Fulltext Stamped

From the SelectedWorks of Ugonna Dixon Nwosu Mr
2015
Dynamic Reservoir Simulation of the Alwyn field

using Eclipse
Ugonna Dixon Nwosu, Mr
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/dixon_nwosu/1/

INSTITUTE OF PETROLEUM STUDIES
Dynamic Reservoir
Simulation of the Alwyn
TM
Field using ECLIPSE
NWOSU UGONNA DIXON IPS/MSC/PPD/2014/240

IJEH GIFT ISIJOKELU IPS/MSC/PPD/2014/235
June 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project proposes an optimized development plan for production of the Alwyn North reservoir
through the maximization of total oil production at minimum cost per barrel. A black oil model was
simulated using Eclipse for the determination of the field oil recovery, among other parameters such as
field oil production rate and field water cut, of four development scenarios: natural depletion, water
injection, gas injection and water-alternating-gas injection. Each development scenario was optimized for
number, location, completion and geometry of production and injection wells as applicable.
Natural depletion was simulated by depleting the reservoir to a bottom-hole pressure limit 0f 100 bars
using four already-drilled wells. The field oil recovery was 30 % and the duration of the production
plateau at 4200m3 was 6 years.
Water injection was simulated injecting water as a secondary recovery mechanism after depleting the
reservoir to a bottom-hole flowing pressure of around 260 bars. Two additional production wells and four
additional injection wells were drilled to give maximum results with this scheme. The oil recovery thus
increased from 30% to about 53% with the production plateau sustained for 3.9 years albeit at a higher
plateau rate of 7200m3
Gas injection was proposed to reduce the high water cut levels associated with water injection by
injecting gas into the reservoir using the same water injection wells. The field oil recovery reduced to
42%.
The Water-alternating gas scheme, using the same injectors and producers as in water injection, gave a
field oil recovery of about 555 with a production plateau sustained for 4.2 years.
Water Injection and Water-alternating Gas stood out clearly in terms of profitability, internal rate of return
and pay-back time. . Water Injection was the best performer with a pay-back time, internal rate of return
and profitability index of 1.2 years, 90% and 3.26. Recommendation on best production scheme was
proposed based on technical criteria, environmental consideration and comparison of economic
parameters.
NWOSU, DIXON 1 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project is dedicated to Mrs Elizabeth Nneka Nwosu who departed this earth
on 5th, June 2015. May her soul rest in perfect peace.
Mr Soma Sakthikhumar also deserves a worthy mention for being patient enough
to impart the desired knowledge to us.
Picarq Corporation, Total Nigeria and Institute of Petroleum Studies are also
appreciated for putting the necessary logistics, facilities and finance in place to
make this project a success.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures ix
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................... 9
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Purpose of study..................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Geological Description And Field Characteristics .............................................. 11
1.3.1 Location ............................................................................................................... 12
1.3.2 Field Characteristics Tectonics .......................................................................... 13
1.3.3 Geological Setting ............................................................................................... 13
1.3.4 Brent East Reservoir of Alwyn North Field ....................................................... 15
1.3.4.1 Geological Description..................................................................................... 15
1.3.4.2 Tectonics ..........................................................................................................16
1.3.4.3 Sedimentology ................................................................................................. 17
1.3.4.4 Log correlations ...............................................................................................19
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY............................................................................. 20
1.5 Reservoir Model And Characteristics................................................................... 21
1.5.1 Rock Typing ........................................................................................................ 22
1.5.2 Reservoir Fluid Properties................................................................................. 24
1.5.3 Fluids in Place .................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................ 26
FIELD DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES ...................................................................... 27
2.1 Constraints............................................................................................................ 27

2.1.1 Drilling Constraints ........................................................................................... 27
2.1.2 Production Constraint ...................................................................................... 28
2.1.3 Water Injection Constraint ............................................................................... 28
2.1.4 Gas Injection Constraint ................................................................................... 29
2.2 Analytical Calculations ........................................................................................ 29
2.2.1 Case One: Natural Depletion ............................................................................ 30
2.2.1.1 Minimum number of wells .............................................................................. 31
2.2.1.2 Material Balance For Natural Depletion Alone ............................................ 32
a. Rock And Fluid Expansion .................................................................................... 32
i. Tarbert Region: ....................................................................................................... 33
ii. Ness Region: .......................................................................................................... 33
2.2.2 Case Two: Water Injection ............................................................................... 35
2.2.2.1 Material Balance ............................................................................................. 35
i. Tarbert Region: ....................................................................................................... 35
Evaluation of Ea ......................................................................................................... 35
Evaluation of Ed ........................................................................................................ 37
ii. Ness Region ........................................................................................................... 38
Evaluation of Ea ......................................................................................................... 38
2.2.2.2 Estimation of Oil Recovery Using Hand Calculation .................................. 40
Table 2.6: Oil Recovery from Natural Depletion and Water Injection ................... 41
2.2.2.3 Minimum number of wells: ............................................................................ 41
Implication:................................................................................................................ 43
2.2.3 Case Three: Gas Injection ................................................................................. 44
2.2.3.1 Material Balance ............................................................................................. 44

i. Tarbert Region ........................................................................................................ 44
Evaluation of EA: ....................................................................................................... 44
Evaluation of ED: ....................................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER THREE ......................................................................................................... 49
DYNAMIC FIELD DEVELOPMENT STUDY USING ECLIPSE SOFTWARE ............. 49
3.1 Case One: Natural Depletion ............................................................................. 49
3.1.1 Natural Depletion with the Available Four Exploratory Wells ..................... 49
3.1.2 Effect of Critical Gas Saturation ....................................................................... 52
3.1.3 Natural Depletion with Increased Development Wells: ............................... 54
3.1.3.1 Natural Depletion with Five Producer Wells .............................................. 54
3.1.4 Inferences: Natural Depletion .......................................................................... 57
3.2: Case 2: Water Injection Preceded by Natural Depletion ................................ 58
3.3 Case 3: Gas Injection Preceded by Natural Depletion ....................................... 62
3.4 Case 4: Water- Alternating Gas Injection .......................................................... 63
CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................... 68

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 68
4.1 Economic Evaluation of Natural Depletion at Economic Limit ....................... 70
4.2 Economic Evaluation of Gas Injection Scheme at Economic Limit ................. 72
4.3 Economic Analysis of Water Injection Scenario ............................................... 76
4.4 Economic Analysis of the Water-Alternating-Gas Scheme .............................. 78

4.5 Investment Decision ............................................................................................81
4.5.1 Lowest Capital Investment ............................................................................... 82
4.5.2 Pay-back time ................................................................................................... 83
4.5.3 Profitability Index and Economic Life............................................................. 84
4.5.4 Gross Profit Margin per barrel......................................................................... 85
4.5.5 Cumulative Net Present Value (CNPV): ......................................................... 86
4.5.6 Internal Rate of Return (IRR): ......................................................................... 86
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................. 88

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 88
5.1 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 88
5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 89
REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 90
APPENDICES .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................. 92
A1 Natural Depletion: Evaluation Of Revenue, Opex, Cash Flow, Internal Rate
Of Return , Pay-Back Time And Npv Using 10% As The Discount Factor ............ 92
A2 Gas Injection: Evaluation Of Revenue, Opex, Cash Flow, Internal Rate Of
Return , Pay-Back Time And Npv Using 10% As The Discount Factor ................. 93
A3 Water Injection: Evaluation Of Revenue, Opex, Cash Flow, Internal Rate Of
Return , Pay-Back Time And Npv Using 10% As The Discount Factor ................. 94
A4 Natural Depletion: Evaluation Of Revenue, Opex, Cash Flow, Internal Rate
Of Return , Pay-Back Time And Npv Using 10% As The Discount Factor ............ 95
APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................. 96
Evaluation Of Npv For The Various Development Schemes Using The Calculated
Internal Rate Of Return ............................................................................................ 96
B1 Gas Injection: Evaluation Of Npv Using The Calculated Internal Rate Of
Return......................................................................................................................... 96

B2 Water Injection: Evaluation Of Npv Using The Calculated Internal Rate Of
Return......................................................................................................................... 97
B3 Wag Injection: Evaluation Of Npv Using The Calculated Internal Rate Of
Return......................................................................................................................... 98
APPENDIX C.............................................................................................................. 99
Full PVT Report ......................................................................................................... 99

LIST OF TABLES-
Table 1.1: Rock Typing and Layers representing the Tarbert and Ness
22
Table 1.2: Initial Values of Fluid Properties ............................................................. 24
Table 1.3: Table Showing the Fluids in Place Volume ............................................. 25
Table 2.1: PVT File ..................................................................................................... 30
Table 2.2: Analytical solution for Recovery by Natural Depletion Drive............... 34
Table 2.3: Reciprocal Mobility Ratio computation for obtaining error. Ea ........... 37
Table 2.4: Relative Permeability (Imbibition) data table ....................................... 37
Table 2.5: Relative Permeability (Imbibition) data table ........................................ 39
Table 2.6: Oil Recovery from Natural Depletion and Water Injection ................... 41
Table 2.7: Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Data for Rock-Type 1 ............................. 45
Table 2.8: Recoveries from combined Natural Depletion and Gas Injection ........ 48
Table 3.1: Comparison of WI and WAG ................................................................... 67
Table 4.1 Revenues and Expenditures for Natural Depletion ............................... 70
Table 4.2 Economic Evaluation Indices for Natural Depletion ............................. 71
Table 4.3 Revenues and Expenditures for Gas Injection 73
Table 4.4 Economic Evaluation Indices for Gas Injection .................................... 74
Table 4.5 Revenues and Expenditures for Water Injection .................................... 76
Table 4.6 Summary of Economic Evaluation for Water Injection
77
Table 4.7 Revenues and Expenditures for WAG Injection ................................... 79
Table 4.8 Summary of Economic Evaluation Parameters for WAG Injection .... 80
Table 4.9: Economic Evaluation for the various development schemes
87

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1.1: Alwyn North Field Localization Map 7
Figure 1.2: Alwyn Area Location Map 8
Figure1.3: Stratigraphy of the Alwyn North Field 9
Figure 1.6: Cross Section Through Alywn Showing The Faults 11
Figure 1.7: Depositional Setting of the Brent Group
Figure 1.8: Showing Log Correlations 13
Figure 1.8: Reservoir Model Showing the Grids 17
Figure 1.9: Data File Initialized to Obtain Volumes In-Place 19
Fig2.1: Reciprocal Mobility Ratio Chart 29
Fig2.2: Fractional Flow curve for the Tarbert Region 31
Fig2.3: Fractional Flow curve for the Ness Region
32
Figure 2.4: Relative permeability versus gas saturation curves 39
Figure 2.5: Plot of Gas Fractional flow against saturation for Tarbert 40
Fig 3.1: Well Architecture: Natural Depletion 42
Fig 3.2: FOPR, FOPT and FOE for the 4-well Natural Depletion case 42
Fig 3.3: Oil Production Rate from Wells PA2, PA1, PN2 and P N1 44
Fig 3.4: Field Recovery Efficiency and Field Plateau Rate for both cases 46
Fig 3.6: Field Water Cut and Field Gas-Oil Ratio for both cases 47
Fig 3.7: Well Architecture: Natural Depletion with Wells 48
Fig 3.9: FPR, FOE, FWCT, FGOR as a function of time 49
Fig 3.10: Well by Well Analysis 50
Fig 3.11: Well Architecture: 7 producers and 5 injectors 52

Fig 3.12: Water Injection: FOPR, FOE and FOPT 53
Fig 3.13: Water Injection: FPR, FWCT and FWIR 54
Fig 3.14: Gas Injection: FOPR, FOE and FOPT 55
Fig 3.15: Water Injection: FPR, FWCT and FWIR 56
Fig 3.16: Sub-case 1: FOPT, FOE, FOPR, FWIR and FOPR 59
Fig 3.17: Sub case 2: FOPR, FOPT, FOE, FWIR and FPR 59
Fig4.1 Cash flow curve for Natural Depletion Scheme 67
Fig4.2 Cash flow for Gas Injection 69
Fig4.3 Cash flow for Water Injection 73
Fig 4.4: Cash flow for WAG Injection 75
Fig 4.5: Investment Costs for the various development schemes 76
Fig 4.6 : Pay-back time for the various development schemes 77
Fig 4.7: Economic Life and PI for the various development schemes 79
Fig 4.8 GPM per barrel for the various development schemes 80
Fig 4.9 NPV for the various development schemes 81
Fig 4.10 IRR for the various development schemes 82

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of study
To determine the optimum field development plan for the Alwyn North Field
(Brent East Reservoir) in terms of recovery and economics, using Eclipse reservoir
simulator.1.2 Scope of Study
This study was limited to the Brent East panel of the Alwyn North Field. The
reservoir model focused on the Ness 2 and Tarbert 1, 2 and 3 units because of the
small oil content in Ness 1.
Black Oil PVT representation was used in this study. The drive mechanisms were
determined using material balance. Annual production was set at 15% of ultimate
reserves.
The following cases were examined:
1. Natural depletion with Flowing well pressure limit of 100bars
2. Natural depletion up to a reservoir pressure 290bars then introduction of
Water injection as secondary recovery process
3. Natural depletion to a reservoir pressure 350bars then introduction of Gas
injection as secondary recovery process
4. Natural depletion to a reservoir pressure 350bars then introduction of
Water injection as secondary recovery process for 4years followed by an alternate
gas injection.
1.3 Geological Description And Field Characteristics

In a bid to explore the Alwyn North field a thorough geological description of the
field is necessary to ensure complete understanding of the geology of the area. The
geological settings, sedimentology and other related aspects of the field are
described in this section.

