Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 23


What Matters to Flow: West Africa Field Case History

Brodie Thomson, Anna Apanel, Robert Tester, SPE, ExxonMobil Production Company
Gaspar Marques, Ginga Mateus, SPE, Esso Exploration Angola Ltd

Copyright 2013, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 26–28 March 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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 by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

The subject field, located in deep-water Angola Block 15, was discovered in 1999, achieved first production in 2003 and was
abandoned in 2011. Over its 7-year life, the field reached a peak production of 90 thousand BOPD and produced nearly 100
million barrels of oil from a high-quality stacked Lower Miocene deep-water channel complex. This field provides a unique
opportunity to perform a look back on how well the reservoir characterization, reservoir modeling and reservoir performance
predictions made at project funding matched with the final actual field performance.
The West Africa field was a subsea development tied back to a FPSO (Floating Production Storage Offtake vessel). The
original depletion plan called for crestal gas storage and peripheral water flood. The field was ultimately developed with a
combination water flood / downdip gas injection process. The factors that drove the evolution in the depletion plan are
Despite the significant changes to the depletion plan, the funding models did a good job of predicting average reservoir
behavior such as most-likely recovery and production plateau. However, both gas and water breakthrough and build up was
faster than expected. These factors were offset by higher well productivity and larger in place oil volumes. The reasons for the
models not matching actual performance are discussed. 4D seismic acquired after 3 years of production was particularly
effective in illuminating gas and water flow pathways in the reservoir that had not been modeled or predicted.
Water injection was not initiated until about three months after first production. Initial field performance under pressure
depletion drive provided valuable reservoir characterization data. Early pressure decline was slower than predicted; material
balance indicated that a higher STOOIP was needed as stronger aquifer support alone was not sufficient to match observed
pressures. Late field life data showed a more complex situation, indicating an even stronger aquifer than had been previously
modeled. The impact of aquifer strength on pressure support was not fully recognized at project funding time.
For most subsea developments with limited ability for well intervention, reservoir surveillance data from permanent down-
hole pressure gauges and particularly 4D seismic are critical to effective reservoir management. Learnings from this field have
been applied to other West African deep-water developments.
2 IPTC 17113

Development Plan Overview

The West Africa field was discovered in June 1999 by an exploration well that penetrated oil bearing sands at -2491 meters
subsea and confirmed oil-water contact at -2679m TVDSS. No appraisal drilling was undertaken. Located 145 km offshore in
1355 m water depth, the field was fast-tracked for development and brought on-line in November 2003. The database that was
available for depletion planning included:
 Moderate quality 3D seismic surveys taken in 1997 and 1999
 1 well penetration (exploration well)
 77m core with routine and special core analysis data

Reservoir quality was excellent: Average Net/Gross (N/G) 40%, Porosity 28%, Permeability 2500md. Oil quality was also
good: 35o API; 0.6 cp.

Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the development concept. The field’s economic life was estimated to be six to eight years,
recovery approximately 100 million barrels of oil. The FPSO was leased for a seven-year term, with an option to extend or
shorten lease duration. There were nine wells in the initial depletion plan, drilled from three subsea drill centers. Produced
gas in excess of fuel for the FPSO was planned to be re-injected at the crest of the reservoir. Water injection was anticipated to
be the primary pressure support mechanism with the objective of maintaining the reservoir pressure near the original pressure.

Geoscience Summary

The reservoir is a relatively straight forward faulted anticline (Fig. 2). Based on 3D seismic mapping, the field is highly
faulted with a wide range of fault throws. Generally the fault throws are higher up structure near to the crest. The structure
map shown in Fig. 2 has a simplified fault pattern with only the more significant faults shown.

The Depth Structure map in Fig. 3a shows the position of the discovery well and the line of section for the seismic line in Fig.
3c. The well encountered over 200m of stacked Lower Miocene deepwater sands in a series of confined to weakly confined
channel complexes. Approximately 80m of net oil pay was intersected which the vertical pressure profile (Fig. 3b) shows to be
in vertical pressure communication.

