SPE 88598
Re-development Issues and Challenges for a Very Old Oil Field,
Masjed-I-Suleyman, South West Iran
Hanh T. Nguyen, SPE, ECL; Roy T. Kelly, SPE, ECL; Dario Sodero, Sheer Energy Inc.;
Mohammad R. Niakan, Paravar Engineering Co.
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 18–20 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper outlines the formulation of a re-development plan
for the oldest producing field in the Middle East, Masjed-I-
Suleyman, discovered in 1908 in the South West of the
Islamic Republic of Iran and put into production in 1911. The
field location is shown in Figure 1.
The difference between the volume and type of data
acquired in 1908 versus that acquired now is in itself one of
the greatest challenges to overcome when undertaking such a
study. The field does not have a virgin reservoir fluid sample,
nor early pressure measurements, or any measurement of
produced gas volumes. However, these are key parameters
which must be tested rigorously in the reservoir models.
The redevelopment plan revolves around a comprehensive
reservoir study of the Asmari formation, a complex, fractured
carbonate reservoir. The objectives of this study - the first on
the field - are to gain a better understanding of the reservoir
and its production and pressure performance over nearly a
century and to develop a plan for further developing the field
by drilling new vertical and horizontal wells. Reservoir
characterization provides input data for a full field, dual
porosity simulation model, which in turn verifies the input
data. Complicated reservoir pressure and production history
matches were successfully obtained to provide the basis for
future production forecasts. Re-injection of gas and water to
maintain reservoir pressure was also reviewed. Sensitivity
studies on different locations for the new wells shows that a
substantial incremental recovery can be recovered. Apart from
the inherent geological complexity, the project faced
tremendous data challenges such as the first field report
having been written some 37 years after the start of
production.
Introduction
The giant oil field Masjed-I-Suleyman (MIS) was discovered
in 1908 by the drilling of M1, the first oil well ever drilled in
the Middle East. Location of the first wells was determined on
the basis of oil seepages at surface through natural fractures of
the overburden formations. Production started in 1911 from
the prolific Asmari limestone reservoir of Oligocene-Miocene
age. Although 316 wells were reported in the field record, in
fact, there were only 277 wells ever drilled with 240 wells
actually penetrating the Asmari reservoir. The remainder of
the wells appear to be proposed well locations that were never
drilled1,2.
Production data suggests that at least 121 were oil wells,
with the most recent oil producers being drilled in 1939. In
1963, drilling of a deep Jurassic test was undertaken. One
unexpected outcome of drilling operations was an internal
blowout of sour Jurassic gas into the Asmari reservoir during
the period from 1964 to 1968 which affected significantly
reservoir pressure, fluid levels and fluid composition.
Seismic data was considered irrelevant since the field was
fully developed by the time the first program was acquired in
1968 and the field structure is reflected in the surface geology.
Surface topography also hinders seismic acquisition, and even
now only a few seismic lines terminate along the flanks of the
large MIS structure.
Log data is very sparse for MIS due to the age of the field,
especially because early wells were completed on the basis of
sample description and fluid losses, often massive, incurred
entering the fractured Asmari. Logs were only run in 22 wells,
of which only 3 wells penetrated the full Asmari section. The
logging suites are fairly conventional consisting of gamma
ray, sonic, density, neutron, resistivity and micro-resistivity
measurements; no dipmeter or Formation Micro-Imager (FMI)
logs have been acquired.
The Asmari reservoir section has been cored in only four
wells in MIS, and core analysis was completed on just two of
these wells. Only one of the cored wells has both logs and core
analysis done, therefore the log to core correlation is very
limited.
Cutting samples, which have been referred to in previous
works but were unavailable for this study, were used in
previous studies to provide estimated porosity distributions
across the field. This approach appears to be inconsistent and
incomplete. In the MIS field, the average Asmari reservoir
thickness is 1,075 ft. Although predominantly limestone in
2 SPE 88598
composition, the reservoir does contain interbeds of dolomite,
marl, shale and anhydrite. The first subdivision of the
reservoir into six lithological consistent units was established
in 1934. In ascending order these units are referred to as Stage
1 to Stage 6. This subdivision system has been used
throughout the field development. However, only the top of
the Asmari formation (top of Stage 6) had been identified
consistently from well cutting samples. The more detailed
subdivision was either impossible because the other Stages
were not penetrated or was not attempted. This made the task
of mapping the other Stage tops difficult.
From a field management perspective, little systematic
reservoir monitoring was conducted for the first 20 years of
production. By the time fairly routine reservoir pressure and
fluid level measurements started to be recorded in the early
1930s, about one third of total production had already
occurred. Monthly oil production records for individual wells
began in 1939. Before this time, only estimated individual
well cumulative oil production to the end of 1938 was
available. Productivity tests were not initiated until 1950, with
the last test being run in 1971. Gas production was not
recorded until 1965, probably as a result of the internal
Jurassic gas blowout. Water production was never measured in
the MIS field, although it was standard practice to shut-in
wells whenever watercuts exceed 4-5%.
Reservoir fluid analysis was reported on samples
collected very late during the field production life, from 1960
to 1966. Oil sample analysis demonstrated that crude oil
properties did not vary significantly across the reservoir. On
the other hand, gas composition changed with time and
location across the field, with the gas cap becoming very sour
after the internal blowout in the 1960s. No fluid sample
analysis was carried out before the reservoir started its
production in 1911. This presents a great challenge in
understanding fluid properties at initial reservoir conditions.
Special core analysis (SCAL) was performed on selected
core plugs from one core in MIS. Relative permeability curves
were obtained from those core plugs. Also, mercury injection
capillary measurements were conducted on samples with
different porosity. Due to the limited coring and core analysis
in MIS, an assignment of different SCAL data sets to different
rock types was not possible.
This paper describes a process of data screening and
validation as components of a full field 3D model for the MIS
field. This is an iterative process, the result of which is a 3D
flow model that provides a good match to the field historical
performance. During this process, issues and challenges in
limited data availability; different data quality; and uneven
data distribution in time and space are to be addressed. The
final 3D model allows production forecasting for the field
future redevelopment project.
Reservoir Characterization
This section summarizes the results of geological,
petrophysical and basic engineering studies of the Asmari
reservoir. These results provide the basis for building the 3D
model for the MIS field.
Mapping Field Structure. The MIS field is a simple 4-way
dip, closed, asymmetrical anticline, about 28.5 km long and
6.5 km wide. The MIS field lies within the prolific Zagros
Foreland Fold and Thrust Belt, which trends southeast from
Northern Iraq through southwestern Iran into Oman (Figure
1). The top of the Asmari formation in MIS was identified in
240 wells that penetrated the Asmari. Driller’s breaks and
sample cuttings were mostly used to identify the Asmari top.
Available logs on 22 wells, as well as core analysis, were used
to confirm and define more precisely the top of the reservoir.
As a result of the extensive well control it is possible to
accurately map the structure without the use of seismic.
The limited number of well logs and the shallow
penetration into the Asmari by most wells made an accurate
assignment of deeper Stage tops problematic. Having
recognized that individual Stages have relatively constant
thickness, average Stage thicknesses were used to construct
structure maps for all the Stages. On the other hand, it is
obvious that there can be discrete changes in reservoir
thickness across the field. Uncertainty analysis of reservoir
properties will be discussed later in this paper. A generalized
chrono-stratigraphy of the region is shown in Figure 2.
Petrophysical Properties and Analysis. Wireline log data in
MIS was acquired during two periods. Most of the logs were
run in the early to mid 1960s. These logs were obtained during
the process of deepening existing wells. Logs from two other
wells were obtained in 1998 and 1999 through the drilling of
two Jurassic wells. It is evident that over the considerable
