Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education

and Scientific Research
University of Kirkuk
College of Engineering
Petroleum Department

Drive Mechanism Analysis of Saturated Oil

Reservoirs Using MBAL
A Project
Submitted to the Department of Petroleum Engineering/ University of
Kirkuk as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of
the Degree of Bachelor of Science
in Petroleum Engineering

BY:

Tareq Ayad Halool Sahb Ahmed Ali

Hassan Ali Swadi Sajad Auda Naim

Jihad Hussein Faleh

Supervisor:
Dr. Yahia J. Tawfeeq

2022/2023
 Acknowledgement

First of all, I thank my God who gave me the strength, patience

and desire to complete this work.

I would like to express my sincere thanks, gratitude and appreciation

to my supervisors Dr. Yahia J Tawfeeq for their continuous
support of my research, for their patience, motivation, enthusiasm,
and their guidance that helped me in all the time of research and
writing of this thesis.

My heartfelt gratitude is due to the Department of Petroleum

Engineering, University of kirkuk for the continuous support.

I
 Abstract
The material balance equation (MBE) is a versatile analytical tool in petroleum
reservoir engineering. Solution to the MBE is put to a predictive use for
predicting reservoir performance, i.e. cumulative oil production, Np as a
function of the declining average reservoir pressure.
Knowing the amount of original oil in place is the most important parameter
for reservoir engineers to make a quick decision whether the discovered area
is profitable or not. There are two conventional methods and two
unconventional methods use to calculate the OOIP. The two conventional
methods are volumetric method and Material-Balance-Equation (MBE), and
the two unconventional methods are reservoir simulation method and decline
curve analysis method.
This study was conducted on one of the oil reservoirs in Iraq using
mathematical models of MBE and the MBAL software, which simulates the
production history of the field or reservoir, matches it, and then calculates the
oil reserves and the reservoir drive mechanism that controls the initial
production of the reservoir.

Form Energy plot, we can identify to the natural drives which control the
production of reservoir fluids. The result shown that three types of drives do
this work. Firstly, fluid expansion drive which depending on the gas that
dissolved in the oil region, it contributes by 57% from all natural drives
contribution and this percent increase in the next stages. Secondly, Pore
volume compressibility drive which contributes by 7% then vanished in the
next stages of field life. Thirdly, water drive which include the big amounts of
water that located in the bottom of reservoir. The figure show that drive
contributes by 46% from the field production natural drives, then increased in
the next step and in the next stages when gas expansion increased the water
drive contribution decreased.

II
Subject Page
Acknowledgment l

Abstract lI

Table Of Contents III

Nomenclatures and Abbreviations. IV

Chapter One

1.1 Introduction
1

1.3 Aims of study 4

Chapter Two

2.1 General Review 5

2.2 Uses of MBE 7

2.3 Reservoir Drives 7

2.3.1 Solution Gas Drive 8

2.3.2 Gas Cap Drive 11

2.3.3 Water Drive 13

2.3.4 Gravity Drainage 16

2.3.5 Combination or Mixed Drive 17

III
Chapter Three

2.3 Derivative of Meterial balance aquation 19

2.4 Material balance equation as straight line 28

2.5 The straight_line solution method to MBE 29

3.4 Methodology 34

Chapter Four

4.1 Description 38

4.2 Methodology 38

4.2.1 DATA GATHERING 39

4.2.2 PVT ANALYSIS FOR FOUR OF THE RESERVOIRs. 40

4.2.3 THE RESERVOIRS MBAL MODEL 40

4.3 Procedure 42

4.4 Results 48

Chapter five

5.1 Conclusion
49

5.2 Recommendation
49

References
50

IV
 Nomenclatures and Abbreviations

Symbols Description
MBE Material Balance Equation
Pi Initial reservoir pressure psi
p Volumetric average reservoir pressure
Δp Change in reservoir pressure = pi − p, psi
Pb Bubble point pressure, psi
N Initial (original) oil in place, STB
Np Cumulative oil produced, STB
Gp Cumulative gas produced, scf
Wp Cumulative water produced, bbl
Rp Cumulative gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
GOR Instantaneous gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
Rsi Initial gas solubility, scf/STB
Rs Gas solubility, scf/STB
Boi Initial oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Bo Oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Bgi Initial gas formation volume factor, bbl/scf
Bg Gas formation volume factor, bbl/scf
Winj Cumulative water injected, STB
Ginj Cumulative gas injected, scf
We Cumulative water influx, bbl
G Initial gas-cap gas, scf
P.V Pore volume, bbl

V
 Chapter One

Introduction and Overview

1.1 Introduction

The material balance equation (MBE) is a versatile analytical tool in petroleum

reservoir engineering. Solution to the MBE is put to a predictive use for
identifying the drive mechanisms of the reservoir predicting reservoir
performance, i.e. cumulative oil production, Np as a function of the declining
average reservoir pressure [1].

Knowing the amount of original oil in place is the most important parameter
for reservoir engineers to make a quick decision whether the discovered area
is profitable or not. There are two conventional methods and two
unconventional methods use to calculate the OOIP. The two conventional
methods are volumetric method and Material-Balance-Equation (MBE), and
the two unconventional methods are reservoir simulation method and decline
curve analysis method [2].

Volumetric Methods are static methods that estimate HIIP from static
properties of the reservoir, including its porosity, thickness, and initial water
saturation [3]. The Material Balance Method, in contrast, is a dynamic method
that estimates HIIP by analyzing historical data on production and pressure.

The volumetric depends on basic data of reservoir rock and reservoir fluid
properties. Reservoir simulation uses to find the precise value of oil in place
under different conditions, and also to help reservoir engineers to have a proper
understanding of reservoir behavior and making the prediction which helps
engineers for making investment decisions(4) (5).However, the reservoir
simulation needs a lot of information starts with geological history and ends
with production history additional to reservoir rock and fluid properties.

1
On the other hand, MBE depends on combinations of fluid properties, rock
properties, and production data. Since each method required different sort of
data the result will be different, Second, MBE depends on production data
which usually are available and other reservoir properties can be obtained from
laboratory experiments. However, it isn’t proper to be use when the reservoir
is connected to aquifer or gas cap with no enough information about them.

