See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328917231

Reservoir Modeling using CMG-2007 for Single Well of radial Flow

Thesis · April 2012

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19516.28806

CITATIONS READS
0 8,993

4 authors, including:

Ali Yahya Jirjees

Ministry of Oil - North Oil Company
34 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EOR oil recovery View project

Integration of core and well log data to predict permeability using neural network intelligent View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Yahya Jirjees on 13 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Reservoir Modeling using CMG-2007 for
Single Well of radial Flow
TABLE OF CONTENT
acknowledgement

abstract

table of content

list of illustrations

1 Introduction to the Reservoir Modeling

1.1 Reservoir Simulation Objectives and considerations

1.2 Fundamentals of Reservoir Simulation

1.3 Other engineering approaches

1.4 History of Reservoir Modeling

1.5The Basics of Reservoir Simulation

1.6 Simulation Technology

2. Modeling with CMG 2007 (WinBuilder& IMEX)

2.1 Benefit of CMG

2.2 Applications of CMG’s IMEX

2.3 Selection of model grid

2.4 Specification of reservoir rock and fluid description data

2.5 Validity of simulation results

2.6 Model Assumption

3. The project objectives

4. input data of the project

5. Results of the project

6. Comparing CMG results with the companies results of the project

7. Scenarios

8. Discussion and suggestion

Reference
Nomenclature

appendix.A & appendix.B

List of illustrations:

Fig.1.1 Modeling Complexity Vs. physics and Details

Fig.1.2 Flowchart of the CMG’s how to work

Fig.2.1 CMG‘s launcher veiw screen

Fig 5.1. oil rate sc- daily production with time

Fig 5.2. gas rate sc production with time

Fig 5.3. gas oil ratio sc with time

Fig 5.4. water cut sc with time

Fig 5.5. wellbore bottom hole pressure with time

Fig.6.1 comparing oil rate

Fig.6.2 water cut comparing

Fig.6.3 gas oil ratio comparing

Fig.6.4 well bottom hole pressure comparing

Fig.7.1 perforation change affect on oil rate

Fig.7.2 perforation change affect on gas oil ratio

Fig.7.3 perforation change affect on water cut

Fig.7.4 perforation change affect on oil rate

Fig 7.5 BHP change affect on oil rate

Fig 7.6 BHP change affect on gas oil ratio

Fig 7.7 BHP change affect on reservoir bottom hole flowing pressure with time

Fig 7.8 BHP change affect on water cut

Fig 7.9. 3D view of the reservoir ( production and injection well location)

Fig 7.10 The effect of water injection on the daily oil rate

Fig 7.11 The effect of water injection on the water cut

Fig 7.12 The effect of water injection on the gas oil ratio

Fig 7.13 The effect of water injection on the flowing bottom hole pressure

Fig.8.1 oil rate and gas rate with time

Fig.A.1. gas expansion with Pressure plot

Fig.A.2.solution gas oil ratio with Pressure plot

Fig.A.3. oil and gas viscosity with Pressure plot

Fig.A.4. relative permeability with water saturation plot

Fig.A.5. relative permeability with liquid saturation plot

Fig.A.6. gas oil capillary pressure with liquid saturation plot

Fig.A.7. deviation factor with pressure

Fig.A.8. water oil capillary pressure with water saturation plot

Fig.A.9. gas formation volume factor with pressure plot

Fig.A.10. 3D veiw of reservoir grid top

Fig.A.11. 3D veiw of reservoir grid thickness

Fig.A.12. 3D veiw of reservoir permeability

Fig.A.13. 3D veiw of reservoir permeability

Chapter 2

Modeling with CMG 2007 (WinBuilder& IMEX)

1. Benefit of CMG

2. Applications of CMG’s IMEX

3. Selection of model grid

4. Specification of reservoir rock and fluid description data

5.Validity of simulation results

6. Model Assumption
I MEX is one of the world's fastest conventional reservoir simulator. IMEX
models complex, heterogeneous, faulted oil and gas reservoirs, to achieve
accurate predictions and forecasts quickly. Reservoir engineers use IMEX to move
from history-matched, primary production and water floods to enhanced recovery
processes in GEM and STARS quickly and easily.

