ANALYSIS ULTIMATE RECOVERY
AND REMAINING RESERVE WITH
THE AQUIFER MODEL
Kelompok 11
Nik Alpa Rinando, Kelvin Marianus Selus,
Luqman Hakim Ahadi, Rizqi Azjwar Aswwad,
Meigo Jorgie Suharto Howan, Kevin Jonathan
Tumbel
Abstract
In the oil industry the determination
of remaining remaining and ultimate
recovery is very important.
Determination of remaining reserve and
ultimate recovery can use reservoir
simulation. one reservoir simulation can
use the MBAL application. Reserve is
the volume of oil and gas that can be
commercially produced. In the world of
petroleum reserve is divided into 4 types,
which have been discovered,
recoverable, fulfilled commercial
requirements, and the remaining volume.
Using aquifer modeling in the MBAL
application we can find out the amount
of remaining reserve and ultimate
recovery. There are several aquifer
modeling including (1) Van
Everdingen-Hurst (VEH) model; (2)
Carter-Tracy Model; (3) Fetkovich
models; (4) the Schilthuis model; and (5)
Small aquifer or aquifer pot models. The
first three models are unsteady-state
models and are the most realistic. They
attempt to simulate the complex
pressure changes that gradually occur
within the aquifer and between the
aquifer and reservoir. As pressure
depletion proceeds, the pressure
difference between the reservoir and
aquifer grows rapidly and then abates as
the aquifer and reservoir eventually
equilibrate. This pressure interaction
causes the water influx rate to start at
zero, grow steadily, reach a maximum,
and then dissipate. This particular water
influx rate history behavior applies to
initially saturated oil reservoirs; the
behavior for initially undersaturated oil
reservoirs is often slightly but distinctly
different. The effects of undersaturation
on the water-influx performance are
discussed below. The unsteady-state
models are far more successful at
capturing the real dynamics than other
models. In contrast, Schilthuis’
steady-state model assumes the aquifer
pressure remains constant. The
small-aquifer model, however, assumes
the aquifer and reservoir pressures are
equal.
Introduction
1.Hurst-van Everdingen-Dake
The Hurst-van Everdingen-Dake
model is essentially the same as the
Hurst-van Everdingen-Odeh model. The
only difference is instead of entering the
tD constant and aquifer constant directly,
we enter the various physical
parameters (e.g. permeability, reservoir
radius) that are used to calculate the two
constants. Once we have calculated
these constants, they are used in the
summation formula in exactly the same
way as the Hurst-van Everdingen-Odeh
model. There is one other slight variation
with the Odeh model. For all Hurst-van
Everdingen-Dake models, for each term
in the summation Mbal uses the fluid
properties at the pressure for the time in
the summation term. So in the
summation formula above, the U and
alpha are calculated using the fluid
properties with the pressure at tj. This is
an improvement to the original published
model where the fluid properties were
taken from the pressure at tn. Note that
this correction is obviously not possible
in the Odeh model as the tD and alpha
constants are entered as single values
for all time steps. All the models
previously discussed with the exception
of Hurst simplified are based on the
assumption that the pressure
disturbance travels instantaneously
throughout the aquifer and reservoir
system. On the other hand if we do not tool button and select material
make this assumption but rather say that balance.(Fig.1)
the speed will depend on the pressure
diffusivity of the system.

2.Fetkovitch Semi Steady State

In the semi-steady state model, the

pressure within the aquifer is not kept
constant but allowed to change. Material
balance equation is used to find that the
changed average pressure in the Fig.1
aquifer. Then click option. in the option we
enter the field data starting from the type
3.Hurst-van Everdingen Modified of fluid contained in the reservoir, type of
tank model, PVT model, Prodaction
This method is similar to the history, compositonal model, and other
Hurst-van Everdingen Dake model. The field data.(Fig.2)
main difference is the
manner in which the pressure decline is
approximated. In the original model the
decline is approximated as a series of
time steps with constant pressure. In the
modified one it is approximated as a
linear decline for each time step.

4.Carter-Tracy
Fig.2
The principal difference between Click PVT and select fluid properties.
this method and the Hurst-van Enter data GOR, Gravity Oil, Gravity
Everdingen models is as follows. The Gas, water salinity, mole percent H2S,
Hurst-van Everdingen models assume a CO2, and N2. then click match.(Fig.3
constant pressure over a time interval and Fig 4)
and thus use the constant terminal
pressure solution of the diffusivity
equation with the principle of
superposition to find the water influx
function. Carter Tracy model on the
other hand uses the constant terminal
rate solution and expresses the aquifer
influx as a series of constant terminal
rate solutions. The dimensionless
function thus is the pressure written ad Fig.3
PD function.

