SPE 97624

Umm Gudair Production Plateau Extension, The Applicability of FullField Dumpflood

Injection to Maintain Reservoir Pressure and Extend Production Plateau
R. Quttainah and E. Al-Maraghi, Kuwait Oil Co.

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–6 December 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
More than 40 years of production has confirmed that the
UG (MO) reservoir receives very little natural pressure
support in some areas. The introduction of a new Production
gathering center has increased the field production 6 folds. At
current reservoir conditions and production strategy, the
production will stay on plateau for only 3 years. This is mainly
due to the rapidly falling reservoir pressure. The remedial plan
is to initiate a full field water injection project to maintain
reservoir pressure.
The primary objective of this project was to extend
production plateau as long as economically possible. The
reservoir pressure for the field, as well as different areas
within it, is declining rapidly. The most important cause of this
reservoir pressure decline is the high off-take rate (compared
with the aquifer influx rate) and the lack of a reservoir
pressure support such as water injection. This suggests that the
water injection option is needed to support the reservoir
pressure and extend the oil production plateau.
In this project, many development options were
considered. These options can be grouped into three main
groups: water injection, infill drilling and combined
development options. In the water injection option,
comparisons were considered. These options are surface
injection vs. dumpflooding, pattern vs. peripheral injection,
injection into the oil column vs. injection into the water zone.
In the drilling option, comparison between infilling and
sidetracking was done. Basically, within each option there was
an optimization process, which consists of many sensitivity
cases. The purpose behind these many cases is to optimize
each option before being combined and get better results than
when used alone. For example, in the water injection option,
sensitivities were run to see the impact of number and location
of injectors. Also, within that case, sensitivities were run to
see impact of not achieving a target injection rate. For the
infill drilling option, many cases were run to optimize the
number of producers. For the combined development options,
sensitivities were run to determine best-combined option and
to study impact of water injectivity issues.
Technical Contributions:
1. Will demonstrate the design of a fullfield water injection
scheme to maintain reservoir pressure.
2. Will demonstrate the applicability of dumpflood to re-
pressurize a constantly depleting reservoir.
3. Will demonstrate a cost-effective technique to maintain
reservoir pressure.
Introduction, Geologic Description & History
The project was initiated by reviewing all relevant and
previous data and studies or projects to recommend an
appropriate procedure and set a plan assuming a fullfield
dump flood project life. It should be noted that some of the
data may not be revealed due to the confidentiality regulations.
The primary objective of this project is to maximize the
value of umm Gudair field.
The Umm Gudair (UG) oil field lies at the northwestern
region of the Arabian Gulf within the Arabian basin in the
state of Kuwait The field is geographically divided into three
smaller sectors, EUG, WUG and SUG. Geologically, the field
consists of two anticlines, EUG/SUG and WUG. These two
anticlines merge at a shallow structural saddle which links the
two structures into a single oil accumulation. Carbonate rocks
of the early Cretaceous age form the principle oil producing
reservoir in the Umm Gudair field. The Minagish Oolite (MO)
carbonates, which is the major oil bearing reservoir unit, is
composed primarily of porous grainstones and packstones
deposited in a shallow marine shoals and organic build-up on
broad carbonate platform, attain a thickness of approximately
400 foot thick original oil column.
The following map (Figure-1) illustrates the UG field
geographic map.
2 SPE 97624

The following figure (figure-3) is a plot that shows the

future production forecast that is intend to have after the new
production facilities are in place.
WUG 3500

3000

PRESSURE, PSIA
EUG

RATES, STB/D
2500
WATER
Concession Line
2000

SUG OIL
1500

Figure-1, A geographic map of the UG field. 1000

Jan-97 Jan-01 Jan-05 Jan-09 Jan-13 Jan-17 Jan-21 Jan-25
YEAR
As Figure-1 shows, the field is subdivided into 3 smaller
sections (EUG, WUG, and SUG). Figure-3. A plot showing planned production rate and falling
Since Discovery of the oil field back in the early 1960’s, reservoir pressure with time
and all the way to the early 1980’s, all wells were producing
naturally with little or no water cut. The average well As it is noticed from the above figure, the planned fluid
production was around 3000 bbl/day. The reservoir pressure production rate is around 450 M B/D, a lot of it is oil. It is also
was noticed to be declining through time due to the production clear that the reservoir pressure will rapidly decline to around
of this reservoir and seemingly receiving very little pressure 1500 psi.
maintenance or support. At that time, around the beginning of After commissioning of the new production facilities and
the 1980’s, the FBHP was not high enough to sustain the putting the UG field on ESP production, we can sustain a
required natural production of each well, it was then decided constant oil production rate of plateau production from
to install ESP’s to increase the production rates up to the UG(MO) for roughly 3 years. After that, the oil production
desired rates. This action has even increased the decline of the rate will fall off plateau after year 3. This is mainly due to the
reservoir pressure with time. The following figure (Figure–1) rapidly declining reservoir pressure and shutting in wells due
is a plot that represents the historical production starting in the to high watercut. After the new facility commissioning, a rapid
early 1960’s up to recent date. It also shows the constantly pressure decline is forecasted. This is mainly due to poor
declining reservoir pressure. aquifer support.
So, the major reasons for the need of water to be injected
4100 into the UG(MO) are to protect reserves, stop or reduce the
Reservoir Pressure (psia)
Oil & Water Rates (Mb/d)

