Tunisian Republic

Ministry of Higher Education

Training Cycle Engineering

Petroleum Department Muni
Project

Department of Engineering Petroleum

Private Polytechnic Institute of Advanced Sciences of Sfax

MUNI PROJECT

PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR

SNARK FIELD

Prepared by: TEACHER:

SAROUGI GARBA ABDOUL NASSER MOUNIR CHOUIKHI
BA IDRISSA

1
Academic year: 2023/2024
 SUMMURY

I. INTRODUCTION
II. RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
III. HISTORY MATCHING
IV. WATER FLOODING DESCRIPTION
V. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
V.1 CONSTRAINTS
V.2 CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING NEW WELLS
VI. ECONOMICS STUDIES
VI.1 BASE CASE
VI.2 DEVELOPMENT CASE
VII. CONCLUSION

2
 I. INTRODUCTION

In light of the ever-increasing global demand for hydrocarbons, the imperative to enhance oil
and gas production both efficiently and economically has become paramount. As the rate of
new discoveries experiences a decline annually, the adoption of enhanced recovery techniques
becomes increasingly crucial to meet the energy demands of the future.
In this context, we embark on a comprehensive endeavor to propose a robust development plan
for the SNARK field. This plan is meticulously crafted, taking into account a myriad of
constraints and challenges that characterize the unique dynamics of the SNARK reservoir. By
addressing these intricacies, we aim to optimize the field's hydrocarbon recovery potential,
ensuring a sustainable and economically viable strategy.
The SNARK field, like many mature oil and gas fields, presents its own set of complexities,
ranging from geological considerations to production challenges. Our proposal seeks to
navigate through these intricacies by integrating cutting-edge technologies, reservoir
engineering insights, and operational strategies. The ultimate goal is to unlock untapped
reserves, maximize recovery rates, and extend the economic viability of the SNARK field.
This comprehensive development plan considers not only the technical aspects of reservoir
management but also the economic and environmental dimensions. Sustainability, efficiency,
and adaptability are at the forefront of our strategy, aligning with the evolving landscape of the
oil and gas industry.
As we delve into the details of the SNARK field's unique characteristics, challenges, and
opportunities, this proposal aims to provide a roadmap for its sustainable development. Through
innovative methodologies and a holistic approach, we aspire to contribute to the longevity and
success of the SNARK field within the broader context of the global energy landscape.

II. RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION

The SNARK field, currently in its primary recovery phase, is a reservoir of significant
geological intricacy and potential. Geological investigations have revealed the existence of a
stratigraphy comprising 12 distinct reservoir layers. Seismic data further suggests the presence
of an aquifer connected to the field, predominantly from the southern direction, adding a layer
of complexity to the reservoir dynamics.

3
To gain insights into the field's future production potential, an extensive simulation study
utilizing ECLIPSE is on the horizon. The initial step involves constructing a base case
simulation model, which will undergo calibration through history matching against past
production measurements. This meticulous approach aims to enhance the accuracy of our
predictions and align them with the field's historical performance.
Key Dimensions of the Simulation Model :
Considering the available data and computational resources, the decision was made to employ
a 3D model for the simulation. This model encompasses 12 layers, mirroring the geological
strata, with 24 columns of cells in the lateral direction (X direction) and 25 rows of cells in the
transverse direction (Y direction), denoted as 24X25X12. The aquifer's presence will be
incorporated through an analytical aquifer model based on Fetkovich's principles.
Operational Configuration :
The field currently hosts five producers strategically positioned across the reservoir. Producers
in close proximity to the aquifer might undergo a transformation, potentially transitioning into
injectors in subsequent stages. The operational plan allows for the drilling of up to two infill
wells at a later date, adapting to the evolving dynamics of the reservoir.
This comprehensive approach to reservoir description and simulation sets the stage for a
detailed understanding of the SNARK field's complexities, paving the way for informed
decision-making and strategic development planning.

