Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
(A Case Study)
By
Echufu-Agbo Ogbene Alexis
RECOMMENDED: ______________________________________
Chair, Professor David Ogbe
______________________________________
Professor Ekwere Peters
______________________________________
Dr Samuel Osisanya
APPROVED:
______________________________________
Chair, Department of Petroleum Engineering
______________________________________
Provost Academic
______________________________________
Date
A
Thesis
By
Echufu-Agbo Ogbene Alexis
Abuja-Nigeria
December 2010.
ii
ABSTRACT
The research is aimed at the understanding of the various diagnostic plots for the
analysis of water production that are available as well as the application of these
methods in a case study. It also aimed at the establishment of a work flow for the
evaluation of water production mechanisms. A workflow was developed that
combines numerical simulation and diagnostic plots to analyze the water production
performance in a reservoir. This workflow was validated using a case study.
The multi-layer reservoir model with varying vertical permeability was constructed
using a numerical simulator with the reservoir properties of the case study. Trends
from the field data were analyzed using the trends observed from the simulated data
as templates.
For the production wells, oil rate and water rate versus time plots as well as the Xplot were used to evaluate water production characteristics of the case study. The
water-oil ratio (WOR), WOR derivative and X-Plot were used for the field production
diagnosis while the Hall and the Hearn Plots were used for the water injection well
diagnosis. The results of the diagnostic plots showed that multi-layered channelling
was the controlling mechanism and the cause of the water production in the case
study. For the injection wells, the plots indicated that some wells in the case study
had the problem of extensive near wellbore fracturing while other wells had the
problem of wellbore plugging.
The workflow and results of this study can be applied by reservoir and production
engineering teams to other reservoirs to diagnose water production mechanisms;
identify sources of water production, and provide information for planning water
management programmes to mitigate excessive water production problems.
iii
DEDICATION
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding,
in all your ways, acknowledge Him and He shall direct your path
Proverb 3: 4-5
To my God and Saviour- without whom wouldnt have come this far. You
thought me to trust and hold on.
Thank you
To my Husband and best friend, I couldnt have asked for a better partner. I
pray I will always be the best for you. Thank you for your prayers and support.
I love you
To my irreplaceable family, you stood by me, cried with me, prayed for me,
You have done so much and I appreciate you.
Thank you and God bless you
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the chairman of my committee, Prof (Emeritus) Ogbe for
working tirelessly with me through my research work. His continuous guidance and
understanding made this work possible. I would also like to thank members of my
committee, Prof Ekwere and Prof Osisanya for their contributions and suggestions in
this research work.
I am also grateful to Brian Coats of Coats Engineering, Inc., USA, for promptly
attending to me and making available the simulator for this work.
My appreciation also goes to African University of Science and Technology (AUST)
for availing me this opportunity.
Special thanks to the Faculty and Staff of AUST for making this environment
bearable for me.
Appreciation also goes to Dr () Felicia Chukwu, whose advice and support I never
lacked.
Finally, my appreciation goes to all my colleagues for all the support they rendered.
Without you, I would have stood alone.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIGNATURE PAGE ............................................................................................................... i
TITLE PAGE ..........................................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION....................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................ix
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Description of Problem ................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Study Objective ............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Source of water ............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Sweep water ......................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Good water ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1.3 Bad water .............................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Water Production Mechanism ...................................................................................... 7
2.3 Causes of premature water production. ...................................................................... 7
2.3.1 Channels behind casing ...................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Barrier breakdowns. ............................................................................................. 8
2.3.3 Completions into or near water. .......................................................................... 8
2.3.4 Coning and cresting. ............................................................................................ 8
2.3.5 Channelling through higher permeability zones or fractures. .......................... 9
2.3.6 Fracturing out of zone. ......................................................................................... 9
2.4 ReservoirPerformancePlots and Analysis for WaterProduction ............................. 10
2.4.1 Decline Curve Analysis ...................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Log Of Water Cut or Oil Cut Versus Cumulative Production .......................... 13
2.4.3 Fetkovich Type Curves ...................................................................................... 14
2.4.4 Omoregie and Ershaghi (X-Plot)........................................................................ 15
2.4.5 Hall and Hearn Plot for Injectors ....................................................................... 17
2.4.6 Diagnostic Plot ................................................................................................... 19
vi
CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.0 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................... 24
3.1 Flowchart for Evaluation of water production mechanism ............................................ 24
3.1.1 Sonic Tool ........................................................................................................... 27
3.1.2 Treatment ............................................................................................................ 27
3.1.3 Monitoring........................................................................................................... 27
3.2 Case Study One........................................................................................................... 27
3.2.1 Field Production Performance Evaluation ........................................................ 31
3.2.2 Field Production Data Diagnostic Plots ............................................................ 32
3.2.3 Field Injection Performance Evaluation ............................................................ 32
