DOCSLIB.ORG

Drill Stem and Deliverability Test Analysis: Case Study of a Gas Field Well Test Analysis in Myanmar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Drill Stem and Deliverability Test Analysis: Case Study of a Gas Field Well Test Analysis in Myanmar Drill stem and Deliverability test analysis: Case study of a gas field well test analysis in Myanmar By AUNG PHYO MIN Final report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) (Petroleum Engineering) December 2013 Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Bandar Seri Iskandar 31750 Tronoh Perak Darul Ridzuan ABSTRACT Drill-stem tests are performed to confirm or prove the presence and the producibility of oil and gas that is detected by the other services. It is usually performed on exploration wells are often the key to determining whether a well has found a commercial hydrocarbon reservoir. Reservoir parameters specifically related to productive capacity such as pressure, permeability can be determined through drill stem test. Common sequence of a drill stem test includes of a short flow period mostly five or ten minutes, which is followed by a buildup period of about an hour that is used to determine initial reservoir pressure. Afterwards, the well is allowed to flow for next four to twenty four hours to establish stable flow to the surface then the well is shut in again for final shut in or build up test which is used to determine permeability thickness and flow potential. Drill stem tests are usually combined with deliverability tests which is referred to the testing of a well to measure its production capabilities and flow performance relationships. Most common deliverability tests are flow after flow, single-point, isochronal and modified isochronal tests. Two main applications of deliverability tests are obtaining the absolute open flow (AOF) potential and generating reservoir inflow performance relationship (IPR) or gas backpressure curve. This paper discusses the case study of drill stem test and deliverability test done on a well in one of the gas fields located in Myanmar. Topics will cover the analyses of reservoir parameters through initial build up test, final build up test during the drill stem test and analysis of flow after flow test for Darcy and Non Darcy skin factors. In addition, it will further discusses the comparison of deliverability tests (empirical and analytical) and lastly perform production forecasting. The analyses are performed through Pansystem which is the well test analysis software developed by Weatherford Inc. KEYWORDS: Drill stem test, Deliverability test, Analysis, Reservoir flow capabilities, Myanmar, Gas field, Pansystem 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Content Page ABSTRACT 1 Chapter – 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of Study 5 1.2 Problem Statement 6 1.3 Objectives 6 1.4 Scope of study 6 CHAPTER – 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7 CHAPTER – 3: METHODOLOGY 3.1 Methodology Diagram 9 3.2 Analysis Process Diagram 10 3.3 Project Activities 11 3.4 Tools Required 11 3.5 Gantt Chart 11 3.6 Milestones 12 CHAPTER – 4: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 4.1 HORNER’S APPROXIMATION 13 4.1.1 Reservoir Pressure 13 4.1.2 Permeability 14 4.1.3 Formation Damage 14 4.2 Type Curves 15 4.3 Theoretical Deliverability Equations 19 4.4 Empirical Deliverability Equations 21 4.5 Stabilization time 21 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Content Page CHAPTER – 5 : INPUT DATA 5.1 Rreservoir Description 22 5.2 Layer Parameters Data 22 5.3 Well Parameters Data 22 5.4 Fluid Parameters Data 23 5.5 Gas Composition Data 23 5.6 Layer Boundaries Data 24 5.7 Model Parameters 24 5.8 Rate Changes Data 24 CHAPTER - 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 6.1 Test Overview Plot 25 6.2 Initial Build-Up Analysis Using Semi Log Plot 26 6.3 Last Build-Up Analysis Using Semi Log Plot 27 6.4 Type Curve Analysis on Last Build-Up Test 28 6.5 Theoretical Deliverability Analysis 30 6.6 Empirical Deliverability Analysis 31 6.7 IPR Curve 32 6.8 Production Forecasting 33 CHAPTER -7: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 34 ABBREVIATIONS AND NORMENCLUTURES 35 REFERENCES 36 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 3.1: Methodology Diagram 9 Figure 3.2: Analysis Process Diagram 10 Figure 3.3: Milestones Diagram 11 Figure 4.1: Pressure Derivative, Pressure Change Vs Time 16 Figure 4.2: Bourdet + Gringarten type curve 17 Figure 4.3: Type curve analysis using Bourdet + Gringarten type curve 18 Figure 6.1: Test Overview Plot 25 Figure 6.2: Initial Build-Up Semi Log Plot 26 Figure 5.3 : Last build-up Semi Log Plot 28 Figure 6.4: Type curve analysis for last build up 28 Figure 6.5: Theoretical deliverability analysis (LIT analysis) 30 Figure 6.6: Empirical deliverability analysis 31 Figure 6.7: IPR Curve 32 Figure 6.8: Production Forecasting Plot 33 4 CHAPTER-1: INTRODUCTION 1.1: BACKGROUND OF STUDY In this case study two build up tests, and flow after flow tests in between are performed during the drill stem test on gas well. Two build up tests are used to determine the initial reservoir pressure and other parameters such as wellbore