Your Task: Karama FDP Well Performance Report
The Leadership Forum requires your completed well deliverability assessment before sanctioning the Karama FDP. You must present findings from all five sub-problems as an integrated engineering report. The report must be self-contained, a non-specialist reader should be able to understand the conclusions and rationale without reference to individual sub-problem files. You have 60 minutes to compile, write, and submit.
Findings Summary — All Sub-Problems
Use this table as the starting data for your report. It consolidates the key quantitative outputs from all five sub-problems.
| Sub-Problem | Topic | Key Finding | Key Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| SP-1 | Composite IPR | KA-07 ideal AOF; natural flow well below target | AOFP = 2,232 stb/d (ideal S=0) |
| SP-2 | Standing's FE | Acid job payback = 8.5 days; stimulate before ESP | Δq = +911 stb/d; post-acid AOFP = 1,953 stb/d |
| SP-3 | Gas LIT Analysis | KA-G2 AOFP (LIT, B=+0.68) clears contract share; no early compression | AOFP per well = 14,767 Mscf/d (14.8 MMscf/d) vs. 6,000 contract |
| SP-4 | Fetkovich | At the depleted state, Vogel ~11% above Fetkovich (model curvature) | Fetk n=0.83, AOFP = 1,040 stb/d vs. Vogel qmax 1,171 (p̄=3,600) |
| SP-5 | Future IPR | KA-07 cannot sustain 1,800 stb/d beyond Stage 1 | Stage 2 max q = 743 stb/d at BHFP=800 psia |
Executive Summary Template
The executive summary must be no more than one page and must include the six recommendation numbers (R1–R6) with the supporting quantification. Use the template below as your starting structure — expand and personalise.
Karama Field Well Performance Report — Executive Summary (Template)
Purpose: This report presents the results of the Karama Field well deliverability assessment conducted in preparation for the FDP gate. Analysis covers oil well KA-07 (current and life-of-field) and gas well KA-G2 (initial deliverability).
KA-07 Oil Well: The current composite IPR (Vogel/Darcy, p̄ = 5,100 psia, pb = 4,500 psia) gives an ideal AOFP of 2,232 stb/d, but at the present rate the damaged well (skin S' = +8) flows well below the 1,800 stb/d plateau target. An independent Fetkovich two-point fit on the depleted-state tests T1/T2 (p̄ = pb = 3,600 psia) returns n = 0.83 and AOFP ≈ 1,040 stb/d, sitting ~11% below the same-state Vogel qmax of 1,171 — a model-curvature difference that confirms Vogel is the optimistic bound. A matrix acid job targeting S = +1 provides a production uplift of +911 stb/d at BHFP = 2,000 psia with a simple payback of 8.5 days at $58/stb netback. The recommendation (R1) is to stimulate before ESP installation.
Artificial Lift: Post-acid, KA-07 with ESP at BHFP = 800 psia delivers ~1,857 stb/d at current conditions. Once reservoir pressure depletes to 3,200 psia (Stage 2), the maximum achievable rate falls to ~743 stb/d even at minimum BHFP. KA-07 alone cannot sustain the 1,800 stb/d target beyond Stage 1 — infill drilling is required (R4).
KA-G2 Gas Well: Modified isochronal test LIT analysis (m(p) form, A = 52,800, non-Darcy B = +0.68) gives AOFP ≈ 14,767 Mscf/d (14.8 MMscf/d) per well, and ≈ 14,040 Mscf/d (14.0 MMscf/d) at the 800 psia separator back-pressure — ~2.5× the contract allocation of 6,000 Mscf/d per well. No single well can carry the full three-well 18,000 Mscf/d contract, but all three together deliver ~44,000 Mscf/d, meeting it comfortably at initial conditions. Compression is not required immediately but must be planned when per-well AOFP depletes to the contract share (R5).
Six Recommendations: R1 (Acid first), R2 (ESP basis), R3 (Gas compression timing), R4 (Infill trigger), R5 (Pressure maintenance), R6 (Facilities sizing). Full details in Section 4.
