SPE-202950-MS

Success Cases of Identification of Field Development Opportunities Using

Rate Transient Analysis RTA In Talara Basin - Peru

Tobias Sabrera Chia, Javier Dextre Rubina, and Jorge Galloso Terrones, Zeus Energy

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference to be held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9 – 12 November 2020.
Due to COVID-19 the physical event was changed to a virtual event. The official proceedings were published online on 9 November 2020.

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

Abstract
Talara Basin, located along the northwestern coastline of Peru, has been developed for more than 130
years, having as main geological feature the high structural complexity due to the massive faulting that
the formations are subjected. Being a relevant challenge to adjust the static and dynamic characterization
from the reservoirs. As the area is in an advanced development state it is crucial a detailed evaluation
when identifying additional development opportunities such as the location of new wells and potential
workover jobs. This paper summarizes the application of the rate transient analysis (RTA) methodology in
the reservoirs from the Talara basin as a versatile tool for the dynamic characterization and identification of
development opportunities with applied cases in the Salina formation of Block XIIIA.
The applied workflow begins with the collection of low frequency records, such as flow rates, wellhead
and bottomhole pressures which are the basis input for the RTA models. Using the available analytical
models, the dynamic characterization of the reservoir is achieved, obtaining reservoirs parameters like
effective permeability, drainage radius and current reservoir pressure. These data were validated and
calibrated with well tests and PTA (pressure transient analysis), obtaining very good adjustments with the
RTA models. The second step is the creation of numerical RTA models at the structural block level (limited
by local faults), using well information, geology, and reservoir data. Sensitivities are made to both the
reservoir parameters and the transmissibility of the faults (blocks with original pressure were identified),
achieving the history match of the blocks and obtaining maps of current reservoir pressure for each unit flow.
New wells and workover jobs were identified and executed using the information obtained from the RTA
numerical models, resulting successful jobs, and obtaining a very good match to the prediction of productive
performance of wells. In addition, the current reservoir pressure maps were validated when measuring the
formation pressure after drilling using wireline formation tests and mobility and permeability values per
flow unit were obtained. In the case of workover jobs, static pressure calculations were made with the
information obtained from minifrac (using After Closure Analysis) in all cases the obtained values of current
pressure resulted in adjustments of less than 3% of error.
According to the cases presented in this paper the feasibility and versatility of RTA models in the
predictability and reproduction of the behavior of the reservoirs of Talara Basin are demonstrated, helping
2 SPE-202950-MS

to identifying business opportunities, mitigating depletion risks, and making better decisions for the well
completion

Introduction
Talara Basin, located in the Peruvian Northwest, is the most developed coastal basin in Peru, beginning its
development in 1890. Its main characteristic is massive faulting, sub-dividing the structures into multiple
sub-blocks with variable fault transmissibility (sealing and non-sealing faults). Figure 1 shows the location
of block XIIIA, which is the Study area, located towards the southern part of the Talara basin and Salina
Formation has a main developed area of 1200 acres.

Figure 1—Block XIIIA location – Talara Basin, Peru

On the other hand, Figure 2 shows the life cycle of the reservoir, starting from exploration and ending in
abandonment. As part of one of the best Reservoir Management Practices, the acquisition of information
during each of the life stages of the field is very important for the construction of dynamic models, especially
in fields with high structural complexity such as those of the Talara Basin.
SPE-202950-MS 3

Figure 2—Life Cycle of Reservoirs

Static Information
The cases of study are focused on the Salina Formation (oil reservoir) that consists in fine to medium quartz
sandstones and some conglomerates interbedded with clays and shales. The sedimentary environment is
mainly delta. It has three stratigraphic sequences identified as three episodes of sedimentation that subdivide
it into: Lower Salina, Middle Salina, and Upper Salina (the main reservoir of block XIIIA) and this last has
two main members: Upper B and Upper A.
There is core information that have been integrated with the information on the Open Hole well logs for
the construction of depositional models and facies models at the lithological unit level.
Figure 3 shows the composite record integrated with the lithological units of the Salina formation, which
is used to be applied throughout the whole field.

