XYZ COMPANY LTD. Prepared For: JOHN DOE. XYZ et al Knopcik 100/ W5/06 PAS-TRG. Dinosaur Park Formation

Similar documents
Figure 1 - Gauges Overlay & Difference Plot

Measure Twice Frac Once

THEORETICAL RESERVOIR MODELS

Pressure Transient Analysis COPYRIGHT. Introduction to Pressure Transient Analysis. This section will cover the following learning objectives:

WELL PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS FOR UNCONVENTIONAL SHALE GAS RESERVOIRS; A CONVENTIONAL APPROACH. FLORIN HATEGAN Devon Canada Corporation

The SPE Foundation through member donations and a contribution from Offshore Europe

PET467E-Analysis of Well Pressure Tests 2008 Spring/İTÜ HW No. 5 Solutions

Perforation Inflow Test Analysis (PITA)

Oil and Gas Well Performance

Reservoir Flow Properties Fundamentals COPYRIGHT. Introduction

MAXIMIZING THE RESERVOIR ACCESS WITH COMPLETION OPTIMIZATION AND EFFECTIVENESS. Luciano Fucello, NCS Multistage Fabio Chiarandini, Gaffney & Cline

Gas Rate Equation. q g C. q g C 1. where. 2πa 1 kh ln(r e /r w ) 0.75 s. T sc p sc T R C C( a 1. =1/(2π 141.2) for field units. =1 for pure SI units

National yams May Pet-B2, Nahiral Gas Engineering. 3 hours duration NOTES:

Evaluation and Forecasting Performance of Naturally Fractured Reservoir Using Production Data Inversion.

Faculty of Science and Technology MASTER S THESIS

Rate Transient Analysis COPYRIGHT. Introduction. This section will cover the following learning objectives:

Well Test Interpretation

READ THIS PAGE COMPLETELY BEFORE STARTING

SPE Uncertainty in rock and fluid properties.

Coalbed Methane Properties

Reservoir Management Background OOIP, OGIP Determination and Production Forecast Tool Kit Recovery Factor ( R.F.) Tool Kit

Radius of Investigation for Reserve Estimation From Pressure Transient Well Tests

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

Rate Transient Analysis Theory/Software Course

Dimensionless Wellbore Storage Coefficient: Skin Factor: Notes:

Introduction to Well Stimulation

Propagation of Radius of Investigation from Producing Well

2. Standing's Method for Present IPR

The evaluative methods on shale gas productivity using the DFIT

Flow of Non-Newtonian Fluids within a Double Porosity Reservoir under Pseudosteady State Interporosity Transfer Conditions

SPE Comparison of Numerical vs Analytical Models for EUR Calculation and Optimization in Unconventional Reservoirs

A NEW SERIES OF RATE DECLINE RELATIONS BASED ON THE DIAGNOSIS OF RATE-TIME DATA

Inflow Performance 1

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance PRACTICE Final Examination (Well "B") 05 May 2003 (08:00-10:00 a.m. RICH 302)

SPE Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

Optimization of Plunger Lift Performance in Stripper Gas Wells during the Period 05/15/2001 to 11/30/2002

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

Considerations for Infill Well Development in Low Permeability Reservoirs

WELL TESTING COURSE. Authors: Enzo Beretta ENI E&P. Francesca Verga Politecnico di Torino

Study of early dynamic evaluation methods in complex small fault-block reservoirs

Petroleum Engineering 324 Reservoir Performance. Objectives of Well Tests Review of Petrophysics Review of Fluid Properties 29 January 2007

A Physics-Based Data-Driven Model for History Matching, Prediction and Characterization of Unconventional Reservoirs*

region includes nine states and four provinces, covering over 1.4 million square miles. The PCOR Partnership

IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON

(Page 2 of 7) Reservoir Petrophysics: Introduction to Geology (continued) Be familiar with Reservoir Petrophysics (continued)... Slides Reservoi

WELL/RESERVOIR EVALUATION BY USING PRESSURE TRANSIENT AND MATERIAL BALANCE ANALYSIS OF A GAS WELL IN BANGLADESH. MD.

