SPE

SPE 21760

Design and Implementation of the First Arctic Offshore Waterflood,

Endicott Field, Alaska
G.R. Adamson, H.L. Hellman, and R.R. Metzger, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
SPE Members

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Western Regional Meeting held in Long Beach, California, March 20-22, 1991.

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 matenal, as presented, does not necessanly reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083·3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

The Endicott Field is the first Arctic offshore producing oil
field. Early reservoir studies showed that optimum
recovery would require start-up of waterflooding within the
first two years of production. This paper describes the
engineering and geological work done to implement and
optimize the Endicott Field waterflood.
The reservoir at Endicott Field is contained within the
Mississippian Kekiktuk Formation. These multistory fluvial
sandstones are characterized by wide variations in rock
properties. Thick areally extensive shales combined with
sealing intra-reservoir faults, serve to subdivide the field
into seven distinct reservoir management sub-zones.
The design and implementation of this waterflood project
extensively used simulation studies. These studies
showed that waterflooding would nearly double the
recovery and there were significant benefits for returning
the field to original pressure. Simulation models optimized
both the number and placement of production and
injection wells.
The first production facility sealift included waterflood
facilities. This enabled a pilot program to be implemented
within five months after production start-up to shake down
facilities, determine well injectivity and obtain early
waterflood performance data.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
Endicott Field is located two miles offshore in the Arctic
OCean, about 8 miles (12.8 km) east of Prudhoe Bay Field.
To date, 74 wells have been drilled from two man-made
gravel islands, both constructed in 14 feet (4.3 m) of water.
The main production island (MPI) contains production
facilities and about one-half of the wells. The remaining
wells have been drilled from the satellite drilling island
(SOl).
The field produces from the Mississippian Kekiktuk
Formation. Current estimates of total hydrocarbon
volumes are 1.1 billion barrels (175X10 6 m3) of oil in place,
400 BCF (11 X10 9 m3 ) of gas cap gas, and 800 BCF
(22X109 m3) of solution gas. Production start-up began in
October of 1987, water injection began in February, 1988
with the field wide injection project completed by mid
1990. To date, the field has produced over 100 MMBO
(15.9X10 6 m3) at an average daily offtake rate of 100,000
barrels of oil per day (15900 m3/d). Reservoir pressure is
maintained to optimize field recovery through gas
reinjection into the original gas gap and water injection.
ENDICOU GEOLOGY
Regional Setting
The Kekiktuk Formation is the earliest member of the
Mississippian aged Endicott Group and unconformably
rests on older upper Devonian deformed metasedimentary
basements rocks. Conformably overlying the Endicott

