Production Performance Forecast by Decline Curve analysis (DCA)

Kanawara Field, Cambay Basin.

Introduction:

Decline curve analysis (DCA) is most accurate method to predict reservoir performance of oil and gas
wells when historic production data is available and sufficient. It can be applied to a single well or total
reservoir to estimate initial hydrocarbon in place, hydrocarbon reserves at abandonment pressure. The
most popular DCA technique is JJ Arps empirical decline method, which represent the empirical relation
between production rate (Q) versus time (t) and production rate (Q) versus cumulative production. He
created a standard decline model for tight/unconventional reservoirs and particularly wells are producing
with help of hydraulic fracturing job. The fundamental difference between forecasting conventional and
low permeability reservoirs is, low permeabity reservoirs have much of their production history in transient
flow rather than the boundary dominated flow. In recent development in applications of hydraulic
fracturing/stimulation technique in tight reservoirs has led to flow wells predominantly in boundary
dominated flow. In light of above, an attempt has been made to investigate the production decline trends
of EP-IV reservoir of Kalol formation in Kanawara Field.

Exploration & Production history of Kanawara Field

Kanawara Field was discovered by ONGC in the year 1972. Two exploratory wells (K #2 & K #3) were
drilled and both the wells are proved to be hydrocarbon bearing at EP-IV (U&L) pays. Both the wells were
connected through common EPS and flowed till 2001. Field after taken over by the GOGL-GSPC JV
revived the production from the wells kept them on regular production w.e.f. 2005. Subsequently, JV has
drilled 7 appraisals wells namely, K #1, K #5, K #6, K #7, K #8, K #9 and K #10. All the wells were proved
to be hydrocarbon bearing at EP-IV pay level and kept under regular production upon hydraulic fracturing
job. As on 31st April 2019, the cumulative oil and solution gas produced from field was 0.26 MMbbls of oil
and 65.6 MMm3 of gas with an average production.

Wells in the area have sufficient production history except K #3 and K #5 which have been under
production through artificial lift.

Geology of Kanawara Field

Kanawara field is located in southern part of Cambay basin and has an aerial extent of 6.3 Sq. Km. The
major structural elements in the field are NNW-SSE trending normal faults having down thrown side
towards East. Fault interpretation of the field suggests that, possible compartmentalization at the reservoir
levels, which divides the field into 4 fault segments known as K8-K9 fault segment, K2-K6-K7 fault
segment, K3-K5-K10 fault segment and K #1 fault segment.
In Kanawara Field, main hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs are confined to the EP-IV pay of Kalol formation
of Eocene age. Depositional environment of Kalol formation is regressive depositional system is
comprised of sandstones, siltstones, carbonaceous shale, shale and coals. However, the field has very
complex tight siltyshale/shalysiltstone litho-facies facies at reservoir level also it is very heterogeneous in
terms of pressure and fluid distribution in among the fault blocks. It is considered to be an unconventional
reservoir; hydraulic fracturing is necessary to put the wells under commercial production. Major challenge
is to explain the entrapment of gas in downdip formations, i.e gas accumulation in EP-IV(L) in downdip K2
block is unexpected when there is presence of oil in segment K8-K9 which is upthrown to K2 block.

Wells are producing with high GOR having limited drainage area cannot be explained from the solution
gas liberated from the oil produced. This led to conclusion that all the segments in EP-IV(U) are targeted
for gas except for K3-K5-K10 segment which is a Gas-Oil system. Further, all the segments in EP-IV(L)
are targeted for oil except for K1 segment which is a gas bearing.

The main challenge involved in this field is low permeability (<2 mD) siltstone reservoir which are difficult
to develop to attain conventional recovery factors. The field has proved in place of 1.7 MMm3 with a
recovery of ~4% oil till December, 2018. Recovery from the field can only be maximized if more number of
well drilled in the area. Kanawara
Reservoirs Flow Regimes

Pressure response at the wellbore of a reservoir exhibits four flow regimes as the pressure transient
changes from near well bore to boundary of reservoir (Figure)

Transient Flow — Pressure transient migrates outward from the well without encountering any boundaries.
Transient flow takes place during the early life of a well, when the reservoir boundaries have not been felt.
During this period, the size of the reservoir has no effect on the well performance, Since the boundary of
the reservoir has not been contacted during the transient flow period, static pressure at the boundary
remains constant.

