Production Optimization

Enhancement in Sweep Efficiency &

Improvement in Waterflooding/Production

Kourosh Khadivi
Objectives 2

 Maximize Net Present Value (NPV) through

 Enhancing oil production,
 Minimizing water production and,
 Minimizing water injection
 Concept 3

Optimization Tool

1. Run Base Simulation Model and export results

2. Run Basie Model and compute Production Profiles.

3. Computes Objective function and gradients.

4. Choose Optimization strategy

5. Respect Constrains 6. Update Simulation Model

Objective Function 4

 The best option is chosen through maximizing Net Present Value using
iterative reservoir simulation:
𝑟𝑜𝑝 ∗𝐹𝑂𝑃𝑇 −𝑟𝑤𝑝 ∗𝐹𝑊𝑃𝑇 −𝑟𝑤𝑖 ∗𝐹𝑊𝐼𝑇
 𝑁𝑃𝑉 = 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠ൗ
1+𝑑 𝜏
 where
 FOPT, Oil Production Total  d, decline rate = 10%
 FWPT, Water Production Total  Days, Production period in days
 FWIT, Water Injection Total  Τ, operational days in a year
 rop, oil price = 60 $/bbl
 rwp, treatment cost for water production = 6.0 $/bbl
 rwi, treatment cost for water injection = 3.0 $/bbl
Constrains 5

 Production wells are constrained by BHP constrains as well as

perforation intervals.

 Injection wells are constrained by water injection rate at

reservoir conditions (RESV) as well as perforation intervals.

 Constrains are applied and updated in the reservoir model

(SCHEDULE Section) in every trial.
Case I: Petroleum Expert Case 6

 Maximize Net Present Value (NPV) through maximizing oil

production and improving water flooding/production
management.

 This case has

 2 water injectors and
 2 oil producers
 Assumptions 7

Oil Price, $/bbl 60.00 Ref. 2019

Produced Water Treatment Cost, $/bbl 6.00 Ref. 2019
Injected Water Treatment Cost, $/bbl 3.00 Ref. 2019
Decline Rate 0.10 Ref. 2019

Minimum BHP in Production Wells (psia) 1,200.00

Maximum BHP in Production Wells (psia) 3,200.00

Minimum BHP in Injection Wells (psia) 4,000.00

Maximum BHP in Injection Wells (psia) 4,500.00

Minimum RESV Rate in Injection Wells (bbl/day) 1,000.00 Water Injection Rate at Reservoir condition
Maximum RESV Rate in Injection Wells (bbl/day) 10,000.00 Water Injection Rate at Reservoir condition
Results: Oil Production 8
• Additional Oil Production : • Prolong Oil Production Plateau:
• +21.9 MMSTB (+12.7%)
Results: Water Production 9

• Significant Reduction in Water

Production : - 36.7 MMSTB (-69.8%)
Results: Water Injection 10

• Notable Reduction in Water

Injection : - 62.3 MMSTB (-21.9%)
Results: Reservoir Pressure & GOR 11

• Reservoir pressure increases in the base case

unlimitedly but it is maintained around the
saturation pressure in the optimized case.

• Respecting well integrity and preventing

unwanted fracturing
 Results: NPV 12

TIME YEARS Max FOPR FOPT FWPR FWPT FWIR FWIT FGOR FPR NPV
YEARS STB/DAY MMSTB STB/DAY MMSTB STB/DAY MMSTB SCF/STB PSIA MMUSD
Base Case 39.0 16,000.0 172.5 7,131.6 55.4 20,000.0 284.9 500.0 4,073.6 222.14
The Optimized
39.0 16,000.0 194.4 4,674.3 16.7 15,713.9 222.6 621.1 1,694.9 264.21
Case

Difference 12.7% -69.8% -21.9% 18.9%

Results: Optimal Wells’ Constrains 13

and Completion Interval

BHP (psia) RESV (bbl/day) Perforation Interval

Production well #1 1,551 1

Production well #3 1,653 1

Injection well #1 5,909 1-4

Injection well #4 9,908 1-4

 14
Case II: A North Sea Case
 Dimensions: 6 km X 9 km
 Reservoir thickness: 50 m
 11 production wells, 7 water injector
 2 layers separated by a shale layer
 Anisotropy: 0.1
 No associated gas (Dead oil)
 Water-oil contact 2092 m.s.s
 Reservoir Model: Eclipse (E100)
 Reservoir pressure 2973 psi at depth 2092 m.s.s.
 Aquifer contrition is weak, so water injection is essential
 15
Assumptions

Parameters Unit Rate

Oil price USD 60
Cost of water treatment USD 6
Cost of water injection USD 3
Decline Rate % 10
Simulation period Year 20
Maximum liquid production rate bbl/day 6,000
Maximum water Injection rate bbl/day 10,000
Maximum BHP in production wells psi 2,200
Maximum BHP in injection wells psi 3,400
Results: 16
Step I: Managing Wells’ BHP

Optimized wells conditions:

bar
• BHP in all injection wells is
maintained as they are (235
bar) except Well #6 which
should be reduced BHP=210
bar.
• BHP in all production wells is
maintained as they are (154
bar) except Well #11 which
should be reduced to BHP=150
bar.
Results: 17
Step I: Managing Wells’ BHP
Oil Water Water Oil NPV,
Production, Production, Injection, Recovery, MMUSD
Sm3 Sm3 Sm3 %
Base Model 9,016,694 7,314,375 17,163,000 18.5 2,802.8
Optimized Model 10,256,650 8,610,324 19,661,000 21.0 3,174.0

Increment +10% +17% +13% 2.5% 10%

 Results: 18
Step II: Optimizing wells’ Status
 Optimized wells conditions:
 Wells #6 & #11: should be converted to water injection
 Wells #13 & #16: should be converted to production

well well well well well well well well well well well well well well well well well well
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18

Base

Optimized Status

Production Water Injection

Well well
 Results: 19
Step II: Optimizing wells’ Status

Oil Production, Water Production, Water Injection, Oil Recovery, NPV,

Sm3 Sm3 Sm3 % MMUSD
Base Model 9,016,694 7,314,375 17,163,000 18.5 1,580
Optimized Model 9,985,915 9,680,667 23,064,000 20.5 1,830

Increment +10.8% +32.3% 34.4% 2.0% 15.8%

Conclusions 20

 Optimization approach was applied to two cases while it

managed rate/BHP constrains, perforation interval as
well as wells status of production/injection wells.

 Significant places for enhancing oil production and

minimizing operational costs regarding water production
and injection were found.