1672.5 intermittent production. Shut in since Mar,1991.
1654.5 - 1658.5
Data dominated by well bore storage effects, slight linear flow indications
5 K-3 Feb-06 EP-IV 1663.0 - 1667.0 Post HydroFrac 1663.5 1580 Oil - 18.43 n/a n/a n/a 38.00 1451.47 1910.0
1670.5 - 1672.5
visible, no radial flow. High GOR well. Producing since Mar,2005.

1747.5 - 1754.5 Linear and bilinear flow visible. Sudden noise in late time BU. Slight radial
7 K-5 Mar-09 EP-IV 1757.5 - 1764.5 Post HydroFrac 1707.9 1725 Oil - 31.0 0.15 2.35 -2.80 48.00 1811.00 2266.6 flow evident before the noise. P* estimation from the same. Intermittent oil
1768.5 - 1770.5 producer with low GOR . Good production after hydrofrac in May,2008.
1732.0 - 1739.0
1747.5 - 1754.5 Linear and slight end time radial flow evident. Intermittent oil producer with
6 K-5 Aug-11 EP-IV Post HydroFrac 1707.1 1700 Oil - 32.1 0.332 5.3 -4.50 68.70 2152.00 2456.1
1757.5 - 1764.5 low GOR . Good production after hydrofrac in May,2008.
1768.5 - 1770.5
1662.0 - 1667.0
1668.5 - 1671.0 Oil-Rate
8 K-6 Aug-11 EP-IV 1672.5 - 1673.5 Post HydroFrac 1672.0 1630 Unknow 0.542 8.13 n/a 72.00 1339.00 1424.0 Noisy data. Results not reliable. High GOR producer since Jun,2007.
1673.5 - 1677.5 Gas-121
1679.5 - 1682.0
1677.5 - 1683.5
Oil - 14.5 Good linear and radial flow signatures visible. Very little production before
9 K-7 Jan-09 EP-IV 1688.0 - 1694.0 Pre Hydrofrac 1687.8 1660 0.015 0.207 -2.75 72.00 2821.00 3233.0
Gas - 309 the well test, as the well was completed by end of Dec,2008.
1696.0 - 1698.0
1612.5 - 1628.5 Predominant well bore storage. Radial flow regime NOT visible. P*
10 K-8 Aug-11 EP-IV Pre Hydrofrac 1615.3 1560 Oil - 28.98 0.307 8.1 -0.20 84.40 2892.00 3136.0
1602.0 - 1606.0 estimation not reliable. Intermittent oil producer since Jan,2009.
1597.0 - 1603.5 Oil - 470.1 Presence of fracture flow with intersecting faults. Slight radial flow evident.
11 K-9 Jan-09 EP-IV Post HydroFrac 1609.8 1580 3.14 62.8 -5.08 75.00 3150.00 3219.0
1609.0 - 1622.5 Gas - 565.3 No production recorded before the well tests survey.

Good Confidence
Moderate Confidence
Poor Confidence

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 48 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Apart from the above pressure transient tests, there are records available for shut in and
flowing pressure surveys for the wells. Pressure recorded were corrected for datum (assumed
at 1600 m TVDSS) from the fluid gradient calculated in the survey. If no fluid gradient is
calculated in the survey, nearby well fluid gradient is used or fluid gradient measured in
another survey in the same well is used. Table 3.9 lists the SBHP and FBHP measurements
made in different wells. Static pressure measurements in the wells are shown in Figure 3-24.
As observed, there is significant variation in static pressures in different wells. There is
uncertainty whether they really represents average reservoir pressure, nevertheless these
measurements provide some measurements to calibrate the dynamic model with.

SBHP Data

280

240

200

160
SBHP (bar)
K#1
K#10
K#2
K#5
K#6
120
K#7
K#8
K#9

80
1971 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 07 10 13 16
Date

Figure 3-24: SBHP measurements in different wells

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 49 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 3.9 – SBHP and FBHP measurements in Kanawara Wells

Pr @1600
Gauge Depth Gradient Pr @1600 m
Well Date Pr (psi) P* (psi) KB (m) m TVDSS Remarks
(m TVD) (psi/ft) TVDSS (Bars)
(psi)
K#1 Mar-13 2405 2989 1614 21.6 0.056 2990.4 206.2 PTA Survey. Gradient from Mar 2015 Survey.
K#1 Mar-15 2123 1612.0 21.6 0.056 2124.8 146.5 SBHP Survey
K#2 Mar-71 3643 3800.0 1630.0 15.6 0.290 3786.3 261.1 PTA Survey. Gradient from K6 May 2007 survey.
K#2 Sep-14 1400 1676.0 15.6 0.041 1391.9 96.0 SBHP Survey
K#5 Mar-09 1811 2266.6 1674.4 19.4 0.297 2213.0 152.6 PTA Survey
K#5 Aug-11 2152 2498.1 1650.4 19.4 0.383 2459.2 169.6 PTA Survey. P* taken from second radial.
K#6 May-07 2935 1630.0 17.5 0.290 2923.1 201.5 SBHP survey. Two gradient seen - oil and gas
K#6 Jan-11 1472 1650.0 17.5 0.040 1467.7 101.2 SBHP survey
K#6 Aug-12 1276 1620.0 17.5 0.040 1275.7 88.0 SBHP- Lesser Shut in time
K#7 Jan-09 2821 3233.0 1660.0 17.5 0.043 3227.0 222.5 PTA Survey
K#7 Jan-11 1591 1645.0 17.5 0.043 1587.1 109.4 SBHP Survey
K#7 Nov-13 1269 1645.0 17.5 0.043 1265.1 87.2 SBHP Survey
K#7 Sep-14 1448 1698.0 17.5 0.043 1436.6 99.1 SBHP Survey
K#8 Aug-11 2892 1560.0 17.5 0.267 2942.4 202.9 SBHP Survey
K8 Oct-13 1148 1585.0 17.5 0.086 1157.2 79.8 FBHP. Gradient from Jan 15 Survey.
K8 Jan-15 2087 1602.0 17.5 0.086 2091.4 144.2 FBHP
K8 Apr-15 1858 1590.0 17.5 0.086 1865.8 128.6 FBHP. Gradient from Jan 15 Survey.
K#9 Jan-09 3150 3219.0 1580.0 21.3 0.263 3254.6 224.4 PTA Survey
K#9 Mar-14 2139 1585.0 21.3 0.264 2170.4 149.6 SBHP Survey. Gradient from Jan 2009 well test.
K9 Jan-15 2002 1597.0 21.3 0.146 2013.6 138.8 FBHP
K#9 Feb-16 1970 1597.0 21.3 0.264 1991.0 137.3 One month Shut in. Gradient from Jan 15 Survey.
K#10 Apr-14 2814 1650.0 20.0 0.260 2788.4 192.3 SBHP Survey. Gradient from K8-K9 wells.
K10 Jan-15 1050 1650.0 20.0 0.128 1037.4 71.5 FBHP. Gradient from Apr 2014 survey.
K10 Mar-15 929 1652.0 20.0 0.128 915.6 63.1 FBHP
K#10 Feb-16 1478 1646.0 20.0 0.260 1455.8 100.4 15 days shut in.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 50 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.4 Material Balance Analysis

Material Balance analysis using MBALTM was attempted segment wise in this study. However,
there is a lot of uncertainty in carrying out this task. To perform material balance, we require
multiple reservoir pressure data points recorded along with production history. As there are
very few recorded reservoir pressure data points, the observed pressure production history
cannot be calibrated properly. Also, the tight nature of the reservoir sand in Kanawara field
makes it difficult to estimate average reservoir pressure. Pressure transient takes a very long
time to stabilize. Nevertheless, K3-K5-K10 block was used for material balance computations.
Pressure data for this analysis was taken from the simulation model of this segment. Figure
3-25 and Figure 3-26 shows the result of the analysis. PVT parameters were kept similar to
PVT sample in the field (Pb = 140 bars, Rs = 120 v/v, Oil gravity = 45 API). Resultant in place
from the material balance study is 1.182 MMsm3 which conforms well to the dynamic model
2P in place of 1.28 MMsm3 in the same block. It is to be noted that this dynamic model in
place is constrained by ML boundary.

Figure 3-25: Campbell plot from K3-K5-K10 block material balance

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 51 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-26: Pressure vs Production trend from K3-K5-K10 block material balance

In the absence of regular recorded reservoir pressure data, it becomes imperative to take the
input from simulation model for reservoir pressure estimation. Thus, it is not meaningful to
conduct such analysis for other segments as the in place estimate will be biased from the
simulation study. Therefore, it will be practical to consider volumetric from static and dynamic
modeling only. Material balance was thus limited to this segment only.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 52 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Eclipse Black oil simulator (E100) version 2012.2/2013.1 and Intersect 2015.2 was utilized for
all numerical simulation models in Kanawara Field. The primary control parameter for history-
matching is kept as oil rate in oil producing segment which are K8-K9 and K3-K5-K10. For K1
and K2 segments, primary control parameter has been kept as RESV (reservoir voidage),
which is mostly governed by gas production.

Due to the lack of actual data, the vertical permeability is assumed 10% of the horizontal
permeability (Kv/Kh ratio). Sensitivities to Kv/Kh ratios were studied as part of the uncertainty
assessment but the parameter did not show significant sensitivity.

Typical reservoir parameters considered for production data history-matching is as follows:

 Global permeability multiplier

 Fluid contacts (GOC / FWL)
 Hydraulic Fracture Parameters like fracture length and width

To preserve the sanctity and predictive ability of the models, the modifications have been done
to the minimum extent, as far as possible. Uncertainty in frac parameters is a known issue and
thus these were adjusted in a few wells to match the production.

Static volumetric uses a simplified saturation-height function (SHF equation) for saturation
modeling, whereas dynamic model estimate is calculated by the simulator from the given
capillary pressure tables (using end-point scaling). In place volumes from static model were
updated as per the contacts finalized after history matching exercise. Static volumetric were
compared with the final in-place estimates obtained after history-matching. As part of quality
check, it was ensured that the difference between static and dynamic in place is within 10%
range as agreed with GOGL.

4.1 Model Initialization

Contacts were established as part of initialization of the dynamic model. It is to be noted that
no contacts could be established based on log evidence. As all the wells completed in
Kanawara field produces with little water production, only ODTs (Oil down to) could be
established in different segments. Thus, as the general practice, FWLs in each segment were
deduced from log saturation and initialized model water saturation match. FWLs were varied
in each segment until a reasonable match is obtained between log saturation and initialized
model water saturation. Table 4.1 lists the contacts finalized for each segment after the
initialization exercise. Possibility of primary gas cap was explored during history matching
exercise.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 53 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 4.1 – Initial FWLs during initialization

EP IV Upper EP IV Lower
Compartment Top Bottom Top Bottom FWL (m)
Depth Depth Depth Depth
K2,K6,K7 1620 1691 1634 1721 1710
K3,K5
1587 1728 1602 1768 1740
K10
K8,K9 1559 1598 1572 1617 1642
K1 1502 1611 1515 1630 1630
*All depths in meters

Figure 4-1 to Figure 4-7 show the match obtained for the water saturation with respect to
petrophysical Sw for all wells but K2 and K3. Log saturation could not be computed in well K2
and is not reliable in well K3 due to absence of advanced logs. As observed in figures, fairly
good match is obtained both in terms of capturing the trend and values.

Figure 4-1: Log Saturation match in Well K1

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 54 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-2: Log Saturation match in Well K10

Figure 4-3: Log Saturation match in Well K5

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 55 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-4: Log Saturation match in Well K8

Figure 4-5: Log Saturation match in Well K9

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 56 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-6: Log Saturation match in Well K6

Figure 4-7: Log Saturation match in Well K7

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 57 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Following the contacts estimation, an important step in initializing the model is to establish the
initial pressure in the system. Measured pressure data as well as reservoir pressure estimates
from transient tests were comprehensively studied. Table 4.2 lists the initial pressure
estimation @1600m TVDSS in different segments.

Table 4.2 – Initial Pressures per segment

Compartment Pr (psi) Pr(ksc) Pr(bar) Remarks

Pr measured in well K2 @ 1600m
K2,K6,K7 3786.3 266.2 261.1
TVDSS in Mar 1971
Pr measured in well K#9 at 1600 m
K8,K9 3254.6 228.8 224.4
TVDSS in Jan 2009
K3,K5, K10 3254.6 228.8 224.4 Well K3 fractured in Feb 91 at 220 ksc
Recorded pr from K#1 well at 1600 m
K1 2990.4 210.2 206.2
TVDSS in Mar 2013

There is no initial recorded pressure data available in K3-K5-K10 well segment. It is only
mentioned that ONGC hydrofractured the well K3 in Feb 1991 at 220 ksc. So this segment is
also initialized with K8-K9 segment pressure.

Average grid dimension of the model is 25m x 25m x 0.5m. No upscaling was required as the
run time was manageable while history matching. Figure 4-8 shows the segments active in
the dynamic modeling. Table 4-3 shows the layers and total/active cells in the zones of
consideration. Rock type zero is inactive in the dynamic model.

Table 4-3 : Kanawara EP-IV: Number of cells in the Model

Zone Layers Total cells Active cells

EP-IV(U) 20 171820 135162
EP-IV(L) 30 257730 230261

Post fracture analysis reports reveal that hydraulic fractures in the well extend beyond the EP-
IV(U) and EP-IV(L) reservoir. However for simulation study, only the fracture part inside the
reservoir is required. Therefore, the fracture width and length were kept same, whereas
fracture height was adjusted when fracture were defined in the wells in PetrelTM.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 58 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-8: Active area in history matching

4.2 History Match

Upon initialization, the model was run for entire history. As it is a very tight reservoir, the shut
in bottom hole pressure measurements may not represent true average reservoir pressure.
GOGL has regular record of flowing tubing head pressure which were converted to FBHP
through PipesimTM modeling. We used flowing pressures in DSTs to calibrate the Pipesim TM
vertical flow correlation model as shown in Figure 4-9. Once the flow correlations are
calibrated, the well head pressure selected at certain points in history can be used to estimate
the flowing bottom hole pressure values. In addition to calculated flowing bottom hole pressure
values, recent pressure surveys guide the model to calibrate with.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 59 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-9: PipesimTM vertical flow calibration

K1 block and K2 block History Match

K1 block was initialized as primarily gas system with vaporized oil option in EclipseTM. Table
4-4 enlists the fluid-system and fluid-contacts used for history matching this reservoir.

Table 4-4 : Kanawara Model initialization for Segment K1

FWL (m
Segment Fluid System
TVDSS)
K1 1630 Condensate gas

As discussed in Production analysis section, K2 segment was initialized with EP-IV(U) as gas
condensate system, whereas EP-IV(L) as oil bearing. Table 4-5 enlists the fluid-system and
fluid-contacts used for history matching this reservoir.

Table 4-5 : Kanawara Model initialization for Segment K2

Segment FWL (m TVDSS) Fluid System

K2 EP-IV(U) 1710 Condensate gas

K2 EP-IV(L) 1710 Oil

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 60 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-10 shows the gas saturation in the initialized model of K1 and K2 segments.

Figure 4-10: K1 and K2 segment initialized

Table 4-6 shows the in place from K1 and K2 segment within the mining lease boundary along
with the reported cumulative production from the segments.

Table 4-6 : 2P volumes from dynamic model in Segment K1 and K2-K6-K7

Reported Cum
Initial in place Production
(as on Jul 2015)
Block Layer
Total
Free Gas
Oil (MMscm) Gas Oil (Mscm) Gas (Mscm)
(MMscm)
(MMscm)
EP-IV (U) 0.0081 20.1 20.1
K1 0.712 6.81E+02
EP-IV (L) 0.036 90 90
EP-IV (U) 0.027 83.8 84.1
K2-K6-K7 7.1 1.95E+04
EP-IV (L) 0.447 89.2

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 61 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Wells in K2 segment have produced with historically high GOR, thereby suggesting that
fractures are dominating in EP-IV(U) than EP-IV(L). Changes were made in the fracture
parameters for K2, K6, and K7 wells so as to make them more conducive in EP-IV(U). Table
4-7 shows the changes made in fracture parameters with respect to initial.

Table 4-7 : Modified fracture parameters in K2, K6, and K7 well

Fracture Parameters

Case Well Length (m) Width (in) Height (m)

K#2 Upper 127 0.5 7.5

Modified
K#2 Lower 40 0.5 17
Initial K#2 127 0.5 17
K#6 Upper 83 0.18 8
Modified
K#6 Lower 20 0.18 10
Initial K#6 83 0.18 44
K#7 Upper 80 0.67 6
Modified
K#7 Lower 35 0.67 20
Initial K#7 65 0.67 31

Table 4-8 shows the fracture parameters for well K1.

Table 4-8 : Fracture parameters in K1 well

Fracture Parameters
Well Length (m) Width (in) Height (m)
K#1 100 0.61 26

Historical production trend was captured quite well in the simulation especially when there is
uncertainty around K2 block production data. Figure 4-11 shows the history match plots of K1
and K2 segments.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 62 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-11: K1 and K2 segment history match

Current pressure of the K1 segment has dropped to 145 bar as measured in Mar 2015 in well
K1 after close to six months of shut in. With only 0.78 MMSCM cum gas production from this
block and GIIP of 208.8 MMSCM (in modeled area), anticipating this current pressure
corresponds to the possibility that well K1 is acting like a local well pool which could be
because of a no flow boundary.

Pressure history of the well K1 suggests following pressure trend –

In 2013 ~ 2989 psi (206 bar) – from well testing report prior to production in April 2013
In 2015 ~ 2100 psi (145 bar) – from shut in bottom hole survey in Mar 2015

Material balance in K1 segment (Figure 4-12) suggests initial gas in place close to 2.5 MMSCM
to justify the pressure depletion. This suggests the entire segment is near to undrained.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 63 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-12: Material Balance in K1 segment –Case1

When translated into region in the model, the K#1 pool becomes much localized as shown in
Figure 4-13.

Figure 4-13: Localized K#1 pool

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 64 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

GIIP from the dynamic model of the localized pool comes out to be 4.6 MMSCM. Revised
pressure match of the well K#1 is shown in Figure 4-14. If the area is further reduced, well K1
pressure would fall to ~145 bar range.

Figure 4-14: Well K#1 pressure match

This was discussed with GOGL team and was mutually agreed. This history match model was
then was used for prediction exercise for this segment.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 65 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

K8-K9 block and K3-K5-K10 block History Match

Table 4-9

Table 4-9 : Kanawara Model initialization for K8-K9 and K3-K5-K10 segment

Segment FWL (m TVDSS) GOC (m TVDSS) Fluid System

K8-K9 1642 - Oil

K3-K5-K10 1740 - Oil

Figure 4-15

Figure 4-16

Figure 4-15: Initial water saturation in K8-K9 and K3-K5-K10 segment

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 66 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-16: Initial history match in K8-K9 and K3-K5-K10 segment

4.2.2.1 K8-K9 block History Match

Figure 4-17
Figure 4-18

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 67 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-17: Localized K#8 well pool

Figure 4-18: Sector model match for well K8 compared to initial

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 68 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 4-10

Table 4-10 : Finalized contacts for K8-K9 segment

Zone FWL (m TVDSS) Fluid System

EP-IV(U) 1638 Gas Condensate

EP-IV(L) 1642 Oil

Figure 4-20 shows the improvement in history match as a result of inducing primary gas cap

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 69 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-20: HM improvement in K8 Segment by primary gas cap sensitivity

further fine-tune the historical gas production match, hydraulic fracture parameters were
modified. Changing the HF parameters is reasonable as there is a lot of uncertainty associated
with their calculation. Fracture in K8 and K9 well was modified so that it extends more in EP-
IV(U). Table 4-11 lists the modifications in fracture parameters of both the wells.

Table 4-11 : Modified fracture parameters in K8 and K9

Fracture Parameters
Case Segment Length (m) Width (in) Height (m)
K#8 Upper 125 0.25 10
Present
K#8 Lower 50 0.25 10
Previous K#8 125.6 0.11 31
K#9 Upper 125 0.11 8
Present
K#9 Lower 40 0.11 14
Previous K#9 125 0.11 32.9

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 70 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Improved history match for wells K8-K9 is shown in Figure 4-21 and Figure 4-22.

Figure 4-21: HM improvement in Well K8

Figure 4-22: HM improvement in Well K9

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 71 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

4.2.2.2 K3-K5-K10 block History Match

-K5-K10 well appear to be one fault block system from seismic evidence. Post fracture high
GOR phenomenon in this segment was observed in well K10 only. Wells K3 and K#10 are
almost at similar elevation as evident from the well section as shown in Figure 4-23 with a 3D
view of the structure (with depth filter) in Figure 4-24.

Figure 4-23: Cross-section through wells K10 and K3

Figure 4-24: 3D view of K3 and K10 well penetrating EP-IV(U)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 72 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Possibility of a gas cap in this segment was deliberated with GOGL. As per their information,
well completed in segment next to well K10 beyond the model boundary tested high GOR
(Figure 4-25). The discussion concluded the following points in absence of any credible
information related to primary gas cap –

1. As we go north in K3-K5-K10 block, there is presence of lighter hydrocarbons. There

is a likely gas oil contact between K10 and K5 well.
2. Facies around K3 well is poor which could explain the low potential of this well.

Figure 4-25: Possible gas contribution from fault segment next to well K10

So, sensitivity was carried out with gas cap in EP-IV (with vaporized oil) which improved the
results. After sensitivity runs, GOC was finalized at 1627 m as shown in well section in Figure
4-26 and 3D view in Figure 4-27.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 73 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4-26: GOC in K3-K5-K10 well section

Figure 4-27: 3D view of initial gas saturation in K3-K5-K10 segment

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 74 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Following contacts were finalized in K3-K5-K10 segment (Table 4-12).

Table 4-12 : Finalized contacts for K3-K5-K10 segment

Zone FWL (m TVDSS) GOC (m TVDSS) Fluid System

EP-IV 1740 1627 Gas-Oil

Table 4-13 shows the fracture parameters for wells in this segment.

Table 4-13 : Fracture parameters for K3-K5-K10 segment wells

Fracture Parameters
Well Length (m) Width (in) Height (m)
K#3 240 0.56 21
K#5 71.6 0.17 45
K#10 214.4 0.29 28

Resulting history match for the wells in this segment is shown in Figure 4-28.

Figure 4-28: HM improvement in Well K3-K5-K10 wells

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 75 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

4.3 Final Dynamic Volumetric

Please refer to Static Volumetric section in Geology and Static Modeling report for
understanding 1P and 2P volume calculation. History matching exercise led to revision of our
understanding of the fluid system as well as establishing the contacts in the reservoir.
Following this exercise, the 2P in place volumes computed from the model is mentioned in
Table 4-14. In addition to segments with production history, 2P in place has also been
calculated for Segment 4 as shown earlier in Figure 3-19 on Page 41. Since hydrocarbon has
been encountered both in segments K1 and K2-K6-K7, the migration pathway understanding
suggests that in-between segment (segment 4) should also be hydrocarbon bearing. Contacts
used in K2-K6-K7 segment are used to initialize this segment and subsequent calculation of
in place volumetric.

Table 4-14 : 2P volumetric from Dynamic model

Reported Cum
Production Recovery
Initial in place
(%)
(as on Jul 2015)
Block Layer Free Total
Oil
Gas Gas Oil Gas
(MMs Oil Gas
(MMsc (MMsc (Mscm) (Mscm)
cm)
m) m)
EP-IV (U) 0.008 20.1 20.1
K1 0.712 6.81E+02 0.6
EP-IV (L) 0.037 90.0 90.0
K2-K6- EP-IV (U) 0.027 83.8 84.1
7.1 1.95E+04 10.3
K7 EP-IV (L) 0.447 - 89.2
EP-IV (U) 0.008 15.2 15.3
K8-K9 12.5 8.50E+03 9.7
EP-IV (L) 0.124 - 14.4
K3-K5- EP-IV (U) 0.418 6.1 54.4
13.9 1.01E+03 1.3
K10 EP-IV (L) 0.868 3.8 104.5
EP-IV (U) 0.026 83.7 83.9
Seg 4
EP-IV (L) 0.397 - 79.2
Total 2.359 302.7 635.1

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 76 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1P in place computed from the model is also mentioned in Table 4-15. Recovery percentage
for gas in K8-K9 EP-IV (U) was coming high. Production trend suggests higher volume of
proved gas in place. Therefore, 1P volumes in K8-K9 EP_IV (U) have been revised equal to
2P volumes. History match profiles of all the wells are given in Annexure 1.

Table 4-15 : 1P volumetric from Dynamic model

Initial in place
Block Layer Total
Free Gas
Oil (MMscm) Gas
(MMscm)
(MMscm)
EP-IV (U) 0.008 19.7 19.70
K1
EP-IV (L) 0.036 89.6 89.60
EP-IV (U) 0.024 74.6 74.80
K2-K6-K7
EP-IV (L) 0.42 - 83.90
EP-IV (U) 0.008 15.2 15.30
K8-K9
EP-IV (L) 0.119 - 13.90
EP-IV (U) 0.263 6.1 36.30
K3-K5-K10
EP-IV (L) 0.686 3.8 83.30
EP-IV (U) - - -
Seg 4
EP-IV (L) - - -
Total 1.564 209 416.8

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 77 of 78

Kanawara FDP - Basic RE and HM Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

5 Conclusions

 PVT model is based on well K9 sample and is modified to included wet gas properties.
 Relative permeability experiments on core sample from well K10 were found
unreliable. Analytical method using Corey exponent was used to generate relative
permeability functions.
 Rock Typing scheme is based on Aguilera R35 bins. This is described in greater detail
in Petrophysics Report in Section 3.4.3.
 Volume estimation from Material Balance will be biased from pressure estimates from
simulation study. So, verification of volumetric from material balance will be illogical.
 Production history of all the wells was calibrated against the flowing bottom hole
pressure measurements estimated from vertical flow correlation models of the wells.
 History matching exercise led to revise understanding of the fluid system of the
reservoir. Fluid system in EP-IV(U) in K8-K9 segment and K2-K6-K7 segment was
revised to gas condensate system.
 Dynamic volumes are close to static volumes with difference within 10% range as
desired.
 Good level of history match is obtained for model to be considered for future forecast.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 78 of 78

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

FDP & Economics Report

Vol. VI / IX

Tender No:
HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Document Originator Name : Shubham Mishra Position: Reservoir Engineer

Approved by Name: Akshay Aggarwal Position: Reservoir Engineer

Reviewed by Name: Agha Hassan Akram Position: Reservoir Engineering Advisor

Schlumberger confidential. © Copyright 2015 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.
Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Amendment Summary

Version No Date Description

0.1 10-March-2016 Preliminary Issue
1.0 31-March-2016 Final Version

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements, empirical
relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or assumptions
are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may differ. Accordingly,
Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or completeness of any
such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or recommendation. Customer
acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that Schlumberger makes no
representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or description in respect thereto.
Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does not warrant that any
interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation is fit for a
particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with any government request or
regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that such services are delivered with
the explicit understanding and agreement that any action taken based on the services received
shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim shall be made against Schlumberger as
a consequence thereof.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ..........................................................................

2 Field Development Planning ..............................................................
2.1 Introduction
2.2 FDP Scenarios
2.2.1 No Further Action (NFA) Case
2.2.2 Laterals from Existing wells Case
2.2.3 Horizontal wells Case
2.2.4 Vertical Wells Case
2.2.5 Vertical wells Maximum Drainage Case
2.2.6 Vertical wells + Horizontal wells Maximum Drainage Case
2.2.7 Kanawara FDP Summary
2.1 Economics
2.2 Infill Well Justification
2.2.1 KV1
2.2.2 KV2
2.2.3 KV3
2.2.4 KV6
2.2.5 KV7
2.2.6 KV8
2.3 Simulated production profile of the blocks for recommended case
(Vertical_Maximum Drainage Case)
2.4 NFA Profiles of Existing Wells
2.5 Casewise simulated pressure-production profile of new wells
2.5.1 Laterals Case
2.5.2 Horizontal Wells Case
2.5.3 Vertical Wells Case
2.5.4 Vertical Wells Maximum Drainage
2.5.5 Vertical Wells + Horizontal Wells Maximum Drainage
3 Conclusions & Recommendations ............................................

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Kanawara: Well-Level HM Statistics w.r.t HCPV Oil at EOH (Jul 2015) for EP-
IV(U)
Figure 2-2: Kanawara: Well-Level HM Statistics w.r.t HCPV Gas at EOH (Jul 2015) for EP-
IV(U)
Figure 2-3 : Kanawara: Well-Level HM Statistics w.r.t HCPV oil at EOH for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-4 : Kanawara: Well-Level HM Statistics w.r.t HCPV gas at EOH for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-5 : Kanawara: Predicted production and pressure profile -NFA Case
Figure 2-6: Kanawara Field NFA Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-7: Kanawara Field NFA Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-8: Kanawara Field NFA Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-9: Kanawara Field NFA Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-10: Lateral from K10 and K2 on HCPV oil map EOH
Figure 2-11 : Kanawara: Predicted production and pressure profile -Laterals Case
Figure 2-12: Kanawara Field Laterals Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-13: Kanawara Field Laterals Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-14: Kanawara Field Laterals Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-15: Kanawara Field Laterals Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-16: Horizontal Well KH1 and KH2 on HCPV oil map at EOH for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-17: Intersection showing lateral trajectory of KH1 in areas of good HCPV
Figure 2-18: Well trajectory of KH1
Figure 2-19: Fracture placement for 3-stage fractures in KH1
Figure 2-20: Kanawara: Predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the
Horizontal case
Figure 2-21: Kanawara Field Horizontal wells Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-22: Kanawara Field Horizontal wells Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-
IV(U)
Figure 2-23: Kanawara Field Horizontal wells Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-24: Kanawara Field Horizontal wells Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-
IV(L)
Figure 2-25: Location of vertical wells on HCPV oil map at EOH for EP-IV(L).
Figure 2-26: Location of vertical wells on HCPV gas map at EOH for EP-IV(U).
Figure 2-27: Kanawara field: Predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the
Horizontal case
Figure 2-28: Kanawara Vertical wells case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(U).
Figure 2-29: Kanawara Vertical wells case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(U).