storage, permeability and kh. Flow after flow tests are used for Darcy and non-Darcy skin factors estimate then followed by performing deliverability analysis through analytical and empirical methods. Pressure build up tests are the most common well transient tests and conducted by producing a well at constant rate for some time, shutting the well in (usually at the surface), and recording the pressure (usually downhole) in the wellbore as a function of time. From which, formation permeability, current drainage area pressure, damage or simulation characterization and reservoir heterogeneities are estimated. There are many graphical methods to analyze build up tests namely, Semi Log plot analysis, Log-Log analysis and Cartesian analysis as well as type curves analysis. Semi Log and Log-Log analysis are used in this case study to analyse the build up tests. Semi log plot analysis is also known as Hornor plot analysis and like most of other analysis, this analysis is based on assumptions that the reservoir is acting as an infinite, homogeneous, isotropic reservoir containing a slightly compressible, single-phase fluid with constant fluid properties. Wellbore damage or stimulation if there is such, is considered to be concentrated in a skin of zero thickness at the wellbore. In fact, no actual build up test can be modeled according to this description, hence, there is deviation between actual test results and this analysis result. One fundamental assumption for this analysis is that if the well has been producing, most recent rate must be maintained long enough than the second last rate. Only then, it is correct to continue plotting build up test data in Hornor pseudoproducing time vs sandface pressure to estimate formation permeability, original reservoir pressure Pi and skin factor s. Type curves analysis is used to validate the results obtained from Hornor approximation. 5 1.2: PROBLEM STATEMENT All the reservoir parameters calculations are based on predictions using geophysical and geology data or certain methods. Human Error or technical error can be present in these predictions hence, consequently drawing the risk of getting inaccurate reservoir parameters. Therefore, getting the results from one particular analysis or method is not sufficient and should not be relied on unless they are validated against other analysis or method. Therefore, in this project, acquired data obtained from one analysis is validated with other methods. This project is also pursued to enhance the understanding on the area of drill stem test and the well test analysis as a whole in regard of personal interest. 1.3: OBJECTIVES The purposes of the study are as follows, 1. To enhance understanding on drill stem test in gas wells. 2. To enhance understanding on theoretical background of build up tests, type curves, theoretical and empirical deliverability analysis. 3. To acquire and validate the important reservoir parameters. 1.4: SCOPE OF STUDY Works of many authors on build up tests and flow after flow tests will be mainly studied. Basic theoretical background of all the analyses used will also be studied extensively. Type curves will be studied selectively. More importantly, gas well testing and significant terms and derivations are also in the scope of study. will This report will be carried out with the aid of well test software, Pansystem which is developed by Weatherford and thus, this software need to be studied during the mean time. 6 CHAPTER-2: LITERATURE REVIEW Drill stem tests are widely used to determine the producible fluid content of a formation and to determine the ability of a formation to produce. Drill stem test or temporary completion can be performed in both open hole and inside casing through perforations. Drill stem tests are usually performed in potential productive interval which is predicted by logging and core data. Under this method, a test will usually made after penetrating a few feet into the prospective zone and if the results are favourable, subsequent tests may be made in search for fluid contacts (Black, W.Marshall, 1965). Three main components of a drill stem test tool are the test valve, the by-pass valve and the packer. Drill stem tests are usually made up with initial build up period followed by multiple constant flow period and lastly the final build up. The analysis of these flows (draw-down) and shut-ins (build-up) permit the calculation of reservoir parameters such as initial reservoir pressure, permeability, skin, damage ration, radius of investigation, and estimation of absolute open flow potentials in gas wells. In fact, drill stem tests also consist of the preflow period which is the initial flow period after the test depth has been reached and the packers set. The objective of this period is mainly to release the hydrostatic pressure trapped when the packers are set and to discharge the mud contained in the rat hole between the formation and the test valve.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Best Research Support and Anti-Plagiarism Services and Training
