You are on page 1of 14

IPTC 13361

Water Injection Monitoring Techniques For Minagish Oolite Reservoir In


West Kuwait
Om Prakash Das, Muhammad Aslam, Rakesh Bahuguna, Al-Enezi Khalaf, Mohammed Al-Shatti, and Al-Rashidi
Tahani Yousef, KOC

Copyright 2009, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 7–9 December 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
conformance. The methodology has proven to be the best
Water flooding is the most successful and widely used tool for monitoring the performance of both PWI and DFI
process for effective pressure maintenance and enhancing wells in Minagish Oolite reservoir.
the oil recovery because water is widely available and
inexpensive relative to other fluids, easy to inject, and Based on the water conformance modeling, the correct
highly efficient in displacing oil. For water floods, through decisions regarding the various workover related to water
continuous surveillance plan, reservoir monitoring and injectors as well as producers were taken to control the
water front tracking results in improving sweep efficiency injection water movement through faults, channels and
and enhancing the overall oil recovery. high permeability layers inside MO reservoir. This in turn
resulted in uniform pressure maintenance, reduction in
Minagish Oolite (MO) reservoir is a mature reservoir water cut as well as minimizing the risks of by passing the
having long production history along with water injection oil behind the injectors.
from several years as a primary means of pressure
maintenance. In MO reservoir, two types of water injection Introduction
methods are implemented i.e. power water injection (PWI)
and Dump Flood Injection (DFI). The Minagish field is located in the West Kuwait (Figure
1) is a north-south trending anticline with hydrocarbon
For water injection monitoring and water front tracking a contained in six major reservoirs ranging in age from early
semi analytical model is developed for MO reservoir based Jurassic to late Cretaceous. The field was discovered in
on radius of injected cool water front superimposed over 1959. Its primary reservoir is the early cretaceous
seismic and geological cross-sections to monitor the water (Neocomian) Minagish Oolite (MO) formation that is
front position at real time inside MO reservoir. The radius contributing major part of the total field production.
of expanding cool injected water front is obtained by The MO is a thick carbonate reservoir having excellent
saturation logs (TDT) and layer wise cumulative water permeability in the range of several milidarcy to few Darcy
injection at various points across the formation. The layer and porosity of about 20%. The best reservoir quality is
wise cumulative water injection is calculated from developed in the Oolite grain stones from which the
production logs on injectors as well as nearby offset formation derives its name. The reservoir consists of a
producers. well defined fault network with a prominent east west
trending fault in the centre of reservoir. The reservoir is
The water injection monitoring techniques based on subdivided into 13 well defined layers and having
focused surveillance program and semi analytical model discontinuous prominent baffles and barriers. Out of 13
has been developed for both DFI (Dump Flood Injectors) layers, some layers i.e. 3 & 5 are having very high
and PWI (Power Water Injectors) which is used for permeability and observed to be speedy flow unit.
improving water flood conformance in MO reservoir. Although the MO is a matured reservoir, it is still under
active development because little amount of its OOIP
In case of MO reservoir the semi analytical model along (Original Oil in place) only has been exploited so far. The
with Hall plot and its derivative function at sand face is reservoir is supported with the weak natural edge water
found to be an alternative to pressure transient analysis, aquifer and in response to pressure decline, a peripheral
pressure fall off tests, injection tests and tracer survey water injection plan was adopted for pressure
analysis used for water front tracking and water injection maintenance. The development plan required several
2 IPTC 13361

peripheral water injectors (PWI & DFI) supporting about representing the total resistance to injection. In the radial
hundreds of producing wells. flow case of water injection, the skin factor “s” is affected
by Matrix damage / plugging (pore plugging due to solid
In the MO reservoir, two types of water injection methods particles in injected water or the resistance to injection due
are implemented i.e. powered water injection (PWI) and to movement of Tarmat inside the reservoir), Fracture
Dump Flood Injection (DFI). The PWI injectors are further initiation, Fracture propagation or near well bore
classified in two types i.e. source water injector (injection stimulation and increase in reservoir pressure due to
of the source water produced from the source water excessive water injection.
reservoir and effluent injectors (re-injection of effluent
water produced after proper treatment). The total resistance to injection for water injection is
calculated by Faruk Civan11 can be expressed by
In view of various reservoir complexities, injection
monitoring and water front tracking has been a real Rt = Rc + Rnw + Rr …….……. (3)
challenge for MO reservoir because transient pressure
analysis methods, e.g., falloff tests, injection tests, etc.,
are not found to be adequate for evaluating the variations Rc = [ln ( )] ; Rnw = [ln ( )]
π πh cos α
in reservoir characteristics and injection efficiency. In
order to monitor the injection performance, an effective and
injection management with analytical & semi analytical
techniques have been developed and used. This Rr = [ln ( )]
technique is derived based on Hall’s plot analysis at sand π h cos α
face combined with PLT & TDT log results superimposed
on seismic cross-sections and WOR trend in offset oil Now, the pressure drop due to skin is written as
producers. Utilizing this methodology VRR (Voidage
Replacement Ratio) of 1.2-1.4 and reservoir pressure 141.2 Iw µS
∆Pskin=
kh cos α
= µI Rc Rnw Rr …(4)
could be maintained without increasing the water cut in
offset producers.
The skin due to resistance of injection is obtained by

