SPE 106659

Simulation Study of Drilling Horizontal Wells in One of Iranian Oil Fields

Abbas Azarkish, Natl. Iranian Oil Co., and Elham Khaghani, K, Petroelum U. of Technology, Iran

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean This study confirms simultaneous use of
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15–18 April 2007.
overbalance method and horizontal well in this
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 reservoir in order to: A) Increase production rate up
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 to 3 to 4.5 times by boosting productivity index
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 (PI). B) Communicate a large area leading to a
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 better drainage area. C) Postpone the water
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 breakthrough by minimizing the draw down
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. pressure.
Introduction
Abstract To identify the key factors controlling the impact of
The objective of this study is to investigate the drilling new horizontal well at the reservoir scale
advantages of drilling horizontal wells on oil are always a fundamental issue. Once this
recovery improvement. To evaluate the effect of identification is done, simulation model will allow
horizontal length, porosity, anisotropy, staggered- determination of which combination of vertical and
line well pattern with gas injection (in the top layer) horizontal wells will be the most suitable drilling
and water injection (in the bottom layer), different activity in order to enhance the production. The
scenarios were studied. impact of a horizontal well on the reservoir will
depend on many factors. This includes the number
This study is focused on simulation of formation-A
of existing wells, well spacing, formation thickness,
of a carbonate reservoir which consists of three
Kv/Kh, type of drive mechanism, completion
layers; where horizontal well is going to be drilled
intervals of vertical wells, well radius, drainage
in layer-2 of this formation. The average thickness
radius, oil viscosity (and other PVT properties) and
of formation-A is about 167.64 meters (550 feet)
obviously the length and placement of horizontal
and we also have tilted water oil contact in this
wells. The aim of this study is to assess effect of
formation.
horizontal well performance on boosting oil
This field has produced around 146.9 MMBBL until recovery. A case study from one of Iranian
year 2002 for the last 12 years with the Recoverable reservoirs is simulated.
Reserve of about 237.31 MMBBL. Up to now 40
wells have been drilled in this field. Background
Oil recovery process is divided into two stages:
IRAP/RMS software was used to generate
primary and enhanced oil recovery. Primary
geological model. Based on selected reservoir
recovery results from the use of natural energy
black-oil model, IMEX from CMG is used for
present in a reservoir as the main source of energy
simulation task. Sector model used for simulation as
for the displacement of oil into producing wells. In
we only had one productive horizontal well in the
recent years augmentation of natural energy through
formation (scale-down method).
injection of water or gas to displace oil toward
2 SPE 106659
producing wells is also accounted as primary
recovery. EOR results from injection of gas or
liquid chemical and/or the use of thermal energy.
EOR process can be classified into four categories:
mobility-control, miscible, thermal, and other
process such as microbial EOR. In most EOR
projects, application of horizontal drilling will
enhance the volumetric displacement efficiency and
in some Cases improve the recovery mechanisms.
Literature Review
Palasthy1 et al compensated the decreasing domestic
recoverable reserve with the application of different
EOR methods considering horizontal wells. He
answered how the production potential of the
reservoir could be doubled in the last seven years
and how the forecasted ultimate oil recovery
increased to over 40 percent. He noticed that
producing well pattern and acceleration of
exploitation were the keys in mature reservoirs.
Greves and Xia2 compared THAI (Toe-to-Heel Air
Injection) with other IOR process in 2000. THAI
creates unique operating conditions in the reservoir
that have special advantages for heavy oil recovery.
They developed and revised this study in series of
three dimensional view (3D) tests by using different
well configuration in 2002. The well patterns which
they used were Vertical (VI) or horizontal injection
(HI) and horizontal producer (HP) wells in direct
line drive (VIHP, HIHP), staggered line drive
(VI2HP) and line drive (2VIHP). Experimentally,
the horizontal injector configuration (HIHP) was
found to be the most efficient for achieving rapid
start-up, i.e. the shortest time to achieve stable
combustion front propagation.
McGurie and Holt3 presented summary of
conceptual development, reservoir simulation and
field testing of a new miscible EOR recovery
technique at Prudhoe Bay in 2001. It’s practically
