Samaher Thesis

Ministry of Higher Education
and Scientific Research

University of Baghdad
College of Engineering
Petroleum Engineering Department
Determination of Optimum Injection Patterns

for Carbonate Reservoir
(Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil Field)
by using Reservoir Modeling
A dissertation
Submitted to College of Engineering/
University of Baghdad in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of
Philosophy in Petroleum Engineering
By
SamaherAbdil-RassolLazim
April 2013
M.Sc.2002
Supervisor Supervisor
Dr.Sameera M. Hamd-Allah Dr.Ali Hussain Jawad

( )11

Certificate
Certify that the dissertation entitled ( Determination of Optimum

We Injection Patterns for Carbonate Reservoir (Mishrif Formation/
Tuba Oil Field) by Using Reservoir Modeling ) is prepared under our
supervision at the University of Baghdad / Petroleum Engineering
Department in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctorate of Philosophy in Petroleum Engineering .
Signature : Signature :
Assist. Prof. Dr. Sameera M. Hamd-Allah Dr. Ali Hussain Jawad
(supervisor) (supervisor)
Date : 13 / 05 / 2013 Date : 13 / 05 / 2013
Certificate
We Certify that we read this dissertation as examining committee,

examined the student in its contents and in what is related with it,
and in our opinion, it meets the standard of a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Petroleum Engineering.
Name: Ass. Prof. Dr. Sameera M. Name: Dr. Ali Hussain Jawad
Hamd-Allah
(Supervisor) (Supervisor)
Name: Ass. Prof. Dr. Talib A. Name: Ass. Prof. Dr. Ayad A.
Saleh Al-Haleem
(Member) (Member)
Name: Prof. Dr. Safaa Nouri Name: Dr.Basim M. Nour
Hamad
(Member) (Member)
Signature :
Name: Prof. Dr. Mohammed S. Al-Jawad
(Chairman)
Approved by the college of Engineering, University of Baghdad.
Signature :
Name: Prof. Dr. Qassim M. Doos Al-Aattaby
Dean of the College of Engineering
Date: / /2013
List of Contents
List of Contents
Series Titles Pages
List of Tables V
List of Figures VII
Acknowledgment XV
Nomenclature XVI
Abstract XIX
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Preface 1
1.2 Methodology 2
1.3 Field under Study 3
1.4 Aim of the Study 4
Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.1 Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil Field 7
2.2 Petrophysical properties 12
2.3 Geological Model 18
2.4 Reservoir Development Optimization 19
Chapter Three: Well Log Analysis & Interpretation

3.1 Preface 22
3.2 Formation Evaluation 22
3.3 Fluid and Formation Analysis 23
3.3.1 Water and Hydrocarbon Saturations Determination 26
3.3.2 Formation Analysis (Bulk Volume Analysis) 27
I
List of Contents
Series Titles Pages

3.4 Determination of Petrophysical Parameters cut-off 30
3.5 Original Oil in Place Calculation (OOIP): 35
Chapter Four: Reservoir Properties

4.1 Porosity 36
4.2 Permeability 40
4.2.1 Relationship of Porosity to Permeability for core plugs data 40
4.2.2 Permeability Estimation from Well Logs 42
4.2.3 Permeability Estimation from Well Test 44
4.2.4 Permeability Estimation by Using Hydraulic Units and Global 46
Hydraulic Element (GHE) Method
4.2.4.1 Hydraulic Unit (HU) Definition 46
4.2.4.2 Global Hydraulic Element (GHE) 48
4.3 Capillary Pressure 50
4.4 Average Water Saturation Calculation 53
4.5 Relative Permeability Curves 55
4.6 Pressure Volume Temperature Analysis (PVT) 57
4.6.1 Oil Formation Volume Factor (Bo) 57
4.6.2 Oil viscosity (o) 57
4.6.3 Oil Density (o) 57
4.6.4 Oil Compressibility (CO) 57
4.6.5 Solution and dissolved gas- oil ratio (GOR& Rs) 57
4.6.6 Gas Formation Volume Factor (Bg) 59
4.6.7 Gas Viscosity (g) 59
4.6.8 Gas Density (g) 61
II
List of Contents
Series Titles Pages

4.6.9 Water Formation Volume Factor (Bw) 61
4.6.10 Water Viscosity (w) 61
4.6.11 Water Density (w) 61
4.6.12 Water Compressibility (Cw) 61
4.6.13 Formation Compressibility (Cf) 61
Chapter Five: Geological Model

5.1 Preface 62
5.2 Model Building 62
5.3 Property Modeling by Conventional Upscaling 77
Chapter Six: Numerical Simulation

6.1 Preface 90
6.2 Model Input and Output Data 90
6.3 Reservoir Modeling 92
6.5 History Matching 95
Chapter Seven: Reservoir Development Strategies

7.1 Preface 116
7.2 Water Injection Patterns 116
7.3 Model Constraints 129
Chapter Eight: Conclusions & Recommendations

8.1 Conclusions 161
III
List of Contents
8.2 Recommendations 163

References 164
Appendix (A): Computer Processing Interpretation (CPI)

Appendix (B): Well Test Analysis
Appendix (C): Capillary Pressure Curves
IV
List of Tables
List of Tables
Series Titles Pages

Table (1.1) Drilling Date for Production Wells in the Studied Area 4
Laboratory Derived Permeability Correlations Based on the
Table (2.1) Formation Resistivity Factor in the General Form of k=a/Fb 14
(Table Based on Ogbe et al.).
Laboratory Derived Permeability Correlations Based on the
Table (2.2) Formation Porosity in the General Form of k=a*b (Table 15
Based on Schlumberger SLIP/A, 1989).
Table (3.1) Tops of Mishrif Formation units (from R.T.K.B) . 24

Equivalent Hydrocarbon Column( EHC) Calculation for MA
Table (3.2) 36
& MB Units/ Mishrif Formation
Table (4.1) Well Test Analysis by Horner Method 45
Table (4.2) Well Test Analysis by Type-Curve Method 45

Swi calculation by J-Function Curve/Mishrif Formation/ Tuba 54
Table (4.3)
Oil Field
Table (6.1) Date of Well History Production Data. 97
Table (7.1) Number of Production and Injection Wells for all the 130
Suggested Patterns
Table (7.2) Water Injection Rate per Well for all the Suggested Patterns 130
(m3/day)
Table (7.3) Results of Direct Line Drive Pattern@ End of Each 132
Suggested Plateau.
Table (7.4) Results of Direct Line Drive Pattern@ End of 2033. 133
Table (7.5) Results of Staggered Line Drive Pattern@ End of Each 139
Suggested Plateau.
Table (7.6) Results of Staggered Line Drive Pattern@ End of 2033. 139
V
List of Tables
Series Titles Pages

Table (7.7) Results of 5-Spot Pattern@ End of Each Suggested Plateau 145
Table (7.8) Results of 5-Spot Pattern@ End of 2033. 146
Table (7.9) Results of Inverted 9-Spot Pattern@ End of Each Suggested 152
Plateau.
Table (7.10) Results of Inverted 9-Spot Pattern@ End of 2033. 152
Table (7.11) Results of Optimum Case for each Suggested Water 158
Injection Pattern.
VI
List of Figures
List of Figures
Series Titles Pages
Fig. (1.1) Location Map of Studied Area. 6
Fig. (3.1) Wells Location Map in the Studied Area 26
Fig. (3.2) Picket Plot for Well TU-5/ Mishrif Formation 28
Fig. (3.3) Fluid and Formation Analyses for Well TU-5 29
Fig. (3.4) Porosity Cut-off for Mishrif Formation. 32
Fig. (3.5) Porosity cut- off from EHC Calculations. 32
Fig. (3.6) Sw Cut-off from EHC Calculations. 33
Calculated Permeability & Porosity by Interactive 37

Fig. (4.1)
Petrophysics v 3.4 for Well TU-4.
Calculated Permeability & Porosity by Interactive 38
Fig. (4.2)
Petrophysics v 3.4 for Well TU-5.
Fig. (4.3) Log Derived Porosity vs. Core Porosity for Well TU-4. 39
Fig. (4.4) Log Derived Porosity vs, Core Porosity for Well TU-5 39
Permeability- Porosity Relationship from Core Plugs/ 41
Fig. (4.5)
Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil Field.
Calculated Permeability vs.the Measured from Core Plug 43
Fig. (4.6)
for TU-4& TU-5
Calculated Permeability vs.the Measured from Core Plug 47
Fig. (4.7)
for Different HUs.
Porosity- Permeability Relationships for Different HU 48
Fig. (4.8)
Systems.
Porosity- Permeability Data Drawn on Standard GHE
Fig. (4.9) 50
Plot.
Fig. (4.10) Capillary pressure Curves for each HU. 51
Fig. (4.11) Calculated J(SW) Function vs. Sw for Mishrif Formation 53
VII
List of Figures
Series Titles Pages

Measured Oil & Water Relative Permeability Curves, for 56
Fig. (4.12)
Well TU-12/ Oil- Wet
Measured Oil & Water Relative Permeability Curves for 56
Fig. (4.13)
Well TU-15/ Water -Wet
Oil Formation Volume Factor (Bo) vs. Pressure 58
Fig. (4.14)
Relationship for Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil Field
Fig. (4.15) Oil Viscosity for Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil Field 58
Gas-Oil Ratio (Librated& in Solution) vs. Pressure for 59
Fig. (4.16)
Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil Field
Fig. (4.17) Gas Formation Volume Factor for Well TU-5 60
Fig. (4.18) Calculated Gas Viscosity for Well TU-5 60
Fig. (5.1) Well Section No.1 /Mishrif Zones and Layers 64
Fig. (5.5) Skelton Grid for the Studied Reservoir 68
Fig. (5.6) 3D-View of Subsurface Units/ Mishrif Formation 69
Fig. (5.7) Subsurface Contour Map for MA Unit/ Mishrif Formation 70

Subsurface Contour Map for CRII Unit/ Mishrif 71
Fig. (5.8)
Formation
Subsurface Contour Map for MB1 Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.9) 72
Formation.
Subsurface Contour Map for MB2 Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.10) 73
Formation
Fig. (5.11) Subsurface Contour Map for RU Formation 74
Fig. (5.12) Mishrif Formation Orientation Profile. 75
Fig. (5.13) Cross Section (A-A). 76
VIII
List of Figures
Series Titles Pages
Fig. (5.14) Cross Section (B-B). 76
Fig. (5.15) 2D- porosity distribution for MA Unit/ Mishrif Formation 78

2D- porosity distribution for MB1 Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.16) 79
Formation
2D- porosity distribution for MB2 Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.17) 80
Formation
2D- Water Saturation distribution for MA Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.18) 81
Formation
2D- Water Saturation distribution for MB1 Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.19) 82
Formation
2D- Water Saturation distribution for MB2 Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.20) 83
Formation
2D- Permeability distribution for MA Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.21) 84
Formation
2D- Permeability distribution for MB1 Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.22) 85
Formation
2D- Permeability distribution for MB2 Unit/ Mishrif
Fig. (5.23) 86
Formation
2D- Net to Gross (NTG) distribution for MA Unit/
Fig. (5.24) 87
Mishrif Formation
Fig. (5.25) 2D- Net to Gross (NTG) distribution for MB1 Unit. 88
Fig. (5.26) 2D- Net to Gross(NTG) distribution for MB2 Unit 89
Fig. (6.1) Grid Cells for the Studied Area. 94
Total Field Oil Production(Calculated and Observed) with 98

Fig. (6.2)
Field Oil Recovery.
IX
List of Figures
Series Titles Pages

Field Oil Production Rate (Calculated and Observed)
Fig. (6.3) 98
with Calculated Field Pressure.
Oil Production Rate (Calculated& Observed) for Well 99
Fig. (6.4)
TU-1.
Fig. (6.5)
TU-2.
Fig. (6.6)
TU-4.
Fig. (6.7)
TU-6.
Fig. (6.8)
TU-7.
Fig. (6.9)
TU-9.
Fig. (6.10)
TU-10.
Fig. (6.11)
TU-11.
Fig. (6.12)
TU-12.
Fig. (6.13)
TU-13.
Fig. (6.14)
TU-14.
Fig. (6.15)
TU-15.
Fig. (6.16)
TU-16.
Fig. (6.17)
TU-17.
Fig. (6.18)
TU-18.
Fig. (6.19)
TU-22.
Fig. (6.20) Well Closed Bottom Hole Pressure (Calculated& 107

Observed) for Well TU-1.
X
List of Figures
Series Titles Pages

Well Closed Bottom Hole Pressure (Calculated& 107
Fig. (6.21)
Observed) for Well TU-7
Fig. (6.33) Calculated Cumulative Oil Production& Field Oil 114
Recovery during the Predicted Scenario.
Fig. (6.34) Calculated Oil Production Rate & Reservoir Pressure 115
during the Predicted Scenario.
Fig. (6.35) Calculated Field Water Cut from Starting of History 115
Matching till the End of 2020.
Production and Injection Wells Arrangement for 117

Fig. (7.1)
Suggested Patterns .
Fig. (7.2) Crossing of OWC level with Top Surface of MB2 Unit. 118
Fig. (7.3) Well Distribution for Direct Line Drive Pattern. 119
XI
List of Figures
Series Titles Pages

Well Distribution for Direct Line Drive Pattern with 120
Fig. (7.4)
Peripheral Wells.
Fig. (7.5) Well Distribution for Staggered Line Drive Pattern. 121
Well Distribution for Staggered Line Drive Pattern with 122
Fig. (7.6)
Peripheral Wells.
Fig. (7.7) Well Distribution for 5- Spot Pattern. 123
Well Distribution for 5- Spot Pattern with Peripheral 124
Fig. (7.8)
Wells.
Fig. (7.9) Well Distribution for Inverted 9- Spot Pattern. 125
Well Distribution for Inverted 9- Spot Pattern with
Fig. (7.10) 126
Peripheral Wells.
Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution before Water 128
Fig. (7.11)
Injection Strategy.
Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit before 128
Fig. (7.12)
Water Injection Strategy.
Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit before 129
Fig. (7.13)
Fig. (7.14) Field Oil Production Rate for Direct Line Drive Pattern. 133
Fig. (7.15) Cumulative Oil Production for Direct Line Drive Pattern. 134
Fig. (7.16) Field Oil Recovery Factor for Direct Line Drive Pattern. 134
Fig. (7.17) Field Pressure for Direct Line Drive Pattern. 135
Fig. (7.18) Field Water Cut for Direct Line Drive Pattern. 135
Fig. (7.19) Field Water Production Rate for Direct Line Drive Pattern 136
Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution for Direct Line 136
Fig. (7.20)
Drive Pattern (Case-2D) @ End of 2033.
Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit/ Direct 137
Fig. (7.21)
Line Drive (Case-2D) @ End of 2033.
Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit @ End 137
Fig. (7.22)
of Water Injection Strategy.
Fig. (7.23) Field Oil Production Rate for Staggered Line Drive 140
Pattern.
XII
List of Figures
Series Titles Pages

Cumulative Oil Production for Staggered Line Drive
Fig. (7.24) 140
Pattern.
Field Oil Recovery Factor for Staggered Line Drive
Fig. (7.25) 141
Pattern.
Fig. (7.26) Field Pressure for Staggered Line Drive Pattern. 141
Fig. (7.27) Field Water Cut for Staggered Line Drive Pattern. 142
Field Water Production Rate for Staggered Line Drive
Fig. (7.28) 142
Pattern.
Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution for Staggered 143
Fig. (7.29)
Line Drive Pattern (Case-1C) @ End of 2033.
Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit/
Fig. (7.30) 143
Staggered Line Drive Pattern (Case-1C) @ End of 2033.
Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit/
Fig. (7.31) 144
Staggered Line Drive Pattern (Case-1C) @ End of 2033.
Fig. (7.32) Field Oil Production Rate for 5-Spot Pattern. 146
Fig. (7.33) Cumulative Oil Production for 5-Spot Pattern. 147
Fig. (7.34) Field Oil Recovery Factor for 5-Spot Pattern. 147
Fig. (7.35) Field Pressure for 5-Spot Pattern. 148
Fig. (7.36) Field Water Cut for 5-Spot Pattern. 148
Fig. (7.37) Field Water Production Rate for 5-Spot Pattern. 149
Fig. (7.38) Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution for 5- Spot 149
Pattern (Case-1C) @ End of 2033.
Fig. (7.39) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit/ 5- Spot 150
Fig. (7.40) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit/ 5- Spot 150
Fig. (7.41) Field Oil Production Rate for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern. 153
Fig. (7.42) Cumulative Oil Production for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern. 153
XIII
List of Figures
Series Titles Pages

Fig. (7.43) Field Oil Recovery Factor for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern. 154
Fig. (7.44) Field Pressure for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern. 154
Fig. (7.45) Field Water Cut for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern. 155
Fig. (7.46) Field Water Production Rate for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern. 155
Fig. (7.47) Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution for Inverted 9- 156
Spot Pattern (Case-2B) @ End of 2033.
Fig. (7.48) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit/ Inverted 156
9- Spot Pattern (Case-2B) @ End of 2033.
Fig. (7.49) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit/ Inverted 157
9- Spot Pattern (Case-2B) @ End of 2033.
Fig. (7.50) Field Water Injection Rate for Direct Line Drive Pattern. 159
Fig. (7.51) Field Water Injection Rate for Staggered Line Drive
159
Pattern.
Fig. (7.52) Field Water Injection Rate for 5-Spot Pattern. 160
Fig. (7.53) Field Water Injection Rate for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern. 160
XIV
Acknowledgment
Acknowledgment:
I would like to gratefully acknowledge all persons which assist to accomplish this
project:
Firstly for my supervisors Dr. Sameera M. Hamd-Allah(Assist. Prof., Baghdad
University) and Dr. Ali Hussain Jawad(Expert, Ministry of Oil) for their
assistance to complete this project.
Dr. Gillian Pickup (my coordinator at Heriot-Watt University; HWU) for her
advices, helpful comments,& supporting to fulfill this project.
Mr. Hassan M. Hassan (director of Reservoir Dept./SOC), Eng. Bakir A.

