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

net/publication/325998996

Subject: Reservoir Simulation Study of Depletion Drive Reservoir Using CMG

Simulator and Sensitivity Analysis Using CMOST

Research Proposal · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 520

2 authors:

Hameed Mahmood Salih Omar Qasim

12 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
The British University in Egypt
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

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

Reservoir Characterization of the Middle Cretaceous Mishrif Formation in the Buzurgan Oilfield, Southern Iraq View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hameed Mahmood Salih on 26 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MOSUL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF PETROLEUM & MINING ENGINEERING
RESERVOIR ENGINEERING PROGRAM

Subject:
Reservoir Simulation Study of Depletion Drive Reservoir
Using CMG Simulator and Sensitivity Analysis Using
CMOST

By:
Hameed Mahmood Salih

Supervised By:
Mr. Omar Muhammad Qasim
 Abstract
The identifying of the most effective parameters in the performance of the
depletion drive reservoir when running simulation is very important to know the
accuracy of the input data to simulator and the output results.
CMG group software of reservoir simulation is used to run reservoir simulation
using “Builder” and the results of different simulation scenarios are plotted using
“Results”.
CMOST software used to do the sensitivity analysis of the result using different
techniques of analysis such as (one parameter at time & response surface
methodology).
Tornedo charts show the result of sensitivity analysis and illustrate the
effectiveness of the reservoir parameters on the performance of the reservoir.
 Content
1. Introduction
1.1 Reservoir Depletion Drive Mechanism…………………………1
1.2 Sensitivity Analysis………………………………………………………3
1.3 One Parameter at a Time method (OPAT)…………………..5
1.4 Response Surface Methodology (RSM)……………………….6
2. Reservoir Characterization
2.1 Reservoir Gird……………………………………………………………………..8
2.2 Reservoir Rock Properties……………………………………………………8
2.3 Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure……………………….9
2.4 Fluid Properties and PVT Data…………………………………………..10
2.5 Initial Conditions……………………………………………………………….10
2.6 Water Properties @ Reference pressure…………………………..11
2.7 Constrains for Production Well…………………………………………11
3. Work Procedure
3.1 CMG Builder Work……………………………………………………………………12
3.2 CMOST Work…………………………………………………………………………….12
4. Result Discussion
4.1 CMG Builder Perforating Scenarios……………………………14
4.2 CMOST Sensitivity Analysis result…………………………………………..17
4.2.1 One Parameter at a Time (OPAT)……………………17
4.2.2 Response Surface Methodology (RSM) (Linear +
Quadratic)…………………………………………………………………………..19
4.2.3 Response Surface Methodology (RSM) (Linear +
Quadratic + Interaction)……………………………………………………….24
5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………29
6. References………………………………………………………………………………30
 List of figures
Figure Description page
Figure (11-1) Solution gas drive reservoir 2
Figure (1.1) Modelling After Rosen 4
Fig(1.2) Designed experiments with full factorial design (left), 7
response surface with second-degree polynomial (right)
Fig(2.1) Reservoir grid 8
Fig(4.1) Cumulative Oil Production 15
Fig(4.2) Cumulative Gas Production 16
Fig(4.3) Average Reservoir Pressure 16
Fig(4.4) OPAAT Analysis for oil production (OPAT) 17
Fig(4.5) OPAAT Analysis for gas production (OPAT) 18
Fig(4.6) Tornedo chart of oil production (RSM-LQ) 19
Fig(4.7) effects chart for oil production (RSM-LQ) 19
Fig(4.8) Tornedo chart for gas production (RSM-LQ) 20
Fig(4.9) Effects for gas production (RSM-LQ). 21
Fig(4.10) Tornedo chart of well bottom hole pressure (RSM-LQ) 22
Fig(4.11) Effects of well bottom hole pressure (RSM-LQ). 22
Fig(4.12) Tornedo chart of oil production (RSM-LQI) 24
Fig(4.13) Effects of oil production (RSM-LQI). 24
Fig(4.14) Tornedo chart of gas production (RSM-LQI) 25
Fig(4.15) Effects of gas production (RSM-LQI). 26
Fig(4.16) Tornedo chart of well bottom hole pressure (RSM-LQI). 27
Fig(4.17) Effects of well bottom hole pressure (RSM-LQI). 27
 1.INTRODUCTION

