SPE-177659-MS

Field Development and Optimization Plan for Compartmentalized Oil Rim

Reservoir
Ashraf Lotfy El Gazar, Mohamad Yousef Alklih, Saleh A. Bin Sumaidaa, and Tariq Ali Al Shabibi, Abu Dhabi
Company for Onshore Petroleum Operations Ltd. (ADCO)

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9 –12 November 2015.

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
This work illustrates field development plan and optimization studies conducted on a Middle-Eastern
carbonate reservoir. The field lies in an onshore area where increasing urbanization is complicating the
field development with regard to safety, accessibility, and drilling sites. The reservoir exhibits relatively
fair to poor reservoir characteristics and variable oil water contacts due to faulting, suggesting the
presence of 5 different reservoir compartments. A total of 10 wells had penetrated the reservoir out of
which 8 wells tested oil and suggested a huge initial gas cap while 2 others penetrated water leg.
Six years of early production scheme (EPS, 4 producers, 1993 to 1998) data in addition to production
testing, core (2 wells), MDT (3 wells), PVT (4 wells) data were gathered in order to identify the main
uncertainties and test the feasibility of the full field development. EPS indicated production decline
coupled with severe increase in GOR and water cut in some wells, after which the producing wells and
facilities were P&A due to safety concerns and low productivity.
A number of parameters were addressed and optimized during the full field development plan. These
include formation evaluation and modeling parameters based on EPS findings, the limited available data,
and pressure support mechanism. Several development scenarios were constructed, consisting of various
combinations of horizontal producers and injectors and considering natural depletion, WI, GI, and WAG
scenarios targeting the proven reserves. The dynamic modeling suggests that an ultimate recovery of 70%
can be achieved by the different injection scenarios. However, considering the complexity of the
surrounding environment and the size of the prize, it is recommended that the field development would
be economically viable for a period of 10 years under natural depletion, provided the most effective
development strategy in terms of number, location, orientation and horizontal reach is adopted.

Introduction
The field in study is principally oil with significant gas cap field which lies in an onshore area where
increasing urbanization is complicating field development with regard to safety, accessibility and
availability of drilling sites.
The seismically defined structure is an elongated low relief structure on a NW-SE trend. This field is
structurally complicated and highly faulted which then led to compartmentalization of the field into
2 SPE-177659-MS

separate fault blocks with different fluid contacts. The fault blocks are defined as Proven, Probable, and
Possible reserves as portrayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1—Structural cross section showing proven and possible hydrocarbon distribution along with the compartmentalization
perception of the field.

The main hydrocarbon bearing reservoir in the field is a heterogeneous carbonate and is characterized
by its marked vertical facies change wackestone/limemudstone in the lower part, while grading upward
into foraminiferal grainstone/packstone. Based on the lithology variation, the reservoir can be subdivided
into seven facies units (recognized from slapped cores in combination with variation in the log response).
Additionally, the reservoir is subdivided into 8 subzones separated by means of 7 major well developed
stylolites, where the main subzones with pure HC column and relatively higher poro-perm values are the
uppermost 2 subzones. In general, average porosity and permeability experience reduction towards the
flank due to the degree of compaction and subsequent formation of stylolites down flank.
A total of 10 wells had been drilled in the field out of which only 5 wells tested oil/gas and rest of wells
either tested dry hole or could not sustain natural flow. In 1993, an early production schemes (EPS) was
started to gather necessary production data and test the feasibility of full field development. Until 1999,
the producing wells and facilities were mothballed and later abandoned due to severe productivity decline
and thereafter due to environmental and safety concerns. Based on the findings of the drilled wells and
their performance during EPS, the main production reservoir with best development potential was
established along with estimated oil and gas in place.
In this study, the focus is on two proven HC blocks only named as Block A and Block B. Probable and
Possible Blocks are not part of this study as they require more appraisal and data gathering. The main
objective of the study is to propose an optimum field development strategy on accelerated basis due to the
fact that the field lies in the proximity of residential areas with high environment sensitivity. Building of
a new compositional dynamic model is required; since the 90=s model was a mechanistic model and was
SPE-177659-MS 3

a complete active model with probable and possible areas included. Field logistics and drilling wells on
that location have to be performed with high level of precautions to avoid any hazard to the life of civilians
around. Consequently, any new wells shall be drilled from one cluster for minimum impact on surround-
ings and restricted availability of drilling sites.

