Name : Salah Abdul Ghani Almahdi 1617

Introduction
Reservoir engineers have a variety of responsibilities, including estimating
reserves, and planning field development, which necessitates a thorough
understanding of optimizing production operations and reservoir
characteristics, but perhaps their most important task is to create
Mathematical-Model that accurately captures physical processes taking place
in reservoir. so that any action's outcomes predicted with the least possible
degree of engineering error. According to Muskat (1945), one of jobs of
reservoir engineers is to forecast the future performance of the reservoir based
on its historical performance. As a result, the reservoir is always correct,
regardless of how the engineer's concept is perceived to be right or incorrect,
foolish or brilliant, honest or dishonest. Reservoir engineering models must be
revised to reflect production behavior since reservoirs rarely operate as
planned. In order to evaluate the viability of oil and gas reservoirs and
optimize their performance, a precise forecast of future production rates under
varied operating conditions is essential. When there is a shortage of complete
reservoir data, it is impossible to frequently utilize the traditional way of
utilizing deliverability and material balance equations to anticipate production
performance of reservoirs.
In reservoir engineering, reservoir performance refers to how much a specific
reservoir will be able to produce over its lifetime (in terms of the total amount
of hydrocarbon in place) AND how quickly the output will decrease over time.
The purpose of each study and analysis is to respond to the two queries above
the aim is to maximize recovery factor R.F. and keep the rate of production
decline as little as possible over reservoir's lifetime (for economic viability,
i.e., producing while making enough profit to continue production) in order to
get the reservoir to produce as much hydrocarbon as it can while it is still in
place. A variety of parameters are investigated for evaluating reservoir
performance, and a clear understanding is required for an appropriate
performance assessment :
• Reservoir Pressure and Drive Mechanism (Dynamic and Static)
• pore volume geometry
• water saturation and lateral extent
The process of predicting reservoir performance involves iterations. The future
optimization of reservoir management forecasting a field necessitates the
fulfillment of a convergence criterion subsequent to the attainment of a
satisfactory history match, within a limited timeframe.
Utilizing concept of material balance rather than numerical approach that
splits reservoir into grid blocks, there are basically four ways to forecast
reservoir performance. These are as follows:

• Muskat ,Method
• Tracy ,Technique
• Tarner ,Technique
• Schilthuis, Technique

All Methods utilized to forecast a reservoir's future performance based on a

combination of the right MBE and instantaneous GOR utilizing right
saturation equation. Calculations performed once more at number of
hypothetical pressure drops. Typically, the stock-tank barrel of oil at the
bubble-point pressure is utilized in these computations.
Economides et , the cumulative oil produced over the bubble point pressure is
determined directly from the material balance equations.
The Goal of this study or project is to get the reservoir to produce as much as
possible of the hydrocarbon in place (maximize recovery factor R.F) and keep
the rate of production decline as low as possible over the life of the reservoir
(for economic viability i.e. producing while making enough profit to continue
production).
While the simulation technique prediction is intricate and requires a geologic
modelling, fluid, rock, , historical production data, and all reservoir events, but
petroleum experts developed the software called Integrated Production
Modeling (IPM) based on material balance to forecast hydrocarbon reservoir
performance.

Previous Studies
We present a few of the research that has been conducted to examine reservoir
performance prediction :
Okotie Sylvester,2015 Introduce a new mathematical module that accurately
captures physical processes taking place in the reservoir so that the results of
each operation can be anticipated with a tolerable margin of error. The various
physical processes that are taking place within the reservoir should be
adequately captured mathematically so that the outcomes of any operation
may be predicted with a tolerable margin of error.
Iroro Idogun,2015 compares the estimation of reserves utilizing the predicted
material balance and the dynamic simulation following history matching both
models. The results indicate that transmissibility modeling and aquifer
modeling are important components in establishing moderately accurate
MBAL models hydraulically, connected reservoirs are utilized for multi-tank
modeling to get a successful historical match and model calibration, it's crucial
to have a solid understanding of the reservoir fault structure and connectivity,
as well as appropriate and trustworthy BHP, injection, and production data.
The study's findings demonstrate an important comparison between the
Reserves estimates derived from dynamic simulation and MBAL. When time
and resources are scarce, Predictive Material Balance can be a rapid substitute
for reservoir simulation in the prediction of reservoir performance.
Additionally, predictive material balance analysis should be utilized in
reservoirs where there is sufficient data from the current wells to create
accurate inflow & outflow models.
J. O. Ayorinde,2019 illustrated in the Eni field Offshore Niger Delta, two
producing reservoirs (E40 and H10) were investigated with the goal of
accelerating their recovery rate while reducing the production of water. Stock
tank oil reserves were computed for enhanced validation utilizing the material
balance program MBAL, and the results were compared to reserve estimates
produced by both deterministic and stochastic approaches. The locations of
fluid contacts were also determined utilizing the MBAL model, as well as the
predominate drive mechanisms. These provide a roadmap for deciding if and
how to profitably produce any untapped oil that may still be present. Average
results from core and well-log studies served as the input parameters. The
history matching of historical data allowed for estimates of the likely future
production life and volume under various scenarios. The end results show that
even after 16 and 45 years, respectively, of uninterrupted production from the
examined reservoirs, there is still a sizable amount of unproduced oil that may
be profitably produced by infill wells. Given the rising demand for oil, gas,
and other energy sources to halt the ostensibly irreversible global warming, the
average production has increased by at least 33% of the remaining oil, which
is a significant amount.
Amarachi Uche Onuka, 2019 utilizes Hurst-Van Everdingen modified and
Schilthuis steady state water influx models to forecast the future performance
of an oil reservoir with no initial gas cap and produced by a powerful
underlying aquifer. The purpose of this analysis is to highlight how the Hurst-
Van Everdingen modified model and the Schilthuis steady-state water influx
model differ in their capacity to give reservoir engineers a thorough
understanding of the effects of aquifer influx into a reservoir on cumulative oil
production and estimation of oilin-place. By doing a simulation analysis
utilizing the Hurst-Van Everdingen modified and Schilthuis steady state
models from the MBAL program, the following reservoir parameters were
anticipated to change over a 20-year period. The oil recovery factor for the
production period under investigation was given as 26.76%. Hurst-Van
Everdingen adjusted water influx models and Schilthuis steady-state estimates
of recoverable reserves differed by 0.406738 MMSTB.
Prathmesh Sapale, 2019 compares reserve estimate methods by utilizing
predictive material balance,after history matching for both models and
dynamic simulation in MBAL software. The findings of this research
demonstrate the utilizefulness of MBAL for performance prediction and
history matching. The goal is to create the fundamental reservoir model. For
each technique, various models and algorithms are explained and tested
utilizing case studies. Based on identifying discrepancies between physical
reality and data with the aid of correlations, field data linked to PVT analysis,
production, and well data were collected for quality check. The size of the
aquifer and the history are matched to the initial oil that was present. In the
end, the conclusion drawn from numerous plots among different parameters
reflects the outcomes of historical data matches, simulation results,
Additionally, the observation of these data and comparable simulation results
on future forecast plots will serve as a representation of reservoir system
performance in the future.
C. G. J. Nmegbu,2021 Water aquifers with relative size content (most large)
limit the majority, if not all, reservoirs, therefore comparative research of the
oil recovery factor from two major aquifer geometry (Bottom and Edge water
aquifer) was produced. Identification of acceptable influx models for aquifer
characterization is the method adopted in this study. These aquifers are crucial
for the cumulative oil produced (MMSTB), the oil recovery factor (percent%),
and overall reservoir performance. The Niger Delta reservoir aquifer's
characteristics taken into account include permeability, porosity, and other
factors. Utilizing the regression technique, Material Balance Software
(MBAL) estimates the aquifer properties. This method entails computing the
reservoir's calculated pressure from production and PVT data and comparing it
to the average reservoir pressure from history.