FIGURE 1 : Permeability Distribution

4
 FIGURE 2 : Reservoir description with faults and blocks

FIGURE 3: Reservoir description with layers

5
III. HISTORY MATCHING
History matching is a fundamental process in reservoir engineering, encompassing the
construction of one or more sets of numerical models that seek to accurately replicate observed
and measured data from the reservoir. It is essential to acknowledge certain key aspects during
the course of history matching:
 Reservoir models are intricate representations rather than direct reflections of the
complex reality of subsurface formations. Inherent errors and approximations are
inevitable in any model capturing physical phenomena.
 The history matching process is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Its ultimate
purpose is to inform decision-making processes related to reservoir management and
development strategies.
 The inputs to reservoir models are subject to uncertainties, and the degree of uncertainty
is often greater than initially estimated. Recognizing and addressing these uncertainties
are vital for the robustness of the history matching exercise.
 Observable data used for history matching always contains some level of errors,
regardless of their magnitude. Acknowledging and understanding these imperfections
are crucial for achieving meaningful calibration.
 In essence, history matching is a dynamic and iterative process that involves refining
reservoir models to align with actual field performance. It serves as a powerful tool for
optimizing reservoir management strategies and making informed decisions in the face
of inherent uncertainties and the complex nature of subsurface reservoirs.

6
We performed history matching using the data provided in the table below to refine and
validate our reservoir model.

Fault Transmissibility Multiplier

Aquifer initial volume (stb)

1 x 10^9

Aquifer PI

10

For the upcoming reservoir forecast in our Plan of Development (POD), we will utilize the
Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) data available in the table below.

7
 Limit BHP

Prod1 874 psi

Prod2 897 psi

Prod3 940 psi

Prod4 990 psi

Producer 911 psi

V. WATER FLOODING DESCRIPTION

Water flooding is often applied in mature oil fields where the natural pressure has declined,
making it more challenging to recover oil using primary production methods. It is a cost-
effective and widely used secondary recovery method that can significantly extend the
productive life of an oil reservoir.
Water Flooding is the most common method of secondary recovery. Reasonsare:
 Water is an efficient agent for displacing oil of light to medium gravity.
 Water is relatively easy to inject into oil-bearing formations.
 Water is generally available and inexpensive.
 Waterflooding involves relatively lower capital investment and operating costs,
leading to favorable economics

8
The major objectives from a wateflood design inclue:

 Maximize secondary oil recovery within the economic, technological…..

 Maximize the contact with oil, specifically if zones of high residual oil saturation exist
in a heterogeneous reservoir.
 Minimize injection water cycling through the formation and handling of the water at
the surface facilities.
 Optimize water injection.
 Efficiently schedule conversion of producers to injectors.
 Drill infill wells to increase areal coverage and augment production.
 Minimize capital expenditures related to drilling new injectors or producers.
 Maximize the net present value of the asset based on returns within a relatively short
time horizon

Exemple of a successful water flooding performance

9
VI. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In the realm of enhanced oil recovery (EOR), secondary oil recovery serves as a pivotal phase
following primary recovery methods. Primary oil recovery entails exploiting the natural energy
of a reservoir, primarily relying on natural drainage and artificial well activation. However, as
the initial reservoir energy wanes, necessitating a more strategic approach to maintain or boost
hydrocarbon production rates, secondary recovery techniques come into play.

Secondary recovery methods, including water and gas injection, become indispensable for
unlocking additional reserves and maximizing the economic potential of an oil reservoir. These
techniques offer a considerable advantage over primary recovery, allowing for a more
significant increase in recovery rates. The economic feasibility of secondary recovery methods
makes them an attractive option for sustaining oil production over the long term.

V.1 CONSTRAINTS

In the context of our project, certain conditions and constraints guide our secondary recovery
strategy. The control of existing producing wells based on historical bottomhole pressure
measurements ensures a nuanced understanding of the reservoir's behavior. New wells are

10
strategically controlled with a bottomhole pressure target of 1200 psi, aligning with optimal
operational conditions. Economic constraints, such as maintaining a minimum oil rate of 250
bbls/day and limiting water cut to a maximum of 95%, further refine our approach.

