How to get the most out of your Oil Rim Reservoirs?

Reservoir management and hydrocarbon recovery enhancement initiatives

Rahim Masoudi
Principal Reservoir Engineer

Outline:
Oil Rim definition/concept/Challenges Guidelines/best practices/key technologies/success factors Reservoir and business management and exploitation strategies Successful field application and examples Closing Remarks

Oil Rim
Opportunity and Headache!
Limited Thickness Overlain by Gas Cap Underlain by Aquifer

Forces Balance Mechanism:

Preservation of Reservoir Energy Maximizing the hydrocarbon recovery

Gas Cap Expansion Withdrawal Aquifer Drive

Indicates regions of high flow into the well bore Indicates regions of low flow into the well bore

Technical Challenges:
Water/Gas Coning and Break-through Spread Out Resources Complicated Production Mechanism Transition and Invasion Zones Oil Smearing Low Recovery Factor (<18%)

Business Challenges:
Different focus for the host company and the operator Narrow window of opportunity for Oil rim development Early gas commitment vs. oil rim IOR development Expensive Field Development and marginal economy
5

Oil Recovery Factor: Main Affecting Parameters

Oil Thickness Permeability Aquifer support Kv/Kh Gas Cap Size Viscosity and mobility Sor, Pc, Kr Well Placement Production Strategy GIGP Reservoir well Contact HW vs VW
Permeability and Thickness effect

Aquifer effect

SPE 128603

Oil Recovery Factor: Main Affecting Parameters (Cont.)

Oil viscosity effect Kv/Kh effect

Gas cap size effect

Available Screening Tools

Traffic Light Guideline
Oil Column size
Gas cap size
< 30 ft
m>7 and/or FGIIP > 1 TSCF Perm < 500 mD Visc > 1cP Weak, <25% of total drive Complex geometry Large dip uncertainty

30-70 ft
m>2 and/or FGIIP > 200 BSCF Perm 500-1000 mD Visc > 1cP Mid, ~50% of total drive Complex geometry Small dip uncertainty

> 70 ft
M<=2 and/or FGIIP <= 200 BSCF Perm > 1000 mD Visc < 1cP Strong, >70% of total drive Simple geometry None or small dip uncertainty

Mobility Aquifer Strength Reservoir Geometry/Dip

Available Screening Tools

Gas M Factor Concurrent Oil & Gas

Oil and then Gas

Rim Thickness [ft]

Source : SPE 128603

Development Strategy

Available Screening Tool: Shortcomings

Successful development in: Thickness < 30 ft K < 375 mD Not in line with the guide line 4 to 10 m oil column development
Thickness <30 ft

M Factor

Rim Thickness [ft]

Source : C&C Reservoir and IHS Energy

Frequency

Technical Initiatives Technology Roles

Permeability, mD 10

Oil Rim Development Success Factors

Phasing development to understand the reservoir/well behaviors Robust geological understanding and input rock/fluid data Holistic and Integrated development concept Adequate and reliable simulation/prediction (Grid, CTZ, HZ well, smart comp.,etc.)

Proactive real time reservoir management & monitoring (PLT, Tracer, PDG, etc.)

Innovative Technical Initiatives (force balancing efforts, dual smart comp, multi-zone production with FCV, etc.)

Transition Zone Characterization and modeling New well technology applications (long HZ, multi lateral/target, etc.)

Well/completion design/type/length/ offset

11

Production/Depletion Strategy
Gas Cap Blowdown
-Early Gas prod. -Oil prod. Ignored! -Oil smearing concern -Low oil RF -Early oil prod. -Gas come later -Commitment concerns -Different contractual interest -Higher oil/gas RF

Sequential Development

Concurrent Development

-Early oil and gas prod. -Limited gas prod. -Up to 10% of the GIIP per annual -Might suit to both operator and host company interest -Lower oil RF -Cyclic oil and gas prod. -Balance the energy -Suitable for reservoir with big gas cap -Lower oil RF
12

Swing Development

The FDP, well design and philosophy, RMP is highly dependent on selected strategy

Oil Rim Reservoir and Business Management

Well type Well length , spacing , stand off Contact movements GOR and production constraint Coning, Cusping, Cresting IOR/EOR Gascap Blowdown Sequential Concurrent Swing Incorporated with IOR/EOR? Robust static/dynamic models Gas cap size Aquifer size and extension Driving mechanism contributions
13

Reservoir Management

Contract & Policy

Field Development Strategy

Reservoir Energy Balance and Optimum Production

Fluid Sampling, Analysis and PVT

Usually simplified! Surface sample can be misleading Both phases need to be sampled Recombined with the GIIP/STOIIP ratio Reliable fluid model is a must Modeling just Oil can be misleading on the RF evaluation Oil and Gas need to be modeled together Compositional grading and nonequilibrium concerns
(after Amyx, Bass and Whiting, 1960; courtesy of McGraw-Hill )

14

Transition Zone and Oil Smearing Concerns

Saturation modeling? Can oil rim move upward to the gas producing well? How much is the Sor? Soi/Sor relation to be considered. Mobile oil and displaced oil zone? Dry oil production! Performance better than prediction!

