SPE 160897

Early Injectivity Test Helps To Understand Reservoir Performance and

Connectivity
Majid H. Otaibi, SPE, E.J. Pinilla, SPE, C.H. Pardo, SPE and Meshari D. Alodah, SPE Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, 8–11 April 2012.

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, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committee of Society of Petroleum Engineers. 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 where and 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
Optimum development of a giant offshore field requires the best strategy and maximum reservoir knowledge. Any
information gained in advance will improve the development strategy and allow for taking timely corrective measures to
optimize production and recovery. Amongst many alternatives to get early information, a long term injectivity test is
considered to be a good method to determine injection sustainability and reservoir connectivity – transmissibility. This paper
presents the background and methodology to implement a long term injectivity test in an offshore field, the challenges faced
during the initial phase of injection, and the preliminary results of the test in the two reservoirs included in this project.

The subject field development consists of two main reservoirs that were characterized to have a transition of the oil column
from the typical Arabian Heavy medium viscosity to very Heavy Oil zone at the flanks of the reservoirs, and lower rock
properties in the western flank of the field. Thus, a long term injectivity test in the field was planned to give early information
on some of the identified uncertainties; its aim is to evaluate the sustainability of the injection rate at depths very close or
inside the Heavy Oil zone and transmissibility towards the crestal sector of the field from the injector wells located in the
western flank of the structure. Additionally, the test will allow us to evaluate the vertical communication within the shallower
reservoir as we have identified two very good permeability zones separated by a very low permeability rock in between
which could act as a barrier in the flanks and as a baffle in the crest under dynamic conditions.

Main drivers for these tests were:

• Few wells drilled in the west sector during initial development and production period
• Well tests and core data indicate low permeability along the west flank
• Current Earth model reflects the estimated lower permeability in west flank of the field and simulation results suggest the
need of many wells in this flank to compensate withdrawal rates
• Evaluate vertical connectivity across and within the reservoirs

Based on above, early interference tests were designed to evaluate this transmissibility and optimization of the field
development including injectors’ well placement. The selected wells were proposed to get good sector coverage to better
understand the reservoirs which includes two wells in the deeper reservoir and one well in the shallower one.

Introduction
Proper reservoir management is necessary for optimum development of any oil or gas field. Consequently, reservoir
characterization is the main focus at early stages of a field development to gain enough and on time information aimed at
maximize the hydrocarbons recovery under the most economical environment. Development of giant fields poses additional
2 SPE 160897

challenges due to the need to cover as much area as possible during early time data gathering, comprising all aspects of the
reservoirs and good quality information. This paper presents the implementation of an early Long Term Injectivity Test
conducted to overcome some of the uncertainties identified during the initial evaluation of data available. It shows the
assessment leading to the proposal of the test and the evaluation of preliminary results obtained after six months of injection
in a well targeting “B” reservoir.
Background

General Description of the Field

The study field is located in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, containing seven Arabian heavy-oil bearing reservoirs, which are
identified as “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G” reservoirs. Fig. 1 shows the respective stratigraphic positions of these
reservoirs. Each reservoir has a heavy oil zone near their respective hydrocarbon-water contact.

General Geology. The structure of the field is a northwest-southeast trending anticline, asymmetrical with slightly steeper dip
on the northeast flank than on the southwest flank. “B” and “C” are the two major reservoirs in the field. Both reservoirs were
deposited in a shallow marine environment and capped by regressive tight limestone and algal boundstone facies.
The “B” reservoir is located within a porous carbonate member on top of the Sulaiy formation of Cretaceous age. It is
separated from the older “C” member by dense carbonates. The lithology is calcarenite, occasionally dolomitic. Rock
properties are generally quite good, with high values of porosity in the net rock.
The “C” reservoir is located within a porous carbonate member at the base of the Sulaiy formation and top of the Hith
formation. The Hith, a dominant anhydrite of Jurassic age, grades into the “C” reservoir and the stratigraphic boundary with
the Sulaiy, a dominant limestone of Cretaceous age, is poorly defined. The “C” reservoir is generally described as a
calcarenite. Reservoir rock is dolomitic in parts and demonstrates a typical-carbonate relationship between porosity and
permeability.