3900 rapid reservoir pressure decline with time. Also, water

3700
injection enables poor reservoir response to be managed and
extend the oil production plateau when the new facility come
3500
online, and finally, accelerate oil recovery.
3300

3100 Project Summary

2900
The recommended Umm Gudair plateau extension option
2700
involves a combination of dumpflood injection and infill
Jan 62

Jan 66

Jan 70

Jan 74

Jan 78

Jan 82

Jan 86

Jan 90

Jan 94

Jan 98

Jan 02

producers. The dumpflood operation provides pressure support

and increases oil sweep. The infill producers allow the
Figure-2. A plot showing historical production rate and falling remaining swept oil to be recovered. The combination of
reservoir pressure with time injection and infill producers gives the Umm Gudair Field
more value to KOC.
As figure–2 shows, the reservoir pressure has declined The combined dumpflood water injection and infill drilling
from the original reservoir pressure of 4150 psi down to 3000 and production are the optimum development option that
psi current reservoir pressure at datum. maximizes the oil plateau extension. The key risk was the
injectivity in the water leg (outside OWC), which was tested.
Water Injection Objectives: The implementation of dumpflood injection will also result in
significant additional water production, as well as oil.
New production plans of UG field, is to increase the The key subsurface requirements of the recommended case
UG(MO) production to higher production rates and maintain are:
that rate as much as possible from the MO. which is our target • Peripheral water injection to provide reservoir pressure
reservoir for water injection. support. The optimum dumpflood injection rate that is
SPE 97624 3

required to meet our pressure increase and optimise - Establish structural trends from oil zone into aquifer &
sweep is 450-550 mbwpd. Establish aquifer limits
• 16 dumpflood wells – the economics are based on - Test injector casing & completion designs
achieving the optimum injection rate utilising 16 wells - Establish aquifer connectivity through interference
capable of dumpflooding 28-35 mbwpd each. Subsurface testing
studies indicate a range of injectivities that could result - Establish and test long-term producibility of Zubair
in the eventual number of wells required between 11-22. - Establish impact of distance of water injection from oil
Two wells were drilled and tested in 2001/02 to establish column & establish impact of water injection on migration
the exact number of wells required. - Use tracer to establish connection of aquifer with oil
• 38 infill producer wells (ESPs) – these wells will be column
required after the dumpflood wells have been drilled and - Gather appropriate core data from both Zubair and
are required to start in 2006. Minagish Oolite
• 6 disposal wells – these wells are required in 2006 to
dispose of the additional water produced by the project, The tasks that were done to ensure the success and to
over and above the capacity of the current Umm Gudair achieve the set objectives. A list of tasks had to be completed
water disposal route through the West Kuwait area . in order to acquire the needed information and data from
Many simulation runs were made to reach the above drilling the two dumpflood wells.
mentioned optimum number of dumpflood, infill and disposal The body of this report will be divided into 3 main
wells. The wells that are recommended to be drilled are sections. These sections are:
phased out and planned to be drilled on a schedule time frame. Tasks done during well allocation.
That schedule and time frame is out of this reports main focus. Tasks done during Well Drilling and completion
If its required to view that information, you can review the Tasks to be done after start of DF
Umm Gudair Plteau Extension Options Project Reservoir
Report issued in September 2001. DF Well Surveillance
As it was listed in that report, the following map is a map
that shows the locations of the planned dumpflood wells to be After the start of the dumpflood operation, a
drilled and the planned infill wells to be drilled. comprehensive surveillance plan should be implemented to
UMM GUDAIR FIE LD (M inagish Oolite)
capture the effect of the dumpflood operation on the actual
well and on the reservoir. The surveillance items that need to
focus on are:
72

