SPE 84885
Radical Approach to Water Injection Scheme for Barton
S. Sathyamoorthy, P. Priyandoko, K.B. Flatval, A. Bulang, Shell Malaysia Exploration and Production, P.J. van den Hoek,
Y. Qiu, Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–21 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Fractured injection is not new to the oil and gas industry, and
occurs unintentionally in most water injection schemes.
However, deliberate fractured water injection is usually not
evaluated upfront in order to derive optimal cost and recovery,
and open-up opportunities for further optimization. The initial
design for water flooding in Barton was based on a full-blown
conventional water treatment plant on a new platform for
seawater injection under matrix conditions.
Fracture simulation work revealed that in the case of Barton,
by relaxing water quality induced fractures are not expected to
be excessively large and cause any concerns on integrity of the
reservoir and nearby wells. Owing to a lower required
injection tubing head pressure than previously believed to
achieve fractured injection only relatively low pressure and
cheap injection pumps are required. Additionally, fractured
water injection has allowed for the introduction of raw-
seawater injection, whereby the significantly smaller water
treatment facility than previously required for matrix injection
is placed on a deck extension from an existing platform.
1. Introduction
Barton Field
Shell Malaysia Exploration & Production (SM-EP) operates
the Barton field, which is located about 220 kms northeast of
Labuan island, offshore Sabah, in Malaysia (refer to Fig. 1).
The field is part of the North Sabah 96 Production Sharing
Contract (PSC) with 50% SM-EP and 50% Petronas Carigali
(PCSB) equity interest.
Development of the field started in 1981. Oil production is
primary depletion assisted by continuous gas lifting. Reservoir
drive mechanism is gravity drainage with weak aquifer
support. Current oil production is about 6.0 kbpd, from 11
wells (13 producing strings) at two separate platforms (BTJT-
A and BTMP-B). Gas production, totaling some 3 MMscfd, is
re-injected for disposal or used for gas lifting, with the excess
flared at location.
Geologically Barton reservoir is an asymmetrical anticlinal
structure bounded by major reverse faults, and
compartmentalized into 4 separate blocks. The field is situated
in a structural province characterized by intense compressional
wrench tectonics and clay diapirism. The reservoir is believed
to be of lower coastal plain origin. Reservoir sands comprise
of channels, crevasses, and shallow marine and delta front
complexes with shale deposition in flood plain environment,
which now form seals and flow barriers between sand units.
Barton sandstones comprise predominantly of quartz, with
minor content of feldspars, carbonate minerals and clays
(mainly non-swelling type – kaolinite, chlorite and illite).
Average porosity of the main sand package is about 20%, with
rock permeability ranging from 50-3000 mD. The H sand unit
has the highest rock permeability in the field.
There are 3 sand packages in Barton: a.) shallow D sands at
1000 ft tvdss charged with 160 API medium viscous oil, b.) F,
G, H and I sands at 2000 ft tvdss charged with 320 API oil, and
c.) deeper M, P and Q sands at 3300 ft tvdss charged with 32o
API oil. The current field STOIIP is about 165 MMstb, out of
which some 50 MMstb has been produced. Production is
almost exclusively from the G, H and I sands (main package).
Fig. 2 shows the top structure map of H sand and cross
sectional view of the field (along the North-South plane).
Barton Water Injection (BTWI) Project
Primary depletion alone addresses some 35% of oil recovery.
Secondary recovery via water injection is expected to add
another 15 MMstb of reserves, improving recovery to more
than 45% and prolong field life. Field reservoir pressure will
be progressively increased to near initial condition (c.1000
psia). Reservoir simulation work revealed that the maximum
amount of seawater required is approximately 40 kb/d for
optimum recovery under water injection through 4 injector
wells. Each injector well is designed to handle 10 kb/d of
treated seawater.
2 SPE 84885
The initial intent of the project was to inject fully treated
seawater – after conditioning to remove particles and oxygen –
under matrix injection mode. The concept of matrix injection
refers to the injection of fully treated water at non-fracturing
conditions downhole. This technique of water injection is
acknowledged as the conventional approach. A new 4-legged
jacket bridged-linked to the existing BTMP-B platform is
required to hold the proposed water treatment facility and
associated utilities. Engineering of the new jacket and water
treatment facility amount to 70% of the total project cost. The
capital outlay and lifecycle operating costs of matrix injection
design for Barton are economically prohibitive for which a
new more radical design is required. This resulted in detailed
simulation studies on water injection-induced fracture
propagation in the field, and re-consideration of fractured
water injection for the base design.