IMEX is a full-featured three-phase, four-component, black oil reservoir simulator

for accurately modeling complex heterogeneous faulted structures, primary and
secondary (water & polymer flooding) recovery processes using complex
horizontal and multi-lateral wells. IMEX includes features such as local grid
refinement (LGR), comprehensive well management, pseudo-miscible option,
horizontal wells, dual porosity/permeability, flexible grids, gas adsorption and
many more.

IMEX models multiple PVT and equilibrium regions, as well as, multiple rock
types and has flexible relative permeability choices. Regardless of the size or
complexity of your reservoir problem, IMEX is an effective tool for a broad range
of reservoir management issues.

To optimize your reservoir simulation model, use IMEX after history-matching to

screen multiple recovery techniques to obtain the best net present value (NPV).
The speed of IMEX allows engineers to conduct more runs than any other
simulator.
 1. Benefits of CMG
 Achieve simulation results faster than any other conventional simulator
 Ability to quickly screen a variety of recovery mechanisms before moving forward
to a more complex simulation
 Accurate modeling of the matrix-fracture transfer in fractured reservoirs
 Use the speed of IMEX to simulate shale gas modeling
 Seamless integration with CMOST for rapid, accurate history matches and
uncertainty analysis, while leveraging limited engineering time
 Fast and easy transition to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) process modeling in GEM
and STARS

Fig.2.1 CMG‘s launcher veiw screen

2. Applications of CMG’s IMEX

 Unconventional gas &  secondary recovery

Liquids reservoir  Waterflooding
 Coal Bed Methane (CBM)  Surface facilities
 Shale gas modeling
 Shale liquids  Polymer injection
 Tight gas  Dry gas injection
 primary depletion  Pseudo-miscible solvent
 Infill drilling optimization injection
 Horizontal & multi-lateral well  WAG processes
placement  Gas storage fields
 Coning studies  Cycle optimization
 Under-saturated/saturated oil
reservoirs
 Gas condensate reservoirs
 Gas deliverability forecasting
 Reservoir/surface facility
optimization
 Naturally or hydraulically
fractured reservoirs
 Naturally fractured reservoirs
 Gas-oil gravity drainage
3. Selection of model grid
Selection of the x-y-z grid block network involves many factors, including
available budget and the engineer’s judgment and experience . For any type of
model, the arithmetic or computing expense per time step is at least linearly
proportional to the total number of gridblocks employed. The computing expense
of a single model run is proportional to product of the number of gridblocks and
the number of time steps required by the model to cover the total time period of
interest. In the many cases, the time steps size is controlled by the maximum rate
of change (overall gridblocks) in one or more calculated quantities such as pressure
and saturations. This maximum rate of change generally occurs at or near a well or
in the vicinity of a flood front. A doubling of the number of gridblocks can result
approximately in a doubling of this maximum rate of change since each gridblock
is (on the average) one-half as large. The average time steps size, then might
decrease by a factor of two if the number of blocks were double. The final result is
a computing expense per model run which can approach a proportionality to the
square of the total number of gridblocks. This indicates the importance of selecting
the smallest number of gridblocks consistent with reservoir/well description,
recovery process characteristics, and the questions asked regarding reservoir
performance.

The number of gridblocks and the resultant study computing expense are the
lowest in cases where the engineer can justify use of a representative element of
the total field as the basis for the model study. This may be possible in reservoirs
developed with repeated well patterns, for any recovery process---waterflooding,
CO2 injection, steamflooding , etc. In such cases, the representative element
ideally should be a symmetrical element of the reservoir. In strict terms, this
requires a repeated, regular pattern of identically completed and operated wells, a
horizontal, areally homogeneous reservoir formation of uniform thickness, and
areally uniform initial fluid saturation distributions. If these conditions were met,
then questions regarding total field optimization, forecasting and comparative
evaluation of recovery processes could be addressed inexpensively by simulation
of the single pattern (element).

While actual reservoirs never satisfy these conditions exactly, representative-

element simulation studies are frequently performed for repeated pattern processes.
In some cases, a substantial portion of the reservoir may exhibit only moderate
areal heterogeneity and thickness variation. Resultant variation in performance
from one pattern to another may be sufficiently small for engineering purposes to
justify scale-up of single-pattern results to total field performance.