amount of time between the two periods, the type of logging
tools used has changed significantly. In addition, drilling muds
used varied from well to well. These conditions raised the
issue of log quality.
Log normalization was implemented in an attempt to
obtain a consistent log data set. The latest log suite obtained in
1999 seemed to have the most consistency; therefore it was
chosen to be as the reference.
Lithologically, the Asmari formation is primarily
composed of clean limestone with some localized thin
claystones and minor dolomitization. Abundant anhydrite
interbeds occur near the middle and at the base of the Asmari
section. Net reservoir intervals were identified using
appropriate analysis and the application of porosity cut-offs
(4% and 7%). Net pay intervals were obtained by use of water
saturation cut-offs (42% and 50%) applied to net reservoir
intervals. In addition, in MIS, caliper logs were used to
identify fractures. Zones where the borehole is shown to be
out of gauge based on the caliper were considered to be zones
of potential intense fracturing.
For the matrix component, average porosities for
individual Stages are fairly consistent, ranging from 11% to
15%. Based on laboratory analysis of one core, matrix
horizontal permeability was measured in the range 0.2 - 0.3
md.
Water saturation values in the matrix have a wide range
depending on the source of the sample. Petrophysical analysis
in this study suggests the weighted average water saturation
for the field is in the range of 29% to 32%. On the other hand,
NIOC quotes an average water saturation of 36%, while Keep
and Mann3,4 (1962) suggest a value of 23% based on capillary
pressure measurements. Special core analysis on one core
determined the connate water saturation value at 18%. It
SPE 88598
should be kept in mind that there is no virgin core sample or
log data available for the first wells drilled into the MIS
Asmari reservoir. Water saturation values obtained from core
or log analysis later in the field life may not necessarily be the
same as the water saturation values at virgin reservoir
conditions.
Fracture Study. The Asmari reservoir in MIS is characterized
as a complex system with production coming from both the
rock matrix and fractures. Although fracturing has resulted in
a relatively continuous vertical reservoir, lateral reservoir
distribution appears to be more complex. Gibson5 (1948)
noted that in some parts of the reservoir the pressure of
adjacent wells was in close agreement, and that others showed
considerable difference. This observation suggests that the
distribution of the fractures is highly complex.
The most detailed description of fractures in the MIS field
comes from Sangree and McQuillan6 who examined a MIS
core in 1962. They only saw fracture development in the upper
three Stages of the Asmari. At the same time, Reiman and
Carst7 (1962) noted that hairline or macroscopic fractures
occur throughout the reservoir section. Later, Speers8 (1975)
found fractures in the deeper sections of the Asmari, while
examining other cores from the MIS field. In this study, it was
concluded that the fracture network in the lowest Stage of the
Asmari (Stage 1) is not well developed; therefore Stage 1 has
very limited production potential. As a result of this
conclusion, Stage 1 was made inactive in the 3D model.
According to Sangree and McQuillan (1962), there are
two major fracture systems in MIS; one is roughly parallel to
the northwest trend of the structure while the other one is
perpendicular to it. Both systems are sub-vertical with dips
generally in the range of 70 to 90o. Better developed fractures
can have widths in excess of 5 mm. The larger fractures tend
to be lined with secondary calcite cement, which completely
occludes the fractures or significantly reduces the aperture to
1mm or less. Al-Murani9 (2002) only noted major healed
fractures in Stage 6, with scattered hairline fractures in Stages
6 and 5.
Gibson5 (1948) concluded that fracture void space was
only responsible for somewhere in the order of 10% of all the
production in MIS. This number is roughly equivalent to 1.2%
of the matrix net pay. Gibson’s early fracture model confirmed
that fractures feeding the producing wells would have widths
ranging from 0.5 to 5 mm.
Permeabilities calculated from inflow performance are on
average 1,221 md, a value much higher than the apparent
matrix permeability of 0.2-0.3 md. Therefore, the calculated
permeabilities represent the permeability of the fracture
system. Furthermore, the average fracture permeability
increases to 1,572 md for wells drilled in the SW flank of the
field, but falls to 645 md for wells drilled across the remainder
of the anticline. This variance in average fracture permeability
is consistent with a quote from Speers8 (1975), which states
that “fracturing is better developed on the SW flank than on
the NE flank of the field”.
Fieldwork on the adjacent Asmari Mountain, which is
located about 30 km south of MIS, provides good information
on fracture distribution and pattern for the MIS Asmari
reservoir. According to Sangree et al.10 (1961), fracture
3
orientations in the Asmari mountain match the two major
fracture orientations observed in the core from MIS. Sangree
noted that displacement of faults or fractures on Asmari
Mountain ranges from 0.25 to 100 ft, with the average
displacement being over 10 ft. He also stated that there was no
consistent relation between the amount of fault displacement
and the width or intensity of the shatter zone. Faults of very
small displacement may have very intense shatter zones.
Measurement of fracture spacing on 4 outcrops indicated
fracture spacing in a range from 1.2 to 2.8 ft.
Recent fieldwork on Asmari Mountain recognized four
main types of fractures: axial fractures, cross-axial fractures,
conjugate fractures, and fracture swarms. Density of fractures
can range from a few millimeters to several meters (Figure 3).
It was also noted that fracture density on the north flank of the
Asmari Mountain appears to be fairly similar to the density
along the steeper southern flank of the anticline. Predominant
orientation of fractures ranges from N 50oW for axial fractures
to N 40oE for cross-axial fractures. Conjugate fractures on the
northern part of the Asmari Mountain have a preferential
azimuth of N 10oW. Fractures swarms can have axial, cross-
axial or conjugate fracture orientations. Dips of fractures are
generally normal to bedding planes or within 10-15o from
normal, although angles up to 50o from normal were observed
in axial fractures. Cementation was regularly observed,
especially in hairline fractures. Cementation of fracture
swarms could create discrete and disconnected reservoir
blocks within the Asmari formation. Conversely, large open
fractures and fracture swarms are expected to create major
“pipeline” systems which will greatly enhance oil movement
and oil recovery.
Due to the short distance (11-12 km) between the south-
eastern end of the MIS field and the north-western outcrops on
Asmari Mountain, it is believed that a direct correlation of
fracture patterns and fracture density can be safely made.
More specifically, a direct correlation between the fracture
patterns and fracture density on the north-eastern limb of
Asmari Mountain and the north-eastern flank of the MIS field
is highly possible.
Lack of reliable fracture data from cores or logs made
past fracture models for the Asmari reservoir rather imprecise.
In this study, in order to improve the understanding of
productivity in different areas, a new approach was
introduced. The Asmari reservoir was subdivided into six
drainage areas postulated from six different dip regimes
(Figure 4). These drainage areas were defined as Core Area
“A”, Core Area “B”, Back Limb “A”, Back Limb “B”, North
Limb and South Limb. The main producing areas along the
south flank of the field are mostly related to Core Area “A”
and Core Area “B”. The main producing areas along the north
flank are roughly related to Back Limb “A” and Back Limb
“B”. Different pore volume and fracture permeability
multipliers were applied to the six drainage areas. The
definition of these different multipliers was based on the
relative oil production in each drainage area.
Reservoir Fluid Analysis. No reservoir fluid laboratory
analysis was obtained in the MIS field before production
began. Numerical lab analysis was conducted on samples
collected later on in the field life, from 1960 to 1966. On
4 SPE 88598
average, the Asmari oil in MIS has a gravity of 38o API and a
viscosity of 3.5 cp. High H2S contents in some samples appear
to be related to the internal Jurassic sour gas blowout which
occurred in 1964.
PVT analysis reports on bottom-hole oil samples at
different times gave very different saturation pressure values.
Gibson5 (1948) reported an initial oil saturation pressure
ranging from 625 to 850 psia from samples collected in 1931.
A report published in 1962 by Keep and Mann3 estimated an
original bubble point pressure of 621 psia. Later on, from
samples collected between 1964 and 1966, PVT analysis
showed saturation pressure varying from 460 to 577 psia. In
the reservoir flow model, different bubble point pressures
were used during the history match process. In the final
model11, the bubble point pressure was 550 psia.
The dissolved Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR) of the Asmari oil was
one of the uncertain factors during the study. GOR in