103
 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST
ARCTIC OFFSHORE WATERFLOOD,ENDICOTT FIELD, ALASKA
Group is the transgressive marine Itkyliariak Formation.
(Figure 1).
The tectonic history for the Endicott Group is complex.
Numerous unconformities, syndepositional faulting during
the Mississippian, and post-Mississippian tectonic
overprints (wrenching and reactivation of earlier tectonic
elements) occur associated with the opening of the
Canada Basin to present day North.
Deposition of the Kekiktuk sands occurred within
depocenters controlled by uplifted basement terrains
during Ellesmerian time. Gradually, southerly flowing fluvial
systems developed eroding basement highlands. Braided
and meandering streams deposited their bed loads over
pre-Kekiktuk swamplands and low-lying basement terrain.
Structure lIrap)
The Endicott Field is a combined stratigraphic/structural
trap. Hydrocarbons are accumulated in a southwesterly
dipping fault block bound on three sides by major normal
faults (Figure 2). Structural dip closure occurs to the
southeast. On the northeast, the Tigvariak fault juxtaposes
older basement rock against Kekiktuk sands. To the
southeast, the Mikkelsen Bay Fault juxtaposes younger
Kayaklltkyliariak sediments with the reservoir. The Niakuk
Fault, a major North Slope tectonic feature. juxtaposes
Triassic and Cretaceous sediments against the Kekiktuk.
Seal is formed both by the conformably overlying marine
Itkyliariak and by regionally continuous, lower Cretaceous
shales which unconformably overly tilted Kekiktuk
antiformal fault blocks. Hydrocarbons are thought to have
been predominantly sourced from the overlying
Cretaceous shales. 1
Several intrareservoir normal faults have been identified.
These faults directly affect waterflood, field development,
and offtake planning and will be further discussed in a later
section.
Stratigraphy
Within the Endicott Field, three major lithostratigraphic
units are defined within the Kekiktuk Formation. Figure 3
shows the average zonal rock properties. The lowermost
interval, Zone 1, is mainly comprised of shale and coal
swamp sediments with minor poor-reservoir quality sands.
Zone 1 is "capped" by a major correlative coal.
Zone 2 sands are predominantly medium to coarse grained
and often conglomeratic, interpreted as braided stream
deposits. These sands comprise some of the highest
grade reservoir rocks found on the North Slope with
enhanced secondary porosity as high as 28% and
permeabilities often as high as several darcies. Zone 2 is
104
SPE 21760
further subdivided by the presence of a regionally
extensive correlative lacustrine shale sequence.
Zone 3, the uppermost part of the reservoir is composed of
stacked fluvial channel sand sequences with
carbonaceous mudstones and fine sands/silts deposited
in interchannel floodplanes. Within Zone 3, several
regionally extensive and correlative coals. shales. and
shaley sequences (3B) further serve to subdivide the
reservoir into vertically isolated hydraulic units.
In descending order, the fluids at Endicott consist of a gas
cap, oil leg, "intermediate" aquifer, tar mat, and regional
aquifer (Figure 1). The oil column is about 340' thick,
bound by a planer gas-oil-contact at 9855' (3004 m)
TVDSS and an oil-intermediate aqUifer contact at 10,195'
(3107 m) TVDSS.
The presence of an areally extensive undulating tar mat
separating the intermediate and regional aquifers is of
major importance in its' effect on waterflood planning and
injection well placement. The tar mat, combined with the
presence of major field bounding faUlts, effectively isolates
the regional aquifer below 10,400' (3179 m) TVDSS from
providing pressure support.
DEVELOPMENT OF A DETAILED GEOLOGIC MODEL
Complexities resulting from the combined effects of
vertically segregated subreservoirs, areal differences in
zonal rock properties, structure, and tar presence, led
early-on to the realization that optimum field planning and
development needed a detailed geologic model. Based
on previous experience gained at Prudhoe Bay Field,
reservoir description sensitivities such as sand continuity,
shale distributions, and faulting were identified as having
significant impact on partial and full-field simulators, well
completions, and reservoir management strategy. A
focused effort was undertaken to acquire, store, and
interpret data. These data included: a 3-D seismic survey
covering fifty-five square miles (142 km 2) at 110 foot (33.5
m) spacing, detailed core and lithofacies analysis from 8
wells covering all reservoir sub-zones, dipmeter analysis of
cored and uncored sections, full suite resistivity and
porosity open-hole logs for all development wells, and
cased hole pulsed and compensated neutron logs where
necessary to confirm reservoir continuity based on gas and
water movement.
Pressure data in the form of build-Ups, statics and open-
hole repeat formation pressures were also critical in
shaping a working reservoir description model.

