Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 107–113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

Preliminary management and optimization of a gas reservoir in central Serbia

Vesna Karovic Maricic, Dusan Danilovic ⁎
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mining and Geology, Djusina 7, Belgrade, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Management of hydrocarbon reservoirs is a dynamic, continuous and complex process. It is applied from
Received 5 June 2008 reservoir discovery to its abandonment, with the objective of achieving maximum profitability by using a
Accepted 26 October 2009 recovery process with minimum capital investments and operation costs.
The goals of modern system-engineer' approach to hydrocarbon reservoir management are: managing
Keywords: efficiency; adequate and on time decision making; increasing reserves, and oil and gas recovery factor;
management
production increment; risk reduction; investment efficiency; minimizing costs and environmental protection.
gas reservoir
production
The gas reservoir “M” is the gas reservoir discovered in central part of Serbia. It was not put in production yet,
underground gas storage so it is important to apply reservoir management concepts from the beginning of the production process.
economic evaluation Based on production characteristics, this reservoir belongs to a group of smaller gas reservoirs that characterizes
most often the Serbian exploitation area. Also, this reservoir fullfils most of criteria for using it as an underground
gas storage reservoir. Thus, the analysis of possibilities for conversion into the underground gas storage after
certain production period was also considered.
The management of gas reservoir “M” has been analyzed by two different approaches. The first one refers to the
management of the reservoir as a gas producer during the whole reservoir life. The second management approach
considers gas production for a certain period of time, followed by underground gas storage (UGS). In this paper,
economic and financial evaluation results are given for the presented options of gas reservoir management.
A decision analysis has been applied to select an optimized gas reservoir management approach.
Adequate management of this gas reservoir would contribute to further development and reform of Serbia's gas
energy sector that is characterized by great dependence on natural gas imports, and a lack of underground gas
storage.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Influence of world market, current transition process, and restruc-
turing of Serbian petroleum company points out the necessity for
application of a reliable approach to oil and gas reservoir management,
for improving managing efficiency and effectivness.
General and comprehensive reservoir management implementation
on the basis of system-engineering approach (Kalu, 1990), considers
influence of ecological, social/political, regional and human resources
factors besides technical, technological and economic factors.
The goals (Satter and Thakur, 1994) of modern system-engineer's
approach to hydrocarbon reservoir management are: managing effi-
ciency; adequate time decision making; increasing oil and gas reserves
and recovery; production increment; risk reduction; investment ef-
ficiency; minimizing costs and environmental protection.
Reservoir “M” is the gas reservoir discovered in central part of Serbia;
based on production characteristics, it belongs to a group of smaller
reservoirs that are most often seen in the Serbian exploitation area.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +381 11 3219 189; fax: +381 11 3235 539.
E-mail addresses: kmvesna@eunet.rs (V. Karovic Maricic), danilovic@rgf.bg.ac.rs
(D. Danilovic).
According to criteria (Stancetic, 1995) for using gas reservoirs as under-
ground gas storage (UGS) reservoirs, it fulfills most of those require-
ments. This enables an analysis to consider turning the reservoir into a
the gas storage reservoir after a certain production period.
This reservoir does not produce yet, so it is important to apply
reservoir management concepts from the beginning of the production
process in order to achieve optimal efficiency and recovery (Thakur,
1990).
Moreover, most of oil and gas field in northern Serbia have recovery
factors of approximately 90%, and great part of those reservoirs need
application of “EOR” (Enhanced Oil Recovery) methods. That makes
the gas reservoir “M” management analysis by different approaches
even more significant, since emphasizes the perspective (Prstojevic
et al., 2002) of further exploration of southeastern part of Panonian
basin in central Serbia.
In the frame of management planning, the proposed strategy
(Karovic Maricic, 2006) for gas reservoir development and exploita-
tion is using two different approaches. First one refers to managing
the reservoir in case of gas production during the whole reservoir life.
In the second management approach the gas is produced for a certain
time period, and then converted into an underground gas storage
reservoir. This is illustrated in the decision tree scheme (Fig. 1).

