TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 6-2
PI Tuning ...................................................................................................................... 6-2
Hydraulic Tables .......................................................................................................... 6-2
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. 6-3
PI Tuning ...................................................................................................................... 6-3
Hydraulic Tables .......................................................................................................... 6-3
PI TUNING....................................................................................................................... 6-4
Summary....................................................................................................................... 6-4
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 6-4
HYDRAULIC TABLES ................................................................................................... 6-7
Summary....................................................................................................................... 6-7
Discussion .................................................................................................................... 6-7
 INTRODUCTION

The PI (Productivity Index) tuning and the generation of hydraulic tables are the intermediate
tasks between the history matching and the predictions. They are performed after the history
matching is completed. PI Tuning is performed to calibrate the pressure losses from the
reservoir to the wellbore and the hydraulic tables are generated to calculate the pressure losses
from the bottom hole to the wellhead through the flow string. Tuning the total pressure loss from
the reservoir to the surface is critical to obtain reliable prediction results. The following sections
of this report describe the methodology used and the results obtained during these tasks.

NITEC LLC 6-1 BLM

1
 CONCLUSIONS

PI Tuning

1. PI tuning was performed on 19 of the existing wells using flow test data provided by the
BLM.

2. The flow test data for the 19 wells were provided in two date groups. One group of flow
test data for 13 wells was taken in 1995 and the second group of data for the six remaining
wells was taken in October-November 2002.

3. No flow data was provided for four wells. Productivity indexes from neighboring wells
were evaluated in order to assign reasonable PI values to these four wells.

Hydraulic Tables

1. To calculate the pressure loses along the production string 32 different hydraulic tables were
constructed. Sixteen of them were developed for 2-3/8” OD (1.995” ID) tubing and sixteen
using 3.5” OD (2.992” ID) tubing.

NITEC LLC 6-2 BLM

2
 RECOMMENDATIONS

PI Tuning

1. It is recommended to have additional continuous measurements of the flowing BHP, as this

data helps to determine the flow conditions of the wells more accurately. It is also
recommended to flow test the wells every year or at least every other year.

2. We strongly recommend re-completing a few of the existing wells in the Panhandle, to test
the productivity of the formation, which is currently undetermined. The Panhandle native
gas production will play a critical role in the mixing methane with the helium from the Brown
in order to meet the gas plant's helium concentration constraints and in order to preserve the
pressure in the Brown.

Hydraulic Tables

1. As observed in the graphs of the hydraulic table data (and confirmed in the predictions), it is
clear that using larger diameter tubing will definitely improve the recovery of helium.
Therefore it is recommended to change the production tubing from the current 2-3/8” size to
the larger 3.5” size in as many helium production wells as possible.

NITEC LLC 6-3 BLM

3
 PI TUNING

Summary

Before initiating the prediction phase, a calibration of the model by fitting the dynamic pressures
has to be done. This calibration is accomplished by adjusting the productivity index of each well,
until dynamic pressures are matched. When reproducing BHP, what we are really doing is
correcting for the flow conditions near the well, for the extent of the perforated interval(s), and
for the current skin factors.

Methodology

The BLM provided two sets of flow test data for the Bush Dome Field. For 13 wells the data
was taken in 1995 and for another six wells the data was taken during October-November
2002. All of the data was reviewed and selected portions of the data were extracted (dates,
flow rates and BHP) and put into the Eclipse 300 format. Two sets of observed flow rates and
pressures were prepared, one for the whole year of 1995, containing the different test
conducted on the13 wells during that year, and another for the six additional wells for the
November, 2002 tests. The following procedure was used for the PI tuning:

1. The BHP and flow rates were provided in 15 minutes intervals; therefore the data was
reprocessed to convert them to daily average rates and pressures.

2. Runs with the simulator were conducted and the reprocessed flow rates and pressures
were plotted against the rates and pressures calculated by the simulator.

3. A PI multiplier was calculated so that the simulator BHP matches with the measured
BHP.

NITEC LLC 6-4 BLM

4
A good match was obtained for all the wells whose productivity indexes (PI) were tuned. The
plots showing the matches between calculated and measures flow rates and BHP are shown in
Appendix 6.A.

No flow data was provided for four wells Bi-A15, Bu-A5, Bu-A11 and Fu-A2. Productivity
indexes for Bi-A15 and Bu-A11 were taken from neighboring well Bu-B1. Values for Bu-A5
and Fu-A2 were calculated by the simulator. When possible, the PI for the new wells was
assigned from the average PI of neighboring wells or if this was not possible, then it was given a
PI multiplier of 0.1. The productivity of the Panhandle formation is undetermined; therefore, all
well assumed completions in the Panhandle were given a PI multiplier of 0.1. The final PI
multipliers used in the predictions are given in the following table.