3.2.4 Injection Well Diagnostic Plots.......................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................................... 34
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .............................................................. 34
4.1 Evaluation of Reservoir Performance Trends.............................................................34
from Simulated Data
4.1.1 Analysis of Simulated Oil Rate and Water Rate Plots ...................................... 34
4.1.2 Analysis of X-Plot Simulated Data .................................................................... 40
4.2 Evaluation of Reservoir Performance trends from....................................................43
Field Case Study
4.2.1 Analysis of Field Oil Rate and Water Rate Plots .............................................. 43
4.2.2 Analysis of Field X-Plot ...................................................................................... 45
4.3 Diagnosis of Simulated Reservoir Production Performance ................................... 50
4.4 Diagnosis of Reservoir Production Performance ..................................................... 52
4.5 Injection Well Performance ....................................................................................... 54
4.5.1 Simulated Injection Well Performance .............................................................. 55
4.5.2 Field Water Injection Performance ................................................................... 54
4.6 Injection Well Diagnosis ............................................................................................ 57
4.6.1 Simulated Water Injection diagnosis ................................................................ 57
4.6.2 Field Water Injection Diagnosis........................................................................ 60
4.7 Guidelines.................................................................................................................... 62
CHAPTER 5 ....................................................................................................................... 63
5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 63
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 64
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 65
vii
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 67
A. NOMENCLATURE ................................................................................................... 67
B. CASE STUDY ONE OIL RATE AND WATER RATE PLOTS ................................... 68
C. CASE STUDY ONE X-PLOT .................................................................................... 72
D. CASE STUDY ONE DIAGNOSTIC PLOTS .............................................................. 74
E. CASE STUDY ONE INJECTION WELL DIAGNOSTIC PLOTS.................................75
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 2.1: Water production with time, the case of an advancing water front .............................4
Fig 2.2: A plot showing one quadrant of a uniform five-spot injection......................................5
pattern where the water from the most direct streamline is
the first to break through to the producer.
Fig 2.3: Production plot showing the decline types................................................... ............11
Fig 2.4: Production plot showing the exponential decline type..............................................12
Fig 2.5: Production plot showing the oil/water contact depth with .........................................12
cumulative production.
Fig 2.6: Production plot showing log of water cut versus ......................................................13
cumulative oil production
Fig 2.7: Production plot showing log of oil cut versus cumulative oil ....................................14
Production.
Fig 2.8: Composite of analytical and empirical type curves and the standard.......................15
empirical exponential, hyperbolic and harmonic decline curve solution
on a single dimensionless curve.
Fig 2.9: The X-plot for a hypothetical three-layer system.......................................................16
Fig 2.10: The Hall Plot....................................................................................................... ..17
Fig 2.11: The Hearn Plot ..................................................................................................... 18
Fig 2.12: Water coning and channelling WOR comparison...................................................22
Fig 2.13: Multi-layer channelling WOR and WOR derivatives.. ............................................23
Fig 2.14: Bottom-water coning WOR and WOR derivatives. ................................................23
Fig 2.15 : Bottom water coning with late time channelling. .................................................. 24
Fig 3.1 Flow Chart for the Evaluation of water production mechanism. ............................... 25
Fig 3.2: The MBB/W31S structure.........................................................................................28
Fig 4.1: Simulated Field Production rates and water cut versus time (Field) ........................ 35
Fig 4.2: Simulated Well Production rates and water cut versus time (Well P2) .................... 35
Fig 4.3: Simulated Well Production rates and water cut versus time (Well P3) .................... 36
Fig 4.4: Simulated Field Oil cut versus Time (real) .............................................................. 37
Fig 4.5: Simulated Oil cut versus Time (Well P2) ................................................................ 38
Fig 4.6: Simulated Well Oil cut versus Time (Well P3)......................................................... 38
Fig 4.7: Simulated Field water cut versus cumulative production ........................................ 37
Fig 4.8: Simulated well water cut versus cumulative production (Well P2)........................... 40
Fig 4.9: Simulated well water cut versus cumulative production (Well P3)........................... 38
Fig 4.10: Simulated Field X-Plot .......................................................................................... 39
Fig 4.11: Simulated X-Plot (Well P2) ................................................................................... 39
Fig 4.12: Simulated X-Plot (Well P3) ................................................................................... 40
ix
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY OF THE RESERVOIR PROPERTIES FOR THE CASE STUDY. .. 28
TABLE 3.2: RESERVOIR MODEL LAYER AND THICKNESS ............................................ 28
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Nomenclature .............................................................................................. 64
APPENDIX B: Case Study One Oil Rate and Water Rate Plots ......................................... .65
APPENDIX C: Case Study One X-Plot ................................................................................ 69
APPENDIX D: Case Study One Diagnostic Plots ................................................................ 71
APPENDIX E: Case Study One Hearn Plots ....................................................................... 73
xiii
CHAPTER 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
Produced water is any water that is present in a reservoir with the hydrocarbon
resource and is produced to the surface with the crude oil or natural gas. This water
could either come from an aquifer or from injection wells in water flooding process.
