SPE 82224
A Holistic Review of the Water Injection Process
B. Palsson∗, D. R. Davies, A. C. Todd and J.M. Somerville, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, U.K.
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage
Conference to be held in The Hague, The Netherlands 13-14 May 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Water injection is an essential part of many modern oilfield
development plans. The high costs and often tight economic
margins associated with offshore developments require that
the chosen waterflood design not only provides an optimum
sweep efficiency and reservoir pressure support, to maximise
the oil production revenue, but also carries an acceptable level
of risk in terms of the project costs and technical uncertainties.
The objective of this paper is to show how an optimisation
process can be used to maximise the value of the injection
water. This paper describes a holistic approach for an
economic evaluation of the water injection process, integrating
the key technical and economical elements.
A six–stage process to evaluate the “Value of Injection Water”
is presented. For illustrative purposes, this process is applied
to show how a holistic technical–economic evaluation of the
water injection operational option for a North Sea field case
can be carried out. The study concludes that the injection of a
mixture of produced and aquifer water is the preferred source
for injection water when applying a matrix injection process
into a high quality formation. However, this introduction of
the produced water increases significantly the uncertainty in
the eventual economic outcome.
This process for developing an integrated technical and
economic comparison of the options available is a tool by
which the operator can decide on a decision on future water
injection strategy. It can also assign a quantitative value to
each volume of injection water - providing a quantitative
framework for making day-to-day operational decisions..
∗
Now with Landsvirkjun, Iceland.
1. Introduction
Water injection is a key element in modern oilfield operations.
Many offshore oilfield development plans call for water
injection into the oil reservoirs for waterflooding (sweeping
the oil to the producers) and for pressure support (filling the
voidage left by the produced fluids), thus maintaining the
reservoir and well bottom–hole flowing pressures above the
fluid's bubble point pressure. Other objectives can also
become important in specific situations, e.g. control of rock
compaction etc. A successful water injection scheme can
therefore lead to optimum field development by:
maximising overall recovery so that an evenly distributed
waterfront sweeps the remaining hydrocarbons towards
the producers,
accelerating hydrocarbon production by maintaining high
reservoir pressure and sweeping oil, rather than water,
towards the producers,
minimising water production and the associated water
handling cost and
improving both the environmental and technical profile of
the operating company (e.g. by (re)injection of the
produced water into the reservoir).
An unsuccessful water injection scheme, resulting in limited
reservoir pressure support, poor sweep efficiency and
excessive water production, can reduce the overall oil
recovery and cause high water handling costs. This will have a
severe impact on the potential project profitability, as well as
adding to the general uncertainty in field performance.
Efficient control of the water injection process will have a
wider impact on the view government regulators have of the
operator’s technical competency, aid in obtaining future
exploration licences and avoid the imposition of penalties due
to exceeding environmental discharge permits. It will thus
have an effect on the operator’s share prices via the company
image with investors in the financial market.
There are many challenges that have to be considered when a
water injection project is planned. They can be strategic,
technical and, most importantly of all, economic. It is
necessary to acknowledge these different factors and fully
understand their impact on the nature of the water injection
problem. The aim of this paper is to set the scene for modern
water injection management by showing how the value of a
water injection operation can be quantified and achieve the
2 SPE 82224
optimum economic performance. The methodology is
illustrated with a field case study.
2. Water Injection Economics
Normally, a degree of downhole, formation plugging due to
contaminants (oil and solid particles) has to be accepted as a
practical, economic compromise. Quantification of the degree
of damage attributable to a particular type of contaminant in
the injection water allows it to be set against the potential loss
or delay in oil production due to a reduced injection rate. This
can then be balanced against savings in water filtration and de-
oiling treatment costs. Reliable injectivity prediction methods
and an understanding of the uncertainties involved are
essential for any water injection planning or operational
decisions. E.g. whether an injectivity decline should be
accepted (figure 1a), what type and how frequently a
stimulation or other remedial method should be used (figure
1b), or if the injection system should be designed differently
from start to reduce the risk of injectivity decline (figure 1c).
Injectivity Injectivity
Injectivity
Time Time
(a) (b)
Figure 1: The water injection scheduling: (a) Should the injectivity
decline be accepted and future requirements met with new wells (low
cost wells, delay capital expenditure, improve design based on
previous experience)? (b) Should the wells be regularly stimulated
(backflow, hydraulic fracturing, acid wash or injection of acid,
solvents or other chemicals)? What will be the long-term efficiency
and the total cost involved? (c) Or should the facilities be designed
for better water quality from start? That may increase the up-front
expenditure, as well as operating costs, but will result in less risk of
operational failure and extensive workovers.
The underlying message is that careful planning of the water
injection scheme during the field development stage will most
likely be less costly than alterations later in the field life. The
economics of these options should be analysed and compared
for the particular production circumstances at an early
stage in the project cycle when they are all technically viable.
They may need to be reviewed at regular intervals as new
information on the injection operation become available.
In spite of their complicated nature, water injection economics
are often treated in the simple way of minimising the injection
cost per barrel. In 1984 it was reported that: “Unfortunately it
is not straightforward to determine the degree of impairment
experienced in heterogeneous layered reservoirs, where water
injection is being applied. Such figures can only be
determined by carrying out regular surveys of the wells to
determine the amount of water being taken by layer. These
surveys are time consuming and therefore costly. If water
injection does not appear to be a problem then it is difficult to
justify such studies. Without them, however, we will continue
to carry out and criticise the various laboratory approaches,
but do not have a better way to determine specific filtration
requirements for future developments” [1]. More complex
water injection operations, such as in produced water re-
injection that have proved to be operationally more
problematic than seawater injection and thus present a greater
technical risk, should make it, in principle, easier to justify
such detailed studies.
The modern economic environment requires oil companies not
only to consider water injection simply as a “cost” but as an
operation generating additional value to the asset. Water
injection studies should not simply look at methods to reduce
cost, but rather to improve the value of the injection water. A
successful waterflooding operation may accelerate
hydrocarbon production and possibly increase and extend the
plateau rate of the production profile. However, the biggest
benefits come through enhanced post-plateau production or
secondary recovery, as illustrated in figure 2. Both the earlier
production and improved overall recovery will add to the
value of the overall field development. The difference in the
field value with and without waterflooding represents the
value of the injection water.
Q0il Increase Maintain and
(bpd) plateau rate extend plateau
Time
(c) Advance
production Enhance post-
plateau production
t (years)
Figure 2: The net present value of an oil field is increased by
accelerating, increasing and enhancing hydrocarbon production.
This additional value represents the value of the injection water.
The value of the injection water is the key business driver for
any waterflood operation and an essential measure of injection
efficiency. It is in fact the difference between the incremental
revenue and costs, resulting from the water injection
operation, calculated at a common point in time. This
evaluation of incremental cost and revenue is, however, both
complex and the figures carry a large uncertainty, not least due
to the interrelationship between these factors.
We propose a six step procedure to evaluate the water
injection process:
2.1 Key Cost and Revenue Elements
The first step is to identify and determine the main economic
elements of waterflooding, both the cost and revenue
elements. Table 1 provides a very general listing of these
elements. The cost elements are clearly more in number, and
better defined, as most of them are associated with processes
performed at surface over which the operator has some
SPE 82224 3