Representative-element simulation is often performed where the study purpose is

comparative evaluation of alternative recovery processes as opposed forecasting of
total field performance for a specific process and operating scheme. The
justification of single-element simulation implied in such cases is that the resultant
ranking of alternative processes is un affected by the variations in pattern (element)
properties over the field. This justification can be and frequently is checked by
repeating the various process simulations for two or more patterns of different
properties representative of different potions of the reservoir.

Finally, the relatively inexpensive single-element simulation applies to design or

optimization studies of a specific recovery process operated in a repeated pattern
mode. For a repeated-pattern steamflood, single-pattern model runs have been
performed to “ optimize” pattern type (e.g., five-, seven- or nine-spot) and size,
injected steam quality and rate, well completion, etc. occasional publications
describe single-pattern simulation studies using a one-quarter five spot or one-
quarter nine-spot as the symmetrical element of the respective pattern. Actually, a
one-eight five-spot or nine –spot(and 1/12 seven-spot) are the smallest symmetrical
elements and should be used to minimize computing expense.

Currently, a major portion of industry-wide effort and computing expense is

simulation studies is associated with total-field forecasting of black-oil reservoir
performance under a sequence of recovery processes. Typically, the engineer must
select a 3D grid for a large reservoir with significant heterogeneity, large areal
variation in dip and thickness, irregular well location and increasing numbers of
wells with successive development stage. The engineer may face a several to
many-year period of historical performance under natural depletion, frequently
with some natural water encroachment. Study objectives may include history
matching, followed by matching and forecasting for awaterflood period, in turn
followed by forecasting for some tertiary scheme such as CO2 injection.
The number of gridblocks is product of the number of areal blocks, N x N y, and
the number of grid layers, N z. Different consideration enter into selection of these
two numbers of spacing. Factors indicating a need for fine areal grid spacing are
high well density and sharp or rapid change (areally) in permeability, porosity,
thickness, and dip. Since these factors frequently vary over the field, the x-and-y-
direction grid spacing are often non uniform. Grid spacing are generally increase
toward the down dip reservoir boundaries and increase greatly with distance into
the aquifer if the latter is present and included in the grid.

In general, of course, the number of areal gridblocks required increases with size
of the reservoir and the number of wells. However, grid spacing ranging from very
fine to very coarse may be appropriate for different reservoirs of comparable size.
The smallest number of areal blocks (coarsest areal spacings) are associated with
reservoir studies limited to natural depletion and crestal or flank gas/or water
injection. In such a case, a coarse grid may result in a number of areal blocks that
include two or more similar type (e.g., production) wells, with little loss in
engineering significance of the simulator results. Large numbers of areal blocks
may be required in case of pattern waterfloods or enhanced recovery processes. A
rough guide in this case is the need for at least two, preferably three or more,
gridblocks separating each injection-production well pair. However, recent studies
describe estimation of pseudo relative-permeability curves, which allow adjacent-
block placement of an injector/producer well pair.

The major factors affecting the number of grid layers (vertical gridblocks) required
are the formation stratification, vertical communication, and total thickness. Many
reservoirs possess a number of formation layers, which correlate from well to well
over much of or all the field. Variations of layer thickness, permeability, and
porosity may be significant areally even greater from one layer to another. The
vertical communication (vertical permeability) between adjacent layer-pairs may
from zero to very high, both areally and from one layer-pair to another. In the
general, at least one grid layer should be used for each correlatable formation layer.
However, common sense and budget constraints argue against definition of a large
number of very thin grid layers. Three dimensional reservoir studies typically
employ 4 to 12 grid layers, and one or more of these grid layers may be a lumped
representation of several thin formation layers. The need for subdivision of one
formation layer into two or more grid layers depends on the layer thickness and
fluid-segregation characteristics of the recovery process and operating rates. Most
recovery processes result in moderate to severe gravity segregation of oil and
injected fluids; injected water or gas tend to under run or override oil, respectively;
many steamflood projects exhibit sever override of oil by the steam. A formation
layer that has significant thickness and zero to poor vertical communication with
layers above and below may exhibit a pronounced phase segregation and require
two or more grid layers. In the idealized example of a field wide, pronounced
gravity override in a vertically homogeneous reservoir, a variable grid spacing
increasing from top to bottom might be specified. That is, four layers of
thicknesses 5,10,20, and 25-ft might give more accurate results than four layers of
equal 15-ft thickness.