Six Specific Recommendations to the Leadership Forum
Each recommendation must be supported by at least one quantified value from the sub-problem analysis. Vague recommendations ("improve deliverability") are not acceptable — each must specify action, timing, and quantified basis.
Acid KA-07 Immediately — Before ESP Installation
Matrix acid job (target S = +1, cost $450K) delivers a production uplift of +911 stb/d at BHFP = 2,000 psia. Simple payback = 8.5 days at $58/stb netback. Acid first reduces the required ESP head specification and increases achievable rate. Timing: Before first oil production.
Size ESP on Post-Acid Composite AOFP (~1,953 stb/d)
Use the conservative deliverability, not the optimistic bound. The depleted-state Fetkovich fit (n = 0.83, AOFP ≈ 1,040 stb/d) sits ~11% below the same-state Vogel qmax (1,171) — pure model curvature — so a Vogel-based spec is modestly over-sized. For the stimulated well, the traceable design basis is the post-acid composite AOFP of ≈ 1,953 stb/d (SP-2/SP-5), with BHFP target 2,000 psia dropping to 800 psia over field life. Always confirm the chosen rate against the pump's minimum-flow cavitation limit.
Compression Not Required at First Gas — Monitor AOFP
KA-G2 AOFP ≈ 14,767 Mscf/d (14.8 MMscf/d) at initial conditions vs. 6,000 Mscf/d contract share (~2.5× headroom; non-Darcy B = +0.68). Compression CAPEX is not justified at first gas. Establish AOFP monitoring trigger: when any KA-G well AOFP falls below 8,000 Mscf/d (1.33× contract), initiate compression FEED. Estimated trigger at p̄ ≈ 2,800–3,000 psia (field-life year 5–7).
Plan Infill Well for p̄ = 3,200 psia (Stage 2) Trigger
Standing's J* analysis confirms KA-07 alone cannot sustain 1,800 stb/d at Stage 2 (p̄ = 3,200 psia) — maximum rate with ESP at 800 psia BHFP falls to 743 stb/d. An infill oil producer must be on production by the time reservoir pressure reaches 3,200 psia. Initiate infill location selection and drilling campaign planning immediately — typical drilling and completion lead time 12–18 months.
Evaluate Waterflood to Sustain Reservoir Pressure Above 3,200 psia
The life-of-field analysis shows severe deliverability collapse below p̄ = 3,200 psia. Pressure maintenance through water injection would slow the J* decline by maintaining kro/(μoBo) mobility. Economic threshold: pressure maintenance CAPEX justified if it extends the 1,800 stb/d plateau beyond Stage 2 onset date. Initiate waterflood feasibility study with reservoir simulation as next step.
Size Oil Separation for 2,400 stb/d (1.33× Plateau Target)
Post-acid KA-07 AOFP = 1,953 stb/d. With an infill well (R4) or waterflood (R5), peak production may briefly exceed 1,800 stb/d. Recommend oil separator designed for 2,400 stb/d (1.33× plateau target). Gas train: design for 25,000 Mscf/d per train to accommodate the ~2.5× initial headroom without requiring compression bypass. Do NOT constrain to current test rates — the FDP target rate is the design basis.
Need a Refresher? Pull These at Point of Need
The integrated report draws on every method in Module 04 — open whichever asset you need while assembling SP-6.