control. They can be selected with the aim of optimising the that can not be affected by the waterflood design are presented with
overall efficiency. The terms representing the benefits of water shaded balloons.
injection, such as acceleration of hydrocarbon production and
the improved overall field recovery, are both much more The waterflood design objectives are to maximise the value of
“loosely defined” and more difficult to quantify as they are the injection water through optimising the relationship
associated with underground uncertainty. between the added revenue and the additional costs associated
with the water injection, as presented in the influence diagram
in figure 3. Potentially, additional savings in water supply and
Injection Well Production Well
produced water disposal costs will occur in the case of
Costs Cost of injection well; Cost of water produced water re-injection.
design, drilling, completion production; lifting
and possibly modification of produced water and
platform handling at surface
2.3 A Deterministic Cash Flow Model
The third step is to construct a cash flow model, including the
Cost of equipment for water Cost of produced main cost and revenue elements associated with the
treatment and pumping and water disposal waterflood operation (figure 3) and when they occur. Analysis
platform capacity of the cash flow (figures 8-11) reveals different aspects of the
Cost of water related
Cost of injection operations; workovers, water project economics, such as the size of the project investment
pumping, chemicals, plant shut-off and chemical (maximum capital outlay), pay-back period or project
maintenance and monitoring treatments, e.g. scale profitability. Net Present Value (NPV) is one way of
prevention presenting the results of a deterministic cash flow model. By
Cost of workovers, such as
tubing replacement, acid, Possible “loss” of by- doing that, the option between:
fracturing etc. passed oil
(1) building more expensive and operationally complex
Benefits If PWI, then reduced costs Accelerated
due to surface, or other production
(produced) water treatment facilities, capable of
disposal options delivering a “maintenance-free” injectoion well and
Improved overall oil
recovery (2) reducing facility cost while increasing the workover
Table 1: A summary of the economical elements of water injection, budget associated with an injection well requiring
as related to either injector or producer. regular workovers.

