Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 25530

Dukhan Field (Onshore Qatar) Uwainat Reservoir Optimum

Development Scheme '
Ahmed Hussain, Qatar General Petroleum Corp.
SPE Member

Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Bahrain, 3-6 Aprii 1993.

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 althe Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may nOl be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by Whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT to be more favourable than crestal gas

injection giving the highest practical
This paper is a case study that discusses recovery.
evaluation approac11 used in determining the
development scenario for the Uwainat Finally, the history-matched full field
Reservoir in the Dukhan Field in Qatar. model was used for predicting reservoir
Reservoir simulations performed in support of performance at various withdrawal rates.
the project evaluation are presented and Three development scenarios were studied with
results are reviewed. plateau rates of 10,000, 15,000 and
20 000 BOPD. A field development plan on the
'J'lJe simulation stUdy was conducted in two ba~is of 15,000 BID plateau production rate
distinct phases. During the first phase, a appears to be the optimal development
3D lull field model was constructed and the scenario.
production history of the Uwainat Reservoir
was matched in order to estimate a number of 1. INTRODUCTION
reservoir parameters. The second phase of
the study consisted of several 2D cross- 1.1 Reservoir Description and Production,
sectjonal models to evaluate the reservoir History
performances under various exploitation
schemes using the history-matched reservoir The Uwainat reservoir lies in the Jurassic
description. Once the most favourable Araej Formation at an average depth of 7050
recovery mechani.sm was identified from the feet SS in the Oukhan Field in the state of
results of the cross-sectional stUdy, Qatar (Figure 1). The structure is about 17
several prediction runs were made using the kms long at the OWC by a maximum of 4 kms
above history matched 3D full field model to wide. It consists of about 180 feet of
determine a number of production forecasts pelletal crystalline compact limestone which
based on selected reservoir development is moderately permeable in the middle section
strategies. but with almost no permeability and low
porosity in the bottom 40 feet. The upper
7'lJe 3D FFM was his Lory-matched through 140 feet has a porosity of 18% and
January 1990. Satj,sfactory matches were permeability of 15 md.
obtained both 011 a field and I.,ell basis with
relatively limited refinements to the initial The reservoir contains a relatively thin
reservoir data. The history match indicated saturated oil rim overlain by a gas cap. The
the likely presence of two partially sealing original gas oil contact was at 6940 feet SS
faults dividing the reservoir in three and the original oil-water contact at 7250
separate block''S, a moderately active aquifer feet SS. The oil is approximately 38.0 API
and gave an estimation Qf Kv values across gravity, containing 150-300 ppm H2 S and 0.8%
the stylol.itic intervals which control the SUlphur. The reservoir is geologically
reservoir layering. The resul ts of the divided i~to eight facies layers (A to H)
cross-sectional stUdy indicated reservoir separated by seven main thin dense stylolitic
performances to be influenced by intervals as presented in Figure 2. Three of
heterogeneity and completion practices, and these layers are again divided into two
confirmed peripheral water injection scheme sublayers (C1, C2, 01, 02, H1 & H2).

169
SPE25530 AHM:ED HUSSAIN 2

stylolitisation was the most significant validity of the Core Lab study results
diagenetic process affecting the Uwainat because of the very coarse gridded 2D areal
sediments. This involved the development of model that was used and because of the rather
20 laterally extensive stylolite cementation simplified geological model.
zones (Sl- S20) dividing Uwainat into 20
porous sUblayers fieldwide. For the purpose 1.3 Present study-Background and obiectives
of reservoir modelling, the reservoir
description has been vertically integrated since the Core Lab Study, the reservoir
into 15 geological layers based on the description has changed significantly:
stylolites and permeability values.
Heterogeneity occurs throughout the reservoir Recent geological study have shown the
with presence of thin high permeability reservoir to be highly stratified with
steaks caused by extensive leaching. The presence of highly permeable streaks and
best quality rock lies between stylolite tight thin stylolite beds
zones S3 - S12" They contain a higher which are laterally
proportion of grainstone & packstones with extensive.
porosities of 10-20% & permeabilities of 10-
100 md. The STOIIP is estimated at 557 MMSTB Preliminary seismic interpretation and
and the FGIIP (gas cap gas) is assumed to be analysis of pressure data (BHCIP, RFT)
502 BCF (Reference 4) yielding a m value indicated presence of faults dividing
(ratio of FGIIP to STOIIP at initial the reservoir into as many as 8 seperate
reservoir conditions) of 0.5. fault blocks. Some of the faults could
be partially sealing.
oil production from the Uwainat reservoir
started in early 1955 with the completion of After the Core Lab study, 30 or more new
Well Dk.43, but in 1956 the well was shut in wells have been drilled in or across the
until it produced briefly during 1962. Uwainat. To date 57 wells have
sustained oil production started in 1960 and penetrated the Uwainat out of which 24
stopped in 1975. Since 1975, only sporadic wells are cored in the Uwainat.
production has occurred and to date (1.1.91)
the cumulative oil production is around 28 Wells drilled in the Fahahil structure
MMSTB, representing some 5% of the STOIIP. has shown to be seperate and gas
The production/ pressure decline behaviour of bearing. Core Lab map used Fahahil as
the reservoir is shown graphically in Figure oil bearing.
3. As part of the plan to develop the
Uwainat, eight oil producers, one gas The map has changed and so are STOIIP &
producer and seven water injectors were FGIIP figures.
drilled during the period August 1980 to May
1983. Table 1 presents relevant reservoir As a result, lot of new data (production,
and production data. Since 1989, a pOlicy has press. RFT, TOT) are available. They can be
been adopted to resume production under used to make reliable prediction of reservoir
natural depletion at a very low rate until a performance. The above geological features
suitable secondary recovery scheme is adopted e.g. the degree of stratification and the
based on results of the in-house simulation presence of faults, if sealing, will have a
study. significant effect on the reservoir
performance in terms of vertical sweep and
1.2 Previous Reservoir studies and areal sweep efficiencies. In turn, these
Development Planning will have consequences on production pol~cy
and hence development plan.
The first full field model study where long
term production profiles were predicted by a In view of the doubts existing on the results
20 areal (one layer) model developed from of the previous study and the changed
history-matching, was performed during 1980 reservoir description, it was felt necessary
by Core Lab (Re~erence 1). No geological to initiate a study to determine the
layering was used since no geological study development strategy for the Uwainat
was conducted at that time. The reservoir reservoir. Given the heterogeneous nature of
was arbitrarily divided into 3 layers for the reservoir, the reservoir should be first
volumetric calculations of fluids in place. produced by natural depletion in order to
The model obtained coarse field pressure extract as much oil as possible from the
match, no GOR match was possible. Model GOR tight zones which constitute a significant
was higher. A recovery factor of 23% was part of the reservoir. The study should
predicted by water flood. As per therefore make recommendations concerning the
recommendations of the study it was planned length of the depletion period and the
to produce 10,000 STB/D from the Uwainat reservoir production rate. It should then
after powered water injection (PWI) becomes determine the selected secondary recovery
available for the seven water injectors. The scheme to be applied after the depletion
reservoir description used in the. model was period and the corresponding production rate.
poor and unrepresentative. Only seven well The well development should be designed in
core data were available, vertical and areal such a way that the existing development
effects e.g. presence of stylolites, high wells are well utilised and the additional
permeability streaks and likely faults were number of wells to be drilled for both
not correctly modelled. Doubt exists on the depletion and flooding periods is kept

170
 3
SPE25530 AHMED HUSSAIN

minimal. It should also take the fault outside consultants. These are mentioned
pattern into aocount. under the list of References. They form the
bulk of the Data-Base considered in the
1.4 Scope of Work present model. The purpose of this section
1S to describe the static reservoir data
It includes the following: required for input in the model. Relevant
dynamic data is discussed under section 3 in
1. Construction of a 3D full field conjunction with the model description.
simulation model with all the available data 2.2 Geological setting
(geology and reservoir) including the results
of the seismic data. The model should be 2.2.1 Source of Data
tuned to match all the well production data
and the RFT and BHCIP pressures taken during The layering used in this study was derived
the field history. The purpose of this first from the QGPC in-house sedimentology study
step is to obtain approximate values of the (Reference 2).
average vertical peremeability (K v ) across
the stylolitic intervals and the average 2.2.2 Overview of the Reservoir Layering
horizontal permeability (Kh ) at the field Scheme
scale, by varying both parameters until we
obtain the best match. It is also to verify Reservoir,Layering Scheme is designed to show·
the new STOIIP and FGIIP figures and estimate the degree of consistency occurring within a
the aquifer support. particular reservoir so reservoir models can
be constructed. While facies analysis clearly
2. Construction of 2-D cross-section explains the vertical change in Depositional
simulation models to study the vertical sweep Environments, the Facies units alone cannot
efficiency at various points of the reservoir be used to accurately model the extreme
when the latter is submitted to either variations in permeability which occur in the
crestal gas injection or peripheral water reservoir.
injection. This work will also be helpful to
define the optimum layering for the final Three Separate Layering Scheme? have been
full field model. developed as illustrated in Figure 2.

3. Predictions of reservoir performance i) Facies Layering (Sedimentological Model)

under the most favourable recovery scheme
based on the results of steps I & 2. ii) Geological Layering (Stylolites,
Pressure Match Model)
1.5 Format of the Report
iii) High Permeability Layering (Cross-
since the report consists of two seperate section model).
modelling studies (full field and cross-
sectional), they are presented in two parts The broadest division is Facies Layering.
namely A & B. Part A describes the full They are subdivided on the position of
field model consisting of both history match stylolite zones to give Geological Layering
and prediction runs. It describes ihe data- (Sl-S20) within each geological layer, high
base, geological model, construction of permeability layer may occur, they are given
models used in the full field model study a separate designation (K 1 - K10 ) .
followed by complete details of the history-
matching process undertaken. Within Part A,
the details of the prediction runs are 2.2.2.1 Facies Layering
presented under a seperate chapter.
Facies layers are laterally and vertically
Similarly, Part B provides a complete persistent, and are designated A (top) to H
description of the cross-sectional study in (base) - a total of 8 main layers. Within
its entirety. each layer or sub~layer lithology is
consistent, but there may be more than one
Both Part A & Part B contain all the major porous unit separated by tight stylolite
facts which emerged from each of these cementation zones. Sub-layers Cl ' 0 1 and
seperate studies and can be read in Layer F are the best reservoir units while
isolation. Layer H has the lowest porosity and
permeability.
PART A - FULL FIELD MODEL (FFM) STUDY
2.2.2.2. Geological Layering
2. REVIEW OF DATA
The 20 porous cycles separated by fieldwide,
2.1 Introduction very low permeability «O.lmD) stylolite
cementatio~ zones (Sl-S20)' form the basis of
Prior to the building of the 3-D full field the geolog1cal layer1ng. It is the position
model (FFM) for history-matching a thorough of these stylolite zones which defines the
review of the existing reservoir data was geological layer boundaries for the full
carried out. Most of the initial data for field, history match model. The average
the study was obtained from a series of poros1ty (from logs) and horizont~l
studies conducted in-house and through permeability (from cores) were calculated for

171
SPE25530 AHMED IWSSAIN 4

the layers in each well. Fifteen layers were were digitised to generate a file with values
defined for 'the model based upon the of porosity & thickness for each of the grid
stylolites, and permeability values. The pells and transferred to ECLIPSE input data
porous units in the lower part of the file.
reservoir, below the S14 stylolite, were
grouped together due to the consistent, 2.5 Horizontal Permeabilities (K h ) & Mapping
extremely low permeabilities whi~h occur in
this interval. All the permeability data available was from
routine core analysis. No statistical method
2.2.2.3 High Permeability Layers (For Cross- (i.e. poro-perm transforms) was used because
section Models) most of the wells had 100% core recovery.
Hence no. relationship between core derived
The presence of high permeability streaks permeability & porosity were attempted. Each
along with 1:he low permeability layers need well control provided layer averaged Kh
to be modelled accurately to evaluate values which were used for permeability
vertical sweep. The Cross-section layering mapping by ZYCOR for each of the model layers
scheme was devised to model different rock covering the total field.
types within the reservoir which are defined
by their porosity and permeability 2.6 Aquifer Properties
characteristics. six rock types were
identified. Most of these high permeability The method of contouring used in section 2.5
layers are thin (1-2 ft. in thickness) and in tends to give reasonably accurate values of
terms of vertical sweep efficiency. their permeability when interpolation between
impact could be significant. It has been control wells is made. However, in the case
possible to correlate 10 of these thin high of the aquifer, there is great uncertainty
permeability layers field-wide. Therefore, attached to the results because of
these high permeability layers were extrapolation procedure and possible
considered in the layering scheme for the deterioration in rock quality near the OWC
cross-section study (Part B of the report). due to diagenesis. Hence the aquifer
properties were regarded, from the outset, at
2.2.2.4. The Final Layering Scheme for the best a history matching parameter.
Full Field Model
2.7 Well Test Permeabilities
It is unrealistic from a reservoir
engineering standpoint to further subdivide :Very few well test results are available.
the proposed geological layers which will Those available were reviewed and
result in an extremely large number of cells relationships between the two parameters were
in the model. In order to keep total number established and used to modify well core Kh
of layers to an acceptable level, some of the where applicable. However, no field-wide
high permeability layers which were closely attempts at crossplotting core & test
spaced and occurred within the same porous permeabilities were made because of scarcity
unit (i.e. geological layer) were grouped of data.
together into single layers. Therefore, the
full field model consists of 15 layers; model ;2.8 Vertical Permeability (K v )
layers corresponding one-for-one with those
of the geological layering. This ensures Kv is one of the least known parameters
modelling of the consistent, laterally required for the model especially at the
extensive, low permeability stylolite reservoir' scale. Its estimation is of
cementation zone while historymatching paramount importance to accurately model
reservoir performance, since Kv across the stylolitic barriers between the producing
stylolites is one of the most important layers. K v values were available from very
historymatch parameters. few we~l~ ~nd they indicate Kv := Kh at high
permeab1l1t1es. However, most plugs selected
2.3 Top Structure Map in the laboratory for testing are often taken
from the cleanest & most uniform portions of
The structural top map was prepared in-house the core, thus measurements avoid stylolites
using ZYCOR mapping package. Forty one well & other discontinuities. Secondly, the
control.points were used to prepnre the map, sample volume is small compared to the actual
which was based on a 1:50,000 scale. reservoir when vertical flow over a
2.4 porosity & Isopach reasonable distance tends to be interrupted
by geologic vertical restrictions in the
Porosity & isopach maps were created for each l form of stylolites, anhydrite sheets which
of the 15 geological layers. The data tend to reduce effective vertical
included porosity data, averaged by the above permeability below that indicated by the
geological layers, along-with its. thickness routine core analysis. Therefore, laboratory
for each of the control wells. The data to measurements do not reflect macroscopic
be mapped was obtained from the QGPC features such as fractures etC. Consequently
Petrophysical study. Using the grid system Ky was regarded as one of the key parameters
described under section 3.2.1, porosity & for history-matching the reservoir
thickness maps were constructed by inputting performance. In fact, one of the main
the well control points (from 35 wells) objectives of the present study is to
directly to ZYCOR programme. Then these maps estimate Kv by history match.