Mahmoud (my coordinator/ SOC), & Eng. Raid Kamil (Lab/ SOC) for their
support to provide valuable documents & data for this project.
Dr. Maha Raouf (Head of petroleum Eng. Dept.), Mr. Dhia Y. Bashoo (Expert),
for their continuous encouragement.
Lastly, I sincerely thank Dr. Alireza Kazemi (HWU staff), Res. Eng. Hassan
Hamid, Dr. Samer Nori (Ministry of Oil), Eng. Mohammed Goma (Egypt), a
geologists Ameer K. Jawad, and Meelad Al-Hasnawi & all my colleagues whom
assist me in any item from this project.
Samaher A. Lazim
XV
Nomenclature
Nomenclature
Symbol Meaning
B = Formation volume factor.
Bg = Gas Formation Volume Factor, RBBL/MSCF
Bo = Oil Formation Volume Factor, RBBL/STB
Bw = Water Formation Volume Factor, RBBL/STB
b = Shrinkage factor, cuft/SCF.
c = Compressibility bar-1.
co = Oilcompressibility, bar-1.
D = Depthmeasured from datum plane (positive downward), m.
FOE = Field oil recovery=(( ) ), %.
FOPR = Calculated field oil production rate, m3/day.
FOPRH = Observed field oil production rate, m3/day.
FOPT = Cumulative oil production, m3.
FOPTH = Observed cumulative oil production, m3.
FWIR = Field water injection rate, m3/day.
FWIT = Cumulative water injection rate, m3/day.
FWPR = Field water production rate, m3/day.
FWPT = Cumulative water production rate, m3/day.
I = Thenumber of grid blocks in the x- direction.
J = Thenumber of grid blocks in the y- direction.
K = Thenumber of grid blocks in the z- direction.
k = Absolutepermeability, md.
kr = Relativepermeability; fraction.
kro = Oil relative permeability; fraction.
XVI
Nomenclature
Symbol Meaning
krw = Water relative permeability; fraction.
Kx = Permeability in x- direction, md.
Ky = Permeability in y- direction, md.
Kz = Permeability in z- direction, md.
m.b.s.l = Depth below sea level, m.
P = Pressure bar.
Pc = Capillarypressure, bar.
Pr = Average drainage area pressure (static pressure)
Pwf = Flowing bottom hole pressure.
Q = Flow rate, m3/day, injection is positive, production negative.
Qo = Oil flow rate, sm3/day.
Qw = Water flow rate, sm3/day.
Rw = Resistivity of the formation water.
Shr = Movable hydrocarbon saturation, fraction.
Sma = Phasesaturation in matrix, fraction.

So = Oil saturation, fraction.
Sor = Residual oil saturation, fraction.
Sw = Water saturation, fraction.
Swc or Swi = Connate or initial water saturation, fraction.
Sxo = Water saturation in the flushed zone, fraction.
T = Reservoir temperature.
t = Time, days.
Vb = Bulk volume of grid block, m3.
Vp = Pore volume, m3.
XVII
Nomenclature
Symbol Meaning
WBHPH = Observed well bottom hole pressure, bar.
WBP9 = 9 Point pressure average, bar.
x = x coordinate (horizontal), m.
y = y coordinate (horizontal), m.
Z = Gas Deviation Factor
z = z coordinate (vertical),m.
Subscript:
Symbol Meaning
c = Capillary.
o = Oil.
sc = Standard conditions.
w = Water.
Greek:
Symbol Meaning
= Viscosity,cp.
= Phase density,kg/m3.
XVIII
Abstract
Abstract:
great portion of the worlds oil reserves is contained in carbonate
A reservoirs, which play an important role in oil exploration and makes a
large contribution toward oil production worldwide. However, characterization of
carbonate reservoir is very complex as compared to conventional reservoirs.
The aim of this project is to introduce successful development plan for Mishrif
Formation (carbonate reservoir)/ Tuba Oil Field which is located in Basra
governorate / south of Iraq. The reservoir contains huge hydrocarbon resource in
basement source rock and presents a unique geological characterization, very high
heterogeneity; therefore, an integrated study has been conducted to build a
reservoir management tool to evaluate feasibility of enhancing the production and
maintaining the plateau rate long for this carbonate reservoir. A comprehensive
data was collected according to the contract with South Oil Company / Basra
which assisted in developing an improved static and dynamic model.
This project highlights the critical steps of building a comprehensive reservoir

simulation model through integration of the geological studies, engineering
production data and application of the model for planning production enhancement
with the long- term production strategy.
Evaluation of reservoir characterization (heterogeneous carbonate reservoir) was

conducted by this study, namely the permeability-porosity correlation, the J-
function, and the Reservoir Quality Index (RQI) concepts.
A complex geostatistical geological model was developed, considering 3D grids

from five units depth , log interpretation data from 19 wells and core plugs data of
(272) cores collected from (6) wells. The detailed fine scale geologic model was
XIX
Abstract
built using Petrel software and upscaled through streamline simulation to ensure
that the selected simulation model preserves the features of the fine scale model.
Then the selected simulation model was history matched with 5 years production
data.
An optimum development plan was developed meeting the SOC strategic

production requirements by designing four water injection patterns which are
direct line drive, staggered line drive, 5-spot, & inverted 9-spot , and then choosing
the best water injection pattern, which is Inverted 9_Spot water injection pattern
with peripheral wells that gives the optimum oil production rate for optimum
plateau, with reservoir pressure maintaining. However, a combination of primary
& secondary oil recovery exploitation strategies could be analyzed on the same
scale to determine & select the best scenario for exploitation strategy.
XX
Chapter One
Introduction
Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Preface:
A large amount of the worlds hydrocarbon reserves are in carbonate reservoirs.
These carbonate reservoirs are more challenging for estimating the petrophysical
properties and understanding the fluid flow mechanisms as well as the production
performance, compared to most sandstone reservoirs as result of heterogeneous
porosity and permeability distributions, Hurley (1998).
The use of numerical simulation provides a preview for the reservoir performance
as well as is appropriated for the planning of strategies for the development of
petroleum reservoirs and because the carbonate reservoirs are very complex and
the great difficulties are involved in proposing correct reservoir model, therefore,
the limited success can be obtained using available and suitable reservoir
simulation.
Field development planning is one of the most important activities in reservoir

engineering. It is necessary to consider a previously defined objective and the
physical and economic restrictions of the project. The recovery strategy depends
mainly on the geological characteristics of the reservoir and the operational
schedule for the field. However it is not feasible to evaluate all possible
combinations because there are more parameters influence the decision making
process, therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the most important parameters related
to the problem and develop an approach for this problem in order to achieve
satisfactory solutions.
Many of the worlds oil reservoirs produce by primary natural mechanism

(depletion). This mechanism has inherently low reservoir energy, which leaves a
large amount of original oil in place in the reservoir when the oil- producing wells
reach their economic limit, as well as most of these oil reservoirs are
1
heterogeneous, therefore, billions of additional reserves barrels have been

recovered through secondary recovery (water injection) which is the most popular
method for restoring and maintaining reservoir energy by injecting water into the
reservoir.
1.2. Methodology:
The general methodology of adequate recovery strategies for Mishrif Formation/
Tuba Oil Field is organized in several steps, including several parameters which
mainly related to the geological, operational conditions and economic scenarios:
Step 1: recovery strategy

The recovery strategy depends on geological and physical characteristics, like
reservoir geometry and structural framework, net pay and net gross, natural derive
mechanism, permeability and porosity distribution and rock and fluid properties.
This step is based on field data analysis for determination of basic important
parameters related to recovery strategy like well type (producer or injector) and
geometry (vertical, horizontal or deviated), as well as this study will also evaluate
necessity of secondary recovery (water injection).
Step 2: evaluation
The evaluation of the proposed production/ injection patterns which based on the
field characteristics regarding the recovery strategy method and the well type and
geometry established in the previous step.
For each proposed pattern for the field, the simulation runs can be performed for an
assessment of recovery potential. In this case all wells comprised by the proposed
patterns should be opened for the simulation runs in order to obtain a correct
evaluation of the potential of each well, and then the optimum injection pattern
will retained and submitted to the next step.
2
Step 3: determination of the approximate wells number

The ideal number of wells for the selected recovery pattern will be obtained by the
optimization procedure from the previous step and should be developed regarding
the parameters related to the recovery, the required simulation runs and the
required quality of the results.
1.3. Field under Study:

Tuba Field is located at the south- east part of Iraq, about 430 km to the south- east
of Baghdad and approximately 27 km to the south- west of Basra (from the field
center to the Basra city), Fig.(1.1), with field dimensions about 36 km long and 9
km width, Reservoir studies section( 2011).
Tuba Oil Field is one of the important productive oil field in south Iraq. It lies
between Zubair Oil Field eastly and South Rumaila Oil Field westly.
This field was discovered in 1959. Thirty two wells had been drilled in the field ,
Table (1.1). It consists from many productive reservoirs; the most important
reservoirs are Zubair and Mishrif Formations.
The original oil in place (OOIP) for Mishrif Formation is about (4- 6)* 109 Barrel.
The depth of this formation is about (2200- 2400) m, with average thickness 140
m., Reservoir studies section( 2011), by mean elevation of 30 m above sea level.
Mishrif Formation was divided into five units, KH/1, MA, CRII, MB1, &MB2
from top to downward. MA, MB1, &MB2 are oil bearing. Overall the Mishrif
carbonates in the oil bearing zones have moderate to good reservoir properties.
3
Table (1.1) Drilling Date for Production Wells in the

Studied Area.
Well name Drilling completed date Objective formations
TU-1 1959 Mishrif &Zubair
TU-6 to TU-32 2009-2012 Mishrif
1.4. Aim of the Study:

This project was suggested by South Oil Company (SOC)/ Iraqi Oil Ministry. In
this study, the optimum injection patterns in Tuba Oil Field / Mishrif Formation
by using the reservoir model should be determined.
The objective of this project is Getting the maximum oil recovery through
augmenting reservoir energy by injecting water to a carbonate (Mishrif
Formation/ Tuba Oil Field in Basra Governorate / South of Iraq)". This project
includes some procedures applied to production strategy planning process.
The method that will be used for carrying out the present research is numerical
simulation. The procedure for achieving this objective is:
Building special CPI (Computer Program Interpretation) for the field under
study (Tuba oil field/ Mishrif formation) by using Interactive Petrophysics
software IP. V 3.4.
Building geological model to present several parameters obtained from

reservoir characterization by dividing the destination formation according to the
4
Iraqi Oil Ministry divisions and using the well logging information or creating
new divisions for the reservoir by using Petrel software v.2011.1.
Building the numerical model for the suggested formation by using Eclipse 100
package v.2011.1 in order to represent the reservoir performance and planning
for the development and management of the reservoir.
Suggesting four types of water injection patterns (secondary recovery) for

development of the reservoir and treatment the reservoir pressure drop (pressure
maintains), these are; direct line drive, staggered line drive, 5-spot, & inverted
9-spot pattern. Then a comparison among the suggested patterns should be
performed to select the best one that gives the maximum oil recovery (optimum
oil recovery with long plateau).
5
Fig. (1.1). Location Map of Studied Area (SOC).
6
Chapter Two
Literature
Review
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1. Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil Field:

A few studies about Tuba Oil Field are available in the SOC and Ministry of Oil
libraries. All these studies were dependent on the first three drilled wells which are
TU-1, TU-2, and TU-3. Some studies were introduced after drilling additional two
wells TU-4 and TU-5.
In 1979; OEC/ Ministry of Oil introduced a geological and reservoir study for
Tuba Oil Field. This study was proposed for exploitating the extensions and
structures of the three formations (Mishrif , Nahr-Umr, and Zubair) depending on
the first three drilling wells in this field and its relations with the same formations
in Zubair and Rumaila oil fields. As well as this study was aimed for evaluation
and determination of the hydrocarbons in these formations.
In this study, Mishrif Formation was divided into three units (Cap rocks, Upper
Mishrif, and Lower Mishrif) and it was concluded that Mishrif facies in Tuba Field
resembles the facies of Zubair and Rumaila fields and its lower unit is the
important main reservoir. The upper unit is around 27 m, which contains hard
compacted limestone and the second unit (MA) contains compacted limestone,
shale, and chalky limestone with a thickness range about (35-40)m while the third
part (lower unit and MB) of Mishrif Fm. 80 m in thickness, contains biocalcite
limestone with fine grain chalky limestone.
The study also concluded that the oil water contact (OWC) was determined at a
depth of 2434 m below sea level by choosing the lower level of the oil in oil
bearing reservoir at well TU-3.
In 1986; RFD/ Ministry of Oil introduced a primary reservoir study about this
field depending on the first three wells. In this study, Mishrif Formation was also
divided into three units (Cap rocks, Upper Mishrif, and Lower Mishrif) and
7
considered the lower unit is the main reservoir due to its bioclastic contain with
porosity 18% and permeability 30 md.
The main conclusions of this study are:
Thickness of Mishrif formation is around 144 m decreases gradually to the
south of the field to reach 132.4 m and this thickness resembles the thickness of
Mishrif formation in South Rumaila field.
No evidence of free water level (FWL) in the three wells, for that reason the oil
water contact (OWC) was determined by lower level of oil in the oil bearing
reservoir at well TU-3 which is 2434 m.b.s.l. as a result no evidence about
active aquifer for natural water drive, therefore, the production from this
formation was by depletion recovery mechanism.
Based on log interpretation for TU-1, TU-2, and TU-3, the cut-offs for
petrophysical properties were calculated by using 3 md as permeability cut-off.
The porosity cut-offs 18.3, 16, and 20.1, while water saturation cut-offs were
40.4, 33.3, and 38.9 for TU-1, TU-2, and TU-3, respectively. Accordingly,
OOIP was calculated to be 235.9* 10 6 metric ton, 205.7* 106 metric ton, and
176.3* 106 metric ton for three calculated porosity and water saturation cut-offs,
respectively.
Due to low recovery factor by natural depletion (5%), therefore, two water
injection pattern (direct & staggered line drive) were suggested for enhanced oil
recovery by using the same number of injection wells (17 wells) for the two
suggested patterns while the production wells were (22 wells) for the suggested
direct line drive pattern and (25 wells) for the suggested staggered line drive
pattern. Accordingly, the vertical sweep efficiency was about 0.933 and the
areal sweep efficiency was about 0.7 and 0.825 for the two suggested patterns
respectively.
8
The study recommended natural oil production could be obtain at bottom hole
pressure equal to 95 kg./cm2. And before reaching the reservoir pressure to
saturated pressure it was recommended to recover the oil either by artificial
drive (lowering BHP to 45 kg./cm2) or using the water injection and it was
found that the water injection mechanism gives higher recovery factor.
In 1988; OEC/ Ministry of Oil introduced geological study for comparison of the
reservoir oil properties and reservoir pressures for Tuba & South Rumaila oil fields
and concluded that there was nearly matching between both fields properties.
Accordingly, they regarded the same formation in both studies field, i.e. Mishrif
Fm. in Tuba Oil Field is as extension for this formation in South Rumaila Oil
Field.
This study depended on five wells drilled in Tuba field and concluded that the
structure of this field contains main dome located between Rumaila and Zubair
fields as well as divided the Mishrif formation into three units (Cap rocks, Upper
Mishrif, & Lower Mishrif) with considering that the third unit is the main reservoir
due to its highest contain of bioclastic rocks with high porosity and permeability.
The oil water contact (OWC) was determined at depth of 2438 m.b.s.l. and
maximum production rate was around 2100 bbl/day from well TU-1 and 2099
bbl/day from the lower unit (MB) in the wells TU-1, TU-2, TU-3, and TU-4.The
initial oil in place(IOIP) was calculated to be 267.350* 106 metric ton, regarding
the net to gross (NTG) of 0.2054 for Mishrif formation.
In 1990; RFD/ Ministry of Oil performed a development for the primary reservoir
study which introduced in 1986. This study proposed to update the data after
drilling two new wells, TU-4 (northing) and TU-5(westing), accordingly, a new
evaluation of the IOIP for Mishrif Fm. as well as calculation of flow efficiency
9
(FE) under depletion recovery and water injection system assuming yearly average
production(1, 2, and 3) metric ton.
The study concluded that:
Thickness of Mishrif formation is 144 m decreases towards south and west with
net pay thickness for the lower unit (MB) 23.3 m, average porosity was 18%,
average water saturation was 37.2%, and permeability 28 md.
The average of petrophysical properties were calculated depending on rock
types (chalky& non chalky rocks). The net pay thickness of non-chalky rocks
around 21.15 m with average properties about 18% and 36.2% for porosity and
water saturation, respectively, while the net pay thickness for chalky rock
around 2.1 m with average properties of 19.5% and 47.4% for porosity and
water saturation, respectively.
No new evidence for OWC, although drilling the new two wells which were
TU-4 and TU-5, therefore, the depth of oil water contact was 2434 (m.b.s.l.)
depending on the previous study in 1986. Accordingly, the calculated original
oil in place (OOIP) was 355* 106 surface metric tons with recovery factor
around 13%. The increases of this value (100%) with the calculated value of
OOIP in the previous study (1986) as result of increasing the bulk volume by
changing the structure map due to drilling the new two wells, TU-4 and TU-5.
While the increasing of the calculated value for OOIP in this study with the
calculated value in previous geological study (1988) is about 32% as results of
high difference in NTG due to porosity and water saturation cut-off values.
Depending on the OWC for Mishrif Formation at South Rumaila field which
about 2460 (m.b.s.l), the possible OOIP was around 115* 106 surface metric
ton, accordingly the total OOIP was around 470* 106 surface metric ton.
The results of prediction calculation for natural depletion mechanism for
Mishrif formation showed that the estimated production rates were 21000
10
bbl/day, for 10 years by 21 production wells, 40000 bbl/day for 5 years by 56

production wells, and 60000 bbl/day for 3 years by72 production wells, while
the estimated production rates by water injection mechanism were 40000
bbl/day for 8 years by 30 production wells with 15 injection wells, and 60000
bbl/day for 6 years by 72 production wells with 15 injection wells.
In 1995; Pertamina, Indonesias Oil and Gas Enterprise introduced a proposal to

explain the geological and structural conditions of Mishrif Formation in Tuba Oil
Field, as well as, calculation of IOIP and compare these results with the Reservoir
Directorate study for the same formation depending on 5 drilled wells. Pertamina
was interested with exploitation and development in the Tuba field based on
seismic interpretation and drilling data.
As a result of this proposal, the structure of Tuba field is relatively simple and has
productive area of approximately 180 km2. As well as the calculations of reservoir
characteristics such as porosity, permeability, water saturation,etc. was obtained.
In 1997; Pertamina, Indonesias Oil and Gas Enterprise introduced appendices

include the geological model for Mishrif and Zubair formations and import the
results (top structure, isopach and iso-porosity) into WORKBENCH simulator. The
models consist of three layers for Mishrif Fm. and seven Layers for Zubair Fm.
However, 3D grid models were presented to simulate the fluids flow in both
studied reservoirs. 3D grid models were established for 50*100*3 grid cells for
Mishrif Fm. and 33*67*7 grid cells for Zubair Fm.
Three scenarios were run by reservoir simulation for Mishrif formation, the first
one was to show that the strong and sever reservoir depletion by naturally reservoir
drive mechanism, then the base case of the reservoir was run with peripheral
pattern of 40 injection wells and using a maximum injection rate of 8000 BWPD
11
per injector well, and lastly it runs with a line drive pattern of the same number of
injection wells (40 wells) and the same maximum injection rate.
The report concluded that the run of peripheral pattern as the basic scenario to
develop Mishrif reservoir layers due to no significant difference in term of
recovery factor and low risk.
In 1997; Sonatrach re interpreted the logs of Tuba field and got new values of net
pay thickness using cut-off value 13% instead the previous suggested value 10%
for Mishrif formation by the Iraqi Oil Ministry.
2.2. Petrophysical Properties:

The heterogeneity nature of carbonate reservoirs show sever scattering of the data,
therefore, one has to be cautious in using the permeability- porosity correlation for
calculating permeability unless a good correlation coefficient is available. In
addition, a permeability- porosity correlation technique is not enough by itself
since simulation studies also require more accurate tools for reservoir description
and diagnosis of flow and non-flow units.
Kozeny (1927) introduced a relationship, to provide a direct dependence of
permeability (k) on porosity (). By introducing surface area (S), he included the
dependence of k on local rock texture.
Mathematically his equation can be written as:
..(2.1)
A is the empirical constant known as the Kozeny constant; S is the grain surface
area per unit bulk volume.
Carman (1937) modified Kozenys equation, and then became known as Carman-
Kozeny (CK) equation, which is expressed as follows:
12
..(2.2)
where B is the geometric factor.