Three main reservoir packages were mapped using the well logs from the discovery well (Fig. 3d) and the 3D seismic
interpretation (Fig. 3c). The Upper interval was non-net in the discovery well but is better developed down structure.
Approximately 80% of the Stock-Tank Barrels of Oil Initially In-Place (STOOIP) was in the Upper and Lower reservoir

The vertical pressure profile (Fig. 3b) also established the depth of the Original Oil-Water Contact (OOWC) within a narrow
depth range. This provided confidence in the Gross Rock Volume definition. The major in-place volumetric uncertainty was in
the mapping of the N/G within the three reservoir intervals. 3D seismic attributes were the primary data used to map N/G.

The reservoir mapping resulted in a most-likely assessment of approximately 300 million barrels STOOIP.

To support the full-funding investment decision, reservoir models were built. The geologic model used a 100x100m grid
areally to retain the fidelity of geologic features and contained approximately 5 million cells (Fig. 4). The final 3D grid
contained pinched-out layers and truncations due to the incised, channelized stratigraphic architecture.

To improve sand placement with the model, seismic attributes extractions by zone were interpreted to create Environment of
Deposition (EOD) maps. For each EOD, a target lithofacies proportion and a target N/G was established. The stochastic
modeling algorithms then populated the model grid to meet lithofacies and N/G targets. Using this approach, the channel axis
EOD polygons contained the majority of the net sand, consistent with the stratigraphic interpretation. The lithofacies model
was used to control porosity, permeability and water saturation distribution.

Full Funding Dynamic Model

The original field depletion plan was based on a combination drive recovery mechanism: a crestal gas flood and two
peripheral line drive waterfloods. There was not a gas export solution available, so produced gas needed to be returned to the
reservoir for storage. Water injection was added to maintain full voidage replacement because the oil reservoir was just
slightly under-saturated and a strong aquifer was not expected. The depletion plan was selected after running multiple
simulations with a full-field reservoir model which honored facility constraints.
IPTC 17113 3

The combination gas and water injection development included four producers, four water injectors, and one gas injector. The
locations of these wells and completion zones are illustrated in Fig. 5. Completions were commingled in several of the zones.
Producers were equipped with permanent down-hole gauges (PDHG) that provided constant data to the FPSO.

The nine wells represented an average well spacing of ~160 acres per well. In the eastern portion of the field the best quality
channel-axis facies of the two uppermost reservoir units overlay (Upper and Middle), as did the two lowermost units (Middle
and Lower). In the eastern area, well locations were selected to penetrate both reservoirs in the channel axis within a single
well location.

In the western portion of the field, the reservoirs were more amalgamated. Well locations in this area were in fault blocks
large enough to support a producer / injector pair, and completed in reservoir units penetrated. In the simulation model, the
entire reservoir was treated as one voidage region. Water injection requirements were determined to maintain reservoir
voidage and keep the field near original pressure.

The initial models predicted a 7-year field life with cumulative recovery of about 100 million barrels from a STOOIP of 300
million barrels of oil.

Early Field Performance

Production was initiated in November 2003. Fig. 6 illustrates the early field production through 2006. Monthly production
peaked in 2004 at slightly over 80 thousand BOPD and the field started into decline in late 2004.

There was a planned 3-month period of oil production before water injection started, providing an opportunity to see the
reservoir respond to voidage. The observed pressure drop was less than had been predicted in the model, particularly at the
crest of the field. Increasing aquifer strength was tested but by itself could not provide enough additional energy to center of
the field. The final match included increased aquifer strength and increased pore-volume (STOOIP). At the time there was no
geologic evidence to increase porosity values above those observed in the wells and used in the geologic model; however, later
analysis indicated that the original model pore volume may have been biased to the low side by a well that only partially
penetrated margin facies.

