Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Waterflood performance evaluation in a chalk reservoir

with an ensemble of tools
C. Olsen a, C.S. Kabir b,n
a
Hess Denmark Aps, Østergade 26B, DK-1100 Copenhagen K, Denmark
b
Hess Corporation, 1501 McKinney Street, Houston, TX 77010, United States

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Good waterflood performance management requires an understanding of injector–producer connectiv-
Received 14 August 2013 ity. In this context, chalk reservoirs present unique challenges. Reservoir compaction, flow in long
Accepted 30 September 2014 horizontal wells with transverse fractures, fracturing above the parting pressure, and water short-
Available online 28 October 2014
circuiting along the fault planes may not guarantee the expected fluid displacement. These reservoir
Keywords: attributes collectively contribute to flood management challenges.
Waterflood performance Real-time surveillance data form the basis of ongoing flood monitoring. This data interpretation
4D seismic improves the estimates for ultimate recovery by way of on-time well intervention. The data also helps to
Tracer surveys better define the future field development plan. Besides gathering real-time rate and bottomhole
Capacitance–resistance modeling
pressure (BHP) data, this study shows how time-lapse tracer, production logs, and 4D seismic data assists
Rate-transient analysis
in gaining a credible history match with numerical-flow simulations.
Numerical flow simulations
Before numerical modeling, this study used an array of analytical tools. These computationally
inexpensive tools include both diagnosis and analysis. Amongst the diagnostic tools, the reciprocal-
productivity index (RPI) provided crucial information on the degree of pressure support felt at a
producer; the water–oil ratio (WOR) plot gave the clue on fluid displacement; and the modified-Hall plot
helped understand matrix injection or the lack thereof. Combined rate/pressure data analysis with the
capacitance–resistance model (CRM) provided quantitative measures of injector–producer connectivity.
Where feasible, the rate-transient analysis (RTA) provided evolving reservoir pressure and the connected
pore-volume information. The traditional decline-curve analysis (DCA) showed variability of the decline
trend based upon the pressure-support and fluid-displacement scenarios.
This study underscores the importance of both real-time and time-lapse measurements in managing
a waterflood in a challenging reservoir environment. The proposed workflow emphasizes learning from
data diagnosis and analysis with analytical tools before embarking on history matching with numerical-
flow simulations in the South Arne field, located in the Danish North Sea.
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In chalk reservoirs, such as the one presented here, compaction

Real-time monitoring of pressure and rate data has paved the
way to understanding a reservoir's behavior, leading to on-time
management by way of frequent updates to a grid-based model.
Some of the technical benefits of surveillance were suggested by
Horne (2007). Many authors reported integrating surveillance data
with full-field simulation studies. Some of these studies include
those of Hustedt and Snippe (2010), Langaas et al. (2007), Bahar
et al. (2005), and King et al. (2002), among others over the last
decade.
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Christian.Olsen@hess.com (C. Olsen),
skabir@hess.com (C.S. Kabir).
poses additional challenges. Rapid decline in pore pressure and the
consequent well failure necessitate on-time action. Early studies by
Cook and Jewell (1996) in the Valhall field suggested that the
compaction drive yielded over 50% of the oil recovery. More recently,
Pettersen and Kristiansen (2009) reported novel coupling of the rock
mechanics and flow simulation by way of a pseudomodel in order to
speed up computations significantly for the Valhall field. The benefits
of chemical tracers and pulse testing in understanding reservoir
connectivity cannot be overstated. To that end, Cheng et al. (2012)
documented a comprehensive study in a surfactant field trial. The
use of 4D seismic in reservoir-flow modeling is emphasized by
studies of King et al. (2002), Govan et al. (2006), Mikkelsen et al.
(2008), and Jin et al. (2012), among many others.
Most of the studies cited above use snapshots of dynamic data,
such as pressure-transient analysis (PTA) and production logs.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.09.031
0920-4105/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71 61

Although useful, a time-lapse approach may be insufficient to challenge is to inject high-volume water into the matrix without water
understand the evolving nature of a flood with dynamic analytical short-circuiting into the nearby producers.
tools complementing numerical modeling. More recently, Kabir The South Arne field has been in production since 1999. Water
and Boundy (2011) showed the benefits of integrating various injection started in 2001. The field is presently developed with 25
analytical tools to understanding the nuances of reservoir behavior wells, 16 producers, and 9 injectors in a line-drive pattern. The field
during history matching with a grid-based model. The use of rate has been developed with horizontal producers and injectors, each
transients often provides important clues about a reservoir's completed with a number of transverse hydraulic fractures. Water
performance. In fact, the notion of reservoir management can injection occurs directly into the oil zone and the mobility ratio is
revolve around many elements of RTA, as discussed by Kabir et al. favorable for a waterflood. Fit-for-purpose tools are brought to bear
(2011a), among others. Stated differently, possibly the full strength to address specific issues. To focus on typical issues encountered in
of multiple analytical tools has remained unexplored. this field, this study evaluates the water injection performance of
The ensemble of tools used in this study includes a numerical one area, as shown in Fig. 2. Two producers, SA-5 and SA-16, which
simulation model and a number of analytical methods to complement
learning. These analytical tools include, among others, a CRM analysis
(Sayarpour et al., 2009a, 2009b) for injector/producer connectivity, a
RPI plot (Kumar, 1977) for assessing degree of pressure support or lack
thereof, a WOR plot (Yortsos et al., 1999) for understanding displace-
ment, a modified-Hall analysis (Izgec-Kabir, 2009) for discerning
matrix injection from waterflood-induced fracturing, a RTA to estimate
connected pore-volume, and a DCA to obtain an independent under-
standing of reserves recovery. Results of these analyses were aug-
mented by both 4D seismic and tracer testing. Given that even a good
history-matched model may forecast less than satisfactorily because of
inherent uncertainty rooted in history matching (Tavassoli et al.,
2004), new approaches must be explored to improve our under-
standing of physical mechanisms governing fluid flow. Fig. 1 captures
the workflow used in this study.