This paper reports chiefly work carried out on the design of
fractured water injection for Barton including discussions on
well completion design philosophy for water injectors. It also
briefly describes the concept of raw seawater injection, made
possible by designing for fractured water injection.
2. Fractured Water Injection
Water injection under fracturing condition is a subject of
intense interest in the oil and gas industry. The understanding
of the underlying physics behind fractured water injection has
grown tremendously over the years, leading to the
development of numerous models, now applied extensively in
the industry to assist prediction of fracture size and form basis
of design for surface equipment and well completion1-3.
Fracture simulation
Fracture simulations were performed using the Shell 3-D
fracture simulator, designed mainly for produced water re-
injection3. Sensitivities were run at varying water quality -
ranging from 1 to 100 mg/l TSS and 5-500 ppm dispersed
OIW content – and two scenarios - re-pressurization and
constant reservoir pressure trend.
The simulation work showed that the effects of depletion and
thermo-elastic backstress cause the Barton formation to
fracture even at very low ITHP (less than 200 psia). Similar
effects have been observed in other fields, see for example
Ref. 4. This result was extremely important because it was
previously thought that the immediate cost savings from
relaxing water quality (through the elimination of secondary
filters) would be offset by the need for a high-pressure
fracturing pump. In addition, injectivity under fractured water
injection is unlikely to decline unless severe problems occur,
such as sanding-up of wellbore4.
Fig. 3 shows the results of simulation for water quality
comparable to that anticipated in Barton (1 mg/l TSS content)
under increasing reservoir pressure trend (up to 1000 psia in 4
years). In the particular simulation run, water injection is
‘forced’ to initiate in the H sand unit. Fracture length after 7
years is confined to less than 100 ft. However, the fracture
grows to more than 500 ft in 10 years due re-pressurization
effects. The fracture also grows vertically with time,
intersecting other sand units (G and I) in less than 1 year. As
simulation results show, the fracture will penetrate F sand unit
located above 1800 ft tvdss. F sand is currently not part of the
water injection target.
Fig. 4 shows the simulation results for similar water quality,
but at constant reservoir pressure (of 600 psia). In this case,
the fracture length is restricted to 50 ft in 10 years. Vertical
growth is also constrained, but intersection of other sand units
(above and below H sand) occurs slightly after 1 year. In both
the constant pressure and re-pressurization scenario, required
ITHP to maintain injectivity of 10 kbpd is less than 200 psia.
Building the case for application
In matrix water injection, injectivity declines with time mainly
due to plugging of the formation-face by solid particles in the
injected water such as in a filtration process via formation of
an external filter cake. Plugging is caused by solids particles
from external sources – sediments or biological material in
seawater or from internal sources such as corrosion and
macro-micro biological growth products. Pang and Sharma,
among many others, have developed numerical models to
predict changes in injectivity under influence of solids
loadings, well design and geometry5. These models were
tested extensively against field data6. Shell’s formation
damage prediction software was used to calculate injector
half-life of a typical Barton cased-hole perforated well under
matrix injection. Even with very clean water, at solid loading
(or TSS) of less than 1 mg/l, injectivity will decline by 50% in
less than 3 months. Thus, in matrix injection mode frequent
acid stimulation or back-flow of the injector is required to
restore injectivity.
Experiences elsewhere have shown that pure matrix injection
almost never occur in nature7. The formation is fractured
either by hydraulic means or by combination of pressure and
thermal stress effects. In depleted reservoirs, fracturing can
occur easily, especially for cold-water injection4, even at ‘free-
fall’ injection conditions. By deliberately fracturing the
formation while water injection, injectivity can be maintained
without the need to plan for future acid stimulations or
well cleaning.
Due to the complex nature of Barton’s geology, with
numerous major faults located within the reservoir, some of
which are observed on seismic to extend upwards to near
seabed, there were initial concerns regarding fault re-
activation and loss of containment due to water injection
induced-fractures. Upon further evaluation, the probability of
faults becoming activated was found to be extremely low, as
fault reactivation requires more energy than what normally is
conveyed by induced fractures anticipated in Barton. A
comprehensive analysis on fault stability supported this view.
Faults slips and potential re-activation could be a problem in
3 SPE 84885
Barton only if reservoir pressure is allowed to decline below
