Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 30 September-3 October in New Orleans.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Often time when a production engineer conducts a nodal
analysis, he assumes a constant reservoir condition. Typically,
a downhole shut-in static pressure will be taken as the
reservoir pressure. In this work, we will demonstrate the
importance of using reservoir simulation to model reservoir
dynamics in conjunction with other production engineering
tools.
The integration has helped us identify the cause for an
extremely high skin generated from a short-term water
injectivity test. Without reservoir modeling, we cannot be
sure if the skin was from fine-particle plugging, or clay
expansion, or wellbore debris accumulation. Interestingly, the
build-up pressure derivatives were quite different prior to and
after 1991. This discrepancy was explained by a partial
blockage of one sand layer that was generated by an invading
cement mixture during fire fighting after the Gulf war.
Another example shows use of production logging to
solve a puzzle for a reservoir engineer. There is a vertical well
and an expanding secondary gas cap has surrounded its upper
portion. Its GOR value has been surprisingly low. The
findings from production logging also help us characterize the
geology around this well.
Using real examples, we show how to build synergy
between reservoir engineers and production engineers. This
work demonstrates the usefulness of reservoir simulation to
help production engineers diagnose well operation problems.
Introduction
In a typical operating company, the job responsibilities of a
reservoir engineer and a production engineer are clearly
defined. They are solving their problems on their own. Even
when there are communicating opportunities, mutual trust
does not exist. For example, a production engineer may
consider that a recommended production allowable by a
reservoir engineer is too restrictive or calculated with wrong
input data not compatible with field conditions. On the other
hand, a reservoir engineer often complains that the production
engineer is narrowly focused at single well performance and
does not understand the global reservoir picture.
It is a challenge to bring production and reservoir
engineers together to help each other solve field-operating
problems and develop the full production potential of a field.
This paper provides a few examples as to initiate a discussion
how to generate synergy between reservoir and production
engineers.
Field Example 1: Well X-14
X-14 is an active producer in Wara formation
1
of the Greater
Burgan oil field. It was completed in 1955. Lots of data are
available including core permeability and porosity, build-up
tests over different times, GOR flow tests, etc. Vast amount of
interesting data over 56 years makes this well an ideal
candidate to be studied by reservoir engineers and production
engineers together.
Fault Identification
From a semi-log plot of a build-up test in 1978 as shown in
Fig. 1, a sealing fault signature can be observed by two
straight lines. Second lines slope, m2, is exactly double of
the first lines slope, m1. The occurrence of single sealing
fault effect began about 20 hours after shut-in, which is
equivalent to a distance of 496 meters according to the
following equation.
The drawdown period prior to shut-in lasted about 288
hours, which was much longer than 20 hours, the time
required for the pressure wave to reach to the fault. This
ensured the detection of the faults
2
. If the drawdown time is
less than 40 hours, we may not be able to detect the fault in the
build-up data. Several other build-up tests on this well did not
SPE 71590
Field Examples to Bridge the Gap Between Production Engineering and Reservoir
Engineering
H-J. Su, SPE, Chevron Overseas Petroleum Technology Co. and S. Al-Rasheedi, SPE, Kuwait Oil Company
) 1 .....( .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ,.........
4
029 . 0
c
t k
r

