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

net/publication/300027458

Software for Reservoir Performance Prediction

Conference Paper · August 2015

DOI: 10.2118/178288-MS

CITATION READS
1 837

2 authors:

Sylvester Okotie M.O. Onyekonwu

Federal University of Petroleum Resources University of Port Harcourt
28 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS    148 PUBLICATIONS   701 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Reservoir View project

Formulation of Local materials for Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M.O. Onyekonwu on 11 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-178288-MS

Software for Reservoir Performance Prediction

Okotie Sylvester, Federal University of Petroleum Resources; M.O. Onyekonwu, University of Port Harcourt

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 4 – 6 August 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

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
Tarner’s 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 Tarner’s 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
2 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 Tarner’s 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 pro-
grammed 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 commer-
cial 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 3

characterization is important to analyse the effects of heterogeneity on reservoir performance due to

primary, secondary, and/or enhanced oil recovery operations. Porosity and permeability are important
flow properties; an accurate reservoir characterization requires accurate porosity and permeability de-
scription as function of space.
Reservoir characterization is a process to reduce geological uncertainties by quantitatively predicting
the properties of a reservoir and define reservoir structural changeability. It is a process ranging from the
discovery phase of a property to the management phase of the reservoir. Prior to performing a reservoir
simulation, accurate characterization is the first key step to undertake which helps to identify uncertainty
range inherent in reservoirs. Here we try to assess the range of reservoir performance from an under-
standing of the subsurface uncertainties. This concept is a limitation and it is not considered in the material
balance method used in developing the tool for predicting performance of reservoirs in this paper. At this
point, we need not to border ourselves with a thorough review of literature in reservoir rock character-
ization which would not be practically possible because of the wide nature of this discipline.

Describing the Pvt

To appropriately estimate the reservoir pressure and saturation changes as fluid is produced throughout the
reservoir, requires a precise description of the reservoir fluid properties. To accurately describe these
properties, the ideal process is to sample the reservoir fluid and perform a laboratory studies on the fluid
samples. This is not always possible to continuously take fluid sample for analysis as the reservoir
pressure declines, hence, engineers have resorted to correlations to generate the fluid properties. There-
fore, REPAT offers several options for calculating the required properties as the reservoir pressure
declines. The program uses traditional black oil correlations, such as Petrosky and Fashad (1993),
Standing (1947), Ikiensikimama et al (2008) and Glaso (1980) etc. where only basic PVT data is available.
Besides, where detailed PVT laboratory data is provided, the developed tool uses this data instead of
generating PVT properties from correlations. The data is inputted in the required table format (PVT
tables), there is flexibility with the software whereby the data can be entered manually or imported from
Microsoft excel in the accepted format. Figure 1 shows the PVT input screen of REPAT.

Figure 1—PVT Data Analysis Output Screen

4 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.

Table 1—History match and prediction parameters

Known Parameters

History Matching 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
Prediction 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).

The Problem Definition

One of the problems faced today in the industry in making predictions of the reservoir behavior is to
adequately take into account the knowledge about geological trends and some set of constraints whether
quantified or not that are essential in making a good simulation study. The engineer should bear in mind
a list of designated limits of all is variables. It can be argued very effectively that there is really no unique
set of descriptive parameters which fit a reservoir.
Material balance equation makes use of pressure in the prediction; Tarner and Muskat method which
are widely used do not considered time in their prediction performance. Also, neither water influx nor
gravity segregation was considered. Thus, this paper incorporate aquifer and time scale to the equation in
making predictions. The time history will be inferred from the reserves and well production rates. Though
it does not consider reservoir geometry, heterogeneity, fluid distribution, the drainage area, the position
and orientation of the wells.
SPE-178288-MS 5

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

Potential Benefits of Repat

User friendly
It can serve for academic purpose
REPAT can be used as a stand-alone tool or a pre-processing tool for reservoir simulation study to
infer in place volume and best aquifer model.
Minimize cost of foreign commercial software

Modeling Approach/ Methodology

The workflow used in the development of REPAT is given in Figure A2 of appendix A and the data
used to valid the tool was obtained from fundamentals of reservoir engineering by L.P Dake (Elsevier,
1978), chapter 9, example 9.2. This data was analysed as oil reservoir. The pressure and production data
used in the analysis are as provided by the author. The production history spans a period of 10 years
(August 1994- August 2004). The PVT, the reservoir (tank) and production history data used in the
analysis are shown in table A1, table A2 and table A3 of appendix A respectively. Below are some of the
mathematical equations coded in REPET.
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Description of the tool used in the study

The reservoir performance analysis tool (Repat 8.5) is a package designed to help engineers to gain a
better understanding of reservoir behaviour, infer hydrocarbon in place, determine the best aquifer model,
6 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:

Setting the system/model options

Entering PVT data and perform correlation match to select the best model
Entering reservoir, relative permeability and aquifer data
Entering production history data
Performing a history match
Performing prediction run
Generation of report
help

Results from Repat and Mbal

Material balance analysis has been carried out on example 9.2 of L.P Dake reservoir. The Reservoir
Prediction Analysis tool, REPAT of this study was used for the analysis and compare with MBAL, of
Petroleum Experts Limited. The program uses a conceptual model of the reservoir to predict the reservoir
behavior and reserves based on the effects of fluids production from the reservoir. Besides, the in-place
volumes calculated from this study can be subjected to static and dynamic simulation toll for validation.
The reservoir pressure, PVT and production data, after careful review, served as input data into the
REPAT and MBAL program. The summary of the results obtained from L.P Dake Example 9.2 analyses
are as shown in table 2.