300 psia (anticipated c. 2012 under primary depletion).
The direction of the minimum horizontal stress was
determined from borehole elongation analysis of previous
drilling campaigns, and found to be oriented approximately
NW-SE. Fractures are expected to grow perpendicular to this
direction. Data on simulated fracture sizes and most likely
orientation were superimposed on Barton top structure map to
determine impact of water injection induced-fractures. In order
not to intersect nearby producer wells or major faults, fracture
length must not exceed 200 ft. However, in view of close
proximity of producer wells, recommended maximum fracture
length of 100 ft is necessary to avoid water short-circuit
between injector and producer, with potential impact on
sweep efficiency.
Vertical growth of fractures could also have significant impact
on the success of the BTWI project. Rather than relying on
one single fracture induced in H sand to grow vertically into G
and I flood targets, a multiple fracture strategy will be
adopted. Fractures must also be contained within the main
sand packages of F, G, H and I sand units. Although, F sand is
not part of the initial water injection target, likely
encroachment of fractures into this zone is not critical because
reservoir fluid from F sand is produced commingled with the
other main sand units. F sand holds the smallest percentage of
reserves among the main sand packages, and therefore is an
additional bonus to the project if fractures are able to penetrate
its shaly layers. The low N/G sand fraction in F unit due to
shales cause stark stress contrast, which help prevent fractures
from growing further upwards into shallow D reservoir.
Simulation results show that growth of fractures downwards to
deeper reservoirs (M,P and Q sand units) is not likely
to happen.
Adjusting injection and production rates in the field to avoid
linkage with nearby producer wells will help control fracture
size. Further simulation work has shown that by suppressing
re-pressurization trend to cap of 950 psia (achieved in 4
years), would create fractures of length less than 100 ft (over
10 years injection period), and at the same time not
significantly affecting reserves recovery. Needless to say,
fracture monitoring and control plans are critical to the success
of fractured water injection in Barton.
Optimization Opportunities Created
In general, fractured water injection is extremely attractive for
offshore assets whereby significant reduction in capital and
operating expenditures are offered by the scheme. In locations
where there are limited slots, fractured water injection allows
high injection rates through fewer injector wells. In the case of
Barton, the benefits of such scheme are:
Reduction in surface engineering cost due to less
stringent solid loading (TSS) requirement. Filtration
system is limited to primary or coarse filters.
Furthermore, a low-pressure injection pump is all that is
required to fracture the formation.
Reduction in well engineering cost due to minimization
of perforation lengths. Perforation cost for re-completion
of existing horizontal producers to be converted into
water injectors is costly in the case of matrix injection
due to the long perforation intervals (500 ft net) required
to inject 10 kbpd.
Reduction in operating cost due to no decline in
injectivity. Frequent acid stimulation and well clean-out
that features prominently in matrix injection schemes are
not required.
Less issues on operation since water quality is less
stringent and water treatment plant less complex. Barton
is a remotely operated facility visited daily during good
weather for less than 6 hours by operators traveling from
an onshore base located 2 hours away by boat.
Fractured water injection allows for the consideration of
an even more radical approach by injecting raw-seawater.
Thereby, significantly reducing water treatment
equipment (elimination of de-oxygenator and secondary
filters) such that a new jacket for accommodating the
facility is not required any longer.
3. Conventional Matrix Injection vs. Raw-Seawater
Fractured Injection
In the conventional treated seawater scheme developed for
matrix water injection mode, a typical water treatment plant
comprise seawater intake pumps, electro-chlorination plant,
two stage filtration, deaeration/de-oxygenation tower,
injection pumps and chemical handling/injection facility (for
biocide, scale inhibitor, flocculants/filtration aids and oxygen
scavenger). The overall system is large, and requires
significant deck space to house it. Often, the water treatment
plant for offshore operation, if not installed or planned during
early part of field development, requires a new 4-legged
platform. This design significantly increases surface
engineering cost of the project.
The feasibility of applying fractured water injection in Barton
resulted in further optimization of the water injection scheme
by adopting raw-seawater injection. The concept of raw-
seawater injection is not entirely new, and has been applied
successfully in a few fields offshore North Sea8. Raw-seawater
injection is essentially the injection of minimally treated
seawater with no reduction in oxygen content. Detailed
