Reservoir Simulation of Montana Field

__________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents
1 General Introduction...................................................................................... 12
2 Introduction to Montana Field. ..................................................................... 14
2.1 General Information ................................................................................. 14
2.2 Geological Framework ............................................................................. 15
3 Reservoir Simulation’s principles ................................................................. 17
3.1 Simulation Introduction: ........................................................................... 17
3.2 The Motivation for simulation: ................................................................ 18
3.3 How a simulator works:............................................................................ 18
3.4 Definition and understanding of Formulation .......................................... 20
3.5 History match ........................................................................................... 25
3.6 Mechanics of History Matching ............................................................... 27
3.7 Eclipse’s Technical Description ............................................................... 28
3.7.1 Introduction to ECLIPSE 100 .......................................................... 28
3.7.2 Input data file .................................................................................... 29
3.7.3 Data file sections definition: ............................................................. 29
3.7.3.1 RUNSPEC: required ................................................................. 29
3.7.3.2 GRID: required ......................................................................... 30
3.7.3.3 EDIT: optional .......................................................................... 30
3.7.3.4 PROPS: required ...................................................................... 30
3.7.3.5 REGIONS: optional.................................................................. 30
3.7.3.6 SOLUTION: required ............................................................... 30
3.7.3.7 SUMMARY: optional .............................................................. 31
3.7.3.8 SCHEDULE: required .............................................................. 31
3.7.4 Useful information: .......................................................................... 31
3.7.4.1 Repeat counts: .......................................................................... 31
3.7.4.2 Comments: ................................................................................ 31
3.7.4.3 Default values: .......................................................................... 32
3.8 Grids and Properties Data files format [1] ................................................. 32
3.8.1 “GRID” section keywords as (ASCII) format file (*.grdecl) over
view. 32
3.8.2 “Poperties” keywords as (ASCII) format file (*.grdecl) over view. 35
3.9 Running simulation: ................................................................................. 36
3.10 PVTi Software definition ......................................................................... 37
3.10.1 Regression on multiple fluid samples............................................... 37
3.10.2 Choosing of regression parameters .................................................. 38
3.10.3 Corner point transmissibility calculations ........................................ 38
4 Description of Reservoir Model & Input Data Discussion. ........................ 40
4.1 Reservoir Model’s Initialization ............................................................... 40
4.1.1 Grid ................................................................................................... 40
4.1.2 Layers ............................................................................................... 42
4.1.3 Static Parameters .............................................................................. 43
4.1.3.1 Porosity & NTG Maps.............................................................. 43
4.1.3.2 Permeability Maps .................................................................... 44
4.1.3.3 Initial water saturation (Swi) Maps .......................................... 45
4.2 Fluid and Rock Properties ........................................................................ 47
4.2.1 PVT data ........................................................................................... 47
4.2.2 ROCK data ....................................................................................... 48
4.3 Equilibration Data .................................................................................... 48
6
__________________________________________________________________
4.4 Determining the initial hydrocarbon place. .............................................. 48

4.5 Wells’ Description .................................................................................... 50
4.5.1 Trajectory ......................................................................................... 50
4.5.2 Completion & Perforations............................................................... 50
4.5.3 Wells Production & Pressure History............................................... 52
4.5.3.1 Production & Pressure Measurements of well Mon-1 ............. 52
4.5.3.6 Injection & Pressure Measurements of well Mon-6 ................. 57
4.5.3.7 Production & Pressure Measurements of the Field .................. 58
5 Model Improvements ..................................................................................... 61
5.1 Original Model Analysis .......................................................................... 61
5.2 Historical Data Validation ........................................................................ 63
5.3 Require historical data .............................................................................. 63
5.4 Historical Data Updating .......................................................................... 63
5.5 Original history match evaluation ............................................................ 64
5.5.1 Bottom Hole Static Pressure ............................................................. 65
5.5.2 Gas Oil Ratio .................................................................................... 68
5.5.3 Water Cut.......................................................................................... 71
5.6 History Match Procedures ........................................................................ 74
5.6.1 Candidate’s parameters of History Match processes ........................ 74
5.6.2 Using an average values of Pb and Rs.............................................. 75
5.6.3 Creation of new PVT model ............................................................. 76
5.6.4 Transmissibility Modifications ......................................................... 82
5.6.5 Final History Match Results ............................................................. 85
6 Reservoir Performance Forecast ................................................................... 97
6.1 Scenarios Descriptions ............................................................................. 97
6.1.1 CASE 1: Do Nothing Case ............................................................... 97
6.1.1.1 Whole Reservoir Performance ................................................. 99
6.1.2 CASE 2: Drill one new producer in west south Area ..................... 100
6.1.3 CASE 3: Drill One new producer on top of the reservoir .............. 105
6.1.4 CASE 4: Two new wells located as previous scenarios ................. 109
6.1.5 Comparison between all prediction cases by the end of year 2030 113
7 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 114
7.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 114
7.2 Recommendations .................................................................................. 116
8 Nomenclature ................................................................................................ 118
9 References ..................................................................................................... 119
10 Appendix ....................................................................................................... 120
10.1 Appendix A (Results) ............................................................................. 120
10.2 Appendix B ............................................................................................. 170
10.3 Appendix C ............................................................................................. 172
7
__________________________________________________________________
List of Figures
Figure (2-1): NC-82 Concession’s location in Sirte Basin. ...................................... 14
Figure (2-2): NC-82, and the location of Montana field. ......................................... 14
Figure (2-3): X-section between 3 wells, showing reservoir bodies. ....................... 16
Figure (3-1): Creating the Geo-Cell Model based on different Data sources by using
the Geo-Statistics Methods. (First step in FFRMW) ................................................ 22
Figure (3-2): Full Field Reservoir Modeling Workflow. ......................................... 23
Figure (3-3): The Header of “Montana” input data file in Eclipse ASCII format. .. 33
Figure (3-4): “ZCORN” Keyword in Montana input file in Eclipse ASCII format .. 34
Figure (3-5): “ACTNUM” Keyword in Montana input file in Eclipse ASCII format
.................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure (3-6): A part of Properties Keywords in Eclipse ASCII format. .................. 35
Figure (4-1): Wells locations map, the upper one is the top depth contour of the
structure and the lower one is the same map but as the grid of the dynamic model. 41
Figure (4-2): shows the 10 Model’s layers, in term of depth. .................................. 42
Figure (4-3): Porosity map of Layer 6 ...................................................................... 43
Figure (4-4): NTG map of Layer 3 ........................................................................... 43
Figure (4-5): Horizontal Permeability distribution in (X direction) of Layer 6 ....... 44
Figure (4-6): Irreducible Water Saturation of Layer 6 in term of (SWL) ................ 45
Figure (4-7): Initial Oil Saturation of Layer 6 .......................................................... 46
Figure (4-8): Initial Water Saturation of Layer 6 ..................................................... 46
Figure (4-9): Initial fluids in equilibrium. ................................................................ 49
Figure (4-10): Initial reservoir pressure distribution. ............................................... 49
Figure (4-11): Initial oil saturation in whole the field. ............................................. 50
Figure (4-12): Pressure and production parameter of the well Mon-1 ..................... 52
Figure (4-13): Mon-1's location is so close to OWC on the edge of the reservoir. .. 53
Figure (4-14): Fences crossing the Mon-1, 2 and 3, showing how the injected water
is invading the two wells, Mon-2 and Mon-3........................................................... 53
Figure (4-15): Historical water injection profile of the well Mon-1 between Dec.
1999 & Aug 2003. .................................................................................................... 54
Figure (4-21): Average production parameters and reservoir pressure of whole the
field. .......................................................................................................................... 59
Figure (4-22): The Historical GOR of all producers ................................................ 60
Figure (5-1): Part of the updated Schedule section. ................................................. 64
Figure (5-2): Original HM of bottom hole pressure’s well Mon-1 .......................... 65
Figure (5-8): Original HM of Gas Oil Ratio’s well Mon-1 ...................................... 69
Figure (5-9): Original HM of Gas Oil Ratio’s well Mon-2 ...................................... 69
Figure (5-10): Original HM of Gas Oil Ratio’s well Mon-3 .................................... 70
8
__________________________________________________________________

Figure (5-13): Original HM of Water Cut’s well Mon-1 ......................................... 72
Figure (5-18): New Adjusted average values of Pb & RS........................................ 75
Figure (5-19): PVT model Modifications effects in comparison, BHSP Mon-1 ..... 76
Figure (5-25): PVT model Modifications effects in comparison, GOR Mon-1 ....... 79
Figure (5-30): The Multiple transmissibility factor Modification in X direction. ... 82
Figure (5-31): The Transmissibility in X direction .................................................. 83
Figure (5-32): The Multiple transmissibility factor Modification in Z direction. .... 83
Figure (5-33): New Transmissibility Modification in term of Keywords. ............... 84
Figure (5-34): New Multiple transmissibility factor Modification in X direction. .. 85
Figure (5-35): Mon-1, Final Match of BHP ............................................................. 86
Figure (5-38): Mon-4, Final Match of BHP: ............................................................ 88
Figure (5-41): Mon-1, Final Match of GOR ............................................................ 89
Figure (5-42): Mon-2 Final Match of GOR ............................................................. 90
Figure (5-46): Mon-1, Final Match of Water Cut .................................................... 92
Figure (5-51): Mon-1, Match of Oil rate .................................................................. 94
Figure (6-1): The remaining oil saturation by the end of History Match. ................ 98
Figure (6-2): Field Production Profiles (Historical & Prediction). .......................... 99
Figure (6-3): field Pressure and Water injection Profiles (Historical & Prediction).
................................................................................................................................ 100
Figure (6-4): The oil saturation by the end of History Match ................................ 101
Figure (6-5): Well Production Profiles. .................................................................. 102
9
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (6-6): Field Production Profiles (Historical & Prediction) ......................... 102
................................................................................................................................ 103
Figure (6-8): Start of forecast case with infill a new well in (Nov- 2008). ............ 104
Figure (6-9): End of new infill well life (May-2020). ............................................ 104
Figure (6-10): The oil saturation by the end of History Match. ............................. 105
Figure (6-11): Well Production Profiles ................................................................. 106
Figure (6-12): Field Production Profiles (Historical & Prediction) ....................... 106
................................................................................................................................ 107
Figure (6-14): Start of forecast case with infill a new well in (Nov- 2008). .......... 108
Figure (6-15): End of new infill well life (Oct-2023) ............................................ 108
Figure (6-16): Production Profiles of Well Mon-08............................................... 109
Figure (6-17): Production Profiles of Well Mon-10............................................... 110
Figure (6-18): Field Production Profiles (Historical & Prediction) ....................... 110
Figure (6-19): field Pressure and Water injection Profiles (Historical & Prediction)
................................................................................................................................ 111
Figure (6-20): Start of forecast case with infill a two well in (Nov- 2008). ........... 112
Figure (6-21): End of new infill wells life (Oct-2023) ........................................... 112
10
__________________________________________________________________
List of Tables
Table (4-1): Geological layers assigned into Model’s layers. .................................. 42
Table (4-2): The Main PVT oil properties from the available data. ......................... 47
Table (4-3): Fluid in Place of the original Model..................................................... 49
Table (4-4): Location and Trajectory of all wells. ................................................... 50
Table (4-5): Historical wells completions, as Model layers status. .......................... 51
Table (4-6): Production Parameters of Mon-3 after the Work Over. ....................... 56
Table (5-1): A comparison between the original and final model, in term of IFIP .. 86
Table (6-1): show a reserves and the recovery factor for each prediction case...... 113
Table (11-1): New PVT (Oil & Gas) data set used in the Dynamic Model. .......... 170
Table (11-2): Relative Permeability Data of the Oil Water system ....................... 170
Table (11-3): Relative Permeability Data of the Oil Gas system ........................... 171
Table (11-4): Water Properties. .............................................................................. 171
Table (11-5): Old Oil PVT Data set ...................................................................... 171
Table (11-6): Old Gas PVT Data set ...................................................................... 171
Table (11-7): Some important data fixed for both models. .................................... 172
Table (12-1): Attributes and Keywords have been used in the DATA file of Eclipse
................................................................................................................................ 174
11
__________________________________________________________________
1 General Introduction
This chapter designates to reservoir simulation and its history. It also contains the
objective of the project and the workflow of reservoir modeling and brief
description of thesis contains.
Reservoir Simulation is today’s tool for describing the overall behavior of
hydrocarbon reservoirs. Reservoir simulation technique has been available since
beginning of the 60's and it replaces Material Balance method.
The Reservoir Simulation Modeling has become the most essential tool in the
reservoir engineering discipline; as the best tool for managing and developing the
reservoir and improving the recovery in reliable way.
The main reason behind that is the recent development in geological modeling,
which is based on the integration of 3D seismic, well log, well test, etc. Geological
modeling tools provide a detailed reservoir description, called Geo-cell model,
containing up to 100 million of blocks.
The reservoir parameters; as porosity, permeability, and saturations are assigned (or
determined), to the blocks by using stochastic simulation (Geo-statistic) methods.
The dynamic behaviors of the reservoir, including production history and
production forecast, cannot be investigated on the bases of the Geo-cell model,
because it is so large (too many grid blocks) to be used as a simulation grid model.
So, the simulation model must be re-constructed by up-scaling processes; under the
constraint that the original fluid in place should be similar for both models. The
Geo-cell and simulation grids logically connected to each other (they are product of
the same workflow).
The goals of this work to fine tune the history match and create forecast scenarios to
have full understanding of one of the most difficult stages in the Full Field
Reservoir Modeling (FFRM) that is the History Match step.
To get the target of our project we need to manage and overcome two obstacles, the
first one is to understand of Reservoir Simulation Principles in general and the
second is to be able to use the simulator and understand the necessary features and
functions link between the theoretical knowledge we studied and the practical
applications we used.
12
__________________________________________________________________
This thesis is subdivided in to the following chapters;
Chapter 1; This Chapter.
Chapter 2; Introduction of Montana Field.
Chapter 3; Reservoir Simulation’s Principles
Chapter 4; Reservoir Model’s Initialization
Chapter 5; Model Improvements
Chapter 6; Reservoir Performance Forecast
Chapter 7; Conclusions and Recommendations
13
__________________________________________________________________
2 Introduction to Montana Field.
2.1 General Information

The Montana field is located in the northern part of the Concession 82, about 40 km
East of Bu-Attifel field and North West of Rimal field and about 400 Km south-east
of Benghazi, as shown in figures (2-1) &(2-2).
Figure (2-1): NC-82 Concession’s location in Sirte Basin.
\
Figure (2-2): NC-82, and the location of Montana field.
14
__________________________________________________________________
The field was discovered in 1985 by well Mon-1 followed by the well Mon-2 in the
following year. The field was put on production in December 1991.
After the 1991-1992 interpretation of the 1988 3D seismic data, two development
wells (Mon-3, Mon-4) and one appraisal well (Mon-5) were successfully drilled
with results substantially confirming the prognoses.
The reservoir geological study completed on May 1995 let to a total OOIP of 191.2
MMSTB for Montana structure. The OWC was fixed at 11443 ft considering the
RFT results and CPI analysis.
The reservoir is under-saturated with 130 [MMSTB] of oil initially in place.

