AL ABDULLA Reem

DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

ENSPM

Reservoir Simulation
Alwyn Field
AL ABDULLA Reem – DUPUIS Godefroy – MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander
4/1/2015
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Table Of Content
Table Of Content .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1 Reservoir Description ............................................................................................................................... 4

2 PETREL Model .......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Lithofacies .............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Electrofacies........................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 PHIE/NPHI Correlation ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 K-Phi relationship .............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2.3 Kh/log(Kh) Correlation ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Fine Grid Model ................................................................................................................................... 10

2.3.1 Water Oil Contact ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.2 Volume Calculation ......................................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Upscaling ............................................................................................................................................. 13

2.4.1 Uplayering ....................................................................................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Volume Calculation ......................................................................................................................... 14

2.5 Uncertainties ....................................................................................................................................... 15

2.5.1 Uncertainties in structural characterization.................................................................................... 15

3 PVT Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 16

3.1 PVTi ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

3.2 Lumping ............................................................................................................................................... 17

4 ECLIPSE Model ....................................................................................................................................... 20

4.1 Initialisation ......................................................................................................................................... 20

4.1.1 Material Balance Analysis for Natural depletion ............................................................................. 20
4.1.1.1 For Tarbert: ............................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.1.2 For Ness: ................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1.2 Oil compressibility: .......................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.3 Equivalent compressibility: ............................................................................................................. 22
4.1.3.1 Tarbert: ................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.3.2 Ness: ....................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.4 Active Aquifer .................................................................................................................................. 23
4.1.5 Recovery factor: .............................................................................................................................. 23
4.1.6 Plateau of Production required: ...................................................................................................... 24
4.1.7 Total Recovery factor ...................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.7.1 Natural depletion recovery factor .......................................................................................... 24
4.1.7.2 Water injection recovery factor ............................................................................................. 24
4.1.7.2.1 Water oil mobility ratio is computed: ............................................................................... 24
4.1.7.2.2 Microscopic sweep efficiency: .......................................................................................... 24
4.1.7.3 Total Recovery Factor ............................................................................................................. 26

4.2 Natural Drainage ................................................................................................................................. 27

4.2.1 Above Bubble Point ......................................................................................................................... 27
4.2.2 Location of the perforations ........................................................................................................... 29

1
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander
4.2.3 Below Bubble Point ......................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.4 New wells ........................................................................................................................................ 31

4.3 Water Injection .................................................................................................................................... 36

4.4 Sensitivity Study for the water injection case ...................................................................................... 41

4.4.1 NS2 Fault transmissivity .................................................................................................................. 41
4.4.2 Connection of Tarbert 2 and Tarbert 3 ........................................................................................... 42

5 Economics .............................................................................................................................................. 43

5.1 Natural Depletion Case ........................................................................................................................ 43

5.2 Water Injection case ............................................................................................................................ 44

Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 47

2
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Introduction
The Alwyn North Field was discovered in 1974 in the South Eastern part of the East Shetland Basin in
the UK North sea, about 140 km East of the near most Shetland Island and about 400 km North East
of Aberdeen. The goal of this project is to propose an initial development plan for this field,
maximising the recovery factor and the profit margin.

The first step will be to create a Petrel Model from the lithofacies in order to get a proper
electrofacies and evaluate the amount of oil in place. Once the static model is done, it is necessary to
upscale the fine grid to coarser cells for future fluid flow and dynamic simulations. Uncertainties
linked to this upscaling have to be dealt cautiously. Afterward, it is necessary to conduct a fluid
analysis in order to describe the behaviour of the hydrocarbon following the development of the
field. This part will deal with oil compressibility, material balance, GOR predictions … from lab data.

Then, the dynamic analysis can begin. Based on the Petrel grid, the Eclipse model is created and
several scenarii for the development are considered. First a natural depletion above bubble point,
then a natural depletion until 100bars is considered and finally a Water Injection. The annual
production plateau is expected to be around 15% of EUR and 60% of EUR must be produced at
plateau rate. Each scenario is to be implemented in the numerical reservoir model.

For secondary production, the location and the number of injectors and producers must be
optimised to meet the target production. A sensitivity analysis will later be implemented to see the
influence of some assumptions made to create the model, in particular to assess the impact of fault
transmissibility, and the reservoir layers connection.

3
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

1 Reservoir Description
The Alwyn field lays respectively 4 and 10 km south of Strathspey and Brent field, 7 km east of Ninian
field, and 10 km north of Dunbar field.

The Brent group is divided into three main units:

- the Lower Brent (Broom, Rannoch and Etive formations)

- the Middle Brent (Ness formations)
- the Upper Brent (Tarbert formations).

The last two are the only oil-bearing formations in the Brent East panel.

Tarbert formation contains intensely bioturbated, silty sandstones that occur as upward-coarsening
successions. Primary sedimentary structures are generally preserved only in the upper part of the
successions, where bed thickness is greater and bioturbation at bed tops does not obscure them.
These beds are interpreted to record episodic sand deposition from unidirectional currents in a fully
marine environment that lacked persistent wave reworking. The upward-coarsening character of the
successions implies shallowing-upward deposition on a prograding, weakly wave-influenced
shoreface.