6
2
44

8 6

1 1 0
- Monitor rate and pressure in each observation well.
- Monitor rate and pressure in dumpflood well by layer
33

3
2 83

71

8 2 5
1 08

0
2
6 9
8
1

9 3
WO 1
42

5
6

8 4
1 4
while dumpflooding.
1 0
6

66
2
1
4 6

7
6
1 0 9

9
85
1 2 1

75
- Falloff tests (to monitor pressure and change in
injectivity/stimulation long term)
N D E -E 1 5
9 7
5 6
1 0
7 00
1
1 6 7 1 24 9 5
12 2 7 4
7 9

12 3 3

1
8
2 2 98
4
6 9 6

9 4

2 9 7 3

1 1
4
S O5

1 1
8

11 5 1 2
1 1 1

5 8
5
2

6 1
28

1 7
N D E -E 7
19

4 3
78
8 0

1 5
- Establish response in oil column to water injection (by
layer, sweep/conformance, directionality)
1 0 2 6 2
8
6 4 1 77

5 7
1 1 9 1 3 6 5 9
SO4 5 0
3 0
8 7
S O3 11 7 4

S O2
1 16
5 1
ND E
-A F 4 9 4 8 2 7 5 5 60

- Pressure interference testing to establish aquifer

S O1

10
11 2
89 N DE
-K
9
7 6
1 3 8
3 2
3 2 1 4
5
8 1 20 5 3
9 2
7 0
3 5 3 9

24
3 3 1
9 0 5 2
3 4

connectivity (injector-injector and/or injector-producer)

4 0
03 6 3
1
19
33 8
1 04
24 1
3 5 6 6
3
3 4 45
1 0
5
1 5 8
1 37
9 1
10 1
2
4 7
9 2 3 6

3 8 2 0
1 3

- Monitor layer flows with PLTs in injectors & producers

25 39 3 7
5
2 1
6
1 0
4
1 4

7
1 S U G-N 1
2
4
23 4
11
4 3
SUGN
- 3
2 6
1 2

if applicable.
44

8 7
2
4 5
1 6
28
3 1

7 S U G-
GN
N2

2 9
3 2
3 0

1 : 3
93 7 0
1 0

- Use tracers to establish connectivity with producers

(consider varying tracers with completion)
K I L O ME T E R S 0 1 2 K I L O ME T E RS

Figure 4: UG Plat. Ext. location of dumpflood injection & infill - Run 4D seismic pilot in region of DF injectors (run first
wells survey before injection)
- Complete Coherence cube analysis: Coherence Cube is a
method of determining discontinuities which may be fluid
Drilling of UG-DF1, UG-DF2 Objectives flow pathways or barriers, if we can examine Coherence cube
slice taken within the area A & B of UG (to be done by
Both wells were drilled to resolve and meet the objectives seismic team of UG).
set to fulfill the plateau Extension options. The major - Study related to Certainty of fault in UG area is very
objectives of drilling those two wells are as follows: important, this must be completed before any future injectors
- Demonstrate maximum and average achievable DF to be drilled., this work is not part of surveillance but as a
injection rates study to be done by seismic team)
- Establish rock properties & long-term injectivity in the - Monitor water saturation changes in offset wells with
aquifer by layer and area TDTs before and after injection.
- Establish response in oil column to water injection (by - Monitor production rate/watercuts in offset observation
layer, sweep/conformance, directionality) wells.
- Maximize pressure support to oil zone - Monitor static BHP in shut-in wells nearest injectors
- RFT all new offset wells
4 SPE 97624

