Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering

Oil Reserves Evaluation and Field Development plan of Hakim Oil Field in
Libya
Omar A.N. Saliha*, M. Tantawya, S. El Elayouty2, Atef Abd hady b
a
Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Eng., Suez University, Suez 43721, Egypt,
b
Faculty of Eng., BUE *
Corresponding author: omar7977@yahoo.com

Abstract
The main objectives of this research are to estimate the oil reserves and set a
development plan for Hakim Field in Libya, using three methods for calculating OOIP
which are Volumetric (Monte Carlo), Decline curve analysis (DCA), Material Balance
Equation, and establish the optimum development plan for Hakim field. Results
showed that the OOIP of Hakim Field, calculated by volumetric method done
through Monte Carlo tool given 90.2 MM STBO for Proven Reserves (1P) , 115.5 MM
STBO for Probable reserves (2P) and 147.0 MM STBO for Possible reserves (3P).
While OOIP estimated by Decline curve analysis given 82.4MM STBO for Proven
Reserves (1P) , 102.8MM STBO for Probable reserves (2P) and 114.9MM STBO for
Possible reserves (3P), and 112.18 MM STBO for Probable reserves (2P) by Material
Keywords Balance. In addition, 14 prediction scenarios have been applied on the Material
Oil Reserves Evaluation - Field Balance Model to establish the optimum Field development Plan, results showed
Development plan - Hakim Oil that from simulation model the optimal scenario is 8 Producing Wells, 4 Water
Field in Libya Injector Wells and 8000 BWPD.

considered, for further development of the reservoir

Introduction
to obtain the higher Recovery factor[5].
Oil reserves estimation is one of the most The main scope of this thesis is estimate oil
important tasks in petroleum engineering, because it reserves for Hakim Field estimate oil reserves using
is based on estimates of reserves can be created Volumetric (Monte Carlo), Decline curve analysis
companies, or the increasing of the development plan (DCA), Material Balance Equation, therefor set a
for the field, And the consequent adoption of large development plan for Hakim Field.
financial investments, Therefore it is important both To achieve this, some specific objectives need to
to governments and major oil companies, so it was be met:
interest in the development of tools that can be used
 Estimate initial oil in place:
to estimate oil reserves [1] and [2].
There are several methods used to estimate oil  Volumetric method (Monte Carlo Simulation).
reserves, will be discussed during this thesis, and to
 Decline curve analysis.
highlight the precautions that must be taken into
account while estimating oil reserves through oil  Material balance equation.
reserves estimate for the Hakim field in Sirt Basin –  Compare the results from the above methods
Libya, By applying the three methods of the methods
used to estimate oil reserves which are Volumetric  Degree of uncertainty for reserves estimation
(Monte Carlo), Decline curve analysis (DCA), Material  Establish a Field development plan (FDP)
Balance Equation [3] and [4].
Production predictions can be performed through  Number of infill producing wells can be drilled in
the Model that was created by Material Balance the future ,
Equation, that after set predictions data model and  Number of water injection wells to support for
imposition of a number of scenarios which can use it the reservoir pressure, and
to develop the field and Select of the best-case
 Determine an appropriate water injection rates.
development option, among the alternatives

Page|39
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

Reserves in Oil Fields:

All oil and gas fields represent a limited geological
structure, and consequently, they have an upper limit
of how much hydrocarbons they contain. The size of
the trap and reservoir, which can be defined by geo-
logical and geophysical methods, gives an estimate of
the potential volume of oil in the field, before the
drilling has begun. As borehole data and production
data becomes available, the reserve estimate will tend
Figure 1 A theoretical production curve, describing the
towards increasing accuracy [2]. various stages.
The recoverable amount of the oil in place is
classified as the reserve; the recovery factor (RF) is a In the PRMS (Petroleum Resources Management
dynamic value, representing the estimated System)reserves and resources are classified
percentage of the total oil in place volume that can be according to the degree of certainty. The general
recovered. RF depends on numerous parameters, cumulative terms used with reserves for
such as rock and fluid properties, reservoir drive low/best/high are 1P/2P/3P; the related incremental
mechanism and production technology, variations in quantities are termed Proven, Probable and Possible.
the formation and the development process. In some The general cumulative terms low/best/high
modern reservoir simulators it is not necessary to use estimates are denoted as C1/C2/C3 for contingent
OOIP or RF at all in order to estimate reserves (reserve resources. The general cumulative terms
= recovery factor * oil in place) [3]. low/best/high estimates still apply for prospective
Initially, oil is recovered through the energy that is resources. There are no specific terms defined for
occurring naturally in the reservoir. For instance via incremental quantities within both Prospective
gas drive or water drive mechanisms. This can be Resources and Resources [10].
called the primary recovery method and usually 10- The Hakim Field
30% of the oil in place can be recovered this type [4]. The Hakim Field located at the southwestern part
Secondary recovery methods utilize injection of of Sirt Basin in concession NC-74A, approximately 580
water and/or gas to maintain pressure, thus feeding km Southeast of Tripoli.
additional energy to the reservoir. About 30-50% of The Hakim Oil Field (Hakim and S.W Hakim)
the oil in place can be recovered by use of primary and belongs to Zueitina Oil Company. The first well
secondary recovery methods [4]. discovered and drilled in this field was in 1978 with
Tertiary recovery methods, or enhanced oil production tested at a rate of 1350 BOPD producing
recovery (EOR), include more complex methods, such horizon from the Upper Facha Dolomite Member of
as injection of polymer solutions, surfactants, the Lower Eocene Gir formation located at the
microbes, nitrogen or carbon dioxide, capable of southwestern side of Sirt Basin.
influencing rock and fluid properties. Only a small
fraction of the world’s oil fields are using EOR [4].
Available Data of Hakim Field
The production of an oil field tends to pass
To calculate oil reserves in different method
through a number of stages. This can be described by
should provide some of field and laboratory data such
an idealized production curve. A version of this curve
as maps, petrophysical data, PVT analysis, SCAL,
can be seen in Figure 1 After the discovery well, an
reservoir pressure data and production performance.
appraisal well is drilled to determine the development
potential of the reservoir [3]. Further development
Hakim Field –General Data
follows and the first oil production marks the
Table 1 Table Show the General Data of HAKIM FIELD
beginning of the build-up phase. Later the field enters
a plateau phase, where the full installed extraction No. of Producers: 10 wells
capacity is used, before finally arriving at the onset of
decline, which ends in abandonment once the No. of Injectors: 4 wells
economical limit is reached. For many fields,
No. Of dry holes: 2 wells
especially smaller ones, the plateau phase can be very
short and resemble more to a sharp peak, while large Oil Cumulative: 27.93
fields can stay several decades at the plateau
production level. The life time of a field and the shape Gas Cumulative: 8.83 BCF
of the production curve are often related to the kind
of hydrocarbon that is produced. Water Cumulative: 48.65 MMSTB

Cumulative injected Water: 64.08 MMSTB

Page|40
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

3P 7.72 47% 24%

Hakim Field – Map
C 1P 33 20% 18%
The depth map shows the contour lines
representing the depth of the field. Also, Oil down to 2P 37.06 30% 21%
(ODT) is given at 5871 ft and it is the deepest point at 3P 41.9 40% 24%
which oil was found. While, Water up to (WUT) is
given at 5835 ft and it is the shallowest depth at which Table 3 The Petrophysical Data of Hakim North block
water was found. Zones A, B and C
Net Pay Water
Porosity
Zone Case Thickness Saturation
ft % %
1P 1.00 15% 8%
A 2P 2.27 32% 17%
3P 4.04 50% 26%
1P 3.69 13% 14%
B 2P 6.33 36% 20%
3P 7.72 60% 25%
1P 33.00 8% 8%
C 2P 37.06 50% 18%
Figure 2 Top Structural Contour Map of Upper Facha 3P 41.90 92% 29%
Dolomite Member of the Lower Eocene Gir formation