During primary recovery the natural energy of the reservoir is used to transport
hydrocarbons towards and out of the production wells. There are several
different energy sources, and each gives rise to a drive mechanism. Early in
the history of a reservoir the drive mechanism will not be known. It is
determined by analysis of production data (reservoir pressure and fluid
production ratios). The earliest possible determination of the drive mechanism
is a primary goal in the early life of the reservoir, as its knowledge can greatly
improve the management and recovery of reserves from the reservoir in its
middle and later life. There are five important drive mechanisms (or
combinations).

These are:

(i) Solution gas drive

(ii) Gas cap drive

(iii) Water drive

(iv) Gravity drainage

(v) Combination or mixed drive

Table 3.1 shows the recovery ranges for each individual drive mechanism.

2
 Table 1.1 Recovery ranges for each drive mechanism

Most oil reservoirs produce under the influence of two or more reservoir drive
mechanisms, referred to collectively as a combination drive. A common
example is an oil reservoir with an initial gas cap and an active water drive
(Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: Combination drive reservoir.

The production trends of a combination drive reservoir reflect the

characteristics of the dominant drive mechanism. A reservoir with a small

3
initial gas cap and a weak water drive will behave in a way similar to a solution
gas drive reservoir, with rapidly decreasing reservoir pressure and rising
GORs. Likewise, a reservoir with a large gas cap and a strong water drive may
show very little decline in reservoir pressure while exhibiting steadily
increasing GORs and WORs. Evaluation of these production trends is the
primary method a reservoir engineer has for determining the drive mechanisms
active in a reservoir.

The ultimate recovery obtained from a combination drive reservoir is a

function of the drive mechanisms active in the reservoir. The recovery may be
high or low depending on whether displacement or depletion drive
mechanisms dominate. Water drive and gas cap expansion are both
displacement type drive mechanisms and have relatively high recoveries.
Solution gas drive is a depletion type drive and is relatively inefficient.

Recovery from a combination drive reservoir can often be improved by

minimizing the effect of depletion drive mechanisms by substituting or
augmenting more efficient ones through production rate management or fluid
injection. To do this, the drive mechanisms active in a reservoir must be
identified early in its life.

1.2 Aims of Study:

The goal of this study is to :

1.Calculate original oil in place

2.Drive mechanism prediction

4
 Chapter Two

Literature Review

2.1 General Review

Tarek (2010) stated that material balance equation, (MBE) plays a major role
in most reservoir engineering calculations. It helps reservoir engineers to
constantly seek for ways to optimize hydrocarbon recovery by predicting the
future performance of the reservoir. We should note that the (MBE) simply
provides performance as a function of average reservoir pressure without the
fluid flow concepts. Combining the (MBE) and fluid flow concepts would
enable the engineer to predict the reservoir future production performance as
a function of time. Odeh & Havlena (1963) rearrange (MBE) into different
linear forms. This method requires the plotting of a variable group against
another variable group selected depending on the reservoir drive mechanism
and if linear relationship does not exist, then this deviation suggests that
reservoir is not performing as anticipated and other mechanisms are involved
which were not accounted for but once linearity has been achieved, based on
matching pressure and production data then a mathematical model has been
achieved. This technique is referred to as history matching. Therefore, the
application of the model enables predictions of the future reservoir
performance. There are several methods which have appeared in literatures for
predicting the performance solution gas behavior relating pressure decline to
gas-oil ratio and oil recovery. Tamer (1944) and Muskat (1945) proposed an
iterative technique to predict the performance of depletion (solution-gas) -
drive reservoirs under internal gas drive mechanism, using rock and fluid
properties. The assumptions of both methods include negligible gravity
segregation forces. These authors considered only thin, horizontal reservoirs.
Both methods use the material balance principle (static) and a producing gas-

5
oil ratio equation (dynamic) to predict reservoir performance at pressures. A
more detailed description of both methods appears in Craft and Hawkins Tracy
(1955) in the model developed for reservoir performance prediction, did not
consider oil reservoirs above the bubble-point pressure (under saturated
reservoir). It is normally started at the bubble-point pressure or at pressures
below. To use this method for predicting future performance, it is necessary to
choose the future pressures at which performance is desired. This means that
we need to select the pressure step to be used. Furthermore, among these
methods of reservoir performance prediction, none considered aquifer in the
(MBE) hence, the software developed for this study incorporated aquifer into
Tamer's method of reservoir performance prediction for solution gas drive.
Three aquifer models such as Hurst Van Everdingen (1947), Carter-Tracy
(1960) and Fetkovich (1971) were programmed to allow for flexibility Classic
analytical models of aquifers are relatively easy to program in computer
spreadsheets, provided that equation discretization is correctly done. With the
exception of the van Everdingen & Hurst, the models do not demand much
computer power. In the van Everdingen & Hurst, calculations of the previous
steps are redone at each time step added to the behavior, which represents a
bigger computational effort. The equation that rules the van Everdingen &
Hurst model is based on the superposition principle. Any numerical
calculation method for this model requires more computing power than other
models. Despite this drawback, it is the ideal model for comparisons, because
it faithfully represents the hydraulic diffusivity equation. Other proposed
models, such as Carter & Tracy, Fetkovich and Leung, sought t eliminate the
disadvantage of the required computing power and thus became more popular
in commercial flow simulators. The error of this model in computing the
accumulated influx is insignificant when compared to the base model (van
Everdingen & Hurst).

6
 2.2 Uses of MBE:

MBE, as a universal tool, has gained special attention from engineers and
researchers. Its role has been continuously enlarging by the input from
researchers. It started as a basic reservoir engineering tool to estimate the
relative importance of drive mechanism but later found a great variety of
applications to tackle several engineering tasks; currently, the MBE helps
to bridge, to a certain extent, the gap between reservoir and production
engineering. Production engineers use the “dynamic” material balance, and
it is proved to rival some of the classical approaches to analyze the
production data. Below are the primary uses of MBE:

1. Estimate the original oil in- place (N)

2. Predict Reservoir pressure.

3. Calculate water influx (We)

4. Predict future reservoir performance

5. Predict ultimate hydrocarbon recovery under various types of primary

drive mechanisms.

2.3 Reservoir Drives

Recovery of hydrocarbons from an oil reservoir is commonly recognised

to occur in several recovery stages. These are:

(i) Primary recovery

(ii) Secondary recovery

(iii) Tertiary recovery (Enhanced Oil Recovery, EOR)

(iv) Infill recovery

7
 Primary recovery This is the recovery of hydrocarbons from the
reservoir using the natural energy of the reservoir as a drive.

Secondary recovery This is recovery aided or driven by the injection

of water or gas from the surface.

