AUthOrSERIE
A.W. Talash is a senior resewoir engineering adviser for Mobil
E&P Services Inc. in Dallas. He previously conducted research
studies at Mobil’s Dallas Research Laboratories on various
secondary and tertiary recovery methods. He holds SS, MS, and
PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from Texas 17&f4U. and
sewed on the 1979-80 Editorial Review Committee.
An Overview of Waterflood
Surveillance and Monitoring
A.W. Ta[ash, SPE, Mobil E&P Services Inc.
Introduction
An essential key to a successful watertlmhg project is a
well-planned and well-executed program of suweilkince and
monitoring. This program should be tailored to address
individual projects or fields because each watertlcmd will have
different characteristics. There are, however, some basic
fidients that should be common to w SW-WiumCe
programs. III general, three major categories of field conditions
must be included in any watertlcod surveillance program
reservoir conditions, injectionlproduction-well conditions, and
facilities/operadng conditions. The last and probably the most
important ingredient is record keeping/performance controI.
There are, of course, economic conditions that must be taken
into consideration. For the mmaoses of this Dauer. however.
onty the technical aspects o; a ‘waterflood s;m&ll&ce Prog&m
wifl b addressed.
The purpose of tlds paper is to provide an overview of
waterflood suweillance programs and to outline the various
items to be monitored. Selected tests for diagnosis of problems
commonly associated with waterfloads are discussed briefly,
along with a look at developing surveillance technology.
Surveillance Program
Waterflood surveillance programs of the 1980’s have been
influenced to some degree by the chemical waterflood projects
of the 1970’s. The desire to understand cbemical-recovery-
process applications better led to a significant increa3e in
project surveillance activities. Much time and effort was spent
in evaluating both watertlmd and tertiary recoveries. It was
shown that by closely monitoring field activities, improvement
in waterflood recoveries could be achieved. 1
Fig. 1 shows the key monitoring points in the traditional
waterflood cycle. There was a time when most of the attentiori
given a watwflocd pioj%t focused on reservoir perfommnce,
and this usually was limited to monitoring water cuts. Today
we realize that it is equally important to include well,
facilities, and operating conditions in our tirveillance
programs. Thus, all the components of the waterilocd cycle
diagramed in Fig. 1 should be included in a well-planned
surveillance progrmn.
Table 1 lists items that should normafly be included in the
three major categories of surveillance. This is by no means a
complete listing because waterflood can have rather unusual
characteristics or conditions requiring addiional items for
observation and evaluadon-e. g., environmental and regulatow
wnditi0n3
1938SOCIWof Pe!ro!eurc
sj=~ /i774u
Resetvoir SurveIllattce
As listed in Table 1, reservoir pressures, injection and
production rates, fluid volumes, WOWGOR’S, and fluid
samples require constant surveilk% A discussion of these
items and proposed scheduks for obtaining the data was
presented by Sarnes and Tinker.2 When these data are coupled
with the reservoir-dexsiption information, waterf.lOod-
perfornxmce calmdations can be made. Reservoirdescription
information generally includes core, well Iog, and geologic
data. Holbert and Zeito3 list the reservoirdescription data in
more detail.
Numerous methods or techniques for estimating waterflood
performsmce have been reported in the Iiteratme. These
methods range from the classic type34-7 to sophisticated
resemoir simulator mcdels.
There are four ~es of wel13 requiring surveillance
production. injection, water-supply, and water-disposal wells.
Of these, production and injection wells require the most
attention. Monitming well performance requires a program of
selected well tests to be conducted regularly. The types of well
tests selected will depend on surfaceidownbole equipment,
well-compledon characteristics, produced or injected fluids, the
stage of the waterflood project (early, middle, or late), and the
reservoir description. Key items for surveillance are fluid entry
into or exit from target zones, cementicompletion inte.griiy,
and mechanical equipment, both downhole and surface. Well
testing is discussed later.
The well sumeilkmce program should include plans for
recording the information in a suitable manner or format such
that it is both easily accessible and “user friendly.” Finally,
the program should provide a systematic approach to data
analysis, evaluation, recommendations, and corrective
measures, 33 needed.