In late 2004, the decision was made to defer the drilling of the fourth water injector, WI-5, on the northern flank of the field.
The northwest area of the field was receiving better pressure support than expected, interpreted to be due to better aquifer
connectivity in that area. This conclusion was based on early performance data for the OP-3 and OP-4 producers which had
lower than predicted pressure declines.

The production plateau was maintained about three months longer than initially predicted. A number of significant events are
highlighted in Fig. 6:
 Gas breakthrough from the crestal gas injection to the producers occurred in mid-2004, as per initial predictions.
However, the rate at which field GOR increased was faster than anticipated. Although gas production rose to the gas-
compression capacity limit, field oil production continued to exceed depletion plan expectations as additional lower GOR
oil was available. Eventually oil production had to be cut back because of gas-handling limitations. During a 6-month
window in 2005, gas could not be reinjected while a compressor was being repaired.
 During this time, alternative gas injection locations were sought to better control the gas cycling and minimize the impact
on future oil production. The initial depletion plan was modified to include Down Dip Gas Injection (DDGI). Phase 1 of
DDGI (DDGI#1) was implemented September 2005 by shutting in crestal gas injection and converting a downdip well
from water injection (WI) to gas injection (GI). This was effective at reducing the field GOR but eventually the GOR
climbed and again reached the gas-handling limit in mid-2006. Phase 2 of DDGI (DDGI#2) was implemented in October
2006 by converting the crestal GI to WI and redistributing gas to the other two downdip water injectors.
 Water breakthrough was observed at OP-1 in early 2006 about the same time as predicted, but water production increased
much more rapidly.
 In mid-2006, oil production loss was thought to be caused by scale formation at OP-2.

The next sections describe the mechanisms of the early gas and water breakthrough, and discuss the strategies for gas and scale

Gas Movement

The time-lapse (4-D) seismic data consisted of the base-line survey from 1997 and the monitor survey shot in 2006, 27 months
after the start of production. The base-line survey was an earlier exploration seismic survey, and had lower peak frequencies
4 IPTC 17113

than the 2006 monitor survey. The monitor survey was processed to match the frequency spectrum of the 1997 base-line in
order to create the 4D difference volumes.

Clear changes in both positive and negative impedance were observed on the 4D-difference volumes and interpreted to reflect
changes in fluid saturation. Saturation effects appeared to be dominant as reservoir pressure had been adequately maintained
through gas and water injection. Fig. 7 shows that a strong 4D difference response was observed from both water injection
and gas injection. Red indicates an acoustic impedance decrease where gas replaces oil; Blue indicates an acoustic impedance
increase where water replaces oil.

Fig. 8a is a 4D Difference cross-section taken through the Upper Reservoir. The GI-1 is completed in the Middle and Lower
zones and OP-2 completed in Upper zone. The 4D difference delineates a gas pathway different than that predicted by the
geologic model shown in Fig. 8b. Specifically, the model limitations were:
 Clear communication between the Middle and Upper zones seen in the 4D data was not predicted
 After careful review it became apparent that the gridding and layering scheme had created model cell pinch-outs within
the confined channel system which created artificial barriers in the model.

The impact of the layering scheme on inter-channel communication was not fully appreciated at the time. The Geologic model
had pinch-outs between the Upper and Lower channel systems which created flow barriers when incorporated in the
simulation model. When the sand on sand relationships between Upper and Lower channels systems were correctly
represented in the model, the gas breakthrough was matched.

The issue of the grid representation of pinch-outs has since been recognized in other deep-water models. We have found that a
better solution is to apply properties based on the original layering but use a different grid without pinch-outs for scaling the
properties into the reservoir simulation model.

After 20 months, the downdip WI-4 water injector was converted into a gas injector and injected gas into all 3 zones near the
OOWC. The gas injection was clearly seen on the 2006 4D seismic survey (Fig. 9a). Crestal GI-1 well injects gas in the
Middle and Lower zones. A surprising observation was that the gas swept a completely different area of the reservoir than
the earlier water flood. It is not often we get the ability to see the different pathways that gas and water take between an
injector and a producer. 4D seismic is essential to see these pathways.