2. Background

Understanding and managing waterflood performance is key to

optimizing production and maximizing reserves. Water injection into
chalk has a long and successful track record; good recovery from
this type of rock has been reported (Hallenbeck et al., 1991, Ovens et
al., 1998, Austad et al., 2008). Water injection in low-permeability
chalk generally occurs above the fracture-propagation pressure. The Fig. 2. Well locations in the study area.

Fig. 1. Flow chart for surveillance and analysis workflow.

62 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71
are supported by the SA-8 up-flank injector and the SA-11 down-
flank injector, are identified in Fig. 2.
The following sections discuss the well performance. These sec-
tions include (1) performance diagnosis of production data with
analytical tools, (2) analysis of measurements, such as tracers, produc-
tion logs, and 4D seismic, and, (3) modeling with decline curves, RTA,
CRM, and numerical-flow simulations. Appendix A summarizes the
attributes of various analytical tools used in this study.
3. Performance diagnosis with analytical tools
The study area is being drained by the producers SA-5 and SA-
16 with water-injection support from the two injectors, SA-8 and
SA-11. In general, changes in well performance are controlled by
three main groups of events: changes in pressure support, scale
buildup in wells, and well interventions. However, changes in well
performance due to changes in pressure support and near-
wellbore effects are not readily apparent from production perfor-
mance data alone. This is why diagnostic plots are useful and aid
history matching with numerical models.
Fig. 3 depicts the SA-5 well's production performance. The
initial production period is pure depletion, as evident by the
rapidly declining oil rate and increasing GOR, without any water
production. The early water injection period is characterized by
increasing oil production, rapidly declining GOR and slowly
increasing watercut. Thereafter, the declining oil rate with increas-
ing watercut is readily apparent, and the flat GOR performance
suggests good overall pressure maintenance. However, to learn the
performance subtleties, diagnoses are needed. Fig. 4 depicts the
RPI plot that shows the chronological events of depletion drive at
the start (with positive slope), followed by overinjection (sharply
dipping negative slope), finally leading to a gently increasing
positive slope, signifying a void replacement of less than one.
Both of the injectors' performances are shown in Fig. 4 to gain
insights into the overall RPI response.
Fig. 3. SA-5 well's production performance.
Fig. 4. SA-5 well's RPI provides an evolution of pressure support.
Judging by the SA-5 well's WOR response, interaction with
neighboring producer SA-16 becomes readily apparent. As Fig. 5
shows, when the SA-16 well starts producing, the WOR response
drops markedly because a fraction of water begins to support the
void created by the new producer. However, one observes an
increasing WOR trend at a steeper slope, thereby suggesting a
different flow path in redistribution of the energy support.
Reassuringly, matrix injection is suggested by a greater-than-the-
unit-slope-line response in all cases. The unit-slope line is indi-
cated by the magenta line in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 shows the production history of the SA-16 well. The
watercut development is significantly different from the SA-5 well.
However, the increase in GOR is probably related more to the
wrong allocation of the gas-lift gas than to the breakout of gas in
the formation around the well. Given the significant rise in the
watercut response with the precipitous decline in oil rate, water
injection appears to be the main reason for this behavior. The
increase in WOR could be related to a reduction in SA-8 water
injection starting in mid-2007.
The ever-increasing slope in the RPI plot (Fig. 7) that includes
both the total liquid and the oil clearly demonstrates the lack of
pressure support. This point is further corroborated by the WOR
response, shown in Fig. 8. The unit-slope response suggests a lack
of oil bank displacement by the injected water. Collectively, Fig. 5
through 7 suggest that the interaction between the SA-16 and
SA-5 producers and the injectors evolves dramatically when the
production begins in the SA-16 well. To arrest the precipitous
decline in oil rate with an increasing watercut, a plug is placed at
the toe of the SA-16 well. The benefit of this action is demon-
strated in the WOR response when the steep slope develops,
indicating oil displacement rather than water circulation. How-
ever, benefits of this successful well intervention appeared short
lived when the injection rate at the SA-8 well was reduced after
about six months. The WOR response began to flatten and the oil-
Fig. 5. SA-5 well's WOR response suggests a redistribution of the injectors' energy
support.
Fig. 6. SA-16 well's production performance.
 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71
Fig. 7. SA-16 well's total liquid’s RPI provides evidence of the lack of pressure
support.
Fig. 8. SA-16 well's WOR response suggests the lack of oil displacement for about
1000 days.
Fig. 9. Changing decline in the SA-5 well.
PI began to decline. These wells illustrate the complexity of
producer-producer and producer–injector interactions, which we
will discuss in the context of CRM analysis.
We observed the oil-cut semilog graph to be a useful discrimi-
nating tool. The change in the decline trend in the oil-cut plot in
Fig. 9 is probably related to the injection rate reduction at the SA-8
well as shown in Fig. 4, and its strong connectivity with the SA-5
producer. Stated differently, when injection is reduced, propor-
tionally more water appears to go into the short-circuit mode,
thereby reducing the amount of oil being swept. The injector/
producer connectivity was learned through the CRM study, as
discussed in the context of DCA. Fig. 4 also suggests that the
injection rate at the SA-11 well was relatively stable and, therefore,
its effect is not readily apparent on the decline plot.
Fig. 10 suggests that a shift on the oil-cut plot in the exponen-
tial or log-linear trend occurs when injection at the SA-8 well is
reduced. In addition, another shift in the decline trend occurs
when the plug is placed at the toe of the SA-16 well, which
63
Fig. 10. Changing decline in the SA-16 well.