=
2 HO-JEEN SU, SALEH AL-RASHEEDI SPE 71590
have enough drawdown time and the fault signature did not
appear on their semi-log plots.
In an effort to reduce production loss, often the shut-in
time of a buildup test was designed to be short. As a result,
major geological features became not detectable by transient
pressure analysis. To look deep at the lost-production
concern, we found that the lost production from a prolong
buildup test could be made up shortly after the test by
producing at a higher rate temporarily due to a higher
reservoir pressure in most cases. Therefore, we recommend
an at least 72- hour shut-in time for Wara formation. Its
average net pay permeability is about 500md.
A typical production engineer analyzes build-up data to
estimate skin and well productivity index. Often he does not
care much about the existence of faults and not try to calculate
the distance of a fault. On the other hand, the fault existence
is a very important piece of information for a reservoir
engineer in the case of designing a pattern waterflood. All the
wells in a particular pattern have to be located in the same side
of a fault. Definitely, a production engineer needs to be aware
of what is going on in the mind of a reservoir engineer and
pass vital information to his reservoir-engineering counterpart.
Figs. 2 and 3 show a geological description from a recent
3D seismic interpretation. The distance between the well (X-
14) and the closest fault interpreted from these figures, 425m,
is comparable to the distance, 496m, calculated from the
transient pressure analysis. Confirmation from multiple
sources is very important when we characterize petroleum
reservoirs. The data consistency ensures good data quality.
As mentioned above, an improper design of a transient
pressure test may fail to detect a fault.
Although 3D seismic interpretation can detect a fault,
but it cannot tell if the fault is sealing or not. In this case, the
transient pressure analysis shows that the fault is sealing. This
is another piece of valuable information to a reservoir
engineer. Therefore we can produce this well very hard
without worrying to induce oil migration from the 3
rd
sand
reservoir below.
After 52 hours of shut-in, the pressure ceased to
increase, this constant pressure boundary condition signature
probably was not real. It was simply due to the fact that the
old mechanical gauge could not detect very small pressure
changes. The aquifer was about 1.3 km away from the well
and it would require more than 100 hours shut-in time to
detect the aquifer support.
Formation Damage from Blow-out
Along with hundreds of other wells, well X-14 was set on fire
by Iraq toward the end of the Gulf war. The well was then
killed during fire fighting with 80 barrels of mud and 14
barrels of cement. The well was then put back on production
after drilling through the cement down to 4388 ft as shown in
Fig. 4. No acidization or re-perforation job was done.
Surprisingly the well was able to flow by itself at about 1200
STB/D. In 1998, a build-up test was done to estimate the
formation damage. The skin was found to be about 7 as
shown in Figs.5 and 6. Although both the drawdown and
buildup periods lasted long enough, the single fault signature
was not observed. Instead, a weak support signature existed.
The cement-plugged completion interval, 4378 to 4395, was
not completely isolated and provided some support to the two
producing completions above. Indeed, as mentioned later, this
interval was proved partially open by an injection profile
survey. In April 2000, a re-perforation of 6 spf was applied to
the interval of 4355 to 4364 and 4364 to 4372. The 4378 to
4395 interval was not shot. Afterward, a GOR flow test and a
following build-up were done to confirm that half of the skin
in the two intervals was removed. The well productivity was
improved to 2000 STB/D.
Injectivity Test Diagnosis
Most recently we conducted a short-term water injectivity test
for about nine hours. The results were disappointed. Initial
calculation predicted a 9,000 BW/D injectivity. However,
only a maximum 2,583 BW/D injection rate was achieved. A
fall-off test was conducted and a large skin was observed as
shown in Fig. 7. It is crucial for the future waterflood project
to determine the cause of the formation damage and how it
was formed. It was difficult to diagnose the problem using
just ordinary PE tools. A single well simulation model was
built to simulate first 5.5 hours period of the injectivity test
when the spinner pressure gauge was recording at a fixed
depth right above the perforation. The exact injection rate
history was specified in the model and the predicted pressure
profile at downhole matched nicely with the actual pressure
data as shown in Fig.8. The only mismatch occurred around
the third hour and it was probably caused by a short-time
instrument problem. A skin value of 44 was used in the
simulation model right from the beginning. If the formation
damage was developed gradually during the injection, we have
to adjust the skin value gradually as a function of time in the
simulation model to match the pressure history. This
indicated that the formation damage was developed in a very
short time right at the beginning of the injection. Since clay
expansion or fine particle migration would take time to
develop, the damage must come from a debris blockage. Prior
to injection, we checked the water sample and it was found to
be clear of fine particles and impurities. Therefore, the debris
must exist within the wellbore prior to the injection. The most
likely candidate is the debris left behind after a tubing-
cleaning job. The service company personnel did not
thoroughly circulate the debris out of the wellbore. A lesson
was learned that a company representative needed to be on site
to make sure all the steps in the designed test program carried
out by the service company.
Fig. 9 shows a spinner survey conducted during injection
and most of the injected fluid flowed into the cement-invaded
bottom interval of 4378 to 4388, which was the least likely
