The International Journal of Engineering and Science (IJES)

|| Volume || 8 || Issue || 2 Series I|| Pages || PP 86-97 || 2019 ||

ISSN (e): 2319 – 1813 ISSN (p): 23-19 – 1805

Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and

Production Performance of the Safsaf C Oil Reservoir
Saleh Ahmed1, Khalid Elwegaa1, MohanedHtawish2,Haiat Alhaj3
1
Bob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
2
Waha Oil Company; Abu Laila Tower, Alkurnish Rd. Tripoli, Libya
3
Petroleum Engineering Department, Tripoli University, Libya
Corresponding Author:Khalid Elwegaa

-------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACT-----------------------------------------------------------
This study estimated the initial oil in place (OIIP) of SafsafCoil reservoir by using both volumetric methods and
material balance equation. Also, oil reserves of this reservoir was estimated using production Decline Curve
Analysis (DCA) method. First, three different volumetric techniques (Iso-pach method, Pore-volume method and
Hydrocarbon pore volume method) were implemented in this study to estimate the initial oil in place. As these
volumetric techniques depends on mapping for their calculation, so a powerful package software (Surfer) was
used to generate maps. Second, Havelena and Odeh model was built as a Material Balance Equation (MBE) to
estimate the initial oil in place. Field production history, PVT data and reservoir pressure history were
prepared to apply the material balance equation. finally, Exponential decline method was used as a Decline
Curve Analysis (DCA) to estimate oil reserves, remaining reserves, and remaining productive life of the
reservoir.The results of this study revealed that SafsafC reservoir has an initial oil in place in the range of 11.59
to 12.11 MMSTB by implementing the three volumetric methods (Iso-pach, Pore-volume and Hydrocarbon pore
volume). The results also revealed that initial oil in place obtained from material balance equation is
12.71MMSTB, which is in a good agreement with volumetric methods. Additionally, oil reserve of Safsaf C
reservoir is 3.05 MMSTB for the total reservoir.The results of this study demonstrate that Infill drilling can be
implemented to increase oil recovery, and continued water injection should be used to maintain the reservoir
pressure.
KEYWORDS: -Safsaf C reservoir; volumetric method; material balance equation; decline curve analysis; oil initial in
place; reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Date of Submission: 04-02-2019Date of acceptance: 20-02-2019
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

I. INTRODUCTION
Three main types of techniques are used to estimate Hydrocarbon Initially in Place (HIIP). Volumetric
Methods are ―static‖ methods that estimate HIIP from static properties of the reservoir, including its porosity,
thickness, and initial water saturation. The Material Balance Method, in contrast, is a ―dynamic‖ method that
estimates HIIP by analyzing historical data on production and pressure. A Long Duration Draw-Down Test (e.g.
Reservoir Limit Test) can also be used to estimate HIIP, but because this method is normally limited to small
hydrocarbon accumulations (i.e. single- or two-well reservoirs), it will not be considered in this study.

1.1 Volumetric Methods

Volumetric methods of estimating HIIP can be employed immediately after first discovery, before
production begins. For this reason, they are the primary tool used for the techno/economic evaluation of oil
properties and for the design of field-development projects (Dake, 1978), (Ahmed, 2010), (Craft & Hawkins,
1991).
The accuracy of HIIP estimates calculated using volumetric methods depends significantly on one’s
understanding of regional geology and on the quality of the seismic analysis, both of which will improve as
more wells are drilled and more accurate descriptions and geologic and petrophysical maps of reservoirs become
available (Urayet, 2004).
Three different volumetric methods—Iso-Pach, Pore-Volume, and Hydrocarbon Pore Volume are used
to estimate OIIP, and they all use the same basic data: petrophysical properties described by well logs,
geological maps, and the physical properties of the oil at the initial reservoir conditions.

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 86

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

To estimate OIIP,each of these methods requires mapping. To assist in this mapping, Surfer software
was used in this study. Surfer isa powerful contouring, gridding, and surface-mapping package that interpolates
irregularly spaced XYZ data into a regularly spaced grid (Golden Software, 2009).