SPE 21760 G. R. ADAMSON, H. L. HELLMAN, R. R. METZGER
GEOLOGIC CONTROLS ON WATERELOOD PLANNING
Sealing Fauns
The Endicott reservoir is broken by numerous
intrareservoir fauns of minor throw. These fauns generally
are subparallel to major field bounding faults. Six months
after production start-up, static pressure data showed an
anomalous pressure differential near the Midfield Fault
system (Figure 4). Average pressures for subzones 28
and 2A showed a 150-200 psia (1030-1380 Pal differential
across the faun, clear proof of limited transmissibility across
the fault system. The lack of pressure communication is
attributed to the combined effects of "smearing" of ductile
beds and possible mineralization along faun planes. Poor
pressure support in the SOl area is caused by limited
access to the MPI gas cap across the Midfield Fault and
ineffective aquifer support resulting from the presence of
tar.
The discovery that the Midfield Fault was sealing
necessitated treating the reservoirs on each side of the
fault system separately. Initially, this reqUired reducing
offtake on the SOl side due to rapidly falling reservoir
pressure. It was also necessary to accelerate the drilling of
water injectors to provide pressure support.
Sub-zone Approach to Deyelopment planning
Distinct differences exist in depositional environment,
reservoir quality, and netgross sand ratios between sub-
zones 38/3C, 3A, and 28/2A. This has led to fundamental
differences in development planning for each sub-zone.
Effects of structural dip, aerially continuous coals/shales
(vertical segregation), and a sealing Midfield Faun have
worked in concert to produce six separate main
subreservoirs (Figure 5). The seventh subreservoir is the
38/3C in the down-dip peripherial edge of the field.
In the high net:gross sand subzones 3A and 28/2A, the
presence of down-dip tar and structural error were the
critical risk factors in water injection well placement. Tar
occluded sand porosity was observed to have little
injectivity, and there was little evidence of aquifer support,
indicating that communication through the tar was very low.
Injection wells had to be placed to have access either to
the intermediate aquifer above the tar or where no
intermediate aquifer was present as near as possible to the
down-dip limit of the light oil wedge (Figure 6).
In the lower netgross 3C sand sequence, development
planning took a different approach. Although the risk of tar
occurrence and structural error was still present, an added
risk was the absence of reservoir quality sands. An
intensive reservoir description effort was undertaken which
redefined subzone 3C stratigraphy into five depositional
sequences (Figure 3) with mappable channel trends.
Development wells and water injectors were drilled to
105
seE 21760
3
achieve optimal well placement with respect to sand
development. To date, static and open-hole repeat
formation pressures have shOwn increased pressure
connectivity of these lower netgross sands than originally
expected. Pressure connectivity will lead to higher oil
recovery through enhanced waterflood efficiency and
potentially decrease the number of wells necessary to
adequately exploit 38/3C reserves.
RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Description of Models
The development process of the Endicott Field has used
reservoir simulation extensively. Reservoir simulation has
evaluated well density, lateral well standoff from the gas
cap and aquifer, and waterflood benefits and timing.
The simulation model (VIP) used for most of these studies
is a four phase partial compositional program. VIP allows
two gas phase compositions, although all development
simulation of the Endicott Field used the program simply as
a black oil simulator.
Three types of simulation models have used: 1) full field
models (FFM's)j 2) partial field models of isolated reservoirs
of the field (PFM's) and 3) very finely gridded generic
models (mechanistic).
The first FFM had coarse grids representing areas of 40
acres (16 hectares). Recent improvement in computer
memory size has allowed development of a FFM with areal
grids as small as 5 acres (2 hectares). These models were
used to optimize facilities design, estimate total
development well counts, and evaluate field wide
development strategies such as waterflood benefits and
timing. Full Field Models use pseudo relative permeability
curves derived from fine grid cross section models.
Partial Field Models have finer gridding than the Full Field
Models. Areal gridding has been from 1 to 5 acres (.4 to 2
hectares). Reservoir sand sequences are modeled with 10
foot (3 m) layers at the top and bottom and enough
additional layers so that a maximum layer thickness of 50
feet (15 m) is not exceeded. Reservoirs modeled using
PFM's are effectively hydraulically isolated from each other
and require simple boundary conditions. The small
reservoir volume evaluated by these models allow fine
gridding and improved detail.
Mechanistic models use very fine layering and gridding to
evaluate optimum perforation placement, pulse tests,
single well tracer tests, and other generic concerns.
Mechanistic models impacted basic development
decisions, but have had little affect on waterflood
development planning.
The Full Field and Partial Field Models have been initialized
with reservoir properties obtained from a detailed static
4 SPE 2116 0 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST
ARCTIC OFFSHORE WATERFLOOD,ENDICOTT FIELD, ALASKA
geologic model. This static model contains up-to-date