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-30: Kanawara Vertical wells case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(L).
Figure 2-31: Kanawara Vertical wells case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(L).
Figure 2-32: HCPV Gas EOH
Figure 2-33: Location of vertical wells on HCPV oil map at EOH for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-34: Location of vertical wells on HCPV gas map at EOH for EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-35: Kanawara field: Predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the
Horizontal case
Figure 2-36: Kanawara Vertical wells Maximum drainage case: HCPV oil map at EOP for
EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-37: Kanawara Vertical wells Maximum drainage case: HCPV gas map at EOP for
EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-38: Kanawara Vertical wells Maximum drainage case: HCPV oil map at EOP for
EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-39: Kanawara Vertical wells Maximum drainage case: HCPV gas map at EOP for
EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-40: HCPV oil EOH for EP-IV(L) Figure 2-41: HCPV oil EOH for EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-42: Location of vertical and horizontal wells on HCPV oil map at EOH for EP-
IV(L)
Figure 2-43: Location of vertical and horizontal wells on HCPV gas map at EOH for EP-
IV(U).
Figure 2-44: Kanawara field: Predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the
Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case
Figure 2-45: Kanawara Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case: HCPV oil map
at EOP for EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-46: Kanawara Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case: HCPV gas
map at EOP for EP-IV(U)
Figure 2-47: Kanawara Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case: HCPV oil map
at EOP for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-48: Kanawara Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case: HCPV gas
map at EOP for EP-IV(L)
Figure 2-49: Comparison of simulated production profile between all the prediction
scenario
Figure 2-50: Graphical representation of NPV and DPI for every prediction scenario
Figure 2-51: Seismic section of KV1
Figure 2-52: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV1
Figure 2-53: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV1
Figure 2-54: Seismic section of KV2
Figure 2-55: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV2
Figure 2-56: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV2
Figure 2-57: Seismic section of KV3

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 12 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-58: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV3

Figure 2-59: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV3
Figure 2-60: Seismic section of KV6
Figure 2-61: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV6
Figure 2-62: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV6
Figure 2-63: Seismic section of KV7
Figure 2-64: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV7
Figure 2-65: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV7
Figure 2-66: Seismic section of KV8
Figure 2-67: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV8
Figure 2-68: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV8
Figure 2-69: Simulated pressure and production profile of K1
Figure 2-70: Simulated pressure and production profile of K2
Figure 2-71: Simulated pressure and production profile of K3
Figure 2-72: Simulated pressure and production profile of K5
Figure 2-73: Simulated pressure and production profile of K6
Figure 2-74: Simulated pressure and production profile of K7
Figure 2-75: Simulated pressure and production profile of K8
Figure 2-76: Simulated pressure and production profile of K9
Figure 2-77: Simulated pressure and production profile of K10
Figure 2-78: Simulated pressure and production profile of K10_Lateral
Figure 2-79: Simulated pressure and production profile of K2_Lateral
Figure 2-80: Simulated pressure and production profile of KH1
Figure 2-81: Simulated pressure and production profile of KH2
Figure 2-82: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV2
Figure 2-83: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV3
Figure 2-84: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV6
Figure 2-85: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV2
Figure 2-86: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV3
Figure 2-87: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV6
Figure 2-88: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV7
Figure 2-89: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV1
Figure 2-90: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV8
Figure 2-91: Simulated pressure and production profile of KH1
Figure 2-92: Simulated pressure and production profile of KH2

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-93: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV1

Figure 2-94: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV8
Figure 2-95: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV7
Figure 2-96: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV6
Figure 3-1: Location of new well in Segment 4 on HCPV oil map for EP-IV(L) at EOH
Figure 3-2: Simulated pressure-prediction profile of S4_NW

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 14 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Recovery Factors for each prediction scenario based on proved volume
Table 1-2: NPV and DPI for each prediction scenario
Table 2-1 : Different Cases Considered for Preparing the FDP
Table 2-2 : Individual Well Constraints for Prediction Runs
Table 2-3: EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L): Primary Production Fluid-type during History and
FDP
Table 2-4: Fracture parameters for Laterals
Table 2-5: Well trajectory parameters for KH1.
Table 2-6: Primary fluid target, block and coordinates of new vertical wells
Table 2-7: Reservoir Entry coordinates of KH1
Table 2-8: Fracture parameters of KH1 and KH2
Table 2-9: Primary fluid target, block and coordinates of new vertical wells.
Table 2-10: Fracture parameters for new vertical wells.
Table 2-11: Primary fluid target, block and coordinates of new vertical wells.
Table 2-12: Fracture parameters for new vertical wells
Table 2-13: Primary fluid target, block, well type and coordinates for new wells
Table 2-14: Fracture parameters for new wells
Table 2-15 : Cumulative Oil & Gas Production and Oil & Gas Recovery Factors for
Kanawara field @ EOP for different Cases
Table 2-16 : Incremental Cumulative Production from Active and Workover wells case-
wise for Kanawara field
Table 2-17: Economic parameters (CAPEX, OPEX, Tax and Discount Factors) used for
techno-economic analysis.
Table 2-18: Distance of new wells from processing facility
Table 2-19: Net Present Value (NPV) of prediction cases
Table 2-20: Discounted Profit-to-Investment ratio (DPI) of prediction cases
Table 3-1: Segmentation Scheme of EP-IV Reservoir
Table 3-2: FDP Summary of Kanawara EP-IV Reservoir

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Abbreviations

AHM Assisted History Matching

BCM Billion Cubic Meter
Bg Gas formation volumetric factor
Bo Oil formation volumetric factor
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
FDP Field Development Plan
FWL Free water Level
GIIP Gas Initially In Place
GOC Gas Oil Contact
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
HCIIP Hydrocarbon Initially In Place
HCPV Hydrocarbon Pore Volume
HM History Match
KLPD Kilo liters per day
MISC Miscible
MMSCM Millions of standard cubic meters
mD Mili-darcy
MMP Minimum Miscibility Pressure
NFA No Further Action
OIIP Oil Initially In Place
OWC Oil Water Contact
Pb Bubble point pressure
PI Productivity Index
pu Porosity unit
PTA Pressure Transient Analysis
PVT Pressure, Volume, Temperature
RCA Routine Core Analysis
RF Recovery Factor
Rs Solution Gas ratio
SCAL Special Core Analysis
SHF Saturation Height Functions
SLB Schlumberger
STOIIP Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place
Sorw Residual Oil Saturation to water
Swirr Irreducible water saturation
TVDSS True Vertical Depth Sub Sea
VLP Vertical Lift Performance

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Executive Summary
The field development planning of Kanawara field was aimed at testing the techno-economic
feasibility of:

 Natural depletion with the existing wells only

 Laterals from existing wells
 Vertical wells with less CAPEX
 Horizontal wells
 Vertical wells with high CAPEX (maximum drainage)
 Combination of Horizontal and Vertical wells

A comprehensive workflow was incorporated to select the location of new wells, including a
combination of fluid saturation, geological cross sections, well spacing scheme, seismic
sections, offset well performance and facies distribution. A drilling queue was followed for
scheduling of wells which were ranked as per their full-throttle capacity. There were constraints
used for well definition, like minimum economic rates, target bottom hole pressure and minimum
ratios, in order to judicially produce the new wells.

The end of prediction analysis with recovery factors, remaining fluid saturations and cumulative
production ensured robust planning of each prediction case. The recovery factors on proved
volume for all the prediction cases are provided in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Recovery Factors for each prediction scenario based on proved volume

Vertical Horizonta
wells l +vertical
Vertical Horizonta
NFA Lateral maximu wells
Wells l wells
m maximum
drainage drainage
Oil RF%
6.1 9.4 9.8 13.2 10.3 14.4
(based on 1P)
Gas RF%
16.6 18.5 27.9 31.5 20.0 32.3
(based on 1P)

The FDP results were then evaluated economically using two powerful economic indicators,
Net-Present Value (NPV) and Discounted Profit-to-Investment ratio (DPI). NPV and DPI for all
the prediction cases are provided in Table .

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 1-2: NPV and DPI for each prediction scenario

NPV (MM
Prediction Case DPI
$)
No Further Action 1.8 NA
Laterals from existing wells 5.1 0.83
Vertical wells 6 0.68
Vertical wells-Maximum Drainage 8.3 0.47
Horizontal wells 4.3 0.31
Vertical wells + Horizontal Wells Maximum Drainage 8.8 0.34

Considering both the parameters, Vertical wells with maximum drainage can be considered as
the recommended case.

A new infill well has been recommended in segment 4 for booking the reserve from probable to
proved category.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2 Field Development Planning

2.1 Introduction
Following the conclusion of the history-match exercise, it was evident that Kanawara Field
would have to undergo additional development in terms of either work-over of existing wells
(laterals), and/or, infill wells. Recovery from the field can only be maximized if time driven Field
Development Planning (FDP) is implemented. Though the forecast period starts from end of
history (Jul 2015), development starts from November 2017 when new wells will be drilled. Prior
to this, only existing active wells are considered. All the existing wells were considered to be
active in each prediction scenario. The different FDP scenarios were run till March 2028 when
the mining lease of GOGL expires. After identifying the primary production-fluid type (for FDP)
for each reservoir, six different cases were considered for most of the reservoirs. These cases
are defined in Table 2-1. It is to be noted that not all cases were applicable for every reservoir.

Table 2-1 : Different Cases Considered for Preparing the FDP

Active Vertical
producers @ Wells Horizontal Scheduling
Cases Laterals
End Of Wells of events
History
No Further Action (NFA) √ × × × ×
Laterals in Existing
√ √ × × ×
Producers
Vertical wells √ × √ × √
Vertical Wells: Maximum
√ × √ × √
Drainage
Horizontal √ × × √ √

Horizontal + Vertical
Wells: Maximum Drainage
√ × √ √ √

For starting with the predictions, the flowing bottom hole pressure of all the existing wells on the
last date of history is attempted to be matched with that on first date of predictions. This exercise
ensures enhanced predictive ability of the model which will represent true potential of the wells.
This is achieved by applying justifiable multipliers to the Productivity Index (PI) of the wells. A
multiplier of above 1 indicates the area is under-predictable and vice-versa. It is not necessary
that this be required for all the wells.

Infill wells were selected by scrutinizing every well that penetrated the reservoir on the basis of
the following factors.

 Remaining oil (HCPV, described at the end of this section Page 23) and pressure
distribution at the end of history

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

 Quality of history match around the wells

 Porosity, permeability and rock-type

 Connectivity around the well

 Distance from GOC and FWL

 Location of faults

 Offset wells’ performance

 Seismic Section along the well (In-Line and X-Line)

As per the mutual discussion between GOGL and Schlumberger on availability of drilling rigs
and other facilities, the following drilling queue was decided for scheduling the new wells:

 Wells shall be drilled in group of three, with one month gap between drilling of
subsequent well

 There will be a gap of 2 years between drilling of each group to cater to optimum CAPEX

 Order of drilling the wells will be prioritized on the basis of well productivity

Scheduling of the wells has been decided on the basis of full-throttle simulation case. In a full
throttle simulation case, all the proposed wells are opened on a single date and their production
is analysed until the end of mining lease period. The cumulative production of the wells define
the drilling priority and hence the scheduling.

The prediction scenarios of all the new wells were run on Bottom hole Pressure (BHP) control
mode. Attempts to run on Tubing Head Pressure (THP) control mode were unsuccessful as the
wellbore models of existing wells were found to be falling in unstable zone which does not
correlate to the production of wells. Due to unreliable wellbore models, the Vertical Flow
Performance curves for the wells could not be constructed and hence the cases are not run on
THP.

Certain constraints were used in predictions to account for economical and judicial production
from the field. These factors ensure optimum exploitation of the field. The prediction constraints
are listed in Table 2-2.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 2-2 : Individual Well Constraints for Prediction Runs

Constraints Value

Maximum individual well Decided based on historical well production rate in the
production rate reservoir

Single Completion, Dual perforation (EP-IV(U) and EP-

Completion type
IV(L)) : HF

Minimum well BHP 50 bars

Maximum water-cut 98%

Minimum economic limit on 0.5 scmd for OPR

oil-rate 2000 scmd for GPR

Note:
1. Hydrocarbon Pore Volume (HCPV) property essentially refers to multiplication of
hydrocarbon saturation with pore volume.
HCPV oil= Pore Volume*So
Where Pore Volume = Poro*Bulk Volume
HCPV property is displayed in form of a volume height HCPV map. It creates a surface
representing the integral of a volume property with respect to elevation divided by the cell
bulk volume at each XY location. Following is the formula of volume height map which
Petrel uses:
As per the formula of volume height, Z = Sum [HCPV oil (i)*Height (i)/ Bulk Volume (i)]
Which can also be written as Z = Sum [Pore Volume (i)*So (i)*Height (i)/ Bulk Volume (i)]
Z= Sum [Bulk Volume (i)*Poro (i)*So (i)*Height (i)/
Bulk Volume (i)]
Z= Sum [Poro (i)*So (i)*Height (i)]
So, HCPV volume height maps give a powerful visual rendering of the evolution of the
height of the hydrocarbon column across the field (as if the rock matrix had been
removed).

2. It is to be noted that the well symbols are displayed at the subsurface location of the wells
in all the maps.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 23 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2 FDP Scenarios

The production history of Kanawara block EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L) reservoir consisted of 9 wells.
All the segments in EP-IV(U) are targeted for gas except for K3-K5-K10 segment which is a
Gas-Oil system. Further, all the segments in EP-IV(L) are targeted for oil except for K1 segment
which is a gas bearing. The primary production fluid type during history and FDP of this reservoir
is shown in Table 2-3. It is to be noted that Segment 4 (Segment between K1 block and K2-
K6-K7 block) is sealing from all the neighbouring blocks. Also, it has been classified as a 2P
block, so no development well was proposed in this segment. Detailed description is provided
in Section 9.1 of Geology and Static Modelling report (Volume III). Therefore, there is no
hydrocarbon being drained from Segment 4 in all the prediction cases.

Figure 2-1, Figure 2-2, Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show the quality of history-match obtained
for this reservoir respectively on EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L) HCPV maps of oil and gas at End-of-
History (EOH). The quality of history match is essential to identify best areas for future
development of the field. It ensures that the development is in the areas of high confidence and
the forecasted profiles are representative. Areas of poor history match are usually avoided as
the model uncertainty in those areas is high and development may be unreliable. Segment and
well wise history match are present in the Annexure- History Match plots.

One of the reasons why K3-K5-K10 segment is considered for maximum development is high
level of confidence in the model in the segment because of good history match.

Table 2-3: EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L): Primary Production Fluid-type during History and FDP

Primary Production Primary Production

Zone Segment
Target for History Target for FDP

K1 Gas Gas

K2-K6-K7 Gas Gas

EP-IV(U)
K3-K5-K10 Oil Oil

K8-K9 Gas Gas

K1 Gas Gas

K2-K6-K7 Oil Oil

EP-IV(L)
K3-K5-K10 Oil Oil

K8-K9 Oil Oil

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 24 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-1: Kanawara: Well-Level HM Statistics w.r.t HCPV Oil at EOH (Jul 2015) for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 25 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-2: Kanawara: Well-Level HM Statistics w.r.t HCPV Gas at EOH (Jul 2015) for EP-
IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 26 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-3 : Kanawara: Well-Level HM Statistics w.r.t HCPV oil at EOH for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 27 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-4 : Kanawara: Well-Level HM Statistics w.r.t HCPV gas at EOH for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 28 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.1 No Further Action (NFA) Case

All the existing wells in the Kanawara field are active at the end of history, i.e. July, 2015.
Therefore, all the 9 wells have been considered in NFA case. As the prediction starts, all the
existing wells switch to Bottom hole pressure (BHP) control. As explained earlier, to account for
any possible over-predictability or under-predictability of the model at the end of history, a
reasonable multiplier (PI Multiplier) has been applied to Productivity Index of the existing wells.
This multiplier ensures that the model is calibrated with the observed pressure at the last date
of history.

Figure 2-5 shows the predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the NFA case. As
observed in the figure, there is a steep drop in the oil production rate and gas production rate
in 2016. The drop in rates is attributed to the shutting of well K1, K8 and K9 around that date.
While well K1 is shut because its gas production rate falls below the minimum economic rate,
wells K8 and K9 are shut because the BHP in these wells fall below the minimum limit of BHP.
There is a slight drop in the rates in 2020. It can be attributed to the well K7 shutting in that
period due to its gas production rate falling below the minimum economical rate.

Figure 2-5 : Kanawara: Predicted production and pressure profile -NFA Case

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 29 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-6, Figure 2-7, Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9 show the HCPV oil and HCPV gas map at
end of predictions (EOP) for EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L). An analysis of HCPV EOP maps suggest
that the maximum depletion is occurring in K3-K5-K10 segment at both the levels. This is
primarily because the wells K5 and K10 are producing with fairly good production rates until the
end of prediction while the other wells are either producing at poor rates or getting shut before
the end of prediction. Individual well simulated pressure and production profile is enclosed in
the annexures.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 30 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-6: Kanawara Field NFA Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 31 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-7: Kanawara Field NFA Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 32 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-8: Kanawara Field NFA Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 33 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-9: Kanawara Field NFA Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 34 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.2 Laterals from Existing wells Case

In this case, feasibility of laterals have been tested from a couple of existing wells. One well
(K10) in K3-K5-K10 block and one well (K2) in K2-K6-K7 block are undertaken for drilling a high
angle lateral. Laterals have been planned based on the direction of maximum and minimum
horizontal stress. An idea about the direction of stresses was derived from brief analysis of
direction of major faults in the field, available regional geomechanics data, and regional geology.
It was concluded that the direction of lateral should be in NW-SE direction. As a result of this
analysis and areal limit of the blocks, only a single lateral could be planned from both the wells.
Figure 2-10 shows the laterals from well K10 and K2 on HCPV oil map at EOH. Approximate
length of K10_Lateral is 462 m and that of K2_Lateral is 300 m.

Figure 2-10: Lateral from K10 and K2 on HCPV oil map EOH

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 35 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

The existing perforations were shut in these wells. Both the laterals have three-stage hydraulic
fracture. The number of stages have been decided based upon the Single Well Predictive Model
(SWPM) analysis explained in SWPM report (Vol. VIII). This is explained more in forthcoming
Section on Horizontal Well case. Common fracture parameters have been used for the laterals
to make a true comparison in the productivity of wells. The magnitude of fracture parameters
are guided by multiple factors, listed as follows:

 Fracture parameters of existing nearby wells

 Coherence of the fractures with 3D geological model
 Suitability of parameters for simulation runs

The parameters of hydraulic fractures for both the wells are enlisted in Table 2-4:

Table 2-4: Fracture parameters for Laterals

Fracture Length Fracture Height
Well (m) Fracture Width (in) (m)
K10_Lateral 160 0.19685 ~45

K2_Lateral 160 0.19685 40

Figure 2-11 shows the predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the laterals case.
The oil production rate and gas production rate show a drop in early 2017 and then a step rise
in 2017. The drop in rates is attributed to the shutting of well K1, K8 and K9 around that date,
as explained in NFA case section. The rise in rates, however, can be attributed to the fact that
the laterals have been introduced in 2017 and hence their production contribution adds up to
the field production rate. There is a slight drop in the rates in 2020 which is because the well K7
is shutting in that period, as explained in previous section. Thereafter, a natural depletion profile
is observed.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 36 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-11 : Kanawara: Predicted production and pressure profile -Laterals Case

Figure 2-12, Figure 2-13, Figure 2-14 and Figure 2-15 show the HCPV oil and gas map at
end of predictions (EOP) for EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L). As can be observed from the HCPV Maps,
substantial drainage is occurring in K2-K6-K7 segment and K3-K5-K10 by the End of Prediction.
It simply relates to the fact that the laterals are placed in these two segments only. In EP-IV(L),
it can be observed that HCPV gas is increasing in K2-K6-K7 segment by the end of prediction.
The increased HCPV gas is due to the increase in volume of liberated gas in the reservoir as
the pressure drops.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 37 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-12: Kanawara Field Laterals Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 38 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-13: Kanawara Field Laterals Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 39 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-14: Kanawara Field Laterals Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 40 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-15: Kanawara Field Laterals Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 41 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.3 Horizontal wells Case

One horizontal well has been planned in K3-K5-K10 block (KH1) and K2-K6-K7 block (KH2)
each. The direction of the horizontal drain hole was decided based upon the same analysis as
that of laterals. The length of the horizontal drain hole was limited by the areal extent of the
block. While the vertical trajectory of KH1 has been designed by ‘Well-path design’ process of
Petrel™, the horizontal trajectory has been designed adhering to the structure and sweet spots
of porosity, permeability and hydrocarbon saturation. The details of the well trajectory for KH1
are shown in Table 2-5. The primary fluid target, block and coordinates of new horizontal wells
are shown in Table 2-6. It is to be noted that the coordinates specified for KH1 are surface
coordinates. These coordinates fall in K8-K9 segment following which a detailed trajectory is
planned. The well enters the reservoir in desired K3-K5-K10 segment. The reservoir entry
coordinates of KH1 are specified in Table 2-7.
For well KH2, the horizontal section has been designed in the same way as for KH1. The
trajectory design of KH2 was not part of scope and it does not affect the simulation practice and
results. For simulation purposes, the well trajectory within the reservoir is required only to
generate pressure production profile.

Table 2-5: Well trajectory parameters for KH1.

Surface XY (246683.84, 2496887.05)

Kick off point 1028.62 m TVDSS

Dogleg severity 2.75 degrees

Azimuth 108 degrees

Inclination 87.5 degrees

Horizontal Drain hole starts at 1658 m TVDSS

Horizontal Drain hole length 412 m (MD)

Final MD 2382 m

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 42 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 2-6: Primary fluid target, block and coordinates of new vertical wells

Primary Fluid Surface X Surface Y

Well Block
Target coordinate coordinate

KH1 Oil K3-K5-K10 246683.84 2496887.05

KH2 Oil K2-K6-K7 247014.88 2495047.64

Table 2-7: Reservoir Entry coordinates of KH1

Well Block Reservoir X coordinate Reservoir Y coordinate

KH1 K3-K5-K10 247419.41 2496627.94

The well KH1 has also undergone geo-mechanical analysis for pore pressure and mud weight
calculation as per the scope of work for this study. The details are listed in Geomechanics report
(Vol. VIII).

Figure 2-16 shows the horizontal well KH1 and KH2 respectively, on HCPV oil map at EOH.
The lateral length of KH1 is ~490 m. and of KH2 is ~410 m.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 43 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-16: Horizontal Well KH1 and KH2 on HCPV oil map at EOH for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 44 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

A detailed study was carried out to optimize the number of stages of fractures in horizontal well
in Kanawara block. A number of single well predictive model (SWPM) simulation cases were
created in order to find the most economical number of stages encompassing the production as
well as the cost of fracturing. The fracture parameters of the nearby well guided the fracture
properties in the SWPM model. From the same analysis, 3-stage fractures have been concluded
as most optimum for horizontal wells/laterals in Kanawara block. The details are specified in
SWPM report (Vol. VIII). The fracture parameters for KH1 and KH2 are listed in Table 2-8.

Table 2-8: Fracture parameters of KH1 and KH2

Fracture Length Fracture Height
Well Fracture Width (in)
(m) (m) (most of)
KH1 160 0.19685 35
KH2 160 0.19685 50

The fractures in all the three different stages were uniformly placed, with equal distance
between two fractures. Horizontal wells were aimed at exploitation of EP-IV(L). Though
hydraulic fractures in the well goes through both the zones, i.e. EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L), flow is
happening from EP-IV(L) only due to intermittent coal and shale layers which prevent the flow
from EP-IV(U). In practice also, the fractures will close early in shale and coal layers, thus being
catalyst to flow only in the zone where horizontal leg is placed.

The horizontal well has been run on Bottomhole Pressure control mode.

Figure 2-17 shows the lateral trajectory of KH1 in areas of good HCPV. Figure 2-18 shows the
well trajectory of KH1. Figure 2-19 shows the frac placement for 3 stages of fractures.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 45 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-17: Intersection showing lateral trajectory of KH1 in areas of good HCPV

Figure 2-18: Well trajectory of KH1

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 46 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-19: Fracture placement for 3-stage fractures in KH1

Figure 2-20 shows the predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the horizontal
wells case. In the oil production rate and gas production rate profile, a drop is observed in the
beginning of 2017 and then a rise in the end of 2017. The reason of this behaviour is similar to
that explained in NFA case section. Whereas the drop is due to shutting of wells K1, K8 and
K9, the rise in the end of 2017 is attributed to the introduction of KH1 and KH2. The production
contribution of the new wells add up to the field production rates There is a slight drop in the
rates in 2020 which is because the well K7 is shutting in that period, as explained in earlier
cases also. Block wise pressure and production profile for NFA case is attached in the
annexure.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 47 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-20: Kanawara: Predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the Horizontal
case

Figure 2-21, Figure 2-22, Figure 2-23 and Figure 2-24 show the HCPV oil and gas map at end
of predictions (EOP) for EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L). In the EP-IV(U) HCPV oil map and EP-IV(L)
HCPV oil map, a reduction in HCPV can be observed around the well KH1 due to effective
drainage of oil by the well. The HCPV gas map in EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L) show increment in K2-
K6-K7 segment because of gas liberation with pressure depletion.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 48 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-21: Kanawara Field Horizontal wells Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 49 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-22: Kanawara Field Horizontal wells Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 50 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-23: Kanawara Field Horizontal wells Case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 51 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-24: Kanawara Field Horizontal wells Case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 52 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.4 Vertical Wells Case

In this case, one vertical well has been planned for K3-K5-K10, K2-K6-K7 and K1 blocks. Since
the reserves in K8-K9 block have been optimally recovered in NFA case itself, no new well has
been proposed for this segment in this prediction case. This case was intended to recover
maximum oil at low CAPEX. Vertical wells require only single stage fracturing and are run on
BHP control mode. Table 2-9 shows the primary fluid target and coordinates for the new vertical
wells considered. Table 2-10 shows the fracture parameters for new vertical wells.

Table 2-9: Primary fluid target, block and coordinates of new vertical wells.

Well Primary fluid Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate

target

KV3 Oil K3-K5-K10 247525.22 2496557.36

KV2 Oil K2-K6-K7 247023.03 2495054.83

KV6 Gas K1 245908.18 2496614.64

Table 2-10: Fracture parameters for new vertical wells.

Fracture Length Fracture Height
Well Fracture Width (in)
(m) (m)
KV3 160 0.19685 35

KV2 160 0.19685 32

KV6 140 0.19685 32

Figure 2-25 and Figure 2-26 show the location of wells on HCPV oil map for EP-IV(L) and
HCPV gas map for EP-IV(U), at EOH. EP-IV(U) has only vaporized oil in almost all the segments
except for K3-K5-K10 segment. Likewise, EP-IV(L) has only associated gas in almost all the
segments except for K1 segment. This is the reason, the location of new wells was decided
based upon HCPV sweet spots of HCPV oil map for EP-IV(L) and HCPV gas map for EP-IV(U).

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 53 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-25: Location of vertical wells on HCPV oil map at EOH for EP-IV(L).

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 54 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-26: Location of vertical wells on HCPV gas map at EOH for EP-IV(U).

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 55 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-27 shows predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the Vertical wells
case. The production profile in this case shows a drop in rates in early 2017 and rise in the end
of 2017. The decrease in rates in early 2017 is because the wells K1, K8 and K9 are getting
shut around that period, as explained in NFA case section while the rise is due to introduction
of new wells in the field. There is a slight drop in the rates in 2020 which is because the well K7
is shutting in that period. K7 is getting shut as its gas production rate falls below the minimum
economical rate. Thereafter, the production profile shows a natural depletion phenomenon.

Figure 2-27: Kanawara field: Predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the
Horizontal case

Figure 2-28, Figure 2-29, Figure 2-30 and Figure 2-31 show HCPV oil and gas map,
respectively at EOP for EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L). As observed in HCPV maps for EP-IV(L), the
well KV3 is draining good amount of oil and there is increase in HCPV gas. Due to this, a fair
decrease in HCPV oil can be observed around the well. Well KV2 is producing both oil and gas
from EP-IV(L). This causes a reduction in HVPV oil and increase in HCPV gas in EP-IV(L). The
increase in HCPV gas is due to the liberation of solution gas as the pressure in the block
depletes. KV2 is also producing gas and vaporized oil from EP-IV(U) and hence the HCPV gas
contours in EP-IV(U) shrinks away from KV2. Well KV6 is producing very good amount of gas
from EP-IV(L) at a continuous rate of 15000 scmd throughout predictions.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 56 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-28: Kanawara Vertical wells case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(U).

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 57 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-29: Kanawara Vertical wells case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(U).

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 58 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-30: Kanawara Vertical wells case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-IV(L).

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 59 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-31: Kanawara Vertical wells case: HCPV gas map at EOP for EP-IV(L).

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 60 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Though the fracture in the well KV6 connects EP-IV(U) also, the production from the zone is
minimal because the facies in EP-IV(U) around KV6 are very poor and hence the low in-place.
The facies distribution (and hence the HCPV distribution) in K1 segment is such that the sweet
spots of EP-IV(L) are not coherent with that of EP-IV(U), as shown in Figure 2-32. Due to this
reason, a single well cannot drain both the zones effectively and a well dedicated for EP-IV(U)
shall not be justified in terms of investment. Therefore, the new well (KV6) is aimed for EP-IV(L).
More details about facies distribution can be obtained from Geology and Geomodeling report
(Vol. III).
Because of this reason, the gas recovery from EP-IV(U) in K1 segment is lower than expected.

a. EP-IV(U) b. EP-IV(L)

Figure 2-32: HCPV Gas EOH

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 61 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.5 Vertical wells Maximum Drainage Case

This scenario has been planned to maximize the recovery with vertical wells regardless of the
CAPEX. Attempt has been made to exploit all possible hydrocarbon sweet spots and
accordingly the new wells have been placed. Following considerations have been made for
placement of new wells in this scenario:

 Minimum well spacing of approximately 300 m (100 m less than conventional 40 acre
spacing as Kanawara block is relatively tighter than conventional reservoir)

 Hydrocarbon saturation height map, Porosity, permeability, rock-type cross section

 Well control in static model

 Distance from the fault
 Economics
 Offset wells’ performance

 Seismic Section along the well (In-Line and X-Line)

All vertical wells require single stage fracture only and are run on BHP control mode. Table 2-11
shows the primary fluid target and coordinates for the vertical wells.

Table 2-12 shows fracture parameters for new vertical wells.

Table 2-11: Primary fluid target, block and coordinates of new vertical wells.