Regional Geological Setting and Depositional Environment. As mentioned earlier, the field is situated in a northwest-
southeast trending anticlinal structure. During the geological past, in times of “C”, “B” and “A”, this area geographically lay
over on an extended Rimthan Arch between the separated major basins ─ Gotnia basin to the north and Arabian basin to the
south. This arch served as an ideal platform for the high to moderate to low energy sediments to be deposited in super-tidal,
fore beach and open lagoon environments. Some of the facies in the cored wells indicate that the cyclicity of sedimentation
and pertain to shallower platform, inter-tidal and sub-tidal zones as well. Dominant reservoir rocks have been used to
decipher the depositional environment. The regional setting allowed the oolitic grainstone to be deposited as the dominant
reservoir facies during the “C” and “B” times, whereas during “A” times beach rock, detrital skeletal limestones facies are
common in cyclicity. The reservoir rocks are interrupted by wacke limestone cycles intermittently, providing some regional
and localized markers for stratigraphic analysis. Bands of algal boundstones, cycles of oncolitic grainstones and oncolite with
algal dominance, thin cycles of stramatoporoids do contribute towards reservoir porosities (Fig. 2).

Stratigraphy. The “C” reservoir overlays the Hith formation. It appears that “C” reservoir facies deposited during the late
Jurassic-early Cretaceous time. During the deposition, a relatively small dip exited towards the north of the field. The tilting
effect has allowed a noticeable variation in thickness of all three reservoirs. The “C” reservoir appears to have experienced
pronounced thinning towards the southeast. The oolitic shoals of “B” reservoir are probably deposited in a shallow marine
environment. Over time, facies underwent a slow, transgressive period that allowed muddy sediments to form locally within
dominantly high-energy and clean depositional environments. Depositional facies and diagenetic changes in “A” reservoir are
believed to be responsible for reduction in thickness from south to north.

Field History and Data Evaluation

The field produced over a period of 20 years from early 1960’s , initially from the “C” reservoir and later “B” and “A”
reservoirs came on stream (Fig. 3) when the field was shut in due to low demand. During this period a number of wells were
on production and the field pressure performance indicated very low to non-pressure support from the aquifer around the
field (Fig. 4). The existing production of these reservoirs has been accomplished by fluid expansion drive. The “C” and “B”
reservoirs are underlain by what initially was considered as a thick massive tar mats that effectively cut them off from the
underlying water aquifers during production periods; recent assessment of the fluid properties indicate that there is a presence
of very heavy oil zone instead of the tar mat, which is in the process of being properly characterized to determine the degree
of its whether it is seal effectiveness and whether it acts as a hydraulic barrier to pressure support. The “C” reservoir is
slightly connected to the underlying aquifer which is evident by the pressure buildup toward original conditions over the last
20 years. However, the small “window” connecting the reservoir to the aquifer is not adequate as a reservoir drive
mechanism. Energy will have to be supplied to the reservoir by the means of water injection to maintain the reservoir
SPE 160897 3

pressure and to move oil from injection to production wells.

Scope of Test
The long term injectivity test in this study was planned to assess the transmissibility towards the crestal sector of the field
from the injector wells located in the western flank of the structure; the field development plan envisages water injection
requirements for pressure support as identified during the production performance prior to shut down the field, with a pre-
injection period of six months to bring reservoir pressure to initial levels and better assess flank to crest transmissibility. Main
driver for these tests are:
“C” reservoir:
• Few wells drilled in this sector during initial development and production period
• Reservoir heterogeneity in both areal and vertical directions
• Well tests and core data indicate low permeability along the western flank: Some tests carried out in “C” reservoir in
wells located in the western flank of the field indicated very low reservoir quality relative to the rest of the field
• Current Earth model reflects the inferred lower permeability in Western flank of the Field (Fig. 5)
• The presence of the heavy oil introduces uncertainties regarding injection rate sustainability and proper well placement
(Fig. 6)
• Communication between “B” and “C” reservoirs
“B” reservoir:
• There is a need to characterize and determine the performance of a field extensive Low Permeability Layer between the
two main members of this reservoir as shown below (Fig. 7), which has been mapped across the entire field. This Low
Permeability Zone will impact the development plans with respect to having dedicated wells for each member above and
below this zone or commingling injector and producing wells
• The presence of the heavy oil introduces uncertainties regarding injection rate sustainability and proper well placement
(Fig. 6)
• Communication between the two reservoirs “B” and “C”