Structure and Reservoir Compartmentalization

Structuration in the field is associated with faulting which is thought to be active in the Upper Cretaceous
times and ceased by Tertiary times. It is also believed that oil migration to the mean HC bearing formation
occurred post-faulting phase. Subsequently, fault planes were progressively sealed or partially sealed-off
due to water circulation and compartments were eventually formed. This implies that the occurrence of
oil or gas-cap in a given compartment is not strictly related to its structural position. The presence of the
major sealing/partially sealing faults in the reservoir is considered to be the main cause of compartmen-
talization. The reservoir compartmentalization can be briefly discussed through the following criteria
through the measured and interpreted data.
Lateral variation in reservoir thickness
The isopach map of the reservoir shows that the greatest thickness occurs in the central part of the
structure within the main central compartment (Block A). The variation in the reservoir thickness can be
related to the pre-reservoir paleo-relief and the tectonic disturbance as one of the possible explanations.
Reservoir juxtaposition due to fault throws
The 3-D seismic interpretation showed that the field occurs in a tectonically disturbed area where the main
faulting trends exist parallel to the axis of the structure. The faults with vertical and semi-vertical dip were
mapped crossing different stratigraphic sequences and mainly oriented in NW-SE direction. Faults throw
up to 20 msec exist between the different compartments. However, 10 wells have been drilled and none
had crossed any of the major faults. Accordingly, the confirmation of compartmentalization through the
drilling results of the existing wells, reliable MDT pressure gradient measurements and image logs
evaluation (since image logs did not exist during the drilling time of the wells) are not available to have
additional evidences to the existence of compartmentalization in the reservoir (Alklih et al., 2014).
Pressure communication across compartments
The field had a total of 10 wells which had been drilled between 1972 to 1990, out of which 5 wells were
tested oil/gas and completed with production string (those wells exist in the proven HC compartments
Block A and Block B), 3 wells could not flow naturally, while 2 other wells penetrated water leg and
abandoned. Consequently, the wells that could not flow HC are termed as observers. In 1993, an early
production scheme (EPS) was started to gather production data in order to identify the main uncertainties
and test the feasibility of the full field development. The field produced oil and gas from 1993 to 1999.
Monitoring the average reservoir pressure against cumulative production would indicate an average initial
reservoir pressure of x090 psi with a range of ⫹/⫺ 75 psi at a datum level. During the years of production,
a number of pressure build-up tests (PBU) for the producers and static bottomhole pressure tests in the
observer wells had been taken. The results of those tests are given in Figure 2. This information confirms
that wells that exist in the same compartment are basically producing from the same oil pool. It shows the
pressure depletion in the main compartment (Block A wells), while pressure depletion in the observer
wells is marginal. In other words, productivity of the wells outside Block A and Block B is very poor as
shown by the observer wells performances. In addition to this, pressure communication between the wells
in Block A is confirmed by pressure measurements. It is also indicated that Well-7 is in poor commu-
nication with other 3 wells although it is considered to be in the same block. This can be explained through
3 points: 1) the presence of minor faults within the block as indicated in Figure 1 that partially isolates
Well-7, 2) very few pressure survey data are available for Well-7 to have full confidence about the poor
4 SPE-177659-MS

communication due to its short production period (1993 to 1994), 3) Poor rock facies compared with the
other producers.

Figure 2—Summary of reservoir closed-in pressure data.

