SPE 144914

Case History: Lesson Learnt from Enhanced Oil Recovery Screening

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/11APOG/All-11APOG/SPE-144914-MS/1676064/spe-144914-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 29 June 2021

Method in Handil Field
Farid Hadiaman, TOTAL E&P INDONESIE; Julfree Sianturi, TOTAL E&P INDONESIE; Emmanuel Cassou,
TOTAL E&P; Win Zaw Naing, Schlumberger

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 20–22 September 2011.

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

Handil is a mature oil and gas field discovered in 1974 and developed since 1975. The field extends on a 40km2
area and includes hundreds of stacked hydrocarbon accumulations.

Firstly produced by natural depletion, water injection was then implemented as an improved oil recovery
mechanism to sustain the oil production and enhance the waterflooding.. From 1995 to 2007, tertiary recovery
mechanism was implemented with gas injection. In 2007, with increasing oil price it has been decided in 2007 to
resume EOR opportunities in Handil, an Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer project has been initiated. A pilot project of
Chemical EOR Injection had been initiated in 1980-s but had to be suspended few years later due to technical
reasons and low oil price.

In order to evaluate this EOR method potential, remaining stake evaluation was done with different residual oil
saturation measurements (coring, logging, SWTT). First analysis lead to very low oil residual saturation: Gas
effect with possible tertiary flooding and fresh water flooding are the main hypotheses to explain these results.

A screening of the EOR techniques applicable in Handil ended up with the suggestion to test surfactant polymer
injection into a wareflooded reservoir. Therefore as a first step an assessment of residual oil saturation was
critical.

To properly evaluate the volume at stake it was first essential to determine range of remaining oil saturation into
water flooded reservoirs. It has been decided to use two different approaches: a first one via existing wells based
on the technique of Single Well Tracer Test (SWTT), the second one being coring of the reservoir nearby the
tested area investigated by the SWTT. Both approaches gave similar results. However preparation of a SWTT
campaign in a mature field environment was challenging.

Facing the importance of the measurement, long preparation time was taken to ensure that residual oil saturation
values found are reliable and representative. Due to field maturity where most of existing well integrity is
questionable, requirement to perform integrity test of the well candidate was compulsory. A hydraulic test and a
mutifinger imaging tubing run were done ending with what was assumed to be the qualification of 4 wells out of 5
initial candidates.

Indeed SWTT have been successfully performed into reservoirs accessible via the some qualified existing old
producers. However interpretation of the data raised several questions.

Consequently it has been decided to investigate whether tracers had been placed into the right reservoir.
Investigation was performed using Water Flow Log technique that helped understanding where the tracers went
and also the well integrity status behind casing. Three (3) Water Flow Logs have been run into the wells with
uncertainties. Combination of the hydraulic test, multiimaging tool and water flow log, helped discarding 1 (one)
2 SPE 144914

out the 4 (four) wells due to unexpected communications behind casing. Thanks to these operations EOR project
could go forward with reliable remaining oil saturation measurement, key value for project design, and with a
certified qualifying procedure to be applied on any future existing old well susceptible to be used by the project.

INTRODUCTION

The Handil field is located in the Mahakam Delta, Indonesia. It comprises of more than 500 hydrocarbon
accumulations in structurally stacked and compartmentalized deltaic sands. The accumulations are trapped along

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/11APOG/All-11APOG/SPE-144914-MS/1676064/spe-144914-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 29 June 2021

Handil Anticline which is cut by a major impermeable fault dividing the field into two compartments, North and
South.

Laying 10 km long and 4 km wide in the surface, hydrocarbon accumulations are found at depths as shallow as
200 mSS and continue down as deep as 3500 mSS.
Handil field is divided into shallow, main and deep zones based on reservoir characteristic and depth, as follows:
a. Shallow Zone, above 1500 mSS, has 160 reservoirs with strong water drive reservoirs which maintain
reservoir pressure steady at initial condition. This zone has excellent permeability ranging from 500-5000
mD and un-consolidated sand.
b. Main Zone, between 1500 – 2350 mSS, has 220 reservoirs with water injection and gas injection to
maintain reservoir pressure and optimize oil production. This zone has permeability ranging from 10 –
500 mD and 2 fluids characteristic: Oil reservoirs down from 1500 – 2200 mSS and gas reservoirs
between 2200 – 2350 mSS
c. Deep Zone, below 2350 mSS, has low to mid reservoir permeability and mostly gas bearing reservoirs.

