PETROLEUM SOCIETY

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM PAPER 2007-053

Underground Gas Storage in

Partially Depleted Gas Reservoir
M. SOROUSH
University of Calgary/Petroleum University of Technology (P.U.T.)

N. ALIZADEH
Schlumberger, Well Services of Iran

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 8th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (58th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 12 – 14, 2007. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract
Main objective of this study is dealing with a real case study
of an Iranian gas condensate reservoir for the purpose of
underground gas storage. Doing such a study in this reservoir
will aid developing this technology and also demonstrates new
concept of underground gas storage in partially depleted gas
reservoirs.
After gathering some data about the reservoir and preparing
a geological model for the field, a simulation plan considered
for this field. Static model converted to a dynamic one by
assigning reservoir fluid data. Finally, compositional model of
the reservoir prepared and verified to be accurate through a
history matching process.
After being sure about accuracy of the model and validating
it, different scenarios for underground gas storage developed.
Depletion and gas storage scenarios made for the field and
results obtained. Gas storage in partially depleted gas reservoir
considered in scenarios for developing this field too. After
comparing different scenarios some practical results achieved
and best scenario for developing this field chosen.
Introduction
An underground gas storage system can be defined as a
combination of a constant supply with a variable demand for
economic advantages [1]. In other words, it helps to combine
low-demand summer season and high-demand winter season.
The whole process is injecting natural gas or rarely other gases
into subsurface reservoirs in the periods that demands fall
bellow the gas supply. When demands exceed the supply, the
gas will be withdrawn from the reservoir. Fluctuating demands
due to temperature and climate make it an economic process
that is necessary in many cases for efficient use of the pipelines.
It also helps to have an effective delivery during peak demand
seasons. This process can also help producing oil or condensate
and can be considered as an IOR method too. By increasing
demand of gas in many areas of the world, developing storage
plans and effective use of existing storage sources is a priority
for engineering and economic advantages. Figure 1 illustrates
natural gas supply and demand relation and clarifies importance
of having some gas stored in low demand periods in order to
use in high demand periods.

1
 Figure 2- Geological model of the field

Dual porosity model considered for this fractured reservoir and

it is assumed that the reservoir is producing from fractures. Then
Figure 1- Natural gas supply and demand. (Source from [2]) a compositional model of the reservoir prepared and validated
through a history matching process, to be accurate for simulation
Depleted gas reservoirs called to be the best choice of study. Some uncertain parameters used for getting a perfect
underground gas storage and almost all early projects were match were fracture permeability and porosity, matrix porosity,
developed in depleted gas reservoirs. There are of course other matrix permeability and aquifer parameters which have great
types of underground gas storage that are storing gas in aquifers effect on field pressures. Location and size of the aquifer is not
and in caverns and salt structures. very accurate in this reservoir due to lack of data and porosity
and permeability of aquifer rocks, and its connection to the
Peak load natural gas consumption has become a problem in big reservoir can be history matching uncertain parameters. Because
cities in Iran, especially in Capital. Underground gas storage the final goal is gas production, it has been tried to match the gas
technology seems to be a helpful key to overcome this trouble. production rate more accurate than the other parameters. History
matching results for cumulative field gas and condensate
production are presented in figure 3 and figure 4.
Reservoir Summary
A gas condensate reservoir is chosen for the purpose of
underground gas storage that is located in central Iran. This
field discovered in 1955 and its production started in 1959. It
has a structure that is a northwest-southeast trending anticline
approximately 25 kilometers long and about five kilometers
wide. The structure is investigated by surface and seismic
surveys and eight wells drilled on the field. Production zone is
in a formation of Oligo-Miocene limestone and is marly lime.
Top of the producing zone is approximately at 5200feet-SS.
Bottom of productive zone is in 7400feet-SS, and overlaying
caprock is anhydrite bed. The visual examination of the
reservoir cores shows that the matrix rock is a dark gray to
black shaly or marly limestone that has low porosity and
permeability, so gas is usually bleeding from the reservoir cores
when bringing to surface.
Figure 3- History matching results for cumulative field gas
Microscopic examination of the cores from the reservoir shows production
that natural fracture exists in the formation. The majority of the
cores from different parts of the reservoir admit this. From the
visual core examination and analogy of some neighbor fields it
is assumed that about 1% of total volume of the reservoir rock
is fractures.

Geological Model and History Matching

Geological model of the field is designed based on the
petrophysic and geology of the reservoir. Important properties
of the reservoir rock, porosity, water, gas saturations and rock
permeability are considered in this model. A schematic of
geological model of the reservoir is shown in figure 2.