1.2 Material Balance Equation

Material Balance employ the Single Tank Model, treating reservoir systems as homogeneous units or
―blocks.‖ One of the earliest, simplest, and yet most reliable tank models is the Schilthius Tank Model, which is
expressed as a Volumetric Material Balance Equation (Dake, 1978), (Craft & Hawkins, 1991), (Fair, 1994),
(Ahmed, 2010).
The main assumptions of the Schilthius Tank Model can be summarized as follows:
 Constant Tank Volume: The formation section containing the initial hydrocarbons is assumed to be of a
constant volume, one that does not change with production and injection.
 Constant Pressure Distribution: The pressure at every point in the reservoir and at every point in time is
assumed to be equal to the average reservoir pressure. however, the system average pressure is allowed to
change with time,
 Homogeneous Reservoir: Each property (including k g, kw, ko, Ø, Sg, Sw, So, µg, µw, and µo) is assumed to
have the same value across the reservoir at any given time.
 Constant Composition: The fluid-chemical composition is assumed to remain constant throughout
production, except as reflected in the changes with pressure of the fluid properties (e.g. B o, Rs, z-factor, and
viscosity).
 Uniform Withdrawals: The volumes of fluids produced from and injected into the reservoir are assumed to
be distributed uniformly throughout the system.

Material Balance Calculations are normally run to accomplish the following:

 To validate HIIP estimates obtained using the Static Volumetric Method.
 To identify the driving mechanism affecting the reservoir performance and, for water-drive systems, to
identify the aquifer model and the water influx constants.
 To estimate the reserves ultimately recoverable.
 To forecast the ultimate performance of the reservoir.
(Havlena & Odeh, 1963) rearranged the Material Balance Equation into one for a straight line. Their
straight-line method requires two variable groups to be plotted against each other, both of which are chosen
based on the production mechanism. This study used the straight-line method to estimate the OIIP of the Safsaf
C reservoir.

1.3 Decline Curve Analysis

Decline Curve Analysis is a basic tool for predicting production rates and estimating remaining oil
reserves and remaining productive life (Cutler, 1924). (Urayet, 2002) reported that calculating reserves—
especially in the early life of a reservoir—is the most difficult aspect of reservoir engineering because the only
tools available for doing so are macro-analysis techniques that rely on reservoir models in which the
characteristics of most points in the reservoir are linear interpolations from known points (i.e. holes that have
been drilled). Especially in water-drive systems, reserve values are significantly influenced by variations in
permeability (in both the horizontal and vertical directions), layering, pore size, and pore throat size, but such
variation is rarely taken into consideration.
The most popular decline curves are those that represent declines in the rate of oil or gas production
using Rate-Time Plots. Rate-Cumulative Plots are also popular, however, and plot production rates against
cumulative oil or gas production. Both techniques can be applied to single wills, total reservoir, and cumulative
production.Three mathematical formulas are used to estimate future production: Hyperbolic Decline,
Exponential Decline, and Harmonic Decline (Arps, 1945).
Because it is frequently used for strong water drive reservoirs,Exponential Decline was used in this
study to represent or extrapolate the production data of the Safsaf C reservoir.

II. SAFSAF C: BACKGROUND AND RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION

The Safsaf field is located inNorth Africa and was discovered in 1985 through drilling wells C1 and
D1, which are located in two different structures (Safsaf C and D). Oil was found in the Facha member of the
Gir formation, and production from the Facha member began in 1990 (Fig. 1).
The C block is north of the D block and separated from it by a structural low (or ―saddle‖). The saddle
between C and D is believed to be a low-permeability zone, and the pressure distribution of both blocks C and D

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 87

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

is shown in fig. 2. To date, a total of six wells—3 producers and 3 injectors—have been drilled into the
structure of C (Fig. 3).

Fig.1 The location of the Safsaf field

Fig. 2 Isobaric mapof theSafsaf field Fig. 3 Map of well locations in Safsaf C

All of the wells produce from the carbonate Facha formation. The Safsaf formation is bounded by
several faults, all of which are assumed to have small throws such that they may not seal completely. The
overlaying Hon Evaporites provide a seal for the reservoir. The porous interval below the oil interval consists of
very-low-permeability rock. Diagenesis took place in the water interval and is believed to have decreased the
permeability of the water-filled pores.
The Facha reservoir is composed of a series of dolomite and limestone layers separated by tight
anhydritic stringers. These anhydrite layers prevent vertical communication between the flow units, particularly
in the upper parts of the reservoir. Table 1 presents data from the Safsaf C reservoir.