SPE 143983 SPE 145867

15

Capillary Transition Zone Flow Dynamic

Dry oil production! Performance better than prediction! Sw Modeling: Resistivity index and wettability effects (esp. in carbonates) SHF from resistivity log using water wet derived n exponent can be different from that derived from drainage PC curve This can over estimate the HC saturation above the transition zone Saturation dependent n exponent may need to be used Displaced Oil Zone Imbibition curves and hysteresis effects Pseudo Kr with artificial high immobile Sw may produce HM but can give poor prediction How much is the Sor? Soi/Sor relation to be considered.

16

Sw Determination and Modeling in Carbonates (IPTC 14588)

Non-Archie effects

Rock Type Permeability Heterogeneity Pore size and Geometry Wettability Saturation history Hysteresis

17

Sw Determination and Modeling in Carbonates (IPTC 14588)

100

Resistivity Index

10

1 1 10 100

Water Saturation, % pore volume

18

Sw Determination and Modeling in Carbonates (IPTC 14588)

100

Formation Resistivity Index

10

1 1 10 Water Saturation, % pore volume 100

19

Capillary Transition Zone Flow Dynamic (1)

SPE 77545 IPTC 10238

SPE 143983

20

Capillary Transition Zone Flow Dynamic (2)

SPE 143983

21

Capillary Transition Zone Flow Dynamic (3)

SPE 143983

Rock/fluid/Sor characterization
0.30

Typical Well Water cut %

0.25
Sor

0.20
New Model Original Model

0.15

0.10 0.00 0.20 0.40 Soi 0.60 0.80

OPR, OPT
EP-F HZ well and smart comp modeling
3000 3.2E+06

2500

3.01 2.79 2.60

2.4E+06

Typical Well Oil Prod total

Oil Prod Rate (STB/DAY)

2000

1500

1000

OPR OPT OPR-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1 OPT-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1 OPR-MC_GI_MSW_1 OPT-MC_GI_MSW_1

1.6E+06

800000 500

0 2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

0 2035

OPT (STB)

Date (YEARS)

22

Reservoir Modeling and Simulation

Girding scheme
Horizontal or non-horizontal corner point geometry grids Horizontal grids capture the contact movement more accurately (SPE 39548) Local grid refinement (LGR) Finer layering scheme (SPE 93137) Multi Segmented Well (MSW) approach
SPE 89755

SPE 50646

23

Modeling of Horizontal wells with smart completion

Conventional modeling
Hydrostatic only No slip and friction along the well Uniform mixture density Excessive oil production in early stages

Proposed Technique
Multi segmented well (MSW) model Segment topology to honor the well path Coupled to the reservoir model
24

Modeling of Horizontal wells with smart completion (cont.)

MSW Capability
Reliable wellbore pressure gradient and fluid mixture properties Proper representation of the well trajectory. Ability to model smart completions (ICD, Inflow Control Device, ICV, Inflow Control Valve) Coupled to the reservoir simulation equations

25

Key Technologies/ Methodologies

Horizontal and Lateral Wells Thin Column Drilling Inflow Control Well Design Smart Completion Design Modeling New Technologies Real-Time Reservoir Management Real Time Reservoir Modeling Improved Sweep

26

Horizontal Well Basis of Design

Basis of Design

Well Spacing
K-10 top of Main Porosity
Phase I wells Phase II wells

Optimum Fluid Rate

Gas

Distance to GOC/WOC

Lateral/perforation length Smart Completion

A-02 A-01

East Belumut-3

1105

A-07

Perforations

Oil Water

A-03 st3
Belumut-2
11 10

15 11

East Belumut-1

1115

A-05
1120

Gas Oil Water

A-06
11 25

A-10

Contours = 5m 1 kilometer

1130

A-04

113 5

Long Well Length

(Madsen and Abtahi- 2005)

27

Horizontal Well with Smart Completion

Smart Completion (ICD, ICV):
Without ICD With ICD

Transmit delta-P along well Heel-to-Toe effect reduction Higher well PI. Better sweep efficiency.

World wide Installation Forecast!

Iron Duke Field (SPE 81107)

(OTC-19172 )

28

ICD Minimizes Toe-Heel Effect (OTC-19172 )

World wide Installation Forecast!

Uniform Drawdown along the well

29

Improve the well contact with the reservoir-1!

