The document provides details of reservoir simulation studies conducted on the H-04/MR-08 reservoir. It includes an outline of topics covered, production and PVT analysis of the reservoir fluids, material balance calculations, nodal analysis of individual wells, model building process, and history matching efforts to calibrate the model to production data. The summary matches were achieved by adjusting parameters like the aquifer, fault transmissibility, relative permeability curves, and permeability fields. Local matches required changes to transmissibility, relative permeability, and well properties.

1. H-04/MR-08 RESERVOIR
SIMULATION STUDIES

2. Outline
 Reservoir Performance Analysis
 PVT/ Fluid Characterisation
 Material Balance Analysis
 Nodal Analysis
 Model Building
 History Matching

3. Reservoir Performance Analysis

4. Production Performance Analysis
 The H-04/MR-08 reservoir is penetrated by 9
wells and has been completed in 5 wells (MR-08,
MR-10, MR-14, MR-23 and MR-92).
 The reservoir was discovered undersaturated
(Pb=2843 psia) with initial reservoir pressure of
2964 psia, average API gravity of 38 oAPI,
solution GOR of 844 scf/stb and OOWC at 6994’
TVDss.

5. Reservoir Performance
 Production from this reservoir started in November 1968 with
MR-08, MR-10 and MR-14.
 The initial reservoir pressure was 2964 psia, but declined to
about 1930 psia by November 1974. The reservoir pressure
remained relatively constant till 1996. Pressure rose
significantly to 2279 psia by March 1999 in the MR-14 area
of the reservoir as compared to about 1600 psia in the MR-
08 area, indicating pressure support for the MR-14 area from
H-04/MR-01 reservoir via communication across the fault.
 The pressure trends in both reservoirs indicate
communication right from the onset of production.

6. PRODUCTION ANALYSIS
H-04/MR-08 Reservoir
Performance Plot
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Nov-67 Nov-71 Nov-75 Nov-79 Nov-83 Nov-87 Nov-91 Nov-95 Nov-99 Nov-03 Nov-07
Date
Oil
Production
Rate(bopd),GOR(scf/stb)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
GOR BOPD BS&W

7. Production Summary
Well Status Cum Oil (MMbbls) Cum Gas (Bscf) Cum Water (Mbbls)
MR-08 P&A'd 5.52 8.70 66.6
MR-10 SQZD 4.21 8.61 4.89
MR-14 FTT 5.22 6.02 47.13
MR-23 CSZ 5.22 5.24 136.89
MR-92 FTT 3.05 3.73 198.41
Total 23.22 32.3 453.92

8. BHP Plot
H-04/MR-08 Reservoir
BHP
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
Nov-67 Nov-71 Nov-75 Nov-79 Nov-83 Nov-87 Nov-91 Nov-95 Nov-99 Nov-03 Nov-07
Date
BHP(psia)

9. Comparison of H-04/MR-08 and H-04/MR-01 BHP
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
Nov-67 Nov-71 Nov-75 Nov-79 Nov-83 Nov-87 Nov-91 Nov-95 Nov-99 Nov-03 Nov-07
Date
BHP(psia)
H-04/MR-08 H-04/MR-01

10. Communication Check
H-04MR-08 Reservoir
API Plot
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
Nov-67 Nov-71 Nov-75 Nov-79 Nov-83 Nov-87 Nov-91 Nov-95 Nov-99 Nov-03 Nov-07
Date
API
MR-08 MR-10 MR-14 MR-23 MR-92