evaluation of raw-seawater injection, and work done on
Barton to justify its application will be presented in a future
SPE paper8.
The treatment facility for raw-seawater injection is much
smaller in size due to the elimination of secondary filters and
deaerator/de-oxygenator tower. Fig. 5 shows the difference
between a conventional matrix injection and raw-seawater
4 SPE 84885
fractured injection water treatment scheme. The entire
treatment facility for the radical scheme fits nicely onto the
existing BTMP-B platform after a relatively simple and cheap
deck extension is completed. No costly installation of a new
platform is required.
4. Injector Well Design
Sand Control
The main reason for sand control in water injectors is usually
prevention against sanding-up of the well resulting in total loss
of injectivity, rather than reducing impact to surface facility,
because injectors are usually back-flowed periodically (or not
at all). Sand production in injectors is caused by:
Formation failure during back flow of injectors
Inter-zone cross flow when well is shut-in
Effect of water hammer and sand liquefaction caused by
operation issues
Even in very soft sand, current industry practice is usually no
sand control unless absolutely necessary9-10. Careful selection
of sand control techniques must be applied, especially to
prevent plugging of the mechanical control devices due to
potentially high solid loadings in water for fractured injection.
Gravel packing methods are useless when injecting under
fracturing condition. In such case, mechanical screens such as
expandable sand screens (ESS) offer more practical solution.
Depending on the quality of injected water especially oxygen
content, selection of appropriate material in sand control
devices must be taken into consideration to prevent corrosion.
Fig. 6 shows historical sand production from the field,
affirming results of rock failure prediction study that Barton
formation is fairly well consolidated. Thus, injector wells in
Barton are not designed for sand control. However, several
good recommendations on operation philosophy of water
injectors by Statoil9 will be applied in Barton to prevent
similar injectivity problems4:
Minimise number of planned shutdowns and pump trips.
Ensure that injector wells are isolated from the manifold
immediately after pump trip to prevent crossflow between
different wells. Otherwise, wells injecting into same
zones should be hooked-up to one manifold.
Allow longer period of stand-by time (> 6 hours) before
resuming injection. This would allow fines or sand
particles to settle out below most perforations
Minimise the number of waterhammer pluses by carrying
out manual “soft” shutdowns (gradually reducing
injection rate).
When carrying out coil tubing clean-out of sand in sump,
ensure circulation in reverse mode to prevent sand or
fines from being forced into formation.
Carry-out regular sand monitoring during initial
commissioning stage when frequent pump trips are likely.
If possible consider acidization/chemical stimulation over
‘back-flow’ to restore well injectivity. In the case of
fractured water injection, significant injectivity decline is
not normally expected.
Perforation Strategy
The adopted perforation strategy is aimed at preserving
efficient sweep in all target sand units while injecting at
fracturing condition. Perforations are limited to 30 ft intervals
in G, H and I sand units. Through-tubing wireline or CT guns
will be utilized to create deep and high-density shots into the
least permeable sand unit first, followed by a short period of
water injection before perforating the next sand unit. The
progressive and limited size perforation of the sand units is
expected to help in creation of multiple fractures. However, it
must be noted that this technique would not work effectively if
the various sand units show very high contrast in permeability.
This is not expected to be the case for G, H and I sand units. In
the event that high volumes of water only penetrate the H sand
unit, conventional chemical conformance control techniques
will be applied. Selectivity at producer end will also be
utilized to control sweep.
Fracture Size Monitoring
Fracture monitoring helps in the understanding of fracture
growth mechanics, and critical in assessing the actual fracture
size and orientation, of which largely determines the success
or failure of fractured water injection scheme in Barton. In the
Dan field operated by Maersk, by comparing field data from
fracture monitoring against computer simulation results, the
operator was able to gain in-sights on the actual situation and
consequently address future development plans involving
fractured water injection11.
Fracture monitoring is required in Barton to:
Confirm that fractures have grown vertically by breaking
down intra-sand shale sequences to reach all target sand
units, yet avoiding penetration into shallow and
deep reservoirs.
Estimate length of fractures to determine if fractures are
contained within sand bodies and not intersecting nearby
producer wells or major faults.
Calibrate computer fracture simulation results with real