Wells Primary fluid Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate

target

KV7 Oil K2-K6-K7 247146.31 2495476.18

KV2 Oil K2-K6-K7 247023.03 2495054.83

KV6 Gas K1 245908.18 2496614.64

KV1 Oil K3-K5-K10 247129.42 2494674.43

KV3 Oil K3-K5-K10 247525.22 2496557.36

KV8 Oil K3-K5-K10 247366.57 2495059.83

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 62 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 2-12: Fracture parameters for new vertical wells

Fracture Length Fracture Height
Well Fracture Width (in)
(m) (m)
KV7 160 0.19685 48

KV2 160 0.19685 32

KV6 140 0.19685 32

KV1 100 0.19685 35

KV3 160 0.19685 35

KV8 160 0.19685 50

As explained in the Vertical wells case section, the location of wells were decided on the basis
of HCPV sweet spots of HCPV oil map for EP-IV(L) and HCPV gas map for EP-IV(U). Figure
2-33 and Figure 2-34 show the location of wells on HCPV oil and gas map, respectively at EOH.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 63 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-33: Location of vertical wells on HCPV oil map at EOH for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 64 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-34: Location of vertical wells on HCPV gas map at EOH for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 65 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-35 shows predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the Horizontal case.
In addition to the drop and rise in rates in 2017 (explained in NFA case section), two more steep
rises can be observed in the production profiles in the year 2020 and 2022. These increments
in the production rates can be attributed to the introduction of KV2 and KV7 in 2022 and KV8 in
2024. The production contribution of these new wells adds up to the field production which is
seen as a spike in the profiles.

Figure 2-35: Kanawara field: Predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the
Horizontal case

Figure 2-36, Figure 2-37, Figure 2-38 and Figure 2-39 show HCPV oil and gas map,
respectively at EOP for EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L). As can be analyzed from the HCPV maps, EP-
IV(L) is being drained effectively by the wells KV3, KV8, KV1, KV2 and KV7 and hence a
decrease in HCPV oil around these wells. KV6 is highly prospective in terms of gas production
from EP-IV(L), as can be seen in HCPV gas EOP map. An increase in gas HCPV can be
observed around wells KV2, KV3 and KV7 which is attributed to the increase in liberated gas
due to pressure depletion.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 66 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Wells KV3 and KV1 are producing fair amount of oil from EP-IV(U), reflected in the reduction of
HCPV oil around these wells. The gas is drained from EP-IV(U) by wells KV2 and KV7. KV6 is
unable to drain from EP-IV(U) due to reasons explained in previous section.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 67 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-36: Kanawara Vertical wells Maximum drainage case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-
IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 68 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-37: Kanawara Vertical wells Maximum drainage case: HCPV gas map at EOP for
EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 69 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-38: Kanawara Vertical wells Maximum drainage case: HCPV oil map at EOP for EP-
IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 70 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-39: Kanawara Vertical wells Maximum drainage case: HCPV gas map at EOP for
EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 71 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Recovery Factors (in FDP summary section) reflect lesser incremental recovery from EP-IV(U)
compared to EP-IV(L) in K3-K5-K10 segment. This is because the facies distribution in EP-
IV(U) is incoherent with that in EP-IV(L) in south K3-K5-K10 segment (Figure 2-40 and Figure
2-41). Therefore similar to K1 segment, the wells proposed towards South do not efficiently
drain EP-IV(U). Since, EP-IV(L) is more prospective in terms of in-place and permeability
distribution, the new wells are targeted for EP-IV(L).

Figure 2-40: HCPV oil EOH for EP-IV(L) Figure 2-41: HCPV oil EOH for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 72 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.6 Vertical wells + Horizontal wells Maximum Drainage Case

This scenario has been planned to maximize the recovery with combination of vertical and
horizontal wells regardless of the CAPEX. Attempt has been made to exploit all possible
hydrocarbon sweet spots and accordingly the new wells have been placed. This case also tests
the feasibility of horizontal wells with vertical wells in Kanawara field.

All the new vertical wells require single stage fracture only. Horizontal wells have been fractured
in three stages; and all are run on BHP control mode. Table 2-13 shows the primary fluid target,
block and coordinates for the vertical and horizontal wells. Table 2-14 shows the fracture
parameters for new wells. Figure 2-42 and Figure 2-43 show the location of wells on HCPV oil
map for EP-IV(L) and HCPV gas map for EP-IV(U), respectively at EOH.

Table 2-13: Primary fluid target, block, well type and coordinates for new wells

Wells Primary fluid Well type Block X Coordinate Y Coordinate

target

KH1 Oil Horizontal K3-K5- 246683.84 2496887.05

K10

KH2 Oil Horizontal K2-K6-K7 247014.88 2495047.64

KV1 Oil Vertical K3-K5- 247129.42 2494674.43

K10

KV8 Oil Vertical K3-K5- 247366.57 2495059.83

K10

KV7 Oil Vertical K2-K6-K7 247146.31 2495476.18

KV6 Gas Vertical K1 245908.18 2496614.64

Table 2-14: Fracture parameters for new wells

Fracture Length Fracture Height
Well Fracture Width (in)
(m) (m)
KH1 160 0.19685 35
KH2 160 0.19685 50
KV1 100 0.19685 35
KV8 160 0.19685 50
KV7 160 0.19685 48
KV6 160 0.19685 32

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 73 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-42: Location of vertical and horizontal wells on HCPV oil map at EOH for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 74 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-43: Location of vertical and horizontal wells on HCPV gas map at EOH for EP-IV(U).

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 75 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-44 shows predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for this case. In addition
to the drop and rise in rates in 2017 (explained in NFA case section), two more steep rises can
be observed in the production profiles in the year 2020 and 2022. These increments in the
production rates can be attributed to the introduction of KV8 in 2022 and KV7 in 2024. The
production contribution of these new wells adds up to the field production which is seen as a
spike in the profiles.

Figure 2-44: Kanawara field: Predicted reservoir pressure and production profile for the
Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case
Figure 2-45, Figure 2-46, Figure 2-47 and Figure 2-48 show HCPV oil and gas map,
respectively at EOP for EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L). As observed from the HCPV maps, EP-IV(L) is
being drained effectively by the wells KH1, KV8, KV1, KH2 and KV7 and hence a decrease in
HCPV oil around these wells. KV6 is highly prospective in terms of gas production from EP-
IV(L). An increase in gas HCPV can be observed around wells KH2, KH1 and KV7 which is
attributed to the increase in liberated gas due to pressure depletion.

Wells KH1 and KV1 are producing fair amount of oil from EP-IV(U), reflected in the reduction of
HCPV oil around these wells. KV8 is unable to drain oil from EP-IV(U) due to reasons explained
in the previous section. The gas is being drained from EP-IV(U) by the wells KV2 and KV7. KV6
is unable to drain from EP-IV(U) due to reasons explained in Vertical wells case section.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 76 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-45: Kanawara Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case: HCPV oil map at
EOP for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 77 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-46: Kanawara Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case: HCPV gas map at
EOP for EP-IV(U)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 78 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-47: Kanawara Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case: HCPV oil map at
EOP for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 79 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-48: Kanawara Horizontal + Vertical wells maximum drainage case: HCPV gas map at
EOP for EP-IV(L)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 80 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.7 Kanawara FDP Summary

Table 2-15 below enlists the cumulative oil and gas production and recovery factors at March,
2028, for the different cases mentioned above viz. NFA case, Laterals case, Horizontal Wells
case, Vertical wells case, Vertical wells maximum drainage case and Horizontal+Vertcial wells
maximum drainage case. Table 2-16 enlists the incremental oil and gas from each of the active,
lateral and new wells case-wise at March, 2028. It is to be noted that laterals have less
production than the vertical wells as the latter are able to drain both EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L)
efficiently while the former can drain only the deeper zone. The detailed production profile for
the existing well for every prediction scenario is provided in the Annexure - FDP Scenarios
Well's Profile.

Figure 2-49 shows comparison of simulated production profile between all the prediction
scenarios.

Table 2-15 : Cumulative Oil & Gas Production and Oil & Gas Recovery Factors for Kanawara
field @ EOP for different Cases

Vertical Horizonta
wells l +vertical
NF Latera Vertical Horizonta
maximu wells
A l Wells l wells
m maximum
drainage drainage
Cum Oil (Msm3) 97.4 147.3 153.5 206.8 161.2 224.7
Cum Gas
70.0 77.0 116.3 131.3 83.2 134.9
(MMsm3)
Oil RF%
4.1 6.2 6.5 8.8 6.8 9.5
(based on 2P)
Gas RF%
10.9 12.1 18.2 20.6 13.1 21.1
(based on 2P)
Oil RF%
6.1 9.4 9.8 13.2 10.3 14.4
(based on 1P)
Gas RF%
16.6 18.5 27.9 31.5 20.0 32.3
(based on 1P)

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 81 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 2-16 : Incremental Cumulative Production from Active and Workover wells case-wise for
Kanawara field

Incremental Incremental
Case Well Segment Start Date Cum Oil (M Cum Gas (MM
sm3) sm3)
K3 K3-K5-K10 1-Jul-15 5.4 0.63
K5 K3-K5-K10 1-Jul-15 10.8 1.26
K10 K3-K5-K10 1-Jul-15 15.9 5.81
K8 K8-K9 1-Jul-15 2.1 2.45
NFA K9 K8-K9 1-Jul-15 4.5 2.41
K1 K1 1-Jul-15 0.31 1.52
K2 K2-K6-K7 1-Jul-15 4.6 5.08
K6 K2-K6-K7 1-Jul-15 5.1 17.35
K7 K2-K6-K7 1-Jul-15 2.3 1.73
K10_Lateral K3-K5-K10 1-Nov-17 37.36 4.47
Lateral Wells
K2_Lateral K2-K6-K7 1-Dec-17 29.61 8.28
KV3 K3-K5-K10 1-Jan-18 26.32 3.31
Vertical Well KV6 K1 1-Nov-17 10.77 37.73
KV2 K2-K6-K7 1-Dec-17 20.24 5.05
KV1 K3-K5-K10 1-Dec-17 23.61 2.90
KV3 K3-K5-K10 1-Jan-18 26.25 3.31

Vertical Well_Max KV8 K3-K5-K10 1-Nov-21 15.43 1.84

Drainage KV6 K1 1-Nov-17 10.75 37.73
KV2 K2-K6-K7 1-Nov-19 14.76 4.45
KV7 K2-K6-K7 1-Jan-20 19.51 11.10
KH1 K3-K5-K10 1-Nov-17 31.31 3.72
Horizontal Well
KH2 K2-K6-K7 1-Dec-17 34.84 8.11
KH1 K3-K5-K10 1-Nov-17 31.27 3.72
KV1 K3-K5-K10 1-Nov-19 18.93 2.34

Horizontal+Vertical KV8 K3-K5-K10 1-Jan-20 21.58 2.57

Max Drainage KH2 K2-K6-K7 1-Dec-17 33.22 8.36
KV6 K1 1-Jan-18 14.13 37.12
KV7 K2-K6-K7 1-Dec-21 13.83 8.90

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 82 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-49: Comparison of simulated production profile between all the prediction scenario

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 83 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.1 Economics
A thorough techno-economic analysis has been done for all the prediction scenarios. Table
2-17 shows economic parameters used for techno-economic analysis. Two economic
indicators, Net Present Value (NPV) and Discounted Profit-to-Investment Ratio (DPI), has been
used to compare the feasibility of different prediction scenarios in Kanawara block. Internal Rate
of Return (IRR) was found inconclusive for comparison of prediction scenarios because it was
coming very high. Detailed calculations are provided in the economic spreadsheet.

Table 2-17: Economic parameters (CAPEX, OPEX, Tax and Discount Factors) used for
techno-economic analysis.

Input Base Economic Parameters

Cost Estimate
Parameters
($)
Crude Oil Sale Price (per scm) 315
Natural Gas Sale Price (per M scm) 158
Oil OPEX (per scm) 22
Gas OPEX (per Mscm) 5
Water OPEX (per kl) NA
Fixed OPEX (per month) 120000
New Vertical Well Cost 2500000
New Horizontal Well Cost 6000000
New Lateral cost 2000000
Per stage frac cost 350000
Pipeline cost (per m) 60
Tax (%) 32.5%
Discount Factor (%) 15%

Distance of the new wells from the processing facility near to well K2 is mentioned in Table
2-18.

Table 2-18: Distance of new wells from processing facility

New Wells Distance (m)

KV2 330
KV6 1762
KV3 1768
KV7 641
KV8 679
KV1 588
KH1 1852
KH2 330

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 84 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Based on the above mentioned economic parameters, Net Present Value (NPV) of each
prediction scenario was generated as listed in Table 2-19. The NPV is calculated for prediction
starting from July 2015 up to March 2028.

Table 2-19: Net Present Value (NPV) of prediction cases

Prediction Case NPV (MM $)

No Further Action 1.8
Laterals from existing wells 5.1
Vertical wells 6
Vertical wells-Maximum Drainage 8.3
Horizontal wells 4.3
Vertical wells + Horizontal Wells Maximum
8.8
Drainage

On the basis of NPV, the vertical + horizontal with maximum drainage case is the best case.

However it is always useful to analyse the economics by different indicators. One such indicator
is Discounted Profit-to-Investment ratio (DPI). It can be described simply as division of Net
Present Value by Capital Expenditure (Investment). DPI takes into account the investment
power of the operator. DPI results are a relative comparison of different prediction scenarios
adjudging the profitability depending on the CAPEX. Table 2-20 shows DPI for each prediction
scenario.

Table 2-20: Discounted Profit-to-Investment ratio (DPI) of prediction cases

Prediction Case DPI

No Further Action NA
Laterals from existing wells 0.83
Vertical wells 0.68
Vertical wells-Maximum Drainage 0.47
Horizontal wells 0.31
Vertical wells + Horizontal Wells Maximum
0.34
Drainage

On the basis of DPI, Laterals from existing wells is the best case, i.e. this case will give best
NPV with minimum CAPEX. However, on considering both the factors (DPI & NPV), Verticals-
maximum drainage can be graded as the best case. The graphical representation of NPV and
DPI is shown in Figure 2-50.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 85 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Plot of NPV and DPI

10 0.9
0.83 8.8
9 8.3 0.8
8 0.7
0.68
7
6 0.6
NPV (MM $)

6 5.1 0.5

DPI
5 0.47
4.3
0.4
4 0.34
0.31 0.3
3
2 0.2
1 0.1
0 0
Laterals from Vertical wells Vertical wells- Horizontal wells Vertical wells +
existing wells Maximum Horizontal Wells
Drainage Maximum
Drainage

NPV (MM $) DPI

Figure 2-50: Graphical representation of NPV and DPI for every prediction scenario

Detailed economic analysis is present in the Annexure – Economics in Volume IX of the report.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 86 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2 Infill Well Justification

The FDP proposes a total of 6 vertical wells. To justify an infill well location, following checks
have been observed:

 EOH HCPV map: To identify sweet spots

 History Match status: To classify the sweet spot in terms of certainty
 Seismic Justification: To justify the structural position of the well. It also elucidates the
risk associated with the location of new well.
 Geological cross section: To justify the reservoir exposure of the well
 Offset wells’ performance
 Simulated production profile
 EOP HCPV map: To adjudge the sweep

The EOH HCPV maps, EOP HCPV maps are shown in respective sections of prediction cases.
The history match status for all the zones are shown in Figure 1.1, Figure 1.2, Figure 1.3 and
Figure 1.4. The simulated production and pressure profile are shown in Section 2.4. Offset
wells’ performance is shown in History Matching Report. In this section, Seismic justification
and Geological cross-section for all the new infill wells have been provided.

2.2.1 KV1
The Seismic section of KV1 is shown in Figure 2-51. Figure 2-52 and Figure 2-53 shows the
porosity and permeability cross-section along the well KV1. The figures justify the spatial
location of the infill well in a favorable location. These sections were used along with HCPV
maps to confirm the infill well location and the perforation interval.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 87 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-51: Seismic section of KV1

The location shows fault bounded closure. The main risk is attributed to small throw of the up-
dip fault.

Figure 2-52: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV1

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 88 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-53: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV1

2.2.2 KV2
The Seismic section of KV2 is shown in Figure 2-54. Figure 2-55 and Figure 2-56 shows the
porosity and permeability cross-section along the well KV2. The figures justify the spatial
location of the infill well in a favorable location. These sections were used along with HCPV
maps to confirm the infill well location and the perforation interval.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 89 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-54: Seismic section of KV2

KV2 is falling in the same segment as K2-K6-K7. Considerable throw in the up-dip fault indicates
that it can be considered as a potential location.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 90 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-55: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV2

Figure 2-56: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV2

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 91 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.3 KV3
The Seismic section of KV3 is shown in Figure 2-57. Figure 2-58 and Figure 2-59 shows the
porosity and permeability cross-section along the well KV3. The figures justify the spatial
location of the infill well in a favorable location. These sections were used along with HCPV
maps to confirm the infill well location and the perforation interval.

Figure 2-57: Seismic section of KV3

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 92 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-58: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV3

Figure 2-59: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV3

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 93 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.4 KV6
The Seismic section of KV6 is shown in Figure 2-60. Figure 2-61 and Figure 2-62 shows the
porosity and permeability cross-section along the well KV6. The figures justify the spatial
location of the infill well in a favorable location. These sections were used along with HCPV
maps to confirm the infill well location and the perforation interval.

Figure 2-60: Seismic section of KV6

KV6 lies towards the up-dip extension of the compartment consisting of K1 well. This block is
separated from the western sub-segment by North-South trending fault. Combination of this
analysis with Reservoir Engineering prospects of gas HCPV, this location is highly prospective
for development. The only risk in this location is low well-control.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 94 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-61: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV6

Figure 2-62: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV6

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 95 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.5 KV7
The Seismic section of KV7 is shown in Figure 2-63. Figure 2-64 and Figure 2-65 shows the
porosity and permeability cross-section along the well KV6. The figures justify the spatial
location of the infill well in a favorable location. These sections were used along with HCPV
maps to confirm the infill well location and the perforation interval.

Figure 2-63: Seismic section of KV7

Hydrocarbon presence in K2 and K6 makes this location very prospective. This location can be
considered as important development location to enhance the production from K2-K6-K7 sub-
block.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 96 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-64: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV7

Figure 2-65: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV7

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 97 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2.6 KV8
The Seismic section of KV8 is shown in Figure 2-66. Figure 2-67 and Figure 2-68 shows the
porosity and permeability cross-section along the well KV8. The figures justify the spatial
location of the infill well in a favorable location. These sections were used along with HCPV
maps to confirm the infill well location and the perforation interval.

Figure 2-66: Seismic section of KV8

KV8, falling within K3-K5-K10 sub-block is separated from the K2-K6-K7 sub-block by probable
sealing fault which is further validated in the analysis in K3 well. However, the relatively less
throw across the fault in this location can be considered as potential risk for this well.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 98 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-67: Cross-section of Porosity along well KV8

Figure 2-68: Cross-section of Permeability along well KV8

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 99 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.3 Simulated production profile of the blocks for recommended case

(Vertical_Maximum Drainage Case)
1. K3-K5-K10 block for Vertical Maximum Drainage Case

2. K2-K6-K7 block for Vertical Maximum Drainage Case

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 100 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3. K1 block for Vertical Maximum Drainage Case

4. K8-K9 block for Vertical Maximum Drainage Case

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 101 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.4 NFA Profiles of Existing Wells

Figure 2-69: Simulated pressure and production profile of K1

Figure 2-70: Simulated pressure and production profile of K2

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 102 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

It is to be noted that a higher pressure is observed in the simulation results, as compared to the
recorded data in well K2 (~100 bars). The initial pressure in the K2 segment is ~260 bars as
measured by ONGC in 1971 in well K2. Recoveries from this segment does not suggest this
drastic drop in pressure. The segment and well pressures can be matched with observed data
if the reservoir is delineated by a local barrier, making it smaller than the current extent.
However, the adverse effect of introducing a local barrier is that the gas production in the
segment falls much below the observed values. This entire exercise brings us to a conclusion
that observed pressure is not representative of the segment pressure and should be compared
with the simulated flowing bottom-hole pressure. The flowing bottom-hole pressures are
comparable to the recorded pressures.

Figure 2-71: Simulated pressure and production profile of K3

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 103 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-72: Simulated pressure and production profile of K5

Figure 2-73: Simulated pressure and production profile of K6

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 104 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-74: Simulated pressure and production profile of K7

Figure 2-75: Simulated pressure and production profile of K8

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 105 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-76: Simulated pressure and production profile of K9

Figure 2-77: Simulated pressure and production profile of K10

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 106 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.5 Casewise simulated pressure-production profile of new wells

2.5.1 Laterals Case
Figure 2-78 and Figure 2-79 show the simulated pressure and production profile of K10_Lateral
and K2_Lateral respectively.

Figure 2-78: Simulated pressure and production profile of K10_Lateral

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 107 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-79: Simulated pressure and production profile of K2_Lateral

2.5.2 Horizontal Wells Case

Figure 2-80 and Figure 2-81 show the simulated pressure and production profile of KH1 and
KH2 respectively.

Figure 2-80: Simulated pressure and production profile of KH1

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 108 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-81: Simulated pressure and production profile of KH2

2.5.3 Vertical Wells Case
Figure 2-82, Figure 2-83 and Figure 2-84 show the simulated pressure and production profile
of KV2, KV3 and KV6 respectively.

Figure 2-82: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV2

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 109 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-83: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV3

Figure 2-84: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV6

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 110 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.5.4 Vertical Wells Maximum Drainage

Figure 2-85, Figure 2-86, Figure 2-87, Figure 2-88, Figure 2-89 and Figure 2-90 show the
simulated pressure and production profile of KV2, KV3, KV6, KV7, KV1 and KV8 respectively.

Figure 2-85: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV2

Figure 2-86: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV3

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 111 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-87: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV6

Figure 2-88: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV7

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 112 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-89: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV1

Figure 2-90: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV8

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 113 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.5.5 Vertical Wells + Horizontal Wells Maximum Drainage

Figure 2-91, Figure 2-92, Figure 2-93, Figure 2-94, Figure 2-95 and Figure 2-96 show the
simulated pressure and production profile of KH1, KH2, KV1, KV8, KV7, KV6 and KV4
respectively.

Figure 2-91: Simulated pressure and production profile of KH1

Figure 2-92: Simulated pressure and production profile of KH2

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 114 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-93: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV1

Figure 2-94: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV8

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 115 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2-95: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV7

Figure 2-96: Simulated pressure and production profile of KV6

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 116 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3 Conclusions & Recommendations

Conclusions
1) Based on well-log correlations, sand markers, fault-network, reservoir pressure trends,
and initial fluid contacts; four segments have been considered for development in each
of the reservoir, non-communicating with each other. Summary of number of segments
in each reservoir of Kanawara segment is shown in Table 3-1:
Table 3-1: Segmentation Scheme of EP-IV Reservoir

Number of
Reservoir Layer Segments

4
EP IV Upper
4
EP IV Lower
8
Total

2) Overall history match quality in almost all the reservoirs is considered acceptable for the
models to be taken forward for FDP.
3) In the overall FDP of Kanawara, a mix of vertical, horizontal wells and laterals have been
suggested for a good recovery. FDP summary of Kanawara in terms of number of wells
and laterals is shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: FDP Summary of Kanawara EP-IV Reservoir

Number of
Number of Number of
Number of New
Case Existing New Vertical
Laterals Horizontal
wells Wells
Wells
NFA 9 - - -
Lateral Wells 9 2 - -
Vertical Wells 9 - 3 -
Vertical Wells Maximum
9 - 6
Drainage
Horizontal Well 9 - - 2
Horizontal + Vertical Wells
9 - 4 2
Maximum Drainage
* All the new vertical wells are common between both the reservoirs.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 117 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

4) Vertical Wells Maximum drainage case with the NPV of 8.3 MM USD and DPI of 0.47
can be considered the recommended prediction scenario.
5) The overall economic evaluation in terms of Net Present Value (NPV) estimation has
been done on all cases for each reservoirs. The NPV for Kanawara reservoir for the
proposed FDP cases are presented in Table 2-19 on Page 85.

Recommendations
Detailed recommendations are provided in the Technical Summary Report. Some of the
important FDP recommendations can be listed as follows:

1. Acquisition of more representative SCAL data on recent cores and downhole

representative PVT samples, especially in K2-K6-K7 block, could further help to reduce
the uncertainty about the current reservoir dynamics.
2. Use of this model as live tool integrated with more inputs from newly acquired data is
essential to evaluate the FDP execution.

3. Hydrocarbon migration, geology and nearby segment indicate the hydrocarbon

presence which is elaborated in the Section 9 of Geology and Static Modeling Report.
An infill well is recommended in Segment 4 to exploit the remaining hydrocarbon in that
area. Location of the new well in this segment was determined by HCPV sweet spots.
Table 3-3 shows the coordinate of new well. Figure 3-1 shows the location of the
recommended well in Segment 4. Figure 3-2 shows simulated production profile of
S4_NW. The NPV of the well excluding pipeline cost and fixed OPEX, is $1.8 MM up to
March 2028. It is essential to test EP-IV (U), EP-IV (L) separately with measurement of
pressure and PVT for proper reservoir characterization. Additional wells can be drilled
based on the production profile of the infill well.

One wells each is recommended in Segment 5 and Segment 6 to exploit the

hydrocarbon.

Table 3-3: Coordinate of new well in Segment 4

Well Segment X coordinate Y coordinate

S4_NW Segment 4 246324.37 2494875.06

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 118 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-1: Location of new well in Segment 4 on HCPV oil map for EP-IV(L) at EOH

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 119 of 120

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-2: Simulated production profile of S4_NW

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 120 of 120

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

Single Well Modeling Report

Vol. VII / IX

Tender No:
HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Name: Shivam Sharma Position: Reservoir Engineer

Document
Originator(s)
Name : Vinil Reddy Position: Production Optimization Engineer

Reviewed by Name: Ankit Agarwal Position: Reservoir Engineer

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Amendment Summary
Revision No Date Description
0.1 8-Dec-2015 Preliminary Issue
1.0 31-Mar-2016 Final Version
Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements,
empirical relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or
assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may
differ. Accordingly, Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or
completeness of any such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or
recommendation. Customer acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that
Schlumberger makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or
description in respect thereto. Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does
not warrant that any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or
recommendation is fit for a particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with
any government request or regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that
such services are delivered with the explicit understanding and agreement that any action
taken based on the services received shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim
shall be made against Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.
Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Contents

1 Single Well Predictive Modeling ..................................................................... 15

1.1 Executive Summary .................................................................................. 15

1.2 Introduction ............................................................................................... 16

1.3 Single well model ...................................................................................... 17

1.4 SWPM 1D Modeling from ELAN and Core-Log Integration ................... 19

1.5 Permeability Validation ............................................................................. 20

1.6 Rock-Type and Flow Unit Identification .................................................. 20

1.7 Flow Units .................................................................................................. 20

1.8 Rock types ................................................................................................. 21

1.9 Derivation of the Capillary Pressure ....................................................... 23

1.10Derivation of Relative Permeability ......................................................... 25

1.113-D Static Model ........................................................................................ 28

1.123-D Dynamic Model ................................................................................... 28

1.13Assumptions and Limitations .................................................................. 31

1.14Production predictions............................................................................. 31

1.15Economic Analysis ................................................................................... 34

2 K-10 Hydraulic fracturing treatment review ................................................... 36

2.1 Treatment Summary ................................................................................. 36

2.2 DataFRAC Review ..................................................................................... 37

2.3 MainFRAC Treatment ................................................................................ 41

2.4 Post Job Pressure History Matching ....................................................... 44

2.5 Optimum Fracturing Schedule Recommendations ................................ 46

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Figures

Figure 1 Flow chart of SWPM ................................................................................ 18

Figure 2 Open Hole Logs and ELAN Inputs used for Rock Typing.................... 19

Figure 3 Hydraulic flow units and rock types ...................................................... 21

Figure 4 Rock typing done in the interval (1644 m – 1670 m TVD) .................... 22

Figure 5 Saturation Height Function from Brooks-Corey in the interval (1644 m

– 1670 m TVD) ......................................................................................................... 24

Figure 6 QC plot of calibrated and measured water saturation ......................... 25

Figure 7 Saturation Height Function of Rock Type “0” ...................................... 25

Figure 8 Saturation Height Function of Rock Type “1” ...................................... 26

Figure 9 Saturation Height Function of Rock Type “2” ...................................... 26

Figure 10 Relative Permeability curve for Rock Type “0” .................................. 26

Figure 11 Relative Permeability curve for Rock Type “1” .................................. 27

Figure 12 Relative Permeability curve for Rock Type “2” .................................. 27

Figure 13 3-D model with Logarithmic gridding after static modeling .............. 28

Figure 14 vertical well with single stage frac ....................................................... 29

Figure 15 History matching plot ........................................................................... 29

Figure 16 Cumulative Oil production profiles of all the 5 cases ........................ 32

Figure 17 Cumulative Oil production profiles of all the 5 cases ........................ 33

Figure 18 Oil production rate profiles of all the 5 cases ..................................... 33

Figure 19 Bar chart of NPV of all the 5 cases ...................................................... 35

Figure 20 Bottom hole pressure Vs Pumping rate plot – Step Rate Test .......... 37

Figure 21 Calibration Injection PLOT ................................................................... 39

Figure 22 Net pressure plot ................................................................................... 39

Figure 23 Pressure matching for calibration injection ........................................ 40

Figure 24 Net pressure match ............................................................................... 41

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 25 Main Frac treatment plot ....................................................................... 43

Figure 26 MainFRAC job Pressure Match ............................................................ 44

Figure 27 Post frac matched estimated Frac geometry ...................................... 44

Figure 28 Estimated Frac Geometry ..................................................................... 46

Figure 29 Comparison Pumped frac geometry Vs Optimum geometry............. 50

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Tables

Table 1 - Production forecast summary ............................................................... 15

Table 2 – Input parameters for SWPM .................................................................. 16

Table 3 – Frac parameters used for modeling ..................................................... 29

Table 4 – Simulated cases ..................................................................................... 31

Table 5– Optimized Frac parameters .................................................................... 32

Table 6– Summary of production scenarios ........................................................ 34

Table 7– DPI for different Frac Stages.................................................................. 35

Table 7– Fracturing Operations ............................................................................ 37

Table 8– data frac summary .................................................................................. 38

Table 9– Frac parameters ...................................................................................... 46

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Single Well Predictive Modeling

1.1 Executive Summary

Single Well Predictive Modeling (SWPM) was carried out for the well K-10 in the zone of interest
(1644.2 m – 1670 m TVD) in order to provide a comparative flow simulation predictions for multiple
stages of hydraulic fractures for a horizontal well. A layer cake static model was created using the
existing K-10 (vertical well) data. This model was calibrated with the available pressure and rate
data of the well. This calibrated model was then used to simulate production of horizontal well with
multi stage fracturing. Sensitivity was carried out on the number of fracture stages. The production
forecasts simulated for different scenarios are shown in the table 1 below:

Table 1 - Production forecast summary

Stabilized
Drain hole Initial Production Production rate
Case Frac Stages
length (m) rate (std m3/day) (after 6 months in
std m3/day)

1 600 3 90 25.7
2 600 4 119 29.3
3 600 5 147 28.7
4 600 7 197 27.3
5 600 9 239 27

Based on the economic indicators, three stage is the recommended frac job (Section 1.15).

