SPE 132303

Optimal Field Development Through Infill Drilling for the Main Pay in South
Rumaila Oil Field
W.J. Al-Mudhafer, SPE, Iraqi South Oil Company; M.S. Al-Jawad, SPE, Baghdad University; D.A. Al-Shamma, SPE,
Iraqi Ministry of Oil

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Trinidad and Tobago Energy Resources Conference held in Port of Spain, Trinidad, 27–30 June 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Study of determining the optimal future field development has been done in a sector of South Rumaila oil field/ main pay.
The aspects of net present value (economic evaluation) as objective function have been adopted in the present study.
Many different future prediction cases have been studied to determine the optimal production future scenario. The first future
scenario was without water injection and the second and third with 7500 surface bbls/day and 15000 surface bbls/day water
injection per well, respectively. At the beginning, the runs have been made to 2028 years, the results showed that the optimal
future scenario is continuing without water injection because the cumulative oil production and net present value for this case is
higher than from the two another cases, but According to the relationship between net present value and future production time, the
abandonment time was estimated before end of December 2014 for all above cases. So, the optimal future scenario was with water
injection of 15000 surface bbls/day if the surface injection facilities can handle this rate.
For achieving the reliable forecasts for these prediction scenarios, a comparison has been made with other modern studies
which adopted on the same field.
Introduction
Production and management of oil and gas in today's highly competitive environment require the use of high tech tools. These
tools provide the means by which the cost of exploration, production, and management of hydrocarbon resources may be reduced.
Engineers find themselves in a never ending race to catch up with new advancements in information technologies. Employing
computers in the workplace, incorporating sophisticated simulation models in decision-making processes, and digital control and
monitoring of equipment that were regarded as state of the art only a few years ago, are now normal day-to-day procedures. The
phrase "Advanced Technologies" has a highly dynamic meaning.
A typical reservoir development involves many variables that affect the operational schedule involved in its management.
These variables are usually used as input to a reservoir simulator that generates a forecast of the production profile. Using this
forecast, the production engineer has to consider several hypotheses to achieve the best strategy for the field development (1).
Generally, economic objective chosen to optimization process is the net present value (NPV) for the field, as long as its evaluation
also considers investments, revenues, costs, oil and gas price, internal rate of return, and government taxes. The costs include
2 SPE 132303

capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) expenditures. The maximization of NPV, however, depends on economic scenario
which will influence the strategy plan. For instance, if the actual oil price is high, optimum NPV may be achieved by increasing oil
recovery, even if demands more investments and costs. In the other hand, low oil price may privilege costs reduction by reducing
water production and injection rate or the number of wells, even if it causes an oil production rate decrease (1).
Brief Idea about South Rumaila Oil Field
The South Rumaila oil field was discovered in 1954The Rumaila oil field is located in the south of Iraq, some (50 kms) west
of Basra and some (30 kms) to the west of the Zubair field1. The field is associated with large gentle anticline fold of
submeridional trend. The dimensions of South Rumaila Oil Field are about (38Km) long and (12Km) wide. The upper sandstone
member of the Zubair formation is the main pay zone of South Rumaila Oil Field. The Zubair formation in south of Iraq (Rumaila,
West Qurna and Zubair Fields) belongs to the depositional cycle of Lower Barremian to Aptain of Lower Cretaceous age (2). The
formation is generally, composed of sandstone and shale. The ratio of sand in the formation decreases significantly toward the east
while this ratio increases toward the west and it may reach 100% to the west of South Rumaila Oil Field. The sand ratio also
decreases toward the north while it increases to the south1. Zubair formation has been divided into five members on the basis of
sand to shale ratio and these have been named from top to bottom: Upper shale member, Upper sandstone member (main pay),
Middle shale member, Lower sand member, and Lower shale member.
The main pay is the Upper sandstone member. The main pay comprises three dominated sandstone units, separated by two
shale units. The shale units act as good barriers impeding vertical migration of the reservoir fluids except in certain areas where
they disappear. These units are from top to bottom (2), AB (reservoir unit), C (shale unit), DJ (reservoir unit), K (shale unit), and
LN (reservoir unit). According to the differences between porosity and permeability, the last two reservoir units are subdivided
into DJ1, DJ2, LN1, and LN2.
The South Rumaila Field is divided into four production sectors from the north to the south, the sectors are Qurainat, Shamiya,
Rumaila, and Janubia. The sector under study is the Rumaila sector and small parts from the Shamia and Janubia sectors. The
choice of this sector was made especially because it is the largest sector in which the production and injection operations are
carried out as shown in Fig. 1.
The Estimated Main Pay Original oil in place (OOIP) Is 19.5 Billion barrels but for the sector under study is approximately about
7 Billion barrels. Production commenced in 1954, and the cumulative Main Pay Oil production through 2004 is approximately
3.75 billion barrels or 55% recovery factor (3).
The Peak oil production of 0,45 MMBPD Occurred in May 1979. The Oil production in June 2005 was Approximately 220,000
MMBPD. Artificial Lift has not been installed in Any Main Pay wells until 2007, which resulted in these wells being incapable of
flowing to surface after water cuts reach approximately 50%. The Historic practice has been to conduct walkovers on wells that
have ceased flowing in order to exclude intervals of high water production and thereby return those wells to flowing condition.
Water Injection was started on the last flank of the structure (Weak aquifer- side) in 1980 to provide additional pressure support at
the high withdraws rates experienced during the late 1970s.
The 20 Injection wells are primarily arranged in two parallel down dip rows. The inner row of injectors is completed only in the
LN interval, while the most down dip row of injectors is completed only in the DJ interval. The Cumulative water injection
through 2005 was approximately 0 .43 Billion barrels (3).
SPE 132303 3

Simulator Description
The simulator that has been used in the current study is called SimBest II. It consists of two parts: initialization and simulation.
In order to assess the validity of the current model, comparison between its results with the actual reservoir performance has been
made. The results have been compared also with the available output of Franlab study (4), Hamadallah's study (5), and Mohammed’s
study (6).

Optimization Procedure
In petroleum engineering, the objective function is normally the total oil production or the net present value over a certain time
period (7). Based on the analysis of a given problem, some parameters that may have significant influence on oil production history
and the potential profit are chosen as the decision variables to be optimized. Depending on the constraints provided by the problem
or by practical analysis, the value or the range of each decision variable can be determined, and then the domain of the parameter
space is specified. After the objective function and all the decision variables are determined, the optimization problem can be
formulated as a maximization problem subjected to certain constraints (8).
Optimization is made through economic analysis and involves the following steps (1):
1. Set economic objective: payout, net present value, present worth profit, present worth investment, internal rate of return.
2. Formulate scenario.
3. Collect data: productions, expenses, investments, operating, oil/gas price.
4. Make economic analysis.
5. Choose optimal operation.
Objective Function
In this work, the objective function is the net present value of the process. The net present value is one of the applications of
cash flow model (9). The cash flow (future income) analysis provides the value of the objective function for a specific combination
of the decision parameter values considered for the optimization task. So, each set of decision parameters, p = (p1, p2… pn) is
associated with a cash flow value C, or

C = f ( p) (1)

The present study incorporates revenues such as oil and gas sales, as well as expenses such as operating, water handling and
injection costs.
Constraints
The constraints for the current study are the well constraints, which are the water cut (WC), gas-oil ratio (GOR), and bottom
hole pressure (BHP). These constraints are treated in the simulator by setting their values in the input files of the simulator.
In addition to the locations of the old wells, the locations in east and west flank from the aquifer, and there is no more than well in
one grid are also treated as constraints. The values of these constraints are given in Table 1.

