SPE-182186-MS

Uncertainty and Risk Management: Waterflood Pilot Design and Surveillance

Proposal for a Giant Multi-Layered Sandstone Reservoir

Chenji Wei, Yong Li, Benbiao Song, Changbing Tian, Baozhu Li, Jiasheng Zhou, Jie Zheng, Hong Luo, and Jun
Lan, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 25-27 October 2016.

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
Accurately understanding the geological and dynamic characteristics determines the recovery and life cycle
of a reservoir. Several uncertainties and risks exist during the development especially for giant multi-
layered sandstone reservoirs. Pilot is one of the most effective steps to manage risks and reduce uncertainty,
which help better understand the reservoir, expose the conflict during development, propose corresponding
surveillance plan, determine development plan, and eventually improve the reservoir performance.
This study focuses on a giant Cretaceous multi-layered sandstone reservoir in the Middle East, which
started to produce since 1960s without any energy supply, and the current reservoir pressure is approaching
the bubble point pressure. Therefore, water flooding is urgently needed. In order to reduce uncertainty and
risks, criteria and workflow of selecting waterflood pilot is proposed by integrating the geology, dynamic
data, well status, and existing facilities etc.. 4 pilots are selected and each pilot represents a typical reservoir
type to better understand the performance and adaptability of different development plan. Each pilot has
its own specific objectives and detailed operation plan. Finally, surveillance plans are proposed based on
geological understanding, dynamic behavior, and simulation results.
According to the proposed criteria and workflow, pilots are selected to represent good, medium, and poor
reservoir quality respectively. Pilot I is selected as an example to be discussed in detail. The reasons to select
this pilot, well pattern and spacing, and perforation strategy discussion are presented. Finally, surveillance
is divided into different groups, and implementation plan of different types of surveillance is determined.
This study offers a comprehensive case study that supports the engineers and geologists for better
understanding the reservoir and optimizing waterflooding plan for this reservoir. Moreover, it offers an
integrated methodology of pilot selection and surveillance proposal for other similar oilfields.

Introduction
Rumaila Oilfield is one of the most giantest fields all over the world, which is located in southern Iraq (Fig.
1) and was discovered by Basrah Petroleum Company in 1953 (Ziad, 1988; Alsharan, 2003; Marius, 2009).
This giant oilfield contains 3 major reservoirs, and this study focuses on a sandstone reservoir. This reservoir
was producing without any energy supply until now, and the average pressure is declining significantly.
2 SPE-182186-MS

In order to provide energy supply for the reservoir and enhance oil recovery, water injection is selected as
the development practice. Thus, the water flooding pilot is proposed to provide more quantitative data to
impact and optimize the full-field development plan throughout the reservoir.

Figure 1—Location of Rumaila oilfield and the technical service contractors by field
st nd
as agreed after 1 and 2 licensing rounds (borrowed from Russell Farmer et al.)

Accurate understanding about the reservoir is one of the most important footstones to develop a giant
oilfield. Therefore, based on the reservoir characterization, pilot is the most critical stage to understand the
reservoir and production characteristics, and economically develop the oilfield. Pilots should be proposed
with specific reservoir conditions during the production, and the pilots should be conducted with different
stages according to different objectives. In addition, pilots should be underway throughout the whole life
of the production to provide reasonable and reliable information for adjustment on the development plan of
different stages, which is fundamental to achieve a successful oilfield development.
Most importantly, an essential key to a successful waterflooding project, especially for a multi-layered
heterogeneous sandstone reservoir, is a well-planned and well-executed program of surveillance and
monitoring (Talash, 1988). Similarly with pilots, surveillance should be conducted throughout the whole life
of the oilfield development because each development stage has its own emphasized problems. Therefore,
in order to achieve a satisfied performance for the water injection in this reservoir, 4 waterflood pilots are
selected to reduce the uncertainties and risks during the water injection, and corresponding surveillance
proposals are recommended.

