Reservoir Report

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This section presents the reservoir engineering studies for development of Berlian
East field, prior the previous Geology & Geophysics assessments in Phase I of Field
Development Plan (FDP). Well test data, PVT data; fluid composition data are analysed to
confirm the reservoir condition. Reservoir performance, well locations, well numbers, depletion
strategy from natural depletion and water injection depletion drive until tertiary recovery by
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) are being analysed in this session.
Berlian East (BE) field that is located some 25km offshore Terengganu, Peninsular
Malaysia is the reservoir of interest in this field development plan (FDP) with average water
depth of 76m. The wells were remained shut-in due to low profitability until the recent
interest in the potential of the field. G&G evaluations had been implemented and the
following tables summarize the estimation of the oil in place:
Sand
STOIIP (MMStb)
M 2/3
46.7
M 7/8
119
M 9/14
35.7
M15
5.2
Total
206.6
Table 1: Summary of STOIIP estimation from G&G assessment
1.1 OBJECTIVES
To estimate the production forecast for natural depletion drive and water injection
drive
To calculate the number of production wells
To establish a reservoir management plans and EOR proposal for the field
CHAPTER 2: RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

2.1 RESERVOIR DATA
From the data obtained, this session will give an overview about the important
reservoir data used in the reservoir studies. These data includes PVT analysis data of
bottomhole fluid sample, hydrocarbon analysis on separator liquid and gas, formation water
analysis and well test results. The summary of the reservoir fluids and properties are shows in
the table below:
Properties
Reservoir Datum Depth (mss)
Reservoir Pressure (psig)
Bubble Point Pressure (psig)
Reservoir Temperature (oF)
Reservoir Contact (mss)
Porosity, fraction
Permeability, mD
Oil Formation Volume Factor (rb/stb)
Oil API o
Oil viscosity (cp)
Solution Gas ratio (scf/stb)
Value
1300
1854
1332
215
1358 (WOC)
0.27 - 0.29
118 - 900
1.43718
35-42
1.76
1400
Table 2: Reservoir Fluids and Rock Properties

2.1.1 PVT Analysis
The PVT data used in the study was obtained from bottom hole fluid sample taken in
well Berlian East-1 from the M2A sands. Since there is limited source of fluid sample and
since all the M sand units were formed almost at the same geological time, this data is
assumed to be the representative of fluids in all M units. At datum depth of 1300 mss, the
reservoir pressure is 1854 psig and temperature measured is 215 oF. Table 3 below
summarizes the PVT analysis of the M2A fluid sample.
* : bubble point pressure at reservoir temperature

** : initial reservoir pressure at datum
Pressure
(psig)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1854**
1660
1332*
1077
817
548
270
0
Bo
(rb/stb)
1.3000
1.3428
1.3728
1.4028
1.4328
1.43718
1.4430
1.4500
1.3731
1.2951
1.2144
1.131
1.0500
Bg
(rcf/scf)
0.0116
0.0147
0.0199
0.0305
0.0624
Oil viscosity
(cP)
2.61
2.31
2.04
1.76
1.70
1.65
1.72
1.8
1.86
1.92
2.04
Gas
viscosity
(cP)
0.0171
0.0168
0.0165
0.0163
0.016
0.0151
Rs
(scf/stb)
1400.000
1400.000
1400.000
1400.000
1400.000
1400.000
1400.000
1131.927
858.6670
575.9480
283.7700
0.000
Bt
(rb/stb)
1.300
1.342
1.372
1.402
1.432
1.437
1.443
1.450
5.313
12.067
26.348
70.783
Table 3: PVT Analysis Results of BE-1 M2A Sand

As shown in table above, it is observed that the bubble point pressure, P b is 1332 psig
while the initial reservoir pressure (Pr) measured at datum is 1854 psig. As the reservoir
pressure (Pr) is higher than the bubble point pressure (Pb), the situation is termed
undersaturated reservoir and the oil is act like a single phase liquid. Since the oil is
undersaturated, this implies that it could dissolve more if the latter were available. The bubble
point pressure is determined as the pressure where the relative volume exceeds unity or where
the gas solution ratio started to change. For this case, the initial value of the solution gas oil
ratio (Rs) remains constant at 1400 scf/stb until the pressure drops to the bubble point
pressure of 1332 psig, when the oil becomes saturated. Gas saturation continues to increase
until it exceeds the critical gas saturation. Figure below explained the gas solubility condition.
Figure 1: Gas Solubility Condition.

When pressure continues to decline over the time, Rs continued to decrease as gas is
dissociated to leave the oil behind. Thus, it is crucial to maintain the reservoir pressure above
bubble point to prevent the gas liberated out from solution and resulting in high gas oil ratio
(GOR). Other than that, it is also observed that the viscosity of the oil decrease when the
pressure is higher; however, at pressure above bubble point, the viscosity increase with
increase in pressure.
Figure 2: Bo vs Pressure
4
The oil formation volume factor, is the volume in barrels (cubic meter) occupied in
the reservoir, at the prevailing reservoir pressure and temperature relative to volume of one
stock tank barrel (one stock tank cubic meter) of oil at SC. Refer to figure above, when above
bubble point, oil expands as pressure reduced while At bubble point all gas in solution. After
Pb, we can observe an obvious decreasing trend on Bo vs Pressure plot. When the pressure
hits 1332psig, Bg and Gas viscosity values are detected and the pressure after 1332psig
shows a decrease in Rs value. It means gas started to escape from solution (oil) and expands.
2.1.2 Hydrocarbon Analysis
Table below shows the analysis of the separator products from the single stage test
separator during the production test from the M2A sands in well Berlian East-1. The
temperature and pressure for stock tank separation is at 14.7psia and 60F. The separator test
objective is to determine the effect of separator pressure and temperature on separator volume
factor, GOR, oil and gas density and stock tank oil gravity.
Component
Hydrogen sulphide
Carbon dioxide, CO2
Nitrogen, N2
Methane, C1
Ethane, C2
Propane, C3
Iso-butane, IC4
N-butane, NC4
Iso-pentane, IC5
N-pentane, NC5
Hexanes, C6
Heptanes plus, C7+
Separator liquid
(mol%)
0.00
3.20
0.00
3.50
1.50
2.30
3.20
2.10
2.50
1.70
3.50
76.50
Separator Gas
(mol%)
0.00
11.23
0.50
71.54
10.20
1.40
2.50
1.10
0.40
0.40
0.43
0.30
Well stream
(mol%)
0.00
6.35
0.20
30.18
4.91
1.95
2.93
1.71
1.68
1.19
2.30
46.62
Table 4: Hydrocarbon Analysis of Separator Products