1.1 Reservoir Depletion Drive Mechanism

This driving form may also be referred to by the following various terms:
• Solution gas drive
• Dissolved gas drive
• Internal gas drive
In this type of reservoir, the principal source of energy is a result of gas liberation from the crude
oil and the subsequent expansion of the solution gas as the reservoir pressure is reduced. As
pressure falls below the bubble-point pressure, gas bubbles are liberated within the microscopic
pore spaces. These bubbles expand and force the crude oil out of the pore space as shown
conceptually in Figure (11-1)
Cole (1969) suggests that a depletion-drive reservoir can be identified by the following
characteristics:
• Reservoir pressure: The reservoir pressure declines rapidly and continuously. This
reservoir pressure behavior is attributed to the fact that no extraneous fluids or gas caps
are available to provide a replacement of the gas and oil withdrawals.
• Water production: The absence of a water drive means there will be little or no water
production with the oil during the entire producing life of the reservoir.
• Gas-oil ratio: A depletion-drive reservoir is characterized by a rapidly increasing gas-
oil ratio from all wells, regardless of their structural position. After the reservoir pressure
has been reduced below the bubble-point pressure, gas evolves from solution
throughout the reservoir.
Once the gas saturation exceeds the critical gas saturation, free gas begins to flow
toward the wellbore and the gas-oil ratio increases. The gas will also begin a vertical
movement due to the gravitational forces, which may result in the formation of a
secondary gas cap. Vertical permeability is an important factor in the formation of a
secondary gas cap.
• Ultimate oil-recovery: Oil production by depletion drive is usually the least efficient
recovery method. This is a direct result of the formation of gas saturation throughout the
reservoir. Ultimate oil recovery from depletion-drive reservoirs may vary from less than
5% to about 30%. The low recovery from this type of reservoirs suggests that large
quantities of oil remain in the reservoir and, therefore, depletion-drive reservoirs are
considered the best candidates for secondary recovery applications.

1
The above characteristic trends occurring during the production life of depletion-drive
reservoirs are summarized below:

2
1.2 Sensitivity Analysis

Definition
A possible definition of sensitivity analysis is the following: The study of how uncertainty
in the output of a model (numerical or otherwise) can be apportioned to different
sources of uncertainty in the model input (Saltelli et al., 2004). A related practice is
‘uncertainty analysis’, which focuses rather on quantifying uncertainty in model output.
Ideally, uncertainty and sensitivity analyses should be run in tandem, with uncertainty
analysis preceding in current practice. For this definition of sensitivity analysis to be of
use, it must first be made clear what is meant here by ‘model’, numerical or otherwise,
as well as by the terms ‘input’ and ‘output’.

Models
A view of modelling that may help to illustrate the role of sensitivity analysis in the
scientific process is offered in Figure 1.1, taken from the work of biologist Robert Rosen
(1991) (see also Saltelli et al., 2000, pp. 3–4). On the left in Rosen’s diagram we have
the ‘world’, that is the system which forms the subject of our investigation. We have
reason to believe that the system, whether natural or artificial, is governed by rules
which we have the ambition to uncover, or to use to our advantage. To this end we craft
or hypothesize a set of structures in a model (depicted on the right-hand side of the
figure). For example, a hypothesized growth mechanism for a species contained in the
world can be translated into a differential equation in a model. While our species
continues growing and dying quietly in the world, following the forces of its own
systemic causality (which we aim to understand), our differential equation can be solved
using the rules of mathematical calculus. The intuition of Rosen is that while the species
in the world obeys rules, and the differential equation in the model has ‘rules’ as well,
whether formal or mathematical, no ‘rule’ whatsoever can dictate how one should map
the hypothesized rules in the world onto the rules in the model. In the words of Rosen,
while the world and the model are each internally ‘entailed’, nothing entails the world
with the model. Among the reasons for this paradox is the fact that the portion of the
world captured by the model is an arbitrary ‘enclosure’ of an otherwise open,
interconnected system.1 This is the case when the world is part of a natural system, the
main concern of Rosen’s inquiry. Yet experience has shown that even when the world is
indeed a well-defined and closed system, for instance an artefact, an artificial device or
a piece of machinery, different modellers can generate different nonequivalent
descriptions of it, that is, models whose outputs are compatible with the same set of
observations but whose structures are not reconcilable with one another.