Facilities/Operations SurvelIIance
Waterflood operating procedures and conditions, along witi the
a3s0ciated project facilities, are often taken for granted, yet
they are key ingredients to successful project management.
Tinker8 reported on the operating factors that affect waterflood
performance, including well completions, injection patterns,
high-volume lift, irjection pmtiles, and bottomwater
production.
Operations and facilities van considembl~ from moiect to
proj’mt and.undergo changes &ing the sev%l sta~es”of
waterflood development. Injection-pattern confwmtiom,
surface topography, reservoir cbaracterisdcs, deviated wells,
and tield operating constraints are oidy a few of the conditions
that can lead to problems associated witi project management
 t
In general, however, the ingredients common to most
operations needing surveillance are injectiotipmduction
I
facilities, fluid tmnsmission lines, field monitming equipment,
and, most important, water quafity.
Poor injection-water quality is probably one of the most
damaging conditions that arise in watmfbading operations.
McCune9 stated that too often the quality standards required
for irjecting a particular water into a particular formation are
not known in the early stages of .Sbe project, and the Ie3ukS
are damaged and plugged ;njeztion w;lti requiring workover or
stimulation and further expense to modify the treating
facilities. He described severaf test methods for on-site testing
to define injection-water quality requirements: (1) geocbendcal
analyses of the waters involved and description of suspended
solids, (2) membrane-flter tests to describe the plugging
effects of the suspended soli&, and (3) flow tests to study the
effects of the injection Water on formation-core perm~bility.
Chang 10 discussed water quality as it pertains to suspended
solids, oxygen levels, and corrosion and bacterial control and
monitoring. He further described the design and operation of a
sampling, analysis, and water-tusabnent facility.
Well-Testing Program
An im~rtant key to the successful application and surveillance
of waterfkmds is a detailed, accurate defnition of fluid-flow
paths. Fluid-flow d~tribution is governed by reservoir
properties, well conditions, and operating practices. A well-
planned and wel-executed well-testing program can provide or
contirm reservoirlwell-condition information that cannot be
adequately obk?ined by other means.
fn waterflooding, certain reservoir and/Or well conditiom can
result in anomalous distribution of injection wateri which in
turn may result in inefficient flood operations. If fluid-flow
distribution can be ascertained, then corrective measwes can
be undertaken as needed. Time corrective measures include
h.kction- andlor production-well rate adiuilrnents, well shut-in,
iniennittent weU Gperation, well c0nver3_i0n3, inje”tiion-protile
modification, and flood-pattern revision.
Effective formation permeability
Interwell permeabilityiexistence of barriers
Exi3tence of natural fractures
Existence of wellbore fracturesfconditions
Effective formation thickness
Existence of field presswe gradie”tslfluid drift
Evidence of perforation plugginglformation damage
Loss of injected water out of target zone
Fluid crossflow
Excessive wellbore till
Ca3ing/tubing [eak3
Fluid samples
Volumetric (fluid volumes, rates, WOR, GOR)
Pressures (surface, bottomhole, reservoir)
Effectiveness of well stimulation treatments/recompletions
Data for correlating formation layering
m Fluid samples
Downhole equipment
Surface equipment
Pipelines
Unequal directional flow in the reservoir during
waterflcading thus can be caused by both natural (reservoir
character) and manmade (well and operating) condiions.
Natural causes include variations in directional permeability,
faults, permeability pinchouts, lenses, fractures, and active
aquifers. Manmade causes of unequal directional flow are
generally related to peer well conditions, unbafanmd
injecdonlproduction rates, and poor-quaf@ injection water.
Regardless of the cause, unequal directional flow in a given
reservoir must be recognized, quantified, and corrected.
Table 2 lists tbe information that may be derived from a
comprehensive welf-testing program. Analysis and evaluation
of this information is extremely valuable in diagnosing
problems and quantifying waterflood performance. As a
consequence, recommendations for adjustments in operating
procedures and improvements in well conditions can lead to a
more efticient waterflood moiect.