h R R R
Semi Analytical Model For Water Front Tracking S= ….……… (5)
.

For water front tracking a semi analytical model is The equation (2) can be integrated under the assumptions
developed for MO reservoir based on radius of injected that the fluid is homogeneous and incompressible, the
cool water boundary obtained by saturation logs (TDT) at reservoir is vertically confined and uniform in terms of
various points across the formation interval and at various permeability and thickness, the reservoir is homogeneous
time intervals and layer wise cumulative water injection isotropic horizontal and the gravity doesn’t affect the fluid
from production logs on injectors as well as nearby offset flow in the reservoir.
producers, super imposed over seismic cross-sections to
monitor the water front position at real time inside MO
reservoir. The analytical and semi analytical model has Pbhip – Pres] dt = MHWi ……………… (6)
been developed for both DFI (Dump Flood Injectors) and
PWI (Power Water Injectors) separately.
. µ
In case of MO reservoir the semi analytical model along Where MH = [ln( ) -3/4 + S ] and Wi = Iw dt
h cos α
with Hall plot and its derivative function at sand face is
found to be an alternative to pressure transient analysis, The left-hand side of equation (6) gives the total variation
pressure fall off tests, injection tests and tracer survey in reservoir pressure during the corresponding injection
analysis. time, t, in days and the right hand side of equation (6)
describes the volume of cumulative water injection, Wi.
The slope MH increases with increasing radius of
Semi Analytical model description expanding cool injected water front, rf.

The diffusivity equation for radial flow can be written as The radius expanding cool water front is derived in details
in Appendix (A). Before water breakthrough the iso-
μ saturation radius of any water saturation “Swj” is written as:
r …….……. (1)

1,2,4,6
For the semi steady state flow , the solution of .
equation (1) for injection wells can be written as , ,0 ……. (7)
. I µ
Pbhip – Pres = [ln ( ) -3/4 + s] ….……. (2)
After breakthrough the iso-saturation radius at
h
breakthrough can be written as
The variable “s” is the total injection skin factor
IPTC 13361 3

.
, ,0 ……. (8)
12 , 1 2
,

Hence the radius of iso-saturation front with water


The average water saturation “ ” is calculated from saturation S j can be obtained by substituting the values
f versus s curve obtained from the special core of Vp and V’p in to equation (11).
analysis carried out for various layers of MO reservoir. The
equation of tangent to the fw versus Sw curve at the point 1 1 1
Let,   
(f , S ) can be calculated by extending the tangent to
intercept the fw = 1 axis, the point of interception yielding
So,
S s .
1 , 1 , ,0 ,
The equation of tangent to the f versus s curve at the
point (f , S ) can be written as ………… (12)

f f ′ wj Sw fwj f ′ wj Swj …………….. (9) The obtained radius of injected water front from equation
(7), (8) and (12) is then superimposed on the seismic
So at fw=1 Sw sw cross-sections to monitor the water front position at real
time for the MO reservoir. The seismic cross sections
′ S superimposed with water front positions of the south
Sw ′ ……………… (10) sector of MO reservoir including injection wells and offset
producers are detailed in the figure: 3, 4 and 5.
The water saturation Swj at various points across the
formation interval and at various time intervals for MO
reservoir is obtained by saturation logs (TDT logs) in the
injectors as well as at nearby offset producers. Thereby
the Sw is calculated at various points across the formation
interval and at various time intervals for MO reservoir by
using equation (10).

The layer wise cumulative water injection “Wi” for 13


layered MO reservoir is then calculated from the
production log (PLT) carried out at various tome intervals
for injectors based on the injection rate contribution per
layer of the 13 layered MO reservoir. The radius of water
front “rf” per layer is then calculated by using equation (7)
and equation (8).