The Ness Formation comprises marginal marine and nonmarine deposits. Non-rooted mudstones are
generally sparsely bioturbated by a restricted trace fossil assemblage, implying deposition in a
rackish lagoon or freshwater lake. Much of the Ness Formation comprises cycles of such mudstones
grading into upward-coarsening successions of mudstones interbedded with sandstones that contain
wave- and current generated structures. Such cycles are interpreted to record progradation of a
fluvial/wave-influenced deltaic shoreline (informally referred to as 'lagoonal shorefaces' and are
capped by a rooted horizon and a coal. The Ness Formation also contains intervals of mudstones and
interbedded sandstones in which roots and pedogenic features are pervasive. Poorly to moderately
sorted, erosively based, coarse-grained sandstones 5-50 m thick form the dominant reservoir
sandbodies in the Ness Formation.

Figure 1 Depositional Environment

4
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

2 PETREL Model
Before running a fluid flow simulation, it is necessary to have a good knowledge of the reservoir.
Defining the static model on Petrel is a crucial and mandatory step before getting any reservoir
model and running any simulation.

2.1 Lithofacies
The lithofacies has already been prepared previously to this study. The reservoir is divided into 4
zones. From the top to the bottom:
- Zone 1: the seal of the reservoir
- Tarbert: oil bearing reservoir
- Ness 2: oil and water bearing reservoir
- Ness 1: water bearing reservoir

Figure 2 Global Facies

The different zones have been defined separately using different algorithms to populate the
structure. Tarbert is defined as Sequential Indicator Simulation whereas both Ness zones are
stochastically computed using Object Modeling.

Zone 1 Tarbert Ness 2 Ness 1 BRE

Number of Layers 1 60 40 100 1
Sequential Sequential
Object Object
Facies Distribution Constant Indicator Indicator
Modeling Modeling
Simulation Simulation
Sequential Sequential Sequential Gaussian
Distribution Gaussian Gaussian Gaussian Radom
Simulation Simulation Simulation Function
Table 1 Lithofacies Method

The Facies are shown separately below and the influence of the distribution is visible immediately.
Tarbert distribution is pixel based whereas Ness 1 and Ness 2 are based on shapes characteristic from
specific environment of deposition. The most common shapes being those of channels coloured in
red on the figures below.

5
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Figure 3 Tarbert Facies (SIS)

Figure 4 Ness2 Facies (Object Modeling)

Figure 5 Ness1 Facies (Object Modeling)

6
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

2.2 Electrofacies
In order to define the static model, rock properties such as porosity and permeability are essential.
They allow the geoscientists to compute the volume of oil in place and get a first estimation of the
recoverable amount of hydrocarbons. The resources highly depend on the porosity which is
measurable from the logs (NPHI log for example) and from the core. Using the permeability,
resources are converted into reserves by computing the links between the pore and though the
recoverable and drainable areas. Although this property is not available in the logs, core samples can
give discrete values of permeability. Correlating permeability and porosity, it is then possible to
obtain the electrofacies by computing permeability.

2.2.1 PHIE/NPHI Correlation

The porosity model being already entered in the software from a previous study (porosity
measurement from the lab, rock typing and rock type distribution, logs PHIE), the idea is to correlate
the porosity of the PHIE log with the plug measurements.

Figure 6 Horizontal Porosity Correlation

The porosity measurement from the logs matching those of the plugs as shown on the picture
hereinabove, it is possible to populate the model with permeability.

2.2.2 K-Phi relationship

Permeability is not available using logs, the only source of data is the core and plugs measurements.
Those are linked to the porosity of the same samples. It is therefore possible to use the KPhi
relationship and to do a regression.

Figure 7 Global K-Phi relation

7
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

It appears this K-Phi relation is not the same for all the electrofacies. Actually the trends seem to be
different depending on which electrofacies is considered. The red cloud of points is especially
diverging from the general trend. Therefore, two trends can be provided:

- A first KPhi regression for Electrofacies 3 to 9

- A second one for Electrofacies 2

Figure 8 K-Phi relation for Rock Type 3 to 9

Figure 9 K-Phi relation for Rock Type 2

8
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

2.2.3 Kh/log(Kh) Correlation

Now that we get the K-Phi correlation from the core, it is possible to compute an artificial
permeability log based on the NPHI log.

( )

Correlation is quite good as shown on the log plot below.

Figure 10 Horizontal Log Permeability Match between core and porosity correlation for Electrofacies 3 to 9

The curve and the core measurements overlap very well except on the red areas where the law we
previously found is no longer relevant: we have to use the other law, specific for the second
electrofacies.

( )

Then the artificial permeability log is matching the core measurements and can be used for defining
the permeability model in Petrel. The Electrofacies is ready.

Figure 11 Horizontal Log Permeability Match between core and porosity correlation

Figure 12 Horizontal Permeability Match between core and porosity correlation

9
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

2.3 Fine Grid Model

Porosity distribution is based on a Sequential Gaussian Simulation Algorithm as seen previously.
Using the well data (logs and core) and the Gaussian distribution, it is possible to populate the model.
The obtained model does show values of permeability bigger than 10D. It doesn’t seem accurate and
is linked to the choice of the distribution. Those values are statistically possible even though very
little probable in the reality. A cut off is therefore to be implemented. The value of maximum
permeability is fixed to 3D. The map below shows the slight differences obtained in both models.