Based on the table above, no hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and nitrogen (N2) is observed.
Small amount of Carbon dioxide, CO2 (about 3%) is detected. 76.50% of Heptanes plus, C7+
lead to slightly higher viscosity fluids, indicated large quantity of heavy hydrocarbon in black
oils. From the finding from these analyses, it is observed that this is a black oil model
reservoir.
Condition
Standard Black Oil

Requirement
Berlian Easy Crude

Condition
Initial Gas Oil Ratio

< 2000 scf/stb
(GOR)
1400 scf/stb
API
< 45API
35API - 42API
Bo
< 2.00 rb/stb
< 1.437 rb/stb
Heptanes plus, C7+
> 30 mol%
76.50 mol%
Match?
MATCH
MATCH
MATCH
MATCH
Table 5: Crude Oil Type Analysis

* Standard Black Oil Requirement is based on The Properties of Petroleum Fluids by
William D. McCain, Jr
Based on analysis on table above, it showed that all the condition requirements were
matched and this is a black oil reservoir.
2.1.3 Formation Water Analysis
As in for the formation water, table below gives the information from the sample
taken in well Berlian East-3 (M2/3 reservoir) at 1291.7 m bdf. The formation water is light
blackish. The concentration of total dissolved solids in the formation water is 30.13 g/L and
its pH value is 8.14 at ambient temperature. Assume 1g/L of dissolved solids represent
1000ppm salinity, the salinity for Berlian East Field formation water is around 30000ppm.
Table below summarize the analysis of this formation water:
Appearance:
Light blackish
Total dissolved solids:

o
Spec. gravity @750oF: 1.023

Cations (mg/l)
Sodium
10600
Magnesium
18.8
Calsium
26.4
Barium
18.9
Total iron
<2
pH @ 22 C:
30.13 g/L
8.14
Anions (mg/l)
Chloride
12212
Sulphate
89
Bicarbonate
7115
Carbonate
54
Hydroxide
0
Table 6: Analysis of Formation Water
2.2 WELL TEST DATA

Below are tables showing the well test results for the potential wells which are Berlian
East-1, Berlian East-3, and Berlian East-4. No well test is conducted on Berlian East-2 as the
region is confirmed as a water bearing zone (from the G&G phase evaluation). The types of
well testing are not specified and no well test data is available for well test analysis
Berlian
East-1
Late Miocene
M3
Nov-89
33.8
Well
Formation
Sand
Date tested
Drained thickness (ft)
Test Interval (ft)
Oil rate (stb/d)

Gas rate (mmscf/d)
Sep GOR (scf/stb)
Watercut(%)
FTHP (psig)
FBHP at gauge (psig)
FTHT (F)
Flow period (hrs)
Sand (pptb)
Oil gravity (API)
Oil Specific Gravitiy
(SG)
Oil density (gr/cc)
Drawdown (psi)
Prod Index, PI (b/d/psi)
kh (mD, ft)
skin
k (mD)
Berlian
East-1
Late Miocene
M2A
Nov-89
35
Berlian
East-1
Late Miocene
Upper M
Nov-89
21
1257.51340.6-1346.6 1300.5-1304.5 1258.7
1252.51329.0-1332.2
1256.5
2824
4110
1622
4.01
5.54
2.34
1420
1348
1443
0
0
0
463
433
360
1718
1541
1089
108
118
121
7
8
10
traces
traces
traces
41.7
41.6
42
Berlian
East-1
Late Miocene
L5
Nov-89
25
0.816974596
0.816974596
250
11.3
27217
1
805
0.820289855
0.820289855
128
0.817446563
0.817446563
278
14.8
31415
2
900
0.81556196
0.81556196
162
10
12984
1
620
Table 7: Well Test Data of Berlian East 1
1214.4-1220.0
1205.5-1211.5
0
0
0
1136
1655
119
8
traces
41
2.3 RESERVE ESTIMATION

One of the most essential tasks in the petroleum industry is Reserves Estimation. It is
the process by which the economically recoverable hydrocarbons in a field, area, or region
are evaluated quantitatively. Reserves are those quantities of petroleum which are anticipated
to be commercially recovered from known accumulations from a given date forward. All
reserve estimates involve some degree of uncertainty.
For Berlian East field, the method of estimation is called deterministic where only a
single best estimate of the Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) is made based on
known geological and engineering data. The recovery factors are given as in Table 8 below.
Two proposals were suggested to deplete the M reservoir unit: natural depletion drive and
natural depletion drive with water injection. The natural depletion strategy is simulated to
yield reserves of 20% of the STOIIP; while the natural depletion drive with water injection is
expected to recover 35% of the STOIIP. Summary of STOIIP is shown in Table 9.
Properties
Natural Depletion
Natural Depletion with

Water Injection
Recovery Factor
20 % of STOOIP
35 % of STOOIP
Table 8: Recovery Factor

Sand
Area
(m2)
H
(m)
STOIIP
(MMstb)
M2/3
6,950,000
10.5
46.7
M 7/8
12,650,000
14
119
M 9/14
8,925,000
6.5
35.7
M 15
870 000
5.2
Total
206.6
Table 9: Summary of STOIIP
2.4
PRODUCTION FORECAST
2.4.1
Depletion Drive Strategies
For the depletion drive, it is recommended to develop this field using the natural
depletion drive and Natural Depletion Drive with Water Injection. Although there is the
presence of aquifer in the reservoir, it is assume to be weak and not significant in contributing
in the drive mechanism. No extra data was provided except for the limitations and criteria for
each of the depletion strategy. With the given limitation and criteria for each of the depletion
strategies, we were required to make the production forecast. This production profiles will be
covering for the whole production life which is around 9 years. In this section, explanation
and analyze of the production profiles forecast will be presented and discussed in details.
2.4.2
Natural Depletion Drive
After done with the material balance (MBE) calculations together with the Geology
and Geophysical studies on the natural depletion case of M-unit of the BE field, there are a
few important information that need to be highlighted in the report. The result indicates that
to get 20% of the recovery factor STOIIP, the reservoir can be drawn down to an
abandonment pressure of 600 psia. In the previous section, from the calculation it shows that
the reserve that we have is around 41.32 MMstb.
This can be achieved using a 2 7/8 tubing, assuming a maximum producing GOR of
about 8000 scf/stb and a cumulative producing GOR of about 2300 scf/stb. The individual
well rate at abandonment will be approximately 150 stb/d of gross liquid. It is assumed that in
the depletion drive case, the water cut will remain less than 6%.
The criteria of the production profile and other related factors are as the table below:
The well reserve is about 3 MMstb of oil, which means that each well can only
produce 3 MMstb of cumulative oil at the end of production life
The well lifetime is 9 years
The individual well rate at abandonment will be approximately 150 stb/d of gross
liquid
The water cut will remain less than 6% throughout the production life
The initial well rate is about 2000 STB/D to 3000 STB/D based on the production test
results
The production rate is expected to decline at an annual rate of about 38%