Carman stated that the greatest uncertainty in the application of the Kozeny
equation represented by the evaluation of the constant A and B. Limitation
includes failure at low porosity, where the permeability decreases much more
rapidly with decreasing porosity. Also, its difficult to determine the surface area,
which may be estimated by special core analysis (mercury injection).
Archie in 1942 laid the basis for quantitative log interpretation by introducing the
formation resistivity factor, F. He provided the following formula:
.. (2.3)
Where Ro is the resistivity of rock with all pores filled with brine, and R w is the
resistivity of the brine itself. The formation resistivity factor is a function of the
type and character of the formation and has been experimentally found to vary with
porosity, clay content, and degree of cementation in some rock samples. Archie
proposed the following relationship for porosity formation factor:
.(2.4)
Later, Winsauer, et al. (1952) modified this relation to a more general form:
(2.5)
Here a is the tortuosity coefficient. Uncertainty in the parameters a and m are the
key reasons for the uncertainty associated with water saturation estimations
calculated using the formation resistivity factor concept. Based on Archies work, a
relationship between permeability and formation factor has been derived
13
Bassiouni;( 1994). Combining Darcys equation with equ.(2.5), the porosity-

permeability relationship can be written as:
..(2.6)
..(2.7)
Where a, b, c and d are constants for a specific geologic formation that should be
determined through core analysis. Based on equations (2.6) and (2,7), a number of
laboratory correlations have been derived by different researchers; some appear in
Tables (2.1) and (2.2). Once the coefficients are known for a specific formation,
permeability can be found based on core or log derived or F. To use these
formulas in well log analysis, core samples analysis is required to derive formation
specific values of a, b, c, and d or the use of common or accepted values of these
constants from the literature can be used. An economical (non-core) and reliable
alternative (formation specific) means for determining permeability is desired.
Table (2.1) Laboratory Derived Permeability Correlations Based on the

Formation Resistivity Factor in the General Form of k=a/Fb
(Table Based on Ogbe, et al.; 1978).
Reference Formation a b Relationship
Porter and
Limestone 4x108 3.65 k = 4*108/ F3.65
Carothers
Porter and
Sandstone 7x108 4.5 k = 7*108/ F4.5
Carothers
Winsauer et al. - 1.64x108 4.9 k=1.64*108/F4.9
Ogbe et al. SA + GF 1.10x1010 4.74 k=110*108/F4.74
Gulf coast
Ogbe et al. 2.25x1014 11.5 k=2.25*1014/F11.5
unconsolidated
14
Table (2.2) Laboratory Derived Permeability Correlations Based on the

Formation Porosity in the General Form of k=a*b
(Table Based on Schlumberger SLIP/A, 1989).
Reference Formation c d Relationship
Tixier Sandstone 6.25x104 6.0 k = 6.25*104 6/Swi
Timur Sandstone 10x104 4.5 k = 10.0*104 *4.5/Swi
Coates and
Sandstone 0.141x104 4.0 k = 0.141*104 *4/Swi2
Dumanoir
4
k = 4.90x104 *4 *(1-
Coates Sandstone 4.90x10 4.0
Swi)2/Swi2
A literature survey over the published work was done by the author demonstrated
that no direct method to determine permeability is available using well logs. The
literature survey revealed that permeability from well logs comes through
measurement of rock properties, which are related to permeability. These
properties are porosity, water saturation, capillary pressure, and formation
resistivity factor.
Tixier (1949) used resistivity gradients in oil/water transition zones above the
oil/water contact from a deep investigation resistivity tool (lateral or focused log
corrected for borehole effects) to determine permeability. Knowing the resistivity
gradient, Tixier was able to determine permeability using the equation below:
[ ] (2.8)
(2.9)
Where c is a constant and usually has a value of 20. R is the change in the
resistivity (ohm-m), and D is the change in vertical depth (ft) corresponding to
R . O and W are the oil and formation water density, respectively.
15
Wyllie and Rose (1950) gave a relationship between permeability, formation

resistivity factor and connate water saturation which can be calculated from the
well logs. Their model for permeability is expressed as follows:
[ ] .(2.10)
Where A is a constant with a value of . is the interfacial surface tension

and its units are dynes/cm. Value for s varies from 2.0 to 2.5 and is essentially a
constant. m is the cementation factor.
Timur (1968) gave a relationship for estimating permeability of sandstones from in

situ measurements of porosity and residual oil saturation. Swi was provided from
the Nuclear Magnetism Logs (NML) log.
To establish such a relationship several possibilities were tested, through
laboratory measurements of permeability, porosity, and residual water saturation
on 155 sandstone samples from three different oil fields in North America. He
proposed the following empirical equation:
..(2.11)
A number of investigators Schlumberger (1989), Wyllie &Rose (1950), Timur

(1968), and Morris & Biggs (1967) showed that rock permeability depends mainly
upon the effective porosity. For this reason, permeability is mainly affected by
grain size, grain shape, grain packing, sorting, and degree of cementation.
Wyllie-Rose (1950), Timur (1968) and Morris-Biggs (1967) developed similar

empirical correlations to calculate the permeability using porosity and irreducible
water saturation for sandstone reservoir. To apply these correlations in general, it
should be take into consideration the following limitations:
16
1. They are not applicable to carbonate reservoirs;

2. They were developed for local fields/ formations;
3. They apply only to irreducible water saturation condition(which may vary with
oil production); and
4. They cannot be applied to wells drilled in water zones.
Ebank, et al.( 1992) described the flow units to represent larger scale correlatable
units between wells. The combination of hydraulic units (a classification based on
core plug data) with flow units (a large scale reservoir volume) to form hydraulic
flow units has led to a confusion of terms as aunit implies scale body to a
geologist. Additionally, there is a problem with flow units in that they do not
necessarily flow into the well bore. However, the hydraulic unit approach remains
a pragmatic way of classifying the porosity- permeability data into a reduced
number of elements in a single population (such as a well).
The concept of hydraulic (flow) units has been in the literature for some time
Amaefule,et al. (1993), and is used to classify or cluster core plug data according
to simple relationships derived from fundamental concepts.
In recent years, efforts have been made in permeability estimation in

heterogeneous reservoirs. This method has been applied to complex sandstone.
Researchers Balan et al. (1995), Lin et al. (1994), and Zhang and Lollback(1996)
have tried to determine permeability using statistical methods.
Saner, et al.(1997) used 75 core plugs from Saudi Arabian carbonate reservoir to
develop an experimental relationship capable of calculating permeability using
porosity data. It is one of the few available correlations for carbonate rocks. The
proposed correlation (which has a correlation coefficient= 0.81) can also be
applied for sandstone reservoirs as well. The proposed equation is:
17
.(2.12)
Ellabad, et al.(2001) and Mohammed ( 2002) determined the traditional hydraulic

units by various methods in a number of case studies. In each case, the hydraulic
units correspond to textural (i.e. grain size and sorting) elements. The resulting
hydraulic units are different in each particular case. In one study the data from a
number of wells in one field were combined and hydraulic units for the total field
were calculated.
2.3. Geological Model:

Geologist have defined rock type as rock volumes having similar depositional and
diagentic environment identified using core description and core analysis in cored
wells (lithofacies). Petrophysicists believe rock types are rock volumes having
similar responses of long measurement in a whole well profile (electrofacies). In
reservoir engineers point of view rock type are rock volumes having similar pore
size distribution, capillary pressure and relative permeability curves at a given
wettability.
The geological models which are referred to a geocellular models, geostatistical
models or fine grid models contain the grid cells and the numbers of these cells are
highly dependent on the type of simulation to be performed. Computing time, cost
and capabilities all restrict the ability to use high resolution geocellular models for
reservoir fluid flow simulation. As a result there is a need to up-scaling, which is
clustering the data into smaller sets of characteristics that represent the most
significant aspect of reservoir.
Durlofsky (2003) used the geocellular scale relative permeability on the coarse
scale as single phase up-scaling in which simulating the low resolution two phase
18
models by taking into account the absolute permeability (or transmissibility) and
porosity.
With reference to pressure and saturation equation, it can be said that single phase
up-scaling only the pressure equation is modified while in two phase up-scaling
parameters in both pressure & saturation equations are altered. In the second type
of classification, two different approaches of purely local procedure and global up-
scaling techniques can be defined. In purely local procedure only the fine scale
area equivalent to the coarse block parameters are considered for up-scaling.
Conversely in the global up-scaling technique the coarse model parameters are
computed after simulating the high resolution model.
Up-scaling techniques can be categorized on different factors, Gholami&

Mohaghegh ( 2009). One classification is based on the types of parameters up-
scaled. This category contains single phase up-scaling used for moderate degrees
of coarsening and two phases up-scaling usually used for higher degrees of
coarsening. Up-scaling the relative permeability and capillary pressure data are
usually reflected on high degrees of coarsening. The second classification is in
accordance with the way in which the above mentioned parameters are computed.
Under the third classification, the up-scaling methods are divided into analytical
and numerical according to the method used. The only parameters to be up-scaled
in the single phase flow are porosity, absolute permeability (or transmissibility),
however, two phase flow case, and relative permeability can be up-scaled as well.
2.4. Reservoir Development Optimization:

Reservoir development planning comprises a very complex decision making
process. Due to the restricted amount of information available in this initial stage,
a great amount of parameters must be estimated and analyzed to propose an
adequate and profitable recovery strategy.
19
Several studies have been realized for the development of procedures applied to
the planning of recovery strategies for petroleum reservoirs.
Arps, et al. (1967) participated in a study, organized by API, to develop equations

for the assessment of recovery factors for petroleum fields. The well spacing was
one of the most studied parameters. However, from the analysis of 312 different
reservoirs they concluded that there was no mathematical relationship between
recovery factor and well spacing. The intension of their work was to develop a
methodology for field recovery planning by simulation but there was not a
satisfactory result.
Davis and Shepler (1969), verified that the well spacing initially used for the
development of petroleum fields, in general, isnt the most adequate spacing. The
ideal well spacing depends on the characteristics of each reservoir and it is
important to consider the uncertainties with geological model and the dynamic
behavior of the economic and technological scenario.
Nystad (1985) & Beckner and Song (1995) among others authors developed
methods for the optimization of problems related to the development and
management of petroleum reservoirs by using numerical simulation. The
following common aspects were presented in their works: the problem was
simplified and the number of simulations runs performed and of parameters
evaluated was small. The main objective of such works was the evaluation of the
most important parameters in the assessment of the objective-function and their
optimization.
Bittencourt and Horne (1997) & Pan and Horne (1998) developed algorithms
based on several optimization methods using reservoir simulation as the main tool
to evaluate reservoir performance.
20
Guyaguler and Horne (2001) used utility functions and genetic algorithm to
identify the influence associated to geological uncertainties and reservoir
performance optimization respectively.
Guedes, et al. (2001) used well performance, relative cost, and confidence factor
as two functions to help in the decision making process related to production
strategy optimization.
Pedroso and Schozer (2000) & Mezzomo and Schiozer (2001) developed
methodologies to optimize production strategy based on an algorithm where
placed a fine well spacing in the reservoir and reduced the number of wells until
increasing the objective function.
21
Chapter Three
Well Log Analyses

&
Interpretations
Chapter Three Well Log Analyses & Interpretations
3.1. Preface:
The purpose of reservoir modeling and the scope of project modeling to facilitate
the field evaluation depend on the state of the input data, the quality of the
geological, geophysical and petrophysical interpretations of the field to date, and
the purpose for field evaluation. Generally interactive petrophysical modeling will
be required to optimize rock and fluid properties.
The basic physical properties needed to evaluate a petroleum reservoir are its
permeability, porosity, fluid saturation, and the extensions and thickness of the
producing zones. These parameters can be estimated from three main sources: core
analysis, geophysical and well log data, and pressure test analysis, Darwin&
Julian (2008).
Successful logging program, along with core analysis, can supply data for the
determination of the physical properties. Unfortunately, these petrophysical
properties cannot be measured directly and, therefore, they must be inferred from
the measurements of other parameters of the reservoir rocks, such as resistivity,
density, interval transit time, spontaneous potential, natural radioactivity and
hydrogen content of the rocks, Widarsono& Lemigas (2011).
3.2. Formation Evaluation:

The interpretation of well logs was done by using Interactive Petrophysics
Program (IP) v3.4 (an interactive program to carry out interpretations and log
corrections for borehole environment and invasion effects). The data package of
complete log curves was prepared to be used for formation evaluation and it was
found that the differences between the original logs readings and the corrected logs
readings of all logs were negligible. Accordingly, the original log sets were used as
22
input data to evaluate the carbonate rocks (Mishrif Formation) for the wells under
study.
Twenty five wells that have different data were chosen in this study area, Table
(3.1). They are considered to represent the field, Fig. (3.1). Six wells have core
data and the well logs of most of them are available (nineteen wells). The core data
(porosity and permeability) and well log measurements were allocated to match the
depth intervals for the geological units, i.e., depth matching was achieved generally
by bulk-shifting a curve for matching the core porosity with porosity from log
interpretation to construct the data tables for correlation purposes.
3.3. Fluid and Formation Analysis:

Depending on the matrix density of the carbonate rocks, a Limestone/Dolomite
model was used as a first step in the IP program. The formation evaluation after
log curves conditioning process was done as follows:
Determination of lithology;
Fluid identification; calculation of clay volume (Vsh);
Calculation of porosity;
Calculation of water saturation;
Permeability modeling; and
Oil Water Contact (OWC) determination.
23
Table (3.1): Tops of Mishrif Formation Units (from R.T.K.B*).

Top of Top of Top of Top of Top of Top of Rumaila
Well No. R.T.K.B. KH/ 1 MA CRII MB1 MB2 Formation
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
TU- 1** 26.2 2306 - 2345.2 2348.2 - -
TU- 2 32 2291 2335 2358.625 2360.875 2417.25 2435
TU- 3 39 2364.6 2411 2433.5 2434.875 2479.75 2497
TU- 4 27.94 2329.5 2354 2397.5 2400 2452.25 2475
TU- 5 35.3 2353 2402.875 2432.625 2453.875 2488.25 2497
TU- 6 34 2298.5 2345.25 2367.5 2369.5 2428.25 2440
TU-7 34 2296.5 2347.25 23777.125 2381.875 2414.875 2439.5
TU- 8 32.24 2304.7 2350.352 2374.5 2375.325 2435.7 2451.5
TU- 9 32 2316 2359.125 2385.875 2388.125 2451.75 2464
TU- 10 34 2305.5 2354.875 2377.625 2382.125 2419.5 2442.5
TU- 11 34 2305 2352 2385.3 2387.8 2437.875 2449.5
TU- 12 32.6 2314.5 2364.75 2385.25 2386 2415.875 2448.5
TU- 13 35.05 2299.5 2350.125 2372.125 2374.5 2426 2438
TU- 14 33.4 2319.5 2369 2407.25 2408.125 2454,625 2463.5
TU- 15** 31.1 2314 2355.5 2383.4 2384.5 2444 2457
TU- 16 33.43 2297 2338.125 2359.5 2364.875 2414.5 2425.5
TU- 17 33.1 2298.5 2345.125 2369 2373.5 2428.25 2440
TU- 18 30.68 2329.5 2380.5 2401.75 2402.75 2450.875 2471.5
TU- 19** 35.86 2291 2338 2365 2367.2 2413.5 2429
TU- 20** 35.9 2297.5 2345 2371.5 2373 2425 2437
TU- 21** 32.13 2335 2383 2413 2415 2458 2472
TU- 22 34.6 2296.5 2342 2366 2368 2425.5 2433
TU- 23** 35.7 2315 2364.5 2399 2400.4 2427 2463
TU- 24 32.96 2329 2395 2416.875 2419.375 2467.125 2482
TU- 25 35.84 2336 2373 2397.625 2399 2428.625 2470.375
*R.T.K.B: Rotary Table Kelly Bushing ** No log interpretation

24
Fig. (3.1) Wells Location Map in the Studied Area

25
3.3.1. Water and Hydrocarbon Saturations Determination

Fluid saturation is estimated from resistivity measurement by the Archie equation
which relates the resistivity of the formation (Rt) to the porosity (), water
saturation (Sw), and resistivity of the formation water (Rw) by Eq. (3.1) which may
be re-expressed as, Desbrandes (1985):

SW = [ ] ..(3.1)
Equation (3.1) can be used to estimate the saturation in the original zone or in the
flushed zone. This is the saturation needed to determine the original hydrocarbon
in place, Darwin and Julian (2008). It is to be noted that, when Eq. (3.1) is used
with micro-resistivity logs it gives the value of the aqueous phase saturation in the
flushed zone, which is composed mainly of mud filtrate R mf. The resistivity of this
zone is usually denoted by Rxo , Widarsono and Lemigas(2011) and expressed by:

Sxo = [ ] ....(3.2)
The residual oil saturation and movable hydrocarbon are calculated from the
following equations, Asquith and Gibson(1982):
Sor= [(1-Sxo)] (3.3)
Shr= [ (Sxo-Sw)] ...(3.4)
Electrical properties like cementation factor m, saturation exponent n, and

constant a required for estimation of water saturation have not been measured on
cores. Default parameters were used (a =1 & n =2) and m was estimated using
the picket plot for well TU-5 to be equal 2, Fig.(3.2), while the formation water
resistivity Rw was estimated from formation water samples obtained from the
field (previous studies, OEC; 1988) which was around 0.022 ohm.m. These
26
parameters have a great impact on calculation of water saturation and accordingly

affect the identification of the fluid contact and reserves calculation.
3.3.2. Formation Analysis (Bulk Volume Analysis):

The formation analysis results for nineteen wells are given in Figures (A-1)
through (A-18), in the bulk volume analysis track. These figures, which represent
Computer Processed Interpretation (CPI), depict as composite the followings:
1- Porosity analysis track, which is divided in to effective porosity ( e), water
filled porosity in the invaded zone ( e.Sxo), and water filled porosity in the un-
invaded zone (e.Sw). The area between (e.Sxo) and (e.Sw) represents the
movable hydrocarbon, but the area between (e) and (e.Sw) represents the total
hydrocarbon.
2- Bulk volume analysis is divided into effective porosity ( e), percentage of
shale (Vsh), and percentage of non-shale matrix (Vmatrix).
The percentage of shale or the volume of clay (Vcl) was mainly determined using
the gamma ray data with the linear method as follows:
( )
( )
.(3.5)
In addition, and depending on the lithology of carbonate reservoir, the neutron-

density porosity model was used for the porosity calculation, while the sonic
porosity model was used for the bad hole interval.
27
The Oil Water Contact was determined by defining the depth in which the
calculated water saturation from logs equal 100% in the oil bearing reservoir to be
around 2440 m below sea level at well TU-5, Fig.(3.3).
Mishrif Formation/ TU_5

Picket Plot
1.
0.5
0.2 0.2
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.05
PHIE
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.1 0.2 0.5 1. 2. 5. 10.
ILD
713 points plotted out of 722
Parameter : Rw : 0.022
Parameter : Rw Form Temp : 0.022
Parameter : m exponent : 2.
Parameter : n exponent : 2.
Parameter : a factor : 1.
Zone Depths
(3) MA 2402.88M - 2432.63M
(5) MB1 2435.88M - 2469.25M
(6) MB2 2469.25M - 2496.M
Fig. (3.2) Picket Plot for Well TU-5/ Mishrif Formation.