The radius of iso – saturation zone with water saturation


“Swj” further away from the injection well is predicted by
Figure: 3- Seismic Section of South Sector of MO
the model as follows: By knowing the fractional flow of
Reservoir with water front position.
water f j at a distance “L” from the injection well at time
“t” was observed after the cumulative water Wi(t),    the
same  fractional flow of water f j which will be observed
at a distance “L1” at time “t1” when the cumulative
injection “Wi(t1)”  downstream from “L1” is calculated as
follows:

By applying the material balance

1 1 1

…………. (11)
Figure: 4 – Seismic Sections through injection “well
Where,
A” and offset producers P2 with water front position.
2 2
, ,0 and
4 IPTC 13361

By substituting equation (13) in to equation (6) yields

Pz - P(friction+acceleration) + Ph – Pres ] dt = MH Wi ….. (14)

The left hand side of equation (14) is called the Hall


Integral and is denoted by “HI”.

A modified Hall plot and its Derivative Function plot, an


approach recently introduced are utilized to monitor the
performance of injection “wellA”. As opposed to generating
a single curve, this methodology consists of comparing
and contrasting two curves for obtaining definitive clues.
The Derivative Function goes below the Hall integral curve
during fracturing or strong water breakthrough in nearby
off set producers and rides above it when the plugging
occurs. These two curves trace the same path in matrix-
dominated flow. The derivative curve can be obtained
either analytically or numerically. The analytical derivative
3
function of Hall Plot is derived by B. Izgec and C.S Kabir
Figure: 5 – Seismic Sections through injection “well and is denoted by “DHI”
A” and offset producers P1 with water front position.
. µ
The results from the above mentioned semi analytical DHI = [ln ( ) + S] ..…….. (15)
model predicted the preferential water front movement h
from injectors to offset producers through faults, channels
Numerically the Derivative Function can be simply written
and high permeability layers inside MO reservoir. The
as
preferential water movement in the offset producers is
then confirmed by production log (PLT) and saturation log
(TDT) at various time intervals. The preferential water
movement predicted by the model is also confirmed by the DHI = = ……. (16)
increasing salt concentration in offset producers, where
water cut is found to be zero.

The sequence of events for water breakthrough / water The location of the Dump Flood injection “well A” and it’s
front progression through faults, channels and high nearby injection wells (Dump Flood “well B” & Power
permeability layers inside MO reservoir as predicted by Water injection “well C”) and offset producers P1, P2 and
the model were also interpreted from the Hall Plot, P3 are shown on the figure: 3.
Derivative function plot of the corresponding injector
(Dump Flood Injector as well as Power Water Injector) The injection “well A” was completed in Layer 6 out of 13
which is detailed in subsequent section of this paper. layered MO reservoir, because layers 1-5 were found to
be oil bearing at the time of conversion from oil producer
to Dump Flood Injector (DFI). Further below layer 6, within
layers 7, 8, and 9 a thick tarmat exists as shown in figure:
Dump Flood Injector (DFI) wells 6, so it was decided to open only one layer 6 just below
the existing oil column and above the tarmat. The “well A”
Dump flooding is considered as an alternative to surface started injection from May 2003.
injection, since the required injection rate for MO reservoir
could be maintained by highly productive overlying water Well Completion string using packer with 4 ½” tubing were
bearing Zubair formation. The injection rate for these set from surface to top of Zubair formation to protect
dump flood wells is varying from 30,000 BWPD to 50,000 casings and for remedial work if required. The well
BWPD. PLT surveys are carried out in regular intervals in completion details of the injection “well A” are depicted in
these wells to determine the injection rate and are further figure: 14. Several factors were taken in to account while
converted to daily injection rate by proper extrapolation selecting the completions for the dump flood wells such
techniques. For analyzing the Dump Flood performance, as.
one of the major challenges is the unavailability of
wellhead pressures to calculate the bottom hole injection • The ability to monitor the well performance by
pressure required for Hall plot and Derivative Function
means of Production logging, static bottom hole
analysis. To overcome these difficulties a detailed model
has been prepared (Appendix B) to calculate the sand pressure survey, Saturation log etc.
face bottom hole injection pressure by considering the • Any possible requirement for stopping the Dump
Zubair aquifer pressure. Flood injection from Zubair aquifer formation to
MO formation.
The bottom hole injection pressure are calculated as • Conversion of Dump Flood injection well to power
water injection well in future.
Pbhip = Pz - P(friction+acceleration)+ Ph …………….. (13)
IPTC 13361 5

• Protecting the tubing and 9 5/8” casing from cut started to increase sharply (~ 65%), and this event is
corrosion and erosion. clearly captured by Hall plot and Derivative Function plot
• The ability to perform the remedial workovers in between point D, Point E and point F.
either of the formations to squeeze the high
Point E & F:- In the time period of circle “E” the workover
permeability layers.
on nearby injection “well B” was carried out to reduce the
Dump Flood Injection rate and the preferential water
In the beginning the injection rate of “well A” was 12000 movement from injection “well A” was again established
BWPD. After 4 months of injection (October 2003), the through the channels and faults. Finally the water cut in
injection rate became 25000 BWPD and the water cut in the offset producers P2 & P3 has reached to 96%. The
the nearby offset producers P2, and P3 started increasing water cut in the offset producer P1 has reached to 65%.
sharply through layer 5 and layer 6 as predicted by the
semi analytical model. The injection rate versus time plot
is detailed in figure: 10.The well performance of offset
producers P1, P2 and P3 are detailed in figure: 11.