    CleanScript Group – best research support and anti-plagiarism services and training List of oil field acronyms The oil and gas industry uses many jargons, acronyms and abbreviations. Obviously, this list is not anywhere near exhaustive or definitive, but this should be the most comprehensive list anywhere. Mostly coming from user contributions, it is contextual and is meant for indicative purposes only. It should not be relied upon for anything but general information. # 2D - Two dimensional (geophysics) 2P - Proved and Probable Reserves 3C - Three components seismic acquisition (x,y and z) 3D - Three dimensional (geophysics) 3DATW - 3 Dimension All The Way 3P - Proved, Probable and Possible Reserves 4D - Multiple Three dimensional's overlapping each other (geophysics) 7P - Prior Preparation and Precaution Prevents Piss Poor Performance, also Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance A A&D - Acquisition & Divestment AADE - American Association of Drilling Engineers [1] AAPG - American Association of Petroleum Geologists[2] AAODC - American Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors (obsolete; superseded by IADC) AAR - After Action Review (What went right/wrong, dif next time) AAV - Annulus Access Valve ABAN - Abandonment, (also as AB) ABCM - Activity Based Costing Model AbEx - Abandonment Expense ACHE - Air Cooled Heat Exchanger ACOU - Acoustic ACQ - Annual Contract Quantity (in reference to gas sales) ACQU - Acquisition Log ACV - Approved/Authorized Contract Value AD - Assistant Driller ADE - Asphaltene
    [Show full text]
  • Drill Stem Test Database (UBDST) and Documentation: Analysis of Uinta Basin, Utah Gas-Bearing Cretaceous and Tertiary Strata
    Principal drill stem test database (UBDST) and documentation: analysis of Uinta Basin, Utah gas-bearing Cretaceous and Tertiary strata by J. Ben Wesley, Craig J. Wandrey, and Thomas D. Fouchl U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, CO Open-File 93-193 Work Performed under contract No.: DE-AI21-83MC2042 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy Morgantown Energy Technology Center, Morgantown, West Virginia This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards, (or with the North American Stratigraphic Code.) Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this program has been used by the U.S. Geological Survey, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS as to the accuracy and functioning of the program and related program material, nor shall the fact of distrubution constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the USGS in connection therewith. 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO 80225 Introduction................................................................................................................2 METHODS ......................................................................................................................5 Data Base Structure.....................................................................................5 Drill Stem Tests.........................................................................................................?
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Oilfield Production Terminology (GOT) (DEFINITIONS and ABBREVIATIONS)
    Glossary of Oilfield Production Terminology (GOT) (DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS) FIRST EDITION, JANUARY 1, 1988 American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20005 Issued by AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE Production Department FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING TECHNICAL CONTENTS OF THIS PUBLICATION CONTACT THE API PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT, 2535 ONE MAIN PLACE, DALLAS, TX 75202-3904 – (214) 748-3841. SEE BACK SIDE FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION. Users of this publication should become familiar with its scope and content. This publication is intended to supplement rather than replace individual engineering judgment. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION REG U.S. PATENT OFFICE Copyright 1988 American Petroleum Institute TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD 2 SECTION 1: LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 3 SECTION 2: ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS 5 FOREWORD A. This publication is under the jurisdiction of the API Executive Committee on Standardization of Oilfield Equipment and Materials. B. The purpose of this publication is to provide standards writing groups access to previously used abbreviations and definitions. Standards writing groups are encouraged to adopt, when possible, the definitions found herein. Attention Users of this Publication: Portions of this publication have been changed from the previous edition. The location of changes has been marked with a bar in the margin. In some cases the changes are significant, while in other cases the changes reflect minor editorial adjustments. The bar notations in the margins are provided as an aid to users to identify those parts of this publication that have been changed from the previous edition, but API makes no warranty as to the accuracy of such bar notations.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Information Form Year Ended December 31, 2017 March 23, 2018