Figure 13 Permeability Model without cut off Figure 14 Permeability Model with cut off

Figure 15 Permeability Distribution without cut off Figure 16 Permeability Distribution with cut off

10
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Ness 2 porosity model is visible

on the picture on the left. The
shape of the channel used to
define the lothofacies is clearly
visible in terms of rock
properties. The porosity values
are the highest in the channel. It
is conforting to get this result
since channel is a good
environment of deposition to
get clean sands whereas the
levies on the sides of the
channel usually have much
worse rock properties.

Figure 17 Permeability Model

2.3.1 Water Oil Contact

From RFT measurements, the Water Oil Contact has been set up at 3251m. Hereinafter are two
views of this contact. Most of the oil bearing reservoir is indeed located in the Tarbert zone.

Figure 18 Water Oil Contact (in blue)

11
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

2.3.2 Volume Calculation

Considering that:

And using the porosity model and the location of the Water Oil Contact, Stock Tank Oil Initially In
Place is computable:

Table 2 Volume Calculation

The total amount of calculated resources reaches . Most of it is located in Tarbert

with only a small portion in both Ness layers.

30000
Resources (Thousand Standard Cubic Meters)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
Zone 1 Tarbert Ness 2 Ness 1 BRE
Figure 19 Volume Repartition

12
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

2.4 Upscaling
The fine grid model is well calibrated for the static model. However, as soon as it is necessary to run a
fluid flow simulation, computation takes days. Therefore, Upscaling is necessary to reduce the
computing time.

2.4.1 Uplayering
Tarbert being the oil bearing zone, a good accuracy in the model is expected for this area. On the
other hand, Ness1 and Ness2 are essentially water bearing zones so a coarser grid is not problematic.
Therefore proportional layering will be chosen for both Ness zones whereas Fraction will be used for
Tarbert. In addition to that, the number of layers will be bigger for Tarbert to get a better precision in
the later.

Figure 20 Porosity Model Before Upscaling Figure 21 Porosity Model After Upscaling

Below is the Permeability model from different perspectives:

Figure 22 Permeability before Upscaling

13
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Figure 23 West view of the Kx Model Figure 24 East view of the Kx Model

Figure 25 West view of the Ky Model Figure 26 East view of the Ky Model

Figure 27 West view of the Kz Model Figure 28 East view of the Kz Model

2.4.2 Volume Calculation

Using the same Water Oil Contact as previously, the new value of the Oil Initially In Place is updated:

Table 3 Volume Calculation After Upscaling

The new OIIP is worth to be compared with the previous . The

proportions are quite close to the previous one except for the contribution of Zone 1,
the seal of our reservoir supposed to be a shaly layer without any hydrocarbon content. The
upscaling seems to have changed the property of this area.

The net to gross property has actually not been properly upscaled since the value for Zone one is not
nul (min:0% max: 97%). Therefore the oil content is not accurate. To correct this value, a new Net to
Gross property is to be defined, filtering the previous property value depending on the zone.
Obtained results are much closer to the fine grid results and in accordance with the previous
distribution (in particular, no oil in Zone 1). The new OIIP is worth: .

Figure 29 Volume Calculation After Upscaling and Zone Correction

14
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

2.5 Uncertainties
Due to the complex structure and lack of data at the North Alwyn some uncertainties could occur.
Unidentified or neglected uncertainties may result in a non-economic development.

Uncertainties are related with:

- Available data
- Data interpretation
- Reservoir heterogeneities
- Scale changes

2.5.1 Uncertainties in structural characterization

Main uncertainties in seismic data are related to processing, well calibration, interpretation and
depth conversion. Uncertainties could occur while horizons picking, faults picking, time-to-depth
conversion and well-to-seismic tying.

Main uncertainties in geological data are related to:

• Geological & sedimentological conceptual models

• Petrophysical parameters:

− porosity
− N/G
− fluid saturation
− fluid contacts

Uncertainties in sedimentological interpretation are related to correct choice of approach

(lithostratigraphy approach or sequence stratigraphy approach).

15
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

3 PVT Analysis

3.1 PVTi
Component ZI (%) Weight Fraction (%)
N2 0.64 0.22611
CO2 1.14 0.63276
C1 46.55 9.4186
C2 7.34 2.7836
C3 7.45 4.1433
IC4 1.06 0.77704
NC4 3.77 2.7636
IC5 1.26 1.1465
NC5 2.01 1.829
C6 2.51 2.6591
C7 3.54 4.286
C8 3.33 4.4937
C9 2.61 3.983
C10 1.55 2.6195
C11+ 15.24 58.238
Table 4 PVT Mole Fraction

The specific gravity is calculated automatically by the software (0.8741). It seems to be

overestimated compared to the given value in the PVT report: 0.8843. Since there is no temperature
nor pressure input in PVTi we choose to keep the experimental value.