Additionally, the project adheres to stringent field production and injection capacities, ensuring
that the overall oil production is capped at 10,000 bbls/day, the liquid production capacity is
restricted to 35,000 bbls/day, and water injection does not exceed 25,000 bbls/day. These
comprehensive considerations underscore our commitment to an efficient and sustainable
secondary recovery strategy tailored to the unique characteristics of the reservoir.

V.2 CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING NEW WELLS

In the context of secondary oil recovery planning, the selection of injection parameters such
as injection dates, quantities, and locations for individual wells is critical. The criteria for
making these choices involve a careful evaluation of reservoir characteristics, fluid properties,
and operational considerations. Here are the key criteria for deciding injection parameters for
a well:
Reservoir Characteristics:
 Assess reservoir permeability, porosity, and heterogeneity to understand the fluid flow
dynamics.
 Consider the reservoir's geological features, fault lines, and aquifer interactions.
 Evaluate the historical performance and behavior of the reservoir to identify optimal
injection strategies.
Operational Constraints:
 Account for surface facility limitations and processing capacities when determining
injection quantities.
 Evaluate wellbore and surface facility integrity to ensure safe and sustainable injection
operations.
Injection Date Selection:
 Optimize injection timing based on reservoir pressure depletion and hydrocarbon
mobility.
 Consider the cyclic nature of injection operations and potential interference with
production schedules.

11
Injection Quantity Optimization:
 Balance injection rates to avoid reservoir coning and maintain reservoir pressure.
 Optimize injection quantities to enhance sweep efficiency and maximize oil
displacement.
Well Location and Pattern:
 Determine the spatial distribution of injection wells to ensure effective coverage
across the reservoir.
 Consider the arrangement of injection patterns, such as line drive, five-spot, or
inverted nine-spot, based on reservoir characteristics.
Pressure Maintenance Objectives:
 Define pressure maintenance goals to prevent premature reservoir pressure decline.
 Monitor reservoir pressure response to injection activities and adjust parameters
accordingly.
Economic Considerations:
 Evaluate the economic feasibility of injection operations, considering costs associated
with water or gas sourcing, injection equipment, and facility modifications.

 OUR BEST CHOICE

12
V.3 RESULTATS

CUMULATIVE OIL

13
 RECOVERY FATOR

VIII. ECONOMICS STUDIES

In economic studies, we assess the financial viability of drilling new wells, whether they are
injectors or producers. The estimated cost for drilling each new well is $10 million. This
analysis considers key economic parameters, including an assumed oil price of $80 per barrel,
operational expenses (opex) at $20 per barrel, and a discount rate of 10%.

The Net Present Value (NPV), often referred to as the Net Present Value (NPV) or VAN
(Valeur Actuelle Nette), is a critical financial metric. It represents the disparity between the
present value of anticipated future cash inflows, discounted at the specified rate, and the
initial capital investment. In simpler terms, NPV helps us evaluate whether the expected
returns from the investment exceed the initial costs.

VI.1 BASE CASE

14
An N°An Prod Stb vente opex cf cf act van
2008 0 619088 49527040 12381760 37145280 37145280 37145280
2009 1 589528 47162240 11790560 35371680 32156072,7 69301352,7
2010 2 538864 43109120 10777280 32331840 26720528,9 96021881,7
2011 3 406624 32529920 8132480 24397440 18330157,8 114352039
2012 4 283920 22713600 5678400 17035200 11635270,8 125987310
2013 5 255732 20458560 5114640 15343920 9527367,11 135514677
2014 6 235732 18858560 4714640 14143920 7983874,11 143498551
2015 7 215812 17264960 4316240 12948720 6644740,79 150143292
2016 8 197076 15766080 3941520 11824560 5516244,51 155659537
2017 9 178372 14269760 3567440 10702320 4538828,42 160198365
2018 10 161492 12919360 3229840 9689520 3735729,41 163934095
2019 11 145844 11667520 2916880 8750640 3067045,94 167001141
2020 12 131780 10542400 2635600 7906800 2519350,15 169520491
2021 13 118228 9458240 2364560 7093680 2054786,42 171575277
2022 14 106216 8497280 2124320 6372960 1678199,55 173253477
2023 15 95300 7624000 1906000 5718000 1368843,74 174622320
2024 16 0 0 0 0 0 174622320
2025 17 0 0 0 0 0 174622320