Fig. 11. Modified-Hall plot shows increasing injection difficulty in the SA-8 well.
reduces the water short circuit. Later, when the watercut exceeds
90%, the decline trend becomes hyperbolic, as discussed in the
next section. Initially, a water short circuit dominates the watercut
development, meaning that water flows separately from the oil.
However, at a later stage, matrix breakthrough occurs and the
fractional-flow curves begin to influence the decline. Deviation
from the exponential decline is observed.
Perhaps the modified-Hall plot of the SA-8 injector sheds some
useful perspective, as shown in Fig. 11. The initial cumulative
injection of 15 MMSTB appears event free, as indicated by the Hall-
integral derivative overlaying on the integral curve. Subsequently,
the ever-increasing flow impediment is indicated by the contin-
uous separation of those two curves; the attendant declining
flowing-BHP trace simply reaffirms that notion. In particular, the
reduced injection around 60 MMSTB cumulative injection coin-
cides with reduced performance of the producers, as shown in
both Figs. 8 and 9.
4. Analysis of tracer, production logs, and 4D seismic data
To gain further insights into the well behavior, both tracer tests
and production logs were run. Tracer campaigns have been
conducted several times over the field life at a frequency of every
three to four years. In a typical operation, chemical tracers are
pumped into the injectors and the response is monitored at the
producers. Historically, a wide range of responses has been
observed in producing wells. Overall, the total recovery of tracer
is low because of high imbibition potential of water-wet chalk, as
expected in this type of reservoirs. Nonetheless, for this study the
tracer tests added invaluable information regarding the connec-
tivity of producer–injector pairs through short circuits and to
some degree its strength, as reflected in the breakthrough time.
Fig. 12 shows very early tracer breakthrough times of two to six
days for the wells. Note that these breakthrough times are not
64 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71
Fig. 12. Depiction of tracer breakthrough times for the injector–producer pairs.
intuitive given the physical distances between the wells. For
example, tracer breakthrough from the SA-8 injector to the SA-
16 producer occurred in two days, whereas tracer breakthrough
from the SA-8 injector to the SA-5 producer occurred in five days,
even though the tracers had to travel a larger distance for the
former pair.
Production logs run in the SA-16 well in March 2005 showed that
most of the water was being produced from the toe. Fig. 13a showing
the shut-in pass indicated significant crossflow in the well, with
water influx originating from a high-pressure zone at the toe. In June
2009, a production log in the SA-5 well showed that the bulk of the
water was being produced from the three toe zones closest to the
fault, as shown in Fig. 13b. These PLT observations are largely
supported by those from 4D seismic, as discussed next.
Two 4D seismic surveys conducted in 2005 and 2011 provided
considerable insights into the fluid flow directions in. As shown in
Fig. 14, the normalized root mean square (NRMS) maps can be
construed as a qualitative analog for the saturation changes in the
reservoir due to water injection. These surveys indicate that a
conductive flow path exists between the SA-8 injector and the toe
area of the SA-5 producer, and follows the fault system to the toe
of the SA-16 producer. When the SA-16 well starts producing, it
deprives the SA-5 well of water in the short term by connecting to
the fault system. However, when the SA-16 well continues
production, fault/fracture system depressurization occurs. As a
consequence, water appears to short-circuit from the SA-8 injector
to the SA-5 producer, thereby explaining the more rapid increase
in watercut than before. These observations align with those
discussed earlier regarding the interpretation of tracer and
production-log data.
Fig. 15 displaying the difference map shows the saturation
changes that occurred between 2005 and 2011, indicating that
water production in the SA-16 well continued during this period at
the heel of the well. In other words, the fault system transmitted
significant amounts of injection water from the SA-8 well to the
SA-16 producer.
Fig. 13. Shut-in (a) and flowing (b) log passes show contrasting behavior of
water flow.
5. Well performance analysis
In this section, the study analyzes production and injection
data to understand reservoir performance, leading to recovery
potential. This section discusses the traditional DCA and RTA
before introducing the CRM and numerical-flow simulation
results. The objective is to seek consistency in solutions with
different tools.
5.1. Rate-transient and decline-curve analyses
Fig. 16 suggests that the SA-5 well undergoes variable-pressure
and variable-rate production history. The initial primary depletion,
followed by injection support and the two-phase production
dominate the performance. An approximate history matching of
the injection period considering a closed system suggests an
acceptable match. The intrinsic idea was to get a glimpse of the
overall reservoir performance. In this context, let us point out that
the precipitous decline in both rate and pressure during the first
1000 days or so signify compaction of the chalk formation. For
simplicity we avoided this flow period to minimize modeling
hurdle with analytical tools.
To get a perspective on well behavior before significant water
production occurred, we plotted the integral of reciprocal-
productivity index and its derivative against material-balance
time, as shown in Fig. 17. Understanding the flow regimes was
important in that 12 stages of propped transverse fractures were
created in this 5500-ft horizontal well. The designed half-lengths
of the propped fractures vary from 200 to 400 ft, and the
estimated formation permeability along the well length ranges
from 3 to 14 md. Given this completion scenario, we observe linear
flow, followed by the unit-slope response. The duration of linear
flow is governed by the fracture spacing, whereas the unit-slope
response signifies the stimulated-reservoir volume (SRV). Inter-
estingly enough the overall response is akin to those observed in
unconventional wells, as shown by Kabir et al. (2011b) and
 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71 65