reservoir geology interpretation in a digitized format. Data
can be extracted in any predetermined areal and vertical
grid size for use in a simulation model greatly enhancing
the ease of building reservoir simulation models.
Modelljng Results
Early development strategy for the Endicott Field utilized
various reservoir simulation studies. Reservoir properties
for these studies came from limited data obtained from
exploratory and delineation well logs and cores. The most
significant of these studies used a Full Field Model with a
38 x 10 x 24 grid with each areal grid representing 40 acres
(16 hectares). This study used Sohio's (now BP) 3D3P
simulation program. Although the areal gridding was
coarse, the layering was fine enough to allow thin (10ft (3
m)) layers at the top of each sub-zone to account for gas
underrunning shales. This model evaluated the benefits
and best timing for waterflooding and calculated an
increase over primary recovery between 50 and 100%.
This same study estimated that waterflooding could be
delayed by as much as two years after field start-up without
reducing recovery. However, it would be necessary to
repressure the reservoir to avoid any losses. Facility sizing,
well spacing, offtake rate, tubing size, and production
scheduling were also evaluated with this model.
After field development began, waterflood strategy was
further optimized using Partial Field Models. A separate
model was created for each reservoir sub-zone on each
side of the Mid-Field Fault. These models evaluated the
optimum number and location of injection wells, the best
injection strategy and the benefits of any additional
production wells. These partial field models showed
significantly greater recovery benefits (3-6% OOIP) for
repressuring the reservoir than calculated in the first Full
Field Model (-1% OOIP).
Another major effect on field development from the PFM
studies was a reduction in the number of water injection
wells. Simulation calculations showed that two injection
wells on each end of the separate reservoir sub-zones
yielded better recovery than three injectors spaced evenly
across these reservoirs. Recovery is increased with
maximum standoff between the injectors and producers.
These simulation studies saved the cost of drilling three to
six wells, which cost about $3.5 million each.
Simulation studies have influenced other operating
strategies. On the MPI side of the field, the reservoir will be
depleted using a combination of waterflood and gas
displacement drives. Simulation studies were very critical
in determining the optimum balance between water and
gas injection. Gas produced from all wells in the field must
be injected into the gas cap of MPI sub-zones 3A, 2B and
2A. Studies showed that over injection of gas (Le.,
injecting more gas than produced from a particular
reservoir) improved recovery in the Zone 2 reservoirs but
106
SPE 21760
reduced recovery in the Zone 3A reservoir. These studies
led to the decision not to inject gas into the upper 3B and
3C reservoirs to leave more gas available for injection into
the Zone 2 reservoirs.
Model initialization and history matching is a joint geological
and engineering effort. These interactions are mutually
beneficial. The geologists identify potential
heterogeneities that could affect how to history match a
model. Conversely, the results of the modeling effort can
give indications of reservoir characteristics not previously
identified.
WATERELOOD IMPLEMENWION
Since field wide water injection was planned to start within
the first two years of field production, water injection
facilities were included in the production modules sealifted
to Endicott from New Iberia Louisiana arriving in August,
1987. Priority was placed on commissioning of the
production facilities which were completed with production
starting on October 3, 1987. Commissioning of the water
injection facilities followed with completion in February
1988.
Injection Testing
Injection tests were conducted on three wells during the
summer and fall of 1987. Injection rates into the wells were
much less than predicted and a concerted effort was made
to identify the cause. Two major factors were identified.
These were inadequate wellbore cleanup due to lack of
production and poor oxygen scavenging of the seawater
resulting in corrosion products causing plugging. Tests
were suspended until the production facilities were
available for high rate well cleanup and until the water
injection facilities were available to provide oxygen
scavenged water.
Injection facilities
Sea water and produced water injection facilities are
provided within the Endicott production facilities as seen
in figure 7. Seawater is supplied through a seawater
intake system from a water depth of 14 feet (4.3 m). The
intake system includes marine life screen and bypass
systems to exclude marine life from the intake. The intake
water is filtered through a set of downflow graded bed
filters, deareated in a gas stripping deareater and pumped
to injection pressure of about 2500 psi (17X10 6 Pal via a
gas turbine driven centrifugal pump. Only a single train is
provided with a nominal capacity of 140 MBPD (22300
m3/d).
Produced water from the production train is sent through a
pair of corrugated plate interceptors to remove the oil to
less than 25 ppm. The produced water is then fed to a
pump identical to the sea water pump. The injection
SPE 21760 G. R. ADAMSON, H. L. HELLMAN, R. R. METZGER
facilities are configured to allow either injection pump to
handle sea or produced water.