0920-4105/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2009.10.004
108 V. Karovic Maricic, D. Danilovic / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 107–113
Fig. 1. Decision tree of gas reservoir development and production strategy.
Both presented approaches are important. Since Serbia is importing
large quantities of natural gas (approximately 88%), each newly
discovered reservoir that can substitute some part of imported gas is
significant. On the other side, Serbian gas distributive system lacks
an underground gas storage on its territory. Data about natural gas
consumption structure points out an unfavorable situation from the
aspects of exploitation gas pipeline system, and conditions for providing
import gas. Large part of gas consumption for heating needs requires
a way to settle unequal consumer necessities at conditions of equal
gas delivery from suppliers. The natural gas consumption structure in
our country is unfavorable due to its distinctive seasonal unequality
(winter/summer consumption ratio is 4:1).
According to the “Strategy of energy development” (Ministry of
energy and mining, 2005), and present energy policy in Serbia, a
significant increase in natural gas consumption can be expected. Thus,
UGS represents a basic solution for the uneven gas consumption
problem, and assurance of gas supply security.
Fig. 2. Reservoir location and gas pipeline system in Serbia.
Therefore, the second approach to gas reservoir management,
should have an advantage comparing to the first one. Moreover, fa-
vorable geologic/technological criteria for this gas reservoir rec-
ommend it as a storage reservoir. These criteria comprise the
analysis of: reservoir drive type, its petrophysical characteristics,
geometry and tectonics, reservoir depth, gas composition, storage
capacity and location.
Reservoir description. This reservoir is located in the central part
of Serbia, where, is very important to solve the problem of gas supply
for households and industrial consumption sectors. Consumer centers
and the transporting system is at a distance of 50 km from the possible
storage (Fig. 2). This implies that social factors may be important for
this gas storage field, from a regional point of view.
The considered gas reservoir is layered, anticlinale reservoir type,
partly tectonic stuctured, with small depth at 681–691 m and with gas
expansion drive that is most favorable drive for conversion to UGS
(Fig. 3).
Reservoir rocks are made of small grains, well-sorted, low cemented
sandstones and according to values of porosity and permeability have a
good petrophysical characteristic. Testing results from drilled wells have
shown a good quality gas reservoir.
By composition, the natural gas from reservoir “M” is a dry gas
with increased content of N2 component.
Since economic criteria are crucial for project management
evaluation, the question that needs to be answered is: “What
 V. Karovic Maricic, D. Danilovic / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 107–113
Fig. 3. Geological structure and gas reservoir “M” profile.
economic effects will be accomplished by these two different
management approaches”?
2. Calculation of gas in place and productive gas reserves
The gas reservoir “M” was discovered at the beginning of 2001 year,
in Sarmatian sediments of southeastern part of Panonian basin in
central Serbia. During 2003 and 2004 five more wells have been drilled
for delineation of this reservoir. The three of them are completed for
production (M-1, 3 and 5) while M-6 is dry well and other two wells
(M-2 and M-4) have been drilled in other reservoirs (PIS, 2005).
Calculation of gas reserves has been done using the volumetric
method (Boone, 1988). Input data and results are shown at Table 1.
Calculation of presented reserve values did not regard risk fac-
tors, existing of possible uncertainty in petrophysical and physical
reservoir characteristics values such as: porosity, water saturation,
effective thickness, area and volume. Determination of most possible
values for gas in place and productive gas reserves as an output
variables, i.e., its probability distribution, has been done by risk sim-
ulation with application of Latin Hypercube metode (RISK, 1997).
In Latin Hypercube simulation, (@RISK, 1997), the following in-
put parameters and their defined ranges of uncertainty are consid-
ered: ϕ = 27.7–33.2%; Swi = 19–25.7%; haver. = 2.47–5.734 m and
A = 3,613,882 m2–3,678,632 m2.
Changes in defined input variables ranges have been simulated