    Annual Information Form Year Ended December 31, 2017 March 23, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL MATTERS ................................................................................................................................ 1 Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements ..................................................................... 1 Reserves and Resources Advisory ........................................................................................................... 3 Currency .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................... 5 CORPORATE STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................................... 5 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS ................................................................................... 6 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Corporate History and License Areas ...................................................................................................... 7 Corporate Social Responsibility ............................................................................................................ 11 Environmental and Safety Matters .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Overpressure and Petroleum Generation and Accumulation in the Dongying Depression of the Bohaiwan Basin, China
    Geofluids (2001) 1, 257–271 Overpressure and petroleum generation and accumulation in the Dongying Depression of the Bohaiwan Basin, China X. XIE1,2,C.M.BETHKE2 ,S.LI1 ,X.LIU1 AND H. ZHENG3 1Faculty of Earth Resources, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China; 2Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA; 3Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, Shenli Oil Corporation, Dongying, Shandong, China ABSTRACT The occurrence of abnormally high formation pressures in the Dongying Depression of the Bohaiwan Basin, a prolific oil-producing province in China, is controlled by rapid sedimentation and the distribution of centres of active petro- leum generation. Abnormally high pressures, demonstrated by drill stem test (DST) and well log data, occur in the third and fourth members (Es3 and Es4) of the Eocene Shahejie Formation. Pressure gradients in these members com- monly fall in the range 0.012–0.016 MPa mÀ1, although gradients as high as 0.018 MPa mÀ1 have been encountered. The zone of strongest overpressuring coincides with the areas in the central basin where the principal lacustrine source rocks, which comprise types I and II kerogen and have a high organic carbon content (>2%, ranging to 7.3%), are actively generating petroleum at the present day. The magnitude of overpressuring is related not only to the burial depth of the source rocks, but to the types of kerogen they contain. In the central basin, the pressure gradient within submember Es32, which contains predominantly type II kerogen, falls in the range 0.013–0.014 MPa mÀ1. Larger gra- dients of 0.014–0.016 MPa mÀ1 occur in submember Es33 and member Es4, which contain mixed type I and II kero- gen.
    [Show full text]
  • Strengthening Deepwater for the Future Conference Program
    Conference Program 29–31 October 2019 SulAmérica Convention Center Rio de Janeiro, Brazil go.otcbrasil.org/offshoreinnovation Strengthening Deepwater for the Future OTC Brasil 2019 Theme A4 2019-09-27.indd 1 9/27/19 12:05 PM Conference Information OTC Organizations Sponsoring Organizations American Association of Petroleum Geologists American Institute of Chemical Engineers American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Mechanical Engineers Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Oceanic Engineering Society CM Marine Technology Society Society of Exploration Geophysicists Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration SNAME Society of Petroleum Engineers The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society Regional Sponsoring Organization Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute Endorsing Organizations International Association of Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association Drilling Contractors About the Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) About the Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute (IBP) OTC is where energy professionals meet to Founded in 1957, IBP is a private, non-profit organization focused on exchange ideas and opinions to advance scientific promoting the development of Brazilian oil, gas and biofuels industry in a and technical knowledge for offshore resources competitive, sustainable, ethical and socially responsible environment. Today, and environmental matters. Founded in 1969, IBP gathers more than 200 companies’ members, and it is recognized as an OTC’s flagship conference is held annually at NRG Park in Houston. important industry representative for its technical knowledge and for fostering the related to its biggest OTC has expanded technically and globally with the Arctic Technology issues. Organizer of the main oil and gas events in Brazil, such as Rio Oil & Gas and OTC Brasil, IBP Conference, OTC Brasil, and OTC Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • AOG V15-15 26July.Pdf
