A Strategic Gas Field Development Case in

Sandstones Using Seismic Amplitudes and

Dynamic Characterization
J.A. ARVALO-VILLAGRN

F. GARCA-HERNNDEZ

UNAM-PEMEX E&P

PEMEX E&P

H. CINCO-LEY, T. GUTIRREZ-ACOSTA

R.A. WATTENBARGER

PEMEX E&P

Texas A&M University

N. MARTNEZ-ROMERO
UNAM-PEMEX E&P

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to present a process for improving
the planning of gas field development. We discuss how static and
dynamic characterization can be combined to help optimize gas
field development. The main concepts, methodologies, and results are shown for an actual Mexican gas field. Static characterization centred on a series of seismic amplitude maps constructed
from 3D seismic interpretation. Dynamic data included production data and initial pressure gradients which were useful in
delineating individual reservoirs and establishing hydraulic communications between certain reservoirs. The seismic amplitude
maps, modified by considering the dynamic data, improved the
evaluation of reservoir quality, the estimation of drainage areas,
original gas-in-place, and proved reserves. A strategy for the optimal field development was designed by using this combination
of seismic amplitude maps modified with information from logs,
cores, production, and pressure data.

Introduction
The subject gas field is located in the central area of the Veracruz basin southeast of Veracruz, Mexico. The field was discovered in 1921 with Well 1, which was drilled by a foreign company.
The field is formed by many lenticular sandstones containing gas
at abnormal pressures.
The first producer well (Well 3) was completed in 1962 in Tertiary sandstones. The field has had a total of 24 wells drilled, in addition to Well 1. Fourteen wells are now gas producers (Wells 3, 4,
5, 6, 201, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 412, 415, 420, and 436), nine
wells have watered out (Wells 10, 12, 13, 15, 101, 407, 414, 428,
and Ma-1), and one well was lost because of mechanical failure
(Well 102).
Currently, the gas field is comprised of three main producing
sandstones: the sandstones at the base of the Lower Pliocene (body
E located at 1,600 1,680 m or 5,249-5,512 feet of depth) which
began development in November 1969 with Well 5; the sandstones
of the Upper Miocene (body G located at 2,050 2,250 m or
6,726 7,382 feet of depth) which began development in August
1966 with Wells 3, 4, and 6; and, the sandstones of the Late Medium Miocene (body M located at 2,500 2,700 m or 8,202
8,858 feet of depth) which began development in August 1988
with Well 201.
Table 1 shows the well names, the reservoir, and fluid data for
each producing sandstone.
In 1999, a series of 3D seismic surveys were performed covering an area of 240 km2 (59,305 acres). The interpretation of the

3D seismic surveys allowed the construction of several seismic

amplitude maps. These maps were used for detecting significant
volumes of gas related to high seismic amplitude areas, while establishing geological models and delimiting stratigraphic features.
The seismic amplitude maps were calibrated with reservoir and
fluid properties as well as production data obtained through productive wells from different sandstones. Using these modified
maps then led to an improved development plan for the field.
The fundamental objective of this work is to present the methodology and results of the teamwork aspect of this integrated reservoir management study. This re-evaluation project led to an
improved strategic plan to develop the gas field.