production records up to 1964 showed a constant value of 231
scf/stb for all producing wells. Therefore, this GOR value was
assumed to be the initial dissolved GOR in the study. One
should keep in mind that gas production was not measured
accurately before 1964. The producing GOR up to 1964 may
well be below the initial dissolved GOR.
Formation water in the MIS Asmari reservoir is saline
with average specific gravity of 1.164. Average resistivity is
0.049 ohm-m, with total dissolved solids averaging about
282,000 ppm.
Gas composition in MIS changed with time. The virgin
gas in MIS Asmari reservoir had 84.4 mole % methane, and
only 3 mole % of H2S and 2 mole % of CO2. However, after
the internal blowout in the 1960s, a high degree of sour gas
contamination (up to 26 mole %) was exhibited in numerous
wells. PVT analysis on one gas sample shows a gas formation
volume factor (Bg) of 4.2 rb/Mscf at the bubble point pressure.
Production Data. In the MIS field, a total of 1,382 million stb
of oil was produced from 1911 to 2002. If recycled oil of 267
millions stb is taken into account, then the net oil production is
1,115 million stb. Production in the south flank of the field
started in 1911 and has continued until the present time.
Production in the north flank of the field started later in 1928
and was suspended in 1975. Figure 5 shows the oil production
profile for the field. At its peak, the MIS field produced up to
120,000 stb/d.
There have been some excellent oil producers during the
MIS production history in different parts of the field. Figure 6
shows the locations of the best performing wells. Some of
these wells have been on production for over 80 years. Good
oil producers are concentrated on the two flanks, while the
North and South Limbs do not have many good wells.
As pointed out before, production from MIS field was not
well documented before 1939. From 1939 onwards, individual
well oil production was recorded. However, producing GOR
was not accurately measured. After 1964, the producing GOR
was still not reliable. The reason for this is because gas used in
the gas lift systems, which started in the MIS field in the early
1960s to help production operations, was not properly
discounted from the producing GOR.
Free gas production data was another issue for the MIS
field. Free gas was used for field operation (power generation,
gas lift operation) but monthly free gas production records are
only available from 1971. Before this time, only an estimated
cumulative number was provided. During the internal
blowout, a very large amount of gas was flared to relieve
reservoir pressure. The estimated total gas flared was 227 bcf
(Tehrani12, 1969). Free gas production became an important
issue because of its affect on reservoir pressure and fluid
levels in the fracture system.
The amount of Jurassic gas that entered the Asmari
reservoir is unknown. Several attempts were made to estimate
this amount based on the increase in reservoir pressure.
Tehrani11 (1967) quoted an estimate of 432 bcf from 1964 to
1967. The amount of blowout gas was treated as one of the
reservoir matching parameters during this study because this
amount significantly affected the reservoir pressure and fluid
levels in the model. In the final model, this gas amount is
estimated to be 350 bcf.
Recycled oil from the topping plant was re-injected back
into the Asmari reservoir from 1929 to 1975. Obviously, the
composition of the re-injected oil was not the same as the oil
in the Asmari reservoir because lighter components were
stripped away. Also, the recycled oil was not only from the
MIS field but came from different oil fields in the area.
Unfortunately, no individual well injection rates were
recorded.
Currently, there are 12 oil producing wells in MIS with the
average field production rate of 4,300 stb/d. All the oil wells
are located in the south flank of the field. The majority of the
producing wells have gas lift systems to assist the oil flow.
Well Test Data. There have been over 4,000 static gradient
pressure tests conducted on over 50 wells in the MIS Asmari
reservoir from 1929 until the present day. Also, well
productivity tests were conducted on 34 wells over a 14-year
period from May 1957 to May 1971. No initial reservoir
pressure is available. The initial reservoir pressure was a
subject to scrutiny during reservoir modeling and history
match.
As well, limitations of testing equipment may impair the
quality of tests conducted at MIS. Well test information was
often not reliable because the build-up time was too short
(only 2-3 hours) or because of frequent malfunctions in the
well testing equipment. It is important to note that only
mechanical gauges have been used for well testing in this
field. There was no computerized test monitoring system
employed during such tests, therefore the test quality could not
be confirmed until after the test was completed.
Oil pressure at the datum depth of 1727 ftss for all the
available pressure data is shown in Figure 7. From Figure 7, it
can be observed that the field pressure was quite uniform from
1929 to 1964. During the internal blowout from April 1964 to
December 1967, the oil pressure increased by about 110 psi.
The pressure fell off quickly after the blowout had been
controlled. After 1968, the pressures in the north and the south
flanks of the field began to diverge, although the pressure
within each flank remained quite uniform. The pressure in the
south flank continued to decline while the pressure in the
north stayed almost constant. At the end of the history match
in 2002, the pressure difference is 120-140 psi (430-450 psia
in the south flank and 570-590 psia in the north flank). The
SPE 88598
pressure difference in the two flanks of the field after 1968 is
probably due to a combination of field production and poor
reservoir communication between the north and south flanks
of the MIS anticline.
Dome gas pressure (at the crest of the reservoir) was
measured in 7 crestal wells. Dome gas pressure measurements
started in 1923 with the installation of high pressure wellhead
fittings. All dome gas pressure readings were measured at the
wellhead. The datum depth for gas pressure values is 0 ftss.
The use of bottom-hole recordings was not possible due to the
installation of down-hole safety valves in these crestal wells. It
was noted at the time that the dome gas pressures varied
across the field and that a method to more precisely assess this
variation should be found. Such a method would have been
important for calculating accurate gas oil levels (GOL) but it
was never implemented.
Water pressure was usually measured in the deeper wells
that penetrated most of the Asmari section. Water pressure is
usually reported at a water datum depth of 1900 ftss. Water
pressure was used to calculate water oil level. Little is known
about aquifer size or aquifer strength in MIS, but it is believed
that some aquifer contribution is common in these reservoirs.
Some professional people within NIOC believe that there is a
connection between the aquifer in MIS and surface hydrology.
An argument to support these ideas is that the aquifer pressure
in MIS apparently increased after a large dam was built on the
nearby Karun River in the early 1960s. Unfortunately, there
are very few aquifer pressure records in MIS before that time.
Therefore, there is no absolute data that can be used to
confirm the above observation. It can be assumed that aquifer
support is rather weak in the field and, as a result, oil pressure
fell much below its initial pressure.
Productivity index (PI) tests on a limited number of wells
provided general information on well production capacity.
Permeability values could be derived using the Darcy’s flow
equation13. Productivity indices (PI) are also indicators of
local reservoir fracturing as well as wellbore conditions. In the
MIS field, PI values varied with time within individual wells
and could change dramatically from well to well. Some of the
wells could have a PI of thousands stb/d/psi while other wells,
located very close to the good producers, could not produce at
all. For the MIS Asmari reservoir, individual well
performance was determined mainly by how well fractures
had been developed. Good producers intercepted an excellent
fracture network while poor producers probably only cut
through tight matrix or a poorly connected fracture network.
Fluid Levels. No direct measurements of fluid levels were
taken before production commenced in the MIS field.
However, the Asmari reservoir is commonly considered as an
undersaturated reservoir at the beginning. NIOC places the
original water oil contact (WOC) at 2,198 ftss. The only other
available reference to the original WOC was found in an old
1964 report (Threadgold14, 1964), where an initial depth of
2,084 ftss was suggested. For this study, the original WOC
was set at 2,160 ftss, which roughly splits the two values. This
potential original WOL value at 2,160 ftss is also supported by
the extrapolation of the fluid level back to the 1911 start-up.
GOL and WOL changes with time have been determined
in the MIS field using pressure gradients and direct fluid
5
dipping methods. Between 1930 and 1961 it appears that
WOL were determined by directly dipping 10 wells. From
1962, WOL determination became limited because the WOL
moved beyond these 10 wells. WOL from 1962 onwards were