Fig. 1 –Handil Field Lcation and Structural Cross

HANDIL FIELD PRODUCTION HISTORY

After its discovery in 1974, the production started one year later under natural depletion. The depletion peak
reached in 1977 with production of around 200,000 bopd. In order to maintain the production plateau as well as
the reservoir pressure, water injection started in 1978 and it had helped to maintain the 160,000 bopd of
production up to 1985. Facing increasing water cut gas lift has been introduced in 1979 and has been
implemented in field scale in 1991 by using a dedicated compressor.
SPE 144914 3

Primary Water Injection EOR Phase 1 EOR Phase 2

Qwater Cum oil Qwater injection
200 1000

180 900

160 800

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/11APOG/All-11APOG/SPE-144914-MS/1676064/spe-144914-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 29 June 2021

140 700
Oil / Water Rate Kbbl/d

Cumulative Oil MMbbl

120 600

100 500

80 400

60 300

40 200

20 100

0 0
Jan-75

Jan-77

Jan-79

Jan-81

Jan-83

Jan-85

Jan-87

Jan-89

Jan-91

Jan-93

Jan-95

Jan-97

Jan-99

Jan-01

Jan-03

Jan-05

Jan-07

Jan-09
Fig. 2 –Handil Field Production Profile

Since the field started to experience water breakthrough, and reservoir pressure, especially in the main zone, had
also been depleting, infill drilling has regularly been performed to maintain the production. Today, more than 400
wells have been drilled in the field with an average spacing coming down to 300 m. However the decline seemed
to be inevitable, therefore in November 2005, lean gas injection project in five reservoirs started. The project
boosted the production of the 5 (five) large reservoirs and altered the overall decline rate of the field. Thanks to
this performance, the project was extended in 2000 to other 6 large reservoirs.

6000 200

180
5000 Gas Injection Gas Injection
Extended 160

140
4000
Qgi (MMscfd)
Qo (bopd)

120

3000 100

80
2000
60

40
1000
20

0 0
5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
v-9 v-9 v-9 v-9 v-9 v-0 v-0 v-0 v-0 v-0
No No No No No No No No No No

1st phase 2nd phase Gas injection rate WI Decline

Fig. 3 –Handil Gas Injection Phase 1 Production Profile
4 SPE 144914

HANDIL ENHANCHED OIL RECOVERY (EOR)

Reviewing the techniques of increasing the oil recovery came to a conclusion to test the surfactant polymer
injection. Therefore, a reliable assessment of residual oil saturation is essential. A pilot project of Chemical EOR
Injection had been initiated in 1980-s. For some reason the project was halted. In 2007, evolution of oil price has
resumed the screening work of Chemical EOR injection application in Handil field. It is believed that amount of
trapped oil into water flooded reservoirs represent significant volumes. It was essential to quantify the volumes at
stake before going forward. Existing data of Sor were too uncertain to be used as reference for evaluating the
volumes at stake. First priority was to invest into new Sor data acquisition both around the well bore and far from

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/11APOG/All-11APOG/SPE-144914-MS/1676064/spe-144914-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 29 June 2021

existing producers.

It has been decided to use the technique of Single Well Tracer Test (SWTT) to get access to the remaining oil
saturation around the wellbore. However, the preparation to perform the SWTT was challenging. This paper will
mainly elaborate the lesson captured from EOR screening using SWTT operation.

EOR SCREENING METHOD: HANDIL FIELD CASE

In order to save costs, the first option was to use existing 5 spot wells already drilled in the 80’s for CEOR
purposes. The scope of work was to first qualify the wells in term of well integrity before using them for SWTT
pruposes. A team work started gathering reservoir engineering work, surface facilites work and well intervention
work.