by Uniform, Triang and Lognormal probability distribution functions.
Table 1
Calculation of gas reservoir “M” reserves.
“Recoverable gas reserves program”
Gas reservoir “M”
Relative gas density
% N2
% CO2
% H2S
Condensate
Reservoir temperature (Tr)
Initial reservoir pressure (Pri)
Abandonment pressure (Pa)
Effective thickness (haver.)
Area (A)
Water saturation (Swi)
Porosity (ϕ)
Gas in place (G)
Producive gas reserves (Gp)
Recovery (I)
109
Triang function has been chosen as the most adequate, because it
showed best matching with real data.
Results of applied Latin Hypercube risk simulation are presented
using probability distribution histograms (Fig. 4). The most probable
values of gas in place and productive gas reserves attained from these
histograms are 233.08 millions m3 and 201.80 millions m3 (Karovic
Maricic, 2006).
Calculated values of gas in place probability occurrence rank gas
reserves to category of proved according to SPE reserve classification
and categorization (15th WPC, 1997).
For determining the critical risky variables, i.e. factors with greatest
risk degree in gas reserve calculations, a sensitivity analysis (RISK,
1997) has been done. Results (@RISK, 1997) of sensitivity analysis by
using regression coeficient are shown in the “tornado” graph (Fig. 5).
It was observed that the effective reservoir thickness had the most
influence on the value of calculated gas in place (its regression co-
eficient is 0.97); it is followed by porosity, water saturation, and
reservoir area.
3. Gas reservoir management options
The first gas reservoir management option is gas production
during the whole reservoir life.
For determining a future gas production, the value of most prob-
able gas in place calculated by risk analysis was used. Gas production
dynamics from three wells that produce 50,000 m3 per day was
calculated by using QCODPK software (QCODPK, 2000). Results are
presented in Table 2.
Forecasting the future gas production was done without being
concerned by uncertainties. These uncertainties are: oscillations in
daily production that should define most possible daily production
values, calculation and changes in number of working days during
operating year for most possible yearly production determination.
For determining the range of future daily production values, an
analysis of daily production for wells of “PIS”-Naftagas gas reservoirs
(Karovic Maricic, 2006.) with volumetric drive has been done.
On the basis of analyzed production trends from 2000. to 2005., the
range of possible values for future daily gas reservoir “M” production
was calculated. The average deviation of future maximum production
is +7.027%, and for future minimal production is: −7.51%. Con-
cerning this values, risk simulation is done for determining the most
possible future daily production from gas resevoir “M”.
Also, to estimate values of most possible yearly production, the
number of well′working days for gas reservoir “M” was determined by
analysis of working days considered by “PIS”-Naftagas' gas reservoirs.
It was calculated tha the average deviation is five working days during
the producing year.
Using Latin Hypercube simulation for defined ranges with TRIANG
probability distribution functions, the most possible values of daily
production, and yearly production for 7.42 year (7 years and 126 days)
production period were calculated. Risk analysis results (@RISK, 1997)
are given at the Table 3.
Overall, the most probable gas production from reservoir “M” was
0.612 198 238 004 m3, for an exploitation period of 7 year and 126 days, or
10.00% 193 709 150 m3 for a 7 year economic estimate.
0.00% Second and third gas reservoir management options–underground
0.00%
gas storage (Karovic Maricic, 2006): a) production and gas storage
0
51.3 °C for storing variant that is equal to first phase of USG building; b)
71.15 bar production and gas storage that includes first and second construction
10 bar phase of gas storage.
4.03 m
On the basis of estimates, analysis and gas reservoir production
3,645,840 m2
22.33%
dynamics it is ascertained that the conversion of the reservoir to gas
30.44% storage can be done after 4.5 years of gas production.
229.004 Mm3 The value of most probable gas production at 4.5 years, obtained from
198.27 Mm3 the probability distribution histogram (@RISK, 1997) is 9,994,400 m3
86.58%
(Fig. 6).
110 V. Karovic Maricic, D. Danilovic / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 107–113

