Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa – Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July–7 August 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE
copyright.
technology has been applied successfully in the Umm project therefore, has a strategic fit for Domestic Gas
Gudair Field in Kuwait and some fields in Libya and Supply to meet Nigeria’s Energy demand.
Bolivia. The Egbema West pilot dump flood scheme
commenced injection in September 1997 and it was used Egbema West ‘D’ Reservoir History
to evaluate the viability of the natural dump flood as a The ‘D’ reservoir production was initially as high as
means of pressure maintenance in the Egbema West 32Mbopd from 15 drainage points as at 1974 however;
sandstone reservoir located in the Niger Delta This pilot reservoir pressure declined rapidly from 3452 t0 2650
was carried out by sidetracking an existing Egbema West psig. Analyses of production data showed that the
Well P1, located on the Western part of the reservoir. reservoir has weak aquifer support. The reservoir also has
Further pressure decline has been arrested as surveys a primary gas cap that began to expand at the onset of
taken in 2009 showed an 8 Psi increase after 12 years of pressure decline, leading to HGOR recorded in some
steady withdrawal. Also, cumulative oil production over wells. The wells were shut for 5 years to conserve energy
same period was 33% above prediction without dump and allow the gas cap to recede. Individual well
flood support. recoveries prior to reservoir shut in can be correlated with
sand quality distribution in the reservoir as illustrated by
the red bubbles on the Net Pore Volume Map, Figure1.
Analyses of the pilot dumpflood scheme in combination Sand quality deteriorates from North to the South West.
with 35 years of historical data have been incorporated in Understanding this is key to successful dump flooding.
modelling full field dumpflood prospects. Shallower B Figure 2 shows the production and pressure profiles of the
sands source reservoir at about 4000ftss is at hydrostatic ‘D’ reservoir. The red line is the oil rate, the green is
pressure, while the target reservoir at about 8000ftss was GOR, blue line is the water cut and dotted points are the
initially hydrostatic but has depleted by 800 psi. The pressure data from the wells in the reservoir. Since initial
pressure and gravity differential will allow water to fall shut in during 1981, further production from the reservoir
from the source to target reservoir to maintain pressure has been reduced to maintain the voidage replacement
and sweep the oil to currently producing and closed in oil from weak aquifer in order to keep the reservoir pressure
wells that will be re-opened. at 2650 psig and prevent further shrinkage losses. The
pilot dumpflood supports the reservoir at the current
production rate of 3 Mbopd from 2 wells.
20. 90 170
18. 160
Cumulative Well Recoveries, MMstb
80
Ultimate Recovery
16. 150
70
14. Cum Well Recoveries 140
60
4. 20 80
NFD Open 6 wells Open 6+1 wells Open 6+2 wells
2. 10
0. 0
F1 F2 C1 F3 F5 P2 P3 F4 F6 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Wells Figure 8: Well Count Creaming curve
Figure 6: Oil recoveries comparison for well screening
Oil Well Type and Count Sensitivities. Conventional
and horizontal well types were evaluated to test the infill
well type that would efficiently drain the remaining oil on
the eastern flank of the reservoir. The comparison of
recoveries and cost of the horizontal and vertical wells are
shown in Figure 7. Conventional well is recommended for
further oil development on the eastern flank of the
reservoir.
V e rtical V s Horizontal w e ll
25.0
We ll Re co v e ry, M M stb
20.0
We ll Co st, $M ln Figure 9: ‘D’ Top Structure Map showing wells and incised
Channel
Well Recoveries and Cost
15.0
10.0
Performance Prediction
Lift tables covering the expected range of operating
5.0
conditions for 3 ½” and 4 ½” tubings, were generated and
- used in dynamic simulation model. The parameters
Vertical W ell Horizontal W ell
considered in generating the well models include the
flowing tubing head pressure (FTHP), GOR, water cut
Figure 7: Comparison between Conventional and and rates and ranges were set to cover the observed and
Horizontal Wells anticipated ranges in the reservoir.
The impact of well count on the performance of target
reservoir was evaluated. The development options Dumpflood Performance Prediction
considered include: New dumpflood wells were located optimally on the
reservoir periphery to inject at the aquifer leg in the
• No futher development (NFA) aquifer influx direction for good sweep. The wells are
• Open 6 well shut-in wells expected to commence dumping water ahead of re-
• Open 6 well shut-in wells + 1 new oil opening of oil wells to create fill-up. The wells were
• Open 6 well shut-in wells + 2 new oil adequately constrained in the model to generate forecasts
for the ‘D’ reservoir. Simulation results show oil
Results show a marginal increase in UR beyond opening production from the reservoir will increase by a factor of
6 wells + 1 new well count. Going from one new well 4. A 62% recovery factor is expected from prediction and
count to two new wells gives only a 1% incremental UR. the incremental production profiles are shown in Figure
The well-count creaming curve for the ‘D’ reservoir is 10. The 3D fluid saturation distribution in Figure 11
shown in Figure 8. illustrates the oil sweep at the start and end of prediction.
Subsurface Uncertainties were also tested to establish
impact on hydrocarbon in-place and recoverable volumes.
The results are shown on Table 3.
6 C.O. Osharode, F. Kareem, G. Erivona, M. Nnadi SPE 140634