Steady State Flow — Pressure transient has reached all of the boundaries but the static pressure at the
boundary does not decline. This is often called “constant pressure boundary”.

Pseudo-Steady State Flow — Pressure transient has reached all of the boundaries and the static pressure
is declining at the boundary and uniformly throughout the reservoir.

Boundary-Dominated Flow — Pressure transient has reached all of the boundaries and the static pressure
is declining at the boundary, but not uniformly because the flow rate is not constant. This is also often
called “tank-type flow”. When the flow boundary reaches an actual reservoir boundary, the reservoir
pressure begins to decline very rapid, at this stage another important consideration is that sandface
flowing pressures. The factors that affect flowing pressure are mainly controlled flow rates (bean sizes),
changing wellhead backpressure, changing wellbore configurations, and liquid loading.
When the well is opened to flow, the pressure in the wellbore is reduced, which creates a pressure
differential between the wellbore and the reservoir. This disturbance, or pressure transient, propagates
into the reservoir such that at time t1, the disturbance is evident out to a given radius, r1. At distances
greater than r1, the reservoir pressure is still at Pi. Since this pressure response is similar to that which
would be observed in an infinite reservoir, this period is called the transient or infinite-acting radial flow
period (Figure)

Kanawara

Decline Curve

As known, oil and gas production rates decline with the time as a function loss of reservoir pressure, or
changing relative volumes of the produced fluids. Fitting a line through the performance history and
assuming this same decline trend will continue in future forms the basis of DCA concept. The most
popular decline curve is the plot of oil or gas production rate with time (Fig 1), another common technique
is the plot of production rates versus cumulative oil or cumulative gas production, normally termed (rate-
cumulative plots) Fig 2. If oil production rate of well drop to the economic limit (surface oil rate < 2
bbl/day), the well will be considered to uneconomical or depleted well. The point of intersection of the
extrapolated curve with the economic limit, indicates the future oil recovery from the well.
 Fig (1): Rete Vs time Fig (2): Rete Vs Cumulative production

Production rate at which a well or field begins to lose money if production continues. This point is referred
to as the economic limit production rate. If we incorporate this value into our rate versus time and rate
versus cumulative production curves, we can extrapolate each trend line to this cut-off point Fig (1).

Arps Decline Model

Arp’s distinguished three different type declines based on the empirical relation in terms of rate Vs time &
rate vs cumulative production. assumption in this procedure is that whatever causes controlled the trend
of a curve in the past will continue to govern its trend in the future in a uniform manner. The type of
decline and its characteristic shape is a major feature of DCA. Arps applied the equation of Hyperbola to
define three general equations to model production declines. In order to locate a hyperbola in space one
must know the following three variables.

I. Hyperbolic Decline

For hyperbolic decline, the decline rate is proportional to a fractional power of q. This may be expressed
as:

1. The starting point on Y axis, (qo), initial rate.

2. Initial decline rate (Di)
3. The degree of curvature of the line (b).

Where
 q = current production rate
 qi = initial production rate (start of production)
 di = initial nominal decline rate at t = 0
 t = cumulative time since start of production
 b= hyperbolic decline constant (0 < b < 1)
 This is the most general formulation for decline curve analysis. Exponential (b=0) and harmonic
(b=1) decline are special cases of this formula.

Hyperbolic curve fits with a decline constant (b) greater than 1 usually imply production is being
influenced by transient behavior

II. Harmonic decline

For harmonic decline, the decline rate is proportional to q. This may be expressed as:

 q = current production rate

 qi = initial production rate (start of production)
 di = initial nominal decline rate at t = 0
 t = cumulative time since start of production
 Np = cumulative production being analyzed
 A simple formula – often the most optimistic case
Where harmonic decline and constant percentage decline are special cases of the hyperbolic decline; that
is, b is equal to 1 for the harmonic decline, and to 0 for constant percentage decline. On a more practical
basis, we note that for both hyperbolic and harmonic decline curves, the decline rate will be highest
initially and will decrease as the production rate decreases.

III. Exponential or Constant percentage decline

The nominal production decline rate equation shows the change in production rate per unit of time as a
function of the production rate.