172
SPE25530 AHMED HUSSAIN 5

2.9 Special Core Analysis (SCAL)

2.9.1 Relative Permeability Data
SCAL data for the Uwainat formation was
available on 4 wells (Reference 3). There are
2 groups of SCAL. The first group made by
Francorelab in 1964 concerns samples from
Dk.40-43-68, the second made by Corelab in
1980 concerns samples from DkG.19. As all
the SCAL were performed on restored cores and
the experimental conditions were not the same
in 1964 and in 1980, the results have been
different for the 2 groups. The connate
water saturations (Swi) and the residual oil
saturation after water flood (Sorw) show a
very important scattering in the 2 groups of
SCAL. They must be determined from accurate
log interpretation and from other new SCAL in
the future wells. SCAL should be performed
on fresh (preserved) cores. There are not
enough data to make any statistical study on
the SCAL. SCAL was performed on only 11
samples for oil/water relative permeability
and only 6 samples for gas/oil relative
permeability (in presence of connate water
saturation) .
3.MODEL CONSTRUCTION AND INITIALISATION
3.1 Introduction
This section deals with work which was done
especially for the construction of 3-D model
rather than compilation of data reviewed in
the previous section.
3.2 Model Dimensions
3.2.1 Areal Grid Design
The grid sizing was selected to match
correctly reservoir characteristics primarily
in the producing area which covers the
central Khatiyah South sector. The grid size
chosen are variable with smaller grids around
the gas cap boundary to monitor the gas cap
expansion towards the producing wells. The
final grid size was 25 x 9 grid blocks (total
225) witH block sizes varying between a
minimum of 1496 ft and a maximum of 4488 ft
(See Figure 5).
3.2.2 vertical Grid Design (Layering)

2.9.2 Capillary Pressure Data The design of the vertica.l grid was based on
established geological & petrophysical
Some mercury-injection capillary pressure models. The geologists identified 15 layers
tests were performed on cores from one well within the Uwainat formation and this
(Dk.40) in the early days. Results were layering was kept intact in the present full
either questionable or tests were not run to field model (See section 2.2). with the
high enough capillary pressures (Reference areal gridding described in Figure 5, the
1). Laboratory Pc data on the Uwainat is too size of this 3-D reservoir model is 3375
limited to be of much value, as the number of cells (25 x 9 x 15).
samples are too few to provide data in all
areas of interest. Therefore, until further 3.3 Rock Types & Saturation Functions
SCAL is available, log derived water
saturation data are considered adequate. In light of the heterogeneous rock and
saturation data a major problem in the study
2.10 ZYCOR - STOIIP & GIIP Calculations was the derivation of the saturation
functions (relative permeability and
The calculations of reservoir vOlumetrics was capillary pressure tables). Hence, a
carried out by the Geology section. The physically consistent method had to be
reservoir has been divided into 3375 cells; formulated in order to inc(~porate these
225 map grid cells x 15 layers. Values for properties in the saturation functions. Based
tops, thicknesses, porosities for all 15 on saturation profiles, the model layers were
layers have been calculated at the centre of divided into three saturation groups (or rock
each cell, using back interpolation from types) which are described below.
ZYCOR grids previously created. Initial water
saturation values in terms of height above 3.3.1 capillary Pressure
the OWC were estimated from log-derived SW vs
height curves. The total STOIIP and FGIIP In the absence of any meaningful laboratory
(gas cap) were estimated to be 557 MMSTB and capillary Pressure data (see Section 2.9),
502 BCF respectively (Reference 4). the petrophysical results (Sw vs height
relationship) were analysed and curve fitted
2.11 Reservoir Fluid Properties to data by saturation function groups. The
curve fitting resulted in three distinct
A limited number of bottom hole PVT samples saturation groups I, II & III. The group I
collected from six wells covering a depth represents layers 1 to 12, group II layers 13
span of 7100 to 7200 ft ss were available for & 14 and group III layer 15 only. Water
the PVT study (Reference 6). There is some saturations are input into the model in the
evidence of variation of bubble point, form of drainage capillary pressure curves.
however enough samples were not available to Such curves were derived from the log data
obtain a reasonable relationship of bubble for the three saturation groups covering the
point vs depth. Figure 4 depicts the initial fifteen layers of the model. Similarly, gas
fluid pressure regime giving an initial saturations were also input using gas-oil
reservoir pressure of 3536 psig at 7050 ft ss capillary pressure curves corresponding to
(datum level). The saturation pressure at the above saturation groups.
the OGOC (6940 ft ss) is 3506 psig.

173
SPE25530 AHMED HUSSAIN 6

3.3.2 Relative Permeabilities It was necessary in some layers to match the

actual volumetric figures by applying pore-
Prior to the history-matching phase, an volume mUltipliers to those layers. It was
exercise was undertaken to produce relative possible, with little adjustment, to conserve
permeability curves for use in the models. the oil-in-place figure calculated by
This consisted of a review of the few volumetric in the model. Similar adjustments
available laboratory data and production of were utilized to match gas cap volume in
averaged curves by normalisation. order to preserve the m factor of 0.5. These
modifications resulted in the following model
3.3.3 Averaging of Waterflood Data HCIIPS:
Initial review of the test data revealed STOIIP = 520.29 MMSTB
significant variations in Sorw and end point FGIIP (gas cap) = 501.96 BCF
Krw between core plugs of the same rock type. m factor = 0.497
In order to utilize this data in simulation
study, the individual test results were 3.6 Adoption of Geological & PVT Data To
normalised (Heference 3). Taking into account Eclipse
lack of sUfficient representative data by
area or by layers it was decided to establish 3.6.1 Modelling of Faults
a best fit trend line through the normalised
data to apply to all parts of the reservoir. The faults included in the ECLIPSE 3-D
The resultant average normalised curve for simulations are taken from the geological
the oil-water relative permeability gata is map. Based on early 2-D seismic and RFT
shown in Figure 6. pressure analysis (Reference 7), as many as
eight fault blocks could be identified.
Gas Flood Data: As mentioned earlier, very These are depicted in Figure 8 and these
few tests on gas-oil relative permeability faults have been transferred to the ECLIPSE
data were available. This data was grid by as closely matching the outlines of
normalised and averaged in order to provide the faults with the grid edges as possible.
input data for ECLIPSE (See Figure 7). The The results are shown in Figure 9. The
normalised relative permeability data were rather large grid sizes do not allow matching
denormalised into 3 relative permeability of these outlines any easier. The degree of
tables representing the 3 saturation groups. fault sealing is unknown, however, it is
This way 3 rock types were each allocated an likely that north-south faults could be non-
individual set of saturation functions sealing due to stretching, while east-west
(capillary pressure & relative permeability). trending faults could be partially sealing
Corresponding rock relative permeability due to compression. Based on pressure
functions for each rock type (saturation measurements (BHCIP & RFT), it was decided to
group) are presented in Table 2 alongwith model, at the first instance, those fault
respective end points. blocks showing higher pressure differentials
across the assumed fault boundaries.
3.4 Treatment of Relative Permeability Data Transmissibility across the fault boundaries
in The Transition Zone (between fault blocks) were controlled by
Preliminary runs of the history-match model using transmissibility multipliers which were
showed anomalous water production from day one of the history- match parameters.
one when field history indicated virtually no
water production 'even after 15 years of 3.6.2 PVT Data
production. This problem was related to
unscaled relative permeability data because PVT data has to be somewhat modified to a
cells in the transition zone having form acceptable to input data file. Table 3
saturation in excess of swirr were producing describes the fluid data used in the model in
water, while tests showed no water the format required by ECLIPSE.
production. As a consequence, it is
necessary to rescale the end points of the 4. HISTORY MATCHING
relative permeability curves so that water
saturation in excess of critical saturation 4.1 Overview
only is mobile. Most simulators have end-
point scaling options to accomplish this one Once the full field model (FFM) has been
way or other. initialised, it was then tuned to match all
the well production data and the RFT and
3.5 conservat~on of oil-in-Place BHCIP pressures taken during the field
history. The purpose of this first step is to
It was felt important to run a number of obtain approximate values of the average
checks on the quality of the data input in vertical permeability (K v ) across the
the model. Chief of these was the stylolitic intervals and the average
verification of oil-in-place figures by horizontal permeability (K h ) at the field
layer. Model STOIIP were initialised by scale, by varying both parameters until we
layers. Hydrocarbon pore volumes were obtain the best match. It is also to verify
computed for each layer in the simulation the new STOIIP and FGIIP figures and estimate
model; these values were then compared with the aquifer support. The Uwainat full field
the volumes calculated using ZYCOR package. model (FFM) was history-matched through
January 1989 and calibrated to duplicate

174
SPE25530 AHMED HUSSAIN 7

field and well performances. satisfactory 4.3.3 WCUT/GOR Data

matches were obtained both on a field and
well basis. The main areas where revisions to Field water cut measurements are less
the initial model parameters were required to frequent, in any case no appreciable water
obtain a match were: production is recorded. While a number of
GOR measurements are reported with lesser
1. vertical permeability (Kv) frequency over the later producing years.
2. Aquifer influx/size
3. Transmissibility across the fault blocks 4.4 Matching parameters
4. Some adjustments of horizontal
permeability (K h ) to match DST-Kh in It is desirable to achieve a match by the
some wells. alteration of a few variables as possible.
In this study, substantial changes were made
4.2 Model Wells to KV, aquifer function and
transmissibilities across fault boundaries.
During the match of the natural. depletion This is justified since these values are
period, a total of 20 wells were incorporated largely unknown. In the case of horizontal
into the model (See Figure 9). The method perm, localized adjustments are backed up ,by
used to jUdge a history match was to force available well test data (Dk.66). A br1ef
the model to duplicate production/ pressure/ discussion of the key reservoir parameters
phase history of the above wells and compare and their subsequent modifications towards
simulated pressures, GORs, watercuts etc. achieving a reasonable history-match of the
with the reported values from these. wells. Uwainat reservoir are pres~nted below:
Table 4 presents a summary of model
initialisation data and history match data. 4.4.1 vertical permeability (Kv)
4.3 History Match Data Review The degree of communication between layers is
of utmost importance in this study and for
This section briefly reviews the field data- future development plan. Since Kv is not a
base used during the history-match run and measurable quantity at field-scale, the model
how field data and model results are was initialised with the best-guessed values
compared. They form the key parameters to of Kv and then refine the initial value by
which the model results are finally tuned to. history match. Final values of Kv ranging
between 0.01 & 0.1 md were .used in the model
4.3.1 production History Data representing poor to moderate communication
across the stylolitic barriers.
The quantity of fluids extracted from the
reservoir are listed on PEPS data-base 4.4.2 Aquifer Parameters
system. This contains monthly records ~f
oil, gas & water produced. This data is 4.4.2.1 Aquifer size & Distribution
accurate in general. It was decided to
honour this data by inputting it to the model The aquifer size and activity are one of the
on a monthly basis. Well completions honour least known of the factors in the model. For
the records of recompletions. The the purpose of this study it is assumed to be
specifications of wells is quite simple finite & of weak to moderate strength. This
during the historical phase. It is necessary is not a critical assumption as has been
to specify only the layers open to flow & verified during the history-matching phase.
well production profiles where applicable. It is also borne out by the M.B. calculations
Well PIs, lift curves are only relevant to & the fact that the field pressure rose only
the prediction phase of the study. 50 psi after 15 years of shut-in period &
never reached the original pressure.
4.3.2 Pressure Data (BHCIPs & RFTsl
4.4.2.2 The Aquifer Influx Function
The best data in the field are the large
volume of BHCIP measurements taken on all Since the Felkovitch method of calculating
production & observation wells and the runs water influx was used, the aquifer
made during the RFT programme conducted in productivity index remains the key parameter
the 1979-1981 period. In addition, some for modelling influx into the reservoir. As
wells have PBU data. Therefore, the great a first estimate, the aquifer strength was
majority of data is from BHCIPs. However, RFT set to Kh value of 2000 md ft in the water
pressure measurements were available only leg based on core analysis results of wells
from 11 later wells namely Dk.194, 198, 199, Dk.199, Dk.202 drilled as injectors.
202, 204, 216, 236, 276, G19, G21 & G24. For
comparing model pressure data with observed 4.4.3 Horizontal Permeabilities
BHCIPs, it was assumed that the 24 hour BHCIP
can reasonably approximate the average Local permeability change measurements in
pressure of the model at the same time. Dk.66 based on initial PI was also made to
Therefore, for pressure match, the block assist in the fine tuning of the GOR match in
pressures containing the most permeable layer Dk.66 & enhancing productivity rates. These
of the well were matched against measured changes were made to reflect core & well test
BHCIPs. permeability relationship.