Hakim Field - Petrophysical Data Oil Formation Volume Factor

Upper Facha Dolomite divided into the two block 1.3
northern and southern parts of the f Hakim field and
each is divided into three zones A, B and C.,
The table 2and 3 shows the petrophysical data 1.2
Bo,Rbbl/STB

(Porosity, Net Pay Thickness, and Water Saturation) of

these three layers in both Hakim North block and
South Block after reviewing the wells logging, taking 1.1
into consideration the level of uncertainty and
variability on the data, In order to calculate the
different types of oil reserves (1P, 2Pand 3P). 1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Hakim Field - Reservoir Fluids Analysis (PVT) Pressure,Psig
one sample was collected from North Hakim as
bottom hole sample (BHS) and one sample was Figure 3 Oil Formation Volume Factor, BO for South Hakim
collected from South Hakim as bottom hole sample PVT.
(BHS), pressure in North Hakim sample was 2667 psi
and pressure in South Hakim sample was 2715 psi
with almost same oil density was 0.78 g/cm³, Bubble
point pressure 655 psi , Initial the firgures Gas Solubility
3,4,5,6,7and 8shown the summery and result of PVT 400
analysis of the fluid of both compartment North
Hakim and South Hakim.
Table 2 The Petrophysical Data of Hakim South Block 300
Zones A, B and C
RS ,SCF/STB

200

Net Pay Water

Zone Case Porosity
Thickness Saturation 100

ft % % 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
A 1P 1 18% 15%
Pressure,Psig
2P 2.27 28% 19%
Figure 4 Gas Solubility, Rs for South Hakim PVT
3P 4.04 40% 24%

B 1P 3.69 15% 15%

2P 6.33 30% 20%

Page|41
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

Hakim Field - Relative permeability data

Oil Viscosity
Special core analysis provided the most important
0.6
parameter to transfer the model to dynamic case by
0.5 relative permeability and capillary pressure, both of
0.4 them responsible about fluid saturations distribution
and fluid movement later on during production.
0.3
0.2 Table 4 Relative permeability data for zone A and B
0.1
0 Sw Swn 𝑲∗𝒓𝒘 Son ∗
𝑲𝒓𝒐
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Pressure,Psig ( 1- Swn)

Figure 5 Oil Viscosity, µo for South Hakim PVT 0.2290 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 0.9013

Oil Formation Volume Factor 0.2500 0.0397 0.0032 0.9603 0.8043

2.50
2.00 0.3000 0.1342 0.0224 0.8658 0.6010

1.50 0.3500 0.2287 0.0528 0.7713 0.4342

Bo,Rbbl/STB

1.00
0.4000 0.3233 0.0918 0.6767 0.3006
0.50
0.4500 0.4178 0.1385 0.5822 0.1969
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0.5000 0.5123 0.1921 0.4877 0.1197
Pressure,Psig
0.5500 0.6068 0.2519 0.3932 0.0653
Figure 6 Oil Formation Volume Factor, BO for North Hakim
PVT
0.6000 0.7013 0.3177 0.2987 0.0301

Gas Solubility 0.6500 0.7958 0.3891 0.2042 0.0103

2000
0.7000 0.8904 0.4657 0.1096 0.0018
1500
0.7500 0.9849 0.5475 0.0151 0.0000
RS ,SCF/STB

1000 0.7580 1.0000 0.5610 0.0000 0.0000

500

1.0
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure,Psig 0.8
Relative Permeability

Figure 7 Gas Solubility, Rs for North Hakim PVT

0.6

Oil Viscosity
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.2
Cp

0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.1
Normalized Water Saturation
0 normalized average krw normalized average kro
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure,Psig
Figure 9 Normalized Average Relative Permeability, Zones
A and B
Figure 8 Oil Viscosity, µo for North Hakim PVT