Scope: In order to assess most of above uncertainties, the Reservoir Management team designed early long term interference
tests to evaluate reservoir transmissibility aimed to optimize the field development including injectors’ well placement. Three
wells were initially selected to cover most of the western flank of the field, two targeting “C” reservoir (northern and
southern locations) and one aiming “B” reservoir in the southern sector (Fig. 8). Due to logistic and scheduling limitations,
only two tests were carried out and are presented in this paper.

Objective
The test main objective was to establish sustainable injection rates as per the proposed field development plan. The
additional objectives are the assessment of transmissibility towards the crest of the structure and in the heavy zone depths as
can be monitored by neighboring wells, any potential communication across the Low Permeability Zone separating the two
main members of “B” reservoir, and by extension an assessment of anisotropies based on the response to farther observation
wells. An additional expected outcome of the test is to assess any communication between the two “B” and “C” reservoirs, as
some of neighboring wells targeting “C” reservoir will also be monitored during test to determine any pressure response due
to the injection into “B” reservoir

Test Development, Reservoir “B”

Planning Phase
The design of the test began with the selection of the wells taking into account following factors:
• Limited duration of the test due to the lack of infrastructure in the field (area)
• Sensible pressure response, while taking into account other factors like gauge drifts and tidal effects.
• The frequency and logistic of data gathering
• Injection water compatibility requirements with reservoir fluids and the treatment process to prevent formation damage.
Filtered sea water was used for this test to deliver the required rate for the planned test duration.
The selected well was drilled as a Horizontal Power Water Injector (PWI) placed from 10’ to around 40’ above the estimated
Heavy Oil contact in the area and has a 3500’ open hole section in the upper member of the “B” reservoir. The placement of
the injector well followed the strategy at the time, to land the wells away from the Heavy Oil zone to secure injectivity and
transmissibility towards the reservoir (Fig. 9). Results of the test demonstrated that this strategy can be optimized for the
remaining development drilling.
The test design was based on several scenarios of different reservoir properties in order to establish the minimum duration of
the injection period to detect a reliable pressure signal at the observation wells. The wells shown in Figure-10 were drilled
4 SPE 160897

during the initial field development back in 1960’s along with recently drilled powered water injection wells. Well I2 is
completed in the lower main member of “B” reservoir and the pressure response in this well will help to confirm or negate
the possibility of communication between the two good quality members of this reservoir separated by the Low permeability
Zone. Simulation runs using a two-layer model were based on ranges of average permeability between the injector and the
observation wells with sensitivities being made by varying other fluid property values. The simulation included both, cross
flow and no cross flow through the Low Permeability Zone between the two main members of “B” reservoir. This study
finally gave an overall range of expected pressure gain in observation wells as a function of time, which is illustrated by the
examples shown in Fig. 11, where sensitivity runs accounted for the cross flow and no cross flow through the Low
Permeability Zone separating the two main members of “B” reservoir. The study indicated that the minimum interference
test time required for the pressure signal to propagate to the observation wells was a period of 18 weeks at a target injection
rate equal to the average injection rate during field life. The projected injection time would ensure that a noticeable pressure
response will be seen in the observation wells (from 4 up to 20 psi increase) based on the input parameters as described
earlier. Former results were supported by the in-house reservoir simulation software (POWERSTM) used for the field
development showing similar time to obtain any response in the observation wells. The selected observation wells will be
monitored on regular a basis. Two of the observation wells (Well-O2 and Well-O1) have PDHM for continuous pressure
monitoring.