Fig. 4. Probability distribution histograms for the gas in place and productive gas reserves.

Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis results.

On the basis of calculated yearly and cumulative gas productions
for 4.5 years (Table 4), a possible capacity of future USG would be
151.4 millions Sm3 (@RISK, 1997).
Underground storage, according to world practice, will be built in
two phases. In Table 5. basic reservoir data and storage capacity are
given (Tek, 1987).
In the first phase, the overall storage capacity was estimated at
57.6 · 106 Sm3, with daily injection/production capacity of 360,000 Sm3/
day. This value of capacity is defined on the basis of maximum possible
injection/production per well (120,000 Sm3/day per well), for the pur-
pose of a reduced building storage investment. In this way no new wells
should be drilled. The three existing wells are completed with gravel
packs for possible sand production problems.
The second phase of gas storing has the maximum storage capac-
ity of 151.4 millions m3 with daily injection/production capacity of
945,000 m3/day. In this phase, six new wells will be drilled and
completed with gravel packs. Table 6. shows the parameters (Karovic
Maricic, 2006) of the first and second phase underground gas storage
construction.
The power of one compressor unit is 550 kW. At the first phase
one unit should be provided, and two other in the second phase.
Unit dimensioning has been done by taking three working points
in calculations that cover the range of possible operating condi-
tions: a) injection: 19 bars/44 bars/360,000 Sm3/day; b) injection:
16 bars/31 bars/250,000 Sm3/day; and c) production: 20 bars/52
bars/360,000 Sm3/day.
On the surface, two production lines are planned; a first line
constructed during the first phase, and the second during the second
phase.
4. Economic estimate of gas reservoir management options
In this paper, an economic-financial estimate (UNIDO, 1998; Yugoslav
bank association, 1988) for three management options of gas reservoir
“M” is done:
1) gas production for 7 years with 50,000 m3/day/well; 2) gas
production for 4.5 years with 50,000 m3/day/well, and after that
storage with daily injection/production capacity of 120,000 m3 per

Table 2
Production dynamics for gas reservoir “M”. Table 3
The most probably values of yearly and cumulative gas production.
Time Qg/year Cumulative Qg Pr Pwf
(year) (m3) (m3) (bar) (bar) Production year Future yearly production Future cumulative production
(m3) (m3)
0 69.92
1 43,821,002.5 43,821,002.5 57.97 56.97 1 43,914,220.0 43,914,220.0
2 37,621,022.5 81,442,025.0 46.60 45.60 2 37,714,240.0 81,628,460.0
3 32,320,922.5 113,762,947.5 36.66 35.66 3 32,414,140.0 114,042,600.0
4 27,284,082.5 141,047,030.0 28.15 27.15 4 27,377,300.0 141,419,900.0
5 22,768,580.0 163,815,610.0 21.00 20.00 5 21,625,016.7 163,044,916.7
6 18,426,180.0 182,241,790.0 15.15 14.15 6 17,282,616.7 180,327,533.4
7 14,525,180.0 196,766,970.0 10.50 9.50 7 13,381,616.7 193,709,150.1
7.42 5,013,030.0 201,780,000.0 8.89 7.89 7.42 4,528,850.0 198,238,004.1
 V. Karovic Maricic, D. Danilovic / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 107–113 111

Table 7
Review of investments — first management option.

Number Investment type Value ($)

1. Well drilling 2,104,835.25

2. Mechanical equipment and installation 356,722.92
3. Pipelines from wells to collecting gas system 18,379.16
4. Land 26,315.62
5. Collecting gas system 37,144.29
6. Measurement and regulation system 19,047.50
7. Cathodic protection construction 10,860.41
8. Supervision, control and acquisition system 17,376.66
9. Electro equipment 19,2145.83
10. Fire protection measurement 5,777.73
11. Gas pipeline 2,872,222.22
12. Other investments 67,460.93
Sum: 5,728,288.52

Fig. 6. Production probability distribution in 4.5 year.

well and overall storing capacity of 57.6 · 106 Sm3 during 25 years capacity to 151.4 million m3 during storage operating life. This would
of storage, and 3) storage with capacity of 57.6 · 106 Sm3 for 4 years involve drilling of 6 new wells.
(same production as in above options), and after that, increasing

