SPE-178368-MS

Use of Water Injection Surveillance as an Effective Reservoir Management

Tool
Sunmonu Rasak Mayowa, Shokoya Yewande, Okwudiafor Paul, and Jabar Sheriff, Addax Petroleum
Development Nigeria Limited

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 4 – 6 August 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Water injection is aimed at maintaining the reservoir pressure so as to optimize oil recovery. An essential
key to a successful water injection project is a comprehensive surveillance process which provides for
effective reservoir management.
After detailed preliminary studies and upon implementation, many water injection or water flood
projects are known to produce water much earlier than originally anticipated or its full benefit not being
harnessed due to out of zone injection as a result of subsurface heterogeneities. Thus, it is important that
water injection is managed effectively to ensure its full potential is realised.
In this work, a multilevel and integrated system of surveillance is established to enable proper
monitoring of a water injection project through the use of several classical diagnostic plots. The diagnostic
tools include the popular VRR plot, Hall plot, Chan plot and ABC plot. The use of grid map plot is also
employed to track the displacement and fluid movement within the reservoir.
Two Niger Delta fields under Water Injection are tested with this model and the results presented. The
tool proved reliable in identifying bottlenecks within the system, understanding reservoir performance,
identifying infill drilling opportunities and improving ultimate oil recovery.
In the recent wake of dwindling oil prices, it becomes incumbent on reservoir engineers to seek
methods of optimizing production at minimal cost. This paper illustrates how practical application of good
surveillance practise can be used as an effective tool in deriving maximum benefit from a water injection
project.

Introduction
It has been discovered that production by primary recovery recovers only about one-third of the initial oil
in place and secondary recovery through pressure maintenance such as water injection or gas injection
pushes this recovery to about two-third. To derive maximum benefit from any secondary recovery
scheme, there is need for proper surveillance and management of the process. Industry experts recommend
the following valuable principles for an effective water injection (M. Terrado, S. Yudono and G. Thakur,
2007):
2 SPE-178368-MS

y The key ingredients of any surveillance program are planning and accurate data collection.
y To understand reservoir flows and reduce non uniqueness in interpretations, it is crucial to
implement a multilevel surveillance effort.
y A single technique in isolation is not generally indicative because different parameters can cause
similar plot signatures.
y Valuable insights into the performance of the water injection can be gained from individual well
plots such as Hall plots.
y Surveillance techniques should always be a precursor to in-depth studies, including numerical
simulation.
y Controlled water injection requires time and technical (engineering and geological) efforts during
the life of the project.
In this paper, focus is on a concession with two fields undergoing water injection. Classical diagnostic
plots are utilised in monitoring the effectiveness of the process, identify bottlenecks and problem wells as
well as opportunities for infill drilling. A multi-level approach was adopted from facilities to reservoir and
down to the well level to evaluate the performance of the process. Results from the application of these
techniques led to the identification of new infill opportunities in one of these fields resulting in improved
ultimate oil recovery while identifying facilities constraint as an impediment in the other.

Field History
The A-Field is located offshore Niger Delta in water depths of approximately 32ft near the international
border between Nigeria and Cameroon. It is a tilted horst structure bounded to the North by a fault and
dip closure to the south. The field was discovered in 1986 with two reservoirs; A-1 and A-2 identified.
Both reservoirs are hydraulically independent with each unit having its own hydrocarbon fluid contacts
and vertically stacked with the A-2 reservoir being the deepest. Production started from the A-1 reservoir
in 2006 and in 2007 from the A-2 reservoir. With the A-Field still undergoing development, both the A-1
and A-2 reservoir pressures exhibited declining trends since start of production due to the weak to
moderate aquifer strength in the field. Results from studies done suggest that two water injectors were
needed to provide optimal pressure support to all current and planned producers. To offset the reduction
in reservoir pressure and maintain commercial well offtake rates, water injection wells; W-1 and W-2
were drilled to ensure pressure support is provided. Both wells were completed as dual string injectors and
widely spaced to distribute water across the reservoirs assuming no compartmentalisation due to internal
faulting. Water Injection into both reservoirs started in September, 2013 Figure 1 is a base map of the
A-Field showing the well trajectories, field boundary and faults.
SPE-178368-MS 3

