X-Field Reservoir Simulation Study - History Matching & Prediction

Port Said University
NGEP
X-Field Reservoir Simulation Study – History

Matching & Prediction
Q1 2011
Prepared By:
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
NGEP Q1- 2011

1
X-Field reservoir simulation study
RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Contents
1 PREFACE...................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Reporting Structure...................................................................................................3
1.2 Audit Process............................................................................................................ 3
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................4
3 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 5
3.1 General Comments...................................................................................................5
3.2 Software.................................................................................................................... 5
4 X-FIELD HISTORY.........................................................................................................6
4.1 Production.................................................................................................................6
4.2 Pressure....................................................................................................................7
4.3 Previous Simulation Modelling..................................................................................8
5 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.....................................................................9

5.1 Completion and Workover history..............................................................................9
5.2 PVT Data Characterization........................................................................................9
5.3 Routine Core Analysis...............................................................................................9
5.4 Saturation Functions...............................................................................................10
5.5 Capillary pressure data............................................................................................10
5.6 Historical Pressure, Production data.......................................................................10
6 MODEL CONSTRUCTION...........................................................................................11
6.1 Base Geomodel.......................................................................................................11
6.2 Fluid PVT Properties...............................................................................................14
6.3 Relative Permeability & Capillary pressure data......................................................14
7 MODEL INITIALIZATION.............................................................................................16
7.1 Initial Saturation & Pressure....................................................................................16
7.2 Initial Fluids in Place................................................................................................18
7.3 Well Definitions........................................................................................................18
7.4 Primary Uncertainties..............................................................................................18
8 THE MATCHING PROCESS........................................................................................19

8.1 Objectives............................................................................................................... 19
NGEP Q1- 2011

i
8.2 Match Criteria.......................................................................................................... 19

8.3 Global and local Modifications.................................................................................19
9 HISTORY MATCH DISCUSSION................................................................................28

9.1 Purpose of Simulation.............................................................................................28
9.2 History Matching Process........................................................................................28
9.3 Match Criteria.......................................................................................................... 28
9.4 Match Reliability......................................................................................................28
10 PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE FORECAST............................................................29

10.1 Base Prediction (Do nothing) Strategy....................................................................29
10.1.1 Case 1............................................................................................................................................29
10.2 Work-over Strategy.................................................................................................29
10.2.1 Case 2............................................................................................................................................29
10.3 Convert Producers into Injectors Strategy...............................................................30
10.3.1 Case 3 (PROD_1 Converted to injector)...................................................................................30
10.3.2 Case 4 (PROD_2 Converted to injector)..................................................................................30
10.3.3 Case 5 (PROD_3 Converted to injector)..................................................................................30
10.4 Drilling new producers Strategy...............................................................................30
10.4.1 Case 6 (PROD_6)......................................................................................................................30
10.4.2 Case 7 (PROD_7).......................................................................................................................31
10.4.3 Case 8 (PROD_8)......................................................................................................................31
10.4.4 Case 9 (PROD_9)......................................................................................................................31
10.5 Drilling new Water Injectors Strategy.......................................................................31
10.5.1 Case 10 (INJ_4).........................................................................................................................31
10.5.2 Case 11 (INJ_5).........................................................................................................................31
10.6 Combination Strategy..............................................................................................32
10.6.1 Case 12 (Combination) – PROD_6 + PROD_7 + PROD_8 + WO...........................................32
10.7 All Cases description & Summary results................................................................32
10.8 Cases Oil & Gas Reserves......................................................................................33
11 Conclusions & Recommendations................................................................................34
NGEP Q1- 2011

ii
1 PREFACE
1.1 Reporting Structure

This report documents represent Phase 2 of the Reservoir Simulation Study for the X-
field. The study is divided into 2 phases as follow:
 Phase I: Supplemental of Geological& Geophysical & Petro-physical and Static

Modelling study for X-Field.
 Phase II: Dynamic Reservoir Modelling study for X-Field.
Phase 1 was supplemented by the Exploration team using the geological and
geophysical information then we got the static model data.
The objective of Phase II of the project is to create a dynamic simulation model for the X-
field suitable for comparing different development plans. This work comprised the
production of a revised static geological model and the reduction and evaluation of
reservoir engineering data to develop this dynamic model. The elements of this work
were brought together in a geo-cellular model and output in a format suitable for input to
the reservoir simulator (Geoquest’s “Eclipse”).
1.2 Audit Process

