Central Asia has become one of the energy hubs in the world with latest significant discoveries including but not limited to Kashagan, Tengiz, Karachaganak, Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli fields. Geographical and political dynamics of the Central Asian countries help the countries to stand out as a significant stable and sustainable source of energy in the region with great resources of supply and low domestic demand. This study outlines economic and technical analysis of oil and gas resources of central Asia under demand and supply dynamics of world hydrocarbon production. A comprehensive literature review has been carried out to investigate the basins and major oil and gas fields of the region, their development from the beginning, the technologies utilized, types of recovery processes, supply capabilities and potential of future supply are addressed. Real field applications are illustrated with applications in different parts of the region with challenges, advantages and drawbacks discussed and summarized in comparison to other major energy hubs of the world and their major oil and gas fields and basins. Central Asia is a relatively young and dynamic region with growth potential of harnessing the great and relatively new resources. Due to the political and geopolitical dynamics of the region, Central Asia serves as a strong and stable provider of energy obtained from fossil fuels. Low domestic demand in the region makes it more attractive in terms of the amount of export potential. There is no recent up-to-date study that investigates and outlines not only the technical characteristics of fields, reservoirs and basins in the region but also the demand/supply dynamics of the resources in the regions as they compare to the other major energy hubs in the world. This study comparatively outlines the key elements of successful applications in the region along with the lessons learned from challenges as well as the current and near-future potential of Central Asia as an energy hub in the world.

No abstract

PetroKazakhstan Kumkol Resources JSC (PKKR JSC) has a number of assets, one of which is the RP oilfield. It has been operated without reservoir pressure maintenance. Reservoir is made of tight sandstone with permeability getting as low as 1 md. In addition, reservoir is isolated from all sides by impermeable barriers such as faults and pinchouts. There is no aquifer or gas cap detected in the reservoir. The natural recovery mechanism for this reservoir is solution gas drive. As a result of the field depletion the pressure has decreased threefold in just a few years. Hence, there is a clear need for the pressure support to stop the decline in production. Waterflooding is considered a reasonable option. However, the following questions have to be answered first: is it possible at all to inject required quantities of water in the tight sandstones with such low permeability? If it is, how much will the company benefit in incremental oil production which has to be further analyzed from economic standpoint? To find the answers to these essential questions a joint team of reservoir engineers from PKKR JSC and Schlumberger used a workflow specifically designed for this goal, which harvests the benefits of the two common industry approaches: the speed of the fast-screening with analytical methods and the level of details provided by 3D simulation model. It is important to note that one of the success criteria of this project is to automate as many steps as possible to make the workflow easy to implement for other fields. In order to minimize the risks associated with various uncertainties, sensitivity analysis and optimization techniques were deployed. As a result of this study, quick yet detailed analysis of the waterflooding efficiency including best water injection candidate selection was performed. The developed workflow can be successfully applied to other assets of the company and extended for the specifics of each field streamlining the decision-making process.

The field of interest was discovered in late eightees. The main productive zone 1 obtained oil. The reservoir 2 is uplift basement located in the center of the field, to which reservoir 1 is pinched out and confined to reservoir 2 from east and west. The reservoir 1 has a gas cap and production is characterized by high GOR with no signs of any decline despite the long production period. Therefore, all the available information of geology, production and pressure transient analysis were reviewed. There has been no production from the basement and just one well has been observing reservoir pressures for last ten years. These data were plotted bringing to unexpected result. The plot showed stable declining trend. So, there was a question – how does it happen when pressures are continuously decreasing while there is no production from the reservoir 2? Thus, gas sampling was performed on all three parts, pressure buildup and interference tests were conducted, geological data were reviewed and analyzed. After completion of the works, the following results were obtained. PVT analysis indicates similar properties of gas from all three wells. However, the most important fact is that the results of interference test proved obvious pressure communication between wells in the reservoir 1 and 2. In addition, analysis of geological data also does not exclude the possibility of the communication. As the result, a conclusion that the two reservoirs could be one reservoir is drawn up. It is assumed that the main channels for interconnection are fractures, since the formation 2 is metamorphic reservoir with fracture network. Reservoir pressure monitoring and pressure transient analysis became main factors and source of valuable information for changing the geological model of the field. Once again the importance of the pressure transient analysis is proved to be applicable not only by reservoir engineers but also by geologists. Eventually, the main results of the study influenced on the entire development strategy of the mature field.

No abstract