History Matching Strategy for MBAL

The sequential menu selections of MBAL lead the engineer logically through
the history-matching procedure. This procedure analyzes the drive
mechanisms in utilize and assesses the credibility of the measured data entered
visually utilizing industry-standard approaches (such as Cole, Campbell, and
P/Z plots). A simulation of the history is run when the analytical model and
history have been matched utilizing the analytical methods offered in MBAL.
This simulation yields the following two practical results: By first simulating
the historical era, the user can compare the production patterns predicted by
the model with the data entered (a close match indicating a good history
match). Second, by running the history as a prediction, MBAL will ascertain
all of the historical production profiles, saturations, and reservoir pressures
over the duration of the historical period. This allows for the creation of
special relative permeability curves that are calibrated to the history-matched
model. The aforementioned method can be used to construct the Relative
Permeability curves for each well's draining region when historical data are
entered on a well-by-well basis. Tank by tank historical data can also be
entered. Becautilize of its original nature, the analytical model deviates from
traditional literature-based models and can approach the response of reality.

Matching Parameters Determination

In order to match the MBAL results with the observed data, the most
uncertain variables were first adjusted to match the input data from the
simulator with the observed data. The creation of a single-tank model reduced
overall uncertainty; in fact, eliminating the transmissibility components also
reduced overall uncertainty. This provides a chance to roughly estimate the
aquifer system characteristics and use them to build the multi-tank model.
Using the MBAL non-linear regression option, many parameters can be
optimized in a single realization. However, vigilance is required becautilize
optimizing any ambiguous parameter could provide unreal outcomes. Finding
the appropriate choice of variables is essential since even uncertain parameters
have some level of uncertainty.

History matching parameters

Analytical Method

MBAL's analytical history matching approach is a plot-based technique that

utilizes a non-linear regression engine to help estimate reservoir and aquifer
parameters that are unknown. Based on the reservoir pressure and the
production of secondary fluids from the entered history, the program
determines the primary fluid production. Water is the secondary fluid here.
The So+ Sg+ Sw = 1 equation is regressed by the algorithm. The data in the
standard deviation can be utilized to check for errors in the regression's
material balance. (F-We)/(G*E)-1 =0. A number of less than 0.1 indicates a
good match. Through the utilize of analytical history matching, three different
outer-inner radios with red values of 4, 5, and 6 were employed to fit an
adequate-size aquifer. The value of red is thought to be less than 7 based on
seismic and geological evidence.
Graphical Method

Once a quality match is observed in the analytical plot, the aquifer size can be
confirmed using Havlena and Odeh's water drive plot (F/Et vs We/Et plot) in
the graphical method of MBAL .
The water content of the material balance is either too low or too high if the
F/Et vs. We/Et plot deviates from a straight line in either the upward or
downward direction. The model's cumulative findings are taken to be
appropriate after the plot assumes a unit slope form.

History Simulation

The history matching carried out utilizing the graphical and analytical
approaches receives a final quality check utilizing the history simulation of
MBAL. Analytical methods work the other way around from history
simulation methods. Based on the reservoir and aquifer model, it computes
reservoir pressures utilizing historical production data.
 Result :
The energy plot, as depicted in Figure , provides a visual illustration of the distinct
drive mechanisms and their respective contributions to the energy of the reservoir.