Implementation Injectivity Test Reservoir “B”

Reservoir B: The implementation phase embraced different tasks to initiate the test in an area with no infrastructure. First of
all the injection equipment is an stand-alone set (Fig. 12) consisting of power generation system, suction pumps to bring sea
water, filtration system, storage tanks and injection pumps. The filtering system is designed for the target rate and capable of
filtering solids particles down to 2 microns to prevent formation plugging in the injection wells. The continuous injection in
the selected well started on May 31st, 2009 with the objective to inject for at least 18 weeks (126 days) as indicated by
simulation assessment. The test had some operational problems in its early days (Fig. 13), mainly related to sand plugging of
sea water suction pumps; also some problems with the filtering system took place during this time. Once these problems
were sorted out, the test continued smoothly and the main challenge at this point was the frequency of the data gathering from
the observation wells. Two observation wells were equipped with PDHM for continuous pressure data acquisition, and the
remaining observation wells had two pressure gauges run in tandem with enough battery life to record pressure data up to one
year, continuously.

Results
Injectivity Test Performance, Reservoir B
As pressure data collection progressed some adjustments were made to the test plan. It was agreed to extend the test in order
to have reliable pressure data from observation wells. After about 4 months of injection (effective 3 months counting only
continuous performance from July, 2009) it was decided that to ensure some pressure gain detection in observation wells, the
rate would be increased to double original rate . This was planned based on the availability of a second injection set and
injection at higher rates started at the end of October, 2009 (Fig. 14); due to operational difficulties related to commingling a
filtering system, extra pressure losses by combining lines and overall system efficiency, the rate could not be sustained at
expected rate , but as shown in the figure, significantly increased to volumes for about two months and at the end of the test
the total injected volume was slightly over 2.0 MMBbls.
The performance of the injector well was excellent as can be seen through the Hall plot (Fig. 15) where the only change in
slope during the entire test time is due to the change in the injection rate. The well didn’t experience any plugging indication
based on wellhead pressure, and as the injection pressure never exceeded 1400 psi at wellhead, the possibility of fracturing
the formation was also out of question which was validated by the Hall plot for the overall period.
Injectivity Test Analysis
Extending the test helped to mitigate two external effects impacting pressure response: tidal effect (example in Fig. 16) and
pressure gauges drifting.
At the end of the test, all pressure data from the lower gauges (second gauge run in tandem) in all wells were downloaded to
validate the partial data collection along the initial readings already collected. Table-1 presents the pressure response for all
observation wells after finishing the test on December 31, 2009.
In addition to above pressure data measurements, data gathering from wells targeting “C” reservoir was also evaluated with
pressure data obtained from the wells I3 and I4 (Fig. 10) located very close to the injector well I1. Pressure results indicated
a slight increase in the pressure measurement during the test, but after close assessment this increase has been attributed to
the gauge drifting as mention previously during the planning phase.
A full match was achieved for the area between the injector WELL-I1 and the observation well WELL-I5, located about 1
kilometer down-dip of WELL-I1, that allowed estimating average reservoir properties between wells with permeability
SPE 160897 5

values slightly higher than initially considered, but within the ranges used for the simulation runs. The average Kh and
permeability for this sector was found about 50% higher than originally estimated.
Test Conclusions
A long term injectivity test was conducted in study field west flank-“B” reservoir to assess the lateral reservoir connectivity
and injection sustainability. The test started on May 31, 2009 by injecting in WELL-I1 and observing the pressure gain in six
wells WELL-I5, WELL-O2, WELL-I2, WELL-O3, WELL-O4 and WELL-O5. The injection was discontinued on December
31, 2009. The pressure gains are still being under further evaluation to optimize well placement and field development with
these results, along with other aspects of reservoir characterization studies under way
The test’s objectives were fulfilled and the test confirmed reservoir connectivity between WELL-I1 and all observation wells
except WELL-O5 (due to distance).
The transmissibility across the Low Permeability Zone was not confirmed since the results are not totally conclusive; the
pressure increase observed in WELL-I2 (completed in the lower main member right below the Low Permeability Zone) can
be attributed to gauge drifting plus the response to short injection tests in nearby wells carried out after completing them
during the current drilling campaign
Sustainability of the injection was perfectly demonstrated and full field injection plan has been ensured, by injecting more
than 2.0 MMBls during the injection period.
The test also proved that coming injector wells can be place deeper, just above the Heavy Oil Contact as the areal and vertical
transmissibility inside the transition zone was proved by the response in WELL-I5 placed nearby and inside this transition
zone. With the proper use of available technology (Formation Pressure While Drilling –FPWD- and NMR logs with derived
fluid viscosity) the subsequent injector wells have been place as the recommended strategy above the heavy Oil but
minimizing any possible oil behind.