Figure 3—Stratigrahpic Composite Log – Salina Formation

Reservoir type is saturated Black Oil with 40° API degrees, the initial reservoir pressure gradient ranges
from 0.47 to 0.53 psi/ft.
4 SPE-202950-MS

Dynamic Information
Since the beginning of the development of Block XIIIA, various alternatives have been used to acquire
dynamic information during the productive life of each structural block.
Figure 4 shows the dynamic information that is commonly taken in the field of study, highlighting the use
of well logging and stimulation operations to acquire valuable dynamic information to build and validate
dynamic reservoir models.

Figure 4—Frequent Dynamic Information in Block XIII

Objectives of Study
Having uncertainty in the connectivity of the reservoir within the structural blocks due to multiple faulting
and having as the main challenge the detailed dynamic characterization of each production unit, the
following objectives were proposed to abord these issues:

• Obtain the dynamic characterization of the reservoir (mainly: Pr, Ko) integrating both the static
and production information.
• Identify additional production opportunities supported by RTA models.

• Collect information after the execution of the identified proposals and validate the dynamic models.

• Update the integrated models with the new information (pressure model).

Rate Transient Analysis Methodology

The process used in the work was a sequence of steps normally used for RTA analysis, updating the models
as more information was collected with the help of PTA analysis (information from buildup tests and after
closure analysis). The process applied to the dynamic RTA models is shown in figure 5.
SPE-202950-MS 5

Figure 5—Applied Methodology Process

Input Data and Diagnostics

In addition to the static pressure (petrophysics), PVT data and Well Mechanics properties. The flow rates
and flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP) are required, the latter in many cases are not directly measured,
but instead we have the flowing tubing head pressure (FTHP) that through well models and correlations can
be transformed to FBHP, and later this transformation can be calibrated and validated by taking information
through a dynamic gradient test with memory gauge. With this information, diagnostics can be carried out.

Analytical and Numerical RTA Model

With the input information the RTA analytical models are performed, using flowing material balance
techniques (Blasingame and Normalized pressure rate models). After adjustment, the Multiwell numerical
model is carried out, using the production information of the existing wells in the structural block. This
model must consider the static information available from the structural block (reservoir properties). From
the historical adjustment, we have the history of pressures and historical reservoir pressure maps with which
it is possible to identify zones with a certain considerable degree of energy for future development proposals.
Figure 6 shows the complete workflow for Analytical – Numerical RTA models.

Figure 6—RTA Application Workflow

Forecasting, Execution, and Integration

Opportunities are identified and forecasts are made either considering constant flowing bottom pressure or
constant production flow. Once the proposals are identified, and after executing them, the greatest amount
of Dynamic information is taken either with Wireline Formation Testing (WFT) or Mini-Falloff (MFO)
tests using After Closure Analysis (ACA). With this information, the previous RTA numerical models are
validated, calibrated, and updated to continue identifying development opportunities such as Workover or
Drilling Proposals.
6 SPE-202950-MS

Case Study 1 – Sub Block X

This case is developed in sub block X which has an area of 82 acres and has mainly two members of the
Salina formation (Upper A and Upper B) as producing units. The first well drilled in the block is well PN30
(reference well) its structural location are shown in figure 7. The highlighted black point represents the new
location viewed and to be evaluated in this case (PN57D well).

Figure 7—Structural Location- PN30 Well

Production allocation was obtained with the production tests of wells per unit (Upper A and Upper B)
and the petrophysical properties. Figure 8 shows the production history of the wells from block X by unit.
Using this information, the recovery factors for Upper A and Upper B members were obtained, which are
4 and 8%, respectively.

Figure 8—Production Allocation per Unit - Block X

According to the recovery factors, in addition to the possible null transmissibility between the faults, it
was decided to make an RTA model considering the most critical case (considering the fault closest to the
proposed location of the PN57D well as transmissible fault). The Workflow was developed (figure 9) using
TFHP and transforming to FBHP through a well model (calibrated with a dynamic gradient).
SPE-202950-MS 7

Figure 9—Analytical and Numerical RTA model

The reservoir pressure maps (figure 10) were obtained for both Upper A and Upper B units, with which
the PN57D drilling proposal could be supported, since if the fault were transmissible it could still have a
considerable energy level in the Upper B and Upper A units.