Tertiary recovery (EOR) There are a range of techniques broadly

labelled ‘Enhanced Oil Recovery’ that are applied to reservoirs in order to
improve flagging production.

Infill recovery Is carried out when recovery from the previous three
phases have been completed. It involves drilling cheap production holes
between existing boreholes to ensure that the whole reservoir has been fully
depleted of its oil.

During primary recovery the natural energy of the reservoir is used to

transport hydrocarbons towards and out of the production wells. There are
several different energy sources, and each gives rise to a drive mechanism:

2.3.1 Solution Gas Drive

This drive mechanism requires the reservoir rock to be completely surrounded
by impermeable barriers. As production occurs the reservoir pressure drops,
and the exsolution and expansion of the dissolved gases in the oil and water
provide most of the reservoirs drive energy. Small amounts of additional
energy are also derived from the expansion of the rock and water, and gas
exsolving and expanding from the water phase. The process is shown
schematically in Figure 2.1. A solution gas drive reservoir is initially either
considered to be undersaturated or saturated depending on its pressure:

· Undersaturated: Reservoir pressure > bubble point of oil.

· Saturated: Reservoir pressure ≤ bubble point of oil.

8
For an undersaturated reservoir no free gas exists until the reservoir pressure
falls below the bubble point. In this regime reservoir drive energy is provided
only by the bulk expansion of the reservoir rock and liquids (water and oil).

Figure 2.1: Solution Gas Drive

For a saturated reservoir, any oil production results in a drop in reservoir

pressure that causes bubbles of gas to exsolve and expand. When the gas
comes out of solution the oil (and water) shrink slightly. However, the volume
of the exsolved gas, and its subsequent expansion more than makes up for this.
Thus gas expansion is the primary reservoir drive for reservoirs below the
bubble point. Solution gas drive reservoirs show a particular characteristic
pressure, GOR and fluid production history. If the reservoir is initially
undersaturated, the reservoir pressure can drop by a great deal (several
hundred psi over a few months), see Figures 2.2 and 2.3. This is because of
the small compressibilities of the rock water and oil, compared to that of gas.
In this undersaturated phase, gas is only exsolved from the fluids in the well
bore, and consequently the GOR is low and constant. When the reservoir
reaches the bubble point pressure, the pressure declines less quickly due to the

9
formation of gas bubbles in the reservoir that expand taking up the volume
exited by produced oil and hence protecting against pressure drops. When this
happens, the GOR rises dramatically (up to 10 times). Further fall in reservoir
pressure, as production continues, can, however, lead to a decrease in GOR
again when reservoir pressures are such that the gas expands less in the
borehole. When the GOR initially rises, the oil production falls and artificial
lift systems are then instituted. Oil recovery from this type of reservoir is
typically between 20% and 30% of original oil in place (i.e. low). Of this only
0% to 5% of oil is recovered above the bubble point. There is usually no
production of water during oil recovery unless the reservoir pressure drops
sufficiently for the connate water to expand sufficiently to be mobile. Even in
this scenario little water is produced.

Fig. (3.2): Reservoir pressure trends for drive mechanisms

10
 Fig. (3.3): GOR trends for drive mechanisms

2.3.2 Gas Cap Drive

A gas cap drive reservoir usually benefits to some extent from solution gas
drive, but derives its main source of reservoir energy from the expansion of
the gas cap already existing above the reservoir.

The presence of the expanding gas cap limits the pressure decrease
experienced by the reservoir during production. The actual rate of pressure
decrease is related to the size of the gas cap. The GOR rises only slowly in the
early stages of production from such a reservoir because the pressure of the
gas cap prevents gas from coming out of solution in the oil and water. As
production continues, the gas cap expands pushing the gas-oil contact (GOC)
downwards (Figure 3.4). Eventually the GOC will reach the production wells
and the GOR will increase by large amounts (Figures 3.1 and 3.2). The slower
reduction in pressure experienced by gas cap reservoirs compared to solution
drive reservoirs results in the oil production rates being much higher
throughout the life of the reservoir, and needing artificial lift much later than
for solution drive reservoirs. Gas cap reservoirs produce very little or no water.

11
The recovery of gas cap reservoirs is better than for solution drive reservoirs
(20% to 40% OOIP). The recovery efficiency depends on the size of the gas
cap, which is a measure of how much latent energy there is available to drive
production, and how the reservoir is managed, i.e. how the energy resource is
used bearing in mind the geometric characteristics of the reservoir, economics
and equity considerations. Points of importance to bear in mind when
managing a gas cap reservoir are:

· Steeply dipping reservoir oil columns are best.

· Thick oil columns are best, and are perforated at the base, as far away from
the gas cap as possible. This is to maximize the time before gas breaks through
in the well.

· Wells with increasing GOR (gas cap breakthrough) can be shut in to reduce
field wide GOR.

· Produced gas can be separated and immediately injected back into the gas
cap to maintain gas cap pressure.

Fig. (3.4): Gas cap drive reservoir.

12
2.3.3 Water Drive

The drive energy is provided by an aquifer that interfaces with the oil in the
reservoir at the oil-water contact (OWC). As production continues, and oil is
extracted from the reservoir, the aquifer expands into the reservoir displacing
the oil. Clearly, for most reservoirs, solution gas drive will also be taking place,
and there may also be a gas cap contributing to the primary recovery. Two
types of water drive are commonly recognised:

· Bottom water drive (Figure 3.5)

· Edge water drive (Figure 3.5)

The pressure history of a water driven reservoir depends critically upon:

(i) The size of the aquifer.

(ii) The permeability of the aquifer.

(iii) The reservoir production rate.

13
 Fig. (3.5): Water drive

If the production rate is low, and the size and permeability of the aquifer is
high, then the reservoir pressure will remain high because all produced oil is
replaced efficiently with water. If the production rate is too high then the
extracted oil may not be able to be replaced by water in the same timescale,
especially if the aquifer is small or low permeability. In this case the reservoir
pressure will fall (Figure 3.1). The GOR remains very constant in a strongly
water driven reservoir (Figure 3.2), as the pressure decrease is small and
constant, whereas if the pressure decrease is higher (weakly

14
water driven reservoir) the GOR increases due to gas exsolving from the oil
and water in the reservoir. Likewise the oil production from a strongly water
driven reservoir remains fairly constant until water breakthrough occurs.
Using analogous arguments to the gas cap drive, it can be seen that thick oil
columns are again an advantage, but the wells are perforated high in the oil
zone to delay the water breakthrough. When water breakthrough does occur
the well can either be shut-down, or assisted using gas lift. Reinjection of water
into the aquifer is seldom done because the injected water usually just
disappears into the aquifer with no effect on aquifer pressure. The recovery
from water driven reservoirs is usually good (20-60% OOIP, Table 3.1),
although the exact figure depends on the strength of the aquifer and the
efficiency with which the water displaces the oil in the reservoir, which
depends on reservoir structure, production well placing, oil viscosity, and
production rate. If the ratio of water to oil viscosity is large, or the production
rate is high then fingering can occur which leaves oil behind in the reservoir
(Figure 3.6).