2.2 The Interrelationship between Cost and The “Value” lost (due to delayed or lost hydrocarbon
production) resulting from the decreased availability of
Revenue Elements injection water in option (2) – since it will always take a finite
The evaluation of the benefits of water injection is a complex time to restore the well to production - has to be included in
process, as discussed previously. An influence diagram is an the comparison. It is always possible to recover the volume of
essential tool to illustrate the interrelationship between the injected water “lost” during the period the well is off-line by
various factors which impact the value of injection water installing a larger capacity injection system and well. Extra
(figure 3). injection wells could even be drilled – however, these are all
expensive and normally less attractive options from an
Geologic Improved
Oil & gas
economic point of view.
factors recovery
prices
Improved
Injection
conformance
production
profile
For many operators, this is the final stage for the economic
Accelerated
Added
evaluation of the water injection scheme. However, the values
production
Reservoir
pressure support revenue of many of the important parameters are not known with any
Wells
degree of accuracy and the uncertainty has to be addressed, as
Well
configuration
Value of
presented in the following sections.
Waterflood Platform Additional
design injection water
extension capex

2.4 Uncertainty Range and Deterministic

Injection
rate/pressure
Water injection
facilities
Additional
costs
Sensitivity Studies
Injectivity Well
workovers A deterministic study of the evaluation process addresses the
Water Plant Additional
range of possible outcomes for each of the elements involved
source operation opex
Tax regime
and quantifies the impact on the final project value. The
Monitoring
plant & wells
results can be presented in a spider diagram or in a torpedo
diagram, as described in figure 4.
Figure 3: A simplified influence diagram, drawn during the water
injection planning phase to represent the value of injection water.
The central role of well injectivity is again illustrated (bold lines). It
has a major impact on both waterflood performance (injection rate)
as well as the development costs (e.g. number of wells, sizing of
water treatment facilities, well maintenance etc.). External factors
4 SPE 82224

NPV ($mm)
be used are:
Description –30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 - Decision tree analysis can be used during the planning
Production Response L H
and operational stages of the project to compare different
Injection Well OPEX H L
options. Figure 6 shows how the example given in figure
Drilling Capex H L
1 can be formulated.
Producer Well OPEX H L - Value-of-information methodology is especially powerful
Facility Opex H L for designing a water injection monitoring strategy. It
Year of First Injection H L emphasises the fact that information being gathered only
Platform CAPEX H L has a value associated with it if it has the potential to
Remedial Opex H L change a decision on how the Asset is operated [2].
Base Case
- Portfolio theory was originally applied in the stock market
Figure 4: An example of Tornado Diagram, presenting the sensitivity to optimise the expected profit from two or more
of the project value (NPV) to possible variations in the basic water investments, at the same time as minimising the chance of
injection cost elements, the elements having the biggest impact at the loss through diversification. This methodology is relevant
top. Quantitative examples of the impact of variation of some of these in uncertain oilfield operations, e.g. for selection of field–
parameters are presented in table 7. wide stimulation strategy, well design etc. The potential
applications of these methods will be discussed in further
The production response is often the critical business driver details in a future paper.
for a water injection plan. A good reservoir description is
therefore important to allow accurate simulation of the
production response to the various injection scenarios. Accept decline
& drill a new well

2.5 Probabilistic Evaluation of the Water

Injection Injectivity
Once the range of uncertainties have been identified they can decline Wait for decline
be quantified, or described by a probability distribution curve, and stimulate
e.g. normal, log-normal or a triangular distribution, whose
width reflects the uncertainty for this particular variable
(figure 5). A Monte Carlo simulation can evaluate the most Design a better
likely outcome, taking into account the uncertainty in all the injection system
important parameters. Various software tools exist for from start
carrying out these calculations.

Figure 6: Decision tree for injection well design.

3. A North Sea Case History

Figure 5: A normally distributed NPV of a water injection project.
The cumulative probability curve indicates a 16% chance of negative
NPV against 84% change of a positive outcome.
A field case, created from published information and
supplemented with information from other similar,
representative operating environments (e.g. financial
information), is used to illustrate some aspects of the
methodology discussed above [3]-[8]. Field A is an oil field
located offshore North Sea. The field consists of two main
reservoirs, A1 and A2, both of sandstone formations. Total
reserves are estimated 53 million cubic meters (315 million
bbls) with 27 million believed to be in the A1 reservoir but 26
million in reservoir A2. The plateau rate of 20,000 m3/day
(125,800 bpd) was achieved in the first year of production due
to extensive pre-drilling.

2.6 Advanced Evaluation Methods
The final step in the evaluation process is to use more specific
and advanced tools to study the individual processes within
the overall waterflood design e.g. to compare different
operational options to identify the most robust/most profitable
process. There is not sufficient room in this paper to describe
these methods in any detail, but the key techniques which can
The A1 reservoir is dominated by a relatively homogenous 90-
100 m thick fluvial-channel sandstone formation with
permeability ranging from 1000-4000 md (average around
2000) and good vertical and horizontal communication. The
oil zone is on average 50 m thick. The reservoir is split into
two areas via a main fault. These two areas exhibit only
limited pressure communication. Two high rate water injectors
SPE 82224 5