Net Present Value formulation

The net present value is defined as the revenues from produced oil and gas sales, after subtracting the costs of disposing
produced water and the cost of injecting water and the initial costs (10),(11). The initial costs represent the capital expenditures. The
result is the net cash flow: -
4 SPE 132303

Net Cash Flow (t) =Oil Production (t) × Oil Price+ Gas Production (t) × Gas Price –Water Production (t) × Water Handling Cost-
Water Injection (t) × Water Injection Cost-OPEX-CAPEX (2)

Where: -
Oil price: ($ per STB).
Gas price: ($ per MSCf).
Water handling cost: ($ per bbl).
Water Injection Cost: ($ per bbl).
The prices of oil and gas and the cost of water injection are assumed to be constant over the project life (11).
Opex: - the operational expenditures ($) that include Staff Costs, Daily Energy Requirements, Transportation tariffs, Work over
operations, Maintenance, and Facility upgrades.
Opex =1.5$ per barrel for South Rumaila oil field (11).
Capex: - the capital expenditures ($) that include the following items (12): -
A. Operations which include drilling, completion, cementing, perforation, acidizing services, and rig movement between
well locations.
B. Materials, which include: -
1) Tangible such as well head, casing & casing accessories, pipelines, cement & cement add and completion
material & equipments.
2) Non-Tangible such as bit, mud material, perforating material charges and accessories, acid material.
Eq. (2) represents the net cash flow after a given period which is Net Future Value (NFV). Eq.(2) must be discounted into net
present value (NPV) by using the mathematical relationship between future value, present value, and interest rate as shown by the
following equation (10): -

FV − PV
i= (3)
PV
FV=PV (1+i) at 1st year or

FV
PV = (4)
(1 + i ) t

Eq. (4) can be written in the following form: -

NCF (t )
NPV = ∑
t (1 + i )t (5)

Where: -
SPE 132303 5

NPV: net present value.

NCF: net cash flow.

FV: future income value.

PV: present income value.

i: interest rate.

t: the future time that at which NPV calculated.

i: the interest rate.

The interest rate (i) is the interest paid or received on the original principal regardless of the number of time periods that have
passed or the amount of interest that has been paid or accrued in the past (11).

Prediction of Optimal Future Development Plan

Many runs have been adopted to explain the optimal future reservoir scenario. These runs were made to the end of December
2028. The runs have been executed with many different cases according to the differences in the value of watercuts and the finding
of water injection or not in addition to the including of infill drilling or not. The infill well locations are the proposed well in the all
unoccupied grids not the optimized wells as shown in Fig. 5. According to the aspects of Net present value (NPV) calculations, the
results show that the optimal future reservoir performance is continuing production without water injection. This fact also
explained when depending on cumulative oil production as objective function as shown in Table 2.

As well as this true is similar to the results that had been prepared in 2005 by two previous studies (13). In this study, they worked
on the entire south rumaila oil field not on just a sector as presented in the current study.

But and according to the calculations of abandonment time of production, the optimal abandonment time for all these scenarios
shows that the NPV and cumulative oil production with 15000 bbl/day water injection per well is much higher than the other
scenarios without or with low injection rate of water as shown in Table 3. As well as and from the comparison between the results
of predictive oil production for the cases of without water injection and with the 15000 bbl/day water injection as shown in Fig. 6
and Fig. 7, these two figures show the cumulative oil production with 15000 bbl/day is higher than the cumulative oil production
without water injection and this true can be seen to year 2022.

Therefore, the optimal future reservoir performance according the last principle is continuing production with water injection not
stop it.

