K. Lawal, O. Okoh, Asekhame U. Yadua, Mathilda I. Ovuru, S. Eyitayo, S. Ramaswamy
{"title":"油藏监测动态物质平衡法的改进","authors":"K. Lawal, O. Okoh, Asekhame U. Yadua, Mathilda I. Ovuru, S. Eyitayo, S. Ramaswamy","doi":"10.2118/198741-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Given sufficient performance and other data, material balance (MB) is a common method of determining the hydrocarbons initially in-place (HCIIP) in a reservoir. The application of this method requires, as a minimum, historic cumulative production (including injection) and average reservoir pressure. However, determination of historic average reservoir pressures would require shut-in of wells, hence production deferments. As an improvement to the classical MB, the dynamic material balance (DMB) method was developed by Mattar and Anderson (2005). Unlike the MB method, direct measurements of average reservoir pressure are not critical to DMB. In its basic form, the implementation of DMB requires historic production rates, flowing bottomhole pressures and cumulative production, thereby eliminating associated deferments. Although DMB has performed satisfactorily in some applications, its overall robustness remains to be fully explored.\n This paper conducts rigorous sensitivity checks on selected DMB models. Based on insights gained, their relative strengths and weaknesses are highlighted. To keep the problem tractable, detailed simulations are performed on different three-dimensional (3D) multiphase homogenous reservoir models of known HCIIP. Different cases are simulated, generating relevant performance datasets to evaluate DMB. The parametric tests conducted on this undersaturated compressible oil reservoir include (i) constant vs. variable production rates; (ii) rate hysteresis; (iii) vertical vs. horizontal well; (iv) single vs. multiple wells; (v) healthy vs. damaged well; and (vi) variable skin factors, with hysteresis.\n Within the parameter space examined, simulation results show that DMB performance (e.g. HCIIP) is sensitive to some of the parameters and subsurface realisations investigated. Against this background, some improvements and guidelines are proposed to enhance the capability and performance of DMB as a technique for reservoir surveillance.","PeriodicalId":11250,"journal":{"name":"Day 3 Wed, August 07, 2019","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improvements to the Dynamic Material-Balance Method of Reservoir Surveillance\",\"authors\":\"K. Lawal, O. Okoh, Asekhame U. Yadua, Mathilda I. Ovuru, S. Eyitayo, S. Ramaswamy\",\"doi\":\"10.2118/198741-MS\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Given sufficient performance and other data, material balance (MB) is a common method of determining the hydrocarbons initially in-place (HCIIP) in a reservoir. The application of this method requires, as a minimum, historic cumulative production (including injection) and average reservoir pressure. However, determination of historic average reservoir pressures would require shut-in of wells, hence production deferments. As an improvement to the classical MB, the dynamic material balance (DMB) method was developed by Mattar and Anderson (2005). Unlike the MB method, direct measurements of average reservoir pressure are not critical to DMB. In its basic form, the implementation of DMB requires historic production rates, flowing bottomhole pressures and cumulative production, thereby eliminating associated deferments. Although DMB has performed satisfactorily in some applications, its overall robustness remains to be fully explored.\\n This paper conducts rigorous sensitivity checks on selected DMB models. Based on insights gained, their relative strengths and weaknesses are highlighted. To keep the problem tractable, detailed simulations are performed on different three-dimensional (3D) multiphase homogenous reservoir models of known HCIIP. Different cases are simulated, generating relevant performance datasets to evaluate DMB. The parametric tests conducted on this undersaturated compressible oil reservoir include (i) constant vs. variable production rates; (ii) rate hysteresis; (iii) vertical vs. horizontal well; (iv) single vs. multiple wells; (v) healthy vs. damaged well; and (vi) variable skin factors, with hysteresis.\\n Within the parameter space examined, simulation results show that DMB performance (e.g. HCIIP) is sensitive to some of the parameters and subsurface realisations investigated. Against this background, some improvements and guidelines are proposed to enhance the capability and performance of DMB as a technique for reservoir surveillance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 3 Wed, August 07, 2019\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 3 Wed, August 07, 2019\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2118/198741-MS\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 3 Wed, August 07, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/198741-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Improvements to the Dynamic Material-Balance Method of Reservoir Surveillance
Given sufficient performance and other data, material balance (MB) is a common method of determining the hydrocarbons initially in-place (HCIIP) in a reservoir. The application of this method requires, as a minimum, historic cumulative production (including injection) and average reservoir pressure. However, determination of historic average reservoir pressures would require shut-in of wells, hence production deferments. As an improvement to the classical MB, the dynamic material balance (DMB) method was developed by Mattar and Anderson (2005). Unlike the MB method, direct measurements of average reservoir pressure are not critical to DMB. In its basic form, the implementation of DMB requires historic production rates, flowing bottomhole pressures and cumulative production, thereby eliminating associated deferments. Although DMB has performed satisfactorily in some applications, its overall robustness remains to be fully explored.
This paper conducts rigorous sensitivity checks on selected DMB models. Based on insights gained, their relative strengths and weaknesses are highlighted. To keep the problem tractable, detailed simulations are performed on different three-dimensional (3D) multiphase homogenous reservoir models of known HCIIP. Different cases are simulated, generating relevant performance datasets to evaluate DMB. The parametric tests conducted on this undersaturated compressible oil reservoir include (i) constant vs. variable production rates; (ii) rate hysteresis; (iii) vertical vs. horizontal well; (iv) single vs. multiple wells; (v) healthy vs. damaged well; and (vi) variable skin factors, with hysteresis.
Within the parameter space examined, simulation results show that DMB performance (e.g. HCIIP) is sensitive to some of the parameters and subsurface realisations investigated. Against this background, some improvements and guidelines are proposed to enhance the capability and performance of DMB as a technique for reservoir surveillance.