9
Table 10 below shows the provided production profile for a single well for natural depletion
drive. As shown below, the production is expected to ends after 9 years of production.
Year
Annual Oil
Watercut
Annual
GOR
Rate
Water Rate
(Mstb/d)
(%)
(Mstb/d)
(scf/stb)
1
2.73
0.00
0.00
3200
2
1.87
0.00
0.00
5000
3
1.27
0.00
0.00
6200
4
0.87
1.50
0.01
7400
5
0.59
3.00
0.02
7800
6
0.41
4.50
0.02
7200
7
0.28
5.00
0.01
7000
8
0.19
5.50
0.01
6800
9
0.01
6.00
0.00
6600
Table 10: Single Well Production Profile for Natural Depletion with Weak Aquifer
As mentioned in the limitation in the natural depletion drive, each well can only
produce the capacity around 3 MMstb of oil throughout the production life, which is 9 years.
This limitation is useful for us to translate into the information to calculate the number of
wells needed for us to withdraw the Estimated Ultimate Reserve (EUR) in the case of natural
depletion drive. The calculation for the proposed number of wells is shown in Table 11
below:
Sand
L
M2/3
M 7/8
M 9/14
M 15
TOTAL
STOIIP
(MMstb)
GIIP
(Bscf)
46.8
46.7
19
119
35.7
5.2
206.6
TOTAL WELL
EUR
(20%)
No. of
well
EUR
Remain
Dual
Completion
9.34
23.8
7.14
1.04
41.32
3
7
2
0
12
0.34
2.8
1.14
1.04
1
1
2
14
Table 11: Proposed number of well for Natural Depletion strategy

Since the rate contribution ratio between the sand units are not provided production
logging test, it is impossible to back-allocate the production rate or cumulative production to
the respective sand layers. In calculating the number of wells needed for every sand unit, it is
assumed that every unit will contribute the same 20% of their STOIIP for the ultimate
reserves. Then, the number of well required to produce the EUR of each sand unit is simply
dividing the EUR with the well reserve, i.e. 3 MMstb per well.
10
However, not each and every barrel of EUR can be drained completely. There will be
remnants which cannot be extracted completely with the rounded-up number of wells
proposed. For example, referring to Table 11, the EUR for M-9/14 sand unit is 7.14 MMstb,
and if the proposed number of well is the rounded up 2.38 wells, which is 2 wells, there will
be 1.14 MMstb of oil left in that unit. Same goes to the other sand units. Thus, it is proposed
to drill another well with dual completion in order to extract the remaining reserves with
additional from M 15 sand layer with 1.04 MMstb of oil. By completing dual string, we can
produce from 2 layers simultaneously from one well without comingling, thus it saves the
cost to drill another well for another sand units.
In the Table 12 below, it is the summary of the calculated the average annual
production rate, Qo, for natural depletion strategy. The initial rate of the every well is kept
within 2000 stb/d to 3000 stb/d. With the decline rate of 38%, we can observed that by the
end of year 9, the producing rate of each well will almost reached the well abandonment rate
at 150 stb/d. For Table 13, from the production rate the value can be interpret in term of the
oil production in MMstb. After calculated the oil production, it is clearly shown that from the
14 production wells, we were able to produce almost the same amount with our EUR at 41.3
MMstb.
Figure below is the proposed well location for natural depletion drive. The circles in
the figure are the drainage area of each well. The colour indicates the sand unit from which
the well is producing, and two-coloured circle indicates the dual-completed well which
produces from 2 sand units. The rule of thumb is applied because the drainage radius of each
well is not available in the well test data. The drainage radius for each well is assumed to be
1.0 km. The wells are located in such that the drainage areas of the wells will not overlapping
each other.
Figure 3: Proposed Well Location for Natural Depletion Drive

11
Annual Qo (Mstb/d)
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
M2/3
Month
7
19
31
43
55
67
79
91
103
Well
1
2.69
1.84
1.26
0.86
0.59
0.40
0.28
0.19
0.13
Well
2
2.68
1.83
1.25
0.86
0.59
0.40
0.27
0.19
0.13
Well
3
2.69
1.84
1.26
0.86
0.59
0.40
0.28
0.19
0.13
M2/3+M
7/8
Well
4
2.71
1.85
1.27
0.87
0.59
0.41
0.28
0.19
0.13
M7/8
Well
5
2.77
1.90
1.30
0.89
0.61
0.41
0.28
0.19
0.13
Well
6
2.53
1.73
1.18
0.81
0.55
0.38
0.26
0.18
0.12
Well
7
2.54
1.74
1.19
0.81
0.56
0.38
0.26
0.18
0.12
Well
8
2.54
1.74
1.19
0.81
0.56
0.38
0.26
0.18
0.12
M9/14
Well
9
2.73
1.86
1.27
0.87
0.60
0.41
0.28
0.19
0.13
Well
10
2.80
1.91
1.31
0.89
0.61
0.42
0.29
0.20
0.13
Well
11
2.69
1.84
1.26
0.86
0.59
0.40
0.28
0.19
0.13
Table 12: Calculated the Average Annual Production Rate Qo for Natural Depletion Strategy
12
Well
12
2.86
1.95
1.34
0.91
0.62
0.43
0.29
0.20
0.14
Well
13
2.85
1.95
1.33
0.91
0.62
0.43
0.29
0.20
0.14
M9/14
+M15
Well
14
2.65
1.81
1.24
0.85
0.58
0.40
0.27
0.19
0.13
Average Annual Production (MMstb) for Each Well

Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TOTAL
well
1
0.98185
0.67144
0.45917
0.31401
0.21474
0.14685
0.10042
0.06867
0.01767
2.97486
M 2/3
M 2/3
+ M 7/8
well
well
well
2
3
4
0.978229 0.9818
0.98915
0.668973 0.6714 0.6764415
0.457484 0.4591 0.4625922
0.312856 0.3140 0.3163489
0.213950 0.2147 0.2163388
0.146312 0.1468 0.1479458
0.100057 0.1004 0.1011744
0.068425 0.0686 0.0691892
0.017609 0.0176 0.0178064
2.963899 2.9748 2.9969875
Grand Total (MMstb)
M 7/8
well
5
1.0116
0.6918
0.4731
0.3235
0.2212
0.1513
0.1034
0.0707
0.0224
3.0693
well
6
0.9229
0.6311
0.4316
0.2951
0.2018
0.1380
0.0943
0.0645
0.0085
2.7882
Well
7
0.9271
0.6340
0.4335
0.2965
0.2027
0.1386
0.0948
0.0648
0.0086
2.8009
well
8
0.9271
0.6340
0.4335
0.2965
0.2027
0.1386
0.0948
0.0648
0.0086
2.8009
M9/14
well
9
0.9946
0.6801
0.4651
0.3181
0.2175
0.1487
0.1017
0.0695
0.0179
3.0135
well
Well
10
11
0.9810 0.981
0.6708 0.671
0.4587 0.459
0.3137 0.314
0.2145 0.214
0.1467 0.146
0.1003 0.100
0.0686 0.068
0.0176 0.017
2.9723 2.974
41.31658898
Table 13: Calculated Average Annual Production (MMstb) for Natural Depletion Strategy
13
well
12
1.0420
0.7126
0.4873
0.3332
0.2279
0.1558
0.1065
0.0728
0.0272
3.1658
well
13
0.956
0.653
0.447
0.305
0.209
0.143
0.097
0.066
0.013
2.893
M9/14
+M15
well
14
0.96725
0.6614649
0.4523503
0.3093449
0.2115490
0.1446702
0.0989343
0.0676574
0.0132636
2.9264850
Table 14 shows the remaining oil initially in place (ROIP) for production with natural
depletion .From the total of stock tank oil initially in place (STOIIP) of 206.6 MMstb , the
natural depletion drive are expected to extract about 20% of the STOIIP which will be 41.316
MMstb of oil. Thus, the 80% remaining of oil initially in place (ROIIP) will be 165.28
MMstb of oil.
Production layer
M2/3
M2/3 + M7/8
M7/8
M9/14
M9/14 + M15
TOTAL
No. Well
Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
Well 4
Well 5
Well 6
Well 7
Well 8
Well 9
Well 10
Well 11
Well 12
Well 13
Cumulative
Oil
Production
for 9 years
(MMstb)
2.975
2.964
2.975
2.997
3.069
2.788
2.801
2.801
3.014
2.972
2.975
3.166
2.893
STOIIP
(MMstb)
46.7
119
35.7
Total Oil
Produced for 9
years Each
Layer(MMstb)
ROIP
(MMstb)
8.914
37.36
2.997
20.420
95.2
6.059
28.56
Well 14
5.2 (Layer
M15)
2.926
2.926
4.16
206.6
41.316
165.28
Table 14: Remaining oil initially in place (ROIP) for each sand layers after production with Natural
Depletion
14
2.4.3
Natural Depletion Drive with Water Injection
Natural depletion drive with water injection is another of the proposed strategies to
deplete the M sand units of BE field. One must not confuse this Water injection with
Waterflooding. The former one is to inject the water into the aquifer to replace the void
created by withdrawing the reservoir fluids, so that the reservoir pressure is maintained above
the bubble point pressure. The amount of water needed to be injected for each barrel of oil
production is described by Voidage Replacement Ratio, VRR. If VRR = 1.44, then it means
that for each stb of oil produced, we need to inject 1.44 stb of water into the reservoir,
assuming the water formation volume factor, Bw = 1.0. On the other hand, the latter case, i.e.
waterflooding, refers to the injection of water into the oil zone instead of the aquifer, in order
to displace the reservoir oil towards the producers. This is one of the popular EOR techniques.
So, the reservoir management policy for this proposal is to maintain the average
reservoir pressure at 1800 psia at datum, thus allowing about 500 psi pressure drawdown
before the bubble point is reached at the well. The purpose of water injection is not to
displace oil but to maintain the reservoir pressure.
The provided information stated that a coarse grid reservoir simulation model was
built to assess the performance of BE field under water injection depletion. The simulation
result indicates that with water injection supporting the reservoir pressure at around 1800 psia
at datum (1300 m ss), a recovery factor for oil of 35% of STOIIP can be achieved. This
means that, the EUR is around 72.31 MMstb.
Similar to natural depletion proposal, there are some limitations on the natural
depletion drive with water injection depletion proposal as well:
The well reserve is about 5 MMstb of oil
The calculated well lifetime is 9 years
Water breakthrough occurs in year 2 and gas lift is required to maintain well
production by the third year
As the water cut increases, the injection gas liquid ratio (IGLR) increases from 250
scf/stb to 600 scf/stb at the end of the well life. The well finally dies due to lift
constraints arising from high water cut
The initial well rate is about 3000 STB/D to 4000 STB/D based on the production test
results
15
The production rate is expected to decline at an annual rate of about 40% after plateau
period which will produce about 40% of the EUR
Water is injected into the water injectors, which are completed on all producing sands
The maximum injection rate per well is around 4000 stb/d at injection tubing head
pressure of 3000 psia
The VRR is 1.44, since Bo is 1.44 rb/stb at the target pressure
Table 15 below shows the provided production profile for a single well for natural depletion
drive with water injection. Same as the natural depletion case, the production ends after year
9.
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Annual Oil
Rate
(Mstb/d)
3.70
3.51
2.42
1.57
1.02
0.66
0.43
0.28
0.17
Watercut
Annual
Water Rate
(Mstb/d)
0.00
1.17
2.33
2.46
2.38
3.01
3.15
4.39
5.50
(%)
0.00
25.00
49.00
61.00
70.00
82.00
88.00
94.00
97.00
GOR
IGLR
(scf/stb)
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
(scf/stb)
0
0
250
358
315
354
353
462
600
Table 15: Single Well Production Profile For Natural Depletion Drive With Water Injection
By using this information, the number of producers and injectors required is calculated and
summarized as below Table 16:
Unit
EUR (35%)
M2/3
16.345
EUR
Remain
1.215
M7/8
M9/14
M15
TOTAL
41.650
12.495
1.82
72.310
1.650
2.495
1.820
7.310
No. of Wells
3
Dual
Completion
1
8
2
0
1
15
No.
Injector
2
2
4
Table 16: Proposed number of well for Natural Depletion Drive with Water Injection
strategy
16
Figure 4: Proposed Well Location for Natural Depletion Drive with Water Injection
Figure above showed the Proposed Well Location for Natural Depletion Drive with
Water Injection. The blue circle indicates the location of water injector. There are total
numbers of 4 injectors based on the calculation. It is a peripheral injection pattern where by
the injection wells are location at the external boundary of the reservoir and the oil is
displaced towards the interior of the reservoir. The peripheral flood generally yields a
maximum oil recovery with a minimum of produced water.
In this case, due to the unusually small number of injectors compared with the number
of producers, it is predicted that the injected water will take a longer time to fill up the
reservoir gas space. The results will be delayed in the field response to the flood. There is
possibility in the future where the watered-out producing wells can be converted to injection
wells to keep injection wells as close as possible to the water flood front without bypassing
any moveable oil.
17
In the Table 17 below, it is the summary of the calculated the average annual production rate, Qo, for natural depletion with water
injection. The initial rate of the every well is kept within 3000 stb/d to 4000 stb/d. The the decline rate is expected to be 40% for each well. For
Table 18, from the production rate the value can be interpret in term of the oil production in MMstb. After calculated the oil production, it is
clearly shown that from the 15 production wells, we were able to produce almost the same amount with our EUR at 72 MMstb.
Annual Qo (Mstb/d)
Year
M2/3
M2/3&M7/8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Well 1 Well 2 Well 3