Page|42
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

Table 5 Relative Permeability Data for Zone C

Sw Son Swn kro Krw

0.1177 1.0000 0.0000 0.9671 0.0000

0.1500 0.9325 0.0675 0.8083 0.0009

0.2000 0.8282 0.1718 0.5961 0.0081

0.2500 0.7238 0.2762 0.4218 0.0253

0.3000 0.6195 0.3805 0.2829 0.0548

0.3500 0.5151 0.4849 0.1762 0.0981

0.4000 0.4108 0.5892 0.0985 0.1568

0.4500 0.3064 0.6936 0.0464 0.2321 Figure 11 Hakim Field Production Performance

0.5000 0.2021 0.7979 0.0159 0.3252

Hakim Field
Pressure Performance
0.5500 0.0977 0.9023 0.0025 0.4370 3500

0.5968 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.5597

3000

2500

1.0
2000
Pressure,Psi

0.8
1500
Relative Permeability

0.6 1000

500
0.4

0
Jan-81 Dec-84 Dec-88 Dec-92 Dec-96 Dec-00 Dec-04 Dec-08
0.2
A2
A3
A8
A11
0.0 A13
A14
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 A15
Normalized Water Saturation A17
A18

normalized average krw

Figure 12 Hakim Field Pressure Performance
Figure 10 Normalized Average Relative Permeability,
Zones c Reserves Evaluation and Field Development plan of
Hakim Field
Hakim Field – Historical Data The reserves will be estimated using three
methods, then a comparison between the values
The historical data includes the production and
obtained from the three methods will be done, these
pressure values for Hakim Field from 1/12/1984 to
Tree methods are:
1/4/2004
 Volumetric (Monte Carlo) using MBAL.
 Material Balance using MBAL.
 Decline curve analysis (DCA) using OFM.

Page|43
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

Volumetric (Monte Carlo)

After making sure that there is no interference
from the bottom layer, we need to determine the
minimum and maximum values for the given petro-
physical data, the minimum and maximum values will
then be used along with the minimum and maximum
bulk volume as input in by MBAL software
[Commercial Program of Petroleum Expert] in order to
calculate P90, P50, and P10 [7].

Step-1: Area calculation:

The process starts by calculating the area of the
reservoir, this is done using PETREL software, can get
the exact distance of the X and Y of the reservoir,
multiplying these two values by each other we get the
area of the reservoir, the margin is taken into Figure 14 contour areas Vr Depth
consideration by allowing for a maximum and
minimum value of the area with the calculated value
Step-4: Determine Properties Distribution (Phi,
in the middle of these two values.
SW):
The histograms shows the properties distribution
(porosity and saturation), which it determined from
different wells (well logs).

Figure 13 Top Structural Contour Map of Upper Facha

from PETREL software

Step-2: Determination of Lowest Known

Hydrocarbon:
Oil down to (ODT) is given at 5871 ft and it is the Figure 15 the properties distribution saturation (A) and
deepest point at which oil was found. While, Water up porosity (B) for Zone A
to (WUT) is given at 5835 ft and it is the shallowest
depth at which water was found.
Table 6 Lowest Known Hydrocarbon Step-5: PVT modeling:
The PVT table is also entered from the given data
WUT Depth ODT Depth to build the fluid model.
Zone
K.B. TVDss K.B. TVDss Step-6: Monte Carlo Input Distribution and
A 6802 5771 6777 5726 Results:
After defining the input parameters, the program
B 6814 5783 6791 5740 calculates many values for the OOIP using millions of
values for the input parameters. The software then
C 6866 5835 6832 5781
plots the OOIP values with the frequency and the
probability of their occurrence. This can be used to
Step-3: Gross Rock Volume Calculation: determine P90, nP50, and P10.
Gross rock volume can be calculated by drawing
the contour areas with depth as shown in Figure 14.

