SPE 128610
Vertical Flow Barrier Characterisation in Amenam R4 Reservoir (Nigeria)
and Impact on Field Development and Reservoir Management
Xavier MATHIEU, Uche ONYEMA, Lionel SABATIER, Sébastien BLANCHAIS, Uche EME
TOTAL E&P Nigeria, Port-Harcourt.
Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 33rd Annual SPE International
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 3-5, 2009.
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, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum
Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject
to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract
of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836,
U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In the Amenam–Kpono Field, six of the
hydrocarbon bearing reservoirs encountered are
currently developed. The Main Reservoir (R4) is
characterized by vertically stacked sand bodies
with intercalated shale layers, laterally well
extended.
In the initial reservoir study, a low vertical reservoir
permeability (Kv/Kh=0.01) and maps of vertical
transmissibility within these shale layers were
implemented in the dynamic model.
In fall 2007, Amenam East well confirmed an
excellent lateral communication with Amenam
Main Field through the aquifer and highlighted the
presence of multi disconnected hydrocarbon
bearing flow units within R4 reservoir of the
Amenam-East structure.
It was assumed in the initial Field Development
Plan that these shale layers would play a crucial
role in fluid dynamics and hydrocarbons recovery.
The initial dynamic model was used to optimise
well location and perforation strategy.
With 35 development wells drilled and almost five
st
years of production (1 oil in July 2003), the
significant impact of vertical shale barriers was
confirmed and 4 main dynamic units were
identified in the R4 reservoir. Data acquisition
during the development phase and early
production life of the field with pressure data,
interference tests and gas tracers yielded very
significant results, essential to optimise the
development strategy and to establish a proper
reservoir management scheme of the Amenam-
Kpono field.
A limited number of corrective actions were
implemented, mainly with 4 additional wells in
2007-2008, drilled to sustain pressure and/or to
enhance recovery in the under developed R4
bottom unit.
Introduction
The offshore Amenam field discovered in 1990 is
an oil and gas condensate field, located 35 km
south of the Niger Delta (Fig.1). Water depth of
Amenam Field is 40 meters. The Amenam Field is
part of the OML 99 and has been unitized with the
Mobil (Exxon) Kpono Field.(OML70) The unit
agreement was signed in 1997 between NNPC
(60%) Mobil (9.6%) and EPNL (30.4%) as
operator.
The Amenam-Kpono field structure is a large-
faulted anticline downthrown of a regional east-
west trending structure–building fault. Amenam
deep reservoirs are interpreted as being part of a
lowstand deltaic wedge. They belong to the Biafra
Formation (Fig.2) approximatively dated as Upper
Miocene in age (5-9 Ma).The field contains
several deep producing horizons, respectively the
R4, R9, R10,R11 and R15 reservoirs.
The initial Amenam “oil” project was based on the
development of West and Central zones of the R4,
R9, R10, R11 levels. During the phase 1, the
production strategy was to re-inject the associated
gas from all reservoirs into the R4 reservoir in
order to maintain the initial reservoir pressure
above the saturation pressure (close to initial
pressure). The deeper reservoirs R10/R11 were
2 X. Mathieu, U. Onyema, L. Sabatier, S. Blanchais, U. Eme
first produced under natural depletion as their
initial pressures were far from saturation pressure.
During phase 2, most of the gas is exported and
the remaining gas is injected into R4. Water
injection was fully developed in R4, R10 and R11
in order to ensure a full voidage replacement for
reservoir pressure maintenance.
Sea water is used for injection with a maximum
injection rate capacity of 48 kSm3/d.
The Main R4 Reservoir
The R4 reservoir is the focus of this study (cf. map
Fig. 3), where significant sets of static and
dynamic pressure data have been acquired.
The R4 reservoir consists of interstratified
sandstones and marine shale mostly representing
shoreface.to shelf deposition. It is characterized
by vertically stacked sand bodies with intercalated
shale layers. Laterally the shale layers could have
a large extension especially towards the basin
(southwards), creating potentially good pressure
barriers. Tide influence is also common during
trangressive time allowing disconnections
between the mouth bars and the fluvial
distributaries.
Sediments are deposited from North to South and
the reservoir sealing is due both to stratigraphic
and faults closures. Petrophysical reservoir quality
declines from North to South.
The R4 reservoir is also characterized by deep
depths ranging from 3600m to 3800m TVDSS, a
relatively high temperature reaching 135 degC
and high reservoir pressure ranging from 390 to
410 bars. The reservoir pressure is close to fluid
saturation pressure which implies pressure
support on the reservoir. Depletion below the
saturation pressure remains the main risk towards
releasing condensate which could remain trapped
and not produced.
Data Acquisition
In the initial reservoir study, vertical flows were
