CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Background of Study
Petroleum reservoir management is a dynamic process that recognizes the uncertainties in
reservoir performance resulting from our inability to fully characterize reservoirs and
flow processes. It seeks to mitigate the effects of these uncertainties by optimizing
reservoir performance through a systematic application of integrated, multidisciplinary
technologies. It approaches reservoir operation and control as a system, rather than as a
set of disconnected functions. As such, it is a strategy for applying multiple technologies
in an optimal way to achieve synergy (Karimi, 2015).

Fig 2.1: The Reservoir Management Challenge

The reservoir management process must be tailored to individual fields depending on
(Karimi, 2015):

Size
Complexity
Reservoir and fluid properties
Depletion state
Regulatory controls
Economics

2.2 The concept of Reservoir Management

2.2.1 Definition
Reservoir Management has been defined by Al-Hussainy and Humphreys 2 as `the
marshalling of all appropriate business, technical and operating resources to exploit a
reservoir optimally from discovery to abandonment. Reservoir Management is about a
careful orchestration of technology, people & resources (Sapulli et al., 2004).

Fig 2.2: Reservoir Management as the key to success in the life of a reservoir
2.2.2 Reservoir Management Principles

2.2.3 Stages of reservoir Management

Basically, there are five main contributors to an integrated reservoir management
(Kalaydjian and Bourbiaux, 2002):

well design and management;

reservoir characterization and description;
reservoir modeling;
surface facilities design;
economics.

It impacts the various facets of a fields life, economic and uneconomic (see figure
below).

Fig 2.3: Reservoir Mangement Process (Gringarten, 1997)

Some of the stages of reservoir management are discussed as follows.
2.2.3.1 Reservoir Description
One of the most important stages of reservoir management is reservoir description,
this stage is to identify and present a model for describing the reservoir which its
behavior and answer be similar to the actual behavior of the reservoir as much as

possible.

Reservoir description is a dynamic process which is repeated as soon as

receiving the new information.

Reservoir model is yield from integrating the interpret models of different types of
information and by engineering software (Sajjadiyan, V.A., 2011).
2.2.3.2 Reservoir Model Argument
The aim of reservoir description is to define a reservoir model which shows the dynamic
and static information of the reservoir. As soon as the reservoir model is constructed
its coordination and compatibility with available interpretative data and information
must be proved. In the proving stage, the respond of the reservoir should be computed
and evaluated by different simulators such as seismic, well logging, flow and reservoir in
order to prove the ability to reproduce the information and data which are mentioned
above (Fahimpour et.al., 2009).
2.2.3.3 Reservoir Performance, Well Performance and Field Development
After the model was confirmed, this model can be used for predicting the future behavior
of the reservoir in different development scenarios. Reservoir production behavior such
as
pressure, flow rate, fluid saturation percentages are calculated by using the flow
adjusted simulators. For predicting the field behavior considering the entire system
(reservoir, wells and well head facilities) is necessary and all of these should be studied
together. For example, at any point of the system flow rate is determined by the balance

of inflows and outflows and by the effects which are applied on the input flow and output
flow the flow rate reach the optimal and economical status (Asadzadeh Farkhan, B.,
2010).
2.2.3.4 Well Design and Management
In order to optimize the production and increase the reserves, the exploitation of the
reservoirs through complex wells (Renard et al., 1997) (horizontal wells, ERD (Extended
Reach Drilling) wells, multibranched wells) has become the common practice. The major
drilling progress performed during the last ten years has led to multiple options for well
design: stacked multibranch well, dual opposing laterals, re-entry laterals from a vertical
well, cluster well, multidrain or multilateral well, even 3D wells for reservoirs with a
complex structure or sparsely-distributed reservoir bodies. Such wells have many
advantages over conventional vertical wells:
their injectivity/productivity is increased and their investigated area is larger, which
allows to drill fewer wells;
they enable to add reserves to difficult fields, characterized by thin reservoirs for
instance;
and they increase the benefit of EOR methods since they provide higher sweep
efficiencies.
Guaranteeing the injectivity/productivity of those wells is a major issue as well. It is thus
required to prevent as much as possible or remediate to any impairment (due to the