.. 7""
SPE 25530 AHMED HUSSAIN 8

4.4.4 Relative Permeabilities b) Late Pressure Match

It was intended that the matching would be During the subsequent shut-in period (1975-
conducted without altering the relative 1989) the average field pressure rose some 40
permeability data. psi. This rise was reasonably matched
without further altering the aquifer
4.4.5 Transition Zone Effects parameters. The resultant pressure match is
shown in Figure 10. The simulated pressure
As discussed under section 3.4, dry oil levels are within reasonable bounds of the
production from most of the producers was observed data, in view of the fact that
matched by adjustment of end points of the pressure match is quite difficult for
relative permeability curves using end point reservoir connected to an active aquifer.
scaling option of the ECLIPSE (Reference 8). Typically aquifer influx constant affect the
early time pressure performance while the
4.5 history Matching size of the aquifer has an impact on the
later pressure.
It is not only necessary to match production,
pressures GOR and watercut in 7 wells (Dk.40, 4.5.2.2 Individual Well Pressure Match
43, 48, 66, 67, 68 &69) that were drilled in
the Uwainat before 1975, but alsv the RFT a) Datum Pressures (BHCIPs)
pressures obtained in new wells Dk.194, 198,
199, 202, 204, 216, 276, 290, G.19 & G24 As discussed earlier, this basically involves
wells drilled later (1980-19831 and matching well BHCIPs at datum to the
saturations obtained from logs in the new individual well gridblock pressure corrected
wells, e.g. high gas sat. seen in TDT from to datum conditions. Adequate pressure match
Dk.204. In addition, pressure match in shut- were obtained for 12 wells namely Dk.48 67
in wells Dk.194, 198, 199, 202, 204, 205, 68, 194, 198, 199, 204, 285, 216, 286, 287 &
216, 286, 287, 290 & Dk.48. Having assigned 290. These wells have BHCIP measurement for
the reported monthly oil and gas rates to the at least five years or more. Figures 11
producers the model was depleted over the shows the comparison between model predicted
period 30.3.60 to 1.1.89. Discussed below pressures and the observed pressures for well
are the steps taken to match the history over DK 194 (producer). Most of the BHeIP points
the 29 year depletion period and the results; fallon both sides of the predicted pressures
within a 20-30 psi band. The match is
4.5.1 primary Product Match satisfactory in the context of the data
accuracy.
The first goal of the model was to produce
exactly the fluids withdrawal reported from b) RFT Pressure Match
production data. This was achieved with no
problems for Dk.66, Dk.68 & Dk.69. Only the The RFT data may be interpreted on an
permeabilities around Dk.48 were enhanced by individual (local) or field-wide (global)
a factor of 2 to lift correct amount of fluid basis. If the pressures are considered on a
as the well could not produce its maximum global basis, 'inferences about field-wide
recorded rate of 41 MMscf/d even at the pressure regimes (compartments etc.) may be
~rawn. ,Itldividually they give qualitative
minimum FBHP used in the model.
~nf~~~~t~on about the vertical permeability
4.5.2 Pressure Match around well by the amount of differential
depletion deduced from the pressure gradient
The second goal of the model was to obtain an profile.
adequate match of pressures (BHCIPs and RFTs)
both at field level and well level. The c) Average Pressure Match
pressure match tolerance was aimed at +1% of
the measured value. - Excellent. RFT pressure match with the
simulated closed-in pressures were obtained
4.5.2.1 Global Pressure Match for the wells located in the main producing
area south of the gas cap. This was achieved
For average field pressure match the by modifying transmissibilities across the
simulated pressure is plotted against the faults as described under section 4.5.6
arithmetic average of the well closed in (modelling of faults). As discussed earlier,
pressures. only two fault blocks were initially modelled
as their presence are sUfficiently borne out
a) Early Pressure Match by the pressure difference observed in wells
G19, G21 & Dk.276. Figure 12 (final match)
The field was produced from 1960 to 1975 & shows the comparison between model predicted
then shut in for next 15 years. During the pressures and the observed RFT pressures in
early period (1960-1975) the average reserve the wells. For the main producing area,
pressure dropped 180 psi for a total oil pressure match is within ±20 psi. Some of
production of 27 MMSTB or 5% of the STOIIP. the discrepancies are due to poor depth
The average field pressure level was Icontrol in the model (some model wells are
adequately matched by adjusting aquifer :located lower than actual depth due to large
influx function. cell size). The pressure match in well G24
was some 24 psi lower & the match in Dk.202'

176
 AHMED HUSSAIN 9

was poor (39 psi lower). Preliminary results Although unsteady state influx theory of
of the recent 3-D seismic in the Khatiyah Hurst and van Everdingen (used in Carter-
area showed G24 to be isolated from the rest Tracey model) provides the correct method for
of the reservoir, while Ok.202 is located on calculating water influx, its disadvantages
the other side of the fault shown. in Figure are that calculation methods are tedious due
9. to complexity of super-position at each time
step. In addition, history matching usually
d) RFT Pressure Gradient Match requires trial and error approach which even
exaggerates the drawbacks. In contrast,
original pressure gradient is not known Fetkovitch aquifer is simpler to use, give
because the early wells 40, 43, 66, 67, 68 & quick solutions and results closer to Hurst &
69 did not have RFT data. First RFT was not Van Everdingen for finite reservoirs.
run until 1980. Therefore, it is not Moreover, the recent pressure measurements
possible to monitor reservoir depletion by indicate that the average reservoir pressure
layer etc. Moreover, the field has been has stabilised around 150 p~i below its
hardly depleted (only 5% of OIP produced) initial pressure after 15 years -of shut- in.
and, the RFTs were taken after 5 years of This does not indicate a strong aquifer
production shut-in. Any pressure anomalies, activity & indeed supports the moderately
if present, have dissipated in course of small 'aquifer inferred from material balance
time. Although original pressure gradient is using limited production-pressure data.
not known, assuming a gradient of 0.27 psi/ft Hence the preference to use Fetkovitch
(based on PVT & original pi), a pressure/ aquifer model. Several runs were made with
depth plot is constructed. The RFT pressures varying aquifer productivity index to match
in Ok.194 are plotted. Since the production the simulated field pressure with the actual
started, the reservoir pressure has dropped reservoir pressure trend as shown in Figure
by 150 psi. From the plot it can De seen 10.
that, the pressure across the individual
layers, differ from the expected pressure 4.5.3 Estimation of vertical Permeability
profile by not more than 5 to 10 psi. This (KV) from History Match
small variation suggests uniform reservoir
depletion & good vertical communication As discussed under section 2.2, QGPC
across the stylolites. The simulated press sedimentological Study (Reference 2)
profile (in blue) show a good match with the identified very low permeability stylolite
actual profile & confirm fair vertical cementation zones field wide dividing the
communication between the layers (see Figure main producing layers. These stylolites
13) • could pose potential barrier to vertical
flow. The full field model layering was
e) Pressure Matching - Aquifer Support therefore constructed so that each of these
stylolite barriers separate one model layer
The material balance based on very limited from another. Hence, its effect could be
data, gave an order of magnitUde of the modelled simply by modifying the
aquifer support. Although both aquifer size transmissibility between the two model
and aquifer productivity index are history layers. In the first instance,
match, parameters for the purpose of pressure transmissibilities of the model layers were
match, only API was altered while the aquifer obtained by applying the geologists'
size remained close to the value obtained estimates of Kv of the barrier (stylolites)
from the M.B. calculations. layers to the entire thickness of the
equivalent model layer in the range 0.01 md -
For most active aquifers (normally large or 0.10 md. The actual value of Kv to be used
infinite system), the aquifer model should in the model would have to be then derived
have time dependence mechanism to cater for from sUbsequent historymatching. Therefore,
the fact that it takes finite time to respond the model was run with Kv values of 0.01,
fully to a pressure drop in the reservoir. 0.05 & 0.1 md. It served as a first guess.
Consequently the time-varying influx is best Model runs were made using the above values &
modelled by attaching a series of large grid results were compared. A value of Kv = 0.01
cells to the boundary of the model. Since md appeared to give marginally better match
the Uwainat model was sized to include only in terms of RFT & GOR values (see Figures 19
the principal area, the aquifer response & 21). The final match used a Kv value of
could only be modelled with an influx 0.1 md throughout the model. This value is
function in this case using one of the consistent with geologic as stylolite has
analytical aquifers employed by the ECLIPSE very low permeability « 0.1 md).
reservoir simulator. ECLIPSE (Reference 8)
offers two types of analytic aquifers However, a smaller value of Kv (= 0.01 md)
Carter- Tracy and Fetkovitch. The Carter- tends to better match the gas saturation
Tracy aquifer theoretically describe the profile observed in well Ok.204 TOT logs run
influx into a circular reservoir. Uwainat is in 1986. This well close to the gas cap, is
far from an ideal circular reservoir. To use presumed to be gassed out (initial test GOR
this aquifer model one needs to assume a reO was around 8000 Scf/STB). Therefore future
value & then specify to' PO at different model with smaller grid cells should run
time intervals (t). sensitivity cases with smaller values of
vertical permeabilities to track gas cap
movement.

177
SPE2SS30 AHMED HUSSAIN 10

,--------------------,------------------- -
4.5.4 GOR Match different withdrawal rates. Crestal gas
injection is not addressed as gas flooding of
The third goal of the history match was to the Uwainat reservoir was concluded
obtain an adequate match of the secondary ineffective by the cross-sectional study
production GOR, Watercut etc.). Only Dk.66 (Ref. part B).
had produced gas in excess of initial GOR &
has appreciable gas production showing 5.2 Current Reservoir Development strategy
increasing GOR during later years. It was
decided to match GOR profile of Well Dk.66 at The results of the cross-sectional studies
least at the later stage of production (refer Part B) indicate peripheral water
history. The GOR match alongwith the injection scheme to be more favourable than
production history is shown in Figure 14. crestal gas injection giving the highest
Other wells (Dk.68, 69) produced for a practical recovery. This was also confirmed
comparatively short time and did not produce as the preferred future development method by
gas in excess of initial solution GOR and had an early consultant study (1980). Since
no profile to match. simulated GOR did not overall gain to be achieved by gas injection
exceed solution GOR in both cases. is lower than that of water injection, we
should opt for water injection scheme. This
4.5.5 watercut Matching is easier and justifiably utilises the seven
injectors already drilled. Reservoir
Careful inspection of well test reports management is also less complicated with only
indicated that wells Dk.43, Dk.67, Dk.68 & one fluid injected into the reservoir at any
Dk.69 experienced some water production with time. By locating the well optimally &
Dk.69 showing 2% watercut the rest of them .adopting production policy of the cross-
having traces of water. The history-match section study, the field peak rate can be
run indicated slightly higher water easily maintained and gas breakthrough
production than tests. In view of the very problems are minimised with water injection.
low watercut & limited test data no attempt Moreover an effective waterflood of the
was made to match the watercut. Matching Uwainat is also anticipated because of the
would have required adjusting relative low oil 'viscosity (0.25 Cp) & favourable
permeability data. Such changes cannot be mobility ratio (M < 1). Accordingly the full
justified for such minute production from a field development plan for the Uwainat
:single well. reservoir calls for peripheral water
injectors completed below the OWC to displace
4.5.6 Modelling of Fault Blocks oil upstructure towards the crest. During
initial development plan consideration was
Preliminary 2-D seismic) results & pressure given to the possible advent of water
data indicate the presence of as many as 8 injection from day one and as a result of 7
fault blocks in the reservoir. In the model injectors drilled in early 1980 ~long with 8
we have modelled 2 fault blocks showing producers. However the early reservoir
significant pressure differential across the performance indicated moderate aquifer
fault barrier (See Figure 8). Pressure activity providing some pressure support.
matching indicated the likely presence of two This is supported by the history-matched FFM
sealing (partially) faults dividing the study. Current thinking is to delay water
reservoir into three separate fault blocks as injection start up until such time when wells
shown in Figure 15. These faults are likely start producing excessive GOR & production
to be normal extension faults. However, in declines.
view of no knowledge of their throws, these
faults have been modelled as barriers to with regard to timing of the onset of water
horizontal flow. The pressure match required injection, it is found preferential to delay
reduction in transmissibilities. The dashed the water injection by few years and operate
lines denote a reduction of transmissibility the Uwainat at 3000 psi about 500 psi below
by a factor of 0.025, while the solid line initial pressure. This plan has manifold
represents a reduction factor of 0.07. purposes;

5. PREDICTIONS By allowing some decrease in reservoir

pressure, an indication of reservoir
5.1 Introduction continuity (faults are sealing or not)
and reservoir heterogeneity can be
The historical performance of the uwainat obtained together with observations of
reservoir in the Dukhan field has been the activity of the aquifer. This
matched satisfactorily with very limited information would allow modification of
refinements to the initial reservoir the proposed drainage pattern if
description (refer section 4). It was felt necessary.
that the full field model, as refined by
history-matching, provided suitable basis for - It will allow the usage of the
evaluating future performance. The purpose relatively large gas cap (m = '0.5) to
of the prediction study is to build upon the displace oil initially from the tight
history match work and give some predictions zone by gas cap expansion at low rates
of the results of developing the reservoir before gas or water breakthrough occurs.
under a variety of possible options. These Later the rate can be increased by
are mainly variants of water flooding at allowing higher rates per well when PWI