A customary approach to determining N z involves use of the simulation model

itself in 2D cross-sectional (x-z slice) mode. For the particular recovery process of
interest, x-z model runs are performed by using different numbers of grid layers.
Pseudorelative-permeability curves reflection phase segregation are calculated
from model runs performed with fine vertical grid spacing. These pseudocurves are
then used in equivalent x-z model runs using fewer grid layers to obtain coarse
(vertical) definition results similar to fine spacing “correct” results. The fewer grid
layers of the coarse definition are then employed in the 3d reservoir study grid.
This concept of generating pseudocurves for coarse vertical grids that reproduce
vertical fine-grid results (using rock or laboratory relative permeabilities) has been
extended to the areal spacing problem, as mentioned earlier.

Obviously, a minimum computing expense follows from use of a single grid layer
representing the entire formation thickness. This results in a 2D x-y areal grid as
opposed to a 3D grid and occasionally is justified in the two extremes of a very
high vertical permeability and a layer formation with zero vertical permeability.
Pseudorealtive permeability and capillary pressure curves are discussed for the
former case in papers describing the vertical equilibrium (VA) concept and for the
latter case by Hearn.
4. Specification of reservoir rock and fluid description data
Geological and petro-physical work based on logs and core analyses yields maps
of structure, net Øh, and kh products for each of the several reservoir layers. The
kh and Øh data are often augment or modified by results of drill-stem, pressure
buildup, and pulse tests. For each layer, the engineer can overlay his areal x-y grid
spacing network on these maps and read off the values of subsea depth, Øh, and kh
at the center of each gridblock. These values along with gross thickness of each
block are then transposed to a data file in a format compatible with that required by
the simulation model. Current research effort is directed toward developing
computer programs that accept digitized core analysis, log and geological data the
selected grid network, and through mapping and interpolation techniques,
automatically prepare the simulation input data file. Laboratory core analysis work
includes measurement of relative-permeability, k r, and capillary-pressure, P c,
curves for a number of field cores. Variations in rock lithology may result in
different sets of k r, an P c, curves for different layers and/or different areal
portions of the reservoir. Most simulation models allow multiple sets of such data
in tubular from with assignment of each set to a user-specified layer/portion of the
reservoir. If the rock water/oil (gas/oil) capillary pressure values are small, the
water/oil (gas/oil) transition zone in the reservoir may be a very small fraction of
total formation thickness. In such cases pseudocapillary-pressure curve(s) should
be used.For black-oil studies, laboratory tests are performed to determine gas
compressibility factor and saturated oil and gas viscosities vs. pressure.
Differential and/or constant-composition expansion tests on oil samples yield the
saturated oil pressure-dependent formation volume factor, Bo (RB/STB), and
solution gas, Rs (scf/STB). The resulting oil and associated gas properties vs.
pressure are entered in the data file in tabular from compatible with simulator input
requirements. For gas condensate depletion studies, constant-volume and constant-
composition expansion tests yield the required pressure-dependent liquid content,
CL (STB/scf), and condensate density values. A wide variety of laboratory tests
are performed for compositional model studies that involve injection of a
nonequilibrium fluid (dry or enriched gas, CO2, N2, etc.). swelling tests yield
relative volumes, saturation pressure, and equilibrium phase composition for each
of a sequence of mixture, say. 1 mole of original reservoir oil and injected fluid.
5. Validity of simulation results
Uncertainties or errors in simulation model results may arise from questionable
assumption or mechanisms not represented in the differential form of the model,
spatial and time truncation error introduced by replacement of the model
differential equations by finite difference approximations, and inadequately known
reservoir rock and/or fluid description data. In addition, the exact solution of the
difference equation is not attained because of round-off error introduced by the
finite word length of the computer. Round-off error is generally negligible
compared with errors from the other three sources. With some exceptions, the
above sources of error are listed in order of increasing importance. However,
successful history matching can reserve the importance of the second and third
sources.

