Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract
Predicting the performance of reservoirs helps engineers to estimate reserve, development planning which
requires detailed understanding of the reservoir characteristics and production operations optimization and
more importantly, to develop a mathematical model that will adequately depict the physical processes
occurring in the reservoir such that the outcome of any action can be predicted within reasonable tolerance
of errors. In this paper, software REPAT was built based on material balance and an expansion of
Tarners method by incorporating water influx and time concept to the material balance equation. The
history matching process consists of modifying the aquifer parameters until an acceptable match was
obtained within engineering accuracy. Example 9.2 in L.P. Dake was used as a case study. A STOIIP
value of 311.48 STB was obtained with an error of 0.00195 and R value of 0.99999 which is an indication
of a good fit, while the STOIIP obtained from MBal gave an error of 0.00253. The reservoir is supported
by a combination of water drive and fluid expansion drive and Hurst Van Everdingen radial aquifer model
was selected as the most likely case. The parameters used to obtain the history match and the STOIIP
compare favourably with the expected values from L.P Dake and MBal. A good pressure and historical
production simulation match was obtained.
Introduction
One of the roles of a reservoir engineer is to continuously monitor the reservoir, collect relevant data and
interpret these data to be able to determine the present conditions of the reservoir, Estimate future
conditions and control the flow of fluids through the reservoir with an aim to increase recovery factor and
accelerate oil recovery. It therefore implies that the ability of a Reservoir Engineer to predict the behavior
of petroleum reservoirs depends solely on his ability to predict the flow characteristics of the fluids in the
reservoir. Thus, the main concern of the engineer to carry out a study on the reservoir is to adequately
simulate the reservoir with the minimum effort. In the real life scenario, the knowledge of a reservoir is
not accurately known since the reservoirs are large complex systems with irregular geometries that are
found in subsurface formations with several uncertainties, limited information about the reservoir
structure and behavior (Holstein 2007).
In this paper, a software was developed based on material balance and an expansion of Tarners method
by incorporating water influx and time concept to the MBE to predict the performance of oil reservoir
since simulation method of prediction is very complex, requiring a geologic model, populating the model
SPE-178288-MS
with rock, fluid, historical production data and all events that have occurred in the reservoir. Though the
simulation method is a more accurate technique but a rigorous exercise which requires carrying out a
material balance on each of the grid blocks.
Tarek (2010) stated that material balance equation, MBE plays a major role in most reservoir
engineering calculations. It helps reservoir engineers to constantly seek for ways to optimize hydrocarbon
recovery by predicting the future performance of the reservoir. We should note that the MBE simply
provides performance as a function of average reservoir pressure without the fluid flow concepts.
Combining the MBE and fluid flow concepts would enable the engineer to predict the reservoir future
production performance as a function of time.
Odeh & Havlena (1963) rearrange MBE into different linear forms. This method requires the plotting
of a variable group against another variable group selected depending on the reservoir drive mechanism
and if linear relationship does not exist, then this deviation suggests that reservoir is not performing as
anticipated and other mechanisms are involved which were not accounted for; but once linearity has been
achieved, based on matching pressure and production data then a mathematical model has been achieved.
This technique is referred to as history matching. Therefore, the application of the model enables
predictions of the future reservoir performance.
There are several methods which have appeared in literatures for predicting the performance of
solution-gas behaviour relating pressure decline to gas-oil ratio and oil recovery. Tarner (1944) and
Muskat (1945) proposed an iterative technique to predict the performance of depletion (solution-gas)drive reservoirs under internal gas drive mechanism, using rock and fluid properties. The assumptions of
both methods include negligible gravity segregation forces. These authors considered only thin, horizontal
reservoirs. Both methods use the material balance principle (static) and a producing gas-oil ratio equation
(dynamic) to predict reservoir performance at pressures. A more detailed description of both methods
appears in Craft and Hawkins (1991).
Tracy (1955) In the model developed for reservoir performance prediction, did not consider oil
reservoirs above the bubble-point pressure (undersaturated reservoir). It is normally started at the
bubble-point pressure or at pressures below. To use this method for predicting future performance, it is
necessary to choose the future pressures at which performance is desired. This means that we need to
select the pressure step to be used. Furthermore, among these methods of reservoir performance
prediction, none considered aquifer in the MBE, hence, the software developed for this study incorporated
aquifer into Tarners method of reservoir performance prediction for solution gas drive. Three aquifer
models such as Hurst Van Everdingen (1947), Carter-Tracy (1960) and Fetkovich (1971) were programmed to allow for flexibility.
Classic analytical models of aquifers are relatively easy to program in computer spreadsheets, provided
that equation discretization is correctly done. With the exception of the van Everdingen & Hurst, the
models do not demand much computer power. In the van Everdingen & Hurst, calculations of the previous
steps are redone at each time-step added to the behaviour, which represents a bigger computational effort.
The equation that rules the van Everdingen & Hurst model is based on the superposition principle. Any
numerical calculation method for this model requires more computing power than other models. Despite
this drawback, it is the ideal model for comparisons, because it faithfully represents the hydraulic
diffusivity equation. Other proposed models, such as Carter & Tracy, Fetkovich, and Leung, sought to
eliminate the disadvantage of the required computing power, and thus became more popular in commercial flow simulators. The error of this model in computing the accumulated influx is insignificant when
compared to the base model (van Everdingen & Hurst).