Figure: 7 display the performance of an injector “well A” in


a MO reservoir. The performance of DFI “well A” was
analyzed through the Hall plot and Derivative Function of
Hall Plot at sand face. The various events were captured
and are represented by circles A, B, C, D, E and F in the
figure: 7.

Point A & B :- Initially the DFI “well A” was injecting like


an ideal injector as the Derivative Function and Hall plot
are superimposing on each other. Soon after the 4-5
months of injection the Derivative Function falling sharply
indicating the fracture has been created downhole and
soon after the water breakthrough in the offset producers
P2 & P3 was observed. Also the ESP (Electrical
Submersible Pump) completion was installed on offset
producer P2 & P3 to lift the well fluid having high water
cut. Soon after the installation of ESP the water cut started
to increase sharply (~ 60%), and this event is clearly
captured by Hall plot and Derivative Function plot between Figure: 7 – Hall Plot and Derivative Function Plot of
point A and Point B. Injection “Well A”

Point B & C :- In the time period between point B & C,


the workover on offset producers P2 and P3 were Therefore all the sequence of events for water
executed, which is clearly captured by increased slope of breakthrough / water front progression through faults,
derivative function plot and Hall Plot. channels and high permeability layers inside MO reservoir
as predicted by the model is totally in agreement between
Point C :- In the time period of circle “C” the injection rate Hall Plot, Derivative Function plot of the corresponding
of “well A” has increased drastically and the water injector and well performance of nearby offset producers.
preferentially started to flowing through the channels as
interpreted by high resolution seismic and confirmed by Based on the water conformance model, the DFI wells
semi analytical model in figure:3 . The preferential water “well A” and “well B” were suspended to control the water
movement in producer P2 is shown in figure: 12. front progression through faults, channels and high
permeability layers inside MO reservoir. These wells are
Point D: - In the time period of circle “D” the nearby decided to complete with power injector with perforations
Dump Flood injector “well B” was commissioned and in the lower layers below the Tarmat to provide the
started injecting at very high injection rate (40,000 BWPD pressure support from bottom.
to 60,000 BWPD). The slope of the Hall Plot and
Derivative function plot increased sharply indicating both Lessons Learnt during the Dump Flood Water
the injection wells are in pressure communication Injection
(Interference) through a common channel as interpreted 1. During Dump Flood Injection there was no control on
by high resolution seismic and confirmed by semi injection rate. When the reservoir pressure was low,
analytical model figure: 3. Also due to resistance of flow DFI rate was very high (~ 40,000 – 50, 000 BWPD)
created by nearby injection “well B”, the water injection resulted in severe erosion & corrosion.
from injection “well A” started taking the another
preferential path towards the offset producer P1 and the 2. The VRR cannot be maintained to 1.2.
water cut in P1 started to increase sharply as detailed in 3. Optimum reservoir management was difficult.
the well performance of P1 indicated in figure :11. Also 4. Smart Dump Flood Injectors were drilled to control the
the ESP (Electrical Submersible Pump) completion was injection rate from surface without well intervention.
installed on offset producer P1 to lift the well fluid having
high water cut. Soon after the installation of ESP the water
6 IPTC 13361

BWPD to 43,000 BWPD. Layer 3 and layer 5 are very high


Power Water Injector (PWI) wells permeability layers confirmed by the core plug
permeability. Almost 60% of the injection was going
Before implementing the field scale pressure maintenance through the super permeability layer 5 as confirmed by the
by peripheral water injection, pilot Power Water Injection Production logging carried out at various time intervals.
project was initiated in 1986. Initially the injection was The injection water moving very fast through layer 5 and
almost at negative pressure, due to the lower reservoir quick water breakthrough was observed in the nearby
pressure of MO reservoir as shown in figure: 2. The offset producers.
surface injection pressure gradually rose to 1500 psi at the
injection rate of 17000 BWPD due to the increase in MO The well was converted from dump flood injector to power
reservoir pressure. water injector in October 2003 to stop the very high Dump
Flood injection rate. A thick Tarmat band was seen in the
The Power Water Injectors were drilled / converted from layers 6 to 8. During the workover time the lower layers
DFI in field scale in 1998. The Minagish water injection from layer 10 to layer 12 were perforated in addition to
plant started operating from 2002 and the full- fledged PWI upper layer 1-5, which was already perforated during the
injection has started from the beginning of 2003 as shown Dump Flood injection campaign. The permeability of layer
in figure: 2. 10 -12 were comparable to the permeability of layers 1-5.