Figure 30 Fingering Plot

Figure 31 Phase envelope

16
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Relative Volume and Liquid Density curves can be obtained from different experiments like Constant
Composition Expansion:

Pressure (bar) Relative Volume Liquid Density (kg/m^3)

445 0.955 644.75
420 0.959 641.85
400.5 0.963 641.85
377 0.968 636.13
350.5 0.974 632.11
310.5 0.984 625.39
265.5 0.997 617.28
257.5 1 615.76
251.5 1.008 610.87
247 1.014 607.16
241 1.023 602.05
232.5 1.036 594.18
210.5 1.077 571.76
200 1.1 559.60
Table 5 CCE1 data

3.2 Lumping
In order to compute a proper model in the software without spending hours of computing time, it is
necessary to group the different hydrocarbons in group to reduce the number of different elements.
This process is called lumping and the hydrocarbons with a similar mass are to be grouped together.
Special attention will be given to light molecules.

Table 6 Lumping

The phase envelope is then slightly altered but keep the same shape.

17
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Table 7: Phase envelope

The experiment data doesn’t fit completely the model, it is therefore necessary to operate a
regression to improve the accuracy:

Figure 32 Regression result after the normal regression

18
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Figure 33 Viscosity matching

Figure 34 Fluid Properties

19
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

4 ECLIPSE Model
Now that the PVT data has been analysed, it is possible to create the dynamic model and to run some
simulations.

4.1 Initialisation
Model size is geometrically 38x48x22. The previous layering is conserved with 8 layers in Tarbert, 6 in
Ness 2 and 6 in Ness 1. Based on the reservoir simulation model defined and initialized previously, it
is possible to compute the STOIIP and the recovery factor. The initial pressure is of 446 bar.

4.1.1 Material Balance Analysis for Natural depletion

To calculate the recovery factor we used a Material Balance Equation, we use the data from the
“PVT – study. The calculations and the results are shown below.

4.1.1.1 For Tarbert:

Using the SCAL data it is possible to calculate fractional flow curve for the future RF estimation.
Sw Krw Kro Pcwo fw
0,15 0 0,8 0,6 0
0,257 0,008 0,481 0,3 0,018415
0,328 0,015 0,319 0,17 0,050369
0,4 0,026 0,195 0 0,130737
0,465 0,034 0,123 -0,05 0,237692
0,536 0,05 0,062 -0,06 0,476351
0,602 0,076 0,025 -0,08 0,774222
0,673 0,116 0,01 -0,2 0,929001
0,738 0,186 0,005 -0,6 0,976723
0,78 0,25 0 -1 1
Table 7 SCAL data for Tarbert

RelPerms Curves - Tarbert

0,9

0,8

0,7

0,6

0,5
Krw
Kr

0,4 Kro
0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0 0,2 0,4 Sw 0,6 0,8 1

Figure 35 RelPerms Curves - Tarbert

20
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Fractional Flow(Tarbert)
1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

Figure 36 Fractional Flow (Tarbert)

4.1.1.2 For Ness:

Sw Krw Kro Pcwo fw
0,3 0 0,8 0,6 0
0,368 0,008 0,481 0,3 0,018415
0,413 0,015 0,319 0,17 0,050369
0,458 0,026 0,195 0 0,130737
0,5 0,034 0,123 -0,02 0,237692
0,545 0,05 0,062 -0,03 0,476351
0,587 0,076 0,025 -0,08 0,774222
0,632 0,116 0,01 -0,25 0,929001
0,674 0,186 0,005 -0,64 0,976723
0,7 0,25 0 -1 1
Table 8 SCAL data for Tarbert

Kr Curves - NESS & LOWER BRENT - WO

0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
Kr

Krw
0,4
Kro
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8
Sw

Figure 37 Kr Curves - NESS & LOWER BRENT - WO

21
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Fractional Flow(Ness)
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8

Table 9 Fractional Flow(Ness)

@ Viscosity Volumetric
290 Bar (cp) Factor @ 290 Bar
Oil 0.280 1.60
Water 0.250 1.029

4.1.2 Oil compressibility:

4.1.3 Equivalent compressibility:

4.1.3.1 Tarbert:
( ) ( ) ( )

4.1.3.2 Ness:
( ) ( ) ( )

Cumulative Production in each formation was calculated using equation below:

N  Boi
Np   ce  P ,
Bo

22
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

where N  OOIP for each formation, i.e. for Tarbert and Ness; we get these values from the
simulation results;

N Tarbert  32933496 sm3 ;

N Ness  3818800 sm3 ;

N  N Tarbet  N Ness  32933496  3818800  36752296 sm3 .

P  change of the reservoir pressure.

Cumulative production for Tarbert: ( ) ( )

Cumulative production for Ness: ( ) ( )

4.1.4 Active Aquifer

Considering that the aquifer is active:

Water influx in the reservoir: ( ) ( )

where Vw  the volume of the aquifer which we get from the reservoir model.

[( ) ( )] ( )

Cumulative Production due to Water Influx:

4.1.5 Recovery factor:

23
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

4.1.6 Plateau of Production required:

In order to maintain a plateau of production per year equal to 15% of the OOIP, the determination of
the optimum rate is shown below:

The determination of optimum production per day considering the 10% of workover (90% of
effective time) per year shown below:

Considering that the maximum allowed liquid rate 1800 the necessary Number of wells:

4.1.7 Total Recovery factor

4.1.7.1 Natural depletion recovery factor

The calculated recovery factor after the natural depletion is equal to RF1 = 10,89 %

4.1.7.2 Water injection recovery factor

4.1.7.2.1 Water oil mobility ratio is computed:

( )
⁄
( )

Water oil mobility is favorable for a stable displacement of oil by water.