Figure 10—RTA Pressure model – Sub Block X

Well PN57D was drilled and information was taken from Wireline Formation Testing with the XPT tool,
obtaining values of reservoir pressure and mobility (figure 11) for 9 stations distributed between the Upper
A and Upper B units. Values were founded with original pressure so the sealing fault would be the more
accurate scenario.
8 SPE-202950-MS

Figure 11—Wireline Formation Testing Results – PN57D Well

Well PN57D was completed only in the Upper B unit because of the high reservoir quality with excellent
results, starting production with a flow rate of 400 barrels of oil per day (BOPD). The production and FTHP
of the PN57D well were monitored for 70 days with the objective of updating the numerical model of the
Upper B and validate fault connectivity the results of this RTA analytical model are shown in figure 12.
Where it is concluded that according to the RTA model the fault near well PN57D has not transmissibility.

Figure 12—RTA Analytical Model. Sealing Fault – PN57D Well

With these results the numerical model were updated, considering new geologic model, sealing faults and
production of PN57D well. The updated reservoir pressure maps per units are shown in figure 13. With this
latest update, two development opportunities were identified: A Workover in well PN56D (central block)
in the Upper A unit (according to the model it would have a reservoir pressure of 1350) and the drilling
of well PN54D (new well location).
SPE-202950-MS 9

Figure 13—Updated RTA Pressure Model -Upper A and Upper B

In February 2020, it was decided to execute the PN56D workover to increase Y block production and
revalidate the pressure model. Figure 14 shows the results of the MFO analysis and the results of the initial
production test which determined that a reservoir pressure (in datum) of 1360 psi was found, results with
which they supported the validation of the RTA numerical model.

Figure 14—MFO and Production Test Results after Workover – PN56D Well

Case Study 2 – Sub Block Y

This case is developed in block X which has an area of 73 acres and has mainly two members of the Salina
formation (Upper A and Upper B) as producing units. The first well drilled in the block is well PN98D
(reference well), its integrated petrophysical evaluation and structural location are shown in figure 15. The
highlighted black point represents a location viewed and to be evaluated in this case.
10 SPE-202950-MS

Figure 15—Pretrohysical Evaluation and Structural Location- PN98D Well

At a petrophysical level and considering productive history, the member with the best reservoir quality
is the Salina Upper B unit. The historical production allocation was carried out using a production logging
record (PLT) taken in PN98D well and the production tests of the other wells (figure 16).

Figure 16—Production Log and Production Allocation- Block Y

According to the knowledge of the formation, the recovery factor of 13% for the Upper B unit is relatively
high, therefore, there was a risk that this member towards the proposed location PN128D well would be
relatively depleted. To validate this a pressure test was taken in PN98D well that was producing only from
the Upper B unit. The test was carried out with an indirect method with the continuous measurement of
SPE-202950-MS 11

fluid levels (submergence) with a sonic equipment during the restoration. As shown in figure 17, it was
possible to identify the transient radial period and calculate the current reservoir pressure for the Upper B
unit in the drainage area of PN98D well.

Figure 17—PTA analysis – PN98D Upper B unit

The permeability and current reservoir pressure estimation was integrated with the daily production
information and bottom pressures FBHP and the analytical and numerical model RTA multiwell was
generated using well PN98D as a reference well. This adjustment of the numerical model for the Upper B
unit is shown in figure 18. Where according to the current reservoir pressure map it was estimated that the
Upper B unit would be found with an average reservoir pressure value of 310 psi.