profitable to utilize vertical drive process in
conjunction with horizontal well.
Hongyin and Peimao4 presented important effects of
slowing down the oil production decline, increasing
the sweep efficiency and improving oil recovery by
horizontal drilling sidetracks for the Huizhou and
Weizhou oil fields in the South China Sea. They
indicated that this method has great potential and
wide applying prospect to improve the development
effect for sandstone reservoirs with strong edge and
bottom water drive, especially during the middle
and high water-cut period.
Sarkar5 et al described engineering assessments for
EOR (steam injection) at the Charivari Creek
(Arkansa) water flooded heavy oil reservoir. The
effects of different pattern configurations involving
vertical and horizontal wells and the length of
laterals in horizontal wells on steam flood
performances of thin, low-permeability reservoirs
were analyzed in details through reservoir
simulation. Configurations using horizontal
injectors and vertical producers show how much
poorer reservoir performances are rather than those
using vertical injectors and horizontal producers. He
showed that fluid flow difficulties created with the
high injectivity of horizontal injectors and the
higher pressure gradient needed to establish flow
into the vertical producers could be the main
reasons.
Bagci, Aybak and Shamsul6 have exhibited two
laboratory 3D scaled models to compare the
performance of steam flooding in reservoirs having
bottom water zone with the application of different
well configurations. The well configurations were
changed during the course of experiments to
determine their effects on oil recovery. Bottom
water thickness was changed to see the effects on
oil recovery. The highest amount of oil was
recovered by vertical injection and horizontal
production well configuration (in the triangular
model) in the absence of a bottom water zone in
both models. Besides, these configurations
recovered more oil even in the presence of an
underlying bottom water zone. However, recovery
decreased with increasing thickness of bottom water
zone which was observed in the triangular model.
Chang7 et al Predicted horizontal/slanted well
production by mathematical modeling. A horizontal
and slanted well model was developed and
incorporated into a black oil simulator, to predict
potential production rates for such wells. The
slanted/horizontal well model can be used to
calculate the productivity index based on the length
and location of the wellbore within the block for
each reservoir grid block penetrated by the
slanted/horizontal well. The model is easy to use
and can simulate the performance of multiple
SPE 106659
horizontal/slanted wells in any geometric
combination within reservoirs.
Islam and Chakma8 addressed the problem of both
physical and mathematical modeling of horizontal
wellbores. Most papers published in this area deals
with simplistic representation of the horizontal
wells. These models neglect radial flow near the
wellbore and, more importantly, the multiphase
fluid dynamics in the wellbore. Only recently, Stone
et al. reported the first paper dealing with wellbore
dynamics in a horizontal well. In modeling gravity
drainage in a bitumen reservoir, they used Darcy's
law for describing fluid flow in the reservoir and
momentum, mass and energy balance of emulsion
(oil and water) and gas in the wellbore. However,
they used productivity index concept for
representing radial flow near the wellbore. Then,
Collins et al. represented a simplistic model for
simulating horizontal well flow in a field. They
used Darcy's law in a dual porosity representation
of a horizontal well. This model unnecessarily
introduces simplicity and does not deal with
wellbore dynamics with any rigorousness.
Recently, Jelen used a new technique for solving
fluid flow equations in different domains
independently. This method was particularly useful
for modeling a horizontal well in which several
domains exhibit very different types of fluid flow.
Saputelli9 et al results indicated that proper
production and reservoir management policies such
as controlled drawdown, producing wells at rates
below the critical rates and low gas-oil-ratio
production using numerical simulation will promote
efficient gravity segregation process and subsequent
optimum final recovery. Combination of infill
horizontal wells and adequate lifting mechanisms
yielded the recovery of additional reserves.
Field Description
One of the Iranian fields is investigated in this
paper. Information about the reservoir such as
history of the field, reservoir specification
(structure, stratigraphy), drive mechanism and fluid
characteristic are mentioned below.
Field History
This field was discovered in 1963 by drilling the
first exploration well and started to produce in
1991. Average initial pressure in formation A at
3
datum depth of 3200 m.ss is 5959 Psia and average
daily production from formation A is around 10.2
Mbbl/d. Recoverable oil in the north flank is more
than the south flank. Performance of reservoir oil