Fig. 14. Saturation changes support the notion of well connectivity and flow through conductive paths.

Fig. 15. Saturation changes demonstrate the conductive flow path between the SA-
8 injector and the SA-16 producer.
Freeman et al. (2009), among others. Note that the SRV does not
imply reservoir boundary; rather, the imaginary ellipsoidal flow
geometry, which is a manifestation of fracture stimulation. This
volumetric-SRV response appears to suggest that the water pro-
duction occurs over limited well length, thereby raising questions
about the volumetric sweep efficiency. In fact, this volumetric
response is in harmony with the Arps model where the b value of
zero is calculated, indicating exponential decline behavior.
By considering the first 3.5-year history, the late-time cumulative
match results in harmonic decline behavior as characterized by the
Fig. 16. Approximate history matching of the SA-5 well's late-time performance.
Arps exponent b of 1.0, as Fig. 18 illustrates. However, an exponential
decline (b¼0) sets in toward the end as flood maturity occurs
beyond eight years, as the right side of Fig. 18 shows. This change
in performance characteristics reveals the extrapolation limits of
decline curves due to continuous changes in saturation and pressure
that occur in most waterflood operations. However, this study did
not pursue the conventional RTA due to the complicated production
history with rapidly changing saturation as signified by increasing
watercut. Modeling both the saturation and pressure changes is best
done with a numerical-flow simulator, which is discussed later. The
validity of the Arps model in mature waterfloods has been shown
recently by Can and Kabir (2014).
66 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71

Unlike the SA-5 well, the SA-16 well lent itself to an improved (Parekh and Kabir, 2013) and strong aquifer influx in a sandstone
RTA because the water production was not tied to fluid displace- reservoir (Izgec and Kabir, 2010), among others. Here, the study's
ment, but channeled along a fault plane. Fig. 19 presents RTA of the main objective was to obtain a connectivity map or fractional flow
SA-16 well's production analysis, except for the very early part between the injectors and producers and corroborate the results
containing 1.7 year's material-balance time. The primary reason with tracer and other measurements. The secondary objective was
for neglecting the early data originated from the notion of doing to obtain a general agreement of the tracer breakthrough time
DCA for the stable flowing-BHP period. That way the study could with the time constant associated with each injector in the CRM.
compare and contrast the RTA and DCA solutions. Another
motivation for avoiding the early-time data for about 500 days
stemmed from the sharp decline of both pressure and rate in
Fig. 19 is attributed to compaction. This point was made earlier
while discussing SA-5 well's response in Fig. 16. The DCA in Fig. 20
indicates an exponential decline with b of 0.0 at late times.
Producer SA-16 was completed with nine transverse-fracture
stages in a 2500-ft lateral. This well is in inferior section of the
reservoir with an estimated formation permeability not exceeding
1 md. As Fig. 21 suggests, the SA-16 well exhibits flow regimes that
are similar to that of the SA-5 well. The unit-slope response
signifying the SRV response indicates lack of oil displacement or
volumetric behavior, a point made earlier by Fig. 8. We surmise
that severe water short-circuiting precipitated this volumetric
response.

5.2. Capacitance–resistance modeling

The CRM captures injector–producer connectivity in a multi-

wall system using flow rates and the flowing BHP, if available.
Many studies have reported CRM's successful application in a wide
array of reservoirs of different degrees of complexity. Some of
these examples include horizontal wells in a naturally fractured
sandstone reservoir (Kabir and Boundy, 2011), water and CO2
floods in carbonate reservoirs (Sayarpour et al., 2009b), inter-
and intra-reservoir connectivity in a complex sets of reservoirs Fig. 19. RTA of the SA-16 well suggests a decent overall match after the initial
period.

Fig. 17. SA-5 well's flow regimes mimic those in unconventional formations. Fig. 20. DCA of the SA-16 well.

Fig. 18. DCA of the SA-5 well.