There are basically two types of Powered Water Injectors Well Completion string using packer with 5 ½” X 4 ½”
are present in the Minagish Oolite reservoir viz. effluent douline tubing was set from surface to MO formation to
water injectors and source water injectors. The source protect casings and for remedial work if required. The well
water is produced from the Zubair formation from source completion details of the injection “well C” as a power
water wells whereas the effluent water is produced from water injector are depicted in figure: 14. Several factors
the effluent treatment plant. The water injection were taken in to account while selecting the completions
parameters of produced water adjusted and tested in such as.
laboratory on regular intervals to become compatible with
formation water to avoid any adverse effect inside the • The ability to monitor the well performance by
reservoir. means of Production logging, static bottom hole
pressure survey, Saturation log etc.
The PLT and Static bottomhole surveys have been carried • Protecting the tubing and casing from corrosion
out in these wells periodically to monitor the water and erosion.
injection rate across the sand face in various formation
layers. Due to these PWI’s the reservoir pressure has • The ability to perform the remedial workovers in
increased and thereby the production from the field has either of the formations to squeeze the high
also increased significantly. The water cut in the nearby permeability layers.
off-set producers has also increased sharply due to these
wells.
Figure: 8 display the performance of “well C” in a MO
For analyzing the PWI well performance by Hall Plot and reservoir. The performance of injection “well C” was
Derivative Function plot at sand face, the bottomhole analyzed through the Hall plot and Derivative Function of
injection pressure based on wellhead pressure were Hall Plot at sand face. The various events were captured
calculated on real time by a detailed friction & acceleration and are represented by circles A, B, C, and D in the
pressure drop model (Appendix B) developed internally figure: 8.
within the company.
Point A : - Initially the injection “well C” was injecting like
The bottomhole injection pressure are calculated as an ideal Dump Flood Injector as the Derivative Function
and Hall plot are superimposing on each other as shown
Pbhip = Pw - P(friction+acceleration) + Ph ………… (17) in figure : 8. After about 1 year of injection the Derivative
Function felled below the Hall Integral indicating the water
By substituting equation (17) in to equation (6) yields breakthrough in the offset producer P4 as shown in figure
:8. The injection rate versus time plot is detailed in figure:
Pw - P(friction+acceleration) + Ph – Pres ] dt = MH Wi …. (18) 10. The detailed well performance plot for producer P4 is
presented in figure: 11. However the salient points about
the well performance of offset producer during the Dump
Numerically the Derivative Function can be obtained by Flood injection of “well C’ are summarized as follows.
using equation (16)
• The increase in salt concentration was seen from
The power water injection “well C” and it’s near by mid 2000 and water breakthrough has started in
injection wells (DFI “well A” & DFI “well B”) and offset layer 5 and layer 6 as predicted by the semi
producers P4 and P5 are shown on the figure: 3. analytical model for water front tracking.
• The water cut started to increase sharply in Aug-
The injection “well C” was drilled in MO reservoir as an Sep 2003 as predicted by the semi analytical
injector in April 1999 and was completed as a Dump Flood model for water front tracking and is confirmed by
injector well within layers 1,2,3,4, and 5 above the Tarmat.
The dump flood injection rate in this well was from 20,000
IPTC 13361 7

Production logging and saturation logs ran at permeability layers inside MO reservoir. These wells are
various time intervals. decided to complete in the lower layers below the Tarmat
• The ESP (Electrical Submersible Pump) was to provide the pressure support from bottom whereby
controlling the water movement through high permeability
installed in July 2003 to lift the well fluid having
layers.
high water cut.
• Water shut off jobs were carried out in February VRR monitoring
2008 by squeezing the watered out layers, still
the water breakthrough continued from layer 5 In order to confirm the excellent and uniform pressure
and layer 6. support from water injection, the VRR (Voidage
replacement ratio) is calculated and monitored on real
Point B :- Point B represents the workover job carried on time for each sector of MO reservoir.
Injection “well C” to convert from Dump Flood injection
well to Power Water Injection well. The workover With the production from the reservoir, the pressure
campaign was from July 2002 to October 2003, which is depletes and leads to expansion of reservoir fluid and
clearly captured in the figure :8. rock. As water injection continues to occupy the voids,

Between Point B & C :- During the workover on Injection


“well C” the lower layers were additionally perforated as
detailed above. The lower layers have the similar
permeability profile as compared to upper layers, so the
injection contribution to lower layers increased. So the
Derivative Function plot starts falling down. Also the water
cut in offset producer P1 was stagnant as shown in figure:
11.