Presently , three wells are still on production (Mon-2, Mon-3 ,Mon-4), Mon-5 was
shut-in due to high water cut in 2007, while well mon-1 was on production between
( Jan/1992 & April/1993) and then converted to water injector between ( Dec/1999
& Aug/2003) and recently is converted again to be an injector in a lower reservoir,
which is not considered in this study.
Mon-6 is the current injector well, started up in Dec/2001, maintain the whole
reservoir pressure.
2.2 Geological Framework

The reservoir formation of Montana field is the Lower Nubian Sandstone (Lower
Cretaceous being the Upper Nubian absent (erosion and/or not deposition), as in the
whole Cyrenaica platform, located to the North of the study area.
The Lower Nubian Sandstone is subdivided into:
• Upper Pool (Reservoir) clean sandstone (270 ft to over 500 ft thickness)

• Middle shale (320 ft)
• Lower Pool, sandstone with shale inter-bedded, this pool is not included in this
study.
The faults inside the Montana oil field have minor displacement and not significant
offset; they do not represent dynamic barrier for the pressure communication.
15
__________________________________________________________________
The geological model was reviewed in 1994 and five different sand bodies were
recognized named as C2, C1, B2, B1, and A2, the thickness of the bottom four
layers are fairly constant , while the uppermost one (C2) shows some thickness
reduction due to erosion phenomena, as shown in Fig (2-3).
Below the reservoir which we are interested in, there is a thick sealing layer (named
Middle Shale), then another different reservoir called (Lower pool) which is not
considered at all in our study.
Sand bodies are characterized by non-continuous beds of silt and shale, and
hydraulic communication was proved by RFT measurement taken after production
start-up.
Figure (2-3): X-section between 3 wells, showing reservoir bodies.
16
__________________________________________________________________
3 Reservoir Simulation’s principles
3.1 Simulation Introduction:

Simulation is one of the most powerful tools for guiding reservoir management
decisions, from planning early production wells and designing surface facilities to
diagnosing problems with enhanced recovery technique, reservoir simulators allow
engineers to predict and visualize fluid flow more efficiently than ever before.
Reservoir simulators were first built as diagnostic tools for understanding reservoir
that surprised engineers or misbehaved after years of production.
The earliest simulators were physical models, such as sandboxes with clear glass
sides for viewing fluid flow, and analog devices that modeled fluid flow with
electrical current flow; These models first documented in the 1930s were
constructed by researchers hoping to understand water coning and breakthrough in
homogeneous reservoir that were undergoing water-flood.
Some things have not changed since the 1930s. today's reservoir simulators
generally solve the same equations studied 60 years ago-material balance and
Darcy’s law. But other aspects of simulation have changed dramatically .with the
advent of digital computers in the 1960s, reservoir modeling advanced from tanks
filled with sand or electrolytes to numerical simulators .
In numerical simulators, the reservoir is represented by a series of interconnected
blocks and the flow between blocks is solved numerically. In the early days,
computer were small and had little memory limiting the number of blocks that could
be used; this required simplification of the reservoir model and allowed simulation
to proceed with a relatively small amount of input data.
As computer power increased, engineers created bigger, more geologically realistic
models requiring much greater data input; this demand has been met by the creation
of increasingly complex and efficient simulation programs coupled with user-
friendly data preparation and result-analysis packages. Today, desktop computers
may have 5000 times the memory and run about 200 times faster than early
supercomputers.
However, the most significant gain has not been in absolute speed but speed at
moderate price, computational efficiency has reached a stage that allows powerful
simulators to be run frequently.
17
__________________________________________________________________
Numerical simulation has become a reservoir management tool for all stages in the
life of the reservoir, no longer just for comparing performance schemes or
troubleshooting when recovery methods come under scrutiny, simulations are also
run when planning field development or designing measurement campaigns. In the
last 10 years with the development of computer-aided, geological and geostatistical
modeling reservoir simulators now help to test the validity of the reservoir models
increasingly used to guide or overhaul of expensive surface facilities.
3.2 The Motivation for simulation:

A numerical simulator containing the right information and in the hands of a skilled
engineer can imitate the behavior of a reservoir.
A simulator can predict production under current operating condition, or the
reaction of the reservoir to change in condition, such as increasing production rate,
production from more or different wells; response to injection of water, steam, acid,
or foam; the effect of subsidence; and production from horizontal wells of different
lengths and orientations.
Reservoir simulation can be performed by oil company reservoir engineers or by
engineering consultant contractors, some contractors specialize in engineering
consulting, while others offer a full range of oilfield services, in either case, the
simulator is a tool that allows the engineer to answer questions and offer
recommendations for improving operating practice.
3.3 How a simulator works:

The function of reservoir simulation is to help engineers understand the production-
pressure behavior of a reservoir and consequently predict production rate as a
function of time, the future production schedule, when expressed in terms of
revenues and compared with costs and investment, helps managers determine both
economically recoverable reserves and the limit of profitable production.
Once the goal of simulation is determined, the next step is to describe the reservoir
in terms of the volume of oil or gas in place the amount that is recoverable and the
18
__________________________________________________________________
rate at which it will be recovered. To estimate recoverable reserves, a model of the

reservoir framework, including faults and layers and their associated properties,
must be constructed. this so-called static model is created through the combined
efforts of geophysicists, pertrophysicists and reservoir engineers, much of
multibillion-dollar business of oilfield services is centered on obtaining information
that eventually feeds reservoir simulators, leading to better reservoir development
and management decisions.
The simulator itself computes fluid flow throughout the reservoir. The principles
underlying simulation are simple. First, the fundamental fluid flow equations are
expressed in partial differential form for each fluid phase present. These partial
differential equations are obtained from the conventional equations describing
reservoir fluid behavior such as the continuity equation, the equation of flow and the
equation of state.
The continuity equation expresses the conservation of mass, for most reservoir, the
equation of flow is Darcy's low, for high rates of flow such as in gas reservoir,
Darcy' low equation are modified to include turbulence terms, the equation of state
describes the pressure-volume or pressure-density relationship of the various fluid
present.
For each phase, the three equations are then combined into a single partial
differential equation. Next, this partial differential equation are written in finite-
difference form, in which the reservoir volume is treated as a numbered collection
of blocks and the reservoir production period is divided into a number of time steps.
Mathematically speaking, the problem is described in both space and t
19
__________________________________________________________________
3.4 Definition and understanding of

Formulation
Examples of simulators that solve this problem under a variety of conditions are
found in the ECLIPSE family of simulators. These simulators fall into two main
categories.
In the first category, they are three-phase black-oil simulators, for reservoirs
comprising water, gas, and oil. The gas may move into or out of solution with the
oil.
The second category contains compositional and thermal simulators, for reservoirs
required more detailed description of fluid composition. A compositional
description could encompass the amounts and properties of hexanes, pentanes,
butanes, benzenes, asphaltenes and other hydrocarbon components; and might be
used when the fluid composition changes during the life of the Reservoir.
A thermal simulator would be advised if changes in temperature either with location

or with time-modified the fluid composition of the reservoir; such a description
could come into play in the case of steam injection, or water injection into a deep,
hot reservoir. These and all other commercial reservoir simulators envision a
reservoir divided into a number of individual blocks, called grid Blocks, each block
corresponds to a volume in the reservoir, and must contain rock and fluid properties
representative of the reservoir at that location.
The simulator models the flow of mobile fluid through the walls of the blocks by
solving the fluid-flow equations at each block face. Parameters required for the
solution include permeability, layer thickness, porosity, fluid content, elevation, and
pressure. The fluid properties are assigned as viscosity, compressibility, solution
gas/oil ratio, and density. The rock is assigned a value for compressibility, capillary
pressure and a relative permeability relationship.
Creating the grid and assigning properties to each grid block are time-consuming
tasks. The framework of the reservoir, including its structure and depth, its layer
boundaries and fault positions and throws, is obtained from seismic and well log
20
__________________________________________________________________
data. The well-bred grid respects the framework geometry as much as possible.
Traditionally, reservoir simulation grid blocks are rectilinear with flat, horizontal
tops in an arrangement called block-centered geometry. This configuration ensures
that the grids remain orthogonal and exactly match the mathematical models used in
the simulators. However, this approach does not easily represent structural and
stratigraphic complexities such as non-vertical faults, pinchouts, or erosion surfaces
using purely rectangular blocks. In year of 1983, introduction of corner-point
geometry in the ECLIPSE simulator overcame these problems. In a Corner-point
grid, the corners need not be orthogonal. In modeling a faulted reservoir, for
example, engineers have the flexibility to choose between an orthogonal areal grid
with the fault positions projected onto the grid or a flexible grid to exactly honor the
positions of important faults. Three-dimensional (3D) grids are constructed from an
areal, or 2D, grid by laying it on the top surface of the reservoir and projecting it
vertically or along fault planes onto lower layers. Engineer’s requirements for more
detail in the model, particularly to examine coning and near-well bore effects, has
led to the concept of local grid refinement (LGR).
This allows parts of the model to be represented by a large number of small grid
blocks or by implanting radial Grids around wells in a larger Cartesian grid. Locally
refined grids also capture extra detail in other areas where reservoir properties vary
rapidly with distance, such as near faults.
In addition, LGR combined with grid coarsening outside the region of interest,
allows engineers to retain fine-scale property variation without surpassing computer
space limitations. The interactive GRID program was designed to help construct the
complex reservoir grid efficiently. Once the grid has been constructed, the next step
is to assign rock and fluid properties from the reservoir framework model to each
grid block. Populating the grid with properties is another time-consuming and
difficult task. Each grid block, typically a few hundred square meters really by tens
of meters thick, has to be assigned a single value for each of the reservoir properties,
including fluid viscosity, relative permeability, saturation, pressure, permeability,
porosity and net-to-gross ratio.
21
__________________________________________________________________
Log measurements made in wells yield high-density data, typically every 6 in. [15
cm], but provide little information between wells. Data from cores may provide
high-density “ground truth,” but these represent perhaps one part in 5 billion of the
volume of the reservoir. Surface seismic reflections cover the reservoir volume and
more, but do not translate directly into the desired rock and fluid properties.
How are these disparate data sets merged?

Two processes are required: extrapolating the well data into the inter-well reservoir
volume, then up-scaling the fine-scale data to the scale of a simulation grid block.
Traditionally log or core data were up-scaled, or averaged, over lithological units at
the wells. Then these data were interpolated and extrapolated through the reservoir
and maps produced for each layer—formerly a handcrafting exercise by geologists.
The maps would be passed to the reservoir engineer who would then generate grids,
run preliminary simulations on a series of grid sizes, and attempt further up-scaling
based on the reservoir flow characteristics. In recent years, the process has been
reversed. The current trend is to use computer programs to build 3D geological
models bounded by seismic data, and to populate the models using geostatistical or
deterministic methods to distribute log and core data. Figures (3-1) & (3-2)
Figure (3-1): Creating the Geo-Cell Model based on different Data sources by using
the Geo-Statistics Methods. (First step in FFRMW)
22
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (3-2): Full Field Reservoir Modeling Workflow.
Scaling core and log properties up to gridlock Scales is still a challenging task.
Some properties, such as porosity, are considered simple to upscale, following
arithmetic averaging law.
Others, such as permeability, are more difficult to average, and relative permeability
different permeabilities for different fluid phases remain the most difficult problem
in up-scaling.
There is no universally accepted method for up-scaling, and It is an area of active
research.
After the model has been finalized, the Simulator requires boundary conditions to
establish the initial conditions for fluid behavior at the beginning of the simulation.
Then, for a given time later, known as the time step, the simulator calculates new
pressures and saturation distributions that indicate the flow rates for each of the
mobile phases. This process is repeated for a number of time steps, and in this
manner both flow rates and pressure histories are calculated for each point,
23
__________________________________________________________________
especially the points corresponding to wells in the system. However, even with the
best possible model, uncertainty remains. One of the biggest jobs of a simulator is to
evaluate the implications of uncertainty in the static reservoir model. Sometimes
uncertainty or error is introduced through low data quality. Another source of error
arises because laboratory, Logging and geophysical experiments may not directly
measure the property of interest, or at the right scale, and so some other property is
measured and transformed in some way that adds uncertainty. There is also
uncertainty in how a property varies between measurement points. Many reservoir
descriptions rely on core sample measurements for rock and fluid property
information. This information is uncertainly extended through the reservoir volume,
usually in some geostatistical or deterministic fashion, guided by seismically
derived surfaces or other geological constraints. One way to reduce uncertainty is to
spot inconsistencies in the properties of the reservoir model before simulation.
Three-dimensional visualization software, such as the FloViz (from Eclipse set)
application, helps engineers be more efficient in finding inconsistencies by allowing
them to view the reservoir model in 3D. Results of simulation runs may also be
viewed, allowing faster evaluation of simulation runs and providing immediate
insight into recovery behavior and physical processes occurring in the reservoir.
A simulation run itself can also help reduce uncertainty. Although a reservoir
environment is largely unknown, simulators can help improve the description. In a
process known as history matching, reservoir production is simulated based on the
existing, though uncertain, reservoir description. That description is adjusted
iteratively until the simulator is able to reproduce the observed pressures and
multiphase flow resulting from applied perturbations, the known production and
injection. If the production history can be matched, the engineer has greater
confidence that the reservoir description will be a useful, predictive tool.
24
__________________________________________________________________
3.5 History match