3.45
3.40
3.40
3.31
3.27
3.27
2.37
2.33
2.33
1.59
1.56
1.56
1.06
1.05
1.05
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.21
0.21
0.21
Well 4
3.40
3.27
2.33
1.56
1.05
0.70
0.47
0.32
0.21
M9/14&
M15
Well 5 Well 6 Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 Well 10 Well 11 Well 12 Well 13 Well 14 Well 15
3.25
3.30
3.47
3.48
3.45
3.40
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.12
3.17
3.33
3.34
3.31
3.27
3.22
3.22
3.22
3.22
3.22
2.23
2.26
2.38
2.39
2.37
2.33
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.30
1.49
1.52
1.60
1.60
1.59
1.56
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.00
1.02
1.07
1.07
1.06
1.05
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
0.67
0.68
0.72
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.45
0.46
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
M7/8
M9/14
Table 17: Calculated the Average Annual Production Rate Qo for Natural Depletion Drive with Water Injection
18
M2/3
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TOTAL
well
1
1.25925
1.2098
0.863980
0.579143
0.388211
0.260225
0.174434
0.116926
0.078378
4.930397
well
2
1.241
1.192313
0.851458
0.570749
0.382585
0.256454
0.171906
0.115232
0.077242
4.858942
well
3
1.241
1.19231
0.85145
0.57074
0.38258
0.25645
0.17190
0.11523
0.07724
4.85894
M2/3&
M7/8
well
4
1.241
1.192313
0.851458
0.570749
0.382585
0.256454
0.171906
0.115232
0.077242
4.858942
M7/8
well
5
1.186
1.139
0.813
0.545
0.365
0.245
0.164
0.110
0.073
4.644
well
6
1.2045
1.157245
0.826415
0.553963
0.371332
0.248911
0.166850
0.111843
0.074970
4.716032
well
7
1.266
1.216
0.868
0.582
0.390
0.261
0.175
0.117
0.078
4.958
well
8
1.270
1.220
0.871
0.584
0.391
0.262
0.175
0.117
0.079
4.973
M9/14
well
9
1.259
1.209
0.863
0.579
0.388
0.260
0.174
0.116
0.078
4.930
well
10
1.241
1.192
0.851
0.570
0.382
0.256
0.171
0.115
0.077
4.858
well
11
1.222
1.174
0.838
0.562
0.376
0.252
0.169
0.113
0.076
4.787
well
12
1.222
1.174
0.838
0.562
0.376
0.252
0.169
0.113
0.076
4.787
well
13
1.222
1.174
0.838
0.562
0.376
0.252
0.169
0.113
0.076
4.787
well
14
1.222
1.174
0.838
0.562
0.376
0.252
0.169
0.113
0.076
4.787
M9/14&
M15
well
15
1.22275
1.174779
0.838937
0.562356
0.376958
0.252683
0.169378
0.113537
0.076106
4.787487
Grand Total (MMstb)