perforation to receive the injected fluid. The top perforation
interval, 4355 to 4364, received a limited amount, while the
second perforation interval, 4364 to 4372, received none. The
second perforation interval must have been plugged
completely by debris. Perhaps the second perforation interval
SPE 71590 FIELD EXAMPLES TO BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN PRODUCTION ENGINEERING AND RESERVOIR ENGINEERING 3
was the most permeable zone at the very beginning of the test
so that most debris was flowing toward it.
Although the injection results were not favorable, the
test itself can be considered successful as long as we could
diagnose the problem. Because we can inject more than 2500
BW/D into a very short and damaged interval, the prospect of
pattern waterflood development plan is still promising. If the
skin can be removed, the simulation model predicted that the
well could be injected at 9000 BW/D with 1000 psi surface
injection pressure. Therefore, by working together, the
reservoir and production engineers have saved a faulty testing
practice into a successful waterflood injectivity analysis. It
also saved money for a repeated test.
After the fall-off test, the well would not flow with the help
of swapping. The well received another re-perforation job and
then it flowed again. The skin removal confirmed the
correctness of our reservoir simulation diagnosis approach.
Productivity Index Calculation
A production engineer will use the following equation to
calculate productivity index.
where P
r
is the reservoir pressure value, which is typically
taken from the bottomhole static shut-in pressure
measurement. For a low permeability reservoir, the shut-in
pressure may take several days to stabilize. Often the
pressure value from an insufficient shut-in time was used and
resulted in a much large PI estimate. However, for the
example well with an average permeability of 850 md, the
shut-in time length has a minor impact. In the 1998 build-up
test, PI values estimated from 5 and 168 hours shut-in times
are 3.44 and 3.1, respectively.
The definition of PI from production engineering is quite
different than the definition of numerical PI in reservoir
simulation, which can be described as follows:
where r
o
is the referenced distance
2
from wellbore, which is
equal to 0.2 X for a square simulation grid. PI values
calculated from the two equations become the same only when
P
r
in Eq. 1 is equal to the flowing reservoir pressure at the
reference distance, r
o
. A reservoir engineer should not take a
PI value from a production engineer and enters it as is into the
simulation model. Again, reservoir and production engineers
need to have a clear understanding about the terminology
definition of their counterparts.
Correct Permeability Field
Many simulation engineers use permeability logs to generate
the permeability distribution in a simulation model. Typically,
this practice will result in an optimistic model with a too high
permeability value. Because the permeability log is normally
based on air permeability of core tests, its permeability value
can be as much as three times higher than the effective oil
permeability value at irreducible water saturation from our
experience. If the oil relative permeability at irreducible water
saturation was set to 1 in the K
r
table of the simulation model,
a much higher production rate would be predicted. Often a
production engineer hesitates to apply a reservoir engineering
recommendation to field operating practice due to the lack of
confidence about reservoir engineering analyses. The core
permeability data have to be confirmed by interpreted in-situ
permeability value from GOR flow tests, build-up tests, or
formation tests. The core permeability data of well X-14 are
shown in Fig. 10 and the permeability-thickness product of the
top three completions can be calculated to be more than
110,000md-ft. And the KH value from several build-up tests
is about 30,000md-ft. Obviously, the reservoir simulation
results based on core permeability measurements would
predict an optimistic production forecast!
It is the responsibility of a reservoir engineer to win the
confidence of a production engineer. A good starting point is
to show a few accurate prediction examples.
Field Example 2: Well X-01
This well is located in a very large secondary cap. Other wells
within the gas cap had been shut-in due to high GOR. This
well used to produce at a high rate and cumulative oil
production is about 10 MMSTB. It is still under production
with a low rate of 350 STB/D due to high GOR concern. It is
very peculiar that the build-up pressure derivative curve as
shown in Fig.11 does not exhibit a signature of constant
pressure boundary condition. Many wells near the gas cap
have constant pressure signatures as shown in Fig. 12. The
production engineer requested the help from a reservoir
engineer to decide what kind of action appropriate for this
well. Shut-in? Increase choke size to produce more? Apply an
acid job?
The reservoir engineer recommended a production-logging
job and the results showed most liquid production was from
the bottom layer. The entire pay zone was open to flow
through the slotted liner configuration. The resistivity and V-
shale logs, Fig.13, also show lower permeability values in the
upper zone. The upper zone is actually in the gas cap.
However, due to the low permeability and poor sand
connectivity, the gas cap effect does not show up in the
transient pressure analysis. Therefore, the production-
reservoir engineer team decided to continue the low
production rate strategy. A low enough pressure drawdown
probably will not bring the gas down from the upper low
permeability zone. Past GOR tests of high production rates
such as 1500 STB/D showed a high GOR vale of 1200
SCF/STB.
The 40-foot sand interval, 3765 to 3805 ft, has a very high
permeability, 3000md. This high-K channel makes the well
behave like a horizontal well. In the 70 and 80s, this well
was producing at a rate more than 3,000 STB/D.
) 2 ......( .......... .......... .......... .......... ,.........
) (
bf r
P P
Q
PI