determined only by the pressure gradients method. GOL were
always determined by the pressure gradients method using
datum gas and oil pressure measurements. Figures 8 and 9
show variations of WOL and GOL in the MIS field with time.
Considering how fluid levels were determined in the past,
it cannot be said with any degree of certainty where the
contacts are currently located, or how these contacts evolved
through time.
Stock Tank Oil Initial in Place (STOIIP). Two approaches
were used to estimate STOIIP for MIS in this study. The first
approach is static and the second approach is dynamic. The
first approach is based on volumetric properties such as rock
volume, porosity and fluid saturations. The second approach is
based on time-dependent properties such as pressure and
production/injection. Material balance calculations employ a
simple dynamic approach. A more sophisticated dynamic
approach is full field flow simulation modeling which
provides the most accurate and reliable STOIIP.
For the static approach, the formula to calculate STOIIP is
as follows:
STOIIP = ∑ A*H*NTG*φ*(1- S wi)/Boi (1)
Where A is the area, H the gross pay thickness, NTG the
net-to-gross ratio, φ the porosity, Swi the initial water
saturation, and Boi the initial oil formation volume factor. The
symbol ∑ is the summation sign to sum up STOIIP for
different layers (Stages) or different parts of the reservoir.
With average values applied for each parameter in the
equation (1) and the correction factors applied to the net
reservoir volume for the six drainage areas mentioned above,
the STOIIP is 5.6 billion stb (4% porosity and 50% Sw cutoffs)
and 4.8 billion stb (7% porosity and 42% Sw cutoffs). Without
reservoir correction factors, the STOIIP would be 12 and 10.1
billion stb, respectively.
There is great uncertainty in assessing STOIIP because
each of the input parameters in equation (1) carries a certain
degree of uncertainty. Uncertainty can be assessed and
quantified using the Monte Carlo simulation (or Stochastic
Simulation or Random Drawing). Monte Carlo simulation
provides not only the mean value of STOIIP but also the
uncertainty in the estimate.
Monte Carlo drawing was done on the basis of the
parametric distributions for each input variable per Stage, with
different minimum and maximum cutoffs. Cutoff values were
based on the sample data histograms and petrophysical
cutoffs. The STOIIP was calculated using equation (1) for
every Monte Carlo draw. Monte Carlo drawings were repeated
many times (10,000 draws in this study). In the final results,
STOIIP for 4% porosity and 50% Sw cutoffs is 5.17 billion stb,
7.65 billion stb and 10.40 billion stb for P10, P50 and P90
cases, respectively. STOIIP for 7% porosity and 42% Sw
cutoffs is 4.82 billion stb, 7.20 billion stb and 9.77 billion stb
for P10, P50 and P90 cases, respectively.
6 SPE 88598
The material balance calculation gave non-unique
solutions regarding the STOIIP for MIS. One model gave a
STOIIP value of 7 billion stb, with an aquifer influx of about
500 million stb. Another model gave different values of
STOIIP depending on the amount of aquifer influx. The most
probable STOIIP value from the latter model is 6.05 billion
stb, with 300 million stb of water influx.
A STOIIP value of 5.3 billion stb for the MIS field was
reported from flow simulation (using commercial software);
this is considered the most reliable method for determining the
STOIIP.
Model Construction
Data obtained from the reservoir characterization portion of
the study was used as input for the 3D full field flow
simulation model. Before the 3D flow model was built, there
were numerous reservoir parameters that were either unknown
or uncertain, such as:
• Initial reservoir pressure;
• Existence of initial gas cap;
• Initial oil and water saturations;
• Initial bubble point pressure;
• Initial fluid contacts;
• Reservoir quality variation;
• Gas production/blowout gas;
• Oil production before 1939;
• Reservoir pressure before 1930.
Redefining and fine-tuning of those parameters were the
main objectives of history matching.
A dual porosity model was used to model the
performance of the MIS Asmari reservoir. The dual porosity
model is more appropriate than the single porosity model
because the MIS Asmari reservoir is highly fractured. The
dual porosity model has grid dimensions of 30 x 125 x 18 (9
layers for the matrix and 9 for the fractures). A set of 7 maps
obtained during the reservoir characterization phase was used
as a frame for 3D gridding. Local grid refinements were used
for the current 12 oil producers locations (nx = 8, ny = 1, nz =
2) and for the potential area of future re-development (nx = 3,
ny = 1, nz = 3).
Porosity. There are only 22 well logs and two routine core
analyses available for the entire field. With such little data, it
is meaningless to try to map porosity values across the field.
In addition, the matrix porosity was found to be quite uniform
for each Stage. Therefore, a constant porosity was used for
each Stage. The fracture porosity was assumed to be 2% of the
matrix porosity (Table 1). Pore volume multipliers were later
used to adjust the STOIIP.
Net-To-Gross Ratio. Constant NTG ratios were applied for
each Stage of the matrix in the flow model. These constants
were average NTG values from well log analysis. NTG were
all 1.0 for fractures (open fractures), as seen in Table 1.
Pore Volume Multipliers. Pore volume multipliers were used
as a tuning parameter during the history matching process. A
final set of pore volume multipliers is presented in Table 2.
Permeability. In a dual porosity model, there is no direct flow
from matrix cells to neighboring matrix cells. Fluids can only
flow from fracture cells to neighboring fracture cells and from
matrix cells to fracture cells. Production only occurs from the
fractures. Therefore, for simplicity, a constant permeability of
3 md was used for all layers and all directions within the
matrix.
A simplified assumption that the oil recovery would be
proportional to the fracture permeability was made; therefore
fracture permeability was prorated to the reservoir correction
factors. The referenced x-direction permeability value kx of
4,766 md for Core Area A was an averaged permeability from
different wells in that area. Table 2 shows permeability values
used for the different drainage areas. The kx was assumed to
be the same as ky in the middle part of the reservoir, but
reduced in the North and the South Limbs. In addition,
fracture permeability was assumed to be the same for all
model layers. More discussion on permeability can be found
in the history match section below.
Dual Porosity Matrix-to-Fracture Transfer Function
(SIGMA). The term SIGMA is a parameter calculated on the
basis of matrix block sizes. SIGMA acts like a transmissibility
multiplier which controls the fluid transfer between matrix and
fractures, and is usually treated as a matching parameter.
SIGMA can be specified as one number for an entire field or
on a cell by cell basis.
For the MIS dual porosity model, a final SIGMA value of
0.00213 was applied to all the cells. Assuming that the matrix
block sizes in the X, Y, and Z directions were the same, this
value of SIGMA corresponds to a matrix block size of 75 ft.
Model Initialization. In the final model, the initial reservoir
pressure at the datum depth (1,727 ftss) was 1,200 psia. Initial
GOL was at the top of the reservoir (-220 ftss). Initial WOL
was 2,160 ftss. Initial water saturation was 30%. Uniform
solution GOR 231 scf/stb was specified for the entire
reservoir. These reservoir properties were specified based on
the assumption that the MIS Asmari reservoir was slightly
undersaturated at the beginning and that the reservoir fluid
properties were the same in all parts of the reservoir.
Two unsteady-state analytical aquifers (Fetkovitch’s
model) were attached to the north and the south flanks of MIS.
Aquifer sizes and aquifer strength were subject to changes
during the history matching process. In the final results, the
aquifer attached to the south had a different size from the one
attached to the north flank. Aquifer productivity indices (PIs)
were 12 stb/psi/day and 25 stb/psi/day in the south and the
north flanks, respectively. Note that the aquifer size and
strength attached to the north flank are much bigger than the
one attached to the south flank. A stronger aquifer in the north
flank supports the higher observed pressure in the north.
Reservoir volumetrics after initialization was 5.3 billion
stb of oil, 6 billion stb of water and 1.2 bcf of dissolved gas.
Oil was stored in both fractures and matrix. At initialization,
about 8.3 % of the total STOIIP was in the fractures. This is
roughly equivalent to an extra 1% fracture porosity added to
the matrix net pay. This value is consistent with worldwide
fracture field analogues where fracturing typically represents
less than 1.5% of the net rock volume.
SPE 88598
History Match
Primary data to be matched in the MIS field were the total
field oil production rate and regional pressures for the north
and the south flanks. Unlike other reservoir simulation studies,
watercut and GOR were not primary parameters to be matched
in MIS due to the fact that watercut and GOR data were not
available or were unreliable. Full field average pressure was
not matched because of the distinctive difference in regional
pressures between the north and the south flanks after 1968. It