aim to maintain the reservoir pressure (initially 240 bars) reduced below bubble point pressure. This resulted in
above the bubble point pressure (100 bars), one in each part of production with an increased gas–oil ratio and an early
the reservoir. breakthrough of formation water, especially in the A1
Reservoir where high water cut production is experienced.
The A2 reservoir is the more complex. It consists of extensive, Currently, oil production is limited by the surface facility’s
faulted, shallow marine sand layers separated by extensive water handling capacity.
shale barriers. The reservoir height is approximately 75 m in
total with net thickness around 30 m. The individual sand The injection water has not yet broken through in the layered
bodies are 1-10 m in thickness with average permeability A2 reservoir, but injection conformance is considered a major
ranging from 10-200 md, coarsening upwards with thin high issue here. The seawater is expected to cause significant scale
permeability streaks (up to 5000 md) at the top. The problems as both reservoirs have formation water rich in
production wells, located near to the centre of the reservoir, barium and strontium. A shallower aquifer water zone has
are supported with seven water injectors on the flanks. been discovered. This is suitable for injection into both
reservoirs since analysis of the aquifer water has shown that
Table 2 summarises the key information available for Field A. scaling problems will not occur if it is mixed with the
produced water for re-injection.
A1 A2
3.1 Technical Challenges
Formation Thick, unconsolidated Layered shallow marine
As stated above, the field has now been four years in
characteristics fluvial sand sand, separated by shale
layers and faulted production and is starting to come off plateau production. A
reservoir management review has been sanctioned to define
Recoverable 27 million m3 26 million m3 the strategy for the decline period. The key challenges are:
reserves
Permeability 1000-4000 md 10-200 md (streaks up to 1. What source of water should be selected for injection into
5000 md) each reservoir? Continuing the current seawater injection
Porosity 21-26% 18-27%
policies and accepting the operational problems in both
the injection and production wells is likely to result in
Total thickness 100 m 75 m insufficient water being injected with the consequent
Net pay 80 m 30 m negative impact on oil production (base case).
Alternatively, the SWI operation can be upgraded with
Reservoir 240 bars 215 bars improved water quality control, monitoring and extensive
pressure
chemical treatment or drill aquifer water wells or re-
Bubble point 100 bars 170 bars inject/co-inject produced water?
pressure
Water cut 50-90% 10-50% 2. What injection well completion strategies are available to
solve problems resulting from water injection into layered
Injection well 2 near-vertical 7 vertical, high angle and formations?
information horizontal
Average initial 10,000 m3/d 10,000 m3/d 3. The water production rate is currently higher than
flow rate / well expected and the limited water disposal capacity is
Injection mode matrix waterflood induced restricting production rate. How much is this costing the
fractures operators? What is the underlying cause of this problem?
Too limited water handling capacity installed? Too high
Table 2: Summary of the key characteristics of Field A. gross fluid production rate? Stronger aquifer than
expected or poor injection conformance resulting in high
Aquifer support is insufficient to maintain reservoir pressure permeable thief zones in the injection well providing a
above bubble point and seawater injection was started shortly “short circuit” for the injection water to the
after production commenced. The water injection capacity is production well?
32,000 m3/d and the facility capacity for the handling of
produced water is 18,000 m3/d. All of these challenges are suitable for a techno-economic
study, as proposed in this paper. The water injection well
The field has now been four years in production and is starting completion strategy problem is summarised in table 3 but the
to come off plateau production rate. Various operational and remaining part of this paper focuses on selection of injection
reservoir problems have impacted the waterflood process in water source.
both reservoirs. Pump failures, unexpected
compartmentalisation and unfavourable transmissibility have
all resulted in insufficient water injection volume. The
resulting lack of reservoir pressure support has begun to affect
the well productivity. In an attempt to achieve the target
production rate, the production well inflow pressure has been
6 SPE 82224

Completion Advantages Disadvantages Water Advantages Disadvantages

source
Vertical or Low cost option. The tighter layers are
deviated well, likely to plug up quickly. SW Relatively clean Incompatible with formation
open hole All layers can be The water will flow into (suspended solids water, hence risk of scaling,
completion reached and and cool the higher and oil), cold (5- affecting both injection and
minimum flow permeability layers, 15°C) – can cause production wells.
restriction through resulting in thermally thermal fracturing.
the completion. induced fracture. Then, PW disposal required with
the fracture will dominate expensive treatment and/or
the injection. dedicated disposal wells.