Reservoir Characterization
An accurate description of reservoir rock, fluid contents, rock fluid systems, fluid description and flow
performance are required to provide sound basis for reservoir engineering studies. Hence, proper reservoir
SPE-178288-MS
SPE-178288-MS
History Matching
The update of a model to fit the actual performance is termed history matching. Clearly speaking,
developing a model that cannot accurately predict the past performance of a reservoir within a reasonable
tolerance of error is not a good tool for predicting the future of the same reservoir. To history match a
given field data in MBE, we have to state clearly the known parameters to match and the unknown
parameters to tune in order to get field production data with minimum tolerance of error and these are
presented in Table 1.
Prediction
Parameter
Symbol
Production data
Np, Gp, Wp and Rp
Hydrocarbon Properties
Boi, Bo, Bg, Bgi, Rsi, Rs
Reservoir Properties
Sw, cw, cf, m
Pressure drop
P
Unknown Parameters
Reserves
N
Water Influx
We
Reserves, Water influx, Hydrocarbon properties, Reservoir properties
The general approach by the engineer whose production information is already available is to
determine the production rates for the given period of production. The value calculated is use to validate
the actual rates and if there is agreement, the rate is assumed to be correct. This rate is used to predict the
future production rates. On the contrary, if there is no agreement between the calculated and the actual
rates, the calculation is repeated by modifying some of the key parameters. This process of matching the
computed rate with the actual observed rate is called history matching.
It therefore implies that history matching can simply be put as a process of adjusting the key properties
of the reservoir model to fit or match the actual historic data. One of these parameters that is vital in
history matching is the aquifer parameters which are not always known. Hence, modification of these
parameters to obtain an acceptable match within reasonable engineering tolerance of error or engineering
accuracy is history matching. The tool developed in this study tries to modify one or several aquifer
parameters and return the calculations until a satisfactory match is obtained (Donnez, 2010).
SPE-178288-MS
Technical Objectives
The technical objectives of this study are to:
Develop a simple tool that will predict future reservoir performance based on material balance
equation and also find means of increasing ultimate recovery and compare result with MBal
predicting tool.
Estimate the hydrocarbon volume in-place
Determine the type of energy in the system and evaluate the strength of the aquifer if present
Determine the most likely aquifer model and properties
Determine the probable limits of the reservoir
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
SPE-178288-MS
history match production history and perform prediction run. The tool is setup in a way that user can go
from left to right on the options menu and from each option, user can navigate top to bottom. Thus, this
tool is broken down into various components and these are:
REPAT
MBAL
L.P DAKE
Aquifer model
Reservoir Thickness (ft)
Reservoir Radius (ft)
Outer/Inner Radius
Encroachment Angle
Aquifer Permeability (md)
OIIP (MMSTB)
Hurst-Van Everdingen
100
9200
5.0761
140
200
311.48
Hurst-Van Everdingen-Dake
100
9200
5.1
140
327.19
312.79
Hurst-Van Everdingen
100
9200
5.00
140
200
312
SPE-178288-MS
Table 3Summary of Input Data for the Aquifer model of L.P Dake Example 9.2
Parameter
Value
Source
327.19
140
9200
5.00
100
The Hurst-Van Everdingen model was selected as the most likely case for example 9.2 in L.P Dake.
The parameters used to obtain the history match and the OIIP from Hurst-Van Everdingen radial aquifer
compare favourably with the expected values. The inferences from the Material Balance Analysis of this
example using REPAT are as follows:
The OOIP is 311.48MMSTB from the diagnostic (F/Et Vs We/Et) plot as shown in figure 3.
SPE-178288-MS
The example 9.2 reservoir is influenced by a combination of water drive and fluid expansion drive
mechanism as revealed by the energy plot (figure 4)
Results from the analytical cumulative oil produced match as shown in figure 5 indicates a Hurst
Van Everdingen radial water drive behavior, encroaching at an angle of 140. A good production
simulation match was obtained
The Results of the analysis indicates that the HurstVan Everdingen radial aquifer Influx model
incorporated into the (F/Et Vs We/Et) straight line method is the most likely aquifer model.
Figure 6 shows the dimensionless aquifer plot and the red line indicates example 9.2 plot
SPE-178288-MS
The plot from MBal, the graphical, energy, analytical and aquifer is shown in figure A1 in appendix
A.
The volume obtained with REPAT using example 9.2 reservoir compares favourably with the volume
reported by L.P. Dake as depicted in table 2.
Constraints
Unknown aquifer characteristics and properties
Prediction Result
Figure 7 shows the prediction result obtained from example 9.2 after careful analysis and history match.
The predicted result match perfectly well with the historical data and extrapolated to a future pressure as
the reservoir declines to abandonment. REPAT has a user defined option of prediction to control the start
and end of prediction result. Hence, since the tool gave a close value of STOIIP as compared with the base
case of example 9.2 and also able to match the historical data, it is there assure good prediction results.