Field Production Data

Production of the gas field started in August 1966 with four
wells (Wells 3, 4, 5, and 6) with an initial rate of 0.23 MMscm/d
(8 MMscf/d).
Figure 1 shows the production history (gas rate and cumulative gas production) for the E, G, and M sandstones and the
total field.
As of August 2002, the field was producing at a total rate of
1.82 MMscm/d (64.4 MMscf/d), comprised of 0.06 MMscm/d (2.0
MMscf/d) (3%), 0.32 MMscm/d (11.4 MMscf/d) (18%), and 1.44
MMscm/d (51.0 MMscf/d) (79%) from the E, G, and M
sandstones, respectively.
Cumulative production from the E sandstone was 0.60 Bscm
(21.2 Bscf) through seven producing wells (Wells 3, 5, 6, 403, 405,
406, and 412) over 15 years. The G sandstone produced 1.04
Bscm (36.7 Bscf) through seven wells (Wells 3, 4, 6, 402, 404,
406, and 436) over 20 years. And the M sandstone produced 0.58
Bscm (20.6 Bscf) through six producing wells (Wells 201, 402,
405, 412, 415, and 420) over four years.
There were four wells being drilled (Wells C-1, 419, 439, and
804), and five wells in the E sandstone were shut in (Wells 3, 5,
6, 404, and 406), due to requirements for compression facilities.
The M sandstone has been the most prolific. Average rates on
a per well basis are as follows: between 0.01 and 0.02 Bscm/year
(0.5 and 0.7 Bscf/year) for Sandstone E, between 0.01 and 0.03
Bscm/year (0.5 and 1.0 Bscf/year) for sandstone G, and between
0.06 and 0.09 Bscm/year (2 and 3 Bscf/year) for sandstone M.
However, in all three sandstone bodies, there are some wells with
higher production levels mentioned, so this might imply that some
of the wells drain gas coming from different geological channels
and/or the existence of a common reservoir among many wells.
In some cases, good correlation of fluid analysis, initial pressures, and the historical pressures registered from the producer

PEER REVIEWED PAPER (REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
54

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 1: Reservoir and fluid data for each producer sandstone in the gas field.
Producer
Sandstone

Well
Name

Producer
Intervals
(feet subsea)

Production
Time

E
E
E

5
6
403

E
E
E

405
406
412

5,353 5,369
5,304 5,317
5,350 5,383
5,359 5,373
5,294 5,320
5,340 5,373
5,770 5,789
5,629 5,625
5,327 5,360

Jul 92 Aug 00
Dec 99 Aug 00
Oct 69 Oct 00
Jul 92 Feb 01
Jul 99 Current
Jul 99 Current
Apr 01 Sep 01
Mar 02 Apr 02
May 02 Current

G
G
G
G
G

6
402
404
406
436

6,980 6,996
6,920 6,934
6,947 6,960
7,068 7,082
7,022 7,039
7,242 7,255
7,065 7,085
7,412 7,436
7,423 7,436
7,423 7,436

Aug 66 Jan 75
Jul 92 May 02
Jul 92 May 02
Aug 66 Sep 74
Jul 92 May 97
Aug 66 Jan 75
Jul 99 Jul 00
Dec 00 May 01
Mar 02 Current
Mar 02 Current

M
M
M
M

201
402
405
412

M
M

415
420

8,413 8,433
8,843 8,856
9,637 9,650
9,643 9,476
9,545 9,561
10,102 10,116

Aug 98 Current
Sep 00 Current
Oct 01 Current
May 02 Current
May 02 Current
Jul 02 Current

intervals of each well shows that there is communication among

some wells belonging to the same sandstone. In other cases, similar
responses on the geophysical well logs, plus the low pressure registered on the latest wells drilled through the E sandstone (Wells
403, 405, 406, and 412), led to the deduction that their volumes of
gas were drained beforehand because of the possible communication among wells.
On the basis of these types of physical signs, the problem consisted of identifying the dynamic communication that exists within
and between each of the sandstone bodies, as well as evaluating
the drainage areas, original gas-in-place, and the optimum number
of wells required.

Discussion and Results

Dynamic Characterization Process
In order to reach the main objective of this study, the team of
explorationists and petroleum engineers provided feedback from
the static model and the dynamic model to produce a unified geological model.
The process of determining dynamic characterization for each
sandstone reservoir (E, G, and M) was performed by individual well analysis in addition to simultaneous analysis between wells. For some wells, it was estimated that the drainage
areas communicated as well as their original gas-in-place. The process of dynamic characterization included several techniques for
filtering, validating, and analyzing well data (fluids, cores, logs,
pressure, and production data for each well, etc.). Diagnostic and
specialized flow plots were used, as well as techniques for analyzing well tests.
Other studies and methodologies used included nodal analysis,
material balance, reservoir simulation, and preliminary economic
analysis in order to determine the number of wells required to drain
the reservoirs that were identified.
The seismic amplitude maps were compared with well pressure
and production data. A feedback process between the static and dynamic models using a dynamic characterization technique was applied for each reservoir identified.
March 2006, Volume 45, No. 3

q
(%)