Gas found erosional stratigraphic connections from the Upper zone to Middle zone. The 4D response also showed gas leaking
across three small faults between WI-4 and GI-1 in the top of the small channel system. This key narrow channel pathway
was not seen or represented in the original geologic model. It took the presence of gas for this small channel to become
seismically illuminated (Fig. 9b).

Water Movement

OP-3 experienced a more rapid increase in water production than that observed in the simulation model. History-match
attempts were made by dramatically increasing the permeability in the lower channels system to provide a “pipeline” to the
aquifer. This approach could not reasonably match field performance and was non-geologic in nature.

Detailed examination of the 3D seismic data and the fault interpretation identified a fault relay near OP-3 (Fig. 10). The fault
just to the west of the well was originally mapped as a more continuous bounding fault in the funding model, and this delayed
water movement. The subsequent mapping broke the fault into a series of relays with a ramp between them. The ramp
provided a short and direct link to the aquifer and enabled the water arrival match. This interpretation was later verified with
the 4D seismic interpretation.

The OP-2 was a downdip well near the OOWC. Original model predictions forecast very late water arrival in the well. The
original channel axis EOD boundary ended updip of OOWC near this well, thus shielding the well from water influx. Early
water arrival and remapping suggested that extending the channel EOD downdip into the water by a few hundred meters
explained the field performance. The impact of seismic dimming on the EOD interpretation as the sands passed from the oil
zone into the water leg had not been fully appreciated at the time of the original seismic interpretation.

OP-1 also experienced rapid water breakthrough. The 4D seismic clearly shows two faults forming a “channel” that funneled
water from WI-1 injector to OP-1 producer (Fig. 10). The larger high-throw fault to the west was anticipated to be sealing.
The smaller-throw fault to the east was interpreted to not be sealing in the original geologic model.

Fault seal studies were not performed at time of early development drilling, due to lack of sufficient well data. The WI-1 and
IPTC 17113 5

OP-1 well logs show a lot of inter-bedded sand and shale indicating high potential for shale smear. Later fault-seal analysis
confirmed this conclusion.

OP-4 was not forecast to produce a lot of water and actual performance was consistent with the model predictions.

Simulation Model History-Match Update

In mid-2005, the simulation model was updated using the first 18 months of performance data and the depletion strategy
reviewed. It should be noted that the simulation model update and changes in depletion strategy were completed prior to the
4D seismic results becoming available.

The initial depletion plan consisted of a crestal gas flood and two peripheral line-drive water floods. Fig. 11 summarizes the
simulation model forecast recovery for this depletion strategy after the history match. The Gravity Drainage area, highlighted
in red, yielded a displacement efficiency (Ed) of 95%, sweep efficiency (Esweep) of 39% and overall recovery factor (RF) of
37%. The Waterflood areas, highlighted in blue, yielded a lower Ed of 90%, but improved Esweep of 45-50% and overall
recovery factor (RF) of 41%. These comparisons suggested that the depletion strategy could be optimized to take full
advantage of the improved displacement efficiency of gasflooding and the improved sweep efficiency of waterflooding. These
observations initiated evaluation of different combinations of crestal water injection and downdip gas injection that ultimately
led to implementation of the DDGI depletion strategy.

The model required a number of changes to match early field performance (Fig. 12a). The critical changes were to increase
reservoir energy and reservoir connectivity:
 STOOIP was increased by 30%. Improved understanding of the EODs and extrapolation of porosity away from well
control provided a geologic model that was consistent with very early observations that more STOOIP was needed to
match pressure.
 Permeability-thickness (Kh) was calibrated to well test results to properly represent the more robust well capacity
 The oil bubble point was varied with depth, recognizing that these and other reservoirs in the area appeared to be nearly
saturated throughout the oil column
 The Channel EOD was narrowed to reduce water influx to OP-2
 Kv/kh was increased to increase gas movement and match rapidly increasing well GOR
 Rock compressibility increased from 10 to 20msips, contributing some additional energy to explain slower decline in
pressure prior to water injection
 The smaller fault to the east of OP-1 well was sealed to match the well’s water production.