Brunei Shell Iron Duke Field (SPE 81107) One H well with smart completion Five zones in two blocks with different reservoir characteristics

(Henriksen et al., 2006) (SPE 112616)

StatoilHydro Troll Field (SPE 112616) Known as gas field! 110 HZ sub sea wells with 53 MLT wells Over 13 km well contact Up to 7 HZ branches in different zones
30

Improve the well contact with the reservoir-2!

Total of 41 wells in 3 phases Optimal well off set from contacts 250 m average well distance EUR increases with well No.
31

IOR/EOR Considerations
EOR plan integrated in FDP Improve IOR through force balance
Minimize coning, cresting and cusping Control fluid contact movement

Produced Gas Injection

GIGP Ratio

Water Injection Injection at GOC (water fencing scheme)

Injection at WOC

Water Alternative Gas Injection

Gravity Assisted Simultaneous WAG Lowering residual HC Water & Gas Injection

Surfactant augmented water flood

No Injection
32

Field A: Real Time RMS in a Field in Malaysia

A-02
Phase I wells Phase II wells 1105
111 0

2500

A-01
Oil Rate, STB/D

2000 1500 1000 500

A05 A10

A-07
15 11

A-03 st3

1115

1120

A-06
11 25

A-05 A-10
113 5

0 0 50 100 150 200 250

Days

10 1
A05 A10

Contours = 5m 1 kilometer

1130

A-04

14 m oil column Known as non-commercial asset! Optimization of well spacing and landing 200 m lateral spacing for Well A05 & A10 4 m, 6 m and 8 m above WOC More oil production and delay WBT

WOR

0.1 0.01

0.001 1 10

Days

100

1000

33

Field A: Horizontal well length optimization and tracer application

1.6 km horizontal well with ICD completion
Toe section contribution Tracer application in the toe section Toe flow contribution in the early stage Smart completion allows longer HZ wells PLT is planned post WBT.
Tracer Test at the toe of the well

34

Field A: Horizontal well A performance with ICD post WBT

Well-A with 1.9 km length, 4000 BPD, 5% W-cut, Np of 750 MSTB Coil Tubing Unit clean out and PLT Low (2.5 KBPD) and high (4.5 KBPD) rate flowing condition tested Flow contribution from the entire wellbore

35

Horizontal well04 performance with ICD post WBT- Field A

Well-04 with 1.6 km length, 4500 BPD, 70% W-cut, Np of 1.5 MMSTB Coil Tubing Unit clean out and PLT Low (2.5 KBPD) and high (4.5 KBPD) rate flowing condition tested Flow contribution from the entire wellbore Even with ICD, there are more water from the heel

36

Pressure and Temperature Proifile- Well04

Although claimed horizontal by drilling contractor, the static pressure/temp/resistivity shows downward deviation Big ICD pore size (4/32 Inch in this case) create small drawdown and it is a challenge to have uniform drawdown along the well (15 psi vs 18 psi, 17% different)

37

Pressure and Temperature Profile- Well08

Although claimed horizontal by drilling contractor, the static pressure/temp/resistivity shows downward deviation Smaller ICD pore size (3/30 Inch in this case) create bigger drawdown and it is better for having uniform drawdown along the well (58 psi vs 55 psi, 5% different)

38

Field A: Improving the hydrocarbon recovery

Horizontal wells with ICD completion MSW approach for well modeling 11% RF increase on No ICD case. This happened through: Draw down management Gas suppression WBT control ICD pore size can be further optimized! Reservoir heterogeneity along the well

39

Field A: Journey of recovery factor improvement

Water injection Mobility control Idle well re-activation 42 Wells Phase 3 prospect Long HZ Well 6-8 m offset from OWC Project Phasing

23% 20

32%

>34%

Accurate TZ characterization Proper HZ and smart well modeling Economical phase 3 Optimizing the number of wells

16%
27 Wells Horizontal wells + ICD Gas cap gas reinjection 4 m offset from OWC

40

Field B: Optimized Production Strategy in a Malaysian Carbonate Oil Rim

GAS Oil Recovery Well Recovery ( MMSTB) No. (BSCF)
41 38.3 375.4 383.1 7+4 7

Cases Original FDP Opt. attempt (1)

Known as gas field! Concurrent Oil and Gas development Oil and gas production through the same well Dual smart completion with ICV Development cost reduction

Optimized Well Design FDP well design

GAS CAP

OIL RIM Aquifer

41

Well Position vs EUR in Field B

2 km HZ well Gas offtake effect Aquifer effect ICD vs SSD

42

Field C: Withdrawal control from different zones

Z1

Z2

Z1

Z2

U9.1

U9.2
2500

U8.0

U7.0
50 45

10 m oil column FCV with PDG application Close performance monitoring Valve optimization PBU survey

