This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]

On: 27 February 2015, At: 18:31

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Petroleum Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpet20

Relation of Recovery to Pressure in a

Fractured Reservoir
a b
A. Batvandi & H. Rahimpour-Bonab
a
Islamic Azad University, Masjd-soleiman Branch, Masjed-soleiman
(M.I.S), Iran
b
Department of Geology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Published online: 04 Jun 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: A. Batvandi & H. Rahimpour-Bonab (2014) Relation of Recovery to

Pressure in a Fractured Reservoir, Petroleum Science and Technology, 32:16, 1905-1912, DOI:
10.1080/10916466.2011.601512

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2011.601512

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 18:31 27 February 2015
 Petroleum Science and Technology, 32:1905–1912, 2014
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1091-6466 print / 1532-2459 online
DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2011.601512

Relation of Recovery to Pressure in a Fractured Reservoir

A. Batvandi1 and H. Rahimpour-Bonab2
1
Islamic Azad University, Masjd-soleiman Branch, Masjed-soleiman (M.I.S), Iran
2
Department of Geology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 18:31 27 February 2015

A naturally fractured carbonate reservoir, situated in the renowned oil-bearing province of southwestern
Iran, is studied. Comparison of produced gas-oil ratio (GOR) fluctuations with the oil pressure variations
in different periods indicates negative trends. During periods with the high production rates, massive
decline in the oil pressure occurred, which indicated lack of the important natural mechanisms for
pressure stabilization. This oil field is divided into three domains by using static pressure data, pressure
dispersal patterns, and porosity-permeability data. Relationships between GOR fluctuations and pressure
variations in the oil column of the studied reservoir are typical of the naturally fractured carbonate
reservoirs. Fluctuations in the oil column GOR and produced GOR are associated with the production
rates. Thus, gas depletion in the reservoir during high production periods is higher, that is a common
feature of reservoirs without active hydrodynamic system. Typically, in such a gravity-drainage reservoirs
the water influx is minimal and the down-dip wells produce at the lowest GORs and have the highest oil
recovery. Apparently, the role of the gravity-drainage depends on the net effect of the dip, permeability
of different sectors, and the oil gravity and the individual well rates.

Keywords: dezful embayment, hydrodynamics, Iran, recovery, reservoir pressure

1. INTRODUCTION

To achieve maximum recovery during hydrocarbon production following criteria should be taken
into account: reservoir permeability and heterogeneity, changes in the fluids pressures and chemistry
during production history, gas cap conditions, and hydrodynamics (e.g., Aguilera, 2004; Gluyas and
Swarbrick, 2004; Mancini et al., 2004; Verma and Bird, 2005; Chilingar et al., 2005; Li and Horne,
2008; Matthews et al., 2008). In this study a naturally fractured carbonate reservoir is investigated
to employ the best methods for maximum primary and secondary recovery.

2. GEOLOGY AND STRUCTURE OF THE RESERVOIR

In this field the reservoir is mainly composed of thick carbonate successions of the Asmari Formation.
The Asmari Formation was deposited in the Oligocene-Miocene shallow marine environment.

Address correspondence to A. Batvandi, Islamic Azad University, Masjd-soleiman Branch, Masjed-soleiman (M.I.S),
Iran. E-mail: Ahmad.petroleum@gmail.com
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/lpet.

1905
 1906 A. BATVANDI AND H. RAHIMPOUR-BONAB
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 18:31 27 February 2015

FIGURE 1 Pressure fluctuation during reservoir history in different periods of the oil production. Also variations
in gas-oil ratio (GOR), oil pressure, and oil production (daily rates) with time are shown. Water pressure variations
and stabilization in the reservoir history is indicated. As seen, since the first period of the hydrocarbon production
massive water pressure decline occurred.

3. METHODS AND DATA

To evaluate controlling factors for petroleum recovery from the studied reservoir, various data are
gathered from this oil field that include: cores and cuttings, thin sections, electric logs, results of
drill stem tests (DST) and as well as production data during history of this field.