3
While this may be disturbing to a student accustomed to the beauty and apparent self-
evidence of physical laws, practitioners of modelling have come to live with the rather
unpleasant reality that more than one model may be compatible with the same set of
data or evidence. Some have gone so far as to coin a word for this paradox: equifinality
– Beven (1993, 2001), see also Saltelli et al. (2004, pp. 173–178) – meaning that
different models can lead to the same end. Others refer to the phenomenon as model
indeterminacy.
Since Galileo’s time scientists have had to deal with the limited capacity of the human
mind to create useful maps of ‘world’ into ‘model’. The emergence of ‘laws’ can be seen
in this context as the painful process of simplification, separation and identification
which leads to a model of uncharacteristic simplicity and beauty.

4
1.3 One Parameter at a Time method (OPAT)

The one-factor-at-a-time method, also known as one-variable-at-a

time, OFAT, OF@T, OFaaT, OVAT, OV@T, OVaaT, or monothetic analysis is a
method of designing experiments involving the testing of factors, or causes, one at a
time instead of multiple factors simultaneously.
1. Advantages
OFAT is favored by non-experts, especially in situations where the data is cheap
and abundant.
There exist cases where the mental effort required to conduct a complex multi-
factor analysis exceeds the effort required to acquire extra data, in which case
OFAT might make sense. Furthermore, some researchers have shown that
OFAT can be more effective than fractional factorials under certain conditions
(number of runs is limited, primary goal is to attain improvements in the system,
and experimental error is not large compared to factor effects, which must be
additive and independent of each other).[1][2]
2. Disadvantages
In contrast, in situations where data is precious and must be analyzed with care,
it is almost always better to change multiple factors at once. A middle-school-
level example illustrating this point is the family of balance puzzles, which
includes the Twelve Coins puzzle. At the undergraduate level, one could
compare Bevington's[3] GRIDLS versus GRADLS . The latter is far from optimal,
but the former, which changes only one variable at a time, is worse. See also
the factorial experimental design methods pioneered by Sir Ronald A. Fisher.
Reasons for disfavoring OFAT include:
1. OFAT requires more runs for the same precision in effect estimation
2. OFAT cannot estimate interactions
3. OFAT can miss optimal settings of factors
Designed experiments remain nearly always preferred to OFAT with many types
and methods available,[4] in addition to fractional factorials which, though usually
requiring more runs than OFAT, do address the three concerns above.[5] One
modern design over which OFAT has no advantage in number of runs is
the Plackett-Burman which, by having all factors vary simultaneously (an
important quality in experimental designs),[5] gives generally greater precision in
effect estimation.

5
1.4 Response Surface Methodology (RSM)

Response surface methodology (RSM) is a collection of mathematical and statistical techniques

for empirical model building. By careful design of experiments, the objective is to optimize a
response (output variable) which is influenced by several independent variables (input
variables). An experiment is a series of tests, called runs, in which changes are made in the input
variables in order to identify the reasons for changes in the output response.

The application of RSM to design optimization is aimed at reducing the cost of expensive
analysis methods (e.g. finite element method or CFD analysis) and their associated numerical
noise. The problem can be approximated with smooth functions that improve the convergence of
the optimization process because they reduce the effects of noise and they allow for the use of
derivative-based algorithms. Venter et al. (1996) have discussed the advantages of using RSM
for design optimization applications.
In this thesis a new approach using genetic programming is suggested. The advantage is that the
structure of the approximation is not assumed in advance, but is given as part of the solution,
thus leading to a function structure of the best possible quality. In addition, the complexity of the
function is not limited to a polynomial but can be generalised with the inclusion of any
mathematical operator (e.g. trigonometric functions), depending on the engineering
understanding of the problem. The regression coefficients included in the approximation model
are called the tuning parameters and are estimated by minimizing the sum of squares of the errors
(Box and Draper, 1987):

where wp is a weight coefficient that characterizes the relative contribution of the information of
the original function at the point p, p=1,...,P.
The construction of response surface models is an iterative process. Once an approximate model
is obtained, the goodness-of-fit determines if the solution is satisfactory. If this is not the case,
the approximation process is restarted and further experiments are made or the GP model is
evolved with different parameters.

Design of experiments

An important aspect of RSM is the design of experiments (Box and Draper, 1987), usually
abbreviated as DoE. These strategies were originally developed for the model fitting of physical
experiments, but can also be applied to numerical experiments. The objective of DoE is the
selection of the points where the response should be evaluated.

6
Most of the criteria for optimal design of experiments are associated with the mathematical
model of the process. Generally, these mathematical models are polynomials with an unknown
structure, so the corresponding experiments are designed only for every particular problem. The
choice of the design of experiments can have a large influence on the accuracy of the
approximation and the cost of constructing the response surface.