Variation of fluid contacts

Establishing a solid confidence on the correct depth of fluid contacts in the mentioned reservoir is a major
challenge. Complexity of the structure framework, the presence of faults as well as depth uncertainties had
a significant influence in determining the fluid contacts, particularly during the interpretation of fluid
gradients from RFT. 3 different MDT data are available for 2 wells in Block A and the only well in Block
B. Unfortunately, all 3 MDT generally showed scattered pressure points and mobility was not reported for
2 of the MDT surveys. Accordingly, the available MDT data was not much reliable to identify clear
contacts. Therefore, correlation between the Elan logs, MDT analyses and production tests were needed
to build a higher confidence level on the variance of values of fluid contacts in the different blocks.
Petrophysical Evaluation
Standard wireline logs and 2 core analysis data for 3 wells are the main source of Petrophysical data for
the mentioned reservoir. In general, logs are of fair quality, except in various intervals where mud invasion
is evident, because logging was conducted long time after the hole is drilled due to coring, adding an
obstacle to gas identification from logs due to flushing the gas from the invaded zone. Therefore, the deep
resistivity log was assumed to represent the ‘true’ resistivity of the un-invaded reservoirs, due to
insufficient data/information to compute a comprehensive invasion profile around the wellbore.
For the scope of this work, the evaluation is mainly focused on the proven blocks and for this paper
we would like to highlight the approach followed to derive the poro-perm relationships. Porosity/
permeability relationships, corrected for overburden pressure, have been derived from routine core data
for every subzone. This has been applied to log derived porosity to obtain permeability in the non-cored
sections using neural network. With the limited amount of available data, utilizing the neural networks
SPE-177659-MS 5

approach had improved the data representation compared to conventional approaches, as can be clearly
observed from Figure 3.

Figure 3—New poro-perm cross plot generated using neural networks.

Dynamic Modeling Approach

The following subsections describe the dynamic modeling approach details followed to build up the
dynamic model of the field including data availability and integration, model initialization, history
matching assisted with MEPO, prediction, sensitivities and identified uncertainties.
Data Availability and Integration
Rig-on-Site tests
Rig-on-site (ROS) tests were conducted on 7 different wells to understand their production potential and
to collect more information on the boundaries of the gas cap, and oil rim and fluid contacts.
PVT samples
4 surface samples (well-4, well-7, well-8 and well-9) and 1 bottomhole sample (well-1) from tested and
producing wells were collected and were utilized to build a representative fluid model based on the
experienced lateral and vertical composition variation across the reservoir. Fluid modeling approach is
discussed in the next sections. Having few PVT samples (mostly surface samples) from the producing
wells had limited the reservoir fluid understanding to the producing main compartments. Having
hydrocarbon samples from the other wells was constrained by some of wells testing water or being unable
to flow.
Early production scheme
6 years of early production scheme (EPS, 4 producers, 1993 to 1998) data in addition to production testing
and PVT sampling data were gathered, in order to test the feasibility of the full field development and for
dynamic simulation modeling to study the possible development options. As highlighted earlier, EPS
indicated production decline coupled with severe increase in GOR and water cut in some wells, after
which the producing wells and facilities were P&A; due to safety concerns and low productivity.
6 SPE-177659-MS

Dynamic Model Initialization

Fluid model
The fluid model was created based on two equations of state (EOS) representing the two proven
hydrocarbon blocks and honoring the available PVT studies after validation. All sample compositions
were characterized and then lumped in order to be fed in the EOS model to perform experiments matching
(Table 1). The two developed EOS mimicking the compositional variation across the reservoir through 8
pseudo components, fairly matched the routine experiments of the honored PVT studies (Figure 4). The
CO2 component was retained stand alone as one pseudo component to allow evaluation of pure CO2
injection as a recovery mechanism. The grouping had also considered evaluation of miscible HC gas and
HC WAG injection development options (El Gazar et al., 2012).

