8000

8050
8100
8150
8200
In Saudi Arabia, intense surveillance of a wateflooding
scheme in a complex carbonate reservoir has come up
with a few surprises. For example, it has shown that fluid
flow in a large and highly stratified reservoir appears to be
much simpler than the geology indicates. The monitoring
programme has also revealed how the production strategy
has influenced the vertical and horizontal water sweep.
This has prompted Saudi Arabian Oil Company to further
investigate water encroachment patterns in the reservoir.
Mahmood Rahman, Petroleum Engineering Specialist with
Saudi Aramco and consultant Manfred Wittmann outline
how the peripheral waterflooding scheme has been
monitored and explain how this mass of data is now being
incorporated into a geological model of the reservoir that
will form the basis for 3-D simulation studies.
This article is based on SPE Paper 21370, Case Study: Performance of a Complex
Carbonate Reservoir Under Peripheral Water Injection, by M. Rahman, M. B.
Sunbul and M. D. McGuire of Saudi Aramco presented at the SPE Middle East Oil
Show, Bahrain, 16-19 November 1991.

44 Middle East Well Evaluation Review

Producer well
Injection well
Observation well
8
4
0
0

8
3
0
0

8
2
0
0

8
1
0
0

7
9
0
0

7
8
0
0

7
7
0
0

8
0
0
0

8
1
0
0

8
2
0
0

E
fficient reservoir management
relies on a good understanding of
a fields characteristics and per-
formance. Using open hole logs as a
datum, this knowledge can be built up
over a fields life with carefully planned
monitoring programmes. But this is
often too late. What a manager really
needs is a comprehensive and accurate
model to help predict a reservoirs
response to drilling and recovery meth-
ods.
This article takes a practical look at
the development of a major carbonate
field in Saudia Arabia. The 25 km long
by 15 km wide anticlinal reservoir was
discovered in 1964. Exploitation was
started in 1970 and has been achieved
by flooding the field with water injected
through a series of wells on the north-
ern periphery of the reservoir.
Over the past 20 years a fifth of the
original oil in place has been produced.
But, evaluation of areal and vertical
sweep has shown areas of the reservoir
where oil is not being effectively dis-
placed by the peripheral waterflooding
technique. The observed performance
has been incorporated into a geological
model of the reservoir and forms the
basis of a 3-D simulation of the entire
field which has been built to guide
future reservoir drainage management.
The producing formation is one of a
number of Late Jurassic shallowing-
upward sequences in this region of
Saudi Arabia (see Middle East Well
Evaluation Review, 1991 Number 11).
The fine, permeable, carbonate grain-
stones become gravel-sized towards the
top of the formation giving most wells
typical shallowing- upward and/or
coarsening-upward porosity profiles
(figure 4.2). This is a favourable perme-
ability distribution for peripheral water-
flooding as the gravity pull is offset by
the lower resistance to flow at the top
of the reservoir.
During deposition, the field area
straddled a gently sloping carbonate
platform margin (figure 4.3). This sepa-
rated a broad, flat area of shallow water
(a carbonate shelf) from a deeper,
restricted basin. Carbonate grainstones
formed quickly on the northern shelf.
Below, in the basin, a slow rain of
pelagic sediments produced fine-
grained rocks with poor permeability. A
transitional zone developed between
these two depositional environments.
This variation in deposition is responsi-
ble for the rapid facies changes from
grainstones on the northern ramp to
mudstones in the basin. Associated
with this is a reduction in reservoir
quality from north to south.
The geometry of the depositional lay-
ers was affected by the gentle slope of
the margin (1-2 degrees). As a result,
the geologic layers were not originally
deposited as flat, horizontal beds, but
were sigmoid-shaped similar to those
shown in figure 4.3.
Fig. 4.1: MONITORING
PERFORMANCE:
Exploitation of this Saudi
Arabian reservoir started in
1970. Since then, a fifth of
the oil-in-place has been
produced. However,
saturation monitoring has
shown areas where potential
oil reserves have been
missed by the peripheral
waterflooding technique.
45 Number 13, 1992.
8000
8100
8200
8300
8400
8500
0 100 2.0 3.0
Gamma Ray API Bulk density g/cc
Top of formation
Base of formation
Depth
ft
Variations in sea level during the
Late Jurassic also affected the shape
and make up of geologic layers. This
resulted in highstand, lowstand and
transgressive sequence system tracts
(figure 4.3). Geologic layers, deposited
during highstand sea level, built out
toward the basin and draped succes-
sively over one another like tiles on a
roof. As a result, the reservoir facies
within the highstand layers remained in
close contact. During the following low-
stand time there was little or no deposi-
tion on top of the shelf or at the outer
ramp. Instead, layers filled up the basin.
As the sea level began to rise again a
series of transgressive backstep grain-
stones were deposited at the top of the
reservoir. As these backstep grain-
stones incompletely overlapped one
another, the uppermost part of the
reservoir is made up of different aged
grainstones across the field.
South North
Outer ramp Basin Outer ramp
margin A
B
C
C'
E'
G
H
I
X/F
Transgressive
system
tract
Lowstand
system
tract
Highstand
system
tract
Tim
e line
D
e
p
o
s
itio
n
a
l c
y
c
le