4. ANALYSIS OF THE RESERVOIR FLUIDS PRESSURES

To investigate reservoir fluids pressures in this field, rate of the pressure variations during production
is calculated. For these propose a datum depth for all measurements is selected, which was 2,500 m.
Considering the history of the pressure trends in the reservoir, it could be divided into five time
intervals (Figure 1). As shown, oil pressure in the reservoir is heavily controlled and influenced by
production rates. In the first period, due to low production rate, pressure drawdown was gradual
with the average of about 65 psi and annual average of 22 psi. In the second period, due to high
production rates, immense drop in the oil column pressure of about 900 psi occurred with annual
average of 112 psi. Due to this massive and rapid pressure decline, gas cap overblown and gas-oil
contact has migrated to the lower horizons, causing shortening of the oil column (Figure 2). During
this high production period oil column thickness reduced from 815 to 512 m. It means that for every
one million barrels of oil production, 0.75 m of the oil column height is lost. Since this period, oil
column loss for every one million barrels of oil production is reduced to 0.42 m. In the third period
 RELATION OF RECOVERY TO PRESSURE 1907
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 18:31 27 February 2015

FIGURE 2 Oil-water (OWC) and gas-water contacts (GWC) and their changes during production. As shown
oil-water contact has raised about 57 m since reservoir production.

for 12 years, pressure drawdowns in the reservoir were small and slow (about 50 psi). It was literally
due to production close down or reduction. In the fourth period, beginning in 1990, through high
oil production rate, reservoir pressure started to decline rapidly, as it has dropped about 130 psi in
10 years. However, by onset of the gas injection in the year 2000 (the fifth period), trend of the
pressure decline has blocked and as a matter of fact it has been increased by 40 psi ever since. As
our study shows, variations in different fluids pressures in this reservoir are concomitant, as gas and
water pressures display parallel fluctuations with the oil pressures (Figure 3).

5. RESERVOIR ZONATION

Considering bottom-hole pressure data of the studied wells, production tests, gas-oil ratios (GOR),
and patterns of pressure dispersal in different wells, this oil field is divided into three major sections
including Northern, Southern, and Western sectors (Figure 4). Trends of the pressure changes in
these three sectors are relatively similar (Figure 5), but in the Western sector, due to lower density
of the fractures and presence of evaporites, variations in the reservoir pressures are higher and
more dispersed. As shown by production tests, in the Northern sector fractures show higher density
comparing with the other sectors. These tests indicate that permeability is much higher in this sector,
which is due to extensive fracturing (of about 730 md). Therefore, owing to the higher permeability
and better interconnections of wells, variations in the reservoir pressures are intimately correlated
and are comparable (Figure 5). In the Southern sector, fractures are extended from the Northern part
with even higher density. However, due to presence of the evaporites (their plugging effects) and
tectonic pressures, they show lower mean permeability of about 490 md. Meanwhile, in the Western
 1908 A. BATVANDI AND H. RAHIMPOUR-BONAB
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 18:31 27 February 2015

FIGURE 3 Average pressure variations of different fluids during reservoir history.

FIGURE 4 Different sectors of reservoir concluded from pressure and its dispersal as well as gas-oil ratio values.
 RELATION OF RECOVERY TO PRESSURE 1909
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 18:31 27 February 2015

FIGURE 5 Pressure dispersal in different sectors. As shown all sectors show similar trends.

sector of the field, abundance of the salt and anhydrite layers caused much less fracturing and so
much lower permeability (about 177 md).

6. PRODUCED GAS-OIL RATIOS

Comparison of the produced GOR fluctuations with the variations in the oil column pressure during
different periods (Figure 1), illustrates relatively opposite trends. As a matter of fact, by pressure
decline, each little block of matrix will start to produce by dissolved gas mechanism. The faster the
pressure drawdown, the more of the original oil in place was produced out of the matrix. In high
production periods (such as second period) and thus rapid pressure drawdown, produced GORs of
different wells show massive raise. However, considering history of the GOR curve in this field,
there are some inconsistencies with the previously mentioned reasoning. These could be related to
the higher gas production.