Comparisons of model and laboratory experiment results can indicate model

validity in the absence of the uncertainty 3 above. Several such comparisons show
good model-experiment for gas/oil systems, water/oil coning and fractured-matrix
imbibition.

6. Model Assumption
An assumption common to many black-oil models is complete re-solution of free
gas in accordance with the saturated Rs (p) curve during re-pressurization. This
may be a poor assumption in a case where gridblock thickness is large and gas/oil
gravity (vertical) segregation is pronounced. Prior to re-pressurization in a given
block, the free gas may exist as a high gas saturation in only the upper portion of
the block. This contradicts its representation in the model as a lower saturation
distributed throughout the entire block volume. In the segregated state , the gas will
re-dissolve only in the lower or residual oil saturation in the upper, gas-occupied
portion of the block volume. However, the model will allow re-solution in the
entire rocks oil volume. Pressure hysteresis in the Rs (p) curve has been used to
cope with this problem; an alternative remedy where the computing budget
permits is the use of more grid layers.
An assumption common in early black-oil models was that the reservoir oil obeyed
a single pair of Bo (p) and Rs (p) curves. Some black-oil reservoirs exhibit a
significant variation of oil API gravity and PVT behavior with depth or with depth
and areal location. In some cases, this variation can be represented in a black-oil
model by simply allowing initial solution gas Rsi to vary with depth in the under-
saturated oil column, retaining a single setoff Bo (p) and Rs (p) curves. In the
other cases, multiple sets of these curves and two oil components are necessary and
the single oil-type assumption in a black-oil model can lead to appreciable error.

Mechanisms or phenomena that are significant in some reservoirs and may not be
represented in the model include compaction, hysteresis in wetting and non-
wetting relative permeabilities, and interlayer wellbore cross-flow. The latter is a
particularly difficult modeling problem and the subject of continuing research. A
production well completed in a number of layers may exhibit production from
some layers and, simultaneously, injection (backflow or recirculation) into others.
Factors that promote this possibility are low-pressure drawdown (high PI and/or
low rate) and poor vertical communication between the reservoir layers in the
vicinity of the well. A rigorous treatment of this problem requires modeling of
wellbore multiphase hydraulics and phase segregation combined with calculation
of correct phase mixtures for the layers undergoing injection .
Chapter 3
The project objectives

1. Construct models for a single well radial flow reservoir,

using CMG’s IMEX simulator

2.To assess the differences between the result for recent project with the companies
caring on the same model and data.

3.Apply scenarios to obtain significant differences.

4. To reach the final proper scenario that will be and recommended by using
CMG.
Chapter 4

Input data of the project

1. Basic data

2. Rock and fluid data

3. Initial condotion data

4. Well data

5. Array properties data

6. General pvt data

7. Pvt data

8. Saturation data
 1. Basic Data
Geometry

Radial Extent, ft 2050

Wellbore Radius, ft 0.25

angullar theta division 10

Radial position of first block center,ft 0.84

Number of radial blocks 10

Radial block boundaries, ft

0.365632, 0.90038, 2.21721, 5.45995, 13.4453, 33.1094, 81.5329, 200.777,494.42,
1217.52
dipanngle, degrees 0

Depth to top of formaton,ft 9000

Number of vertical layers 15

 2. Rock And Fluid Data

Pore compressibility, psi-1 0.000004

reference pressure for calculating effect of rock compressibility = 3600 psi

Water Copressibility, psi-1 0.000003

Oil Compressibility for under saturated oil, psi-1 0.00001

Oil viscosity compresssibility for undersaturated oil, psi-1 0

Stock-tank oil density, Ibm/cu ft 45

Stock-tank water density, Ibm/cu ft 63.02

Standard-condition gas density, Ibm/cu ft 0.0702

3. Initial Condition

Presf (referencepressure)= 3600

Depth of gas/oil contact, ft 9035

Oil pressure at gas/oil contact, psi 3600

Capillary pressure at gas/oil coantact, psi 0

Depth of water/oil contact, ft 9209

Capillary pressure at water/oil contact, psi 0

Pb = pi=3600 saturated reservoir

 4. Well Data
Skin 0

Produced well completed in blocks 1,1,7 1,1,8

Minimum bottom hole pressure 3000 psi

Production Schedule

Time Period (Days) Oil Production Rate (STB/D)