Organic rich
lime mudstones
Packstones/
wackestones
Boundstones
Gravels
Grainstones
Fig. 4.2: Typical log
showing the
shallowing-upwards
sequence in the
reservoir.
Fig. 4.3: BLAME IT ON THE RAIN: The reservoir is situated in Late Jurassic sediments which straddle the edge
of a gently sloping carbonate platform. Porous carbonate grainstones formed in the shallow waters to the
north. In the deeper waters to the south, a fine rain of pelagic sediments formed fine-grained mudstones with
poor permeability. The two different types of rock are separated by a transitional zone which developed
between these two different depositional environments.
0 600 300
South North Well X
Permeability (md)
0 600 300
Well Y
Permeability (md)
0 600 300
Well Z
Permeability (md)
K>20
K<20
K>20
K<20
8000
Depth ft
8080
8000
8160
8320
46 Middle East Well Evaluation Review
CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK
As predicted by the depositional
model, the reservoir is better devel-
oped in the north and progressively
thins and degrades to the south. The
relatively low oil viscosity (0.5 cp at
reservoir condition, about twice the vis-
cosity of the injection water) together
with the end-point relative permeability
to oil being considerably higher than to
water, gives the waterflood a favourable
mobility ratio.
In the developed northern area of
the field, productivity is generally high.
However, the reservoir is highly hetero-
geneous and consists of a mixture of
lithologies. Porosities vary between 10%
and 23%, while permeabilities range
from 5 md to 500 md. This is not uncom-
mon in a carbonate reservoir where
permeability depends on both porosity
and rock type. For the same porosity,
calcareous grainstones have permeabili-
ties that are an order of magnitude
higher than fine-grained micritic rocks.
The reservoir is also highly stratified
with large permeability variations
between layers. Figure 4.4 is a core
porosity and permeability plot for a typ-
ical crestal well. Even in the well-devel-
oped upper portion of the reservoir
there is a large permeability variation.
The reservoir heterogeneity is illus-
trated in the north-south cross-section
shown in figure 4.5. It illustrates the
essential reservoir characteristics, ie
high variability and a general deteriora-
tion of quality from north to south.
Core permeability
Permeability md Porosity %
Core porosity
0.1 10,000
<10 md
10-100 md
100-1000 md
50
Measured
depth ft.
7950
8000
8050
8100
8150
8200
0
>10%
Fig. 4.4: Core
permeability and
porosity plot
from a typical
crestal well.
There is
a large
permeability
variation in the
top part of the
reservoir.
Fig. 4.5: This
'fence'
permeability
diagram
clearly
indicates the
wide range
of
permeability
across the
field.
47 Number 13, 1992.
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990
4200
3800
3400
3000
2600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

