How to get the most out of your Oil Rim Reservoirs?

Reservoir management and hydrocarbon recovery

enhancement initiatives

Rahim Masoudi
Principal Reservoir Engineer

Outline:
Oil Rim definition/concept/Challenges
Guidelines/best practices/key technologies/success
factors
Reservoir and business management and exploitation
strategies
Successful field application and examples
Closing Remarks

Oil Rim
Opportunity and Headache!
Limited Thickness
Overlain by Gas Cap
Underlain by Aquifer

Forces Balance Mechanism:

Gas Cap Expansion

Preservation of Reservoir Energy

Maximizing the hydrocarbon recovery

Withdrawal
Aquifer Drive
Indicates regions of
high flow into the
well bore

Indicates regions of
low flow into the
well bore

Technical Challenges:

Water/Gas Coning and Break-through

Spread Out Resources
Complicated Production Mechanism
Transition and Invasion Zones
Oil Smearing
Low Recovery Factor (<18%)

Business Challenges:

Different focus for the host company and the operator

Narrow window of opportunity for Oil rim development
Early gas commitment vs. oil rim IOR development
Expensive Field Development and marginal economy
5

Oil Recovery Factor: Main Affecting Parameters

Oil Thickness
Permeability
Aquifer support
Kv/Kh
Gas Cap Size
Viscosity and mobility
Sor, Pc, Kr
Well Placement
Production Strategy
GIGP
Reservoir well Contact
HW vs VW

Permeability and Thickness effect

Aquifer effect

SPE 128603

Oil Recovery Factor: Main Affecting Parameters (Cont.)

Oil viscosity effect

Kv/Kh effect

Gas cap size effect

Available Screening Tools

Traffic Light Guideline
Oil Column size

< 30 ft

30-70 ft

> 70 ft

Gas cap size

m>7 and/or
FGIIP > 1 TSCF

m>2 and/or
FGIIP > 200 BSCF

M<=2 and/or
FGIIP <= 200 BSCF

Mobility

Perm < 500 mD

Visc > 1cP

Perm 500-1000 mD
Visc > 1cP

Perm > 1000 mD

Visc < 1cP

Aquifer
Strength

Weak, <25% of total

drive

Mid, ~50% of total

drive

Strong, >70% of total

drive

Reservoir
Geometry/Dip

Complex geometry
Large dip
uncertainty

Complex geometry
Small dip
uncertainty

Simple geometry
None or small dip
uncertainty

Available Screening Tools

M Factor

Gas
Concurrent Oil & Gas

Oil and then Gas

Rim Thickness [ft]

Source : SPE 128603

Development Strategy

Available Screening Tool: Shortcomings

Thickness <30 ft

M Factor

Successful development in:

Thickness < 30 ft
K < 375 mD
Not in line with the guide line
4 to 10 m oil column development

Rim Thickness [ft]

Frequency

Source : C&C Reservoir and IHS Energy

Technical Initiatives
Technology Roles

Permeability, mD
10

Oil Rim Development Success Factors

Phasing
development to
understand the
reservoir/well
behaviors

Robust geological
understanding
and input
rock/fluid data

Proactive real time reservoir

management & monitoring
(PLT, Tracer, PDG, etc.)

Innovative Technical Initiatives

(force balancing efforts, dual
smart comp, multi-zone
production with FCV, etc.)

Well/completion
design/type/length/
offset

Holistic and
Integrated
development
concept
Adequate and reliable
simulation/prediction
(Grid, CTZ, HZ well,
smart comp.,etc.)

Transition Zone
Characterization and
modeling
New well
technology
applications (long
HZ, multi
lateral/target, etc.)

11

Production/Depletion Strategy
Gas Cap
Blowdown

-Early Gas prod.

-Oil prod. Ignored!
-Oil smearing concern
-Low oil RF

Sequential
Development

-Early oil prod.

-Gas come later
-Commitment concerns
-Different contractual interest
-Higher oil/gas RF

Concurrent
Development

-Early oil and gas prod.

