SPE-187783-MS

Investigation of a Pressure Barrier at OWC and its Effect on Waterflood

Bogdan Stasyuk and Virginia Camerlo, Chevron

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference held in Moscow, Russia, 16-18 October 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Understanding the pressure history of a field brings valuable information that could affect decisions
regarding future field development. Sequential formation tests (RFT, MDT, XPT, RDT, Stethoscope and
other tools) done while drilling a new well can help describe the dynamics of pressure conditions in the
reservoir. In the early life of a field, sequential formation tests describe initial reservoir conditions (gradients,
contacts, compartments). Sequential formation tests obtained in wells drilled after the start of production
can help the understanding of communication within the field (injector to producer; producer to producer;
aquifer/peripheral injection effect; barriers; and connectivity across faults).
Historical sequential formation tests performed on a nearly 30-year-old oil and gas field in West Africa
were analyzed and used to identify, confirm and describe a significant pressure barrier at the OOWC
(e.g. "tar mat" that gives up to 1000psi difference across contact). Systemizing sequential formation test
data by time and area allowed estimation of the pressure barrier extent and its effect on communication
between peripheral injectors and the oil zone. Pressure breaks were then plotted on well logs and located in
conventional core, where possible, to determine a possible geologic explanation for the pressure barriers.
Smaller pressure barriers are attributed to lithologic changes associated with either facies changes
or secondary dolomitization. However, the largest pressure barrier appears across the OOWC. Visual
inspection of 5 conventional cores across the field, confirms the presence of 6-9 ft. of solid hydrocarbons,
interpreted to be a "tar mat," across the OOWC, except in the northwest portion of the field. Core analysis
of samples within the tar mat zone shows unaltered, high permeability (as per testing procedure all cores
were cleaned with solvent before testing). The pressure barrier is likely due to the presence of soluble, but
highly viscous, long chain hydrocarbons that effectively create a no flow barrier across the OOWC.
Wells with a long period of water free production correspond to areas with a predictable strong pressure
barrier at the OOWC. Conversely, wells located in an area with a poorly defined barrier at the OOWC
had quicker water break-through. Thus, we conclude that peripheral water injection perforated below the
OOWC is less effective in areas where the tar mat is present.

Introduction
Sequential formation tests (SFT) commercial application started in 1950s. Early tools were able to recover
one pressure and fluid sample on each trip. Since then, multiple tools and modifications with improved
capabilities have been introduced including RFT, MDT, XPT, RDT, Stethoscope and others.
2 SPE-187783-MS

Pressure profiles acquired from SFT data can be used to evaluate the following:

• Initial conditions (gradients, contacts, compartments and effects from nearby producing fields on
conditions at field startup);
• Reservoir Connectivity across Faults;

• Pressure dynamics by zone as well as field wide;

• Identification of possible barriers and baffles.

This article shows how analysis of available pressure profiles acquired through the life of the field helped
describe a significant pressure barrier across the OOWC, its extent and strength, as well as its effect on
waterflood performance.
Main stages of analysis:

• Data mining and normalization

• Analysis to evaluate connectivity within the reservoir and communication to aquifer/peripheral

injectors. Analysis utilized available pressure, core as well as referencing exiting static model
• Evaluation field pressure dynamic history to see how exiting baffles and barriers affect field
performance
• Cross validating results with actual production performance.

Investigation of a Pressure Barrier at OWC and its Effect on Waterflood

Geologic Setting
The field under study, located in West Africa, is a mature oil field associated with a large, faulted, 4-way
closure. The field is comprised of numerous stacked reservoirs that share a common original GOC and
OWC. The dominant lithology is siltstone with varying degrees of dolomitization.

Normalization
Pressure data from across the field were normalized to a single reference well in order to evaluate the current
pressure state within a given layer/sequence. The reference well should contain a complete stratigraphic
section of producing intervals that are lithologically representative of the reservoirs in the field. The
pressure/depth should be adjusted based on the pressure measurement's relative position within the reference
layer (see Figure 1).