=
) 3 .........( .......... .......... ,.........
) / ( (
00708 . 0
S r r Ln B
Kh
PI
w o o
+
=

4 HO-JEEN SU, SALEH AL-RASHEEDI SPE 71590

Field Example 3: Well X-58
This well is located in a high-permeability channel as shown
by the half slope line in Fig. 14. Openhole logs also show a
thin sand bedding. The constant pressure boundary condition
is observed after the linear flow period. Since the well is far
away from the gas cap, the reservoir-production engineering
team decided that the support must come from the aquifer.
The distance between the well and the aquifer was interpreted
from Eq. 1 to be 1500m, which was also consistent to the
geological model and original W/O contact data. Fig. 15
shows a cross-section view of water saturation distribution
around the well. Modern graphics software package to display
reservoir simulation results is easy to use and can be a great
tool to a production engineer for understanding reservoir
dynamics and solving day to day operation problems.
The reservoir engineer was very excited about the
information of aquifer strength. Since there were very few
wells drilled in the north flank area and none of existing
producers has reported water production, the reservoir
engineer had difficulty to specify aquifer strength in the
simulation model. Without the knowledge about the aquifer
strength, it is impossible to design a field development plan or
predict future production. In fact, this buildup test was done
more than 15 years ago, but the information has not been
shared to the reservoir engineer until recently. Therefore, the
information sharing has to be done in a timely manner.
Conclusions
1. We have demonstrated the usefulness of reservoir
simulation in a water injectivity test problem. Working
with a reservoir engineer, a production engineer can
analyze test results thoroughly and identify causes of poor
injectivity. It also eliminates the need of repeating a test.
2. Sometimes, contradictory transient pressure data for a
given well over different times require the help from both
a production engineer and a reservoir engineer to
understand the event occurred in the well history.
Consequently, proper actions can be taken to remove the
adverse effect on the reservoir performance by a past
event.
3. Both a reservoir engineer and a production engineer
should have a good understanding of each others job. Be
alert to any piece of information valuable to the other and
pass that information in a timely manner. The operating
unit will be greatly benefited from the synergy of
production engineering and reservoir engineering.
4. A reservoir engineer should integrate production data
such as transient pressure test data into the simulation
model building process.
5. When a production engineer makes decision about a
work-over job, it is very helpful to consult with a
reservoir engineer regarding aquifer support, gas cap
expansion, sand continuity, and over-all field pressure
decline, etc. Understanding total reservoir picture leads to
a better solution for a field operation problem.
Nomenclature
c = total compressibility, 1/psi
h = sand thickness, ft
k = permeability, md
k
r
= relative permeability, fraction
P = pressure, psi
P
r
= reservoir pressure, psi
P
bf
= bottom hole flowing pressure, psi
q = flow rate, STB/D
r
o
= reference radius for numerical PI, ft
r = radial distance, ft
t
p
= producing time, hr
t = shut-in time, hr
= viscosity, cp
= porosity, fraction
Acknowledgment
We are indebted to the management of Kuwait Oil Company
for permission to publish this work. Support of Chevron
management is also appreciated. We would like to thank John
Falck and Jess Brookly of Chevron for their design of water
injectivity test and Joon Kim of Chevron for the work of
seismic interpretation. Discussions from Vegesna Raju and
Wael Al-Qahss of KOC are very helpful.
References
1. Moon, M. S., Pederson, J. M., Osman, K., Al-Saied, M., Al-
Sabea, S., and Al-Shammari, H.: Application of
Petrophysically Derived Flow Facies for Reservoir
Characterization and Simulation: Wara Reservoir, Greater
Burgan Field, paper SPE 49217 presented at the 1998 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
LA, 27-30 September.
2. Earlougher, Robert C. Jr.: Practicalities of Detecting Faults
From Buildup Testing, paper SPE 8781, JPT 1980.
3. Peaceman, D.W.:Interpretation of Well-Block Pressure in
Numerical Reservoir Simulation with Non Square Grid Blocks
and Anisotropic Permeability SPEJ (June, 1983).
Fig.1- Semi-log plot
1760
1780
1800
1820
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Delta t, hours
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
m1
m2
SPE 71590 FIELD EXAMPLES TO BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN PRODUCTION ENGINEERING AND RESERVOIR ENGINEERING 5
Fig.2- Seismic interpretation
Fig.3- Fault and structure contour map
Fig.4- Well schematic, X-14
4355 - 4364' 4+6 9
4364 - 4372' 6 8
4378 - 4395' 2 17 0
4400 - 4438' 2 38
3-1/2 Tbg fish 72.08'
TOC @ 4545
425 m