Fig. (3.6): Fingering in water drive reservoir

15
2.3.4 Gravity Drainage

The density differences between oil and gas and water result in their natural
segregation in the reservoir. This process can be used as a drive mechanism,
but is relatively weak, and in practice is only used in combination with other
drive mechanisms. Figure 3.7 shows production by gravity drainage.

The best conditions for gravity drainage are:

· Thick oil zones.

· High vertical permeabilities.

The rate of production engendered by gravity drainage is very low compared

with the other drive mechanisms examined so far. However, it is extremely
efficient over long periods and can give rise to extremely high recoveries (50-
70% OOIP, Table 3.1). Consequently, it is often used in addition to the other
drive mechanisms.

Fig. (3.6): Gravity drainage drive

16
2.3.5 Combination or Mixed Drive

In practice a reservoir usually incorporates at least two main drive

mechanisms. For example, in the case shown in Figure 3.8. We have seen that
the management of the reservoir for different drive mechanisms can be
diametrically opposed (e.g. low perforation for gas cap reservoirs compared
with high perforation for water drive reservoirs). If both occur as in Figure 3.8,
a compromise must be sought, and this compromise must take into account the
strength of each drive present, the size of the gas cap, and the size/permeability
of the aquifer. It is the job of the reservoir manager to identify the strengths of
the drives as early as possible in the life of the reservoir to optimise the
reservoir performance.

Fig. (3.7): Combination or Mixed Drive

17
 Chapter Three
Theoretical Background

3.1 Derivative of Material Balance Equation:

The equation is structured to simply keep inventory of all materials
entering, leaving and accumulating in the reservoir. The concept of the
material balance equation was presented by Schilthuis in (1941). In its
simplest form, the equation can be written on volumetric basis as:

Initial volume = volume remaining + volume removed ……...….(3-1)

Since oil, gas and water are present in petroleum reservoirs, the material
balance equation can be expressed for the total fluids or for any one of the
fluids present. Before deriving the material balance, it is convenient to denote
certain terms by symbols for brevity. The symbols used conform where
possible to the standard nomenclature adopted by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers.

Several of the material balance calculations require the total pore volume
(P.V) as expressed in terms of the initial oil volume N and the volume of the
gas cap. The expression for the total pore volume can be Oil Recovery
Mechanisms and the Material Balance Equation derived by conveniently
introducing the parameter m into the relationship as follows:

Defining the ratio (m) as:

initial volume of gas cap GBgi

m= = = ……………….…..…(3-2)
volume of initial oil in place NBoi
Solving for the volume of the gas cap gives:
Initial volume of the gas cap = G Bgi = m N Boi ………….……......(3-3)
The total volume of the hydrocarbon system is then given by:
Initial oil volume + initial gas cap volume = (P.V) (1 − Swi) ….…..(3-4)

18
N Boi + m N Boi = (P.V) (1 − Swi) ………………………….…......(3-5)
NBoi (1+ m)
P.V= ……...…………………………….……………......(3-6)
1 - Swi
Where:
(Swi) = initial water saturation
N = initial oil in place, STB
P.V = total pore volume, bbl
m = ratio of initial gas-cap-gas reservoir volume to initial reservoir oil
volume, bbl/bbl

The MBE can be written in a generalized form as follows:

Pore volume occupied by the oil initially in place at pi

+
Pore volume occupied by the gas in the gas cap at pi
=
Pore volume occupied by the remaining oil at p
+
Pore volume occupied by the gas in the gas cap at p
+
Pore volume occupied by the evolved solution gas at p
+
Pore volume occupied by the net water influx at p
+
Change in pore volume due to connate water expansion and pore
Volume reduction due to rock expansion
+
Pore volume occupied by the injected gas at p
+
Pore volume occupied by the injected water at p ………………...(3_7)

19
 Figure (3.1) Tank – Model concept

Pore Volume Occupied by the Oil Initially in Place:

Volume occupied by initial oil in place = N Boi ………………..…(3-8)

Where:
N = oil initially in place, STB
Boi = oil formation volume factor at initial reservoir pressure (pi),
bbl/STB
Pore Volume Occupied by the Gas in the Gas Cap:

Volume of gas cap = m N Boi ……………………………………...(3-9)

Where:

m: is a dimensionless parameter and defined as the ratio of gas-cap

volume to the oil zone volume.

Pore Volume Occupied by the Remaining Oil:

Volume of the remaining oil = (N − Np) ……………………....…(3-10)

Where:

Np = cumulative oil production, STB

Bo = oil formation volume factor at reservoir pressure p, bbl/STB

20
Pore Volume Occupied by the Gas Cap at Reservoir Pressure p:

As the reservoir pressure drops to a new level p, the gas in the gas cap
expands and occupies a larger volume. Assuming no gas is produced from
the gas cap during the pressure decline, the new volume of the gas cap can
be determined as:
mNBoi
Volume of the gas cap at p= [ ] Bg ….…………………..…..(3-11)
Bgi

Where:

Bgi = gas formation volume factor at initial reservoir pressure, bbl/scf

Bg = current gas formation volume factor, bbl/scf

Pore Volume Occupied by the Evolved Solution Gas:

This volumetric term can be determined by applying the following

material balance on the solution gas:

Volume of the evolved solution gas = [volume of gas initially in solution]-

[volume of gas Produced] – [volume of gas remaining in solution]

Volume of the evolved solution gas =

[N Rsi – Np Rp − (N − Np) Rs] Bg ……………………………..…(3-12)

Where:

Np = cumulative oil produced, STB

Rp = net cumulative produced gas-oil ratio, scf/STB

Rs = current gas solubility factor, scf/STB

Bg = current gas formation volume factor, bbl/scf

Rsi = gas solubility at initial reservoir pressure, scf/STB

21
Pore Volume Occupied by the Net Water Influx:

Net water influx =We −Wp Bw……………………………….….(3-13)