National Exams May 2016

TRANSIENT AND PSEUDOSTEADY-STATE PRODUCTIVITY OF HYDRAULICALLY FRACTURED WELL. A Thesis ARDHI HAKIM LUMBAN GAOL

Presentation of MSc s Thesis

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Before beginning, I would like to acknowledge the amazing contributions of Ken Nolte. I suspect that the origins of most of our discussion during

THE FIRST SUCSESSFUL MULTI STAGED FRACTURING IN A DEEP VOLCANIC GAS RESERVOIR IN JAPAN

Introduction to Formation Evaluation Abiodun Matthew Amao

Integrated Approach to Drilling Project in Unconventional Reservoir Using Reservoir Simulation

Production System Analysis

If your model can t do this, why run it?

Module for: Analysis of Reservoir Performance Introduction

GENERALIZED PSEUDOPRESSURE WELL TREATMENT

Production performance analysis of fractured horizontal well in tight oil reservoir

MASTER S THESIS. Faculty of Science and Technology. Study program/ Specialization: Spring semester, Petroleum Engineering/ Reservoir Technology

Induced Fractures Modelling in Reservoir Dynamic Simulators

Non-Darcy Skin Effect with a New Boundary Condition

GREEN WELL TESTING A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY. A New Method For Production Data Analysis Using Superposition-Rate. Peter Yue Liang A THESIS

Petroleum Engineering 324 Reservoir Performance. Objectives of Well Tests Review of Petrophysics Review of Fluid Properties 19 January 2007

Chapter Seven. For ideal gases, the ideal gas law provides a precise relationship between density and pressure:

THE REAL GAS PSEUDO PRESSURE FOR GEOTHERMAL STEAM -- SUMMARY REPORT

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

COMPARISON OF SINGLE, DOUBLE, AND TRIPLE LINEAR FLOW MODELS FOR SHALE GAS/OIL RESERVOIRS. A Thesis VARTIT TIVAYANONDA

Factors that affect pressure distribution of horizontal wells in a layered reservoir with simultaneous gas cap and bottom water drive

Flow equations The basic equation, on which all flow equations are based, is Darcy s Law for radial flow is given by: p

The SPE Foundation through member donations and a contribution from Offshore Europe

and a contribution from Offshore Europe

A PSEUDO FUNCTION APPROACH IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION

Perspectives on the Interpretation of Flowback Data from Wells in Shale Reservoir Systems

SPE Copyright 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

Acid Types and Reactions with Different Rocks

Technology of Production from Shale

Shale Gas Reservoir Simulation in Eclipse

The Oyster Bayou CO 2 Flood Case History. Alton Ahrens, Denbury Resources

SPE Well Test Analysis for Wells Producing Layered Reservoirs With Crossflow

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

Petroleum Engineering 324 Well Performance Daily Summary Sheet Spring 2009 Blasingame/Ilk. Date: Materials Covered in Class Today: Comment(s):

Subsurface Maps. K. W. Weissenburger. Isopach. Isochore. Conoco, Inc. Ponca City, Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Sand Control Rock Failure

GAS DELIVERABILITY USING THE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTED VOLUMETRIC SOURCES. A Thesis XIAOZE JIN

American University of Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates, Ras Al Khaimah

Condensate banking vs Geological Heterogeneity who wins? Hamidreza Hamdi Mahmoud Jamiolahmady Patrick Corbett SPE

INTEGRATION OF WELL TEST ANALYSIS INTO A NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIR SIMULATION. A Thesis LAURA ELENA PEREZ GARCIA

Numerical Simulation of Single-Phase and Multiphase Non-Darcy Flow in Porous and Fractured Reservoirs

A BENCHMARK CALCULATION OF 3D HORIZONTAL WELL SIMULATIONS

Two Questions and Three Equations on Distance of Investigation

Pressure-Transient Behavior of DoublePorosity Reservoirs with Transient Interporosity Transfer with Fractal Matrix Blocks

Petrophysics. Theory and Practice of Measuring. Properties. Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport. Fourth Edition. Djebbar Tiab. Donaldson. Erie C.