The history-matched model was used to optimize the depletion plan and evaluate infill drilling. Incremental recovery from
drilling did not appear attractive, but the concept of DDGI did look promising. The model was used to justify both DDGI
phases (Fig. 12b).

Because 4D interpretation was not available at the time of these history-matching adjustments, the changes were based on the
early well performance and scrutiny of mapped features that could be barriers or conduits to flow. The 4D monitor analysis in
2006 generally validated the model changes as well as the DDGI strategy. The observed 4D changes were consistent with the
water and gas saturation changes predicted by the simulation model at comparable times. Oil saturations at the end of the field
life indicated that there would be adequate sweep of all reservoirs using the DDGI. No significant bypassed oil was observed
that would warrant a change in depletion plans from DDGI.

Gas Management Strategy

As discussed in the section on Early Field Performance, the depletion strategy was revised from crestal gas injection and
downdip water injection to DDGI.

The DDGI#1 project was initiated in September 2005. Gas injection was moved from the crestal GI-1 to the northern water
injector WI-4 (Fig. 13). The facilities were not explicitly designed for switching the water injection wells to gas injection. The
FPSO turret needed to be opened to move the water line into the gas injection system. Methanol slugs were then injected to
keep the high pressure gas from contacting water and thus prevent hydrate formation.

Following the implementation of the DDGI#1, field GOR was reduced resulting in increased oil production rates for the same
gas compression capacity limits (Fig. 6). As predicted, the benefits of DDGI#1 lasted until mid 2006 when gas again migrated
to the crest of the field. Gas production again rose to the gas injection capacity in mid-2006 and oil production started to
6 IPTC 17113

decline faster.

DDGI#2 was implemented in September 2006. Gas injection was moved from the northern injector (WI-4) to the southern
water injectors (WI-1 and WI-2). In addition, water injection was initiated in the crestal injector (GI-1) to improve oil recovery
in the lower zones of the reservoir (Fig. 13).

Both DDGI projects resulted in rapid improvements to field performance at minimal cost. Oil production rates were increased
5-12 thousand BOPD.

Scale Management Strategy

The original depletion plan recognized a significant risk associated with irreversible scale formation within the tubing. The
Barium (Ba++) and Strontium (Sr++) content of the formation water in this field is high (~172 mg/L) which can cause a severe
scaling problems in wells after injected seawater breakthrough (Fig. 14a). Since the FPSO did not have sulfate removal
capabilities, without suitable mitigation, the damage by BaSO4 scale would impact well operability and dramatically decrease
well productivity.

There was uncertainty in how frequently scale inhibitor treatments would be required. The intervention forecast for each well
was determined from the simulated sea water production profile of each well, assuming yearly squeeze treatments beginning
after one million barrels of water production. Based on these breakthrough times and assumptions, 9 scale treatments in the 7-
year field life were projected with each oil producer requiring 1 to 4 treatments.

The scale inhibition analysis shown above was a most-likely analysis. A downside was identified where the scale problem
was worse and more scale squeezes would be required and, in severe cases, well sidetracks were the only option to overcome
the scale damage.

Wells were closely monitored to detect early signs of scale formation. The surveillance strategy was to track Productivity
Index (PI), Liquid Rate, Barium, Strontium, Sulfate and Chloride content over time. An example surveillance chart is shown
in Fig. 14b. A drop in PI, rate, Barium or Strontium would suggest precipitate formation; a drop in Chlorides and/or an
increase in Sulfates suggested that seawater was being produced. A reactive scale squeeze treatment was recommended if PI
or rate started to decrease. A preventative scale squeeze treatment was recommended if scale inhibitor content was
approaching the Minimum Inhibitor Concentration (MIC) or if it had been 6 months since the last scale squeeze.