P
s
i
g

Year
Pressure
Decline and build-up
Immediately after production started in
1970, the reservoir pressure fell dramat-
ically (figure 4.6). To stem the fall, a
waterflood pressure maintenance pro-
ject was initiated in January 1973 using
injection water from a shallow, rela-
tively fresh, aquifer. Injection wells
were drilled close to the trailing edge of
the OOWC and completed open hole.
The objectives were clear:
To ensure the reservoir pressure
remained above the bubble point.
To keep wells flowing at high water
cuts to obviate the need for
pumps or gas lift.
To move the oil towards producing
wells situated in the updip area.
Two years after injection started,
water began to breakthrough in the first
row of producers. Initially these wet
wells had to be shut in or recompleted
to drier zones towards the top of the
reservoir. However, water production
was allowed from 1981 when wet crude
handling facilities were installed. Since
then, the fields average water cut has
only increased to around 20% although
the flood front has advanced to the cre-
stal area. This low water cut is main-
tained because all wells flow naturally,
so when an individual wells water cut
increases to between 60% and 70%, it
becomes water logged, stops flowing
and dies. Hence, the total water (and
oil) production is reduced. To sustain
the overall oil rate, new wells are
drilled and dead wells worked over and
recompleted to drier zones. By
December 1989, a total of 75 wells had
been drilled. Of these 42 were produc-
ers, 15 were injectors and the remain-
der were observation wells.
Fig. 4.6: WEAK AQUIFER: As soon as production started in 1970, the
reservoir presure went into rapid decline. At this rate, bubble-point
pressure would have been reached within two years. To prevent this, the
operator embarked on a peripheral waterflood scheme which successfully
managed to reverse the pressure decline.
Fig 4.7: Since the injection wells are located outside the trailing
edge of the OOWC - and because of the favourable mobility ratio -
large banks of high salinity aquifer or formation water advance
through the reservoir ahead of the injection water. This results in
an increase in TDT log readings followed by a decrease as the
formation water is replaced by less saline flood water.
D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
l
o
o
d

Time (distance)
0
1.0
S
w
Connate water saturation.
Residual oil saturation.
Producer Injector
48 Middle East Well Evaluation Review
1977 1984 1985 1988
Porosity PNL PNL PNL PNL
90 0 % 40 040 040 040 0
CU CU CU CU ft
7922
8000
8100
8200
Top of Res.
Base of Res.
Depth
Neutrons and networks
Extensive monitoring has been used to
observe the waterflood sweeping across
the reservoir. The principal saturation
monitoring tool has been the Pulse
Neutron Capture Log (PNL). This log
has been run on a routine basis since
the mid-1970s when flood water started
to break through in the outer producing
wells.
Because of the high formation water
salinity of 240,000 ppm total dissolved
solids (TDS), PNL logs have been very
effective in tracking the advance of the
flood front through the reservoir (fig-
ures 4.7 and 4.8). In addition to produc-
ing and observation wells, PNL logs
have been run in 25 deep wells and
these have provided excellent water-
flood observation points as they are not
hampered by fluid invasion, acid or
other effects.
Once the high salinity flood front has
passed through a monitoring point, it is
followed by the relatively fresh injec-
tion water - salinity 24,000 ppm TDS.
The resultant mixed salinity environ-
ment makes quantitative interpretation
of PNL logs difficult - the calculation
depends on a known water salinity fac-
tor