Rock Optimized Shaped Charges & Section IV Testing

Petroleum Engineering 613 Natural Gas Engineering. Texas A&M University. Lecture 07: Wellbore Phenomena

Optimized Recovery from Unconventional Reservoirs: How Nanophysics, the Micro-Crack Debate, and Complex Fracture Geometry Impact Operations

Colorado s Underground Injection Control Program: Prevention and Mitigation of Induced Seismicity

AFTER CLOSURE ANALYSIS OF THE LINEAR FLOW REGIME IN A FRACTURE CALIBRATION TEST. A Thesis ZIWENJUE YE

WELL TEST INTERPRETATION AND PRODUCTION PREDICTION FOR WELL SD-01 IN THE SKARDDALUR LOW-TEMPERATURE FIELD, SIGLUFJÖRDUR, N-ICELAND

Transcription:

All depths reported in mkb TVD per EUB requirements. All pressures reported in (a) per EUB requirements. 9.01 used as atmospheric pressure adjustment to convert from gauge to absolute pressure. XYZ COMPANY LTD. Prepared For: JOHN DOE XYZ et al Knopcik 100/01-0-00-0-W/0 P R E S S U R E T R A N S I E N T A N A L Y S I S PAS-TRG Dinosaur Park Formation.00.00 mkb Test Date: October 8, 00 Release Date: May, 008 Job No.: 08.001 Prepared by:

ANALYSIS SUMMARY Company: Test Date: October 8, 00 Contact: John Doe Report Date: May, 008 Well Name: XYZ et al Knopcick Job Number: 08.001 Location: 100/01-0-00-0-W/0 Formation: Dinosaur Park (.00.00 mkb) Objective: The test was conducted to determine the reservoir/fracture parameters and flow characteristics from the buildup then predict the well deliverability from the test results. The test was to fulfill the well s deliverability and reservoir pressure requirements for EUB file submission. Data Preparation: The reservoir pressure was obtained from the post frac surface flow & buildup test data conduced from October 8, 00. The welltest data was recorded at surfacing using an electronic data acquisition system. The surface casing (quiet side) pressures were extrapolated to the gas-water interface depth (LLD = 8. m) using Cullnder and Smith correlation and further to the mid point of the perforated interval (MPP =.0 mkb) using an assumed water gradient of 9.9 /m. The rate data used in the interpretation was from the testers Fieldnotes. A conventional Log-Log diagnostic plot was constructed to identify the flow regimes during the pressure buildup response. The pressure transient response was indicative of a fractured reservoir, as bilinear and linear (fracture) flow regimes were indentified and eventually radial flow conditions developed during the late-time buildup. The test was analyzed and model matched to a Finite Conductivity Fracture model using a ½ section drainage area. The model results were used to indicate a stabilized rate after months of production, AOF and perform a deliverability forecast. All pressures are absolute assuming 9. Reservoir Pressure (Pi(syn)) 01 a Final Casing Shut In Pressure (PSIC) 19 a Final Sandface Shut In Pressure (Psi) 8 a Flow Duration 1 Hr Final Surface Tubing Pressure (Pwft) 98 a Final Sandface Flowing Pressure (Pfws) 1818 a Reservoir Flow Capacity (kh). mdm Results: Reservoir Permeability (k). md Fracture Half Length (Xf) M Apparent Skin Factor (s ) -. Final Gas Rate (qg). 10 m /d Test Sandface AOFst 10. 10 m /d n =1 Stabilized Sandface AOFst.0 10 m /d n = 1 ( months) Test Wellhead WAOFt.1 10 m /d n = 1 Stabilized Wellhead WAOFst. 10 m /d n = 1 ( months) Redress: Should you have any questions or concerns, please email slavin-away@lonewolfsolutions.ca