Vertical or Ensures that water Completion will cause AW Moderately cool High cost of producing AW to
deviated well, enters the tighter flow restriction. (27°C), clean surface (water supply wells and
selective zones and sweeps water (solids and lift to surface).
perforation or at least close to the The water is likely to flow oil) – can cause
through the higher thermal fracturing. PW disposal still required.
chemical injection wells.
conformance permeability zones
through cross-flow, deeper Compatible with
control formation water.
in the reservoir.
Horizontal Maximum control Expensive and complex AW + Moderately warm High solids loading is likely to
injector, of injection well option, both for PW (30-60°C cause more formation plugging
drilled through profile. construction and depending on and more facilities maintenance
the tighter operation. AW/PW ratio), (e.g. pump wear etc.) than SW
zone only viscosity is low and AW.
Contacts only limited and thermal
number of layers. fracturing may be Requires higher fracture pressure
possible. than AW and SW due to higher
“Controlled” Selected layers Fracture conformance to temperature.
waterflood fractured before the Reservoir zone is Minimises cost of
PW treatment and The ratio of PW will increase
(thermally) injection starts essential, demanding on
volume of water later in field life as more and
induced into the higher an extensive monitoring
for overboard more water breaks through.
fracturing permeability program and study of rock
layers, to ensure mechanical properties disposal.
good injectivity
and better Table 4: The advantages and disadvantages of the various available
injection profile injection water sources.
[16], [14].
Table 3: The advantages and disadvantages of different completion Water Surface Viscosity Injectivity Solids Particle Half-life
source temp. Index conc. size
options for injectors in a layered formation.
SW 10°C 1.17 cp 230 bpd/psi 3 mg/l 1 µm 57 days
3.2 Selection of Injection Water Source for the A1 AW 30°C 0.81 cp 332 bpd/psi 1 mg/l 1 µm 172 days
Reservoir
When reviewing the injection process, the first aspect to PW 80°C 0.38 cp 708 bpd/psi 9 mg/l 5 µm 19 days
consider is the source of the injection water. Three options are AW+PW 55°C 0.54 cp 498 bpd/psi 5 mg/l 4.5 µm 34 days
considered relevant here, seawater (SW) which is currently
used, aquifer water (AW) and produced water (PW). The Table 5: Water quality properties of the different injection water
options N.B. The Injectivity Index at time zero (II0) will be lower for
advantages and disadvantages of these options are listed in
the more viscous, lower temperature water sources
table 4.
As illustrated in figure 7, all the water sources are expected to
The injection facilities for the two reservoirs are separated,
cause injectivity decline and regular acid stimulation
allowing different sources of injection water to be chosen for
treatments will be required to achieve the target injection
the two reservoirs. A reservoir engineering study has
volume. The pure aquifer water is expected to have the least
recommended a matrix injection process for the A1 reservoir
impact, requiring only one acid stimulation per year. The
to minimise further water breakthrough. Therefore, the source
higher solids and oil loading of the produced water is expected
of injection water for the two water injection wells in the A1
to require at least four acid stimulation treatments each year to
reservoir is of greater concern and is studied in detail here.
reach the same injected water volume target.
McCune’s injectivity model was applied to predict injectivity
behaviour of the different water sources applied [10]. The
results are presented in table 5 and figure 7.
SPE 82224 7

II/IIo Cost elements: SW AW AW + PW

1.0
SW
0.9 AW Incremental Capex: $0 $2,500,000 $1,750,00
AW AW + PW 0
0.8 PW
0.7 Increased well cost (AW producer(s) $0 $6,000,000 $3,000,00
Permeability: 2 darcy
0.6 Porosity: 25% required) 0
SW Thickness: 80 m
0.5 Initial rate: 10.000 m3/d
Increased treatment equipment cost $0 $500,000 $250,000
0.4 Filter-cake:
Permeability: 200 md
(AW treatment equipment is
AW/PW
0.3 Porosity: 20% required)
SW: 3 ppm, 1 micron
0.2 Increased injection pump cost (need $0 $0 $500,000
AW: 1 ppm, 1 micron
AW/PW: 5 ppm, 4
0.1 PW micron increased pumping power for PW)
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Days
Incremental Opex/bbl over base $0.245 $0.172 $0.125
case

Figure 7: Injectivity prediction, applying McCune’s method, for the Incremental "average" pump cost $0.004 $0.004 $0.011
possible injection water sources. The figure also indicates the acid /bbl
stimulation treatments required to achieve the target Incremental chemical injection (SW: $0.200 $0.100 $0.075
injection volume. scale and corrosion inhibitors and
AW: corrosion inhibitors)/bbl
The incremental cost elements associated with either
continuing with an improved SWI operation (monitoring, Plant maintenance/bbl, (SW: $0.040 $0.020 $0.015
removal of scale, AW: corrosion,
water treatment and regular workovers) or implementing
PW: erosion)
either AWI or AW/PWRI are listed in table 6. It is assumed
that PWRI requires little additional capital expenditure as AW lifting ($0.06/bbl AW) $0.000 $0.047 $0.024
treatment facilities for offshore disposal are already in place. Increased monitoring (water quality, $0.001 $0.001 $0.001
However, a significant additional cost for AW supply will injection profile and performance):
be incurred.
Tubing replacements (SW: 4 years, AW: 5 years, PW: 3 years):
3.2.1 Economic Analysis $200,000 each
This case history has been simplified by assuming that all Acid stimulation per well (SW: 2/year; AW 1 /year; AW+PW:
three alternative injection schemes will be equally effective in 4/year): $50,000 each
increasing the average water injection rate from the existing SWI: 2 injectors; AWI: 2 injectors and 2 AW producers; AW+PW: 2
18,000 m3/d to 20,000 m3/d. The increased water injection injectors and 1 AW producer
rate, associated with higher quality injection water sources,
SW AW AW+PW
improved monitoring and control of the injection profile, will
3
ensure improved reservoir pressure support and sweep. This Total volume of produced 10,000 10,000 m /d 10,000
will lead to a decrease in the water cut and an increase in the water processed: m3/d m3/d
oil production. Total volume of water 10,000 10,000 m3/d 0 m3/d
disposed overboard: m3/d
The incremental oil production from the A1 Reservoir due to
the improved pressure support is estimated to be 1,000 m3/d Total volume of injection 20,000 20,000 m3/d 10,000
water prepared: m3/d m3/d
during the first two years, declining 20% per year after that.
The income generated by the extra oil sales from the three Table 6: Cost elements involved when changing water injection
alternative water injection schemes is assumed to be the same. scheme, presented in terms of cost in US$ per bbl of total daily
This is not unreasonable as the facilities are water handling injection rate (20,000 m3/d).
capacity limited and another production well can be produced
while an active oil producer is taken off-line for three days
every six months to allow an inhibitor squeeze treatment to be
carried out. The incremental costs and incremental revenue are
presented in figure 8, where a net oil price of US$20 per bbl
has been assumed.
8 SPE 82224