72.52686244
Table 18: Calculated the Average Annual Production (MMstb) for Natural Depletion Strategy
19
Since the ultimate goal is to optimise the oil production , the next secondary recovery of
oil method is proposed to increase the reserves . Production of oil with natural depletion drive
accompanied with water injection is expected to extract higher amount of oil reserves which is
about 35% of STOIIP. In Table 19 below, this method is expected to produce 75.527 MMstb of
oil .Thus, the ROIP remains is 134.29 MMstb.
When compared with natural depletion alone, production of oil with natural depletion
accompanied with water injection will resulted in higher amount of reserves with lesser ROIP.
This is because water injection help to maintain the reservoir pressure whereby water is injected
into an oil-producing reservoir to supplement the natural energy that is indigenous to the
reservoir and to improve the oil-producing characteristics of the field before the economically
productive limits are reached. The oil recovery increases to 35% due to improved sweep
efficiency by injecting water into the reservoir.
Production
layer
M2/3
M2/3 + M7/8
M7/8
M9/14
No. Well
Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
Well 4
Well 5
Well 6
Well 7
Well 8
Well 9
Well 10
Well 11
Well 12
Well 13
Well 14
M9/14 + M15
Well 15
TOTAL
STOIIP
(MMstb)
46.7
119
35.7
5.2 (Layer
M15)
206.6
Cumulative
Oil
Production
for 9 years
(MMstb)
4.93
4.86
4.86
4.86
4.64
4.72
4.96
4.97
4.93
4.86
4.79
4.79
4.79
4.79
Total Oil
Produced for 9
years Each
Layer(MMstb)
STOIIP
Remaining
(MMstb)
14.648
30.36
4.858
38.657
77.35
9.575
23.21
4.79
4.787
3.38
72.527
134.29
Table 19: Remaining oil initially in place (ROIP) for each sand layer after production using Natural
Depletion with Water Injection
20
2.4.4
Production Profile
This section presents the production profile forecast of BE field, for both natural depletion
and natural depletion with water injection. By applying the limitations and criteria listed in the
previous section, the production profiles of both proposals are generated and presented in the
later part below.
Figure 5 below shows the monthly production profile of the BE field for natural depletion
drive. The wells will be shut-down once the gross liquid production drops below 150 stb/d. The
50.00
45.0
45.00
40.0
Production Rate (Mstb/day)
40.00
35.0
35.00
30.0
30.00
25.0
Rate (Mstb/d)
25.00
Cumulative Production
20.0
20.00
15.0
15.00
10.0
10.00
5.0
5.00
0.00
0.0
1
13
25
37
49
61
73
85
97
Month
Figure 5: Monthly production profile for Natural Depletion Drive
21
Cumulative Production (MMstb)
significant drop of total field production rate after year 9 is due to this constraint.
35.00
45.0
35.0
25.00
30.0
20.00
Rate (Mstb/d)
25.0
20.0
15.00
15.0
10.00
10.0
5.00
40.0
30.00
5.0
0.00
0.0
1
Year
Figure 6: Yearly production profile for Natural Depletion Drive
The following Figure 7 shows the monthly production profile of the BE field for Natural
depletion drive with water injection. The production profile was generated to have a plateau
period which started from the first production until 40% of the EUR has been produced, as
described in the limitations. This corresponds to 2.5 years of plateau period, as shown in Figure 7
below.
22
60.00
80.0
70.0
60.0
40.00
50.0
Rate (Mstb/d)
30.00
40.0
30.0
20.00
20.0
50.00
10.00
10.0
0.00
0.0
1
13
25
37
49
61
73
85
97
Month
Figure 7: Monthly production profile for Natural depletion drive with Water Injection
The averaged yearly production profile for water injection depletion strategy is shown in Figure 8
below.
23
60.00
80
70
60
40.00
50
Rate (Mstb/d)
production
30.00
40
30
20.00
Production (MMstb)
50.00
20
10.00
10
0.00
0
1
Year
Figure 8: Yearly production profile for Natural depletion drive with Water Injection
The comparison between the performances of the two strategies is presented in the
following figures. As shown in Figure 9, the daily production rate of natural depletion drive with
water Injection strategy is a lot higher than of natural depletion strategy. This implies that the
gross revenue of the water injection strategy will be more and faster. In Figure 10 we can see that
there is a big difference between the total cumulative productions between the two. For the
cumulative production at 20% recovery factor in natural depletion, the total production is
calculated at 41 MMstb. With the recovery factor of 35% in natural depletion with water
injection, the total cumulative production is at 72 MMstb. The difference is as big as 31 MMstb
of oil between only using natural depletion and using additional of water injection. Obviously, it
is more worth it to go for the natural depletion drive with water Injection if we compare only the
ultimate reserves that can be recovered. In the later chapter, the economic analysis will be
presented and it also proves that it is more profitable to adopt water injection strategy, although
the initial capital allowance is much more higher compared to natural depletion drive.
24
Annual Production Rate (Mstb/d)
60.00
50.00
40.00
Natural Depletion
Water Injection
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1
5
Year
Figure 9: Comparison of Production Rate for Natural Depletion Strategy and Natural Depletion
Drive With Water Injection
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
Natural Depletion
20.00
Water Injection
10.00
0.00
0
5
Year
Figure 10: Comparison of Cumulative Oil Production (MMstb)

25
CHAPTER 3: RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT PLAN

It is envisaged the optimum development plan for Berlian East is by drilling sixteen (16)
conventional wells where the reservoirs will be depleted naturally, supported by water injection
strategy. Water injection at Berlian East will commence at the third year of production. Gas lift
supply will be made available via drilling one well into the L sand gas cap. Based on the
calculation, recovery is expected to be about 72.31 MMstb of oil (about 35% of recovery factor)
with peak annual average production of about 50.75 Mstb/day.
Based on the reservoir study, the proposed 16 wells will be sequenced such that the initial
oil production and its build-up are met as well as reservoir uncertainties are resolved. It is
recommended that continuous simulation studies be conducted during and post developmentdrilling campaign.
Major uncertainties identified are:
1.
Reservoir Compartment- currently assessed common fluid system may impact water
injection requirement should the reservoirs be in different fluid system.
2.
Reservoir Quality- improved or deteriorated away from exploration well

The reservoirs will be produced at the wells potential. With available pressure
maintenance, no GOR limit will be imposed on the reservoirs as the volume of the gas cap and its
drive will be less significant to the water injection/drive.
26
3.1
Operating Strategy
Every effort will be made to ensure Berlian East field reservoirs will be managed
prudently and in accordance to the guidelines. Appropriate data acquisition is planned to achieve
specific objectives in order to optimize the field development planning as well as to effectively
monitor reservoir performance to maximize recovery.
Below are the key objectives of the reservoir management plan:
Pressure maintenance is injecting fluid into a reservoir to maintain the pressure as oil is
produced. This method has several benefits. Delaying use of artificial lifts such as
pumps may lower operating cost. Keeping the rate of production from dropping below
the economic limit for a longer time may increase total recovery from a reservoir.
Keeping the reservoir pressure up can prevent gas from forming in an oil reservoir. Gas
in an oil reservoir can inhibit the easy flow of oil. Maintaining reservoir pressure can
prevent valuable light hydrocarbons from condensing in the reservoir.
The VRR used in the water injection strategy is 1.44. Any abnormal decline of pressure
will results in re-evaluation of the VRR.
Due to production of water/ increased water cut, gas lift injection will be employed. Gas
reinjection will be considered if there is potential gas to be extracted from L sand unit.
The well will be shut-in when water cut reaches 95%. It is considered uneconomical to
produce once it hits the benchmark.
3.2
Surveillance Plan
Production rate test will be performed once a month and each producing zone will be
tested individually to determine its gas, oil and water rates. The measurement of surface
condition such as tubing head pressure (THP), choke size and casing head pressure and the API
gravity of the produced liquid hydrocarbon will also be recorded during the monthly production
test.
Static bottomhole pressure (BHP) surveys for each of the active reservoir will be
performed annually. This would be useful, as it would permit material balance study. The BHP
27
survey data would be used to continually monitor the reservoir pressure and areal pressure
distribution. It will allow re-evaluation of reservoir production strategy and reserves, thereby
allowing further optimization of withdrawal rates in order to maximize the recovery. The
production optimization will be done once sufficient data is obtained.
For the commingled production, production logging should be done annually for the wells
to determine contribution ration/ allocation factor for the commingled reservoirs. Production
logging should also be done to determine the source of water when wells producing excessive
water. The pressure data and production rate would also be used in material balance studies.
Close monitoring, especially on water breakthrough, would provide indication of any
problematic wells or reservoirs for early diagnosis. Early corrective measures could be
undertaken to prevent well/reservoir problems and prevent excessive water production in early
field.
Operation
Data acquired
Well tests
Oil, water, gas rate
Well head
measurement
WHP, WHT, and

BSW, uptime
Wellhead fluid
composition
BHP survey
Flowing/ shut in
BHP
Cased hole logs