In order to estimate the recovery factor while the secondary recovery and then the total reserves of
the field, microscopic, areal and vertical sweep efficiency are determined.

4.1.7.2.2 Microscopic sweep efficiency:

̅̅̅̅

Soi is the residual oil saturation , ̅̅̅̅ is water saturation behind the front

24
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Fractional Flow(Tarbert)
1

0,9

0,8

0,7

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

Figure 38 Fractional Flow(Tarbert)

Fractional Flow(Ness)
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8

Figure 39 Fractional Flow(Ness)

( ) ( )

Sweep Efficiency:

- Areal sweep efficiency can be found for a given fractional flow Fw thanks to the
specific charts and the mobility ratio reciprocity.

25
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

- Vertical sweep efficiency is considered equal to .

Finally, the recovery factor can be estimated:

Ed Ev Ea RF2 Np (SM3)
Tarbert 0,647 0,8 0,99 51,24% 16875120
Ness 0,5 0,8 0,99 39,6% 1512244.8
Field - - - 50.03% 18387364.8

4.1.7.3 Total Recovery Factor

RF  RF1  RF2  RF1  RF2  55.47%

In order to satisfy a production plateau of 15% of the reserves during the first 4 years, the total
minimum oil production rate is estimated.

RF  OOIP  15 %
Qofield   8378 m 3 day .
365

Vertical wells can produce up to a maximum fluid rate of 1800 m3/day.

The minimum number of vertical production wells is

Qofield 8378
nvert.wells  vert
  4.65  5wells
q max 1800

The number of minimum necessary vertical production wells to satisfy the targeted production
plateau is 5.

The fracture pressure of the Brent reservoir is about 480 bars. Bottom hole pressure for injector
wells is considered equal to the fracture pressure.

The maximum water injection rate is 3000 Sm3/day.

Qofield  Bo 8378 1.60

ninj    4.34
q inj
max  Bw 3000 1.029

The number of minimum water injector wells is 5 to replace the produced oil and maintain the
material balance.

26
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

4.2 Natural Drainage

4.2.1 Above Bubble Point
During the first step of the depletion, the pressure decreases until it reaches the saturation pressure:
258 bars. Surface Facilities being designed for a maximum daily rate of , it is possible
to simulate the production history.

Other production constraints have to be implemented to calibrate the model. Producing wells have
to be stopped as soon as the water cut reaches 90% or as the rate is below 100bl/day. With the 4
wells starting in January 2015, the production profile is the one below:

Figure 40 Field Oil Production Figure 41 Field Water Production

Figure 42 Recovery Factor, GOR & Water Cut

27
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

The GOR is constant until the stop of production when reaching the bubble point pressure. This is the
limiting parameter.

It is possible to play with the Field Plateau value and to see its influence on the recovery factor.

Figure 43 Influence of the production maximum rate on Figure 44 Influence of the production maximum rate on
the plateau duration the recovery factor

28
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

4.2.2 Location of the perforations

As observed previously, the limiting parameter leading to the closure of the wells because of
economic considerations is the water cut. The water cut is reaching 90% too quickly and prevent the
company from exploiting all he reserves as scheduled. The current state of the perforations can be
improved to limit the water production. Indeed, some perforations are located in the transition zone,
where the water is mobile. Therefore, as soon as the production starts, water is produced and the
water cut increases quickly.

The PVT analysis gave a connate water saturation of 15%. Hence, it is necessary to put the
perforations where initial oil saturation is theoretically above 85%.

Figure 45 Old Completion Figure 46 New Completion

Figure 47 Influence of completion on the water cut Figure 48 Influence of completion on the recovery factor

29
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

4.2.3 Below Bubble Point

A first analysis is considering a natural depletion until 100 bars therefore well below the bubble point
pressure. Hence, the gas relative permeability is no longer superfluous, the table has to be slightly
modified. Indeed, the software takes into account the last value which is not null as critical gas
saturation with the Jamin Effect.

TARBERT NESS & LOWER BRENT

Sg Krg Sg Krg
0 0 0 0
0.1 (0.029) 0 0.085 (0.029) 0
0.17 0.07 0.142 0.07
0.24 0.124 0.198 0.124
0.3 0.185 0.25 0.185
0.37 0.261 0.307 0.261
0.43 0.341 0.358 0.341
0.5 0.437 0.415 0.437
0.56 0.534 0.467 0.534
0.65 0.6 0.5 0.6
Table 10 PVT Table - Gas relative Permeability Figure 49Correction of Jamin Effect

Once the table is set properly it is possible to update the model thus getting a new production
history after bubble point:

Figure 50 3D view Before Production Figure 51 3D view at Bubble Point Figure 52 3D view at 100 bars

Figure 53 Recovery Factor Evolution

30
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

4.2.4 New wells

Two rigs are available so two wells can be drilled simultaneously. The average duration of the drilling
being scheduled at two months, from January 2015 it is possible to add two wells every two months,
beginning in March 2015.

In order to design the production planning of the field and to improve the recovery rate, a new set of
wells is to be scheduled. The location and the starting date of the well is chosen to optimise the
recovery, therefore the remaining saturation of oil after several years of production without any
additional well gives good indications on the drained and non-drained areas. Positioning additional
production wells in those areas will impact the production as additional zones will be recovered.