Figure 1—Base Map for the A-Field showing boundary, faults and wells

The B-Field, also located in the same concession as the A-Field, is geologically characterized by a low
relief anticline against a fault and compartmentalized by a number of north trending antithetic faults. It
was discovered in 1986 with two dynamically independent reservoirs, B-1 and B-2 – each containing
different blocks – stacked vertically respectively. Field production began from the B-2 reservoir in 2002
and in 2003 from the B-1 reservoir. The field is characterized by an initial gas cap and a weak aquifer as
its drive mechanism and as expected, reservoir pressures fell rapidly in the early years of production.
Consequent on the water injection studies carried out, two water injectors (W-3 and W-4) were identified
and drilled to inject water for pressure maintenance and its attendant benefits. Thus, water injection began
in April 2011 in the B-1 reservoir and one month after in the B-2. Figure 2 shows a base map of the field
showing the wells location and faults within the field boundary. Field and reservoir properties for both
fields are detailed in Table 1.
4 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 2—Base Map for the B-Field showing boundary, faults and wells

Table 1—Field Overview

FIELD OVERVIEW

Field Name A B

Country Nigeria Nigeria

Onshore Offshore Offshore Offshore
Geologic Description Sandstone Sandstone
Natural Drive Mechanism Combination Gas cap ⫹ Weak aquifer
Permeability, md A-l(2489), A-2(2849) B-1(700), B-2(1500)
Porosity, % A-l(34.2), A-2(34.6) B-l(26), B-2(28)
Oil Gravity, °API A-l(23.6), A-2(20.2) B-l(28), B-2(33)
Oil Viscosity, cp A-l(8.405), A-2(23.62) B-l(0.5), B-2(0.5)
Initial Reservoir Pressure. Psi A-1(1430), A-2(1569) B-l(2500), B-2(2700)
Initial Solution GOR (scf’stb) A-1(222), A-2(118) B-l(524), B-2(484)
Original Oil m Place (MMBBL) A-1(89.2), A-2(57.1) B-l(58), B-2(92)
Start of Production A-l(2006), A-2(2007) B-l(2003), B-2(2002)
Start of Water Injection A-1(2013), A-2(2013) B-1(2011), B-2(2011)
Drilled Wells 24 12
Current Production Data
Date Dec. 2014 Dec. 2014
Oil Rate. BOPD A-l(8268), A-2(3504) B-1(2459), B-2(1653)
Cumulative Oil Production (MMBBL) A-l(7.6), A-2(4.63) B-1(7.7), B-2(28.1)
Required Water Injection Rate. MBBLS/DAY A-1(25), A2(25) B-1(11), B-2(11)
Cumulative Water Injected (MMBBLS) A-l(7.8), A-2(5.96) B-1(20.9), B-2(19)
Current Producers A-l(12), A-2 (6) B-l(3), B-2(2)
Injectors A-l(2), A-2(2) B-1(1), B-2(1)
SPE-178368-MS 5

The source of water injection for both fields is sea water, processed on an FPSO. Power water injectors
located on the FPSO transfer water via a pipeline for re-distribution to the fields undergoing water
injection. With commencement of water injection in both Fields, it became necessary to monitor its
effectiveness to ensure that its benefits is fully realised and to identify and mitigate any bottlenecks.

Methodology

A multilevel process was adopted and utilising several diagnostic plots, a comprehensive surveillance
process was developed.

Facility
Sea water, processed on an FPSO, provides water for injection into four different field‘s in the concession.
The Power Water Injector pumps have a design rate of 100,000bwpd. However, due to aging and other
mechanical constraints on the pumps, delivery volume has been within 70000bwpd to 80000bwpd. This
shortfall, poses a challenge to the success of water injection in the fields as the required volumes of water
in the different fields exceed the pumps’s current delivery capacity. The available volume is therefore
rationed among the different fields. An examination of total liquid production and maximum facilities
capacity versus voidage replacement ration as suggested by Terrado and others (2006) helps to understand
the following:
– A flat liquid production could be suggestive of facilities constraint
– Increase in total liquid production could be as a result of new wells being drilled or due to
production optimization
– Establishing direct relationship between voidage replacement raio (VRR) and liquid production