50 aquifer water will generate the biggest incremental income

SW Incremental Cost and the value of the incremental injection water (2,000 m3/d)
AW Incremental Cost
40
AW+PW Incremental Cost exceeds US$8/bbl in year two. Later in the field life, the
Incremental Revenue
increased daily injection water volume will result in less and
Cost / Revenue [Million $]

30
less incremental oil production so that the value created per
20 unit of injection water will decline.
10

3.2.2 Value Creation by Selection of Optimum Injection

0
Water Source
-10 In theory, this incremental value of the injection water can be
-20
considered as a complex partial differential equation as a
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 function of time and other factors having an impact on the
waterflood performance:
Figure 8: Cost and revenue for the three injection water sources over
the 10 year project lifetime. The incremental revenue decreases with
time because of production decline, whereas the injection system ∆NPV (t , Qo (t , PRe s ...)..)
operational cost remains constant. After 7 years, the cost of water
∆E w (t ) =
∆W (t , Q w (t , BHIP, PRe s ...)...)
injection exceeds the incremental revenue due to the injection for the
SW and AW injection cases.
This equation is the core of any integrated study of the value
Figure 9 presents the cumulative cash flow model for the three of injection water. It gives the value generated by injecting
injection water sources, based on the incremental cost and one extra barrel of water per unit time and therefore, a study
revenue assumptions presented in table 6 and figure 8 and of the derivative will give the parameters (such as injection
discounted at the rate of 10% / year. rate, stimulation frequency etc.) leading to optimum water
injection operation. The data required for this model will have
140
to be derived from a full-field reservoir simulator study
coupled to a field cost model. This would follow the same
Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow [Million $] .

120 lines, but be a significant extension of the simpler study

reported here.
100
Incremental NPV
of AW+PW: 9
80 Value of the injected SW
$132.6 million
8 Value of the injected AW
Value of the Injection Water [$/bbl]

60 Value of the injected AW+PW

7
SW Cashflow

40 AW Cashflow 6
AW+PW Cashflow
5
20
4
0
3
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2
Figure 9: The incremental Cumulative Discounted Cash Flow and the 1
incremental Net Present Value of three alternatives for injection
0
water schemes for Reservoir A1. The commingled AW+PW creates
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
the greatest value. -1

In this example, the commingled injection of AW and PW Figure 10: The value of the incremental injection water (2,000 m3/d),
equivalent to the incremental Net Present Annual Cash Flow divided
turns out to be the most profitable option with an incremental by the incremental volume of water injected annually, throughout the
Net Present Value of US$132.6 million. It should also be ten year project life.
noted that, the “Environmental Good” of avoiding discharge
of the produced water into the environment has not been Figure 10 included the value created in the three injection
assigned a monetary value. The inclusion of even a nominal scenarios when the optimum volume of water was injected.
“Environmental Value” would have increased the incentive to The extra oil produced, assumed to be constant, has a large
implement the mixed (AW + PW) injection scheme. impact on the figures quoted. Figure 11 compares the value
created between these three optimum injection scenarios. The
The value of the additional water injected each year (Ew,i) can improved seawater injection option is now used as the base
be determined by dividing the annual incremental Net Present case against which the efficiency of the aquifer water and
Value (∆NPVi) for that year by the annual incremental volume mixed aquifer/produced water options can be judged. This
of water injected (∆Wi). Figure 10 presents the incremental figure illustrates the fact that the injection of aquifer/produced
value of the three water injection scheme options studied. As water mixture generates US$21 million higher incremental
can be seen, injection of an extra barrel of produced water and NPV than the improved SWI operation.
SPE 82224 9