pressure indicates that the wells don’t have any
effective lateral communication although they have
limited drainage area.
Reservoir Description and Fluid Characteristic
Formation A and B of this reservoir are generally
located in region possess a variety of lithology
changes in horizontal and vertical directions. This
point is evident in reservoir pressure behavior in the
case of lack horizontal communication between the
wells. As far as the fracture system has not been
distributed uniformly along the formation, despite
other formations, the main factor in distribution of
hydrocarbons and production from this formation
could be the capability of the reservoir rock, thus
recognition of the reservoir rock and simulation of
its parameters either horizontally or vertically is
vitally important. In other hand, layering of such a
reservoir should be more precise than the other ones
and productive, low productive and non productive
layers should be separated accurately in order to
find the best completion layers for new wells.
Different Analysis and experiments performed on
fluid properties, drill steam test and flow test imply
that reservoir fluid is moderately heavy oil with 22
API degrees. The reservoir is undersatured at
original reservoir condition (5959 Psia at 225˚F).
The fluid is high in sulphur content (4.1 weight
percent) and high in asphaltene (7 weight percent)
that sulphur values here is more than other layers in
the reservoir. The bubble point is 1334 psia at
205˚F and the producing gas oil ratio is 384 Scf/Stb.
The oil formation volume factor is 1.2495 Rb/Stb at
205˚F and viscosity is 3.7857 Cp. The formation
water has a high salinity between 18000-20000 ppm
NaCl equivalents.
Structure
The areal extension of this field on formation A
horizon is 34×5 km2. Based on last reservoir study,
four out of nine layers are in porous and rich oil that
are surrounded by compact layers. Four wells are in
formation A, one horizontal and three vertical wells.
It is found that 57 percent of production from this
formation comes from horizontal well.
4 SPE 106659
Reservoir has asymmetric anticline form that tilt in
the north flank is more than in the south flank but it
is gentle. WOC level in north and south flanks are
different due to tilted formation. Average thickness
of formation A is about 167.64 meters (550 feet)
and total area 31484 acre.
Stratigraphy
Reservoir is mainly divided into two formations A
and B. Subsequently, formation A is divided into
three and formation B is divided into six layers. The
second layer in formation A is oil rich where the
horizontal well is located. Characteristics of three
layers of formation A are as follows.
Layer one is the region between the beginning of
the formation A and the last shale layer of the upper
layer. From lithology points of view, it includes
white to white-cream limestone, pyrite containing,
Wackestone/Mudstone Π/І and also gray to brown
Shaly/Marl layers. At the base of this layer there is
a grain stone/limestone layer which contains Illite.
This layer can be considered as an indicator of
gradual transitional change of less deep ocean
limestone of formation A to deeper ocean shales of
Gurpi formation which itself indicates the sequence
development of the ocean towards the land.
Maximum amount of marl and shale are located in
this layer and it increases from north to the south
flank in the eastern part of the field. In the central
part of the field, most of wells have a thick
thickness of this layer.
The top section of layer 2 is the last shale layer of
the upper parts of formation A and despite the first
7 to 10 meters it has an excellent porosity, so that it
can be recognized as a loose layer by the
geolograph while drilling. The average of effective
porosity of this layer is about 13.7 percent and its
drilled thickness is 101 meters. Lithologically, this
layer consists of white to cream limestone of type П
and П / І, cream to light brown type of П / Ш and
Ш/І, small grained crystals, Wackestone,
Packestone dolomite. This layer has variable WOC
level and the differences in this level between the
northern and southern flank is about 100 meters.
The study made on the different WOC levels in
several wells indicates that the southern nose of this
layer has been filled with water. Well-31 has a
variety of high production rate, about four times of
an ordinary well, due to horizontal drilling. This
layer has a good reservoir communication in the
west part of the reservoir; it would be possible to
increase the potential of production from this layer.
In this layer, the thickness increases from north to
the south flank in the eastern part of the field but the
difference in the thickness is little and it becomes
negligible in the central part. Some little variations
in thickness could be observed in the western part
of the field too but this variation is small too.
Layer Three acts as a basin of formation A and it is
easily recognized in the entire field due to a high
porous layer above it. In western part of this layer
the greatest amount of hydrocarbon has been found