Methodology
MBAL is an application used for
reservoir simulation. At the MBAL we
can determine the remaining reserve
and ultimate recovery. First press the
 Fig.7
Fig.4 Enter the input and select the data
tank then enter the tank type select
according to the type of fluid, fill in the
well name, reservoir temperature, Initial
After being matched, we are safe to Pressure, Porosity, Connected water
saturation, water compressibility, initial
gas cap, OOIP, and start
production.(Fig.8)

Fig.5
Enter like (Fig.5). Then enter the
viscosity data, the temperature at Pb
pressure, GOR, FVF Oil, etc. Clik match
lalu calc. And we enter in determining
the parameters contained Glaso,
Standing, Lasater, vasque beggs,
Pertrosky, and al marhoun. The meters
are used for the Pb, Rs, Bo parameters. Fig.8
Whereas the oil viscosity meters contain Then click next select the aquifer
beal et al, Beggs at al, petrosky et al, modeling according to what we want and
and dan egbogah et al Determination of then fill in the data provided then click
parameters is taken based on the next to Relative Permeability. Enter Krw,
average of each parameter.(Fig.6 and Kro, Krg, end point, and exponent data.
Fig.7) Then click next and enter Production
data then validate and click done.( Fig.9
dan Fig.10)

Fig.6

Fig.9
 Fig.10
Select History Matching and then enter
the analytical method then a graph will
appear and then click regression then
click the data that feels it doesn't match
the field data so that the data becomes
matching.(Fig.11dan Fig 12).
Fig.11
Fig.12
After data matching click run simulation
and calculate then we will get production
data, Pressure tank, Recovery Factor,
Average oil rate, and production data
that we need.(Fig.13)
Fig.13
After run simulation then we match the
Fw matching data and then select
regression and select regression on the
default variable (Recommended) so that
the Fw data becomes Matching with the
data that matches the existing data
reservoir.(Fig.14)
Fig.14
Result and Discussion
Our first step is to determine the
parameters used for Pb, Rs, Bo, oil viscosity,
gas viscosity, and Bg. Based on the
calculations we get the parameters
Al-marhoun and Petrosky et al.(Fig.1 dan
Fig.2)
Fig.1

Fig.2
Model aquifer Carter - Tracy
With the analysis of the model
adapted changes in the value of Outer /
inner Radius ratio 1.92206 with the
value of Encroachment Angle 2.004
degrees and Aquifer Permeability
2673.84 md.From the results of the
regression analysis, the OOIP value was
641,449 MMSTB and there was no
Influx Aquifer line.
Run Production Prediction by
constructing the 200000 STB / day flow
rate obtained RF results of 74.7163% on
07/24/2016.
Determination of remaining reserve and
ultimate recovery factor values with Run
History simulation data on 02/09/2010:
Ultimate Recovery Factor
UR = 70 x 1.23159 = 68.76841
Recovery Factor
RR = 68.76841– 7.9 = 60.86841
Model aquifer Fetkovich Semi Steady
State
By analyzing the model adapted
changes in the value of Outer / inner
Radius ratio 1.48112 with the value of
Encroachment Angle 314.134 degrees
and Aquifer Permeability 5.5473
md.From the results of the regression
analysis, the OOIP value is 645,744
MMSTB and there is no Aquifer line.
From the Run History Simulation
data, the RF value was obtained at the
last time the production was worth
1.2234%. And cum. Production oil 7.9
MMSTB.Run Production Prediction by
constructing the 200000 STB / day flow
rate obtained RF results of 74.689% on
08/08/2016.Determination of remaining
reserve and ultimate recovery factor
values with Run History simulation data
on 02/09/2010:
Ultimate Recovery Factor
UR = 70 x 1.2234 = 85,638
Recovery Factor
RR = 85,638 - 7.9 = 77,738
Model Aquifer Hurst - van Everdingen
- Dake
With the analysis of the model
adapted changes in the value of the
Outer / inner Radius ratio 1.00001 with
the value of Encroachment Angle
138.38 degrees and Aquifer
Permeability 10.2397 md.From the
results of the regression analysis, the
OOIP value of 644,979 MMSTB was
obtained and there was no Influx Aquifer
line.
 Determination of remaining reserve and
ultimate recovery factor values with Run
History simulation data on 02/09/2010:
Ultimate Recovery Factor
UR = 70 x 1.76701 = 123.6907
Recovery Factor
Run Production Prediction by defining RR = 123.6907– 7.9 = 115.7907
the flow rate of 200000 STB / day
Conclusion
obtained RF results of 74.7776% on
Based on reservoir simulation, the
08/08/2016.
parameters obtained are Pb, Rs, Bo is
Determination of remaining reserve and
Al-Marhoun while the viscosity of oil and
ultimate recovery factor values with Run
gas is Petrosky at al. in this simulation
History simulation data on 02/09/2010:
using an aquifer model Hurst –van
Ultimate Recovery Factor
Everdingen-Modified Aquifer, Hurst-van
UR = 70 x 1.22485 = 85.7395
Everdingen - Dake Aquifer, Semi Steady
Recovery Factor
State Fetkovich aquifer model, and
RR = 85.7395– 7.9 = 77.8395
Carter aquifer model - Tracy
Model Aquifer Hurst –van Everdingen
Refrensi
-Modified
1. https://petrowiki.org/Water_influx_mo
With the analysis of the model
dels#van_Everdingen-Hurst_.28VEH.
adapted changes in the value of Outer /
29_model
inner Radius ratio 20.7468 with the
2. https://petrowiki.org/Water_influx_mo
value of Encroachment Angle 2.23486
dels
degrees and Aquifer Permeability
998000 md.From the results of the
regression analysis, the OOIP value of
447,083 MMSTB and the line with the
Influx aquifer obtained a medium value.

From the Run History Simulation data,

the RF value is obtained at the last
production of 1.76701%. And cum.
Production oil 7.9 MMSTB.Run
Production Prediction by constructing
the flow rate of 200000 STB / day
obtained RF results of 516,323% on
07/27/2014.