WellTest Ver.08 C:\ARTEV\LONE WOLF SOLUTIONS\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT.fkt -Apr-0 000 900 100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Calculated Pressure @ MPP=. mkb Total Test t 9.90 hr p data 8. 11.00 10.0 10.00 800 9.0 00 9.00 8.0 00 8.00 00.0.00 00.0 Pressure, 00 00.00.0.00 Gas Rate, 10 m /d 100.0 000 1900 1800 100 t 1.0000 hr p data 181. q g.0 10 m /d.00.0.00.0.00 1.0 1.00 100 0.0 p data 100 q gas 0.00 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 8 90 9 100 10 110 11 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 Time, hr

WellTest Ver.08 C:\ARTEV\LONE WOLF SOLUTIONS\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT.fkt -Apr-0 9 100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Diagnostic Analysis 1 Typecurve t t p 11.0 hr 9.90 hr 8. Storage 1 Radial 0, 10 / Pa.s 10-1 9 Linear Fracture 1/ Bilinear 1/ 10-9 10-8 8 8 8 8 10-10 - 10-1 1.0 10 1 10 Pseudo-Time, hr data Derivative data

WellTest Ver.08 C:\ARTEV\LONE WOLF SOLUTIONS\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT.fkt -Apr-0 0.8 0.80 0. 100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Analysis 1 k =.9 md kh = 8.808 mdm s' = -.98 p* = 010.8 Diagnostic Analysis 1 Radial t t p 11.0 hr 9.90 hr 8. 000 900 800 0.0 00 0. 00, 10 / Pa.s 0.0 0. 0.0 00 00 00 p, 0. 00 0.0 100 000 0. 1900 0.0 1800 0. 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 1 Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time ( t Ra ), hr data p i 1.0 100

C:\ARTEV\LONE WOLF SOLUTIONS\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT.fkt -Apr-0 Ver.08 Gas Well Test - Buildup Radial Flow Analysis 100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Analysis Results Total Sandface Rate (q t B t) 9.889m /d Semilog Slope (m) 9.1 Apparent Skin (s') -.98 Skin - Damage -.98 Gas Permeability (k g ).9mD Skin - Inclination Oil Permeability (k o ) md Skin - Partial Penetration Water Permeability (k w ) md Pressure Drop Due to Skin ( p s ) -8.1 Flow Capacity (kh) Total Mobility (k/ t ) Total Transmissivity(kh/ t ) 8.808mD.m 9.8mD/mPa.s 8.mDm/mPa.s Damage Ratio (DR) 0.8 Flow Efficiency (FE). Reservoir Parameters Pressures Net Pay (h).00m Total Porosity ( t ) 0.00% Water Saturation (S w ).00% Oil Saturation (S o ) 0.00% Initial Pressure (p i ) Extrapolated Pressure (p*) Final Flowing Pressure (p wfo ) 8. 010.8 181. Gas Saturation (S g ).00% Wellbore Radius (r w ) 0.10m Formation Temperature (T).8 C Formation Compressibility (c f ).89e- -1 Total Compressibility (c t ).e- -1 Production and Times Corrected Flow Time (t c ) 9.98hr Cumulative Gas Production 1.10 m Final Gas Rate.010 m /d Fluid Properties Gas Gravity (G) 0. N 1.% CO.0% H S 0.00% Critical Pressure (P c ) 81. Critical Temperature (T c ) 0.08K PVT Reference Pressure (p PVT ) 8. Gas Compressibility (c g ).19e- -1 Gas Compressibility Factor (z) 0.9 Gas Viscosity ( g ) 11.1 Pa.s Gas Formation Volume Factor (B g ) 0.008m /m