would not make much sense to try to calculate historical
average full field pressure and match it.
Secondary data to be matched were the gas pressure and
fluid levels in the fractures. In the dual porosity model, fluid
saturations can be quite different between matrix and fracture
cells. In the tight matrix, even if the reservoir pressure has
dropped significantly, oil still exists everywhere and even
extends to the top of the reservoir. However, in the fractures,
the gas, oil and water are very well segregated (because of
gravity dominance and high permeability). Well-defined GOL
and WOL exist in the fractures, but not in the matrix. This is
perhaps the most significant difference between dual and
single porosity models.
Individual well matches focused on well oil production
and static bottom-hole pressure. These requirements would be
satisfied if the full field match was achieved since the well
pressure curves are similar between different wells in each
flank.
The oil production match is shown in Figure 10. The field
oil production profile was perfectly honored indicating the
reservoir model has the capacity to reproduce the oil
production history.
Much of the effort was focused to match the pressure in
the south and in the north flanks. As discussed earlier, the
reason for the pressure difference between the two flanks is
probably due to reduced reservoir communication between the
two flanks and continuing production in the south. However,
reservoir communication between the two flanks did not seem
to be a problem before the internal blowout in the 1960’s. This
statement is supported by the fact that the reservoir pressure
was quite uniform before the blowout, although the production
was always higher in the south flank. Changing degrees of
communication between the two flanks with time presented a
great challenge during the history matching process. This
challenge was exacerbated by the fact that little was known
about the reservoir fracture system in MIS.
One modeling concept that gave a successful pressure
history match was the possibility of a dramatic permeability
reduction in fractures at the two South and North Limbs of the
field. According to this concept, early in the field production
history, oil in the fractures could migrate between the two
flanks quite easily to support high production rates in the
south. Oil movement paths were mainly across the reservoir
crest. Oil movement around the two limbs was restricted
because of low permeability in those two limbs. Later on in
the field life, the reservoir pressure dropped and the gas cap
grew significantly. Oil could not move through the gas cap
and therefore the oil movement through the crest gradually
diminished. After the gas cap reached the two limbs, which
probably occurred in the early 1960s, oil movement across the
crest ceased. The only way for oil to migrate from the north
7
flank to the south flank was to go around the two limbs. Since
these paths were never effective, the two flanks were now
almost separated. As a result, the reservoir pressure in the
north stayed higher than in the south where production
persisted and the reservoir pressure continued to fall.
The idea of this oil movement “restriction” presented
above is supported by the fact that the oil recovery in the two
limbs is lower compared to the recovery in the central part of
the structure. This implies a less-developed fracture network
or lower fracture permeability in the two limbs.
Regional pressure matches for the south and north flanks
are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Pressure in the matrix and
fractures is very close. A very good pressure match was
obtained except for a period from 1940 to 1960. This could be
explained by lower pressure measurements in the wellbores
compared with the true reservoir pressure due to high
production during this period of time. Before 1940, although
production was higher, the reservoir had higher pressure and
therefore full pressure build-ups at the wellbore could be
achieved in a shorter time. Therefore, static pressure
measurements at wellbores were closer to the true reservoir
pressure. After 1970, oil production decreased significantly
and consequently pressures at wellbores and in the reservoir
were closer to equilibrium.
A gas cap pressure match is shown in Figure 13. The gas
cap pressure output from simulation is always slightly lower
than the historical one. It seems that the gas cap pressure was
very sensitive to free gas production in MIS. Since the gas
production was not recorded, the model probably produced
more free gas than it had occurred in reality. Considering
uncertainties in the free gas production, as well as the
historical gas cap pressure, improvement in the gas cap match
was impossible.
The gas cap pressure issue is important because it directly
determined the fluid levels in MIS. The plots of fluid level
matches are shown in Figure 14 and 15 for the south and the
north flanks, respectively. Values plotted on the curves are
from simulation and are the average values calculated using
the pressure gradient method. The calculated fluid levels were
confirmed by a 3D picture viewer. The fluid level match is
reasonably good. A 3D view of the field fluid saturations in
the fractures at 2002 is shown in Figure 16.
At the end of the history match (2002), the field recovery
factor was 21% based on a STOIIP of 5.3 billion stb. The
remaining mobile oil at the end of history match is 0.96 billion
stb, therefore there is still potential for more oil recovery in
the MIS field.
After an acceptable history match was obtained, the 3D
reservoir model described above was used for future
production forecasts.
Production Forecast
Numerous production forecast runs were conducted to find the
most optimal way to redevelop the MIS field. It should be
noted however that the MIS field is subject to a service (or
“buy-back”) contract which prescribes specific daily
production rates. Contractual obligations for the field re-
development require a minimum incremental production of
20,000 stb/d. This additional production should be maintained
for at least 4 years. A maximum production constraint is also
8 SPE 88598
applied. This production target is to be achieved by drilling
new wells and by possible workovers of existing wells. A new
production facility capable of handling up to 100,000 bbls/d of
total fluid is also scheduled. This means that the facility
should be able to handle up to 75-80% total watercut from the
new wells. Installation of Electric Submersible Pumps (ESPs)
in horizontal wells is also planned to assist oil production flow
at wellbores. Production from the new wells is scheduled to
start in June 2006. Prediction runs were run out to 2036 (30
years after the new wells commence production).
In the forecast runs, the impact on field performance of
the following production scenarios was considered:
• Gas injection;
• Injection of produced water;
• Workovers of existing wells;
• New well locations;
• No maximum rate control;
• GOL on recovery.
The selection of locations for the new wells was based on
the number of new wells to be drilled, surface topography, and
subsurface reservoir constraints. Also, NIOC excluded the
south flank from redevelopment because of some concerns
about possible interference between redevelopment activities
and the current NIOC production in the south flank. From a
reservoir point of view, this exclusion does not really affect a
redevelopment potential. The north flank probably has a much
higher oil recovery potential compared with the south because
it has a thicker oil column and higher reservoir pressure.
Two vertical and eight horizontal wells were planned.
Vertical wells are to be drilled for data acquisition purposes
and possible contribution to future production. Horizontal
portions of the new horizontal wells have a length of about
2,400 ft.
Rough topographical conditions in some parts of the north
flank placed some limitations on areas suitable for drilling the
new wells. New wells are to be placed only in the Back Limb
“A” and the South Limb.
On the basis of subsurface reservoir restrictions, new
wells should be placed in such a way that they intercept the
thicker portion of the oil rim. They are to be placed preferably
close to existing north flank wells which were good oil
producers until they were suspended because of water or gas
encroachment or for operational reasons. The two vertical
wells have been proposed in locations where the maximum
amount of new information about the reservoir, such as
reservoir quality, pressure and fluid levels, could be obtained.
A map showing the locations of the 10 new wells in one of the
prediction runs is presented in Figure 17.
For all prediction cases, the total incremental oil recovery
from the 10 new wells could reach 200 million stb over 30
years. If no rate constraints were imposed on the 10 new wells,
the cumulative oil recovery could be as high as 233 million stb
over 30 years. It is also important to note that, according to the
simulation model, the maximum service contract rate would
be maintained for about 10 years after the start-up of the new
wells.
In the case with no gas or water re-injection, cumulative
oil recovery is 205 MMstb. If the produced water (about 25
MMstb) is re-injected back into the Asmari reservoir, only 195
MMstb of oil can be produced because of subsequent water
encroachment in the new wells. Moreover, more water is