Table 3 indicates the co~on tests, logs, and surveys
available for obtaining the information in Tabie 2. Some of the
tests, such as the intenveU tracer, are special-purpose types
and would be used for diagnosis of specific problems. 11.12
The remainder of this paper discusses the well tests that are
most commordy used in waterflood projects and the associated
information each test can provi&.
Pressure-Falloff Tests
One of the most inmmtant well tests available for obtainim . in-
situ formation data and wellbore information is the injection-
weU pressure-falloff test. 13-16When properly desifled and
exezuted, this test is capable of providing the foUowing
khmmtion (1) effective permeability to water; (2) existence
of natural fractures and flow-capacity contibutio~
(3) existence of weUbore fractures, wing lengths, and parting
pressure+ (4) evidence of formationlwe!.lboce damage or ~,
(5) estimate of average reservoir pressure; (6) effectivemss of
stimulation Wa.bnentslrecompletion% (7) existence of field
pressure gradientq and (8) location of flood front (early
injection stage).
Pre33ure builduD
Pressure falloff”
Injectivity
Flow profile
Steprate
Pulse
Interference
Bottomhole pressure surveys
Bottomhole temperature surveys
Interwell tracer
Cement bond logs
Thermal decav loos
Gamma ray [;gs “
 III reservoirs where the permeability is considered to be less
thm severaf hundred millidmcies, it is not uncommon for tbe
weffbores of old injection welfs to have km fractured either
intentionally or otbenvise. Knowledge concerning the wellbore
fracture-i. e., parting pressure, wing length, orientation, and
vertical height-can be very useful to the field operator in
2eg2rd to watertlocd optimization. 17 Pressure-f.MOff tesfing
can provide information on fracture pardng pressures and
fracmre wing length.%
As discussed earlier, unequal dmtionzl flow or fluid drift
can usurdfy be attributed to natural and/or manmade
causes. 1.18.19 The existence of field pressure gradients may
cause s-ed’iousdistortions in tie flow patterns and can result in
poor sweep efficiency. Fieldwide press.ure-fafloff testing can
provide estimztes of average rezezvoir pressures for pressure
contour mapping. Pressure gradients, if they exist, can be
evaluated as to location and amount. Fieldwide balancing of
injection and prcdwtion rates can, in most cases, remedy this
problem.
Another problem commonly assmiated with older injection
wells is wellbore ffl. Solids collect in the bottom of the well
over a period of the md can CQver or obstruct the entire
injection interval. Welfbore fti may be detected with pressure-
falloff testing by either observing that the test tool cannot be
lowered through the injection intend or analysis of the ftioff
test data indicates evidence of unusmdly ldgb positive skim
Regular well testing will provide a means of detecting
wellbore4ill problems.
Profile ?estlngkogging
Ideafly, 10% of tbe water would be injected uniformly into an
umwtricted target zone. Formation heterogeneities, damage,
fractures, and POX or damaged well completions usually
prevemt the ideal from occuzzing. fn watertlooding operations,
three of the most serious problems are formation plugging,
nonum”form injection profde, and injection of water out of the
target zone or completion interval. Formation plugging may be
caused by poor drilling/completion pracdces and poor-quality
injection water.m A nonuniform tijextion profile may be
attributai to heterogeneities, fractures, faults, and selective
plugging of the formation or perforations. Finally, injecting
wateI out of the target zone or completion interval is usually
the result of pm or damaged cement and fra.cture8.
Numerous techniques for protile testing andhr logging of
wells have been mportd21-29 Most am related to surveillance
of water injection wells. Sauer21 discussed tbe most common
types of wefl surveys, such as spinner, radioactive isotope
velwity, and particle plating and temperature surveys. He also
rmfi~ ~ fie t=t procedures M data interpretation of these
suzveys.