 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71
Fig. 22 shows a quality history match of the total reservoir
liquids (oil and water) on the left and a less-than-satisfactory
match of the oil rate profile on the right. Because the material
balance is based upon the total fluid, a good match is expected.
However, the early time oil match suffers because of the use of an
empirical power-law model to split the two phases, as shown by
Sayarpour et al. (2009a,b). The oil-rate match improves with
increasing water-cut because the power-law model works best
when the water-cut exceeds 50%.
Table 1 shows the well connectivity in terms the water's
fractional flow from an injector to the relevant producers. For
example, the SA-5 producer receives either 40% of the injection
support from each of SA-11 and SA-8 injectors, or 80% of the
total. This fact implies that void replacement is less than ideal.
By contrast, the SA-16 producer receives only a total of 10% of
the injected water from the SA-8 injector. As discussed earlier,
most of this water production at the SA-16 producer occurred
through a conductive flow path. Although most of the indivi-
dual injectors' total contributions were accounted for, SA-11
was exception to this rule, meaning about 20% of the injected
water went outside the control volume. While fractional-water
injections toward each producer (or f ij's) in Table 1 are useful in
understanding flow direction, the other parameter, time con-
stant τ , can shed light on the breakthrough time. The compar-
ison of breakthrough time with tracer survey is generally
favorable, but a large discrepancy surfaces for the SA-11/SA-5
pair. Although the tracer was detected after 14 days, the
connection appeared weak compared to other wells. Because
the CRM formulation is predicated upon signal analysis
between the injector/producer pairs, the SA-11/SA-5 short
circuit is too weak to be detected by the CRM, thereby explain-
ing the large discrepancy. Our general observation is that when
the CRM and tracer results are in agreement, the water short
circuit is significant; otherwise, the effect of the short circuit is
limited.
Fig. 21. SA-16 well's flow regimes suggest volumetric behavior beyond 1000
material-balance days.
Fig. 22. CRM analysis shows a good overall match and an acceptable oil-rate match at high water-cuts.
67
5.3. Reservoir-flow simulation
A full-field, numerical-flow simulation model was used to
understand the overall field performance. The flow-simulation
model is a black-oil, single-porosity model with approximately
600,000 cells. The areal dimensions of the grid cells are
25  75 m2, and the 25 m cell dimension is dominant from injector
to producer. At a typical well spacing of 300 m, this cell is
sufficient to trace the main waterfront moving from an injector
toward a producer. The fluid system is modeled with a single PVT
table, which appears sufficient in matching production perfor-
mance. Compartmentalization is not considered an issue because
all producers appear to be impacted by the neighboring injector.
Saturations and matrix permeability are closely related to porosity
and are modeled as such. The model is computationally efficient
and is able to capture the overall reservoir performance quite well.
However, local features with significantly different flow properties
than the field will, in some cases, dominate individual well
behavior. Incorporating those features directly in the simulation
grid will make the model computationally inefficient. Besides, the
properties of these features cannot be measured directly, but can
only be inferred indirectly, for example by tracer surveys.
The reservoir was modeled as a single-porosity system because
the fractures appear limited in areal extent and are related to
specific geological features. This strategy allowed local enhance-
ment of permeability to model the fracture system, thereby
finessing the field-wide dual-porosity modeling. Overall, the
individual well performance was well matched. However, model-
ing of the water short circuits presented a challenge. As Fig. 23
illustrates, those short circuits were modeled by positioning a
completion from the injection well in close proximity to a
producer. This approach turned out to be computationally efficient
in matching the watercut performance, but at the expense of BHP
and GOR matches. The reasons for the unsatisfactory matches are
two-fold: firstly, the injectors were in close proximity to the
producers; secondly, the pressure-drop along the fault/fracture
zone, responsible for creating the water short circuits, was
neglected. The SA-16 producer experienced significant short
circuiting and, consequently, both the BHP and GOR matches
suffered, as Fig. 24 illustrates. In contrast, Fig. 25, showing the
SA-5 well match of both BHP and GOR, is significantly better
because of the water short circuits marginal impact.
Table 1
Injector–producer connectivity and breakthrough times of CRM compared with
those of tracers.
Well Pair fij Tracer 2004 days CRM 2004 days
SA8Z SA5 0.4 5 3
SA11 ZSA5 0.4 14 300
SA8Z SA16 0.1 1 1
SA11 ZSA16 0.3 Not detected 180
68 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71

Fig. 23. Depicting water short-circuits near the SA-16 and SA-5 producers on a saturation map.

Fig. 24. SA-16 well performance matching with numerical-flow simulations.

Fig. 25. SA-5 well performance matching with numerical-flow simulations.