by petrophysical evaluation. The average thickness
of this layer is about 52 meters in the whole field.
Semi thickness maps prepared in this field show
that this layer gets thicker towards east of the field
although the difference is about 20 percent.
Lithologically, this layer consists of white to cream
relatively tight limestone (they can be drilled
relatively hard), Arzhili of type І/ П containing a
little bit of dolomite and marl, with recrystalization
and dead oil in some parts.
Fracture Variation in the Reservoir
Four wells have been cored in this field. Study of
different cores indicates the existence of a variety of
open and partially filled fractures in layer П, Ш, ΙV
and VΙ. Horizontal drilling has improved production
rate to almost four times of the same vertical well.
Comparing the amount of loss circulation for each
well shows a direct relation with the presence of
fracture systems. For the purpose of accessing
fracture system, FMS log was run in one well
between the top of the formation B and bottom of
the reservoir which indicates a variety of fractures
and vugs.
Drive Mechanism
The original reservoir pressure is estimated around
5959 Psia at datum depth of 3200 m.ss and reservoir
temperature of 107.22˚C. The reservoir was over
pressure and undersatured. During the life of the
field, most of the oil production would have been
due to expansion of the oil and pore volume
compaction as the pressure dropped. As the
production continues, water rises slowly in the
layers. These production mechanisms are efficient
and enable recoveries exceed. As long as the
SPE 106659
pressure is sufficient to permit the wells to flow, we
could expect that this field would continue to
produce to a quite higher recovery factor.
Reservoir Simulation Study
To simulate this sector model, Computer modeling
group (CMG) black-oil simulator is used to perform
this work. To evaluate the effect of horizontal
length, type of injection fluids, well locations,
different scenarios were studied. Variable grid
systems are used in this model. One rock type is
defined for the whole reservoir. Table-1 lists the
exact dimensions of the reservoir model, grid-block
information and reservoir properties and Table-2
shows the actual well specifications used in this
model. Figure-1 and Figure-2 display graphically
the water-oil relative permeability and gas-liquid
relative permeability curves, respectively. These
two curves were generated from 32 samples in
Special Core Analysis report using SCAL option in
Eclipse. Also, the results were checked by
Normalized and De-normalized equations. The
horizontal permeability, Kh, is 3.66 md, whereas
the vertical permeability, Kv, is 11.16 md. Three
dimensional view of whole reservoir is shown in
Figure-3. To generate 3D view of reservoir in Imex
format, RMS model is used. After generating the
reservoir model in CMG, history match was done
by tuning physical properties of the rock. The result
of pressure history match and real data is shown in
Figure-4. This Figure shows the validity of the
model, so it could be used to predict behavior of
reservoir through next 20 years.
Figure-5 also shows that cumulative oil production
in horizontal well is approximately 3.5 times greater
than oil rate in vertical well. In late 2001 and at the
beginning of 2002 both wells are shut in for two
months. Cumulative oil production shows an
additional increase after two months shut in,
especially for horizontal well. The oil recovery
factor prediction has two trends, in the first trend
through 1995- 2002, oil recovery factor goes up as a
straight line due to approximately constant
production rate but in the second trend after 2002 it
increases with a higher slope because after 2002
production rate constraint in the model is increased.
Generally without any rate constraint (as far as
drive mechanism is natural depletion) trend of oil
recovery factor versus time must be an exponential
5
function.
Comparison between Figure-6 and Figure-7 shows
that changes in the trend of curves has occurred at
the same time in 2002. By increasing the oil
production as we expected, the reservoir pressure
goes down further. Because of the existing
constraint (less than actual capability of the
reservoir) none of the curves, before and after 2002,
have normal trend. Low oil production rate in both
wells caused reservoir pressure doesn’t decline so
much. Also, two months shut in period of both
wells (31 and 27) lead to support the pressure
around the wells so Bottom Hole Pressure increases
considerably. Here upon, in the short term (before
large amount of production), wells produce in high
rate but after a while trend of curves approach to a
normal trend.
In the next step, different scenarios in staggered line
well pattern as well as the effect of gas injection in
top layer or water injection in bottom layer are
examined (See Table-3 and Table-4)
Impact of Horizontal Well Length Variation
Figure-8 displays that when horizontal section
lengthens two times, the oil recovery factor
increases 43 percent in 2002. The more the
horizontal length the greater the drainage area so oil
