I.

INTRODUCTION RHOMBO CASE

Rhombo field is a synthetic reservoir model generated by IFP. The reservoir is dome shaped and surrounded by
aquifer. In this study, history matching is required to predict the forecasting.

1. Geometry
- Top reservoir at 1960 m TVDSS
- Reservoir thickness of 50 m
- Total net Thickness = 37.7 m

Figure 1. Rhombo Reservoir Model

2. Petrophysics
- Net porosity = 20.1 %
- Net permeability = 62.1 mD

3. Fluid Properties
a. Oil properties
- Stock tank oil density
- Gas solution factor
- Saturation pressure
- Oil volume factor
-
Compressibility
- Viscosity
b. Gas properties
- Stock tank oil density
- Gas volume factor
- Viscosity
c. Water Properties
- Water density
- Compressibility
- Viscosity
- Formation volume factor
= 849.7 kg/m3
= 124.1 m3/m3
= 220 bara
= 1.15 vol/vol @Psat
= 0.5 x 10-4 bar-1
= 1.20 cP @ Psat
= 0.9 kg/m3
= 0.0059 rm3/m3 @220 bara
= 0.026 cP @220 bara
= 1000.5 kg/m3
= 0.44 x 10-4 bar-1
= 0.481 cP
= 1.01 vol/vol @250 bara
[RHOMBO FIELD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY] Prepared by Wachid Setyawan 22210053

4. Initial State
- Initial pressure = 250 bars @2000 m TVDSS
- Water oil contact = 2160 m TVDSS (assumed)

5. Aquifer Activity
Initially unknown

6. Production data
- Initially, well P3 put in to production for 1462 days (4 years). Its production data history are shown
in the handbook.

II. OBJECTIVES

1. Find the best placement for production well

2. Find the production mechanism
3. Identify the two most influent parameters by running the sensitivity test
4. Determine the value of these 4 parameters corresponding to the best match with numerical and
analytical aquifer
5. Do forecasting for the next 5 years by adjusting he well control parameter to optimize oil production

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Well Placement Optimization

Several trials are conducted to determine the single best location for producer well. The method used
is trial and error approach. From the graphic below, it is shown that the best placement is on the P3
location.

Figure 2. Optimum FOE for Each Well Location

Professional Master of Petroleum Engineering ITB-IFP | RESERVOIR SIMULATION COURSE 2

[RHOMBO FIELD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY] Prepared by Wachid Setyawan 22210053

2. Production Mechanism
Initially, oil expansion is the major driving force, but it is decrease by the time. In other side, we can see
also that water give an effect also in the beginning and it is increasing significantly than before. Gas does
not exist at first time (because reservoir pressure is higher than bubble point pressure), but it will affect
the production until 4 years later. And rock expansion does not effect too much. Form the figure below,
it shown that water drive is the primary mechanism for oil production.

Figure 3. The Driving Mechanism of Rhombo Field

3. Determination of 2 Most Controlling Parameters by Sensitivity Running

After knowing the driving mechanism for this reservoir, we will investigate the effect of changing some
parameters such as: aquifer volume, permeability in the lowest layer, anisotrophy ratio (kv/kh), and
maximum relative permeability of water by running a sensitivity test. The production datas observed for
each changing parameter are: cumulative oil production, final liquid rate, final BHP, water breakthrough,
final water cut, and final gas oil ratio. First, we will define the base case and compare each changing
parameter to the base case, then choose the two most influent parameters giving the biggest difference
(according to the base case). The scenario of each case can be seen in this following table :

Table 1. The scenario for identifying the two most influent parameters
No Case Aquifer Volume (MULTPV) Layer 5 (MULTX) Kv/Kh Krw maximum
0 Run (0) 50 1 0.05 0.3
1 Low aquifer 1 1 0.05 0.3
2 High aquifer 100 1 0.05 0.3
3 Low MULTX 50 0.2 0.05 0.3
4 High MULTX 50 20 0.05 0.3
5 Low Kv/Kh 50 1 0.01 0.3
6 High Kv/Kh 50 1 0.1 0.3
7 Low Krw 50 1 0.05 0.2
8 High Krw 50 1 0.05 0.4

Professional Master of Petroleum Engineering ITB-IFP | RESERVOIR SIMULATION COURSE 3