Between Point C & D :- Due to the good injection


support from the Injection “well C” and other nearby
injectors the reservoir pressure of MO has increased
sharply causing the resistance to injection. Therefore the
slope of Hall Plot as well as Derivative Function Plot has
increased strictly.

Well Performance of offset producer P5

The detailed well performance plot for producer P5 is


presented in figure: 11. However the salient points about
the well performance of offset producer during the power
water injection of “well C’ are summarized as follows.
Figure: 8 – Hall Plot and Derivative Function Plot of
Injection “Well C”
• The increase in salt concentration was seen from
February – March 2008 and water breakthrough
has started in layer 5 and layer 6 as predicted by
there is a gradual increase in average reservoir pressure
the semi analytical model for water front tracking.
and cumulative VRR reaches unity and will lead to re-
• The water cut started to increase sharply in Aug- pressurization of the reservoir to the original reservoir
Sep 2008 as predicted by the semi analytical pressure condition. For best reservoir management it is
model for water front tracking and is confirmed by always recommended to keep the VRR about 1.2 and
Production logging and saturation logs ran at reservoir pressure above the bubble point pressure.
various time intervals.
The VRR for the MO reservoir is calculated based on the
analogies detailed below.
Therefore all the sequence of events for water
breakthrough / water front progression through high
permeability layers inside MO reservoir as predicted by I R V
the model is totally in agreement between Hall Plot, VRR = …….. (19)
P R V
Derivative function plot of the corresponding injection
“well C” and well performance of nearby offset producers The instantaneous VRR is calculated as:
P4 and P5. The water front progression in producer P4
and P5 are shown in figure: 13. B
Instantaneous VRR =
B B R B
Based on the water conformance model, the injection
“wells C” is scheduled for workover to squeeze the high …………. (20)
permeability layers i.e. layer 3 and layer 5. In order to
control the water front progression through high The VRR versus change in reservoir pressure were
8 IPTC 13361

plotted for Minagish Oolite reservoir as shown in figure: 9 3.0 The methodology has proven to be the best tool for
to understand the effect of VRR on pressure. As can monitoring the performance of both PWI and DFI
happen with injection, the water may be lost in some thief wells in Minagish Oolite reservoir.
zone or to the aquifer.
4.0 Based on the water conformance modeling, the
correct decisions regarding the various workover
related to water injectors as well as producers were
taken to control the injection water movement through
faults, channels and high permeability layers inside
MO reservoir which in turn resulted in uniform
pressure maintenance and reduction in water cut on
producers.
5.0 The unswept by passed oil regions behind the
Figure: 9 – Change in reservoir pressure versus injectors as well as between various producers and
instantaneous VRR. injectors were defined by using semi analytical
models.
For proper reservoir pressure maintenance the VRR is 6.0 New producing well locations as well as side tracking
kept at about 1.2 for each part of the MO reservoir by the original producing wells are planned to recover
controlling the injection rate of PWI.
the by passed oil behind the injector and in between
producers & injectors.
Way Forward 7.0 Based on this study the future well locations to inject
below the Tarmat zone and outside the Tarmat band
By reviewing the well performance analysis of PWI and will be established for better sweep efficiency and
DFI wells, it was decided that all the future water injectors proper reservoir management.
will be Powered water injectors suitable to inject both
8.0 VRR (Voidage replacement ratio) will be monitored
source water and effluent injectors at controlled rate in
various layers of 13 layered MO reservoir. Based on the periodically for Minagish Oolite reservoir for proper
total field’s production performance predictions, enough voidage replacement by injection water in each sector
effluent will be produced to maintain the future water of Minagish Oolite reservoir.
injection requirements.