field data to enable further optimization in water quality,
injection pressure and rate.
5 SPE 84885
Routine surveillance data such as injection rate, water quality,
pressure and temperature, which are easily obtained but often
ignored, are extremely important for analysis of fracture
mechanics. There are several techniques available, such as
pressure fall off test for fracture size (for which a novel
interpretation technique was presented recently12),
microseismicity and downhole tiltmeter for fracture direction
and sizes. Pressure fall off test is more mature, cheap and has
been reported extremely successfully by many operators. RST
logging with injection of saline liquid can been used as an
indirect method to infer fracture height behind casing.
Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) has recently found its
place in many water injection projects. As shown in Fig. 7, the
well path of BT-207S1 – a future water injector, DTS is useful
in monitoring temperature profile across the various target
sand units. The technology is able to reveal information on
flood front progress, and help in inferring fracture size when
data is used in conjunction with results of other monitoring
methods. However, DTS application in converted oil
producers (re-completed to water injectors) will cause some
restrictions to already limited flow ID. The impact of applying
this technology in re-completion wells is currently being
evaluated, and may change slightly ITHP requirement.
Re-completion of Converted Oil Producers
Fig. 8 shows the re-completion design for one of the future
water injectors (BT-207 S1), which is currently an existing oil
producer. In view of the high oxygen content of raw-seawater,
completion tubing is 5 ½” GRE lined L80 tubulars, with the
last c. 200 ft of 4 ½” CRA tubulars (Inconel 718 or Alloy 725)
stabbed into the bottom seal unit/packer. Corrosion of existing
carbon steel liner is not expected to cause any major concerns
since cement column behind casing/liner will provide
adequate barrier to formation if leaks occur. Corrosion
products do not cause problems to injectivity when injecting
under fracturing conditions. All tubing sub-assembly and other
well equipment exposed to raw-seawater (such as packer,
injection valve, SSD & nipple) is made from CRA. No gas lift
mandrels have been included, since back-flow of the well is
not encouraged to prevent sand production especially in the
horizontal injector wells.
New Water Injectors
Fig. 9 shows the typical completion design for a new water
injector. Tubulars are 5 ½” GRE lined L80 CS, with CRA
material for sub-assemblies. In this case, liners will be GRE
lined L80 CS, which will be cemented in place. New water
injectors will be slightly deviated wells, cutting across all 3
target sand units.
5. Conclusions
Fractured water injection is feasible for Barton because
fracture size is not expected to cause any problems to
reservoir containment, fault-reactivation nor
sweep efficiency.
Computer fracture simulations have shown that
injectivity can be maintained by relaxing water quality
(TSS content) previously designed for matrix water
injection. Fractured water injection can be achieved using
a relatively low-pressure surface injection pump.
Besides immediate cost savings from elimination of
secondary filter and not planning for future acid
stimulations, fractured water injection has opened-up
further optimization opportunities for the water flood
project such as raw-seawater injection.
The type of water injection scheme influences water
injector well completion design. In the case of fractured
water injection, key areas are sand control, perforation
and fracture monitoring/survelliance strategy.
By adopting raw-seawater fractured injection in Barton,
overall surface engineering cost was reduced by more
than 70%. The minimum water treatment facility will be
installed on a deck extension from an existing platform,
rather than on a new 4-legged platform.
Acknowledgements
This paper is written on behalf of the Barton team (other
members include: Steven Lee, Agus Widjiastono, Flavia
Kandau, Keri Cunningham, Barry Hii, Kuswadi Hedeir,
Beatriz Rueda, Andrew Vaughan and Halimah Pit) who has
worked extremely hard to make this novel water flood project
work. The authors also wish to thank SM-EP, PCSB and
PETRONAS for kind permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Koning, E.J.L, 1988. Waterflooding under fracturing
conditions. Ph.D. Thesis, technical University of Delft.
2. Settari, A, 1980. Simulation of hydraulic fracturing
processes, SPEJ, December.
3. Van den Hoek, P.J. 1993. New 3D model for optimised
design of hydraulic fractures and simulation of drill-
cuttings reinjection. SPE 26679, 1993 Offshore European
Conference, Aberdeen.
4. Van den Hoek, P.J. Khatib, Z.I. Siemers G.J. 2002.
Causes of injectivity problems during fractured water
disposal. SPE 74416, SPE International Conference and
Exhibition, Mexico, February 2002.
5. Pang, S. Sharma, M.M. 1995. Evaluating the performance
of open-hole, perforated and fractured water injection
wells. SPE 30127, 1995 European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague.
6 SPE 84885