The study uses calibrated Brooke Corey relationship for capillary pressure derivation for different
rock types. The calibration was done using ELAN derived water saturation and the one predicted
from Brooke Corey relation. It is to be noted that SWPM estimation is independent of any near
boundary effects. The major assumptions and limitations of SWPM has been summarized in
section 1.13 of the report.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1.2 Introduction

SWPM study was conducted to identify the optimal stages of fracture in a horizontal well in
Kanawara field. The single well model was constructed using the available data from the existing
vertical well K10. After calibrating, it was used to forecast flowrates for multiple fracture stages
under common BHP control limit of 55 bar.

Reservoir production profile is estimated for the first six months of production along with the
corresponding depletion rates using 1500m X 1500 m of drainage area. The static model has been
created based on the ELAN interpretation using the open hole logs. For scenarios pertaining to
horizontal well, the same static model was considered and production forecast was made by
placing the drain hole in the hydrocarbon bearing zone. The general reservoir and fluid properties
are mentioned in the following table:

Table 2 – Input parameters for SWPM

Input Parameters
Datum Depth 1660 m TVD
Datum Pressure 3250 psia
Gas Gravity 0.7 sp.gr wrt air
Oil API (surface) 43.5
Downhole Oil density ~0.67 g/cc
Downhole Temperature 220 DegF
GOR 117 std m3/ std m3

The following sections present the methodology and results of SWPM applied in the studied well.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 16 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1.3 Single well model

SWPM is an interactive workflow driven application. The application was designed to provide the
user with the tools to easily build a 3D static model from 1D wellbore data which can be calibrated
with well test or production data, if available. This static model can be seamlessly passed to and
from ECLIPSE reservoir simulator, and evaluate various scenarios based on predefined objectives
of the specific workflow. Integration of existing core, pressure and production/testing data in the
model building and calibration phases provide a critical link between the wellbore and reservoir.

Once the most likely reservoir properties are estimated, SWPM is ready to be utilized for various
predictive scenarios, such as, customizing completion strategies and predicting well performance
considering the impact of the reservoir.

In order to maximize the understanding of the reservoirs, SWPM is the answer for minimizing time
consuming studies. A significant part of any successful completion operations and production
schemes lies upon the adequate quantification of reservoir uncertainties. Minimizing these
uncertainties is the main purpose of SWPM.

The basic workflow of SWPM is shown in Figure 1.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 1 Flow chart of SWPM

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 18 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1.4 SWPM 1D Modeling from ELAN and Core-Log Integration

Petrophysical interpretation results (porosity, permeability and fluid saturations) from petrophysical
ELAN evaluations were used to develop the SWPM 1D model using these logs along with
conventional logs. 1D modeling includes defining hydraulic flow units and rock types within the
zones of interest. Capillary pressure and relative permeability were derived and calibrated
internally using empirical relationships.

Figure 2 Open Hole Logs and ELAN Inputs used for Rock Typing

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1.5 Permeability Validation

Permeability is the key data to define the rock deliverability. Intrinsic permeability should be
calibrated with the permeability derived from the MDT/core analysis/Transient analysis. In this
case, permeability estimated from Rate Transient Analysis and Core Analysis have been used to
calibrate the intrinsic permeability to create Kint_mod channel.

1.6 Rock-Type and Flow Unit Identification

The first step is the identification of rock typing and hydraulic flow units. Rock types are intended to
describe the overall variability in the interval of interest and therefore, are the fundamental building
blocks for developing 1D and 3D static models.

Understanding the complex variations in the pore geometry within different lithofacies is essential
for improving reservoir description and exploitation. The classic discrimination of rock types was
based on the subjective geological observations and empirical relationships between the logs of
permeability versus porosity. However, for any porosity within a given rock type, permeability can
vary by several orders of magnitude, which indicates the existence of several flow units. Thus, the
identification of rock types and flow units for the entire region was of great importance.

1.7 Flow Units

Flow unit is defined as a discrete reservoir zone that is continuous laterally and vertically and
characterized by being composed of a single rock type. The flow unit classification can be
considered to describe the distribution of discrete intervals of each rock type as intersected by the
borehole. The hydraulic flow units and rock types are displayed in Figure 1.3.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1.8 Rock types

Rock types are units of rock deposited under similar conditions which experience similar
diagenetic processes (Gunter, et al., 1997), which resulted in a unique porosity-permeability
relationship and capillary behavior. Rock types are classified according to their petrophysical
properties, such as, porosity, capillary pressure, permeability, irreducible saturations or
saturations.

The identification of rock types and flow units is performed using two methods:
 Neural Net Analysis and

 Lorenz Plots (SMLP)

In the present work Rock typing was done using the Neural net analysis technique including the
Flow zone indicator, effective porosity and clay volume as described in the SPE review paper
number 30158. The rock type was refined to best match the observed petrophysical information. In
the zone of interest, layers with different flow units are shown in figure 4.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 4 Rock typing done in the interval (1644 m – 1670 m TVD)

With the identification of flow units and rock types, the next step in the development of 1D model
was to determine capillary pressure and saturation-height functions. The calculations require basic
reservoir properties such as types of phases present (Oil, gas & water, in this case), gravity values
(gas and oil gravity) and the initial conditions like Gas-Oil contact depth, free water level and static
reference pressure. The rock compressibility is also accounted for changes in pore volume.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1.9 Derivation of the Capillary Pressure

Drainage capillary pressure curves are required for each rock type to initialize hydrocarbon
saturation in the simulation model. Capillary pressure curves were derived for rock types using
Brooks-Corey method. In this method, the computation of the capillary pressure (Pc) is mainly
done using the entry pressure (Pe) and normalized water saturation (Sw*).

Pc  Pe * 1/ 
(S w ) (Brooks and Corey, 1964)

S wt  S wi
S w* 
Where
1  S wi

This method requires the input of irreducible water saturation, permeability and total porosity. The
process also uses calibration parameter lambda. The saturation information was derived from
ELAN to generate the capillary and saturation height functions.

In the case under evaluation, water in the zone of interest, is assumed to be at irreducible water
saturation post drainage. The water saturation was generated based on the average rock type
properties, fluid properties and water oil contact depth. The raw saturation curve derived from
Brooks Corey method was fine-tuned by changing the Brooks Corey coefficient for each of the
rock type till a reasonably well calibrated water saturation match was derived (pink curve on the
water saturation track, figure 5). An overall QC plot of calibrated and measured water saturation is
presented in figure 6.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 23 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 5 Saturation Height Function from Brooks-Corey in the interval (1644 m – 1670 m TVD)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 24 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 6 QC plot of calibrated and measured water saturation

1.10 Derivation of Relative Permeability

Relative permeability (Kr) curves were generated at each depth for an oil-gas system. The basic
information required for this computation is irreducible fluid saturations. A 2D log for each Kr type
is subsequently created to store the resulting curves at all depths and enable a colored visual
display. Based on FZI and Saturation Height Function results, Rock type 0, 1 and 2 were declared
as non-reservoir rock.

Figure 7 Saturation Height Function of Rock Type “0”

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 25 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 8 Saturation Height Function of Rock Type “1”

Figure 9 Saturation Height Function of Rock Type “2”

Figure 10 Relative Permeability curve for Rock Type “0”

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 26 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 11 Relative Permeability curve for Rock Type “1”

Figure 12 Relative Permeability curve for Rock Type “2”

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 27 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1.11 3-D Static Model

Once the rock types have been created and the petrophysical parameters derived, calibrated and
validated for each rock type, the 3D static model is built from the 1D model. The steps involved in
building the 3D static model include:

 Creating the zones to control lateral and vertical property population.

 Creating the 3D grid with defined drainage radius (Figure 13). This is the logarithmic
grid that has increasing cell size with increasing distance from the well.
 Populating the 3D gridded volume with the petrophysical properties (constant layers)
(Figure 13).
The Model was built using the dimension of 1500 m * 1500 m. The gridding was done
logarithmically from the well center to better capture the reservoir behavior near the well bore. The
following figure shows the orthogonal and the plan view of the 3-D model populated with various
reservoir properties.

Figure 13 3-D model with Logarithmic gridding after static modeling

1.12 3-D Dynamic Model

After preparing the static model, calibration was performed to match the available production
history. The case having vertical well with single stage fracturing was run as it replicates the
present K-10 well (please refer figure 14). The frac parameters used to create the model have
been summarized in Table 3. It has to be noted here that the fracture lengths in the single well
model can be different from the full field simulation model as higher conductivity can be modeled in
SWPM. BHP control of 1300 psi (expected BHP of K-10 well) was used to generate the production

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 28 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

profile. The predicted production profile showed a good match with the actual observed production
(please refer Figure 15).

Figure 14 vertical well with single stage frac

Table 3 – Frac parameters used for modeling

Effective conductivity 40000mD.m

Frac length in zone of interest 60m

Avg. propped width 0.06 in/1.5mm

Figure 15 History matching plot

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 29 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

After the model calibration, the 3-D model is ready for the future predictions for the well production
in the forward modelling step. For the prediction scenario, perforation depths and skin can be
defined and controlled through time. The time schedule and step rate can also be defined. The
production controls can be identified based on the pressure targets and limits, and/or economic
rate limits.

The dynamic simulation was done using the bottom hole pressure control of 800 psi at the top of
the perforation- depth 1660.15m TVDRT

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 30 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1.13 Assumptions and Limitations

 In Single Well Predictive Modeling, Petrophysical properties are assumed to be constant
laterally. SWPM uses homogeneous layer cake model. The results of SWPM may differ from
the full field modelling when heterogeneity in the reservoir is high.

 Reservoir boundaries are not modelled in the Single Well Model. Due to this the rates
predicted will be less accurate for longer simulation period.

 The channelled fracture length has been used as the fracture length in the model as this is the
major contributor to the incremental production.

 Layer cake modelling carried out using SWPM is a quick technique to compare various
production scenarios in terms of economic returns. Although SWPM results prove very useful
for relative comparison of different scenarios, full field model will provide more accurate
production forecast as it captures the formation heterogeneity and formation dip.

1.14 Production predictions

A total of 5 horizontal well scenarios were run with sensitivities on number of frac stages. Drain
hole length was kept constant at 600m as specified by GOGL. The following table describes the
simulated cases:

Table 4 – Simulated cases

Case Stages BHP control (in psi) Drain hole length (in m)

1 3 800 600

2 4 800 600

3 5 800 600

4 7 800 600

5 9 800 600

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 31 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

The models of all the 5 cases are shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16 Cumulative Oil production profiles of all the 5 cases

Hydraulic fracturing design was optimized based on the Mechanical Earth Model using the
Mangrove and Fracade software. The following are the optimized frac parameters which were
used in the models:

Table 5– Optimized Frac parameters

Effective conductivity 40000mD.m

Frac Half-length in zone of interest 60m

Avg. propped width 0.06 in/1.5mm

Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the cumulative production and production rate profiles respectively,
plotting all the simulated cases together for the period of 24 months

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 32 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 17 Cumulative Oil production profiles of all the 5 cases

Figure 18 Oil production rate profiles of all the 5 cases

The following table summarizes the initial production and stabilized production rates (rates after 6
months of production):

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 33 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 6– Summary of production scenarios

Stabilized
Initial Production
Case Stages Production rate (std
rate (std m3/day)
m3/day)

1 3 90 25.7
2 4 119 29.3
3 5 147 28.7
4 7 197 27.3
5 9 239 27

1.15 Economic Analysis

Economic analysis was carried out to evaluate all the cases from financial perspective. The
following inputs were used for the analysis:

Cash Outflow parameters

Capex Opex
Cost of Drilling a
Horizontal well with
600m Drain hole length 6000000 USD Oil Opex 22 USD/SCM
Per stage frac cost 350000 USD Gas Opex 5 USD/MSCM

Cash Inflow Calculations

Crude Oil sale price 315 USD/SCM
Gas sale price 158 USD/MSCM

Discounting Factor 15%

Tax 32.5%
Well capex depreciated over 12 years

The Net Present Value (NPV) of all the 5 cases were computed using the production forecast
obtained from simulation. NPV was calculated for the project period of 24 months. The 4 stage frac
case has the highest NPV of 1,649,729 USD. Figure 19 summarizes the NPV of all the five cases.
When we look into other economic parameter which is called DPI (Discounted Profit to Investment

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 34 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Ratio), 3 stage frac case is the most optimal case. Table 7 presents the DPI calculated for different
fracture stages.

NPV in million USD for 24 months of

production

1.64
1.8 1.55
1.5
1.6
1.4 1.1 3 stage
1.2
4 stage
1
0.64 5 stage
0.8
7 stage
0.6
9 stage
0.4
0.2
0
3 stage 4 stage 5 stage 7 stage 9 stage

Figure 19 Bar chart of NPV of all the 5 cases

Table 7– DPI for different Frac Stages

NPV
Fracture Investment
(Million DPI
Stages (Million $)
$)
3 1.55 1.05 1.48
4 1.64 1.4 1.17
5 1.5 1.75 0.86
7 1.1 2.45 0.45
9 0.64 3.15 0.20

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 35 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2 K-10 Hydraulic fracturing treatment review

2.1 Treatment Summary

Administration Data
Date of job completion 1-April-2014 Well Name K#10
Job Supervisor Amandeep Singh Field Name Kanawara
Fracturing Engineer Vishal Aggarwal Zone EP-IV Pay
Well Information
Well Type (Oil/Gas) Oil BHST [F] 235 degF
Max Deviation (deg) 0 Porosity [%]
Casing OD [in] 5.5” Work string OD [in] 2.875”
Perf Interval MD [m] 1660-1666 Perf Interval TVD [m] 1660-1666
Shot Density [spf] 6.00 Total perfs 118
Step Rate Test and Step Down Test
Type of Job Step Rate Test Treating Fluid L064 Brine
Max. Surface Pressure 4154 Frac Extension Rate [bpm] 5.8 BPM
[psi]
Closure Pressure [psi] 4483 Total Surface Friction Loss 1317
(psi)
Clean Fluid Pumped (bbl) 52 ISIP BH[psi] 5199
Calibration Injection
Type of Job Calibration Treating Fluid YF135FlexD
Injection
Max Treating Press [psi] 4321 Pump Rate [bpm] 14.2
BH ISIP [psi] 5394 Leakoff Coefficient [ft/min0.5] 1.5E-3 ft/min0.5
Closure Press [psi] 4810 Frac Gradient [psi/ft] 0.88
Fluid Efficiency [%] 55% Net Pressure [psi] 550
MainFRAC Treatment
Type of Job MainFRAC Treating Fluid YF135FlexD
Max Treating Press [psi] 4382 Type of Proppant used 20/40 Sand, S810
Rod-shaped
Proppant
Surface ISIP [psi] 3066 Maximum Pump Rate [bpm] 12
Slurry Vol Pumped [bbl] 1697 Clean Fluid Vol Pumped [bbl] 1589
Design Proppant Volume 101835 Actual Proppant Volume [lbs] 124430
[lbs]
Propped Frac Half Length 397.2 Average Propped Frac Width 0.046
[ft] [in]

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 36 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.2 DataFRAC Review

Timeline of Fracturing Operations

Table 8– Fracturing Operations

OPERATION DATE

31 March 2014 Step Rate & Step Down Tests and pressure decline monitoring for 8
hours

31 March 2014 Calibration Injection & Decline Monitoring

1 April 2014 MainFRAC Pumping

Step rate test

Main objective of pumping Step rate test is to estimate closure pressure with Frac extension rate
and pressure. Here is a table which summarizes all the information related to this test.

Figure 20 Bottom hole pressure Vs Pumping rate plot – Step Rate Test

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 37 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 9– data frac summary

Date of Injection 31 March 2014

Total Volume Injected 52 bbl

Max. Pumping Rate 7.2 bpm

Max. Surface Pressure 4154 psi

Surface ISIP 2811 psi

Closure Pressure 4483 psi

Closure Pressure Gradient 0.82 psi/ft

Closure Time 23 min

NWB Pore Pressure 3233 psi

Frac Extension Rate 2.5 bpm

Frac Extension Pressure 5378 psi

Calibration Injection:

Calibration Injection was pumped on 31 March 2014 at 14.2 bpm with 210 bbls of cross-linked
YF135FlexD fluid flushed by 42 bbls of linear Frac fluid. The pressure decline after this pumping
on the well was monitored for 4 hrs. for data collection.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 38 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 21 Calibration Injection PLOT

Figure 22 Net pressure plot

The Net Pressure Plot of Calibration Injection indicates controlled height growth.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 39 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Pressure match was performed to complete 3D match and confirm rock and fluid parameters. The
pressure matched calibrated properties were used for optimizing the main Frac design.

Figure 23 Pressure matching for calibration injection

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 40 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 24 Net pressure match

2.3 MainFRAC Treatment

The main fracturing treatment was pumped on 1 April 2014. The well was opened up and the PAD
was started at 13.5 bpm. Surface pressures began at 4000 psi. As the PPA stages continued, the
hydrostatic of the proppant helped in reducing surface pressures. The subsequent proppant stages
were stepped up as per the schedule and no abnormal rise in pressure was observed. The 7 PPA
stage of treatment was pumped with 20/40 sand and this stage was switched with 7 PPA pulsing
stage of Rod-shaped proppant. After the last pulsing stage finished, a small tail-in of RodPROP
was pumped and flush was called.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 41 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

As Measured Pump Schedule

Slurry Max
Slurry Pump Prop Prop
Ste Step Volume Rate Time Fluid Volume Prop
Conc Mass
Fluid Name Proppant Name Conc
p # Name (bbl/min (gal)
(bbl) (min) (PPA) (lb)
) (PPA)

1 PrePad 130.0 10.9 13.0 WF135 5452 0.0 0.0 0

2 PAD 430.0 12.0 35.7 YF135FlexD 18060 0.0 0.0 0

1.0 YF135FlexD
3 65.2 12.0 5.4 2677 Saudi Sand 20/40 1.2 0.0
PPA 1364
2.0 YF135FlexD Saudi Sand 20/40
4 99.4 12.0 8.3 4006 2.3 0.3
PPA 3842
3.0 YF135FlexD Saudi Sand 20/40
5 84.5 12.0 7.0 3336 3.2 0.0
PPA 5421
4.0 YF135FlexD Saudi Sand 20/40
6 92.1 12.0 7.7 3568 4.2 0.0
PPA 7510
5.0 YF135FlexD Saudi Sand 20/40
7 111.1 12.0 9.2 4215 5.1 0.1
PPA 11689
6.0 YF135FlexD Saudi Sand 20/40
8 193.0 12.0 16.0 7239 6.0 2.5
PPA 22913
7.0 YF135FlexD Saudi Sand 20/40
9 210.6 12.0 31.7 13972 7.4 1.4
PPA 55602

7.0 YF135FlexD S810 RodPROP High-

10 41.5 12.0 3.5 1596 7.8 0.0
PPA aspect-ratio proppant 5667
YF135FlexD S810 RodPROP High-
11 Tailin 39.1 12.0 3.3 1389 8.7 0.0
aspect-ratio proppant 6712
12 FLUSH 29.6 12.0 2.5 WF135 1233 0 0 0

Stage Pressures & Rates

Average Maximum Minimum
Average Slurry Maximum
Treating Treating Treating
Step # Step Name Rate Slurry Rate
Pressure Pressure Pressure
(bbl/min) (bbl/min)
(psi) (psi) (psi)
1 PrePad 10.9 12.1 3943 4382 0
2 PAD 12.0 12.1 4094 4174 3969
3 1.0 PPA 12.0 12.1 4023 4087 3973

4 2.0 PPA 12.0 12.0 3964 3993 3948

5 3.0 PPA 12.0 12.1 3937 3973 3915

6 4.0 PPA 12.0 12.0 3900 3936 3876

7 5.0 PPA 12.0 12.0 3845 3907 3802

8 6.0 PPA 12.0 12.1 3805 3861 3744

9 7.0 PPA 12.0 12.1 3793 3849 3742

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 42 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Stage Pressures & Rates

Average Maximum Minimum
Average Slurry Maximum
Treating Treating Treating
Step # Step Name Rate Slurry Rate
Pressure Pressure Pressure
(bbl/min) (bbl/min)
(psi) (psi) (psi)
10 7.0 PPA 12.0 12.1 3784 3960 3710
11 Tailin 12.0 12.1 3889 3995 3765

12 FLUSH 12.0 12.1 4164 4354 2875

As Measured Totals
Slurry Pump Time Clean Fluid Proppant
(bbl) (min) (gal) (lb)
1696.9 143.2 66741 120720

Figure 25 Main Frac treatment plot

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 43 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2.4 Post Job Pressure History Matching

Using the pressure data from the main pumping job, the pressure response can be analysed
to give an indication of the fracture geometry that was created during the job. In order to
match the pressure properly it is important to distinguish pressure contributions from: fluid
friction pressure, proppant friction pressure and hydrostatic variation due to slurry density.

Pressure matching has been conducted in Frac CADE and Mangrove models.

Figure 26 MainFRAC job Pressure Match

Figure 27 Post frac matched estimated Frac geometry

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 44 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Zone Name Top Gross Net Fracture Fracture

TVD/MD Height Height Width Channele
d Length
(m) (m) (m) (in)
(m)
SHALE 1608 13.8 0 0.052 30
SHALE 1621.9 20.6 0.0 0.053 43
DIRTY- 1642.5 9.6 0.0 0.067 62
SANDSTONE
SHALE 1652.0 4.6 9.6 0.026 62
DIRTY- 1656.6 9.1 0.0 0.06 62
SANDSTONE
SHALE 1665.7 3.1 9.1 0.059 62
DIRTY- 1668.8 1.6 3.1 0.06 62
SANDSTONE
SHALE 1670.4 34.2 1.6 0.063 93

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 45 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 28 Estimated Frac Geometry

Table 10– Frac parameters

Effective conductivity 40,000 mD.m

Frac length in zone of interest 60m

Avg. propped width 0.06 in/1.5mm

Frac Height 125m

2.5 Optimum Fracturing Schedule Recommendations

Various sensitives have been run on K-10 post frac matched model in Mangrove and Frac
CADE to optimize the fracturing design and schedule.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 46 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

With the existing vertical well dataset (Sonic & stress profile along the K-10 vertical well),
stage optimization based on the integration of in-situ rock mechanical properties and
petrophysical properties cannot be analyzed. The output of this stage analysis is the
optimum number of stages, stage length, the pinpoint location and design of the perforation
clusters along the lateral.

This analysis would require logging measurements along the lateral, which can be further
incorporated at the later phases.

 K-10 post main frac calibrated stress profile

Gros Young’
Zone top Frac Insitu
s s Poisson
Lithology MD/TVD Gradient Stress
heigh modul ’s ratio
(m) (psi/ft) (psi)
t (m) us (psi)
457000
SHALE 1608.1 13.8 0.922 4884 0.31
0
447000
SHALE 1621.9 20.6 0.954 5107 0.34
0
DIRTY-
374000
SANDSTON 1642.5 9.6 0.939 5076 0.35
0
E
403000
SHALE 1652 4 0.979 5311 0.38
0
DIRTY-
540000
SANDSTON 1656 10 0.929 5060 0.28
0
E
435000
SHALE 1666 2.8 0.941 5149 0.33
0
DIRTY-
509000
SANDSTON 1668.8 1.6 0.939 5144 0.31
0
E
430000
SHALE 1670.4 34.2 0.925 5124 0.32
0

Lack of significant stress barriers, resulted in Radial shaped fractures with Frac height
equivalently growing with half-length as observed in the previous job. Fracture height
invasion is not alarming, as there are no water zones in the vicinity.

Note: Isotropic geomechanical model generated stress profile for K-10 vertical well has been
calibrated to match K-10 post mainfrac pressures and being used for the below fracture
design optimization. However anisotropic measurements across the lateral, anisotropic

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 47 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Stress model increase the stress more dominantly in shale. This can change the below
design parameters.

 Optimized Fracturing schedule

Various sensitivities on Fluid viscosity, pumping rate, volumes, maximum PPA, fluid type
are modelled to derive the below optimum pumping schedule.

Overall the job design pumped on K-10 vertical well, has been the optimum fracturing
design and the above recommendations add minor changes to the previous job
design for better height reduction.
HiWAY schedule is being recommended to increase effective fracture length with its unique
channeled fracture resulting in high fracture conductivity. HiWAY schedule incorporates fiber
loading which retains proppant carrying capacity with reduced fluid viscosity and gaur
loading. This reduced fracture fluid viscosity can minimize height invasion.

Rock mechanical properties and HiWAY Index of the well suits HiWAY applicability.

HiWAY Optimum Schedule

Totals:

PAD volume ratio (%) 28

Total proppant (Lbs) 116, 900
Total Clean fluid (bbls) 1800
Total Slurry volume
(bbls) 2000

Recommendations on previous design:

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 48 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

 Fracturing Fluid:

YF130 FLEX fluid system (previously pumped fluid) has been recommended. Gaur loading
can be reduced to 30 lbs/gal from 35 loading (previous job) to reduce fluid viscosity. This
gaur loading has to be lab & site tested with well site chemicals & water to confirm the
proppant carrying capacity.

 Proppant:

Low strength proppant 20/40 (6000 psi maximum stress limit) will be under maximum stress
limit for 4800 – 5200 psi in situ stress. Over the longer duration of production, proppant pack
is prone to encounter additional cyclic stresses due to drag forces and bottom hole pressure
changes which can affect LSP proppant pack strength under the stress envelope of 4800 –
5200 psi insitu stress.

Proppant with slightly higher stress limit (8000 psi) is recommended to achieve good
proppant pack strength over the long duration of well production.

Tail-in with Rod shaped proppant is recommended to arrest proppant flow back and increase
near wellbore conductivity significantly with its unique cylindrical arrangement of proppant in
the pack.

 PAD Schedule:

PAD has been designed to include Linear and cross linked gel to reduce net pressures and
minimize height growth (similar to previous job).

 Fracture geometry comparison

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 49 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Fracture Optimum
geometry Fracture
pumped geometry

Figure 29 Comparison Pumped frac geometry Vs Optimum geometry

 Optimum Hydraulic Fracture geometry results:

Effective conductivity 52,000mD.m

Fracture length in zone of interest 99 m

Avg. propped width 0.09 in

Fracture height 107 m

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 50 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Single Well Modeling Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Note: Above optimum frac geometry is based on isotropic stress profile being generated for
K-10 vertical well. Anisotropic measurements across the lateral can change the above frac
geometry and schedule.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 51 of 51

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

Geomechanics Report

Vol. VIII / IX

Tender No:
HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Document Name: Chandreyi Chatterjee Position: Geomechanics Engineer

Originator(s)

Reviewed by Name: Somesh Bahuguna Position: Senior Geomechanics Engineer

Schlumberger confidential. © Copyright 2015 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.
Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Amendment Summary
Revision No Date Description
0.1 15-Mar-2016 Preliminary Issue
1.0 31-Mar-2016 Final Version

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements,
empirical relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or
assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may
differ. Accordingly, Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or
completeness of any such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or
recommendation. Customer acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that
Schlumberger makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or
description in respect thereto. Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does
not warrant that any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or
recommendation is fit for a particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with
any government request or regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that
such services are delivered with the explicit understanding and agreement that any action
taken based on the services received shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim
shall be made against Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 13

2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 14
3 Construction of 1D Mechanical Earth Model ................................................. 15

3.1 Data Preparation ....................................................................................... 15

3.1.1 Data Audit ............................................................................................ 15

3.2 Mechanical Stratigraphy ........................................................................... 17

3.3 Rock Mechanical Properties .................................................................... 18

3.3.1 Dynamic Elastic Properties ............................................................... 18

3.3.2 Rock Strength Parameters................................................................. 19

3.4 Vertical (Overburden) Stress.................................................................... 20

3.5 Pore Pressure ............................................................................................ 21

3.6 Horizontal Stress Direction ...................................................................... 22

3.7 Horizontal Stress Magnitudes .................................................................. 23

3.8 Wellbore Stability ...................................................................................... 26

3.8.1 Rock Failure Criteria........................................................................... 26

3.8.2 Mud Weight Window........................................................................... 27

3.8.3 Failure Analysis and History Matching ............................................. 28

3.8.4 Pre-drill Wellbore Stability Analysis ................................................. 30

4 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................. 32

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Map of Kanawara Field ....................................................................... 14

Figure 3-1: Work flow process for MEM construction ........................................ 15

Figure 3-2: Simplified mechanical stratigraphy. .................................................. 17

Figure 3-3: Mechanical stratigraphy for well K-10 ............................................... 18

Figure 3-4: Rock properties in well K-10 .............................................................. 20

Figure 3-5: Vertical stress profile for K-10 ........................................................... 21

Figure 3-6: Pore Pressure Model for K-10 ............................................................ 22

Figure 3-8: Relation between horizontal stress direction and borehole failure in
a vertical well. ......................................................................................................... 23

Figure 3-9: Process for determining H magnitude ............................................ 25

Figure 3-10: Stress profile for well K-10. .............................................................. 26

Figure 3-11: Safe and Stable Mud Window. ......................................................... 28

Figure 3-12: Post-drill wellbore stability model for K-10 .................................... 29

Figure 3-13: Pre-drill wellbore stability model for KH1 ....................................... 30

List of Tables
Table 3-1: Summary of available data for construction of MEM. ....................... 16

Table 4-1: Mud weight recommendation for well KH1 ........................................ 32

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Executive Summary
Geomechanical analysis is a part of the Kanawara FDP project carried out for GOGL. The
broad scope of work for geomechanics is as follows:

 Conduct a robust 1D Mechanical Earth Model (MEM) for well K-10 in Kanawara block.
 Perform wellbore stability analysis for one planned well.
The main conclusions of the Geomechanics modelling and wellbore stability study are
summarized as follows:
 Dynamic elastic properties are calculated using density, compressional and shear
slowness logs.
 Static elastic properties are calculated using correlations based on dynamic elastic
properties.
 UCS is calculated using correlation based on Static Young’s modulus.
 Friction angle has been estimated using Effective Porosity (PHIE) and Vshale.
 Stresses are calculated using poro-elastic correlation and calibrated with frac results
 Maximum horizontal stress direction is taken from the fault interpretation studies.
 Post-drill wellbore stability analysis is conducted to see the wellbore failure with drilled
mud weight and the safe mud weight window for drilling.
To improve the accuracy of the MEM and design the future wells better, it is recommended
that:
 Lateral variation of rock mechanical properties and stresses is observed across faults in
Kanawara block. Accurate estimation of stresses at each fault block is necessary for
hydraulic fracturing. For this purpose, sonic data which can characterize sonic
measurements azimuthally, radially and vertically should be acquired. These
measurements are then inverted to obtain formation damage, direct stress measurement
from sonic and to generate anisotropic stress model. Multi-arm caliper and image data
should also be acquired to characterize borehole failure and to invert it to obtain stress
azimuth and stress regime.
 FMI image log should be acquired to characterize the type and severity of borehole
enlargements to refine the MEM, horizontal stress direction, and make more accurate
predictions of mud weight. The type of wellbore failure (stress induced or spalling due to
overpressure) may also help define bounds on degree of overpressure.
 Multi-stage tri-axial laboratory tests on cores should be performed at different depths to
obtain rock strength and failure parameters more accurately to further refine MEM
parameters at all depths and hence make precise predictions for drilling, completions
 Lateral variations in rock properties and stresses are expected in between wells and also
within the field. 1D Modelling does not capture this variation. In this study an attempt has
been made to account for lateral variation, but with considerable uncertainty.
 A fully coupled 3D reservoir Geomechanics model will be more relevant in capturing
spatial distribution of rock properties and stresses and their variation during production.
 3D MEM provides more accurate wellbore stability, sand prediction and completion
integrity analysis over the production period.
 Other by-products of 3D MEM are – reservoir compaction, surface subsidence, fault
activation etc.
 A 3D MEM can be built upon output of current study.
 It is recommended to conduct a post-drill evaluation for planned well after it has been
drilled and the MEM should be accordingly calibrated for the planned well thereafter

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2 Introduction
The study area (Fig 2.1) for the “Kanawara FDP” is located in the Cambay-Tarapur tectonic
block of the Cambay basin. The general stratigraphy of the Cambay basin is shown in
geological discussion. The main hydrocarbon bearing reservoir is confined to the EP-IV level
(deposited in middle Eocene) with structural cum stratigraphic traps in a siliciclastic
environment.
Figure 2.1 gives the relative position of wells in the Kanawara block.