 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71
Obtaining a good match on a well with a high degree of short
circuiting presented a challenge. The methodology used here did not
provide a perfect representation of the physical process in the
reservoir, as seen from the match of BHP and GOR in the SA-16
producer. This approach worked reasonably well in the case of
moderate water short-circuiting. However, complicated methods
are hard to develop given the lack of specific information on the
flow characteristic of water short-circuits. One such possibility is the
injector–producer connectivity of high-permeable grid cells, but that
approach did not necessarily produce a better match or more robust
predictions of development in the watercut trend and future
performance.
6. Discussion
In traditional methods for evaluating waterflood performance,
such as with the 1D Buckley–Leverett model and the 3D numerical-
flow simulator, sweep efficiency and breakthrough time are mainly
controlled by the fractional-flow curves, encompassing relative
permeability and fluid viscosities. However, in a chalk reservoir
with water injection above the fracture propagation pressure in a
natural fault/fracture system, the extension and connectivity of the
hydraulic and natural fractures control the initial response to water
injection. Only when the waterflood reaches a mature state and
matrix breakthrough occurs that the fractional-flow curves begin to
influence a flood's performance. Therefore, ongoing surveillance
and data interpretation becomes crucial to understanding well
response and on-time reservoir management.
As outlined in this paper, a number of methods are available for
evaluating and optimizing a waterflood. Each method has its
relative advantage; however, when used in combination, they can
provide a consistent understanding of the physical mechanisms
controlling a waterflood. All the analytical tools are computationally
inexpensive and, therefore, allow for frequent performance updates.
Diagnostic plots, CRM, and DCA belong to this category. Generally,
these tools are good at detecting changes in well performance.
However, understanding the underlying reasons behind those
observations can be difficult. In this context, physical measurements
such as tracers and production logs are expensive, but they add
additional details on what is happening in specific wells and guide
appropriate well interventions. In this context, we explored the
possibility of applying some of Yang's (2012) diagnostic tools. But,
they did not perform well in light of minimal displacement process
that underpins some of the wells discussed here.
Although 4D seismic and tracers have a low-sampling frequency,
they illuminate the interaction between wells. In particular, 4D seismic
corroborates the underlying physical mechanisms for the observations
made from the diagnostic plots and decline curves, thereby enhancing
the value of those diagnoses. Contrary to expectation, grid-based
models are not well suited to predict water breakthrough in these
reservoirs. Although matching the general well behavior is feasible,
efficient methods for ascertaining water short circuits are needed.
Overall, the combination of analytical tools and grid-based models, as
well as periodic surveillance with 4D seismic, has collectively helped
create an understanding of waterflood performance. In this regard, it is
a new finding that faults can act as flow conduits for the injection
water and distribute water over large distances. Geomechanics-based
flow simulations with fine grids may be needed to bridge this gap, as
demonstrated by Pettersen and Kristiansen (2009).
The insights gained will guide future development and implemen-
tation of water injection in the field with regard to the positioning of
hydraulic fractures in the future injectors by keeping a safe distance
from the faults. This step potentially minimizes the risk of connecting
an injector directly with a producer, thereby mitigating the water
short-circuiting and increasing the intrinsic value of water injection.
69
Furthermore, interventions are being considered for the existing wells
for improving the volumetric sweep by way of shifting the sliding
side-doors based on the improved understanding of reservoir
dynamics discussed in this study.
7. Conclusions
(1) The complexity of fluid flow in a chalk reservoir can be
better understood by on-time interpretation of real-time rate/
pressure surveillance data, with support derived from periodic
tracer tests, production logs, and 4D seismic surveys.
(2) This study underscores the importance of the use of
analytical tools, such as RTA, CRM, and DCA for holistic analysis,
with appropriate support derived from diagnostic tools, such as
RPI, WOR, and modified-Hall plots.
(3) Although numerical-flow simulations provide an under-
standing of the overall reservoir performance, nuances, such as
water short-circuits through the fault planes, must be learned
about independently with surveillance data. In this regard, a
satisfactory history match of watercut, GOR, and BHP remained
elusive on an individual-well basis.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to the partners of South
Arne (DONG Energy and Danoil Exploration A/S) and the Hess
management for permission to publish this study.
Appendix A. Summary of various analytical tools
RPI plot. Kumar (1977) developed an analytical model to show
that the reciprocal-productivity index (RPI) plot is useful in
understanding the degree of pressure support, either from an
aquifer or from an injector. His formulation in dimensionless
variables is given as

1 4A

pD ¼ ln 4f þ 2π ð1  f Þt DA ðA  1Þ
2 1:781 C A r 2w
where


kh
pD ¼ p  pwf ðA  2Þ
141:3qBμ i
and
0:000264kt
t DA ¼ ðA  3Þ
141:3qBμ
Eq. (A-1) with real variables suggests that a plot of (pi  pwf)/q
versus producing time t yields a straight-line relationship with a
slope of (1 f), where f denotes the degree of pressure support.
When performances of different producers are plotted together, this
tool readily provides clues about the degree of pressure support
received at each producer. This tool has been used with good degree
of success in understanding waterfloods, such as that discussed by
Parekh and Kabir (2013), among others. Given its analytical roots, it
appears quite robust and no known limitations have been encoun-
tered so long the bottomhole pressure is available.
WOR plot. Yortsos et al. (1999) identified four flow regimes on
the log–log plot of water–oil ratio (W) versus producing time (t), as
shown in Fig. A-1. Depending on reservoir heterogeneity, the first
flow period (i) may show slow increase in the water–oil ratio, W.
Following the water breakthrough, steep increase in W occurs
during the second flow period (ii), exceeding the unit-slope line.
Ordinarily, the unit-slope line signifies very inefficient displace-
ment of oil by water, meaning a high-permeability streak conducts
70 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71
Fig. A-1. Water–oil ratio vs time diagnostic plot for understanding frontal dis-
placement or lack thereof.
preferential water flow. The flow behavior during the third period
(iii) suggests that the slope will always be less than one because
the slope is N/(N þ2), where N reflects characteristic of the well
pattern or polarity. Finally, during the late-time period (iv), the
final asymptotic behavior of a bounded system is reflected and is
represented by a straight line, which may written as
b
log W  log t þ H ðA  4Þ
b 1
where b is the exponent of the power-law method, and H is a
constant.
This tool has been used with good success in many documen-
ted studies, Kabir and Young (2004), for example. In particular, the
lack of frontal displacement manifests in terms of unit-slope
response, which allows one to search for probable cause. Despite
its semianalytical roots, no known limitation of this tool has
surfaced.
Modified-Hall plot. The modified-Hall plot helps diagnose
matrix injection or lack thereof using both the Hall integral and
condition of the stimulated-reservoir volume, as observed on the
log–log plot of rate-transient analysis.
Rate-transient analysis. Rate-transient analysis (RTA) provides
evolving reservoir pressure and the connected pore-volume infor-
mation. The log–log diagnostic plot entails graphing rate-
normalized pressure difference; that is, (pi  pwf)/q versus the
material-balance time, Np/q. When combined with the derivative
of rate-normalized pressure difference, the two curves provide the
necessary ingredients for understanding the overall system
response. This formulation permits system diagnosis in terms of
transient-pressure analysis. In general terms, in this horizontal
well configuration with transverse fractures, both the half-slope
(signifying linear flow) and unit-slope (suggesting stimulated-
reservoir volume) responses are expected to develop, as Figs. 17
and 21 suggest.
Capacitance–resistance modeling. Combined rate/pressure data
analysis with the capacitance–resistance model (CRM) provides
quantitative measures of injector–producer connectivity. Premised
in material-balance and signal analysis, the CRM has been used for
about a decade in the context of injector/producer connectivity for
understanding waterflood performance. Yousef et al. (2006),
Sayarpour et al. (2009a), and Weber et al. (2009) have provided
foundation to this CRM tool, whereas other authors have shown
practical applications in various settings for waterfloods (Kaviani
et al., 2012; Izgec, 2012, Parekh and Kabir, 2013), CO2 floods
(Sayarpour et al., 2009b, 2011), and beyond (Izgec and Kabir
2010), among others.
For a pattern of Ni number of injectors and Np number of
producers, the governing differential equation for this capacitance
model is written as (Sayarpour et al., 2009a:
dqj ðtÞ 1 1 Ni dpwf ;j
þ qj ðtÞ ¼ ∑ f i ðtÞ  J j ðA  9Þ
dt τj τj i ¼ 1 ij i dt
where the producer j's time constant, τj, is defined as
its derivative. The expression for the Hall integral (Izgec and Kabir, 