1. Reservoir Engineering works to select the best reservoir and existing wells candidiate for Single
Well Tracer Test.
It was proposed to use the existing pilot wells (drilled in mid 80’s) to test injection of surfactant & polymer
in the “HDL reservoir“. The wells are assumed to be used in the “inverted five spot” configuration (see
schematic below). Injection would be carried-out at center, in deviated well H-I, and oil produced (as
producer wells) from the 4 corner wells H-P-1, H-P-2, H-P-3 and H-P-4. These 4 wells were drilled with
100 m spacing from X cluster.

H-P-4 Mahakam River

H-P-3

H-I

H-P-2 H-P-1

100 m

140 m

HDL interval : PV = 53 000 m3

11.4 m

Fig. 5 –EOR Injection Profile in Handil

The proposed “inverted five spot” configuration is to be confirmed. The original (1983) pilot design was
assuming “five spot” configuration with H-P-1, H-P-2, H-P-3 and H-P-4 used as injectors, and H-I used as
SPE 144914 5

producer. After the pilot project was abandoned, all wells were converted into producers. When the
project started H-P-1, H-P-2, H-P-3 and H-P-4 were still active, producing oil & gas from other reservoirs.
All wells were initially equipped with dual string completion and dual Xmas tree.

2. Completion Integrity Test Operation.

Well Intervention required justifying H-I as injector wells, H-P-1, H-P-2, H-P-3 and H-P-4 as producer
wells. First challenge is the integrity of existing wells in mature field envirronment.
A simple method for testing the completion is by performing a hydraulic test to a certain pressure

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/11APOG/All-11APOG/SPE-144914-MS/1676064/spe-144914-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 29 June 2021

(expected injection surface pressure). Meanwhile the other complementary technique which is beneficial
is a multi imaging tool finder. This technique was used to check the tubing inside diameter, using a certain
numbers of fingers, dragging inside the tubing wall (acts as caliper measurement). We can measure the
tubing wall thickness along the surveyed area and leak-hole geometry and location (depth) precisely.
Typical well completion for Handil Field can be seen in Figure 7 below.

With a slickline unit, an electricline unit and a pump completed with a pressure recorder, this completion
integrity test operation was carried out, with the result as follows:

a. Candidate for producer wells: H-P-1, H-P-2, H-P-3 and H-P-4 wells
Three wells passed the tubing integrity test. Pressure tests were performed until 500-750 psi surface
pressure using inhibited fluid (KCl brine 1.03 SG), and hold for 15 minutes against slickline retrievable
plug. It was concluded that producer wells candidate were fit for production. One integrity test job in HP-3
is postponed, because the well is still flowing (more than 100 bopd) at the time. The flow is producing
from different layers, not from the intended EOR zones (HDL reservoir) to be produced. Quickly reviewed
the well integrity history of the well, there were no anomaly founded in Annulus #0, and Annulus #1.
Looking at the cementation history during initial stage of completion, we founded that intended EOR
zones (HDL reservoir) was abandoned at that time by squeeze cementing technique. Decision to
abandon this reservoir is because it had been watered out. Last production test showed only 100 bopd
with 96% BSW. Considering the risk associated, production shortfall, vertical sensitivity, and production
decline analysis, it was decided to postpone the integrity job to minimize field production shortfall, unless
there will be any major repair on production facilities that hide the production shortfall due to well
intervention.
As a first conclusion for the 4well candidates, three wells are valid for producer; meanwhile HP-3 integrity
test and remedial job program (as contingency) will be performed once it is decline to 50 bopd (cut off
value). Second stage of the project was to investigate the remaining oil saturation inside the water-
flooded reservoir producible by the 3 wells. Investigation was performed using Single Well Tracor Test
technique.

Fig. 7 – Typical Well Completion in Handil Field

6 SPE 144914

3. Single Well Tracer Test (SWTT) Operation.

SWTT is a technique to measure in the near wellbore the residual oil saturation (ROS) of an initially oil
bearing reservoir being waterflooded by production. The amount and distribution of residual oil in a
reservoir are essential parameters to be understood before deciding whether EOR methods can bring
incremental oil volumes from these reservoirs. SWTT is a non destructive method giving information
about ROS around the well bore with an investigation radius of a few meters. SWTT procedure consisted
of three steps:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/11APOG/All-11APOG/SPE-144914-MS/1676064/spe-144914-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 29 June 2021

• Injecting chemicals (tracers) into the test well.
• Shut in period where part of the chemicals will be degraded, other like methanol will remain stable.
• Back produce the chemicals and follow the evolution of their concentration with production time.