Table 1—Lumping scheme used in EOS.

Well-4 Well-7, Well-8, Well-9 EOS1 (Block A) EOS2 (Block B)

Component Component Lumped Lumped

N2 N2 CO2 CO2
CO2 CO2 H2S H2S
H2S H2S N2C1 N2C1
C1 C1 C2-C3 C2-C3
C2 C2 C4-C6 C4-C6
C3 C3 C7-C13 C7-C13
iC4 iC4 C14-C22 C14-C22
nC4 nC4 C23-C80 C23-C80
iC5 iC5
nC5 nC5
C6 C6
C7 C7
C8 C8
C9 C9
C10 C10
C11⫹ C11⫹
SPE-177659-MS 7

Figure 4 —Matching of PVT paramters utilizing EOS (Data shown is for Block A, same pseudo component is used).

SCAL
Regional SCAL data from similar reservoirs in other fields were reviewed and screened to be utilized in
the dynamic modeling of the subject reservoir as analogue. The SCAL data was then adjusted using the
conventional normalization and de-normalization technique to predict the dynamic performance of the
different reservoir rock types derived from mercury injection capillary pressure tests (MICP) done on core
plugs from the subject reservoir (Basioni et al., 2012).
Model initialization
As highlighted earlier, one of the major milestones of this study was to construct a new compositional
model for the mentioned reservoir, as the old model was a mechanistic model, and also a complete active
model with probable and possible areas included. Model initialization is judged based on the following
criteria (El Gazar et al., 2012):
y Porosity, permeability, and water saturation profiles from open hole logs and cores
y Reported proven pore volumes of hydrocarbons from existing old model (OIIP and GIIP) as well
as hydrocarbon volumes from deterministic approach and material balance
y Measured reservoir pressures
y Reservoir fluid vertical compositional gradient and reservoir fluid properties
STOIIP has been calculated based on two scenarios. The first scenario is based on ODT utilized from
production tests, while the second scenario is based on log interpretation to define the OWC and GOC.
It is worth highlighting here again that available MDT data showed scattered pressure points and no clear
contacts could be defined. Mobility numbers were not available for most of the wells to carry out the due
analysis. Therefore, the FWL shifting technique was used to better match the fluid saturation. The two
scenarios considered for initialization are:
8 SPE-177659-MS

y Scenario -1: FWL x405 and GOC x370 (Block A), FWL x509 and GOC x487 (Block B).
y Scenario -2: FWL x420 and GOC x370 (Block A), FWL x519 and GOC x487 (Block B).
It was observed that the old eclipse model has some mismatch with available well logs and a possible
solution was to refine the model. Respect to property i.e. porosity and permeability were assigned
according to the cell division. Model saturation comparisons was done with Log saturation and that
evinced capillary pressure modeled acceptable transition zone trend, but depth mismatch with logs as the
logs reflect the probable contacts. That required reconciling. Initially ORKB 35 ft shift for each well was
performed and above saturation plots still reflected depth mismatch with logs. With further investigation,
ORKB was updated for each individual well in Block A. Therefore, based on the updated shift, model
trend was inline with logs (Figure 5 shows the fine grid models with fluid distribution and saturations after
initialization).

Figure 5—Left-Fine grid model with fluid distribution. Right-Fine grid model with defined oil rim and gas cap.

Model History Match

MEPO Technology Functional Approach
In this study, MEPO was used to assist history matching application and therefore accelerate the process.
MEPO (Multi-Environmental Parallel Optimization) is not a simulator but it works in conjunction with
Simulator. It is a well known industry application for sensitivity analysis, uncertainty quantification, and
assisted history matching and field optimization. The application is an effective tool for project manage-
ment where every simulation scenario is available for analysis to reservoir engineers and management
(Skvortsov, and Glumov, 2014; Al-Shamma and Teigland, 2006).
Project with input parameters and response parameters are set within MEPO and it generates new
simulation data file with new values for specified input uncertainty parameter during pre-processor step
and then send data file to simulator. Once simulation finishes, MEPO reads the output files and does
statistical calculation (objective function) during post process task in loop (Figure 6 shows MEPO tasks
workflow). This whole process is fully integrated and requires no interference.
SPE-177659-MS 9

Figure 6 —Schematic of MEPO tasks workflow.