.
Further complications arise when a
zone is just starting to deplete and con-
tains both oil and formation water while
another zone in the same well has
already been swept and contains a mix-
ture of formation and injection water. In
this situation it is difficult to distinguish
one zone from another using PNL logs.
To overcome this mixed salinity
problem, a network of key wells has
been established. These wells are fre-
quently logged to monitor qualitatively
the displacement of oil-first by forma-
tion water which causes an increase in
PNL response, and then by the injection
water which causes a decrease in PNL
response.
In addition, wet wells are routinely
tested and samples of produced water
collected for geochemical analysis.
From this, the proportion of injection
and formation water in the wet produc-
ing zones of the well is estimated.
Finally, flowmeter surveys with gra-
diomanometers are conducted to obtain
the flow profile and identify water pro-
ducing zones (see Go with the flow in
this issue).
Well performance, geochemical data
and flowmeter-gradio results are com-
bined with the PNL log interpretation
for each well to establish:
Zones that are sweeping or
responding to the peripheral flood,
and;
Zones indicating no significant
movement or sweep.
Figure 4.8 is an example of this type
of surveillance data. It shows the
progress of the waterflood as observed
from time-lapse PNL logging of a typical
flank well.
Another important aspect of the
waterflood monitoring effort is the eval-
uation drilling program that was started
in the late 1980s. This is aimed at evalu-
ating the sweep in the reservoirs
undrilled areas, between the injectors
and first row producers. In addition to
cores and open- hole logs, these wells
provide the opportunity to selectively
test individual layers to determine fluid
content and salinity and to run wireline
multiple- pressure testers, such as
Repeat Formation Tester (RFT), across
the reservoir.
Over the past four years, a total of
eight evaluation wells have been
drilled. Integrating data from these wells
with routine surveillance data from the
67 existing wells gave a good under-
standing of the reservoirs water
encroachment patterns and flow charac-
teristics. It also produced a good assess-
ment of the areal and vertical sweep
across the reservoir, which was the pri-
mary objective in evaluating the perfor-
mance of the waterflood.
Fig. 4.8: SALT
SURVEILLANCE:
These time-lapse
pulsed neutron logs
give a clear indication
of the movement of
the waterflood front
across a section of the
field.