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 88

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

Table 1 : Safsaf C reservoir : data summary

Formation Depth, (D) 7,200 ft
Avg. Net Pay, (h) 44 ft
Initial Pressure, (Pi) 3,080 Psia
Current Pressure of C-Block, (P) 1,816 Psia
Reservoir Temperature, (Tres) 186 °F
Avg. Porosity, (avg.) 18 %
Initial Water Saturation, (Swi) 28 %
Avg. Permeability, (kavg.) 20 md
Saturation Pressure, (Psat.) 2,100 Psia
Gas Oil Ratio, (GOR) 1,500 scf/STB
FVF @ Initial Pressure, (Boi) 2.28 RB/STB
Oil Viscosity @ Initial Pressure, (μo) 0.28 cp
Oil Gravity, (API) 50 °API

III. CASE STUDY APPLICATIONS

3.1 Volumetric Methods Calculations
All three volumetric techniques were used in this study—the Iso-pach method, the Pore-Volume
method, and the HPV method. The Simpson Rule was used to calculate the reservoir volume according to the
following equation:
𝑕 𝑡 𝑛 ∗𝑎 𝑛
𝑉𝑓 = 𝑎0 + 2𝑎1 + 4𝑎2 + 2𝑎3 + 4𝑎4 + ⋯ + 4𝑎𝑛 −2 + 2𝑎𝑛−1 + 𝑎𝑛 + (1)
3 2

where 𝑉𝑓 is the net pay volume, 𝑕 is the contour interval, 𝑎𝑖 is the area of contour i, and 𝑡𝑛 is the greatest
thickness level above the nth contour.
Because all volumetric methods rely on mapping, Surfer was used to generate the contour maps used with each
method.
3.1.1 Procedure for the Iso-pach Method
1. The average porosity, average water saturation, and net pay thickness were calculated for each well and for
the reservoir (Table 2).
2. The net-pay-thickness map of the Safsaf C reservoir was generated for use with the Iso-pach method (Fig. 4)
3. The areas of the sections enclosed by the contours shown in the pay-thickness maps were calculated.
4. Net pay volume Vfwas calculated using the Simpson rule.
5. The OIIP was calculated using the following equation (2)

1−𝑆𝑤𝑖 𝑉 𝑓 ∅
𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 𝑆𝑇𝐵 = (2)
5.615 𝐵𝑜𝑖

3.1.2 Procedure for the Hydrocarbon Pore Volume Method

1. The average porosity, average water saturation, and net pay thickness were calculated for each well and for
the reservoir.
2. The net-pay-thickness map of the Safsaf C reservoir was generated for use with the HPV method.
3. The HPV per 1 ft2 of reservoir area was calculated for each well individually:

𝐻𝑃𝑉 = 1 ∗ 𝑕𝑛 ∗ ∅ ∗ 1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑖 (3)

4. The volume of the hydrocarbon in place (Vhydr) was calculated using equation (1).
5. The OIIP was calculated using the following equation (4)
𝑉 𝑕 𝑦𝑑𝑟
𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 𝑆𝑇𝐵 = (4)
5.615 𝐵𝑜𝑖

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 89

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

3.1.3 Procedure for the Pore Volume Method

1. The average porosity, average water saturation, and net pay thickness were calculated for each well and for
the reservoir.
2. The iso-porosity, iso-water-saturation, and net-pay-thickness maps of the Safsaf C reservoir were generated.
3. A suitable grid was placed over the three iso maps, which covered the entire net-pay area.
4. The values for hn, ∅ and Swi were estimated for each grid square.
5. The initial volume (Vi) of each grid square was calculated using the following equation (5)

𝑉𝑖 = 𝑕𝑛 ∗ ∅ ∗ 1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑖 ∗ 𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 (5)