The reservoir simulator, e.g. ECLIPSE, cannot be used to predict the performance of
a reservoir under any operating scheme unless the data built into it adequately
describe the geometrical configuration, the rock and fluid properties, and the flow
mechanics of the reservoir system.
The original data built into the simulation are the engineer's best estimate of all the
parameters which describe the reservoir. Unless he is very lucky, this data will not
be exactly representative of the reservoir as a whole. These data must be modified
until the simulator reproduces the behavior of the reservoir to an acceptable degree.
The process of modifying the existing model data until a reasonable comparison is
made with the observed data is called 'History Matching'.
The process of history matching requires considerable skill and insight, and it is a
necessary prerequisite to making any sensible predictions with the simulator,
because the same mechanisms which were operative in the history period of the
reservoir should still be operative in the prediction period.
The process of history matching is one of the time-consuming aspects of a

simulation study. As much time is spent on making a match as is spent on compiling
and preparing the data for the simulator. A good match is as important as good data.
The process of history matching is characterized by a feedback loop in which the

engineer reformulates his basic conception of the reservoir as a result of the
responses of those parameters which he is using as a measure of the system
behavior.
By analysis of the effect of changes made after a particular run n, the engineer then
decides on the form of input data for run (n+1). This process has all the earmarks of
a classic control problem, and recently this observation has led to several algorithms
of varying degrees of effectiveness that attempt automatically to perform the history
25
__________________________________________________________________
match. The feedback loop has been tightened considerably, with the net result that
the engineer is now squeezed out of the loop completely.
History- Matching Parameters

Several parameters are available for determining a good history match:
1. Pressure
2. Flow rates
3. Gas-oil ratio.
4. Water Cut.
The objective of the engineer is to determine the reservoir description which will
minimize the difference between the observed parameter as indicated above and that
calculated by the simulator. It can be argued very effectively that there is really no
unique set of descriptive parameters which fit a reservoir. While this is true, it is
also noteworthy that the practicing engineer is not completely in the dark; he is not
solving an unconstrained problem. Whether or not he quantifies it , he has
instinctively set in the back of his mind a list of lower cutoff values and upper limits
of all his variables. This set of constraints, whether written down or not, are part of
the engineering know-how essential in making a good simulation study. A good
history match is that set of rock , fluid, and relative permeability data which acting
together produce the most reasonable results at a given point in time. As more data
are amassed with the passage of time, the description can be refined even more. This
updating process is essential in a simulation study not only for continual monitoring
but also for being able to make prediction based on any unforeseen operational
changes in the future.
26
__________________________________________________________________
3.6 Mechanics of History Matching

There are several parameters which can be varied either singly or collectively to
minimize the differences between the observed data and those calculated by the
simulator. Modifications are usually made on the following areas:
1. Rock data modifications
a. Permeability
b. Porosity
c. Thicknesses
d. Saturations
2. Fluid data modifications
a. Compressibility.
b. PVT data
c. Viscosity
3. Relative permeability data
a. Shift in relative permeability curve
b. Shift in critical saturation data
4. Individual well completion data
a. Skin effect
b. Bottom hole flowing pressure
The two fundamental processes which are controllable in history matching are as
follows:
1. The quantity of fluid in the system at any time and it is distribution within
the reservoir , and
2. The movement of fluid within the system under existing potential gradients.
The manipulation of these two processes enables the engineer to modify any of the
earlier mentioned parameters which are criteria for history matching. It is mandatory
that these modifications of the data reflect good engineering judgment and be within
reasonable limits of conditions existing in that area. The expertise of the engineer
and his familiarity with the particular reservoir can markedly reduce the total time
spent on history matching.
27
__________________________________________________________________
3.7 Eclipse’s Technical Description

3.7.1 Introduction to ECLIPSE 100
ECLIPSE 100 is a fully-implicit, three phase, three dimensional, general purpose

black oil simulator with gas condensate option.
Program is written in FORTRAN77 and operate on any computer with an ANSI-
standard FORTRAN77 compiler and with sufficient memory.
ECLIPSE 100 can be used to simulate 1, 2 or 3 phase systems. Two phase options
(oil/water, oil/gas, gas/water) are solved as two component systems saving both
computer storage and computer time. In addition to gas dissolving in oil (variable
bubble point pressure or gas/oil ratio), ECLIPSE 100 may also be used to model oil
vaporizing in gas (variable dew point pressure or oil/gas ratio).
Both corner-point and conventional block-center geometry options are available in

ECLIPSE.
Radial and Cartesian block-center options are available in 1, 2 or 3 dimensions. A

3D radial option completes the circle allowing flow to take place across the 0/360
degree interface.
To run simulation you need an input file with all data concerning reservoir and
process of its exploitation.
Input data for ECLIPSE is prepared in free format using a keyword system. Any
standard ASCII editor may be used to prepare the input file.
Alternatively, ECLIPSE Office may be used to prepare data interactively through

panels, and submit runs.
The name of input file has to be in the following format: FILENAME.DATA
28
__________________________________________________________________
3.7.2 Input data file
An ECLIPSE data input file is split into sections, each one is introduced by a
section-header keyword.
The keywords in the input data file (including section-header keywords) are each of
up to 8 characters in length and must start in column 1. All characters up to column
8 are significant. Any characters on the same line as a keyword from column 9
onwards will be treated as a comment.
3.7.3 Data file sections definition:
The list of section-header keywords:
1- RUNSPEC
2- GRID
3- EDIT
4- PROPS
5- REGIONS
6- SOLUTION
7- SUMMARY
8- SCHEDULE
The sections must be specified in the shown order.
It is recommended that the body of sections which are not frequently changed be
held in separate files which are included in the data using the INCLUDE keyword.
A data record has to be ended with a slash [/]
3.7.3.1 RUNSPEC: required

The RUNSPEC section is the first section of an ECLIPSE data input file. It contains
the run title, start date, units, various problem dimensions (numbers of blocks, wells,
tables etc.), flags for phases or components present and option switches. It may be
preceded only by comments, global keywords and LOAD. The RUNSPEC section
must always be present, unless the LOAD keyword is used to restart a run from a
29
__________________________________________________________________
SAVE file that contains the RUNSPEC data.

The minimum set of RUNSPEC keywords required by ECLIPSE 100 are:
Title, problem dimensions, switches, phases present, components.
3.7.3.2 GRID: required

The GRID section determines the basic geometry of the simulation grid and various
rock properties (porosity, absolute permeability, net-to-gross ratios) in each grid
cell. From this information, the program calculates the grid block pore volumes,
mid-point depths and inter-block transmissibility
3.7.3.3 EDIT: optional

Modifications to calculated pore volumes, grid block centre depths and
transmissibility.
3.7.3.4 PROPS: required

Tables of properties of reservoir rock and fluids as functions of fluid pressures,
saturations, and compositions (density, viscosity, relative permeability, capillary
pressure etc.). Contains the equation of state description in compositional runs.
3.7.3.5 REGIONS: optional

Splits computational grid into regions for calculation of:
- PVT properties (fluid densities and viscosities),
- saturation properties (relative permeabilities and capillary pressures)
- initial conditions, (equilibrium pressures and saturations)
- fluids in place (fluid in place and inter-region flows)
If this section is omitted, all grid blocks are put in region 1.
3.7.3.6 SOLUTION: required

Specification of initial conditions in reservoir - may be:
- calculated using specified fluid contact depths to give potential equilibrium
- read from a restart file set up by an earlier run
- specified by the user for every grid block (not recommended for general use)
This section contains sufficient data to define the initial state (pressure, saturations,
and compositions) of every grid block in the reservoir.
30
__________________________________________________________________
3.7.3.7 SUMMARY: optional

Specification of data to be written to the Summary file after each time step.
Necessary if certain types of graphical output (for example water-cut as a function
of time) are to be generated after the run has finished. If this section is omitted no
Summary files are created.
3.7.3.8 SCHEDULE: required

Specifies the operations to be simulated (production and injection controls and
constraints) and the times at which output reports are required. Vertical flow
performance curves and simulator tuning parameters may also be specified in the
SCHEDULE section
3.7.4 Useful information:
Here are some useful features, which usually used to produce the DATA file in
good organization.
3.7.4.1 Repeat counts:

In the data following a keyword, asterisks (*) may be used to signify repeat counts.
A data quantity can be repeated a required number of times by preceding it with the
required number and an asterisk.
There must be no intervening blank spaces next to the asterisk on either side.
3.7.4.2 Comments:
Any lines beginning with the two characters ‘--’ are treated as comments, and will
be ignored by ECLIPSE. Comment lines (as well as blank lines) may be inserted
anywhere in the data file. Comments may also be added to the end of lines of data
by beginning the comment with the two characters ‘--’, but in this case the
comments must not contain any quotes. Comments can also be included, without the
two characters ‘--’, on the same line after a slash (/) that is used to terminate a data
record.
31
__________________________________________________________________
3.7.4.3 Default values:

Certain items of data can be defaulted to a built-in default value. The keyword
description will indicate when defaults can be applied. There are two ways of setting
quantities to their default values. Firstly, by ending a data record prematurely with a
slash (/) the quantities remaining unspecified will be set to their default values.
Secondly, selected quantities positioned before the slash can be defaulted by
entering n* where n is the number of consecutive quantities to be defaulted. For
example, 3* will cause the next three quantities in the keyword data to be given
their default values. There must be no blank space between the number and the
asterisk. If there is only one item at a time to be defaulted, then 1* must be entered.
An asterisk by itself is not sufficient.
3.8 Grids and Properties Data files format [1]

By using the supported 3D grid formats, the 3D grid and 3D property models
generated by ECLIPSE set can be in the following format:
ECLIPSE keywords (grdecl) (ASCII) ECLIPSE .GRID (BINARY)
ECLIPSE properties (ASCII) ECLIPSE properties Restart (BINARY)
ECLIPSE properties Init (BINARY)
In our case the file of the 3D grid geometry is separated from the files contain the
properties; these will be imported separately during the simulation processes, in
(grdecl, ASCII) format.
3.8.1 “GRID” section keywords as (ASCII) format

file (*.grdecl) over view.
ECLIPSE grid in ASCII formats can be organized in different styles. The ECLIPSE
grid file is made up of several keywords and the data values. The keywords must be
written in uppercase and the sequence of values given for a keyword must be
followed by a slash (/).
ECLIPSE grid is a corner-point grid with eight node values for each cell. The Z-
values outside are set equal to the midpoint of the grid.
32
__________________________________________________________________
When reading the file format, the code word SPECGRID in the header indicates that
this is an ECLIPSE grid format, which has three numbers:
• Number of cells in I(X)-direction; equal the number of nodes - one.
• Number of cells in J(Y)-direction.
• Number of cells in K (Z)-direction, figure (3-3) shows “Montana” Grid file
as explained above.
Figure (3-3): The Header of “Montana” input data file in Eclipse ASCII format.
The second important code is COORD. This code indicates that the next data block
contains information about the skeleton of the grid. The data starts in the upper left
corner of the grid, and each line contains values for XYZ-min and XYZ-max. The
data block ends with a “/” as in figure (3-3).
The next code word that ECLIPSE looks for is ZCORN. This data block consists of
Z coordinates, which gives the inter-layering of the grid. Each layer is both read
from above and below. If the Z coordinates differ, the result is two horizons in
ECLIPSE. Figure (3-4)
33
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (3-4): “ZCORN” Keyword in Montana input file in Eclipse ASCII format
Another code that ECLIPSE reads from read data in GRID section is ACTNUM. In
ECLIPSE, ACTNUM is used to describe active and in-active cells, ACTNUM=1 for
active cells, and ACTNUM=0 for in-active cells. Fig (3-5)
Figure (3-5): “ACTNUM” Keyword in Montana input file in Eclipse ASCII format
34
__________________________________________________________________
3.8.2 “Poperties” keywords as (ASCII) format file

(*.grdecl) over view.
In Montana data grid file, Grid and Properties are in two separated files. The values
in the property file are read starting in the upper left corner of the grid, where I=0,
J= max and K= max.
When reading an ECLIPSE property file, ECLIPSE will look for values for
ACTNUM, If ACTNUM=0 in the file, the property value is set to undefined. Figure
(3-6) shows the first part of each property data set [1].
The properties enter for Montana reservoir is:
PERMX – Permeability in X-direction
PORO – Porosity
NTG – Net/Gross
Figure (3-6): A part of Properties Keywords in Eclipse ASCII format.
35
__________________________________________________________________
3.9 Running simulation:

• When your input file is already prepared, from ECLIPSE Simulation Software
Launcher, start Eclipse simulation run by clicking on the ECLIPSE icon and
select the right bath to the DATA file desired.
• The simulation will start. While the model is running, status reports will be
written to the screen. The same information is also written to the file ASCII
file with extension of PRT that is created in your folder. If input file was not
prepared properly the simulation would stop and then you can check what was
wrong. For this purpose, you have to look through FILENAME.PRT file and
then try to correct mistakes.
• After successful run, you will get output files which can be used with
visualization software to preset simulation results.
• When the run is finished, your folder contains the following files:
• FILENAME.EGRID, Grid geometry file
• FILENAME. GRID, Grid geometry file
• FILENAME.PRT, Main printer output
• FILENAME.DBG, Debug output
• FILENAME.INIT, Initialization file for GRAF
• FILENAME.SMSPEC, Specifications for summary file
• FILENAME.UNRST,
• FILENAME.UNSMRY,
• FILENAME.RSSPEC, Restart index file
• FILENAME.INSPEC, Initial index file
• FILENAME.RSM, Run summary file
Here is a brief explanation of these extensions, e.g. EGRID & GRID files, read by
FloViz to visualize the 3D grid with all initial reservoir properties and parameters
such as porosity, permeability, thickness, end points, etc, as well as the recurrent
reservoir properties and parameters as functions of time, such as reservoir pressure,
fluids saturations and etc.
The PRT file, which is the Main printer output, and can be read by any text editor,
all data read from the Data file and its included files are described here, as well as
36
__________________________________________________________________
massages and comments appeared during the run processes, describing any problem
or error happened during the reading of the input data or during the calculation of
the fluid flow equation and the Debugging can been done just by following the
massages in this file.
3.10 PVTi Software definition