The work will be subjected to auditing process by experts in Port Said University-NGEP.
NGEP Q1- 2011

3
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An adequate history match of observed X-field performance has been achieved by

making reasonable changes to the magnitude of properties in the original geomodel and
the engineering data. The overall match for historical data is very good. The water and
gas rate match obtained is adequate.
Despite the fact that the pressure history match of the model is considered very good, the
available shut in historical pressure points available for use in pressure history match
were limited and don’t cover the whole production period but the bottom hole flowing
pressure values were enough and cover the whole production period.. Regular, long-
term, build-up tests and static surveys should be performed on monthly basis, at a
minimum, for the key production wells.
NGEP Q1- 2011

4
3 INTRODUCTION
3.1 General Comments

It is generally recognised that reservoir simulation is an approximate mathematical
representation of reality. Simulation however remains the only viable method of producing
credible production forecasts of multi-phase flow from complex geological structures.
The term “History-matching” describes the process of adjusting model inputs (geo-
parameters) within reasonable limits such that the outputs (pressures and flows)
predicted by the model reproduce historically observed data. This process of model
calibration is frequently very time-consuming and always non-unique (i.e. there is never a
perfect match); it does not necessarily follow that a well-matched model will yield reliable
predictions. It should be stressed that prediction cases performed following history-
matching are estimates of future production, rather than being regarded as “the truth”.
Throughout this document, suggestions and recommendations are made to assist in
improving the model and further increasing confidence in its predictive capability.
3.2 Software
Reservoir simulation which was reported herein was performed using Geoquest’s’
Eclipse® 100 numerical reservoir simulator. , Other analyses & interpretations were
performed using Microsoft Office®.
NGEP Q1- 2011

5
4 X-FIELD HISTORY
The X-Field has been under production since Q1, 2000 and since start of production we
the water injection started. Initial volumes in place are estimated to be approximately
517.22 MMSTB Oil in-place and 629.09 BCF Gas in-place. The original GOC & OWC
was located at -5512 & -5590 ft TVDss respectively. The initial reservoir pressure at the
datum depth of -5512 ft TVDss is around 3500 psia, which is very close to the bubble
Point pressure which was measured to be +/-3320 psia.
The primary production mechanisms in the X-Field are oil expansion, aquifer support,
through aquifer, Gas support from the gas cap, and Rock compression has lower order
effects.
4.1 Production
The X-field commenced production in Q1 2000 from five wells
PROD_1,PROD_2,PROD_3,PROD_4, and PROD_5, producing at circa 24000
STBO/DAY with 0 % water cut. Production increased substantially to reach 30000
STBO/DAY in Q3 2000 with 0% water cut the production reach its peak of 35000
STBO/DAY at the beginning of Q1 2003 with water production rate 4000STBW/DAY.
Then, Production decreased gradually to reach 14000 STBO/DAY in Q4 2010 with water
production rate 26000 STBW/DAYT the historical oil , water , and gas production rates
and its comulatives for X-Field are shown in the bellow figures.
NGEP Q1- 2011

6
4.2
Pressure
The pressure behaviour observed historically supports the statement that driving
mechanisms in this field are oil expansion and partial aquifer support and because of this
weak aquifer support water injection rate started from first day of production, the figure
bellow she the historical shut in and flowing pressure data for all X-Field wells.
NGEP Q1- 2011

7
4.3 Previous Simulation Modelling

No previous simulation studies implemented for this field and this study considered being
the first study.
NGEP Q1- 2011

8
5 PHASE 3-1 RESERVOIR ENGINEERINGNUMERICAL SIMULATION AND

HISTORY MACTHINGRESERVOIR ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
Basic reservoir engineering techniques are used to build enough reservoir knowledge
prior to the simulation model construction.
5.1 Completion and Workover history.