Some Smart Dump flood injectors (SDFI) will be drilled Acknowledgement


and completed as a contingency to PWI’s if the MNWIP is
With kind regards, authors would like to thank West
not in operations.
Kuwait field development management for providing the
excellent support and cooperation to produce the work
The effect on productivity, pressure maintained and sweep described in this paper. The special thank goes to the field
efficiency will be analyzed by resuming the injection below development group of West Kuwait Minagish field for their
the Tarmat zone. proper cooperation in useful data gathering and model
preparation.
The water front tracking and water conformance modeling
At last but not the least authors would like to thank the
based on semi analytical model combined with Hall Plot
Kuwait Oil company (KOC) for granting the permission to
analysis and its derivative analysis at sand face shall be
publish this paper and facilitating all necessary
continued to carried out for total MO reservoir for
requirements to prepare the paper.
achieving the excellent pressure maintenance whereby
reducing the water cut in offset producers. This will assist
in best reservoir management practices for enhancing the References
ultimate oil recovery from MO reservoir.
1.0 Hall H.N. 1963. How to Analyze Water Flood Injection
Conclusions Performance. World Oil (October): 128-130.
2.0 Yeh, N.S and Agarwal, R.G. 1989. Pressure Transient
1.0 In case of MO reservoir the semi analytical model Analysis of Injection Wells in Reservoirs with Multiple
along with Hall plot and its derivative function at sand Fluid Banks. Paper SPE 19775 presented at the SPE
face is found to be an alternative to pressure transient Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 8-11
analysis, pressure fall off tests, injection tests and October San Antonio, TX.
tracer survey analysis used for water front tracking 3.0 B. Izgec, SPE (Chevron ETC / Texas A & M
and water injection conformance. University) C.S. Kabir, SPE (Chevron ETC). Real –
Time Performance Analysis of Water Injection Wells.
2.0 The high cost of conducting the pressure transient Paper SPE 109876 presented at the SPE Annual
analysis, pressure fall off tests, injection tests and Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
tracer survey analysis were eliminated. Anaheim, California U.S.A., 11-14 Nov 2007.
IPTC 13361 9

4.0 D.B. Silin, SPE, R. Holtzman, & T.W. Patzek, SPE, U. DFI Dump Flood Injection
of California- Berkeyley, J.L. Brink SPE, M.L. Minner, DHI Derivative oh Hall Integral, psi * Day
Chevron, North America E & P Company. Paper SPE
95685 presented at the SPE Annual Technical fw Fractional flow of water
Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas f’w The first order derivative of fw versus sw curve.
U.S.A., 9-12 October 2005. h Formation thickness, ft
5.0 Serap Karan, N.V. Turkse Shell, Istanbul. KAYAKOY HI Hall Integral, psi * Day
th
Field Water Injection Performance. Presented at 8 Iw Water injection rate, STB / Day
Petroleum Congress of Turkey Turkish Association of
Petroleum Geologist UCTEA chamber of Petroleum K permeability, md
Engineers held in April 1990. MH Slop of Hall Integral
6.0 I. Metin Mihcakan, Elif I. Altinay, and Ibrahim Kasap. MO Minagish Oolite
The Hall Plot Analysis of a Water Injection Test OOIP Original Oil In Place
Affected by Geothermal Reservoir Response. Pbhip Bottomhole Injection pressure, psi
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2005,
Antalya, Turkey 24-29 April 2005. Pfriction Frictional pressure drop, psi
P friction acceleration Sum of frictional and acceleration
7.0 Mukhul M. Sharma, SPE Shutong Pang, the
University of Texas Austin, Kjell Erik Wennberg, SPE, pressure drop, psi
IKU, Petroleum Research, Lee Morganthaler, SPE, Ph Hydrostatic pressure, psi
Shell Oil Company. Paper SPE 38180 presented at PLT production logging
the Europian Formation Damage Conference held in
Hague, The Netherlands, 2-3 June 1997.
Pres Reservoir Pressure, psi
PWI Power Water Injector
8.0 B.B. Singh, SPE, Kuwait Oil Company, Sulaiman
Malek, SPE, Kuwait Oil Company, Eissa Al-Safran,
Pz Reservoir pressure of Zubair aquifer, psi
SPE, Kuwait Oil Company. Paper SPE qo Oil production rate, STB / Day
37787presented at the Middle East Oil show held in qg Gas production rate, scf / Day
Bahrain, California, 15-18 March 1997.
Rs Solution GOR, scf / STB
9.0 Hamad Al-Ajmi, Kuwait Oil Company, Andrew C. re Drainage radius ,ft
Brayshaw and Anthony G. Barwise, BP Kuwait, and
rw Wellbore radius ,ft
Ram S. Gaur, Kuwait Oil Company. Paper presented
at the 3rd Middle East Geosciences Conference and Radius of expanding cool injected water front ,ft
Exhibition, Geo, 98 Bahrain, 20-22 April, 1998. Rt Total resistance to injection,
10.0 Haaland, SE (1983). "Simple and Explicit Formulas Rc Flow resistance of external filter cake,
for the Friction Factor in Turbulent Flow". Trans. Rnw Resistance due to formation damage in radius ,
ASIVIE, J. of Fluids Engineering 103 (5): 89–90.
11.0 Faruk Civan (University of Oklahoma), Rr Resistance due to non damaged formation
“Reservoir Formation Damage Fundamentals, beyond radius rf,
Modeling, Assessment and Mitigation” S Total skin
12.0 Marcel Latil (Reservoir Engineering Research Swc Connet water saturation
Unit, France Paris), “Enhanced Oil Recovery” Swj water saturation at any time after water
13.0 WILLIAM C. LYONS, PH.D., EDITOR (Gulf
injection.
Professional Publishing) “Standard Hand Book
of Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering, Average water saturation at any time after water
injection.
Nomenclature TDT Thermal Neutron Decay Time Log
μ Viscosity , cp
B Formation Volume Factor, RB / STB Ø porosity
Bw Water Formation Volume Factor, RB / STB VRR Voidage replacement ratio.
Bo Oil Formation Volume Factor, RB / STB Wi Cumulative water injection, STB
Bg Gas Formation Volume Factor, STB / scf WOR water oil ratio
C Total system compressibility, 1/psi α Dip angle of the Layer
10 IPTC 13361

