International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)

ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

Reservoir Performance Prediction using

Integrated Production Modelling (MBAL
Software)
Prathmesh Sapale, Vishesh Bhadariya, Ashok Kumar Achari N, Nitesh Paliwal, Vandavasi
Sreeharsha


Abstract: Reservoir performance prediction is important aspect Keywords: Performance Prediction, MBAL, Reservoir
of the oil & gas field development planning and reserves Simulation, History matching.
estimation which depicts the behavior of the reservoir in the
future. Reservoir production success is dependent on precise I. INTRODUCTION
illustration of reservoir rock properties, reservoir fluid properties,
rock-fluid properties and reservoir flow performance. Petroleum The activities of reservoir engineering fall into three general
engineers must have sound knowledge of the reservoir attributes, categories like Reserve estimation, development planning and
production operation optimization and more significant, to production operation optimization [1]. A reservoir engineer
develop an analytical model that will adequately describe the roles to continuously monitor the reservoir, data acquisition,
physical processes which take place in the reservoir. Reservoir data analysis to validate and interpretation of these data which
performance prediction based on material balance equation is able to characterize the corresponding reservoir system,
which is described by Several Authors such as Muskat, Craft and evaluate past, present and forecast future reservoir
Hawkins, Tarner’s, Havlena & odeh, Tracy’s and Schilthuis. This
performance to control the flow of fluids inside the reservoir
paper compares estimation of reserve using dynamic simulation
in MBAL software and predictive material balance method after with aimed to increase cumulative oil production, ultimate oil
history matching of both of this model. Results from this paper recovery and accelerate oil recovery under various types of
shows functionality of MBAL in terms of history matching and natural driving mechanism [2]. Reservoir simulators are used
performance prediction. This paper objective is to set up the basic for analyzing the reservoir performance and reserve
reservoir model, various models and algorithms for each estimation. Various study shows Reservoir simulator play
technique are presented and validated with the case studies. Field crucial role in implementing initial development plans,
data collected related to PVT analysis, Production and well data
history matching, optimization study, planning and evaluating
for quality check based on determining inconsistencies between
data and physical reality with the help of correlations. Further
the reservoir system performance [3].
this paper shows history matching to match original oil in place In this paper, a software suit called Integrated production
and aquifer size. In the end conclusion obtained from different modeling (IPM) by petroleum experts was developed based
plots between various parameters reflect the result in history on material balance to forecast the performance of
match data, simulation result and Future performance of the hydrocarbon reservoir whereas simulation method of
reservoir system and observation of these results represent similar prediction is very complex, requiring a geologic model,
simulation and future prediction plots result. populating the model with rock, fluid, historical production
data and all events that have occurred in the reservoir. Though
the simulation method is a more accurate technique but a
Manuscript published on November 30, 2019. rigorous exercise which requires carrying out a material
* Correspondence Author balance on each of the grid blocks. Tarek stated that material
Prathamesh Sapale*, Department of chemical engineering, Assistant balance equation is an analytical tool of reservoir engineers
Professor, Vignan’s Foundation for Science, Technology and Research,
Vadlamudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
for interpreting and predicting the performance of the given
Vishesh Bhadariya Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian hydrocarbon system. When MBE properly applied, can be
School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India used to estimate the initial hydrocarbon in place, predict the
Ashok Kumar Aachari N. B. tech, Department of chemical future performance and ultimate hydrocarbon recovery for
Engineering, Vignan’s Foundation for Science, Technology and Research,
Vadlamudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India various driving mechanisms[4]. In context with technical
Nitesh Paliwal, Department of chemical engineering, Assistant details material balance model considered as a tank model for
Professor, Vignan’s Foundation for Science, Technology and Research, a given hydrocarbon system. There were certain advantage of
Vadlamudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Shreeharsha Vandavasi, Department of chemical engineering,
material balance model where they could address average
Assistant Professor, Vignan’s Foundation for Science, Technology and reservoir pressure for given quantities of production and
Research, Vadlamudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. water influx from initial quantiles and pressure [5].
© The Authors. Published by Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and
Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the
CC-BY-NC-ND license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Retrieval Number: D7627118419/2019©BEIESP

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.D7627.118419 Published By:
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
1484 & Sciences Publication
 Reservoir Performance Prediction using Integrated Production Modelling (MBAL Software)

Havlena & Odeh described the techniques of interpreting non-linear regression techniques then selected for
material balance as an equation of straight line which had a use in the model.
capability to estimate three unknowns like the original oil in iii. Glaso-correlation [13] was selected for saturation
place, cumulative water influx, original size of a gascap as a pressure, Gas-oil ratio and Formation volume factor;
compared with oil zone size and driving mechanism. This and beggs-correlation [14] selected for viscosity.
linear solution required to plot variant group against another iv. Tank data included for further reservoir model
variant group which was selected based on the reservoir drive development like Initial pressure, porosity,
mechanism and it was observed if actual plots turnout to be Reservoir Temperature, Initial hydrocarbon in place,
non-linear then deviation could itself be diagnostic to connate water saturation and production start date
estimating the actual drive mechanism [6]. Once linearity data. Initial hydrocarbon in place calculated based
achieved based on field production history data and pressure on Geological data. History matching requires past
data a suitable mathematical model developed to predict the production data along with pressure declination.
future reservoir performance. Reference data is obtained from L.P. Dake [15].
The initial reservoir model could be found wrong before v. After matching, three graphical plots were developed
history matching because of unaccounted energy water influx which used to determine reservoir and aquifer
helping to maintain system pressure. To deal with this issue parameter. The energy plot was used to observe
where greatest uncertainty lied to the determination of water driving mechanism and Campbell plot was a
influx. To the determination of water influx required a diagnostic tool to identify the reservoir type based
mathematical model which relies on aquifer properties. To on the sign of pressure and production behavior.
build a correct aquifer model required ‘try and see it’ for Analytical method shows the variation between
correct matched with field history data. There were various model and historical data which indicate the
models like pot-aquifer, Van Everdingen & Hurst. The Van unaccounted energy. Based on Campbell plot, the
Everdingen & Hurst unsteady state model is based on the presence of aquifer was likely [16].
superposition principle [7]. There were serval models, such as vi. Non-linear regression method was employed to evaluate
Carter & Tracy [8], Fetkovich [9], and Leung [10], which the unknown aquifer potential and reservoir
tried to abolish the drawback of the desired computing power, parameter then tuned the data related to pressure and
and hence became alternative solution in commercial flow production. Various aquifer models choose and
simulators [11]. selected best fit matched aquifer model [17].
vii. Precision of the model was validated with historical data
II. METHODOLOGY like pressure, cumulative oil and gas production data
An abstract idea about material balance was exhibited by [18].
Schilthuis in 1941 which was based on the mass conservation
B. Input Parameter
law. There was certain assumption made in this technique
The input data into MBAL model consist PVT properties, Oil
where reservoir considered as a homogenous tank model [12].
and gas Production data, aquifer parameter, relative
The material balance used for history match and past
permeability data, reservoir thickness. Porosity and
performance for estimation volume of reservoir and
Permeability data were obtained from well logs [20].
prediction of future performance. MBAL software based on
Correlation were used to evaluate relative permeability. A
this concept while using minimum data the reservoir engineer
summary of input PVT data, Reservoir Tank data and relative
can be used this tool for reservoir analysis throughout the life
permeability data shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3
of the field. Basic equation used in MBAL software i.e.
respectively. Additional Water influx data which is shown in
Table 4 required during the Campbell plot shows variation
F- =N[ +m +E )
which shows that an unaccounted energy source was
contributing to the historical production [21].
A. Workflow Procedure
Table 1. Summary of input PVT data.
In analytical reservoir engineering tool kit MBAL software is
Parameter Input data
progressive option for running a simulation based on
historical data which should be matched with analytical Temperature (oF) 250
model. MBAL provides substantial matching facilities and Bubble point pressure, (Psig) 2200
aquifer modelling which advances research about pressure Solution GOR (scf/stb) 500
support response and forecasting. There were certain steps
followed during this research study to forecast the Oil FVF @ (RB/STB) 1.32
performance for selected reservoir [19]. Oil viscosity @ (cp) 0.4
i. PVT, cumulative oil Production and pressure depletion ) 39
data were entered while considering a tank model.
Gas gravity (Specific gravity) 0.798
ii. The matching amenities available in MBAL were used to
adjust the empirical fluid property correlations to fit
PVT laboratory data. To foremost fit for the
measured data, correlations were modified using

Retrieval Number: D7627118419/2019©BEIESP Published By:

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.D7627.118419
1485
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

Mole percentage 0 quality history match, Different aquifer models were used in
Water salinity (PPM) 1,00,000 the reservoir model and their parameters were regressed [23].
Best fit aquifer was selected. This was observed when model
Mole percentage 0
and field pressure and production data matched together in
Mole percentage 0 graphical representation. In this study author find that there is
no impedance between material balance and simulation,
Table 2. Summary of Reservoir Tank input data instead they were supportive of one another. Material balance
Parameter Input data is best for the history matching pressure and production
performance but has disadvantage when it comes to
Tank fluid Type Oil prediction, which is strongly related to numerical reservoir
o
Temperature ( F) 250 simulation modelling. As in this case good history match had
Initial Tank Pressure (psig) 4000 been achieved, MBAL model showed a good pressure and
production match for the tank with historical production and
Porosity (fraction) 0.23 pressure data. Further research shows performance prediction
Connate Water saturation (fraction) 0.15 of the reservoir tank.
Water Compressibility (1/psig) Correlation
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Initial Gas-cap 0
A. The Energy of the system
Original Oil in Place (MMSTB) 210.867 Different driving mechanism plays a role into reservoir for
providing enough energy for the system. After running history
Table 3. Relative Permeability data matching this was necessary to select the aquifer and for better
Residual End Point Exponent history matching we selected suitable aquifer. The relative
saturation contributions of the different driving mechanism energy and
0.151 0.631 0.841 aquifer system to the recovery from the reservoir were
0.151 0.80 1.547 discovered with certainty. In figure 1 there were three driving
0.020 0.90 1 mechanisms presents with the fluid expansion and the pore
volume compressibility which can’t be ignored due to enough
participation to providing energy to the reservoir system.
Table 4 Water influx data
Water influxes identified as a dominated energy in the system
Parameter Input data
and contribute about 50% of the total energy system while
Model Modified Hurst Van other two contribute remaining energy. The energy plot
Everdingen revealed the relative importance of each driving mechanism.
Reservoir Radius (ft) 2500
Reservoir Thickness (ft) 250
Outer Inner radius ratio 5
Encroachment angle (degree) 180
System Radial Aquifer
Aquifer Permeability (md) 10
C. Overview of the Reservoir Figure. 1 Drive Mechanism for Reservoir
The oil reservoir is under-saturated which possessed
saturation pressure of 2200 psia, oil API gravity was 39, oil B. Analytical Plot
density 51.78 lb/ and rock compressibility is calculated The Analytical plot represents the cumulative oil production
based on the correlations. For described reservoir a single as a function of reservoir pressure decline in Figure 2. From
tank MBAL model was built. Aquifer influx modeled were analytical plot it was observed that with the current aquifer
checked from which a suitable match of reservoir trend was model, the model was predicting the cumulative oil
selected. The models used to match with the help of tuning production higher than those observed without considering
and Regression method where pressure and Production data water influx initially when there was uncertainty of possible
regressed. To build a reservoir model knowledge of the energy system. Plot shows considerable deviation between
reservoir structure, aquifer support and Gas cap was history matching data and history matched simulation model
necessary [22]. Those were identified based on available data result.
which used to ensure good engineering judgment. The idea
behind history matching was that the model input is adjusted
to match the field pressure and production history data.
Procedure should be a way of systematic where adjusting the
reservoir model to agree with the field operation data.
Encroachment angle and radius were regressed to obtain
history matches on pressure and production data which ensure
a satisfactory pressure match for the tank. In this study to get a

Retrieval Number: D7627118419/2019©BEIESP

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.D7627.118419 Published By:
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
1486 & Sciences Publication
 Reservoir Performance Prediction using Integrated Production Modelling (MBAL Software)

Figure 4. Campbell Plot with aquifer (F - ) vs F

Figure 2. Analytical Plot reservoir pressure vs cumulative

oil production
C. Analytical Plot after regression
Regression played a constructive role for eliminating the
deviation between the simulated model and historical
behavior in terms of production and pressure data in figure 3.

Figure 5. After Regression Campbell Plot with aquifer (F

- ) vs F
E. Reservoir Simulation
Reservoir simulation considered as a tool for overall field
development planning and used to perform reverse
calculations. Simulation study in figure 6 revealed that if
simulated model has been properly history matched, there
should be no variance between predicted reservoir pressure as
a function of time from simulation result and historical
measured pressure result. After result in this case simulated
and historical data matched together.

Figure 3. Analytical plot after regression analysis

D. Campbell Plot
Basic material balance equation for oil reservoir

F=N +

Rearranging the equation, we got

Figure 6. Tank Pressure vs Time Reservoir Simulation

Model History Match
Now, if (F - ) vs F is plotted, a horizontal line with Y F. Performance Prediction/Forecasting
intercept equal to N should be obtained. We can clearly see in After acceptable history matched obtained, prediction of
figure 4 history points deviates from the horizontal, it cumulative oil production, oil recovery factor, water
indicates the model is not able to predict the response as seen
from the reservoir. The input data must be reviewed in this
case.

Retrieval Number: D7627118419/2019©BEIESP Published By:

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.D7627.118419
1487
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-4, November 2019

production and reservoir pressure decline are carried out. engineering material balance equation is an important
investigative tool when time is limited. This is very
sophisticated analytical tool for evaluating reserve volume
through historical production. In this study it has been proved
that good data acquisition is required to carried out reserve
volume evaluation with MBAL. Reservoir analysis tool
MBAL is used to initialize, calibrate and benchmark the
history matching.The main source of energy in reservoir was
from Water influx and rock and fluid expansion drive
mechanism. Water system energy provide about 50% of the
reservoir energy which is required for oil recovery. The Hurst
van Everdingen water influx model best describe the
reservoir. The cumulative oil produced for the historical
period was 16.81 MMSTB and 24.37 MMSTB for forecast
period, with recovery factors of 8.22% and 11.58%
respectively. The total amount of cumulative water
production for the historical period was 1.88 MMSTB and
3.86 MMSTB for forecasts period. Material balance was
utilized in reservoirs where enough adequate data were
Figure 7. Performance prediction of reservoir and available for History matching and Performance prediction.
History match data plotted Finally, central objective of this paper with the help of
Figure 7 shows that from the beginning of the production in reservoir simulation fulfilled to produce future prediction that
01/01/2001 to continuous decline of the production in plot till will lead to optimize reservoir performance which meant
01/01/2009. As we can clearly see that history model, reservoir developed in the manner that brings utmost benefit
simulated model and performance prediction fall in same line. to the commercial business.
Further cumulative oil production after 31/07/2006 will
follow as an according to performance prediction plot. This REFERENCES
will provide the information regarding water injection 1. “B. C. Craft, M. Hawkins, Ronald E. Terry Applied Petroleum Reservoir
requirement to sustain the reservoir pressure and economic Engineering (2nd Edition) 1991.pdf.” .
limit of the reservoir. 2. “Abdus Satter, Ganesh C. Thakur - Integrated Petroleum Reservoir
Management_ A Team Approach-Pennwell Books (1994).pdf.” .
3. “Reservoir Engineering Manual-Frank W. Cole.Pdf.”
4. T. Ahmed, Reservoir Engineering Handbook, vol. 27, no. 7. 2010.
5. P. D. Mckinney and A. Tarek, Advanced Reservoir Engineering, no. c.
2005.
6. D. Havlena and A. S. ODEH, “The material balance as an equation of a
straight line.” p. Part 1. Trans. AIME, 228, I-896, 1963.
7. A. F. Van Everdingen and W. Hurst, “The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,” J. Pet. Technol., vol. 1,
no. 12, pp. 305–324, 2012.
8. G. W. Carter, R. D., & Tracy, “Improved Method for Calculating Water
Influx. Society of Petroleum Engineers.” 1960.
9. M. J. Fetkovich, “Fetkovich Paper,” J. Pet. Technol., vol. 23, no. 07, pp.
814–828, 1971.
10. W. F. Leung, “A Fast Convolution Method for Implementing
Single-Porosity Finite/Infinite Aquifer Models for Water-Influx
Calculations,” SPE Reserv. Eng., vol. 1, no. 05, pp. 490–510, 2007.
11. J. Marques and O. Trevisan, “Classic Models of Calculation of Influx: A
Comparative Study,” 2007.
12. M. Balance et al., “Chapter 3 material balance applied to oil reservoirs
Figure 9. Water Production along with pressure decline 3.1 introduction,” vol. i, 1941.
vs time 13. O. Glaso, “Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations,” J.
In figure 9 this was illustrated that the model is ready for Pet. Technol., vol. 32, no. 05, pp. 785–795, 2007.
prediction as we can see a good agreement between the data 14. M. Vasquez and H. D. Beggs, “Correlations for Fluid Physical Property
Prediction,” J. Pet. Technol., vol. 32, no. 06, pp. 968–970, 2007.
and forecast in plot. Since we observed that reservoir most
15. L. P. Dake, Fundamental of Reservoir Engineering. Development in
energy supplied by water influx only. After certain period this Petroelum Science, 1983.
is observed that water production visible after certain time of 16. J. L. Pletcher, “Improvements to Reservoir Material Balance Methods.
oil production. Water cut raised from 01/01/2001 0% to Exhibition.,” SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib., pp. 1–13, 2000.
17. S. R. Sills, “Improved Material-Balance Regression Analysis for
22.5% in 01/01/2009 of total production of oil according to
Waterdrive Oil and Gas Reservoirs,” SPE Reserv. Eng., vol. 11, no. 02,
future prediction plot. pp. 127–134, 2007.

IV. CONCLUSION
Results obtained from different graphs the following
conclusions are drawn from this research work. In reservoir
Retrieval Number: D7627118419/2019©BEIESP
DOI:10.35940/ijrte.D7627.118419 Published By:
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
1488 & Sciences Publication
 Reservoir Performance Prediction using Integrated Production Modelling (MBAL Software)

18. E. C. Nwaokorie, I. Ukauku, S. Petroleum, and D. Company, “SPE

162988 Well Predictive Material Balance Evaluation : A Quick Tool for
Reservoir Performance Analysis Derivation of Equations Material
Balance Equation,” no. m, 2012.
19. “D.Narsimulu, B.N.Rao, Venkateswarlu, M. E.S.Srinadhu,
N.Satyanarayana - Electrical and electrochemical studies of
nanocrystalline mesoporous MgFe2O4 as anode material for lithium
battery applications (2016)- Ceramics International.”
20. “K.Hari Prasad, N. Naresh, B.Nageswara Rao, M.Venkateswarlu,
N.Satyanarayana- Preparation of LiMn2O4Nanorods and Nanoparticles
for Lithium-ion Battery Applications (2016)- Materials Today:
Proceedings.”
21. P.R.Kumar, V.Madhusudhan Rao, B.Nageswararao, M.Venkateswarlu,
N. Satyanarayana- Enhanced electrochemical performance of
carbon-coated LiMPO 4 (M = Co and Ni) nanoparticles as cathodes for
high-voltage lithium-ion battery (2016)- Journal of Solid State
Electrochemistry.
22. M.S.Sudhir, P.M.Mohan, R.V.Nadh- Simple and validated ultraviolet
spectrophotometric method for the estimation of Febuxostat in bulk and
pharmaceutical dosage forms (2013)- Oriental Journal of Chemistry.
23. G Suresh., R.Venkata Nadh,
N.Srinivasu K.Kaushal- Novel coumarin isoxazoline
derivatives:Synthesis and study on antibacterial activities
(2016)-Synthetic Communications.

Retrieval Number: D7627118419/2019©BEIESP Published By:

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.D7627.118419
1489
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org & Sciences Publication