NITEC LLC 6-5 BLM

5
 Completions
Well PI Multiplier
I J K
Bi-A2 31 28 17-20 0.030
Bi-A3 19 28 19-22 0.069
Bi-A4 29 35 18-22 0.008
Bi-A5 19 33 17-20 0.015
Bi-A6 24 31 17-19 0.420
Bi-A7 14 31 18-19 0.002
Bi-A9 17 40 18-20 0.040, 0.100,0.080
Bi-A11 22 43 18-22 0.160
Bi-A13 21 30 16-22 0.300
Bi-A14 26 33 20-22 0.340
Bi-A15 34 32 17-22 0.220 (Bu-B1)
Bi-B1 27 41 18-21 4.000
Bi-B2 27 47 19-20 0.900
Bu-A2 28 27 17-18 0.740, 0.400
Bu-A3 24 36 16-20 0.0004
Bu-A4 23 26 17-20 0.100
Bu-A5 17 25 18-21 0.222, 0.310, 1.421, 1.000 (Sim. Calc.)
Bu-A8 32 44 18-20 0.270
Bu-A9 14 24 19-20 0.601, 0.809
Bu-A11 33 38 17-21 0.220 (Bu-B1)
16-17, 19-
Bu-B1 38 25 0.220
20
Fu-A1 30 19 19-20 0.400, 0.150
Fu-A2 20 22 18-21 0.383, 1.817, 1.000, 1.000 (Sim. Calc.)
15-16, 18-
Fu-A3 30 22 0.100,0.060,0.050,0.400,0.150,0.050
21
Panhandle Formation Productivity Unknown,
Wells all wells were given a value of 0.100
NEWA 19 26 15-20 0.100
16-17, 19-
NEWB 26 29 0.500
20
NEWC 27 31 17, 19-20 0.650
NEWD 17 28 15-18 0.100
NEWE 20 29 15-21 0.100
NEWF 28 33 15-19 0.100

NITEC LLC 6-6 BLM

6
 Table 6-1: Productivity Index Multipliers used in the Predictions

HYDRAULIC TABLES

Summary

During the history matching process, all the calculations are conducted at reservoir conditions.
Surface conditions are calculated using user provided separator conditions or if separator
conditions are not provided, the simulator uses a flash separation to take the fluids from
reservoir conditions to surface conditions. When a specific THP pressure is required, then it is
necessary to provide hydraulic tables to the simulator to properly calculate the changes of flow
and pressure in the production tubing string.

Discussion

The Bush Dome wellbore profiles were analyzed and similar wellbore profiles were grouped
and assigned to same hydraulic table. Sixteen different tables describing all of the well profiles
in the field were constructed using GeoQuest’s VFPi program. The first group of tables were
constructed using 2-3/8” (1.995” I.D.) tubing. Later on, to conduct a sensitivity analysis to
tubing size another 16 tables were constructed. For this new set, the tubing was changed to the
next larger size of 3-1/2” (2.992” I.D.). This second set of hydraulic tables proved to have a
beneficial effect on the recovery of helium, since the larger diameter tubing allows more gas
production with the same pressure drop along the tubing. Table 6-2 summarizes the data used
to construct the tables and also shows the assignment of hydraulic tables for each well. Figures
6-1 and 6-2 show two different hydraulic tables for well Bi-A3, one for the 2-3/8” (1.995”
I.D.) tubing and the other for the 3-1/2” (2.992” I.D) tubing, respectively. When comparing
these two figures, it is easy to observe the difference that the tubing size makes in the production

NITEC LLC 6-7 BLM

7
of gas. For example, using a BHP of 200 psia and a THP of 25 psia, the gas rate from the 2-
3/8" graph is 1.5 MMSCF/Day while the gas rate from the 3-1/2" graph is 4.3 MMSCF/Day.
The use of the larger diameter tubing helps to recover more gas and consequently more helium,
as discussed in the Prediction Section of this report.