Scope and Objective of Test for Reservoir “C”

The plan for the Long Term Injectivity Test was modified for the reservoir “C” because of two main drivers. Firstly, the
difficulties to perform the test in the west flank as planned, since the selected drill sites were not available because drilling
operations being conducted in those areas at the time. Secondly, the modified test was address to evaluate the performance of
wells placed very close or inside the Heavy Oil zone; some concerns were raised earlier in the development regarding the
possibility of leaving oil behind the injector wells line, then a few injector wells were drilled deeper to target this uncertainty.
The proposed test served the purpose to properly assess the impact of this well placement for transmissibility and injection
sustainability, and also confirm the reservoir quality in the north sector of the field. The Long Term Injectivity Test for this
reservoir aimed to assess the transmissibility towards the crestal sector of the field and the performance of the injector wells
placed inside the Heavy Oil. Evaluation of the injection sustainability following this placement strategy would determine the
approach for coming wells, with results to be extended for both reservoirs.

Test Development, Reservoir “C”

Planning Phase
The design of the test took into account the same factors as those for Reservoir “B” test regarding length of injection period
due to the lack of infrastructure in the field (area), sensible pressure response (while taking into account other factors like
gauge drifts and tidal effects), frequency and logistic of data gathering and injection water compatibility requirements with
reservoir fluids and the treatment process to prevent formation damage. Again, filtered sea water was used for this test to
deliver the required rate for the planned test duration.
The selected well was drilled as a Horizontal Power Water Injector (PWI) placed about 69% in the transition zone between
light oil and heavy oil and the remaining 31% inside the Heavy Oil of the “C” reservoir. The placement of the injector well
followed the strategy for few wells to minimize any oil column behind the injector wells and assess performance and impact
on observation wells from this injection (Fig. 9a); the placement of this well to meet the current strategy was helped by the
calculated Oil Viscosity from the interpretation of the NMR log. Results of the test demonstrated that injection sustainability
is at risk; therefore future well will be placed close but above the Heavy Oil and the transition zone.
The test design followed the lessons learned from the first injectivity test (Reservoir “B”) although this sector is even more
challenging at the time as few wells were available for observation. Total injection time was set for three months only, based
on the pressure response scenarios run and the maximum injection rate from the beginning using the two injection sets
already available. Figure-10a shows the wells included in this test (previously equipped with PDHM), although pressure
data gathering was obtained only from the new drilled well O6 due to some problems experienced in well O7. As in the
previous test, simulation runs using a two-layer model were based on ranges of average
permeability between the injector and the observation wells with sensitivities being made by
varying other fluid property values. The estimated pressure signal response for this test based
on estimated reservoir properties was high enough for the three months period planned, even at
6 SPE 160897

lower rates than planned (50% cushion).

Implementation Injectivity Test for Reservoir “C”

The layout for the required injection equipment was the same used for previous test (Figure 12), but starting with the two
sets available to conduct the test at higher rate. The main challenge during this test was the injection sustainability of the
desired rate due to the placement of the injector well I6

Results
Injectivity Test Performance, Reservoir “C”
The test started on August 2010 and was finished after 4 months in December 2010 (Figure 13a), with a net injection period
of 3 months and total injected volume of around 1.3 MMBbls. The maximum actual rate never achieved the target levels,
since from initial stage the well did not take this much; the performance proved that placing the wells inside the transition
zone or the Heavy oil poses some risks for injection sustainability, let along the challenges with possible fingering of the
flood front. The injector well I6 did not show any signs of plugging as can be noticed in the Hall Plot (Figure 15a), but the
injection level was not possible to sustain as indicated by the injection performance plot (Figure 14a); final wellhead
pressure was above 2100 psi which is very close to the system design (2200 psi) and not far from the fracturing pressure, and
injection rate decreased to about 70% of the expected daily volume.