The production of this water alongside the oil from any reservoir is a condition that is
natural in all reservoirs. It is expected that water production would increase with the
life of the reservoir. However, a premature increase in the production of water in any
reservoir is an undesirable condition. Excess or premature water production, exists
with associated cost implication on the surface facilities, artificial lift systems,
corrosion and scale problems. Another effect that ensues is a decrease in the
recovery factors as oil is left behind the displacement front, thereby reducing the
performance of the reservoir. All these along with the decrease in the quantity and
quality of the oil imply a reduced profitability.
Globally, as at 2002, analysis showed that three barrels of water is produced to one
barrel of oil and the cost of water handling ranges from 5 to 50 cents, where this cost
is a function of the water cut (Bailey et al, 2000). It is therefore imperative that
actions be taken to reduce this adverse effect, as this will not just lead to potential
savings but its greatest values comes from potential increase in oil production and
recovery. To control the produced water effectively, the source or the mechanism of
the water problem must be identified. Diagnostic plots have been used successfully
to identify the mechanism of water production and that is the focus of this work.
CHAPTER 2
management, a reduction in the production of this kind of water most likely implies a
reduction in the oil production, (Bailey et al 2000).
Fig 2.1: Water production with time, the case of an advancing water front
(Bailey et al, 2000)
Also, good water is the water production that is caused by converging flow lines into
the well during water injection. Since this is the shortest line from the injector to the
producer (Fig 2.2), water break through occurs first on this line. This water is
considered as good water since it is impossible to shut off flow lines.
4
Fig 2.2: A plot showing one quadrant of a uniform five-spot injection pattern
where the water from the most direct streamline is the first to break
through to the producer. (Bailey et al, 2000)
Since good water is produced with oil, water management would seek to maximize
its production and to minimize associated water costs, and the water should be
removed as early as possible.
well bore can occur through two main paths i.e. flow through a separate path as the
hydrocarbons and flow of water with the hydrocarbons (http://karl.nrcce.wvu.edu/
accessed 25/10/2010).
Flow through a separate path from the hydrocarbon often leads to direct competition
between the water and the hydrocarbon production. This usually constitutes bad
water. Therefore, reducing or controlling this water production would lead to the
increase of oil or gas production rate and recovery efficiencies. The second flow path
usually constitutes good and sweep water. Therefore a reduction or control in the
production of this water would imply a reduction in the production of the hydrocarbon
(Bailey et al 2000). However, no matter the flow path, there are three factors that
must be present, namely the source of water, pressure gradient and a favourable
relative permeability to water (http://karl.nrcce.wvu.edu/ accessed 25/10/2010).
Pressure gradient: Production of oil and gas from the reservoir can only be achieved
by applying a pressure draw-down at the wellbore which creates a pressure gradient
within the formation. Production from a fully penetrating and perforated well results in
a horizontal pressure gradient in the formation. However, flow from a partially
penetrated well will result in not just a horizontal pressure gradient but also a vertical
pressure gradient. This will often lead to an undesirable condition.
Favourable relative permeability to water: Oil, water and gas mainly flow through the
path of least resistance, which is usually the part of the reservoir with higher
permeability. For a reservoir with uniform geometry and permeability, flow will be
along a simple line into the wellbore but this is not the usual case. With water driven
or water flooded reservoirs, this heterogeneity especially in multi-layered cases
would result in water channelling through the high permeability streaks. Most
reservoirs consist of layers of different permeability, either immediately adjacent to
each other or separated by impermeable layers. Layering and associated
permeability variations are major causes of channelling in the reservoir. As the water
sweeps the higher permeability intervals, permeability to subsequent flow of the
water becomes even higher in those intervals and the lower permeability intervals
remain unswept. This leads to a premature water breakthrough. Channelling can be
further exacerbated by lower water viscosity as compared to that of oil especially
during water flooding.