Table 2—Summary of L.P Dake Example 9.2 Analysis Results

Parameter REPAT MBAL L.P DAKE

Aquifer model Hurst-Van Everdingen Hurst-Van Everdingen-Dake Hurst-Van Everdingen

Reservoir Thickness (ft) 100 100 100
Reservoir Radius (ft) 9200 9200 9200
Outer/Inner Radius 5.0761 5.1 5.00
Encroachment Angle 140 140 140
Aquifer Permeability (md) 200 327.19 200
OIIP (MMSTB) 311.48 312.79 312
SPE-178288-MS 7

Table 3—Summary of Input Data for the Aquifer model of L.P Dake Example 9.2
Parameter Value Source

Aquifer Permeability (md) 327.19 Regression in REPAT and MBAL

Encroachment Angle (deg.) 140 Fault Polygon
Reservoir Radius (ft) 9200 Estimated from seismic map
Outer/Inner radius (Ratio) 5.00 Estimated from seismic map
Reservoir Thickness(ft) 100 Logs

Figure 2—History-Prediction pressure plot

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.

Figure 3—Graphical estimate of STOIIP

8 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)

Figure 4 —Energy plot

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

Figure 5—History match plot

The Results of the analysis indicates that the Hurst–Van 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 9

Figure 6 —Aquifer plot

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

Figure 7—Result from REPAT

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 Publish-
ing 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. 785–795
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.
125–126 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, 32–36
Tracy, G. (1955). Simplified form of the MBE. Trans. AIME, 204, 243–246
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

Table A1—PVT data for L.P Dake Example 9.2

Solution Oil Gas
Pressure GOR Oil FVF Gas FVF Viscosity Viscosity
PVT data Time (day) (psia) (scf/STB) (rb/STB) (rb/STB) (cp) (cp)

Parameter L.P Example 9.2 0 2740 650 1.404 9E-04 0.54 0.0148
GOR (Rs) 650 365 2500 592 1.374 1E-03 0.589 0.01497
Oil Gravity 40 730 2290 545 1.349 0.001 0.518 0.01497
(Yg) 0.7 1096 2109 507 1.329 0.001 0.497 0.01497
Salinity 14000 1461 1949 471 1.316 0.001 0.497 0.01497
1826 1818 442 1.303 0.001 0.497 0.01497
2191 1702 418 1.294 0.002 0.497 0.01497
2557 1608 398 1.287 0.002 0.497 0.01497
2922 1535 383 1.28 0.002 0.497 0.01497
3287 1480 381 1.276 0.002 0.497 0.01497
3652 1440 364 1.273 0.002 0.497 0.00182

Table A2—Reservoir and Aquifer data

Aquifer data Reservoir data

Parameter L.P Example 9.2 Parameter L.P Example 9.2

Reservoir thickness 100 Temperature 115

Reservoir radius 9200 Initial Pressure 2740
Aquifer radius 46000 Porosity 0.25
Emcroachment angle 140 Swc 0.05
Aquifer permeability 200 Cw 3.00E-06
Cf 4.00E-06
Relative Permeability Data
Residual Sat End Point Exponent

Krw 0.25 0.039336 0.064557

Kro 0.15 0.8 10.5533
Krg 0.05 0.9 1

Table A3—Production data of L.P Dake Example 9.2

Cum oil Produced Cum Gas Produced Cum Water Produced
Time (dd/mm/yyyy) Reservoir Pressure (psia) (MMSTB) (MMSCF) (MMSTB)

1/8/1994 2740 0 0 0
1/8/1995 2500 7.88 5988.8 0
1/8/1996 2290 18.42 15564.9 0
1/8/1997 2109 29.15 26818 0
1/8/1998 1949 40.69 39672.8 0
1/8/1999 1818 50.14 51393.5 0
1/8/2000 1702 58.42 62217.3 0
1/8/2001 1608 65.39 71602.8 0
1/8/2002 1535 70.74 79228.8 0
1/8/2003 1480 74.54 85348.3 0
1/8/2004 1440 77.43 89818.8 0
SPE-178288-MS 13

Figure A1—Result from MBal

14 SPE-178288-MS

Figure A2—Work flow in developing REPAT 8.5

SPE-178288-MS 15

Figure A2—Continued
 16 SPE-178288-MS

Figure A2—Continued

View publication stats