VRR Plot
The VRR plot gives an indication of the ratio of what is injected into the reservoir to what is withdrawn
from it. It gives an idea whether enough water is being injected and is available in the field (M. Terrado,
S. Yudono and G. Thakur, 2007). Figures 3 & 4 shows the VRR plot for the two reservoirs in the A-Field.
When monthly VRR is greater than 1 and reservoir pressure is not increasing, out-of-zone injection, loss
from the target zone or severe thieving should be suspected. When monthly VRR is less than 1 and
reservoir pressure is not decreasing, influx of fluids should be suspected (M. Terrado, S. Yudono and G.
Thakur, 2007) e.g. aquifer influx.
6 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 3—VRR & Oil Rate Plot vs Time for the A-1 Reservoir

Figure 4 —VRR & Oil Rate Plot vs Time for the A-2 Reservoir
SPE-178368-MS 7

Water injection in the A-Field started in September, 2013. Monthly VRR’s of less than 1 was observed
for both reservoirs with gentle increase in reservoir pressure (Figures 5 & 6). This behaviour can be
attributed to the fact that water injection commenced just after about 7 years of production with sufficient
volume of water yet to be injected into the reservoirs. The Offtake and Intake plot (Figures 7 & 8) are
useful plots that can be used to ascertain this. Superimposing the cumulative voidage and cumulative
water injected on the offtake and intake plot gives a clearer picture (Figures 7 & 8). Although from the
commencement of water injection into the reservoirs, it can be seen that the intake rates defined as the
reservoir volume of injected fluid into the reservoir exceeds the total volume of fluids withdrawn from the
reservoir defined as offtake rates, at later times, the offtake rate exceeds the intake rates. In both reservoirs,
new wells were drilled between 2013 and 2014 that increased the reservoir’s production rate while the
volume of water injected into the reservoirs declined resulting from pump performance constraint. Thus,
the required injection rates into the respective reservoirs could not be met. The cumulative voidage and
cumulative water injected plot shows that a cumulative voidage replacement ratio of 1 is yet to be attained
in the field as the total voidage created as a result of eight years of production far exceeds the cumulative
volume of water injected into the reservoir within the period water injection started. Establishing a direct
relationship between VRR and oil production for this field was difficult as the field was still undergoing
development with new infill wells being drilled thus, the requirement to use other diagnostic plots to
further evaluate the effectiveness of water injection in the field.

Figure 5—Pressure & VRR Plot vs Time for the A-1 Reservoir
8 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 6 —Pressure & VRR Plot vs Time for the A-2 Reservoir

Figure 7—Cumulative Voidage & Cumulative Injection Plot vs Time for the A-1 Reservoir
SPE-178368-MS 9

Figure 8 —Cumulative Voidage & Cumulative Injection Plot vs Time for the A-2 Reservoir

Water injection began in 2011 in the B field – about eight years post production. Thus, there was a
move to rapidly arrest the pressure decline. This led to initial high VRR ratios up to about 16 times the
reservoir voidage for the B-1 reservoir as shown in Figures 9 & 10, subsequent upon which VRR’s of
above 1 was sustained. Consequently, a trend of increased oil rate which steadies out after a while post
commencement of water injection was observed. It is worthy to note here that during this period, no new
well was drilled in both reservoirs, thus, the increase in oil rate could be confidently said to be as a result
of water injection. By the time water injection commenced in the B-Field, only six wells were still
producing as the other wells were shut in either due to high water cut or high GOR. Post commencement
of water injection in the B-2 reservoir, oil production ramped up and then became steady. Even with VRRs
sustained at about 1, a gentle decline is observed which could be attributed to natural decline of the wells.
Though a direct relationship between VRR and oil production cannot be inferred from the plots for both
reservoirs, there is an overall attendant gain in oil production as a result of water injection.
10 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 9 —VRR & Oil Rate Plot vs Time for the B-1 Reservoir

Figure 10 —VRR & Oil Rate Plot vs Time for the B-2 Reservoir
SPE-178368-MS 11

The Offtake and Intake Plot (Figures 11 & 12) shows the volume of water injected into the reservoirs
vis-à -vis the voidage created. After commencement of water injection, a reduction in the offtake is
noticed, which could be attributed to a decline in the wells production performance. As injection
progressed, the intake exceeded the offtake in substantial amount and a reversal in the reservoir pressure
decline is noticed shortly after commencement of water injection showing the fill up period of the
reservoir and indicating that impact of water injection is being felt in the reservoirs. During this period
of pressure increase, a steady oil rate from the reservoir is experienced after which oil rates ramped up as
the reservoir pressures became almost steady as shown in Figure 13 for the B-1 reservoir. It took a longer
period from the start of water injection for the B-2 reservoir to fill up, probably because there was
relatively a lot more voidage to be occupied (Figure 14). Till the time of this study, only about 27% of
the voidage has been replaced in the B-1 reservoir and about 14% in the B-2. A cumulative VRR of 1 is
yet to be attained in both reservoirs as the total voidage from the reservoir exceeds the total water injected
thus far.