Water coning, multilayer channelling and near wellbore problems are the main three
contributors
to
excessive
water
production,
(Chan
1995).
Obviously,
the
Over the last 30 years, technical efforts for water control were mainly on the
development and implementation of gels to create flow barriers for suppressing
water production. Various types of gels were applied in different types of formations.
Quite often, excessive water production mechanisms were not clearly understood or
confirmed. Although many successful treatments were reported, the overall
treatment success ratio remains low, (Chan, 1995).
Fig 2.3: Production plot showing the decline types (Satter and Thakur, 1994)
11
Fig 2.5: Production plot showing the oil/water contact depth versus cumulative
production (Satter and Thakur, 1994)
12
applicable for fw greater than 0.5 and it should not be used during the early stage of
a water flood.
Fig 2.5: Production plot showing log of water cut versus cumulative oil
production (Satter and Thakur, 1994)
Fig 2.7: Production plot showing log of oil cut versus cumulative oil
production (Satter and Thakur, 1994)
13
In 1973, Fetkovich' proposed a dimensionless rate-time type curve for decline curve
analysis of wells producing at constant bottomhole pressure. These type curves,
shown in Fig. 2.8, were developed for slightly compressible liquids. These type
curves combined analytical solutions to the flow equation in the transient region with
empirical decline curve equations in the pseudo-steady state region. The transient
portion of the Fetkovich type curve is based on an analytical solution to the radial
flow equation for slightly compressible liquids with a constant pressure inner
boundary and a no-flow outer boundary.
The following dimensionless equations were used:
The late time portion of Fetkovichs type curve, describing Pseudo-steady state or
boundary dominated flow is given by
14
Fig 2.8: Composite of analytical and empirical type curves and the
standard empirical exponential, hyperbolic and harmonic decline
curve solution on a single dimensionless curve (Fetkovich, 1980).
Though the type curve analysis can be cumbersome in application, Fetkovich (1980)
says that, type curve approach provides unique solution upon which engineers can
agree or shows when a unique solution is not possible with a type curve only. In the
event of a non unique solution, a most probable solution can be obtained if the
producing mechanism is obtained. This gives the decline curve analysis (type curve)
a good diagnostic power
15
polynomial approximation does not result in satisfactory answers in most cases. The
concept of fractional flow was based on the Buckley-Leverett recovery formula given
by,
where
This method is based purely on the actual performance of a water flood project. It
implicitly considers reservoir configurations, heterogeneity, and displacement
efficiency. One major assumption is that the operating method will remain relatively
unchanged. An interesting application of this plot is that the linear plot of cumulative
production ER versus X, the two constants, m and n, may be used to derive a field
krw/kro.
16
Where
According to Chan (1995), the above plots could be useful to evaluate production
efficiency, but they do not reveal any detail on reservoir flow behaviours. Although,
some of the plots could show reservoir characteristics, they do not shed any clue on
17
the timing of the layer breakthrough. Therefore the need for the diagnostic plot was
proposed by Chan. It reveals detailed reservoir flow behaviours, the timing of the
layer breakthrough and the relationship between the rates of change of the WOR
with the excessive water production mechanism.
19
20
Fig 2.12: Water coning and channelling WOR comparison. Chan (1995)
Fig 2.13: Multi-layer channelling WOR and WOR derivatives. Chan (1995)
21
Fig 2.14: Bottom-water coning WOR and WOR derivatives. Chan (1995)
Fig 2.15: Bottom water coning with late time channelling. Chan (1995)
22
Recently, the use of Chans WOR diagnostic plots has received significant interest in
the oil and gas industry (Seright, 1997). However, the applications of the diagnostic
plot to field data and results from numerical simulations have indicated their
limitations, especially the use of derivative plots with noisy production data. There is
therefore, a need to determine the validity of using these plots as a diagnostic
method and to see if it can be fine tuned; and that is the focus of this work.
23
CHAPTER 3
3.0 METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the methodology and the major directions of this research.
The presentation includes:
1. The flow chart for the evaluation of water production mechanism gives a step
by step procedure on how to evaluate water production mechanism in the
reservoir.
2. The production well performance evaluation and diagnostics deals with
various plots on well evaluation and diagnostics
3. The injection well performance evaluation plots and the diagnostic plots.
The methodology is validated using production and injection data in a case study of
the 31S reservoir, (Stevens Formation), Elk Hills, California.
3.1.1
Fig 3.1 describes a step by step procedure on how to evaluate water production
problem effectively. The procedure is comprehensive. However, it may not apply to
every reservoir since every reservoir may have its own peculiarities.