Figure 4- History matching results for cumulative field

condensate production

2
Reservoir Behavior Prediction for
Underground Gas Storage
After getting an acceptable history match and being sure that
reservoir model is accurate enough, reservoir behavior
prediction is essential to develop economical plans for the field.
The whole prediction task based on two different categories of
scenarios, depletion scenarios and gas storage scenarios. Having
a desirable depletion scenario may help to develop a perfect
underground gas storage scenario.
Base Scenario
In this prediction scenario it is assumed that, producing from the
reservoir continues with two available producing wells to
simulate reservoir behavior. It is obvious that producing by just
two wells having a good depletion in short time is out of reach.
Figure 5 is showing results of the simulation for base scenario
in respect to field pressure.
Figure 5- Field pressure in base scenario
New Wells Depletion Scenario
In this case, nine new wells defined in different parts of the
reservoir at the start of year 2007 and then depletion started
after setting proper well completions. Wells tried to be placed
close to crests and basically in high permeability zones,
especially in high permeability fractured zones. Gas production
rate increased to 200 MMSCF/Day from 30 MMSCF/Day in
base scenario. As it could be predicted a sharp trend of pressure
drop observed in this case. Figure 5 illustrates this matter.
Figure 6- Field pressure- new wells depletion scenario.
3
Gas Storage in Depleted Gas Reservoir
In this scenario production from field starts in year 2007 from
old and new wells. After two years of depletion from 2007, gas
storage scenario starts at 2009 and field pressure of 2087psia.
Cyclic injection and withdrawal periods simulated on the field.
Injecting the gas in warm periods of the year starts from 1st of
April and continues to 1st of October. The injection program is
carried for six warm months of the year according to Iran
weather condition. All the wells were used as injector in this
period. Target field injection rate of 220 MMSCF/Day
considered for this period.
After completing the injection period successfully and
pressurizing the reservoir, all the wells changed to producers.
This period begins from 1st of October and continues to 1st of
March. These months are chosen according five cold months of
Iran. All the wells changed to producers at the start of
production period. Target production rate of 260 MMSCF/Day
assumed for this period. One cycling period is defined in a year
and gas storage cycle will finish at the end of withdrawal
period. These gas storage cycles designed to be repeated for
several years. Figure 7 describes how field pressure varies
during storage periods and injecting and withdrawal rates are
illustrated in figure 8.
Figure 7- Field pressure– gas storage in depleted gas reservoir.
Figure 8- Field gas production and injection rates- gas storage
in depleted gas reservoir.
Gas Storage in a Partially Depleted Gas
Reservoir
In this scenario, storage cycles starts at high field pressure of
3882psia at the start of year 2007 using old wells and new ones
defined in the same year. Field injection rates defined the same
as the last case, 220 MMCF/day in six warm months of the year
with the maximum bottom-hole flowing pressure of 5000psia.
Target Field production rate of 260 MMCF/Day with the same
minimum bottom-hole flowing pressure restriction defined for
the simulator and withdrawal continued in five cold months.
Higher production rate is achievable in this case due to high
pressure production, and pressure drop, due to production is
more than depleted scenario. These storage cycles will continue
for 11 cycles up to 1st of April 2018. The following figures
describe partial depletion scenario. Figure 9 is field pressure
variation and figure 10 is injection and production rates for this Figure 11- Comparison between cumulative field gas and
scenario. condensate production in two depletion scenarios.

In figure 11 for the case of 200 MMMSCF of produced gas in

lower production rates (producing from two available wells)
5060000 STB of condensate is produced while in higher
production rates (developing nine new wells in year 2007) this
is about 5250000 STB of condensate.

Comparison between two Underground

Gas Storage Scenarios
Partially depleted scenario in higher pressures and depleted
scenario in lower field pressures has been shown in figure 12.

Figure 9- Field pressure- gas storage in partially depleted gas

reservoir.

Figure 12- Comparison between field pressures in two

underground gas storage scenarios.