Geological Characteristics
The target reservoir was deposited in a transition environment ranges from upper delta plain to pro-delta
and further to distal shallow marine, which is dominated by channel sand with great heterogeneity. This
multi-layered sandstone is anticline reservoir with 2 crests located in the north and south respectively. The
direction of the long axis in north part is N to S, and the direction of the long axis in south part is N-NW to S-
SE (Fig. 2). The spatial distribution and scale of sand bodies varies significantly according to the evolution
of depositional facies which resulted mainly by the fluctuation of relative sea level. Detailed sequence
stratigraphic study has been done based on core, thin sections and well logs, which reveals that the target
reservoir is composted by two third order sequence, and it can be further divided into 6 members and 15
zones according to higher level depositional cycles and its lithofacies associations (Fig. 3). The source area
locates in the southwest, and the reservoir properties trend varies along this direction. Within the 6 members,
sand bodies develop uneven because the change of relative sea level and lateral shift of facies, channel sand
SPE-182186-MS 3

extend widespread in M3 because the drawback of shoreline, M4 and M5 has few channel sand developed
within southern part of the field which correspond to the rise of relative sea level. The major reservoirs are
Member 2 to Member 5 with the average thickness of 76m. For reservoir parameters, the average porosity
is 18%, average permeability 194 md, and the oil viscosity is 1 cp with initial GOR 650 scf/bbl.

Figure 2—Top structure of this sandstone reservoir

Figure 3—Sandbody distribution of this sandstone reservoir

Pilot Design
As mentioned earlier, this reservoir was producing without any energy supply until 2014, when the average
pressure was approaching the bubble point pressure. In order to provide energy supply for the reservoir
and enhance oil recovery, water injection is selected as the development practice. Thus, the water flooding
pilot is proposed to provide more quantitative data to impact and optimize the full-field development plan
throughout the reservoir. The main objectives of the water injection pilot are as follows:

Objectives
1. Productivity and injectivity
The productivity and injectivity for multiple zones should be established based on the well rates and
vertical zone flow profiles. Especially for the south area, 5 members and 11 sub-zones are developed
in this area, the sand body types and thicknesses are diverse, productivity and injectivities may vary
significantly.
4 SPE-182186-MS

2. Sweep efficiency and adaptability of different well patterns

Sweep efficiency of different well pattern and well spacing should be analyzed and compared. So
different pilots could try different well patterns, and conduct saturation logs and drill coring wells to
monitor the sweep efficiency.
3. Reservoir pressure support
Monitor the pressure response in producers, injectors and surrounding observation wells. And based
on pressure response, reservoir connectivity etc. can be better understood.
4. Reservoir connectivity
Lateral and vertical connectivity and their impact for the water injection of the reservoir should be
determined. Pressure survey should be conducted to determine and analyze reservoir connectivity.
5. Water cut development
Continuously saturation surveillance for adjacent producers and monitor different wells with
different distances to check the water cut development.
6. Additional recovery potential
To estimate how much additional recovery could be obtained by using water injection, which
provides valuable information for the overall planning of the reservoir.
7. Injection water quality
Total suspended solids (TSS) and particles size are considered to be the key parameter of injection
water quality. Using pilot to check the impact of water quality for the injectivity.

Selection Criteria
The most important criteria of pilots selection is that whether the pilot can provide valuable information and
reference for the full-field development. In other words, how is the representativeness of the pilots? Based
on this footstone, the following selection criteria should be carefully considered:
1. Geological setting: The selected pilot areas must be representative of different geological features by
considering different types of sand body, scale, thickness, connectivity and the vertical stack pattern
of those sands, and also the seal ability of shale barriers or baffles between those sands.
2. Available & status of existing wells: current available wells should prior be considered and used in
pilot to save time and budget.
3. Available & status of existing flowline infrastructure: current available flowline infrastructure should
prior be considered to save time and budget.
4. Source water availability: adequate water for injection pilot is indispensable.
5. Differentiation of the pilots: pilot area should be selected in different locations with different
geological settings to provide more comprehensive data and better represent the full-field.

Selected pilots
Based on the selection criteria, 4 water flooding pilots are suggested, and the locations and stratigraphic
correlations of different pilots are shown in Fig. 4. It can be seen that each pilot have its distinctive geological
characteristic from good to poor respectively. In addition, based on the geological study, the reservoir has
been classified as type A, B, C, and D, and the reserve percentage of type C & D is used as an index to
indicate the reservoir quality. The 3 pilots in the south represent good quality reservoir (19% Type C and
Type D), medium quality reservoir (35% Type C and Type D) and poor quality reservoir (54% Type C and
Type D for alternative) respectively.
SPE-182186-MS 5

Figure 4—Locations of water injection pilots on structure maps

Fig. 5 shows the stratigraphic correlations of different pilots. The first pilot is located in the southwest
part of the reservoir. Based on the stratigraphy correlation we can see that all members are developed in
this area, and we believe the reservoir quality represent the medium for the reservoir, and the connectivity
is very complex.