2000
Oil Rate (stb/d) 1500 1000 500 0

40
35 25 20 15 10 5 0 Wcut (%) 30

19-Sep-10 19-Oct-10 18-Nov-10 18-Dec-10 17-Jan-11 16-Feb-11 18-Mar-11 17-Apr-11 17-May-11

Oil Rate (stb/d) W/CUT

43

Improving the hydrocarbon recovery in Field C

Horizontal wells with ICD completion Multi zone production with Flow Control Valve HZ well and smart completion modeling 6% RF increase upon No ICD case. Recommend longer HZ well, PDG, optimum well placement, pilot hole and contact monitoring Recommend static/dynamic model revisit

44

Field D: Improving the hydrocarbon recovery

Recovery factor vs GI/GP

Reactivate Idle Wells Side Tracks Infill Wells

46% Selective Water Injection

Journey of recovery factor improvement

>50%

34%
No Further Action 75% Idle Wells

Fencing at GOC Periphery at WOC

45

RF Sensitivity to GI/GP in Field D

GI/GP Management Recovery factor vs GI/GP

46

Field E: Smart HZ Well Application in Small Oil Pocket

4 MMSTB STOIIP 8 m oil column Gas cap size M ratio=1.7 Vertical well EUR=0.17 MMSTB 500 m Smart HZ Well EUR=0.9 MMSTB UDC= USD 18/bbl Oil column thickness as low as 5 m with HZ well with ICD

47

Field G: New EOR Scheme

EOR Scope:
50 MMscfd Gas Inj. 4 Downdip Injectors 50 kbwpd Water Inj. 5 Updip Injectors 22 Reactivations 4 Infill Producers

Gravity Assisted Simultaneous Water And Gas Injection

Recovery mechanisms Re-pressurizing reservoir Sweeping remaining oil towards new wells Improved vertical sweep using gravity assistance Pushing attic oil back down to producers Reduced Sor with respect to gas in water swept layers

Field K: Do we need HZ well with ICD?

Oil column = 6 m m = 2.0 Phi avg = 25 %, k avg = 500 md Pini = 2100 psia, Tres = 226 deg F Strong aquifer
With Equalizer

RF,% Standard Screen Standard Sandscreen Equalizer 15.46 18.75

49

OPR, OPT Oil Rim Case 9: Smart Horizontal Well modeling in a Malaysian
EP-F
3000 3.2E+06

2500

3.01 2.79 2.60

2.4E+06

Oil Prod Rate (STB/DAY)

7% error over conventional methods 16% gain with ICD in well level 6% gain with ICD in field level

2000

1500

1000

OPR OPT OPR-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1 OPT-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1 OPR-MC_GI_MSW_1 OPT-MC_GI_MSW_1

1.6E+06

800000 500

0 2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

0 2035

OPR, OPT
MC_GI_2013_PHASE.UNSMRY

Date (YEARS)

FIELD

08 Mar 2011

12500

2E+07

ICD+MSW
No ICD
10000

18.5 17.9 17.4

1.6E+07

ICD Design Tubing OD 5.5, ID 4.892 ICD port size 3/32 ICD interval 11m

Oil Prod Rate (STB/DAY)

MSW
OPT (STB)
7500
OPR OPT OPR-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1 OPT-MC_GI_PERM_ICD3_1 OPR-MC_GI_MSW_1 OPT-MC_GI_MSW_1

1.2E+07

5000

8E+06

2500

4E+06

0 2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

0 2035

Date (YEARS)

OPT (STB)

50

Case 5: Withdrawal Mis-Management in Field F

Gas Cap production Oil loss to the gas cap Lower RF
Z1 Z2 Z3 ~ 2m TV GOC has receded
Original Field GOC @ 1686.6 m TVDSS

Z4
Highest Known Water in NL_A3ST2 @ 1695.2 m TVDSS

Z5

Original Field OWC @ 1700.6 m TVDSS

Z6

51

Innovative Well Design and Off take Strategy

WEST East

C12 J18/19/2 0 C20 C12ST1

C17

B12 & B12ST1

K2025

52

Closing Remarks:
Oil rim: good business opportunity with sweet headaches! Integration of innovative technical initiatives and new technologies Real time/integrated reservoir management, monitoring and surveillances Several gas fields and un-commercial assets turned in to attractive oil rim developments Success cases on oil column thickness as low as 3 m and STOIIP as low as 3 MMSTB Time to change our culture/mindset! Lets follow all the success factors

Oil rim development can be reality now! Lets move toward breaking the hydrocarbon recovery limit with lower cost!
53

Thank You! Question?

-1.5 m -Can we develop?!

54

Back Up Slides

55

Your Feedback is Important

Enter your section in the DL Evaluation Contest by completing the evaluation form for this presentation :

Click on:

Section Evaluation

Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer Program

www.spe.org/dl

57