Figure 13 compares cumulative gas production for these two

Figure 10- Field gas production and injection rates- gas storage
in partially depleted gas reservoir.
Comparison between two Depletion
Scenarios
Production in higher rates leads to higher cumulative gas and
condensate production; is a simple concept that is shown by this
simulation study. In order to clarify the differences of both
cases, condensate production in a constant gas production for
these two scenarios are compared in Figure 11.
scenarios and shows that there would be more cumulative field
gas production, if letting the reservoir deplete before starting
gas storage. But higher gas production volumes are due to two
years of production before starting the storage scenario in year
2009 and this extra gas production is achievable after
completing the storage cycles in partially depleted scenario. It
means that, storage cycles can be started in year 2007 in
partially depleted reservoir, and continue to year 2018 and then
after completing storage cycles, field can be depleted for 2-3
years to reach the same cumulative gas production in depleted
scenario. It seems to be helpful to compare other factors in both
scenarios.

4

Figure 13- Comparison between cumulative field gas
productions in two gas storage scenarios.
Figure 14 shows a comparison between cumulative condensate
productions in both gas storage scenarios. It can be observed in
these curves that condensate production overcomes in partially
depleted gas storage scenario in late time periods. Although
condensate production is not so much in this reservoir but this
extra condensate production can be an economic advantage that
makes partially depletion scenario more profitable.
Figure 14- Comparison between cumulative field condensate
productions in two gas storage scenarios.
Results and Observations
Some interesting results obtained by comparing two storage
scenarios. In fully depleted storage scenario minimum
bottomhole flowing pressure restriction, causes the production
rate decreases and it can be a disadvantage. Also it takes several
years to deplete the field before starting gas storage in this
scenario. On the other hand, it has advantage of high injection
rates because of lower reservoir pressure. High production rates
and good deliverability observed in gas storage in partially
depleted reservoir while the only problem is injection
difficulties because of high reservoir pressure. In return as the
result of the simulation proved, higher condensate production is
an important benefit of having this scenario. Although gas
injection in higher pressures may lead to higher injection costs
but extra condensate production may compensate this.
Although it is believed that depleted gas reservoirs are the best
choice of gas storage but results of simulation demonstrated that
it can be more profitable and applicable to do underground gas
storage in partially depleted reservoir of this type (fractured
5
tight gas reservoirs). This consequently may results in higher
condensate production and achieving storage scenario targets
sooner.
By comparing both depletion scenarios it can be observed that
for condensate reservoirs of this type (fractured tight gas
reservoirs), in higher production rates, higher condensate
production is achievable.
Conclusion
1. According to available data for this condensate reservoir
and studies done on this field and results of the
simulation, the field seems to be an excellent choice of
underground gas storage. Another important factor for
this conclusion is that the reservoir is close to big cities
and can afford their peak load gas demand during cold
months of the year. Feasibility of doing a storage project
is also proved by the simulator results and the reservoir is
capable of storing the gas and withdrawing it in winter
time very well.
2. According to simulation results it can be concluded that it
is possible and even more suitable to carry gas storage in
higher field pressures, so it is recommended to carry gas
storage in partially depleted reservoir.
3. Higher condensate production in partially depleted gas
reservoir makes it act as a perfect storage with
combination of an IOR method (Cycling).
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge efforts and assistances of
Office of Graduate Study, Department of Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Alberta-Canada
and Petroleum University of Technology (P.U.T.), Iran-Tehran
and also Schlumberger, Well Services of Iran-Tehran Center.
We also have to appreciate National Iranian Oil Company
(NIOC), Research and Development Directorate(R&D), who
contributed financial support of the project.
NOMENCLATURE
CFGP = Cumulative Field Gas Production
CFCP = Cumulative Field Condensate
Production
REFERENCES
1. M.R. Tek, Underground Storage of Natural Gas; Gulf
Pub. Co. 1987.
2. G.A. Knepper, Underground Storage Operations;
Technology Today Series, SPE 39101, October 1997.
3. Donald L. Katz, Robert L. Lee, Natural Gas
Engineering, Production and Storage; McGraw-Hill
International Edition, Chemical Engineering Series,
1990, Chapters 12, 13 and 14.
4. Donald L. Kats, M. Rasin Tek, Overview on
Underground Storage of Natural Gas; Society of
petroleum engineers of AIME, 1981.
5. Kanaga Dhamanda, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Neil
Kingsbury, Underground Gas Storage: Issues beneath
 the Surface; presented in SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference in Perth, Ausrallia, 18-20 October 2004,
SPE 88491.
6. A. Rojety, C. Jaffret, S. Cornot-Gandophe, B. Durand,
S. Jullian, M. Valias, Natural Gas, Production,
Processing, Transport; IFP publications,1997, Chapter
8.
7. Ibrahim M. A., M.R. Tek and D.L. Katz, Threshold
Pressure in Gas Storage; Monograph, American Gas
Association, INC. Arlington, Virginia, 1970.