Calculations of Abandonment Time of Production

The abandonment time of production can be determined by plotting the net present value versus production time. The net
present value (NPV) has been calculated depending on cumulative oil production at the end of each future year of production. Six
cases of future production scenarios from the previous fifteen suggested cases have been adopted in the current study to estimate
the abandonment time of production. The first case of future production is without water injection. The second and third cases are
6 SPE 132303

with water injection of 7500 surface bbls/day and 15000 surface bbls/day, respectively. Each case has been applied without and
with twenty infill wells. The twenty infill wells are assumed as the maximum number of wells that can be drilled in the sector
according to the special contour maps. The results of these cases are shown in Fig. 8 through Fig. 13.
From these figures, one can notice that the NPV for the production field is increasing until the end of December 2014. After this
time, the NPV decreases according to the decrease in daily oil production that caused by closing most of the wells because of the
high water cut. So the end of December 2014 could be considered the abandonment time which is compatible with the long age of
the field.
Figures (8-13) also indicate that the optimal production scenario is the case in which water injection is continuing with 15000
surface bbls/day. However, these figures propose non infill wells and twenty infill wells. The proposed fifteen cases are also used
with different number of wells to determine simultaneously the optimal future production scenario and number and locations of
infill wells. The results are represented in Table 2. From this table, one can conclude that continuing with water injection is better
than without water injection.

Proposed Future Production Schemes

To accomplish the objective of this study, the future behavior of the reservoir under different production conditions must be
predicted (14). Therefore there are many production-injection schemes have been assumed as: -
Case One
I. Run the simulator without water injection and without infill drilling.
II. Same as case I, with (5) infill wells.
III. Same as case I, with (10) infill wells.
IV. Same as case I, with (15) infill wells.
V. Same as case I, with (20) infill wells.
Case Two
VI. Run the simulator with 7500 surface bbls/day water injection per each injection well and without infill drilling.
VII. Same as case VI, with (5) infill wells.
VIII. Same as case VI, with (10) infill wells.
IX. Same as case VI, with (15) infill wells.
X. Same as case VI, with (20) infill wells.
Case Three
XI. Run the simulator with 15000 surface bbls/day water injection per each injection well and without infill drilling.
XII. Same as case XI, with (5) infill wells.
XIII. Same as case XI, with (10) infill wells.
XIV. Same as case XI, with (15) infill wells.
XV. Same as case XI, with (20) infill wells.
The sector under study consists of 60 wells, from which 40 oil producers and the rest are water injection wells. The reservoir
simulator is used to estimate the future production behavior of the sector with the existing and proposed wells.
SPE 132303 7

The oil producers operate at 45% water cut as maximum limit, minimum Pwf of 2700 psia and maximum GOR of 800 SCF/STB.
The future life of the sector under study should also be estimated. According to the long age of the field, which approaches
52 years, the simulator could be used to predict the future performance for more than ten wells. However, the abandonment time
could be estimated depending on NPV (Net Present value).
Conclusions
The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows:
1) Using of the net present value as objective function in optimization methods is found better than using the cumulative oil
production because the net present value depends on the economic analysis for determining the optimal future reservoir
scenario.
2) The optimal future reservoir performance is continuing with water injection according to the theory of optimal
abandonment time which is Decemeber 2014.
3) The continuing production with 15000 bbl/day water injection is very necessary for supporting the pressure maintenance.

Recommendations
(1) Convert the grid system in this study from coarse to fine grid in order to increase the accuracy of the results.
(2) Because of the low horizontal permeability in AB layer, drilling a series of horizontal wells is worth to study in order to
increase the recovery of oil according to the economical analysis.
(3) Using optimization techniques to determine optimal well type, trajectory, and locations: (vertical or horizontal).
(4) Because of the plugging most of the lower layers for most the wells resulting from the high water cut, it would be useful to
think about more accurate surface facilities for reading water cut values.
(5) For some running which have been done beyond the results of the current work, one have noticed that the net present value and
cumulative oil production is increases when increase the values of water cut limit and providing surface facilities adequate with the
high water cut limit with consider the costs of these facilities.
(6) Using the techniques of intelligent or smart wells to that contain permanent downhole measurement and control equipments
that enable significant improvement of oil production and increase the efficiency of injectors.

