RESERVOIR SIMULATION OF HABIGANJ GAS FIELD

TO MAXIMIZE ULTIMATE RECOVERY

A Thesis by

AFIFA TABASSUM TINNI

Submitted to the
Department pf Petroleum and Mineral Resources Engineering
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

APRIL 2012
 RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

The undersigned certify that they have read and recommended to the Department of
Petroleum & Mineral Resources Engineering, for acceptance, a thesis entitled RESERVOIR
SIMULATION OF HABIGANJ GAS FIELD TO MAXIMIZE ULTIMATE
RECOVERY submitted by AFIFA TABASSUM TINNI in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in PETROLEUM ENGINEERING.

Chairman ( Supervisor) ……………………

Dr. Mohammad Tamim
Professor and Head
Dept. of Petroleum & Mineral Resources Engineering
BUET.

Member ……………………
Dr. Ijaz Hossain
Professor
Dept. of Chemical Engineering
BUET.

Member …………………
Dr. Mohammed Mahbubur Rahman
Associate Professor
Dept. of Petroleum & Mineral Resources Engineering
BUET.

Member(External) ……………………
Md. Jahangir Kabir
Deputy Manager
Reservoir & Data Management Division (RDMD)
PETROBANGLA

Date : 18 April, 2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. M Tamim, Professor, PMRE Department for his
supervision, guidance and support throughout this study. I also thank Dr. Md. Mahbubur
Rahman, Associate Professor, PMRE Department for his valuable suggestions and
support. I am indebted to Mr Jahangir Kabir, Deputy Manager, Reservoir and Data
Management Division, Petrobangla for providing training on Eclipse Black Oil
Simulator. I thank the faculty and staff of the PMRE department for their constant help. I
am grateful to the officials of Bangladesh Gas Fields Company Limited (BGFCL) for
helping me to collect field data.
I am also thankful to Md. Arifur Rahman, Teaching Assistant, PMRE Department for
helping me to enter field data. I am thankful to Md. Asadullah, Assistant Manager,
BAPEX for his support and suggestions throughout this research. I want to thank all my
family members for having faith in me. Finally, I want to thank almighty for giving me
strength to fulfill my work.

i
ABSTRACT

Reservoir simulation is the combination of physics, mathematics, reservoir engineering

and computer programming that can predict hydrocarbon reservoir performances under
various operating conditions. History matching is one of the most important activities
during the development and management of petroleum reservoirs. Matched models are
fundamental to ensure reliable future forecasts, and give an idea of the level of
understanding of the geological and reservoir model.

The specific objective of this study was to select an appropriate production scenario
among different alternatives considered for maximum gas recovery at the end of the
prediction years. The goal of the study was achieved by calibrating an available PETREL
generated geo-model of the reservoir collected from Petrobangla. The simulation model
was generated using ECLIPSE 100 black oil simulator and validated by matching the
available pressure and production history of different wells of the reservoir. Various
parameters like horizontal and vertical permeability, transmissibility, relative
permeability of the formation etc were varied to obtain a good pressure and production
match. The history matched model was used for predicting production under different
development conditions for few additional years.

Water table movement with time was tracked and considered for the placement of
additional wells.

Finally, recoveries for different scenarios after the prediction years were compared to get
an idea of the best development option among all the alternatives considered for further
field development.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 3
HABIGANJ GAS FIELD ................................................................................................ 5
3.1 Reservoir Geology.............................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Previous Studies on the Reservoir ...................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 4
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 10
4.1 Reservoir Simulation........................................................................................................ 10
4.2 Classification of Reservoir Simulator ................................................................................ 11
4.3 Reservoir Engineering Concepts of Simulation ................................................................. 12
4.4 Mathematics of simulator construction ........................................................................... 14
4.5 Workflow of the Simulator............................................................................................... 15
4.6 History Matching with Simulator ..................................................................................... 16
4.7 General Approach of History Matching ............................................................................ 17
4.8 Simulation Approach for History Matching ...................................................................... 17
4.9 Reservoir Performance Prediction with the Simulator ...................................................... 18
4.10 ECLIPSE Simulator .......................................................................................................... 19
4.11 Other Commercial Reservoir Simulators ........................................................................ 20
4.12 Comparison of Commercial Simulators .......................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 23
5.1. Habiganj Gas Field Reservoir Simulation Model .............................................................. 23

iii
CHAPTER 6
HISTORY MATCHING ............................................................................................... 30
6.1 History Matching Approach ............................................................................................. 30
6.2 History Matching Parameters .......................................................................................... 30
6.3 History Matching Results and interpretation .................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 7
PREDICTION ............................................................................................................... 49
7.1 Short Term Prediction Case Scenarios .............................................................................. 49
7.2 Long Term Prediction Case Scenarios ............................................................................... 59
CHAPTER 8
WATER TABLE MOVEMENT TRACK ..................................................................... 73
CHAPTER 9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................................................. 76
9.1 Reserve Estimation .......................................................................................................... 76
9.2 Short Term prediction Results.......................................................................................... 77
9.2 Long Term Prediction Results........................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 80
NOMENCLATURE ...................................................................................................... 82
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 84

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 4.1: Major steps used to develop reservoir simulator ............................................... 11

Fig 4.2: Representative Element .................................................................................... 14
Fig 5.1: 3-D view of Habiganj Reservoir ....................................................................... 24
Fig 5.2: Top View of Habiganj Reservoir ...................................................................... 25
Fig 5.3: Fluid Property Variation with Pressure ............................................................. 27
Fig 5.4: Relative Permeability Vs Saturation curves ...................................................... 28
Fig 6.1: Change in Water Relative Permeability ............................................................ 32
Fig 6.2: Average Reservoir Pressure Match ................................................................... 33
Fig 6.3: Field Water Production Match .......................................................................... 34
Fig 6.4: THP Match for HB-1 ........................................................................................ 35
Fig 6.5: THP Match for HB-2 ........................................................................................ 35
Fig 6.6: THP Match for HB-3 ........................................................................................ 36
Fig 6.7: THP Match for HB-4 ........................................................................................ 37
Fig 6.8: THP Match for HB-5 ........................................................................................ 38
Fig 6.9: BHP Match for HB-5........................................................................................ 38
Fig 6.10: THP Match for HB-6 ...................................................................................... 39
Fig 6.11: THP Match for HB-7 ...................................................................................... 40
Fig 6.12: Variation of THP with Gas Production for HB-7 ............................................ 40
Fig 6.13: THP Match for HB-8 ...................................................................................... 41
Fig 6.14: THP Match for HB-9 ...................................................................................... 42
Fig 6.15: THP Match for HB-10 .................................................................................... 42
Fig 6.16: THP Match for HB-11 .................................................................................... 43
Fig 6.17: Water Production Rate Match for HB-1 .......................................................... 44
Fig 6.18: Water Production Rate Match for HB-2 .......................................................... 45
Fig 6.19: Water Production Rate Match for HB-3 .......................................................... 45
Fig 6.20: Water Production Rate Match for HB-4 .......................................................... 46
Fig 6.21: Water Production Rate Match for HB-5 .......................................................... 46
Fig 6.22: Water Production Rate Match for HB-6 .......................................................... 47

v
Fig 6.23: Water Production Rate Match for HB-7 .......................................................... 47
Fig 6.24: Water Production Rate Match for HB-10 ........................................................ 48
Fig 6.25: Water Production Rate Match for HB-11 ........................................................ 48
Fig 7.1: Predicted Well Water Production for HB-1 ....................................................... 50
Fig 7.2: Predicted Well Water Production for HB-3 ....................................................... 51
Fig 7.3: Well Water Production Comparison for HB-1 .................................................. 52
Fig 7.4: Well Water Production Comparison for HB-3 .................................................. 52
Fig 7.5: Well Water Gas Ratio Comparison for HB-1 .................................................... 53
Fig 7.6: Well Water Gas Ratio Comparison for HB-3 .................................................... 53
Fig 7.7: Scenario 3 Well Water Production of HB-1 ...................................................... 54
Fig 7.8: Scenario 3 Well Water Production of HB-3 ...................................................... 55
Fig 7.9: Tubing Head Pressure Variation of HB-12........................................................ 56
Fig 7.10: Water Production Profile of HB-12................................................................. 56
Fig 7.11: Tubing Head Pressure Variation of HB-12 and HB-13 .................................... 57
Fig 7.12: Water Production Profile of HB-12................................................................. 58
Fig 7.13: Position of Added Wells ................................................................................. 58
Fig 7.14 Amount of Remaining Gas till the End of Prediction Years( short term) .......... 59
Fig 7.15: Gas Production Rates of wells, scenario A ...................................................... 60
Fig 7.16: Gas Production Rates of wells, scenario B ...................................................... 61
Fig 7.17: Gas Production Rates of wells, scenario C ...................................................... 62
Fig 7.18: Gas Production Rates of wells, scenario D ...................................................... 63
Fig 7.19: Comparison of Gas in Place and Total Gas Production for Different scenarios 64
Fig 7.20: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-1 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 65
Fig 7.21: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-2 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 66
Fig 7.22: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-3 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 66
Fig 7.23: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-4 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 67

vi
Fig 7.24: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-5 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 68
Fig 7.25: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-6 for
Different scenarios ....................................................................................................... 68
Fig 7.26: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-7 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 69
Fig 7.27: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-10 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 70
Fig 7.28: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-11 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 70
Fig 7.29: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-12 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 71
Fig 7.30: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-13 for
Different scenarios ........................................................................................................ 71
Fig 8.1: Initial Position of Water table ........................................................................... 73
Fig 8.2: Final Position of Water table ............................................................................ 74
Fig 8.3: Position of Water table at HB-8(July 04) .......................................................... 75
Fig 8.4: Position of Water table at HB-9 (May 08)......................................................... 75

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: List of Wells of Habiganj Gas Field ................................................................ 7

Table 3.2: Reserve Estimate by Different Companies/Agencies ....................................... 8
Table 4.1: Comparison of Simulators............................................................................. 22
Table 5.1: Composition of Habiganj UGS gas ............................................................... 26
Table 5.2: Dry gas PVT Properties ................................................................................ 26
Table 5.3: Water PVT Properties ................................................................................... 27
Table 5.4: Aquifer initial properties ............................................................................... 29
Table 6.1 : Change in Water Relative Permeability ........................................................ 31
Table 9.1: Reserve Estimate by Different Companies/Agencies ..................................... 76
Table 9.2: Comparison of Recovery .............................................................................. 77
Table 9.3: Comparison of Ultimate Recovery ................................................................ 78

viii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Any reservoir study primarily aims to predict the future performance and the ways to
enhance the ultimate recovery of a reservoir. Classic reservoir engineering cannot
adequately account for the variations in reservoir and fluid parameters and manual
approach of solving various equations are monotonous, time consuming and complex. On
the other hand, by combining physics, mathematics, reservoir engineering and computer
programming, reservoir simulation can predict hydrocarbon reservoir performance under
various operating conditions even for extremely complex situation.

Before a simulation study can be used for performance prediction, it is necessary to build
a proper reservoir model with available geological, petrophysical, fluid property and well
data. After the construction of the reservoir model, it must be tested to determine whether
it can duplicate field behavior which is known as history matching.

A hydrocarbon recovery project may involve a capital investment of hundreds of millions

of dollars and the risk associated with the selected development plan must be assessed
and minimized. That is why reservoir simulation is required for petroleum engineers to
obtain accurate performance prediction for a hydrocarbon reservoir under different
operating conditions.

The first step of a complete reservoir simulation study starts firstly with setting the
objectives for the study and then selecting an adequate approach to fulfill the objectives.
The next steps are to select consistent set of input data, careful planning of computer runs
and finally analysis of result and report preparation.

Careful investigation of computer generated results is extremely important for a

successful simulation study. Simulator generates results based on the provided

1
information but it is the responsibility of the simulator engineer to judge the logical
acceptance of the results generated by the simulator.

The potential of simulation was recognized in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s by a
number of companies. Fundamental research on numerical analysis and development of
practical methods for using available computers resulted in crude but useful simulators by
the mid 1950’s. Eventually, simulation became established as an important management
tool for most large reservoirs.

The term simulation became common in the early 60’s, as predictive method evolved into
relatively sophisticated computer programs (Coats 1987). These programs represented a
major advancement because they allowed solution of large sets of finite difference
equation describing two and three dimensional, transient flow in heterogeneous porous
media. This advancement was made possible by the rapid evolution of large scale, high
speed digital computers and development of numerical methods for solving large systems
of finite difference solutions.

During the 1960’s reservoir simulation efforts were largely devoted to two-phase
gas/water or three-phase black-oil reservoir problems. Recovery methods simulated were
limited essentially to depletion or pressure maintenance.

During the 1970’s, sharp rise in oil price, government trends toward deregulation and
partial funding to field projects led to a proliferation of enhanced recovery processes.
This led to a simulation of processes that extended beyond conventional depletion and
pressure maintenance to miscible flooding, chemical flooding, CO2 injection, steam or
hot water stimulation, and in situ combustion. In addition to simple multiphase flow in
porous media, simulators had to reflect chemical absorption and degradation, emulsifying
and interfacial tension reduction effects, reaction kinetics, and other thermal effects and
complex equilibrium phase behavior.

2
Research during 70’s resulted in many significant advances in simulation model
formulations and numerical solution methods. These advances allowed simulation of
more complex recovery processes and reduced computing costs through increased
stability of the formulations and efficiency of the numerical solution methods.
The reliability of modern simulators and the ready availability of computers indicate that
simulation is practical for use on all sizes of reservoir for day to day decision making as
well as for planning.

3
 CHAPTER 2
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The Habiganj gas field is the second largest gas field of Bangladesh which is believed to
be governed by strong water drive mechanism.

The objectives of this study are to-

- Calibrate the available reservoir geological model of Habiganj gas field using
available field and well data.
- History match the model by changing and modifying reservoir and aquifer
properties using ECLIPSE 100 black oil simulator.
- Predict the short term and long term future performances and ultimate recoveries
of the field under various development and production scenarios.
- Select a scenario among the alternatives that gives maximum recovery at the end
of the prediction years.

