Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3.4.1 Objectives
The focus of t using material balance
techniques in MBAL, provide representative estimates of original volumes in place
and drive mechanisms acting by history matching the model to pressure and
production data.
Knowledge of the drive mechanisms acting will increase one's understanding of the
reservoir's potential production. Relative permeabilities for gas and water will be
estimated by matching historical fractional water production to simulated water
production (from the model) and this shall be tested by performing a prediction
calculation.
User Information
WT Model
Product~onHistory
I
Compos~t~onal
Model Platform]
From this interfabe, a single tank model -has been chosen with oil defined as the
main fluid and production hictory will be provided as a cummulative for the entire
reservoir.
a
Next on th main menu, click on PVT I Fluid Properties and input the following PVT
I
properties of the reservoir fluid expressed at standard conditions and match s lack oil
correlations to the bubble point conditions of the fluid. A
\@ 250 deg F)
Bubble point (Pb) 2200 ps~g
L
Solution GOR
Oil FVF @ P,I
Oil Viscosity @ I 0.4 CP
Oil gravity 39 API
Gas gravity 0.798
Water Salinity 100,000 PPM
No Impurities
II Tank
Parameters
1
Water
Influx
Time I
Rock Rock PoreVolume Relative Product~on
Compress. Compaction vs Depth Permeability Hi$tor~
Medium Edit..
Medium Edit..
Medium Edit..
Medium Edit..
Medium Edit..
1-1
I
........................................
In the PVT section, any set ot black oil correlations can be used to define the PVT
properties of the fluid. With laboratory measurements available, the black oil
correlations will be matched to them and the best correlation which reproduces the
PVT hehaviour of the fluid will be selected.
PVT matching is conducted by selecting the Match button and the following screen
appears and we can enter measured data at bubble point as indicated in the
following screen:
Temperature deg F
-
With the data entered, click on Match to proceed to the regression interface. Select
Match All on the bottom and then Calc. This matches all the correlations available
to measured data.
Match on Mat s
1 All I None
................................ I I SM Deviation Parameter 1 Parameter 2
d ;Bubble Point
................................
d Gas Oil Ratio
d Oil FVF
Above Bubble Point
d oil Viscosity
1Gas N F
_] Gas V~scos~ty
Correlations
I
With the matching concluded, click on Match Param where the regression match
parameters 1 and 2; and standard deviation are reported for each correlation. For
this example, Glaso correlation gives the best match for Pb, Rs and Bo while Beggs
correlation will be used for viscosity calculations.
This step completes teh reservoir fluid PVT description. The next step is to define
reservoir parameters for the tank model.
On the main menu bar click on Input I Tank Data, where the following information
about the reservoir is entered.
i
I ank type Oil
rank name TankOl
-
Temperature 250 degree
Initial pressure 4000 psig
Porosity 0.23
Connate water saturation 0.25
Water compressibility Ise Corr
Initial gas cap 0
Original oil in place 206 MMSTB
Start of production 01/01/1998
ters I
W Moriib I l o n t d
n Gaa Coning
Water Coning
UmFrachal flm Tafde [mteadaf re1 perme]
On the tank parameters tnterface, the reeservoir fluid volumes and initial pressure
and ~tempemtureconditions are defined.
The reservoir is initially undersaturated as indicated by an initial gas cap of zero (i-e.
OGIPJOOIP ratio). In addition, from the fluid PVT model, bubble point pressure is
2200p~iwhich indicates that reservoir is initially undematurated and no free gas
exists at initial conditions. Based on fluid PVT model, the program determines the
initial state of the reservoir. In case the reservoir is saturated, an initial estimate of
the gas cap size is required. Also, an initial estimate of volumes of oil in place as
obtained from geological surveys is required and a production start date.
Next, information about aquifer support for the reservoir is required. As there is yet
no evidence to suggest the presena af an aquifer, this will be left as None.
The next information required is about the formation rock compressibility to
determine energy contribution due to Hydrocarbon pore volume reduction. This can
be user-specified, obtained from a porosity correlation or variable in terms of
pressure. For this example, it shall be determined from porosity correlations.