Appendix A | ….…(A4)

Hence the equation of velocity of iso – saturation line at


the water saturation of “swj” can be written as

r+dr ……. (A5)


|
r rw

Here, is the slop of the f versus s curve


obtained from the special core analysis carried out for
various layers of MO reservoir.

……. (A6)

The equation of tangent to the fw versus Sw curve at the


point (f , S ) can be calculated by extending the tangent
to intercept the fw = 1 axis, the point of interception
yielding S s .
At a distance “r” from the wellbore the cross-sectional area After integration of equitation (A5), becomes
offered to the fluids is 2 .
Where, sin ; and “α” is the angle of dip for bedding , ,0 ……. (A7)
plane
The equation of continuity between “r” and “r+dr” can be
written as12 Left hand side of equation (A7 ) represents the pore
volume traversed by iso-saturation line at any time “t”.

Hence the radius of the iso-saturation line before


……. (A1) breakthrough saturation in field units can be written as

Where 1
5.615
For a two phase flow in an inclined bed in which gravity , ,0
opposes the sweep the fractional flow “fw” 13 of the
displacing fluid water is written as:
……….. (A8)

At the breakthrough saturation,
……. (A2)

……. (A9)
Now assuming,

Hence the radius of breakthrough front can be


2 ……. (A3) written as:

After re arranging the variables of the equation (A1) can .


be written as
, ,0 ….. (A10)
IPTC 13361 11

Appendix B For Re > 4000, Haalands’s equation10 is used to calculate


the friction factor.
A detailed Excel spread sheet based model was prepared
⁄D .
to calculate the friction pressure drop through the 4Log10 Log10 A4 ……. (B5)
. R
completions string on daily basis based on the daily
injection rate and wellhead pressure data recorded in the
field.

.

. 4 7.149/Re] ^0.8981 ……. (B6)
.
∆P = ……. (B1)
D

∆P = frictional pressure drop, psi /100feet ; Where: e = absolute pipe roughness, ft


f = Moody frictional factor ;
Iw = Water injection rate, STB / Day ; For 2000 < Re > 4000, the Moody friction factor was
Sl = Injection Water specific gravity.; Di = Pipe Inside
estimated by linear interpolation between the values at Re
diameter, inches
= 2000 and Re = 4000.
So, the Pfriction = ∆P * ( ) ……. (B2)

Where, L = Length of pipe, ft


The Moody friction factor, depends upon the Reynolds
number “Re”

f= ; for Laminar flow if Re < 2000 ……. (B3)

Where

.
Re = ……. (B4)
µD

List of Figures

Figure: 1 – West Kuwait Fields location map Figure: 2 – MO Reservoir Pressure History
12 IPTC 13361

Performance of
Performance of
Injection “Well A”
Injection “Well C”

Figure: 6 – Layer 6 and Tarmat location for DFI


“wellA” Figure: 12 – Water front progression history for P2

Figure: 10 – Well Performance of Injection “Well A” and Injection “Well C”


IPTC 13361 13

Well Performance –
Well Performance – off set producer P3
off set producer P2

Well Performance – Well Performance –


off set producer P3 off set producer P4

Well Performance –
Well Performance –
off set producer P5
off set producer P1

Figure: 11 – Well Performance of offset producers


14 IPTC 13361

Figure: 13 – Water front progression from Injection “well C” towards offset producers P4 & P5

Figure: 14 – Well Schematics of Injection “Well A” and Injection “Well C”

You might also like