28
Fig. (3.3) Fluid and Formation Analyses for Well TU-5

29
3.4. Determination of Petrophysical Parameters cut-off:

Cut-offs are simply limiting values and they become limiting values of formation
parameters in the context of integrated reservoir studies. Their purpose is to
eliminate those rock volumes that do not contribute significantly to the reservoir
evaluation product. They have typically been specified in terms of the physical
character of a reservoir.
Cut-off parameters are expressed in four forms namely shale volume (V sh),
porosity (), permeability (k), and water saturation (Sw).
A suitable shale volume cut-off, Vsh, should be used to discriminate reservoir rock
from shales. The rationale behind using this value is that, when the shaliness of a
formation exceeds a certain limit, the effective porosity of the formation will be
reduced to zero and the only remaining constituent of total porosity is the porosity
of the shale component. This shale porosity does not contribute to storage of
formation fluids such as hydrocarbons.
The actual value of shale volume cut-off depends on individual formations;

therefore, cut-off value of shale volume was estimated for the reservoir under study
to be 30%.
Parameter of porosity cut-off is simply a mean to limit. In relation to formation

evaluation, the parameter is used to separate between formation rocks that are
useful for hydrocarbon production and formation rocks that are not. Consequently,
appropriate cut-off values may result in erroneous or unrealistic volume of
reservoir which in turn certainty influence reliability of hydrocarbon in-place and
reserves estimates.
Relationship between porosity and permeability is basically qualitative in nature.

Certain rocks may have high porosity but near zero permeability, whereas in case
30
of rocks like fractured igneous rocks permeability may be as high as several dozen
Darcy but with corresponding total porosity of one or two percent only, however,
the porosity-permeability relationship is the most traditional tool for determining
porosity cut-off. Using the relationship porosity cut-off values are established
through assuming permeability cut-off, with permeability values of 0.1 md and 1
mD as the most commonly used values depending on reservoir fluid type and
information from core laboratory measurement, Widarsono B. and
Lemigas(2011).
For the carbonate reservoir of Mishrif Formation, permeability is the principal
control of hydrocarbon deliverability. The cut-off criterion of permeability for this
reservoir is generally 0.1 md for oil.
Fig. (3.4) shows a cross plot of porosity vs. permeability measured using core
samples taken from the Mishrif carbonate of the Tuba Oil Field. From this plot, it
was found 0.1 md in core permeability corresponds to approximately 10% in core
porosity, which is similar to estimated value by Equivalent Hydrocarbon Column
(EHC) as calculated from log interpretation data, Fig. (3.5). In addition water
saturation cut-off could be estimated by EHC calculation of Equivalent
Hydrocarbon Column for different porosity cut-offs. It was calculated as shown in
Fig. (3.6) and it was found to be about 70%.
The criterion to define the net reservoir is effective porosity correlated with
permeability and the criteria for the net pay are water saturation along with
effective porosity. Accordingly and based on these cross-plots, the cut-off criteria
for the net reservoir and net pay of the Mishrif carbonate were determined as
follows:
Permeability 0.1 md;
Porosity 10%; &
Water saturation 70%.
31
10000
1000
100
Permeability (md)
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Porosity %
Fig. (3.4) Porosity Cut-off for Mishrif Formation.

EHC vs. phi for MA&MB Units/ Mishrif Formation
100
Swc> 40%
90
Swc> 50%
80
Swc> 60%
70 Swc> 70%
60 Swc> 80%
EHC (m)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Phi cut-off%
Fig. (3.5) Porosity cut- off from EHC Calculations.

32
EHC Vs. SW Relationship for different Porosities/ MA & MB Units/ Mishrif Formation
100
phi >2%
phi >6%
90 phi > 8%
phi > 10%
phi > 12%
80 phi > 15%

phi > 20%
70
EHC (m)
60
50
40
30
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SW %
Fig. (3.6) Sw Cut-off from EHC Calculations.
The average net pay was calculated by EHC calculation, Eq. (3.6) after estimating
shale volume, permeability, & porosity cut-offs for Mishrif Formation (MA& MB
Units), and it was found about 45 m. Table (3.2), while the average thickness of
Mishrif Formation is about 141 m. Accordingly net to gross pay ratio (NTG) to be
32%. The average gross thickness of the Mishrif units are as follows:
MA 27 m.
CRII 3 m.
MB 64 m. (MB1 47m. & MB2 17 m.)
( ) (3.6)
33
3.5 Original Oil in Place Calculation (OOIP):

Accurate calculation of the value of OOIP for the reservoir under study requires
knowledge of:
Volume of rock containing oil (Bulk volume) which is about 25* 109 m3;
Formation volume factor (1.262 STB/bbl);
Rock porosity and water saturation Sw; and
Net to gross (NTG), or net porosity (net) and net water saturation (Swnet) can
be used instead.
And is achieved using the following formula:
( )
..(3.7)
Based on the above consideration, OOIP for Mishrif formation was calculated in
Petrel software 2011 (3D static model) by using net & Swnet and found to be
704* 106 m3 (OOIP 202 * 106 for MA unit & nearly 502 * 106 m3 for MB unit).
This value also calculated by Eclipse software 100, v.2011.1 (3D dynamic model)
to be 680* 106 m3 (224* 106 m3 for MA unit & nearly 456 * 106 m3 for MB unit)
with approximately 3.4% difference.
34
Table (3.2) Equivalent Hydrocarbon Column( EHC) Calculation for MA and

MB Units/ Mishrif Fm.
Sw% avg. Swavg h net (1-Sw) EHC
<40 0.1836 0.2593 388 0.7406 52.753
<45 0.1796 0.2845 456.5 0.7154 58.648
<50 0.1755 0.3131 536.5 0.6869 64.682
<55 0.1725 0.3410 618 0.6589 70.252
<60 0.1692 0.3702 706.5 0.6298 75.308
<65 0.1666 0.3974 791 0.6025 79.436
<70 0.1647 0.4186 856.5 0.5814 82.011
<75 0.1626 0.4375 913.25 0.5624 83.534
<80 0.1611 0.4553 964 0.5447 84.599
<85 0.1602 0.4674 996.75 0.5326 85.029
<90 0.1596 0.4787 1025 0.5213 85.272
<95 0.1589 0.4915 1055.25 0.5085 85.289
<100 0.1567 0.5384 1163.75 0.4616 84.205
35
Chapter Four
Reservoir
Properties
Chapter Four Reservoir Properties
4.1 Porosity:
The porosity data for Mishrif formation was collected from (272) core plugs
analysis for wells TU-4, TU-5, TU- 12, TU-15, TU-19, and TU-22, and from log
interpretation for 19 wells (chapter three). The comparison between the porosity
data from core analysis and log interpretation for wells TU-4 andTU-5 at the same
depths was done, Figs.(4.1), (4.2), (4.3), and(4.4). There are satisfactory
relationships appear between them, therefore the porosity from log interpretation
can be used for this project and generated to all Mishrif formation in Tuba Oil
Field. i.e., the porosity values from log analysis are exported from the static model
to use it in the dynamic model (reservoir simulation).
The average measured porosity for Mishrif formation (from core plugs analysis)
was calculated by arithmetic averaging method to be 0.169, and it was 0.164 from
log interpretation after Vsh, porosity, and permeability cut-offs.
36
Fig.(4.1) Calculated Permeability & Porosity by Interactive Petrophysics

v 3.4 for Well TU-4.
37
Fig.(4.2) Calculated Permeability & Porosity by Interactive Petrophysics

v 3.4 for Well TU-5
38
0.3
y = 0.894x
0.25
Log Interpretation Porosity (frac.)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Core Sample Porosity (frac.)
Fig.(4.3) Log Derived Porosity vs. Core Porosity for Well TU-4
0.3
y = 0.9174x
0.25
Log Interpretation Porosity (frac.)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Core Samples Porosity (frac.)
Fig.(4.4) Log Derived Porosity vs. Core Porosity for Well TU-5.
39
4.2 Permeability:
Permeability and permeability distribution are usually determined from core data.
However, most wells are often not cored; as a result, permeability is estimated in
uncored sections/ wells from permeability versus porosity relationships.
Since not all the wells are cored, permeability can be obtained from core plugs
analyses, well logs, and well tests.
4.2.1 Relationship of Porosity to Permeability for core plugs data:

The extreme petrophysical heterogeneity found in carbonate reservoirs is clearly
demonstrated by the wide variability observed in porosity- permeability cross-plots
of core analysis data. Permeability in particular, can vary by a factor of 10 or more
at the small scale and is nearly randomly distributed.
Correlation between porosity and permeability for a particular rock type is a basic
procedure applied in core- data interpretation. However, this correlation may not
always be satisfactory because of pore heterogeneity and pore geometry. In
general, the log of permeability is linear with porosity for a given rock type,
however, the precise relationship is found only through direct measurements of
representative rock samples.
In uncored wells or zones, empirical permeability is estimated from log derived

porosity using the following equation:
(4.1)
The core plug porosity values ( core plugs for wells TU-4, TU-5, TU-12, TU-15,
TU-19, and TU-22) are plotted against logarithm of air permeability, Fig. (4.5). A
linear regression was run between them and the resulting equation is:
40
(4.2)
The regression coefficient (R2) was obtained as (63.55 %) meaning that there exists
a reasonable relation between the parameters. An increase in porosity is followed
by an increase in permeability, but for samples, the amount of increase in porosity
is not directly proportional to permeability, due to isolated pores that do not
contribute to permeability.
From the classical approach it can be concluded that for any given rock type, the
different porosity/ permeability relationships are evidence of the existence of
different hydraulic units.
3
y = 14.663x - 2.0937
R2 = 0.6355
2
Log K (md)
-1
-2
-3
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Porosity %
Fig. (4.5) Permeability- Porosity Relationship from Core Plugs/ Mishrif

Formation/ Tuba Oil Field.
41
4.2.2 Permeability Estimation from Well Logs:

Historically, well logs have been used to estimate permeability via correlations
related to a commonly logged property: porosity, perm- porosity correlations are
generated from core and transformed to well log porosity. These correlations are
generally semilog in nature in the general form . Other correlations
attempt to estimate effective permeability by incorporating irreducible water
saturation estimation from logs and Archies equation.
Leveret (1941), Tixier (1949), Wyllie and Rose (1950), Timur (1968), Coates and
Dumanoir (1974) developed correlations based on well log measurements to
determine permeability.
The permeability can be calculated by using Interactive Petrophysics program v

3.4 by using an industry standard formula, which is:
(4.3)
where;
a,b,c: constants depending on the used correlation.
The coefficient for calculating permeability in Interactive Petrophysics (IP V 3.4)
are:
Timur : a=8581 b=4.4, &c= 2
Morris Biggs Oil: a=62500 b=6 , &c= 2
Morris Biggs Gas: a=6241 b=6 , &c= 2
Schlumberger : a=10000 b=4.5, &c= 2
These equations are applicable only over zones which are at irreducible water
saturation, i.e., hydrocarbon zones above the transition zone.
42
The permeability for TU-4 and TU-5 is calculated by using (IP v 3.4) program
using the three above mentioned methods (Timur. Morris Biggs oil, &
Schlumberger) as shown in Figs.(4.1) and (4.2).
A similar result of calculated permeability by Timur& Schlumberger methods was

obtained, while a little difference comparing with Morris Biggs Oil method.
The calculated permeability by using Interactive Petrophysics v3.4 program was

plotted with the core permeability at the same depths in linear scale for comparison
between the calculated and measured values. There is poor relationship between
them, Fig.(4.6), therefore, the calculated permeability by log interpretation does
not adopted in this study.
3
Morris& Biggs
Schlumberger
Timur
2.5
Linear (Timur)
Linear (Schlumberger)
Calculated Permeability (md)
Linear (Morris& Biggs)

2
y = 0.4904x + 0.1082
R2 = 0.2598
1.5
y = 0.3991x + 0.594
2
R = 0.2619
1
y = 0.393x + 0.613
R2 = 0.2619
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Core Samples Permeability (md)
Fig.(4.6) Calculated Permeability vs.the Measured from Core Plug

for TU-4& TU-5
43
4.2.3 Permeability Estimation from Well Test:

Well test interpretation was re-analyzed to evaluate Tuba Oil Field potential for
two wells in Mishrif Formation (TU-3 and TU-5). The buildup test data for these
two wells are analyzed by Horner (1951) method and Warren and Root(1963)
method by using the Pansystem software.
Figures (B.1) and (B.2) show the test overview of well test data for TU-3 and TU-5
respectively, for pressure versus time for buildup test.
Because the lengths of test duration are insufficient to understand the whole system
(carbonate reservoir with high heterogeneity) very well which are 62.25 hour and
71.8 hour for TU-3 and TU-5 respectively, via there are high uncertainty in
measured data especially for well TU-5, therefore, Late Time Region (LTR),
which represent the effects of system boundaries, was not recognized very well.
However, better results for well test analysis can be obtained when the good
quality of test data is available and when the duration of the test is relatively long,
The Middle Time Region (MTR) can be identified by using Horner plot for Infinite
Acting Radial Flow Model (IARF), which is semi-log plot for pressure data with
Horner time function ( ) as is shown in Figs.(B.3) and (B.4). The following

results were obtained from the Horner plots for the two wells:
Table (4.1) Well Test Analysis by Horner Method.

parameter TU-3 TU-5
k (md) 130.387 91.9
Kh(md.m) 1303.9 1102.8
P*(bar) 274.4 265.7
S -5.4 - 1.82
ps(bar) -34.18 -5.14
Rinv.(m) 431.7 386.3
FE 2.836 1.28
44
The selection of IARF was attained in the reservoir after trying many models to fit
the well test data with derivative plots and type-curve method by using the
Pansystem software v3.5, i.e., check the match of the observed data with different
models like dual- porosity, one fault, 2-parallel fault,..etc. and because the data
is limited, therefore, the best model that gives the best match is infinite acting
radial flow model.
The pressure derivative and dimensionless pressure derivative analysis by using

the IARF model for the wells TU-3 & TU-5 are shown in Figs.(B.5) and (B.6). The
results of the model were obtained after matching the tests data with pressure
derivative and type curves as follows:
Table (4.2) Well Test Analysis by Type-Curve Method.