Figure 5—Stratigraphic correlation of each pilot

6 SPE-182186-MS

The stratigraphy correlation of Pilot II indicates better reservoir quality compared with pilot I, and we
can see the thickness is greater, and the permeability is higher. So it represents the good reservoir quality
for this reservoir.
For Pilot III, which is located in the north part, this pilot is selected because that there are only USM 3
is well-developed in this area, and the permeability and connectivity is very good. So we selected this pilot
to represent the north part of this reservoir.
When we select Pilot IV, we want to select a pilot to represent the poor reservoir quality. At the beginning,
we selected Pilot IV in the north part of South reservoir. Because the reservoir quality in that area is very
poor, and we want to touch the lower limit of water injection performance in this reservoir. However, there
are no existing well in that area, and we have to select the next best choice for Pilot IV between Pilot I
and II. Even though all members are developed in this area, the reservoir quality is poor, connectivity is
complex, and the heterogeneity is strong.
Besides the difference of geological setting, we analyzed the dynamic behaviors for different pilots, which
include cumulative oil production, average oil production rate of single well, pressure trend (reflection of
connectivity), aquifer energy etc. The dynamic behavior is consistent with our geological understanding.
Taking cumulative production as an example, even though the impact of production data is not included, it
is a rough indicator to reflect the reservoir quality. Pilot I represent the medium reservoir quality, and the
cumulative production is 70 million barrels with 15 wells, while the cumulative production of Pilot II is 58
million barrels with only 7 wells because of the better reservoir quality. On the other hand, the cumulative
production of Pilot IV, which represents the poor reservoir quality, is only 21.3 million barrels with 9 wells.
For Pilot III, even though there is only Member 3 developed, the cumulative is 16.2 million barrels, which
indicate the very good reservoir quality of this thick layer.

Table 1—value of cumulative oil production, average oil production rate of single
well, pressure trend (reflection of connectivity), aquifer energy for each pilot

Cum oil production(Million Average cum. Oil production per

Pilot Aquifer energy Pressure trend
barrels) well

Pilot I 70 with 11 producers 6.4 Medium

Pilot II 58 with 5 producers 11.5 Medium

Depletion pressure follows the same

Pilot III 16 with 2 producers 8 Weak
trend, good connectivity

Pilot IV 21 with 5 producers 4.2 Weak Pressure varies significantly

Pilots and the Surveillance Proposal

The process to select and analysis is similar from one pilot to another, here only Pilot I is analyzed in detail
to demonstrate the general work flow.

Pilot I Discussion

Reason to select the pilot

This pilot is located in the southwest part of the reservoir, and the reasons of selecting this area as Pilot I
are shown in the followings:
1. It represents the medium reservoir quality
As shown in Fig. 6, the thickness of Member 2 to Member 4 ranges from 6 to 8m, and only Member
5 exceeds 10 m, and the average permeability for Member 2 to Member 6 is 74 mD. In addition, all
members are developed in this area, and most of them are relatively stable. Therefore, compared with
other areas of the reservoir, this area represents the medium quality, and the productivity, injectivity,
SPE-182186-MS 7

reservoir pressure, water cut development, sweep efficiency should be determined for this kind of
formation.
2. Medium heterogeneity
Inter-member and intra-member heterogeneity of Pilot I is medium. The reservoir quality for
different members varies slightly, and the Max. K/Ave. K and Max K/ Min K are relatively low
compared with that of other blocks. In addition, the thicknesses of different members are similar, and
the sand body thickness is relatively stable in this area.
3. Medium aquifer energy
Based on the previous aquifer influx analysis, 9 of the 15 wells in this area are determined as
possible aquifer breakthrough, and 2 of the 15 wells are determined as water influxed. Therefore,
considering the production history and observation of water breakthrough, the aquifer energy is
estimated as medium to strong, so the impact of aquifer energy for the water injection could be
evaluated in this area.
4. The existing wells are suitable for surveillance
Besides the geological settings, the current existing wells in Pilot I are regular patterns with the
well spacing of 500 m (as shown in Fig. 7). Using Ru-216 and Ru-217 as injectors could evaluate the
performance of 5 spots and 9 spots pattern.
5. Extensive research has been conducted for this area
This area is a typical block, and detailed geological description and dynamic study have been
studied in this area. Geological model and corresponding simulation model are established, and water
breakthrough time, water cut development, pressure response etc. are detailed analyzed based on the
models.