7. RESERVOIR HYDRODYNAMICS

Potentiometric and iso-salinity maps of Dezful embayment indicate two types of hydrodynamic
regimes: convergent and divergent. The former regime formed due to gravity flow while the latter
is because of the overburden pressure (compaction) of the sedimentary cover. As shown in Fig-
ure 3, water pressures mainly follow oil and gas pressure variation trends. It could be concluded
that this reservoir does not have active water influx. Since first period of the hydrocarbon pro-
duction, simultaneous with the large pressure drawdown, water pressure decline was also massive
 1910 A. BATVANDI AND H. RAHIMPOUR-BONAB

TABLE 1
P for Different Sectors of the Reservoir

Type Sector P2 -P1 δP, PSI

Water North-South 2929–2957 –19

North-West 2929–2931 –3
Oil North-South 2468–2468 0
North-West 2468–2469 –1
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 18:31 27 February 2015

(about 970 psi; Figures 1 and 3). As shown, in periods with low production rates (third period) there
is no water influx and so water pressure buildup has happened in the reservoir and this pressure has
remained low ever since. These observations indicate the absence of an active hydrodynamics that
could have prevented pressure loss in the reservoir during production. Thus, considering geological
data, the reservoir is sealed off to a large extent from communication with the contiguous water
zones. This could be attributed to the permeability pinch-out by evaporite intercalations. As a result,
despite the pressure decline, the water influx into the reservoir is slight. During peaks of the oil
production (second and third periods) from this reservoir oil-water contact has raised about 57 m
(Figure 2). Considering the reservoir volume this raise is small and indicates slow migration of the
oil-water contact toward the reservoir crest. This is typical feature for reservoirs with the gravity
drive. As a matter of fact, this small raise is not related to the hydrodynamics of the reservoir but is
mainly due to simultaneous expansion in the rocks and fluids.

8. PRESSURE STABILIZATION IN THE RESERVOIR

Considering tilting in the oil-water contact (highest in the southeastern part of the reservoir), water-
pressure and pressure stabilization curves (Figure 1), it could be concluded that during high produc-
tion periods (1966–1978) water pressure (influx) has reduced dramatically. It indicates that during
this period there was no factor to prevent pressure loss. The lack of the reservoir pressure revival
during this period signifies feeble hydrodynamics and water influx. The maximum water pressure is
reported from well #11 in the Southern sector. The Northern sector also shows high water pressure
and the minimum values are observed in the Western sector. The latter observation is because of

TABLE 2
Pressure of Various Fluids in the Datum Point

Type Pressure Geographical Status Time Status

Oil 3650 Reservoir Primary

Gas 2885 Reservoir Primary
Water 4031 Reservoir Primary
Oil 2468 North Present
2468 South
2469 West
Gas 2211.5 North Present
2210 South
2198 West
Water 2929 North Present
2957 South
2931 West
 RELATION OF RECOVERY TO PRESSURE 1911
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 18:31 27 February 2015

FIGURE 6 Final recovery efficiency considering different scenarios.

the evaporite abundance and faulting in this sector. Considering the highest water pressure is in the
Southern sector (more than the Northern sector) and that the reservoir bedding dips toward south,
it could be concluded that hydrodynamics of the reservoir is not active and water pressure is just
following the reservoir structure. For these purposes the following equation could be used:
1
H r = P ×
L
where P = pressure gradient between two reservoir sectors, L = distance between two sectors,
and Hr = hydrodynamic gradient.
If in this equation P >0, then hydrodynamic is occurred between two sectors and water flow
comply with the trend of the oil-water contact tilting. But, if P <0, then there would be no active
hydrodynamics and so tilting in the oil-water contact has not occurred due to this factor. Always,
P1 should be selected in direction of the general hydrodynamic trend. As seen in Table 1, in the
studied reservoir P is less than zero (or equal to it). As shown in Table 2, water pressure is almost
similar in the Northern and Western sectors but in the Southern sector it is about 30 psi higher than
the others. Given these differences in the water pressure between these sectors, the comparison with
the total water pressure of the reservoir is insignificant but it is in opposite direction of the reservoir
bedding dip.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Important variations in the pressure dispersal, which occurred due to heterogeneity in the porosity
and permeability, are associated with the low recovery in the Western sector. Whereas in the
Northern sector the lower variations in the pressure dispersal caused higher recovery. Owing to the
 1912 A. BATVANDI AND H. RAHIMPOUR-BONAB