Sw
(%)

hnet
(ft)

k
(md)

pi
(psia)

T
( F)

ag

22

31

39

30

2,538

150

0.558

22
24
27

31
30
25

39
10
52

30
30
12

2,631
2,538
2,538

150
150
150

0.557
0.558
0.558

28
25
26

25
40
31

23
7
26

102
28
20

2,279
2,538
2,631

150
150
150

0.557
0.558
0.557

20

39

62

10

3,987

190

0.600

21
22
22
24
28
25
18
20

36
64
64
12
33
25
29
22

43
43
43
30
49
33
49
45

4
10
10
10
30
201
162
15

2,866
4,455
4,455
4,000
3,800
3,751
3,710
3,715

164
180
180
190
190
170
169
169

0.570
0.620
0.620
0.600
0.570
0.580
0.570
0.570

28
28
20

28
28
20

52
52
49

6
6
54
60
62
70
80

5,200
4,954
5,313
5,350
5,240
5,610
5,550

179
180
180
180
179
190
185

0.568
0.565
0.569
0.576
0.574
0.568
0.564

Analysis of the Initial Pressures From E, G, and M

Sandstones
Figure 2 presents a plot of the initial pressures of the producing
wells from the field. These initial pressures were calibrated as a
function of their average depth to the producer interval. On the
graph, the three current producing horizons (E, G, and M
sandstones) are shown.
Two pressure gradient lines are shown on this graph. The left
line is the normal pressure gradient (for a water density of 1.05 g/
cc) and the right line represents the highest pressure gradient in the
field, adding 90 kg/cm2 abs (1,280 psia), observed in Well 201 in
the M sandstone. This is an abnormal geopressured gradient.
Figure 2 shows that the majority of the wells for the three producing sandstones had initial pressures above the gradient line,
indicating abnormal pressures. Also, the plot shows that the abnormal pressures tend to increase with depth. This suggests that
the deepest gas reservoirs are the most attractive from the point of
view of production rates and gas-in-place.
In Wells 3, 5, and 6 in the E sandstone, at approximately
1,645 m (8,858 feet) of depth, initial pressures were higher than
the normal pressure gradient. However, in Well 403, which was
completed July 1999 in the E sandstone, initial pressure was
lower than the normal pressure gradient, indicating that this area
had been drained by other wells.
Well 405 had a higher initial pressure than Well 403, but lower
than the normal pressure of formation. This possibly indicates that
this area has been drained by other wells. Also, in more recent
wells (Wells 406 and 412), a much lower pressure was found than
the pressure in Well 403.
The previous information offers an indication of the presence of
a certain degree of communication between Wells 5 and 412, and
between Wells 403 and 406, which found the E sandstone depleted from the production of Wells 3, 5, and 6.
Dynamic Characterization Results for E Sandstone
Reservoir
For the productive area of E sandstone, three independent
gas reservoirs which have communication within them were
identified.
55

FIGURE 1: Production history for sandstones and total field.