6. OIIP was calculated using the following equation (6)

𝑉𝑖
𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 𝑆𝑇𝐵 = (6)
5.615 𝐵𝑜𝑖
3.2 Material Balance Calculations
The following data were prepared before the material balance calculations were completed using the
Havelena and Odeh model.
 The cumulative production history of the reservoir; i.e. N p, Gp, and Wp, as well as the cumulative injection
data in case of injection projects; i.e. Wi and/or Ginj(Table 2).
 The history for average reservoir pressure (Table 2).
 Oil, gas, and water PVT data (Table 3).
The Havelena and Odeh model was built to estimate the OIIP of Safsaf C. The general form of the
material balance equation is:
𝑁𝑝 𝐵𝑡 + 𝑅𝑝 −𝑅𝑠𝑖 𝐵𝑔 +𝑊𝑝 𝐵𝑤 −𝑊 𝑖 𝐵𝑤 −𝐺𝑖 𝐵𝑔 −𝑊𝑒
𝑁= 𝐵𝑔 𝑐 𝑓+𝑐 𝑆 (7)
𝑤 𝑤𝑖
𝐵𝑡 −𝐵𝑡𝑖 +𝑚𝐵 𝑡𝑖 −1 + 1+𝑚 𝐵𝑡𝑖 ∆𝑝
𝐵 𝑔𝑖 1−𝑆 𝑤𝑖

Since the Safsaf C reservoir is above the bubble-point pressure, no water influx, and gas injection, the
above equation can be written as follows:

𝑁𝑝 𝐵𝑜 +𝑊𝑝 𝐵𝑤 −𝑊 𝑖
𝑁= 𝑐 𝑓 +𝑐 𝑤 𝑆 𝑤𝑖 (8)
𝐵𝑜 −𝐵𝑜𝑖 +𝐵𝑜𝑖 ∆𝑝
1−𝑆 𝑤𝑖

Table 2: Reservoir pressure and production history for Safsaf C

Date Pressure Cum. Oil Cum. Gas Cum. WTR Cum.Gas Cum WTR Inj.
psi MMSTB MMscf MMSTB MMscf MMSTB
6/30/1990 3,080 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000
8/31/1990 2,858 0.1952 353.97 0.0007 0 0.0000
1/31/1991 2,360 0.3007 547.31 0.0080 0 0.0000
5/31/1991 2,540 0.3201 579.49 0.0084 0 0.0000
8/31/1991 2,305 0.3451 619.80 0.0089 0 0.0000
11/30/1991 2,420 0.3717 683.64 0.0089 0 0.0000
2/29/1992 2,438 0.3998 736.53 0.0089 0 0.0000
9/30/1992 2,273 0.4961 918.87 0.0123 0 0.0256
11/30/1992 2,394 0.5330 966.80 0.0124 0 0.0553
4/30/1993 2,099 0.6242 1077.96 0.0137 0 0.1281
10/31/1993 2,135 0.6705 1224.84 0.0146 0 0.1877
8/31/1994 2,072 0.7941 1479.88 0.0192 0 0.4650
9/30/1995 2,030 1.0058 1892.91 0.0219 0 1.0479
11/30/1996 2,025 1.2665 2463.13 0.0368 0 1.6960
2/28/1997 2,044 1.3449 2602.38 0.0427 0 1.8583

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 90

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

Table 3: PVT data for Safsaf C

Pressure Relative Volume of Viscosity of Oil, (cp) GOR GOR Oil FVF
psi Oil and Gas, (v/vsat) @ 202 °F (Liberated per (In Solution per (Bbl/STB)
Barrel of Residual Barrel of Residual
Oil) Oil)
5,000 0.9063 0.32 3.080
4,490 0.9169 0.31 3.116
3,995 0.9291 0.31 3.157
3,519 0.9426 0.30 3.203
2,994 0.9595 0.29 3.260
2,200 0.9948 0.28 3.380
BP=2,108 1.0000 0.27 0 3,231 3.398
1,873 1.0963 0.28 506 2,725 3.064
1,503 1.3511 0.29 1,150 2,081 2.692
1,051 2.0108 0.31 1,694 1,537 2.354
627 0.34 2,138 1,093 2.079
203 0.37 2,738 493 1.659
15 0.82 3,231 0 1.075

From equation (8), the following equations can be written as:

𝐹 = 𝑁𝑝 𝐵𝑜 + 𝑊𝑝 𝐵𝑤 − 𝑊𝑖 (9)

𝐸𝑜 = 𝐵𝑜 − 𝐵𝑜𝑖 (10)

𝑐 𝑓 +𝑐𝑤 𝑆𝑤𝑖
𝐸𝑓,𝑤 = 𝐵𝑜𝑖 ∆𝑝 (11)
1−𝑆𝑤𝑖

where 𝐹 represent total production volume minus the total injected volume (bbls), 𝐸𝑜 represents the
expansion of oil and its originally dissolved gas (bbl/stb), and 𝐸𝑓,𝑤 represents the expansion of the initial water
and the reduction in the pore volume (bbl/stb).
To estimate the OIIP using the straight-line method of MBE, equations 9, 10, and 11 were then used to
plot 𝐹 versus 𝐸𝑜 + 𝐸𝑓,𝑤 .