History matching
New refined and initialized model was taken for the history match. This model had four producers and
focus was to match oil rates, gas-oil ratio (GOR), water cut, and pressure at well and field level. Due to
constrain on time, the model history match was accepted with a reasonable match level. The MEPO
approach is a trial and error approach and with right uncertainty parameters there is a possibility of getting
the solution in a short period of time or it may take several days/weeks in case of exploring large number
of uncertainty parameters. The great advantage during this study was that Model run time on 16 Nodes
was taking 3 to 5 minutes and had strength to run several simulations concurrently. This helped a lot to
investigate different scenarios. Obviously, the model did not have global and local multipliers and due to
this, the wells were not able to produce at given oil rate with initial grid properties. Therefore, it was
required to define multipliers such as permeability multiplies. Multiplier parameters were put under two
categories: global and local parameters. Only lateral and vertical permeability were taken into account at
the initial stage of the history match. Global were applied across the certain layers of the reservoir and
local just in the vicinity of the wells.

Model comparison with oil rate and reservoir volume control mode
This scenario was tested to check the model response once change control mode is set from reservoir
volume rate (RESV) to oil rate. Model had the same response as wells were not producing with actual grid
properties (Figure 7). In such a situation, this scenario would have been tested once the model had been
run with multiplier to honor oil rate but due to very limited time period for history match, this scenario
was not run again. Based on the model response and keeping in view multipliers parameters in the old
model, permeability multiplier was introduced and a few simulation cases were carried out. The results
showed that the permeability multiplier parameters assisted in improving the model oil rates (Figure 8).
10 SPE-177659-MS

Figure 7—Figure shows similar well response in case of oil rate.

Figure 8 —Few simulation cases after introducing multipliers.

SPE-177659-MS 11

Response parameter (model matching parameters)

Response parameter is a key performance indicator for simulation results. WOPR, WWCT, WGOR,
WBHP, WTHP and FOPR, FWCT, FGOR and FPR were defined mismatch parameters. These response
parameters have been defined as objective, therefore, during the history matching process they could be
analyzed for assessing impact of varying parameters. Approximately 5 to 60 mismatch parameters were
defined in the objective function into different scenarios. The project was initially set up with entering
uncertainties and response parameters. MEPO calculates the difference between the base case (start case)
and historical data for each response parameter and sums them up to a single value known as global error.
This is a statistical measurement of model match quality. Overall, it was observed that the lower the global
error, the better the quality of match. The global error (the summation of error contributed by each
response parameter) can be calculated using this equation:
Equation (1)

Where,
i: references an objective element, e.g. the oil rate at a particular well
j: references the time step at which an observed value exists
s: defines simulated value at time step j in objective element i
o: defines observed value at time step j in objective element i
w:is the corresponding weight factor.
␴: is the standard deviation (the measurement error) of objective element i
For the purposes of this study, global error is used as a source to quantify the mismatch between
simulated and observed data and identify the cases having an acceptable error. Cases could be filtered out
based on global error for any further analysis. Standard deviation and global weight was set for the
response parameters. Standard deviation and weight function contribute effectively in optimization
process to focus.
The workflow was run with some experimental design and optimization techniques as explained in the
following points:
y Latin hypercube sampling technique: this technique generates collections of parameter combi-
nations that are sampled from pre-defined parameter distributions. The parameter range is sampled
evenly while preserving trends in distribution functions (Figure 9) frequently used as space filling
design and was chosen due to few number of scheduled simulation runs. It honors the distribution
and covers the whole range of uncertainty parameters. In fact it is not required when it is only
needed to run sensitivity, but it would be a good practice to run in the support of sensitivity
technique, helping in more detailed analysis.
12 SPE-177659-MS