recovery factor and cumulative oil increases
drastically. Further production causes further
pressure drop (see Figure-9). Figure-10 displays
water cut in longer well length is less than other
Cases. Length of horizontal well is proportional
with water breakthrough time; it means that in
longer horizontal length, water breakthrough is
delayed.
Impact of Anisotropy Variation
Figure-11 shows that the less the anisotropy is the
more fluid flow improves in vertical directions.
Now if anisotropy ratio keeps constant with
different values in vertical and horizontal directions
results display completely different graphs.
Comparison between Cases A-1-2 and A-4 (effects
of good permeability) is illustrated in Figure-12.
Impact of Porosity Variation
In Cases B-1, B-2 and B-3 porosity changed.
Figure-13 shows cumulative oil production trend
which supports the same results of water cut and
6 SPE 106659
average reservoir pressure.
Impact of Well Types
To evaluate the advantages of horizontal well,
performances of Cases C-1 and C-2 are compared.
In Case C-1, well 31 is horizontal and well 27 is
vertical. In Case C-2, well 31 is converted to a
vertical well. Figure-14 displays oil recovery factor
versus time. The amount of oil recovery factor is
55.76, 53.16 and 48 percent respectively in year
1998, 2000 and 2002. Water cut in these Cases is
shown in Figure-15. The drainage area in Case C-1
is greater than Case C-2 and average reservoir
pressure in Case C-2 is less than C-1 (see Figure-
16).
Table-4 summarize different well pattern with
different fluid types to highlight the impact of
horizontal well as a producer and as an injector
well. Those cases which are specified by capital
letter C have a gas injection well in the center.
Also, those scenarios specified with the capital
letter D have a water injection well. All Cases
consist of one injection and four producer wells and
only number of vertical and horizontal wells are
changed. Producer wells are completed in the
second layer and injection well is completed in top
layer in gas injection cases and bottom layer in
water injection cases.
In all Cases which have been studied initially only
wells number 31 and 27 exist, then at 2002 three
new hypothetical horizontal wells which are called
40 and 50 as producer with a central injection well
are added to the model.
Figure-17 displays gas injection Cases. Case C-3
shows extremely perfect result, because of five
horizontal well (four producer and one injection
well) in the well pattern. Horizontal injection well
injects gas in the top layer and pushes the oil toward
the second layer where horizontal producers are
located. As mentioned previously, horizontal
producer wells affect on maximum drainage area
and causes oil produce as much as possible.
Comparison between cases C-4 and C-3 shows
more than 100 percent decrease in the performance
after 20 years in C-4. In Case C-3 oil production
from four horizontal wells is fed by one horizontal
well whereas in C-4 one vertical injection well has
less power to push oil toward producer wells.
Consequently horizontal injection well can cause
more benefits e.g. further oil rate, less water cut,
higher oil recovery factor or higher cumulative oil
production and less pressure drawdown. Similar
approaches are achieved from horizontal producer
except that more pressure drop due to more
production. Figure-18 indicate that oil rate in C-3 is
the highest while C-4 goes down sharply because
one vertical injection well is not enough to
compensate production by four horizontal producer
wells. In other Cases such as C-6, C-7 and C-8
increasing oil rate indicate that injection is good
enough to improve oil rate.
In Figure-19 the most pressure drop is caused by
Case C-4, because production rate (from four
horizontal producer with a limit support by means
of vertical injection well) is high. In Case C-6,
injection well can cover producer’s support and
keep average reservoir pressure in a better situation
than the others.
Figures-20 shows water cut in gas injection Cases.
Water cut curve for C-4 increases drastically.
Producer wells lead to high oil production rate and
high oil production leads to early water
breakthrough so WOC has moved up faster. This
Case shows the least cumulative gas (see Figure-
21).
In water injection Cases, results display exactly the
same trends that were followed in gas injected
Cases.
Comparison between Gas and Water Injection
For comparison between gas and water injection
performance, C-3 and D-3, C-5 and D-5 cases have
been selected. Based of the results which are shown
in Figure-22 and Figure-23, in all Cases, gas
injection shows better performance compared with
water injection.
Conclusions
1-Both in gas and water injection projects, to
increase volumetric displacement efficiency,
horizontal well is recommended and of course other
parameters such as well length, amount of gas
injection and etc. must be optimized based on the
reservoir conditions.
2-Based on the results of this simulation study,
increasing porosity and decreasing anisotropy will
SPE 106659 7