3.3 Production Forecasting via Decline Curve Analysis

Decline Curve Analysis was used to identify the decline type, the decline factor, and the initial decline
rate, which were then used to determine the other evaluation parameters, including the total reserves, remaining
reserves, and abandonment time.
The exponential decline formula was selected to represent or extrapolate the production data for the Safsaf C
reservoir. The general form of the DCA is given in equation (12)
𝑞 1
𝑑𝑞 = −𝑏𝑡 − (12)
𝑎𝑖
𝑑𝑡
where q is the production rate at any time, t represents the time from the start of production decline, 𝑎𝑖
is a decline factor representing the initial rate of decline, and b is a reservoir constant that ranges between 0 and
1.0. For strong-water drive reservoirs, the value of b is generally very near to 0. In such situations, Equation (12)
can be written in the following form, which is known as Exponential Decline.

𝑞 1
𝑑𝑞 =− (13)
𝑎𝑖
𝑑𝑡

Decline Curve Analysis was applied to production data from the Safsaf C reservoir. The production
history was divided into two main periods:
 Period (1): from the 28th of February 2002, to the 31st of July 2007.
 Period (2): from the 30th of January 2008, to the 31st of May 2012.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Volumetric Methods Calculations
Table 4 shows the results for average porosity, average water saturation, and net pay thickness for each
well. It also shows the contour intervals obtained using the volumetric methods.

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 91

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

Table 4: Average properties of the Safsaf C reservoir

Avg. Avg. WTR
Well # Net Pay Isopach Map Pore Vol. Map H.C. Map ϕ×h Swi×h
Porosity Sat.
ft % % ft-Interval ft-Interval ft-Interval
C1 30.5 16.91 23.87 30.5 5.16 3.93 515.76 728.04
C2 27.0 19.15 48.65 27.0 5.17 2.66 517.05 1,313.55
C3 57.5 19.25 24.48 57.5 11.07 8.36 1,106.88 1,407.60
C4 2.5 15.41 50.70 2.5 0.39 0.19 38.53 126.75
C5 39.5 18.54 25.26 39.5 7.32 5.47 732.33 997.77
C6 35.0 16.32 20.87 35.0 5.71 4.52 571.20 730.45
Sum: 192.0 105.58 193.83 3,481.74 5,304.16

As Table 4 shows, the average porosity (18.3%) and average water saturation (27.63%) of the reservoir
were calculated using the thickness-weight method.
4.1.1 Results for the Iso-Pach Method
Fig. 4 shows the iso-pach map of the Safsaf C reservoir built using Surfer. The productive area was
estimated from the map using planimeter. Then, the net pay volume and OIIP were calculated (see Table 5).

Fig. 4 Iso-pach map of the Safsaf C reservoir

Table 5: Calculations and results for the Iso-pach method

Productive Planimeter Area, acre Ratio of Interval (h), ft Interval * Ratio ΔV
Area Area, cm2 Areas, unitless Acre-ft
A0 93.50 1217.97 # # # #
A1 69.50 905.34 0.74 10.00 7.43 10,617
A2 46.25 602.47 0.67 10.00 6.65 7,539
A3 22.50 293.10 0.49 10.00 4.86 4,386
A4 11.25 146.55 0.50 10.00 5.00 2,198
A5 5.25 68.39 0.47 10.00 4.67 1,050
A6 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.50 0.00 171
Sum 57.5 Vf = 25,961
OIIP = 11.59 MMSTB

4.1.2 Results for the Hydrocarbon Pore Volume Method

Surfer was used to build a map for Hydrocarbon pore volume (Fig. 5). Then, the hydrocarbon pore
volume was calculated for each separate well. Finally, total HPV and OIIP were calculated (Table 6).