Page|44
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

Figure 16 Monte Carlo OOIP calculation Input Parameter for South Hakim -Zone A, [MBAL version 10.0]

Figure 17 Monte Carlo OOIP calculation Results for South Hakim -zone A, [MBAL version 10.0]
Table 7 summary of input and results from Monte Carlo Table 8 summary of input and results from Monte Carlo
calculation for South Hakim - the three zones A, B and C calculation for North Hakim - the three zones A, B and C

Net Pay Water Poros STOII Net Pay Water Porosi STOII
Ca Cas Thickness Saturation ty P
Zone Thickness Saturation ity P Zone
se e MMS
ft % %
MMS TB
ft % %
TB
1P 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.16
1P 1.00 18 15 3.3
A A 2P 2.3 0.3 0.2 0.28
2P 2.27 28 19 5.27

3P 4.04 40 24 7.97 3P 4.0 0.5 0.3 0.45

1P 3.69 15 15 8.65 1P 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.72

B
2P 6.33 30 20 12.15 B 2P 6.3 0.4 0.2 1.10
3P 7.72 47 24 16.75
3P 7.7 0.6 0.3 1.56
1P 33.00 20 18 75.87
1P 33.0 0.1 0.1 1.45
C
2P 37.06 30 21 92.883
C 2P 37.1 0.5 0.2 3.81
3P 41.90 40 24 113.29
3P 41.9 0.9 0.3 7.02
1P 87.82
TOT 1P 2.33
AL 110.30
2P TOT
3 AL
3P 138.01 2P 5.19

Page|45
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

3P 9.03

Summary of OOIP from Monte Carlo Calculation

for North and South Hakim Field

Table 9 Summary of OOIP from Monte Carlo calculation

for North and South Hakim Field

South SOUTH
Cas Hakim HAKIM TOT
Zone
e OOIP AL
MMSTB MMSTB
1P 3.3 0.2 3.5
A 2P 5.3 0.3 5.6
3P 8.0 0.5 8.4
1P 8.7 0.7 9.4 Figure 19 Hakim Field –DCA- 2P Case [OFM version 2010]
B 2P 12.2 1.1 13.3
3P 16.8 1.6 18.3
1P 75.9 1.5 77.3
C 2P 92.9 3.8 96.7
3P 113.3 7.0 120.3
1P 87.8 2.3 90.2
TOT
2P 110.3 5.2 115.5
AL
3P 138.0 9.0 147.0

Decline curve analysis (DCA)

This technique involves using the production
history in order to make a decline curve analysis using
ARPS’[22].
The first step involves loading the production
history to the OFM software [a commercial Figure 20 Hakim Field –DCA- 2P Case [OFM version 2010]
program by Schlumberger for well and Summary of OOIP from DCA for Hakim Field
reservoir analysis.
Table 10 Summary of OOIP from DCA for Hakim Field

1P 2P 3P
MMST MMST MM
B B STB
Cum.
27.93 27.93 27.93
Production
Reserves 9.15 18.35 23.79

EUR 37.08 46.28 51.72

OOIP 82.4 102.8 114.9

Material Balance Technique

This tool incorporates the classic use of material
Balance calculations for history matching through
Figure 18 Hakim Field –DCA- 1P Case [OFM version graphical and Analytical methods in addition to Energy
2010] Plot [27].

The Graphical Method:

The graphical method plot is used to visually
determine the different Reservoir and Aquifer
parameters [27].

Page|46
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

Figure 21 MBE for OOIP Calculation Graphical Method, [MBAL version 10.0]

Figure 22 The Rerservoir Energy from MBE Calculations, [MBAL version 10.0]

Page|47
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

The Analytical Method vs. Cum Production from the historical data and the
The analytical plot shows the Reservoir Pressure model [27].

Figure 23 MBE for OOIP Calculation Analytical Method, [MBAL version 10.0]

Energy Plot main source of energy in the reservoir and aquifer

Energy Plot shows the relative contributions of the system [27].