24
Start
evaluation
Production data
Performance evaluation
No
Water
production?
Continue
monitoring
Yes
Diagnostic plot
PLT
No
Mechanical
problem?
Yes
3
25
Further
Diagnostic plot
Sonic tool
No
No
Coning/
channelling
?
Detect
leakage?
Yes
Yes
Treatment/
shutdown
Treatment
No
No
Improve?
Improve?
Yes
Yes
Still
producing?
Yes
No
Stop
evaluation
26
Sonic Tool
These are wire line tools used mainly for evaluation. It is used to evaluate the state
of the set cement. A leaky casing close to a water zone can be detected and an
effective treatment administered (Osisanya 2010).
3.1.3 Treatment
Most mechanical problem are casing related. That is, either a casing with
compromised integrity or a poor cementing job. These usually require a remedial
cement job like squeeze cementing to shut off the zone or a change of the casing in
question. This can serve as treatment of the mechanical problem in question
(Reynolds 2003).
3.1.4
Monitoring
Prior to the necessary treatment and even after the treatment, it is a good
management practice to monitor the reservoir performance. This will help to
determine if the reservoir is producing as required or if a necessary treatment has
improved the reservoir performance (Bailey et al, 2000).
27
and 1.5 miles wide. The MBB/W31S is a turbite sandstone reservoir consisting of
feldspathic, clay rich deposits.
11-26%
10-250 md
30-45%
3150 psia
2965 psia
Reservoir temperature
210 oF
0.40 cp
Oil gravity
36 oAPI
Mobility ratio
0.6
25%
610 MMBO
28
For the reservoir study of The Case Study, a 50 x 15 x 8 grid was used to establish
an 8 layer model characteristic of the reservoir (Ezekwe 2010), Each grid block had
an areal dimension of 300ft x 500ft. The model had a variable thickness as shown in
Table 3.2. An average porosity of 20% and permeability of 750md was used with the
vertical permeability, kv, varying according to the layers. These values were input into
the black oil simulator, (SENSOR, 2009).
Table 3.2: Reservoir thickness distribution for each layer in the model
Top
6400
40
L1
6485
45
L2
6525
40
L3
35
L4
6580
20
L5
6660
20
L6
35
L7
35
L8
35
L8
6440
6560
6695
WOC
6730
The summary of some of the reservoir properties used is as shown in Table 3.1.
Production and injection perforations are through all the layers. There were 44 wells
with 26 injectors and 18 producers in the model. Initial reservoir pressure is 3150psi
at 6400ft depth with bubble point pressure at 2950 psi. Rock compressibility was
taken to be 5x106 per psi. The simulations were run for 10 years to provide data for
29
X-Plot
Where,
water oil ratio (WOR) is given as
water cut is
30
For the X-Plot, the plot of the X function against cumulative production is carried out
such that the x function is given by
X-Plot
The Log- Log Plot of Water Oil Ratio derivative with time
The X-Plot can be used to evaluate the performance of water flooding via a straight
line extrapolation which gives the corresponding recovery for given water cut. For
this reason, water cuts greater than 0.5 is used for this analysis.
Another application of the plots is the ability to diagnose layering in a multi layered
system. The assumption inherent in this plot is that the operating conditions in the
reservoir remain relatively unchanged.
The WOR and the WOR derivative (WOR) plots are used in combination to
diagnose the reservoir related water production mechanism prevailing in the
reservoir. It takes into cognisance that an upward sloping of the WOR plot with time
indicates increased water production. It also considers that the upward sloping of the
WOR derivative indicates multilayer channelling while the downward sloping
indicates water coning. For the purpose of this work, the centre difference first order
derivative approach is used to determine the WOR. Where WOR is given by
31
32
Piston Displacement
It is important to recall the rationale behind the methodology of this work. The ideal
trends of WOR, WOR, X-Plot etc are generated from the simulations and used for
the basis (templates) for comparison with actual trends obtained from the plots of
field data.
33
CHAPTER 4
4.0
The results obtained from The Case Study are presented and discussed in this
section. The order of the discussion is thus;
The field performance and diagnostics with the field data from The Case
Study are presented.
The performance evaluation and diagnostics of the injection wells from the
simulation as well as that of the Case study are presented.
4.1
EVALUATION OF RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE TRENDS FROM
SIMULATED DATA
Oil rate and water rate as well as water cut and oil cut data are compared to the ideal
trends obtained from simulation
34
rate, then water cut is 50%, and therefore at this point and beyond, the X-plot can be
effective
for
performance
evaluation
and
diagnoses
of
water
production
mechanisms. The point beyond which the X-Plot analysis is valid is shown in Figures
4.1 through 4.3.