Figure 3 shows the amplitude seismic map for the three identified reservoirs. These reservoirs are: E-1 which includes the
volume drained by Wells 3, 6, 403, and 406; E-2 which includes
the volume drained by Wells 5 and 412; and, E-3 which includes
the volume drained by Well 405.
Table 2 shows the results obtained for the dynamic characterization for each well. Similarly, Table 3 presents the calculated results
for using a simultaneous dynamic characterization among reservoirs. For the E-1, E-2, and E-3 reservoirs, drainage areas of 390.1,
86.2, and 15.4 hectares (964, 213, and 38 acres), respectively, were
estimated, corresponding to original gas-in-place of 0.66, 0.28, and
0.03 Bscm (23.3, 10.0, and 1.2 Bscf), taking into account recovery
factors of 58, 70, and 43%, respectively.
As a result, we observed that the actual wells completed in the
E-1, E-2, and E-3 reservoirs are enough to drain the remaining
volume of gas. However, it is suggested to verify the continuity of
56

the E-2 reservoir during the drilling process of Well 427A (Figure
3), though the objective will be a deeper sandstone than E body.
Because of production tests performed on Well 414 (invaded
with brine), it was confirmed that there is not an accumulation of
gas from the E-1 reservoir to the east of the field. Therefore, it is
not recommended to drill wells in prospects 411 and 414D since
they are located within an area of salt water.
Taking into account the results obtained from Well 428 (invaded
by water and low pressure gas), it was recommended to suspend
the drilling of Well 429 and to not drill Well 431.
Dynamic Characterization Results for G Sandstone
Reservoir
Unlike the E sandstone, it was determined that each producing well drains an independent area in the G sandstone. This
was determined by dynamic characterization, using initial pressures and production behaviour of the wells. Seven producing
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 3: Amplitude seismic map and reservoirs by using dynamic characterization in the sandstone E.

TABLE 2: Dynamic characterization results for each

producing well in the gas field.
FIGURE 2: Initial pressures for the producing wells.

reservoirs were identified (from G-1 to G-7). Tables 2 and 3, along

with Figure 4, show the drainage areas of G sandstone.
For the G sandstone, the drainage areas were affected by the
presence of an aquifer (lateral and/or bottom drive), making it difficult to perform the dynamic characterization process. Therefore,
there was little confidence in determining the degree of communication among wells and the calculation of the original gas-inplace.
To improve the characterization of the G sandstone, additional
studies would be required such as material balance, decline curves,
and numeric simulation. Finally, it was suggested not to drill additional wells in this sandstone since it has an active water drive.
Dynamic Characterization Results for M Sandstone
Reservoir
Table 2 shows the results of the dynamic characterization for
each well, and Table 3 shows the results of simultaneous dynamic
characterization for each reservoir in the M sandstone.
TABLE 3: Dynamic characterization results for each producing well in the gas field.

March 2006, Volume 45, No. 3

57

Conclusions and Recommendations

FIGURE 4: Amplitude seismic map and reservoirs by using dynamic characterization in the sandstone G.

FIGURE 5: Amplitude seismic map and reservoirs by using dynamic characterization in the sandstone M.

Three independent reservoirs were identified in the M sandstone which have some degree of communication. Figure 5 shows
the three identified reservoirs outlined on the amplitude seismic
map. These reservoirs are: M-1 which includes the volume drained
by Well 201; M-2 which includes the volume drained by Well 402;
and, M-3 which includes Wells 405, 412, 415, and 420.
The drainage areas of the M-1, M-2, and M-3 reservoirs were
estimated at 99.9, 140.0, 199.9 hectares (247, 346, 494 acres), respectively, with estimates of original gas-in-place of 0.67, 0.95,
and 1.50 Bscm (23.6, 33.5, and 52.8 Bscf) and current recovery
factors of 39, 20, and 5%, respectively.
Material balance and reservoir simulation studies indicated that
two new wells are adequate to drain the M-2 sandstone (Well 419
is currently drilling), but no additional wells are required to exploit
the M-1 and M-3 sandstones.
It should be mentioned that, in order to avoid early water production in the producer wells of the M-3 reservoir from the M
sandstone, it is suggested that this reservoir be produced at a rate
less than 0.85 MMscm/d (30 MMscf/d).
Finally, it is recommended that an effective program of gathering well information on a continuing basis be followed, with the
objective of providing feedback for possible updating of the reservoir geological model.
58