Where:

We = cumulative water influx, bbl

Wp = cumulative water produced, STB

Bw = water formation volume factor, bbl/STB

Change in Pore Volume Due to Initial Water and Rock Expansion:

The component describing the reduction in the hydrocarbon pore volume due
to the expansion of initial (connate) water and the reservoir rock cannot be
neglected for an under saturated oil reservoir. The water compressibility
(Cw) and rock compressibility (Cf) are generally of the same order of
magnitude as the compressibility of the oil. The effect of these two
components, however, can be generally neglected for gas-cap-drive reservoir
or when the reservoir pressure drops below the bubble-point pressure. The
compressibility coefficient (C) which describes the changes in the volume
(expansion) of the fluid or material with changing pressure is given by:

1 𝜟𝒑
C =− ……………………………………………………….….(3-14)
v 𝜟𝑽

Or

ΔV = V C Δp…………………………………………….……….....(3-15)

Where (ΔV) represent the net changes or expansion of the material as a result
of changes in the pressure. Therefore, the reduction in the pore volume due
to the expansion of the connate water in the oil zone and the gas cap is given
by:

22
 Connate water expansion = [(pore volume) Swi] Cw Δp ……..…(2-16)

Substituting for the pore volume (P.V) with Equation (2-16) gives:

NBoi (1+m)
Expansion of connate water = Sw Cw Δp….…...…….(2-17)
1 - Swi

Where:

Δp = change in reservoir pressure, pi − p

Cw = water compressibility coefficient, psi−1

m = ratio of the volume of the gas-cap gas to the reservoir oil volume,
bbl/bbl

Similarly, the reduction in the pore volume due to the expansion of the
Reservoir rock is given by:

NBoi (1+ m)
Change in pore volume = cf Δp…………………....….(3-18)
1 - Swi

Combining the expansions of the connate water and formation as

represented by Equations (3-17) and (3-18) gives:

Swi Cw + Cf
Total change in pore volume =NBoi (1+ m) 𝜟𝒑 .....(3-19)
1 - Swi

23
Pore Volume Occupied by the Injection Gas and Water:

Assuming that (Ginj) volumes of gas and (Winj) volumes of water have
been injected for pressure maintenance, the total pore volume occupied

by the two injected fluids is given by:

Total volume = Ginj Bginj +Winj Bw ………...……………………(3-20)

Where:

Ginj = cumulative gas injected, scf

Bginj = injected gas formation volume factor, bbl/scf

Winj = cumulative water injected, STB

Bw = water formation volume factor, bbl/STB

Combining Equations (2-8) through (2-20) with Equation (2-7) and

rearranging gives:
NpBo + (Gp - NpRs)Bg - (We WpBw) - Ginj Bginj - Winj Bw
N= Bg Swi Cw + Cf ...(3-21)
(Bo - Boi) + (Rsi- Rs)Bg + mBoi [ - 1]+Boi (1+m)[ ]Δp
Bgi 1 - Swi

Where:

N = initial oil in place, STB

Gp = cumulative gas produced, scf

Np = cumulative oil produced, STB

Rsi = gas solubility at initial pressure, scf/STB

m = ratio of gas-cap gas volume to oil volume, bbl/bbl

Bgi = gas formation volume factor at pi, bbl/scf

Bginj = gas formation volume factor of the injected gas, bbl/scf

24
The cumulative gas produced Gp can be expressed in terms of the
cumulative gas-oil ratio Rp and cumulative oil produced Np by:

Gp = Rp Np ………………….…………………………………….(3-22)

Combining Equation 2-22with Equation 2-21 gives:

𝑵𝒑[𝑩𝒐+(𝑹𝒑 − 𝑹𝒔)𝑩𝒈]−(𝑾𝒆 − 𝑾𝒑𝑩𝒘) − 𝑮𝒊𝒏𝒋𝑩𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒋 − 𝑾𝒊𝒏𝒋 𝑩𝒊𝒏𝒋

N= 𝑩𝒈 𝑺𝒘𝒊 𝑪𝒘 + 𝑪𝒇 .... (3-23)
(𝑩𝒐 − 𝑩𝒐𝒊)+(𝑹𝒔𝒊 − 𝑹𝒔)𝑩𝒈+𝒎𝑩𝒐𝒊[ − 𝟏]+𝑩𝒐𝒊 (𝟏+𝒎)[ ]𝜟𝒑
𝑩𝒈𝒊 𝟏 − 𝑺𝒘𝒊

The above relationship is referred to as the (material balance equation)

(MBE). A more convenient form of the MBE can be determined by
introducing the concept of the total (two-phase) formation volume factor
Bt into the equation. This oil PVT property is defined as:

Bt = Bo + (Rsi − Rs) Bg ………………………….………………..(3-24)

Introducing Bt into Equation (2-23) and assuming, for sake of simplicity,

no water or gas injection gives:

𝑵𝒑[𝑩𝒕+(𝑹𝒑 − 𝑹𝒔𝒊)𝑩𝒈]−(𝑾𝒆 − 𝑾𝒑𝑩𝒘)

N= 𝑩𝒈 𝑺𝒘𝒊 𝑪𝒘 + 𝑪𝒇 ………..….……(3-25)
(𝑩𝒕 − 𝑩𝒕𝒊)+𝒎𝑩𝒕𝒊 [ − 𝟏]+𝑩𝒕𝒊(𝟏+𝒎)[ ]𝜟𝒑
𝑩𝒈𝒊 𝟏 − 𝑺𝒘𝒊

Where:

Swi = initial water saturation

Rp = cumulative produced gas-oil ratio, scf/STB

Δp = change in the volumetric average reservoir pressure, psi

25
In a combination drive reservoir where all the driving mechanisms are
simultaneously present, it is of practical interest to determine the relative
magnitude of each of the driving mechanisms and its contribution to the
production rearranging Equation (2-23) gives:

Cw Swi+Cf
N(Bt – Bti) NmBti (Bg – Bgi)/ Bgi We – WpBw NBoi (1+m)[ ](Pi – P)
1 – Swi
+ + + =𝟏
A A A A

…....(3-26)

with the parameter A as defined by:

A = Np [Bt + (Rp − Rsi) Bg] ………………………………..……...(3-27)

Equation (2-26) can be abbreviated and expressed as:

DDI + SDI + WDI + EDI = 1.0 ……….…………...……………..(3-28)