-Limited gas prod.
-Up to 10% of the GIIP per annual
-Might suit to both operator and host company interest
-Lower oil RF

Swing
Development

-Cyclic oil and gas prod.

-Balance the energy
-Suitable for reservoir with big gas cap
-Lower oil RF

The FDP, well design and philosophy, RMP is highly dependent on selected strategy

12

Oil Rim Reservoir and Business Management

Reservoir
Management

Contract & Policy

Field Development
Strategy

Reservoir Energy Balance and

Optimum Production

Well type
Well length , spacing , stand off
Contact movements
GOR and production constraint
Coning, Cusping, Cresting
IOR/EOR
Gascap Blowdown
Sequential
Concurrent
Swing
Incorporated with IOR/EOR?
Robust static/dynamic models
Gas cap size
Aquifer size and extension
Driving mechanism contributions
13

Fluid Sampling, Analysis and PVT

Usually simplified!
Surface sample can be misleading
Both phases need to be sampled
Recombined with the GIIP/STOIIP
ratio
Reliable fluid model is a must
Modeling just Oil can be misleading
on the RF evaluation
Oil and Gas need to be modeled
together
Compositional grading and nonequilibrium concerns
(after Amyx, Bass and Whiting, 1960; courtesy of McGraw-Hill )

14

Transition Zone and Oil Smearing Concerns

Saturation modeling?
Can oil rim move upward to the gas producing well?
How much is the Sor? Soi/Sor relation to be considered.
Mobile oil and displaced oil zone?
Dry oil production! Performance better than prediction!

SPE 143983
SPE 145867

15

Capillary Transition Zone Flow Dynamic

Dry oil production! Performance better than prediction!
Sw Modeling:
Resistivity index and wettability effects (esp. in carbonates)
SHF from resistivity log using water wet derived n exponent can be
different from that derived from drainage PC curve
This can over estimate the HC saturation above the transition zone
Saturation dependent n exponent may need to be used
Displaced Oil Zone
Imbibition curves and hysteresis effects
Pseudo Kr with artificial high immobile Sw may produce HM but can give
poor prediction
How much is the Sor? Soi/Sor relation to be considered.

16

Sw Determination and Modeling in Carbonates (IPTC 14588)

Non-Archie effects

Rock Type
Permeability
Heterogeneity
Pore size and Geometry
Wettability
Saturation history
Hysteresis

17

Sw Determination and Modeling in Carbonates (IPTC 14588)

Resistivity Index

100

10

1
1

10

100

Water Saturation, % pore volume

18

Sw Determination and Modeling in Carbonates (IPTC 14588)

Formation Resistivity Index

100

10

1
1

10

100

Water Saturation, % pore volume

19

Capillary Transition Zone Flow Dynamic (1)

SPE 77545
IPTC 10238

SPE 143983

20

Capillary Transition Zone Flow Dynamic (2)

SPE 143983

21

Capillary Transition Zone Flow Dynamic (3)

SPE 143983

Rock/fluid/Sor characterization

Typical Well Water cut %

0.30

Sor

0.25

0.20
New Model
Original Model

0.15

0.10
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

Soi

OPR, OPT
EP-F
HZ
well and smart comp modeling
3000

3.2E+06

2500

2.4E+06
2000

OPR
OPT
OPR-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1
OPT-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1
OPR-MC_GI_MSW_1
OPT-MC_GI_MSW_1

1500

1000

1.6E+06

OPT (STB)

Oil Prod Rate (STB/DAY)

Typical Well Oil Prod total

3.01
2.79
2.60

800000
500

0
2010

2015

2020

2025

Date (YEARS)

2030

0
2035

22

Reservoir Modeling and Simulation

Girding scheme

Horizontal or non-horizontal corner point

geometry grids

Horizontal grids capture the contact

movement more accurately (SPE 39548)

Local grid refinement (LGR)

Finer layering scheme (SPE 93137)

Multi Segmented Well (MSW) approach

SPE 89755

SPE 50646

23

Modeling of Horizontal wells with smart completion

Conventional modeling
Hydrostatic only
No slip and friction along the well
Uniform mixture density
Excessive oil production in early stages

Proposed Technique
Multi segmented well (MSW) model
Segment topology to honor the well path
Coupled to the reservoir model
24

Modeling of Horizontal wells with smart completion (cont.)