Such measurements have been made easier with

the arrival of the Reservoir Saturation Tool (RST*)
into the Middle East (see Middle East Well
Evaluation Review, Number 11, 1991).
49 Number 13, 1992.
The effectiveness of a reservoir water-
flooding scheme depends on three basic
factors - the microscopic displacement,
and the areal and vertical sweep efficien-
cies. For best results, these factors
should be determined by a detailed
reservoir study which includes simula-
tion. However, a quick assessment of the
waterflood performance can be made by
assigning a value between 0.0 and 1.0 for
each of the three efficiency factors.
The overall waterflood efficiency can
then be computed by multiplying these
three values. For example, a reservoir
with microscopic, areal and vertical
sweep efficiencies of 0.6, 0.7 and 0.5
respectively would have an overall flood
efficiency of 0.21. In other words, only 21
percent of the oil-in-place would be
recovered.
Microscopic displacement efficiency
is a measure of how easily the oil can be
removed from the rock pores. Efficiency
values can be obtained from laboratory
core studies or the Log-inject-Log tech-
nique using equipment such as the
Thermal Decay Time tool. The use of
surfactants, which improve the rock wet-
tability and reduce the interfacial tension
in the system, can increase displace-
ment efficiency.
Areal sweep efficiency is a measure
of how much of the reservoir has been
in contact with the flood water in an
areal plane.
Vertical sweep efficiency is a mea-
sure of the uniformity of water invasion
in a vertical cross section.
Both the areal and vertical sweep are
dependent on a large number of factors:
the distribution of horizontal and vertical
permeability, anisotropy, wettability,
reservoir thickness, fluid characteristics,
the injection/production rates, the place-
ment of perforations, type of injected
fluid (water or gas), the well spacing etc.
Proper planning of a waterflood
should take into account most of these
parameters and the predictions are usu-
ally based on model studies (both
numerical and laboratory). The actual
waterflood performance can be esti-
mated by examining saturation data
from in-fill and observation wells and
tracer surveys. In a tracer survey, chem-
ical or mildly radioactive tracers are
added to the injection water and their
arrival time at the producing well is
noted.
Today, reservoir simulation studies
are playing an increasingly important
role in determining the areal and vertical
movement of the injected water. They
also help to guide drilling programmes
aimed at maximising the sweep effi-
ciency of the waterflood.
A CLEAN SWEEP
Injection wells
Producer
Oil
Water Water
Areal sweep
Water Oil
Sand Water Oil
Fig. 4.9: AREAL
SWEEP: A
measure of how
much oil is left
behind in areas
not swept by the
waterflood.
Fig. 4.10:
VERTICAL
SWEEP: Defined
as the cross-
sectional area
contacted by the
injected fluid
divided by the
cross-sectional
area enclosed in
all layers behind
the fluid front.
Fig. 4.11:
MICROSCOPIC
DISPLACEMENT:
Relates to the
removal of oil by
water on the pore-
scale.
CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK
50 Middle East Well Evaluation Review
B
M
L
N
K
C'
P
Q R
B'
B
C
D
E
F
H
I
A
A
A'
G
J
N
O'
The term sweep, as used here, implies
that a part of the reservoir has been
contacted by formation or injection
water. Because of the problem of mixed
salinity, no effort was made to evaluate
displacement efficiency.
As there was no reliable simulation
model available, sweep was evaluated
by generating a series of cross sections
parallel and perpendicular to the struc-
ture (figure 4.12). Water encroachment
data from individual wells was superim-
posed on these sections and the swept
and unswept zones identified and corre-
lated from well to well.
The reservoir was then divided into
a number of layers, based on perme-
ability. For each of these layers, maps
were drawn showing the swept and
unswept zones. In addition, net oil
isopachs were prepared to estimate the
volume of unswept oil. From this water-
flood evaluation, which is mainly based
on observed performance, several
important conclusions can be drawn:
1. In spite of the complexity and sig-
nificant variation in rock-type and per-
meability, all facies with a permeability
greater than 20 md responded to the
peripheral flood. Upper and middle sec-
tions of the reservoir, which contained
most of the permeable layers, were
flooding together almost as one pack-
age.
2. The lower part of the reservoir,
where the permeability is generally less
than 10 md, was not flooding at all. In
spite of being completely overlain by
flood water in the permeable zones
above, there was no noticeable
encroachment of water or displacement
of oil from these tighter facies. It is pos-
sible that the tight lower zones that are
not flooding may be more oil wet than
the more permeable zones above.
However there is no wettability data to
support this (see box on page 55).
3. On the northern flank of the field,
there was unswept oil in the permeable
upper part of the reservoir.
4. Although early PNL and resistivity
logs showed water breakthrough in the
highest permeability zones, there are no
major fingers anywhere in the reser-
voir. This is believed to be due to good
vertical permeability, favourable mobil-
ity ratio and the field operating strategy
of restricting the producers ahead of the
flood front.
A good way to illustrate water
encroachment in a reservoir is through
cross sections (figures 4.13 to 4.16).
The east-west section AA' represents
the northern flank, an area that is close
to the injectors, and had more injection
water pass through it. This section is
shown both stratigraphically (figure
4.13) and structurally (figure 4.14).
There are two distinct permeability
zones - the lower zone with permeabil-
ity generally less than 10 md and the
upper zone which ranges from 20 to 500
md. Individual log sections show the
porosity profile on the left track. On the
right track, injection wells show the
flowmeter profile while producing or
observation wells show the PNL log
response. These sections clearly show
that:
Water is entering more or less
uniformly into the permeable zones
(K>20 md). It then gravitates down
to the base of the permeable zone
and continues to ride on top of the
tight zone (K<10md).
The flood water is sweeping
through the middle section of the
reservoir with oil above and below.
Time-lapse PNL logs show that the
oil at the top is still moving,
although at a slow pace.
The oil in the tight facies (K<10 md)
is not sweeping at all.
The cross section BB' (figure 4.15)
goes through the crestal area from east
to west flank. It shows a dry crestal pro-
ducer with a flood front approaching
from both sides. This cross section
shows a similar flooding pattern as
observed in section AA' . However,
there are differences:
The injection wells have a poor
flow profile because the permeable
facies have become thinner on the
flanks. But even then, the flood
water is sweeping through the
permeable zones (K>20 md) but
completely by-passing the tighter
zone (K<10 md) below.
The thickness of the unswept oil at
the top is much thinner (20 ft) than
the unswept oil column (80 ft)
observed in the northern cross
section, AA'. This, as will be shown
later, is primarily due to better
drainage in the crestal area
compared to the northern flank.
The north-south cross section, A'C'
(figure 4.16) which goes from the injec-
tion well in the north flank to the dry
wells in the south, confirms the sweep
pattern observed in the two east-west
cross sections, AA' and BB.
Fig. 4.12: ON THE WATERFRONT: Prior to the development of a reservoir simulation model, the
only way to assess the efficiency of a waterflooding scheme was to generate a series of cross-
sections across the field. These helped to locate the swept and unswept zones. This map shows
the approximate location of each of the sections presented in figures 4.13 through 4.16.
51 Number 13, 1992.
Well - L
P
O
R