The scale-squeeze process was to bullhead water-phase scale inhibitor at the FPSO through the flowlines to the wellhead. The
inhibitor would then get consumed by Barium and stop the scale precipitation process and arrest production decline.

The impact of BaSO4 scale was significantly greater than originally forecast and is one of the main causes for the production
below expectations in 2007 and 2008. The original plan called for a total of 9 scale squeezes; however, a total of 20 scale
squeezes were performed through February 2010. Certain injectors and producers were more problematic and required more
frequent treatment. In wells where continuous mixing did not occur or seawater and formation water were mixed in the
reservoir, no scaling issues were seen.

The ramp-up in scale squeeze treatments was due to the increased breakthrough of seawater in the different producers, caused
partly by the change in injection strategy and partly by higher than expected reservoir communication. This illustrates how the
characterization and modeling of reservoir connectivity indirectly impacted an operational matter such as the frequency of
scale treatments.

OP-2 was the well most impacted by scale formation, and experienced a significant PI loss. Six squeezes were performed
although originally only one was planned. The producer was in a location that had ideal conditions for aquifer and injection
water to mix near the wellbore.

Later field developments in the area installed sulphate-removal packs on the FPSO to pre-treat injected water, thus eliminating
concerns about scale formation.

Late Life Field Performance

Late in field life, all water injection was shut in, and the produced gas was returned to the downdip WI-4 well. Surprisingly
the down-hole pressures on the producers did not decline for long, indicating that the aquifer was stronger than had been
predicted or modeled, even after the increase described in the early months following production start-up. This brings into
IPTC 17113 7

question the need for water injectors to maintain pressure in the original plan. Additional wells might have been saved, as well
as significant operational challenges (scale).

Options to increase production through infill drilling by sidetracking existing wells were investigated with simulation but the
conclusion was that nothing was attractive.

In March 2007, OP-1 was shut-in with a suspected Surface Controlled Sub Surface Safety Valve (SCSSV) failure. At the time
of the suspected SCSSV failure, OP-1 was producing around 15 thousand BOPD with high GOR and climbing WC.
Following intervention in January 2008, it was discovered that there was tubing and casing annulus breach and the well was
temporarily abandoned pending full abandonment. It was decided to leave all injection shut-in in order to deplete the reservoir
pressure around OP-1 to facilitate the future abandonment. In May 2008, gas injection was restarted into the WI-4 along the
northern flank. This well was selected as the least likely to communicate directly with the OP-1 area.

In August 2008 it was decided to drill a pressure relief well close to the OP-1 bottomhole location to help deplete the reservoir
pressure to help facilitate the plug-and-abandonment of OP-1. The OP-1ST1 was drilled in late 2008 (Fig. 15).

OP-1ST1 came online January 2009 and ramped up to 20 thousand BOPD with a 40% WC (Fig. 16a). At that time, the only
other wells on production were the OP-2 and OP-4. The OP-1ST1 was designed to deplete the pressure around the OP-1
well below hydrostatic and allow sea water to flow into the wellbore and kill the well. Simulation predicted that the target
pressure would be achieved within a year of production; however, the observed rate of pressure depletion was significantly
less than simulation model predictions (Fig. 16b).

Material Balance Analysis indicated that a much larger aquifer was needed to match the pressure response. Recognition of
aquifer size and strength is typically challenging in planning a new development due to a lack of relevant data. In this case the
potential for strong aquifer support was not recognized as a plausible scenario during development planning. Typically in
channelized deep-water reservoirs, the pore volume below the OOWC is insufficient to provide strong aquifer support. In this
case, the additional aquifer support is interpreted to come from deeper water-bearing sands connected to the reservoir via
faulting. However, the significance of the aquifer strength was not apparent earlier in field life the during the period of high
voidage replacement. The impact of the aquifer became more pronounced during the late-life period of sustained pressure

As more performance data were obtained, it was evident that the target pressure for OP-1 abandonment could not be reached
before end of life of FPSO. This led to the need to mechanically kill the OP-1 and in 2010 it was safely abandoned using a
drilling rig. OP-1ST1 continued good performance; the final well test in April 2010 was 9 thousand BOPD at 58% watercut.
The well produced 8 million barrels of oil by end of FPSO life.