Figure 6—Stratigraphy correlation for Pilot I

8 SPE-182186-MS

Figure 7—Existing Wells in Pilot I

Well pattern and spacing discussion

This section discusses the recommended well pattern, and different well pattern and spacing has different
emphases. 3 well patterns are discussed, which include 5 spots pattern using corner wells as producer, 5
spots pattern using edge wells as producer, and 9 spots pattern with well spacing of 500m (Fig. 8).

Figure 8—Different well pattern options

By comparing the different options and considering the objectives of pilots, there will be no observation
wells available if 9 spots pattern is selected, which is not convenient for the surveillance program. If 5 spots
pattern using edge wells as producer is selected, the well spacing becomes 500 m, which is not consistent
with the proposed full-field development plan. In addition, the observation wells (corner wells) is hard to
observe the water cut development since that will be observed in edge wells earlier. Therefore, 5 spot pattern
with corner well as producer is selected, and the edge wells as observer because the water breakthrough of
edge wells is earlier than that of corner wells because of the shorter distance to the injector, so using edge
wells as observer can better monitor the water cut development before the water breakthrough of producers.
In addition, in our full-field development plan, 5 spots pattern with well spacing of 700m is recommended
for the south part of the reservoir, which is consistent with our recommended well pattern and spacing.
After determined well pattern and well spacing, 2 perforation strategies are proposed for our discussion.
The strategy A is commingled production (perforating all intervals in both injectors and producers), and the
SPE-182186-MS 9

strategy B is to only produce one member each time from the bottom to the top. Both of the 2 options have
their advantages and disadvantages are listed in Table 2.

Table 2—Comparison between different completion strategies

Perforation strategies Advantages Disadvantaged

1. Expose the possible problems and 1. Not easy to monitor the behavior of
conflict each member
A 2. Timely data acquisition 2. Possible poor performance of water
3. Higher productivity injection due to inter-member
heterogeneity and interference

1. Easier to conduct surveillance 1. Timing consuming

2. Better understand each member 2. Productivity of one member may not be
B
3. Control the water cut and inject water able to achieve expected rate to satisfy
at high efficiency the overall development plan

The advantages of implementation A includes that it exposes the possible problems and conflict of the
commingled injection and production, and it is one of the most important role for the pilots. We want to
know what kind of possible problems we will encounter for the full-field development. Most importantly,
commingled production save a lot of time to obtain data, and it has higher productivity because the reservoir
is producing as a whole instead of one member each time. Certainly, there are disadvantages for the
commingled production, because it is not easy to monitor the behavior of each member, and the performance
of water injection may be poor considering the inter-member heterogeneity and interference.
On the other hand, the advantage of Implementation B include that it is easier to conduct surveillance and
better understand each member. Also it can better control the water cut and inject water at high efficiency
because the impact of inter-member heterogeneity and interference will be reduced.

Surveillance proposal

Principles and objectives

Surveillance is a process of creating opportunities to improve the reservoir performance, and it should
be conducted throughout the whole lift-cycle of the reservoir development. In addition, the emphasis of
different stages is different, and detailed analysis for the surveillance data under different development
stages is critical for a successful oilfield development.
Surveillance and monitoring techniques were first discussed in the early 1960s from SPE literature
(Kunkel, 1965), and several extinguish authors have published related papers since then (Talash, 1988;
Thakur, 1991; Baker, 1997; Baker, 1998; Gulick, 1998). The general principles for surveillance proposal
are as the followings:
1. Surveillance plan should be proposed based on specific geological settings, well pattern and spacing,
and different development stages etc.
2. The representativeness and accuracy of surveillance data should be ensured to satisfy the requirement
of field operation and research.
3. Combination of routine dynamic surveillance and typical block emphasis, combination of routine
wells and random wells.
4. The integrity of selected wells should meet the requirement of surveillance job.
5. Surveillance plan should be integrated into the production operation plan of oil companies.
10 SPE-182186-MS