The detailed scope of work is as follows:

 Conduct a robust 1D Mechanical Earth model for K-10 in Kanawara block
 Perform wellbore stability analysis for well K-10.
 Perform pre-drill wellbore stability model for a planned well near K-10
 Perform uncertainty analysis to understand the robustness of the model.
 Recommendations for plan well drilling and further data to be acquired.

Figure 2-1: Map of Kanawara Field

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 14 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3 Construction of 1D Mechanical Earth Model

The fundamental approach for any geomechanical analysis is to integrate all available data
or indications of rock strength, deformability, in-situ stress, pore pressure, etc., into a
Mechanical Earth Model (MEM), then to calibrate this MEM as rigorously as possible using
available measurements and observations in order to arrive at an internally consistent
representation of the key geomechanical properties and parameters needed for subsequent
analyses and engineering designs (Plumb et al., 2000). MEM can be revised and updated
as more data becomes available (i.e., in real-time during drilling, or after new logs or field
measurements are acquired), and it may include some time-dependent components that
reflect geomechanical changes occurring over the life of a field such as pore pressure
changes with production and injection operations.
A simplified workflow of MEM construction is illustrated in Figure 3.1. In analysing various
data sets, there are a series of steps that must be followed in order to fully grasp the quality
of data and determine uncertainty in conclusions drawn from data used. Skipping or ignoring
the importance of any one of these steps can lead to inconsistencies or poor assumptions in
the results.
Based on the workflow of MEM construction, MEM for well K-10 was constructed in this study
using the open-hole conventional logs data provided by GOGL.

Figure 3-1: Work flow process for MEM construction

3.1 Data Preparation

3.1.1 Data Audit

Building a MEM consists of integrating data from various sources in order to accurately
describe the formations in terms of geomechanical attributes, and the data audit is the first
step in the generation of a MEM. Data audit is conducted to identify completeness,
correctness and availability of the input data that is relevant to the construction of a MEM.
Brief summary of data relevant for this geomechanical study for K-10 is given in Table 3.1.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 3-1: Summary of available data for construction of MEM.

In general, logs were of good quality and complete. Key logs e.g. sonic compressional and
shear slowness, density etc. were available. Rock mechanics test for calibration of
mechanical property were also available for EPIV Lower sand.
Complete suite of sonic log (both compressional and shear) is present only in K-10. Lateral
variation in rock mechanical properties and stresses are observed across the wells. Due to
some data gaps present in the already drilled wells following acquisition are recommended
for the future wells:
1. Leak-off tests or micro-frac tests to calibrate the minimum horizontal stress magnitude.
2. Complete suite of sonic log, and anisotropy analysis in laminated reservoirs for
horizontal stress calibration.
3. Image or multi-arm caliper log for borehole condition and validation of stress direction.
4. Core results of rock mechanical properties and strength parameters from triaxial test.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 16 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.2 Mechanical Stratigraphy

Mechanical response and properties of grain-supported and clay-supported formations,
usually differ significantly (Figure 3.2). The classification of mechanical stratigraphy enables
us to calculate rock mechanical properties or in-situ stresses differently, if needed, in
different facies.

Figure 3-2: Simplified mechanical stratigraphy.

There are a number of techniques available to differentiate grain-supported formation from

clay-supported formation or carbonates based on their log responses and signatures, often
involving cross-plots between different log-derived properties. In the current study, the
lithology includes sandstone, shale and coal (Figure 3.3). The differentiation of grain-
supported formation from clay-supported formation was achieved by applying a threshold to
the gamma ray log and crosscheck with available other open hole logs, master log and
drilling reports. The stratigraphic sequence in well K-10 is shown in Figure 3.3.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-3: Mechanical stratigraphy for well K-10

3.3 Rock Mechanical Properties

Dynamic rock mechanical properties were derived using the sonic and density logs. The
static rock properties were estimated using Schlumberger proprietary correlations.
Calibration was done with core test results in the reservoir and by predicting wellbore wall
failure with the given MEM and actual drill mud weight and comparing it with wellbore failure
as observed on callipers and drilling events in other formations. This process is further
explained in section

3.3.1 Dynamic Elastic Properties

Using compressional and shear slowness logs data together with the bulk density log,
dynamic elastic properties was calculated using the equations below (Fjaer et al, 1992):
b
Gdyn  13474.45 (3.1)
t s 2

 1  4
K dyn  13474.45 b  2
 Gdyn (3.2)
 
 c  3
t

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 18 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

9  Gdyn  K dyn
Edyn  (3.3)
Gdyn  3  K dyn

1
t s tc 2  1
 dyn 2 (3.4)
t s tc 2  1

where, Gdyn is dynamic shear modulus in Mpsi, Kdyn is dynamic bulk modulus in Mpsi, Edyn is
dynamic Young’s modulus in Mpsi, dyn is dynamic Poisson’s ratio, b is bulk density in SG,
and ts and tc are shear slowness and compressional slowness (both in s/ft), respectively.
The elastic moduli determined from Equation (3.1) to Equation (3.4) are termed dynamic
since the sonic measurements are conducted with very high frequencies (around 10 kHz),
involve very small strains, and the formations exhibit what is essentially an un-drained
response. Under these dynamic conditions, involving propagation of an elastic wave, the
rock exhibits a stiffer response than they would under static loading such as in a rock
mechanical laboratory test or under static loading in the ground or near to a wellbore or
completion. Since wellbore deformation and failure involve what is a relatively slower
process compared to high frequency wave propagation, static data are needed for
geomechanical analysis such as wellbore stability.
The ratio of static to dynamic Young's modulus is dependent on porosity, confining pressure,
degree of loading, as well as other factors. Typically, the dynamic Young’s modulus can be 2
to 3 times larger than the static Young’s modulus in softer rocks. Static Young’s Modulus
and Poisson’s ratio have been determined from dynamic elastic properties using
Schlumberger propriety correlations.

3.3.2 Rock Strength Parameters

Rock strength parameters include unconfined compressive strength (UCS), friction angle
and tensile strength and are key parameters for building and calibrating the MEM. There are
number of empirical correlations available to derive rock strength parameters from
mechanical properties such as elastic moduli, petrophysical properties such as porosity or
sonic velocity, and drilling data such as rate of penetration (ROP). The preferred way is to
establish a correlation based on core data from the concerned well/field.
In this study UCS is derived using Schlumberger proprietary correlation based on static
Young’s modulus. Friction angle (FANG) depends on several factors including mineralogy,
lithological variations, porosity and shaliness. For current study, FANG has been estimated
using effective porosity (PHIE) and Vshale.
Tensile strength of the formation is used to evaluate the tensile failure of the borehole due to
stress concentration. Compared to UCS, tensile strength is very low, and is normally in the
range of 1/12 to 1/8 of the UCS. Tensile strength was estimated at 1/10 of UCS in this study.
Figures 3.4 describes the rock mechanical properties of well K-10.
The description of curves in these figures, from left to right, is as follows:
Track 1: Depth (MD)
Track 2: Stratigraphy
Track 3: Mechanical Stratigraphy (Formation Lithology) with GR curve
Track 4: Depth (TVD)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Track 5: Dynamic Young’s modulus (E_dyn) with Dynamic Poisson’s ratios (Pr_dyn)
Track 6: Static Young’s modulus (E_sta) with Static Poisson’s ratios (Pr_sta)
Track 7: Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) with Tensile Strength (TSTR)
Track 8: Frictional angle (FANG)

Figure 3-4: Rock properties in well K-10

3.4 Vertical (Overburden) Stress

The overburden stress at a given depth below ground surface is the weight of overlying earth
material and can be calculated by integrating the density log for the above formations given
by the following equation:
z
 z    z   g  dz (3.6)
0

Where z is overburden stress,  is formation density and g is gravitational constant.

Unavailability of data for certain formations and quality of density log can affect the
calculated overburden stress. In the interval of missing density, density was extrapolated
using a power law curve. The curve can be described by the following equation:
 b   sur  A0  (TVD  WD  AG ) (3.7)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Where sur, A0 and  are three fitting parameters, TVD is true vertical depth, WD is water
depth and AG is air gap.
The parameters for the power law curve were determined by adjusting the three reference
points to match the power law curve to the density log over the depth interval for which
density data was available. In order to reduce uncertainty, density log from nearby wells
were taken to guide the density estimation as shallow depth. Vertical stress profiles for K-10
well is shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3-5: Vertical stress profile for K-10

3.5 Pore Pressure

Pore pressure is an important component of the MEM, and critical to the calculation of
horizontal stresses, wellbore stability analysis and other geomechanics applications. Apart
from direct measurements from well test/MDT tests, pore pressure can be estimated in shaly
intervals using several log-based methods (Eaton’s, Bower’s and Miller’s), each typically
relating velocity or/and resistivity to the pressure signal in the formation due to under-
compaction.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

In this study, sonic logs are used to identify pore pressure trends in shale/claystone and the
estimated pore pressure is calibrated using the mud weight used during drilling, MDT reports
and frac reports. Pore pressure profile is shown in Fig 3.6.
Formation pressure is close to hydrostatic till Babaguru formation. From base of Babaguru
formation pore pressure shows an increasing trend ranging from 8.65ppg EMW to 12.26 ppg
EMW (based on pressure measurements in K-10).

Figure 3-6: Pore Pressure Model for K-10

3.6 Horizontal Stress Direction

Common stress azimuth indicators are breakouts and tensile failure as observed in images,
breakouts as observed in directional calipers and shear sonic anisotropy as measured by
sonic tools. The relationship between stress direction and type of failure is schematically
shown in Figure 3.7. In well K-10, major fault direction is N-S, so it is taken as the maximum
horizontal stress direction. However, this is not a preferred way of obtaining stress directions
since fault may conform to paleo stresses. Analysis based on callipers, images or sonic
anisotropy are accurate and indicate current day stress directions.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-7: Relation between horizontal stress direction and borehole failure in a
vertical well.

3.7 Horizontal Stress Magnitudes

Determination of accurate horizontal stress magnitudes is one of the most difficult stages in
the construction of MEM since this data cannot be directly measured or deduced from log
measurements without some modelling. Lack of calibration points can be a significant
limitation since the in-situ stresses are strongly influenced by geological setting and events
that may not be fully captured through the modelling. To reduce this uncertainty in this study,
the following approach was adopted.
One of the basic components of in situ stress state is the minimum horizontal stress h which
is also referred as fracture pressure. It is derived primarily from gravitational loading in the
rock (i.e., the overburden stress), with further perturbations due to tectonic and thermal
effects, etc. Due to sedimentation and deposition, the reservoir is buried deep below the
ground surface, and some creep or spreading occurs. The reservoir may also experience a
number of geological events such as faulting or thermal changes and ultimately, strains will
occur in the horizontal directions. Hence, poro-elastic model is used to make the initial
estimation of minimum horizontal stress using static Young’s modulus, static Poison’s ratio,
pore pressure and overburden stress.
Using simple poro-elastic theory, we obtain:
  E E
h V  Pp  Pp  2  x  2 y
1 1 1 1
  E E
 V  Pp  Pp  2  x  2 y
1 1 1 1
H
… Eqn. (3.8 & 3.9)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 23 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

where,
 h is minimum horizontal stress,  H is maximum horizontal stress,  V is
overburden stress,  is Biot elastic constant, Pp is pore pressure, and x and y are strains in
minimum horizontal stress and maximum horizontal stress direction, respectively.
Mohr-Coulomb failure model can also be used to compute the lower limit of minimum
horizontal stress, and thereby constrain the modelled stress magnitudes within permissible
limits. The Mohr-Coulomb failure model is a failure model that assumes the formation is at
the post-failure residual stress condition after the geological process (tectonic or
sedimentary deposition). It assumes that the maximum in-situ stress is governed by the
shear strength of the formation, which is characterized by the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:
 1  Pp C0  tan2 ( / 4  /2)( 3  Pp )
… Eqn. (3.10)
Where, 1 is maximum principal stress, 3 is minimum principal stress,  is Biot elastic
constant,  is friction angle, Pp is pore pressure, and C0 is unconfined compressive
strength.
C0 is generally negligible because the critical shear stress is probably controlled more by
friction along pre-existing planes of failure than by the peak shear strength of the rock. Thus,
the equation can be written as:
( 1  Pp)
 tan2 ( / 4   / 2)
( 3  Pp) … Eqn. (3.11)
This model is not limited to any specific deformation mechanism or stress regime. It can be
applied to sedimentary basins subjected to either active tectonic compression or extension.
With the premise of the maximum principal stress (1) will be the overburden stress (v) and
hence, the lower limit of the minimum horizontal stress can be obtained by:
( v  Pp)
 hll  Pp
tan2 ( / 4   / 2) … Eqn. (3.12)
Where,  h is lower limit of minimum horizontal stress, v is overburden stress,  is Biot
ll

elastic constant,  is friction angle, and Pp is pore pressure. Thus, any minimum horizontal
stress (h) from the poro-elastic model cannot be lower than
 llh as otherwise the limiting

equilibrium will be dishonoured.

Unlike minimum horizontal stress ( h), direct measurement of maximum horizontal stress
( H) is not possible. However, it can be inferred through modelling similar to that for h, but
using additional constraints from wellbore failure as indicated by caliper logs or images.
Shear failure (wellbore breakout due to low mud weight) is the most common occurrence,
although drilling-induced fracture (hydraulic fracture due to high mud weight and/or thermal
effects) can also be used to estimate H H through modelling, the process
shown in Figure 3-8 is usually applied.
Therefore, after having established a lower and upper limit of the minimum and maximum
horizontal stresses, the continuous profile of the horizontal stresses is computed using the
poro-elastic horizontal strain method. Further calibration of minimum horizontal stress profile
is conducted using the LOT/minifrac/DataFrac and the maximum horizontal stress is
adjusted until the predicted failures are in good agreement with the observed borehole
failures indicated by the caliper log and borehole images.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 24 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-8: Process for determining H magnitude

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 25 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3-9: Stress profile for well K-10.

3.8 Wellbore Stability

The best way to calibrate the MEM is to verify the predictability of the model. Using the
estimated rock properties and calibrated horizontal stresses, wellbore stability analysis tells
us how good the MEM is by comparing the predicted wellbore stability with the drilling events
and observed hole condition from image and caliper logs.
With available MEM and the well trajectory, the stress concentrations around the borehole is
calculated with the MEM as input data, and the principal stresses around the borehole can
then be compared to the rock failure criteria to determine whether the borehole wall failure
has occurred or not.

3.8.1 Rock Failure Criteria

Stress induced failure of rock around the wellbore during drilling could be of two types,
tensile failure or shear failure. Shear failure is usually caused by low mud weight while
tensile failure is caused by high mud weight and/or high stress anisotropy. Several methods
exist for predicting rock failure (and wellbore instability). The most commonly used failure
criteria include Mohr Coulomb and Modified Lade to determine shear failure, and Maximum
Tensile Stress criteria to determine tensile failure.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 26 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

The Mohr Coulomb criterion uses unconfined compressive strength, modified from the log
prediction to account for plasticity and other effects, and the angle of internal friction to
locate the failure envelope. The equation is:

 1'  UCS   3 '*tan  

2
(3.13)

Where 1’ and 3’ are maximum and minimum effective principal stresses and

 
  (3.14)
4 2
Where  = friction angle.
The Maximum Tensile Stress criterion predicts failure as soon as the minimum effective
principal stress reaches the tensile strength of the rock.

 3 '  TSTR (3.15)

3.8.2 Mud Weight Window

One of the outputs of the wellbore stability analysis is a mud weight window. Figure 3.26
illustrates the concept of the mud weight window. There are four critical values in defining
the mud weight window:
Pore pressure (Pp) - If the mud weight (i.e., borehole pressure) is less than the pore
pressure during drilling, pressure cavings, wellbore washout, kicks and even well blowout
can be expected. The consequences can be very severe. Swabbing, that might reduce the
instantaneous hole pressure below the pore pressure, can have a similar effect.
Minimum mud weight (Mw) for preventing breakout - If the mud weight is less than this
value, borehole breakout will happen, because the mud support to the borehole wall is not
enough. The lower the mud weight below this value, the more severe the breakout will
become. Swabbing, that might reduce the instantaneous hole pressure below this equivalent
mud weight, can have a similar effect.
Minimum horizontal stress (h) - If natural fractures or any other conductive fissures exist
around the wellbore, or in the presence of a highly permeable thick zone, the mud pressure
that is higher than the minimum horizontal stress (known in drilling as fracture pressure P frac)
may reopen the natural fractures/fissures, causing drilling fluid losses in the formation. In
highly fractured formations, any well pressure in excess of the minimum horizontal stress
can cause geometrical failure and movement (into the hole) of the otherwise intact blocks.
Excessive ECD or surging the hole during tripping can have a similar effect.
Formation breakdown pressure (FBP) - When the mud pressure is higher than the formation
breakdown pressure, tensile failure can occur in the intact rock and hydraulic fractures will
be induced on the borehole wall. This can cause significant mud losses, particularly if the
mud pressure is also higher than the minimum horizontal stress.
It is clear that the ideal mud weight should be higher than the pore pressure and the
minimum mud weight for preventing breakout, and should be lower than the minimum
horizontal stress and the formation breakdown pressure.
Please note that, although the above critical values are illustrated in that specific order, the
order can be different, depending on the stress regimes and borehole geometries. For
instance, the minimum mud weight for preventing breakout can be lower than the pore

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 27 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

pressure, and the minimum horizontal stress can be higher than the formation breakdown
pressure. In some cases, the minimum horizontal stress or the formation breakdown
pressure can be lower than the minimum mud weight for preventing breakout, and this is the
case where stable mud weight does not exist, in which case one or both types of problems
need to be managed.

Figure 3-10: Safe and Stable Mud Window.

Whatever the order, it can be seen that an ideal mud weight would be higher than the pore
pressure and the minimum mud weight for preventing breakouts, but lower than the
minimum horizontal stress and formation breakdown pressure (i.e., both safe and stable)
Fig3.10.

3.8.3 Failure Analysis and History Matching

The Schlumberger’s approach for wellbore stability analysis and mud weight predictions is
based on comprehensive understanding of current drilling experiences. This information is
acquired from drilling and completion reports and problems encountered during drilling are
classified into different categories. Based on the drilling experience for the given mud weight,
in-situ stresses/pressure and the rock strength, a geomechanical model is developed. The
model predicts downhole conditions such as breakouts and induced tensile cracks.
Depending upon the stress state and formation properties the breakouts and induced cracks
may be present or absent. In addition, if they exist, their severity may change along wellbore
trajectory as in-situ stresses and formation properties can vary along the wellbore trajectory.
The predicted borehole condition is compared to actual downhole measurements
(caliper/image) and the drilling events in order to ensure that all parameters included in the
model are well-constrained and are capable of predicting the downhole conditions with
reasonable accuracy. The calibrated model is then utilized to conduct stimulation design,
predict mud weights during drilling for planned vertical and deviated wells, or perform other
analysis.
The post drill MEM developed for K-10 was calibrated using the failure indicated on caliper
logs and drilling events. The results are displayed in Figure 3.11 respectively. The

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 28 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

explanations of curves in the different tracks in these figures are as follows (from left to
right):
 Track 1: Measured depth(MD,m);
 Track 2: Stratigraphy
 Track 3: Mechanical Stratigraphy with GR curve;
 Track 4: True Vertical Depth(TVD,m) with Casing size
 Track 5: Computed pore pressure, stresses, calibration points (MDT, LOT/FIT etc.) and
minimum horizontal stress direction;
 Track 6: Calculated Rock Elastic properties
 Track 7: Unconfined compressive strength (UCS), friction angle,
 Track 8: Mud weight window including kick (grey), shear failure or breakout (yellow),
losses (light blue) and breakdown (dark blue) mud weights. Mud weight used
while drilling is shown as a black curve.
 Track 9: Synthetic failure image.
 Track10: Actual hole size log from wireline caliper and bit size to locate borehole failure
for history matching.

Figure 3-11: Post-drill wellbore stability model for K-10

The comparison of the predicted borehole conditions using history matching with drilling
events and caliper log in the offset well suggests that the predicted wellbore wall failure
overall agrees well with caliper log and drilling events. This indicates that the rock strength
parameters and in-situ stresses are well-constrained.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 29 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.8.4 Pre-drill Wellbore Stability Analysis

The curtain section technique is used to propagate the intrinsic rock properties like
slowness, density, porosity, lithology, etc., from offset wells to plan well. Using the work flow
discussed in the Section 3.0 the rock elastic and strength properties are estimated at
planned well location. Pore pressure is estimated at the location of planned well using sonic
data and available calibration data from offset wells. The minimum and maximum horizontal
stresses are computed using the horizontal strain calibration factor. Based on these
estimated parameters the pre-drill MEM and WBS for the horizontal planned well KH1 is
constructed using K-10 as the offset well.

Figure 3-12: Pre-drill wellbore stability model for KH1

Safe mud weight window obtained from the MEM is used to optimize the mud weight through
wellbore stability analysis. Figures 3.12 shows the stable mud weight window for the planned
well KH1. The explanation of curves in the different tracks in these figures are as follows
(from left to right):
 Track 1: Measured depth(MD,m);
 Track 2: Stratigraphy
 Track 3: Mechanical Stratigraphy with GR curve;

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 30 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

 Track 4: True Vertical Depth(TVD,m) with Casing size

 Track 5: Computed pore pressure, stresses, calibration points (MDT, LOT/FIT etc.) and
minimum horizontal stress direction;
 Track 6: Calculated Rock Elastic properties
 Track 7: Unconfined compressive strength (UCS), friction angle,
 Track 8: Mud weight window including kick (grey), shear failure or breakout (yellow),
losses (light blue) and breakdown (dark blue) mud weights. Mud weight used
while drilling is shown as a black curve.
 Track 9: Synthetic failure image.
 Track10: Wellbore deviation and azimuth

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 31 of 33

Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

4 Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

 Post-drill MEM is constructed for well K-10 in Kanawara block.

 Minimum required log data for MEM construction is available below ~850m TVDSS
 Poisson’s ratio, Static Young’s modulus, UCS are calibrated with core test data in
reservoir section.
 Minimum horizontal stress direction is taken as E-W direction.
 Post-drill wellbore stability analysis is performed for K-10.
 Predicted hole failure from the wellbore stability analysis matched well with calliper.
 Pre-drill wellbore stability analysis is constructed for planned horizontal well KH1 based
on post-drill analysis of offset well K-10.
 Borehole failure will occur when the effective mud weight range is less than breakout
mud weight and seepage losses occur when it is more than mud loss gradient.

Recommendations

 Based on the mud weight window generated for the planned well, the mud weights to be
used for drilling the horizontal well are recommended. The recommended mud weights
will help in preventing mechanical failure of borehole wall. The current pre-drill model is
based on one single casing from Babaguru top to TD. However drilling a horizontal well
with this casing policy will reduce the mud weight window with high risk of losses and
severe wellbore damage. It is recommended to place a casing below the top of Kalol
formation to decrease the risk of losses and wellbore failure.
Table 4-1: Mud weight recommendation for well KH1

Depth (m, Proposed

Well MD)
Formation Mud Weight
Name
From To (ppg)

886 1205 Babaguru 11

1205 1370 Kathana, Tarapur 11.80

1370 1475 Tarapur 12.90

KH1

1475 1670 Tarapur, Kalol 13.60

1670 2131 Kalol 14

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 32 of 33

 Kanawara FDP - Geomechanics Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

 Variations in rock properties and stresses are expected in between wells and also within
the field. To capture possible lateral variation in rock mechanical properties across
faults, Sonic (both compressional and shear) acquisition is highly recommended in each
fault block.
 Shear sonic anisotropy provides non-destructive way of qualifying anisotropy and
measuring azimuth
 Further, to capture the variation in rock mechanical properties and stresses a fully
coupled 3D reservoir geomechanics model will be more relevant in capturing spatial
distribution of rock properties and stresses and their variation during production. A 3D
MEM can be built upon output of current study.
 3D MEM provides more accurate wellbore stability, and completion integrity analysis
over the production period. Other by-products of 3D MEM are – reservoir compaction,
surface subsidence, fault activation etc.
 Two possible approaches are identified for 3D Geomechanics study (Figure 4.1)
a. Acquire sonic logs in at least one well in southern fault block
 Benefits- It will capture lateral variation in rock mechanical properties across faults
and ensure better placement of wells and laterals for optimum production.
b. Derive Synthetic shear for each Fault block using rock physics model (already done
under current FDP study)
 Benefits- It will capture variation in rock mechanical properties and stresses but
with certain limitations.

Possible Approach
Ideal Alternative

1. Acquire sonic logs in at least one 2. Derive Synthetic shear for each
well in southern fault block Fault block using rock physics model
Benefits:
Benefits:
• Possible lateral variation in rock
mechanical properties across faults • MEM study for entire block using
• Proper measurement of stress derived shear and petrophysical
direction is necessary for properties.
placement of wells and laterals • Capture lateral variation in rock
• MEM for each fault block with mechanical properties to some
certainty extent.

3D MEM for entire block

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 33 of 33
Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

Artificial Lift Recommendation Report

Annexure

Tender No:

HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Document
Name: Shaktim Dutta Position: Production Engineer
Originator(s)
Reviewed by Name: Akshay Aggarwal Position: Reservoir Engineer

Schlumberger confidential. © Copyright 2015 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.
Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements,
empirical relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or
assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may
differ. Accordingly, Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or
completeness of any such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or
recommendation. Customer acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that
Schlumberger makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or
description in respect thereto. Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does
not warrant that any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or
recommendation is fit for a particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with
any government request or regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that
such services are delivered with the explicit understanding and agreement that any action
taken based on the services received shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim
shall be made against Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 5
2 Artificial Lift Selection ............................................................................... 5
3 Nodal Analysis ........................................................................................... 6
3.1 Lift Performance of K8 ........................................................................ 7
3.2 Lift Performance of K9 ...................................................................... 10
4 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 11
Appendix ......................................................................................................... 12

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 4 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Introduction
Artificial lift (AL) is a production technology solution that aids in lifting of the subsurface
fluids to surface. It is needed when the reservoir pressures do not sustain economic
flow rates or there is no fluid flow at all. Artificial Lift process transfers energy downhole
or decreases fluid density in the wellbore to improve the well deliverability. There are
multiple Artificial Lift techniques which are available in the industry. Most common
industry used practices are -

 Sucker Rod Pump (SRP)

 Hydraulic Jet Pump
 Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP)
 Gas Lift Valves
 Progressive Cavity Pump (PCP)
 Plunger Lift

A brief description of advantages and disadvantages of different AL techniques is

mentioned in the Appendix at the end of this document.

2 Artificial Lift Selection

Selection of the above mentioned AL techniques depends on multiple factors. These
can be broadly classified into –

 Well and Reservoir Characteristics

 Operational Problems
 Efficiency of Lift
 Long Term Reservoir Performance & Facility Constraints

Common guidelines on selection of suitable AL technique is summarized in Table 1.