PVTi is a compositional PVT equation-of-state based program used for
characterizing a set of fluid samples for use in our ECLIPSE simulators.
We need PVTi because it is vital that we have a realistic physical model of our
reservoir fluid sample(s) before we try to use them in a reservoir simulation.
PVTi can be used to simulate experiments that have been performed in the lab on a
set of fluid samples and then theoretical predictions can be made of any
observations that were performed during a lab experiment, in order that we can test
the accuracy of our fluid model.
Any differences between the measured and calculated data are minimized using a
Regression facility, which adjusts various Equation of State parameters. This
‘tuned’ Model is then exported in a form suitable for one of our ECLIPSE
simulators.
3.10.1 Regression on multiple fluid samples.
In general, the fluid samples that PVTi performs regression on are determined by
the structure of the tree view on the left-hand side. By default, PVTi performs a
regression on every experiment, which has observations defined, even if there are
multiple fluid samples, each with their own experiments. The reason for this is that,
within a project, all fluid samples are considered to be relevant to each other and so
the same fluid model should be applied to all samples, even if the compositional
make-up of each sample is different.
37
__________________________________________________________________
3.10.2 Choosing of regression parameters
It should be noted that there are no concrete rules for getting a good match to
observations relating to multiple fluid samples, but there are some general
guidelines of what is often a good idea, and what you should definitely not do.
Library components tend to have properties that are very well known and any of
these will not normally be good choices of regression variables. Properties of non-
library components and characterized components are much less well known and
these are often good choices. In general, the following set of variables are normally
good things to initially regress on:
• Mixtures of different molecule types and so may differ from library values
• Any component with mole weight C7 or heavier. Again because these are
mixtures.
• No binary inter-active coefficients because of the risk of over-fitting.
• No viscosity-specific parameters, again because of the risk of over-fitting.
The variables mentioned above are all normal regression variables. The following
set of special regression variables can also often prove useful to get a match
between samples:
• Doing a multi-feed split to split the plus fraction into 2 or 3 pseudo-
components
• The Cheuh-Prausnitz A binary parameter if using Cheuch-Prausnitz binaries
• The mole weight of a plus fraction (if no split on the plus fraction has been
performed)
3.10.3 Corner point transmissibility calculations
The transmissibility values are calculated from the X, Y and Z projections of the
mutual interface area of the two cells.
An inner product is then taken with the vector distance from the cell center to the
center of the cell face, so that a dip correction is automatically incorporated.
In ECLIPSE simulator, this is used here in our project; the Transmissibility in X
direction is calculated as the following formula:
38
__________________________________________________________________
CDARCY  TMLTXi
TRANXi = ………………………………………. (3.1)
1 1
+
Ti T j
Where,
TRANXi: Transmissibility between cell i and cell j, its neighbor in the positive
Xdirection
CDARCY: Darcy’s constant (in the appropriate units)

= 0.00852702 (METRIC)
= 0.00112712 (FIELD)
TMLTXi: Transmissibility multiplier for cell I.

A  Di
Ti = PERMXi .RNTGi .
Di  .Di
RNTG: is the net to gross ratio, which appears in the X and Y transmissibilities but
not in the Z-transmissibility.
PERMX: Permeability in X direction.
Where:
( A.Di ) = AX .DiX + AiY DiY + AZ .DiZ
(Di .Di ) = D 2 iX + D 2 iY + D 2 iZ
Ai = DXi  DYi
Aj = DX
39
__________________________________________________________________
4 Description of Reservoir Model & Input

Data Discussion.
This chapter discusses in details all the project workflow steps, as well as analysis
of the required input data that have been used, starting with definition of the
Numerical Model and its Petrophysical d ata, Volumes estimations, and evaluation
of all historical measurement data.
As well as an analysis of the original history match, that was the basic of the
developments predication scenarios done by the field owner.
Ending with A comparison between the original History Match and the final
resulted History Match of our project, with some sensitivity prediction runs.
4.1 Reservoir Model’s Initialization

To distribute all the present phases through the model, cell-by-cell base, in term of
fluid saturations and pressure, different objects and data sets are necessary for
conventional hydrostatic equilibrium.
So, next subsections talk about all these required means to initialize the structural
model.
4.1.1 Grid
The Montana structure model is defined by a flexible grid, using corner point
geometry, which allowed us to follow the fault pattern in good way, the Grid model
is in Eclipse format, (GRDECL), with the all necessary properties (NTG, Porosity
and Permeability ) in Eclipse keyword. The grid has a total number of 24,000 cell
(60 by 40 by 10, respectively in X, Y and Z directions), the top map of the upper
pool of Lowe Nubian Sand Stone and the model grid system are shown in Figure
(4-1).
40
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (4-1): Wells locations map, the upper one is the top depth contour of the
structure and the lower one is the same map but as the grid of the dynamic model.
The Local Grid Refining was introduced in some areas for better monitoring of fluid
flow in-between and around the wells and to understand fluid flow in some critical
regions.
41
__________________________________________________________________
4.1.2 Layers
The basic assumption for vertical up-scaling is to limit the maximum model layer
thickness to about 30 feet in the oil leg resulting in; one to three model layers per
each geological level, as shown in table (4-1). Fig(4-2) shows the final Model’s
layers.
Geological Layer name Model Layer number
C2 1
C1 2- 3
B2 4- 5- 6
B1 7- 8- 9
A2 10
Table (4-1): Geological layers assigned into Model’s layers.
Figure (4-2): shows the 10 Model’s layers, in term of depth.
42
__________________________________________________________________
4.1.3 Static Parameters
The main static parameters of the initialization are defined in the static model, as in
the follows;
4.1.3.1 Porosity & NTG Maps

Field Petrophysical Evaluation study done in 1994, which had good agreement
between the two sources of Porosity values obtained from the Core data and CPI
analysis, collected from five wells.
Based on this reliable data, an averaging distribution of the Porosity and NTG has
been done for each layer assigned as a part of the geological model and then loaded
in the dynamic model; as shown in figure (4-3) and figure (4-4).
Figure (4-3): Porosity map of Layer 6
Figure (4-4): NTG map of Layer 3
43
__________________________________________________________________
4.1.3.2 Permeability Maps

The routine core analysis performed on samples were used to define proper
correlations between Petrophysical parameters (Porosity vs. K horizontal, K vertical); and
the best fit was detected.
The core data were in good agreement with the average Permeability estimated from
PT tests carried out on wells Mon-1, Mon-2, and Mon-3 at time of creating the
original static model.
So, for each layer the Permeability in both directions, horizontal and vertical were
distributed based on PT tests data and as a function of the porosity.
The figure below shows the distribution of horizontal permeability in X-direction

for layer (6).
Figure (4-5): Horizontal Permeability distribution in (X direction) of Layer 6
It is important here to mention the fact that the final Permeability distribution is not
able to represent the real influence of silty and shaly beds on the fluid flow in the
vertical direction.
This will obstruct the flow and make the transmissibility one of the most important
candidate parameters to be tuned in History Match processes, for all layers and all
directions.
44
__________________________________________________________________
4.1.3.3 Initial water saturation (Swi) Maps
The distribution of the initial water saturation is function of two parameters:
• The Irreducible (Connate) Water Saturation.

• The Capillary Pressure.
All data gathered from CPI revision of five wells were used in order to define
critical water saturation distribution as a function of depth.
The capillary pressure data and Relative Permeability curves are from Special Core
Analysis (SCAL) of the well Mon-4, and its resulted J (sw) function was used to
define different oil water capillary pressure for each cell.
The model was initialized with the End Points Scaling that allows to have a
different set of relative permeability for each cell, this option requires both the end
points values as well as the shape of the curve that introduced by a consistent set of
renormalized curve of the SCAL, figure (4-6) showing the end point values (as a
map) of the irreducible water saturation assigned for each cell in Layer 6, in term of
SWCR Keyword, in PROPS section as included file, then, we have defined SWL to
be equal to SWCR, where:
SWL: The connate or irreducible water saturation. This is the smallest water
saturation entry in a water saturation table.
SWCR: The critical water saturation. This is the highest water saturation for which
the water is immobile. And SWL must be less than or equal SWCR.
Figure (4-6): Irreducible Water Saturation of Layer 6 in term of (SWL)

45
__________________________________________________________________
Based on these data, and after the initialization has been done, the initial fluid
distribution was obtained, as in figures (4-7 & 4-8).
Regardless to how the cell is belong to, all cells in the model have their own
constant values of end points.
All these data are shown in Appendix "B", and as an example.
Figure (4-7): Initial Oil Saturation of Layer 6
Figure (4-8): Initial Water Saturation of Layer 6
46
__________________________________________________________________
4.2 Fluid and Rock Properties

4.2.1 PVT data
Three different PVT analyses were available from two different wells, Mon-1 and
Mon-3, and all samples were collected before production started up.
The table below is showing only the most important oil properties, which can
describe the fluid sample, and at the same time it makes the comparison possible
between the three samples just by quick look.
Bo, flash Rs, flash Bo, diff Rs, diff

Depth, Pb, μo @
Well Sample @ pb @ pb @ pb @ pb ºAPI
ft, ssl psia pb (cp)
(Bbl/stb) (scf/stb) (bbl/stb) (scf/stb)
Mon-1 BHS 11406 3457 1.3919 653 1.4429 731 0.700 38.5
Mon-3 BHS 11175 4117 1.4999 852 1.5380 896 0.556 38.2
Mon-3 SS 11175 3540 1.4390 697 1.4760 737 0.690 37.1

BHS: Bottom Hole Sample
SS: Surface Sample.
Table (4-2): The Main PVT oil properties from the available data.
Two complete PVT reports were available for the first and third samples, mentioned
in the table above. The properties of the BHS taken from well Mon-3 (second
sample mentioned in the table above) is far away from the properties of the other
two other samples; with a big different of Pb (about 660 psi) and different Rs.
On the other hand the properties values from the other two samples are in very good
agreement and so close to each other, although they are from different wells and
different collection sources, both samples can represent the real PVT data of the
reservoir.
The original model has considered a PVT model which tacking into account the
three samples, using the bubble point pressure as a function of depth and the values
of the RS vs. pressure effected by the unreliable figures of the BHS of Mon-3.
47
__________________________________________________________________
Therefore, a decision has been taken to replace the original PVT model and create a
new Model using PVTi software, to improve the history match.
The Gas PVT properties were determined from Mon-1 oil differential liberated gas,
and water properties were computed with literature correlation, considering the
salinity of 230000 ppm and initial reservoir condition, initial pressure (Pi) equal to
5300 psia and initial Temperature (Ti) equal to 240 ºF.
Full discretion and analysis of the PVT data is in Appendix “B”.
4.2.2 ROCK data
It is necessary to define data that describe the properties of the rock containing the
hydrocarbon to simulate the reservoirs.
The effect of the overburden pressure on porosity was determined, and the resulting
Net Overburden Pressure is about 8200 psi.
For an average field porosity of about 0.15, the resulted formation compressibility is
around 2.0E-6 psi-1 as extrapolated value of the measured compressibility values.
4.3 Equilibration Data
One equilibrium set of data was defined for whole reservoir, since all the geological
levels are in hydraulic communication; the data are the pressure @ datum of 11,200
ft is equal to 5,300 psia and WOC @ depth of 11,437 ft ssl.
4.4 Determining the initial hydrocarbon place.
This stage is for determining Initial Pressure and Fluids Saturation Distribution in
the Model by the equilibrium between capillary and gravitational forces.
After the Model initialization, the original oil in place, for each layer and for the
reservoir were calculated. The calculated OOIP is compared with the value obtained
from the original model to see if our modification to obtain a better history match
has changed OOIP drastically.
48
__________________________________________________________________
Geological Layer name OOIP, MMSTB
C2 15.031
C1 35.054
B2 52.543
B1 26.773
A2 1.493
Total Reservoir 130.897
Table (4-3): Fluid in Place of the original Model.
Figures (4-9) is a cross section in the middle of the reservoir illustrating the Initial
fluids distribution.
Figure (4-9): Initial fluids in equilibrium.
Figures (4-10) is a cross section in the middle of the reservoir illustrating the Initial
Reservoir Pressure distribution.
Figure (4-10): Initial reservoir pressure distribution.
49
__________________________________________________________________
Finally, the initial hydrocarbons distribution in whole reservoir is showing in figure

(4-11)
Figure (4-11): Initial oil saturation in whole the field.
4.5 Wells’ Description

The following is a brief description of all wells data; the wells trajectory,
completions, and the production history.
4.5.1 Trajectory
Table (4-4) illustrates the measured and true vertical depth (TVP) of all well. It is
clear that all wells are vertical.
Drilling
Well Name date RT, ft X coordinate, ft Y coordinate, ft MD, ft TVD, ft
Mon-1 Aug. 85 276 2164420.9 10472042.1 13688 13688
Mon-2 Nov. 86 451 2161648.7 10471813.4 13518 13518
Mon-3 Aug.91 489 2162457.9 10469871.1 13545 13545
Mon-4 Feb. 92 416 2159675.1 10470652.4 12410 12410
Mon-5 Aug.94 327 2156808.1 10474070.8 12534 12534
Mon-6 May.01 420 2160009.8 10475098.4 12162 12162
Table (4-4): Location and Trajectory of all wells.
4.5.2 Completion & Perforations
Table (3-5) below, showing the initial completion of all wells and any other re-
completion has been done during the 18 years of field life.
50
__________________________________________________________________
Re-completion
Initial
Well Layer M. Layers Date Perforation extension Date
Completion
& Plugging
C2 1 O S
C1 2- 3 S, S Nov. O,O Nov. 1999
Mon-1 B2 4- 5- 6 S, S, S 1991 S, O, O Converted
B1 7- 8- 9 S, S, S O, O, O into injector
A2 10 S O
C2 1 S
C1 2- 3 O, O Nov.
Today completion is as Initial
Mon-2 B2 4- 5- 6 O, O, O 1991
completion.
B1 7- 8- 9 O, S, S
A2 10 S
C2 1 S, S, S S, S, S
C1 2- 3 S, S, S S, S, S
Jan.
Mon-3 B2 4- 5- 6 S, S, S S, S, S Jun 2007
1992
B1 7- 8- 9 O, O, O O, O, S
A2 10 O O
C2 1 S
C1 2- 3 S, S
Aug. Today completion is as Initial
Mon-4 B2 4- 5- 6 S, S, S
1994 completion.
B1 7- 8- 9 O, O, O
A2 10 S
C2 1 O
C1 2- 3 O, O
Aug. Today completion is as Initial
Mon-5 B2 4- 5- 6 O, S, S
1994 completion.
B1 7- 8- 9 S, S, S
A2 10 S
C2 1 S
C1 2- 3 S, S
Nov. Today completion is as Initial
Mon-6 B2 4- 5- 6 S, O, O
2001 completion.
B1 7- 8- 9 O, O, O
A2 10 S
O: OPEN Layer
S: SHUT Layer
Table (4-5): Historical wells completions, as Model layers status.
51
__________________________________________________________________
4.5.3 Wells Production & Pressure History
By November 1991, the field has started production from Mon-1, and the dynamic
model was updated until October 2008. The Historical production parameters and
historical average reservoir pressure behavior is briefly shown in the next sections.
4.5.3.1 Production & Pressure Measurements of well Mon-1

It was the first well on stream; on November 1991, its oil rate beak was around 5500
stbd, as a result of its location in the reservoir as shown in fig (3-9), the water
breakthrough was so early making the well unable to produce within almost 15
months of production life, although, only the most highest layer was perforated,
about 40% of water cut was capable to kill the well on April 1993 with oil rate
around 178 stbd. Figure (3-8) showing the oil rate, the gas oil ratio, the water cut
and the static bottom hole pressure of the well Mon-1.
Figure (4-12): Pressure and production parameter of the well Mon-1
52
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (4-13): Mon-1's location is so close to OWC on the edge of the reservoir.
After that, on Dec 1999, the well has been converted into injector, with perforation
extension cover all the pay zone, to support the pressure which was that time
already declined close to the bubble point pressure (≈ 3500 psia) in whole reservoir.
By August 2003, it was necessary to shut-in the injection processes from the well,
where the injection water invaded the two closest wells Mon-2 & Mon-3, and their
oil rate started declining with increasing of water cut.
Figure (4-10), below, showing how the injected water from Mon-1 broken-through
the wells Mon-2 & Mon-3, and the Figure (4-11), showing the historical injection
profile of the well Mon-1.
Figure (4-14): Fences crossing the Mon-1, 2 and 3, showing how the injected water
is invading the two wells, Mon-2 and Mon-3.
53
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (4-15): Historical water injection profile of the well Mon-1 between Dec.
1999 & Aug 2003.