The limit is first respected, the location of the well is chosen to maximise the recovery
rate only. Without any additional drilling operations, i.e. in the base case configuration, the recovery
rate reaches 25.6%.

However, at the end of the production, multiple zones remain fully saturated in oil. The idea is to
position the new well in order for the non-drained areas to be affected. A first possibility is to just
have a look at the remaining oil saturation at the end of the first development plan. This saturation
map is shown below with a filter showing only the almost virgin zones. The criteria for the cut-off has
been chosen at 50%.

Undrained Area

Figure 54 Oil Saturation before abandonment without any additional well

The area on the other side of the fault seems to be a good candidate to put a first additional well, at
(9;6) for example. However, simulation results show that this decision would only decrease the
recovery factor to 25.29%. This area is actually already well drained by well N3 and the addition of a
production at this location would interfere badly.

31
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Figure 55 Oil Saturation before abandonment with 1 additional well wrongly prositionned

Identifying the other good candidates, a try and see method gives the best location for the first
additional well at (26;30) It increases the recovery factor to 26.62%. A comparison shows that this
location is more adequate than the previous one:

Figure 56 Impact of the position of the additional well on Figure 57 Impact of the position of the additional well on
the production the recovery rate

The same procedure is taken to add a second well. The best candidate areas are updates with now 5
wells in production (P1 has been added to the model) and shown below:

32
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Figure 58 Oil Saturation before abandonment with 1 additional well

The additional location is set to (19;23) and the new recovery factor is then of 27.08%. And the
modified map of undrained areas is updated:

Figure 59 Oil Saturation before abandonment with 2 additional wells

33
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Each scenario production is plotted below with GOR, water cut and recovery factor.

Figure 60 Field Production Data - base case Figure 61 Field Production Data - 1 additional well wrong
location

Figure 62 Field Production Data - 1 additional well Figure 63 Field Production Data - 2 additional wells

The influence of the additional well is highlighted through comparison of the different scenarios on
the next page regarding Oil Production, water cut and Recovery Factor.

34
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

35
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

4.3 Water Injection

Producing below bubble point with natural drainage is often not the best solution. Water injection is
to be considered to maintain pressure support and keep the reservoir pressure above the bubble
point.

Seawater is therefore to be injected into the reservoir since it happens to be no water compatibility
problem. Besides, the fracture pressure of the Brent reservoir being about 480 bars, the maximum
water injection rate is .

The maximum total water injection available is .

In order to adequately set the location of the injectors it is necessary to check the Z transmissibility
to make sure the water is going to replace the produced oil. There is no use of injecting water in an
area that will not communicate with the reservoir. Therefore, areas with good vertical transmissivity
are good candidates for injection.

Figure 64 Location of the Injector in the water leg Figure 65 Z-Transmissibility around the Injector

Figure 66 Undrained areas without any injector Figure 67 Undrained areas with A2 converted + I1

A first scenario is taken into consideration:

36
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Figure 68 Field Before Injection

Figure 69 First Model, Field After Injection

Figure 70 First try for the Field Development Model

On this first scenario, water injection begins too late. Indeed, the pressure drop reaches 260 bars
very quickly and then it is impossible for the injection to maintain the pressure high enough to keep a
high plateau rate. Therefore a new development plan is to be designed with earlier injection.

37
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Figure 71 Field Before Injection

Figure 72 Second Model, Field After Injection

Figure 73 Second try for the Field Development Model

On this second scenario, water injection is not sufficient to maintain the production plateau. Indeed,
FVIR (Field Volume Injection Rate) and FVPR (Field Volume Production Rate) are not matching before
2019, therefore the voidage is not good and material balance is in deficit. Additional Injection wells
must be considered.

38
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Hereinafter is the optimal development plan proposed after this study.

Figure 74 Field Before Injection

Figure 75 Field After Injection

Figure 76 Field Development Model

39
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Here the voidage is quasi optimal, there is just a missing injection in 2019 that cannot be avoided
without adding an additional injection well but this doesn’t influence the lot the production.

Figure 77 Remaining undrained areas - 50% So cut off

This scenario gives the following production profile:

Plateau Rate 7500 bl/day

Plateau Duration 4 years and 4 months
Recovery Rate 56.56%
Cumulative NPV $ 871 211 911

40
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

4.4 Sensitivity Study for the water injection case

4.4.1 NS2 Fault transmissivity
There are two main faults in the reservoir model. NS3 fault is transmissive with a transmissivity factor
of 0.01 but NS2 is initially sealed.

NS2

NS3

Figure 78 Reservoir Model

Two cases are investigated:

1) Fault NS2 is transmissive with a factor of 0.01

2) Fault NS2 is transmissive with a factor of 0.2

Figure 79 Oil Recovery Factor Figure 80 Oil Production Rate

Transmissivity of NS2 fault does not affect a lot the oil production. Oil recovery is however improved
with transmissivity, the recovery factor going from 56.6% to 57.8%.