Since b=0, Equation 1 can be re arranged as:

Where
q = current production rate
qo = initial production rate (start of production)
di = d = dt = nominal decline rate (a constant)
t = cumulative time since start of production

Fault Segments in Kanawara Field

Wells are drilled in four different segments in Kanawara Field as shown in Figure (). These segments are
classified as

K #1 Segment: Well K #1 was drilled in this fault block

K2-K6-K7 Fault segment: Wells K2, K6, and K7 are drilled in this segment
K8-K9 Fault segment: Wells K8 and K9 are drilled in this segment
K5-K3-K10 Fault segment: Wells K5, K3 and K10 are drilled in this fault segment
Seg 4 Fault segment: No well drilled in this fault segment

Figure ()

Kanawara
Reservoir Pressure Analysis-Fault Segments

Average reservoir pressure P* (extrapolated reservoir pressure after infinite shut in time) is more reliable
estimate to understand virgin reservoir pressures, which was evaluated for Kanawara field is based on the
available pressure transient tests of individual wells. As observed from figure (), there is significant
variation in static pressures in wells in the same fault block. This could be due to uncertainty in pressure
estimations or tight nature of sands make reservoirs act like single well reservoirs. so that due to
continuous production and no influx from outside, pressure depletes and only gas is produced.

Initital Reservoir pressure (p*) Vs Fault Segemens

Kanawara Field
3400

3233 3219 Fault block: K8-K9

3200
Fault block: K6-K7
3136
Fault block: K1
3000 2989
2935
2800 2814
Pressure (psi)

2600 Fault block: K5-K10

2498
2400
K #10 K #9 K #8 K #7
2200
K #6 K #5 K #1
2000
Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12 Aug-13 Dec-14

P*: Normalized to 1600m TVDSS Year

K #1 Segment:

Well K #1 is only well producer in this fault block with GOR in excess of 1000 V/V. Average oil production
varies 1 to 2 m3/day. Production characteristics of the segments correspond to a gas reservoir with
vaporized oil production. Prior to HF, well was produced with less GOR average

Vaporized oil gas ratio, as estimated from production data of well K1, was specified for different pressures
below dew point.

Current pressure of the K1 segment has dropped to 145 bar as measured in Mar 2015 in well K1 after
close to six months of shut in. With only 0.78 MMSCM cum gas production from this block and GIIP of
208.8 MMSCM (in modeled area), anticipating this current pressure corresponds to the possibility that
well K1 is acting like a local well pool which could be because of a no flow boundary. Pressure history of
the well K1 suggests following pressure trend –
prediction exercise for this segment

Inplace of the pool = 208 MMSCM

Pi = 2989 psi (~206 bar) - from K#1 well testing report prior to
production in April 2013
Current pressure = 2100 psi (~145 bar) – from shut in bottom
hole survey
Material Balance Sensitivity suggest a cumulative gas production
of ~55 MMSCM will justify this pressure decline.
Well K #10 Production decline analysis

Well K #10 was drilled in K5-K3 fault block which is located at North eastern part of ML boundary of
Kanawara Field. Total three wells have been drilled in this fault block all are proved to be oil producers
with comparatively low GOR (Figure-1). The well K #10 drilled and completed in the EP-IV (Lower)
formation of interval 1657 to 1663m MD, as expected it is found predominantly oil producer with low GOR.
HF was carried out on 15th April 2014 and kept under regular production.
Kanawara

Reservoir description of K #3-K#5 & K #10 Fault block

The EP-IV pay of Kalol formation is a main reservoir in K #3-K #5 & K#10 fault block. It has two layers (i.e
Upper & Lower) separated by thin shale barrier. In this fault block, it is interpreted as both the pays are
mostly oil bearing with low GOR. Predominantly, EP-IV pay zone consists of very tight siltyshale formation
with intercalated with carbonaceous shales, having porosities of 15 to 18% and permeabilities are less
than a milli darcy.
Reservoir parameters Parameters Unit
Formation EP-IV (L) of Kalol formation -
Lithology -
Porosity -
Water Saturation %
Net thickness m
Production area Sq.km
Date of First Production year
Oil water contact -
Average reservoir depth m
Initial BHP psi
Current BHP psi
Oil gravity deg

Reservoir Management:
The well was hydraulic fractured on April, 2014 to improve the near well bore permeabity and production
optimization. Pressure transient studies were taken up after post HF flowback / clean‐up process. The
result of the PTA has been tabulated as below.