, , ]
. Compaction vs Depth
Tne next data required is the relative permeability data. Relative permeability data is
used in prediction calculations only. It is used to determine the fractional flow of
water and/or gas which depend on the water and gas saturation in the tank. This
defines the evolution of WC and/or GOR. If an initial gas cap exists and it is being
produced from, the total reservoir volume including the gas cap should be used to
obtain tank saturation (i-e. connate and irreducible saturations should be entered
relative to the entire reservoir system). Relative permeability can be entered in form
of tables or Corey functions. The following data based on Corey functions is input.
I H ' i I
,I
II Tank
Parameters
I
Water
Influx
Time I
Rock
Reservoir I
Rock Pore Volume Relative Production
Compress. Compaction vs Depth Permeability History
1Work withI;OR
The data is copied from the we and pasted in this section using a right-click on the
parameters tab (Top) of the interface and selecting 'Paste'. Alternatively, any of the
row serial numbers can be right-clicked upon and the option to paste the data is
available.
As a quality control step, the production history data can be compared with the PVT
model for consistency. From PVT model, bubble point pressure = 2200psi and
solution GOR = 500scfIstb. Clicking on Work with GOR at the bottom of the
production history interface converts Cummulative gas rates into produced GOR
values.
By scrolling down across the data, it can be seen that the reservoir is undersaturated
throughout the history i.e pressure is always above the bubble point of 2200 psig.
There is no free gas in the tank and hence the producing GOR equals solution GOR.
Indeed in this case the gas rates coverted into GOR values give approximately 500
SCFISTB. This shows that the data is consistent with the PVT.
In cases where the cumulative GOR is not consistent with PVT data, both should be
reviewed.
With consistent production history and PVT data, the history match can be
conducted. It is important to note that a model which closely reproduces historical
behaviour of the reservoir when different history match techniques are employed is
what is sought after. Select History Matching I All. This produces the following
plots.
I
The first plot is the Energy Plot which shows the contribution of various drive
mechanisms towards producti n with time
The Campbell plot s h o w some f a n of energy acting (initial increase and then a
stabilisation). This is most llkely due to an aquifer acting and thus an aquifer model
will be input into the model. The following aquifer properties are input as shown
below and performing the history match again gives the following profiles.
I
Model Hurst-van Everdmgen-Mod~hed
System Rad~alAqu~fer 11
Reservolr Th~ckness 1250 feet
Reservcur Radus 12500 feet
Outerhner Rad~usratlo 15 7
EncroachmentAngle 1180 degrees
Aqu~ferPermeabhty 1
101md
This same objective Ean b& achieved in the Q(tD) versus tD - Radial Aquifer plot.
Double click on the plot to change the to change the profile to a smaller
, , r value of
4.0 such that on the analytical plot, the actual history points and the model response
fairly match as shown below.
From the analytical plot, it can be seen that a fairly good match is obtained between
the model and historical data. However from the Campbell plot (graphical method) a
horizontal profile was not obtained. It is thus recommended to perform history match
while viewing all the different history match techniques at thesame time (i-e. History
match! All) SQ that a model which reproduces reality across all the techniques is
selected.
With a close match between model and measured data as seen on the analytical
plot, a regreqsion can be performed on other parameters in the model to produce a
match across all the techniques (graphical and analytical). Click on Regression on
the analytical plot menu bar. Select the following parameters to be regressed upon.
7
With the history match completed, a model is obtained with certain parameters for
volumes in place and drive mechanisms acting. It is imperative to verify the
regressed figures using both engineering judgement and knowledge of the system
as well as conducting some sensitivity analysis on the model parameters. In
sensitivity analysis the sensitivity of the model response to changes in parameters
obtained through history matchlregression are checked.
Aquifer -P m B nd
Formatmn Compress~b~l~ty iltpi
n
2
d
e
On the x-axis is the OIP and on the y-axis is the standard deviation in terms of
predicted production rates over the history. The presence of a minimum shows the
uniqueness of the solution.