Based on the mentioned criteria in the table, the best suitable and commercially viable
artificial lift method for Kanawara Field is Plunger Lift. Sucker Rod Pump with downhole
gas separation, since wells have high GOR, is also an equivalent alternative.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 1: Artificial Lift Selection criteria*

Hydrauli
Parameters ESP PCP SRP Gas Lift Plunger Lift
c Pump
Controlled
by injection
Depth (ft) < 10000 < 5000 < 17000 < 7500 rates & <10000
liquid
fallback
Volume
(scmd)
< 4770 < 715 < 2385 < 955 < 4775 <350

Temp (degC) 170 120 260 285 175 175

Deviation
(degrees)
0-90 0-60 0-90 0-60 0-60 0-60

Corrosion Good -
Good Fair Excellent Excellent Fair - Good
handling Excellent
Gas
handling
Fair Poor Good Fair Excellent Excellent
Solids
Fair Excellent Good Good-Fair Good Good
Handling
degAPI > 10 < 35 >8 >8 > 15 > 15
WO/PO WO/POO
Servicing WL WO/POOH WL WO/ POOH
OH H
Efficiency % 35-60 40-70 10-30 45-60 10-30 20-40

3 Nodal Analysis
Incremental oil from installation of SRP was analyzed using Nodal Analysis on vertical
flow correlation models of two wells, K8 and K9, built in PIPESIMTM. It is to be noted
that Plunger lift module is not available for this analysis. Nodal Analysis is a technique
to understand the inflow and outflow performance of a system composed of multiple
interacting components. Using a vertical flow correlation model of the well, inflow and
outflow performance of the well at bottom-hole can be optimized to achieve maximum
deliverability of the well.

Inflow performance (IPR) of the well is mainly governed by reservoir characteristics.

However, outflow performance/tubing performance relationship (TPR) of the well can
be improved by applying artificial lift techniques. The operating point of the well is
governed by the intersection of inflow and outflow curves (Figure 1).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 6 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 1: Schematic Nodal Analysis Plot

3.1 Lift Performance of K8

Well K8 model was designed in PIPESIMTM with the available reservoir and completion
data. Beggs and Brill revised correlation is used for calculation of pressure drop along
tubing flow. This correlation is common for flow in vertical wells. Nodal Analysis was
then carried out for two scenarios –

a) Without SRP
b) With SRP

Nodal Analysis sensitivity has been carried out with tubing head pressure of 400 psi as
estimated from the production data of the well. A SRP was modeled with a nominal rate
of 6 scmd and a drive rod diameter of 0.625 in at 4000 ft (1220 m) depth. Schematic
SRP model along with downhole gas separator designed is shown in Figure 2.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2: SRP model for Well K8

It is to be noted that the rod pump characteristics used is for comparative analysis only.
The actual specifications of the SRP to be installed as provided by the manufacturer
will be more representative for this Nodal calculation.

Nodal Analysis plot for both the scenarios is shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. As
observed from the operating points in both the plots, an incremental production of 6
bbl/d (~1 scmd) is expected post installation of SRP with a downhole gas separator
present working at 60% efficiency.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 8 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 3: Nodal Analysis Plot for K8 (Without SRP)

Figure 4: Nodal Analysis Plot for K8 (With SRP)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3.2 Lift Performance of K9

Similar to well K8 model, well K9 model was designed in PIPESIMTM with the available
reservoir and completion data. Beggs and Brill revised correlation is used for the
calculation of pressure drop along tubing flow. Nodal Analysis was then carried out for
two scenarios –

a) Without SRP
b) With SRP

Nodal Analysis sensitivity has been carried out with tubing head pressure of 1100 psi
as estimated from the production data of the well. Similar SRP parameters and setting
depth were used for well K9 also.

Nodal Analysis plot for both the scenarios is shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. As
observed from the operating points in both the plots, an incremental production of 6
bbl/d (~1 scmd) is expected post installation of SRP with a downhole gas separator
present working at 60% efficiency similar to well K8.

Figure 5: Nodal Analysis Plot for K9 (Without SRP)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 10 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 6: Nodal Analysis Plot for K9 (With SRP)

4 Conclusions and Recommendations

Wells in Kanawara Field have low-moderate liquid production rate, and varying gas
liquid ratio. Gas Lift demands more surface installation as well as additional gas
requirement for injection. ESP or other pumps are mostly suitable for high flowrates
and require additional surface facilities for their operational requirements. Based on
this, the table below lists the artificial lift requirements for different segments in the
Kanawara Field.

Segment Production Characteristics Artificial Lift Recommendation

K1 Low Oil, High GOR Self
K2-K6-
Low Oil, High GOR Self
K7
SRP with downhole gas
K8-K9 Moderate Oil, High GOR
separation/Plunger Lift

Well K10: SRP with downhole

K3-K5-
Moderate Oil, Moderate GOR gas separation/Plunger Lift
K10
Well K3-K5: SRP/Plunger Lift

Based on our designed SRP in K8-K9 segment wells, an incremental oil production of 1
scmd is expected. However, any variation in SRP specification will revise the
incremental gain.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Appendix

Sucker Rod Pump

Advantages:

 Best suitable for Low flow rate and high GLR wells with gas anchor & separator
downhole.
 Rod pumping systems can be used to reduce bottom-hole pressures to very low
levels
 Offer great flexibility for low-to-medium production rates.
 They are relatively simple to design, operate and maintain and adaptable to a
wide range of operating conditions.
 Surface and downhole equipment can easily be upgraded, and tends to have
high salvage values.
 Other factors:
Capital cost: Relatively simple system design with low installation cost.
Efficiency: Highly efficient compared to the current Artificial Lift techniques

Disadvantage:

 Operating Cost: Wear and tear of sucker rods may require regular maintenance

Hydraulic Pump

Advantages

 Retrievable without pulling tubing string

 No moving parts
 No problems in deviated wells
 Can use water as power source
 Easiness to perform chemical treatments
 Can handle high fluid rates
 Used for wells with wide range of depth, for flexibility, corrosive, sand
production, high-GOR environments

Relative Disadvantages:

 Relatively inefficient method

 Requires at least 20% submergence to approach best lift efficiency
 Complex system design and operation
 Very sensitive to any change in back-pressure
 Production of free gas through pump reduces ability to lift liquids
 Power oil systems are fire and environmental hazards
 High surface power pressures are required
 Requires proper and frequent supervision

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 12 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP)

Advantages

 Simple to install and operate

 Easy to install downhole sensors for system monitoring and control
 Can be integrated into reservoir management system
 Available in different sizes
 Lifting costs for high volumes relatively low
 Flexible if used with frequency variators
 Normally used in high-rate wells with high water-cut

Relative Disadvantages:

 Only applicable with electric power, high voltages are necessary

 Impractical in shallow, low volume wells
 Expensive to replace when fluid rate declines
 Cable may cause potential problems in handling tubulars
 Gas and solids production are troublesome
 Casing size limitation

Gas Lift

Advantages

 Can handle considerable amount of solids with minor problems

 Can handle very large volumes of fluid
 Easy to obtain downhole pressures and gradients
 Serviceable with wireline unit
 Crooked holes present no problem
 Corrosion is not usually as adverse
 If gas available in volume and pressure, lowest lifting costs

Relative Disadvantages:

 Poor drawdown capability, normally 130 psig per 1,000 ft of injection depth but
depends on gas gradient
 Casing must withstand gas injection pressure
 Good, dry and non-corrosive gas supply required
 Poor well testing since it requires accurate gas measurements and allocation

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 14

Kanawara FDP – AL Recommendation Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Progressive Cavity Pump

Advantages

 Simple to install and operate

 Easy to install downhole sensors for system monitoring and control
 Can be integrated into reservoir management system
 Lifting costs for high volumes relatively low
 Flexible if used with frequency variators
 Can handle heavy fluids and considerable amount of solids
 Lower power requirements compared to ESP
 Normally used in low rate shallow wells

Relative Disadvantages:

 Very sensitive to gas interference

 Only applicable with electric power but less power required than ESP
 Cable may cause potential problems in handling tubulars
 Casing size limitation
 Capital cost: Relatively low cost if power already available. Cost increases with
higher horsepower requirements and depth.
 Operating Cost is low but short run-life on stator or rotor have been observed.

Plunger lift

Advantages

 Low capital cost; if gas compressor is not required

 Good for low volume wells; reduces liquid fallback
 Can be used in highly deviated wells
 Excellent gas handling capacities

Relative Disadvantages:

 Insufficient downhole pressure can result in plunger hangup or sticking.

 Cannot be used during well testing.
 Fair performance for corrosive and scaled well environment.
 Poor sand/solids handling capacity: sand can restrict the plunger movement.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 14 of 14

Kanawara FDP – Economic Sensitivity Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1. Annexure - Economic Sensitivity

Sensitivities were carried out on oil price and gas price. Four different scenarios were
generated each for oil price and gas price. Figure 1-1 shows the result on NPV of
prediction cases with sensitivities on oil price. Figure 1-2 shows the result on NPV of
prediction cases with sensitivities on gas price. Gas prices do not significantly affect the
cases relatively, however higher oil prices make NPV returns better for horizontal well
cases relatively.

18 Oil Price ($/bbl) Sensitivity

16
14
12
NPV (MM $)

10
8
6
4
2

Oil Price ($/bbl) 0

40 50 60 70
NFA 0.7 1.9 3.1 4.3
Laterals 3.6 5.8 8 10.2
Vertical 4.9 7 9.2 11.4
Vertical_MaxDrain 6.3 9.3 12.2 15.1
Horizontal 1.6 3.9 6.1 8.4
Vertical+Hz_Max Drain 6.2 9.4 12.7 15.9

Figure 1-1: NPV Sensitivities on oil price

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 1 of 2

Kanawara FDP – Economic Sensitivity Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Gas Price ($/MMBTU) Sensitivity

14

12

NPV (MM $) 10

2
Gas Price ($/MMBtu)
0
3.5 4 4.5 5.5
NFA 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.8
Laterals 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.9
Vertical 6.4 7 7.7 8.9
Vertical_Max Drain 8.6 9.3 10 11.3
Horizontal 3.5 3.9 4.2 5
Vertical+Hz_Max Drain 8.7 9.4 10.1 11.5

Figure 1-2: NPV sensitivities on gas price

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 2 of 2

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

EOR Screening Report

Annexure

Tender No:
HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Document
Name: Shubham Mishra Position: Reservoir Engineer
Originator(s)

Reviewed by Name: Akshay Aggarwal Position: Senior Reservoir Engineer

Schlumberger confidential. © Copyright 2015 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.
Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements, empirical
relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or
assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may
differ. Accordingly, Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or
completeness of any such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or
recommendation. Customer acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that
Schlumberger makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or
description in respect thereto. Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does
not warrant that any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or
recommendation is fit for a particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with any
government request or regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that such
services are delivered with the explicit understanding and agreement that any action taken
based on the services received shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim shall be
made against Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Abbreviation
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
EORt EOR Decision Tool
ECL ECLIPSE Reservoir Simulator
FFM Full Field Model
HC Hydrocarbon
Kr Relative Permeability
LDE Local Displacement Efficiency
LGR Local Grid Refinement
NPV Net Present Value
Pc Capillary Pressure
PVT Pressure Volume Temperature
QA Quality Assurance
RRE Representative Reservoir Element
SP Single Porosity
VFP Vertical Flow Performance

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 4 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary
2 Input for the EP-IV Reservoir
3 Field Operating Considerations
4 Results
5 Appendix - EOR Agent Properties

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Executive Summary

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is a tertiary recovery mechanism utilized to

economically produce hydrocarbon untapped by primary and secondary recovery
mechanisms. EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) methods have a very wide range in
terms of application to various reservoir properties. Different recovery methods
generally applied in the industry are shown in the Figure 1-1 below.

Figure 1-1: Different EOR Methods

An analytical EOR screening method was used to estimate the most favorable
EOR technique to be applied in EP-IV reservoirs of Kanawara field. A collection of
reservoir parameters like API gravity, oil viscosity, oil saturation, thickness, dip
angle, summation of C1-C6 fraction of oil, etc. served as the input for EOR
screening.
The analytical EOR Screening using EORtTM, as a plugin to PetrelTM, is carried out
in four steps as shown in the Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2: EORt Analytical Screening Workflow

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

A brief description of the four processes in the workflow is described as follows:

 Data Preparation: This process involves reservoir description and data

validation to ensure that enough data of sufficient quality is available for
evaluation of EOR methods.
 Data Analysis: The tool analyses the input data in a data-driven workflow.
This enables qualitative evaluation of the EOR potential of a given field.
 Screening: Using analytical methods, analyzed parameters are checked
against a benchmark database of more than 2700 projects from around
the world. The output from this step is the EOR method most suitable for
the reservoir.
 Production Forecast: Using the EOR Screening result and the suggested
agent properties forecast scenarios can be run to check the full-field
feasibility of EOR.

EP-IV reservoir under consideration does not have any associated laboratory tests for
any IOR /EOR processes.

The result indicate that infill wells drilling are the best strategy for incremental
recovery for these reservoirs as none of the EOR find practical application in
Kanawara block.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 8 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2 Input for the EP-IV Reservoir

Formation Depth Datum Initial Formation Drive Depositional

name depth pressure type mechanism environment
(m)
(m) (bar)
EP IV 1660.8 Clastic Fluid Shallow
Lower expansion marine
Formation information

Formation name Porosity Permeability XY

(fraction) (mD)
EP IV Lower 0.1348 1.208
Formation property

Formation Oil Water Pressure Reservoir Solution

name saturation saturation temperature gas-oil ratio
(bar)
(fraction) (degC) (sm3/sm3)
EP IV Lower 0.22 190 104
Current reservoir condition

Formation name Oil API gravity Oil viscosity

(dAPI) (cP)
EP IV Lower 43.5 0.221
Fluid property

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

3 Field Operating Considerations

Operating parameter Yes/No Impacts

Is there ongoing IOR? No No impact.
Is there electrical submersible pump? No No impact.
Is there PCP? No No impact.
Is there Gas Lift? Yes No impact.
Is sliding sleeve completion used? No No impact.
Is it single zone completion? Yes No impact.
Is commingling flow present? No No impact.
Is there CO₂ source? No CO₂ injection not
recommended.
Is the oil likely to deposit asphaltene in contact with No No impact.
CO₂?
Can surface facilities be upgraded? Yes No impact.
Is the tubing corrosive-resistant? Yes No impact.
Is there surface pumping (HPS) facilities? Yes No impact.
Is there water source and handling capacity Yes No impact.
(storage and piping)?
Is there gas source and compressor facilities Yes No impact.
available?
Is there surface boiler facilities? Yes No impact.
Is chemical corrosion protection facility available? Yes No impact.
Is chemical disposal facility available? Yes No impact.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 10 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

4 Results
After analyzing and matching the input data with the industry database of 2700 EOR projects,
the results is a list of EOR methods which are ranked as per their applicability for the field as
shown in Table 4-1. While green color in the table indicates favorable EOR methods applicable
in the reservoir in consideration, red color indicates the EOR methods not applicable in the
reservoir in consideration. Pore Scale Ranking, Compatibility and Micro scale filtering are
calculated and scrutinized in numerical EOR Screening method, Industry Guidance is the most
significant parameter in analytical screening method.

Furthermore, an index is calculated for each method using a data-driven workflow to rank the
suggested EOR processes in terms of their importance for the reservoir in consideration. In
case of analytical screening, the index is calculated from industry guidance. The EOR method
with the highest index is the best method applicable for the reservoir.

For Kanawara block EP-IV reservoirs, miscible CO2 injection is screened as the most
applicable EOR method. However, in the absence of laboratory experiments results and EOR
pilots, it shall be highly uncertain to run a simulation with the suggested EOR method.
Therefore, no EOR scheme has been incorporated in the field development plan and the best
method to increase recovery in this field is to drill and stimulating more new wells.

Formation name Selected EOR scheme

EP-IV None

Table 4-1: Ranking of EOR methods for EP-IV reservoirs.

Pore scale Macro scale Industry

EOR agent Compatibility
ranking filtering guidance
CO₂ (miscible) NA 0.951
N₂ (immiscible) NA 0.730
Hydrocarbon
gas NA 0.619
(immiscible)
ASP NA 0.314
Surfactant NA 0.240
AS NA 0.101
Polymer NA 0.057
WAG
NA 0.000
(immiscible)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Pore scale Macro scale Industry

EOR agent Compatibility
ranking filtering guidance
Foam NA 0.000
Water NA NA
Low salt NA NA

5 Appendix - EOR Agent Properties

Polymer
Formation Rock Inaccessible Polymer Water Adsorption
name density pore volume concentration viscosity concentration
(kg/rm3) (kg/sm3) (cP) (kg/kg)
2640 0.05 2 8 0.00103
Displacement fluid properties

Surfactant
Formation Rock density Surfactant Water Adsorption
name (kg/rm3) concentration viscosity (cP) concentration
(kg/sm3) (kg/kg)
2640 1.426505042 0.6 0.00103
Displacement fluid properties (1)

Formation name SWCR SOWCR KRWR KRORW

0.15 0.1 0.15 1
Displacement fluid properties (2)

AS
Formation Rock Surfactant Alkaline Water Adsorption
name density concentration concentration viscosity concentration
(kg/rm3) (kg/sm3) (kg/sm3) (cP) (kg/kg)
2640 1.426505042 1.427 0.6 0.00103
Displacement fluid properties (1)

Formation name SWCR SOWCR KRWR KRORW

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 12 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

0.15 0.1 0.15 1

Displacement fluid properties (2)
ASP
Formation Rock Inaccessible Polymer Water Alkaline
name density pore volume concentration viscosity concentration
(kg/rm3) (kg/sm3) (cP) (kg/sm3)
2640 0.05 1.427 8 1.427
Displacement fluid properties (1)

Formation Adsorption concentration SWCR SOWCR KRWR KRORW

name (kg/kg)
0.00103 0.15 0.1 0.15 1
Displacement fluid properties (2)

Foam
Formation name Effective gas viscosity (cP) Foam concentration (kg/sm3)
500 0
Displacement fluid properties

Water
Formation name Water viscosity (cP)
0.6
Displacement fluid properties

LowSalt
Formation Water Salt SWCR SOWCR KRWR KRORW
name viscosity concentration
(cP) (kg/sm3)
0.6 1.427 0.15 0.1 0.15 1
Displacement fluid properties
N2
Formation name Gas viscosity (cP) Solvent viscosity (cP)
0.014 0.4
Displacement fluid properties

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

CO2
Formation name CO₂ (%) Gas viscosity (cP) Solvent viscosity (cP)
100 0.014 0.4
Displacement fluid properties

HCGas
Formation name Mw_C2-C6 Gas viscosity (cP) Solvent viscosity (cP)
50 0.014 0.4
Displacement fluid properties

WAG
Formation Water Gas viscosity Solvent Solvent
name viscosity (cP) (cP) viscosity (cP) fraction
0.6 0.014 0.4 0.5
Displacement fluid properties

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 14 of 15

Kanawara FDP – EOR Screening Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

6 Conclusion and Recommendation

CO2 miscible injection is the most suitable EOR method applicable in this reservoir by
analytical screening.

Ideally, the next process is to screen the model numerically for the most suitable EOR process.
The result from both numerical and analytical EOR screening are analyzed together to develop
coherence between the two and formulate the final EOR strategy for the reservoir.

Following the selection of EOR method, a comprehensive laboratory analysis should be

performed on the cores sensitizing on the properties of agent to obtain relevant curves for
EOR simulation run and also to test the feasibility at very micro level.

This is followed by a robust reservoir simulation exercise which generates the result of EOR
scenarios on a calibrated 3D model. The EOR prediction scenarios generated by reservoir
simulation shall now be quite certain because of availability of most of the required data.

The results of reservoir simulation are then executed on the field as a pilot and an analysis
should be made of the obtained results. If favorable, the EOR technique can be executed for
the entire field.

Figure 6-1 explains the EOR field implementation process.

Figure 6-1: EOR Process Components

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 15

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Annexure – FDP Scenarios Production

The production history of Kanawara block EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L) reservoir consisted of 9 wells. All the segments in EP-IV(U) are
targeted for gas except for K3-K5-K10 segment which is a Gas-Oil system. Further, all the segments in EP-IV(L) are targeted for oil
except for K1 segment which is a gas bearing. The primary production fluid type during history and FDP of this field per segment is
shown in Table 1. It is to be noted that Segment 4 (Segment between K1 block and K2-K6-K7 block) is sealing from all the
neighbouring blocks. Also, it has been classified as a 2P block, so no development well is proposed in this segment.

Table 1: EP-IV(U) and EP-IV(L): Primary Production Fluid-type during History and FDP
Primary Production Primary Production
Zone Segment
Target for History Target for FDP
K1 Gas Gas
K2-K6-K7 Gas Gas
EP-IV(U)
K3-K5-K10 Oil Oil
K8-K9 Gas Gas
K1 Gas Gas
K2-K6-K7 Oil Oil
EP-IV(L)
K3-K5-K10 Oil Oil
K8-K9 Oil Oil

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 1 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 2 shows EP-IV hydrocarbon reserves at the end of history.

Table 2 : EP-IV Reserves

Proved (P1) Probable (P2) Possible (P3)

Inplace EUR BOR @ EOH Inplace Inplace

Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
Oil Gas
(MMbbls) (MMm3) (MMbbls) (MMm3) (MMbbls) (MMm3) (MMbbls) (MMm3)
9.83 417 1.88 223.1 1.59 191.3 5 220.6 0 0

After identifying the primary production-fluid type (for FDP) for each reservoir, six different cases were considered to maximize the
field recovery. These cases are defined in Table 3.

Table 3 : Different Cases Considered for Preparing the FDP

Active
producers Vertical Horizontal Scheduling
Cases Laterals
@ End Of Wells Wells of events
History
No Further Action (NFA) √ × × × ×
Laterals in Existing
√ √ × × ×
Producers
Vertical wells √ × √ × √
Vertical Wells: Maximum
√ × √ × √
Drainage
Horizontal √ × × √ √
Horizontal + Vertical
Wells: Maximum √ × √ √ √
Drainage

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 2 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

A thorough techno-economic analysis has been done for all the prediction scenarios. Two economic indicators, Net Present Value
(NPV) and Discounted Profit-to-Investment Ratio (DPI), has been used to evaluate the different prediction scenarios in Kanawara
block. DPI can be described simply as division of Net Present Value by Capital Expenditure (Investment). DPI takes into account the
relative returns on the investment made by the operator.

Table 4 enlists the parameters considered for economic analysis.

Table 4 : Economic Parameters

Parameters Cost Estimate ($)

Crude Oil Sale Price (per scm) 315
Natural Gas Sale Price (per M scm) 190
Oil OPEX (per scm) 22
Gas OPEX (per Mscm) 22
Water OPEX (per kl) NA
New Vertical Well Cost 2,500,000
New Horizontal Well Cost 7,000,000
Lateral Cost 2,000,000
Per Frac Stage 350,000
Fixed OPEX 120,000
Pipeline Cost (per m) 60
Tax (%) 32.5%
Discount Factor (%) 15%

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

All the existing wells in the Kanawara field are active at the end of history, i.e. July, 2015. Therefore, all the 9 wells have been
considered in NFA case. Table 5 shows the well wise yearly production of the field in NFA case until end of mining lease (ML) in Mar
2028. Oil production is mentioned in Mbbls and gas production in MMsm3. Table 6 shows the balance oil recoverable (BOR) at the
end of prediction for this case.

Table 5 : Predicted Production Profile for NFA case

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Well name
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 1.23 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#2 2.31 0.40 2.24 0.40 2.24 0.40 2.25 0.40 2.26 0.40 2.26 0.40 2.27 0.40 2.28 0.40
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10
K#6 3.47 2.13 3.08 1.83 2.82 1.62 2.63 1.46 2.50 1.36 2.42 1.28 2.35 1.21 2.30 1.15
K#7 3.82 0.46 3.48 0.42 3.27 0.39 2.09 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#8 8.36 1.49 1.47 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#9 7.27 0.67 2.39 0.20 1.49 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.53 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.51 0.12 1.50 0.12
K#10 7.94 0.65 7.92 0.56 7.92 0.52 7.92 0.49 7.94 0.47 7.92 0.44 7.92 0.42 7.92 0.40

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 4 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Incremental since
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Cumulative
Well name DEC, 2015
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.02 3.56 2.28
K#2 2.30 0.40 2.30 0.40 2.32 0.40 2.34 0.40 0.59 0.10 27.94 4.92 108.15 11.86
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 0.67 0.01 32.92 0.61 46.18 0.85
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 1.35 0.02 66.13 1.22 123.50 2.28
K#6 2.25 1.09 2.20 1.03 2.15 0.98 2.11 0.93 0.52 0.22 30.81 16.28 59.32 28.47
K#7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.65 1.53 30.34 3.27
K#8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.83 1.72 57.85 7.44
K#9 1.49 0.12 1.47 0.12 1.46 0.11 1.45 0.11 0.36 0.03 24.97 2.07 62.18 6.33
K#10 7.94 0.39 7.92 0.37 7.92 0.36 7.92 0.35 1.97 0.09 97.09 5.52 120.55 7.46
303.57 34.89

Table 6 : BOR for NFA case

Proved (P1)
BOR : NFA EOP
Block Layer
Oil Total Gas
M bbl MM sm3
K1 EP-IV (U) 19.7 14.2
K8-K9 EP-IV (U) 4.7 0.062
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (U) 261.5 9.6
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (U) 32.6 19.9
K1 EP-IV (L) 94.2 67.7
K8-K9 EP-IV (L) 31.7 2.5
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (L) 527.9 18.3
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (L) 307.4 21.6

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

There is no CAPEX involvement in the NFA case. NPV of this case is 1.8 MM$.

In this case, feasibility of laterals have been tested from a couple of existing wells. One well (K10) in K3-K5-K10 block and another
one (K2) in K2-K6-K7 block are undertaken for drilling a high angle lateral. Laterals have been planned based on the direction of
maximum and minimum horizontal stress. An idea about the directon of stresses was derived from brief analysis of direction of major
faults in the field, available regional geomechanics data, and regional geology. It was concluded that the direction of lateral should be
in NW-SE direction. As a result of this analysis and areal limit of the blocks, only a single lateral could be planned from both the
wells. Table 7 shows the well wise yearly production of the field in Laterals case until end of mining lease (ML) in Mar 2028. Oil
production is mentioned in Mbbls and gas production in MMsm3.

Table 7 : Predicted Production Profile for Laterals from Existing wells case

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Well name
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 1.23 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#2 2.31 0.40 2.05 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10
K#6 3.47 2.13 3.08 1.83 2.82 1.78 2.42 1.67 2.14 1.56 1.93 1.47 1.79 1.42 1.67 1.36
K#7 3.82 0.46 3.48 0.42 3.28 0.40 3.09 0.39 2.87 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#8 8.36 1.49 1.47 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#9 7.27 0.67 2.39 0.20 1.49 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.53 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.51 0.12 1.50 0.12
K#10 7.94 0.65 7.27 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#10_LTRL 0.00 0.00 3.38 0.06 36.54 0.64 32.30 0.53 25.99 0.46 24.02 0.43 22.05 0.41 18.98 0.39
K#2_LTRL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.94 0.97 25.09 0.83 21.38 0.84 17.90 0.81 16.30 0.80 15.07 0.79

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 6 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Incremental
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Cumulative
Well name since DEC, 2015
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.02 3.56 2.28
K#2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.36 0.77 84.57 7.71
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.06 2.69 0.06 0.67 0.01 32.92 0.63 46.18 0.88
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 1.35 0.03 66.13 1.23 123.50 2.29
K#6 1.57 1.32 1.47 1.26 1.38 1.21 1.30 1.16 0.31 0.28 25.36 18.45 53.88 30.64
K#7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.54 2.05 34.23 3.79
K#8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.83 1.72 57.85 7.44
K#9 1.49 0.12 1.47 0.12 1.46 0.11 1.45 0.11 0.36 0.03 24.97 2.07 62.18 6.33
K#10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.21 1.17 38.67 3.11
K#10_LTRL 17.97 0.38 17.15 0.37 16.48 0.36 15.91 0.35 3.88 0.09 234.64 4.47 234.64 4.47
K#2_LTRL 14.08 0.78 13.18 0.77 12.42 0.76 11.74 0.75 2.83 0.19 185.95 8.29 185.95 8.29
617.14 41.87

Table 8 shows the balance oil recoverable (BOR) at the end of prediction for this case.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 8 : BOR for Laterals case

Proved (P1)
BOR : Lateral EOP
Block Layer
Oil Total Gas
M bbl MM sm3
K1 EP-IV (U) 19.7 14.2
K8-K9 EP-IV (U) 4.7 0.062
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (U) 271.7 10.1
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (U) 32.6 20.3
K1 EP-IV (L) 94.2 67.7
K8-K9 EP-IV (L) 31.2 2.5
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (L) 358.5 17.4
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (L) 145.0 13.8

CAPEX in the current case is 6.1 MM$. The CAPEX involves the cost of drilling the two laterals and the cost incurred for six fractures
(3 stage frac per lateral). NPV for this case is 5.1 MM $ while DPI is 0.83.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 8 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Two horizontal wells were planned in this case. One horizontal well (KH1) has been planned in K3-K5-K10 block, and the other
(KH2) in K2-K6-K7 block. The direction of the horizontal drainhole was decided based upon the same analysis as that of laterals. The
length of the horizontal drainhole was limited by the areal extent of the block. Table 9 shows the well wise yearly production of the
field in Horizontal wells case until end of mining lease (ML) in Mar 2028. Oil production is mentioned in Mbbls and gas production in
MMsm3.