MSW Capability
Reliable wellbore pressure gradient and fluid mixture properties
Proper representation of the well trajectory.
Ability to model smart completions (ICD, Inflow Control Device, ICV, Inflow
Control Valve)
Coupled to the reservoir simulation equations

25

Key Technologies/ Methodologies

Horizontal and Lateral Wells
Thin Column Drilling
Inflow Control Well Design
Smart Completion Design
Modeling New Technologies
Real-Time Reservoir Management
Real Time Reservoir Modeling
Improved Sweep

26

Horizontal Well Basis of Design

Basis of Design

Optimum Fluid Rate

Well Spacing
K-10 top of
Main Porosity

Distance to GOC/WOC

Lateral/perforation length
Smart Completion

A-02
A-01

Gas

Phase I wells
Phase II wells

East Belumut-3

A-07

1105

Perforations

Belumut-2

11
10

A-03 st3
East Belumut-1

1115

A-05
1120

A-10

A-06
11
25

Contours = 5m

Oil
Water

15
11

1130

A-04

113
5

Gas
Oil
Water

1 kilometer

Long Well Length

(Madsen and Abtahi- 2005)

27

Horizontal Well with Smart Completion

Smart Completion (ICD, ICV):

Without ICD

With ICD

Transmit delta-P along well

Heel-to-Toe effect reduction
Higher well PI.
Better sweep efficiency.

World wide
Installation Forecast!

Iron Duke Field (SPE 81107)

(OTC-19172 )

28

ICD Minimizes Toe-Heel Effect (OTC-19172 )

World wide
Installation Forecast!

Uniform Drawdown along the well

29

Improve the well contact with the reservoir-1!

Brunei Shell Iron Duke Field (SPE 81107)
One H well with smart completion
Five zones in two blocks with different
reservoir characteristics

(Henriksen et al., 2006)

(SPE 112616)

StatoilHydro Troll Field (SPE 112616)

Known as gas field!
110 HZ sub sea wells with 53 MLT wells
Over 13 km well contact
Up to 7 HZ branches in different zones
30

Improve the well contact with the reservoir-2!

Total of 41 wells in 3 phases

Optimal well off set from contacts
250 m average well distance
EUR increases with well No.
31

IOR/EOR Considerations

EOR plan integrated in FDP

Improve IOR through force balance
Minimize coning, cresting and cusping
Control fluid contact movement

Produced Gas Injection

GIGP Ratio

Water Injection
Injection at GOC (water fencing scheme)

Injection at WOC

Water Alternative Gas Injection

Gravity Assisted Simultaneous WAG
Lowering residual HC

Surfactant augmented water flood

Water & Gas

Injection

No
Injection
32

Field A: Real Time RMS in a Field in Malaysia

Phase I wells

2500

A-01

2000

Oil Rate, STB/D

A-02
Phase II wells

A-07

A-03 st3

111
0

1105

15
11

A-06

1000

A-04

50

100

150

200

250

Days

10
113
5

1 kilometer

14 m oil column
Known as non-commercial asset!
Optimization of well spacing and landing
200 m lateral spacing for Well A05 & A10
4 m, 6 m and 8 m above WOC
More oil production and delay WBT

A05

WOR

11
25

1500

A-05
A-10

1120

1130

A10

500
1115

Contours = 5m

A05

A10

0.1
0.01

0.001
1

10

Days

100

1000

33

Field A: Horizontal well length optimization and tracer

application
1.6 km horizontal well with ICD completion
Toe section contribution
Tracer application in the toe section
Toe flow contribution in the early stage

Tracer Test at the toe of the well

Smart completion allows longer HZ wells

PLT is planned post WBT.