F
B
S

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

F
B
S

Well - M Well - N Well - O Well - P Well - Q Well - R

Injector Injector
W E
Swept zone
Top
res.
Base
res.
Oil
K = 20-500
K = 10
Water
Flood
front
Flood
front
F
B
S

Well - A
P
O
R

F
B
S

Well - B
P
O
R

T
D
T

Well - C
P
O
R

T
D
T

Well - D
P
O
R

T
D
T

Well - E
P
O
R

T
D
T

Well - F
P
O
R

T
D
T

Well - G
P
O
R

F
B
S

Injector Injector
Oil
Oil
Top
res
Base
res
K = 20 - 500
K=10
W E
Swept zone
Well - K Well - J Well - I Well - H Well - F Well - G
P
O
R

T
D
T

Top
res
Base
res
P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

F
B
S

Dry Wet
Flood front
Swept zone
Injector
Oil
Oil
K
20-500
K =10
Water
S N
Well - A
Well - B
Oil
Well - D
Well - E
Well - F
Well - G
OOWC OOWC
P
O
R

F
B
S

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

T
D
T

P
O
R

F
B
S

Water
Well - C
K = 20
K = 10
W E
Top
res
Base
res
Swept zone
Fig. 4.13: East-west
stratigraphic cross
section showing two
distinct permeability
zones. The flood
water is sweeping
through the middle
of the reservoir,
leaving oil above
and below.
Fig. 4.14:
Structural
section
along the
same line as
that of figure
4.13.
Fig. 4.15:
East-west
cross section
through the
crestal area
revealing a
dry producer
with the
flood front
approaching
from both
sides.
Fig. 4.16: This
north-south
section confirms
the sweep pattern
which was
observed in the
east-west sections.
A
B
A
C'
A'
A'
B'
A'
CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK
52 Middle East Well Evaluation Review
The best evidence of good vertical
permeability can be obtained from RFT
pressure profiles of wells drilled in both
producing and non-producing areas of
the reservoir. Twelve recently tested
wells showed a uniform pressure pro-
file across the permeable section of the
reservoir. Figure 4.17 illustrates a pres-
sure profile of a crestal evaluation well.
There is no differential depletion and
the pressure profile across the perme-
able section of the reservoir is uniform.
This confirms the absence of extensive
horizontal barriers and indicates that
there is enough vertical communication
between layers to allow movement of
oil and water across the reservoir.
The average mobility ratio of the
waterflood is estimated at 0.4. Based on
experience with other waterfloods,
such a favourable mobility ratio has a
very positive impact on areal and verti-
cal sweep since it eliminates any possi-
bility of viscous channelling (or
fingering) of water through the oil, caus-
ing early water breakthrough in the pro-
ducing wells.
Also, reservoir management has
been a key factor in ensuring good
areal and vertical sweep. A producing
strategy was implemented in 1982. This
restricted or shut in dry producers
ahead of the flood front and preferen-
tially produced the wet wells to the
rear. As shown by the water arrival
isochrones in figure 4.18, this slowed
down the rate of advance of the flood
front, avoiding water breakthrough
along high permeability streaks and
allowing gravity forces to smooth out
the effect of stratification. This is why
there is no evidence of fingering in the
reservoir even though the early resis-
tivity and PNL logs showed water
breakthrough in thin, highly permeable
zones (figure 4.19).
RFT
Pressure-Psig
3700 3800 3900
Gradient = 0.30 Psi/ft
Oil/Water
interface
Gradient = 0.42 Psi/ft
Gradient = 0.52 Psi/ft
Gradient = 0.30 Psi/ft
Supercharged ?
Resid.
HCarbon
Moved Water
50 % 0
Depth
ft
7850
7900
7950
8000
8050
DST
3950 Bbl/day
0% cut
DST
843 Bbl/day
56% cut
DST
278 Bbl/day
0.3% cut
1
9
7
4

