Geological Modeling and Development of Exploitation Strategy for Water Drive Gas Reservoir

Praveen Srivastava, Dr. A. K. Chauhan & Amit Porwal

AbstractGas and oil production are different not only development plan for a gas field. As first step, modified because of the different physical characteristics of gas and oil, geological model has been selected to conduct following but also for purely economic reasons. Production from an oil study: field can be according to an optimum development and depletion pattern, based on its own merits, but a gas reservoir analysis is always directly linked to a market, therefore the physical characteristics cannot be always determine the best depletion pattern because the market must be able to accept the gas. Thus the gas field production cannot begin until the gas sales contract has been signed. The basic parameters required to determine the optimum development plan of the field must be known before field development begins. However, obtaining detailed knowledge of these parameters is impossible. Therefore, planning the gas field development plan in the context of gas scales contract is liable to much uncertainty. Keeping this in view, a comprehensive study has been undertaken to examine various important aspect of Reservoir performance prediction using CMGs simulator IMEX Comparison of GIIP obtained from volumetric analysis and Material balance analysis shows that there is discrepancy and reason for this has been analyzed. Gas deliverability profiles have been analyzed to decide optimum development strategy in absence of simulation study. Finally field scale study has been undertaken to generate different development variants and thereby carrying out economic analysis to suggest the optimal development variant. Thus through the present study, an optimal development
Submission date- Feburary16 ,2013 This work was supported in part by the Institute of Reservoir Studies, ONGC, Ahmedabad Praveen Srivastava is working as Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department at FGIET, Raebareli and Phd student with UPTU, Lucknow (e-mail: praveensrivastavacaet@gmail.com). Dr. A. K. Chauhan is working as Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department at KNIT, Sultanpur. Amit Porwal is working as Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering Department at FGIET, Raebareli.(email: amitporwal1982@yahoo.com)

Gas initially in place (GIIP) through volumetric

GIIP by material balance analysis Gas well deliverability by FORGAS simulator

scheme for gas reservoir with water drive has been suggested.

INTRODUCTION General background and objectives

Selection and design of appropriate recovery method Prediction of production rates and reserves Evaluation of past well and reservoir performance

As global energy demands rises, natural gas now plays an important strategic role in energy supply. It is more difficult to transport and store gas than oil and consequently it lagged behind that commodity for a considerable period. Over the last decade this has changed and gas markets continue to expand more rapidly than those of other fossil fuels. Natural gas is the cleanest and more hydrogen rich of all the hydrocarbon energy sources and it has high energy conversion efficiencies for power generation of more significance in that gas resources discovered but yet unexploited remain plentiful. The sector is poised for considerable growths over the next two decades and Knowing above facts in view, present study has been some believe that it may even overtake oil as prime fuel undertaken to suggest an optimal development plan for field between 2020 and 2030 (Economides and Wood). APM. The subject matter of the present R&D is Natural gas occurs in subsurface rock formations in association with oil (associated gas) or on its own (nonassociated gas). Roughly 60 percent of the natural gas reserves are non- associated. The prime purpose of gas reservoir engineering is the formulation of development and production plans that will result in maximum recovery for a given set of economic, environment and technical constraints. This is not a one-time activity but needs continual updating throughout the production life of a reservoir. Some specific reservoir engineering functions are; Gas reserve estimation based on volumetric analysis. Gas reserve estimation by conducting material balance analysis. Gas well deliverability estimation using FORGAS software. Numerical reservoir simulation studies (using IMEX CMG, simulator) to generate different field The above functions are performed in close co-operation with the petroleum engineering disciplines, notably production geology, petrophysics and production engineering. Gas reservoir engineering may be considered a mature engineering discipline. Its fundamentals are well established and supported by numerous laboratory and field studies. A large body of knowledge exist which enables reservoir engineers to perform their tasks in a manner that can meet the highest scientific and engineering standard.

performance variants, to suggest optimal development strategy by conducting economic analysis.