Bottom hole
Bean pressure ΔP Q oil Q Gas GOR
Date Remarks
(mm) SBHP FBHP (psi) (m3/Day) (m3/Day) (m3/m3)
(psi) (psi)
SBHP recorded
15th April,
2813 after 72hrs of build
2014
up
Well flowed
16th April,
3.5 - 1738 1075 16.7 1214 75 through 3.5mm
2014
bean
Well flowed
18th April,
4 - 1412 1401 21.3 2807 130 through 4mm
2014
bean

Well head pressures Q oil Q Gas

Bean ΔP GOR
Date STHP FTHP SCHP FCHP (m3/Da (m3/Da
(mm) (psi) (m3/m3)
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) y) y)
 15th April,
925 1900
2014
16th April,
3.5 300 1340 625 16.7 1214 75
2014
18th April,
4 150 1210 775 21.3 2807 130
2014

 Initial Static Reservoir Pressure

At MD 1650m: 2813psia
At MPP 1687.75m: 2831psia
BHT @MD: 233.1 F / 111.7 deg C
Further, during August, 2018, recorded SBHP/SBHT and found maximum Reservoir pressure was 1350
psi (95 Kg/cm2) at 1640m TVDSS.

Production Summary of well K #10

During initial testing, the well K #10 has produced 2.6m3 of oil with gas (quantity of gas was not
measured). The well was completed without packer and ran in 2 7/8” tubing and kept shoe at 1648m MD.
The well was hydraulic fractured in April, 2014 and kept under regular production. The well K #10 was
connected to K #2 GCS along with the wells K #8 and K #9. Production rates (oil & gas) were
approximated based on the initial production rates of each well respectively. Cumulatively, well K #10 has
produced 40 Mbbls of oil and 113.4 MMSCF of gas as of April, 2018.

Description FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19

Average Oil rate (bbls/day) 45 18 16 14 12
Average Oil rate (MSCF/day) 81 72 60 57 50
Oil Produced (Mbbls) 18442
Gas Produced (MSCF) 34,324 24,188 21,975 20,800 21,000
GOR 19192
Water Cut (%)

Decline Curve Analysis & Discussion

JJ Arp’s created the standard decline model for boundary-dominated flow regimes in un-conventional/tight
reservoirs. Hydraulic fractured reservoirs will enter boundary dominated flow very quickly soon after short
duration of initial linear flow regime, so equation fitting only one flow regime is adequate for accurate
forecast and the same can be applied to predict the future production forecast and ultimate recoveries of
reservoir at the end of reservoir life.

Production data of the well K #10 has been considered for analysis from April, 2014 to December, 2018.
As observed from Log rate versus log time plot (Figure 2), early production data of erratic due to initial HF
flow back, further it is consistent and evident on linear and boundary-dominated flow of reservoir. As seen
from the figure 2, it is evident from negative half slope indicating boundary-dominated flow. It is also
evident of exact time at which the change occurred and the same as observed onset of boundary-
dominated flow occurred around 10 months of production time.

Kanawara

log Rate (Qo) vs log time

Well K #10
10,000
Qo (STB/M)

1,000

100
1 10 100 1000
time

Figure 2: Log Rate (Qo) Vs Log Time (t)

Rate (Q) Vs Cum. Production (Np)

Well K #10
3,000

2,500

2,000
Qo (STB/M)

1,500

1,000

500

0
2

9
14

18
21
24

25
27
29

31
33

35
36
37

39

Np (MSTB)

Figure 3: Rate (Qoil) Vs Cumulative oil

 DCA Parameters Value Units
Well Name K #10 -
Decline Type Hyperbolic
b 0.7
qi 11 bopd
ai 0.22 decline/year
Expected Ultimate Recovery of Oil Mbbls
Expected Ultimate Recovery of Gas MMSCF
Balance of Reserves Oil Mbbls
Balance of Reserves Gas MMSCF
Time Years

Production Forecast of the well K #10

For Oil

Financial Year Mbbls/Year Cum. Oil Mbbls

FY 2019-20 2.64 2.64

FY 2020-21 1.54 4.18
FY 2021-22 1.05 5.23
FY 2022-23 0.89 6.12
FY 2023-24 0.61 6.72
FY 2024-25 0.49 7.21
FY 2025-26 0.41 7.62
FY 2026-27 0.34 7.96
FY 2028-29 0.30 8.26