More recentfy, other authors have presented tedmiques that
use tbezmzl neufron capture cross-section Iogging,z new
flowmeter for production logging and well testing, ~ and
gamma-ray-emitting tracers for profile surveillance. 24
Elkmberger and Aseldne25 presented a case history of a
technique for improving tbe vertical efficiency in irjection
web and the approach to evaluating the results of stimdation
treabnents.
As mentioned, irjecting water out of the target zone is
usually related to peer or damaged cement and tictures.
Cement bond logs are frequently used to determine the cement
integrity. Bigelow26 points out that tie cenient bond log has
been controversial since its inception, perhaps because of
misguided interpretation practices. According to Fitzgerald et
al. ,27 recent technological advances in the logging industry
have causal marked improvements in cement-bmd-log
recordings, along with the development of a fast and simple
qwmtit2tive interpretation medmd. Tbe.se authors present
guidelines for achieving 90% accuracy in zone-isolation
decisions.
Step-rate tezts zre commonly used to &terndne formation
partiig pressure. Singh et al.zs recently discussed steyate
&sign and analysis of test data to estimate the parting pressure
accurately. Morales et d. 29 described a procedure to detect
and to evaluate fracturing during watezfkmding. Their
apprOach ficlud= the use of a radial-flow analysis to detwt
changes in fluid transmissibility.
Other Tests/SpeclaI Techniques
In addition to the various testing and logging metlods
mentioned thus far, several veq useful tests and evaluation
techniques are available for well and reservoir analysis.
Multiple-well testing 15.30 provides a means for determining
formation continuity between injection and production welfs.
Interference and pulse fests are most commonly used for this
purpose. fn interference testing, changing the rate in one well
causes a pressure change to be observed in a nearby well.
When properly auafyzed, tfds information can provide data
zeladng to formation propeties. fn the puke test, multiple
changes in the rate will provide data similar to those from the
“interference test. These two tests are not usuzfly included in
fhe sumeilfance program but should be considered when
questions arise as to lateral contimd~ between wells.
)?arlougherls presented a modified version of H2U’S31
technique for analyzing injection WAS. This method provides a
simpIe means for monitoring injection-well performance
because Om.only data required are the individual well
cumulative injected volumes with time and a good record of
injection pressure. Farfougher pointed out that the major
benefit of the HP.U plot is the change in slope of the data,
which is related to chznges in fluid mobilily, skin, and/or
dimensionless pressure. Changes in operating practices or the
addition of new offset wells may be detected in the analysis of
the Hall plot.
Data. Gathering/Documenthtg
Discussions of waterflood surveillance are usually directed
toward reservoir performance, yet the overalf success of the.
project can be impacted by day-to-day field operations. while
reservoir engineers may fwus their attention on rescrvois
performance and waterflood optimization, production/
operations engineers are involved with everyday management
of field operations, information gatbetig, and diagmmis of
potential or existing problems. Tbe problems commonly
associated with field operating systems may be categorized
simply as mechanical, electrical, and chemical. Teamwork
between reservoir engineers and productionhperztions
engineer2 is essential to watertlced project management.
Each field has its own characteristics and pecufiarhie$ thus,
it is ditlhdt to be specitic about how to gather, document, and
analyze data related to field operations. As discussed earlier,
Fig. 1 shows the key monitoring points, and Table 1 lists
items needing surveillance, in a ve~ general way. BIIcaram
and SuUivan32 reported the specifics of data gathering and
processing. llcy pointed out that many oil-producing
companies have created and now operate data-gathering and
-prwessing systems, all of which have in common systems that
obtain accurate, timely information and pmcess{condense the
data into an easily usable and understandable form, usually
with the aid of computers. Bucaram and Sullivan also
discussed an equipment-performance report system, the report
form, data processing, and analysis of the repozted
information. hter, Bucaram and Yeary33 gave an overview of
the equipment-performance system for tbe 14-year period since
its implementation. They stated that performance did not
increase just because better records were kept, but beciuse
problems were identified and action was taken.
Moore% discussed the use of personal computers (W’s) in
oilfield surveillance. He discussed a PC &k-gathering system
and the related data reporting and tmmsfer progrzm. AIthough
this “surveillance progrm was developed for a thermal
recovery project, many of the important ingredients could be
used in a wzterfbmd pmjwt.