1.3.1 Location
The Alwyn North Field was discovered in 1974 in the South Eastern part of the East
Shetland Basin in the UK North sea, about 140 km East of the near most Shetland
Island and about 400 km North East of Aberdeen. The Alwyn field lies respectively
4 and 10 km south of Strathspey and Brent field, 7 km east of Ninian field, and 10
km north of Dunbar field (see field localisation map below). The water depth is
around 130 m. The field is in the UKCS Block 3/9 and extends northward into the
Block 3/4. The location map and 3D view of the area is shown in Fig. 1.1 and 1.2
respectively.
Figure1.1: Alwyn North Field Localization Map

Figure 1.2: Alwyn Area Location Map
1.3.2 Field Characteristics Tectonics

Tectonics played a significant role on the structure of ALWYN North field.
Tensional movements leading to the development of the Viking Graben from
the lower Permian times to Upper Jurassic generated a complex fault pattern.
Several seismic data acquisition programs were carried out: 2D seismic in 1974
and 1977, and 3D in 1980/81. Seismic data analysis indicates that the oil bearing
sands are controlled on one hand by normal sealing faults with a general North-
South direction, on the other hand by a major unconformity at the base of
Cretaceous. This unconformity is related to erosion of the Brent formation in the
eastern part of ALWYN North field.
In a bid to explore the Alwyn North field a thorough geological description of
the field is necessary to ensure complete understanding of the geology of the
area. The geological setting, sedimentology and other related aspects of the field
are described in this section.
1.3.3 Geological Setting

The Brent formation was deposited in a deltaic and shallow marine environment

during the Middle Jurassic period. The Statfjord formation was deposited in a
fluvial and shallow marine environment during the Lower Jurassic period. Each
panel has several pre-cretaceous tilted blocks (see Figure 1.3 below). The cap
rock is made of three on lapping shaly formations:
Heather formation: marine transgressive shales with thin limestone
stringers, which is deposited after the tectonic activity.
Kimmeridge clay thick in the West, thin in the East, which is the main
hydrocarbon source rock.
Thick cretaceous sequence.
Figure1.3: Stratigraphy of the Alwyn North Field
ALWYN North reservoirs were relatively unaffected by diagenesis due probably

to an early hydrocarbon impregnation.
RFT shows that each panel had its own pressure regime. Water-oil contacts were
identified at different depth. All the panels were independent from the other.
1.3.4 Brent East Reservoir of Alwyn North Field
This study was considering only the East Panel of the Alwyn North field.
1.3.4.1 Geological Description

The structure of Alwyn Brent East Block was generally an eroded monoclinal,
with Base Cretaceous Unconformity (BCU) setting east and south limit, Spinal
Fault setting west limit (separating Brent east from north and central west
blocks), and a fault with sometimes very small throw setting north limit. East
structure under BCU is quite complicated, and described under the generic term
of slumps (linked to gravitational collapse of head blocks during Cretaceous
erosion similar as ones encountered in Brent field).
In the Brent East panel, the oil zone is in a stratigraphic trap as shown below
created by the erosion unconformity to the east, by a northsouth fault to the
west (between A-1 and A-2 wells) and by a transverse fault to the north. The
Brent Geological Cross section is shown below.
Figure 1.4: Brent Geological Cross section
The Brent geological well section is shown in Fig. 1.5.

Fig: Brent Geological well Section
1.3.4.2 Tectonics
Several seismic data acquisition programs were carried out: 2D seismic in 1974
and 1977, and 3D in 1980/81. Seismic data analysis indicates that the oil bearing
sands are controlled on one hand by normal sealing faults with a general North-
South direction, on the other hand by a major unconformity at the base of
Cretaceous. This unconformity is related to erosion of the Brent formation in the
eastern part of ALWYN North field.
Following the seismic interpretation, ALWYN North field was divided into the
following panels:
Brent North.
Brent Northwest.
Brent Southwest.
Brent East.
Statfjord
Triassic
.

The first four panels are oil bearing within the Brent. The Statfjord formation is
a condensate gas reservoir with the Brent completely eroded. The underlying
Triassic is gas bearing.
Figure 1.6: Cross Section Through Alywn Showing The Faults
1.3.4.3 Sedimentology
The Brent group is divided into three main units: the Lower Brent (Broom,
Rannoch and Etive formations), the Middle Brent (Ness formations), and the
Upper Brent (Tarbert formations). The last two are the only oil-bearing
formations in the Brent East panel.
The Lower Brent formation was deposited in a shoreface (Rannoch) to
coastal barrier (Etive) environment. The clastic reservoir is made of
transgressive sandstone (Broom) and prograding sandstones (Rannoch
and Etive). Thus, the petrophysical properties range from low to medium
permeability. This unit does not contain any oil in the Brent East reservoir.
The Middle Brent formation was deposited in a deltaic to alluvial plain
(Ness 1) and lagoon to lower delta plain (Ness 2) environment. Thus,
sandstones are inter bedded with clay and coal. In general, Ness 1 unit has

poorer petrophysical characteristics than Ness 2 unit and its oil-bearing
leg is much lower especially to the East of the reservoir.
The Upper Brent was deposited in a prograding lower shoreface
environment. Three different types of sandstone are identified. At the top
(Tarbert 3), are massive sands with very good reservoir characteristics.
This is the main oil bearing unit in the Brent East reservoir. Below
(Tarbert 2), there are mica-rich sandstone with lower permeability. These
mica-rich sandstones exhibit a high natural radioactivity. The base of the
Tarbert formation (Tarbert 1) is very similar to the top sandstone. Despite
its lower average permeability, Tarbert 2 unit is not considered as a
permeability barrier.
Figure 1.7: Depositional Setting of the Brent Group
To summarize, Tarbet can be described as massive shore face sands with

excellent petro-physical properties, well connected throughout the field and
may be even regionally, communicating partially with Upper Ness fluviatile
system which is isolated from Lower Ness.
Base Brent Etive and Rannoch are better quality reservoirs, but mainly water
bearing in Brent East Block.

Considering the small oil content in Ness 1, this unit is neglected in the reservoir
model. Thus, the reservoir model focuses on the Ness 2 and Tarbert 1, 2 and 3
units.
The Brent East reservoir of Alwyn North was characterized using data from two
of the original vertical appraisal wells (3/9A-2, 3/9A-4) and two new deviated
delineation wells (N1 and N3). N3 characterized the northern part of the field
where an important oil leg was confirmed mainly in the Tarbert units. N1
located to the West did not produce any oil and only encountered the aquifer,
which does seem to be active. The water salinity in the reservoir is about 17,000
ppm.
1.3.4.4 Log correlations

The last two appraisal wells, namely N1 and N3, were extensively cored.
Numerous core samples were analyzed through routine conventional core
analysis. Several permeability-porosity relationships were derived (see annex 2):
one for each of the reservoir units considered (Tarbert 3, Tarbert 1&2 and Ness 2).
Special core analyses were carried out on a few samples from each of the
reservoir units. Unsteady state measurements under reservoir conditions (fluids
and pore pressure) were conducted to obtain a set of relative permeability and
of capillary pressure curves.

Figure 1.8: Showing Log Correlations
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The goal of this study is to propose an initial development plan for the Brent
East reservoir, this plan should maximize the total hydrocarbon production and
minimize the development cost in $/bbl.
Several aspects were investigated:

a. Using available data, a reservoir performance analysis was performed to
identify the main reservoir driving force. Using material balance, the different
drive mechanisms were investigated in order to estimate the oil recovery.
Primary production as well as secondary production must be investigated
(material balance calculation above Psat). In order to calculate the Material
Balance, use average values of Swi and Sor.
b. Based on the results of the first step, different production schemes should
were defined: Natural depletion, water injection, gas injection. Each scenario
was reported in detail with all relevant information, assumptions and selected
options. The annual production plateau was estimated to be around 15% of
EUR. The production profiles were evaluated over 15 years.
c. 60% of EUR must be produced at plateau rate.
d. Each scenario was implemented in the numerical reservoir model. In natural

depletion, the model was run until 100 bar (BHP). Are the calculated
numbers of producers relevant? Investigate was done to give the best number
of wells. For secondary production: We optimize the injectors to meet the
target production. Attention was paid to the critical gas saturation (Sgc).
e. A proposed scenario was selected based on technical criteria and economic

parameters were compared.
f. Using the selected development scheme, the major uncertainties were

investigated to assess the impact of the model assumptions including for
instance:
permeability anisotropy: Ky = 10*Kx,
fault transmissibility: sealing / non sealing,
Tarbert 2 Tarbert 3 connection: transmissivity of layer 4,
aquifer strength: decrease of pore volume in the water zone (see the impact
on natural depletion scheme),
1.5 Reservoir Model And Characteristics

Based on the Brent East characteristics described previously, a reservoir
simulation model was designed to investigate the production capacity of this
reservoir. The reservoir model was built using the four appraisal wells: A2, A4,
N2 and N3. These wells can be abandoned according to the production scheme.
Due to a sketchy knowledge of the Brent East reservoir at the beginning of the
study, a Black Oil model was designed with rectangular cells with 36 cells along
the x-direction and 51 cells along the y-direction. The geometry definition is

given in a Petrel file: 'MODEL_PETREL.GRDECL'. The structural
framework used for the Corner Point Geometry is based on the Spinal Fault
Geometry and the North fault limit. Model size is geometrically 36x51x18 but is
in reality 36x51x17 (since the 1st layer representing all layers between the Base
Cretaceous Unconformity and Top Brent is killed by nil porosity), Fig. 1.8.
1.5.1 Rock Typing

The rock typing to represent the Tarbert and Ness formations as shown in Table
1-1. Tarbert can be described as massive shore-face sands with excellent
petrophysical properties, well connected throughout the field. Tarbert
communicates partially with the Upper Ness fluviatile system which is isolated
from Lower Ness.
Ness 1 and Ness 2 bear small oil content while lower Brent is mainly water and
are thereby neglected in the reservoir model. Thus, the reservoir model focuses
on Tarbert 1, 2 and 3.
Table 1.1: Rock Typing and Layers representing the Tarbert and Ness
Rock Type Formation Layer Tags

Rock Type Formation Layer Tags
Impermeable zone 1
Tarbert 3 2,3,4
Type 1 Tarbert 2 5,6
Tarbert 1 7,8,9
Type 2 Ness 2 10,11,12,13,14
Type 2 Ness 1 15,16
Lower Brent 17,18
This model will only include the oil bearing sands from the Tarbert (1, 2 &
3) and Ness (1 & 2) formations. Thus, in this study, the reservoir model has 17
layers:
3 in Tarbert 3
2 in Tarbert 2

3 in Tarbert 1
5 in Ness 2
4 in Ness 1
There are three equilibration regions defined in the EQUNUM keyword in the
Regions section. However, there is no evidence of compartmentalization, all the
regions have the same water-oil contact (WOC) and pressure regime.
Figure 1.8: Reservoir Model Showing the Grids
Initial pressure of the reservoir is 446 bar and saturation pressure is 258 bar. The
reservoir petrophysical properties (porosity, permeability) were also scaled up.
The property modeling was done as follows:
Tarbert and Ness shallow marine sheet flood sandstone: Determine
modelling with trend surface control maps
Ness: Object modelling floodplain & lagoonal back barrier lobes
Porosity: Depth and facies trends incorporated
Permeability: Calibrated with core and DST Data

The petrophysical properties (porosity, permeabilities and NTG) are included in
the grid in the include file: 'MODEL_PETREL_PETRO.GRDECL'. The original
oil in place (OOIP) estimation, according to the geological model, is about 35.68
MMsm3; this value is dependent on capillary pressure.
1.5.2 Reservoir Fluid Properties

Black Oil PVT representation was used in this study. The PVT data file PVT.INC
contains the relevant composite black oil PVT data which accounts for the field
separation conditions. Below is a table showing the initial PVT values of the
reservoir fluid.
Table 1.2: Initial Values of Fluid Properties
Properties Value
Initial Reservoir Pressure (Pi) 446 Bar
Temperature (T) 110 oC
Saturation Pressure (Psat) 258 Bar
GOR 206.8974 v/v
Formation factor, Bo@ Pi 1.6038
OOIIP 35.68MMm3
1.5.3 Fluids in Place

The original data file was initialized to obtain the fluid in place values shown
below. This was illustrated by adding the ECHO and FIPNUM keywords in the
dot DATA simulation.

Table 1.3: Table Showing the Fluids in Place Volume
Currently in place Tarbert Ness Entire Field

Oil (sm3) 31,104,045 4,577,946 35,681,991
Water (sm3) 125,222,389 188,540,747 313,763,137
Dissolved Gas 6,426,769,976 945,920,886 7,372,672,862
(sm3)
Figure 1.9: Data File Initialized to Obtain Volumes In-Place

As shown above, the Tarbert (Region 1) had Oil Originally in place as 31104045
Sm3, while Ness (region 2) had Oil Originally in place as 4577946 Sm3,with
Tarbert contributing 87% of the total oil in place in the entire field. The Ness
can be said to be non-prolific, since it is producing more water than oil. For this
reason, region 2 will not contribute per say to our proposed production, as such
drilling into it would lead to early breakthrough and a reduction in oil recovery.
Hence, our study was focused mainly on the Tarbert rock.