178
SPE 25530 AHMED HUSSAIN 11

hook up is completed (Case III looks at Case I - "OPO 1991 Base Case"
higher offtake rate performance from
1996 onwards). Case II - "Ideal Case"
- By delaying commissioning of the Case III-"OPO 1991 High Case"
existing 7 injectors, costs of water
injectiion facilities & hooking up the Drilling/Workover Schedule
injectors can be saved upfront.
Depending on the field production rate, Drill injection and production wells as
start· up of injection could be around necessary to maintain production & injection
1997-2000. Therefore We will get 7-10 requirements for respective cases. However,
years of primary depletion history to the total number of wells should not exceed
match and tune the full field model 12 or so wells approved in the 1990 OPO. In
description with more confidence. addition, three low potential Khuff wells
DkG.2, DkG.19 & DkG.21 are converted into'
5.3 Reservoir Performance Projection Uwainat producers in 1992.
5.3.1 Model Used Well Location & Well spacing
The history-matched model (refer section 5.1) In selecting the development sites the main
was used to project future performance under criteria used were: (1) low-risk wells with
various guidelines and constraints. The anticipated high well potential to allow a
full-field model was used in history mode consistent build-up of plateau and maintain
with actual production rates through December it as long as possible without ~rilling too
1990 and in prediction mode starting January many wells (2) reasonable step-out from
1991. Three cases were studied to provide existing wells while filling into a notional
long term forecasts for future. development drainage pattern - a well spacing of about
planning and the results are presented in 1000m (250 acres/well).
this section.
5.3.4 Model Runs
5.3.2 General Guidelines and Constraints
Case I
General guidelines and constraints common to
all cases are listed below: The objective of the run was to maintain a
plateau oil rate of 10,000 BOPD from 1993
starting Date 1/1/91 with powered water injection (PWI) & gas
lift. The PWI was implemented by the year
Well Completion 1999 and the reservoir pressure was
Tubing size, in. 2-7/8 maintained around 3100 psi. Gas lift will be
casing size, in. 7 required around year 2000 and only the
southern wells with low GOR & high water-cut
Minimum wellhead flowing are lifted. All seven existing injectors
pressure, psig 450 were used and they provided reasonable areal
coverage. The case was run until year 2035.
Gas-oil ratio limit for The plateau rate of 10,000 BOPD was
production well, scf/STB maintained for 20 years (1993- 2013). There
were 14 active producers at the end of the
Reduction of flowrate 3000 plateau period. From the year 2014 the
Abandon 5000 production rate declined to approximately
2000 BOPD in the year 2035.
Watercut limit for
individual well, percent· Cumulative production at this time was 148
Workover 50 .MMSTB - a recovery of 28.5 % of STOIIP. Most
Abandon 80 of the injection requirement was in the KS
sector which experienced greater water
Rate limit for influx. The results of the run are shown
production well, BOPD graphically in Figure 16 for the total field.
Maximum Rate 2000 oil recovery during the plateau was (80
Minimum (Abandonment) MMSTB) with a cumulative production of 112
Rate 150 MMSTB. The reservoir average GOR ranged from
1000 to 2400 Scf/STB. There was a gradual
Constraints on injection pressure decline from 3350 psia at the start
well of the forecast to about 3090 psia at the end
of the run. Water-cut increased from 2% at
Maximum bottomhole the start of the run to 74% at the end of the
injection pressure, psig 5000 run.

5.3.3 Cases studied Case II

Principal objectives, guidelines and details Offtake rates for the Case II was the same as
of the three cases run are furnished in this case I up to December 1995. At the beginning
section. of 1996, the field offtake rate was scaled up

179
SPE2SS30 AHMED HUSSAIN
to the plateau value of 15000 BOPD which
provides an ideal depletion rate of 1% of the
STOIIP per annum. The drilling programme was
same as the OPO guidelines, however, 6
additional wells were drilled (2 producers
and 3 injectors) compared to the Base Case.
To minimize gas cusping & control high GOR
pressure maintenance had to be implemented a
little earlier. Forecasts for the period
1991-2030 are shown in Figure 17. These
indicate that the plateau of 15 MBD can be
maintained until year 2006, when a slow
decline begins. This run has a much greater
throughput of water than does Case I.
Cumulative production after 42 years of field
life (2032) was 154 MMSTB, the oil rate was
2000 B/D - a recovery factor of 29.6% was
achieved. There was a gradual pressure'
decline from 3350 psia at the start of the
forecast to about 3080 psia in the year 2012
and then gradually increased to 3150 psia at
the end. GOR profiles were similar to the
Base Case. As in Case I, the model results
showed very little change in gas saturations
especially in the KN sector reflecting
effective fencing off the gas cap.
Case III
This case was run to see whether a rate of
20,000 BOPD can be maintained over the period
1995-2000. More wells needed to be drilled &
injection brought forward to maintain
pressure. The plateau can be maintained for
only 7 years. The water handling requirement
is significant compared to the other two
cases. The field life was 38 years with a
recovery of 152 MMSTB at the abandonment rate
of 2000 BOPD. Production profiles are shown
in Figure 18.
5.4 comparison of Prediction Results
The prediction cases studied represent a good
cross- section of the possible strategies of
implementing peripheral water flooding at
different withdrawal rates. Important
results of the three principal prediction
cases are summarised in Table 5 for
comparison. Projected recoveries from three
cases I, II & II are 148, 152 & 154 MMSTBs at
the end of the model run at an arbitrary
field abandonment rate of 2000
respectively. Recoveries from cases II &
III are essentially the same at about 29% of
STOIIP. These results indicate that recovery
is relatively insensitive to plateau
production rates in the range of 15 to 20 MBD
as long as water injection & gas lift are
available to maintain production.
slightly lower recovery for case I
probably associated with less efficient
drainage due to fewer wells than case II.
The additional producers & injectors drilled
during the case II provided better areal
coverage & more efficient drainage.
wells were not drilled in case I because they
were not needed for maintaining plateau.
12
PART B: CROSS-SECTION STUDY
6.1 Introductiion
,Part B of this report describes the cross-
sectional simulation studies performed in
different parts of the Uwainat reservoir. The
main purpose of the study was to gain an
understanding of the mechanism of oil
displacement under both natural depletion and
secondary recovery scheme. In addition
investigate the effects of various parameters
on vertical sweep efficiency and hence the
ultimate recovery. In broad terms, the
objectives were:
* To study comparative benefits of natural
depletion as well as different flooding
mechanisms (crestal gas injection vs
peripheral water injection) and select
the secondary recovery scheme to be
applied for final development plan.
* To look at various parameter
sensitivities such as effect of oil
production rate, perforation policy,
heterogeneity etc. on recovery.
* To help define optimum layering and
develop pseudos for the next generation
of full field models, if required.
6.2 Type and Location of Cross-sections
Three cross-section models were built at
three different parts of the reservoir where
most of the development wells are likely to
be located. These sections are showed in
Figure 19, two in Khatiyah South and one in
Khatiyah North. Each cross section starts
from the gas cap and end in the aqui~er.
They are labelled I & III from south to north
with cross- sections I & III located in the
'Khatiyah South and II in the Khatiyah north.
Cross sections I & III represent long
sections with a very low dip of around 2° to
the horizontal while the x-section II
represents a small section with relatively
higher dip angle of 8°. These three cross-
sections were deemed adequate to study the
possible variation of reservoir performance
BOPD in the main developed parts of the field.
6.3 Basic Input Data
The vertical inhomogeneity in thin uwainat
pay zone dictates that a great deal of
attention be paid to modelling in detail the
The displacement of oil by gas or water in the,
is vertical cross-section. In this study,
design of vertical grid was based on
established geological and petrophysical
model incorporating all the rock properties
from well DK-194. Well DK-194 was selected
These because it was cored 100% across the entire
reservoir, it is located in the central
Khatiyah south sector having most of the
reserves. Its poro-perm characteristics are
fairly representative of most of the Uwainat
wells drilled to date and its PI and
transmissibility of 15 B/D/Psi and 3000 md ft
180
SPE2SS30 AHMED HUSSAIN 13
are very close to the field average well the, reservoir. Break up of layer thickness
values. to such an extent is justified in view of the
fact that many high permeability layers are
The following data has been used in all the less than 1 ft. thick and even within these
three cross-section models covered in the thin layers, occasional lower permeabilities
present study. were detected. The resulting cross-section
had 52 model layers.
6.3.1 Geology and permeability Distribution
6.3.3 Rock Types and saturation Functions:
Jurassic Araej formation of the Uwainat
Reservoir is characterised by the extremes of As in the case of full field model (see part
permeability encounterd within individual A of the study), the layers in the cross-
geological layers. This is particularly section were divided into three groups on the
noticeable in the leached grainstone and basis of the 15 geological layering scheme,
packstones having high permeabilities ranging in other words, layers being part of the
up to several darcies. They occur in thin geological layers (1-12) are assigned group I
layers, some of which may be correlated field saturation functions (capillary pressure and
wide, with others being correlated locally relative permeability). Similarly layers are
between wells (Reference 2), Many of the high given group II and layers given group III
permeability layers are less than 1 ft. properties. Each group (or rock type) has
thick, and variations in permeability between been given a specific set of capillary
any two adjacent core plug analysis can be up pressure functions - these are unchanged from
to several Darcies. Such variations are the full field model run for the sake of
below the precision of the standard' 1 ft. consistency. As explained earlier, capillary
sample interval used in routine core pressure functions are based on log derived
analysis. It was therefore necessary to re- water saturation data since capillary
sample the intervals where high permeability pressure data (Pc) was too limited to be of
layers had been detected, using a smaller much value.
sample interval of 3". The results of this
re-sampling showed that the permeability in 6.3.4 Relative Permeability
Rock Type 1 layers would have been
significantly underestimated using only the The same allocation (as presented above for
original samples taken every foot. In total, saturation functions) was made for the three
it has been possible to correlate ten of relative permeability tables relating to each
these thin high permeability layers (K 1 of the rock type (group). Details are given
K10 ) field wide (see Fig.2). They were in Table 2.
mapped to show their distribution, subsea
depth, thickness and permeability variations 6.3.5 Miscellaneous Data
across the field. The permeability
distribution across the entire section of DK- The PVT and other miscellaneous data (e.g.
194 obtained from routine core analysis, is pressures, fluid contacts etc.) are unchanged
shown in Figure 20 along with the log data. from the full field model case and summarised
The high permeability layers are shaded. 'in, Table 3.
6 4 Simulation Runs
The non-uniform permeability distributions, .
exert a dominant effect on the displaceme~t This section contains the scope of work,
of oil by gas or water and may result .1n model description, results of the model runs
premature bre~kthrough ,in the produc1~g for each of the three (I,ll and III) cross-
wells. As m~nt10ned earI1er,.one o~ the ma1n sections. The cross- sectional evaluation
aims of th1S stu~y was to 7n~est1gate the would cover the range of possible reservoir
effect of these h1gh permeab111ty layers on and operational conditions to occur
the vertica~ sweep efficiencies and hence on throughout the area to be covered by the full
the reserV01r performance as a whole. field model. Only the results of cross-
6.3.2 Layering section I are discussed in detail.
The Uwainat consists of 15 geological layers, 6.4.1 Model Description
all of which are present in DK-194. The
layering in the cross-sections honours the The cross section I is situated in the
sedimentological description of 15 layers. Khatiyah south sector of the reservoir
These layers were further divided into where most of the reserves have been depleted
sublayers of fine layers according to to date. It runs from the gas cap at 6570'ss
variations in their physical properties down to 7400'ss in the aquifer. The cross-
(poro-perm) and mainly permeability. This section has a low dip of 2 0 to the horizontal
ensures that the thin high permeability arid a constant width of Y = 2000ft. The
layers are trUly represented as modelling of to~al length of the section is 6000m which is
these permeability distribution is given divided into 60 grid blocks. The cell size
priority in the ensuing numerical simUlation is 100m each. Larger cells were added at the
of the Uwainat reservoir performance. Layers far end to model aquifer support
thicker than about 5 ft. were also sub- proportionate to the full field aquifer size.
divided to allow a more detailed A sketch of the cross-section is shown in
representation of fluid displacement through Figure 21 with the locations and perforations