Figure 1—Example of Original SFT Pressure Profile and SFT Pressure Normalized to Reference Well (two wells in NE area)
SPE-187783-MS 3

Evaluation of Reservoir Connectivity across Faults

Normalization is a great tool to assess reservoir connectivity across faults. An example below shows how
application of normalized and original data helped us understand the connectivity issue. Original data show
similar pressures at similar depths across the fault which suggest communication between juxtaposed layers.
In contrast, the normalized data clearly show that pressure is different within a given layer across the fault,
thereby indicating measurable displacement (see Figure 2).

Figure 2—Evaluation of pressure communication across the fault (two wells in central area).

Pressure Barrier across OOWC

Sequential formation tests (e.g. SFT) done while drilling new wells were collected throughout the field's
nearly 30-year field life. Available data show initial conditions of the field, initial depletion prior to field
start up, as well as field pressure dynamics through the years of production.
Assessment of available data shows significant variation of pressure both spatially and in time. Wells were
grouped by area and the year in which they were drilled. Four groups were defined: south, central, northeast
and northwest. A closer look at wells in the south of the field reveals significant pressure discontinuity of
~1000psi across the OOWC. This barrier is observed at the same subsea depth across multiple different
stratigraphic layers (see Figure 3).

Figure 3—Acute Pressure Barrier Across OOWC in Southern Part of the Field Shown on SFT Pressure Profile
4 SPE-187783-MS

The NW-SE cross-section reveals changes in pressure barrier ability to hold pressure. The pressure barrier
is almost impermeable in SE-Central locations holding up to a 1000psi differential pressure. The pressure
barrier in the NE is still observable, but it is only 100psi difference across it. Additionally, several layers
were identified as baffles due to facies changes and/or dolomitization (see Figure 4).

Figure 4—NW-SE SFT Pressure Profiles Cross Section

Reservoir Pressure Dynamics

Historical wells with SFT data are located throughout the entire field enabling us to map the effectiveness of
the main pressure barrier at the OOWC. The barrier is strongest in the southern and central parts of the field
while it has a limited effect on the northern part enabling some communication with peripheral injectors
and influence of the field in vicinity.
Assessment of field pressure dynamics history using sequential formation tests (SFT's) was the next step
of evaluation. This step is important for understanding the first decade of field production and field pressure
regime. All SFT pressure points were brought to datum depth (in this case OGOC). Early SFT's brought to
datum depth show small pressure variation. While at a later stage we observe a broader pressure difference
along the well within the hydrocarbon zone which supports the presence of baffles and effects of selective
water injection/oil production from certain zones.
During the first decade of production the field was dominated by pressure depletion. Peripheral water
injection below the OOWC began 4 years after initial production, however it became evident that pressure
support was limited due to the presence of a widespread pressure barrier.
Startup of interior water injection (e.g. injection into hydrocarbon saturated area above pressure barrier)
became a turning point for reservoir pressure dynamics. The reservoir pressure immediately began to recover
as pressure support was brought directly to depleted zones. Initial reservoir pressure was restored 10-12
years after start of interior injection (see Figure 5).
Pressure dynamics of the water zone below the pressure barrier shows a significantly different story.
Unlike the oil zone, pressure below the OOWC never dropped significantly, even in the northern part of
the field where the barrier is less efficient (it drops 100-250 psi max). While at southern/central part of the
field, pressure rose 150psi above initial due to injection and no communication to oil zone (see Figure 6).
SPE-187783-MS 5

Figure 5—Field Pressure Dynamics from SFT Pressure Profiles for Depth Between GOC and OWC Brought to Datum Depth

Figure 6—Field Pressure Dynamics from SFT Pressure Profiles for Depth Below OWC Brought to Datum Depth

Effect of Pressure Barrier on Waterflooding

Field water injection started 4 years after first oil. Initially only peripheral injection was utilized.
Fluid rate, water cut and water salinity were used as criteria to evaluate the effects of peripheral
injection wells on producers. In the northern part of the field we see a flowrate increase followed by water
breakthrough. The central part of the field is distinctly different; the flow rate was unaffected by water
injection and we continue to see water free production (see Figure 7). While there were relatievley few
wells drilled in the southern part of the field at that time, new wells encountered unaltered oil saturation
with no signs of water encroachment.
Though volume of injection and location of injectors was aimed to provide sufficient energy support to
fully recover reservoir pressure, actual pressure dynamics continue to shows depletion of the field. Because
of that and the fact that extended periods of water free production was observed in the southern and central
parts of the field, it was decided to convert several less successful producers into injectors targeting injection
directly into oil zone. Those injectors showed immediate success so it was decided to add several additional
interior injection wells.
6 SPE-187783-MS