2009) is given by cV
τj ¼ t p ðA  10Þ
Z
   J
141:2W i Bμ re j
pwf  pe dt ¼ ln 0:5 þ sn ðA  5Þ
kh rw If we assume linear changes between two consecutive injection
rate and BHP during time intervals Δtk (tk  1 to tk), at time tn, the
where pwf is the flowing bottomhole pressure and pe is oil/water
total production rate of producer j can be written as:
interface pressure of the moving front and is written as
" #  

 t t
 ð n τ 0Þ Ni t t
 ð n τ 0Þ
iw Bμ r 2o r 1 r 2 r 2w qj ðt n Þ ¼ qj ðt 0 Þe j þ ∑ f ij ii ðt n Þ  e j ii ðt 0 Þ
pe ¼ pwf   ln e   e þ sn ðA  6Þ
2π kh r 2o r 2w r w 2 r 2o r 2w (
i¼1
" #)
 Δt

n tn  t
 ð τ kÞ  ð kÞ Ni Δik Δpkwf ;j
The analytical derivative of the Hall integral is given by  ∑ τj e j 1  e τj ∑ f ij i þ J j
k¼1 i¼1 Δt k Δt k

 
DHI ¼ α1 W i ln r e =r w þ sn ðA  7Þ ðj ¼ 1; 2; :::; N p Þ ðA  11Þ
This tool was intended for vertical wells. Therefore, the notion In Eq. (A-11), Δii ðkÞ and ΔpðkÞ
wf ;j
represent change in injection rate
of water/oil interface pressure at the moving boundary pe is invalid of injector i and BHP of producer j during time interval tk  1 to tk,,
for horizontal wells. Nonetheless, this diagnostic tool is quite respectively. Stated simply, the solution of Eq. (A-11) can be sought
useful because only the quality of injected water is being diag- in spreadsheets by minimizing an objective function that contains
nosed with indication of progressive plugging in this situation. error between the model and rate data by constraining model
Decline-curve analysis. The decline-curve analysis is a corner- parameters, fij and τj.
stone of reservoir-performance prediction tool. Rooted in Arps Although many successful field cases have been reported, the
relation and shown recently about the tool's effectiveness in solution quality suffers when production and/or injection rates do
predicting performance in waterfloods (Can and Kabir 2014), the not contain sufficient signal quality; that is, relatively flat rates
hyperbolic relation is given as without much variations. As expected, the uncertainty in rate
qoi allocations to individual wells may also cloud the solution
qo ¼ ðA  8Þ
ð1 þbDi t Þ
1=b outcome.