1
9
7
6

1
9
7
8

1
9
8
0

1
9
8
6

F
l
o
o
d

f
r
o
n
t

Producer well
Injector well
Observation well
1
9
9
0

Fig. 4.17: VERTICAL EQUILIBRIUM: RFT

pressure profile of a crestal evaluation well
indicates absence of barriers.
Fig. 4.18: FLOOD FRONT ADVANCE:
Movement of the flood front across the
field was slowed down by preferentially
producing the wet wells and restricting
the dry crestal wells.
53 Number 13, 1992.
Porosity
Depth
ft
8000
8100
8200
PNL
Playback
1977
Sigma cu
1984
Sigma cu
1988
Sigma cu
50 % 0
40 0
40 0
40 0
Dry
oil
Swept
zone
F
l
o
o
d
f
r
o
n
t
0

2
5

5
0

7
5

5
0

5
0

2
5
0

Unswept oil
Flood front
A sweeping improvement
There is a column of dry oil at the top of
the reservoir that is sweeping very
slowly (figures 4.8 and 4.13). These
unswept zones were identified and
isopach maps showing the thickness
and extent of this unswept oil were
drawn for each layer.
To investigate the reason for this
lack of sweep in the permeable upper
portion of the reservoir, especially in
the NE flank where there is adequate
injection support, all possible factors
that may have a bearing on sweep were
critically reviewed. Structure, gross pay,
pressure, permeability, cumulative
injection/withdrawal, current injec-
tion/production etc are some of the fac-
tors that were examined (figures 4.21 to
4.26). However, the parameter that gave
the closest correlation with poor sweep
is poor drainage.
Currently, most of the producing
wells are located in the crestal area of
the reservoir. There is very little with-
drawal from the NE flank where the oil
at the top has stopped moving. This is
partly due to the reservoir being flat
(formation dip 1 - 1. 5) and also
because the crestal production is effec-
tively supported by injection water
moving through the highly permeable
middle section of the reservoir.
Therefore, there is no horizontal pres-
sure gradient to drive oil from the NE
flank to the producing wells in the cen-
tral area.
Plans are underway to improve
recovery of the unswept oil by provid-
ing more drainage points in the NE
flank. This will be done by recompleting
existing wells and drilling infill wells.
However, because of the relatively thin
oil column and underlying water, wells
are expected to cone water. Therefore,
horizontal wells are being planned and
eventually artificial lift will be required
to produce these wells at higher water
cuts.
As regards the unswept oil in the
tighter lower part of the reservoir, it is
believed that the current peripheral
flood will recover very little oil from
this facies. Developing these tighter
facies may require waterflooding at
very close spacing or some other recov-
ery technique.
Fig. 4.19: EARLY WARNING: Water breakthrough in the thin, highly permeable zones
can be clearly seen in this early log. However, the producing strategy was designed to
prevent this from occurring in the crestal area of the field.
Fig. 4.20:
Thickness and
areal extent of
the unswept
oil zone.
CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK
54 Middle East Well Evaluation Review
8
3
0
0

