SPE 59464

Full Field Model Study of a Dense Highly Fractured Carbonate Reservoir

A. Fathi and A. Ansari, National Iranian Oil Company - South Oil Fields

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Conference on
Integrated Modelling for Asset Management held in Yokohama, Japan, 2526 April 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a
comprehensive subsurface study of a field in South of Iran.
The reservoir is typical of several carbonate fields in south
west Iran, comprising low porosity carbonate , but highly
fractured. After several years of natural depletion a gas
injection was started at a time that reservoir became saturated
at the crest to prevent further shrinkage of the oil and keep the
reservoir oil pressure constant. The source of gas was a deeper
reservoir where the gas was produced and injected by its own
pressure through one producer and one injector.
A three dimensional model was set up using a 3D static
model as the basis for geological input. All available data
including, fluid losses during drilling, well test and flowmeter
surveys were used to define the fracture properties. A good
history match was obtained for pressure and fluid levels with a
commercial black oil simulator using the model in dual
porosity mode. The calibrated model was then used in
prediction mode to forecast the reservoir behavior under gas
injection pressure maintenance and also repressuring close to
original crestal pressure. The simulation results show large
increase in ultimate recovery due to gas injection as compared
with natural depletion.
Introduction
This field is an elongated antyclinal structure about 20 km.
long and 5 to 7 km. wide. The oil production horizon is
Asmari limestone belonging to Oligocene-Miocene age having
a low matrix porosity with net average of about 9% and less
than 1 md average permeability.However extensive fracturing
particularly on the crestal areas of the field has increased the
effective rock permeability to several darcy so that
productivity index of more than thousand bbl/d/psi has been

measured in some wells. The deeper gas reservoir is

Bangestan, a very low porosity carbonate rock that is
separated from Asmari by a thick shale.
The past reservoir performance of the field which was
originally undersaturated showed rapid pressure drop due to
limited support of aquifer. Due to high elevation of surface
facilities natural flow would have been seized without some
kind of artificial lift or pressure maintenance. The availability
of high pressure gas in the lower reservoir could be used as a
good source not only for suplementing additional energy to the
reservoir but also increasing the ultimate recovery from the
field. The gas injection was started in 1984 by drilling a gas
source well in the Bangestan reservoir and a gas injection well
in the Asmari and has continued afterward to maintain the
reservoir pressure. A geological and reservoir engineering
study was undertaken to analyze the past reservoir
performance including several years of gas injection and
predict the future behavior of the field. The reservoir
simulation study has been used to optimize the future infill
drilling well requirement, and to estimate ultimate recovery
and gas injection requirement.
Development of Geological Model
The geological study was undertaken by re-evaluating the old
2D siesmic data which showed the last closed contour to be at
6230 ft.ss. By assessing the petrophisical and well data the
contour area on top of the reservoir was constructed. The
information shows that there is no major fault detected by
wells or wide distance seismic lines and the north west-south
east trending anticline is dipping moderately to the north east
(12-20) and south west by 12 to 14 (Fig. 1).
The Asmari reservoir in this field consists mainly of
limestone and minor dolomite overlying deep marine shales of
Pabdeh and Gurpi formations. Based on sequence stratigraphy
the Asmari reservoir has been divided into three main zones
comprising of lower, middle and upper Asmari. These zones
have been further divided into several subzones (total of 15)
for the purpose of detailed evaluation of the rock
characteristics. Using the core and petrophysical data, rock
property models including net to gross ratio, porosity, water
saturation and permeability were created. A typical property
map of net porosity on top of Asmari (Layer 1) is shown in
Fig. 2.

A.Fathi and A.Ansari

Fracture Modeling
High well productivities and fluid losses during drilling
suggested existence of a well connected network of open
fractures on major part of the structure. Fracture occurrence is
controlled by matrix properties and by areal variations in
intensity of the fracturing process. As an example of degree of
fracturing well AS-08 has to be completed after 100 ft of
drilling into Asmari formation due to complete losses. The
section drilled is tight carbonate with low porosity. In this
study there has been limited core data on three wells and no
image log. However fluid loss data, flowmeter surveys and
build up tests have been used to define the fracture intensity
and its areal distribution.
The analysis of different data has shown that the fracturing
in this field is mainly fold related and wells with very high
productivities are located in the hinge area (highest curvature)
of the structure. Therefore for a qualitative estimate of
fracturing curvature analysis of the top structure map was
considered to define fractured area in different zones. Other
information like fluid loss, well productivity and flowmeter
surveys were incorporated for further refinement of the
fractured area as well as estimating fracture properties such as
aperture, size (block height), porosity and permeability.
Dynamic Modeling
The dynamic reservoir simulation was initialized by exporting
the 3D static geological model into a commercial black oil
reservoir simulator. The fluid properties of the Asmari which
was constant with depth except for the effect of temperature
was defined at the crest of the structure as the reservoir was
initially undersaturated by more than 550 psi. The oil which is
light (35 API) has had a bubble point pressure of 2260 psia,
oil formation factor of 1.35 bbl/stb and gas oil ratio of 700
scf/stb at initial condition.
The rock properties were taken from the available core
data in this field. However where the data was scarce
information from similar Asmari reservoirs has to be
substituted to complete all the necessary data needed for 3D
simulation. The relative permeability and capillary pressure
data were taken from other reservoirs with adjustment of the
end points to define 8 different rock types having either a
porosity range and/or water saturation range. The character of
these curves leans towards mixed to oil wet conditions. The
porosity-permeability relation developed for matrix rock
showed a permeability of 1 md at 11% porosity.
The early 3D simulation that contained the geological and
petrophysical details of all layers, including structure,
distribution of reservoir properties as well as production, PVT
and relative permeability data was initialized with a Cartesian
grid system. However, to reduce the number of grid blocks a
non-orthogonal grid system was developed with the
dimensions of 221415 or more than 9200 cells in dual
porosity mode. The fracture porosities were based on the best
estimate from the geological study and also experience from
other fields in the area. The fracture porosity was on average
about 0.1 percent of the bulk volume which in this low