invasion of drilling and completion fluids, particle deposition and retention). For this
reason, well productivity and injectivity restoration has to be part of the project
implementation plan, especially for open-hole complex wells (Longeron et al., 2000). The
design of improved remediation methodologies can be optimized using a laboratory
approach that contributes to improve the physical understanding and modeling of well
productivity and injectivity. Regarding implementation plan, actions include:
the use of breakers to overcome cake barrier;
stimulation procedures involving acid fracturing and matrix acidizing;
well treatment by gels to prevent massive water or gas production, a drastic
requirement for optimizing surface treatment facilities;
and also an overall management of well rates at reservoir scale.
Complex wells combined with conventional and EOR processes such as gas injection,
viscous flooding or thermal flooding represent new opportunities for mature fields. Let us
consider the polymer flooding method. The very long trajectories of complex wells
minimize the risks of polymer degradation because of lower flow rates around the
injector, whereas their injection rate remains higher than that of a vertical well. Thus,
fewer injectors are required and moreover, the method can be applied to reservoirs having
lower permeability than the limit imposed by vertical wells.
To end with, a detailed modeling of the well neighborhood using unstructured grids and
improved PIs (Productivity Index Formulations) (Jeannin et al, 2000) is useful for

assessing well impairment and predicting well productivity/injectivity remediation

efficiency. Such a modeling has to take into account the complex flow geometry around
the well (perforation effects, etc.) as well as possible multiphase flow effects, with a
proper calibration from laboratory experiments (Ding et al, 2002).
2.2.3 Motivation for reservoir Management
It is generally known that sound reservoir management policies is a panacea for sustained
success. Companies like Exxonmobil, BP, Total, Shell etc have been successful because
of their huge reserves discovery but have remained successful because of the reservoir
management policy they operate by. Some of the motivation for reservoir management
are summarized in the table below.
Table 2.1: Motivation for Reservoir management (Saputelli et al, 1998)

2.3 Reservoir management Process

For many years, the dream of the oil company operators has been to integrate the data,
interpretations, models, simulations, and effects of development and production decisions
in such a way as to optimally deplete the reservoir according to a business model and
economic constraints (Khajavi, A., 2009; Tayyebi et al, 2004).
The basic steps are shown below.

Fig 2.4: Key Inputs and basic steps of the overall reservoir Management Process
(Gringarten, 1997)
A central step in reservoir management is the development of a reservoir model that can
be used in mapping the distribution of fluids, identifying unswept reservoir volumes and

developing production strategies, including placement of infill wells, design of injection

and production programs (such as extended well testing), and targeting of horizontal and
multilateral (multiple wells from the same primary wellbore, possibly with further
branches and subbranches) wells.
The model must capture reservoir geometry, internal architecture, rock properties and
their variability, content and distribution, fluid properties and producibility.
Key elements of the flow simulation include the fluid mechanics of multiphase fluids in
complex porous and fractured media, the thermophysical properties of hydrocarbon
fluid/aqueous salt solution mixtures and their variation with temperature/pressure and
their thermodynamic phase behaviour under reservoir and production conditions. The
overall objective of building the model is reduced reservoir uncertainty in a broad sense,
from prospect appraisal to production extension. This is a key to exploration risk
reduction and to optimum reservoir management.
Not shown in the figure, but underlying all elements of the process, is the Data
Management system responsible for all data involved in reservoir management. Efficient
data management and software integration are of prime importance throughout
(Ghalehban, 2010). They often limit the practicality of iterative, detailed reservoir model
development and `what if scenario planning.
2.4 Reservoir Management Decisions
2.4.1 Well location for different types of reservoirs