Completion, testing and workover histories for all wells have been collected and data
based to ensure that significant events are incorporated in the SCHEDULE of the
simulation model and that vertical resolution in the model is sufficient to model these
events adequately as it affect in the well productability which is function of wellbore and
reservoir properties.
Well
X,ft Y,ft Top,ft Base,ft Upper_Perf,ft Lower_Perf,ft Skin
Name
Prod_1 6500 -7500 5400 5900 5500 5700 5

-
Prod_2 8500 15500 5600 6100 5650 5800 1
-
Prod_3 7500 13500 5540 6040 5590 5790 3
-
Prod_4 3500 14500 5400 5900 5500 5700 0
Prod_5 3500 -8500 5400 5900 5500 5750 2
Inj_1 8500 -1500 5850 6350 6050 6350 0
Inj_2 2500 -1500 5700 6200 5900 6200 0
-
Inj_3 5500 19500 5540 6040 5740 6040 0
5.2 PVT Data Characterization.

The PVT data/fluid analysis reports have been reviewed and evaluated to establish a
coherent set of PVT properties for use in the remainder of the work. QC of collected data,
procedures, and measurements has been reviewed accurately. In our case, we have 2
PVT samples one for the gas and another one for the oil, and after analysis we used one
PVT table in the simulation work.
NGEP Q1- 2011

9
5.3 Routine Core Analysis.

All the reservoir rock properties have been reviewed and analysed to obtain the available
data such as Horizontal Permeability, Vertical Permeability, Porosity, initial water
saturations, and rock types by applying the suitable techniques. The conventional core
analysis results are used as a guide for the static and the simulation model.
5.4 Saturation Functions.

There were no SCAL analysis data for this field then Corey correlation was used to
estimate the relative permeability curves for oil, water, and gas.
5.5 Capillary pressure data.

There were no SCAL analysis data for this field then correlation was used to estimate the
relative permeability curves for oil, water, and gas.
5.6 Historical Pressure, Production data.

The historic data have been reviewed using plots and maps. Data analysis provided a
big picture of the reservoir behaviour and probable un-swept areas. QC of the well test
data has been performed. All pressure data are corrected at the datum selected for the
simulation. Production histories have been reviewed and allocation volumes compared
with available test data, and the production allocations have been revised. Attention have
been paid in particular to water-arrival time and development of water-cut behaviour
NGEP Q1- 2011

10
6 MODEL CONSTRUCTION
During this study, a model with a number of different realizations was constructed and
tested.
6.1 Base Geomodel

The derivation of the X-Field geomodel is discussed in detail in the static model report.
The simulation grid was output in Eclipse format, the Schlumber Geomodelling software,
with the following dimensions:
NX = 12, NY = 22, NZ = 10
The model Top Structure array is shown in plan view in the bellow figure. The average
dimensions of DX and DY are 1000ft and 1000ft respectively. The Dz in the X-Field is
50ft to allow better representing for the smallest perforation thickness, and also to allow
better vertical properties distribution.
NGEP Q1- 2011

11
The horizontal and horizontal permeablilities and porosity distribution in the X-Field model
are shown bellow.
The total number of cells in the model is 2640 cells of which 2240 are active, the cells
which do not show any pay represented to be non active. This keeps the model run time
practical.
NGEP Q1- 2011

12
6.2 Fluid PVT Properties

Oil, Gas and Water PVT Properties were derived from PVT analysis of down-hole
samples. Oil PVT Properties used in this study is shown in the bellow Figure.
PVT properties
PVT properties for
for gas
oil
1.8
40 0.04
RS,MSCF/stb 1.6
35 0.035
1.4
30 0.03
bg 1.2
bg,rb/mscf
25 0.025
visc,cp
Vis,cp
1
20 0.02
0.8
viscu 15 0.015
Bo,rb/stb 100.6 0.01
50.4 0.005
00.2 0
NGEP Q1- 2011
00 1000 2000
13 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 pressure,psi
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure,psi
6.3 Relative Permeability & Capillary pressure data

There were no SCAL analysis data for this field then Corey correlation was used to
estimate the relative permeability curves for oil, water, and gas, and other correlations
used to estimate the capillary pressure data.
The Oil, Water, and Gas relative permeability and capillary pressure data are shown
bellow:
Krw&Pcow
1 180
0.9 160
0.8 140
0.7
P c o w ,p s i
120
0.6
100
K rw
Krw
0.5
80 Pcow
0.4
60
0.3
0.2 40
0.1 20
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw
Krg&Pcog
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
Krow & Krog
0.6 0.6
Pcow,psi
1 Krg
Krg
0.5 0.5
0.9 Pcog
0.4 0.4
0.8
0.3 0.7 0.3
0.2 0.6 0.2
Krow
Kro
0.1 0.5 0.1