produced in this case. If both produced gas (about 86 bcf) and
water are re-injected, then a slight increase of the total
additional oil recovery (197 MMstb versus 195 MMstb) was
observed. However, this slight increase in oil recovery comes
with a significant jump in gas production (about 100 bcf of
additional gas produced). Obviously, the injected gas enlarges
the gas cap size in the fracture network fairly quickly and
consequently lowers the GOL. Before the new wells come on
stream, the GOL is not too far from the horizontal well
trajectories. Eventually, free gas would get into the wellbores
faster than the oil inflow.
A similar picture was observed in terms of gas production
for a set of runs where the maximum oil rate control was
removed. However, the total oil recovery was lower (221
MMstb compared with 233 MMstb). Re-injection of produced
gas and water does not seem to help in increasing oil
production in the field.
It had been observed during the history match and
forecast for the MIS field that the GOL was greatly affected
by gas injection/production. One idea considered was to see
how changing GOL would affect the recovery process. The
question was whether increasing free gas production would
improve the total oil recovery in MIS or not.
To verify the case with increasing free gas production, it
was assumed that 10 MMscf/d would be produced (the re-
injection of produced water was also considered in this case).
Oil production for this case is 197 MMstb, or slightly higher
than the 195 MMstb recovered in the case without additional
free gas production. The negative aspect of producing
additional free gas is that it would deplete the reservoir
pressure faster. In this case, gas cap pressure can be 50 psi
lower compared with the case with no additional gas
production.
The affect of well workovers on total oil recovery has also
been reviewed. Five potential well workover candidates were
identified along the north flank. The resulting model shows
that by performing workovers on these 5 wells, the total
production from the 10 new wells would decrease by about 9
MMstb because the potential workover wells interfere with the
new horizontal wells. However, if the oil production from the
5 workover wells is also included, the total oil recovery would
increase by 7 MMstb. There is unfortunately a risk in re-
completing existing wells due to the fact that those wells have
not been on production for more than 30 years. Therefore,
wellbores are probably not in optimal conditions. Well
workovers may encounter unpredictable operational
difficulties such as casing/tubing failure, poor cement behind
casing, etc.
Well location optimization was another part of the
forecasting process. A variety of sensitivities were tried
including the selection of locations one layer higher or lower
in a stratigraphic level, and locations closer to the gas cap or
closer to the water leg. The total oil recovery slightly changes
from one case to another (203-209 MMstb). Moving wells
closer to the WOL showed the highest recovery among those
cases. However, water production became higher compared
with other scenarios. By moving wells closer to the gas cap
but lower stratigraphically, both gas and water production
SPE 88598
diminished. On the other hand, locations that are too close to
the gas cap could also create potential problems, since the
GOL in MIS is not exactly defined, as explained in the history
match. A lower than expected GOL would put new wells in
danger of coning gas too soon.
The final and recommended case in well location
optimization gives a production forecast of 215 MMstb.
Figure 18 shows the production of oil, water and gas for this
final case. A plot of pressure at datum depth (Figure 19)
shows that at the end of the prediction period, pressure in the
north and in the south flanks is equalized at about 400-420
psia. Fluid levels are still different in the two flanks (Figure
20), with GOL in the north flank moving down significantly
(from 1150 ftss to 1400 ftss) and WOL moving up
significantly (from 1700 ftss to 1600 ftss) in the north flank.
Fluid levels in the south flank stay almost constant at the 2002
fluid levels.
In the final prediction run, the completion interval for the
new wells was set between 1,400 and 1,450 ftss. This depth
interval corresponds to a depth range from one half to two
thirds of the oil column in the north flank (reference from the
GOL). This approach aims at delaying gas invasion. In this
case, horizontal wells may produce more water than in the
case where they are to be completed in higher intervals.
However, since gas cap expansion is faster than the rise of the
water table in the fractures, this set of locations and
completion intervals is a better option than other tested
locations.
The model shows that by 2037, the total net oil recovery
in MIS would be 1.385 billion stb. This is an incremental
recovery of 270 MMstb from 2002 with 215 MMstb being
produced from 10 new wells and 55 MMstb being produced
from the 12, or fewer, wells currently still on production. This
incremental oil recovery would bring the total field recovery
factor to 26% (from 21% in 2002).
Conclusions and Recommendations
During preparation of a redevelopment plan for the MIS field,
available data collected during the 95 years of the field history
has been reviewed thoroughly. Data screening and validation,
assessment of data reliability and/or uncertainty was part of a
cycle of building a full field reservoir simulation model. A
good history match was obtained which confirms the initial oil
in place of around 5.3 billion stb and the remaining potential
for the future field redevelopment.
Results of a series of prediction runs show that a total
additional oil recovery of 195-215 MMstb with the drilling of
2 new vertical and 8 horizontal wells is possible over 30 years.
The model also shows that a rate of 20,000 stb/d, which will
satisfy contractual obligations, can be easily maintained.
Re-injection of produced gas or water seems to be an
inefficient method of either maintaining the reservoir pressure
or increasing oil production. It is believed this is because fluid
levels in the fractures are very sensitive to the fluid injection.
The remaining thin oil column may shrink significantly if gas
or water is injected back into the reservoir. Therefore, it is
advisable that, if possible, other zones to dispose of produced
water should be considered, or at least that produced water be
injected down the flanks of the Asmari reservoir and/or as far
away as possible from the producing wells.
9
Workover of existing old wells is not recommended
because of uncertainty in wellbore conditions and the
reliability of old production equipment.
With the current understanding of fluid levels in the field,
a completion interval from 1,400 to 1,450 ftss is recommended
for new horizontal wells in the north flank. This depth interval
should be reviewed once new information on fluid levels is
obtained through the drilling of the two vertical wells
proposed in the redevelopment plan for the MIS field.
In view of uncertainties remaining in the field, the two
vertical wells should be drilled first to obtain vital information
on current fluid levels, which are important for determining
final locations and depths of the eight horizontal wells. A
modern program of drilling, coring, logging and well testing
should be carried out. Underbalanced drilling can be a good
approach to drill and evaluate horizontal wells. Regarding the
logging program, in addition to a log suite for conventional
reservoirs, borehole imaging logs are recommended as they
can be very useful in evaluating fractures including their
density, orientations, and network connectivity.
A final comment on this study is that the reservoir model
obtained from this study has some limitations. These
limitations are due to the fact that MIS is a complex fractured
reservoir, the fracture network of which is not well
understood, and there are uncertainties and unknowns in its
history. Those uncertainties are encountered in areas such as
the history of gas cap evolution, the aquifer influence and the
field production including the internal blowout in the 1960s
that changed the reservoir pressure and the fluid level
behavior.
Extensive computing time and resources required for
building the 3D model for the MIS field was another challenge
during this study. In an attempt to reach a compromise
between the model size and the required computing time to
simulate such a large oil field, the model grid sizes were kept
fairly big (800 x 800 ft for x and y directions). The results
obtained from the model were partially affected by grid sizing;
these effects could have been avoided if the grid sizes were
smaller.
We are confident that the results of this study are valid
but should be treated with caution until new information
obtained from the field confirms the data input and the
assumptions made in the reservoir model.
Nomenclature
A = area (ft2)
bcf = billion standard cubic feet
Bg = gas formation volume factor (reservoir
barrels/Mscf
Boi = oil formation volume factor at initial
conditions (reservoir barrel/stb)
GOL = gas oil level(s)
GOR = gas-oil ratio(s) (scf/stb)
FMI = Formation Micro-Imager log
ftss = feet subsea
H = reservoir thickness (ft)
IOEPC = Iranian Oil Exploration and Producing
Company
kx = permeability in x direction
ky = permeability in y direction
10 SPE 88598