6. Sharma, M.M. Pang, S. Wennberg, K.E. Morgenthaler,

L.N. 2000. Injectivity decline in water injection wells: An
offshore Gulf of Mexico case study. SPE 60901, SPE
Prod. & Facilities, February 2000.

7. Paige, R.W. Murray, L.R. Martins, J.P. Marsh, S.M. 1995.

Optimising water injection performance. SPE 29774,
1995 SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain.

8. Flatval, K.B. Hofland, R. de Kruijf, S. Ligthelm, D.

Building the case for raw-seawater injection in Barton.
SPE paper in preparation.

9. Santarelli, F.J. Skomedal, E. Markestad, P. Berge, H.I.

Nasvig, H. 2000. Sand production on water injectors:
How bad can it get?. SPE Drill & Completion, 15 (2),
June 2000.

10. Morita, N. Davis, E. Whitebay, L. 1998. Guidelines for

solving sand problems in water injection wells. SPE
39436, SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Louisiana, February 1998.

11. Ovens, J.E.V. Larsen, F.P. Cowie, D.R. 1997. Making

sense of water injection fractures in the Dan field. SPE
38928, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Texas, October 1997.

12. Van den Hoek, P.J. Pressure Transient Analysis in

Fractured Produced Water Injection Wells, SPE 77946,
SPE Asia Pacific Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne,
October 2002.
7 SPE 84885

Figure 1: Barton field location map

Figure 3: Results of fracture simulation at solid loading of

1 ppm, and the reservoir is under re-pressurization to 1000
psia

BTJT-A
BTMP-B

0 500 m

BT-3
0
N S
0 1000ft
1000
?
Depth (ftss)

UI
U

2000
D
3000 F/G/H/I

4000 M/P/Q
Stage III
5000

Figure 2: Barton field top structure and cross

section maps
Figure 4: Results of fracture simulation at solid loading of
1 ppm, and the reservoir is at constant pressure of 600 psia
8 SPE 84885

Conventional Design:
Deaerator Option
Treated Seawater Matrix Injection
Frac’ pump

Fine
Lift Pump & Filters
Strainer Well
100
Transient sand 101L
Coarse 90
production during 103L
Filters bean-up/production
80 104S
Scale Biocide upset
70 106S
Seawater Hypocholorite Inhibitor Injection

Sand Production (ptb)

intake Generator 201L
Injection Pump 60
202
Safe limit – no
50 203L
• Inject 40,000 b/d of sea water - removal of 93% of all particles > 2 micron
mu to sustain
to sustain
injectivity
injectivity.
half life……... catastrophic failure of
formation to be expected 203S
• Deoxygenate water to less than 10 ppb O2.O2 +Oxygen
O2 scavenger
scavengerdosing
dosing
asas
needed.
needed. 40
• Bacterial control with sodium hypochlorite +and
biocide
biocide
injection
injection.
if oxygen scavenger used. 204L
• Seawater incompatible with formation fluid - CaCo3 scale controlled by scale inhibitor + andacidisations
acid campaign. 30 205
• Fracture contingency with additional frac pump to sustain injectivity. 206S
• Contingency to backflush.
backflush 20
207
• Base case assumes
assumes:water
Waterwill
willbe
bedisposed
disposedofofatatLabuan
Labuanhence
henceno noPWRI
PWRI &&nono
cleaning/dumping
cleaning & dumping offshore.
offshore
10 208
Radical Design: 0
Raw-Seawater Fractured Injection Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Dec-97 Dec-98 Dec-99 Dec-00 Nov-01 Nov-02

Lift Pump &

Strainer Well Figure 6: Sand production history in Barton (in pounds
per thousand barrels of liquid)
Coarse
Filters

Scale Biocide &

Seawater Hypocholorite Inhibitor Nitrate/
intake Generator Nitrite
Injection Pump
Injection