The West Africa Field ceased production early 2011, 7 years after startup. The total production was 99 million barrels of oil,
very close to the 104 million barrel of oil EUR estimate at funding (Fig. 17). Although the total recovery was close to
expectations, the production history was significantly different. Early performance was better than expected, followed by
poorer than expected performance due to gas handling constraints and wellbore scaling, and then ending strong with the good
performance of the OP-1ST1.

Summary and Conclusions

Despite good quality data and detailed geologic and simulation modeling of the deepwater channel systems, the 4D seismic
and well performance revealed that gas and water took different and sometimes surprising pathways than those predicted.
History-matching the simulation models after several years of production did not capture the energy of the aquifer, the full
extent of which did not reveal itself until late in life.

Permanent down-hole pressure gauges and 4D seismic provided critical information for the history matching as it was not
cost-effective to collect cased-hole surveillance logs and pressure surveys from the subsea wells. The surveillance data and
flexible well design enabled critical reservoir management changes to overcome gas excess gas production and scale issues.
The observations are summarized below:
8 IPTC 17113

 The funding models were reliable in predicting total recovery at the end of field life. The oil production plateau was also
predicted reliably
 The Funding model did not reasonably predict the rapid GOR and WC increase
 Gas and water flow pathways in the reservoir were not all represented in the original model; new flowpaths were proposed
during history matching and later validated by 4D
 Water and gas injected in the same wellbore swept the reservoir differently and affected different wells
 4D seismic was critical to identifying and mapping the gas and water flow pathways in the reservoir and validating the
change in depletion strategy
 The impact of the gridding (layering) on accurately representing the channel to channel connections in the model was not
appreciated at the time of funding
 Well locations provided flexibility to switch to downdip gas injection to manage gas production; sequencing the drilling
of injector wells resulted in learnings which eliminated the drilling of one water injector
 BaS04 precipitation was an issue where aquifer and injected water were continuously mixed near a producing well;
damage was arrested by injecting inhibitors. In wells where continuous mixing did not occur or seawater and formation
water were mixed in the reservoir, no scaling issues were seen.
 Late life production resulted in slower decline in reservoir pressure indicating a larger aquifer than had been modeled
 Modeling range of aquifer scenarios and assessing their impact on the depletion plan would be appear to be prudent in
similar developments
 Adjustments to the reservoir management strategy overcame unexpected subsurface performance issues and resulted in a
cumulative recovery within 5% of the original estimate.

These observations should be considered when planning future deep-water projects, and sufficient flexibility be built into the
design or contingencies planned if similar conditions may apply.

"Exxon Mobil Corporation" has numerous subsidiaries, many with names that include ExxonMobil, Exxon, Esso and Mobil.
For convenience and simplicity in this presentation, the parent company and its subsidiaries may be referenced separately or
collectively as "ExxonMobil." Abbreviated references describing global or regional operational organizations and global or
regional business lines are also sometimes used for convenience and simplicity. Nothing in this presentation is intended to
override the corporate separateness of these separate legal entities. Working relationships discussed in this presentation do
not necessarily represent a reporting connection, but may reflect a functional guidance, stewardship, or service relationship.
IPTC 17113 9


ALNG Angola Liquefied Natural Gas

Ba++ Barium ions

BaSO4 Barium Sulfate

DDGI Down-dip Gas Injection

DDGI#1 Down-dip Gas Injection Phase 1
DDGI#2 Down-dip Gas Injection Phase 2

Ed Displacement Efficiency
Esweep Sweep Efficiency
EEAL Esso Exploration Angola Limited
EM ExxonMobil
EOD Environment of Deposition
EUR Estimated Ultimate Recovery