181
SPE2SS30 AHMED HUSSAIN 14

of the producer and injectors (gas & water). relaxed the more oil will be produced (Figure
The model was initialised with a 35 MMSTB of 23). This is primarily due to the fact that
oil and 36 BCF of gas in place with the with the higher GOR allowables, the wells can
saturation profiles derived from the three be kept open for longer thereby allowing more
saturation groups described earlier. oil to be produced. This increase in
recovery overrides any perceived losses due
6.4.2 Prediction Runs to gas cap shrinkage e.g. oil being pushed
up.In fact, model shows no shrinkage of gas
For the purpose of comparing effects of cap and additional gas produced in cases 1.2
different parameters on overall reservoir and 1.3 were primarily fed from released
performance, the rate in the 2000 ft wide solution gas.
cross-sectional model used was 1000 STB/D.
This is equivalent to a field rate of 15,000 vertical sweep efficiencies predicted are:
STB/D, which provides a depletion of 1% of
the oil-in-place per annum. The producing Case 1.1 20.4%
well in the model is located at the similar Case 1.2 23%
elevations of those of the majority of the Case 1.3 23.4%
producers drilled to date namely DK-
66,68,194,198 in the central Khatiyah sector b) Gas Injection Case
of the reservoir. The well is completed
across layers 24-44 (geological layers 5-11) Two runs were made. Run 2.1 (maximum GOR = 3
comparable to existing completion as most of Mscf/stb) and run 2.2 (maximum GOR 5
the current producers have layers 5-11 Mscf/stb) looked at the possible recovery
included in their perforation policy., under the two GOR restrictions. The results
are shown in Figures 24 and 25. There is
The completion strategy would allow some evidence that relaxing GOR might allow
production from a zone 100 ft below the GOC higher recovery. However, vertical sweep
(6940 ft SS) and 100 ft above the OWC (7250 efficiencies of 21 and 21.5% are obtained.
ft ss). A total Kh of 3000 md ft was ensured The sweep is no better than the gas cap
by the above perforated interval which is expansion cases studied under depletion runs
comparable to a Kh value of an average 1.1 to 1.3 earlier. This is because in the
Uwainat well. For the producers the policy depletion case gas cap advance is more
reflected the desire to avoid as far as uniform and the reasonably large gas cap (m =
possible the gas cusping as well as the 0.5) compliments the aquifer support. In
bottom water. contrast, the injected gas just gush through
the high permeability layers and the low dip
a) Natural Depletion Case: does not promote gravity-stable displacement.
All the 5 cases (1.1-2.2) are compared in
Three runs have been made in order to Figure 26. It is obvious that gas injection
characterize the performance of the reservoir case is not beneficial at all except for
contained in the cross-section under pressure maintenance. It is also apparent
continued depletion. Three runs examined that there is no reason to restrict the
the sweep (hence recovery) with varying production from the reservoir for fear of
policies for maximum allowable well GOR shrinkage loss and use an arbitrary GOR
limit. The resulting performances will in limit. The limiting factor will be the
effect establish an operating GOR limit and surface facility's gas processing and
give a value to future infill wells. The. transporting capacity as disposal of the
prediction began in mid 1990 after enacting: Iprod~ced gas is to be handled. From a
30 years history of the field e.g. 15 ye~~~: practical point of view a limiting GOR of
production followed by 15 years shut-in by': around 3 Mscf/Stb is a good compromise as the
which time 5% of the STOIIP have been recovery is only 0.6% (0.2MMSTB) less than
produced with a pressure depletion of 200 psi case 1.3 (GOR limit = 5 Mscf/Stb). Case 1.2
in the reservoir. The prediction rate is set has therefore been chosen as the optimal
at 1000 bbls of liquid/day. The only depletion run for comparison with injection
difference between the 3 cases are the cases and a GOR constraint of 3 Mscf/stb will
maximum allowable GOR. be used in all future runs.

.Case 1.1 Maximum allowable well GOR 1.5 c) water Injection Scheme
Mscf/Stb
Case 1.2 Maximum allowable well GOR3.0 The current development plan consists of a
Mscf/Stb number of peripheral water injectors
Case 1.3 Maximum allowable well GOR 5.0 completed below the OWC to displace oil
Mscf/Stb upstructure towards a number of producers.
The downdip water injection scenario h 9 s been
When the maximum GOR limit in each case is run to evaluate its relative performance and
reached, the well rate is cut back by 50% compared against the depletion and gas
until the rate reaches the minimum rate limit injection scenarios studied under the cases
of 150 BOPD. The well being closed-in when 1.1 to 2.2. As mentioned earlier in the
it could not produce more than the minimum report, the main objective of the water
rate. Figure 22 illustrates the performances flooding study is to confirm that peripheral
of the well under these GOR constraints. It water injection is the preferred future
is apparent that the more the GOR limit is development method for the optimum drainage

182
SPE 25530 AHMED HUSSAIN. 15

of the uwainat reservoir. Seven PWI have
already been drilled in the early eighties
and six more are planned iri 1996-97.
Case 3: Downdip water injection (first pass)
In the base case run, water injection
commences from 1990. Initially, the run is
made for 75% Wcut restriction i.e. the well
is shut when the water cut exceeds 75% and
the well rate drops below 250 Stb/d. No
workover policy e.g. shutting off offending
layer is considered here. It is assumed that
gas lift are available once the water cut
reaches 50%. It is the first pass to
compare the performance of the water
injection scheme against those of the
depletion and gas injection schemes studied
earlier. Later on several sensitivity runs
will be made in which various aspects of
production policy, well location, perforation
policy, timing of water injection start up
etc. are studied, in detail. It is obvious
that water injection gives the best recovery
compared to both the depletion case and gas
injection case (cases 1.2 and 2.1). The
results are compared in Figure 27 in terms of
vertical sweep efficiency (VSE). The water
injection case attains a VSE of 32% as
opposed to 21-23% from other drives. The use
of water injection and gas lift prolonged
plateau life by at least 5 years and
increased recovery by 40% (Ratio of VSE of
case 3 over case 1.2).
performs better than the first pass (case 3)
run and the delayed injection case (case 3.2)
fares slightly better than case 3.1 in terms
of vertical sweep efficiency. There is no
improvement in recovery by injecting water
from day one (Case 3) because of early water
breakthrough; the only benefit being just
pressure maintenance close to current
reservoir pressure (3300 psi). In any case,
this scenario is not physically possible as
water injectors are neither completed and nor
hooked up yet. Although the case 3.2 allows
delay of water injection by 13 years,
dropping the reservoir pressure to 2700 psi
will create a significant volume of extra
free gas (solution) that would then have to
be disposed of. In fact produced gas is
around 15.2 bcf against 11. 8 bcf of the case
3.1 (see Figure 46), because of gas
breakthrough in the former case. The results
of the run 3.3 are also shown in Figure 29 in
comparison to case 3.2. It is evident there
is no benefit in dropping reservoir pressure
1000 psi below the initial reservoir
pressure. In fact, recovery is slightly less
than case 3.2 with a GOR limit of 3000
scf/stb. In fact more gas is produced which
requires disposal. This results show that
there is no benefit in further relaxation of
producing well GOR and a GOR limit of 3
MSCF/STB is probably the optimum value in
terms of recovery and surely justifies the
restrictions adopted in the previous cases
under depletion and gas injection cases.

water injection start-up when? Taking into account, the relative merits of
(Runs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3) each of the above cases vis-a-vis high GOR,
gas disposal problem and ultimate recovery,
Having established the fact 'that water case 3.1 (water injection start- up around
injection gives the best recovery, the next reservoir pressure of 3000 psi) is selected
question is, when to start injecting. The as the most likely scenario (termed Base
next 3 runs (cases 3.1 - 3.3) investigate the Case) because:
alternative timing of water injection start
up against the base case run (case 3) where It gives better sweep (VSE 36.7%) as
water injection was assumed available for against the day one injection case
maintaining reservoir pressure at the current (32%) .
level e.g. 3300 psi. Does not produce too much gas (low GOR,
no gas breakthrough prior to start-up of
Case 3.1: Here the water injection is assumed water injection) compared to other two
available before the pressure drops below cases 3.2 and 3.3.
3000 psi. This happens after six years of
production under depletion mode e.g. By allowing some decrease in reservoir
injection start up 1996. By this time 4 pressure, an indication of reservoir
MMSTB of oil has been produced-a VSE of 12%. continuity (presence of faults and
extent of their transmissibilities) and
Case 3.2: Here the water injection starts I reservoir heterogeneity can be obtained
after production by natural depletiQn reaches together with observations of the
a maximum GOR of 3000 scf/Stb. This happens activity of the aquifer.
after 13 years of production at a reservoir
pressure of 2700 psig resulting in a pressure The primary depletion phase will also
loss of 800 psi from the initial reservoir facilitate production of oil initially from
pressure. the tight zone by gas cap expansion at low
rates before gas or water break-through
Case 3.3: As a GOR sensitivity, case 3.2 was occurs. Later the rate can be increased by
repeated with GOR limit relaxed to GOR allowing higher rates per well when PWI hook
of 5000 scf/stb e.g. depletion to 2550 psig up is completed (sensitivity case # 2 looks
and then start up water injection. at higher offtake rate performance from 1996
·onwards). Depending on the field production
Figure 28 shows the results of water, rate, start up of injection could be around
injection starting up some 6 years (case 3.1)' 1996-1998. Therefore, we will get some 6-8
and 13 years (case 3.2) after production by years of primary depletion history to match
depletion and reveals that both the cases; and tune the full field model.

183
SPE25530 AHMED HUSSAIN
sensitivity Cases
This section deals with the sensitivities to
reservoir and well parameters and their
impact on the plateau rate, water cuts, GOR
buildup and the ultimate recovery are
discussed.
Sensitivity Case #1 - ~T~h~e~~e~f~:f~e~c~t~~o~f~
perforation policy (Run 3.4).
In all the previous runs the following
perforation intervals (with respect· to the
reservoir layers) have been used:
Producers : Layers 24-44 (geological layers
5-11)
Injector : Layers 1-51 (geological layers
1-14)
For producers the policy reflected the desire
to avoid as far as possible the gas cusping
as well as the - bottom water conning. These
layers also correspond to main geblogical
layers 5-11 which have the best poro- perm
quality and most of the Kh. PLTs also
confirmed that most of the flow is
contributed by the~e layers. Run 3.4 is a
repeat of the Base Case 3.1 with the
producers perforated in layers 1-44 (1-11).
The results ~re identical as shown in Figure
30. Only total gas production is higher than
the Base Case because of earlier gas
breakthrough since top layers containing
high Sg are open to flow. The results
indicate that perforation policy is not that
critical in terms of recovery provided the
perforated layers include most of the ~ow
capacities (Kh). For effective completio~~,
target zones are layers 1-11.
Sensitivity Case #2 - Rate Sensitivity.
b..2.l
This run reflects a higher plateau rate of
25,000 BOPO for the total field. For the
cross-section, the equivalent rate will be
1650 BOPO. The rate is increased to 1650 BOPO
after producing by depletion to P = 3000 at a
rate of 1000 BOPO so that the lower rate
helps promoting gravity stable displacement
e.g. uniform gas cap advance during early
production stage. The results are shown in
Figure 31.
An important conclusion from this prediction
was that the ultimate recovery is not
affected by changes in the target rates i.e.
the reservoir is relatively insensitive to
plateau production rates in the range of
1000-1650 BPO (15,000-25,000 BPO field rate)
as long as water injection and artificial
lifts are made available. The run clearly has
a much greater water handling requirements
(both production and injection) than does the
Base Case.
sensitivity Case #3 - The effect of vertical
heterogeneity CRun 3.6)
So far all the cases have been run with a Kv
value of 0.1 md. This value, a primary
16
history match parameter, was obtained from
the full field history match. The present
case investigates the sensitivity of vertical
sweep efficiency to vertical permeability by
reducing Kv by one tenth (Kv = 0.01). The
reduction in Kv was introduced by reducing
MULTZ between the layers divided by the
presence of stylolites.· Because of the
vertical flow restrictions caused by reduced
KV, the gas does not segregate upwards as
quickly as they do in the Base Case (Kv = 0.1
md). As a result the gas breakthrough occurs
earlier "and excessive production of gas
happened accompanied by rapid pressure
decli.ne. The recovery efficiency is reduced
and 3.5 MMSTB of oil is recovered by the
time pressure dropped to 3000 psi compared to
4 MMSTB of the Base Case. In the former
case, the restricted effect of gravity is
highlighted by the accelerated frontal
movement in the high permeability layers. In
this case the water injection also starts a
year earlier (1995). Figure 32 depicts the
performance in which it can be seen that the
water breakthrough is 6 years earlier than
the Base Case thereby shortening the plateau
length. Because of early water breakthrough,
the sweep is less efficient & the vertical
sweep efficiency is 33.6% vs 36.7% for the
Base Case (Kv = 0.1 md). The injection
requirement is also slightly higher due to
increased voidage caused by gas cap gas
production.
Sensitivity Case #4 - Evaluation of workover
strategies (Run) 3.7
In all the previous runs, the well was
presumed ,dead when water cut limit of 75% had
been exceeded. No workover was· performed to
shut off the high water cut layers,
(Run recomplete the well and so forth.
In this case the model was used to determine
an optimum workover strategy that would
sustain production targets longer and reduce
water production and therefore improve
recovery. Two runs were made where the well
was worked over when the water cut reaches
50% and 60% respectively. The workover was
simulated by plugging off the high water cut
layers once the above water cut limits were
violated. At the same time more layers are
opened up above the existing perforations to
compensate for loss in PI. Two workovers
were assumed feasible during the life of the
field and the well is presumed dead when a
maximum ware cut of 80% is reached.
However, the results are not very attractive
- the model calculates a difference in
increase of some 1% over the case 3.1. As
the offending layers (normally high
permeability layers) are plugged back, the PI
reduces causing higher draw down. Secondly,
once the bottom layers are plugged off, the
water tends to move faster through the high
permeability layers in the opened up higher
section as gravity effect is minimal due to
low dip and in turn viscous forces become
dominant. As a result water cut after
dipping for a while picks up quite rapidly"~o
184
 AHMED HUSSAIN 17
SPE 25530

the abandonment water cut value of 80%. The 6.5 optimum Layering and Generation of
results indicate both the runs give almost Pseudo Functions
identical VSE. Hence workover at 50% water
cut is selected as the preferred workover As mentioned earlier, one of the objectives
strategy, since this is the point where gas of the cross-sectional studies was to
lift 1S required to lift the total liquid optimise l~yering scheme and generate pseudo
throughput for most wells. Results of the relative permeabilities and capillary
run 3.7 are depicted in Figure 33. Because pressure functions to be used in the future
of the thinness of the pay zone a second simulation runs. This part of the exercise
workover is not found to be beneficial to will . be carried out once the new Full Field
increased recovery. Therefore, one workover Model is constructed incorporating the latest
per well will be considered as part of seismic data, currently under processing.
recompletion policy, where applicable in all
future development studies. However,
As mentioned in PART A, the new model would
mechanical problems may be built with smaller grid sizes for
warrant additional workovers. accurately tracking GOR & watercut buildups
etc. That may necessitate pseudoisation to
Summary of Cross-section Prediction Runs reduce the number of layers so that total
number of cells does not become prohibitive
The cross-section runs made to date cover a and the model is manageable both from the
wide range of development strategies to engineer's point of view and from that of the
maximise sweep efficiency. The main results computing hardware.
of these runs for each of the cross- section
are summarised below: CONCLUSIONS
Detailed computer simulation studies of the
Cross- uwainat reservoir have been carried out,
section Scenario VSK aimed at gaining understanding of the
(" of srouP) mechanics of oil displacement of different
secondary recovery schemes, and at deriving
I Natural Depletion 23 production profiles for development planning
purposes. These studies comprise of 20 cross-
II Natural Depletion J2 sectional models to investigate vertical
displacement and a 3D model to describe the
III Natural Depletion 21 areal displacement.
I Gas Injection 20.9 The principal conclusions from the results of
the full field model history-match and
II Gas Injection 21 prediction runs are as follows:

III No Run * The pressure match indicated the

presence of two possible partially
I Water Injection 37.5 sealing faults dividing the reservoir
into three separate blocks.
II Water Injection 39.6
* The history-match gave an estimation of
III Water Injection 39.1 Kv ranging between 0.1 and 0.01 MD
across the stylolitic intervals at field
These runs have assumed implementation of gas scale which are typical of a moderate
lift and water injection in accordance with seal.
the development scenario and are presented
for comparison purposes. Downdip peripheral Projected oil recoveries are essentially
water injection is chosen as the preferred * the same for all three cases. The
mode of reservoir development. recovery factor is not rate sensitive.
In cross-section II (North Khatiyah) Higher rates appear to accelerate rate
displacement by gas-cap expansion is more * of depletion without any detrimental
effective (gravity- stable) helped by effect on recovery factor. However, the
relatively higher dip (8°). The same is the onset of large water production level is
contrary in case of cross-sections I & III also accelerated requiring higher
because of low dip (2°). injection volumes.
Therefore, it may be tempting to prolong A field development plan on the basis of
production under natural depletion especially * 15,000 BID plateau production rate
in the KN sector. However, this will appears to be the optimal development
precipitate a reservoir pressure reduction (p scen~rio & gives slightly higher
= 2600) & high volume of gas production - recovery. A higher production rate of
producing GOR far exceeding solution GOR. In 20,000 BID'although achievable, has a
addition, reduction of pressure will release rather short-lived plateau life.
a significant volume of extra free gas (from
solution) that would then have to be produced Gas cap expansion was more efficient in
out, somewhere else in the reservoir. * the northern sectiion of the reservoir,

185
SPE25530 AHMED HUSSAIN 18

and as a result wells in this area GOC Gas oil Contact, ft

though closer to the gas cap do not gas
out soon. h Layer thickness, ft

* Areal sweep is good and an ultimate Horizontal Permeability, md

recovery of some 29% of STOIIP can be
achieved. Vertical Permeability, md
Conclusion from the Cross-section study can Flow capacity, md
be summarised as:
End-Point Mobility Ratio
* vertical sweep efficiency (VSE) is
influenced by high permeability layers & OPO Onshore Planning Options
completion practices.
OWC oil Water contact, ft
* Displacement of oil by water is
indicated the most efficient recovery Bubble Point Pressure, psi
scheme and a VSE of 40% of STOIIP might
be obtained for a large unfaulted Capillary Pressure, psi
section of the reservoir.
PI Productivity Index, STB/d/psi
* It is beneficial to resume production
under natural depletion, delay the onset Initial Reservoir Pressure, psi
of water injection by 6-8 years and
operate the reservoir at an average P Average Reservoir Pressure, psi
pressure of 3000 psi about 350 psi below
the current pressure. This delay has 'no re External Boundary Radius, ft
detrimental effect on the ultimate
recovery.
Dimensionless Radius
* Gas flooding is shown to be ineffective
because of premature breakthrough with SCAL Special Core Analysis
poor sweep of the reservoir because of
stratification and low structural Gas Saturation, %
relief.
Relative Permeability to Oil
* Value of Kv ratio and well producing GOR
limit has significant effect on the Relative Permeability to Water
length of the plateau but effect on
ultimate recovery is minimal. Residual oil Saturation After Gas
'Flood, %
NOMENCLATURE
Residual oil saturation After
API API Gravity Waterflood, %
Gas Formation Volume Factor, Water Saturation, %
Vol/Vol
Initial Water Saturation, %
oil Formation Volume Factor,
Vol/Vol t Time, hours
BHCIP: Bottomhole Closed in Pressure, psi Dimensionless time
to
BHFP Bottomhole Flowing Pressure, psi VSE vertical Sweep Efficiency
Formation (or por~us Rock) Yg Gas Gravity
Compressibility, psi-
Yo oil Gravity
Gas Compressibili~y, psi- 1
Porosity, %
oil Compressibility, psi- 1
uo oil Viscosity, Cp
Total .- compressibi~!rY of a
Compos~te System, ps~
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Water Compressibility, psi- 1 I thank the management of Qatar General
Petroleum Corporation (oil & Gas) for
FFM Full Field Model permission to pUblish this paper. A special
note of thanks to Mr. A. R. Hussain who
FGIIP: Free Gas Initially - In Place, encouraged me to submit this paper for
bcf publication.

186
SPE 25530 AHMED HUSSAIN 19

REFERENCES

1. "Geological & Reservoir Engineering study 6. Kalla K "Uwainat Limestone PVT study
Dukhan Field" Core Lab, August 1980 Analysis" March, 1989

2. Gillies, D and Al-Omran, S.M.O "Uwainat 7. Kalla K "Uwainat RFT Pressure Survey
Reservoir Sedimentological Study & Schedule" December 1988
Reservoir Layering Scheme" December 1989
8. ECLIPSE Reference Manual, version 88/09
3. Kalla K & G. Megarbane "Review of Uwainat September 1988
SCAL Data" 1985-1988
9. "Dukhan Field Arab 'c' Reservoir Study"
4. Gomes, J.S "Estimation of STOIIP & FGIIP February 1989
for Uwainat" Note to SRE
10. "Idd El Shargi North Dome Arab D
5. Nutt R.L Note to SRE "Uwainat Reservoir - Reservoir Expanded StudynFebruary 1990
Porosity" Ref: PD/PP.G1/1565, December, 1989

GENERAL RESERVOIR DATA

1 - - - - -- - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' - - ,
I STOIIP 557 MMSTB
FGIIP (GAS CAP) 502 BCF
Gas Oil Contact (GOC) 6940 ft ss
Free Water Level (FWL) 7250 ft ss
Initial Reservoir Pressure 3536 psig
Reservoir Temp. 217 Deg. F
Avg. Thickness 160 -180 ft
Avg. Porosity 15 - 18 %
Avg. Permeability 10 - 100 md
Oil Viscosoty 0.25 CP
Oil Gravity 38 Deg. API
Bubble Point Pressure 3506 Psig
Initial FVF (Boi) 1.619 RB/STB
Initial GOR (Rsi) 1034 SCF/STB

PRODUCTION DATA
~
,-------'---------------------r-----------------
Cum Oil Production i 28 MMSTB @ 1-1-91
Cum Gas Production i, 6 BCF
No. of Producers :, 8
No. of Injectors (PWI) : 7
,

TABLE: 1 - UWAINAT RESERVOIR - DUKHAN FIELD

187
 TA8LE 2

YWAlNA1 RESERVOIR - DUlgIAN FIELD

CAPILLARY PRESSURE AND RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA PWAlNAT RESERVOIR - DUlQIAN FIELD
GENERATED FOR VARIOUS SATURATION GROUPS

DESCRIPTION OP PVT DATA USED IN THE RESERVOIR MODELS

SATURATION GROUP
Sw ~ !c"ow Pe(PSI)
(ROCK TYPE)

0.07 0 1.0 149.5 *MISC CARP

0.10 0.015 0.944 03.5
0.12 0.026 0.87 80.5 SG of water at standard conditions 1.189
0.15 0.0461 0.74 46 Water compressibility at initial reservoir pressure 2. 5X10- 6 /psi
0.22 0.084 0.48 24.38 . Water FVF at initial reservoir pressure 1.03
0.26 0.106 0.40 16.33 I Viscosity of water at reservoir conditions 0.49 cp
Gas gravity
0.31
0.38
0.132
0.183
0.28
0.17
12.42
9.2 Rock compressibility at initial reservoir conditions ~: ~~10-6Ipsi
0.47 0.231 0.106 6.44 Reservoir Temperature 2170 deg.F
0.62 0.376 0.023 2.99 Stock tank oil specific gravity 38.5 API
0.71 0.47 0 2.53
0.82 0.63 0 0.94
0.93 0.86 0 0.32
1.0 1.0 0 0.0 *PYTO CARD

0.10 0 1.0 149.5 Viscosity compressibility O.00013 2 /psi

;;~~O~~)PSi
0.12 0.011 0.97 126.5 Specified bubble-point pressure
0.15 0.025 0.90 92 Oil compressibility
0.20 0.055 0.718 57.5
0.25 0.088 0.556 34.5
0.29 0.109 0.37 23
0.34 0.139 0.27 14.72 I! Bubble Point Pressure Gas-Oil Ratio Oil Viscosity FVP
0.30 0.172 0.194 10.35 Psig SCP/STB CP RB/STB
0.43 0.207 0.13 7.82
0.53 0.289 0.06 5.75 1000 295 0.57 1.213
0.67 0.422 0.02 2.76 1500 445 0.45 1.285
0.72 0.47 0 2.53 2000 578 0.38 1. 356
0.83 0.611 0 1. 32 2500 758 0.32 1.433
0.94 0.812 0 0.695 3000 900 0.28 1. 517
1.0 1.0 0 0.0 3506 1034 0.24 1. 619
4000 1030 0.25 1.592
0.13 0 1.0 149.5 4500 1010 0.26 1. 569
0.15 0.011 0.96 126.5
0.21 0.045 0.76 92
0.23 0.059 0.70 80.5
0.26 0.075 0.54 69 *PYDG CARD
0.29 0.092 0.43 57.5
0.32 0.117 0.35 46
0.36 0.142 34.5 II! Pressure Bg Gas Viscosi ty
0.42 0.179 0.172 23 PSIA RB/MSCF CP
0.48 0.221 0.11 17.02
0.54 0.279 0.05 11.5 1500 1. 955 0.0141
0.63 0.371 0.02 7.4 2000 1.427 0.0153
0.73· 0.47 0 5.29 2500 1.128 0.0176
0.84 0.61 0 2.2 3000 0.940 0.0188
0.95 0.82 0 0.322 3506 0.834 0.0211
1.0 1.0 0 0

INITIALISATION MODEL DATA

,------------ , -----------
i Model Dimension 25 X 9 X '5
j Total No of Grid Blocks 1 3375

i Cell Size (Voriob!.) i .1496 ft - 4488 ft PERFORMANCI PROJECTIONS SUMMARY OP RESULTS

I No of Saturation Tables i 15 tJWUlO.T RESERVOIR

., Solution FormulatiOn! Fully Implicit DUIgIAN PIELD
l Three Phase Kro Model \ STONE - 1

I Gos Oil Contact (Goe)! 6940 ft ss

I Free Water Level (FWL) 1 7250 ft ss

Product ion

i--------~~~~~~~~:~;~~:;:s-;:~~-f--:~~-;~~;------------------
°11
Pl a hay rate. ",0 10 15 20
Start pl ateau. year 1993 1996 1996
Initial FVF (Boi) i 1.619 RB/STB E,' pl ateau, year 2014 2006 2002

I
, Initial GOR (Rsl) i 1034 SCFISTB
Pl ateau 1 i fe, years
Fi el d life. years
•
2000 B/O rate
21
45
II
42
7
3B

I
~
Initial OiHn-Ploce (N) i
Initial Gas-in-Ploce! 502 BCF
520 MMSTB
". ,f produc l"g well s
Cum. oi 1 product' on
Recovery at 2000 B/O MMSTB
., ,,'
pl ateau, KMSTB
17
112
14B
20
103
154
22
96
152
Recovery
Avg _ GO' .,"
2000 B/O, percent oil
start plateau, scf/BSl
pl ace
"
Z8.S
1150
29.6
1630
29.2
1630
Avg.
Avg.
'OR
'OR
",
"., ",plateau. scf/BSl
,f fi el d life
2160
1758
1626
1734
1657
2200
HISTORY MATCH MODEL DATA
i-- j
Water Producti on
No of Well Modelled 24
., on'
Ii i Avg. watercut plateau, percent 46 46 36

i
No of History Match Active Wells 20 Avg. watercut end od field 1 i fe 74 72 71
"
Key Parameters to Match Avg. Reservoir Pressure.
GOR, RFT Pressures Water I niecti on

i Kh. Kv. Vp (Aquifer. Gas. Oil)

0__ m_.
Key Parameters to Adjust
~"'" ! Location of faults and
Their Transmissibility
Avg. injection rate start plateau. MBO
Avg. Inject i on rate end plateau, MBO
". ,f injection wells
Cum. water injection .,
., ",
plateau. MMBSl
24
31
7
151
34
4S
10
125
"
51
II
104
Cum. water inject ion end 2030, MMSSl 277 310 317
Relative Permeabilities Start water injection. year 2000 1998 1997

TABLE: 4 - 3D FULL FIELD MODEL - UWAINAT RESERVOIR

188
 UWAINAT RESERVOIR LAYERING SCHEMES
A TYPICAL EXAMPLE FROM D K 204;
SOUTH KHATIYAH, DUKHAN FIELD.

I'
QATAR Cz

~_O'
I

IDUKHAN
iFIELD
I
I
Oz
I
I

\ I
\
, \
\
\
, \
,
\

,
\ ,
, \
\. ,
"<~
HI

H'
o '0 20 30 40km

'- --'!~._ _'__....:..._''_~'__ __'_ BASE UW~I~A7

FIGURE 2. UWAINAT RESERVOIR ZONATIONS
FIGURE1. LOCATION OF DUKHAN FIELD

""""--0_._.--
-
..........
.
CUM. OL PRODUCTION
~=-------------~
-:::
r
3400
,
~-~-j RESERVOIR PRESSURE
MEASURED IN DK.48 3300