Injectivity Test Analysis and Conclusions

The test conducted on Reservoir “C” in the north-east sector of the reservoir showed very good pressure response on the only
observation well used, O6. Initial simulation scenarios indicated that the expected pressure increase in the observation well
would be about 23 psi after 3 months at the achieved average injection rate during test; the actual pressure gain as shown in
Table-1a was more than double of simulated pressure gain at the observation well. Post-test work simulations with scenarios
of boundary towards the east of the injector well, considering the Heavy Oil acting as a barrier, indicate an additional 40%
increase in the pressure increase of the observation well which means the simulated pressure gain is over 30 psi. The higher
value of the observed response is assigned to better reservoir and fluid quality than the properties used for the test design
simulations.

Final Comments
The long term injectivity tests carried out in the field were successful as they accomplished the main objective set during the
planning stage: probe good injection sustainability when the wells are place above the Heavy oil and confirm transmissibility
towards the crest of the reservoir. This was achieved despite the lack of facilities and limitations on water source,
complicated surveillance of the observation wells and limited time for the overall test. Additionally, the results helped to set
the strategy for the placement of the injector wells which has been improved as more drilling has taken place

Next Step
As drilling has progressed significantly during the implementation of this test, the well placement strategy has been
optimized by placing the injector well (in both “B” and “C” reservoirs) deeper than this WELL-I1. The test results gave
additional support to the current strategy to place the injector wells above the Heavy Oil and just at the transition zone;
further studies have led to optimize the location of the wells after establishing the minimum mobility (mD/cp) required for
sustainable injectivity and good transmissibility towards the crest of the reservoir. Tools being used to ensure this strategy
include the LWD with FPWD, NMR and POPI analysis.

Abbreviation
LWD: Logging While Drilling
FPWD: Formation Pressure While drilling
NMR: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance logs
POPI: Pyrolytic Oil-Productivity Index

References

SPE 93879 Monitoring Waterflood Operation: Hall Method Revisited, D.B. Silin, Lawrence Berkeley Natl. Laboratory and
U. of California, Berkeley; R. Holtzman and T.W. Patzek, U. of California, Berkeley; and J.L. Brink, ChevronTexaco
Production Co, 2005
SPE 56420 Interference Testing to Verify Drainage Strategy for a Large Offshore Development, Bjørn Jensen, Ellen
Angelina Hjelleset, Leif Larsen, Statoil, 1999
SPE 160897 7

Waterflooding Handbook by James T. Smith, William M. Cobb, Petroleum Technology Transfer council (U. S.) Midwest
Office
8 SPE 160897

Table-1 Observation Wells Response, Table-1a Observation Wells Response,

Reservoir “B” Reservoir “C”
Distance Pressure Gain Distance Pressure Gain
Well Well
(km) (psi) (km) (psi)
WELL-I5 1.5 43 WELL-O6 1.84 60
WELL-O2 4.45 14
WELL-I2 7.6 4.6
WELL-O3 8.1 1.6
WELL-O4 8.3 1.3
WELL-O5 14.17 0

A
A

B
B

C
C
D
D

EE
FF

G
G

Fig. 1─A type log shows the reservoirs in their respective stratigraphic positions.
SPE 160897 9

B Reservoir

C Reservoir

Fig. 2─Porosity type log and geologic model zonation for “B” and “C” reservoirs

Fig. 3─Field Production History

10 SPE 160897

Yr 0 Yr 7 Yr 14 Yr 21 Yr 28 Yr 35 Yr 42 Yr 0 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr 15 Yr 20 Yr 25 Yr 30 Yr 35

Fig. 4─Field Pressure History, reservoirs “C” and “B” respectively

Fig. 5─Permeability Model for “C” reservoir

“B” Reservoir
OHOC OHOC Depth 'SS
“C” Reservoir
OHOC Depth 'SS
8600 OHOC
8080 8600
8090 8610
8610
8100 8620
8620
8110 8630

8080
8640
9 8610

8620
8620
8630

8630
8610

8600

8620
66
8600

8620
8630
8090

8630
8092

8085
43
8600
8090
8600

8090 8610
8620
8630
8100
8100

8640

8640
8110
8630

Fig. 6─Heavy Oil Contact for “B” and “C” reservoirs

SPE 160897 11

(Lower K)