10
SPE-178288-MS
Conclusions
The result obtained from the analysis of example 9.2 from fundamentals of reservoir engineering by L.P
Dake using this study software REPAT, the following conclusion can be drawn:
The Hurst-Van Everdingen radial aquifer model was selected as the most likely case. The
parameters used to obtain the history match and the OIIP compare favorably with the expected
values from L.P. Dake and MBal as shown in table 2 above.
The error in STOIIP obtained from REPAT is 0.00195 and R value of 0.99999 which is a good fit,
while MBal is 0.00253 using the STOIIP in example 9.2 in L.P Dake as base case.
The reservoir is supported by a combination of water drive and fluid expansion drive
The result of STOIIP obtained after regression on aquifer-reservoir radius ratio converges at 5.0761
from Hurst-Van Everdingen radial aquifer model.
A good pressure and historical production simulation match was obtained from REPAT
Recommendations
Results from REPAT should be compared with result from other means of oil in place estimate such
as static (geology) and simulation (eclipse).
Prediction of cumulative water produced should be model.
REPAT can be used as a pre-processing tool for reservoir simulation/study to infer in place volume
and best aquifer model.
It can be used as a stand alone for reservoir performance
REPAT can also be used in academic environment.
References
Carter, R. D., and Tracy, G. W., (1960): An Improved Method for Calculations Water Influx Trans.
AIME
SPE-178288-MS
11
Craft, B., Hawkins, M., Terry, R., (1991): Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, 2nd ed. Prentice
Hall
Dake, L. P., (1978): Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering Amsterdam Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company
Donnez, Pierre, (2010): Essential of Reservoir Engineering, Editions Technip, Paris. Pp. 249 272
Fetkovich, M. J., (1971): A Simplified Approach to Water Influx Calculations- Finite Aquifer
Systems, JPT, pp. 814 828
Glaso, O., (1980): Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations, JPT, May, pp. 785795
Havlena, D., and Odeh, A. S., (1963): The Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight Line,
Trans. AIME, Part 1: 228 I-896; Part 2: 231 I-815
Ikiensikimama, S. S., Effiong E. U and Ogbaja O. (2008): Undersaturated Oil Forrmation Volume
Factor and Viscosity Bellow Bubblepoint Correlations, SPE 119723, rpesented at the 32nd
Annual International Conference of the SPE Nigerian Council, Abuja, Nigeria
Petrosky, G. E., and Farshad, F. (1993): Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Gulf of
Mexico Crude Oils, SPE Paper 26644, presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference of the
SPE in Houston, Texas, 3 6 October
Standing, M. B. (1947), Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems, pp.
125126 Dallas: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Tarek Ahmed (2010): Reservoir Engineering Handbook. 3rd Ed., Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company
Tarner, J. (1944). How different size gas caps and pressure maintenance affect ultimate recovery. Oil
Wkly, June 12, 3236
Tracy, G. (1955). Simplified form of the MBE. Trans. AIME, 204, 243246
Van Everdingen, A., and Hurst, W. (1949) The Application of the Laplace Transformation to Flow
Problems in Reservoirs, Trans. AIME, pp. 186 305
12
SPE-178288-MS
Appendix A
PVT data
Parameter
GOR (Rs)
Oil Gravity
(Yg)
Salinity
Time (day)
Pressure
(psia)
Solution
GOR
(scf/STB)
Oil FVF
(rb/STB)
Gas FVF
(rb/STB)
Oil
Viscosity
(cp)
Gas
Viscosity
(cp)
0
365
730
1096
1461
1826
2191
2557
2922
3287
3652
2740
2500
2290
2109
1949
1818
1702
1608
1535
1480
1440
650
592
545
507
471
442
418
398
383
381
364
1.404
1.374
1.349
1.329
1.316
1.303
1.294
1.287
1.28
1.276
1.273
9E-04
1E-03
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.54
0.589
0.518
0.497
0.497
0.497
0.497
0.497
0.497
0.497
0.497
0.0148
0.01497
0.01497
0.01497
0.01497
0.01497
0.01497
0.01497
0.01497
0.01497
0.00182
Reservoir data
Parameter
Reservoir thickness
Reservoir radius
Aquifer radius
Emcroachment angle
Aquifer permeability
100
9200
46000
140
200
Krw
Kro
Krg
Parameter
Temperature
115
Initial Pressure
2740
Porosity
0.25
Swc
0.05
Cw
3.00E-06
Cf
4.00E-06
Relative Permeability Data
Residual Sat
End Point
Exponent
0.25
0.15
0.05
0.039336
0.8
0.9
0.064557
10.5533
1
2740
2500
2290
2109
1949
1818
1702
1608
1535
1480
1440
0
7.88
18.42
29.15
40.69
50.14
58.42
65.39
70.74
74.54
77.43
0
5988.8
15564.9
26818
39672.8
51393.5
62217.3
71602.8
79228.8
85348.3
89818.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SPE-178288-MS
13
14
SPE-178288-MS
SPE-178288-MS
15
Figure A2Continued
16
SPE-178288-MS
Figure A2Continued