41
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

4.4.2 Connection of Tarbert 2 and Tarbert 3

Connection between Tarbert2 and Tarbert 3 is then altered. Initial transmissivity factor was equal to
0.1. Two additional cases are investigated:

1) No Connection: transmissivity factor equal to 0

2) Connection with a transmissivity factor equal to 10

Figure 81 Oil Recovery Factor Figure 82 Oil Production Rate

An increase in transmissivity between layers does not affect a lot of the production, however, a nul
value for transmissivity does affect a lot the behaviour of the field and does decrease the production
of the reservoir. The connection between both layers doesn’t affect the recovery mechanism
because the highest permeability is horizontal.

42
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

5 Economics

5.1 Natural Depletion Case

The first step of the feasibility study is to know the cost of investments, the CAPEX. Considering the
previous development plan, the following facilities have to be taken into account:

Unit price Number CAPEX

Facilities $700 000 000 1 $700 000 000
Drilling Platform $350 000 000 2 $700 000 000
deviated wells $12 000 000 6 $72 000 000
Subsea $36 000 000 0 -
CAPEX $1 472 000 000
Price of barel $51.72

A rapid calculation gives the following NPV:

Economics for Natural Depletion

Cumulative NPV Discounterd Factor DF
$0 1,2
Millions

-$200
1
-$400
0,8
-$600

-$800 0,6

-$1 000
0,4
-$1 200
0,2
-$1 400

-$1 600 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Figure 83 Economics for Natural Depletion

This project is therefore not profitable with such a price for the barrel. Another scenario is to be
considered, water injection. It will improve the recovery factor and therefore ma impact the profit
generated by the project.

43
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

5.2 Water Injection case

Now that injection wells are considered, the CAPEX is expected to increase due to additional wells
drilled in the formation.

Unit price Number CAPEX

Facilities $700 000 000 1 $700 000 000
Drilling Platform $350 000 000 2 $700 000 000
deviated wells $12 000 000 10 $120 000 000
Subsea $36 000 000 0 -
CAPEX $1 520 000 000
Price of barel $51.72

A rapid calculation gives the following NPV:

Economics for Water Injection

Cumulative NPV Discounterd Factor DF
$1 400 1,2
Millions

$900 1

$400 0,8

-$100 0,6

-$600 0,4

-$1 100 0,2

-$1 600 0
2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029

Figure 84 Economics for Water Injection

This project is therefore profitable with such a price for the barrel; the payback period is quite short:
after 4 ½ years, the project is profitable and the final NPV gives 871M$ to the company.

44
 AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Discounterd Oil
Year Revenues CAPEX Depreciation OPEX Tax bill Cash Flow Cumulative NPV
Factor DF Production

1 1,00 2,66 $ - $ 1 520 000 000 $ -1 520 000 000

2 0,91 2,66 $ 866 063 709 $ 126 666 667 $ 142 334 523 $ 238 825 008 $ 484 904 178 $ -1 079 178 020

3 0,75 2,75 $ 893 000 106 $ 126 666 667 $ 146 761 425 $ 247 828 806 $ 498 409 875 $ -704 715 303

4 0,68 2,74 $ 890 560 215 $ 126 666 667 $ 146 360 438 $ 247 013 244 $ 497 186 533 $ -365 130 211

5 0,62 2,74 $ 890 560 215 $ 126 666 667 $ 146 360 438 $ 247 013 244 $ 497 186 533 $ -56 416 491

6 0,56 2,64 $ 859 101 887 $ 126 666 667 $ 141 190 372 $ 236 497 939 $ 481 413 576 $ 215 328 922

7 0,51 2,08 $ 678 029 443 $ 126 666 667 $ 111 431 753 $ 175 972 409 $ 390 625 281 $ 415 781 456

8 0,47 1,58 $ 514 882 065 $ 126 666 667 $ 84 619 056 $ 121 438 537 $ 308 824 472 $ 559 850 351

9 0,42 1,26 $ 409 446 242 $ 126 666 667 $ 67 291 049 $ 86 195 410 $ 255 959 782 $ 668 402 285

10 0,39 0,92 $ 300 041 529 $ 126 666 667 $ 49 310 770 $ 49 625 637 $ 201 105 123 $ 745 937 016

11 0,35 0,75 $ 245 485 566 $ 126 666 667 $ 40 344 689 $ 31 389 684 $ 173 751 193 $ 806 835 749

12 0,32 0,37 $ 119 945 042 $ 126 666 667 $ 19 712 546 $ -10 573 668 $ 110 806 164 $ 842 142 008

13 0,29 0,30 $ 99 105 119 $ 126 666 667 $ 16 287 578 $ -17 539 650 $ 100 357 192 $ 871 211 911
Figure 85 Project Economics
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Conclusion
The goal of this project was to propose an initial development plan for this field, maximising the
recovery factor and the profit margin.

After creating the Petrel Model using the lithofacies it has been possible to evaluate the amount of
oil in place. Once the static model done and the upscaling performed, a fluid analysis was conducted
in order to describe the behaviour of the hydrocarbon following the development of the field.