kz = permeability in z direction Reservoir Evaluation Division, Reservoir Geology Department,

MIS = Masjed-I-Suleyman Report No. P-2847. 1975.
Mscf = thousand scf 9. Al-Murani, G., Well CS-186 Thin Section Study, Sheer Energy
Mstb = thousand stock tank barrels Internal Report, 2002, [Confidential Client Report].
MMstb = millions stock tank barrels 10. Sangree, J., et al., Asmari Fracture Study, Jersey Production
NIOC = National Iranian Oil Company
Research Company and Iranian Oil Exploration and Producing
NTG = net to gross
nx = number of refined numerical grid blocks in x Company, Report JS61: 104-742, 1961.
direction 11. ECL Canada, Full Field Study for Masjed-I-Suleyman (MIS) Oil
ny = number of refined numerical grid blocks in y Field, Phase 3 Report, 2004, [Confidential Client Report].
direction 12. Tehrani, D.H., Repressuring of MIS Reservoir Due to
nz = number of refined numerical grid blocks in z Underground Blowout of MIS-306, IOEPC Report No. P-1672,
direction September 1969.
PI = productivity index (stb/psi/d) 13. Dake, L.P., Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier,
scf = standard cubic feet
Amsterdam, 1978.
SIGMA = dual porosity matrix to fracture transfer
function 14. Threadgold, P., MIS Well C-153 Schlumberger Log/Core
stb = stock tank barrel(s) Analysis Study, Exploration Division, BP Research Centre,
SCAL = special core analysis 1964.
STOIIP = stock tank oil initial in place
Sw = water saturation (fraction)
Swi = initial water saturation (fraction) Metric Conversion Factors
WOL = water oil level(s) barrel x 0.158 987 3 = m3
Φ = porosity (fraction) ft x 0.304 8 (exact) =m
psi x 6.894 757 = kPa
Acknowledgement
The authors thank NIOC, Naftgaran Engineering Services Co. Table 1: Porosity and NTG Used in the 3D Flow
and Sheer Energy Inc. for permission to publish the paper. Model
Hitchner Exploration Services Ltd., Paravar Engineering
Asmari Porosity (%) NTG (fraction)
Company, Prendegast Petroleum, and Dr. Kwan Chiu are also Stage Matrix Fractures Matrix Fractures
thanked for their contributions to the study. Finally, we would 6 11 0.22 0.64 1
like to thank our colleagues at ECL Canada for their support 5 11 0.22 0.54 1
during the project. 4 12 0.24 0.50 1
3 14 0.28 0.52 1
2 12 0.24 0.62 1
References 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
1. ECL Canada, Full Field Study for Masjed-I-Suleyman (MIS) Oil
Field, Phase 1 Report, September, 2002, [Confidential Client Table 2: Permeability for Different Drainage Areas
Report].
2. ECL Canada, Full Field Study for Masjed-I-Suleyman (MIS) Oil Fracture Permeability (md)
Drainage Area
kx ky kz
Field, Phase 2 Report, February, 2004, [Confidential Client Core Area “A” 4,766 4,766 4,766
Report]. Core Area “B” 5,862 5,862 5,862
Back Limb “A” 2,145 2,145 2,145
3. Keep, K. and Mann, F., Exploration Division, BP Research
Back Limb “B” 2,145 2,145 2,145
Centre, Masjed-I-Suleyman Reservoir Study, 1 Reservoir Data, North Limb 0.953 953 953
1962 South Limb 1.525 1,525 1,525
4. Keep, K. and Mann, F., Exploration Division, BP Research
Table 3: Pore Volume Multipliers for Different
Centre, Masjed-I-Suleyman Reservoir Study, 2 Reservoir Data,
Drainage Areas
1962
5. Gibson, H., “The Production of Oil from the Fields of Initial Pore Volume Final Pore Volume
Drainage
Southwestern Iran”, Redwood Institute Presentation, 1948. Multiplier Multiplier
Area
Matrix Fracture Matrix Fracture
6. Sangree, J. and McQuillan, Description of Fractures, Asmari Core Area “A” 1 1 0.937 0.9
Limestone Cores, Southwest Iran, IOEPC Report No. G 963, Core Area “B” 1.23 1 1.152 0.9
Back Limb “A” 0.45 1 0.422 0.9
1962.
Back Limb “B” 0.45 1 0.422 0.9
7. Reiman, K. and Carst, H., Analysis of Core Samples from Well North Limb 0.20 1 0.187 0.9
M.I.S. C-153, Shell Technical Memo T 312, 1, 1962. South Limb 0.32 1 0.300 0.9
8. Speers, R., Review of the Geology of the Asmari Reservoir,
Masjed-I-Suleyman Field, Oil Service Company of Iran,
SPE 88598 11