identified as highly uncertain and based on static
pressure data from exploration-appraisal wells, the
R4 was described as a homogeneous dynamic
unit (Fig.4). However, due to the presence of intra-
reservoir shale layers, lateral extent of those shale
and their transmissivity through the faults were
SPE 128610
also identified as a major risk and were thus
implemented in the first model (Fig. 5).
Fourteen layers were identified based on the
depositional sequences and inter-layering shale
layers interpreted as minor flooding surfaces.
Due to the occurrence of barriers caused by shale
extended layers, an extensive program of data
acquisition was launched in the early development
and production life of the field, in order to reduce
this uncertainty and optimise the field
development.
Among the data acquired to evaluate the dynamic
behaviour of the reservoirs the following pressure
data acquisition techniques were used:
• Interference tests between R4 oil
producers,
• Open-hole static pressure measurements
in most of the development wells,
• Down-hole gauges deployed in some
producing and injecting wells,
• Surface wellhead pressure monitoring.
In fall 2005 a campaign of gas tracers was also
launched to better appraise the connectivity
between gas injectors and oil producers in the R4
reservoir
After a review of the acquired pressure data, this
study is focusing mainly on the gas tracer
technique.
Interference Tests:
Three interference tests were performed on the
R4 reservoir. (SPE 88887 paper, 2004).
1. The first interference test has
demonstrated a good horizontal
communication between AMKP2-04 and
AMKP2-01 (within layer R4_S3), and a
vertical disconnection between layer
R4_S3 and layers R4_S1 where no signal
has been observed on AMKP2-03 well
(Fig. 6).
2. These results were confirmed by a second
interference test performed at the
beginning of the production, with wells
AMKP2-01 and AMKP2-04 producing
(within the layer R4_S3), and wells
AMKP2-07 (R4_S1) and AMKP2-08
(R4_S0) as observers.
3 Vertical Flow Barrier Characterisation in Amenam R4 Reservoir (Nigeria)
3. A third interference test was performed
during the extended clean up of well
AMKP1-06 (gas injector, completed with
screens in layer R4_S3). At that time, two
months after the field production start-up,
only layer R4_S3 had been produced in
R4 reservoir (wells AMKP2-01 and
AMKP2-04).
The main lessons from the three interference tests
is that some of the intra-R4 shaly layers may act
as efficient dynamic barriers.
Those results allowed us to change the
architecture of gas injectors from a single layer
horizontal well trajectory to a sub-horizontal multi-
layers trajectory in order to support several R4
dynamic units .
Gas injectors, initially placed at the top of the
reservoir structure, were re-designed and re-
located downward stratigraphically in order to
encounter several reservoir units.
Open Hole Formation pressure Measurements:
Initially the R4 reservoir has been interpreted with
one single pressure gradient as mentioned in
figure 4. Nevertheless high probability of vertical
barriers have been mentioned since 1998 based
on cores and logs data. Slight pressure difference
are interpreted from the initial pressure regime.
Following the results of the interference tests,
significant efforts have been made to acquire
static pressure data on development wells in order
to:
• identify the main intra-R4 dynamic barriers
and their continuities in order to optimise the
perforation programs,
• confirm with more precision, the four flow
units,
• monitor closely during production time, the
depletion of individual R4 flow units, in order to
optimise the oil production, and the water/gas
injection.
By reviewing the static pressures, expressed in
pseudo-potential (in meters), it appears that the
initial pressure trend shows slight pressure breaks
(Fig.4), which reveal high probability of having
initial vertical barriers. The acquisition of post first
oil static pressure data (mainly MDT and RFT
data) remains one of the best techniques to define
the dynamic units of reservoirs in early
development phase.
SPE 128610
Based on the reservoir development timing and on
reservoir geological assumptions (mainly partial
horizontal continuity of dynamic units), static
pressure data allow us to define flow units, based
on similar uniform depletion trends.
The Amenam field has been vertically divided into
several dynamically independent layers, fitting with
the geological layering. For each pressure point, a
depletion plot was realized, based on the
difference between the open hole static formation
pressure and the original pressure at the
considered depth.
The entire reservoir is supposed to be in dynamic
equilibrium, with one single pressure function. In
the R4a reservoir, single contact is assumed in
line with previous field knowledge. This leads to a
bijective pressure-depth function, greatly
simplifying computations (Fig.7& 8)
All doubtful pressure points (tagged supercharged,
tight, etc.) were removed when they were
inconsistent with adjacent good points. Mobility
has not been used systematically as a way to
validate points, but anomalic points with out of
bounds mobilities were removed on a punctual
basis.
Consequence of the pressure data acquisition
on perforation strategy and production
management:
Example of the Flow Unit 4 (FU4) produced by the
last 3 wells drilled on Amenam in 2008.
Figure 9 shows the formation pressure plot
expressed in pseudo-potential for well AMKP1-37
compared to the regional pressure trend given by
the exploration/appraisal Amenam wells. The
depletion in AMKP1-37 well (drilled in Q1 2008) is
characterized by different pressure trends. Only
the layer R4-S3b above the bubble point pressure
was perforated. On the other hand, all layers close
to the bubble point was not perforated.
As the reservoir pressure in the Flow Unit 4 (FU4)
was slightly above bubble point in January 2008
(pressure data of well AMKP1-37), it appears the
necessity to maintain the pressure with gas
injection of well AMKP1-38. The first signs of
pressure support were noticed during pressure
measurements in the following two wells drilled
just after the gas injection well (Fig.10). The
voidage balance was stabilized thanks to the
AMKP1-38 injection a few months later (Fig.10).
4 X. Mathieu, U. Onyema, L. Sabatier, S. Blanchais, U. Eme
Gas Tracer Campaign:
The main objective of the gas tracer project was to
establish the relationships between gas injector
wells and oil producer wells in the R4 reservoir of
Amenam main field. In addition, gas tracers help
to evaluate the effectiveness of the injector wells
and to reach a full understanding of the travel
paths of the injected gas.
• Tracer Injection and Methodology:
Gas tracers were injected into four gas injection
wells in September 2005 by a Nigerian company
Tracerco.
The tracers were injected at the wellhead with an
injection pressure of 460 bars, some 80 bars
above the wellhead pressure. For safety purpose,
each tracer injection was preceded by leakage
testing using xylene at the injection pressure of
460 bars. Also at the end of each tracer injection,
equipment and injection point were cleaned by
pumping xylene through to avoid contamination.
• Gas Tracer Analysis:
After the tracer injections have started, the tracers
were sampled on a monthly basis from the
Amenam test separator and sent to a norvegian
laboratory (IFE). The first results of injected gas
breakthrough were seen with the February 2006
analysis results. By February 2007, almost all
tracers breakthroughs had been observed and
tracer sampling was temporarily suspended.
In 2007, previous analysis results were
synthesized and simulated. Recommendation was
given to continue tracer sampling on a bi-monthly
basis for selected wells in August 2007. However,
sampling commenced effectively in January 2008
due to operational constraints on Amenam
complex.
• Gas Tracer Results
These measurements were particularly valuable to
understand the injection gas repartition and the
repartition of wells within the flow units.
For example, the gas injector AMKP1-05 ,drilled
in the central panel of Amenam, has open
intervals for injection in R4 flow unit 2, with some
meters of blanked pipe in flow unit 3.
PLT interpretations performed in March 2006
suggest that there was no injection behind the
blanked pipes (all injection in R4 flow unit 2).
20 kg of the tracer PMCP were injected in this well
th
on 19 September 2005 and main breakthroughs
SPE 128610
have been observed in AMKP 2-23, & AMKP2-12
both perforated in R4 unit 2 (Fig.11).
Very small amounts of this tracer were recorded in
other wells as shown in the table, but these are
most likely recycled tracers (Fig.12). The main
conclusion is that the PLT results are confirmed.
On the contrary, the injector AMKP 1-06,
supposed to inject only in the flow unit 4,
according to PLT results, also injects in flow unit 3.
AMKP1-06 tracer was recovered in well AMKP 2-
14, producer of R4 FU3.
The tracers breakthrough delays are also
analysed. For instance AMKP 2-07, perforated in
the flow unit 2 has experienced a tracer
breakthrough in Q1 2008, one year after AMKP 2-
11 though it is closer to the gas injector. This
observation necessitated a review of well
correlations.
Finally, there are some results that are not yet
understood. For example, AMKP 2-23 and AMKP
2-12 have not yet experienced any breakthrough
of AMKP1-17 tracer, supposed to be perforated in
the same flow unit. The sampling on these wells is
intensified.
• Gas Tracer Conclusions
Gas tracer sampling & analysis has greatly
improved the knowledge of R4 reservoir and
proven the dynamic flow repartition between the
different units of this reservoir.
The association of gas injectors to oil producers
was achieved through tracer analysis. This helped
in optimizing gas injection management, especially
since the start up of gas export, beginning January
2007.
From recent trends of tracer concentrations, it is
clear that the peak concentrations have long been
observed in all breakthrough wells and detected
tracer amounts will continue to decrease. Based
on simulation and full analysis program of the
tracer sampling, it was agreed to complete the
cycle of tracer observation in order to help in
quantifing flow paths /volumes between injectors
and producers.
However, the lack of frequent sampling implies
that this objective is more or less defeated. In the
light of the present difficulty in sampling wells, it is
necessary to review the continuation of gas tracer
sampling & analysis on Amenam R4 reservoir.
5 Vertical Flow Barrier Characterisation in Amenam R4 Reservoir (Nigeria) SPE 128610