where qo is the time-variant oil rate, qoi is the rate parameter, t is

time, Di is the initial loss ratio, and b is the decline parameter,
which varies between zero and one. This tool is used here to get an
indication of flood's effectiveness, rather than seeking the cus-
tomary expected oil recovery. To that end, the late-time exponen-
tial behavior provided the necessary clues about the boundary
References
Austad, T., et al., 2008. Seawater in chalk: an EOR and compaction fluid. SPE Reserv.
Eval. Eng. 11 (4), 648–654.
Bahar, A., et al., 2005. An innovative approach to integrate fracture, well-test, and
production data into reservoir models. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 8 (4), 325–336.
 C. Olsen, C.S. Kabir / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 124 (2014) 60–71
Can, B., Kabir, C.S., 2014. Simple tools for forecasting waterflood performance. J. Pet.
Sci. Eng. 120, 111–118 (http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.petrol.2014.05.028).
Cheng, H., Shook, G.M., Taimur, M., Dwarakanath, V., Smith, B.R., 2012. Interwell
tracer tests to optimize operating conditions for a surfactant field trial: design,
evaluation, and implications. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 15 (2), 229–242.
Cook, C.C., Jewell, S., 1996. Simulation of a North Sea field experiencing significant
compaction drive. SPE Reserv. Eng. 11 (1), 48–53.
Freeman, C.M., Moridis, G., Ilk, D., Blasingame, T.A., 2009. A numerical study of
performance for tight gas and shale gas reservoir systems. Paper SPE 124961
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October.
Govan, A., et al., 2006. Reservoir management in a deepwater subsea field—the
Schiehallion experience. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 9 (4), 382–390.
Hallenbeck, L.D., Sylte, J.E., Ebbs, D.J., Thomas, L.K., 1991. Implementation of the
Ekofisk field waterflood. SPE Form. Eval. 6 (3), 284–290.
Horne, R.N., 2007. Listening to the reservoir—interpreting data from permanent
downhole gauges. J. Pet. Technol. 59 (12), 78–86.
Hustedt, B., Snippe, J.R., 2010. Integrated data analysis and dynamic fracture
modeling key to understanding complex waterfloods: case study of the Pierce
field, North Sea. . SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 13 (1), 82–94.
Izgec, B., Kabir, C.S., 2009. Real-time performance analysis of water-injection wells.
SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 12 (1), 116–123.
Izgec, O., Kabir, C.S., 2010. Quantifying nonuniform aquifer strength at individual
wells. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 13 (2), 296–305.
Izgec, O., 2012. Understanding waterflood performance with modern analytical
techniques. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 81 (January), 100–111.
Jin, L., et al., 2012. A comparison of stochastic data-integration algorithms for the
joint history matching of production and time-lapse-seismic data. SPE Reserv.
Eval. Eng. 15 (4), 498–512.
Kabir, C.S., Young, N.J., 2004. Handling production-data uncertainty in history
matching: the Meren reservoir case study. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 7 (2), 123–131.
Kabir, C.S., Boundy, F., 2011. Analytical tools aid understanding of history-matching
effort in a fractured reservoir. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 78 (2), 274–282.
Kabir, C.S., Ismadi, D., Fountain, S., 2011a. Estimating in-place volume and reservoir
connectivity with real-time and periodic surveillance data. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 78
(2), 258–266.
Kabir, C.S., Rasdi, F., Igboalisi, B., 2011b. Analyzing production data from tight-oil
wells. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 50 (5), 48–58.
Kaviani, D., Jensen, J.L., Lake, L.W., 2012. Estimation of interwell connectivity in the
case of unmeasured fluctuating bottomhole pressures. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 90–91
(July), 79–95.
71
King, G.R., et al., 2002. Takula field: data acquisition, interpretation, and integration
for improved simulation and reservoir management. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 5
(2), 135–145.
Kumar, A., 1977. Strength of water drive or fluid injection from transient well test
data. J. Pet. Technol. 29 (11), 1497–1508.
Langaas, et al., 2007. Understanding a Teenager: Surveillance of the Draugen Field.
Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K (4–7 September 2007).
Mikkelsen, P.L., Guderian, K., du Plessis, G., 2008. Improved reservoir management
through integration of 4D-seismic interpretation, Draugen field, Norway. SPE
Reserv. Eval. Eng. 11 (1), 9–17.
Ovens, J.E.V., Larsen, F.P., Cowie, D.R., 1998. Making sense of water injection
fractures in the Dan field. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 1 (6), 556–566.
Parekh, B., Kabir, C.S., 2013. A case study of improved understanding of reservoir
connectivity in an evolving waterflood with Surveillance data. J. Pet Sci. Eng. 78
(2), 274–282.
Pettersen, O., Kristiansen, T.G., 2009. Improved compaction modeling in reservoir
simulation and coupled rock mechanics-flow simulation, with examples from
the Valhall field. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 12 (2), 329–340.
Sayarpour, M., Zuluaga, E., Kabir, C.S., Lake, L.W., 2009a. The use of capacitance-
resistance models for rapid estimation of waterflood performance and optimi-
zation. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 69 (3–4), 227–238.
Sayarpour, M., Kabir, C.S., Lake, L.W., 2009b. Field applications of capacitance–
resistance models in waterfloods. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 12 (6), 853–864.
Sayarpour, M., Kabir, C.S., Sepehrnoori, K., Lake, L.W., 2011. Probabilistic history
matching with the capacitance–resistance model in waterfloods: a precursor to
numerical modeling. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 78 (July), 96–108.
Tavassoli, Z., Carter, J.N., King, P.R., 2004. Errors in history matching. SPE J. 9 (3),
352–361.
Yang, Z., 2012. Production-performance diagnostics using field-production data and
analytical models: method and case study for the hydraulically fractured South
Belridge diatomite. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 15 (6), 712–724.
Yortsos, Y.C., Choi, Y., Yang, Z., Shah, P.C., 1999. Analysis and interpretation of water/
oil ratio in waterfloods. SPE J. 4 (4), 413–424.
Yousef, A.A., Gentil, P.H., Jensen, J.L., Lake, L.W., 2006. A capacitance model to infer
interwell connectivity form production- and injection-rate fluctuations. SPE
Reserv. Eval. Eng. 9 (5), 630–646.
Weber, D., Edgar, T.F., Lake, L.W., Lasdon, L.S., et al. 2009. Improvements in
capacitance–resistive modeling and optimization of large scale reservoirs.
Paper SPE 121299-MS Presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting San
Jose, California, USA, 24–26 March.