Krog
0 0.4 0
0 0.1 0.3
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.2
Sg
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
So
NGEP Q1- 2011

14
7 MODEL INITIALIZATION
7.1 Initial Saturation & Pressure

The initial conditions of the model are specified either by enumeration or equilibration.
The most common way for initializing the hydrodynamic model is the equilibrium which
makes the model hydrostatically initialized by using both gravity and capillary forces.
Initial reservoir pressure fluid contacts are specified to initialize the reservoir pressure.
The initial water saturation is specified either by explicit value as a static model property
or derived from the capillary pressure curves.
The original GOC & OWC was located at -5512 & -5590 ft TVDss respectively. The initial
reservoir pressure at the datum depth of -5512 ft TVDss is around 3500 psia, which is
very close to the bubble Point pressure which was measured to be +/-3320 psia.
NGEP Q1- 2011

15
7.2 Initial Fluids in Place

Initial volumes in place are estimated to be approximately 517.22 MMSTB Oil in-place
and 629.09 BCF Gas in-place.
NGEP Q1- 2011

16
7.3 Well Definitions

The schedule was created with 5 vertical producers and 3 water injectors.
Wells were put in groups, according to their location.
7.4 Primary Uncertainties

The primary uncertainties for the built model fall into the following categories:
1. Aquifer strength and connectivity parameters.
2. Relative permeability data.
3. Absolute permeability.
4. Vertical permeability.
5. Porosity.
6. Fault transmissibility data.
NGEP Q1- 2011

17
8 THE MATCHING PROCESS
8.1 Objectives
The term “History-matching” describes the process of adjusting the model inputs
(geo-parameters) within reasonable limits such that the outputs (pressures and flows)
predicted by the model reproduce historically observed data. This process of model
calibration is frequently very time-consuming and always non-unique (i.e. there is
never a perfect match); it does not necessarily true that a well-matched model will
yield reliable predictions.
8.2 Match Criteria

The general criteria for the history-match are as follows: field cumulative oil
production and oil production rate must be matched. Water rate should be matched
within +/- 10%, provided that W.C trends match the observed ones. Pressure data in
the majority of the wells should be matched to within +/- 200 psi. The most recently
acquired observed data are given highest weight in definition of the match.
8.3 Global and local Modifications

During this study, a number of global parameters were selected for modification by
ECLIPSE to obtain the global optimum history match. The selected parameters
include Corey parameters for relative permeability data, porosity multipliers,
permeability multipliers, aquifer volume, and aquifer productivity index. An overall
adequate history match was achieved using this approach after several sensitivities.
It was clear after these runs that some wells have poor match for flow rates and
pressure. So a decision was made to carry out some local modification around poorly
matched wells. The final modifiers values can be found in the data file.
The history match results are illustrated in the following figures:
The following figures show the rates match. First achieved the liquid rate match on
the field rates, and field total production. Then, by back allocation achieved rates
match on the wells (oil & water rate).
NGEP Q1- 2011

18
NGEP Q1- 2011

19
NGEP Q1- 2011

20
NGEP Q1- 2011

21
NGEP Q1- 2011

22
NGEP Q1- 2011

23
NGEP Q1- 2011

24
NGEP Q1- 2011

25
NGEP Q1- 2011

26
9 HISTORY MATCH DISCUSSION
9.1 Purpose of Simulation

Reservoir simulation is frequently the only viable way of forecasting production from
hydrocarbon accumulations. The history-match process, whereby the underlying
geomodel is ‘calibrated’ to reproduce observed behaviour, helps to overcome many
of the uncertainties associated with the approximate nature of the initial geological
description.
9.2 History Matching Process

 Add aquifer for pressure support.
 Change layer permeability
 Adjust transmissibility to control water movement (Tran X, Tran Y, Trans Z)
 Where necessary modify porosity
 Mechanical skin.
 Change transmissibility values of the fault.
9.3 Match Criteria