Where:

DDI = depletion-drive index

SDI = segregation (gas-cap)-drive index

WDI = water-drive index

EDI = expansion (rock and liquid)-depletion index

The four terms of the left-hand side of Equation (3-28) represent the major
primary driving mechanisms by which oil may be recovered from oil

26
reservoirs. As presented earlier in this chapter, these driving forces are:

a. Depletion Drive
Depletion drive is the oil recovery mechanism wherein the production
of the oil from its reservoir rock is achieved by the expansion of the
original oil volume with all its original dissolved gas. This driving
mechanism is represented mathematically by the first term of Equation
(3-26) or:

DDI = N (Bt − Bti)/A

Where: (DDI) is termed the depletion-drive index.

b. Segregation Drive.
Segregation drive (gas-cap drive) is the mechanism wherein the
displacement of oil from the formation is accomplished by the
expansion of the original free gas cap. This driving force is described
by the second term of Equation (2-26) or:

SDI = [N m Bti (Bg − Bgi)/Bgi]/A

Where: (SDI) is termed the segregation-drive index.

c. Water Drive.
Water drive is the mechanism wherein the displacement of the oil is
accomplished by the net encroachment of water into the oil zone. This

27
 mechanism is represented by the third term of Equation (3-26) or:

WDI = (We −Wp Bw)/A

Where: (WDI) is termed the water-drive index.

d. Expansion Drive.
For under saturated oil reservoirs with no water influx, the principle
source of energy is a result of the rock and fluid expansion. Where all
the other three driving mechanisms are contributing to the production
of oil and gas from the reservoir, the contribution of the rock and fluid
expansion to the oil recovery is too small and essentially negligible and
can be ignored.

CW Swi + C f
NBoi (1+m)[ ](Pi – Pi)
1 – Swi
EDI =
A

Where:

EDI: Expansion Drive index

3.2 Material balance equation as straight line:

The general MBE, Equation (2-23), may be gained by considering the
physical significance of the following groups of terms of which it is
comprised:

Oil expansion and dissolved gas:

Eo = (Bo – Boi) + (Rsi – Rs) Bg (RB/STB) ………...………….…...(3-29)

28
Gas expansion:

Eg = Boi (Bg/Bgi – 1) (RB/STB) …………………….………………(3-30)

Expansion of connate water and reduction in the pore volume

Cw Swc+Cf RB
Efw = (1+m) Boi ( )( )……………..………….……..(3-31)
1– Swc STB

Underground withdrawal:

F = Np [Bo + ( Rp – Rs )Bg ] + WP Bw (RB) ……….…...…...…....(3-32)

This is reduced to the form:

F = N [Eo + mEg + Efw ) + We Bw ……………..……………...…..(2-33)

3.3 The Straight-Line Solution Method To The MBE:

The straight-line solution method requires the plotting of a variable group
versus another variable group, with the variable group selection depending
on the mechanism of production under which the reservoir is producing.
The most important aspect of this method of solution is that it attaches
significance the sequence of the plotted points, the direction in which they
plot, and to the shape of the resulting plot. The significance of the straight-
line approach is that the sequence of plotting is important and if the plotted

29
data deviates from this straight line there is some reason for it. This
significant observation will provide the engineer with valuable information
that can be used in determining the following unknowns:

- Initial oil in place N

- Size of the gas cap m

- Water influx We.

- Driving mechanism

The remainder of this chapter is devoted to illustrations of the use of the

straight-line solution method in determining N, m, and We for different
reservoir mechanisms.

Case1. Volumetric Under saturated-Oil Reservoirs

Assuming no water or gas injection, the linear form of the MBE as
expressed by Equation (3-23) can be written as:

F = N [Eo + m Eg + Ef,w] +We …………………...………...…(3-34)

Several terms in the above relationship may disappear when imposing the
conditions associated with the assumed reservoir driving mechanism. For
a volumetric and under saturated reservoir, the conditions associated with
driving mechanism are:

- We = 0, since the reservoir is volumetric.

- m = 0, since the reservoir is under saturated.

- Rs = Rsi = Rp, since all produced gas is dissolved in the oil.

30
Applying the above conditions on Equation (2-34) gives:

F = N (Eo + Ef,w) ………………………………………………...(3-35)

Where:

N = initial oil in place, STB

F = Np Bo +Wp Bw.

Eo = Bo – Boi

When drawing F (Underground withdrawal) versus (Eo+Ef,w) result

straight line pass through the origin with slop equal N.

Figure (3_2) Underground withdrawal versus (Eo Ef,w)

31
Case2. Volumetric Saturated-Oil Reservoirs
An oil reservoir that originally exists at its bubble-point pressure is referred
to as a saturated oil reservoir. The main driving mechanism in this type of
reservoir results from the liberation and expansion of the solution gas as the
pressure drops below the bubble-point pressure. The only unknown is the
initial oil in place N. Assuming that the water and rock expansion term Ef,w
is negligible in comparison with the expansion of solution gas, Equation (2-
33) can be simplified as:

F = N Eo …………………………….………………………………(2-36)

Where:
F the underground withdrawal and Eo the oil expansion :

F = Np [Bt + (Rp − Rsi) Bg] +Wp Bw

Eo = Bt – Bti
When drawing F (Underground withdrawal) versus (Eo) result straight line
pass through the origin with slop equal N.

Figure (3_3) Underground (F) versus (Eo)

32
Case3: Gas-Cap-Drive Reservoirs

For a reservoir in which the expansion of the gas-cap gas is the predominant
driving mechanism and assuming that the natural water influx is negligible
(We = 0), the effect of water and pore compressibility can be considered
negligible. Under these conditions, the Havlena-Odeh material balance can
be expressed as:

F = N [Eo + m Eg] ……………..…………………………………..(2-37)

Where Eg is defined by Equation (2-30) as:

Eg = Boi [(Bg/Bgi) − 1]

F = Np [Bt + (Rp − Rsi) Bg] +Wp

Eo = Bt – Bti

When plot (F / Eo) versus (Eg /Eo) result straight line with intercept equal to
(N) and slop equal to (Nm) shown in figure (2-4):

Figure (2_4) plot (F Eo) versus (Eg Eo)

33
3.4 METHODOLOGY

The methodology employed in this study is as outlined below:

➢ Data gathering and data Quality Check

➢ PVT Analysis for reservoirs

➢ Reservoir Modeling at Tank level and Fractional flow matching

➢ Production forecasting/predictions

➢ Work over reservoir

➢ Economic Analysis of the developmental plan

➢ Propose a reservoir development plan based on the analysis.