Based on the Petrel grid, the Eclipse model was created and several scenarii for the development
were then considered: first a natural depletion above bubble point, then a natural depletion until
100bars and finally a Water Injection. In the case of natural depletion, the plateau the annual
production plateau is of and lasts for 5 years. The recovery factor reaches 27.08%
but the project is not profitable. For the second scenario however, using water injection, the annual
production plateau is of and lasts for 4 years and 4 months. The recovery factor then
reached 56.6% and the project becomes profitable with a 51.72$/bl price.
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander

Table of Figures
Figure 1 Deposotional Environment ................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2 Global Facies ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3 Tarbert Facies (SIS) ............................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4 Ness2 Facies (Object Modeling) .......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5 Ness1 Facies (Object Modeling) .......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 6 Horizontal Porosity Correlation .......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 7 Global K-Phi relation ........................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8 K-Phi relation for Rock Type 3 to 9 ...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 9 K-Phi relation for Rock Type 2 ............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 10 Horizontal Log Permeability Match between core and porosity correlation for Electrofacies 3 to 9 . 9
Figure 11 Horizontal Log Permeability Match between core and porosity correlation...................................... 9
Figure 12 Horizontal Permeability Match between core and porosity correlation ............................................ 9
Figure 13 Permeability Model without cut off ................................................................................................ 10
Figure 14 Permeability Model with cut off ..................................................................................................... 10
Figure 15 Permeability Distribution without cut off ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 16 Permeability Distribution with cut off ............................................................................................. 10
Figure 17 Permeability Model ........................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 18 Water Oil Contact (in blue) ............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 19 Volume Repartition ........................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 20 Porosity Model Before Upscaling .................................................................................................... 13
Figure 21 Porosity Model After Upscaling ...................................................................................................... 13
Figure 22 Permeability before Upscaling ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 23 West view of the Kx Model ............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 24 East view of the Kx Model ............................................................................................................... 14
Figure 25 West view of the Ky Model ............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 26 East view of the Ky Model............................................................................................................... 14
Figure 27 West view of the Kz Model ............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 28 East view of the Kz Model ............................................................................................................... 14
Figure 29 Volume Calculation After Upscaling and Zone Correction ............................................................... 14
Figure 30 Fingering Plot .................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 31 Phase envelope ............................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 32 Regression result after the normal regression ................................................................................ 18
Figure 33 Viscosity matching .......................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 34 Fluid Properties............................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 35 RelPerms Curves - Tarbert............................................................................................................... 20
Figure 36 Fractional Flow (Tarbert) ................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 37 Kr Curves - NESS & LOWER BRENT - WO.......................................................................................... 21
Figure 38 Fractional Flow(Tarbert) ................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 39 Fractional Flow(Ness)...................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 40 Field Oil Production ........................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 41 Field Water Production ................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 42 Recovery Factor, GOR & Water Cut ................................................................................................. 27
Figure 43 Influence of the production maximum rate on the plateau duration .............................................. 28
Figure 44 Influence of the production maximum rate on the recovery factor ................................................. 28
Figure 45 Old Completion ............................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 46 New Completion ............................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 47 Influence of completion on the water cut ....................................................................................... 29
Figure 48 Influence of completion on the recovery factor .............................................................................. 29

47
AL ABDULLA Reem
DUPUIS Godefroy
MUKHAMETZYANOV Iskander
Figure 49Correction of Jamin Effect ................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 50 3D view Before Production ............................................................................................................. 30
Figure 51 3D view at Bubble Point .................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 52 3D view at 100 bars......................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 53 Recovery Factor Evolution .............................................................................................................. 30
Figure 54 Oil Saturation before abandonment without any additional well ................................................... 31
Figure 55 Oil Saturation before abandonment with 1 additional well wrongly prositionned .......................... 32
Figure 56 Impact of the position of the additional well on the production ..................................................... 32
Figure 57 Impact of the position of the additional well on the recovery rate ................................................. 32
Figure 58 Oil Saturation before abandonment with 1 additional well ............................................................ 33
Figure 59 Oil Saturation before abandonment with 2 additional wells ........................................................... 33
Figure 60 Field Production Data - base case ................................................................................................... 34
Figure 61 Field Production Data - 1 additional well wrong location ................................................................ 34
Figure 62 Field Production Data - 1 additional well ........................................................................................ 34
Figure 63 Field Production Data - 2 additional wells ....................................................................................... 34
Figure 64 Location of the Injector in the water leg ......................................................................................... 36
Figure 65 Z-Transmissibility around the Injector............................................................................................. 36
Figure 66 Undrained areas without any injector ............................................................................................ 36
Figure 67 Undrained areas with A2 converted + I1 ......................................................................................... 36
Figure 68 Field Before Injection ...................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 69 First Model, Field After Injection..................................................................................................... 37
Figure 70 First try for the Field Development Model ...................................................................................... 37
Figure 71 Field Before Injection ...................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 72 Second Model, Field After Injection ................................................................................................ 38
Figure 73 Second try for the Field Development Model.................................................................................. 38
Figure 74 Field Before Injection ...................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 75 Field After Injection ........................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 76 Field Development Model ............................................................................................................... 39
Figure 77 Remaining undrained areas - 50% So cut off ................................................................................... 40
Figure 78 Reservoir Model ............................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 79 Oil Recovery Factor ......................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 80 Oil Production Rate ......................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 81 Oil Recovery Factor ......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 82 Oil Production Rate ......................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 83 Economics for Natural Depletion .................................................................................................... 43
Figure 84 Economics for Water Injection ........................................................................................................ 44
Figure 85 Project Economics ........................................................................................................................... 45

48