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 92

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

Fig. 5 Map of hydrocarbon pore volume for the Safsaf C reservoir

Table 6: Calculations and results for the map of Hydrocarbon pore volume
Productive Planimeter Area, acre Ratio of Interval (h), ft Interval * Ratio ΔV
Area Area, cm2 Areas, unitless Acre-ft
A0 93.50 1217.97 # # # #
A1 63.00 820.67 0.67 1.50 1.01 1,529
A2 36.00 468.95 0.57 1.50 0.86 967
A3 22.00 286.58 0.61 1.50 0.92 567
A4 12.00 156.32 0.55 1.50 0.82 332
A5 3.50 45.59 0.29 1.50 0.44 143
A6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 13
Sum 8.36 Vhydr = 3,551
OIIP = 12.08 MMSTB

4.1.3 Results for the Pore Volume Method

As with the previous methods, Surfer was used to build maps for pore volume, iso-porosity, and iso-
water saturation (Fig. 6, 7, and 8). The initial hydrocarbon volume for each grid square of the map for pole
volume was calculated from that square’s porosity, oil saturation, and thickness. Then, the total hydrocarbon
volume and the OIIP were estimated (Table 7).

Fig. 6 Iso-porosity map of the Safsaf C reservoir Fig. 7 Iso-water saturation map of the Safsaf C
reservoir

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 93

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

Fig. 8 Pore volume map of the Safsaf C reservoir

Table 7: Calculations and results for the Pore volume method
Productive Planimeter Area, acre Ratio of Interval (h), ft Interval * Ratio ΔV
2
Area Area, cm Areas, unitless Acre-ft
A0 93.50 1217.97 # # # #
A1 68.50 892.31 0.73 2.00 1.47 2,110
A2 42.00 547.11 0.61 2.00 1.23 1,439
A3 19.50 254.02 0.46 2.00 0.93 783
A4 10.50 136.78 0.54 2.00 1.08 391
A5 3.75 48.85 0.36 2.00 0.71 178
A6 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.00 17
Sum 11.07 Vi = 4,919
OIIP = 12.11 MMSTB
Although the three volumetric methods employed different calculations, the results revealed that the
values they yielded for OIIP were almost identical, ranging between 11.59 and 12.11 MMSTB.

4.2 Results for Material Balance

The following results (shown in Table 8) were obtained by applying the straight-line formulation of the
material balance equation and using the production history, pressure history, and PVT of Safsaf C.

Table 8: Results for material balance for the Safsaf C reservoir

Bo N F Eo Ef,w Eo+ Ef,w
Bbl/STB MMSTB MMSTB Bbl/STB Bbl/STB Bbl/STB
2.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0000
2.75 19.19 0.54 0.0244 0.0037 0.0280
2.81 8.83 0.85 0.0849 0.0119 0.0967
2.79 12.70 0.90 0.0621 0.0089 0.0710
2.82 9.37 0.98 0.0920 0.0128 0.1048
2.80 11.94 1.05 0.0772 0.0109 0.0880
2.80 13.22 1.13 0.0749 0.0106 0.0854
2.82 12.67 1.39 0.0963 0.0133 0.1096
2.80 15.84 1.45 0.0805 0.0113 0.0918
2.84 12.23 1.66 0.1198 0.0162 0.1360
2.84 13.29 1.73 0.1148 0.0156 0.1304
2.85 12.98 1.82 0.1235 0.0166 0.1401
2.85 12.60 1.85 0.1294 0.0173 0.1467
2.85 13.30 1.96 0.1301 0.0174 0.1475
2.85 14.02 2.03 0.1274 0.0171 0.1445
The above data were plotted as shown in Fig. 9, and the OIIP of Safsaf C was found to be 12.71
MMSTB when the straight-line formulation of MBE was used.

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 94

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

Fig. 9 OIIP of Safsaf C using the straight-line equation of MBE.

The following table 9 shows, the material balance equation and the three volumeric methods yielded
OIIP values that were very nearly the same.

Table 9: A comparison of the OIIP results for the Safsaf C reservoir

No. Method OIIP (N), MMSTB

1. Iso-pach 11.59
2. Pore volume 12.11

3. Hydrocarbon pore volume 12.08

4. Material balance equation 12.71

4.3 Results for the Decline Curve Analysis

As explained above, Exponential Decline was applied to the production history of Safsaf C to estimate
its total and remaining reserves. The analysis considered two distinct two periods.
The first period ranged from February 28th, 2002 to July 31st, 2007. Table 10 shows the results of the
decline curve analysis for this period, and Fig. 10 shows the match between the production history and the data
obtained by using exponential decline and the oil production forecast for the Safsaf C reservoir, which included
a final rate of 40 BPD in January 2020.