4.1. Economic estimate elements of gas reservoir management options

Table 4
Elements of economic evaluation for first management option
The most probably values of yearly and cumulative gas production for 4.5 years.
are: productive gas reserves — 201.802 millions m3; gas production
Year Production per year Cumulative production of 193,709,150 m3; gas price of 0.232 Sm3 valid at the moment of
(m3) (m3)
calculation; investments in project (Table 7); financial resources
1 43,914,220 43,914,220
2 37,714,240 81,628,460
3 32,414,140 114,042,600
4 27,377,300 141,419,900 Table 8
4.5 9,994,400 151,414,300 Expenditures review — first management option.

Number Type of expenditures Value ($)

1. Material 26,078.19
Table 5 2. El. Power 14,540.26
Gas reservoir data and storage capacity. 3. Own gas consumption 542,028.35
4. Maintenance of surface facilities 293,099.19
Reservoir data Unit Value
5. Maintenance of wells (workovers) 766,996.65
Reservoir pressure bar 70 6. Salaries 249,532.50
Wellhead pressure, static bar 70.38 7. Surface facilities amortization 1,662,732.30
Wellhead pressure, dynamic (testing) bar 69.80 8. Well amortization 2,104,835.30
o
Reservoir temperature C 51.30 9. Amortization of other investments 67,460.93
Depth m 680 10. Royalty 2,009,815.20
Storage 11. Exploring costs 1,082,188.80
Gas storage capacity 106 Sm3 151.40 12. Other production costs 123,644.49
13. Corporate costs 291,666.67
Sum: 9,234,618.83

Table 6
First and second phase parameters of underground gas storage construction.
Table 9
Parameter Unit I phase II phase
Gross revenue and its distribution ($) — first management option.
Capacity 106 Sm3 57.6 151.4
Gross revenue 45,152,196.30
Injection cycle Total expenditures 9,234,618.83
Gross profit 35,917,577.47
Injection period Day 160 (Apr.–Sept.) 160 (Apr.–Sept.) Tax 3,699,510.47
Daily injection capacity, max. 106 Sm3 0.360 0.945 Net profit 32,218,066.99
Daily injection capacity, min. 106 Sm3
Minimum reservoir pressure bar 25.89 25.89
Maximum reservoir pressure bar 42.2 70
Pressure at gas pipeline, min. bar 15–18 15–18 Table 10
Pressure at gas pipeline, max. bar 42 42 Review of investments — second management option.

Number Investment type Value ($)

Production cycle
1. Well drilling 2,104,835.25
Production period Day 160 (Oct.–March) 160 (Oct.–March)
2. Land 26,315.62
Daily production capacity, max. 106 Sm3 0.360 0.945 3. Suface system for gas production 3,529,676.76
Daily production capacity, min. 106 Sm3 4. Suface system for UGS construction 6,648,888.88
Maximum reservoir pressure bar 42.2 70.0 5. Other investments 67,460.93
Pressure at production facilities bar 51.0 51.0 6. Gravel packs 291,666.66
Temperature at well head, norm. °C 8 5 7. Existing cushion gas 10,914,265.40
Temperature at well head, beginn. °C 10 10 Sum: 21,478,274.25
112 V. Karovic Maricic, D. Danilovic / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 107–113