Because of different partition coefficient in water/oil systems, the two tracers will be back produced at
different velocities. The difference in arrival times allows determining ROS through a computer program
that simulates the tracer test.

The strength of the SWTT method is its relative simplicity in term of operations and its cost. However it is
compulsory to have confidence that chemicals investigate the reservoir of interest. In Handil environment
with old, double strings completion, commingle production wells acquiring this confidence revealed to be
the most difficult part of the project.
st
The 1 SWTT operation campaign was planned in two wells (HP-1 and HP-4), with the following
sequence.
1. Mini SWTT in HP-1
2. Main SWTT in HP-1
3. Main SWTT in HP-4

The two wells (HP-1 and HP-4) have been validated for the first SWTT campaign; as well integrity survey
perfomed concluded that reservoirs of interest were the only ones open to flow inside each well. HP-2
well had to be discarded due to failing intergrity test and could not be redressed in due time.

Mini SWTT in HP-1

First test was performed as per initial program (injection phase, soaking phase and production phase). No
incident occurred during mixing. During production phase, some operation problem occurred, such as the
well cannot be started smoothly. It was found at that gas lift rate had to be readjusted (gas cycling and
slug flow). Adjusting the injection choke gradually while keeping monitoring the well production fixed the
problem.
Once back-production flow started, regular surface sampling has been done and analyzed to follow
chemicals concentration. First analysis found out that concentration of tracers in back produced fluid was
anormally low.
• A dilution effect could explain the observation. However according to well completion and well
integrity operations only one reservoir should be in production. Assuming a channeling behind
casing did not give satisfaction as cross flow rate was physically impossible to reach.
• Another possibility was a drift caused by strong aquifer activity. In this case it seemed very
unlikely and in opposition with the knowledge of the area. If drift is taking place, the same
problem could be found in other well.
• Crossflow with others zones could explain the observed dilution but is in opposition with
completion scheme suggesting only one remaining open reservoir.

! Additional investigation had to be done at the stage of the campaign in order to explain the observed
data and conclude wether results should be taken into account in the EOR project or discarded.
Therefore, we decided to cancel the Main SWTT in HP-1, perform a more complete completion
integrity survey and move in parallel to HP-4 with the second SWTT test (modified mini SWTT).

Mini SWTT in HP-4

A mini SWTT was decided with a modified design made for challenging the drift-like response proposed
in the first test. Results of the mini test would be included into the optimization of the main test design.
The modifications (called Integrity Tracer Test/Passive Tracer/Drift Test) were as follows:
• Fast injection rates and shortest soaking time (24 hours)
SPE 144914 7

• Injected volumes to be adjusted to accommodate any slugging or heading problems likely to be

encountered during production.
Back production chemicals concentration follow-up revealed again a strange evolution within the first
barrels back-produced that could be due to minor completion problem or to a low drift activity. However
analysis of the data concluded in validating the well for a main SWTT.

Main SWTT in HP-4

Based on previous test (drift test), it was decided to perform the Main SWTT by applying a lower volume

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/11APOG/All-11APOG/SPE-144914-MS/1676064/spe-144914-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 29 June 2021

of injection and a shorter soak time (1 day), in order to account for a 3-6 ft/day drift that could be
occurring inside the reservoir. The disadvantage of the short soak is the loss of accuracy. Peak
separation between ethanol and ethyl acetate is screened significantly but still considered as exploitable.
Consequently the Main SWTT was carried out in HP-4 in two phases, Short Soak and Long Soak.