Figure 24 Sensitivity Analysis on OOIP [MBAL version 10.0]

Page|48
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

between a minimum and a maximum can be defined

for each variable [27].
Sensitivity Analysis It can conclude from material balance calculations
This option is used for running sensitivity on one that the OOIP is 112.188 MMSTB of oil at standard
or two variables at a time. A certain number of values conditions, and the reservoir can be classified also as
depletion drive reservoir.

Simulation Plot As is clear that the calculated data are consistent with
The simulation calculations can serve as a final historical data, therefore it can rely on this model to
quality check on the history matching carried out predict the future reservoir data.
earlier before transfer to prediction step.

Figure 25 comparison between historical data and calculated data while the simulation[MBAL version 10.0]

Summary of OOIP Calculation by Different

Methods:
From all discussed previously can be summarized
Table 11 Summary of OOIP Calculation by Different
accounts OOIP as shown in the Table 11 What can be
Methods
observed that the numbers of OOIP calculated by
three methods are close to each other, with little OOIP,MMSTBO
increasing in Monte Carlo method resulting from this
method calculate the static volumes, but in Material 1P 2P 3P
Balance the calculation depending on the dynamic
data so the results from Material Balance it’s more Monte Carlo 90.2 115.5 147.0
reliable, the numbers from DCA also close to the
DCA 57.2 114.7 148.7
others but little higher than Material Balance causing
by that calculation accuracy depend on level of Material Balance 112.19
production data organized or scattered .
Production Prediction
The prediction start date is set to the production In this part will have been building a number of
start date at December 1984 and the prediction end scenarios for the development of the reservoir
date at end of year 2050. through the three levels of sensitivity analyzes, first to
impose different numbers of producing wells can be

Page|49
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

drilled in the future, the choice of the optimal number  8 Producing Wells
to reach the highest reserves.  10 Producing Wells
 12 Producing Wells
The second level is the selection of the optimal
number of water injection wells to get the best Numbers of Producing Wells Selection Discussion:
pressure support for the reservoir, in order to be given It can be observed from the Figure 26, the three
the highest reserves, through the imposition of a scenarios 12 producing wells, 10 producing wells and
number of scenarios to predict containing different 8 producing wells are given higher reserves (52.17
numbers of water injection wells. MM STBO), but economically preferred the scenario
And then can move to the third level, after the which is a smaller number of wells, so 8 producing
selection of the appropriate number of production wells has been selected.
wells and water injection wells, will be specifies an Level II Numbers of Water Injection Wells
appropriate water injection rates, by testing a number Selection:
of water injection rates and choose the optimal rates.
 8 Producing Wells and 2 Water Injection Wells
The following mention scenarios that have been
imposed on the three levels of sensitivity analysis  8 Producing Wells and 4 Water Injection Wells
Level I Numbers of Producing Wells Selection:  8 Producing Wells and 6 Water Injection Wells
 2 Producing Wells (base case)
 4 Producing Wells
 6 Producing Wells

Figure 26 Production Prediction - Numbers of Producing Wells Selection [MBAL version 10.0]

Numbers of Water Injection Wells Selection Level III Rates of Water Injection Wells Selection:
Discussion:  8 Producing Wells , 4 Water Injection Wells and
It can be observed from the Figure 27, the two 2000 BWPD
scenarios (8 Producing Wells and 4 Water Injection  8 Producing Wells , 4 Water Injection Wells and
Wells) and ( 8 Producing Wells and 6 Water Injection 4000 BWPD
Wells) are given higher reserves (52.42 MM STBO),  8 Producing Wells , 4 Water Injection Wells and
but economically preferred the scenario which is a 6000 BWPD
smaller number of wells ,so 8 Producing Wells and 4  8 Producing Wells , 4 Water Injection Wells and
Water Injection Wells has been selected. 8000 BWPD
 8 Producing Wells , 4 Water Injection Wells and
10000 BWPD

Page|50
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

Figure 27 Production Prediction - Numbers of Water Injection Wells Selection[MBAL version 10.0]