[RHOMBO FIELD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY] Prepared by Wachid Setyawan 22210053

Here are the comparison of all case :

Cumulative oil WBHP

1 Production 140

0.8 135
FOPT ( 10E6 sm3)

0.6

WBHP (barsa)
130

0.4
125

0.2
120

0
Base Case MULTPV1 MULTPV100 115
Base MULTPV 1
MULTX 0.2 MULTX 2.0 PERMZ 0.1 MULTPV 100 MULTX 0.2
PERMZ 0.01 Krw 0.2 Krw 0.4 MULTX 2.0 PERMZ 0.1

Gas Oil Ratio

700

600
Gas Oil Ratio (sm3/sm3

500

400

300

200

100

0
Base case MULTPV 1 MULTPV 100
MULTX 0.2 MULTX 2.0 PERMZ 0.1
PERMZ 0.01 Krwr 0.2 Krwr 0.4

Figure 4. Sensitivity Test

From the 3 graphs above, we can conclude that the two most influent parameters are :
- Aquifer pore volume (MULTPV)
- Permeability in the lowest layer (MULTX).

Professional Master of Petroleum Engineering ITB-IFP | RESERVOIR SIMULATION COURSE 4

[RHOMBO FIELD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY] Prepared by Wachid Setyawan 22210053

4. Determination of 4 Controlling Parameters Corresponding to The Best Match (History Matching)

The primary objective of history matching are to test and to validate the reservoir model. History
matching will contribute to an understanding of the current status of the reservoir, including fluid
distribution, fluid movement, and verification or identification of the current depletion mechanism.
Aquifer needs to be taken into account in history matching because during production, the change in
pressure results in water influx. If the pressure in an aquifer can be calculated, the resulting volumetric
changes can be determined from the pressure/volume compressibility relationship.
There are two ways to model an aquifer:
 Numerical aquifers
 Analytical aquifers
In numerical aquifer, the aquifer is represented by a set of cells in the simulation which may then
connect to specified faces of the reservoir. In analytical aquifers, the aquifer is considered as one whole
unit and in this case the aquifer uses the Carter-Tracy model. In this history matching, both models were
applied to evaluate the best scenario.
The parameters that give the most satisfying result in history matching with numerical aquifer are:
MULTPV=85, MULTX= 2.2, Krw=0.33, Kv/Kh=0.05.

Figure 5. History matching of FOPT, FLPR, FGOR, FWCT, WBHP of Current and History Data

5. Forecasting for the Next 5 Years

After we have the best scenario for history matching, the next step is forecasting the data to predict oil
production. The best scenario is by adjusting the following well constrains:
- GRAT (Gas Rate): if >150.000  Closed
- BHP (Bottom-hole pressure): set to be 50 bars
- WCT (Water cut): set to be 50  if exceeds, so the well is closed
- Uptime (Well efficiency): 0.95
The trial & error method is used again in this section, and two figures below (FLPR and FOPR) show a
series of trials which indicate whether the best adjustment (RHOMBO_FORECAST_BEST) on the well control is
as stated on the data above .

Professional Master of Petroleum Engineering ITB-IFP | RESERVOIR SIMULATION COURSE 5

[RHOMBO FIELD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY] Prepared by Wachid Setyawan 22210053

Figure 6. 5 Years Forecasting by Various Possibility Values for Well Control

IV. CONCLUSIONS

1. From the two history matching using analytical aquifer and numerical aquifer, we can conclude that
history matching using gridding aquifer gives a better result correspond to the water cut.
2. After we can validate the reservoir model by history matching, we can adjust some well control
parameters to optimize oil production.

Professional Master of Petroleum Engineering ITB-IFP | RESERVOIR SIMULATION COURSE 6

[RHOMBO FIELD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY] Prepared by Wachid Setyawan 22210053

V. REFERENCES

Mattax, C.C., and Dalton, R.,L.,. 1990. Reservoir Simulation, SPE Monograph Series

Madaoui, K. Presentation Reservoir Engineering Oil & Gas Development, Total Professeurs Associes. Bandung:
Desember 2008

Shaktikumar, S. and Aguilera M., Reservoir Simulation, Assiciate Professor ENSPM (IFP School), February 2009
Eclipse 2008 Manual

Professional Master of Petroleum Engineering ITB-IFP | RESERVOIR SIMULATION COURSE 7