../../courses/c01/production/m04/topic-4-1-vogel/file-pack/vogel.py · ../../courses/c01/production/m04/topic-4-2-composite-ipr/file-pack/composite_ipr.py · ../../courses/c01/production/m04/topic-4-3-standing-fe/file-pack/standing_fe.py · ../../courses/c01/production/m04/topic-4-4-gas-deliverability/file-pack/gas_deliverability.py · ../../courses/c01/production/m04/topic-4-5-fetkovich/file-pack/fetkovich.py · ../../courses/c01/production/m04/topic-4-6-future-ipr/file-pack/future_ipr.py
verified calculator — reproduce your numbers
SP-6 Submission Rubric
Your completed report is submitted as the Module 04 graded deliverable (50% of module mark). Assessment is structured as follows:
Correct values, methods, units, equations from SP-1 to SP-5
Defensible recommendations with explicit quantified rationale
Readable executive summary; clearly labelled charts; specific numbers in every recommendation
SP findings explicitly cross-referenced; no contradictions; coherent narrative
2. Comparing AOFPs across different reservoir states: SP-1's current-state composite AOF (2,232 stb/d at p̄ = 5,100) is NOT a like-for-like comparison with the depleted-state Fetkovich AOFP (1,040 stb/d at p̄ = 3,600). Compare methods at the same pressure (Fetkovich 1,040 vs Vogel qmax 1,171, ~11% gap) and size the ESP on the conservative number.
3. Missing the life-of-field implication: Not stating that KA-07 alone cannot sustain plateau beyond Stage 1 is the central finding — omitting it demonstrates failure to integrate SP-5.
4. Not quantifying gas compression timing: "Compression may eventually be needed" fails — must state when (at what p̄) and what the warning trigger is.
SP-6 Submission Checklist
- Executive Summary (1 page): States purpose, key findings for oil and gas wells, and lists all six recommendations with numbers.
- Section 1 — KA-07 Current IPR: Composite IPR (Vogel + Darcy), table of q vs. BHFP at key points, AOFP stated for both ideal and actual (skin-corrected) cases.
- Section 2 — Stimulation Economics: FE pre/post acid, q at BHFP = 2,000 psia pre/post, Δq = 911 stb/d, daily revenue uplift = $52,838/d, payback = 8.5 days. Decision: acid first.
- Section 3 — Gas Well Deliverability: LIT A and B coefficients, AOFP per well at 800 psia back-pressure, contract headroom, compression trigger criteria.
- Section 4 — Fetkovich vs. Vogel Comparison: Fetkovich fit at the depleted state (n = 0.83, AOFP ≈ 1,040 stb/d, p̄ = 3,600), like-for-like vs same-state Vogel qmax (1,171, ~11% gap) explained as model curvature, post-acid composite AOFP (~1,953 stb/d) and correct ESP basis stated.
- Section 5 — Life-of-Field IPR: Standing J* scaled IPR at four pressure stages, tabulated AOFP and q at 800 psia BHFP, comparison with Fetkovich depletion, lift escalation schedule, infill trigger identified.
- Section 6 — Six Recommendations R1–R6: Each recommendation contains action, timing, quantified basis, and source sub-problem reference.
- Supporting charts: At minimum — KA-07 composite IPR plot, pre/post acid IPR overlay, life-of-field IPR family, gas deliverability curve.
Preparing for the Karama Leadership Forum Presentation
Facilitated Debrief — Leadership Forum Simulation (30 min)
After submitting your written report, the facilitator will run a 30-minute Leadership Forum simulation. Each team presents their integrated recommendation in 5 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of "leadership questions" — challenging your numbers and logic.
Prepare answers to these anticipated questions:
- "Your SP-1 Vogel AOF is 2,232 stb/d but the depleted-state Fetkovich says 1,040 — and you also quote a Vogel qmax of 1,171 at that same state. Which number sizes the ESP, and why do they differ?"
- "You're recommending an acid job with 8.5-day payback. What's the risk that we only achieve S = +4 instead of S = +1?"
- "When exactly do we need the infill well on production, and what happens if drilling is delayed 6 months?"
- "You say compression isn't needed yet — what's the trigger that tells us to start the FEED?"
- "If KA-07 can only sustain 1,800 stb/d at current conditions with a tight margin, why did we design the whole FDP around 1,800 stb/d from one well?"
- "The life-of-field analysis was done with Standing's J* scaling. How would a waterflood change those projections?"
Engineering credibility in a leadership forum is established not by having all the answers, but by knowing the limits of your analysis, being explicit about the uncertainty, and having a clear logic chain from data to decision. The best engineers say: "Our P50 estimate is X. The P10 case is Y. We designed for Z because..."