Nomenclatures

GOR Gas-oil ratio, SCF/STB

Bo Oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
BHFP Bottom hole flowing pressure, psia
C cost, US $
CAPEX Capital expenditure, US $
FV Future value, US $
I No. of grid blocks in x-directions
J No. of grid blocks in y-directions
K No. of grid blocks in z-directions
NPV Net present value, US $
8 SPE 132303

Μo Oil viscosity. cp
OPEX Operational expenditure, US $
P Pressure, psia
PV Present value, US $
wc Water cut, %
Δz Layer thickness, m
K Permeability, md
H Layer thickness, m

References
1. Nakajima L. and Schiozer D. J. (2003), “Automated Methodology for Field Performance Optimization Developed with
Horizontal Wells“, Paper SPE 81031 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27–30 April.
2. Al-Ansari, R.: ”The petroleum Geology of the Upper sandstone Member of the Zubair Formation in the Rumaila South“
Oilfield Ministry of Oil, Dept. of Reservoirs and Fields Development-Section of Production Studies, Jan. 1993.
3. Mohammed W. J., Al-Jawad M. S. and Al-Shamma D. A. (2010), "Reservoir Flow Simulation Study for a Sector in Main
Pay-South Rumaila Oil Field" Paper SPE 126427 presented at the SPE Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai,
India, 20-22 January.
4. Unified study of Rumaila Main Pay. 1975. Basra: Basra Petroleum Co.
5. Hamadallah, S.M. 1999: Modeling a Sector of the Main Reservoir of south Rumaila Oil Field. PhD Dissertation, Baghdad
U., Baghdad.
6. The Detailed Reservoir Study for South and North Rumaila Oil Field/Main Pay. 1997. Basra: Basra Petroleum Co.
7. Güyagüler, B. and Horne, R.N. (2000), "Optimization of Well Placement" Paper SPE presented at the ASME Energy
Sources Technology Conference in New Orleans, February 14-16.
8. Phillips, D., Ravindran, A., and Solberg, J. 1976. Operation Research principle and practice: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
9. Mian, M.A. 1992: Petroleum Engineering, Handbook for the practicing Engineer: PennWell Publishing Company.
10. Ozdogan, U. 2004. Optimization of Well Placement under Time-Dependent Uncertainty. MS Thesis, Stanford U.,
Stanford, California.
11. NWAOZO, J. 2006. Dynamic Optimization of a Water Flood Reservoir. PhD Dissertation, Oklahoma University,
Oklahoma.
12. Johnston, D. 2003. International exploration Economics, Risk, and Contract Analysis: PennWell Publishing Co.
13. Kabir C.S. (2004) “Reservoir Flow Simulation Study-South Rumaila Field” Chevron Energy Technology Co., Houston,
USA.

14. Aziz, K. and Settari, A. (1979) “Petroleum Reservoir Simulation”, Applied Science Publishers, London, 1979.

15. Thomas L. Gould and Mark A. Munoz, (1982) “An Analysis of Infill Drilling”, paper SPE 11021 presented at the SPE-
AIME 57th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, September 26-29.
SPE 132303 9

16. Driscoll V. J. (1974), “Recovery Optimization Through Infill Drilling-Concepts, Analysis, and Field Results”, paper
SPE 4977 presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Houston, Texas, October 6-9.

17. Bittencourt, A. C., and Horne, R. N. (1997),”Reservoir Development and Design Optimization”, ”, paper SPE 38895
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, October 5-8.

18. Ohkuma, H. (1997) “Reservoir Engineering” lectures notes, Japan Oil Engineering Co., Ltd.

19. “SimBest II manual” Scientific Software-Intercomp. 1989.

20. Mian, M.A., (1992) “Petroleum Engineering, Handbook for the practicing Engineer” volume 1, PennWell Publishing
Company.

21. Peter Cunningham “NPV Formulas - A Fast Method for Calculating and Optimizing NPV in Screening Studies”

22. Johnston, D. (2003) “International exploration Economics, Risk, and Contract Analysis” PennWell Publishing
Company.

23. Cunningham, P. (2002) “Analytical Optimization Methods for business and field development planning” Mark Cook,
TRACS International.