8
2
0
0

8
1
0
0

8
0
0
0

7
9
0
0

7
8
0
0

7
7
0
0

Unswept oil
Flood front
30
4
0

4
0

3
0

2
0

4
0
0
0

3
8
0
0

3
6
0
0

3
4
0
0

p
s
i
g

Fig. 4.23: Isobaric map versus unswept oil in

layer BB1.
Looking to the future
The performance characteristics of the
field have now been incorporated into
a new geological reservoir description
which forms the basis of a 3-D simula-
tion model of the entire field. Reservoir
simulation is now in progress and will
be used as a key reservoir management
tool. It will not only be used to predict
future performance but also to optimize
Fig. 4.22: Gross Pay versus unswept oil in
layer BBI.
Fig. 4.21: Structure versus unswept oil in
layer BBI.
60
80
100
md
120
1
4
0

120
4
0
0

300
200
100
3
0
0

4
0
0

5
0
0

6
0
0

4
0
0

3
0

1
5
5

Unswept oil
1
6
0

1
8
0

Fig. 4.24: Permeability versus unswept oil in

layer BBI.
F
l
o
o
d
f
r
o
n
t
Producer
Injection well
Observation
well
Unswept oil

F
l
o
o
d

f
r
o
n
t

Producer
Injection well
Observation
well
Unswept oil
Fig. 4.25: Cumulative production/ injection
versus unswept oil in layer BBI.
Fig. 4.26: Current drainage/injection
versus unswept oil in layer BBI.
the producing and development strate-
gies for the field.
Acknowledgement
Appreciation is given to the Saudi Arabian Ministry of
Petroleum and Mineral Resources and to Saudi Aramco
for permission to publish this paper.
55 Number 13, 1992.
Wettability is an extremely important
factor as it controls the location, flow
and distribution of fluids in a reser-
voir. It is a measure of the preference
that the rock exhibits for either oil or
water and has been defined as the
tendency of one fluid to spread on or
adhere to a solid surface in the pres-
ence of other immiscible fluids.
If a rock is water wet, the water
will tend to occupy small pores and
be in contact with most of the rock
surface - the ideal situation for any-
one wishing to extract oil from a
reservoir. In an oil-wet system, the
rock retains the oil in its small pore
spaces, making production more diffi-
cult.
There are several ways of assess-
ing wettability. One relies on measur-
ing the contact angle which is formed
when a drop of water is placed on a
rock surface immersed in oil (see fig-
ure). If the rock is water wet, the con-
tact angle is less than 90. In an
oil-wet system, the angle exceeds 90.
Wettability measurements on core
samples are not always reliable
because it is difficult to retain the
original wetting character of the rock
during sampling or in the laboratory.
Logging techniques, which measure
the difference in resistivity between
oil- and water-wet rocks, can provide
some estimates of in-situ wettability mea-
surements.
WET....WET....WET
Rock
Oil
Water

c
Water wet (
c
> 90)

c
Rock
Oil
Water
Oil wet (
c
< 90)
Fig. 4.27:
In water-wet
systems, the
contact
angle is less
than
90.
Fig. 4.28: In
oil-wet
rocks, the
converse is
true.
Further reading:
Wettability Literature Survey -
Part 1: Rock/Oil/Brine Interactions and the
Effects of Core Handling on Wettability by W.G.
Anderson in Journal of Petroleum Technology,
Oct. 1986, page 1125.