Field Development and Reservoir Management

Kareem Sabry Abdalllah Elwan

Zaynelabdeen Ibrahim Mohamed
Ahmed Hamed Eid Hamed
Hefni Gamal Ahmed Hefni
Abd Elrahman Gamal Mahmoud
Basel Hazem Khairy Abdelmoniem

Under Supervision
Dr: Ramadan Emara
 Estimate of hydrocarbon volume in stock-tank barrels per acre-feet
(stb/acre-ft) and in units of thousand stock-tank barrels (mstb)?
Volumetric Method
Av. Phi = 0.21, Swi = 0.22, Bo = 1.02
Volume in stock-tank barrels per acre-feet = 7758*0.21*(1-.22)/1.02 = 1245 Stb/acre.ft
Thickness = 50 ft
Area = 54360 acre
Volumetric Original Oil in Place = 7758*.21*54360*50*(1-0.22)/1.02
Volumetric Original Oil in Place = 546161727
Data requirements and integration for reservoir simulation in light of the
reservoir heterogeneity and bottom water drive

 Porosity

 Permeability
Facies Distribution

History of field
Fluid Model

Oil Viscosity
Gas Volume Factor
 Rock Properties

Wells Production
 Role of reservoir simulation throughout the reservoir life cycle in
this specific case

 Estimate the Accurate Oil in Place and ensure volume that calculated from volumetric method.

 The most suitable Water flooding model built on Reservoir Simulation and select optimum
starting time of water flooding.

 Forecast the future performance of field until abandonment pressure.

 Estimate The Ultimate Recovery and Ultimate Recovery Efficiency.

 Ensure the optimum well locations through life of field.

 By Reservoir Simulation, can built the most Accurate Reservoir Development Plan.
 Role of dynamic tests and production history in characterizing a
fault and compartmental behavior of the reservoir

 From Production History of field, ensure that faults is not completely sealed due to small
response from wells through fault but this communication not effective. In addition,
water flooding is not supported enough through faults due to partially sealed.

 To ensure the transmissibility of fault by Dynamic Test through build up test or any other
test that prove these faults is completely sealed or not by derivative plot with Horner
plot.
 Proposed location of the next three wells and their depths

 Prod-A: x = 9612, y = 6952, Depth = -3500

 Prod-B: x = 1645, y = 6280, Depth = -2000
 Prod-C: x = 6051, y = 9792, Depth = -2700
 I - A : x = 8771, y = 12047, Depth = -2500

Flexibility in the development program in case a dry hole is encountered

Prod-A is a Dry well

 Evaluation of horizontal drilling

Horizontal Drilling is not preferable for this type of reservoir due to heterogeneity and this type of facies that
have strikes of shale in all reservoir without bulk extended volume of sand. Therefore, drilling vertical wells is
better economically due to it is cheaper than horizontal well and can get gain faster.

The figure shows the heterogeneity in sand

And there is no extended sand channel for

Horizontal wells, therefore vertical wells

Will cover the area more than horizontal wells.

 Estimated number of producers and expected production rates

Reservoir Simulation ensures that nine producers (9 wells) are needed to in addition to
injectors to cover these heterogeneous reservoir. The most recently three wells that added to
cover the ultimate recovery of reservoir with initial oil rates:

 Prod-C: Initial Rate = 11000

 Prod-D: Initial Rate = 26000
 Prod-E: Initial Rate = 39000
 Optimum timing for secondary recovery
The optimum time for water flooding is from first year of production but due to the injectors is insufficient for
recovery efficiency, more injection wells have been drilled from starting prediction in Jan 2005.

Location of injectors during waterflooding

The location of injector (A) @ x=8771 , y=12047
The location of injector (B) @ x=2232 , y=4490
The location of injector (C) @ x=2184 , y=6861
 Reservoir monitoring and surveillance plan throughout the reservoir life
cycle, including before and after water breakthrough
 Case2_Resart: Future reservoir Performance for Oil Production without adding water flooding wells.
 Scenario-B: Future reservoir performance for Oil Production by applying water flooding Project.
 Case2_Restart: Reservoir Pressure performance without adding water flooding wells.
 Scenario-B: Reservoir Pressure Performance after applying water flooding wells.
 Possible utilization of intelligent well technology

Stimulation technology is carried out on well Prod-C:

Hydraulic Fracturing Stimulation improves the oil productivity of this well. And consequently increase the ultimate
recovery from the well
 Applicability of Analytical methods in predicting reservoir performance

Decline Curve Analysis is an analytical method for Predicting reservoir performance.