11. Wellbore Communication Check
 MR-10 and MR-14
appears to have
some unexpected
drop in API.
 However there is no
conclusive evidence
to show that there
was communication
within the wellbore.
 Plot of API Vs water
cut for MR-14 shows
that the API dropped
at the time water cut
increased.
MR-14 API Plot
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
N
o
v
-
6
7
N
o
v
-
7
1
N
o
v
-
7
5
N
o
v
-
7
9
N
o
v
-
8
3
N
o
v
-
8
7
N
o
v
-
9
1
N
o
v
-
9
5
N
o
v
-
9
9
N
o
v
-
0
3
N
o
v
-
0
7
Date
API
MR-14 MR-14D
MR-14 Production/Welltest analysis
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
N
o
v
-
6
7
N
o
v
-
7
1
N
o
v
-
7
5
N
o
v
-
7
9
N
o
v
-
8
3
N
o
v
-
8
7
N
o
v
-
9
1
N
o
v
-
9
5
N
o
v
-
9
9
N
o
v
-
0
3
N
o
v
-
0
7
Date
BOPD/
Produced
GOR
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
46
50
54
58
62
API,
BS&W
BOPD Prod GOR Prod. API BS&W

12. MR-10 Communication Check
MR-10 and MR-10D API Plot
10
14
18
22
26
30
34
38
42
Nov-67 Nov-71 Nov-75 Nov-79 Nov-83 Nov-87 Nov-91 Nov-95 Nov-99 Nov-03 Nov-07
Date
API
MR-10 MR-10D
Production from
E-01/MR-05
Production from
G-01/MR-05

13. PVT/ Fluid Characterisation

14. PVT Analysis
 A Fluid model of the laboratory result was built
using the 3- paramater Peng-Robinson Equation
of State.
 Regression analysis was done in order to acheive
a reasonable match between laboratory result and
EOS model.

15. PVT Analysis
Meren H-04 PVT Laboratory results from MR-10
Initial Conditions At well bore
Initial Pressure Pi (psi) 2964
Bottom Hole Temperature (BHT) (oF) 204
Constant Mass Study @ BHT
Bubble Pressure Pb (psi) 2843
Compressibility at Pi (psi-1) 16.78*10-6
Differential Vaporization @ BHT and Pb
Bo (bbl/stb) 1.576
Rs (ft3/bbl) 844
ρo (g/cm3) 0.6479
Gas Gravity 0.726
API Gravity 38.7 oAPI
Oil Viscosity @ BHT
Viscosity @ Pi μ (cp) 0.31
Viscosity @ Pb μ (cp) 0.306

16. PVT STUDY RESULTS

17. FingerPrint Plot: H-08/MR-08 Reservoir Fluid

18. Phase Plot : H-04/MR-08 Reservoir Fluid Sample

19. Ternary Plot for Component of Reservoir Fluid

20. CCE : Relative Volume Match

21. CCE: Liquid Viscosity Match

22. DL : Gas Gravity Match

23. DL: Gas Oil Ratio Match

24. DL: Oil Relative Volume Match

25. DL: Liquid Density Match

26. Material Balance

27. BHP Plot
H-04/MR-08 Reservoir
BHP
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
Nov-67 Nov-71 Nov-75 Nov-79 Nov-83 Nov-87 Nov-91 Nov-95 Nov-99 Nov-03 Nov-07
Date
BHP(psia)

28. Two Distinct BHP Trends in H-04MR-08
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Nov-68 Apr-74 Oct-79 Apr-85 Sep-90 Mar-96 Sep-01 Mar-07 Aug-12
Date
BHP
8,23,92 10,14

29. Material Balance Model

30. H-04/MR-08 Analytical Method

31. H-04/MR-08 (2) Analytical Method

32. H-04/MR-01 Analytical Method

33. H-04/MR-08 Energy Plot

34. H-04/MR-08 (2) Energy Plot

35. H-04/MR-01 Energy Plot

36. H-04/MR-08 Graphical Method

37. H-04/MR-08 (2) Graphical Method

38. H-04/MR-01 Graphical Method

39. Production Simulation of the Different Region

40. Nodal Analysis

41. MR-08

42. ======== Solution Points ============
--------------------------------------------------
Intersection Point @ Inflow and Outflow (Base Case)
--------------------------------------------------
Qtot = 1481.91 bbl/d
Pwf = 1333.83 psig
Qoil = 1428.28 bbl/d
Qh2o = 53.63 bbl/d
Qgas = 1.15 Mscf/d
WLR = 3.4%
GOR = 806.00 scf/bbl
Reservoir Pressure (psig) = 1555.0
Reservoir Temp (deg F) = 202.0
Qo(max) @ Ref Pt (bbl/d) = 6032.4
MR-08 Nodal Results