Design and interpretation of well production tests Estimation of the size and contents of hydrocarbon-bearing formations

Geological modeling: Geological modeling is a visualization in which a conceptual model is prepared from the data acquired from subsurface which is not always akin to the

actual subsurface structure. A geological model is derived by extending localized core and log measurements to the full reservoir using many techniques such as geology, geophysics, geochemistry etc. The geological model is an integral part of geo-statistical and ultimately reservoir simulation model. On the basis of following data tabulated in table.1, geological maps are prepared to know the subsurface conditions for successful geological modeling.
wells Interval Gross thickne ss (m) 26 Net thickness (m) 23 Pay thickness (m) 23 Porosity ( ) in % 20 Sg

Figure.1 GAS saturation geological model APM field

Production data

Reservoir temperature = 85oC

Density of the gas = 0.91666 Kg/m3 Density of the water = 953.674 Kg/m3 Water formation volume = 1.05544 RB/STB. Water compressibility = 5.11647 105 1/Kcm Reference pressure = 1.03323 Kcm2 Viscosity of water phase at the reference pressure = 0.24955 mPas Pressure dependence water viscosity =0.0082 m Pas/ K cm Gas gravity = 0.75 Gas water contact = 2025 m Reference pressure = 2012 m Reference depth = 2025 m Rock compressibility = 3.5 105

1(V15.650)

(m) 19491975

(%) 76

2(V13.00)

20252039

14

10.5

10

18

65

3(V13.00)

1995.52031.5

36

33

33

23

72

4(s45.70)

20412065

24

23

23

20

65

9 (97.50)

2011.02047

36

32.5

32.5

23

81

12 13(s43.65)

Idle 20212042 21 19 19 14 62

Relative permeability curve

1

14(s58.54)

20092037

28

23.5

23.5

19

66

0.8 Relative 0.6 permeabil ity 0.4 0.2 0 0 krw vs S krg vs S 0.5 Water saturation Sw 1

Table.1

Subsurface

petro

physical and

litho

logical

parameters

Plot.1 Relative permeability curve

APM field volumetric reserve estimation Initial gas in place= (1 ))/ Initial gas in place =1722.690699 106 (1 0.293)/0.005337 Initial gas in place=228207 3 Initial gas in place = 6161.593 Initial gas in place according to volumetric estimation is 6161.59 MMm .
3

material balance and a simulator model. Modified geological model is used as an input parameter.

Material balance
= ( / (1 ))/(1 (1/)( )( )( )( ) = [1 1 +

Till 2010 20% gas has been produced. Plot between p/z and cumulative production is plotted. This reservoir is weak water drive gas reservoir because the curve is not deviated. We may use p/z method to calculate gas in place.

Figure 3- 3-D simulation model by geological data

Figure.2 P/z curve material balance IMEX Simulation IMEX is a numerical simulator which is used for field development studies of hydrocarbon reservoir. A case study of such water drive gas reservoir is dealt with combination of gas

Plot: 2 Field history match

Performance Prediction
The performance prediction is done based on the output obtained from the IMEX simulator for all the three scenarios: one base case and two variants. Wells Pre rate(LCMD) Predict simulation rate(LCMD) Well AP-1 1.55 2.00 Well Ap-3 1.29 2.00 Well Ap4 1.35 2.00 Well AP-9 1.40 1.80

Plot.3 Field history matching base case

Table2: Increased withdrawal rate according to AOFP calculation

Economic Study for FORGAS Simulation

For any successful development of a reservoir it is highly essential for the reservoir to be economically profitable and viable for further study, investment and production. Following studies are thus important for economic analysis for any reservoir under consideration:

Plot 4: Field history matching Variant-I

Economic Study for IMEX Simulation

After the analysis of the simulator results and subsequent predictions it is necessary to identify the economical feasibility of the exploitation strategy. In this section the economical viability of all the two variant scenarios has been evaluated with respect to the technological aspects.

Result Obtained From Volumetric and Material Balance Analysis

From foregoing volumetric reserve estimation and Material balance analysis, it is observed that there is discrepancy

Plot 5: Field history matching Variant-II

between the values of GIIP obtained from Volumetric and Material Balance analysis. The estimated GIIP by Volumetric method is nearly 20% higher than Material Balance analysis.

This inconsistency may be related to differences in reservoir volume being investigated. For example, in the presence of faulted reservoirs, where some of the fault blocks may not be in communication with the main producing part of the reservoir, this would result in a lower estimation for GIIP by material balance analysis. GIIP obtained from volumetric reserve estimation is 6162MMm3 whereas GIIP by material balance analysis is 4900MMm
3

3500 3000 2500 Cum. 2000 Productio 1500 n 1000 500 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Time Plot 6: Comparison plot of cumulative production for different field development scenarios (FORGAS) Economic analysis shows that for Variant I, NPV is 9.1 crores with 24% IRR till 2015while and NPV is 40.8 crores with 460% IRR till 2014 for Variant II. Thereafter, a full field scale simulation study for future performance prediction of a gas reservoir with IMEX simulator has been carried out. The results were analyzed on technological and economical grounds and consequently an optimum exploitation strategy for the candidate gas reservoir was formulated. It has already been emphasized that gas recovery at highest possible rate which is to be produced supported by present study. Variant 1 variant 2 base case

The detailed results obtained from the simulators used (FORGAS and IMEX) are presented below.