25 “Range” column in table 7 shows that the uncertainty in the

NPV(AW+PW) - NPV(SW)
NPV(AW) - NPV(SW)
$21.3 million various elements is greatest for the produced water case.
20 However, the economic analysis has shown that the benefits of
reducing the overall water handling at the platform (produced
15 water and fresh injection water) outweigh the costs and
NPV [$ million]

uncertainty in injectivity caused by the more complex

$9.4 million
10 produced water properties.
∆
5
Impact: SW AW AW + PW
Element Range NPV* Range NPV* Range NPV*
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Base case P50 100% 111.6 100% 120.8 100% 132.6
-5
Production High 200% 273.9 200% 283.1 200% 294.9
response: (P10)
Figure 11: The cumulative incremental cash flow generated by 50% 30.5 50% 39.6 50% 51.5
injecting either AW or a mixture of AW and PW instead of the Low (P90)
improved SWI operation.
Fixed Opex High 150% 86.4 125% 111.4 200% 106.9
(pumping, (P10)
chemicals) 75% 124.3 75% 129.6 75% 139.1
3.2.3 Project Risk and Uncertainty Low (P90)

The introduction of PW will however, bring a bigger technical Wells High - - 200% 115.4 200% 129.9
(P10)
uncertainty into the water injection operation. The high - - - - - -
loading of solid particles in the produced water is likely to Low (P90)
cause erosion of pumps and other equipment in the water Table 7: Sensitivity of the economic evaluation to various
injection system. Production upsets in the separation process parameters. This table determines the deterministic uncertainty
could possibly result in water of very low quality (oil, solids) distribution for the three “critical uncertainty factors”, or the three
being injected for some period of time, exacerbating the factors having the biggest impact on the project uncertainty on a
formation damage problem. Production upsets are frequently Tornado plot. In this example, no data is available from previous
associated with back production of spent acid following an field experience – hence, “engineering judgement” is applied. The
acid stimulation treatment. Operational procedures will have NPV is in millions of US$.
to be developed that can prevent this type of operational
difficulty if the (AW + PW) option is chosen. However, the As discussed above, it is necessary to recognise the
risk that this could occur was already included in the uncertainty in our knowledge of the value of the various
assumption that four acid stimulation treatments would be factors that are combined in the calculation of the project's Net
required each year to maintain the required injection Present Value. Each cost and performance element has a
well capacity. probability distribution curve associated with it. An accurate
application requires considerable engineering judgement, but a
The AWI also carries potential uncertainty, mostly associated normal, triangular or a Weibull (skewed) distribution can be
with the reliability of the water supply system. This will be used (figure 12). It is worth noting that, as a consequence of
exposed to the potentially corrosive untreated AW. However, the shape of this type of curve; many cost estimates have a
in many cases field personnel have indicated that their greatest skewed distribution. This implies that the lowest possible cost
concern is associated with the injection well injectivity. is not much lower than the most likely cost, but the highest
possible cost can be many times higher than this most
Although the initial, actual SWI performance was somewhat likely cost.
better than predicted with the McCune’s model, it is expected
that uncertainties associated with the downhole water quality 0.025
Normal Distribution
issues such as scaling and corrosion products might lead to Weibull Distribution
greater injection well formation damage later in the field life. 0.020
Trianglar Distribution

Table 7 presents the impact of the three, most critical

0.015
uncertainty factors (the top three uncertainty factors on the
Tornado plot, figure 4). The uncertainty ranges differ for
different injection water sources, reflecting the characteristics 0.010