34

Field A: Horizontal well A performance with ICD post WBT

Well-A with 1.9 km length, 4000 BPD, 5% W-cut, Np of 750 MSTB

Coil Tubing Unit clean out and PLT
Low (2.5 KBPD) and high (4.5 KBPD) rate flowing condition tested
Flow contribution from the entire wellbore

35

Horizontal well04 performance with ICD post WBT- Field A

Well-04 with 1.6 km length, 4500 BPD, 70% W-cut, Np of 1.5 MMSTB
Coil Tubing Unit clean out and PLT
Low (2.5 KBPD) and high (4.5 KBPD) rate flowing condition tested
Flow contribution from the entire wellbore
Even with ICD, there are more water from the heel

36

Pressure and Temperature Proifile- Well04

Although claimed horizontal by drilling contractor, the static pressure/temp/resistivity

shows downward deviation
Big ICD pore size (4/32 Inch in this case) create small drawdown and it is a challenge to
have uniform drawdown along the well (15 psi vs 18 psi, 17% different)

37

Pressure and Temperature Profile- Well08

Although claimed horizontal by drilling contractor, the static pressure/temp/resistivity

shows downward deviation
Smaller ICD pore size (3/30 Inch in this case) create bigger drawdown and it is better for
having uniform drawdown along the well (58 psi vs 55 psi, 5% different)

38

Field A: Improving the hydrocarbon recovery

Horizontal wells with ICD completion
MSW approach for well modeling
11% RF increase on No ICD case.
This happened through:
Draw down management
Gas suppression
WBT control
ICD pore size can be further optimized!
Reservoir heterogeneity along the well

39

Field A: Journey of recovery factor improvement

Water injection
Mobility control
Idle well re-activation
42 Wells
Phase 3 prospect
Long HZ Well
6-8 m offset from OWC
Project Phasing

23%
20

32%

>34%

Accurate TZ characterization
Proper HZ and smart well modeling
Economical phase 3
Optimizing the number of wells

16%
27 Wells
Horizontal wells + ICD
Gas cap gas reinjection
4 m offset from OWC

40

Field B: Optimized Production Strategy in a Malaysian

Carbonate Oil Rim
GAS
Oil Recovery
Well
Recovery
( MMSTB)
No.
(BSCF)

Cases
Original FDP

41

375.4

7+4

Opt. attempt (1)

38.3

383.1

Known as gas field!

Concurrent Oil and Gas development
Oil and gas production through the same well
Dual smart completion with ICV
Development cost reduction

Optimized Well Design

FDP well design

GAS CAP

OIL RIM
Aquifer

41

Well Position vs EUR in Field B

2 km HZ well
Gas offtake effect
Aquifer effect
ICD vs SSD

42

Field C: Withdrawal control from different zones

Z1

Z2

U9.1

Z1

U9.2

Z2

U8.0
2500

U7.0
50
45

2000

40
35

1500

30
25

1000

20

Wcut (%)

10 m oil column
FCV with PDG application
Close performance monitoring
Valve optimization
PBU survey

Oil Rate (stb/d)

15
500

10
5

19-Sep-1019-Oct-1018-Nov-10
18-Dec-1017-Jan-1116-Feb-11
18-Mar-11
17-Apr-11
17-May-11
Oil Rate (stb/d)

W/CUT

43

Improving the hydrocarbon recovery in Field C

Horizontal wells with ICD completion
Multi zone production with Flow Control Valve
HZ well and smart completion modeling
6% RF increase upon No ICD case.
Recommend longer HZ well, PDG, optimum well
placement, pilot hole and contact monitoring
Recommend static/dynamic model revisit