Figure 18—Analytical and Numerical RTA model – Upper B unit

With these analyzes, it was determined that the Upper B unit would not be a target to be drilled by the
location of the PN128D well. Even so, after an economic evaluation only for the Upper A unit (RF: 6.4%)
it was determined that it was feasible to drill the proposed location with the objective of only developing
this unit.
In the well logging stage Wireline Formation Testing was carried out with the XPT tool, with which
the current reservoir pressure and mobility were determined in each of the valid stations. These results are
shown in Figure 19. Based on these results the average pressure of the Upper A and Upper B units are
12 SPE-202950-MS

around 1100 psi and 318 psi, respectively. Therefore, the acquired information was able to validate the RTA
numerical model for the Upper B unit with an error of 3%.

Figure 19—Wireline Formation Testing Results – PN128D WellFigure 20– Current Reservoir Pressure Map - Upper A unit

Well PN128D was completed in the Upper A, starting production with a flow rate of 500 barrels of oil
per day (BOPD). The production and FTHP of the PN128D well were monitored for 4 months with the
objective of updating the numerical model of the Upper A unit under the same methodology. And after
that time, it was possible to obtain a current reservoir pressure map for the Upper A unit shown in figure
20. With this analysis it was determined that towards the PN98D well zone (which was already without
production by then) there was an additional development opportunity in this unit and with this a Workover
proposal was determined in the Upper A unit of the PN98D well that according to the model would find
the unit with a reservoir pressure of 1390 psi.

Figure 20—Current Reservoir Pressure Map - Upper A unit

Workover of PN98D in the Upper A unit was executed, as it was a low quality reservoir interval according
to the petrophysical evaluation, it was decided to perform hydraulic fracturing and the minifrac operation
was used to perform a MFO Test (figure 21) and through the After Closure Analysis the average reservoir
pressure was determined to be 1400 psi, which compared to the RTA model has a deviation of less than 1%.
SPE-202950-MS 13

Workover production tests showed the high reservoir energy despite low reservoir quality, and well PN98D
started with an incremental production of 40 BOPD.

Figure 21—MFO and Production Test Results after Workover – PN98D Well

Conclusions
• Analytical and Numerical RTA models are a versatile tool to predict and reproduce the reservoir
behavior of reservoirs of Talara Basin, according to cases presented in this paper, the deviation of
energy prediction is less than 3%.
• The applied jobs helped to develop reserves from blocks X and Y, increasing Final Recovery
Factors between 3 to 5% in these sub-blocks.
• Dynamic data analysis in many cases does not require excessive investment, a considerable part
of input data is available (production flow rates and FTHP).
• It is necessary to calibrate the models with current information, to obtain a better adjustment to
reality and ensure successful results, for which taking current information with WFT and Minifrac
tools is very important.
• This methodology has limitations in the calibration when we work with very tight reservoirs, due to
the fact that the amount of time to reach the infinite acting radial flow is relatively high, in addition
to the difficulty to take Wireline Formation Testing in this kind of formation, we conclude that the
application is recommended for reservoirs with permeability above 0.5 mD.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to appreciate to Zeus Energy and Olympic INC. Peru for Permission to have this
paper published.

Nomenclature
RTA = Rate Transient Analysis
PTA = Pressure Transient Analysis
WFT = Wireline Formation Testing
FBM = Flowing Material Balance
FTHP = Flowing Tubing Head Pressure
FBHP = Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure
ACA = After Closure Analysis
14 SPE-202950-MS

OILCUM = Cumulative Volume of Oil

IRP = Initial Rate of Production
PTA = Pressure Transient Analysis
MFO = Mini-falloff
q= Flow Rate
F= Recovery Factor
Pr = Reservoir Pressure
Ko = Relative Permeability
ℎ= Ney Pay
ϕ= Porosity

References
Satter, A., Varnon, J. E., & Hoang, M. T. (1994, December 1). Integrated Reservoir Management. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi: 10.2118/22350-PA.
E.Coronado, Geological Report-Stratigraphic Model Salina Formation,2020
Kappa Dynamic Data Analysis Book Ed. 2020
C.Rojas, V.Sabrera, J.Rodriguez, M. Saldaña -Build Up Tests Rigless, a Technical-Economic Alternative to Mature Field
Wells, Block IX Application, INGEPET, 2018