SPE 59464

porosity reservoir correspond to 8 percent of the total oil in

place. The fracture permeability varied from 50 md in lower
layers and down the flanks to as high as 2000 md in upper
layers and higher on the flanks and crestal area. The block
heights which was finally incorporated in the history matched
model ranged from 12 to 16 ft.
History matching
The objective of the history match was to get an acceptable
match of individual well pressures and production as well as
gas oil ratio and fluid contacts especially gas oil level history
after reservoir saturation and start of gas injection. With the oil
in place of about 1400 million stock tank barrel fixed the
aquifer strength was increased in such a way that an overall
pressure match could be obtained. The behavior of the
reservoir showing large pressure drop during production
period and considerable pressure increase during field shut
down (Fig. 3) was an indication of a moderate water drive
with very low permeability. The match of pressure profiles of
individual wells, that because of good areal and lateral
communication in the reservoir are very similar, were obtained
by some modification to fracture permeability (reduction)
particularly down the flanks to retard the intrusion of water
into the oil reservoir. The natural depletion history and most of
gas injection period are very well pressure matched(Figs. 3 to
7). The uncertainty in gas injection volume and rate of
resolution (assumed to be infinite) were responsible for
relatively poorer match during short periods of gas injection
history.
The water oil level rise history is uncertain as there has
been no water observation well. Gas oil level variation based
on periodic measurement of gas and oil pressure is well
known. The model set up and changes in terms of block
height, transmissibilities and rock types gave a good match of
the levels(Fig. 8). The high gas oil ratio which has brought
rate cut backs in some wells are also matched reasonably well
in the model(Fig. 9). Although there has not been any wet oil
production , but the wells producing from deeper horizon has
had rate cut backs on indications of high salt to prevent water
production. The model performance during history has been in
line with actual field behavior and has shown no water
production.
The only local variation to the model has taken place
around well AS-08 by increasing the fracture volume to
prevent early gas breakthrough. This well has produced more
than 67 million barrel from a 100 ft dense rock at a sustained
rate of more than 12000 stb/d for several years and is still
producing at a rate of 7500 stb/d limited by salt contamination.
Forecasts
This field with 26 years into history and some 220million bbl
cumulative oil production is a mature field. As the gas
injection is the preferred regime of pressure maintenance and
has been going on during the last 15 years, the effort of
prediction was concentrated on long term forecast of reservoir
behavior under gas injection. Two main group of data,
including in-fill well locations and well production limiting