OIL PRODUCTIO CUMULATIVE 2008 55.042.832 STB

OIL PRODUCTIO CUMULATIVE 2023…… 59.333.460 STB
OIL PRODUCTION 2008-2023………. 4.290628 STB

An N°An Prod (STB) Vente Opex CF CF Act Van

2024 16 0 0 0 0 0 174622320
2025 17 0 0 0 0 0 174622320

15
 VI.2 DEVELOPMENT CASE

An N°An prd stb vente OPEX capex CF CF act VAN

2008 0 5047236 403778880 100944720 20000000 282834160 282834160 262834160
2009 1 4669732 373578560 93394640 280183920 254712655 517546815
2010 2 4425676 354054080 88513520 265540560 219455008 737001823
2011 3 4184976 334798080 83699520 251098560 188654065 925655887
2012 4 3927384 314190720 78547680 235643040 160947367 1086603254
2013 5 3645608 291648640 72912160 218736480 135818145 1222421399
2014 6 3390872 271269760 67817440 203452320 114843531 1337264930
2015 7 3147536 251802880 62950720 188852160 96911019 1434175949
2016 8 2918864 233509120 58377280 175131840 81700295,9 1515876245
2017 9 2672456 213796480 53449120 160347360 68002933,5 1583879178
2018 10 2494216 199537280 49884320 149652960 57697694,5 1641576872
2019 11 2390328 191226240 47806560 143419680 50267722,9 1691844595
2020 12 2390328 191226240 47806560 143419680 45697929,9 1737542525
2021 13 2312232 184978560 46244640 138733920 40186274,9 1777728800
2022 14 2240848 179267840 44816960 134450880 35405118,9 1813133919
2023 15 2133248 170659840 42664960 127994880 30640956,6 1843774876

2024 16 2012888 161031040 40257760 120773280 26283784,6 1870058660

2025 17 1892864 151429120 37857280 113571840 22469583,1 1892528243

16
2026 18 1777936 142234880 35558720 106676160 19186645 1911714888
2027 19 1669984 133598720 33399680 100199040 16383343,7 1928098232
2028 20 1580720 126457600 31614400 94843200 14097837,3 1942196069
2029 21 1489992 119199360 29799840 89399520 12080608,2 1954276678
2030 22 1410032 112802560 28200640 84601920 10393005,2 1964669683
2031 23 1219952 97596160 24399040 73197120 8174519,52 1972844202
2032 24 1269672 101573760 25393440 76180320 7734252,54 1980578455
2033 25 1203328 96266240 24066560 72199680 6663741,53 1987242196
2034 26 1146520 91721600 22930400 68791200 5771956,79 1993014153
2035 27 1094384 87550720 21887680 65663040 5008624,64 1998022778
2036 28 1051216 84097280 21024320 63072960 4373690,31 2002396468
2037 29 968008 77440640 19360160 58080480 3661359,11 2006057827
2038 30 959200 76736000 19184000 57552000 3298221,86 2009356049
2039 31 969392 77551360 19387840 58163520 3030242,9 2012386292
2040 32 963528 77082240 19270560 57811680 2738102,27 2015124394

OIL PRODUCTIO CUMULATIVE 2008 55.042.832 STB

OIL PRODUCTIO CUMULATIVE 2040 129.966.960 STB
OIL PRODUCTION 2008-2040 74.924.128 STB

VII. CONCLUSION
The comprehensive examination of SNARK field development provided valuable insights that
guided pivotal decisions. The incorporation of two injector wells not only significantly boosted
field production but also yielded a substantial economic impact. This effect is particularly
pronounced when considering the efficiency of a responsive system, ensuring the swift recovery
of pumps. The synergy of these elements highlights the strategic success and economic viability
of the implemented measures in enhancing overall field performance.

17