MDT/RFT
Slick line entry
Various
Pressure vs. depth,
fluid samples
Various
Main Purpose
Production allocation, well performance
evaluation
Production allocation, well performance
evaluation, reservoir pressure monitoring using
calibrated VFP curves
Scale, wax deposition, lift performance
evaluation
Oil in place, aquifer strength, gas cap size, well
performance evaluation, lift performance
calibration
Diagnose well problems, monitor saturations
History matching, material balance
Well checks (scale/wax), well clean out
Table 20: Common Reservoir Monitoring Operations
28
3.3 Enhanced Oil Recovery Proposal

EOR is considered the third phase of useful oil production. The first phase is about using
the natural stored energy in the reservoir to move the oil to the production well. The second phase
start when the natural energy depleted and pressure start to decline. Thus second phase of oil
production is needed to supplement the depleted energy by injecting water into the reservoir.
Then, after the water oil ratio (WOR) approaches the operations economic limit and plus, the net
profit diminishes due to the increase in cost of water treatment and injection , the third phase of
oil recovery come in handy or can be called as enhance oil recovery (EOR).
The combination of primary and secondary method generally resulted in less than 40% of
oil recovery of oil initially in place (OOIP).For Berlian East field; the water injection method
resulted in 35% of oil recovery. Thus the target of oil recovery for EOR method is more than the
conventional method. Basically, there are 4 categories of EOR methods, namely Thermal Method,
Gas Method, Chemical method and other uncategorized methods. Thermal method includes insitu combustion and steam injection .Meanwhile, carbon dioxide, CO2 flooding and hydrocarbon
miscible flooding are categorized as gas method. On the other hand, chemical method involves
Surfactant polymer, alkaline waterflood as well as polymer flooding.
The optimum application of each type of EOR method depends on the reservoir
characteristics including type of oil. In order to determine which EOR method is suitable for
Berlian East field, Table 22 illustrate the screening parameters that are useful as preliminary
evaluation of the reservoir by referring to the reservoir rocks and fluid properties of Berlian East
field in Table 21.
Properties
Value
Oil API Gravity
39.23
Oil Viscosity (cp)
1.86
Permeability (md)
118-620
Depth (ft)
1250 - 1350
Solution Gas Ratio, scf/stb
1400
Porosity
0.27 - 0.29
Temperature (0F)
215
29
Initial reservoir pressure, psig
1854 psig
Salinity ,ppm
30000
Table 21: Reservoir rocks and fluids properties
Screening
parameters
Steam
injection
Thermal
In situ
combustion
Oil viscosity ,cp

Oil gravity ,API
Depth ,ft
Reservoir
temperature ,F
Initial
reservoir
pressure ,psig
Net pay , ft
Permeability , md
Porosity , %
Salinity ,ppm
Target
oil ,bbl/acre-ft
Lithology
>8
10-25
200-5000
NC
>10
10-45
>500
Gas cap
Natural
drive
Fractures
NC
>20
NC
>10
NC
>500
>10
>10
>400
CO2
flooding
Gas
method
< 12
>30
>2300
Surfactant
polymer
Chemical
Polymer
Alkaline
waterflood
Hydrocarbon
miscible
Gas method
< 20
>25
>8500
<250
< 200
>18
>8500
<200
< 200
15-35
NC
<200
<5
>30
>4000
NC
>1200
NC
>20
>20
>50
NC
<50000
NC
<2500
NC
NC
NC
NC
High
porosity Sandstone/
sand/sandstone
carbonate
None to minor
water None to weak
sandstone
None to minor
Sandstone/
carbonate
NC
NC
None to minor
Table 22: Screening criteria for EOR. Source: Enhance oil recovery ,Donaldson Erle
30
EOR method
Oil viscosity ,cp
Oil gravity ,API
Depth ,ft
Reservoir
temperature ,F
Initial
reservoir
pressure ,psig
Net pay , ft
Permeability , md
Porosity , %
Salinity ,ppm
Target
oil ,bbl/acre-ft
Lithology
Gas cap
Natural
water
drive
Fractures
Steam
injection
In situ
combustion
CO2
flooding
Surfactant
polymer
Polymer Alkaline
waterflood
Hydrocarbon
miscible
Table 23: Screening criteria for EOR

From Table 23, preliminary screening indicates that there is no suitable EOR method
suitable for the fluid of Berlian East field. This is because there is some of the screening
parameters do not match the criteria for any EOR method. Therefore, the next step is to proceed
with the elimination method whereby any EOR method that is less suitable will be eliminated.
Firstly, the thermal method which involved in-situ combustion and steam injection are
ruled out of consideration for BE field because thermal methods are costly. It is only profitable
and more worth to apply in reservoir of heavy oil with low API gravity and high viscosity. The
crude oil in Berlian East field is classified as light oil with 37 API gravity has a low viscosity of
1.65 cP. Plus, the thermal method is only suitable for high porosity sandstone whereby for BE
field, the sandstone is considered having moderate porosity.
Next to be considered is the chemical method which involves surfactant polymer, polymer
and alkaline waterflood . However, these methods are not suitable for BE field due to high cost
and is highly dependent on the current oil price. Besides that, it is difficult to be implemented at
reservoirs with high temperature (215F). In addition, further testing is required to determine the
compatible polymer and surfactant that can work effectively under Berlian East fields reservoir
31
properties. Water hardness and formation water salinity are also the main factors that could affect
ASP flooding effectiveness. To apply this method, we have to conduct numerous laboratory
works in order to determine the best chemicals to be applied. So, this method is also eliminated
from considerations.
Thus, now the option left is to go for gas method. Two methods for gas method is
immiscible hydrocarbon flooding and CO2 flooding. Both methods have only one criterion that is
not match with the reservoir fluid which is the reservoir depth. By comparing both method,
immiscible hydrocarbon flooding is less suitable as it prefer deep reservoir with depth more than
4000 ft. Plus, it also can be considered for Berlian East field if there is an abundant of gas
available nearby the field. However, the gas produced is planned to be used for artificial lift. With
additional data reservoir data and rock properties, we could produce the gas from the L sand later
and implement hydrocarbon flooding in Berlian East field.
In conclusion, CO2 flooding is selected as the most feasible method for EOR to be applied
in Berlian East field since there is only one criterion that is not match which is the depth whereby
this method requires the depth to be more than 2300 ft. But to compare with immiscible
hydrocarbon flooding, CO2 flooding is more suitable method as the depth difference is not big
which about 1000 ft is only. Plus, all the other criteria did match with the parameters needed.
CO2 flooding can obtain high oil recovery from light oil and especially in water flooded reservoir
in some cases. However, low initial reservoir pressure shows that miscibility might not be
achieved between CO2 and oil. Therefore, immiscible CO2 flooding is recommended as the EOR
method for Berlian East field, with the option of doing immiscible Water-Alternating-Gas using
CO2 and water to further increase oil recovery from the field.
32
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is estimated that a total 16 producers for the natural depletion drive with
1 producers are using dual string completion for M sand layer. As for natural depletion drive with
water injection, the team proposed 17 producing well and 4 injectors in order to maintain the
reservoir pressure above the bubble point.
According the studies on production profile, the estimation of production for water
injection depletion drive is higher than production of natural depletion. natural depletion drive is
able to recover 20% of STOIIP while natural depletion drive with water injection has recovery
factor of 35% of STOIIP.
As for the tertiary recovery plan, the team proposed immiscible CO2 method. However,
after years of production, reservoir condition might alter. Detailed reservoir evaluation and
consider the economical feasibility of the EOR method need to be revising from time to time.
Constant surveillance and detailed planning on reservoir condition is essential in optimizing
reservoir management.
33
APPENDIX
4.1
Natural depletion
Well 1
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00
Production Rate Mstb/d
Cumulative Production MMstb
1.5
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
0
1
5
Year
Well 1
Well 2
Well 2
3.5
3
2.50
2.5
2.00
1.50
1.5
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
0
1
Year
34
3.00
Well 3
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00
1.50
1.5
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
Well 3
0
1
Year
Well 4
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00
1.50
1.00
1.5
1
0.50
0.5
0.00
0
1
Year
35
Well 4
Well 5
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00
1.50
1.00
1.5
1
0.50
0.5
0.00
Well 5
0
1
Year
Well 6
3.00
2.50
2.5
2.00
2
1.50
1.5
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
0
1
Year
36
Well 6
Well 7
3.00
2.50
2.5
2.00
2
1.50
1.5
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
Well 7
0
1
Year
Well 8
3.00
2.50
2.5
2.00
2
1.50
1.5
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
0
1
Year
37
Well 8
Well 9
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00
1.50
1.5
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
Well 9
0
1
Year
Well 10
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00
1.50
1.5
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
0
1
Year
38
Well 10
Well 11
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00
2