CHAPTER TWO
FIELD DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES

In this chapter we proposed an initial development plan for the Brent East
reservoir, this plan should maximize the total hydrocarbon production and
minimize the development cost in $/bbl. This is done in two parts, the analytical
calculation of the recovery from natural depletion, water injection and gas
injection and the other part, the simulation using ECLIPSE for each of the above
mentioned scenarios with the inclusion of water alternate gas injection. In the
excel calculation involving material balance and the different drive mechanisms
were used to estimate the oil recovery. The first case used to produce the oil in
place was natural depletion and also different cases of secondary production
were also investigated (material balance calculation above Psat).
The different secondary production schemes used were: Natural depletion, water
injection, gas injection as well as Simultaneous Water Gas Injection (WAG).
Each case is described in this chapter using both excel calculation and eclipse to
validate. The annual production plateau estimate is around 15% of EUR. The
production profiles were evaluated over a period of 15 years.
Each case was implemented in the numerical reservoir model. For primary
method, production was optimized by investigating the best number of wells.
For secondary method, production was optimized by investigating the best
number of producers and injectors to meet the target production.
2.1 Constraints
2.1.1 Drilling Constraints

To develop the Brent East reservoir, a 40-slot well platform will be used.
The maximum well deviation should not exceed 46 with respect to
vertical.
Production program should start at the beginning of 2012.

The maximum horizontal drain (x or y direction) of a well will be less than
1000 m.
The kick off point (start of deviation) is set at 2,000 m ground level. It is
also possible to drill vertical wells with subsea completion.
The average drilling completion time is about 2 months for vertical wells
and 2 months for the horizontal ones.
Wells may be t
Two drilling rigs are available.
The wells are drilled in 7".
2.1.2 Production Constraint

The minimum bottom hole flowing pressure (BHFP) is 260 bar.
The perforations of the wells are chosen to optimize recovery depending
on the well location.
Vertical well production test indicates a maximum fluid (oil + water) rate
of 1,800 Sm3/d.
Horizontal well could produce up to 2,400 Sm3/d of liquid. Only flowing
production is considered at this stage.
Drainage radius for vertical wells is about 400 m.
The averaged maintenance down time is 10 % for all the wells.
Due to surface facilities on platforms, the maximum allowable GOR is 1500
m3/m3 and the maximum allowable water cut is 90 %.
The minimum economical rate for the field is 1000 Sm3/d of oil.
To estimate the productivity index, we considered a skin of 5
The annual production plateau should be around 15% of EUR (~7200
Sm3/d)
The production plateau should be maintained for 60% of the total oil
production
The production profiles should be evaluated over 15 years
2.1.3 Water Injection Constraint

During secondary recovery, the following constraint will be considered for water
injection.
Seawater may be injected into the reservoir without any water
compatibility problem.
To estimate the water injectivity index, we considered a skin of -4 induced
by thermal fractures due to the low temperature of the sea water injected
in the formation (surface temperature of water: 8C).
The fracture pressure of the Brent reservoir is about 480 bars.
The maximum water injection rate is 3,000 Sm3/d. The maximum total
water injection available is 15,000 Sm3/d.
Control in voidage replacement
2.1.4 Gas Injection Constraint

If gas injection is considered during secondary recovery, the following constraint
will be considered:
Lean Statfjord gas may be injected.
This lean gas is assumed to have the same characteristics as the Brent dissolved
gas.
The maximum gas injection rate is 800,000 Sm3/d per well. The maximum total
gas injection available is 3,200,000 Sm3/d.
Control in voidage replacement.
2.2 Analytical Calculations

The main drive mechanism for production of the Alwyn North Brent East
reservoir is Expansion of original reservoir fluids (Oil) because the reservoir
initially is undersaturated and will be depleted above bubble point pressure with
a minimum drawdown of 20 bars. However, secondary and enhanced oil
recovery mechanisms will also be deployed to increase recovery via water and/or
gas injection. These scenarios will be investigated using MBE (Analytical or
Hand Calculations) vis--vis dynamic Numerical Simulation with Eclipse and
the results will be presented and discussed.
However, before proceeding we ran Eclipse in NOSIM mode to generate the

PRT file containing the STOIIP of Alwyns Tarbert and Ness formations. The
following screenshot captures this information and other important data.

The PVT file used for various calculations is shown below. The full PVT file used
for gas injection is shown in the appendix.
Table 2.1: PVT File
Assumptions
1. The Petro-physical and PVT Properties of both rock types are assumed to be
similar.
2. Vertical Sweep Efficiency, Ev is assumed to be 0.7 for all regions.
2.2.1 Case One: Natural Depletion

This refers to production of hydrocarbons from a reservoir without the use of
any process (such as fluid injection) to supplement the natural energy of the
reservoir. In the case of natural depletion, we used the material balance equation
(MBE) to calculate the production and ultimate oil recovery under a natural

depletion process. The reservoir was depleted from the initial pressure (Pinitial =
258bar) to a bottom hole pressure limit of 100 bar.
The data used for these calculations were obtained from the PVT report and the
INPUT data file. The Original Oil in Place for the two regions (Tarbert and Ness)
was obtained from an initialization run in ECLIPSE. The result is displayed in
Figure 1.9.
In this type of reservoir, the principal source of energy is a result of gas

liberation from the crude oil and the subsequent expansion of the solution gas
as the reservoir pressure is reduced.
Assumptions:
1. No Aquifer support or water influx into the reservoir
2. Recovery is by rock and liquid expansion
2.2.1.1 Minimum number of wells

The following equations were used to determine the minimum number of wells:
------------------------------2.1
To get the initial number of wells, we need:
--------------------------------------2.2
Considering that for the development field case we don't have any production
data, to estimate productivity index (average value between Pi and Pmin):
--------------------------------------------------2.3
Where,
= 0.0086.2 = 0.0536 ___metric units
= 0.0086.2 = 0.0536 ___metric units
At reservoir pressure, 446bars

At 280bars,
Well Potential =
----------------------------------------------2.4
Assuming EUR = 25%
Hence,
Minimum number of wells =
2.2.1.2 Material Balance For Natural Depletion Alone
a. Rock And Fluid Expansion

The equations were used for calculating material balance;
---------------------------------------------------------------2.5
Where,
Np = Cumulative Oil Produced
Boi = Initial Formation Volume Factor of Oil
Bo = Final Formation Volume Factor of Oil
N = Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP)
Ce = Equivalent Compressibility of Oil
P = Pressure Drop
But,
----------------------------------------------------2.6
Where,
Co = Compressibility of Oil
Cw = Compressibility of Water

So = Oil Saturation
Swc = Connate Water Saturation
Cf = Rock Compressibility
Also
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------2.7
i. Tarbert Region:
Boi = Bo @ 446 = 1.6038
Bo @ 280 = 1.6737
For water participating in expansion,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------2.8
ii. Ness Region:

Boi = Bo @ 446 = 1.6038
Bo @ 280 = 1.6737

For water participating in expansion,
Estimation of the above parameters and final EUR for NATURAL DEPLETION
case are presented below:
Table 2.2: Analytical solution for Recovery by Natural Depletion Drive

2.2.2 Case Two: Water Injection
The previous case assumed the reservoir produced only by natural depletion. In
practice, reservoirs are rarely allowed to deplete almost to their bubble point
pressures. Pressure maintenance schemes are implemented to sustain plateau
production usually with Water Injection Scheme (Note: Pressure maintenance
by Gas Injection is usually not feasible because of the enormous amounts of gas
that is required; gas Injection supports oil recovery mainly via dissolution and
miscibility phenomena).
Here, we will calculate the amount of additional oil that can be recovered by
water injection and also the number of wells that will effectively sweep oil in the
reservoir while maintaining the reservoir pressure above bubble point.
The total recovery during a water injection process can be given by;
----------------------------------------------------------------2.9
-------------------------------------------2.10
Where,
Ed = f(primary depletion, krw & kro, o & w)
Ea = f(mobility ratio, pattern, directional permeability, pressure
distribution, cumulative injection & operations)
Ev = f(rock property variation between different flow units,fluid density), Ev =
0.7(assumption)
2.2.2.1 Material Balance
i. Tarbert Region:
Evaluation of Ea
Ea can be gotten from the graph as shown below:

Fig2.1: Reciprocal Mobility Ratio Chart
The Mobility Ratio (MR) is first obtained using the relationship

---------------------------------------------------------2.11
Next, the Reciprocal Mobility Ratio (inverse of MR) is calculated and the areal
sweep efficiency (EA) corresponding to this value is read off the Reciprocal
Mobility Ratio Chart.

Table 2.3: Reciprocal Mobility Ratio computation for obtaining error. Ea
From the table and chart above, Ea = 0.98
Evaluation of Ed
Ed is calculated from a plot of fractional flow, fw versus water saturation, Sw.
This plot shows the fractional flow of water when injected into the reservoir to
displace oil. The plots are different for each rock type.
-------------------------------------------------------------2.12
Plot of fw vs Sw is generated using corresponding Relative Permeability

(Imbibition) data
Table 2.4: Relative Permeability (Imbibition) data table

Tarbert
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
fw
0.5 Tarbert
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Swm 0.8 1 1.2
Sw
Fig2.2: Fractional Flow curve for the Tarbert Region
As shown above,
Swc = 0.15, Swm = 0.71
Therefore, the drainage efficiency at Break-through (BT) is obtained from
equation 2.12;
Recovery = = 0.6588 = 65%

Ed = 0.66, Ev = 0.7, Ea = 0.98
Therefore, R = 0.66*0.7*0.98 = 0.45
ii. Ness Region
Evaluation of Ea
EA is the same as obtained for Tarbert since both rock types contain the same
reservoir fluid.
Evaluation of Ed:
Plot of fw vs Sw is generated using corresponding Relative Permeability
(Imbibition) data

Table 2.5: Relative Permeability (Imbibition) data table
Swm
Fig2.3 : Fractional Flow curve for the Ness Region
As shown above,
Swc = 0.30, Swm = 0.66
Therefore, the drainage efficiency at Break-through (BT) is obtained from
equation 2.12;
Recovery = (0.66-0.30)/(1-0.30) = 0.51 = 51%

Ed = 0.51, Ev = 0.7, Ea = 0.98,
R = 0.51*0.7*0.98 = 0.35
2.2.2.2 Estimation of Oil Recovery Using Hand Calculation

From equation 2.9,
Oil Recovery with water:
Total oil produced:
------------------------2.13
Therefore,
Table 2.6 shows a section of an MS Excel file that contains calculations for the
total oil that can be produced by water injection.

Table 2.6: Oil Recovery from Natural Depletion and Water Injection
From the table above, the total oil recovery from Tarbert and Ness by natural
depletion and water injection is 4.49E+06 Sm3 with a Global percent recovery of
51%.
Given that annual production plateau should be around 15% of Estimated

Ultimate Reserves (EUR), Average Oil Withdrawal per day calculated from Table
2.6 is 7478 Sm3/day.
2.2.2.3 Minimum number of wells:

Oil Flow rate, Qo, per well, is given by :
----------------------------------------------------------2.14
Where,
Kro = relative permeability of oil in the presence of water
Bo = oil formation volume factor
o = viscosity of oil

C =conversion factor
K = permeability
H = net pay thickness
P = pressure drawdown
Rd = reservoir drainage radius
Rw = well radius
S = skin
Assumptions for Calculation:

Wells drilled and completed in the TARBERT Region
Reservoir producing at Pseudo-steady state
Oil flowing at connate water saturation
Reservoir drainage radius equals 400m
Values of average permeability, K, Net-to-Gross ratio, NTG and average

thickness, DZ were obtained from the geological model using FLOVIZ with
Eclipse Simulator run on NOSIM mode. An examination of the 9 vertical
layers of the Tarbert region showed an erosion of the top layer. Hence, only 8
layers of reservoir sand thickness were used.
Qo @ 446bars
Bo = 1.6038
o = 0.3916
Kro = 0.8
Z = 8.0907 per layer* 8 layers *NTG = 64.7256 * 0.96883 = 62.7081m
Qo @ 280bars
Bo = 1.6737
o = 0.2829
Kro = 0.8

Z = 8.0907 per layer* 8 layers *NTG = 64.7256 * 0.96883 = 62.7081m
We have been informed of a possible production downtime of 10%. Hence, our

rate is subject to a WEFAC (Well Efficiency Factor) of 90%.
Therefore,
=
Implication:
We need to drill at least 5 producer wells for optimal reservoir exploitation by
Natural Depletion.
Secondary oil recovery by water injection is usually incorporated in the field life
of a reservoir. Hence, optimum number of wells for increased recovery by water
injection was also calculated. Because of thermal cracks induced by injecting
cold North Sea water into the hot reservoir, a skin of -4 is expected for a water
injection case.
The most efficient way to determine the amount of Water for injection is to
calculate the amount of water required to achieve zero-net-voidage by applying
the VOIDAGE REPLACEMENT PRINCIPLE.
Field oil production rate was previously determined as 7478 Sm3/day. We shall
find the equivalent reservoir oil volume. This volume is equal to reservoir water
volume for zero-net-voidage.
Subsequently, we determine the surface equivalent of this reservoir water which
is calculated as:

Implication:
We need to drill at least 4 injection wells for optimal reservoir exploitation by
voidage replacement.
2.2.3 Case Three: Gas Injection

We would calculate the amount of recovery that can be achieved by gas
injection while maintaining the reservoir pressure above bubble point. Because
the NESS region is predominantly water zone, there will be no need injecting gas
in this region. Hence, we focused on recoveries from the TARBERT region.
2.2.3.1 Material Balance
i. Tarbert Region
The total recovery possible during a gas injection process can be obtained from
equation 2.15
---------------------------------------------------------------2.15
Recall that Equation 2.10 for Recovery Factor with all parameters defined as
previously is:
Evaluation of EA:
The Mobility Ratio is first obtained, Reciprocal Mobility ratio estimated, and
traced up to the corresponding gas cut curve to read off EA =0.74 (See Table
2.8).
Evaluation of ED:
As with the water injection case, plot varies for the different rock types as
presented below. Because the reservoir is predominantly water-wet, Gas

Injection constitutes a Drainage Process. Hence, the Drainage Data for Tarbert
is made use of for computing fractional flow.
Table 2.7: Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Data for Rock-Type 1

Figure 2.4: Relative permeability versus gas saturation curves

Figure 2.5: Plot of Gas Fractional flow against saturation for Tarbert
From the graph, the Sgf and Sgm as shown on the chart are determined.
Sgm = 0.25 , Sgc 0.0
Therefore, the drainage efficiency at Break-through (BT) is obtained as follows;
EV = 0.7 (assumption)
Applying Equation 2.10,
Recovery of oil from gas injection is shown in the Table 2.8 below:

Table 2.7: Recoveries from combined Natural Depletion and Gas Injection
As shown in the table above, total oil produced from Tarbert due to gas injection
is 5,219,682.323 Sm3 with a per cent recovery of 14.49 %.
Total oil from Tarbert from both natural depletion and gas injection is therefore,
6,978,338.529 Sm3 with a per cent recovery of 19 %.

CHAPTER THREE
DYNAMIC FIELD DEVELOPMENT STUDY USING ECLIPSE

SOFTWARE
A field development study can be conveniently done using Eclipse as different
reservoir production cases can be simulated to determine the best strategy for
producing from the field.
Four cases will be considered:
Natural Depletion
Natural Depletion followed by Water Injection
Natural Depletion Followed by Gas Injection
Natural Depletion followed by Water Alternating Gas Injection (WAG)
3.1 Case One: Natural Depletion

Natural depletion, also known as primary production, describes a scenario
where the reservoir is produced via its natural energy. In natural depletion, the
energy required to drive the fluids from the reservoir to the wellbore and
consequently to the surface is the reservoirs energy. This energy might be due
to a solution gas drive, aquifer and rock expansion, gravity drainage or water
drive.
3.1.1 Natural Depletion with the Available Four Exploratory Wells

For this natural depletion case, the original four vertical wells in the model were
run to limit BHP of 100 bars atmospheric and the evolution of field pressures
and flow rates during the period were noted.

Fig 3.1: Well Architecture: Natural Depletion from Wells PA2, PN2, PA1 and
PN1
Fig 3.2: FOPR, FOPT and FOE as a function of time for th e 4-well Natural
Depletion case
The figure above indicates a maximum oil recovery of 22% for this natural
depletion case. Also, the plateau production period peaks for only five years and
then declines to zero in seven years. Hence, natural depletion can neither
sustain production for the 15 years proposed for the project nor can recoveries
are maximized.
Moreover, the principle of profitable business is directly challenged as oil

production revenue will be insufficient to offset the huge investments required
for a project of this magnitude.Thus, the need for secondary and tertiary
recovery schemes arises as the field cannot be produced with a primary recovery
technique alone.
Further, a disparity was observed between the calculated and simulated value of
the maximum recovery. The recovery from the analytical calculations was 6%
while the recovery from the numerical simulation was 22%. This suggests that
there is a nearby aquifer that provided pressure support to the reservoir
Fig 3.3: Oil Production Rate as a Function of Time from Wells PA2, PA1, PN2
and PN1
From an analysis of the figure above, it was observed that well PA2 contributed
poorly to the total field production. This could be due to any or a combination
of the following reasons:

Improper well placement,
Proximity to a fault,
High positive skin
Completing the well in a water zone.
Well PA2 can either be shut off or converted into an injection well since it is a
poor producer. The latter was deemed a better economic decision as it ensured
the continuous use of the well to add value to the field. Hence, subsequent
simulations for the natural depletion case were done with PA2 shut while new
wells were drilled and brought on stream.
3.1.2 Effect of Critical Gas Saturation

To study the effect of critical gas saturation on field productivity, the critical gas
saturation was increased from 0%, as was used in the previous cases, to 10%. The
implication of setting the critical gas saturation to 0% is that gas begins to
evolve from solution throughout the reservoir as soon as the reservoir pressure
depletes to a level that is below the bubble point pressure of the oil. This leads
to an increase in gas-oil ration and a subsequent decrease in oil productivity.
Fig 3.4: Comparing the Field Recovery Effi ciency and Field Plateau
Production Rate for both cases

Higher recoveries and longer plateaus were recorded for the simulation case
with a critical gas saturation of 10%. There was an increase in total recovery from
22% to 26% and the time required for production to terminate increased by one
year.
Fig 3.5: Comparing the Field Pressure and Total Field Production Volume for
both cases
By increasing the critical gas saturation to 10%, the field total production
increased from 8MMm3 to 9MMm3 and an additional year was required for the
reservoir to deplete to the bottom hole flowing pressure limit of 100bars.
As with the previous graphs, the new case gave better results. In contrast with
the previous case, an extra year was required for the field water cut to attain its
maximum value and an additional 18 months was required for the field gas-oil
ratio to attain its peak. From the results above, it can be confidently inferred
that recovery is improved when dissolved gases stay longer in solution as gas
mobility is delayed to obtain better oil recoveries. Hence, subsequent simulation
cases will be done with the critical gas saturation set to 10%.

Fig 3.6: Comparing the Field Water Cut and Fie ld Gas-Oil Ratio for both
cases
3.1.3 Natural Depletion with Increased Development Wells:

The need to drill added development wells arises as a result of the fact that the
three available wells are inadequate to optimally drain the field of its oil
resources. Economics plays a major role here as drilling of new wells represents a
major portion of capital expenditures. Thus, the number of new wells to be
drilled should be optimized to obtain maximal recovery from the field.
3.1.3.1 Natural Depletion with Five Producer Wells

The minimum number of production wells, as computed through the hand
calculations, was 5 wells. Well PA2 was shut in and two new wells, PB1 and PB2,
were drilled to increase recovery from the field. PB2 was drilled very close to the
shut-in PB1 and PB1 was drilled in an area with very high oil saturation.

Fig 3.7: Well Architecture: Natural Depletion with W ells PA1, PNI, PN2, PB2
and PA4
Fig 3.8: Natural Depletion with 5 Producers: FOE, FOPT and FOPR as a
function of time
For the 5-well case, FOPR peaked for 6 years in contrast with the 4-well case in
which FOPR peaked for only 5 years. Field Oil Recovery also increased from 26%
to 30%.

Fig 3.9: Natural Depletion with 5 Producers: FPR, FOE, F WCT, FGOR as a
function of time
Fig 3.10: Well by Well Analysis: Individual Oil Well Production Rate as a
function of time

3.1.4 Inferences: Natural Depletion
From the simulations and optimizations done thus, we came up with the
following inferences:
Ultimate Oil Recovery:
The oil recovery obtained from the different simulation runs is shown on
the bar chart displayed above. EUR from the natural depletion varied from 20%
to about 30%. The highest recovery (30%) was obtained by depleting the
reservoir naturally with 7 wells while shutting well A2. The low recovery from
this type of reservoirs suggests that large quantities of oil remain in the reservoir
and the reservoir pressure dropped very much for this low recovery. This
naturally depleted reservoir will be considered a good candidate for secondary
recovery applications such as water injection as well as gas.
Reservoir pressure:
The reservoir pressure declined rapidly and continuously. This reservoir

pressure behaviour is attributed to the fact that no extraneous fluids or gas caps
are available to provide a replacement of the gas and oil withdrawals. There is
no voidage replacement no sweep provision for the hydrocarbon.
Water production:
There was considerable water production with the oil during the entire
producing life of the reservoir. This is due to the presence of an active water
drive.
Gas-oil ratio:
This natural depletion is characterized by a rapidly increasing gas-oil ratio from

all the wells, regardless of their structural position. After the reservoir pressure
has been reduced below the bubble-point pressure, gas evolves from solution
throughout the reservoir. Once the gas saturation exceeds the critical gas
saturation, free gas begins to flow toward the wellbore and gas-oil ratio
increases.

3.2: Case 2: Water Injection Preceded by Natural Depletion
In many cases, water injection has traditionally used in the oil industry for
pressure maintenance. It is usually used to maintain pressure above the bubble
point pressure and in some cases, to pressurize the reservoir to the bubble point
pressure. By simulation for water injection, water is pumped or injected into the
reservoir to maintain pressure and expel oil in the pore spaces. This water
displaces this resident oil and pushes them towards the producing wells in that
manner so as to maintain pressure and achieve improved recovery.
In this water injection simulation case, the desire was to maintain the average
reservoir pressure at 290 bars. Hence, the field was naturally depleted from 490
bars to 290 bars and water injection was initiated at this instance. Well PA2, the
poor producer well, was converted to an injector well. Four additional wells were
then drilled to serve as injection wells.
Due to the fact that oil could be recovered as a result of the water injection
sweep, two extra producer wells were drilled. This gave a total of 7 producers
and five injector wells.

Fig 3.11: Well Architecture: 7 producers and 5 injectors. We ll PA2 is an
injection well

Fig 3.12: Water Injection: FOPR, FOE and FOPT as a function of time
As predicted, the recovery efficiency increased with the water injection scheme.
The recovery efficiency increased astronomically from 30%, as obtained with
natural depletion to 52%. The maximum oil production of 7200m3/day could be
sustained for four years and the production constraint of a keeping the plateau
for a 60% of the Estimated Ultimate Recovery could be met.
Also, the total oil production rose steadily and finally peaked at 18MMm3 in 14
years.

Fig 3.13: Water Injection: FPR, FWCT and FWIR as a function of time
Since the oil production was done at a pressure above oil bubble point pressure,
the FGOR remained constant at a value of 0.2m3/m3. Reservoir pressure dropped
steadily from initial reservoir pressure to 296 bars and started rising at the start
of water injection. Field pressure rose very slowly from 296 bars to a final value
of 312 bars in 14 years.
The water injection wells were opened in the 16th month after the start of oil
production. Water injection was done mostly in the Tarbert region. For this 7-
well case, the water injection rate increased rapidly at the time of injection in
order to compensate for voidage already created before injection. Injection rate
then dropped gradually as the plateau rate (oil production) dropped too. The
average reservoir pressure was maintained above 300 bars as it gently rose. The
water cut also increased as the plateau rate was dropping which indicated that
the injected water has broken through and then being produced.

3.3 Case 3: Gas Injection Preceded by Natural Depletion
This was simulated by re-defining the water injection wells as gas injection wells.
Gas was then injected into the reservoir when the reservoir pressure had
dropped to 290bars because the injected gas is most soluble in the oil at that
pressure.
Fig 3.14: Gas Injection: FOPR, FOE and FOPT as a function of time
The FOPR plateau at 7200m3 could only be sustained for 4 years and total oil
recovery was 15 million cubic metres of oil. FOE dropped to 42% as against 52%
that was obtained with water injection

Fig 3.15: Water Injection: FPR, FWCT and FWIR as a function of time
From the production profile of the four wells case, proposed pressure
maintenance at 340 bars wasnt as successful as desired. But however, the rate of
pressure decline around 340 bars reduced for a while, it then reduced gradually
from 340 bars at 300 days to 290 bars at 4 years where it was then maintained
continuously.
Since the field oil recovery dropped by using gas injection, there are still
bypassed oil that were not recovered. This makes only the gas injection not very
suitable on an absolute scale, hence the need for combination with water.
3.4 Case 4: Water- Alternating Gas Injection

In this secondary recovery scheme, the reservoir was allowed to deplete to a
predetermined pressure after which water and gas were alternately injected.
Water-alternating gas schemes have proven very effective for secondary recovery
as gas injection schemes result in viscous fingering and reduced sweep

efficiency. In WAG schemes, the injected water displaces the oil in the high
permeability layers while the gas displaces the oil in the low permeability zones.
Water is injected into the reservoir for a period of say two years with the same
conditions required for ordinary water injection. The water pumps are then shut
off and the gas compressors are started for injection of gas into the reservoir
through the same injection wells for a shorter duration. The duration of the
water and gas injections are continuously altered until favourable results are
obtained.
Four WAG cycles were considered:
Sub case 1: 2.5 years of water injection - 6 months of gas injection - 1.5
years of water injection - 6 months of gas injection-water injection.
Sub case 2: 32 months of water injection - 6 months of gas injection - 2

years of water injection - 6 months of gas injection - 18 months of water
injection-3 months of gas injection - 12 months of water injection - 3
months of gas injection - 12 months of water injection - 3 months of gas
injection - water injection
Sub case 3: 2.5 years of water injection - 6 months of gas injection - 2 years
of water injection - 6 months of gas injection - 2 years of water injection -
6 months of gas injection - 2 years of water injection - 6 months of gas
injection - 2 years of water injection - 6 months of gas injection -water
injection.
Sub case 4: 5 years of water injection-6 months of gas injection-2 years of

water injection-6 months of gas injection-2 years of gas injection-6 months
of gas injection-2 years of water injection-6 months of gas injection-water
injection.
The results are presented below:

Fig 3.16: Sub-case 1: FOPT, FOE, FOPR, FWIR and FOPR as a function of time
Fig 3.17: Sub case 2: FOPR, FOPT, FOE, FWIR and FPR as a function of time.