Figure 28 Production Prediction - Rates of Water Injection Wells Selection [MBAL version 10.0]

Rates of Water Injection Wells Selection reserves (52.7 MM STBO lead to 46.97 % recovery
Discussion factor), but economically preferred the scenario
It can be observed from the Figure 28, the two which is minimum injection rates, so 8 Producing
scenarios (8 Producing Wells, 4 Water Injector Wells Wells, 4 Water Injector Wells and 8000 BWPD has
and 8000 BWPD) and (8 Producing Wells, 4 Water been selected.
Injector Wells and 10000 BWPD) are given higher
Page|51
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

Conclusions Bo Oil Formation Volume Factor

The scope of the thesis is to estimate the oil BWPD Barrel Water per Day
reserves and set a development plan for Hakim Field,
DCA Decline Curve Analysis
through the use of three methods for calculating OOIP
which are Volumetric (Monte Carlo), Decline curve EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
analysis (DCA), Material Balance Equation, therefor
FDP Field Development Plan
predict the reservoir behavior to set the optimum
development plan for Hakim field. Ft Feet
The following conclusions are made on the basis of
Kro Relative Permeability of Oil
this study:
at Different Sw
 The OOIP of Hakim Field calculated by volumetric Kro (Swc) Relative Permeability of oil
method done through Monte Carlo tool given 90.2 at Connate Water Saturation
MM STBO for Proven Reserves (1P) , 115.5 MM Kro* Normalized Relative
STBO for Probable reserves (2P) and 147.0 MM Permeability of OIL
STBO for Possible reserves (3P). Krw Relative Permeability Of
 The OOIP of Hakim Field calculated by Decline curve Water At Different Sw
analysis given 82.4 MM STBO for Proven Reserves Krw (Soc) Relative Permeability of
(1P) , 102.8 MM STBO for Probable reserves (2P) Water Critical Oil Saturation
and 114.9 MM STBO for Possible reserves (3P). Krw* Normalized Relative
 The OOIP of Hakim Field calculated by Material Permeability of Water
balance given 112.18 MM STBO for Probable MEB Material Balance Equation
reserves (2P). MMSTBO Million Stock Tank Barrel Oil

 14 prediction scenarios have been applied on the Mo Oil Viscosity

Material Balance Model using Mbal software in
ODT Oil Down-to
three level of sensitivity analyzes as follows:
 The first level is selection of the optimal number of OFM Oil Field Manager - Software
producing wells can be drilled in the future , OOIP Original Oil in Place
 The second level is selection of the optimal number Psig pound per square inch -
of water Injector wells to get the best pressure gauge
support for the reservoir,
PRMS Petroleum Resources Management
 The third level is the identification of an appropriate System
water injection rates after selection of the
PVT Pressure - Volume -
appropriate number of production wells and water
Temperature
injection wells, by testing a number of water
injection rates and choose the optimal rates. RF Recovery Factor

 According to prediction simulation results the Rs Gas Solubility

optimal scenario is 8 Producing Wells, 4 Water SCAL Special Core Analysis
Injector Wells and 8000 BWPD.
Son 1-Sw
 Decline curve analysis through production histories
of oil and gas wells can be analyzed to estimate STBOPD Stock Tank Barrel Oil per day
reserves and future oil and gas production rates and
to validate results of complex reservoir studies. Sw Water Saturation
Because accurate production data are commonly Swn Normalized water saturation
available on most wells, production data analyses
can be widely applied. WUP Water Up-to

 Material balance equation is one of the important

methods for estimating oil reserves; in addition to
their ability to build scenarios for predict the future References
reservoir behavior.
[1] The SPE/WPC Reserve Definition: The Impact on Past
and Future Reserves Evaluations. Claude McMichael,
Nomenclatures
CLMcM. 1997, SPE 37957.
1P Proven [2] The practice of reservoir engineering, revised edition,
developments in petroleum science. Elsevier, Dake LP
2P Probable
(2004) ,London
3P Possible [3] Petrobjects. SPE/API Reserve Definitions. s.l.
:www.petrobjects.com, 2003 -2004.
BCF Billion Cubic Feet
[4] Achieving Global Acceptance of and Compliance with a
BHS Bottom Hole Sample Universal Set of Petroleum Resources and reserves