Table 9 : Predicted Production Profile for Horizontal wells case

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Well name
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 1.23 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#2 2.31 0.40 2.24 0.40 1.83 0.40 1.46 0.40 1.28 0.40 1.18 0.40 1.11 0.40 1.06 0.40
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10
K#6 3.47 2.13 3.08 1.83 2.83 1.66 2.54 1.55 2.28 1.45 2.08 1.38 1.93 1.31 1.80 1.25
K#7 3.82 0.46 3.48 0.42 3.27 0.39 3.11 0.37 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#8 8.36 1.49 1.47 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#9 7.27 0.67 2.39 0.20 1.49 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.53 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.51 0.12 1.50 0.12
K#10 7.94 0.65 7.92 0.56 7.92 0.52 7.92 0.50 7.94 0.48 7.92 0.46 7.92 0.45 7.92 0.43
KH#1 0.00 0.00 2.85 0.05 34.19 0.60 27.93 0.45 21.57 0.39 19.18 0.36 17.92 0.33 16.80 0.32
KH#2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.76 1.10 36.22 0.84 26.71 0.79 24.36 0.74 18.88 0.71 15.44 0.74

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Incremental since
Well 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Cumulative
DEC, 2015
name
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.02 3.56 2.28
K#2 1.02 0.40 0.99 0.40 0.96 0.40 0.94 0.40 0.23 0.10 16.62 4.92 96.82 11.86
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.06 0.67 0.01 32.92 0.63 46.18 0.87
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.11 5.40 0.11 5.40 0.11 1.35 0.03 66.13 1.26 123.50 2.32
K#6 1.69 1.19 1.58 1.12 1.48 1.06 1.39 1.01 0.33 0.24 26.47 17.17 54.98 29.36
K#7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.80 1.67 31.49 3.42
K#8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.83 1.72 57.85 7.44
K#9 1.49 0.12 1.47 0.12 1.46 0.11 1.45 0.11 0.36 0.03 24.97 2.07 62.19 6.33
K#10 7.94 0.42 7.92 0.41 7.92 0.40 7.92 0.40 1.97 0.10 97.09 5.81 120.55 7.75
KH#1 15.86 0.30 14.19 0.29 12.19 0.28 11.50 0.28 2.76 0.07 196.94 3.72 196.94 3.72
KH#2 14.33 0.75 13.35 0.75 12.51 0.76 11.76 0.75 2.82 0.19 219.14 8.12 219.14 8.12
705.13 48.10

Table 10 shows the balance oil recoverable (BOR) at the end of prediction for this case.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 10 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 10 : BOR for Horizontal Well case

Proved (P1)
BOR : Horizontal EOP
Block Layer
Oil Total Gas
M bbl MM sm3
K1 EP-IV (U) 19.7 14.2
K8-K9 EP-IV (U) 4.7 0.06
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (U) 256.4 9.4
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (U) 31.4 18.2
K1 EP-IV (L) 94.2 67.7
K8-K9 EP-IV (L) 31.2 2.5
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (L) 330.2 14.2
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (L) 102.5 13.6

CAPEX in the current case is 14.1 MM$. The CAPEX involves the cost of drilling the two horizontal wells and laying their pipelines. In
addition, CAPEX also involves the cost incurred for six fractures (3 stage frac per horizontal well). NPV for this case is 4.3 MM $
while DPI is 0.31.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

In this case, one vertical well has been planned each for K3-K5-K10, K2-K6-K7, and K1 blocks. Since the reserves in K8-K9 block
have been optimally recovered in NFA case itself, no new well has been proposed for this segment in this prediction case. This case
was intended to recover maximum oil at low CAPEX. Table 11 shows the well wise yearly production of the field in Vertical wells
case until end of mining lease (ML) in Mar 2028. Oil production is mentioned in Mbbls and gas production in MMsm3.

Table 11 : Predicted Production Profile for Vertical wells case

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Well Name
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 1.23 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#2 2.31 0.40 2.24 0.40 2.21 0.40 2.13 0.40 2.06 0.40 1.97 0.40 1.90 0.40 1.83 0.40
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10
K#6 3.47 2.13 3.08 1.83 2.80 1.62 2.54 1.46 2.33 1.35 2.16 1.27 2.04 1.20 1.92 1.14
K#7 3.82 0.46 3.48 0.42 3.27 0.39 2.08 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#8 8.36 1.49 1.47 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#9 7.27 0.67 2.39 0.20 1.49 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.53 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.51 0.12 1.50 0.12
K#10 7.94 0.65 7.92 0.56 7.92 0.52 7.92 0.50 7.94 0.48 7.92 0.47 7.92 0.45 7.92 0.44
KV#2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.44 0.59 15.44 0.54 14.16 0.51 13.09 0.49 12.25 0.48 11.54 0.47
KV#3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.98 0.42 20.11 0.40 18.22 0.36 16.78 0.33 15.91 0.31 15.14 0.30
KV#6 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.30 8.34 3.65 7.72 3.65 7.27 3.66 6.92 3.65 6.61 3.65 6.29 3.65

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 12 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Incremental
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Cumulative
Well Name since DEC, 2015
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.02 3.56 2.28
K#2 1.77 0.40 1.72 0.40 1.67 0.40 1.64 0.40 0.40 0.10 23.84 4.92 104.04 11.86
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 0.67 0.01 32.92 0.62 46.18 0.86
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.11 5.40 0.11 5.40 0.11 1.35 0.03 66.13 1.26 123.50 2.32
K#6 1.83 1.08 1.73 1.02 1.64 0.96 1.56 0.91 0.38 0.22 27.46 16.18 55.98 28.36
K#7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.65 1.53 30.34 3.27
K#8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.83 1.72 57.85 7.44
K#9 1.49 0.12 1.47 0.12 1.46 0.11 1.45 0.11 0.36 0.03 24.97 2.07 62.18 6.33
K#10 7.94 0.43 7.92 0.42 7.92 0.41 7.92 0.41 1.97 0.10 97.09 5.84 120.55 7.78
KV#2 10.97 0.47 10.42 0.46 9.96 0.46 9.55 0.46 2.32 0.11 127.15 5.06 127.15 5.06
KV#3 14.41 0.30 13.63 0.29 12.92 0.28 12.26 0.27 2.96 0.07 165.31 3.31 165.31 3.31
KV#6 6.01 3.66 5.69 3.65 5.46 3.65 5.31 3.65 1.30 0.91 67.66 37.73 67.66 37.73
656.24 81.25

Table 12 shows the balance oil recoverable (BOR) at the end of prediction for this case.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 12 : BOR for Vertical Wells case

Proved (P1)
BOR : Vertical EOP
Block Layer
Oil Total Gas
M bbl MM sm3
K1 EP-IV (U) 18.0 13.3
K8-K9 EP-IV (U) 4.7 0.062
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (U) 239.8 9.2
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (U) 32.1 19.0
K1 EP-IV (L) 28.3 30.9
K8-K9 EP-IV (L) 31.2 2.5
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (L) 377.9 14.9
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (L) 186.6 17.0

CAPEX in the current case is 8.5 MM$. The CAPEX involves the cost of drilling three new vertical wells and laying their pipelines. In
addition, CAPEX also involves the cost incurred for three fractures (1 frac per vertical well). NPV for this case is 6 MM $ while DPI is
0.68.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 14 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

This scenario has been planned to maximize the recovery with vertical wells regardless of the CAPEX. Attempt has been made to
exploit all possible hydrocarbon sweet spots and accordingly the new wells have been placed. Following considerations have been
made for placement of new wells in this scenario:

 Minimum well spacing of approximately 300 m (100 m less than conventional 40 acre spacing as Kanawara block is relatively
tighter than conventional reservoir)

 Hydrocarbon saturation height map, Porosity, permeability, rock-type cross section

 Well control in static model

 Distance from the fault

 Economics

 Offset wells’ performance

 Seismic Section along the well (In-Line and X-Line)

Table 13 shows the well wise yearly production of the field in Vertical wells maximum drainage case until end of mining lease (ML) in
Mar 2028. Oil production is mentioned in Mbbls and gas production in MMsm3.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 13 : Predicted Production Profile for Vertical wells Maximum Drainage case

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Well Name
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 1.23 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#2 2.31 0.40 2.24 0.40 2.24 0.40 2.25 0.40 2.23 0.40 2.14 0.40 2.04 0.40 1.93 0.40
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10
K#6 3.47 2.13 3.08 1.83 2.82 1.62 2.63 1.46 2.49 1.36 2.31 1.28 2.15 1.20 2.00 1.12
K#7 3.82 0.46 3.48 0.42 3.27 0.39 2.09 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#8 8.36 1.49 1.47 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#9 7.27 0.67 2.39 0.20 1.49 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.53 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.51 0.12 1.50 0.12
K#10 7.94 0.65 7.92 0.56 7.92 0.52 7.92 0.50 7.94 0.48 7.92 0.47 7.92 0.45 7.92 0.44
KV#1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.81 0.49 19.74 0.37 17.32 0.33 15.70 0.30 14.24 0.28 12.66 0.25
KV10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
KV#2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.05 16.53 0.57 14.17 0.53 12.44 0.52 11.11 0.52
KV#3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.01 0.42 20.11 0.40 18.21 0.36 16.77 0.33 15.90 0.31 15.13 0.30
KV#6 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.30 8.34 3.65 7.72 3.65 7.27 3.66 6.92 3.65 6.61 3.65 6.29 3.65
KV#7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.47 1.72 20.18 1.50 16.71 1.38 14.41 1.33
KV#8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.40 0.04 22.22 0.41 17.79 0.31

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 16 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Incremental
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Cumulative
Well Name since DEC, 2015
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.02 3.56 2.28
K#2 1.83 0.40 1.73 0.40 1.63 0.40 1.50 0.38 0.35 0.09 24.41 4.89 104.61 11.82
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 0.67 0.01 32.92 0.62 46.18 0.86
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.11 5.40 0.11 5.40 0.11 1.35 0.03 66.13 1.26 123.50 2.32
K#6 1.85 1.04 1.71 0.97 1.58 0.90 1.46 0.84 0.35 0.20 27.90 15.91 56.42 28.10
K#7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.65 1.53 30.34 3.27
K#8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.83 1.72 57.85 7.44
K#9 1.49 0.12 1.47 0.12 1.46 0.11 1.45 0.11 0.36 0.03 24.97 2.07 62.18 6.33
K#10 7.94 0.43 7.92 0.42 7.92 0.41 7.92 0.41 1.97 0.10 97.09 5.84 120.55 7.78
KV#1 11.52 0.23 10.55 0.21 9.76 0.20 9.08 0.19 2.17 0.05 148.54 2.90 148.54 2.90
KV10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
KV#2 10.06 0.53 9.13 0.53 8.38 0.54 7.72 0.54 1.83 0.14 92.90 4.46 92.90 4.46
KV#3 14.39 0.29 13.60 0.29 12.86 0.28 12.19 0.27 2.94 0.07 165.11 3.31 165.11 3.31
KV#6 6.01 3.66 5.69 3.65 5.46 3.65 5.31 3.65 1.30 0.91 67.66 37.73 67.66 37.73
KV#7 12.75 1.29 11.39 1.24 10.27 1.20 9.35 1.16 2.20 0.28 122.75 11.10 122.75 11.10
KV#8 14.89 0.28 13.29 0.26 12.29 0.24 11.44 0.23 2.73 0.06 97.06 1.84 97.06 1.84
991.16 96.20

Table 14 shows the balance oil recoverable (BOR) at the end of prediction for this case.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 14 : BOR for Vertical Wells Maximum Drainage case

Proved (P1)
BOR : Vertical MaxDr EOP
Block Layer
Oil Total Gas
M bbl MM sm3
K1 EP-IV (U) 18.0 13.3
K8-K9 EP-IV (U) 4.7 0.062
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (U) 220.9 8.7
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (U) 29.1 14.9
K1 EP-IV (L) 28.3 30.9
K8-K9 EP-IV (L) 31.2 2.5
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (L) 151.8 10.6
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (L) 100.2 10.9

CAPEX in the current case is 17.1 MM$. The CAPEX involves the cost of drilling six new vertical wells and laying their pipelines. In
addition, CAPEX also involves the cost incurred for six fractures (1 frac per vertical well). NPV for this case is 8.3 MM $ while DPI is
0.47.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 18 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

This scenario has been planned to maximize the recovery with combination of vertical and horizontal wells regardless of the CAPEX.
Attempt has been made to exploit all possible hydrocarbon sweet spots and accordingly the new wells have been placed. This case
also tests the feasibility of horizontal wells with vertical wells in Kanawara field. Table 15 shows the well wise yearly production of the
field in Vertical + Horizontal wells with maximum drainage case until end of mining lease (ML) in Mar 2028. Oil production is
mentioned in Mbbls and gas production in MMsm3.

Table 15 : Predicted Production Profile for Vertical wells + Horizontal wells Maximum Drainage case
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Well Name
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 1.23 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#2 2.31 0.40 2.24 0.40 1.83 0.40 1.46 0.40 1.28 0.40 1.18 0.40 1.11 0.40 1.06 0.40
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10 5.40 0.10
K#6 3.47 2.13 3.08 1.83 2.83 1.66 2.54 1.55 2.28 1.45 2.08 1.38 1.93 1.31 1.79 1.24
K#7 3.82 0.46 3.48 0.42 3.27 0.39 3.11 0.37 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#8 8.36 1.49 1.47 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
K#9 7.27 0.67 2.39 0.20 1.49 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.53 0.12 1.52 0.12 1.51 0.12 1.50 0.12
K#10 7.94 0.65 7.92 0.56 7.92 0.52 7.92 0.50 7.94 0.48 7.92 0.46 7.92 0.45 7.92 0.43
KH#1 0.00 0.00 2.85 0.05 34.21 0.60 27.90 0.45 21.50 0.39 19.17 0.36 17.91 0.33 16.79 0.32
KH#2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.74 1.10 36.22 0.84 26.70 0.79 24.35 0.74 18.68 0.71 14.55 0.76
KV#1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.94 0.06 24.48 0.46 18.22 0.35 15.11 0.29 13.34 0.26
KV#6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.74 3.34 7.82 3.65 7.35 3.66 6.99 3.65 6.67 3.65 6.35 3.65
KV#7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 0.16 21.91 1.75 16.25 1.54
KV#8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.34 0.49 21.37 0.39 18.59 0.33 15.99 0.29

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Incremental since
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Cumulative
Well Name DEC, 2015
Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas Oil Gas
K#1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.02 3.56 2.28
K#2 1.03 0.40 0.98 0.40 0.95 0.40 0.92 0.40 0.22 0.10 16.57 4.92 96.77 11.86
K#3 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.05 2.69 0.06 0.67 0.01 32.92 0.63 46.18 0.87
K#5 5.41 0.10 5.40 0.11 5.40 0.11 5.40 0.11 1.35 0.03 66.13 1.26 123.50 2.32
K#6 1.67 1.17 1.54 1.09 1.42 1.01 1.31 0.94 0.31 0.22 26.23 16.98 54.75 29.17
K#7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.79 1.67 31.48 3.42
K#8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.83 1.72 57.85 7.44
K#9 1.49 0.12 1.47 0.12 1.46 0.11 1.45 0.11 0.36 0.03 24.97 2.07 62.19 6.33
K#10 7.94 0.42 7.92 0.41 7.92 0.40 7.92 0.40 1.97 0.10 97.09 5.81 120.55 7.75
KH#1 15.84 0.30 14.18 0.29 12.17 0.28 11.45 0.28 2.75 0.07 196.72 3.72 196.72 3.72
KH#2 12.90 0.79 11.43 0.81 10.18 0.81 9.12 0.81 2.13 0.20 208.98 8.36 208.98 8.36
KV#1 12.11 0.24 11.04 0.22 10.17 0.21 9.43 0.20 2.25 0.05 119.10 2.34 119.10 2.34
KV#6 6.06 3.66 5.75 3.65 5.49 3.65 5.34 3.65 1.31 0.91 66.86 37.12 66.86 37.12
KV#7 13.54 1.41 11.64 1.31 10.16 1.25 9.03 1.19 2.10 0.29 87.02 8.91 87.02 8.91
KV#8 14.16 0.28 13.07 0.26 12.15 0.24 11.36 0.23 2.72 0.06 135.75 2.57 135.75 2.57
1103.20 99.10

Table 16 shows the balance oil recoverable (BOR) at the end of prediction for this case.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 16 : BOR for Vertical + Horizontal Maximum Drainage case

Proved (P1)
BOR : Vertical + MaxDr EOP
Block Layer
Oil Total Gas
M bbl MM sm3
K1 EP-IV (U) 18.0 13.3
K8-K9 EP-IV (U) 4.7 0.06
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (U) 239.8 9.1
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (U) 29.1 14.8
K1 EP-IV (L) 28.3 30.9
K8-K9 EP-IV (L) 31.2 2.5
K3-K5-K10 EP-IV (L) 92.3 9.7
K2-K6-K7 EP-IV (L) 28.2 8.1

CAPEX in the current case is 25.5 MM$. The CAPEX involves the cost of drilling four new vertical wells, two horizontal wells, and
laying their pipelines. In addition, CAPEX also involves the cost incurred for 10 fractures (1 frac per vertical well and 3 stage frac per
horizontal well). NPV for this case is 8.8 MM $ while DPI is 0.34.

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 22

Kanawara FDP - FDP Report Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

On the basis of NPV, the vertical + horizontal with maximum drainage case is the best case.

However, it is always useful to analyse the economics by different indicators. One such indicator is Discounted Profit-to-Investment
ratio (DPI). DPI results are a relative comparison of different prediction scenarios adjudging the profitability depending on the
CAPEX.

On the basis of DPI, Laterals from existing wells is the best case, i.e. this case will give best NPV with minimum CAPEX. However,
on considering both the factors (DPI & NPV), Verticals- maximum drainage can be considered as the best case. Table 17 presents
the comparison of the different FDP scenarios in terms of BOR and economic parameters.

Table 17 : FDP cases comparison table

Cum prod @ EOP BOR P1 @ EOP

CapEx
Scenario name NPV DPI
(MM $) Oil Gas Oil Gas
(M bbls) (MM sm3) (M bbls) (MM sm3)
NFA NA 612.1 70.03 1270.7 153.1 1.8 NA
Laterals from Existing
6.1 925.2 77.0 957.6 146.2 5.1 0.83
Wells
Vertical Well 8.55 964.1 116.4 918.7 106.8 6 0.68
Vertical Well_Max
17.1 1298.6 131.3 584.3 91.8 8.3 0.47
Drainage
Horizontal Well 14.1 1012.6 83.2 870.2 139.9 4.3 0.31
Horizontal+Vertical Max
25.5 1411.2 134.8 471.7 88.3 8.8 0.34
Drainage

31st March, 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 22

 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.1 : Field Level Match – Kanawara
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.2 : Field Level Cum Match – Kanawara
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.3 : K3-K5-K10 Segment
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.4 : K8-K9 Segment
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.5 : K2-K6-K7 Segment
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.6 : K1 Segment
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.7 : K#1
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.8 : K#10
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.9 : K#2
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.10 : K#3
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.11 : K#5
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.12 : K#6
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.13 : K#7
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.14 : K#8
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
 Schlumberger
Schlumberger-Private
Private
Contract No. HL/FDP/14-15/003
Kanawara Field Development Study

Prepared by: RE Team Appendix- 1

Figure 1.15 : K#9
Reviewed by: Agha H. Akram Issued: Apr 2016
Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

Hydraulic Fracturing Review

Annexure

Tender No:
HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Document
Name: Vinil Mukku Position: Production Technologist
Originator(s)
Reviewed by Name: Olushola Dcosta Position: Technical Production Advisor

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 1 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation furnished

with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at any time in
connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from measurements, empirical
relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical relationships and/or
assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which professionals in the industry may
differ. Accordingly, Schlumberger cannot and does not warrant the accuracy, correctness or
completeness of any such interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates or
recommendation. Customer acknowledges that it is accepting the services "as is", that
Schlumberger makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, of any kind or
description in respect thereto. Specifically, customer acknowledges that Schlumberger does
not warrant that any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or
recommendation is fit for a particular purpose, including but not limited to compliance with any
government request or regulatory requirement. Customer further acknowledges that such
services are delivered with the explicit understanding and agreement that any action taken
based on the services received shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim shall be
made against Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 2 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 7

2 Data Preparation .......................................................................................................... 9
3 Methodology................................................................................................................. 9
4 Hydraulic Fracturing Review of Kanawara Field ...................................................... 10

4.1 Production Behavior of Kanawara Wells........................................................... 10

4.2 Fracturing and Post Frac Production Analysis – Low GOR Wells .................. 14

4.3 Fracturing and Post Frac Production Analysis- High GOR Wells ................... 18

5 Hydraulic Fracturing Challenges .............................................................................. 21

6 Recommendations for Effective Fracture Placement .............................................. 22

6.1 Vertical Well Fracturing ...................................................................................... 22

6.2 Horizontal Well Fracture Placement .................................................................. 25

7 Appendix .................................................................................................................... 26

7.1 Refrac Candidate Wells ...................................................................................... 26

7.2 Stage Design Workflow ...................................................................................... 28

7.3 Multi Stage Isolation techniques from Schlumberger ...................................... 30

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Figures

Figure 1 Production plot of Kanawara wells (Oil rate –m3/d & Cum Oil) ...................... 11

Figure 2 Gas rates (sm3/d), GOR (V/V) Vs time – Kanawara wells ................................ 12

Figure 3 Post frac year -1 Cumulative Oil (Kanawara wells) .......................................... 13

Figure 4 Oil rate (m3/d), Cum Oil(Mm3) production history – Low GOR wells............. 14

Figure 5 Post fracture Cum. oil production – Low GOR wells .................................... 15

Figure 6 Production History – High GOR wells............................................................... 18

Figure 7 Post Frac Cum. Gas production (MMScm) – High GOR wells ......................... 19

Figure 8 Post Frac Cum. Oil production (Mm3) – High GOR wells ................................ 19

Figure 9: History match of well K#5 ................................................................................. 27

Figure 10 Mangrove Completion advisor ........................................................................ 29

Figure 11 BroadBand Precision Features ....................................................................... 32

Figure 12 Conventional Vs BroadBand Precision Stimulated Volume.......................... 32

Figure 13 BroadBand Sequence Features ...................................................................... 34

Figure 14 Diversion by Broad Band Sequence Composite pills .................................... 34

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 4 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

List of Tables

Table 1 Low GOR Wells ...................................................................................................... 7

Table 2 High GOR Wells ..................................................................................................... 8

Table 3 Data provided by Client ......................................................................................... 9

Table 4 Post Fracture Production performance .............................................................. 16

Table 5 Fracture Geometry ............................................................................................... 17

Table 6 Treatment parameters ......................................................................................... 17

Table 7 Post Frac Gas production – High GOR wells ..................................................... 20

Table 8 Post Frac Oil production – High GOR wells ....................................................... 20

Table 9 Frac geometry – High GOR wells........................................................................ 21

Table 10 HF Treatment parameters – High GOR wells ................................................... 21

Table 11 Optimum HiWAY Schedule................................................................................ 23

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Executive Summary
Hydraulic fracturing review and recommendations is is a part of the Kanawara FDP project
carried out for GOGL. The broad scope of work is as follows:
 Retrospective analysis of past hydraulic fracturing parameters in Kanawara field
 Evaluate production performance post fracturing
 Identify key HydroFrac treatment parameters showing good post fracture production
 Recommendations for future HydroFrac wells categorized into vertical and horizontal
wells.
The main conclusions of Hydraulic fracturing review are as follows:
 All the wells exhibit radial fracture geometry Challenges due to the low stress contrasts
between EP IV sand & shale.
 No conclusive trend in fracture job parameters and geometry could be identified with
post fracture production from the existing data.
 HIWAY treatment parameters showed high initial production and better post fracture
production when compared with conventional treatment.
Wells divided into two categories based on production behaviour as high GOR and low GOR
for post fracture production comparison. For each of the cases, wells are ranked based on the
initial post-fracture production, cumulative 1 year post fracture production to identify the key
wells.
Table 1 Low GOR Wells

Initial
Current Cum. Post Post
Producti
Oil rate Oil prod Frac frac.
HF Service Treatment on Oil
Well HF Date (m3/d) till Jun Cum. perform
provider type prod
(Jun- 2015 Oil ance
rate
2015) (m3) year- 1 ranking
(m3/d)
ONGC May
K#9 Conventional 70 4 5433 3842 1
WSS 2013
April
K#8 SLB HiWAY 48 4 3000 2540 2
2014
April
K#10 SLB HiWAY 35 4 3287 3
2014 2944
May
K#5 BJ Conventional 50 3 8765 4
2008 2299
Feb
K#1 Halliburton Conventional 10 0 712 5
2013 581
Dec
K#3 Halliburton Conventional 15 1 1929 6
2012 326

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 2 High GOR Wells

Cum.
Post
Gas
Post Frac Initial Stab Fractur
HF prod till Current
Treatment HF Gas cum Post Frac e
Well Service Jun- gas rate
type Date year-1 gas rate perform
provider 2015 (m3/d)
(MMScm) (m3/d) ance
(MMSc
rank
m)
Convention May
K#6 BJ 11.11 2.74 12000 6550 1
al 2008
ONGC Convention June
K#2 6.22 0.68 16000 3384 2
WSS al 2006
Halliburto Convention Feb
K#7 2.15 1.26 6335 0 3
n al 2013

To ensure effective fracture placement, recommendations can be summarized as

 Treatment recommendations: Treatment to be designed to create longer fracture
placement in EP IV upper & lower with reduced fracture height. Low fluid viscosity,
pump rates (12 – 15 bpm), proppant flow back techniques, high fracture conductivity
are recommended.
 Acquisitions and modelling for accuracy in MEM calibrated with Multi-stage tri-axial
laboratory tests on cores (Refer to Volume VIII Geomechanics Report
recommendations)
 Post fracture evaluation to calibrate fracture simulation models: Hydraulic fracture
monitoring (HFM), Build up test post Frac, Temperature logs, radioactive traces etc.
 MEM model across lateral section of horizontal well needs to be modelled for horizontal
well stage design and fracturing design. Until the data acquisition, treatment parameter
recommendations for vertical well can be incorporated.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 8 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

2 Data Preparation

Fractruing HF geometry validation

Well HF Reports Treatment from pressure Remarks
Digital data calibration
HF geometry reported is calibrated
K-10 Yes Yes Yes
with frac pressures
HF geometry reported is calibrated
K-8 Yes Yes Yes
with frac pressures

K-9 Yes No No
Reported HF geometry in reports is
not calibrated by frac pressures.Frac
K-7 Yes No No
files(.dbs) provided are incompatible
K-6 Yes No No
and didgital data cannot be
K-5 Yes No No
extracted
K-3 Yes No No
K-2 Yes No No
K-1 Yes No No

3 Methodology
Recommendations on future hydraulic fracturing treatment will be made based on detailed
review of past fracturing jobs, treatment parameters effect on production and planned
development strategy of horizontal and vertical wells.
Review of fracturing parameters and its impact on production performance, requires
evaluation of calibrated fracture geometry effect on post fracture productivity index (PI) and
folds of increase (FOI). Calibration of Frac geometry can be conducted with fracturing
treatment pressures, post fracture Pressure Transient analysis on well test data or Rate
Transient analysis on post frac production data.
Due to limited downhole pressures data (SBHP & FBHP), post fracture PI estimation is not
feasible. Alternatively, comparison have been conducted against post fracture cumulative oil
and gas production at the end of year-1, initial and current post fracture production rates. Since
the wells have been kept on production from different time periods and majority of the wells
have post fracture production duration of 1 to 2 years starting from 2013, cumulative post
fracture production for year-1 has been considered for measuring post fracture production
performance. Additionally initial post fracture production rate, current rates are also added to
year-1 post frac cumulative production to rank the post fracture performance of the wells.
Post fracture pressure transient results were available for few wells only and doesn’t correlate
with HF geometries reported in HF reports. Rate transient analysis also could not be attempted
to validate fracture geometry due to limited downhole pressure data.
As per contract scope, K#10 well is considered as representative well for EP IV fracturing in
the entire field and complete workflow is implemented. Workflow includes validating fracturing
job parameters, post fracture calibrations, estimate fracture geometry, redesign optimum
fracture design and schedule for upcoming wells, SWPM modelling to estimate optimum no of
stages based on production forecasts. Detailed review of HF digital data, geomechanical and
fracturing simulation model calibrations are provided in the report Volume VII, K -10 Single

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Well Modelling (SWPM) report. Recommendations in section-6 in this report are based on
these post fracture calibrations and analysis on K#10 well explained in this report.

4 Hydraulic Fracturing Review of Kanawara Field

4.1 Production Behavior of Kanawara Wells

Gas production rate, GOR history (Figure 2) and oil production history (Figure 1) indicates K2,
6 & 7 are high GOR wells, producing primarily high gas and low oil rates. Post fracture
production analysis will be conducted on both gas and oil production in these wells.
Remaining wells K1, 10, 8, 5 & 9 are low to medium GOR wells as per Figure 2 and primarily
producing oil as shown in Figure 1. Post fracture production analysis will be conducted on oil
production in these wells.
Figure 1 also highlights HF execution time in the production history. Post frac production
history (Figure 1) shows K -8, 10, 9 and 5 have high initial and sustained post fracture oil
production rates, when compared with other wells.
Initial high production and decline in production within 5 – 8 months of fracturing indicates
tightness of the rock and also pressure regime reach pseudo steady state. This emphasizes
the requirement of large reservoir contact with HF by longer fracture lengths to sustain high
post fracture stable rates for longer period.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 10 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 1 Production plot of Kanawara wells (Oil rate –m3/d & Cum Oil)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 2 Gas rates (sm3/d), GOR (V/V) Vs time – Kanawara wells

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 12 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Post fracture year-1 cumulative oil production – All wells

K -8, 10, 9 and 5 wells have high cumulative oil production during first year post fracture
production in the entire Kanawara wells as shown in Figure 3

Figure 3 Post frac year -1 Cumulative Oil (Kanawara wells)

Detailed fracturing & production analysis is conducted in separate categories Low GOR
wells and High GOR wells in next sections

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

4.2 Fracturing and Post Frac Production Analysis – Low GOR Wells

Production History
Figure 4 below shows oil production history of low GOR wells. K5, 10, 8 & 9 are sustained post frac oil producing wells with initial high post
fracture rates among the low GOR wells.

Figure 4 Oil rate (m3/d), Cum Oil(Mm3) production history – Low GOR wells

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 14 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Fracturing Data Review and Impact on Post Fracture Production

a) Post Fracture Production Analysis
Figure 5 demonstrates post fracture first year cumulative oil production for low GOR wells.
K9 , 10, 8, 5 wells have shown good post frac cumulative oil production in the range of
1.8 – 3 Mm3 and K9 shows highest cum oil of 3.8 Mm3 during post frac year-1.

K3 & 1 have showed low cumulative post fracture production.