Table 10: Results of the production decline analysis for the first period of the Safsaf C reservoir
From To
Period
2/28/2002 7/31/2007
# of Points 66
b 0.00
qi, BPD 259
ai,1/year 0.1032144
q cal. at end of Period, BPD 148
Np at end of Period, BBL 2,574,314
Assumed qe, BPD 15
Remaining Reserves, BBL 471,058
Total Reserves, BBL 3,045,372

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 95

 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

Fig. 10 The first-decline production period with forecast of the Safsaf C reservoir

The second period ranged from January 30th, 2008 to May 31st, 2012. Table 11 shows the results of the
decline curve analysis, and Fig. 11 shows the production history matching the decline curve analysis
calculations and the production forecast of the reservoir.

Table 11: Results of the production decline analysis for the second period of the Safsaf C reservoir
From To
Period
1/30/2008 5/31/2012
# of Points 47
b 0
qi, BPD 247
ai,1/year 0.224533
q cal. at end of Period, BPD 104
Np at end of Period, BBL 2,910,758
Assumed qe, BPD 15
Remaining Reserves, BBL 143,911
Total Reserves, BBL 3,054,669

Fig. 11The second-decline production period and forecast of Safsaf C reservoir

To better interpret the production history of the Safsaf C reservoir, the first- and second-decline
production periods were combined (Fig. 12) to show the calculations for the decline curve analysis. Doing so
revealed that an increase in production occurred after the first-decline period due to workover operation of well
C6 from September 2006 through December 2006. Although production increased at the beginning of the
second period, the decline rate in the second period was higher than in the first period.
DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 96
 Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production Performance of the Safsaf C ….

Fig. 12 Production history of Safsaf C and a decline curve analysis of both periods

V. CONCLUSIONS
The Safsaf C reservoir has been in production for more than twenty years and is volumetrically
undersaturated. Significant drops in pressure have been detected, and water injection to maintain pressure was
initiated as early as two years from the start of production. This study estimated the OIIP of Safsaf C using
various volumetric methods and the straight-line formulation of the material balance equation. It also estimated
the total and remaining reserves using the exponential method of decline curve analysis.

1. OIIP was estimated using volumetric methods that utilized Isopach, pore volume, and H.C. pore volume
maps. The OIIP values ranged from 11.59 to 12.11 MMSTB.
2. OIIP was also estimated using the straight-line formulation of the material balance equation. The results
were in good agreement with those of the volumetric methods: the value for OIIP was 12.71 MMSTB.
3. Total reserves were estimated using a normal Decline Curve Analysis, and the results showed a value 3.05
MMSTB.
4. The study revealed that the reservoir can be developed by using infill drilling and continuing water injection
to maintain pressure.
5.
REFERENCES
[1]. Ahmed, T. (2010). Reservoir Engineering Handbook (4th ed.). Gulf Professional Publishing.
[2]. Arps, J. J. (1945). Analysis of Decline Curves. SPE Journal, 160(1), 228-247.
[3]. Craft, B. C., & Hawkins, M. (1991). Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs.
[4]. Cutler, W. (1924). Estimation of Underground Oil Reserves by Oil-Well Production Curves. Bull. USBM, 228(1).
[5]. Dake, L. P. (1978). Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Elsevier.
[6]. Fair, W. B. (1994). A Statistical Approach to Material Balance Methods. New Orleans, Louisiana: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[7]. Golden Software. (2009). Golden Software home page. Retrieved 2012, from https://www.goldensoftware.com/products/surfer
[8]. Havlena, D., & Odeh, A. S. (1963). The Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight Line. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
[9]. Urayet, A. A. (2002). Calculations of Reserves. In Oil Property Evaluation (p. 16). Tripoli: University of Tripoli.
[10]. Urayet, A. A. (2004). Advanced Topics in Petroleum Engineering. Tripoli: University of Tripoli.

Khalid Elwegaa" Determination of the Oil Initial in Place, Reserves, and Production
Performance of the Safsaf C Oil Reservoir"The International Journal of Engineering and Science
(IJES), 8.2 (2019): 86-97

DOI:10.9790/1813-0802018697 www.theijes.com Page 97