Figure 11—Cumulative Voidage & Cumulative Injection Plot vs Time for the B-1 Reservoir
12 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 12—Cumulative Voidage & Cumulative Injection Plot vs Time for the B-2 Reservoir

Figure 13—Pressure & VRR Plot vs Time for the B-1 Reservoir
SPE-178368-MS 13

Figure 14 —Pressure & VRR Plot vs Time for the B-2 Reservoir

Mapping
Time lapse maps of GOR, Water cut and bottom hole pressures are useful tools that can be used to monitor
the effectiveness of a water injection project (M. Terrado, S. Yudono and G. Thakur, 2007). Examining
time lapse maps provides a qualitative method for assessing the impact of water injection in a field. With
water injection, a repressurization of the system is expected and this would lead to resaturation of the gas
cap with oil. For a field under water injection, the producing gas oil ratio should approach the initial
solution gas-oil-ratio with a corresponding increase in water cut.
Areas with low water cut (⬍70%), producing GOR above dissolved gas-oil ratio and low bottom hole
pressures are indicative of areas not benefitting from pressure maintenance. These areas should be
assigned high priority by increasing the injection rates, drilling new injectors or converting shut-in wells
to injectors (M. Terrado, S. Yudono and G. Thakur, 2007). While areas with high water cut (⬎95%),
producing GOR similar to the initial solution gas-oil ratio and high bottom hole pressures are candidates
for cutting back on water injection volume especially if water is not available in sufficient quantity.
Figures 15 & 16 are the time lapse map of GOR and water cut for the A Field. Although, the producing
GOR values are still higher than the initial solution gas-oil-ratio, wells to the east show a lower GOR value
compared to wells in the west, suggesting that these wells respond better or feel the impact of the water
injection more than the wells in the west. With the time lapse map for water cut, it was discovered that
wells in the east showed higher values of water cut compared to wells in the west substantiating the earlier
inference with the GOR time lapse. Overall, it can be said that the impact of pressure maintenance in A
Field is yet to be felt in the field as the GOR values still exceeds the initial solution gas oil ratio and the
water cut values are still below 40%.
14 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 15—GOR Grid Map for the A Field

Figure 16 —Water Cut Grid Map for the A Field

SPE-178368-MS 15

Examining time lapse map for GOR and water cut in Figures 17 & 18 for the B field reveals that the
area is producing with low GOR and water cut, with wells on the eastern and northern flank of the field
exhibiting higher water cut compared to other wells. The GOR distribution shows low signatures around
the wells suggesting resaturation due to pressure maintenance while the low water cut values suggests that
there are still gains to be harnessed from water injection. Information from the GOR time lapse map and
the pressure versus VRR plot with further subsurface study has led to the identification of infill well
opportunities in the B-Field.

Figure 17—GOR Grid Map for the B-Field

16 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 18 —Water Cut Grid Map for the B-Field

ABC plot
Using the After-Before-Compact (ABC) diagnostic plot (Figure 11) proposed by Terrado and others
(2006), the behaviour of different wells were identified. The plot uses well test production data from two
distinct dates and compares oil and water rate between these dates. Two different test dates were selected
and the ratios of water rate at these different dates for each well was plotted on the abscissa while the ratio
of oil rate at these different dates was plotted on the ordinate axis. Four behaviours can be identified by
using this plot:
Wells without change – these are wells that fall within the (1, 1) coordinate point area. These wells
exhibit constant water cut and as such, do not require any intervention. Wells in the upper right quadrant
shows both increasing water and oil production i.e. wells whose total liquid rate increases and with
approximately constant water cuts. This indicates a positive response to water injection or changing
artificial lift conditions. Wells in the lower right quadrant shows increasing water production with constant
or decreasing oil rates. Although all wells will show this behaviour eventually, sudden jumps in water
rates could indicate channelling. Wells in the upper left quadrant show increasing oil rates and decreasing
water rates. New wells may fall in this area when the initial well test shows high water cut because of
completion fluids that are still unloading (M. Terrado, S. Yudono and G. Thakur, 2007), it may also be
indicative of a positive flood response. Wells in the lower left quadrant show decreasing total fluid
production and nearly constant water cut. These wells should be examined to determine if the decreased
fluids are due to changes in artificial lift, wellbore damage or other reservoir issue (D Nathan, 2010).
Figure 19 shows the ABC plot for the A Field. A two month period was used for the analysis. While
most wells fell on the (1,1) coordinate suggesting wells without change, few wells fell in the upper left
quadrant and one well fell in the lower left and upper left quadrant respectively. With most wells falling
on the (1,1) coordinate, this suggests that these wells require no intervention while the wells on the lower
SPE-178368-MS 17