46°E 50°E 54°E 58° E 62°E

T U R K M E N I S T A N

TURKEY
Tab riz
38°N

SOUTHERN CASPIAN
M asshad

TEHRAN
ISLA MIC
TANG-E-BIJAR RE PU B L I C OF
BAGHDAD
I R A N 32°N
Z AVAREH-
KASHAN

TABA

ANARAN MASJED-I-SULEYMAN
Esfahan
AFGHANISTAN

MASJID-I SULAIMAN
I R A Q MEHR
SHUROUM, RIG,
MARUN BANGESTAN DUDROU

BANDAR-E- MUNIR Kerman

30°N
MAHSHAHR SARVESTAN,
DARA

KUWAIT Shi raz SAADAT ABAD

KHARG BUSHEHR, KHESHT,
PAKISTAN

ISLAND FARSI
BUSHGAN, KUH-E KAKI
TABNAK, VARAVI
BANDAR
S A U D I ABBAS

A R A B I A HORMOZ

KISH EAST QUESHM

KISH
WEST
28°N
Figure 3: Cross-axial and Axial Fractures, Spaced 25 to 150 cm
SIRRI, RESLAT,
MAKRAN
Apart - Stage 2, South Flank of Asmari Mountain
RESHADAT, ABUZAR

Figure 1: Persian Gulf General Map

N

ASMARI

Figure 2: Generalized Regional Chrono-Stratigraphy of the Zagros

Belt Figures in brackets are total oil recovery for the drainage area

Figure 4: The Six Drainage Areas in the MIS Field

12 SPE 88598

120 900

Second World War 850

100 800
total field oil rate
Oil Production Rate (Mstb/d)

Oil Pressure at Datum Depth (psig)

oil recycle injection rate 750

80 BLOW-OUT
700
Industry Nationalization
650 North Flank
60
600

550
40
500

Iran-Iraq War 450

20
400 South Flank

350
0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 300
1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Tim e (Year)
Time ( Year)

Figure 5: Oil Production Rate and Oil Recycle Rate

Figure 7: Historical Oil Pressure versus Time

15-30 MM BBLS 500

700
30-50 MM BBLS
900

50-75 MM BBLS
GOL & WOL (ftss) 1100

1300

GOL
1500

1700

WOL
1900

2100
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Time (Year)

Figure 8: Historical GOL and WOL versus Time - South Flank

500

700

900

1100
GOL & WOL (ftss)

GOL

1300

1500

Figure 6: Production Bubble Map of MIS Field Showing Well WOL

1700
Cumulative Production Volumes
1900

2100
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Time (Year)

Figure 9: Historical GOL and WOL versus Time - North Flank

SPE 88598 13

Figure 10: Match of Total Field Oil Production Rate and Figure 13: Gas Cap Pressure Match (Fractures)
Cumulative Oil Production
-500
1400

1200

500
Oil Pressure at Datum Depth (psia)

GOL-Simulated
1000
Matrix-Simulated Depth (ftss) WOL-Simulated
1000
Fracture-Simulated
800
1500 GOL

600 WOL
2000

400
2500
South Flank
200
3000
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
0
Time (Year)
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (Year)

Figure 14: Fluid Level Match for the South Flank

Figure 11: Regional Pressure Match for the South Flank
-500

1400
0
GOL-Simulated
1200
WOL-Simulated
500
Oil Pressure at Datum Depth (psia)

1000
Depth (ftss)

Matrix-Simulated 1000
GOL
Fracture-Simulated
800
1500
WOL

600
2000
North Flank
400
2500

200
3000
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
0 Time (Year)
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Time (Year)

Figure 15: Fluid Level Match for the North Flank

Figure 12: Regional Pressure Match for the North Flank
14 SPE 88598

Fracture-North Fracture-South
Matrix-South Matrix-North

Figure 19: Regional Pressure Prediction for South and North

Flanks (Datum Depth)
Figure 16: Full Field 3D View of Fluid Saturations in 2002
(Fractures)
1000

1100
GOL-SOUTH
GOL-NORTH
1200 WOL-SOUTH
WOL-NORTH
1300

1400
Depth (ftss)

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

2000
Time (Year)

Figure 20: Fluid Levels Prediction

Figure 17: 2D View of Locations for the 10 New Wells

Figure 18: Group Production Forecast for New Wells