24. Cunningham, P. (2004) “Dual discount rates for project net present value calculations” Serafim Ltd.

25. Bittencourt, A. C.: “Optimal Scheduling of Development in an Oil Field,” MS report, Stanford University, 1994.

26. "Oil and Gas Industry, Strategic Report" by Geologists, Engineers, and Investment Analysis (Bayphase), Vol.1,
September 2005.

27. NWAOZO, J.: (2006) “Dynamic Optimization of a Water Flood Reservoir”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Petroleum Engineering, Oklahoma University.
10 SPE 132303

Fig. 1: Sectors and well locations of South Rumaila Oil Field

SPE 132303 11

Table 1: Well Constraints

Constraint Value Units

Maximum, WC 45 percent

Maximum, GOR 800 SCF/STB

Minimum, BHFP 2700 psia

5500

5000
Pressure, PSIA

4500

4000

3500

3000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Production Time, YEAR
Calculated Average Reservoir Pressure, PSIA
Measured Average Reservoir Pressure, PSIA

Fig.2 Average Reservoir Pressure for Main Pay/ South Rumaila Oil Field
12 SPE 132303

500000 3500000
Daily Oil Production, STB/DAY

450000
3000000
400000
350000 2500000
300000 2000000
250000
200000 1500000
150000 1000000
100000
500000
50000
0 0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Production Time, YEAR

Daily Oil Production, STB/DAY Cummulative Oil Production

Fig.3 Historical Oil production for Main Pay/ South Rumaila Oil Field

160 450
Daily Water Injection, MSTB

140 400

Cummulative Water Inject

120 350
300
100

MSTB
250
80
200
60
150
40 100
20 50
0 0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Injection Time, YEAR

Injection History Cummulative Water Injection

Fig.4 Historical Water Injection for Main Pay/ South Rumaila Oil Field
SPE 132303 13

Production Well Injection Well

I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

10

J 11

(4)
Fig. 5 Grids and Well Locations for the Sector under Study
14 SPE 132303

300 5000

Cumulative Oil Producti

Oil Flow Rate, MSTB/D
4800
250
4600
200
4400

MMSTB
150 4200
4000
100
3800
50
3600
0 3400
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Date, Year

Fow Rate, STB/DAY Cumulatie Oil Production, MSTB

Fig.6 Predictive Cumulative Oil Production and Flow Rates without Water Injection

400 4900

Cumulative Oil Producti

Oil Flow Rate, MSTB/D

350 4700
300 4500
250

MMSTB
4300
200
4100
150
100 3900

50 3700
0 3500
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028
Date, Year

Fow Rate, STB/DAY Cumulatie Oil Production, MSTB

Fig.7 Predictive Cumulative Oil Production and Flow Rates with 15000 bbl/day Water Injection per well
SPE 132303 15

16 5000000
4500000
14

Production (MSTB)
4000000

Cumulative Oil
3500000
NPV (MMM$)

12
3000000
10 2500000
2000000
8 1500000
6 1000000
500000
4 0
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021
Time of Production (YEAR)

NPV (MMM$) Cumulative Oil Production (MSTB)

Fig.8 Optimum Abandonment Time without Water Injection and without Infill Wells

16 5000000
4500000
14

Production (MSTB)
4000000

Cumulative Oil
3500000
NPV (MMM$)

12
3000000
10 2500000
2000000
8 1500000
6 1000000
500000
4 0
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021
Time of Production (YEAR)

NPV (MMM$) Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB)

Fig.9 Optimum Abandonment Time without Water Injection and with Twenty Infill Wells
16 SPE 132303

18 5000000
4500000
16

Production (MSTB)
4000000
14

Cumulative Oil
3500000
NPV (MMM$)

12 3000000
2500000
10 2000000
8 1500000
1000000
6
500000
4 0
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021
Time of Production (YEAR)