Water Tracer Campaign: NNPC for the encouragement received and

An inter-well water tracer program has also been
designed to investigate the flow behaviour of the
injected water in and around the project area. The
campaign will be launched mid 2009.
Conclusion
Dynamic data acquisition during the development
phase and at the early production life of the field,
has a significant impact on the characterization
and definition of the vertical reservoir units. The
dynamic layering was largely improved with the
interference tests and also with significant efforts
at the acquisition of the open hole pressure data.
The gas tracer campaign helped in optimizing gas
injection into the wells.
Those measurements were essential both to
optimise the development strategy and to
establish a proper reservoir management of the
Amenam-Kpono field.
permission granted to publish this work.
References
1. V.Bandele, E.Berger, C.Trémaudant, J.Hegner,
F.Akalamudo, Y.Autret and B.Faissat
:”Importance of Pressure Data Acquisition in the
Development phase and Early Production Life:
the Amenam-Kpono Field Experience”. paper
SPE 88887 presented at the 28th Annual SPE
International Technical Conference and
Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, August 2-4, 2004
2. JL.Fachal; A.Renaud; F.Montel; L.Moreau and
V.Bandele “Reservoir risk management in partial
depletion context: : a methodology applied to a
reservoir with critical fluids”, paper SP
.presented at the 28th Annual SPE International
Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja,
Nigeria, August 2-4, 2004.

Consequently data acquisition yielded significant

results on Amenam-Kpono field, allowing some
corrective actions to improve the sweep efficiency
and also the recovery in each flow unit:
• Implementation of a water injector
AMKP3-36 to improve the pressure
support in the Flow unit 3.
• Drilling of 3 infill wells (2 producers and 1
water injector) to improve the recovery of
the Flow unit 4.

Thanks to a good anticipation, the corrective

actions were efficient and the initial reserves were
maintained.

In line with the data acquired during the early

production phase, a water tracer campaign will be
launched mid 2009 aimed at a better
understanding of the flow behaviour of the injected
water. Based on the reservoir management
optimisation accomplished since 2003, infill
development wells in the R4 reservoir are not
envisaged in the immediate future.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the
management of Total E&P Nigeria, for permission
to publish this paper and would also like to thank
our partners ExxonMobil Producing Nigeria and