    Vol. 15 Issue 15 26 July 2012 AFRICA OILANDGAS BREAKING NEWS AND ANALYSIS FROM AFRICA Total prepares to hand out Moho Nord TLP The award of the initial tension leg platform contract for to be submitted in early August. Total’s US $8 Bn Moho Nord project off Congo Brazzaville is Bidders believe Total is looking for the cheapest price possi- expected any day now, with only two consortia left vying for ble as it has set the hull at only shipbuilding specification with the deal. no further specific requirements. The groups, led by old rivals While DSME, HHI and Samsung Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) and Heavy are leading the way for the Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI), are topsides, the hull specifications mean going to the wire after the FloaTEC Chinese yards are also involved here. and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine The full FPU contract is expected Engineering (DSME) groups were to be awarded around the same time eliminated. HHI had been expected to as the TLP contract and winning one be favourite for the deal because of its may provide some help in the contest long history with Total and its alliance for the second. Being awarded the with French firm Doris which worked FEED for the TLP is also likely to on the pre-FEED. However, AOG help with winning the full engin- understands that the Samsung bid ori- eering contract. HHI also won the ginally came in cheaper and HHI $410m contract for the FPU for the revised its offer after clarification original Moho project back in 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Hydrologic Testing in Tertiary Limestone Aquifer, Tenneco Offshore Exploratory Well Atlantic OCS, Lease- Block 427 (Jacksonville NH 17-5)
    Summary of Hydrologic Testing in Tertiary Limestone Aquifer, Tenneco Offshore Exploratory Well Atlantic OCS, Lease- Block 427 (Jacksonville NH 17-5) United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2180 Summary of Hydrologic Testing in Tertiary Limestone Aquifer, Tenneco Offshore Exploratory Well Atlantic OCS, Lease- Block 427 (Jacksonville NH 17-5) By RICHARD H. JOHNSTON, PETER W. BUSH, RICHARD E. KRAUSE, JAMES A. MILLER, and CRAIG L. SPRINKLE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2180 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1982 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data United States Geological Survey Summary of hydrologic testing in Tertiary limestone aquifer, Tenneco offshore exploratory well-Atlantic OCS, lease-block 427 (Jacksonville NH 17-5). (Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2180) Supt. of Docs. no. I 19.13:2180 1. Aquifers Atlantic coast (United States) 2. Saltwater encroachment Atlantic coast (United States) 3. Tenneco Inc. I. Johnston, Richard H. II. Title. III. Series: United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2180. GB1199.2U54 1981 553'.79'09759 80-606901 AACR1 CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Geologic setting 3 Drill-stem test 3 Procedures 3 Theoretical analysis 5 Results 6 Ground-water chemistry 8 Sampling procedures and analytical results 9 Discussion of analytical results 9 Regional implications offshore location of freshwater-saltwater interface and saltwater intrusion potential 10 Suggestions for conducting drill-stem tests to obtain hydrologic data in exploratory oil wells 12 Selected references 14 FIGURES 1.
    [Show full text]
  • July 2009 Martin Kennedy Permeability.Pdf
    Permeability in the Eye of the Beholder Martin Kennedy FESAus and SPE Lecture Tour 2009 Contents • Definitions • Fundamentals • Measurements • Estimation • Reconciliation Definitions COMPLEXITY Single phase Gas Single Phase Gas Reservoir Fluids ‘Ambient’ (Kair) Overburden/Reservoir Pressure(kinf) keff/krel Thin Section Directional Properties Probe kmax Core Plug k90 Whole Core SCALE WFT kv Well Test EWT Characteristics • Permeability • Porosity – Dimensions L2 – Dimensionless – 10-14 to 10+>7 mD – 0 to 0.5 – Tensor (Anisotropic) – Scalar (Isotropic) • Resistivity, acoustic • density, neutron properties capture – Dominated by largest – All pores contribute pores equally 1 D = 0.99 um2 Permeability and Fluid Flow A Q = Δp.a4 8Δl.μ = kAΔp Δl.μ k = a4 So… 8A Δl Porosity-Permeability (Capillary Bundles) Permeability-Porosity 10000 1000 100 1mm tubes D 0.1mm tubes k/m 0.01mm tubes 10 Permeability-Pore Size 10000 1 1000 0.1 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 100 D tube pore 3% porosity porosity k/m tube pore 30% por 10 1 0.1 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 pore diameter/m Fracture Permeability Q = Δp.h.w3 Flow through a slot A 12Δl.μ = kAΔp permeability equation Δl.μ w 3 h k = h.w 12A Δl kif = w2 Intrinsic permeability of a fracture 12 Permeability Controls in Real Rocks Field A Field B Realisations of SEM Images from the Plover sands in the Browse Basin. (2mmx2mm). Although coarser grained, the B sand has fewer paths that are more tortuous. Porosity = 0.18 Porosity = 0.16 Kh = 470mD Kh = 2 mD Pore network models constructed from the SEM images Measurement • Fluid has to move… – Laboratory – Test (including WFT) • Uncertainty and Errors.