Below are the details of the methodology:

3.4.1 DATA GATHERING

All available and accessible Geological data (STOIIP, Reservoir radius,

Outer/Inner Radius Ratio and Encroachment Angle), Petrophysical data
(Porosity, connate water saturation, Rock compressibility, relative
Permeability, Initial Reservoir Pressure and thickness, Water Salinity and
Aquifer properties), Reservoir data (Reservoir Temperature, GOR, API
gravity and Fluid properties), Well Historical Production Data and
Productivity Index (PI) were gathered, quality checked and converted to the
necessary/required formats.

34
 Figure 3.5: Methodology outline

3.4.2 PVT ANALYSIS FOR FOUR OF THE RESERVOIRs.

PVT is key in characterizing reservoir fluid, and can be obtained via three (3)
basic routes (depending on the type of data available).

3.4.2.1 PVT Analysis Methodology (Using Correlations)

PVT properties were estimated for the reservoir by testing all available Black
Oil Correlations in MBAL. Black oil correlations with the best PVT match
was selected, and used for estimating PVT properties for the reservoir.

35
3.4.3 THE RESERVOIRS MBAL MODEL

The reservoirs were modeled using MBAL. The workflow for MBAL
reservoir modeling is shown such as figure below:

Figure (3.6): An Example of MBAL Model.

3.4.3.1 Reservoir Modeling (At Tank Level)

The reservoirs will be modeled at Tank level (using a material balance tool
MBAL, in the IPM Suite) with the aim of matching production and pressure,
running predictions, determining the reservoir drive mechanisms.

3.4.3.2 Reservoir Modelling Assumptions

The following assumptions were adopted:

➢ The reservoirs are assumed to be a Tank (Figure).

➢ The reservoirs are assumed to be homogenous (thus, they have uniform

reservoir properties).

➢ The reservoir Pressure and Temperature are uniformly distributed.

36
3.4.3.3 Input Data

The key input data for building the MBAL model of the reservoirs include;
PVT, production and pressure, average reservoir/petrophysical parameters,
and depth versus pore volume from the geological static model.

3.4.3.4 History Matching

The reservoirs production (oil, water and gas) and pressures were matched (via
tank and wells for quality check purpose) by regressing on reservoir
parameters with high uncertainty (outer/inner radius, reservoir radius,
encroachment angle, aquifer constant).

After generating history matching MBAL program give a calculation of OOIP

and production predictions for later years of field life.

37
 Chapter Four

Work Scope and Result

4.1 Description

This case study taken from an Iraqi oil field . The case study has been studied
and estimation/prediction of the example has also been carried out.

4.2 Methodology

The methodology employed in this study is as outlined below:

➢ Data gathering and data Quality Check

➢ PVT Analysis for reservoirs

➢ Reservoir Modeling at Tank level and Fractional flow matching

➢ Production forecasting/predictions

➢ Workover reservoir

➢ Economic Analysis of the developmental plan

➢ Propose a reservoir development plan based on the analysis.

38
Below are the details of the methodology:

4.2.1 DATA GATHERING

All available and accessible Geological data (STOIIP, Reservoir radius,

Outer/Inner Radius Ratio and Encroachment Angle), Petrophysical data
(Porosity, connate water saturation, Rock compressibility, relative
Permeability, Initial Reservoir Pressure and thickness, Water Salinity and
Aquifer properties), Reservoir data (Reservoir Temperature, GOR, API
gravity and Fluid properties), Well Historical Production Data and
Productivity Index (PI) were gathered, quality checked and converted to the
necessary/required formats.

Figure 3.5: Methodology outline

39
4.2.2 PVT ANALYSIS FOR FOUR OF THE RESERVOIRs.

PVT is key in characterizing reservoir fluid, and can be obtained via three (3)
basic routes (depending on the type of data available).

4.2.2.1 PVT Analysis Methodology (Using Correlations)

PVT properties were estimated for the reservoir by testing all available Black
Oil Correlations in MBAL. Black oil correlations with the best PVT match
was selected, and used for estimating PVT properties for the reservoir.

4.2.3 THE RESERVOIRS MBAL MODEL

The reservoirs were modeled using MBAL. The workflow for MBAL
reservoir modeling is shown such as figure below:

Figure (3.6): An Example of MBAL Model.

40
4.2.3.1 Reservoir Modeling (At Tank Level)

The reservoirs will be modeled at Tank level (using a material balance tool
MBAL, in the IPM Suite) with the aim of matching production and pressure,
running predictions, determining the reservoir drive mechanisms.

4.2.3.2 Reservoir Modelling Assumptions

The following assumptions were adopted:

➢ The reservoirs are assumed to be a Tank (Figure).

➢ The reservoirs are assumed to be homogenous (thus, they have uniform

reservoir properties).

➢ The reservoir Pressure and Temperature are uniformly distributed.

4.2.3.3 Input Data

The key input data for building the MBAL model of the reservoirs include;
PVT, production and pressure, average reservoir/petrophysical parameters,
and depth versus pore volume from the geological static model.

4.2.3.4 History Matching

The reservoirs production (oil, water and gas) and pressures were matched (via
tank and wells for quality check purpose) by regressing on reservoir
parameters with high uncertainty (outer/inner radius, reservoir radius,
encroachment angle, aquifer constant).

After generating history matching MBAL program give a calculation of OOIP

and production predictions for later years of field life.

41
 4.3 Procedure

1. Setting up the Problem

The session begins by clearing all previous calculations. (Click – File – New).
Changes of previous work can also be saved. (Select - Tool - Material Balance),
then options from the main menu is selected.

Figure 4.1: System Options

The type of the Reservoir Fluid, tank model, PVT model and information
regarding the company have been entered as shown in Figure 4.1. There is also
space provided by the software to add user’s comments.
1. PVT Menu
PVT option is clicked and then Fluid properties have been entered. The
fluid properties can be seen in appendix.
42
 Figure 4.2: PVT Data

The PVT values in the following input parameters are entered as shown in
figure 4.2. Then click on match.
.

Figure 4.3: Oil Matching

The Pressure, Gas Oil Ratio, Oil FVF, Oil viscosity, Gas FVF, Gas viscosity
in the matching parameters and also the temperature and bubble point values
have been entered as shown in figure 6.3.