The objective of this paper is to present a process for improving

the planning of gas field development through the use of both 3D
seismic amplitude maps and dynamic characterization. From this
multidisciplinary team approach to the reservoir management of
the E, G, and M sandstones, we are able to present the following conclusions and recommendations:
1. A good qualitative correlation was identified using seismic
amplitude maps, the production data, and the dynamic characterization process;
2. Three reservoirs were identified in the E sandstone:
E-1 formed by the Wells 3, 6, 403, and 406; E-2 formed by
the Wells 5 and 412; and E-3, which includes Well 405 (see
Figure 3);
3. The number of wells currently existing in the E-1, E-2, and
E-3 sandstones are sufficient to drain the gas. However, it is
recommended to verify the continuity of the E-2 reservoir
while Well 427A is being drilled to a deeper objective;
4. Because of the results obtained by Well 414 (invasion of
water), it is believed that the existence of commercial gas
within the E-1 reservoir to the east of the field is doubtful.
This leads to a recommendation that Wells 411 and 414D not
be completed in the E-1 sandstone;
5. The seismic amplitude to the west of the E sandstone needs
to be tested through the drilling of the Ce-1 well;
6. Taking into account the results obtained in Well 428 (invaded
by water and low pressure gas), it was recommended to suspend the drilling of the Well 429 well and to not drill Well
431 (see Figure 3);
7. The producing areas of the G sandstone, show a strong
water drive (lateral and/or from the bottom), and the production and pressure behaviour from the wells is virtually
different among them. Seven producing reservoirs were identified in the G sandstone (from G-1 to G-7);
8. No additional wells are recommended in the G sandstone
as a main objective since it has an active water drive;
9. On the M sandstone, three producer reservoirs were identified: M-1 which includes Well 201; M-2 which includes Well
402; and, M-3 which includes Wells 405, 412, 415, and 420
(see Figure 5);
10. It is recommended not to drill additional wells with objectives in the M-1 and M-3 reservoirs;
11. To optimize the exploitation of the M-2 reservoir, it has been
determined by material balance and reservoir simulation
studies, that two producing wells (Wells 402 and 419, shown
in Figure 5) are required to reach a recovery factor of 75% in
10 years;
12. In order to avoid early water break-through in the producing
wells of the M-3 reservoir, it is suggested to exploit this reservoir at a gas rate of less than 0.85 MMscm/d (30 MMscf/d);
and,
13. It is recommended that a continuing program of scheduling
and taking well information be followed, with the objective
of providing feedback for possible updating of the reservoir
geological model.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank PEMEX Exploration & Production for
permission to present the results of this study. We congratulate the
exploriationists and engineers of the Veracruz Asset and the Strategic Program of Gas, whose effective teamwork and participation
contributed to this work.

NOMENCLATURE
A
Bgi
Bscf
Fgr
hnet

=
=
=
=
=

drainage area, acres, km2

gas formation volume factor, scf r.c./scf s.c.
109 scf
recovery gas factor, per cent
net thickness, ft, metres
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

G
Gp
k
pi
qg
scf
Sw
MMfcd
Ty
q
ag

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

original gas-in-place, Bscf (109 scf)

cumulative gas production, Bscf (109 scf)
effective permeability, md
initial pressure, psia, kg/cm2 abs
gas rate, MMscf/D
standard cubic ft, ft3
initial water saturation, fraction
MMscf/d
reservoir temperature, oR
formation porosity, fraction
gas gravity

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft 3.048
ft2 9.290 304
ft3 2.831 685
md 9.869 233
psi 6.894 757
acre 4.047

E-01 = m
E-02 = m2
E-02 = m3
E-04 = +m2
E+00 = kPa
E-01 = hectare

ProvenanceProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, A

Strategic Gas Field Development Case in Sandstones Using Seismic
Amplitudes and Dynamic Characterization (2004-136), first presented
at the 5th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (the 55th Annual
Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society), June 8 - 10, 2004, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review December 5, 2003; editorial
comments sent to the author(s) November 29, 2004; revised manuscript
received May 23, 2005; paper approved for pre-press August 8, 2005; final
approval February 22, 2006.