improve horizontal well performances. 8. M.R, Islam “comprehensive physical and

numerical modeling of a horizontal well”, SPE
3-Using horizontal wells compared with
20627, September 1990.
conventional wells will cause less field pressure
drop and consequently less water coning. 9. L. Saputelli, “Modeling Of Horizontal Well And
4-In mature fields, due to larger drainage area of Lifting Mechanisms To Improve Ultimate
horizontal wells, oil flow rate may increase. Of Recovvery In A Depleted Field In Lake Maracaibo,
course, sector model simulation for optimizing well Venezuela”, SPE 30746, October 1995.
conditions must be performed before drilling.
5-For each reservoir conditions, there is an optimum
length of horizontal section which beyond that,
lengthen horizontal section of the well has no effect
on IOR.
Acknowledgments:
I would like to thank Dr.V.A.Sajjadian from R.I.P.I
for his help during this research.
References:
1.G. Palasthy, and V. Pipicz, and I.Munkacsi, et al
“Horizontal Wells in the Algyo Field, Hungary-
Evaluation of a Successful IOR Project”, SPE
39644, 1998
2. M. Greaves, S. R. Ren and T. X. Xia “New Air
Injection Technology for IOR Operations in
Light and Heavy Oil Reservoirs”, University of
Bath, England, SPE 57295, 2000.

3. P.L.McGuire, B.M.Holt, BP”Unconventional

Miscible EOR Experience at Prudhoe Bay: A
project Summary”, Spe 82140, 2003.
4. Zheng Hongyin and Zhang Peimao, “Improved
Oil Recovery of Edge and Bottom Water Reservoir
by Drilling Horizontal Sidetracks”, CNOOC
Research Center, SPE 64511, 2000.
5. A.K.Sarkar, P.S.Sarathi, And A.R.Strycker,
BDM-Oklahoma “Use of Horizontal Wells for
Improving Steam flood performance of a Thin,
Low-Permeability Heavy-Oilreservoir”, SPE/DOE
27806, 1994.
6. Hodaie, Homayoun, Bagci, A.S., Middle East
Technical University “Polymer-Augmented
waterflooding in a Reservoir with Bottom-water
zone”, SPE 25633, 1993.
7. M-M Chang, “Predicting Horizontal / Slanted
Well Production by Mathematical Modeling”, SPE
18854, March 1989.
8 SPE 106659