1.50
1.5
1.00
1
0.50
0.5
0.00
Well 11
0
1
Year
Well 12
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00

1.50
1.5
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
0
1
5
Year
39
Well 12
Well 13
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00
1.50
1.5
1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
Well 13
0
1
Year
Well 14
3.00
3.5
2.50
3
2.5
2.00

1.50
1.00
1.5
1
0.50
0.5
0.00
0
1
Year
40
Well 14
4.2 Natural depletion with water injection

Well 1
Well 1
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
3
1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
4.00
0
1
Year
Well 2
Well 2
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
1.50
3
2
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
0
1
Year
41
4.00
Well 3
Well 3
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
3
1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
4.00
0
1
Year
Well 4
Well 4
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
0
1
Year
42
4.00
Well 5
Well 5
5
4.5
3.00
4
2.50
3.5
2.00
2.5
1.50
2
1.5
1.00
1
0.50
0.5
0.00
3.50
0
1
Year
Well 6
Well 6
5
4.5
3.00
4
2.50
3.5
2.5
2.00
1.50
2
1.5
1.00
1
0.50
0.5
0.00
0
1
Year
43
3.50
Well 7
Well 7
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
4.00
0
1
Year
Well 8
Well 8
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00

1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
0
1
5
Year
44
4.00
Well 9
Well 9
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
4.00
0
1
5
Year
Well 10
Well 10
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
0
1
Year
45
4.00
Well 11
Well 11
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
1.50
3
2
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
4.00
0
1
Year
Well 12
Well 12
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
0
1
5
Year
46
4.00
Well 13
Well 13
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
1.50
3
2
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
4.00
0
1
5
Year
Well 14
Well 14
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
0
1
5
Year
47
4.00
Well 15
Well 15
6
3.50
3.00
4
2.50
2.00

1.50
1.00
1
0.50
0.00
0
1
5
Year
48
4.00

Reservoir Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Reservoir Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Table 1: Summary of STOIIP estimation from G&G assessment

To calculate the number of production wells

CHAPTER 2: RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Table 2: Reservoir Fluids and Rock Properties

* : bubble point pressure at reservoir temperature

Table 3: PVT Analysis Results of BE-1 M2A Sand

Figure 1: Gas Solubility Condition.

Table 4: Hydrocarbon Analysis of Separator Products

Standard Black Oil

Berlian Easy Crude

Initial Gas Oil Ratio

< 2.00 rb/stb

< 1.437 rb/stb

Heptanes plus, C7+

Table 5: Crude Oil Type Analysis

Total dissolved solids:

Spec. gravity @750oF: 1.023

Table 6: Analysis of Formation Water

2.2 WELL TEST DATA

Oil rate (stb/d)

Table 7: Well Test Data of Berlian East 1

2.3 RESERVE ESTIMATION

Natural Depletion with

Table 8: Recovery Factor

Table 9: Summary of STOIIP

Depletion Drive Strategies

Natural Depletion Drive

The well lifetime is 9 years

The production rate is expected to decline at an annual rate of about 38%

Table 11: Proposed number of well for Natural Depletion strategy

Figure 3: Proposed Well Location for Natural Depletion Drive

Average Annual Production (MMstb) for Each Well

Natural Depletion Drive with Water Injection

The well reserve is about 5 MMstb of oil

The calculated well lifetime is 9 years

The VRR is 1.44, since Bo is 1.44 rb/stb at the target pressure

Well 1 Well 2 Well 3

Grand Total (MMstb)

Production Rate (Mstb/day)

Cumulative Production (MMstb)

Production Rate (Mstb/day)

Cumulative Production (MMstb)

Cumulative Production (MMstb)

Production Rate (Mstb/day)

Production Rate (Mstb/day)

Annual Production Rate (Mstb/d)

Cumulative Production (MMstb)

Figure 10: Comparison of Cumulative Oil Production (MMstb)

CHAPTER 3: RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT PLAN

Reservoir Quality- improved or deteriorated away from exploration well

Oil, water, gas rate

WHP, WHT, and

Cased hole logs

Table 20: Common Reservoir Monitoring Operations

3.3 Enhanced Oil Recovery Proposal

Oil API Gravity

Oil Viscosity (cp)

Solution Gas Ratio, scf/stb

Initial reservoir pressure, psig

Table 21: Reservoir rocks and fluids properties

Oil viscosity ,cp

Table 23: Screening criteria for EOR

Cumulative Production MMstb