RSM can be used for the approximation of both experimental and numerical responses. Two
steps are necessary, the definition of an approximation function and the design of the plan of
experiments. Genetic programming is the method of choice to find a suitable approximation
function. It should be noted that if the model building is to be repeated within an iterative scheme
(e.g. with mid-range approximations), van Keulen’s plan would become an attractive alternative
as it adds points to an existing plan. This thesis is primarily focused on building global
approximations.

Fig (1.2) Designed experiments with full factorial design (left), response surface with
second-degree polynomial (right)

7
 2. Reservoir Characterization
2.1 Reservoir Gird
The reservoir is depletion drive reservoir, it is actual size is 1040 m × 740 m and the
depth to the reservoir is 3200m. The grid (I,J,K) are (26,20,6), delta x and delta y are
(40m, 37m), with two producer wells,the grid illustrated in the fig below:

Fig.(2.1) Reservoir grid

2.2 Reservoir Rock Properties

The thickness, porosity and permeability of each layer is illustrated in the following table

Properties of Each Layer

8
2.3 Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure
The reservoir relative permeability and capillary pressure are illustrated in the following
tables:

oil water relative permeability

Liquid-Gas Relative Permeability Curve

9
2.4 Fluid Properties and PVT Data
The PVT Data is illustrated in the following table

PVT Data

Fluid properties are illustrated in the following table:

2.5 Initial Conditions

10
2.6 Water Properties @ Reference pressure

2.7 Constrains for Production Well

11
 3.Work Procedure
3.1 CMG Builder Work
After building the model, the perforating of the layers has many scenarios, and they are
denoted in the following table:

Single layer perforation Multiple layer perforation

Layer 1 Layer 1-6
Layer 2 Layer 2-6
Layer 3 Layer 3-6
Layer 4 Layer 4-6
Layer 5 Layer 5-6
Layer 6 Layer 4-5-6

3.2 CMOST Work

Sensitivity analysis parameters and limits values are noted in the table below:

12
CMOST Scenarios
1. One Parameter at a Time (OPAT)
2. Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
a. Linear + Quadratic
b. Linear + Quadratic + Interaction

13
 4. Result Discussion
4.1 CMG Builder Perforating Scenarios
The following tables illustrate the result of 12 scenarios of layers perforating:
Oil Gas Water
Perforated Layers Pressure (Kpa)
(MSM3) (MMSM3) (MSM3)
Cum prod 656.86 573.5 0.00267 Initial 33902
layer 1 Reamaining 3900.2 203.66 1877.8 final 4972.1
ratio of prod 14% 74% 0% Remaining Pres. 13%
Cum prod 747.06 690.15 0.00643 Initial 34182
layer2 Reamaining 3811.2 86.191 1877.8 final 1516.2
ratio of prod 16% 89% 0% Remaining Pres. 4%
Cum prod 861.75 720.78 0.04121 Initial 34326
layer3 Reamaining 3694.8 55.575 1877.8 final 1025.8
ratio of prod 19% 93% 0% Remaining Pres. 3%
Cum prod 1025.3 660.19 0.18634 Initial 34025
layer4 Reamaining 3533 117.8 1877.6 final 2223.8
ratio of prod 22% 85% 0% Remaining Pres. 6%
Cum prod 1143.1 724.23 0.82257 Initial 34243
layer5 Reamaining 3417.8 51.899 1877 final 880.23
ratio of prod 25% 93% 0% Remaining Pres. 3%
Cum prod 1257.5 436.87 1.1199 Initial 32707
layer6 Reamaining 3297.7 340.18 1876.7 final 8114.6
ratio of prod 28% 56% 0% Remaining Pres. 20%
Cum prod 758.36 735.32 0.27747 Initial 33971
layer1-6 Reamaining 3799 41.824 1877.5 final 701.41
Production% 17% 95% 0% Remaining Pres. 2%
Cum prod 780.66 748.65 0.13687 Initial 34194
layer2-6 Reamaining 3777 27.549 1877.7 final 519.26
Production% 17% 96% 0% Remaining Pres. 1%
Cum prod 871.85 752.1 0.10545 Initial 34328
layer3-6 Reamaining 3684.8 24.453 1877.7 final 501.67
Production% 19% 97% 0% Remaining Pres. 1%
Cum prod 1087.8 681.78 0.60758 Initial 34110
layer4-6 Reamaining 3469.9 95.07 1877.2 final 1665
Production% 24% 88% 0% Remaining Pres. 5%
Cum prod 1147.3 727.35 0.94119 Initial 34249
layer5-6 Reamaining 3411.2 48.686 1876.9 final 829.4
Production% 25% 94% 0% Remaining Pres. 2%
Cum prod 1123 735.23 0.84043 Initial 34288
layers 4-5-6 Reamaining 3435.6 40.865 1877 final 725.98
Production% 25% 95% 0% Remaining Pres. 2%

14
From the table of result above the best scenario of perforating layers is perforating layer
number 6 because the result give maximum oil production, minimum gas production
and the maximum value of final reservoir, and this will be more clear in the following
graphs of the results.