Figure 7—Effect of Peripheral Injection of Producer's Fluid Rate

Evaluation of interior injectors effect on producers was based on the assessment of wells, water cut and
water salinity dynamics response. Fluid rate response to interior injection was masked by field production
capacity limitation and were not included for analysis
Clear effects from interior injection were observed at southern and central part of the field where no effect
from peripheral injection was observed previously. The presence of the pressure barrier across OOWC helps
explain the long water free production for wells in the south especially those located in proximity to OOWC.
No clear effects from interior injection could be observed in the northern area. This is likely due to the
observed effect of pressure support from peripheral injection in this area.
Wells showing some effect were identified in between northern and southern/central zones. Interior
injectors effect was limited here because of further distance from injectors and presence of the baffles that
control vertical pressure/fluid communication (see Figure 8).

Figure 8—Effect of Interior Injection of Producer's WC

Nature of Pressure Barrier across OOWC

The pressure barrier is observed at the same subsea depth, corresponding to the OOWC that is cuts across
different layers and is strong enough to withstand 1000psi differential pressure.
SFT data plotted alongside petrophysical logs alone could not explain the large pressure barrier.
SPE-187783-MS 7

Fortunately, we have 5 conventionally cored wells through this interval, plus those wells were drilled in
different parts of the field.
Visual inspection of core from the south of the field shows the brownish color of fluid in the oil leg
changing abruptly to dark brown to black within couple feet as we approach the OOWC. This 1.5-6.0 ft
zone of very dark oil suggests a change within the fluids at the OOWC.
Permeability measured on core samples taken within this "dark" interval (e.g. black color of fluid
saturating interval of OOWC) shows unaltered permeability in comparison to similar layers in the oil or
gas zones above. We believe this is due to the testing procedure of a core prior to measurement taking as
samples are first cleaned with a solvent. The cleaning procedure is effectively removing any "bitumen" that
is plugging pore space and creating the effective barrier to pressure.
Examination of the other four conventional cores distributed across the field yielded similar observations
at the OOWC. The black colored interval at the OOWC is most notable in the south and central parts of the
field, whereas the dark colored zone is broken into two/three smaller intervals to the north.

Conclusions
A significant and field wide pressure barrier across OOWC present in the field. It is strongest on its southern
and central parts and less evident in north of the field. Several lithological baffles were identified in northern
and central parts of the field, but were less significant.
The presence of a pressure barrier has a significant effect on field pressure dynamics. Peripheral injectors
were mostly affecting the northern part of the field. The field continued to show depletion trend even after
the start of peripheral injection.
Interior injection allowed to restoration of reservoir pressure to its initial level.
Identified pressure barrier and baffles were incorporated into the dynamic model update. Consequently,
that improved history match and eventually predictability of the model.

Lessons Learned
1) Collecting sequential formation test data (e.g. SFT) throughout the life of a field can help identify zonal/
areal isolation and explain its effect on field production – this significantly affects field development/
waterflood optimization/realignment decisions; 2) Cross-functional team effort helps reveal the nature of the
problem by combining different points of view and sharing available information; 3) If a tar mat (pressure
barrier) is suspected in your field, look to mud logs and core reports for references to tar, bitumen, solid
hydrocarbons, then view the actual core; 4) Talk with your colleagues to see if tar mats are present in nearby
fields.

Best Practices
1) Sequential formation testing (e.g. SFT) should be incorporated into evaluation program for significant
number of wells giving areal coverage and time lapse control (better to have it on all infill wells); 2)
Testing points should be both above and below OOWC; 3) Inclusion of peripheral injectors into testing
program provides valuable information to describe overall field performance;4) Visual assessment of the
core could help identify potential high viscosity barriers (that couldn't be identified using routine core
analysis only); 5) Use of different techniques (e.g. SFT normalization) can add additional value to analysis;
6) The availability and use of multiple conventional cores across the field provides invaluable insight into
the spatial distribution of reservoir characteristics.

Challenges
Having 27 years of field production history, it is not always easy to ensure that all available data is collected
and available for analysis. Time should be allocated for data mining and systematization.