- Establish long-term producibility of Zubair & establish
impact of water injection on migration
- Establish impact of distance of water injection from oil
column
After initiation of long-term dumpflood, attention will be
focused on the surveillance results from the dumpflood wells
and the surrounding monitoring wells. This is to provide
periodic evaluation of the dumpflood impact on both the well
and the reservoir.
The following surveillance tools are required to monitor
the pressure response and water movements in the reservoir.
Also, it is necessary to monitor corrosion in the dumpflood
well in addition to monitoring dumpflood performance:
- DF well casing baseline corrosion log and periodic runs.
(DMAG/CBIL)
- Production log tests in the dumpflood well. (PLT) for
water breakthrough
- Thermal Decay Time (TDT)
- Static Bottom Hole Pressure Tests (SBHP)
- Flowing Wellhead Pressure (FWHP)
- Use of Tracers
- Geochemistry Fingerprint Analysis for all nearby wells
for water breakthrough
In the monthly surveillance Plan, we should incorporate
use of Geochemistry finger printing analysis to monitor the
path of injected Zubair water into Minagish Oolite. A monthly
wellhead sample should be collected from a producer well and
analyzed for its fingerprint to see if the water is Zubair or MO
water.
The following table contains the frequency of tests and
surveillance types that need to be implemented on every
dumpflood well:
Reservoir Concerns & Uncertainty
During the study phase of the project, some concerns were
identified. These concerns need to be adressed in the near
future. Those concerns are:
• Performance & direction of flow is uncertain
• Injection well performance, conformance & location
• Sweep Efficiency uncertain
• Injection well integrity
• Poor core coverage and weak log response in aquifer
• Zubair sand & water concerns & compatibility
• Capability of Zubair to meet objectives
Impact of Pressure Maintenance on UG(MO) Future
Performance & Development Scenarios
Two development scenarios have been evaluated as part of
the initial study that was done using simulation runs and they
are as follows:
– 2003 UG(MO) Development Case: Plateau Extension
Options which includes 38 infill wells, 16 DF injectors, 6
disposal wells, GC-27 WH expansion & Electrical substation
& ringmains.
– 2003 UG(MO) Infill Case: excludes pressure
maintenance option (16 DF injector)
The evaluation of these simulation studies were based on
the following:
• Oil production rate
• Plateau Length
• Water Production rate
• Reserves
• Pressure

Test Type Status Frequency Selected Profile

The following figure shows the impact of the plateau

PLT Dumpflood Once/4 Month
extention project on oil production Rate & Plateau

Corrosion Dumpflood Once a year

Monthly Average Oil Production (Mstb/d)

Tracers Dumpflood Continuous

Table 1: Surveillance frequency Observation wells

The use of tracers on both wells will add value and

confidence in the analysis of water breakthrough and sweep 0

analysis of the project. Ap

r-
02
Ap
r-
05
Ap
r-
08
Ap
r-
11
Ap
r-
14
Ap
r-
17
Ap
r-
20
Ap
r-
23
Ap
r-
26
Ap
r-
29
Ap
r-
32

There are relatively few tracer materials that have been

used successfully in waterflood tracer projects. Synetix have Figure 5: the oil production plateau from the selected profile
carried out over the past few years a number of tracer
development projects in a programme of Research identifying
and testing new tracer materials.
SPE 97624 5

Along with the expected oil plateau gain, a large volume of Facility constraints including facility schedule downtime
water will be associated with increse of plateau. The impact on Well uptime
Water Production Rate is showed in the following figure: –Startup = 87%
400
–After April-2004 = 91%
Annual Average Water Production (Mbw/d)

350
In a quick comparison of all the profile generated as part of
300
the UG plateau Ext project, the best one was injecting water
250 and increasing production wells. The following figure gives us
200 an indication that the more water we put in into the reservoir
150
the faster we can produce the oil. the following figure shows
the resuls of the simulation after using all the above
100
assumptioons.
50

0 Oil Production Profiles Comparison

0 3 6 9 2 5 8 1 4 7 0
-0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3
pr pr pr pr pr pr pr pr pr pr pr
A A A A A A A A A A A 2003 Development Case
1995 Development Case
Do Nothing Case
Figure 6: The associated water production profile from te
selected profile

Oil Production Rate (Mbbl/d)

The natural water encroachemnt that is associated with the
ongoing production has somewhat ultered the contiuity of oil
in the sublayers. The following figure shows the impact of
historical production and its impact on the sublayers.

UMM GUDAIR VFIELD (MO RESERVOIR) UMM GUDAIR VFIELD (MO RESERVOIR) UMM GUDAIR VFIELD (MO RESERVOIR)

72
B1 72
B2 72
B3
26 44 26 44 26 44
Apr-03

Apr-05

Apr-07

Apr-09

Apr-11

Apr-13

Apr-15

Apr-19

Apr-21

Apr-25

Apr-29

Apr-31
Apr-17

Apr-23

Apr-27

Apr-33
86 86
86

11 11 110
11 110 110

33 33
33 23 23 83
23 83 83
71
71 71
82 5
82 82 5 108
5 108
108

18 4265
4265 18 4265
18

Figure 8: Oil production profile showing the comparison between

69
69 69 20 14
20 20 14
14 84
84 93
84 93 121
93
121 106 2
1 46 109
121 106 2 109
106 2 109 1 46
1 46 75