Table 11 Gross revenue and its distribution is calculated first for a 4.5
Expenditures review — second management option. production period, and after that, for storage between 6th to 25th year
Number Type of expenditures Value ($) using the same prices as above (Table 12.).
Elements of economic evaluation for third management option
1. Material 214,487.10
2. Fuel 2,558,026.23 are: gas production for 4.5 years of 151,414,300 m3, storage capacity
3. Lubricants, water, diesel 605,328.20 of 57.6 million Sm3 in 6th, 7th and 8th year, 100 million Sm3 in 9th
4. El. power 80,679.15 year and from 10th year until the end of storage 151.4 mill Sm3.
5. Maintenance of surface facilities 446,5091.11
Gas prices and financial resources are same as in the second option.
6. Maintenance of wells (workovers) 1,798,508.13
7. Own gas consumption 341,994.22 Project investments are given in Table 13. and they involve drilling
8. Salaries 891,188.21 of six new wells in the 8th and 9th year. Expenditures for this option
9. Amortization 12,642,529.17 are given in Table 14.
10. Other production costs 316,276.81 Gross revenue and its distribution are given at the Table 15.
11. Exploring costs 1,082,189.42
12. Royalty 1,574,668.11
13. Corporate costs 1,041,667.63 5. Results and Discussion
Sum: 27,612,633.49
5.1. Economic evaluation results for management options of gas reservoir “M”

(internal of “PIS” — Naftagas); expenditures (Table 8); gross revenue Based on defined economic estimation elements, the evaluation of
and its distribution (Table 9). analysed gas reservoir management options was done using dynamic
Elements of economic evaluation for second management option economic methods.
are: gas production for 4.5 years of 151,414,300 m3; gas storage Within the dynamic estimate, the cash flows (Karovic Maricic,
capacity of 57.6 millions Sm3 from 6th year until the end of storage 2006) are calculated for three options, and that was the basis for
economic life. Fourth and fifth year are planned for gas storage con- profitability evaluation. For estimates of profitability (Table 16.) the
struction preparation. Gas price and financial resources are same as in following methods with discount rate of 8% (that value is using for
the first option. Project investments are presented in Table 10. project evaluation in “PIS”-Naftagas) are used: 1) net present value-
Existing cushion gas of 46,823,704 m3 is evaluated at a price of NPV; 2) value investment ratio VIR = NPV/total discounted invest-
159.6 S/1000 m3. ments; and 3) payback period.
Expenditures for this option are given at Table 11.
5.2. Decision analysis application in the management of gas reservoir “M”
Table 12
Gross revenue and its distribution ($) — second option. According to last years' statistics data in oil economy, Net Present
Value has become a prevailing criterion for economic estimate of
Gross revenue 92,337,417.47
investment projects.
Total expenditures 27,612,633.49
Gross profit 64,724,783.98 Fig. 7. shows a decision tree (Evans, 2000) of considered gas
Tax 6,595,455.49 reservoir management with economic effects (Net Present Values)
Net profit 58,129,328.49 for analyzed approaches of management strategy. The second main
branch of the decision tree has two lateral branches that refers to
storage options. It can be seen that the recommended optimal, and
Table 13 most profitable gas reservoir management option can be the appli-
Review of investments — third management option. cation of underground gas storage with second storing option.
Number Investment type Value ($)
6. Conclusion
1. Well drilling 5,771,501.91
2. Land 26,315.62
3. Suface system for gas production 3,529,676.76 A decision analysis has been applied with the purpose of selection of
4. Suface system for USG construction 11,287,222.22 an optimal gas reservoir management option. By comparing the results
5. Other investments 67,460.93
6. Gravel packs 291,666.66
7. Existing cushion gas 10,914,265.40
Sum: 31,888,109.50 Table 15
Gross revenue and its distribution ($) — third option.