By applying two methods of DCA: Exponential method & hyperbolic method.
Exponential
160000
Exponential Method
140000

120000
Exponential Method: Q = Qi* exp (-Dt)
100000

Q
80000
D = 15%
60000

40000

20000

0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Year
 Applicability of Analytical methods in predicting reservoir performance

DCA

160000
Hyperbolic Method
140000

120000

Hyperbolic Method Equation: Q = Qi / [(1+bDt) ^1/b]

100000

Q
b = 0.5 D = 20% 80000

60000

40000

20000

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year

 Exponential Method is more accurate due to heterogeneity of reservoir and bad facies will effect greatly on the
performance of water flooding.
 Expected recovery efficiency based on API correlation. Make any
assumptions necessary

API correlation

Er = 41.815 * (φ*(1-Swi)/ βoi) A * (k*1000/ µ)B* (Swi)c * (Pb / Pa )D

Where: A = 0.611 , B = 0.0979 , C = 0.3722 , D = 0.1741

Φ = 0.21 Swi = 0.22 βoi = 1.02

K = 65 µ=3 Pb = 1835 psia Pa = 100 psia

Er = 41.815 * [(0.21*(1-0.22)/1.02)^0.611]* [(65*1000/3)^0.0979]* [0.22^0.3722]*[(1835/100)^0.1741]

Er = 35 %
 Economic Evaluation for all wells in field development

 Prod-B Num of days 365.25

oil price 60
Gas Price 2.65
Opex (oil) $/bbl 10
Opex (Gas) $MSCF 0.25

Gas Total Net cash

oil prod annual oil Gas Prod annual Gas oil price Gas price oil Revenue Capex Opex Total cash out
year Revenue Revenue flow
BBl/D BBLS MMSCF/D MMSCF $/BBL $/MSCF $MM $MM $MM $MM
$MM $MM $MM
2006 146,000 53,326,500 134 48943.5 60 2.65 3,199.59 129.7003 3,329.29 7 545.50 552.50 2,776.79
2007 32,160 11,746,440 28 10227 60 2.65 704.79 27.10155 731.89 120.02 120.02 611.87
2008 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2009 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2010 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
total 65,072,940 59,171 3,904 157 4,061 7 666 673 3,389

NPV @ 10% $MM 3,030

The well is economically and technically successful.

 Economic Evaluation for all wells in field development

Prod- C Num of days 365.25

oil price 60
Gas Price 2.65
Opex (oil) $/bbl 10
Opex (Gas) $MSCF 0.25

Gas Total Net cash

oil prod annual oil Gas Prod annual Gas oil price Gas price oil Revenue Capex Opex Total cash out
year Revenue Revenue flow
BBl/D BBLS MMSCF/D MMSCF $/BBL $/MSCF $MM $MM $MM $MM
$MM $MM $MM
2006 - - 0 0 60 2.65 - 0 - 7 - 7.00 (7.00)
2007 395700 144,529,425 356 130029 60 2.65 8,671.77 344.5769 9,016.34 1,477.80 1,477.80 7,538.54
2008 145444 53123421.00 137.25 50130.56 60.00 2.65 3187.41 132.85 3320.25 543.77 543.77 2776.48
2009 68067 24861471.75 64.6 23595.15 60.00 2.65 1491.69 62.53 1554.22 254.51 254.51 1299.70
2010 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
total 222,514,318 203,755 13,351 540 13,891 7 2,276 2,283 11,608

NPV @ 10% $MM 9,198

The well is economically and technically successful.

 Economic Evaluation for all wells in field development

Num of days 365.25

• Prod- E oil price 60
Gas Price 2.65
Opex (oil) $/bbl 10
Opex (Gas) $MSCF 0.25

Gas Total Net cash

oil prod annual oil Gas Prod annual Gas oil price Gas price oil Revenue Capex Opex Total cash out
year Revenue Revenue flow
BBl/D BBLS MMSCF/D MMSCF $/BBL $/MSCF $MM $MM $MM $MM
$MM $MM $MM
2005 173600 63,407,400 164.5 60083.625 60 2.65 3,804.44 159.2216 3,963.67 7 649.09 656.09 3,307.57
2006 92326.5 33,722,254 87.5 31959.375 60 2.65 2,023.34 84.69234 2,108.03 345.21 345.21 1,762.82
2007 55192 20158878.00 52.3 19102.58 60.00 2.65 1209.53 50.62 1260.15 206.36 206.36 1053.79
2008 14667 5357121.75 13.9 5076.98 60.00 2.65 321.43 13.45 334.88 54.84 54.84 280.04
2009 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
total 122,645,654 116,223 7,359 308 7,667 7 1,256 1,263 6,404

NPV @ 10% $MM 5,447

The well is economically and technically successful.

Therefore, Field development plan is economically and technically successful.
 Conclusion

The Best Field Development Plan for reservoir Management by the following plan:

Producers

 Prod-A is not recommended (Dry Well)

 Prod-B is highly recommended due to potentiality
 Prod-C is recommended to recover more oil
 Prod-D is not recommended due to bad productivity
 Prod-E is highly recommended due to high recovery

Injectors

 I-A & I-B & I-c are recommended to improve recovery efficiency.