Results Obtained From Study Using FORGAS Simulator

The third major study was Gas deliverability study of APM field with FORGAS simulator and results are as follows; Envisaged cumulative production in Base case (with MB in place) is 3170 MMm3 by 2016, which is 64% of GIIP. Envisaged cumulative production in Variant-I (with MB in place) is 3188 MMm3 by 2015, which is 65% of GIIP. Envisaged Cumulative production in Variant-II (with MB inplace, optimised production) is 3046 MMm3 by 2014, which is 62 % of GIIP. Gas gain with Variant-I is 226 MMm3 with respect to base case.

Results obtained from study using IMEX

Envisaged cumulative production in Base case (with MB in place) is 3225 MMm3by 2017, which is 66% of GIIP. Envisaged cumulative production in variant-I (with MB in place) is 3208 MMm3by 2015, which is 66% of GIIP.

Gas gain with Variant-II is 368 MMm3 with respect to base case. Comparison of cumulative production of different

development scenarios with FORGAS study is given in following plot. .

Envisaged Cumulative production in Variant-II (with MB inplace, production optimized) is 3353 MMm3 by 2016, which is 67 % of GIIP.

NPV is 19.7 crores with 44% IRR till 2017 for Variant II. Optimum Variant from FORGAS and IMEX study Gas deliverability profiles have been analyzed to decide optimum development strategy in absence of full field simulation study using FORGAS simulator and we conclude that high gas withdrawal with one additional location will be optimum field exploitation strategy. Finally field scale study has been undertaken to generate different development variants using IMEX simulator and thereby carrying economic analysis to suggest the optimal development variant, thus through the present study, high gas withdrawal with existing wells will be optimum field exploitation strategy for water drive Gas reservoir.

Gas gain with Variant-I is 423 MMm3 with respect to base case.

Gas gain with Variant-II is 344 MMm3 with respect to base case.

Northern part of the block is highly potential for hydrocarbon. It is recommended to remove partial perforations in all the wells except APM-2. In APM-2 the existing perforations needs to be closed and opened at the top part of the sand, as the present completion is against GWC (2025 m from MSL).

Comparison of cumulative production of different field development scenarios with IMEX study is given in following plot.

Gas and oil production are different not only because of the different physical characteristics of gas and oil, but also for purely economic reasons. Production from an oil field can be according to an optimum development and depletion pattern,

4000 3500 3000 Cum. 2500 Productio 2000 n MMm3 1500 1000 500 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

based on its own merits, but a gas reservoir is always directly linked to a market, therefore the physical characteristics cannot be always determine the best depletion pattern because Base case Variant1 Variant2 undertaken to investigate different important aspects development plan for a gas field. GIIP has been estimated by both volumetric method as well as material balance method. GIIP determined by volumetric method is 20% higher than GIIP obtained by Material balance analysis, possible explanation has been offered. Gas deliverability study has been carried out using FORGAS software with assumed recovery factor of 65% under two the market must be able to accept the gas. Keeping this in view a comprehensive study has been

Time Year

Plot 7: Comparison plot of cumulative production for field development different scenarios (IMEX) Economic analysis shows that NPV is 49.6 crores with 24% IRR till 2017 for Variant- I whereas

variants. Cumulative gas production in base case is 3170 MMm3 with 6 wells for the period 2010 to 2106. Under the variant- I, 3 additional wells have been taken and the cumulative production with 9 wells is 3188 MMm3 over the period 2010-2015. In Variant- II, fast withdrawal of gas has been prescribed (20% of AOF) with one additional well and the cumulative production of gas is 3046 MMm3 with 7 wells over the period 2010-2014. Economic analysis shows that for Variant I, NPV is 9.1 crores with 24% IRR till 2015 and NPV for Variant II is 40.8 crores with 460% IRR till 2014 Development plan under variant II has been recommended.