Table-1: Field study description Table-3: Specification of different cases

Grid system Case Length of horizontal Investigated parameters
3D Cartesian System section
A-1 1630
Total number of blocks 6450 Length of Horizontal
A-2 2445
X-Dimension (ft) 50∗230 well
A-3 3260
Y-Dimension (ft) 43∗ 160 Permeability
permeability
Z-Dimension (ft) 3∗(105,331,171) A-4 Kv = 111.6, Kh = 36.6
Reservoir properties Anisotropy
A-1-1 0.25
Initial pressure(psia) 5959 A-1-2 0.57 Anisotropy
Initial temperature(ºF) 225 A-1-3 1
Initial S0(%) 75 A-1-4 3
Rock properties Porosity
B-1 0.11
Porosity 0.137 Porosity
B-2 0.137
Kh (mD) 3.66 B-3 0.2
Kv (mD) 11.16 Well pattern Effect of Existing
Anisotropy 0.57 Horizontal Well-
C-1 Predicted result in 20
Fluid properties Undersaturated years in two well
Leng. Of hoz. section (ft) 1630.5 C-2 patterns

Table-2: Actual well specification Table-4: Specification of well pattern

Well Name 31 27 No. of No. of Fluid
Case Well Pattern Horizontal Vertical Injection
Well type Horizontal Vertical Well Well Type
TVD (ft) 10826.77 11195.86 C-3 Gas
5 0
Horizontal section 1630.5 0 D-3 Water
C-4 Gas
Depth 18 5/8 170 143 4 1
D-4 Water
of 13 3/8 5353 5490
C-5 Gas
casing 9 5/8 7696 7596 1 4
D-5 Water
Length of liner 7'' 3448 3809 C-6 Gas
2 3
D-6 Water
C-7 4 Gas
1
D-7 Water
C-8 Gas
0 5
D-8 water
SPE 106659 9

1.2
1
Kr(fraction)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Sw(fraction)

Figure -1: Water oil relative permeability curve Figure-4: Pressure match result

1.2
1
K r (fractio n )

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Sg (fraction)

Figure-2: Gas liquid relative permeability curve Figure-5: Cumulative oil in predicted result

Figure-6: Oil recovery factor in predicted result

Figure-3: Three dimensional view of Resevoir

10 SPE 106659

Figure-7: Pressure versus time in predicted result Figure-10: Water cut in Cases A-1, A-2 and A-3

Figure-8: Oil recovery factor in Cases A-1, A-2 and A-3 Figure-11: Cumulative oil in Cases A-1-1,A-1-2, A-1-3, A-1-4

Figure-9: Average reservoir pressure in Cases A-1, A-2 Figure-12: Oil recovery factor in Cases A-4, A-1-2
and A-3
SPE 106659 11

Figure-13: Cumulative oil in Cases B-1, B-2, B-3 Figure-16: Average reservoir pressure in Cases C-1, C-2

Figure-14: Oil recovery factor in Cases C-1, C-2 Figure-17: Oil recovery factor in gas injection cases

Figure-15: Water cut in Cases C-1, C-2 Figure-18: Oil rate in gas injection cases
12 SPE 106659

Figure-19: Average reservoir pressure in gas injection Figure-22: Average reservoir pressure in Cases C-5 and
cases D-5

Figure-20: Water cut in gas injection cases Figure-23: Average reservoir pressure in Cases C-3 and
D-3

Figure-21: Cumulative gas in gas injection cases