waterflood Pilot
Because of the early injectivity problems encountered, it
was decided to implement a pilot project as soon as
practical in order to determine injectivity parameters, shake
down the equipment and obtain early reservoir
performance data to aid in planning the full waterflood. A
single producing well was converted to water injection
service as the facilities were commissioned. This well had
been used in the earlier injectivity test program and had
been producing for about 4 months since field start-up.
With adequate pre-production and de-oxygenated
seawater, this well performed on injection as expected. An
additional 2 wells were added to the pilot and they also
performed satisfactorily. Pressure fall off , injection step
rate and injection profiles were performed on the wells to
determine fracture gradient, monitor fracture growth and
determine injection profile. Radioactive tracers were also
injected into the wells to monitor water breakthrough.
The information gathered was used in planning the
implementation of the full field waterflood. Early operation
of the facilities also provided for improvement in operations
and pointed out the difficulties to be encountered during
the summer open water season.
Fullfjeld Waterflood
Pressure declines experienced in the SOl area caused
implementation of full waterflood into Zone 2 and Subzone
3A sands in the main producing area to be accelerated and
completed by the end of 1988. The addition of peripheral
areas and upper Zone 3 followed and is now complete.
Well performance including injectivity and profile control
has been acceptable with only minor remedial work
required.
Large potential benefits of repressurization have greatly
affected the operation of this waterflood project. Although
the sea water injection facilities were nominally designed
for 140 MBPO (22300 m3/d) and have injected over 160
MBPO (25 500 m3/d) on occasion, annual average rates
have not yet exceeded 100 MBPO (15900 m3 /d). The
Endicott Field is located near the mouth of the
Sagavanirktok River. High discharge rates during spring
run off cause very high levels of suspended solids in the
ocean near the sea water intake for the injection plant .
High solids levels cause frequent injection restrictions or
shutdowns of the plant because of filter plugging. This
problem can also be especially acute in the fall when
seasonal storms churn the ocean. Many modifications
have been made to the facilities which have resulted in
some improvement. The addition of a clarifier was studied
but the investment could not be justified. To compensate
for the low summer injection, it has become necessary to
107
SPE 21760 5
overinject during the winter months to accommodate net
voidage.
The need to over inject during the winter caused several
changes to be made to the facility design and operating
strategy. The most important change involved a pilot
injection test of commingled sea and produced waters.
Commingling the two waters in the winter months allows a
large increase in water injection rates by using the
produced water injection pump to inject the commingled
water. There was a major concern about the formation of
BaS04 scale in the commingled water. The sea water has
free ion concentrations of Barium while the produced water
contains high concentrations of sulfate ions. To date,
results from the commingling tests have shown little
problem with scale formation.
The reduced availability of injection water during the
summer led to an unusual use for one well. Simulation of
the 3A subzone estimated that a producer near the
location of a 2B injector would recover an additional 0.6
MMSTBo (95000 stock-tank m3 ). However, these
calculated reserves would not justify the expense of drilling
an additional well. Simulation of the 2B subzone showed
that relatively small volumes of injection water were
required for optimal 2B recovery. From these studies, the
decision was made to alternately use the well as a 3A
producer during the summer and a 2B injector during the
winter. This well has a packer tailpipe and a sliding sleeve
installed to allow isolation of each reservoir. The well has
sufficient injectivity to meet annual injection needs during
the winter months.
FIELD PERFORMANCE TO DATE
Although pilot injection began in early 1988, full
development of the waterflood was not finished until mid
1990. There has been minimal well response to date to
fully evaluate waterflood performance. However, well
response observed to date is consistent with model
predictions.
Radioactive tracer has been injected in 12 water and 3 gas
injection wells. A systematic well sampling program is in
place to insure timely observation of breakthrough.
Produced water from these wells is also analyzed for ion
content to differentiate sea water from reservoir water.
Injection water breakthrough has been observed in 10
wells, confirmed by either radioactive tracer recovery
and/or ion analysis. Most of the observed breakthrough is
consistent with model predictions, with the few cases of
early breakthrough explained by apparent high
conductivity through mapped faults. This type of
surveillance work is critical, as aqUifer water has broken
through in several wells unrelated to waterflood. Most non-
waterflood breakthrough is the result of oement channels
or aquifer movement along fault planes. Only about 25%
of the 40 MBWPD (6400 m3 /d) currently produced in the
 DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FIRST SPE 21760
ARCTIC OFFSHORE WATERFLOOD,ENDICOn FIELD, ALASKA