44

Field D: Improving the hydrocarbon recovery

Recovery factor vs GI/GP

Reactivate Idle Wells

Side Tracks
Infill Wells

>50%

46% Selective Water Injection

Journey of recovery factor improvement

34%

Fencing at GOC
Periphery at WOC

No Further Action
75% Idle Wells
45

RF Sensitivity to GI/GP in Field D

GI/GP Management
Recovery factor vs GI/GP

46

Field E: Smart HZ Well Application in Small Oil Pocket

4 MMSTB STOIIP
8 m oil column
Gas cap size M ratio=1.7
Vertical well EUR=0.17 MMSTB
500 m Smart HZ Well EUR=0.9 MMSTB
UDC= USD 18/bbl
Oil column thickness as low as 5 m with HZ well with ICD

47

Field G: New EOR Scheme

EOR Scope:

50 MMscfd Gas Inj.

4 Downdip Injectors
50 kbwpd Water Inj.
5 Updip Injectors
22 Reactivations
4 Infill Producers

Gravity
Assisted
Simultaneous
Water
And
Gas Injection

Recovery mechanisms
Re-pressurizing reservoir
Sweeping remaining oil towards new wells
Improved vertical sweep using gravity assistance
Pushing attic oil back down to producers
Reduced Sor with respect to gas in water swept
layers

Field K: Do we need HZ well with ICD?

Oil column = 6 m
m = 2.0
Phi avg = 25 %, k avg = 500 md
Pini = 2100 psia, Tres = 226 deg F
Strong aquifer
With Equalizer

RF,%

Standard Sandscreen

Standard
Screen

15.46

Equalizer

18.75

49

OPR, OPT Oil Rim

Case 9: Smart Horizontal Well modeling in a Malaysian
EP-F
3000

3.2E+06

3.01
2.79
2.60
2.4E+06

2000

OPR
OPT
OPR-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1
OPT-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1
OPR-MC_GI_MSW_1
OPT-MC_GI_MSW_1

1500

1000

1.6E+06

OPT (STB)

7% error over conventional methods

16% gain with ICD in well level
6% gain with ICD in field level

Oil Prod Rate (STB/DAY)

2500

800000
500

0
2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

0
2035

Date (YEARS)

OPR, OPT
MC_GI_2013_PHASE.UNSMRY

08 Mar 2011

FIELD

12500

2E+07

18.5
17.9
17.4

ICD+MSW
No ICD

1.6E+07

MSW
7500

1.2E+07
OPR
OPT
OPR-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1
OPT-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1
OPR-MC_GI_MSW_1
OPT-MC_GI_MSW_1

5000

2500

0
2010

8E+06

OPT (STB)

ICD Design
Tubing OD 5.5, ID 4.892
ICD port size 3/32
ICD interval 11m

Oil Prod Rate (STB/DAY)

10000

4E+06

2015

2020

2025

Date (YEARS)

2030

0
2035

50

Case 5: Withdrawal Mis-Management in Field F

Gas Cap production
Oil loss to the gas cap
Lower RF
Z1

~ 2m TV GOC
has receded
Original Field GOC
@ 1686.6 m TVDSS

Z2
Z3

Z4
Highest Known Water
in NL_A3ST2
@ 1695.2 m TVDSS

Z5

Original Field OWC

@ 1700.6 m TVDSS

Z6

51

Innovative Well Design and Off take Strategy

East

WEST

C12
J18/19/2
0

C17
C20
B12 & B12ST1

C12ST1

K2025

52

Closing Remarks:
Oil rim: good business opportunity with sweet headaches!
Integration of innovative technical initiatives and new technologies
Real time/integrated reservoir management, monitoring and
surveillances
Several gas fields and un-commercial assets turned in to attractive oil
rim developments
Success cases on oil column thickness as low as 3 m and STOIIP as
low as 3 MMSTB
Time to change our culture/mindset! Lets follow all the success
factors

Oil rim development can be reality now!

Lets move toward breaking the hydrocarbon recovery limit
with lower cost!
53

Thank You!
Question?

-1.5 m
-Can we develop?!

54

Back Up Slides

55

Your Feedback is Important

Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by
completing the evaluation form for this presentation :

Click on:

Section Evaluation

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl

57