Parameter TU-3 TU-5
k (md) 129.77 63.3
kh (md.m) 1297.8 759.6
S -5.519 -3.123
From the last results, it is noticed that the permeability is different by using the two
methods (Horner and Type-Curve) for the test analysis. This may be attributed to
the scattered data of well TU-5, which results in unclear identification of MTR by
using curve type method.
The negative values for skin factor of wells TU-3 and TU-5 is due to stimulate the
wellbores by acid before opining the wells for clean-up.
Appendix (B) shows well test analysis figures for Wells TU-3 and TU-5.
45
4.2.4 Permeability Estimation by Using Hydraulic Units and Global Hydraulic

Element (GHE) Method:
4.2.4.1 Hydraulic Unit (HU) Criteria:
Characterization of carbonate reservoir into flow units is a practical way of
reservoir zonation. The presence of distinct units with particular petrophysical
characteristics such as porosity, permeability, water saturation, and pore researches
to establish strong reservoir characterization. The earlier in the life of a reservoir
the flow unit determination is done, the greater understanding of the future
reservoir performance. A quality and the future performance of a reservoir are
controlled by hydrocarbon storage and flow capacity. These help to define
intervals of similar and predictable flow characteristics, which are the flow units.
The HUs for a hydrocarbon reservoir can be determined from core analysis data
(porosity & permeability). This technique has been introduced by Amaefule (1993)
and involved calculating the Flow Zone Indicator(FZI) from the pore volume to
solid volume ratio (z) and Reservoir Quality Index (RQI) via equation (4.4):

(4.4)
( )
Where;
When plotting RQI versus Z on log- log scale, all core samples with similar FZI
values will lie on a straight line with a unit slop, Amaefule(1993). Other core
samples that have different FZI values lie on other parallel lines. Unfortunately,
this is not always the case, in fact, Civan (2002) and Haro (2004) showed that
46
natural rock systems tend to show various slope rather than having a fixed slop as
suggested by and the K-C model.
All available porosity and permeability data from core plugs analyses for six wells
were used to develop a representative training data base for HU classification. Fig.
(4.7) shows the HU approach which is applied to Tuba Oil Field wells where three
distinct HUs are evident with different number of HU and these were defined by
different FZI relationships. Accordingly, the porosity- permeability relationships
for different HU systems were estimated as shown in Fig. (4.8).
10
y = 2.5156x1.0004
R = 0.8926
1
y = 1.2811x1.0899
R = 0.8748
0.1
y = 0.7928x1.415
RQI
R = 0.7323
0.01
0.001
0.01 0.1 1
z
Fig. (4.7) Calculated Permeability vs. the Measured from Core Plug
for Different HUs.
47
1000
HU0
HU1
HU2
Power (HU2)
100
Power (HU1)
Power (HU0)
10
y = 2317.9x4.2503
Permeability (md)
R2 = 0.8182
1
y = 5861x3.5733
R2 = 0.9509
0.1
y = 0.6336e22.295x
R2 = 0.9027
0.01
0.001
0 0.05 0.1
(frac.) 0.2
0.15 0.25 0.3 0.35
PHI (frac.)
Fig. (4.8)Porosity- Permeability Relationships for Different HU Systems.
4.2.4.2 Global Hydraulic Element (GHE):

Petrophysists have long tried to define a hydrocarbon- bearing reservoir as a
limited set of elements number with unique characteristic of each one. To address
this issue, Amaefule (1993) introduced the first approach of the hydraulic flow
units (HFU) concept. This concept was successful in determining different systems
in a single data set, such as a cored well, but this method has one major limitation,
that different HFU,s were found in each well. This limitation is overcome by the
new concept of petrotyping using Global Hydraulic Elements (GHE) which was
developed in a series of studies, Corbett,et.al (2003) and Svrisky (2004).
The GHE approach also based on Flow Zone Indicator (FZI) values from the same
underlying theory as Hydraulic Units (HU). The selection of a systematic series of
48
FZI values allows determination of Hydraulic Unit (HU) boundaries to define ten
Global Hydraulic Elements that can be applied to any reservoir formation.
For a given porosity, the permeability can be calculated by a rearrangement of

equation (4.4) as follows:
* ( ) + .(4.5)
The Global Hydraulic Element (GHE) approach has been applied for Tuba Oil
Field, Mishrif formation to improve the reservoir description and identify
significant trends of Mishrif formation. Three Global Hydraulic Elements are
identified for wells (TU-4, TU-5, TU-12, TU-15, TU-19, and TU-22).
The GHE template identifies three poro- perm clusters, Fig.(4.9), which can be
modeled using a simple FZI value about which to distribute permeability for a
given porosity, FZI of (0.28 ) for cluster (1), ( 0.75 ) for cluster ( 2 ), and (2.2) for
cluster (3).
49
Fig.(4.9) Porosity- Permeability Data Drawn on Standard GHE Plot.
4.3 Capillary Pressure:

Because of the heterogeneity of reservoir rocks and because capillary pressure data
are obtained on small core samples that represent the extremely small part of the
reservoir, no single capillary pressure curve can be used for the entire reservoir.
There are twenty two capillary pressure curves were analyzed (10 core samples for
well TU-4, 3 curves for TU-5, 3 curves for TU-12, 3 curves for TU-15, 2 curves
for TU-19 and one curve for Tu-22, as shown in Figs. (C.1) to (C.5) in
Appendix(C).
50
For each curve, the data are fitted according to eq.:
( )
Sw> Swi
Sw< Swi .(4.6)

Depending on the measured capillary pressure data for Mishrif formation, and
based on the petrophysical properties for this reservoir, three capillary pressure
curves could be select according to three HUs, as shown in Fig. (4.10).
3.5
HU 2 HU 1 HU 0
3
2.5
2
Pc (bar)
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sw%
Fig. (4.10) Capillary pressure Curves for each HU.

Attempts were made to correlate capillary pressure curves with the petrophysical
properties of the reservoir rocks. Leverett (1941) was the first to introduce a
dimensionless capillary pressure correlation function.
Realizing that capillary pressure should depend on the porosity interfacial tension,
and mean pore radius, Leverett defined the dimensionless function of saturation,
which is called J-Function as:
51
( )
( )
..(4.7)
Where;
J(Sw): Leverett J-Function,
: interfacial tension (dynes/cm),
h : the height above the free oil/ water contact (ft)
The J-Function allows to adapt a single data set to other areas of a reservoir where
data may be unavailable.
The J-Function can be applied to a number of different saturation values- at each

saturation (Pc(Sw) is determined and Eq. (4.7) used to fined J(Sw). Often, the
contact angle is difficult to ascertain with any accuracy, and the term is often
set to unity.
Given several capillary pressure curves, with corresponding values of permeability

(k) and porosity ( ), the procedure for obtaining J- Function curve is as follows:
Pick several values of Sw from 0 100% and read the corresponding values of
Pc .There will be as many pc values as there are curves.
For each Pc value, calculate J and plot versus Sw. repeat for all Sw values.
Put the best correlation curve through the data.
This J- curve is now a master curve that can be used to represent the Mishrif
(carbonate reservoir) and in the absence of other data can be used for other
reservoirs of similar rock type as shown in Fig. (4.11).
52
60
y = 0.4745x-1.533
50
40
J (Sw)
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Sw (frac.)
Fig. (4.11) Calculated J(SW) Function vs. Sw for Mishrif Formation.
4.4 Average Water Saturation Calculation:

Complex carbonate reservoirs always represent a quite challenging and reservoir
engineering to calculate the initial water saturation with limited or no SCAL data
available.
Under capillary equilibrium condition, the correct method of obtaining the average
water saturation for a particular piece, or sample of rock is to calculate J(Sw) for
each piece by using the J- curve, Fig.(4.11) and then taking the arithmetic average
of saturations with the equation:
( ) (4.8)
Where;
n = Number of core samples
53
This procedure takes into account the vertical position of the pieces (core samples)
and their corresponding permeability and porosity. However, Swi for Mishrif
formation by using the J-Function for (22) core samples analyses was calculated to
be 24.73% as shown in Table (4.3).
Table ( 4.3 ) Swi calculation by J-Function Curve/Mishrif Formation/
Tuba Oil Field
Well core phi
O/W H(m) k (md) k/ J (SW) Swi
name depth (frac.)
TU-4 2468 2369.22 98.78 8.9 0.178 7.0710 13.7742 0.1
2468 2375.71 92.29 1.51 0.162 3.0530 5.5564 0.28
2468 2384.2 83.8 6.1 0.148 6.4199 10.6094 0.14
2468 2396.75 71.25 31 0.225 11.7378 16.4925 0.08
2468 2398.2 69.8 32 0.226 11.8992 16.3790 0.08
2468 2403.4 64.6 18 0.204 9.3933 11.9665 0.12
2468 2414.17 53.83 106 0.207 22.6291 24.0218 0.07
2468 2415.86 52.14 104 0.225 21.4993 22.1059 0.07
2468 2452.31 15.69 75 0.233 17.9412 5.5512 0.28
2468 2450.74 17.26 105 0.235 21.1378 7.1947 0.22
TU-5 2475.3 2421.39 53.91 0.0026 0.064 0.20155 0.21427 0.84
2475.3 2443.48 31.82 12 0.22 7.3854 4.6343 0.31
2475.3 2472.12 3.18 19.5 0.253 8.7792 0.5505 0.67
TU-12 2472.6 2382.16 90.44 2.14 0.165 3.6013 6.423 0.22
2472.6 2394.16 78.44 11.2 0.197 7.5400 11.6634 0.12
2472.6 2440.52 32.08 0.852 0.146 2.4157 1.5282 0.56
TU-15 2471.1 2389.9 81.2 1.6 0.145 3.3218 5.3192 0.27
2471.1 2393.65 77.45 66.1 0.243 16.4929 25.1902 0.06
2471.1 2398.8 72.3 0.0197 0.056 0.5931 0.84565 0.63
TU-19 2475.8 2405.43 70.43 6.52 0.168 6.2297 8.6524 0.16

2475.8 2419.15 56.71 28.3 0.162 13.2170 14.781 0.1
TU-22 2474.6 2409.55 65.05 242.2 0.172 37.5251 48.1375 0.06
54
4.5 Relative Permeability Curves:

The primary source for relative permeability is from laboratory measurements
performed on core plugs selected from the reservoir of interest. Special core
analysis (SCAL) is required to determine the relative permeability curves through a
sequence of standard measurements and calculations essentially performed by
using some adaptations of frontal advance theory.
The special core analysis laboratory (SCAL) to measure the oil& water relative
permeabilities for two core plugs from two wells TU-12 and TU-15 were done, and
the curves are shown in Figs (4.12) and (4.13).
According to Craigs; 1971 rules to determine the reservoir wettability (Mishrif

formation/ Tuba Oil Field), it could be determined that the reservoir is oil-wet and
water-wet because the oil and water relative permeability curves for well TU-12
refers to oil-wet rock while the relative permeability curve for well TU-15 denotes
to water-wet rock. But it is important to note that some difference exists in Swi
values between the relative permeability and Pc curves for the same core plug of
well TU-12, Figs.(4.12) and (C.3).
55
0.8
well no: TU-12 Krw
0.7 Depth : 2394.16m
porosity: 19.7%
permeability: 11.2
0.6
md
Swi: 15.67%
0.5 Soi: 84.33%
Kro
Kro & Krw
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Sw (frac.)
Fig.(4.12 ) Measured Oil & Water Relative Permeability Curves, for Well
TU-12/ Oil- Wet
0.9
well no: TU-15 Kro
0.8 Depth : 2393.65m
porosity: 24.3%
0.7 permeability: 66.2
md
0.6 Swi : 37.04%
Soi : 62.96% Krw
0.5
Kro & Krw
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw (frac.)
Fig.(4.13 ) Measured Oil & Water Relative Permeability Curves for Well
TU-15/ Water -Wet
56
4.6 Pressure Volume Temperature Analysis (PVT):

PVT analyses for wells TU-2, TU-3, TU-4, & TU-5 are available at mean
temperature about 79 C and pressure 343 bar (4978 psi).
Initial reservoir pressure (Pi): 277 bar (4032 psi);
Saturated pressure or bubble point pressure Pb: 158 bar (2350 psi);
Formation temperature (T): 81C (178 F).
The details of main important parameters (PVT analyses) are as follows:
4.6.1 Oil Formation Volume Factor (Bo):

The relationship of oil formation factor with pressure for the samples from Mishrif
formation (below & above bubble point pressure) is shown in Fig.(4.14). From
this figure Bo is fairly straight line above bubble point pressure and reaches
maximum value at Pb to be 1.315 (bbl/STB).
4.6.2 Oil viscosity (o):

Oil viscosity was measured as a function of pressure and presented in Fig. (4.15).
4.6.3 Oil Density (o):

Oil density in Mishrif Formation is 0.804 gm/cm3 (50.19 lb/ ft3), and the average
oil gravity in API is nearly (25.7).
4.6.4 Oil Compressibility (CO):

Oil compressibility may be defined either above or below the bubble point,
however, the required value of co for simulation is at undersaturated conditions to
be about 9*10-5 bar-1 for this study.
4.6.5 Solution and dissolved gas- oil ratio (GOR& Rs):

The solution gas remains constant above the bubble point which is 88 sm3/sm3, and
decreased with decreasing pressure below bubble point as shown in Fig.(4.16).
57
1.35
1.3
1.25
BO (bbl/stb)
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
Bo (above Pb) = -0.0002P + 1.3414
Bo (below Pb) = -3E-06p2 + 0.0018p + 1.098

1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Pressure (bar)
Fig. (4.14) Oil Formation Volume Factor (Bo) vs. Pressure Relationship
for Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil Field
3.5
2.5
Oil Viscosity (cp)
1.5
0.5
Oil Visc. = -1E-07P3 + 1E-04P2 - 0.0267P + 3.3907

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Pressure (bar)
Fig. (4.15) Oil Viscosity for Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil Field
58
100
Rs = -0.001P2 + 0.736P + 2.1571
90
80
70
60
Rs & GOR
50
40
30
20
10
GOR = 0.0023P2 - 0.8522P + 87.186
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Pressure (bar)
Fig. (4.16) Gas-Oil Ratio (Librated& in Solution) vs. Pressure for Mishrif
Formation/ Tuba Oil Field
4.6.6 Gas Formation Volume Factor (Bg):

Gas formation volume factor is measured as function of pressure as shown
in Fig. (4.17).
4.6.7 Gas Viscosity (g):

Gas viscosities are rarely measured because most laboratories do not have the
required equipment for the measurements, thus, the prediction of gas viscosity is
particularly important.
A convenient set of empirical equation for calculating the viscosity, , of natural
gases has been published by Lee (1996). However, the empirical equation by Lee
was applied to calculate gas viscosity for this study as shown in Fig. (4.18).
59
0.12
Bg = 0.8837P-0.9615
0.1
0.08
Bg (scm/m3)
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Pressure (bar)
Fig. (4.17) Gas Formation Volume Factor for Well TU-5
0.0134
0.0132
0.013
0.0128
Viscosity (cp)
0.0126
0.0124
0.0122
0.012
Gas Visc. = -1E-11P4 + 4E-09P3 - 6E-07P2 + 5E-05P + 0.0112

0.0118
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Pressure (bar)
Fig. (4.18) Calculated Gas Viscosity for Well TU-5

60
4.6.8 Gas Density (g):

A normal range for gas gravities is from 0.6 to 1.2, and it is about 0.927 which
corresponds to value of 1.137 kg./m3 as gas density for the reservoir simulation.
4.6.9 Water Formation Volume Factor (Bw):

The value of Bw is about 1.039 RBBL/STB depending on water analysis of
Mishrif formation in South Rumaila Oil Field.
4.6.10 Water Viscosity (w):

Water viscosity is seldom input to the simulation at varying pressures because it is
somewhat independent of pressure being primarily a function of temperature and to
a lesser degree, a function of salinity. A normal range for water viscosities at
reservoir temperature is from 0.3 to 0.8 cp.
Because no water analysis for the reservoir water of Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Oil
Field, therefore, the dependent value of w was obtained from the previous studies
for South Rumila Oil Field and it is 0.73 cp.
4.6.11 Water Density (w):

Water density is required either as density or specific gravity ( w) and it is about
1.1652 which corresponds to 1165.2 kg./m3 as water density for this project.
4.6.12 Water Compressibility (Cw):

The dependent value for this parameter is 2.683*10-5 bar-1 (1.85*10-6 psi-1).
4.6.13 Formation Compressibility (Cf):

Formation compressibility for Mishrif Formation is 4.496*10 -5 bar-1
(3.1*10-6 psi-1).
61
Chapter Five
Geological Model
Chapter Five Static Model
Geological Model
5.1. Preface:
Petrophysical properties, obtained from core, wireline- log, and production data,
are distributed within the geological model by linking petrophysical properties to
geologic fabrics and by use of advanced geostatistical and geophysical methods.
Because rock fabric and petrophysical data obtained from cores and wireline logs
are one dimensional, a geological framework is required to distribute the data in
3D space, and then the static model of the aggregate of thousands of three
dimensional grid-cells, each with its own reservoir properties, can be set in motion
to simulate petroleum production in the oil field for testing and producing future
performance.
5.2. Model Building:

Petrel software encompasses a series of modules which all attain their inherent
power to accurately describe the reservoir by dividing it into discrete manageable
three dimensional cells of rock.
Geo- modeling has been constructed following the steps in the Petrel
software,2011 from Schlumberger Company with objective to incorporate data,
improve 3D models of porosity, water saturation, and permeability estimates by
incorporating well-bore petrophysical calculations, assign the properties through
appropriate application of deterministic, stochastic, and object modeling
techniques.
Because a 3D seismic survey maps for Mishrif formation units to be used as

framework for the construction of 3D geological model, were unavailable;
therefore the reference structure map (top of Mishrif) of 1988 (RFD/ Ministry of
62
Oil; 1990) was maintained as a base for construction the structure maps for this
reservoir, Appendix (D).
Geological modeling is the process of generating a 3D grid and inserting the

horizons, zones and layers into it, Figs. (5.1), (5.2), (5.3), & (5.4). In the next step,
creating the grid based on the defined model will be carried out. This is done in the
pillar gridding process, in which a set of pillars will be inserted in the entire project
area. The result of the pillar gridding process is a skeleton grid defined by all the
pillars, Fig.(5.5). The next step is to insert the horizons into a 3D grids. However,
the following procedure was used to build the geological model:
The top surfaces of Mishrif formation units was built using reliable survey
information, this included most vertical wells, new wells surveyed more than
20 wells, and older surveyed wells that fit within the framework.
Five structure maps, tops of MA, CRII, MB1, MB2, & RU (bottom of Mishrif
formation), which are constructed from well picks and old 2D seismic map for
top of Mishrif formation provided the primary geometric constraints for the
model, Figs.(5.6), (5.7), (5.8), (5.9),(5.10), and (5.11).
From the seismic interpretation, Mishrif structure appears as a quite gentle
NW-SE oriented anticline, Figs. (5.12), (5.13), and (5.14).
The oil water contact could be determined by log interpretation for some wells
and it is value nearly match O/W contact in the previous studies and it is 2440
m.b.s.l. (2475 RTKB), as shown in well TU-5, Fig. (3.3).
The reservoir geology for the main units of Mishrif formation which are (MA,
CRII, MB1, & MB2) were modeled by means of geological grids consisting of
thousands cells by dividing the studies area into 60 columns (X-direction), 179
(Y- direction), 40 layers (Z- direction). The areal dimensions of each cell are
X 247.5 m& Y 249 m, with average vertical spacing as Z 3 m.
63
Fig. (5.1) Well Section No.1 /Mishrif Zones and Layers.
64
Chapter Five
65
Static Model

Chapter Five
66
Static Model

Chapter Five
67
Static Model

Chapter Five
68
Static Model
Fig. (5.5) Skelton Grid for the Studied Reservoir.