1 to 10 1000

10 to 50 100

50 to 720 1000

720 t0 900 100

Layer Thickness Porosity Kx kz

5. Array properties 1 20 0.087 35 3.5
Depth to top of formation 9000 Ft 2 15 0.097 47 4.75
3 26 0.111 148 14.8
4 15 0.16 202 20.2
5 16 0.13 90 9
6 14 0.17 418 41.8
7 8 0.17 775 77.5
8 8 0.08 60 6
9 18 0.14 682 68.2
10 12 0.13 472 47.2
11 19 0.12 125 12.5
12 18 0.105 300 30
13 20 0.12 137 13.75
14 50 0.116 191 19.1
15 100 0.157 350 35
 6. The general pvt data
Reservoir temperature (TRES) 180 F

Stock tank oil density 45 lb/ft3

Gas density 0.0702 lb/ft3

Water density 63.02 lb/ft3

Under-saturated oil compressibility (CO) 0.00001 1/psi

Oil phase viscosity pressure dependence (CVO) 0 cp/psi

Water properties

Water formation volume factor (BWI) 1.01303

Water compressibility (CW) 0.000003 1/psi

Ref. pressure for water (REFPW) 3600 psi

Water viscosity (VWI) 0.96 cp

Pressure dependence of water viscosity (CVW) 0 cp/psi

 7. pvt data:

Oil Oil Solution Water Water Gas Gas

pressure Bo Bw BG
density viscosity GOR density viscosity density viscosity
psia RB/STB IB/FT3 CP SCF/STB RB/STB IB/FT3 CP MCF/STB Ib/ft3 cp
400 1.012 46.497 1.17 165 1.01303 62.212 0.96 5.9 2.119 0.013

800 1.0255 48.1 1.14 335 1.01182 62.286 0.96 2.95 4.238 0.0135

1200 1.038 49.372 1.11 500 1.01061 62.36 0.96 1.96 6.379 0.014

1600 1.051 50.726 1.08 665 1.0094 62.436 0.96 1.47 8.506 0.0145

2000 1.063 52.072 1.06 828 1.0082 62.51 0.96 1.18 10.596 0.015

2400 1.075 53.318 1.03 985 1.007 62.585 0.96 0.98 12.758 0.0155

2800 1.087 54.399 1 1130 1.0058 62.659 0.96 0.84 14.885 0.016

3200 1.0985 55.424 0.98 1270 1.0046 62.734 0.96 0.74 16.896 0.0165

3600 1.11 56.203 0.95 1390 1.00341 62.808 0.96 0.65 19.236 0.017

4000 1.12 56.93 0.94 1500 1.00222 62.883 0.96 0.59 21.192 0.0175

4400 1.13 57.534 0.92 1600 1.00103 62.958 0.96 0.54 23.154 0.018

4800 1.14 57.864 0.91 1676 0.99985 63.032 0.96 0.49 25.517 0.0185

5200 1.148 58.267 0.9 1750 0.99866 63.107 0.96 0.45 27.785 0.019

5600 1.155 58.564 0.89 1810 0.99749 63.181 0.96 0.42 29.769 0.0195
 8. Saturation data

sw krw krow pcow

sg krg krog pcgo
0.22 0 1 7
0 0 1 0
0.3 0.07 0.4 4
0.04 0 0.6 0.2
0.4 0.15 0.125 3
0.1 0.022 0.33 0.5
0.5 0.24 0.0649 2.5
0.2 0.1 0.1 1
0.6 0.33 0.0048 2
0.3 0.24 0.02 1.5
0.8 0.65 0 1
0.4 0.34 0 2
0.9 0.83 0 0.5
0.5 0.42 0 2.5
1 1 0 0
0.6 0.5 0 3
0.7 0.8125 0 3.5
0.78 1 0 3.9

Note : you can see the input data graphs in appendix.A.