For any water drive reservoir, the tracking of water table movement is very important. A
satisfactory water table movement match can result in more reliable performance
prediction for individual wells.

For Habiganj gas reservoir, no successive water table movement data for a particular
location was available and water table movement could not be history matched. Another
objective of the study was to track the position of water table over time so that the
knowledge can be used for further reservoir development.

4
 CHAPTER 3
HABIGANJ GAS FIELD
The Habiganj Gas field, operated by Bangladesh Gas Fields Company Limited (BGFCL)
is located approximately 75 miles northeast of Dhaka in east-central Bangladesh. The
structure is the northern pitching end of the Baramura anticline of the Indian State of
Tripura and is separated by a saddle from the higher elevated central part located in
Tripura (Intercomp-Kanata Management 1991).

3.1 Reservoir Geology

Reservoir is basically divided into two distinct gas zone, the upper gas sand (UGS) and
lower gas sand (LGS). UGS constitutes the major producing zone of the field. The
reservoir geological description has been summarized according to the Intercomp-Kanata
report (Intercomp-Kanata Management 1991).

The Habiganj anticline upper gas sand has a four way dip closure, uninterrupted by any
significant faulting. The closure at the gas-water contact level is 11.5 km long and 4.5 km
wide. The vertical closure in the dip direction exceeds 2500 feet. Sands are composed
dominantly of quartz with some feldspars, micas and heavy minerals. Porosities are in the
30 percent range on an average and maximum permeability is as high as 4.5 Darcy.

Lower gas sand areal and vertical closure was difficult to determine because of the poor
seismic data quality. The zone has an average porosity of 19 percent and permeabilities
of less than 100 mD.

Structure and Stratigraphy: The Habiganj anticline is at the northernmost end of

Barmura lineament but it is a closure independent of the northern flank of the Barmura
closure. The structure lies on the western margin of the Chittagong-Tripura folded belt in
the south central part of the Surma basin. The structure was first mapped by Shell in 1963
with a single fold seismic grid.

5
The sedimentary sequence encountered during the drilling of the Habiganj structure is as
follows (RPS Energy 2009):
- Alluvium- this surface formation is entirely made up of loose sand.
- Dupi Tila/Tipam sand stone- Dupi Tila (2100-3200 m) and Tipam (900-1370 m)
sandstone are composed of clear to white, medium to finely grained and poorly
sorted loose quartz sand.
- Bokabil Formation- Bokabil (1200-1500 m) formation is composed mainly of
sandstone, shale and siltstone
- Bhuban Formation- Bhuban (1800-3200 m) formation is composed mainly of
very fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub angular to sub rounded, calcareous
sandstone.

Regionally, Habiganj area is a part of Hatia petroleum system that is located in the south
of the Tangail-Tripura high. The hydrocarbon source is probably from Miocene Bhuban
shales, which have generated primarily natural gas with minimal condensate. Trap type is
elongated asymmetrical anticline.

Field Development: Pakistan Shell Oil Company (PSO) discovered natural gas reserves
with the drilling of the well, Habiganj No.1 (HB-1) in 1963. PSO drilled the second well
Habiganj No.2 (HB-2) 90 feet bottomhole location from HB-1 to appraise the upper gas
sand in 1963. Both HB-1 and HB-2 were left as suspended wells until final completion
operations were undertaken in 1967. Initial production from the Habiganj Gas field
started from these wells in February 1969. From 1984 to 2007, nine more wells have
been drilled and among these eleven wells nine wells are producing currently. Gas
production from HB-8 and HB-9 were ceased due to excessive water production from
July 2004 and April 2008 respectively. The summary of the Habiganj gas field
development is given in table 3.1.

6
 Table 3.1: List of Wells of Habiganj Gas Field

Well Well TD Date Date Present Production Production

Name Type (m from spudded completed status started suspended
KB)
HB-1 Vertical 3506 24/03/63 24/06/63 Producing Aug-68 -
HB-2 Vertical 5100 04/11/67 20/11/67 Producing Aug-68 -
HB-3 Vertical 1610 20/07/84 20/08/84 Producing Jul-85 -
HB-4 Vertical 1600 14/09/84 26/01/85 Producing May-85 -
HB-5 Deviated 3521 25/08/88 31/01/89 Producing Feb-92 -
HB-6 Vertical 5515 15/12/89 05/01/90 Producing Feb-92 -
HB-7 Vertical 3120 02/03/99 02/06/99 Producing Apr-00 -
HB-8 Vertical 1593 31/12/98 11/02/99 Suspended May-00 Jul-04
HB-9 Vertical 1592 29/05/98 18/07/98 Suspended Jul-98 Apr-08
HB- Vertical 1559 17/06/99 26/08/99 Producing Apr-00 -
10
HB- Vertical 3200 20/08/07 05/01/08 Producing Jan-08 -
11

3.2 Previous Studies on the Reservoir

Several studies on Habiganj gas field were conducted at different times. After the
discovery of the field, Shell (Alam 2002) estimated the initial reserve of gas for Upper
Gas Sands on the basis of additional seismic data in 1963. Subsequent estimates of
reserves were made by Petroconsultant GmbH in 1978, Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral
Corporation (BOGMC) in 1982 and German Geological Advisory Group in 1984 (Alam
2002). GGAG estimated the recoverable reserve based on the single fold seismic grid
data of Shell. DeGolyer and MacNaughton estimated proved and probable reserve (Alam
2002). After the drilling of two additional wells, GGAG and Petrobangla re-estimated the
reserve of Habiganj field in 1986 (Alam 2002). Hydrocarbon Habitat Study (HHSP)
estimated the reserve of the field in 1986 (Alam 2002). Gasunie estimated the recoverable
reserve of Habiganj on 1989 (Alam 2002). Intercomp-Kanata Management (1991)

7
retained by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) evaluated six field
initially and later total eight gas fields in Bangladesh for the Gas field Appraisal project
of Project Implementation Unit of BOGMC in 1991. Individual reports were prepared on
geology, geophysics, petrophysics, facilities and reservoir engineering of Habiganj field,
the fifth of the eight fields under appraisal (Alam 2002). Another study was conducted by
Well Drill Limited (1991). They estimated upper and lower gas sand reserves and
indicated some significant points about reservoir, aquifer and fluid properties. Beicip
Franlab-RSC/Petrobangla (2000) estimated Habiganj gas field fluid properties, reservoir
temperature at a certain datum depth, compressibility and GIIP using log, core and other
test data of ten wells in 2000. Hydrocarbon Unit and Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(HCU/NPD 2001) reviewed Habiganj data, drafted a new depth contour map on top of
upper gas sand and re-estimated the volumetric reserve in 2001. RPS Energy (2009)
conducted study on a number of gas fields located in Bangladesh Petrobangla in 2009.
They prepared geological report, petrophysical report and reservoir simulation study
report on Habiganj field under this project. The total reserve estimated by different
companies/agencies has been summarized in table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Reserve Estimate by Different Companies/Agencies

Estimating Company/Agency Estimated Reserves in TCF Estimating

Year
Pakistan Shell Oil Company 1.75 1963
Petroconsultant GmbH 3.475 (GIIP) 1979
BOGMC 1.275 (Proven + Probable) 1982
1.045 (Possible)
GGAG 1.437 (Recoverable) 1984
DeGolyer and MacNaughton 1.704
GGAG and Petrobangla 3.298 (GIIP) 1986
HHSP 2.985 (Proven + Probable) 1986
Gasunie 2.60 (Recoverable) 1983
IKM 3.669(GIIP, Volumetric estimate) 1991

8
 Estimating Company/Agency Estimated Reserves in TCF Estimating
Year
10.5 (GIIP, P/Z estimate)
Well Drill Limited 3.6 (GIIP) 1991
Beicip Franlab RSC / Petrobangla 4.623 (GIIP) 2000
HCU/NPD 5.1 (GIIP, Volumetric estimate) 2001
4.69 (GIIP, P/Z estimate)
RPS Energy 3.684 (GIIP) 2009

9
 CHAPTER 4
LITERATURE REVIEW
Simulation has become an essential part of reservoir study. Literally, simulation means
assuming the appearance without the reality. Construction and operation of a model
whose behavior assumes the appearance of actual reservoir behavior not only makes the
performance prediction easier but also saves time and money. Whereas a field can be
produced, only once, at considerable expense, a model can be produced or run many
times at low expense over a short period of time. From intuition and judgment of the
simulation engineer to complex mathematical model, various tools are required for a
successful simulation study.
This chapter gives a brief overview of simulation technique, simulation steps, simulator
types, mathematical and reservoir engineering concepts of simulator construction. Brief
description of simulator workflow and the approach of history matching and performance
prediction have also been included. The chapter also includes a brief description of
ECLIPSE 100 black oil simulator, a successful and widely used commercial simulator
which has been used to carry out the simulation part of this study.

4.1 Reservoir Simulation

Reservoir simulation is a numerical modeling which can be used to quantify and interpret
physical phenomena with the ability to extend these to project future performance.
A typical reservoir simulation study is comprised of following steps (Carlson 2003):
· Geological Review
· Reservoir performance Review
· Data Gathering
· Approach
· Initialization
· History matching
· Predictions
· Report and presentation

10
 Fig 4.1 depicts the major steps involved in the development of a reservoir simulator.

FORMULATION DISCRETIZATION WELL SOLUTION VALIDATION

REPRESENTATION AND APPLICATION

NONLINEAR PDE’S NONLINEAR LINEAR PRESSURE, NUMERICAL

RECOVERY
PROCESSES ALGEBRAIC EQUATION ALGEBRAIC SATURATION RESERVOIR
EQUATION DISTRIBUTIONS, SIMULATION
WELL RATES PROCESS

MULTIPHASE
FORMULATION LINEARIZATION

Fig 4.1: Major steps used to develop reservoir simulator

4.2 Classification of Reservoir Simulator

Reservoir simulators can be classified in several ways ( Ertekin; Abou-Kassem and King
2001).

Based on reservoir/fluid type:

· Black Oil Simulator: These type simulators are used in situations where recovery
processes are insensitive to compositional changes in the reservoir fluids. In these
simulators mass transfer is assumed to be strictly pressure dependent and fluid
properties Bo, Bg, Rs govern PVT behavior.
· Compositional Simulator: these are used when recovery processes are sensitive to
compositional changes in the reservoir fluids. These are generally used to model
volatile oil or gas condensate reservoir and multiple contact miscible processes. A
cubic equation of state governs the PVT behavior.

11
Based on Geometry and Dimensionality:
· 1 Dimensional Models: Can be used for application involving laboratory core
floods.
· 2 Dimensional Models: 2D models in rectangular coordinates can be used for
areal applications or for cross sectional applications. 2D models in cylindrical
coordinates can be used for single well coning application.
· 3 Dimensional Models: 3D models can be used for full field application.

Based on Recovery Processes:

· Conventional Recovery Simulators
· Chemical Flood Simulators
· Thermal Recovery Simulators
· Miscible Displacement Simulators

4.3 Reservoir Engineering Concepts of Simulation

Understanding basic reservoir engineering concepts for modeling flow problems in

porous media is very important. Some of the concepts are discussed in brief below.

· Fluid Potential: fluid potential at a point is defined as the work required by a

frictionless process to transport a unit mass of fluid from a state of atmospheric
pressure and zero elevation (datum elevation) to the point of question. Fluid
potential is defined as Ф= P+ γD, where P= pressure, γ = gravity and D= datum
level.
· Darcy’s Law: Darcy’s law is an empirical relationship between fluid flow rate
through a porous medium and potential gradient. Q= -AkδФ/μδx Q= fluid flow
rate, A= cross sectional area, k= permability, μ= viscosity and δФ/δx = fluid
potential gradient.
· Steady and Unsteady State Flow: steady and unsteady state flow are basic
concepts required by practicing engineers. For an incompressible fluid, pressure
response is felt instantly with equal intensity at any point in the reservoir. For
slightly compressible fluids, pressure shock will be initially absorbed by fluid
compression until the fluids can no longer compress. The remainder of the energy

12
 will be transmitted to the next point in space, and so on. Flow problems involving
incompressible fluids have solutions that are independent of time and dependent
on space only, whereas flow problems involving compressible or slightly
compressible fluids have solutions that are dependent both on time and space.
· Reservoir Rock Properties: The basic rock properties required to for reservoir
simulation are porosity and permeability. The concept of homogeneity,
heterogeneity, isotropy and anisotropy are also required to understand the
directional dependence of the properties
· Reservoir fluid Properties: Fluid properties of interest in reservoir modeling
include fluid compressibilities and compressibility factors, solution-gas/liquid
ratio, fluid densities, fluid formation volume factors and fluid viscosities.
· Rock-Fluid Interaction Properties: Capillary pressure, relative permeability are
the properties that arise from the existence of two or more fluid in a pore space. In
a two phase system, capillary pressure is, by definition, the pressure of the non
wetting phase minus the pressure of the wetting phase. For a given reservoir rock
and fluids at a constant temperature and composition, capillary pressure is a
function of fluid saturation and saturation history. Relative permeability is the
relative measure of the conductance of the medium for a particular fluid at a
specific fluid saturation.
· Law of Conservation of Mass: Law of conservation of mass is a material balance
equation written for a component in a control volume of the system to be
modeled. In petroleum reservoirs control volume is made up of a porous medium
containing one, two or three fluid phases. Considering a small box depicted in
figure 4.2., the equation is developed as follows:
In = AMx
Out = A(Mx+ΔMx)
Storage = AΔx(ρ1φ1 – ρ2φ2)
Source/Sink = qx
Combining these yields:
ıı ıı ıı ıı ı ıı ı ı (ı ı ı ı ı ı ı ı ı ) ıı
Aρ= =A +A
ıı ıı ıı ıı

13
 In the limit as Δx→0 and Δt→0,
ıı ı (ı ı )
= +q
ıı ıı
An equation of state and transport relation is required to expand this conservation
of mass.
q (well)

Area = A

A (Mx+ΔMx)
AMx

Δx

Fig 4.2: Representative Element

4.4 Mathematics of simulator construction

The mathematical principles required to develop numerical reservoir simulators

include basic differential calculus, differential equation theory, numerical
analysis, finite difference calculus and linear algebra.
· Basic Differential Calculus: Differential calculus forms the mathematical basis
for describing recovery processes observed in hydrocarbon reservoir. In many
engineering applications additional information such as the rate at which the
function changes is also required along with the value of the function to solve a
problem. Basic differential calculus deals with the derivatives, higher order
derivatives, partial derivatives and the solution.
· Basic Differential Equation: differential equations relate an unknown function to
the derivatives of the function and, possibly, to a known function. The simplest
example of a differential equation is dp/dt = f(p,t), where, p(t) = unknown
function and f(p,t) = known function
· Finite Difference Calculus: In petroleum reservoir applications, a situation often
arises where functional values are known only at discrete points. For discrete

14
 points. Mathematical techniques are also available to approximate values of
functions and their derivatives at points where they are not known. Finite
difference calculus is such a technique. It uses basic arithmetic operations to
approximate derivatives, differential equations and other analytical operations
performed on continuous function.
· Basic Linear Algebra: it is the branch of mathematics that deals with vectors,
matrices and solution of linear equations. Writing the characteristic linearized
finite difference equation at every unknown node generates a system of linear
algebraic equations.

4.5 Workflow of the Simulator

The simulator starts the simulation process with the information primarily available at the
beginning of the study. The information those are available at the beginning are as
follows-
· Static Model:
 Structure: tops, thickness, layering, faults, boundaries, shales, sands, rock
type, depositional environment, grain size distribution, fractures,
properties of aquifers
 Rock properties at all points in the reservoir: These include permeabilities
in all directions, porosities, capillary pressure, relative permeabilities
 Initial reservoir condition: water, oil and gas saturations, pressures at all
points in the reservoir, contacts
· Well Data:
 Well locations, trajectory, completions, workover schedule
 Production rates of oil, water and gas as a function of time,
 Pressure History of the wells, Bottom hole flowing or tubing head pressure
or build up pressures at specific times
 Injection History- rates, fluids, pressures etc
· Fluid Data: PVT experiments with the reservoir fluids, viscosities, densities
· Material balance of the reservoir history
· Reservoir compartments

15
 · Reservoir mechanisms
· Surface facilities and conditions

After getting all the initial information, the next step is to create a numerical grid of the
reservoir from the static model that includes at all points rock permeability, porosity,
relative permeability, capillary pressures, saturations, locations and volumes. Then PVT
analysis and characterization of fluid is performed using equation of state and laboratory
phase behavior experiments. Analysis of rock types, relative permeabilities, capillary
pressure, imbibition and drainage are perfomed by special core analysis and properties
are assigned to the grid blocks. The next step is to prepare well data. These include
placement of wells in the grid, averaging and assignments of production rates to wells,
assigning wells workover, assigning well controls, economic limits and time steppings. If
bottom holes flowing pressures of the wells are not known, in that case lift curves must
be generated to relate bottomhole pressures to tubing head pressures using well design
and production rates. At this point the simulator is ready for the simulation run to be
performed.

4.6 History Matching with Simulator

History matching is the process of calibrating the model to match the historical
production and pressure data with that of simulator generated results. The objective of the
history matching is to validate the reservoir simulation model for better understanding of
reservoir processes. History matching methods are of two types. They are-

· Manual History Matching: Manual history matching involves the identification

of the parameters known with most uncertainty and changing those parameters to
obtain a good history match. Selection of input data is based on knowledge and
experience. Manual history matching is the most widely used method.
· Automatic History Matching: these techniques generally use non linear
optimization methods to achieve a best or “least squares” fit for the observed data.
These procedures seek to minimize an objective function, Q, defined as Q=ΣRi2
where Ri is a residual that may be defined in various ways depending on the data

16
 to be matched. This method excludes human experience and knowledge and thus
could produce errors in results.

4.7 General Approach of History Matching

The general approach of history matching consists of the following steps (Galas 2003):
· Matching field wide pressure
· Matching saturation dependent parameters (gas/oil/water production) on field
wide basis.
· Matching saturation dependent parameters on a regional basis
· Matching saturation dependent parameters on an individual well basis.
· Iterating until match is satisfactory

Whenever field data is not matched, the data set should be examined and input
parameters should be adjusted to improve the match, starting with those parameters with
the highest uncertainty.

4.8 Simulation Approach for History Matching

Many authors have suggested many ways of history matching but not every method is
useful for every field. However there are some general rules which can be adopted to start
the history matching process. According to Crichlow (1977) there are several parameters
which can be varied singly or collectively to minimize the differences between the
observed data and those calculated by the simulator. Modifications are made on the
following:
· Rock Data modifications:
 Permeability
 Porosity
 Thickness
 Saturations
· Fluid Data modifications
 Compressibilities

17
  PVT data
 Viscosity
· Relative Permeability Data
 Shift in relative permeability curve
 Shift in critical saturation data
· Individual Well Completion Data
 Skin effect
 Bottomhole flowing pressure

Mattax and Dalton (1990) outlined a prioritization and suggested some changes should be
rare. According to them, the reservoir and aquifer properties appropriate for alternation,
in approximate order of decreasing uncertainty are:
· Aquifer transmissibility, kh
· Aquifer storage
· Reservoir kh (including vertical restrictions and directional variations)
· Relative permeability and capillary pressure function
The following additional properties must sometimes be altered, but they are usually
known with acceptable accuracy.
· Reservoir porosity and thickness
· Structural definition
· Rock compressibility
· Reservoir oil and gas properties
· Water/oil and gas/oil contacts
· Water properties

4.9 Reservoir Performance Prediction with the Simulator

The prediction phase of a simulation study is the phase in which most of the study
objectives are achieved. In this phase of the study, the simulation model is used to predict
future performance of the reservoir. Because of the non uniqueness of the history
matching process, predictions even from even the most closely matched model are
subject to some biased error. Selection of prediction scenarios depend on the objective of
a particular study. Generally a base case prediction is performed where a history matched

18
model is continued to run up to a certain period without any change in production
operations. After that any production scenario can be investigated to determine the extent
of ultimate recovery and the feasibility of any field development.

4.10 ECLIPSE Simulator

ECLIPSE is an oil and gas reservoir simulator originally developed by ECL (Exploration
Consultants Limited) and currently owned, developed, marketed and maintained
by SIS (formerly known as GeoQuest), a division of Schlumberger. ECLIPSE 100 is used
for blackoil simulation and ECLIPSE 300 is used for compositional and thermal
simulation. With fully implicit, three-phase, 3D simulations, ECLIPSE Blackoil reservoir
simulation software models extensive well controls and supports efficient field operations
planning, including water and miscible-solvent gas injection. The blackoil model assumes
that the reservoir fluids consist of three phases—oil, water, and gas, with gas dissolving
in oil and oil vaporizing in gas.
ECLIPSE is a batch program. This data file contains a complete description of the model.
The model consists of reservoir description, fluid and rock property description, initial
conditions, wells and their phase flow rates and surface facilities. The input file is a text
file containing a collection of keywords and comments. Each keyword has a specific
syntax although many keywords have similar or identical syntax. The data file is divided
into sections by a few specific keywords. Each section has a particular purpose. In
general, ECLIPSE keywords are usable only in certain sections of the data file. ECLIPSE
reads the input data file section by section and processes each section in turn once that
section has been read. Various data and consistency checks are made before proceeding
to the next section. The last section is exceptional because it specifies time-dependent
data and is not read and processed as a whole; the keywords are processed in the order
they are read from the data file. (ECLIPSE Reference Manual 2008)

The first task performed by ECLIPSE is to allocate memory for the input data. The
simulation grid geometry and properties are processed into a form more convenient for
calculation of flows. For each cell, ECLIPSE calculates the pore volume, transmissibility
in three dimensions and cell centre depth and creates connections to other cells to/from

19
which fluids may flow. These quantities may be modified either by the user or by
ECLIPSE.

The rock and fluid properties are specified next. The term fluid properties refer to a set of
input tables that effectively define the phase behavior of each flowing phase. The term
rock properties refer to sets of input tables of relative permeability and capillary pressure
versus saturation. Effectively, this defines the connate (or irreducible) , critical and
maximum saturation of each phase, supplies information for defining the transition zone
and defines the conditions of flow of phases relative to one another. This strongly affects
the ratios of produced phases, i.e. water cuts and GORs.

Next, the initial conditions are defined, often by specifying the OWC and/or GOC depths
and the pressure at a known depth. ECLIPSE uses this information in conjunction with
much of the information from previous stages to calculate the initial hydrostatic pressure
gradients in each zone of the reservoir and allocate the initial saturation of each phase in
every grid cell prior to production and injection. This is called initialisation.

The final section of the data file is where simulation actually begins. Wells are drilled,
perforated and completed, production and injection targets are set up, wells are opened
and fluids flow through the reservoir, driven by the wells.

ECLIPSE outputs various information at different time steps. Once the run has finished,
the output is examined using text editors and post-processors of various degrees of
sophistication.

4.11 Other Commercial Reservoir Simulators

CMG Suite: CMG (Computer Modelling Group Ltd.) is a computer software

engineering and consulting firm engaged in the development, sale and technology
transfer of reservoir simulation software. They have developed numerical simulators for
conventional gas/oil, heavy oil and unconventional reservoir management. Some of their
simulators are IMEX, STARS, GEMS etc.

20
Nexus® Reservoir Simulation Software: It is developed by Halliburton, one of the
world’s largest provider of products and services to the oil and gas industries. It can be
used for rapid simulation of multi reservoir model, production forecasts and integrated
asset management.

VIP® Reservoir Simulation Suite: VIP®, Landmark's reservoir simulation technology

suite, developed by Halliburton provides complete pre-processing, simulation and post-
processing workflows to engineers and asset teams.

JewelSuite Reservoir Modeling Software: JewelSuit, developed by Baker Hughes

builds and updates complex reservoir models. It has integrated seismic, geologic, flow
simulation, and geomechanic models into a single, multidisciplinary workflow.

Sensor Compositional and Black Oil Reservoir Simulation Software: Sensor is a

generalized 3D numerical model developed by Coats Engineering Inc to optimize oil and
gas recovery processes through simulation of compositional and black oil fluid flow in
single porosity, dual porosity, and dual permeability petroleum reservoirs.

TechSIM Simulator: This is an in house simulator of AEA Technology. It uses

generalized compositional model and includes options for black oil, miscible flood and
equation of state compositional simulation.

ARCO: ARCO’s in-house black-oil simulator employs IMPES and fully implicit
techniques for time step discretization.

SIMBEST II: This is a fully implicit simulator developed by Scientific Software-

Intercomp (SSI) which simulates black oil reservoirs, dual porosity reservoirs and
pseudo-compositional modeling of retrograde condensates, gas cycling and volatile oils,
and miscible gas injection.

TIGRESS: The TIGRESS simulator is based on a generalized compositional formulation

which incorporates IMPES and fully-implicit solution Techniques.

21
4.12 Comparison of Commercial Simulators

The comparison of commercial simulators has been summarized according to the Ninth
SPE Comparative Solution Project (Killough 1995). The project provides a
reexamination black-oil simulation based on a model of moderate size and with a high
degree of heterogeneity provided by a geostatistically-based permeability field. Nine
participants provided data for a comparison which is based on a dipping reservoir with
twenty-five somewhat randomly placed producers and a single water injector. Table 4.1
shows the comparison of the simulator based on simulation time steps.

Table 4.1: Comparison of Simulators

Participant Time Steps Outer It CPU (s)
AEA 57 200 391a
57 200 3720b
ARCO 31 98 181c
CMG 48 256 1122d
ECLIPSE 31 142 207c
31 142 535d
SENSOR 33 55 102c
SSI 34 95 427e
TIGRESS 46 194 810f
VIP 27 109 141c

a= IBM R/S 6000/3AT

b= SUN Sparcstation 2
c= IBM R/S 6000/590 (xlf 3.1)
d= HP 735
e= IBM R/S 6000/370 (xlf 2.3)
f= IBM R/S 6000/365

22
 CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY
This research is based on secondary data regarding Habiganj Gas Field. Geological and
petrophysical data, measured rock & fluid properties, available production, completion &
pressure test data and PETRELTM generated geo-model of the field were collected from
Petrobangla and Bangladesh Gas Fields Company Limited (BGFCL).

A simulation model as described below was generated using ECLIPSE 100 black oil
simulator. The model was further validated by matching historical wellhead pressure and
water gas ratio of existing wells with that of simulator generated results. After getting a
reasonable history match, the model would be run in prediction mode for different
operating scenarios with additional infill drilled wells.

5.1. Habiganj Gas Field Reservoir Simulation Model

Habiganj reservoir simulation model was built using the data collected from Petrobangla
and BGFCL (Bangladesh Gas Fields Company Limited) both in the form of hard copies
and soft copies.

Geologic Model: The geologic model of Habiganj gas field was collected from
Petrobangla. The model was built using PETRELTM. The model grid consists of
62X142X62 blocks with dimensions of 100X100 m. The gas zone is divided into two
layers, upper gas sand (UGS) and lower gas sand (LGS). The zones are separated by
strong shale layer and there is no vertical connection between the layers. The UGS cells
have an average height of 5.4 m and LGS cells have an average height of 1.8 m. the field
has been modeled with corner point geometry. A numerical bottom aquifer has been
connected with the UGS, a clear gas – water contact was distinguished at the bottom of
UGS at a depth of 4851 ft initially. No water zone was identified at the LGS. The field

23
has been developed using 11 gas producing wells. Fig 5.1 and 5.2 show the 3D and top
view of Habiganj reservoir

Fig 5.1: 3-D view of Habiganj Reservoir

24
 Fig 5.2: Top View of Habiganj Reservoir

Rock Properties: Rock property distributions of Habiganj UGS and LGS were also
collected form Petrobangla. Average porosity of Habiganj UGS is 40% and permeability
is as high as 4.5 Darcy. There was no measured vertical permeability for the field. So as a
standard practice, initial vertical to horizontal permeability ratio was taken as 0.1. Rock
compressibility at 3000 psia was taken as 3.X10-6 psia-1.

25
Fluid Properties: Fluid properties of Habiganj UGS gas are summarized in Table 5.1,
5.2 and 5.3.
Table 5.1: Composition of Habiganj UGS gas

Component Mole Fraction

N2 0.0078
H2S 0.0000
CO2 0.0001
C1 0.9773
C2 0.0148
C3 0.0000
iC4 0.0000
nC4 0.0000
iC5 0.0000
nC5 0.0000
C6 0.0000
C7+ 0.0000
∑1.0000

Table 5.2: Dry gas PVT Properties

Property Value Unit

Gas Specific Gravity 0.564
Gas Density at Surface Condition 0.044 Lb/ft3
Gas FVF at Surface Condition 191.0349 Rb/Mscf
Gas Viscosity at Surface Condition 0.0199 cp

26
 Table 5.3: Water PVT Properties

Property Value Unit

Density at Surface Condition 64 Lb/ft3
Viscosity at Surface Condition 0.5 cp
Compressibility at Surface Condition 3.03X10-3 Psia-1
FVF at Surface Condition 1 Bbl/STB

Variations of fluid properties like gas formation volume factor and gas viscosity with
pressure have been shown in Fig 5.3.

Fluid Property Variation with Pressure

P vs Gas FVF P vs Gas Viscosity
200 0.035
180
160 0.03
140
Gas FVF (RB/MSCF)

120 0.025

Gas Viscosity, cp
100
80 0.02
60
40 0.015
20
0 0.01
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure (Psia)
Fig 5.3: Fluid Property Variation with Pressure
Production Data: Though production from HB-1 and HB-2 started from August 1968,
production data was available from February 1969. Nine more wells started producing
from the reservoir subsequently within the period from 1985 to 2008. Gas, oil and water
production data were collected up to the period May 2011.Well HB-8 was shut in July

27
2004 and well HB-9 in May 2008 due to low gas production and high water cut. Well
HB-11 was completed at LGS initially and started production from lower gas sand in
February 2008. But later in 2010, lower perforations were sealed due to the low gas
production. After a work over HB-11 is now producing gas from UGS since May 2010.

Pressure Data: Along with production data, average tubing head pressures (THP) data
were available. That is why; THP’s were used for pressure history matching purpose.
Some shut in bottomhole pressures of different wells were also available at different
times. These data were used to match average reservoir pressure.

Relative Permeability/ Saturation data: No special core analysis (SCAL) has ever been
performed on Habiganj gas reservoir. Therefore no relative permeability saturation
relationship data were available. Relative permeability data were considered to be the
most uncertain among all other available data. Fig 5.4 shows the variation in relative
permeability with water saturation. The graph has been plotted using the hypothetical
data collected from Petrobangla for initial simulator runs.

Relative Permeability Curves

Sw Vs Krg Sw Vs Krw
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Relative Permeability

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturateion, Sw (%)

Fig 5.4: Relative Permeability Vs Saturation curves

28
Well Performance Modelling: To calculate tubing head pressures (THPs) from flowing
bottomhole pressures (BHPs), the vertical lift performance curves are required. These
curves were generated using an appropriate correlation (Petroleum Experts 2) by
PROSPER. PROSPER is a well performance, design and optimization program for
modelling most types of well configurations. It can calculate tubing pressure loss by
various vertical lift performance (VLP) correlations. In the simulation model, three
different flow performance tables have been used for different tubing inside diameters.

Initialization: The Model was initialized by specifying the datum depth and pressure at
datum depth. Gas water contact was also specified. At datum depth of 1492 m, pressure
was specified as 2150 psia. Gas water contact was also specified at this depth.

Aquifer Properties: Appreciable amount of water production from the beginning of gas
production was observed and the pressure maintenance throughout the total historical
production period was very good. Water production and historical pressure match could
not be obtained without attaching an aquifer to the reservoir. Moreover, all the previous
studies on Habiganj gas field indicated the presence of a strong bottom aquifer. That is
why; a numerical bottom aquifer having an area of 5x106 ft2, porosity of 40% and
permeability of 400 millidarcy was connected to the model to match the pressure and
water production history. Aquifer initial properties are summarized in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Aquifer initial properties

Aquifer Type Bottom aquifer

Area 5x106 ft2
porosity 40%
permeability 400 md
Gas water contact depth 1492 m

29
 CHAPTER 6
HISTORY MATCHING
6.1 History Matching Approach
The usual approach of history matching is to match field wide pressure and saturation
properties first. After getting a field wide good match, the next step is to advance for
individual well match. But very often it has been found that when there are many wells
present in a reservoir, one or some of the wells are very difficult to be matched. These
wells increase history matching time and sometimes very good match cannot be
established. These wells are termed as “rough wells”.

In this study, an initial well wise match approach has been adopted. Habiganj gas
reservoir is a proven water drive reservoir. That is why, water production rate and gas-
water ratio match are very significant in order to get a reasonable performance prediction.
The water production data of the individual wells obtained were not of very good quality.
As a result, a field wide water production match could never produce a reasonable match.
On the other hand, if a good pressure match and a reasonable and logical water
production match for individual wells can be established, a reasonable field wide match
will automatically be established. With this view, the wells of the Habiganj field were
hypothetically divided into three groups for history matching convenience. The division
was done on the basis of the geographic location of the wells. That is, the wells in the
same vicinity were considered to be in the same group and history matching techniques
were applied to the wells in a group. HB-1, HB-2, HB-3, HB-4 and HB-9 were place in
one group. HB-6, HB-7, HB-8 and HB-10 were place in another group and HB-5 and
HB-11 were placed in a third group.

6.2 History Matching Parameters

History matching parameters are listed according to the chronology of the changes not on
the uncertainty of the parameters.

30
· Pore volume: The initial simulation run showed a good pressure match at the
beginning of the history but a large deviation later. A change in pore volume was
considered to get a better pressure history match. A 20% increase in the pore
volume of the gas bearing zone produced a better pressure match for all the wells.
· Critical Water Saturation: Critical water saturation defines the largest water
saturation for which water relative permeability is zero. Critical water saturation
value controls at what value of saturation water is movable in the reservoir. No
actual data for critical water saturation was available. History matched critical
saturation value was set at 20%.
· Aquifer Properties: the bottom aquifer was given a uniform permeability of 400
millidarcy. But during history matching initial runs, it was found that the water
table movement rate was faster than the expected movement rate. A 40%
reduction in aquifer transmissibility better matched the water production.
· Horizontal Permeability: Initial runs showed a decline in pressure for almost
every well at the end of historical life. A 20% increase in horizontal permeability
of the gas bearing zone of the reservoir better matched the pressure.
· Relative Permeability Curves: As there were no special core analysis data of
Habiganj gas field, the relative permeability curves initially used were purely
based on the assumption. Relative permeability of water was slightly changed to
match water movement inside the reservoir. Table 6.1 shows the changes in
water relative permeability values. Fig 6.1 is the graphical representation of
Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 : Change in Water Relative Permeability
Sw Original Krw Changed
Krw
0 1 1
0.1 0.6561 0.6561
0.2 0.4096 0.4096
0.3 0.2401 0.2401
0.4 0.1296 0.1296
0.5 0.0625 0.053
0.6 0.0256 0.017
0.7 0.0081 0.012
0.8 0.003 0.005
0.9 0.001 0.001
1 0 0

31
 Relative Permeability Curves
Krg original Krw Original Krw Changed
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Relative Permeability

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water Saturation, Sw

Fig 6.1: Change in Water Relative Permeability

· Productivity Index Multiplier: For well HB-6, a pressure deviation was observed
from the very beginning of historical production. For this well, the pressure profile
trend matched but the numerical pressure values were either higher or lower than
the historical values. Productivity index multipliers were used for this well.

6.3 History Matching Results and interpretation

Following parameters were history matched-

· Average Reservoir Pressure
· Field wide water production
· Tubing head pressures for each well
· Water production for each well
The average reservoir pressure was matched with the available shut in pressure of
different wells at different times. Most of the available data were 18 hours shut in
pressure data. For a high permeability reservoir, shut in pressure quickly approaches the

32
average reservoir pressure. This is also evident from the graphical match (Fig 6.2). The
simulated average reservoir pressure data were slightly higher than the historical shut in
pressure data. The match was reasonably satisfactory.

Average Reservoir Pressure Match

Simulated Average Reservoir Pressure Historical Shutin Pressure

2500

2000
Pressure (Psia)

1500

1000

500

0
Feb-69

Feb-72

Feb-75

Feb-78

Feb-81

Feb-84

Feb-87

Feb-90

Feb-93

Feb-96

Feb-99

Feb-02

Feb-05

Feb-08

Feb-11
Time

Fig 6.2: Average Reservoir Pressure Match

Fig 6.3 shows the field water production match. It is to be noted that historical water
production data available were erroneous. So a good water production match was never
realized. The objective was to obtain a reasonable water production match with a good
pressure match. Field water production match is not so satisfactory. Production from well
HB-8 was suspended on July 2004 due to excessive water production. This is not implied
in simulated result. This can be because of the error in locating perforations of well HB-8
in the geo model. A gradual increase in simulated water production started from the
middle of 2006. Water production rises to a maximum in March 2008 and reduces
sharply from April 2008. This explains the actual condition that well HB-9 was
suspended on April 2008 due to excessive water production. Historical data also showed
an increase in water production during the period but simulated water production was
higher than that of historical water production. Historical water production remained high

33
even after the suspension of production from the well HB-9 which is contradictory to the
actual condition. A good pressure match for well HB-9 (Fig 6.12) indicates that simulated
water production should be taken as satisfactory. A gradual rise in simulated water
production at the end of the historical years is mainly due to the increase in water
production of well HB-1.

Field Water Production Rate Match

simulated Water Production historical Water Production

700
Water Production Rate (STB/D)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Feb-69
Feb-71
Feb-73
Feb-75
Feb-77
Feb-79
Feb-81
Feb-83
Feb-85
Feb-87
Feb-89
Feb-91
Feb-93
Feb-95
Feb-97
Feb-99
Feb-01
Feb-03
Feb-05
Feb-07
Feb-09
Feb-11
Time

Fig 6.3: Field Water Production Match

Well HB-1 and HB-2 started producing gas from upper gas sand of Habiganj Reservoir
on August 1968. Initial gas production rate for the wells were 2.34 MMSCFD for HB-1
and 0.717 MMSCFD for HB-2. At the end of the historical production period (June 2011)
HB-1 and HB-2 were producing at rates of 17 and 18 MMSCFD respectively. Fig 6.4 and
6.5 show THP match for the wells HB-1 and HB-2 respectively. THP match for HB-1
and HB-2 are quite satisfactory. Both simulated pressure trend and numerical values well
matched with the historical THP data.

34
 Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)

1000
1500
2000
2500

500

0
1000
1500
2000
2500

500

0
Feb-69
Feb-71 Feb-69
Feb-73 Feb-71
Feb-75 Feb-73
Feb-77 Feb-75
Feb-77
Feb-79
Feb-79
Feb-81
Feb-81
Feb-83
Feb-83
Feb-85 Feb-85
Feb-87 Feb-87
Feb-89 Feb-89

Time

Time
Feb-91 Feb-91
Simulated THP

Feb-93

Simulated THP
Feb-93
Feb-95 Feb-95

Fig 6.5: THP Match for HB-2

Fig 6.4: THP Match for HB-1

THP Match for HB-2

THP match for HB-1

Feb-97 Feb-97
Feb-99 Feb-99
Feb-01 Feb-01
Feb-03 Feb-03
Feb-05 Feb-05
Historical THP

Historical THP

Feb-07 Feb-07
Feb-09 Feb-09
Feb-11 Feb-11

35
Wells HB-3 and HB-4 started producing gas from upper gas sand of Habiganj gas field
from July 1985 and May 1985 respectively. Initially, HB-3 was producing gas at a rate of
10.92 MMSCFD and HB-4 was producing at a rate of 4.76 MMSCFD. At the end of the
historical production period (June 2011) both the wells were producing gas at a rate of 36
MMSCFD. Fig 6.6 and 6.7 show THP match for wells HB-3 and HB-4 respectively.
Simulated THP well matched with the historical THP except for the period 1986 to 1996.
During this period, simulated THP values were higher than those of historical values.
Historical gas production data for these wells show no huge fluctuation or increase in gas
production rate for which pressure should decrease. The decrease in historical pressure
data during the period can be because of the presence of error in pressure reading. It may
also be due to the manual manipulation of pressure reading. The overall pressure match
for these wells can be regarded as satisfactory.

THP Match for HB-3

Simulated THP Historical THP
2000

1500
Pressure (Psia)

1000

500

0
Aug-85
Aug-86
Aug-87
Aug-88
Aug-89
Aug-90
Aug-91
Aug-92
Aug-93
Aug-94
Aug-95
Aug-96
Aug-97
Aug-98
Aug-99
Aug-00
Aug-01
Aug-02
Aug-03
Aug-04
Aug-05
Aug-06
Aug-07
Aug-08
Aug-09
Aug-10

Time

Fig 6.6: THP Match for HB-3

36
 THP match for HB-4
Simulated THP Historical THP
2000

1500
Pressure (Psia)

1000

500

0
Jun-85
Jun-86
Jun-87
Jun-88
Jun-89
Jun-90
Jun-91
Jun-92
Jun-93
Jun-94
Jun-95
Jun-96
Jun-97
Jun-98
Jun-99
Jun-00
Jun-01
Jun-02
Jun-03
Jun-04
Jun-05
Jun-06
Jun-07
Jun-08
Jun-09
Jun-10
Jun-11
Time

Fig 6.7: THP Match for HB-4

HB-5 is the only deviated well of Habiganj Gas field that started producing from upper
gas sand at a rate of 15.8 MMSCFD from February 1992. The total depth of the well is
3521 meter and at the end of the historical production years it was producing at a rate of
26 MMSCFD. Fig 6.8 shows THP match for well HB-5. THP match for the only deviated
well HB-5 was not so good. Simulated THP values were always less than the historical
values. From the period 2003 to 2006 simulated pressure values drastically fell below the
historical values. A manual calculation showed that for HB-5, for a production rate as
high as 43 MMSCFD if THP value is 1416 Psia, bottomhole flowing pressure is
approximately 3100 Psia whereas, bottomhole pressure calculated by pressure drawdown
equation is approximately 2000 psia. Fluctuations in historical THP values do not match
the implied production fluctuations. That could be due to the troubles in pressure or
production gauges, errors in modeling the deviation, or this deviated well can be treated
as a rough well that could not be history matched. However, one historical shut in
bottomhole pressure for HB-5 was available which was matched to the simulated
bottomhole pressure. The simulated plot showed a very good agreement with the
historical data. Fig 6.9 shows the BHP match for HB-5.

37
 Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)

1000
1500
2000
2500

0
500
0

-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
1000
2000

1-Mar-92
1-Jan-93 Mar-92
1-Nov-93 Mar-93
1-Sep-94 Mar-94
1-Jul-95
Mar-95
1-May-96
1-Mar-97
Mar-96
1-Jan-98 Mar-97
1-Nov-98 Mar-98
1-Sep-99 Mar-99

Simulated BHP
1-Jul-00
Mar-00
Simulated THP

1-May-01
Mar-01

Time
1-Mar-02

Time
1-Jan-03 Mar-02

Fig 6.8: THP Match for HB-5

Fig 6.9: BHP Match for HB-5

1-Nov-03 Mar-03

BHP Match for HB-5

THP Match for HB-5

1-Sep-04

Historical BHP
Mar-04
1-Jul-05
Mar-05
1-May-06
Historical THP

1-Mar-07
Mar-06
1-Jan-08 Mar-07
1-Nov-08 Mar-08
1-Sep-09 Mar-09
1-Jul-10
Mar-10

38
1-May-11
Mar-11
Well HB-6 started producing from upper gas sand at a rate of 14 MMSCFD from
February 1992. Total depth of the well is 5515 m and at the end of the historical
production years, it was producing at a rate of 15 MMSCFD. Fig 6.10 shows the THP
match for well HB-6. For this well, simulated THP well matched with the historical THP
throughout the whole historical period. Well HB-7 started producing from upper gas sand
at a rate of 5.2 MMSCFD from April 2000. Total depth of the well is 3120 m and at the
end of the historical production years, it was producing at a rate of 40 MMSCFD. Fig
6.11 shows the THP match for well HB-7. Initial THP match for the well is very good.
Later, when the gas production rate was gradually increased, simulated pressure fell
below the historical values. The difference in pressure was never greater than 100 psi.
Sometimes historical values showed an increase in pressure with increasing gas
production and vice versa that cannot be logically explained. In these cases simulated
pressure values showed a better agreement with the historical gas production. Fig 6.12
shows the variation of THP of HB-7 with gas production.

THP match for HB-6

Simulated THP Historical THP
2000

1500
Pressure (Psia)

1000

500

0
Mar-92
Mar-93
Mar-94
Mar-95
Mar-96
Mar-97
Mar-98
Mar-99
Mar-00
Mar-01
Mar-02
Mar-03
Mar-04
Mar-05
Mar-06
Mar-07
Mar-08
Mar-09
Mar-10
Mar-11

Time

Fig 6.10: THP Match for HB-6

39
 Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

0
500
1000
1500
2000
500

0
1000
1500
2000

May-00 May-00
Nov-00 Nov-00
May-01 May-01
Nov-01
Nov-01
May-02
May-02

Simulated THP
Nov-02
May-03 Nov-02
Nov-03 May-03
May-04 Nov-03
Nov-04 May-04
May-05 Nov-04
Nov-05 May-05

Historical THP
May-06 Nov-05

Time
Time
Nov-06
Simulated THP

May-06
May-07
Nov-06
Nov-07
Fig 6.11: THP Match for HB-7 May-07

THP Match for HB-7

THP Match for HB-7

May-08
Nov-08 Nov-07
May-09 May-08
Nov-09 Nov-08
May-10

Fig 6.12: Variation of THP with Gas Production for HB-7

May-09
Historical THP

Nov-10 Nov-09
May-11 May-10
Historical Gas Production

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50

Nov-10
Gas Production, MMSCFD May-11

40
Wells HB-8 and HB-9 started producing gas from upper gas sand of Habiganj gas field
from May 2000 and July 1998 respectively. Initially, HB-8 was producing gas at a rate of
5.5 MMSCFD and HB-9 was producing at a rate of 17 MMSCFD. Production from HB-8
and HB-9 were suspended from July 2004 and May 2009 respectively due to excessive
water production. Fig 6.13 shows THP match for well HB-8. Initial pressure match is
very good but some differences in historical and simulated values are seen later. It has
been mentioned previously that the jump in water production of well HB-8 could not be
matched. This may be because of the wrong placement of perforation levels in the geo
model. THP match for HB-9 is shown in Fig 6.14. Simulated pressure matched with the
historical values with reasonable accuracy.
Production from well HB-10 started from April 2000 at a rate of 4.6 MMSCFD. At the
end of the historical production years, well was producing at a rate of 40 MMSCFD. Fig
6.15 shows the THP match for HB-10. The average difference in simulated and historical
pressure is less than 70 psi and the pressure match can be considered to be satisfactory
enough.

THP Match for HB-8

Simulated THP Historical THP

2000

1500
Pressure (Psia)

1000

500

0
Feb-01
Apr-01

Feb-02
Apr-02

Feb-03
Apr-03

Feb-04
Apr-04
Jun-00
Aug-00
Oct-00
Dec-00

Jun-01
Aug-01
Oct-01
Dec-01

Jun-02
Aug-02
Oct-02
Dec-02

Jun-03
Aug-03
Oct-03
Dec-03

Jun-04

Time
Fig 6.13: THP Match for HB-8

41
 Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

500

0
1000
1500
2000

500
1000
1500
2000

0
Aug-98
Jun-00 Dec-98
Apr-99
Aug-99
Jun-01
Dec-99
Apr-00
Jun-02 Aug-00
Dec-00
Apr-01
Jun-03 Aug-01
Dec-01
Jun-04 Apr-02
Aug-02
Dec-02
Jun-05 Apr-03

Simulated THP
Aug-03
Time

Time
Dec-03
Simulated THP

Jun-06 Apr-04
Fig 6.14: THP Match for HB-9 Aug-04
THP match for HB-9

Jun-07 Dec-04

THP Match for HB-10

Apr-05

Fig 6.15: THP Match for HB-10

Aug-05
Jun-08 Dec-05
Historical THP
Apr-06
Historical THP

Jun-09 Aug-06
Dec-06
Apr-07
Jun-10 Aug-07
Dec-07
Apr-08

42
Jun-11
Well HB-11 is the only well in Habiganj gas field that was completed at lower gas sand
and started production from January 2008 at a rate of 11 MMSCFD. Because of the lower
porosity and permeability, very soon gas production rate was decreased to almost 1
MMSCFD. After a work over, lower zone was plugged back and production from upper
gas zone started from August 2010. At the end of the historical production years, the well
was producing gas at a rate of 30 MMSCFD. Fig 6.16 shows the THP match of HB-11
for production from upper gas sand. The match is reasonably good.

THP Match for HB-11

Simulated THP Historical THP
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Pressure (Psia)

800
600
400
200
0
Aug-10

Sep-10

Oct-10

Nov-10

Dec-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

Mar-11

Apr-11

Jun-11
May-11

Time

Fig 6.16: THP Match for HB-11

Figs 6.17 to 6.24 show the water production match for individual wells of Habiganj gas
field. A good water production match for none of the wells could be realized for the
possible reasons listed in the next paragraph. The objective of production history match
was to get a reasonable and logical simulated water production from individual wells
after getting a satisfactory pressure match.
The possible reasons for mismatch in historical and simulated water production are:

43
 · Historical water production data available were erroneous. Some identical water
production for different wells was observed for a period of time. Most of the
production data were average of cumulative production of all the wells.
· Early water production from initial wells could be due to the condensation of
water vapor as water production data are not measured at well site rather it is
measured from separator tank.
· Sudden jump in historical water production could be due to the liquid loading of
wells, the effect that cannot be shown by simulation.
· Skin and Non-Darcy effect together increase water production in gas reservoirs
with bottom water drive (Armenta 2003), the effects that were not included in
simulation model.

Water Production Rate Match for HB-1

Simulated Water production Historical Water Production
70
Water Production Rate ( STB/D)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Feb-69
Feb-71
Feb-73
Feb-75
Feb-77
Feb-79
Feb-81
Feb-83
Feb-85
Feb-87
Feb-89
Feb-91
Feb-93
Feb-95
Feb-97
Feb-99
Feb-01
Feb-03
Feb-05
Feb-07
Feb-09
Feb-11

Time

Fig 6.17: Water Production Rate Match for HB-1

44
 Water Production Rate (STB/D)
Water Production Rate (STB/D)

0
50
100
150
200
250

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Aug-85 Feb-69
Aug-86 Feb-71
Aug-87 Feb-73
Aug-88 Feb-75
Aug-89
Feb-77
Aug-90
Aug-91 Feb-79
Aug-92 Feb-81
Aug-93 Feb-83
Aug-94
Feb-85
Aug-95
Aug-96 Feb-87

Simulated Water Production

Simulated Water Production

Aug-97 Feb-89

Time
Aug-98

Time
Feb-91
Aug-99
Feb-93
Aug-00
Aug-01 Feb-95
Aug-02 Feb-97
Aug-03 Feb-99
Aug-04

Fig 6.19: Water Production Rate Match for HB-3

Fig 6.18: Water Production Rate Match for HB-2

Feb-01
Water Production Match for HB-3
Water Production Match for HB-2

Aug-05
Aug-06 Feb-03
Aug-07 Feb-05
Aug-08 Feb-07
Historical Water Production
Historical Water Production

Aug-09 Feb-09
Aug-10
Feb-11

45
 Water Production Rate (STB/D) Water Production Rate (STB/D)

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16

Mar-92 Jun-85
Mar-93 Jun-86
Jun-87
Mar-94
Jun-88
Mar-95 Jun-89
Mar-96 Jun-90
Jun-91
Mar-97 Jun-92
Mar-98 Jun-93
Mar-99 Jun-94
Jun-95
Mar-00 Jun-96
Simulated Water Production

Simulated Water Production

Mar-01 Jun-97
Jun-98

Time
Time
Mar-02
Jun-99
Mar-03 Jun-00
Mar-04 Jun-01
Jun-02
Mar-05
Jun-03
Mar-06 Jun-04

Fig 6.21: Water Production Rate Match for HB-5

Fig 6.20: Water Production Rate Match for HB-4

Jun-05
Water Production Match for HB-5
Water Production Match for HB-4

Mar-07
Jun-06
Mar-08
Jun-07
Mar-09 Jun-08
Historical Water Production

Historical Water Production

Mar-10 Jun-09
Jun-10
Mar-11 Jun-11

46
 Water Production Rate (STB/D)
Water Production Rate (STB/D)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Mar-92
May-00
Mar-93
Nov-00
May-01 Mar-94
Nov-01 Mar-95
May-02 Mar-96
Nov-02 Mar-97
May-03
Mar-98
Nov-03
May-04 Mar-99
Simulated Water Production

Nov-04 Mar-00

Simulated Water Production

May-05 Mar-01

Time
Nov-05

Time
Mar-02
May-06
Mar-03
Nov-06
May-07 Mar-04
Nov-07 Mar-05
May-08 Mar-06

Fig 6.23: Water Production Rate Match for HB-7

Fig 6.22: Water Production Rate Match for HB-6

Nov-08
Water Production Match for HB-7
Water Production Match for HB-6

Mar-07
May-09
Mar-08
Nov-09
Mar-09
Historical water Production

May-10
Historical Water Production

Nov-10 Mar-10
May-11 Mar-11

47
 Water Production Match for HB-10
Simulated Water Production Historical Water Production
Water Production Rate (STB/D) 80

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nov-00

Nov-01

Nov-02

Nov-03

Nov-04

Nov-05

Nov-06

Nov-07

Nov-08

Nov-09

Nov-10
May-00

May-01

May-02

May-03

May-04

May-05

May-06

May-07

May-08

May-09

May-10

May-11
Time

Fig 6.24: Water Production Rate Match for HB-10

Water Production Match for HB-11

Simulated Water Production Historical Water Production

30
Water Production Rate (STB/D)

25

20

15

10

0
Nov-10

Feb-11

Apr-11
Aug-10

Sep-10

Oct-10

Dec-10

Jan-11

Mar-11

May-11

Jun-11

Time
Fig 6.25: Water Production Rate Match for HB-11

48
 CHAPTER 7
PREDICTION
A good history match is followed by performance predictions under different production
scenarios. The prediction case scenarios for this study have been chosen based on the
conditions of the existing wells. The objective was to find out whether the scenarios have
any effect on the recoveries from the reservoir.
This chapter presents the performance of the field for different prediction scenarios

7.1 Short Term Prediction Case Scenarios

The history matched simulation model was run for five different short term prediction
case scenarios. As the water production and in some cases, gas production and pressure
data seemed to be erroneous, it was decided that the model would be run for additional
five years. Though HB-1 and HB-2 started production from 1969, most of the remaining
wells started producing from 90’s. It is assumed that a very well history matched
simulation model can predict the performance with acceptable accuracy for half the
period of the historical production period. Only 10 months’ production data were
available for the latest developed well HB-11. So the decision of running the model in
prediction phase for additional 5 years was justified. The prediction scenarios are
discussed below.
· Scenario 1: Base Case Prediction / Do- Nothing case
· Scenario 2: Reduction in Production for High Water Cut Wells
· Scenario 3: Workover of High Water Cut Wells
· Scenario 4: Production with Additional One Well
· Scenario 5: Production with Additional Two Wells

Scenario 1: In this case, history matched model was run for additional five years without
any change or modification. It was assumed that the wells would be producing at constant
rates equal to the production rates of last available historical production rates. The
predicted result revealed that all wells except HB-1 and HB-3 would be producing

49
smoothly without having high water cut throughout the predictive years. Well HB-1
would experience an immediate water breakthrough (Fig 7.1) and well HB-3 would
experience an increase in water production from January 2014 (Fig 7.2) which would
continue to rise sharply for the predictive periods. The prediction result can be treated as
satisfactory because BGFCL has reduced well HB-1’s production to half the original rate
by the end of the year 2011 because of excessive water production.

Predicted Well Water Production for HB-1

Well Water Production
2000

1800

1600
Water Production (STB/D)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Time
Fig 7.1: Predicted Well Water Production for HB-1

50
 Predicted Well Water Production for HB-3
Well Water Production
1600

1400
Water Production (STB/D)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Time
Fig 7.2: Predicted Well Water Production for HB-3

Scenario 2: In this prediction case, the productions from well 1 and well 3 were reduced
to half the rate at the end of historical years. The objective was to find out whether a
reduction in production would bring any change in water breakthrough time. It was
observed that reduction in production would decreases the water production for well 1
and 3 but there would be no change in water breakthrough time (Fig 7.3 and Fig 7.4).
Water production would suddenly increase sharply because the water table would reach
the lower perforation level. If any delay is to be made to the breakthrough time,
production should be lowered much before the water tables reaches the perforation level.
Once high water production is observed, lowering the gas production will decrease the
amount of water production but neither the breakthrough time will be delayed, nor will
the well water gas ratio be decreased. In fact, in case of well 1 and 3 well water gas ratio
increased for lower gas production (Fig 7.5 and Fig 7.6).

51
 Well Water Production, STB/D Well Water Production. STB/D

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1-Jul-11 1-Jul-11
1-Oct-11 1-Oct-11
1-Jan-12 1-Jan-12
1-Apr-12 1-Apr-12
1-Jul-12 1-Jul-12
1-Oct-12 1-Oct-12
1-Jan-13 1-Jan-13
1-Apr-13 1-Apr-13
Base Case WWPR

Base Case WWPR

1-Jul-13 1-Jul-13
1-Oct-13 1-Oct-13

Time

Time
1-Jan-14 1-Jan-14
1-Apr-14 1-Apr-14
1-Jul-14 1-Jul-14
1-Oct-14 1-Oct-14
Scenario 2 WWPR

Scenario 2 WWPR
1-Jan-15 1-Jan-15
1-Apr-15 1-Apr-15

Fig 7.4: Well Water Production Comparison for HB-3

Fig 7.3: Well Water Production Comparison for HB-1

1-Jul-15 1-Jul-15
Well Water Production comparison for HB-3
Well Water Production comparison for HB-1

1-Oct-15 1-Oct-15
1-Jan-16 1-Jan-16
1-Apr-16 1-Apr-16

52
 Well Water Gas Ratio (STB/MSCF) Well Water Gas Ratio (STB/MSCF)

0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18

0.1

5.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-02
2.50E-02
3.00E-02
3.50E-02
4.00E-02
4.50E-02

0.00E+00
1-Jul-11
1-Jul-11 1-Oct-11
1-Oct-11 1-Jan-12
1-Jan-12 1-Apr-12
1-Apr-12 1-Jul-12
1-Jul-12
1-Oct-12
1-Oct-12
1-Jan-13
1-Jan-13
1-Apr-13
1-Apr-13
Base Case WWGR

Base Case WWGR

1-Jul-13
1-Jul-13
1-Oct-13

Time
1-Oct-13
Time 1-Jan-14
1-Jan-14
1-Apr-14
1-Apr-14
1-Jul-14
1-Jul-14
1-Oct-14
1-Oct-14
Scenario 2 WWGR

Scenario 2 WWGR
1-Jan-15
1-Jan-15
1-Apr-15

Fig 7.6: Well Water Gas Ratio Comparison for HB-3

Fig 7.5: Well Water Gas Ratio Comparison for HB-1

1-Apr-15
1-Jul-15
1-Jul-15
Well Water Gas Ratio Comparison for HB-3
Well Water Gas Ratio Comparison for HB-1

1-Oct-15
1-Oct-15
1-Jan-16 1-Jan-16

1-Apr-16 1-Apr-16

53
Scenario 3: In this prediction case, the workover of well 1 and well 3 to plug back the
lower perforations was considered. Once the water production would sharply increase,
the lower perforations would be sealed off. The water production from the two wells
would be ceased and no water breakthrough would be observed during the prediction
years (Fig 7.7 and Fig 7.8).

Well Water Production of HB-1, Scenario 3

140

120
Well Water Production (STB/D)

100

80

60

40

20

0
1-Oct-11

1-Oct-12

1-Oct-13

1-Oct-14

1-Oct-15
1-Jul-11

1-Jan-12
1-Apr-12
1-Jul-12

1-Jan-13
1-Apr-13
1-Jul-13

1-Jan-14
1-Apr-14
1-Jul-14

1-Jan-15
1-Apr-15
1-Jul-15

1-Jan-16
1-Apr-16

Time

Fig 7.7: Scenario 3 Well Water Production of HB-1

54
 Well Water Production of HB-3, Scenario 3
14

12
Well Water Production (STB/D)

10

0
1-Oct-11

1-Oct-12

1-Oct-13

1-Oct-14

1-Oct-15
1-Jul-11

1-Jan-12
1-Apr-12
1-Jul-12

1-Jan-13
1-Apr-13
1-Jul-13

1-Jan-14
1-Apr-14
1-Jul-14

1-Jan-15
1-Apr-15
1-Jul-15

1-Jan-16
1-Apr-16
Time

Fig 7.8: Scenario 3 Well Water Production of HB-3

Scenario 4: in this prediction case, drilling of a new well was considered with all other
wells producing at their normal rate. Workover of HB-1 and HB-3 was also considered as
workover proved to be the only effective solution to control water production from those
wells. The new well was named as HB-12 and it was considered that production from the
well would start from June 2012. The location of the well was selected based on the gas
saturation of the reservoir at the time when drilling was considered and on the density of
the wells at a particular area of the reservoir. The production rate was set at 20
MMSCFD. Tubing head pressure variation (Fig 7.9) shows a gradual and consistent
decrease over time with no sharp pressure fall. Water production profile (Fig 7.10) shows
negligible water production throughout the whole prediction period.

55
 Well Water Production (STB/D) Pressure (Psia)

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800

0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
1-Jun-12
1-Jun-12 1-Aug-12
1-Aug-12 1-Oct-12
1-Oct-12
1-Dec-12
1-Dec-12
1-Feb-13
1-Feb-13
1-Apr-13
1-Apr-13
1-Jun-13
1-Jun-13
1-Aug-13
1-Aug-13
1-Oct-13
1-Oct-13
1-Dec-13
1-Dec-13
1-Feb-14
1-Feb-14
1-Apr-14
1-Apr-14 Time
1-Jun-14

Time
1-Jun-14
1-Aug-14 1-Aug-14
1-Oct-14 1-Oct-14
1-Dec-14 1-Dec-14
1-Feb-15 1-Feb-15
1-Apr-15 1-Apr-15
Water Production of HB-12

Fig 7.10: Water Production Profile of HB-12

1-Jun-15 1-Jun-15
Fig 7.9: Tubing Head Pressure Variation of HB-12

1-Aug-15 1-Aug-15
1-Oct-15 1-Oct-15
Tubing Head Pressure Variation of HB-12

1-Dec-15 1-Dec-15
1-Feb-16 1-Feb-16
1-Apr-16 1-Apr-16

56
Scenario 5: in this prediction case, drilling of two additional wells was considered. The
wells were named as HB-12 and HB-13. The locations of the wells were selected
applying the same criteria as applied for HB-12 alone, i.e. the gas saturation and the
density of the existing wells. The gas production started from June 2012 and production
rate for each well was set at 20 MMSCFD. Tubing head pressure variation (Fig 7.11)
shows a gradual and consistent decrease over time with no sharp pressure fall for both the
wells. Water production profile (Fig 7.12) of the wells shows negligible water production
throughout the whole prediction period.

Tubing Head Pressure Variation of HB-12 and

HB-13
HB-12 HB-13

1580
1560
1540
Pressure (Psia)

1520
1500
1480
1460
1440
1420
1-Aug-12
1-Oct-12
1-Dec-12
1-Feb-13
1-Apr-13

1-Aug-13
1-Oct-13
1-Dec-13
1-Feb-14
1-Apr-14

1-Aug-14
1-Oct-14
1-Dec-14
1-Feb-15
1-Apr-15

1-Aug-15
1-Oct-15
1-Dec-15
1-Feb-16
1-Apr-16
1-Jun-12

1-Jun-13

1-Jun-14

1-Jun-15

Time

Fig 7.11: Tubing Head Pressure Variation of HB-12 and HB-13

57
 Water Production of HB-12 and HB-13
HB-12 HB-13

0.009
Well Water Production (STB/D)

0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
1-Jun-12
1-Aug-12
1-Oct-12
1-Dec-12

1-Apr-13
1-Jun-13
1-Aug-13
1-Oct-13
1-Dec-13

1-Apr-14
1-Jun-14
1-Aug-14
1-Oct-14
1-Dec-14

1-Apr-15
1-Jun-15
1-Aug-15
1-Oct-15
1-Dec-15

1-Apr-16
1-Feb-13

1-Feb-14

1-Feb-15

1-Feb-16
Time

Fig 7.12: Water Production Profile of HB-12

Fig 7.13 shows the position of added wells (well HB-12 and well HB-13) with all other
wells of Habiganj gas field.

Fig 7.13: Position of Added Wells

58
 Comparison of Remaining Gas
5.00E+09
4.50E+09 Base Case
Field Gas in Place (MSCF)

4.00E+09 Scenario 2
3.50E+09 Scenario 3
3.00E+09
Scenario 4
2.50E+09
2.00E+09 Scenario 5
1.50E+09
1.00E+09
5.00E+08
0.00E+00
1-Feb-69
1-Aug-71
1-Feb-74
1-Aug-76
1-Feb-79
1-Aug-81
1-Feb-84
1-Aug-86
1-Feb-89
1-Aug-91
1-Feb-94
1-Aug-96
1-Feb-99
1-Aug-01
1-Feb-04
1-Aug-06
1-Feb-09
1-Aug-11
1-Feb-14
Time

Fig 7.14 Amount of Remaining Gas till the End of Prediction Years( short term)

Fig 7.14 shows the remaining gas in place for different scenarios after 2016. The
cumulative recovery for Scenario 1,2,3,4 and 5 will be 48.27%, 47.62%, 48.27%, 48.92%
and 49.56% respectively.

7.2 Long Term Prediction Case Scenarios

It is expected from any simulation study that it will provide an idea about the long term
field performances. The initial prediction runs of this study were designed only for
additional five years because of the poor data quality. However, some long term (up to
2040) prediction cases under different production scenarios were run to see the effect of
each scenario on ultimate recovery. It cannot be said confidently that the results of these
long term prediction cases will be accurate.
A well economic limit of 1000 MSCFD gas production and 1000 STB/D water
production were set for all the scenarios. That is, any well producing less than 1000
MSCFD gas or greater than 1000 STB/D water will automatically get shut down. The
prediction case scenarios are discussed below.

59
 · Scenario A: Base Case Prediction up to 2040
· Scenario B: Prediction up to 2040 With Additional Two Wells
· Scenario C: Prediction up to 2040 With Workover of High Water Cut wells
· Scenario D: Prediction up to 2040 With Additional Two Wells and Workover of
High Water Cut Wells

Scenario A: in this case, the simulation model was run for additional 28 years with well
economic limits set. Fig 7.14 shows the variation of gas production rate of the wells with
time.

Prediction of Gas Production Rate, Scenario A

45000

40000
Gas Production Rate ()MSCFD)

35000
HB-1
30000
HB-2
25000 HB-3
20000 HB-4

15000 HB-5
HB-6
10000
HB-7
5000
HB-10
0 HB-11
1-Dec-12

1-Dec-15

1-Dec-18

1-Dec-21

1-Dec-24

1-Dec-27

1-Dec-30

1-Dec-33

1-Dec-36

1-Dec-39
1-Jun-11

1-Jun-14

1-Jun-17

1-Jun-20

1-Jun-23

1-Jun-26

1-Jun-29

1-Jun-32

1-Jun-35

1-Jun-38

Time

Fig 7.15: Gas Production Rates of wells, scenario A

Only well HB-5 will continue to produce up to 2040. Well HB-1 will terminate
production in the year 2020 followed by HB-2 in 2021. HB-3 will be the next well to stop
production from 2025. All other wells (HB-4, HB-6, HB-7, HB-10, HB-11) will be shut
down within the period from 2031 to 2038. Total gas production for this scenario will be
3.2 TCF that will result in an ultimate recovery of 70.7%.

60
Scenario B: In this case, drilling of two additional wells was considered. The simulation
model was run for additional 28 years (up to 2040). The positions of the wells were same
as the positions selected for Scenario 5 (Section 7.1). Initial production rates for the wells
were set at 20MMSCFD. Fig 7.15 shows the variation of gas production of the wells for
Scenario B.

Prediction of Gas Production Rate , Scenario B

45000

40000
HB-1
Gas Production Rate (MSCFD)

35000
HB-2
30000
HB-3
25000
HB-4
20000 HB-5

15000 HB-6
HB-7
10000
HB-10
5000
HB-11
0 HB-12
1-May-11

1-May-14

1-May-17

1-May-20

1-May-23

1-May-26

1-May-29

1-May-32

1-May-35

1-May-38
1-Nov-12

1-Nov-15

1-Nov-18

1-Nov-21

1-Nov-24

1-Nov-27

1-Nov-30

1-Nov-33

1-Nov-36

1-Nov-39
HB-13

Time

Fig 7.16: Gas Production Rates of wells, scenario B

Wells HB-4 and HB-6 will continue to produce up to 2040. All other wells will be shut at
earlier times compared to Scenario A. Ultimate recovery will be 65%

Scenario C: In this case, workover of high water cut wells to plug back the lower
perforations was considered. Workover schedules were set by observing the onset of high
water production from the wells as seen in Scenario A. Workover schedules chosen for
different wells are as follows:
HB-1: November 2011

61
HB-2: May 2020
HB-3: May 2013 and May 2018
HB-4: May 2018
HB-5: May 2018 and May 2028
HB-6: May 2021
HB-7: May 2023
HB-10: May 2022
HB-11: May 2019
Fig 7.16 shows the variation of gas production rate of the wells for Scenario C.

Prediction of Gas Production Rate, Scenario C

45000

40000
Gas Production Rate (MSCFD))

35000
HB-1
30000
HB-2
25000 HB-3
20000 HB-4

15000 HB-5
HB-6
10000
HB-7
5000 HB-10
0 HB-11
1-Jun-11
1-Dec-12
1-Jun-14
1-Dec-15
1-Jun-17
1-Dec-18
1-Jun-20
1-Dec-21
1-Jun-23
1-Dec-24
1-Jun-26
1-Dec-27
1-Jun-29
1-Dec-30
1-Jun-32
1-Dec-33
1-Jun-35
1-Dec-36
1-Jun-38
1-Dec-39

Time

Fig 7.17: Gas Production Rates of wells, scenario C

Total Gas production for this scenario will be 3.44 TCF and ultimate recovery will be
74%.
Scenario D: In this case, addition of two wells and workover of high water cut wells to
plug back lower perforations were considered simultaneously. Workover schedules were
set by observing the onset of high water production from the wells as seen in Scenario B.
Workover schedules chosen for different wells are as follows:

62
HB-1: November 2011
HB-2: May 2019
HB-3: May 2013 and May 2018
HB-4: May 2017
HB-5: May 2019 and May 2028
HB-6: May 2020
HB-7: May 2023
HB-10: May 2022
HB-11: May 2016
HB-12: May 2019
HB-13: May 2019

Fig 7.18 shows the variation of gas production rate of the wells for scenario D.

Prediction of Gas Production Rate, Scenario D

45000

40000
HB-1
Gas Production Rate (MMSCFD)

35000
HB-2
30000
HB-3
25000 HB-4
20000 HB-5

15000 HB-6
HB-7
10000
HB-10
5000 HB-11
0 HB-12
1-Jun-11
1-Dec-12
1-Jun-14
1-Dec-15
1-Jun-17
1-Dec-18
1-Jun-20
1-Dec-21
1-Jun-23
1-Dec-24
1-Jun-26
1-Dec-27
1-Jun-29
1-Dec-30
1-Jun-32
1-Dec-33
1-Jun-35
1-Dec-36
1-Jun-38
1-Dec-39

HB-13

Time

Fig 7.18: Gas Production Rates of wells, scenario D

Total Gas production for this scenario will be 3.20 TCF and ultimate recovery will be
69%.

63
Fig 7.19 shows the comparison of remaining gas in place and total gas production for
different long term prediction scenarios. Incremental recovery with additional two wells
(Scenario B) will be greater compared to incremental recovery with no additional well
(Scenario A) during initial predictive years. After few years, total gas production of
Scenario B will start to decrease and finally from August 2022, total amount of gas
produced by Scenario B will fall below the total amount of gas produced by Scenario A.
the difference in production will increase gradually.
When a highly permeable reservoir is depleted quickly with additional wells, the water
table upward movement also gets faster. Water front reaches the lower perforations of the
wells more quickly and wells’ producing life becomes short. That is why ultimate
recovery for Scenario A is greater than that of Scenario B (70.7% for Scenario A, 65%
for Scenario B).
5.00E+09

4.50E+09

4.00E+09

3.50E+09
FGIP Scenario A
3.00E+09 FGPT Scenario A
FGIP Scenario B
2.50E+09
FGPT Scenario B
2.00E+09 FGIP Scenario C

1.50E+09 FGPT Scenario C

FGIP Scenario D
1.00E+09
FGPT Scenario D
5.00E+08

0.00E+00
1-Feb-69
1-Feb-73
1-Feb-77
1-Feb-81
1-Feb-85
1-Feb-89
1-Feb-93
1-Feb-97
1-Feb-01
1-Feb-05
1-Feb-09
1-Feb-13
1-Feb-17
1-Feb-21
1-Feb-25
1-Feb-29
1-Feb-33
1-Feb-37

Fig 7.19: Comparison of Gas in Place and Total Gas Production for Different scenarios

64
Plugging back the lower perforations of high water cut wells (Scenario C) will increase
the flowing life of most of the wells. Total gas production for Scenario C will be highest
that will result in an ultimate recovery of 74%.
Addition of two wells and workover of the high water cut wells (Scenario D) together
will produce more that will result in a higher ultimate recovery (69%) than that of
Scenario B (65%). The ultimate recovery for Scenario D will still be less than Scenario C
because of the same fact that high depletion rate will result in the fast movement of water
table and wells will be suspended earlier.

Figs 7.20 to 7.30 show the comparison of gas production rate and total gas production of
individual wells for all the long term prediction scenarios.

Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and

Total Gas Production, HB-1
18000 3.50E+08
Gas Production Rate, MMSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

16000 3.00E+08
14000 WGPR,A
2.50E+08
12000 WGPR,B
10000 2.00E+08
8000 1.50E+08 WGPR,C
6000 WGPR,D
1.00E+08
4000
2000 5.00E+07 WGPT,A
0 0.00E+00 WGPT,B
1-Dec-23
1-Jun-11
1-Jul-13
1-Aug-15
1-Sep-17
1-Oct-19
1-Nov-21

1-Jan-26
1-Feb-28
1-Mar-30
1-Apr-32
1-May-34
1-Jun-36
1-Jul-38

WGPT,C
WGPT,D
Time

Fig 7.20: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-1 for
Different scenarios

65
 Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and Total
Gas Production, HB-2
20000 4.00E+08
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

18000 3.50E+08
16000 WGPR,A
3.00E+08
14000
12000 2.50E+08 WGPR,B
10000 2.00E+08 WGPR,C
8000 1.50E+08
6000 WGPR,D
1.00E+08
4000 WGPT,A
2000 5.00E+07
0 0.00E+00 WGPT,B
1-Jun-11
1-Sep-13
1-Dec-15
1-Mar-18
1-Jun-20
1-Sep-22
1-Dec-24
1-Mar-27
1-Jun-29
1-Sep-31
1-Dec-33
1-Mar-36
1-Jun-38
WGPT,C
WGPT,D

Time

Fig 7.21: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-2 for
Different scenarios

Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and Total

Gas Production, HB-3

40000 6.00E+08
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

35000 5.00E+08
30000 WGPR,A
25000 4.00E+08 WGPR,B
20000 3.00E+08 WGPR,C
15000 2.00E+08 WGPR,D
10000
5000 1.00E+08 WGPT,A
0 0.00E+00 WGPT,B
1-Sep-13
1-Dec-15
1-Mar-18

1-Sep-22
1-Dec-24
1-Mar-27

1-Sep-31
1-Dec-33
1-Mar-36
1-Jun-11

1-Jun-20

1-Jun-29

1-Jun-38

WGPT,C
WGPT,D
Time

Fig 7.22: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-3 for
Different scenarios

66
 Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and
Total Gas Production, HB-4
40000 5.00E+08
35000 4.50E+08
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

4.00E+08
30000 WGPR,A
3.50E+08
25000 3.00E+08 WGPR,B
20000 2.50E+08 WGPR,C
15000 2.00E+08
WGPR,D
1.50E+08
10000 WGPT,A
1.00E+08
5000 5.00E+07 WGPT,B
0 0.00E+00 WGPT,C
1-Sep-13
1-Dec-15
1-Mar-18

1-Sep-22
1-Dec-24
1-Mar-27

1-Sep-31
1-Dec-33
1-Mar-36
1-Jun-11

1-Jun-20

1-Jun-29

1-Jun-38
WGPT,D

Time

Fig 7.23: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-4 for
Different scenarios
For HB-1, HB-2 and HB-3(Fig 7.20, 7.21, 7.22) highest ultimate recovery will be
obtained from Scenario C. Well life will be longest for Scenario C in case of wells HB-1
and HB-2. In case of HB-3, well life will be longest for Scenario D but production rate
will start to fall earlier in this case. As a result ultimate recovery for this case will be
lower than that of Scenario C. In case of HB-4, wells’ producing life will be longest for
Scenario B and Scenario D and highest ultimate recovery will be obtained from Scenario
D (Fig 7.23). When reservoir is depleted quickly with additional wells, most of the wells
face an early water breakthrough and decline in gas production rate. When economic
limits will be violated, the wells will be shut down. When majority of the wells will be
shut down, the wells that will still be producing will get longer life because of the fact
that water table movement rate will be slowed down. The existing wells will be
producing conveniently. In this way, addition of two wells and plugging back the lower
perforations of the well will together result in highest recovery for HB-4.

67
 Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and Total
Gas Production, HB-5
30000 4.50E+08
4.00E+08
25000
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

3.50E+08 WGPR,
A
20000 3.00E+08 WGPR,B
2.50E+08
15000 WGPR,C
2.00E+08
WGPR,
10000 1.50E+08
D
1.00E+08 WGPT,A
5000
5.00E+07 WGPT,B
0 0.00E+00
1-Dec-15
1-Mar-18

1-Dec-24
1-Mar-27

1-Dec-33
1-Mar-36
1-Jun-11
1-Sep-13

1-Jun-20
1-Sep-22

1-Jun-29
1-Sep-31

1-Jun-38
Time

Fig 7.24: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-5 for
Different scenarios

Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and

Total Gas Production, HB-6
16000 3.00E+08
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

14000
2.50E+08
12000 WGPR,A
2.00E+08
10000 WGPR,B
8000 1.50E+08 WGPR,C
6000
1.00E+08 WGPR,D
4000
5.00E+07 WGPT,A
2000
0 0.00E+00 WGPT,B
1-Jun-11

1-Apr-16

1-Jul-23
1-Dec-25
1-May-28
1-Oct-30
1-Mar-33

1-Jan-38
1-Nov-13

1-Sep-18
1-Feb-21

1-Aug-35

WGPT,C
WGPT,D

Time

Fig 7.25: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-6 for
Different scenarios

68
 Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and
Total Gas Production, HB-7
45000 5.00E+08
4.50E+08
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

40000

Total Gas Production, MSCF

35000 4.00E+08
WGPR,A
30000 3.50E+08
3.00E+08 WGPR,B
25000
2.50E+08 WGPR,C
20000
2.00E+08
15000 WGPR,D
1.50E+08
10000 1.00E+08 WGPT,A
5000 5.00E+07 WGPT,B
0 0.00E+00
WGPT,C
1-Nov-13

1-Sep-18
1-Feb-21

1-Dec-25

1-Oct-30

1-Aug-35
1-Jun-11

1-Apr-16

1-Jul-23

1-May-28

1-Mar-33

1-Jan-38
WGPT,D

Time

Fig 7.26: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-7 for
Different scenarios

Similar is the case for HB-5 and HB-6 ( Fig 7.24, Fig 7.25). For HB-5, ultimate recovery
is highest for Scenario A. Well will be producing throughout the predictive years if the
depletion rate is not increased by additional wells or other wells’ production lives are not
improved by workovers. For Scenario B, all other wells except HB-4 and HB-6 get
suspended within 2031. Early suspension of other wells increases the producing life and
ultimate recovery of HB-6. In fact, plugging back the lower perforations will result in
lowest ultimate recovery for HB-6 because of the fact that other wells will be producing
for longer time because of workover and HB-6 will experience early water breakthrough.
Ultimate recovery for HB-7 and HB-10 (Fig 7.26, 7.27) will be highest for Scenario C for
usual reasons.

69
 Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and Total
Gas Production, HB-10
45000 4.50E+08
40000 4.00E+08
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

35000 3.50E+08
WGPR,A
30000 3.00E+08
WGPR,B
25000 2.50E+08
WGPR,C
20000 2.00E+08
WGPR,D
15000 1.50E+08
10000 1.00E+08 WGPT,A

5000 5.00E+07 WGPT,B

0 0.00E+00 WGPT,C
1-Jun-11
1-Sep-13
1-Dec-15
1-Mar-18
1-Jun-20
1-Sep-22
1-Dec-24
1-Mar-27
1-Jun-29
1-Sep-31
1-Dec-33
1-Mar-36
1-Jun-38
WGPT,D

Time

Fig 7.27: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-10 for
Different scenarios

Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and Total

Gas Production, HB-11
35000 250000000
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

30000
200000000 WGPR,A
25000
150000000 WGPR,B
20000
15000 WGPR,C
100000000
10000 WGPR,D
50000000 WGPT,A
5000
0 0 WGPT,B
1-Jun-11

1-Dec-15
1-Mar-18
1-Jun-20

1-Dec-24
1-Mar-27
1-Jun-29

1-Dec-33
1-Mar-36
1-Jun-38
1-Sep-13

1-Sep-22

1-Sep-31

WGPT,C
WGPT,D
Time

Fig 7.28: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-11 for
Different scenarios

70
 Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and
Total Gas Production, HB-12
25000 120000000
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

20000 100000000

80000000
15000
60000000 WGPR B
10000
40000000 WGPR,D
5000 WGPT,B
20000000
WGPT,D
0 0
1-Dec-15
1-Mar-18

1-Dec-24
1-Mar-27

1-Dec-33
1-Mar-36
1-Jun-11
1-Sep-13

1-Jun-20
1-Sep-22

1-Jun-29
1-Sep-31

1-Jun-38
Time

Fig 7.29: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-12 for
Different scenarios

Comparison of Gas Productiion Rate and Total

Gas Production, HB-13
25000 90000000
80000000
Gas Production Rate, MSCFD

Total Gas Production, MSCF

20000 70000000
60000000
15000
50000000
40000000 WGPR,B
10000
30000000 WGPR,D

5000 20000000 WGPT.B

10000000 WGPT,D
0 0
1-Oct-19
1-Jun-11
1-Jul-13
1-Aug-15
1-Sep-17

1-Nov-21
1-Dec-23
1-Jan-26
1-Feb-28
1-Mar-30
1-Apr-32
1-May-34
1-Jun-36
1-Jul-38

Time

Fig 7.30: Comparison of Gas Production Rate and Total Gas Production of HB-13 for
Different scenarios

71
Ultimate recovery for well HB-11 will be highest for Scenario A (Fig: 7.28) and that for
wells HB-12 and HB-13 will be highest for Scenario D (Fig 7.29, Fig 7.30).