Figure 9 —Latin hypercube sampling honoring distribution.

y Placket Burman method: this is a two level design capable of resolving main effects which uses
the extreme values (i.e. upper and lower) of the parameters (Figure 10). It provides screening
capabilities that can reveal the impact of individual parameters. Usually high resolutions require
more runs and therefore it is a good method in testing the ranges and in proving source of
preliminary validation of the ranges of uncertainty parameters.

Figure 10 —Sampling at level basis (lower and upper).

y Optimization technique: evolution algorithm falls under the category of direct search methods.
They only use the Objective Function values to determine new search steps. MEPO Evolution
Strategy (ES) uses primarily selection, recombination, and mutation as optimization driving
mechanism (Figure 11). This strategy can be applied to minimize model error and to provide
multiple history matched models. Such a technique makes the process automated and improves
model by iterative process.
SPE-177659-MS 13

Figure 11—Optimizer progress plot. Lower objective function show improvement in the model.

Outcome of the history matching workflow

With defined uncertainty and their ranges, there was reasonable improvement but it was required to
consider some other parameters. The model showed water saturation from x0-x0 % at the zero simulation
time. With defined uncertainty parameters, there was a clear indication that there was hardly any
possibility to improve the model further. It was also a clear justification to consider some other areas in
the model as uncertainty parameters. Figure 12 shows few optimization cases and maximum impact of
varying permeability within the defined ranges. It was noticed with varying lateral and vertical perme-
ability, there was no major impact to improve the model further, and it was not recommended to expand
the range of global permeability multiplier further. Therefore it was required to do some sensitivity test
with Pc curve shift to investigate the impact. Before this option, few other options were also tested such
as manipulating critical water saturation values (SWCR) and Transition Zone (TZONE) but no changes
were observed. Therefore, based on the outcome of the optimization workflows, new input was introduced
into history matching process and two other options were tested for further improvement of the model:
14 SPE-177659-MS

Figure 12—Few optimization cases showing maximum impact of varying permeability within defined ranges.

y Capillary pressure curve shift

y Contact shift
Both options were thoroughly evaluated. Generally, the better practice is to manipulate relative perm
shift using Corey function but there was not much information about SCAL. Briefly, working on capillary
pressure curve shift showed further improvement in the water cut match at both field and well levels.
However, working on contact shift option (contact was shifted further few feet down); a much better
match was achieved compared to all other options. Therefore, it was recommended to choose this case as
a good history matched case and was therefore taken for the prediction.

Prediction Scenarios
The scope of the study during prediction was to run field development scenarios with optimized number,
location and orientation of wells along with well rates. Following the poor performance of the compart-
mentalized reservoir, the development of the oil rim was adopted, focusing on the best rock properties and
lowest uncertainty compartments of the reservoir (Block A and Block B). The development strategy was
built to cater for collecting necessary information that would assist in reducing reservoir uncertainties and
ensure achievement of a fair production plateau. In the proposed development options, 8 new horizontal
wells as producers are introduced.
Prediction runs were performed for different recovery mechanisms to assist decision on the best
development scheme. The development scenarios considered the following list of recovery mechanisms
with new 8 horizontal producers and 7 new injectors with specified field and well constraints (Figure 13).
The specified constraints included the following:
SPE-177659-MS 15

Figure 13—Proposed well locations of the development options.