Page|52
 Journal of Petroleum and Mining Engineering 18(1)2016

definitions- are we there yet? D.Ronald Harrell, SPE

(ret), Ryder Scott Company. 2008, SPE 114162.
[5] The 1972 McKelvey Resource Classification System.
McKelvey. 1972.
[6] Petroleum Reserves Definitions. SPE, WPC. 1997.
[7] Petroleum Resources Classification. SPE, WPC, AAPG.
2000.
[8] SPE/WPC/AAPG Resource Definitions as a Basis for
Portfolio Management. J G Ross, SPE, Gaffney, Cline &
Associates. 2001, SPE 68573.
[9] Guidelines for the Evaluation of Petroleum Reserves
and Resources. SPE, WPC, AAPG. 2001.
[10] The 2007 SPE/AAPG/WPC/SPEE Reserves and
Resources Classification, Definitions, and Guidelines:
Defining the Standard! John R. Etherington, SPE, PRA
International Ltd., and John E. Ritter, SPE, Occidental
Petroleum. 2007, SPE 107693.
[11] Petroleum Resources Management System. SPE,
WPC,AAPG,SPEE. 2007.
[12] Classification of Reserves: Guidelines and Uncertainty.
W.G McGilvray, SPE and R.M. Shuck, SPE, Degolyer and
MacNaughton. 1998, SPE 39821.
[13] Why Our Reserves Definition Don’t Work Anymore.
R.H Caldwell, SPE, and D.I. Heather, SPE, The Scotia
Group. 1996, SPE 00030041.
[14] Oil and Gas Reserves Classification, Estimation,and
Evaluation. Forrest A. Garb, SPE. 1985, SPE 00013946.
[15] Reserves Estimation: The Challenge for the industry.
FerruhDemirmen, SPE, Petroleum Consultant. 2007,
SPE 103434.
[16] Petroleum Reserve Estimation Methods. Petrobjects.
s.l. : Petrobjects.com, 2003-2004, Decline Curve.
[17] Carcoana, Aurel. Applied Enhanced Oil recovery.
[18] Ahmed, TareK. Reservoir Engineering Handbook. [ed.]
Third Edition.
[19] Glover, Dr. Paul. Formation Evaluation MSc Course
Notes. Reservoir Drives.
[20] Reservoir Engineering Manual. Cole, F. Houston : TX:
Gulf Publishing Co., 1969.
[21] Elements of Petroleum Reservoirs. Clark, N. Dallas :
TX:SPE, 1969.
[22] Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & petroleum.
Determination of Oil and Gas Reserves.
[23] Analysis of Decline Curves, Arps,J.J, 1945, Trans. AIME
[24] Estimation of primary oil reserves, Arps,J.J, 1956,
Trans. AIME
[25] Carbonate Reservoir Characterization: a Geologic -
Engineering Analysis, Chilingarian, George V., Sal J.
Mazzullo, and Herman H. Rieke. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
1996. Print.
[26] The Hydrocarbon Habitat of the Oil and Gas Fields of
North Africa with Emphasis on the Sirt Basin, in Salem,
Futyan, A., and Jawzi, A.H,M.J., El-Hawat, A.S., and
Sbeta, A.M., eds., 1996
[27] The Pan-African Belt of Northeastern and Eastern
Africa, Madagascar, Southern India, Sri Lanka and East
Antarctica; Kroner, A.; 1993
[28] Geological Review of Hakim.; (1981): "Zueitina Oil
Company Field Unpublished Report".
[29] Petroleum Experts, “PVTP 9.0 Manual”, 2009
[30] Petroleum Experts, “MBAL 10.0 Manual”, 2009

Page|53