Faculty Petroleum

Engineering and Gas

Technology
Reservoir simulation

Youssef abdelmoneam 201874

Ehab Wael 198473
Jennifer Kasala 197465
Mariam Eid 206490
Mohammad Khaled 188530
Abdelrahman Hany 166939
 Abstract

Eclipse, a widely used piece of software for reservoir modelling and simulation
created by Schlumberger. Eclipse offers a wide range of features and
functionalities, such as sophisticated numerical methods for fluid flow modeling,
precise modeling of geological characteristics, and the capacity to simulate
intricate recovery processes. Powerful visualization capabilities are also provided
by the software for reviewing simulation findings and determining prospective
production optimization techniques. For the characterization, production, and
optimization of reservoirs, academic institutions, research organizations, and oil
and gas businesses all around the world employ Eclipse. This report will discuss
the history matching in every graph will be in the report and we make the history
matching before we add the data in 2008 then after we done the history matching
we We benefited that the history matching let know the prediction of the behavior
of the reservoir in the future. Then we have a different cases from our reservoir
and every case we change the per maters and injections and we see if we need to
put injectors or production or else.
Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................2
List of figures...............................................................................................................................................3
List of tables................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction................................................................................................................................................5
History matching.........................................................................................................................................6
Cases.........................................................................................................................................................11
FloViz of all cases.......................................................................................................................................26
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................29
References.................................................................................................................................................30

List of figures
Figure 1. WBHP and WBHPH vs time...........................................................................................................4
Figure 2. FOPR and FOPRH vs time..............................................................................................................4
Figure 3.FGPR and FGPRH vs time...............................................................................................................5
Figure 4. FWPR and FWPRH vs time............................................................................................................5
Figure 5. matched WBHP.............................................................................................................................6
Figure 6. FWPR on so low scale and high scale............................................................................................6
Figure 7. WBHP of I 1 and D10 before and after adjusting permeability.....................................................7
Figure 8. FO-G-WPR vs time before adjusting it..........................................................................................8
Figure 9. FOE of all cases...........................................................................................................................25
Figure 10. FOE FOPT FWCT VS time of suitable case.................................................................................26

List of tables
Table 1. case 1.............................................................................................................................................9
Table 2. case 2...........................................................................................................................................10
Table 3. case 3...........................................................................................................................................11
Table 4. case 4...........................................................................................................................................12
Table 5. case 5...........................................................................................................................................13
Table 6. case 6...........................................................................................................................................14
Table 7. case 7...........................................................................................................................................15
Table 8. case 8...........................................................................................................................................16
Table 9. case 9...........................................................................................................................................17
Table 10. case 10.......................................................................................................................................18
Table 11. case 11.......................................................................................................................................19
Table 12. case12........................................................................................................................................20
Table 13. case 13.......................................................................................................................................21
Table 14. case 14.......................................................................................................................................22
Table 15. case 15.......................................................................................................................................23
Table 16. cases on floViz............................................................................................................................24
Introduction
Eclipse, an application of reservoir modeling and simulation software created by Schlumberger, is widely
used in the oil and gas sector. With the help of this potent software, reservoir engineers can create and
simulate intricate reservoir models in order to forecast how oil and gas reservoirs would behave. Eclipse
has an extensive list of features and capacities, such as as sophisticated numerical methods for modeling
fluid flow, accurate representation of geological features like faults and fractures, and the capacity to
simulate intricate recovery processes like gas injection and water flooding. For examining simulation
findings and locating prospective production optimization techniques, it also provides strong
visualization tools. Worldwide, academic institutions, research organizations, and oil & gas firms use
Eclipse for reservoir characterization, production and optimization for reservoir characterization,
production optimization, and field development planning, oil and gas businesses, research organizations,
and academic institutions utilize Eclipse globally. It is often utilized by a team of reservoir engineers,
geologists, and geophysicists who collaborate to create and evaluate reservoir simulation models. It
takes specialized training and skills to use efficiently.

History matching:
It is a process of adjusting the reservoir description till the pressure and production predicted by
dynamic model match the historical pressure and production; the model should be able to
reproduce from the pressure performance and past production before using it to predict the future
performance with accuracy .

Figure 1 History matching (Pandis, K.D. (2012))

 History matching
Checking model for history matching (before adding data to 2008)
1- WBHP and WBHPH vs time ( no matching )

Figure 2. WBHP and WBHPH vs time

2- FOPR and FOPRH vs time ( matching )

Figure 3. FOPR and FOPRH vs time

3- FGPR and FGPRH vs time ( matching )

Figure 4.FGPR and FGPRH vs time

4- FWPR and FWPRH vs time ( no matching )

Figure 5. FWPR and FWPRH vs time

So from the above data it turned out that the data not that accurate because in WBHP and FWPR data
there was no matching with its history but FGPR data and FOPR data match its history.