~l
-r 18 a
- 16

,14
GAS PRODUCTION (GAS CAP)
OIL PRODUCTION r'"--I 12
",' 1 I I_-{ ~
°: too I ......... .! ij 10 ~

I j fT1
Z
1 I , :
I

[_! / iI :

FIG.3 - PRODUCTION HISTORY UWAINAT RESERVOIR - DUKHAN FIELD

189
 UWAINAT RESERVOIR
INITIAL PRESSURE PROFILE
6900 ' I r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516171819 20 21 22 23 24 25
~T~:T-1§l : 1 : ::-T-r:-1-:T-::~rT-:--:-: :
Ph: :
: : : 237 ::: : : : : : : : : : : :: : : : :
~-----\ ~- j :G2b__ ~ __~_~ __ \19~ __ ~ __ ~_----; ~----_~-------
~-
(h= 6940 55)
(P"" 3506 pslg)
INITIAL Goe
2
~
________

:
L ~
__ &621
286 \

L: __L__
:
,

0_ 48 \ \G8: _ :68:__

m~ ~ _Lu_i2'LLL__
8;1_12l__ : : : t1 :: ---
276 :

,x+-----L-------
g~\'
3 233: : : : : : : : : : 204 ::::::: : .!~ 205 :
I ~
~~~~~~[~~~T~:I:~~~[~~?~:ts~r~~j:I~J:~J~~l--~:
~~:66:~i)!~m~~gZ~[?~9~1-----l~~~~L~~~~~
"ij
7000 - a. 'il
l() I 0- 4
~ 5 L_~~=~~216 1 , 1 1 1 1 1691 1
I
I.' 1i i : ~: i i i : ..': ~t:t:i--t::t::::t:~:~i-~---r:~::!::::::~
I I , I I I I I I I I

Vi'
(f)
o I
-01
0
6 t~~~~~~~~----'-liJ----
t" ~q::t::::t::::t-G21-r:t:t:t]~~~,
1; ~, 7 i i 43 A i : N i i T"J i 275
I
:§ : ~-------+-?~!- -, -. -----:. : ----~-----~"St_--~-~--4--{--f--' -~--4--t~--~-----i-----~~-----:--------
i ESJ: i i i-r iii - i i -r--:---:--,- ~'9i i i ~02i i
I-

i i ir--- --:--------
(he:. 7050 55)
lL
OJ
o ~ I
if J
(p= 3536 pslg) 8i i i+-----:-----,
:- -- -- - - - f- - -- '-~I r- ----:- ----
- - - - -:- - - - -
i f ---- --:---:--~- of -- t- -1- -t- - of - - - --
7100 .tl , , , , 236, , , """""'" , , , ,
-0 : : : : : : : : ::::::::::::: : : : :
1: '1
9~ ~ ~ ~
DK1Di Pb

• •DK198 Pb
DK19B PR
+
OK19-4 PR DK43Pb:5* +
!
•
1
,
l
•
!
•
!
•
l
• :
l! 1
•• !,!",!""
l ! 1 [ l !!1 1 i •
1
• .
!
•

~ I DK43 PR
DK69 Pb .. DK69 PR
~ : 01 CONVERTED TO ARAB C PRODUCER ( 4 )
IZI CONVERTED TO ARAB D GAS PRODUCER ( 2 )
IZI UWAINAT OIL PRODUCER ( 8 )
D UWAINAT WATER INJECTOR ( 7 )
!J KHUFF GAS PRODUCER ( 5 ) C UWAINAT GAS PROOUCER ( 1 )

7200 I I i i i I I i i I
3.25 3.35 3.45 3.55 3.65
(Thousonds)
PRESSURE (psl\l)
• Pb + PR
FIG.S - MODEL AREAL GRID DIAGRAM UWAINAT RESERVOIR - DUKHAN FIELD

:g FIGURE 4. VARIATION OF Pb WITH PRESSURE

1.1 r~ --- -.~---_ .. -.---..,-.----------------- ---_ .. ,--.----" -- ----~-_.-.-..._- .- ···l

1.: ~---Ii!\---- -----.----- - - . - - - - - --------

1
I

t' Ii!
+ .+ -1
0.9 \ f
~ .i /
i \ 0.9 \
7/ I
O.B ~ 'OJ
,I 0.8 ID
\

~
.¥ \ /'
.
E
0.7
I
\
\ '" .
e'
0.7 \
1!1
\
f
~ ~ ,j<" 0.6 .7
.'"e .'"e
0.6

"
" /*,,-
~ 0.5 f' \ ,,/'...-
0.5 III ,j<""
~ /
\ ,ft
'" M \ /' '" 0.4 /'
lSI, ,¥' b, 'u. /".../>1'"" I
I 'EI, ...>t"-
0.3
r '0... ....'"
0.3
' a ,~ I
0.2 Ir / .~
0.2r 'a<"'" I

0.1

a
l I'---¥!
y
.... Y

!
~....

I
ll..

I
R
"fl,'E_

I
B -/3-
~-O-ijI-B-_liP 0 ~
i
iI
j
0.1 ~
'

I ~~
, ~/
,.............
,...¥ a,s

"!
'B -s
-[]... -0- -B_ B
1 -[(---D-jjl-a
~
I

O Ir--+" , ' I 0.6 0.8 1

o 0.2 ~4 a6 M 1 o 0.2 0.4

Sw' 59'
o Krow* + Krw* o Krog* + Krg*

FIG.6 - OIL WATER RELATIVE PERMEABILITY NORMALIZED CURVES FIG,7 - GAS OIL RELATIVE PERMEABILITY NORMALIZED CURVES
 ~pc21i 5 ~O
UWAINAT RESERVOIR
4 5 6 7 22 23 24 25
.-',---r---r-----r---r--r....---.,--,----- ~-
,, ,,
~DK237
I I I , I I I I I

I
I I I I I I I' I
I I I , I I I' l
I I I , I • I I I

___ OWC I I I I , I I I I I
, ,
J 2b--~_-~-~--E:19~--;--;---- : 276 _____ I. I.. _

I I l I I
,, ,,
I I I I I
I I I 1 I
__ 1
" __ •\._-1__
I __+• __ ..I _
I
OK 233
.... I
~1(290
3349
I I I I I 1 1

: :'~T::::
... OK 275
7 275 i
8
-----i--------

121 CONVERTED TO ARAB C PRODUCER ( 4 ) IZJ UWAINAT OIL PRODUCER ( 8 )

EJ CONVERTED TO ARAB D GAS PRODUCER ( 2 ) D UWAINAT WATER INJECTOR ( 7 )

PROBABLE SEALING FAULTS rsJ KHUFF GAS PRODUCER ( 5 ) C UWAINAT GAS PRODUCER ( 1 )

- IDENTIFIED BY SEISMiC

---SUSPECTED

~ FIGURE 8. UWAINAT RESERVOiR PROBABLE FAULT SYSTEM FIG.9 - MODEL AREAL GRID DIAGRAM WITH FAULT

4000 r- + +
SIMULATED PRESSURE
ACTUAL SHCIP
PRESSURE MATCH: WELL DK194

3900 t F'SIA
... ·10 .... _3
--------.------------------------------------------------1
I
3800
I

~
I
I
3700 I
3.8 I
I
S
iii 3600 ~ I I
;
!';.
w II I
I
I
'" 3500

~
I
I + ++ I
I
'"
"-
3400
fI'+ I I
I
+
3300
':"'i.4 __ -tJ:--+ I + ± + +... ++ + +-~ + ± ±
iI
I
3200
I
I
I
I
3100
I I
I

3000 L"~_.L__
o
L __ - - - l - L
2000 4000
L .J
6000
....L..__ ......l
8000
.L.__l._ _
10000
LJ 3.0 L- 1 ------.J
I
I

60 80 10.0
DAYS DA'y'S *'10"""",,3
AVO. RESERVOIR PRESSURE (Mooa) + AVG. RESERVOIR PRESSURE (ACn~,4L)

FIGURE 11. UWAINAT MODEL - WELL PRESSURE MATCH

FIG.10 - AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE MATCH
 CODES: A DENOTES PRESS DIFF OF + 10 PSI
B DENOTES PRESS DJFF OF ±
20 PSI
C DENOTES PRESS DIFF OF ± 30 PSI
FIG.12 - RFT PRESSURE MATCH MODEL AREAL GRID DIAGRAM

7,000 --·r-
\
\
WELL DK.194 (1980)

l 7.000 j--\---------------
WELL DK.198 (1980)

7.050
\
\
\ LAYER 1
7.050 t \
==========!======================~~=~==
~ LAYER'

i===========;i====================~~=F
lif
J;;. 7.100
\
------------t---------------------CA,.;;-.--
lAYER 3
i 7.100

~
7,150 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~i~~ ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~L 7,150 !I!.b l!-m __ J~.

t
--------------·\---------------~~~-k
l>i< LAYER 10
\

7,200
3.300
. . ,- . . -\-r-.,._- ,----J
3.350 3,400 3.450
7,200
3.300
-- - .- 1- ~ -
3.350
Lt-- -
3.400
I
3.450 3.500
PRESSURE (PSlA) PRESSURE (PSlA)

ACTU,AL
-e-
MODEL
* .....
AGTU,6L MODa

FIG.13 - FULL FIELD MODEL RFT PRESSURE PROFILE MATCH

7000 I·
~
c
"-
~
~
n:
-r
5000

4000
.J
0

3000

2000

~
;;:-
u 1000
i!!-
n:
c
___________L_. ._L.._.
" o ----- . _._. L L_.__ .... _.
2000
L __.
4000 6000

DAYS

- - - 08. - - MODEL GOR o ACTUIol GOR

FIG.14 - DK.66 HISTORY MATCH (GOR PROFILE) UWAINAT RESERVOIR

192
 ~pc2." 5 ~O
11 I' ... .. .-.. _...... ..... 1'60 '§'
,---T---
1 2 3 4 5 7
~ PRODUCTIO~ 1'50 ~
I 1-237 6
z
o
10

9
:r
,

I-
OIL PRODUCTION CUM OIL

j
J 140

130
6
Z
Q
286 I G
:::> : ...." ......,.. 120~
§
2 0: 8 I- ,'- I 0

31233--1-.
a. I,
"••", l' 11 0 if
-'
:I~ /./'"
d

4
5 I 67
o 7

6
r ,,' /
""""" ~
~I~ ~
100 5

u
, ", M
I ' ,40 ,/ WATER CUT
43 i
7
287 l ::
~
L.._.I··'
8 8
~
3 " ,••••, ••••," j ::
_.. _.J.. _..
236
g... '.1 6
o " "... I g
!:i'0: 2 .... , , , _ ......:.".::': ..... , _ ; , ,. ..... - - .... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 30
L i::;
~ 20
isI
~
'[ ; _

~.~.........................
•.••• GAS-OIL RATIO

J'O "
~
;;:

CooES: A DENOTES PRESS DIfF OF ± 10 PSI

o g', Ig'3\ is Ig" \ig\ 6, Id3\ 65\ 67\ ~ I,', 11~ \,~ \,,, I,~ 12', [2~ 12~ I~T
92 94 96 9B 2000 02 04 06 OB 10 12 14 16 1B 20 22 24 26 2B 30
0
B DENOlES PRESS DIFF Of ± 20 PSI
C DENOTES PRESS DIFF Of ± 30 PSI
WATER CUT ----- CUM OL PRODIJCTlON
FIG.15 - TRANSMISSIBILITY MODIFICATIONS FOR· FAULTS MODEL AREAL GRID DIAGRAM - - OL PRODUCTION - - .. GAS-on. RATIO

FIG.16 - PROJECTION CASE I - UWAINAT RESERVOIR

,70 2' ,-_·--··OILPRODUCnON·--········_·_·· .._._...-_.. -- . --1'70 '§'

~ ::~. ~;:; ~ ~: ~
~
z
o
I
OIL PRODUCTION

CUM•• ~.~~.~~~:!;~~ j :: 6
ci
6
z
0
'8
'7r
r . CUM OIL PRODU:!~~~. 1'60 ~
1'50 ;;
g
r ".. ' l'40 §
.................. 140 0 5:::>
~'
0:
:: tf" -1. 130 0~
•••••••••• '30 a. 0
§ .'
/.,.",." 1:~: "
d 0 16
0 0: ,,'
0: '2 a.
a. ;:; 15 , """ .JI 120 Q:::
ll..
d
d
o 11 :::>
0 14
I "
~,' 1'110 =::!
10k
.. r /' 0
",., 100 ~

t'/
13 --t 100
I I'90 a
9
../

WAT~~••?~T 1
90
80
'2
11 I
/
I
/
l
~OO

': ~,/ . ~~1!~..~~: ~ 70

" ,/

:
70

~
:~t / ///------ j:
I . ,.,.,/ ////
...
"-

j:
l40 6"
:
1Il

6
g
~: g
0
o
!:i'0: i::; ~ ./ .•....••.•..............
i::;
d
o •••.•••••• GAS-OIL RATIO - - ... '0 "
0:
d
0
2 ....... GAS-OIL RATIO ... ..j '0 "t.(
~
........:;:.;;;.;;:",. .... - - - - - - -*'" - - - - - - - - - - - -