Chapter 5
Results of the project

1. CMG calculation results

2. CMG results graphs

 1. CMG Calculation results

After run and validate , CMG calculate the following data :

Total oil in place STB 0.28998E+08

Total water in place STB 0.73907E+08

Total gas in place SCF 0.47142E+08

HC. Pore Volume M RBBL 36695

Total Pore Volume. M RBBL 110748

Field Total Fluid

Oil Gas Water Solvent Polymer
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
(MSTB) (MMSCF) (MSTB) (MMSCF) (MLB)
Cumulative Production 530.94 1156.0 218.32 NA NA
Cumulative Injection NA 0 0 NA NA
Cumulative Gas Lift NA 0 NA NANA
Cumulative Water Influx NA NA 0 NA NA
Current Fluids In Place 28467 45986 73688 NA NA
Production Rates .10000 .13425 .05590 NA NA
Injection Rates NA 0 0 NA NA
 2. CMG Result graphs

Fig 5.1. oil rate sc- daily production with time

Fig 5.2. gas rate sc production with time

Fig 5.3. gas oil ratio sc with time

Fig 5.4. water cut sc with time

Fig 5.5. wellbore bottom hole pressure with time

Note :You can see The changes in oil,water&gas productions with time (in every
days) and also gor ,water cut changes with time in appendix.B.
Chapter .6
Comparing CMG results with the company’s results

1.Comparing of Initial fluid in place

2.Comparing the oil production rate

3. Comparing the water cut

4. Comparing the gas oil ratio

5. Comparing the bottom hole pressure

 1.Comparing of Initial fluid in place

Oil water Gas Declined

Company (106STB) (106STB) (106SCF) (days)

ARCO 28.80 74.03 47.01 257

Chevron 28.88 73.94 47.13 217

CMG 28.998 73.90 47.14

D&S 29.11 74.97 47.11 815

Fran lab 28.89 73.93 47.09 280

Gulf 29.29 73.49 47.63 230

Harwell 28.89 73.96 47.09 232

Intercom 28.92 73.93 47.13 210

McCord-Le 28.68 74.12 46.98 257

Nolen 28.89 73.96 47.08 237

SSC 28.87 74.03 47.04 250

Shell 28.76 74.08 46.94 222

We see that the our CMG’s results are approximately between chevron and ARCO
works.
 1. Comparing the oil production rate

Fig.6.1 comparing oil rate

 3. Comparing the water cut

Fig.6.2 water cut comparing

 4. Comparing the gas oil ratio

Fig.6.3 gas oil ratio comparing

 5. Comparing the bottom hole pressure

Fig.6.4 well bottom hole pressure comparing

Chapter .7. The Scenarios

1.perforation changes

2.bottom hole pressure changes

3.water injection
 1.perforation change
Change perforation layers to (5 & 6) and ( 3&4 ) and (9&10) and then choose the
best perforation layers for the reservoir .

The following figures show the difference between the 4 casesof perforations:

Fig.7.1 perforation change affect on oil rate

Fig.7.2 perforation change affect on gas oil ratio

Fig.7.3 perforation change affect on water cut

Fig.7.4 perforation change affect on oil rate

From the above figures we see that the case of perforation layers 5 & 6 is the best
case .
2.Bottom hole pressure change
Change the bottom hole pressure from 3000 to 2500 , 2800 & 3200 psi

The following figures show the difference between the 4 cases of BHP changing :

Fig 7.5 BHP change affect on oil rate

Fig 7.6 BHP change affect on gas oil ratio

Fig 7.7 BHP change affect on reservoir bottom hole flowing pressure with time
Fig 7.8 BHP change affect on water cut

We see that when we decrease the wellbore bottom hole pressure the oil production
stay constant at 1000 bbl/day more time.
3.water injection
inject water to support pressure of the reservoir
(voidage or replacement)

Use the following information :

Injection well constraints :

BHP bottom hole pressure MAX 0666psi
BHW reservoir water rate MAX 0066bbl/day
Injection well perforation layers :
10,1,7 and 10,1,8

Fig 7.9. 3D view of the reservoir ( production and injection well location)
The following results calculated after run :