left quadrant suggests poor productivity due to artificial lift changes, wellbore damage or reservoir
conditions. Wells on the upper left quadrant could be said to still be unloading as some recently drilled
wells fall on this quadrant while older wells could be said to showing positive response to water injection.
With one well on the upper right quadrant, it indicates that wells in this field are yet to fall on the total
liquid rate increase quadrant implying that they are yet to benefit fully from the injection of water into the
reservoir as an increase in liquid rate is expected for wells in reservoirs undergoing water injection. The
well on the lower right of the quadrant showed an increase in water production with constant oil rate.

Figure 19 —ABC Plot for the A-Field

The ABC plot for the B Field shown in Figure 20 considered a two month period. By the time water
injection commenced, six of the twelve wells were fully online and thus used for the analysis. Of these,
three fell on the lower right quadrant, indicating an increase in water cut – an expected trend for fields
undergoing water injection. However, one point (well B-1-1) fell off the trend and was further investigated
for coning and/or channelling behavior using the Chan Plot (Figure 21). The plot showed the possibility
of bottom water coning followed by late time channelling (Figure 22). An increase in total liquid rate with
water injection is noticed for the well that falls on the upper right quadrant signalling a good response from
water injection. One well falls on the upper left quadrant and as it is not a new well, which could be said
to be unloading, the signature is indicative of a good response to water injection. But for some possible
coning and or channelling trend noticed which needs be monitored closely, the ABC plot for this field
indicates a general positive response to water injection.
18 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 20 —ABC Plot for the B-Field

Figure 21—Bottom Water Coning with late time Chanelling behaviour (Chan, 1995)
SPE-178368-MS 19

Figure 22—Chan Plot for Well B-1-1

Well Level
The well level is the last method to be utilised in water injection surveillance. Individual well performance
must be analysed often to monitor their response to water injection. Analysis of the wells production
parameters such as water cut, gas oil ratio, and bottom hole pressure would be useful in monitoring the
impact of water injection. Wells showing an accelerated increase in water cut could be suspected for
thieving zones or high permeability streaks. For such wells, volume of water injected into such zones
should be cut back. While wells showing a reduction in produced gas oil ratio are suggestive of gas
resaturation indicating repressurization of the system. An increase in botthomhole pressure with a VRR
of 1 or greater than 1 is also indicative of repressurization. The performance of individual water injectors
must also be monitored at this level. This can be done using Hall plot.

Hall Plot
The Hall Plot is a good diagnostic tool for monitoring the effectiveness of water injectors. A plot of
cumulative pressure time of an injector against cumulative volume of water injected gives an indication
of the well’s injectivity performance. Figure 23 shows the Hall plot for various injection well conditions.
Hall plot for the various injectors in the A Field (Figures 24 to 27) shows the behaviour of a well with
gradual skin developing. This could be as a result of scales deposition or wellbore plugging while the Hall
Plot for the two water injectors in the B field shown in Figures 28 & 29 indicates that no injectivity loses
are occurring suggesting that water injection is reaching targeted zones.
20 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 23—Hall Diagnostic Plot

Figure 24 —Hall Diagnostic Plot for the W-1SS Water Injector in the A-1 Reservoir
SPE-178368-MS 21

Figure 25—Hall Diagnostic Plot for the W-2SS Water Injector in the A-1 Reservoir

Figure 26 —Hall Diagnostic Plot for the W-1LS Water Injector in the A-2 Reservoir
22 SPE-178368-MS