Fig. 7─Low Permeability Zone identified across “B” reservoir

I7

I1
I8

Fig. 8─Injectivity Test Wells Location

12 SPE 160897

"B" Reservoir Wells in Test well drill site

Subsea Depth, feet

Heavy Oil Contact

PWI inj pilot

PWI inj test
PWI obs pilot
PWI obs inj

Fig. 9─ Injector well I1 placement relative to Heavy oil Contact

TEST WELLS LOCATION RESERVOIR “B”

Observation Well Distance in KM

WELL ‐I5 1.5

WELL ‐O2 4.45

WELL ‐I2 7.6

O5 WELL ‐O8 7.73

WELL ‐O3 8.1

WELL ‐O4 8.3

O4
WELL ‐O5 14.17
I5

I4 O8
I1 I3
O3
O2
I2

Fig. 10─ Location of Injector (pulse) well and observation wells

SPE 160897 13

3874 3870 Upper Zone Tight Zone Lower Zone

Upper Zone Tight Zone Lower Zone
1000 MD 10 MD 800 MD
300 MD 10 MD 100 MD
3872
3869

3870
3868

3868

3867

-8000
-8000

-13000
-13000

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000

History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])

History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])

Fig. 11─ Simulated pressure response example for observation wells

3905 Upper Zone Tight Zone Lower Zone

Upper Zone Tight Zone Lower Zone
300 MD 10 MD 100 MD 3874
1000 MD 10 MD 800 MD
3895

3872

3885

3870

3875

3868

-8000
-8000

-13000
-13000

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000

History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])

History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])

Fig. 12─ Injection system lay out

Operating Time
24

20
Operation Hours (hrs)

16

12

0
5/31

6/14
6/21
6/28

7/12
7/19
7/26

8/16
8/23
8/30

9/13
9/20
9/27
10/4

11/1
11/8

12/6
10/11
10/18
10/25

11/15
11/22
11/29

12/13
12/20
12/27
6/7

7/5

8/2
8/9

9/6

Fig. 13─Operational performance Injector Well, “B” reservoir

14 SPE 160897

1600 20
19
1400 18
17
1200 16
15

Inj. Rate (MBWD)

14
IWHP (psi)
1000
13
12
800
11
10
600 9
Average Injection Pressure (psi) 8
400 7
Average Injection Rate (MBWD)
6
200 5
5/31 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/2 11/2 12/3 1/3

Fig. 14─ Injection performance Injector Well, “B” reservoir

16000

14000
y = 898.28x - 3024.6

12000

10000
Cum. P/Q (psi/MBPD)

8000

y = 742.38x - 853.8

6000

4000

2000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Cum. 1/Q (1/MBPD)

Fig. 15─ Hall plot for Injector Well, “B” Reservoir

WELL‐O5
3744

May 10 th, 2009 June 9 th, 2009

3743

2E+5 Started
StartedInjection
InjectionininWell I1
Well‐679

-2E+5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

History plot (Pressure [psia], Liquid Rate [STB/D] vs Time [hr])

Fig. 16─ Tidal effect on pressure data, observation wells

SPE 160897 15

Well‐I6 Placement

HOC (based on NMR)

Fig. 9a─ Injector well placement relative to Heavy oil Contact

TEST WELLS LOCATION RESERVOIR “C”

369
Observation Well Distance in KM
670
10
WELL‐O6 (TE) 1.84
WELL‐O7 3.68

Fig. 10a─ Location of Injector (pulse) well and observation wells

16 SPE 160897

Operating Time
24

20

Operating Hours
16

12

0
8/12 8/22 9/1 9/11 9/21 10/1 10/1110/2110/3111/1011/2011/3012/10

Fig. 13a─Operational performance Injector Well, “C” reservoir

2500 25

2000 20

Inj. Rate (MBWPD)

1500 15
IWHP (psi)

1000 10
Avg Injection Pressure (psi)

500 Avg Injection Rate (MBWPD) 5

0 0
8/10 8/30 9/19 10/9 10/29 11/18 12/8 12/28

Fig. 14a─ Injection performance Injector Well, “C” reservoir

12000

10000
Cum. P/Q(psi/MBPD)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Cum. 1/Q(1/MBPD)
Fig. 15a─ Hall plot for Injector Well, “C” Reservoir
SPE 160897 17

Pressure response Well‐O6

‐

Fig. 17─ Pressure response observation well O6, “C” Reservoir