Automated Held.Surveillance Systems
Because a waterflcad project is an integral part of the overall
tield-openxions management its as far as
 surveillance is concemti; should be programmed into any
developed or plwed automated field-surveillance system.
Consequently, the foljowing d~cussion addresses suweilanc:
,,..
systems into which waterflood monitoring may b:
incorporated.
h example of automatic well testing and surveillance was
report+ by Hunter et al., 35 who described a pitot computer
production-control system developed for a test battery area
containing 76 beam-pumped weUs, four satellite separation and
test facilities, and treating and storage facilities in the battery.
The anticipated benefits tkom the installation were accelerated
production, power savings, and maintenance costs.
Podio et al. 36 described the design, implementation, and
application of a microcomputer-bad system for automa.ticdly
peffonning pressure-buildup tests in pumping wells from
surface measurements. and analyzing the data in real time at the
weUsite. They indicated that the test system was successfully
tested and had an overwhelming advantage over existing
tednologyf orproviding, in the field, instantaneous
information regarding tie progress of the pressure buildup,
thereby enabling the operator to decide on the best strategy for
meeting the test objectives.
Automated field opemtions37 andautomatedtield
surveilkmcea reba.sica12yt woseparates ubject.s,buttbe “field
of the future” will no doubt integrate botb programs intoa
completely automated field-management system. It seems
logical to assume that for an automated field-operations system
to perform well, the system itself wi!.fhave to be monitored
closely witba sophisticated surveillance program.
We are actively engaged in developing and installing
automated field systems forthetieldof the future. This
includes developing andmaintaining computer appJicationsto
monitor and to control abroad array of field andplard
operations through the use of field master stations and remote
terminal units. Thetield master station isequippedwiththw
alarm systems capable of not~ing production persmnel of
abnormal or potentially dangerous situations. One alarm system
uses abigh- frequency scan to identi@crhicaJ conditions that
require immediate attention. The other ak?nn systems are used
to transmit tield-mastm-station .aJ- over field rad,os and
telephones/pagers witia speciall yequipped PC. More
recently, we have developed a speech alamn system that
combines and enhances the features of the other alarm systems
and has the unique capabiIi@ of verbatly issuing alarms
through the use of a synthesized computer voice.
Jn addition to tie alarm systems, the iiefd master station
provides an extensive range of data on every operation
occurring in the field or plant. Reports are customized for the
specific requirements of sach Iocation. Field personnel are able
to interact dimctfy with the system, performing maintenance
functions and mcdiiing the data base as needed.
Sunrelllance-The Future
Bohannon37 pointed out that systems control wifJ continue to
be highly dmhibuted with more decision-making and reporting
done closer to the point of measurement or control. As a
consequence, application of expert systems in surveillance is
the next logical feature to be incorporated into the automated
system.
In her paper on the future applications of expert systems,
Miller38 stated that one of the maior concerns the earth
sciencs profession is currentiy facing is the 10ss of espensive
and invaluable Jaowledge bases through the loss of
experienced professionals. The progranunin g of knowledge,
gained by field engineers through experience and practice, into
expert field-suweiflance systems wilf provide the field operator
with continued technical control abilities that could otherwise
be lost through attrition. J.n other words, the future Jies in
documenting and progmmmin g the present and the past.
Acknowledgments
I express my appreciation to Mobil F&P for permission to
bli h tld d i ti k t M b E&P Mkil d
Mobd E&P Mormation Systems pcrsomel for providing
v~uahle background ma~erid for this paper.
“References
1.Taksh, A.W. and Strange, L. K.: ‘%umma~ of Pefinmance and Eval-
..uafio!!s in tie West Burkburneit chemical Waterflood project, ”JPT
(NOV. 1982) 2495-2502.
2. B.wmes,P.F. and Tinker, G.E.: “Production Technology Exp.mience
in fvfiChiW Watertloods,” JPT (Aug. 1985) 146–58.