    [Show full text]
  • Drill Stem Testing
    EXP_DST 20p_A4_new 06/04/2017 13:40 Page 1 Drill Stem Testing www.exprogroup.com EXP_DST 20p_A4_new 06/04/2017 13:40 Page 2 The accurate data we provide from every drill stem test allows our customers to plan the optimal exploitation of their reservoirs. More than successfully completed 500 DST jobs In more than 20 countries clients including For more than leading IOCs, NOCs 50 and independents 2 EXP_DST 20p_A4_new 06/04/2017 13:40 Page 3 Drill Stem Testing Expro offers the complete well test package, utilising some of the industry’s most reliable technologies. We have invested in our infrastructure and people to enhance our global capabilities in all the key exploration and appraisal markets where we operate. A drill stem test (DST) offers the fastest and safest method of evaluating the potential of a newly-discovered hydrocarbon-bearing formation. After the well has been drilled and cased, the first stage of a well test is to run a DST string in conjunction with a downhole data system with the option to include tubing conveyed sampling and tubing conveyed perforating systems. Expro’s DST Heritage Expro acquires Exal , a UK based downhole data and fluids sampling company Baker Hughes introduce the Expro DST services first universal cased hole 15k Expro acquires PowerWell established in all major DST tool string Geoservices acquires Services, incorporating geographic regions 15k DST tool assets Geoservices DST and Petrotech, from Baker Hughes performing specialised fluids along with design sampling and metering authority 2009 1993 1987 2013 2000 2006 1994 Expro establishes a DST Expro makes technology product/service line and purchase from Flight commits $50M for Refuelling Ltd to develop Expro acquires Tripoint associated R&D and growth cableless telemetry systems capital (CaTS™) under Expro – Inc., a North American TCP Wireless Well Solutions completions company based in Broussard LA.
    [Show full text]
  • [5 April, 2016] Declaration Premier Oil and Gas Services Limited
    MERRILL CORPORATION INEWLAN//29-MAR-16 09:28 DISK121:[16ZAQ1.16ZAQ16201]CS16201A.;15 mrll_0915.fmt Free: 60DM/0D Foot: 0D/ 0D VJ Seq: 1 Clr: 0 DISK024:[PAGER.PSTYLES]UNIVERSAL.BST;134 6 C Cs: 11645 RISC (UK) LIMITED [5 April, 2016] Declaration Premier Oil and Gas Services Limited (‘‘Premier’’) has commissioned RISC (UK) Ltd (‘‘RISC’’) to provide an independent valuation of the Reserves and a review of the Contingent and Prospective Resources of E.On E & P UK Limited and E.On E & P UK EU Limited (‘‘E.On’’) to form a Competent Person’s Report. The assessment of petroleum assets is subject to uncertainty because it involves judgments on many variables that cannot be precisely assessed, including reserves, future oil and gas production rates, the costs associated with producing these volumes, access to product markets, product prices and the potential impact of fiscal/regulatory changes. The statements and opinions attributable to RISC are given in good faith and in the belief that such statements are neither false nor misleading. In carrying out its tasks, RISC has considered and relied upon information obtained from a data room as well as information in the public domain. The information provided to RISC has included both hard copy and electronic information supplemented with discussions between RISC and key Premier staff. Whilst every effort has been made to verify data and resolve apparent inconsistencies, neither RISC nor its servants accept any liability for its accuracy, nor do we warrant that our enquiries have revealed all of the matters, which an extensive examination may disclose.
    [Show full text]
  • Directive PNG013: Well Data Submission Requirements
    Well Data Submission Requirements Directive PNG013 October 12, 2016 Version 1.0 Governing Legislation: Act: The Oil and Gas Conservation Act Regulation: The Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations, 2012 Order: 194/16 Well Data Submission Requirements Record of Change Version Date Author Description 1.0 October 12, 2016 Thomas Schmidt Initial Approved Version authorized by Minister’s Order 194-16 October 2016 Page 2 of 31 Well Data Submission Requirements Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................6 2 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................6 3 Legislation and Compliance .........................................................................................................8 3.1 Governing Legislation .................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Compliance and Enforcement ....................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Licensees’ Responsibilities ............................................................................................................ 9 4 Reporting Structured Data and Submission of Supporting Documentation ................................. 10 4.1 IRIS Reporting Timelines.............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]