For Gas

Financial Year MSCF/Year Cum. MSCF

FY 2019-20 10152 10152

FY 2020-21 6043 16195
FY 2021-22 4153 20348
FY 2022-23 3091 23439
FY 2023-24 2428 25867
FY 2024-25 1968 27834
FY 2025-26 1642 29476
FY 2026-27 1398 30874
FY 2028-29 1214 32088
Figure 4: Oil & Gas Production forecast of well K #10 by Arps’ DCA method.
Well K #9 Production decline analysis

Well K #9 was drilled in July, 2007 in K8-K9 fault block which is located at North eastern part of ML
boundary of Kanawara Field. Total two wells have been drilled in this fault block all are proved to be oil
producers with comparatively low GOR (Figure-1). The well K #9 drilled and completed in the EP-IV
(Upper & Lower) formation of interval 1597 to 1603.5m, 1609 to 1622.5m. It is found predominantly oil &
gas producer with high GOR. HF was carried out on 14th December, 2009 and kept under regular
production. Kanawara
Kanawara

Reservoir description of K #8 & K #9 Fault block

Two wells i.e K #8 & K #9 wells are under production from this fault block, both the wells producing oil with
high GOR. However, no GOC contact crossing any of the wells in this fault block. Current reservoir
understanding could not explain the high GOR observed in K8-K9 block. To substantiate the same, it is
assumed that, wells are not acting as a single well reservoir and may be drawing gas away from the well
bore drainage assumed. Secondly, primary gas cap is introduced in EP-IV Upper to match the gas
production from the well. Current DCA studies suggested that, production does not increase to historical
production level though the pressure depletes further. This sensitivity proved that subsurface reservoir is
not acting like single well reservoir.

Lithologically, EP-IV pay zone consists of very tight siltyshale formation with intercalated with
carbonaceous shales, having porosities of 15 to 18% and permeabilities are less than a milli darcy.
Reservoir parameters Parameters Unit
Formation EP-IV (L) of Kalol formation -
Lithology -
Porosity -
Water Saturation %
Net thickness m
Production area Sq.km
Date of First Production year
Oil water contact -
Average reservoir depth m

Initial BHP psi

Current BHP psi
Oil gravity deg

Reservoir Management:
The well was hydraulic fractured on December, 2009 to improve the near well bore permeabity and
production optimization. Pressure transient studies were taken up after post HF flowback / clean‐up
process. The result of the PTA has been tabulated as below.
Bean SBHP FBHP ΔP Q oil Q Gas
Date GOR (m3/m3)
(mm) (psi) (psi) (psi) (m3/Day) (m3/Day)
5th January, 2009 3219
6th January, 2009 3 3146 73 35.1 5480 156
7th January, 2009 4 3005 214 56.1 8356 149
8th January, 2009 5 2732 487 74.1 16020 216
As observed from the above multi-bean study, considering pressure depletion at sand face, GOR and
stabilization time of flow period, it seems 3mm bean is the optimum bean for prolonged commercial
production from the well.

 Initial Static Reservoir Pressure

At MD 1580m: 3219psia
BHT @MD: 240 F / 111.7 deg C

Production Summary of well K #9

Well K #9 was completed without packer and ran in 2 7/8” tubing and kept shoe at 1590m MD. The well
was hydraulic fractured in December, 2009 and kept under regular production. However, production data
for this well is available only from June, 2013. Currently, well is connected to K #2 GCS and kept under
regular production along with the wells K #8 and K #10. Production rates (oil & gas) were approximated
based on the initial production rates of each well respectively. Cumulatively, well K #9 has produced 47
Mbbls of oil and 338.4 MMSCF of gas as of December, 2018.

FY 2013- FY 2016-
Description FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19
14 17
Average Oil rate
(bbls/day)

Average Oil rate

(MSCF/day)

Oil Produced
23118 8542
(bbls) 5996 3960 3144 1839
Gas Produced
62,401 42,294 57,242 55,919 62,844 46,078
(MSCF)

GOR

Water Cut (%)

Decline Curve Analysis & Discussion

JJ Arp’s created the standard decline model for boundary-dominated flow regimes in un-conventional/tight
reservoirs. Hydraulic fractured reservoirs will enter boundary dominated flow very quickly soon after short
duration of initial linear flow regime, so equation fitting only one flow regime is adequate for accurate
forecast and the same can be applied to predict the future production forecast and ultimate recoveries of
reservoir at the end of reservoir life.