3. Holbert, D.R. and Zeito, G.A.: ‘LAStudy of Reservoir Characteristics
in Tluw Problem WaterRocds, ” Prod. Mmuhfy (June 1960)‘20-26.
4. Craig, F.F. Jr.: The Rescwoir Engineering Aspects ofWamjfooding,
Monograph Series. SPE, Richardson, TK (1971)3, C~P. 8.
5. Craig, F.F. Jr.: .’Effect of Reservoir Description on Performance Pre-
dictions,” Worerjboding, Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1973)
2a, 257-63.
6. Higgim, R.V. er al.: “Aids to Forecasting the Performance of Water.
flwds,” Wate@ooding, Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1973)
2a, 264-70.
7. Gnerrero, E.T. and Eadougher, R.C.: “Analysis and Comparison of
Five Methcds Used to Predict Watertlccd Reserves and Performance,”
Prod. Monthly (June 1961) 4--13.
S. Tinker, G. E.: “Design and Operating Factors That Affect Watefload
Performance in Michigan,” JPT (Oct. 1983) 1884-92.
9. McCune, C. C.: “On-Site Testing To Defm Injection-Water Quatty
Remdremenfs.” JPT (km. 1977) 17-24.
10. Cl&g, C.K.: “Water i2wdilyCoikderations in M&ysiak Fti Water-
flccd,,, JPT (Sept. 1985) 1689-9S.
11. Greenkorn, R.A.: “Expeimenfal Study of Waterflood Tracers,” JPT
(Jan. 1962) 87-92 Tram., AIME, 225.
12. Wagner, O.R,; ‘The Use of Tracers in Diagnosing Jmerwell Reservoir
Hetemgemities-Field Rmdts,” JPT fNov. 1977) 141C-16.
13. Novak. TJ. and Lester. G.W.: “Am.h’sis of hessure FaJJ-OffCurves
Obtain~ in Water Jrjeciion Wetts to D-etermineJnjecfiveCapacity and
Formation Damage,,, Pressure Anafy$is Methods, Reprint Series, SPE,
Richardson, TX (1967) 9, 61-67.
14. Matthews, C.S. and Russell, D. G.: Pressure Buildup amf Flow Tests
in Wells, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1967) 1, 73-80.
15. Fadougher, R.C. Jr.: Advances in Well Test .kdysis, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) S, 47-89, 105-58.
16. Abbaszadeb, M. and Sian@ M. M.: “Pressure Transient Testing of
Water fnjectim Welts,>, paper SPE 16744 presented at the 1987 SPE
.4nr..d Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dd3as, S@. 27-30.
17. Kotmtson, D.C. and Kelm, C.H.: “30jecdowWeUTestingTo optimize
Waferflcad Performance,,, JPT @iOV. 1975) 1337-42:
18. Strange, L.K. and Tahsb, A. W.: “Analysis of Salem Low-Tension
Waterffaod Test,” .JPT (Nov. 1977) 13g0-84.
19. WidmYer, R.H. et cd.: C‘Low-Temion Waterftmd at Salem UNt—
Pmt@lot Evduatiou;V JPT (Sept. 1979) 1185-90.
20. Krueger, R.F.: “An Gveriiew of Formation Damage and Well F’m3uc-
tivity in Oiltidd c@&ons,’, JPT (Feb. 19S6) 131-52.
21. Saner, W.D.: “Methods of Detemdnin g Water Jnjecdon Pmfdes,”
Prod Monthly (Dec. 1960) 12-19.
22. Tesar&, P.B. and Heysse, D. R.: “Water Jnjecdon Profiles in Eola
Field Dmmnirmd by Changes in Thermal Neutron Capture Cress
Section,’sp-r SPE 16S16presentedat the 1981SPE Amwd Technical
Conference and Exhibition.. Dallas. S@. 27-30.
23. Piers, G.E., Perkins, J., and E.scott, D.; “A New Flowmeter for Pm-
ducdon Lagging and W.IJ Tesdng,” paper SPE 16819presented at the
1987SPE Annual Tecbnicat Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Se@
27-30.