Dimensionless Pressure 10 1 1.0 10-1 10-10 - 10 - Fin. Cond. Frac. Dimensionless Typecurve 10-10 -1 1.0 10 1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 Dimensionless Time, 10 / Pa.s 0.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fin. Cond. Frac. Radial 8 8 9 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 1 Superposition Radial Pseudo-Time ( t Ra ), hr 800 00 000 1.0 p, Fin. Cond. Frac. Total Test Fin. Cond. Frac. Typecurve p i (syn) 01.9 p avg 011.8 800 Pressure, 00 1 0-1 Error, %, 10 / Pa.s 10-1 10-000 kh.08 mdm s Xf -.8 h.00 m s f 0.11 k. md X f. m k f W 9.80 mdm r e.00 m 0 0 0 80 100 10 10 10 Time, hr - 10-8 8 8 8 8 10-10 - 10-1 1.0 10 1 10 Pseudo-Time, hr WellTest Ver.08 C:\ARTEV\LONE WOLF SOLUTIONS\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT.fkt -Apr-0

C:\ARTEV\LONE WOLF SOLUTIONS\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT.fkt -Apr-0 Ver.08 Finite Conductivity Fracture Gas Well Model Case Name : Fin. Cond. Frac. Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) 100/01-0-00-0w/0 October - 8, 00 Model Parameters Permeability (k).md Fracture Flow Capacity (k f w) 9.80mD.m Wellbore Storage Constant Dim. (C D ) 11.09 Turbulence Factor (D) 0.00(10 m /d) -1 Fracture Face Skin (sf) 0.11 Fracture Half Length (x f ).m Exterior Radius (r e ).00m Skin Equivalent to Xf -.8 Formation Parameters Net Pay (h).00m Total Porosity ( t ) 0.00% Gas Saturation (S g ).00% Water Saturation (S w ).00% Oil Saturation (S o ) 0.00% Wellbore Radius (r w ) 0.10m Formation Temperature (T).8 C Formation Compressibility (c f ).89e- -1 Total Compressibility (c t ).e- -1 Fluid Properties Gas Gravity (G) 0. N 1.% H S 0.00% Production and Pressure Final Gas Rate.010 m /d Cumulative Gas Production 1.10 m Final Measured Pressure 8. Synthesis Results Average Error -0.1% Synthetic Initial Pressure (p i ) 01.9 Average Reservoir Pressure 011.8 Pressure Drop Due To Fracture Face Skin ( p sf ) 1. Flow Efficiency (FE) 0.8 Damage Ratio (DR) 1.11 Forecasts CO.0% Forecast Flowing Pressure (P flow ) 181. Critical Pressure (P c ) 81. Critical Temperature (T c ) 0.08K PVT Reference Pressure (p PVT ) 8. Gas Compressibility (c g ).19e- -1 Gas Compressibility Factor (z) 0.9 - Month Constant Rate Forecast @ Curr. Skin.910 m /d - Month Constant Rate Forecast @ Curr. Skin.9910 m /d Forecast Flow Duration (t flow ) 1.00month Constant Rate Forecast @ Curr. Frac. Face Skin.10 m /d Constant Rate Forecast @ Frac. Face Skin=0.8010 m /d Gas Viscosity ( g ) 11.1 Pa.s Gas Formation Volume Factor (B g ) 0.008m /m

WellTest Ver 0.000 C:\ARTEV\LONE WOLF SOLUTIONS\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT\EXAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT.fkt -Apr-0 1 100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Transient Forecast 1.0 1 1 1 11 p i (syn) 01.9 GIP transi 1. 10 m k. md h.00 m kh.08 mdm X f. m k f W 9.80 mdm s Xf -.8 Rate @ 1818 s = 0.1 Rate @ 1000 s = 0.1 Cum. Production @ 1818 s = 0.1 Cum. Production @ 1000 s = 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10 1.10 Rate, 10 m /d 9 8 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.0 0.0 Cum. Production, 10 m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.10 0 0.00 0 1 8 9 10 11 1 Time, Months