SPE 59464

Full Field Model study of a Dense Highly Fractured Carbonte Reservoir

criteria has to be specified. The constraints for producing gasoil ratio and water cut and also well tubing pressure were
selected based on field operation facilities limitations. As there
is no desalination facility in the field the constraint on watercut was very tight.
In order to select best areas in the field for infill well
drilling the net oil column map at the end of history was
generated. The infill wells were defined in areas of highest
remaining oil column. A constant rate of 25000 stb/d which
was close to the final rate of production during history was
specified and the model was run in prediction mode. Rate cut
back, shutting off the most offending layer producing at high
gas-oil ratio or water cut and opening up the new infill wells
to meet the production level as long as possible and then
declining the production to the predefined abandonment rate
of 3000 stb/d were all performed automatically by the model.
The gas injection to keep the oil pressure constant was
defined by injecting gas 10 percent more than the voidage
replacement. With this volume of gas the oil pressure
increased by about 140 psi during 16 years of forecast period
and the gas pressure at the crest was very close to the original
crestal pressure.
The cumulative oil recovery from the field down to 2016
reached 341 million stock tank barrel which is equivalent to
24 percent recovery factor. This is about 5 percent more than
recovery factor obtained under natural depletion. The gas
injection requirement for the above gas injection repressuring
will be about 380 billion ft 3 which can be supplemented by
deeper Bangestan reservoir and reinjection of the produced
gas. Production, injection and pressure behavior of the
reservoir during prediction period have been shown in Figs. 10
to 12.
Conclusions
The integrated geological-engineering study has resulted in
better understanding of in place volumes, aquifer strength,
rock and fluid characteristic and behavior of This field.
Through this study the superiority of gas injection
repressuring close to original crestal pressure was verified and
due to the availability of gas can be implemented without any
further investment as the gas injection by natural flow and
reinjection of produced gas are already in place and running.
The future infill well locations have been optimized based on
maximum remaining oil column throughout the field that can
be used for future development the field that has 40 percent of
its remaining oil reserves to be produced from now onward.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank National Iranian Oil Company-South
Oil Fields management for their permission of publishing this
paper.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl 1.589 87 E01=m3
ft 3.048
E01=m
ft 3 2.831 685 E02= m3
md 9.869 233 E04=m2
psi 6.894 757 E+00=kPa
References
1. Ansari, A., Behbahaninia,A.R.: PVT Model characterization of a
Highly Variable Oil Properties with Depth, proceedings 15th
World Petroleum Congress, Beijing (1997).
2. Craft,B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.,Jr. : Applied Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, Prentice- Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs. N.J.
(1959).
3. Crishlow, Henry B.:Modern Reservoir Engineering-A Simulation
Approach, Prentice- Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
4. Saidi, A.M.Reservoir Engineering of Fractured Reservoirs,
TOTAL Edition Presse, Paris (1987).

A.Fathi and A.Ansari

200000

2600

180000
Gas pressure

160000

2500

140000

2400

120000
100000

2300

80000
2200

60000
40000

2100

20000
0

2000
0

10

15

20

25

30

Year

10

Fig.1 Contour map on top of Asmari reservoir overlaid by areal

grid

Gas pressure psi

rate Mscf/d and cum. injection MMscf

SETUP GRID ON U.G.C. TOP

SPE 59464

Fig.4 History of gas injection , gas pressures and comparison

with the model calculated gas pressure potential

3100

25000

Oil pressure psi

2900

Model
Actual

Pressure

20000

2700
15000
2500
10000
2300

Rate
5000

2100
1900

0
0

Fig.2 Iso porosity map of layer 1

Production rate stb/d

10

15

20

25

30

Year

Fig. 5 Typical Pressure match of well AS-02

3100

Model oil Potential

3000

2600

100000
2400

Field cum. production

Field oil rate

50000

2200

2000
0

10

15

20

25

30

Year

Fig.3
History of oil production and individual wells oil
pressures as compared with the model average oil pressure
potential

Oil pressure psi

2800

150000

2900
oil pressure psi

All wells pressures

200000

40000
Model
Actual

Pressure

35000
30000

2700

25000

2500

20000
15000

2300
Rate

10000

2100

5000

1900

0
0

10

15

20

25

Year

Fig.6 Typical Pressure match of well AS-06

30

Production rate stb/d

3200

Rate stb/d, cumulative

production Mbbl

250000

Full Field Model study of a Dense Highly Fractured Carbonte Reservoir

3100

35000
30000

2700

25000

2500

20000
Rate

15000

2300

10000
2100

oil and water rate stb/d

Pressure

350
Oil rate

Production rate stb/d

2900
Oil pressure psi

30000

40000
Model
Actual

25000

325

20000
15000

275

10000

250

5000

225
Water rate

0
0

10

15

20

25

300

Cumulative oil

5000

1900

cum. oil production MMstb

SPE 59464

200
25

30

30

35

40

45

Year

Year

Fig. 7 Typical Pressure match of well AS-08

Fig.10 Field oil and water production during forecast period

Model
Actual
4500
Oil pressure potential psi

5000

5500
Water oil level
6000

1400

2950

1200

2900

1000

GOR

2850

800

2800
600

2750
Oil pressure

2700

400
200

2650
2600

6500
0

10

15

20

25

0
25

30

30

1000

30000
GOR
Productio rate stb/d

800
700

20000

600
Model

500

Actual

400

10000

300
Rate

5000

Gas oil ratio scf/stb

900

25000

200
100

0
5

10

15

45

20

25

30

Year

Fig.9 Typical gas oil ratio match of well AS-02 showing

indication of gas brick through and well shut off

Fig.11 Field pressure potential and gas oil ratio

forecast period

rate Mscf/d , cum. gas injected MMscf

Fig.8 History of gas oil and water oil levels and comparison
with model calculated values

40

Year

Year

15000

35

during

400000
3400
350000
3200

Cum. gas njection

300000

3000

250000

Gas pressure
2800

200000

2600

150000

pressure psi

Levels ft.s.s.

Gas oil level

3000

Gas oil ratio scf/stb

4000

2400

100000
Gas injection rate

2200

50000
0

2000
25

30

35

40

45

Year

Fig.12 Field gas injection and gas pressure potential during

forecast period