-rr-rT-rjTl-TTrrrTrlIT '·l '1-·r·n::TTT'·rTTJ:Tr'r'j '1-
..... - -
0
~
;;: ~ '-ttfr.~~r~i~-r~~rir~~[.~l~~lirif,fr~l~.l-iG~I~H;r;r;-r·
._J 0
;;:
91 I 93 95 97 I 99 I 01 I 03 I 05 I 07 I 09 11 13 I 15 I 17 I 19 I 21 I 23 I 25 I 27 29
92 94 96 98 2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 92 94 96 9B 2000 02 04 06 DB 10 12 14 16 f8 20 22 24 26 2B 30

- - OL PRODUCTION - - .. GAS-OL RAllO ......... WATER CUT ......... CUM OL PRODUCTION _ _ OL PRODUCTION - - .. GAS-OL RAllO ......... WAT CUT ----- CUM OL PRODUCTION

FlG.17 - PROJECTION CASE 11 - UWAINAT RESERVOIR FIG.18 - PROJECTION CASE 111 - UWAINAT RESERVOIR
 X SECT/ON ill

X SECTION LSECTION I

LI~GEND'

rmJ~l lI~lur. '.U",. """oln l!llr~>

CROSS-~~CTION
--.
UWAI"!f\T 20 STUDY g m~ g~~llml!o~'~io~r r.~!<r;H~n~~~l ,

'fOULl '(Ul_(J~\1 [lr,l[nrOI"1!,r~Pllhl)f>r

* "HUff GOS rRODOUR

1:i UllnlNnTGnsrROOUCfR

o WI/nltln! Ill( rnonnerR

fl onM"rOILrRonUUR

FIGURE 19. LOCATIONS OF MODEL CROSS - SECTIONS fiJ

III
UIIAHlnl W.J[(lOR
0lI5F.RvnllO"WflL

Dk - 194

6500
GAS INJECTOR LENGTH 6000m, 60 CELLS - 52 LAYERS

~
6600

6700

..
6800

6900
GOC 6940' 55 .
Ul
Vl
OIL PRODUCER
7000
~
:r:
e-
o- 7100
w
"
7200
OWC 7250' 55 WATER INJECTOR

7300

:::1 , .D
NOTE: LAYERS NOT TO SC.ALE
L
20
.1
eEL L S
.... I
'40
I
60

FIG.21 - 20 CROSS-SECTIONAL MODEL FOR KHATIYAH SOUTH (WEST) - CROSS SECTION I

FIGURE 20.
paRa - PERM DISTRIBUTION 194
 UWAINAT RES[f<VOlr~

CROSS -SECTION I RESULTS

----------
CA~f 1.1 CA"E 1.1
CA~E 1.2 CA~E U
CA~E 1.J CASE LI

o 011 RA1E(STB/OAY)
·10 .. 3
COR(Mscr"jS18)

tt" ------_._----------, 10.0 r-------------------

14

-
U"\ 9.0

U"" i } 8.0

N
U 10
' 7.0

Q
T:
1
60
(J , ,
O.fJ -
1
~, 5.0
lI ;,
0[, , , 4.0
I ,

J.O -
04

l_-'-"I _ 2.0
02 -
1.0

00 L_~_L.~_.L--J..~~ ..J........_./..
00
JO.O 400 ~o,o 600 JOO 400 ~l) ~no
YEARS YEARS

FIGURE 22. UWAINAT DE~~LETION RUNS . 1 1.3. OIL r~ATI::: AI"lD Gnp

UWAINAT RESERVOIR
CROSS ·-SECTION I RESULTS

CA~E 1.1 CA';E 1.1

CA~E 1.2
CA~E 1.2
CA~E 1.3
CA~E 1.3

4.0
PRESSURE(P~1A)
.H~.~.~ .. I
CUM PROD(STB)
*10..6
----------------_._~~~~--~

8.0
I
36 I
I
I 7.0
l2
I
I
2.B I
.............. -:-.-:--- I 6.0
I
2.4 ·······1
I ~o
I
L.O

1.6 4.0

1.2
'30

DB
2.0
0.4

00
JO 0 40.0 '.0 0 60.0
YEAR~ YEARS

FIGURE 23. UWAINAT DEPl.ETION RUNS 1.1 1.3. CUM OIL AND f~ES,PF<ESS.

195
 UWAINAT RESERVOIR
CROSS ·-~;ECTION I RESULTS

CA~E 2.1 CA';E 2.1

CA~E 2.2 CA';E 2.2

OIL RATE(>TB/OAY) COR (SCr ISTB)

10.0 - - - - - - - - .------.-.- .----....... , . - -
r---------~I----------I

I I
I I 90
I I
I I 8.0
400
I I
I I
I I 7.0
I I
I I
I I 6.0
I I
I I
5.0
I

200
\
I
:
I 4.0 I
fIJI
"
\
I I,-II I
I
\ I I 1
I I / I
I I 30 I
I I
I I
2.0
~
I I I
I I I
I I 1.0 I
I , I
I I I
00 0.0
300 40.0 'j(1.0 600 30.0 40.0 ',00 (iDe
YEARS YEARS

FIGURE 24. UWAINAT GAS INJ. RUNS 2.1 - 2.2, OIL RATE AND GOf~

CROSS --SECTION I RESULT~;

CA';E 2.1 CA';E 2.1

CA~E 2.2 CA';[ 2.2

CUM PROO(Sm)
.10....6
---------~-~----------~ . . --------------·~·~·~~7.--·---~
. I
7.0 .:··~·--i
: I
I
I
10 I
I

5.0

2.0
4.0

'10
1.0

2.0

00 1.0 '--~---'-~--'--~--'-~--'---'--~
300 40.0 500 600 ~,O 40.0 ~C 000
Y[ARC; YEARS

FIGURE 25.UWAINAT GAS INJ. RUNS 2.1 - 2.2. CUM OIL AND RES.PRESS.

196
 -"-'l

E 23

G
z
w
U 22
iEw
I
0-
W

~
III

~
i=
'"~
21

20
-
CASE 2.1
_ _ _ _- - ~-
CASE 2.2 I

I
"
Ie 1._ ...
0
__1..._..__.__"__• ....l.. __ .
2
.... __,. ...L. _ J.
4
LJ
LIMITING WELL GOR (MSCFISTB)

o DEPLETION + GAS INJECTION

FIG.26 - DEPLETION v•• GAS INJECTION PERFORMANCE - CROSS SECTION I

3.5 r-------------------------, 3.5

3 "
I I
i
2.5

!
2.5 -

.Vl.?
~-g
2 "
g ~

~l 1.5 ~
~
§,
.
0
1 ..
,\.
I>
¥:

0.5 ~

, [ [
I

30 <0 50 60 70 oI ~.
--!dOo---'-----tO----'---7O--L---l L

YEAR 30 40
o on. (CASE 1.2) + GOR (CASE 1.2) • OL (CASE 2.1) ~ COR (CASE 2.1) YEAR
x OL (CASE 3.0) v COR (CASE 3.0) C OIL (CASE 3.1) + GOR (CASE 3.1) ~ OIL (CASE J.2) t:. GQR (CASE 3.2)

12,------------------------, 16 r-
11 15 r-
14 L
10
13 L
12 r
11 ~

'~ ~
e-
7t- I
6 ~
5 L
4;-
Ji I
2 t- J
30 <0 50 60 70 1 L-~ - L - - - "O---'-----=5'=-0----'--
-'---_--"_ _L
40 60 70
YEAR YEAR
1:I PRESSURE (CASE 1.2) + CUM on.. (CASE 1.2) -0 PRESSURE (CASE 2.1) C CUM OIL (CASE 3.1) + CUM GAS (CASE 3.1) <> PRESS (CASE 3.1)
~ CUM on. (CASE 2.1) x PRESSURE (CASE 3.0) v CUM OL (CASE 3.0) t:. CUM OIL (CASE 3.2) x CUM GAS (CASE 3;2) v PRESS (CASE 3.2)

FIG.27 - RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE COMPARISON - CROSS SECTION I FIG.28 - WATER INJECTION START UP - CASES 3.1 & 3.2

197
 4.5

4 \
3.5 :t
II
~
e~
3

",1? 2.5 F-
8 g
~l 2
2 ~--------------------
§ 1.5 1.9
5 1.8
1.7
I.,
1.5

~
0.5
1.4
1.J
!4
O! !
1.2
i
30 40 M 60 e0" , A
",1? 1.1

L~"""",,""".""."""'~
YEAR
Cl all (CASf; 3.2) + GaR (CASE 3.2) 0 OK.. (CASE 3.3) A. GaR (CASE 3.3)
8 ~ 1

~l
0.9
0.8
§ 0.7 3.5 i -----------------.---_
D••
19 5

~-~
0.5
18
17
0.4
0.3
3,
~ "
15
0.2
0.1
N 2.5 ...
~ o L--;3!;;rO-----'--4;;0:--'---!50;;--.l.---;.;;.0~-'------,7"'0-----'-~
14

Jl' 13 ;;,
12 YEAR e?
(;:''"'
~1 " C all (CASE 3.1) + GaR (CASE 3.1) 0 all (CASE 3.4) t>. GaR (CASE 3.4) 81
:> 0
10
l r----------------\
~ il
CO -'
~
9
8
7
•
14r'------ I
d
o
1.5

l L
i

•
.n~
CO 13 ~
~ 5
12 f-
~ 4 ~
(', 11 i...
0.5 ~
3
!
~
21- 10 !--
1 L.......L-__ .L -l.---L..-.-.-..L_ _ ..L- L..-__ L .-l...-__ ---l._---l o , I ! 1

~ ~ 50 W 70 9 30 40 50 60 70
YEAR ~1 81-
1 YEAR
Cl CUM Oil (CASE 3.2) + CUM GAS (CASE 3.2) 0 PRESS (CASE 3.2)
,.g Cl OIL (CASE 3.1) + GaR (CASE 3.1) 0 all (CASE 3.5) t>. GaR (CASE 3.5)
:>0 7~
A. CUM Oil (CASE: 3.3) x CUM GAS (CASE 3.3) v PRESS (CASE 3.3)
il I
6 f-

FIG.29 - WATER INJECTION START UP - CASES: 3.2 &: 3.3 ~2- 5 ~ 14

4~ 13
15 3~ §' 12
2 ~ g "L
1 L--L--L.~_~_L.._......._____.._.L _ _ L
~
L _ _L _ .__. . 1 - - - - - l - -
~ ~ M ~ ro 10 r-
Jl'
YEAR ~ .... 9;-
c CUM Oil {CASE 3.1) CUM GAS (CASE 3.1) o PRESS (CASE 3.1) ~] 8-
.4 CUM Oil (CASE 3.4) CUM GAS (CASE 3.4) v PRESS (CASE 3.4) :>~
~~ 7 r-
~t 6 ...
WATER INJECTION SENSITIVITY RUN # 1 - CASES: 3.1 &: 3.4
~~ 5~
FIG.3D -
4-
I
d
0 H-
2 I"
1 L_L- __.l.....-...-_I ...l......- ......L_ _ L _ _ ---.L ....l-_._ _L._ .....l
~ ~ ~ W 70
YEAR
c CUM OIL (CASE 3.1) + CUM GAS (CASE 3.1) 0 PRESS (CASE 3.1)
t>. CUM OIL (CASE 3.5) x CUM GAS (CASE 3.5) v PRESS (CASE 3.5)

FIG.31 - WATER INJECTION SENSITIVITY RUN # 2 - CASES: 3.1 &: 3.5

 SPE25530
3.5 'I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
i
3.5 I
I 3~
3
1
~ ~
1
1
t I
!
~";i'
g§"§
2.5 [-

2
I
~
!I
It
!
en
~~
~
2.5

2~.
, !
'
'\
I
I
I
(!)0
I ,\ ~ I : I
.g (!)

~t
§.
1.5 ~
i
:

'\
~ ~l
§. 1.5r i\ ~ I
~
,~:.:::
d
o
..:f '1\.111111 """"•.
.:[ ."" : ' - I
oI
~
I ! !

~ ~
1 t I

~
J

M
1
o
~
' , ,
~
"
~
""
~ M
I
YEAR YEAR
c OIL (CASE 3.1) + GOR (CASE 3.1) " OIL (CASE 3.6) .. GOR (CASE 3.6) o OIL (CASE 3.1) + GOR (CASE 3.1) "OIL (CASE 3.7) A GOR (CASE 3.7)

:8 14 ,------------1 :: ~·_-----------------------_·----------------l
r :
12~ ~
13

Q
g
12
11 ~
r i
I
S
iii
<':- 11 ~
1

~
~
10 f- I 10 I-
g: 9 L II 9~
£:1
en C
I
e~ I S1
~ g e~
~ ~ I
7ri '"
:~
I ~
il il

r- , ", " " " "' , ,' , ,' , ,' ,' , ,

6~ !

5~ I
i 4 L I i 51-

d
o 3
2
1
i
1
~
L_.L-~_..J ._
_.l . ..L_,,__ ,_ 1 L __ . L_._. __ L....... "_.•.•. L L __
I
I
I
,J
~
:t
2.
1 LL--L-_-l -L L - - L -__ L-__- L - _-J ---L_J
I

~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ M
YEAR YEAR
c CUM OIL (CASE 3.1) + CUM GAS (CASE 3.1) "PRESS (CASE 3.1) c CUM OIL (CASE 3.1) + CUM GAS (CASE 3.1) "PRESS (CASE 3.1)
A CUM OIL (CASE 3.6) x CUM GAS (CASE 3.6) v PRESS (CASE 3.6) A CUM OIL (CASE 3.7) x CUM GAS (CASE. 3.7) v PRESS (CASE 3.7)

FIG.32 - WATER INJECTION SENSITIVITY RUN # 3 - CASES: 3.1 & 3.6 FIG.33 - WATER INJECTION SENSITIVITY RUN # 4 - CASES: 3.1 & 3.7