So in order to match WBHP with its history we could alter the permeability by increasing it so that
pressure increase to match history. So we did increase Kx from 680 to 2000 md and also increased
compressibility from 3x10^-6 to 4x10^-6 to match pressures as shown in figure (5)

Figure 6. matched WBHP

We can see there is still small part that didn’t match due to skin at early days. As for the field water
production history there wasn’t water production but for the current data there is a very small amount
of water produced that can be neglected over these 265 days as shown in figure (6)

Figure 7. FWPR on so low scale and high scale

 But if this water production rate was high ( more than 0.1 STB/DAY ) we could alter relative permeability
and water saturation.

Checking model for history matching (after adding data to 2008)

It turned out that WBHP D10 and WBHP I1 vs time is not matched so by altering the permeability of
layer 2 from 680 to 1680, layer 3 from 680 to 1500 and, layer 4-5 from 74 to 66 so that we succeed to
match in both graphs as shown in figure

Figure 8. WBHP of I 1 and D10 before and after adjusting permeability

So after adjusting these data also the FGPR, FOPR, and FWPR vs time was adjusted nearly by small error
percentage

Figure 9. FO-G-WPR vs time before adjusting it

And if it wasn’t adjusted we could change GOC or OWC and connate water saturation to change it to
match.
 Cases
Case 1 initial data case
File name basecase1

Case description This is the base case without adding or changing any parameter

Change in parameters For production well D10 For injection well I1

Initial parameter At location 11x 10y and perforation At location 3x 2y and perforation from
from layer 2 to 5 layer 1 to 5
BHP LIMIT 3100 BHP limit 6000 / surface rate 4000
FOE / OLD -- -- --
FOPT /
NEW Max @2619 day FOE= Max @2619 day FOPT Max @2619 day
FWCT 55.5% =4210263STB FWCT=91.09%

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 1. case 1
 Case 2 altering parameters

File name case2

Case description Altering BHP of production well

Change in parameters The change was only in production well BHP from 3100 to 3300

FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 54.33% 4121677.3 STB 90.6 %
W

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 2. case 2
 Case 3 altering parameters

File name case3

Case description Altering BHP of production and surface rate of injector

Change in parameters In producer In injector

BHP changed from 3100 to 3500 Surface rate changed from 4000 to
4500
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 53.65 % 4069756.3 91.77 %
W
 FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 3. case 3

Case 4: 2 injection + 1 production ( higher than base case )

File name case4

Case description In this case we did add injector at location 8x 2y

Change in parameters Injector well I2 Injector well I1 Production well D10

Surface rate was 3000 Surface rate was No change with initial data
changed from 4000 to
BHP was 6000
3000
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
 FWCT NE 55.83% 4235519.5 94.07%
W

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 4. case 4

Case 5: 2 injection + 1 production ( higher than base case )

File name case5
Case description In this case we did add injector at location 7x 2y
Change in parameters Injector well I2 Injector well I1 Production well D10
Surface rate was 3800 Surface rate was No change with initial data
changed from 4000 to
BHP was 6000
3800
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 56.23% 4265914 95.29 %
W

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 5. case 5

Case 6: 2 production + 2 injection

File name case6
Case description We did add 1 more injection well I2 at x11 y11 and add production well A1 at
x5 y7
Change in parameters Injector well I2 Injector well I1 Production well A1
 Surface rate was 2500 Surface rate was BHP was 3100
changed from 4000 to
BHP was 6000 Meanwhile no change
5000
happened to D10
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 55.25 % 4191341 94.48 %
W

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 6. case 6

Case 7: 3 production + 1 injection (higher than base case)

File name case7

Case description In this case we did add 2 additional producers B1 at x11 y7 and A1 at x1 y11

Change in parameters Production well A1 Production well B1 Production well D10

 BHP was 2500 BHP was 2500 Changed BHP from 3100
to 2500
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 56.39% 4277599 93.27%
W

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 7. case 7

Case 8: 2 production + 1 injection

File name case8
Case description Did add one additional producer at x1 y10 and open interval from layer 1 to 5
Change in parameters Production well A1 Production well D10 Injector well I1
BHP was 2500 Changed BHP from Surface rate was changed
3100 to 2800 from 4000 to 5000
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 55.37% 4200857 91.39%
W

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 8. case 8

Case 9: 3 injection + 1 production (higher than base case)

File name case9
 Case description We did add 2 additional injectors I2 at x7 y2 and I3 at x11 y2

Change in parameters Production well D10 Injector well I2 Injector well I3

Changed BHP from Surface rate was 4000 Surface rate was 4000
3100 to 2800
BHP was 6000 BHP was 6000
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 56.83% 4310966 96.66%
W

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 9. case 9

Case 10: 3 injection + 1 production (higher than base case)

 File name case10
Case description We did add 2 additional injectors I2 at x7 y2 and I3 at x11 y2