During the history matching process the following criteria are used in order to achieve
SD3 field history matching:
 Field cumulative oil production and oil rate.
 Field cumulative water production and water rate.
 Field cumulative gas production and gas rate.
 Water cut match to be within +/- 10 %.
 Pressure match to be within +/- 200 psi.
9.4 Match Reliability

The overall match quality for the field and single wells is considered Very. Good for
this model. It is adequate for the purposes of comparative performance predictions.
It is recommended that further pressure data be acquired to allow the model to be
updated and revised.
NGEP Q1- 2011

27
10 PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE FORECAST
Based on the history match described in the sections before a base case and other
prediction cases were performed in order to predict the production performance of
the X-Field under different development scenarios. High level overview of the results
for the development scenarios are listed in the next section of this report.
The following assumptions are applied:
 Minimum bottom hole flowing pressure is 200 psi.
 Maximum water cut is 100%.
 Production rates at the start of prediction are similar to the end of history
match.
 Injection rates at start of prediction are similar to the end of history match.
 Minimum spacing between the wells is 1000 m.
 Runs are done Dec 2020.
10.1 Base Prediction (Do nothing) Strategy

This is a run with the existing wells constraints without adding new wells or
increasing the current off take. Individual well liquid producing rates are adjusted to
values at the end of history matching.
10.1.1 Case 1
The forecasted Oil Reserve is 131.04 MMSTB cumulative productions with, 25.34%
oil recovery factor & the forecasted Gas Reserve is 227.09 BCF cumulative
productions with, 36.10% oil recovery factor.
10.2 Work-over Strategy

In This case we multiplied the PI for all the wells by 2 as a result of a successful
stimulation job, then we increased the well production and injection rates by 1.5 times
end of history machining values.
10.2.1 Case 2
NGEP Q1- 2011

28
10.3 Convert Producers into Injectors Strategy

In this development strategy we converted the high water cut wells from oil producers
into water injectors on 1 jan 2011 with injection rate 20000STBD.
10.3.1 Case 3 (PROD_1 Converted to injector)
The forecasted Oil Reserve is 124.4 MMSTB cumulative productions with, 23.98% oil
recovery factor & the forecasted Gas Reserve is 218.08 BCF cumulative productions
with, 34.67% oil recovery factor.
10.4 Drilling new producers Strategy

In this development strategy we drilled new oil producers in the upswept oil regions ,
the liquid control rate for the new well was 7500 STBD.
10.4.1 Case 6 (PROD_6)
NGEP Q1- 2011

29
10.4.2 Case 7 (PROD_7)

10.4.3 Case 8 (PROD_8)
10.4.4 Case 9 (PROD_9)
10.5 Drilling new Water Injectors Strategy

In this development strategy we drilled new Water injectors , the water control rate for
the new well was 20000 STBD.
10.5.1 Case 10 (INJ_4)
oil recovery factor & the forecasted Gas Reserve is 218.74BCF cumulative
10.5.2 Case 11 (INJ_5)
NGEP Q1- 2011

30
10.6 Combination Strategy

In this development strategy we select the best from all the previous cases in one
case.
10.6.1 Case 12 (Combination) – PROD_6 + PROD_7 + PROD_8 + WO
10.7 All Cases description & Summary results
Oil Gas
Field Field
Converted New New
Strategy Discription Case_Name Others Inplace Reserve incremen R.F Inplace Reserve incremen R.F
wells producers injectors
tal tal
MMSTB MMSTB MMSTB % BCF BCF MMSCF %
Strategy 1 NFA PRED_CASE1 517.22 131.04 0.00 25.34% 629.02 227.09 0.00 36.10%
Strategy 2 WO PRED_CASE2 517.22 135.43 4.39 26.18% 629.02 230.44 3.35 36.63%
Strategy 3 Convert PRED_CASE3 PROD_1 517.22 120.06 -10.98 23.21% 629.02 210.72 -16.37 33.50%
producers to PRED_CASE4 PROD_2 517.22 124.50 -6.54 24.07% 629.02 218.12 -8.97 34.68%
Injectors PRED_CASE5 PROD_3 517.22 124.04 -7.00 23.98% 629.02 218.08 -9.01 34.67%
Strategy 4 Dril new PRED_CASE6 PROD_6 517.22 138.38 7.34 26.75% 629.02 251.88 24.79 40.04%
producers PRED_CASE7 PROD_7 517.22 134.87 3.83 26.08% 629.02 261.1 34.01 41.51%
PRED_CASE8 PROD_8 517.22 135.70 4.66 26.24% 629.02 301.17 74.08 47.88%
PRED_CASE9 PROD_9 517.22 131.87 0.83 25.50% 629.02 248.58 21.49 39.52%
Strategy 5 Dril new PRED_CASE10 INJ_4 517.22 127.47 -3.57 24.65% 629.02 218.74 -8.35 34.77%
injectors PRED_CASE11 INJ_5 517.22 128.92 -2.12 24.93% 629.02 223.25 -3.84 35.49%
Strategy 6 Combination PRED_CASE12 Well6,7,8 + WO 517.22 140.90 9.86 27.24% 629.02 441.94 214.85 70.26%
NGEP Q1- 2011