Fig 3.18: Sub case 3: FOPR, FOPT, FOE, FWI R and FPR as a function of time
Fig 3.19: Sub case 4: FOPR, FOPT, FOE, FWIR and FPR as a function of time

Sub-case 3 was the most effective as it had the highest field oil recovery of 55%.
Sub-cases 1, 2 and 4 had field oil recoveries of 54%, 54.5% and 52 % respectively.
The pressure maintenance was effective around 350 bars and the decline in
plateau rate was gradual over time. The field gas oil ration rose gently over the
production period while the water cut rose steeply during the plateau
production and then unnoticeable slowly during the decline period.
There was fluctuation in the producing gas-oil ratio during the life of the
reservoir due to the alternating injection of water and gas with FGOR highest
during years of gas injection.
In conclusion, compared to the water injection case, WAG showed an overall

increase in FOE, FOPR, reduction in FWCT and better pressure maintenance.
Table 3.1: Comparison of WI and WAG
FOPT (MM FWCT (%) PLATEAU FPR

Sm3) (Years) (Bar)
CASE FOE (%)

WI 50 18.30 85 3.8 310
WAG 55 18.75 80 4.2 350
WAG has a higher total oil production with reduced water production and
better pressure maintenance than the water injection scheme. This is due to the
fact that injecting gas; reduces the viscosity of oil which improves the sweep,
reduces the amount of injected water/water cut. WI exhibited a longer plateau

CHAPTER FOUR
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The oil and gas business aims to maximize profitability of any prospect while
minimizing expenditures and associated uncertainties/risks, within a shorter
time frame. Hence, a key parameter for the justification of any petroleum
business is its economic viability.
The goal of this reservoir simulation project is to propose a development plan
for the Brent East reservoir that maximizes hydrocarbon production and
minimizes the development cost in $/bbl. In the previous chapter, the optimized
development cases for the different development scenarios were determined
after rigorous numerical simulations. This chapter will therefore, deal with the
economic evaluation of those optimal development options for the ALWYN
field.
The capital costs, operating costs, gross revenues, pay-back time and other
profitability indices will be determined for each of the development strategies
that were optimised in the previous chapter. The final project decision will then
be based on the economic evaluation results.
The following assumptions were made in the evaluation:

Oil price is pegged at $110/bbl.
OPEX is limited to the lifting, transportation and distribution costs only.
Other components of the operating expenditure that are based on
specific activities anticipated in the lifetime of the field were not
considered.
The already existing wells come at zero cost. They will be neglected in
the computation of the CAPEX
The cost of water and gas volumes used for the injection cases, as well as
their supportive surface handling equipment, was ignored.
Taxation costs is 40% of gross revenue
Maintenance costs, replacement costs, manpower costs,
decommissioning and well work over expenditures were not considered
On-stream time was 7884 hours per year
The economic analysis will be based on the field development capital
and operating costs that were given in the November 2011 edition of the
Journal of Petroleum Technology
CAPEX
Treatment and Production Facilities Platform 700MM$
Drilling and Accommodation Platform 250MM$
Secondary Platform 250MM$
Drilling Cost per well for deviated wells from a platform 12MM$
Gas compressors 44.2MM$
OPEX
Lifting, Production and Transportation costs 6.5$/bbl
The following computed parameters were used to evaluate the profitability of

the different scenarios:
Revenue = Selling Price of oil x Volume of Produced Oil
Total CAPEX = Cost of drilling and accommodation facilities + Cost of
Production facilities
Total OPEX= Lifting costs x Volume of Produced oil
Depreciation = CAPEX/ Project life
Taxable Income= Gross Revenue Depreciation - Operating Expenses
Project tax bill = Taxation Rate x Taxable Income
Cash Flow = Revenue Investment - OPEX- Tax bill

Discounted Factor = (1 + i) n

Discounted Cash Flow = Discount Factor x Cash Flow

Net Present Value = Cumulative NPV each year.

Gross Profit Margin = Gross Revenue Total Investment Costs

GPM per barrel = GPM/ Total Production

Profitability Index = Final CNPV/Total Investment

Pay Back Period = Time at CNPV is 0

Internal Rate of Return, IRR = D.F at CNPV is 0
4.1 Economic Evaluation of Natural Depletion at Economic Limit

The natural depletion case represents the simplest and cheapest production
strategy. Production commences as soon as the production and treatment
facilities have been set up and no extra wells have to be drilled. Oil production
from the four available injection wells totalled 67.33 million barrels with a
recovery efficiency of 30%.
Table 4.1 Revenues and Expenditures for Natural Depletion
Unit
Cost
Units/Cost in Total Cost in
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE per barrel MM$ MM$
Treatment and Production
Facilities 1 700 700
Drilling and Accomm0dation
Platform with 40 Platform slots 1 250 250
Drilling Cost for Horizontal Wells 0 16 0
Drilling cost for Deviated/Vertical
Wells 2 12 24
Horizontal Subsea Well and Piping 0 40 0
Vertical Subsea well and Piping 0 36 0
Gas Injection Compressors 0 44.2 0
Total Capital Investment 974 974
OPERATING EXPENDITURE
Production and Transportation
Costs 67.33 6.5 437.6
TOTAL EXPENDITURE 1411.6 1411.6
Total Expenditure per barrel 20.96539433
PROFIT
Profit per barrel 89.03460567
Gross Profit Margin in MM$ 5994.7 5994.7

Table 4.2 Economic Evaluation Indices for Natural Depletion
NATURAL DEPLETION
Total Oil Production in MMbbls 67.33
Total Investment in MM$ 724
Gross Revenue in MM$ 7406.3
Gross Profit Margin in MM$ 5994.7
Gross Profit Margin per barrel in MM$ 92.75
Profitability Factor 1.975138122
Cummulative Net Present value in MM$ 1430
Internal rate of Return in % 40%
Pay back Period 2.8 years
Project's Economic Life 9 years
With a gross profit of $5.99 billion dollars, over a fifteen year period, from a total
expenditure of 974 million dollars, this seems to be a very sound investment
strategy. For every barrel of oil produced, a gross profit of $89 is to be made.
Investors should also drool at the fact that the initial capital investments would
be recovered after only 2.7 years. Cumulative Net Present value stands at a
staggering 1.43 billion dollars and the profitability factor is 1.97.
The financial soundness of this production strategy is also backed by other
profitability indices. The internal rate of return is 42% which is far greater than
the projects rate of return.

Cash Flow for Natural Depletion
800
600 Cash flow in MM$
400
200
0
-200 0 2 4 6 8 10
Cash Flow
-400 Time in years
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Fig4.1 Cash flow curve for Natural Depletion Scheme
However, the short economic life of the project might want to deter investors
from backing this option. The project is only economic for 9 years out of the 15
years that it is expected to run. The cash flow is fairly constant at 500 million
dollars for the first six years and peaks at 580 million dollars in the seventh year.
Economic decline sets in after the seventh year as cash flow is at the end of the
8th and 9th is 419 MM$ and 41 MM$ respectively. The project is no longer
economically viable after the 9th year.
At face value, this is profitable for any investor but the short economic life
represents a drawback.
Other development strategies will have to be evaluated to determine the most
profitable development option based on basic assumptions, available constraints
and data.
4.2 Economic Evaluation of Gas Injection Scheme at Economic Limit

The gas injection scheme consists of seven producers (four new wells) and five
injectors (four new wells) as well as the associated treatment and production
systems. A very expensive gas compressor is also installed on-site to facilitate the
injection of the gas at the required pressure. The gas injection strategy led to the

production of 92.25 million barrels with a recovery efficiency of 42%. The
production and investment data are given below:
Table 4.3 Revenues and Expenditures for Gas Injection
GAS INJECTION
PRODUCTION DATA
OOIP in MMSm3 35.68
Fractional Oil Recovery 42
Unrecoverable Oil in MMSm3 20.6944
Produced Oil in MMSm3 14.9856
Produced Oil in MMbbl 92.25
REVENUE
Selling Price per barrel in $ 110

Total
Units/Cost Unit Cost Cost in
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE per barrel in MM$ MM$
Drilling and Accomodation
Drilling Cost for Horizontal
Wells 0 16 0
Drilling cost for
Deviated/Vertical Wells 8 12 96
Horizontal Subsea Well and
Piping 0 40 0
Gas Injection Compressors 1 44.2 44.2
Total Capital Investment 1090.2 1090.2
Production and Transportation
Costs 92.25 6.5 599.625

PROFIT
Table 4.4 Economic Evaluation Indices for Gas Injection
GAS INJECTION
Total Investment in MM$ 1090.2
Gross Profit Margin per barrel in
MM$ 91.68
Cummulative Net Present value in
MM$ 2719.62
Internal rate of Return in % 84.68
This field development scenario has all the trapping of an investors delight. 8.46
billion dollars to be made on an investment of 1.09 billion dollars is absolutely
astonishing. 91.68 dollars of gross profit per barrel is to be made on a barrel cost
of 18.32 dollars is completely unbelievable but the figures dont lie.
A project is usually considered profitable if its Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
exceeds the projects discount rate (DR). This is observed in this development
option as the IRR of 84.68% is by far greater than its DR of 10%.
A project with shorter payback period is usually preferred as investors are
assured of timely break-even, and hence profit in a shorter time. As the Net
Present Value (NPV) measures the present days worth of a projects future
revenue or worth; a positive NPV indicates that the project of concern is
profitable. The payback period of 1.3 years, for an economic project life of 11
years, and a high positive Net Present Value (NPV) of $2.719 billion, are

individually positive indicators of a projects economic feasibility, among other
profit indicators.
1500 Cash Flow for Gas Injection

Cash flow in MM$
1000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time in years
-500
-1000
-1500
Fig4.2 Cash flow for Gas Injection
However, just as in the previous case, the project isnt economic throughout its
whole life. It stops being economic in the 11th year and losses of over 84 million
dollar will be made in the 12th year.
After pay back in 1.3 years, investors begin to have positive cash flow which
maintains a fairly constant plateau of one billion dollars for 2.7 years. Revenues
begin to slump continuously as from the 4th year until the 11th year when losses
begin to set in. The project stops being economic at this point as the field is no
longer producing but production costs still have to be shouldered. The total
losses to be taken for the last four years are projected at 84 million dollars.
This picture wont be very exciting to investors who are willing to stump 1.09
billion dollars in the high-risk oil and gas business.
Depending on the business strategy of the investor, the gas injection scheme
represents a profitable development option if the investors are willing to make
profit in the first 10.7 years after pay-back years, take losses in the 12th year and
expect no revenue up till the 15th year.
4.3 Economic Analysis of Water Injection Scenario
A major assumption made in the economic analysis of this strategy is that the
costs associated with injecting water into the wells are negligible. In this case,
52% oil recovery is obtained from producing oil using a scheme that comprises
seven producers and five injectors. The total volume of oil produced was
116.23MM barrels
Table 4.5 Revenues and Expenditures for Water Injection
WATER INJECTION
PRODUCTION DATA
OOIP in MMSm3 35.68
Fractional Oil Recovery 51.8
Unrecoverable Oil in MMSm3 17.2
Produced Oil in MMSm3 18.48
REVENUE
Unit
Cost Total
Units/Cost in Cost in
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE per barrel MM$ MM$
Wells 8 12 96
Gas Injection Compressors 0 44.2 0
Total Capital Investment 1046 1046
Production and Transportation 116.23 6.5 755.495

Costs
PROFIT
Table 4.6 Summary of Economic Evaluation Parameters for Water Injection
WATER INJECTION
Total Investment in MM$ 1046
Gross Profit Margin per barrel in
MM$ 94.5
Cumulative Net Present value in
MM$ 3406.696
Internal rate of Return in % 90.4
Project's Economic Life `15 years
Via this scheme, 10.9 billion dollars is to be made from an initial capital
investment of 1.05 billion dollars. A profit of 94.5 dollars is to be made for every
barrel of oil produced which comes at a cost of 15.5 dollars. The Net Present
Value is a staggering 3.19 billion dollars while investors are expected to recover
their initial outlay of 1.05 billion dollars in 1.2 years.
Profitability factor stands at an impressive 3.05 while internal rate of return is
at an even more impressive 92% in contrast to the discount rate of 10%.