Figure 27—Hall Diagnostic Plot for the W-2LS Water Injector in the A-2 Reservoir

Figure 28 —Hall Plot for the W-2 Water Injector in the B-1 rservoir
SPE-178368-MS 23

Figure 29 —Hall Plot for the W-3 Water Injector in the B-2 reservoir

Discussion
A comprehensive surveillance system is essential to the success of a water injection scheme as a single
approach is not totally conclusive. A multilevel approach has proved to be useful in identifying the
constraints in the Fields studied and opportunities for improving oil recovery. Utilizing this approach the
following observations were made:
– Monthly VRR in the A Field is less than 100%; this is suggestive that full benefit of water injection
would not be achieved except the volume of water injected is increased. For a field where water
injection commenced about 16 months ago, focus should be on getting the monthly VRR to at least
1 until fill up is accomplished.
– Although increase in reservoir pressures have been observed in both reservoirs in the A-Field after
commencement of water injection, reduction in volume of water injected due to mechanical
constraint of the water injection pumps on the process facility resulted in a decrease in the field’s
monthly VRR. Prioritisation of water volumes for injection or replacement of the pumps with
higher capacity ones has been identified as a practical option. Also, dump flooding could be
considered as a means to inject more water into the reservoir without requiring surface injection
pumps at the process facility.
– The Time lapse maps shows that the wells in the A-Field still have a high GOR and low water cut
values suggesting that they still stand to benefit from pressure maintenance by increasing the
volume of water injected into the reservoirs.
– The injectivity performance of water injectors in the A Field suggests positive skin developing
gradually in the wells. These wells would be good candidates for stimulation.
24 SPE-178368-MS

– With about 48 months of water injection, the B-Field has had immense benefits. Water injection in
the B Field has been successful not only in reversing the pressure decline but also in providing an
efficient oil sweep to the attic. Consequently, infill opportunities have been identified and a
successful drilling campaign has been launched.
– Though less than 30% of the voidage has been replaced in the B Field even with initial aggressive
water injection rates, it suffices to say that a move to further occupy the voidage will provide even
more benefits. The time lapse maps also support this. However, this need has to be weighed against
water injection requirements of emerging fields (like the A-Field) which depend on the same pump
capacity.
– The ABC plot should be frequently examined as new well test results are obtained to identify and
tackle problem wells in a timely manner and also to monitor the effect of any change. A close
monitoring of the plot could also help in prioritizing well test schedules.
– The Hall Plot for the two injectors in the B Field shows an excellent injectivity performance. To
keep up with this, a balance need be struck between water injection rates and injectivity
performance.

Challenges
Proper planning and consistent data collection are crucial to the success of any surveillance program.
Some of the challenges encountered during the course of a surveillance program are:
– Unavailability of data and poor quality of data: during any surveillance and monitoring program,
the importance of sufficient data cannot be overemphasized as good quality data aids in under-
standing the reservoir’s performance and delineating subsurface heterogeneities.
– Difficulty in differentiating reason for increased oil production due to recent drilling campaign or
effect of pressure maintenance in the A Field.
– Production allocation for wells producing through the same flowline.
– Frequency of well test: to have a representative ABC plot, there is need for wells to be tested at least
once a month.

Nomenclature
VRR ⫽ Voidage Replacement Ratio
LS ⫽ Long String
SS ⫽ Short String
GOR ⫽ Gas Oil Ratio

Acknowledgement
We would like to express our gratitude to the entire Asset Management and Development Team and
Production Team of Addax Petroleum Development Nigeria Limited for their support and guidance in
making this paper a success.

References
1. M. Terrado, S. Yudono and G. Thakur, 2007; Waterflooding Surveillance and Monitoring: Putting
Principles into Practice. SPE 102200. Presented at the 2006 SPE ATCE, San Antonio, Texas,
24 –27 September.
2. D.B Silin and others, 2005; Monitoring Waterflood operations: Hall’s Method Revisited. SPE
93879. Presented at the 2005 SPE Western Regional Meeting, CA, USA, 30 March – 1 April
2005.
3. D Nathan 2010; Issues in Waterflooding-Introduction to Waterflood Surveillance
SPE-178368-MS 25

4. K.S. Chan; Water Control Diagnostic Plots. Paper presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 22 October–25 October, 1995.