The well has been producing since November 1991, without any shut-in period. The
figure below, shows the SBHP and production parameters of the well. The effect of
water injection processes of Mon-1 can been seen positively on the pressure and
negatively on the oil rate.
54
__________________________________________________________________

The well has been producing since January 1992, the figure below shows the SBHP
and production parameters of the well.
In November 1999, when the field water injection start-up by Mon-1; the well was
shut several time for about 2 years (from 1999 to 2001) in order to speed up the re-
pressurization of the reservoir.
In March 2007, a PLT survey has been carried out in order to investigate the
possibility of excluding water producing layers, the PLT clearly indicate water
production from the bottom interval.
In May 2007, based on PLT results and in order to restore the well productivity, the
following rig-less work over program has been performed:
Isolated the water-flooded perforations with TTBP (top of cement @11690 ft RT),
just above the bottom of layer B1.
• Perforation Extension in Layer B2, between (11528-11588) ft RT, of 60 ft.
The production parameters before and after the job were as follows:
55
__________________________________________________________________
Date FTHP, psi Qo, stbd GOR, scf/stb WC, %
23/03/07 before 340 1402 680 34

07/06/07 after 432 3618 527 13.5
Table (4-6): Production Parameters of Mon-3 after the Work Over.
The well has been producing since February 1992, the figure below, shows the
SBHP and production parameters of the well.
56
__________________________________________________________________

The well has been producing since Sep 1994, the figure below, shows the SBHP and
production parameters of the well.
The well has been shutting since July 2007, due to high water cut and low PI.
4.5.3.6 Injection & Pressure Measurements of well Mon-6

The well has started as an injector in Nov. 2001, supporting the well Mon-1, to
maintain the reservoir pressure. The historical injection profile is as shown in the
figure below. Around 14,000 bwpd is the average injection rate for the last 4 years.
It was clear in the measured static bottom hole pressure behavior of all producers;
that the pressure was building up in period between Nov. 2001 and Aug. 2003.
That is due to a good balance between the total production rate and total injection
rate. Even when well Mon-1 was shut-in in August 2003 the good balance between
the total production rate and total injection rate was kept.
57
__________________________________________________________________
4.5.3.7 Production & Pressure Measurements of the Field
Figure (4-21) is showing the historical production profile of the whole field in term
of, Oil Rate, GOR, and water cut, as well as the calculated average reservoir
pressure in term of FPPO or FPR Oil Potential in psia.
The Oil rate fluctuated with the historical events such as drilling a new wells, start
of water injection, shut-in of producers due to water cut rise, and the normal decline
due to the water cut increasing after 2002.
The GOR started with initial value close to the initial dissolved gas ratio Rsi, ≈ 740
scf/stb for the first four years,
It is clear from the bottom hole pressure of all wells, that the reservoir pressure
dropped below bubble point pressure during the period between 1/1/1998 and
1/1/2002. Initially the GOR declined because gas saturation was below critical
saturation. Then free gas started moving in to the oil producers causing GOR to
58
__________________________________________________________________
sharply increase to more than Rsi. In 1/1/2000 after one year of water injection
GOR dropped below Rsi even though the reservoir pressure was below bubble point
pressure because some of free gas was produced earlier and some more escaped to
the top of reservoir.
After Dec-2003, the GOR in all producers sharply decreased to around 520 scf/stb,
which less than Rsi (≈ 740 scf/stb), as shown in Figure (4-22). That could be due to
measurement errors, or due to the escape of librated gas (during the period when the
reservoir was producing below the bubble point pressure) to the top of reservoir
forming a secondary gas cap.
Figure (4-21): Average production parameters and reservoir pressure of whole the
field.
59
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (4-22): The Historical GOR of all producers
60
__________________________________________________________________
5 Model Improvements
A strategy has been defined to achieve the final destination of our project, which is
Improvement the dynamic model under study by improving its History Match. The
main steps are as following:
• Original Model Analysis.
• Historical Data Validation.
• Historical Data Updating.
• Current history match evaluation
• Selection of the candidate’s parameters of History Match processes.
• Several sensitivity runs to be done to obtain better HM.
5.1 Original Model Analysis

The model is a black oil Model, with only one equilibrium region defined as
explained in section (4.4), using the Keyword JFUNC, to activate the Leverett J-
function option, which scales the water-oil and/or gas-oil capillary pressure
functions according to the grid block porosity and permeability.
For Relative Permeability Curves, the capillary pressure curve was modified
according to special core analysis, where J(Sw) function introduced instead Pcow.
The End Points for both system, oil-water & oil-gas has been introduced cell by cell
to be used with J function to initialize the model.
The End Points assigned to each cell are:

• SWCR, Critical Water Saturation.
• SGU, the Maximum Gas Saturation
• SOWCR, the Critical Oil-in-Water Saturation
• SOGCR, the Critical Oil-in-Gas Saturation
• KRGR, Gas Relative Permeability at Residual Oil Saturation.
• KRO, Maximum Oil Relative Permeability.
61
__________________________________________________________________
Then, the connate water saturation SWL has been put equal to the critical water
saturation.
The PVT model was defined based on the 3 available samples mentioned in table
(4-2), and the bubble point was introduced as function of the depth, using the
keyword PBVD, as showing below,
PBVD
10900 5124
11000 4749
11100 4373
11200 3998
11300 3622
11500 3210 /
Where taking in consideration the sample No.2 (BHS from well Mon-3), lead them
to assume that the Pb is varying with depth, and that was due to the big difference in
all properties values of this sample comparing with same properties values from the
other two samples as shown in table (4-2).
Water properties were calculated from the following:

Bw: from Brigham and Standing correlation
μw: from Van Wingen correlation
Cw: from Meehan correlation
The Permeability in X direction was estimated in Geo-cell model, assigned for each
cell in Grid section as explained in section (4.1.4.2).
In the Dynamic model, the Permeability in Y directions was assumed to be equal to
permeability in X direction, the permeability in Z direction was assumed to be the
one tenth of permeability in X direction.
Different multiple values introduced to change the calculated transmissibility in all
directions; for different regions, these modifications have been done during the
original History Match processes.
Some modifications were made to the Pore Volume in the Aquifer to match the
pressure during the History Match Processes.
62
__________________________________________________________________
5.2 Historical Data Validation

An analysis for all production parameters entered in schedule section of eclipse
model and pressure measurements has been done, as well as re-collect and double-
check all these data from the main sources in its original format, (from the database
of the company, the owner of the model), and some comments were considered, e.g.
some data entry mistakes in the input data were detected, and corrected.
5.3 Require historical data

All required data represented in measured historical production, well by well base,
and SGSs done in the period between Jan 2007 and Oct 2008 has been collected
from the FieldPro software.
Data has been transferred to EXCEL sheet format, and manually treated to meet the
right format of the simulator.
In addition of the above, all historical data from the beginning of the production
Nov 1991, has recollected double-checking the original SCHEDULE section, so all
Keywords rebuilt, and their description as in the next section.
Usually, this work done by the software SCHEDULE, which part of ECLIPSE set.
5.4 Historical Data Updating

The Original input historical data was until the end of January 2007, the final
updating of the final developed model was until the end of October 2008.
21 historical periods were defined in Schedule section introducing all production
and work over activities carried out in the time interval between (Jan. 2007 & Oct.
2008), in term of Keywords were defined as following:
DATES, advances simulator to specified report date(s).
WCONHIST, Observed rates for history matching production wells
WCONINJE, Control data for injection wells
COMPDAT, Well completion specification data.
COMPDATL, Completion data for wells in local grids.
The figure below shows a part of the Schedule section DATA file, where all the
Keywords which been used appears.
63
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (5-1): Part of the updated Schedule section.
5.5 Original history match evaluation
Based on the Model described in section (5.1), with the assumption and
modifications, made by the previous study the resultant history match is discussed
in the following section .
Considering the good quality of the original History Match of some wells
parameters, improving this match, which is accepted officially by the owner of the
field, will not be an easy issue, and the challenge is to achieve the target of this
project without making any modifications which do not respect the right concept of
HM processes (Over History Match).
64
__________________________________________________________________
5.5.1 Bottom Hole Static Pressure
The calculated bottom hole pressure is presented in this section.

Two new SGS, have been executed for the wells Mon-2 & Mon-5 in Dec. 2008, in
order to confirm the two wells behavior.
• Well Mon-1:
From the chart below, in the beginning, the match was so acceptable, and the
calculated values are in the middle of the measured ones.
Then good HM was obtained, especially in the middle period when the reservoir
was producing under saturated condition, where both measured and calculated
values were in the same fluctuation.
In the last period, the calculated values were a little bit higher than the measured
pressure.
Well:- Mon-01
Bottom Hole Pressure Match
6000
Original HM
5500
HISTORY DATA
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Nov-91 Nov-93 Nov-95 Nov-97 Nov-99 Nov-01 Nov-03 Nov-05 Nov-07 Nov-09
Date
Figure (5-2): Original HM of bottom hole pressure’s well Mon-1
• Well Mon-2:
As shown below, from the beginning, good history match until the end of year
1997, but after, it became not so good especially in the last period, where the last
SGS showing that pressure is in good support by Mon-6, although the model
showed that the pressure is declining dramatically.
65
__________________________________________________________________
Well:- Mon-02
6000
Original HM
5500
HISTORY DATA
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
• Well Mon-3:
Generally, good history match obtained, but in the last period when the
calculated pressure declined rapidly, it seems to be the same behavior as Mon-2,
so, an equation mark was but on it, and it must be monitored during the new
match.
Well:- Mon-03
6000
Original HM
5500
HISTORY DATA
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
66
__________________________________________________________________
• Well Mon-4:
Starting with excellent HM during the first year, then the match was not so good
in the remaining period.
Well:- Mon-04
6000
5500
Original HM
HISTOR DATA
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
• Well Mon-5:
Good match in general, but in the last period, the calculated pressure raised
above the measured data.
Well:- Mon-05
6000
5500
Original HM
HISTORY DATA
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
67
__________________________________________________________________
• Well Mon-6:
Only few SGS data were measured, and they are in acceptable match level.
Well:- Mon-06
6000
Original HM
5500
HISTORY DATA
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
5.5.2 Gas Oil Ratio
Monthly calendar gas oil ratio, was assigned for each well using the Keyword
WCONHIST, Gas rate measurement is usually in accurate therefore the calculated
GOR is not very reliable ,and therefore it will be so difficult to match ,and it is the
case in our reservoir .
• Well Mon-1:
During the short lifetime of Mon-1 as producer, the calculated GOR was slightly
lower than the measured GOR.
68
__________________________________________________________________
Well:- Mon-01
GOR Match
1
0.9
HISTORY DATA
0.8
Original HM
0.7
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Date
Figure (5-8): Original HM of Gas Oil Ratio’s well Mon-1
• Well Mon-2:
In the first 6 years. Model GOR followed the trend of the measured GOR. In the
next 2 years measured GOR jumped unexpectedly. the following four years the
match was expectable. For the rest 4 years the measurement GOR was lower than
model GOR. And good match was obtained in the last year.
Well:- Mon-02
GOR Match
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 HISTORY
DATA
Original HM
0.2
0.1
0
Date
69
__________________________________________________________________
• Well Mon-3:
In the first 6 years, good match was obtained, some high GOR measured points
were far away from the calculated data, as shown below.
Well:- Mon-03
GOR Match
1
HISTORY DATA
0.9
Original HM
0.8
0.7
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Date
• Well Mon-4:
In the first 4 years, good match was obtained big difference between the calculated
and measured data especially in the period when the pressure went below the Pb; as
well as for the last 4 years the measurement GOR was lower than model GOR.
Well:- Mon-04 GOR Match
1.4
HISTORY DATA
1.2
Original HM
1
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Date
70
__________________________________________________________________
• Well Mon-5:
Relatively, the match of this well is so good, and as all the others the match is not
good after year of 2004.
Well:- Mon-05 GOR Match
1.4
HISTORY DATA
1.2
Original HM
1
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Date
5.5.3 Water Cut
• Well Mon-1:
Although, the match of production parameters of this well is not that important;
obtained these parameters matched during its short life as producer, will represent
the fluid flow mechanism around the well location; which will extremely effect on
the all other wells parameters during its life as injector.
The calculated water cut here is following the real trend.
71
__________________________________________________________________
Well:- Mon-01
Water Cut Match
1.0
0.9
HISTORY DATA
0.8 ORIGINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
Figure (5-13): Original HM of Water Cut’s well Mon-1
• Well Mon-2:
Actually, the water breakthrough in the well by the end of 2001, then the
produced water has stabilized at around 20-30 % for the last five years, and the
simulator was not able to match the real behavior.
Well:- Mon-02
Water Cut Match
1.0
0.9
HISTORY DATA
0.8 ORIGINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
72
__________________________________________________________________
• Well Mon-3:
The water cut started increasing at the end 2001when water injection started in
Mon-6. Although, the calculated water cut is higher than the measured, both of them
have the same fluctuation.
Well:- Mon-03
Water Cut Match
1.0
0.9
HISTORY DATA
0.8
ORIGINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
• Well Mon-4:
No water production from the well Mon-4, due to the well location; on the top of the
reservoir far away from the Oil Water Contact and water injection wells.
This performance is matched in perfect way.
Well:- Mon-04
Water Cut Match
1.0
0.9
HISTORY DATA
0.8
ORIGINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
73
__________________________________________________________________
• Well Mon-5:
Good match was obtained.
Well:- Mon-05 Water Cut Match

