Estimated Fluid Contact Using

Material Balance Technique &

Volumetric Calculation Improves
Reservoir Management Plan

Panteha Ghahri
Guillaume Berthereau

1
Outline

• Objective
• Gryphon Reservoir-Overview
• The proposed approach(Material Balance
Modelling & Volumetric Calculation)
• Comparison the calculated fluid contacts with
4D seismic and simulation model

2
Objective

• Estimate WOC & GOC for Gryphon area using

an analytical approach
• Direct measurement of the fluid contacts is costly
and sometimes can be very challenging.
• It is also useful to validate the simulation model

3
Gryphon reservoir overview

• Production started from 1993

• Original oil column 190 ft
• Heavy Oil (21 deg API) Viscous oil (6 cP)
• Long tail end production at high watercut
• Long term plan to produce across a floating facility
(first permanently moored FPSO)
• Developed exclusively with horizontal production
wells
• Aquifer well to provide compatible injection
water/large connected aquifer
• Water & gas much more mobile than the oil in the
reservoir
4
Material balance modelling Gryphon and
nearby field

Gas+ Oil Production

Gas+ Oil
Gas Injection Production

(Gas Movement)

Moved GOC
GOC
GOC
The Original Oil Moved GOC
Moved WOC Rim Thickness

Moved WOC
WOC
WOC

Very
Aquifer Influx + Limited/Aquifer
Water Injection Index

5
Material balance & volumetric calculation

Gas, 1-Swi Gas, 1-Swi

Oil, 1-Swi-Sgr

Oil, 1-Swi Oil, 1-Swi

Water, Sor

Water

Initial Current

6
Material balance & volumetric calculation

• Material Balance Calculation

• Oil Produced: 121 MMbbl
• Oil left inside the water zone:14% of STOIIP
• Oil moved up to Gas zone:10% of STOIIP
• Remaining Oil: 47% of STOIIP

7
WOC & GOC vs. Time

8
Well position vs. WOC & GOC
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000
5200
Data from last test:
GOR =402
WOR=89%
PI=178
5300
Completion Interval of wells (TVDss )

5400

GOC-1993 GOC-2011
5500

5600

WOC-1993
WOC-2011
5700

9
Completion interval vs. WOC & GOC and WOR%

W2

W1

10
Completion interval vs. WOC & GOC and GOR

11
Reservoir management strategies

• The strategy is to keep the existing wells placed within the

oil rim by controlling the movements of the GOC & WOC.
• The WOC movements are controlled by re-injecting produced water
into the aquifer or the reservoir.
• The GOC movements are controlled by re-injecting the gas into the
gas cap and operating the wells at a GOR limit.
• Well performance data, 4D seismic, simulation modelling and
analytical calculation are used to monitor contact movements. This
understanding is applied to optimize new well placements.

12
 4D modelling
(1990) Acoustic impedance (2011)
2011-1990

Hardening
Acoustic impedance

Coloured inversion
Shale
No signal in shale

synthetic
Gas bearing Sand

Oil bearing Sand

Softening
Brine bearing Sand
No signal in shale

Shale

• 4D observed theoretically only due to fluid movement (no significant pressure change)

• Fluid movements over Gryphon:

• Gas into oil (due to production): softening
• Water into oil (due to production): hardening
• Oil into gas (water injection): hardening
4D (2011-1990): seismic
Polygon used for initial STOIIP calculation Sum +ve amplitude
2011-1990 (CI Full stack)
oGOC / oOWC
Hardening

• Polygon used to calculate

STOIIP, input to material
balance

• 4D showing water movement

into the oil leg due to:
• production
• water injection
4D (2011-1990): seismic / simulation model
Polygon used for initial STOIIP calculation Sum +ve amplitude
2011-1990 (CI Full stack)
oGOC / oOWC
Hardening

Column height
(water in oil leg)
2011-1990

• Decent qualitative match

between simulation model and
4D seismic
4D and fluid sections

Hardening
oGOC

Softening
oOWC

Moved OWC

HC

• Generally reasonable quantitative match between moved OWC from the simulation model
and 4D seismic
Moved contact comparison: material balance
and simulation model
Original Simulation model* Material balance
GOC 5541 5514 (Sgas90%) , 5518 (Sgas70%) 5519
OWC 5731 5638 - 5545 5631
* Average of the moved OWC given by the simulation model
Moved OWC (Sim. model)

• Very similar moved GOC from simulation

model and material balance (error within
vertical resolution)

• The moved OWC between simulation model

and material balance are in alignment.
Multi-scale injectites

T Balder

T Sele

5619.00’ 5622.00’ 5625.00’ 5628.00’

Adapted from Hurst and Cartwright
DYKE
INJECTION
BRECCIA
Stepped
• Remobilisation of the turbidites sandstone in
discordant
base
early Frigg times

• Creation of multi scale (from core to seismic

scale) injection wings

• Below seismic resolution injectites may account

for a significant volume, more than expected
DYKE DYKE
DYKE

Feeder dyke
system

5622.00’ 5625.00’ 5628.00’ 5631.00’

Conclusion
• Water and gas oil contacts has been calculated using material balance and
volumetric calculation

• Contacts from material balance were compared with those observed from the
simulation model:
• Moved OWC from the simulation reasonably matches 4D
• Moved OWC from material balance and simulation model are in alignment
• The difference is possibly associated to missing sand volume unresolved by
seismic (below seismic resolution injectites)
• Material balance can be used, in addition to well performance evaluation, 4D
seismic and simulation modelling, to monitor the contact movements
effectively. Results can be used to control well operations and placement of
new wells.

19
Acknowledgment

• The authors would like to thank the partner

Sojitz for its approval to present this work.
•We also would like to thanks our colleges who
support us during this study, Steve Milner,
Hope Okhuoya, Miguel Orta, David Kirby,
Duncan Chedburn, Doug Smith, Tim Heijen
and Fabrizio Conti.

20