Well
6 HO-JEEN SU, SALEH AL-RASHEEDI SPE 71590
Fig.5- Log-log plot of 1998 build up test
Fig.6- Semi-log plot of 1998 build up test
Fig.7- Semi-log plot of fall-off test
Fig.8- Pressure match of water injectivity test
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 2 4 6
Time, Hours
D
o
w
n
h
o
l
e

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e
,

B
W
/
D
Measured pressure
Simulated pressure
Injection rate
1
10
100
1000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Elapse Time, hr
d
P

o
r

d
P
'
,

p
s
i
K = 830 md
S=7.2
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1 10 100 1000 10000 10000
0
Horner Time
P
,

p
s
i
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
1 10 100 1000
Horner Time
P
,

p
s
i
K=815 md
S=44
SPE 71590 FIELD EXAMPLES TO BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN PRODUCTION ENGINEERING AND RESERVOIR ENGINEERING 7
Fig.9- Spinner survey profile, X-14
Fig.10- Permeability log of X-14
1500
1525
1550
1575
1600
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Horner Time
P
,

p
s
i
Fig.11- Semi-log plot, X-01
Fig.12- Constant pressure boundary condition
4340
4350
4360
4370
4380
4390
0 1000 2000 3000
Total Injection Rate, BW/D
D
e
p
t
h
,
f
t
1660
1670
1680
1690
1700
1710
10 100 1000 10000
Horner Time
P
,

p
s
i
4320
4340
4360
4380
4400
4420
4440
4460
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Permeability.md
D
e
p
t
h
,
f
t
Permeability
Perf 1
Perf 2
Perf 3
8 HO-JEEN SU, SALEH AL-RASHEEDI SPE 71590
Fig.13- V-shale and resistivity logs of X-01
Fig.14- Log-log plot, X-58
Fig.15- Water saturation distribution, X-58
3660
3680
3700
3720
3740
3760
3780
3800
3820
3840
3860
0 20 40 60 80 100
Resistivity
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
V-shale
Resistivity
V-shale
1
10
100
1000
0.1 1 10 100
Elapse Time, hr
d
P

o
r

d
P
'
,

p
s
i
Aquifer
well
slope