Surveillance data types

Different types of surveillance data have different job frequency, and the frequency of surveillance job may
vary from one field to another due to the different reservoir type. The general surveillance types are shown
as the followings.
1. Routine wellhead test. Wellhead pressure, rate, water cut, gas oil ratio etc, which are the most direct
way to evaluate the reservoir performance.
2. Bottom hole flowing and static pressure measurement.
3. Well testing. Well testing data can be used to evaluate the reservoir parameters such as permeability,
production index, formation damage, flowing boundary etc.
4. Saturation log. Using saturation log determines current oil saturation and characterize remaining oil
distribution, which is especially helpful for understanding the sweep performance in multi-layered
reservoirs.
5. Wireline pressure test. Wellline pressure test, such as RFT and MDT, is one of the most important
surveillance for multi-layered reservoirs, which can be used to evaluate the vertical connectivity, inter-
well connectivity, reservoir performance, and pressure distribution of single layers etc.
6. Sealed coring, which only provides cores itself, but also helps understand PVT and the interaction
between rock and fluids.
7. Tracer. Tracer surveillance helps evaluate the preferable direction of waterflood, connectivity between
injector and producer, and heterogeneity etc.
Based on the geological study and dynamic analysis, the detailed surveillance plan is proposed as listed
in this table. It is classified into production, pressure, and water cut. The expected dynamic behavior from
simulation results is combined with geological understanding, and specifically proposed surveillance is
presented. The proposed surveillance plan includes 3 main catagories, production, pressure, and water cut.
In addition, detailed surveillance plan is proposed based on possible dynamic behavior and geological
understanding.
As mentioned earlier, the general workflow of designing other pilots is similar with that of Pilot I, so
the detailed will be not shown here. In general, the 4 proposed pilots represent the good, medium, and poor
reservoir quality of this reservoir, and the water injection performance of different types of reservoir will
be better understood, which will provide value reference for the full-field water injection development.

Conclusions
Objectives and criteria of selecting water flood pilot are proposed. Based on the objectives and selection
criteria, combined with geological settings and existing wells etc, 4 pilots of water injection are selected
to help better understand the water injection performance and possible production problems for different
reservoir qualities of this reservoir, which provide quantitative data to impact and optimize the full-field
development plan.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank PetroChina and BP for the permission to publish this paper.

Reference
Baker, Richard, Reservoir management for waterfloods, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1997.04, vol 36–04
Baker, Richard, Reservoir management for waterfloods - parts II, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1998.01,
vol 37–01.
Beydoun, Ziad (1988). The Middle East: Regional Geology and Petroleum Resources. Beaconsfield: Scientific Press Ltd.
p. 179. ISBN 090136021X.
SPE-182186-MS 11

Gulick, K. E., paper SPE 40044 Waterflooding Heterogeneous reservoirs: an overview of industry experiences and
practices presented at International petroleum conference and exhibition of Mexico, 3-5 March, Villahermosa, Mexico,
1998
Iraq – oil and gas projects (HVO IR-10) http://www.businessopportunities.ukti.gov.uk/zh_cn/uktihome/
businessopportunity/345360.html?null
Kunkel, G.C., controlling waterflooding, Means Queen reservoir, 1965, SPE 1211, Journal of Petroleum Technology. 12
vol 17, 1965, pp1385-1390
Nairn, Alsharan, A.E.M., A.S. (2003). Sedimentary Basins and Petroleum Geology of the Middle East (2nd ed.).
Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 471. ISBN 0444824650.
R. Farmer, D. Kitching, A. Sayed et al integration optimises the value of cased hole saturation logging data in Rumaila.
SPWLA-2014-FFF, this paper is prepared to present at SPWLA 55th Annual logging symposium, 18-22 May, Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Talash, A. W. an overview of waterflood surveillance and monitoring, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1988.12, vol
40 -12, pp1539-1543
Terrado, R. M., Waterfloodinfg surveillance and monitoring: putting principles into practice, SPE Reservoir Evaluation
& Engineering, 2007.10, vol 10-05, pp 552–562
Thakur, G. C. Waterflood surveillance techniques – a reservoir management approach, Journal of Petroleum Technology,
1991.10, vol 43-10, pp1180-1188
Vassiliou, Marius (2009). Historical Dictionary of the Petroleum Industry. Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 272.
ISBN 9780810859937.