43. MR-14

44. Reservoir Pressure (psig) = 1895.0 Reservoir Temp (deg F) =
192.0
Qo(max) @ Ref Pt (bbl/d) = 3932.9
--------------------------------------------------
Intersection Point @ Inflow and Outflow (Base Case)
--------------------------------------------------
Qtot = 1817.58 bbl/d
Pwf = 1330.70 psig
Qoil = 1816.68 bbl/d
Qh2o = .91 bbl/d
Qgas = 1.34 Mscf/d
WLR = .05 %
GOR = 735.00 scf/bbl
MR-14 Nodal Results

45. MR-23

46. --------------------------------------------------
Intersection Point @ Inflow and Outflow (Base Case)
--------------------------------------------------
Qtot = 587.5 bbl/d
Pwf = 1881.02 psig
Qoil = 470 bbl/d
Qh2o = 118.45 bbl/d
Qgas = .24 Mscf/d
WLR = 20.%
GOR = 511.00 scf/bbl
Reservoir Pressure (psig) = 1933.0 Reservoir Temp (deg F) = 192.0
Qo(max) @ Ref Pt (bbl/d) = 9906.8
MR-23 Nodal Results

47. MR-92

48. --------------------------------------------------
Intersection Point @ Inflow and Outflow (Base Case)
--------------------------------------------------
Qtot = 962 bbl/d
Pwf = 1245.50 psig
Qoil = 952 bbl/d
Qh2o = 11.20 bbl/d
Qgas = .73 Mscf/d
WLR = 1%
GOR = 775.00 scf/bbl
Reservoir Pressure (psig) = 1858.0 Reservoir Temp (deg F) =
192.0
Qo(max) @ Ref Pt (bbl/d) = 1889.3
MR-92 Nodal Results

49. Model Building

50. MODEL BUILDING
 Up-Scaled Model: 41*74*22 (66748 cells)
 Two Equilibrium Region was incorporated into the model.
 One PVT region
 Aquifer Model: Fetckovich
 Fluid Contacts
 Schedule

52. PermX

53. Perm X

54. Perm Y

55. Perm Y

56. H-04/MR-08 and H-04/MR-01
History Match

57. HISTORY MATCH METHODOLOGY
 Global Match
 Pressure Match using total RESV
 Saturation Match using ORAT
 Local Match
 Results
 Global Pressure Matches
 Global Saturation Matches
 Well Saturation Matches

58. HISTORY METHODOLOGY
 The reservoir simulation model was history matched using
production data obtained between November 1968 and
December 2006.
 The reservoirs were assigned their allocated monthly
production rates in the history match simulations. After each
run, the reservoir pressures, gas-oil ratios (GORs) and water
cuts generated by the model were compared to field data.
Appropriate modifications were made to the reservoir
simulation model until the model and field data were in
reasonable agreement.

59. Major Reservoir Changes and Implications
 Global Match
 Pressure Match achieved by adjusting
1. Aquifer volume
2. Transmissibility across the fault separating the two
reservoir.
 Saturation Match achieved by adjusting
1. Relative permeability curve
2. Kz
 Local Match
1. Adjust Kx and Ky for wells which cannot meet target
rates
2. Adjust Tz arrays
3. Adjust Krw and Swir

60. Regions Pressure Match

61. Field Oil Rate Match

62. Field Water Cut Match

63. Field GOR Match

64. MR-01 Water Cut Match

65. MR-10 Water Cut Match

66. MR-04 Water Cut Match

67. MR-08 Water Cut Match

68. MR-09 Water Cut Match

69. MR-13 Water Cut Match

70. MR-14 Water Cut Match

71. MR-23 Water Cut Match

72. MR-92 Water Cut Match

73. Conclusion
 Thank You