1500
Cash Flow Curve for Water Injection Scheme
Cashflow in MM$
1000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-500 Time in years
-1000
-1500
Fig4.3 Cash flow for Water Injection
begin to slump continuously as from the 4th year to 500 million dollars in the 6th
year to about 81 million dollars in the 11 year. As from the 11th year, huge cash
flows are no longer guaranteed but there is cash flow all through the producing
life of the field. The cash flow in the 12th year is 36 million dollars and slumps
even more to an all-time low of 24 million dollars at the end of the projects life.
With this scheme, investors are guaranteed profit throughout the producing life
of the project as the project is economic all through.
Clearly, this is a production scheme that investors should look into as all its
economic indices are positively high. This scheme outperforms the gas injection
and natural depletion production schemes in all aspects.
4.4 Economic Analysis of the Water-Alternating-Gas Scheme

In this scheme, water and gas are alternately injected through five injection
wells and produced through seven producers to give a field oil recovery of 55%
and a total oil production of 123.42 million barrels.

Table 4.7 Revenues and Expenditures for WAG Injection
WATER ALTERNATING GAS

INJECTION
PRODUCTION DATA
OOIP in MMSm3 35.68
Fractional Oil Recovery 55
3
Unrecoverable Oil in MMSm 16.056
3
Produced Oil in MMSm 19.624
REVENUE
Unit
Cost
Units/Cost in Total Cost
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE per barrel MM$ in MM$
Wells 8 12 96
Gas Injection Compressors 1 44.2 44.2
Total Capital Investment 1090.2 1090.2
Lifting, Production and
Transportation Costs 123.42 6.5 802.23
PROFIT

Table 4.8 Summary of Economic Evaluation Parameters for WAG Injection
WAG INJECTION
Total Oil Production 92.25
Total Investment 1090.2
Gross Revenue 13576.2
Gross Profit Margin 11683.77
Gross Profit Margin per
barrel 94.66
Cumulative Net Present
value 3513.083483
Internal rate of Return 85%
The gross revenues to be made from this scheme far outstrip whatever
investment costs that might have been outlaid for the project. Investors are
expected to bag over 11.68 billion dollars from an initial investment of 1.09 billion
dollars that would be recouped in 1.3 years. 94 .66 dollars of oil is expected to be
made for every barrel of oil that costs 15.33 dollars.
The Net Present Value is a monstrous 3.513billion dollar, profitability factor is
3.22 and the internal rate of return is highly impressive at 85%.

1500
Cash Flow for WAG Injection
CashFlow in MM$
1000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cash Flow
Time in Years
-500
-1000
-1500
Fig 4.4: Cash flow for WAG Injection
begin to slump continuously as from the 4th year to 632 million dollars in the 6th
year to about 115 million dollars in the 11 year. As from the 11th year, huge cash
flows are no longer guaranteed but there is cash flow all through the producing
life of the field. The cash flow is constant for the next two years at 95 million
dollars, reduces to 74 million dollars in the 14th year and slumps to a final value
of 65 million dollars in the 15th year. `
4.5 Investment Decision

The four schemes are very profitable and will guarantee high returns for any
willing investor. However, the investor would like to maximize returns on
committing huge funds into the high-risk oil and gas business. Hence, there is a
need to juxtapose the economic evaluations of the described cases to ascertain
the scheme that will yield optimum returns on investment. In making the final
investment decision, the following questions have to be answered by the
investor
What scheme has the lowest risk or has the lowest capital investments?
How fast can I get my initial outlay back?
What scheme yields maximum profits?
What scheme yields maximum profits relative to the amount invested?
What scheme satisfies a short-term investment strategy?
What scheme satisfies a long-term investment strategy?
What scheme yields the highest Net Present value on investments?
4.5.1 Lowest Capital Investment

The huge volume of the funds required for the field development necessitates
the minimisation of investment costs. For the four schemes, investment costs
range from 774 million dollars to 1090 million dollars. Sourcing funds of this
volume would not be an easy task at all as it might require a consortium of
banks to provide the necessary loan facility.
16
14
12
Investment Costs in MM$
10
0
Natural Depletion Water Injection Gas Injection WAG Injection
Fig 4.5: Investment Costs for the various development schemes
An investor, with limited borrowing power and weak financial muscle, should
simply settle for the natural depletion strategy as it limits his financial exposure.
He is more willing to settle for the cheapest project as the profitability of all the
schemes has been certified.

4.5.2 Pay-back time
The pay-back time is a measure of the time required to recoup the initial outlay
that was invested into a project. This is the length of time required to recover
the cost of a project. The payback period of a given project is an important
determinant of whether to undertake the position or project, as longer payback
periods are typically not desirable for investment positions (Investopedia, 2014).
The water injection scheme has the lowest pay-back time of 1.2 years while
natural depletion has the highest pay-back time of 2.8 years. Even though
natural depletion has the pay-back time of 2.7 years, it should not be discounted
for this reason as the pay-back time is favourable.
Water Injection, gas Injection and WAG injections are the top performers in this
regard.
16
14
12
Pay-back time
10
0
Fig 4.6 : Pay-back time for the various development schemes

4.5.3 Profitability Index and Economic Life
16
14
12
10
8 Economic Life
Profitability Index
6
0
Fig 4.7: Economic Life and PI for the various development schemes
The profitability index is an evaluation that attempts to identify the relationship

between the costs and benefits of a proposed project through the use of a ratio
of the Present Value of Future Cash Flows to the Initial Investment of the
project. The attractiveness of a proposed project increases directly with the PI.
Based on this, water injection appears to be most profitable. WAG injection
follows closely while gas injection and natural depletion are third and fourth
respectively.
The water injection schemes and WAG injection schemes could see out the
proposed project life of 15 years at economic conditions. However, the gas
injection scheme and natural depletion scheme had an economic life of 11 years
and 9 years respectively.

4.5.4 Gross Profit Margin per barrel
GPM per barrel

96
95
94
93
92
91
GPM per barrel
90
89
88
87
86
Fig 4.8 GPM per barrel for the various development schemes
This is a financial metric used to assess a projects profitability by revealing the

proportion of profit realisable per unit of production. For comparative purpose,
a project with the highest GPM is usually favoured over the others. In view of
this, water injection had the highest gross profit per barrel while WAG injection
follows closely again.

4.5.5 Cumulative Net Present Value (CNPV):
NPV
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
NPV
1500
1000
500
0
Fig 4.9 NPV for the various development schemes
Due of the time value of money, a dollar earned in the future wont be worth as
much as one earned today. This is accounted for by the discount rate in the NPV
formula. The NPV therefore calculates the present worth of future cash flows of
a project, to determine its profitability. The higher it is, the better the projects
profitability. In view of this, WAG shows the highest potential.
4.5.6 Internal Rate of Return (IRR):

This is the discount rate often used in capital budgeting that makes the net
present value of all cash flows from a particular project equal to zero. Generally
speaking, the higher a projects internal rate of return, the more desirable it is to
undertake the project. As such, IRR can be used to rank several prospective
projects a firm is considering. Assuming all other factors are equal among the
various projects, the project with the highest IRR would probably be considered
the best. Water Injection therefore appears to be the most economically
profitable.

IRR
100
90
80
70
60
50
IRR
40
30
20
10
0
Fig 4.10 IRR for the various development schemes
Table 4.9: Summary of Economic Evaluation Parameters for the various

development schemes
Pay
back Economic Oil
IRR GPM PI Time Life NPV CAPEX Production
2.8
Natural Depletion 40 89 1.975 years 9 years 1430 724 67.33
1.2
Water Injection 90.4 94.5 3.257 years `15 years 3406.696 1046 116.23
1.3
Gas Injection 84 91.68 2.436 years 11 years 2656 1090.2 92.25
1.3
WAG Injection 85 94.66 3.222 years 15 years 3513.083 1090.2 123.42

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion
From the performances of the individual development options against the
economic indicators as detailed in the previous chapter, the following were
determined:
1. All the development options are economically feasible, with Natural

Depletion option as the least performer.
2. The WAG scheme has the highest Net Present Value (NPV).
3. The WI scheme has the highest Gross Profit Margin (GPM) per barrel, highest
Productivity Index (PI), highest Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and the shortest
Pay-Back Period.
Proper judgement of the economic profitability of a project requires making

decisions based on the performances of candidate options against more than
one economic indicator. In view of this, the WI option is therefore favoured over
the WAG option. This is further consolidated by the fact that the additional cost
of supportive facilities for gas injection were not accounted for in this study,
which might offset the NPV margin of WAG over WI. It is also usually preferable
(were possible) to maintain single phase flow for ease of reservoir surveillance
and management, as well as management of surface facilities.
It is important to note that these results will change with alterations in

operating cost, crude oil prices, logistics, regulations, host government policy,
and petroleum fiscal systems among other factors.
The Water injection scheme showed a higher profit, lower capital investment, a
longer production plateau and a better recovery. It is clearly the most profitable
scheme and is recommended because well effluent will always be single phased
and surface facilities will not have to encounter a lot of gas.

5.2 Recommendations
The WI field development strategy is recommended for the ALWYN field. The
following studies and approaches are highly recommended:
1. Further studies to determine the optimal wells placement for the field, as
such will add to recovery.
2. Compatibility test on the water to be used for the injection programme.
3. Strategic production approach to avoid early water coning problems. This

includes monitoring of the WOC at the vicinity of the wells.
4. Continual improvement of the model as the field is brought upstream.
5. EOR method after 14 years to sweep the remaining oil in place.
6. The economic analysis is highly simplistic and more factors should have to be
taken into account to give a true picture of the economics the various
development schemes.
7. A compositional model (employing ECLIPSE 300) that captures the effects of

gas solubility on production enhancement should be used for the simulation. A
compositional model captures the dynamism of PVT properties of the fluid and
mimic thermodynamic processes such as gas miscibility with oil which is
responsible for recovery efficiency. The black oil model (ECLIPSE 100) is limited
as regards the aforementioned

REFERENCES
1. Sakthikumar, S., (2010) Lecture Notes on Reservoir Simulation, Institute of
Petroleum Studies, University of Port-Harcourt/IFP Training, France,
Unpublished.
2. Ahmed, T., (2010), Reservoir Engineering Handbook; Fourth edition.
3. Cosse, R., (1998) Basics of Reservoir Engineering, Editions Technip, Paris.
4. Ahmed, T., and McKinney, P.D., (2005) Advanced Reservoir Engineering,
Elsevier, Oxford.
5. Eclipse Reference manual

NOMENCLATURE
List of Abbreviations
FGOR: Field Gas-Oil Ratio FOE:

Field Oil Recovery Factor (%)
FOIP: Field Oil In Place
FORFE: Field fraction total oil produced by expansion
FORFF: Field fraction total oil produced by free gas influx
FORFG: Field fraction total oil produced by gas influx
FORFR: Field fraction total oil produced by rock expansion
FORFS: Field fraction total oil produced by solution gas
FORFW: Field fraction total oil produced by water influx
FOPT: Cumulative Field Oil Production cumulative total
FOPR: Field Oil Production
FPR: Field Pressure
FWCT: Field Water-Cut
FWPR: Field Water production rate
FWPT: Field Water Production cumulative total
ROIP: Regional Oil in Place WBHP:
Well Bottom-Hole Pressure
WGOR: Well Gas-Oil Ratio
WOPR: Well Oil Production Rate
WWCT: Well Water-Cut

APPENDICES
A: Evaluation Of Revenue, Opex, Cash Flow, Internal Rate Of Return ,
Pay-Back Time And Npv For The Various Development Schemes Using
10% As The Discount Factor
A1 Natural Depletion: Evaluation Of Revenue, Opex, Cash Flow, Internal Rate Of

Return , Pay-Back Time And Npv Using 10% As The Discount Factor
NATURAL DEPLETION
Oi l Pri ce = $110/bbl
Di s c. ra te= 10%
Prod. in Prod. in Tax Cash Cum.NP
bbls
Year Disc. Factor MMm3 CAPEX Revenue Depr OPEX Income Bill Flow NPV V
0 1 0 0 974 0 0 0 0 0 -1090.2 -1090.2 -1090.2
1 0.909 8.427673 1.34 927.044 64.93 54.78 807.3308 322.9 484.3985 440.3623 -649.84
2 0.826 8.3647799 1.33 920.126 64.93 54.371 800.8214 320.3 480.4928 397.1015 -252.74
3 0.751 8.427673 1.34 927.044 64.93 54.78 807.3308 322.9 484.3985 363.9358 111.2
4 0.683 8.427673 1.34 927.044 64.93 54.78 807.3308 322.9 484.3985 330.8507 442.05
5 0.621 8.8679245 1.41 975.472 64.93 57.642 852.8969 341.2 511.7381 317.7491 759.799
6 0.564 8.427673 1.34 927.044 64.93 54.78 807.3308 322.9 484.3985 273.4303 1033.23
7 0.513 10.377358 1.65 1141.51 64.93 67.453 1009.123 403.6 605.474 310.7039 1343.93
8 0.467 7.7987421 1.24 857.862 64.93 50.692 742.2365 296.9 445.3419 207.7553 1551.69
9 0.424 1.6981132 0.27 186.792 64.93 11.038 110.8214 44.33 66.49283 28.19945 1579.89
10 0.386 0 0 0 64.93 0 -64.93333 -26 -38.96 -15.02077 1564.87
11 0.35 0 0 0 64.93 0 -64.93333 -26 -38.96 -13.65524 1551.21
12 0.319 0 0 0 64.93 0 -64.93333 -26 -38.96 -12.41386 1538.8
13 0.29 0 0 0 64.93 0 -64.93333 -26 -38.96 -11.28532 1527.51
14 0.263 0 0 0 64.93 0 -64.93333 -26 -38.96 -10.25939 1517.25
15 0.239 0 0 0 64.93 0 -64.93333 -26 -38.96 -9.326714 1507.93
IRR 42%
PAYBACK PERIOD 2.7 YEARS