The reservoirs and the well cost used in all previous the case studies represent the situation of a
development plan for medium-size onshore reservoirs. If the well cost was much smaller (as in
onshore reservoirs) or the size of the reservoirs was much bigger, the optimal number of wells
would be much larger and the modeling of the geological uncertainty could be less relevant for
the decision of the best number of wells and their spatial configuration.
Modeling the geological uncertainty between the conditional data is only relevant for the
decision of the best scenario if that decision varies depending on the realization.
For a very large number of wells, the scenarios are defined by different grids (or patterns) of
wells with regular spacing between the wells and the particular behavior of a few wells would
not change the overall response of a scenario. The overall response of a scenario is determined
by the spacing between the wells in the regular grid defined in the scenario and by the average
properties of the reservoir, instead of by any local characteristic.
If the average properties of a reservoir do not change from one realization to another, because
they are correctly depicted by the conditional data which are honored by all realizations, the
decision of the best scenario (grid of wells) would be the same with any realization.
2.4.2 Vertical or horizontal well?
The decision to drill a well vertically or horizontally is governed by the differences in cost and in
production (or injection) of the two types of well. Since a horizontal well is more expensive, it
must produce (or inject) more and/or longer than a vertical well.
The final oil recovery with a horizontal well may be higher than with a vertical well because of
two characteristics of a horizontal well:

(1) higher productivity (or injectivity) due to a greater length of the interval completed in the
well, and (2) better location of the completed intervals.
In general, the reservoirs in which a horizontal well is expected to work better than a vertical
well have a small oil column and good vertical permeability. Some common situations where a
horizontal well may be preferred are:
Small oil column with gas cap and/or bottom aquifer.
Thin oil layer with good permeability embedded in other layers with much smaller permeability.
Naturally fractured reservoirs, with the direction of the horizontal well normal to the fractures.
The geological characterization necessary to determine if a reservoir is appropriate for horizontal
wells is typically performed at the macroscale and this kind of characterization does not change
from one realization to another. For example: if there is a gas cap in one realization it would be
present in all the realizations; if the average oil column is five meters in one realization, it is not
likely to be 50 meters in any other; if the average ratio of vertical permeability over horizontal
permeability is 0.5 in one realization, it is not likely to be 0.1 in any other, etc.
Therefore, in general, the consideration of multiple realizations to decide between vertical and
horizontal wells is not likely to be relevant.
2.4.3 Intervals to complete a well
The decision as to which intervals to complete in a well is made after the drilling of the well and
is based on:
(1) the overall recovery strategy for the field and
(2) the specific electric logs of that well.

The overall recovery strategy for the field is determined using geological characterization at a
macroscale, which is the same for all the realizations. For example, if the oil column is thick with
homogeneous permeability, if there is an active bottom aquifer and if no gas cap is expected to
be formed during production, the strategy may be to complete only the upper intervals for
production. In another example, if the reservoir is multilayered with small hydraulic
communication between the layers and if there is a lateral aquifer or waterood, the strategy may
be to complete all the good layers to start producing and to return to the well in the future to
close some intervals with very high water cut.
The definition of the specific intervals to complete in a well is made based on the electric logs,
which show the good and bad intervals for that well. Typically, the data from the well are
considered deterministically, the well information is assumed laterally continuous around the
well and no uncertainty is considered in the definition of the specific intervals to complete in the
well.
Therefore, in general, the consideration of multiple realizations to decide the intervals to
complete a well for production is not likely to be relevant.
2.4.4 Number of platforms
The definition of the number of platforms is not really a problem different from the definition of
the optimal number of wells and their spatial configuration; the number and location of the
platforms must be part of the scenario definition. The prot function used to compare the
scenarios must incorporate the costs of different numbers of platforms and the costs of the ow
lines to connect the wells to the platforms.