Gross revenue 169,225,966.57

Table 14 Total expenditures 44,149,858.45
Expenditures review — third management option. Gross profit 125,076,108.12
Tax 12,632,686.92
Number Type of expenditures Value ($) Net profit 112,443,421.20
1. Material 472,776.87
2. Fuel 5,634,603.33
3. Lubricants, water, diesel 706,448.35
4. El. Power 144,927.41 Table 16
5. Maintenance of surface facilities 9,197,085.37 Economic evaluation results for gas reservoir management options.
6. Maintenance of wells (workovers) 1,798,507.68
Method Criteria Production Production + storage Production + storage
7. Own gas consumption 341,994.07
(I storage option) (II storage option)
8. Salaries 891,187.50
9. Amortization 20,947,528.50 Dynamic NPV ($) 23,311,642.32 22,284,272.58 35,393,775.82
10. Other production costs 316,275.91 VIR 23,311,642.32/ 22,284,272.58/ 35,393,775.82/
11. Exploring costs 1,082,188.79 5,728,289 = 21,478,274.25 = 31,888,109.50 =
12. Royalty 1,574,668.00 4.070 1.038 1.110
13. Corporate costs 1,041,666.66 Payout First year First year First year
Sum: 44,149,858.45 time
 V. Karovic Maricic, D. Danilovic / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 70 (2010) 107–113
Fig. 7. Decision tree of gas reservoir “M”management.
of economic evaluations for the presented management options, the
second option of gas storage in gas reservoir was recommended. This
storage variant along with additional investments, increases the stor-
age capacity 2.6 times compared to the first storage option, and has
a considerably greater net present value. Besides economic reasons,
using the gas reservoir “M” as an underground gas storage has a social
significance, by providing gas supply security for the household, and
industry sector, and for further gas distributive system development
in the region.
An attained and planned level of gas supply system development
in central part of Serbia needs an increase of gas supply reliability, and
solving the problem of distinctive seasonal consumption unequality
(winter/summer consumption ratio of 4:1).
Part of this problem will be solved by the underground storage
“Banatski dvor”, currently in construction in northern Serbia. Since this
underground storage will not be able to satisfy future, growing natural
gas consumption, neither to completely solve uneven consumption
problems, it is necessary to find out new locations for underground
storage construction, especially in central Serbia and one of them is
considered gas reservoir “M”.
Acknowledgements
Importance of this article is in defining the optimal approach to
gas reservoir “M” preliminary management from the technical and
economic point of view. Also, it presents the possibility of solving the
uneven gas consumption problem at central part of Serbia by under-
ground gas storage construction. This underground gas storage would
contribute to increasing of gas security supply and to further devel-
opment of gasification process in Serbia.
We thanks to Petroleum industry of Serbia-“Naftagas co.” for
technical documentation.
References
@RISK, 1997. Risk analysis and simulation software. Palisade Corporation, USA.
15th WPC, 1997. Clasiffication of Petroleum Reserves. Reviewed and forecast paper 5,
World Petroleum congress meeting, Beijing.
113
Boone, D., 1988. Recoverable Gas Reserves Program, Version 1.1.
Evans, R., 2000. Decision analysis for integrated reservoir management. SPE 65148, 1–7.
Kalu, T., 1990. A systems engineering approach for petroleum reservoir management.
SPE 20797, 35–52.
Karovic Maricic, V. 2006. Management of hydrocarbon reservoir development and
exploitation process, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Belgrade, Faculty of mining and
geology, Serbia. (in Serbian).
Ministry of energy and mining, 2005. Strategy of Serbian Energy Development,
Republic of Serbia. in Serbian.
PIS, 2005. Technical documentation of Petroleum Industry of Serbia.
Prstojevic, B., Vucic, S., Brankovic, M., 2002. Recent discovery significance and further
oil and gas exploring strategy in Podunavlje region of Serbia. Proceedings Gas 02,
Yugoslav association of oil and gas, pp. 35–43. in Serbian with English abstract.
QCODPK, 2000. Software. Petroleum Industry of Serbia.
RISK, 1997. Guide to using @RISK-Risk analysis and simulation. Palisade Corporation,
USA.
Satter, A., Thakur, G.C., 1994. Integrated Petroleum Reservoir Management—A Team
Approach. PenWell Publishing Co, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA. 335 pp.
Stancetic, P., 1995. Selection criteria of underground gas storage construction: DIT-
Association of engineers and technicians, vol. 23, pp. 57–63. in Serbian.
Tek, M.R., 1987. Underground Storage of Natural Gas. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston,
USA. 389 pp.
Thakur, G.C., 1990. Implementation of reservoir management program. SPE 20748,
76–85.
UNIDO, 1998. Guide for industrial project value, Belgrade. in Serbian.
Yugoslav bank association, 1988. Guide for application of joined methodology for social
and economic project evaluation and feasibility of investment efficiency, Belgrade.
in Serbian.