A2 Gas Injection: Evaluation Of Revenue, Opex, Cash Flow, Internal Rate Of
GAS INJECTION
Di s c. ra te= 10%
Depre
Prod. i n Prod. i n ci a tio Ta xa bl e Ta x Ca s h Cum.
Yea rDi s c. Fabbl s
ctor MMm 3 CAPEX Revenue n OPEX Income Bi l l Fl ow NPV NPV
0 1 0 0 1090 0 0 0 0 0 -1090.2 -1090.2 -1090.2
1 0.909 16.163522 2.57 1777.99 72.68 105.06 1600.245 640.1 960.1467 872.8607 -217.34
2 0.826 16.761006 2.665 1843.71 72.68 108.95 1662.084 664.8 997.2505 824.174 606.835
3 0.751 16.389937 2.606 1802.89 72.68 106.53 1623.678 649.5 974.2071 731.9362 1338.77
4 0.683 16.566038 2.634 1822.26 72.68 107.68 1641.905 656.8 985.1429 672.8659 2011.64
5 0.621 8.8679245 1.41 975.472 72.68 57.642 845.1502 338.1 507.0901 314.8631 2326.5
6 0.564 6.6352201 1.055 729.874 72.68 43.129 614.0653 245.6 368.4392 207.9743 2534.47
7 0.513 4.2641509 0.678 469.057 72.68 27.717 368.6596 147.5 221.1958 113.5084 2647.98
8 0.467 2.7672956 0.44 304.403 72.68 17.987 213.7351 85.49 128.2411 59.8254 2707.81
9 0.424 1.8113208 0.288 199.245 72.68 11.774 114.7917 45.92 68.87502 29.20973 2737.02
10 0.386 1.1509434 0.183 126.604 72.68 7.4811 46.44264 18.58 27.86558 10.74339 2747.76
11 0.35 0.9874214 0.157 108.616 72.68 6.4182 29.51811 11.81 17.71087 6.207551 2753.97
12 0.319 0.0628931 0.01 6.91824 72.68 0.4088 -66.17057 -26.5 -39.7023 -12.65039 2741.32
13 0.29 0 0 0 72.68 0 -72.68 -29.1 -43.608 -12.63168 2728.69
14 0.263 0 0 0 72.68 0 -72.68 -29.1 -43.608 -11.48335 2717.2
15 0.239 0 0 0 72.68 0 -72.68 -29.1 -43.608 -10.43941 2706.76
IRR 85%

A3 Water Injection: Evaluation Of Revenue, Opex, Cash Flow, Internal Rate Of
WATER INJECTION
Oil Price = $110/bbl
Disc. rate= 10%
Producti Producti
on in on in Cash Cum.NP
bbls
Year Disc. Factor MMm3 CAPEX Revenue Depr OPEX Income Tax Bill Flow NPV V
0 1 0 0 1046 0 0 0 0 0 -1046 -1046 -1046
1 0.91 16.214 2.578 1783.5 69.733 105 1608.4 643.4 965 877.3 -168.7
2 0.83 16.528 2.628 1818.1 69.733 107 1640.9 656.4 984.6 813.7 645
3 0.75 16.572 2.635 1823 69.733 108 1645.5 658.2 987.3 741.8 1386.8
4 0.68 16.572 2.635 1823 69.733 108 1645.5 658.2 987.3 674.3 2061.1
5 0.62 13.358 2.124 1469.4 69.733 86.8 1312.9 525.1 787.7 489.1 2550.2
6 0.56 9.1006 1.447 1001.1 69.733 59.2 872.18 348.9 523.3 295.4 2845.6
7 0.51 6.4843 1.031 713.27 69.733 42.1 601.39 240.6 360.8 185.2 3030.8
8 0.47 5.1384 0.817 565.22 69.733 33.4 462.09 184.8 277.3 129.3 3160.1
9 0.42 4.1258 0.656 453.84 69.733 26.8 357.29 142.9 214.4 90.91 3251
10 0.39 3.2704 0.52 359.75 69.733 21.3 268.76 107.5 161.3 62.17 3313.2
11 0.35 2.6415 0.42 290.57 69.733 17.2 203.66 81.47 122.2 42.83 3356
12 0.32 1.9748 0.314 217.23 69.733 12.8 134.66 53.87 80.8 25.74 3381.8
13 0.29 1.2579 0.2 138.36 69.733 8.18 60.455 24.18 36.27 10.51 3392.3
14 0.26 1.195 0.19 131.45 69.733 7.77 53.946 21.58 32.37 8.523 3400.8
15 0.24 1.0692 0.17 117.61 69.733 6.95 40.927 16.37 24.56 5.879 3406.7
IRR 90%

A4 Natural Depletion: Evaluation Of Revenue, Opex, Cash Flow, Internal Rate Of
WAG INJECTION
Disc. rate= 10%

Producti Producti
on in on in Cash Cum.NP
bbls
Year Disc. Factor MMm3 CAPEX Revenue Depr OPEX Income Tax Bill Flow NPV V
0 1 0 0 1090 0 0 0 0 0 -1090.2 -1090.2 -1090
1 0.91 15.597 2.48 1715.7 72.68 101 1541.7 616.664 924.996 840.905 -249.3
2 0.83 16.34 2.598 1797.4 72.68 106 1618.5 647.388 971.083 802.548 553.25
3 0.75 17.006 2.704 1870.7 72.68 111 1687.5 674.988 1012.48 760.693 1313.9
4 0.68 16.465 2.618 1811.2 72.68 107 1631.5 652.596 978.894 668.598 1982.5
5 0.62 14.843 2.36 1632.7 72.68 96.5 1463.5 585.419 878.128 545.248 2527.8
6 0.56 10.893 1.732 1198.2 72.68 70.8 1054.8 421.902 632.852 357.229 2885
7 0.51 7.2075 1.146 792.83 72.68 46.8 673.3 269.32 403.981 207.306 3092.3
8 0.47 5.5912 0.889 615.03 72.68 36.3 506.01 202.403 303.605 141.634 3234
9 0.42 4.2327 0.673 465.6 72.68 27.5 365.4 146.162 219.243 92.9804 3326.9
10 0.39 2.9057 0.462 319.62 72.68 18.9 228.06 91.2223 136.834 52.7552 3379.7
11 0.35 2.566 0.408 282.26 72.68 16.7 192.9 77.162 115.743 40.5672 3420.3
12 0.32 2.2453 0.357 246.98 72.68 14.6 159.71 63.8827 95.8241 30.5325 3450.8
13 0.29 2.239 0.356 246.29 72.68 14.6 159.06 63.6223 95.4335 27.6437 3478.4
14 0.26 1.8868 0.3 207.55 72.68 12.3 122.6 49.0412 73.5618 19.3711 3497.8
15 0.24 1.7296 0.275 190.25 72.68 11.2 106.33 42.5318 63.7977 15.2727 3513.1
IRR 85%
PAYBACK PERIOD I.3 YEARS

APPENDIX B
Evaluation Of Npv For The Various Development Schemes Using The

Calculated Internal Rate Of Return
B1 Gas Injection: Evaluation Of Npv Using The Calculated Internal Rate Of Return
GAS INJECTION
Disc. Rate 0.8468
Prod. in Prod. in Tax Cash Cum.NP
3
bbls
Year Disc. Factor MMm CAPEX Revenue Depr OPEX Income Bill Flow NPV V
0 1 0 0 1090 0 0 0 0 0 -1090.2 -1090.2 -1090.2
1 0.541 16.163522 2.57 1777.99 72.68 105.06 1600.245 640.1 960.1467 519.8975 -570.3
2 0.293 16.761006 2.665 1843.71 69.48 108.95 1665.284 666.1 999.1705 292.9543 -277.35
3 0.159 16.389937 2.606 1802.89 69.48 106.53 1626.878 650.8 976.1271 154.9697 -122.38
4 0.086 16.566038 2.634 1822.26 69.48 107.68 1645.105 658 987.0629 84.85264 -37.526
5 0.047 8.8679245 1.41 975.472 69.48 57.642 848.3502 339.3 509.0101 23.69338 -13.832
6 0.025 6.6352201 1.055 729.874 69.48 43.129 617.2653 246.9 370.3592 9.334776 -4.4977
7 0.014 4.2641509 0.678 469.057 69.48 27.717 371.8596 148.7 223.1158 3.045027 -1.4527
8 0.008 2.7672956 0.44 304.403 69.48 17.987 216.9351 86.77 130.1611 1.08121 -0.3715
9 0.004 1.8113208 0.288 199.245 69.48 11.774 117.9917 47.2 70.79502 0.283285 -0.0882
10 0.002 1.1509434 0.183 126.604 69.48 7.4811 49.64264 19.86 29.78558 0.064537 -0.0236
11 0.001 0.9874214 0.157 108.616 69.48 6.4182 32.71811 13.09 19.63087 0.023031 -0.0006
12 6E-04 0.0628931 0.01 6.91824 69.48 0.4088 -62.97057 -25.19 -37.7823 -0.024002 -0.0246
13 3E-04 0 0 0 69.48 0 -69.48 -27.79 -41.688 -0.01434 -0.039
14 2E-04 0 0 0 69.48 0 -69.48 -27.79 -41.688 -0.007765 -0.0467
15 1E-04 0 0 0 69.48 0 -69.48 -27.79 -41.688 -0.004204 -0.0509

B2 Water Injection: Evaluation Of Npv Using The Calculated Internal Rate Of
Return
WATER INJECTION
Di s c. Ra te 0.904
Ta x
Annua l Bi l l of
Annua l Producti Depre the Net Net
Production on i n ci a tio Ta xa bl e Projec Ca s h Pres ent Pres ent
3
Yea rDi s c. Fai ctor
n bbl s MMm CAPEX Revenue n OPEX Income t Fl ow Va l ue va l ue
0 1 0 0 1046 0 0 0 0 0 -1046 -1046 -1046
1 0.525 16.213836 2.578 1783.52 69.73 105.39 1608.399 643.4 965.0392 506.8483 -539.15
2 0.276 16.528302 2.628 1818.11 69.48 107.43 1641.199 656.5 984.7195 271.6306 -267.52
3 0.145 16.572327 2.635 1822.96 69.48 107.72 1645.756 658.3 987.4535 143.0592 -124.46
4 0.076 16.572327 2.635 1822.96 69.48 107.72 1645.756 658.3 987.4535 75.13614 -49.326
5 0.04 13.358491 2.124 1469.43 69.48 86.83 1313.124 525.2 787.8743 31.48634 -17.839
6 0.021 9.1006289 1.447 1001.07 69.48 59.154 872.4351 349 523.4611 10.98709 -6.8523
7 0.011 6.4842767 1.031 713.27 69.48 42.148 601.6426 240.7 360.9856 3.979433 -2.8729
8 0.008 5.1383648 0.817 565.22 69.48 33.399 462.3408 184.9 277.4045 2.304318 -0.5685
9 0.003 4.1257862 0.656 453.836 69.48 26.818 357.5389 143 214.5233 0.652337 0.0838
10 0.002 0.327044 0.052 35.9748 69.48 2.1258 -35.63094 -14.3 -21.3786 -0.034144 0.04966
11 8E-04 0.2641509 0.042 29.0566 69.48 1.717 -42.14038 -16.9 -25.2842 -0.021209 0.02845
12 4E-04 0.1974843 0.0314 21.7233 69.48 1.2836 -49.04038 -19.6 -29.4242 -0.012963 0.01549
13 2E-04 0.0125786 0.002 1.38365 69.48 0.0818 -68.17811 -27.3 -40.9069 -0.009465 0.00602
14 1E-04 0.0119497 0.0019 1.31447 69.48 0.0777 -68.24321 -27.3 -40.9459 -0.004976 0.00104
15 6E-05 0.0106918 0.0017 1.1761 69.48 0.0695 -68.3734 -27.3 -41.024 -0.002618 -0.0016

B3 Wag Injection: Evaluation Of Npv Using The Calculated Internal Rate Of
Return
WAG INJECTION
Di s c. Ra te 0.8181
Prod. i n Prod. i n Ca s h Cum.NP
3
Yea r Di s c. Fabbl s
ctor MMm CAPEX Revenue Depr OPEX Income Ta x Bi l l Fl ow NPV V
0 1 0 0 1090.2 0 0 0 0 0 -1090.2 -1090.2 -1090.2
1 0.549 15.59748 2.48 1715.72 72.68 101 1541.66 616.6638 924.99577 508.2394 -581.96
2 0.303 16.33962 2.598 1797.36 72.68 106 1618.47 647.3884 971.08257 293.7789 -288.18
3 0.166 12.83019 2.04 1411.32 72.68 83.4 1255.24 502.0978 753.14672 125.3217 -162.86
4 0.092 16.46541 2.618 1811.19 72.68 107 1631.49 652.5959 978.89389 89.59103 -73.269
5 0.05 14.84277 2.36 1632.7 72.68 96.5 1463.55 585.4186 878.12785 44.20475 -29.064
6 0.028 10.89308 1.732 1198.24 72.68 70.8 1054.75 421.9016 632.85238 17.52249 -11.542
7 0.015 7.207547 1.146 792.83 72.68 46.8 673.301 269.3205 403.98068 6.152282 -5.3894
8 0.008 5.591195 0.889 615.031 72.68 36.3 506.009 202.4035 303.60521 2.52196 -2.8674
9 0.005 4.232704 0.673 465.597 72.68 27.5 365.405 146.162 219.24294 1.010103 -1.8573
10 0.003 2.90566 0.462 319.623 72.68 18.9 228.056 91.22234 136.83351 0.346749 -1.5106
11 0.001 2.566038 0.408 282.264 72.68 16.7 192.905 77.16196 115.74294 0.161324 -1.3493
12 8E-04 2.245283 0.357 246.981 72.68 14.6 159.707 63.88272 95.824075 0.073462 -1.2758
13 4E-04 2.238994 0.356 246.289 72.68 14.6 159.056 63.62234 95.433509 0.040241 -1.2356
14 2E-04 1.886792 0.3 207.547 72.68 12.3 122.603 49.04121 73.561811 0.017061 -1.2185
15 1E-04 1.72956 0.275 190.252 72.68 11.2 106.329 42.53177 63.79766 0.008138 -1.2104