In parallel to SWTT campaign in HP-4, a different integrity test was decided into HP-1 to better assess the
causes behind the first SWTT result. An intervention technique called RST (Reservoir Saturation Tool)
was chosen with the aim of identifying where fluid goes when injected into the well. The tool is small
enough to go through the tubing and so the operation can be carried out without killing the well. There are
several applications for RST but the one of interest used in Handil was Water Flow Log application to
follow the flow behind casing. Neutron activation of oxygen is used for the Water Flow Log (WFL). This
type of velocity measurement uses the tracer or marker technique. A pulse of neutrons is used to mark
the oxygen in the vicinity of the neutron generator. A static signal is then created from all the fixed oxygen
in the formation and cement while the moving oxygen in the water creates a signal that moves along with
the flowing water. Detectors mounted downstream of the neutron source will see a signal that rises and
then falls as the marked oxygen approaches and then passes the detector. Measuring the time from the
middle of the neutron burst to the peak of the detector signal and using the distance from the minitron to
the detector allows a velocity to be computed. To improve the signal to noise ratio, multiple neutron-
bursts and their signals are recorded and stacked. Obviously this technique is applied as a station
measurement.

Fig. 8 – Water Flow Log Principle

The operation was carried out similar with SWTT, but with additional run of RST (WFL mode) inside the
tubing (Long String), combined with Production Logging Tool (PLT); while keeping injecting formation
water through Short String. The result of the WFL showed out a leakage entry below the packer that
could not have been detected using conventional hydraulic test (completion integrity test).
8 SPE 144914

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/11APOG/All-11APOG/SPE-144914-MS/1676064/spe-144914-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 29 June 2021

Fig. 9 –Water Flow Log (WFL) Interpretation in HP-1

Thanks to WFL interpretation results, evidence of completion problem allows to discard results of first
SWTT performed in HP-1. Drift-like response would have been a killing factor for EOR purposes but has
properly been discarded by WFL results. Well has been removed from the project as heavy workover was
required to redress the leak.

Learning from HP-1 experience it was decided to perform WFL into the other well HP-4. Analysis of the
main SWTT revealed values of ROS not in the expected range, with consequences on the EOR project
design. WFL confirmed that fluid had been injected into the reservoir of interest and consequently that
results should be considered as valid and used as reference values for the project. ROS observed range
found with the SWTT method will be confirmed a few months later by core analysis taken few meters from
HP-4 location.

Finally an RST (WFL mode) was run in other well (HP-2) to confirm the completion integrity result
previously. It showed that the well could be validated as a future producer for the project.

CONCLUSION

In mature field environment when additional projects are foreseen using existing wells, a complete well integrity
survey could end-up with more accurate feasibility whether wells can be used or not. In Handil case conventional
integrity test has been successfully completed with other surveys thanks to a team work between Geosciences
needs and Operation department. Testing the well integrity in such completion in a mature field ended up by
applying in sequence:
• Hydraulic test using inhibited fluid using a retrievable plug.
• Multi-imaging finger to confirm the tubing geometry, thus latest burst pressure can be adjusted based on
API.
• Water Flow Log with real operational simulation with SWTT condition, without pumping any flammable
fluid involved.
Those three interventions are mandatory and not complementary each other, before starting Single Well Tracer
Test as part of EOR screening process, in order to save time and costly operation.

Thanks to the new sequence of operations EOR project could go forward with reliable remaining oil saturation
measurement, key value for project design, and with a certified qualifying procedure to be applied on any future
existing old well susceptible to be used by the project.
SPE 144914 9

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank to TOTAL Management, BPMIGAS and Schlumberger for the support and their
permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/11APOG/All-11APOG/SPE-144914-MS/1676064/spe-144914-ms.pdf by Bandung Inst. of Tech. user on 29 June 2021

1. Herwin, Henricus; Cassou, Emmanuel; Yusuf, Hotma, “Reviving the Mature Handil Field: From Integrated
Reservoir Study to Field Application”, SPE 110882, November 2007.
2. Othman, Mohammad; Omar Chong, Mizan; M.Sai, Rithauddin; Zainal, Suzalina; Zakaria, M. Sukri;
Ashikin Yaacob, Aisha,” Meeting the Challenges in Alkaline Surfactant Pilot Project Implementation at
Angsi Field, Offshore Malaysia.”, SPE 109033, September 2007.
3. Chang, M.M; Maerefat, N.L; Tomutsa, L; Honarpour, M. M,” Evaluation and Comparison of Residual Oil
Saturation Determination Technique.” SPE 14887, April 1987.