Fig. (5.6) 3D-View of Subsurface Units/ Mishrif Formation
69
Fig. (5.7) Modified Subsurface Contour Map for MA Unit/ Mishrif

Formation
70
Fig. (5.8) Subsurface Contour Map for CRII Unit/ Mishrif Formation
71
Fig. (5.9) Subsurface Contour Map for MB1 Unit/ Mishrif Formation.
72
Fig. (5.10) Subsurface Contour Map for MB2 Unit/ Mishrif Formation.
73
Fig. (5.11) Subsurface Contour Map for RU Formation
74
Fig.(5.12) Mishrif Formation Orientation Profiles

75
Fig.(5.13) Cross Section (A-A).
Fig.(5.14) Cross Section (B-B).

76
5.3 Property Modeling by Conventional Upscaling:

The aim of the property modeling is to distribute reservoir properties among wells
so as to realistically describe the reservoir heterogeneity matching the well data.
The geological model (Geocellular) model should be up-scaled in order to be run
in the reservoir simulator.
Up-scaling or homogenization is the final stage of geological model and it referred

to the process of mathematically extrapolating fine-scale reservoir data to coarser
scales in order to populate reservoir grids cells up to dozens of meters in size .
The petrophysical model was generated using the Sequential Gaussian

Simulation to distribute the porosity and water saturation from CPI,as shown in
Figs.(5.15), (5.16), (5.17), (5.18), (5.19) and (5.20) for MA, MB1,and MB2 units,
respectively, while the permeability distribution was generated by using k/
correlation from core plugs data and depending on porosity values from CPI,
Figs.(5.21), (5.22) and (5.23) for MA, MB1, and MB2 units, respectively.
Using the available SCAL & log analysis data for determining and Sw cut-
offs, the distribution of these properties were interrupted taking into account the
cut-offs values (> 10% & Sw < 70%). Figs. (5.24), (5.25) and (5.26) show the net
gross distribution for the main three units, respectively.
77
Fig. (5.15) 2D- porosity distribution for MA Unit/ Mishrif Formation.
78
Fig. (5.16) 2D- porosity distribution for MB1 Unit/ Mishrif Formation.
79
Fig. (5.17) 2D- porosity distribution for MB2 Unit/ Mishrif Formation.
80
Fig. (5.18) 2D- Water Saturation distribution for MA Unit/ Mishrif

Formation.
81
Fig. (5.19) 2D- Water Saturation distribution for MB1 Unit/ Mishrif
Formation.
82
Fig. (5.20) 2D- Water Saturation distribution for MB2 Unit/ Mishrif
Formation.
83
Fig. (5.21) 2D- Permeability distribution for MA Unit/ Mishrif Formation.
84
Fig. (5.22) 2D- Permeability distribution for MB1 Unit/ Mishrif Formation.
85
Fig. (5.23) 2D- Permeability distribution for MB2 Unit/ Mishrif Formation.
86
Fig. (5.24) 2D- Net to Gross (NTG) distribution for MA Unit/

Mishrif Formation.
87
Fig. (5.25) 2D- Net to Gross (NTG) distribution for MB1 Unit/
Mishrif Formation.
88
Fig. (5.26) 2D- Net to Gross (NTG) distribution for MB2 Unit/
Mishrif Formation.
89
Chapter Six
Numerical
Simulation
Chapter Six Dynamic Model
Numerical Simulation
6.1. Preface:
The performance prediction of carbonate reservoirs have been improved
dramatically during the past 20 years. The advance occurred in response to the
realization that more than half of the oil that could be swept by water injection is
not contacted and remains in the reservoir. However, oil production from these oil
reservoirs poses great challenges to the oil industry, mainly because of the extreme
heterogeneity that characterizer carbonate reservoir, therefore, research program
focused on understanding the nature of the heterogeneity and developing methods
to characterize carbonate reservoirs.
Reservoir simulation is one of the most powerful techniques currently available to

the reservoir engineer. Basically, the model requires that the field under study be
described by a grid system, usually referred to as cells or grid blocks. Each cell
must be assigned reservoir properties to describe the reservoir. The simulation
allows describing a fully heterogeneous reservoir to include varied well
performance and to study different recovery mechanisms.
6.2Model Input and Output Data:

A simulation model requires three types of input data.
First, reservoir description data include:
1. Over all geometry (length, width, & thickness);
2. Grid size specification which includes x, y, z, and elevation for each grid
block, (chapter 5);
3. Permeability and porosity for each grid block;
4. Relative permeability and capillary pressure vs. saturation functions or tables.
90
Geological and petrophysical work, which involves logs and core analyses, is
necessary for items 1and 3, while the laboratory tests on core samples yield
estimates of relative permeability and capillary pressure relationships.
The porosity values used in the dynamic model are those exported from the static
model. A final scaled porosity distribution was generated for each layer of the
simulation model for Mishrif carbonate reservoir.
The net to gross distribution was already included in the porosity distribution
generated in the static modeling; therefore net to gross was not adjusted in the
dynamic model.
The permeability distribution used in the dynamic model was obtained according
to the following steps:
1. A permeability distribution was obtained from the reconstructed porosity
distribution by defining K/ correlation from core analysis data (
for all geologic layers;
2. The permeability from well test interpretation was used to adjust the
preliminary reconstructed permeability distributions;
3. The reconstructed permeability distribution was scaled through proper
multiplier in order to match the historical production data.
The vertical permeability distribution was defined assigning anisotropy ratio

between vertical and horizontal permeability equal to 0.1 for the reservoir under
study.
Capillary pressure is required in simulation to determine the initial water saturation

distributions and to calculate the pressures of oil and water. These data are required
as a function of saturations. Pc curve adopted in this study is that of well TU-15
91
occupying with water and oil relative permeability measurements, Figs. (4.13) and
(C.4).
Second, fluid PVT properties (pressure dependent), such as formation volume
factors, solution gas, and the viscosities, densities, &compressibility of the
reservoir fluids.
Finally, well locations in grid system, perforated intervals, as well as, production
or injection rates (Qo and Qw) are required for each well to be modeled. For
producing wells, only one phase production should be specified and that phase is
usually the predominant phase, an oil vertical well would specify oil production
and the appropriate gas and water producing rates would be calculated by the
model. Although the data will vary with time, it is acceptable to use an average rate
over a given period of time as long as no drastic rate fluctuation has occurred.
The production limitations may be imposed on wells, some of these may be

bottom-hole pressures, maximum abandonment conditions (rate, GOR, WOR).
Although called production limits, many of these conditions may also be applied to
injectors.
6.3 Reservoir Modeling:

A single porosity simulation model (conventional) was constructed by using
Eclipse 100 package v.2011.1. Three dimensional (3D) distribution for reservoir
porosity and permeability have been generated by the geological model (chapter
5), for 40 layers. Water saturation has been generated by Pc-Sw curve and
distributed for all cells of the studied area. However, the basic parameters such as
initial fluid contact (OWC= 2440 m.b.s.l), porosity and permeability distribution,
oil and water PVT properties, relative permeability and saturation curves, have
been used as input parameters for the model initialization.
92
The reservoir simulation grid is based on the geological description and it has an
approximate areal dimension of 247.5 m*249 m with vertical dimension varying
according to the reservoir units subdivision which it is ranged from 0.7 m. to 5.4
m. The number of model grid cells are 60* 179* 40 and the total number of grid
blocks is 429600, while the active grid cells 159503 with NTG to be 0.37, Fig
(6.1).
In terms of simulation layering (from top to bottom) are as follows:

Layers 1 to 10 (MA Unit);
Layers 11 (CRII Unit);
Layers 12 to 35 (MB1 Unit); and
Layers 36 to 40 (MB2 Unit).
The layering was defined in the static model assuming a proportional subdivision
of the geologic levels. The model boundary was defined according to the boundary
of the geological model; grid blocks outside of the model boundary were defined
as inactive cells, i.e., no- flow boundary conditions are assumed along the
boundaries of the field under study, because, no evidence about the aquifer or
water influx, as well as, to separate this field from the neighborhood fields which
are Al-Zubair Oil Field at the east boundary and South Rumaila Oil Field at the
west boundary.
A vertical barrier with null transmissibility was defined between units MA and MB
(layer 11, CRII) in all the area under study. The barrier represents a tight layer that
was clearly identified from log analyses at all wells (19 wells).
93
Fig. (6.1) Grid Cells for the Studied Area.

94
6.4 History matching:

The required data to analyze the reservoir behavior by using a reservoir model is
classified into static and dynamic one at the view of time- dependency. Static data
showing time- independent behavior, such as geologic, well and seismic data,
result in prediction of fluid flow that do not necessarily match the observed field
production history and it is generally collected prior to any reservoir production,
whilst dynamic data is acquired during the production process and so evolves over
time. The ultimate objective is build a reservoir model for future performance
predictions, it is important that such model adequately reproduce past performance
history, therefore it needs to be further improved by integrating dynamic data such
as pressure and multiphase production history.
Generally, history matching is an inverse problem that involves adjusting model

parameters (eq. permeability and other flow properties) until the simulation results
from the reservoir model fit the observed (or dynamic) data, such as pressure,
seismic and production data. Choosing the appropriate parameterization is helpful
to reduce the passed in the reservoir study and obtain reliable production
forecasting for reservoir development planning and optimization.
The observed oil production rates (monthly measurements) were honored in

addition to the reservoir pressure measurements from static gradient surveys
(which is one value for all production history by each well). However, the
production history data (long period from 2006 to 2012) is available for some wells
in the studied area, Table (6.1), which are TU-1, TU-2, TU-4, TU-6, TU-7, TU-9,
TU-10, TU-11, TU-12, TU-13, TU-14, TU-15, TU-16, TU-17, TU-18, and TU-22.
While TU-5 has long period of production history but it is neglected because no
matching between the calculated and observed well data as result of exactly well
95
location near the boundary of the studied area (west boundary of Tuba Oil Field
with east boundary of South Rumaila Oil Field).
Unfortunately, there was insufficient data (one measurement) for closed bottom
hole pressure (BHP) history data for Tuba Oil Field wells, therefore, the history
matching was done just for production history and for this one measurement of
BHP.
The concept of single porosity model for clastic reservoirs was presented in this
study for Mishrif Formation (carbonate reservoir) to recognize if it possible to give
good results for this type of rocks.
The history matching of the wells performance for the reservoir under study was
obtained by running the numerical model after changing the permeability
distribution at every run (multiply permeability by certain factor for all the
reservoir under studied) until a good matching between measured and calculated
production history was reached, while the porosity distribution was from
geological model (chapter five).
The matching of cumulative field oil production and field production rate can be
shown in Figs.(6.2) and (6.3), as well as the calculated field recovery factor and
field pressure are shown in the same figures, Figs. (6.2) and (6.3), respectively, to
be (0.53 %) & (260 bar) at the end of history matching period, while the historical
matching of oil production rate for wells in the reservoir under study can be shown
in Figs. (6.4), (6.5), (6.6), (6.7), (6.8), (6.9), (6.10) , (6.11) , (6.12), (6.13), (6.14),
(6.15), (6.16), (6.17), (6.18), and (6.19), respectively.
The historical matching of closed bottom hole pressure for wells TU-1, TU-2, TU-
4, TU-7, TU-10, TU-11, TU-12, TU-13, TU-16, TU-17, TU-18, TU-21, and TU-22
96
are shown in the figures (6.20), (6.21), (6.22), (6.23), (6.24), (6.25), (6.26), (6.27),
(6.28), (6.29), (6.30), (6.31),& (6.32), respectively.
Table (6.1) Date of Well History Production Data.

Well No. History Production History Production Period Qavg.
from till (months) (m3/day)
01/12/2007 30/04/2012 53 371.4

TU-1
01/07/2012 31/07/2012 1 430.8
01/04/2006 01/10/2011 67 506.8
TU-2
01/07/2012 31/07/2012 1 430.8
TU-4 01/02/2006 30/04/2007 15 376
01/02/2006 30/06/2010 53 439
01/08/2010 31/08/2010 1 292
TU-5
01/12/2010 31/10/2011 11 102
01/07/2012 31/07/2012 1 143.6
TU-6 01/11/2010 30/11/2012 25 315.5
TU-7 01/11/2010 30/11/2012 25 307
TU-9 01/04/2011 30/11/2012 20 237

TU-10 01/11/2010 31/05/2011 7 82
TU-11 01/04/2011 30/11/2012 20 348.5
TU-12 01/04/2011 30/11/2012 20 252
TU-13 01/08/2011 30/11/2012 16 368

TU-14 01/06/2012 30/11/2012 6 299
TU-15 01/12/2011 30/11/2012 12 231
TU-16 01/05/2012 30/11/2012 7 412
TU-17 01/01/2012 30/11/2012 11 342
TU-18 01/06/2012 30/11/2012 6 348

TU-22 01/10/2011 30/11/2012 14 228
97
Fig. (6.2) Total Field Oil Production(Calculated and Observed) with Field
Oil Recovery.
Fig. (6.3) Field Oil Production Rate (Calculated and Observed) with
Calculated Field Pressure.
98
Fig. (6.4) Oil Production Rate (Calculated& Observed) & Water Cut
for Well TU-1.
for Well TU-2.
99
for Well TU-4.
for Well TU-6.
100
for Well TU-7.
for Well TU-9.
101
for Well TU-10.
for Well TU-11.
102
for Well TU-12.
for Well TU-13.
103
for Well TU-14.
for Well TU-15.
104
for Well TU-16.
for Well TU-17.
105
for Well TU-18.
for Well TU-22.
106
Fig. (6.20) Well Closed Bottom Hole Pressure (Calculated& Observed)

for Well TU-1.

for Well TU-2.
107

for Well TU-4.

for Well TU-7.
108

for Well TU-10.

for Well TU-11.
109

for Well TU-12.

for Well TU-13.
110

for Well TU-16.

for Well TU-17.
111

for Well TU-18.

for Well TU-21.
112

for Well TU-22.
After reaching this good history match for the reservoir under study, the final
results of cumulative oil production, field oil production rate, reservoir pressure &
field water cut were 3.6 * 106 m3, 4611 m3/day, 260 bar, & 4.8% respectively.
The current history matched model is a working model capable of calculating the
pressure and production performance accurately over the historical period of the
Mishrif/ Tuba Oil Field. This feature provides confidence in using the model as a
tool for calculating production forecasts of the field under different operating
scenarios. However, in this chapter, the future prediction for Mishrif formation
under depletion mechanism was done starting with the end of history matching till
the end of 2020.
113
Some of production wells should be shut during this scenario as result of pressure
drawdown bellow the bubble point pressure for these wells, and no oil production
from other wells. As a result of this case, a clear decline in oil production rate was
appeared at the end of this scenario to reach 1113 m3/day, while the cumulative oil
production, reservoir pressure, & field water cut were 8.5 *10 6 m3, 245 bar, and
9%, respectively, as shown in figures (6.33), (6.34) and (6.35), therefore, a new
scenario for developing this reservoir is needed by secondary recovery mechanism
(water injection) to support the reservoir pressure and increase oil production.
Fig. (6.33) Calculated Cumulative Oil Production& Field Oil Recovery

114
Fig. (6.34) Calculated Oil Production Rate & Reservoir Pressure

Fig. (6.35) Calculated Field Water Cut from Starting of History Matching
till the End of 2020.
115
Chapter Seven
Reservoir
Development
Strategies
Chapter Seven Reservoir Development Strategies
7.1. Preface:
Secondary recovery is required for increasing the natural energy of the reservoir.
This process means displacing the hydrocarbons towards the producing wells by
injecting fluid. The water is the most common injected fluid because its
availability, low cost and high specific gravity which facilities injection process.
7.2.Water Injection Patterns:

To conduct water injection operations in a continuous reservoir with a relatively
large areal extent, it is common practice to locate injection and producing wells in
a regular geometric pattern so that a symmetrical and interconnected network is
formed, Thomas (1962).
Four water injection patterns were designed for the studied area; these are direct
line drive, staggered line drive, 5-spot, & inverted 9-spot patterns. These patterns
are the most frequently used for secondary recovery for Iraqi oil fields. As well as
these suggested water injection patterns were combined with peripheral water
injection wells in order to optimize pressure support from the flanks of the
reservoir.
The arrangements of production and injection wells for the four suggested patterns
are shown in Fig. (7.1), and the ratio of production wells to injection wells are 1, 1,
1, and 3 for direct line drive, staggered line drive, 5-spot, and inverted 9- spot
patterns ,respectively (Craig; 1971).
It is important to mention that selection of peripheral injection well and the

extension to locate the suggested production & injection wells for each suggested
pattern depend on the crossing of OWC level with top surface of MB2 to overcome
drilling production & injection wells in the water layers, Fig. (7.2).The oil
116
production is from the main producing units, which are MA & MB1 units, i.e. the
perforation of production wells in the two main units. Figs. (7.3), (7.4), (7.5), (7.6),
(7.7), (7.8), (7.9), and (7.10) show production & injection wells distribution for
each suggested pattern.
Direct Line Drive Pattern Staggered Line Drive Pattern
5- Spot Pattern Inverted 9- Spot Pattern
Fig.(7.1) Production and Injection Wells Arrangement for

Suggested Patterns .
117
Fig.(7.2) Crossing of OWC level with Top Surface of MB2 Unit.
118
Fig.(7.3) Well Distribution for Direct Line Drive Pattern.

119
Fig.(7.4) Well Distribution for Direct Line Drive Pattern with

Peripheral Wells.
120
Fig.(7.5) Well Distribution for Staggered Line Drive Pattern.

121
Fig.(7.6) Well Distribution for Staggered Line Drive Pattern with

Peripheral Wells.
122
Fig.(7.7) Well Distribution for 5- Spot Pattern.