Table Tubing Tubing Tubing Casing Casing Perf. ∆ Perf Avg. Avg
No Well Length O.D. I.D. Length I.D. Top Tubing Depth Perf.
(ft) (in) (in) (ft) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 Bi A-3 3417 2.375 1.995 3496 4.408 3414 -3 3417
2 Bi A-7 3530 2.375 1.995 3567 4.408 3538 8
Bu B-1 3544 2.375 1.995 3654 4.408 3514 -30 3537
3 Bu A-4 3445 2.375 1.995 3468 4.950 3447 2 3445
4 Bi A-9 3520 2.375 1.995 3587 4.950 3528 8
Bi A-6 3551 2.375 1.995 3648 4.950 3375 -176 3535.5
5 Bi B-2 3578 2.375 1.995 3665 4.950 3573 -5 3578
6 Bu A-8 3600 2.375 1.995 3724 4.950 3606 6
Bi A-11 3606 2.375 1.995 3640 4.950 3560 -46 5409
Fu A-3 3612 2.375 1.995 3686 4.950 3620 8
7 Bi A-14 3626 2.375 1.995 3691 4.950 3626 0
Bi B-1 3637 2.375 1.995 3694 4.950 3630 -7 3631.5
8 Bi A-5 3433 2.375 1.995 3452 4.000 3443 10 3433 10
9 Bu A-3 3531 2.375 1.995 3555 4.000 3544 13 3531 13
10 Bi A-4 3650 2.375 1.995 3688 4.000 3676 26 3650 26
11 Bi A-2 3505 2.375 1.995 3543 4.408 3532 27 3505 27
12 Bu A-5 3515 2.375 1.995 3545 4.950 3538 23
Bu A-9 3518 2.375 1.995 3570 4.950 3540 22 3523 23
Bi A-13 3536 2.375 1.995 3693 4.950 3560 24
13 Fu A-2 3556 2.375 1.995 3580 4.950 3569 13 3556 13
14 Fu A-1 3647 2.375 1.995 3662 4.950 3661 14 3647 14
15 Bi A-15 3677 2.375 1.995 3782 4.950 3722 45
Bu A-11 3681 2.375 1.995 3734 4.950 3699 18 3679 22.5
16 Bu A-2 3344 2.375 1.995 3645 9.850 3397 53 3344 53
17 Bi A-3 3417 3.500 2.992 3496 4.408 3414 -3 3417
18 Bi A-7 3530 3.500 2.992 3567 4.408 3538 8
Bu B-1 3544 3.500 2.992 3654 4.408 3514 -30 3537
19 Bu A-4 3445 3.500 2.992 3468 4.950 3447 2 3445
20 Bi A-9 3520 3.500 2.992 3587 4.950 3528 8
Bi A-6 3551 3.500 2.992 3648 4.950 3375 -176 3535.5
21 Bi B-2 3578 3.500 2.992 3665 4.950 3573 -5 3578
22 Bu A-8 3600 3.500 2.992 3724 4.950 3606 6
Bi A-11 3606 3.500 2.992 3640 4.950 3560 -46 5409
Fu A-3 3612 3.500 2.992 3686 4.950 3620 8
23 Bi A-14 3626 3.500 2.992 3691 4.950 3626 0
Bi B-1 3637 3.500 2.992 3694 4.950 3630 -7 3631.5
24 Bi A-5 3433 3.500 2.992 3452 4.000 3443 10 3433 10
25 Bu A-3 3531 3.500 2.992 3555 4.000 3544 13 3531 13
26 Bi A-4 3650 3.500 2.992 3688 4.000 3676 26 3650 26
27 Bi A-2 3505 3.500 2.992 3543 4.408 3532 27 3505 27
28 Bu A-5 3515 3.500 2.992 3545 4.950 3538 23
Bu A-9 3518 3.500 2.992 3570 4.950 3540 22 3523 23

NITEC LLC 6-8 BLM

8
 Bi A-13 3536 3.500 2.992 3693 4.950 3560 24
29 Fu A-2 3556 3.500 2.992 3580 4.950 3569 13 3556 13
30 Fu A-1 3647 3.500 2.992 3662 4.950 3661 14 3647 14
31 Bi A-15 3677 3.500 2.992 3782 4.950 3722 45
Bu A-11 3681 3.500 2.992 3734 4.950 3699 18 3679 22.5
32 Bu A-2 3344 3.500 2.992 3645 9.850 3397 53 3344 53
Table 6-2: Data Summary for the Construction of the Hydraulic Tables

Figure 6-1: Hydraulic Table for Well Bi-A3 with 2-3/8” Tubing

NITEC LLC 6-9 BLM

9
 Figure 6-2: Hydraulic Table for Well Bi-A3 with 3-1/2” Tubing

NITEC LLC 6-10 BLM

10