Field Total Fluid

Oil Gas Water Solvent Polymer
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
(MSTB) (MMSCF) (MSTB) (MMSCF) (MLB)
Cumulative Production 701.47 1810.7 390.95 NA NA
Cumulative Injection NA 0 3130.7 NA NA
Cumulative Gas Lift NA 0 NA NANA
Cumulative Water Influx NA NA 0 NA NA
Current Fluids In Place 28211 45507 76742 NA NA
Production Rates .10000 .15305 .09135 NA NA
Injection Rates NA 0 2.8971 NA NA

The following figures show the difference between base case (without
injection) and injection well case

Fig 7.10 The effect of water injection on the daily oil rate
Fig 7.11 The effect of water injection on the water cut

Fig 7.12 The effect of water injection on the gas oil ratio
Fig 7.13 The effect of water injection on the flowing bottom hole pressure

We see that the water injection increase the reservoir pressure and water cut and
oil rate and the gas oil ratio
Chapter .8.
Disscusion and Suggestion

1.Discussion

2.suggestion
1.Discussion :
1. The time of start of decreasing in the oil rate from constraint 1000 bbl/day can
be expressed by breakthrough time because of the gas conning which occur after
this time, such as the below figure , we see that the gas rate increase after oil rate
will decrease .

Fig.8.1 oil rate and gas rate with time

2-When decrease the bottom hole pressure BHP the oil recovery will increase and
then gas breakthrough time delay’s.

3. When change the perforated layer to 9 and 10 the oil recovery increase and the
gas breakthrough time delay but the water conning possibility increase.

4.Increased or reduced density difference delays breakthrough time and also

reduces GOR after breakthrough.

5. A significant effect on coning tendency is observed when there is a decrease in

oil viscosity and an increase in gas viscosity which delays gas breakthrough time
and reduces GOR after breakthrough but increases ultimate recovery.

6. An increased interval thickness results in a long breakthrough time and increase

GOR after breakthrough.
2.suggestion :

1. We suggest to perforate on block 1,1,9 and 1,1,10 because

these layers gives more oil recovery.

2. We suggest to decrease the BHP in order to increase oil

recovery .

3. We suggest to drill an injection well if the above suggestions is

not possible to do.
References :
NOMENCLATURE

A= cross - sectional area of core, ft2

Bo= oil formation volume factor, rb/stb
Bg= gas formation volume factor, rb/stb
GOR = gas-oil ratio
H= oil formation thickness, ft
K= permeability, md
Kh= horizontal permeability, md
Kv= vertical permeability, md
Kro= oil relative permeability, md
Kro= oil relative permeability, md
∆ P= pressure gradients
Pcg= gas capillary pressure
Pcgo= gas-oil capillary pressure
Pco= oil capillary pressure
qo= oil production, STB/cu ft reservoir-day
qg= gas production, STB/cu ft reservoir-day
qi= initial oil production rate
R= recovery
RS= solution gas-oil ratio, stb/stb
re= drainage radius, ft
rw= wellbore radius, ft
Sg= gas saturation, fraction
Swi= initial water saturation
t= time, days
Tbt= breakthrough time, days
= porosity
= oil density, Ib /cu ft
= gas density, Ib /cu ft
= oil viscosity phase, cp
= gas viscosity phase, cp
Appendix.A

1. graphs of the inputpvtdata :

fig.A.1. gas expansion with Pressure plot

Fig.A.2.solution gas oil ratio with Pressure plot

Fig.A.3. oil and gas viscosity with Pressure plot

Fig.A.4. relative permeability with water saturation plot

Fig.A.5. relative permeability with liquid saturation plot

Fig.A.6. gas oil capillary pressure with liquid saturation plot

Fig.A.7. deviation factor with pressure

Fig.A.8. water oil capillary pressure with water saturation plot

Fig.A.9. gas formation volume factor with pressure plot

2. graphs of the geometry and array data :

Fig.A.10. 3D veiw of reservoir grid top

Fig.A.11. 3D veiw of reservoir grid thickness

Fig.A.12. 3D veiw of reservoir permeability

Fig.A.13. 3D veiw of reservoir permeability

Apendix .B. Total Production Table of the project (base case)

View publication stats