APPENDIX C
Full PVT Report
-- Maximum Simulation Pressure
PMAX
550 418 1* 1* /
--- ++++++++++++++++++++ WATER +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--- ++++++++++++++++++++ W,O,G Gravity ++++++++++++++++++++++
--PVTW
ECHO
-- DENSITY created by PVTi
-- Units: kg /m^3 kg /m^3 kg /m^3
DENSITY
--
-- Fluid Densities at Surface Conditions
--
829.7675 1020.0000 1.0449
/
-- Column Properties are:
-- 'Oil RS' 'PSAT' 'Oil FVF' 'Oil Visc'
-- Units: sm3 /sm3 bar rm3 /sm3 cp
PVTO
--
-- Live Oil PVT Properties (Dissolved Gas)
--
0.0000 1.0132 1.0463 3.6674
25.0000 1.0450 3.7326
50.0000 1.0436 3.7990
100.0000 1.0411 3.9272
150.0000 1.0387 4.0495
175.0000 1.0377 4.1086
200.0000 1.0366 4.1665
225.0000 1.0356 4.2231
250.0000 1.0346 4.2784
258.2362 1.0343 4.2964
300.0000 1.0328 4.3858
350.0000 1.0310 4.4888
375.0000 1.0302 4.5387
400.0000 1.0294 4.5877
409.1537 1.0291 4.6054
413.7306 1.0290 4.6142
418.3074 1.0289 4.6230
450.0000 1.0279 4.6828
500.0000 1.0265 4.7743
550.0000 1.0251 4.8625 /
18.5139 25.0000 1.1266 1.2536
50.0000 1.1213 1.3220
100.0000 1.1119 1.4561
150.0000 1.1038 1.5868

175.0000 1.1001 1.6509
200.0000 1.0966 1.7142
225.0000 1.0934 1.7767
250.0000 1.0903 1.8384
258.2362 1.0893 1.8585
300.0000 1.0846 1.9595
350.0000 1.0794 2.0775
375.0000 1.0771 2.1355
400.0000 1.0748 2.1927
409.1537 1.0740 2.2135
413.7306 1.0736 2.2238
418.3074 1.0732 2.2341
450.0000 1.0705 2.3050
500.0000 1.0666 2.4145
550.0000 1.0630 2.5213 /
35.3469 50.0000 1.1813 1.0227
100.0000 1.1695 1.1400
150.0000 1.1595 1.2548
175.0000 1.1550 1.3114
200.0000 1.1507 1.3673
225.0000 1.1468 1.4227
250.0000 1.1430 1.4774
258.2362 1.1418 1.4954
300.0000 1.1362 1.5853
350.0000 1.1300 1.6909
375.0000 1.1271 1.7428
400.0000 1.1244 1.7942
409.1537 1.1235 1.8128
413.7306 1.1230 1.8222
418.3074 1.1225 1.8314
450.0000 1.1193 1.8953
500.0000 1.1147 1.9942

550.0000 1.1104 2.0910 /
67.7343 100.0000 1.2798 0.7137
150.0000 1.2651 0.8008
175.0000 1.2586 0.8439
200.0000 1.2525 0.8868
225.0000 1.2469 0.9294
250.0000 1.2417 0.9718
258.2362 1.2400 0.9856
300.0000 1.2321 1.0555
350.0000 1.2237 1.1381
375.0000 1.2198 1.1790
400.0000 1.2161 1.2195
409.1537 1.2147 1.2343
413.7306 1.2141 1.2417
418.3074 1.2135 1.2490
450.0000 1.2092 1.2997
500.0000 1.2030 1.3786
550.0000 1.1973 1.4562 /
103.9068 150.0000 1.3865 0.5143
175.0000 1.3772 0.5464
200.0000 1.3686 0.5785
225.0000 1.3607 0.6105
250.0000 1.3534 0.6424
258.2362 1.3511 0.6529
300.0000 1.3403 0.7060
350.0000 1.3287 0.7690
375.0000 1.3235 0.8004
400.0000 1.3185 0.8316
409.1537 1.3168 0.8430
413.7306 1.3159 0.8487
418.3074 1.3151 0.8543
450.0000 1.3094 0.8936

500.0000 1.3012 0.9549
550.0000 1.2937 1.0156 /
124.0654 175.0000 1.4453 0.4401
200.0000 1.4350 0.4677
225.0000 1.4256 0.4952
250.0000 1.4170 0.5227
258.2362 1.4143 0.5318
300.0000 1.4015 0.5776
350.0000 1.3881 0.6322
375.0000 1.3820 0.6595
400.0000 1.3763 0.6866
409.1537 1.3743 0.6965
413.7306 1.3733 0.7015
418.3074 1.3723 0.7065
450.0000 1.3657 0.7407
500.0000 1.3563 0.7943
550.0000 1.3477 0.8476 /
146.0774 200.0000 1.5092 0.3782
225.0000 1.4980 0.4017
250.0000 1.4877 0.4253
258.2362 1.4845 0.4330
300.0000 1.4695 0.4724
350.0000 1.4538 0.5195
375.0000 1.4467 0.5430
400.0000 1.4400 0.5665
409.1537 1.4376 0.5751
413.7306 1.4365 0.5794
418.3074 1.4354 0.5837
450.0000 1.4278 0.6134
500.0000 1.4169 0.6600
550.0000 1.4071 0.7064 /
170.3161 225.0000 1.5795 0.3260

250.0000 1.5672 0.3461
258.2362 1.5634 0.3527
300.0000 1.5456 0.3864
350.0000 1.5271 0.4267
375.0000 1.5188 0.4469
400.0000 1.5110 0.4672
409.1537 1.5083 0.4746
413.7306 1.5069 0.4783
418.3074 1.5056 0.4820
450.0000 1.4968 0.5076
500.0000 1.4842 0.5479
550.0000 1.4729 0.5882 /
197.2831 250.0000 1.6576 0.2819
258.2362 1.6530 0.2875
300.0000 1.6318 0.3161
350.0000 1.6099 0.3505
375.0000 1.6001 0.3678
400.0000 1.5910 0.3851
409.1537 1.5878 0.3914
413.7306 1.5863 0.3946
418.3074 1.5847 0.3978
450.0000 1.5745 0.4197
500.0000 1.5599 0.4544
550.0000 1.5469 0.4891 /
206.8974 258.2362 1.6855 0.2688
300.0000 1.6629 0.2959
350.0000 1.6398 0.3285
375.0000 1.6294 0.3449
400.0000 1.6198 0.3613
409.1537 1.6165 0.3673
413.7306 1.6148 0.3703
418.3074 1.6132 0.3733

450.0000 1.6024 0.3942
500.0000 1.5871 0.4271
550.0000 1.5734 0.4601 /
262.4248 300.0000 1.8468 0.2119
350.0000 1.8154 0.2364
375.0000 1.8016 0.2488
400.0000 1.7888 0.2612
409.1537 1.7843 0.2658
413.7306 1.7822 0.2681
418.3074 1.7800 0.2704
450.0000 1.7659 0.2862
500.0000 1.7458 0.3114
550.0000 1.7281 0.3367 /
352.8457 350.0000 2.1123 0.1584
375.0000 2.0917 0.1670
400.0000 2.0728 0.1756
409.1537 2.0663 0.1788
413.7306 2.0631 0.1804
418.3074 2.0599 0.1820
450.0000 2.0393 0.1930
500.0000 2.0105 0.2106
550.0000 1.9853 0.2284 /
418.4723 375.0000 2.3092 0.1347
400.0000 2.2851 0.1417
409.1537 2.2769 0.1443
413.7306 2.2728 0.1456
418.3074 2.2688 0.1468
450.0000 2.2429 0.1558
500.0000 2.2069 0.1701
550.0000 2.1756 0.1846 /
516.4766 400.0000 2.6103 0.1112
409.1537 2.5991 0.1132

413.7306 2.5936 0.1142
418.3074 2.5883 0.1152
450.0000 2.5534 0.1221
500.0000 2.5055 0.1332
550.0000 2.4644 0.1445 /
572.8376 409.1537 2.7881 0.1015
413.7306 2.7817 0.1024
418.3074 2.7755 0.1032
450.0000 2.7351 0.1094
500.0000 2.6798 0.1193
550.0000 2.6326 0.1293 /
611.3386 413.7306 2.9115 0.0959
418.3074 2.9046 0.0968
450.0000 2.8603 0.1025
500.0000 2.7998 0.1116
550.0000 2.7483 0.1209 /
665.6448 418.3074 3.0883 0.0893
450.0000 3.0382 0.0945
500.0000 2.9700 0.1028
550.0000 2.9124 0.1113 /
/
-- Column Properties are:

-- 'Pressure' 'Gas FVF' 'Gas Visc'
-- Units: bar rm3 /sm3 cp
PVDG
--
-- Dry Gas PVT Properties (No Vapourised Oil)
--
1.0132 1.3262 0.0109
25.0000 0.0505 0.0126

50.0000 0.0247 0.0136
100.0000 0.0121 0.0153
150.0000 0.0080 0.0175
175.0000 0.0069 0.0189
200.0000 0.0061 0.0203
225.0000 0.0056 0.0217
250.0000 0.0051 0.0232
258.2362 0.0050 0.0237
300.0000 0.0045 0.0261
350.0000 0.0040 0.0289
375.0000 0.0039 0.0302
400.0000 0.00373 0.0314
409.1537 0.00372 0.0319
413.7306 0.00371 0.0321
418.3074 0.0036 0.0324/

Fulltext Stamped

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

Fulltext Stamped

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

From the SelectedWorks of Ugonna Dixon Nwosu Mr

Dynamic Reservoir Simulation of the Alwyn field

Available at: http://works.bepress.com/dixon_nwosu/1/

NWOSU UGONNA DIXON IPS/MSC/PPD/2014/240

NWOSU, DIXON 1 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

NWOSU, DIXON 2 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

NWOSU, DIXON 3 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

NWOSU, DIXON 4 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................... 68

4.4 Economic Analysis of the Water-Alternating-Gas Scheme .............................. 78

CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................. 88

NWOSU, DIXON 6 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

NWOSU, DIXON 7 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

NWOSU, DIXON 8 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

NWOSU, DIXON 9 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

NWOSU, DIXON 10 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

1.3 Geological Description And Field Characteristics

NWOSU, DIXON 11 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

Figure1.1: Alwyn North Field Localization Map

NWOSU, DIXON 12 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

1.3.2 Field Characteristics Tectonics

1.3.3 Geological Setting

NWOSU, DIXON 13 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

Figure1.3: Stratigraphy of the Alwyn North Field

ALWYN North reservoirs were relatively unaffected by diagenesis due probably

1.3.4.1 Geological Description

Figure 1.4: Brent Geological Cross section

The Brent geological well section is shown in Fig. 1.5.

NWOSU, DIXON 15 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

NWOSU, DIXON 16 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

Figure 1.6: Cross Section Through Alywn Showing The Faults

NWOSU, DIXON 17 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

Figure 1.7: Depositional Setting of the Brent Group

To summarize, Tarbet can be described as massive shore face sands with

NWOSU, DIXON 18 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

1.3.4.4 Log correlations

NWOSU, DIXON 19 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Several aspects were investigated:

d. Each scenario was implemented in the numerical reservoir model. In natural

e. A proposed scenario was selected based on technical criteria and economic

f. Using the selected development scheme, the major uncertainties were

1.5 Reservoir Model And Characteristics

NWOSU, DIXON 21 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

1.5.1 Rock Typing

Rock Type Formation Layer Tags

NWOSU, DIXON 22 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

Figure 1.8: Reservoir Model Showing the Grids

NWOSU, DIXON 23 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

1.5.2 Reservoir Fluid Properties

Table 1.2: Initial Values of Fluid Properties

1.5.3 Fluids in Place

NWOSU, DIXON 24 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

Currently in place Tarbert Ness Entire Field

Figure 1.9: Data File Initialized to Obtain Volumes In-Place

NWOSU, DIXON 25 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

NWOSU, DIXON 26 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

FIELD DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES

2.1.1 Drilling Constraints

NWOSU, DIXON 27 IJEH, ISIJOKELU

2.1.2 Production Constraint

2.1.3 Water Injection Constraint

2.1.4 Gas Injection Constraint

2.2 Analytical Calculations