y Economic field oil rate

y Economic well oil rate
y Maximum GOR
y Maximum water cut
y Minimum WHFP
y Minimum BHFP
All the development options were carried out on the basis of no production from the gas cap to maintain
the pressure support together with the adopted pressure support scheme. Well locations, orientations, and
number of wells were subject to optimization. The development options can be summarized as follows:
y Natural depletion drive
y Water injection
y Miscible HC gas injection
y Water alternating HC gas injection (WAG)
y CO2 injection
y WAG-CO2 injection
Many sensitivities and optimization scenarios were carried out to improve the plateau length, RF,
sweep efficiency and thus improving the project economics. These sensitivities and optimizations can be
summarized as follows:
y Producers and injectors well locations
y Producers and injectors perforation strategy
y Natural depletion target rates
y Water injection sensitivities
16 SPE-177659-MS

X WI scenario: is the original water injection well locations and injecting across HC thickness.
X WI_SC-1 scenario: is same well locations of WI scenario but injecting at lower part of HC.
X WI_SC-2 scenario: reducing the spacing to 700 meters and changing bottom hole locations of
ADI-4 and ADI-5.
X WI_SC-3 scenario: Same well Locations of WI_SC-2 scenario with reducing the spacing to 500
meters.

Comparison of the different development options along with their corresponding sensitivities indicate
that the pure gas injection yields the best recovery while water injection would be the worst. As expected,
the WAG injection would be strongly affected by the heterogeneity and the complexity of the rock that
would directly impact the effectiveness of the water injection cycle. The prediction runs suggested that gas
injection would be able to better maintain the reservoir pressure compared to the WAG injection (Figures
14 to Figures 22).

Figure 14 —Oil production profiles under different recovery mechanims.

SPE-177659-MS 17

Figure 15—Pressure profile under different recovery mechanisms.

Figure 16 —Oil production profile at different natural depletion target rates.

18 SPE-177659-MS

Figure 17—Pressure profiles at different natural depletion target rates.

Figure 18 —Oil production profile for different target rates under WI. Water injection rate is controlled by VRR.
SPE-177659-MS 19

Figure 19 —Pressure profile for different target rates under WI.

Figure 20 —Oil production profile under different WI scenarios compared to ND scenario.

20 SPE-177659-MS

Figure 21—Pressure profile for different WI scenarios compared to ND scenario.

Figure 22—Figure indicates the poor injectivity in case of WI.

SPE-177659-MS 21

Uncertainties
The development strategy is adopted to collect the necessary information that will help for full field
development plan and ensure achievement of the production plateau. Complete data acquisition and
monitoring programs will be planned during phase development to better understand the reservoir
behavior and minimize the uncertainty. As part of the simulation study, the uncertainty analysis was
carried out based on many realizations. Table 2 summarizes the main data uncertainty matrix and
mitigation plan.

Table 2—Uncertainties matrix and mitigation plan

Data Uncertainty

Area Uncertainty Mitigation

Structure, Faults and Fractures Medium-High

y Reprocess old seismic
y Image log while drilling
y Seismic characterization study
y 3D seismic acquisition

PVT High
y MDT/BH PVT samples

SCAL Medium
y New cores and SCAL

Fluid Contacts Medium-High

y MDT, sampling and fluid analyzer

Compartmentalization
Medium
y Reprocess old seismic
y Image log while drilling
y Seismic characterization study
y MDT
y 3D seismic acquisition

Conclusion
From what has been discussed above, the followings can be highlighted:
y Reservoir compartmentalization may result in the following characteristics in the measured and
interpreted data: Lateral variation in reservoir thickness, lateral variation depositional environment,
abrupt change in the structural configuration of the contour lines, dips, and Azimuth due to faults,
reservoir juxtaposition due to fault throws, abrupt changes in the GOC and/or FWL, and variations
in wells’ performance.
y The field being located in a highly sensitive environment, drilling surface location is constrained
to PAD drilling. Field logistics and drilling wells on that location has to be performed with high
level of precautions to avoid any hazard to the environment around. Consequently, any new wells
shall be drilled from one cluster for minimum impact on surroundings and restricted availability
of drilling sites.
y The dynamic modeling suggests that an ultimate recovery of 70% can be achieved by gas injection.
This could be attributed to available reservoir volatile fluid properties as well as rock character-
istics. The use of MEPO application facilitiated performing sensitivity analysis, uncertainty
quantification, and assisted history matching and field optimization The reservoir is highly
22 SPE-177659-MS