300000
100
250000
80
QWAT Impes
70
200000
QOIL Impes
50% water cut
60
WCUT Impes
150000
50
40
100000
30
20
50000
10
1000
2000
3000
4000
TIME (DAYS)
Fig 4.1: Simulated Field Production rates and water cut versus time
35
WCUT (%)
90
10000
50
QWAT Impes
40
QOIL Impes
30
WCUT Impes
5000
WCUT (%)
20000
20
10
0
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
TIME (DAYS)
Fig 4.2: Simulated Well Production rates and water cut versus time (Well P2)
10000
50%
QWAT Impes
QOIL Impes
WCUT Impes
WCUT
20000
40%
30%
5000
20%
10%
0
0%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
TIME (DAYS)
Fig 4.3: Simulated Well Production rates and water cut versus time (Well P3)
36
The plot of the oil rate versus time in figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 shows an exponential
decline trend. Therefore, making it possible to fit in the proposed model by Lawal
and Utin (2007). The trends of the plots of oil cut versus time are analysed for the
simulated data in Fig 4.4, Fig 4.5 and Fig 4.6. Fig 4.4 shows the trends for the field,
while Fig 4.5 and Fig 4.6 show the trend for producer well P2 and producer P3,
respectively. These curves show a linear trend and therefore, can be extrapolated at
a given economic limit of oil cut to project future oil production and reserves for the
water flooding process.
Oil Cut
100%
10%
1%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Time, Days
37
2500
3000
3500
4000
Oil Cut
100%
10%
1%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Time, Days
Fig 4.5: Simulated Well Oil cut versus Time (Well P2)
Oil Cut
100%
10%
1%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Time, Days
Fig 4.6: Simulated Well Oil cut versus Time (Well P3)
38
3000
3500
4000
From the plot of water cut with cumulative oil production, a linear extrapolation can
be established for high tension water flooding, where the log plot of k rw/kro with
saturation is linear (Ershaghi and Abdassah, 1984). The plots of log of water cut
versus cumulative oil production are shown in Figures 4.7 through 4.9. However,
Figures 4.7 through 4.9 do not show a linear fit from the beginning of oil production.
However, these plots can still be extrapolated if linear trends are observed at higher
water cuts. From the plots below, linear trends at higher water cuts are extrapolated
and the corresponding recovery can be deduced from an economic water cut.
Water Cut
point at which
linear
extrapolation starts
10.00%
1.00%
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
39
300000
Water Cut
10.00%
1.00%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Fig 4.8: Simulated well water cut versus cumulative production (Well P2)
Water Cut
point at which
linear
extrapolation starts
10.00%
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Fig 4.9: Simulated well water cut versus cumulative production (Well P3)
40
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.00
100.0
150.0
200.0
Cumulative Oil Production, MMSTBO
250.0
300.0
2.4000
point at which
extrapolation
starts
2.3000
2.2000
2.1000
2.0000
2.0
4.0
6.0
2.4
Changing slopes depicting Layers
with varying permeabiltiy
2.3
2.2
point at which
extrapolation
starts
2.1
2.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
42
11.0
12.0
43
30000
25000
20000
Water Rate
15000
Oil Rate
10000
5000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Time, Days
30000
25000
20000
Oil Rate
15000
Water Rate
Well shut in
10000
5000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Time, Days
7000
Fig 4.15, Fig 4.16 and Fig 4.17 are the semi-log plots of oil cut with cumulative oil
production for The Case Study. Fig 4.15 (Field data) shows a linear trend which can
be extrapolated to an economic limit for oil cut. However, the data from the wells
PR1 and PR2 shown in Fig 4.16 and Fig 4.17 does not show this linear trend and
this can be explained by the peculiarities of the individual well exhibit such as,
periodic shut ins and possible work over, during well production. Similar plots with
this trend are shown in Appendix B. Although the field shows a trend, this would not
be very effective in telling the performance of individual wells.
Oil Cut
100%
10%
1%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Time, Days
45
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Oil Cut
100%
10%
1%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Time, Days
Oil Cut
100%
10%
1%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Time, Days
Fig 4.17: Well Oil cut versus Production time (Well PR2)
46
7000
8000
9000
10.00%
1.00%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Water Cut
100.00%
10.00%
1.00%
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Fig 4.19: Well Water cut versus Cumulative Production (Well PR1)
47
55.0
60.0
Fig 4.18 and Fig 4.19 above shows the log of water cut versus cumulative production
for the field and well. Plots of other wells are shown in Appendix B. As was observed
for the simulated plots, linear trends were established at higher water cuts and the
extrapolation of this linear trend to a given economic limit water cut will give the
cumulative oil production for that water cut. Ultimately, the recovery with the water
flooding can be determined and therefore the effectiveness of the operative drive
mechanism.