123
Fig.(7.8) Well Distribution for 5- Spot Pattern with Peripheral Wells.

124
Fig.(7.9) Well Distribution for Inverted 9- Spot Pattern.

125
Fig.(7.10) Well Distribution for Inverted 9- Spot Pattern with

Peripheral Wells.
126
The recovery strategy with water injection plan based on drilling additional vertical
wells (producer and injector) in order to maximize oil recovery and maintaining
reservoir pressure above bubble point pressure for the four suggested water
injection patterns. The distribution of original production wells that were drilled in
the studied area allows to change the locations of suggested wells and use different
water injection patterns. The well spacing for original production wells is about
1000 m. or more, while the spacing between the production (original and
suggested) and suggested injection wells depends on the suggested pattern design
which ranged from 500 m to 1000 m for all suggested water injection patterns.
The final design of reservoir simulation model (single porosity model) for Mishrif
Formation by using Eclipse 100 software V. 2011.1, was used for prediction the
field performance under different operating scenarios. This could be done by
designing four water injection patterns to evaluate various exploitation schemes by
secondary recovery and then determining the best strategy by choosing the
optimum water injection pattern.
Usually, the higher the oil saturation at the beginning of flood operations, the
higher the recovery efficiency will be, therefore, choosing comprehensive
exploitation plan positioning the water injection wells based on the remaining fluid
distribution, and start the simulation of water injection scenario on 1st January.
2014. Figs. (7.11), (7.12), and (7.13) show distribution of oil saturation for top of
reservoir, MB1and MB2, respectively before starting secondary recovery plan.
127
Fig. (7.11) Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution before Water

Injection Strategy.
Fig. (7.12) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit before
128
Fig. (7.13) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit before
7.3. Model Constraints:

The direct line drive, staggered line drive, 5-spot, and inverted 9-spot patterns were
implemented in the reservoir to improve field oil recovery for twenty years (from
1st of Jan. 2014 to the end of 2033) with variable time steps.
Four plateaus were suggested as the main constrain for comparison among the
suggested water injection patterns as follows:
Case (1A & 2A): Target oil rate @ plateau 23850 m3/day (150000 bopd).
Case (1B & 2B): Target oil rate @ plateau 19100 m3/day (120000 bopd).
Case (1C & 2C): Target oil rate @ plateau 15900 m3/day (100000 bopd).
Case (1D & 2D): Target oil rate @ plateau 12700 m3/day (80000 bopd).
The number of producers and injectors for all suggested water injection patterns
and the water injection rate per injector are as follows:
129
Table (7.1) Number of Production and Injection Wells for all

the Suggested Patterns
Pattern Type Direct Line Staggered 5-Spot Inverted 9-
Wells No. Drive Line Drive Pattern Spot Pattern
No. of Production Wells 98 106 119 221
No. of Injection Wells

(Without Peripheral 99 97 57
96
Wells)
Case (1A,1B,1C,&1D)
No. of Injection Wells
(With Peripheral Wells) 104 107 116 84
Case (2A,2B,2C,&2D)
Table (7.2) Water Injection Rate per Well for all the Suggested
Patterns (m3/day)
Pattern Type Direct Line Staggered 5-Spot Inverted 9-
Case No. Drive Line Drive Pattern Spot Pattern
Case-1A 1200 1250 1450 2000
Case-1B 965 1000 1160 1800
Case-1C 800 850 975 1650
Case-1D 645 675 775 1500
Case-2A 1125 1175 1200 1750
Case-2B 900 1000 975 1600
Case-2C 750 780 800 1500
Case-2D 600 625 650 1400
130
The producers were controlled through a minimum well bottom hole pressure
(BHP Pb); and maximum well oil production rate, while the injector were
controlled by water injection rate and a maximum well bottom hole pressure limit
which based on the estimated rock fracture pressure to be around 330 bar.
The main control constraints for four suggested water injection patterns with all
assumed plateau are represented by the following parameters:
Maximum oil production rate per well = 500 m3/day;
Minimum bottom hole pressure for producers = 160 bar;
Minimum rock fracturing pressure for injector = 330 bar;
Maximum water cut @ field abandonment = 90%; and
Total volume injection rate = production voidage rate.
The comparison of these cases for each suggested water injection pattern are
presented as follows:
Direct Line Drive Pattern:

Field oil production rate, cumulative oil production, field oil recovery, field
pressure, field water cut, and water production rate versus time are shown in Figs.
(7.14), (7.15), (7.16), (7.17), (7.18), and (7.19).
After the plateau end for each suggested case, the oil production rate begins to
decline as results of decreasing the reservoir ability to produce, Tables (7.3) and
(7.4) show the length of each suggested plateau, field oil production rate,
cumulative oil production, field recovery factor at the end of plateaus and end of
suggested scenarios (2033).
131
Remarks:
The scenario of Direct line drive pattern with peripheral wells is little better
than this scenario without peripheral wells, i.e. there is small effect of
peripheral wells on the oil production.
The field pressure is maintained around the value of 258 bars and support the
pressure to be 260 bars in some cases.
Field water cut in this pattern @ the end of scenario is ranged between 63% to
67%, and this value is reasonable because it less than 90% (economic limit).
Case-2D is the optimum scenario for this suggested pattern because the long
suitable plateau (12700 m3/day for 10.5 year) with relatively good recovery
factor (12.6%) @ the end of scenario.
The final oil saturation distributions for reservoir, MB1,& MB2 at the end of
2033 (Case-2D) show a decrease in this saturation as result of cumulative oil
production from this reservoir especially in the south part from the exploitation
area as shown in Figs. (7.20), (7.21), and (7.22), respectively.
Table (7.3) Results of Direct Line Drive Pattern@ end of Each Suggested
Plateau
Plateau
FOPR FOPT
Case No. length FOE (%) FPR FWCT
(m3/day) (m3) (bar) (%)
(years)
Case-1A 1 month 23850 5340 0.78 258 14.5
Case-2A 1 month 23850 5948 0.78 258.5 14.7
Case-1B 2.75 19100 23777 3.5 258 22
Case-2B 2.19 19100 20890 3 255 19.8
Case-1C 5.49 15900 36512 5.4 258 33
Case-2C 5.75 15900 38583 5.6 265 31.3
Case-1D 10 12700 50981 7.5 259 45
Case-2D 10.5 12700 53900 7.8 257 42.6
132
Table (7.4) Results of Direct Line Drive Pattern@ end of 2033.

FOPR FOPT FOE
Case No. FPR FWCT
(m3/day) (m3) (%) (bar) (%)
Case-1A 5842 88662 13 260 67
Case-2A 6122 92046 13.5 258.7 66
Case-1B 5917 89235 13 260 67
Case-2B 6185 91745 13.4 258.7 65.7
Case-1C 6095 87720 12.9 260 66
Case-2C 6371 90346 13.2 258.7 65
Case-1D 6632 84083.5 12.4 260 65
Case-2D 6964 86484 12.6 258 63
Fig.(7.14) Field Oil Production Rate for Direct Line Drive Pattern.
133
Fig.(7.15) Cumulative Oil Production for Direct Line Drive Pattern.
Fig.(7.16) Field Oil Recovery Factor for Direct Line Drive Pattern.
134
Fig.(7.17) Field Pressure for Direct Line Drive Pattern.
Fig.(7.18) Field Water Cut for Direct Line Drive Pattern.

135
Fig.(7.19) Field Water Production Rate for Direct Line Drive Pattern.
Fig. (7.20) Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution for Direct Line Drive
Pattern (Case-2D) @ end of 2033.
136
Fig. (7.21) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit/ Direct Line
Drive (Case-2D) @ end of 2033.
Fig. (7.22) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit @ end of
137
Staggered Line Drive Pattern:

Tables (7.5) and (7.6) explain the length of each suggested plateau for this pattern,
field oil production rate, cumulative oil production, field recovery factor at the end
of plateaus and end of suggested scenarios (2033), respectively.
(7.23), (7.24), (7.25), (7.26), (7.27), and (7.28).
Remarks:
The scenario of staggered line drive pattern with peripheral wells is
approximately the same behavior for this scenario without peripheral wells, i.e.
there is very small effect of peripheral wells on the oil production and flow
efficiency.
A little decline in the field pressure (256 bar) in some cases @ target plateau
duration as results of cells ability for oil producing and support of field pressure
at the other cases. Then the field pressure begins to increase to reach around the
value 260.9 bar @ the end of scenario for this pattern.
Field water cut in this pattern @ the end of scenario ranged between 60% to
65%, and this value is reasonable because it is less than 90% (economic limit).
Case-1C is the optimum scenario for this suggested pattern because the long
suitable plateau (15900 m3/day for 8.5 years) with relatively good recovery
factor (14.4%) at the end of scenario for this suggested pattern.
The final oil saturation distributions for top of reservoir, MB1and MB2 at the
end of 2033 (Case-1C) shows a decrease in this saturation as a result of
cumulative oil production from this reservoir especially in the southern part from
the exploitation area , as shown in Figs. (7.29), (7.30), and (7.31), respectively.
138
Table (7.5) Results of Staggered Line Drive Pattern@ end of Each

Suggested Plateau
Plateau FOPR FOPT
Case No. FOE (%) FPR FWCT
length (year) (m3/day) (m3) (bar) (%)
Case-1A 1 month 23850 6007 0.89 259 17.6
Case-2A 1 month 23850 5340 0.78 258.7 18.5
Case-1B 4.74 19100 37719 5.5 259 26.5
Case-2B 4.5 19100 35962 5.3 256 25
Case-1C 8.5 15900 33938 8 259.5 35
Case-2C 8 15900 51060 7.5 256 33.9
Case-1D 13.5 12700 67198.5 10 259.7 44.6
Case-2D 13.5 12700 67199 10 256.8 44.4
Table (7.6) Results of Staggered Line Drive Pattern@ end of 2033.

FOPR FOPT FOE
Case No. FPR FWCT
(m3/day) (m3) (%) (bar) (%)
Case-1A 6223 101800 14.8 258.5 65
Case-2A 6550 101714 15 258.6 64
Case-1B 6315 99332 14.6 260.8 65
Case-2B 6764 100540 14.8 258.6 63.5
Case-1C 6852 97810 14.4 260.9 64
Case-2C 7182 98056 14.4 258 62.5
Case-1D 8092 91286 13.5 260.5 61.7
Case-2D 8213 91468 13.5 257 60
139
Fig.(7.23) Field Oil Production Rate for Staggered Line Drive Pattern.
Fig.(7.24) Cumulative Oil Production for Staggered Line Drive Pattern.

140
Fig.(7.25) Field Oil Recovery Factor for Staggered Line Drive Pattern.
Fig.(7.26) Field Pressure for Staggered Line Drive Pattern.

141
Fig.(7.27) Field Water Cut for Staggered Line Drive Pattern.
Fig.(7.28) Field Water Production Rate for Staggered Line Drive Pattern.
142
Fig. (7.29) Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution for Staggered Line
Drive Pattern (Case-1C) @ end of 2033.
Fig. (7.30) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit/ Staggered
Line Drive Pattern (Case-1C) @ end of 2033.
143
Fig. (7.31) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit/ Staggered
Line Drive Pattern (Case-1C) @ end of 2033.
Five Spot Pattern:

Tables (7.7) and (7.8) explain the length of each suggested plateau for this pattern,
of plateaus and end of suggested scenarios (2033).
(7.32), (7.33), (7.34), (7.35), (7.36), and (7.37).
Remarks:
The scenario of 5- spot pattern with peripheral wells is approximately the same
behavior for this scenario without peripheral wells, i.e., there is very small
effect of peripheral wells on the oil production and flow efficiency.
There is a clear decline in the field pressure (251 bars) in the case-1A @ target
plateau duration and maintaining with supporting of field pressure at the other
144
cases. Then the field pressure begins to increase to reach around the value 261
bars at the end of scenario for this pattern.
Field water cut in this pattern @ the end of scenario ranged from 58.5% to
68.8%, and this value is reasonable because it less than 90% (economic limit).
Case-1C is the optimum scenario for this suggested pattern (5-spot without
peripheral wells) as result of the long suitable plateau (15900 m3/day for 10.5
years) with relatively good recovery factor (15%) at the end of scenario as well
as to less injection wells.
end of 2033 (Case-1C) show a decrease in this saturation as result of cumulative
oil production from this reservoir especially in the south part from the
exploitation area , as shown in Figs. (7.38), (7.39), and (7.40), respectively. It is
necessary to note there is a little differences between the oil saturation
distributions for this pattern and staggered line drive pattern as a result of close
values of recovery factors for the two patterns.
Table (7.7) Results of 5-Spot Pattern@ end of Each Suggested Plateau
Plateau FOPR FOPT
Case No. FOE (%) FPR FWCT
length (year) (m3/day) (m3) (bar) (%)
Case-1A 2.75 23850 28522 4.2 251.7 20
Case-2A 2.49 23850 26352 3.9 255 21
Case-1B 7 19100 53450.65 7.88 257.4 32.8
Case-2B 7 19100 54047.6 7.88 255.7 31.6
Case-1C 10.5 15900 65572.5 9.6 259.4 41
Case-2C 10.5 15900 65561.4 9.67 256.7 39
Case-1D 16 12700 78830.75 11.6 260.4 50
Case-2D 16 12700 78819.6 11.6 258 48
145
Table (7.8) Results of 5-Spot Pattern@ end of 2033.

FOPR FOPT FOE
Case No. FPR FWCT
(m3/day) (m3) (%) (bar) (%)
Case-1A 6296 109310 16 256.6 68.8
Case-2A 6802 111275.7 16.4 259.8 67
Case-1B 6670 107585 15.8 260 68
Case-2B 7239 108765.6 16 259.8 66
Case-1C 7433 103543 15 261 67
Case-2C 7950.4 104637 15.4 259.6 64
Case-1D 9205.25 94683.3 14 260.8 61
Case-2D 9682 95162.7 14 259 58.5
Fig.(7.32) Field Oil Production Rate for 5-Spot Pattern.
146
Fig.(7.33) Cumulative Oil Production for 5-Spot Pattern.
Fig.(7.34) Field Oil Recovery Factor for 5-Spot Pattern.

147
Fig.(7.35) Field Pressure for 5-Spot Pattern.
Fig.(7.36) Field Water Cut for 5-Spot Pattern.

148
Fig.(7.37) Field Water Production Rate for 5-Spot Pattern.
Fig. (7.38) Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution for 5- Spot Pattern
(Case-1C) @ end of 2033.
149
Fig. (7.39) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit/ 5- Spot
Pattern (Case-1C) @ end of 2033.
Fig. (7.40) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit/ 5- Spot
Pattern (Case-1C) @ end of 2033.
150
Inverted 9-Spot Pattern:

Tables (7.9) & (7.10) explain the length of each suggested plateau for this pattern,
of plateaus and end of suggested scenarios (2033).
(7.41), (7.42), (7.43), (7.44), (7.45), and (7.46).
Remarks:
The scenario of Inverted 9- spot pattern with peripheral wells is better than the
behavior for this scenario without peripheral wells, i.e., there is significant
effect of peripheral wells on the oil production and flow efficiency.
There is a clear decline in the field pressure (233 bars) in the case-1A at target
plateau duration and no support for the field pressure at the other cases. Then
the field pressure begins to increase to reach around the value 253.6 bars @ the
end of scenario for this pattern, however there is acceptable supprting for the
field pressure due to suggested drilling much production wells comparing with
injection wells for this pattern.
Field water cut in this pattern @ the end of scenario ranged from 56.7% to
67.8%, and this value is reasonable because it is less than 90%(economic limit).
Case-2B is the optimum scenario for this suggested pattern (inverted 9-spot
with peripheral wells) because the long suitable plateau (19100 m3/day for 12.5
years) with relatively good recovery factor (19%) at the end of scenario for this
suggested pattern as well as to reduce drilling injection wells.
The perforation for some production wells was closed as a result of pressure
drawdown (P < Pb) at MA unit especially in some rounded wells and in the
southern part of suggested exploitation area.
151
end of 2033 (Case-2B) show a decrease in this saturation as result of cumulative
oil production from this reservoir especially in the south part from the
exploitation area as shown in Figs. (7.47), (7.48), and (7.49), respectively.
Table (7.9) Results of Inverted 9-Spot Pattern@ end of Each Suggested

Plateau
Plateau
FOPR FOPT
Case No. length FOE (%) FPR FWCT
(m3/day) (m3) (bar) (%)
(years)
Case-1A 6.75 23850 63391 9.3 233.6 43
Case-2A 8 23850 74290.5 10.95 251.4 46
Case-1B 10.5 19100 77830 11.5 237.7 51.7
Case-2B 12.5 19100 91773.2 13.5 255.2 53.8
Case-1C 15 15900 91717 13.5 240 59.4
Case-2C 17 15900 103324 15 255.9 58
Case-1D 20 12700 97374 14.4 248 61.8
Case-2D 20 12700 97374 14.4 257.4 54
Table (7.10) Results of Inverted 9-Spot Pattern@ end of 2033.

FOPR FOPT FOE
Case No. FPR FWCT
(m3/day) (m3) (%) (bar) (%)
Case-1A 7173 126799 18.7 237 72.7
Case-2A 7983 135400.6 19.97 254.9 71.2
Case-1B 8169 121862.5 17.9 239 71
Case-2B 9539 128979 19 257 69
Case-1C 9948.3 114590 16.9 240.9 69.4
Case-2C 11991.5 118564 17.5 256.5 64.4
Case-1D 12700 97374 14.4 248 61.8
Case-2D 12700 97374 14.4 257.4 54
152
Fig.(7.41) Field Oil Production Rate for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern.
Fig.(7.42) Cumulative Oil Production for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern.

153
Fig.(7.43) Field Oil Recovery Factor for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern.
Fig.(7.44) Field Pressure for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern.

154
Fig.(7.45) Field Water Cut for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern.
Fig.(7.46) Field Water Production Rate for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern.
155
Fig. (7.47) Top View of Oil Saturation Distribution for Inverted 9- Spot
Pattern (Case-2B) @ end of 2033.
Fig. (7.48) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB1 Unit/ Inverted 9-
Spot Pattern (Case-2B) @ end of 2033.
156
Fig. (7.49) Oil Saturation Distribution for Top of MB2 Unit/ Inverted 9-
Spot Pattern (Case-2B) @ end of 2033.
The pressure maintenance with water injection was implemented imposing a

voidage replacement control, i.e. the field water injection rate was controlled so
that the total reservoir volume injection rate equaled its production voidage rate
times a voidage replacement fraction, set equal to one, as shown in Figs. (7.50),
(7.51),(7.52) and (7.53) for direct line drive, staggered line drive, 5-spot, and
Inverted 9-spot patterns, respectively.
According to the results analysis for each suggested water injection pattern, the
optimum injection pattern is the inverted 9-spot pattern with Peripheral wells at
plateau 19100 m3/day (case-2B) for nearly 19 years with maintaining the reservoir
pressure above saturated pressure (Pb), table (7.11).
157
Table (7.11) Results of Optimum Case for each Suggested Water

Injection Pattern.
Inverted 9-
pattern Direct line drive Staggered line drive 5-Spot
Spot
Case No. Case 2-D Case 1-C Case 1-C Case 2-B
No. of
98 106 119 221
producers
No. of
104 99 97 84
injectors
Plateau
12700 15900 15900 19100
(m3/day)
FOPR @ End
of 2033 6964 6852 7433 9539
(m3/day)
Plateau length
10.5 8.5 10.5 12.5
(years)
FOE% @
End of 7.8 8 9.6 13.5
plateau
FOE%@ End
12.6 14.4 15 19
of 2033
FPR @ End
258 260.9 261 257
of 2033 (bar)
FWCT% @
63 64 67 69
End of 2033
158
Fig.(7.50) Field Water Injection Rate for Direct Line Drive Pattern.
Fig.(7.51) Field Water Injection Rate for Staggered Line Drive Pattern.
159
Fig.(7.52) Field Water Injection Rate for 5-Spot Pattern.
Fig.(7.53) Field Water Injection Rate for Inverted 9-Spot Pattern.