NPV (MMM$) Cumulative Oil Production (MSTB)

Fig. 10 Optimum Abandonment Time with 7500 surface bbls/day Water Injection and without Infill Wells

18 5000000
4500000
16

Production (MSTB)
4000000
14

Cumulative Oil
3500000
NPV (MMM$)

12 3000000
2500000
10 2000000
8 1500000
1000000
6
500000
4 0
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Time of Production (YEAR)

NPV (MMM$) Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB)

Fig. 11 Optimum Abandonment Time with 7500 surface bbls/day Water Injection and with Twenty Infill Wells
SPE 132303 17

20 5000000
18 4500000

Production (MSTB)
4000000
16

Cumulative Oil
3500000
NPV (MMM$)

14 3000000
12 2500000
10 2000000
1500000
8
1000000
6 500000
4 0
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Time of Production (YEAR)

NPV (MMM$) Cumulaive Oil Production (MMSTB)

Fig. 12 Optimum Abandonment Time with 15000 surface bbls/day Water Injection and without Infill Wells

20 5000000
18 4500000

Production (MSTB)
4000000
16

Cumulative Oil
3500000
NPV (MMM$)

14 3000000
12 2500000
10 2000000
1500000
8
1000000
6 500000
4 0
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Time of Production (YEAR)

NPV (MMM$) Cumulaive Oil Production (MMSTB)

Fig. 13 Optimum Abandonment Time with 15000 surface bbls/day Water Injection and with Twenty Infill Wells
18 SPE 132303

Table 2. The NPV Results for different Future Prediction Runs at the end of Dec. 2028

Future Well Injection Well

Cum. Oil
Cases Development Rate Watercut NPV (MMM $)
(MMMSTB) RF (%)
Type (STB/DAY) Limit (%)

Case 1 20 infill wells 0 45 4.834953 69.50

9.197006
Case 2 20 infill wells 7500 45 4.814137 69.20 8.919684
Case 3 20 infill wells 15000 45 4.803931 69.06 8.712775
Case 4 20 infill wells 0 80 4.868214 69.98 9.363733

Case 5 20 infill wells 7500 80 4.877347 70.11 9.266255

Case 6 20 infill wells 15000 80 4.874257 70.07 9.088589

Case 7 20 infill wells 0 95 4.707329 67.67 8.206006

Case 8 20 infill wells 7500 95 4.799395 68.99 8.615614

Case 9 20 infill wells 15000 95 4.865241 69.94 8.851458

Case
20 infill wells 7500 & 0 45 4.823116 69.33 9.013894
10
Case
No Infill 0 45 4.788388 68.83 8.908405
11
Case
No Infill 7500 45 4.763371 68.47 8.601609
12
Case
No Infill 7500 & 0 45 4.776288 68.66 8.734207
13
SPE 132303 19

Table 3 The NPV Results for different Future Prediction Runs at the end of Dec. 2014

Future
Well Injection Well Watercut Cum. Oil
Cases Development NPV (MMM $)
Rate (STB/DAY) Limit (%) (MMSTB) RF (%)
Type

0 0 45 4172.089 59.974 15.20525

5 0 45 4178.827 60.071 15.3279

Case 1

10 0 45 4178.235 60.062 15.30102

15 0 45 4179.956 60.087 15.32594

20 0 45 4181.181 60.105 15.34154

0 7500 45 4262.067 61.268 16.82088

5 7500 45 4271.293 61.400 16.99321

Case 2

10 7500 45 4270.649 61.391 16.96579

15 7500 45 4272.533 61.418 16.99403

20 7500 45 4273.380 61.430 17.00113

0 15000 45 4336.217 62.333 18.11828

5 15000 45 4349.621 62.526 18.37543

Case 3

10 15000 45 4350.236 62.535 18.37405

15 15000 45 4351.874 62.559 18.39648

20 15000 45 4352.292 62.565 18.39488