48
X-PLOT
2.05
y = 0.004x + 1.378
2.04
2.03
2.02
2.01
2
100
150
200
250
300
3.00
2.50
2.00
40.0
45.0
50.0
49
55.0
10
1
0.1
WOR
0.01
WOR'
0.001
0.0001
100
1000
10000
Time, Days
50
10
1
0.1
WOR
WOR'
0.01
0.001
0.0001
100
1000
10000
Time, Days
10
1
0.1
WOR
WOR'
0.01
0.001
0.0001
100
1000
10000
Time, Days
51
The diagnosed channelling would seem to be the true diagnosis since, The Case
Study seems to exhibit a layering system with the upper Main Body having higher
permeability and therefore water is being channelled through the upper layers,
Ezekwe (2010)
52
10
1
0.1
WOR
WOR'
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1000
10000
Time, Days
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-01
wor
wor'
1.00E-02
1.00E-03
1.00E-04
100
1000
10000
Time, Days
53
QWI (STB/D)
50000
40000
30000
20000
Pressure maintenance, therefore
constant rate
10000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
TIME (DAYS)
Fig 4.27: Simulated Injection rate and pressure versus time (Injector SI1)
54
QWI (STB/D)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
TIME (DAYS)
Fig 4.28: Simulated Injection rate and pressure versus time (Injector SI4)
55
4000
3000
2000
2500
1500
2000
1500
1000
Pressure, psi
3500
2500
inj rate
inj press
1000
500
500
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
Time, Days
Fig 4.29: Well Injection rate and pressure versus time (Injector F1)
3000
4000
3000
2000
2500
1500
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
3500
2500
500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
Time, Days
Fig 4.30: Well Injection rate and pressure versus time (Injector F2)
56
inj rate
inj press
2500
3000
2000
2500
1500
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
3000
inj rate
inj press
500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
Time, Days
Fig 4.31: Well Injection rate and pressure versus time (Injector F3)
2.50E+06
2.00E+06
Pressure
maintenance
1.50E+06
Fill up
1.00E+06
5.00E+05
0.00E+00
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2.50E+06
Pressure
maintenance
2.00E+06
1.50E+06
Fill up
1.00E+06
5.00E+05
0.00E+00
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
58
25000
30000
Hall Plot
Cumulative (P)(t), Psi-Days
5.00E+07
4.00E+07
3.00E+07
(B)Pressure
maintenance
2.00E+07
1.00E+07
(A)Fill up
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.50E+06
59
2.00E+06
2.50E+06
Hall Plot
3.00E+07
2.50E+07
(D)Change in slope
due to wellbore
plugging
2.00E+07
(B)Pressure
maintenance
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
(A)Fill up
5.00E+06
0.00E+00
0.0E+00
1.0E+06
2.0E+06
3.0E+06
4.0E+06
Hall Plot
Cumulative (P)(t), Psi-Days
3.50E+07
(D)Change in slope due
to wellbore plugging
3.00E+07
2.50E+07
(B)Pressure
maintenance
2.00E+07
1.50E+07
1.00E+07
(A)Fill up
5.00E+06
0.00E+00
0.E+00
2.E+05
4.E+05
6.E+05
8.E+05
60
1.E+06
1.E+06
Fig 4.37 shows the use of the Hearn plot to diagnose the injection well performance.
Although, Fig 4.37 shows some trend, Fig E-1 and Fig E-2 (Appendix E) does not
show any definite trend that can be diagnosed. At point F on Fig 4.37 there is an
increase in slope which implies an increase in transmissibility possibly due to near
wellbore fracturing. Thus, the Hearn plot is confirming the fracture observed earlier
with the Hall plot.
Hearn Plot
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
10000
100000
1000000
61
10000000
4.7 GUIDELINES
The following steps of guidelines are therefore suggested for the evaluation of water
production mechanism.