Endicott Field comes from waterflood breakthrough.

A few wells have shown major decreased gas production in

response to water injection. Figure 8 shows the GOR
history of well K-16 and the dramatic decrease in well GOR
in response to water injection. GOR response in most
wells is more difficult to evaluate as these wells vary in
offtake and are rate sensitive to gas production.

Continued attentive monitoring of field performance is the

key to increased recovery from the Endicott Field.
Reservoir simulation will playa major role in this surveillance
effort. A continued joint effort between reservoir
modeling, production operations and geology groups is
necessary to obtain maximum benefit for Endicott Field
development.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Early accurate and detailed reservoir description was

essential in implementing the Endicott waterflood.

2. Early reservoir surveillance pressure information is

directly responsible for modifying reservoir description
and waterflood planning.

3. A mUlti-disciplinary team approach is necessary to

ensure successful waterflood planning and
implementation.

4. Reservoir simulation will enhance the design process

and lower costs in developing and producing new oil
fields.

NOMENCLATURE

TVDSS = True vertical depth sub-sea

OOIP= Original oil in place
MBWD= Thousand barrels per day

ACKNOWLEpGEMENT

The authors wish to thank the management of BP

Exploration and the working interest owners of Endicott
Field for permission to publish this work. We also
acknowledge present and previous co-workers for their
significant contributions to the Endicott Project. We also
thank Lynda Stamper for preparation of the manuscript.
The work presented in this paper reflects the
interpretations of BP Exploration and not necesarily those
of the other working interest owners.

REFERENCE

1. Wicks, J. L., Buckingham, M. L., and Dupree, J. H., in

press, "Endicott Field - Northern Alaska Offshore
Beaufort Sea", American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Atlas of Oil and Gas Fields.

108
 SPE 21760

2000 20000
1-
'I Legend
1800 1-
/ 'n. -0- a:R 1-
1600
..(
f
l'
\ • INJ - BWPD I -

1400
I \ !l
0
m
I- n r D..

~ I ,\ :::m
0
CJ)
1200
p ......, II
I
1\
-.\ n
/ \ I
/
I z
0
a: 1000 10000
0 / \ \ \ ] \/ tw
...... CJ
CD 800
...-u V~ L
....
./ -,
~
u ....
~
N
.q-

600
\ ~
\
400
\

I
I~
\/ \
• \1'\
V \ II
200
a • '"
OIL
- \ ~ I
o
/ ....... o
1989 APR JUL OCT 1990 APR JUL OCT 1991
DATE

Figure 8 - GOR history of Well K·16 vs. injection in Well L·14.