1.0
0.9
HISTORY DATA
0.8
ORIGINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
5.6 History Match Procedures
In this section, History Match life cycle is explained in details, starting with how the
results of the previous monitoring guided us to select the suitable parameters to be
tuned and then one by one how the sensitivity runs improved the quality the HM.
5.6.1 Candidate’s parameters of History Match

processes
The main parameters considerate the HM processes are;

• PVT model
• Transmissibility
• Pore Volume in Aquifer region
• Relative Permeability data
74
__________________________________________________________________
5.6.2 Using an average values of Pb and Rs
As discussed before in sections (4.2.1 & 5.1), the original PVT model used in the
Dynamic Model, was not reliable due to taking into account the Bottom Hole
Sample taken from Well Mon-3.
We thought that, this sample must not be used, and two different sensitivity run
have been done to check how is our assumption is correct.
By analysis the available PVT data reports, we decided to cancel the assumption of
using the variable Pb with depth, and instead of that one average value of the bubble
point pressure of 3787 psia by considering the BHS samples Mon-1 & Mon-3, used
as fixed figure for whole the reservoir.
Also, Rs value at pressure of 4000 psia (as an average pressure) has been adjusted to
be 796 scf/stb. Both modification done just to check how the model is sensitive to
these assumptions.
Below is how the two values have been intruded in PROPS & SOLUTION sections.
Figure (5-18): New Adjusted average values of Pb & RS
The simulation run name was defined as in the plots below “used average pb”
Based on the analysis of the run we decided to generate anew PVT table mode.
75
__________________________________________________________________
5.6.3 Creation of new PVT model
By using the PVTi software, a new Equation of State (EOS), and a PVT model were
created to describe all fluid properties.
Although, we are not dealing with compositional model to need to define EOS,
making all properties measured in the laboratory in agreement to describe the fluid
before using them in the simulation is so necessary to success the dynamic history
match.
Two models have been created, the 1st is based on the experiments done on Bottom
Hole Sample of Mon-1 and the 2ed is the Surface Sample of well Mon-3, both
models were tested, and the Mon-3 SS, was selected as better match was obtained
by using it. This case was named “used PVTi model”.
In the next figures, a comparison between the two models (Modified original run
“used average pb” and new run “used PVTi model”), with the original model is
illustrated the improvement of the History Match.
6000
OO1 Bottom
MON-1 Bottom Hole
HolePressure
Pressure
5500
Refernce Run
History data
5000
Run ( used average Pb)
Run ( used PVTi Model)

BH Pressure - Psia
4500 SHUT
4000
3500
pb by pvti model
3000
2500
Date
Figure (5-19): PVT model Modifications effects in comparison, BHSP Mon-1
76
__________________________________________________________________
6000
5500
OO2 Bottom
MON-2 BottomHole
HolePressure
Pressure
Refernce Run
5000
History data

BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
pb by pvti model
3000
2500
Date
6000
MON-3 BottomHole
OO3 Bottom HolePressure
Pressure
5500
Refernce Run
5000 History data

BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
pb by pvti model
3000
2500
Date
77
__________________________________________________________________
6000
OO4Bottom
MON-4 Bottom Hole
Hole Pressure
Pressure
5500
Refernce Run
5000
History data

BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
pb by pvti model
3000
2500
Date
6000
OO5 Bottom
MON-5 Hole Pressure
Bottom Hole Pressure
5500
Refernce Run
5000 History data

SHUT
BH Pressure - Psia
Run ( used PVTi

4500
Model)
4000
3500
pb by pvti model
3000
2500
Date
78
__________________________________________________________________
6000
5500 MON-6 Bottom

OO6 Bottom Hole
Hole Pressure
Pressure
Refernce Run
5000
History data
BH Pressure - Psia

4500
4000
3500
pb by pvti model
3000
2500
Date
0.9
MON-1 GOR
OO1 GOR
0.8
History Data
0.7
Refernce Run
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.6 Run ( used average Pb)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Date
Figure (5-25): PVT model Modifications effects in comparison, GOR Mon-1
79
__________________________________________________________________
0.9
0.8
0.7
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.6
0.5
0.4
MON-2 GOR
OO2 GOR
0.3 History Data
Refernce Run
0.2
0.1
0
Date
0.9
0.8
0.7
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.6
0.5
0.4 MON-3 GOR

OO3 GOR
0.3 History Data
Refernce Run
0.2
0.1 Run ( used PVTi Model)
0
Date
80
__________________________________________________________________
1.4
MON-4 GOR
OO4 GOR
1.2 History Data
Refernce Run
1 Run ( used average Pb)

GOR - MSCF/STB
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Date
1.4
MON-5 GOR
OO5 GOR
1.2
History Data
Refernce Run
1 Run ( used average Pb)

GOR - MSCF/STB
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Date
81
__________________________________________________________________
5.6.4 Transmissibility Modifications
As was mentioned before in section (4.1.3.2) that all the Permeability values are
estimated by Geo-statistic methods form few point from core and transient well test;
these made the estimated values have a high degree of uncertainty, so, the
Permeability is one of the properties which can be modified to obtain a better
definition the fluid flow in the porous media to improve the History Match.
The original model was full in transmissibility modifications in all directions, using
the transmissibility multiplier instead of using the permeability or transmissibility
themselves, to modify the transmissibility value and control the fluid flow between
cells.
Figure (5-30, 31 & 32) is showing an example of the original modification in the
transmissibility.
Figure (5-30): The Multiple transmissibility factor Modification in X direction.
82
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (5-31): The Transmissibility in X direction
Figure (5-32): The Multiple transmissibility factor Modification in Z direction.
Note that the original modifications were concentrated in small areas with extremely
change of the transmissibility which does not reflect natural reservoir
characterization feature.
83
__________________________________________________________________
To improve the history match the following modification to transmissibility were

made;
• To increase the pressure around Mon-3, the transmissibility in the 3
directions around the well were increased.
• To control the injected water flow paths between the two wells Mon-1 &
Mon-3, the transmissibility were reduced.
• To increase the pressure around Mon-4, the transmissibility in the 3
directions were increased.
• To increase the pressure of the well Mon-2, the transmissibility was re-
modified in Z direction in well location.
• Multi modification was made around the well Mon-1 & Mon-3 to have the
pressure adjusted in whole reservoir.
In figure (5-33) is an example of transmissibility modification by EQUALS
keyword in GRID section, where the modifications were done for both global and
local refined grid, these modifications are visualized in figure (5-34)
Figure (5-33): New Transmissibility Modification in term of Keywords.
84
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (5-34): New Multiple transmissibility factor Modification in X direction.
5.6.5 Final History Match Results
In this section, the results of more than 100 of sensitivity runs that are including and
reflecting all Model developments discussed through chapter 5.
Comparison between the original model and the final tuned model in terms of
production parameters and pressure, well-by-well base and reservoir base is shows
in figures below.
Different History Match degrees are achieved from well to another, where the HM
was lost in some wells in some parameters to have better HM in others.
The target was to match the last 8 years with highest degree of HM in the bottom
hole pressure of all producers.
Finally, the decision has been taken to accept a certain degree of the MH, and stop
the sensitivity runs.
As first control check, after done the HM modifications, which could be influenced
on the model initialization, the Initial Fluid in Place must be compared before and
after the modifications as shown below.
85
__________________________________________________________________
Property Original Model Final Model Difference %

OOIP,
130.897146 127.451199 -2.63256
MMSTB
O dissolved GIP,
93.592041 95.690361 2.241986
MMMSCF
OWIP,
3.216090422 3.215728593 -0.01125
MMMSTB
Table (5-1): A comparison between the original and final model, in term of IFIP
Bottom Hole Pressure Match Well:- Mon-01

6000
ORIGINAL HM
5500 HISTORY
DATA
FINAL HM
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
Figure (5-35): Mon-1, Final Match of BHP
86
__________________________________________________________________

6000
ORIGINAL HM
5500 HISTORY DATA
FINAL HM
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date

6000
ORIGINAL HM
5500
HISTORY DATA
FIUNAL HM
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
87
__________________________________________________________________

6000
ORIGINALHM
5500 HISTOR DATA
FINAL HM
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
Figure (5-38): Mon-4, Final Match of BHP:

6000
5500
ORIGINAL HM
HISTORY DATA
5000 FIUNAL HM
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
88
__________________________________________________________________

6000
ORIGINAL HM
5500 HISTORY DATA
FINAL HM
5000
BH Pressure - Psia
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
Date
GOR Match Well:- Mon-01

1
HISTORY DATA
0.9
ORIGINAL HM
FINAL HM
0.8
0.7
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Date
Figure (5-41): Mon-1, Final Match of GOR
89
__________________________________________________________________
GOR Match
Well:- Mon-02
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
HISTORY
DATA
ORIGiNAL HM
0.1
FINAL HM
0
Date
Figure (5-42): Mon-2 Final Match of GOR

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.6
0.5
0.4
HISTORY
DATA
0.3 ORIGINAL HM
FINAL HM
0.2
0.1
0
Date
90
__________________________________________________________________
1.4
HISTORY
DATA
1.2 ORIGINAL HM
FINAL HM
1
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Date
1.4
HISTORY DATA
1.2 ORIGINAL HM
FINAL HM
1
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Date
91
__________________________________________________________________
Water Cut Match

Well:- Mon-01
1.0
0.9 HISTORY DATA
ORIGINAL HM
0.8
FINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
Figure (5-46): Mon-1, Final Match of Water Cut
Water Cut Match

Well:- Mon-02
1.0
0.9
HISTORY DATA
ORIGINAL HM
0.8
FINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
92
__________________________________________________________________
Water Cut Match Well:- Mon-03

1.0
0.9
HISTORY DATA
ORIGINAL HM
0.8
FINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
Water Cut Match

Well:- Mon-04
1.0
0.9
HISTORY DATA
ORIGINAL HM
0.8
FINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
93
__________________________________________________________________
Water Cut Match

Well:- Mon-05
1.0
0.9
HISTORY DATA
0.8 ORIGINAL HM
FINAL HM
0.7
Water Cut (Frac.)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Date
Selecting the oil rate to be the Control Mode during the simulation processes,
resulted that the oil rate is perfectly matched, where the same input data was exactly
recalculated.
OIL RATE Match Well:- Mon-01

6000.0
History Data
5000.0
ORIGINAL HM
FINAL HM
4000.0
OIL RATE (STB/DAY)
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
Date
Figure (5-51): Mon-1, Match of Oil rate
94
__________________________________________________________________

7000.0
History Data
6000.0 ORIGINAL HM
FINAL HM
5000.0
OIL RATE (STB/DAY)
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
Date

6000.0
History Data
5000.0 ORIGINAL
HM
FINAL HM
4000.0
OIL RATE (STB/DAY)
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
Date
95
__________________________________________________________________

4000.0
History Data
3500.0
ORIGINAL HM
FINAL HM
3000.0
OIL RATE (STB/DAY)
2500.0
2000.0
1500.0
1000.0
500.0
0.0
Date

3000.0
History Data
2500.0 ORIGINAL HM
FINAL HM
2000.0
OIL RATE (STB/DAY)
1500.0
1000.0
500.0
0.0
Date
96
__________________________________________________________________
6 Reservoir Performance Forecast

After having an accepted degree of History Match as shown in the previous chapter,
several forecast cases have been run to predict the reservoir performance, starting
with the “Do- nothing case” and finishing with an optimum case that returned the
highest recovery factor after more than twelve years of production forecasted. It is
important here to mention to that fact, results of those forecasted scenarios in term
of final recovery obtained, are not enough to make any right decision to select
among them the optimum development plan to manage the reservoir.
Those results must be supported and confirmed by an economic evaluation, which

make this optimization reliable in term of net present value of money gained; as
well as considering all profit indicators.
6.1 Scenarios Descriptions

Here are the description of each prediction scenario, and the reason behind selecting
its plan to meet the aim of any development plan that recovering as much as
possible oil, at time of reservoir been depleted.
6.1.1 CASE 1: Do Nothing Case
A new data file was created to forecast the behavior of Montana reservoir start
running from November 2008 until the end of year of 2030, with same production
and injection parameters of the last historical data time step, with same status of the
wells without any extra infill wells or controlling the work-over operations and
introducing for each well production parameters limits as below:
• The minimum oil production rate is 100 stbd. (the economic rate)
• The maximum allowable produced Water Cut is 90 %
• The water injection rate is automatically adjusted, by introducing a voidage
ratio value which control the water injection by the total produced fluid.
97
__________________________________________________________________
From this scenario, we obtained a full picture of how the reservoir will behave, in
whole field and well-by-well bases, in term of well status (e.g. when the well shut
and reasons behind).
Reviewing of the reservoir condition and parameters, residual oil saturation, average
reservoir pressure, and injected water efficiency, guided us to understand the
following points by the end of the forecast period:
• Detecting the areas where the oil is still in high saturation with the current
production and injection pattern, which will be a good candidate's location
of the infill wells as shows in figure (6-1).
Figure (6-1): The remaining oil saturation by the end of History Match.
• Understanding the wells performance, and how the productivity index will
be reduced and when, and when we should make an action to solve or avoid
a problem; e.g., predict the water breakthrough in a well, and have an idea
about which perforation should be plugged and when, as well as the
possibility of perforation extension.
98
__________________________________________________________________
By analyzing the Do-nothing case’s production profile, the main results are
summarized in the next sections.
6.1.1.1 Whole Reservoir Performance