31
10.8 Cases Oil & Gas Reserves

Field Development Plans
500
450
400
350
Oil & Gas Reseves
300
Oil Reserve,MMSTB
250
Gas Reserve,BCF
200
150
100
50
NGEP Q1- 2011

32
11 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
 Models are a useful 3-dimensional dynamic tool for reservoir management to

aid the evaluation of various enhancement projects such as Water flood value
“ water shut off” workovers, pump upgrades, re completion and wellbore
utilization decision
 The field has an estimated 517.22 MMBO STOIIP Oil in place
 The field has an estimated 629.02 BCF Gas in place
 Excellent History match has been achieved
 Recovered 17.7% of original oil–in–place to date
 Reservoir has a weak water drive mechanism
 The run with the existing well constraints without adding new wells or
increasing the current off take will recover around 131.04 MMSTB cumulative
oil productions, 25.34 % recovery factor.
 Drilling new 3 producers + work over for all the wells will produce oil reserve
140.9 MMSTB with RF 27.24% & Gas reserve 441.94BCF with RF 70.26%.
NGEP Q1- 2011

33

X-Field Reservoir Simulation Study - History Matching & Prediction

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

X-Field Reservoir Simulation Study - History Matching & Prediction

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Port Said University

X-Field Reservoir Simulation Study – History

NGEP Q1- 2011

5 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.....................................................................9

8 THE MATCHING PROCESS........................................................................................19

NGEP Q1- 2011

8.2 Match Criteria.......................................................................................................... 19

9 HISTORY MATCH DISCUSSION................................................................................28

10 PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE FORECAST............................................................29

11 Conclusions & Recommendations................................................................................34

NGEP Q1- 2011

1.1 Reporting Structure

 Phase I: Supplemental of Geological& Geophysical & Petro-physical and Static

 Phase II: Dynamic Reservoir Modelling study for X-Field.

1.2 Audit Process

NGEP Q1- 2011

An adequate history match of observed X-field performance has been achieved by

NGEP Q1- 2011

3.1 General Comments

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

4.3 Previous Simulation Modelling

NGEP Q1- 2011

5 PHASE 3-1 RESERVOIR ENGINEERINGNUMERICAL SIMULATION AND

5.1 Completion and Workover history.

Prod_1 6500 -7500 5400 5900 5500 5700 5

5.2 PVT Data Characterization.

NGEP Q1- 2011

5.3 Routine Core Analysis.

5.4 Saturation Functions.

5.5 Capillary pressure data.

5.6 Historical Pressure, Production data.

NGEP Q1- 2011

6.1 Base Geomodel

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

6.2 Fluid PVT Properties

Bo,rb/stb 100.6 0.01

6.3 Relative Permeability & Capillary pressure data

0.1 0.5 0.1

NGEP Q1- 2011

7.1 Initial Saturation & Pressure

NGEP Q1- 2011

7.2 Initial Fluids in Place

NGEP Q1- 2011

7.3 Well Definitions

Wells were put in groups, according to their location.

7.4 Primary Uncertainties

NGEP Q1- 2011

8 THE MATCHING PROCESS

8.2 Match Criteria

8.3 Global and local Modifications

The history match results are illustrated in the following figures:

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011

NGEP Q1- 2011