Production data of the well K #9 has been considered for analysis from June, 2013 to December, 2018.
As observed from Log rate versus log time plot (Figure 2), early production data of erratic due to initial HF
flow back, further it is consistent and evident on linear and boundary-dominated flow of reservoir. As seen
from the figure 2, it is evident from negative half slope indicating boundary-dominated flow. It is also
evident of exact time at which the change occurred and the same as observed onset of boundary-
dominated flow occurred around 10 months of production time. Kanawara

Figure 2: Log Rate (Qo) Vs Log Time (t)

Log Rate (Qo) vs Log time (t)

Well K #9
10,000
Qo (STB/M)

1,000

100
1 10 100 1000
time (t)
 Log Rate (Q) vs time (t)
Well K #9
1,000

100
Qo (STB/D)

Un-Stabilized flow qo
Expon. (qo)
10

1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
time (t)

Figure 3: Rate (Q oil) Vs Cumulative oil

Rate (Q) Vs Cum. Production (Np)

Well K#9
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
Qo (STB/M)

3,000
2,000
1,000
0
6

16
22
27
31

34
37
39
41
43

44
45
46
48

49

Np (MSTB)

DCA Parameters Value Units

 Well Name K #9 -
Decline Type Hyperbolic
b 0.7
qi 11 bopd
ai 0.22 decline/year
Expected Ultimate Recovery of Oil Mbbls
Expected Ultimate Recovery of Gas MMSCF
Balance of Reserves Oil Mbbls
Balance of Reserves Gas MMSCF
Time Years

Production Forecast of the well K #9

For Oil

Year Mbbls/Year Cum. Oil Mbbls

FY 2019-20 2.68 2.68
FY 2020-21 1.62 4.30
FY 2021-22 1.13 5.43
FY 2022-23 0.86 6.29
FY 2023-24 0.69 6.98
FY 2024-25 0.57 7.55
FY 2025-26 0.48 8.03
FY 2026-27 0.42 8.44
FY 2027-28 0.37 8.81
FY 2028-29 0.03 8.84

For Gas

DATE MSCF/Year Cum. MSCF

FY 2019-20 24706.1 24706.1
FY 2020-21 15234.3 39940.5
FY 2021-22 10822.6 50763.0
FY 2022-23 8294.3 59057.3
FY 2023-24 6686.3 65743.6
FY 2024-25 5543.8 71287.4
FY 2025-26 4721.9 76009.3
FY 2026-27 4097.5 80106.8
FY 2027-28 3618.0 83724.9
FY 2028-29 278.0 84002.9
 Oil Production Forecast
W ell K #9
100 Rate of Decline
50
BOPD
Production History
90

Cumm. Oil, Forecat MBBLS

Forecasted Decline BOPD

80 Expected EUR, Mbbls 40

Oil Rate, BOPD, Cumm. Oil, MBBLS

Cumm. Production History

70 Cum. Prod. Forecast Mbbls
End of History
50.17 MMbbls
60 30

Expected EUR
50
`60 MMbbls

40 20
Forecasted BOR: 9.98
Mbbls
30 Forecast with qi
= 15 BOPD
20 10

10

0 0
Apr-13 Apr-15 Apr-17 Apr-19 Apr-21 Apr-23 Apr-25 Apr-27 Apr-29
Year

Figure 4: Oil & Gas Production forecast of well K #9 by Arps’ DCA method.

Solution Gas Production Forecast

Well K #9
300 500000
Prod. Water BWPD
280 Prod. Gas, MSCFD
Forecastecd Decline (MSFD) 450000
260 EUR Gas MSCF
Forecast Cum. Gas MSCF
240 400000
220 Expected EUR
429 MMSCF 350000
200

Cumulative Gas MSCF

End of History
180 300000
Gas Production MSCFD

333.8 MMSCF
160
250000
140
120 200000
100 Forecast Cum. Gas
95.2 MMSCF 150000
80
60 100000
40
50000
20
0 0
Apr-13 Apr-14 Apr-15 Apr-16 Apr-17 Apr-18 Apr-19 Apr-20 Apr-21 Apr-22 Apr-23 Apr-24 Apr-25 Apr-26 Apr-27 Apr-28

Years
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanaawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanwaraa
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanaeara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara
Kanawara