160
Chapter Eight
Conclusions &
Recommendations
Chapter Eight Conclusions & Recommendations
8.1. Conclusions:
The following conclusions have been drawn from this study:
1. The routine and special core analysis (SCAL) data and core description data are
taken as ground truth for petrophysical model calibration, geological
understanding, and reservoir management.
2. Since the wireline formation pressure data is not available, the Free Water
Level (FWL) could not be identified for the Mishrif formation, therefore the Oil
Water Contact was defined at the depths where water saturation calculated from
logs becomes downward to 100% in the oil bearing reservoir.
3. Core measurements and well logs data clearly suggest that the reservoir
properties is controlled by rock types ( lithofacies) in the Mishrif carbonates.
Three relationships of permeability- porosity for Mishrif Fm. in the studied
field were estimated according to different HUS systems and depending on
Reservoir Quality Index(RQI) concepts.
4. Three poro- perm clusters for the reservoir under study could be found by the
GHE template in which FZI values should be used to distribute permeability for
a given porosity and these clusters were used as the basis for permeability
distribution in the geological model and then in the numerical simulation, but
these clusters didnt give acceptable results for history matching.
5. Carbonate rock data show scattering and reasonable correlation on permeability

vs. porosity plot, thus, this correlation for calculating permeability was finally
used in the simulation model because it could give good history matching after
multiply with a certain factor.
161
6. A complete scale simulation for single porosity model with an innovative

assisted history matching is proposed to overcome the difficulties of geological
characterization. As well as, the relative permeability and capillary pressure
curves for oil-wet& water-wet were used. No matching for the oil-wet rocks
(TU-12) was obtained while good matching was reached for water-wet (TU-15)
with single porosity model.
7. Increasing the ultimate recovery from carbonate reservoirs can be achieved with
carefully planned reservoir management strategies that are result of an accurate
reservoir modeling and simulation, therefore, four appropriate water injecting
patterns were suggested for the area under study (Direct line drive, Staggered
Line Drive, 5-spot, & Inverted 9-spot) and chose the best one which is inverted
9-spot pattern with peripheral wells for maintaining reservoir pressure in
Mishrif formation and getting optimum oil production.
8.2. Recommendations:
1. To estimate more accurate oil saturation, additional electrical property
measurements are essential and it is recommended to obtain the information of
constant a, cementation factor m, and saturation exponent n for each rock
type (lithofacies).
2. Oil & water relative permeabilites curves are very important for water injection
strategies; therefore, more measurements of SCAL for krw&krowith occupied
capillary pressure curves are required, as well as, it is recommended to measure
the vertical permeability for some core plugs.
3. Because there is high heterogeneity for Mishrif Formation which is carbonate

rock, therefore, long duration of well test (more than 10 days) is necessary to
understand the whole system very well.
162
4. Continual monitoring of the field is required by observing oil & water

production rates and BHP measurements for the old and new wells.
5. For the future development of the field, the model should be updated after
incorporating the new data from the new drilled wells.
6. Economic evaluation is essential and necessary for this project.
7. Carbonate reservoirs are becoming increasingly important as the world

remaining hydrocarbon source, especially in the Middle East countries,
therefore, new modeling and simulation techniques must be developed to guide
business decisions, improve economic forecasts, and maximize productivity.
163
References
References
References:
Amaefule, J.O., et al.; 1993: Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using Core and
Log Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict Permeability in
Uncored Intervals/ Wells. SPE paper 26436, Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas.
Archie, G.E.; 1942: The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining

Some Reservoir Characteristics, Petroleum Transactions, Journal of Petroleum
Technology.
Arps, J.J. et al.; 1967: A Statistical Study of Recovery Efficiency., American

Petroleum Institute- API.
Asquith, G., and Gibson, C.; 1982: Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists,
Methods in Exploration Series, AAPG.
Balan, B., Mohagheg, S., and Ameri, S.; 1995: "State of the Art in Permeability
Determination from Well Log Data: A Comparative Study, Model
Development", paper SPE 30978 presented at SPE Eastern Regional Conference
& Exhibition held in Morgantown, West Virginia, U.S.A.
Bassiouni, Z.; 1994: Theory, Meaurement, and Interpretation of Well Logs,

SPE Textbook Series No. 4.
Beckner, B. L. & Song, X.; 1995: Field Development Using Simulated

Annealing- Optimal Economical Well Scheduling and Placement. SPE 30650.
Bittencourt, A. C., & Horne, R. N.; 1997: Reservoir Development and Design
Optimization. SPE 38895.
Carman, P.C. 1937: Fluid Flow Through a Granular Bed, trans. Institution
of Chemical Engineers (London)vol. 15, 1506.
Civan, F.; 2002: Fractal Formulation of the Porosity and Permeability

Relationship Resulting in a Power-Law Flow Units Equation- A Leaky- Tube
Model. SPE 73785, SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana.
164
References
Coates, G.R. and Dumanoir, J.L.; 1974: A New Approach to Improved Log
Derived Permeability, The Log Analyst , pp.17.
Corbett, P. W. M., Ellabad, Y., Mohammed, K., &Posysoev, A.; 2003:Global

Hydraulic Elements: Elementary Petrophysics for Reduced Reservoir
Modeling. European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers 65 th
Conference (EAGE), Annual Technical Meeting.
Craig, F. F. Jr.; 1971: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding.

Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX 3, 112-23.
Darwin E.V. , Julian S.M.; 2008 : Well Logging for Earth Scientists , Second
Edition, Springer Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Davis, F. &Shepler, J. C.; 1969: Reservoir Pressure Data Used to Justify Infill
Drilling in a Low Permeability Reservoir. SPE 2260.
Desbrandes R. ; 1985: Encyclopedia of Well Logging.
Durlofsky, L.J.;2003: Up-Scaling of Geocellular Models for Reservoir Flow

Simulation: A Review of Recent Progress, 7 th International Forum on
Reservoir Simulation, Bhl/ Baden, Germany.
Ebanks, W. J., Jr. Scheihing, M. H., & Atkinson, C.D.; 1992: Flow Unit for
Reservoir Characterization in Development Geology Reference Manual.
Morton-Thompson and Woods (Eds.) AAPG Methods in Exploration 10, p.
282-285.
Ellabad Yasin, Corbett Patrick and Straub Richard ; 2001: Hydraulic Units
Approach Conditioned By Well Testing or Better Permeability Modelling in A
North Africa Oil Field, SCA-50.
Gholami, V.,&Mohaghegh, S.D,; 2009: Intelligent Up-scaling of static and

Dynamic Reservoit Properties. SPE 124477, Annual technical conference and
exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Guedes, S. S. et al.; 2001: Otimizacao da Malha de Drenagem com

foconaRentabilidade- Uma AplicacaoemMarlimSul. III Seminario de Reservas
e Reservatorios da PETROBRAS.
165
References
Guyaguler, B., & Horne, R. N.; 2001: Uncertainty Assessment of Well

Placement Optimization. SPE 71625.
Haro, C.F.; 2004: The Perfect Permeability Transform Using Logs and
Cores. SPE 89516, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas.
Horner, D.R.; 1951: Pressure Buildup in Wells.Proc.3rd World Petroleum

Congress. E.J. Brill, Leiden, .
Hurley, N.F., et al.; 1998: Quantification of Vuggy Porosity in a Dolomite

Reservoir from Borehole Images and Core, Dagger Draw Field, New Mexico.
SPE 49323, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana.
Kozeny, J.; 1927: UberKapillareLeitung des WassersImBoden: Sitzungsber,

Akad. Wiss. Wien, 136 27-306 (As referenced by Mavko and Amos).
Leveret, M. C. and Lwis, W.B.; 1941: Steady Flow of Gas Oil- Water
Mixtures through Unconsolidated Sands. Trans., AIME 142,107-16.
Lin, J.L and Salisch, H.A.; 1994: Determination from Well Logs of Porosity
and Permeability in a Heterogeneous Formation, SPE 28792, presented at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Mezzomo, C. C., &Schiozer, D. J.; 2001: Production System Optimization for

a Petroleum Field- Eight CongressoBrasileiro de Engenharia e
CienciasTermicas- ENCIT.
Mohammed, K.; 2002: Petrophysical Characterization of Solution Seams

and Optimization of Hydraulic Units in a clastic Reservoir. Ph.D. Thesis,
Heriot Watt University, 300p.
Morris, R.L. & Biggs, W.P.; 1967: Using Log-Derived Values of Water
Saturation and Porosity. Proceedings of SPWLA, 8 th Annual Logging
Symposium, Denver, CO, and Paper X, pp. 1-26.
Nystad, A.N.; 1985. Reservoir Economic Optimization. SPE 13775.
166
References
Oil Exploration Company (OEC); 1979. Geological and Reservoir Appraisal

Study for Upper Formations (Zubair, Mishrif, & Nahr Umer) in Tuba Field with
Maps, Reservoir Directorate library/ Iraqi Ministry of Oil.
Oil Exploration Company (OEC); 1988. Geological Appraisal Study in Tuba

Field for Mishrif& Zubair Formations. Reservoir Directorate library/ Iraqi Oil
Ministry.
Ogbe D. and Bassiouni, Z.; 1978: Estimation of Aquifer Permeabilities from
Electric Well Logs, the Log Analyst, Vol. XIX, No. 5.
Pan System software, e-petroleumservices.com.
Pan, Y., & Horne, R.N.; 1998: Improved Methods for Mutivariate
Optimization of Field Development Scheduling and Well Placement Design.
SPE 49055, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Louisiana.
Pedroso Jr., C.&Schiozer, D. J.;2000: Optimizing Locations of Wells in Field

Development Using Reservoir Simulation and Parallel Computing (PVM). Rio
Oil and Gas, Rio de Janeiro.
Pertamina Indonesias Oil & Gas Enterprise; 1995: Development of Tuba

Field, Iraq Proposal. Reservoir Directorate Library, Iraqi Ministry of Oil.
Pertamina Indonesias Oil & Gas Enterprise; 1997: Development of Tuba

Field, Iraq Proposal. Reservoir Directorate Library, Iraqi Ministry of Oil.
Reservoir and Fields Development (RFD); 1986. Primary Reservoir Study

Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Field. Reservoir directorate library/ Iraqi Ministry of
Oil.
Reservoir and Fields Development (RFD); 1990. Primary Reservoir Study

Mishrif Formation/ Tuba Field. Reservoir directorate library/ Iraqi Ministry of
Oil.
Reservoir Studies Section; 2011: A Suitable Operational Pressure Calculation

for the First Stage Separator in Tuba Gas Separation Station and Production Re-
Distribution from Mishrif Formation Wells by Using the Vertical and
Horizontal Hydraulic Flow Calculations. Department of Reservoir Eng, and
Field Development, Field Commission, South Oil Company.
167
References
Saner, S., Kissami, M., & Al-Nufaili, S.; 1997: Estimation of Permeability
from Well Log Using Resistivity and Saturation Data. SPE Formation
Evaluation, pp. 27-31.
Schlumberger; 1989: Log Interpretation Principles/ Application

Schlumberger Educational Services, Houston, TX.
Schlumberger; 2011: Eclipse 100, v.2011.1Manual and applications.
Schlumberger; 2011: Petrel Manual and applications.
Sonatrach; 1997: Tuba Field Project. Reservoir Directorate Library, Iraqi Oil
Ministry.
Svrisky, D., Ryazanov, A., Pankov, M., Corbett, P.W.M., &Posysoev, A.; 2004:
Hydraulic Flow Units Resolve Reservoir Description Challenges in a Siberian
Oil Field. SPE 87056, SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling
for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Thomas, C. E., et al.; 1962:Water- Injection Pressure Maintenance and

Waterflood Processes. Core Laboratories Inc., Chapter 44.
Timur, A.; 1968: An Investigation of Permeability, Porosity, and Residual

Water Saturation Relationships for Sandstone Reservoirs, The Log Analysts,
vol. 9, no. 4.
Tixier, M.P.; 1949: Evaluation of Permeability from Electric-Log Resistivity

gradients, Oil and Gas Journal.
Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J.; 1963: The Behavior of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, SPEJ 245-255; Trans., AIME, Vol.
Widarsono B.&Lemigas; 2011: An Improvised Method for Determining

Resrvoir Rock Porosity Cut-off with Support of laboratory Mercury Injection
Data. SPE 143273, Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibibition,
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Winsauer, W.O. et al.:1952: Resistivity of Brine-Saturated Sands in Relation

to Pore Geometry, Bull., AAPG vol. 36, No. 2.
168
References
Wyllie, M.R.J. and Rose, W.D.; 1950:Some Theoretical Considerations

Related to the Quantitative Evaluation of the Physical Characteristics of
Reservoir Rock from Electrical Log Data, Petroleum Transactions, AIME,
Vol. 189.
Zhang, Y.J. &Lollback, P.A.; 1996: A Methodology for Estimating
Permeability from Well Logs in a Formation of Complex Lithology, SPE
37025, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Adelaide,
Australia.
169
Appendix (A)
Appendix (A)
Fig. (A-1) Fluid and Formation Analyses for Well TU-2
A-1
Appendix (A)
A-2
Appendix (A)
A-3
Appendix (A)
A-4
Appendix (A)

A-5
Appendix (A)

A-6
Appendix (A)
A-7
Appendix (A)
A-8
A-9
Appendix (A)

Appendix (A)
A-10
Appendix (A)
A-11
Appendix (A)
A-12
Appendix (A)
A-13
Appendix (A)
A-14
Appendix (A)
A-15
Appendix (A)
A-16
Appendix (A)
A-17
Appendix (A)
A-18
Appendix (B)
B-1
Appendix (B)
Fig. (B.1) Measured Pressure vs. Time from well test analysis for Well TU-3.
B-2
Appendix (B)
Fig. (B.2) Pressure vs. Time measurements from well test analysis for Well TU-5.
B-3
Appendix (B)
Fig. (B.3) Semi- log Analysis (Pressure vs. )for Well TU-3.
B-4
Appendix (B)
Fig. (B.4) Semi- log Analysis (Pressure vs. )for Well TU-5.
B-5
Appendix (B)
Fig. (B.5) log- log Analysis (Pressure Derivative and Dimensionless Pressure Derivatives)for Well TU-3.
B-6
Appendix (B)
Fig. (B.6) log- log Analysis (Pressure Derivative and Dimensionless Pressure Derivatives)for Well TU-5.
Appendix (C)
Appendix (C)
3.5
k=6.9 md & phi=0.178 @Depth
2369.22"
K=1 md & phi=0.162 @
3 Depth=2375.71 m
K=0.83 md & phi=0.148 @
Depth=2384.2
K=26 md & phi=0.225 @
2.5 Depth=2396.75 m
K=27 md & phi=0.226 @
Depth=2398.2
2 K=15 md & phi=0.204 @
Depth=2403.4
K=94 md & phi= 0.207 @
Depth=2414.17
Pc (bar)
1.5 K=93 md &phi=0.225@

Depth=2415.86
K=93 md & phi=0.235 @
Depth=2450.74
1
K=65 md & phi=0.233 @
Depth=2452.31
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SW %
Fig. (C.1) Capillary pressure Curves for well TU- 4
3.5
K=0.0026 Md & phi=0.064@
D=2421.39 m
3 K=12 Md & phi=0.22

@Depth=2443.48 m
K=19.5 Md & phi=0.253 @
Depth=2472.12
2.5
2
Pc (bar)
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sw%
Fig. (C.2) Capillary pressure Curves for well TU- 5
C- 1
Appendix (C)
3.5 K=2.14 md& phi=0.165 @

Depth=2382.2 m
K=11.2 md& phi=0.197
3 @Depth=2394.16
K=0.852 md &phi=0.146
@Depth=2440.5 m
2.5
Pc (bar)
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SW %
Fig. (C.3) Capillary pressure Curves for well TU-12.
3.5
K=1.6 md &phi=0.145
@Depth=2389.9
3 K=66.1 md & phi=0.243 @

Depth=2393.65 m
2.5
2
Pc (bar)
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SW %
Fig. (C.4) Capillary pressure Curves for well TU-15

C- 2
Appendix (C)
3.5
K=6.52 md & phi=0.168 @
TU-22 TU-19 Depth=2405.4 m
K=28.3 md &phi=0.162 @
3 Depth=2419.2 m
K=242.2 md & phi=0.172 @
Depth=2409.55
2.5
Pc (bar)
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sw%
Fig. (C.5) Capillary pressure Curves for wells TU-19 & TU-22
C- 3
Appendix (D)
Appendix (D)
Appendix (D)
Structure Map for Top of Mishrif Fm./

Tuba Field;
(Oil Exploration Company,1988)

:

,
.
( )
, .
( ( ,
) (Plateau .
/
.

,
.
( )
, ) ,(J-Function ).(RQI
(3D-
) grids , ,
)272( .

.
.

, , , 5-Spot , 9-Spot

, ) (Inverted 9-Spot Pattern

) (Plateau
,
.

/

( / )

3102 /
3113 /

.. .
.

Samaher Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samaher Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samaher Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the dissertation about?

What is the dissertation about?

What formation and field is being studied?

What formation and field is being studied?

Ministry of Higher Education

and Scientific Research

Determination of Optimum Injection Patterns

Certify that the dissertation entitled ( Determination of Optimum

We Certify that we read this dissertation as examining committee,

Approved by the college of Engineering, University of Baghdad.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Chapter Three: Well Log Analysis & Interpretation

Series Titles Pages

Chapter Four: Reservoir Properties

Series Titles Pages

Chapter Five: Geological Model

Chapter Six: Numerical Simulation

Chapter Seven: Reservoir Development Strategies

Chapter Eight: Conclusions & Recommendations

8.2 Recommendations 163

Appendix (A): Computer Processing Interpretation (CPI)

Series Titles Pages

Table (3.1) Tops of Mishrif Formation units (from R.T.K.B) . 24

Table (4.1) Well Test Analysis by Horner Method 45

Table (4.2) Well Test Analysis by Type-Curve Method 45

Series Titles Pages

Fig. (3.1) Wells Location Map in the Studied Area 26

Fig. (3.2) Picket Plot for Well TU-5/ Mishrif Formation 28

Fig. (3.3) Fluid and Formation Analyses for Well TU-5 29

Fig. (3.4) Porosity Cut-off for Mishrif Formation. 32

Fig. (3.5) Porosity cut- off from EHC Calculations. 32

Fig. (3.6) Sw Cut-off from EHC Calculations. 33

Calculated Permeability & Porosity by Interactive 37

Fig. (4.10) Capillary pressure Curves for each HU. 51

Fig. (4.11) Calculated J(SW) Function vs. Sw for Mishrif Formation 53

Series Titles Pages

Fig. (4.18) Calculated Gas Viscosity for Well TU-5 60

Fig. (5.1) Well Section No.1 /Mishrif Zones and Layers 64

Fig. (5.2) Well Section No.2 /Mishrif Zones and Layers 65

Fig. (5.3) Well Section No.3 /Mishrif Zones and Layers 66

Fig. (5.4) Well Section No.4 /Mishrif Zones and Layers 67

Fig. (5.5) Skelton Grid for the Studied Reservoir 68

Fig. (5.6) 3D-View of Subsurface Units/ Mishrif Formation 69

Fig. (5.7) Subsurface Contour Map for MA Unit/ Mishrif Formation 70

Fig. (5.11) Subsurface Contour Map for RU Formation 74

Fig. (5.12) Mishrif Formation Orientation Profile. 75

Fig. (5.13) Cross Section (A-A). 76

Series Titles Pages

Fig. (5.14) Cross Section (B-B). 76

Fig. (5.15) 2D- porosity distribution for MA Unit/ Mishrif Formation 78

Fig. (5.26) 2D- Net to Gross(NTG) distribution for MB2 Unit 89

Fig. (6.1) Grid Cells for the Studied Area. 94

Total Field Oil Production(Calculated and Observed) with 98

Series Titles Pages

Fig. (6.20) Well Closed Bottom Hole Pressure (Calculated& 107

Series Titles Pages

Production and Injection Wells Arrangement for 117

Series Titles Pages

Series Titles Pages