Even for the case where just one platform is considered in all the scenarios, the location of the
platform must be known to allow the incorporation of the costs of the ow lines into the prots
resulting from the production of different numbers and locations of wells. For example, it may
happen that an additional well gives sufficient additional production to pay the additional drilling
cost, but that well may be very far from the platform and the inclusion of its ow line costs may
lead to a lesser prot. Considering geological uncertainty may be relevant to decide between one,
two or three platforms when the number of wells is moderate (less than 50). The necessity to
consider scenarios with different number of platforms depends on:
The maximum number of wells within the range of possible numbers of wells defined by the
scenarios.
The expected total length of the production lines with different number of platforms.
The cost of the ow lines by unit of length.
The cost of the platforms with different sizes (number of wells).
Using the maximum number of wells, if the cost of increasing the number of platforms increases
more than the decrease in the cost of the ow lines, then there is no necessity to consider
different numbers of platforms in the scenarios.
However, if the cost of increasing the number of platforms is similar to or smaller than the
decrease in the costs of the ow lines, then different numbers of platforms need to be considered
in the scenarios.
Note that the assessment of the necessity to consider different numbers of platforms in the
scenarios is not inuenced by the geological uncertainty, for a moderate number of wells.

For a very large number of wells, the scenarios are defined by regular grids of wells and the
number of platforms is defined based on the costs of platforms, costs of ow lines and
multiphase ow constraints; the eventual difference of production between the realizations does
not a reflect the decision of the number of platforms.
2.4.5 Type of enhanced oil recovery
Lake (1997) denes enhanced oil recovery as oil recovery by the injection of materials not
normally present in the reservoir. The common types of enhanced oil recovery and their recovery
mechanisms are:

Chemical
Thermal
o Steam (drive and stimulation) - reduction of oil viscosity and vaporization of light
ends.
o In-situ combustion - same as steam plus cracking.
Solvent
o Immiscible - reduction of oil viscosity and oil swelling.
o Miscible - same as immiscible plus development of miscible displacement.

Based on the physical mechanisms of the recovery, it is clear that the uid properties are more
important than the rock properties in the selection of the type of enhanced oil recovery to apply
in a reservoir. Although geological uncertainty may have some inuence in the selection of the
type of enhanced oil recovery, the uncertainty that is really important is the uncertainty in the
uid properties.
2.4.6 Time to start water injection
For reservoirs with original gas cap, a good practice is to starting injecting water at the same time
the production starts.

For reservoirs with original pressure above the saturation pressure, a company may have a
financial gain in delaying the water injection until the pressure drops to a value just above the
saturation pressure. This \just above the saturation pressure" point in time is determined by
material balance.
Material balance uses the average properties of the reservoir and, therefore, the modeling of
geological uncertainty is not necessary to decide the time to start injecting water.
2.4.7 Direction of a horizontal well
If the reservoir is naturally fractured, the horizontal well should be drilled normal to the main
direction of fracture to induce the ow to be in the direction of higher permeability and to
communicate a large area of the reservoir with the well. Typically, the definition of the main
direction of fractures is made based on seismic data without modeling of the geological
uncertainty.
If the reservoir is clearly elongated in one direction, the direction of the horizontal well may be
determined without any consideration about the geological uncertainty.
Depending on the dimensions of the reservoir, a few horizontal wells aligned with the reservoir
length or several horizontal wells aligned with the reservoir width may be defined.
For other reservoirs, though, the definition of the direction of a horizontal well is basically the
same problem of the definition of the number and spatial configuration of vertical wells and the
consideration of the geological uncertainty is relevant.

The most common action taken to improve the oil recovery of a reservoir is to inject water (or
gas). Unless the reservoir is known to have a very large aquifer (and/or gas cap), injection is
always considered in the development plan.
Similarly to a producer well, the performance of an injector well depends on the specific
properties of the reservoir around the well and the consideration of the geological uncertainty
through multiple realizations may lead to different definitions of the best number and
configuration of injector wells.
Among the other types of reservoir management decisions, this problem of defining the best
injection scenario was selected, because:
(a) consideration of injection is common and important in the definition of the development
plans,
(b) the benefits of accounting for the geological uncertainty in the definition of the best injection
scenario needed to be quantified,
(c) this problem complements the example used in the previous case studies for the definition of
the best scenario including producer and injector wells.
The best injection scenario determination must be integrated with the definition of the best
production scenario. The best number of injector wells depends on the number of producer wells
and the best spatial configuration of injectors depends on the spatial configuration of producers.
Therefore, any injection scenario is associated with a production scenario.