heterogeneous with relatively high water saturation and low permeability, impacting the effec-
tiveness of water injection in WI and WAG scenarios. Although natural depletion case does not
yield the best recovery, it is recommended that the field development will be economically viable
under natural depletion, provided the most effective development strategy in terms of number,
location, orientation and horizontal reach is adopted.
y With the limited available data as well as the differences in the existing wells’ historical
performances, complete data acquisition and monitoring programs should be planned during the
development, to better understand the reservoir behavior and minimize the uncertainty.

Nomenclature
BHFP Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure
EPS Early Production Scheme
FGOR Field Gas Oil Ration (Eclipse software keyword)
FOPR Field Oil Production Rate (Eclipse software keyword)
FPR Field Production Rate (Eclipse software keyword)
FWCT Field Water Cut (Eclipse software keyword))
MDT Modular Formation Dynamics Tester
MEPO Multi-Environmental Parallel Optimization
MICP Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure
ND Natural Depletion
P&A Plugged and Abandoned
PBU Pressure Build-Up
Pc Capillary Pressure
PVT Pressure-Volume-Temperature
ROS Rig-on-Site Test
RF Recovery Factor
RFT Reservoir Formation Tester
SCAL Special Core Analysis
SWCR Critical Water Saturation (Eclipse software keyword)
TZONE Transition Zone (Eclipse software keyword)
WAG Water-Alternating-Gas Injection Scheme
WBHP Well Bottom Hole Pressure (Eclipse software keyword)
WGOR Well Gas Oil Ratio (Eclipse software keyword)
WHFP Well Head Flowing Pressure
WI Water Injection
WI_SC-1 Water Injection Scenario 1
WI_SC-2 Water Injection Scenario 2
WI_SC-3 Water Injection Scenario 3
WOPR Well Oil Production Rate (Eclipse software keyword)
WWCT Well Water Cut (Eclipse software keyword)

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and Abu
Dhabi Company for Onshore Petroleum Operations Ltd. (ADCO) for their permission to use their data to
be able to publish and present the above field case study.
SPE-177659-MS 23

References
Alklih, M., Bin Sumaidaa, S., El Gazar, A., Knytl, J., Khan, M., and Abu Bakar, A., 2014. Challenges
and Lessons Learned from Developing a Thin Super K Complex Carbonate Oil Reservoir with Gas
Cap and Active Water Drive - A Case Study from the Middle East. Paper SPE-171860-MS
presented at Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE,
10 –13 November.
Basioni, M., Dawoud, A., Ben Saad, M., and El Mahdi, A., 2012. A Case Study on Compositional
Reservoir Simulation for a large Tight Reservoir: A Detailed Road Map from Initialization and
History Match to Prediction Simulation. Paper SPE-149653-MS presented at North Africa Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, 20 –22 February.
El Gazar, A., Ayoub, M., Dawoud, A., Arslan, I., Bin Sumaidaa, S., Basioni, M., and El Mahdi, A.,
2012. Optimizing Oil-Rim Development of a Tight Reservoir with Large Gas Cap by Minimizing
Gas Cusping Phenomenon ⬙Case Study⬙. Paper SPE-158432-MS presented at Abu Dhabi Inter-
national Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11–14 November.
Al-Shamma, B., and Teigland, R., 2006. History Matching of the Valhall Field Using a Global
Optimization Method and Uncertainty Assessment. Paper SPE-100946-MS presented at SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, k.
Skvortsov, D., and Glumov, D., 2014. Condensate Production Optimization Using MEPO Software
Combined With Eclipse-Network. Papre SPE-171261-MS presented at SPE Russian Oil and Gas
Exploration & Production Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 14 –16 October.