development of the permeability barriers in the Western sector and reservoir segmentation, induced
hydraulic fracturing is a breakthrough for higher recovery. An important finding concerning reservoir
protection and recovery is our model, which relates different reservoir factors and including fluids
pressures to the recovery rates. Recovery factor from this reservoir under natural pressure would be
about 19.4% (Figure 6), while by gas injection and pressure buildup to the state before third period,
the recovery will increase to about 24.6%. If gas injection could increase reservoir pressure to its
original values, recovery would be about 28.3%. As a result of hydrodynamic deficiency in the field,
GOR variations are directly related to the drawdown pressures. This emphasizes on this fact that gas
depletion in the reservoir during high production periods was higher which is common feature of the
reservoirs without active hydrodynamics. By rapid production from this naturally fractured reservoir
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 18:31 27 February 2015

pore pressure has declined, causing fracture width shrinkage and thus reduced fracture permeability.
This is an important factor that affecting this field, causing low rates of production corresponding
to the pressure drawdown. In such reservoir, the gravity segregation of the fluids during the primary
production process is clearly evident in the production history. While oil is migrated down-dip to
maintain high level of down-structure oil saturation, free gas has accumulated high in the structure.
As a result of the segregation process primary gas cap has expanded and overblown. As seen in this
reservoir, early in the life of the pool, the GORs of the structurally high wells have increased rapidly.
The magnitude of the gravity-drainage in this field is controlled by the oil gravity, permeability of
the zone and bedding dip. The combination of both low viscosity and specific gravity (high API
gravity), along with the high permeability (fracturing) and steep dip, have facilitated down-structure
oil flow. In conclusion, maximum production should be focused on the sectors with the lowest
pressure dispersal (such as Northern and Southern sectors).

REFERENCES

Aguilera, R. (2004). Effects of fracture compressibility on the Gas-in-place calculations of stress-sensitivity naturally fractured
reservoirs. SPE 100451, Gas Technology Symposium. Calgary, Canada, May 15–17.
Chilingar, G. V., Buryakovsky, L. A., Eremenko, N. A., and Gorfunkel, M. V. (2005). Geology and geochemistry of oil and
gas. Dev. Pet. Sci. 52.
Gluyas, J., and Swarbrick, R. (2004). Petroleum geoscience. London: Blackwell.
Li, K., and Horne, R. N. (2008). Modeling of oil production by gravity drainage. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 60:161–169.
Mancini, E. A., Blasingame, T. A., Archer, R., Panetta, B. J., Llinás, J. C., Haynes, C. D., and Benson, D. J. (2004). Improving
recovery from mature oil fields producing from carbonate reservoirs: Upper Jurassic Smackover Formation, Womack Hill
field (Eastern Gulf Coast, USA). AAPG Bull. 88:1629–1651.
Matthews, J. D., Carter, J. N., Stephen, K. D., Zimmerman, R. W., Skorstad, A., Manzocchi, T., and Howell, J. A. (2008).
Assessing the effect of geological uncertainty on recovery estimates in shallow-marine reservoirs: The application of
reservoir engineering to the SAIGUP project. Pet. Geosci. 14:35–44.
Verma, M. K., and Bird, K. J. (2005). Role of reservoir engineering in the assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources
in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. AAPG Bull. 89:1091–1111.