100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Fin. Cond. Frac. Item Time Rate @ 1818 s = 0.1 Cum. Prod. @ 1818 s = 0.1 P R @ 1818 s = 0.1 P wf @ 1818 s = 0.1 Rate @ 1000 s = 0.1 Cum. Prod. @ 1000 s = 0.1 P R @ 1000 s = 0.1 P wf @ 1000 s = 0.1 Months 10 m /d 10 m 10 m /d 10 m 1 0.00 8.8 0.000 01.00 01.00 1.1 0.000 01.00 01.00 0.0 8.8 0.009 01. 1818.00 1.1 0.01 011.81 1000.00 0.0.80 0.01 011.0 1818.00 9. 0.0 010.09 1000.00 0.10.0 0.0 010.10 1818.00 8. 0.00 008. 1000.00 0.1.1 0.0 009.09 1818.00.8 0.08 00.1 1000.00 0.1.1 0.0 008.1 1818.00. 0.0 00.80 1000.00 0.0.090 0.08 00.1 1818.00.111 0.0 00. 1000.00 8 0..91 0.0 00. 1818.00.89 0.09 00.8 1000.00 9 0.. 0.0 00. 1818.00. 0.0 00.0 1000.00 10 0.0.9 0.0 00. 181.0.09 0.0 000.90 1000.00 11 0..9 0.0 00.80 1818.00.0 0.09 999. 1000.00 1 0.. 0.01 00.99 1818.00.9 0.08 998. 1000.00 1 0.9.9 0.0 00.0 1818.00.1 0.091 99.1 1000.00 1 0..9 0.00 001. 1818.00.09 0.09 99. 1000.00 1 0..9 0.0 000. 1818.00.9 0.10 99. 1000.00 1 0.9.1 0.08 999.89 1818.00.88 0.109 99.8 1000.00 1 0..1 0.08 999.1 181..81 0.11 99. 1000.00 18 0..118 0.08 998.9 1818.00. 0.11 99.19 1000.00 19 0.9.0 0.091 99. 1818.00.9 0.1 991.1 999.0 0 0..0 0.09 99.9 1818.00.8 0.1 990.1 1000.00 1 0..999 0.099 99.0 1818.00.8 0.18 989.1 1000.00 0.9.9 0.10 99.9 1818.00.9 0.1 988.1 1000.00 0..9 0.10 99.8 1818.00.9 0.19 98.1 1000.00 0..90 0.110 99.0 1818.00. 0.1 98.1 1000.00 0.9.8 0.11 99. 1818.00.1 0.10 98.18 1000.00 0.8.8 0.118 99.8 1818.00. 0.1 98.0 1000.00 0.8.8 0.1 991.99 1818.00.9 0.10 98. 1000.00 8 0.89.9 0.1 991.0 1818.00.0 0.1 98.8 1000.00 9 0.9. 0.10 990. 1818.00. 0.181 981. 1000.00 0 0.9. 0.1 989.9 1818.00. 0.18 980.8 1000.00 1 0.99.1 0.1 989. 1818.00.1 0.191 99. 1000.00 1.00.1 0.19 988.9 1818.00.199 0.19 99.0 1000.00.00.88 0. 90. 1818.00. 0.8 9.9 1000.00.00.189 0.9 9.8 1818.00.9 0. 98.8 1000.00.00.00 0. 9.91 1818.00. 0.0 90. 1000.00.00.9 0. 919. 1818.00.1 0.0 881.8 1000.00.00.889 0.10 90.1 1818.00.01 0.8 89. 1000.00 8.00.8 0.9 888.01 1818.00.9 0.9 8. 1000.00 9 8.00.8 0.80 8.0 1818.00.8 1.091 81.1 1000.00 0 9.00.1 0.8 8.8 1818.00.801 1.0 9.08 1000.00 1 10.00. 0.9 8.9 1818.00. 1.0. 1000.00 11.00.18 1.0 88.1 1818.00. 1..98 1000.00 1.00. 1.10 81.1 1818.00.0 1..9 1000.00 ModelDll Ver.08 -Apr-0 1