3 profiles
75 66 9
75 66 85
66 9 85 67
9 85 67
67 56 97
56 97 107 16 7 124 10095
56 97 107 10095 122 79 74
107 10095 16 7 124 122 74
16 7 124 122 74 79
79 123 3
123 3 81 98
123 3 22 64 96
81 22 98
81 98 64 96 94
22 64 96 94
94 73 80
29 111 25 28 19
29 73 111 25 28 19 80
29 73 111 25 28 19 80 118
118 78
118 78 114 115 12 58 17 43 15
78 61
114 115 12 58 43 15
43 15 61 17 102 68 62 41
114 115 12 58 61 17 77
102 68 62 41 77 57
102 59

Water Production Profiles

68 62 41 77 119 113 50 6
57 59 87 30
57 119 113 50 6 117 4
119 113 50 6 59 87 30
30 117 4
117 87 4 51 116
49 48 27 55 60
116
116 49 48 27 51 55 60 Legend 112 10

Legend
49 48 27 51
10
55 60 Legend 112
89
10 99
89
13 88 38 76 21
32 120 54
112 99 92 53
89 13 88 38 76 21
32 120 54 MO wells 70
99 76 21 53 35 39
13 88 38 32 120 54 92 70 24
53 MO wells 31
MO wells 92 70 35
31
39
24 34 90 52 40
35 39 63
31 24 34 90 52 40 Jurassic wells
103
8 104
34 90 52 40 63
103 36
36 45
63
103 Jurassic wells 8
10436 10591 37
Jurassic wells 8
104 36 45
10591 37 101
36
36 45 TDT before 1995 47
105 91 37 101 51
101 TDT before 1995 47
47 51 1:39370
51 TDT before 1995 K ILOM ETERS 0 1 2 KILOME TE RS
1:39370 25 No TDT or TDT before 1990

In the sensitivity profiles analysed, the water production

KILOM ETE RS 0 1 2 K ILOME TE RS
1:39370
KILOMETERS
K ILOME TE RS 0 1 KILOMETERS
2 KILOME TE RS 25 No TDT or TDT before 1990
25 No TDT or TDT before 1990 OOWC Outline at A 1
OOWC Outline at A 1
OOWC Outline at A 1

concerns were studied. Every profile generated had a water

Figure 7: A sublayer map showing the water encroachment in UG production profile on its own. The following figure shows the
field
water production assciated with the oil in that profile that was
generated:
Umm Gudair 2003 Prediction Performance Water Production Profiles Comparison
400
2003 Development Case
Many simulation runs were made to come with the best 350
1995 Development Case
Do Nothing Case
injection scenarios and to develop a comparison tool to 300
evaluate those scenarios. These scenarios are as follows:
Oil Production Rate (Mbbl/d)

• Do nothing case + 2 DF wells 250

-1995 Development Case (500 Plan + 2 DF wells) 200

-2003 Development Case (500 Plan + Plateau Extension 150

Options)
• Operational Case as per June-2003
100

50
–No dumpflood activities
–2 dumpflood wells 0
Apr-03

Apr-05

Apr-07

Apr-09

Apr-11

Apr-13

Apr-15

Apr-17

Apr-19

Apr-21

Apr-23

Apr-25

Apr-27

Apr-29

Apr-31

Apr-33

–16 DF, No infill wells

Figure 9: plot showing the water production comparison between
UG Major Profile Assumptions the 3 profiles

500 Plan Offtake

NUG offtake priority based on sensitivity study: Conclusions
–EUG Concession line producers
–EUG non-concession line producers The 2003 UG Development Case (Case D) gives oil
–WUG producers plateau length of 11 years, compared to 4.5 year for 1995 UG
Aggressive SUG Infill Plan Base Case (Case C). This is due to infill drilling and water
CL Wells to produce LIQUID injections considered under plateau extension options
6 SPE 97624

CL production is critical to minimize migration and failure

to maintain offtake from the concession line will substantially
increase migration.
The impact of infill drilling and/or water injection in NUG
on migration rate is not quite significant since the WI activities
are implemented away from the CL.
The impact of higher GC downtime factor is quit
significant

Recommendations

Continue with the surveillance plan designed for this pilot,

and closely monitor all the surveillance output from the
observation wells.
Continue with collecting wellhead samples to detect any
radioactive tracer content. It is thought that a lot more than
what is discussed in this paper will be learned during the
course of this pilot.
Incorporate sector modeling in the pilot study to accurately
predict the breakthrough time of injected water.

Acknowledgement

We, the authors of this paper would like to acknowledge

the help and support that were received from Kuwait Oil
Company management and the Ministry of Oil. We would also
like to thank all FD(W) UG team for their support and
guidance in the course of writing this paper. Also, we would
like to acknowledge the UG Dumpflood Pilot Project team