Similarly, a sensitivity analyses on other parameters of drive mechanism acting like
the aquifer parameters for this case can be performed.
With a sensitivity analysis done, the next step is to check the quality of the history
match. This is achieved using the Run Simulation step. The fundamental difference
in the calculation for the Analytical Method of History Matching and the Run
Simulation is explained in the following paragraphs.
A plot of tank pressure with time shows a good match between model and historical
data.
ked Examples\Physics
1
Input ata
It will be assumed that all wells in this example have the same lift tables.
Lift tables can be generated in PROSPER and then imported in MBAL. These have
already been prepared and can be found in:
C:\Program Files\Petroleum Experts\lPM 7.0\Samples\Worked Example\Physics
Examples\Production and Prediction\GasTank Well Lift Tables.TPD
3.5.1.1 Learning topics
3.5.1.2
A
Executive Summary
-
Assign individual matched fractional flows to each well
Input VLP model - Import lift curves
Input production schedule
Rur wediction
The starting point for this example is gasTankl .mbi file located in the above
mentioned directory.
w
Step-by-step procedure for a prediction run in MBAL
1 , PredictionStep Size
4 Automatic [recommended]
> User Defined 1
151days
Select Production Prediction I Production and Constraints and enter date and
Manifold Pressure as shown in the screenshot below:
The manifold
.m $t
re corresponds to the fu hest downstream node pressure which
the well prod ainst. In this example, the manifold pressure is the well head
pressure.
Select Done.
1
3.5.4 STEP 3 : We
A
This is where t fined. Each well is defined by a VLP (Vertical lift
performance) a rformance Relationship).
Clicking the " + button tu add a well. The well name can be changed to
"
Setup
Since a well ~,,del is being U,ed io predict main fluid phase, the eveolution of other
fluid phases are obtained from the pseudo-re1 perms. The pseudo-re1 perms have
been matched individually for each well since production history was obtained on a
well basis. Details on how to match historical fractional flow by well is provided later.
To assign the pseudo relative permeabilities matchea for the wells during the
fractional flow matching, select Use b l perm 1 I Edit 1 Copy. A list of all the
permeability tables available in the MEAL model is displayed:
Cam frm
Here select Material balance -'w$I Producer#, and then select Copy and then the
Corey parameters are assigned tatthe well.
Do you wish to copy the water breakthrough from the copied relative permeability curve?
I
From the menu toolbar of the plot screen, select Well, and then the well whose
fractional flow is to be matched.
By default, the breakthrough saturation (green line) is at the value entered under the
Rel perm data section of Tank data. This value can be changed by double-clicking
on the plot area to the t corresponding to ired breakthrough water
saturation.
Click on KegreSS, so mat the program can perform a regression to match the
fractional flow as computed from pseudo-re1 perms entered under tank data (blue
line) to the historical fractional flow (data points) by varying corey function
parameters.
I
l ~ a t e ras Ratlo -1 STBtMMscf
Select Done I Done and this completes the setup of this well.
Repeat the same process for two other wells using the data given in above sections.
Please note that the same .tpd file will be used for all the wells.
With the data for all the prediction three wells entered, click on Done to go back to
the main interface.
1 L
The main screen now shows three history wells and three prediction wells. Please
note that there are only three wells in reality. These have only been split into history
and prediction wells. Note the difference between the wells. It is further advisable to
differentiate between history and prediction wells in terms of nomenclature e.g. An
additional "P" for prediction wells.
1
I I Start
Time
End
Time --
Numbe~
of Wells 7Definitii
DownTime
Factor
The reporting frequency is set to "Automatic" and the option to "Keep history" is
selected. I
1 0uw Lid I
3.5.9
-
The "Keep History" button allows to have the full history stream along with the
prediction stream for comparison purposes. Click on Done to exit the screen.
STEP 8 : Production . iction
Click on Production Prediction I Run Prediction I Calculate, then Ok. The results
we
of th alcul tion are displayed: