KING SAUD UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering Department

Reservoir Modeling by
Using
the Application of MBAL

Nasser Aldossari
429107065

Contents

Introduction
Study objectives
Work methodology
MBAL software application
Case study Gas Reservoir with aquifer
Results and discussion
Conclusion

Introduction
Hydrocarbon reserves can be estimated by a variety of
methods:

Analytically,
Volumetrically,
Material balance, and
Numerically, using 3D reservoir simulation models.

Introduction
Material balance, MBE
The Material Balance method is by no means a universal tool for
estimating reserves.
The material balance is based on the principle of the conservation of
mass:
Mass of fluids originally in place = Fluids produced + Remaining
fluids in place.

Introduction
The material balance approach can be a very useful tool in performing
many tasks, some of which are highlighted below:
Quantify different parameters of a reservoir such as hydrocarbon in place,
gas cap size, etc.
Determine the presence, the type and size of an aquifer, encroachment
angle, etc.
Estimate the depth of the Gas/Oil, Water/Oil, Gas/Water contacts,
Predict the reservoir pressure for a given production and/or injection
schedule,
Predict the reservoir performance and manifold back pressures for a given
production schedule,
Predict the reservoir performance and well production for a given manifold
pressure schedule.

Introduction
The Material Balance calculations are based on a tank model as
pictured below:

Introduction

Throughout the reservoir the following assumptions apply:

Homogeneous pore volume, gas cap and aquifers,

Constant temperature,
Uniform pressure distribution,
Uniform hydrocarbon saturation distribution,
Gas injection in the gas cap,

Study Objectives
To model an actual gas reservoir with water aquifer using
material balance techniques in MBALTM software
To estimate the original gas in place.
To study the effect of transmissibility and other parameters on
gas in place estimation.
To predicate the reservoir performance under water driving
mechanisms.

Methodology
The flowing steps will be taken in order to achieve the objective of the
study:
Reviewing and evaluating field case study data.
Building a material balance model by using MBALTM Software:

Entering production data,

Conducting history matching,
Analyzing graphical plots,
Tune tanks parameters and input aquifer model,
Performing regression,
Verifying quality of history matching, and Running simulation,
Conducting fractional flow matching,
Run prediction.

Data Available

Reservoir parameters:
Reservoir fluids properties and composition.
Petrophysicsal (Relative permeability, Rock compressibility).
Engineering data.

Production history:
Pressure data
Cumulative gas production
Cumulative water production

MBAL Software Application

MBAL Software Application

The Material Balance Program can handle:

Oil, gas or condensate reservoirs,

Linear, radial and bottom drive reservoir and aquifer systems,
Naturally flowing, gas lifted, ESP, gas or water injector wells,
In predictive mode, automatic shut-in of well based on production or injection
constraints,
The use of tubing performance curves to predict well production,
The use of relative permeability tables or curves,
Multiple tanks with transmissibilities between them,
Oil tanks with variable PVT vs. Depth

Field Case Study

Gas reservoir with water aquifer
The case study in this project is a gas reservoir with water
driving mechanism. The reservoir was dividing into three
compartments, and designed to multi tanks model (three
tanks, ND-1, ND-2 and ND-3) which associated with
transmissibility (Trans ND1-ND2, and ND2-ND3),
communication between them.

Multiple Tanks Model

Multiple Tanks Model- Studding Scenarios

Model one :
Tanks, without transmissibility
between them
Model two:
Tanks have, fully communicated,
with transmissibility at deferent
values.
Model three:

This model has three variations in tanks

communications:
ND-1, ND-2, ND-3 are connected, but no
communication between ND-3 and ND-1
ND-3 ND-1, and ND-2 are connected, but
no communication between ND-2 and
ND-3
ND-1, ND-3, ND-2 are connected, but no
communication between ND-2 and ND-1

Input Data
The reservoir data, for multiple tanks model, that required for this study are
presented in the following:
Tanks Mean Parameters

Temperature, oF
Initial reservoir pressure, psig
Porosity, frac.
Connate water saturation, frac.
Water compressibility,1/psi
Original gas in place, MMscf
Start of production, time

Tank,
ND-1
388.76
7247.49
0.037
0.462
Use corr.
47561.60
11/30/1988

Tank,
ND-2
388.76
7247.49
0.037
0.462
Use corr.
23922.80
01/31/1989

PVT Data
Reservoir Fluid
Gas gravity, spg
Separator pressure, psig
Condensate to gas ratio,
STB/MMscf
Condensate gravity, API

gas
0.779
1725
181.55
50.80

Tank,
ND-3
388.76
7247.49
0.037
0.462
Use corr.
19611.30
01/31/1989

Input Data
Aquifer and Water Influx Parameters
Tank,
ND-1
Model
Reservoir thickness, ft
Reservoir radius, ft
Outer radius ratio,Encroachment angle, dgree
Aquifier permeability, md
Rock compressibility, 1/psi

97.760
1911.55
6.73
180
0.31
1.675x10-5

Tank,
ND-2
Carter-Tracy
97.760
3790.06
4.00
180
0.80
1.675x10-5

Tank,
ND-3
97.760
2500.25
4.00
180
0.018
1.675x10-5

Relative Permeability
Tank,
ND-1

Tank,
ND-2

Tank,
ND-3

Relative permeability from

Hysteresis
Water sweep eff. %

table
no
100

table
no
100

table
no
100

Krw (residual saturation, frac.)

Krw (end point, frac.)
Krw (exponent)
Krg (residual saturation, frac.)
Krg (end point, frac.)
Krg (exponent)

0.462
0.15
2
0.2
1
4

0.462
0.15
2
0.2
1
4

0.462
0.15
2
0.2
1
4

Production History

PVT Analysis
The results of PVT calculations, gas deviation factor, z, gas viscosity, gas
formation volume factor, FVF and Pseudo Pressure of the gas

Relative Permeability Analysis

Relative Permeability
Residual
Saturation
Fraction

End
Point

Exponent

fraction
0.462

0.15

0.2

Model one :

Tanks without transmissibility between them.

Analytical method

Model two:

Tanks have, fully communicated, with transmissibility at

deferent values.

Model two

Model three:

ND-1, ND-2, ND-3 are connected, but no communication between

ND-3 and ND-1

Model three: Case A

Model three:

ND-3 ND-1, and ND-2 are connected, but no communication

between ND-2 and ND-3

Model three: Case B

Model three:

ND-1, ND-3, ND-2 are connected, but no communication

between ND-2 and ND-1

Model three: Case C

Optimum Model
After testing the three Scenarios of the multiple tanks
model as mentioned previously , the optimum model
will be selected according to the results of original gas in
place, OGIP, with respect to its the history matching.
According to history matching results, scenarios no.3 case
a has the best history match with a minimum
truncated error 25%. Therefore, case a will be selected
as the optimum reservoir model.

Optimum Model
History Matching

Optimum Model
History Matching

Optimum Model
History Matching

Production Prediction

Production Prediction

Production Prediction

Result Summary

Conclusion
MBAL, integrated production modeling software, is an excellent
material balance approach and very useful tool in determine the
presence, the type and size of an aquifer and evaluating the
communication between reservoirs.
Material balance can be used to predict future reservoir performance
and aid in estimating cumulative recovery efficiency
Material balance can be applied when about 20% of the initial estimated
reserve is produced, or when 10% of initial reservoir pressure has
declined.
MBE can be applied to a variety of reservoirs, either with or without
water influx.
Transmissibility has the major effect on reserve estimation by using
dynamic model between the tanks.

Thank You