SYNOPSIS
The field was discovered by Alinso 1 (drilled to 4092m, 13425.2ft) in 1975.
Alinso 1 encountered one gas bearing zone only F3AO2
Alinso 2 was dilled in 2009 to optimise the gas recovery from F3AO2 and to appraise
a shallower prospect F2AO in a more up-dip structural position.
Alinso 3 was drilled in 2012 to appraise the extent of F2AO and test the downdip
potentials of F3A02. The hole was dry but two sidetracks were drilled.
Alinso has two major reservoirs under review (F2AO/E and F3AO/J1).
E and J have in-place volume of 3.09 and 77BSCF respectively.
E was only developed by reopening of the existing well (03ST2). The well is a
sidetrack of the third well as the original drill was dry. RF was 82% within 12months
with incremental recovery of 1.23BSCF at 5MMSCF/D.
E Reservoir and Saturation Pressure was 4633psia.
J was developed using two scenarios. One well development strategy produced at
17mmscf/d with Incremental Recovery of 27bscf at 66% recovery factor (RF). Second
scenario was two well strategy (One existing, one new-The infil well was later
introduced two years into production with the existing well.) which produced at
16mmscf/d & 20mmscf/d respectively with Incremental Recovery of 33bscf at 80%
recovery factor.
Material balance analysis was carried out on level F3A02/J1 reservoir to evaluate
available energies and deduce aquifer parameters.
Ebegoro J1 PVT was used as an analogue for Alinso field- all the three reservoirs.
Normal regression was not sufficient and rigorous regression was carried on the
three reservoirs. Please explain more
J Reservoir and Saturation Pressure was 5200psia and 4633psia respectively.
The pressure match was done in the first phase by constraining the model to
reproduce the total reservoir voidage and adjusting the aquifer strength to match the
observed tubing head pressure. Having achieved a good match, the saturation match
was then carried out. In the saturation match, the reservoir model was constrained
to reproduce the historical gas volume (GRAT) while the oil rate and water rate were
matched.
The one well strategy (existing well) was recommended as the additional recovery
obtained with an infill well might not compensate for the cost of drilling and
completing the well.
ALINSO
In F2AO/E reservoir, a recovery of 82% was achieved at the end of prediction within
a period of 12 months; there is the chance that the level has more accumulation than
interpreted. We recommend further update of the F2AO reservoir level based on
future data acquisition.
F3AO2/J1 reservoir, the Do nothing scenario will be more economical as the
additional recovery obtained with an infill well might not compensate for the cost of
drilling and completing the well. We also recommend that detailed economic
evaluation of the prediction cases using cost figures applicable to NAOC should be
carried out to determine profitable options based on NAOC operations and facility.
J_NEW reservoir had a total recovery factor of 0.67Bscf of gas and it will not be
economical to complete any well on the J_NEW reservoir level.
******************************
The static models were provided for Alinso levels F2A0/E, F3A02/J1 and J_NEW
reservoirs. Material balance analysis was carried out on level F3A02/J1 reservoir to
evaluate available energies and deduce aquifer parameters. An offset PVT model from
Ebegoro J1 was applied to the Alinso reservoir levels.
The field was discovered by Alinso 1 (drilled to 4092m, 13425.2ft) in 1975.
Alinso 1 encountered one gas bearing zone only F3AO2
Alinso 2 was dilled in 2009 to optimise the gas recovery from F3AO2 and to appraise
a shallower prospect F2AO in a more up-dip structural position.
Alinso 3 was drilled in 2012 to appraise the extent of F2AO and test the downdip
potentials of F3A02. The hole was dry but two sidetracks were drilled.
The Alinso reservoir study scope did not include seismic interpretation/analysis
Seismic derived data was limited to depth converted grids for level E/F2A0 and Level
J1/F3A02 and their associated depth converted polygons
DATA
WELL/ DATA
DISCIPLINE DATA TYPE SUPPLIED REMARKS
RESERVOIR QUALITY
(Yes or No)
Initial Pressure and Uncertainty in STOIIP and drive
NO
Temperature mechanism.
Uncertainty in the STOIIP and
PVT Data NO
dynamic simulations
Uncertainty in Reservoir
Special Core Analysis
NO performance and Recovery
(SCAL) Data
Factor
RESERVOIR ENGINEERING
F3AO2 and
Completion History YES GOOD
F2AO
02T/F3AO2
Flow Test Data YES GOOD
and 3T/F2AO
Production history supplied
without the corresponding
pressure data.
Low confidence in Material
02T/F3AO2
Production History YES FAIR Balance Calculations,
and 3T/F2AO
Uncertainties in the STOIIP and
remaining Reserves
Calculation and History
Matching of Simulation Model
Alinso 2T and
Well Sketches YES GOOD
3T
Uncertainty in Permeability
Well Test Data NO
thickness (kh) and skin
Geochemical Analysis
NO
Report
Porosity averaged 0.20
Water saturation average 0.23
NTG averaged 0.8
Volumes (P50); F2AO – 3.1bscf,
F3AO3 – 92.3bscf
JNEW – 16.5bscf
Pressure: F2AO (Res P=4633 psia, Sat P=4633)
F3AO2 (Res P=5200 psia, Sat P=4633)
JNEW (Res P=5200 psia, Sat P=4633)
PVT: Ebegoro J1 was used as an analogue for Alinso field- all the three
reservoirs.