of the three options. Ideally, the uncertainty ranges would be

based on statistical studies of the waterflood performance in 0.005

representative, equivalent operational environments. A

simpler, deterministic “engineering judgement” based
-30 0 30 60 90 120
approach has to be applied to generate the distribution of the NPV [million $]
cost and performance figures when only limited operational
experience is available (see next section and figure 12). The
10
Figure 12: Three types of distributions suitable for engineering
applications; Normal distribution, Weibull (skewed) distribution and
a Triangular distribution.
3.3 Selection of Injection Water Source for the A2
Reservoir
The selection criteria for injection water source discussed
above relates only to matrix injection into the high quality, A1
Reservoir. Reservoir A2, however, is relatively tight and
studies have shown that fracturing is required to achieve and
maintain the target injection rate. Thermally induced fractures
have the potential of being contained within the target zone if
the injection pressure is carefully controlled [11], [12].
Injection of cold water will result in big difference in
temperature between the cold, water–flooded zone and the
warmer in-situ formation. It is especially important that the
injection water be clean during the initial injection well start-
up phase, when a matrix-like injection profile should be
maintained prior to initiation of the thermal fracture, as this
will ensure sustainable injection of cold fluid to cool
the formation
The injection water sources that can be considered are:
aquifer water, relatively clean and cold,
seawater, likely to cause serious scaling problems in the
production wells and
filtered and cooled produced water, commingled with
aquifer water.
These three options can now be compared in the same manner
as discussed above for the high quality, A1 reservoir.
The above process not only assigns a quantitative value to
each volume of injection water, but also provides a
quantitative framework against which day-to-day decisions
concerning operation of the waterflood plant and process can
be made.
4. Conclusions
1. Water injection is an essential element in modern oil field
operations, improving oil recovery and adding a value to
the asset. Technical and economic aspects of water
injection are of equal importance as the more traditional
facets of oil field planning and operation.
2. Application of this holistic overview leads to the
development of a six–stage process tool for quantification
of the value of injection water. Knowledge of this “Water
Value” can be used to develop an optimum waterflood
design. The process has been illustrated by its application
to a North Sea type field case.
3. A techno–economic evaluation of the most suitable
injection water source for this North Sea type field
concluded that injection of commingled aquifer- and
produced water is the most attractive economically for the
studied case of matrix injection into the high quality A1
reservoir. It is indicated why it is most likely that a
SPE 82224
different conclusion would have been reached if the full
study process were repeated for the lower quality
A2 reservoir.
4. The above process not only assigns a quantitative value to
each volume of injection water, but also provides a
quantitative framework against which day-to-day
decisions concerning operation of the waterflood plant
and process can be made.
Acknowledgements
The authors are pleased to recognise the contributions made
by Decisioneering Inc., provider of the Crystal Ball® program.
One of the authors is pleased to recognise the financial support
from the sponsors of the Produced Water Reinjection Project
and from Schlumberger.
Nomenclature
AW Aquifer Water
BHIP Bottom-Hole Injection Pressure [bar]
∆Ew Incremental value of injection water [$/bbl]
NPV Net Present Value [$]
PW Produced Water
Qo Oil production rate [m3/day or bpd]
Qw Water injection rate [m3/day or bpd]
PRes Reservoir Pressure [bar]
SW Sea Water
t Injection time [days]
∆W Incremental volume of Water injected [m3]
References
1. Todd, A.C., J.E. Somerville, and G. Scott. The
Application of Depth of Formation Damage
Measurements in Predicting Water Injectivity Decline.
Paper SPE 12498, presented at the Formation Damage
Control Symposium. Bakersfield, CA. 1984.
2. Dunn, M.D.: A Method to Estimate the Value of Well
Log Information. Paper SPE 24672 presented at the 67th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Washington, DC. 1992.
3. Lien, S.C. et al. Brage Field, Lessons Learned After 5
Years of Production. Paper SPE 50641, presented at the
SPE European Petroleum Conference. The Hague. 1998.
4. K. I. Andersen et al. Water Management in a Closed
Loop - Problems and Solutions at Brage Field. Paper SPE
65162, presented at the SPE European Petroleum
Conference. Paris. 2000.
5. Bakke, S. et al. Produced Water Re-Injection (PWRI) -
Experiences from the Ula Field, In Produced Water 2.
Proceedings from the 1995 International Seminar on
Produced Water, Trondheim, Norway, 25-28 September.
Plenum Press: New York. 1995.
6. Hjelmas, T.A. et al. Produced Water Re-Injection:
Experiences From Performance Measurements on Ula in
the North Sea. Paper SPE 35874, presented at the SPE
International Conference on Health, Safety and
SPE 82224 11

Environment. New Orleans. 1996.

7. van der Zwaag, C. and Øyno, L. Comparison of
Injectivity Prediction Models to Estimate Ula Field
Injector Performance for Produced Water Reinjection. In
Produced Water 2. Proceedings from the 1995
International Seminar on Produced Water, Trondheim,
Norway, 25-28 September. Plenum Press:
New York. 1995.
8. Sharma, M.M. et al. Injectivity Decline in Water-Injection
Wells: An Offshore Gulf of Mexico Case Study. Paper
SPE 60901, presented at the SPE Production & Facilities
Conference, February 2000.
9. Paige, R.W., et al. Optimising Water Injection
Performance. Paper SPE 29774, presented at the SPE
Middle East Oil Show. Bahrain. 1995.
10. Bayona, H.J. A Review of Well Injectivity Performance in
Saudi Arabia's Ghawar Field Seawater Injection
Program. Paper SPE 25531, presented at the SPE Middle
East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Bahrain. 1993.
11. Stevens, D.G., L.R. Murray, and P.C. Shah. Predicting
Multiple Thermal Fractures in Horizontal Injection
Wells; Coupling of a Wellbore and a Reservoir Simulator.
Paper SPE 59354, presented at the SPE/DOE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, Oklahoma. 2000.
12. van den Hoek, P.J. and J.D. McLennan. Hydraulic
Fracturing in Produced Water Reinjection. Paper
presented at the Workshop on Three-Dimensional and
Advanced Hydraulic Fracture Modeling, held in
conjunction with the Fourth North American Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Seattle, WA. 2000.