Development scheme under variant I has been recommended. NOMENCLATURE A Bg Bgi Bo Bw Ct Cw D Ep F G Gp Area Gas formation volume factor Initial gas formation volume factor Oil formation volume factor Water formation volume factor Total compressibility Water compressibility Turbulent coefficient Sweep efficiency Non Darcy flow coefficient Initial gas in place Produced gas Total gas Absolute permeability Effective permeability Relative permeability Initial oil in place Pressure Initial pressure Pound per square inch absolute Reservoir pressure Standard condition pressure Initial flow rate Condensate production rate Gas production rate Water production rate Cumulative influx Aquifer size radius

And finally an integrated full field simulation study using Gt IMEX reservoir simulator has been carried out. Under the base case cumulative gas production is 3225 MMm3 with 6 wells over the period 2010-2017 with 66% recovery factor. Kr In variant-I, faster withdrawal rates were prescribed (range: 5N 30% more than the existing rate in base case) to maximize P production. Cumulative gas production under the variant is 3724 MMm3 over the period 2010-17 with a recovery factor of 75%. Pr Economic analysis shows that NPV is 49.6 crores Psc with 24% IRR till 2017. qi Under Variant-II, 2 additional in fill wells were prescribed and cumulative gas production with 8 wells is 3567 MMm3 over the period 2010-2017 with 72% recovery factor. Economic analysis indicates that NPV is 19.7 crores with 44% IRR till 2017 for this Variant II. Qc Qg Qw Qpd ra Pi Psia K Keff

rg R2 S STB Sg Sgr Sw T td Tn We Wp vi V1 V2 Z zsc condition

Gas volume radius Correlation coefficient Skin Stock tank barrel Gas saturation Residual gas saturation Water saturation Time Pseudo temperature Total time Water influx Water production Initial volume Variant-I Variant-II Gas deviation factor Gas deviation factor at standard 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

Rs. SCF

Rupees Standard cubic feet

REFERENCES

1. Agrawal, R. G.: The importance of water influx in gas reservoirs, paper SPE 1244, SPE Annual Fall Meeting held in Denver, Colorado, 3-6 October, 1965. 2. Al-Hasim, H. S.: Effect of aquifer size on the performance of partial water-drive gas reservoirs, SPE 13233, SPE Reservoir Engineering, 1986. 3. Bruns, J.R., et al.: The effect of water influx on p/zcumulative gas production curves, paper SPE 898, SPE 38th Annual Fall Meeting held in Houston, Texas, 11-14 October 1964. 4. Carter, R. D. and Tracy, G. W.: An improved method for calculating water influx, trans., AIME (1960). 5. Chaudhari A., et al.: Prospectivity of Cauvery basin in deep syn-rift sequences, SE India, Search and discovery

Porosity Viscosity Angle of contact Temperature in centigrade ABBREVIATION AOFP GWC HCPV IGIP MB NPV PV Absolute open flow potential Gas water contact Hydrocarbon pore volume Initial gas in place Material balance Net present value Pore volume 8. 7. 6.

article-10232, 2010. 6. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M. F.: Applied petroleum reservoir engineering, Prentice-Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, second edition, revised by Terry, R. E. 1959. 7. Dake, L. P.: Fundamentals of reservoir engineering, Elsevier Scientific publishing company, Amsterdam-OxfordNew York, 1978. 8. Economides, M. J. and Wood, D. A.: The state of natural gas Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 1(2009).

9.

Elahmady, M. and Wattenbarger, R. A.: A straight -line P/z plot is possible in water drive gas reservoirs, SPE 103258, 2007.

10. Fundamentals of reservoir engineering, ONGC, GT training manual, 2010. 11. Gopinath, A. K.: A review of cases of unproved in place & ultimate reserves in Cauvery basin, 1998.12. 12. Hurst, W.: Water influx into a reservoir and its application to the equation of volumetric balance, SPE 943057, 1943, AIME vol.151. 13. Hurst, W. and Everdingen, V.: The application of the Laplace transformation to flow problems in reservoirs, 1949. 14. Lee, W. J. and Wattenberger, R. A.: Gas reservoir engineering, SPE textbook series volume 5(1996). 15. Mattax, C. C., et al.: Reservoir simulation, SPE Monograph Vol.13, 1990. 16. Matthew, C.S. and Russell, G. D.: Pressure buildup and flow tests in wells, Monograph series, SPE Dallas, 1967. 17. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation reservoir study reports, 2002, 2006 and 2008. 18. Tiab, D.: Gas reservoir engineering, summer 2000, lecture notes. 19. Users guide FORGAS gas reservoir simulator, version 2007. 20. Users guide IMEX advanced oil/gas reservoir simulator by Computer modeling group, version 2008 Calgary, Alberta Canada.