Figure 5 Post fracture Cum. oil production – Low GOR wells

Post fracture production performance ranking is based on Post fracture cumulative oil
production in year-1, current oil rate and initial post fracture production rate as shown in Table
4.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 15 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 4 Post Fracture Production performance

Initial
Curren Cum.
Produ Post
t Oil Oil
HF ction Frac Post frac.
Treatmen rate prod
Well Service HF Date Oil Cum. performan
t type (m3/d) till Jun
provider prod Oil ce ranking
(Jun- 2015
rate year- 1
2015) (m3)
(m3/d)
ONGC Conventio
K#9 May 2013 70 4 5433 3842 1
WSS nal
April
K#8 SLB HiWAY 48 4 3000 2540 2
2014
April
K#10 SLB HiWAY 35 4 3287 3
2014 2944
Conventio
K#5 BJ May 2008 50 3 8765 4
nal 2299
Halliburt Conventio
K#1 Feb 2013 10 0 712 5
on nal 581
Halliburt Conventio
K#3 Dec 2012 15 1 1929 6
on nal 326

b) Fracturing Data Review

Data Confidence
Source of HF geometry reported in Table 5 below are HF reports provided by GOGL. These
are initial HF design geometries reported and no calibration exists with main fracturing
treatment pressures. Digital pumping data doesn’t exist for these wells to perform frac
pressure calibration to obtain realistic fracture geometries achieved. Confidence on the
reported HF geometry is very low and are un-calibrated.
Digital dataset exists for K8 & 10 HF jobs operated by Schlumberger and geometries are
validated with frac pressure calibration on K-10 (refer to K#10 SWPM report).
Analysis
Post fracture performance (Table 4) can be linked to high frac conductivity in K#8 & 10 due to
HiWAY channel fracture generated (refer Table 5). Apart from conductivity, remaining HF
geometry parameters (Table 5) doesn’t show any trend with production.
Rod proppant in Tail-in stage, increases near wellbore conductivity and arrests proppant flow
back. This could be linked to good post frac production in K#8, 10.
Rest of parameters (

Table 6) doesn’t show any trend with post frac production.

Due to low confidence on HF geometry in remaining wells (K#9, K5, K1, K3), and also no
conclusive trend, impact of Frac geometry and treatment parameters on production is
inconclusive.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 16 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 5 Fracture Geometry

Frac
Fracture Avg.
Post frac. Fracture Gradien Prop Avg.
Half Frac
performan Well Total t mass Conductivity
Length Width(in
ce ranking Height(m) (MT) (md-ft)
(m) (psi/ft) )
1 K#9 73 62.8 NA 0.112 53 3422
2 K#8 66 61.4 0.73 0.05 48 95,320
3 K#10 121.8 62 0.82 0.06 48 131153
4 K#5 100 70 0.9 0.17 79 1478
5 K#1 71 48 0.84 0.61 50 960

6 K#3 35 134 0.55 0.22 61 1129.1

Table 6 Treatment parameters

Post Frac Total Pa Pum Closu Gaur

Proppa
performan Slurr d Pad p re loadin
We nt Proppa MaxPP
ce rank y Vol fractio rate press. g
ll Mass nt type A
(bb n (%) (bp
(bbl) (psi) (Ppg) (lbm)
l) m)
20/40
1 K#9 NA NA NA NA NA NA 116083 8
Saudi
LSP
20/40
(43MT) ;
2 K#8 1571 440 28 15 3800 35 104792 7
Rod
prop
(5MT)
LSP
20/40
K#1 (40MT) ;
3 1700 560 32 12 4500 35 104792 7
0 Rod
prop
(8MT)
20/40
4 K#5 1571 500 31 13 5102 35 174100 8
Saudi
20/40
K#1 1200 377 32 9 4508 35 109700 7
5 Saudi
LSP20/4
0 (49MT
);
6 K#3 1260 336 26 10.4 2989 25 161900 8
ISP
20/40
(25MT)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 17 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

4.3 Fracturing and Post Frac Production Analysis- High GOR Wells

Production History
Figure 6 shows the gas production history comparison on High GOR wells. K6 and K2 shows good post fracture gas production rates and higher
cumulative gas production during entire production history of the wells. Cumulative gas production post fracture will be compared in next Section
4.3.2

Figure 6 Production History – High GOR wells

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 18 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Fracturing Data Review and Impact on Post Fracture Production

a) Post Fracture Production Analysis
Figure 7 shows first year post fracture cumulative gas production for high GOR wells. K6
shows high gas production followed by K7 and K2.

Figure 7 Post Frac Cum. Gas production (MMScm) – High GOR wells

Figure 8 shows first year post fracture cumulative oil production for high GOR wells. K6 and
K2 shows high cumulative oil production.

Figure 8 Post Frac Cum. Oil production (Mm3) – High GOR wells

Post fracture production performance rank is considered on the basis of post fracture cum.
gas /oil production, post frac initial gas/oil rate and current production rate as shown in Table
7 and Table 8.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 19 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 7 Post Frac Gas production – High GOR wells

Cum. Post
Post Gas Frac
Initial Stab
Fracture HF prod till Gas Current
Treatment HF Post Frac
perform Well Service Jun- cum gas rate
type Date gas rate
ance provider 2015 year-1 (m3/d)
(m3/d)
rank (MMSc (MMSc
m) m)
May
1 K#6 BJ Conventional 11.11 2.74 12000 6550
2008
ONGC June
2 K#2 Conventional 6.22 0.68 16000 3384
WSS 2006
Halliburto Feb
3 K#7 Conventional 2.15 1.26 6335 0
n 2013

Table 8 Post Frac Oil production – High GOR wells

Post Frac Cum. Oil Initial Stabilized Current Oil

Post Fracture
Well Cum. Oil prod till Jun avg. Oil prod rate rate (m3/d)
performance rank
year- 1 (m3) 2015 (m3) (m3/d) (Jun-2015)
1 K#6 924 2607 12 2

2 K#2 748 2301 10 0

3 K#7 238 538 5 0

b) Fracturing Review

Data Confidence
Source of HF geometry reported in Table 9 below are the HF reports provided by GOGL.
These are initial HF design geometries reported and no validation exists with main frac
pressure calibration. Digital pumping data doesn’t exist for these wells to perform frac pressure
calibration to obtain realistic frac geometries achieved. Confidence on the reported HF
geometry is very low and are un-calibrated.
Analysis
HF treatment parameters in Table 10 doesn’t reflect any trend with post fracture production
performance. Due to low confidence on HF geometry and also no trend visible, impact of Frac
geometry and treatment parameters on production is inconclusive.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 20 of 34

 Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table 9 Frac geometry – High GOR wells

Post Frac Fracture Frac

Fracture Avg. Prop Avg.
performance Total Gradient
Well Half Frac mass Conductivity(md-
rank Height
Length(m) (psi/ft) Width(in) (MT) ft)
(m)
1 K#6 40.0 50.0 0.76 0.190 21 1650
2 K#2 115.9 63.5 N/a 0.510 37 806.0
3 K#7 53.3 32.6 0.53 0.676 38 1975.7

Table 10 HF Treatment parameters – High GOR wells

Post Total Closur Gaur

Pad Pumpin
Frac Slurr Pad e loadin
Vol g rate Prop Max.
perform Well y fractio press. g
type PPA
ance (bbl n (%)
(bbl) (bpm) (psi) (Ppg)
rank )
20/40
1 K#6 1600 650 41 15 4416 35 8
Saudi
LSP 20-
2 K#2 710 170 24 10 NA 30 NA
40
20/40
3 K#7 1405 404 29 11 2968 25 5
HSP

5 Hydraulic Fracturing Challenges

 Low stress contrasts - Overlying & underlying shales of EP IV
Stress contrasts between EP IV and overlying/underlying shales are in the range 250 – 400
psi based on 1D MEM on K-8 & K#10 is observed. This is due to EP IV high silt content and
shows low stress contrast from over/underlying shale.
Due to low stress contrast, Fracture grows radially with length and height extension and limits
fracture length extension in EP-IV in between 60 – 100m range as observed from K#8, 10
fracturing analysis.
Fracture height containment measures needs to be implemented to increase more fracture
half length (necessary in low permeability EP IV sand), although there is no presence of water
zones.
 Proppant flow back
Excessive proppant flow back was reported in few older fractures prior to 2013.
Measures to be incorporated for proppant flow back control.
 Sustained post fracture production
Post Frac oil flow rate doesn’t sustain longer after initial high rates.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 21 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

 Uncertainty in Elastic properties and MEM Stresses due to no core tests

Due to lack of tri-axial core tests, elastic properties in MEM model couldn’t be calibrated in EP
IV, overlying shales and coal layer core samples. Also MEM is constructed on isotropic
properties in the scenario of high vertical anisotropy. Current calibration is performed with HF
treatment net pressure match which can be a non-unique calibration.
Effect of Shales: Challenges could be possible pinch points in fracture width across the shale
layers. Shale layer in between EPIV Upper and lower layer can impair vertical connectivity
between the layers. Also effect of the shale stress due to anisotropy uncertainty can govern
fracture vertical growth.
Effect of Coal: Coal elastic properties should be validated with core tests. Coal stress and its
effect during fracturing should be characterized.
Recommendations to minimize above mentioned challenges are illustrated in next section 6

6 Recommendations for Effective Fracture Placement

6.1 Vertical Well Fracturing

Treatment Type
 HiWAY treatment (Channel fracturing):
HiWAY is recommended due to the below benefits applicable for EP IV.
Applications:
Increased effective length
Significantly high fracture conductivity
Improved post frac clean-up
Increased and long sustained post frac rates.
Enables uniform vertical proppant distribution minimizing gravity settling
effects.
Reduces net pressure during pumping, minimizes height growth.
 J-FRAC technology
J-frac technology involves pumping specialized material between PAD and proppant
stages to create artificial stress barriers, due to proppant embedment at fracture face
during PAD stage Suitability of the formation needs to be evaluated through
recommended Core compatibility and rock mechanics test on formation cores+ J-frac
proppant mix etc.

Fracturing Job Schedule & Volumes

Various sensitivities on frac fluid viscosity, pumping rate, volumes, maximum PPA, fluid type
are modelled to derive the below optimum pumping schedule.
Overall the job design pumped on K-10 vertical well, has been the optimum fracturing design.
The recommendations add minor changes to the previous job design to generate more
fracture length (same as optimum pump schedule in Volume VII, K -10 SWPM report). This
design needs to be revalidated for the well of interest in EP IV sand, after sonic data

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 22 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

acquisitions, 1D TIV anisotropic stress model and majorly DFIT analysis. Pumping rate
could be flexible in between 12 – 16 bpm depending on MiniFRAC responses.
HiWAY Optimum Schedule:
Optimum HiWAY Schedule

Totals:

PAD volume ratio (%) 28

Total proppant (Lbs) 116, 900
Total Clean fluid (bbls) 1800
Total Slurry volume
(bbls) 2000

Fracturing Fluid
Fracturing fluid should be designed to minimum viscosity required to achieve the design
geometry and to transport designed proppant concentrations.
Gaur Fluid systems: Gaur loading can be reduced to achieve low viscosity & fiber inclusion
recommended to maintain proppant carrying capacity with reduced viscosity.
Gaur loading in the treatments is observed to be 35 ppt. Gaur loading can be reduced to 25
lbs/gal from 35 loading to reduce fluid viscosity and fiber addition is recommended for proppant
carrying ability. This gaur loading and fiber composition has to be lab tested with well site
chemicals & water to confirm the rheology required and proppant carrying capacity.
Gaur free technologies: Implementation of Gaur-free technologies like Visco-elastic
surfactant fluid systems (VES) can also aid in reduced viscosity, increased frac half-length
and high retained fracture permeability. VES application have to be lab tested on cores to
check the feasibility.
Proppant
Intermediate Strength proppant (20/40)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 23 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Low strength proppant 20/40 (6000 psi maximum stress limit) will be under the maximum
stress limit for 4800 – 5200 psi in situ stress. High drawdowns during the longer duration of
production, proppant pack is prone to encounter additional cyclic stresses due to drag forces
and bottom hole pressure changes which can affect LSP proppant pack strength under the
stress envelope of 4800 – 5200 psi in-situ stress.
Proppant with slightly higher stress limit (8000 psi) eg. ISP 20/40 is recommended to maintain
good proppant pack strength and conductivity over the duration of well production.
Proppant flow back control
Cylindrical shaped Rod proppant is recommended in the Tail-in stage to arrest proppant flow
back. The added advantage of rod proppant against other resin/fiber based flow back
techniques are the significantly high near-wellbore conductivity with its unique cylindrical
arrangement of proppant in the pack.
PAD Schedule
PAD stage scheduling can be continued to include combination of linear and cross linked gel
to reduce fluid viscosity, net pressures, increased fracture length extension and minimize
height growth (similar to previous job). Alternatively gaur loading can be reduced with fiber
inclusion to achieve the same.
Geo-mechanical modelling
Vertical anisotropy measurements have to be acquired and anisotropic stress modelling will
be required for accuracy to incorporate vertical anisotropy effects. This will increase
confidence on stress profile, stress contrasts more significantly in shales, which will optimize
job volumes and fracture geometry.

Acquisitions for fracturing

 Variations in rock properties and stresses are expected in between wells and also
within the field. To capture possible lateral variation in rock mechanical properties
across faults, Sonic (both compressional and shear) acquisition is highly
recommended in each fault block.
 Shear sonic anisotropy provides non-destructive way of qualifying anisotropy and
measuring azimuth
 Height calibration on simulation models after DataFRAC and mainFRAC will reduce
uncertainty on frac height estimated from pressure calibration. Temperature logging/
radioactive tracers +Gamma ray logging after DataFRAC and mainFRAC are
recommended to measure frac height.
 Hydraulic Fracture Monitoring (HFM) services are recommended to evaluate fracture
growth based on micro seismicity events measured. HFM will evaluate fracture
placement (Frac length, height, azimuth and interaction between multiple fractures
more evident in horizontal laterals). However the prerequisites for a suitable
observation well has to be confirmed.
 Downhole pressure gauges or live annulus if feasible based on casing capacity are
recommended for better downhole pressure monitoring during fracturing treatment to
eliminate frictional pressure calculations uncertainties.
 Periodic downhole pressure (SBHP, FBHPs) are recommended along with post frac
well tests to monitor production behavior.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 24 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

 CBL- VDL – USIT are required to ensure strong cement bond before HF jobs.
 RST may be logged to measure in-situ fluid saturations before HF job. This would
also aid in dynamic model calibration.
 Image logs to evaluate laminations typical of EPIV laminated formation can determine
the laminations effect on fracturing.

6.2 Horizontal Well Fracture Placement

Stage Design and Effective Fracture Placement

Recommendations for horizontal well fracturing requires petrophysical interpretation of logging
data, reservoir characterization and completion quality across the lateral. Currently, due to the
data limited to vertical well, stages & effective fracture placement modelling based on the
integration of reservoir and completion quality cannot be analyzed.
Recommended Workflow for Stage design:
 Variability of the rock should be accounted in terms of Reservoir quality (RQ) and
Completion quality (CQ), the former being ability of the rock to produce and later
the ease of cracking the rock along the lateral as shown in Figure 10 .
 Rank the entire lateral based on a composite quality on RQ and CQ specific
measurement results or logs.
 The output of this stage analysis is the optimum number of stages, stage length,
the pinpoint location and design of the perforation clusters along the lateral.

Refer to Appendix Mangrove Completion Advisor for optimum stage design workflow.

Stage Isolation Method

Decision on stage isolation type will be based on the economics and efficiency of the isolation,
RIH procedure, time, and milling of isolations and flow back. Several technologies available in
the market are categorized as follows.
 Rig Based Conventional Systems: Rig based
Cemented completions: Plug & perf, n-zone, Kickstart etc.
Un cemented – Open hole systems
 Rig Less Integrated Completion system : Highly efficient for large no: of stages
 Rig Less Fluid diversion systems: Highly efficient for large no : of stages
Various SLB technologies are provided in Appendix for reference.

Fracturing Fluid
Same recommendations as vertical well based on (1D MEM), refer section 6.1.3.

Fracturing fluid recommendation needs to be re-evaluated on the basis of reservoir

quality and completion quality (stress contrast, young’s modulus from 1D anisotropic
MEM modelling) across the lateral.

Pumping rate, fluid viscosity and fluid type will highly depend on Completion quality, treatment
path (Through casing/ Frac string pumping).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 25 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Treatment Type
HiWAY same as vertical well.

Proppant
Same as vertical well (refer section 6.1.4)
Job Design & Volumes
To be evaluated based on stage design explained in section 6.2.1.

Geo-mechanical Modelling
Same as vertical well (refer section 6.1.6).

7 Appendix
7.1 Refrac Candidate Wells
As part of this study, GOGL requested SLB to suggest wells that could be taken as refrac
candidates. Refracturing the existing wells is a global oil industry practice. There are a few
case studies published in SPE on refrac practice (SPE 24857, SPE 50912, SPE. 71045, SPE
134330).The success stories of such campaigns are mixed. Campaigns mentioned in SPE
24857 (Kuparuk River unit in Alaska, 1992), SPE 71045 (Tight gas sand in the Wattenberg
Field in Colarado, 2001) have been successful ones. Wang et al. (SPE 50912, 1998) mentions
both aspects of refracturing program in a field existing in northwest of China. Vincent (SPE
134330, 2010) discusses various case studies of refracturing around the world and mentions
the reasons for success and failure. Biggest challenge to design refrac job is to model the
altered stress-strain properties in borehole and thus fracture geometry as proppant is pushed
into the formation. Nevertheless, various companies have still considered refracturing the
wells.
As our discussion with GOGL, other companies involved in Cambay basin have tried
refracturing the wells successfully. Therefore, it was decided to screen wells where fracture
appears to be dormant now from simulation study of EP-IV reservoir of Kanawara field and
refracturing could be an option.

Selection Procedure
The wells were nominated for refracturing purely from its performance in history matching
exercise of the Kanawara field. Pressure production data available to SLB for Kanawara field
consists of flowing bottom hole pressure surveys and tubing head pressures. For each well,
vertical flow correlation model was setup in PipesimTM and calibrated with available data at
certain points in production history. These model assisted to predict the prevailing flowing
bottom hole pressure during the production history. It should be noted that this exercise has
uncertainty associated with it inherently. Estimated flowing bottom hole pressures forms the
basis of well performance in history match. The wells which seemed to be matching the
performance sans fracture are recommended for refracturing. Based on this process, two wells
K#2 and K#5 can be considered for refracturing. However, only K#5 is recommended for
refracturing as K#2 is a high GOR well. The reservoir is also not depleted for well K#5 and no
water production is observed.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 26 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 9 shows the history match comparison of well K#5 with and without fracture. Well was
fractured in May 2008. After Jan 2010, fracture does not appear to affect the well performance.

Solid Line: HM with Fractures Striped Line: HM Without Fractures

Figure 9: History match of well K#5

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 27 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

7.2 Stage Design Workflow

Schlumberger Mangrove Completion advisor

 Mangrove in fact provides two separate advisors – one for verticals in tight sand and
the other for laterals in shale

 The variability of rock is accounted in terms of RQ and CQ, the former being ability of
the rock to produce and later the ease of cracking the rock along the lateral

 We rank the entire lateral based on a composite quality that is derived from RQ and
CQ specific measurement results or logs

 The system also accounts for structural constraints and operational constraints.

 The entire run is completed in minutes vs. the conventional days that will be required
if done manually

 Now with Mangrove, we have an efficient staging advisor that allows to pick the
sweetest spots for perforation and group the similar rocks in stages based on the rock
variability

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 28 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 10 Mangrove Completion advisor

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 29 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

7.3 Multi Stage Isolation techniques from Schlumberger

Conventional technologies

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 30 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

BroadBand Technologies
Highly rig time saving and increased reservoir /wellbore contact

7.3.2.1 BroadBand Precision: Integrated Completion & Fluid Technology

Broadband Precision, enables controlled placement of fractures to maximize productivity
and recovery by stimulating every single entry point individually. This is achieved through the
seamless integration of cementing sleeves, coiled tubing, fracturing and flow back operations
while incorporating cutting-edge technologies in fracturing fluids and multistage completion
technology.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 31 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 11 BroadBand Precision Features

Figure 12 Conventional Vs BroadBand Precision Stimulated Volume

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 32 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

7.3.2.2 Broadband Sequence

Rig less Fluid diversion/isolation system
BroadBand Sequence

BroadBand Sequence Applications

 Overcome formation heterogeneities to maximize the number of fractures
 Increase number of fractures reliably
 Increase operation efficiency
 Restore production in wells previously stimulated (re-fracturing)

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 33 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Hydro Fracturing Review Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure 13 BroadBand Sequence Features

Figure 14 Diversion by Broad Band Sequence Composite pills

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 34 of 34

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Kanawara Field Development Study

Upside Olpad Potential

Annexure

Tender No:

HL/FDP/14-15/003

APPROVAL FOR ISSUE

Document Originator Name: Vaibhav Jain Position: Reservoir Geophysicist

Technical Authority Name: Suman Das Position: Senior Geophysicist

Reviewed by Name: Francois Bouchet Position: Technical Manager

Schlumberger confidential. © Copyright 2015 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.
Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

DISCLAIMER

Any interpretation, research, analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation

furnished with the services or otherwise communicated by Schlumberger to customer at
any time in connection with the services are opinions based on inferences from
measurements, empirical relationships and/or assumptions, which inferences, empirical
relationships and/or assumptions are not infallible, and with respect to which
professionals in the industry may differ. Accordingly, Schlumberger cannot and does not
warrant the accuracy, correctness or completeness of any such interpretation, research,
analysis, data, results, estimates or recommendation. Customer acknowledges that it is
accepting the services "as is", that Schlumberger makes no representation or warranty,
express or implied, of any kind or description in respect thereto. Specifically, customer
acknowledges that Schlumberger does not warrant that any interpretation, research,
analysis, data, results, estimates, or recommendation is fit for a particular purpose,
including but not limited to compliance with any government request or regulatory
requirement. Customer further acknowledges that such services are delivered with the
explicit understanding and agreement that any action taken based on the services
received shall be at its own risk and responsibility and no claim shall be made against
Schlumberger as a consequence thereof.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 2 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table of Contents

1 Upside potential in Olpad formation ....................................................................... 4

1.1 Background Geology ...................................................................................... 4
1.2 Hydrocarbon potential from well log ................................................................ 4
1.3 Hydrocarbon Potential from Seismic data ....................................................... 7
1.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 10

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 3 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1 Upside potential in Olpad formation

1.1 Background Geology

This section elaborates review on identification of upside potential in the Olpad level
apart from the main producing reservoir i.e. EP-IV. As discussed in the regional geology
section, the Olpad Formation is deposited during Paleocene age.

Olpad Formation comprises of thick synrift sediments derived from Trap escarpments,
Grabens/Half grabens accumulated trap wash, trap conglomerate, reddish brown
claystones and siltstones which unconformably overlie Deccan Trap. Claystones which
are the main constituents vary in colour and texture with distinct vertico-lateral variations
(Pratap, 2006). In Kanawara Field, Olpad Formation is an immature dumping of
sediments with very short and limited transportation of the clastic sediments derived from
the erupted volcanic masses. The Olpad sediments are mainly continental deposits.

1.2 Hydrocarbon potential from well log

K#1 well has been drilled until Olpad formation and conventional wireline logs are
available for analysis. The lithology primarily consists of shales, weathered trap and trap
wash. Due to presence of heavy minerals commonly associated with trap wash, neutron
logs are poor indicators of clay volume or total porosity of the formation. Clay rich trap
wash has primary presence of Bauxite and Bentonitic clays. These intervals have higher
GR and hence, GR was used as clay volume indicator. In unconventional reservoirs such
as basement and conglomerate which have parallel charging from the source rocks, the
structure, timing, presence of conduit, and migration trend plays an important role.
Hence, the geological facies which satisfy the criteria for reservoir rocks can have
considerable hydrocarbon reserves. For study of Olpad formation, it was attempted to
classify the data into four different lithology- Weathered, Trap wash, Argillaceous trap
wash, and Shales as shown in Figure 2 below. The classification was compared against
lithology reported in mud logs. Lithic wacke is also present from 2110-2170 m.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 4 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure-1: RBOB-NPHI cross plot of Olpad Formation from well K#1.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 5 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure-2: Petrophysical analysis of Olpad Formation from well K#1.

In practice, one function for porosity, saturation can be defined per rock class, as they
are expected to have unique mineral composition, extent of weathering and fractures
affecting porosity and permeability. Hydrocarbon saturation will depend on above
mentioned factors. Grain density measurements are required to define porosity functions
per class. Whole core images, thin sections can qualitatively distinguish poro-perm
behavior based on weathering/fracture and Pc measurements to determine one SHF per

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 6 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

class. In this study, the major drawback is even though the initial classification has been
carried out using conventional logs such as GR, RHOB, NPHI, conventional core data is
not available to refine the classification system and calibrate matrix and saturation
parameters. Hence, the quantitative determination of petrophysical parameters within
acceptable uncertainty range is not feasible. The mud log has reported shows at multiple
depths (Table 1) which do not follow a straightforward trend with the lithology or depth
as commonly seen in these type of reservoirs. The conventional log analysis do not
indicate zones of hydrocarbons with high probability and the zones tested (Table 2) failed
to demonstrate the presence of hydrocarbon. However, for preliminary volumetric
estimation the intervals showing high mud gas readings in Olpad formation have been
considered possible pay (143 m).

Table 1: Summary of Oil and Gas Shows from Mud Logs (Source: Well File K#1)

Table 2: Summary of Well Test for Olpad Formation (Source: Well File K#1)

1.3 Hydrocarbon Potential from Seismic data

Olpad formation is proven prospective in different part of Cambay basin with the main
produced lies in Nawagam field. The production from Olpad formation is subsequently
reported from Unawa field, Dholka field. The recent discovery in adjacent block further
point towards production from Olpad\ fracture trap.

In the present block the deeper Olpad formation was penetrated in K#1E well, indicating
hydrocarbon shows in deeper part. Seismic interpretation shows that K#1E and K#4 sub
blocks in the study area are uplifted to such an extent that they juxtaposed against
overlying Cambay shale towards downthrown side. Later migration of hydrocarbon

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 7 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

across fault can be a potential hydrocarbon mechanism for charging Olpad formation
and underlying trap in naturally fractured.

Detail study of Olpad formation remains challenging due to poor seismic quality in deeper
part and inadequate information due to less well penetration. The proper assessment of
mapping of the trap and presence of fractures in trap is more challenging in absence of
prominent reflector to map trap top and lack of well penetration with image log data in
the block under study. Further, the fracture identification which is important for maturing
fracture reservoir cannot be carried out from seismic due to presence of noise in deeper
part.

Therefore, the present analysis if only indicative about the potential areas for Olpad\
Fracture trap formation that can be charged from later migration. At present status of
data quality and availability, the analysis remains only indicative to qualitative.

The juxtaposition of the overlying source rock with Olpad\ fracture trap formation is
restricted towards the western part of the block. On the basis of juxtaposition an area of
1.59 Sq. km. is demarcated (red polygon in Figure 3).

In addition, the seismic attribute analysis shows high “RMS” and “sweetness” in Western
block that’s shows a likely fan geometry on paleo half graben geomorphology adjacent
to the horst highs covering an area of 1.59 Sq. Km within the Mining Lease area.
However, the attribute should be used with caution as there is no well to calibrate the
seismic attribute with the interpreted/predicted likely facies or geobodies. Therefore
upside potential of Olpad formation remains enigmatic. However, the “bright spot” in the
western block, broadly coinciding with the juxtaposition with source rock is encouraging
and can be considered as important lead area for Olpad formation, which need to be
proved by the operator by drilling. Cambay shale can act for as source rock as well as
top seal. Updip seal is one of the main risk elements for hydrocarbon prospectivity of
Olpad formation. As shown in the Figure 3, “wedges” in Olpad formation is continued
outside the lease boundary, therefore proper sealing mechanism remains the main risk.

The prospectively of fracture trap is guided by the fracture density within the Decan trap.
If charged, hydrocarbon pool is expected in the zone of higher interconnected fracture
density.

With the available information from public literature, discovery in neighboring well and
hydrocarbon show in K#1E well it is recommended to penetrate the deeper formation in
future exploratory well within the area showing high amplitude and lateral juxtaposition
of reservoir and source rock. If proven, it will open up future potential target within Olpad\
Fracture Trap formation in present block.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 8 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure-3: Seismic section showing possible play element for Olpad formation. The location in seismic line is displayed in map (red line). The
high “sweetness” attribute shows fan geometry (red dashed outline).

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 9 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

1.4 Conclusion
Well K1 which is drilled in the high amplitude region, as shown in Figure 1, has shown
no flow of hydrocarbon during production testing (Table 2), thereby the seismic response
does not show any accurate calibration with hydrocarbon bearing zone.

Figure-3: Seismic section showing possible play element for Olpad formation. The
location in seismic line is displayed in map (red line). The high “sweetness” attribute
shows fan geometry (red dashed outline). K#1 well is plotted in the high amplitude
zone.

The structural map of Olpad Formation in the block shows nosal feature that’s shallows
up towards NW. This may be resulting from the fluid migration from the Olpad towards
NW due to absence of any up-dip seal. Poor seismic quality and unfavorable testing
results in well K#1 makes any future prospectivity in Olpad within the Mining Lease

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 10 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

boundary a risky endeavor. The key in success in deeper Fracture Deecan Trap
Basement lies in identifying presence of natural fractures and the juxtaposition of source
rock (Cambay shale) against the fractured basement which is not observed within the
block. Further reprocessing of present seismic with the objective of imaging in deeper
Olpad and Fracture trap formation can lead to further meaningful study and any lead\
prospect generation targeting the Olpad\ Fracture Trap formation.

Figure-4: SPE/AAPG/WPC/SPEE 2011 MRMS classification for resource classification

system.

Considering the petrophysical and seismic interpretation study it can be concluded

potential of Olpad formation\ Fracture trap in the present block can be classified as “Low
Prospective Resources” with likely presence of “Undiscovered Play” following
SPE/AAPG/WPC/SPEE 2011 PRMS guideline as shown in Figure-4.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 11 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Figure-5: Depth structure map of Olpad formation.Red polygon shows the closing
contour considered for volume calculation.

A quick look estimation of resource is carried out using the final closing contour and is
listed in the following table. As discussed in previous section in absence of conclusive
evidence of hydrocarbon in K#1 and K#2 the volume calculation is based on certain
assumption and associated with high level of uncertainty. The zones which are
considered at net pay in this situation has been taken as intervals with high mud gas
readings.

However, considering the potentiality of Olpad play it is recommended to test deeper

Olpad play in the future drilling program.

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 12 of 13

Kanawara FDP – Olpad Potential Tender No. HL/FDP/14-15/003

Table: 1: Estimated unrisked STOIIP for Olpad formation

Reservoir Olpad formation

Structural closure (m) 2220
Aream (km2) 1.59
Net thickness (m) 143
Porosity 0.11
Oil Saturation 0.2
Formation Volume Factor 1.4
STOIIP (MMm3) 3.573

31st Mar 2016 Confidential Page 13 of 13