The only remained producers at the end of case (2030) is Mon-4 with oil rate of 423
stbd.
All production parameters are shows in Figure (6-2), the final amount of recovered
oil by end of this run is about 64.7 MMstb and the ultimate recovery was 50.8 %.
Figures (6-2) shows the field production parameter while figure (6-3) shows field
pressure and water injection rate of this case until the end of 2030.
All results of well by well base are presented in the Appendix A.
Field Production Parameters

18000 1
16000 0.9
14000 0.8
GOR,Mscf/Stb &WC%
0.7
Oil Rate STB/D
12000
0.6
10000
0.5
8000 Qo ,STB/D
GOR,MSCF/STB 0.4
6000 WC,% 0.3
4000 0.2
2000 0.1
0 0
Nov-91 Apr-97 Oct-02 Apr-08 Sep-13 Mar-19 Sep-24 Mar-30
Date
Figure (6-2): Field Production Profiles (Historical & Prediction).
99
__________________________________________________________________
6000 25000
FBHP,PSI
5000
Field Water Injaction Rate,STB

Fiel Bottom Hole Pressure.Psi
FWIR,STB 20000
4000
15000
3000
10000
2000
5000
1000
0 0
Date
The oil rate kept declining until (Apr- 2017) when well Mon-02 shut in due to high
water cut.
The GOR stayed almost constant during the forecast period due to water injection
which maintained reservoir pressure above bubble point.
Water cut continued to increase during the forecast period (due to water injection).
The pressure was kept above bubble point and the water injection rate varied with
fluid withdrawal.
6.1.2 CASE 2: Drill one new producer in west

south Area
From the analysis of the Do-nothing case, one of the areas aimed to be a location of
a new producer is showing in figure (6-4), where the oil was in high saturation by
the end of the prediction, and most of the oil was remaining in layers between; 1 to
7. New well named Mon-8 introduced in cells 22, 28 in X & Y directions, and
completed in the interested layers.
100
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (6-4): The oil saturation by the end of History Match
The assumption of the development plan:

• The well will start production by November 2008, with production rate of
3363 stbd, which should be reflect the same productivity of neighborhood
wells at that time.
• Same production constrains applied on the well.
• The well is vertical.
In the figure (6-5), the production profile of the well Mon-8 is presented, showing
the shut-in time of the well by May 2020 due to high WC. The final amount of
recovered oil by end of this run is about 65.97 MMstb and the ultimate recovery was
51.8 %.
101
__________________________________________________________________
Well Production Parmeters

4000 1
Qo,STB/D 0.9
3500 GOR,MSCF/STB
WC,%
0.8
GOR,MSCF/STB& WC,%
3000
0.7
Oil Rate, STB/D
2500
0.6
2000 0.5
0.4
1500
0.3
1000
0.2
500
0.1
0 0
03-Aug-91 23-Jan-97 16-Jul-02 06-Jan-08 28-Jun-13 19-Dec-18 10-Jun-24 01-Dec-29
Date
Figure (6-5): Well Production Profiles.
Field Production Parmeters

18000 1
16000 Qo,STB/D 0.9

GOR,MSCF/STB Due To New Well Mon-08
WC,%
0.8
14000
GOR,MSCF/STB& WC,%
0.7
12000
Oil Rate, STB/D
0.6
10000
0.5
8000
0.4
6000
0.3
4000
0.2
2000 0.1
0 0
Date
Figure (6-6): Field Production Profiles (Historical & Prediction)
102
__________________________________________________________________
6000 25000
5000 FBHP,PSI
FWIR,STB 20000

4000
15000
3000
10000
2000
5000
1000
0 0
Date
The oil rate has increased at the start of forecast due to the addition of new well.
Then the oil rate started to decline. The oil rate has decrease sharply in Dec 2016
due to the shutting of well Mon-02 due to watered out. The oil rate further drop in
May 2020 due to the shutting of well Mon-08 (watered out).
fluid withdrawal.
Figure (6-8) shows the oil saturation at the start of forecast of the reservoir and the
location of the infill well (Mon-08).
Figure (6-9) shows the oil saturation of the reservoir at the end of the life of well
Mon-08 by May-2020.it clear that the well has drained the oil in the target area.
103
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (6-8): Start of forecast case with infill a new well in (Nov- 2008).
Figure (6-9): End of new infill well life (May-2020).
104
__________________________________________________________________
6.1.3 CASE 3: Drill One new producer on top of

the reservoir
From the analysis of the Do-nothing case, one of the areas aimed to be a location of
a new producer is on the top of the reservoir as the figure (6-10) shows, where the
oil saturation was high by the end of the prediction of the base case, and most of the
oil was remaining in layers between 1 to 5. New well named Mon-10 introduced in
cells 33, 23 in X & Y directions, and completed in the interested layers.
Figure (6-10): The oil saturation by the end of History Match.

• The well will start production by November 2008, with production rate of
3500stbd, which should be reflect the same productivity of neighborhood
wells at that time.
• The well is vertical.
In the figure (6-11), the production profile of the well Mon-10 is presented, showing
the shut-in time of the well by October 2023 due to high WC. The final amount of
recovered oil by end of this run is about 65.2 MMstb and the ultimate recovery was
51.2 %.
105
__________________________________________________________________

4000 1
0.9
3500 Qo,STB/D
GOR,MSCF/STB
0.8
WC,%
3000
GOR,MSCF/STB& WC,%
0.7
Oil Rate, STB/D
2500
0.6
2000 0.5
0.4
1500
0.3
1000
0.2
500
0.1
0 0
Date
Figure (6-11): Well Production Profiles
106
__________________________________________________________________
6000 25000
FBHP,PSI
5000
FWIR,STB

20000
4000
15000
3000
10000
2000
5000
1000
0 0
Date
The oil rate has increased at the start of forecast due to the addition of two new
wells. Then the oil rate started to decline. The oil rate has decrease sharply in Oct
2014 due to the shutting of well Mon-03 due to watered out. The oil rate further
dropped until the end of 2030due to (water out).
fluid withdrawal.
location of the infill well Mon-10.
Figure (6-15) shows the oil saturation of the reservoir at the end of the life of well
Mon-10 by May-2020.it clear that the well has drained the oil in the target area.
107
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (6-14): Start of forecast case with infill a new well in (Nov- 2008).
Figure (6-15): End of new infill well life (Oct-2023)
108
__________________________________________________________________
6.1.4 CASE 4: Two new wells located as previous

scenarios
Due to the increase in recovery factor in both previous scenarios we decided to run a
third scenario where both well were drilled at the same time
• The wells will start production by November 2008, with production rate of
3350stbd, 3500stbd, which should be reflecting the same productivity of
neighborhood wells at that time.
• The wells are vertical.
In the figures (6-16)&(6-17), the production profiles of the well Mon-08&well

Mon-10 are presented, showing the shut-in time of the well Mon-08 by Jan 2020
and well Mon-10 by Aug 2022due to high WC. The final amount of recovered oil
by end of this run is about 66.4 MMstb and the ultimate recovery was 52.08 %.

4000 1
Qo,STB/D 0.9
3500 GOR,MSCF/STB
WC,%
0.8 GOR,MSCF/STB& WC,%
3000
0.7
Oil Rate, STB/D
2500
0.6
2000 0.5
0.4
1500
0.3
1000
0.2
500
0.1
0 0
Date
Figure (6-16): Production Profiles of Well Mon-08
109
__________________________________________________________________

4000 1
Qo,STB/D 0.9
3500 GOR,MSCF/STB
WC,%
0.8
GOR,MSCF/STB& WC,%
3000
0.7
Oil Rate, STB/D
2500
0.6
2000 0.5
0.4
1500
0.3
1000
0.2
500
0.1
0 0
Date
Figure (6-17): Production Profiles of Well Mon-10
110
__________________________________________________________________
6000 25000
5000 FBHP,PSI
20000

FWIR,STB
4000
15000
3000
10000
2000
5000
1000
0 0
Date
Figure (6-19): field Pressure and Water injection Profiles (Historical & Prediction)
The oil rate has increased at the start of forecast due to the addition of new well.
Then the oil rate started to decline. The oil rate has decrease sharply in Sep 2015
due to the shutting of well Mon-02 due to watered out. The oil rate further dropped
until the end of 2030 due to (watered out).
fluid withdrawal.
location of the infill wells.
Figure (6-21) shows the oil saturation of the reservoir at the end of the life of wells.
it clear that the wells has drained the oil in the target area.
111
__________________________________________________________________
Figure (6-20): Start of forecast case with infill a two well in (Nov- 2008).
Figure (6-21): End of new infill wells life (Oct-2023)
112
__________________________________________________________________
6.1.5 Comparison between all prediction cases by

the end of year 2030
The following table summarizes the ultimate recovery of all prediction cases.
Reserves , Incremented Reserve,

Scenarios RF,%
MMSTB MMSTB
Case 1:Do noting case 64.70 50.80 0
Case 2 65.97 51.80 1.27
Case 3 65.20 51.20 0.5
Case 4 66.40 52.08 1.7
Table (6-1): show a reserves and the recovery factor for each prediction case.
Based on the above comparison, and considering the lowest risk level (were only
one new infill well is drilled) and the higher recovery factor, case 2 was the most
attractive scenario with incremental reserves of 1.27 MMstb.
Although, case 4 has the highest reserves, it wasn't selected to be our recommended
development plan, because of the small difference in recovery between it and case 2
which is less than 0.44 MMstb compared with the high risk and cost of drilling an
new well.
Another reason for selecting case 2 is the current market price of oil which is high
enough to make the case more attractive.
113
__________________________________________________________________
7 Conclusions and Recommendations

After obtained the final history match, which was in our opinion reliable to be the
basic of the forecast scenarios, and after analysis the Do-Nothing case which
continued to behave in a similar manner to the end of history match, we are so
confident that our model is so accurate for development plans.
7.1 Conclusion
As was discussed in Chapters (5 & 6), considering the level of the HM in Reservoir
on well by well base, all production parameters and reservoir pressure were in that
accepted level and met the aim of our project.
Here is a brief summary of all project steps with their evaluation
• The original model created by the owner, was analyzed, evaluated, and
corrected.
• The model was developed (Adjusting & smoothing the Petrophysical
Model) and updated.
• The History Match was improved by tuning some of the Petrophysical
parameters that are allowable to be changed, in respect of HM traditional
rules; and that was done after several sensitivity runs.
• New PVT models where created and tested and then confirmed to be used
instead of the old PVT model.
• Finally, an accepted HM was achieved, except the HM level of the water
cut which was not in that level to be satisfied with it.
• Although, that in some periods, the GOR was not that good match, it is in
general accepted, considering that in these periods the measured data
behavior is not interpreted and still is an unanswered question on it.
• The pressure in general was the most improved match in well by well base,
except the well Mon-1 trend, where the modifications done around to
match the behaviors of the other wells, resulted the bottom hole pressure of
this well is higher than the measured one in time after the well was
completely shut-in. The other wells which still on stream are in very good
114
__________________________________________________________________
match and ready to be forecasted with the main development plan of the
owner company (ESP installation).
• The main prediction run was the Do-Nothing case, where the forecast was
extended until 2030, without changing any production condition, and at the
same time introducing some features in the dynamic model, which reflect
the real work-over which could be happened during the forecast, as GOR
and WC limits and main WO events.
• Then, several scenarios were built, to discover the best plan to deplete the
reservoir; taking into account:
o The highest remaining oil saturation areas are the aimed and the
candidates of deposit the infill wells.
o The water injection rate (after the reservoir already been re-
pressurized) must be automatically adjusted during the predication
processes to keep the pressure above bubble point pressure and
below the initial reservoir pressure, by introducing a voidage ratio
value which control the water injection by the total produced fluid.
• Base on economics, lower risk factor and good recovery case 2 was
selected as the best development plan.
115
__________________________________________________________________
7.2 Recommendations
Based on what we learned from analyzing whole model in different points of view,
the structure, the Petrophysical model, HM processes, and predication plans
creations, the following comments and recommendation are introduced:
• The static model needs to be redefined, where some features (Permeability)
in some areas should be re-distributed to be closer the real fluid flow regime
to better match of reservoir pressure, (Using the Classical parameters way of
HM).
• Modern tool could be applied to re-create or smooth the Facies model
(Lithology, K & Φ) by using another approaches (algorithms) to distribute
the Porosity and Permeability, and at the same time respecting the Original
Fluid In Place.
• More analysis of the measured data should be done, considering that these
data are allocated data based on Production Routine Tests, so, it is one could
be the reason behind the strange phenomena of the GOR.
• PVT model is still issue of discussion, where better investigation of the
available PVT reports should be done.
• For new predication scenarios, introducing new water injection pattern for
higher displacement efficiency is one the most important scenarios.
• Converting one of the producers or two which been flooded by the injected
water (Mon-2 & Mon-3) in different certain times to injectors, is one of the
scenarios which control both the pressure support and the increasing the
recoverable areas.
• Converting the shut-in well Mon-5 to injector to displace the oil in the area
between the well and the remaining producers (Mon-2, Mon3 & Mon-4)
• As the owner company recommended and planed, the ESPs will be installed
in all producers, so, a prediction run considering this artificial method must
be created and at the same time the HM must be improved by matching the
well head pressure to evaluate the performance of the installed pump in
practical way.
116
__________________________________________________________________
• Based on the previous point, the VFP (Vertical Flow Performance), of all
wells must double checked and tested separately from the model.
• Feasibility Economic Evaluation study, must be done for each predicted
scenario, where the CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) including the well drilling
and completion cost, installation of pipe lines and any new production
facilities is estimated, as well as making a time table of regular maintains
and work-over, and introduce a OPEX (Operating Expenditure) value related
to each incremental production profile of development plan.
• Based on the previous point, more reliable decision will taken to select the
best forecast case to develop the field.
117
__________________________________________________________________
8 Nomenclature
Bgi - Initial gas formation volume factor, [cf/scf]
Boi - Initial oil formation volume factor, [bbl/stb]
Bg - Gas formation volume factor, [cf/scf]
Bo - Oil formation volume factor, [bbl/stb]
c - Total compressibility factor [Psi-1]
Gp - Cumulative gas production, [sm3] or [scf]
GOR - The initial solution (gas-oil ratio), Rsi, [scft/stb]
k - Permeability, [md]
N - The original oil in place, [stb]
Np - Cumulative oil production, [stb]
Pi - Initial reservoir pressure, [psia]
P - Reservoir pressure, [psia]
Rsi - Initial dissolved gas oil ratio, [scft/stb]
Rs - Dissolved gas oil ratio, [scft/stb]
Swi - Initial water saturation [-],%
WI - Cumulative water injection, [stb]
Wp - Cumulative water production, [stb]
 - Porosity [-]
 - Viscosity, [cp]
118
__________________________________________________________________
9 References
1 Schlumberger, Simulation Software (Eclipse) Manual, 2005A.
2 Mike Carlson, Practical Reservoir Simulation, 2003.
3 G.S.P.L.A.J. 82 Concession, Montana Structure, 3d Reservoir Study, Initialization,