• Inject 40,000 b/d of sea water - removal of large particles only e (marine
( g. marine
growth,
growth,
sediments)
large sediments,
with 40 micron
etc) filters.
• No de-oxygenation
de-oxygenation.
• Bacterial control with sodium hypochlorite,
hypochlorite +THPSbiocide
biocide
injection
injection and nitrate injection from start.
• Seawater incompatible with formation fluid - CaCo3 scale controlled by scale inhibitor and acid campaign.
• Reservoir souring prevention with nitrate/nitrate
nitrate injection.
injection
• No
Contingency
contingency
to backflush.
for back-flow
• Base case assumes:
assumes water
Waterwill
willbe
bedisposed
disposedofofatLabuan
atLabuan hence no noPWRI
PWRI&andno no
cleaning
cleaning/dumping
& dumping offshore
offshore.

Figure 5: Conventional water treatment facility initially

designed for matrix water injection in Barton, and the new
water treatment facility for raw-seawater injection as a
consequence of adopting fractured water injection
9 SPE 84885

W E
BT207S1 BT202S1

DTS run along cased-hole via 1 3/4” CT

to enable fracture and
flood monitoring

F1.0

G1.0
G2.0
New limited entry perforations
to create multiple fracs G3.0
in G/H/I sand units
H1.0
H2.0
H3.0
H4.0
I1.0
I2.0

Existing perforations
to be closed/patched

Figure 7: Distributed Temperature Sensor (DTS) is extremely useful for monitoring fracture size and flood front in multi-
stacked Barton formation
10 SPE 84885

Existing Completion Design Future Completion Design

as Oil Producer as Water Injector
Depth Depth
Description (ft ah Description
(ft ah
bthf) bthf)
Dummy SS with
3 /12” XN
3 1/2” Flow Coupling
444
3 1/2” Otis TRSCSSV 800 5 ½” CRA Self-Piloting
Valve
852 3 1/2” KBUG
Top of Liner 793 ft Top of Liner 793 ft

9 5/8” Casing Window 1263 3 1/2” KBUG 9 5/8” Casing Window 5 ½” GRE Lined Tubular
997- 1006 ft 997- 1006 ft
1587 3 1/2” KBUG

1920 3 1/2” KBUG

1946 3 1/2” Otis XO-SSD 1900 5 1/2” CRA SSD

1975 7” Otis RH Packer 1950 7” CRA RH Packer

2006 3 1/2” Otis XO-SSD

2030 5 1/2” CRA SSD
3 1/2” Blast Joint @ 40’
(2020’-2060’)
Isolated Producing Zone 2100 5 1/2” CRA X-Nipple
Zone 1
H sand H sand
2108 3 1/2” Otis X-Nipple 2025’ - 2040’ 4 1/2” CRA Tubular with
2025’ - 2040’
X-over from 5 ½” tubing
2249 4 1/2” Otis KOIV (last 200 ft to PBR)
2266 5” PBR Locator with 5
seal unit & half mule shoe 2266 5” PBR Locator with 5
Top of 3 1/2” Liner Top of 3 1/2” Liner
@ 2267 ft @ 2267 ft seal unit & half mule shoe

7” Liner Shoe 7” Liner Shoe

@ 2761 ft @ 2761 ft

Zone 2
I sand
2414’ - 2490’ Injection Target 1
2793’ - 2806’ G sand
Injection Target 3
4580-4610 ft
I sand
2800-2830 ft

3 1/2” Liner 3 1/2” Liner

Liner Shoe Liner Shoe
@ 4676 ft @ 4676 ft
2834’ - 4589’ not perforated yet
Injection Target 2
3 1/2” L/Collar @ 4612 ft H sand 3 1/2” L/Collar @ 4612 ft
3800-3830 ft

Figure 8: Re-completion design for oil producer (BT-207 S1) converted to water injector

Description

5 ½” Self-Piloting Injection Valve

5½” GRE Lined Tubular

5 ½” SSD

5 ½” X-Nipple

5 ½” CRA Tubular
(last 200 ft to PBR)
Top of 4 ½” Liner
PBR Locator/seal unit
/mule shoe
9 5/8” Casing Window

4 ½” GRE Lined Liner

Perforations (G Sand)

Perforations (H Sand)

Perforations (I Sand)

Sump for sand accumulation

4 ½” Liner Shoe

Figure 9: Well completion design for new water injector