43
2. Match parameters

The Match Parameters option is clicked and the various correlations are
evaluated. Selection of the correlation, which had the lowest error is feasible.
This can be seen in the figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Matching correlations

3. Input Data

The input menu is clicked which is next to PVT menu on the top column bar.
The various input data such as Name of the tank, Temperature, Initial Pressure,
Porosity, Connate Water Saturation, Water Compressibility, Initial Gas Cap,
Original Oil in Place (assumption) and start date of production from the
reservoir have been entered as shown in figure 6.5.
44
 Figure 4.5: Tank Parameters

The water influx model details are also entered if there is any water influx in
the tank. The example taken in this project has a water influx and the model
selected is shown in figure 4.6.

Figure 6.6: Water Influx Parameters

The model selected here is Hurst-van Everdingen as presented in the Dake

Textbook. Rock compressibility is clicked and the value have been entered as
shown in figure 4.7.

45
 Figure 4.7: Rock Compressibility

If there is no value given about the rock compressibility the value can be
taken from the available correlations or even can also select none if there is
no compressibility present.
The values of relative permeabilities if present in the given data are entered,
the values are shown in figure 4.8.

Figure 4.8: Relative Permeability

Now, the Production History Data as taken from the well data is entered.
This is shown in figure 4.9.
46
Chapter Four Work Scope and Result

Figure 4.9: Production History

4.3 Results

After entering the input parameters, the History Matching is the next step
which clarify the degree of performance of model between the actual and
predicted values of the reservoir parameters using program simulation as
shown in figure 4.11.

Figure 4.10: Analytical Model

The next step is about “Energy Plot” graph as shown in Figure 4.10.
47
Chapter Four Work Scope and Result

Figure 4.10: Energy Plot

Form Energy plot, we can identify to the natural drives which control
the production of reservoir fluids. The result shown that three types of drives
do this work. Firstly, fluid expansion drive which depending on the gas that
dissolved in the oil region, it contributes by 57% from all natural drives
contribution and this percent increase in the next stages.
Secondly, Pore volume compressibility drive which contributes by 7%
then vanished in the next stages of field life.
Thirdly, water drive which include the big amounts of water that
located in the bottom of reservoir. The figure show that drive contributes by
46% from the field production natural drives, then increased in the next step
and in the next stages when gas expansion increased the water drive
contribution decreased.

48
 Chapter Five
Conclusion and recommendation

5.1 Conclusion

- The material balance model was effective at history matching the

production performance of the reservoirs and at estimating the
current fluid contacts in the reservoirs, which was used to determine
the remaining oil in place.
- From the result of Energy Plot and Analytical Model, The drive mechanism of
the study reservoir is given by Fluid Expansion, PV Compressibility and Water
Influx represented in Pink, Green and Blue colours respectively, this show that
the reservoir have a good support aquifer. As observed from figure 6.12, a
good agreement between the assumed Oil in Place and the value from
regression can be seen. The Oil in Place is 313MMSTB.
5.2 Recommendation
From this work, the following recommendations are made:
- Addition to the method used (material balance method) that used in the field,
must use another method like decline curve analysis in the estimation and
prediction. Further analysis should be carried out on the reservoir. MBAL may
not be exactly accurate so a larger simulator could be used.
- Discrepancies in the data can be minimized by the acquisition of more data.
- Monte Carlo analysis is advised to act as another validator; it will enhance the
credibility or viability of the estimate.

49
 References

[1] Mosobalaje, O. O., Onuh, C. Y., & Seteyeobot, I. (2015, August). A new
solution methodology to the material balance equation, for saturated
reservoirs. In SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition.
OnePetro.
[2] Nasar, A., Abusaleem, J., & Tabar, E. (2018). Estimation of Original Oil
in Place for Belhedan Oil Field by Using Volumetric Method, Material
Balance Equation Method, and Reservoir Simulation Method.
[3] Ahmed, S., Elwegaa, K., Htawish, M., & Alhaj, H. (2019). Determination
of the oil initial in place, reserves, and production performance of the Safsaf
C Oil Reservoir. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 8(2),
86-97.
[4] Suhail, A. A., Kadhim, F. S., & Hafiz, M. H. (2020). Oil initially in place
calculation by geologic and dynamic methods in Nahr Umar formation of
Nasiriya oil field. Journal of Petroleum Research and Studies, 10(3), 1-20.
[5] Ahmed, T. (2010). Reservoir Engineering Handbook (4th ed.). Gulf
Professional Publishing.
[6] Al-Musawi F.A., Idan R.M., Salih A.L.M., Reservoir Properties and Facies
Distribution of Mishrif Formation in Ratawi Oilfield, Southern Iraq. In:
Rossetti F. et al. (eds) The Structural Geology Contribution to the Africa-
Eurasia Geology: Basement and Reservoir Structure, Ore Mineralisation and
Tectonic Modelling. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation (IEREK
Interdisciplinary Series for Sustainable Development). Springer, Cham, 2019
[7] Rashid, M. M. U. (2018). Development of a modified material balance
equation for complex reservoirs with the inclusion of fluid velocity (Doctoral
dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland).
[8] ALAMARA, H. (2020-2021). Petroleum Reservoirs Material Balance

50
Equation [Class Lecture Notes]. University of Miskolc, Miskolc,
MFKOT730026.
[9] Ahmed, T. Hydrocarbon Phase Behavior. Houston: Gulf Publishing
company, 1989
[10] Dake, L. P. The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
NJ, 1994
[11] Dake L.P. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier, 1983
[12] Fetkovich, M. J, "A Simplified Approach to Water Influx Calculations-
Finite Aquifer Systems", JPT, 1971
[13] Frank W. Cole “Reservoir Engineering Manual”, Gulf Publishing; 2Rev
Ed edition, June 1969
[14] Glaso, O., "Generalized Pressure Volume-Temperature Correlations",
May 1980
[15] Nnaemeka Ezekwe, Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Practice, Prentice-
Hall, USA,2011
[16] Petroleum experts, MBAL, Hand Tool Kit, version 8.1, December 2005
[17] Shah MD. Sirajus Salekin, “Optimization of a Saldanadi gas field of
Bangladesh”, University of Stavanger, Norway, 2011
[18] http://www.petex.com/products/ipm-suite/mbal/

51
Appendix-A

52
- Data for Case Study
Table A1.1: PVT data

53
Table A1.2: Aquifer and Relative permeability data

Table A1.3: Case Study Production Data

54