Fig.(4.1) Cumulative Oil Production

15
Fig.(4.2) Cumulative Gas Production

Fig(4.3) Average Reservoir Pressure

16
4.2 CMOST Sensitivity Analysis result

4.2.1 One Parameter at a Time (OPAT)

 Sensitivity analysis for oil production, the factors affecting on the production of
the oil is shown in the fig below

Fig(4.4) OPAAT Analysis for oil production (OPAT)

The most effective parameters on oil production are (porosity of layer2, porosity of
layer3, porosity of layer1, porosity of layer4, permeability of layer5, permeability of
layer6, oil compressibility and porosity of layer5).

17
  Sensitivity analysis for Gas production, the following figure illustrate the
parameters effecting on the gas production

Fig(4.5) OPAAT Analysis for gas production (OPAT)

The most effective parameters effect on gas production are (porosity of layer3, porosity
of layer5, porosity of layer2, porosity of layer4, porosity of layer1, bubble point pressure
and porosity of layer6).

18
4.2.2 Response Surface Methodology (RSM) (Linear + Quadratic)
 Sensitivity analysis of Oil production, tornedo chart illustrate the parameter effect
on oil production as shown in figure below.

Fig.(4.6) Tornedo chart of oil production (RSM-LQ)

Fig(4.7) Effects chart for oil production (RSM-LQ).

The maximum effect on oil production is (+1.102MM m 3), the most effective parameters
are (porosity of layer2, flow status of layer6, bubble point pressure (has negative effect),
flow state of layer5, porosity of layer1, permeability of layer2, flow state of layer1,
porosity of layer3, porosity of layer6, flow state of layer4).As shown in fig(4.7) there is
no interactive effects.

19
The R-Squire value is illustrated in the table below.
R-Square 0.689186
R-Square Adjusted 0.640622
R-Square Prediction 0.580506
Mean of Response 725085
Standard Error 153614
The R-squire value is low due to analysis is not very accurate.

 The sensitivity analysis of gas production, the parameters effect on gas

production are illustrated in the figures below.

fig(4.8) Tornedo chart for gas production (RSM-LQ)

20
 Fig(4.9) effects for gas production (RSM-LQ).
The maximum effect on gas production is (1.31MMM m3), the most effecting parameters
on gas production are (flow status of layer2, porosity of layer2, porosity of layer6, oil
compressibility (has negative effect), porosity of layer5, flow status of layer3, flow status
of layer4).

The R-Squire value is illustrated in the table below.

R-Square 0.510329
R-Square Adjusted 0.459169
R-Square Prediction 0.385952
Mean of Response 7.18975E+08
Standard Error 1.79479E+08
The R-Squire value is low due to the analysis is not vary accurate.

21
 The sensitivity analysis of bottom hole pressure, the effects of parameters on
bottom hole pressure are shown in the figure below.

Fig.(4.10) Tornedo chart of well bottom hole pressure (RSM-LQ)

Fig(4.11) Effects of well bottom hole pressure (RSM-LQ).

22
The maximum effects on bottom hole pressure is (2357 Kpa), the most effects
parameters on bottom hole pressure are (flow status of layer2(has negative effect), oil
compressibility, porosity of layer3, porosity of layer4, rock compressibility).There is no
interactive effects only main effect is shown in the fig(4.11).

The R-Squire value of the analysis of bottom hole pressure is shown in table below.
R-Square 0.321925
R-Square Adjusted 0.272790
R-Square Prediction 0.194227
Mean of Response 2113.22
Standard Error 3621.23
The R-Squire is very low due to the analysis is completely not accurate.

23
4.2.3 Response Surface Methodology (RSM) (Linear + Quadratic +
Interaction)
 The sensitivity analysis of oil production, the parameters effects on oil production
are illustrated in the figure below.

Fig(4.12) Tornedo chart of oil production (RSM-LQI)

Fig(4.13) Effects of oil production (RSM-LQI).