Change in parameters Production well D10 Injector well I2 Injector well I3 Injector well I1
Changed BHP from Surface rate was 5000 Surface rate was Surface rate was
3100 to 2800 BHP was 6000 5000 changed from
BHP was 6000 4000 to 5000
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NEW 57.79% 4384282 97.52%

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 10. case 10

Case 11: 2 producers + 1 injector (higher than base case)

 File name case11
Case description We did add one additional horizontal producer well from x11 y2 to x11 y7

Change in parameters Injector well I1 Production well D10 horizontal Production well
Surface rate was Changed BHP from A1
changed from 4000 to 3100 to 2300 BHP is 2300
5800 The well goes through y
axis from 2 to 7
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 56.92% 4318321.5 93.26%
W
 FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 11. case 11

Case 12: 1 production + 1 injection (higher than base case)

File name case12

Case description We did add polymer to the injector well I1

Change in parameters The initial data of the polymer multiplier data for 0 conc = 1
And for 1 conc = 30
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 59.99% 4551177.5 81.02 %
W
 FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 12. case12

Case 13: 1 production + 1 injection (higher than base case)

File name case13

Case description We did add polymer to the injector well I1

Change in parameters We did increase polymer multiplier at conc1 from 30 to 60

FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 60.12% 4560529.5 66.99%
W
 FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 13. case 13

Case 10: 3 injection + 1 production (higher than base case)

File name case14
Case description We did add 2 additional injectors I2 at x7 y2 and I3 at x11 y2, in addition a polymer was
added by a multiplier 60 at 1 conc on all injection wells
Change in parameters Production well D10 Injector well I2 Injector well I3 Injector well I1
Changed BHP from Surface rate was 4000 Surface rate was Surface rate was
3100 to 2500 BHP was 6000 4000 changed from
BHP was 6000 4000 to 5000
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
 FWCT NEW 61.86% 4692767.5 97.52%

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 14. case 14

Case 15: 2 producers + 1 injector (highest FOE and FOPT case)

File name case15
Case description We did add one aditional horizontal producer well from x11 y2 to x11 y7, in
addition a polymer was added by a multiplier 60 at 1 conc on all injection wells
Change in parameters Injector well I1 Production well D10 horizontal Production well
Surface rate was Changed BHP from A1
changed from 4000 to 3100 to 2300 BHP is 2300
5800 The well goes through y
axis from 2 to 7
FOE / FOPT / OLD FOE 55.5% FOPT 4210263 STB FWCT 91.09 %
FWCT NE 62.95% 4775231.5 74.84%
W

FOE

FOPT

FWCT

Table 15. case 15

FloViz of all cases

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

Case 7 Case 8 Case 9

Case 10 Case 11 Case 12

Case 13 Case 14 Case 15

Table 16. cases on floViz

After combining all the FOE on the same graph to see the highest one as in figure
 Figure 10. FOE of all cases

So case 15 is the most suitable case that we should work with

Of FOE = 62.95 %
FOPT=4775231.5 STB

FWCT=74.84%
So in order to enhance our best case we did lower multiplier of polymer from 60 to 56 that wil
increase FOE and will increase also the water production but still have a low amount than other
cases ( file name : case15IMPROVED )
That did increase
FOE to 63.13%
FOPT to 4788908 STB
FWCT to 76.96 %
 �

�
�

�
�

�
�

�
�
�
�
�

𝐸 = 𝐼𝑂𝐼𝑃 𝑋 𝑅𝐸𝐶𝑂𝑉𝐸𝑅𝑌
𝐹𝐴𝐶𝑇𝑂𝑅 and from figure 11
Figure 11. FOE FOPT FWCT VS time of suitable case

IOIP =
7585588 X 0.63131672 = 4788908.54 STB
Conclusion

To conclude Eclipse reservoir simulation is a crucial tool used in the oil and gas industry to
model the behavior of hydrocarbon reservoirs. Engineers can make more informed decisions
about how to extract the hydrocarbons by using Eclipse's ability to predict the flow of oil, gas,
and water in a reservoir over time using complex mathematical models. As a result we see from
the FOE combined curve that case 15 have the highest field oil efficiency over time = 63.13%
and FOPT to 4788908 STB and FWCT to 76.96 % So in order to enhance our best case we did
lower multiplier of polymer from 60 to 56 and we did add one additional horizontal producer
well from x11 y2 to x11 y7, in addition a polymer was added by a multiplier 60 at 1 conc on all
injection wells and 2 producers + 1 injector.
References:
 Oil & Gas Portal. (n.d.). Reservoir simulation software. Retrieved from
https://www.oil-gasportal.com/reservoir-simulation/software/?
print=print#:~:text=The%20name%20ECLIPSE%20originally
%20was,hydrocarbon%20descriptions%20and%20thermal%20simulation.
 Pandis, K.D. (2012). Semester Project in Reservoir Simulation [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from
https://www.slideshare.net/KonstantinosDPandis/semester-project-in-
reservoir-simulation