FPSO Floating Production, Storage and Offloading

GI Gas Injector

Kh Permeability Thickness

MeOH Methanol
MIC Minimum Inhibitor Concentration

N/G Net to gross

OOWC Original Oil Water Contact

OP Oil Producer

P Pressure
PDHG Permanent Down-Hole Gauge
PI Productivity Index

RF Recovery Factor

SCSSV Surface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve

Sr++ Strontium ions
STOOIP Stock Tank Oil Originally In Place

WAG Water Alternating Gas

WI Water Injector

The authors would like to extend special thanks to Sonangol, BP, ENI and Statoil for permission to publish this paper.

Figure 1 – West Africa Development Plan Overview
Figure 2 – Depth Structure and Field Layout
Figure 3a – Discovery Well and Line of Seismic in Figure 3c
Figure 3b – Vertical Pressure Profile
Figure 3c – 3D Seismic Through Discovery Well
Figure 3d – Discovery Well Log
Figure 4 – Full Funding Geologic Modeling
Figure 5 – Full Funding Dynamic Model Results
Figure 6 – Early Field Performance
10 IPTC 17113

Figure 7 – 4D Seismic Full Offset Difference Data

Figure 8 – Upper Reservoir Zone: Gas Breakthrough GI-1 to OP-2
Figure 9a – Upper Reservoir Zone: Gas Pathway WI-4 to GI-1
Figure 9b – Upper Reservoir Zone: Gas Pathway WI-4 to GI-1
Figure 10 – Upper Reservoir Zone: Water Breakthrough WI-1 to OP-1
Figure 11 – Dynamic Model – Analysis of Sweep and Displacement Efficiency
Figure 12a – History Match Update Mid-2005
Figure 12b – Model Evaluation of DDGI
Figure 13 – Location of Wells Converted to DDGI
Figure 14a – Scale Buildup
Figure 14b – Scale Surveillance Chart
Figure 15 – Location of Last Drillwell OP-1ST1
Figure 16a – OP-1ST1 Performance
Figure 16b – OP-1ST1 Measured Pressure vs. Forecast
Figure 17 – Actual Field Performance vs. Model Predictions
IPTC 17113 11

Figure 1 – West Africa Development Plan Overview

Figure 2 – Depth Structure and Field Layout

12 IPTC 17113

Figure 3a – Discovery Well and Line of Seismic in Fig. 3c Figure 3b – Vertical Pressure Profile

Figure 3c – 3D Seismic Through Discovery Well Figure 3d – Discovery Well Log

IPTC 17113 13

Figure 4 – Full Funding Geologic Modeling

14 IPTC 17113

Figure 5 – Full Funding Dynamic Model

Figure 6 – Early Field Performance

IPTC 17113 15

Figure 7 – 4D Seismic Full Offset Difference Data

Figure 8 – Upper Reservoir Zone: Gas Breakthrough GI-1 to OP-2

16 IPTC 17113

Figure 9a – Upper Reservoir Zone: Gas Pathway WI-4 to GI-1

Figure 9b – Upper Reservoir Zone: Gas Pathway WI-4 to GI-1

IPTC 17113 17

Figure 10 – Upper Reservoir Zone: Water Breakthrough WI-1 to OP-1

Figure 11 – Dynamic Model – Analysis of Displacement and Sweep Efficiency

18 IPTC 17113

Figure 12a – History Match Update Mid 2005

Figure 12b – Model Evaluation of DDGI

IPTC 17113 19

Figure 13 – Location of Wells Converted to DDGI

20 IPTC 17113

Figure 14a – Scale Buildup

Figure 14b – Scale Surveillance Chart

IPTC 17113 21

Figure 15 – Location of Last Drillwell OP-1ST1

22 IPTC 17113

Figure 16a – OP-1ST1 Performance

Figure 16b– OP-1ST 1 Measured Pressure vs. Forecast

IPTC 17113 23

Figure 17 – Actual Field Performance vs. Model Predictions