WellTest Ver.08 -Apr-0 100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Sandface Deliverability Simplified Analysis (Pressure Squared) Time Sandface Pressure P P Gas Rate hr 10 10 10 m /d Extended Flow Stab. Shut-in Stab. Flow 1.0000 1818.00 01.00 1818.00.1 9.08.1.8.8.0.189 Stabilized Extended Transient AOF n C.01 1.000.18e-0 10. 1.000 1.18e-0 1.000 10 m /d 10 m /d/( ) n 10 8 AOF.01 10 m /d n 1.000 C.18e-0 P R 01.00 Extended Point Stabilized Point 10 1 8 P, 10 1.0 8 10-1 8 9 8 9 1.0 10 1 8 10 Gas Rate, 10 m /d

WellTest Ver.08 -Apr-0 100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Sandface Deliverability Curve Simplified Analysis (Pressure Squared) Stabilized Shut In Pressure = Alternate Shut In Pressure 1 = Alternate Shut In Pressure = 01.00 00.00 000.00 Flowing Pressure Gas Rate @ 01.00 Gas Rate @ 00.00 Gas Rate @ 000.00 10 m /d 10 m /d 10 m /d 0.00 00.00 800.00 100.00 100.00 000.00 00.00 00.00 800.00 01.00.01.9.0.18.00.80 1.8 1. 0.8 0.000.9.1.09..0 1. 0.0 0.000.0.119 1.8 1.1 0.9 0.000 800 Deliverability @ 01.00 Deliverability @ 00.00 Deliverability @ 000.00 00 000 Pressure, 100 100 800 00 0 0.00 0.0 0.80 1.0 1.0.00.0.80.0.0.00.0.80.0 Gas Rate, 10 m /d

WellTest Ver.08 -Apr-0 100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Wellhead Deliverability Simplified Analysis (Pressure Squared) Time Wellhead Pressure P P Gas Rate hr 10 10 10 m /d Extended Flow Stab. Shut-in Stab. Flow 1.0000 98.00 89. 98.00 0.9 8. 0.9...0.189 Stabilized Extended Transient AOF n C.90 1.000.11e-0.1 1.000 8.0e-0 1.000 10 m /d 10 m /d/( ) n 10 8 AOF.90 10 m /d n 1.000 C.11e-0 P ts 89. Extended Point Stabilized Point 10 1 8 P, 10 1.0 8 10-1 8 9 8 9 1.0 10 1 8 10 Gas Rate, 10 m /d

WellTest Ver.08 -Apr-0 100/01-0-00-0w/0 Dinosaur Park ( - mkb) October - 8, 00 Wellhead Deliverability Curve Simplified Analysis (Pressure Squared) Stabilized Shut In Pressure = Alternate Shut In Pressure 1 = Alternate Shut In Pressure = 89. 81.1 190.0 Flowing Pressure Gas Rate @ 89. Gas Rate @ 81.1 Gas Rate @ 190.0 10 m /d 10 m /d 10 m /d 0.00 00.00 00.00 900.00 100.00 100.00 1800.00 190.0 100.00 81.1 00.00 00.00 89..90..1.0.9..0 1.89 1. 1.0 1.018 0.88 0.000..98.18.00 1. 1.09 1.001 0.89 0.0 0.000 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.1 0.90 0.0 0.1 0.000 800 Deliverability @ 89. Deliverability @ 81.1 Deliverability @ 190.0 00 000 Pressure, 100 100 800 00 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.80 1.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.80.00.0.0.0.80.00.0.0 Gas Rate, 10 m /d