24. Gtsink, J.C.J. er al.: ‘sUse of Gamma Ray-Emitting Tracers and Sub-
s~eat Gamma Ray Legging in an Observation well TQ D,t~ti
the Preferential Flow Zones in a ReseNoir,” JPT(April 1985) 711-19.
25. Eltenberger, C.W. and AseOine,R.J.: “Selective Acid SdnmkationTo
Jmmove Verdcal Efficiency in Jriection WeUs–A Case Histow,” JPT
(J& 1977325-29.
26. Bigelow, E. L.: ‘LAPracdca3Approach b the Interpretation of Cement
Bond Imgs, ‘, JPT (hty 1985) 1285-94.
27. Fitz.geratd, D.D., McGhee, B.F., and McGuire, J.A.: “Guid&s for
90% Accuracy in Zmdsohdon Decisions,” JFT(Nov. 1983)2013-22.
28. W@., P. K., Aganwd, R. G., and Rrase, L. D.: “Systemadc Design
end .hdyfi of Step-Rate Tests :M Determine Formation Parting
fbssure,” PW SPE 1679SPresented at the 1987 SPE Annuaf Tech-
nical Conf&&e and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
29. Momtes, R.H. er al.: “Detection of a Formation Fracture in a Watm;.
flccding Experiment;’ JPT (Oct. 1986) 1113-21.
30. Barbe, J.A. and Scbimbde”, DJ.: “Quamhative Analysis of In611
Perfcmcm RobemsonCle.wfcrkUnit.” .7PTlDec. 198711593-1601.
31. Halt, 3f.N.: Wow to Ar@ze WateiO.~ fnj~on Well P&fomnance?
d W dd 128 30
32. Bucaram, S.M. and SuUiran, J.H.: “A Data Gathering and Processing 37. Eahaunon, J.M.: “Aummation in Oimdd Pmducdm C@xions,$, JPT
System To optimize Prcducing Oper&iom,’SJPT@eb. 1972) 1S3+2. (Aug. 19S4) 1229-42.
33. Bucamm, S.M. and Yeary, B.J.: “A Dam-Gadming System To C& 3S. Milk, B.M.: “hlture Applications of FZqm’1systems for the Evalu-
dridze P7cducdon 0p8ratimls A 14-Yearoverview,,, JpT(Apti 1987) &on of Ene~ Resnumes,-> JPT @farch 1988)’ 34S.52.
457-62
34. Moore, J.B.: “Oilfield Surveilhn.e Wkh Personal Computers,” JPT .JPT
(June 1986) 665-68.
Thk P++, k S?E 18740. Bbtin@shti A.M., s@.. a~des are &mnem[, dewlmtve
35. Hunter, J.D. .:.1.: “Denver Unit Well Surveillance and Pump-Off
P~$antatbmthatUmmarkethestareof the.* In an area of !.chndcw by dewal.g
Control System,,9 JPT (Sept. 1978) 1319-26. recent dw,lo~ments for m,dws who are no! SWdallats In the MPi.cs diiuwd. Written
36. Podio, AL. et rd.: “Automatic pressure Buildup Data and Jnterpre. W indivld.wrwc-anized m ❑m, in the am, thsss awes prod. by rtiere.cw t.
wion Using a MicrcccmputemBawd Acoustic Liquid Level fh- nleredeflnltknWWandPment s+edlicde!aibonlyMIllus!m!e IF@ 16dl”dw,Fu_:
TO i“fm’m tim gmere!mad,rsh(o o! M,”, advancw$ Invarb.s areas.3!palro!,”nlmlgl.
$~ent,” P=W=SpE 16228 pffismted at the 1987 SPE Prcducdon ..06.0. A Wlta””d anlholw. SPE Disfl”g”!slmd AldJmr8uffns, Owc. 7981-~. ,993,
Operations Syuq-mium, Oklahoma City, March 9-11. Is atilable (mm SPE% Ecak Order Dew.