24
The maximum effect of oil production is (1.102MM m3), the most parameters effect on
oil production are (flow status of layer6, flow status of layer5, porosity of layer2, porosity
of layer1, porosity of layer3, flow status of layer4, permeability of layer5,…). As shown
in the fig(4.13) there is the main effect and the interactive effect of each parameter.

The R-Squire value of the analysis of oil production parameters sensitivities is shown
below.
R-Square 0.848428
R-Square Adjusted 0.820737
R-Square Prediction 0.785589
Mean of Response 714344
Standard Error 104107
R-Squire value is high due to good analysis of parameters.

 The sensitivity analysis of gas production, the parameters effects on gas

production are illustrated in the figures below.

Fig(4.14) Tornedo chart of gas production (RSM-LQI).

25
 Fig(4.15) Effects of gas production (RSM-LQI).

The maximum effect on gas production is (+ 1.31MMM m3), the most parameters effects
on gas production are (flow status of layer2, flow status of layer3, flow status of layer1,
porosity of layer3, bubble point pressure, porosity of layer5, porosity of layer2, porosity
of layer2, porosity of layer6, porosity of layer4 …).The main effects and the interactive
effects is illustrated in the fig(4.15).

R-Squired value of the analysis of gas production parameters sensitivities is illustrated

in the table below.
R-Square 0.715406
R-Square Adjusted 0.670540
R-Square Prediction 0.613954
Mean of Response 7.24246E+08
Standard Error 1.32869E+08

R-Squire is moderate due to good analysis of the parameters.

26
 The sensitivity analysis of bottom hole pressure, the parameters effect on the
bottom hole pressure is shown in the figure.

Fig(4.16) Tornedo chart of well bottom hole pressure (RSM-LQI).

Fig(4.17) Effects of well bottom hole pressure (RSM-LQI).

27
The maximum effect on the bottom hole pressure is (25220 Kpa), the most parameters
effects on bottom hole pressure are (flow status of layer2, flow status of layer3, flow
status of layer1, flow status of layer6, porosity of layer2, porosity of layer3,reference
pressure, flow status of layer5, oil compressibility, flow status of layer4…).

The main effects and the interactive effects of parameters on bottom hole pressure
illustrated in fig(4.17).

The R-Squired value of the analysis of parameters sensitivities.

R-Square 0.535443
R-Square Adjusted 0.460938
R-Square Prediction 0.370135
Mean of Response 1921.72
Standard Error 3190.52

R-Squire is low due to bad or not accurate analysis of parameters.

28
 5. Conclusion
 One parameter at time method has disadvantages that it is not sensitive for
interaction between parameters.
 Response surface methodology RSM with linear + quadratic analysis also has
disadvantages of it is not sensitive for interaction between parameters.
 The most effective parameters on oil production are (porosity of layer1, porosity
of layer2, porosity of layer3).
 The most effective parameters on gas production are (porosity of layer3, porosity
of layer5, porosity of layer6).
 Other parameters also have an effect but fewer than the parameters which listed
above, these parameters are (permeability of layer6, bubble point pressure,
permeability of layer5, flow status of layer3, flow status of layer5, flow status of
layer6, flow status of layer2)
 The best method of analysis is the Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
Linear+Quadratic+Interactive, it has the highest R-Square value and it is most
sensitive method for all parameters and the relationship between them.

29
 6. References
1. Friedman, M., and Savage, L. J. (1947), “Planning Experiments Seeking Maxima,” in
Techniques of Statistical Analysis, eds. C. Eisenhart, M. W. Hastay, and W. A. Wallis,
New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 365-372.
2. Jump up^ Daniel , C. (1973) ,“One-at-a-Time Plans,” Journal of the American Statistical
Association 68, 353-360
3. Jump up^ Bevington and Robinson, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical
Sciences, 2nd Ed. McGraw–Hill (1992)
4. Jump up^ See Category: Experimental design, at bottom.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b Czitrom (1999) "One-Factor-at-a-Time Versus Designed Experiments",
American Statistician, 53, 2.
6. Ahmed, Tarek H., 1946–Reservoir engineering handbook / Tarek Ahmed.—4th ed.p. cm.
ISBN 978-1-85617-803-7 (alk. paper)
7. Global sensitivity analysis. The Primer / Andrea Saltelli [et al.].p. cm.ISBN 978-0-470-05997-5
(cloth : acid-free paper)

30

View publication stats