1. Collect data frequently
2. Establish the workflow for the analysis of the data
3. Carry out the reservoir performance evaluation
4. Check for applicability of available methods
5. Carry out diagnoses (If there is reduced performance)
6. Combine diagnosis with logging
7. Treat the problem
8. Re-evaluate for the improvement of reservoir performance
9. Continue steps 1-8 till the end of production
62
CHAPTER 5
5.0
The results of the Case Study validates the workflow proposed for diagnosing
reservoir and near wellbore mechanisms controlling water production and
injection characteristics in the field.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are presented for future research work to improve
the proposed methodology and results obtained in this study:
A performance evaluation and diagnosis be carried out for the case study of
gas production and guidelines be established for the mitigation of high GasOil ratios
A fine grid scale and more representative reservoir model should be built of
the Case Study to conduct a history match of the production and injection
data to improve the diagnostic procedure developed in this study.
There is a need to quantify the uncertainty and risk associated with the use of
diagnostic plots, and this topic is proposed for further research.
64
REFERENCES
3. Chan, K.S.: Water Control Diagnostic Plots, paper SPE 30775, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 22-25
4. Dake L. P 1978 Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering Elsevier Publishing,
Amsterdan, Netherlands, pp 345-348
11. Lawal K. A. And Utin E. 2007, A didactic analysis of water cut trend during
exponential Oil decline. Paper SPE 111920 Presented at the 31 st Nigeria
Annual International Conference, Abuja, Nigeria August 6-8
12. Reynolds R. R, Produced water and associated Issue, Petroleum Technology
Transfer Council, 2003.
65
13. Satter A. and Thakur G.C., 1994 Integrated Petroleum Reservoir Management,
A team approach, PennWell Publishing Company
14. SENSOR Compositional and Black Oil Simulation Software, 2009, Coats
Engineering. http://www.CoatsEngineering.com
15. Seright, R.S.: Improved Methods for Water Shutoff, Annual Technical
Progress Report (U.S. DOE Report DOE/PC/91008-4), U.S. DOE Contract
DE-AC22-94PC91008, BDM-Oklahoma Subcontract G4S60330 (Nov. 1997)
.
16. Spivey J.P, Gatens J.M, Semmelbeck M.E and Lee W.J. 1992 Integral Type
Curves for Advanced Decline Curve Analysis Paper 24301 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference, Mid-Amarillo, Texas, DOI, 1992.
66
APPENDIX-A: NOMENCLATURE
= Porosity, fraction
=viscosity, cp
w = viscosity of water, cp
qi = Initial rate, STB/D
q = rate, STB/D
B = Formation Volume Factor, rb/STB
t = time, days
h = Reservoir thickness
fw = water cut, fraction
ER = Recovery
K = permeability, mD
tD = Dimensionless time
qD = Dimensionless rate
RD = Dimensionless radius
Ct = total compressibility, 1/psi
PI = Initial Reservoir pressure, psi
Pwf = Bottom hole Flowing Pressure
67
APPENDIX-B: CASE STUDY ONE OIL RATE AND WATER RATE PLOTS
12000
10000
Shut-in
8000
oilrate
6000
oil rate equals
water rate
4000
water rate
2000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Time, MMYY
12000
10000
8000
6000
oil rate
Shut-in
water rate
4000
2000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Time, Days
10000
12000
10000
8000
WATER RATE
6000
Shut-in
OIL RATE
4000
2000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time, Days
Oil Cut
100%
10%
1%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time, Days
Fig B-4: Well Oil cut versus Production time (Well PR3)
69
8000
9000
Oil Cut
100%
10%
1%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Time, Days
Fig B-5: Well Oil cut versus Production time (Well PR4)
Water Cut
10.00%
General water
cut trend
1.00%
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
Fig B-6: Well Water cut versus Cumulative Production (Well PR3)
70
40.000
Water Cut
10.00%
General water
cut trend
1.00%
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
Fig B-7: Well Water cut versus Cumulative Production (Well PR4)
Water Cut
100.00%
10.00%
1.00%
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
Fig B-8: Well Water cut versus Cumulative Production (Well PR2)
71
60.0
3.0000
2.5000
2.0000
34.000
36.000
38.000
3.5000
3.0000
2.5000
2.0000
20.000
22.000
24.000
72
26.000
2.3000
2.2000
2.1000
2.0000
36.500
37.000
Cumulative Oil Production
, MMSTBO
73
37.500
10
1
0.1
wor
wor'
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1000
10000
Time, Days
10
1
0.1
WOR
WOR'
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1000
10000
TIME, DAYS
10
1
0.1
wor
wor'
0.01
0.001
0.0001
1000
10000
Time, Days
75
Hearn Plot
Inverse Injectivity, P/qw, PSI/STB/D
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
100000
1000000
10000000
Hearn Plot
Inverse injectivity, P/qw, Psi/STB/D
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
10000
100000
Cumulative Water Injected, STB
1000000