Authors Biographies
Jorge A. Arvalo-Villagrn has been a
visiting professor of petroleum engineering
at the Autonomous National University of
Mexico School of Engineering, UNAM,
since 2003. He has been a technical coordinator of PEMEX Exploration & Production
in the South Region of Mexico since March
2004. Previously, he worked for the Gas
Strategic Program of PEMEX from 2001 to
2003. From 1985 to 2001, he was the reservoir engineering and reservoir manager for PEMEXs Veracruz
Asset. He holds a B.S. degree from National Polytechnique Institute, an M.S. degree from UNAM, and a Ph.D. degree from Texas
A&M University, all in petroleum engineering.
Heber Cinco-Ley has been vice president
of production and development at PEMEX
E&P since March 2003. Previously, he
worked as a researcher and consultant at the
Mexican Petroleum Institute, a reservoir
engineer at Standard Oil Company, and a
consultant to petroleum and services companies in various countries, including: consultant to the United Nations and to Alamos
Scientific Laboratory; advisor to the Secretary of Energy; and, technical advisor for
the upstream area at PEMEX. He has been general director of the
following companies: Asesora y Servicios Petroleros, Preprotec,
and Aspetrol Testing. He was a full-time professor at the UNAM
School of Engineering. He was the head of Subsurface Energy Resources and division head of graduate studies. He was a professor
in the Petroleum Engineering Department at Stanford University.
He was the founding president of the Mexican Chapter of the SPE.
He has been president of the Mexican College of Petroleum Engineers since 2004. He holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from UNAM
and a Ph.D. degree from Stanford University, all in petroleum
engineering.
March 2006, Volume 45, No. 3

Tedulo Gutirrez-Acosta has been vice

president of PEMEX E&P South Region
since January 2005. Previously, he was
vice president of human resources and innovation at PEMEX E&P for three years.
At PEMEX E&P, he has been manager
of professional development, manager of
technological development of production,
and director of the technical development
project of PEMEX E&P. At the Mexican
Petroleum Institute, he was manager of reservoir technology and division head of special studies, integral
simulation of systems, and the mathematical models areas. He was
department head of oil exploitation and full-time professor at the
UNAM School of Engineering. He was president of the Mexican
College of Petroleum Engineers from 1997 1999, president of
the Mexican Chapter of the SPE from 1992 to 1993, and president
of the Mexican Association of Petroleum Engineers from 1993 to
1994, and from 1985 to 1988. He holds B.S. and M.S. degrees
from UNAM, both in petroleum engineering.
Nestor Martnez-Romero is a professor
of petroleum engineering and department
head of subsurface energy resources at
Mexico National UniversityUniversidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico-UNAM.
He has BS, MS, and PhD degrees from
that same university. He is a researcher and
consultant in reservoir engineering, pressure variation tests, and dynamic characterization for Standard Oil Company. He
has authored over 30 papers in Mexico and
abroad.
Francisco Garca-Hernndez is reservoir
manager at PEMEX Exploracion y Produccin (PEP). He has 28 years experience in
well productivity, reservoir engineering,
and reservoir engineering management. Dr.
Garcia-Hernandez has been with PEP for
13 years and he was before with Mexican
Petroleum Institute for 15 years. Dr. Garcia
holds a BS degree from Mexican National
University and MS and PhD degrees in petroleum Engineering from Colorado School
of Mines.
Robert A. Wattenbarger has been a professor of petroleum engineering at Texas
A&M University since 1983. Previously,
he worked for Mobil, Mobil Research, and
Sinclair Oil companies from 1958 to 1969.
From 1969 to 1979, he was vice president
and director of Scientific Software-Intercom Inc. Since 1979, he has consulted
through Wattenbarger and Associates.
He holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from the
University of Tulsa, and a Ph.D. degree
from Stanford University, all in petroleum
engineering.

59