It is clear from this study that the ultimate recovery of Habiganj field is rate dependent.
Scenario C is recommended for further production strategy as it gives the highest
ultimate recovery. Under the present gas supply shortage, situation may prompt operators
to go for either Scenario B or D for quick gain in production but in the long run these
strategies will be detrimental for the reservoir.

72
 CHAPTER 8
WATER TABLE MOVEMENT TRACK
A clear gas-water contact at 1492 m was distinguished at the bottom of upper gas sand
during the drilling of exploration well HB-1(Intercomp Kanata Management 1991). No
successive gas water contact at the same location was measured afterwards and the
movement of gas-water contact could not be history matched due to the unavailability of
data. However, simulated result can give an idea about the water table movement. This
tracking can be useful in deciding the position of infill wells. Fig 8.1 and 8.2 show the
position of water table at the beginning and at the end of historical years. At the end of
the historical production years (June 2011), the position of water table was at 1453 m.

1492 m

Fig 8.1: Initial Position of Water table

73
1453 m

Fig 8.2: Final Position of Water table

Though the water table movement could not be history matched, it is known that well
HB-8 and HB-9 were suspended due to excessive water production. That means, at the
time of suspension, water table reached near the lower perforations of the wells. The
lower perforation of HB-8 is located at the depth of 1448 m from the surface. Simulated
result showed that, at the time of suspension (July 04), water table was at the depth of
1451 m from the surface level (Fig 8.3). The lower perforation of HB-9 is located at the
depth of 1455 m from the ground level. Simulated result showed that, at the time of
suspension (May 08), water table was at the depth of 1453 m approximately (Fig 8.4).

74
 1451 m

Fig 8.3: Position of Water table at HB-8(July 04)

1453 m

Fig 8.4: Position of Water table at HB-9 (May 08)

75
 CHAPTER 9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

9.1 Reserve Estimation

Any simulation study estimates the gas initially in place (GIIP). The GIIP estimated by
this study is 4.64 TCF. The following table shows the estimates done by other
companies/agencies.

Table 9.1: Reserve Estimate by Different Companies/Agencies

Estimating Company/Agency Estimated Reserves in TCF Estimating

Year
Pakistan Shell Oil Company 1.75 1963
Petroconsultant GmbH 3.475 (GIIP) 1979
BOGMC 1.275 (Proven + Probable) 1982
1.045 (Possible)
GGAG 1.437 (Recoverable) 1984
DeGolyer and MacNaughton 1.704
GGAG and Petrobangla 3.298 (GIIP) 1986
HHSP 2.985 (Proven + Probable) 1986
Gasunie 2.60 (Recoverable) 1983
IKM 3.669(GIIP, Volumetric estimate) 1991
10.5 (GIIP, P/Z estimate)
Well Drill Limited 3.6 (GIIP) 1991
Beicip Franlab RSC / Petrobangla 4.623 (GIIP) 2000
HCU/NPD 5.1 (GIIP, Volumetric estimate) 2001
4.69 (GIIP, P/Z estimate)
RPS Energy 3.684 (GIIP) 2009

76
9.2 Short Term prediction Results

Different short time prediction scenarios are compared below.

Table 9.2: Comparison of Recovery

Prediction Scenario Cumulative Recovery Cumulative Gas

Percentage Production of Prediction
Years (bcf)
Base Case (scenario 1) 48.27 450
Scenario 2 47.62 415
Scenario 3 48.27 450
Scenario 4 48.92 469
Scenario 5 49.56 508

· Workover of wells will not increase the recovery

· Workover will only help the wells to maintain the gas rate with reasonable water
production.
· Adding one well will slightly increase the recovery
· Adding two wells will bring approximately 1.3% increase in cumulative recovery.

It is to be noted that as Habiganj upper gas sand has no proven stranded zone, addition of
wells will only help to deplete the reservoir more quickly. Moreover, Habiganj field is
highly permeable. Sometimes drilling of new wells is considered for highly tight gas
reservoirs where production from remote zones with existing wells takes extremely long
time. However, sometimes for water drive reservoirs, fields are depleted quickly because
of rapid water table rise (Agarwal 1967). This can be done either by increasing
production rate from existing wells or by adding new wells. In case of Habiganj field,
addition of two wells maybe considered to increase the recovery rate for short time.
Whether this strategy will affect the ultimate recovery need to be seen by running the
simulator to the economic limit of the reservoir.

77
9.2 Long Term Prediction Results

The simulation model was run for additional 28 years (up to 2040) based on economic
gas and water production limit. The accuracy of long term prediction is diminished but
nevertheless the results are very much helpful. The results are very much indicative and
can be used for long term development strategy. The long term prediction cases were run
to observe the long term performance of the field under different prediction case
scenarios. The results have been summarized.
· Different long term prediction scenarios are compared below
Table 9.3: Comparison of Ultimate Recovery

Prediction Scenario Ultimate Recovery Total Gas Production

Percentage (TCF)
Scenario A 70.7 3.28
Scenario B 65 3.02
Scenario C 74 3.44
Scenario D 69 3.20

· Cumulative recovery of the field with additional two wells will be higher than that
of Scenario A (prediction up to 2040 with no added wells) during initial years.
· Total amount of gas produced by Scenario B will fall below the total amount of
gas produced by Scenario A from August 2022.
· Ultimate recovery will be lowest with additional two wells because production
from additional wells will increase the rate of water table movement.
· Workover of high water cut wells to plug back the lower perforations will result
in highest ultimate recovery.
· Ultimate recoveries for wells HB-1, HB-2, HB-3, HB-7 and HB-10 will be
highest For Scenario C.

78
 · Ultimate recoveries for wells HB-4, HB-12 and HB-13 will be highest for
Scenario D, for HB-5 and HB-11 will be for Scenario A and for HB-6 will be for
Scenario B.
· Workover will decrease recoveries from wells HB-5, HB-6 and HB-11

It is observed that workover will decrease the total production from HB-5, HB-6 and HB-
11. Because of the time constraint it was not observed with an additional prediction run
that what will happen to ultimate recoveries of the wells if these wells are continued to
flow without any workover (considering workover of other wells).

79
 CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Habiganj field is a highly permeable strong bottom water drive gas reservoir. Several
studies were performed by different agencies and consultants. The present simulation
work matched the pressure-production history very well with the exception of water
production. Water production data archived by BGFCL is not accurate and hence not
reliable.

The principal objective was to track the movement of the water table and subsequently
device a future production operation plan. The water table position determined by this
simulation after 39 years of production was at 1453 m while actual observed position of
water table at that time was at 1455 m that results an error of 0.13% only. This study
estimates GIIP as 4.64 TCF which is close to the last few estimates done by other studies.

It has been found that addition of two more wells will increase short term production by
about 1.3% but in the long run it will affect ultimate recovery. The maximum ultimate
recovery of 74% will be obtained by continuing the present production strategy with
timely and sequential workover of different wells as they water out. Due to high
permeability of the reservoir and rapid movement of the water table, Habiganj was found
to be rate sensitive. A slower production than the present rate may result in higher
ultimate recovery. No more wells should be drilled in the field at this point.

With limited core data and lack of designed data collection system, the present simulation
did a remarkable job of estimating GIIP and pressure-production match.

80
Recommendations
A special core analysis of Habiganj gas field should be carried out to obtain real core
data. Gas-water contact should be determined on a regular basis to improve history match
results. Water production data of individual wells should be measured and maintained
accurately to get good water production matches. Reservoir and aquifer properties should
be re determined to get more accurate petrophysical data.

Some scopes for future studies are:

· History match the reservoir with real SCAL data.
· History match the water table movement with real data.
· Determination of the height of the transition zone.
· Determination of the presence and effect of coning and cusping for different
wells.
· Determination of ultimate recovery under different sets of workover operations
and schedules.
· Economic analysis of different workover operations and determination of an
optimum solution for further field development.

81
Nomenclature
A Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bg Gas Formation Volume Factor (SCF/STB)
Bo Oil Formation Oolume Factor (RB/STB)
D Datum level. (Feet)
k Permeability (md)
P Pressure (Psi)
Q Fluid Flow Rate (ft3/sec)
Rs Solution Gas Oil Ratio (Scf/STB)
Μ Mass Flow Rate
kh Transmissibility
Sw Water Saturation
Sg Gas Saturation
krg Relative Permeability with respect to Gas
krw Relative Permeability with respect to Water

Greek Symbols
γ Gravity
δФ/δx Fluid Potential Gradient
μ Viscosity (cp)
ρ Density (lb/ft3)
Ф Fluid Potential

Abbreviations
BGFCL Bangladesh Gas Fields company Limited
BHP Bottomhole Pressure
BOGMC Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CMG Computer Modelling Group Ltd
FGIP Field Gas in Place

82
FGPR Field Gas Production Rate
FGPT Field Gas Production Total
FVF Formation Volume Factor
GGAG German Geological Advisory Group
GIIP Gas Initially in Place
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
GWC Gas Water Contact
HCU Hydrocarbon Unit
HHSP Hydrocarbon Habitat Study
IKM Intercomp-Kanata Management
KB Kelly Bushing
LGS Lower Gas Sand
mD milli Darcy
MMSCFD Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
NPD Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
OWC Oil Water Contact
PSO Pakistan Shell Oil
PVT Pressure Volume Temperature
SCAL Special Core Analysis
TD Total Depth
THP Tubing Head Pressure
UGS Upper Gas Sand
VLP Vertical Lift Performance

83
REFERENCES

 Agarwal, R.G. 1967. Unsteady-State Performance of Water-Drive Gas

Reservoirs. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas ( May 1967).
 Alam, M.S. 2002. Gas in Place Estimate of the Habiganj Gas Field Using
Material Balance. M. Sc. Thesis, Petroleum and Mineral Resources
Engineering Department , BUET, Dhaka (May 2002).
 Armenta, M. 2003. Mechanisms and Control of Water Inflow to Wells in
Gas Reservoirs with Bottom-Water Drive. PhD Dissertation, Louisiana
State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana
(December 2003).
 Aziz, K. and Settari, A. 1979. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. London: Applied
Science Publishers Limited.
 Beicip Franlab-RSC/Petrobangla. 2000. Interim Report on Hydrocarbon Resources
for Enhanced Reservoir (ASSET) Management, Petrobangla (2000).
 Carlson, M. 2003. Practical Reservoir Simulation. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA:
PennWell Corporation.
 Coats, K. H. 1987. Reservoir Simulation. In Petroleum Engineering Handbook,
Chap 48, 1-13. Richardson, Texas: SPE
 Coskuner, G and Melon J.1996. Numerical Simulation of Infill Drilling With
Horizontal and Vertical Wells: A Case Study of Partial Bottom Drive Reservoir.
Paper SPE 37104 presented at the SPE International Conference and Exhibition on
Horizontal Well Technology in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 18-20 November.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/ 37104-MS
 Crichlow, H.B.1977. Modern Reservoir Engineering-A simulation Approach.
Prentice Hall.
 ECLIPSE, Version 2008.1 Reference Manual, 2008, UK: Schlumberger.
 Ertekin, T., Abou-Kassem, J.H. and King, G.R.2001. Basic Applied Reservoir
Simulation. Richardson, Texas, SPE.

84
 Galas, C.M.F. 2003. The Art of History Matching—Modelling Water Production
under Primary Recovery. Paper PETSOC 2003-213 presented at the Petroleum
Society’s Canadian International Petroleum Conference in Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 10 – 12 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2003-213
 HCU/NPD. 2001. Bangladesh Petroleum Potential and Resource Assessment.
Ministry of energy and Mineral Resources, GOB (2001)
 Intercomp-Kanata Management. 1991. Gas Field Appraisal Project, Reservoir
Engineering Report, Habiganj. prepared for Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA) and Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Minerals Corporation (BOGMC),
(March 1991).
 Killough, J.E.1995. Ninth SPE Comparative Solution Project. Paper SPE 29110-
MS presented at the 13th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation in St. Antonio,
Texas, USA, 12-15 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/29110-MS
 Mattax, C. C. and Dalton R. L.1990. Reservoir Simulation, Richardson, Texas:
Monograph Series, SPE.
 Mcburney, C.J, Baker, R. and Chugh, S. 2004. Gas Diagnostics. To Drill or Not to
Drill?. Paper PETSOC 2004-212 presented at the 5th Canadian International
Petroleum Conference in Calgary, Alberta, 8-10 June.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2004-212
 Morell E. 2010. History Matching of the Norne Field. M.Sc. Thesis, Department
for Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics, NTNU, Norway ( September
2010)
 Odinukwe, J. and Correia, C. 2010. History Matching and Uncertainty Assesment
of the Norne Field E-Segment Using Petrel RE. M.Sc. Thesis, Department for
Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics, NTNU, Norway ( June 2010)
 Pettersen, O. 2006. Basics of Reservoir Simulation with the Eclipse Reservoir
simulator. Lecture Notes. Dept of Mathematics, Univ of Bergen.
 RPS Energy. 2009. Habiganj Reservoir Simulation Study. Petrobangla, Dhaka
(August 2009).
 Welldrill (UK) Limited. 1991. Review of Gas Reserves in Bangladesh for
Petrobangla. Petrobangla (1991).

85