History Match and Forecast
4 Gordon Adamson and others, Simulation Throughout the Life of a Reservoir,

Summer 1996.
119
__________________________________________________________________
10 Appendix
10.1 Appendix A (Results)

In this appendix all wells historical and forecast production parameters and bottom
hole pressure are illustrated for all forecast cases;
CASE # 1 Bottom Hole Pressure - History & Forecast

Well - Mon-01
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Jan-1991 Jan-1995 Jan-1999 Jan-2003 Jan-2007 Jan-2011 Jan-2015 Jan-2019 Jan-2023 Jan-2027 Jan-2031
Date

Well - Mon-02
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
120
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-03
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Jan-1991 Jan-1995 Jan-1999 Jan-2003 Jan-2007 Jan-2011 Jan-2015 Jan-2019 Jan-2023 Jan-2027
Date

Well - Mon-04
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
121
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-05
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-06
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
122
__________________________________________________________________
GOR - History & Forecast

CASE # 1 Well - Mon-01
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
123
__________________________________________________________________

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
124
__________________________________________________________________

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
CASE # 1 Oil Production Rate - History & Forecast

Well - Mon-01
6,000
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
125
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-02
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

Well - Mon-03
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
126
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-04
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

Well - Mon-05
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
127
__________________________________________________________________
WC - History & Forecast

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
128
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
129
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

Well - Mon-01
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
130
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-02
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-03
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
131
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-04
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-05
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
132
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-06
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-08
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
133
__________________________________________________________________

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
134
__________________________________________________________________

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
135
__________________________________________________________________

CASE # Well - Mon-05
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
CASE # 2
Well - Mon-08
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
136
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-01
6,000
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-02
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
137
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-03
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

Well - Mon-04
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
138
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-05
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

Well - Mon-08
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
139
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
140
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
141
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
142
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-01
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-02
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
143
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-03
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-04
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
144
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-05
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-06
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
145
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-10
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
CASE # 3
Well - Mon-01
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
146
__________________________________________________________________

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
CASE # 3
Well - Mon-03
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
147
__________________________________________________________________

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date

CASE # Well - Mon-05
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
148
__________________________________________________________________
CASE # 3 GOR - History & Forecast

Well - Mon-10
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date

Well - Mon-01
6,000
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
149
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-02
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

Well - Mon-03
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
150
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-04
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

Well - Mon-05
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
151
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-10
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
152
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
153
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
154
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

Well - Mon-01
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
155
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-02
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-03
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
156
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-04
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-05
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
157
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-06
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-08
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
158
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-10
6,000
5,000
4,000
BHP-Psia
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date
CASE # 4
Well - Mon-01
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
159
__________________________________________________________________

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
CASE # 4
Well - Mon-03
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
160
__________________________________________________________________

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
161
__________________________________________________________________
CASE # 4
Well - Mon-08
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
CASE # 4 GOR - History & Forecast

Well - Mon-10
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
GOR - MSCF/STB
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
History
Forecast
0.50
Date
162
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-01
6,000
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
History
Forecast
0
Date

Well - Mon-02
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
163
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-03
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

Well - Mon-04
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
164
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-05
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

Well - Mon-08
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date
165
__________________________________________________________________

Well - Mon-10
6,000
History
Forecast
5,000
4,000
Oil rate (STB)
3,000
C
A
2,000
1,000
0
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
166
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
167
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
168
__________________________________________________________________

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
WC - %
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 History
Forecast
0.00
Date
169
__________________________________________________________________
10.2 Appendix B
In this appendix fluid (PVT) and rock (relative permeability, capillary pressure)
properties for both old and new models are described here.
Pressure,
Bg, rb/Mscf μ gas, cp Bo, rb/stb μ oil, cp Rs, scf/stb
psia
15 238.4007 0.0114 1.1011 4.4527 0.0000
364 9.2069 0.0132 1.1460 1.0588 0.0675
712 4.6052 0.0139 1.1838 0.9604 0.1354
1061 3.0463 0.0145 1.2189 0.8702 0.2015
1410 2.2702 0.0152 1.2535 0.7873 0.2686
1759 1.8108 0.0161 1.2884 0.7121 0.3381
2108 1.5106 0.0170 1.3241 0.6443 0.4104
2457 1.3016 0.0181 1.3609 0.5838 0.4861
2806 1.1494 0.0193 1.3990 0.5297 0.5657
3154 1.0346 0.0205 1.4387 0.4815 0.6496
3550 0.9354 0.0219 1.4860 0.4330 0.7508
3682 1.4825 0.4417 0.7508
3861 1.4778 0.4535 0.7508
4039 1.4734 0.4652 0.7508
4218 1.4691 0.477 0.7508
4397 1.4649 0.4888 0.7508
4575 1.4609 0.5006 0.7508
4754 1.4571 0.5125 0.7508
4933 1.4533 0.5243 0.7508
5111 1.4497 0.5361 0.7508
5293 1.4461 0.5481 0.7508
Table (10-1): New PVT (Oil & Gas) data set used in the Dynamic Model.
Sw Krw Krow
0.174 0.0 0.58
0.24 0.002 0.39
0.307 0.004 0.23
0.37 0.015 0.12
0.47 0.052 0.03
0.54 0.09 0.007
0.64 0.17 0.003
0.68 0.20 0.001
0.80 0.37 0.00
1.0 1.0 0.00
Table (10-2): Relative Permeability Data of the Oil Water system
170
__________________________________________________________________
Sg Krg Krog
0.0 0.000 0.580
0.148 0.000 0.256
0.220 0.001 0.152
0.320 0.007 0.061
0.389 0.030 0.033
0.463 0.075 0.013
0.533 0.133 0.005
0.627 0.239 0.001
0.655 0.278 0.000
0.826 0.950 0.000
Table (10-3): Relative Permeability Data of the Oil Gas system
Pressure, psia Bw, bbl/stb Cw, psi-1 µw, cp
5305 1.05112 2.13E-06 0.3943
Table (10-4): Water Properties.
Pressure, psia Bo, rb/stb Oil Viscosity, cp Rs, scf/stb
14.5 1.0730 2.232 0.0000

200.0 1.1186 1.773 0.0634
500.0 1.1533 1.537 0.1277
1000.0 1.1958 1.234 0.2161
2000.0 1.2777 0.908 0.3902
3000.0 1.3674 0.695 0.5786
3500.0 1.4122 0.633 0.6799
4000.0 1.4122 0.570 0.7813
4500.0 1.5019 0.511 0.8830
Table (10-5): Old Oil PVT Data set
Pressure, psia Bg, rb/Mscf µg, cp

299.1 11.3446 0.0118
583.6 5.6634 0.0130
1152.5 2.7783 0.0144
1721.4 1.8344 0.0158
2290.3 1.3891 0.0173
2859.2 1.1042 0.0188
3456.6 0.8014 0.0205
4300.0 0.7000 0.0225
Table (10-6): Old Gas PVT Data set
171
__________________________________________________________________
Parameters
Pi, psia 5300
Ti, ºF 240
Initial Oil Water Contact, ft 11437
Initial Gas Oil Contact ,ft 10000
Water Salinity , gr/lt 230
Datum from ssl ,ft 11200
Overburden pressure, psia 8200
Specific Gravity water 1.116
Specific Gravity Gas 0.73
Table (10-7): Some important data fixed for both models.
10.3 Appendix C
The following is the definition of the Keywords and Attributes have been used in
DATA file and included files:
RUNSPEC SECTION
Keywords Means
TITLE Specify run title
DIMENS Specifies the dimensions of the grid DIMENS
FAULTDIM Dimensions for fault data
EQLDIMS Dimensions of equilibration tables
ENDSCALE Use saturation table end-point scaling
TABDIMS Table dimensions
REGDIMS Regions dimension data
WELLDIMS Well dimension data
VFPPDIMS Production well VFP table dimensions
AQUDIMS Dimensions for aquifers
LGR Set options for LGR and coarsening
START Specifies a start date
NOSIM Turn off simulation
172
__________________________________________________________________
PROPS SECTION
GRID SECTION
Keywords Means
NEWTRAN Specifies block corner transmissibility
MESSAGES Resets message print and stop limits

NOECHO Disable echoing of the input file
INCLUDE Include the contents of another named file
MINPV Sets a minimum pore volume a cell must have to be active
PINCH Generates connections across pinched-out layers
COPY Copies data from one array to another
MULTIPLY Multiply array by a constant in current box
JFUNC Activates the Leverett J-function option
NOECHO Disable echoing of the input file
EQUALS Set array to a constant in current box
ACTNUM Active grid block identification
MULTPV Pore volume multipliers
MULTX Transmissibility multipliers in X-direction
MULTY Transmissibility multipliers in Y-direction
MULTZ Transmissibility multipliers in Z-direction
NNC Set non-neighbor connection values explicitly
CARFIN Specifies a Cartesian local grid refinement
ENDFIN Terminates data for a local grid refinement
RPTGRID Controls on output from GRID section
TRANZ Z-direction transmissibility values
TRANX X-direction transmissibility values
TRANY Y-direction transmissibility values
MAPUNITS Specifies units used for MAPAXES data

MAPAXES Input of pre-processor map origin
GRIDUNIT Specifies the grid data units
SPECGRID Specification of grid characteristics

COORD Coordinate lines
ZCORN Depths of grid block corners
ACTNUM Active grid block identification
PORO Specifies the grid block porosity values
PERMX Specifies X-permeability values
173
__________________________________________________________________
Keywords Means
GRAVITY Fluid gravities at surface conditions
ROCK Rock compressibility
PVTW Water PVT functions
PVTO PVT properties of live oil (with dissolved gas)
PVDG PVT properties of dry gas (no vaporized oil)
SWOF Water / oil saturation functions versus water saturation

SGOF Gas/oil saturation functions versus gas saturation
SGCR,ISGCR Scaled critical gas saturations
KRW,KRWR,IK
Scaled end point water relative Permeabilities
RW,IKRWR
REGIONS SECTION
Keywords Means
FIPNUM Fluid-in-place region numbers
SATNUM Saturation function region numbers
EQLNUM Equilibration region numbers
SOLUTION SECTION
Keywords Means
PVTO PVT properties of live oil (with dissolved gas)
PVDG PVT properties of dry gas (no vaporized oil)
SWOF Water / oil saturation functions versus water saturation
SGOF Gas/oil saturation functions versus gas saturation
SGCR,ISGCR Scaled critical gas saturations
KRW,KRWR,IK Scaled end point water relative Permeabilities
RW,IKRWR
Table (10-8): Attributes and Keywords have been used in the DATA file of Eclipse
174

Reservoir Simulation of Montana Field

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reservoir Simulation of Montana Field

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

__________________________________________________________________

4.4 Determining the initial hydrocarbon place. .............................................. 48

Figure (5-12): Original HM of Gas Oil Ratio’s well Mon-5 .................................... 71

This thesis is subdivided in to the following chapters;

Chapter 1; This Chapter.

Chapter 2; Introduction of Montana Field.

Chapter 3; Reservoir Simulation’s Principles

Chapter 4; Reservoir Model’s Initialization

Chapter 5; Model Improvements

Chapter 6; Reservoir Performance Forecast

Chapter 7; Conclusions and Recommendations

2 Introduction to Montana Field.

2.1 General Information

Figure (2-1): NC-82 Concession’s location in Sirte Basin.

The reservoir is under-saturated with 130 [MMSTB] of oil initially in place.

2.2 Geological Framework

The Lower Nubian Sandstone is subdivided into:

• Upper Pool (Reservoir) clean sandstone (270 ft to over 500 ft thickness)

Figure (2-3): X-section between 3 wells, showing reservoir bodies.

3 Reservoir Simulation’s principles

3.1 Simulation Introduction:

3.2 The Motivation for simulation:

3.3 How a simulator works:

rate at which it will be recovered. To estimate recoverable reserves, a model of the

3.4 Definition and understanding of

A thermal simulator would be advised if changes in temperature either with location

How are these disparate data sets merged?

Figure (3-2): Full Field Reservoir Modeling Workflow.

3.5 History match

The process of history matching is one of the time-consuming aspects of a

The process of history matching is characterized by a feedback loop in which the

History- Matching Parameters

3.6 Mechanics of History Matching

3.7 Eclipse’s Technical Description

ECLIPSE 100 is a fully-implicit, three phase, three dimensional, general purpose

Both corner-point and conventional block-center geometry options are available in

Radial and Cartesian block-center options are available in 1, 2 or 3 dimensions. A

Alternatively, ECLIPSE Office may be used to prepare data interactively through

The name of input file has to be in the following format: FILENAME.DATA

3.7.2 Input data file

3.7.3 Data file sections definition:

The list of section-header keywords:

The sections must be specified in the shown order.

3.7.3.1 RUNSPEC: required

SAVE file that contains the RUNSPEC data.

3.7.3.2 GRID: required

3.7.3.3 EDIT: optional

3.7.3.4 PROPS: required

3.7.3.5 REGIONS: optional

3.7.3.6 SOLUTION: required

3.7.3.7 SUMMARY: optional

3.7.3.8 SCHEDULE: required

3.7.4 Useful information:

3.7.4.1 Repeat counts:

3.7.4.3 Default values:

3.8 Grids and Properties Data files format [1]

ECLIPSE keywords (grdecl) (ASCII) ECLIPSE .GRID (BINARY)

ECLIPSE properties (ASCII) ECLIPSE properties Restart (BINARY)

ECLIPSE properties Init (BINARY)

3.8.1 “GRID” section keywords as (ASCII) format

3.8.2 “Poperties” keywords as (ASCII) format file

Figure (3-6): A part of Properties Keywords in Eclipse ASCII format.

3.9 Running simulation:

3.10 PVTi Software definition